Progressivism = Nihilism

[shagdrum]

from here:

More at the link, but that sounds fair enough to me, if a bit minimalist. Basically, societies that have lost an agreed upon consensus of the appropriate, of the boundaries of social mores and values, have become nihilist in the sense Sean Kelly offers. It's not just a matter of religious faith but the social construction of moral right and political order. To the extent today that radicals attack traditional values as extreme --- attacks on proponents of heterosexual marriage, for example --- we've clearly lost a good deal of the decency that derives from a more fundamental set of commitments. The left not only rejects those commitments, but is intent to literally destroy those who stand in the way. Recall Diana West's essay following the passage of Prop 8 in 2008: "The State is Being Set." And the left's dishonesty and anti-intellectualism continued in the federal courts. See Michelle's, "Judicial activism + far Left radical activism = Courtroom intimidation."​

 

[04SCTLS]

A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.

Typical right wing hyperbole.
So leftists believe in nothing and are cynical destroyers.
How conceited.
Talk about demagoguing those who don't agree with you.
Reminds me of the Germans being called Huns in american papers during WW2 and the Japanese refered to as Japs.
Something along the lines of Jap Hun assault on allied forces was a typical NY Times headline.
Demonize the enemy.
Essentially this says that without religion a society will destroy itself so
religion is justified in it's busybody moralizing and sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong.(my opinion)
So thank God for the seperation of church and state which should withstand and survive any dishonest religious assault to rewrite and revise the intent of the founding fathers regarding the constitution.
We must be vigilant with the biased zealots to maintain our freedoms.
America is exceptional because of this seperation.

 

[shagdrum]

Social justice through collectivism necessities tearing down the traditional bonds of family, religion and nation as well as tearing down the traditional value system so that both can be replaced with a moral order favored by the preferred vision (progressivism in this case). This is where the nihilistic sentiment comes from. You first have to destroy so that you can recreate.

Is the radial environmental movement not nihilistic when it comes to industrialization and the innovations brought on by that as well as the system that supports it? Was the Weather Underground not nihilistic? What about the anti-war movement or the radical multicultural movement which seeks to weaken us on the national stage?

In fact, much of the rhetoric around things like the ground zero mosque is aimed at tearing down the bonds of nation, family, religion and those unique aspects of American Exceptionalism.

The countless attempts by leftists to delegitimize criticism of leftist thought instead of honestly and directly confronting those critiques in argument is another example of that nihilistic impulse. Delegitimizing those ideas and people removes them as a roadblock while avoiding confronting those critiques honestly on the merits of the ideas. The ultimate expression of this is in the attempts to delegitimize the notion of objective truth and or the notion of a natural social order.

To simply label all this as "typical right wing hyperbole" is to show a profound ignorance of what you are talking about as well as an unwillingness to consider those ideas.

It might be helpful to read the entire series of articles on this to fully understand the thought process behind the claim before you dismiss the idea.

It also should be noted, no one said that leftists "believe in nothing". It is precisely BECAUSE of what they believe in that nihilism become necessary as a means to the end of a more egalitarian world. You first have to tear down the social institutions, morals and ideas that stand in the way of your ideal before you can rebuild society around that ideal. When that ideal does not comport with reality, this nihilistic instinct to destroy becomes more apparent and even dominant at times.

 

[Calabrio]

I think you also need to be careful to avoid the "left/right" arguments. In reality, those aren't agreed upon terms and they just don't apply to our society. They have been used as rhetorical tools to demonize, traditionally against the right, and sometimes make distinctions that don't even exist.

Because with that language, a self-identified person who considers them self on the "left" but has very little to do with the political class, will immediately misunderstand this, consider it a personal attack, and dismiss it. "I'm not a nihilist. I have traditional values, I just like to make political decisions that make me feel good and absolved of social responsibility" they may say to them self.

But a person who thinks "someone (else)' should make sure old home bound people have enough to eat aren't "leftist" by the political definition Shag is using.

Unfortunately, most normal people would answer, "oh, you mean the "radical left." The truth is, the political left is guided and organized by the "radical left." The fact is, they aren't "radical" at all, they've been the dominant political force for over a century now. And those who naively support the incrementalism they advance without understanding the fundamental philosophy behind it are reducing themselves to "useful idiots" in the mid of this political call for the near term and possibly something like serfs in the future.

 

[cammerfe]

Progressives Running The Ball

Typical right wing hyperbole.
So leftists believe in nothing and are cynical destroyers.
How conceited.
Talk about demagoguing those who don't agree with you.
Reminds me of the Germans being called Huns in american papers during WW2 and the Japanese refered to as Japs.
Something along the lines of Jap Hun assault on allied forces was a typical NY Times headline.
Demonize the enemy.
Essentially this says that without religion a society will destroy itself so
religion is justified in it's busybody moralizing and sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong.(my opinion)
So thank God for the seperation of church and state which should withstand and survive any dishonest religious assault to rewrite and revise the intent of the founding fathers regarding the constitution.
We must be vigilant with the biased zealots to maintain our freedoms.
America is exceptional because of this seperation.

Since I know you have a good head on your shoulders, I have to believe you are just doing your common job of agitating. You must be aware that the 'separation of church and state' as you've used the term, is a construct of the progressive end of the spectrum. Any reading of the thoughts of the Constitution's framers will make clear to a truth seeker that the concern was that there should be no 'state' religion established, such as the Anglican is in the UK. Since some of the states had gone a little far in this regard, it was thought wise to draw boundaries. The B S we see so often today is the result of 'running the ball' and clearly not an original intention.

KS

 

[04SCTLS]

Since I know you have a good head on your shoulders, I have to believe you are just doing your common job of agitating. You must be aware that the 'separation of church and state' as you've used the term, is a construct of the progressive end of the spectrum. Any reading of the thoughts of the Constitution's framers will make clear to a truth seeker that the concern was that there should be no 'state' religion established, such as the Anglican is in the UK. Since some of the states had gone a little far in this regard, it was thought wise to draw boundaries. The B S we see so often today is the result of 'running the ball' and clearly not an original intention.

KS

Well you know I like to stir things up wth clever superlatives.
Religion can be a comfortable refuge for the scoundrel.
Remember Henry VIII an the Church of England where this started.
I have said before that we should have as much religion in government as is mentioned in the constitution, beyond the establishment clause mainly mentioned in passing like window dressing.
That would be honest and a strict interpretation of the constitution that doesn't add sentiment that wasn't there.

 

[shagdrum]

That would be honest and a strict interpretation of the constitution that doesn't add sentiment that wasn't there.

Actually it would be the EXACT OPPOSITE of that because it intentionally AVOIDS the historical context that the Constitution was written it and the ideas from which the Constitution is derived.

All it serves as is a convenient rationalization for secularism in courts.

 

[04SCTLS]

Actually it would be the EXACT OPPOSITE of that because it intentionally AVOIDS the historical context that the Constitution was written it and the ideas from which the Constitution is derived.

All it serves as is a convenient rationalization for secularism in courts.

You are free to come to your own conclusions but what to you is convenient I find self evident that speaks for itself.
Government and religion have a conflict of interest and are corrosive and corrupting to each other which is why they are seperate.

 

[shagdrum]

You are free to come to your own conclusions but what to you is convenient I find self evident that speaks for itself.

Yet what you have asserted here has been shown countless times on this forum to NOT be self-evident; often through direct quotes of the framer and the thinkers from whom they drew their ideas.

Government and religion have a conflict of interest and are corrosive and corrupting to each other which is why they are separate.

Can you back this statement up?

Certain people and interests in the church and in government can have a conflict of interest, but it is a gross exaggeration to take that and draw from it that the Church and Government have an inherent conflict of interest.

That would be like saying that because a tyrannical government is bad ALL government is bad and we must have anarchy. It is nothing but absurd hyperbole.

There is also the assumption that the Church inherently seeks to control society, which again, needs to be justify. While that one sided view of the church may be emotionally gratifying for those whom the darker sides of the church has burned, it is not supported by reason or by observation.

 

[shagdrum]

Essentially this says that without religion a society will destroy itself so religion is justified in it's busybody moralizing and sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong.

Where are you getting this from? There is no such notion in the passage I cite (or in the article it is taken from).

Don't let your anti-religious prejudice blind you from the point the article is making.

 

[04SCTLS]

Where are you getting this from? There is no such notion in the passage I cite (or in the article it is taken from).

Don't let your anti-religious prejudice blind you from the point the article is making.

I said it was my opinion which you omitted when quoting me.
I sometimes form one or more of my own without reading it somewhere first
If you're saying it's dirty tricks to use a nihilistic approach in a darwinian survival of the fittest attempt to evolve society further then I say both sides have their tricks they try to further their goals.
The conservatives under Bush launched wars and increased spending such that there is no great money left to spend for further social programs.
So they were being nihilistic too in that they destroyed the possibility of more money getting handed out for leftist social engineering projects.

Actually the christian religious people aren't my enemy.
They idolize and love (their idea of) me as a capitalist enterpreneur and want me to make as much money as I can without really demanding anything from me.
My taxes will always be lower under conservatives.
However ironically my bread is buttered by progressive government legislation.
Life can be a contradiction.
To me it's a matter of propriety keeping religion seperated from science and politics as being in the best public interest.

 

[shagdrum]

If you're saying it's dirty tricks to use a nihilistic approach in a darwinian survival of the fittest attempt to evolve society further then I say both sides have their tricks they try to further their goals.

fortunately, that is not what I am saying.

I am all for society being free to evolve naturally. I am adamantly opposed to anyone or any movement trying to "direct" society or artificially order society so as to better realize their ideal(s). Anyone looking to do that is a tyrant. You only get those attempts to re-order society from the radical leftist ideology.

Strained distortions of Bush era policies asside, you don't get attempt to re-order society from the right.

To me it's a matter of propriety keeping religion seperated from science and politics as being in the best public interest.

however, most modern political thought is derived from religion in some fashion. The same goes for science.

Besides, the complete separation of religion from those sphere's is absurd. That would be like saying that because too much government in the economy is bad, the government should be completely removed from the economy. The Framers didn't hold that view and neither did Adam Smith. Smith called for certain regulations (contract enforcement) and the Framers saw a need for the interstate commerce clause.

Religion is a very useful and benefitial institution to society in many ways. To cut out religion competely from the political process is to remove those benefits from society. The question is more one of balancing religion with government. Removing religion all together only ends up with the populace turning to the state as god.

 

[04SCTLS]

fortunately, that is not what I am saying.

I am all for society being free to evolve naturally. I am adamantly opposed to anyone or any movement trying to "direct" society or artificially order society so as to better realize their ideal(s). Anyone looking to do that is a tyrant. You only get those attempts to re-order society from the radical leftist ideology.

Strained distortions of Bush era policies asside, you don't get attempt to re-order society from the right.



however, most modern political thought is derived from religion in some fashion. The same goes for science.

Besides, the complete separation of religion from those sphere's is absurd. That would be like saying that because too much government in the economy is bad, the government should be completely removed from the economy. The Framers didn't hold that view and neither did Adam Smith. Smith called for certain regulations (contract enforcement) and the Framers saw a need for the interstate commerce clause.

Religion is a very useful and benefitial institution to society in many ways. To cut out religion competely from the political process is to remove those benefits from society. The question is more one of balancing religion with government. Removing religion all together only ends up with the populace turning to the state as god.

I know it's impossible to keep entirely seperate the human trinity of religion politics and science (what is a person but a mix of the three)but that doesn't mean we should promote more overlap between the three.

It's a matter of degree and I like the analogy of not calling on the plumber when you need to go to the dentist.

I understand the benefits and uses of religion for most people even though I don't subscribe to religious tenets myself.

I prefer that we keep the amount of overlap in check kind of like keeping the Id under control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego,_and_super-ego

Which brings to mind the term Monsters from the Id
the premise of the excellent 1959 pioneering sci fi movie Forbidden Planet.