Mustang - Part VI

Turns out there is an additional thing I would like to say regarding the value of Mustangs. While we are the hope for the future, the mechanism through which society is improved going forward, we are detrimental to society in some respects, today.

This seems very counterintuitive to me, but I have been continually lambasted by many people that find fitting in to various groups and society as a whole to be the unambiguously appropriate and right thing to do. The truth is that they're not wrong - for them, with appropriate limits.

It's also highly advantageous to those groups and societies, in many respects. Societies are competitive, and should there ever arise the situation (currently being diligently sought by globalists today) that there is no intersocietal competition, most of the reasons that conformists are beneficial to society will be greatly reduced, if not eliminated. However, as long as societies compete, compliant, obedient members of those societies provide them strength and power, helping societies resist being consumed by their neighbors, and potentially enabling them to consume their neighbors.

Conformists create power to wage war above all else. It is true that Mustangs can serve in that capacity, but they are also less likely to do so, and more likely to rebel or betray their native society, due to their reduced degree of conformance, and the abuse they have likely suffered as a result.

However, some men just want to see the world burn, psychopaths that care only to be empowered and entertained, and history reveals no few of them that tortured, raped, and murdered their own people with the same facility they did their actual enemies. These are not Mustangs, but wolves, slavering predators that gladly cannibalize whoever and whatever morsels take their fancy. Mustangs, not sheeple, are their anathema, and this is another way in which Mustangs can be negative influences on society.

Despots find psychopaths useful, and if able to be pointed at the enemy of society, benevolent tyrants can turn them into heroes, by focusing the deranged on the enemies of the people they lead. Oppressive tyrants and police states find them just as useful to deploy internally, however, and true psychopaths don't care who they hurt, as long as they benefit. It is we Mustangs that seek to end the depredations of psychopaths, not sheeple, and as long as psychopaths are useful to despots, Mustangs are a thorn in the side of society.

There are suggestions that archaic hominids like Neanderthals were what we would consider psychopaths, incapable of socialization we eusocial hominids consider normal. However, that's merely asociality, not psychopathy. There is also hard evidence that Neanderthals were very socially driven, as burials of Neanderthal infants reveal. It's possible that Neanderthals featured a significant range of sociological diversity, as we do hybridized with them.

It's likely that our intelligence came from them. There are very good reasons to support this theory. Neanderthals had brains about 20% larger than our own. While that isn't conclusive, the fact is that larger brains generally indicate higher intelligence in a species. Additionally, lacking the herding behaviour we feature, which enables us to overwhelm large, dangerous prey animals and enemy armies with sheer numbers, Neanderthals were necessarily able to be far more lethal individually, and that depends on intelligence in hominids more than anything else.

It is likely that an individual Neanderthal could face a score of lesser men in battle, but facing hundreds, all they could do was retreat and live, or die in battle and doom their families. We see that Neanderthals did retreat to the verges of habitable geography. Denisovans and their hybrids spread across the Pacific, where the majority of Melanesians today reveal hybridization with H. Denisova, whereas Eurasian people hybridized with Neanderthals. In Africa there remains some question regarding hybridization, as some people there seem to have hybridized with H. erectus, but others seem not to have, and there may also be traces of unknown hominid genetic influence as well. Interestingly, H. sapiens that appear not to have hybridized with either Neanderthals or the closely related Denisovans have the lowest IQ populations extant, another strong support for Neanderthals being more intelligent than us.

IMG source - Pinterest.com (PBS Unlocking Mutations)

IMG source - AsianScientist.com

These picures reveal that while H. sapiens is larger overall than H. neanderthalensis, they had larger, more robust head, with bigger brains.

While it's possible we inherited psychopathy from Neanderthals, I don't think that's likely. Across the breadth of the archaeological record, roughly 25% of our species for which we have skulls died from blunt force trauma to the left side of the forehead, which is where a right handed murderer would hit them with a club. This seems to have occurred regardless of whether the dead were hybridized with Neanderthals or not, and to have continued after there weren't any Neanderthals any more, so support for the theory we gained psychopathy from hybridization is weak.

There just weren't enough Neanderthals ever to have killed a quarter of us, and the ratio of death by being bashed in the head by someone right handed never changed even though Neanderthal numbers dwindled to nothing.

I think there's better evidence that Neanderthals diverged from our line because we tended to promote psychopaths to leadership roles. ~1mya to 500kya our lines diverged, according to the OOA theory (Out of Africa). Neanderthals left Africa around that time and spread across Europe and Asia in sparse populations. However, there are protohominid remains found in the Balkans recently that refute OOA, and these are the oldest hominid remains ever found, dating back ~7mya. It's possible that Africa was populated with hominids that migrated there from Eurasia, or that populations on both continents developed concurrently. More research is necessary, and there is no such thing as settled science, after all.

Neanderthals never waged war, because they never had large populations to pit against enemies. Neanderthal psychopaths would have been strongly selected against, since in their small family groups, such murderous behaviour would have greatly reduced breeding success.

In our societies, psychopaths are very useful in war. While their immediate circle may suffer greatly from their broken minds, society as a whole would have benefited from unleashing them against competing societies. This remains true today. Who but psychopaths could destroy whole villages of men, women and children with white phosphorus?

It is apparent there is a tension in human society between psychopathy, conformism, and rebellion, due to our proto-eusociality. Humanity is a species between forms, a specialist in generalization. We aren't becoming an aquatic species, but are already semi-aquatic, and most recent hominids probably were as well. All our recent relatives seemed to prey on aquatic species, as we do, and few species that aren't at least semi-aquatic do this, for obvious reasons.

We aren't actually fully eusocial, but balanced on the cusp of that transformation, as are certain primitive bees in which all the females remain fertile but build hives and live communally. True eusocial species have a queen, as do most termites, ants, bees, and wasps. Neanderthals are more like some Bumblebees, in which females build nests themselves for them and their offspring alone.

We are probably not as intelligent as Neanderthals, so again, we are on the cusp, rather than fully invested in it. Indeed, high intelligence can be quite harmful to society, as it induces rebellion which decreases the power of the society. It is now understood that agriculture, despite increasing the power of society, particularly to wage war, was generally deleterious to individuals. When agricultural practices appeared, the people in the societies where it appeared suffered more nutritional deficits, increased starvation, and other harms as a result.

By centralizing resources necessary to project institutional power, societies benefited, but the individuals producing those resources were more preyed on by leaders of societies, which reduced producer's standards of living. It's somewhat paradoxical, but what the archaeological record reveals. What's good for society is not always good for it's individual members.

Conversely, what's good for individuals is not always good for society. Neanderthals were extraordinarily competent individuals, probably able to tackle large powerful animals by ambushing them alone, or in groups no larger than a handful of hunters. That competence did not create societal benefits, because there were no institutions to parasitize their production and use it to benefit society, rather than those that had produced it.

Prior to agriculture, food resources were far less able to be hoarded by kings feeding hordes of warriors. No non-agricultural societies seem to have ever progressed beyond tribal organization, even though in many tribes, all resources were ostensibly the property of the chief. Indeed, many examples of societies exist that had agriculture but did not develop states. This is why the potluck and gifting economies tended to form in tribes. The hunters and foragers would actually produce the food, but the chief distributed it at feasts, and society was able to increase in organizational complexity and population significantly over family groups controlling distribution themselves.

Agriculture increased that ability by orders of magnitude, enabling city states to arise, and those resources to flow to various industries enabling monumental architecture and war at scales previously inconceivable. Eventually, institutional power doomed non-agricultural societies where they competed geographically, and this included all other hominid species. The reduced standard of living states imposed on producers of agricultural commodities is an impediment to the development of states, encouraging resistance, but the power of states to wage war eliminates tribes, as the conquest of the Americas shows, and is being again demonstrated in Brazil as Bolsonaro seems to be deploying this economic advantage to eliminate native tribes there today.

H. sapiens is a hypersexual species. Were other hominids? I think it is likely, since we are hybrids, and the divergence from those discussed was recent enough that such a dramatic evolutionary change was unlikely to have occurred in the short time separating hominids from our most recent common ancestor. I suspect hypersexuality is the most significant feature separating us from other primates, yet Bonobo also are hypersexual, and this is strong evidence that hypersexuality developed prior to genus Homo.

Other things that do not benefit society and individuals equally include homosexuality. While this does arise in other vertebrates, in none of those instances is it as widespread or such exclusive sexual behaviour as in people. Penguins mate for life, and at least one instance of male pair bonding has been shown. However, the obvious detrimental impact this has on those males' breeding success reveals why this is so rare in non-hypersexual species. In Dolphin, Bonobo, and Humans, hypersexuality results in homosexual relationships, but non-exclusivity and nearly continuous estrus in females means those individuals are also able to breed, which isn't the case in Penguins, for example.

However, humans uniquely feature incipient eusociality, and even if homosexual pair bonds eliminate the individual germlines of homosexuals, they can actually strengthen society in several ways. There remains controversy over the matter, but it seems likely that Greek and Roman armies, amongst potentially many others, often featured homosexual practices amongst the soldiers.

Homosexuality in armies is not much of an evolutionary harm, as just being a soldier away from home prevented one from breeding - except through rapine. That latter practice generally promoted soldiers genes, in fact. At home, women that were not pair bonded with soldiers, or were unfaithful, contributed to the ability of leaders of society to breed more, or to a general higher availability of females, whether enabling promiscuity, polygamy, or brothels. All these issues remain relevant today.

All these features benefit society generally more than they might individuals. However today, homosexuality is being promoted by society beyond anything we have evidence for in history, and even castration seems to be on the rise more than any examples of voluntary practice apparent previously. Eunuchs have been long been beneficial to society, but of course not to their own families hereditarily, and they did not castrate themselves as a rule.

Castration, despite the obvious potential benefits to dominant animals that compete for breeding purposes, is almost unheard of in nature. I am aware of only one species where males more than occasionally and accidentally castrate rivals, and that is llamas. They have specially evolved teeth like scissors, with which they seek to castrate rivals while competing for mates, as unfortunate men have discovered after their wives have made pets of llamas being raised on farms.

When women make pets of llamas, the llamas later identify as people when they come of age to breed, and some horrific injuries have resulted when their specialized ritual combat is undertaken with clueless men.

The prevalence of voluntary castration seems utterly counterproductive to human men, yet the urge to serve society and advantages potential to social leaders through the practice seems to outweigh the individual need to breed that is absolutely paramount to species logically. I note that social leaders seem to have chosen to strongly encourage homosexuality, and even voluntary castration, as not only are children being indoctrinated to undertake such practices, legal promotion of it undertaken, and a veritable barrage of propaganda, but it is likely that a covert program of suppressing normal male sexual function through chemical castration has been in progress for the last 50 years, resulting in testosterone declining by over 60% across the West.

The amazing thing is that there isn't presently a bloody uprising ongoing as a result of these existential harms to individuals. This is revelatory of the degree of eusociality our species features. We seem to be reacting with no more violence and resistance than any other domestic species we castrate industrially.

IMG source - Pinterest (Faux News)

I am confident that Neanderthals would die in battle before being castrated, or shortly after recovering. Generally it is likely that men with genetic behavioural contributions from Neanderthals will be less prone to suffering castration with equanimity, chemical or otherwise. It seems also likely that these individuals are soon to be culled, in order to prevent resistance to the domestication underway, just as noncompliant individuals are culled in domestication of other species.

Which brings me to this point: Humanity is being domesticated to the same degree that barnyard animals have been, and the unique hypersexuality and eusociality of our species lends to that process specific goals that aren't potential to other domestic animals. The sudden chemical castration of most men is nearly complete in the West, and society's leaders are doing all they can to bring men to the West that are too expensive to chemically castrate elsewhere, increasing the value of their herds, and decreasing the number of Mustangs available to resist domestication. Castration is proven to reduce aggression, and this is as true for chemical as for other means.

Due to our hypersexuality, females of the species then become increasingly available for those men that aren't castrated by psychological manipulation, physical, or chemical intervention, and varied propaganda reveals that women are being pushed to become more promiscuous. Slut walks, cuckolding, polyamory, feminism, and more are being promoted along with less overt efforts, such as prostitution and sex trafficking, often targeting children. Psychopaths aren't ethically opposed to even the most violent predation, and mere psychological manipulation can be claimed to not even be harmful. It's just persuasion, after all.

If you consider the claims of propagandists promoting AGW alarmism, environmentalism generally, Social Justice, Socialism and Communism, the identity politics and sexual destruction of men, it is pretty easy to identify how all these issues can benefit a society inuring largely to the benefit of a royalty of fertile men, whose value is unimaginably increased as they become more rare as breeders.

The ability of people to conform to society rather than rationally consider their own needs and demand policies that benefit them is apparent today, and utterly amazing. Given the deification such a society will avail the fertile men comprising the royalty, the acceptance of inane propaganda regarding feminism is astounding. Men are being castrated and women commoditized, and the impact on the value of women this will have going forward is apparent across women's sports today. Men are the most valuable women already, it seems.

I'd laugh, but this prospect of a domesticated slave species where a handful of men able to procreate control all resources, and women are commodities, subsequent to a global catastrophic culling of all non-equity holding men, and particularly of Mustangs that will resist castration to the death, is so horrible the urge to laugh becomes the need to vomit.

Perhaps I should discuss how this global totalitarian imposition of genocide and biological alteration of humanity to create a slave species will be defeated. Perhaps, on the other hand, specific mechanisms that will prevent Mustangs from going extinct will become more difficult to execute should I discuss them in a public forum, given the surveillance effort being undertaken as part of this globalist plan.

I will say that I am confident this plan will fail, horribly, and the repercussions will be terminal for those psychopaths that have prosecuted it. Herds of domesticated slave women aren't prone to innovation. Neither are psychopathic overlords reveling in their own power and sybaritic luxury. Absent ongoing technological advance, they become a stationary target.

Like shooting fish in a barrel.