The progressive mindset

[Anonymous 3]

Twist wrote:

I have no political science background, this is just a hobby for me, trying to understand the political forces at play in this nutty world.

Considering the ridicule that academia has cover itself, by way of blatant agenda driven “research”, it only honors you to be apart from this “intellectual yet stupid” elite.

I am also an amateur in these fields. And I say this with pride satisfaction, because it puts me in the correct mindset. Humility and desire to learn are the hallmarks of intellectual and scientific development. Superiority and pride are just a sign of stagnancy or decay.

Twist wrote:

No accident. Co-opt positive words, use them as universal labels, and get on with the social engineering

I love that you touched a subject that was on my mind in this whole discussion.
You are totally correct!
We are getting to a point where “talking is dangerous”, because language has been manipulated for a long time and we are truly using newspeak.

Orwell was inspired to invent Newspeak by the constructed language Basic English, which he promoted from 1942 to 1944 before emphatically rejecting it in his essay “Politics and the English Language.” In this paper he deplores the bad English of his day, citing dying metaphors, pretentious diction or rhetoric, and meaningless words, which he saw as encouraging unclear thought and reasoning and even doublespeak. Towards the end of the essay, Orwell states: “I said earlier that the decadence of our language is probably curable. Those who deny this may argue that language merely reflects existing social conditions, and that we cannot influence its development by any direct tinkering with words or constructions.”

How many concepts we have and hold as dogmatically true? And why?

This social engineering is a cancer that is eating the human mind. Its only objective is control, and you cannot control a person with clear critical thinking, can you?

The red pill is probably one of the greatest philosophic revolutions of our times. The fact that is not mainstream is not relevant. It is in fact impossible to be mainstream, because critical thinking has been abolished. But the red pill contains the elements of intellectual and social rebellion that are the only hope for humanity to survive.

I would dare to propose that we co-opt these social engineering tools and spread MGTOW philosophy. The same way that double meanings are used to deflect MGTOW concepts, we can wrap the same concepts in words that cannot be deflected.

Everybody is free to chose how to live their lives, but to have true choice people must KNOW alternatives.

[Anonymous 3]

Skeptisk wrote:

Now we’re seeing the pendulum swinging in the other direction, and no wonder the “regressives” are in full panic-mode with their “safe spaces”, “trigger warnings”, hot chocolate and blankets at college!! I hope the pendulum swings so hard it’ll get stuck on the side of realism.

The Marxist dialectic uses two step forward and one step back as the tool to change society.

I am sorry, but I do not share your hope.

We are not returning to realism, we are just taking a step back, that will solidify “progressive” gains. A kind of “letting the steam out” of society when you change to much and to fast.

Yet the changes made are permanently engraved in the minds of new generations. The “progressive” mindset is an inevitability to go forward.

Until you reach the precipice…

[High RollerParticipant 157]

From what I have observed, which ever stance a particular individual or party has, one of the biggest, if not, the biggest problem I’ve seen is that the vast majority of them fail to consider points of view they disagree with. Unfortunately, many do not have the skill or intellectual maturity to have this reasoning ability. I see happen far too often, for example, in politics and religion. The point is, new potential ideas and perspectives can be dismissed too easily without actually taking thought in them, considering if they’re rational or not.

[Author]

Posts