Search Box

Tuesday, January 2, 2018

The Left vs. natural instincts

The more you see of Leftists, the more you realize that what they are really trying to abolish is human nature -- pretty much at every level.

They have done their best to attach labels to many of our most basic instincts, labels which make them sound like either mental illnesses or moral failings.

Being mildly repulsed by homosexuals is a natural enough feeling for most guys, and there's a strong evolutionary reason for men to feel this way. But Leftists claim that men who are put off by gay guys suffer from a disorder, homophobia.

A phobia is an extreme, irrational fear. Yet I know of no heterosexual man for whom seeing a gay guy induces the same sort of sweaty-palmed, heart-pounding panic that, say, a turbulent airplane flight or a nearby rattlesnake does.

We're constantly told that gay men can't help but be attracted to other men, and that only clueless conservatives would regard homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice." Yet when heterosexual men are attracted to slender women but not fat ones, they're lambasted for their "patriarchal" sense of beauty. Yet heterosexual men can't help whom they're attracted to anymore than homosexual men can.

Once again, it's a natural instinct which is at fault.

(By the way, are gay men ever faulted for not being attracted to "bears?" I doubt it.)

When men are attracted to women, then, by definition, they see those women as sex objects. But this, too, is now considered a mortal sin. It is "dehumanizing" and "chauvinist."

The Left is at war with our instincts.

Should anyone suggest that a woman would be better off if she lost weight, that person has engaged in "fat shaming." (Somehow, this concept doesn't apply to similar suggestions to men.)

For boys to be hyperactive and have short attention spans is quite natural; it's how boys evolved to learn (they didn't evolve to sit still in a schoolroom for seven hours a day). Yet the teaching establishment, which generally runs both liberal and female, has labeled their natural rambunctiousness as attention deficit disorder. And it feels these boys must be medicated.

Feeling loyalty to and sticking up for your own tribe is a natural instinct; any group which didn't feel this way would have gone extinct long ago. Yet while the Left encourages every other group to do this, they hate it when people of European descent do it.

Not only is this hypocritical, it goes against one of the most basic instincts we have.

Recognizing patterns is one of the most basic forms of human intelligence; in fact, most IQ tests incorporate pattern recognition. And being leery of a group which is hostile to your culture and also more likely to commit terrorism is basic pattern recognition. Yet the Left has labeled this, too, as an extreme and irrational fear: Islamophobia.

Being afraid of a group more predisposed towards violence is also the most basic, necessary kind of self-preservation instinct. But that is now equated with a moral sin, racism.

There is no group in human history which has wanted to share their territory with invaders; yet those who aren't in favor of turning the West into the world's dumping ground -- which goes against every human instinct -- are also now painted as morally wanting by the Left.

Basically, what Leftist doctrine boils down to is that four million years of human evolution has programmed us the wrong way.

But unfortunately -- or fortunately, depending on your point of view -- our deeply rooted instincts are not about to change to accommodate the intellectual fashions of the moment. Especially not when those fashions are so transparently hypocritical.

The Left has overplayed its hand; and its reward is Donald Trump.

It's hard not to suspect that he's just the beginning.

18 comments:

Bryce Walat said...

That is why Communism failed so spectacularly: it was so contrary to basic human nature. Sadly, today’s cultural Marxists fail to see how their economic Marxist brethren screwed up.

John Craig said...

Bryce Walat --
So true. Capitalism works because of everyone's inherent selfishness, communism tried to ascribe a nobility to mankind which just isn't there, and thereby brought out the worst in people; no such thing as a communist (or hard socialist) government which isn't rife with corruption.

Anonymous said...

If you have time, you should read Steven Pinker's 'The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature'. It's a book that elaborates on this idea.

I'd add that the Right is sometimes also against natural instincts, and has a tendency to ignore natural laws. Opposition to transsexualism - which neurology, genetics and zoology shows is very natural - and opposition to masturbation being two examples of the former. The Right also wants to persist with the War on Drugs, which ignores the laws of economics (that a market cannot be shut down by force, as long as there exists a willing buyer and seller, and that banning something usually makes it more dangerous than regulating it). They think prisoners should be treated harshly, even though comfortable prison conditions makes rehabilitation more likely. They also generally believe that the homeless shouldn't be re-housed by the state and that people shouldn't get free healthcare, even though this drastically reduces crime and, ultimately, state expenditure.

Neither side has a monopoly on being "natural". In any case, being natural != good. Cyanide is natural, but I've never heard anyone arguing that it's good. The internal combustion engine is unnatural, but modern society wouldn't yet function without it.

Moreover, I dispute whether the Left is arguing that "evolution has programmed us the wrong way". Although racism and xenophobia are natural (these exist in chimpanzees), I doubt most on the Left are knowledgable enough to realise this. Are they instead arguing that we should sometimes ignore the way we've evolved, and rise above our instincts? The Left recognises that evolution has improved us dramatically, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to ban the teaching of creationism in schools.

- Gethin

Anonymous said...

Very good post and comment/response. Very true.

- birdie

John Craig said...

Gethin --
I rarely read books these days, but I'll take a look at some point.

Point by point: not sure what you mean by "opposition" to transsexualism. No one on the right suggests people not be allowed to get the operation if they want. Some of the literature points out that a high percentage of those who transition regret it later; some on the Right may promote caution and not making hasty decisions. And those on the Right tend not to celebrate the Caitlyn Jenners of the world; but does that add up to "opposition?"

As far as the War on Drugs, I wouldn't put the laws of economics in quite the same category as basic human instincts, which is what this post was about. And in any case, the Right doesn't oppose drugs because of any principles of economics, but rather because they view them as destructive and unhealthy.

Ditto for how prisoners are treated (and not all on the Right are like Joe Arpaio) and public housing and nationalized healthcare. All those issues are complicated and aren't really a matter of instinct. (To the extent that they are, I'd say most peoples' instincts lead them to believe in whatever economic policies favor them; thus, the rich are generally against welfare and the pool are for it. And again, with cyanide, just because it's found in nature doesn't mean dealing with it falls into the category of a natural human instinct.

As far as being able to rise above our instincts, I mostly agree with you. After all, raping women and murdering our enemies fall into the category of natural instincts, and nobody suggests that either activity should be anything but strongly discouraged.

As far as advocating teaching Creationism, that's a pretty small subset of the Right. And as for banning masturbation, that goes into the category of a very few religious nuts. To equate that position with "the Right" is like equating the advocacy of suicide bombing with "the left," since it's primarily the Left who support the importation of more Muslims into the West.

John Craig said...

Birdie --
Thank you very much.

Bryce Walat said...

On a similar note: A key factor in Donald Trump’s election win was that he appealed to people’s instinctual, base-of-the-brain need for safety and security.

Trump did not really come right out and say it, but a powerful undercurrent in his overall messaging in the election was: “You’ll be safer with me in the White House, whether it’s against terrorism, war, crime, or a serious economic crisis.”

Deep down in their heart of hearts, a lot of people, including lifelong Democrats/liberals/blue staters, felt that the hyper masculine leaders of aggressive countries like North Korea and terrorist organizations like ISIS would walk all over Hillary, whether due to her gender, health, or political views. They saw her as someone who would fiddle while the country burns.

So long as Trump keeps us reasonably safe, with no major problems on his watch, he’s likely to win again. If not, he’s done for.

John Craig said...

Bryce Walat --
Agreed. Trump is sort of a father figure, albeit an obnoxious one. But he instills confidence, unlike Obama. And frankly, watching various world leaders' lack of respect for the less-than-hypermasculine Obama left the American people with a longing for a stronger leader.

It seems that the media's mass hysteria regarding Trump has backfired, to some extent. The usual set of useful idiots swallow their pap, but more people than ever seem to see through them, and know that they have to take whatever they say, especially about Trump, with a grain of salt.

Douglas Carkuff said...

I've never had any issue with gayness (beyond the adolescent thing of joking about queers and calling each other queers and so on)and have had a number a gay friends without issue. What bothers me the way straight people are often demonized by certain gay activist types. But the fact is that heterosexuals who are comfortable with their sexuality have little inclination to "discriminate" or persecute gay people.

Almost invariably those people who are inclined to advocate against gay people and "gay rights" - congressmen, well known pastors and so on, the list is a long one - these people turn out to be closeted gay people. If fact, I can't think of a single well known anti-gay public figure who didn't turn out to be homosexual themselves. So really it is other gay people who are activist against gays and other gays who seem intent to enforce their moral sexual agenda on others and not heterosexuals. So the contempt that some gays express toward straight people is way misplaced.

John Craig said...

Douglas --
I know exactly the type of person you're talking about, and yes, a lot of anti-gay sentiment seems to involve denying one's own homosexuality. But there are some who are anti-gay (Anita Bryant) who don't seem to be doing it to cover up any personal issues. (And btw, I don't consider a mild repulsion to be "anti-gay.")

Interesting theory, though, about why gays are wrong to demonize straights. Real straights, at least.

Not Dave said...

John -

I see basic human nature in my line of work daily, usually dealing with the ones that can't do right but choose to do wrong. It's very hard to not be cynical toward the human race when you see that day after day. It's one major reason I don't watch the news or get too involved in politics, also preferring to stay away from large gatherings (though I'm an introvert so that doesn't help either).

I admire people who want to believe people are basically good and there are plenty of people who try to be every day. There are also sociopaths. They can be on the Left or Right in their political leanings though true sociopaths probably don't give a flip about politics unless they're going to receive something they want from it. Those people who want to believe in the goodness of others sometimes are blind to the natural debased instincts we all have and mostly suppress, some more than others. Those people usually turn into victims of sociopaths somewhere down the road.

I'm always trying to better myself in understanding and working with people, recognizing where they stand but always having to be wary of the person who says the right things but just says them because they're hiding who they are. Like I said, it's hard not to be cynical in my line of work.

Not everyone can be as blessed as I am about understanding people (I'm trying to be sarcastic but that doesn't come across in print). I have my own faults, we all have faults. We all like to make ourselves out better than the "bad guy" or better than we actually are. Human nature.

Though not a big reader I do find that previously mentioned book by Gethin would be interesting. Currently slowly getting through a book about Kit Carson.

Oh, before I go, my wife watches Ru Paul's Drag Race and enjoys the entertainment it provides. I watched about 2 minutes of it and was done. I'm not harboring any veiled ideas of wanting to be like them. I really don't know how they live their lives off camera and believe some portion of their antics are exaggerated for the show.

Dave

John Craig said...

Not Dave --
LEO's are forced to be the ultimate realists, as they witness human nature at its worst on an almost daily basis.

Agreed, most sociopaths just go into politics just for what they can get out of it.

I know who RuPaul is, have seen him on TV once or twice, not sure if that was the show I saw. I also saw "Is Paris Burning?" one time. Agreed, the trannies vamp it up for the show, I have a hard time believing they're all that camp all the time. It must get tiresome.

Anonymous said...


EXCELLENT ARTICLE AND RIGHT ON TARGET.

I read your article on AMREN and I loved it, so came to your site.

I just wanted to thank you for hitting the nail on the head--again and again.

Keep up the good work.

John Craig said...

Anon --
Thank you very much.

Touko Kivi said...

Hi,

I really like this article, good one and summarizes the general reason why I stopped sympathizing with left-wing politics in the years 2000-2010. Thank you.

Would it be a good idea for me to translate it into Finnish and publish it as a separate blog post in my personal blog in the platform of http://puheenvuoro.uusisuomi.fi/ crediting you as the author and providing link to this post (of course)? John Craig, can you authorize me a permission to translate this article to Finnish?

Greetings,
Touko Kivi,
University student at UEF

John Craig said...

Touko Kivi

Thank you very much and yes, you have my permission to do so. (I'm not sure what the technical rules are, but as long as you give credit, I don't think you have to ask permission from someone to do something like that, unless you're making money from it.)

Touko Kivi said...

John Craig,

Done

Here's a link to the Finnish translation: http://toukokivi1.puheenvuoro.uusisuomi.fi/251080-vasemmisto-vs-luonnolliset-vaistot

Greetings,
Touko Kivi

John Craig said...

Touko Kivi --
Thank you very much. Now I can say I've been translated into Finnish. I appreciate the effort you went to, and your good manners.

BTW, my Ancestry.com DNA analysis --

https://justnotsaid.blogspot.com/search?q=my+ancestry.com+results

-- shows that I'm 2% Finnish/Northern Russian and 4% Scandinavian. So we're probably related if you go back far enough. I certainly feel a certain kinship now that you've done this.