Cui Bonobo^©?

“Therefore, I hold the producers at 20^th Century Fox, director Reeves and the screenwriters, Amanda Silver, Mark Bomback, Scott Z. Burns and Rick Jaffa, responsible for defaming bonobos.”^[1]

And thus was born the BADL…Bonobo Anti-Defamation League. You will need to read further for satire. This is an actual quote. The BADL was formed after the slanderous portrayal of apes in movie “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes." Rather, we learn at Dr. Block’s website, the bonobo way, that we all may join in “The Evolution of Peace Through Pleasure.”

A moment of silence. A minute of reflection. Thank you, dear free lovin’ bonobos. According to Dr. Block, bonobos, which are NOT chimpanzees, but a cousin of both yourself, dear reader, and chimpanzees, are matriarchal in hierarchy and resolve conflict through sex. Male bonobos do not suffer from the same paternity anxiety of Maury Povich Bonobos. Moreover, there are no known incidents of bonobos murdering one another. Unlike chimps and homo sapien sapien (you and me), the bonobos have apparently landed on an evolutionary ladder and not a chute—like ourselves.

Let’s do some Margaret Mead level social science fiction.^[2] But first, you remember Maggie Mead, right? She’s the woman who went to Samoa in the 1920’s, wrote a truckload of gibberish (lies) about Samoans and Samoan culture. Or so we were told.

And of course, it was a white, CIS man who did this debunking.

Derek Freeman, who debunked Mead. But wait, there’s more. Paul Shankman, another white (verified) man (assumed from his picture)^[3],  has now debunked the debunker. That’s a lot of dunkin’ on someone else’s buncombe. The current sentiment among social scientists:

	Contemporary scholars of Mead's work agree that, in her presentation of Samoa to American readers, Mead was motivated by a particular political agenda. As a sexually progressive individual, Mead saw (and portrayed) in Samoa the possibility of loosening social strictures on sexuality -- something she suggested could lead to more pleasure, and less pain and suffering. “[4]
Freeman		Shankman

Until Paul shanks Derek. We learn from further research that the CIS white guy who shanked Mead’s reputation was an inside job.  “…Shankman's new analysis -- following his excellent 2009 book, The Trashing of Margaret Mead: Anatomy of an Anthropological Controversy -- shows that Freeman manipulated "data" in ways so egregious that it might be time for Freeman's publishers to issue formal retractions.”^[5]  Not very bonobo-like, all this shankin’.

So how did all of this reputation trashing and reputation rehabilitation happen? Well, according to The Atlantic^[6], we learn that at the center of the storm is a devout Christian. Not Mead. Not Freeman. Not Shankman. Yes, that arch enemy and fiend of the sciences. The devout Christian…the original Summer before there was Rick and Morty.

 Let us just think of the ways the devout Christian has ruined all the fun since 33 CE.

1. Didn’t destroy an animal to honor Caesar as god.
2. Refused to fight back against the lions in the Coliseum…knowing full well that the crowd had paid good denarii to see a fight.
3. Set Rome on fire…wait that was Nero…they just got blamed.
4. Refused to evacuate Rome during plagues since they remained caring for the sick.
5. Started ruining the medical profession with their non-mercenary practices of not charging for medical care.
6. Created that large building with windows where sick people go
7. Upending the status quo by creating a welfare system and a jobs retraining system paid for by the very wealthy and then franchised the model around the Mediterranean basin.

The list goes on and on… But wait, didn’t those wankers oppose Galileo? Yes, they did. They made him recant. But Galileo had the last laugh. His middle finger is preserved for posterity. A veritable “F-U” to those bigots in power. Just like what happened to our fine professor Dreger who dared to question the status quo, who dared to follow the science, and stand against the onslaught of character assassination, contumely, and hatred of trans activists. ^[7]

And we now come full circle to Dr. Block. “Can’t we all just get along”, like our cousins the bonobos? Apparently not. Two things are not permitted outside of bonobo culture. First is that you cannot speak publicly against the reigning power structure. Of course such behavior is always protected by Marxists. They are the original advocates of the proletariat’s rights. That’s why the CCP has declared democracy polls in Hong Kong illegal. Asking someone their opinion is always a crime worthy of incarceration, torture, and execution. And that’s why the instantiated hierarchy and power structure, led by Winnie the Pu-Yi, has taken the avuncular role of protecting the citizens of Hong Kong from that grievous error.  Thank God we have Marxism and the CCP to continue their vanguard protection of the rights of the proletariat to not speak their mind.

Secondly, outside of bonobo culture, we are not permitted to employ logic in our pursuit of “truth” if that pursuit does not run on the rails of the current paradigm.  Rather, we must remain in the intellectual rabbit warren of those who hold sway currently in academia.

To test this, I suggest a small use of social media. Get a Tee-witter account. Tee-witt this statement: Permitting children (those under 18) to undergo gender reassignment surgery is child abuse. Then start a timer. See how long it is before you are attacked for being “anti-trans”, “anti-LGBQT”, “trans exclusionary,” etc. Once the vituperation starts, start a second timer. How long before there are calls for your employer to fire you. Or you could just ask JK Rowling what happens when you make a statement against the agenda of academia and activism. And this author doesn’t even care what JK Rowling thinks, says, does.

Let’s follow the logic of science not the dictates of an agenda. According to the bastion of scientists currently writing, the human brain continues development until the age of 25 or so. The implications for law and policy are staggering. Is 18 too young to require adult behavior? Should we not charge persons as adults until they are 25? Can we legitimately send 18-year-olds to war when they are seven years from having fully developed brains? Should marijuana usage be allowed for those who brains are still developing with the data now available regarding brain development and the usage of marijuana?  So how can we ethically allow an 11-year-old child to undergo “gender” reassignment surgery?

The 11-year-old does not have a fully developed brain. S/he does not understand the full ramifications of her actions. She cannot comprehend the consequences. She cannot understand that there no “mulligan” or “do over.” Her emotional development is barely 50% complete. Do we follow science or an agenda? But that’s really not the question, is it?

The real question is more about the nature of reality. More on that momentarily. A small digression first. Science, if done properly, can only inform us of ‘facts.’ Current facts under the current scientific disciplines.

• The current scientific age of the universe: 13.787 ± 0.020 billion years.
• Subduction leads to orogeny.
• Pluto is not a planet.
• The last glacier to cover most of Europe melted 10,000 years ago.

These are all current ‘facts’ within each scientific domain of cosmology, geology, astronomy, climatology.

What these ‘facts’ don’t provide are guidance on policy^[8]. Stating that the adult brain isn’t fully developed until 25 years old doesn’t provide us with any direction on what we should do with that information. Should is an auxiliary or conditional verb. “Should” requires a context. But which context? One that I see? One that you see?

Well I thought we might base our policy on the context of Reality. But capital ‘R’ reality is gone.  Occam poisoned that well in the 13^th century. Lex Parsimoniae has become so thrifty that even reality is must be withheld.  ‘Reality’ is gone. In its place is your truth and my truth. The little ‘r’ realities. Such a statement should be an oxymoron. What exactly would be the context of more than one reality? Postulating multiple realities is the great banana peel of epistemology.  Not to mention a roundhouse kick to the head for jurisprudence.

But don’t despair. The oft quoted, never proven, scientifically bankrupt notion of “intersectionality” might finally have an observable referent. Imagine two individuals. A judge and an assumed innocent until proven guilty prisoner.^[9]

Judge:    You are charged with three counts of felony, first degree murder. Do you understand the charges?

Prisoner: No, I do not. You are charging me in your reality. These are not felonious activities in my reality. To boot, you have not even established my ontological existence in your reality, much less yours in mine.

And there we have our first observable event of ‘intersectionality.’ Two individual truths/realities able to converse with one another, interrogate and respond appropriately to the each other. Knowledge of other persons is sufficiently established by the silent party, you and me dear reader. More specifically, two realities intersecting in the presence of a shared linguistic event common to both truths. Breathtaking. And this cycle will repeat with each reader of this document. As we said. Don’t despair. We may have actually proven the notion of intersectionality without the conjuring of a single victim.

So let us return to what was mentioned earlier, the nature of reality. In our juridical example, there is at least a common reality between the two speakers and the reader of the example. A veritable three way of reality. ^[10]  More if you add a jury. And a stenographer. And a bailiff. And some attorneys. Come to think of it, given any court case, there is a swirling vortex of little ‘r’ realities all experiencing the same big ‘R’ reality. Yet we in the West have convinced ourselves that such a thing as ‘Reality’ cannot be possible. So convinced that the result is  all the little ‘r’ realities share a common understanding of our fractured, isolated, incommunicado state.

Nearly 7 Billion moral agents (assuming we all count the same manner of base10 in every reality).^[11]  Given that we agree that there is no shared reality, no ‘Reality’ to provide context to our ‘shoulds’, our ‘oughts’, and our ‘coulds,’ we have abandoned even appealing to any potential commonality among us. We, the cousins of Pan Paniscus, have landed on the chute of evolution. For the bonobo, the ladder of communal assent into peaceful evolution must be so welcoming and affirming in its shared Reality.

Sadly, policy is no longer enforced by the polis for the polis, but by the police for those in power.  While we might prance in our pretended ideologies, we have elected Nietzsche to the seat of Solon. Rejecting a shared Reality results in the in our agenda-driven arms race for power. Impose onto others before they impose on you. The will to power, the drive to impose my will on you, and to maintain my dominance is the most effective means of implementing an agenda. Implementing that agenda is just the finer details of the new ‘policy.’

Cui bono? The one in power. Cui bonobo? Not the homo sapien sapiens.

[1] Dr. Susan Block (NSFW)

[2] Is “social science fiction” redundant?

[3] What is still unknown is if Shankman a) identifies as male; b) identifies as CIS;

[4] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/sex-lies-and-separating-science-from-ideology/273169/

[5] Ibid

[6] Author of the article: Alice Dreger. Dreger, who is not a scientist, or a social scientist, is actually Ph.D in History and Philosophy of Science. And she’s white. So, as the content of her (assumed) article is about the history of the Mead-Freeman controversy, we can at least be glad that no science was attempted. Now the question that remains is whether this long list of white people should even be discussing the culture, authoritatively or not, of Persons of Color. Is this not the very definition of “white privilege?”

[7] C.f. the venom spewed at Dreger by the trans community in reaction to her(?) book, Galileo’s Middle Finger.

[8] Policy -- typically a notion of what we should do in response to some other condition or context.

[9] Obviously not in the US. A simple charge of ‘racist’ is sufficient for you to be tried and executed from your job. So this judge and prisoner are in another country. Let’s assume it is a country governed by the rule of law.

[10] At this juncture, the ‘scientist’ in the room will say, “Are you sure that this happened?” And roundly chortle in self-satisfaction. Until of course our ‘scientist’ is convicted of murder and sentenced to hang. Suddenly our scientist is quite sure of the sequence of events as the noose is being adjusted for maximum hyoideal fracture.

[11] Unless of course we are in the People’s Republic of China. Then there is only one Truth. Namely, if you’re a Uighur, genocide is knocking at your laogai door.