Some research on Valkyries

An well thought out paper on the major subspecies of humanity, of which Valkyriensis is just one



Dear Diana, 

I received your inquiry about the evolutionary divergences  between Homo 
Sapiens and Homo Valkyrensis.  First of all, many  people tend to assume 
that Homo Sapiens, being the larger  species, is the root species.  This 
is really not true.    Furthermore, many people are inclined to assume 
that the root  species is more primitive, or less evolved than the 
derivative  species. This is hardly the case either. Aolicus, is a 
fairly recent development, and it's status as a  subspecies is a bit 
debatable, so I'll leave them aside for now.   The relationship between 
Homo Sapiens and Homo Valkyrensis is  complicated enough, very 
complicated really. 

The very thing that sets Sapiens and Valkyrensis apart from the  other 
animals is obviously their intelligence. But at some point,  they 
acquired, through mere critical mass of intelligence, or  through some 
other means, a sense of self, which in turn gave  rise to a sense of 
self interest, which in turn gave rise to an  awareness of the sense of 
self interest of others, and their  awareness of their sense of self 
interest. Indeed, one might also surmise  that they were also aware of 
their awareness of their awareness of their self  interest.  One 
obviously could go one for a long time in this hall of mirrors.   The 
point is, awareness of self interest, and the interests of another self 
is  the basis of morality.  

Yes indeed, it seems that the development of morality was the point at 
which  Sapiens and Valkyrensis began to diverge in evolution.  

Before going any further, I should like to clear up another common  
misunderstanding that dogs many discussions about Sapiens and 
Valkyrensis.  The misunderstanding is that  Sapiens is a male dominated 
species, and Valkyrensis is a female dominated  species.  Which is to 
say that Sapiens would be like the Chimpanzee and  Valkyrensis would be 
like the Rhesus monkey.  In fact, both species are female  dominated.  
The difference is that Sapiens have not realized, or accepted,  that 
fact and their evolution has been affected by their behavior based on  
that refusal.  Some find the view that Sapiens is a female dominated 
species  to be preposterous, but in fact it is quite obvious.  One must 
admit that,  even allowing for gross exceptions, the relations between 
the genders of  Sapiens is dominated by the "institution" of marriage.  
One also cannot fail  to notice the sparse energy devoted to thought and 
fantasies about marriage on 
 the part of the male Sapiens.  Which is to say that the so called  
"institution" of marriage is really an expression of a 
conceptionalization (  i.e. fantasy ) by the female of the species of 
her own instincts.  The fact  that the male of the species lacks his own 
instincts in this regard, would  ideally, you see, tend to prevent 
conflicts, but I fear I am getting ahead of  myself here.  

Anyway, all of these subspecies are really female dominated.  In 
Sapiens,  however, certain moral considerations have distorted this 
natural fact.  This  is very complicated and interrelated, but let me 
give just one example to  start with.  The Sapiens male, has a moral 
concern with being dominated by the  female of the species. This has led 
the female of the species to make the  situation more palatable for him 
by assuring him that he, not she, is the head  of the household.  In 
order to accomplish this she often takes him name,  participates in 
social ceremonies that accentuate his role as the dominant  partner and 
so on.   Also, the female of the species seems to have attempted  to 
reassure the male who may be frightened by his own submissive tendencies  
that he is merely being gallant and magnanimous toward the  weaker, and  
submissive female.  To very large extent,  the relationships between the  
genders in Sapiens can be interpreted as a series of female stratagems 
devised  to work around and disarm male apprehensions about her 
dominating instincts.  Needless to say such strategies tend to be self 
perpetuating and self  inflating.  By no means are all, or indeed very 
many, Sapiens females aware of  the fact that what seems natural to them 
is rooted in feminine wiles.  Which is to  say that many believe 
themselves to be the naturally subservient sex.  Thus  believing, thus 
they tend to act, of course. 

The female Sapiens has moral concerns too.  She alone may become 
pregnant and  temporarily dependant on her mate.  If the mate is either 
guided wholly by  instinct, or is beyond moral reproach, this is not a 
problem.  If, however,  her mate is capable of overriding his instincts 
with mental activity and is  not morally above reproach, then this is a 
problem.  In short, the Sapiens  female has an extra incentive to 
confine her sexuality to her marriage, and an  extra incentive to 
inveigle a male into marriage. Which is to say that in  addition to the 
moral apprehensions of the male toward  entering a permanent  
relationship as the submissive partner, the female has an extra 
incentive to  get him into that very relationship, thus the stakes are 
raised in response to  concerns on both sides.  

One can easily see how the development of effective contraception has 
affected  the Sapiens species. Instead of releasing a torrent of 
omniandrous free love,  as was widely expected, it has instead led to a 
rexamination of the relationships between the genders of that species.  
It has  not appreciably diminsihed the practice of marriage simply 
because this is  another basic instinct of the female.  

With consumate triteness we may say  that it is closely related to, but 
not identical with the sexual instincts of  the human female.  Thus, one 
can easily see that the sexual practices of  Sapiens are not really 
directly instinctual at all but are rather distortions  of instincts 
brought about by distorted ethics which have evolved from an excited 
moral pessimism. 

In fact, I usually advise people that they would be better off 
forgetting  about the Darwinist evolutionary "mythology" and regard 
insted the ancient  legend of the fall of man. There Eve was cursed by 
having her desires given to  her husband who would then rule her.  This, 
of course, was really only a  logical consiquence of the knowlege of 
good and evil.  

One might well wonder if the Sapiens male is himself worth all of this  
convolution of the psychology of the female.  Most would agree that he 
is not  ( except perhaps himself ).  What else the human female obtains 
from all of  this is a false sense of her own virtue.  One needn't 
belabor this point,  really, a casual perusal of the more radical 
feminist literature will in itself well illustrate  my point.  There one 
can see it plain as day.  All of the convolutions of  gender of the 
species were devised an imposed on innocent females by devious  
domineering males, at least according to them.  Which is a strange 
assertion  coming from from "feminist" sources, since if it were true, 
it could only mean  that the females of the species were grossly 
intellectually, and emotively,  inferior to the males.  A logical and 
obvious conclusion which occurs to, and  seems to bother no one. Such 
obliviousness to the consequences of one's own  assertions, it seems to 
me, is illustrative of the extent of intellectual  degradation in Homo 
Sapiens. 

 This is not to say that Homo Valkyrensis is a species on par with the 
angels.   The male of the species, called variously Eomhs or Valkyrus, 
often does have  some qualms about his subordinate status to the 
dominant Valkyrie, and the  Valkyrie is not immune to disloyalty or 
abandonment either.  The point is that  in the Valkyrensis the issues 
are delt with directly, without concealing and  inverting the true 
relationship of the genders.  At any rate, the evolutionary  division 
between Sapiens and Valkyrensis is most obviously due to differing  
reactions to a development of moral awareness.  This apparently occurred 
about  the time that agriculture first began to appear, which is another 
interesting  parallel with the legend of the fall of man.  Anyway, after 
that, Valkyrensis  continued to evolve and Sapiens has, it seems, 
undergone a certain degradation  of physical development.  This is 
really quite logical, since Sapiens has defined attractiveness by 
genders in an unnatural way and breeds through  unnatural practices. 

For example, take the prevalence and degree of male masochism ( or more  
properly anginaphilia) in the Eomhs. Really, the only thing this means 
is  that the level at which both pain and  pleasure become simple 
sensation is  relatively close to the surface in the Eomhs.  This 
"simple sensation" can  alternatively be termed ecstasy.  Which means 
that the Eomhs tends to enjoy  whatever happens during mating, an 
obvious advantage for the species.  This is  an advantage for the 
Valkyrie as well because she emotionally consumes, or  reacts to, if you 
will, the enjoyment, or abandon, of her mate. In this she is  similar to 
the human female.  While this puts the Eomhs in a very vulnerable  
position, this is not necessarily a matter for real concern.  With 
Sapiens,  however, the threshold at which pain and pleasure become 
simple sensation is  much deeper,  which means that for the most part 
the Sapiens male is only  capable of reacting to pleasurable sensations, 
which in turn means that his  experience is limited, as consequently is 
that of his partner.  In fact, this  blind enjoyment is much feared in 
Sapiens, even though there is a persistent  fascination with the 
phenomena.  It is worth noting that in both species, the  prostate of 
the male is incapable of distinguishing between pain and pleasure,  
which confirms a similar evolutionary origin.  Also, in both species the 
brain  activity of the male during sex is concentrated in the most 
primitive part of  the brain, the Hypothalamus, which essentially only 
mediates between the brain  and the body, but which does not think, per 
se.  In Sapiens, however, this  period of focus is brief, it is seldom 
noticed, and there is little comment or  literature about it, apart from 
some structurally telling misogynist themes  about woman as a degrader 
of man and some equally weird stuff about something  called an "Oedipal 
Complex".  Please note that structurally both of these  features of the 
male in each subspecies are similar yet divergent in degree,  not type 
of function. Futhermore, the differences in degree  of each type in  
each subspecies  is consistent with the evolved sexual practices of each  
species.  Since the practices of the Sapiens is an obvious reaction to 
it's  equally obvious normal tendency toward female domination, we may 
conclude that  the Sapiens subspecies is degenerate and not undergoing a 
positive evolution. 



At this point it may be well to consider the proposed subspecies of Homo  
Aolicus.  It is not really yet determined that this phenomenon is a true  
subspecies, or merely a concurrent psycological and physical abnormality  
occuring in populations of Homo Sapiens.  So far a proposed phenotype 
has been  observed which is distingushed by an abnormally large penis in 
the male, a  very low intelligence, extremely poor socialization and an 
obsession with the  size of it's penis.  Vertical studies have been 
hampered by the difficulty of associating males fitting this description 
with their offspring.   Furhtermore, some obviously Sapien males do 
exhibit these characteristics.   One interesting study did find, 
however, among a population of supposedly  Sapien males with large 
penises, a persistent subgroup of males who not only  scored low on all 
intelligence tests, but who also tended to interpret most  questions 
about mathematics, history, and verbal reasoning, as somehow related to 
the size of their penis, as evidenced by remarksthey wrote in the 
margins  of the exam.   One difficulty of determining whether or not 
these specimens  consitute a new subspecies is the lack of any derived 
profile of a  coresponding female.  This has led some to speculate that 
the subspecies is a  male only subpsecies that uses the females of other 
subspecies for breeding.  This is a radical thesis and is not widely 
recieved.  

For the time being,  Homo Aolicus is primarily considered as a purely 
notional  subspecies.  Indeed, since the degradation of Sapiens 
signifcantly impairs  it's enjoyment of sex, such a development has been 
predicted for some time.   However, the degradation of Sapiens seems to 
have ben possibly arrested by the  development of safe effective 
contraceptives, which lessen the investment of  the female, at least, in 
the convoluted behavior of that subspecies. There are  other notional 
subspecies, such as Homo Gynoexculpicus.  Gynoexculpicus is a  
subspecies where the male and female are supposedly equals, yet the fact 
that  none of their social customs reflect this is exclusively the fault 
of the  male.  This notional subspecies has been definitively 
demonstrated to be a  pathology of Sapiens and not a true subspecies ( 
see Feminism ).  However,  since this pathology would obviously tend  to 
naturally select males with low intelligence and low morals, some have 
gone on to speculate  that Homo Gynoexculpicus is really the feminine 
counterpart to Homo Aolicus.   As evidence of this they cite the shril 
and pseudointellectual diatribes to  which Gynoexculpicus is given as 
evidence of low intelligence and poor  socialization, which they believe 
to be genetically based, and point to  behaviors of similar degree, if 
not style, on the part of Aolicus. 

As to the question of how the subspecies of Homo Sapiens and Homo 
Valkyrensis  have merged, it is important to realize that, technically, 
they have not and  cannot.  The genetic behavior is such that a mixed 
marriage between the two  will either result in a Sapiens or a 
Valkyrensis, just like the offspring will  either have brown eyes, or 
blue eyes.  However, Valkyrensis seems to be  evolving quite rapidly, 
and in order for the offspring to represent an  evolutionary advance, it 
is necessary for both parents to be Valkyrensis. 

The question of when Valkyrensis and Sapiens first began cohabitating is  
another matter.  Inasmuch as Valkyrensis is not a numerically large 
species,  the  historical records of early tribes are mostly found in 
Sapien  chronologies.   It seems that the last coherent non cohabitated  
tribes of  Valkyrensis lived in Scandinavia and were known as Valkyries.  
Incidentally,  most tribes of this subspecies tend to be recognized and 
recorded with  reference to the female.  It seems that the 'legendary" 
Amazons of the Attic  world were also a manifestation of the same 
genetic group.  There also seem to  have been significant Valkyrensis 
elements in the Scythians and Sarmation  peoples who lived in the 
southern Ukraine and Caucus areas from about 800 b.c.  until the first 
Celtic migrations impacted them.  As far as is known, all  Valkyrensis 
groups have spoken Indo-Aryan languages in periods where they  where 
identifiable as such, except for the later Scandinavian period where  
arguably derivative Germanic languages were spoken.  The lack of a 
distinctive  language for this subspecies is culturally significant. It 
seems that the Valkyrensis peoples began cohabitating with Sapiens 
through  a process of aculturalization.  It seems that tribes of 
Valkyrensis would  begin by associating themselves with tribes of 
Sapiens through military  alliances during times of invasion by other 
Sapien tribes migrating out of  Asia.Due to the large size of Sapien 
tribes and the military qualities of the  Valkyrensis this arrangement 
would seem to have benefited both sides.    However, once the process of 
cohabitation began, the status of the Valkyrensis  tended to diminish 
from that of a nation, to a tribe within a nation, to a  clan within a 
tribe, and finally to a family level.  As late as the first  century 
A.D. there seem to have been identifiable Valkyrensis clans and families 
living in Celtic western Europe internalized  into the local Celtic 
tribes( see Boadicea ). 

 As far can be determined, economic and trade patterns necessarily 
matched and  interfaced with those of surrounding Sapien peoples.  At 
times it is believed  that the Valkyrensis allied themselves with tribes 
migrating out of Asia  rather than with native Sapien tribes.  It also 
seems that at times these  tribes made use of Valkyrensis inspired 
technology ( see Adrianople ). In  general, the Valkyrensis did not seem 
to migrate along their trading routes,  except eastward along the Silk 
Road, although some speculate that they  migrated to Scandinavia via the 
Russian river portage route to the Baltic. 

With regard to the tendency of the Valkyrensis to adopt local languages,  
several theories have been put forth. One sees this tendency as a 
reflection  of the small size of Valkyrensis groups.  Another theory 
sees this as a  manifestation of the tendency of the Valkyrensis to 
eschew cultural  chauvinisms, the idea being that since the Valkyrensis 
are aware of their  status as a subspecies, they have less need to 
artificially distinguish  themselves from surrounding groups ( see 
Wales, France, China ). 

Before considering the interactions of Sapiens and Valkyrensis, it is  
important to consider another subspecies, Homo Gynodominaicus.  This  
subspecies apparently branched off from the common root, sometimes 
called Homo Ancestrus, about the same time as the morally driven  
evolutionary  orces brought about the distinction between Sapiens and  
Valkyrensis.  Where as Valkyrensis is distinguished by large strong 
dominant  females and smaller weak submissive males, in Homo 
Gynodominacus, the male  tends to be actually larger than the female, as 
in Sapiens.  As in  Valkyrensis, the male has identifiable painling 
tendencies, but the dominant  status of the female is difficult to 
determine.  In fact, in Gynodominacus,  the painling tendencies of the 
male are more developed than in any other Homo  species. It is the very 
intensity and specificity of these urges that makes  the classification 
of this species as to gender dominance difficult.  There is  no question 
that the female of this subspecies exhibits extreme dominant  behavior 
before, during, and after mating occurs, and often at seemingly  
unrelated times, but otherwise, the mating couple of this subspecies 
tend to  drift toward a far more egalitarian mode of relation than is 
typically found  in either Sapiens or Valkyrensis.  As in Sapiens, this 
subspecies does not 
 seem to be well acculturated to it's gender power orientation.  The 
male of  this subspecies is quite dependent on the female to regulate 
his own cravings  which tend to be extreme enough to warrant concern 
over his physical and  psychological well being, and the female is 
dependant upon the male for  guidance into the particulars of his 
painling capabilities.  Thus, unlike  either Sapiens or Valkyrensis, in 
this subspecies the male becomes an active  partner in the dynamics of 
the relationship.  It is obvious that a certain  egalitarianism is 
implicit in this relationship, yet it seems that both the  male and the 
female tend to find this distasteful and seek to consciously  promote 
female domination at all times, with, it must be pointed out, the  
active connivance and assistance of the male.  Thus we have a certain  
artificiality similar to the convolutions imposed on sexual relations in  
Sapiens.  However, in Gynodominacus, the motive seems not to be moral, 
which  is to say a preemptive concern with perceived self interests, as 
much as a  form of aesthetic idealism which places great value on female 
domination of  the male, even at the expense of the obvious natural 
tendencies of the  partners.  It seems that the evolutionary development 
of these egalitarian  tendencies is a logical evolutionary response to 
the  increased painling  tendencies of the male of this subspecies.  
Whereas the female of Valkyrensis  has developed a strong protective 
instinct toward her submissive mate, and the  female, along with the 
male, of Sapiens has developed a system of culturally  supported 
behavioral inversions to buffer the male, in Gynodominacus, the  female 
seems to have developed a instinct for negotiation with the male.   
Since of all three species this one consciously prizes female domination 
most  highly, this is an ironic development.  Yet, this is not to say 
that when the  female wishes to act dominantly it is not real or 
intense, it is, but rather,  the condition is temporary and tends to be  
followed by a long period in which  the dominant role of the female is 
consciously promoted by both parties, which  inherently requires 
cooperation and negotiation, and is hence worthy of being  interpreted 
as egalitarian.  Which is to say that about as close as any of the  
three subspecies ever get to real equality is when they are both 
consciously  attempting to promote someone as the dominant partner.  To 
characterize the  differences between Homo Gynodominacus and Homo 
Sapiens, one can say that for  Gynodominacus while their sexual 
expressions are artificial, fetishistic and  laced with arbitrary taboos 
and idealisms, their morals are, for the most  part, determinably 
normal, while for Homo Sapiens it is usually the other way  around. 



Most members of the Homo Gynodominacus subspecies would take 
considerable  umbrage at this analysis, seeing it as a slur on their 
authenticity, yet I  feel that it must be said that in intelligent 
beings, what is consciously done  is, on its own terms, authentic in 
it's own right.  Nonetheless, there is a  high degree of artificiality 
in the sexual behavior of this subspecies. Unlike  the Valkyrensis, 
there are no strong physical characteristics to distinguish  the male or 
the female from Sapiens.  Therefore, artificial methods are  employed to 
signal to prospective mates.  Typically the female will dress in  black 
leather garments, wear high heeled boots and brandish whips in order to  
signal her intentions to prospective mates.  Significantly, the male of 
this  subspecies does not seem to be able to recognize the female 
without such  displays on her part.  This is an obvious problem for this 
subspecies.   However, it may be noticed that the females of this 
subspecies tend, under  normal circumstances, to exhibit a kindly, yet 
deliberate, if slightly  condescending politeness towards all males, 
though this behavior is seldom  sufficient basis for identification.  

While the mating behavior of the female attracts many curious Sapiens 
males,  she does not seem to have great difficulty in selecting true 
males of her  subspecies.  For while curious Sapiens males tend to 
approach her with a lot  of frothy adoring platitudes which seem 
appropriate to his fantasies, the true  Dominacus male will usually 
approach the matter with the resigned air  appropriate to a boy who is 
about to get his whipping, along with a shy hope  that she might 
actually like him.  Even when Sapiens males are selected by  mistake, 
this seldom affects the species since they rarely actually show up. 

At this point one might well wonder if this group is really a subspecies 
or  just a behavioral  group within Sapiens, who they physically 
resemble.  The  answer is that they must be considered a distinct 
subspecies because of their  genetic behavior when mated with 
Valkyrensis.  A mating between a Valkyrensis  and a Gynodominacus will 
produce a true hybrid, rather than simply one or the  other as is the 
case with Valkyrensis and Sapiens.  However, when mated with  Sapiens, 
like Valkyrensis, the offspring will be either one or the other. 

It is worth noting that Homo Gynodominacus does not have a self 
awareness of  itself as a subspecies as does Valkyrensis, although they 
do tend to have a  strong self awareness as a behavioral group.  
Interestingly, the male of the subspecies has a much stronger awareness 
of his  behavioral  tendencies than does the female.  Since the male is 
dependant on  displays of mating behavior on the part of the female, the 
males of this  subspecies are chronically sexually frustrated.  However, 
the artificiality of  Gynodominacus' mating behavior lends itself to 
imitation by other 

As a final note, I would like to comment on the mythical, I hate to say  
notional, subspecies of Homo  Normalus.  This species supposedly always 
engages in sexual practices that are  normal, healthy, and natural, yet 
no definition has ever been offered as to  exactly what these practices 
consist of. Although there seem to be an endless  supply of definitions 
of what they are not. Furthermore, although this species  is said to 
exist, no one has ever found a living specimen either. This strange   
legendary creature is, however, widely believed to exist by Homo 
Sapiens.  
 Since Homo Sapiens is aware of no other subspecies besides itself, one 
is  forced to conclude that they must think that they themselves are 
Homo  Normalus.  


Since the earliest recorded history, Homo Gynodominacus seems to have  
cohabitated with Sapiens.  At no time do they seem to have lived in 
tribal or  even clan groups as the Valkyrensis did on the steppes, and 
later in  Scandinavia. Rather they seem to have congregated around 
various cults where  they practiced their form of sexual affections 
under the pretext of various  Goddesses.  It does not seem that these 
cults took their theologies very seriously beyond cathartic effect, and  
the whole scene  seems mainly to have been mostly just a bunch of 
fooling  around.  Nonetheless, these cults and temples were often 
enthusiastically  supported by surrounding Sapien peoples as a 
characteristic of their  fascination with strange sexual practices. 



The future of all three subspecies are in fact quite interdependant at 
this  time.  Alone among the three, Valkyrensis is aware of itself and 
the other two  as distinct subspecies.  Since Sapiens is the largest of 
the three and is the  defining influence on all current civilizations, 
the survival of Sapiens is  essential to the other two subspecies.  Yet 
of the three, despite it's size  and dominant position, Sapiens is in 
the worst shape by far.  

The alarming degeneration of Sapiens may have been arrested by technical  
developments which have caused some rethinking of it's gender customs 
which  are largely the driving force behind it's degeneration.  However, 
the entirety  of Sapien's problem's cannot be fixed with technology.  
Indeed, given the fact  that Valkyrensis and Gynodominacus were started 
on their divergent  evolutionary paths by not choosing behaviors which 
mitigated the awareness of  their species' pattern of gender domination,  
and seeing how small they are in  relation to the vast numbers of 
Sapiens,  who have evolved under the effects  of behaviors conceived in 
perfidy, paradoxically, in order to avoid the  effects of perfidy. 

Since the Valkyrensis is alone among the subspecies in being aware of 
the  other two, there has been conscious concern there as to what to do 
about this,  in some ways, alarming situation.  Most attention has 
concentrated on the  degradation of Homo Sapiens and various proposed 
remedies.  These have  included the support of various scientific 
studies to help educate the  subspecies as to it's true gender 
orientations (  see  "Nature", vol. 387,  June 12, 1997,  pg. 652 ).  
Also included were subtler messages sent to the  hoi poloi of Sapiens 
via entertainment media, including popular television  shows.  However, 
communication of complex ideas to Sapiens is difficult  because the 
intelligentsia of this subspecies is mainly skilled in the  practice of 
simulating genuine insight through the fabrication of perverted  
outlooks. Furthermore, such tactics are essentially incremental, and 
some felt that a  broad strategy for the development of Homo Sapiens was 
needed for these  efforts to be truly successful. At the annual Valkyrie 
Grand Council various motions and plans were considered to promote the  
evolution of Homo Sapiens. But it was decided that rather than trying to  
change everybody it would be best if everyone liked themselves the way 
they  were and felt the same way about  at least somebody else who felt 
the same way  about them. As surprising and disappointing as this 
decision was to many,  there was no bloodshed thanks in large part to 
the inspired efforts of Hilgred  Eisenbunns who was head of the 
refreshments committee that year. 

In concluding I feel obliged to apologize for both the length and 
brevity of my reply.  It was a very broad topic, and a discipline 
against embellishing details has never been my strong point.  I hope  my 
ideas have been structured enough to be usable, yet my conceptions of 
historical context won't prove too constricting for future works.