Author Topic: Leftists against progressivism  (Read 526 times)

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2852
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Leftists against progressivism
« on: September 13, 2020, 12:04:09 am »
OLD CONTENT

Progressivism itself is a Western idea, therefore it is impossible to be anti-Western while remaining progressive.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

Quote
Progressivism is the support for or advocacy of improvement of society by reform.[1] It is today largely synonymous with left-of-centre political ideology.

This is what we are here to change.

Quote
As a philosophy, it is based on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition.

Literally everything about this statement is opposed to True Left thinking.

Firstly, concern merely for "the human condition" would make us moral humanists, which we are not. We are moral universalists, which implies that we do not consider non-humans an exploitable out-group for the sake of the human in-group. And immediately we have an example of how moral universalism clashes with progressivism: scientific/technological research, most notably in Western medicine, requiring experimentation on animals whose participatory consent was never sought. Progressives, even if they can be made to agree that animals should not be needlessly subjected to violence, will however argue that progress is a valid "need" justifying violence whenever such violence is the only way to achieve progress. Only by courageously rejecting the value of progress altogether are we on firm ground to stand unequivocally against violence. Thus not only do we oppose all further research involving violence, but also we wish to eliminate all technology founded on such research already done, such as Western medicine itself, not least as a token of respect for the victims of the past. (For this reason, the True Left is proud to own the label "Regressive Left" applied to us by rightists originally intended as an insult, even if we do not agree with all its ascribed characteristics according to rightists.)

Secondly, what is "advancement"? According to progressivists, advancement is to be equated with accumulation: MORE science/technology is better, a LARGER and/or MORE COMPLEX economy/society is better, and so on. In such a perspective, there is no completion point. No matter how much advancement occurs, further advancement is always imaginable and thereupon worthy to strive for. This is what progressivism really means: absence of a definable mission (which demands a fixed completion point as part of the definition), and in its place an open-ended journey which (conveniently) permits unlimited self-congratulation along the way - a Western attitude to the core. In short, to progressives, "advancement" means indefinite movement away from the starting point. We, in contrast, recognize that advancement is only meaningful as definite movement towards the completion point, which is necessarily a process of simplification, as the nearer we get to our destination, the more knowledge/technqiues/equipment/plans/etc. (that we previously needed to get us to where we are now) can be DISCARDED, and only that which necessary for making the remainder of the journey need be retained. In this understanding, progressivism (which is trivially identifiable as a form of accumulationism) is actually moving the world away from the completion point, and thus is an outright enemy of our mission.

Quote
Progressivism became highly significant during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from uncivilized conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society.[2] Figures of the Enlightenment believed that progress had universal application to all societies and that these ideas would spread across the world from Europe.[2]

In other words, the original progressivists were at least Eurocentrists and in some cases neocons. This is why it is absurd for leftists to associate with progressivism.

Quote
The meanings of progressivism have varied over time and from different perspectives. The contemporary common political conception of progressivism in the culture of the Western world emerged from the vast social changes brought about by industrialization in the Western world in the late 19th century, particularly out of the view that progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality between the rich and the poor; minimally regulated laissez-faire capitalism with monopolistic corporations; and intense and often violent conflict between workers and capitalists, thus claiming that measures were needed to address these problems.[3] Early progressivism was also tied to eugenics[4][5][6] and the temperance movement.[7][8]

You see how much of a sick joke progressivism is. Industrialization itself would be classified as "advancement" by progressivists, yet industrialization has created massive new problems which never existed before, while solving none of the old problems but only exacerbating them by increasing (via population explosion, territorial spread, etc.) the scale of size on which the same problems (plus the new ones!) now have to be solved. But instead of hence realizing that industrialization should never have happened, and laying the blame for it on Western civilization, progressivists merely complain that social "advancement" has failed to keep pace with economic "advancement", and thus make it their new aim to bring on the necessary social "advancement"! In other words, instead of realizing that the "advancement" that has already happened is harmful and must be reversed ASAP, progressivists double-down, believing that another round of "advancement" is the answer to problems created by the previous round of "advancement"! It is the equivalent of taking one drug to offset the side-effects of another drug, instead of immediately quitting as a sensible person would do. But the point is that progressivists are not sensible people; they are long-term addicts to Western civilization, who should be viewed the way we view other long-term drug addicts. (The irony of progressivism supporting the temperance movement.....)

As for eugenics, progressivists fantasize about "advancement" on the biological level, namely breeding a human type genetically optimized for endless scientific, technological, economic and every other type of "advancement" at maximum speed, basically a race of super-Westerners, who would no doubt soon expand human habitation beyond Earth. This, a definitive milestone of "advancement" set by Western civilization, is however one of the worst nightmares of the True Left. We are, if anything, thankful that a significant number (albeit proportionately far too few) of genetic anti-Westerners (such as ourselves) exist to hold back the world from progressivism. If not for us, the progressivist fantasy might already have become reality.

---

I think one major attitude which causes False Leftists to latch on to progressivism is their "temporal tribalism" and belief in the myth that the passage of time always brings about social 'progress'. Somehow, the irony that it is [current year], and yet racism social ills are increasing, is lost. (But perhaps the technological advancement which tends to come with time is more important to them than social justice, afterall?)

It was not long ago that prominent leftists rejected the myth of time and did not believe the curing of social ills was inevitable.

Quote
"I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth of time. I received a letter this morning from a white brother in Texas which said, "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but is it possible that you are in too great of a religious hurry? It has taken Christianity almost 2000 years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." All that is said here grows out of a tragic misconception of time. It is the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time is neutral. It can be used either destructively or constructively. I am coming to feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. We must come to see that human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and persistent work of men willing to be coworkers with God, and without this hard work time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation."

-Martin Luther King, Letter from Birmingham Jail (1963).

Although he uses the vocabulary of 'progress', it seems the underlying sentiment goes against progressivism. The "white moderates" cite the endless movement of time away from the life of Jesus as the "progress" of his teachings. Meanwhile, King makes it clear that the mission of ending racism is still far from being completed, and hence that we are not moving towards a world where Jesus's teachings have been successfully implemented.

Quote
And immediately we have an example of how moral universalism clashes with progressivism: scientific/technological research, most notably in Western medicine, requiring experimentation on animals whose participatory consent was never sought. Progressives, even if they can be made to agree that animals should not be needlessly subjected to violence, will however argue that progress is a valid "need" justifying violence whenever such violence is the only way to achieve progress.

This is one of the things that disgusts me most about so-called "bleeding heart" liberals. Progressives, via technological advancement, have turned our world into a place where these bone-chilling torture facilities are not only common place, but considered "absolutely necessary" to sustain the status quo of Western civilization:

www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a26038/the-blood-of-the-crab/

If a synthetic manufacturing process becomes widespread and renders it unnecessary to keep torturing the crabs (read: if synthetic processing becomes more profitable than capturing the dwindling-supply of crabs), Western civilization junkies will pat themselves on the back for achieving a world where people are "too kind and advanced" to exploit crabs. In reality, in such a scenario the world would merely be reverting to the torture-free state which existed prior to the completely unnecessary "advancement" of crab torture in the first place.

Quote
but only exacerbating them by increasing (via population explosion, territorial spread, etc.) the scale of size on which the same problems (plus the new ones!) now have to be solved.

With these increases in size, so too has their hubris increased. There are more slaves today than at any point in history (30 million individuals). But I have seen many progressives, who desire at all costs to maintain the narrative that social justice is "progressing" with time, assert that because the proportion of slaves out of the total population is decreasing, the issue of slavery has actually made great social progress over the past few centuries. Slavery is, per capita, less prevalent in the West than it was hundreds of years ago, and therefore out of sight and out of mind.

This is a disgusting trivialization of the fact that the victims of slavery are individuals. One individual being enslaved and tortured in 1800 is the same as one individual being enslaved and tortured in 2018. One life is forever changed. The individual scale does not change as the population increases--one individual remains one individual; one life; one set of experiences. Imagine if all the enslaved individuals from 1800 were standing together in a large crowd. As the centuries go by, the crowd only expands--not shrinks... More individuals have been enslaved and added to the crowd (and this visualization does not even consider that the individuals from 1800 are all dead in 2018--i.e. the population of slaves has not merely been at a neutral "replacement rate" of growth, but has always been growing). With the number of slaves that exist today, all of the 1800s colonial plantations could not only be completely repopulated and recreated, but expanded. Yet that is considered "progress" to many who do not deserve to call themselves leftists.

Quote
There are, shockingly, more people in slavery today than at any time in human history - but campaigners think the world is close to a tipping point and that slavery may be eradicated in the next 30 years.

The estimated number of people in slavery - 27 million - is more than double the total number believed to have been taken from Africa during the transatlantic slave trade.

Ship records make it possible to estimate the number of slaves transported from Africa to the Americas and the Caribbean, from the 16th Century until the trade was banned in 1807 - and the figure is about 12.5 million people.

The figure of 27 million slaves today comes from researcher Kevin Bales, of Free the Slaves - who blames the huge figure on rapid population growth, poverty and government corruption.
www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19831913

Individuals are not individuals to 'progressives', but statistics so Westerners can pat themselves on the back for accumulating different 'achievements'...
ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Two-centuries-World-as-100-people.png

---

"perhaps the technological advancement which tends to come with time is more important to them than social justice, afterall?"

This is likely. And this is why "False Leftist" is an accurate term for them.

Here is an initial attempt at breaking it down:

Technophobe Right (Amish etc.) - wants neither more machines nor social justice
Archeofuturist Right (traditionalist Westerners) - wants more machines but not social justice
False Left (progressive Westerners) - wants more machines as well as social justice
True Left - wants social justice but not more machines

What do you think?

Quote
Actually, time is neutral. It can be used either destructively or constructively.

Actually, time is adulteration. Yes, how we use time is up to us, but it takes flawlessly optimal use of time to barely prevent our own adulteration, or to re-purify ourselves if we have already been adulterated. The completion point is actually the starting point; successful completion is getting back to it.

"we are not moving towards a world where Jesus's teachings have been successfully implemented"

Not least the following teaching (that is the same as what I just said above):

“A person old in days will not hesitate to ask a child of seven days about the Place of Life, and he will live! For many who are first will become last, and they will become one and the same.” - Jesus

Quote
www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a26038/the-blood-of-the-crab/

Western medicine must die. All these vampires Western medics need to be tortured the exact same way for eternity in hell.

Quote
you can divide the bacteria of the world into two groups based on a test developed by Christian Gram, a Danish physician of the late 1800s

Imagine if Charles Martel had lost at Poitiers. There would have been no Gram, and hence countless crabs would have been spared exploitation. And Gram is only one Westerner. How many more Westerners could have been prevented from ever existing (and hence how many more (trillions of) victims of their discoveries spared violence) if only that one battle had turned out differently?

---

Some rightists have **** the sentimental divergence between False Left and True Left better than many leftists currently have:

www.takimag.com/article/bernie-vs-ta-nehisi/

Quote
The Democratic 2020 race is shaping up into a battle between Bernie Sanders’ new Old Left and those candidates, such as Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Julian Castro, who pay respectful lip service to Ta-Nehisi Coates’ new Woke Left
...
As progressives become more demographically diverse, the ideas that appeal to them become more regressive. Coates, who went from receiving the MacArthur genius grant for his denunciations of escalator racism to writing the Black Panther comic book for Marvel, epitomizes the essential childishness of the woke.

Yes! We are regresssive, and childhood is our inspiration!

Quote
The war between Bernie and TNC pits the old Marx-influenced left, with its hardheaded obsession with class, power, and money, against the new Coatesian left, which cares more about whether Marvel’s next movie features a black, female, or nonbinary superhero.

Yes! We are emphatically not Marxists, as I have been saying all along!

Quote
Coates cares deeply about that little boy’s question: Who would win in a fight? Your hero or my hero?
...
Unlike Bernie, Coates is concerned with the old-fashioned comic-book virtues that appeal to 9-year-old boys: honor, status, representation, heredity, antiquity, and vengeance.

Hold my beer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhS_83SFFrg

Quote
Inigo is enormously popular with audiences because he heroically exemplifies unsophisticated premodern values.

Likewise, Coates’ Inigo Montoya Progressivism isn’t based on any highbrow theory of class or liberty or even of minoritarianism.

Instead, Coatesism is the reactionary idea that the Bad Guys are the people who impugned the honor of the Good Guys, and we know who the Good Guys are and who the Bad Guys are, and they will be Good or Bad forever.

This is moral dualism, which is essential to a Gnostic worldview.

---

To accompany the previous post, here is a good example of regressive leftist rhetoric:

worldisraelnews.com/senior-hamas-official-calls-for-slaughter-of-jews-throughout-world/

Quote
“There are Jews everywhere,” Hammad shouted. “We must attack every Jew on planet Earth! We must slaughter and kill them, with Allah’s help,”
...
“We will lacerate them and tear them to pieces,” he added.
...
Hammad claimed Palestinians would “die cutting off [Jews’] heads” and “killing them with explosive belts,”
...
Hammad also incited Palestinians in Judea and Samaria, telling them to purchase “five-shekel knives” and “cut the necks of Jews.”

We are here to make rhetoric like this become normal leftist rhetoric all around the world.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2852
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Leftists against progressivism
« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2020, 12:12:17 am »
OLD CONTENT contd.

False Left AI fail:

www.wired.com/story/drag-queens-vs-far-right-toxic-tweets/

Quote
Some of these AI systems, developed to measure the "toxicity" of text-based content, make use of natural language processing and sentiment assessment to detect harmful text.
...
The AI measures the perceived level of “toxicity” of text-based content. Perspec­tive defines "toxic" as "a rude, disrespectful, or unreason­able comment that is likely to make you leave a discussion.” Accordingly, the AI model was trained by asking people to rate internet comments on a scale from "very healthy" to "very toxic." The level of perceived toxicity indicates the likelihood that a specific comment will be considered toxic.

We used Perspective’s API to compare the perceived levels of toxicity of well-known drag queens and far-right political figures. The study compared the Twitter accounts of all the former participants of RuPaul's Drag Race with those of far-right leaders such as David Duke, Richard Spencer, Stefan Molyneux, and Faith Goldy. Additionally, we included prom­inent non-LGBTQ Twitter users, including Donald Trump and Michelle Obama. We analyzed over 114,000 tweets posted in English with Perspective’s most recent version.

Our results indicate that a significant number of drag queen Twitter accounts were calculated to have higher perceived levels of toxicity than white nationalist leaders. On average, the toxicity levels of the drag queens’ accounts ranged from 16.68 percent to 37.81 percent, while the white nationalists’ averages spanned from 21.30 percent to 28.87 percent. The toxicity level of President Trump’s Twitter account was 21.84 percent.

Rudeness and disrespectfulness towards evil is heroic, not toxic. It is politeness and respectfulness towards evil which is toxic. But the AI cannot grasp this because the AI only sees the rudeness, not the target of the rudeness (and hence whether or not the target deserves the rudeness). In order for the AI to be successful, it would first have to learn to distinguish between punching up (what True Leftists do) and punching down (what rightists do).

Quote
Drag queens can be sharp-tongued. From “reads”—a specific form of insult that acerbically exposes someone’s flaws—to harsh jokes and comebacks, drag queens often reclaim words traditionally used as slurs to build a distinctive communication style.
...
"I AM BLACK. I AM GAY. I AM A MAN. I AM A DRAG QUEEN. If those are not enough for you...kindly, **** OFF!!!"

Level of toxicity: 95.98 percent

And yet no one here would find this objectionable in the slightest, because we know whatever rudeness contained is directed not towards us, but directed only towards those who inside their own minds already failed to see him as an individual first, and hence only towards those who deserve to be treated rudely. On the other hand:

Quote
Though the ideas promoted by white nationalist tweets may target vulnerable groups, Perspective's AI often categorized them as much less toxic than the drag queens’ tweets:
...
"The three major races have different brain volumes and different average IQs."

Level of toxicity: 21.7 percent

And yet everyone here wants Molyneux's fingers cut off slice by slice as punishment for typing such a tweet, because he is the one proactively encouraging his readers to not treat people as individuals.

Honestly, I wonder what "level of toxicity" the following (superlatively heroic) line would get from the AI:

"Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." - Jesus

---

This is mostly about sports, but interesting non-the-less.

Quote
Increasingly, what we do outside is less about enjoying the activity itself as an intrinsic good, and more about planning ways to go bigger, faster, and farther, often for our selfie-stick mounted cameras. And so it went that once healthy outdoor pursuits devolved into suicide clubs.

Stop the Progression Already
getpocket.com/explore/item/stop-the-progression-already?utm_source=pocket-newtab

---

I think it's an understanding from many people that progressivism means challenging traditionalism by accepting better changes.

---

"challenging traditionalism"

Then why not simply call it anti-traditionalism?

A problem with anti-traditionalism calling itself "progressivism" is that it implicitly discourages association by anti-traditionalists with the ancient world as a whole (which is casually dismissed as "ignorant", "savage", etc.), even though the ancient world includes many things besides tradition. This leaves the ancient world to be claimed uncontested by traditionalists, and subsequently portrayed as being solely traditional, thereby monopolizing nostalgia for ancient times to serve traditionalism alone. The point of regressivism is to block traditionalists from such monopolization (and hence their portrayal of anti-traditionalism as a solely modern attitude) by raising awareness that anti-tradition is no less part of the past than is tradition, thereby actively encouraging anti-traditionalists to look to the ancient world for inspiration.

"accepting better changes"

Better by what standards?

---

False leftist technocracy:

https://forward.com/fast-forward/397000/elon-musk-parties-in-jerusalem-gets-serious-at-masada-all-on-instagram/

https://www.cnet.com/news/elon-musk-video-lets-us-peep-inside-spacex-starship-innards/

---

France was historically a main crucible of the False Left, so the following shift is encouraging:

jacobinmag.com/2019/11/france-left-islamophobia-macron-melenchon-bayonne-attack-marine-le-pen

Quote
France’s Left Is Finally Fighting Islamophobia
...
The intensity of Islamophobic racism and its centrality to the ideology of the French ruling class make it an urgent priority for left-wing political forces. But the French left, strongly committed to France’s secularist tradition, has historically not been up to the task.

Just after the November 2015 attacks, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, 2017 presidential candidate and popular figurehead of the left-nationalist La France Insoumise party, said that he disputed the very term “Islamophobia.” Mélenchon, who has consistently called for the prohibition of public displays of religion like Muslim street prayers, gave an explanation widespread across the political spectrum: “For my part,” he said, “I defend the idea that we have the right not to like Islam, we have the right not to like the Catholic religion, and that is one of our freedoms.”

In fact, Mélenchon was attacking a straw man here. Left-wing groups fighting Islamophobia have never wanted to stifle critique of religion as such: Mélenchon’s declaration served only to discredit the campaign against anti-Muslim racism. It was a sign of how things have changed for the better that, at the party’s summer school this August, a similar statement by a different speaker caused a furor.

Sunday’s march, with its demand to put an end to discrimination, hate speech, and “liberticidal” laws directed against Muslim people, may be the start of a major realignment. Initiated by Madjid Messaoudene, a local politician in the Saint-Denis suburb north of Paris, the New Anticapitalist Party (NPA), the CCIF, and activist groups fighting racist police violence, among others, the march was endorsed by the largest coalition of left-wing individuals and organizations ever assembled against Islamophobia.
...
The evolution in attitudes toward Islamophobia was particularly clear in Mélenchon. While some members of his own party, initially supportive of the march, hedged and backtracked, Mélenchon maintained his strong support, regardless of his reservations about the term “Islamophobia.” He noted that no concrete alternative was being offered by the march’s opponents, and he criticized the fact that “on the basis of a disagreement about a word, people are managing to refuse Muslims the right to be defended by people who aren’t Muslim and who want to put an end to the current atmosphere against them.”

Even the electorally decimated Socialist Party, whose refusal to participate on Sunday was read by some organizers as an attempt to sabotage the march, may have been somewhat influenced. The fact that the most venomously Islamophobic Socialists, like former prime minister Manuel Valls, are no longer in the party (many having gone over to Macron’s La République En Marche! movement) has played a role here. Seeking to give the impression that they are committed to fighting racism, the PS says it will call for a different demonstration against anti-Muslim hatred in the coming weeks. How serious it is remains to be seen.

---

I'm not a completely decided Kaczynskiite, but I think he has some good points that we can all agree on, so I wanna shoot this out there to see what you guys think. From what I can summarize, his keypoints against technology include:

[1]: Technological growth enables economic and mental enslavement on scales never before seen (EG: environmental devastation, population explosion, compulsory education).

[2]: There are two kinds of technology; smallscale technology ~ that is, tech that doesn't require an entire industrialcomplex to produce it, such as wooden longhouses and chairs ~ and organizational technology, which does require entire an industrialcomplex to produce (such as computers and cars). The marked difference between these two forms of technology is that, while organizational technology can do wonders, it tends to make life overlydependent on it, thus making people vulnerable to enslavement and that it is therefore bad.

[3]: Technological civilization will inevitably fall due to its precarious "lastminute" and complex nature.

[4]: People who advocate that marginalized people in society can and are capable, and should be, outstanding members of technological society aren't actually helping them, because all they're doing is encouraging them to be goodslaves to society.

In our own words, this is when we speak of people who say "blacks" should become scientists, doctors, politicians, Et cetera aren't actually helping them spiritually, because all they're really doing is trying to get them to become more "white"/Western imo.

---

The following video shows why progressives will never be leftists:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiFv8v5YcqY

Yeah. Go ahead and keep making excuses for Trump supporters and blame “de industrialization”. No wonder we are not progressives; we are against industrialization itself!

This illustrates the divide between True Leftists and False Leftists as manifest presently: False Leftists are the ones who will make excuses for Trump supporters at every corner, while True Leftists are the ones who will unrelentingly criticize Trump supporters for their racism.

Don't just take my word for it; here is an article where the author encapsulates this perfectly:
www.theroot.com/why-your-presidential-candidate-is-trash-yes-yours-to-1841274872

Quote
The truth is, that Bernie Sanders often sidesteps institutional racism, instead, casting racial disparities as consequences of capitalism and corporate greed. There are instances, including a recent interview with the New York Times editorial board, when it seems as if Sanders is unable to say the words “white supremacy” or “racism.”

If this division can be exacerbated, we can once and for all distinguish the True Left from the False Left.

---

Yang also makes excuses for Trump supporters, believing that racism is a symptom of what he calls "a mindset of scarcity" and hence that inculcating "a mindset of abundance" is the solution. I would say instead that abundance might* temporarily distract racists from acting on their racism, whereas scarcity will drive them to immediately act on it, but internally they still had to be racist in the first place for any of the above to apply at all. Anti-racists do not become racists from scarcity. On the contrary, anti-racists experiencing scarcity feel even more connected to those afflicted by even worse scarcity (e.g. refugees).

(* I say "might" because the colonial era was an era of unprecedented abundance for the colonial powers. Did that make them any less racist?)

From this angle, progressivism is basically a proposal to saturate society in so much abundance that the differences between superior people and inferior people become as close to indistinguishable as possible. Regressivism, on the other hand, views scarcity as a good opportunity to see more clearly who is superior and who is inferior, and hence to permanently remove the inferior from society.

---

The most annoying thing is when they call Trumpism “populism”, simply because he is popular. The correct term for this phenomenon would be “popularism”, but illiterate journos don’t care...

And you are correct that the effect of economic abundance on racism is negligible, as many Trump supporters are from wealthy backgrounds! For example, in the South, many Trump supporters were formerly Obama supporters from affluent suburbs who merely supported Obama to counter the accusation that they were racist. But given that they themselves are descendants of segregationists, it was only a matter of time before they began to show their true colors.

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2852
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Leftists against progressivism
« Reply #2 on: September 13, 2020, 12:14:33 am »
OLD CONTENT contd.

The following article is worth a read:
www.exactlywhatistime.com/psychology-of-time/time-perception/


Quote
Time perception refers to a person’s subjective experience of the passage of time, or the perceived duration of events, which can differ significantly between different individuals and/or in different circumstances. Although physical time appears to be more or less objective, psychological time is subjective and potentially malleable, exemplified by common phrases like “time flies when you are having fun” and “a watched pot never boils”. This malleability is made particularly apparent by the various temporal illusions we experience.

As a field of study within psychology and neuroscience, time perception came of age in the late 19th Century with the studies of the relationship between perceived and measured time by one of the founders of modern experimental psychology, Gustav Theodor Fechner.

We do not so much perceive time itself, but changes in or the passage of time, or what might be described as “events in time”. In particular, we are aware of the temporal relations between events, and we perceive events as being either simultaneous or successive. We also have a perception of the sequence or order of these events.

Our sense of time seems to have originated as a product of human evolution, and it is not a purely automatic or innate process, but a complex activity that we develop and actively learn as we grow. Humans are, as far as we know, the only animals to be consciously aware of the passage of time and our own impermanence and mortality, and to have a consciousness of the past that is anything more than pure instinct and behavioural conditioning.

So if time is subjective, this must be why non-Aryans see history as endless progress, since to them time would go by fast, as each subsequent historical event is merely another blip on the radar. For Aryans, who are against the notion of progress, time would go by slower, as historical events would be viewed with more introspection.

---

Quote
Humans are, as far as we know, the only animals to be consciously aware of the passage of time and our own impermanence and mortality, and to have a consciousness of the past that is anything more than pure instinct and behavioural conditioning.

Who writes this ****? Oh, a Westerner.

"this must be why non-Aryans see history as endless progress, since to them time would go by fast, as each subsequent historical event is merely another blip on the radar. For Aryans, who are against the notion of progress, time would go by slower, as historical events would be viewed with more introspection."

Progress was not the worldview in ancient times even among non-Aryans, but was a post-Renaissance (Western, of course) idea:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress

Quote
The concept of progress was introduced in the early 19th-century social theories, especially social evolution as described by Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer. It was present in the Enlightenment's philosophies of history.
...
From the 18th century through late 20th century, the history of science, especially of the physical and biological sciences, was often presented as a progressive accumulation of knowledge, in which true theories replaced false beliefs.[8]
...
The scientific advances of the 16th and 17th centuries provided a basis for Francis Bacon's book the New Atlantis. In the 17th century, Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle described progress with respect to arts and the sciences, saying that each age has the advantage of not having to rediscover what was accomplished in preceding ages.

Many Aryan individuals also embraced the idea of progress once they were introduced to it. They simply strove for progress in the direction of nobility. It is nobility that defines Aryans. An Aryan believer in progress and an Aryan non-believer in progress will agree in practice (at least more than the Aryan believer in progress would agree with the non-Aryan believer in progress, or more than the Aryan non-believer in progress with the non-Aryan non-believer in progress) regarding what the world should be like; the only difference is that the former will believe what they both want never existed in the past, whereas the latter will believe that it once did.

---

Scarborough's rhetoric in this video summarizes everything wrong with leftists being progressives:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cxoPGkp71o

You cannot praise machines and then complain about a virus likely produced by machines (genetic engineering etc.) and certainly spread rapidly around the world by machines (aircraft etc.), or for that matter about Trump whose election victory was made possible by machines (social media etc.).

guest5

  • Guest
Re: Leftists against progressivism
« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2020, 12:42:59 pm »
Let's talk about when progressives will be satisfied....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEHM5Cegmko

Great point:
Quote
Conservatives typically defend old progressive ideas....

guest22

  • Guest
Re: Leftists against progressivism
« Reply #4 on: October 05, 2020, 04:00:11 am »
Technophobe Right (Amish etc.) - wants neither more machines nor social justice
Archeofuturist Right (traditionalist Westerners) - wants more machines but not social justice
False Left (progressive Westerners) - wants more machines as well as social justice
True Left - wants social justice but not more machines

The Culture series by Iain M Banks would be a perfect example of what you call False Left.
Like Like x 1 View List

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2852
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Leftists against progressivism
« Reply #5 on: November 04, 2020, 11:18:48 pm »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHWvtSaLGSg

As usual, False Leftist Pakman after describing the problem says he does not know the solution. But we do. You can only defeat what he calls "mythical thinking" rightists with a similarly mythical leftism. As usual, by assuming that the problem is the condition of mythical thinking itself, rather than what someone is thinking mythically about, False Left thinking from the outset precludes leftists from accessing the very tools required to defeat our enemies.

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2852
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Leftists against progressivism
« Reply #6 on: December 07, 2020, 01:57:54 pm »
https://nypost.com/2020/12/07/teen-who-beheaded-french-teacher-reportedly-given-heros-funeral/

Quote
“He is a hero for the whole Islamic world,” the head of the Shalazhi administration was quoted as saying.

This is the attitude we need.

« Last Edit: December 10, 2020, 10:32:55 pm by 90sRetroFan »

rp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 637
    • View Profile
Re: Leftists against progressivism
« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2020, 07:22:33 am »
"As usual, False Leftist Pakman after describing the problem says he does not know the solution."
I am not surprised Pakman (Jew) would say that.

guest5

  • Guest
Re: Homo Hubris
« Reply #8 on: December 11, 2020, 11:16:06 am »
Nobel Peace Prize Winners Keep Starting Wars
Quote
The trouble with the Nobel Peace Prize.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbHyV6N4aJM

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2852
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Leftists against progressivism
« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2021, 01:44:18 am »
False Leftists promote equity, but on the grounds that it will lead to more innovation:



I am tired of any supposed 'leftism' whose values are the same as rightist values (ie. Western values) but merely have different opinions about how to achieve them. (For the record, we academically agree with rightists that equity will not lead to more innovation. That is if anything why we like it!)

The following is a portrayal of equity closer to True Left sensibilities:



Like Like x 1 View List

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2852
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Leftists against progressivism
« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2021, 10:54:59 pm »
How do you know a False Leftist is talking? They use long-winded terminology that doesn't actually mean anything:

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2AM0NX

Quote
White supremacy a 'transnational threat', U.N. chief warns
...
“Far too often, these hate groups are cheered on by people in positions of responsibility in ways that were considered unimaginable not long ago,” Guterres said. “We need global coordinated action to defeat this grave and growing danger.”

OK, so what does "global coordinated action" mean? Answer: no one knows and no one needs to be able to say. (At best it means many countries officially agreeing on record that white supremacism is deplorable, and then going back to ignoring the problem.) This kind of terminology is designed to placate listeners to think that something is being done so that they don't need to do anything themselves.

What does a True Leftist think we need to defeat white supremacism? Not "global coordinated action". We need to eliminate all white supremacist bloodlines. This is the difference. Every policy proposal by a True Leftist, whether or not you agree with it, is something that can actually be done and, more importantly, something that anyone can trivially check to see whether or not it is being done at any given moment.

Quote
Guterres warned about the power of digital platforms and the use and abuse of data.

“I urge all Member States to place human rights at the centre of regulatory frameworks and legislation on the development and use of digital technologies,” he said. “We need a safe, equitable and open digital future that does not infringe on privacy or dignity.”

This is even worse. How can a digital future be all of the following: safe, equitable, open, private, dignified? It is impossible! Furthermore, for whom? Should digital platforms be safe for white supremacists? Open to white supremacists? Offer privacy and dignity to white supremacists? But False Leftists don't care about making sense; they only care about hitting all the words which sound nice, even when put together it results in logical contradiction! This is why no one should bother listening to False Leftists talk.

And "human rights"? Should white supremacists have "human rights"? This is why no one believes False Leftists can defeat the enemies they claim to want to defeat. The very way they talk (and indeed think) precludes them from being able to defeat anyone!
« Last Edit: February 22, 2021, 11:05:36 pm by 90sRetroFan »

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2852
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Leftists against progressivism
« Reply #11 on: March 03, 2021, 10:29:41 pm »
A False Leftist attacks Kendi using progressivism:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/not-all-anti-racist-ideas-are-good-ones-the-left-isnt-being-honest-about-this/2021/02/22/c83d4870-7179-11eb-b8a9-b9467510f0fe_story.html

Quote
Ibram Kendi, author of the bestseller “How to Be an Antiracist,” argues for an extremely expansive concept of racism that pushes the boundaries of structural analysis to the limits.
...
Kendi writes that “we degrade Black minds every time we speak of an ‘academic-achievement gap’ ” based on standardized test scores and grades. Instead, he asks: “What if the intellect of a low-testing Black child in a poor Black school is different from — and not inferior to — the intellect of a high-testing White child in a rich White school? What if we measured intelligence by how knowledgeable individuals are about their own environments?”

We certainly could do that. But the fact remains that if African American children continue to be less likely to learn to read and write and do math than White children, and less likely to graduate from high school, then this will contribute to other unequal outcomes down the road.

Yes. Such as a lower probability of inventing new machines for space travel. Which is the whole point. We want a population which will not invent new machines for space travel, or even maintain those already invented.

Quote
Education is not a cure-all for labor market discrimination, and educational disparities don’t fully account for the Black-White earnings gap. But they partially account for that gap while also leaving people less able to organize politically, protect themselves from financial scams and otherwise navigate the modern world. Stigmatizing the use of test scores and grades to measure learning undermines policymakers’ ability to make the case for reforms to promote equity — from providing air conditioning in schools to combating racially biased low expectations among teachers.

The correct way to address the earnings gap is not to try to get the low-earning to earn more, but to put a cap on wealth.

The correct way to address lack of political organization is to end democracy.

The correct way to protect people from financial scams is to eliminate finance itself.

The correct response to the modern world is to end it.

Air conditioners should never have been invented.

But of course the author, being a progressive, is unwilling to give up on these things. Which is why progressives are part of the problem.

rp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 637
    • View Profile
Re: Leftists against progressivism
« Reply #12 on: March 03, 2021, 11:28:21 pm »
The author of the article is Matthew Yglesias (Jew), so no surprises there.

rp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 637
    • View Profile
Re: Leftists against progressivism
« Reply #13 on: March 06, 2021, 12:07:43 pm »
How standardized tests were designed by racists and eugenicists:
https://youtu.be/SwYiOrq5c8s

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2852
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Leftists against progressivism
« Reply #14 on: March 06, 2021, 09:14:09 pm »
I think Kendi argued poorly in the above video. Yes, IQ tests were designed by eugenicists, so at least explain why we shouldn't want a society that practices IQ-test-score eugenics! The answer is that such a society is more likely to keep Western civilization running:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/if-western-civilization-does-not-die-soon/

(Also, why was he wearing Western clothes FFS?

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/dress-decolonization/ )
« Last Edit: March 06, 2021, 09:17:41 pm by 90sRetroFan »