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?

Symptoms vs “Root Causes”

The analogy I always have when I view politics is that of a house already doused in gasoline (i.e. non-asian minorities). Conservatives want to remove all the flammable fluids from the house while liberals want to use the flammable liquids (which could be something like welfare and what not). But neither of them will get to the essence of it which is that even if a crisis is averted, the house is still doused in gasoline and could explode at any time. This kind of reminds me of what Ann Coulter has said about how the democrats have to only pass immigration once while the republicans have to be perfect every time in opposing it.

haven’t you heard its a battle of words

one of the things I’ve noticed from politics in the United States is how it often devolves into semantics. For instance, calling someone who opposes the right to abortion pro-life. That’s a clearly vague term and everyone could be considered pro-life in some way. Everybody values some type of life – even mass murderers oftentimes commit there crimes for some other life they do care about.

Another example is the environment. The left wing accuses the right of being anti-environment. But almost everyone values the environment or values it at some level. There’s no one who will merely throw trash in there front yard intentionally as a way of saying fuck you to the environment.

You could also argue the same thing about an additional penalty for shooting a police officer. I don’t believe there should be an additional penalty for such a crime for the same reason I don’t believe in hate crimes. And yet if there was some bill in the legislature for enhanced penalties for crimes against law enforcement, I would be pigeonholed as being anti-cop.

You see these things a lot

  • someone voting against VAWA accused of being “anti-women”
  • supporting voting for some gun control laws being accused of being “anti-gun” (though there are some real anti-gun people that exist)
  • someone opposed to affirmative action or disparate impact being called “anti-black”

Maybe this is what vox day means when he says “dialectic vs rhetoric”

Guns vs Drugs

has anyone here ever noticed that the same arguments that leftists use to support drug legalization are the same ones that right wingers use to support unrestricted gun access? When I first started following politics when I was a teenager, I noticed the pattern that RWers liked banning things – drugs, pornography, abortion etc so I assumed that they also supported banning guns.

This is all part of my grand theory that deep down it’s not the thing itself but the who that drives politics. It’s not things like guns or drugs in and of itself but rather who is using it.