Twilight of the Idols: Progress & Egalitarianism

§1 – What Must Be Thrown Away

Hypocrisy –
Most today who claim to be progressive are haunted by an inability to move past what the negative parts of history. But what is progressive about clinging to the past? The past cannot be changed but the future can. We should look to (objectively and vigorously assessed) history for knowledge on how to put the West back on track. The (true) Right want to move onward and upward, but the Left want us burdened by the past.

Taboo –
To claim something – especially free inquiry into an idea – is taboo and out of bounds due to public sensitivity is incompatible with the notion of progress.

How so? Well, I ask you, how can we understand an issue if we are not allowed to enquire into its causes? How can we understand an issue if we only analyse it from one point of view, such as the Marxist-materialist interpretation, for example (undoubtedly the most popular viewpoint to take in academia today at the expense of all others).

The far-Left believes that everything boils down to economic inequality, the Neo-conservatives believe all issues can be solved with economics, the Nietzscheans stand from the top of a mountain looking over the swarm of flies in the markets and roll their eyes. Let’s discuss a taboo, shall we?

Our education system originates from Europe, democracy originated from Europe, our ethics (both normative and meta-ethics) are shaped significantly by our European heritage. How can we expect non-European people to be able to thrive in European systems? Now, the far-Left dwell on colonialism, slavery and so-on. Yes, Europeans did (just like every other group, just like the groups that sold the slaves to the British). Is it not ‘colonialist’ to continually try to force groups of people through a system that was created by Europeans and expect them to succeed? Just like it is imperialistic to try and impose Western values (or more accurately, what the Left want to be our values) on other nations through the United Nations? They espouse multiculturalist rhetoric while wanting to excise and eliminate every culture that does not fit their puritanical doctrine. Their ideas of ‘progress’ and multiculturalism are neither progressive nor multicultural.

The notions of training and critical self-observation are alien to progressives
When you build a house, you need to build a solid foundation which can bear the weight of the materials stacked on it. As the house comes into being it is constantly combed through in search of possible flaws. Progressives have neglected this necessity in themselves.

I have met quite a few people who have abandoned the far-Left for this very reason. They raised concerns about the dangerous direction that their ideology was going in, they had seen the consequences of their beliefs, they had seen the violence carried out by “counter-protesters”, and the vile, even murderous statements uttered by the Herd in its’ frenzy. These individuals were boxed out for expressing these reservations. The words “wait a second” are now heretical. The far-Left claim secularism while following a doctrine blindly and calling those who question it sinners.

An expression of this can even be observed on a micro scale – where ideas of self-discipline and objective aesthetics are rejected as tools of the capitalist patriarchy to oppress those who are different. (See, for example, the Left-wing “healthy at any size” or “fat positivity” movement).

A simple life is called the good life for a reason
You are not in constant pursuit of excess, shiny items, repeatedly purchasing new editions of things when the old edition does what it needs to do. You cannot fill a hole in your heart with what you can hold in your hand. The liberal idea of the ‘rational consumer’ is a farce.

§2 – On The Word ‘Progress’

Progress means ‘to move forward’, to progress forward. But nothing about this word inherently indicates positivity. Let’s break down the word itself:

‘Pro-‘; the prefix: meaning “forward, forth, toward the front”. It can indicate that I am in favour of something, I am for this ‘thing’. We can see that the prefix ‘pro’ does not give the term ‘progress’ an innately positive quality. Bad things can move forward: cancer, a viral or bacterial infection, pollution, all ‘move forward’ when they continue their spread to other areas. The word progress is equally applicable to both positive and negative contexts.

‘-gress’; This section of the word ‘progress’ has its root in the proto-Indo-European word ‘ghredh’.

Early evidence for its existence is provided by: Latin gradus; “a step, a pace, gait”, figuratively “a step toward something, a degree of something rising by stages”; gradi; “to walk, step, go”; Lithuanian gridiju, gridyti; “to go, wander”; Old Church Slavonic gredo “to come”; Old Irish in-greinn “he pursues”.

Again, this section of the word ‘progress’ still gives no reason for the word to be applied the inherent meaning it is now; An unspecific, vague end goal (Telos) that continuously increases in intensity/insanity. If you are against the obscure and unspecific goals of progressivism – I would use the word doctrine but it seems even they cannot decide what they really want – you are an enemy of humanity, reason, decency, equity (they don’t seem to know what the definition of this word is either) and every other thing they claim to be successfully pursuing.

Their view of progress has become an abstract Absolute that is Theological, it is religious. Progressive ideology stems out of an identity crisis of secularization in the West (something that I will cover separately in its own essay). They have left behind Western spirituality in a supposedly transcendent sense (yet taken significantly from spiritual practices from the East such as mediation and yoga) and arrived at a confused and incoherent set of principles with no certain end goals – a random and reckless wandering through the woods with no compass, map, or GPS. They fight for their God of “progress” but don’t know what it is, they have no point they are progressing to. They have constant in-fighting over normative and metaethical principles. They claim a love for science yet are against any science that shows the world to be what it really is – saying that there exist biological differences between various peoples (which is not even a negative fact) is pseudoscience, even if you have evidence to back up this claim!

Let’s highlight a few things which progressives “campaign” for:

I.
Absolute equality between the sexes, races, various recently invented “genders” (most of which are just niche sexual orientations or styles of fashion) and all the rest. Not equality of opportunity, which is something reasonable. No, they want quotas for every group, which eliminates the entire historically Western ideal of working hard as an individual in specific circumstances to achieve your goals. You don’t need to work hard to get ahead of people, you get your position purely on you physical features and how unstable (“unique” in their world) your state of mind. How are we meant to progress if humans are stunted by this insane and illogical idea of having every existing group (and all the made-up ones that will come along thanks to their unending lunacy) requiring a “representative” to be given a position they have not earned but are handed? The drive for people to actually aspire to succeed in life is squashed because no matter how good one gets at X, (no matter even if they are the best in the world!), they will not be able to get that role because some gender-neutral dwarf with dyed armpit hair and a missing arm had to be hired for the position because “intersectionality” dictates that all irregular people need to be given roles they haven’t earned because we need “equal representation” or make up for “historical oppression”. We can see the absurd consequences of this idea being applied in its early stages even harming other minority groups where in the United States asians are being discriminated against in college admissions they would otherwise earn on merit because of affirmative action policies. It is simply not reasonable to think that this is as far as it will go.

II.
To completely contradict the above point: race doesn’t even exist, gender is a social construct, everyone is equal, and all would be able to achieve the same levels of intellect, literacy and so on if economic equality were achieved. It is purely white males that are responsible for all the ills of the world, if you disagree with that this is just your privilege (sin) speaking. If you are not a white male, you have been brainwashed into thinking this way and you need to enrol in gender and diversity studies so you can be reprogrammed. Such re-education programs – despite various problems of effectiveness, scientific legitimacy, etc – are on their way to becoming standard requirements for employment across the West. It’s okay if they are ineffective though; we will just have to use them more and more frequently.

III.
Science is the ultimate good unless it contradicts any leftist values, like the ones listed above. Research that indicates differences between groups needs to be banned from all academic journals and its proponents chased out of ‘higher learning’ institutions. It doesn’t even matter if the researcher is collectively considered a father in the field – human beings are not allowed to be different, that is why the progressives wish to force their values on other countries through the UN and EU while at the same time talking about how evil colonisation was. Colonisation is only evil when it is not the Left doing so.

§3 – Egalitarianism

I.

Egalitarianism is not an achievable idea: people are different.

Not just in an individual sense, for each individual has aptitudes in area X but fails in area Y. This is what allows for what is called “the exception to the rule.” Humans evolved in different groups, in different regions. Each environment had different resources for us to work with, we also had different challenges for us to face. To learn to cope, to survive, we allocated tasks to different groups of people, people who were generally the best at those particular skills – it is not just common sense to have the person who is best for the job do that job – it was, and for all we know may continue to be, a necessary mechanism for survival. What is so offensive about wanting the best to do the job?

The idea of egalitarianism appeals to people on a moralistic level, but in practice it is naught but a hindrance to actual, useful, progress. Quotas prevent people attaining positions based on merit. The people put into the role based on materialistic qualities each become a dead weight in that particular area. They may be qualified, but there is now the chance that they have attained that qualification via a “participation award”. They could have got their degree by passing, but someone with more skill who is better suited for that position has missed out because someone who scraped a pass has the righ intersectionality score. Some people are better than others at a skill. This is not a bad thing, do not use this as an excuse to not try harder. Aim to get better, work harder, become better at your skill. However ‘unfair’ it may be that some people have natural talent in an area, it is a reality we must face and cannot legislate the solution to.

II.

Equality does not mean special rights for individual groups. None at all, no quotas, no affirmative action, none of these things contribute to equality, they are antithetical to the word equality. The definition of ‘equality’ is not up for debate. It specifically means equal. In a political sense it means that everyone has a baseline equal access to participate in political activities if they so choose, that is all that needs to be written in regard to equality in a democratic country – no amendments, no “um” or “ah” or “but maybe…”

The moment you change a law from a simple statement like “every adult has the right to participate in the political system of our nation” things begin to fall apart. We can see most prominently how horrendous the application of perverting this basic principle is in court cases in which a criminal who has committed an atrocity walks away with a slap on the wrist: lawyers seek loopholes, if the criminal is part of a minority they will – and in fact do – use it. Given the opportunity who wouldn’t?

Not that long ago, a student at my university in Australia was brutally murdered by an Aboriginal person next to my campus. The defence is already playing the “oppressed minority” card. This should not even be an option. This becomes especially absurd when you claim oppression by being part of a group that is given significant extra benefits and special opportunities because of something that happened to their ancestors – not you. Another example is the unfortunately common (and genuinely pseudoscientific) claim of psychological trauma passed down intergenerationally. True equality means a levelled playing field.

Pick 10 strangers, have them stand in a line and tell them to run when the trigger is pulled on the gun in your hand. One of those people will be naturally faster than the other. Then train all those people heavily for a year, 12 months later one of the people who were in 8th or 9th place may be the person to come first. Equality of opportunity is the only necessary, legitimate, equality. The rest is idiocy.

III.

Humans have a tribal dimension to them and you cannot escape this. Over-complicating, adding exemptions, granting privileges to any group within the nation perpetuates hostility. We see this exploding all across Europe, and the long-term implications are disastrous.

IV.

 “The equality between A and B (A = B) means that A is either similar or identical to B (that is, it does not differ), or that they are equivalents according to a precise criteria and according to a predetermined relationship. It is therefore necessary to specify this criteria or to identify this relationship” – Alain de Benoist

When a scientist proposes that there is a difference between any group of people on biological grounds, or someone in the social sciences suggests that “maybe” some people of completely different cultural origins (even some within Europe) cannot cohabit peacefully due to antagonistic differences in value, cultural mores, ethical positions; whenever just an ordinary, everyday working class citizen expresses genuine concern over negative consequences of actions made by champagne socialist narcissists – who have grown up privileged, almost always in ethnically homogenous areas yet have the gall to call a working class white male below the poverty line innately “privileged”. These people are the problem, these people need their views quashed because they threaten the deluded plot of those who never witness the consequences of their actions.

Progressives do not have a Telos. Why? Because they want a world where everyone is confused, alone and helpless.

The end of WW2 left the entire world in Despair, the Western world took it the hardest. It created a “nothingness” within everybody. Those who experienced bombings where traumatised. Those who fought and returned were filled with despair, can you blame them after what they witnessed? This intense nihilism and a heavy sense of trauma that left everyone shaken. A descent into madness that needed a villain. Naive individuals blamed Western culture and values, this infected academia and it has turned into a beast that is driving Western civilisation to suicide. It sees every individual Western culture, be it Italian, Greek, British, Irish, Spanish and French as an enemy that sews division and hatred instead of something beautiful that can create harmony amongst a society – establish social cohesion and some sense of peace. They say they want peace, but they want to eliminate the only thing that actually can bring peace – I do not mean “world peace”, only an naive idiot could truly believe that would ever be possible.

V.

We cannot have social cohesion without common goals, values, and most importantly – normative ethical principles. We cannot have social cohesion without the acceptance of truths no matter how harsh or unappealing they may be perceived. This is why I agree with the European New Right notion of right to difference. Different peoples and different groups have different skills and different abilities, they have different cultures and different values – however, those that are too different cannot live in close proximity without conflict.

Different groups over time will naturally ‘otherise’ each other. Why do we do this? Because, naturally, we believe our way of life to have intrinsic value to our ingroup and ‘theirs’ less so. Even the Left does this, they disapprove of the practices of the majority of the Islamic world, and they have switched with the Right after the end of the Soviet Union and now believe Russia is evil. They try to impose radical gender theory and other newfangled stupidity upon other cultures through the United Nations – they do the same things that they accuse the Right of desiring to do. We all believe our own views are better than the ‘Others’. We all wish our views were what the state imposed. The Left merely crafts a convincing lie about it.

Britain slowly crawls towards throwing off the globalist chains of the EU; eventually there will be a French exit, then an Italian exit. Greece and Germany will swing to the Right, you can see this already happening. The EU will collapse and the countries of Europe reaffirm their original cultures, the media is already in fear of the new generation embracing Right wing positions. All we have to do is continue to speak the hard realities and create a barrier to prevent the indoctrination of false idols.

I will end this essay with a closing thought from Heidegger:

“This Europe, in its unholy blindness always on the point of cutting its own throat, lies today in the great pincers between Russia on the one side and America on the other. Russia and America, seen metaphysically, are both the same: the same hopeless frenzy of unchained technology and rootless organization of the average man. When the farthest corner of the globe has been captured technically and can be exploited economically: when any incident you like, in any place you like, at any time you like, becomes as accessible as fast as you like; when you can simultaneously “experience” an assassination attempt against the King of France and a symphony in Tokyo; when time is nothing but speed, instantaneity, and simultaneity, and time has vanished from all Dasein of all peoples; when a boxer counts as the great man of a people; when the tallies of millions at mass meetings are a triumph; then, yes then, there still looms like a specter over all this uproar this question: what for? – where to? – and what then?” – Heidegger, Introduction to Metaphysics.


You can find Darrel Williams’ blog Philosophizing With A Hammer here and support his writing with a Paypal donation here.


Visit our friends: