IMO the Economist's version of "progressivism" has shifted to be more aligned with the World Economic Forum's version of "progressivism". Some might even say, i

IMO the Economist's version of "progressivism" has shifted to be more aligned with the World Economic Forum's version of "progressivism". Some might even say, in lockstep with the WEF at this point. IMO the newer brand is more aligned with the Third Reich's version of progressivism than the version I grew up believing in which is a generally non-invasive benovalent advancement of the human race. One might do well to research the roots of "progressivism"; it's a very nice sounding word with some really evil origins, and the confusing thing is, it's evolutionary existence across decades has states where it was more good than evil.