Did you see what Trump just did? Or Lynch? Or Obama? Or Sessions? The headlines are all the same. “Mostly say ‘Hooray for our side’,” as the song goes. If you’re curious why they all seem to sound the same, keep reading.
Political concerns are as much a matter of theater for followers, votes, and power as they are about information, transparency, and openness. There is nothing random and there are very few coincidences. If you wonder why politicians play with words and events so much it’s because they have discovered the art of the manipulation.
But behind all this is a programme, a plan for the world. No, there is not a group that gets together to plot everything. But yes, there is a set of core principles to which many people in power have ascribed. They may each predict a different end while they work with the same goals and principles.
I’m talking about church denominations. They all accept the Gospel and, through various means, all work toward the same end. No, wait … it’s about the various sects of Islam, some of whom have renounced violence in favor of spirituality. Yet all work toward a world where Allah’s law rules.
But no, this is not about Christianity or Islam. It’s about an organizational tendency that exists outside of religious circles. Though we all see it clearly in ecclesiastical concerns it also exists outside. Let’s explore a series of events that would fit a programme. This is about the progressive programme, a way of thinking that has a variety of sub-groups all working toward the same ends.
Let’s start 20 years ago. Ok, 40 years ago. This is about the past and future influence of the homosexual movement. Then again, it’s really not about them. Their efforts fit that larger paradigm.
In the 70s and 80s the call was to be tolerant. Don’t persecute the homosexual. Let them have their own lives. They won’t bother you.
They also asked for a place in the Roman Catholic priesthood. Celibacy was promised.
Then there was adoption. It was proclaimed that children would not be harmed and that family was about “love” and had nothing to do with biology.
More recently we observed the redefinition (and nationalization) of marriage. The language of “love” was again dominant.
And finally there was the attack on individual conscience of those contrary to this direction through fines and prosecution. The photographer, the baker, the pizza shop – small business was the simplest and easiest target for creating a precedent.
Let’s not forget the social engineering built into the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) with its restrictions on conscience. Add on the restrictions added through an expansion of Title IX definitions.
These are things we all observed. Anyone over 50 years old knows these things. Those under 50 know them as recent history and perhaps observed only about half. The sequence is self-evident, at least when one thinks in terms of a plan, a programme. Then again, if one thinks in terms of a simple sequence of event all this is just confirmation bias and reading something into history that’s not there.
But it was all theater. They didn’t want to be left to themselves. They’ve chosen to invade churches so that over 90% of the Roman Catholic sexual abuse was of a homosexual nature. They want to remove your religious conscience from legal protection (cf Memories Pizza, NCAA, “bathroom” bills). They were able to get marriage moved from its position in common law to a position where the government defines its scope and definition. It was nationalized.
Now, let’s play futurist. What remains to be changed?
Hillary Clinton made one pronouncement, that churches would have to change on these matters. More recently, like this past couple of weeks, Fox has released a show that shows a child in a bondage gag and engaged in transgender dialogue. There are other things happening in this venue. Keep your eyes opened. There is nothing random and there are few coincidences. What happens on television is in a tightly-controlled script and production setting. Everything that is broadcast is done so on purpose. It appears that NAMBLA ideals have gone mainstream. The elimination of age restrictions is on the way. It may take five, ten, or twenty, or one hundred years. But it seems the goal is set..
But where does this come from? What is the source for this worldview? Certainly the efforts of the homosexual movement did not occur at random and they also did not occur without some historical context. They are most definitely not Jeffersonian in their origin.
The sexual identity movement has come to us hand-in-hand with the abortion movement and feminism. (Only recently did the homosexuals glom onto the civil rights movement. That association is both artificial and revisionist.)
But even so it sounds pretty paranoid to challenge what many would call an opinion or an established right.
There are other concerns and the feminism and homosexual movements serve only as the most visible or popular points for discussion. The programme at work also encompasses education, health care, international government relationships and operations, and others. Both education and health care have been, to some degree, nationalized. The ownership of private industry by the federal government (the GM & Chrysler bail-outs) represent a step toward nationalization. Even international relations fall under the purview of the idea that the U.S. government is capable of managing the interests of other nations.
The progressive programme is multi-faceted. For instance, Thomas Malthus once suggested that parenting be licensed. That sounds absurd to the average person but remains a popular notion among leftists. Likewise the notion that the world is overpopulated and this overpopulation will lead to war is not uncommon. A quick web search of either topic will provide the reader with hours of entertainment.
These observations are part of the modern conservative mindset. Though not all of us accept the traditional principle of “small” government it is the broader consensus that government should not be intrusive. That is, in today’s world a large government is necessary to manage even its most basic obligations. It might be made smaller through the elimination of unnecessary departments and bureaucracies, but even then it would remain quite large. A strong central government is the result of the Constitution. (Those wanting a really small government tend to be libertarians and confederationists. These things don’t work in today’s world.)
But who has a plan to halt the progessive programme? Does Hillsdale? The RNC? Rand Paul? Trump? If someone has one I would like to read it. But how will it be implemented?
There are certain principles that the progressives have employed which would be of great service to the conservative programme. (Yes, we have one, but it has no legs.)
What of community organizers? I noticed on a recent NCIS: Los Angeles episode that the theme of community organizing is going mainstream as a positive. But the left actually uses the method to foment dissatisfaction and unrest. We might use them to help start business and investment. Remember: Little Tulsa was not destroyed by the conservative movement.
I contrast that with the piece on The Imaginative Conservative, written by a Hillsdale prof, “Progressivism: The Horrors of an Idea.” Mr. Birzer clarified and confronted the very thing that you was contained in the NCIS episode: Rebranding progressive ideas does not alter their danger.
The church can have a big part in this. Of course the revivalists are all into soul-winning. And that’s good. But it’s not good enough. The (Kuyperian) postmillennialists have some interesting ideas but they’re into a magisterial solution. That’s probably not going to be effective. We’re into changing hearts and minds along with taking a societal offensive.
Churches might consider actual education. Our fellowship does English reading groups for immigrants. There are also opportunities to tutor students. Lots of churches do that. But perhaps, without the cost of a technical college, you or your church help someone with a craft that might become a business or livelihood? Woodworking. Electronics. Photography. Buying and selling online. Sewing & quilting. Even software development. Perhaps something above tutoring: Intensive education for 1 year for HS juniors & seniors, or others who want to come. Of course business operations. And ethics.
Paint these things with the brush of conservatism and you’ve won a heart. “You built it” should be the clear message. The student will know because the student did it. Not as a wholly autonomous being, because nobody is. But also as a part of a community, not a national collective. Collectives are about one’s relationship with the state but community is about a family and interpersonal relationships.
There are popular civic concerns where churches can get involved and change lives. Not just by providing a skill but by building on a skill. This work is eschatological. It advances the kingdom as its offensive. It defeats its opponent worldview by taking this offensive. There is nothing defensive about this mindset.The theater of the political will not end until people are trained to be actors themselves rather than the audience for the power hungry.