Post: #1

Peter Frost, who some of you may know, is an anthropologist who has argued that humans who have a long history of living in functioning states have been bred to be more peaceful. In pre-state societies, being violent and aggressive were likely positive features as far as reproductive fitness goes. You could dominate your tribe and monopolize its women if you were big and bad enough to kill off allbof your rivals. With the rise of states and the monopoly on violence claiked by the state, suddenly murder was a crime, and those same traits which previously could have won you a chiefdom and a harem now would have you hanged in public. Slowly but surely, the state selected against violent and aggressive individuals. New traits were needed to survive and prosper in state societies. An ability to follow certain rules was one, foresight and planning, an ability to control violent urges or simply a lack of violent urges. Frost points out that over the last 1,000 years in England, you see a consistent decline in the murder rate as the reach and power of the state became more total. He takes this as evidence of genetic pacification, noting that indeed 1,000 years ago, the inhabitants of the Britush isles were quite barbarous and violent. http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2012/12/...e.html?m=1

Razib Khan, a genomist you may also know, compares the process of human evolution to domestication. You may be aware that domesticated animals generally share certain traits in common. Compared to their wild cousins, they are certainly less aggressive. Physically they retain traits of adolescence into adulthood, basically staying cuter for longer. Often cute traits are often simultaneously childish and feminine. Female faces typically retain more neotenic traits into adulthood, ie large eyes, small jaws, lighter skin, less body hair, etc.

Apparently human faces have been getting more and more feminine over time. This is no surprise really, cave men are always portrayed as hyper masculine with heavy brows, lots of hair, strong muscles, wide shoulders, etc. Apparently what has been going on, as humans recede farther and farther from their wild past, is really very similar to the process that dogs have undergone during domestication.
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/domestication-du...ral-crest/ http://www.unz.com/gnxp/biology-follows-...s-biology/

Post: #2

Beta Male - Alpha male - The Civilised Male

"You have to be a man before you can be a gentleman" John Wayne.

This quote probably has been taken out of hand, by those who have interests that go against men. "man up and marry those sluts", or "man up and become a pussy so your woman can walk all over you".

There was a combination that had got it right during the turn of the century, and you see it with some men today. They were able to be civilised but at the same time incredibly masculine. This is what you saw with the great inventors and explorers of the 19th century. Take in mind that a conquering the Far East or Africa at the time was akin to moon exploration. Then there was the more positive innovations that required both high testosterone and intelligence, civility.

Masculinity can be expressed in intelligence, the belief held that masculinity and high testosterone belongs in the distant past and should stay there; is a big deliberate misunderstanding from "progressives".
At the diagram I posted at the start, with the money and wealth accumulated we have seen the middle section removed. Weak males holding on to the title of being the "gentleman" is just giving them an excuse to be walked all over, by their women, other foreign men and their society as a whole.

There are plenty of patriarchal foreign cultures that have a large quantity of alpha males, but they haven't verged past the civilised threshold yet. They are better than nothing though, because a society full of weak males that cloaks this disadvantage as being a form of progression, really will struggle. What we are seeing today, the domestication of people, has happened time and time again throughout history. The babylonians, The Romans, The Greeks, you name it.

Fundamentally its in our nature, I discredit those who caution me on describing human nature but we are not blank robots like the Marxian analysis will lead us to believe. We are complicated organisms made up of different genetic variations which all play a part, let alone the intrinsic differences in environment which are almost impossible to duplicate, even in the socialist communities set up before.

Anecdotally speaking I have seen a lot of middle class kids from very wealthy "civilised" families engage in debauched behaviour or purposely seek out animalistic behaviour. The gentrification in London was a big sign of this, middle class kids moving into areas that had gang slayings. They yell to the mountain tops about how these locations are "vibrant" "energetic" "cosmopolitan" but everyone can you tell you that this is bullshit. Like during the London riots of 2011, these types went around filming everything, you can here them giggling behind the cameras.

However I didn't see the wealthy kids from harder traditional countries, behave in this. They had the right combination which made them stronger in the long run. You remove the alpha from the equation and you are left with loose foundations for the grounds of civility which leads to dysfunctional releases of this energy.

So to answer the theory of the domestication of humanity being a evolutionary experience, I will have to disagree. There is a cycle of evolution, but to get everyone to hold hands and sing "give peace a chance" is really not dealing with the deeper issue at hand here. In fact articles that suggest otherwise are really playing in to the "Progressive" type which as we know never do too well throughout history.