On “progressivism” and barbarism
Just today I discovered this essay written in December of 2023 by Benjamin Kerstein. It’s entitled “The rise of barbaric progressivism,” and subtitled “Antisemitism, racial hierarchy, violence, and an alliance with radical Islam have seized the commanding heights of the movement.” The phenomenon has only become clearer and more intense since then, but it was already apparent. What sounds as though it might be an oxymoron – “progressivism” allied with “barbarism” – is nothing of the sort. Instead, it is perhaps inevitable, a built-in feature of the former.
Kerstein writes:
Shortly before he died in the late 1930s, Sigmund Freud, by then a refugee from Nazism, wrote, “We live in very remarkable times. We find with astonishment that progress has concluded an alliance with barbarism.” He was referring to the rise of fascism and communism, and their combination of the most modern forms of science, technology, economic theory, and even aesthetics with the most horrific and savage forms of violence and sadism.
Freud was a man of the Enlightenment—perhaps the last man of the Enlightenment—and equated modernity with progress and civilization. Thus, to witness the degradation of modernity as it comingled with the kind of animalistic brutality that he saw as belonging to earlier and less enlightened stages of human history was shocking to him, as it was to many.
His obsession with this problem dated back to the carnage of World War I, in which the most “civilized” part of the world had turned itself into a technological charnel house that consumed millions of lives seemingly without reason. In the face of this, Freud eventually reached very dark conclusions about human nature and the nature of human civilization. He concluded that because civilizational progress required greater and greater repression of the most basic human drives, people are more and more repressed and unhappy the more they progress and the more civilized they become. Eventually, this repression cannot hold, and the savage energies built up beneath centuries of sublimation explode in periodic eruptions of horrendous violence and destruction. Progress, in other words, leads inexorably toward barbarism.
It’s become fashionable and commonplace to denigrate Freud and even mock him, but by no means was he wrong about everything. In this case, I believe he was right, although he didn’t go far enough.
Kerstein’s entire essay is worth reading and contains many thoughts that could each be a springboard to a lengthy post or even a book, but I’ll just say a few things here. The first is that “progressives” have hijacked the word “progress,” because the progress they propose is illusory and only a dream. It is also wedded with barbarism not merely because of what Freud asserted – which I believe is correct – but also because it contains an unrealistic Utopianism that goes so strongly against human nature that it requires totalitarianism to attempt to implement it, and totalitarianism requires barbarism.
Or, as one of my favorite quotes from Milan Kundera states (found in his Book of Laughter and Forgetting):
…human beings have always aspired to an idyll, a garden where nightingales sing, a realm of harmony where the world does not rise up as a stranger against man nor man against other men, where the world and all its people are molded from a single stock and the fire lighting up the heavens is the fire burning in the hearts of men, where every man is a note in a magnificent Bach fugue and anyone who refuses his note is a mere black dot, useless and meaningless, easily caught and squashed between the fingers like an insect.
There’s a seamless progression from lyricism to violence: no matter if it begins in idealistic dreams of an idyll, the relinquishment of freedom in always-futile attempts to impose that dream and make it reality will end up with humans being crushed like insects. And “progressives” (leftists) will in the main applaud and justify the crushing.
However, the current alliance of progressivism with Islamic jihadism may seem odd. And yet, as Kerstein writes, it’s not odd at all:
… [P]rogressivism’s increasing antisemitism … naturally leads it to align with fellow antisemites. Statistics have consistently shown that the Muslim nations are the most antisemitic in the world. …
Progressives share more with radical Islam than hatred of Jews, however. For example, both movements have an essentially messianic worldview. Islam has its final day of judgment and the progressives their blessed society. The two groups are also obsessed with the same alleged evils, such as imperialism, American foreign policy, and Western civilization in general. The alliance further plays to progressives’ obsession with race, as they have convinced themselves that all Muslims are “people of color” (they aren’t) and therefore oppressed by “white people” (they aren’t). Despite the Muslim world’s considerable trade in black African slaves, which continues to this day in various forms, progressives have decided that radical Islam is simply pursuing the shared task of overturning the global racial hierarchy and defeating “white supremacism.” That the Islamic radicals seek to replace it with Muslim supremacism does not perturb the progressives, as they likely consider it just revenge for centuries of depredation.
Most important of all, however, is that most of today’s progressives and all radical Muslims are against freedom. In the case of radical Islam, this is obvious, as they make no pretense of valuing freedom, and the movements and regimes they have built are, without exception, brutally oppressive, violent, terroristic, and totalitarian. In the case of progressives, the issue is less clear-cut, as they publicly proclaim that they value freedom, particularly for oppressed groups. But if we examine progressive actions rather than rhetoric, a different picture emerges.
Please read the whole thing; food for thought.
I think Ben Shapiro’s new book, “Lions and Scavengers ” echos the same idea from the interview I saw this morning with him on Megyn Kelly. He places the progressives/leftists et al as the scavengers…they don’t produce but just tear down.
I’m ordering the book.
Twain said it simpler and possibly better, “If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man.”
A few months ago I came across a video on YouTube in which Melanie Philips (Phillips?) explains the “Achilles heel” of progressives. She begins by explaining what motivates progressives, this is what they believe, those beliefs or positions are what make them *good* persons. But by supporting Palestinianism and Hamas they are supporting barbarism and evil, and that means they are not good persons, they are evil. And progressives can’t bear or stand up to that accusation.
I searched my watch history, did a YouTube search, and cannot find the video. Will try again later. I appreciated her effort to push back hard on the “I am a good person” narrative to which progressives cling.
This isn’t the video but this article is very close to what she said = https://www.jpost.com/opinion/as-i-see-it-those-nice-israel-bashers-achilles-heel-443934
“But they think of themselves as fair, decent, progressive. This is where they are vulnerable. For like Ban, they also tend to be remarkably thinskinned.
That’s because their image of themselves really is all that matters to them. They don’t care about the world’s victims. They care about being seen to care.
They think of themselves as nice people. We have to show them that they are not. Self-regard is everything to them. It is therefore their Achilles’ heel.
We should puncture it.”
Are the United Arab Emirates totally “against freedom”? If they are, why do so many companies flock to Dubai?
Do radical (yet pragmatic) Muslims understand something about economic freedom most of the entitled Westerners don’t?
(They still cull one’s arm as a punishment for theft, or for not paying back one’s debt. I wish we did.)
maybe it was this one,
https://www.facebook.com/amishousepod/videos/why-the-far-left-cant-support-israel-melanie-phillips-breaks-it-down-israel-isra/1026827289537767/
Not sure that’s gonna work.
If Israel in an oppressor, colonial, illegitimate ZIONIST entity, then for those who supposedly should be tying themselves into ethical knots—as per Melanie Phillips—it IS UNEQUIVOCABLY—the cutting edge of morality that Israelis be attacked, mutilated, raped, kidnapped, starved, tortured, murdered and destroyed utterly.
To be sure, it shouldn’t be this way…but…I’m sure you know the old “They brought it on themselves” trick (or inversion or rationalization).
In this case, they brought it on themselves by so selfishly refusing—thus far, at least—to be destroyed.
The usual suspects are trying their best to hammer home the message that the world’s patience s running out with Israel’s selfish recalcitrance.
And—sorry to have to break it to you—they can feel this way because in spite of everything they TRULY BELIEVE they ARE the good guys….
Either that, or the Israelis/Jews are so indescribably EVIL that anything done to them to effectively their destruction is permitted, justified, BLESSED.
Oops.
Should be “…to effect their destruction…”
the mystery series vienna blood, by frank tallis, describes the milieu in which a freud type character is a consulting detective, to the police, who has all the stock notions of analysis, its set in the era of the nationalists like Karl Lueger who inspired Hitler, in the time right before the Great War, which unleashed the barbarism that toppled the Hohenzollern Hapsburg and Romanov empires, that birthed fascism and communist,
but by insisting that the Id is natural, that conscience and discretion are repression, he made it hard for people to resist these forces, Weimar’s flurry of expression, often lead to violence and chaos, along with the background of economic uncertainty, that was bookended in 1923 and 1931, with the devaluation and the collapse of the Creditanstalt bank
well every marvel villain thinks himself justified, so does every bond villain, some coincide like Thanos and Hugo Drax
“in spite of everything they TRULY BELIEVE they ARE the good guys….” Barry Meislin
“Man is not a rational animal. He is a rationalizing animal.” R.A. Heinlein
Which is WHY the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It takes rationalizing to excuse what, if done to us, we would unhesitatingly declare to be an evil.
“Goodness without wisdom always accomplishes evil.” R.A. Heinlein
Communism, Socialism, Nazism and Fascism are all based on envy, resentment and hatred of The Other. These philosophies/ideologies are destructive by nature.
Islam is based on utter submission by its followers but its adherents are then rewarded by taking non-believers property and women. The Koran, Sira and Hadiths are replete with these stories. It is also totally destructive and it too is based on resentment, envy and hatred of The Other.
The joining of Islam and these (4) ideologies was/is the most natural of alliances.
Communist China is not an exception as it allies itself with Islam all over the world while it enslaves its own Muslims as it understands the threat.
How does this all end? Lots of outcomes. Depends on the will of those who are not in either camp. Watch Israel carefully and say Baruch Hashem for the recreation of Israel.
The Left went from “Joy” to “fight, fight” in less than 3 months. It feels like a cheap reboot of the anti-war marches of the 60’s right now, but with billionaire money creating the vibe.
“Vanity of vanities. All is vanity.” Intellectual and moral vanity drives the left. Ultimately, they are insecure people who need to reassure themselves that they are both good and smart.
In my humble opinion, no Conservative or Moderate American should ever use the term Progressive. Regressive is the appropriate term
The Regressive Left is very fond of re-inventing language with the clear intent to obfuscate. We should have our counter punches prepared when they do so.
neo writes, “‘progressives’ have hijacked the word ‘progress,’ because the progress they propose is illusory and only a dream,” and Oldflyer (8:56 pm) beats me to the punch when he insists that “no Conservative or Moderate American should ever use the term Progressive.”
Ever since I can remember I have vehemently objected to the term “progressive” as it is currently used in the mainstream culture. Towards what is the (so-called) “progressive” progressing? It’s used as an upbeat, forward-sounding term to to mask — what?
To mask a doctrinaire left, collectivist agenda, more recently summed up in “woke”ism. To mask a drive towards “an unrealistic Utopianism that goes so strongly against human nature that it requires totalitarianism to attempt to implement it [neo’s words].”
No thanks. Practically any time I use the annoying term “progressive”, it is preceded by “(so-called)”. And that applies especially should I find myself in a conversation with one of them. But thankfully, that has not happened in a very long time now.
(Is my reputation preceding me? [grin] ‘Cause I don’t suffer “progressives” gladly. H#ll, I don’t suffer “progressives” period.)
Kerstein’s is a brilliant exposition of why Progs are and always will be tyrants.
The motto on the home page of https://www.frontpagemag.com/ Frontpage magazine is
Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out” —David Horowitz
Very true.
Similar to what my father, who was a survivor, used to say: There is one big Hitler because there are many little Hitlers.
@ Oldflyer [“Regressive is the appropriate term.”] and MJR:
Lorenzo From Oz describes the Leftist’s desire to transition to their future utopia as justified by the fact that the future provides no metrics or data or feedback as to how it will be achieved that could disturb their image of their goal. In contrast, the past and present are full of a mix of data or information about past evil, failures, mistakes, errors, etc., along with an occasional item of goodness, benefit, prosperity, etc. But an emphasis on the past evil drives their image to fix it. Plus of course so many fit Sowell’s concept of people with an unconstrained vision, that humanity is perfectible, etc. and can move (or be moved) past “original sin”.
A great post and comments. I wish I could add something, but all I can say is that the problems of these times are becoming better defined and clear.
Those who love freedom, personal and economic, must be ready to defend it or it will be taken away. So far that means voting and supporting pro-freedom candidates. At some point it may require a willingness to fight fire with fire.
Is there an issue with the site, which makes it look more like circa 2ooo? I presume it’s a site issue, and not my computer. It’s kind of nice for a change.
RE: Delusion–
Further developments on the (apparently only three) whack jobs squatting in a Scottish forest, claiming to be members of the black kingdom of Kubala, and living on land they claim to have been stolen from their tribe hundreds of years ago.*
Bet you didn’t know about all of those black tribes wandering around Scotland hundreds of years ago.
Neither did I.
* See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08tQV7ZI0ro
Too many generalizations on threads like these.
People join these movements for various reasons, some of which are subconscious. Many “freedom fighters” fetishize oppressive brutality because it’s hard work to be a freethinking, self-directed Westerner – especially if you didn’t have a Daddy – and they really want to surrender all that troublesome autonomy and responsibility. The comfort of social confirmation is enough for them.
But they will never admit it…
Of course there are others who crave that coercive power over others.
And others who just want a comfortable union sinecure, and will mouth DEI pieties to get it.
It is worthwhile to remember that Leftist political movements are like those Decorator Crabs that stick bits of coral to their shells as camouflage… there is always a hard core of power hungry sociopaths, who draw around themselves a cadre of Useful Idiots:
-Dreamers
-Comfortable role-players who confuse teenage rebellion and revolution
-The damaged, stupid, and angry,
It is very important to assess whether you are talking to a career Marxist, a messianist True Believer, or a dilettante (angry or dreamy).
——————
Another sad truth underlying all this is that freedom and autonomy really are the passion of the few. The majority really do want to be directed, just like they want to be protected… but in modern times they won’t admit it.
Successful conservative movements (like MAGA) walk a line between flattering talk of freedom and “populist” policies that appeal to human nature.
It’s all about POWER, the gaining of and the use of, for the ” good” of the populace.
I’m back!
I’ve said this before, BenDavid should be ready and reread. By the way the progs don’t care.
“Freud was a man of the Enlightenment—perhaps the last man of the Enlightenment—and equated modernity with progress and civilization. Thus, to witness the degradation of modernity as it comingled with the kind of animalistic brutality that he saw as belonging to earlier and less enlightened stages of human history was shocking to him, as it was to many.”
The Calendar is Not Ominpotent:
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/55571.html
You can easily go to far with this line of reasoning. For instance, while historically the progress of civilization repressed the natural appetites of the working classes, that is hardly the case in our affluent society today. Similarly, unrealistic dreams of utopia are no excuse to dismiss the possibilities of eutopia (from the Greek eu = good + topos = place, hence “a good place”) which differs from utopia (“no place”) in being a possible as opposed impossible ideal, given the existing state of a societies political, economic, and technological development.
To put some bones on this abstract claim, see here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00U0C9HKW
Liberal is divergent. Progress is monotonic. Conservation is moderate. Principles matter. #HateLovesAbortion
To follow up on my previous post here, I just read the first 3 chapters of Shapiro’s book…it’s good. He has sub-classifications of the “scavengers” one of which are barbarians aligning with Neo.
JJ wrote: “Those who love freedom, personal and economic, must be ready to defend it or it will be taken away.”, which is how Shapiro is framing the demise of the “lion pride”. In his metaphor the pack of scavengers are always ready to take out the pride one by one if the pride is not vigilant.
Oh noes
https://x.com/SenMikeLee/status/1963627366585942483
Maybe the Kubala were blackened by coal mining?
====
Another good comment by BenDavid!
Luke Lea, thank you for making that book very, very affordable. (Ordered) Perhaps that’s the economics of Galt’s Gulch.
@Oldflyer
> In my humble opinion, no Conservative or Moderate American should ever use the term Progressive. Regressive is the appropriate term
The core “Progressive” belief is that it is proper to use wartime means to achieve peacetime goals.
I am trying to get the term “mobilizationist” adopted, as it signifies exactly that.
It’s specific, self-explanatory, and isn’t outright judgmental.
We really dodged a bullet
https://www.theblaze.com/news/tim-kaine-shockingly-compares-the-declaration-of-independence-to-iran-s-theocratic-regime-extremely-troubling?utm_source=theblaze-
To paraphrase Samuel Adams (a real revolutionary, by the way), these leftists prefer the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom.
I offer them Samuel Adams’ advice from the same quote: “May posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
JJ 11:39 is correct re fighting for our freedom.
The Left is pushing vigorously for a confrontation that I believe will inevitably lead to a shooting war in America. We better be ready for it.
@ Mitchell – thank you for the reminder from The Other Adams.
The Democrats are rather annoying in their claim to be the “resistance” or “revolution” when they control the vast majority of the institutions of government and society.
Not having the Presidency and majorities in Congress really sticks in their collective craw, but those are just about the only thing they lack at the moment.
@ miguel – Aside from the astounding ignorance shown by Kaine, he fails to distinguish Which God? and What Rights?
The Muslims may believe that everything comes from their god Allah, but there are not a lot of Rights, as Americans define them, included in that dogma.
PS Mr Kerstein’s post is outstanding. As Neo said: RTWT.
— BenDavid
Yes, you have to work with human beings as they are. Anything else leads you down the dangerous utopian road.
But as Lincoln observed about freedom:
Most people really do want freedom, but by the word they mean specific things which often contradict what other people mean by freedom. You can’t evaluate freedom and tyranny outside the cultural context, and many forms of freedom require things of the surrounding society to be meaningful.
Nobody gets to be autonomous. Period. Autonomy and personal freedom and liberty don’t necessarily correlate. The closest you can come to personal autonomy is a lone existence in the wilderness. That person is maximally autonomous and his life is likely to be nasty, brutish, and short.
I’ve used this example before: the ‘trans’ fantasy. It’s already legal in most places to dress as the opposite sex (at least in your own home or on the public street), to pretend to be the opposite sex. In that sense, the ‘trans’ people already had full freedom to live their preferred lifestyle.
But it was worthless because for their fantasy of freedom to be fulfilled, other people have to affirm it. Which conflicts with other’s people’s freedom to not lie about the gender of the trans person.
If I define freedom as being able to drive my car as fast as I want, whenever I want, traffic laws impinge on my freedom. But people living in a residential area want the freedom not to have a lunatic drive his car through a populated area full of kids and pets and pedestrians at 120 mph. My freedom to drive as I please conflicts with their freedom to be safe.
Real life is all about these compromises. Abstract principle is fine as long as it stays abstract, as soon as you’re dealing with the real world the compromises begin.
Which is also why cultural diversity and personal freedom/liberty generally track inversely. The more culturally homogenous the society, usually the more its members can agree on what freedoms are reasonable and which are not.
It’s not that most people want to be slaves or directed. It’s that conflicting definitions of freedom are in play.
I agree with Kundera. We are always trying to get back to the Eden before the original sin. The longer I am around (65 now), the more I realize my faith was right. Human systems never succeed. Left, right, conservative, liberal. It’s all a different flavor of failure.
Reading Seraphim Rose’s book Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future was like reading a book from someone looking at the future and describing it to me.
https://www.spring-lake.net/pdfs/religion/ortho-barth/Orthodoxy%20and%20the%20Religion%20of%20t%20-%20Seraphim%20Rose.pdf