Real Discussion Thread #2: Progressivees and the concept of Progress

The purpose of these threads is to bring meaningful and good conversation back to Sup Forums. I will be archiving these threads and including the backlog in the OP. The first thread was more of a success than I had imagined. We discussed the primary problems of SJW mentality.

First Thread archives:
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/156602675/
archive.is/k2DhN

ITT: Discuss progressivism and its relation to the concept of progress

“I the Preacher have been king over Israel in Jerusalem. And I applied my heart to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven. It is an unhappy business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with. I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind.” – Solomon, King of Israel, from Ecclesiastes

It seems to me that a fundamental assumption of progressivism is that there is something to progress towards. I think this is a highly suspect assumption, and I personally don’t agree with it.
What is progress?
What are progressives progressing towards?
If progress is a movement towards something, then it is also a movement away from something. What is “progress” moving away from?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=YkgkThdzX-8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

bump

mmuch appreciated.

Lasts nights thread took a moment to catch on, but really turned into a good thread

>What are progressives progressing towards?

to progressives tribalism, racism, war, nationalism are backward state of minds because they bring war and divide people.

Therefore any policy like legalizing homosexuality, settling non whites into our lands are in their eyes elevating us from our backwards past.

I believe they are christians without religion, as much of their beliefs correlate with that of Yoshuah. But maybe im just biased there, its just there were no progressives in polytheistic Europe.

So progressivism is progress away from any form of division?

Where do you think progressivism came from?

>So progressivism is progress away from any form of division?
sounds plausible. Why else would they defend religions like Islam?


>Where do you think progressivism came from?
i suspect it is an offspring of christianity as they share many similarities. (All people are equal, accepting of everyone)
However they reject the "backwards" religious beliefs which accompany christianity

also good thread, sadly most Sup Forumsacks are either retards or shills

>good thread
Thanks, more people will join eventually, I think Sup Forums will be better someday

I guess what I see from a religious point of view is that the modern progressives believe in Universalism, which has its roots in Christianity. It seems that assume that people accept this universalism until otherwise stated. They love muslims until a muslim tells them theyre an infidel. They love Christians until Christians bring up sin.

I think there is a political aspect of progressivism though that is much more aggressive, they attack instead of accept. For example Teddy Roosevelt was a very proressive president politically, he was a man of action and basically did what he wanted to achieve his ends.

progress can never be finished so that is the reason they love it

if you give equal rights to women you can finish but progress towards subjective and undefined ends and you have an excuse forever

>Dividing people into categories for better repartition and production of ressources and products, stimulating evolution, and creating a sense of belonging
>Bad
At this point I'm pretty sure something is stimulating some kind of cancer in the brain of the people following it.
Also, they aren't christians. Christians believe in the supremacy of a Kingdom beyond this one. A true Christian gives no fuck about this world, the politics of his country and his own well-being EXCEPT when his fellow men are being shat on, since oppression can lead to your soul being taken forced into sin.
They also really, REALLY don't like real sinful people. To the point of actually murdering them to send hem to Purgatory so that they can repent faster.
In comparison, progressives are merely communists who believe in the supremacy of the material world and the possibility of a perfect utopia in this proportionally imperfect world.
It's distilled make-believe for adults.

Do you think the average progressive believes that progress has no end or just the smartest progressives?

>What are progressives progressing towards?
A post-scarcity-technocray

>I believe they are christians without religion
Why do you have to insult Christians here? and why speak on matters that you admit to knowing little about?

just the smartest

>sounds plausible. Why else would they defend religions like Islam?
the main ideology of these guys would be to make as less waves as possible so that the ocean can stay calm. It would make sense.
But let's push this comparison further. The majority of the waves in the ocean are created not by people splashing water in it, but by wind, a force exterior to the ocean itself.
The only possible option for progressives is to control everything, from the winds to the people splashing in it.
Reminds me of...
Something something Permanent Revolution
>i suspect it is an offspring of christianity as they share many similarities. (All people are equal, accepting of everyone)
The fact that all people are equal in Christ, meaning spiritually, doesn't justify trying to turn thisphysical world into a mathematical impossibility and bringing unnatural racial/religious/cultural tensions toward a global implosion.

So what is the motivation for the progressives who see and end to progress?

>They love Christians until Christians bring up sin.
lol they absolutely hate Christians either way. The funny thing is they like us pagans at first, because in their minds we are opressed, but dont realize we are the same as Christians.

> think there is a political aspect of progressivism though that is much more aggressive, they attack instead of accept
it
they are extremly aggressive, ironically against people who are against their beliefs

>i suspect it is an offspring of christianity as they share many similarities. (All people are equal, accepting of everyone)
This is more kikery and nonsense. You really don't understand shit do you? But you sure like to sound like it. You are a retarded blowhard

sage

they don´t really know

do you think they think this things through?

To bring that end, of course.
Think of it that way. Progressives are highly influenced by the ideas of Karl Marx, who was himself being influenced by the technological fever of his time. in his eyes, progress was a good force, perverted by bad people.
Most of the other forces, like the conservatives, have become disillusioned by progress after two World War; Progress was neither good or evil. Not the progressives.
Progressives begin that by progressing in every region, which includes socially (if that can even be achieved), economically and technologcally, we'll reach some sort of end; but that end would also mean the end of every negatives, since progress IS inherently good to them.

sounds fair. They really hate people who dont agree with their ideology and brutally ostracize anyone who disagrees, but at the same time defend violent people like muslims.

im just saying i suspect. Because much of christianity correlates with progessiveism. (All people are equal, accepting of everyone)
i might be in the wrong here though

>The fact that all people are equal in Christ, meaning spiritually, doesn't justify trying to turn thisphysical world into a mathematical impossibility and bringing unnatural racial/religious/cultural tensions toward a global implosion.
but im really wondering whether or not it is connected to christianity in some level. Mass importing foreign peoples into Europe is something many Christian Emperors did.

Progressivism is bastardized Puritanism, and their goal is to create "New Jerusalem" on Earth. Their values are some cherry-picked and and led to absurd Christian ones like mercy, humility, charity etc .

>Progressives (Regressives) and Progress (Regress)

Because I'm fluent in Disney™
Backwardspeak™

I fixed it for you

im open to criticism unlike you.

So if the end is void of negatives, then the dumb progressives believe they are progressing towards utopia?

Is there a clear idea of wht this utopia is to them?

No. I guess they believe they are heading toward something similar to futuristic societies like Star Trek, where the Federation has solved World Hunger, Poverty and War (against other Men) and has begun settling the stars and even ''progressivizing'' the rest of the Universe.

youtube.com/watch?v=YkgkThdzX-8
Nothing to kill or die for. Nihilistic apathy aka "peace".

For anyone reading all the posts: I forgot this in the OP but, I plan to make these 1-2 times daily. I am going to need more subjects to post eventually. If you have any topic suggestions or philosophical quotes for us to discuss, please post them. I will compile the topics I think will work and randomly select one to be the topic of each thread

Ok this seems to be going back to what another user said that progressives want no division.

They also seems to see diversity as a great virtue. How can diversity be maintained if divisions are eliminated?

>How can diversity be maintained if divisions are eliminated?
It doesn't matter, the sun will explode etc.. just live for each day like Lennon says and compromise everything in the name of short term peace and comfort.

Very nice, I suggest a topic as "beyond materialism" simply as something introductionary to understanding the idea of metaphysics and what it constitutes. I think most people here, including me has a hard time to fathom what all these philosophers keeps on babbeling about when it comes to questions regarding the exsistence of things beyond what can be measured and felt.

>What is progress?
Subversion.
>What are progressives progressing towards?
The (ideal) modern world.
>If progress is a movement towards something, then it is also a movement away from something. What is “progress” moving away from?
The traditional world.

>Subversion
Does the average progressive see progress as subversion, or is that just the truth of the matter. How is all progress subversion?

So you don't think they have a long game, just what ever brings immediate "peace"?

Oh, user.
Diversity is merely a tool for them to juggle with.
Look at it this way : let's take two countries. One has people of white skin, whom developped their own culture, religion and society independantly of the other. Then there's the black country, who's mostly the same.
On the situational scale, this world of two countries is diverse. However, on a national scale, it is not.
See, this is the idea that progressives juggle with. Instead of wanting large scale diversity and small-scale homogeneity, they want the exact opposite; large scale homogeneity and small-scale diversity.
Why is the majority of the government types on the planet democratic? Why is our current hegemonic culture american consumerism? Why do people willingly push race-mixing and cultural melting-pots on a worldly-scale?
In the end, it matters not to progressives whether we're all low-IQ slave mutts or ubermensch, as long as, on a large scale, we're homogeneous, and don't make ripples in society anymore.
hence, diversity=global cultural/racial/religious genocide

Good idea. That's probably next thread. Got any good quotes to go with it? I'm thinking something about the forms from plato

Progressivism is an old euphemism for communism, used during the McCarthy era so you wouldn't be immediately identified as a pinko. The same applies today, except it has been updated using the tactics of neo-Marxism, Frankfurt school ideology, critical theory, and other forms of subversion of traditional Western society, values, morality and norms.

Also this.
Progressives believes that there is no higher good than sensorial well-being, since they are closet-nihilists.
To them, physical and societal stability is preferable to intellectual and philosophical one.

So smart progressives seek to control through creating a false notion of progress and dumb progressives see the ultimate good as an immediate feeling of peace with no regard for the long term?

Basically.
And since we're on Sup Forums, it's mandatory that I say that I believe that the smart progressives are DA FUCKING JOOS, and unironically.

Immediate "wellbeing" which includes peace but only as long as it makes things more comfortable for them, peace in the middle east or whatever doesn't really matter. Their main long term goal is economic growth to maximize their personal hedonistic consumption before they die. Globally open markets and free movement maximizes economic growth so those things are the biggest priority. Government control reduces their responsibility and anxiety, it provides comfort which is all that matters.

Well I don't think we are to the stage of naming any villains yet, but thanks.

I had more questions. So I don't think there can be just dumb and smart progressives. Certainly there are some who are smart enough to see what the puppet masters are doing and yet still believe in progressivism

So progressivism is entirely self centered?

I don't agree that progressive goals are directed towards removal of conflict. In fact as you can see in today's west, society is more divided than ever and by more dividing lines than ever. In the past, the divisions were mostly based on race and nationality. Now there is race, nationality, gender, the creation of more and more genders for more dividing lines, sexual orientation, prolife vs pro choice, socialized vs privatized health care, political party affiliation, etc. "progressivism" has divided the west more than any other force that has ever existed. The west was basically invincible until the far left started gaining ground.

Yes. You're talking to them at the moment.
''Real progressives'' are Sup Forumstards. They believe in the good of progress if used by the most capable and philosophicqally enlightened.

It is one of the most selfish ideology ever conceived.
Imagine believing all of this at the same time : >knowing you will never see this physical utopia
>Not believing in an afterlife to reward your hardwork
>Not wanting children because you're a nihilist and don't want anyone else to suffer, hence removing any possible familial legacy
>Believing everyone as equal even thought you delegate your vision to people with more money who might just scam you

I'm a real "progressive" meaning I want humanity to survive and progress. Yes I think the people trying to force radical social change like mass immigration are doing it for naive self centered reasons. They don't try to justify it in any other terms, usually the focus is on economics.

Monitoring this bread

True, but they believe it's because we resist these changes.
True progressive believers believe that if we all just accepted it, it'd just magically work, even if there are historical examples of it completely crashing down in itself.
They are always blaming someone else for their ideology's failure. Capitalism, racists, sexists, nature, etc.

These are indoctrinated people we are talking about.They changed their university books and feed them lies. I believe there is no reason to try to understand them, they already show us what we needed to see.
I've also noticed something VERY creepy. My mom has dropped out of high school, her father was a cop and her mother died on a car crush (except for that cop on that bike when they were traveling together). My mom seems to be scared and hating on cops because of this. So she is an anarchist maybe because of this. I've noticed that even my mom (which appears not to be indoctrinated by the universities as todays "liberals") acts in a very similar manner. I told her one day that we should not open our borders and because of this she called me a fascist and racist.


My point is, it is in peoples nature to act like that, Their nature specifically. I say whoever changed the books in school, didn't create a new system. In fact I believe the books are designed upon peoples nature and perpetuates it. The way they act like that is because of their generation. I always thought of it this way: Boomers: Grandfather/mother , Millennials: Mom/Dad. And if you pay attention they act like that. A good example would be like this: "Don't do X it hurts Y" "Don't say words like this, it hurts mummy". From my point of view they always seemed to act like they were talking to 5-8 year olds. And I think such university books where specifically designed to perpetuate and take advantage of that. The way they act is like a weakness of their generation. And the books exploit it and make the go FULL MILLENNIAL MODE.

Another point I am trying to make is that, Indoctrinated people like them, can't understand (at least very clearly) concepts like (different opinions first of all) these such us "progressivism".
They've been taught that THEY are progressive.
They've been taught to hate white people.
They've been taught to not question the origins of their knowledge.

are surviving and progressing the same?

>Does the average progressive see progress as subversion
No. For most progressives (which includes most voters), progress is just progress - things getting "better".
The question should be: do progressives see Progressivism as an ideology? Or is it just the default mode of politics to them? Because those progressives who are aware of Progressivism as an ideology, i.e. those who implement and maintain it, see "subversion" as a powerful tool against the enemy (although they don't call it that - Yuri Bezmenov referred to it as "active measures" iirc)

But then, of course, "subversion" is not a negative thing. It's for a just cause, after all. "Subversion" only implies a loss of values, a "decadence", from a right-wing, traditionalist perspective. Only from this point of view can you equate "subversion" and "progressivism".

>How is all progress subversion?
I define subversion as "codified degeneracy". There is Tradition; there is degeneracy or deviance; and there is subversion. The traditional world can "tolerate" deviance to a certain degree; when Richard Spencer talked about "traps being the spice of the ethno-state" (or something like that) he touched on that. I think he got it from one of the French New Right writers, who give similar examples: that drug-filled orgies are so alluring precisely because they are "verboten", because they happen OUTSIDE of polite society, because they are dangerous in a very real way (to one's reputation, status, even one's life)
Anyway, when this kind of deviance becomes the norm, subversion is happening. And progressivism is, basically, "deviance becoming the norm".
Just one example: Homosexuality is deviance; and yet there is gay marriage, both a mockery of traditional sexuality and of marriage (which is sacred in every culture of the world). (Gay marriage is, of course, legal in many countries of the West; discrimination is transgression).

Kind of. So far for billions of years progress has mostly involved becoming more and more proficient at facing the challenges that threaten our survival. We don't have the wisdom to define clearly what is a good direction to head, what progress means, all we really have to guide us is the collective experience of the human race as encoded in traditions. Some things are obvious though, pretty much all of us intuitively understand stuff like colonizing other worlds is good because it addresses threats to human survival.

... (telling them that they are indoctrinated little freaks wouldn't because we are simply not made to believe we were wrong our entire lives, Our brain would go crazy at that thought) ( to the point of schizophrenia??)
They've been taught that they are the good guys.

They are minions. And what they've been taught, reflects to our world. And it reflects like spreading fire, like spilling water.
I believe the same goes for the master mind(s) behind all of this. They are true artists of chaos.
And when an artist expresses himself, he reflects a part of himself to the world (like everyone else but in another way)
I believe there is more into it. It wasn't just convenient to teach them things like that, but a perfect (possibly even an inside joke for them Jews to laugh with each other at us) evil villanish art project too.
They look like this, They look like their minions. And when they created them, they reflected a part of themselves upon them.

Progressivism = Communism with social strife

Progressives will get the bullet first, as they are the useful chattel needed to further "progress" towards their warped vision of socialism, all for the benefit of their kike masters.

The only thing we should be "discussing" is how to dispose of the Progressives and their socialism as quickly as possible.

No. Progressing doesn't always mean surviving.
I could stay still all day and do nothing but eat, and I would still be surviving but not progressing.
If you can't survive you also can't progress. (since you didn't survive)
It's just in their minds that it's progressive to accept mudslimes.
What they don't understand is that, by bringing all these people in, they regress, by deculturalising themselves and us.

Here is something for you bots
This kills the bot

Good thread OP.

Pic related is the best contemporary book on the myth of progress, desu.

John Gray is not right wing in any real sense, so if you want a hugbox this book isn't for you. But he absolutely wastes modern secular religions, such as the belief in progress, in this book.

>I believe they are christians without religion, as much of their beliefs correlate with that of Yoshuah. But maybe im just biased there, its just there were no progressives in polytheistic Europe.
The term You're searching for is "heretics". Modern progressivism is basicaly indistinguishable from ancient Gnosticism in pratiche, except with the same things and ideas cut off.

Bots BTFO

Get some new wiring and come back

Not a robot desu.

Not If You "progress" towards an abyss.

You aren't surviving as well as someone who actively seeks out threats to face before they grow. You have a higher probability of dying, not as good at surviving.

Yo bot
Hyperbole much

>bring meaningful and good conversation
This is an anti-shill thread. Good luck OP.

>The question should be: do progressives see Progressivism as an ideology? Or is it just the default mode of politics to them?
They seem pretty zealous in their worship of the Goddess History. Got that from Marx, obviously.
As such, "Progress" to them is neither the common course of politics nor an ideology. It's a Wave of inevitable change they wish to ride while everyone else drowns or at best floats.
However, their predictions as of the direction of this wave are never right. So they've embraced the "unreality principle" for wich they're MORE virtuous the more wrong things they believe.
It's ritual purity, not ideology.

In terms of the progress of social liberalism, and not technological progress, I don't understand what they mean? Progress means development towards an improved condition. In this case, how is the browning of the white race progressive? How is promiscuity progressive? How is fat acceptance progressive? How is homosexuality and transexuality progressive? From my point of view, all of these are degenerative... That is why they are called "degenerates"!
I'm not gonna go "we're the real liberals xD" but seriously, but many things that modern liberals oppose could be described as itself as progressive while they attempt to degenerate us to a more primitive, hedonistic state.
From my POV, the only progress can come from technological advancement. Legalising weed or homosexuality does not really seem progressive, as it leads to no further developments in history.

It's because, like Gnostics, they believe the system is itself corrupt so it must be destroyed before real progress can happen.
Now, the system IS itself corrupt (Powers and Principalities in High places) but they confused the venom for the cure.

But what is real progress? What do they want to achieve and how will this improve our condition?

you are asking a fundamental question, similar to the user that called them cancer.

This type of evolution, the one that is unstable and tries to cancerously overgrow its host at an exponential rate is what modern and post-modern progressivists are falling for.

Conservatives that are regressive to progress are of a similar sickness of mind (instead of manchilds they are oldfuckchilds). The rythm and direction of change are imperative to true progress.

True progress is a slow and painful process, but with beautiful outcomes. What we have know is cancerous growth without any aesthetics, bound to explode.

That's indeed part of the problem. The telos of progressive thought is about as constant as fashion in hats.

Is progressivism constant unfettered change?

So what is true progress progressing towards? How can you identify cancerous progress?

It's actually the same thing since the enlightment or earlier. "Imagine" is a good resume.

I do not think that the modern "progressive" ideologies are the only progressive ideologies though. I regard fascism and ideologies like National socialism that are derived from it as progressive to, if more so, because they wish to further the condition of human society for the better. Average person may laugh at this claim but the fascist point of view is that tradition must be maintained while technological advance continues, and if a tradition does not survive the technological advance then it will naturally be destroyed. That is progressive, in good sense.

You are so indoctrinated by the white cis male dominated patriarchal culture that you can't imagine a world without it. All wars and everything bad is just a result of men being unreasonable. You have no more right to your ancestral lands than a random ethopian, in fact the ethopian deserves your house because he's had a hard life. The Greek play Assemblywomen shows the utopia we will have when the patriarchy is finally smashed and the whole world lives in unity and divides resources fairly among themselves.
>ban private wealth and enforce sexual equality for the old and unattractive

Agreed. What is the common theme in all progressive ideologies?

More or less. You have to recognize that as notes, eugenics were at one point a modern, progressive ideal, held to by such progressive thinkers as HG Wells and GB Shaw. Indeed, the predecessors to the Fascist party in Italy were... the Futurists! What turned progressives against eugenics wasn't the revelation of some flaw in logic, or some new bit of scientific evidence (that came later), it was the absolute horror at seeing their beliefs put into practice. This is the perennial curse of the various enlightenment religions, of which progressivism is just one.

We’re starting from scratch. Keep these threads available. Got to get the new fags to realize this place is for sharpening your arguments.

I figured it was led by the Jews to ultimately summon Satan.

I would say that it's the illusion that human nature can be improved. More specifically, it's the illusion that the cumulative and accretive progress that has been made in knowledge in the modern era will somehow translate into improvements in human ethics and political life.

>The Greek play Assemblywomen
This.
Progressivism for all It's pomp and circumstances is nothing freaking new.

And above all is an attempt to do that without God.
Christianity at least posits an End Times, a Tribulation, and that It's out of Man's hand to change his own Nature.
Progressives have none of these limits, to them every year is year zero.
Consider For instance the vicious progressive attacks against Star Treck the original series. That series was once the height of progressive thought. Their ideal future put on science fictiony display. You'd think they'd still cherish it.
But Capitain Fucking Kirk is too right wing for them now.

I'd also like to point out to you that the Italian Fascists were immensely hostile to tradition in a great many ways (destroying museums, smashing up monuments, embracing modern architecture, etc).

Fascism and Nazism are retarded for much the same reason that progressivism is retarded, desu. These are all products of eschatalogical enlightenment fantasies.

Italian fascists did destroy many downtown buildings in cities such as Florence and Rome but they also worked to mantain much of the Italian Heritage, building museums and better infrastructure (Santa María Novella station in Florence is a perfect example) That is You're right but only in part.

Thankks. Sup Forums will be better again. Have any suggestions for thread topics?

Bump with image.

Actually, funny that you should mention Christina end times. The Pst-milenialist Chrsitians believe it is the Christian duty to establish a Christian utopia before the coming of christ

I think We should have one on Evola and Rene Guenon. I've just read "the Kingdom of quantity ..." and I'm all ready and set.

Yes, the Fascists did appeal to many pre-modern precepts.

Even so, the Italian Heritage they sought to preserve was based in a notion of an Italian Nation that didn't fully and properly exist until 1871.

>Pst-milenialist Chrsitians believe it is the Christian duty to establish a Christian utopia

Heretics gotta heretic. St. Augustine told them once in 100 aD What happens If you go full retard like that.
His approach of just advocate Christian Values and expect them from leaders worked like a charm for centuries.

any specific aspect of evolas thought you want to cover?

what about thread about democracy and if it is good thing or bad thing

I think that an epistemology and politics thread would be nice. We could discuss Evola, whose politics were ultimately rooted in mysticism, but the thread wouldn't just be limited to those who had read Evola.

that's a good topic

any quotes to go with it? I would like to include quotes in the OP

Agree completely on this. I'm an Italian living in Spain and still feel more Tuscan than Italian myself.
It bears mention the fact that the process You're talking about started a lot before Mussolini was even born, due to Masons (that's a pretty Open secret, look for instance at the roots of Mazzini's thought).
I'd date it at least to Napoleon's short living Kingdom of Italy however; given the "unitarist" character of Milan's 1848 revolts.

that's very interesting. Other schools of political thought we could highlight in contrast to evola?

I can look for some but what kind? anti-democracy? pro-democracy? and how many?

if we are debating democracy maybe one pro and one anti. just 1-2 quotes will work

Good plan, I'm ok with this.

Something from Nietzsche should work.
Evola is notable for going beyond nihilism, We could underline that.