A 2015 Atlantic article delves into the incredible changes that occur in a woman’s body and brain during pregnancy and post-partum. Learning the intricacies of the body’s responses to stimuli and life changes can truly be fascinating, but, as I discussed with my husband, the article does nothing but explain in minute detail a very plain and natural concept that our forebears understood without need of microscopes and academic studies. Namely, that a mother who is not interested in her children literally has a brain defect.
Closely involved in this topic is a part of the brain that is, ironically, smaller in liberals and “global citizens”: the amygdala. In general, the amygdala allows us to understand appropriate fear, anxiety, or aggression. It also is a factor in our memory, in the sense that we remember being burned by the stove, so we have an appropriate “fear” of a hot stove from then on.
In a typical leftist brain, the amygdala is less developed. Or, as the Left likes to put it, the conservative brain is more “primitive.” Progress is so fun, isn’t it?
Ironically, when it came out that the size and function of the amygdala differed quite drastically between a liberal and conservative brain, the media of course had to rush to write articles about how it meant that conservatives were dumber, less developed, and prone to irrational emotion and fear. Yet now, in this article discussing the new mother, the amygdala’s size and development is crucial to her being a good or bad mother.
For example, the Atlantic article states,
In a normal brain, activity in the amygdala grows in the weeks and months after giving birth. This growth, researchers believe, is correlated with how a new mother behaves—an enhanced amygdala makes her hypersensitive to her baby’s needs—while a cocktail of hormones, which find more receptors in a larger amygdala, help create a positive feedback loop to motivate mothering behaviors.
So from this we can correctly assume that a larger amygdala makes a woman better at mothering. She is more caring, sensitive, and attentive. (Ideal mothering behaviors not listed here were “tolerant,” “progressive,” “LGBTQ+-friendly,” and “open-minded.”)
In words that our primitive brethren may understand: Big amygdala good. Small amygdala bad.
It goes on, though, to cite a 2004 study on monkeys and amygdala damage, which noted that those who had lesions in this area were “less likely to vocalize their distress, or pick their own mothers over other adults.” Of particular note here is that this observation of amygdala function was related not to mothering, but to daily life. It would not be appropriate, then, to say that a larger amygdala is good for only one or two situations, and bad in another. The amygdala is simply a vital part of the brain that allows us to process and communicate distress and react in ways that protect ourselves and those in our care.
Now let’s tie that back into other articles where the amygdala size and function, when related to conservatives and conservatism, is a sign of “primitiveness.” In a liberal brain, the space which a healthy amygdala would occupy is taken up with more gray matter. The enlightened writers in the Daily Mail and Psychology Today note that liberals then have a larger area of the brain that deals with “decision making” and “anticipation.”
That’s right, everyone. Conclusive evidence that liberals are better “decision makers” and “anticipators.” In fact, I think it matches well with reality. Because their amygdala is less developed, they do not have a proper sense of fear of others and do not operate in a protective way towards their own. In fact, we can easily see that they aren’t really able to identify with a group at all. Then, with their heightened ability to anticipate, but their inability to process appropriate fear of others, they anticipate incorrectly what will happen in the future. And, to cap it all off, their incredible decision making lands us in a heap of awful predicaments because they invariably decide the wrong course of action.
I’m not good at math, but I believe this comes out as 1+1=2.
Now, the black pill here is that things are as we figured – liberals have a defect in their brain that means we know exactly what to expect on decisions regarding our safety. The incredibly white pill, though, is that this is genetic. Even the liberals writing the articles about our primitively sized amygdalas noted that these findings show political orientation is then most likely observable at birth.
The Atlantic article even states that, in babies, a smaller amygdala means they would be less likely to choose their own mother out of a group. It is definitely possible, then, to know at birth whether the size of an individual’s amygdala is healthy or not.
Why is this a white pill? Let’s take a look at fertility rates and family size. An article in SFGate notes that the fertility gap between liberals and conservatives is between 19 and 41%. In other words, those 15-passenger vans full of kids most likely don’t belong to people wearing Pussy Hats and raising funds for refugees. Most likely. There’s always a freak.
Conservatives are having vastly more children than liberals, and if state-run schools and this repulsive culture weren’t a factor, within a few generations we would have a completely different society and country. Unfortunately, the blemish is that the size and function of one’s amygdala is subject to outside factors as well. A child with a healthy amygdala may go to school, be indoctrinated for twelve to sixteen years on liberal social ideology, and become an adult with a smaller, unhealthy amygdala. Just like through physical exercise, we can affect the size and function of different areas of our brain through mental exercise, meditation, and repetition. A lack of exercise, then, results in a type of atrophy.
Moral of the story: work out your children’s brains.
On the flip side, though, a smaller amygdala can increase its size and function. This means that there is hope for children of liberal parents, and especially hope for women who have yet to have children. Perhaps of unmentioned significance is that, as the Atlantic article states, the most drastic brain changes occur in the first-time mother.
There are obviously many factors here that contribute to whether a woman is likely to become more conservatively minded after her first child, but regardless, the chances of appealing to the natural instinct to protect her own are the most high with first-time mothers. Something to consider, though, is that due to the heightened sense of aggression and a greater awareness of threat and fear, the “ram people with the truth” method is probably less effective. A woman will read this as a threat to her and her child and a disruption to her stability and ability to provide.
Recall, too, that these changes in the brain are happening during pregnancy as well. That means that women who are considering abortion are experiencing a natural increase in function in their amygdala. This is likely why there has been considerable progress made with those who wait outside abortion clinics to help women find an alternative to murdering their child. That natural instinct to mother and protect is there; it just may be a foreign concept that needs explored.
Rabbit trail aside, the various articles discussing the importance and role of the amygdala all stress that size and genetics have important places in the dialogue. If size matters, and genetics determine size, and the genetics of conservatives are being propagated at higher rates, then the most crucial thing for us healthy amygdala parents is to raise our children in environments that promote brain stability and growth.
What are those environments? Perhaps the easiest way of answering that question is to answer its opposite: what are the environments currently producing liberal-minded individuals? Liberalism rests on making life as easy for the masses as possible. No person should have to suffer, be frustrated, hear mean words, or pay for a flu shot. We should at least, then, consider the possibility that hardship produces circumstances that may allow our amygdala to grow.
Those who are joining the Right and attending meetings and protesting the removal of statues are people who understand what it is like to be physically and mentally abused and attacked for simply existing. The hardship of being censored and beaten down has promoted their ability to identify as and therefore find a group. And now, after so much growth, we find we have a movement that has left the liberals and liberal media in utter confusion.
Our amygdalae are firing on all cylinders, recognizing the very threats against us, diagnosing their hypocrisies, identifying them by name, and prompting us to stand firm in our resolve or else be annihilated.
I’d like to thank The Atlantic for this article, which so succinctly shows us the internal conflict the Left has over how to present the research on the amygdala. It is primal, integral, essential, and yet unnecessary in our modern times. Liberals should certainly avoid concerning themselves about it in terms deeper than “conservatives are more scared than liberals.”
They may be struggling in their own ambiguity, but let things be clear for us. We need to be invested in the raising of our children, eager to promote a new mother’s thoughts of identity and security, and ready to raise as many children as the good Lord may give us.
| Tweet |
|
|
|
