People on the Asperger’s / autism spectrum are *not* “undomesticated humans”

Recently, a lovely commenter and friend (whose identity I won’t mention here, unless given specific permission to do so) notified me of an article published in Psychology Today, by a certain “Dr” Christopher Badcock, that made the bold claim that “autistics” are “undomesticated humans”.  Although I had seen the article when it first appeared and mentally spouted off a hot, snarky retort back then, vowing to write a post about it at some point, time intervened, and the post had gone unwritten.

Until today.

My amazing friend deserves the all the credit for this post (thank you!!), because they rekindled the fire not only by providing a link to the article, but also encouraging me to write a rebuttal.

And so it is.

Note to the psychology/psychiatry “experts”: we need to get one thing straight, right now: people “with” Asperger’s/autism are not – and I repeat: not – “undomesticated humans”.

I would stop there, “experts”, but you need convincing.  Fine.  I’ll deliver.

In this post, I’ll flesh out several (ten) semi-separate thoughts.

Thought 1: Domestication Defined – psychology “experts”, do you really want to go there?

First, let’s define the term “domesticated”.  Trusty ol’ Oxford Dictionary says:

1 – (of an animal) tame and kept as a pet or on a farm; example: domesticated dogs

1.1 – (of a plant) cultivated for food; naturalized; example: domesticated crops

1.2 – humorous (especially of a man) fond of home life and housework; example: “he is thoroughly domesticated”

The use of the word “undomesticated” the context of Asperger’s/autism is actually rather funny in an ironic, snarky, the-joke’s-on-them sort of way, because it would imply that we’re the wild and pure strains of the human species, while neurotypicals comparatively spend all day wagging their proverbial tails, obeying commands, and licking themselves….yeah–there.

In order to understand what it means to be “undomesticated”, we need to be familiar with what its root word “domesticated” means.  Oxford gives several definitions, each within different contexts, so I’ll simply include the relevant version:

“[domestication] (of an animal) tame and kept by humans

So…if neurotypical psychology “experts” are saying that we, the people on the Asperger’s/autism spectrum, are “undomesticated”, does that mean that the general neurotypical population (which is thus implied to be “domesticated” by comparison) is “tame and kept by humans”?

Thought 2: “Domestication Syndrome”

It’s interesting that psychology “experts” would dream of associating the word “syndrome” with themselves, because by its very nature, it conveys a pathological connotation.  Yet, that’s precisely what they’re doing when they imply that they’re “domesticated” so that they can smugly call us “undomesticated”.

The opposite of “domesticated” is also known as “wild”, which implies the pure, unadulterated, unmanipulated result of natural forces.  Notice that there is no “Wild Syndrome”; only a “Domestication Syndrome” has ever been described.  Some of its characteristics actually aren’t all that flattering, either; I wouldn’t exactly be proud of possessing them.

Let’s explore those characteristics.

  • changes in ear size, shape, and stiffness
  • shorter snouts and smaller jaws
  • smaller teeth
  • reduced brain size (reductions in both total brain size and of particular brain regions)
  • specifically, reductions in the amygdala and limbic system
  • loss of pigmentation; neoteny (retention of immature features in adults)
  • shorter, but more frequent and nonseasonal reproductive cycles
  • prolongations in juvenile behavior
  • increased docility

Thought 3: “Domestication Syndrome” – Are dogs synonymous with humans?

There are several problems with this.  The first is, it’s based primarily on dogs.  Dogs are one of the most profoundly domesticated animals in the world, even earning the moniker “man’s best friend”.  They’re (obviously) an entirely different species, being acted upon by entirely different natural forces, and thus undergoing entirely different evolutionary trajectory).  When it comes to concepts like brains and behavior, not to mention domestication, the characteristics and evolutionary path of dogs diverge significantly, to the point where we’re not even comparing apples to oranges anymore–it’s more like apples to paper clips.

Thought 4: Inaccuracies in “Domestication Syndrome” characteristics:

The second problem can be thought of as an offshoot of the first: these characteristics aren’t even accurate.  I’ll give you “prolongations in juvenile behavior” – that seems to describe the world at large quite succinctly.  However, the loss of pigmentation, thought to occur in animals who are kept indoors as house-pets as opposed to outside where they would be exposed to more sun, is highly irrelevant to the domestication of humans.  Skin pigmentation depends primarily on geographical latitude and its average UV Index, no matter what the living conditions.

Another example might include the ear shape mentioned in the list.  Although research (referenced in the Psychology Today article ) has described differences in the shape and stiffness of autistic peoples’ ears, the list of possible reasons behind this is practically infinite and largely unknown.  To cite a “lack of domestication” in autistic people as an explanation for these ear changes (really–who gets paid to research stuff like this?) is premature at best and reckless and harmful at worst.

Thought 5: We have more of a couple of those characteristics than NTs do!

A third issue I take with this list involves the fact that, in this “domestication syndrome” symptom list, some of the more-flattering characteristics might actually be said to apply more to people on the autism spectrum than they do to the general neurotypical population!

For example, “prolongations in juvenile behavior”, if interpreted in a certain way, could theoretically be associated with us instead, depending on its intended meaning.  It’s not that we’re immature; the truth is far from it.

Rather, a youthful appearance is occasionally mentioned; it’s generally understood among the Asperger’s/autistic community that we’re known (at least, among each other) for looking younger.  Sometimes, we act a little younger, too, such as engaging in some of the same activities or retaining some of the same tastes/preferences that we developed in our younger years.

Some of us describe a non-derogatory childlike quality, in which we socialize differently, without all the baggage-laden, pompous and circumstantial posturing, contesting, or oneupmanship we’ve often observed in the neurotypically-dominated world at large.

We could also stake a claim on the “increased docility”–again, depending on how the phrase is used.  If we’re talking strictly about Introversion vs Extroversion, then, well, we’ve got the upper hand on this one; 98% of us are introverts and introverts are perceived to be more docile.

But it’s all about the intended meanings of the terms…

Thought 6:  Docility applied to NTs?  Reverse-projection, much?

Speaking of docile, the fourth issue I take with this list is that the “increased docility” part is speculated to result from reduced size and function of the adrenal glands and thus, lower production of the fight-or-flight stress hormones.

Heh.  (Begin snarky sarcasm…) Oh yeah–when we observe the “domesticated” neurotypical-dominated world around us, the first words we think of are words like “docile”, “calm”, “low-stress”, “civilized”, “peaceful”, “non-combative”….right?  (End snarky sarcasm).  Has this “expert” (and his predecessors who dreamed up this nonsense) been living under a boulder?  Why on earth are about 60-70% of all doctor visits (at least, in the US) attributable to symptoms related to excess chronic stress, if the world is so “domesticated” and “docile”?  Why is violence, aggression, and rage such a thing, if the world, dominated by neurotypicality, is so “domesticated”?  (FunFact: Asperger’s/autistic people are even less likely to perpetrate violence and crime.)

Neurotypical “experts” and their projection.  (I’m using the term “reverse-projection” to describe the NT “expert”s’ co-option of our positive traits into their self-appropriated profile.)  Blech.

Thought 7: Some “experts” need to review basic human pathophysiology (physiology + pathology) (Ouch!)

Let’s talk about that supposed reduction in adrenal-related stress hormones.  I’m a doctor and it’s pretty clear to me that this entire model is phooey.

What clinches it?  The fact that they’re talking about skin depigmentation in conjunction with “lower” adrenal hormone function.

To explain why this is bullshit, I’ll need you to take a quick peek into My Nerd World.  It’ll only take a minute. 🙂

The adrenal-related stress hormone in question here is cortisol; that’s the one that gets all the attention in the medical research of autism.

A condition of excess cortisol begins to produce effects such as:

  • Abdominal/central weight gain and “moon face”
  • Sweaty palms
  • Cravings for sweets
  • Difficulty sleeping
  • Pale skin
  • Anxiety
  • Muscle weakness
  • Short-term memory issues
  • Higher incidence of/increased vulnerability to infections


So when the “experts” claim that calmer adrenal glands/lower cortisol and skin depigmentation coexist, that’s kind of an Epic Fail.

Thought 8: Almost everybody (on and off the spectrum) has adrenal stress (unless their adrenal glands are fatigued)

This kind of piggybacks on Thought 6, in that although much of the unaware NT world perceives us as savage beast or caged animals or whatever other ridiculous concept, the truth is, the fight-or-flight response is equal-opportunity.

People on the Asperger’s/autism spectrum are frequently stressed out.  Neurotypical people are frequently stressed out.  The two population segments might show this in different ways, but the underlying driver is the same in both: the “fight or flight” response.

When you’re faced with something (or someone) your brain perceives as a threat, then a bunch of physiological processes kick into action.  All of these processes act as support systems to help you achieve one goal: to survive the threat.

When facing said threat, in order to survive, you have two options.  You can start running and hope you can outrun the threat before it catches you (flight), or you can stick around and swing like mad, hoping to sufficiently injure or kill it before it injures you too much.

It’s violent.  But it’s nature.  It’s reality.  It’s life.  It happens.  And whether we like it or not, that’s how all of humanity is wired.

What varies among people is our perception of something or someone as a stressor.  What my brain perceives to be a stressor might be totally benign for you, or maybe even a pleasurable, satisfying, or relaxing thing for you, and vice versa.  This is a case where everybody’s different.

That being said, there are indeed a few common themes; people on the Asperger’s/autism spectrum are more likely to perceive other people as imminent-threats-until-proven-otherwise than neurotypical people are (I’m generalizing).  Some neurotypical people, on the other hand, may be more likely to be afraid of (or at least more apprehensive toward or show weaker bonding with) animals than some people on the spectrum.  Again, I’ve generalized big-time here; there are almost always exceptions.

But the fact is, we all possess a fight-or-flight response.  Just because our list of perceived threats is different, that doesn’t mean we’re “undomesticated”.

Thought 9: Yeah, that “evidence” or “set of characteristics” of “undomesticated” behavior?  That’s nothing but a chronically-engaged fight-or-flight response

Let’s take a look at the little info-graphic (sourced from the Psychology Today article)…


The vast majority of the “traits” listed here are actually symptoms of a chronically-activated stress response, and nothing more.  This accounts for everything but the characteristics relating to brain size, ears, and the face.  ALL of the other traits….:

  • Aggressive behavior
  • Irritability
  • Abnormal response to social cues
  • Abnormal response of the HPA axis
  • High levels of androgens (testosterone, etc)
  • Hypomelanosis (paler skin) (and no, that’s not all that “occasional”; it can be pretty common)
  • Adrenal gland hyperfunction
  • Generalized overgrowth in infancy (if the mother’s fight-or-flight response has been activated long-term)
  • Tooth problems

…are ALL linked to a chronic/ongoing and/or severe stress response…

whether the person is on the spectrum or not.

It’s equal opportunity.  Nobody’s exempt.

Thought 10 – NT “expert” wishful thinking?

As for the last three traits – brain/head size, facial anomalies, and shape of the ears?  Its link to the autism spectrum may be supported in the research, but then again, the research is fundamentally flawed in its approach to autism as a pathology characterized solely by what a bunch of NT “experts” write down when observing through their own biased lens.

There might indeed be a correlation between physical abnormalities and the Asperger’s/autism spectrum.  Or there might be some other (loosely-related or even unrelated) factor involved that’s driving the physical abnormalities that isn’t necessarily inherent in autism.  Or, this may be a separate “syndrome” with an entirely different etiology/pathophysiology altogether, and it’s only being mistaken for autism because, after all, when they’re merely observing and they don’t bother to ask autistic people, and all they do instead is write down what they see through their own lens, well, it “looks like” autism, and so the waters muddy and cloud up even more.

Some of us might be figurative lone wolves.

We might be considered wild and beautiful.

Some of us might even have a spirit animal.

Human beings ourselves are animals.

But we are NOT any less than anyone else.  We are NOT to be dehumanized.

Related Links:

(Please note: links are provided for background only.  Enter all but the last one at your own risk.  The last link to the WordPress blog is the only one I actually endorse)

Autistics as Undomesticated Humans” – from Psychology Today (a trade publication for the psychology/psychiatry field)
(Content/Trigger Warning: ableism, ASD-as-pathology viewpoint, animal comparison)

Language Impairments in ASD Resulting From Failed Domestication of the Human Brain” – from Frontiers in Neuroscience (medical research journal)
(the research study “Dr” Badcock bases his Psychology Today article on)
(Content/Trigger Warning: ableism, ASD-as-pathology viewpoint, animal comparison)

The Domestication Syndrome in Mammals: A Unified Explanation Based On Neural Crest Cell Behavior and Genetics” – from
(about Charles Darwin and domestication of animals)

Asperger’s and Coming Across as Ageless” – from Spectrum Eye, WordPress blog
(the only related link I actually endorse!!)



    1. Thank you, my lovely! 😘😘 I was impressed by your Twitter post 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 😊 I’m not sure I could have done that on Twitter with its limitations 💖💖

      Liked by 1 person

  1. Excellent rebuttal, my friend! I read that article and was very much distressed by it. Thank you for forming the words I could not.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Awww thank you, my pretty! I’m really glad you liked it! Yeah it was kinda therapeutic to write lol 😉💖💖

      Liked by 1 person

  2. I agree. I find the animal research into autism abusive both to autistic people, and the animals being manipulated into the study. Domestication legally means enslavable. Animals should not be enslaved or seen as property. That does not meant that adopting a companion animal is a bad thing. Companion animals co-evolved with humans to form a symbiotic relationship. Symbiosis is an equal relationship. We help each other evolve. Autistic people, more commonly than neurotypical people, hold a great reverence for other beings, not just human beings, but all beings.

    I have a great issue with the infantalization of autistic people. “Functioning Age Comparisons” are arbitrary, offensive, and don’t take into account that autism is its own culture. Just because we may not reach milestones at the same rate as neurotypicals, does not mean we are less adult, or not human.

    The ideas about domestication may have come from the fact that wolf dogs are wary of humans. But that has to do with the fact that a wild animal is being held in a cage. That is not natural, and it is understandable that animals in zoos, or kept as exotic pets, stim from stress.

    I love the wolf picture at the top of this post! Where did you find it?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thank you for all your friendly words, dear one! I love your comments 😊 I also definitely agree! I’m always saddened to hear about animals used in research, even when it’s “just” rats or mice. They have feelings and nerve endings, too. They have a soul just like any other living being ❤️

      Functional age comparisons bother me as well. Milestones are merely an average, which is why they’re often listed as ranges (I’m talking beside you here, for the cheap seats 😊); so if it’s a range, then obviously there’s some variability. Who’s to say that the ranges are wide enough? Who’s to say that someone developing outside the range is necessarily abnormal? To err is human, right? And it’s humans who set up those ranges ❤️

      I’m trying to remember how I stumbled across the wolf pic. I think I just Google Imaged “wolf winter HD” or something like that 😊 So happy you liked it! 😘 💞💞


  3. one thing im having trouble following (and i can already guess how it could be accurate, but i seek clarification) is that at the top of your post, it cites “psychology today” (as far as i know, this is where the article comes from.)

    but you mention “psychology world” further down, which i think could be a typo. anyway, i can tell you, i will not be doing business with “psychology today” in the future. i believe in the freedom of the press, but publishing this the way they did– providing no disclaimer and giving it the appearance of legitimate study– unethical, in my opinion. regardless, it aint the sort of publishing i wish to throw money at (i have purchased and recommended issues of pt in the past. never again!)

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Howdy, bro! 😊 Thank you so much for pointing out the “Psychology Today” and “Psychology World” thingy ❤️ Yeah, I had intended them to be different elements; my brain didn’t register the fact that the article under fire came from an entity whose name was so close to the general psych field that I was trying to address lol 😉 Sorry for the confusion 💜 I did get back into the post and edit it for clarity 💓

      Yeah Psychology Today is a trade magazine and nothing more. They’re not a research journal, just like you said – you’re absolutely right 😊 The study they reference in the article *did* (unfortunately and shamefully) come from an actual research journal (which is just abhorrent!) but with any luck, the study will get refuted at some point.

      There’s a lot of bias in scientific research, unfortunately. Scientists are human and they definitely have their own lenses that too-often cloud their judgment and impartiality.

      Pure science is great – it should be impartial and neutral. Curiosity is a healthy attribute.

      But – some scientists get on a kick, and they’ll set out to prove the hypothesis they came up with, which could (and often does) obscure the logic and thus, the results of the study. Errors get made, data get slanted, and even in instances where data have been derived from sound procedures, certain aspects of that data can get up-played or down-played, depending on what the researchers expected to find. Ugh lol 😊

      Psychology Today, being a mere trade rag for members of the field (and anyone else who is interested), is kind of akin to the National Enquirer, or perhaps a Daily Mail (Daily Fail lol), of psychology. It’s going to latch on to the more attention-grabbing, sensationalist headlines. Definitely taken with a grain of salt 💞🌺

      Liked by 1 person

      1. preaching to the choir on most of that– but you couldnt have guessed that i was that interested in the intersectionality of science and bullshit ❤

        i dont like when people try to pervert science into backing up their prejudices. theres enough people backing that up with their own ignorance– to misuse science that way is just concentrated stupid. but what theyre doing with crap like this is keeping an industry based on ignorance (and occasional hatred of humanity) more rooted in ignorance. if i had the means, i would strip him of his phd. i wonder where its from? anyway, most of that is review.

        unrelated: are you sure you live in email?

        ive tried to keep them a day or two apart, but i never even know if theyre being read. my comments are often longer than my emails. if email isnt working out, i will stop sending them– on occasion theres something i might want to say through that channel.

        im not trying to imply that im owed anything here– really– this is another seeking clarification thing (one id rather email about, but… heh…) 🙂 ❤

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Oh shizz! Sorry about that. (The neglected email.).😳😳😱. No, please, do feel free to keep sending them as you like! A little explanation (not an excuse – I still own my oversight! ❤️) I use Gmail and it divvies email up into 3 separate tabs – Primary, Social, and Promotions. The Social tab gets all the WordPress, Twitter, and Facebook notifications, whereas my Primary tab gets the email that people send me individually. Since my online life is much more dynamic than my offline life, I do live on my email but it’s under the Social tab (oops!!) 😳😖😔❤️

      I need to sit down at a real computer one of these days for the sole purpose of checking that Primary tab and responding to that email. Yep, I’ve been getting them and hell yep, I will respond, I promise 😘🌺💜

      Much agreed with everything else you said, btw 💝💘💓

      Liked by 1 person

  4. poop. deciphering my childhood, iʻd guess there was quite a bit of that chronic stress response. and cortisones. 😦

    the “undomesticated” theory sounds bad indeed. i see NTs perhaps as domesticated then, in the sense they are group animals, suffer from groupthink etc. as if that was a good thing.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Totally! Absolutely agree 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼. Yeah I found it rather interesting that they twisted the “undomesticated” aspect into a negative light. Even if we *were* undomesticated (which is highly unlikely), wouldn’t that be the good thing? I mean, if smaller brain size and all that are hallmarks of domesticated animals… Lol. Because by insinuating that we’re “undomesticated”, they’re also implying that they are, by comparison, “domesticated” – and that’s associated with reduced brain size, which could very easily translate to lesser brain function? Lol 😂😂. They just shot themselves in the foot and then tried to imply that it’s spectrum people who are inferior. Kind of a cognitive dissonance, if you ask me 💜💙

      Liked by 1 person

      1. and also domesticated = you obey your master instead of learning to take care of yourself and solve problems…
        look at some of the ridiculous plastic surgeries and other things many NTs do fo feel pretty. sort of like the weird features they try to get on some dog breeds. itʻs like NTs are trying to become likd them

        Liked by 2 people

    2. Oh yeah!! This!! I wish I could Like your comment multiple times 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼💜💖


  5. Another great article SW!
    On the humorous side: I always knew I’m not human, so obviously I can’t be domesticated 😉
    On the serious side: Seriously? Comparing canine traits to human traits? I had the feeling of reading the infamous “Völkischer Beobachter”…
    And yes, I am Jewish.
    Take care 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Lol 😊❤️ I love your style!

      Personally I’ve always thought of myself as sort of a lone wolf, so wouldn’t that make those of us who identify that way “extra wild”? 😂💓

      Liked by 1 person

  6. There is a new term in anthropology identified as self-domestication. Now, I will agree that those researchers need to get their facts straight. Self- domestication, from my understanding, is when a species enters a sort of feedback loop wherein they separate themselves from various factors otherwise associated with natural selection. I hope I explained that right, domesticated plants and animals are subject to a force other than natural selection. Humans have become the force by which selection occurs, not only in various plant and animal species, but also in themselves thereby making humans self-domesticated animals.

    I would also sight that we, in the autism community are generally of above average intelligence. What does that mean though? Well, if you take the word of the researchers involved in the aforementioned article, domestication dumbs you down. In that case aren’t these NT’s simply stating that NT’s are dumbed down humans? They may have been trying to place us in a box wherein we could be viewed as defective yet they inadvertently placed themselves within that box. The truth is that those of us on the spectrum, myself included, are maladapted to be socialized in the same way as NT’s. I view human civilization and culture as inherently defective because of human self domestication. Lastly, who’s to say that some humans, including some members of the autism community, don’t demonstrate characteristics of non-domesticated humans? I honestly don’t view myself as domesticated, do you?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Nope 😊. I see myself as tamed but not domesticated.

      I really like the way you think! Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

      I agree; I think we’re probably maladapted to NTs, but only because they outnumber us – otherwise, the tables would probably be turned 😉. Human civilization is indeed (I believe) inherently defective, and yep, self-domestication is probably the culprit! I mean, people would shizz themselves if they couldn’t just go buy everything at the store, because hardly anyone knows how to make or do anything for themselves anymore. Here in the US, even the concept of the family farm is becoming extinct, in favor of mega-corporate farming. Humanity is getting more and more removed from its humanity 😊💖

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Guess what? I’m Asperger and write the blog “aspergerhuman” here on wordpress. One of my main themes IS THAT Asperger types are “less domesticated” than neurotypicals, AND IT’S A GOOD THING. Neurotypicals (hypersocial modern humans) are “neotenic” compared to the original Homo sapiens that existed BEFORE the agricultural revolution, urbanization and the domestication of “farm animals” – humans domesticated themselves also, in order to be able to live in “unhealthy” new crowded and restricted environments. Social typical humans are “stuck” in child developmental stages (like domestic dogs). They do not move beyond “magical thinking” which is an irrational perception of reality. Asperger children quickly develop “adult” cognitive abilities – higher IQ, concrete rational thinking, visual intuitive thinking – and “moral values” such as equality, honesty, and justice. –

    Liked by 1 person

  8. ‘Non-domesticated’ ~= “we don’t do *magic(k)*, and Normdom *does*.”

    In this wise: the ‘social world’ – a largely foreign environment to us – is the natrual environment of non-autistics. Its ‘rules’ permeate their thinking to such a degree that one might say, “everything is ultimately a social matter” (if you’re Normal, i.e. ‘socially correct’, that is)

    If one compares the observable behaviors of those indwelling ‘the social world’, one soon starts to see matters like ‘the law of similarity’, ‘the law of contagion’, matters of seeming ritual impurity, ‘the great chain of being, (everything is hierarchical), use of what, in truth, are ***fetishes*** (status markers which have little real use, but are in truth used as a means to dominate and control people…) – oh, and the biggie: one’s access to *everything* is a function of your social rank – which in turn is ultimately a function ***of the ability to deceive and manipulate other people.***

    This last is a bit obtuse. How does one’s ability figure into one’s rank if one is born to a high standing, e.g. a Brahman under (old-style) Hinduism?

    If one accepts that society largely proceeds under Hobbes’ dictum, i.e. unless compelled by a greater-still power, ‘the greater shall prey upon the lesser’, then ‘the (social) war of all against all’ dominates the thinking of Normdom, and this struggle is about getting to the top of various Dominance Hierarchies – and once there, receiving tribute from all ‘lesser beings’.

    The ultimate ‘top’ of the foundational dominance hierarchy is, of, course (if you’re Normal) god – where one is ***all-knowing*** (the sum total of *all* knowledge devolves to what ‘the god’ knows or claims to know), ***all-present*** (everyone else no longer has a separate existence. Instead, they are *part of* ‘the god’, and hence he/she is effectivley everywhere) and all-powerful – (as in nothing ever happens unless ‘the god’ commands it, and his/her will is *the* reality.)

    Yes! 2 + 2 does equal 5! B.B. hath said so – he and his Holding Company.

    The tools of ‘battle’ in the social world are deception and manipulation; social existence is a social-darwinistic struggle to ‘win at all costs’; and, in truth, there is only one rule that’s a constant in the social world – ‘woe to the vanquished’.

    Hence the full statement is, “everything is ultimately a social matter, and the whole of life is a matter of dominance, power and control.” If one substitutes ‘magic(k)al’ for ‘social’, though… The coincidence in terms of rules between, for example, Hermeticism (or old-style Hinduism…) are startling.

    Hence Normdom’s rules correspond closely to those of ceremonial magick; and because we ‘don’t do social’ (like Normdom) we are ***automagically*** regarded as *lesser beings*. (Aristotle said so, and classical Greece ‘ran on’ magick.)

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Strange thought: ‘domestication’ = ‘wed to the SOCIAL way of life, as in ‘cannot exist apart from the *superorganism* named society’.

    If ‘domestication’ is defined thusly, then we might well ***be*** ‘undomesticated’.

    Note that that situation more or less guarantees being apart from the dominance hierarchy, much as if all humanity were a swarm of old-style(?) Hindus, and autists were the purest form of ***untouchables*** – which corresponds closely with how we are commonly treated.

    Unlike Hinduism, however, Normdom needs no teaching – no priest caste, i.e. Bramins – no ancient religious texts, no temples – to tell them we are not part of ***their*** world. (This an instinctual matter, and no conscious thought is required. Normdom sees us as the enemy, just as Normies instinctually recognize personality-disordered individuals as ‘rlers’ and ‘gods’.)

    Our not ‘belonging’ – our difference – is the foundational thing that #defines us as ‘the enemy’. (Think of the most virulent Nazi-grade antisemitism. Now make it a matter ‘of wiring alone’, and then transfer that from the vague and ephemeral – the altogether artificial and defined – term of ‘the jew eternal’ to the absolute and concrete form of ‘the enemy autistic’. That is precisely what we-all must endure at the hands and feet of Normdom; and only divine intervention will cure humanity’s evil.)

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you, Dennis, for sharing these thoughts! 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼. You make very good points, and a really interesting analogy that I had not yet thought of!

      Your first paragraph is especially golden!! Very, very true 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼😊💙


Please feel free to add your thoughts! I do my best to respond to each comment (even if it takes me a bit sometimes) :)

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s