[Hong Wu]

Lately, progressives have been consistently losing certain arguments and they have been miraculously undeterred by said rhetorical defeats. I believe the reason for this is because progressives often think they are making materialist arguments when they are actually making metaphysical statements.
This happens because they lack for an appropriate religious dialogue. My goal here is to try and provide some terms and arguments that might support such a dialogue. An example of a consistent losing argument is the “black white supremacist” argument, something that clearly fails from a materialist standpoint.

The source of this argument can't be that “whiteness” is a social construct, if only because that term “social construct” is useless without a related degree. Instead, when someone says “whiteness” what they really mean is “inner whiteness” as a metaphysical state that is synonymous with the idea of evil in other religions. If this is accepted, the apparent discrepancies in contemporary progressivism are logically resolved; inner whiteness (which is distinct from material whiteness of the skin) is evil. This is one reason why you can have "white blacks" and "coloured whites" or white allies, the term is actually referencing a spiritual or metaphysical state of being; it is not a reference to physical coloration.

Once evil is clearly defined, all we need to start forming a cosmology is terms for that which is “good”. Here's a few I came up with:

Progressianism - a religion that worships progress as a real metaphysical principle.

Progressiarch - a worldly authority in social and scientific progress. Somewhat analogous to Buddhist concepts, a Progressiarch must never permanently commit to any idea besides the concept of progress itself; this is a form of self-destruction as destruction of the ego. It is equivalent to a Sainted path or a Bodhisattva in other religions.

Progressiah - a being who becomes so attuned to the fact of progress that they gain abilities, or at least a unique chain of coincidences that appear to lesser beings as magical powers. This is the highest state and is equivalent to a prophet or Messiah in other religions.

In a previous post, I argued that a metaphysical conception of endless progress rejects the possibility of God or an ultimate state, which may be offensive to the egos of most people. I believe that the concept of self destruction as part of a quest to become a Progressiah or Progressiarch is something that people are literally attempting today and that it is one way to resolve that dilemma. One could also argue that it is no more contradictory or confusing than ideas regarding how Jesus Christ can be both man and God or various other religious concepts.

Part II - Neo-Classism in Progressianism.

The alleged double standards surrounding things like claims of sexual assault are easily understood if someone accepts a very simple proposition: progressianism includes a class system and the different classes have different rights. The progressive class has a presumption of innocence. The regressive class has no presumption of innocence in certain areas because they have not given themselves over to the task of destroying their “inner whiteness” and therefore society cannot afford to grant them the same presumptions. It seems to be the case that almost everyone today wants some kind of class system and it might be socially beneficial for people to start admitting to this instead of beating around the bush; there is no other way to explain what contemporary progressives want besides using the term class system and progressives do themselves no favors when they argue for having different classes of people at every opportunity but then refuse to call that what it is, thus being unable to complete their own arguments.

[SolarCross]

Very interesting thoughts but I think "progressianism" already exists as "progressivism"?

[Victoribus Spolia]

he source of this argument can't be that “whiteness” is a social construct, if only because that term “social construct” is useless without a related degree. Instead, when someone says “whiteness” what they really mean is “inner whiteness” as a metaphysical state that is synonymous with the idea of evil in other religions. If this is accepted, the apparent discrepancies in contemporary progressivism are logically resolved; inner whiteness (which is distinct from material whiteness of the skin) is evil. This is one reason why you can have "white blacks" and "coloured whites" or white allies, the term is actually referencing a spiritual or metaphysical state of being; it is not a reference to physical coloration.

Brilliant.

The alleged double standards surrounding things like claims of sexual assault are easily understood if someone accepts a very simple proposition: progressianism includes a class system and the different classes have different rights. The progressive class has a presumption of innocence. The regressive class has no presumption of innocence in certain areas because they have not given themselves over to the task of destroying their “inner whiteness” and therefore society cannot afford to grant them the same presumptions. It seems to be the case that almost everyone today wants some kind of class system and it might be socially beneficial for people to start admitting to this instead of beating around the bush; there is no other way to explain what contemporary progressives want besides using the term class system and progressives do themselves no favors when they argue for having different classes of people at every opportunity but then refuse to call that what it is, thus being unable to complete their own arguments.

Excellent on the double standard, one can spot a novice anti-leftist when they try to appeal to double-standards, they clearly don't understand the left's own worldview. Nonetheless, I think you have advanced this point by stating that even the left wants "classes" or hierarchies of some sort; though there are aspects of this I could critique.

The classes in this worldview are not actual classes in the sense of aristocracy v. peasant, but degrees of grievance that must be addressed. Thus, its more like a measure of accounts; those with whiteness have the greatest debt to be repaid before they can be admitted to the utopia epoch of egalitarianism etc.

Critique

1. Your terms are wordy and unnecessary; we already have adequate terms for this movement on most points. Progressivism (or the Left) is sufficient as a term and IS progressianism.

2. I don't see the point with the whole progressivarch and progressiah ideas, these seem speculative and no leftist would believe in such. Its a debate non-starter.

3. I think the term "inner whiteness" was the most brilliant insight you had on this thread, but it seems deeper than that. The term "whiteness" is inadequate, as the term comprehends merely race, but in reality, the grievance is against everything pertaining to the western identity; Christianity, capitalism, patriarchy, colonialism, et al.

I too question whether its an actual racial matter, but the inward metaphysical principle is not merely whiteness, but the whole traditional worldview of the western whites.

[SolarCross]

3. I think the term "inner whiteness" was the most brilliant insight you had on this thread, but it seems deeper than that. The term "whiteness" is inadequate, as the term comprehends merely race, but in reality, the grievance is against everything pertaining to the western identity; Christianity, capitalism, patriarchy, colonialism, et al.

I too question whether its an actual racial matter, but the inward metaphysical principle is not merely whiteness, but the whole traditional worldview of the western whites.

My suspicion is that the "inward metaphysical principle" is just a matter of allegience or lack thereof to the Adversary.

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.
— SAUL ALINSKY

Some of them even come a bit clean on whom they serve.

[Victoribus Spolia]

My suspicion is that the "inward metaphysical principle" is just a matter of allegiance or lack thereof to the Adversary.

The first triggered resistor who was denied equality by the One who was obviously Superior and now has to engage in lies to get his way.

Some of them even come a bit clean on who they serve.

As much as I know this to be true, it still shocks me when I read it. This reminds me of something Rei would say.

At some point my heart will come to terms with what mind already knows; that communists are satanists.

[SolarCross]

At some point my heart will come to terms with what mind already knows; that communists are satanists.

Yeah, the whole atheist thing is just a disguise. The schism between science and religion which occurred on the back of the Vatican's ill-judged backing of geo-centricism provided a very convenient cover for attacking Christianity (and other Order orientated spirituality) under a false flag but it is just that a disguise. The most interesting line in the above quote for me is "and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which"; isn't that a very strange thing for a real atheist to say? You probably aren't a big fan of Richard Dawkins but can you imagine him alluding that the mythology of Satan could be history rather than just a fairy tale?

[Sivad]

[Bulaba edit: Off-topic one liner removed, warning for Rule 2 issued]

[Hong Wu]

Another example of progressive classism is the idea that those who disagree with them need to "get educated" even though most people (and by extension, most progressives) have never gotten a degree in a public policy area. So what they're really saying is that the person needs to be part of a class that has gained degrees in various, allegedly all-encompassing areas (gender studies?) and not that they should engage in specific study of an area of policy. This too is actually a classist argument thinly disguised as something else because the progressive's degrees often have no direct relation to any specific realm of policy.

[Truth To Power]

Instead, when someone says “whiteness” what they really mean is “inner whiteness” as a metaphysical state that is synonymous with the idea of evil in other religions.

Isn't "progressive" merely a euphemism for egalitarian? The concept of inner whiteness seems to refer to a constellation of beliefs, personality characteristics, education and perhaps formal privilege that are statistically correlated with European ancestry and lead to relatively greater success in capitalist economies. As such, it may be found to an even greater degree in certain populations that may not be identified as white at all, such as East Asians and Jews. Evil -- what is damnable -- in the egalitarian eschatology may thus even be considered not so much whiteness or inner whiteness as success per se: simply achieving greater eminence than one's fellows. I've noticed that progressives often reserve a special enmity for those who have achieved eminence by merit and commensurate contribution, even eclipsing their resentment of those who obtain it by privilege.

[Libertarian353]

@Hong Wu
You don't get it, we whites will kill you folks if had your way.

[SolarCross]

You don't get it, we whites will kill you folks if had your way.

Speak for yourself.

[Libertarian353]

You're speaking for yourself. We would exterminate non-whites in Hong Wu ideal society.

[Hong Wu]

It's Halloween out here already and to the potential delight of my PoFoes, no one invited me to a Halloween party. In my defense, I don't see a lot of people out here celebrating Halloween period but I did come across one restaurant that had some goblins and ghouls in it. Unfortunately, I think some signals got crossed somewhere and they were playing some upbeat Christmas rock music.

More importantly...

Is Donald Trump the Demiurge?
It's unfair that leftist stuff doesn't seem to work too well in the real world. Perhaps we need a metaphysical reason for this. If leftists went all the way and embraced their Gnostic Christian aspects, Donald Trump could literally be the devil, not merely figuratively. I mean, why settle for Hitler?

Similarly, anyone who supports him and is powerful enough could be an Archon. These are the guys who run the material world and prevent it from coinciding with the heavenly world, or something, I'm not an expert on Gnosticism.

[B0ycey]

Your thesis @Hong Wu is nothing more than assumed stereotype. Progressives, like their ideological opposite spectrum brothers the 'white supremacists' are highly opinionated and socially destructive people. They, like all of humanity, have their own morals and they want to suppress that opinion on society at any cost. They are not against being white. Many are white. They are against what they declare as social injustices they seem to believe are grievances against them. And they should think that actually - especially today. Trump for example is taking their rights away. But their methods are the same as the far right to get their will. They lie and distorts facts just as Trump does. They campaign not on what the majority want but what they want. You are the Progressive. You too suppress your ideology and bang the drum when Trump spreads his lies. Are you embracing inner whiteness or anti humane tendencies? Centrism is the true way forward and humanities only way for a fairer society.