Dutch Onomatopoeic Animal Words

James Schipper: Here are some Dutch verbs that refer to the noises that animals make. Let’s see how many you can guess.

1 –  balken
2 –  hinniken
3 –  loeien (oe is pronounced oo)
4 –  brullen
5 –  knorren
6 –  piepen
7 –  blaten
8 –  blaffen
9 –  kakelen
10 – krijsen
11 – grommen
12 – zoemen
13 – koeren
14 – mekkeren
15 – kraaien
16 – keffen
17 – janken
18 – huilen
19 – klokken
20 – snateren

It’s pretty obvious that you remove -en for “sound an animal makes” when you are trying to take apart the word. Look at the part of the word to the left of -en.

I’m hardly getting any.

1. Dog
6. Chicken
7. Sheep

That’s it. That’s all I get.

Problems of Onomatopoeia in Historical Linguistics

The forms in the first part of this paper are from a paper by Geoffrey Kimball referenced at the end. He examined the relationship between the Muskogean languages and the isolates Tunica, Natchez, Atakapa, and Chitimacha in a proposed Amerindian family of the Southeastern US called Gulf. He concluded that although the languages were probably related, there was no way to prove it was so.

Granted, there are problems in the relationship, that’s for sure. But I went through a paper by Pam Munro looking at the relationship between Yuki-Wappo and Gulf and found the relationship convincing. The Gulf languages seemed obviously related; either that or massive borrowing had occurred.

People who oppose long-range language proposals like the above like to harp on a few caveats that get in the way of showing language relationship. For instance, they throw out all onomatopoetic words – words that are based on the sound of something. In animal names, this often refers to the sound of an animal.

Buzz for insects, slam or punch for a fist pounding, chirp for bird noises, meow for cat sounds, on and on. All of these are supposed to be rejected because people make up words based on the sound something makes. This gets in the way of proving relationship because we can always argue that these words are not cognates; instead, they are just words based on the typical sounds an animal makes.

However, I would say, “Not so fast now!” Follow me.

It’s from a scan, so it’s not letting me cut and paste but if you look at pp. 33-34, neighboring Siouan Quapaw has shikkokkoke.

Then in Gulf, we have


Tunica           wishkoku
Proto-Muskogean  tsiskoko/kwiskoko
Natchez          mishkokwa

Siouan           shikkokkoke

He says onomatopoeia, and then he says heavy borrowing. Also, as a birdwatcher, I am unconvinced that words for “robin” always end up looking like this due to the sound the bird makes. I don’t buy it. Our word is “robin.” That look like any of the words above.

I’m curious why any of these tribes would have to borrow a word for “robin” which has been found in their area since the tribes were founded. Animal names are usually borrowed when a group moves into a new territory with new animals with no names for them.

Onomatopoeia – fine, but why the same phoneme sequence over and over? There must be 100 onomatopoeic ways to describe this bird.

Kimball says this term is obviously widely borrowed.

More likely: A Gulf term, widely disseminated in Gulf and even reconstructed all the way back to Proto-Muskogean. That’s an old word! Remnants remain in Tunica and Natchez Gulf languages. Quite possibly borrowed by the Siouan Quapaw, who were migrants to the area. In this case, it would have been borrowed into Quapaw from Tunica because they neighbored each other.

It’s found in a number of Gulf languages and only in one Siouan language. They all could have borrowed the Siouan word for “robin.” Also, the Siouans were migrants from themselves, from Ohio. The Gulf languages probably came from Mexico, but robins winter there. Why would all of those Gulf languages independently borrow a Siouan word? Majority rules. If a form is widespread in one family and only present in one language of a neighboring family, the form was borrowed by the single language from the widespread form in the other family.

Also notice that this word in all of these languages has the same set of phonemes. Why would this set of phonemes be necessary to describe this bird? Our word robin doesn’t sound like any of those words. I am a birdwatcher but I’m not aware that that word represents the sound of a robin. The word has the same set of phonemes in different languages because it’s not onomatopoetic, that’s why! So it’s either genetic or widely borrowed.

Granted, maybe it was borrowed around in Gulf, but maybe not. I don’t know how to tease that apart.

Next we have two “woodpecker” words:

"Pileated woodpecker"

Tunica           pahpahka-na 
Proto-Muskogean  kwakakwa
Natchez          papaku-shil

"Redheaded woodpecker"
Tunica           chuchuhi-na
Proto-Muskogean  chaxchah-ka
Natchez          tsawtsa  

Once again, oddly enough, this word is ancient, going all the way back to Proto-Muskogean. Once again, it shows up in both Tunica and Natchez. How odd that these three same languages always get affected by these words.

Why would these three languages be more likely to borrow words from each other than any of the other languages?

Onomatopoeia is brought up again, but why would the two woodpeckers have phonemes that are exactly alike for each separate one? Woodpeckers don’t sound all that different. I’m a birdwatcher.

Tunica and Natchez were not adjacent, so it’s hard to see how there could be borrowing between them. Also, Proto-Muskogean was spoken in Mexico! The Proto-Muskogeans moved from Mexico to an area around Tennessee. We don’t know where the homeland of the Gulf languages was. It was possibly in Mexico too. Possibly Proto-Gulf was spoken in Mexico, and it migrated to the Southeastern US. Neither of these woodpeckers is found in Mexico, so both would have been new to the Gulf migrants.

If the entire Gulf family moved into Southeastern Louisiana, the two woodpeckers above might have been new to them. Proto-Gulf could very well have coined those two terms for the different woodpeckers because they had never seen them before. The words then filtered down through the years into the present-day languages.

The conclusion here is that the feint to onomatopoeia by anti-long rangers is a potential dodge, and just because a disseminated word is onomatopoetic, that doesn’t mean that all of those languages made it up based on the sound of the object. If the words for an animal always take the same phonemic shape, this tends to argue against onomatopoeia because you would think different groups would make up different words for objects that make the same sound. Why would they all make up the exact same word with the exact same phonemes? It doesn’t fly.

As an example, see this segment copied from an article by John Bengtson (an acquaintance) in Mother Tongue November-December 1989.


J.D. Bengtson

Soon after I began actively comparing the languages of the world some three decades ago I noticed a recurring phonetic pattern in word for ‘butterfly’ all around the world. They all involved syllables with a labial (usually /p/) followed by a vowel and a liquid resonant (usually /r/ or /l/). The syllables were often repeated or reduplicated with partial or full reduplication. The collection of these words grew until they make up what is now Table 1.

Table 1: Words for ‘butterfly’ containing labials and liquids

Indo-European: *pXpili- ~ *pòpili- >
Italic: Latin pXpilie (pXpilion-) ‘butterfly’ > French papillon, papillot ‘butterfly, leaflet’, pavillon ‘’tent, pavilion’ (> Engl. pavilion), Venetian paveğa, Tyrolian pavel, Friulian paveye, Provençal pabalho, Catalan papalhó, Calabrian parpaggyune, etc.
Germanic: Old High German fîfaltra (> German falter, [dial. fifalter, pfeipfalter, etc.] Yiddish flaterl); Old Saxon vîvoldara, Dutch vlinder; Old English fòfealde; Icelandic fifrildi ~ fijrildi, Norwegian fivreld(e), Swedish fjäril (dial. fjörald, fervel, fjärafalla, etc.) ‘butterfly’, etc. [Italian farfalla < Germanic: cf. Swed. dial. fjärafalla]

Semitic: Hebrew parpXr, Aramaic furfr- ‘butterfly’

Kartvelian: Georgian p’ep’el-, Mingrelian parpal(ia)-, papralia, Laz parpal-, Svan p’ärp’old, p’ärp’and  ‘butterfly’

Basque: pinpirin ~ pinpilin ‘butterfly’
Caucasian: Udi päpäläk ~ Udi (Nidzh) pampaluk Andi pirinpa ‘butterfly’; Abkhaz a-parpal’  ‘moth’;

Dravidian: Kui pipili ‘moth’ Kodagu pa:pÈli  ‘butterfly, moth’; Kurukh paplX  Naiki pipuli, Parji pilpili, Gondi pòplò, pòprò, Kuwi pubuli ‘butterfly’

Austronesian: Tagalog papaló ~ paparó ~ parú-paró ‘butterfly’

Trans-New Guinea: Kare purupuru, Bunabun piropir ‘butterfly’
Andamanese: Önge bebele, Aka-Bale pomÃlÃ, Aka-Bea pQmilÃ-dÃ, Aka-Puchikwar and Aka-Bo bQmilÃ-dÃ, Aka-Kol bÃmilà ‘’butterfly

Hokan: Tequistlatec pápalo ‘butterfly’
Uto-Aztecan: Aztec: Zacapoaxtla paapaaloo-t, Tetelcingo pöpölu-tl; Hopi pó:voli ‘butterfly’
Andean: Quechuan *pimpilitu, *pil¨pintu ‘butterfly’

It should immediately be noted that the words in Table 1 are not necessarily all the words of this type in all the world’s languages, only those that have come to my attention since I began collecting them some thirty years ago. What are we to make of these very similar words for ‘butterfly’, found in diverse areas of the world? Most historical linguists would probably dismiss the similarities, attributing them to independent and recent origins.

For example, R.L. Trask (1997: 296), remarking on the Basque word pimpirina ‘butterfly’ and others: “This impressive collection of regional terms can hardly represent anything of any great antiquity; most of these terms appear to be strongly phonaesthetic in motivation.” (Italics added.) Trask (1997: 258) defines a phonaesthetic word as “one which has apparently been coined out of thin air purely because of its appealing sound.”

While such words as referred to by Trask may exist, “coining out of thin air” can hardly be applied to the words for ‘butterfly’ listed above. Why indeed would Europeans, Asians, Pacific peoples, and Native Americans independently arrive at almost the same shapes for these words? With further analysis, we find these words can be subdivided into the following types:

Table 2: Simple reduplication:

Hebrew  p  a  r  p  X     r 
Tagalog p  a  r  ú  p  a  r  ó 
Kare    p  u  r  u  p  u  r  u 
Bunabun p  i  r  o  p  i  r

Here the syllable type PVR(V) is simply reduplicated. This syllable closely resembles the form of a global etymology meaning ‘to fly’, which Merritt Ruhlen and I gave the approximate phonetic shape of PAR (Bengtson & Ruhlen 1994, pp. 317-318).

Table 3: Reduplication with apophony or dissimilation:

Basque      p  i  n  p  i  r - in 
Udi (Nidzh) p  a  m  p  a  l - uk 
Abkhaz     -p  a  r  p  a  l - ‘ 
Quechua     p  i  m  p  i  l - itu ~ 
            p  i  l¨ p  i  n - tu

In these words simple reduplication (as in Table 2) has been altered either by apophony1 (alternation of r ~ l ~ n), or dissimilation substitution of similar sounds, here other resonants r ~ l ~ n > m, as in English “pilgrim”, ultimately from Latin peregrinus). Note, for example, the similar results in widely separated Basque and Quechua.

Table 4: Partial reduplication (type PùPVLV):

Latin    p  X  p  i  l  i - ion-
Georgian p’ e  p’ e  l-
Udi      p  ä  p  ä  l  ä - k
Kodagu   p  a: p  È  l  i
Tagalog  p  a  p  a  l  ó
Önge     b  e  b  e  l  e
Hopi     p  ó: v  o  l  i

1 For more on apophony (consonantal ablaut) see Wescott (1974, 1998), Bengtson (1998). In these examples, which I find the most interesting of all, we find the common elements of:

  • initial labial stop [p], voiced [b] in Andamanese;
  • first vowel, sometimes stressed and/or long [X, a:, ó:];
  • medial labial stop [p] (the Hopi change of *p > v is parallel to the change from Latin pXpilion- > French pavillon); [b] in Andamanese
  • a second vowel (with some variation [i ~ È ~ e ~ o];
  • a third consonant – always lateral [l];
  • the original final (thematic) vowel, in three of the languages [i].

In the face of these closely parallel common elements, I find independent coinage extremely unlikely, borrowing between these diverse languages just as unlikely, so we are left with one viable explanation: a very ancient common origin of these words for ‘butterfly’.

But if so, how do we account for the amazing similarity after what could be 50,000 years or more? I propose that the reason they have been preserved almost intact in widely separated areas is due to the preservative effect of phonosymbolism. Phonosymbolism, which symbolizes an action or state of being, is not the same as onomatopoeia, which imitates it.

As explained by Frederic G. Cassidy (1985):

One may guess that to keep the ‘same’ bases from spreading apart phonologically (as speakers spread apart geographically) to the point where all plausible or obvious similarity is lost, there must be some restraining forces at work – and one of these would be phonosymbolism. … So, phonosymbolism would perhaps exert a centripetal force holding basic forms together despite their having lost geographic contact.

We actually have historic documentation of this preservative effect in the case of the French doublets papillon ‘butterfly’ and pavillon ‘tent’ (both from Latin pXpilion-). In the former case phonosymbolism (PVPVL symbolizing the silent flapping of wings) has acted to preserve the medial [p], contrary to regular sound change, while the latter word (pavillon), with the secondary meaning of tent, has evaded the preservative effect and changed [p] to [v] in the regular manner (cf. savon ‘soap’ < Lat. sapone-, etc.).

But phonosymbolism did not manage to keep all the eventual words similar: we saw in Hopi pó:voli that the regular sound change (intervocalic *p > v) was not impeded by phonosymbolism. And note that many other radical phonetic changes have taken place, especially in Germanic!

In conclusion, I propose that all or most of the words for ‘butterfly’ listed in Table 1 are extremely ancient, and most likely traceable to Proto-Human. Also present in Proto-Human were at least two mechanisms for the creation of phonosymolic words:

(a) simple reduplication of the type PVR(V)PVR(V), as shown in Table 2, from which the variants in Table 3 can be derived; and

(b) partial reduplication of the type PùPVLV (with r ~ l apophony: see Bengtson 1998), as shown in Table 4. Subsequent to the initial creation of these words, phonosymbolism continued to exert a centripetal or preservative force, keeping the words similar after geographic dispersal.


Bengtson, John D. 1998. “Consonantal Ablaut (Apophony) in Proto-Human.” Mother Tongue 4: 138-140.

Bengtson, John D., and Merritt Ruhlen. 1994. “Global Etymologies.” In M. Ruhlen, On the Origin of Languages, by, pp. 277-336. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Cassidy, Frederic G. 1985. Letter to John D. Bengtson, dated 23 November 1985.

Trask, R.L. 1997. The History of Basque. London, New York: Routledge.

Wescott, Roger Williams. 1974. “Types of Apophony in Proto-Speech.” In Language Origins, ed. by R.W. Wescott, Silver Spring, Md.: Linstok Press.

Wescott, Roger Williams. 1998. “Consonantal Apophony in Indo-European Animal Names.” Mother Tongue 4: 126-137.




Bengtson, John. 1989. “Letter from John D. Bengtson Responding to Hal Fleming’s Editorial Essay.” Mother Tongue. November December 1989, pp. 7-10.

Kimball, Geoffrey. 1994. “Comparative Difficulties of the “Gulf” Languages.” In Langdon, Margaret (ed.), Proceedings of the Meeting of the Society for the Study of the Indigenous languages of the Americas July 2–4, 1993 and the Hokan-Penutian Workshop July 3, 1993 (both held at the 1993 Linguistic Institute at Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio). Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, Report 8. Berkeley: University of California.

Does Eating Meat Lead to Homicidality in Humans?

Rambo: Of course vegetarians say the reason human beings are bloodthirsty murderers is because of the consumption of meat. If everybody just went veggie, people wouldn’t be so lustful for blood.

I’m not so sure that is true. First of all, we don’t kill most of the animals we eat. If we had to, we might not eat them! When I eat meat, I purposely put the idea of the fact that this meat I am eating came from a living animal that had to be killed in order for me to eat it out of my head because it’s so upsetting. So when I’m eating spare ribs, I may as well be eating carrots for all my moral mind knows.

Killing Animals and Killing Humans May Be Two Completely Different Thought Mechanisms in Humans Having Little to Do with Each Other

But I’m well acquainted with homicidal feelings, as I’ve experienced them much of my life, although much less often now that I am older. The odd thing is that I’m a pacifist, maybe the nicest guy you’ve ever met, the least irritable person around who is bothered by nothing that others do, and I’ve never even tried to kill anyone in anything other than self-defense (we won’t discuss the possible exemptions to this rule here), much less a completely innocent person. So you can see that if even a passive pacifist like me has led this homicidal of a mental life, God forbid what your ordinary person thinks like, and I think we don’t even want to know what your average aggressive hypermasculine male thinks!

So homicidal thinking seems quite universal in humans, or at least in males. Yet I never think with joy about the animals I eat, and not only that but I brainwash myself into thinking that a living animal did not have to be killed for me to eat it. So I take my mind completely outside of the knowledge and awareness that an animal had to be killed in order for me to eat it. Such knowledge would seem to be necessary in order for there to be a connection between meat-eating and homicidality.

People who brainwash themselves into thinking eating a pork chop is the same thing as eating Brussels sprouts hardly have the murderous mindset necessary for the theory to be true. And as I pointed out, completely passive and more or less harmless people can think in markedly homicidal ways. So it seems that eating meat in which an animal had to be killed in order for one to eat it and homicidal thinking towards other humans are two completely different mechanisms and in many cases, have little to do with each other.

Actual Hunting of Animals Doesn’t Seem to Lead to Killing Humans

What about hunters? I used to be friends with a taxidermist who was an avid hunter and even a hunter guide. I brought up the question of whether killing animals may make someone more likely to kill people. He’d thought about it a bit, and he said that the thought streams were two completely different mechanisms. There is a huge gap or fence in place between killing animals and killing humans, and most hunters are aware of it. It’s as if the thoughts of killing animals and killing humans were from two different planets.

Hunters section these thoughts apart and make a vast divide between them as if they are two completely different things altogether. I’m not sure what the literature shows, but it seems as if hunters deliberately create a mental barrier for themselves when they kill animals, possibly to make sure that murderousness towards animals does not lead to homicidality towards humans. Or perhaps the two thoughts are already walled off that way due to socialization. Or perhaps the hard divide between them is hardwired into our brains.

Boys Killing Small Animals in Almost All Cases Does Not Lead Them to Kill Humans

Notice how easily children, especially boys, kill bugs, fish and in less frequent cases, amphibians and reptiles, even less often birds and least of all, mammals? Well, as a boy, I had no issues killing bugs and fish; in fact, it was a cause for delight. But those feelings would not even extend to amphibians, much less anything higher than that (We caught snakes but that was in order to make pets out of them!), and I’ve never killed an amphibian, reptile, bird, or mammal in my life. I tried to kill frogs recently because the ones around here are pests, but my mind stopped me. It seemed too cruel and disgusting.

So when do you hear about about even the cruelest animal-killing boys killing other humans, except in the case of adolescents? Almost never.

So already in boys the killing of lesser organisms, especially at the lower end, is sectioned off with a hard wall, probably genetically based, against even killing more advanced creatures, much less humans, which is verging on the unthinkable.

Teens Torturing Mammals to Death, Especially Dogs and Cats, Is Different

However, once teenagers get to the point where they are killing mammals, especially beloved domesticated ones like dogs and cats, a hard line has been crossed, and they are now more likely to kill higher mammals like humans. This is particularly the case because boys killing lesser animals often involves torture (it certainly did with us), and kids who kill dogs and cats often torture them to death. Torturing a mammal to death is completely different from a hunter killing a deer quickly and cleanly. The former is much more likely to be escalated to killing humans due to the sadistic nature of it.

The Original Theory Appears Unfalsifiable

But this is unfalsifiable in a sense. Where are all these human vegetarians we can test this theory on? They don’t really exist (but see below). So there’s no way to even test out the theory. Theories that can’t be tested out are nonfalsifiable; that is, there is no way to prove them wrong. Another way of saying is by saying not only is the theory not right, it’s not even wrong!

Largely vegetarian Hindus have conducted some major massacres in past decades.

And Hitler was said to be a vegetarian, and Nazis promoted vegetarianism due to an animal rights project they had that they unfortunately did not extend to human animals.

Repost: A Skunk and Potatoes Man

Repost from the old site.

When I was working as an anthropologist for a local Indian tribe, I had to go through all of the anthropological literature about the tribe. This took quite some time. There was quite a bit of hostility from the Indians towards the anthropologists, which is stupid, sad, and mostly just ignorant.

The legend had grown up among many of the Indians that the anthropologists who had come through were the “enemies of the Indian people.” I researched the folks who had come through and it didn’t seem to fit.

We are talking some of the biggest names of all like Alfred Kroeber. Kroeber and his wife loved the Indians in a time at the turn of the century when Indians were not so popular. The legend continued that the crafty Indians, in order to fool the wicked White men, had concocted lies to tell the anthropologist.
Anthropological field work is hard enough without having to deal with this kind of crap, but it does come up at times.

Fieldwork manuals will tell you, first of all, that you need to develop a strong sense of cultural relativity if you are going to do fieldwork.

You have to decide that whatever it is these folks do in terms of their culture and values, no matter how weird, stupid, horrible, or noxious, it’s ok. You aren’t going to make any judgments about it.

You want to chop off little girls’ clits? Ok, no big.

You put grandpa on an ice floe when he gets old? Understandable, I’d do the same with my own Dad.

You treat your women like shit? Hey, I can understand, in dating countless women over a lifetime, I’ve built up a nice boiling witches brew of hatreds and grievances myself. Keep them ball-breaking bitches down! You go, guys! Show them cunts who’s in charge! Damn right they better put out or else! They owe us! We rule!

I think you get the picture.

This sort of thing may prove difficult for many folks.

In fieldwork, you need to do this to get along properly with your subjects. If you don’t accept their lifestyle with “unconditional positive regard,” it’s probably not going to work very well. You get subjects lying to you like they did with Margaret Mead and all sorts of stuff.

I actually spent a lot of time on this agonizing question, and I called up famous anthropologists all over the country in trying to solve this empirical question. Had the evil White anthropologists really been had by these crafty noble savages, fresh out of Paleolithic?

Turns out they probably had not. Further, I uncovered a lot of data that suggested that all of the anthros had a good relationship with their informants.

Another thing you can do is go through all of the old data and see how well it all lines up. Turns out that all of the data I had from 1873 through 1970 lined up very well.

There were times when I spotted some lying. Indians said that wild horses and buffalo used live in Central California, and they used to hunt them. The last wild horses lived here 10,000 years ago, and buffalo never did. The anthro himself wrote in his field notes that he thought they were lying to him.

There are several ways to test this. One thing you can do is to interview informants over a period of time, say weeks or months. You can work with a single informant any number of times over that period. You can ask the same question over and over a few times and see if the answers vary.

Another thing you can do is go around to different informants and ask the same question. If only one informant says, yeah, we ate vultures for breakfast, and the others say, “Hell no, we did not, he’s lying,” then vulture-eater is probably lying.

You can interview informants alone and with others, changing the others around, and see if their stories change when they are with various others compared to what they say when they are alone. You can shoot questionable material to others and see if they back it up. In fact, you need to try to back up all of your data. One informant is pretty shaky.

It all rests on the sort of relationship you have with your informants. Bad relationship = possibility of poor data. Good relationship portends good data.

I decided that there was some tragic reason why the Indians harbored this hatred for the anthros. Obviously, the anthros just represented Whitey.

Plus many of them had this crazy idea that all the anthros had used the Indians, gone back to Berkeley or wherever and used this illustrious knowledge to write famous books about the Indians and got rich. The anthros got rich, and the Indians never saw a dime. It’s not true, but it felt good to them.

There was a sadder aspect to this anger. All of the great stuff on these Indians had been written by White people. Everything on the language, the culture, everything.

Why couldn’t the Indians write down about their language and culture themselves? The suggestion is that they are too stupid to do that, so they have to have the Smart White Man come and do it for them, and that’s totally humiliating. A reaction to humiliation is rage.

I went through Sylvia Broadbent’s Grammar of Southern Sierra Miwok as part of my work. One informant, who worked as some sort of “House Indian” in Yosemite National Park, was well-known for being a showman, liar, and teller of tales. He also knew a lot of language, but he threw in lots of other words that other informants had never heard before. She ended up rejecting a lot of his data as spurious.

As you can see, this is not exactly hard science. Where do you think “physics envy” comes from? It gets hard to get mathematical proofs of much of anything in the social sciences, which is why the physicists sneer that our sciences are “soft sciences”.

So much of our judgments in these tough cases in fieldwork is play it by ear, seat of the pants, I know it when I see it intuitive stuff.

Unfortunately my project floundered over some of the Indians’ rage at the anthropologists. I had gathered this data and was set to write it up, and the whole thing got shot down.
Because elders said that the Indians had lied to the anthros, every word of the notes was up for grabs. There were known knowns, known unknowns, and worst of all, unknown unknowns, the last category being what the otherwise non-empirical Indians deemed the notes.

I was on a salary anyway, so it really didn’t matter. One of the amusing things was the sort of things that they disputed. They were livid about the notes that reported that these Indians tole the anthros that they used to eat skunks, rattlesnakes, and gopher snakes.

Their rejection of this food, of which the rattlesnakes at least are proven to taste precisely like chicken (of course), is based on a primitive but common mode of thinking. Rattlesnakes are poisonous, so they are evil, so they should not be eaten. The suggestion is that the meat is poison too. Only an idiot would eat poison meat.

Skunks smell horrible when you piss them off, so obviously their meat must taste like their horrid odor. Someone else opined that their meat is “probably pretty oily.”

Turns out, according to the New York Times in 1913, skunk is one of the delicacies of the woods, right up there with possum, deer, and bear. The main obstacle in the way of proper enjoyment are the speed bumps of human psychology. As long as you associate the meat with skunk-stink, it might taste pretty bad. Convince yourself it’s really fillet mignon and you can dig in for a hearty meal.

Tender eating, skunk meat tastes like either chicken (obviously), goose, duck, or rabbit, depending on your powers of dissociation. You really need to figure out how to dress skunk meat properly in order to keep the stink away from the choice cuts. Baked skunk recipe here.

As I feel I’ve been figuratively eating skunk most of my life anyway, I may as well take the plunge some day. If it’s really as good as they say it is, I assume it will be coming to Chez Panisse or Spago anytime now.

The gopher snake was also rejected as food, but I have often wondered what they tasted like. A while back, I was catching them by the side of the road a lot. If they were near dead, I’d bring them home and throw them on the lawn for my cats to play with, or drag them around on the lawn and let the cats chase them.

Of course I washed the snake blood off my hands and my car. People who saw me doing that still think I’m a really weird person.

After the gopher snake died, I brought it inside and seriously thought about figuring how to cook the sucker. I finally gave up and threw it out in the woods in back. One cool thing about living in the woods is any small dead animal you toss into the woods will always vanish within 1-2 days max. Carrion doesn’t stick around long in nature; it’s the feral equivalent of dumpster-diving.

I later asked some people how to slice up and cook a gopher snake, and everyone thought it was one of the most outrageous things they had ever heard. I guess they still think I’m weird too.

Anyway, the Indians insisted that they never ate gopher snake. “Ugh!” One Indian said, “They taste like dirt. It lives in the ground!” He curled up his nose.

I’m told this is more erroneous thinking, and the guy’s probably never chowed down one anyway. This cognitive error states that a thing tastes like what it lives in. Gopher snakes spent a lot of time in subterranean mode pushing up daisies but living to tell about it, so therefore, they must taste like dirt. It lives in dirt; it tastes like dirt. Probably not. By this logic, pork tenderloin ought to taste like mud, and it doesn’t.

Of course, inquiring minds the world over (Well, at least me anyway) are dying to know the ins and outs of how to hunt, kill, and skin skunks. Forget the kitchen for now. Procurement and dressing are tough enough.

Try here. Turns out skunks may be trapped, shot, killed by bow and arrow, drowned, or asphyxiated with car exhaust. Clearly the trick is to kill em without getting sprayed. This ends up being quite the challenge. Skunk dressing is so involved that colleges ought to offer six-month courses for certificates in it. The first story here is quite amusing. It’s pretty much skunk-skinning gone wrong about every way it could. I got a kick.

Game/PUA: Our Ancestors Were Raping, Murdering Sex Slavers and Women’s Ancestors were Masochistic Sex Slaves Who Loved Sadistic, Evil Men

In a lot of cultures, no one particularly cares what postmenopausal women do. They are often allowed to drink and take drugs, while this may have been banned earlier for obvious reasons.

And perhaps the sexual prohibitions come off because once a woman can’t have kids anymore, who the Hell cares what she does sexually, right? Control of female sexuality is all wrapped up in paternity and childbearing. Briefly, you always know who your mother is. Not so with your Dad! Your Mom might be pointing the finger at the wrong guy. Men are loath for obvious reasons to invest time and money taking care of some other guy’s kid, so they really want to make sure the baby is theirs. Hence the strict controls over female sexuality in post-hunter-gatherer societies.

Incidentally, a man who is with a woman who has a child by another man is ~70 times more likely (!) to kill the kid  than if the kid was his. Typical situation is man hooks up with woman who has a kid by another guy. Then he kills the kid. You’ve got to think there’s some caveman logic working there.

Male mountain lions and possibly grizzly bears will often kill any kittens a female lion or bear had with another male. The female goes along with this – just lets him murder her kids and then hooks up with him for sex and babies. I guess something similar may have happened in caveman days. You wonder why women love serial killers so much?

Furthermore, we evolved in brutal times. Many times in tribal warfare the conquering tribe would kill many if not all of the men and teenage boys of the other tribe. Then they would enslave all the women and children. So the women would all become sex slaves of some maniac who just murdered their husbands and  son(s). Women apparently just went along, though you wonder how they could. Perhaps many women could not tolerate this and escaped or suicided out to avoid the situation. Here we come to our selection.

The women who remained and had kids were ones who could tolerate some maniac coming along, murdering her husband and her son(s), and then turning her into a sex slave for life. If you want to know why so many women are attracted to BD/SM dom/sub sex slavery and being owned by a “master,” this may be why. It’s a mystery to me and I think the whole thing is sick.

But some sort of masochism or even love of degradation seems to be inherent in the female sex drive. There are women who hate this sort of thing, but I can’t tell you how many women I’ve met who expected or demanded this sort of treatment. Of course I take requests, so it was no big deal. Not into hurting them physically though, and you’d be shocked to know how many of them request or demand even this. Spanking is fine (and you’d be shocked at how many women love this) but beyond that, yuck.

So the women who survived were ok with murdering sex slavers and the men who survived (remember, the defeated men got murdered) were not only serial murderers but were willing to murder women’s husbands and kids by other men (sort of like lions and bears) and sexually enslave her and enslave her kids. Not very nice guys. So we men are descended from sadistic, raping, murdering, enslaving, sexual psychopaths and women are descended from masochistic sex slaves who love murderers, rapists, slavers, sex slavers, and sexual psychopaths.

If you know much about that BD/SM scene, it is overflowing with male “doms’ who proudly describe themselves as sadists. Of course they are sexual sadists, but many men are a bit, no? But it’s beyond that. They’re just sadists period because once you get into the “dom owns her as a slave” thing, it’s 24-7, which almost all of this scene is. It’s almost all 24-7 dom/sub, master/slave nonsense.

Well, the number of men who leap at the possibility of being sadistic sexual maniacs with willing women is shocking, and it’s enough to turn you off to the male gender. I’ve been studying these relationships for some time. The males are, well…a lot are more pleasant than you think, but the women…they seem like battered women.

They almost all have terribly low self-esteem. In fact, these sadistic men deliberately seek out women with low self esteem as easy prey. If they’ve been raped or molested before, this makes them easy targets, as apparently this sets them up for further abuse because women tend to sexualize everything.

A dirty little secret. Women sexualize their abuse. Women who got molested often…yep, end up sexualizing the sexual abuse. They turn it into something that turns them on. Further, women who get raped…you guessed it. It’s not PC to say so, but a lot of women got aroused during the rape and orgasm is not uncommon. That doesn’t mean it’s right or she wanted it, but our bodies are reactive organisms.

And after women have been raped, I hate to say it, but many of them sexualize the rape and start wanting very rapey-type sex. And they incorporate the rape into their masturbation repertoire. That’s not PC either but I’ve seen it happen so many times that I know it’s true. It’s weird, but women are weird. And there is nothing weirder than female sexuality. It’s a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

If you study these SM/BD relationships, it looks exactly like an abusive relationship. Precisely. Down to the letter. So BD/SM is simply an abusive relationship. However, it is a consensual one.

So a lot of men are apparently more than willing to get into a relationship where they can abuse the woman like Hell and not only get away with it but have her enjoy it. And a lot of women apparently really enjoy the battered woman role. The former statement may not be controversial but the latter is surely not PC. Nevertheless, it looks like it might be true. Not that woman abusers are good men. And not that battered women who don’t like it don’t deserve our sympathy. But as is common, things are more complex than they seem.

Furthermore, I know people who study these relationships and they say that all women who come out of these relationships are damaged. And the damage looks exactly like…yep. What a battered woman or a woman in an abusive relationship looks like. So this crap isn’t as innocent as everyone thinks.

An Interesting Mostly Southern Chinese Phenotype

A good friend of mine who resides in Singapore. He is very interested in his background and gave me his photo to analyze.

Looking at it, I believe he is definitely Southern Chinese fore the most part. His father is Hainanese and has a rather distinctive genotype that looks something like his son’s. His mother is a certain type of Malay that dates back to the 1400’s and is significantly mixed with European blood, mostly British and Dutch, as Europeans have a presence in the area dating back centuries. I believe that they are called Pernakans. He also has some female relatives that look very Malay. I do not know who the older man to the right is, but he looks quite Malay to me.

I think my friend ended up looking more Chinese than Malay. The Hainanese are definitely a Chinese type people. Whether they also have a Vietic type SE Asian component is not known as I do not know the history of Hainan.

Although my friend definitely has a strong Southern Chinese look, he also has another component that makes him look, well, different. I’m not going to attempt to describe this element, but it does make him look somewhat “odd,” “interesting,” or “unusual, ” from a Southern Chinese POV. A typical Southern Chinese would say that he looks like a Southern Chinese, but he’s not like us. A Southern Chinese has more of a Modern Mongoloid look. My friend is mostly modern Mongoloid, with some elements of transitional Mongoloid or archaic Mongoloid – this is what the Malays are after all – added in.

The evolution from Negritos to moderns occurred much later in Malaysia, much taking place in only the last 5,000 years. The Senoi are an example of an archaic group that is definitely Australoid yet nevertheless more progressive than the Negritos. These are the “dream people” of psychological and anthropological literature, though modern research has shown that they do not incorporate dreams as much into their waking lives as we previously thought and that the extent to which they do this was much exaggerated.

There are also Negritos (or original Asians) in Malaysia. In fact, there is a group in Malaysia that genes that date back to 72,000 YBP. This is actually before the main Out of Africa event, yet is has now been shown that other small groups went out of Africa before then.

Most of these groups were devastated by the vast Toba volcanic explosion in India 72,000 YBP that exterminated almost all humans in South and Southeast Asia. It is thought that only 1,500 of this group survived the explosion. This means that humans went through a severe genetic bottleneck no doubt accompanied by massive selection pressure and huge genetic effects. Whether this explosion’s effects extended to Central Asia (probably), the Middle East (maybe), or East Africa (unknown) is not known. At any rate, this original group departed from East Africa near Somalia and Djibouti.

The main OOA group left out of here too. No one quite knows what these people looked like but they have appeared somewhat Khoisan. The Khoisan are the most ancient group in Africa with genes dating back 52,000 YBP. Further, their click language to me seems like a good candidate for the original human language. It does seem to be quite primitive. Before that, we clearly used sign language. Neandertals could not speak due to their hyoid bones. The great apes also have this problem. So when Neantertals vocalized, they may have sounded like great apes.

The Sasquatch, which I believe is an archaic hominid related to Heidebergensis which somehow survived, has a very odd speech pattern (it speaks on the inhale, bizarrely enough – try it sometime) and a friend of mine who shot and killed two of them told me that the juveniles were using extensive sign language. They ran half the time on all four and half the time on two legs, which is very odd. Sasquatches can run up to 30 mph on all fours. That must be quite frightening to watch but it can be seen in the Port Edward Island Sasquatch footage. Anyway, enough about Bigfoot for today!

It’s not known how far modern human language dates back. Sergei Starostin feels it cannot date back more than 50,000 because so many cognates remain that we can actually construct a bit of Proto-World. One Proto-World term is “tik” meaning one, to point, index finger, etc. From this comes our word to teach. Imagine a teacher pointing at a blackboard with his index finger. I worked on an Indian language a while back and they had a very archaic word found only in the earliest vocabularies – tik, meaning “the point of a spearhead. I cannot prove it but I believe deep down inside that this is from the same root. I

It’s more of a gut feeling or intuitive thing, and intuitions are often wrong because they overgeneralize, throw out logic altogether, and rely exclusively on notoriously unreliable and subjective (the very word subjective implies emotional response) feelings, especially deep or gut feelings that can be described as “Gestalt.” I’m a birdwatcher and we use something called Gestalt to identify fleeing glimpses of a bird.

All we can see is what philosophers like Heidegger might call “the essence” or essential nature of the bird rather than it’s surface characteristics which are too fleeting to identify. Heidegger discusses surface versus essence interpretations of objects a lot. It seems hard to figure out but it’s easier than you think.

Logic relies on surface or appearance, including the human definition we have given to the object.

Intuition on the other hand pretty much throws out the surface stuff and looks for the “essence of the thing” or the “deep meaning” or “true meaning” of the object. We are getting into Plato here with the concept of “pure objects” that actually do not exist in reality.

An example of Platonic pure objects would be what I call the Masculine and Feminine spirit (see the brilliant and wrongly derided Otto Weininger’s “Sex and Character” for more. And Weininger comes from Nietzsche in my opinion and leads to Heidigger, also in my opinion. He seems to be a sort of a bridge between the two. Note that all were Germans, Weininger an Austrian, but oh well.

The Masculine Spirit and the Feminine Spirit is one way of dividing the universe or world in a binary manner. Not that there are not other binary methods of chopping the world into opposite halves, but this is just one of them.

I would argue that the world is half Masculine principle and half Feminine principle and that neither is better than the other and the marriage of the two opposites creates a whole that is bigger than the sum of its parts, hence the human pair bond where each pair of the male-female couple fills in the missing blanks or parts of the other one, each creating a whole person in the other where only a “half person” had existed before.

We are also getting into Taoism here, but the ancient Chinese were awful damn smart, so you ignore them at your peril in my opinion. Furthermore, the Taoist maxim of how to live your life – “moderation in all things” is an excellent aphorism, not that many of us ever do it. It’s clearly the route to a long lifespan.

To do the opposite is to burn candles at both ends, life fast, die young, and leave a pretty corpse, which sounds very romantic and appealing when young (it did to me) but which sounds increasing idiotic and even suicidal for no good reason with each advancing year past 30. I now find it laughable, pathetic, and openly suicidal and delight in mocking the concept. But I survived another 30 years past the expire date on that concept, so perhaps my new attitude is simply the inevitable product of living out that maxim twice and hence nullifying it.

There are a number of Southern Chinese groups with more of an indigenous look, sometimes prognathous. These date back to the original indigenous elements in Southern China and SE Asia, who all date back to the Negritos. The Montagnards of Vietnam are definitely one of these indigenous types. The indigenous went from

Indigenous (Negrito) -> Proto SE Asian (with Melanesian component) -> modern SE Asian (Modern Mongoloid with archaic components. This effect is quite pronounced in the Vietnamese, who were completely overrun by a Chinese invasion 2,300 years ago after which there was much interbreeding and a huge infusion of Cantonese words, which now make up 70% of Vietnamese vocabulary.

However, the core vocabulary of of Vietnamese remains Austroasiatic (a language family nevertheless with Southern Chinese roots derived from the archaic Mongoloid peoples of the region 5-7,000 YBP, who later moved into SE Asia. This core vocabulary is shared by the Munda branch of Astroasiatic, completely isolated India, particularly Eastern (Mongoloid) India. The fact that Vietic shares a common core vocabulary with the geographically separated Munda proves the existence of Austrasiatic.

In fact, it is the final convincing argument. Anyone who says that Austroasiatic does not exist is a fool.

Further, the evidence for Austroasiatic, a proven family, is no greater than the existence for Altaic, and in fact Altaic may be better proven. The “numerals” argument against Altaic is belied by the 13,000 year old Afroasiatic language, the numerals of which are a complete disaster.

Numerals are more often innovated and replaced than people think. Often the old cognates survive in archaic words or words used for related concepts, but it’s not unusual at all for the main term to be an out and out innovation. Most Altaic numerals are innovated, but there are a few cognates. Further most of the numerals have cognates in related or archaic words.

This is the most archaic layer of Austroasiatic. Some of these peoples are archaic Mongoloids with a strong Australoid component. A branch of these Australoids called Carpenterians went from India to Australia 11,000 YBP and become part of the Aborigines. Another group of archaic Australoids were called Murrayans. They came from Thailand 17,000 YBP and went to Australia. It is not known what Australians looked like before that but no doubt they were quite primitive. It’s long been thought that they have more Erectus component than the rest of us, but I’m not sure that is proven. Certainly their appearance resembles that.

The Murrayans are the core element of the Ainu, who went to the Philippines 16,000 YBP in an unusual, Caucasian appearing type, and then moved to the Southern Japanese islands north into Japan 13,000 YBP, quite possibly replacing an ancient Negrito type already there. This Negrito type definitely existed in Southern China and may well have existed in Korea. Some Australoids or especially Australoid-Mongoloid mixes can have a superficial “Caucasian” appearance, but that’s just parallel development, coincidence or more probably the fact that the possible human phenotypes is only a small subset of the possible ones.

It is this coincidentally “Caucasoid” appearance that led many observers to believe that the Ainu were somehow ancient Caucasians (Norwegians, joked one anthropologist was) that got stranded from the rest of Europoid flock way over on the other side of Asia. In fact, the Ainu are Australoid by skull and Mongoloid by genes. Their language, like the Japanese language, has an ancient Austronesian layer that has led many to falsely conclude that the Altaic Japanese language is actually an Austronesian one. The argument is even better with Ainu, the deeper group of which has not been shown to my satisfaction.

Utility and Beauty May Work in Opposite Directions

A previous post about a nonfunctional stage of the female body which nevertheless seems to be peak beauty in one sense. This got me thinking. Perhaps the world is not supposed to be beautiful. Suppose most beautiful things are either accidents or with the females in the previous post, nonfunctional.

Which also got me thinking.  Maybe pure, natural, functional beauty loses some of its awesomeness because of the necessity of developing utility.

Usually when an object of any kind  starts to acquire utility, utility goes to the front of the line and beauty and appearance go to the back. Perhaps a bit of beauty is always sacrificed when making anything  functional, useful, or utilitarian. Probably things in this world are not supposed to be shockingly beautiful.

Sure, there are beautiful things in the world, but not that much of nature is pure beauty. The parts of nature that are pure beauty are rightly set aside as natural wonders in national parks and whatnot.

The world has to figure out how to function. Rocks, water, trees, grass, lichen, clouds, insects, birds, reptiles, and mammals are primarily concerned with functionality.

Yes, even clouds, rocks and water have to figure out how to work and do what they need to do.

Living things are mostly just concerned with survival, and what in the Hell does beauty have to do with survival? Nothing.

A plant’s objective is to live long enough to scatter its seed and create offspring.

An animal’s objective is to survive, not get killed by predators, find and acquire food, mate, rest, hide, raise offspring, etc. That’s the evolutionary trajectory. Where does beauty fit in? At the end of the line.

Although sometimes we get natural beauty like male peacocks who have evolved beauty in order to compete with other male  peacocks to attract mates where the most beautiful male wins. But this is one of the more unusual cases in our world where beauty actually serves some sort of a utilitarian and even evolutionary purpose.

Mostly beauty just happens by some coincidence of nature and natural beauty just sits there undergoing its natural processes, not trying to either get pretty or lose its looks. Instead it just sits there waiting for you to marvel at or take a picture of it. But it’s accidental. Nature didn’t evolve that waterfall to be so gorgeous that tourists would take pictures of it all day. Nature evolved the waterfall by accident when a stream or river ran right off a damned cliff. Redwoods are accidental. Wildflowers are beautiful accidents. And on and on.

“Jerry-rigging” = Improvisation = Pure, Raw Survival

Polar Bear: Whites and Blacks have qualities not measured in IQ. From the redneck inventing in his garage to a Black street musician freestyling.

I’ll say this for Whites and Blacks, they top the racial scales on immeasurable qualities.

Aren’t those both sort of winging it, jerry-rigging it, putting a lot together with a little, freestyling…in a word, improvisation? Jerry-rigging, etc. is simply a form of improvisation, and in that sense, it is immensely adaptive and even a form of genius. Improvisation is also a form of “pure creativity.”

Look at the Black jazz musician noodling away, winging it so to speak, improvising. What sort of cookbook or lesson plan is he following? None. It’s as good as the surrealists’ automatic writing. That’s why I would call that sort of improvisation “pure creativity.”

Another way of describing jerry-rigging or improvisation would be “designing a solution to a brand new problem that one has never encountered before.” That’s absolutely a form of genius. And Blacks are great at that. For a couple of reasons, I think.

Blacks no matter what we think of them, are adaptive. Jesus Christ, they’re adaptive as Hell. A Black can live anywhere. Throw him into one of the worst environments on Earth and he not only survives but thrives. Look at Africa.

And Blacks are survivors. Blacks can survive in anything. They tried to enslave the American Indians, but they either refused to work or somehow or other they all died off. The Blacks weren’t happy with it, but they did survive.

But almost all primitive peoples are experts at winging it, jerry-rigging, or improvisation. Improvisation, in a word, is about nothing less than immediate survival. About putting something half-assed but “good enough” together so you can make it to live for at least another day.

Some animals are showing signs of jerry-rigging or improvising, even making their own tools. It’s pretty interesting.

Alt Left: Myths about the Coronavirus – Eating Bats

Um, eating bats didn’t cause the COVID virus. Eating anything probably doesn’t cause any virus. The virus started in bats and then jumped to pangolins, but those are Malaysian pangolins from Malaysia imported for food and medicine.

But if you have all of those things together alive in crowded, stressed, Hellish conditions in that market, perhaps the virus could have jumped from bats to the pangolins there.And perhaps from there onto the humans in the very same market in the same conditions. We’re not sure.

We’re not even sure that the virus started in the market. The first cases in November had no connection to the market. The first market case was on December 1 and there were a number of cases before that. But it definitely went wild when it hit that market all right.

Nevertheless, I firmly believe that those markets need to be shut down.

These markets may not even be necessary to spread these diseases. The real problem is the loss of wild areas and humans moving into areas where wildlife live to where people and wildlife have much more contact now than they used to.

The Care and Feeding of Your Pet Cat, Part 1

Polar Bear: My parents had a cat with wet stinky crap that could only eat canned or he’d get the squirts. Given that wet canned food is more natural and healthy, I was thinking dry food is for domesticated cats and humans while the wild cats and humans shit ponds of pudding in the wilderness.

There’s probably not a lot of dried out food in the wilds. Think about it. What food in the wilds is naturally dried out? Not much of anything. Everything in the wilds is full of some liquid or juice or whatever. Drying foods out is an artificial project and we obviously did not evolve eating dried out foods or at least I don’t think we did. Drying food is a good way to preserve it though. Dried fruit sure lasts a hell of a lot longer than fresh fruit, that’s for sure.

The wet food is better for cats. The dry food is too dry and I believe it’s bad for their kidneys somehow or other. I’m not sure exactly how that works. You can feed your cat dry food all day – no problem. But you should also feed him once or twice a day with the wet stuff. It’s more expensive but it’s good for them.

They like the wet stuff but they can get infuriatingly picky over it. My family had cats that would only eat the very most expensive varieties of wet food and refuse anything else. We had a number of cats over the years that developed this problem. They eat anything at first but then they develop these picky tastes and start refusing a lot of the different types of wet food, often settling on just one type, typically an expensive gourmet brand.

Cats do love human food more than anything else. They always walked around on our table in my family. They would come over to our plates, and we would feed them. My Dad hated it and was always demanding that cats be off the table. He thought it was unsanitary or uncouth or something. We would throw them off but they would just jump right back on.

At my Mom’s house, they hang out under your feet when you are eating meat dishes, basically begging for food. I don’t think they can see well up close because you throw them small pieces of food and it seems like they can’t see them. Instead they start sniffing around until they find the food. Sometimes you have to stick the food right in front of their stupid faces because they literally seem completely blind to the food.

Alt Left: No Virginia, There Are No Gay Animals

For reference.

Any animals have a strap-on equivalent? I doubt there are fake dicks in nature. Lesbians are just low. They want to strap it on and be a man, but this is all imaginary. They are really only good for licking. All they can really do is lick pussy and ass, so those are the cards they play.

In nature, a strong man would penetrate the pussy. What male could the weaker female overpower? She’d take on a submissive role like all women, with the only trace of her lesbianism existing in her proficiency in licking a mans ass.

Of courses there are no aminals that strap it on or do anything equivalent. In fact, in most animals including mammals sex is for procreation, not for pleasure. Only chimps and bonobos have sex for pleasure.

There are no lesbian animals no matter what the Gay Agenda (Gay Identity Politics) tells you. There are few gay animals. There are cases of two female birds guarding an egg together, but that is because there was no male around. Likewise for male penguins guarding an egg. They don’t fuck in either case.

There are no gay reptiles, amphibians, insects or birds. Zero.

And only one species of mammal has gay males, sheep, and even they don’t fuck. They just try to mount each other, but nothing happens. Maybe they should send those sheep to Frisco to show ’em how it’s done.

Sometimes female mammals will try to mount a female animal that is in heat. I had a cat that was going into heat (their vaginas get wet, which is very interesting, like human females). This other female cat I had got this weird look on its face and tried to mount her. Not sure what’s going, but it ain’t lesbianism.

Gay IP says that stupidest stuff, like “10% of all animals in every species are gay!” The 10% of people are gay lie is one of the biggest lies of all told by Gay IP.

Alt Left: Repost: Why Are Some Animals Gay? Are There any That Do Not Reproduce Due to Being Gay? Wouldn’t That Be an Evolutionary Disadvantage? If It’s Just a Selected Few in a Group, How Do You Know That It’s Not an Anomaly?

Posted last year. Updated and reposted as it’s getting some comments lately.

Answered on Queera, I mean Quora.

The PC line is that homosexuality is widespread in the animal kingdom. “All animals are gay!” is how Gay Politics propaganda goes. Actually it’s not.

This line is taken to extremes recently, and it is not uncommon to hear PC types say that 10% of all types of birds and mammals are gay. That’s clearly nonsense.

Both claims are simply examples of the typical retarded lying that Gay Politics constantly engages in. It shares this with other forms of Identity Politics, all of which are forms of chauvinist propaganda for various groups based on massive retarded lying and victim worship for the identity group along with demonization and irrational, often bizarre and extremely dishonest propagandized hatred of out-group “oppressors” of the same group.

There are cases of two same sex birds incubating an egg, but apparently there was a shortage of the opposite sex that gave rise to this. Also they didn’t have sex with each other.

I had a cat once that went into heat. You can hear and even observe when a cat is in heat. I won’t go into details. You will have to figure it out for yourself. When this cat was in heat, one of my female cats tried to mount the female in heat!

If you drive mice crazy enough in the lab or subject them to very crowded conditions, male mice will attempt to mount each other. They don’t actually have sex. This is called lordosis. This pseudo-homosexuality is a side effect of the mice being driven crazy by overcrowding or whatever. This suggests that homosexuality may be a psychological or sociological behavioral disturbance in some cases.

Bonobo chimpanzees (at least the females) are apparently often bisexual, but I am not aware of any gay or lesbian bonobos, nor am I aware of male bonobos having sex with each other.

However, sheep are a good case for homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Approximately 6% of male sheep prefer to mount other male sheep. I am not sure what they accomplish when they do that, but that’s what they do. They don’t have sex with female sheep. That is quite an excellent analogy in the animal world to male homosexuality among humans. As far as why sheep are like this, I have no idea at all.

Bald Eagles In North America

Polar Bear: Just woke from a dream pondering why bald eagles favor North America? Well, they favor Alaska specifically. The last remnant of old untapped forests that was the early North American frontier.

Those birds favor colder areas for the most part, I believe. Anyway, they only evolved in North America. I believe there are other types of large eagles down in South America. There are definitely warm weather jungle eagles in the Philippines, but they are almost extinct.

Bald eagles are actually water birds that tend to be fish eaters, specifically favoring dead fish. They’re basically scavengers – not very dignified animals. It’s weird how we think of our national bird as this proud, dignified creature because they’re not. They simply look regal and impressive  – they don’t act that way.

They’re found around large bodies of water – lakes and large rivers. Alaska is wild, yes, but it’s also full of large rivers and lakes, especially in the southern part. They especially favor the large rivers which often have huge salmon runs. Large numbers of eagles congregate on these rivers to feed on the salmon.

We actually have bald eagles in the local area in the Sierra Nevada at a lake called Bass Lake. They’re been breeding there for years. I went one time to a bar on the shore of the lake and looked at a couple of bald eagles on a nest on a treetop. There’s been a pair breeding there for years.

They’re very rare down here in the Central Valley. I finally saw a bald eagle here locally after we had a huge amount of rain, and there were small lakes formed all over the local grazing land. I looked out at this huge flooded area and saw a huge animal. At first I thought it was a cow, except it wasn’t a cow. Next I thought it was a dog, except it was way too big to be a dog.

I pulled over, confused, and got out of my car. Sure enough, it was a bald eagle! The thing was absolutely huge, one of the most massive birds you will ever see. It took off when I pulled over, as other animals like coyotes usually do if you pull over and look at them. It was a damned impressive sight, man.

Game/PUA: One Sex Has to Dominate the Other

…we either have male dominance and violence, or gentle female dominance.

First of all,  you’re going to have male violence (and female violence too for that matter) in either one. Actually the men might be more violent if they were being dominated by women because being dominated by women is one thing that pisses real men off more than anything else.

First of all, female dominance of men will never be gentle. Women are never gentle with the men that they dominate, in relationships or otherwise. It just doesn’t work that way. I think it is not possible for a woman to dominate a man in a gentle way. Women will always be cruel, vicious, and even evil with the men they are dominating.

On the other hand, I think we men can dominate women in a civilized manner. First of all, we men evolved to be dominant, to dominate women and children, and to fight for dominance with other men. The fact that dominance was bred right into us means that we can choose to implement our inborn trait either nicely or cruelly. It is certainly possible for men to dominate women in a non-harmful way. I’ve done it in most of my relationships.

Sadly, one gender has to dominate the other. The reality for most men is that most women expect the man to dominate. Women come into the relationship specifically expecting to be dominated by the man. Now, in their minds this is not a bad thing, as they like being submissive, and their view of male dominance often does not involve harm.

Men realize that if we don’t dominate our woman, she is going to take those pants right off of us and dominate you! It’s like someone has to dominate – it’s either him or her, take your pick.

I used to believe that full equality between the sexes was possible, but after 45 years of experience with women, I no longer believe this. Complete equality between men and women is simply not possible – it’s folly, a fool’s errand, an unwinnable war.

Gay male relationships are full of dominance and submission, tops and bottoms, bears and twinks, in full imitation of heterosexuality.

Lesbians like to think they are beyond this, but how many times you have seen a lesbian couple where one was butch (the man) and the other was more femme (obviously the woman)? So they’re imitating heterosexuality too. And you can’t tell me there’s no dominance-submission stuff going on in that butch-femme relationship either.

From the lesbians I read on the web, I have learned that there is quite a bit of dom-sub type sex going on with them as a matter of course, especially with the young ones, 18-30. I hate BD/SM but I know a lot about it. The number of female subs who have dom “mistresses” is very high, and the setup is about the same as with male dom-female sub relationships.

If you look at mammals, it is quite typical for male mammals to not only be much more aggressive but also to keep harems, fight over females, etc. And in mammalian sex the male often acts quite dominant, and the female acts…you guessed it – submissive.

I am reading a book about grizzly bears, and the author witnesses a rare mating. Yes, the male bear is acting very aggressive and dominant, and believe it or not, the female grizzly bear of all things is acting…yep – submissive!

Ape sex is often about rape. In chimps and baboons, a male will literally terrorize a female ape for some time, chasing her, hitting her, scaring the living crap out of her. He acts extremely mean towards her. And guess which male she picks to mate with come mating time? Yep, the rapey, female-beating, stalking, creepy, abusive male ape, the same one who terrorized her her before.

I think the best we could hope for would be one sex dominating the other, but in the mildest and kindest way possible that does the least harm to the more submissive partner. And we should hope for submissive partners who don’t like to be hurt or abused.

Game/PUA: Everyone Loves the Player

At least in any normal society, that is. As in, every single non-feminist-fucked society on Earth.

A Hero among Men

If the Player is very humble or even acts embarrassed of his success, other men will respond very well. In Man World, Players are often treated as sort of heroes for some reason.

This goes for men of all ages and even boys, teenage boys, and even prepubertal boys. And it goes for all ages of men – young men of course, but also middle aged men think Players are hilarious and heroic figures. Oddly, even elderly men fall into convulsive laughter over the Player’s exploits, pat him on the back, and treat him like a hero.

In fact, humor is a typical reaction to the player. Males of all ages will roll on the floor laughing at the antics of the Player. For some reason, he’s absolutely hilarious.

And a Hero among Women, Too

Many adult women also treat Players this way. A lot of women think Players are funny. They burst into laughter when they meet one or hear of his exploits.

Girls, even prepubertal girls, act rather amazed, amused, and giggly about the Player. This applies especially when they are 10-12, when they are starting to get a bit curious about boys. Younger girls don’t understand male-female dynamics very well.

Married women chuckle and think he is funny. Oddly enough, most old women also find him absolutely hilarious. Once again, as we see with men, the Player is an object of comedy and hilarity. Why?

A Hero in Most Traditional Cultures, Too

I figure that this is the normal way that any society treats the Player. Traditional societies apparently are a bit in awe of him, and the men quite possibly treat him as some male hero figure. The women are stunned by him, some want to date him, and most think he is humorous or hilarious. This seems to be the natural, normal way that most human societies treat the enigma known as the Player.

Keep in mind that Players are basically Alphas by default. On one Manosphere site, one man said if you have had sex with 100 females, you are an Alpha period – no ifs, ands, or buts about it. If you have a high enough lay count, you cannot not be an Alpha. That’s probably correct. Only 6% of men have three-figure laycounts. I would wager that most if not all of them are Alphas.

Furthermore, I doubt if there are many Beta Players out there. The nature of the Beta seems to imply that he’s usually not a Player. An Omega Player is literally not even possible due to the nature of the Omega. Alphas are 15-20% of male society, and that’s probably the maximum number of males who are Players in any age group.

You can’t have a society where every man, or even a majority of men, are Players. Well, you could. That would be gay male culture. But I do not think that straight society will ever resemble gay male culture. If anything, it’s the opposite, as the growth of hypergamy and the damage left in its wake such as incels show us.

It’s Human Evolution Talking – the Voice of Hundreds of Thousands of Years

The normal society reaction to the Player is probably rooted in evolution. See the elephant seal, buck, or stallion with his harem. Get it? It’s evolution in action. The Player is a male two-legged ape with a harem. We are mammals after all.

If you really want to understand human males and females, study those female deer, elephant seals, and sheep. Study those male elk, seals, and horses.

I have learned more about human males and females by studying the so-called lower mammals than from studying humans. Everything starts to add up and finally make sense. We are doomed to be mammals no matter how hard to we try to escape the bestial trap. We cannot not be mammals. As with everything else, when it comes to mammalian behavior in humans, Nature bats last.

Case History: Boy, Age 15, Killing Puppies

In my peer counseling practice, I have so far had two animal killers. One was a 16 year old boy in Germany. He came to me about violent thoughts but he didn’t and couldn’t pay. Nonetheless he was so profoundly disturbed (killing puppies) that I felt that he needed an immediate intervention so I simply worked with him for free. Also I sometimes work with teenagers for free as they can never pay.

This boy had rescued a dog and made a pet out of it. It was a female and soon enough it had puppies. The boy then strangled all of the puppies one by one.

I was very alarmed by this, but I had to tread very carefully. I did not get angry at him for killing the puppies, nor did I act shocked. My attitude was just, “Ok, so you killed some puppies.” I told him that killing puppies was wrong, and he should not have done that. This prompted a weepy apology session where he tried to defend himself by saying it wasn’t his fault. I accepted his apology and didn’t bother him about killing the puppies.

However, I did say that I wanted this puppy-killing to stop, and I didn’t want to hear about him killing any more puppies. I was emphatic about this. He readily agreed.

A lot of clinicians will freak out and get very angry at a client who is killing mammals, but I think that is the wrong approach. The client is just going to get his back up at best, and he may well get up and walk out of the room at worst.

Even if you are shocked and horrified by the mammal-killing, it is important to not show your feelings. You can raise your eyebrows, suck in your breath, say, “Wow”, things like that, but don’t get mad at them. However, you need to throw down a hard limit of no more mammal-killing at least while the client is talking to you.

Not all mammal-killers are bad human beings. A lot of them are but not all of them. Some of them are good people who are simply ill. Also it’s just a lower mammal. Killing a dog or a cat, as much as we love them, is simply not the same as killing a human, sorry.

I finally figured out that he was probably hallucinating voices although he denied that he was, as he called them thoughts and not voices. But you can tell through careful questioning and listening carefully to their answers whether you are dealing with thoughts or hallucinations. Sometimes what people describe as “thoughts” are actually auditory hallucinations. He was getting command hallucinations telling him to kill the puppies, and he was acting on them.

He also had some other problems. His mother was dead. At age 13, his mother had taken him and herself to the railroad tracks in order to get hit by a train and commit dual suicide. At the last minute the boy ran away from the train. The mother stayed on the tracks and was killed. That’s a pretty traumatizing experience!

He had a flat attitude about him where he was always saying, “I don’t care.” It seemed a bit odd how he seemed to not care about so many things.

He kept to himself at school and drew pictures a lot. For some reason his behavior was odd enough that his schoolmates bullied him. They often hit him. He would fight back vigorously, so he was getting into fights all the time. I didn’t think this was pathological, as he was just defending himself.

After he killed the puppies he felt so guilty that he put his hands in boiling water for a long time to punish himself. This had caused some injuries to his hands.

He also didn’t get along with his father at all for whatever reason.

He was extremely confused sexually and most of his early sexual experiences from 13-on had been with other boys. But now he had a girlfriend with whom he was having regular sex, and he said he had discovered that he liked sex with women just fine. I figured he was probably straight or at least not gay. He was one of the most sexually confused people I have ever dealt with.

He also told me that he had killed a pet rabbit when he was five years old. After a bit I figured out that this was in response to a command hallucination also.

I relayed the case to a former therapist, a clinical psychologist, and he told me that mammal killers are often either psychopaths or psychotic. He also suggested that this boy may be on the track to develop Borderline Personality Disorder. He was a Pre-Borderline if you will.

We have to say this because we cannot diagnose personality disorders in people under 18 because personality often changes quite a bit, especially in adolescence. In particular, a lot of adolescents appear psychopathic but then they age out of it as they become adults. A lot of juvenile delinquents are actually just “temporary” criminals.

The BPD did fit with the self-harm (Borderline men, like Borderline women, often self-harm), the constant fighting (Borderline men often pick fights a lot), the identity confusion, and the sexual confusion.

Borderline men are bad. They’re much worse than Borderline women.

I told him it was absolutely imperative that he get to a psychiatrist and find out what was going on with his head. His father convinced him to go to a psychiatrist, and he was diagnosed with schizophrenia as I suspected.

He had a rather apathetic and “so what?” attitude about that too.

People can be apathetic for various reasons. I had an OCD man who wrote to me once with a 10 page long history of his illness. He was from India.

He worried about every stupid thing under the sun, but he also kept saying, “I don’t care” through the paper. In this case, obviously he did care and in fact, he cared way too much. So the constant “I don’t care” was probably a defense against his over-caring and the illness that developed out of it. It was a thought compulsion to counteract the excessive caring that was causing the obsessions.

However, in this case, the apathy made sense to me after his diagnosis because schizophrenics often seem apathetic, and one of the symptoms of the illness is flat emotions.

So you see not all mammal-killers are psychopaths. There can be other things going on too.

However, I must say that this boy was one of the most seriously disturbed clients I have ever had.

Stray Dogs in the US

SHI: Other dog breeds I like include Labrador retrievers, Balinese poodles, and even strays. I get along great with the strays. Do you have strays in California where you live?

Absolutely no stray dogs whatsoever here or in the last California town I lived in. Or really in the one I lived in before that. I mean there are a tiny few here and there, abandoned pets mostly. My brother made a pet out of one when he was homeless.

We don’t tolerate stray dogs here in the US. At least in the White US. People say Whites have no culture, but actually we do. Of course we have a culture. How can a people not have a culture? It’s not possible.

Anyway, one thing White culture simply does not tolerate is stray dogs. We have dogcatchers who work for something called Animal Control, and they take care of them right quick.

I have no idea how other cultures like Black or Hispanic cultures deal with stray dogs. I think Hispanics may tolerate them because if you go down to Mexico, there are stray dogs everywhere.


Stray Cats in the US

While there are few stray dogs in White areas, there are some stray cats in these places. We don’t really like them, but we tolerate them. Some people trap them and pay to have them neutered, which is the best policy. Also a lot of people feed them. I don’t really like it as those wild cats kill an awful lot of rodents, small reptiles like lizards, and especially birds.

Cats kill an incredible number of birds in the US every year. There’s a town called Antioch in Northern California where there are supposedly 26,000 cats and they are hammering the birds something awful. Sorry, you have to start killing them when it gets like that. The town are trying to kill a lot of those cats, but the cat-lovers are up in arms over it.

Animal control goes out, catches a dog or cat, and brings it to the “pound.” The dog or cat stays in the pound for a week or two, at which time anyone can adopt it assuming it’s not totally wild. Wild cats cannot be adopted at all, and if they have been wild even for a short time at the beginning of their lives, say 2-3 weeks, there is a wildness that gets imprinted on them that stays with them for the rest of their lives – could be 18 years.

If no one adopts the pet after a week or two, they take the animal and put it in a chamber that has some strong tranquilizing gas pumped into it. The pet more or less falls and asleep and dies soon after.

There are now no-kill shelters, which I think are irrational. My Mom loves them, as she is a cat-lover. These places somehow just house all these stray cats forever. There is one near here called Cathouse on the Kings. My Mom and sister have been there a few times. There are literally hundreds of cats on a small enclosure.

These cat-lovers don’t make sense. They’re irrational. They’re mostly women, so of course they’re irrational, right? They think we can solve the stray cat problem with catch and euthanize. It’s a great idea except it doesn’t work. We catch and euthanize lots of them, but the numbers still don’t go down, as the others are breeding, or the numbers of stray cats are always being replenished by new stray cats.

A lot of stray cats are former pets. I adopted one once. This is a part of White culture that is no good. It’s ignorant working class White culture. People move and when they move, they usually don’t take their cats. For one thing, cats don’t travel well at all.

A lot of Whites like this turn their cats loose in the wild instead of taking them to the pound and killing them as you are supposed to. They think it’s more humane to turn the animal loose in the woods somewhere than to take it to the pound and kill it.

Except it’s not, really. Most former pets turned loose die horrible deaths maybe a week or two after being abandoned. I have seen what appear to be former pet cats when I was out walking in the woods. One was emaciated and looked ill. But it wouldn’t let me near it. Most former pets don’t know how to hunt or survive in the wild very well.

Or these working class Whites refuse to fix their female, so it has kittens. $25 is just too much money. She has kittens a lot and they just take the kittens out and abandon them somewhere. I have no idea if other ethnicities do this. I know that middle class Whites think working class Whites are disgusting morons for throwing their cats out to the wild like that.

Boys Who Kill Animals: A Hierarchy of Animal Victims

Same here. But, I don’t ever recall hurting a kitten or pup. Even as a toddler, I always loved cats and dogs. What is it really about them that children love so much? Maybe that they’re mammals?

I think the children who abuse cats and dogs are violent psychopaths in the making. I’d have never ever imagined hurting these creatures.

First I would like to point out that animal-killing is something boys do, and it’s very common. Girls generally speaking simply do not kill any kind of animals, even insects. They’re too tender-hearted for that sort of thing.

Sure, there is a hierarchy to this sort of thing. Most all boys kill insects and that’s no big deal really.

Next is fish. Yes, some boys kill fish for kicks, especially boys who fish for sport, but a fish is a primitive organism. To me though, killing fish is more serious than killing insects. A fish is larger and you can really see it suffer if you kill it. Bugs just die right away and they are so small that it is hard to empathize with them if you kill them.

Next up are amphibians like frogs. For some reason this is a bit more serious than killing fish. Nonetheless, quite a few boys kill frogs and other amphibians. President George Bush did as a boy.

Next up would probably be reptiles. For some reason, I think this is a bit more serious than killing amphibians, mostly because I’ve rarely heard of boys killing reptiles.

It’s rare for boys to kill reptiles because they’re a bit dangerous. Also boys love to catch snakes and make pets out of them. My friends caught kingsnakes and made pets of them. You had to feed them live mice! Our friends cackled with glee watching their pet snakes eat a live mouse. I told you boys are evil. Lizards will also fight back and a lot of them bite, especially those nasty alligator lizards we have here in California.

Next up would be birds. Now we are getting serious because birds are warm-blooded. Killing cold-blooded creatures is not that big of a deal, as they are all extremely primitive creatures far removed from us. The closer the animal gets to a human, the more of a serious matter the animal killing is.

But humans are warm-blooded, so killing warm-blooded creatures is a big deal. The Mexican Indian man next door told me that as a boy in Mexico, they used to kill birds! I could not believe he did that, and he was a bit defensive about it. He came out fine though. There’s nothing wrong with him. But I like birds so I won’t look fondly on bird-killers.

I am just guessing, but I think bird-killers might be older than killers of cold-blooded creatures, who tend to be young boys. As boys become teenagers, most of them start to think that killing bugs, fish, amphibians, etc. is childish and stupid. If they still want to kill animals, I imagine that they graduate on to birds and mammals. But most boys who killed animals as boys simply stop killing creatures when they become teenagers. They simply mature out of it.

Next up of course is mammals. Mammals are warm-blooded, and humans are mammals. If you are hunting mammals for sport with a gun, that is one thing, especially if you are going to eat the animal you kill. But if you are just killing them for kicks (typically by torturing them to death), you’ve got problems, especially if you are killing dogs and cats, as we humans love these animals and make pets out of them.

Yes, many serial killers start out killing mammals as boys. It’s more or less practice for killing humans, which they will do later on. I have no idea if mammal-killing boys can turn out ok. Perhaps some of them can. But if you know of a child or adolescent who is killing mammals, some intervention is needed. As soon as possible. This is a serious matter not to be trifled with.

Also I would like to point out that mammal-killers tend to be older than the other animal-killers listed above. They are usually teenagers aged 14-16, and they can be both boys and girls, but they are mostly boys.

My Life as an Evil Young Boy

My brothers and friends and I were all wicked little shits as young boys.

We stole things.

We tortured and killed bugs and fish, and it was all a big blast.

We even had industrial mass murder facilities to kill the pillbugs because they ate our strawberries.

We poured salt on snails because they were pests.

We had “gladiator” fights or “bullfights” with these caterpillars called wollybears. There’s nothing wrong with these caterpillars. We simply killed them for sheer kicks.

We would clear out a circle on the dirt and that would be the arena. We would  put the caterpillar in the arena. Then we got these huge nails and threw them at the caterpillar. Every time we did it we shouted “Picadors!” or “Picadores!” (I love these hilarious names boys come up with for their evil games.) If you watch bullfights those are the guys on horses who ride up to the bull and stab it with spears to make it easier for the bullfighter.

We used to go fishing for smelts at this place called “The Smelt Place.” Original name, huh? It was in an estuary called the Bolsa Chica. There were fish called smelts there (Pacific smelts) and we could not catch enough of these damned things. We mostly just released them. We would catch up to 100 of them in a day.

Finally we got mad at the fish for, frankly, being such morons as to let us catch 100 of their kind every day without every figuring out that the Velveeta was nothing but a scam with a hook in it. We lost respect for them. I also think we got bored of catching them all the time.

So we started this game called “Acapulco Cliff Divers” (I love these hilarious names boys make up for their wicked games) where we would catch a smelt and then cast it over onto the rocks. The fish would land on the rocks, injuring it. Then we would reel the poor fish in over the damned rocks, which of course hurt them even more. They’d be dead after a couple of casts. I’m not sure how many days we did that, but it was not a lot.

One boy, TM, who had a diabolical laugh, tied a live smelt to a rope to the back of his back and then took off on his bike via the drainage ditch we used to access the place. The fish was dead shortly after. I remember he was laughing like a maniac the whole time he did this. We all thought that was pretty damn funny – tying a live fish to a rope and dragging it to its death! Ha ha! Good times!

Alt Left: The Left Hates Me Far More than the Right Does

SHI: Funny thing I am hated by the Hindutvadi morons more than they do Muslims. Something about me sets a TRIGGER and they react crazily.

They probably think you’re a traitor. You used to be one of them and now you went over to the other side. Few of them will admit it, but a lot of the hatred towards me is coming from that same point of view. Some of them are almost heartbroken. Heartbroken that this good liberal man has turned into such a vicious, evil, racist brute. Except I’m not really racist at all.

The Left hates me for more than the Right does. Most rightwingers are actually quite pleasant. The Left on the other hand has been vicious, destructive, and even evil, waging a campaign of personal destruction and character assassination against me. The take-down of my blog has been only part of that.

I’m lucky I don’t have an academic job, or any job, that these psychos could connect me with because they have openly stated that they will find out my job and try to get me fired on some SJW bullshit charge (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.).

It might be nice if there were a few employers in this country who reacted to this garbage with, “So what! So my employee is a racist, sexist, homophobe, whatever! In your highly subjective opinion, that is. I got some news for you. I don’t care! People like that are more than welcome to work for me!”

But no one has the balls to do that. I know you would though, SHI, if you were an employer. That’s why I like you.

On the other hand though that employer might get a boycott against him. But if we had enough employers doing that they might stop boycotting because how can you boycott thousands of businesses at once. It’s boy who cried wolf and people would just throw up their hands and say, “Forget it! I’m buying whatever I’m buying!”

I must say though that the liberal-Left is not alone in this insane, destructive, fanatical hate.

I got the exact same thing from the Bigfooters (some of the most vicious and downright wicked and sociopathic freaks I have ever encountered) and the true crime crowd, where a group of people, mostly women waged an all out war on me for  some things I wrote when I was reporting a crime.

From the True Crime Crowd it was basically coming from a total feminist POV, but it also picked up a lot of retarded Middle American monkeys from the Midwest, fundamentalist Christian redneck Trump-lovers.

A friend of mine refers to the enemy of the men as femiservatives. There are many conservatives out there who hate us men just as much as the feminists do. He uses some word like Feminist/Conservatives – I forget the actual terminology. A lot of this enemy is made up of conservative Republican fundamentalist Christian White women, part of the Trump coalition.

They’re the worst enemy I ever met. They tried very hard to dox me, and they reported me to the police probably 50 times. I even got a call from a detective who told me I was a suspect in a terrible crime because so many people had called me in.

Before that it was Jews, mostly super-Jews and Zionist Israel-reporters.  They doxed all of their enemies and contacted their employers and tried to get them fired as “anti-Semites.” Utterly vicious people with a black hole where their heart should be.

Is it something about the Internet and the anonymity of it that brings out the Secret Psychopath in so many people? Is it Snark Culture on the Net, exemplified by Reddit?

In fact, recently I found that people on Breitbart of all places were far more open-minded about US foreign policy, government lying, and media lying and bias. A lot of them are very cynical and they hardly believed anything the state or media said about anything anymore, which is a good idea because 50% of what they say is either lying or biased anyway.

One Brietbart commenter said that whenever the government says anything, your first assumption should be that they are lying. I’m not sure about that but on foreign policy it is absolutely. Disinformation, outright lying and blatant propaganda have essential tools of US foreign policy forever now, going back to the Spanish Civil War and the yellow journalism and state-sponsored hate campaigns that accompanied it.

I was shocked at how antiwar (in an isolationist way) they were. Half of those Brietbart commenters sounded exactly like me!

Then I went over to Daily Kos (the left wing base Democratic Party) headquarters, and they had swallowed all of the media and state lies about that refinery attack whole.

I will say that the Left (Alternet) has a very open mind, except on SJW crap, but a lot of the Alternet crowd are open-minded about that too, and a lot of them are starting to rebel against SJWism which they see as puritanical, prudish, uptight, priggish, party-pooping no-fun people. Others just think it is a silly and petty distraction.

Actually over on Daily Kos (liberals) the SJWism is vastly worse. That’s a brainwashed horde over there. And on the actual Hard Left (actual Communists and antifa anarchists) is where you will find the worst SJWism of all.

I think it is because both the Breitbart crowd and the Alternet Left have gone over to a “conspiracy theory” view of the world for some time now. At times this is quite wrong, but at other times, it is flat out true.

The Democratic Party though says that every time you question the media or state on anything foreign policy or some other things, it’s “conspiracy theory.” All “conspiracy theory” is banned on Daily Kos, for instance. Ok, now right off the bat you can’t talk about 50% of what the media or state is telling you because those are lies that can only be explained by,  frankly, conspiracy theory.

On the other hand though, even Kosnicks have come a long way. The early articles on the refinery attack were very skeptical, with 80% of them saying the government is lying. Now they are all saying the government is telling the truth.

It’s really pathetic when liberals of all people (we came out of the Vietnam War era, remember?) buy the foreign policy lies of the state and media far more than conservatives do, as conservatives have always been more likely to believe this propaganda crap.

Modern liberal Democrats are utterly pathetic. They’re better than they used to be, but they are still a huge clusterfuck.

One thing that particularly galls me is that conservatives are far friendlier, nicer, and more decent to me than the Left is. And I am a Leftist! I am supposed to be one of their sworn enemies! They are supposedly full of hate, viciousness and outright evil, but when you meet them, they’re so nice and pleasant, even to an out and out Leftist!

On the other hand though the SJW Left are utter monsters – savage, destructive,, and vindictive freaks. I always thought we on the liberal-Left were the nice and compassionate ones and the Right was where al the haters and hate was. Now it’s the other way around.

It’s so discouraging and disappointing. In a way, it breaks my heart. I have been a man of the Left my whole life, and now it feels, just as I feel about my country, that the love of my life (the Left) has ripped out my heart and crushed it on the ground like a bug. So I’m also heartbroken. Heartbroken at both my country and the liberal-Left, two things I once held near and dear to my heart.

Repost: What Are the Odds of a Human Surviving a Wolf Attack?

This is a repost of a very nice earlier post from four years ago that is being posted around the Net right now.
From the Internet. Fascinating stuff.  A number of respondents said they would bet on the human or said that a smart human can indeed take out a wolf, although your odds are a lot better if you are armed with anything.
However, many other respondents said if you a wolf attacks you, and you are unarmed, get ready to die. You’re gone. Overwhelmingly, your chances of survival are near zero.
First thing to note is that they are extremely intelligent, far smarter than a dog.

I raised many hybrid wolves, mostly German Shepherd breeds, and one 80% wolf that was awesome with me and my partner, but no one else dared go near it – luckily it never really wanted to mess with people, but if you picked a fight with it, you picked the wrong one to fight with…
The thing with wolves is the intelligence and the chess match you are involved in from first encounter. They are always thinking two steps ahead and know what to do, even as youngsters…
…If you are in a fight with a wolf, I’d give you less than the minute it took for them to down a pig, and unless you’re some kind of ninja, you’d never remember what happened. They know where and when to strike you, know how to do it, and are so smart.

99% of the time, you are going to die.

Maybe if you knew some kind of special wolf triangle choke where you could incapacitate the wolf, but just like everyone else says, you’ll lose that fight 99 times out of 100.

A wolf is not a dog.

You wouldn’t stand a chance in Hell against an adult wolf.
Oliver Starr has dozens of accounts of living with wolves, including several on this very subject, and one thing that is quite clear is wolves are not just wild dogs.

Wolves chew right through solid metal objects. Think of what they could do to your measly flesh.

My friends had a part wolf dog. The most noticeable difference was the mouth. That wolf dog was very friendly, but he had a long head and was all teeth. Having read Oliver Starr’s story I would not give myself good odds of surviving if he had ever tried to take me down. He once chewed through a metal cooler to get some lunch meat and routinely chewed open food cans.
Wolves are not dogs, and it only takes two dogs to kill an adult human.

Even if you do live and kill the wolf, you might wish you had not survived:

If you do manage to fight the wolf off, you could be hurt really bad, possibly sustaining life-threatening wounds. A bite can tear open major veins, crush bones, and rip open your abdomen or throat.

Police are allowed to use deadly force against even large dogs that seriously attack them. It is considered a deadly force encounter.

That is why I as an officer am allowed to shot a wolf or dog that I feel is going to attack me. It is considered a deadly force encounter.

If you don’t have a gun, the best thing to do is to climb a tree, but that probably won’t work, as wolves are fast as lightning.

A wolf will kill most adult humans easily. That is why if  you fight a wolf, you must always presume it will be a fight to the death, and you had better want to live. Yes, some people have hysterical/psychotic strength, but that happens rarely and cannot be depended on. Best advice is to climb a tree (if you get the chance, good luck with that) if unarmed, otherwise shoot it if you have a gun.


Alt Left: Are Males Violent Because of Patriarchy?

The feminist argument is that males are violent due to patriarchy. They say this because all feminists reject biological gender and think that gender is a social construct. So you deconstruct gender, get rid of masculinity, and wa-law, males are as pacifistic as females.
I have said for a while now that if you want to understand men and women, study mammals, especially the higher-order ones. The males are always far more violent than the females. They fight, sometimes to the death, for access to females. The most Alpha male mammals end up with entire harems of females. The rest of the Beta male mammals are resigned to bachelorhood and probably never breed.
It’s even true with cats. I have had many cats in my life. The males were far more aggressive and even violent than the females. And these males had been castrated for Chrissake. Many of them seemed to have an almost wild, restless energy about them such that they never seemed to calm down much.
One thing I learned that in general you cannot have more than one male cat in a household. Most times I got more than one male, they fought like maniacs. They almost tried to kill each other. The theory is that the males are territorial. The other male is encroaching on the first male’s territory. At the moment I have only female cats. They are so much calmer. In case anyone is wondering, humans are mammals. If male mammals are a lot more violent than female mammals, wouldn’t it be logical to assume the same is true in humans?
I am indeed a biological essentialist. I think the feminists cut us men way too much slack. The feminists are Utopians. They think that if they can just fix up society enough, we men will stop being so aggressive and violent. If only it were that easy.
I’ll take the feminists one step further: Males are innately violent. I would even expand that to males and humans who behave like males.
Masculinity is not a requirement. Gay men are quite violent. Gay male relationships are more violent than relationships between men and women. Further, transwomen are extremely unmasculine in behavior (they behave like ultra-feminine women), but we can see how violent and dangerous many transwomen are – probably more so than cisgender men. I think this is the autogynephile group. The true transsexual group, mostly homosexuals, is probably less violent than cisgender men and probably even less violent than cisgender gay men.
It is from this evidence that I would say that the problem is something inherent in us men – in our minds – and just waging war on masculinity won’t get rid of it.

"They’re Not Oysters," by Alpha Unit

Connecticut, West Virginia, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Idaho, Nebraska, and Alaska have at least one thing in common: each has a Panhandle (WV has two). The Nebraska Panhandle is the westernmost part of Nebraska, where the prairie turns into rocky mesas, buttes, and pillars, such as Chimney Rock. It’s where the Midwest becomes the West.

Cattle outnumber people by about three to one in Nebraska. While Eastern Nebraska has excellent cropland for corn, the rest of the state is abundant with grassland for cattle grazing. In the semi-arid Panhandle, cattle ranching dominates. That means Rocky Mountain Oysters are a celebrated delicacy.

This past April the Sidney Shooting Park held its 8th Annual Rocky Mountain Oyster Fry and Fundraiser at the Cheyenne County Fairgrounds west of Sidney, Nebraska. At the Silver Dollar Bar and Grill, also in Sidney, you can stop in for cold beer, onion rings, and Rocky Mountain Oysters – described by one satisfied customer as hot, fresh, and tender.

They might have been hot, fresh, and tender, but you and I know that there aren’t any oyster reefs in Nebraska. These Oysters are bull testicles – or, more accurately, calf testicles. In spring or early summer, ranchers dehorn and castrate bull calves that they won’t be using as breeding stock. They call these non-breeding stock steers. The males that keep their testicles and are later used as breeding stock they call bulls. The main purpose of castration is to calm their tempers, says Dr. Jake Geis, cattle rancher and veterinarian.

Simply put, bulls like to fight. They fight to establish dominance and even after they settle the hierarchy, they fight to re-assert dominance. Dr. Geis says that he’s worked on bulls that have been banged up fighting each other; sometimes the animal is so badly injured that a rancher has no choice but to put it down. Breeding bulls are essential so the problem can’t be entirely avoided, but castrating the non-breeding animals reduces the number of bulls from half the calf crop to three or four.

Also, bulls are more aggressive toward people than steers. Castrating bulls makes them mellower and safer to work with. A herdsman could be seriously injured or killed by a bull while loading or unloading them via trailers.

Another problem, says Dr. Geis, is that when bull calves reach puberty, they want to start breeding. Young females, or heifers, on the other hand, aren’t ready to breed. They can get pregnant but they can’t yet safely deliver and raise a calf. Castration eliminates this problem.

Arguably the most important reason for castrating bull calves is that Americans prefer the taste of steer meat to that of bull meat. The hormone profile of steers with their reduced testosterone changes the flavor of the meat. Dr. Geis says that not all cultures share this preference. He mentions that in Italian culture bull meat is preferred. This means they raise the bulls to harvest weight but have to manage all the problems with aggressiveness and fighting.

With a pair of organs coming off each calf, ranchers could easily end up with scores of them in a day’s work. The dogs get their share before the ranchers, herdsmen, and their families cook the rest just as they would any other part of the animal. The same as cattlemen have done for centuries all over the world.

When they’re not castrating bulls, beef cattle herdsmen are doing various other things with cattle such as feeding, giving vaccinations, tagging or branding, trimming hooves, assisting with births, performing artificial insemination, loading animals onto trailers, driving feed trucks, maintaining pastures, mending fences, and just about anything else that needs to be done on the ranch or feedlot.

Even Ducks Don't Like Indians

You Indians better work on your personalities! You’re even starting to piss of the birds for Chrissake, and birds are pretty stupid. Where do you think birdbrain came from? And ducks are some of the dumbest birds of them all.
My high school biology teacher once told us that ducks were very stupid.
On her farm where she grew up, there was this path they walked down every day, and the path turned sharply into a low spot where a pond of water had collected in the trail.
The pond was easily avoided if you knew it was coming. The ducks would walk along the path and then turn the corner and land right in the water, upsetting and surprising them. They never learned anything from one day to the next, like a lot of humans I know. Every day they made the same damned mistake and fell into the pond squawking again. They simply could not recall that there was a bend in the trail and a hidden pond after it that they had fallen into the day before.
I guess these London swans* are not too stupid though! They seem have figured out like so many of us in the West that Indians are lousy people!
*If you are interested, there are three types of birds: ducks, swans and geese. They are all related as members of the larger Duck Family. Swans and geese are separate genera, something I was not aware of (I just learned that today!). Swans and geese are larger than ducks. They must be closely related though because swans and geese can interbreed to form hybrids (I just learned that today too!). Isn’t life cool? Here I am at 60 years old and I am still learning new things, even new basic facts about our world, almost every day! I don’t know about the rest of you, but I think that’s really neat. H who is not busy growing is busy dying.

I’m confused. Sure, humans have racist impulses; Ballets like Swan Lake are said to be ‘racist,’ but…UK Swans Hate Ethnic Minorities (right click to open in new window):
(Birds have more acute eyesight than human I check).

“Angry ‘Racist’ Swans are Terrorizing Students at Warwick University

The bullying birds have been spotted standing guard at a campus footbridge to stop humans from crossing. Students say they are being continually confronted on their way to lectures. And the birds – who are currently in their breeding season – are said to be particularly aggressive towards Indian students. One victim, a 24-year-old student who asked not to be named, said:
“I am from India, and they attack me especially – they focus straight on me. We have been warned that the swans will be a bit feisty at this time of year, but they go for me all year round. I think they don’t like too many Indians in England – maybe the swans here are a little bit racist.”
When the yanks pick an African ballerina to play Odette, the swan queen, they picked one with fairer skin and without peppercorn hair.


Why Are Some Animals Gay? Are There any That Do Not Reproduce Due to Being Gay? Wouldn’t That Be an Evolutionary Disadvantage? If It’s Just a Selected Few in a Group, How Do You Know That It’s Not an Anomaly?

Answered on Queera, I mean Quora.

The PC line is that homosexuality is widespread in the animal kingdom. “All animals are gay!” is how Gay Politics propaganda goes. Actually it’s not.

This line is taken to extremes recently, and it is not uncommon to hear PC types say that 10% of all types of birds and mammals are gay. That’s clearly nonsense.

Both claims are simply examples of the typical retarded lying that Gay Politics constantly engages in. It shares this with other forms of Identity Politics, all of which are forms of chauvinist propaganda for various groups based on massive retarded lying and victim worship for the identity group along with demonization and irrational, often bizarre and extremely dishonest propagandized hatred of out-group “oppressors” of the same group.

There are cases of two same sex birds incubating an egg, but apparently there was a shortage of the opposite sex that gave rise to this. Also they didn’t have sex with each other.

I had a cat once that went into heat. You can hear and even observe when a cat is in heat. I won’t go into details. You will have to figure it out for yourself. When this cat was in heat, one of my female cats tried to mount the female in heat!

If you drive mice crazy enough in the lab or subject them to very crowded conditions, male mice will attempt to mount each other. They don’t actually have sex. This is called lordosis. This pseudo-homosexuality is a side effect of the mice being driven crazy by overcrowding or whatever. This suggests that homosexuality may be a psychological or sociological behavioral disturbance in some cases.

Bonobo chimpanzees (at least the females) are apparently often bisexual, but I am not aware of any gay or lesbian bonobos, nor am I aware of male bonobos having sex with each other.

However, sheep are a good case for homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Approximately 6% of male sheep prefer to mount other male sheep. I am not sure what they accomplish when they do that, but that’s what they do. They don’t have sex with female sheep. That is quite an excellent analogy in the animal world to male homosexuality among humans. As far as why sheep are like this, I have no idea at all.

In Social Species Considered to Be More Intelligent, Are Females or Males Likely to be Dominant?

Answered on Quora: 
In most mammals, males are far more aggressive and even violent than females.
Take cats. I have had many cats in my life, sometimes whole herds of them, up to five at a time. Male cats are far more aggressive and violent than female cats. And they are so territorial that I can never have more than one male cat in a house. Frankly even one is an issue. The more I study male and female cats, the more I think they resemble male and female humans.
If you study other mammals – seals, elk, deer, etc., you will find much the same thing.

"Fishing on the Big Black," by Alpha Unit

The Big Black River, flowing southwest across Mississippi, is the site of a pivotal battle during the Vicksburg Campaign of the Civil War. After a decisive loss at Champion Hill, the Confederates reached the Big Black River on the night of May 16, 1863, under the command of Lt. Gen. John Pemberton, commander of the Confederate Army of Mississippi.

The Confederates constructed earthworks on the river’s east bank and placed 18 guns behind the works. Large sections of Pemberton’s line were protected by a bayou of waist-deep water. A planked-over railroad bridge and another makeshift bridge provided access to additional artillery overlooking the river on its west bank.

Union forces led by Maj. Gen. John McClernand encountered the Confederates early on the morning of May 17. It just so happened that the men led by Brig. Gen. Michael Lawler actually got to the Rebels first, wading through the bayou to overrun the Confederates on the east bank of the river. Inspired by Lawler’s attack, other Union formations surged forward.

Overwhelmed, the Confederates broke for the makeshift bridges to get to the west bank. Most of Pemberton’s men made it across, but Pemberton’s chief engineer set fire to both bridges to cut off any Union pursuit. Many of the Confederates tried to swim across the river and drowned. About 1,700 Rebels were stranded on the east bank and subsequently captured. It was the final battle before the Siege of Vicksburg.

After floods you can still sometimes find artifacts from the gunboat battles that took place on the Big Black River during the War. But most people on the river nowadays aren’t really interested in Civil War artifacts. The big payoff during springtime on the Big Black are flathead catfish – also called tabby cats, shovelhead cats, yellow cats, flatties, and who knows how many other names. The Big Black River will overflow her banks that time of year. As Cliff Covington tells it:

Foraging catfish move into the flooded timber in large numbers. Catfish anglers take advantage of this feeding frenzy by setting multiple trotlines in likely spots along the main channel. Chicken livers, cut skipjack, live goldfish, and pond perch are the baits of choice when a boatload of catfish is the big objective.

Muddy and slow-flowing due to the large amount of sediment it carries, the Big Black River is renowned for yielding blue, channel, and flathead catfish of what Covington calls “mythical proportions.” It is one of the premier handgrabbing destinations in the South. A handgrabber catches fish by placing his hands directly into a catfish hole, and some anglers are very good at it. Covington refers to Woodie Reaves, who says there is no better place for handgrabbing catfish than the shallow waters of the Big Black.

While Reaves’ personal best is a 93-pound whale of a catfish that he wrestled from its underwater bed just a few years ago, his group routinely lands up to 25 big cats, averaging 50 pounds each, every time they venture out on this stream.

Sportsmen say that the Big Black River is also a good place for bowfishing. Bowfishers use highly specialized bows to catch fish, usually on a boat set up just for bowfishing. Hunting fish using a bow and arrow isn’t new at all and is a traditional way of fishing all over the world. Bert Turcotte of Vicksburg has been an avid bowfisher since high school and says that anyone with a regular bow can also fish this way. As he told Phillip Gentry:

All kinds of bows can be used for bowfishing. People who like traditional archery can easily equip a recurve bow for fishing. Any compound bow can also easily be set up, but the range of draw weight is the key. Forty pounds of draw weight or less will get the job done here in Mississippi.

Unlike hunting bows, fishing bows come with reels for retrieving your prey.

In Mississippi you can legally catch carp, buffalo, gar, shad, bowfin, and catfish with a bow. There are restrictions, however, on when and where you can catch catfish in this way.
Gentry says that nearly all bowfishing is done at night when carp, buffalo, and gar can be found hiding in extremely shallow water. Buffalo and carp feed on aquatic vegetation and are especially fond of newly planted areas that have recently flooded from spring rain. Gar are the most commonly sought daytime species, he says, and can be found “sunning” in shallow water or lurking near the surface in deeper water.

Sean Ford of Madison, Mississippi, uses a gas generator on his bowfishing boat to power either sodium or halogen lights for night fishing. He says:

The platform will allow two of us to fish at the same time from the front as we ease along in shallow water with the trolling motor, looking for fish to shoot.

An angler will use a trolling motor on his boat in order to move quietly through the water. You don’t want to spook the fish.