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.
