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.

Embarrassing?

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.

Conclusion

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.

The Theology of Political Correctness: Original Sin

By Gavin James

“Religion is the opiate of the masses” is probably one of Karl Marx’s most oft-quoted and misunderstood quotes. In its correct context we see a recognition of the need for people to turn to religion to ease their soul and to create comfort where none can be found. It is the way in which people find order in a chaotic world and console themselves in a belief that existence itself has considered them and catered for them. It is the cocoon against a nihilistic universe and a faith in an external awareness outside of humanity. It is a belief system which utilises people’s strongest emotional faculties and as such, has been the most effective means of binding people to those that would exploit this for their own gains and power.

Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. – Karl Marx

In the western world, at the beginning of the 21st century we can look back and see the decline of theocratic control in western societies. Societies which have slowly and painfully, and not without much martyrdom, discarded the imposed crutches of faith based belief systems. The western world has decided to stand up on its own two feet and confront the vast emptiness and meaningless of existence and understand it for what it is, for how it is, not as we wish it to be. However, with the decline in the power of the church, we have not necessarily seen the end of religion. New religions have emerged to fill the void. New-Ageism, various conspiratorial cults and sects, other Eastern religions and mysticism and perhaps the most prominent of all, Political Correctness. Political Correctness is a moral system which is used to shape language, thought, policies and social standards so as to minimise offence to selected minorities and support liberal/left wing ideals. Political Correctness has not emerged as the result of scientific study, nor is it based on hypothesis proved correct by rigorous testing, but rather a system formulated to fulfil a political need. It is a system of belief, based on faith. In many respects there are parallels with Political Correctness and religion. It behaves in many ways like a religion, fulfilling needs that religion feels and requiring the same mode of acceptance that religion requires. To say that Political Correctness is like a religion would be incorrect. Political Correctness IS a religion. It is quite simply a modern “secular” religion without a supernatural deity. It is the modern, decentralised Church. It is the religion which anyone can become a reverend or clergyman and therefore gain power over people. It is the school of thought which one can demand that people accept without providing evidence. It is the modern ideology which one can excommunicate people from not only the religion, but society for not making the same baseless assumptions.

To adopt the moral system which Political Correctness prescribes is to make moral decisions based on articles of faith, not fact. It is to accept the morality of the “high priests” of Political Correctness as gospel without question, or criticism. Political Correctness has its own doctrine, its own high priests, its own original sin, inquisitors and heretics. It’s faith based because it works on underlying assumptions which are made without any evidence to back them up. It defines what ideals are progressive and which are regressive and just assumes this to be true, relying on adherents having faith that this being so. It is yet another attempt to find order where none exists and create a safe cocoon where humanity has a definite destiny, where nature is accommodating and respectful rather than indifferent. Political Correctness, like many other religions, prescribes a world view where the universe and life on Earth itself, including the Human species, was tailored to accommodate wishful thinking. It gives one the impression that humanity would be in its naturally designed state of harmony and peace, if one would only follow its doctrines.

Original Sin

Genesis begins with Adam and Eve, God’s two creations in the garden of Eden. The serpent persuaded Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The serpent did this with little difficulty, and so according to the scriptures, man fell due to disobedience to God.

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. - Romans 5:12-19

The sin committed by Adam condemned future generations for all eternity to death, despite their behaviour, despite any effort they may make to remain sinless. There are no propitiations one can make to break the chain, to remove the stain of original sin. Guilt is automatic and inherited at conception, almost as if there was a gene for Original Sin. Humans are destined to go to hell and only certain actions can save one from this fiery demise. It is not enough to remain sinless. It is not enough to be just, compassionate and generous. It is not enough to have a golden heart. Only that which is prescribed by the religious doctrine can provide salvation.

The concept here is a powerful one. Firstly, widespread propagation and inculcation of these religious beliefs onto people creates masses of people who have accepted, or been forced to accept a belief that they are going to face an unimaginable outcome upon death. There will be masses of people will wish to avoid this fate. Secondly, you and only you can offer the way out.

A person cannot extricate from this situation, as they are stained from birth. They have no choice in the matter, no means by which to avoid carrying original sin. This is the moral equivalent of creating indentured servants who inherit a moral debt from birth. A debt of infinite quantity which can never be paid off. The church acts as the intermediary between the debtor and creditor and thus enjoys the position of power. While the Christian doctrine of Original Sin refers to man sinning against God and not to other men, many have taken upon themselves to act as debt collectors on behalf of God. The moral debt at birth enslaves individuals to another who can utilise this belief system for their own benefit.

The benefit of spreading such a belief is too obvious to require restating. Financial debts can be paid off, freeing the debtor from the creditor when the debt is settled. Their descendants are also free from this debt as it no longer exists. Original Sin provides no such escape. There is no way to escape the creditor, as the debt created from Adam’s sin cannot be repaid. The terms of repayment are permanent and will be inherited by every generation. Generation after generation therefore believes they are born with this sin, an article of faith. The theocracy can then claim to offer the only means of salvation. The question of whether it is moral for someone to inherit the ’sin’ of their ancestors cannot be questioned, as that would be heresy.

White Guilt

The term “Original Sin” refers to the very first transgression of humans against God’s will. While the term refers quite specifically to the first sin, and to a tendency for man to commit sin due to the fall, the power in this concept lies in its perpetual nature. Original Sin is a stain in the bloodline. Original Sin doesn’t have to actually exist to hold power over people, nor does it need to be pre-dated by a period of absolute innocence. The very fact that one believes the stain of sin from the ancestors in sufficient.

White guilt quite simply is the guilt felt by Westerners of Anglo Saxon and European heritage of mistreatment of other ethnic groups by Whites (though rarely mistreatment of one White ethnic group of another White ethnic group). People either feel this guilt voluntarily, from learning about past events they believe are unjust and feeling a sense of compassion and empathy towards the victims, or have White guilt thrust upon them, by being indoctrinated into accepting that ‘Whites’ (generally) have oppressed non-whites or other minorities. For the former example, those who come to this conclusion of their own volition, many seek atonement and desire for White people, as a whole, to make any reconciliatory measures necessary. Perhaps the most interesting aspect is that like all the Christians who took on the guilt of Adam and Eve for their transgression against God, no one who feels White guilt actually personally committed any transgression. Exceptions are rare. The relationship between ‘White guilt’ and Political Correctness is strikingly similar to the relationship between ‘Original Sin’ and the theocracies of old. Political Correctness has exploited this for similar nefarious purposes. It promotes this idea as a means of creating further indentured servants. White people who have adopted the “debt” of their ancestors sins, are willing to make any repayments necessary to those who were wronged with the Politically Correct “priests” as the debt collectors. The debt is repaid through servitude, and adopting the morality that Liberalism requires you to adopt.

For an ideology which exposes the idea of treating people according to their individual deeds and character, rather than the race they were born into, ‘White guilt’ is a striking exception to this rule that provides the religion of Political Correctness much power. Like Original Sin, where one cannot choose not to be human born into a fallen state, one cannot choose not to be born of a particular ethnicity. For the average White Australian, who had no choice as to what ethnicity they were born, they are automatically burdened with the “dreadful” sin of colonisation and apparent subjugation of the Aboriginal people. Despite the fact that they have committed no crime themselves, they become indentured servants to Political Correctness. This involves a leap of fair. However, one must first accept the moral position that one can even be responsible for wrongs committed in the past. To question this, just like questioning the doctrine of original sin, is heresy. What’s more, Political Correctness doesn’t focus on the individual acting benevolently and compassionately towards Aboriginal people, but rather demands that the individual follow Political Correctness and accept wholeheartedly and blindly any Politically Correct doctrine. The Politically Correct theocracy, the intellectuals, politicians and other self styled leaders who claim to represent this religion of justice, tolerance and harmony demand first and foremost, obedience to their own doctrine and their own edicts.

People who resist the call to feel guilty and subjugate themselves to the wishes of Liberalism and left wing Political Correctness incorrectly focus on the nature of the so-called crimes. Much effort is made to try and diminish the severity of the nature of the historical events in question, or to justify it. Some may even argue that Aboriginals are better off post colonisation or that Africans who were brought as slaves into the New World are also better off, live better lives now than they would have, had their ancestors not have been brought over. Others try to play down the Jewish Holocaust, revise other events or generally defuse left wing or anti-Nationalist accusations by trying to prove them untrue, or at the very least, exaggerated. These attempts are nothing more than attempts to destroy the “Original Sin” of white guilt by challenging the sin itself. The so – called ‘racist crimes’ which supposedly only White people should be guilty of, have in reality been committed all over the world by all manner of races and creeds throughout all history. One can argue as to whether certain events were wrong or not, and perhaps in some cases doubt can really be cast on whether a true crime against others had taken place, but again, this is beside the point. Such atrocities are a hallmark of human behaviour rather than one particular group, but this point is irrelevant anyway. What many fail to realise, is that it is not the crimes (committed universally) which matter, but whether it is moral to suggest that someone who never engaged in such activity, should carry any guilt in the first place. What the opponents of Political Correctness fail to realise, is that we are not dealing with a moral system objectively derived from evidence and historical precendent, but a moral system based on faith. One must accept without reason that one can be guilty of “the crimes of the father” in the first place. While the basis for Original Sin can be found in the New Testament, the Old Testament says something to the contrary.

“Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.—Ezekiel. 18:19-20

This statement is the more moral one and lies closer to the heart of Western ideals. There is no basis in which to make descendants guilty of the crimes of their ancestors, or supposed crimes. The arguments over the nature of what occurred and who transgressed who, and by what quantity is irrelevant. Consider the events which led to the so-called Aboriginal ’stolen generation just or unjust, necessary or unnecessary, but whatever the conclusion the burden or lack thereof of moral indebtedness does not lie with those whose only connection with the people involved is bloodline. The real issue is whether it is moral to even suggest that one should feel guilty simple because they are Westerners, or White or Anglo-Saxon. To accept that people, simply because of their ethnicity, inherit non-hereditary and non-transferable aspects of previous generations, is in a way racist in itself! The call for Westerners to obey and subscribe to certain ideologies because of the ‘guilt’ or moral indebtedness they carry, is simply a call for faithful obedience. It simply empowers certain people by stupefying others. Ironically, it is obedience to a religion which seeks to destroy the very people who become its adherents. Quite simply, Political Correctness is a religion which demands that people, because of the identity they inherited, destroy their own identity.

The way to break these shackles is to simply recognise the Politically Correct racket for what it really is; a racket. A means of creating ‘moral debt’ by immorally demanding and tricking people into believing they share some guilt. It is tried and true huckster-ism, and because there is no ‘God’ figure, it is not recognised as a crooked religion which was designed to give the few power over the many.