The Progressives Of the Past
I wanted to expand on a prior article of mine, titled On The Regressive Nature of “Progressivism”. Going a bit further this time around.
In a separate prior article, The Cycle of Collapse: How Governments Fall, I shared the following image that explains how anacyclosis works:
There is another graphic that is equally useful here:
We can use these two diagrams to understand the difference between the “conservative” and “progressive” positions.
While certain nations can have different definitions of these terms, let’s talk U.S.
Conservatives desire to conserve a single spot on this circle. As the nation progresses along the circle, the spot they need to hold shifts.
They no longer want to conserve the original foundational beliefs as it is far too distant of a possibility to preserve. This is why young conservatives argue for things that the conservatives of decades prior would faint at the thought of.
Similarly, this is why over time the conservatives themselves become the progressives of the past.
The progressives push forward on the circle, whereas the conservatives want to hold it at an arbitrary line. Eventually, the conservatives are forced to hold the line at the position the previous progressives were pushing for.
Think of it as a small block along the circle. The conservatives want to hold the tail end of the block, while the progressives simply push the block forward. The near end point of the block is further along with the degeneration. Sadly, the best a conservative can do is slightly delay the inevitable.
Even if the conservative could “conserve” what we have now, what exactly would they be conserving besides a failing, degenerate system that is wholly unworthy of their time or commitment?
What is perhaps most ironic is that the progressives are pushing to “progress” back to a preceding governmental form. It is far more aptly referred to as regression than progression, but the meaning would be lost to them. They are, in effect, pushing power directly into the hands of centralizers.
They have been indoctrinated by the same individuals that profit off of their lack of historical understanding. It is a strongly delusion position. There is no linear process where we continue to “go forward”, instead we only continue to rotate in the same cyclical movement.
Both the actions of the conservatives and the progressives benefit the centralizers. The progressives, for obvious reasons, and the conservatives because of their necessitation for continual re-consideration of where they will hold the line (moving further along the cycle as needed).
The useful idiot nature of the progressive is not surprising in the least, given historical trends.
There is always a class of well-meaning, slightly higher-educated individuals that will blindly fight for what they believe is morally correct. They are often emotionally driven, so neither the logic and rationality acquired from historical study nor intellect will not correct their course.
What is surprising is the conservative. The conservative, even during their descent, either outright rejects the knowledge from history or is not self-aware enough to recognize that it is happening to them. Instead, they continually attempt to play catchup from the progressive’s movements. They will continually move their conservative point at the whims of the progressives, barely putting up a fight as it accelerates.
This is through direct fault of their own. The conservative-types are not outright rejected from political influence during the degeneration period. In fact, in many cases they are granted sweeping political power by the masses who desire strong action to fix the progressive degeneration. Conservatives are often elected en masse by the public to stop the decline. Instead of taking strong and harsh measures to do so once elected, they often appease their enemy and become complacent when granted these positions.
By not using their strategic positions when acquired, they are solely slowing down the rate at which they are consumed. The only way to stop the progressive push is to act harshly. But in doing so, it would require certain strong centralized elements to be used that the conservatives despise out of principle or would require making enemies with the centralizers in the politburo (which they rarely want to do because those are their colleagues).
The conservative leaders put into the position to correct the continual decline are closer to the centralizers than they are to the average national people. Which is why nothing can ever be done to resolve the decline by the conservation party.
The conservatives, being rendered to little but a minor speed-bump on the path to a recycling of historical “progress”, read properly as regress, do little to resolve the coming annihilation of themselves and their constituents.
This is why both the conservative and progressive party are worthless in the long-run. They both lead to the same end-result, albeit differing in speed of arrival. The only entity that could stop it is a party that denies the rule by many framework’s decentralization and shares no interest in cooperating with centralizers for personal gain. Both of those conditions are required, or the effort demonstrated by the party would be useless in the long-run.
Unsurprisingly, if a party demonstrated both characteristics, they would likely be banned, infiltrated, or heavily targeted by the dominant parties within the nation.
Such is the dilemma: the current parties will not support you, but you have little ability to create an alternative party that would. Political action that results in desirable change is centralized in the interest of the politburo centralizers who do not desire a change to their ruling ability.
The politburo, both conservative and progressive, benefit when centralization increases.
If you enjoyed this article, bookmark the website and check back often for new content. New articles most weekdays.
You can also keep up with my writing by joining my monthly newsletter.
Help fight the censorship – Share this article!