Because iconoclastic and “Taliban” progressivism is the real enemy of plural society

Today progressivism represents one of the most culturally aggressive ideologies and least available to tolerate forms of dissent … But this attack on our values ​​must find us standing. We will not kneel, because we know that, as Étienne de La Boétie wrote, "tyrants are great only because we are on our knees"

The Black Lives Matter movement and its declinations that we have seen, in various forms, at work in many western countries unfortunately represents a very worrying phenomenon also because its liberticidal nature is too often underestimated.

A “comfortable” and superficial reading of the protest movement limits itself to accepting its linguistic and conceptual simplifications. They would be the "anti-racists". Racism is evil. They are "against racism". Whoever is against them is "in favor of racism". It is clear that as long as you remain within this "neo-language", any argumentative game is lost at the start.

The truth is that the oleographic vision of progressivism as a search for a "neutral" society within which a plurality of free choices can be expressed no longer has any relevance to reality, if it ever had it in the past.

Today, rather, progressivism represents one of the most culturally aggressive ideologies and least available to tolerate forms of dissent.

In fact, in modern western societies, it is increasingly rare that requests for censorship, limitation of freedom of expression and "sanitization" of language and thought come from the right. The recognition of the "limited value" of cultural choices – as expressions of a certain time and of a certain regional or national community – is much easier to find among conservatives than among progressives. The former, in fact, most of the time are content to cultivate their garden well, while the latter are often obsessed with dangerous purposes of cosmic palingenesis.

The modern conservative is comfortable with the freedom of others and tends to make himself a reason for different preferences. Rarely does he pretend to impress some of his "conception" through politics and the few times that this happens he is satisfied with doing it on a geographically limited territory and in a limited area, normally linked to some more "borderline" issues from a bioethical point of view. Contrary to what the left claims, there is never any questioning of the great issues of equality among citizens.

In short, that framework of neutrality in which individuals freely make their choices is not in the rhetoric of Black Lives Matter , nor is it a distant ideal to reach through a revolution.

On the contrary, it is rather the frame of reference of an average conservative party in the West: the equality of citizens before the law, combined with a dynamic economy that allows social mobility. At the end of the fair, it is the program of a Donald Trump and a Boris Johnson and, in fact, many of the most lively "open societies" are located in countries that have been marked, in recent decades, by successful conservative governments.

The problem is that this frame of race-blind and gender-blind institutions within which legitimate individual and community choices coexist is not what the progressive world aims for. On the contrary, it desperately needs "race", "sex" and any other identification of class interest as political tools at the service of the revolutionary project.

The real core of the discussion is that the left is, in itself, the bearer of an "absolutist" message that cannot accept social and cultural preferences that are different from its reading of the sense of history and social dynamics.

For the left, history has "a direction" and everything that seems to go sideways with respect to that direction represents, regardless, a "twist" that must be corrected. Thus progressivism is a continuous search for ever new, higher, levels of "purification" of customs, language and thought.

This type of conception means that the political struggle strategy of progressives almost always passes from the denial of any dignity to the adverse position – from the "dehumanization" of the opponent, considered anthropologically and morally inferior.

In this sense, the iconoclastic fury of Black Lives Matter , his disdain and disfigurement of any historical and cultural reference of moderate and bourgeois matrix, is only the most openly manifestation of an organized cultural militancy that takes on different forms every day, but all perfectly converging towards a single goal. Newspapers, media, intellectuals, "liberal" activists who every day, even without the need to physically challenge the bar, pursue the goal of expanding the scandal of conservative, pro-market and pro-West opinions.

In this sense, it is not surprising that the first enemy to be brought down for this "revolutionary international" is Donald Trump, as a republican president of the United States is by definition the epitome and putative leader of all that is considered "bad".

But if Trump is the big target, the "progressive revolution" aims to take control of every form of cultural manifestation, from school books to university life, from television to cinema. It is not enough for her to already be prevalent in certain areas; no trace of a "non-conforming" world must remain, to the point that even Churchill and "Gone with the Wind" , in the continuous effort of ideological purification, become a past to be looked at with shame.

Yet the world, throughout its history, has gone on through forms of social, civil and community organization different from those of modern progressivism which, after all, has very recent roots. Of course, history has also known sad pages, but it has also known of triumphal ones, which have contributed in an important way to the economic and cultural development of our communities and therefore to raise the standard of living of many people. This shows, first of all, how absurd the claim is to make such a "young" political ideology the key to understanding and judging the whole of history.

But, if you think about it, even in our day, in 2020, progressives in effective permanent service are a minority on this Earth and they are also a minority in Western countries, where there are silent (and silent) majorities who live and think otherwise – people who, inspired by "bourgeois" and "conservative" values, live their lives, work, build and interact constructively with others, contributing to the economic and social capital of their respective communities. These people ask for respect for their beliefs and have no desire to be "re-educated".

Today, this umpteenth wave of ideological progressivism represents a serious threat, but the greatest danger is that important sectors of our western society accept a "cultural surrender", that is, in fact they limit themselves to adapt, for a quiet life, to the wind that pulls . We must not allow it. In the end, however strong the "Taliban" revolution may be, it will only prevail if we allow it.

This attack on our values ​​must find us standing. We will not kneel, because we know that, as Étienne de La Boétie wrote, "tyrants are great only because we are on our knees".

The post Because iconoclastic and "Taliban" progressivism is the real enemy of plural society appeared first on the Daily Atlantic .

This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Atlantico Quotidiano at the URL on Wed, 17 Jun 2020 04:12:00 +0000.