Hardkill

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    5,058

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Hardkill

  2. Posted

    48 minutes ago, Raze said:

    The top issues are healthcare, inflation, and economy. Democrats still have healthcare, so really all that matters is if people continue being unsatisfied with the economy and start to blame Trump more and think democrats could do better.

    So, what do you think about what David Pakman is saying?

    He's already interviewed many establishment/moderate Democratic politicians and says that none of them have been willing to learn how to be good at doing interviews in independent and alternative media. I worry that if Democrats don't fix their credibility, messaging, and media strategy problems soon, then the majority of Americans may never believe in electing any Democrat for president, may never be able to stop the radical right courts, and may never win back control of Congress, except for maybe just the House.

  3. Posted

    10 minutes ago, Mayonnaise said:

    @Leo Gura What do you think it will take for the majority of our society to elevate past toxic orange? how long do you think it will take? Also i know this is kind of a random way of thinking about it, but if God is infinity, then wouldn't it have to be included for a "timeline" or something for society to be toxic orange/ blue or red , etc. as a necessity to be included within that infinity? (but if thats the case, then at some point things will have to shift to other stages too) what do you think?

    I think that another economic depression and/or another World War or some extreme collapse of our country maybe the very best shot of getting the past this toxic orange.

  5. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    I'm talking about today's left in America.

    White supremacist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic.

    Kirk was all of those things.

    Learn what those term actually mean, not just as memes.

    Even though Lenin was a Hard Leftist he was still fundamentally a conservative. He was never a true liberal or progressive, correct?

  6. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    On 9/17/2025 at 1:01 AM, Daniel Balan said:

    Conservatives are right on:

    • Migration
    • Not allowing late term abortions.
    • Pushing back against lgbtq trans propaganda 
    • Tight and secure borders
    • Pushing back against demonic climate change action such as deindustrialization that leave millions of factory workers unemployed. 
    • Strong police and military 
    • Wanting to stop offshoring and having manufacturing jobs back in their country as opposed to offshoring manufacturing overseas.

    Liberals are right on:

    • Well thought Climate change action. We need climate action as fast and as strong as possible but we also need to not have millions of people lose their jobs because of it.
    • Protecting sexual minorites, making sure the lgbtq community is safe and protected and has the same rights as the regular community. Although without propaganda in schools or obnoxious parades. 
    • Protecting womens right to have abortions but only up until the 12th week of pregnancy. After 12 weeks abortion should be banned.
    • Everything else :D

    You're mistaken about conservatives wanting to stop offshoring and having manufacturing jobs back in their country as opposed to offshoring manufacturing overseas. Trump and the right-wing pretend to care about that. In fact, manufacturing jobs during Trump's first term continued to be offshored even more. 

    Biden, progressives, and Democrats actually were responsible for the historic onshoring of manufacturing jobs during Biden's presidency with the American Rescue Plan, Chips and Science Act, Inflation Reduction Act, good stewarding of the economy, and so on. 

    As for having strong police and military, yes that has traditionally been a right-wing characteristic; however, as I explained in another thread, virtually every liberal has been very pro-military and police, and that if you look at US History, many liberal/progressive presidents upgraded our entire national security and law enforcement. Truman, who inherited the mantle of New Deal liberalism right after FDR died in office, presided over the most comprehensive, permanent redesign of the U.S. security state: the National Security Act of 1947 created the DoD, NSC, CIA, and a separate U.S. Air Force, regularized the Joint Chiefs, and his 1952 memo stood up the NSA—the core architecture we still use.

    Obama was the one who successfully presided over the assassination of Osama Bin Laden and Biden was the main leader of the world who united NATO and Ukraine against Russia, which saved most of Ukraine from Russia and dealt a very serious blow to Russia's standing in the world. All types of major crime throughout the entire country had plummeted to historic lows by the last two years of Biden's presidency.

    Btw, what proof is there that the so-called “demonic climate change action” has caused deindustrialization and left millions of factory workers unemployed? If anything, the historic action on climate change during Biden’s presidency has sparked reindustrialization—creating hundreds of thousands, if not over a million, new good-paying working-class jobs across the country since 2022 for the next several years. Sadly, much of the IRA got gutted by Trump and the Republicans, especially after their passage of the OBBB.

    As for immigration, progressives such as Bernie Sanders and those who are Center-Left like Joe Biden are for improving border security, and also are for more fair and legal immigration pathways in our country.

    Do you understand that the only main things that virtually every right-wing and Republican political actor in US History has only ever really done are enacting more major tax cuts and more deregulation policies for the very wealthy, very powerful, and big corporations at the expense of the everyday people, small businesses, and fair trade practices?

    Since the 1980s, most forward-looking national efforts to boost demand, rebuild industry, expand worker power and benefits, widen health coverage, and modernize infrastructure have been initiated by liberals and progressives. Only during times of great crisis, or when they are under intense constituency pressure, do Republicans back major packages (such as ARRA, IIJA, CHIPS, and the IRA) that provide broad relief and materially improve the lives of everyday Americans. Yet, since the 1980s, the right-wing politicians, their donors, and every conservative propagandist out there have generally prioritized tax cuts and deregulation over long-horizon industrial policy and broad, bottom-up social investment. Conservatives and the GOP usually revert to pro-capital priorities once the emergency passes, whereas Democrats and progressives continue to push for lasting, bottom-up gains outside of crises.

    The Right and the Republican Party have just been better than the Left and the Democratic Party at LYING to the people about how much they care about helping the working-class, middle-class, and working poor in economy, while the Left and the Democratic Party are worse at messaging than Right and the Republican Party and have had a much weaker media ecosystem for their side than the right-wing has for decades.

    Even the right-populist rebrand and rising right-populist interest in antitrust, industrial policy, and “worker power” rhetoric has just been talk on their side has been more rhetorical than programmatic.

    One more thing. Do you realize that almost every liberal or progressive president since the year 1900—except for Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter—has ended their presidency with a booming economy and major net job creation in both the private and public sectors across the entire country? Meanwhile, did you know that almost every conservative president since 1900—except for William McKinley and Ronald Reagan—ended their presidencies with a recession, stagflation, depression, or even the looming of the worst economic crisis in American history, the Great Depression?

  7. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    50 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    His audience is not being lost, it is being absorbed by some other right-wing epistemic pervert like Ben Shapiro.

    Why aren’t enough centrists and Independents, even those who follow politics regularly, out there are not able to see that the Republican Party is much worse than the Democratic Party like?

    Are most centrists and Independents too afraid to take a side? Are they just more corrupt or more foolish than liberals and Democrats are? 
     

    Or do centrists and Independents generally not follow politics and are not as informed as much as left-wingers, right-wingers, and highly engaged party loyalists do?

  8. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

    They completely ignore how corrupt the conservatives have become.

    This is not merely an issue of left vs right. It's an issue of corruption. Objectively, there has never been a more corrupt, dishonest, unfit, criminal, and authoritarian president in American history. To act like this is the fault of the left going to far is just brain-dead.

    Trump literally planned and executed a coup. And these assholes dare to speak about the left going too far left because of some trans stuff. Their level of analysis is embarassing. They have the political analysis of children. 

    Yeah, I am totally with you. It fucking pisses me off.

    Though their "rationale" is that it's not just the Democratic party that has gotten "too extreme" and "too partisan." They are saying that both major parties have gone insane and gone too far from the center, which is their reason for becoming Independents like you are. lol.

    They also say that they want Trump to succeed as president for the "good of the country" and so far give him at least a "C" grade overall for the job he is doing as president. Can you believe this nonsense? Trump doesn't deserve anything close to a passing grade.

  9. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    18 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Lol.

    This is like saying:

    "I grew up owning slaves and things were cool. But then those crazy leftists ran so far to the left that now I'm fighting for the Confederacy. What a crazy world! Those crazy leftists!"

    No shit. Society evolves. If you don't evolve with it you become a dinosaur.

    When Owen Cook was born, beating blacks and gays to death was considered normal. It is no virtue to say that you haven't evolved in your politics. These guys say that like it's some virtue.

    Yeah, if PBD and Owen were born in 1910's Germany they would be proud Nazis.

    What about centrists like Manchin and Chris Cuomo saying that the Democratic Party and liberals today have gone too far to the left?

  10. Posted

    12 hours ago, DocWatts said:

    Pro tip, but you might want to consider renaming this thread 'Are Liberals More Epistemicly Developed Than Centrists' or something like that, since evolution doesn't have an end goal.

    Based on anecdotes from my personal life (so take this with a grain of salt), it's my observation that centrists tend to be folks who don't want to pick a lane. Engaging deeply with issues involves far more than picking the middle point between two extremes and assuming that this is the reasonable or correct position (is the Fallacy Of The Middle).

    But what about moderates like Washington and Lincoln and center-left leaders like FDR?

  11. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    1 hour ago, Emerald said:

    Moderate from the perspective of the powers that be... yes.

    Conservative and moderate (in this regard) tend to mean the same thing... because moderates argue for the maintenance of the status quo and to keep the power structure as it is.

    We have lost sight of the meaning of the word Conservative in today's world, because our current "Conservatives" are actually acting as agents of radical change who are attempting to make revolutionary changes to American government and culture towards a Christo-Fascist dictatorship and/or a Technocratic Plutocratic Fascist dictatorship.

    But to be truly Conservative is to be a moderate. So, moderates in contemporary American culture are Libertarian-leaning Capitalists with mildly liberal social values... but in a disengaged way. 

    The reality is that moderates and centrists are the true Conservatives as they are always trying to maintain the status quo for the power that be. And loyalists of the crown were moderate from the perspective of those in power, despite being a minority amongst American colonists.

    But among the oppressed lower-powered colonists, revolutionary ideas gained a critical mass of people who wanted to break away from the norm. And they did so by force against the powers that be.

    They were radicals from the perspective of the moderate status quo (which is determined by those in power).

    And radicals only come to power by force. Nothing that's radical ever gets accepted through the established means of the powers that be... not by democratic voting nor by mandate of the king.

    But, given that the radicals became a plurality of the low-powered colonists, it gained a sense of normalcy within the American colonial population. So, it became normal in the context of the colonies to become a radical from the perspective of the powers that be.

    And they fought with force and won. And eventually, the radical position became the status quo... and therefore moderate.

    But the colonists were still radicals. They were just radicals who gained a critical mass... which does not make them moderate.

    The thing that made them moderate is that the figure-head American revolutionaries eventually got accepted as the powers that be.

    There is mainstream conservatism, mainstream centrism, and mainstream liberalism.

    but I get your point. What was once an unthinkable or radical form of progress eventually becomes mainstream.

  12. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Banning guns in USA is simply impossible. But raising the age to own is possible and reasonable.

    We had a federal assault weapon ban passed in Congress in the 1990s during Clinton's presidency with the 1994 crime bill that was sponsored by then Senator Biden. Sadly, it only lasted for 10 years. Bush actually wanted to renew that law but never got the support he needed in Congress for it.

    Federal law banned the civilian transfer and possession of new machine guns as of May 19, 1986, through the Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA).

  13. Posted

    14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    But guns are much rarer than USA so it is acceptable.

    USA needs stricter rules because guns are too available.

    Then, we have to somehow replace the 2nd amendment with a new amendment and/or overthrow the radical right-wingers on SCOTUS to ban most guns for all civilians except for hunting guns, federal level gun permits, and major federal level background checks.

  14. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    17 hours ago, Emerald said:

    About 40% wanted independence from Britain and about 20% were British loyalists. So, the plurality of American colonists wanted independence... which is the critical mass.

    But those in power are the moderates... which was the crown itself and those in the colonies that were loyal to the crown.

    So, American colonists gathered enough support for Americans to fight for independence.

    Wait, are you sure that all of those in power and were loyal to the crown were moderates?

    Imperial power (the Crown/Parliament) was, of course, the incumbent. But in the colonies, power was split: many Patriot leaders were also local elites (planters, merchants, lawyers, officeholders).

    “Moderate” in 1775–76 often meant reconciliationist (stay in the empire but with reforms). Some of these moderates later drifted Patriot once reconciliation died; others stayed neutral or Loyalist.

    Across both eras, conservatives generally favored less and slower change than moderates, who were more open to positive reforms short of radical rupture.

  15. Posted

    45 minutes ago, Emerald said:

    Yes to the abolition of slavery AFTER the Civil War... and yes to the New Deal... as these were honored by the presidents in power as the moderate 'normal' position to hold. And time normalized them even more.

    The American Revolution was a different story though, as it was a group of radicals that eventually gained enough support from a critical mass of people who were fed up with taxation without representation. 

    And that was achieved through force and radicals winning out in battle against the moderate establishment... and not democratically through being accepted as the moderate position by those in the center. 

    The moderates of the time were loyal to the British crown. Most people in the Southern colonies during that time were British loyalists. 

    Moderates always preserve the powers that be. And moderates of that era wanted to stay under the rule of the king.

    But after the American Revolution, American independence became normalized and moderate. And now, it would be considered very extreme to want America to be back under British rule.

    But it wasn't moderate to be pro-American independence when the American Revolution was going on.

    Makes sense.

    Actually, I thought that some majority of Americans during the American Revolution were either for Independence from the British empire or were undecided/indifferent to the issue. 
     

    Also, I thought that a majority of all of Americans wanted slavery to end towards the end of the Civil War.

  16. Posted

    9 minutes ago, Emerald said:

    No one radical will ever be in power, except if that power is taken through top-down authoritarian force.

    That will never change. It will always be the case that moderates and centrists will be in power in a democracy. Radicals do not get elected.

    And if a person gets elected, they are not radical in the eyes of society.

    But what is radical and what is moderate are purely socially constructed and plastic... and public opinion can shift quickly.

    So, Nazism was moderate in Nazi Germany. 

    Likewise, that which we now consider progressive can also be considered moderate in a future era.

    The most important thing is to insist that kindness is normal and moderate... and that cruelty is radical and extreme.

    People struggle with that though... even though it's very simple to insist on. People over-complicate things in a way that normalizes needless suffering and hatred... and treats basic human decency and common sense as radical and extreme.

    So, America breaking from the British Empire became moderate during the American Revolution, the abolition of slavery and grants some basic rights to blacks became moderate during and after the Civil War, and the New Deal agenda became moderate during the Great Depression.

  17. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    1 hour ago, Emerald said:

    Manchin identifies himself as a centrist because people are uninformed and will assume him to actually be in the center in terms of his political opinions relative to the general populace.

    But he's really a center right corporatist who is nowhere near the center of public opinion. He's a Centrist based in the center position of establishment politics.

    But he's a different bird than what I'm talking about. Joe Manchin has actual viewpoints of his own, at least.

    Centrists are usually people who believe that it's always wise to take the dead-center position on every issue... as they see the center as the most moderate and sensible position by default.

    So, if one side is pro-slavery and one side is anti-slavery and those are both normalized positions within the Overton Window, someone who identifies strongly with Centrism would be pro-slavery with better conditions for slaves.

    Or in Nazi Germany, the Centrist might be someone who might advocate for work camps rather than death camps.

    Centrism in the way that most self-described Centrists think about it is that the dead-center is always the most wise position. And it's a way to phone in one's political opinions by defaulting the more normalized opinions in society... even if the most normalized options cause a lot of harm.

    So, if it's normalized and taken-for-granted in the society to see dogs as vermin and murder them and the fringe position is not to murder dogs.... then Centrists will be pro-dog-murder and will see anti-dog-murderers as crazy radicals that want to save the vermin.

    Being a Centrist is to lack a perspective of one's own.

    Yeah, I get what you’re saying and that’s what Leo said a while back. 
     

    Though no great leader or president in US history was ever truly a hard left-winger. Not even Washington, Lincoln, or FDR. Even though they were historic forward looking figures they were all relatively moderate for their time.

    Do you think that’s because those leaders governed during times when certain crises and/or certain mass movements were able to push progressive revolutionary ideas move into the center of political spectrum?

  18. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    1 hour ago, Daniel Balan said:

    @Hardkill Also what drives me crazy in politics is demagoguery and populism. Populism is in my eyes the most dangerous and deadly political position one can have. The worst being economic populism. Economic populism is what drives the deficit spending though the roof. 

    Economic populism is what ruins a nation and puts in grave danger two or three generations that will now carry the burden of gigantic public debts. 

    Economy should be treated with extreme caution and pragmatism. Being overly liberal with how you spend money from the public budget might cause the whole economy to collapse like how it happened in Greece more than a decade ago.

    Economy is the single political aspect of a country that shouldn't have a political color. Economy shouldn't be treated as progressive or libera or conservative, economy should be treated with extreme pragmatism and caution.

     

    Yeah, anything taken too far won’t work. Far left economics such as true authoritarian Socialism/Communism like in Cuba, in the old days of the Soviet Union, or during Mao’s regime in China does more way harm than good.
     

    Also, we can also pay for higher spending programs for the everyday people by taxing more of the rich and big corporations, especially during economic boom periods. 
     

    Btw, conservatives and Republicans since the late 1900s, starting with Reagan have really been the ones who have worsened the deficit and debt much more so than moderates, liberals, and Democrats have. The GOP and the Right have ballooned the deficit and debt for decades with their insane major tax cuts, the recessions they’ve caused, and the crazy amount of money they’ve spent on wars.

  19. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    57 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:

    @Hardkill I wasn't refering to the democratic party specifically! I don't even know much about American politics, I am talking in general, with my focus generally on European politics. And all the unrest in Europe today is because of the damage done by unchecked migration and overly liberal policies from the Merkel era. 

    Also allow me to counter your narative when you say that the progressives are the ones that push for a return to the roots of the new deal era... Actually in my eyes, the centrist moderates are the ones that push for a return to the new deal paradigm. The centrist moderates like Gavin Newsom. 

    Do you know how progressive and economically populist FDR was?

    Yeah, he ran as more of a moderate when he ran and won the presidency for first time in 1932. However, he was arguably the most economically progressive and the most economically populist US president of all time! It saved our economy from the worst economic crisis ever in American history! Thanks to his entire New Deal philosophy we’ve never had another economic Depression for almost a century and our country has greatly benefitted from all kinds of social safety nets and protections for 90+% of Americans in this country.

    His fifth cousin, TR, who was president in the 1900s decade, was extremely progressive and economically populist. His Square Deal agenda saved our country from the horrific abuses and extreme economic inequality of the late 1800s Gilded age. His policies didn’t go nearly as far as FDR did. However, when he was still alive he was for so many more progressive and economic populist ideas that he wasn’t able to get done but were eventually enacted in later years during the presidencies of Taft, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, combined presidencies of JFK and LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Clinton, Obama, and Biden.

    New Deal Democratic presidents including FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ were always more to the left economically than moderates like Clinton, Obama, and Newsom.

    Biden was a center-left Democratic president that was more to the left economically than Obama, who was more to left economically than Clinton was. Biden really turned out to be a New Deal 2.0 Democrat.

    Newsom has yet to prove that he can be as economically populist or as progressive as Biden was.

  20. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    1 hour ago, Daniel Balan said:

    Centrists are by far the most developed political group. 

    I'm a liberal leaning centrist and I can't phantom how backward the nationalist/right wingers are and how dangerous and downright out of their minds the leftists are. 

    The right is ignorant, selfish and corrupt for holding on for dear life to defend the status quo. However, the left is extremely dangerous! The idealism of the left, their childish understanding of politics is what leads to fascists taking power. The left is so out of touch with what the masses need, that they are dangerous. The reason I'm not further left than centre is because of how much dangerous idealism is. Idealism and pie-in-the-sky politics is what destroys democracies. 

    Leftists have a grave misunderstanding of how selfish and corrupt the average humans are! Humans are much, much less developed that the leftists might want to acknowledge! If the citizenry would be 60% at stage green, I'd be a leftist myself, but reality shows that people would rather vote a stage red authoritarian than a woman. A reality check for leftists is to realise that they are an insignificant minority that only servers as fuel for the ones that want to dismantle democracies. I have so much criticism for the left because I have high standards for them. i don't expect the right to be less backward than they are but I do expect from the left some maturity because the left is pushing for the betterment of society. But their idealism spectacularly backfires in their face because society is functioning in very barbaric ways that cannot be changed unless the development levels of the masses goes at least to Green. 

    Also the left is proposing some very bad and downright stupid policies such as: unchecked immigration, extreme climate change policies that leave many workers unemployed, excessive lgbtq and trans propaganda, race hiring quotas, gender hiring quotas, excessive and demonic bureaucracy and regulation, a movement that promotes extreme secularism, high AF taxes etc. 

    This backfires spectacularly because most of mankind cannot comprehend such policies. Their level of development is too low to even acknowledge that same sex marriage should exist. 

    On a personal level I abhor religion with all my being, I have no problem with immigrants as long as they are not violent, I have no problem with gays, I love fair and necessary bureaucracy, I love healthy regulations, I do support moderate taxation etc. 

    The thing with the leftists is that they are well ahead of the current times. Their policies will work in 200 years, but right now leftist policies can't work because of how backward the citizenry is.

    You know that virtually every progressive politician out there doesn’t support any "downright stupid policies" such as the ones you're talking about. I used to believe that when I first heard about progressivism and Bernie Sanders. 

    However, the vast majority of the left, especially today, is for bringing back the Democratic party fully to it's New Deal roots.

    Even Cenk, whom I can't really stand anymore, had just said this today on his X account:

    "Brother, you're years behind. The far left attacks me more than anyone else these days. I'm in the economically populist wing of the left. The establishment left is ruled by the donor class and the far left is too obsessed with culture wars (and so is the far right)."

  21. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    EXACTLY! That is the key insight which nobody grasps!

    You are incapable of understanding reality because nature is holding a gun to your head and you are too threatened and distracted.

    It's not about luxury, it's about selfishness vs selflessness. You are too fucking selfish to understand reality.

    I admit that I am selfish, but life is hard.

  22. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Because it must lead to corruption.

    To place anything in your mind above God is corruption.

    You still haven't understood that. You still think this is some mind of debate about personal choices and opinions. No. This is ontological. Your opinions, your care for your family is irrelevant. If you put your family first you are immediately corrupt, regardless of what happens.

    Everyone who places family as their #1 value is corrupt! Get that.

    Yeah, but I feel like placing truth above everything else is a luxury that most people can't afford to do because of what it takes to survive and thrive.

  23. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    I think it's really because Elon doesn't like how much more support the more progressive and more fair economic policies have been getting in every developed country around the world.

    That's why he turned against the Democratic party as soon he realized how much more economically left-wing it has gotten since around the mid to late 2010s coupled with his insane addiction to gaining more and more wealth, which keeps getting worse and worse.

    He probably also is deep down a racist to some extent like many well-known white Christian-born South Africans have been.

  24. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    These are all really good responses.

    @Kid A Yeah, it's messed up in a way.

    @psychedelaholic @Bjorn K Holmstrom @Basman So, it depends on what kind of centrism we're talking about. If it's just splitting both of the issues down the middle for the sake of centrism without any advanced reasoning for it, then that centrism is less evolved than healthy liberalism/progressivism/left-wing ideology. However, if it is integrative centrism involving highly sophisticated, nuanced thinking that's liberal-leaning, but in a more clear-headed and more intelligent manner involves moderate views and conservative views at times for the bigger picture of achieving effective long-term progress in a society.

    @Emerald What about centrist politicians like Manchin who aren't politically disengaged, but are trying to seem like "the adults in the room" by being in the middle?

  25. Posted

    It’s clear to me why liberals are generally more evolved than conservatives in Spiral Dynamics terms, since liberal values (pluralism, inclusion, reform, openness) usually sit later in the developmental sequence than conservative values (tradition, order, hierarchy, status-quo maintenance).

    Liberalism → “modern” (novelty, reform, inclusion, experimentation, expanding rights).

    Conservatism → “traditional” (continuity, order, inheritance, restraint, preserving norms).

    But here’s my question: Where do centrists/moderates fit in?

    On the one hand, centrism can look like a low-stage compromise—splitting the difference for safety, avoiding conflict, or defending the status quo without deeper principles (Blue/Orange shadow).

    On the other hand, integrative centrism could be seen as later-stage Yellow—not just “meeting in the middle,” but actually synthesizing liberal ends (rights, inclusion, reforms) with conservative means (stability, institutions, feedback loops, guardrails).

    So which is it?

    Are centrists more evolved than liberals because they can integrate multiple perspectives?

    Or are liberals still more evolved, since historically most major expansions of rights and progress came from liberal/left coalitions?

    Does it depend less on ideology and more on how people think (systems, trade-offs, humility, shadow awareness, implementation craft)?

    Curious to hear perspectives from those who’ve studied Spiral Dynamics more deeply. Is the “higher consciousness move” to lean progressive, to lean centrist, or to transcend both?