If the religious fundamentals of conservatism start to assert themselves aggressively we will see this through the massive cultural movement of Christian and religious literalism. This is starting to happen but I still think it is in its early stages.

The conservatives are really divided here into two main groups; the *fundamentally* religious and the *predominantly* secular. The secular faction – like a John Derbyshire and David Brooks – are basically skeptics. They share the same philosophical bona-fides as the left. They are totally beholden to pragmatism and thus are intellectually impotent.

But the religious faction, on the other hand, rejects pragmatism, egalitarianism, relativism, etc. They are aggressively medieval. This is the movement of Russel Kirk (and sadly to a lesser extent of Edmund Burke which is unfortunate as he himself was a Classical liberal) which hates secularism, classical liberalism, individualism (which it sees as ultimately subversive) , evolution and personal freedom in the sexual realm. They also tend to be either soft or hard racists (the soft version would be the kind that champions the “European peoples”.)

These conservatives are not for the most part mainstream conservatives, but they have a growing internet presence. Charles Johnson of LGF has been exposing them and they hate him for it. When we see this branch of conservatism with its dark age mysticism become noticeably visible then we will have another beast on our hands. Also, if that should happen I suspect we might see a cultural civil war; secular vs religious. We, of course, will be clumped in with the “liberals”.

So many storm clouds on the horizon…

To equate liberty with nihilism is so loathsome it could only come from a conservative.

… to just ignore all that and just say “government is the problem, corruption, earmarks, wasteful spending,” it’s just a form of nihilism.

It would be like studying geologic health care. Except that rocks don’t get sick or break limbs or feel bad. Sound stupid? Sure. But no more stupid than ‘political economics’.

Many times I have noted that while conservatism is anti-intellectual at root, conservatism seems to have surpassed the degenerating Left in that department.

If that trend is reversing, then it means that the religious fundamentals of conservatism are asserting themselves.

If so, it means that the growth of anti-intellectualism in the culture as a whole might start picking up speed as both “sides” move away from the intellect.

It’s good in terms of the opportunity that exists for us to fill the void — but bad in terms of what that portends for the culture at large.

It means we’re the only ones who are in a position to stop it — and time is growing short.

Burgess, thanks. It will be a long struggle, but not, as Whittaker Chambers or James Burnham might have had it, a “twilight struggle.” Instead it is a darkness before the dawn struggle. 45 years ago Ayn Rand famously wrote, “It is earlier than you think.” It still is.

In both cases, it’s the unproductive or meek who are esteemed. Interesting.

Socialists believe that without a central planner there would be no orderly market. The market is far too complicated a phenomenon to leave up to free – and selfish – individuals they scream. In order to have a fair, orderly market there needs to be a central economic planner. Chaos would ensue without one and only free market ideologues could ever believe otherwise.

Anti-intellectualism won’t do it. Emotional venting won’t do it. Studying, thinking, discussing, and then widely proclaiming the better ideas will do it.