Bloody shovel

We shall drown, and nobody will save us

Liberal Purity

All this ritual showering and purification was triggered by reading the suggestion that the following person’s voice is disturbing:

PS: Kudos to Ms. Castillo for her total takedown of Gay Dad Kuznicki.

The Voice of Evil

So World War T is raging on, and what seemed like a mere blitzkrieg where the anointed elite just sent the a panzer rampage to force everyone to make a transsexual friend or be fired from their jobs immediately; it seems that the blitzkrieg preparations have stumbled ostensibly because of internal wreckers, which of course calls for massive purges.

Steve Sailer gave this iconic quite:

The members of the board of the New York Abortion Access Fund, an all-volunteer group that helps to pay for abortions for those who can’t afford them, are mostly young women; Alison Turkos, the group’s co-chair, is twenty-six. In May, they voted unanimously to stop using the word “women” when talking about people who get pregnant, so as not to exclude trans men.

You can’t make this stuff up. You certainly shouldn’t make this stuff up. What a sick mind would make up something like this? Anyway I wondered what sort of person was this Ms. Turkos, and Google provided.

スクリーンショット 2014-07-30 18.09.58

Cthulhu’s gaze

I’m starting to think that the reason that Christianity and pretty much all religions don’t allow for women priests is for our own good. Men can be brutal, but women can be nasty, evil things. Theocracy was bad enough as it was historically; but letting women into the inquisitorial system would leed to too much cruelty for even the official torturers to handle. It’s a commonly known fact that communist parties and leftist terrorist groups have much more female members than most other male dominated groups. Names like Jiang Qing or Rosa Luxemburg come to mind. Hell, there are stories everywhere of female shamans and witches and what not. We also know that the ancients were more violent and up to a third of all bones found had died of violent deaths. Join the dots and it seems plausible that the patriarchy brought piece and calm to humanity.

So related to World War T, what goes through the mind of a man who transforms himself into a woman? Does he become nice and nurturing? Or an evil bitch? I make a short study with n=1. But it’s a very big n.

I’m usually a serene, mildly mannered, quite cynical man, and there is little that can shock me or disturb me. But sometimes you see such big and naked examples of evil that you can’t help feeling some cold sweat, the disturbing feeling of helplessness when one sees evil and knows one can’t do anything about it. I felt like that when I read Tyler Cowen subtly poison the well of David Brat’s house and exhorted him to refer to Donald McCloskey as a woman. Damn, that was the smoothest leftist signaling I’ve ever seen. And it felt deeply unsettling. Steve Sailer wrote recently about how World War T is just about elite posturing, where does who can make a transsexual friend faster than the others win; if that’s true Cowen won decades ago. In fact one gets the impression that Cowen kinda engineered World War T in order to be able to harness his old relationship with McCloskey.

In fact I gotta admit I didn’t know about McCloskey until Adam Gurri, from Umlaut, and also a Cowen minion (when you think about it Tyler Cowen has built or enabled a pretty impressive internet media apparatus) mentioned it as his intellectual mentor. I checked the title of the book in Amazon and didn’t give it much further thought, until Sailer started writing about McCloskey the Harvard Rugby player and his crusade against honest research on autogynephilia. So I looked on youtube, and damn this is the most scary shit I’ve seen in years.

 

What’s the deal with that voice? Isn’t this the voice of evil? Listen to that ghostly aftersound that comes out after every utterance. If Cthulhu has a voice, this must be the closest thing to it. I thought it was a sound artifact of the video compression, but the BBC anchor has a normal voice, and all other videos of McCloskey have the same demon-ish voice.

I guess the rationalist thing to do would be to hate the sin, not the sinner, 對事不對人 as the Chinese say, deal with people’s ideas without regard to their personalities. That’s just an ad hominem fallacy. Well I’m sorry but I can’t read a piece written by McCloskey ever again without playing that ghastly voice in my mind, and it creeps me out to no end. All I can think of is Cthulhu swimming left, forcing us all to swim with him or be drowned by the huge right-moving waves that the leftwards move produces.

And delusion often prevails

Adult women, both in the U.S. and in Zambia, are in competition for material resources and the men that provide them. The Zambian sub-elite women studied by Schuster are described as being sexually assertive and the matrilineal tradition of most Zambian tribes suggests that paternal confidence would not be high even among more traditional Zambians. The same is likely to be true in the matrifocal communities found toward the bottom of the social ladder in stratified industrial societies. A woman in such a community, therefore, could expect many direct attempts by other women to attract her mate for a short-term relationship, whereas this would be less of a threat to women in communities where male investment is high and women are less interested in short-term relationships. A larger number of sexually unrestricted competitors, rather than just a shortage of desirable men, maylie behind the greater female-female aggression found in communities with low male parental investment.

 

The fighting over reputation (rather than over a particular man) found in Campbell’s and Marsh and Paton’s young adolescent girls may stem from age effects on their economic circumstances and their expectations of male investment. They are presumably living at home and are perhaps less in need of resources than they will be later. They may also be more optimistic about securing the investment of a high-status mate. Schuster describes the Zambian women she studied as being optimistic and “starry-eyed” when young, expecting “to find a handsome, wealthy, educated man and marry, then to go on to life in a big house, with the ideal four children…” After a series of disappointing encounters, however, they typically become tough, get themselves a number of boyfriends, and become manipulative toward men.In the words of one jaded Zambian woman, “Why put all your eggs in one basket, especially since nearly all of them are rotten anyway?”A concern with a good sexual reputation may have mattered when they were young, but the women have other problems facing them now. Optimism about finding a desirable mate has also been described for young women in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, for whom “youth is a temporary asset that they utilize to the fullest extent. [Among those who] have been befriended by more successful men…a particular combination of entrepreneurship and delusion often prevails.”

 

A period of mating optimism among young adult women may be a regular feature of female psychology. A woman’s reproductive value—hence her chances of marrying upward in the social scale—is at its height when she is young. These odds may favor the type of sexual restraint and concern with sexual reputation that would make finding such a mate more likely. As a woman ages, particularly if she experiences disappointments that suggest she is unlikely to get what she wants, a shift in mating tactics may be expected. Schuster’s informants, in other words, may be behaving quite rationally; it would be interesting to know if their experience is widely shared. There is a hint of this shift in Marsh and Paton’s teenage girls. They report that the younger ones were ambivalent about their aggressiveness because they were aware that it is not regarded as feminine, whereas the older teens were uninhibited about their aggressiveness and unconcerned about appearing unfeminine.

The origin of polygamy

If women act on these stated preferences we would expect wealthy men
to have more mates, and there is ample cross-cultural evidence that they do. The importance of resources to women is apparent even in egalitarian societies such as the Ache and the Sharanahua, where the best hunters are able to attract the most sexual partners.

 

The relationship between wealth and male mating success is consistent with female choice for wealthy males, but it could also indicate differences in competitive ability among men, since a wealthy high-status man is more likely to out-compete his rivals for control over women.16 It is difficult to disentangle these causes of polygyny, and a discussion of this problem is beyond the scope of this paper.

 

It seems likely, however, that female choice for wealthy, high-status males (or the choice of her kinsmen on her behalf) is an important factor in many polygynous societies. Borgerhoff-Mulder’s fieldwork among the agro-pastoral Kipsigis provides some of the best evidence that polygyny is a consequence of women’s preferences for wealthy men. In a longitudinal study that followed the marriage histories of pioneers over a 17-year period, Borgerhoff-Mulder showed that women new to the area were more likely to choose as husbands men who could offer them more land (i.e., land available to the prospective wife after division among existing wives). Total wealth (i.e., before division) was unrelated to a man’s chances of getting a mate, which indicates that female choice rather than direct male competition is the key to polygyny in this society. 

Women’s Mating Strategies

The Google guys made billions out of a search engine. Why is that? Back before the Internet, the problem for intelligent people was having access to information. The solution to that was libraries, and an intellectual community of people one could ask about what is important to read.

But then came massive schooling, universal literacy, industrial printing, and eventually the Internet. Access to information is (Elsevier notwithstanding) is not a problem anymore. The problem now is the sheer amount of utterly worthless filth information out there. Access to information is no good if 99.99% of that information is pure crap. In fact it’s worse than not reading at all; as the brain’s capacity has limits, and filling your memory with crap is likely to prevent the absorption of better knowledge.

And that’s why Google is so valuable, it helps tell the wheat from the chaff. But only to a point, though. The fact is that even the Internet is so full of crap these days, you still need to spend hours yourself in order to find some good looking grains of wisdom.

Which is of course why the blogosphere exists; besides our priceless commentary, most of what we do is finding good stuff online and sharing it.

Anyway, I was lurking in some dark and hellish corner of the blogosphere, and I found a link to a very neat paper on sex relations.

Women’s Mating Strategies
Evolutionary Anthropology 5:134–143, 1996
Elizabeth Cashdan
Department of Anthropology, University of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT 84112

First thing I noticed was University of Utah. Isn’t there where Cochran and Harpending work? This gotta be good. And it is. And look at the date. 1996! This pearl, no this full oyster farm of wisdom has been hiding in the internet for almost 20 years and nobody told me. Fuck Google, we need the Antiversity running up, fast.

Anyway, my blogging has been slow lately, so I’m going to pull an Isegoria and silently quote some pieces of the paper over several posts. No commentary is needed; the paper is clear as crystal.

What does a woman want? The traditional evolutionist’s answer to Freud’s famous query is that a woman’s extensive investment in each child implies that she can maximize her fitness by restricting her sexual activity to one or at most a few high-quality males. Because acquiring resources for her offspring is of paramount importance, a woman will try to attract wealthy, high-status men who are willing and able to help her. She must be coy and choosy, limiting her attentions to men worthy of her and emphasizing her chastity so as not to threaten the paternity confidence of her mate.

The lady has been getting more complicated of late, however. As Sarah Hrdy1 predicted, we now have evidence that women, like other female pri- mates, are also competitive, randy creatures. Women have been seen com- peting with their rivals using both physical aggression2,3 and more subtle derogation of competitors.4 While they are still sometimes coy and chaste, women have also been described recently as sexy and sometimes promis- cuous creatures, manipulating fatherhood by the timing of orgasm, and using their sexuality to garner resources from men.

The real answer to Freud’s query, of course, is that a woman wants it all: a man with the resources and inclination to invest, and with genes that make him attractive to other women so that her sons will inherit his success. Her strategies for attaining these somewhat conflicting aims, and her success in doing so, are shaped by her own resources and options and by conflicts of interest with men and other women.  

We need a new religion, 3

Isegoria has been running a series of posts quoting John Glubb’s The Fate of Empires. It’s a great book, short and to the point. Not exactly erudite and full of data, but the patterns he points out are very interesting, even though his analysis is not quite consistent.

I also found interesting his chapter on religion, which agrees on some old idea of mine:

 

In due course, selfishness permeated the community, the coherence of which was weakened until disintegration was threatened. Then, as we have seen, came the period of pessimism with the accompanying spirit of frivolity and sensual indulgence, by- products of despair. It was inevitable at such times that men should look back yearningly to the days of ‘religion’, when the spirit of self-sacrifice was still strong enough to make men ready to give and to serve, rather than to snatch.

But while despair might permeate the greater part of the nation, others achieved a new realisation of the fact that only readiness for self-sacrifice could enable a community to survive. Some of the greatest saints in history lived in times of national decadence, raising the banner of duty and service against the flood of depravity and despair.

In this manner, at the height of vice and frivolity the seeds of religious revival are quietly sown. After, perhaps, several generations (or even centuries) of suffering, the impoverished nation has been purged of its selfishness and its love of money, religion regains its sway and a new era sets in. ‘It is good for me that I have been afflicted,’ said the psalmist, ‘that I might learn Thy Statutes.’

 

I’d say we need renewal, and not yet another revival, but the train of thought is similar.

Glubb has an interesting proposal:

If the present writer were a millionaire, he would try to establish in some university or other a department dedicated solely to the study of the rhythm of the rise and fall of powerful nations throughout the world. History goes back only some 3,000 years, because before that period writing was not sufficiently widespread to allow of the survival of detailed records. But within that period, the number of empires available for study is very great.

At the commencement of this essay, the names of eleven such empires were listed, but these included only the Middle East and the modern nations of the West. India, China and Southern America were not included, because the writer knows nothing about them. A school founded to study the rise and fall of empires would probably find at least twenty-four great powers available for dissection and analysis.

The task would not be an easy one, if indeed the net were cast so wide as to cover virtually all the world’s great nations in 3,000 years. The knowledge of language alone, to enable detailed investigations to be pursued, would present a formidable obstacle.

He is also not alone with this idea; many out there are studying this topic, and histories on non-western Civilizations are much easier to find today. At the very least an attempt to map Glubb’s theory of historical stages with the dynastic cycles in China shouldn’t be too hard.

 

Soft Power

So it seems that the USA is in the business of arranging the delivery via surrogate mothers of babies for foreign homosexuals.

For all the faults of the evil empire of the USSR, and the evil axis of Iran and whoever, all they did was run their own fucked up countries and peripheral satellites. The USA today is supplying the needs of sexual deviants, feminists, communists and every other agitators all around the world.

Thankfully the Portuguese legal system hasn’t yet caught up with American innovations like a birth certificate with two fathers; but most certainly the American embassy will take care of that very soon, by applying the necessary pressure on the Portuguese ‘sovereign’ government.

And people complain that some are too sympathetic to Putin or the Chinese. People clutch at straws when they feel in danger, and this sort of stuff is likely to fry the purity foundation circuits of any sane person.

A modest proposal on WWG

Seems Twitter is awash with talk on what the correct reactionary attitude towards gays, trannies and other sexual deviants must be.

Social conservatives have a range of opinions about what sexual deviancy is really about. Is it a curse? Just something people do out of lust and other sinful desires (which we should stop them from doing)? Or perhaps it is somewhat inborn or unchosen, yet disgusting all the same so we should make them hide it at least so we don’t have to talk about it.

Then there’s social liberals who just think sex is rad and people should be free to have orgasms however they like have them. The right side of the internet is also full of these sort of people, even among self-styled neoreactionaries. Blowhard comes to mind. He’s even running a porn tumblr these days. Moldbug tended to avoid the topic, which is an intelligent thing to do when you live in San Francisco.

And of course progressives not only think sexual deviants should be free to do so; they must be worshipped as gods and every single fancy of them must be taught in public schools to entice primary school kids into participating eventually. Or not so eventually.

What to do? I have a proposal.

If I had to choose one, I’d call myself a social conservative. Progressives are evil and insane. Social liberals are also in my opinion misguided. Sex is not about orgasms. Ultimately it’s about reproduction. And reproduction is about whose genes get to be present in the next generation. Personnel is policy, so sex must be regulated. It has always been so, for a reason. A basic principle of all civilized societies is that sex is not about fun, and people’s mating instincts can’t be left to themselves. Farming doesn’t come naturally, agricultural civilizations less so; and so the patriarchy was invented to make it possible. That’s a matter of history, of actual fact, not of ethical speculation. And history is more important and much more interesting than ethics. If you don’t agree I don’t want to talk to you. You should get yourself in a monastery.

However social conservatives also tend to miss the facts and let themselves be fooled by moral tradition. And that’s wrong. Sexual deviancy is out there, and has always been, and wishing it out of existence isn’t going to help. Tradition is about filtering out the inconvenient parts of the past. Well we have more data now. Greeks were into banging ephebes. Romans were into abortion and dysgenics. There’s plenty of quite disturbing sexual practices in all of the Good Old Days.

The word reactionary conveys the idea that there are social arrangements from the past that are superior to those of modernity. But of course not all of them were. What modernity has, at least in comparison to the pre-Enlightenment period, is empirical science. So my proposal is:

Sexual deviants are to be objects of research. It’s much more important to understand why homosexuality happens, than it is to suppress it. It is much more interesting to find out why a army veteran chooses to chop off his dick and call himself Jessica, instead of marrying a woman and making children with her. Cognitive science has advanced a lot, and this corner of the blogosphere owns as much to it as it does to genetics research.

So my proposal is: neoreactionaries must see sexual deviants as guinea pigs. Not as friends, not as enemies, but as fascinating broken brain which must be peeked into. We want to know why some men prefer to suck cock, why the daughter of a HK billionaire goes out with an ugly dyke, why Afghanis lust after 10 year old boys, why trendy american fags have lisps. Agnostic has been publishing his thoughts on this issue, and while his methods aren’t very scientific, he has produced by himself more interesting insight than 100 Anissimovs and 500 Anarcho-papists in Twitter and all their followers combined.

So gentlemen: less ought, and more is. Let us strive to advance knowledge, else you’re just yet another member of the chattering classes. And not a very good one at that.

Craziness

There’s two sorts of people. The optimists who periodically get enthusiastic about something and feel how everything is going to turn out great, and they’re gonna be part of it personally. Then there are the adults who come by and tell you to calm down. It’s not gonna turn out great and you aren’t gonna be part of it anyway.

The Internet has brought the inner optimist in a lot of people. Bitcoin is a recent example most will know about. But there’s also the more general principle, that the Internet has dramatically lowered the ease of access to publishing. Anyone can run a website or a blog, and tell truths that the establishment doesn’t want in the official media. So the truth will be published, so that everyone can read it, and so the truth will prevail, and the people set free!

Instead we see the people organizing online campaigns to get Brendan Eich fired. Actually this is a pretty old threat in the blogosphere. Is the Internet a good thing? Will it help dissenters get together, to spread and refine their views? Or will the Cathedral simply colonize the Internet and use its technology to run a massive surveillance and brainwashing operation, also making it easy to subvert foreign countries? Well it probably has done both. But it’s also obvious which has more important consequences.

Yet… that doesn’t mean the Internet is bad. Far from it. For one, it has given us great websites such as Real History. And now seriously, every now and then one finds a mindblowing piece of scholarship in the web that makes you glad you like reading. It certainly makes me glad of having learned to read English.

Randall Collins’ blog is a great example of that. It’s just great. Amazingly insightful writing. I found it thanks to a link at Isegoria. Isegoria himself wrote once that Moldbug had hacked his brain. Well I kinda feel that Mr. Collins has hacked mine.

Be sure to check out the whole thing, at the very least his posts during 2014. They’re all great, but his last on Jesus as the epitome of charisma is amazing. Part of it is that I love this sort of alternate views of history. But Collins is good. Very good. I’d link to the best parts but Isegoria has done that already.

I’d like to point out the part where he analyzes Jesus’s alleged miracles:

 

Here we can apply modern sociology of mental illness, and of physical sickness. As Talcott Parsons pointed out, there is a sick role that patients are expected to play; it is one’s duty to submit oneself to treatment, to put up with hospitals, follow the authority of medical personnel, all premised on a social compact that this is done to make one well. But ancient society had no such sick role; it was a passive and largely hopeless position. Goffman, by doing fieldwork inside a mental hospital, concluded that the authoritarian and dehumanizing aspects of this total institution destroys what sense of personal autonomy the mental patient has left. Hence acting out– shouting, defecating in the wrong places, showing no modesty with one’s clothes, breaking the taboos of ordinary social life– are ways of rebelling against the system. They are so deprived of normal social respect that the only things they can do to command attention are acts that degrade them still further. Demon-possessed persons in the Bible act like Goffman’s mental patients, shouting or staying mute, and disrupting normal social scenes.*

 

* This research was in the 1950s and 1960s, before mental patients were controlled by mood-altering drugs. The further back we go in the history of mental illness, the more treatments resemble ancient practices of chaining, jailing or expelling persons who break taboos.

 

One gets the impression of a remarkable number of such demon-possessed– i.e. acting-out persons– in ancient Palestine. ** They are found in almost every village and social gathering. Many of them are curable, by someone with Jesus’ charismatic techniques of interaction. He pays attention to them, focusing on them wholly and steadily until they change their behavior and come back into normal human interaction; in every case that is described, Jesus is the first person in normal society with whom the bond is established. Each acknowledges him as their savior and want to stay with him; but Jesus almost always sends them back, presumably into the community of Christian followers who will now take such cured persons as emblems of the miracles performed.

 

** A psychiatric survey of people living in New York City in the 1950s found that over 20% of the population had severe mental illness. (Srole 1962) It is likely that in ancient times, when stresses were greater, rates were even higher.

This is an idea I’ve long toyed with, even though it’s quite counterintuitive from a reactionary point of view. Part of most critiques of modernity is the idea that modern people are especially dysfunctional, that modern life is unnatural and dehumanizing, and that people today are full of mental issues which were unknown to our more wholesome ancestors.

Well what if that’s completely wrong? I have relatives not very far removed from a medieval peasant lifestyle, and while they are free of many of the psychological ills of modern people (they don’t get depressed, they are not lazy nor obsessed about minutiae, and gender roles are crystal clear), but I wouldn’t say they are all models or psychological wholesomeness. They drink copiously, are often irritable, non cooperative, and act in their own selfish interest without the slightest sign of introspection.

Then there are the crackpot-ish yet infinitely interesting theories of psychohistory and the bicameral mind. Julian Jaynes’ bicameral mind hypothesis said that ancients before the Bronze Age collapse had underdeveloped language skills which made their executive function manifest itself as external voices which commanded to do things, so strictly speaking the ancients weren’t conscious, i.e. self-aware. No internal dialogue in the old books.

Psychohistory is the theory of Lloyd deMause, who noted that many ancient civilizations, if not all of them at some point, practiced ritual child sacrifice, and even after that stopped, infanticide was common until not that long ago. Well imagine being a kid in those circumstances. Seeing your little friends being killed in scary altars, and your parents referring to you as a burden, with dad and mom often fighting over whether they should just throw you into the river once and for all, that’s likely to mess you up in the head. Even if they don’t end up killing you to save some shekels, you’ve either been a candidate for an early death, or seen your friends killed. And those traumatized children eventually grow up to become the adults. Chechar has great stuff on how that applied to the Aztecs, which were big on killing children on stone pyramids.

For better or worse though, Julian Jaynes’ theories on the origin of language were disproved. And a casual reading of deMause tells you the guy is full of shit. Yet you don’t need a new encompassing theory of history to feel that maybe our ancestors weren’t as well adjusted as we may think. Going back to Jesus, Randal Collins seems to have read Rodney Stark’s The Rise of Christianity, which basically explains the growth of Christianity because urban life in the Roman Empire sucked so incredibly bad that the little niceties that Christians did for each other (giving water to sick people) produced such a difference on fertility and mortality rates that starting with 12 dudes, after 300 years they outgrew everyone else.

Certainly the Palestine of the days of Jesus wasn’t a very rational place. Lots of prophets in the streets, predicating their crap, some better than others. And people actually stopped and listened to them! Collins makes a convincing case for Jesus being an unprecedented charismatic genius, but there were many other preachers in Rome at the time, presumably not as good as Jesus, but still managed to get following.

And don’t go that far. Stay in 19th century America. Certainly there was something wrong in the head with the people that followed Joseph Smith? Or all those who joined the wacky communes mushrooming all over New England? What about the huge followings people like Marx or Freud got? Freud was kinda like the original Yudkowsky. Making people mad while claiming to fix madness, running a cult about not running a cult. One day they’ll call them the Ironic Intellectuals.

None of this is an apology for modernity, or self-congratulation on how far we’ve come and how much better we have it. I’d rather have neighbors join Joseph Smith cult, rather than my kids forced to attend a gender-neutral school, or being forced to refer to a dude who has a fetish for injecting himself with estrogen as a woman. All the bullshit of the prophets of antiquity would feel quite at home with our Global Warming advocates.

The problem is we don’t have good data on the past. Fish don’t know what is water, most people back then probably didn’t feel anything notorious about there being a bunch of witches and crazy dudes in every town block. We on the other hand are too self-aware, and obsessed about psychology.

Hypergamy

Average is Over indeed.

 

Nick Vujicic, motivational speaker born without limbs, enjoys beach getaway with wife and son

  • Melbourne-born Nick Vujicic has a rare condition called tetra-amelia syndrome
  • After a suicide attempt at the age of ten, Nick turned his disability into a motivation to spread the Christian gospel to all corners of the world
  • Met his wife in 2008, married her in 2012 and welcomed baby boy Kiyoshi the following year
  • Inspirational story of determination, love and the human spirit

 

A story of Bravery of Love

 

Now I could use this bizarre piece of news to start a rant on modern women. Or perhaps to make fun of the PUA movement of men worldwide who can’t get laid, while this guy without limbs has landed a hot wife. Agnostic would start a rant on how evil and depraved Asian women are, willing to marry any disgusting white men to gain notoriety.

None of this would make much sense. Because there’s nothing particularly modern, or Asian, about this phenomenon. I always remember first reading about the original Siamese Twins, Chang and Eng Bunker. A guy without limbs is quite seriously weird, and I can’t help a grin when thinking on how they manage to have sex. But hey the guy’s face is not half ugly. But Conjoined Twins from Siam, in the United States in 1840? That’s seriously weird. Yet they got married! To two women, that is. Sisters, actually. And they had a huge bunch of kids!

Determined to start living a normal life as much as possible, the brothers settled on a plantation, bought slaves,[6] and adopted the name “Bunker”. On April 13, 1843, they married two sisters: Chang to Adelaide Yates and Eng to Sarah Anne Yates.

Their Traphill home is where they shared a bed built for four. Chang and his wife had 10 children; Eng and his wife had 11. In time, the wives squabbled[7] and eventually two separate households were set up just west of Mount Airy, North Carolina in the community of White Plains – the twins would alternate spending three days at each home. During the American Civil War, Chang’s son Christopher and Eng’s son Stephen both fought for the Confederacy. Chang and Eng lost part of their property as a result of the war, and were very bitter in their denunciation of the government in consequence.

You can’t make this shit up.

There was also a story in Reddit lately of a guy with two penises. He tells his life story, of continuous tremendous sexual success. If I remember correctly he claimed to be in a relationship with a couple, man and woman. They were already a couple when he got in, the guy allegedly was straight until he met him, then suddenly felt inescapably attracted to his double dick. Go figure.

Jim has a good post on Trannies, and how fucked up in the head they’re are. What’s worse is a LW minion coming in the thread to defend trannies because, you know, they have feelings and stuff. That would be easily dismissable as just an annoying troll, if the smart kids at LW hadn’t made a huge public party of just how fucked up in the head they are all are. Party held in the home of Scott Alexander who is banging (or being banged by) a tranny.

I presume everybody knows Greg Cochran’s theory of a homo germ; some brain parasite that makes people’s sexual wiring go awry. He knows his genetics and his math better than I do, so I’m always willing to listen to him. But it seems to me that sexual taste in (some) people is, for some reason, prone to deviancy. Being famous and owning a plantation will make any woman willing to have sex with you. And the plethora of paraphilias which exist in men is just too disturbing to describe in detail.

At first thought it seems that liberal society exacerbates the range and intensity of paraphilias. But that may be just because we have better data; or just that people don’t care about sexual mores as much as they used to. Then again this doesn’t disprove a germ theory; it might just be the case that there’s a whole lot of germs around. Who knows. I don’t think I really want to know.