Progressivism by Moving Government Backward

We're a political party for good! There are bad political parties that say mean things about people. For example, when someone says that Mexico isn't sending us their best, they are making a racist statement. It's racist because Mexican is a race. Unfortunately, your geography teacher was probably a right-winger and called referred to Mexicans as a nationality. This is a common problem and I assure you that they are wrong. Also, saying that they aren't sending their best is problematic because it's problematic to judge people by their behavior. Judging people by the "content of their character" is right-wing dogma. We should raise awareness about this wherever and whenever that phrase is used.

Instead of judging by character, or worse, merit, we must rank people by their persecution identity. A persecution identity is innate, it can't be earned. Only right-wingers use vile terms like earn, merit, moral & character. These are relics of the past and have no place in our future. We must continue to prevent corporations from hiring by merit and setting wages based on old-fashioned concepts like competence. We must require that all corporations with more than 50 employees employ a diversity officer and must follow that officer's recommendations for new hires and wages. If you're hiring based on merit, then you a part of the problem. Progressive stack compliant corporations might fail like Occupy Wall Street did due to a lack of skill (we don't know why), but don't worry, a replacement for capitalism is in the works and will make every large company too big to fail. It might sound ironic that you must hire based on a person's race in order to not be racist, but trust us, it's fine. Only whites can be racist because of privilege. How do we measure privilege? We don't need to specify methods and measurements. Again, just trust us.

We don't need numbers. We use virtue-signaling to make decisions and to strengthen our cause. Any one of us can come up with new ways to expand the boundaries of what is considered offensive so that we will always be policing people's sinful problematic nature, even when they have complied with all of our earlier demands. Examples include expanding the definitions of anything we that we believe to be problematic and making a bigger deal out of increasingly smaller infractions (microaggressions). We call this outrage culture. At this point, some might mistake it as harassment and bullying, but we don't call it that. We do it for righteousness the common good, therefore, it's not harassment and bullying. When bad people challenge our ideas with oppressive logic and reason, we call their behavior harassment and bullying. Refer to our inane provocation guide if they aren't actually harassing and bullying you enough so that you can call them the aggressor. If you don't provoke them quickly enough, we won't look good against their reason and logic, so make sure that you preempt that! Anyone who doesn't align with our perceptions and conclusions is harassed and bullied, I mean, called out. If you have time, you can learn your own logic so that you can ignore everyone else's logic, such as mansplaining.

Remember, perception is more effective than truth, so always focus on shaping perception and don't waste any time on truth. "... it don’t matter. We’re building a movement." In case you're wondering how effective this is, remember that we have been shifting the definitions of harassment, bullying, racism & privilege for decades now, and the media is now on board with the program. Our ideas have permeated the media to the point where they habitually omit the context of our opponents, making us look like the victim, regardless of our behavior. Our opponents don't deserve fair coverage. Fair coverage will just confuse people. Confusion is bad for ratings, but outrage is great for ratings. Because our outrage is formulated from a story about a small group being oppressed by the large group, the media will only cover our perspective because the smaller groups oppressing larger groups don't help with the ratings. Plus, by always framing individual behavior in terms of groups and oppression, we can demonize people for talking about minorities who are being inconsiderate. Because we think in groups of people instead of individuals, and theoretical oppression instead of real issues, we make it nonsensical to say that a smaller group is oppressing a larger group. Always use the word "racism" and never use the word "prejudice." The concept of prejudice can be used to defend the larger group from attacks by smaller groups. We want to demoralize the larger groups by denying them any dignity. By using our concept of racism instead of prejudice, we can dismiss their claims of prejudice and imply that they are racist if they question how this is fair. Of course, we present theory as fact, because we do what we must because we can!

The progressive stack is our method for replacing competition based on merit and skill. It ranks people by social class, race, skin color, sexuality identity, gender identity, educational status & more. It can get quite complicated and we can revise it at any time. It's not quite a simple as "four legs good, two legs bad," but it works better in America. You see, the problem is that unlike Europe, America doesn't have a history of feudalism. Prior feudalism helps our progressive counterparts in Europe to divide people by class and incite prejudices so that we can gain political power. The more political power that we gain, the larger we can make government and the more free stuff we can give out! Remember, this is important, there are no bad tactics, only bad targets. Imagine all of the tactics that we can use with greater political power! This is why we need direct democracy, at a minimum. Any form of collectivism would be better, though. The checks and balances of a constitutional republic are just too limiting for us. Without these right-wing limits on government power, we can go after any bad person that we please.

Beware of the phrase "melting pot." It was made by a right-wing conspiracy to take away our progress in dividing people up into feuding classes and races. Without it, we can't incite enough conflict to justify our political objectives. Instead, we must hammer in identity politics and protect anything that causes people to feud in ways that only greater government power can resolve. Also, constantly conflate race and culture, so that when someone makes a rational judgment about a culture, you can call them a racist and not have to reason with them.

An example of what to protect is culture. We must segregate cultures and give culture itself rights. In order to give rights to cultures, we must restrict the rights of people, so that the rights of ideas are protected. Unless if your ancestors were poor Greeks, then you can't appropriate pizza. Every time an American makes pizza, they deny Greeks everywhere the right to that income. Of course, we should exempt western culture from protection because western culture has done nothing but harm. To prevent the protection of this "majority culture," we can say that it doesn't exist and that we need immigrants to provide us with real culture. This is true because only the political right defends their own culture. To increase diversity, we won't criticize cultures that support racism, state-sponsored homophobia, the subjection of women & hate. We should import their culture as much as possible via open borders, ignoring all concerns about hate, crime & new diseases that didn't exist here and we have no immunity to. Then, we must segregate the immigrants by culture. We must tell them that this segregation is for their own good (see the Democrat approved Jim Crow laws, but re-purpose them for cultures). If their cultural identity is allowed to be melted into the nation's, then we won't have enough feuding classes, races & cultures to work with and the immigrants will be of little political use to us then. Of course, immigrants need to integrate in order to function within our nation, but we should only allow integration at the government level. By preventing them from integrating their culture, customs & language, they will have less prosperity via capitalism and they will need our political party to get by on socialism or our next collectivist project.

We can't allow the people to use the ideas of another culture without importing the people. This only helps the "melting pot" phenomenon, which works against us. If anyone does this, accuse them of cultural appropriation. If someone on the right mentions that civilizations sprang up and flourished on the crossroads of different cultures (and appropriated their ideas to create a better society), accuse them of racism before we have to defend our ideas. Don't think about this too much. Just accept that we're doing good and everyone who questions us is evil. This is 2015, the time for discussion is over, as we have reached peak subversion! Your ignorance is just as good as their knowledge, so don't waste any time trying to have a sincere discussion and to understand their position. If you accidentally try this, just end the conversation promptly by calling them a racist. If racist doesn't work, pick from one of our many other ists. Be sure to use our latest guide. We keep coming up with new ists to label people with all the time. Just go down the list until you find one that sticks. Even if none of it's true, people will "trust" that because we do this so often, with such frequency, that there must be some reason for it and eventually the target will become a pariah just because we said so. People on the right expect a discussion when there is a disagreement. You must deny them one at all costs. Don't be afraid to demonize, lie & cheat. You must keep it up until they become discouraged or distressed enough to make a mistake. Exploit the fact that they have more honor than you do.

There is a cultural appropriation issue in art. It seems like it is based on appropriation. We don't have time to deal with it right now, but we will get to it.

America has this right-wing idea called the separation of powers. It prevents the will of the people from doing whatever they want. We need collectivism to break these separations down so that we can have mob majority rule! Democracy, socialism & communism are all better than where we're now. We tried democracy in America, but it hasn't grown the left's government power fast enough. It was a good step in the right direction, though. Now, we need to socialize socialism! We need to ban the history of East and West Germany. It might give people the idea that collectivism keeps people in poverty and that capitalism produces prosperity for everyone. Ignore the "rising tide lifts all boats" argument. Exploit people's envy by focusing on only the rich. Collectivism has always produced poorer poor than capitalism, but at least we get steady government jobs and don't have to worry about skills! Collectivism provided women with greater gender equality as opposed to oppressive "family values." Of course, that was only because women had less choice under collectivism. Choice isn't good for equality. Feminists understand this and are our natural allies.

This is because today's feminism is actually just another name for identity politics. There are many cases where feminism doesn't favor women (especially white women) because of our victim identity and privilege ranking. One form of this is the progressive stack. For example, if an unlawful immigrant rapes a white women, she shouldn't report it because that immigrant has fewer privileges and greater oppression. And if she does, the media shouldn't report it because there is no oppression per our rules (smaller can't oppress larger). If the media must report it, then the immigrant's identity mustn't be included in the report. We want immigrants to have more children, so we mustn't warn the natives of this activity. If the media does report the immigrant's identity, then the media is encouraging racism, and we should shame them for that. This must be no distinction between the existing citizens and the unlawful immigrants in the news reports and crime statistics. We need to remove the scientific peer review process from all crime statistics and turn that work over to our activists. Since other activists are our peers, we can still call it peer review. We will enforce accuracy consensus with groupthink and ostracize and delegitimize those who challenge "our peers." Skepticism is an impediment to progress and mustn't be legitimized.

Science says that due to sexual dimorphism, men and women have different behavioral traits and physical abilities. Testosterone is an important factor in this. This is a problem for equality, so we have various ways of dealing with this. Schools should deal with the testosterone issue by setting the limits of acceptable behavior to be within stereotypical female behavior only. This means that rough play and other male bonding behaviors are unacceptable. Use Ritalin as much as possible. Also, deny that sexual dimorphism exists in humans, or at the very least, deny that it has any effect on career choices and other pursuits. If we do do this, then we will have a wage gap that can be only explained by sexism (assuming that wages and earnings are the same things). The following things are the same between men and women, and do not affect pertinent physical characteristics nor behavior:

We're very fortunate to have an aligned interest on the subject of unregulated open borders with many in the middle east. Middle eastern men of military age want to swarm western nations and assimilate with white women, absorb our culture & their children will be thankful to us. This thanks will happen within 1 generation, 2 generations max. War level rape and brutal attacks will be a small price to pay. White women, we're counting on you! We promise that no crisis will go to waste. "The worse the better." No one will be able to resist the expanded government power that we will ask for. This will create a revolutionary alignment of interest across all political parties. This will destroy the remnants of the old amorphous white patriarchy while importing an aggressive and violent patriarchy! Imagine being the mother of a new generation with neutral ideology with no resistance to progressive ideology and the extermination of competing ideas! The radical beliefs of their grandparents will be gone. Political Islam has subjected civilizations for over a thousand years, but this time, it will be different! There is no risk here, trust us!

Stable nuclear families produce what the right calls "rugged individualism." Making people rugged is cruel, and it reduces dependency on the government. We need people to be vulnerable and weak. Children mustn't be raised to be able to live independently from the government after they turn 18. We must encourage single parent households as much as possible. Eventually, we will get the point where most people will be taken care of by the government from cradle to grave. At this point, the size of this large government can never go down to the pitiful size that it's today (or was in the past, for that matter). It's also important to subsidize single parent households to the point where single parents will want their children to stay out of the workforce for as long as possible in order to maintain a subsidized & comfortable sized apartment. The political energy of young adults is vital to our cause, and we need them to not see the taxes that we take out of their paycheck for as long as possible. This allows them to more clearly see the wisdom of relying on the government for their very existence. Also, denying work to testosterone-driven people makes them much more likely to spread our ideology with great vigor. This does run the risk of violence and vigilantism, but all radical political movements need this energy. This will create massive amounts of poverty, but we can blame it on white people. How do we explain this? We don't. In this country, institutionalized racism has actually gone down while black poverty has gone up. Due to political correctness, no one will question this, regardless of the facts. Nor will they dare to accuse us of creating the poverty. Basically, we ignore holistic perspectives and cherry pick the data that we need so that we can preserve the oppression narrative. As an example, we simply ignore the increase in poverty and the decrease in institutionalized racism. Outrage culture will provide us with the appearance of racism.  For those in nuclear families, we have college to delay their financial independence. This creates almost lifelong debt (for their more useful portion of their life), which gives us more token campaign promises. Colleges these days are practically progressive indoctrination camps, so it's very useful to bring as many people into college as possible. People with lower SAT scores are preferred because they are more easily influenced and we will work with the administration to eliminate standards based on merit. College isn't about education or degrees anymore. It's about the experience (and indoctrination)! Leave the implementation details to us. It's very important that people don't demand for this process to be transparent.

The universities of the past were all about the male mind studying itself. We are transforming universities into intersectional feminism. This means dividing students up into oppression type and healing needs. The groups are ranked by the amount of privilege that they benefited unfairly from. If any group is better off than another, then it must be assumed that it due to some unfair or unearned reason, such as being a part of a culture that instills foreign concepts such as "respect" and "work ethic" and having more than one parent. More privileged groups are not permitted to discuss the issues of less privileged groups because objective thinking and listening to all perspectives are traits of toxic masculinity. Why is listening to all perspectives bad? Because knowledge can be weaponized to keep a group oppressed. Weaponized knowledge comes from those who are oppressing. Smart people are a threat to us, so we must only learn by discussing things within our own oppression groups. Just imagine how much better we will all get along once we get rid of all of this oppressive knowledge from groups that are more successful than we are. We must deplatform & deny speech to privileged groups in order to end their oppression. We will judge things based on how they make us feel, not by some patriarchal "fact" or "reason."We demand the total destruction of the patriarchy and Western civilization as we know it. We also demand that wealth and power be distributed based on a presumption that everyone is equal, regardless of talent, skills, work ethic, respectfulness, knowledge, culture & other right-wing preoccupations. We know that this is the right thing to do because it makes us feel good, not because we use repressive "objective knowledge."

The people on the right will probably argue that the separation of powers protects minorities by placing limits on government power (which in a democracy, will simply be our majority). This is useless because in the future, only good people will be in the majority. We will make sure of that. The ignorant masses that we're creating can't be subject to manipulation by people other than us. We will manipulate the masses. For example, if someone says something that might affect any social issue, we will find a way to interpret what they said as something unjust or problematic. We will then ask them to recant and proclaim only our political views or we will unite as a multitude against them until they lose their job and reputation. This is called social justice and will be a substitute for the current right-wing "legal justice." In the future, we can reduce the separation of powers and make judges enforce our identity politics. The phrase "innocent until proven guilty" isn't compatible with social justice, so it must go. It will be replaced by our perception of what is good. This progressive idea is already in use by law enforcement. It's called civil asset forfeiture, an idea borrowed from the Catholic Inquisition, except only law enforcement gets a small cut of the person's assets and the person doesn't have to be charged with a crime. This is great progress, but we need to go further. If the person refuses to recant their crimes against social justice, then we should take more of their stuff and send them to prison. Since we're always right, we can just assume that everyone who has charges brought against them is guilty.

Right now, practicing social justice is an extrajudicial activity. We need your support to make it legal. There is only one viable candidate that will obstruct our progress. His name is Trump. Please volunteer to (removed for legal reasons). The good news is that the media is on our side. They will blame Trump and his supporters regardless of how we provoke them. The pro-Trump position doesn't bring in the ratings, but the anti-Trump position does. Trump's own statements will be used to blame the incidents on him because we can interpret his speech based on what we thought we heard, not on what he actually says, regardless of how precisely he speaks, the meaning of the words that he uses, and regardless of what he says his intent was. As experienced liberals, we're very practiced at this. Therefore, all pro-Trump details will be omitted and the story will become anti-Trump. That way, the media has more popular content to sell. Win-win!

The reason why Trump is dangerous to our cause is that all other candidates are beholden to the existing power structure. This power structure limits the republican party to a token set of issues (more on this to follow). Because Trump operates outside of these limits, his presidency represents an unusual threat to our progress. For decades, positions, and to some extent, the general population are judged based on how they might be perceived in the worst possible interpretation of their language, as opposed to what they intended to say. This is called political correctness. It makes it incorrect to discuss topics that might harm our cause. This is because it's near impossible to articulate some social problems without us using the flexibility of language to make people into pariahs. Effectively, there is no free speech on these issues. Trump is the only candidate that has repeatedly addressed issues that were previously protected by our social justice. Even as a presidential candidate, his example is a direct threat to social justice. Our justice seems to have little effect on him. If he becomes president, he will do more than just delay our progressive progress. Unlike any other candidate, he will actually set us back! We must use every tool available to us in social justice and use them to the fullest extent possible!

There are 3 broad precepts about the role of government:

  1. There is no such thing as abusive or oppressive government power. The government must be used to fix all social issues. A social issue exists due to the government not being large and powerful enough. Governments can't collapse, so they can be trusted with all of the social safety nets.
  2. Government power can easily create oppression, therefore, it must be limited to what is required for a self-sustaining, orderly society. Checks and balances prevent the subversion of this foundation. Society must be trusted to fix the issues within society, via education, media, foundations, charities & more. Citizens might be tempted to give the government more power during times of chaos, perceived, manufactured, or genuine, but the only true threat to this type of society is collapse from within due to too an increase of unchecked power.
  3. All problems come from the government, therefore, it shouldn't be allowed to exist.

We're proudly in the first precept. Democracy, socialism & communism are our friends and will never lead to oligarchy or collapse because progress can be trusted to stop before it goes too far. Hypothetically, if the government were to suddenly disappear and no-one notices, then we have failed. Someone that we admire once said "Political power... is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another."

Because we value the collective over the individual, we don't need individuals to defend themselves. We perceive gun problems via media coverage, not per capita trends and careful analysis of the contexts. Only uncaring republicans look at numbers instead of the biased news like we do. Guns scare us, so if someone breaks into your home and threatens your life, just dial 911, wait 10 minutes to 2 hours, and the police will make sure that your dead body will be not be left unattended and that your family is notified. Law enforcement does not defend individuals. Individual survival is not a right that we value. We need to replace guns with collective goodwill. Goodwill will protect us, even as we increase divisiveness. To take away guns, we simply need to document all gun owners. Next, we will require them to obtain a license. Finally, we simply stop renewing the licenses. This worked well in 1920's Germany. It paved the way for the socialist government to implement their laws without any resistance from minorities. We can trust socialist governments to protect minorities indefinitely. Always assume the best possible outcome when we get our way because we're good. Individual rights should be replaced with collective rights so that individuals become expendable and subjected to the will of the mob majority. This is social justice. We don't need to inform our views from history because everything is new.

Let's talk about white privilege. Even if a white person is 100% good, they still benefit from other humans making decisions based on race. White people are always treated with respect. Of course, putting people in privilege groups is a great way to combat group think. Groups can be held accountable by our social justice. We don't want people to solve the problem by getting rid of all forms of group think, because that would also get rid of our group think. That would be bad for our political purposes. We still want minorities to discriminate and the majority has to take it without any resistance, pride, dignity, or self-preservation. The need for survival is a right-wing preoccupation. We have no need for it. Instead, we articulate our envy centered worldview by describing everything in terms of privilege and oppression. If discrimination is the lowest it ever has been, and is clearly on its way out, then we must use what little discrimination remains to make even more discrimination so that we can use it for our purposes. We can't let it disappear on us! Focusing on making everyone better than us would give us more to be envious about and would unite people.  Dealing with unjust discrimination the in legal system only makes the problem diminish over time. So instead of doing that, we use pseudoscience in privilege, oppression & other social studies to create a disproportionate amount of indignation, anger, envy & hatred. This creates persistent agitators, so that the problem never goes away. We can claim that people have oppression and privilege even when there is no identifiable, measurable, or provable interactions between a person (or relevant group of people around them) and the oppressed. If we find an isolated island that consists of only white people, they are still privileged somehow. Remember, this is mob vigilantism social justice, not real justice. Things like evidence, science, due process & a fair trial need not apply. Envy is a negative emotion, so we can't take a positive course of action. Instead, we prefer to divide people to make them angry, unproductive & useful to us, and to take things from people who are more successful than we are. We need divisive behavior (but only the types that we approve of, of course) to justify our long-term political objectives. Think of white people as the new 1930's Jews. Compare journalism written about Jews during that time frame and compare it to what our bloggers say about straight white males today. In a few generations (as non-whites reproduce more than whites), a new solution (based on our awareness raising) to this inequality will finally solve this problem. As you can see, there is nothing about our concept of white privilege that is problematic and nothing that we say is hypocritical, so just accept this idea already.

Inherited wealth is something that we use to justify privilege, despite the fact that most people do not consider it to be that significant in their daily lives. Less than half of all people inherit anything. Inheritance usually comes about later in life, such as after all of the children have left the home. Therefore, in most cases, its role in producing inequality during childhood very improbable. With today's levels of debt, the chances of a family passing along an inheritance originating from the distant past is becoming increasingly rare. The vast majority of wealth is earned. You should never assume that you will receive an inheritance because an unpredictable financial disaster could strike and wipe it out. But lets make inheritance our main talking point about privilege because it's easier to prove than all of the other stuff that we have specious arguments for. We love to envy other people's money and dream about taking it from them for "reasons." Speaking of reasons, we should appeal to people's emotions because people who take the time to explain themselves appear to be on the losing end of an argument, from the perspective of an emotional thinker. So having a specious reason is actually a great thing if you must argue or present in short video form. This is a great way to socialize our envy to other like minded people. Whatever you do, don't talk about the values that parents always pass down (regardless of wealth, privilege, etc.), which affects the more significant earnings part of wealth. As liberals, we believe that making good choices, character, developing an economically desirable skill & having a good work ethic doesn't matter, so if you have less wealth, it must always because someone who has more privilege than you is oppressing you. If we don't have a reason, we'll make one up. This isn't a real science, after all. If this were a real science, it would be much more boring & tedious. “It is faith that moves mountains, not reason. Reason is a tool, but it can never be the motive force of the crowd.”

Ignore requests from people who say that privilege should not be used to blame people or make them feel guilty. This is just a disclaimer, or fine print. Even if you present our ideas of privilege without any blame, shame, or guilt, the person receiving the idea of privilege will perceive these things or develop a sense of divisive tribalism. It's just a useful trick that works on most human minds. We know though practice that this disclaimer is not only ineffective, but what it argues against is guaranteed to happen in most cases. This is where "a little learning is a dangerous thing" is on point. It speaks to emotional people who quickly generalize it and take it out of context, regardless of any additional restrictions saying not to do so. To people who "have more learning," they know that miscategorized generations and ignorance of civilization's complexity can appear as wholesome awareness raising, but can actually be poisonous race baiting. Overcoming these errors requires a tiresome amount of learning, which can't fit into a sound bite. It's career suicide to point out these errors because our "less learned mob" will make these critics a pariah, denying them their career, income & safety. This makes it very effective for our purposes.

If you're looking for a group to hate, look no further than the white working class. They are the most privileged, and because they build and make things, they think that people should be judged by their skills and merit (traits that have economic value to other people, but not to our political agenda). People aren't like things! This is completely apathetic to our progressive values. Also, if one group is doing better than another, it's never due to this thing that they call "work ethic" or cultural values. They are obviously trying to use that to hide their oppression of others. Clearly, the only way to judge people is by their lack of privilege and victim identity (traits attributable by groups and have no inherent economic value to anyone aside from our political agenda). We never judge people by the economic value that they provide to other people. Creating economic value undermines the need for our government policies. By hating this group, and changing cultural norms to make it unacceptable for them to exercise their free speech to respond to this hate with dignity, they become the silenced majority or self-loathing allies. This will greatly reduce the resistance to our goals. Because the republican platform is limited to issues that their corporate donors have no interest in, and all of the positions that they could take against us have been turned into political 3rd rails (or are just politically incorrect), these people will have little to no voice. There will be little incentive for them to vote and pay attention to politics. They might come to view our idea of privilege as tribalistic envy and hatred against them, but we define what privilege is, not them. As long as we police speech, everything will be fine.

Because of the first amendment, subversiveness is effectively protected. It's near impossible to tell the difference between someone practicing subversion and the useful idiots who are looking for a cause to champion, to signal their virtue, or to just fit in. If you were to arrest both, you would have to arrest most college students and many citizens. Keep in mind that people exist within a spectrum from thinking/rational to feeling/emotional. People on the feeling side are incredibly useful to us, especially young college students who don't know the history of collectivist systems of government. Studying collectivist propaganda is fine, but not the results of collectivist systems in practice. Feeling people are easily susceptible to extremely subversive changes to social concepts. These subversive changes are designed to spread among the feelers like a snowball rolling down a hill. To cement these changes into the culture, the feeling people will change the acceptable social behavior so that the thinking people will acquiesce to these changes. These changes are often incredibly subtle and almost always pass as an improvement from existing social norms. Only those with a high IQ on the thinking side will see this manipulation, but since they often have the most to lose due to their success, they are easily silenced via our mob vigilantism social justice. The force multiplier for social change via feeling people should be used to the fullest extent possible because it's our most powerful tool and has a lasting effect on society. If done correctly, over many decades, it will only take a few dedicated people to change a nation. Consider Plato's allegory of the cave. The prisoners are using the subverted social justice. The freed prisoner sees the real social justice. When the freed prisoner returns to the cave to free the other prisoners, the other prisoners would rather kill the freed prisoner than be free because the behavior of the freed prisoner appears to the prisoners as dangerous. Because the awareness of real social justice puts our progress at risk, Plato's works shouldn't be taught because people might figure out how to roll back our progress. Replace the study of Plato's works with other culture's works under the guise of diversity.

To make our political party more robust, we must instill our ideas into children before they develop the intellectual capacity to evaluate our ideas objectively. This way, our way of thinking is less likely to be changed by persuasive ideas and reason coming from the other side. Also, by instilling a sense of entitlement or self-loathing at this early age, depending on if they are on team oppressed or team oppressor, they will develop a tribalistic emotional bond to our ideology that will be with them for their entire lives. As the sense of entitlement or self-loathing undermine the pursuit towards a meritocracy, these children will be less motivated to enter challenging fields, which will create greater wealth disparity. This makes our political party more attractive to other people. This is why we teach our concept of privilege before they reach the appropriate grade for social studies.

Be proud of our diversity in unearned and superficial attributes and intolerance of competing ideas. Your college requires that your education be protected from other points of view via safe spaces. Nothing says progress like a college campus safe space that is stocked with Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets and a video of frolicking puppies when you encounter a foreign point of view. Let's all move backward from a federal republic and a constitutional representative democracy to a pure democracy. Demand progress! Progress from a republic to an oligarchy.

P.S., Don't research history regarding the democratic party (especially in December 1865). Republicans may talk about their history, but we can't talk about ours. I am not going to say why. There is a reason why there are more conservative talk shows than ours. Just let us do all of the perceiving and thinking for you via our "entertainment news" and comedy shows.

Progressive Training:

Block list:

This website is satire, based on various memes in the liberal, left, socialist & collectivist memeplexes. While no single person or group may hold all of these beliefs simultaneously, there is a powerful confluence of these complementary ideologies. This creates an alignment of interests among different political parties and distributed people that parallels prior civilization declines and collapses. This diverse and distributed nature makes it difficult to have a frank discussion about their cumulative effects on society. On top of this, you have media that is more interested in ratings than truth. You might think that using deceptive practices, such as clickbait, is something that only low-rent websites do. Unfortunately distorting the message to make something attract higher ratings has been the norm on legacy media.If you have been getting all of your information on media that is funded by ads or ratings, then you're misinformed. To compensate for this, seek out sources where the content producer is not beholden to a distributor, editor, or other intermediary. Prefer unedited long-form interviews and reject edited debates and interviews. Debates are a type of sport, not a source of truth. This website aims to address this confluence, as opposed to any specific ideology, person, or organization. I don't claim that these people are conspirators in a conspiracy. Nor do I claim that there isn't one. I just make the claim that their like-minded interests are aligned well enough to give the appearance and effect of a conspiracy. Humans are naturally bad at grouping things accurately, so naturally there will be people who claim to see a conspiracy, as well as those who revile conspiracy theories, but don't let either group deter you from investigating the threats to your civilization. Our civilization depends on accurately informed citizens, so please do your part to counter the various biases that pollute our national discussions. Our civilization is "progressing," progressing into the decline phase of the civilization life-cycle. Don't let the advancements in technology, with the associated increase in living standards and comforts, fool you into thinking that civilization itself is improving or stable. Let's try to revitalize the republic. A healthy republic prevents an oligarchy from taking hold and protects the rights of all citizens from oppression that can be abused via government power by the majority and special interests. We're obviously not doing a good job of keeping our republic. Our freedom from oligarchy depends on it, including those who we leave this country to.

This website is intended to accomplish 4 goals:

  1. Show progressives, through satire, a mirror in which they can see their own morally bankrupt attitude.
  2. Show others, through satire, how various collectivist memeplexes align to create a potent threat to the well-being of everyone, even to those who the progressives claim to be championing. Most people would rather be left alone, but it's the people who would rather be left alone who need to contribute the most.
  3. For those who call themselves "fiscally conservative, socially liberal," provide reasons to reduce the liberal part.
  4. Provide a large collection of links to support all of these goals.

Send corrections and suggestions to addisonleeexp5 a t mail dot com.