G.L.Piggy [at] gmail.com
Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.
Capt. Capitalism asks why leftists tend to be unattractive. He bases the argument on a study which found that female Republicans tend to look more feminine – and therefore are more attractive to men – than female Democrats.
Liberals and leftist in general tend to be lazy. They eschew hard work, they’re afraid of rigor, and this shows in their ideology. ANYTHING to avoid having to support themselves or work an honest day…This means liberals and leftists (just like all humans and animals on this planet) ARE FORCED to compete when it comes to courting and mating, whether they like it or not. However, when I say “compete” I don’t mean, “be lucky enough to be born handsome or pretty.” I mean “work out, stay in shape and make yourself sexy to the opposite sex.”
I’ll stop here to add my own caveats – it is probably best to avoid picturing passive liberals and passive conservatives. Unattractive people fall across the entire spectrum. But we can imagine the person who leads an active anti-establishmentarian lifestyle – which is different from an anti-establishmentarianism of the Right – eschewing the pressures placed on him by human nature. Hard work in every realm of life – why? He questions, at his core, the very nature of competition. And part of that competitive drive is striving to be presentable to society.
And what is the base virtue to which ideologues subscribe? Let’s consider a left-anarchist and the closest thing on the right, the anarchocapitalist type. I won’t dare call them libertarians because that’s inviting criticism, but I’m thinking in terms of the libertarian who fantasizes about radical autonomy. But the right anarchist does not seek to overturn order all the way down. The left anarchist – the nihilist – does. The left anarchist is critical of everything down to the order laid bare by our natural human inclinations. My prototypical right anarchist does not go that far. The former is utopian; the latter is not stupid enough to be utopian. So the right anarchist favors order while disfavoring, perhaps, authority. This fosters a certain sort of asceticism in which the Self is not just a focal point but is also discussed in terms of potentiality. The left anarchist scoffs at the notion of potential. What’s that? he might ask. This ethic works back from the extremes to the middle of the pack of ideologues. Recognizing maximum potential, intellectually and physically, is more an ethic of the ideological right.
Funny enough, American Conservative’s tweet monkey sent out a link to a piece about Abraham Maslow and his hierarchy of needs being co-opted by hippies and New Agers in the late 1960s. But an interesting passage from the article:
He [Maslow] even goes so far as to speculate whether the physical runtiness of the typical liberal intellectual shapes his thinking. “Does he identify with the loser, unconsciously feeling himself to be a loser? And to admire & follow the dictator, the violent one, the loud-mouth, the paranoid? Why did the intellectuals go for Stalin? And why are they not horrified by dictatorship today, if only it is on the Left side? Why don’t they love the Bill of Rights?”