Another aspect of their regression is the infantile mindset that pervades their activism—demanding safe spaces, having speakers they don’t like dis-invited from college campuses, and wanting statues of dead people removed for not having current year values. Give in to our whims or else we will scream and call you racist. Very mature of them.
A bit of a digression for a moment: there is an older usage of the term regressive left which has some overlap in terms of people covered, but means something quite different. In another context, particularly criticisms of multiculturalism from the left, regressive leftists are leftists who tolerate illiberal or not-progressive behaviors and cultures imported from overseas for the sake of maintaining their goals of diversity and anti-racism. This leads them to excuse things like jihad and patriarchy among Muslims, for example, since the perpetrators are people of color. Maajid Nawaz, a kebab who resides in Britain, is widely credited with this usage. Someone can be a regressive leftist in both senses, and often one is.
The usage that is becoming more common now relates to confrontational perspectives on feminism, racial grievance-mongering, and political correctness, i.e. social censorship. In short, leftists attack regressive leftists for being too aggressive in their identity politics. What they seem to implicitly realize is that identity politics has the potential to destroy their coalition. On the alt-right, we know that the fundamental contradiction of the contemporary left is diversity—can Swedish homosexuals and Semitic Muslims share a land, let alone a political movement?
The answer is, maybe. Yes, if they can maintain their strategic alliance against straight, ethnocentric White people who are the historical majority of both Europe and her settler colonies. No, if they allow their core interests to overpower the alliance, e.g. Islamic jurisprudence suggests gay liberation and feminism are haram, New Left ideology identifies Whites as the oppressor class that the oppressed people of color must overthrow, etc. In other words, if the identity politics of each coalition member group are allowed to run unfettered, the left will implode. Diversity + proximity = conflict.
Extreme non-white identity politics and gender politics will also frighten off some White liberals and moderates, who are still important coalition members and will be for a few more decades. I am not referring to the marxist, Jewish, or sjw ideologues here, but just rank-and-file people who consider themselves liberal or progressive. These people don’t really want to live under sharia law, or have their children given gender reassessment surgery because they picked up the wrong toy at pre-K, or be told repeatedly how racist and evil they are. They were drawn to the left in the first place for a variety of reasons, but few did so because they hated their civilization. If they are made to confront the ugly reality that vanguard “progressives” want to progress to the end of Western civilization, people, and values, they might get a little skittish. Combined with immigration pressures, seeing explicit anti-white sentiments erupt from the regressive left could make good goys go fash.
A 2013 study published in the Association for Psychological Science found that the rising tide of diversity makes people of whiteness more tribal. From the abstract:
[R]acial minority groups will make up a majority of the U.S. national population in 2042, effectively creating a so-called majority-minority nation. In four experiments, we explored how salience of such racial demographic shifts affects White Americans’ political-party leanings and expressed political ideology. Study 1 revealed that making California’s majority-minority shift salient led politically unaffiliated White Americans to lean more toward the Republican Party and express greater political conservatism. Studies 2, 3a, and 3b revealed that making the changing national racial demographics salient led White Americans (regardless of political affiliation) to endorse conservative policy positions more strongly. Moreover, the results implicate group-status threat as the mechanism underlying these effects. Taken together, this work suggests that the increasing diversity of the nation may engender a widening partisan divide.When someone on the left uses the term regressive left, they are engaging in apologetics on behalf of leftism towards Whites, a rare sight under the occupation government. Please don’t abandon progressive because of a few bad apples. It’s basically a NAxALT; not all leftists are like that. Don’t be so concerned about the throngs of vibrant protestors yelling at you, the ((((college professors)))) explaining why Whiteness is an oppressive social construct that needs to be abolished, the limp-wristed communists telling you that White male opinions are invalid. These people are crazy and not really what the left is about. We promise.
You are still going to have to become a minority though; that’s non-negotiable.