§1 – Quick Ponderings
I. One of the largest hypocrisies by those who claim to be progressive is the inability to move passed the negative parts of history. To claim something is taboo and out of bounds due to “sensitivity” is incompatible with the notion of progress.
II. Progressives hold that all progress is good progress, which is in-and-of itself a fallacy (the progression of cancer; the progression of a bacterial infection; the normalisation of a mental health issue).
III. A simple life is called the good life for a reason. You are not in constant pursuit of excess, shiny items, repeatedly purchasing new editions of things when the old edition does what it needs to do. You cannot fill a (figuratively) hole in your heart with what you can hold in your hand.
§2 – On The Word ‘Progress’
I. Progress means ‘to move forward’, to progress forward. But nothing about this word indicates positivity. Let’s break down the word itself
‘Pro’ – the prefix: “word-forming element meaning “forward, forth, toward the front”¹ It can indicate that I am in favour of something, I am for this ‘thing’. We can see that the prefix ‘pro’ does not give the term ‘progress’ an innately positive quality. Bad things can move forward: cancer, a viral or bacterial infection, air pollution (progresses to spread to other areas), the word progress is applicable to both positive and negative scenarios.
‘-gress’ – This section of the word ‘progress’ has its root in the proto-Indo-European word ‘ghredh’. From etymonline.com²:
‘It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Latin gradus “a step, a pace, gait,” figuratively “a step toward something, a degree of something rising by stages;” gradi “to walk, step, go;” Lithuanian gridiju, gridyti “to go, wander;” Old Church Slavonic gredo “to come;” Old Irish in-greinn “he pursues.”‘
Again, this section of the word ‘progress’ still gives no reason for the word to be used as it is now: A unspecific, vague end goal (Telos) that continuously increases in intensity/insanity. If you are against the obscure and unspecific goals of progressivism – I would use the word doctrine but they cannot decide what they really want – you are against humanity, equality (they don’t seem to know what the definition of this word is either) and every other thing they claim to be after.
Their view of progress has become an abstract Absolute that is Theological, it is religious. Progressive ideology stems out of the secularization of the West (something that I will cover in its own essay). They have left behind Western spirituality in a transcendent sense (yet taken spiritual practices from the East such as mediation and yoga), and arrived at a confused an incoherent set of principles with no certain end goals – a random walk through the woods with no compass, map, GPS or any other navigation system. They fight for their God of “progress” but don’t know what it is, they have no point they are progressing to . They have constant in-fighting over normative and metaethical principles. They claim a love for science yet are against any science that shows the world to be what it really is – saying that there is biological differences between various people (which is not even a negative thing!) is pseudoscience, even if you have evidence to back up your point!
II. Let’s highlight a few things which progressives “campaign” for:
- Equality between the sexes, races, made-up “genders” and all the rest. Not equality of opportunity which is something reasonable. No, they want quotas for every group, which eliminates the entire point of working hard to achieve your goals. You don’t need to work hard to get ahead of people, you get your position purely on you physical features and unstable state of mind. How are we meant to progress if humans are stunted by this insane and illogical idea of having every existing group (and all the made-up ones that will come along thanks to the utter lunacy of empty, vacant morons) requiring a “representative” to be given a position they have not freaking earned? The drive for people to actually aspire to succeed in life is squashed because no matter how good they get at X, no matter if they are the best in the world!, they will probably not get that role because some blacked up dwarf with pink armpit hair and a missing arm had to be hired for the position because “intersectionality” (actual pseudoscience, not even worth explaining here) dictates that all irregular people need to be given roles they haven’t earned because we need “equal representation.” Yeah, because that makes freaking sense doesn’t it?
- To completely contradict the above point: race doesn’t exist, gender is a social construct, everyone is equal and all are able to achieve the same levels of intellect, literacy and so on. It is white males that are responsible for all the ill of the world, if you disagree with that the you are Satan incarnate – even if you are not a white male, you are just brainwashed into thinking you are the way you are and you need to enroll in “gender and diversity studies” so you can be reprogrammed.
- Science is awesome unless it contradicts any Left-wing values, like the ones listed above. Research that indicates differences between groups needs to be banned from all academic journals – no peer-review necessary, just ban it, it is pseudo science. Human beings are not allowed to be different, that is why the progressives wish to force their values on other countries through the UN and EU while at the same time talking about how evil colonisation was. Colonisation is only evil when it is not the Left doing so.
- There is no such thing as culture. Culture is a patriarchal phenomenon and needs to die. This way we can allow corporations to expand their research while we ‘Hollywoodise’ the world into one big melting put of grey consumers with no sense of connection to each other. Instead of water coming through taps it will be Coca-Cola; people will not breed because that is patriarchal, babies will instead be reproduced by the state and all male genitals will be removed – because man is bad. We will all be aware that the Left was played by corporations but the shame will prevent anyone from admitting it. Statues of Marx, Lenin and Stalin will be erected everywhere by corporations as a cheeky stab at the civilians who thought communism will win.
§3 – Egalitarianism
I. Egalitarianism is not an achievable idea: people are different. Not just in an individual sense, for each individual has aptitudes in area X but fails in area Y. This is what allows for what is called “the exception to the rule.” Humans evolved in different groups, in different regions. Each environment had different resources for us to work with, we also different challenges for us to face. To learn to cope, to survive, we allocated tasks to different groups of people, people who were the best at those skills – it is just common sense to have the person who is best for the job do that job – they are going to do it better and more efficiently. What is so offensive about wanting the best to do the job?
Speaking of offense, I will address what is probably most “triggering” about the above statement. I am not specifying that “women shouldn’t be politicians because they are homemakers” or whatever else you have become upset over: “Oh are you saying the “white male” politicians we have are the best for the job?” No, I am highly critical of “liberal democratic” systems, and believe that the only way forward is for the citizens to round up our current politicians into a big air tight room…
II. Equality does not mean special rights for individual groups: none at all, no quotas, no affirmative action, none of these things contribute to equality, they are antithetical to the word equality.
The definition of ‘equality’ is not up for debate. Equality already has a deifnition. In a political sense (legalised equality or egalitarianism) means that everyone has equal access to participate in political activities, that is all that needs to be written in regard to equality in a democratic country – no amendments, no “um” or “ah” or “but maybe…”
The moment you take a law from a simple statement like “every adult has the right to participate in the political system of our nation” things begin to fall apart. We can see this in court cases in-which a criminal who has committed an atrocity walks away with a slap on the wrist: lawyers seek loopholes. If the criminal is part of a “minority” they will use it to get the weakest sentence for their defendant.
III. Over-complicating, adding exemptions, granting privileges to any group within the nation perpetuates hostility. It is very simple, if you take a plank of wood and place it on an object with each side at the exact same length, then place upon each side an object that weighs the same as another it will balance equally. If you then add another object to one side there is no longer an equal balance – you fucked up the equal ratio, how is this not obvious? Hostility will arise from the minority “victim” being in doubt about whether they attained their position out of actual merit or racial/gender reasons. Hostility also comes from another consequence: the organisation hiring individuals will do what they can to escape quote requirements because they do not want to hire people who do not deserve the role. Of course, people will also feel entitled to the position because “minority”, thus minorities will have a cognitive dissonant mind-set: “I have the role but did I earn it” or “I didn’t get the role but I deserve it.”
“The equality between A and B (A = B) means that A is either similar or identical to B (that is, it does not differ), or that they are equivalents according to a precise criteria and according to a predetermined relationship. It is therefore necessary to specify this criteria or to identify this relationship” – Alain de Benoist ¹
When a scientist proposes that there is a difference between any group of people on biological grounds, or someone in the social sciences suggests that “maybe” people of completely different cultural origins (even some within Europe) cannot cohabit peacefully due to antagonistic differences in value, cultural mores, ethical positions; whenever just an ordinary, everyday working class citizen expresses genuine concern over negative consequences of actions made by champagne socialist narcissists – who have grown up privileged, yet have the gall to call a working class white male below the poverty line innately “privileged” – these people are the problem, these people need their views quashed because they threaten the deluded plot of those who never witness the consequences of their actions.
Progressives to not have a Telos. Why? Because chaos has no order.
Progressives to not have a Telos. Why? Because they are too stupid to actually plan ahead.
Progressives to not have a Telos. Why? Because they want a world where everyone is confused, alone and helpless.
The end of WW2 left the entire world in despair, the Western world took it the hardest. It created a “nothingness” within everybody. Those who experienced bombings where traumatised. Those who fought and returned where filled with despair, can you blame them for after what they witnessed? This spread out from within them into everyone around them. A heavy sense of trauma that left everyone shaken. Naive individuals blamed Western culture and values, this infected academia and it has turned into a beast that seeks to self-destruct our society. It sees every individual Western culture, be it Italian, Greek, British, Irish, Spanish and French as an enemy that sews division and hatred instead of something beautiful that can create harmony amongst a society – establish social cohesion and some sense of peace. They say they want peace but they want to eliminate the only thing that actually can bring peace – I do not mean “world peace”, only an idiot could truly believe that would ever be possible.
- Alain de Benoist, View From The Right Vol. 1, Arktos Media Ltd.