The Struggle

Progressives believe that the oppressed are in a righteous and historic battle against their oppressors: the struggle. The struggle’s fighting rules don’t conform to the dictates of traditional morality except by necessity to avoid the penalties of law. Under newthink, traditional tenets of behavior don’t apply to those perceived to be oppressed.

The unconscious logic supporting this tenet goes like this:

• 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 actions of the oppressed are generally virtuous.
• Traditional tenets of behavior don’t apply to the oppressed

The unconscious logic branching out of this tenet is:

• Violence by the oppressed against the oppressors is virtuous.
• Stealing by the oppressed from the oppressors is virtuous.
• The oppressed can abdicate any responsibility in maintaining traditional cultural standards because they are tools of the oppressors.

 

 the struggle n : a long-term fight for liberation by progressives against perceived oppressors which is unrestrained by traditional morality

 struggling vt : fighting by progressives against perceived oppressors which is unrestrained by traditional morality

Saul Alinsky

Saul Alinsky (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Dishonesty, theft, violence, even mass murder such as the 9/11 attacks – these may all be considered necessary tactics, even progressively-virtuous tactics, in the context of the oppressed struggling against their oppressors. Though progressives view themselves as compassionate to all, they are ruthless to their enemies. The Enlightened are fiercely opposed to those who purposely reject their moral code of political correctness. The newthinking pseudoppressed can be remorseless against their pseudoppressors. Saul Alinsky, the father of leftist “community organizing” and author of Rules for Radicals, stated that “in war the end justifies almost any means.”* He went on to say, “In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.”**

The struggle is waged not just against the wealthy.  Devout progressives unconsciously perceive society as a battlefield.  Their unconscious omnimarxism compels progressives to struggle against every type of oppressor they see through the filter of their worldview. The rich, European-Americans, heterosexuals, men, America, Christians, God — all of these, as ruthless oppressors, must be endlessly fought.

* Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, (Vintage Books, 1989), p.29.

** Ibid., pp.129-130.

 

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

Parinciters

Progressives tend to believe that society is populated by warring groups, and that the dominant group ruthlessly oppresses and exploits the weaker group.

The unconscious logic supporting this belief goes like this:
• 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 unconscious logic branching out of this belief is:
• The oppressed tend to be virtuous.
• The oppressors tend to be unvirtuous.
• Some of the oppressed become so damaged by the oppressors that they engage in antisocial behavior.
• The oppressed should reject the oppressors’ culture and values and create their own culture and values.
• The oppressors got their advantages by exploiting the oppressed.
• The oppressors’ social system is unvirtuous.
• The oppressors must be fought.
• Oppression is the most unvirtuous act because it damages the natural nobility and equality of humanity.
• The individual oppressor can choose not to oppress and instead support the oppressed in their virtuous struggle.

 

Newthinkers see a continuous dynamic of ruthless subjugation by groups of oppressors against groups of oppressed. Antagonism between these groups is fired up by parinciters who pit the supposed oppressors against the supposedly oppressed and use their position to gain political power and champion status among their pseudoppressed flock.

Parinciters:
Demagogues who incite antagonism between the pseudoppressed and pseudoppressors and then feed off the conflict.

Omnimarxism leads to a new tribalism, a return to the default position of tribal identity which western civilization had suppressed. That’s why urban youth gangs have been hard to eliminate: they’re primal expressions of human nature emerging where civilization is weak. The gangs’ self-identity is strengthened by their sense of being oppressed because of ethnicity or poverty. Meanwhile, they’re given an ideological boost by newthink and its inevitable parinciters, which push them to create their own culture and values. This resurgent tribalism extends to all newthinkers in varying degrees, who see their pseudoppressed group as their tribe, exploited and oppressed by a hostile and hated pseudoppressor tribe.

Omnimarxism

The perception that society is composed of groups that either dominate or are dominated, and that the dominant group ruthlessly oppresses and exploits the weaker group, is the essence of what I call omnimarxism.

omnimarxism n : a largely subconscious and emotion-driven progressive social philosophy, which is an outgrowth of the Marxist dialectical explanation of society and history, in which the Marxist oppressor/oppressed dynamic is applied to virtually every major division in society

A portrait of Karl Marx.

A portrait of Karl Marx. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Omnimarxism is Marxism applied to everything. According to the omnimarxist perception, society teems with opposing groups. Society is a battlefield, a group struggle for domination. This struggle always has winning and losing groups. The dominant group is the oppressor, exploiter and aggressor; the subordinate group is the oppressed, exploited and victim. Oppression is the push; exploitation is the pull. The dominant group pushes the subordinate group down and pulls out anything worthwhile they can from them. So, according to this perception, we have rich oppressing poor, men oppressing women, European-Americans oppressing non-European-Americans, heterosexuals oppressing homosexuals, America oppressing the rest of the world, and so on.

This leads to the omnimarxist theory of history, based on a single theme: oppressor groups wielding power over victim groups. It’s related to the Marxist dialectical explanation of modern history as the struggle between the owners of the means of production and the working class. But omnimarxism is Marxism to the nth power. It is applied to all realms of social relations, not just economics. With omnimarxism, the oppressor/oppressed dynamic is ubiquitous: virtually every prominent social group is perceived as either oppressor or oppressed. Further, omnimarxism is largely a subconscious and emotion-driven social philosophy. Many progressives perceive society from an omnimarxist perspective but don’t consciously know it.

The Progressive Worldview’s Society Metaphor: Society Is a Battlefield

Newthink’s society metaphor is Society is a Battlefield:

Society is a Battlefield Metaphor
• Society is a Battlefield
• Social interaction is war between groups.
• Warring groups either dominate or are dominated.

The traditional American worldview’s society metaphor was Society is a Wilderness. In traditional America, humanity’s social purpose was to civilize the wilderness. From this metaphor came unconscious entailments like “civilization must be defended from barbarism,” “it is virtuous to go into the wilderness and spread civilization” and so on.

The progressive worldview’s society metaphor is Society is a Battlefield. Under this perception, society is composed of groups struggling for domination. Warring groups either dominate or are dominated. Many of the progressive worldview’s most important beliefs branch out of this fundamental metaphor.

The unconscious logic supporting this belief goes like this:

• Society is a Battlefield
• Social interaction is war between groups.
• Warring groups either dominate or are dominated.

WorldviewTree_p100

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

• The dominant group ruthlessly oppresses and exploits the weaker group.

Newthink’s Society Metaphor

Newthink’s society metaphor is the Society Is a Battlefield metaphor:

Society Is a Battlefield Metaphor
• Society is a battlefield.
• Social interaction is war between groups.
• Warring groups either dominate or are dominated.

Newthink envisions society as a battleground, not a wilderness. The main social impetus under newthink changes from civilizing barbarism to battling oppressive groups. This metaphor creates unconscious entailments like “the dominant group ruthlessly oppresses and exploits the weaker group” and “the oppressors’ social system is unvirtuous.”