Musings on liberalism/conservatism, women, and my past

I was reading some of a blog I found called http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/warfare-and-group-selection/ it is an interesting article, but a bit long. First let me state a few things: I think he brings up some very good points I will discuss, but it also despite its bluster of trying to be hard science falls into emotional appeals much like he maligns in there.  The major point he brings up, is that liberals have a r-selected and traitorous strategy that seeks to destroy the main k group, where as conservatives are basically the loyal squad members.  I think he see things through some rose colored glasses, but one thing I never heard, but looking back on my life rings very true: that of liberals attempting to sabotage the dominate paradigm so they hope they can get ahead in the chaos that follows.

A background about myself, I was a dyed-in-the-wool liberal through high school, I protested the iraq war with walkouts and actual protests, and generally thought any republican belief was about as self-evidently wrong as they come.  (Except for guns, I had always had an affinity for them.)  Though I was mega-lib I always prided myself on at least considering the alternatives, given them some credence, and I always played devils advocate.

Flash forward to college, I was in a hyper-liberal ivy league school, and while I agreed with a lot of the tenants, notably environmentalism, I was infamous for being argumentative with the standard dogma everyone else bought into.  Especially things like so called ‘social justice’, and everyone’s supposed equality.

This was somehow equal…

…to this

On a unconscious level I knew something was wrong.  After all, fit people were just ‘better’ than fat people, smart people were better than dumb people, could I necessarily explain it?  What I was not though, was heartless.  I understood people being given a chance, because I had been given one early in my life.  But a CHANCE was all people deserved, what I saw around me was utter desire to placate and completely uneven the play field to somehow make inferior people more desirable than the already desirable.

I had long been fascinated with eugenics, despite the demonization of them in current society.  This belief was to much chagrin of my fellow students.  To me, this was clearly the ONLY way we could truly be equal.  ANYTHING else was either a blindness to the truth, or an outright lie, more likely the later.  How the HELL could I be equal to someone I was faster than, easily twice as smart, more compassionate, more likely to help society, and generally superior in every way, yet somehow we were ‘equal’?

The absolute worst was that it did not even end at this ‘equality’ in truth to take an Animal Farm reference “some animals were more equal than others”.  At my school it was women.  But of the things they espoused, it was mainly about blacks.  About how we need to funnel all this money into inner cities for some reason under a guise of social justice, that it ‘just wasnt fair’.  I work as a fire fighter among my other jobs, and let me tell you, the hiring is utterly fucked up, among the whole ‘good old boys club’ anyone is forced to navigate the most egregious of hiring practices is in place (and not only fire fighting, most government agencies are this way) : that of racial or sexual preference points.

Let me explain briefly: if you are a women, you get bonus points, and if you are black you get bonus points (very ‘unequal’ beyond its obvious facet, no Asian bonus for example.)

Anyway, so all this permeates my mind, and I begin to wonder what truly is right and wrong.  Among the most shocking of things that set me straight was obama, I was always disillusioned with politics, and obama was this ‘brave new hope’ to the world of dark dealing.  I voted for him.  What did a get?  Bush 2.0.  There were many things that changed my worldview, equally notably was the girl who broke my heart and I was forced to reevaluate everything and all the lies I was told about relationships.

So I was hit with a one/two punch, my personal life was destroyed by liberal illusions, and the outer world was equally exposed as a hypocrisy when obama was just another politician, (funded by the same people who support both sides), I did not vote for obama in 2012, I have nothing but contempt for him now.

The article gave me something very interesting to think about, clearly things like white girls talking about giving money to black inner city males did not make much logical sense.  But when viewed through the evolutionary lens of a r-selected traitor gene, it makes a lot of sense, the girl knows she wont be attacked by her white male protectors regardless of how dumb she is, but if she can curry favor with the ‘evil black men’ then if they ever rise to power she hopes she will be treated better than she normally would since she ‘helped’ the outsider in.

Gives me a lot to think about, to re-evaluate why so many people were so obviously counter to their interests.

Thinking about the world

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Musings on liberalism/conservatism, women, and my past

  1. While every living thing deserves some basic amount of respect, I find that I have to agree with you, EK. I even agree (in part) with the eugenics argument, though my German heritage means that it’s *extremely* bad for me to talk about this…I just believe that if we have the science to do so, we have a responsibility to make sure people aren’t born with debilitating disorders, and that we should try to use gene therapy/stem cell research to help people become all they can be. For some reason, this is “wrong”?

    As for people being lazy, I wholeheartedly agree. Not only do people not want to work for a living, but I see many who lack compassion, empathy, strength of will, and a desire to better themselves. I’ll never understand how one could NOT wish to gain more health/knowledge/finances/etc…how one can sit back and allow others to be stepped on by society…but there you go.

    • I think it was Mendel (genetics founder) who said something along the lines that if we spent as much time improving our our genes as we do that of horses or cows we would be a race of super humans.

  2. Fat, stupid, and lazy knows no political party. And on each side you’ll find people you think it shouldnt be held against them, but probably more so with liberals because they think everyone should be equal in how they finish rather than start.

    This reminded me of a thought I had earlier today. It was this, if we gave everyone as much opportunity as possible, say medical school, it actually gives greater opportunity to make them unequal. If you go to med school and I get tech training, we’re on different levels. But if we both go to med school and i suck and you are good at it, then we are equal in practice, but in reality you are still better than me. The gap is further, because it can be measured on the same plain since we both went to med school. More simple you cant say who is the better apple, when comparing apples and oranges, but with two apples you can say which is better.

  3. Well, I disagree with the author on some pretty fundamental things. First, I do not believe that people can be classified so succinctly into two categories of appeasers versus “real” winners. That is an incredibly myopic view. Secondly, I do not agree that there is such a clear-cut genetic basis for those categories. If that were true we’d see a more obvious dichotomy, but we don’t…liberals have conservative progeny and conservatives have liberal progeny quite frequently. The truth of the matter is, most everyone has certain elements of both traits inside them, because both elements are necessary for survival.
    France for example was filled with very arrogant “winners” up and until the German invasion and occupation at which point it was filled with appeasers, supplicants, and a very few fleeing and/or dead obstinate. Had that plucky England lost the war, they’d be appeasers too or perish. It’s the way wars end; someone is going to be on the receiving end of a bad deal. Every society that didn’t collapse through the annuals of history has gone through the same, because each and every group has been dominated at some point. Now ask yourself which group is more likely to be successful…the gracious and honorable winner or the most predatorily violent who take most advantage of their position? There are also obvious benefits to being a gracious winner. Societies are less likely to fight to the bitter end.
    Further stating the obvious, we are a nation comprised of such people, and we did a fair job at being successful. The United States was founded by people in “out groups” escaping oppression.

  4. After reflecting further, after dropping my sons off at school and now wrestling the computer away from the youngest…In direct contrast to the author’s views victory itself requires both cunning/subterfuge and strength, these are not traits exclusive to vanquished and victors, but the contrary.
    Sun Tzu, Art of War: “War is deception”
    Quite right.
    Conflict itself tends to bring out both the best and worst in people. No one really knows how they respond to it until truly tested, and in the modern age few really are, but I think those born to power and privilege are the least tested of all.

    • So what are your overall conclusions Liz? I fully grant that there is only a narrow r vs k band that humans can possibly occupy, but I still think there is definitely evidence for a more r or k selected set of behaviors.

      Also, while kids do occasionally break off from their parents, in a majority of cases they stay the exact same.

      • Knight, can you define further what you mean by children “breaking off” from parents? Do you mean financially, emotionally, ideologically, politically, etc.?

        • What I am referring to in this context is political leanings. In a majority of circumstances demo parents have demo kids, repub parents have repub kids, rarely though the kids will come to their own conclusion.

          • Oh yeah…lol.
            I forgot I’d made a comment while signed into that one. That’s my lover’s “nickname” for me, since I’m such a tomboy.

      • I’ll reflect on this further, but overall I think it’s very situational. Didn’t you indicate above that you have changed your conclusions over the course of time based on personal observation/investigation?
        I don’t believe that Ideologies are something people are born with. That said, I do see many character traits (even down to nervous habits and mannerisms, genetics are definitely interesting) in my sons that are similar to my husband and/or me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s