The blue-pill consciousness follows a Manichean narrative. One of the most important elements of the narrative is “progress.” It is something über-positive, associated to all kind of positive passions and buzzwords, something mandatory to follow—unless you’re a boring, uncool, and ever-suspected conservative—and perhaps corresponding to an immanent historical necessity. Progress WILL happen, progress MUST happen, follow it or you’ll die ignominiously as an inferior retard!
Inside the narrative, good people are those recognized as oppressed or ex-oppressed or simply cooler, and they embody progress. The non-oppressed start disadvantaged as they can do no moral claims, and they need to virtue-signal loudly at the feet side of the purportedly oppressed so they can be progressive as well.
But what is “progress” exactly? Does denying the sexes or pretending they can be changed or ignored while choosing among 120+ “genders” make the world better than how things have always been? Was the blank slate, an alienating and de-humanizing view that turns people into raw matter to be remould by social engineers, better than Enlightenment liberalism or knowledge of genetics? Is it a progress when whites disappear or when good ol’ fathers let their place to mangina hipsters? Or even when the sheeple flocks to buy the new iPhone?
“Progress” is an illusory beacon
“Progress” is more than a buzzword. Inside the elite’s imagined world, which is fed to the masses through all sorts of institutions and communication means, it is a pole designed to tell people what to do, under the implicit threat that they won’t be trendy or cool or even accepted by their peers. “Progress” makes you believe you need to follow and obey to succeed at life, otherwise you’ll be “missing the train.” If you don’t get into the train or at least bow to it, you will be tagged with an –ist or –phobe and you’ll die alone and despised. Or, at least, this is what they want you to think.
For “progress” has constantly changed in content. Some progressives have been branded as dangerous reactionaries by other progressives who were willing to impose their own view as the only one. Even within the Left, some old-fashioned Marxists deemed feminism reactionary because they saw it as a mask of the bourgeoisie—with bourgeois women maintaining their class domination while blocking men of humbler social origins. Needless to say, these Marxists were also deemed reactionary by the feminists. Any progressive is the reactionary of other progressives whose idea of “progress” is substantially different.
“Progress” is idolized whereas its contents are always suggested, implied, or quietly moved. Various strands of progressives have been competing so that their version could lead the flock, which, of course, remains blissfully ignorant of these battles and prefers an easy to digest “we’re the progress, just obey us” narrative.
As for us, the red-pilled, we ought to see progress as it is: at best, as something relative we should define consciously with no one else influencing us through crooked tricks; at worst as a Leftist idol that can be entirely deconstructed.
The origins of a meme
LED lights consume less energy, but they’re bad for your eyes, and no artificial light as the beauty of a fire. Speak of a one-way progress
Where does “progress” come from after all? The Latin root of the word indicates both how relative and how tied to military campaigns it was. Progressus stems from the verb gradior, which means “walk, advance”, and was mostly used in a military context, as in the sentence “the army is progressing into enemy territory.”
“Progress” became non-relative when associated to ideas of wealth, utility, or happiness. Dante Alighieri’s De Monarchia (1313) chided those who kept replaying or commenting on ancient authors without adding anything new:
For what fruit can he be said to bear who should go about to demonstrate again some theorem of Euclid…? Such squandering of labour would only engender weariness, and not profit.
Later, philosopher René Descartes rejected the scholastic thought as an unsatisfactory bunch of pseudo-knowledge that could be discarded in favor of “real” research. Both thinkers allude to a “progress” which translates as an increase in capital: works leads to new “fruits” to be harvested. Even though this capital is knowledge, it is accumulative and not relative in character. Perhaps this idea of growth in knowledge was at the root of later versions of “progress.”
What is certain is that the later versions are much wider and dogmatic. The eighteenth century was a watershed of progressivism: the Philosophes shamelessly referred to Philosophie—that is, their own social and mental universe—as synonymous with “lights”, “reason”, and of course “progress.”
The most straightforward example can be found in one of the last texts written by marquis Nicolas de Condorcet, Sketch of a historical tableau of the human mind’s progress… chap.10, where the author, a committed 1789 revolutionary, mixed equalizing policies with more happiness, more “reason” and other purportedly cool things. Interestingly, Condorcet paved the way towards the white man’s burden where “progress” means whites teaching others to be happier and materially wealthier. (Eventually, “progress” became chiding whites for having had progressive ancestors.) Condorcet’s exalted writing made clear that “progress” included a number of apparently obvious goods and was somehow bound to happen. Of course his narrative had its convenient bad guys—priests, some colonizers, “despots” and others who lacked enthusiasm for the guillotine.
It must happen! Join or get lost!
This “bound to happen” characteristic was forcefully used by subsequent influencers. Karl Marx’s theory of history, where communism must happen someday once capitalism will have met an unavoidable limit, just enshrined what had been in the air for decades before. Now there are very few orthodox Marxists around, most cultural Marxists being ignorant of notions like the added value or the lumpenproletariat, but just like female hypergamy this core feature of progressivism is still here. Karl Popper’s refutation of this “sense of history” belief was conveniently ignored or drowned under academic noise.
It is important to notice the reversal from thinkers like Dante or Descartes to the later Philosophes. The first associated progress with the idea of potentiality—we can progress because we can do this or that. The second, however, turned “progress” into a historical prison. We are “progressing” because we are following a fated trend! Pray for equality or communism and go to the guillotine, gulag, or racial genocide—-nothing else is possible! Progress!
Condorcet, Marx and others were clearly hallucinating and trying to hallucinate others. Who knows, religions themselves succeeded by make-believe and crushing their rivals, so why not a theory of history?
Real progress is relative…
“The way forward” is a convenient myth. Just as inalienable rights are. Just as the generic “we” and “us” is—that empty expression people use to signal how integrated and fitting-in they are, without anyone wondering who’s that “us” exactly. If someone tells you about history on her side and the intersectional or humanitarian “us”, it is just an illusion and a disastrous spin. Nothing to worship here.
What is publicly deemed “progress” depends a lot on who owns the media, the universities, and whatever can steer the fashion. Which itself is a social stick and carrot device, pressuring people into being attracted to what’s cool and fearful of what’s not cool.
Real progress is only so when measured according to clear, explicit criteria. Real progress is relative as it depends on a previously postulated standard of reference or landmarks. Otherwise, “progress” can mean “more mediocrity equality”, “less whites racism”, or whatever the Left churns—something you didn’t make, something they injected into your mind through constant suggestion, something you must remain a slave to, something they constantly redefine and control. Progress worship, associated to the might of the media and of social pressure, is a deeper and more intimate form of slavery than any physical enslavement—which at least doesn’t touch the mind.
Now many of us tend to distinguish material and moral progress. Haven’t we progressed through technology? Well, this depends according to which criteria we judge and look. Mass production created pollution and overpopulation. Efficient medicine saved babies who turned into an army of gibsmedat and invaders. Comfort makes us fragile.
If tomorrow we went back to the Middle Ages, we would not regress absolutely. Of course, it would be uncomfortable, but there is nothing to worship in production ability. Those who’d survive may even live a much better life than they do now. And they would write history so that the collapse would not be an anomaly or a “regression” but the beginning of a new era.
It may not be easy to get rid of the “universal progress” mental conditioning. But it should be done. High-level Leftists know that many different endgames can be pursued, and they are not always dupes of their own idol. Franz Boas pretended that progress is relative so that science and the West could be broken—now this aspect of his thought has been conveniently brushed off so that another version of “progress” can be imposed.
Arch-planner Keynes famously quipped that “on the long term, we’re all dead”, not something that a real progress worshipper would say. Jewish pulpit occupier Albert Hirschmann spoke of a “progress inside reaction”, thus implying that progress is relative and that people otherized by so-called progressives can progress along their own way. The MSM have ignored how investing in BitCoin could make one rich before they could taint the BTC so it couldn’t obtain recognition as a progress.
…and some Leftist influencers knew it
Saul Alinsky: “The real arena is corrupt and bloody… the end justifies almost any means.” Including making up totem poles and browbeating those who won’t follow?
Leftists have also been reactionary, although they never admitted it honestly, when it pleased or suited them. Rousseau and Marx idolized a mythical “state of nature” where private property didn’t exist. Boasians like Margaret Mead idolized backward tribes as remnants of a lost Eden. (And now, the same who forbid to tell of primitives that they are primitives have no shame tagging us retarded or reactionary or whatever. Only they should control “progress” and decide what it is! Bow down, you peasant!)
Jane Jacobs’ opposition to skyscrapers and promotion of smaller scales was absolutely reactionary when seen from the pro-skyscraper version of progressivism—yet it was integrated into the official version of progressivism. By the way, skyscrapers had nothing unavoidable: the bourgeois bohemians managed to conserve what was supposed to disappear simply because they could.
There is no one “way forward”, and this is all the better. If there was, nothing else would be possible, and we would be utterly powerless, locked up inside a train fated to fall into hell. But there is no reason for us to be headed this or that way apart from our own belief. We can go to any direction. True progress is absolutely dependent on our needs and our deep identity. Break the spell of the reified official version of “progress.” When our children will grow up outside of Leftism, they will thank us for it.
Read Next: 6 Leftist Concepts That Pretend To Be Positive But Are Not
Regress does exist.
We can see it in Western Europe.
I prefer gama transgender psycho “male” Swedes to those rapist vikings, thanks.
It’s regress under the guise of progress.
The pic of that fag standing like a woman pisses me off
I am certainly not the only one to have noticed the logo of Stand Up To Racism, a British charity, on the placard being held by the man representing “SWEDISH MEN 2016…”
An aspie lesbo viewpoint, I would say.
It’s a fucking meme for Odin’s sake, and should not be taken completely as factual and literal. Vikings is supposed to take place in eighth century Scandinavia, and Travis Fimmel is Australian, but that’s not the point you see?
Great article.
This idea that progress is something new that has not yet been is problematic. Even invention is the combining of matter and properties that already exist, and combining them in a derivative fashion. The same is true of the sexes. You can’t make more sexes. There are just now ways to water down pre-existing orientations. The results are inferior to what has been. The same is true of knowledge. There is no new knowledge, but a discourse of facts left universe since creation, or since discovery by a forgotten pre-existing discoverer. This is why I believe in irreducible-complexity theory as supposed to evolution. No organism can do what it couldn’t do before. Their adaptations are not spontaneous ability generation, but use of pre-existing genetic ability which “rises to the surface” when useful. Like microorganisms that can suddenly survive I sulfur. They always could. They just didn’t have to before. It was unnecessary. Now they can, but also always could. Organisms don’t make something new. Simply, what exists is often under-explored. In the case of “more than two sexes,” not exploring is rationally justified. Disgusting deviants.
@Seth >>> “There is no new knowledge, but a discourse of facts left universe since creation, or since discovery by a forgotten pre-existing discoverer.”
Perhaps, but as a corollary to that notion (which many of us have have pondered and absorbed) there is a self-devised positivist mantra that has kept me out of a jaded rut:
“In the leisurely intervals an ever-inchoate mind rifles through an endless pile of information (and yet *more* information!), seeks novel unifying theories and attempts to rewrite the book of timeless wisdom. That is our duty as modern men. There exists a strong drive to see what everyone else has seen, then think what nobody else has thought—to make a discovery.”
Ever forward.
That’s an interesting idea. Reminds me of hearing that ‘after the fall’ (the garden of eden) we’re all like Robinson Crusoe. The island we’re stuck on, and the ship-wreck off shore. We’re each trying to recover and preserve as much of the remnants as we can.
My own personal thoughts sound a little like a line from Jurassic Park 2. Discovery is violent and destructive, intrusive. You have so destroy the old to make new things. Theold ways were better though, in many cases, and we only proceed believing in the moment we’ve found improvement.
…
A lesson from economics; There are no new markets. Video killed radio, to be casual. Dvd killed video. Netflix killed dvd and some TV. Cells killed landlines. Social media killed human interaction. Video games are biting off many other mediums’ audiences, as well as men’s drive to achievement in some instances. Yet, all the minerals in a PS4, or an iphone, or a Snapchat server existed since the garden. We merely find new ways to arrange them. Are we better off with social media. Has it improved the sexual market place, or poisoned the water hole? What about the invention of “other” sexes. Is it healthy?
…
Oceanson, I do not feel jaded. I feel periodically singled out, but not jaded. I think I found a truth. Anyway, you’re right. Men are compelled to chase advances to destructive degrees. Writers say it’s all been said before, but the bookshelves at the store always sell clear.
“Yet, all the minerals in a PS4, or an iphone, or a Snapchat server existed since the garden. We merely find new ways to arrange them.”
Among other things, well said. For the non-jaded, then! The Robinson Crusoe metaphor, on point — men know when they exist on that “island,” when we’re our own worst enemy.
CYCLES. It says a lot about cycles. To avoid a ramble, I’ll couch it in a story…about 2 years ago I was telling my sister about gold, how it Gold’s story is ancient and drenched with intrigue. Through a cosmic cycle of birth and explosive death, bigger stars were formed that could fuse even more protons into atoms up until iron, which is 26. Heavier elements, such as gold, could not be fused even in the hearts of the biggest stars. Instead they needed supernova, a stellar explosion large enough to produce more energy in a few Earth weeks than our sun will produce in its entire lifetime. The next time you look at the gold in your jewelry, you can remind yourself you are wearing the debris of supernova exploded in the depths of space. It’s an almost magical story that extends all the way down to the 14-billion-year-old Big Bang dust that the atoms in our bodies are constructed of. Alas, gold is just a raw material and commodity, a natural resource from a natural world. What we are seeing for the first time is something else, that which extends further into what we have mined, harvested and refined as the “mental gold” of a new age—deep and far-ranging tech innovations that now centrally operate the heart of our world. This rare thing will not just sit there like a cube of gold in the infrastructure. This technology wants to carve itself off and push out beyond us via clever code, AI and the endless latticework of electronic surveillance that strains to keep the game in check.
—
Needless to say, my sister, who is a pain in the ass even at her best, got semi-mezmerized by– and loved — that story.
When i hear “progressive values” i immediately think of catering to small groups who won’t appreciate it anyways. And violence. Lots of violence
good article
Whenever some useful idiot craps on about “progress” or being “progressive” I point out that the Russian Revolutionaries in 1917 thought what they were doing was “progress”. The Nazis thought what they were doing was “progress”. Termites would call what they do “progress”. Cancer is progressive.
It’s another one of those words, along with ‘equality’ that’s sprouted by the kind of people who have never stopped to consider that the word is not necessarily a positive one.
One thing, for sure, lies just beneath the ultra-thin skein of SJW bullshit:
“Nothing is equal, and nothing is free.”
It reminds me how Schopenhauer and other great, dead thinkers knew full well that Planet Earth and the natural order of things bats last.
Everybody was only suddenly against Apartheid or Communism after it fell.
Progress is the offspring of knowledge of nature.
Faith in progress is the offspring of ignorance of history.
An “ideal society” would be the graveyard of human greatness.
Progress is the scourge God has chosen for us.
The horror of progress can only be measured by someone who has known a landscape before and after progress has transformed it.
“Progress,” “Democracy,” the “classless Society,” excite the crowd, but leave the Muses cold and disagreeable.
The left’s theses are trains of thought that are carefully stopped before they reach the argument that demolishes them.
The golden rule of politics is to make only minimal changes and to make them as slowly as possible.
That bloke in the picture thinks that he will be attractive to women when in reality he is a short middle aged man with about as much appeal as a walk through Tottenham(a rough suburb of London) on a dank January morning. He knows that the Viking on the other photo will always be more appealing to women than he is.
I thought he wanted to be attractive to the guy in the other photo.
Don’t think he was looking for sex with a woman.
Nah, that queer is an Englishfag dressing up as a cartoon fag.
Appeal to anything? Only other degenerates and people of zero sexual market value.
LED bulbs these days are awesome and they typically pay themselves of within a year or two depending on how much you use them. I got some badass grow lights in my condo (since I don’t have a yard) and they produce blue and red spectrum, and I can even control the output of red/blue…they also have some green and other spectrums of light, some ahve Infrared (IR), and some even produce UV light (but it is not really need for Plant growth like IR is). Also, if you get a light diffracter lens, which you can buy for like 5 bucks on Amazon, than you can actually hold it up to modern white LEDs and you can see the blue, red, and green spectrums. LEDs are fucking awesome and I am glad the “technocrats” incentivized their implementation with incentives because now LEDs are cheap as shit, and far more advanced. The amount of energy we are saving, and will continue to save by implementing LEDs for most common lighting needs is enormous. Imagine the number of coal plants you would need to build to power all the excess power that we would waste on non-LED lights. Imagine the average household saves 1 kW/hr of energy per day using LEDs (that is probably a conservative number)…1 million households would need 1 GW/hr of electricity (which is the size of a large coal plant or nuclear reactor running for an hour straight) if they didn’t get those savings. The chances are the average household saves about 2-3 times that much (especially if you include LED TVs too).
Unfortunately, people here ITT don’t care about energy efficiency. They just want their old fashioned oil lamps and candles back because they’re “trad”…….UGH
I like incandescent bulbs in winter because they produce heat as well as light. Have more pleasant colors, and won’t start a fire if you tip them over. Flames just AINT bright enough to provide adequate light in a large modern building. If you wanted to use the fire approach, you’d need special fuel that burns white and at extremely high temperatures(> 1000 degrees Fahrenheit).
I think old fashion lights are pretty cool and I have oil lamps and special candles for the times when I go camping in the mountains. It is always useful to have a light source that can produce a good amount of heat in a tent when it is wet and cold. Candles and lamps are also useful for when the electricity goes out.
. However, it is hard to beat LEDs for most practical purposes, especially the new full spectrum ones. I have 4 large full spectrum LED grow lights for producing my own vegetables and stuff, since I don’t trust Mexican organic farming methods, and they are intense. So intense that while working around them I have to wear my sunglasses, and yet they only use the equivalent power of maybe 5-6 100 Watt incandescent light bulbs. You also want to much heat produced in your grow tent because it could burn your plants and it increase the cost of ventilating your grow tent.
The problem with this site is that there are too many hardheaded libertarians/fossil fuel morons. They associate LEDs with the government and the “evil environmentalists” so they immediately hate them, and look for reasons to hate them. Granted some of the first generation of LEDs (the blue ones) had some issues. I also think some people get off to wasting energy, it makes them feel rich and powerful or something, kind of like someone who lights a cigar with a hundred dollar bill. However,A lot of them are catching on, lol, and before you know it they will probably be driving electric cars too.
“Was the blank slate, an alienating and de-humanizing view that turns people into raw matter to be remould by social engineers, better than Enlightenment liberalism or knowledge of genetics?”
The blank slate was the result of the European Enlightenment, which spread the gibberish ideas of equality and progress.
“PROGRESS”
…We will reach a point where nobody can have a job with an IQ under 120.
…More non-Asian minorities will be on welfare and more whites will become cops simply to create a police state to manage them.
…More people will be welfare-dependent.
…The West, or at least the US, will resemble Philippines or India with 10% of the populace owning the land/means of production while squirming peasants live outside the gates.
…More middle class women will get into the sex industry, like in the Czech Republic where pornographers make loads of films by paying girls 400 Euros to do double-anal. Women now are calling sex work “empowering” because it is the only decent job a white prole with a vagina can do. Like Stormy Daniels more and more poor white girls go straight into the strip clubs at 17.
…Crime will be much higher because welfare breeds it. The US will resemble an Indian reservation where irrelevant people simply idle away.
…Drug use will increase and the drugs will not be stimulants like meth that get rural whites through a second shift but rather hardcore Opoids that just make them feel as if they are dead to kill the boredom. Drugs will be a huge part of the economy.
…Poor people will indeed create an idiocracy. The breeding will never end. The US will resemble Brazil from dumb white girls getting porked by black Alphas until a veritable Mulatto class that is dimwitted arises. A smaller number of Eurasians with Beta white fathers and Asian mothers will remain at the top of the racial caste pyramid. Jews too, probably.
…Latin American will send more and more Indians because they are not about to solve their own racial pyramid problem until the Southwest is plunged into the old Colonial Red Man vs White Man conflict. It is not about “Immigrants” or “Language” it is about fucking Indians vs Whites same as the 17th century.
…Many old people will become homeless in Gen X and just get killed on the street with no car and no house by feral minorities unless they live in the woods.
…The infrastructure will continue to rot as the well-off wall themselves off and the taxes dwindle.
fucking well said bro. Spot. Fucking. On
White men in full control and society would have kept improving ad fucking infinitum. You take no care over government supporting of morality, families, good breeding and lose all red-pilledness over the long term racial make-up of a nation and we’ll see the result.
The infinite wisdom of protestantism in its society building forged by trial and error by the wisest men over generations was tossed aside for BS social Marxism which had no evidence it would ever work out, same as communism. Their disciples took universities and from there trash society.
I also believe that the browning of the world theory is shit! Asians will take some white genes, as will blacks, but these two hybrid species will then hardly mix.
A society breeds into welfare where once established there are enough children born with low IQ/ low inhibitions than society moves to a position where to remove welfare is impossible without a collapse of order. It creates a negative circular effect.
As much I hate saying you’re (at least 90%) right…pill noir
Progress is the change for the change itself it doesnt matter if it is for better or worst is just a nonsense a way to alienation.
Progress is relative is the key here. And there is always an end point of diminishing returns. You can fold a piece of paper only so many times befofre it becomes impossible to continue. Take rock music. From 1957 to now there has been consistent innovation with new tunes, sounds and recording techniques, yet what we are now hearing is a lot of music that is repetitive in its structure-repeated riffs and chords for up to 15 minutes at a a time. Trendy magazines call it progressive, but it feels like a lack of ideas. Progressivism in culture is similar. Hipsters have to find new debacuheries and trends to keep up the dopamine shock fix for socia media addicted proles. But the end point is near, because when you have destroyed every convention there is nothing left but a wasteland.
@Joe Leone>>>
So much irony in the end-reward…in body and/or mind, and despite our social circles, preparing to go solemnly and friendless into the Darwinian death dance called life (you stopped at “wasteland,” haha). And so many shiny distractions along the way, every day. We can learn the hard way about meaninglessness and artifice, and expend our energies to repel them, but the larger societal flaw goes ahead unabated without us, or common sense.
You used the word ‘sheeple’. So edgy it hurts.
Oh, I found it very inspiring. How droll!
“Real progress is relative”??? What the fuck? “Everything is relative” is the battle cry of every SJW freak, and feminist, and cultural Marxist alive…you unwittingly have jumbled up your arguments….
Yes, the liberal ‘progressives’ claim they are making ‘progress’ – but they are espousing the same thing you are; i.e. “Everything is relative” ….what you unwittingly don’t seem to ackowledge or fail to understand is the ‘progress’ being referred to in the article has term already-its called positivism – and the articles claim is that society is preaching a positisvistic mindset of ‘progress’ – BUT the mixup that has occured it the article equating ‘relativity’ as the solution to this positivistic mindset…the problem here is the author of the article has no clue as to what is even being said in the first place so for me to sit here and explain it all is like trying to put humpy dumpty back together again and then tell you humpty dumpty isn’t real at all….its too much work and I dont’ give enough of a fuck….I’m simply informing any readers to realize that the author doesn’t know what the fuck he is talking about and that ‘relativity’ is the exact opposite of what the real solution to a positivistic minded society is…for fucks sake…is this article a joke, what the fuck?
Point is its ALL just fuckin words…we KNOW PROGRESS is NOT REAL PROGRESS—BUT the author of this article has it all ass-backwards…SJWs, Cultural Marxists, ‘progressive’ liberals etc ALL might PREACH ‘progress’/’progressivism’ but we ALL KNOW none of that shit is real fucking progress obviously…the SJW’s and Cultural Marxists and Liberals ALL want relative morality and values and an ANYTHING goes society
BUT the author of this fuckin articles solution is WHAT??? ITS MORE RELTAVITY….!!!??? What the fuck? Are you out of your fuckin mind??? No, just NO, the solution IS NOT and will never be MORE relativity and ANYTHING goes – that is exactly – EXACTLY what cultural Marxists and liberal ‘progressives’ preach – so either rthe author is too idiotic to notice this fuckin obvious fallacy and doublespeak or he has his fuckin arguments mixed up…I suspect he just doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about….
I believe the author is making this claim: “Liberals call themselves ‘progressives’ > they claim they are making ‘progress’ > but we all know moving ‘FORWARD’ is NOT ‘progress’ > the ‘solution’ (claims the author) is to not go in ‘one direction’ and to embrace DIFFERENT viewpoints….” Sounds a bit like EXACTLY what the ‘progressives’ are doing…this article is so fuckin poorly written I barely have any more patience here to even bother with this shit…I don’t want to give the author of this article anymore credit than he deserves because I feel like he doesn’t deserve any, I was going to say MAYBE he actually sort of ‘knows’ what the fuck he’s saying, but I don’t think he does…I was going to say maybe he actually understand positivism, but he never once mentioned it, so I can’t assume he even knows what the term means…
The main point to the article that the author unwittingly is saying, is that society is POSITIVISTIC – what positivism means is society will ALWAYS get better…its a philosophical idea which basically means on a scale overtime society will ALWAYS have a positive outcome essentially ok…thats the bread and butter of what the term means alright…the point here is the author is unwittingly making the claim that JUST BECAUSE cultural Marxists and ‘progressives’ preach a standpoint of positivism THAT THAT and THAT alone is justification for the OPPOSITE approach which is relativism…its so fuckin idiotic and nonsensical…liberal ‘progressives’ are CLEARLY ‘REGRESSIVES’ – their ideas CLEARLY are deranged and REGRESS BACKWARDs….its not fuckin rocket sceicen here ok…BUT the solution ISNT to apply MORE RELATIVE theory’s…how fuckin retarded…the solution is to embrace more OBJECTIVE ideas…i.e. more math and science…more S.T.E.M in school, which is what some schools are trying to do…in the long term you need a society based off of an objective backbone…not this misguided fucked up approach of testing out EVERY idea by believing its relative…holy fuck…what a sloppy fuckin article
Bytheway – moral relativism doesn’t even exist – long story short but there’s only so many ‘choices’ available to humans, therefor certain options are natural choices and others aren’t…Chomsky does a decent enough breakdown of why relativism doesn’t even exist…there is inherent progress which people seek after – probably not womens rights, or gay rights, but there definitely is real progress people are after – Chomsky’s point is that there’s only a certain set amount of parameters a society can have, and so only certain options are intrinsically ‘correct’ or ‘true’ because humans have a natural need for moral inclinations…the answer IS NOT and will NEVER be more ‘relativism’ though, the author of this article sound slike he longs for being in ‘power’ over others through society means…you don’t ‘get rid’ of society’s ‘universal conditioning’ – humans will always seek some form of actual progress, YOU (the author) equating human progress with cultural Marxism and THEN preaching your OWN reltavism is the height of doublespeak.
“Progressives” are your same group as your “post-modernists” and “relativists” and “cultural Marxist”
I like what Chomsky says here, “People do things on moral grounds and truth is an old fashioned concept [while talking in terms of objectivity and truth]” – Postmodernism is a plague – its an insulated idea that serves as way to have power over people – the author of the article is accurate in his observation of this and how its being used, but he’s proposing the same solution as the people he’s disregarding…its nonsensical…the author of this article actually ends up putting himself into the same group he’s disregarding…ugh…delusional
‘Why You Have To Fight Post Modernism’
Unfortunately the author of this article is disparaging relativism (“progressives are bad”) while at the same time espousing and preaching for relativism (“real progress is relative…”) I suspect the author is a Nietzsche lover and thinks only the ‘strongest survive” – its so delusional – Nietzsche is about as pseudo-philosopher as it gets
Its worth mentioning that a British ‘conservative’ is the equivalent of an American liberal, as far as I can tell that is…open to discussion on that one
JOHN DOE
Britain (Until recently) was a class-based society while the US has always been based upon race and most of the GOP obsessions in the US have involved paying for illegitimate children produced out of wedlock by people of other races and gun control because, in the opinion of Republicans, crimes with guns are committed by Cholos and Blacks.
Britain’s Tories have always been at war with Labor-meaning the British working class-while Americans have always warred over issues like abortion, homosexuality, race, guns, taxes, war, religion.
The US has a far vaster urban/rural divide than the UK. Whites in the United States in rural America are more likely to feel as if standards (Or lack of) are imposed thousands of miles away by other races (East Coast Jews, white ethnics, blacks).
@ Dick
I sorta get what your sayin, thanks for clarificaiton
the effeminate creature holding the “refugees welcome” sign is identical to my kids teacher.
in a class about life, society, adolescent transformation etc…
private school.
And my kid says many other kids eat up the leftist nonsense. All of whom have mums that are utter kents…uber wealthy – but still oppressed somehow.
after 10 years not one of them speaks to me – or even looks at me…
I’m like the last man standing