One comment

  1. I’ve read all of MM’s material also, and I put a little review on my blog. In short, I believe that he is wrong on two counts.
    1) I do not believe Progressivism is exclusively descendent from Protestant Christianity.
    2) I do not believe that Progressivism controls the US or the world for that matter.

    1) Look up the current players in Progressivism. Mostly germanics? No, mostly Ashkenazi. Look at the vast Protestant congregations across the US, mostly Progressive? No, mostly conservative. Where are the geographic centers of Progressive populations? New York, San Fran, Hollywood. What ethnic group is most economically and intelligentsia dominant in these areas? Ashkenazi. Examine the most extreme Protestant sects to see if they are Progressives. Take for example Mennonites who are more extreme in pacifism, equality, charity than Quakers or Calvinists. Mennonites are so far away from Progressivism, they are practically monarchists. Progressivism is a direct descent of New Left politics of the 1960’s. And where did the New Left adolescents get their ideas? I don’t remember Marcuse, Adorno, Habermas being from any Calvinist or Quaker traditions. The Frankfurt School was a secular Ashkenazi stronghold. To me Progressivism is the merger of the Universalism of Christ (and much later Reform Judaism), the messianic desire to make the world better (Reform Judaism), and the ignorance of an adolescent ruling class (Ashkenazi). None of this should come as a surprise since when a group escapes the shackles of the shtetl and the ghetto, achieves political power, that they are political adolescents and rule accordingly. The matter is made much worse by the fact that they are ruling over a population with a historical culture unfamiliar to them. Read ‘The Wandering Who’ By Gilad Atzmon if you want to get a better idea of the mind of a secular Ashkenazi. Another item is that Progressive ideology is only possible by those with no historical knowledge and appreciation of their own culture. No surprise that the US was the one place it took root best, since the US has very little history and it’s culture was only an inch deep – pretty normal for a colony. Anyways, who cares where Progressivism started, it’s better to spend time figuring out ways to destabilize it.

    2) MM’s claim that Harvard’s ideas rule over the US is false. Sure I like the term Cathedral, but it implies that Hollywood is tied to Harvard, which it is not. Hollywood is run and staffed by a group of people (the ones that cannot be named) who have a very different set of morals than most everyone else; furthermore they put making money ahead of everything else, which means that Hollywood would be pushing gutter culture even if Harvard wasn’t talking about it. Look at the Iraq war, did the media support it? Yes, full blown support until the US started to loose. Did academia support it? Not in any way from start to finish. How was the war sold to the public? Bringing democracy to the middle east. Who bought this story? The conservatives, big business, and the media. Sure doesn’t look like Progressives were behind that policy decision. What MM is missing from his analysis is that the US enacts policies which are in the short term interest of it’s power elite (who are in fact the financial owners of the country). To get the public to support these policies, many times Progressive intellectual cover is used. Even if academia was dominated by conservatives, the power elite would still find the one odd academic who would provide intellectual cover for them; that is after all the role of the academy. Wailing on about the non-while immigration into the US as a Progressive scheme is nuts. The immigration is happening because the power elite need more babies to maintain the demographics in the face of sub-replacement white fertility rates. Without immigration, the US economy would collapse and the Empire with it. Do you really think that the power elite would risk losing the State and the Empire just to maintain racial harmony among the nation? Guess who is providing the intellectual cover for this? Progressives. And why it is almost always Progressives who provide the intellectual cover? Because Progressive means CHANGE, and that is what new policies are. Conservative means no change. If Progressives did not exist, the power elite would need to invent them. Instead of focusing your efforts on Progressives, instead focus on the power elite who are running the State in a very short term manner with no regard for the longevity of our civilization. We have adolescents for rulers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>