A Concise Domestication Thesis

A man commits a murder at the age of 20. He serves a minimum 15 year sentence. The earliest age he will be eligible for parole is 35. Thus, most of his prime reproductive years are spent in prison, and the time he would normally spend forming a family is taken from him. If the prison guards are not female, (or not fucking the inmates) you can expect the mass-incarceration of violent men to gradually lower the level of violence in society, since the violent ones have fewer children in each generation.


A rapist commits a rape. In the past rape might lead to pregnancy, but now his genes are sucked out between the stirrups of the abortion clinic. This makes men less predatory over time, since a process that was previously stable (reproduction of rape genes) is being destroyed.


A nation fights a war and calls for volunteers. Most of the men who volunteer are racist, and they die in disproportionately high numbers. The Civil War, WWI, and WWII all take their toll. A few decades later the Civil Rights Movement occurs, women win the right to vote, and Western nations begin taking in refugees by the millions. Who would have thought.


But domestication can have terrible consequences. . .


Domesticated animals are sicker than their feral counterparts. Humans living in cities are sicker and fatter than tribal peoples. There is a tendency to ascribe moral language to to this process: "eugenics" is the term used to talk about the improvement of a breed, but most dog breeds have been more or less ruined by breeders.


The Basset Hound has vertebra problems, eyelid problem, and excess skin. The Boxer has breathing and overheating problems. The English Bulldog is do deformed it cannot breed without medical intervention. Dachshunds have spine problems, dwarfism-related disorders, progressive retinal atrophy (PRA), and leg problems. The Pug suffers from high blood pressure, heart problems, breathing problems, dental issues, and over heating problems. In fact, there are no completely healthy breeds developed by humans.


If you tax the middle class and subsidize the poor, the effect will be high birthrates among the poor and lower birthrates among the middle class, since all income affects reproduction levels. This will show up as dramatically rising levels of inequality, since there is no difference between a wider income pyramid at the bottom and a narrower pyramid at the top, as both situations look identical. Having more serfs will naturally mean more income for the 1 %, and perversely, increasing inequality will be met with more demands to subsidize the poor. Poverty elimination efforts will strain national budgets while going nowhere, and the richest people will support the welfare state the most, since they profit from it the most by having more consumers.


There are a thousand small ways humans are domesticated by the system.


Hitler is said to have committed a eugenic genocide, but the average Ashkenazi Jew is smarter than the average German, and thus, his genocide made Germany dumber!


It is my humble opinion that civilization is a process of domestication, that this process is a mixed bag, and that it occurs in three stages; (1) feudalism, (2) capitalism, and (3) artificial intelligence.


It is also my belief that the longer an ethnic group has lived in settled societies the more domesticated they are, and as a result, the ethnicities of the world are not all evenly domesticated, but that some are more "feral," (for lack of a better term) than others.


It is also my belief that this accounts for why some racial groups have higher levels of violent crime; they, having lived under the oppression of governments for a shorter period of time, have been subjected to less domesticating pressure.


"Eugenic" is a loaded term because it describes something which is supposed to improve humans, but the term is a moral judgment, and what really happens is not an upward change but a "sideways change" — humans become sicker and dumber, but also less violent and more eager to please authority — just like their dogs.


Liberals actually believe the triumph of liberal values is the result of some kind of heroic moral struggle where good literally triumphs over evil, and not just the side effect of domesticating (human) animals. Liberals, and liberalism itself, is the result of domestication, and proceeds on the back of the historical process of genocide they abhor. These people are literally only possible because of the mass murders of the past. Only a totally domesticated population could be naive enough to believe in "equality" or "moral progress."


It is my belief that civilizations all follow a process that results in their rise, and also guarantees their doom. First they domesticate their own animals through the ruthless imposition of law and order on their own people, then they impose it on the periphery as their empire expands. But this sequence of events means that the center becomes more domesticated than the periphery, and that means that the people at the center lose the will to fight before the periphery. Afterward, they are overrun by Barbarians, Mongols, invaders, immigrants, or whatever, who then set themselves up as a new ruling class with a new center. The process then repeats, on and on, forever.


The center of the Sasanian Empire is replaced by the periphery of Islamic conquers.
The center of Rome is replaced by the periphery of Europe.
The center of the Song Dynasty is replaced by the periphery of The Mongol Hordes.
etc., etc.


The phase of domestication we are in now — late stage capitalism — is both the best thing ever and destroying the world. In fact, that is the only way any system could destroy everything: if it was wonderful. Human evolved to obey incentives as a matter of survival, and only something totally awesome could hack our reward function could destroy us. Saying that "capitalism will destroy us all," and saying that "capitalism is the best thing ever" are only moral contradictions — not factual ones. It is completely possible that both statements are true.


Capitalism performs a bait and switch: it promises equality while delivering something else entirely.


It embeds a form of equality in itself — not the equality of tribal communism — but the equality of standardization: capitalism wants to standardize the human race. This explains why it hates the disabled but embraces the genderless: the disabled are not productively useful. Their "special accommodations" make them less productive and more of a legal liability, but the genderless are the opposite, a sexless-genderless worker is one with few sexual harassment issues.


This is also why capitalism hates patriarchy (it's in the way), loves transwomen (no sex), hate race (they're non-standardized humans), and hates White men (they are expensive and troublesome).


Capitalism wants a standardized human; genderless, asexual, sexless, light brown, able-bodied, and productive. Anything unique about the individual must be no more than a commodity; religion becomes a "preference," sexual orientation becomes a "preference," etc.


Reproduction is expensive so it pays women less. It discriminates to remove costs. If it seems like it contradicts itself morally you must realize that its only moral is profit, and that profit is maximized by standardizing workers.


Standardization proceeds in waves. First kings kill millions of violent men in genocidal conquests. Then sterilizing effects remove antisocial people under democracy. Then AI gets its metal claws on the human genome itself.


Combined with gestation chambers, humans turn into a product line, and every year a new "Human 3.0" comes into existence in order to consume the products of the corporation. In fact, this process leads eventually to designing people for products rather than products for people, so that in a strange inversion the corporation builds you to process the new flavor of Soylent, before injecting your fat ass with more of it. You are upgraded to want the new product.


Eventually every consumer cow will come with a plug in the ass and a straw in the mouth to pump in and evacuate the paste.


Liberals believe in an "expanding circle of moral concern" that involves the heroic triumph of bullshit over evil, but the "expanding circle of moral concern" is really just an increasing level of miscegenation. With the exception of White liberals, people generally feel love and affection for their ancestors. If your ancestors are composed entirely of only one clan then you will be clannish. Similarly, if ones ancestors are a mixture of only French clans, then you will be nationalist. If your ancestors are a mixture of nations belonging to only one race, you will be a racist, and if your ancestors are a mixture of two or more races you will be globalist.


The nationalist who hates a clannish individual is psychologically identical to the globalist who hates a racist — only two steps down. Historically, the larger orientation has always beaten the smaller orientation. Racist Americans beat nationalist Europeans in World War II, while national governments subjugated clans prior to that.


It is important to point out that globalism is not the absence of xenophobia, but a reversal of its direction. Normally xenophobia directs itself outward towards the Other, but once a person's blood line is an amalgamation of multiple races, it directs itself inward against the family and race of oneself. Since there is nothing "higher" than all the races of the Earth, and there is nothing "outside" the Earth, there is no genetic "Other" in the globalist mind, and the definition of the word "human" comes to include everyone, while the "Other" becomes everyone who is not globalist.


In the amalgamated person, aggression and hatred of the Other will still be present, but with no exterior to direct itself against, it will latch on the political causes, and seek to subjugate nationalists, racists, and clannish peoples. Violence and xenophobia becomes political rather than racial.


The graph curve of aggression is strange: the more outbred the person becomes the more violently xenophobic their personality. Americans dominate the world because of their unified White racism, but as they continue to outbreed with other races they will be overtaken by the Chinese. The ability of a group to dominate the planet increases dramatically as they become more outbred, and then falls off a cliff the instant they couple with other races. This is because as long as they are composed of only one race there is still an "outside," but as soon they produce humans that are amalgamated with other races they develop moral concern for those others. Racism is the largest possible circle of moral concern that leaves an outside intact, and thus the most violent and capable of conquest. The expanding circle of moral concern becomes ever more violent until it reaches the global level, at which point it reverses direction, and begins to subjugate the interior.


The more people in a society are mixed, the more moral attachments they develop to foreigners, and the less willing a people will be to use violence to dominate those foreigners.


For example, most White Americans would never consider using military violence against the British, while Mexican-Americans would be appalled by plans to invade Mexico, and Jews would violently oppose military action against the state of Israel. As foreign mixture increases, so do emotional attachments. Eventually invading the Middle East will be unthinkable, once enough Muslims have intermarried with Americans, and pervasive guilt will exist over the "crimes of our ancestors" against the Middle East.


The mixed country develops a strange motherly attachment to all of its reproductive political origins. England is "mother," and thus, must be both protected and dominated. When Mexico, the Middle East, Armenia, Iran, Israel, Africa, etc., also become mother they too must be dominated and protected, and so the military commitments of the US must expand without bound, attacking everyone who threatens anyone else. This is the origin of the "invade the world, invite the world" policy.


The Chinese will triumph for now because their process of outbreeding has just begun. They are composed of clans who are now marrying out. They will develop a strong national/racist identity which will unify them against the rest of civilization. Most likely the conquest of Africa will backfire. Chinese men are wealthy and African women are poor, there is a surplus of bare branches, and an abundance of hypergamous African women who will open their legs for rich men, and the Chinaman will be unable to resist the loose pussy offered to him so far from home.


Eventually the children of these mixtures will immigrate back to China, depressing the Chinese national IQ and ruining them as a world power. Furthermore, since they are now as outbred as globalists they will lose the appetite for conquest, and the Chinese will waste centuries of carefully cultivated intelligence bred by the imperial exam system, on some half-African bastard children that their corrupt public officials are unwilling to neuter, due to familial attachments. Unless their strides in genetics compensate for the loss of intelligence, or unless they categorically prohibit back-migration, they will be plowed under by a sea of African immigrants.


At this point the West, emerging from some bloody civil war — or even world war — will retake the globe as political xenophobia replaces racial xenophobia, and as stratification based on income replaces separation based on race.


As the xenophobic tendency within our species sublimates into politics, the world will fracture into competing political systems, and political difference will overtake race as the largest source of animosity. This will happen as proxy wars increase the number of states in existence. In previous eras the size of an army mattered, and the bigger the empire the more threatening it was to its rivals. The ancient world is defined by a military competition to be the strongest, culminating in World War II. But we now have the atomic bomb, and the pressure to be the strongest has been replaced with endless proxy wars. The trend is now the opposite: states increase in number through fracture rather than decreasing in number through conquest. We also have an "upward" trend manifest as both increasing income stratification, and movement into space. Elon Musk has lowered the cost of launch forever, and so the future looks like a combination of trends involving a metaphorical "vertical" separation based on income, a literal "vertical" movement based on space travel, with an increasing "speciation" occurring everywhere. If there was ever a time patchwork could emerge the future is it.


So with all this exit is there hope? No, of course not. "Exit" just means that some will become "gods" while others become "pets." AI means humans will become the product rather than the consumer, and progressives will go to Mars on the rockets developed by the very man they hate, let the world drown in a sea of 4 billion Africans, and fire on anyone who enters orbit. They will exit from you, all the while condemning you to live on the planet they wrecked.