Slavery and political anthropology

I’ve proposed that the only question that matters in political science is slavery. Most demographic movements within national borders can be understood as the attempts of social elites to manage an underclass without having to live near them. Most demographic movements between borders can be understood as nations trying to enslave and/or destroy each other.

Social elites are, as a matter of selection bias, predisposed to higher cognitive ability particularly specialized for abstract socialization. In anthropological terms, I’ve argued that this corresponds to thicker cerebral cortices (more gray matter) and correspondingly high mental energy, and relatively smaller brains (less white matter) and weak, gracile bodies with high encephalization quotients (ectomorphism).

Please recall our founding premise of political analysis: All political ideology follows from the maxim that humans will advocate an environment that favors evolutionary success for their phenotypal class. An adaptation for high willpower and low durability produces an emotional predisposition for an idea called Gnosticism. In brief, it’s “mind over matter“, and it immediately follows that people with more willpower are morally superior to those with less. This is the spirit of Antichrist that Jesus warned us of.

Now, if there are humans who have less of the particularly human quality called “willpower”, it follows that they are less human or not human at all. They are more like animals than humans. There is then no philosophical reason not to treat such people like beasts of burden (or in the extreme case, like food).

(UPDATE: Video has been shoahed, please read the transcript instead.)

The Ashkenazi Jews aren’t the first Gnostics and they won’t be the last, but they serve as an excellent example because their phenotype is particularly well adapted for social competition. They have relatively small brains (Einstein’s is exemplary in this regard) but highly developed verbal intelligence and overflowing mental energy reserves. (The latter is one of the reasons for their predisposition to neuroticism, in my opinion.)

As a rule, human populations that do not practice slavery are enslaved by those who do, due to the military advantages of numbers and group cohesion. This caste separation is, after all, why we have the concept of officers in the first place. In recent evolutionary terms, humans have evolved to navigate more and more abstract and complex forms of slavery.

Unfortunately for would-be philosopher kings, it appears that the price of cheap-as-free labor is ethnic cleansing and replacement of the higher caste.

As a rule, at least in modern times, the group which is considered subordinate will reproduce with greater fecundity than will the superior class. In this way the upper class will gradually disappear, or else social mobility will gradually replace the upper from the ranks of the lower, and the social distinction will remain, but without racial significance. Thus a differential reproductive rate has, in effect, a selective value, and one population may quietly replace another. Whether or not the replacement is complete, the relative numerical importance of the two genetic strains will have been altered.

Carleton Stevens Coon
The Races of Europe

Even so, the evolution of homo sapiens sapiens has been overwhelmingly characterized by increased gracility and neoteny, and decreased brain size. This is in contrast to the general trend of hominids to larger size, greater specialization, and increased brain size, but the general trend of increasingly feminine appearance and behavior remains consistent.

The way I square this circle is to note that slavery results in an asymmetric gene flow from the master race to the slave race, wherein males from the master race take advantage of atomized female slaves and father illegitimate children with them. (It’s unsurprising that genetic success without the burden of resource provision is a tempting evolutionary strategy.)

It ought to be noted that this is technically bestiality within the Gnostic framework, but we should keep in mind that this belief was never more than a post-facto rationalization for this genetic strategy. I’m not a mind reader, but I would guess that the thought process behind this bestiality can be approximated by the phrase: “Close enough.” In the final analysis, slavery is a matter of resource extraction, and wombs are a resource.

The truth of this principle holds across increasingly complex forms of slavery. Even as recently as 1939, the gene flow between Europeans and Africans was distinctly one-way (“For example, the mixture between whites and negroes has most frequently involved white men and negro women, and only occasionally the reverse.” -Coon), in keeping with the general pattern of European resource extraction. The situation today is reversed: atomized European females are impregnated by black males, despite the abstract complexity of resource extraction via victim identity politics and the welfare state.

Over time, the master race becomes exsanguinated and weak by dependency on slave labor, and when the slave race sees an opportunity it is ethnically cleansed in a slave revolt. This is the general rule within national borders. An examination of international warfare and slavery would benefit from considering the various Canaanite tribes and the Israelites, and the resulting demographic shifts accompanying extermination, enslavement, and tolerance.