The future of radical progressivism

Quite true. The core aspect of Progressivism has many precedents. Progressivism is just the latest form of an endless cavalcade of shit concepts that promote the idea of “equity”. A society where everyone is equal. It’s been tried for millennia, and it failed every single time.
From various Greek models to some Christian models of societies with shared property (“Communism” started initially in France as a Christian movement, it wasn’t until Marx that it switched to Atheism) to the Mayflower to the notions of “All men are created equal” of the US constitution, to Lenin and the Bolshevik revolution, to Hitler who claimed that if there was racial unity, it would usher in a “classless society”, to today’s progressives and their push for equity.

It’s all based on the same concept: Exploit the greed and fear of the lower members of society to gain the power to confiscate the wealth and essentially enslave the productive members of society. It’s anti-meritocracy.
They’re using a simple human instict that conservatism refuses to acknowledge: tribalism. Where class warfare failed in the 19th and 20th century, they’re now pushing toward a race war. That’s not hard to do, all it takes is a few policies that make life miserable for one group, then you blame the other group for it. Humans do not live well among other humans that are not like them. That’s why all over the globe, nations developed as people chose to live among their own kind. It was a survival mechanism. Studies have shown that even babies pick their friends among their own race. We’re not raised to be racist – but we have an instinct to gravitate towards people who are “genetically more like us”. Studies have even shown humans to have elevated levels of stress when they are in a racial minority. A multiethnic society can work in theory. But in practice, it’s a powderkeg, and there will always be some dirtbag lighting a match.

The mechanism is simple. Keep everyone on edge and fearful, and present your ideology of “equity” as the only way to prevent either oppression or violent. Tell the have-nots they are oppressed and appeal to their greed to trade freedom for more stuff – and scare the haves into surrendering their freedom for safety.

Their model works because it’s based on human nature. As the WEF guy said, humans are now a “hackable animal”. They cracked the code. Progressivism appeals to human nature – the worst parts of it.
Conservatism has no answer to this, because it holds on to several falsehoods, chiefly that all men are created equal and that liberty is beneficial to all. It’s not. At best, it benefits half of the population. The half with more ability. It also entirely ignores our tribalistic nature. Conservatism has no answer to the reality of a multi-ethnic society being a powderkeg that can go off at any time.
And while the left very much embraces the idea of a final solution, conservatives are not even willing to split the country to finlly get out of the clutches and crosshairs. Nor would they even consider a more radical solution like disbanding the welfare state.
This is the reason why the progressives will win. Conservatives can win again and again, but left really needs to win big only once.

Yes, in time their new utopia will collapse, but the damage to humanity will be irreversible. Yes, they will take society with them.

I see virtually no chance for reversing this anymore in the West unless indeed some messiah like figure can lead a revolution. Beyond that, we can only hope the Russians win. They’re our only hope.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by Wisdom.

You missed the point. I wasn’t talking referring to “equal value” , which is what the constitution refers to, but “equal ability”. The fact is 50% of the population have nothing to gain from a free market, because they have less ability than others. That’s undeniable.
Put every person on the globe in a 100 yard sprint, and exactly 50% will be above average and the other 50% will be below average. Makes sense, right?
Same with intelligence (IQ is literally a quotient) and any other economically relevant ability.

The bottom 50% do not benefit from a fair game. The bottom 50% benefit from a head start or from “cheating”. Again, makes sense, right?
In economic terms: they benefit from redistribution of wealth.

If you want to convince the bottom half that they can benefit from a free market, you need to lay out how. There are arguments for it. A free market is overall more efficient and less corrupt and produces more wealth overall. But it has winners and losers. When I said “conservatism has no answer to this”, I meant it in reference to this simple fact.

My statement was economic. Conservatism need to find an answer to this problem.