The Myth of "Progressiveness"

[Defiance]

"Progressive." If I hear this word used one more time, I am gonna fucking flip.

Although I shamelessly adhere to basic racialist ideology, I can't help but notice how downright ridiculous this particular theory is. From what I can gather, "progressivists" seem to be of the belief that a great deal can be gleaned from seemingly insignificant elements of a person's phenotype; that "leptomorphic" specimens are ideal, while more robust, Alpinoid types are innately inferior (that said, it could be considered rather similar to Nordicism). This seems to be a very popular ideology around these parts; I haven't a clue why.

You see, the main problem with this theory is that it apparently has no basis in reality whatsoever. Seriously, just look at the facts; a great deal of the most distinguished people throughout history were what would be considered simply "inferior" by this concept. Conversely, I've seen nothing that would suggest that racially "progressive" people are in any way actually superior. Not to mention the fact that areas of Europe with a high proportion of supposedly "inferior" types are generally rather well off; often times even more so than highly "progressive" lands. So really, just what are you all going on about anyway?

Seriously, it's stuff like this that gives racialism a bad name. The cognitive differences between, say, a European and a Negroid are clear to see. A Dinaric and an East Baltic, not so much. I mean, really? Do you truly believe that people can be so accurately assessed and rigidly divided based on phenotype? Furthermore, there's the question of the apparently overbearing and despotic nature of this ideology; in other words, if you find certain phenotypes particularly unsavory, I would suggest that the decent thing to do would be to leave them to their own devices and mind your own damned business. Indeed, I assert that this is the only civilized way to deal with things on a racial (or sub-racial) level. Personally, I am a separatist; this ideology seems to be essentially supremacist (and it's amazing just how many people don't know the difference between the two). I have a problem with that.

It's time to come out and say it: "Progressiveness" is a fallacy.
And really, it's no stretch to say that adherents of this ideoligy seem to be suffering from a severe inferiority complex.

But hear this.....

You are not superior based on your cephalic index.
You are not superior based on your nasal structure.
You are not superior based on your body build.
Race may indeed be a very real and relevant thing but goddammit, it does not work like that.

It's time to drop this elitist nonsense once and for all.
Honestly, I'm feeling kind of stupid just writing about this.

That is all.

[Pallantides]

The Eidsvoll assembly of 1814 was attended by numerous "inferior" and non-progressive indviduals it seems, but Christian Magnus Falsen seem to have been at least a little bit progressive:

[Raskolnikov]

I don't literally subscribe to the idea of progressive-linear evolution, of progressiveness, although perhaps of relative adaptation and general potential, in which case it's an OK concept and we can build it around its opposite: absolute defect. However, comparing the political 'elite' in any particular time-period is no evidence against the concept of better and worse people. What eugenicist for instance ever said the democratic elite was 'progressive'?

One major issue with democracy has been the leveling of society and the destruction of the idea of 'the better' - on the other hand it continues to function with the benefits that limited hierarchy can provide, ie, among the non-political sphere of the country (capitalism). In other words the advantage to democracy is not the rule by the mediocre person, but the lack of rulers at all. Unfortunately with such a system greater and greater rules are necessary as no one can look upwards towards a clear leadership.

I will add in as a 'believer' in basic taxonomy/racialism I think is extremely exaggerated how 'subhuman' a particular Alpinoid or Baltid type is, and not just, and that such conceptions seem to be built around defining them a priori as underdeveloped, in which case you have to speak of counterexamples as something else (mixed/transitional).

I don't currently believe the idea of the better, the good, should not be discarded from any sphere; at the same time saying something is better doesn't make it so.

[billErobreren]

blah, blah(I read every word by quoting the whole thing I'll make the post longer)
That is all.

Agreed, It gets a little annoying

[Falkata]

Potato faces must burn in hell

[Flintlocke]

I thought this was about the neocommunist liberal leftist ideology of progressiveness which indeed is a myth.

[Kanuni]

Refuted by mainstream science and believed only in internet forums what do you expect anymore?

[Gordon Bennett]

I thought this was about the neocommunist liberal leftist ideology of progressiveness which indeed is a myth.

That's what I thought.

For me, the bollocks that gets spouted in the taxonomy sections is the most entertaining part of this forum. Here's a typical gem:

"Alpinoid + Pontid admixture with some Cro-Magnon influences."

Erm, yeah. At what's a Rhodian? Wasn't Greedo in Star Wars one of those?

[Defiance]

I'm having a problem with the Quick Reply function so.......

@ Flintlocke
Oh? I've never heard of such a thing.

@ Leo
The only reason I'm bothering to bring up any of this is because many people indeed do believe it. It was just always distressing to see how so many would hang on Agrippa's every word and totally refuse to question his theories.

.......Where is Agrippa anyway?

@ Falkata
LOL!

@ Raskolnikov

[kollaps]

@ Flintlocke
Oh? I've never heard of such a thing.

In the Old Continent, a "progressive" is what in the US you call a "liberal". In Europe "liberal" is more often associated with (neo)liberalism as an economic policy.