Let's not fall off the plank we cross here. Let's look at the difference between progress and social progress. We'll see it clearly in the differences between social engineering and development. The two are nothing of the same, and there is also the reactionary Left to factor in to this discussion to make the whole sensible, the reactionary "progressives."
Parmenides, among others, argues that there is no such thing as change. The argument is counter-intuitive but plausible. His is but one of a number of first-rate speculations on the nature of being and existence. We can look to Berkely and Nietzche for others who in one way or another disclaim the possiblity of change. We live with that concept today in many of the so-called post-modernist philosophers, those who claim cultural and moral relativism and the stasis of history, though we must accept the variants of the arguments to see it. Nevertheless, the arguments are at heart the same in that they deny change. Cycle is not progress, and unfolding is not change when it occurs outside of the subjective. The denial of change is a cornerstone of fascism.
Further, we find Plato and those who follow him in various ways who claim that there is change from the good to the degenerate, that change, such as it is, is a destruction of the perfect. We see this too clearly in the Christian Gnostic idea of the Demiurge. And we see it today in the ideologies of the Left Gnostics and dhimmi fascists who hearken back to the Golden Age of primitivism, the age of ecological haromony, for example. Things cannot get progressively better, they can only get worse if we continue as we do. We must, according to the fascists, return to the past. Of course it presupposes agency, and it does so by virtue of the Gnostic's higher awareness of the authentic. Thus we find ourselves in the grip of the Gnostic ideologue acting as agent of social change. We get social activists. We get Left dhimmi fascist reactionaries. It should be clear then that the rise of neo-feudalism and philobarbarism in the intelligentsia of the Modern West arise in reaction to our attempts to further progress. The incremental progress of the individual democrat is seen by the Left Gnostic as degeneracy, a further falling away from the Golden Age, a harm. And as agents, the Left finds fulfillment in wrecking our progress. Social change, indeed, and a turning back to the Golden Age of primitivism to be certain.
Predestination and determinism are the same coin. In both cases there is no volition and no progress. "Is" is only is. But the "elect" can find a way to guide the rest of us to higher states of being if they will. Change is a Christian concept, and reaction is one from the Christian Gnostics. We cannot allow ourselves to be confused about these trains of counter-thought.
Our Leftists, our progressives, our agents of social change, tey are reactionaries longing for a Romantic past of the Golden Age. Like it or not, they are fascists.
Activism, in a general sense, can be described as intentional action to bring about social or political change. This action is in support of, or opposition to, one side of an often controversial argument.
The terms activism and activist used in a political manner first appeared in the Belgian press in 1916 in connection with the Flamingant movement.1 The word "activism" is often used synonymously with protest or dissent, but activism can stem from any number of political orientations and take a wide range of forms, from writing letters to newspapers or politicians, political campaigning, economic activism (such as boycotts or preferentially patronizing preferred businesses), rallies and street marches, strikes, or even guerrilla tactics. In the more confrontational cases, an activist may be called a freedom fighter by some, and a terrorist by others, depending on whether the commentator supports the activist's ends.
In some cases, activism has nothing to do with protest or confrontation: for instance, some religious and feminist activists try to persuade people to change their behavior directly, rather than persuade governments to change laws; the cooperative movement seeks to build new institutions which conform to its principles, and generally does not lobby or protest politically.
As the day wears on I'll try to return to this and provide further details to show the menace of the reactionary Left. Please feel free to leave commnets in the meantime.
The purpose of this essay will be to show that the Gnostic lead is the strangling hand of primitivist fascism. Please bear with me as I find time during the day to continue.