Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.
The theory of evolution is as simple and as logical as creation is outrageous.
Every species has what is perceived as sexual attraction. Except its real purpose is not sexual, it is survival… the sexual component is a mere conduit for the greater purpose.
All land-based and marine species, including plants and humans, are driven by only two imperatives; life and re-generation.
Giraffes were not “created” with long necks. The giraffe with a shorter neck simply couldn’t reach the higher foliage during drought. It didn’t get to breed because it died. More importantly, via natural selection, the female giraffe was not attracted to the shorter-necked giraffe anyway because it bode poorly for the future survival of its potential offspring.
The most subliminally “sexually” attractive of a species is the one most suited to surviving incumbent conditions, whether it be animal, human or vegetable.
The male of the wild animal kingdom needs to show strength, endurance and a clear aptitude for survival in its incumbent environment before it can win the coveted role of breeding. Much the same as we breed racehorses only from the strongest of the stallions.
In a natural state, the broodmare couldn’t give a fuck. She simply hangs around eating grass while the males kick each other to death to decide who has the most durable and the most suitable genetic make-up.
When a winner is decided, the mares simply allow themselves to be impregnated, knowing full well that their offspring now have the best chance of survival.
Mares don’t go to stallion competitions in their football jumpers waving banners and barracking for a certain “hot” stallion with a big dick! They are happy to fuck whoever wins… and only the winner.
We are different?
I don’t think so.
We think we have developed way beyond such savage basics. We believe we are an advanced species because we have developed intelligent emotions… hate, love and compassion!
These emotions, we believe, place us on a higher echelon… we don’t respond to the same crass, survival laws of nature because we don’t wish to see ourselves in such a light.
We don’t need or want laws of nature applying to us. They do anyway!
The subliminally “sexually” attractive of the Inuit is the man who is short and fat. Why? Because he can stay on the ice longer during a 10-month long winter to hunt for seals and bring food back for potential offspring.
Would Antonio Banderas get a root in Lapland?
An attractive southern Italian male is short and stocky. The female subliminally knows that he can bend in the fields all day without back problems or fatigue. The female is attractively fat with child-bearing hips. Hardly our catwalk material.
The attractive of the Massai is tall, skinny and black as the ace of spades… the attractive jungle Pygmy is short and wiry… the very antithesis of what we (or the Massai) would call attractive.
The Aborigine is black, sun-resistant and skinny with verandahed eyebrows. Would a full-blood, tribal, Aborigine believe Brad Pitt was the ant’s pants… or vice versa?
The Scandinavian is white and blue eyed.
The whole selection process is environment-driven. The Darwinian theory was “natural selection”. But it is not natural… and it is not the sole answer.
It is superimposed with mobile genetics and is a purposeful, violent and environment-driven process, based solely on survival and regeneration.
Men, like animals, have been performing myriad forms of competition for millennia simply for females to better assess their breeding potential. From the Greek Olympians to the Tudor jousters… the fair maidens spread their legs for the winners… the losers did not win the hand of any fair maiden… they had to content themselves with their own hand.
The female animal responds in exactly the same way.
Where violent confrontation is not a precursor to breeding potential, the male displays feats of athleticism, hunting prowess, radiant colour or nest-building potential and it is equally competitive… lose and you become the unwanted, non-pollinating, pariah.
A few mountain billy goats didn’t sit around one day and suggest they run flat out at each other trying to knock each other senseless so as to decide who was going to get to fuck all the nanny goats.
The nanny goats had already decided who was going to fuck them… the winner!
The herbivorous hippopotamus didn’t develop the biggest most powerful jaws in the animal kingdom just to eat grass and reeds with. It needs to fight, sometimes to the death, for the right to impregnate females.
The new lion king doesn’t kill an estranged lioness’s cubs because it is hungry. The lioness will not come into season while lactating.
The murdering lion merely wants to impose his genetic influence on the pride as soon as possible after his victory over the old lion king. Not waste time nurturing what he considers the lesser genetics of a former, defeated, lion king. But the lion didn’t actually show forethought or an understanding of this.
The lioness fought tooth and nail to save her cubs. When the fight was lost she didn’t harbour malice or hatred for the new lion king for having killed her cubs. Those cubs are gone.
She now allows herself to be impregnated by the new king because the new king has proved he was the strongest… he offers the best chance for her next brood of offspring.
Yet the lion is capable of hunting down and killing a certain hyena that has killed his cubs. (So, are the emotions of vengeance and hatred peculiar only to us?)
We inject extreme emotion into the game of life. We have become sufficiently comfortable to afford the luxury of these emotions.
Pity, vengeance, jealousy and covetousness are not normally and never long-held emotions of the animal. They cannot afford them. Life for them is too tenuous for such self-serving emotions.
The time and effort it took that lion to hunt down and kill that hyena served no purpose other than self gratification but it was a short-lived hatred and a short-lived gratification. These long-held emotions cost us dearly in our social arena.
All animals grieve, but only for three days, then the loss is forgotten.
The animal has far more important things that must be attended to. It cannot spend years grieving over a loved one.
A monkey will carry its dead young around for three days, then it discards it and completely forgets, as does the mare who has lost its foal and the lioness and lion who have lost their cubs to the new lion.
Our emotions require stress, a judiciary, police, gaols, socialism, religion and corrupt political systems to administer all of them.
All these infrastructures that drain our resources are needed because, unlike the animal, we do not comply with set mores and rules… we cheat, lie, steal, fuck people we shouldn’t fuck and kill, so we need a divorce process, penalties and correctional institutions to dissuade us from these various malfunctions.
Our survival is not under threat. At least not right now.
But when it is, the human female resorts to the animal system. Conquering forces historically take, rape and marry the bereft women.
The women accept the situation as does the lioness.
Japanese and Vietnamese war-babies are only one example. But we “invaders” take it one step further with the intended virtual extinction of a defeated race by inter-breeding. Most defeated indigines boast few remaining full-bloods.
From the Pacific islands to Europe and the Eurasians the defeated female accepts the inevitable impregnation of the foreign invader.
Animal instinct and parental education are two separate imperatives. But the line of distinction between the two is blurred.
A cat will only maim a prey for its young to learn to chase, trip and kill. Yet a springbok already knows how to evade a predator, with its distinctive bounding, almost from the moment of birth.
A coconut crab can break open a coconut without being shown how. A white moth, with virtually no brain at all, will alight undetected only on a white tree.
Preservation of their own species is paramount to them but not to us. With our emotions in tow we intermarry and interbreed at will.
A lion will not mate with a cheetah, although they are both cats.
A sparrow will not mate with a starling although they are both birds.
A tuna will not mate with a grouper although they are both fish.
A bull-ant will not mate with a green-ant although they are both insects.
But through domestication we have taught a Bulldog to be like us… it will readily mate with an Irish Setter.
There are few remaining of the noble, original Aboriginal race.
Almost none of the Inuits, the North American Indians, the Maoris and a host of others who have been slowly interbred out of existence.
It is a horrifying thing for us to see the possible extinction of the insignificant Bilby but not a whole human species. Yet, if we consider ourselves higher on the evolutionary ladder, why aren’t we important enough to be self protective?
It is horrifying for us to see a whale or a dolphin killed for food but not a Pearl Perch!
Why is it that we can enjoy eating a Pearl Perch but throw up if we knew it was a dolphin?
Does dolphin taste worse?
Does the Pearl Perch feel less pain?
Does the Pearl Perch not have large sensitive eyes too? Is the Pearl Perch less important to another Pearl Perch?
Does not the Pearl Perch also have a right to life even if it tastes good?
It probably thinks so.
Like diamonds and quartz, we value what is scarce and hold no value, feeling or respect for what is plentiful.
We enjoy eating our closest living quadraped relative, the pig. There are millions of pigs. If they become scarce, we will breed more to assuage our underlying concerns and prevent, or take advantage of, a pork price-hike.
We happily eat veal (embryo) but would we prepare it from the carcass as a meal ourselves? No, we are happy to pay someone else to do that nasty little piece of work.
Most people won’t eat tongue, but will relish an egg.
Is food more delectably acceptable coming from an animal’s arse than it is from its mouth?
Our sensitivities are put on hold when something tastes nice.
The reason we have an aversion to eating a dolphin is not because it doesn’t taste nice, but because it has a big smile and is intelligent… we relate to that!
We don’t need to jealously protect our human species because it’s not contingent on us surviving or even being fed. In fact it is considered racist if we seek to do so.
We are dissuaded from even discussing why white men can’t run and black men can’t swim! (Witness the finals at the next Olympics.)
Modern enlightened Caucasians interbreed with gay abandon while publicly despising all forms of racism. Yet, strangely, it is only ever the whites who are accused of racism. We show no respect for our species. In fact we purposefully encourage imperfection.
We nurture and encourage the growth, and lately the regeneration, of the genetically flawed. The genetically flawed chick is immediately kicked out of the nest. We will force-feed the weakest. Our weakest get the most attention and care.
Our weakest usurps our resources at the expense of the valuable able-bodied. The animal ensures the weakest starves.
The animal system is clear… only the strong should get stronger.
We handicap the strong so the weak also survive… this is the law of “socialism”, not the “jungle”.
Commendable and preferred, but we sustain massive genetic problems as a price.
The incidence of downs syndrome and breast cancer among the outrageously racist Asians is low.
Is there a linkage?
Is it racist to be instinctively protective of your type?
If so, Asians, blacks, Jews, all indigines and the whole animal kingdom is heartlessly, cruelly racist beyond belief.