felle_realist

Before I answer I'll just test whether this account has been shadowbanned like my previous accounts. It is a sad thing that I have to test for this but I'm not putting time in answering interesting questions for my answers to be blackholed again.

- edit -

Yes, shadowbanned again. Have a look at the comment history on this account and decide for yourself whether this is in any way defensible.

I'm done with HN.

That is a good question to which I do not have a sensible answer other than a vague "both, probably". I suspect empires follow more or less the same trajectory as many family fortunes do: the founders build a base upon which subsequent enterprising generations build an empire. Once the empire has been established and more and more generations grow up with the certainty of it being there decay sets in. Eventually the empire either falls prey to its neighbours, decays without outside intervention or enters a steady state. The steady state makes it vulnerable to new ideas which might not necessarily be better than current ones but at least they are new or progressive.

I do not "blame" the rise of identity politics on anyone, I merely point out that it has been taken up by many people who consider themselves to be "progressive" and that it, in combination with the adoption of critical theory - specifically the practice of "deconstruction" - leads to a witches brew of regressive and destructive ideologies.

The adoption of critical theory as a base for policy directions ("woke politics") is not what caused infrastructure to crumble. Infrastructure crumbles because it costs money to maintain while it does not return profit in the short term when maintained. In the long run crumbling infrastructure leads to a loss of profit or opportunities for such but by then those who decided not to invest in maintenance are long gone from their positions.

However, the adoption of critical theory does play a significant role in bringing about the decline of western society since it leads only to deconstruction of existing structures without providing functional alternatives.

The problem here is the definition of the term "progressive". If you take it to mean "forward-looking" then yes, being progressive is a sure strategy for success in the long run, even if such success may come at a price in the short term. This, however, is not what most current "progressive" ideologies do, instead of looking forward they often look backward in time in search for grievances in need of redress. This, in combination with the rise of identity politics which drives people apart into groups vying for current or historical claims of being oppressed does the opposite of the original progressivism. This modern interpretation of progressivism - adherents of which are often called "regressive left" - does not lead to flourishing societies, the opposite is true.

Neither SPLC nor Wikipedia are authoritative sources, it is quite possible that the article on the latter is written and (to use a term which has become popular recently) "colonised" by people associated with the former. SPLC had their purpose when they fought the KKK but they lost track when that enemy was defeated. Now they are just like a label printer run amok, calling people like Maajid Nawaz (muslim, founder of Quilliam, wants to reform islam to get rid of its autocratic and violent tendencies) and Ayaan Hirsi Ali an "islamophobe" while raking in money.

Do you have a better source for calling the Proud Boys "right-wing extremists"? I realise it is hard to find an objective source on this subject but such a source is needed and a definition of what exactly is meant with "right-wing extremism" is needed as well. These terms are bandied about just like they don't mean anything, in the same way as "white ___" (fill in the blanks) and the terms "__-phobe" and "___ist" are used.

So, what makes the Proud Boys "right-wing extremists"? The fact that they mostly show up to fight "anarchist/left-wing extremists" like Antifa? That is not a good reason, Antifa uses the same tactics as the Italian black shirts and the SA (Sturmabteilung) - in other words, as the real fascists and fascism-inspired national socialists. Their political ideology may differ (they claim to be anarchists but they behave more like syndicalists) but that does not mean they should be allowed to roam free.