LOST

I wrote this post without previous forethought or planning. It flowed from my 'pen' as if it had control of my tortured mind. It is long, but there is much to say. I don't blame my readers for giving up mid-flow. This post is my way of shedding thoughts on paper that need to be said. It is my personal cathartic release and has to be said for the prime purpose of my mental clarity and sanity.

I am the archetypal Baby Boomer. I was born in 1956, and my father, like many young men of the era, had been a soldier and had actively fought in combat. My father was 'demobbed' in 1953 after suffering severe wounds obtained during the Korean War and spent 6 months in a Japanese hospital. The men of the Silent Generation were the product of the Great Depression and the Second World War, probably the most destructive war in history, in which 80 million people lost their lives. It is difficult for the modern mind to contemplate the impact this war had on the world: the wide-world desolation; the economic cost; the geopolitical consequences; and, finally, the effect on the minds of the folk who went through these times, especially the men and women who were actively part of military action. Again, it is impossible to comprehend how these experiences shaped the way their minds responded, developed and coped. However, as a general rule, they were tough, resilient and self-sufficient. And in Britain, at least, many were poor. Britain had been bankrupted and placed in hock to the new emerging superpower, the United States. Unlike the defeated nations, Germany and Japan, Britain was not subject to the huge largess lavished on the vanquished. How come the enemy thrived, while Britain, which had contended with Germany from the very start, became diminished and pauperised? Food rationing didn't officially end until July 1954- a wartime contingency initiated in 1939. And only after unrest and protests by the population was this measure lifted.

The point is that our parents were a different breed, shaped by their experiences and the hardships they endured. Their children, the Boomers, were raised in a way incomprehensible to the generations that followed. My father was a hard man and set out to raise me in his image. He inculcated into his 4-year-old flaxen-haired son a simple dictum: 'Never suffer anyone laying their hands on you, or verbally threatening you'. In these circumstances, I was commanded to fight without any verbal foreplay. It was a simple rule that my small, developing brain absorbed wholeheartedly. There was no room for nuance or graded response. It was perfect behavioural conditioning that was imprinted on my emerging and evolving neural landscape. The response was binary, a simple on/off switch triggered for violence. There was no thought involved; the reaction was primal and primed to go off. Invariably, as I played in the grimy streets of a small Black Country town as a dirt besmirched, undernourished four-year-old, an urchin would tickle the neural trigger. Those were the halcyon days when a four-year-old could roam the streets unsupervised. I remember one particular occasion where an ike, no different from myself, saw fit to swing on me for no particular reason. We fought in the street until a passing adult intervened and pulled us, urchins, apart. The aftermath: whenever we sighted each other, we would run like demented berserkers (is there any other type?), crashing into each other without a word. Again, we would be parted, but the cycle would continue. Eventually, an older kid in the alley brought us together, we exchanged names, shook hands and never fought again.

My parents wanted me to absorb the values, strengths and qualities that made them get through the worst of times. They wanted me prepared for horrors that never came. It was the midst of the Cold War, and there was always the real risk that the Third World War could erupt with scant warning. The Cuba Affair was a close-run thing, and we came close to Armageddon. Europe had no illusions about their chances. Thousands of Russian tanks were poised in East Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia, ready to careen west. The Soviet doctrine was simple: overwhelm NATO with huge numbers of men, tanks, artillery, fighter and bomber jets. They called it Deep Battle. They relied on speed and dislocation, and there was also the overarching threat of nuclear weapons, whether tactical or strategic. They planned to reach the Rhine within days. We lived in exciting times.  Could our parents have been preparing and inuring us, either consciously or unconsciously, to the likely hardships and vicissitudes to come? Regardless, we became our parents, well, at least I became my father.

March forward to today. Discipline is lax both at home and at school. A few months ago, I had the dubious pleasure of watching three teachers trying to control a potentially violent situation at the gates of the local school. A large Maori lad, about 15 (?stone ), was facing two male teachers with outstretched hands, desperately trying to defuse the enraged boy. A couple of yards away, a female teacher was remonstrating with a girl who was actively taunting the boy. The boy responded with grave threats of violence. As the boy advanced, his way was blocked by the teachers working in concert. At no time did the teachers make physical contact with the pupils. Eventually, both kids lost their steam, and the much-relieved teachers escorted them back into the school, separately. But it seemed a close-run thing that could have gone awry with just a twitch. When I was at school, discipline was maintained by our natural respect for authority figures, and teachers fitted that role. And indeed, if steely-eyed sanctions failed, the teachers of the day could lay hands on rebellious students. Pupils could be physically restrained, and corporal punishment was the norm. I wasn't a particularly naughty pupil, but there were occasions when I was caned, slapped across the leg and hand with the ruler and spanked with the pump. On one instance, I had a well-aimed blackboard rubber bounce off my well-appointed noggin- 'good shot, Sir'. At home, I was verbally and physically disciplined. Now, let me be clear. I am not advocating that the young folk of the land should be physically assaulted in the name of discipline. I raised two wonderful humans to respect others and be good citizens of the land, without ever performing an act of violence on their beautiful blond/blonde heads. With a glance and a word, discipline was maintained. Of course, no system is perfect, and a little high-spirited rebellion is to be expected and tolerated. We are not raising unthinking drones, after all.

There has to be a middle ground within society where teachers are allowed to physically restrain students in difficult circumstances without the career-ending indignity of arrest and incarceration. Young minds are inherently immature, and if left to meander unrestrained within society, insanity will ensue. We are starting to see that in the Western schoolroom. With zero sanctions, there is zero control. The internet is festooned with anecdotal stories from teachers, crazed by administrative direction, that undermine the core values of education. Today, I heard from a frustrated teacher, on the verge of collapse, about how she must award a 50% mark to a student for unsubmitted work on a project. A piss poor submission of unredeemable effort and quality receives an automatic 66% mark. In a classroom where no one can fail, even if they never turn up or submit work, what is the point?  A rubber stamp approves laziness and stupidity. No wonder US teachers are leaving the profession in unprecedented numbers. Indeed, the lunatics have finally taken over the asylum.   

And there's more: Consider the situation in an American university sorority where a supposed transgender, born male, now 'female' managed to insinuate itself in a traditional all-biologically-female (is there any other type?) sorority with the backing of the university administration. The situation is ludicrous. Apparently, the individual in question is 6' 2' and weighs 240 lbs and makes no effort to dress or behave femininely. This he/she has been foisted on the all-female biological sorority against the wishes of the majority of the real female members under the rule of inclusivity. Apparently, this individual becomes patently aroused in the girl's presence, acts in a creepy manner and asks the girls inappropriate questions. Such as: "Can you describe your vagina?" The girls took the matter to court in order to have he/she removed from the sorority as it is an all biologically female association. The judge adjudicated in favour of the interloper on the basis that the sorority's rules, written in the 1850s, do not specifically exclude transgender wierdos, er, I mean he/him/she/her/it/that/ferret. The girls are seriously considering dissolving the sorority and starting anew with new rules for acceptance, with specific reference to the presence of anatomical female pudenda. Genius move by the girls. And then I watched a video of two backpackers, aged in their 20s, obviously boyfriend and girlfriend. They seem to be positioned in a high street festooned with shops. The shop's camera captures the incredible unfolding situation in all its sad, pathetic clarity. As the couple stand in the elusive peace of the street, an incident unfolds. Out of the blue, a young man appears and grabs hold of the woman's backpack. This is the cue for the boyfriend to rush to his girlfriend's aid, beating off the assailant to the relief of the girlfriend, thus illustrating the age-old rule: A man protects the womenfolk. But no, boyfriend nervously looks on as his partner furiously and bravely keeps hold of the backpack. The assailant keeps on attacking. Boyfriend now decides to retreat behind a pillar, occasionally glancing to see how the proceedings are developing. This crazy situation seems to go on for an indordant amount of time. The brave girl is not giving up her backpack. Eventually, a gaggle of real men intervene, and the weasel (note: not a ferret) of a thief is taken down. Once the danger had dissipated, the now 'brave' boyfriend appears from behind the safety of his pillar to administer succour and comfort to his courageous girlfriend. Too late the hero. I hope with all my strength and enraged sinew that this brave young lady kicks the ex-boyfriend in the bollocks and starts dating to find a real man. I am not saying that all men of the latest generation are blatant, wretched cowards. But there is a definite move to undermine masculinity and promote male softness. Men are being emasculated without consent, and the trend continues.      

I'm lost. I don't understand society and its so-called rules. The crazy thing is, most folk, including later generations, don't get it too. Doesn't matter. Quiet dissenting voices of the majority are drowned out, beaten down by a small cadre of screaming, strident, raucous and strangely unpleasant people. And we see that this insanity is increasingly backed by those in power. Freedom of speech is becoming a fiction in Western society. A right that has been gained by the blood of our forefathers is being stripped away by those who only care about image and money. The majority have been discarded for the insanity, posing as inclusivity, of every minority group with an agenda that is getting increasingly strange and beyond the comprehension of everyday folk. I am lost and awash in a society that I no longer understand or want to be part of.

Social Darwinism

Hello Daddy? I've got his nose

I often scroll through YouTube for ideas and enlightenment. Today, I came across a brief post in which a professor lectured to students about a hypothesis concerning male aggression, its social consequences, and its implications for social evolution. I was intrigued by the post and decided to outline his thesis to provide fodder for further discussion and, perhaps, debate.

Here goes: The goodly professor begins with an observation about our primate cousins, then extends his ideas to encompass Darwinian Selection. I confess, I do not have the name or credentials of the lecturer to hand, but that is immaterial for the thrust of the discussion. All I can offer is that the lecturer under scrutiny is not named Dr Mugumbo, of that I'm sure. Let your imagination run free and wild. If your curiosity remains unrestrained, then Gogle is your friend. Let it loose to satisfy an urge that is difficult to articulate but remains rampant. Sometimes an itch must be scratched, even if the pruritus is non-afferent in character and lies unrestrained within the conscious portion of the cerebral cortex. Moving on.  

The lecturer noted that our closest primate relatives, including chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas, operate on the principle of 'The Alpha Male Hierachy'. In primate troops, there is invariably a prime alpha male who corrals and enforces exclusive access to the sexually mature females of the troop. This primacy is maintained by hyperaggressive behaviour. Under these circumstances, the alpha male will rely on behavioural intimidation tactics to discourage other aggressive males from challenging his enviable position of excessive female appropriation. Ultimately, if posturing and bellowing fail to deter, then the ultimate recourse is physical violence. This is not something that is casually undertaken by the challenger. The alpha male has ultimate control for a reason. Hyperaggression is not the only attribute required. This male is likely to be very large, quick and tough. And after many encounters, he is likely to be a battle-hardened veteran. The potential interloper must pick his fights with due care and prudence. If injured, it is not only pride that is at stake. 'A Good Sound Kicking' can lead to infection and death. The impudent male challenger must pick his fights with deliberation. However, a young 'buck' flooded with testosterone is an impetuous fellow.  Eventually, the top male will teeter, fall, and be replaced by a younger, alpha male. Ultimate failure is written in the genetic code. Age and time are relentless and make failures of us all, in the end. 

The social system, as described, results in sexual dimorphism. Sexual dimorphism refers to differences in physical size and strength between the sexes of the same species, and, within mammalian species, the male is invariably the larger as determined by these genetically controlled characteristics. Large, aggressive males will, all things being equal, sire large, aggressive males. The genetic lottery is rigged in their favour. While sexually mature females of the troop suffer the indignity of forced sexual exclusivity, they also can be assured that the genes passed on will tend towards hypergressive traits in their sons. Hyperaggression does not ensure troop dominance. Indeed, most males, even those with favourable attributes, will fail to breed under this social system. With that said, hyperaggressive behaviour is an essential characteristic for a male, together with an imposing physique, for him to gain ascendancy of the troop. The rest of the males of the troop are denied the powerful urge to reproduce by his presence. Interestingly, some males, by dint of stealth and opportunity, may gain sexual access to the females, albeit intermittently- so-called 'Sneaky Maters'. The alpha male must remain constantly vigilant to ensure exclusive access to his valuable resource. By virtue of the system, the alpha male has no allies to help sustain his position, and 100% attentive and covetous surveillance is a fiction. Thus, smaller, agile males may take advantage of the alpha males' downtime to secure a brief romantic interlude; however, hurried and rushed it may be. Therefore, genetic flow within the troop is not necessarily maintained exclusively by the alpha male; 'Genetic Leakage', though small, is virtually assured.  

At this stage, we must ponder why humans do not follow the 'Alpha Male' social structure as practised by our primate cousins. Clearly, this system is highly disadvantageous to the vast majority of males within the troop, as they lose the opportunity to mate. We differ fundamentally from our close relatives by virtue of our superior intelligence. We are capable of higher-order communication that, in turn, facilitates social organisation. Thus, by collective male action, any potential alpha male takeover of the breeding pool can be easily curtailed by concerted, higher-order action. Alpha males do well, but 10 beta males with pointed sticks do better. 

Let us go back 12,000 years, when humanity was beginning to transition from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a settled, habitual way of life. 

 With human settlement, as a natural consequence of the introduction of agriculture, and the expansion of the population due to the availability of a predictable food supply, a higher order of societal cohesion and development would be required. Autocratic, 'one man rule' (kingship) seems to have become invariable, for reasons not to be considered here. The institution of kings, whether hereditary in nature or by other means, can only be sustained with the cooperation of others. This is in stark contrast to our primate cousins, where the lack of concerted cooperation is essential to the maintenance of alpha male control. With a settled society and greater societal collaboration comes the development of an institutionalised justice system, albeit crude and highly reliant on the sanction of death, for even minor infractions. The good professor argued that individuals so inclined by temperament and genetics to exhibit and respond with hyperaggression would be quickly sought out and subject to judicial assassination by decree. This would not only act as a deterrent to those similarly inclined but also prevent the establishment of the primate model of alpha-male usurpation within the society. Also, as a consequence, there would be a reduction in the flow of genes into the population that are responsible for hyperaggressive behaviour. Monogamous mating would be the consequence. Most men in a population would be able to exercise their powerful urge to procreate. Sadly, there will always be outliers who, for various reasons, are unable to sample the pleasures of sexual congress. I am not suggesting that the advent of agriculture initiated a change in human mating strategy. Undoubtedly, the impetus to move from alpha-male status to egalitarian sexual behaviour arose much earlier, when humans relied on the erratic bounty of hunting and gathering wild herbs. The ability to employ a Beta Male cooperative strategy came about when humans, or proto-humans, gathered enough intelligence to plan and execute the execution of alpha males. The days of Alpha Male Sexual Usurpation were doomed.  

In modern society, hyperaggressive males, who are unable to control their violence towards others, are quickly identified and subject to neutralisation and removal from polite society in order to cauterise, nay curtail, potential harm. Need I say more?

Is there any evidence to support the hypothesis as outlined above? Remember, for a hypothesis to become a theory, we need evidence, experimental or otherwise, that supports the contention. We know from genetic evidence that in humanity's remote past, very few males contributed to the gene pool. Undoubtedly, we observe sexual dysmorphosis in humans. As a general rule, the male of our species is naturally taller and stronger than the female. This is genetically determined. Though there could be a number of plausible reasons why this might be the case.

I am interested in what my readers make of the speculative hypothesis as outlined above. Is it worthy of further inspection or does it crumble under the weight of inconsistencies, contradictions and implausibility?  Let me know your thoughts in the comment section.