Author Topic: Deconstructing "Progressive " thought  (Read 329387 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cavalryman

    Done with the demented bureaucracy.

  • You can't put a pricetag on patriotism
  • Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 32,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 397
Re: Deconstructing "Progressive " thought
« Reply #1275 on: October 24, 2016, 22:50:23 »
Wow. We have "no time" to teach navigation with a map and compass, and only shoot once a year if we are lucky (and PWT 1 through-3 if we are luckier), many other training events are out of reach for lack of resources, but......
At least male CF members haven't been ordered to walk about in cadpat and red high heels yet.   >:D

Offline Thucydides

  • Legend
  • *****
  • 181,790
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,155
  • Freespeecher
Re: Deconstructing "Progressive " thought
« Reply #1276 on: October 31, 2016, 17:57:38 »
Nothing like good old English snark:

A handy guide to Left-wing people for the under 10s
Andy Shaw
28 Oct 2016
Left-wing people in the olden days

Left-wing people used to like working-class people.

Lots of left-wing people used to be working-class people. These people were known as socialists and joined trade unions.

Sometimes working-class people used to frighten left-wing people, but they pretended that they weren’t frightened and were nice to them.

Left-wing people supported working-class people, gave them money, sat in rooms with them and wore badges to show that they cared more than right-wing people, who wore ties instead of badges and didn’t care.


Nowadays, working-class people are bored with socialism because it hasn’t made them rich and happy.

Nowadays left-wing people are middle-class people. Working class people are a big disappointment to left-wing people.

Left wing people now think that working class people are:
a) Simple and easily led
b) Un-enlightened and susceptible to short-term pleasures
c) Terribly sad and struggling, unable to cope on their own
d) All of the above

Education is a life-long task

Left-wing people think that working-class people are unable to think for themselves and require life-long education to help them make informed decisions.

Left-wing people work tirelessly on education programmes to encourage working class people to buy expensive food and clothes and not cheap food and clothes. They are disappointed that working-class people are un-ethical.

Working-class people like to drink alcohol, have sex and eat tasty food. They do not understand that these activities are dangerous and need continuous education from left-wing people.

Working-class people need to be protected from newspapers, even though they don’t read them anymore. They are easily influenced and their happy-go-lucky ways can be turned into bigoted nasty ways. Left-wing people are needed to help them use Facebook carefully and not make mistakes.

Left-wing people like to be sad and unhappy

Many left-wing people have a very nice life, but they like to be sad. To help with this, they choose to be sad for other people. Sometimes these people are far away and sometimes they are nearby, but different to them.

In the olden days, left-wing people tried to make it better for other people. Nowadays, they like to protect them by being offended when a working-class person doesn’t behave properly.

Left-wing like to help other people by being offended on their behalf. This means that the other people can carry on with their lives and the left-wing people do all the work. This isn’t really fair, but the left-wing people seem to carry on doing it, so they must enjoy it. Despite all this effort left-wing people are still very sad.

Left-wing people care more than other people

Left-wing people care so much that they love the whole entire planet. Other people don’t care about the planet, they only care about themselves and other people that they know. This means that left-wing people have to love the planet even more, even more than they actually like other people.

Left-wing people show that they care by telling other people about how much they care. They send special “I care” signals to other people. Forwarding videos on Facebook is one way that they can show how much they care. The videos often show people far away who are living miserable lives, but pictures of cute fluffy chickens in nasty factories are considered sufficient.

Left-wing activists (see below) are very helpful. They make lots of “I care” videos which makes it quick and easy for left-wing people to send their “signals”. They do this several times throughout each day when they are not busy.

Sometimes Left-wing people are made angry by other people

Left-wing people care so much, it makes them hate people who don’t show that they care. These people are right-wing people. Left-wing people have given them a name. It is “Tory scum”. Left-wing people like to shout at the right-wing people and tell them that they are scum even when they aren’t listening.

Shouting at the Tories is another way to show that they care. Caring is very important to left-wing people.

Left-wing people care so deeply that they don’t have time for thinking and convincing. They use their precious time for shouting about caring.

Also, working-class people don’t know what left-wing people are saying, so it is helpful when they point to the right-wing people and shout “scum”. They think that working-class people do understand shouting and caring.

If you have observed someone and you are not sure if they are a left-wing person, seek their opinion on “the Tories”. If they start to shout and care, they are left-wing.

Left-wing activists are helpful

Left-wing activists are left-wing people who have an internet connection. They make the internet very loud.

Left-wing activists help other people care on the internet. They are very helpful in pointing out when people have forgotten to show that they care. They help people in many ways – watching videos, commenting on things and clicking on buttons called “start a petition”. Left-wing activists sometimes go outside their houses and meet other left-wing people and they care together and shout at the Tory scum.

Left-wing people are funny

Left-wing people have “enlightened comedians” who make jokes on “panel games”. These are broadcast on the television and BBC Radio 4.

The enlightened comedians make people laugh at right-wing people, whom they consider stupid. In the olden days, comedians made jokes about Irish people, but these comedians weren’t clever like the enlightened comedians.

Instead of the Irish people, the enlightened comedians make jokes about working-class people.

Because they care, they use special words like “Glaswegians”, “Sun readers” and “UKIP supporters”, so the working-class people will not notice.

Working-class people do funny things like drinking Monster energy drinks, eating Haribos and watching television. This is funny and the enlightened comedians are helpful because they point at them and laugh, so we know who to laugh at as well. It is very funny and we all laugh because we are enlightened too.

Further reading

In the 1930’s George Orwell wrote about the left-wing people he knew in “The Road to Wigan Pier”. It is very funny.

I have known numbers of middle class Socialists, I have listened by the hour to their tirades against their own class, and yet never, not even once, have I met one who had picked up proletarian table-manners. In his heart he feels that proletarian manners are disgusting…he hates, fears, and despises the working class.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Thucydides

  • Legend
  • *****
  • 181,790
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,155
  • Freespeecher
Re: Deconstructing "Progressive " thought
« Reply #1277 on: November 30, 2016, 15:49:10 »
The articles are somewhat long, but quite illuminating.

Link one is from, a newer alternative social media site which was formed as a reaction to Twitter etc. banning and manipulating people based on their political expression and beliefs:

Link two is the resulting article based on the written interview:

I tried reading both as to half of the same thing, but the NYT piece looks like it came from a parallel universe (maybe Spock has a beard there?). No wonder the media has lost almost all credibility and is no longer able to act as the gatekeeper of information and opinion. this also goes a long way to explaining how they got polls and coverage of the election campaign so wrong; they were simply making stuff up with no reference to reality (not much different from Russian propaganda techniques in Hybrid warfare: filling all available channels with noise to swamp out signal).

Of course reality penetrating the bubble is going to be far more painful for them the longer they try to stay insulated from reality.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline ModlrMike

    : Riding time again... woohooo!

  • Subscriber
  • Veteran
  • *
  • 195,974
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,405
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
Re: Deconstructing "Progressive " thought
« Reply #1278 on: February 03, 2017, 13:39:47 »
I'm putting this here, but the mods can move it if it's in the wrong place.

As usual, Rex gets it right:

Rex Murphy: There are fascists on campus. Protesters don’t realize it’s them, not Milo Yiannopoulos

I suggest, as a corollary to Orwell’s prescient observation that (I’m paraphrasing) some things are so stupid that only an intellectual could believe them...
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (H.L. Mencken 1919)
Zero tolerance is the politics of the lazy. All it requires is that you do nothing and ban everything.

Offline Thucydides

  • Legend
  • *****
  • 181,790
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,155
  • Freespeecher
Re: Deconstructing "Progressive " thought
« Reply #1279 on: June 04, 2017, 19:57:12 »
From the mouth of a leftist. Of course you may find some of the premises this individual believes in to be rather incredible, but this is how they think and operate. The fact that he has seen outside the bubble may be a hopeful sign, but far more likely is he will be branded a "heretic" and expelled from the Progressive movement:

the Iron Law of Institutions and the left

During the Democratic presidential primary and the general election, you may have heard reference to the Iron Law of Institutions. It’s a really essential idea articulated by Jon Schwartz in a blog post that I recommend you read in full.

The Iron Law of Institutions is this: “the people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution ‘fail’ while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to “succeed” if that requires them to lose power within the institution.”

The past year saw a lot of criticism of Democrats and liberals from the radical left, the political tendency I belong to, and for good reason. The Iron Law of Institutions was invoked frequently in regards to the Bernie Sanders campaign and the antipathy towards it from members of the Democratic establishment. The hatred that people like Neera Tanden and David Brock felt for the Sanders movement, and the political tendency it represented, caused them to undermine that movement, despite the fact that the passion, organizing, and money that came from it was to the benefit of the Democratic party. Why? Because of the Iron Law: for Clintonite centrist Democrats, the priority of retaining control of the party came before the priority of winning the election. So Sanders and his supporters were vilified and marginalized in the party, to the detriment of the party, and to this day many establishment Democrats work to sap the Sanders movement of its strength even as the party desperately needs that kind of youth and vitality.

The left was correct to criticize liberals for these failings. And yet I think that it’s the left, as much as liberals and Democrats, who have failed to understand the Iron Law and how it reflects on their own project. Because if you think of the radical left as an institution, made up of a set of social and discursive communities that are loosely affiliated with various left-wing organizations, you can see that the radical left is if anything even more captured by the Iron Law, and to even more destructive effect.

So take the discourse of freedom, liberty, and rights. This discourse is very, very important to ordinary people, particularly Americans. You can lament that fact, but it is a fact. A radical left movement that wants to win would be careful in how it talks about freedom. To me, the message is obvious: socialism is desirable in part because it’s only socialism that guarantees true freedom, the freedom to live and behave free of want. We’re the movement that can make people really free because once in power we can let them pursue their own interests free of hunger, homelessness, and so on.

Is that the message in socialist spaces? Not at all. In fact if I talk about freedom in many radical left spaces, both real and virtual, I will often be told that “freedom is a bourgeois concept” or something similarly fatuous. The left typically disdains the discourse of freedom — and not in spite of the popularity of that discourse, but because of it. Why? Because of the Iron Law: to be dismissive of freedom might hurt the left movement overall, but because such dismissal is a part of left-wing culture, acting this way elevates you within left social spaces.

Right now, the left is in the process of rejecting freedom of speech as a reactionary concept. Freedom of speech has been a cherished left-wing virtue for decades, advanced by people like Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Rosa Luxemburg, and many other radical luminaries. But lately the concept has come to be associated with the right, thanks to the vagaries of our political culture. If we were a smart, we would recognize not only that freedom of speech is consistent with left-wing principles, but also that appearing to be against freedom of speech is a sure-fire way to lose the support of potential adherents. But this kind of strategic thinking serves only to advance the movement itself; it does not advance the interests of the people within the movement. Indeed, the more that we drift into a “free speech is conservative” frame, the less people will be willing to defend the concept, even if doing so would be in our strategic political self-interest. This is the Iron Law at work.

Take campus activism. Campus activism can be a site of a lot of really important work. But campus activism has really powerful constraints, too. For one, it’s seasonal: college politics are deeply constrained by the cycle of summer, spring, and winter breaks. Momentum is constantly lost as students head out to Cabo or back home to Virginia. What’s more, college students are constantly cycling in and out thanks to graduation, making it hard to build durable groups or have consistent leadership. Most uncomfortably, college campuses in the United States have a class composition that is not in keeping with typical left priorities. When Middlebury College students protested Charles Murray violently, many leftists nominated them as the vanguard of today’s left movement. But this is a curious attitude, given that more students at Middlebury come from families in the top 1% by income than from the bottom 60%. That’s not a reason to dismiss them entirely, of course. But it is a condition that we have to ask serious questions about. When I’ve tried to ask such questions in left spaces, it’s been very unpopular, to say the least. Yet I’ve simply been making a core left-wing point: class matters.

In recent years, a dogged, no-exceptions, don’t-ask-any-questions attitude towards campus activists has taken over the radical left, to the extent where college student organizers are expected to go entirely uncriticized in left spaces. That hurts our movement, but because criticizing college students risks losing status within the left movement, lefties are afraid to do so. That’s the Iron Law of Institutions for you.
Or take random outbursts of street violence against the right. This has been a matter of absolute obsession within the radical left for this entire year. The amount of attention spent on, say, the minor dust up at Berkeley would seem totally bizarre in comparison to the actual material impact on the world of such violence. As Marxists we are, of course, materialists, and thus are meant to privilege the objective facts about material conditions above emotional and cultural commitments. As an objective matter the salience of right-wing political street violence to our constituencies is very low. Compare the number of victims of neo-Nazis, in this country of 315 million, to the victims of poverty and homelessness. Our priorities should be obvious. Meanwhile, our ability to actually create positive change through violent force is incredibly limited even under the most optimistic reading of the facts.

Yet for months, we’ve fixated on the potential for left-wing victory through antifa tactics and street violence. Why? Because of the Iron Law. Loudly braying on social media about how we’re going to punch and kick our way to socialism has if anything net-negative effects on our movement. Indeed, dismissing the left as thugs who are unable to win through the actual process of democracy is a constant right-wing canard, one they have used to great effect for decades. But for people already within the left’s social spaces, arguing for political violence is associated with a kind of cool or cachet. It marks you as a radical, as someone who’s in favor of “really doing something.” It brings with it a sense of left-wing machismo. And so the incentives for the left are misaligned: to advance the movement, we should treat political violence as the distraction that it is, but to advance inside the movement, people have to showily associate themselves with the tough guys calling for armed revolution.

Letting people fixate on their fantasies of righteous violence hurts the cause. But asking them to do otherwise hurts your position within the cause.

This condition can be found in real-world spaces, but it particularly flourishes on social media. Left Facebook and Twitter spaces are almost entirely absent of strategic thinking about how to actually build the kind of mass movement necessary to take real power. Instead, they often function as sites of competition to be as insular as possible. Again: it is more to your social advantage to be the Ultimate Lefty than it is to set your statements up in such a way that they advance left-wing causes, which will often entail, whether we like it or not, playing to people who do not already believe what we believe. It will often entail, whether we like it or not, letting go of the in-jokes, memes, and in-group lingo that are so much a part of left discursive spaces.

But those jokes are valuable if what you care about is being a lefty celebrity. George Ciccariello-Maher’s white genocide joke did absolutely nothing to advance the interests of any actually-existing person of color, but since the joke gained him notoriety within the left, it fulfilled its function — that is, he sacrificed the good of the movement for the good of himself. That’s the general way of the Edgelord Left.

People say, well hey, you’re paying too much attention to the internet. But as someone who does not go a week without attending an organizing meeting, union meeting, or protest (and usually goes to multiple every week), I find that social media is changing real-world left discourse, not the other way around. And this attitude supposes that there’s far more of a line between our online rhetoric and our offline personas, as if these things don’t bleed into each other constantly — especially given how important online engagement has become for organizing and advertising real-world events.

People talk a lot about the current moment as the beginning of a nascent left ascendance. I would love to believe that’s true, and I do think that the material conditions have worsened in this country to the point where people are getting fed up. But I’ve been working in left activism, in one way or another, since I was 14 years old. In those 20 years, I have never encountered a time where the discursive conditions within the radical left were less conducive to building a mass movement through appealing to the enlightened self-interests of the persuadable. I fear that the internet has simply made it too easy for leftists to find each other and build mutually-therapeutic communities which encourage people to regress into them, rather than to spread their message slowly through society. And I fear that replacing the union hall with the college campus as the center of left intellectual life has made class struggle seem like an intellectual exercise rather than a day-to-day matter of life and death.

I think there’s real problems within the left — theoretical, political, discursive, pragmatic. I say these things out of a deep and sincere belief that we must fix our own problems before we can hope to gain power necessary to fix the world. Some people disagree, which is fine. What I find disturbing is how few other people are willing to take on a role of within-group critic, and how many are willing to excommunicate anyone who performs such a role. Who is allowed, within the left, to tell the left things it does not want to hear? The Iron Law helps explain the absence of such voices. As for me, almost none of the people who most need to hear this message will bother to read it. Instead, they’ll tell the same sad jokes to the same group of the already-convinced, preventing the possibility for effective introspection and reform. And that’s exactly the problem.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Subscriber
  • Fixture
  • *
  • 216,246
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,840
Re: Deconstructing "Progressive " thought
« Reply #1280 on: June 04, 2017, 22:45:57 »
Progressive thought.

I punch you in the face then charge you with assault and call you a racist.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Chris Pook

  • Subscriber
  • Legend
  • *
  • 184,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,814
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Deconstructing "Progressive " thought
« Reply #1281 on: June 05, 2017, 11:14:08 »
I think there’s real problems within the left — theoretical, political, discursive, pragmatic. I say these things out of a deep and sincere belief that we must fix our own problems before we can hope to gain power necessary to fix the world.

That right there is the problem I have with the Left.  The world is not fixable.  If it were it would have been done by now..... and, probably, none of us would be here as the unexpected would have shown up and shattered the perfect crystal.

The good news is that we have a tendency to behave more like cats than sheep and are difficult to herd.  And even sheep are hard to pen up.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Thucydides

  • Legend
  • *****
  • 181,790
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,155
  • Freespeecher
Re: Deconstructing "Progressive " thought
« Reply #1282 on: July 11, 2017, 01:18:37 »
This goes a long way to explaining how the "Progressives" view the rest of the world nowadays (although George Orwell had them to a "T" back in the 1930's). So long as they maintain their smug insularity, they may think they are enlightened, but in fact the world is changing rapidly from underneath them and they are almost entirely unaware of what is happening or why:



Trying to regain their footing, the mainstays of consensus thought have focused on domesticating the threat. Who are these Tea Partiers and internet recluses, these paleoconservatives and tech futurists, and what could they possibly want? The Atlantic mapped the coordinates of the “rebranded” white nationalism or the “internet’s anti-democracy movement” in the previously uncharted waters of 4chan and meme culture. In Strangers in Their Own Land, Berkeley sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild peers over the “empathy wall” between her and her rural Louisiana Tea Party contacts, while in Hillbilly Elegy, Ohio-born lawyer J. D. Vance casts a melancholic look back—from the other side of the aisle, but, tellingly, from the same side of the wall—on the Appalachian culture he left behind for Yale Law and a career in Silicon Valley.

— “Final Fantasy: Neoreactionary politics and the liberal imagination,” James Duesterberg, The Point, July, 2017.


Everywhere, they flew the colors of assertive patriots. Their car windows were plastered with American-flag decals, their ideological totems. In the bumper-sticker dialogue of the freeways, they answered Make Love Not War with Honor America or Spiro is My Hero. They sent Richard Nixon to the White House and two teams of astronauts to the moon. They were both exalted and afraid. The mysteries of space were nothing, after all, compared with the menacing confusions of their own society.

The American dream that they were living was no longer the dream as advertised. They feared that they were beginning to lose their grip on the country. Others seemed to be taking over–the liberals, the radicals, the defiant young, a communications industry that they often believed was lying to them. The Saturday Evening Post folded, but the older world of Norman Rockwell icons was long gone anyway. No one celebrated them: intellectuals dismissed their lore as banality. Pornography, dissent and drugs seemed to wash over them in waves, bearing some of their children away.

But in 1969 they began to assert themselves. They were “discovered” first by politicians and the press, and then they started to discover themselves. In the Administration’s voices–especially in the Vice President’s and the Attorney General’s–in the achievements and the character of the astronauts, in a murmurous and pervasive discontent, they sought to reclaim their culture. It was their interpretation of patriotism that brought Richard Nixon the time to pursue a gradual withdrawal from the war. By their silent but newly felt presence, they influenced the mood of government and the course of legislation, and this began to shape the course of the nation and the nation’s course in the world. The Men and Women of the Year were the Middle Americans.

— “Man and Woman of the Year: The Middle Americans,” Time magazine’s cover story, January 5, 1970.

Why yes, the left does churn these “who are these strange aliens on the right” pieces out like clockwork the year after a president with an (R) after his name is elected. (Though the alt-right angle that Duesterberg focuses on makes for interesting reading.) Or as James Lileks wrote in response shortly after GWB was reelected, “once upon a time the major media at least pretended that the heart & soul of the country was a porch in Kansas with an American flag. Now it’s the outlands, the Strange Beyond. They vote for Bush, they believe in God, they’d have to drive 2 hours for decent Thai. Who are these people?”

Note this passage Duesterberg wrote:

Amid the diffuse politics and intractable ironism of the alt right, neoreaction promises a coherent ideology, a philosophical backbone and a political program directly opposed to what we have: they call it a “Dark Enlightenment.” If these thinkers are especially disturbing to read it is because, unlike the meme warriors of 4chan and Twitter, they seem to have reasons for the nasty things they say.

As Fred Siegel wrote in his 2014 book, The Revolt Against the Masses: How Liberalism Has Undermined the Middle Class, “The best short credo of liberalism came from the pen of the once canonical left-wing literary historian Vernon Parrington in the late 1920s. ‘Rid society of the dictatorship of the middle class,’ Parrington insisted, referring to both democracy and capitalism, ‘and the artist and the scientist will erect in America a civilization that may become, what civilization was in earlier days, a thing to be respected.’”

That’s been the spoken or sotto voce motto of the left since the days of H.G. Wells and Woodrow Wilson. It helps to explain why Obama was dubbed “President Spock” by his DNC-MSM supporters for his distanced view of Americans, and why he seemed far more eager to wage war against Republicans and the middle class than he did ISIS and Al Qaeda. I don’t truck with alt-right racism or violence, but the left shouldn’t be surprised after decades of openly wanting to “rid society of the dictatorship of the middle class,” and reporting on it with the distance of Dian Fossey in Gorillas in the Mist (when not viewing it with racist contempt), that some on the right might begin to reciprocate those gestures.

(Via Kathy Shaidle.)

86 Posted at 8:32 pm by Ed Driscoll   

Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Legend
  • *****
  • 170,425
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,540
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Deconstructing "Progressive " thought
« Reply #1283 on: July 11, 2017, 02:11:33 »
This goes a long way to explaining how the "Progressives" view the rest of the world nowadays (although George Orwell had them to a "T" back in the 1930's). So long as they maintain their smug insularity, they may think they are enlightened, but in fact the world is changing rapidly from underneath them and they are almost entirely unaware of what is happening or why:

Like the Clinton Democrats, right? ;)
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Thucydides

  • Legend
  • *****
  • 181,790
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,155
  • Freespeecher
Re: Deconstructing "Progressive " thought
« Reply #1284 on: August 03, 2017, 00:35:05 »
No worse punishment for Progressives indeed:

The Pettiness of the Left

It was when driving across Arizona I had a small, but important epiphany.  I had the cheapest car I could rent, a cell phone approaching 3 years old, Wal-Mart attire, and would be sleeping on buddy's couch instead of having my own hotel room.  Yet, despite these hallmarks of a lower-middle income life, I was perfectly happy, for soon I would be meeting my best friend for some hiking on some of Phoenix's finest trails.

But then it dawned on me.

One of these trails (Camelback Peak) was located in the prestigious "Paradise Valley" neighborhood of Phoenix.  This neighborhood was so rich, they often mocked and ridiculed Scottsdale as a place they "make investments."  But although my income came nowhere near to that of your average Paradise Valleyite, how was my life any measurably worse than one of theirs?  I had a car, I had grub in my stomach, I was going to enjoy the exact same trails they got to, and I was going to be listening to podcasts on my phone the entire way.  One could have even argued I was better off given my digital nomad career.  What, precisely then, did the richest man of Paradise Valley have that I didn't?

This then got me thinking.  Precisely what are the left so jealous of the rich over?  What does the rich have that they don't?  And as I thought about it, I soon realized a dark and sad truth about leftist psychology and leftism in general:

Just how pathetic and petty their jealousy is.  And consequently, how that jealousy ruins their lives.

It is here we need a bit of historical context to understand the point I'm trying to make.  We all know that today our poorest of the poor live like the richest of kings 500 years ago.  Inventions like electricity, penicillin, plumbing all make today's humans infinitely better off than the richest of yesteryear.  But we don't have to go 500 years ago in the past to see how incredibly better off today's humans are compared to past humans.  Consider just 50 years ago.

There were no cell phones, the cars (though pretty) were drastically inferior (and more dangerous), food today is markedly improved as well as dirt cheap, clothing is dramatically cheaper, we have PC's, and houses are almost thrice the size with a fraction of the heating and cooling costs.

But forget 50 years ago.  Let's just consider 20 years ago.

We have the internet.  Smart phones.  Exponentially faster computers and internet speeds.  Netflix, huge and cheap flat screen TV's, hybrid cards, Tesla home batteries, Amazon, and the world's information at our finger tips.  This allows us to teach ourselves, find things more rapidly, have ANYTHING we want delivered to our doorstep, not to mention this has opened up fields such as telecommuting, Ubering, and becoming a digital nomad.  Consequently, our lives are dramatically improved compared to 1997 as we no longer have to commute (though we stupidly choose to), we no longer have to find dates at loud nightclubs, we can watch movies at home, we can run a myriad of chores from home (banking, bills, etc.), and we (I predict) will make college education free via the internet.

And ALL of these great technologies, and the opportunities that lay within, are available to EVERYONE.

Rich, poor.
Young, old.
Fat, skinny.
Male, female.

EVERYONE can avail themselves of all these innovations and advancements.

So what is it, precisely, the left has its envious green panties in a bundle over?

Well, consider 6 different items that the left would presumably begrudge the 1% over, which also, I believe, account for the majority of envy and jealousy on the left.

1.  Cars

Cars are a classic example of the have and the have nots.  Some people own used, salvaged Kia Rios. Others own Ferrari's and Telsa's.  But aside from about $250,000 in price, can somebody tell me what the REAL difference between a used Hyundai Elantra is and a Mercedes G65?

In all reality, nothing.

My used, salvaged Kia Rio, which I paid $3,000 for, can do about 98% what the Mercedes G65 can.  It can transport me in comfort, night or day, long distances regardless of the weather outside, all while playing music or podcasts from my cell phone.  And not only can it do that, it can do it for a lot less in gas and about 1/100th the price.


The only thing the Mercedes G65 can do that my battled up Kia can't is heat my tush with leather heated seats and adjust the windshield wipers automatically to the amount of rain.  Oh, and self-tinting windows.  Can't forget that.  The windows self-tint. 

Yet, despite this true pittance of a difference between my car and that of a Winnetka trophy wife's, poor, middle income, and lefties are greener than Kentucky Blue Grass over those stupid enough to buy luxury vehicles.  They see a Ferrari drive by and can only come up with "huurrr, compensating for a small penis."  I can't tell which is dumber.  Blowing $250,000 for transportation that you could get for $3,000 or getting envious over it to the point you make penis jokes and vote to take their money.

2.  Planes

Specifically coach vs. first class.

In the grand scheme of things all people aboard the flying aluminum bus should be AMAZED at the technology they're all availing themselves of.  You're in a flying beer can, going nearly the speed of sound, which allows you to travel to far away places for a couple hundred dollars, that just a mere century ago was not a possibility for all of human kind.

But instead of marveling at this amazing technology and being thankful to be alive to take advantage of it, you're jealous of the smug looking dude bro in a suit sitting in first class.

Again, the 99%/1% metaphor is lost on most OWS protestors and leftists in general.  You are enjoying 99% of what air travel is offering, but you get your leftists tits in a sling over the fact Thadeus up in first class has a little more leg room and free drinks.  Perhaps you can get further pissed as he rents a Corvette and you rent a Kia after you land.

3.  Homes

I recently rented a boat on Lake Minnetonka to celebrate paying off my house.  Lake Minnetonka is home to family fortunes such as the Pillsburies, The Daytons (Target and Dayton Department Stores), Cambria, and Breath Right Nasal Strips (yes, the inventory has a house out there!).  The captain of the boat also informed us that a couple of these estates would have Aerosmith and Tim McGraw play on their beaches where boaters could anchor and listen to the band occasionally.  And although those veritable mansions were impressive, all I could think of was "that's a lot of vacuuming, dusting and rooms I ain't going to use."

It doesn't matter how many bedrooms, bathrooms, jacuzzi's or guest houses you have on your estate, you can only sleep in one bed at a time, crap in one toilet at a time, and converse with people in one dining room at a time.  The rest, in reality, is pointless excess that goes beyond the shelter, comfort and entertainment a house is supposed to provide.

But if we were to have taken your average leftist on my celebratory victory lap around Lake Minnetonka, instead of being in awe of the architecture and beauty of these homes, and instead of questioning more philosophically why a single couple would need an 18 bedroom palace, all they would be able to think of is how much more money these people had than them.  All they could think about is how much "nicer" and bigger those mansions were than their simple bungalow in Longfellow.  Never mind their simple bungalow or condo provides them heat in the winter, air conditioning in the summer, and a comfortable and adequate place to live.  Nope, it's just that "Rat Bourgeoisie ******* Mark Dayton" has a nicer house than they do.

4.  Clothes

Clothes are personal to me because I remember getting in fights in school because I didn't wear Cavaricci jeans or wore France Varnet shirts.  I also remember getting into fights because I had Wal-Mart velcro shoes while every other boy had "Nike High Tops."  And though I was young, I knew enough to know that these kids were idiots to think the name of a shirt or the brand of some jeans was worth beating some kid up over.

But ohhhhh, how little those people have learned.

Because what was Cavaricci in 1988 is now "LuLuLemon" in 2017.
What was FrancoisMirthBiguard jeans in 1990 is now Jimmy Choo in 2017.
And what was Guess Jeans in 1989 is now DKNY in 2017.

Full grown adults are blowing money not on the clothes or the materials the clothes are made out of.  They are blowing money on the stamp, patch, or label that comes with it.

Still, to lesser minds (leftist or not in this case), they cannot help but be envious of somebody with Gucci shoes or Armani shirts when a $10 pair of either from Wal-Mart (or Goodwill) will do the same.  Yet, it's only leftists that I see going the complete OPPOSITE/full-retard extreme by wearing hideous clothing, piercing their noses, and tatting up their bodies as if they're protesting beauty as presented to them by richer people.  All they're doing is cutting their noses off to spite their face, and their green is all to easy to see.

5.  Food

I've told the story before, but I'll tell it again, I was ecstatic when Subway came out with their $5 footlongs.  It was in the depths of the recession and every one of my revenue streams was hurting.  In college it was bagels and 25 cent "day old bread" from the local subshop that kept me fueled, but as I no longer had to pay tuition and started making my own money "luxuries" like Davini's and Perkins were now within my budget.  To this day my friends mock and ridicule me for liking Perkins or the local all you can eat Chinese buffet, but there is nothing wrong with the food a poor or lower-middle income class person can afford to eat.

But again, does the left see what was once the SINGLE LARGEST PROBLEM facing humans for 99.99999% of its 2 million year existence being solved? (that would be hunger by the way).  Does the left cheer that OBESITY is now a "bigger" problem than malnutrition or starvation?


Once again, all they can see as they're horking down their "lousy" Applebee's shrimp scampi is those rich bourgeoisie bastards eating at high end steak houses and seafood restaurants.  All they can see is the 21 year old scotches rich people are drinking as they drink that Cutty Sark "swill."  You know what?  Those rich people probably have left over mahi tuna steak in their fridges while you have to walk ALL THE WAY DOWN THE STREET to Wal-Mart if you want to eat something at 3AM.

Once again, being envious of somebody who can afford sushi, while all you can afford is Perkins, to the point you're going to "stick it to the man and tax them more," ESPECIALLY in light of humanity's history with hunger, is petty, pathetic, and sad.

and finally...

6.  Cell Phones

Oh is the pettiness rich in this one.

Much like petulant little 13 year old girls complain about not having the latest iPhone or android, leftists get their communal tits in the bundle when all they can afford is a previous generation phone or have to resort to a FREAKING PAYMENT PLAN to get the cell phone they want.  Never mind there REALLY IS NO DIFFERENCE between the iPhone 943Z and the iPhone 944A. Never mind a Samsung 9 does nothing more than the Samsung 8.  Nope, I gotta get me some of datz because rich people have the most recent and up to date phone and "I gotta show them I'm a baller too!"  Even if you get a free Obama phone, no doubt you are complaining that those rich, 1%, elitist bastards have nicer phones than you.

You can't even say the technological difference between one generation of phone to the next is a 1% difference.  But damnit if the left doesn't get their green thongs in a bundle over it.  And the fact that Chip has a nicer phone than Jose is reason enough to vote Sanders and completely revamp the economy into a socialist one.

I could go on highlighting different consumer items both the rich and the poor consume today and the barely perceptible difference in quality between them, but the point is how the left obsesses and hinges its entire confiscatory and parasitic ideology on these petty differences.  Thadeus drives a Lexus while Bob drives a Chevy - let's tax Thadeus at 75%.  Felix owns a boat while Jim occasionally rents one - let's tax Felix at 80% AND hate him at the same time.  And Chip owns a Rolex, while Jerome owns a Quartz.  Chip is a 1% *******, probably racist, AND let's tax him at 90%.  But worse than the jealousy is how nearly every leftist lets the fact that other people have more ruin their lives.  Certainly there are some leftist and democrats who do no begrudge those that have more.  But the majority of them stew in their jealousy which turns into hatred, forcing them to live lives where all they do is obsess about the rich instead of appreciating what they have and getting lives of their own.

Social justice warriors.
Professional activists.
Unpaid leftist online journalists.
Nearly every liberal arts major.

How many leftist lives that are wasted envying what others have instead of saying, "WOW!  I'm driving a car ACROSS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY at 80MPH to see the GRAND CANYON while eating food conveniently located EVERY 20 MILES at gas stations!"?  How many leftists are pissed because the government won't pay for their birth control, instead of focusing on the fact that affordable birth control exists?  How many leftists live angry, hate-filled lives because somebody has a 10 bedroom, 4 bathroom McMansion, ignoring the fact their modest 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom house will more than adequately house them for the rest of their lives?

I always like to look on the bright side of things.  And the fact that leftists cannot be happy with the amazing advances and innovations capitalism has put in their green little hands, and choose instead to obsess over the petty and microscopically "better" things the "rich" have to the point it ruins their lives is justice and revenge enough for me.  Understand this and understand this well about leftists.  They are miserable people who will waste their entire, precious lives being envious of what others have instead of appreciating what they have. And when the day comes that they're on their death bed, all they will have to point to is a life of whining, complaining, hatred, and jealousy.

A worse punishment does not exist.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Veteran
  • *
  • 40,044
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,559
Re: Deconstructing "Progressive " thought
« Reply #1285 on: August 03, 2017, 09:39:43 »
No worse punishment for Progressives indeed:

1. This article assumes that every middle and lower class person is a leftist, and that every rich person is a right-wing conservative (except for the author of the article, apparently).

2.  I feel like he's describing these whiny babies as Marxists rather than leftists, but I also feel like perhaps to be considered a Marxist there has to be some level of awareness that you are a Marxist (and what a Marxist is), where as the people he's describing are just ignorantly vain.

3. I agree more or less with the article that people should be happy with their lot, but it's a primary tenant of capitalism
that we build our economy by trying to increase our lot. If we weren't a little envious and desiring of having more, we won't try to get more, and our economy wouldn't grow. I believe it's fine to want more, but you shouldn't begrudge others for what they have, so I agree with the article on that principle.

4. He kind of lost me at this part due to his absolutism - my comments in yellow:

Social justice warriors. Agreed.
Feminists. There are both left and right wing feminists.
Professional activists. There are both left and right wing professional activists fighting for their desired causes.
Professors. Seriously?
Unpaid leftist online journalists. So, "Paid" leftist online journalists aren't a problem?
Nearly every liberal arts major. There are plenty of right-wing, uber rich, conservative, capitalist students at liberal arts colleges.

4. Finally,  this is in the "deconstructing progressive thought", but I feel like what he's describing as a "leftist" is not a "progressive". Progressives aren't whiny babies, they are just those who believe that "that the way we've always done things" isn't always the best way to go about running society.
“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Bird_Gunner45

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 33,811
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 806
Re: Deconstructing "Progressive " thought
« Reply #1286 on: August 03, 2017, 10:53:08 »
No worse punishment for Progressives indeed:

Any chance of posting things that aren't personal opinion blogs that serve as unsubstantiated hit pieces?


  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,575
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 25
Re: Deconstructing "Progressive " thought
« Reply #1287 on: August 03, 2017, 12:10:51 »
"And when the day comes that they're on their death bed, all they will have to point to is a life of whining, complaining, hatred, and jealousy."

I would say he has described his own life perfectly...

Online Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Fixture
  • *
  • 164,245
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,707
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Deconstructing "Progressive " thought
« Reply #1288 on: August 03, 2017, 12:28:58 »
Any chance of posting things that aren't personal opinion blogs that serve as unsubstantiated hit pieces? Forums » The Mess » Radio Chatter » Topic: Deconstructing "Progressive " thought


Offline Bird_Gunner45

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 33,811
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 806
Re: Deconstructing "Progressive " thought
« Reply #1289 on: August 03, 2017, 12:42:32 » Forums » The Mess » Radio Chatter » Topic: Deconstructing "Progressive " thought


I don't think it's all that confusing. Some threads/posters get "only facts" type comments comments whereas others are permitted to paste clag like above that offers no intellectual stimulation or insight.

So,, on that note, here's a contrarian blog.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2017, 12:49:07 by Bird_Gunner45 »