Against progress

& the modern Khanate of collective conscience

One of the greatest empires in history, the Mongolian Empire stretched right across Asia and parts of Europe, amassing over twenty four million square miles. Long before modern technology, it would take several months to travel from one end to another, assuming nothing held a traveller up. How then, to establish coherent rule? The world was disparate and un-globalised — when cultures met, they clashed.
The Khans ruled over a mass of different competing religions whilst to the west of them the Crusades raged on and Christians & Muslims traded atrocities. How could peace exist in such a time? Easy — the Mongols became a pluralistic culture in which all religions were welcome. Kublai Khan’s group of advisers were as religiously and ethnically diverse as if Justin Trudeau had picked them himself, assembling government officials like he was trying to collect all the Pokemon cards. Religious leaders were exempt from the rigorous taxation structures imposed along the silk roads, and debates would be organised by the Khanate between scholars from various religions which would be widely attended. This was a truly pluralistic society.

Every religion was welcome. And this was made clear and boasted about. ‘Every religion was welcome.’

If, that is, they bowed down to the great Khan and accepted his judgements in all areas of life and practice. Muslims were forbidden from eating Halal foods, Jews from Kosher. Circumcision and other religious rites were banned. I suspect the reputations of Genghis and Kublai precede them enough that I don’t need to explain what happened if you incurred their displeasure…

“By the aid of heaven we have pacified you; you are our slaves. Yet you do not eat our food or drink. How can this be right?” — Ghengis Khan speaking to Muslim citizens.

Tolerance as a tool

Amy Chua, who studies the nature of ‘hyperpowers’ says that tolerance is a key building block for small groups which establish empires, describing it as ‘indispensable to the achievement of hegemony’. Knowing, even before she starts, how indefensible her position is to historians, she introduces the term ‘relative tolerance’ as a weak apology for her faulty thesis.
The Romans punished blasphemers against all the religions in their empire with death, and the British Empire isn’t widely regarded so much for it’s tolerance, but would make way for other associated words such as ‘colonialism’ or ‘displacement and enslavement’.

But certainly the appearance of tolerance was often key. Where cronyism-bred loyalty actually held up the Mongol Empire, it was important that each religion ‘had their man’ so that any complainants could be made to look utterly unreasonable. Not an altogether unrecognisable issue: “How can Islamophobia be a problem? — you have Sadiq Khan as an elected Mayor.” The ‘some-of-my-best-friends-are-black’ defence is set up long in advance — try accusing the Canadian Prime Minister of being anything (except cripplingly patronising) — he’s got a best friend of every religion, race, gender, and soccer team.

Of course, all of this faux tolerance simply serves as political capital to exert intolerant movements of power whenever the forces that be see fit. And this is how the progressive empire has been built.

The Progressive Empire

The situation in which we currently reside is this: ‘Any religion is welcome, as long as you accept our rule in all areas of life and conscience.’ Which is fine, as long as no religion ever turns up which has an opinion on either life or conscience…

Quite naturally this leads up to the pertinent news of Tim Farron’s resignation last week:

“To be a political leader, especially of a progressive, liberal party in 2017, and to live as a committed Christian, to hold faithfully to the Bible’s teaching has felt impossible for me.”

But there is the problem. Right there. The words ‘Liberal’ and ‘Progressive’ are being used almost synonymously. I’m afraid to say that they are almost opposite — they are certainly opposed to each other. Incidentally, we will never see a left wing party elected with a majority until these two are divorced — Progressives will not tolerate men like Farron, and Liberals will be forced to vote to the right in order to defend traditional liberal values.

Increasingly, progressives look like Forrest Gump going for a run — oh there’s determination all right, and hype aplenty… just don’t try to guess where he’s heading. Progress for progress’ sake will always contradict itself: various iphone models of even just the past few years have been sold almost alternately on the basis of them being bigger than the last and on being smaller than the last.

And conservatism will simply serve to solidify sections of it, slower than the progressives would like, but surely enough that there is no question of turning back. Chesterton put it like this:

“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types — the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins”

Hence, ‘British values’ will constantly change its meaning, and ‘shibboleth’ its pronunciation. And progressives are becoming increasingly aggressive: harmless types like Ed Miliband hankering after political power just looked like bald men fighting over a comb. But make no mistake — the progressives who are now demanding power have a clear, anti-liberal agenda. It’s all still dogs chasing cars, but this dog is rabid, and it knows exactly what it will do when it catches up.

Gladstonian Liberalism defined itself as inherently trusting of people but with an overarching prudence (as opposed to fear) ‘trust of the people tempered by prudence’ over and against ‘Conservatism [which] is distrust of the people tempered by fear.’ In which category would you place progressivism? Hard to say.
The attempt to diversify society far even beyond actuality, whilst simultaneously homogenising thought, is the capstone of the progressive movement’s attempt to remain loyal to contradictory philosophies.

The Gladstonian Reign of Conscience

But the call here isn’t for political reform. We are not a political publication. True, historic Liberalism trusts people. Which means that we, the people need to become trustworthy again — regardless of whether the state encourages it. Our individual consciences cannot and must not be shouted down by the collective conscience. The famously virile Great Khan is dead, but his illiberal progeny lives on, and must be bidden to cease and desist in its attempts to democratise morality.

There was a time when men such as Martin Luther stood before popes and princes and declared ‘It is neither safe nor right to disobey conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other.’ Tim Farron very nearly did that. He is a hero of the individual conscience, and we must stand on his shoulders, for few others will throw themselves to the wolves.