Between the 19th century and the coming-of-age of the post-WWII generation in the 1960’s, Western man attained unprecedented power and prosperity. But this gradually led him to misinterpret the world around him. The high-tech world into which the baby boomers were born shielded them from the reality of human nature, chance, change, hardship, and the unforeseeable—even from the past, of which they needed little understanding to function. They became self-centered, unable to outgrow an emotional view of the world, lacking in forethought, and prone to imagine that everyone was similar to themselves.
The Prog’s World View
The result is what we know as modern liberalism or progressivism, a conception of the world based on a particular, historically unusual, situation. This is one reason the progressive (or “prog”) speaks in such grandiose, universal terms: “all men are created equal”, “human rights,” and so on. The prog’s unawareness of deeper Reality – the unchanging fundamentals of life – his ignorance of the past and lack of concern for the future beyond his own lifetime mean that he must take his bearings from what he sees and hears in the present.
For example, let us say a prog meets a Ugandan at a party: he trades a few stories with the man, and comes away with the impression that Ugandans are not so different from himself, with wants, needs, and feelings much like his own. He may even mistake this superficial impression for an understanding of Ugandan or African culture as a whole. After all (he thinks) what could be more reliable than direct, personal experience? So he feels enlightened, better informed than the ignorant, prejudiced people of the past who judged Africans without ever having met any. Reality for him is what he experiences and remembers: what is close to him, not what he doesn’t see. The “multiculturalism” that is so prominent an aspect of contemporary progressivism is concerned with such superficial matters as a variety of skin tones and the easy availability of ethnic cuisine. Any mentality other than his own remains a closed book to him.
If he meets people from different parts of the world on a regular basis, the prog may start to believe he has special insight into how to resolve the world’s problems, viz., by being nice to everybody. Progressivism—the philosophy of do-gooders, humanists and pacifists—reduces history and the moral life in all their complexity to a belief that the essential source of the world’s problems is “people not being nice to each other.” It follows that the world’s problems can be solved through more niceness.
This is why the prog does not see anything wrong with mass immigration. When Others arrive on our shores, they instantly become part of the prog’s field of view, the only perspective that matters.
The very term “progressive” implies an historical optimism: things are getting better. Yet, like a man lost in a forest who only wants to find a way out, the prog never does. If he did, this would obviate any need for further progress.
Plenty of progs work administering the welfare state, e.g., where they are supposedly charged with solving problems such as poverty. But if they succeeded, they would be out of a job. Hence such irrational policies as importing ever more poverty from the third world while supposedly fighting it at home.
Progressivism thus has a kind of static quality, despite all the prog’s talk about change. The future is imagined as like the present, only more so: more tolerance, more diversity, more of whatever the prog thinks of as good.
Pragmatic Traditionalism of Non-Western World
Progressive ideology can be understood better by way of contrast with the pragmatic traditionalism of our ancestors, which prepared for all of life’s possibilities, did not assume that the future would resemble the present, and planned for future generations. Whereas the prog is unaware of the historical context of his existence, seeing only what is possible at his particular time and place in history, the traditionalist values the study of the past, prepares for possible hard times, and thus secures the future of his people. His is no ideology, but a mature, adult approach to life.
 |
| Boot Camp In China Aims To Turn Boys Into Alpha Males |
Pragmatic traditionalism continues to characterize such non-western societies as China and Japan. These nations make frequent, dramatic, often painful adjustments to stay on course towards their collective, national goals, regardless of how “politically incorrect” it might look to the West. While the West redefines decline as revolution, the East’s revolutions aim at insuring their people’s future. When the prog talks about the people he means everyone; when a Chinese “communist” talks about the people he means the Chinese people as a race.
The West has moved away from thinking in terms of nations, and is dying; the East continues to define itself nationally, and is thriving.
The Psychopathy of Western Conservatives
Traditionalism is scarcely visible any longer in the modern West. Instead, we have what is called “conservatism.” It may come as a surprise to some readers to learn that this modern conservatism is really another form of progressivism. That is because the term conservative has lost much of its older meaning, being largely reduced to advocacy of low taxes. The economic success of the West has resulted in the prevalence of a materialistic myopia which shades into mere greed. Today’s conservative might be better described as a “money-prog,” a partisan of the international managerial elite. He wants to grease the wheels of business, allowing the global village to chug along smoothly, even if it means destroying human identities.
The psychological profile of the leftist I call puerilopathy. It is quixotic, emotional, unstable, ethno-masochist, and stupid.
That of the nominal right is psychopathy. It is not mere greed, but a sort of certain “unfeelingness” or insensitiveness which helps the conservative prog succeed in business. It is, of course, entirely consistent with his talking like a humanitarian, which plenty of psychopaths know how to do.
Whether the contemporary prog is a hooded antifi thug or a CEO, he is likely to have the same vacuous look in his eyes.
The media dialogue between liberal and conservative amounts to a kind of shadow boxing between these two varieties of progressivism, presented as if they were mortal enemies and the only possible viewpoints. Whichever side is on top, progressivism wins.
Blame Straight White Males
Of course, the perspective I have just sketched does not reflect what the prog himself believes. He sees the contemporary West not as in decline or crisis, but as triumphant, and feels sure it triumphed only by cheating the rest of the world. According to him, it is the Straight White Male (SWM), with his “white privilege,” who has caused the world’s problems. Justice therefore consists in opposing the West and the SWM—even if one is a member of that group oneself.
In 2015, then-Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden said: “Folks like me who are Caucasian of European descent, for the first time in 2017, will be in an absolute minority in the United States of America… That’s not a bad thing. That’s a source of our strength.”
Biden was mistaken about the year – presumably out of wishful thinking – but it still struck me as amazing that anyone could say this of his own demographic group. Just try to imagine the President of China saying something similar about how wonderful it is that Chinese numbers and influence are in decline.
Of course, Biden didn’t mean that he himself has been oppressing anyone; he thinks that other SWMs have been doing so. The SWM progressive, the living embodiment of evil according to his own way of thinking, is also on the side of liberation and justice, one of the good guys of history, because he is working toward a future free from people like himself.
The key to understanding the phenomenon Biden represents, the anti-white white man, is grasping its generational nature. He is not calling out himself; he is siding with “the good guys” at the expense of the young. The death of the West is not a suicide, as so often said, but a prolicide. The postwar generation inherited the benefits of the past, and devised contemporary progressivism without being put out by it itself. Its actions were not unlike certain forms of environmental degradation whose effects are not felt for decades, after those responsible have passed on. We are the heirs of this irresponsible generation; its errors are harming us, not itself. For this reason, I refer to progressives of Biden’s generation as the Lucky Few. Together with the Baby Boomers they constitute the Takers.
The Takers
Takers, born into unprecedented prosperity, feel a peculiar sort of guilt over their position. But the guilt cult they set up to assuage it has an interesting peculiarity: it costs them nothing. For example, the Takers instituted diversity and globalism to achieve an appearance of equality in his own lifetime. He was even able to profit from the cheap labor and free movement of capital this involved. If national borders interfere with the free movement of capital, the Taker sees no reason not to get rid of them. Our ancestors fought to defend our nations from foreign powers; today, any foreigner with money to “invest” in the American economy can become an “American” by purchasing citizenship.
The costs are passed down to you, the young SWM of today, the unfortunate heir of the Taker generation. You are the one forced to compete against third world diversity for lower wages, not your elders. You are the one who must deal with the conflict the Taker merely postponed through his “niceness.” You are the one who has been robbed of his identity, whose nation has been transformed into a mere administrative unit. You are the posterity to whom the psychopathic Taker generation was indifferent.
Being born into a white family in North America is thus a very different experience for those coming of age in the 21st Century than it was for our fathers and grandfathers. Today’s progressivism is no longer a war against old SWMs by an alliance of the younger generation, women, non-whites, and sexual perverts, as it was in the 1960s; it is a war against young SWMs by an alliance of old SWMs and the various racial and sexual grievance groups.
So it would be naïve to imagine those oppressing us as a small elite that we might actually defeat as we might cut off the head of a snake. They are a large group, including most members of some generations. It is possible, however, to distinguish between a smaller, more active set of Takers and their larger, passive and unresisting followers. The former are the true believers, who know what they are doing and often benefit personally from the movement. (Think: Hilary Clinton) The latter are a victim of propaganda; their disciples don’t fully know what they are doing. They picked up progressivism from their surroundings by a kind of osmosis, and take it for granted because they have never known anything else, and are now both emotionally and financially its prisoner. It makes little sense for the young to buy into the Taker’s ideology, since their historical situation is utterly different; but such are the power of propaganda and sheer human inertia. Many “educated” young SWMs fall into this category.
History is not over, however. Times change, and every day life in the West accords ever less well with the Taker’s narcissistic interpretation of it. The conditions that made him possible are ceasing to prevail. So-called “multiculturalism” stands unmasked as the destruction of European identity in favor of something else. It is the greatest cultural and racial appropriation in history, and it is being carried out by our own elders.
The rule of progressivism will certainly come to an end some day: perhaps tomorrow, or next year, or a hundred years from now. It may not happen overnight, but gradually and almost unnoticeably. And the knowledge the progressive wishes to keep from us is precisely what we will need when the current regime collapses.
The Non-Whites
Non-whites living within the West are also acting against you, but in a different way. They are not progressives in the same sense whites are, for they continue to pursue their group interests frankly, just as they always have. Primarily, progressivism is a war between whites. To the Taker, the “Other” (as he portentously calls non-whites) was little more than an abstraction, a stock character necessary for his inner drama of white guilt. But the people he imported are real enough, and you are the one who will be forced to compete with them.
There are various possible future scenarios, but all of them will present challenges for us far beyond anything the Taker has ever had to endure.
- The prog may be able to cling to power during your lifetime. You can only survive.
- If the Other wins, you lose your group identity. Life will become a battle for survival pitting you against individuals like yourself, against individuals unlike yourself, and against groups unlike yourself (since non-whites act as a group and whites do not).
- If we do wake up and start acting like a group, we will have our work cut out for us. Explaining why you are no longer acting like a prog will be the least of your concerns. We’re the ones who are going to have to live as a racial minority, breaking the Taker’s promises and explaining why we are no longer “fair.” There is no hypocrisy here; we are not Takers. In the racialist eyes of the Other, it will look like hypocrisy. We can only tell them that it is not our generation they should be angry at.
My Book
My book, How to Survive in a Progressive World: A Guidebook for Young Straight White Males, is written for the young straight white male who must live in the world created by the older progressives. Its goal is not to teach you how to defeat your progressive enemy—he is still too powerful, and will continue to rule us for an unforeseeable period. This book is meant to teach you how to survive in his world, make a living, raise a family, maintain a social life, and stay out of jail without losing your soul or becoming a prog.
