The goal of modern day "Progressives"

For Christopher Dawson, author of Religion and the Rise of Western Culture, “The importance of these [Middle ages] centuries. . .is not to be found in the external order they created or attempted to create, but in the internal change they brought about in the soul of Western man – a change which can never be entirely undone except by the total negation or destruction of Western man himself.”

Indeed, the total negation of traditional Western man is the goal of modern-day “progressives” who in their Nietzschean Will to Power, seek the destruction of Christianity, family, and gender through various ideologies and in illusory calls for “social justice.” Dawson incisively describes how, even in our day, revolutionary and scientific ideologies are influenced, often indirectly and unconsciously, by the spirit of Western religion.

We in the West have become detached from our religious culture and our Western moral tradition. Dawson once observed, “It is religious impulse which supplies the cohesive force which unifies a society and culture. . . .A society which has lost its religion becomes sooner or later a society which has lost its culture.”

https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2024/01/20/the-key-to-history/?

Publisher's blurb:  "With the magisterial sweep of Toynbee, to whom he is often compared, Dawson tells here the tale of medieval Christendom. From the brave travels of sixth-century Irish monks to the grand synthesis of Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century, Dawson brilliantly shows how vast spiritual movements arose from tiny origins and changed the face of medieval Europe from one century to the next. The legacy of those years of ferment remains with us in the great cathedrals, Gregorian chant, and the works of Giotto and Dante. Even more, though, for Dawson these centuries charged the soul of the West with a spiritual concern -- a concern that he insists can never be entirely undone except by the total negation or destruction of Western man himself.

This is so sad. . . evil in our land

“As the left has increasingly exposed itself in the Trump era as rabidly illiberal, irrational, and immoral, it is time for the right to acknowledge that the left is not merely wrong, but evil.

As an ideology, Progressivism – the rebranding of Communism – embraces totalitarianism and absolute statist control, which always and everywhere leads to misery, corruption, and brutality, and never elevates humanity.

Conservatives who believe that it is still possible to reason with the left and engage them in fair-and-square policy debates are clinging to a failed strategy, sadly. We must accept the reality that leftists have long since abandoned rational rules of engagement, if they ever had any; instead, they operate from a hate-filled mob mentality, a bloodlust for power, and a complete absence of moral boundaries. We cannot afford a lack of moral clarity about the undeclared civil war raging across the United States of America.” Richard Helmold  commenting on Mark Tapson article https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/02/leftism-not-just-wrong-evil-mark-tapson/?. . .

“The Democrat Party is the face of Moloch, the Canaanite god whom Milton called the “horrid King besmear'd with blood / Of human sacrifice.” It is a cult of criminality and death. On every political issue, Democrats take the side of chaos and destruction, crime and disorder. They hype the threat of white supremacism while whitewashing Islamic terrorism. They are actively engaged in erasing our history and undermining our rights. They support open borders over national security; sanctuary cities for criminal aliens and the abolishment of ICE over law-abiding citizens and legal immigration; infanticide over the sacredness of human life; the dismantling of Western civilization over its preservation. This is not simply wrong – this is evil.”

The new totalitarians aren’t new at all—they go by the names diversity, tolerance and inclusion

 

Harley Price, Canadian professor at University of Toronto  Priceton.org

Separate and Special

Black Lives Matter, Affirmative action, feminists, transwomen, occupiers. . .

Michael Smith had a good post on Facebook on the history of the legal decisions on separate by equal (and special).

The Supreme Court ended the doctrine of “Separate but Equal” when it handed down the landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, overturning the decision on Plessey v. Ferguson on May 18, 1896 that affirmed Louisiana state law mandating “equal but separate”. Homer Adolph Plessy bought a ticket on the East Louisiana Railroad, from New Orleans to Covington, La. Mr. Plessy , seven-eighths white and one-eighth Negro, took a seat in the coach designated for whites on the segregated train. When challenged, he refused to move, he was taken off and jailed.

Reflecting the social and legal environment of the times, the Plessy decision was not even close - the decision was handed down by a vote of 7 to 1 with the majority opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown and the dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan. This decision established legal segregation by race as the law of the land and it stood for 58 years until society changed and recognized that separate but equal is anything but equal.

Brown v. Board of Education has now been law for 5 years longer than was Plessy (63 years vs. 58). Proving that certain segments of mankind never learn anything from history, the SJW’s (social justice warriors) of contemporary times seek to return to the days of Plessy (with a twist) by working with government to be separate and equal (but special). Blacks are calling for “black only” instruction in college and black only police and government in majority black areas. Muslims are demanding Muslim only public accommodations – the same is true with the LGBT community. Feminists want to be free of the “heteronormative patriarchy” by removing men from their roles in society. The entire “safe space” idea is not just to provide protection for thin-skinned progressive adult children and academics (but I repeat myself) but to exclude people who hold opposing ideas and prevent them from being heard. These folks say they want to be treated as equal but demand to be separated from others and in doing so, they also expect special protection and treatment.

Affirmative action programs were created to “cure” the discrimination created by the “separate but equal” doctrine. These programs created the first classes of people who were separate and equal (but special). The idea was to carve out special privileges for blacks that would eventually help a class of citizens overcome historical inequality. Looking at black America today, it is obviously possible to make the case that black individuals have benefited – but as a socio-economic class, affirmative action can hardly be considered a success - and yet it continues apace.

In 2003’s Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), SCOTUS upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School by defining the very quota system found unconstitutional in 1978’s Regents of the University of California v. Bakke as “not a quota system” (a lot like how John Roberts redefined Obamacare’s tax as not a tax and a tax at the same time in order to find Obamacare constitutional). Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority in a 5-4 decision and joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, ruled that the University of Michigan Law School had a “compelling interest in promoting class diversity.” Never mind that the Constitution says nothing about “diversity” and everything about equality, the important aspect is that Grutter v. Bollinger affirmed the same “separate but equal” doctrine as did Plessy v. Ferguson (with the special twist of approving reverse discrimination).

Progressivism is riddled with self-contradictory ideas and affirmative action is no exception – it seeks to create equality by creating inequality (i.e. lowering standards, mandating quotas, grading on the curve, etc.), proving that Brown v. Board of Education was demonstrably correct – separate is not equal, especially when discrimination is thought to be cured by more discrimination against an out of favor class. Progressivism is built on building protected classes and “curing” their ills by disadvantaging another class. Proving that progressives are the least self-aware class on the face of the American political landscape, this is the basis for the Plessy decision in 1896 making the modern SJW’s little better than the post-Civil War segregationists.

Separate but equal is not equal. Equal but special is not the same as being equal. Separate but equal was wrong in 1896 and progressivism’s doctrine of separate and equal (but special) is just as wrong today.

Why Progressives aren't for progress anymore

I'm not sure how historians date "progressivism." Some equate it with socialism and marxism. If so, that's a bit more recent. I don't think it started that way, because originally it was positive and liberal, in the classic sense of the word. The far left has stolen that movement and its good heart and spirit.

Since the 1950s the American poor and working class have become the most upwardly mobile and culturally comfortable of any in the world. For some reason, that made the "progressives" mad. They lost their base when their goals were being met and that transformed them into mean, angry scoundrels and turning to "victimhood" instead of righteousness. When Wal-Mart began suppying Americans workers with similar consumer goods the rich had always enjoyed, the progressives blamed Wal-Mart instead of themselves that the successful chain stocked so many "Made in China" goods! Progressives never wanted the poor to have what they had.

If you don't believe me, just look at what they--progressives in both parties--are doing to regain their base--they are making people in the lower quintiles less free and less wealthy with less access to the "good life." Since the women's movement and the envirnmental movement took off in the 1970s, the only way to get ahead if you were at the bottom was to move up the quintile graph. I know that sounds obvious, but think about it. The women's movement advocated killing off their offspring (and safety net) in the name of privacy and personal choice, and environmentalists through over regulation have been forcing American companies to close down or move, first to the south, and then out of the country, leaving their manufacturing base in service or retail jobs, or dependent on government benefits.

And still they call for more "progress." They will march Americans right to the progressive poor house.