"Dear deputies, we should not always consider a malicious intent whenever we are faced with the evidence of failure. We should entertain the idea that the intentions were good, as they usually are. But bad logic, ignorance and sloppy execution had destroyed most of very perfect endeavors'
Pierre, Le Cont, the deputy of the French Revolutionary Convent, 1793, France
Sometimes it is paramount to listen to your enemies. There is a reason why progressives do not even seem to exist in the MSM_ driven environment. When they are mentioned, they are considered a nuisance at best, some pesky people who really have neither influence, nor power but are very noisy and need to be called to order. As MSM is a sellout by default we should rightfully assume that there should be a reason good enough for them to discard us entirely. And yes it is. It is in the way we are described in the discourse. Perception is everything, so here it is.
( Sidebar. Progressives rarely sell themselves to the common public as the movement which will lead to higher chances of the individual success.)
"The so-called progressives is a bunch of degenerate people which consists primarily of two groups:
Group #1 - the losers. Those are people who, due to the weakness of character of other degenerative qualities had lost in the everyday competition within the current framework of values. and had been pushed to the fringes of the society. They are either poor or dissatisfied or their personal life is a total disaster. Thus they are full of bitterness and petty feeling of envy towards hard-working people who embrace the American dream. Many of them also live on entitlements. Thus due to the fear of losing those entitlements and also because of low-level envy they blame everyone and everything but themselves. They are at best the useless whiners and at worst - the people who hate American values and want to make everyone as miserable as they are.
Group #2 -the irresponsible bored liberals. The typical case of those kind of people is shown in the movie "The Aviatior," where Howard Hughes visits the rich relatives of Katherine Hepburn. They tell him that "we are all Socialists." Howard Hughes accurately states there that those people do not care for money because they always had it. They can afford to play with socialism. The reason is primarily boredom but also the sense of guilty conscience because the money they bask in is not earned but rather inherited, or had been a lucky grab. Such people want to feel good all the time, so they feel obligated to massage their paranoia by playing a liberal card. They do that because they are weak, lazy but lucky bastards who are not worth their luck. Within the current system of values such people are an abomination of capitalism, the ones who bite the hand that feeds them. They are cowards too. They would not like the nuclear bombardment of Japan, for instance, but they would not mind those 100000 Japanese be killed in 100000 different places separately. They just abhor the pileup; not cool for their nerves.'
( Sidebar. The above is what happens if you do not define yourself who you are. Someone else will do it for you.)
In all fairness the scathing definition above has some truth in it. It is also a total lie. Yes, many people among progressives struggle in their everyday life. And yes, there are people among progressives who spend their fortunes on liberal endeavors; just consider the Hollywood celebs. But if we look at the ultra-right we would find much more losers, ignorant, lazy and weak individuals, the whole gallery of disgusting rich parasites, their slaves, perverts, and all kinds of unfortunate characters. Within the current framework of values those people do not call themselves losers. They call themselves the salt of the Earth. That is because they unequivocally accept that current framework of values. That simple.
If we go for a nutshell though we should admit that there is one important clue: yes, the success-oriented people, like professionals, small-business owners, career bureaucrats, civil service people, and military are rarely seen among active progressives. Something turns them off. What is that?
( Sidebar. Yes, within the current framework of values the progressive movement is good in showing what is wrong, but it cannot provide an individual the alternative path to success, the way it is defined currently.)
Interesting. That revelation above is very sobering. People usually resist any changes unless those changes offer them some kind of a better future. Within the current framework of values (Notice, how many times I repeat this mantra?-MS), the progressives line up the problems but the ways they propose to solve those do not seem to have a goal of bringing an average Joe closer to the three- bedrooms' house with two cars and a monster TV. It does not seem that the path the progressives want to take leads to an individual wealth. Not even close.
And boy, that seems to be truthful. Take energy conservation for instance. Progressives are all for it. If we follow them, then one person who lives in a four-bedroom house, or, God forbid, has two houses is not a successful role model but a target for energy police. He or she should be punished for success, mercilessly taxed for his unfortunate "carbon footprint." If he/she wants some fun and buys a yacht or invests in the strip clubs - the whole Hell can break lose. Of course, the Average Joe does not have any of those things. But he would love to have them. If we, progressives want to take away that dream, we should offer at least something similar to pursue. What is that, I wonder? Within the current framework of values, what is that we can offer that will attract the person who wants to live in his house alone?