The vampire paradox of zombies

There is a mystery in zombie-films that spoils them for me: Zombies feed on brains, but their skulls are functionally intact.
We all know that zombies in folklore were simply dead workforce for witches. You find a person, kill it in a certain way involving rituals or you revive a dead person and there you have your robot or slave executing tasks without minding anything else. Zombies were the exact opposite of a socialist worker with ADHD: hyper-focused, effective, loyal. Social Anthropology has produced a lot of facts and fiction on the „reality“ of zombies and toxines from Haiti to South-Africa.
But films transplanted the „vampire“-aspect into zombies and that drastically transformed the traditional logic of zombies.

It is common sense today, that Zombies reproduce through biting living persons (or animals). The infection creates a rapid decay of a person’s consciousness, leaving a massive urge to bite driving forward a body ruined or decorated by flesh-wounds. But hordes of zombies should dismantle a body within seconds, even if we exclude digestion and therefore incorporation of flesh ripped of a living body. Many Zombie-jokes even refer to a nutritional focus on „brains“. It is equally common sense, that Zombies only die from headshots or severe damage to their skulls. Which means, a pride of zombies following their natural hunting behaviour will almost never produce offspring, as victims of zombie-attacks will end up with severe damage to their brains and little muscles left to move their bodies or teeth inside a skull to bite other bodies.
IF zombies bite, they can’t produce walking (and biting) zombies on a large scale. That is the vampire-paradox of zombies.
We can conclude: In Nature, wild zombies should almost never have intact heads. Or more precise: zombies shouldn’t exist at all. They are – other than traditional zombies and vampires – a contradiction.
BUT we can solve the contradiction. Zombies simply aren’t zombies. The original zombie-myth was deeply rooted in African mythology. (Frankenstein was more of a cyborg-jesus. He was alone, had feelings and was mobbed for being different. We can ignore Frankenstein. He is not a zombie at all.)
Voodoo-Zombies were too African for white culture industry. Despite branding it as „superstition“ whites were afraid of „African witchcraft“ because whites were afraid of anything even hinting at black power. „Night of the living dead“ introduced an armed black hero slapping a white woman: an outrage for white people at that time. But in the end he dies from bullets of white racists mistaking him for a zombie – or for the „dangerous“ black man he is.
With „Night of the living dead“ all further zombies became vampires. Vampires thrive on christian projections of drinking blood in churches, celebrating ressurection, visiting beautiful girls and boys at night. They have their logic, but only for Christians – and teenagers. (By the way: African vampires don’t feed on blood: They sell it to white people or sacrifice it to the gods or witches.) Zombies on the other hand mutated into ugly vampires. They bite. That’s all you need. No food, no brains, just bites. And as with vampires, biting creates offspring and therefore simply is: sex.
The moral of zombie-films is prudish: Sex is rape. Attraction is dangerous. Those who go out will be gangraped. You need a penis (and/or heavy guns) to defeat zombies. Kill zombies – kill the sex-drive – save mankind. Zombies then are logical again, but also very boring.





One thought on “The vampire paradox of zombies

  1. muss man eben alles vor dem hintergrund einer christlichen , leib- und lustfeindlichen kultur sehen.damit ergeben zombies wieder einen (bizarren) sinn.paranoia ergibt sich aus verboten.

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Diese Website verwendet Akismet, um Spam zu reduzieren. Erfahre mehr darüber, wie deine Kommentardaten verarbeitet werden.