Not a Witch. Just a Lurker

- France abolished the Code Noir 2 months ago. That law project that said hey you can enslave, mutilate, kill, cross breed, etc. black people at will bc they're not people they're property ? Yeah. Abolished 2 months ago. We are in July 2026.

- the last human zoo closed its doors in 1994 in France due to social pressure. Not bc they were running out of business, no. Ppl still visited that place until it closed its doors. No, it was bc (black) French people were fed up. That human zoo was specialized in displaying black (presumed Congolese) people in fake huts in enclosures, for white entertainment.

- now while this might no longer be the case, when I was growing up, I went to a French school (as in. It was an international French School w the French flag n all) and the way we were taught French geography was that France has the biggest and largest access to the sea in the world. And they'd show us a map of France and its colonies around the world. It's all occupied indigenous lands. I don't know if they still teach that. I hope not. But they absolutely did until I graduated high school in 2017. Again, I write this on July 21st 2026, for the record.

It’s time to activate it…

Bites The Dust! now this entire post will be reversed!

David Jones, who teaches anthropology at the University of Central Florida, should have known better than to tangle with dragons, bereft as he seems to be of a much-needed arsenal of data, clarity, and logic. He tries to show, in a rambling and disjointed display of half-understood concepts from various sciences, how the dragon (a) is a pancultural image of danger; (b) is a composite of images of the serpents, predatory cats, and raptors that presumably terrorized our primate ancestors; and (c) is hard-wired into the human limbic system (the so-called "reptilian brain").

The claim that a cultural manifestation is ubiquitous is quaint, given how antiquated the notion of "cultural universals" is by today's standards. One can attribute that to the kind of hyperbole that Jones employs in the excited defense of his main thesis. To posit multiple hypotheses and use them to argue one another, however, beggars one's patience. That an image is ubiquitous is indefensible; in the case of dragons, it's also demonstrably untrue, a fact that Jones tries to hide behind verbal shrubbery. Certainly images may be compounded of diverse elements, and one could comfortably entertain the idea that common dangers (and other human interests) might become codified in a single representative symbol such as the dragon. That this could occur among peoples who never experienced one or more of the dangers, or for whom the dragon is benign, is problematic. Jones rises to the challenge with the hard-wiring hypothesis. Never mind that this cannot be clinically demonstrated: it must be so, according to Jones, because dragons are found "everywhere," and dissemination by the usual channels of cultural sharing is out of the question, for reasons that remain obscure.

Indonesian called western dragons "naga", long? "naga". Chinese indonesian also called "long" "naga". But "naga" came from sanskrit words. "naga" is "naga". Dragon, "long", and "naga" are categorized as "naga" but Indonesian know they are not the same but they are "naga". Because that's how people translate stuff from old times.

On the same category, they also translate "Jiangshi" to "vampire". But they know "vampire" and "jiangshi" are two different things.

For example, the typical "anti-fujo/BL" geeks who goes on and on about "think of the gay men!" while trying to put down other women for liking smut and trying to appeal to imaginary gay men who doesn't even care about it.

Or one girl who claim soooo feminist that she told off women how romance fictions are ruining their brains how they need to stop liking imaginary males and they need to be more female centered. How porn are ruining our society, but especially those smuts centered for women. Only to pander male geeks with her bimbofied furry vtuber girlies whose "breasts bouncing isn't lewd" and how her character with risque clothing, dumb attitude, and balloon tits isn't "lewd ecchi fanservice for degenerates".

Like, I think acting like lewd ecchi fanservice bimbo girl is okay and being concerned about how some women treat gay men as an entertainment, but do not treat them as human being irl is a good virtue.

But these two groups are pick me for the reason of how fast they picked on women for just having normal behaviour. In one act like they are trying to appeal imaginary gay men so much (whiteknighting) in order to shit on some women and the other just one just a hypocrite who think women sexual fantasy is bad, but okay with sexual fantasies of men then try to appeal to men sexual desires, but propagandize women to not have desire ever because that is unfeminist.

She surveyed the disaster below. “Shit. Shit. Shit. Shit. Shit.”

Good writing:

An economic system that has led to a society that is actively hostile to the idea of affordable living for a single adult never mind a family with multiple children.

An unaddressed history of active misogyny towards women. (this is present in every single one of these countries)

So at bare minimum, you've identified common factors like "breathes air" and "drinks water"

Like I feel a lot of people seems to pretend this never happen at all. Because some governments did once put a fund to tell people to have less children, then got surprised that it works. Also, people have a lot of children back in the days because they were less likely to survived, the industrial revolution happened, QoL increased, people have the same number of children as before but most of them survived. But people were making too many children that maybe they need to reduce the numbers or people realize life is good enough for 2 children.