The best of Fred Hutchison
The one-world cult, Darwin, and Einstein
A brief history of conservatism -- Part 8
Fred Hutchison, RenewAmerica analyst
October 3, 2013

Originally published October 29, 2007

In the last essay (part 7), we considered how Hegel propagated the cult of modernism. The modernists had faith in the inevitability of progress based upon impersonal forces of history. "Progress" must eventually lead to "utopia" – a utopia in which the great "oneness" of pantheism will be fully manifested all over the world. The magical thinking of German Idealism, the cult of pantheism, and – for our generation – the New Age Movement are what lies behind this befuddled myth.

Some one-worlders deny they are pantheists. Some Deists, Freemasons, Unitariarian-universals, and Christian liberals believe in God, but are essentially modernist and utopian in their ideas. The Masons use the motto "The brotherhood of man under the fatherhood of God." Under this winsome slogan, the functional pantheism of one-world dreams can get political cover in a Christian culture. Nelson Rockefeller, a one-worlder, often quoted the Masonic motto. Paradoxically, I know several Masons who abhor the one-worlders.

Magical thinking

At one time, I presumed that a defining characteristic of liberals was wishful thinking. Unfortunately, it is not merely a case of liberals believing what they want to believe, as a child would do. They have been bewitched because they have opened their hearts to the seduction of pantheism and neopaganism. A vision of progress leading to a one-world utopia, combined with the idolatrous worship of nature, has captured their hearts and blinded their eyes.

Liberals have fallen under an evil enchantment, resulting in a spiritual bondage of their minds. Liberals indulge in magical thinking because they are spiritually bewitched. They hate us conservatives because we throw cold water on their delusions and call their nonsense by its right name. Liberals are as deeply in love with their enchanted dream as Gollum was in love with the enchanted ring that he called "my precious."

The dream of a utopia of worldwide "oneness" accounts for an obsession by modernists with transnational associations. They see associations such as the United Nations and the European Union as building blocks for a world federation of states. They hope a world federation will lead to a centralized world government.

Conservatives believe in American national sovereignty and are opposed to the "one world" dreams of modernists. According to the natural law theory of the American founders, man was designed to live in nations, not in empires or international commonwealths. According to Montesquieu, national republics are more likely to provide their citizens with freedom and order and to protect their rights than are monarchies, empires, transnational commonwealths, and international associations.

Some conservatives are worried that "one-worlders" are fomenting a secret conspiracy involving a small international elite. Unfortunately, the danger is far greater than they can imagine. Millions of liberal modernists have spoken openly of their hopes for one-world government for the last two and a half centuries.

We shall be brothers

The false hope of world brotherhood began in the West during the eighteenth century through the Romantic movement, most notably with Rousseau and German romantic poets such as Goethe and Schiller. Subsequently, Hegel's Idealism, New England Transcendentalism, and the New Age Movement disseminated the dream of Rousseau, Goethe, and Schiller.

"Daughter of Elysium...all men become brothers under your tender wing. Be embraced you millions! A kiss for the entire world!" (excerpts, Ode to Joy, Friedrich Schiller). Schiller was either a Freemason or was sympathetic to the ideals of Masonry. Beethoven's Ninth Symphony puts Schiller's Ode to Joy to triumphal music.

One-world aspirations are not limited to an elite, and there is no need for secrecy. Millions of Europeans are deceived by one-world fantasies and the cult of multiculturalism and talk about it openly. Classicist Lou Markos met a man from Austria who rejected the idea that he was an "Austrian" and insisted that he is an "earth-man." Some Europeans are so far gone that they have lost the will to propagate Western culture or to have enough children to perpetuate their national identities.

Blatant Nazis and liberal denials

Utopian modernist leaders who made no secret about their one-world aspirations were the primary cause of the great cataclysms of the twentieth century.

Nazism was not a secret conspiracy. Hitler published and spoke publically and blatantly about everything he intended to do. To the amazement of the Western world, he did almost everything he said he would do. The liberal modernists refused to believe that he actually meant what he said. Winston Churchill refused to live in denial and warned that Hitler meant exactly what he said. Churchill's annoyed government consigned him to the political wilderness, where he remained – until Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939.

The denial of the Western liberals about Hitler's intentions is a good example of magical thinking. The present liberal insistence that Muslim jihadists pose no danger to us is likewise magical thinking. Liberals of the 50's and 60's similarly demonized those who warned about Communism.

The Communists were more deceitful than the blatant Nazis about their plans. However, almost every nasty thing the Communists did was predicted by J. Edgar Hoover in the 20's. He simply read the published works of the Marxist-Leninists and believed that they meant what they said. The liberals refused to believe it, of course.

Fabians versus Marxists

A century ago, liberal progressives openly called for socialism through gradual democratic means, a program that was once called Fabian socialism – after the English Fabian Society. Their one-world utopian goals were identical to the ultimate goals of Communism. However, they proposed a milder, more gradually developed democratic socialism as the means of "progress." They thought that education and social engineering could gently perfect human nature to prepare for one-world utopia.

In contrast, Marxist-Leninists (the correct name for Soviet communists) wanted to bring about a totalitarian socialism that would grind men down in order to build the new communist man. Marxist-Leninist socialism is deliberately harsh so as to perfect human nature. Once man becomes perfect, the state will spontaneously wither away and all people will enjoy utopian bliss in perfect freedom. The Marxist idea that a totalitarian socialist dictatorship will gently dissolve as the commissars go fishing and the secret police happily fling wide the doors of the gulag always struck me as laughable. Both Marxists and liberals are magical thinkers.

Liberals wanted to bring about world government through democratic socialism, the spread of democracy, nation-building, and world federalism. In contrast, the Marxist-Leninists used conquest, proxy-wars, the instigation of revolution, the secret police, terror, genocide, subversive front-groups, and propaganda to achieve their global goals.

American modernist politics

The Fabian vision captured the left wing of the Democratic Party in America. Even some moderate Democrats like Harry Truman and Hubert Humphrey cherished one-world dreams.

American Republican progressives of the Teddy Roosevelt type tended to put their faith in economic, scientific, and technological progress and selective governmental reforms and interventions applied on a pragmatic, piecemeal basis. They believed in "progress," but were vague about where progress was heading. Republican leaders like Rockefeller, Kissinger, Nixon, Herbert Hoover, Wendell Wilkie, and Thomas Dewey were essentially modernists.

Although Teddy was ambivalent about the captains of industry, Republican progressives of the day generally valued large international corporate enterprise as the engine of economic progress and prosperity. Some of the CEOs of international corporations were one-worlders.

A new world order

President Herbert Walker Bush spoke of "a new world order." He halted the American Army on February 27, 1991, when it had almost encircled the elite Iraqi Republican Guard, because he did not think he had authority from his allies or from the U.N. to finish the job. The Republican Guard fled home to Saddam Hussein. The president's immersion in internationalism blunted his sense of national sovereignty and weakened his confidence in his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief.

President George W. Bush, his son, [had] a somewhat stronger sense of national sovereignty in matters of war – which earned him the hostility of internationalist Europeans and liberal Democrats. However, he [didn't] have a strong enough sense of national sovereignty to enforce the law concerning the border with Mexico.

Some of the sons of modernist Republican businessmen became nerds and developed a science fiction cult of men going to other planets to confront other "humanoids." Many of the science fiction nerds wrote about a future earth governed by one-world government. In Star Wars movies and Star Trek TV shows, confederations of planets have supplanted planetary governments as the power bases of the galaxy. Apparently, the "one-world" dreams of today will one day seem quaint, and "one galaxy" will be the cool fad. The "force" will be with us – that is to say, the spirituality of pantheism will be there.

The grand dame of conservatism

As explained in the previous essay, all of the programs of modernism are alien to the values of Western conservatism and Christianity. That includes the Republican version of modernism that the young Phyllis Schlafly repudiated in her famous book A Choice Not an Echo (1964; 6,000,000 copies sold). Schlafly's implicit rejection of Republican modernism in that book was the indispensable foundation for the conservatism of the culture war.

Interestingly, Schlafly, as the grand dame of conservatism, was the co-sponsor of the "values voters" debate of Republican candidates held September 17, 2007. Giuliani, Romney, and McCain, who have tried to blend conservatism and modernism, were conspicuously absent from the debate. Alan Keyes, who rejects the dilution of conservatism with modernism, was conspicuously present.

The present crisis

A conflict between three mutually exclusive worldviews will take place during the first half of the twenty-first century, namely: (1) Modernism and Postmodernism versus (2) Conservatism and Christianity versus (3) Radical Islam. Each of these three antagonists must repudiate the other two. Only one can remain standing in the end.

Toleration is not an option. Conservatism and Christianity are increasingly intolerable to modernists and postmodernists. As the evil implications of modernism and postmodernism become increasingly clear to conservatives and Christians, a radical repudiation of modernism and postmodernism will be unavoidable. Meanwhile, the jihadist Muslims hate everyone and seem determined to make everyone hate them.

We are in better shape to fight for Christianity and conservatism than our grandfathers were during the period 1920-1945, when modernists had taken over the great mainstream Protestant denominations, and orthodox doctrine disappeared from the pulpit in a majority of Protestant churches. The conservative political movement was on the ropes as progressives took over the Republican Party and Fabian-style socialists took over the Democratic Party.

Today, we have a better chance than ever to defeat one of the key tenets of modernism – Darwinism. I like to call Darwinism a creation myth for modernism.

A creation myth for modernism

Every worldview must have a creation myth or a story of origins in order to have intellectual, cultural, and historical traction. Darwin supplied a creation myth for the biological sciences. Einstein supplied a creation myth for physics and astronomy.

Charles Darwin (1809-1882) lived in the same generation as Karl Marx (1818-1883). Both men posited that progressive development can emerge spontaneously from material elements. Both men were science buffs.

The cult of science as the engine of progress reached its apogee in England with the Great Exhibition of 1851 held in the Crystal Palace. Darwin and Marx lived in England in 1851. Darwin was elected to the Royal Society in 1853. Marx was the London correspondent for the New York Herald Tribune in 1851.

Marx and Darwin

Hegel placed into the Western imagination the mystical idea of a continuously changing and improving mankind. Science deals with the empirical study of material things. Therefore, the mysticism of Hegel was incompatible with science. Marx appeared on the scene with a solution. He offered progress to utopia by strictly material means. His theory of economic determinism was compatible with materialism and science. What is more, he claimed that economic determinism was compatible with historicism, progress, and utopia.

Marx's theory filled a gaping hole in modernism by reconciling science with the utopian cult of progress. Once modernists recognized that Marx was essential to the modernist program, they did not ask too many questions about the illogical aspects of his model. He welded together hard-bitten materialism with magical thinking about "progress" and a mystical utopia. Material thesis plus material antithesis equals mystical synthesis. This formula is preposterous, of course.

Human agendas often trump the search for truth because most men are rascals and few are angels. The rascals of modernism swallowed Marxist nonsense because it served their agenda. Magical thinking enabled them to gloss over Marx's preposterous formula.

Marx and Darwin needed each other to gain widespread popularity. Scientifically- minded people had to envision how biological progress could emerge from mere matter before they could accept the notion that economic determinism could result in human progress. Economically-oriented people had to see how progress could emerge from economic class warfare before they could accept biological progress through evolution. The one fed the other.

Evolution was institutionally established as the creation myth of modernism and became indispensable to the modernist program. That is precisely why public exposure of the anomalies and fallacies of evolutionary science meets with fierce political opposition from the left. Liberals feel that if the evolutionary story of origins were exposed as a myth, the project of modernism would be threatened – and they are right.

Is evolution a myth?

One of the weaknesses of modern science was described by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. He noted that a prevailing paradigm often becomes the official doctrine of the science establishment. Most research is devoted to shore up the prevailing paradigm and to reconcile anomalies in the established model. (The prevailing paradigm is the preferred scientific model. Anomalies are facts that contradict the model.)

The education establishment indoctrinates the students in the prevailing paradigm. The students are taught "just-so" stories about evolution. Just-so stories are made up by the storyteller. (Rudyard Kipling wrote just-so stories for children such as "How the leopard got his spots.") The education establishment propagates a creation myth and goes to great trouble to conceal that it is a creation myth.

Can a myth become the prevailing paradigm? Yes, indeed. Contrary to popular belief, evolutionary science did not win on its scientific merits. The agenda of modernism to have a story of origins trumped the search for truth.

Can the evolution model stand on its own without the magisterial authority of the science establishment and without the indoctrination of the education establishment? No.

Why is evolutionary theory vulnerable?

Evolutionary theory is open to challenge on the following grounds:

(1) The mechanism for evolving from one species to another species through random genetic mutations does not work. Evolutionists themselves cannot agree how the mechanism works and cannot support their various theories with hard facts.

(2) The fossil record shows that species stasis is the norm and that large gaps always exist between species. A new school of evolutionists, inspired by the late Stephen J. Gould, accepts this fact. The alleged missing links between species are invariably invalidated by the evidence, although the invalidation process is slow. Yet the education establishment has continued to teach the discredited missing links for generations after cutting-edge scientists have rejected them.

(3) Cambrian rock has fossils of 70-plus phyla of animals. No ancestors for any of these animals appears in Precambrian rock. No new phyla of animals have appeared after the Cambrian era. Over half of original phyla are now extinct.

(4) The incredible complexity of species is harmonized through integrated and sophisticated designs. Collections of genetic accidents cannot spontaneously produce a design. A creature that is a jerry-built monstrosity of accumulated accidents cannot survive in the harsh wilderness and compete with sophisticated species that enjoy an integrated design.

(5) Teachers of evolution are routinely fobbing off variations within species (microevolution) as examples of evolution to other species (macroevolution). Since the discovery of DNA in 1953, evolutionists have known that such claims are fraudulent. Variation within a species requires no new information in the DNA code. Evolution to new species requires an immense amount of new information in the DNA code.

(6) The science establishment responds to criticism with persecution of dissenters. Dissenters do not get tenure. The peer review journals refuse to publish papers that criticize the evolution model. Dissenters are rebuked as not being a legitimate part of science because their papers are not published in the journals. The science establishment has rigged the game to make sure their favorite theory wins. It is an agenda of powerful men and has nothing to do with the pursuit of truth.

The Great Rational Modernist

Albert Einstein (1875-1955) was born into a Jewish family, but became a pantheist after reading the philosophy of Baruch Spinoza. Spinoza was excommunicated from his Jewish congregation for his heretical belief in pantheism.

Pantheism is the myth that "god" is everything and everything is "god" and everything is "one." Hegel's pantheism was the basis for his historicism, progressivism, and utopianism. Mystical, impersonal forces of history would compel the world of man to progress. In contrast, the pantheism of Spinoza and Einstein was a rational pantheism that held that all things are connected to each other in a systematic way. In other words, the cosmos is like a mathematical systems model, or a machine – a closed system of interlocking parts.

Christians, Muslims, and Jews believe that God created the world, but also believe that He is transcendent to the world. Creator and creation are radically different. An interlocking system is not necessary to hold the world together because God sustains his creation. As a result, the creation is an open system. Pantheism is a closed interlocking system, because it is all-inclusive and self-supporting. Einstein's cosmos is fundamentally different from the world God created.

The beauty of Einstein's model is that it is purely rational and man can grasp the simple principles of a harmonious world. He assumed that his theory of relativity must be true because it was simple, elegant, and aesthetically satisfying. He painted a picture of the cosmos that was more complete and convincing than any modernist before him. Unfortunately, Einstein's model is inconsistent with the real world.

Embarrassing discontinuities

Einstein spent the second half of his career searching for a "unified field theory." Quantum mechanics, which governs the behavior of atoms and molecules, is incompatible with Einstein's theories of general relativity. Einstein sought a model that would unite the physics of the greater world of matter and energy with the microcosmic world of atoms. He failed. No one has yet succeeded. "String theory" of multiple dimensions and multiple worlds is just the latest and most bizarre attempt to produce a unified field theory.

Who cares? Well, without a unified field theory, Einstein's cosmos collapses. All things must tightly interconnect or Einstein's vision of the world is proven false. However, if God sustains his creation and it is an open, loosely woven system, discontinuities are not a problem.

The real world has proven to be stubbornly discontinuous. The physics of the atom is discontinuous with the physics of a falling apple. Einstein's physics is of no practical use for the physics of a falling apple. We still must rely upon Newton's physics for that. The best the physicists of MIT can do is to argue that Einstein can be reconciled with Newton concerning the force of gravity of an apple. But they cannot logically explain why an apple falls straight down. They cannot readily use Einstein's mathematics to chart the velocity of a falling apple – if they can do it at all.

The physics of a falling apple is discontinuous with the physics of a satellite in orbit. I used to believe that Einstein's theory is useful for calculating orbits and guiding space ships through the solar system – because I believed the propaganda of the science establishment. I learned from a scientist at MIT that they actually use an updated version of Kepler's laws of planetary motion to compute orbits around planets. Kepler lived a century before Newton. The scientists use Kepler and give Einstein the credit.

I expected that Einstein's general relativity might be useful for computing the spiral movement of galaxies. His idea of a warp in the space-time continuum seems logically appropriate for the curving motion of a fluid vortex. Unfortunately, Einstein's model does not work for galaxies.

There are two possibilities: Either Einstein's gravity is too weak to account for the behavior of galaxies – or there in not enough matter out there. The science establishment ruled out the possibility that Einstein might be wrong. Instead, they used plug figures to make the mathematics work. They named one plug figure "dark matter," an imaginary substance that has no grounds for existence other than to make Einstein's general relativity work. They named the second plug figure "black holes," which are imaginary vortexes of immense gravitational pull.

Are the scientists cheating by using plug figures? Yes. Einstein himself used a plug figure that he called the "cosmological constant." The rascals of the science establishment have an agenda to support the prevailing paradigm, which is necessary to the modernist program. Einstein must be made to work, even if the science establishment has to create an imaginary universe that is tailor-made for Einstein.

We have learned that the physics of orbiting satellites is discontinuous with the physics of galaxies. Is the physics of galaxies discontinuous with the physics of galaxy clusters? It might be so. The physics of galaxy clusters is in its infancy. However, early reports indicate that scientists are surprised by the behavior of galaxy clusters.

A discontinuous universe

What is wrong with having a cosmos that is (1) discontinuous between molecules and apples, (2) discontinuous between apples and orbiting satellites, and (3) discontinuous between planets and galaxies? Nothing is wrong with a discontinuous cosmos if God is the sustainer of his creation and the creation is loosely woven.

However, if the cosmos must sustain itself though tightly interlocking connections in a closed system, a cosmos with at least three internal discontinuities must fly into pieces. Why do scientists prefer the interlocking system? Because such a system is understandable through mathematics. Most of Einstein's work was with blackboard mathematics.

Why don't the scientists concede the discontinuities and reject Einstein? Because Einstein is essential to the modernist program.

The big bang myth

The big bang theory is based upon Einstein's assumption that everything that exits is tightly interwoven. If the cosmos was once confined to one dense spot and then exploded, the idea of an interrelated cosmos is plausible.

Astronomers noticed a red-shift in the light of distant galaxies that seemed to imply that they were moving away. If this is true, the cosmos is expanding. If it is expanding, perhaps the expansion began with an initial explosion. This is a highly speculative idea, of course. But it offers a story of origins that is in accord with the modernist worldview.

The big bang theory has been beset by many controversies and difficulties and has been reformulated many times. I will limit my critique to three points, which I have independently developed:

(1) Einstein assumed a stationary universe, but his mathematics did not work. He invented a plug figure to make the math work and produce a stable and symmetrical cosmos. He called his plug figure the "cosmological constant." He later abandoned the cosmological constant when he learned that the cosmos is not stable. Some big bang theorists have continued to play with cosmological constants in pursuit of symmetry. Why? Because Einstein said the cosmos must be symmetrical. Unfortunately, the pursuit of symmetry through plug figures has eluded the big bang theorists. This undermines the foundation that Einstein laid for big bang theory.

(2) Big bang theory cannot account for the three discontinuities mentioned above. If the discontinuities can be explained away with plug figures, the big bang theory can survive for a while. However, if the attempt to gloss over the discontinuities fails, then the big bang theory must collapse.

(3) Einstein's theory is exactly like a mathematical model of a closed system. Such models are unstable and fragile. They are unstable because a slight change in the variables can produce a radical difference in output. The models are fragile because the slightest glitch can produce a systems collapse. Anyone who has worked with computers understands this.

Einstein's cosmos exists on a knife edge. If things were slightly different in one direction, the cosmos would collapse. If things were slightly different in the opposite direction, the cosmos would explode. Therefore, big bang theorists have been riding the bucking bronco of an unstable and fragile cosmos. They adjust the formula a little and they are thrown off the horse. This is why big bang theory has never stabilized after forty years of riding the bronco.

A fragile cosmos

Some Christians have accepted the idea of a cosmos that is unstable and fragile. They marvel at how precise God's creation is in light of the fact that if he had made it slightly differently, the worlds would perish. Unfortunately, it only seems unstable when viewed through Einstein's mathematical systems models. The models are fragile and unstable, but the cosmos is not. Let the computer models crash as they will. The solid earth remains.

Because the science establishment believes we live in an unstable and fragile cosmos, they think that if man tinkers with it, disasters will happen. The latest episode of disaster paranoia is global warming theory. The predictions of global warming disasters are based upon – you guessed it – mathematical computer models! Because the models are unstable and fragile, scientists think earth's climate is unstable and fragile and prone to disaster. If man fiddles with it, it will react in calamitous ways, they conclude.

Mathematical computer models with multiple variables are an invitation to cheating. The modelers have no alternative but to tweak the models to make them behave. Many tweaks are needed because the models are unstable – like a bucking bronco. Every tweak has the implicit bias of making the model perform as expected. If global warming is expected, then the tweaks will continue until the model coughs up global warming.

However, the amount of global warming varies radically from model to model – as might be expected with heavily tweaked models. International forums on global warming cherry pick the models and report only those models that show the most global warming. Then the moderator goes to the microphone and says that the committee is in unanimous agreement with the tweaked findings. They say that the case is closed and no further discussion is needed. We are told to get busy saving the world.

World conferences on climate change are the latest fad to promote one-world thought. The theme of these conferences is that we must all pull together to save the globe. In the end, they will tell us that the only solution that will work must be, you guessed it, world federation.

The culture war

Four self-destructive properties of modernism and postmodernism have brought forth our present culture war:

(1) Denial of American national sovereignty. If the forces of progress are moving us towards world government, then American national sovereignty stands athwart progress. For this reason, when America goes to war on the authority of the Constitution and the assumption of national sovereignty, liberals call it "arrogant" and "illegal." They think the only legal war is one fought under the aegis of an international body or alliance. Unfortunately, such bodies are unlikely to put a premium on American safety.

Liberals approve of open borders because a flood of illegal aliens will promote multiculturalism and progress towards the great "oneness" of a one-world government. If America were to enforce its borders, it would be acting like a sovereign state – and liberals do not want America to be a real nation. They want it to be a province under the aegis of world government.

Modernists blame World War I and II on nationalism. Nonsense. World War I was caused by the competition of European empires that did not respect nation-states. As we have explained, World War II in Europe was caused by the conflict between two modernist one-world ideologies that did not respect nation states. World War II in the Pacific was caused by the belligerency of the Japanese Empire. The Western patriots who opposed and defeated Hitler and Tojo were nationalists.

(2) Denial of the existence of evil. If we are creatures of a pantheistic world evolving towards a one-world utopia, there can be no such thing as evil because "everything is god" and "god is everything." Everyone must be included and interconnected in such a world. People we assume are evil are merely slower in progressing toward the utopia or are stuck in the past. However, conservatives who want to exclude those they perceive as evil cannot be tolerated. Wars against governments that conservatives perceive as evil must not be tolerated.

Therefore, Ahmadinejad, the [former] president of Iran – who [wanted] an atomic bomb, [sought] to destroy Israel, [denied] the holocaust, and [sponsored] terrorists – should not be perceived as evil – and should be invited to speak at Columbia University. Divisive conservatives who think that Columbia [promoted] evil by inviting Ahmadinejad should not be allowed to speak.

Richard Weaver wrote that those who have a false view of the world cannot properly understand current events. Liberals have a distorted conception of Ahmadinejad's visit because they have a distorted view of the world. Liberals are not crazy. They have a crazy worldview. Just as scientists would rather create an imaginary world than to give up on Einstein, liberals would rather say nutty things about current events than give up their insane worldview.

(3) Denial of a universal moral law. If we are participating in a march of progress toward utopia, the moral law established in biblical days has no bearing on the present "enlightened" generation. As the generations of the future become more enlightened than we are, they will cast off our retrograde ethics and develop better moral codes. Unfortunately, when there is no universal moral law, all men do what is right in their own eyes and the wicked run amok. When this happens, man destroys himself.

(4) Denial of the Western spiritual and culture heritage. The modernists want to break free from the heritage of the Western past and practice multiculturalism in order to usher in the glorious one-world culture of the future.

Unfortunately, to renounce the high culture of the Western past is to rebel against civilization itself. When we cut ourselves off from the rich intellectual, cultural, and spiritual treasuries of the past, we cease to be civilized men and revert to barbarism. The primitivism of our current music and art indicates that we have fallen from a brilliant culture into degradation – while under the influence of modernism.

Saving civilization

In the name of civilization itself, we must rid ourselves of the delusions of modernism. Then we can defend ourselves against the barbarians. The external barbarians who hate our civilization are the Muslim jihadists. The internal barbarians are the multiculturalists who are deconstructing the culture in the name of progress.

Ridding ourselves of the delusions of modernism will free us to rebuild the culture. Many of the tools for rebuilding can be found in the five historical streams of conservatism, namely: (1) Christian conservatism, (2) Traditionalist conservatism, (3) Natural law conservatism, (4) Neoconservatism, and (5) Libertarianism (not all of which are equal in value, of course, but each of which has something to offer the cause of saving civilization).

Modernism is an enchantment of dark spiritual forces. Therefore, we face a spiritual battle. Only the power of God can defeat such a formidable enemy. We participate in God's battle through prayer and faith. Let us fall to our knees and pray our way to mighty victories and rise up and be about our Father's business.

A message from Stephen Stone, President, RenewAmerica

I first became acquainted with Fred Hutchison in December 2003, when he contacted me about an article he was interested in writing for RenewAmerica about Alan Keyes. From that auspicious moment until God took him a little more than six years later, we published over 200 of Fred's incomparable essays — usually on some vital aspect of the modern "culture war," written with wit and disarming logic from Fred's brilliant perspective of history, philosophy, science, and scripture.

It was obvious to me from the beginning that Fred was in a class by himself among American conservative writers, and I was honored to feature his insights at RA.

I greatly miss Fred, who died of a brain tumor on August 10, 2010. What a gentle — yet profoundly powerful — voice of reason and godly truth! I'm delighted to see his remarkable essays on the history of conservatism brought together in a masterfully-edited volume by Julie Klusty. Restoring History is a wonderful tribute to a truly great man.

The book is available at

© Fred Hutchison


The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength. —Isaiah 40:31