I think the Amalekites are supposed to represent - matriarchal Neanderthals. Balaam called them "the first of nations" in Numbers, 24:20.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) September 5, 2015
Because homo sapiens discovered marriage and supported family values while Neanderthal man did not. (There is of course a moral in this somewhere. Can someone tell me what this might be?)
Neanderthal man was matriarchal, homo sapiens patriarchal. The latter defeated the former because the patriarchy is clearly better-organised, more cohesive and stronger as well as more likely to ensure that the male who is the best provider gets to reproduce, thus producing a better quality next generation, instead of the free for all fuck-fest you get in a matriarchy in which the poor and depraved breed with the stupid and slutty, lowering moral and educational standards as well as the quality of the next generation, as we are seeing now in the 21st century Britain. Currently, most babies born in Britain have mothers who are Slut Single Mums who couldn't find a husband or who didn't know or weren't told by their slut and bastard liberal parents not to have a child out of wedlock.
http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TFTA600695RFVNVH1
http://www.nowpublic.com/strange/most-british-babies-now-born-out-wedlock-some-migrants-its-tiny-minority
If a patriarchy is a society that condones male promiscuity, then the matriarchy is society that condones female promiscuity. It should be reasonably clear by now which is the lesser evil.
Of course, there is no evidence of this to support my contention and the few anthropologists I have approached are either too busy or too afraid to discuss this with me ie that Homo Sapiens, who institutionalised marriage, easily defeated the Neanderthals who had not. In any case, I do not see how the institution of marriage can be inferred from archaeological evidence anyway. Even if archaeologists claimed they found wedding photographs, wedding rings, marriage contracts, decrees nisi and absolute belonging to long dead homo sapiens but none to Neanderthal man, those of us who remember the Hitler Diaries would treat it with healthy scepticism, I hope.
My point is that they *cannot* prove my theory wrong. It is quite simply unassailable.
It is so obviously, beautifully simple. Is there a prize for me to claim? No anthropologist can disprove this theory anyway.
My penetrating insight astonishes even me. It seems that I am after all a genius. It is really now time to stop being modest. If I don't blow my own trumpet, no one else will.
I have already contacted the Royal Anthropological Institute http://www.therai.org.uk/
and was advised to contact the British Association for Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology. http://www.babao.org.uk/index/index
It is to be hoped that a Claire Khaw Anthropology Prize will be created in my honour and awarded every year to prize-winning anthropologists. I have in mind that Bruce Parry http://www.bbc.co.uk/tribe/bruce/index.shtml and fancy giving him one. Actually, I wouldn't mind giving the delightful and delectable Dr Alice Roberts one too.
8 comments:
Did he go out without a vest on in the winter?
Homo neanderthals existed for some 600 000 years. Homo sapiens has got on now for 200 000 years.
And it seems the matria is pulling the longer stick . .
Homo neanderthals may have existed for 600,000 years but they eventually died out, point being. Evolution is a slow process but inevitably the weak are wiped out. Modern day Britain is following in the same footsteps and needs to change in order to survive, hence the decline of the white race and the increase of the Jews, Muslims, Indians, Asians...etc
if you're going to go on about the weaker humans being wiped out and the progression of a stronger generation than the one previous to it, then i suggest you leave out any arguments about the "declining" of any specific race.
because it is proven the genetically mixed offspring provide a more diverse genealogy and therefore yield stronger, more healthy children.
not to mention that 2/4 "races" you mentioned arent actually races and are actually religious institutions.
I don't have a problem with race-mixing. I have as problem with the miscegenation of the unmarried.
So I guess all the other animal species we have now elephants, tiger, falcons, frog, horses, cats, dogs, alligators, pigeons, bees, ants, lions, giraffes and so on must all get married too or else they would have died out.
It is not a question of humans continuing to exist as a species but of forgetting the wisdom and knowledge that their ancestors acquired and having to relearn it again.
Each generation is the custodian of this human knowledge and wisdom for subsequent generations.
Couldn't put it better myself, as Jaspal S so insightfully says " Evolution is a slow process but inevitably the weak are wiped out.... hence the decline of the white race.
Although I think Bonobos seem to be handling their matriarchal society quite well and human society to present with its record on genocides, world wars, inequalities and general killing of its own and other species is not a great advert for Patriarchal First.
Post a Comment