Report comment

?

(otherwise, interesting and thought-provoking piece – thank you.)

Report comment

Too bad.

Report comment

Report comment

Report comment

Progressivism is indeed a “unitary thing”. Stalin fits the Nordic model just fine, insofar as the Nordic model is progressive. You don’t really understand politics. Not really. You’ve never had sight of the political backbone of the left (and the antipodal backbone of the right). You still see the left and the right as shadows cast by a selection of policies. If the impression of the sum of all policy seems to conform to what you identify as democratic or progressive, you identify the government as such. The same holds true for your identification of right-wing governments. My, my, whatever do you do when the all-too-frequent contradictions present themselves? Like most progressives, I assume that you ignore them completely. China must really confuse you with all of their anti-liberal laws. How does the restriction on freedom of speech in Sweden sit with you? This willful ignorance of the contradictions is why progressives, despite their frequent intellectual vanity, fail to acquire a basic understanding of modern politics. If you didn’t ignore the contradictions, you would need to ask difficult questions. Difficult questions about the left, and its history, modern manifestation and purpose, would spell deep trouble for your worldview and those like you.

Do you actually think that the far left and the far right could move with the terrible power that allows them to bend deeply ingrained culture as they do, either in their full or muted (covert) forms, if their power was rooted in a hazy selection of policies with no clear threshold for what constitutes the ‘left’ and the ‘right’?

It’s utterly meaningless to the power structure of the left whether or not women, gays, and minorities are given special consideration or protections. You don’t understand politics.

It’s true that the left utilizes the politics of individualism that would advocate for special considerations for homosexuals, women, and minorities. However, only fools believe that individualism is the goal. Individualism is not the goal. Individualism is the process that is utilized to achieve the goal. The goal is not individualism, but the destruction of its opposite: authentic and politically powerful community rooted in common culture (in contrast to the false and powerless community of the class struggle). Real community is destroyed with its opposite: individualism. However, the weapon that is individualism is not needed in its active political form once it has done its job and the political remnants of the ‘cultural revolution’ (cultural destruction) are loosely attached with the paper surrogate that is class association and a communist government is instated.

Stalin had no use for homosexual, women’s, or minority rights in Russia. To what end? The battle was won, and propping up any group would only introduce instability into the culture of the class war. In the non-Soviet west that was mobilized to defeat authoritarianism in WWII, such violent and overt communist takeover isn’t possible. Therefore, the progressive soldier uses the spear of individualism, and its associated edges of minority group rights, to make communities and their associated democratic power ever more brittle in a slow walk toward leftist power (ie: no middle class) that will ensconce a small aristocracy in power with no political nor military possibility of removal.

Report comment

Report comment

Report comment

Report comment

Report comment