Progressivism is a religion, and its foundation are the Seven Progressive Commandments, or else basic tenets. These were compiled at the Monkey House:
- Western Liberal Democracy is the only legitimate form of government. All others are at best temporary holdouts (per Fukuyama).
- Western Liberal Democracy necessarily implies a state founded on “public reason” as defined by John Rawls. That is, the State must not be founded on a “comprehensive conception of the good,” but rather on neutrality between completing comprehensive conceptions of the good. Thus follows strict separation of church and state and official dedication to Liberté and Egalité.
- There are no meaningful genetic differences between human groups: there is more variation between individuals in each group than between different groups (per Gould and Lewontin).
- There is no such thing as “more civilized” or “less civilized” cultures, there are only different cultures (per Boas contra Spencer.)
- Multicultural societies are better than monocultural societies, or at least not worse regarding civil society, trust, interpersonal relations, and violence.
- There is no biological difference between men and women that is necessarily socially meaningful. Anything that appears to be an essential difference between men and women as groups (stronger male preference for youth and beauty in a partner, stronger female preference for wealth and status, for example) is but a cultural legacy. We could in theory reverse these differences with different methods of socialization for boys and girls.
- The essence of humanity is only liberty and rationality. Our biological status as homo sapiens is but an extraneous accoutrement to the truth that “man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards.” (Sartre)
All of the above statements are outright lies.
Let us deconstruct them one by one.
“Western Liberal Democracy is the only legitimate form of government. All others are at best temporary holdouts“.
There are many problems with that statement, and I will discuss them one by one.
First, Western Liberal Democracy simply does not exist. It is a fable, a fairy tale in which everyone believes, and anyone doubting it is branded a heretic. Democracy as such never really existed, except on a local scale: and even then, many if not most such democracies were not democratic by our “standards”. Athens was really an ologarchy: only adult, rich males could afford to be in the city and vote. Women, children and slaves had no vote.
Modern democracy is even worse. While everybody of certain age can vote, the establishment (the Cathedral) has made sure that the vote does not matter in several different ways:
- Ideology of civic nationalism allows the establishment to import voters as necessary. People who have no origin or ties to the land are allowed to settle and vote on major issues – one may ask Native Americans how that worked out for them.
- Decision-making is highly centralized in the state apparatus and, increasingly, in supranational institutions. As a result, it is very difficult, nearly impossible, for local governments to adjust policies to suit local conditions. Even if central government were fully legitimate, it would still be tyrannical as people would be forced to either follow the policies they do not agree with or to emigrate wholesale. But it is not, and increasing proportion of policies are being enforced from supranational level in any case, making even emigration less and less viable option.
- State itself is completely subverted – and not just the formal apparatus. The Marxist/Progressive establishment has made certain to maintain its power by subverting everything regarding the functioning of the state. State apparatus, education, media and the power to set the discourse and the limits of the Overton window had all been appropriated by the Marxists. This means that anyone asking serious questions is immediately declared a heretic, branded, and then burned on a proverbial pyre.
Considering the above, one could make a case that the only legitimate form of the government is no government at all. This is clearly impossible, but it makes a very clear case for subsidiarity, which is to say, reduction of state functions to the lowest possible level. A return to city-states, or at least something as close to that as possible. But the idea of democracy goes against that, because it creates an idea that state is the extension of the people, and thus should have power to impose the nebulous “will of the people”. This idea can work on a local level. But the sovereignity on national level should be held by the local governments, and sovereignity at supranational level should be held by nation-states. Any attempt to employ popular sovereignity at these levels leads to loss of power of all levels below them, to centralization, and consequently to tyranny. And the only way to restore the political localism and subsidiarity is to make the central government a competitor of the local governments, rather than making local governments an extension of the central government – and this means return to monarchy.
“Western Liberal Democracy necessarily implies a state founded on “public reason” as defined by John Rawls. That is, the State must not be founded on a “comprehensive conception of the good,” but rather on neutrality between completing comprehensive conceptions of the good. Thus follows strict separation of church and state and official dedication to Liberté and Egalité.”
Problem here is that public reason does not exist. Public reason should involve the reasoned debate and the logic-driven consensus around public good. But this cannot happen, because humans are not rational beings by nature. In vast majority of cases, rational decision-making merely consists of finding ration-based or even merely rational-sounding excuses for the emotionally-driven decisions. And typically it is precisely those who most loudly proclaim the rationality of their decisions that reject reason the most. Because of this, public reason cannot serve as a foundation of a state, especially considering how easily public opinion can be manipulated by the educational-media system.
Competing comprehensive conceptions of good eventually lead to the idea that idea of good does not exist, and that in turn leads to one of two outcomes:
- Complete moral relativism, the destruction of the idea that morals exist.
- Entrance and victory of an ideology which succeeds in enforcing its own conception of good. This has happened with Progressivism, which has imposed Marxism on the West.
In fact, most often these outcomes happen in succession, as destruction of traditional morality enables the victory of Marxism.
Official dedication to Liberte and Egalite is also destructive. Modern idea of equality is inherently incompatible with the idea of liberty. Rather than meaning merely equality before the law (which never was and never will be achieved, but is at least theoretically possible as well as compatible with liberty), the idea has been transformed into one of sameness. Likewise, rather than liberty from state oppression, modern Progressive idea of liberty is one of liberation from traditional norms, which are then necessarily replaced by the governmental tyranny.
And both ideas are destructive on their own. It is impossible for an individual to becompletely free. For society to function, individual’s freedom is necessarily restricted, or society – which relies on cooperation of individuals – will collapse. The only question is the extent and nature of the restrictions. And in terms of nature, there are two main solutions: organic and mechanical, or internal and external.
To be sure, both of these are influenced or even imposed from the outside. But organic restrictions are products of the tradition and evolution; they take the form of ethnic, morals, culture and traditions, and are imposed bottom-up. They thus tend to be relatively permanent and immutable. Mechanical restrictions however are made up from the outside, and take the form of the formal legislature, which is imposed top-down.
The “liberation” which started with the French Revolution and is still going on with Progressivism is primarily liberation from the organic restrictions. French Revolution negated the authority of the Church, and the October Revolution as well as the post-1945. Marxist takeover of the Western world destroyed the significance of traditional forms of authority: family and tribe, first and foremost. But this did not result in liberty. Rather, it led to tyranny, as the organic rules were replaced by the “rule of law” – the rule of arbitrary restructions decided by a small caste of technocrats.
Neither is Egalite – equality – any less destructive. The original idea – equality before the law – does have some merit. But it did not stop there – it never could. Modern Progressives are so obsessed with “equality” that they have turned it into “sameness”. Reality itself prevents humans from being equal: individuals and groups differ in terms of intelligence, emotions, patterns of behaviour, abilities, knowledge, and so on. But the Left has – having “achieved” the equality before the law – turned to reality denial. Ideologies of feminism, transgenderism, LGBTQIA and so on are all founded on the rejection of the basic fact of biological and biopsychosocial differences between men and women. Likewise, multiculturalism is based on the rejection of differences between different tribes and cultures.
But this does not lead to equality, it merely leads to destruction. In order to achieve equality, Left wants to achieve identicality. Achieving this, in turn, requires destruction of everything that makes humans human, and enforcement of a Progressive top-down dictatorship.
“There are no meaningful genetic differences between human groups: there is more variation between individuals in each group than between different groups (per Gould and Lewontin).”
Race is real. Ethnic groups are also real. Physical differences are based in genetic differences, and they go much deeper than just skin tone. Different races, sub-races and ethnic groups have major differences not just in skin and eye colour, but also in the hair follicles, skeletal structure, digestive tract (e.g. different lactose tolerance), and so on. Northern Europeans have incidence of lactose intolerance of 18% – 26%, while African and Asian ethnicities have lactose intolerance of 75% – 95%. Alcohol sensitivity is also different – and includes differences in incidence of highly visible facial flushing (47-85% in Orientals vs 3-29% in Caucasians). Negroid phenotype also has higher bone density than Caucasian one, with black men having 4,5-16,1% higher bone density than white men, and black women having 1,2-7,3% higher bone density than white women. Kenyans dominate long-distance running largely thanks to genetic advantages – such as the greater ability to exploit oxygen (about 10% from same intake compared to European athletes). Meanwhile, West Africans have significantly more fast-twitch fibers and anaerobic enzymes than the whites. This explains their dominance in sprinting.
And these are just major races. In reality, each race is further subdivided into phenotypes and ethnic groups, which have further differences of their own. This, for example, is a list of European phenotypes:
|Type||skull (cephalic index)||height||(hair) pigmentation|
|Nordoid||long||short to medium-tall||fair|
|Gracile Mediterranid||long||short to medium-tall||dark|
|East Europid||broad||short to medium-tall||fair|
|Alpinid||broad||short to medium-tall||dark|
These are merely broad traits. Phenotypes have many more differences than just the ones listed in the table.
Of course, each ethnic group will have individuals of mixed phenotypes, and number of theoretically possible types is almost infinite. This, in combination to dominance of Marxist ideology, has led to modern politically-correct definition of the race as a social construct. It is indeed true that many definitions of race were a social construct. In 1900s, white European immigrants were not considered “white” by the dominant Anglo-Saxon group. Likewise, “black” race is defined by the skin colour, despite otherwise massive genetic and antrophometric differences between various genetic groups within the “black” race. But these approaches fail at capturing the real human genetic diversity.
There is no such thing as “more civilized” or “less civilized” cultures, there are only different cultures (per Boas contra Spencer.)
This depends on how one defines civilization, but it is a fact that some cultures and societies are better able to produce complex systems and things of value. Plains Indians never produced anything approaching the social and architectural achievments of settled cultures such as European, Asian, African or Central/South American empires, despite being no less intelligent than them (as shown rather beautifully by the Letter from Chief Seattle).
Meanwhile, the Western, European civilization is at its lowest level since its inception. Compared to people of Antiquity and Middle Ages, we are losing our soul, our ability to create and appreciate the value and beauty. Marxism is destroying civilization, and thus making modern West less civilized than more traditional societies.
Multicultural societies are better than monocultural societies, or at least not worse regarding civil society, trust, interpersonal relations, and violence.
This is very easily shown as false by the following comparison:
As is rather clear from the above, ethnic diversity shows very high correlation with gun murders. And in this particular case, correlation is causation. The only other factor which impacts gun murders is gun ownership. But gun ownership rate has no relation to the gun murder rate:
In fact, some of the safest states are among those with highest gun ownership rate. But no highly diverse state is safe. Conclusion is clear: diversity leads to murders. And high murder rate automatically means loss of trust, which has implications for civil society and interpersonal relations.
There is no biological difference between men and women that is necessarily socially meaningful. Anything that appears to be an essential difference between men and women as groups (stronger male preference for youth and beauty in a partner, stronger female preference for wealth and status, for example) is but a cultural legacy. We could in theory reverse these differences with different methods of socialization for boys and girls.
That is clearly wrong. In fact, biological differences between men and women are not only extant, they are highly socially meaningful – especially through history. Men and women have major pyschological differences – men display more aggression while women display more empathy. Men have a tendency towards hierarchy and group loyalty. Women have a tendency towards cooperation, and care little for in-group loyalty. As a result, womens’ political enfranchesment has helped cause disaster for the West in 1940s.
Women are quick to seek favour of men who are stronger or more dominant. This phenomenon is very noticeable in 1940s France, specifically the phenomenon of collaboration horizontale. This is a term given to romantic or sexual relationships which French women had with German soldiers after the fall of France in 1940. But this was not restricted just to France: in fact, it happened in Belgium, Netherlands and so on. And it happened with every occupation force in history. After Nazi defeat, those women were punished. Today, this phenomenon is noticeable in women and feminized men who promote the acceptance of immigration.
In general, men value assertiveness and competition while women value cooperation. In fact, high testosterone usually leads to displaying right-wing values: high levels of testosterone are linked to behavioral patterns of parochial altruism, such as the preferential treatment of ingroup members, while aggression and discrimination is directed towards outgroup members. Low testosterone corresponds to cooperative and even submissive behaviour. This is bad news in terms of results of political equality, but it is even worse for Leftist men. Men suffering from low testosterone will experience a stunted sex drive, erective dysfunctionality, low sperm volume (an epidemic only found in Western countries), hair loss, fatigue, loss of muscle mass, increased body fat, decreased bone mass, mood changes, and the cognitive impairment. And thanks to plastics in food and water as well as hormones given to farm-grown animals, Western countries had been experiencing an epidemic of low testosterone – among men and in general.
The essence of humanity is only liberty and rationality. Our biological status as homo sapiens is but an extraneous accoutrement to the truth that “man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards.” (Sartre)
Liberty and rationality cannot be the essence of humanity, because neither really exist. Humans are not free, and grow less free as Left grows in power. A completely free person cannot live in a human society, and humans are too weak – biologically – to survive alone, outside civilization. Because of this, there always had to be a balance between liberty and survival.
As for rationality, humans are not rational beings either. Humans are poor at reasoning, and fail at simple cognitive tasks. We also reason completely differently about two pieces of logic which are completely equal but are worded differently (framing effect), use irrelevant information to color how we understand probability (conjunction fallacy), reason about the rate of something based on how easily we can recall events (availability heuristic), find evidence to confirm our preexisting beliefs (confirmation bias), and so on.
This is actually a good thing. Computers are perfectly rational and reasonable, but this results in the GIGO effect (Garbage In, Garbage Out). In humans, relying solely on reason would lead to indecisiveness – and in dangerous situations we in fact rely on instinct. Reasoning evolved not to discover the truth, but to convince others to come over to our own views. Left’s success is based on their recognition of this fact: instead of arguing to find out the truth, they argue in order to bring others over to their own emotionally-founded views.