Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Understanding Progressivism

Foseti has a long and brilliant digest of the Progressive mind as expounded by Moldbug.  If you really want to understand why Progressives are the way they are, this is important stuff.  Here's a taste:
That brings us to the series on Richard Dawkins titled, “How Dawkins Got Pwned.” This series of posts uses Dawkins as an example (perhaps the best example) of a modern Puritan. The thesis of the series is that:
Professor Dawkins is not just an atheist. He is a Christian atheist.
Professor Dawkins is not just a Christian atheist. He is a Protestant atheist. And he is not just a Protestant atheist. He is a Calvinist atheist. And he is not just a Calvinist atheist. He is an Anglo-Calvin atheist. In other words, he can also be described as a Puritan atheist, a Dissenter atheist, a Nonconformist atheist, an Evangelical atheist, etc, etc.
The series begins by treating progressivism as a sort of infection of the mind. Assume progressivism is a virus that is solely concerned with spreading itself into as many minds as possible. We see the idea’s evolution, in which it starts as a fundamentalist religious belief and ends up discarding theism so as to better propagate itself in an officially secular system of government. Shed of overt theism, Progressivism “can be propagated by American official institutions, which are constitutionally prohibited from endorsing its ancestor or competitor [ie theistic Christianity].”
This is long, but it's a condensed overview of Moldbug's writings which are much longer.  Progressivism as a non-theistic Christian Puritan sect explains a whole lot about what's going on (e.g. the Global Warming brouhaha).
Fine. So what? Who really cares if Dawkins is religious zealot?

This is important because Progressivism can’t be understood without this religious framework, and it’s important to understand Progressivism since it’s the world’s dominant ideology.

If Moldbug is right, then Dawkins, who “thinks he’s Galileo, Vavilov or Darwin” is really “a Caccini, Lysenko or Wilberforce. He is pwned in every sense of the word.”

In this series of posts Moldbug outlines a reactionary history of the last couple hundred years. It’s excellent and worth your time, but this post is perhaps so long that nobody will read it already, so I’ll save it for another post. The gist is that the Progressives always won, the last few Centuries have been extremely destructive and lots of things you think you know about history are probably wrong.

Highly recommended.

1 comment:

Goober said...

I read it. It seems about right to me. I've always had a bit of a bone to pick with Dawkins because he picks on religious zealots while being one in every way but having a supernatural faith, himself.

He just seems to arrogant an self-sure about something that you literally cannot be arrogant and self-sure about.

That, coupled with his progressive ideology, makes me laugh whenever I see him ranting against religion.

What is progressivism, at this point, if not religion? Most of the things that progressivism espouses at this point have been so soundly proven wrong so many times in the annals of history, that a man who still thinks that these are good ideas HAS to be practicing an irrational faith.