Saturday, February 10, 2018

Human Behavior Is Mostly Animal Behavior - Humans Are Organisms & Will Act on Animal Instincts If Given the Chance

Because the West is so rich & advanced and so proud of its achievements in arts & philosophy, there is a tendency among white people to believe that they are above animal drives and appetites. In other words, they are motivated by higher ideals and principles than by base instincts. Apparently, what they are most proud of is their sets of beliefs, the so-called ‘Western Values’. And these values are supposedly all about universalism, tolerance, compassion, liberty, and individualism. And these values are so noble and inspiring that so many people want to come to the West to partake of them, defend them, and spread them.

But this is like putting cart before the horse. All these wonderful ‘Western Values’ are really the product of Western tribal, territorial, and material successes. And even if higher values guided the West in its ascendancy, the rise of the West couldn’t have been possible without certain tribal, territorial, and material guarantees.
It’s like you can espouse moral values to do good things for your family, but first and foremost, you must have a sense of family(who is and isn’t part of your family), a sense of ancestry(history and memory), a sense of home(home-sweet-home for your family), and sense of private property(the wealth that belongs to the family). Without those foundations, any amount of ‘values’ and ‘principles’ is useless. If there is no essential family and if anyone can be a family member, you won’t have any meaningful family to belong to, serve, and lean on. If everyone in the world is your family member, then no one is a family member. The meaning of family would be rendered pointless. Also, unless your family has a place to call their own, their home can be trespassed by just about anyone. After all, if your family home should be open to all the world on the universal notion that everyone is part of your family, you and your family won’t have a home. Especially those people who are incapable of building and managing nice homes of their own will come to your home to leech off you. And unless your family has its own private property, its wealth can be taken by anyone, especially the lazy and parasitic that prefer to live off others than create their own wealth.
So, even as values and principles are important, they can be applied usefully ONLY WHEN your tribal, material, and territorial integrity has been secured.
Even on the libertarian individualist level, your freedom and liberty mean NOTHING unless you can secure the legal and material guarantees that protect you and your well-being from the ravenous appetites of others, especially those who’d rather pilfer others than be productive members of society.

But so many people in the West have grown either naive or decadent because the West was so powerful and prosperous for an extended period following WWII. Entire generations grew up without knowing hunger and war. They’ve grown soft & decadent or naive & goody-two-shoes. They take for granted that good times will last forever. Also, even if they believe the West will fall from excessive Diversity, they feel that it can’t be so bad and, besides, the West deserves it for its ‘historical crimes’. They think that way because they have no idea what real societal collapse is really like. For them, the fall of the West is purely rhetorical or theoretical. They have no idea how traumatic and horrible such an event will be. South African whites know what it's like to see civilization crumble all around you, but the Jewish-controlled media have mostly forced an information blackout to keep white people in the dark about the dangers.
Because Western people take their physical well-being for granted — the main worry even among the poor is obesity, not hunger — , their view of society is essentially abstract and concerned with ‘ideals’ and ‘values’. They believe that whatever is good about the West is PURELY the result of these ‘ideals’ and ‘values’ while totally neglecting the hard facts of identity, materiality, and territory.

So, Swedes overlook the fact that Sweden became such a nice place because Swedes came together as a people of shared history & culture, secured a territory for themselves as a nation, and worked very hard to create industry & wealth(and welfare) for the well-being of the people. Instead, they’ve been made to believe that the success owed entirely to ‘western values’ such as ‘tolerance’, ‘democracy’, and goo-goo-thumbsuckery. Therefore, since the only reason for Swedish success are ‘values’, there is no need to emphasize the Swedish tribe, secure Swedish territory, or guard Swedish material property. It doesn’t matter if tons of foreigners flood into Sweden because they can partake of the same wonderful ‘values’ and make Sweden even better. Also, because Swedes define themselves mainly by ‘values’, they project their idealism onto other peoples. Swedes want to believe that all those Africans, Arabs, and Muslims are pouring into Sweden to partake of those wonderful ‘values’.

But in fact, the ONLY reason why those people are coming to Sweden(and other parts of Europe) is because they want comfort, easy life, and free stuff. Just do a mind-experiment. Imagine Two Swedens, A and B. Let’s say Sweden A is rich & generous but autocratic than democratic. Let’s say Sweden B is poor & desperate but democratic than autocratic. Suppose a million Africans want to move to Sweden. Which Sweden will they prefer, A or B? Will they prefer the poor & desperate Sweden B over the rich & generous Sweden A because ‘values’ and ‘ideals’ are what mainly motivates them? And if indeed those Africans are so idealistic, why don’t they stay in their own poor nations and work hard to improve things for themselves and their own people? Why are they so eager to run from their own problems and find better life in another nation?
The fact is people are migrating to nations like Sweden for a simple reason. It’s for comfort and better material life. That’s about it. Their motivations are no different from those of animals.
If you offer food to squirrels, what do they do? They come for more. And in time, more and more squirrels come to realize that you’re handing out free stuff, and they come too. In time, you will be swamped by all those squirrels. It’s the same with any other bunch of animals. If you feed the geese, they will come for more and make louder demands. Worse, they will alert others, and they too will come to you for food. If you feed the animals, more animals come.
Now, it may sound offensive to some to talk about people as ‘animals’, but humans are animals. Human behavior isn’t much different from that of other mammals. Like any organism, humans seek what is easy and comforting. If you offer an airplane passenger in the coach section a free first-class ticket, you bet he will take up the offer. If you offer a free car to someone on the street, he will surely take it. If you offer free pizza to people, they will take it. When Jesus offered free fish and bread on the beach, a crowd gathered. Ostensibly, they came to listen to His ideas, but, on the more primal level, they came for free fish and chips. While "man doesn’t live on bread alone", he puts bread first before all else. Or that’s the case with 99% of humanity. Just like most people will choose money & success over ideals & poverty, most people who move to other nations have the most mercenary motives for doing so. After all, both the US and Brazil are democratic and diverse. If anything, Brazil is even more diverse. If Diversity is the great ideal for the entire world, most immigrants should prefer Brazil over America. But the fact is most would rather move to the US than to Brazil. Indeed, people who chose to move to Latin America were those weren’t allowed into Canada, US, or Australia. The theory of idealism-as-motivating-factor breaks down here because the ‘ideals’ of Brazil are hardly different from those of the US. Then, why do so many people prefer to move to the US than to Brazil even though both nations are democratic and share more-or-less the same ‘ideals’? The simple reason is the US is richer, and immigrants will have more access to material wealth and comfort in the US. That's about it.
Indeed, even if the US were run by a one-party autocracy, countless people will still want to come AS LONG AS it remains the richest nation on Earth. People are not motivated much by ideals, and this is especially true of the Third World where the cult of idealism is almost non-existent. We are often told that Diversity will effectively turn the US into a one-party state. We are told Democrats will win all future elections since non-white numbers will swamp white numbers. In that case, the US will effectively no longer be a two-party democracy but a one-party dictatorship. But would non-white immigrant-hopefuls be less willing to come to the US for that reason: Erosion of democracy? No, they don’t care if the US becomes a one-party state under permanent Democratic Rule AS LONG AS they can come to instantly improve their material well-being. It’s not about the ‘dream’ but about the cream. Immigrants see America as a dairy cow that provides easy cream for the entire world.

Granted, past European immigrants were no different. They too were seeking better material lives. White people back then were more willing to take a chance in another part of the world because few nations had social safety nets or welfare. Many people were mired in poverty without relief. So, the ONLY way to improve their lots back then was to try their luck in the New World or Australia. Of course, the new adventure wouldn’t be easy. They would have to work on farms and factories from sunup to sundown. But it was still a chance to start a new life. But ever since white nations developed a system of social security, there was far less impetus to leave one's own nation. Even if you don’t have much in Western European nations, the state provides you with enough to make your life reasonably comfortable. If non-white nations could afford similar social safety-nets, many people would be more likely to stay. But for a lot of people in the Third World, having little means your life is a constant struggle just to get by on a day to day existence. So, they figure it’s better to move to the rich West.

One crucial difference between past immigration and recent immigration is that past immigrants had to be willing to work hard, very hard. While the US offered new opportunities in land and enterprises, it didn’t have an extensive welfare system until the New Deal and especially Great Society. So, anyone who decided to come to America couldn’t expect an easy life or handouts. He had to come with the determination to work hard, even harder than in the home country. But it was appealing to many because of the promise of owning one’s own land and because there was a time when the US was one of the few democracies in the world with Rule of Law and Property Rights.
Also, because the US still had to be settled and built, most of the immigrants who came in the 20th century worked at making something out of nothing, which is so different from immigrants who come today to take something from something other people had already made.

Consider typical animal behavior. If you offer food to squirrels, geese, or raccoon, their first response will be like, "Is this for real? Is that person giving me free stuff? No way! But... but, it’s true!" So, initially, the response is amazement and appreciation. But once the animals become accustomed to you feeding them, they begin to feel that you should keep feeding them. They go from feeling fortunate to feeling entitled. They no longer see your as being nice enough to offer them food. They see you as obligated to offer them more food. Indeed, they come to see you as the main supplier of food. And then, they make demands for more and more, and then they call on more of their kind to come to demand even more. And if these animals had human intelligence, they would cleverly wrap their vulgar demands with moralistic gibberish. Moralism is also useful to hide their shame. No one wants to admit that he has failed on his own and depends on the largess of others to have nice things in life. All those people in the Third World don’t want to admit that they’ve failed their own nations. They don’t want to admit that they see the White World as superior and want to move to white lands to leech off white folks. So, they use PC moralism to pontificate that the universal obligation of ‘Western Values’ is to open up white or white-majority nations to the Third World filled with ‘dreamers’ who supposedly are motivated by the highest ideals when, in fact, they just want easy stuff. (If white people expect gratitude, forget about it. On some instinctive level, people feel contempt for the do-goody suckers who dole out free stuff to strangers. Whatever gratitude may exist melts and vanishes like snow as the freeloader is eager to get more stuff from the naive sucker who thinks people will love him because he's handing out free stuff. The fact is the freeloaders see the do-gooder as a fool. They even hate him because his compassion means he's in a position to condescend to them as those-in-need and those-to-feed, like pigeons in the park. The contempt for his naivete plus the resentment for his higher status makes the freeloaders demand even more, if only to see him finally fall to their own level.)

Against such animal behavior, there are only two defenses. You must yourself become like an animal. After all, animals guard their own territory and stuff from other animals through viciousness and counter-aggression. An animal that fails to do this will lose its turf and food to is rivals and enemies. Animals in nature are NOT nice to one another.
The other way to defend oneself is to create a domain that is separate from that of animals. It’s like human housing is built to keep out bugs, birds, rodents, and all kind of animals. Thus, humans can safely and securely live in their own homes without worrying about animal invasions.
So, if you choose to live side-by-side with animals, you must act like an animal yourself. But if you want to remain 'human' and don’t want to be brutish, you must create a world of your own that is distinctly separate from the world of animals. So, even though birds fly above, squirrels climb trees in the yard, and rabbits run on the grass, none of them will enter your house that was built to be safe and secure from critters.
But the current use of ‘Western Values’ in the globalized world is utterly contradictory and nonsensical. It calls on white people to remain in ‘human’ mode while allowing non-whites to invade the West in the most animalistic manner. So, even as non-whites increasingly burrow into the West, build their nests, and set up colonies to leech off whites, whites must remain cool, calm, & collected and pretend that all these newcomers arrived to partake and uphold the ‘highest’ principles of ‘Western Values’ that are now deemed to be Tolerance, Diversity, Inclusion, Mixing, Homomania, Afrophilia, and Hedonism. Even if we were to champion ‘ideals’ and ‘values’ as the highest expression of the West, just when did the values of the West become so insane and ludicrous? For most of Western History, the current set of ‘Western Values’ would never have been regarded as high virtues or even virtues of any kind. It just goes to show that ‘Western Values’ is a Trivialist Fantasy that is currently decided by whomever controls the academia and media.
Of course, the ‘intellectual’ elites of the West happen to be mostly cunning Jews, pathetic white cucks, and resentful token members of ‘color’ who are especially resentful because, on meritocratic grounds, they are likely to remain on the bottom, and so, they gain access to upper echelons only as tokens.

But the biggest contradiction of the Current West is that, even as the West claims to stand for the highest ideals and principles grounded in abstract philosophy and enlightenment values, the main expression of Western culture and politics often tends to be primal, bestial, lustful, crude, and vulgar. Despite the highfalutin rhetoric of politicians and the pomp & circumstances of official ceremonies, the fact is Pop Culture is THE culture of the Current West and mindless PC supplies its core ideological tenets. And what is this Pop Culture mostly about? It’s about brutish black rappers and white imitators yapping endlessly about ‘muh gun’, ‘muh dick’, ‘muh bling’, and ‘muh biatch’. It’s about violent movies and TV shows where characters’ behaviors are primarily fueled by raunchy instincts of sex, violence, thrills, and/or domination. And so many kids are lost in the video-game world where the main objective is to blow away as many ‘bad guys’ or even ‘good guys’ — how can anyone tell which is which is anymore in a nihilistic culture where violence is its own reward? Pop Culture, which is the dominant cultural expression and experience of the Current West, for the most part has nothing to do with any higher values or principles. It’s mainly about savage black thuggery, slut culture, or vulgar pop fascism where all races and all ‘50 genders’ get to indulge in fantasies of will-to-power.
As for PC, it’s a new kind of ‘progressivism’ that has been kosher-bled of any genuine intellectual & moral content and, as such, mostly wallows in self-pity & self-aggrandizement. Political Correctness is more like Pop Correctness. Just like Modern Art spawned Pop Art, Modern Left spawned Pop Left where narcissism, nihilism, hedonism, and egotism are the most essential elements of the Movement. If Classic Leftism was about everyone making sacrifices for the better future and the common good, PC is about the hope of every loser and dork fantasizing himself to be a cross between Lady Gaga and Che Guevara. If Classic Leftism was about the workers demanding their just share of the pie, Pop Leftism is about spoiled brats demanding stuff for free. It’s no wonder that so many young people identify with immigrant-invaders and illegal-infiltrators. They all feel entitled to make demands. They’re really motivated by animal instincts but wrap their lowly demands with cliches about ‘justice’ based on dubious notions such as ‘inclusion’ and ‘diversity’. They act in baboonish gibs-me-dat mode, but they talk as if they’re owed something by some divine will. If they really cared about Justice, non-whites would work hard to fix their own nations, and young ones would learn some useful skills, learn to be productive, and stop acting like pigs.
Just look at feminist politics that revolve around all this Pussy Talk. On the one hand, Western ‘progressives’ act like they’re above the animal-biological instincts of tribe(our pack), territory(our land), and materiality(our stuff), but so many people on the Pop Left base their core agendas on their race(black or brown pride), genitals(my vagina or ‘muh dick’), and stuff(gibs me dis, gibs me dat). So, the very Westerner who claims to rise above biological determinism and live by higher ‘universal values’ is addicted to rap music and black expressions that reduce the meaning of humanity to savage celebration of ‘fuc*ing and fighting’. So, the very Western female who claims that ‘sex is just a social construct’ weaves her own identity on the fact that she has a vagina. A very confused vagina at that. On the one hand, these ‘vaginalists’ are into slut pride as liberation & emancipation. As vaginas want to be filled and experience orgasm, the vaginalists say the main purpose of their lives is to pleasure their animalistic poons. But then, they say their precious vaginas must be protected from Evil Men such as Trump the ‘pussy grabber’. These ‘vaginalists’ wear ‘pussy hats’ and dress up as walking pooters but then bitch about how their pussy-willows must be shielded from male attention. Feminist literature should now be called ‘Cliterature’.

For a people who claim to rise above biology and mock sex as a ‘social construct’, they sure have a funny way of grounding their identity on their strangely passive/aggressive pussies. "Don’t you dare grab my pussy, but fuc* it all night long."
To be sure, this gets complicated by trannies whose arguments are also confusedly both anti-essentialist and essentialist. Even as they denounce the essentialism of sexual differences between men and women, they also make an alternative-essentialist argument that Trannies are BORN THAT WAY and have no choice but to pursue their own kind of happiness. In other words, trannies are essentially tranny, and what they are(or want to be) cannot be negotiated.

It’s a strange world after all.

No comments:

Post a Comment