Future freaks: the natural conclusion of diversity

March, 2008

Just a few freaks? Nothing to worry about? Well, judging by the speed with which the tattoo and piercing crazes have become mainstream, I say we should worry that freaks like this will become the norm of tomorrow. After all, in a world that says appearance doesn't matter, race doesn't matter, isn't this the natural conclusion of that logic? What controls does society have to prevent our children from waking up in a Star Wars cafe? None. From a Peter Overton show on Sixty Minutes:

This was, by far and away the weirdest assignment I had ever been given in seven years at 60 Minutes. My producer began the big sell:

"Peter, we want you to go and interview a bunch of extremely modified people, it’ll be great... great pictures… you know, you’ll meet a man who looks like a cat, then there’s the bloke who looks like a lizard...

Oh, and the fella who has two big horns in his forehead..." ...

Naturally, my thinking was WHY? …why tattoo your entire body to look like a lizard, have someone (not a doctor) cut open your skin and put horns in your head with no anaesthetic, get your tongue split, expand your ear lobes to the size of golf balls…

WHY?

Are these people odd? Did they have a troubled childhood and were searching for their place in society? And everyone had their own answer …most because they simply wanted to, no really deep philosophy. Just because they could ...

We took a stroll down Santa Monica beach, and the reaction from the crowds was extraordinary. You could see the wide eyes, the dropping jaws… a real fascination that the human form could be changed so dramatically ...

But hey, these people were great. I found once you got to know them, you could close your eyes, listen to them and you’d swear you were talking with an UN–extremely modified person! Enjoy the journey on this Sunday's show, I did.
It is disturbing that Overton and Sixty Minutes see this as a fascination to be enjoyed. Er, no. It is a butt-ugly sign of a culture out of control. Your reaction should be horror that these people exist and we have to look at them.

The orienting response:
Orienting response, also called orienting reflex, is the reflex that causes an organism to respond immediately to a change in its environment. The phenomenon was first described by Russian physiologist Sechenov in the 1850s in his book Reflexes of the Brain, and the term was coined by Ivan Pavlov, who also referred to it as the "What is it?" reflex. The orienting response is a reaction to novelty.
Welcome to orienting overload. In a diverse population, your subconscious is already in constant orienting overload dealing with the diverse races, cultures, sub-cultures and fashions. It will be constant-vomit if these freaks become mainstream. Our liberal society has no response to someone's desire to freakify themselves -- after all, appearance doesn't matter, so we are told.

I still favour Australia breaking up into ethnic/racial zones, where one's human right to a relaxed and comfortable subconscious is protected -- protected by the visual homogeny of shared race, and agreed norms of appearance. It will be even more desirable once the freak show begins.

Pass the bucket, please ...

MORE: video and transcript

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

FITNA ...GEERT WILDERS.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103

Colonel Neville. said...

Dear Abandon:

Ya right as per usual. It's interesting as you note, that without the visual, they are generally quite unexceptional people, even er, dull and there's the motive, eh?

Hmmm, ya right about the overload of naff tribes, sub-groups and cultures, and that people withdraw however "tolerant" they may imagine they are or wish to be.

When everything is up for grabs and a mere matter of "lifestyle choice", logic follows that this idea is also equally worthless, thus nihilism and a centre that wil not hold. Jimi Hendrix spoke how the freaks of the time were often the most narrow minded and square people of all.

Hendrix after all was a patriot and a partrooper who despised Communism.

Quite a conundrum for those who misunderstand his talent, art and genius. Hendrix liked to change his environment while being a part of reality, and maintain his flexibility. The idea of a permanent fancy dress would repel him.

My wife being Japanese, they seem to suffer little from their monoculture, though it can be a relief to both be in one and to leave it for our multiple peoples, as opposed to the doomed obsession with a multi-cultism. Is there any policy of a workable blend of folks? Seems less workable every year, like a kind of ideological cul de sac.

All the best from Colonel Neville.

Abandon Skip said...

Is there any policy of a workable blend of folks?

Good question, Colonel. I don't really know.

What we have now, this 'proposition nation', is a place where the only thing we can agree on is democracy and human rights. Nothing else matters, so we are told. So the racial balance, culture and ideologies are floating beyond our control and nobody feels at home.

But folks want more than that. They want to live in a collective with more depth, more definition, identity and stability. I think if you grant a group the right to determine what their ideology and culture is, what their racial mix is, where their borders - and grant them the right to protect it - then, so long as you can find enough people who agree with you, you've got a group that believes in something and is willing to protect it. Whether that be a homogeneous or mixed group of races, cultures and ideologies - I think almost any group has some potential to survive, so long as they have the ability to define and defend whatever the hell they want to be.

So, in favouring Australia breaking up along racial/ethnic/ideological lines, I see a place for different groups (some homogeneous, some mixed, some conservative, some liberal). So long as they are granted the right to protect their own traditions, then give each group their space and time will tell which groups thrive.

Each of them is still a 'proposition nation' - it's just that they have more definition, depth and stability. Whether there will be any movement of people between groups, that's up to groups to negotiate with one another.

I guess I'm a collective liberal i.e. each collective should be free to self-determination. But my ideal collective will be more conservative than liberal.

I think that's the best way of recovering Australia from it's suicidal descent into liberalism and Islam. Give each group their space, and they will tend to take better care of it.

Don't ask me how to make it work in reality though ...