Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Progressivism: The road to nowhere.

Part II of Nationalist Alternatives's series on Political Correctness

"Progressivism: The road to nowhere"

By Gavin James

In the first article, we looked at how Political Correctness and modern day liberalism takes on religious aspects by using concepts analogous to 'Original Sin' and 'stained bloodlines'. Much like mainstream religions, Political Correctness has asserted itself by making bald assertions and requiring people to adopt these as articles of faith.  Political Correctness, despite its name, is therefore more akin to a religion, a new age belief system, a faith, than a political ideology.

Progressivism is a political term which refers to ideologies and policies which favor reform, particularly reform of a liberal or left wing nature.  While the term progressivism doesn't necessarily refer to left wing politics, it is largely used by the ‘left’ to refer to its own ideologies, and has become synonymous with ‘leftism’, particularly in the Western World.  So much so that many liberals will simply refer to Politically Correct ideologies as 'progressive ideologies', and refer to themselves simply as 'progressives'.  In this article we will look at progressivism in Political Correctness, and how the PC establishment determines what ideals are progressive and which are regressive.

The very term 'progressive' has two distinct and obvious connotations. Firstly, by merely labeling any particular idea as 'progressive', one associates that idea with the positive, with progress, going forward, reaching a desired goal. It is usually assumed that this goal or destination is a positive one.  Progressive ideas therefore immediately appear to be ones that support society, which propel its evolution and development. Conversely, by simply labeling an idea as 'regressive', one associates that idea with the negative, with regression, going backwards and moving away from a desired goal. Regressive ideas therefore generally appear as ones that go against society, which retard its evolution and development.

Secondly, the term 'progressive' defines the goals. An ideal which may be value neutral, or morally ambiguous can be made out to be positive, that which works towards a goal. By stating that restructuring the management hierarchy of a company is a progressive step, it implies that the end goal, the new management structure, is a desirable outcome and beneficial to all involved.

Hence the proliferation and overuse of jargon such as 'going forward', 'moving forward', 'positive step' used by managers. Simply defining something as 'forward thinking' or 'progressive' makes the assumption the end goal is a positive one. The use of lexicon is far easier than actually proving the merits of the end goal, or actually having a positive outcome for other stakeholders.  Another example may be the increasing liberalization of marriage, such as the push for gay and lesbian marriage. Gay marriage is often put forward by the left as 'progressive', but the left never really prove this outcome as being the one more beneficial to society at large. They simply assume this to be so and therefore define loosening the definition of marriage as one of progress.  There was no analysis, no reason to come to this conclusion. It was simply assumed to be the case, that humanity would progress towards liberalism and this is how a society SHOULD advance.  It is worth noting, that other spheres of politics also use this idea of a single, desirable outcome which is made out to be the only possible conclusion of a developing civilization. This can be seen in how urban sprawl, economic growth and development of vacant land is seen as inextricably linked with progress of humanity.

Another example, often casually brought up is the 'inevitable' mixing of the races. It's often assumed that eventually there will be one race, and that somehow this is an inextricable part of progress. Again, there is no basis for this other than merely asserting that a particular ideology is the way forward. It also makes the rather ridiculous assumption that the 1.2+ billion Chinese and 1 billion Indians will somehow take in several hundred million immigrants of other ethnic groups and intermarry. This isn't a statement of fact, or observation, as its only the Western world which sees such demographic shifts as 'inevitable', and only the Western world which believes this to be inevitable, or even necessary. This is simply a statement which reveals political bias, and perhaps personal bias against Westerners, Whites, Anglo's or Europeans in general.

Undefined purpose: 

One central tenet of most major religions is fatalism, or perhaps more accurately, the idea of a divine plan or other plan. Fatalism is the idea that existence and humanity exists for a particular, defined purpose. Whether that purpose is becoming more Godlike or making that religion universally followed, there is a purpose which is figuratively, or literally, written by the creator. It can also be a new age belief in destiny, in bringing higher degrees of spirituality. It can be a belief that evolution has an end goal, a final purpose or destination which humanity should be working towards.

Political Correctness takes this concept and applies it in a somewhat secular context. Defined purpose becomes liberalism, and those ideals which are progressive and work towards creating the liberal, left wing utopia are portrayed as being the outcome of social and political evolution. Competing and contrary ideas are considered regressive, which serve only to pull people away from the destined goal. Being a progressive implies knowledge about the future or knowledge of the ultimate end game for human existence. Like the prophets and seers of old, progressivism is some kind of revealed knowledge which would not normally be obvious or attainable. These revelations are then disseminated as gospel truth, to be protected from inquiry and heresy. Indeed, the zeal in which Political Correctness attacks those who hold contrary notions about what social progress involves, is evidence in and of itself, the lack of solid reasoning and scientific proof behind the assertions it makes.


Embarrassment is an emotional state experienced by people who have been caught, or witnessed, performing a socially unacceptable or absurd conduct, which reveals ones weaknesses and foibles otherwise desirable that others do not know exist.  Embarrassment is also an emotion often reported by people in regard to political or social decisions that others have made. The embarrassment purportedly stems from being 'caught' belonging to a group which has acted in a socially or politically unacceptable manner. While personal embarrassment, such as being caught with ones pants down in public is an understandable and clear example; however, 'group' embarrassment is a little more complex.

A common critical argument used, by the left AND the right, but more so the left, is an expression of 'embarrassment' at the behaviour of other people in society, or their representative government or social figureheads. This is a common and often used 'argument' by the left.  Expressions of 'embarrassment' that their nation might not pursue 'progressive' policy, or move towards 'regressive' policy.  It can be embarrassment that fellow nationals have not embraced internationalism and still retain a sense of national and cultural identity. The choice to express ones dissatisfaction in terms of embarrassment is revealing. Embarrassment only exists when one is caught or witnessed, when one professes this sort of embarrassment, it is also an admission that one considers there to individuals present whose opinion will be affected. The question therefore remains. Who is witnessing? When one expresses embarrassment that their country hasn't adopted left wing ideals, who exactly is judging? Their peers? This doesn't make sense, as the person professing embarrassment clearly isn't involved, and their peers would know that.  And they would know that. Other nations? Perhaps, but considering that the Western world is largely the most 'progressive' (according to liberalism), again this makes little sense. More conservative nations (such as the rest of the world) would hardly think less. An alien civilization who is observing? Far fetched, but explains a bit more. The conscious universe? Who is this observer whose opinion has been affected is unknown, but it does reveal that there exists a sense of external consciousness, observing and judging. To feel judged, one must know the moral standard by which they are being judged. Therefore, the liberal who is embarrassed is unwittingly admitting belief in some sort of external moral framework, and someone, or something which is judging according to that framework. This ties in with the concept mentioned before of the assumed 'divine plan', or belief that existence itself has a conscious, or designed end goal. It is also further evidence that Political Correctness is indeed a religion.

Political Correctness's underlying weakness here is that assertions are made which have no basis.  Who says that left wing progressivism, or right wing progressivism is right? Where is the edict which states that we must grow economically, or continue to 'develop', or follow Marxist historical inevitability? Centuries of scientific inquiry have not revealed and planned or intended purpose, only unthinking laws. There is distinction between legitimate futures and illegitimate futures. Any future is permissible, and there is no entity outside humanity, aside from a belief in God, who has expectations as to where the human species SHOULD end up. Even Christianity as a religion is largely apolitical. Jesus did not engage in partisan politics.

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” - Mathew 22:21

Jesus was concerned with the next life, with God's kingdom, NOT whether one votes Green or Nationalist or Independent. Whether nations remained as separate or distinct entities, or merged was irrelevant. One was not judged on their political convictions here on earth. Political Correctness fills that void and concerns itself with these questions, and forces a specific mode of thinking. It takes an almost 'otherworldly' revelation about what is right or wrong, and concerns itself with very earthly matters.


Perhaps the idea that there is no 'preferred' moral system in the universe makes people uncomfortable. The only universal moral system is the one that an individual will choose. The universe is morally indifferent, regardless of what happens to us, and doesn’t protect us from a 'wrong' decision, nor does it reward us for a 'right' one. Having faith that creation exists, with the intention of people reaching a state of living completely dignified and living comfortably provides emotional security.  Being able to assert that ones political convictions are right, not just because they believe it so, but because some form of higher authority agrees, not only gives further comfort, but gives ones beliefs greater clout.
Political Correctness, while not the only political ideology which acts as if it is derived from a higher source, is one of the most prominent ones. Cold, hard analysis shows that what PC asserts, and what it demands of us is not based on accumulated knowledge, trial and error and precedent, but bald assertions and assumptions. In place of facts, faith is substituted. Where objective and open analysis should be, close minded dogmatism exists. People who take it upon themselves to promote and enforce Political Correctness rely on others to take for granted, the very basis of the source of their beliefs. They rely on people taking at face value, the moral superiority of their ideological position, or failing that, fear of being ostracized as some kind of 'heretic', a small minded bigot working against a noble cause. The “burning at the stake” of Brendon O’Connell is just one example.

The fact remains that there is no solid basis for progressives to define what 'progress' is other than personal opinion.  There is no valid argument which states which direction civilization must head towards. There are no other successful civilizations on other planets which we can observe and make inferences from, so there is no external yard stick. Liberalism claims to hold a morality which propels humanity forward, but there is no precedent for this, no evidence that this is true.

In fact, if anything, Liberalism and Political Correctness is demonstratively fatal towards healthy societies. A fact which is masked with oppression of any point of view, or speech or even thought which would mention this flaw.  If it could be widespread, that the basis for Political Correctness is nothing more than opinion; no more sacrilegious than a cult; has no more authority than any individuals own personal bias; would go a long way towards removing the corruptible and oppressive influence that Political Correctness has. By simply refusing to acknowledge its largely unsupported moral basis, it loses relevance. The emperor has no clothes. Nothing more needs to be done than to simply act and speak as if this so.