The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRaches' Political Proems
The Domestication of Man
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The Domestication of Man

I should record this somewhere—I never told anybody:

When I was young, I began to write a book entitled, The Domestication of Man.  My thesis was that there is a world-controlling conspiracy to turn humans into a species of domesticated animal.  This conclusion was entirely original and independent by me.

It was based almost exclusively on observations made within my own lifetime, based on common knowledge and mainstream, more or less popular sources of information.  At the time, I had almost negligible historical knowledge—what would nowadays be called a “Wikipedia level”—and even less philosophical knowledge.  Outside of some libertarian stuff and the like, most of which was relatively tame, I had had no contact with “alternative media”.

I did not clearly identify the conspirators—and unlike stereotypical “conspiracy theorists”, I did not pretend to have such knowledge as I properly knew I did not.  I saw governments, corporations, banks, Wall Street, the media, academia, and the culture all converging on the singular object of turning humans into bipedal cud-chewing cattle, placid and safe, vapid and mindless—but unlike cud-chewing quadrupeds, totally soulless.  The results of all trends were and are foreseeable to anyone of sufficiently high intelligence; if nobody were to benefit, it would all just be reasonless mass self-destruction; from thus applying cui bono? type of logic, it seemed obvious to me that there must be someone pulling the strings.  I did not know who; and I did not reach beyond some vague guesswork about bankers, stock market magnates, media moguls, scheming Utopian intellectuals, and “power behind the throne” types around corrupt politicians.

I identified the Jews as their victims—for of course, the Jews are always everybody’s victims!  Those poor, innocent Jews!

When I was a child, the Jewish people whom I knew were nerdy “smart kid” intellectual types—Jewishly passive and scrawny and ugly—with sweet dispositions, and dark eyes that would light up if someone was willing to talk to them about mathematical games, books of intellectual puzzles, and such other pleasures.  I myself was too aloof[1]I.e., instinctively aristocratic. to have real friends, in a world that I already felt[2]Cf. Nietzsche, The Gay Science, I.10, “A Species of Atavism.” was quite wrong for me; but one of the closest things that I had to a friend was a Jewish boy who had an IQ of 148, the face of a dog, and the personality of a doormat.  His obsession with comic-book characters bored me, but I much enjoyed what he showed me in his prized books of puzzles and riddles.

Of course, he was the object of much cruelty.  Once, when he was bullied, ridiculed, and humiliated by a teacher in front of the class, I suddenly stood up on a chair and denounced the teacher.  This shocked everybody who had believed I was a teacher’s pet—including the teacher.  Polite, orderly, obedient me—a natural born goose-stepper.[3]It is a generic Sklavenmoral error to confuse hierarchical, aristocratic yielding to higher authority with dog-like slavish submissiveness.  This error is frequently committed in both directions.

Men who obey an acknowledged authority with military precision are misperceived as submissive, self-abasing—or even as mindless robots—the clownish, stupid type of Hollwood Nazi.  On the flipside, meek little mass-men suddenly get uppity when told that they should obey their betters:  They, who preach humility, take all hierarchy as an insulting humiliation.  It is the democratic conceit of the low.

On the same grounds, feminists will mischaracterize me as a misogynist when I say that wives must obey their husbands.  What I really mean is that a woman should be married if she swoons over a godlike man, a superior being upon whose altar she shall lay herself as a sacrifice, body and soul:  He whose name shall be her name, whose voice shall be her creed, whose will she shall obey as a divine commandment.  My romantic hyperbole as such is not too much of an exaggeration of how women actually used to perceive men—before modern times, when, after so many centuries of Christian brainwashing and ill breeding, men democratically degenerated into a species of domestic livestock.

Women who find themselves erroneously attached to domesticated Christian doormats should take their money, which would anyway just go to Jesus—i.e., to salvation-salesmen—and wipe their feet on the way out.
  I have always acted on instinct.  I have always had an instinct for justice, and been aggrieved by injustice.  The room went dead silent.  Then, the teacher apologized to the kid.  After class, she thanked me and hugged me—which I hated, for thou shalt not invade my personal space.

As a young adult, of course, I thought that the Jews must be the principal targets of the human domestication program.  Later on, I added onto the idea by positing that militant Zionism was a process of undomesticating the Jews.

Now, of course, I view German National Socialism as Hitler’s orderly untaming of the Nietzschean blonde Bestie—a new synthesis of civilization with natural instincts, for an aristocratic race.

Imagery from a German propaganda film, as reused in an American anti-German propaganda film.  (A subject to which I will return…)  Empirical evidence for Nietzsche’s proposition that what the master-morality deems “good”, the slave-morality deems “evil”.  Also, evidence for my proposition that Americans are natural born slaves—full domesticated anthropoid livestock—ovine Christians.  Inductive proof:  If Americans were free spirits and proud souls, then this anti-German propaganda would have backfired by inspiring admiration for the Germans.  I myself don’t look like this, but I admire those who do; and I think that they should be proud of themselves just the way they are, instead of destroying themselves to please their inferiors.

Years later, I realized that I had independently invented my own half-baked, immature, incoherent version of Nietzsche—based on premises that I had never fully examined, riddled with implicit contradictions, and accordingly laced with nonsense about “natural rights”—plus a pretty good conspiracy theory.  It is one of several personal reasons why I have a great fondness for Nietzsche, despite disagreeing with some of his conclusions.

I didn’t get much actual writing done; I spent much more time thinking about what I should write.  I would take solace alone in the woods, as I was wont to do, and quietly contemplate the problem of domesticated humans—because of “natural rights”; oh, how I now cringe.

I did mention that I was young.


The Domestication of the Romans

My occasion for mention of the foregoing:  BlackFlag raised something that needs more attention.

Peter Frost suggests that perhaps the Roman population had been domesticated which made them maybe more receptive to the Christian mindset. It explains why they couldn’t raise the measly troops to repel the Goths. Compare the fighting spirit they had back in the Punic Wars where they suffered massive casualties but kept coming back with fresh armies. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/147470491000800306

Same thing happening now with Europeans being receptive to the suicidal woke mindset. Burnham said liberalism was the rationalization of civilizational decline (like a mother’s soothing meaningless words to her dying child). Goes with what WD Hamilton said about domesticated populations needing fresh hero genes. We know this domestication has been occurring (e.g. capital punishment in the Middle Ages). So the problem is not Christianity per se.

Citation and abstract from Frost:

[Frost, P. (2010).  “The Roman State and Genetic Pacification”.  Evolutionary Psychology 2010 8(3).  doi:10.1177/147470491000800306]

Abstract

Over the last 10,000 years, the human genome has changed at an accelerating rate.  The change seems to reflect adaptations to new social environments, including the rise of the State and its monopoly on violence.  State societies punish young men who act violently on their own initiative.  In contrast, non-State societies usually reward such behavior with success, including reproductive success.  Thus, given the moderate to high heritability of male aggressiveness, the State tends to remove violent predispositions from the gene pool while favoring tendencies toward peacefulness and submission.  This perspective is applied here to the Roman state, specifically its long-term effort to pacify the general population.  By imperial times, this effort had succeeded so well that the Romans saw themselves as being inherently less violent than the “barbarians” beyond their borders.  By creating a pacified and submissive population, the empire also became conducive to the spread of Christianity—a religion of peace and submission.  In sum, the Roman state imposed a behavioral change that would over time alter the mix of genotypes, thus facilitating a subsequent ideological change.

BlackFlag, I agree that there must be multiple causes for the decline which, itself, has multiple aspects:  Cultural, racial, civilizational.  In analyzing a complex system, I am generally suspicious of any proposal of a single, simple, absolute explanation for absolutely everything.  I focus on Christianity as a major cause—I say that it is a primary cause, inextricably entwined with other causes.  Genetics and culture form a feedback loop; evolutionary psychology and, more broadly, sociobiology are good approaches thereto.

In that feedback loop, an important variable is immigrationDr. Frost seems to glance by this point:

Pacification and the shift to a new ideological environment

To maintain control, Rome had to preserve its martial values while instilling pacifism and submissiveness in its new subjects.  This social contradiction would eventually become unsustainable.

First, the conquered assimilated into Roman society.  Many became citizens and, as such, enjoyed certain rights and protections.  Second, the State no longer had to be so violent with its subjects. […the rest of this paragraph addresses only “Second”…]

Third, […discussion of behavior, with citations to references…]  A new kind of Roman was emerging, one less interested in violence and more submissive to authority.  In fact, the new Romans were coming to see arrogant, aggressive conduct as wrong, even wicked.  Yet this was how the Gods themselves behaved.  Increasingly, people looked elsewhere for spiritual comfort.

Into this new behavioral environment came Christianity.  […]

I remark obiter that those who see my “arrogant, aggressive conduct as wrong, even wicked” are observing a trait that I have intentionally refined through introspective self-programming:  A feature, not a bug.  NACK, #WONTFIX—not to be patched by Christian whining about the “virtue” of humility, better called self-humiliation:  Mortification of the soul to match mortification of the flesh.  Those who have such a fetish may offer themselves as slaves to me—whereupon perhaps, if it suits my whims, I may design to grace their disgrace them by humiliating their humility.

Anyway, how did all those assimilated new “Romans’” genetics differ generically from those of the old Romans?  —In what degree did heritable traits from the new “Roman” citizens contribute to acceptance of Christianity—and thus, in turn, to further genetic decline of the Romans?

Are people now so race-blind that Dr. Frost, whom I see has incisively criticized evolutionary psychology’s blind spots at The Unz Review, glances by genetic pollution from immigration to focus only on the interaction of culture, behavioral selection, and genetics?

I should dig through my notes, and find references on the thesis that population replacement (especially in the upper classes) was a major factor in Roman decline—something more than “Oliver said so”, which he did.  For another comparison, he also said something that I found startling about the replacement of the French nobility by the time of the French Revolution.  I oughtn’t have been so surprised:  The supplanting of la noblesse d’épée by la noblesse de robe is well-known, although people tend to regard it as merely a cultural phenomenon without asking about genetics.

Aside, n.b. that I am not advocating an immigration restrictionist policy for America.  I disclaim that position for various reasons, including the reality that frankly, Building The Wall, etc., would be like taking an aspirin when you have late-stage cancer.  But my concurrence from the opposite direction with pro-immigrant Ron Unz about some of these types of issues is far afield of this topic—a subject that I should address in the future.  Hereby, it will suffice to note that (1) white Americans will be lucky if Mr. Unz gets his way, because the realistic alternatives for them are all much worse; (2) in the manner of setting aside a native-habitat reserve for endangered gorillas, I vehemently advocate a race-based immigration restrictionist policy for Europe—a very different case altogether, and one where it may not yet be too late.

I look forward to seeing what the Unz Review commentariat thinks of all this. ®


Notes

[1] I.e., instinctively aristocratic.

[2] Cf. Nietzsche, The Gay Science, I.10, “A Species of Atavism.”

[3] It is a generic Sklavenmoral error to confuse hierarchical, aristocratic yielding to higher authority with dog-like slavish submissiveness.  This error is frequently committed in both directions.

Men who obey an acknowledged authority with military precision are misperceived as submissive, self-abasing—or even as mindless robots—the clownish, stupid type of Hollwood Nazi.  On the flipside, meek little mass-men suddenly get uppity when told that they should obey their betters:  They, who preach humility, take all hierarchy as an insulting humiliation.  It is the democratic conceit of the low.

On the same grounds, feminists will mischaracterize me as a misogynist when I say that wives must obey their husbands.  What I really mean is that a woman should be married if she swoons over a godlike man, a superior being upon whose altar she shall lay herself as a sacrifice, body and soul:  He whose name shall be her name, whose voice shall be her creed, whose will she shall obey as a divine commandment.  My romantic hyperbole as such is not too much of an exaggeration of how women actually used to perceive men—before modern times, when, after so many centuries of Christian brainwashing and ill breeding, men democratically degenerated into a species of domestic livestock.

Women who find themselves erroneously attached to domesticated Christian doormats should take their money, which would anyway just go to Jesus—i.e., to salvation-salesmen—and wipe their feet on the way out.

 
Hide 36 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Yes,you are correct,sir.And,it’s getting worse…
    Thank God that over half of the world isn’t buying it.Prai\$e

  2. There is much here that I could agree with. Alas, doing so leaves a bad taste in my mouth when it’s written by someone stuck so far up their own a that they stretch out what should be a 500 word blogpost into a 2200 word essay complete with multiple rambling anecdotes about their own noble and aristocratic spirit.

    It might interest you to know that one of the primary reasons why successful alt-discussion sites such as 4chan are anonymous is precisely to avoid this fustian conceitedness that is the weakness of so many above-average-but-not-especially-remarkable men. And if I wanted Nietzsche poorly rehashed amidst a barrage of senseless sposting that is where I would go.

    [Edited by Raches on a whim, to elide low-class scatological insults.  I warned you:  Mind your manners.]

    • Agree: Je Suis Omar Mateen
    • Troll: Raches
    • Replies: @Raches
  3. JimDandy says:

    Do you think that I want to live in a communal society… sweeping streets and breaking up rocks or whatever it is people are always doing in those blighted countries? What I want is a good, strong monarchy with a tasteful and decent king who has some knowledge of theology and geometry and to cultivate a Rich Inner Life.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  4. Anonymous[221] • Disclaimer says:

    What I really mean is that a woman should be married if she swoons over a godlike man, a superior being upon whose altar she shall lay herself as a sacrifice, body and soul: He whose name shall be her name, whose voice shall be her creed, whose will she shall obey as a divine commandment.

    Sounds swell, have you been able to get a relationship off the ground with a woman under these circumstances? Just wondering what your qualifications are for giving marriage advice – even having pulled this type of relationship off with a single woman; who is will to marry for the long haul and bear children for you (and obey you faithfully) would be a good qualifier in this day and change.

    • Replies: @Raches
  5. TG says:

    I agree that there is a world-wide conspiracy to domesticate the human race – although I think I see it from a different perspective.

    The bottom line: the rich have always wanted the working class to be cattle, to breed on command and not complain. People are still, however, at heart wild animals, they don’t all breed on command, and they often chafe and revolt when their living conditions are driven down towards subsistence.

    One of the hallmarks of a domestic animal is that they have no intrinsic control over their breeding, that is handled by humans. So wild wolves carefully limit their own breeding, presumably because a small, well fed and strong wolf pack can be more successful than a larger malnourished and weak wolf pack.

    When the rich replace populations of humans who do control their breeding to a level that is appropriate to the current circumstances, with the surplus population of humans who breed without restraint, isn’t that a deliberate program of domestication?

    Oh for now, fertility rates are still cultural. White europeans and Japanese today have moderate numbers of children, but a century and a half ago they bred like rodents. And, at least for now, all of the immigrant populations fleeing the consequences of sustained high population pressure rapidly assimilate to a lower fertility rate in the US. So it’s not genetic.

    Not yet.

    But as the rich continue to push out and replace people who have limited numbers of children and who question rules, with people who have massive numbers of children and put up with anything without complaining, could it one day become genetic? Some day, it would surely have to.

    Unless we get genetic engineering. Trust me, if that ever becomes reality, the rich will NOT allow the average person to become a superman – they will demand that the average person become a sheep. Guaranteed.

    • Replies: @Resartus
  6. Raches says: • Website
    @Darius Locke

    First-ever comment from this pseudonym.  Written as a pompous put-down to try to push my buttons—but I am the more artful.  Yes, I checked before letting it through:  I practically have a feminine intuition for troll-busting.

    A brief web search reveals two possibilities about you, Mr. “Darius Locke”.  Either:

    • You are a Trekkie.  According to HBD scientific surveys, the heritable traits of a Trekkie nerd who hangs out on 4chan, and who trolls blogs with sockpuppets, are highly correlated with being a “basement-dwelling virgin with no friends and nothing to live for”.  The cruel rejection that you have always invariably suffered from women is consistent with the theories of evolutionary psychology about sexual selection—and it demonstrates conclusively that stereotypical feminine viciousness is eugenicSCIENCE!!!

    —or:

    • You are a pop-TV fictional rhyme with a trigger, played by a real one:


    (Image source; see also.)

    Either way, you are a massive faggot despicableThere is here a thread for you; have fun there, or get lost.  It doesn’t matter how many pseudonyms you make, or how many times you rotate IPs:  On my schedule, I will always bust you and the other trolls that I am quietly watching.

    ——————————

    To others:  Please excuse the off-topic interruption.  I am undomesticated:  I must sometimes “revert to the innocence of the beast-of-prey conscience” (Nietzsche, The Genealogy of Morals, I.11).  Carry on.  Good discussion here. ®

  7. MarkU says:

    Sadly true, the problem with most people of European descent is that we have become overly domesticated, it tends to happen to most civilisations eventually.

  8. Tusk says:
    @Raches

    Your ad hominems about Darius’ lack of commenting history aside,

    [MORE]
    I think what he wrote was true. Darius wrote:

    “multiple rambling anecdotes about their own noble and aristocratic spirit”

    Which is certainly true. In this piece you imply you invented Nietzscheanism independently from Nietzsche. Certainly a bold claim, but who am I to know the great mind of Raches, equal to Nietzche! My good sir, I turn my eyes away from your luminous being!

    Also love this:

    I should dig through my notes, and find references on the thesis that population replacement (especially in the upper classes) was a major factor in Roman decline

    Why would you need to dig through your notes for references, it was clear it was happening as evidenced by Augustus’ bachelor tax. It was a clearly known about issue, not some esoteric truth everyone missed.

    Your pseudo-romantic swooning in the notes also makes me think you’re an incel so maybe work on your style.

    • Replies: @Raches
  9. Resartus says:
    @TG

    Some day, it would surely have to.

    The ironic thing about the whole issue…
    The people pushing it, won’t be around to see it finish…

    The people fighting it, want better for their children and beyond…
    The originators, can hardly be seen as anything but hating the same….

    • Replies: @Raches
  10. Malaparte says:

    Raches may want to familiarize himself with recent studies on the population genetics of Ancient Rome. In a nutshell, although there is evidence of some movement of people from the Eastern Med to Rome and its environs during the Imperial Era, they likely lived in merchant districts segregated by place of origin, and left an negligible genetic legacy in Italy.

  11. What is this? Hipster Nazism?

  12. Yevardian says:

    I should record this somewhere—I never told anybody:

    When I was young, I began to write a book entitled, The Domestication of Man. My thesis was that there is a world-controlling conspiracy to turn humans into a species of domesticated animal. This conclusion was entirely original and independent by me.

    Yes, thank you for blessing us with such arcane and original insights.

    Hereby, it will suffice to note that (1) white Americans will be lucky if Mr. Unz gets his way, because the realistic alternatives for them are all much worse; (2) in the manner of setting aside a native-habitat reserve for endangered gorillas, I vehemently advocate a race-based immigration restrictionist policy for Europe—a very different case altogether, and one where it may not yet be too late.

    Well, of course, again this is just elementary common-sense. It should be obvious to any serious ‘white advocate’.

    Now, if you’d deign to answer a mere misguided mortal such as myself, what does your unique intellect have to say regarding Australia and east-asian migration?

  13. @Raches

    Hey, Rachet, while I wasn’t a big fan in comments a week or so back, your work then was light and fluffy. This piece here has meat on the bone. I refused the modern form of domestication my whole life. I was divorced for my refusal to give up childish things (motorcycles, golf, skydiving among other things). I refused the harness of working for the same companies without regular increases in pay, leading to much job jumping for a raise at a time when you were expected to stay in one place forever (domestication?). In the military I refused enlistment as the ruin of the military began, with women horning in for unearned goodies back in the 70s. Eventually I became, as far as modern life allows, for Whites anyway, a free agent in everything as a contractor, multiple skilled in technical fields and pretty much named my price on everything from phone systems to electrical projects. I felt sorry for the schmucks that slaved like good little domestics, watching the gravy pour on everyone’s plate but their own for decades. Of course they were domesticated in the homestead, so they couldn’t risk. That’s why companies love the married-domesticated. Then I retired early, my biggest pleasure doing what I want, when I want, no one ordering me about. Florida, golf, motorcycles, this or that girlfriend, none of them ruling me.

    I’m sure you could make a case that even throwing off the many harnesses from the start didn’t make me less domesticated (in spite of never tying myself down), because I still had to go get a living that allows my existence today, pay my kid’s way, etc. But for the modern, feminist-directed world, it was about as anti-domestic as it gets without committing crimes. In this society today, look to blacks for the societal renegades that breed, rape, murder without consequence, only taking, producing nothing but brillo-heads who will follow the paternal tradition. All jewish sanctioned as long as they’re killing Whites of course.

    So, Rache, by degree, there’s variance in the domesticated concept. Down here at the grass roots anyway. And I recognize my takes are infantile, juvenile and uneducated, related only to my path. Fair takes in your piece here, however. I’m capable of a change in attitude if nothing else. Not to send sunshine up your bloomers, but it turns out you have a sense of the truth. So, stay. 🙂

    • Replies: @Raches
  14. Yevardian says:
    @Raches

    I practically have a feminine intuition for troll-busting.

    Feminine in the sense that your response was entirely limited to an ad hominem, perhaps?

    • Replies: @Raches
  15. @JimDandy

    You’re going to get what you want.

    Feudalism 2.0 is around the corner.

    • Thanks: JimDandy
  16. Raches says: • Website
    @Tusk

    Your ad hominems about Darius’ lack of commenting history aside,

    Your ad hominem personal attacks about my ad hominem about “Darius Locke’s” off-topic ad hominem personal attack on me are entirely off-topic.  There is a thread for this; feel free to pick it up there.

    Furthermore:

    Arguments ad hominem are not always fallacious.  For example, when a 4chan fan with no comment history trolls me with a ridiculous personal attack, it is not fallacious to point out that he is a troll.  I find it curious that you ignore his ad hominem and focus on my ad hominem response to it, with your own ad hominem.  Are you perchance American?

    Anyway, this is all off-topic.  Beyond making such comments as this to amuse myself, I will not let the thread be derailed by this.  Others are making some interesting points, both positive and negative; and I do notice. ®

  17. Raches says: • Website
    @Yevardian

    Well, there is no pleasing the crowd.  Yet another commentator dislikes my ad hominem reply to an ad hominem attack on me:

    Feminine in the sense that your response was entirely limited to an ad hominem, perhaps?

    Well, there is an argument ad feminam!

    Another commentator questioned my usage of “ad feminam”.  I think it is correct.  Feel free to critique my dog Latin bitch Latin in the topic where I first used the phrase.  I hope to parlay this into inciting someone to write a philological paper on the subject. ®

  18. My thesis was that there is a world-controlling conspiracy to turn humans into a species of domesticated animal.

    A theory with merit.

    For some reason, no one appears bothered by an inexplicable generational plummet in men’s natural testosterone.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2017/10/02/youre-not-the-man-your-father-was/?sh=7b7773ef8b7f

  19. My own experience, growing up in Marblehead, Massachusetts, was quite similar to yours with respect to the Jewish peers I had: they were diffident, friendly, and intelligent. I liked them, they liked me; their mothers, when I met them in my friends’ homes, were especially cordial.

    When I went to undergraduates school, and to graduate school, again the Jewish people with whom I made acquaintance were amiable and open-minded. I remember well a [Jewish] professor who was quite hostile to Israeli Zionism and all its claims to victimhood.

    So, raches, I never got the memo, to express it metaphorically: I do not believe in Jewish hostility to civilization, or in some conspiratorial within-the-tribe plot against everyone else. I approve, indeed, identify with your younger self and deplore your loss of humanity and humaneness since.

  20. Raches says: • Website
    @Jim Christian

    Thanks.

    Sort of, not quite in reply to you—a little anecdote that you may like, which may fill in some of the blanks on my outlook:

    I know a man who picked up a hot woman when he was literally homeless—a bum, flat broke.  She was a quality woman, too:  Upper middle-class, educated—a bourgeois liberal, and of course, a feminist—and pretty, very pretty, 9/10 face with sculpted Nordic features, albeit a mediocre 6/10 body.  (Not fat:  Too skinny—yes, there is such a thing; but she could still pull off a dinner dress in a stunning way.)  He was not physically attractive—actually, he was scrawny and crippled.  No, bro, he didn’t lift weights, and couldn’t have.

    He came to her as a king in rags.  It is just who—what he is:  Naturally aristocratic, and even imperious, with an iron heart, and willpower like an unopposable force of nature.¹  Untamed and untameable.²  This cannot be faked, and cannot be learned on some website about how to pick up women.  And despite his condition, it was impossible to pity him.  She, a bossy, bitchy feminist careerwoman, told him in as many words that no man had ever made her feel so submissive.

    She was eager to give him sex, a hot meal, and a shower—not in that order.  As if by divine right, he took from her whatever he wanted—which was not even a fraction of what she would have given; he refused her money.

    I think of that, whenever I see incels whining about how they can’t get laid because girls are so mean, and women only care about money and social status, etc., ad nauseam.  Getting laid is easy.  I believe that it needs an innate quality, which is like being born with the traits to develop an adequate IQ; for those who don’t have it, “education” won’t give it.  Sex is easy.  Turning her into a suitable wife and mother—and/or otherwise bringing her not only to accept, but positively to desire some rôle that she never thereto would have considered—now, there is an interesting challenge.  Superficially to evoke her willing, happy obedience is easy; and in my little anecdote, he assuredly influenced her way of thinking.  But fundamentally to change her whole worldview—could it be possible?

    I also think you may appreciate the works of Anthony M. Ludovici.  I wish that Mr. Unz’s archive had more and more publicly readable Ludovici, to remove the need to link to outside sites.

    Ludovici was an Englishman of Italian descent—I think probably North Italian, by the looks of him.  Politically, he was an advocate of aristocracy; and after he visited Germany in 1936, he gave an essentially positive appraisal of Hitler’s system in a series of articles in an English publication.  He was a Nietzsche scholar; he translated some of Nietzsche’s works to English earlier in his career, and he wrote an easy-reading introductory book about Nietzsche which I highly recommend.  And I consider him to be, thus far, the definitive pro-woman anti-feminist author.  He essentially considered feminism to be an attack against normal, healthy women by degenerates of both sexes—and pretty much all men’s fault.

    In his refined, aristocratic way, Ludovici was a man with balls who was disgusted by modern weakness.  He observed that women are perpetually judging men—that they need to judge men—and that when, in the Nineteenth Century, women “learnt to regard men as pleasant, useful, but uninspiring, grown-up schoolboys”, in essence, men lost respect—deservedly so.

    My take is a little bit different.  Feminism has been a disaster for both sexes; and it is indeed men’s fault.  If I want to fight feminism, first, I need to cover my flank by fighting off the “manosphere” types who stand on the same grounds as the feminists, and who make the equal and opposite errors of feminism.  I care about women, and I care about men—I say that as a collectivist, and also a eugenicist; most “men” that I see out there should be debarred from ever reproducing.  Men need to be whipped into shape; and I don’t mind hurting the precious feelings of the domesticated cud-chewers, who just want to point the finger and blame it all on women.  Thus, “the beatings will continue until morale improves”—a subject to which I will return in these pages.

    Obiter dictum, if you want to chat about motorcycles, I don’t mind the off-topic diversion.  My experience on that subject is limited to the time when, when I was a teenager, a motorcycle man took me for a spin on his machine.  He was contemptuous of Harleys, which he claimed to lack build quality; he boasted that he had the highest-displacement engine that Kawasaki produced.  He expertly exercised its capabilities, accelerated like a rocket, and leaned in hard on tight corners at high speed—with me hanging on from the back.  After that, I wanted to get into motorcycles myself; but I frankly admit, I do not have the spatial perception, reaction time, and sense of balance required to avoid inadvertently removing myself from the gene pool. ®

    ——————————
    1. If he was so great, how did he wind up that way?  Political incorrectness.  Bad luck, plus a rather extreme and unanticipated case of being “cancelled”.  Cf. “economic warfare”.

    2. Lest I draw a shallow caricature, I should emphasize that although he was extremely arrogant and a little bit scary, he was not a “bad boy”, but to the contrary.  He had the benevolence of noblesse oblige, an old-fashioned chivalric level of courtesy, and the irrepressible cheerfulness that came with not deigning too much to notice his own ridiculously obvious life problems.  Most attempts to analyze such cases fail by reducing highly complex personalities to simplistic two-dimensional cartoon characters, then attempting to derive therefrom a formula in the manner of a magical incantation.  Life does not work that way.

    • Thanks: Jim Christian
    • Troll: Je Suis Omar Mateen
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  21. johnm33 says:

    Perhaps not a conspiracy as such, and not cattle but an inexorable drive towads the type of social structure gamed several times by the ‘social’ insects. They are controlled largely by hormones/pheremones we by gaslight and sedatives and memes until thoroughly en-tranced.

  22. Anonymous[138] • Disclaimer says:
    @Raches

    Turning her into a suitable wife and mother—and/or otherwise bringing her not only to accept, but positively to desire some rôle that she never thereto would have considered—now, there is an interesting challenge. Superficially to evoke her willing, happy obedience is easy; and in my little anecdote, he assuredly influenced her way of thinking. But fundamentally to change her whole worldview—could it be possible?

    So, uh…have you been able to pull this off or is this all theory at this point? Have you been able to find a woman to marry and had kids with her?

  23. Women who find themselves erroneously attached to domesticated Christian doormats should take their money, which would anyway just go to Jesus—i.e., to salvation-salesmen—and wipe their feet on the way out.

    That’s completely unrealistic. There simply aren’t enough strong men to go around. In fact according to a recent study it looks like women are designed to breed with a strong man and then take a beta male as a provider.

    As for Christianity its absence in modern society makes things worse. In secular cities like SF you will find the most domesticated men in America. A dozen could be on the subway and they will sit and watch as a woman is robbed in front of them.

    The only viable way to solve this problem in the short term is polygamy. But the left would never allow it as an LGBQTXZ# form of alternative sexuality as they correctly would expect it to favor strong willed Whites. They want to dilute Whites and welfare already allows for polygamy in Blacks.

    • Replies: @Raches
  24. Raches says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    If I have such concern for my privacy that I never even reveal which sex I am (with popular assumptions seemingly split a neat 50/50—n.b. that my words you quote may as well belong in certain types of romance novel), and I also preach that anyone who posts photos of their kids on Facebook is committing child abuse, then I probably do not want to divulge private details about my life, and especially, of whatever family I may or may not have.

    I will say that to the extent practical to me in my particular circumstances, in every circumstance, I strive consistently to put my ideas to practice.  Ideas must be lived. ®

  25. Thrallman says:

    These researchers did some DNA sequencing that shows humans are domesticated. They found that the differences in genes between wolves and dogs, and between bison and cattle, are the same genes as the difference between Neanderthals and modern humans. They cite Darwin as having mentioned the idea in The Descent of Man.

    “Self-domestication in Homo sapiens: Insights from comparative genomics”, Constantina Theofanopoulou et al., https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185306

    This shows that the trend has been going on for a very long time. The researchers put a positive spin on things, saying that domestication is the result of socialization. This is clearly impossible, because wolves and apes are among the social animals they considered, but they are certainly not domestic animals. I would suggest the role of language, as a means to give commands beyond the reach of an individuals presence.

    As far as the social evolution, mandatory public schooling is the most likely explanation. Its main purpose is to teach obedience. Both schooling and feminism trace back to the mid 1800’s. Notice that Jews are the most educated group, and also the most feminist.

    • Replies: @Resartus
  26. Raches says: • Website
    @John Johnson

    Given your position on race, perhaps you may be aware of something that most people have forgotten:  At some point in the 1850s, the abolitionist Republican Party declared that slavery and polygamy were “twin relics of barbarism” (quoting off the top of my head; it’s been decades since I read about this).  Their target, besides the South:  The Mormons.

    Try doing a back-of-the-envelope calculation on how many descendants Brigham Young himself must have out there today, and you will begin to see why I am more sympathetic to the historical (not present mainline) LDS movement than I am to other Christian sects.  (They worship “Jesus” as the “Christ”.  They are therefore Christian.  Get over it, other Christians.)  Then, perpend the racial doctrines that the LDS church had before Jimmy Carter’s unconstitutional and outrageous meddling in their religion in 1978—the second time that the Federal government had interfered in their religion.  (Cf. the racial doctrines that some Dutch Reformed churches in South Africa and Rhodesia used to have; I may have mentioned this in the thread where you first saw me—not sure without looking back.)

    Joseph Smith was a well-attested liar, forger, and swindler.  But then, so were the “Fathers of the Church”.  And Brigham Young was an impressive leader.

    Food for thought.

    If so-called “secularists” (i.e., liberals soused in Christian cultural residues) had any logical consistency, or even any acumen about defending their own interests, they would be up in arms about these violations of the same First Amendment that prevents the Federal government from ramming Jesus down every American’s throat.

    If fundamentalist Mormons had any political sense, they would try better to align themselves with secularists and anti-Christians for a diagonal attack.  I myself would be happy to support them in their quest for religious freedom, on the aforestated two points.

    Mr. Johnson:

    The only viable way to solve this problem in the short term is polygamy. But the left would never allow it as an LGBQTXZ# form of alternative sexuality as they correctly would expect it to favor strong willed Whites. They want to dilute Whites and welfare already allows for polygamy in Blacks.

    Perhaps you may have seen my remarks here:

    When they [women] reject or even ruin weak-willed men, the result is eugenic; and since there obviously aren’t enough strong men to go around, the logical solution is that women should advocate polygamy in the manner of the ancient Aryan Hindus.  What man worth being called a man would be able to resist that proposition?

    —Well.  Now that Christians, feminists, and other liberals all hate me, that frees me up to make a proposal for those who do not fit that description.

    In some degree, that was rhetoric to get rid of anyone who would be offended by the proposition.  But it was not so unserious.

    I observe that some of the best pro-polygamy arguments I have heard have originated from upper-caste Hindu women.

    ——————————

    I want to reply to the other point that you made, but will need to save it for later. ®

  27. Not only were the Nazis Zionists (or was it the other way around? I forget), if you gave your 1930’s blond Bestie a blue jaw, dark hair, and beady black eyes (or alternately, weak, pale eyes and red hair), he would look like an Israeli soldier. I only noticed recently that the Jewish profile, the Classic Greek profile, and the Nordic profile differ only in degree, with the stereotypical Jewish physiognomy being a cruel caricature of the Greek. This led me to the conclusion that Jews are simply a type of very inbred Aryan, selected for high intelligence instead of beauty. Not sure what to make of this, except it might explain why the Jews are running the world instead of the Swedes.

  28. Resartus says:
    @Thrallman

    They found that the differences in genes between wolves and dogs, and between bison and cattle, are the same genes as the difference between Neanderthals and modern humans.

    The issue is to maintain that domestication…..

    Take the Pig/Wild Boar …..
    The time it takes for the Domesticated Pig to revert (even physically) to it’s feral side is every short…..
    If man is in a combat zone for a long period of time, they revert, losing their caring heart….

    It’s easy to see, where technical development has done little more to cuddle mankind to maintain it’s domestication…..

  29. Anonymous[226] • Disclaimer says:
    @Raches

    You are a trash. You are the best exemple of the beta nerd conservative “male”: no matter how terribly women behave, you always blame it on men. Men need to “men up”, according to cucked old-fashioned beta nerds like you, right? Women don’t have to do *anything* and are not to blame for *anything* . Men just need to “men up”! Funny that women are never told to “women up!”. In fact, that expression doesn’t even exist, which comes from the double-standard of men havcing the lower biological value, and women as the superior gender because of their overpriced vaginas and wombs are never to blame for anything and don’t ever have to respond foe their shitty behavior. The man can be a PhD, speak several languages, a teetotaler, in extreme physical condition, while the women is a slut that cheats on him, with barely a high school education, and all that the cucked beta nerd conservative “men” like you have to say is:

    “Oh, if she cheated on him, it’s because he was not men enough. If she is complaining, it is the man’s job to take care of her. A real man protects and takes cares of his women. He has to man up!!

    FK, ok? *You* as much as women are a part of the problem. The worst scum on Earth are traditionalist betabux guys like you that white knight for women endlessly, and never blame anything on women. Dumass.

    • Troll: Raches
    • Replies: @Raches
    , @Jim Christian
  30. Raches says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    You are a trash [sic]. You are the best exemple [sic] of the beta nerd conservative “male”: no matter how terribly women behave, you always blame it on men. Men need to “men up” [sic], according to cucked old-fashioned beta nerds like you, right?

    […]

    FK, ok? *You* as much as women are a part of the problem. The worst scum on Earth are traditionalist betabux guys like you that white knight for women endlessly, and never blame anything on women. Dumass [sic].

    You have not considered the possibility that I may be a woman.  Wouldn’t that be awful.  I have never said, either way.  I am assuredly as vicious to my enemies as a woman, which is one of the best feminine characteristics.  Furthermore, I am neither a conservative nor a traditionalist:  I am a radical.

    Trash like you can sometimes be interesting to dissect.  I will deal with it later.  Busy now.  Shoo. ®

  31. @Anonymous

    226, Ratchets is hardly the worst trash. Reaches is a bit of an eccentric best taken in small doses. Agree wholeheartedly about the ugly state of white, feminist, cuntish and utterly entitled ‘womanhood’ of today. They wanted (and got) everything handed over to them except accountability. They still get their chivalry, all the perks, yet scream still as though they’re in the kitchen. I’m talking about western, college educated femcunts of the blue cities, states and of course the EEOC chicks in HR and government and media, military and others. Karens all, white feminists are the REAL racists in this country in particular, even as they scream racist at the White men who had the jobs they wanted. Radical jewish-run N.O.W. didn’t want minority women anywhere near or within the so-called sisterhood because that would dilute the message and mission. Raches is obviously white-knight or maybe a chick or tranny for all I know, and so not in accord with my own utterly accurate assessment of the monsters these harpies have become. But once in awhile ratchet gets the hammer on the nail. Not all who write at Unz do that even.

  32. 1.You really don’t know who the Goths were do you?
    How did they got their name? By who’s first name they got the name Goths and why it is ill represented?
    2.“ Now, of course, I view German National Socialism as Hitler’s orderly untaming of the Nietzschean blonde Bestie—a new synthesis of civilization with natural instincts, for an aristocratic race.”
    Who’s land are the Germans occupying and who did they almost eradicated(there are almost ~100000 left) in the last millennium?
    Why aren’t you aware of these facts?

    When you educate and emancipate your self about these matters we can talk, until then all I see is a brainwashed post-religious liberal atheist.

  33. anon[365] • Disclaimer says:

    I don’t recall exactly, but Race Mixture in the Roman Empire might have been what was mentioned by Oliver.

    • Thanks: Raches
    • Replies: @Raches
  34. Raches says: • Website
    @anon

    You must have an exhaustive knowledge of his thought.  Off the top of my head, I do recall Oliver somewhere mentioning the name of Tenney Frank.  In this connection, Oliver said that, in substantial essence, Trajan and Tacitus were the last of the Romans—not only culturally, but biologically; this also related to Oliver’s criticism of Spengler for falling for Boasian denial of biological race.

    The reader will note that the Frank paper you cited was published in 1916, when such matters could still be honestly discussed in academia.

    I tend to treat the totality of Oliver’s works as a professor’s lesson plan for my continuing education.  It is a long, ongoing process, covering a vast breadth of material that he cited or mentioned—and material thereby cited; my Oliverian exploration ripples outwards in widening circles, often into obscure or memory-holed sources.  I had not yet followed up this particular point.  Thanks. ®

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Raches Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Hidden Information in Our Government Archives
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
How America was neoconned into World War IV