> “Progressivism,” from the early 20th century to today, has always been more about means than ends. It is not synonymous with “unbiased,” “caring,” or “broad-minded.”
Very true! Consider this simple thought experiment.
Progressives say "X is a problem, and we need to do Y to counter it."
Person A says "I don't really think X is a problem, but Y doesn't sound so bad; I'm willing to go along with it.
Person B says "Sure, X is a legitimate problem, but Y is really not a good solution and is in fact likely to make the problem worse. We should not do Y, but do Z instead."
Both people disagree with Progressive orthodoxy. Which one are they going to treat as a heretic who must be burned at the stake? We all know the answer already, don't we?
"Hubristic humanitarianism" -- another turn of phrase that I will try to remember to credit you for when I steal it. Great article.
I don't know whether he was on record in opposition to eugenics like Chesterton, but C.S. Lewis wrote: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
I'm making a point of sharing this because it's such an important read. Moreover, I don't think I can do enough to point out the racism (and other evils) of the original Progressive movement—a racism today's "progressives" want to project onto the South of their imagination so they can continue to think of themselves as good and pure.
I am wondering if the current transgender movement is a form of modern eugenics aimed at eliminating autism. Autistic people have higher than average incidences of gender dysphoria, and since it's taboo now to force sterilization, someone somewhere created a Pied Piper strategy that all we need to do is convince them that they want to transition to the opposite sex. When they do, they end up being sterile. Any insights on this?
Seems doubtful. Even if that were the intent—which seems unlikely to me—the numbers of those with gender dysphoria are probably too small to make any appreciable dent in the overall autistic population. However, as with eugenics a century ago, the ethics of these surgeries have yet to be resolved.
> “Progressivism,” from the early 20th century to today, has always been more about means than ends. It is not synonymous with “unbiased,” “caring,” or “broad-minded.”
Very true! Consider this simple thought experiment.
Progressives say "X is a problem, and we need to do Y to counter it."
Person A says "I don't really think X is a problem, but Y doesn't sound so bad; I'm willing to go along with it.
Person B says "Sure, X is a legitimate problem, but Y is really not a good solution and is in fact likely to make the problem worse. We should not do Y, but do Z instead."
Both people disagree with Progressive orthodoxy. Which one are they going to treat as a heretic who must be burned at the stake? We all know the answer already, don't we?
And today African-American and Hispanic women are far more likely to have hysterectomies, even when minimally invasive embolization procedures are available (in France and by French-trained doctors). Partly due to obesity, but "The size and growth rates of fibroids are greater in African American women, and they are more likely to undergo surgical intervention than other racial groups." The Health Disparities of Uterine Fibroids for African American Women: A Public Health Issue https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3874080/. And on Uterine Fibroid Embolization (UFE) https://www.pennmedicine.org/for-patients-and-visitors/find-a-program-or-service/interventional-radiology/uterine-fibroid-embolization#:~:text=Uterine%20fibroid%20embolization%20is%20a,is%20blocked%2C%20making%20them%20shrink.
"Hubristic humanitarianism" -- another turn of phrase that I will try to remember to credit you for when I steal it. Great article.
I don't know whether he was on record in opposition to eugenics like Chesterton, but C.S. Lewis wrote: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Wonderful quote. In an upcoming piece, I quote St Teresa of Avila: “God save us from gloomy saints.”
I'm making a point of sharing this because it's such an important read. Moreover, I don't think I can do enough to point out the racism (and other evils) of the original Progressive movement—a racism today's "progressives" want to project onto the South of their imagination so they can continue to think of themselves as good and pure.
Thanks, Bob. Good one.
And thanks, as always, to you, Beth. Great observations.
I am wondering if the current transgender movement is a form of modern eugenics aimed at eliminating autism. Autistic people have higher than average incidences of gender dysphoria, and since it's taboo now to force sterilization, someone somewhere created a Pied Piper strategy that all we need to do is convince them that they want to transition to the opposite sex. When they do, they end up being sterile. Any insights on this?
Seems doubtful. Even if that were the intent—which seems unlikely to me—the numbers of those with gender dysphoria are probably too small to make any appreciable dent in the overall autistic population. However, as with eugenics a century ago, the ethics of these surgeries have yet to be resolved.