In my first entry on "creative destruction," I was under the impression that Joseph Schumpter, the originator of the phrase "creative destruction," understood it to mean that destruction CAUSES progress. In fact, he understood it to mean that whenever something is created, that something else is displaced or "destroyed," assuming that the idea is new and applied on a large scale. (See quotation in below entry.) Perhaps this is true, but I don't know how one would prove it. So, he considered the combination of creation and destruction to be the essence of progress.
Ironically, the "creation" of the idea of "creative destruction," I would guess, didn't really destroy anything because it's so obvious. Anyone with half a brain can see that as a new way of doing things comes along, that the old ways are generally abandoned, although the Amish are an exception (and perhaps the actual culprits behind the drive for a new dark age). Elevating it to the status of an "economic theory" seems so ludicrous that I figured there must have been an ulterior motive for doing so, and I believe that this motive is, once again, to wave Satanism and its drive to utterly destroy mankind forever under our noses and gloat over our obliviousness to it. In my opinion, "creative destruction" is actually a reference to the process of coming up with ideas on how to destroy civilization and mankind, a motive which would strike most people as fictional if it even came to their attention, but which helps to make sense of the economy-destroying Larry Summers' claim that Joseph Schumpeter is one of the greatest economists of all time. (This honor actually belongs to Lyndon LaRouche.)