Negative Identity

Growing up, I always resented the person who seemed more punitive. The person who had a strong personality, a strong opinion, the person who would make no bones in passing judgment etc. As a kid I had (admittedly psychopathic) fantasies about ridding the united states of these people either by deportation or extermination. But even then, there was always the nagging thought that wasn’t I being equally punitive, strong and or passing of judgment?

I thought of this more recently when the zman in either one of his blog posts or one of his podcast episodes – mentioned how black americans have something of a negative identity which is basically that they view everything about themselves in relation to or vis-a-vis whites. This had me thinking of my own political viewpoints and my worldview in general. As I mentioned before, I defined my politics as anti-punitive or anti-punitive people. So naturally this led me toward the left or at least the democratic party.

Likewise, my interest in football stems from the fact that the catholic high school I went to was a football powerhouse and is major rivals with one of the neighboring high schools. The series has largely gone back and forth between the two schools but when I was in high school, we pretty much always lost to them and they were always winning state or at least coming close to it. Again, this was something of a negative identity. I wanted our high school to win of course but I wanted the other high school to lose even more. Even my tastes in music, even though I do genuinely like said music, is probably music I listen to because I view it as in opposition to the punitive peoples (Steely Dan, the Eagles, Pink Floyd, Emerson lake and palmer).

One thing I’ve thought is that maybe a negative identity is merely an identity masquerading as a non-identity. And is it a healthy thing to have? It’s kind of like if devout christians were told that the devil was defeated and that evil had lost for good. Would they still give a fuck about christianity? I doubt it because without the devil or a stand-in for it, they don’t really have a reason for existing.

A contemporary example would be this – if pro-white identity whites were in opposition to anti-white identity whites – and largely were endogamous – after a few generations, wouldn’t the pro-white identity and anti-white identity whites be effectively different ethnic groups? The anti white identity whites would then become an ethnicity of there own with there own ethnocentric worldview! This is part of my theory that for whites – ideology is identity and for less advanced (read: third world) races that identity is still identity and they haven’t gotten to the point where ideology comes into play.

Lastly, the idea of an anti being against a pro and as a result, the anti becoming the pro itself is an interesting concept. It’s like the oxymoron, the double negative, or the math problem that can never be solved.

Advertisements

daily kos and censorship

I guess you could say I’m like George Orwell in that I still consider myself somewhat a part of the left but that I want it to not be as obnoxious as it is. I still post on dailykos somewhat to see what the shitlibs have to say.

Yesterday, I managed to get a post “hidden” which I guess is the daily kos equivalent of how twitter makes you delete a tweet they find offensive. I also noticed that only users on daily kos can see the hidden comment I made so I unfortunately will have to copypasta the whole exchange on here.

Basically the conversation was what senate seats have seen the biggest improvement in the quality of a senator without switching party hands. Someone mentioned how Thecunt and her successor Kristin Gillibrand, were better occupants of the New York Class I senate seat than DP Moynihan.

Here is the exchange (each post is in bold):


ChadmanFL

New York 2000: Moynihan → Clinton.

Moynihan was a basket case throughout his career with a lot of
overly moderate impulses. Not to mention he was he final nail in
the Clinton healthcare bill in 1994.

Georgia 1996: Nunn → Cleland

Cleland’s record ended up being quite a bit to the left of Nunn’s in
the Senate.

Wisconsin 1988: Proxmire → Kohl

Louisiana 1986: Long → Breaux

Yes, Breaux was a centrist but Russell Long was basically a
Republican by the 1980’s.

my reply to ChadmanFL
I liked Moynihan — a lot smarter than most of the politicos in office
today.

HeartCooksBrain reply to me
He was intelligent but also fell into the trap many intelligent people
do where he would be very good at convincing himself of a wrong
position. So when he was wrong it was really, obnoxiously wrong. His
racial views are the most common to point to, but there were other
times were he was very wrong out of nowhere, like claiming there was no
big probably with the healthcare industry.

my reply to HeartCooksBrain (THIS IS THE COMMENT THAT GOT
HIDDEN)

I like contarians — not lemmings. I mean there are all sorts of
arguments to make that nobody has ever thought of.

For instance, you could make a liberal case for the death penalty in
that its actually the humane thing to do. Would you rather put a damaged
dog to sleep or would you rather keep it in a cage for a few more years
and have it live in misery.

Skaje’s reply to me (he’s probably the guy who reported
me)

Put a damaged dog to sleep? These are human fucking beings we are
talking about. Forget your animal metaphors. How about we ask the people in
question if they want to be put down like dogs or kept alive in “misery”.
Oh wait, we already know people on death row fight their executions for
years, exhausting every legal option at their disposal including
desperately asking for mercy from the governor. But maybe you know
better.

I’m actually surprised I got the post hidden since it was an example I was throwing out and was not the main point of the conversation. Also, I wasn’t saying the typical conservatard argument of “IF YOU KILL SOMEONE, YOU FORFEIT YOUR RIGHT TO LIVE” but actually was bringing up the topic from a more humane and/or liberal perspective.

Ever since I got on the blogosphere circa 2010 – I realized lefties tend to be thin skinned. Growing up, I felt the right wing to be that of rigidity and the left being made up of more skeptical/nuanced/rational people. My experience circa 2010 of getting constantly banned from democraticunderground was one of the first things that got me on the road to red pilling. It’s almost like Jonathan Haidt is wrong on conservatives having more of a “disgust” reaction because these shitlibs have a disgust reaction to anything that offends them.

why I somewhat understand blacks

I’m 26 and still live with my parents. I have a job, but at this point its not enough to live on my own yet. The idea of living in a pretty nice house that you had no part in buying and yet hating the rules of your parents and not wanting to move out into a way smaller apartment and also realizing you can’t at the moment live without them – are all thoughts I’ve had from time to time.

Obviously I have the same genes as my parents since I’m not adopted but I feel that this is the story of blacks in America writ large. In many ways we have mistreated them by forcing them to live by rules they didn’t write on there own and yet exposing them to all the benefits of western civilization – which makes the prospect of going back to Africa all that more unlikely. People don’t miss what they never had and bringing blacks over and exposing them to the benefits of western civilization and expecting it to end well sounds like a terrible idea.

This is also why I think adoption is a bad idea because what if the son or daughter you adopted is cognitively way below your family? What you end up with is a permanent money hole.

has most of the trouble the left has caused been to there own?

Most people on the alt-right know all too well the story of the leftist “long march through the institutions” and about the frankfurt school, cultural marxism etc. But one theory I have is that the cultural marxist left did not make the country more liberal – but that they simply replaced the old left and in the process ended up wrecking the left.

The arts and entertainment have always been the domain of the left since it tends to attract unconventional people. But instead of decent artwork – you end up with Manzoni style garbage. Instead of classic rock – eagles, pink floyd, elp – you end up with garbage written by committee music as grace and steel mention in the linked video.

You could probably say the same thing about academia and the media – they were always liberal – but as Robert Weissberg says at the 1:30 mark – politics among the professoriate was never that big of a deal.

One of the things about the left that made me shift away from them was the realization that the very people the left is dependent on (screeching harpies, and ignorant NAMs) are the very people who are liabilities and that maybe issues like feminism and civil rights should never have been brought up in the first place. To me – being a leftist was all about classic rock, black humor/sarcasm, fucking freely, drugs and skepticism toward “consensus ideas”.

When I started going on liberal message boards circa 2010 – like democraticunderground – i felt shocked as everyone there was acting in perpetual hysterics/derangement. People like Ryan Faulk and Audacious Epigone have mentioned how “conservative” does not mean the same thing for caucasians as it does for POCs and I’m going to say right now that neither does it for men and women. When I was a kid – I always assumed that men were far more liberal than women since the ideas I mentioned in the above paragraph are far more common among men than women. I’ve also noticed that among men who describe themselves as “liberal” – those above traits are far more common than among men who describe themselves as “liberal”.

So the TL:DR version (although it still may be TL:DR) of these musings is –
1) politics should be viewed as the domain of one group of white men vs the other
2) the unconventional men historically were outnumbered – so it made sense to enlist people to act as “vote banks” (NAMs and feminists)
3) the unconventional men ruled the roost for a short period as the women and POCs mostly fell in line
4) eventually the women and POCs invaded white liberal male institutions and ended up wrecking those institutions
5) what a liberal means for a man means something different for a woman therefore
6) liberal institutions that were initially founded by men that are no longer run by them are effectively defanged.

anonymous conservative

I will admit I haven’t read much of his stuff – but I’m aware of what it is he is writing – namely of R/K selection (which is a real thing) and how that explains politics.

The problem I have with it is that I find it to be too self-congratulatory, along the lines of “we’re conservatives who are smart and plan for the future while the lefties are dumb and lazy”.

To me, the whole r/k stuff works fine when comparing the western world to the third world – but if you’re going to compare two relatively advanced peoples who happen to have differing political views – and chalk that up to r/k selection – then you’re thinking too hard.

is saying “you’re lazy” an example of hbd denialism?

I’ve always found that calling someone or something lazy is almost always done under the assumption that they are actually capable of doing what they are attempting to do. In high school, whenever something was going on that I didn’t understand – I usually would spend time scribbling on my notebook and pretending to look like I was doing something. There were times when I would ask for help – but oftentimes that would make it even more confusing and would slow down the class in general.

 

 

using HBD to make liberal arguments

one of the things I felt when I got into hbd was that it was not a necessarily a conservative or liberal thing. It just means you have to take it into account when writing laws, no matter what your ideology is.

One of the arguments I’ve heard by tradcons is that women should start shitting out kids in there early 20s and keep doing that until they hit a half a dozen kids or what have you. This is opposed to the professional type women who works a job until they have a kid or two in there mid-to-late 30s but keeps working even after they have the kids.

A tradcon will say something like “you’re going to hurt the kid psychologically” or “every kid needs a mother in the house”. But if humans are as unmalleable as guys like jayman says – is there any real deleterious effects of having a kid being raised by there nanny?