Thursday, July 24, 2008

Instinct v. Antilife

A reflection on some of the ways instinct fights antilife

Tribism (such as racism): antilife because it guides the mind into closing off possibilities for mating, cooperation, learning and growing. It encourages fear and violence. To its most extreme degree, it would lead individuals to resist interaction (and thus, mating and social cooperation) with all those unlike themselves. To a lesser degree, it simply weakens a society

Life fights back with empathy, which is a basic weapon in every case of antilife--however, empathy is too weak in many (or most) humans to overcome the fearful mind, and the social conditioning of tribism that the fearful mind clings to. A more important tool in life's arsenal is lust: powerful enough to cause mating that can force a genetic melding (think: Strom Thurmond) or even gradual socialization. Love for offspring is then forced onto at least the mother, and the melded appearance of the offspring (or the melded characteristics of class or caste, including a joint economic background) leads to greater possibilities for empathy from both the father's and the mother's tribes.

Frequently tied to lust is love or love-like attachment. Desire leads to attachment, which can be powerful enough to break down heavy social conditioning. The rich white girl can run off with the poorer latino guy. The rich kid, with a bright business future ahead of him, can fall for the white trash stripper in the college town, spoiling his parents' desires for a heiress.

Antilife, though, resists strongly through social ordering. Class or caste-based systems discouraging mating or mingling. Rich whites may curse "jungle fever." Youth are taught to conform to rigid notions of acceptable language, acceptable social intercourse, etc. by glorifying one group's historical tradition (which then de-glorifies another, and makes it harder for the close-minded youth to identify with a youth of another group). White protectionists, for example, may glorify or identify with Civil War ties to discourage much social intercourse with latino or black populations. Hispanic protectionists may use la raza to band together (i.e. discourage mingling).

With enough conditioning, the individual can be taught to reject the natural desire to explore and learn from different people. This exploring and learning is healthy--like pollen on the wind, it spreads ideas, diversifies the genetic base, and broadens the potential for an adaptable human future. And so, clannish antilife hates it.

Right now, as always, antilife fights powerfully are trying to change this. Major aristocrats used to exchange noble white blood across their courts, using titles and landholdings to divvy themselves up. As a result, their inbreeding resulted in mentally and physically stunted madmen running Europe through the Dark Ages and any number of wars. Our current inbred chimpanzee president traces his own ancestry to the British nobility, that cesspool of violent old blood that coined our modern perception of colonialism--and so do a good number of other American presidents.

The big landholdings morphed into the trusts and family wealth of America, which still, most often, marries among itself. This is the only way wealthy families can keep wealth concentrated; without intermarriage to other wealthy sons and daughters, great wealth would disperse out over the generations, as multiple children passed it on in multiple directions, and the fortunes of their relative abilities scattered it to the wind or clustered it somewhere else.

Hoarding, the same as genetic hoarding, prevents growth and development. Without breaking up the tendency of wealth to concentrate, business and social dynamism descends, and society grows weaker. Nonetheless, antilife leads to hoarding, because hoarding is the opposite of natural, healthy behavior.

This is why stupid businesses prefer to promote from outside--maintaining a class structure. Of course, the people they bring in don't know what is going on with the business, but they have the "right" background. And in the end, it harms the business, just as it harms the segregationist group.

No comments: