As if deliberately setting out to taunt me, Kate Tennier of Toronto wants to coin
retro-progressive as a political neologism. Lloyd Alter, also of Toronto, has come up with an accompanying survey,
Are You a Retro-Progressive? With all due respect to deliberate primitivism and trend-story
thinking person’s terms, I don’t think they’ve quite gotten it. So, I offer my own survey, below.
Are you a
Do you agree or disagree with the following quotations? For each that you agree with, give yourself one point.
We know enough about agriculture so that the agricultural production of the country could be doubled if the knowledge were applied. We know enough about disease so that if the knowledge were utilized, infectious and contagious diseases would be substantially destroyed in the United States within a score of years; we know enough about eugenics so that if the knowledge were applied, the defective classes would disappear within a generation.
… the way of Nature has always been to slay the hindmost, and there is still no other way, unless we can prevent those who would become the hindmost being born.
(That’s notable Fabian H.G. Wells, in 1905, quoted in Paul (1995), p. 75.)
A rigid system of selection through the elimination of those who are weak or unfit — in other words social failures — would solve the whole question in one hundred years, as well as enable us to get rid of the undesirables who crowd our jails, hospitals, and insane asylums. The individual himself can be nourished, educated and protected by the community during his lifetime, but the state through sterilization must see to it that his line stops with him, or else future generations will be cursed with an ever increasing load of misguided sentimentalism. This is a practical, merciful, and inevitable solution of the whole problem, and can be applied to an ever widening circle of social discards, beginning always with the criminal, the diseased, and the insane, and extending gradually to types which may be called weaklings rather than defectives, and perhaps ultimately to worthless race types.
Bonus question. When you see the following picture…
… do you think (a)
Quaint, anti-consumerist, and ecologically responsible, or (b)
an ad-man’s glossy idealization of an underlying reality of unpaid labor, soul-killing drudgery, and patriarchal control? If (a), give yourself one point. If (b), your second-wave feminism isn’t trendily
retro enough for a movement that rhetorically identifies itself with the leading white male technocrats of the 1900s-1930s.
If you scored three or more, congratulations. Your beliefs are closely in line with those of the
retro Progressive movement. Now that’s some of that old time religion!