General
Why Progress Isn't Inherently Left Wing
Why Progress Isn't Inherently Left Wing
Paving the way for a rightist alternative.
Consider donating to support AF Post
Our popular wisdom suggests that social progress roughly translates to “better living conditions,” which is intuitively tied to the concepts of increased sexual freedoms, expanding welfare state, racial egalitarianism, animal rights and other manifestations of the “expanding moral circle.” The logic goes like this: if someone enjoys the benefit of a good or an innovation, it must be distributed to the environment as a whole. The more equal and widespread the distribution, the more progressive a society is. I don’t necessarily discard this understanding of progress, for it refers to one of the sides of progress concerning the dissipation of a higher organizing change across the environment I call “horizontal progress.” However, the leftist ideas regarding which processes of organization must be dissipated further today, are incorrect.
As I hinted before, progress has two sides and horizontal progress occurs only after the emergence of a higher state within the organization or “vertical progress” which all things considered requires an ability. It is a more complicated thing to discover or acquire something than to distribute it to others. Vertical progress aligns with right-wing principles because it is inherently hierarchical—any organization that adopts innovation elevates itself above its competitors, establishing a natural order of superiority. It is also primary and thus requires a certain kind of basis for emergence. In contrast Horizontal progress is more aligned to left-wing modes of being, is secondary in order and simply requires elevating the playing field to match the innovation.
The American Progressive Movement in the early 20th century understood that and took diametrically opposite positions to the modern left on positions such as; eugenics, immigration and family. They believed in a universal idea of progress, a form in which technology, biology, the markets and race improve through common processes of multi-level selection, in which superior innovations of an organization overcome the environment and reorganize it to be inline with itself. They applied this epistemological truth to every realm of human output. Ford Model T1, the airplane, penicillin, eugenics, domineering skyscrapers, and family planning programs, the prohibition and immigration restriction programs of the 1920s were all created under progressive assumptions. We continue to conceive of progress in this manner, yet we confine it to technology and consumer goods, neglecting its application to human development—the very foundation of innovation itself. For some reason, society imagines that human progress obeys completely different rules than forms of progress in other domains like video games or medicine. Strangely, our society envisions human improvement as the reduction of selective pressures rather than their intensification for more agile organizations.
But let’s take this gamble for a moment and imagine a further reduction of selective pressures. What do we get?
A decline in social standards and the toleration of maladaptive lifestyles.
Less intelligent people outbreed more intelligent ones. A proliferation of genetic mental illnesses due to an increasing mutational load.
The dissipation of anti-natalist, feminist, socialist, and other loser (not predisposed to progress) beliefs across the population.
Since no intrinsic differences exist between races, populations from across the globe surge into the West to offset declining birth rates, disregarding the fact that this process subverts a fundamental principle of racial evolution—perpetual differentiation from a common ancestor—while also diluting the more innovative bloodline.
All this is certain to impose severe strains on the welfare state, inevitably triggering a catabolic collapse, as the stability of complex societies relies on continuous selective pressures that foster specialization, cultivate competence, and sustain their intricate structures.
Be it the celebrated toleration of maladaptive lifestyles, such as of homosexuals and transsexuals or promotion of the idea that women are equal to men - the results are all the same, perpetual decrease of the birthrates and a decrease to the ethical structure of society. Of course this position is defended by the left as an improvement, given that more people will now be able to “participate in the market,” yet the same could be said of anything else, such as driving a garbage truck to a race, serving food involving fecal matter in Congress or polyamorously married, severe schizophrenics, criminals, other sexual deviants which are less acceptable being congressmen and CEOs. Afterall, they are the first of their kind to be members of Congress!
In reality, we don’t engage in a free-market free for all in which all organizations are being subjected to random natural selective processes. Instead, we engage in deliberate, artificial selection—discrimination that justifies superior outcomes. To build an airplane, we must selectively choose the most suitable materials. Likewise, in agriculture, we cultivate progress by selecting the highest-yielding plants for reproduction while discarding the inferior ones, ensuring that only the most productive genetics persist while weaker strains are eliminated. We certainly aren’t planning that each type of plant defined by their relative yield gets to grow to occupy an equal amount of space, or even the amount of space that is proportional to their size in nature at large. That would be utterly ridiculous and counterproductive, yet socially this is precisely what we are doing with our sexual and racial policies.
Therefore, the modern maladies afflicting our societies can be remedied by extracting the fundamental principles of progress from the mechanisms that drive evolutionary advancement and systematically applying them to the human domain. Our morality, our biology, or social organization can be greatly enhanced to the same degree that our technology and private capital has enriched ourselves.
Adam Smith, before developing the theoretical defense of the markets, wrote a tractate on morality, arguing that superior morality is the one which balances self-interests with sympathetic virtue. Future studies have confirmed the thesis that self-interest combined with virtue results in collective gains, however certain lifestyles which exalt self-interest at the expense of virtues, have a tendency to worsen the overall collective cohesion. Narcotics use, tax evasion, declining birth rates, corruption, nepotism, and all sorts of “free-rider behaviors” undermine the systems that benefit everyone, including themselves in the long run.
Right-Wing Progressivism upholds the principle of rational selection, asserting that virtuous and productive lifestyles should be rewarded. A society can be deemed progressive insofar as it continuously enhances itself and asserts competitive superiority over competing societies. Humans are social creatures, and thus depend on one another. We can’t accept a situation in which we don’t follow a collective evolutionary strategy as a tribe, race or a nation. If our political system continuously rewards “free-riding,” anti-natalism and similar patterns of behavior, progress becomes impossible. Just like a giant corporation which spends all of their budget on maintaining the workforce, offshoring production, DEI departments and advertisement we are simply extending our inevitable collapse.
As I hinted before, progress has two sides and horizontal progress occurs only after the emergence of a higher state within the organization or “vertical progress” which all things considered requires an ability. It is a more complicated thing to discover or acquire something than to distribute it to others. Vertical progress aligns with right-wing principles because it is inherently hierarchical—any organization that adopts innovation elevates itself above its competitors, establishing a natural order of superiority. It is also primary and thus requires a certain kind of basis for emergence. In contrast Horizontal progress is more aligned to left-wing modes of being, is secondary in order and simply requires elevating the playing field to match the innovation.
The American Progressive Movement in the early 20th century understood that and took diametrically opposite positions to the modern left on positions such as; eugenics, immigration and family. They believed in a universal idea of progress, a form in which technology, biology, the markets and race improve through common processes of multi-level selection, in which superior innovations of an organization overcome the environment and reorganize it to be inline with itself. They applied this epistemological truth to every realm of human output. Ford Model T1, the airplane, penicillin, eugenics, domineering skyscrapers, and family planning programs, the prohibition and immigration restriction programs of the 1920s were all created under progressive assumptions. We continue to conceive of progress in this manner, yet we confine it to technology and consumer goods, neglecting its application to human development—the very foundation of innovation itself. For some reason, society imagines that human progress obeys completely different rules than forms of progress in other domains like video games or medicine. Strangely, our society envisions human improvement as the reduction of selective pressures rather than their intensification for more agile organizations.
But let’s take this gamble for a moment and imagine a further reduction of selective pressures. What do we get?
A decline in social standards and the toleration of maladaptive lifestyles.
Less intelligent people outbreed more intelligent ones. A proliferation of genetic mental illnesses due to an increasing mutational load.
The dissipation of anti-natalist, feminist, socialist, and other loser (not predisposed to progress) beliefs across the population.
Since no intrinsic differences exist between races, populations from across the globe surge into the West to offset declining birth rates, disregarding the fact that this process subverts a fundamental principle of racial evolution—perpetual differentiation from a common ancestor—while also diluting the more innovative bloodline.
All this is certain to impose severe strains on the welfare state, inevitably triggering a catabolic collapse, as the stability of complex societies relies on continuous selective pressures that foster specialization, cultivate competence, and sustain their intricate structures.
Be it the celebrated toleration of maladaptive lifestyles, such as of homosexuals and transsexuals or promotion of the idea that women are equal to men - the results are all the same, perpetual decrease of the birthrates and a decrease to the ethical structure of society. Of course this position is defended by the left as an improvement, given that more people will now be able to “participate in the market,” yet the same could be said of anything else, such as driving a garbage truck to a race, serving food involving fecal matter in Congress or polyamorously married, severe schizophrenics, criminals, other sexual deviants which are less acceptable being congressmen and CEOs. Afterall, they are the first of their kind to be members of Congress!
In reality, we don’t engage in a free-market free for all in which all organizations are being subjected to random natural selective processes. Instead, we engage in deliberate, artificial selection—discrimination that justifies superior outcomes. To build an airplane, we must selectively choose the most suitable materials. Likewise, in agriculture, we cultivate progress by selecting the highest-yielding plants for reproduction while discarding the inferior ones, ensuring that only the most productive genetics persist while weaker strains are eliminated. We certainly aren’t planning that each type of plant defined by their relative yield gets to grow to occupy an equal amount of space, or even the amount of space that is proportional to their size in nature at large. That would be utterly ridiculous and counterproductive, yet socially this is precisely what we are doing with our sexual and racial policies.
Therefore, the modern maladies afflicting our societies can be remedied by extracting the fundamental principles of progress from the mechanisms that drive evolutionary advancement and systematically applying them to the human domain. Our morality, our biology, or social organization can be greatly enhanced to the same degree that our technology and private capital has enriched ourselves.
Adam Smith, before developing the theoretical defense of the markets, wrote a tractate on morality, arguing that superior morality is the one which balances self-interests with sympathetic virtue. Future studies have confirmed the thesis that self-interest combined with virtue results in collective gains, however certain lifestyles which exalt self-interest at the expense of virtues, have a tendency to worsen the overall collective cohesion. Narcotics use, tax evasion, declining birth rates, corruption, nepotism, and all sorts of “free-rider behaviors” undermine the systems that benefit everyone, including themselves in the long run.
Right-Wing Progressivism upholds the principle of rational selection, asserting that virtuous and productive lifestyles should be rewarded. A society can be deemed progressive insofar as it continuously enhances itself and asserts competitive superiority over competing societies. Humans are social creatures, and thus depend on one another. We can’t accept a situation in which we don’t follow a collective evolutionary strategy as a tribe, race or a nation. If our political system continuously rewards “free-riding,” anti-natalism and similar patterns of behavior, progress becomes impossible. Just like a giant corporation which spends all of their budget on maintaining the workforce, offshoring production, DEI departments and advertisement we are simply extending our inevitable collapse.