Wednesday, 11 October 2017

The Boy Who Loves Everyone






A while back I happened to stumble upon an article at National Geographic, I read it as a curious oddity, but it stayed with me and the more I thought it over the more fascinated I became by the moral and philosophical implications of the story.

The National Geographic article, then, features the story of a young boy with a rare genetic illness which makes him ''love'' literally everybody:
People with Williams syndrome, a rare genetic condition, face problems every bit as challenging as those with autism, from learning difficulties to trouble forming friendships. As Jennifer Latson reveals in her moving book, The Boy Who Loved Too Much: A True Story Of Pathological Friendliness, it can also be immensely difficult for parents.
The syndrome, whose sufferers have a surfeit of oxytocin, aka the love hormone, affects roughly 1 in 10,000 people worldwide, with 30,000 in the U.S.
 It’s sometimes called the opposite of autism, although there are overlaps. People with Williams tend to love and trust everyone, so they run up to strangers and hug them, which obviously, also makes them very vulnerable.
You write, “One of the heart-breaking hazards of raising a kid with Williams is that your child loves you intensely and unconditionally, but he feels the same way about his bus driver.” How did Eli's mother, Gayle D'Angelo (also a pseudonym) cope?
Now, as somebody who is a bit ''Right Wing'' I can well appreciate just how traumatic this boy's illness is for his mother. However, viewed from a more left/liberal, egalitarian perspective the idea that this actually is a tragedy, and that he should indeed show more feeling and empathy for his mother, becomes somewhat problematic, especially when we consider what comes next in the National Geographic article:
 ........A 2010 study showed that people with Williams felt no racial bias, whereas, by the age of three, every other group shows an implicit preference for their own race. This has been part of us throughout evolution, because in the early days, if you weren’t a member of our tribe, then you were very likely to be regarded as a threat.


Racial bias is of course perfectly fine and the human norm, in terms of empathy, kinship and trust, the scale can be described thus:
Parents > Immediate Family > Extended Family > Ethnic Group > Race > Humanity.
In the case of the boy in the National Geographic article, his scale runs like this:
> Humanity.
This is a tragedy for the mother because she's lost the exclusive affection of her son, it's tragic for the boy because ''Humanity'' does not reciprocate and he is extremely vulnerable. However, the leftist mores which dominate the West today with their ''Brotherhood of man'' ethos would have to explain why it is the boy who is sick, and not the world, or rather, humanity. The boy loves everybody equally, surely he isn't sick, he's healthy, the rest of humanity is wrong.

 Assuming the boy is white he's absolutely forbidden from showing bias or more empathy toward his ethnic and racial group and the system works night and day to prevent him from doing so. Are the liberal left happy for white people to show more empathy toward our own families than humanity in general? If we are then our scale looks like this:
Parents > Immediate Family > Humanity
It's quite possible that another boy has a slightly less virulent form of Williams Syndrome and loves his mother more than humanity but that's the cut-off, then our scale looks like this:
Parents > Humanity
 In my opinion this is where we are now, or rather, this is the ideal level of atomisation in the early part of the 21st century, for white people only, of course. A person who thinks within these terms would be described as a ''Good Liberal''. Our Globalist overlords might well balk at explicitly demanding a child show the same love for humanity as he does for his mother, but the course is set, that's where we're heading. 

 Gays being allowed adoption rights, feminism and abortion, all serve to undermine the sacred bond between mother and child. But the fact remains that ''progressive'' ideology has to work against nature's grain every step of the way, fanatically, dogmatically, tirelessly. I would argue that political dogma is not sufficient to explain the obsessive attack on European cohesiveness and that it can only truly be explained by invoking the influence of a rival racial group hellbent on fulfilling a millenarian mission.

 The central problem the New Left has always had, and always will have, is that biology and psychology are intertwined and while they remain so, true emotional ''equality'' is impossible. The coercion and bullying, political correctness, they're signs of ideological weakness, not strength. The so called ''Hate Speech'' laws are a literal attempt to police human emotion.

Because we can see what they (((they)))? are trying to achieve we can also extrapolate what their society would be like if they had, or attained, complete mastery over nature or find ways to abolish it or suppress it sufficiently. Racial differences would of course have been abolished through mixing, but that still leaves the bond between parent and child, mother and son, to stick with our story. And while such bonds exist true ''Brotherhood of man'' solidarity and ''equality'' is unobtainable because mother and son will love each other more than they love ''humanity''.

 And so the only logical solution to the left's problem would look something like this:



If human babies could be ''grown'' in pods and the concept of ''mother'' abolished then billions of free and unprejudiced individuals could be hatched who had no kinship or empathy with anything beyond themselves and true equality would have been attained, finally, the progressive journey would be complete, paradise achieved.....










Become a Patron!

No comments:

Post a Comment