In this post I will talk about my problems with an ideology called “Consistent Progressivism” (aka “noveltism”), its contradictions and flaws. I have been aware of it for the past few months, but some new information I received these days made me dig into it and come to a conclusion that it may be an early stage cult.

Consistent Progressivism is a relatively recent (2024) addition to the family of ideologies started by xenosatanism in 2021. These ideologies and their online presence are distinguished by participation in pro contact politics, a strong focus on pleasure as opposite of harm, heavy use of neologisms (e.g.”maladism”, “nosorian”) paired with old fashioned philosophical terms (e.g. “libertine”, “hedonism”), and extremely eye-strainy, hard to read graphics that combine dark and bright neon colors.

Before we really get into it, here are some materials for independent browsing:

Consistent Progressivism/noveltism: link 1, link 2, link 3

Xenosatanism: link 1, link 2, link 3

Another blogger’s post on Consistent Progressivism: link 1, link 2, link 3

As a member of this ideology family, Consistent Progressivism is mostly aesthetics-driven and neither consistent nor particularly progressive. However, unlike “sister” ideologies, it doesn’t have only a page with values and several disconnected and mostly idle supporters, it has currently active leaders and a clear attempt at an organization.

TL;DR: What IS Consistent Progressivism?

Consistent Progressivism is an ideology founded on the idea of a conservative versus progressive dichotomy, where “conservative” refers to the idea of separating people into worthy and unworthy and the bigotry that follows this separation, and “progressive” refers to rejection of said separation and bigotry. There exist only these two ideologies, and nothing else. They disagree with the idea that concepts of tradition and preservation have anything to do with conservatism and do not wish to discuss underlying economical problems, such as capitalism. They take a negative stance on either left wing or right wing political visions. People expressing interest in this ideology are encouraged to accept it in its entirety and express violent wishes towards those labeled “conservative” (up to rape and other methods of torture). For now, spaces and materials related to this ideology include a site, a wiki, a discord server, and a matrix server.

As a high control group

I joined their official server for information gathering purposes. Here is what I saw there. All member usernames except for the main mod are censored, and I also limited the number of screenshot examples per topic I bring up, which does not mean the things I talk about occurred only once or twice.

New members undergo a screening process, where they’re supposed to answer a 15 point questionnaire about their understanding of the ideology and willingness to be loyal to it. After I sent my answers, a mod contacted me about one specific item: my response on what should be done with “conservatives”. My initial answer said they should be “removed”, and it was found insufficient. The mod kept pressing me for details and telling me to be more “creative” in description of how I think “conservatives” need to be killed until I escalated it to saying they need to be beaten to death with a bat wrapped in barbed wire until their faces are an unrecognizable mass.

After that I was allowed in the server, where I was directed to a channel called museum-of-based, full of even more violent texts created by other members.

Members of the server semi frequently engage in conversations about the potential of keeping “conservatives” as “rape slaves” in the General channel. At some point before I joined the server, the admins conducted a “pacifist purge”, removing everyone who found these conversations objectionable.

The server maintains a public ban list, identifying former members as “conservative”, and a wall-of-shame channel, where screenshots of people criticizing Consistent Progressivism are posted.

Members are encouraged to express allegiance in varying ways: the screening process includes having a potential member identify themself as a consistent progressive on some public social media, saying “my ideology is Consistent Progressivism” is the final step of screening and a part of recommended member introduction inside the server. Only people who are willing to agree with all aspects of the ideology are allowed to participate in the server.

On one occasion, a member struggled to say that rough sex with chronological babies is harmful because the word “age” is blacklisted. The admin, who arrived to this discussion later, stated that all sex needs to be judged on a case by case basis and that being against BDSM with babies is a conservative generalization. The user later had some of their permissions removed, which seems to be a common way to respond to small ideological deviations:

Summary

The server has the following features:

• members are pushed to express full and total loyalty;
• dehumanization, torture, rape wishes onto political opponents is explicitly encouraged;
• members are banned from using certain words and referring to mainstream dictionaries, and need to pick from a “deprogramming” dictionary;
• expression of disagreements often comes with consequences in the form of quarantine.

As an ideology

Consistent Progressivism destroys the tools needed to analyze oppression

Under Consistent Progressivism, there exist only two systems of belief: conservatism and progressivism. These terms have a different meaning from how they are usually understood, and I will further refer to them as jargon. The main Consistent Progressivism site gives the following definitions:

Conservatism. A political worldview defined by a broad category of ideas either implicitly or explicitly believing that people should be discriminated against because of their race, gender identity, pronouns, sexual identity, or anything else regarding their identity that does not harm others; that some humans based on some aspect of themselves that they were born with or identify as, or some physical, sexual, or personal pleasure they happen to have can be “lesser” humans than other humans whom they would consider “pure”, and therefore that these “subhumans” should be persecuted due to their identity being viewed as “lower” than the identity of someone else a given conservative views as “pure”. Synonymous with “bigotry”, “prejudice”, & “discrimination”.

Progressivism. A political worldview defined by the negation, rejection, & opposition to conservatism; an acknowledgement that no identity turns one into a “subhuman”, & an advocacy of what would follow from the nonexistence of conservatism: statelessness, egalitarianism, decentralization, freedom of identity, free love, & an established solidarity where all races, gender identities, sexualities, ages, mentalities, & general beings are viewed as equals & held to the same standard of non-hierarchical organization, anti-discrimination, & respect of identity. Synonymous with “social justice”, “intersectionality”, & “radqueer”.

The first thing of notice here is that their jargon conservatism is a type of an individual attitude rather than a social system. There’s no mention of why some specific traits and features are targeted, which traits and features these are, and there is no offer to conduct any analysis of this kind. Further down, in the FAQ section of the page, they say the following:

[Conservatism does not have anything to do with traditional values or upholding the status quo], as no objectivity can be found in the use of “status quo” or “traditional values” as part of the definition. <…> The thing making these not able to be included in the definition is the fact that it is entirely possible for both traditions and the status quo to switch to progressivism; if a progressive society were to be established, the status quo there would change from conservatism to progressivism, and eventually as it continues to exist over time, progressivism would eventually become a tradition there.

Conservatism is defined by political theorists as an opposition to change for a reason: because the status quo serves the interest of those who had their say in forming how the society functions, which is typically socially privileged groups. You could, theoretically, create a society that equally responds to needs of those historically disadvantaged, but this status quo will also become obsolete as new social groups and new problems emerge. There cannot be a progressive status quo, progress is always change.

(You can say “well, but always changing can be OUR status quo and OUR tradition”, but that will be just a useless game of semantics that deflects from how these concepts harm minorities in practice. It’s like trying to give benign definitions for “white pride”.)

They also introduce “empirical conservatism” and “intrinsic conservatism”, where the first one is something that’s bigoted only because something else is making it bigoted, and the second one has bigotry baked into its core. An article “The Spectrum of Conservatism” has the following quite curious parts:

Something that is only empirically conservative or progressive is only that way as of right now, but it wouldn’t be contradictory for it to be the other way around. This is the loophole conservatives are using when they often talk about wanting “traditions”; history is empirically conservative and they want those empirical conservative aspects of history to be brought back. Make no mistake though; “tradition” is not the fundamental of conservatism as it is still just a loophole smokescreen; the fundamental of conservatism is bigotry. (page 21)

There is also something empirically conservative that doesn’t get talked about nearly as much as it should, being just how often conservatives will spew nonsense about how random things turn people into “degenerates”. Common examples of such include alcohol, drugs, pornography, and prostitution, which probably come up as something typically associated with libertinism (which is usually progressive). (page 27)

Further listing other sexual practices and types of food and is followed by “The strangest part is that all of this (with the exception of the homophobia, transphobia, and compulsory monogamy) isn’t even intrinsically conservative either; this is all empirical.”

Without uprooting the ties between conservatism and the status quo, the conservative concept of degeneracy would not be strange at all. The behaviors labeled “degenerate” are the ones that undermine the system of values currently enforced in the society. Traditional marriage, traditional cuisine, heavily regulated recreational behaviors are parts of how the society singles out and polices immigrants, queer people, disabled people, and everyone else who does not fit with what’s considered a normal, desirable way to be. If you deliberately avoid talking about what “tradition” and “traditional values” are, you are left wondering why the things you’re witnessing aren’t making any sense.

Another example of their harmful way to engage with political terminology is the censorship they conduct on their official discord server, which you could see in the “deprogramming” word list posed above. They also go deeper into this topic in their essays.

Which ties into the ultimate culprit behind the ambiguity of these terms: the aforementioned economic distraction. Conservatives of all kinds want progressives to have infighting on trivial concepts such as economics, as this helps conservatives continue existing unchallenged while progressives are too busy fighting each other over what system should be called what. No terms exist that are more vital to the continued existence of such pointlessness than “capitalism”, “socialism”, and “communism”. The three giant terms that are thrown around constantly, each one of them as vague as the others with not a tablespoon of a coherent definition able to be found for any of them, and each used so frequently that advocates of all three almost always tend to be conservatives hiding in plain sight. All three of these terms along with any other terms that happen to relate to economics do leave behind a small modicum of helpful information to be parsed by progressives however: anyone overly focused on these terms is quite clearly someone with little to no care for the genuine liberation of queer beings, and thus should be immediately disregarded if this is anywhere even close to their primary focus; they are a conservative timebomb and should be treated as such. (“An Extension to Liberation”, page 43)

You cannot analyze your position as an oppressed individual without talking about capitalism. It’s not a “vague and useless term”, it’s the main system that defines how much you are worth and how much you will suffer so this worth can be extracted from you. If you can’t talk about capital-driven dynamics between social institutions, you can’t talk about ableism and eugenics, coerced labor, nuclear family, forced birth, because you lack tools to understand WHY these things happen.

You can’t say “bad social institutions exist because a lot of people believes in bad things” – which is what these ideologues are trying to say in the same essay I cited above (page 1, cover graphic):

Institutionalized bigotry does not root in individual bigotry, it’s the other way around.

They touch “the conservative mindset” in another text, “The Benefits of Decentralization”, in a slightly different manner, looping it into an endless “chicken or egg” scenario with the state:

Instead, it is the case that the state exerts its power through coerced public opinion; there is a critical mass of the population that the state needs to be aligned with it in order for it to continue to exist, and they are indeed aligned with it as of right now in the current society. This phenomenon is called the “conservative mindset”,<…> (page 4)

With the state established firmly as a form of conservatism, it can then be gone into detail about the specific nature of the state. Obviously, said nature would be conservative, as the state being a form of conservatism, as well as a body exerting an artificial authority, places the state in a constant perpetual condition of being the means with which conservatives can exert their bigotry onto the society, as that is fundamentally what the state is truly existing to do. (page 5)

For how much the authors of these articles bash on liberalism as inherently conservative, their desire to remove substance from social analysis is very, very liberal. Pointing at harmful social practices and going “Look, it’s not consistent! It doesn’t make sense! It’s strange!” and closing your ears when you hear about systemic problems under these practices is liberal behavior.

Consistent Progressivism is bigoted and anti intersectional

Their main site’s front page cites “intersectionality” as a synonym for “progressivism”, but there isn’t anything resembling intersectional activism in their writings.

Intersectionality is an analysis of how existing on an overlap of multiple vectors of oppression and privilege forms specific types of experiences, not equivalent to a plain sum of these vectors. The term itself originates in intersectional feminism, a new wave of feminism that appeared after it became clear that radical feminism does not describe the social position of women (to say nothing of other marginalized genders) sufficiently.

Outside of that short remark in the definition of progressivism, none of the sites and documents made by these authors refer to this concept, and neither they discuss any system of privilege and oppression besides adulthood/parenthood versus childhood and (very vaguely) cisheteronormativity versus queerness. In fact, their insistence on equating the whole complexity of oppressive social institutions and liberation efforts to a simple conservatism versus progressivism dichotomy resembles what intersectional feminism was trying to move away from.

Consistent Progressivism only has room for one ideology, and that ideology is Consistent Progressivism. Any others imply a deviation, which therefore would make them a conservative. As for the existence of conservatives, they’d be good for feeding to the VSRs. (“An Extension to Liberation”, page 73, “VSR” stands for “voluntary social relation” and basically refers to a group of people in this context)

When not mentioning paraphilias, genders, other identities by name in “this is what we support” lists, the authors of these texts quickly revert to talking about various aspects of life as if non-normativity does not exist.

From this extract it is clear that they do not conceptualize age and family outside of the idea of a chronological age of a cisage individual and a married couple with offspring:

For double-meaning terms like “age” and “family”, these can be deprogrammed by using more direct and explicit terms in place of these terms to place as much emphasis as possible on the true definition of the terms; i.e. instead of saying “age”, use a phrase with the true definition undeniably baked in like “existence time”. Instead of saying “family”, use a phrase with the true definition front & center like “slavery institution”. (“An Extension to Liberation”, page 54)

This extract from “The Benefits of Decentralization” does not admit existence of those who entirely cannot fight or practice autonomous living:

The layer [of self defense] starts at the bottom with the population itself, which is made up of individuals; they are fundamental in maintaining their own desires and happiness to ensure their own wellbeing, and as such would be strongly promoted and educated on individual methods of both offensive and defensive strategies to combat conservatism to ensure progressivism does not get overrun by the Hitlerites. This could take on many forms, the most common likely being the deployment of firearms, though some may prefer a more close-combat approach. Every individual would be promoted to ensure they at least have some means of combatting conservatism for when the occasion arises when they need to do so. (page 16)

Further in the same text (page 18) they state that armed militias “outside of the maintenance of progressivism <…> would not hold any power over the society itself, and would be made up of the mass population in it anyway”, and this assumption relies on the same belief that participants of the society are sufficiently abled to be regarded as interchangeable.

Consistent Progressivism in general does not have a good record when it comes to ableism.

As of now (May 11, 2025) their site states that their “voluntary social relation” model is a type of relationship open to everyone except “beings with unobservable intent” (“BWUI”), defined as someone who can’t communicate their wishes in any way. However, as recent as April 22, the same phenomenon was labeled “mute amputee”.

They have a really bad take on the concept of mental disorders:

“Mental disorder” is another derogatory term made up by conservatives as an attempt to justify eugenicism through the basis that some queer identities are simply a “disease to the mind” in need of being “cured”. (“An Extension to Liberation”, page 63)

Neurodivergent and plural individuals are usually the main targets of this, but conservative eugenicists will aim the “mental disorder” label at just about anyone with a queer identity/TransID, especially if it’s a paraphilia. Their goal is to force people out of their identities with pseudo-science, but because identities are something intrinsic to the self that only the self has any influence over, the end result is always paras, neurodivergent beings, and queer individuals as a whole being restrained to solitary confinement, under the smokescreen that these beings are “mental patients” being treated, when what is actually happening is just an excuse to imprison queer beings. Any use of the term ““““mental disorder”””” in any context only reinforces these structures, so the only optimal route would be to avoid the term altogether, and call out anyone insisting to use it as a conservative eugenicist. (same source, page 64)

Denial of existence of mental disorders in reality only signifies that the authors are looking at the world through a very narrow convenient lens and ignoring the cases of objectively disabling mental health conditions. The brain is not just where a sense of self exists, the brain is also a physical organ that can suffer damage (especially relevant with COVID still around). Ignoring this, presenting all neurodivergencies as solely painless to those who have them, is just ableism.

Treating disability as a metaphor for something else or a scam, acting like non-normative identities don’t exist when they aren’t the topic of discussion, is a very normal and widespread attitude in mainstream discourse. And this is not being said in defense of Consistent Progressivism.

Consistent Progressivism is not consistent

While digging through these sites and essays (9 essays in total, 8 currently available, 1 removed and only visible on this archive capture that’s several months old), I came across some lesser flaws and inconsistencies of this ideology that did not fit in with what I was focusing on in the previous 3 sections of this post. I will mention some of them here.

1. The first, and the most glaring one, is active use of anarchy symbols while sneering at economic aspects of anarcho communism and advising people to “deprogram” the word “anarchy” by replacing it with “statelessness”. Their opinion on anarchy was already mentioned above, and here are the symbols they use on their sites, featuring two different versions of a modified Antifa logo and a signature anarchist diagonal split flag:

A former member of their discord server also shared that the server used to be called Anarchist Corner before it became Unapologetic Progressives.

2. The idea that bigots’ fixation on pedophilia is an “arbitrary and random” picking of a chronophilia from a list of map spectrum identities (“An Extension to Liberation”, page 48):

What is most bizarre about this misdefinition is that it was not even necessary; the actual definition of “pedophilia” is still aimed at individuals conservatives would consider slaves, and there are terms for other intra/chronophilias similarly aimed at slaves that many conservatives have since become unaware of the existence of (i.e. nepiophilia, hebephilia, ephebophilia), yet “pedophilia” is the specific intra/chronophilia conservatives have chosen to misdefine and stigmatize, further emphasizing and highlighting how arbitrary and random the conservative autonomy delineations are: there did not exist a term to refer to a sexuality aimed at “everyone that exists that hasn’t existed for arbitrary x number of years to gain basic autonomy”, so rather than at the very least having the originality to make one up, they decided to just take the term of some random intra/chronophilia that was already there and misdefine it to mean that in order to reinforce the conservative double-meanings they injected into the term “age” and the notions of slavery that follow from it which they advocate.

This is just me randomly nitpicking, but history of para identities and paramisia just happens to be something I am passionate about. The choice of the word “pedophilia” was not random – pedophilia is the oldest map spectrum identity, and for a long time it did not refer solely to prepubescents, since it started as an Ancient Greek poetic synonym for “pederasty”. It has a history of connection to the mlm identity, meanwhile “hebephilia” and “infantophilia” together with “nepiophilia” date back to 1955 and 1990 respectively and only gained traction outside of medical circles much later (“ephebophilia” is a bit older, going back to the 19th century, and, for what it’s worth, it IS treated as a “dirtier” word and is more known to the average person). Targeting of pedophilia was not accidental, it started as targeting of gay men who identified with the image of Greek pederasty.

3. Inconsistency in use of alterhuman inclusive language – clear efforts to replace the words “person” and “people” with “being” or “beings”, yet ignoring the word “human”. Here are examples just from their site’s main page, feel free to conduct word search in the essay documents on your own:

that some humans based on some aspect of themselves that they were born with or identify as, or some physical, sexual, or personal pleasure they happen to have can be “lesser” humans than other humans whom they would consider “pure”

all of human history

Any identity a being may have that differs from one assigned at birth to them by society.

requiring that every single being involved has chosen to opt-in

“Beings With Unobservable Intent”

It comes off as an attempt to imitate what progressive bloggers say that doesn’t really come from any deeper thought on this subject. It would be interesting to see if a statistical analysis of the essays reveals “human” prevailing in topics related to society as a whole and “being” mostly in topics connected to some kind of marginalization.

4. Derogatory use of the word “fetishism” (“human nature fetishism” on the site’s main page). Fetishism, as the word is used by pro para activists, refers to an attraction to objects or body parts. Using it to mean a fixation in a negative way, similar to how the general society uses it, comes from prejudice.

5. Anti taxation stance, resembling anarcho-capitalism:

The state obtains the resources used to motivate people to act for it using methods of extraction via theft hidden under the euphemism of “taxation”. (“The Benefits of Decentralization”, page 7)

“You can always leave” This is a typical argument used by statists as a means of justifying taxation, essentially amounting to “if you don’t like being taxed, you can always leave”. (“Abolish Families”, page 47)

In the second example the thing taxation is being compared to is child abuse.

6. Consistent Progressivism is based on the idea of an opposition to separating people into “pure” and “subhuman”. However, its organizers do not have a problem with dehumanizing those they label “conservative” (as one server member put, “they won’t be people, just there for people to fuck”). They attempt to resolve the contradiction in the following way in “An Extension to Liberation” (page 72):

The answer is very simplistic: political plurality was never included to begin with. When progressives say “all” are welcome, it is vitally important to clarify that “all” is in reference to queer identities; no progressive ever intends “all” to mean political plurality. Just like with rights, conservatives never counted from the start; terms like “discrimination” and “bigotry” are defined as prejudice and disdain towards identities. Ideologies were simply never part of the equation to begin with.

What’s wrong here is that not treating ideologies equally has nothing to do with rape or torture. These aren’t attacks on someone’s views and liberty to promote these views, but on their existence as a living being (human or no). If you can say “someone is like an object to me because they believe in things I view as bad” (which is, by the way, the whole mass of political views that are not Consistent Progressivism, since they don’t believe in anything else being a viable alternative), you are not longer arguing about their political views only.

Overall, I do not think inconsistencies of Consistent Progressivism actually bother its authors, because if they wanted to make a vaguely anarchist looking aesthetic radical group to recruit people in with promises of activism, they got it.

In conclusion

This turned out to be much longer than I expected it to be, and I hope at least someone will get to this point without getting lost in all these citations and arguments.

To sum up all I just said: Consistent Progressivism as a group of people has features of an emerging cult, and as an ideology lacks basis in reality. Its authors try to prevent potential activists from discussing economic inequality/oppression and learning from communist theory, a detailed look at their essays exposes hypocrisy and bigotry, and the only thing they can offer for the future is “and then everyone will be educated and capable and will not do bad things”. Which pairs really horribly with the rape apologia going on in their server.

In addition to that, some people I saw in that server are people I know. I will not be naming you in this post or going out of my way to do something to you, you know who you are and what I think about it. Some of you, I believe, are likely victims, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

I am an angry and judgemental person, but I don’t think these feelings give me any special place to wish dehumanization and torture onto others. If you are willing to consider my criticism of your ideology seriously, we can talk. You know where to find me.

I want to end this at a lighter note, so here are some recommendations for those who want to get involved with actually progressive politics. I myself do not necessarily agree with all that there is, but it’s a solid amount of good ideas and solutions.

A Primer on Intersectionality – an explanation of intersectionality theory and its origins

Why capitalism causes oppression (self explanatory)

Crash Course Socialism – basics of socialism and communism, arranged by topics

Xenofeminism: A Politics for Alienation – a branch of feminism with a focus on transhumanist ideals and transcending past nature and normalcy

Towards the Abolition of The Family! – a youthlib essay from the anarchist perspective

RAD YOUTH LIB: Dismantling the roots of all oppression – a book on youth liberation