F Your F-ing Identity BS

[Richard Stanley]

The following video is an interview by Tom Bilyeu of best-selling author Mark Manson, whose name I had only been vaguely aware until watching this. In starting this, only because I have watched some other Bilyeu interviews, I felt I was going to reject the premise, but I was pleasantly surprised. I thought this was going to be like typical self-improvement BS, but this guy is the opposite of that, like an anti-guru guru of sorts.

Manson's premise is that (similar to psychoanalysis IMO) one needs to recognize that their personal identity (and therefore --> Group Identity IMO) is a messy lifetime accumulation of narratives, some true and some untrue, about what you have come to 'believe' about yourself (and therefore your Identity associates IMO). Therefore, people who sense that they need to make some hopefully positive changes in their inner life, must be willing to challenge their entire belief system, down into the bedrock core to find the layers of BS that is causing them to value the wrong things over better things, thus leading them to bad outcomes for themselves and others.

To my initial misgiving, they discuss that a typical self-improvement program is likely to lead you to amplify your negative attributes, if you do not first go through this rigorous examination of your fabricated, layered belief system and values. As such, Manson does not tell his audience what to believe or not believe, but rather that they had better start their personal journey by resetting their foundational belief system before going on from there to rebuild the larger framework. This is basically what Postflaviana is all about, that is, examining all the BS historical and other narratives in our lives, from which we can see why "the winner's write history" (and fabricate our literal and mind slave religions).

For instance, a typical American 'patriot' thinks he is all about Freedom and that which flows from that, but ironically he or she is really a mind slave to his hidden patrons, the quiet remnants of Euro-patrician society left here after the (fake) Revolution. The "more things change, the more they stay the same". When a Roman aristocratic "patrone" manumitted a slave, that now freedman was still expected to remain loyal and true to his patrone's wishes, else risk returning to slave status. Now the system is more subtle ... and insidious. The red or blue patriots think there is a big difference between (elite besties) Hillary and Donald, but this is extremely superficial, as are the two political parties of note. It's all driven by bad narratives layered deceitfully and programmatically onto our respective Identities.

Think the way out was such as libertarianism, like I had, well, as we've seen this was another false flag of the Euro-monarchists [sic] who 'paradoxically' sponsored today's NeoLiberalism and it's attendant financial disasters. But it's only a paradox if one doesn't thoroughly examine the underlying motivations.

 

[Jerry Russell]

The following video is an interview by Tom Bilyeu of best-selling author Mark Manson, whose name I had only been vaguely aware until watching this.

I had not heard of him either, although I had heard the name of his best-selling book "The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck". As a book title, this is about the most annoying thing I could imagine. Aside from the click-baiting vulgarity, it seems to me that this is exactly the problem with insoucient, ungrateful Americans: that they just don't care about the things that, well, I think they should care about. The title seems to invoke Ayn Rand on steroids.

And so now I can hardly complain about the vulgarity, since here at PF we are hosting a discussion thread about "I'd Fuck Her" Carlson. I'm quite sure Tucker Carlson doesn't give a fuck what we think of him. And neither does Mark Manson. I mean, they're famous and we aren't, so who gives a fuck about our little website? I wonder if Google search engine will upgrade our site based on the number of no fucks given in a single post.

So I gather the trick is, after we strip away all the fucking fuck-ups, Manson really wants us to give a fuck about something after all? I am having a hard time believing that he doesn't have some idea what that's supposed to be. And like Freud, it must have something to do with either sex or cocaine.

 

[Richard Stanley]

And like Freud, it must have something to do with either sex or cocaine.

Huh?

But, yes, he does want us to care about things, the right things, after you figure out what you should not be giving a fuck a about, but currently are. So this is why you should be watching the video material posted on your site, instead of making assumptions.

Beyond the sexual aspects of Freud's work, the thesis was that adults are screwed up by various things that happened to them previously, perhaps most in their formative years. These become the internal and sometimes externalized narratives of our lives, leading all manner of problems.

Manson related that his ambitions as a young adult were to become a professional musician, which became his core 'identity'. Into his second semester of music school, he realized that this was impossible, and so had to mourn the death of this 'identity' before he could stumble upon his new identity, as a successful writer, which he says came naturally to him, as he realized that the work leading to becoming a professional musician was both a natural gift and the long practice involved was not perceived as either a minor or major slog by them. He didn't mention either sex or cocaine.

 

[Jerry Russell]

So this is why you should be watching the video material posted on your site, instead of making assumptions.

Not making assumptions, asking questions. If my questions are based on incorrect assumptions, we have the opportunity to improve my enlightenment.

He didn't mention either sex or cocaine.

Perhaps this means he hasn't undergone enough psychotherapy yet? Under the guidance of Freudian psychotherapy, one realizes the fundamental nature of drives for sex and comfort. At least in his early days, Freud was quite the advocate for cocaine.

So Manson is feeling self-satisfied about how easy it was to become a best selling author by writing about not giving a fuck. Does he give a fuck about 9/11, or fake Christian religion, or phony democracy in this country, or the way the 0.01% are robbing the rest of society blind?

You wrote above about patriots and patrones, and the insidious campaign to polarize our "red" party against the "blue" one, and vice versa. You said these are examples, "for instance", of things that ought to be important. But does Manson specifically recommend giving a fuck about any of that? Or are you projecting our ideas onto his rhetorical devices?

Sorry for being such a cynic.

 

[Richard Stanley]

He doesn't discuss those things, he is speaking more generally. So yes, I am 'projecting' those things upon his "rhetorical devices".

Are you saying you don't believe that cultural narratives and personal experiences inform one's identity (and behaviors), for better or worse?

 

[Jerry Russell]

I'm just feeling crabby about best selling books with baiting titles. I am glad to learn that under the cover, there's a message to beware of cultural narratives.

 

[Richard Stanley]

He also didn't mention Freud, so he had no reason to talk about sex and cocaine either. That was also my extrapolation.

 

[Jerry Russell]

That was also my extrapolation.

Wasn't it my extrapolation? My Freudian id seems to be on display here lately, between this and my post about Miss Teen USA.

As such, Manson does not tell his audience what to believe or not believe, but rather that they had better start their personal journey by resetting their foundational belief system before going on from there to rebuild the larger framework.

Caitlin Johnstone also says that inner work is a necessary prelude to accomplishing anything worthwhile; for example:

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2020/01/21/how-to-be-a-mentally-sovereign-human/

Becoming a mentally self-sovereign human being means undoing all that damage, and protecting yourself from absorbing more. It means completely renouncing everything you’ve been told to believe about what’s happening on these strange shores you washed up on small, sticky and confused, and setting off to find out for yourself instead. It means making it to the swamps of Dagobah and looking where the wise old muppet is pointing when he suggests “You must unlearn what you have learned.”​

​

Being a mentally sovereign human means constructing your own understanding of this weird reality based on your own investigations and your own reasoning, which means constructing it from the ground up. Even your most basic assumptions about reality itself must be rigorously cross-examined with complete skepticism. Nothing must be taken on faith.​

​

Most people believe that they are truly free thinkers. Most people are wrong. Most people are controlled by unworthy, unquestioned ideas that were put in their heads long ago by other people.​

​

 

[Seeker]

Most people can't or won't change, they are harmless Manchurian Candidates living in the Matrix since birth, programmed by the beliefs of their parents, family, peers, teachers, church, government, etc., which is why sites such as this remain the size that they are.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Yep

 

[Sgt Pepper]

I suppose this would qualify for the theme of this thread? In terms of Euro-patrician bloodlines
https://overcast.fm/+Tdomjmq7I/31:48

 

[Richard Stanley]

That clip, what I listened to at least, is all about establishing strict definitions, and as such, I have some agreements ... and disagreements.

As to specifically Euro-patrician bloodlines, I am NOT being that specific on this particular thread. And I don't think Mark Manson is either. He is talking about a broad range of respective personal issues that could be caused by a range of bad inputs, either specific to that individual or could be part of wider messaging, say from Sunday School, etc..

As a Stanley (albeit adopted), I don't always feel comfortable discussing them, because there is some REALLY fucked up business there (think the Belgian Congo for one), which I never learned about till late in life. So am I Stanley fragile? Maybe so, to some extent.

More generally, I think the show's hosts are correct that the creator's definition of White Fragility may be too broad, but as a general concept I think such fragility, or defensiveness, is correct. I see this everyday, and no, such 'fragile' people are not consciously trying to protect the power structure that created the problems, but rather to shield themselves from real or perceived support (whether active or passive) of the system.

Before there could be White Fragility, there was an equivalent Jewish social structure that could create Jewish Fragility. This is referring to the Jewish buffer class during the feudal period, when most whites in Europe were still serfs. It took of advantage of the Chosen People concept. Probably there is Euro-patrician Fragility, but I'm too far down the food chain to rub elbows with such.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Here is a nice interview with the author of White Fragility. In the context of this thread, she makes a great point that whites, fragile or otherwise, generally do not need to feel guilty, because like all humans, we do not choose the social environments we are born into (and thus the cultural narratives and experiences we are exposed to). That is, unless we become consciously aware of the real problems and real causes and then choose to remain indifferent.

Perhaps here is a sign of hope? This invokes the Trump as Devil's Advocate Theory:

Are Mississippi Republicans turning the page, or do they have some other motive?