Human Husbandry

Builds Upon: The Myth of a Constant Humanity

In North Korea today, the food supply produced by the country’s agriculture is distributed by priority. The rulers keep the people most useful to them in the capital city and make sure they are fed. The further people live from the capital, generally the lower priority it is to feed them. Food spreads outward from the main distribution center in diminishing ripples. At the center there is food. On the margins there is famine.

From the origins of agriculture thousands of years ago, every person to amass stores of grain has been in a unique position to determine the future of the human race.

The first people to hoard their grain wouldn’t have shared with just anyone. Someone had to be sufficiently useful in some way to get a share of grain.
Once agriculture allowed human populations to grow beyond the natural carrying capacity of the environment, people effectively became domesticated livestock: There was no way for them to walk away and return to the wild.

If one was not useful enough to get sufficient shares of grain, the result was starvation and lack of necessary resources for reproduction.

The human livestock who proved useful to those who controlled the grain supply were fed well and enabled to reproduce.
Thus the art of human husbandry was born.

Human breeding projects produced breeds of dogs meant to accomplish specific tasks, whether pulling carts, digging up gophers, tracking down wild animals, herding sheep, or fetching downed birds from swamps.
Each breed is not only physically suited for their job. To some extent, the task they are meant to perform is written in their very instincts. What they are bred to do is what they naturally want to do.

We are naïve not to realize that humans in agricultural civilizations have developed in a way not dissimilar from dogs. While efforts to breed humans might not ever have been as focused and deliberate as with other forms of livestock, there has been strong selective pressures towards necessary functions.

The idea of humanity being universal is sadly mistaken. Certain kinds of people are going to show certain breed-specific tendencies no matter how they’re nurtured.

Puppies and wolf cubs diverge into dramatically different behavior patterns as soon as they start to grow beyond infancy. The puppies are sensitive to human body language, gestures, emotions from an early age. The wolf cubs become increasingly aggressive. They have no aptitude for understanding basic human gestures such as pointing at an object. Indeed, they lack the desire to make eye contact with people that comes naturally to domesticated dogs.

We humans who trace our ancestry through the grain fed civilizations should recognize that we inevitably have little in common with hunter gatherers.
Dogs and wolves in the wild share the same DNA. They are still the same species capable of interbreeding. Yet the way that DNA manifests shows greater differences than exists between many separate species.
We have only to see a wolf next to a basset hound or chihuahua to immediately perceive the stark differences between them.
Meanwhile, it takes some detailed knowledge to distinguish between entirely different species of birds and insects found in one’s own back yard.

It seems characteristic of domestication to exhibit a variety of traits wider than the natural world would ordinarily permit. Humans certainly follow this pattern. In the same high school, one can quickly see both a 300 pound varsity football player and 99 pound nerd walking down the same hallway.
If we stop and think, it’s really not so different than comparing an attack dog to a lap dog, a worker termite to a soldier termite. The football player is three times the size of the nerd.
If the nerd and the football player were to stand side by side, a visitor from another planet could be forgiven for assuming that they represented two different species. Certainly one would never see such immense physical differences in bands of humans living in the wild.

As with breeds of dog, the physical differences are only the beginning. Perhaps the most important difference between wolves and dogs is hormonal.
Since the 1950s, there’s been a breeding program in Russia that’s found it’s possible to breed all the signature traits of domesticated dogs into wild foxes merely by selecting for lower levels of aggression. This one criterion resulted in ability to read human body language, affection towards humans, tail wagging, splotched coats, curled tails, and floppy ears. A key variable that differed between aggressive and non-aggressive foxes: their natural levels of adrenaline. Thus, with a change in hormonal profile, a whole set of distinct traits specific to a breed results.

One might guess the football player and the nerd would have vastly different, perhaps even opposite hormonal profiles.
Perhaps increased testosterone in the football player tends to result in a higher level of aggression and a more gregarious, energetic personality.
The lower levels of testosterone in the nerd lead to lower aggression and more restrained, less energetic behavior.
Each of these breeds have had their function in thousands of years of agricultural societies. That’s why their genes have made it to the present day.
In each case someone at the top had a reason to give their ancestors shares of grain.

Let’s take an artist and a police officer.

The police officer who approaches your car with that certain slow confident swagger is typical of his breed. He’s blocky and strong, probably between 180 and 220 pounds depending on height. He has a tendency towards fat. His skin is coarse, his complexion tends toward ruddiness, his chin is likely strong. His face is squareish and thick, his hands heavy and powerful. He likely has a tendency to grow lots of body hair.
His personality is gregarious and strong. He’s not particularly sentimental and certainly not contemplative. He does what he’s supposed to do, even under lots of pressure. In fact, he thrives on the rush he gets from confrontations. His lifespan is not particularly long. He goes into quick decline in old age. Years of stress and aggression take their toll. His breed burns hot from an early age and therefore tends to burn out earlier than average.

The artist approaches cautiously and nervously. He weighs between 100 and 140 pounds. His physique is very slender and delicate. His body stores little fat and doesn’t have a whole lot of muscle tissue either. His skin is very smooth and his chin is probably weak. His face is slender with fine features. He tends to be more pale than other men. His fingers are tiny and nimble, perfect for accomplishing skilled work. He’s extremely sentimental and cares deeply about people suffering thousands of miles away. He is sensitive and spiritual but lacks the conviction and dominance to move beyond sentiment. He instinctually avoids physical risk and danger. Despite his physical frailty, his breed is frequently long lived. He matures later than most youths. His life flame is weak, but it endures.

Now let’s say you’re the ruler of an early city state in the Fertile Crescent.

You have a need for faithful guard dogs who will keep you in power. The solution is to cultivate a modified group of hunter types. You give some of your grain to strong aggressive men who excel at working in groups and are loyal to their masters. Within a few generations, you have a breed of archetypal police/soldiers. They grow stronger and larger than people in the wild. They’re too slow and heavy to hunt across long distances any more. Their abundant muscle tissue takes far too much energy to maintain outside of civilization. They need the master’s grain to survive.

You’ve found a few of your subjects can craft jewelry, sculptures and works of art. You give grain to the few who please you best. Before long, you’ve a class of vulnerable artists who would never survive without the physical protection they earn in exchange for their skills.

Though there are many breeds, most people under you live as tenant farmers working in your fields. They quickly become better adapted to a life of steady labor. They retain a good portion of the hunter gatherer’s attunement to nature and the seasons. Their frames are lean, efficient, and strong, made to endure, but lacking in the energy intensive bulk and power of the soldier.
They are able to survive famines and malnutrition.
If you’re the ruler, it’s only in your interests to allow them just enough to survive. This practice has selected for the hardiest specimens.
The more generations a civilization has relied upon agriculture, the more farmers continue to become more small and wiry so that any given task can be accomplished with the minimum possible energy investment. They can live off of a steady monotonous diet without storing much energy as fat. Their pancreases steadily enlarge as those who cannot survive on grains get weeded out across generations.

The balance of breeds is drastically shifting with the advent of industrialization.
The tenant farmer archetype is dwindling as the bedrock of the human race in industrialized nations. The breed of the urbanite is ascendant. In a society of strangers where increasingly many people live in crowded areas, those who can promote themselves and their skills best reliably secure mates and sufficient shares of grain to survive and raise children. Hard or reliable work only matters insofar as one is capable of advertising it.
The urbanite enjoys a middling lifespan. They frequently have a small to average frame 120-160 pounds. Their skeletal/facial structure tends to be finer and more delicate. A lack of selection for physicality has filtered down through the generations. They have lost nearly all of the hunter gatherer’s attunement to the natural world. The city is a safe zone they have no reason to ever leave. They are bred to make their way in the world by talking, bargaining, negotiating. They are never truly happy if they’re not talking or interacting. They have an eye for decoration, clothing, and colors. They are driven by emotions and sentiment. They are aggressive and competitive by nature but lack the contemplative nature required to understand what it is they do or why. This lack of self-reflection allows them to be merciless without pangs of conscience. They need to be this way to effectively fight their way to the top of a crowd and then take full advantage. Urbanites are fad followers, shifting their loyalties all the time. They can thus weed out those who can’t keep up with the trends. As with all breeds, they have ways of establishing who is sufficiently aligned with them to be included in their group.

If I had to guess, I would say I best fit the profile of the tenant farmer. I’m slender, but built for strength and endurance. Yet I lack the explosive power of a soldier termite.
I enjoy physical labor that urbanites and artists avoid like the plague. I pick up on the rhythms of living things and pay attention to the phases of the moon. I’m not a big talker and easily lapse into blissful contemplation if doing a monotonous task in the outdoors.
I avoid stressful situations and enjoy a steady, relaxed lifestyle that’s not too eventful…

The truth of human husbandry is obvious if one spends even a few minutes looking at a crowd of humans or thinking about the people they’ve known throughout their life.
Certain types of people tend to have similar tendencies, interests, food preferences with very few exceptions.
If one reflects on it: Perhaps caste based societies are not quite as tyrannical as we would ordinarily suppose.
If every breed is bred and sorted according to their natural proclivities across generations, is it perhaps a stable and equitable system for most people despite the lack of mobility.

Perhaps the most effective demonstration is to look at populations in the industrialized world who are but a few generations removed from tribal/hunter gatherer existence. Whether descendants of West African slaves, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, or Australian Aborigines the differences are unmistakable:
-A pancreas that explodes like a water balloon on a diet consisting primarily of refined starches.
-A tendency to easily store fat combined with a tendency to gorge themselves when food is abundant. (adaptation for dry seasons/famines/general scarcity).
-Superior power, speed, coordination, and/or endurance in comparison to more heavily domesticated humans. A wild or more wild existence has selected heavily for these traits.
-Poor abstract reasoning skills. Capacity for heavy abstraction, logic is mostly a trait of domesticated humans. Strong sense of intuition allows their communities develop sophisticated customs and systems of resource management without deliberate planning or rationalizing. Some of this sense has been bred out of domesticated humans.
-Unphilosophical, generally pursue pleasurable stimuli without too much thought. Easily become addicted to drugs. Are quick to engage in behaviors that hurt mass society as a whole for their own immediate benefit. They are not well adapted participate in a larger collective body such as a city or nation. Whenever nation states are formed from peoples of less domesticated bloodlines, the result is almost without exception disastrous.
-Natural attunement to dancing and rhythm. Have a natural feel for instinctive human courtship rituals. Often charismatic and assertive. Meanwhile, the longer a population of domesticated humans has relied on arranged marriages, the more natural courtship behaviors have been bred out of them.
-A tendency to be more physically aggressive and more easily resort to force during disputes.

It has been the custom of Western industrialized societies to promote the belief that humans are determined only by environment and nurture when even the most cursory examination reveals that such views are wrong.
Most of us know better, but we want to believe that everyone is fundamentally equal and has an equal shot. We fail to think about the fundamental differences between strains of humans because the implications are frightening and lead to frightening places.

Yet we cannot ignore these differences forever. Humans have selectively bred plants, animals, and other humans for thousands of years.

At the present time, there are technologies developing that will eventually allow much more deliberate modifications to the genetic makeup of living things, including that of humans.
To fail to understand the truth of human husbandry at this critical time in history is to go into hiding and denial. The human races as we know them will not last.

About these ads

21 responses to “Human Husbandry

  1. I was with you up until the the second paragraph, stuck with it, despite the gross oversimplification of human agricultural history from which you draw sweeping conclusions, but began to shudder by the sixth.
    It is saddening to know that in all likeliness you think this is an accurate explanation to human difference. Have you based this on any sources more recent than the 18th century? Because since then social and natural science has stumbled upon a truth you might be interested in; human behavior is overwhelmingly -socially- determined! That’s right, even such seemingly fixed and basic concepts as gender (as in gender roles) are socially constructed through an entire network of ideologies, programing and conditioning that we are exposed to from birth and are so utterly steeped in that we barely notice it, if at all. These categories can and do shift, however, depending on society, culture and situation. And yet, outrageously, you actually claim that the diversity of social standings and jobs (impermanent and rapidly shifting categories if nothing else) are the cause of differentiated human “breeds”! You have taken a spurious and simplistic comparison between human biological evolution and canine husbandry and ran with beyond all reason. There are no such things as different human “breeds”; like it or not we are all one extremely genetically similar species. Your views put you squarely in the camp of the discredited and indefensible fields of scientific racism, eugenics and other abominations. Indeed, the arguments you lay out here are the nucleus of racial anthropology and the core justification of eugenics, with all their connections to imperialism, subjugation and genocide. This is not a scientific investigation in any sense of the word, indeed by your own admission this drivel is based on “cursory examinations” and surface appearances. J’accuse! Fortunately, the vast majority of academic departments and institutes for biological/genetic studies would dismiss this extreme and facile biologism as, at best, dangerous quackery and at worse, loathsome white supremacist propaganda.
    Although I shudder to think of what kind of politics would drive this “study”, I have two demands. One, I want this comment to stay up as long as the post does so that others will at least approach this pablum with a critical eye and, hopefully, think before swallowing it. Two, I was drawn to this blog from an advertisement on Facebook (this is what I get for following those links – lesson learned) because it featured a picture of the great anarchist thinker Kropotkin. Remove this photo, it’s false advertising! Your views have nothing to do with the social anarchist tradition, a movement dedicated to human equality, unity and emancipation. You are some breed of racist and Kropotkin’s legacy is slandered through his image’s association with your page – TAKE IT DOWN!

    • Your lengthy response can appropriately be summed up as: vitriol, uncontrolled emotion, shaming tactics, intimidation, attempts at coercion.
      Conclusion: You are a demagogue.

      You obsess over a host of -isms that you learned about in school, on the news, in popular culture…

      You ask: “What are this blogger’s politics?” you ask the wrong question. You seem to make the assumption I must be affiliated with some group you already know of and disapprove of. What else could explain me having ideas you don’t like? Surely my main motivation here is to justify the views of some talking head I like to listen to.
      This sort of shallow thought is exactly why I’m pursuing this deconstruction project.

      Yes, I posted an ad on facebook. I’m sorry to disappoint, but I have no intention of hiding my actions or censoring your hotheaded words.
      Though in the future, I will insist that you interact with me in a more constructive manner. Tell me: why am I wrongheaded? Don’t just throw isms, ides, and ists at me. Why are my ideas ‘indefensible’?
      Let’s pretend I am the 18th century craniometrist you suppose me to be. If I told you that different races have different typical skull shapes, facial features, and skin colors, could you really refute me? If I told you that different races on average tend to manifest different patterns of temperament and preferences, could you refute me?
      What if I was a modern scientist who claimed there’s no real difference between chihuahuas and wolves? After all, they are members of the same species and their DNA is nearly identical. Could you support me?

      “Why Kropotkin?” You ask. That is a great question. To you he is a political figurine, a marionette, a doll, an anarchist socialist constitutionalist whatever.
      I mainly see in the man a distinct sort of personality with a special way of thinking. His political ideas are not the most important thing in my eyes. I’m more concerned with how he arrived at his ideas.
      Kropotkin grew up as an elite in a society steeped in injustice.
      There were many idealists like him at that time. But Kropotkin sought to understand WHY there was such cruel injustice. He observed not just human societies but those of insects as well. Instead of assuming the ascendancy of humans over lesser creatures, he was willing to consider ways in which ant societies are far more complex and cohesive than our own. He was interested in the mechanics and higher laws by which all societies function.

      He was able to think past the traditional ideas, even those we learn to take for granted early in childhood. This is why Kropotkin has been chosen as my spokesperson.

      You are full of unrestrained passions and revolutionary zeal. These are exactly the traits Kropotkin despised in the Bolsheviks. He realized in his day that the violent revolutionaries, whatever their cause, were even worse than the oppressive monarchy before them. He predicted the death of the Soviet Union from the moment of its birth.

  2. You obviously haven’t spent time in or thought about the city. Full of sweeping generalizations. Fallacious. I don’t completely disagree but the conclusions you draw are extrapolated to the point of being extremely far fetched.

    • My generalizations are examples.

      The cop is an archetype we’re all familiar with, right?
      That’s why I use him as an example.
      Does this mean I literally want a field guide to humans with an image of one cop in it. No.
      The cop might be tall, short skinny, old, young, male or female. But if you take a composite of cops you get a very specific universally recognized archetype because certain traits are obviously over-represented.

      Whether in real life or in movies, cops tend to have the same sort of physical appearance, personality, and body language.

      Why does it happen this way?
      Movie and TV studios have casting agents. Their very job is to look for types of people who best fulfill certain familiar archetypes.
      If one cannot make sweeping (or mopping) generalizations, how do casting directors do their jobs?

      After all, surely a sensitive artistic kid has just as good a chance as any other kid to grow up to become a Marine Drill Instructor, right?

      What I’m trying to say here is that there are definite patterns in human societies, breeds, to some extent that naturally manifest.

      When it comes to city dwellers, think of bloodlines that have stayed in big cities for many generations. Some populations that include such bloodlines: Indians and Chinese, Levantine and Mesopotamian Arabs.
      Most human beings are still relative newcomers to the city, but patterns shift. All incentives now direct us towards cities.

    • It’s not pseudoscience.
      Nor is it science.
      It’s mere pattern recognition.
      Furthermore, I lack any official credential to discuss this topic whatever.

      Honestly, actual scientists haven’t really discussed these issues in any useful way. Because: It’s not profitable. Who’s going to give them the funding to do that?
      Pointing out obvious differences within the human race doesn’t particularly serve the interests of millionaires.

  3. Observing my own animal husbandry on my homestead I have often found myself more understanding of world leaders actions. Today I searched “human husbandry” and found this article. I appreciate the writing and observations. Thanks.

  4. To all: some people who come here seem to suppose I’m some sort of Nazi or that my ideas inevitably lead down a slippery slope to Nazi-ism.

    Others seem to imply: “I sort of agree… but why are you doing this? Aren’t you taking this a little too far? Aren’t you oversimplifying/overgeneralizing?”
    They recognize there’s a legitimate issue here, but they approach it with great reluctance.

    There are certain questions we’re not supposed to ask. They’re forbidden, discredited, backwards… whatever. You just don’t ask or discuss them.

    The reasons for these rules are fairly obvious: asking them is seen as a threat to a pluralistic society.
    But our society isn’t pluralistic. No society is. Societies function by figuring out who are insiders and including them; by figuring out who are the outsiders and excluding them.
    Every profession or bar attracts a certain specific crowd.
    A color-coded map of any big city readily indicates the assortment of humanity into categories by income and ancestry.

    If we choose to ignore the patterns of societies, we can rest assured that corporations and governments are paying close attention.(What does an advertising exec do?)
    Can we as individual citizens afford to be ignorant under these circumstances? Is it good that large powerful organizations understand us better than we understand ourselves?

    Those who criticize me seem interested in whether my ideas are scientific or whether they are an infallible model of the truth.
    Of course they aren’t.
    They are observations concerning patterns.
    I’m not going to be spot on in all the details but some things are pretty clear here.
    Why do we get a paycheck today or grain from the city granary if you’re in Ancient Mesopotamia?
    Answer: We were sufficiently useful to somebody to be worth feeding.
    Since cattle, horses, dogs developed along very similar lines, we have to ask next: What effects has this trend had on the human gene pool across generations?
    Where might we begin?
    What are characteristic traits of domesticated animals that differ from the wild type?
    Do humans share any of these characteristics?

    I’m not jumping to massive conclusions here. Nor am I extrapolating anything extraordinary. I’m following a very predictable course of questioning.

  5. Eh… humans are far more divergent than the Galapagos finches, but God forbid people should dwell on it, and try to think it through. Those who do are meant to be silenced by accusations of racism. Oh well.

    It would be interesting to speculate how we evolved into different thinking/ideating patterns… some grow into being ideologues craving certainty, others into free ranging mind adventuring…. :-)

    • What is this ‘meant to be silenced’ by accusations? Does it matter to you if the accusations are true or false or if one is being accused of something meaningful? Why can’t or shouldn’t we try to think these things through? As I’ve already pointed out, governments and corporations manipulate us all every day by thinking these issues through very carefully.

      The Galapagos finches are all different species. I’m talking about exaggerated variation within a single species due to the pressures of domestication. You make a bad analogy, but I get the idea.

      I do not believe humans have yet been shaped as drastically as other animals that have been specialized through deliberate breeding programs.
      Yet it is doubtful that any species was first domesticated through deliberate planning. These relationships came to be in the natural course of events. There were certain pressures that led inevitably to a domesticated state.
      For human beings the critical pressure we can identify: centralized control of the food supply. From that point on, you have a narrow bottleneck through which only sufficiently “useful” specimens are allowed to pass.

      Indeed, very general tendencies such as: seeking security or seeking risk might be a good way of differentiating some basic human types.
      One might also speculate if the Meyers-Briggs typology essentially divides humanity into its basic breeds.

  6. I think you misunderstood. I was saying that people will try to silence those whose thoughts range widely over human variation with accusations of racism. If I were you, I would ignore them.

    Are the Galapagos finches different species? They can interbreed if fate trows them together again. If the same criteria were used for humans, we would be divided into many species. I personally think the finches are at best subspecies. (But that runs into politically correct Darwinism. After all, the finches are a showcase for it.)

    Pressures of domestication are, IMO, as important as the pressures of the wild, and both can result in divergent characteristics, as you well point out. Interesting point about Myers-Briggs…

    • Ah, given the nature of most responses you can perhaps understand if I missed out on your facetious tone.

      I looked up the finches and it appears they are all classified as different species.

      Yet if two entirely different species, horses and donkeys can breed sterile mules, it’s no big leap to suppose these finches from a relatively recent common ancestor might be able to breed.

      The real trick here seems to be that there’s a whole spectrum of shades of gray in the process of speciation. Truly it seems taxonomy is in many ways more a pre-scientific system of observed correlations rather than a true scientific field. Applying it to the human race is the ultimate politically correct minefield(human sub-species?)! A lot of those discredited fields were clearly related to taxonomy. Ever since those studies became taboo, considerations of human classification seems to have ended with Homo sapiens.

      In any case, most species tend to be refined down to a relatively narrow phenotypical range within each geographically isolated population.
      Domestication on the other hand, produces more divergences, a wider range of divergence, over a much shorter period of time, even within a single geographically discrete population.

      We don’t normally see these huge divergences in nature because most creatures have to be well balanced against a wide variety of possible stressors.
      Domesticated dogs seem to quickly stabilize into an evolutionarily fit middle of the road unibreed within a generation or two of going feral whether in the wild or on city streets. It is telling that the first traits to disappear are the exaggerated traits.

      Only in societies where members can watch out for each other’s weaknesses can you get hyper-specialized soldier termites that can’t even ingest food without help from one of their worker brethren.

  7. Yeah, the 7 finch species are a showcase. Having looked into it in some detail, and having later read that they have interbred under certain circumstances (with fertile offspring, I presume) I am also of the opinion that taxonomy is a game that’s not consistent, and not entirely honest.

    To my mind, either you admit that they are not 7 species (they’ll never do this because of the whole Darwinist schema that uses these finches prominently), or they could say, well, we need to rethink what a species means. But the human part of it is so overlaid with political correctness that it’s not likely to happen either.

    Taxonomy is a can of worms. :-)

    • Taxonomy is a tool for classification. Seems that in most cases it’s pretty useful.
      But as soon as someone says “It’s science.” it exists on this whole other ethereal plane and people begin to have unreasonable expectations of rationality.

      The Western scientific rational impulse is to be able to put everything in its proper box. Taxonomy is just one manifestation of this general drive.
      Why else does Western philosophy consist of works that spend hundreds of pages trying to close every possible loophole in the golden rule or social contract?

      Unfortunately, a boolean model of the universe seems to be fractal in nature. Even if you’re trying to logically dissect simple concepts, there’s always another layer.
      I think this might explain why existence and perception are unresolved matters in Western philosophy after several centuries and thousands of detailed treatises.
      Perhaps this explains why mathematicians and other logic workers often seem to be allergic to the idea of infinity.

      At some point one has to give in and rely on a measure of subjectivity and intuition for an inquiry to be useful.
      Otherwise you end up arguing about whether Pluto is a planet or whether viruses are living things.

      People forget: Reason is a tool, not a religion.
      So in the case of taxonomy, there needs to be less concern about whether every proposition is absolutely true and more concern about taxonomy’s usefulness as an approximate model of the natural world. For if the natural world were pi, science can only define the quantity of pi to a finite number.

      Until they ask “how many digits of pi do we need?”, it’s likely all those shades of gray will be studiously ignored.

  8. Great post. There are some books that expand on these themes about the human husbandry of civilization and the formation of group-entities:

    John Harland’s “Word Controlled Humans” is a good one and can be downloaded here:

    Another one that’s on Scribd is “Human History Viewed as Sovereign Individuals vs. Manipulated Masses”:

    • Where did these come from and who wrote them?

      I tried looking up the name of the society that wrote the “sovereign individuals” tract but got little
      more than the vaguest of rumors.

      Who are/were these people?

      I rather liked these novel interpretations of the history of civilization.

  9. The first time I heard of the term Sovereign Individual it was from Sir William Rees-Mogg and James Dale Davidson’s book the Sovereign Individual. It was written before they published that, so it might be from that.

  10. Interesting post. I am not qualified either to speculate on this, but I see this view may have some merit. However, I really think you are underplaying the role of sexual selection when trying to understand the differences between human races and the differences between physiques and mental abilities and what people are drawn to naturally. Personally I think sexual selection does not get the attention it deserves, even though does a much thorough and clearer job in explaining the phenomena you are trying to describe through human husbandry.

    • Perhaps the most important factor in sexual selection by females is a man’s ability to provide for his mate and offspring.

      In an agricultural civilization, the king controls the land and therefore selects which men are able to provide and which are not.
      Indirectly, he decrees which men get a chance to reproduce and how likely their children are to survive to adulthood and reproduce in turn.

      Selective breeding is sexual selection. The main difference is that the breeder(the king) does the selection.

      As I point out in the post, sexual selection by the opposite sex in the wild state results in a very different sort of race than in a top down civilization where the choices of elites create – intentionally or not – a mass human breeding program.

  11. Excellent job spreading knowledge Dannato, I applaud you. Your posting of this on facebook ads is a service, an admirable innovation, which more people should take. These ideas of human biodiversity, HBD, are about to take to world by storm. In case all haven’t noticed, unintelligent posters such as R.C. are all that remain of the opposition. Unfortunately, all that is left in opposition is “the crowd”.

    The manipulated masses, who think they do themselves good, serve only the elite. The accepted synopsis has been that your genes, that which comes from you, does not matter. You have nothing valuable and unique about your brain and body, the only thing important are the forces that can be directed to you from the outside.

    Yes, the crowd is still on the side of human “equality”. The crowd has certainly been manipulated to not value their genes. To think that “people are people”. To reject the notions of living from your inner nature. The crowd has been manipulated to be subject of the whims of outside forces. If you tell people they don’t have a power inside, divine, genetic, and unique, they are easier to control from the outside.

    It can be certain, that those smart enough to figure out how to manipulate these “equality” believing mobs are smart enough to know that there are vast differences between races.

    “Demotic” means “of the mob”, or “of the crowd”. One could certainly say that those such as the”Democrats” have been benefiting from ruling the mob.

    This is the essential truth:

    If your power does not come from within, then you can be more easily controlled from without.

  12. I must add, with regards to my previous comment something. I spoke in too stark terms about the inner power. This inner power must be undergirded by the foundations of Christianity. Other religions can work, but less effectively.

    That power which comes from within must be based upon the guidelines of God and the Ten Commandments. All humans are sinful, and can mistake their inner urge as the truth. As Christian, that means to sublimate onesself to the Lord. Humbleness is important.

    In other words, the power within must based upon the commandments of the Lord. What is the origin of all good?
    The Fear of God.

    I hope you post this, I would sorely mislead people not to add this most important addendum. Great evil can come of not looking to divine foundations for ones inner direction. Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s