Skip to content

M. B. Moore Online Posts

Another Word on the APA

I had a series of posts on the APA’s convergence and the Progressive cult. beginning with this post. 

After reading Dreher’s comments again, I wanted to share this article on psychiatric abuse:


In 2002, Human Rights Watch published the book Dangerous Minds: Political Psychiatry in China Today and its Origins in the Mao Era written by Robin Munro and based on the documents obtained by him. The British researcher Robin Munro, a sinologist who was writing his dissertation in London after a long sojourn in China, had traveled to China several times to survey libraries in provincial towns and had gathered a large amount of literature which bore the stamp ‘secret’ but at the same time was openly available. This literature included even historical analyses going back to the days of the Cultural Revolution and concerned articles and reports on the number of people who were taken to mental hospitals because they complained of a series of issues. It was found, according to Munro, that the involuntary confinement of religious groups, political dissidents, and whistleblowers had a lengthy history in China.. The abuse had begun in the 1950s and 1960s, and had grown extremely throughout the Cultural Revolution. During the period of the Cultural Revolution, from 1966 to 1976, it achieved its apogee, then under the reign of Mao Zedong and the Gang of Four, which established a very repressive and harsh regime. No deviance or opposition in thought or in practice was tolerated


The documents told of a massive abuse of psychiatry for political purposes during the leadership of Mao Zedong, during which millions of people had been declared mentally sick.[ In the 1980s, according to the official documents, there was political connotation to fifteen percent of all forensic psychiatric cases. In the early 1990s, the numbers had dropped to five percent, but with beginning of the campaign against Falun Gong, the percentage had again increased quite rapidly.


Chinese official psychiatric literature testifies distinctly that the Communist Party’s notion of ‘political dangerousness’ was long since institutionally engrafted in the diagnostic armory of China’s psychiatry and included in the main concept of psychiatric dangerousness.[

Soon, a similar weaponization will occur in the United States. Conservatives, Men’s Rights Activists the Alt-Right, Homeschoolers, etc. Be prepared.

Leave a Comment

Freedom? A response to Georgia Free

The Youtuber, Georgia Free is someone worth watching, despite what disagreements you have with her. Sadly, she is part of the Jordan Peterson Cult–a group expertly called out by renegade blogger Vox Day in his essential book Jordanetics: A Journey Into the Mind of Humanity’s Greatest Thinker. 

So complete is Day’s take-down of Peterson, I plan on doing a multi-part review of the book on this blog once I’ve done a few more posts on the Girl Crisis.

But let me return to Georgia Free. Sadly, like many women who venture into politics on Youtube, her comments section is awash in MGTOWs and other assembled morons. I purposefully avoided making a Youtube channel, despite how much more effective it would be than a blog in terms of reaching an audience, simply because I consider Youtube a vile place where the far-left side of the IQ distribution goes to sperg it’s various spergings.

Now, I can certainly empathize with Men’s Rights Activists, and consider myself a man of the Right (broadly construed). I am certainly not a feminist. Indeed, my views are probably to the right of most “traditionalists” in terms of how family hierarchy ought to be construed. But there is a tendency for many men critical of feminism to immediately make the most brash and all-encompassing statements that surely contradict most of our everyday experience. “ALL WOMEN ARE JUST WHORES! WOMAN ARE INFERIOR! RED PILL! RED PILL! RED PILL!

Now, this attitude is largely confined to anonymous commentators far more than the more rational talk from men like Vox Day, Aaron Clarey or other members of various “Red Pill” Communities put forward. That Georgia puts up with this tripe is surely a feather in her cap.

But now, I turn my gaze to a recent video wherein I believe she committed numerous naive errors. I say so confidently, because I was once a Libertarian/Classical Liberal like she. I can remember when I would have dogmatically made such arguments as Georgia does in the below video:

Since most of her comment section is as predictably stupid as one could imagine on a topic like this, a more thorough analysis is in order.

Let me state at the outset what Georgia is not saying.She is not arguing from feminist position. She is not arguing that removing women’s right to vote is tantamount to oppression. (American commentors noting that women should not vote because they are not forcibly drafted–an argument first put forward by Canadian MRA Andrea Hardie–should note this is not the universal case in nations like Georgia’s native Australia.) Other arguments have been put forward against women’s voting, such as the disproportionate government spending on women relative to men. But again, this is not a strong or ethical case against female voting but only an argument that would hold true under very particular circumstances in the United States or West in general.

I will ignore the arguments–if they can even be called such–that women’s voting rights should be restricted because of the vast anti-male propaganda that feminism has spread throughout the West. This is not really an argument in the strict sense. Indeed, it does not even address whether or not women should vote, but make a case about special pleading on the part of men.

Georgia’s argument is much broader and deals more with political philosophy rather than the more practical arguments I’ve seen people provide above. Hence, the title of the video is almost deceptive. Georgia presents us with an argument not in favor of women voting, but an argument against restricting any person’s right to vote. Georgia’s case for not restricting female voting rights are follows:

  1. Self interest: She argues that the government which suppresses a certain group of people may inevitably wind up suppressing the people that initially supported such a maneuver. If you don’t want to be potentially suppressed yourself, better not to suppress anyone else.
  2. Fear of totalitarianism: While Georgia admits that democracies are far from perfect, if we remove the voting rights of women (or any group, for that matter) what safeguards might we have against other groups feeling the cruel grip of “That coldest of cold monsters,” as Nietzsche  described the state?
  3. Psychic Pleasures granted by freedom: Georgia claims that being free and knowing one is politically free because you know you have freedom to do as you please.
  4. Demographic Shift: Georgia makes the interesting argument that dictatorships such as in the Middle East, usually leave the least capable behind while the higher IQ populations drift to better, freer nations elsewhere. This, I find the most interesting of her arguments.

Now, I find each of these inadequate, and as a former Libertarian, I am in a unique position to see why. Let me address 1 & 2.

The self-interested fear of totalitarianism is certainly one the 20th century has taught us well. One can hear the moronic and Gnostic ramblings of Jordan Peterson in these objections, but nevertheless they deserve an answer. First, I must ask: was America–prior to the 19th Amendment in 1920–really a totalitarian society simply because it limited the rights of women or racial minorities from voting? Now, surely it was less free than today–that is, Americans surely enjoyed fewer rights than they do today. But was America truly comparable to the tyrannies of Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany or event the monarchies of ancient Europe? It is certainly true that slavery, which was abolished by the 13th amendment greatly expanded the rights of African-Americans who had been unjustly treated for over a century. Still, was the path forward for the United States–even with limited voting rights and slavery–truly a dictatorship? Or did America become ever more free, despite these limitations? Suppose we repealed the 19th amendment but kept the safe-guards against slavery and Jim Crow in place. Would that necessarily lead to a collapse into totalitarianism?

Further, we already restrict the rights of criminals and felons to vote in numerous states here in the United States–as elsewhere. This hardly makes America totalitarian.

Looking to other nations and cultures, we should look at India–the worlds largest democracy. India legalized gay marriage–thus expanding rights for one group of people–only to repeal the gay marriage laws a few years later. Now, we can let the Indian people debate how they would like to treat homosexuals in their own nation. But I must ask: Did this send India into a tyrannical tailspin? Is India a ruthless dictatorship now? Someone on Georgia’s side might note that homosexuals are still free to vote in India and that marriage and voting are not necessarily equal in the context. Fair enough. But I think Georgia’s point is that any restriction on freedom necessarily leads to tyranny.

Recall, Georgia is addressing political philosophy, not ethical philosophy here. That is, she not necessarily making an ethical argument but a political one. My point is certainly not to claim that all was perfectly fine in pre-19th Amendment America. There were surely injustices which required remittance. My point is that this hardly guarantees that a nation will inexorably slide into tyranny.

Now let us look at 3 & 4. Is it true that one has what economists would call “psychic pleasure” from freedom? Presumably. Psychic pleasure as many economists would dub it, is the notion that people do certain things simply because it brings them pleasure. Spending money on cigarettes is certainly bad for you, but it brings emotional relief, hence why people buy them. The smoker gets nothing but internal rewards for smoking. He gains nothing else. Now, is freedom–as a Classical Liberal like Georgia framed it–a bringer of such psychic pleasure? And, does this psychic pleasure justify freedom?

I would be willing to concede that it is. But I think this argument is vastly overblown. Allow me to explain. Most immigrants that came to the United States in the 20th century and more recently surely enjoyed a greater degree of freedom than they enjoyed in, say Italy or Mexico. But the vast majority came here for work, not freedom. And of the European immigrants over a third returned to Europe after a short time. Many Italian immigrants actually went back to a fascist dictatorship under Mussolini! Clearly they cared more about their in-group than they cared about freedom.

Finally there is the much more authoritarian China where voting beyond the most local of elections is prohibited. China restricts everyone’s right to vote. Christians are ruthlessly persecuted in China. Yet, China is one of the most prosperous societies on earth! It simply doesn’t follow that more authoritarian nations are less prosperous, or that people will flee them in droves.

As for 4): I think that my example of China disproves it. But for further explanation: I think Georgia–and Classical Liberals in general–hold a highly naive view of human nature. Indeed, they are almost indistinguishable from the Progressive Cult (which I have written about here.) They see our tribalism as a dark and dangerous thing which we need to overcome, rather than a fact of human life that shall be with us unto the end of the age. This naivete is one of the many reasons I abandoned Libertarianism. If psychology has taught us anything, it is that tribalism is baked so completely into the cake of who we are we’d be fools to try and remove it from our societies.

All I have to ask an individualist like Georgia: If you truly don’t want to identify with any group, do you consider yourself an Australian?

6 Comments

Pope Embraced By Freemasons

Presented without comment:

Today, from the Italian journalist Aldo Maria Valli, we present a new example from the Masons of the Grand Orient Lodge of Spain, who have praised Francis for his Christmas message, in which he expressed “a wish for fraternity” among “individuals of every nation and culture,” among “people with different ideas, yet capable of respecting and listening to one another,” and “among persons of different religions.”
This message has been interpreted by the Freemasons of Spain as compatible with their own values, despite a long enmity between the Church’s ideals and those of the Freemasons.

Leave a Comment

Steve Hsu’s gets the Ruling Class

From his excellent blog:

In Houellebecq on Tocqueville, Democracy, and Nietzsche (2015) I pointed out that most intellectuals and elites have been so strongly conditioned by the existing cultural hegemony that they cannot understand obvious realities about the world. In that case I referred specifically to Houellebecq’s previous novel Soumission.

Events since 2015 — Trump’s election and populist movements in Europe — have stimulated a vague (but distorted) understanding in the minds of brainwashed elites as to populist discontent, its causes and origins. The reaction of our “thought leaders” is to decry the (previously sacred) democratic process by which the masses exercise their limited influence on society.

Individuals who told me confidently before the election that Trump had no chance of winning now forget how wrong they were then. They continue to express great confidence in their understanding of world events and political/economic processes.

So few are capable of updating prior beliefs in the face of new information. So many are overconfident in their powers of rationality.

Hsu is a great man, and I have deep respect for him. He is entirely correct about the arrogance, disconnection from reality and general disdain the ruling elite have for the average Joe. Read the whole blog post by Dr. Hsu.

What is worse: I truly don’t believe they see the society-wide conflicts that are coming., that there will be a majority of people, of all races and religions throughout the West that will want their heads on the chopping block in the next ten years.

Leave a Comment

The Progressive Cult, Convergence and “Meta Bigotry”Part III


Indeed, so manifestly bigoted are these purported anti-bigots – so obviously moved are they by unreasoning hatred and malice rather than by calm and dispassionate argument – that it is astonishing that they could claim with a straight face to be anything other than bigots themselves.

Edward Feser

In Part I of this series I showed that modern Progressivism is actually a religious cult. In Part II I explained how the cult converges various institutions and silences heretics even innocent dissenters. In this post, I will explain the concept of Meta-Bigotry and how the Progressive Cult uses it to control and manipulate more broadly.

DEFINING META-BIGOTRY

The concept of Meta-Bigotry was coined by Dr. Edward Feser, philosopher and blogger. A bigot is certainly a troublesome and sometimes evil person.

The Meta-Bigot, however is far more insidious. The Meta-Bigot pretends to be fighting bigotry  while deploying his own forms of bigotry:

This is the deployment of epithets like “bigot” in a manner that is itselfbigoted.  We have seen some vivid examples recently, such as in the unhinged reaction of certain academic philosophers to Richard Swinburne’s controversial SCP talk, and in the mob that shut down Charles Murray’s lecture at Middlebury College. 

Thus, we can see that those decrying bigotry loudest today are often guilty of the very thing which they decry:

[P]eople like the foul-mouthed professors who had nothing but hatred and mockery to throw in Swinburne’s direction, and the students who violently disrupted Murray’s talk, are straight-from-central-casting bigots in the ordinary dictionary sense of the term.  They could not care less what Swinburne’s or Murray’s actual views or arguments are.  They “already know” they must be wrong.  Certainly they would never so much as entertain even the bare possibility that Swinburne or Murray might after all be right.  They responded to them precisely in terms of their own “preconceptions” (as Knasas puts it), “obstinately devoted” to their own liberal opinions (as Merriam-Webster puts it) and “intolerant” of conservative ones (as Oxford puts it).  Since they manifest this bigotry precisely under the guise of opposing bigotry, they are meta-bigots.

How could such a person exist? How could someone be so thoroughly disconnected from reality that they deploy the very thing they accuse others of using? Feser believes the answer lies in people’s simply forgetting the definition of what bigotry actually is.

Oxford defines a bigot as “a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.”  Merriam-Webster tells us that a bigot is “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.” 

These characterizations of bigotry are by no means eccentric or partisan.  They reflect longstanding English usage of the term.  Now, notice that on all of them, the nature and problematic status of bigotry are essentially procedural rather than substantive.  That is to say, they have to do, not with the content of the bigot’s beliefs, but with the manner in which he holds them.  The bigot is someone whose attachment to his beliefs is fundamentally emotional rather than rational.  He evaluates the evidence in light of his beliefs rather than evaluating his beliefs in light of the evidence.  He is reluctant or unwilling to give a fair hearing to opinions other than his own or to arguments against his own.  He tends to be hostile to those who hold those different opinions, prefers to avoid them altogether rather than engaging them and their views, and resorts to invective instead of reasoned debate.


The reason all of this is problematic, of course, is that bigotry gets in the way of our discovering truth.  If the bigot’s opinions are wrong, he is very unlikely to discover that they are, because he turns his mind violently away from all sources of information that might reveal his errors to him.  Even if he turns out to be right, that will be a matter of luck, for the manner in which he forms his opinions is so inherently unreliable that he is unlikely to be right very often or without a large admixture of error.

Since the Meta Bigot most likely has forgotten what bigotry was to begin with, he is no longer capable of looking at his own reflection:

Now, what has facilitated this forgetting of what bigotry actually is is a simple though fairly widespread confusion – namely the confusion of what is merely in some cases one particular kind of bigotry with what all bigotry is per se

In particular, one kind of bigotry can involve negative opinions concerning some group of people – whether an ethnic group, adherents of a certain religion, adherents of a certain political party, or whatever.  But it would be a mistake to identify bigotry with such negative opinions.  For one thing, not all bigotry involves having negative opinions about some group of people.  For example, a person might take so negative an attitude about some set of ideas – Heideggerian existentialism, evolutionary biology, British idealism, or whatever – that he is unwilling to give it a fair hearing or to be shown that his objections to it are based on misconceptions.  Such a person would be a bigot, even though his bigotry isn’t directed toward some ethnic or religious group or the like.

For another thing, not all negative opinions concerning some group of people are bigoted.  Take, for example, the claims that bureaucrats often evade responsibilitybusinessmen are often too concerned with the bottom linemany lawyers are more interested in gaming the system than in securing justice, and so forth.  These are negative opinions concerning large groups of people, but someone could certainly hold them in a way that is not bigoted.  For example, someone could sincerely believe that there is good evidence for these propositions, could nevertheless be open to hearing arguments and evidence to the contrary, could be perfectly willing to acknowledge that bureaucrats, businessmen, lawyers, etc. have their good points too, and so on.  These opinions may or may not be mistaken, but the fact that they are about groups of people does not necessarily make them bigoted.  (Another obvious example would be the claim that bigots are irrational.  That’s a negative opinion about an entire group of people, but it is hardly itself bigoted!)

META-BIGOTRY AS A WEAPON IN THE HANDS OF THE RELIGIOUS LEFT

We can see how Meta-Bigotry is now weaponized by the Religious Left. We can see how it is used by HR Department against rather innocuous men like James Damore. We can see it on display against comedians for decades old jokes.

But Meta Bigotry manifests in more ways than merely shouting students or converged HR Departments. It also manifests itself in the Associations I mentioned in Part II. The normally lack-luster Rod Dreher makes a good point when analyzing the latest claptrap from the American Psychological Association:

The more I think about it, the more Soviet this seems. Dissent from gender ideology (not just the transgender stuff, but the establishment’s view of what men and women are)? Well, then you must be insane. Expert opinion says so!

It is rare for me to agree with Dreher. But does anyone watching what’s taking place in the APA honestly think this is simply an innocent addition to forms of therapy? Does anyone think this won’t be used in the future to stigmatize men who do not conform to the current gender ideology? It is almost certainly another infection from the Progressive Cult. Indeed, it is a form of Meta-Bigotry, for it pretends to care about minorities and men, when it is actually an attack on men. It is a feat worthy of a group of the delusional.

CONCLUSION

The American Psychological Association is one in a long line of American institutions, from Silicon Valley, to the Comic Book Industry, to Hollywood, to Science Fiction publishing that was been fully converged. I predict we’ll see the Cult flex it’s muscles in the APA in more terrifying and noteworthy ways in the future.

Leave a Comment

The Progressive Cult, Convergence and “Meta-Bigotry” Part II


Whether you realize it or not, if you live in the West, you are currently engulfed in a civilization-wide cultural war that is taking place all around you. Maybe you’re aware of it, or maybe you’re not. It doesn’t matter. The cultural war is real and it is vicious. And unlike a traditional shooting war between different nations, in a cultural war there are no civilians. There are no neutral parties, since no fence-sitting is permitted, and there is no common ground to be found. No one is permitted to sit it out or refuse to take sides; sooner or later, you are going to be forced to declare yourself by either publicly submitting to the SJW Narrative or openly rejecting it

SJW’s Always Double Down by Vox Day

In Part I I looked at the Progressive Cult and showed that modern liberalism, especially as it is incarnated in so-called “Grievance Studies” is really a religious movement with roots in American Protestantism and our general need for what Jonathan Haidt calls “religious thinking.” Further, I showed that this type of thinking is unscientific and of no scholarly value. In this blog post, I will show how the most recent–and dangerous–manifestation of Progressivism has come to dominate institutions such as the American Psychological Association (APA).

CONVERGENCE AND ITS ROLE IN ATTACKING HERESY

The author Vox Day uses the term “Convergence” to describe when an institution has been completely taken over by what I call the Progressive cult. All but a handful of America’s Universities are currently convergered. For example take what happened to Libertarian scholar Charles Murray when he tried to give a public speech at Middlebury College.

A few months ago, AEI’s student group at Middlebury College invited me [Murray] to speak on the themes in Coming Apart and how they relate to the recent presidential election. Professor Allison Stanger of the Political Science Department agreed to serve as moderator of the Q&A and to ask the first three questions herself.
About a week before the event, plans for protests began to emerge, encouraged by several faculty members. Their logic was that since I am a racist, a white supremacist, a white nationalist, a pseudoscientist whose work has been discredited, a sexist, a eugenicist, and (this is a new one) anti-gay, I did not deserve a platform for my hate speech, and hence it was appropriate to keep me from speaking.

Murray has been accused of racism for some decades now because he co-authored a book with the late Richard Hernstein called The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life which claimed that socio-economic life outcomes are due largely to intelligence. Further, he and Hernstein argued that intelligence is largely genetic, and that intelligence varies across racial groups. Naturally, this caused the emotional hypochondriacs the Religious Left to assume he and Hernstein were Neo-Nazis of some sort (odd, since Hernstein was Jewish) and both Murray and the book were consigned to the outer darkness of public life. Now, you may not agree with Murray (and you probably haven’t read the book) but this blog post is not about Murray, intelligence or class structure. It’s about the reaction of the Progressive Cult to this news.

When Murray spoke at Middlebury, not only was he shouted down, he had to have a swarm of security guards help him safely to his car. One of the (left-wing) college professors who had invited him to campus got a concussion simply for standing by him. Now, you might think that someone so controversial as Murray deserves a good shouting–after all he has written what is alleged to be highly inflammatory things about race. But his talk at Middlebury had nothing to do with race.

Or take the sad case of the Society of Christian Philosophers (SCP) and how that converged institution treated the famous Russian Orthodox philosopher Richard Swinburne , when he submitted a paper to it’s members that homosexuality is a sin.

Now, Swinburne did not argue that homosexuals were per se evil. He did not argue for mistreating them. He did not claim they should be denied the same marriage rights–he simply argued that traditional Christian teaching on this point remain.

For this he was disavowed by the SCP president, a quisling of a man named Micheal Rea. You can read about the story here. 

ACADEMIC “ASSOCIATIONS” CONVERGED

The convergence of various institutions has continued apace. Universities and academic groups are especially prone to convergence since they are run by far-left academics and pander to far-left students. But they are hardly alone. The American Bar Association(ABA)–which certifies our law schools–is run by the Progressive Cult. Mark Pullian has done the yeoman’s work in this area.

As a lawyer and member of the California Bar Association. Pulliam has chronicled Law Schools. Rather than summarize his vast and fascinating work, I’ll simply link to a superb interview Pulliam recently did wherein he explains the devastating affect convergence has had on Law Schools:

The ABA is certainly not alone. The American Medical Association and now the American Psychological Association have been thoroughly converged. The mind of these organizations are closed to outside influence and are no longer real, academic organizations but are imprimaturs of the Progressive Cult.

HR DEPARTMENTS AS THE POINT OF CONVERGENCE

In his book SJW’s Always Double Down Vox Day notes how this process has occurred in America’s non-Academic institutions: Namely through the HR Departments of companies and government agencies.

HR Departments are an excellent way for male-dominant firms to create make-work jobs for women and thus not run afoul of Affirmative Action quotas. Most of the women in HR departments have some sort of grievance study background (especially in feminism) . These left-wing women are thus given control of the hiring process and are often in charge of the “corporate mission” of the company which can be warped to one which focuses on Social Justice. Slowly, the HR department will change the makeup of the company to reflect a much more feminist and converged institution.

Soon this convergence will hurt the institution itself, according to Day because the institution will begin to focus on Social Justice more than it’s original mission of serving it’s customers and shareholders.

This blog post has captured some of the problems with societies most important institutions being converged by the Progressive Cult. In the final analysis I’ll look at the concept of Meta Bigotry and how it is utilized by the Progressive Cult.

Leave a Comment

The Progressive Cult, Convergence and “Meta-Bigotry”

In my previous post, I used a few terms that need fleshing out. Also, I’ll delve deeper why and how certain institutions are being “converted” to the Cult of Progressivism. I also want to look into the concept of Meta-Bigotry.

THE PROGRESSIVE CULT

What do I mean by the phrase “Progressive Cult?” I mean that current crop of “Social Justice Warriors” are really just the latest and most Evangelical version of the “Progressive Movement” that began at the beginning of the 20th century. I would go further than most, and argue that modern, American Leftism is really an offshoot of Protestant Christianity that emerged during the Progressive Era (especially Feminism).

Before focusing on academic writers, I realize we’re entering a post-literate age. So, what better than a quick youtube video? Here’s the great psychologist Jonathan Haidt discussing things from a psychological perspective:

Before continuing , let’s summarize the important points Haidt makes: Modern Leftism (particularly as it exists on College Campuses) is a Fundamentalist Religion because 1) it reduces complex situations to having simple problems and solutions 2) the typical reaction to opposing viewpoints (i.e. heresy) is anger, not rational disputation. 3) it is highly tribal–it looks at the world as “Us vs. Them.”

Though Haidt doesn’t say so, I would argue that modern Leftism believes in all types of “spirits” that control our everyday lives. As one scholar pointed out:

I don’t deny or repudiate the psychological aspects of what I will call Religious Leftism. or the Progressive Cult. But for the purposes of this blog post, I’d like to take a more historical perspective on modern Progressive/Liberalism/Social Justice. Namely, that Progressivism is an offshoot of American Christianity. It has now officially converted the entire Western world.

ROTHBARD ON PROGRESSIVISM

Let’s look at some of the history of the Progressive movement. Obviously, whole books have been written on this topic, so for brevity’s sake let’s focus on certain key aspects of it. I’ll look at an essay by the economist Murray Rothbard (1926-1995) called “The Progressive Era and the Family:”

While the “Progressive Era” used to be narrowly designated as the period 1900–1914, historians now realize that the period is really much broader, stretching from the latter decades of the nineteenth century into the early 1920s. The broader period marks an era in which the entire American polity—from economics to urban planning to medicine to social work to the licensing of professions to the ideology of intellectuals—was transformed from a roughly laissez-faire system based on individual rights to one of state planning and control. In the sphere of public policy issues closely related to the life of the family, most of the change took place, or at least began, in the latter decades of the nineteenth century. In this paper we shall use the analytic insights of the “new political history” to examine the ways in which the so-called progressives sought to shape and control selected aspects of American family life

Rothbard goes into great detail about the divisions in American life at the time. Those divisions were typically ethno-religious. The most intense were between Catholic (and Lutheran) immigrants and the Pietist Protestants of America’s native stock. Progressive politics was birthed from Pietist politics in the twentieth century .

Progressivism was, to a great extent, the culmination of the pietist Protestant political impulse, the urge to regulate every aspect of American life, economic and moral—even the most intimate and crucial aspects of family life. But it was also a curious alliance of a technocratic drive for government regulation, the supposed expression of “value-free science,” and the pietist religious impulse to save America—and the world—by state coercion. Often both pietistic and scientific arguments would be used, sometimes by the same people, to achieve the old pietist goals. Thus, prohibition would be argued for on religious as well as on alleged scientific or medicinal grounds. In many cases, leading progressive intellectuals at the turn of the twentieth century were former pietists who went to college and then transferred to the political arena, their zeal for making over mankind, as a “salvation by science.” And then the Social Gospel movement managed to combine political collectivism and pietist Christianity in the same package. All of these were strongly interwoven elements in the progressive movement.

Feminism played a very important role in Progressivism:


By the 1890s, the liturgically oriented Democracy was slowly but surely winning the national battle of the political parties. Culminating the battle was the Democratic congressional victory in 1890 and the Grover Cleveland landslide in the presidential election of 1892, in which Cleveland carried both Houses of Congress along with him (an unusual feat for that era). The Democrats were in way of becoming the majority party of the country, and the root was demographic: the fact that most of the immigrants were Catholic and the Catholic birthrate was higher than that of the pietist Protestants. Even though British and Scandinavian immigration had reached new highs during the 1880s, their numbers were far exceeded by German and Irish immigration, the latter being the highest since the famous post-potato-famine influx that started in the late 1840s. Furthermore, the “new immigration” from southern and eastern Europe, almost all Catholic—and especially Italian—began to make its mark during the same decade.


The pietists became increasingly embittered, stepping up their attacks on foreigners in general and Catholics in particular. Thus, the Reverend T.W. Cuyler, President of the National Temperance Society, intemperately exclaimed in the summer of 1891: “How much longer [will] the Republic . . . consent to have her soil a dumping ground for all Hungarian ruffians, Bohemian bruisers, and Italian cutthroats of every description?”


The first concrete political response by the pietists to the rising Catholic tide was to try to restrict immigration. Republicans successfully managed to pass laws partially cutting immigration, but President Cleveland vetoed a bill to impose a literacy test on all immigrants. The Republicans also managed to curtail voting by immigrants, by getting most states to disallow voting by aliens, thereby reversing the traditional custom of allowing alien voting. They also urged the lengthening of the statutory waiting period for naturalization.


The successful restricting of immigration and of immigrant voting was still not enough to matter, and immigration would not really be foreclosed until the 1920s. But if voting could not be restricted sharply enough, perhaps it could be expanded—inthe proper pietist direction.


Specifically, it was clear to the pietists that the role of women in the liturgical “ethnic” family was very different from what it was in the pietist Protestant family. One of the reasons impelling pietists and Republicans toward prohibition was the fact that, culturally, the lives of urban male Catholics—nd the cities of the Northeast were becoming increasingly Catholic—evolved around the neighborhood saloon. The men would repair at night to the saloon for chitchat, discussions, and argument—nd they would generally take their political views from the saloonkeeper, who thus became the political powerhouse in his particular ward. Therefore, prohibition meant breaking the political power of the urban liturgical machines in the Democratic party.


But while the social lives of liturgical males revolved around the saloon, their wives stayed at home. While pietist women were increasingly independent and politically active, the lives of liturgical women revolved solely about home and hearth. Politics was strictly an avocation for husbands and sons. Perceiving this, the pietists began to push for women’s suffrage, realizing that far more pietist than liturgical women would take advantage of the power to vote.


As a result, the women’s suffrage movement was heavily pietist from the very beginning. Ultrapietist third parties like the Greenback and the Prohibition parties, which scorned the Republicans for being untrustworthy moderates on social issues, supported women’s suffrage throughout, and the Populists tended in that direction. The Progressive party of 1912 was strongly in favor of women’s suffrage; theirs was the first major national convention to permit women delegates. The first woman elector, Helen J. Scott of Wisconsin, was chosen by the Progressive party.


Perhaps the major single organization in the women’s suffrage movement was the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, founded in 1874 and reaching an enormous membership of 300,000 by 1900. 

There is much more to the story as Rothbard points out in his excellent book The Progressive Era, which is worth the price and the time.

Now, the obvious problem–that Haidt and Rothbard point out–is that what the Religious Left teaches is not scientific, nor even scholarly. Instead, it is simply propagandistic. But to further illustrate this point, let’s look at a brief (7min) documentary on three college professors who tried an experiment on feminist and other “grievance” studies:

Dog parks promote rape and Hitler was a feminist…yeah….

What these three academics show is that the Progressive Cult don’t really do science or scholarship at all but instead perform a kind of cult-reinforcement in their pseudo-journals (which are more like theological texts). Quoting from an excellent commentary on the above experiment:

Twenty years ago, Alan Sokal called postmodernism “fashionable nonsense.” Today, postmodernism isn’t a fashion—it’s our culture. A large proportion of the students at elite universities are now inducted into this cult of hate, ignorance, and pseudo-philosophy. Postmodernism is the unquestioned dogma of the literary intellectual class and the art establishment. It has taken over most of the humanities and some of the social sciences, and is even making inroads in STEM fields. It threatens to melt all of our intellectual traditions into the same oozing mush of political slogans and empty verbiage.
Postmodernists pretend to be experts in what they call “theory.” They claim that, although their scholarship may seem incomprehensible, this is because they are like mathematicians or physicists: they express profound truths in a way that cannot be understood without training. Lindsay, Boghossian, and Pluckrose expose this for the lie that it is. “Theory” is not real. Postmodernists have no expertise and no profound understanding.
Critics of Sokal point out that his paper was never subjected to peer review, and they say it was unfair to expect the editors of Social Text to spot errors concerning math and science. This time there are no excuses. LBP’s papers were fully peer reviewed by leading journals. The postmodernist experts showed that they had no ability to distinguish scholarship grounded in “theory” from deliberate nonsense and faulty reasoning mixed in with hate directed at the disfavored race (white) and sex (“cis” male).

Compare and Contrast:

For those interested in a Durkheimian analysis, on the Religious Left, see here.

In the next post, I’ll cover the topic of Convergence or conversion, whereby an institution–in this case the American Psychological Association–can be infected with this ridiculous and dangerous thinking.

Leave a Comment

The APA’s continuing convergance

This story confirms the American Psychological Association’s complete conversion to the Progressive Cult:

For the first time ever, APA is releasing guidelines to help psychologists work with men and boys.
At first blush, this may seem unnecessary. For decades, psychology focused on men (particularly white men), to the exclusion of all others. And men still dominate professionally and politically: As of 2018, 95.2 percent of chief operating officers at Fortune 500 companies were men. According to a 2017 analysis by Fortune, in 16 of the top companies, 80 percent of all high-ranking executives were male. Meanwhile, the 115th Congress, which began in 2017, was 81 percent male.
But something is amiss for men as well. Men commit 90 percent of homicides in the United States and represent 77 percent of homicide victims. They’re the demographic group most at risk of being victimized by violent crime. They are 3.5 times more likely than women to die by suicide, and their life expectancy is 4.9 years shorter than women’s. Boys are far more likely to be diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder than girls, and they face harsher punishments in school—especially boys of color.
APA’s new Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Boys and Men strive to recognize and address these problems in boys and men while remaining sensitive to the field’s androcentric past. Thirteen years in the making, they draw on more than 40 years of research showing that traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful and that socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage that echoes both inwardly and outwardly.
APA’s Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Girls and Women were issued in 2007 and, like the guidelines for men and boys, aim to help practitioners assist their patients despite social forces that can harm mental health. Many researchers who study femininity also work on masculinity: Several contributors to the guidelines for girls and women have also contributed to the new guidelines for boys and men.
“Though men benefit from patriarchy, they are also impinged upon by patriarchy,” says Ronald F. Levant, EdD, a professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Akron and co-editor of the APA volume “The Psychology of Men and Masculinities.” Levant was APA president in 2005 when the guideline-drafting process began and was instrumental in securing funding and support to get the process started.

Psychology is a field ripe for the picking of of the Progressive Cult. Therapy, in particular, is a field almost exclusively run by women, for women and since women are far more likely to be Social Justice Warriors it was only a matter of time before it reached a saturation point. Masculine men need not worry. Women will tell you how to be masculine!

This vision of masculinity may summon up an image of a closemouthed cowboy, à la John Wayne. But there’s more to masculinity than macho swagger. When the rules of manliness bump up against issues of race, class and sexuality, they can further complicate men’s lives.
For example, the masculine requirement to remain stoic and provide for loved ones can interact with systemic racism and lead to so-called John Henryism for African-American men, a high-effort method of coping that involves striving hard in the face of prolonged stress and discrimination. John Henryism has been linked with hypertension and depression (Journal of Black Psychology, Vol. 42, No. 3, 2016). Race, ethnicity and discrimination can also intersect with immigration status: As of fiscal year 2017, 68 percent of unaccompanied minors who crossed the border were male (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2018). Most of these children arrive from Central America and Mexico, fleeing gang violence (Journal on Migration and Human Security, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2015), an additional psychological stressor.
Other people’s perceptions of masculinity matter, too—and many of these perceptions are rooted in racial stereotyping. Y. Joel Wong, PhD, and colleagues have reported that at least among white college students, Asian-American men are viewed as less manly than white or black American men (Psychology of Men & Masculinity, Vol. 14, No. 4, 2013). Men and boys of color may also be viewed with suspicion by schools, law enforcement and others, leading to harsher punishments compared with white men and boys, says Christopher Liang, PhD, a psychologist at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania who helped draft the guidelines.

“Boys and men of color [are] dealing with all their hurts and their struggles in ways that are consistent with masculinity,” Liang says. “So, ‘be tough,’ and ‘don’t show your hurts.’ And they have to do this in a system where their behaviors are looked upon more negatively than boys and men from different groups.”

And, don’t worry! We’ll see a shift to the transgender side of things soon enough:

Prior to the second-wave feminist movement in the 1960s, all psychology was the psychology of men. Most major studies were done only on white men and boys, who stood in as proxies for humans as a whole. Researchers assumed that masculinity and femininity were opposite ends of a spectrum, and “healthy” psychology entailed identifying strongly with the gender roles conferred by a person’s biological sex. {Emphasis added–MB]

This is to be expected. The APA is just one in a long, long list of “associations” that have been converged by radical ideologues. A more in depth view of these entities, and the damage they do is beyond the scope of a simple blog post. I’ll go into more detail next.

Adult men (especially straight, white men) should avoid young therapists, especially young relationship therapists . I would strongly advise such men from avoiding a career as a therapist or psychiatrist–unless you enjoy being discriminated against.

UPDATE: While I certainly have my problems with the folks in this video, the analysis of two therapists of the way in which feminism harms relationship counselling is both informative and highly useful to young men. It’s lengthy, but worth watching:

Leave a Comment

Satan in the Vatican

Taylor Marshall interview’s James Grein about his abuse at the hands of McCarrick.

When I began studying child abuse in the Catholic Church almost six years ago, the topic Satan-worship cropped up a few times. I was initially skeptical. But the evidence against Cardinal Bernadin was too much to ignore:


While the threats against Brady are unsettling, there are indications that those who delve too deeply into the connection between clerical homosexuality and child abuse – finding perversion slipping into an abyss of satanic ritual – may pay for their curiosity with their lives.

God help the institutional Catholic Church. But for God’s sake don’t support it.

Leave a Comment