A Progressive Belief: The Oppressed Tend to Be Virtuous

Progressives believe that the oppressed tend to be virtuous.

The unconscious logic supporting this belief is as follows:

• Society is a Battlefield
• Social interaction is war between groups.
• Warring groups either dominate or are dominated.
• The dominant group ruthlessly oppresses and exploits the weaker group.
• The oppressed tend to be virtuous.

The unconscious logic branching out of this belief is:

• The intentions of the oppressed are generally virtuous.
• The actions of the oppressed are generally virtuous.
• The oppressed tend to be wise.
• The oppressed tend to be compassionate.
• The oppressed tend to be courageous.
• The oppressed tend to be fair.
• The oppressed are fashionable.
• We should try to fit in with the oppressed.

 

Progressive virtue accrues to those who live by the rules of progressive morality, otherwise known as political correctness. Politically correct behavior increases one’s progressive virtue. But all individuals do not start out with an equal balance in their progressive virtue bank account. Recall the Accounting metaphor which cognitive psychologists say structures our moral thinking in financial terms. Under newthink, the opening balance in one’s virtue account depends on whether one’s social group is oppressor or oppressed. Members of pseudoppressor groups begin with a big debit which they must always work to overcome if they wish to be progressively virtuous. Members of pseudoppressed groups begin with a big credit, which means they are able to do nothing at all if they choose and still maintain moral superiority over almost all pseudoppressors. This is one reason newthink pseudoppressors are often so devout in their political correctness. Progressive virtue is vital to the self-esteem and social power of progressives. Pseudoppressors have a big moral debit to overcome and must constantly work harder to be progressively virtuous.

Progressive virtue is vital to the self-esteem and social power of progressives. Pseudoppressors have a big moral debit to overcome and must constantly work harder to be progressively virtuous.

Acts of political correctness do help raise one’s PV bank account. But people in progressive societies are increasingly judged by their wealth, sex, citizenship, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and religion rather than their behavior. Newthink’s logic in this matter is simple to the point of monotony: the wealthy tend to be unvirtuous, the poor tend to be virtuous; males tend to be unvirtuous, females tend to be virtuous; Americans tend to be unvirtuous, non-Americans tend to be virtuous; European-Americans tend to be unvirtuous, non-European-Americans tend to be virtuous; heterosexuals tend to be unvirtuous, homosexuals tend to be virtuous; Christians tend to be unvirtuous, non-Christians tend to be virtuous. The less intelligent the assimilated newthinker, the more these guidelines will be used without nuances.

Traditional Americans, raised in a world where they were judged by their actions, are often bewildered by progressive society, which judges one largely on one’s pseudoppressor or pseudoppressed group affiliations. To further confuse them, when they are judged by their behavior it is increasingly by the foreign standards of political correctness rather than the familiar standards of traditional morality. (Unfortunately, the supposedly nonjudgmental inclination of progressives only applies to the progressively virtuous.)

If you’re oppressed, you don’t have to gain progressive virtue through actions: you are already virtuous because of your oppressed status. This surfeit of progressive virtue causes a decline in traditional good behavior. It is, for instance, one reason why the percentage of income given to charity by individuals declined from 2.26 percent in 1964 to 1.61 percent in 1998.* That’s 29% less charity in 34 years – years that saw great increases in real income and in the scope of progressive culture. In the early 20th century, through the booming 1920s and the depression years, Americans grew steadily more generous. But, as Robert D. Putnam documents in Bowling Alone, since 1960, American’s generosity has steadily shrunk.** The 1960s, that landmark decade of progressivism, coincidentally marked the point when American generosity abruptly began its decline. It’s perfectly logical: as progressives increase in number, more people gain virtue by identifying with an oppressed group rather than through traditional good works. Progressives don’t feel the need to engage in traditional good deeds because they already possess a great amount of virtue due to their oppressed-group status – and almost everyone can identify with at least one victim group.

Progressives don’t feel the need to engage in traditional good deeds because they already possess a great amount of virtue due to their oppressed-group status – and almost everyone can identify with at least one victim group.

The surfeit of progressive virtue among the pseudoppressed also leads to a decline in self-responsibility and positive determination. Self-responsibility, the belief that one is primarily responsible for one’s own situation, and positive determination, a can-do attitude dead set on success – the primary engine of production among any group of people – are attitudes which flourish under Americanism and wither for the pseudoppressed under newthink.

* Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), p. 123.

** Ibid, p. 123

To Progressives, the End – A Progressively-Virtuous Society – Justifies the Means

To progressives, the ultimate end – a progressively-virtuous society – justifies the means.

The unconscious logic supporting this belief goes like this, starting from the “Human beings are inherently and transcendentally noble” branch of the newthink worldview tree:

• Human beings are inherently and transcendentally noble.
• Our motives are inherently noble.
• We are progressively virtuous.
• Progressive virtue is supremely important.
• The end, which is a progressively-virtuous society, justifies the means.

The unconscious logic of this belief’s single entailment is:

• Progressive virtue is more important than democracy. It is legitimate and virtuous to use undemocratic means to protect and promote progressive virtue.

 

Just as traditional Americans would tend to use any ethical means necessary to protect and promote good, so will newthinkers tend to use any politically correct means necessary to protect and promote progressive virtue. But the drive to promote good and the drive to promote progressive virtue are very different; both the ends (goodness vs. progressive virtue) and the accepted means (traditional ethics vs. political correctness) are dissimilar.

Just as traditional Americans would tend to use any ethical means necessary to protect and promote good, so will newthinkers tend to use any politically correct means necessary to protect and promote progressive virtue.

Progressive politicians who are part of the Enlightened firmly believe that their motives are inherently noble, that they are progressively virtuous, that progressive virtue is supremely important, and that their end – a progressively-virtuous society – justifies their means. Therefore, even beyond the scope of traditional politicians, devoutly progressive politicians tend to feel that they can say nearly anything without regard to truth in order to promote their cause. Progressive politicians raise disingenuousness to a whole new level because they need to push their progressively-virtuous agenda among those who either don’t understand it or may, to their mind, unvirtuously oppose it. In newthink’s war against Americanism, truth is the first casualty.

Traditional values such as public honesty and democracy will be discarded by progressives if they impede the advance of progressive virtue.

Traditional values such as public honesty and democracy will be discarded by progressives if they impede the advance of progressive virtue. If the ignorant progressively unvirtuous cannot be turned and the purposely progressive unvirtuous (aka “‘evil conservatives”)  are making gains, it is for newthinkers legitimate and progressively virtuous to use dishonest and undemocratic means to gain and hold power.

Bringing the Benighted into the Light of Progressive Virtue with Progressive Education

Devout progressives believe that the benighted must be brought into the light of progressive virtue; those ignorant of political correctness must be reeducated.

The unconscious logic supporting this belief goes like this, starting from the “Human beings are inherently and transcendentally noble” branch of the newthink worldview tree:

• Human beings are inherently and transcendentally noble.
• Our motives are inherently noble.
• We are progressively virtuous.
• Progressive virtue is supremely important.
• Those who do not agree with us – the progressively unvirtuous – are either ignorant or purposely unvirtuous.
• The ignorant progressively unvirtuous must be reeducated.

The unconscious logic branching out of this belief is:

• It is our mission to educate the young about the principles of progressive virtue.
• It is our mission to educate the ignorant from other cultures about the principles of progressive virtue.
• It is our mission to reeducate ignorant or misinformed adults about the principles of progressive virtue.

 

The newthink takeover of education wasn’t motivated by a need to improve a failing American educational system. Along with the news media and the entertainment industry, it was part of the Progressive Missionaries’ undertaking  to reeducate the benighted in progressively-virtuous principles.

As Mona Charen points out in her book Do-Gooders, American children have for centuries attended religious schools, private schools and local public schools. These children grew up and built the U.S. into the richest economy and most powerful military the world has known. But in 1979, the Democrats felt that wasn’t good enough; the U.S. Government must have a Department of Education. The Department of Education, created under Jimmy Carter’s administration, centralized American education and enabled the domination of progressively-virtuous teaching curricula. Since then, progressives have promoted new math, whole language, bilingual education, and now, common core. These and all the other progressive educational improvements aren’t free. The U.S. spends more than almost any of its peers on K-12 schooling, yet our high-schoolers performance is only middling, and our high school completion rate is plunging. Despite many progressive educational innovations and massive spending, the longer a student is in our educational system, the worse he compares to his international peers.*

American children have for centuries attended religious schools, private schools and local public schools. These children grew up and built the U.S. into the richest economy and most powerful military the world has known. But in 1979, the Democrats felt that wasn’t good enough; the U.S. Government must have a Department of Education.

So, progressive educators have taken over American education, instituted lots of new progressive teaching methods, spent truckloads of money, and as the result our children’s educational level has plummeted and is now circling the drain. If the main purpose of progressive education were to educate children, it would be a disastrous failure. But forget that. Progressive education has actually succeeded in its actual, primary and largely unconscious mission: the indoctrination of children in politically correct opinions based on progressively-virtuous principles. C. Sheldon Thorne, a professor of history at Golden West University, says that after a dozen years of public school, his college students in U.S. History are exquisitely aware of every subtlety of racism, sexism, and imperialism throughout America’s history, but unable to write as much as a paragraph coherently about any of them. According to Thorne, they have it all figured out: the constitution – a racist document from rich white men; westward migration – fueled by greed and distinguished by genocide; slavery – a practice which occurred only in America. To them, America is bad to the bone.**

* Mona Charen, Do-Gooders, (New York: Sentinel, 2004)

** C. Sheldon Thorne, from Mona Charen, Do-Gooders, (New York: Sentinel, 2004), pp. 233-4.

Worldlove

Progressives tend to believe that sensitivity, empathy, righteousness and love are extremely important and should be the core of a progressive society.

The unconscious logic supporting this belief is as follows, starting from the “Human beings are inherently and transcendentally noble” branch of the newthink worldview tree:
• Human beings are inherently and transcendentally noble.
• Our motives are inherently noble.
• We are progressively virtuous.
• Progressive virtue is supremely important.
• Sensitivity, empathy, righteousness and love are extremely important and should be the core of a progressive society.

 

Here’s a new definition:

worldlove n : a bundle of emotions which are typically dominant in progressives, including sensitivity, empathy, righteousness and love

Peace, Love & Happiness

Peace, Love & Happiness (Photo credit: las – initially)

It’s not coincidental that this sensitive and loving righteousness that I call worldlove is emblematic of the feelings of a good mother. The prototypical emotional package of mothers has been sublimated and emerges as the emotional core of progressives, while the object of this sensitive and righteous love is no longer a child, but society as a whole. This is another example of an evolutionary micro-feminine drive – in this case, motherly love – transported into the macro world.

The unconscious logic branching out of this belief is:

• One must never hurt the feelings of the progressively virtuous.

 

Worldlove is nurtured by newthinkers like a precious and fragile seedling. In truth, it is the seedling of the newthink worldview tree in each individual progressive. Progressives are hypersensitive about the effect of words and actions on other progressives with worldlove.

…political correctness, instead of being understood as a new moral code, is commonly thought of as merely a hypersensitivity to the negative effects of words…

This trait is so conspicuous that political correctness, instead of being understood as a new moral code, is commonly thought of as merely a hypersensitivity to the negative effects of words – so much so that the dictionary definition of political correctness is “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.”*

* The New Oxford American Dictionary, (Oxford University Press, 2001).

Enhanced by Zemanta

Definitions: Political Correctness and Progressive Virtue

Traditional America used good and evil to measure virtue. Newthink replaces them with progressive virtue and progressive vice.

People need to feel virtuous. Therefore, all worldviews contain a system of measuring self-virtue. Traditional America used good and evil to measure virtue. Newthink replaces them with progressive virtue and progressive vice. The name of newthink’s morality, political correctness, provides a language clue to this: correctness implies keeping score. What is being scored is one’s level of progressive virtue.

Here are some definitions:

political correctness n : progressive morality

progressive virtue n : 1 : conformity to a standard of political correctness 2 : moral merit as measured under the newthink worldview

politically correct (PC) adj : adhering to progressive morality

progressively virtuous (PV) adj : having progressive virtue –(antonym: progressively unvirtuous (unPV))

Let’s review.  Political correctness = progressive morality.  Progressive virtue = moral merit under the progressive worldview.  Under newthink, the more one conforms to a standard of political correctness, the more progressive virtue one accrues.  Please understand these concepts.  There will be a test.