Category Archives: Cultural

The Fate of Psychopaths in Primitive Society

Robert Hare is one of the world’s leading experts on psychopathy.

At one point, he was up in Alaska for some reason, and he was talking to Inuit about psychopaths. They all nodded their heads after a bit, saying they were familiar with the concept, as these men existed in Inuit society. They lied, cheated, and stole, and when the rest of the men left to go hunting, these men would run around having sex with all the other men’s wives.

Hare asked what was done with these men, and the Inuit said they put up with their antics after a bit, and then all the men would grab them, tie them up, and walk them out to the sea, where they would put them tied up on an ice floe.

1 Comment

Filed under Amerindians, Anthropology, Cultural, Inuit, Mental Illness, Personality Disorders, Psychology, Psychopathology, Race/Ethnicity

Alt Left: A Clue to Modern Black Behavior from Evolution

Negroids, the only African race with which most of us are familiar, developed only in the past 6-12,000 years in West Africa in the context of organized agriculture. They developed very strong bodies and high levels of aggression due to selection pressure in villages with a tribal chief-based system. The chief and his men often monopolized most of the women, leaving the rest of them with few women for themselves. In one tribe the other men were left with no women, and they engaged in homosexuality their whole lives.

The intense selection pressure resulted in the biggest and meanest men rising to the top and breeding with the most women. So they selected for sociopathy, narcissism, a womanizing mindset, cruelty and sadism, high levels of aggression, and very strong bodies.

If you look at Negroid men the world over, it’s pretty obvious that they have selected for these characteristics because they display them at higher levels than other races.

Black men are twice as likely to be psychopaths as Whites.

Personality tests have consistently shown higher levels of (healthy) narcissism in both Black man and women.

Both Black men and women have higher sex drives than Whites, and both Black men women have selected for extreme secondary sex characteristics such as large breasts and buttocks in the female and large penises in the male.

24 Comments

Filed under Africa, Anthropology, Blacks, Cultural, Gender Studies, Narcissism, Personality, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sex

Alt Left: The Concept of a Third Gender: Gay or Transsexual?

There has been a long tradition in many societies around the world of two-spirit people, Third Genders, etc. Many of these people were accepted in their societies under these societal doctrines. In recent years, the Trans Lobby has taken over this discussion and has decided that the two-spirit and Third Gender traditions were examples of how transgenderism has been accepted around the world for a very long time. But that’s true because the notion of two-spirit people and Third Genders generally did not apply to transsexuals.

As a good general rule, my understanding of two-spirit people, 3rd genders, etc. from my studying was that these people were generally just homosexuals.

A two-spirit Amerindian man would do woman’s chores, dress in women’s clothes, and live his life with the women. My understanding is that it was acceptable for a heterosexual Amerindian man to “marry” a two-spirit man and take him as his “wife.” No one much cared about this.

There were indeed two-spirit women also who were just lesbians. They wore men’s clothes, hunted, fished, did men’s chores, and lived their lives with the men. And a two-spirit woman might well take up with another such woman as a “wife.” They could live together as a couple.

There were quite a small number of these people, ~1-2%, so they were not much of a burden for the average tribe who regarded them as the occasional oddity which was strange but could be tolerated in small doses.

There was little to no recreational or choice homosexuality among Amerindians to my knowledge. This type of homosexuality or bisexuality is also rare among many of the more primitive groups the world round. In these societies, sex was generally freely available to both sexes from puberty on (look what Puritans we are now in comparison!), and this teenage sex never harmed a soul for thousands of years. Now suddenly it’s horribly destructive. Right.

Anyway, with free sex from puberty on more or less and marriage inevitable before 40 at least, most folks were satisfying their sexual needs, so there was no need for the sort of opportunistic homosexual behavior that arises due to lack of access to the opposite sex.

I don’t read a lot of gay writing, but I’ve still probably read more than most straights. There has been a tradition in gay historical writing dating back to the mid-19th Century of discussions about a third gender. The interpretation was always that the 3rd Gender people were simply homosexuals or gay and lesbian people. All of a sudden now this is being rewritten as these folks and the two-spirits as having always been trans, but that’s not the way I read the literature and followed the discussion.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Amerindians, Anthropology, Cultural, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Literature, Race/Ethnicity, Sex, Sociology

Setting the Record Straight About Pre-Contact Africa

John Engelman: Agriculture and civilization select a race for intelligence. Caucasians began agriculture about eleven thousand years ago. We began civilization about five thousand years ago. Negroes only adopted agriculture about four thousand years ago. They never developed their own civilizations. They have only recently been exposed to White civilization.

Agriculture was probably developed by Africans before it was developed by anyone else. There is evidence for agriculture or pre-agriculture in Africa (West African Guinea Highlands) as early as 12,000 YBP. You must realize that Africans originated many things that we as humans do. The next to develop agriculture were the Mayans (corn), the Chinese (rice) and the Papuans (yams), all at 9,000 YBP. The Egyptians and Mesopotamians were not far behind. Africans even had plantation agriculture as early as 900 CE in Tanzania.

I doubt if Caucasians developed agriculture 11,000 YBP. Are we referring to Mesopotamia, the Levant or Egypt here?

Animal husbandry was also developed very early on in Africa. It may have been developed in the Western Sahara before anywhere else on Earth. A figure of 9,000 YBP is suggested for animal husbandry in the Sahara. However, pigs may have been domesticated in Papua around this time also. Animal husbandry was widespread in Africa, particularly in the Sahara, the Sahel and Ethiopia, on contact. I don’t know much about animal husbandry further south, but I have heard there was a shortage of animals to domesticate.

At any rate, the invention of the hoe and subsequent hoe agriculture along with the spear played a major role in the history of Africa. Both derived from the early development of metallurgy in the form or iron. Indeed, the Iron Age came to Africa before it came to Europe. The development of iron metallurgy and the subsequent creation of those two iron tools allowed the Bantus to expand massively all over Central and South Africa in only the last 2-3,000 years.

Africans definitely had civilizations, that’s for sure. Mostly in West Africa but quite a few in the Sahel too. There was even a civilization in Rhodesia. Early European explorers drew drawings of large African cities. Looks like civilization to me. Civilizations were especially common in Nigeria. They had manufacture, trade, agriculture for export, all sorts of things.

5 Comments

Filed under Africa, African, Agricutlure, Amerindians, Anthropology, Antiquity, Asians, Blacks, Central Africa, Chinese (Ethnic), Cultural, East Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Europeans, History, Livestock Production, Near East, Nigeria, North Africa, Papuans, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South Africa, Tanzania, West Africa

Repost: The Classification of the Vietnamese Language

This ran first a long time ago, but I just sold an ad on this post, so I decided to repost it. Rereading it, it’s a great Historical Linguistics post.

One of the reasons that I am doing this post is that one of my commenters asked me a while back to do a post on the theories of long-range comparison like Joseph Greenberg’s and how well they hold up. That will have to wait for another day, but for now, I can  at least show you how some principles of Historical Linguistics, a subfield that I know a thing or two about. I will keep this post pretty non-technical, so most of you ought to be able to figure out what is going on.

Let us begin by looking at some proposals about the classification of Vietnamese.

The Vietnamese language has been subject to a great deal of speculation regarding its classification. At the moment, it is in the Mon-Khmer or Austroasiatic family with Khmer, Mon, Muong, Wa, Palaung, Nicobarese, Khmu, Munda, Santali, Pnar, Khasi, Temiar, and some others. The family ranges through Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Malaysia, Burma, China, and over into Northeastern India.

It is traditionally divided into Mon-Khmer and Munda branches. Here is Ethnologue’s split, and here are some other ways of dividing up the family.

The homeland of the Austroasiatics was probably in China, in Yunnan, Southwest China. They moved down from China probably around 5,000 years ago. Some of the most ancient Austroasiatics are probably the Senoi people, who came down from China into Malaysia about 4,000 years ago. Others put the time frame at about 4-8,000 YBP (years before present).

A major fraud has been perpetrated lately based on Senoi Dream Therapy. I discussed it on the old blog, and you can Google it if you are interested. In Anthropology classes we learned all about these fascinating Senoi people, who based their lives around their dreams. Turns out most of the fieldwork was poor to fraudulent like Margaret Mead’s unfortunate sojourn in the South Pacific.

The Senoi resemble Veddas of India, so it is probably true that they are ancient people.  Also, their skulls have Australoid features. In hair, they mostly have wavy hair (like Veddoids), a few have straight hair (like Mongoloids) and a scattering have woolly hair (like Negritos). Bottom line is that ancient Austroasiatics were probably Australoid types who resembled what the Senoi look like today.

There has long been a line arguing that the Vietnamese language is related to Sino-Tibetan (the family that Chinese is a part of). Even those who deny this acknowledge that there is a tremendous amount of borrowing from Chinese (especially Cantonese) to Vietnamese. This level of borrowing so long ago makes historical linguistics a difficult field.

Here is an excellent piece by a man who has done a tremendous amount of work detailing his case for Vietnamese as a Sino-Tibetan language. It’s not for the amateur, but if you want to dip into it, go ahead. I spent some time there, and after a while, I was convinced that Vietnamese was indeed a Sino-Tibetan language. One of the things that convinced me is that if borrowing was involved, seldom have I seen such a case for such a huge amount of borrowing, in particular of basic vocabulary. I figured the  case was sealed.

Not so fast now.

Looking again, and reading some of Joseph Greenberg’s work on the subject, I am now convinced otherwise. There is a serious problem with the cognates between Vietnamese and Chinese, of which there are a tremendous number.

This problem is somewhat complex, but I will try to simplify it. Briefly, if Vietnamese is indeed related to Sino-Tibetan, its cognates should be not only with Chinese, but with other members of Sino-Tibetan also. In other words, we should find cognates with Tibetan, Naga, Naxi, Tujia, Karen, Lolo, Kuki, Nung, Jingpho, Chin, Lepcha, etc. We should also find cognates with those languages, where we do not find them in Chinese. That’s a little complicated, so I will let you think about it a bit.

Further, the comparisons between Chinese and Vietnamese should be variable. Some should look quite close, while others should look much more distant.

So there’s a problem with the Vietnamese as ST theory.

The cognates look like Chinese.

Problem is, they look too much like Chinese. They look more like Chinese than they should in a genetic relationship. Further, they look like Chinese and only Chinese. Looking for relationships in S-T outside of Chinese, and we find few if any.

That’s a dead ringer for borrowing from Chinese to Vietnamese. If it’s not clear to you how that is, think about it a bit.

Looking at Mon-Khmer, the case is not so open and shut. There seem to be more cognates with Chinese than with Mon-Khmer. So many more that the case for Vietnamese as AA looks almost silly, and you wonder how anyone came up with it.

But let us look again. The cognates with AA and Vietnamese are not just with its immediate neighbors like Cambodian and Khmu but with languages far off in far Eastern India like Munda and Santali. There are words that are found only in the Munda branch in one or two obscure languages that somehow show up again as cognates in Vietnamese.

Now tell me how Vietnamese borrowed ancient basic vocabulary from some obscure Munda tongue way over in Northeast India? It did not. How did those words end up in some unheard of NE Indian tongue and also in Vietnamese? Simple. They both descended long ago from a common ancestor. This is Historical Linguistics.

The concepts I have dealt with here are not easy for the non-specialist to figure out, but most smart people can probably get a grasp on them.

A different subject is the deep relationships of AA. Is AA related to any other languages? I leave that as an open question now,  though there does appear to be a good case for AA being related to Austronesian.

One good piece of evidence is the obscure AA languages found in the Nicobar Islands off the coast of Thailand. Somehow, we see quite a few cognates in Nicobarese with Austronesian. We do not see them in any other branches of AA, only in Nicobarese. This seems odd,  and it’s hard to make a case for borrowing. On the other hand, why cognates in Nicobarese and only in Nicobarese?

Truth is there are some cognates outside of Nicobarese but not a whole lot. In historical linguistics, one thing we look at is morphology. Those are parts of words, like the -s plural ending in English.

In both AA and Austronesian, we have funny particles called infixes. Those are what in English we might call prefixes or suffixes, except they are stuck in the middle of the word instead of at the end or the beginning. So, in English, we have pre- as a prefix meaning “before” and -er meaning “object that does X verb”. So pre-destination means that our lives are figured out before we are even born.  Comput-er and print-er are two objects, one that computes and the other that prints.

If we had infixes instead, pre-destination would look something like destin-pre-ation and comput-er and print-er would look something like com-er-pute and prin-er-t.

Anyway, there are some fairly obscure infixes that show up not only in some isolated languages in AA but also in far-flung Austronesian languages in, say, the Philippines. Ever heard of the borrowing of an infix? Neither have I? So were those infixes borrowed,  and what are they doing in languages as far away as Thailand and the Philippines, and none in between? Because they  got borrowed? When? How? Forget it.

Bottom line is that said borrowing did not happen. So what are those infix cognates doing there? Probably ancient particles left over from a common language that derived both Austronesian and AA, probably spoken somewhere in SW China maybe 9,000 years ago or more.

Why is this sort of long-range comparison so hard? For one thing, because after 9,000 years or more, there are hardly any cognates left anymore, due to the fact of language change. Languages change and tend to change at a certain rate.

After 1000X years, so much change has taken place that even if two languages were once “sprung from a common source,” in the famous words of Sir William Jones in his epochal lecture to the Asiatic Society in Calcutta on February 2, 1786, there is almost nothing, or actually nothing, left to show of that relationship. Any common words have become so mangled by time that they don’t look much or anything alike anymore.

So are AA and Austronesian related? I think so, but I suppose it’s best to say that it has not been proven yet. This thesis is part of a larger long-range concept known as “Austric.” Paul Benedict, a great scholar, was one of the champions of this. Austric is normally made up of AA, Austronesian, Tai-Kadai (the Thai language and its relatives) and Hmong-Mien (the Hmong and Mien languages). Based on genetics, the depth of Austric may be as deep as 30,000 years, so proving it is going to be a tall order indeed.

What do I think?

I think Tai-Kadai and Austronesian are proven to be related (more on that later). AA and Austronesian seem to be related also, with a lesser depth of proof. Hmong-Mien seems to be related to Sino-Tibetan, not Austric.

The case for Vietnamese being related to S-T is still very interesting, and I still have an open mind about it.

All of these discussions are hotly controversial, and mentioning it in linguistics circles is likely to set tempers flaring.

References

Author and date unknown, What Makes Vietnamese So Chinese? An Introduction to Sinitic-Vietnamese Studies.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anthropology, Asia, Austro-Asiatic, Austro-Tai, Austronesian, Cambodia, Cantonese, China, Chinese language, Cultural, Hmong, Hmong-Mien, India, Language Families, Laos, Linguistics, Malaysia, Mon-Khmer, Philippines, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, Sinitic, Sino-Tibetan, South Asia, Tai-Kadai, Thailand, Vietnam, Vietnamese

The Fate of Psychopaths in Primitive Societies

Research has shown that psychopaths are present in all human societies. Robert Hare, famous psychopath researcher, asked some Eskimos if they had psychopaths in their villages.

“Yes,” they said, “We have people like that. It’s usually a man. He refuses to hunt or do any work at all and simply lives off everyone else. He is charming and has a high sex drive and when the men go off hunting, he stays in the village and has sex with all of the other men’s wives. He steals and gets into a lot of fights with other man and lies almost constantly.”

“What do you do about someone like that?” Hare asked.

The Eskimos replied, “Well, after this behavior has gone on for some time, the men of the village will get together, tie up the psychopath, and paddle him out to an ice floe. They will drop him off on the ice floe and paddle back to shore.”

In case you don’t know about the Arctic, being left on an ice floe is a death sentence for a human being. So the Eskimos say that after putting up with the psychopath’s antics for some time, the men of the village rise up and all kill the psychopath.

American Indians were known for their kindness and charity. I did a lot of anthropological work on California Indians when I was working as a cultural anthropologist. Here in California, some Indians refused to work. However much the other Indians disliked this behavior, they continued to feed the parasite. He was allowed to survive. Obviously you can’t allow too many folks like this in your society or your tribe will go extinct. In primitive societies, if nobody works, nobody eats because work mostly consists of efforts to obtain food.

However, in doing research on the Indians of the Southwest, I found that some Indians who chronically engaged in bad behavior or broke group rules by committing adultery, stealing, getting into fights, or killing other members would typically simply be thrown out of the tribe. In tribal societies, this could well be a death sentence because while the tribe together knows how to hunt and gather to survive, an individual Indian may not be able to do it well enough to survive.

However these men often survived long enough. In addition, being thrown out of tribes for bad behavior was uncommon but not rare. At any given time, there were a number of  Indian loners roaming about who had been tossed out of their groups for bad behavior. It was common for these men to find each other, and they would then roam about in pairs, threesomes or even in small groups. There were enough of these men that they sometimes formed mini-tribes of their own – outcast tribes so to speak.

11 Comments

Filed under Amerindians, Anthropology, California, Cultural, Inuit, North America, Psychology, Psychopathology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, USA, West

Interesting Racial Arguments: Blacks As Less Domesticated Humans, and Whites and Asians as Domesticated “Slave Races”

Great comment from Francis Melville. 

African Blacks are humans, period.

The main mistake about that by those who see them as a parallel species closer to apes than man relies upon the infamous argument of neoteny: evolution from ape to man (so as devolution from man to ape as some religious fundamentalists postulate) is supposed to have happened through greater and greater retention at adult age of traits only the primitive species’ infants shows before losing them at adult age.

But that argument, however seducing it seems, is fallacious the way it is used: clearly, for instance, dogs as we know them are descendants of the wild dog, which is a parallel species of wolves to the point only zoologists can distinguish them from other wolves. And from that lupine ancestry, dogs have evolved far more than humans are supposed to have evolved from more primitive men, they have kept infantile traits at a degree humans themselves never went to…yet they remain dogs and show no sign of turning into a kind of speaking intelligent species capable of writing with all fours.

Though they cannot survive outside an apartment and require the same care as a human infant or even more, they still bark and bite each one according to its capacity. Neoteny produces domestic or more domesticable animals out of wild ones and nothing beyond. Neoteny alone cannot make a lineage change of species, nothing of that kind of phenomenon has ever been observed under any microscope or otherwise through paleontological history. You could still invent more and more puppy-like races of dogs under the pressure of lawmakers prohibiting Rottweilers, none of these new races would end up being human-like or humanoid-like in any way, none of these dogs would suddenly learn to speak like Pluto, though they may look like cartoon dogs more and more.

African Blacks show many traits (though not all) of less or no neoteny compared to the mean European and even more compared to East Asians (for instance African babies learn to sit and adopt various other adult postures at an earlier age than other humans), but that may make an African a wilder human, NOT a lesser human…in the very same way Sub-Saharan Africa seems to be by its ecological vocation the conservatory of the wilder versions of so many other species, like the wild dogs, the wild asses (which include the zebra as well as countless other onagres), the wild buffaloes, and the famed wild elephants.

African elephants, for being wild and having never been domesticated, are not less elephantine than the ones used in India and Indochina as beast of burden or transportation, in the same way the wild African buffaloes are by no means less bovine than the domestic buffaloes used in India to till the soil: quite the contrary, anybody would qualify the African elephant as more elephant-like by its spectacular bodily features than its more modestly-looking Indian far cousin, for the same reason wild bulls and buffaloes have always symbolized the epitome of bovine nature with far more intensity and sacredness than domestic oxen.

Europeans are not more human than Africans, they are more domesticable and amenable to so-called civilized life, actually it is a more polite expression to say they are easier to enslave and put to hard work by neurological programming rather than by mere physical shackles only.

Some say among Haitian and Benin voodoo practitioners that Whites and Asians were the first species reduced to a more fragile and specialized one but far easier to put to useful work by the process of trans-generational domestication and bodily modification by the first animal tamers: according to them, non-Blacks are born out of the will of malevolent sorcerers to dispose of population of dependent slaves by birth. That is probably a short caricature, but there seems to be something real about it.

So many proverbs from so many cultures are wont to say laughter is what really makes humans human, animals being so serious in comparison of the most serious humans. Do Black Africans laugh less?

21 Comments

Filed under Africa, Animals, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, Blacks, Canids, Carnivores, Cows, Cultural, Dogs, Domestic, Europeans, Herbivores, India, Mammals, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South Asia, Wild, Wolves

Human Civilization as Collectivism in Action, or Nothing New under the Sun

Most great theories have one or often more intellectual precursors.

Check out the idea that Charles Darwin invented the Theory of Evolution. In a sense, of course he did, but there were definitely more than a few folks playing around with it before he did. What Darwin did more than anything else was to lay out the theory in a pure, connected and conclusive form. The others were tinkering around the edges, playing with the idea, tossing theoretical coins in the air. All of this is valuable, but it takes the masterstroke of a great genius to lay it out brilliantly and conclusively once and for all.

As my mother likes to say, “People have been writing for thousands of years. There aren’t a whole lot of new ideas floating around.”

Really most all theory is plagiarism. We are all building on blocks that have been laid down before us, just as creation and evolution build on the chemicals and adaptations that proceeded to them to create brand new forms that look little like their forerunners.

There is noting new under the sun.

– Famous quote.

My own take on the quote above is that no matter how brilliant you think your theory or idea or even line of prose is, I am pretty sure that someone has written it down before, and if not spoken it, and even more likely, thought of it.

Bottom line is that scientific theory is not as individualist as capitalist fanboys think. Scientific theory is a collectivist effort, as is nearly all of human evolution. No man is an island, not even Marlon Brando, who is about as big as one. Alone we produce nearly nothing. Together we have produced and innovated the whole of human experience and achievement. Sit every human off in his own cubicle in the ultimate individualist experiment and see how far it gets you, Randtards. Not far I assure you.

+1 for us collectivists.

2 Comments

Filed under Anthropology, Capitalism, Cultural, Economics, Evolution, Science

Hinduism as a Rather Typical Ancient or Pagan Religion

I have long felt that Hinduism is simply a typical ancient religion or even moreso, a typical pagan religion. One reason I feel that way is because the oldest formal religions known to man such as Yezidism and Zoroastrianism both practice caste. Zoroastrianism is often thought to be the oldest living formal religion, and that may be the case. However, sometimes I feel that Yezidism is some whatever form may be older yet than Zoroastrianism. That Yezidism has been influenced by Zoroastrianism is clear from anyone who has extensively studied the religion.

The worshiping of the Devil seen in Hindusim once you pull back the curtain to see the wizard putting on the show is also typical of an ancient religion. Yezidis are said to be devil worshipers, and in a sense that is true but in another it is not, for in Yezidism, the Devil of Malak Taus is actually a good guy like Jesus or the kind and loving God of the New Testament (not the murderous brute of the OT). As in the Christian sense, Taus is also a fallen angel, but he is fallen for other reasons than the Christian belief that the Devil has fallen due to excess pride.

Older religions often worshiped the Devil in the sense that they feared him and sought to appease him. Those who saw or see a wrathful God as in the OT also in a sense are worshiping the Devil. The God of the OT is more nearly a Devil than a God of Mercy as in the NT. The ancients did not worship the Devil in the sense that modern Satanists claim to worship evil however defined; instead they made sacrifices and said prayers to the Devil or the in effect “Devil God” so this monster would not do bad things to them.

As this Devil or Wrathful God was thought to be behind all calamities, and the Ancient World was full of calamity as a nearly quotidian affair, it made sense to say prayers or make sacrifices to this cruel and evil force so as to appease his wrath and keep calamity at bay.

The Hindu practice of saying prayers and giving offerings not to ask a merciful God to make good things happen to them or to bring good to the world but instead as a purely mercenary device to “get more stuff” is also quite an ancient practice. Sort of a “make a wish upon a star” type of thing.

You may make a prayer or leave an offering to a Hindu God to ask them for just about anything. Often money or fortune is requested, but one may also make requests for either good or evil. Basically, whatever it is that you want, moral or immoral, you simply pray and make an offering to a particular God, and your wish may be granted. My study of ancient religions has shown me that such intercessionary amorality was a typical feature of ancient religions. The world was a savage place, and there was not much good around to be seen, so it made little sense to pray to some merciful god in a world seemingly devoid of mercy.

 

4 Comments

Filed under Anthropology, Christianity, Comparitive Religion, Cultural, Hinduism, Religion, Yezidism, Zoroastrianism

The Cultural Left Wants to Get Rid of All Social Rules, all Notions of Respect and Disrespect and all Tastes and Preferences

Social rules are there for a reason, although the Cultural Left seems to believe that all social rules are “bigotry” and “hate,” and they are furious at the idea that some of us believe in respect and disrespect and have these horrific things called tastes and preferences. After all, all tastes and preferences and notions of disrespect are simply evidence of “hate” and “bigotry.” We need to accept everyone, no matter how they look, act, or dress! Everyone’s fine. Nobody can be respected anymore than anyone else. Social rules are wicked clubs used to discriminate against whichever Freaks Du Jour the Cultural Left are promoting today. How dare we get upset in that man in a dress! How evil! So that woman says she’s a flamingo? So what? Maybe that’s her gender? Quit being so damned oppressive, bigot!

Really the Cultural Left is waging a war against the way that humans have lived as far back as we can determine. Ever read an ethnography? I have. Many. Trust me that all cultures have all sorts of elaborate social rules about all sorts of things. All cultures have tastes and preferences and rules, often strict and complex rules, regarding human behavior. The Cultural Left wants to throw thousands of years of human cultural history onto the bonfire and light it all up.

All of the things we take for granted, all of the rules that govern every aspect of our social intercourse, they want to light it all up because our rules are not kind to freaks, weirdos, perverts, deviants, idiots, fools and dumbasses. How evil that we don’t respect this glorious Cultural Left freakshow the same way we respect people who have the gall to try to act normal!

If you’re a man and want to turn into a woman, just do it! If you’re a woman and want to turn into a man, just do it! Hey if you’re a human and want to turn into a giraffe, just do it! Call it your gender, I’m sure everyone will go along!

If you want to act like a fag, just do it! Wade over into that group of auto repair guys, lumberjacks and construction workers and start pinching their asses and making passes at them! How dare they get upset! They must be evil homophobic scum! Put them in jail! How dare they have rules! Who do they think they are setting up rules for human behavior? Outrageous!

Want to take off your dress and don motorcycle boots, a leather jacket, a crewcut and a longshoreman’s swagger, honey? Be my guest! How dare anyone get upset at you for acting like a freak! They must be evil to expect you to act halfway normal like most everyone else.

Normality is evil! Normality is oppression! Up with freaks! Up with weirdos! Down with normality! Crush normality now!

60 Comments

Filed under Anthropology, Cultural, Cultural Marxists, Culture, Left, Scum, Sociology