DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: True Left vs False Left
*****************************************************
#Post#: 1134--------------------------------------------------
Leftists against progressivism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: September 13, 2020, 12:04 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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
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][/quote]
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][/quote]
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).[/quote]
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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
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-Worl
d-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.[/quote]
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/[/quote]
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[/quote]
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 cracked 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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
Hold my beer:
HTML 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.[/quote]
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.”[/quote]
We are here to make rhetoric like this become normal leftist
rhetoric all around the world.
#Post#: 1135--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leftists against progressivism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: September 13, 2020, 12:12 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.[/quote]
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, FUCK OFF!!!"
Level of toxicity: 95.98 percent[/quote]
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[/quote]
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[/quote]
getpocket.com/explore/item/stop-the-progression-already?utm_sour
ce=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:
HTML https://forward.com/fast-forward/397000/elon-musk-parties-in-jerusalem-gets-serious-at-masada-all-on-instagram/
HTML 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.[/quote]
---
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:
HTML 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-you
rs-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.”[/quote]
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.
#Post#: 1136--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leftists against progressivism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: September 13, 2020, 12:14 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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
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.
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0pMUi8mm18
---
Scarborough's rhetoric in this video summarizes everything wrong
with leftists being progressives:
HTML 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.).
#Post#: 1141--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leftists against progressivism
By: guest5 Date: September 13, 2020, 12:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Let's talk about when progressives will be satisfied....
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEHM5Cegmko
Great point:
[quote]Conservatives typically defend old progressive
ideas....[/quote]
#Post#: 1397--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leftists against progressivism
By: guest22 Date: October 5, 2020, 4:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=90sRetroFan link=topic=154.msg1134#msg1134
date=1599973449]
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
[/quote]
The Culture series by Iain M Banks would be a perfect example of
what you call False Left.
#Post#: 1988--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leftists against progressivism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: November 4, 2020, 11:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML 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.
#Post#: 2725--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leftists against progressivism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: December 7, 2020, 1:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML 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.[/quote]
This is the attitude we need.
#Post#: 2772--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leftists against progressivism
By: rp Date: December 9, 2020, 7:22 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.
#Post#: 2810--------------------------------------------------
Re: Homo Hubris
By: guest5 Date: December 11, 2020, 11:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Nobel Peace Prize Winners Keep Starting Wars
[quote]The trouble with the Nobel Peace Prize.[/quote]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbHyV6N4aJM
#Post#: 3752--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leftists against progressivism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: January 28, 2021, 1:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
False Leftists promote equity, but on the grounds that it will
lead to more innovation:
HTML https://marlin-prod.literatumonline.com/cms/attachment/3d53411a-d338-4b23-9ec3-c30adda98581/gr1.jpg
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:
HTML https://nscbc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/equalityVequity-1024x637.png
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page