I have recently been quizzed by two of your more pleasing females as to my political thoughts and leanings. This is ironic, that those who I am, as an extraterrestrial anthropologist, barred from mating with, might inquire of me as to that other human pursuit—namely mass violence—that I am also barred from engaging in. These zoological research grants do have such nagging stipulations.

What follows is a brief outline of human history, which is to say politics. Politics is the act of banding into groups in order to do violence to individuals and groups, or to preserve one’s self and fellow from said violence. This is not typically understood for what it is. I have known three types of earthlings, politically speaking, and will describe them according to the frequency with which they appear.

Collectivists are defined by a need for security and a grasping materialism, or concern with material comforts: doubtlessly harkening back to the ape’s need for a comfortable tree to cling to as the four-legs prowled the forest floor below. Virtually all females are, by nature, collectivist. Most males, typically lacking the means to violently overcome their fellow, are also, by nature, collectivists. Collectivists are controlled most easily through horizontal social pressure. The psychological characteristic of the collectivist is that they do not understand the mechanics of violence, specifically the nuance of threat. You are descended from skittish tree-grazing monkey-men to put it bluntly. It is not surprising therefore that 7 in 10 of your males and better than 9 in 10 of your females are incapable of consistently and effectively understanding, using, or resisting violent means. Indeed it is a miracle that you creatures ever got out of the trees.

Your history is therefore a litany of ‘great men’, violent little apes, who have imposed their will and therefore advanced the cause of others like themselves, who would successively harness the collectivist impulse to support and amplify their violent actions down through the bloody ages. Somewhere, in deep prehistory, is a hairy little Napoleon with a sharp rock.

In humans the collectivist impulse probably came down through the fear of leopards, which is ingrained in primates. In fact, were it not for prehistoric hominids being killed by leopards, we would have scarce evidence of their existence, as leopards take their kills to secluded and sheltered locations, providing zoologists—I’m sorry, anthropologists—like myself fossils nicely preserved from erosion.

The intensification of this impulse to gather round the fire and fend off the big cat was eventually turned outward toward hyena, lion and baboon, and every other creature fated to share this world with you little monsters, and ultimately upon other groups of apes. We do have a charming example from some millions of years ago left by your nasty little ancestors in the form of an entire troop of baboons who had been murdered with rocks. After investigating that mess I have never again looked upon a baseball game as quaint.

As the term applies, the gathering, or ‘collecting’ portion of the hunter-gatherer lifeway encourages passive group cohesion just as the hunting aspect encourages lethal group cohesion. So, when the advent of agriculture, of actually cooperating with the plants you fed on, came about, it revolutionized human life. The immediate result was the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, and the enjoyment for those few, of a progressively better standard of living. Actual human history as studied by your historians is a study of these fortunate few at the top of the collectivist heap at the expense of their slaves, by a margin of better than 1,000 books to one. The corollary was the wretched lot of the farmer, which would provide most of humanity 6,000 years of miserably impoverished toil, with life spans no longer than that of the hominid shivering in fear of the leopard. The difference was that the human farmer shivered in fear of something else; another hunter, who had evolved on a parallel and intersecting track—and so did his master fear him as well.

The killing of progressively larger and more numerous animals makes for a much more effective combatant than digging for roots. A good recent example is the famed Mountain Man ‘Liver-Eating' Johnson, who killed more Native Americans than General George Armstrong Custer and his entire 7th Cavalry. This was common for Mountain Men, many of whom had dozens of human kills, it being an extension of their trade, which was the killing of large dangerous animals. Being renowned as the most prolific ‘Injun’ killer, the cannibal warrior Johnson was once asked about his tally of foes. He declined to count the ‘digger Injuns’ he had killed, as they were not hunters.

While the collecting of plants led to their cultivation, the hunting of animals led to their domestication. This act of herding is even more predatory on a social level than hunting, as the herd animal is subject to sub-lethal coercion, encouraged into predictable behavior patterns, and finally rounded up and slain en masse. Throughout history, until the Russian Czars finally broke the Mongol yoke, Eurasian military history was little more than a litany of barbarian invasions by cattle herding people, followed by long intervals in which the descendents of these invaders ruled the farming societies. In Africa the cattle herding Bantu peoples likewise terrorized more sedentary cultivators. In the New World the famed Aztecs, who actually ate those who opposed their ‘gods’, were descendents of a ‘Dog People’, a group of savage nomads.

The skill of the herder in convincing his doomed domestic beast that the herder is his friend and provider, and cannot thus be dispensed with, is at once the root of and mechanism by which massive modern populations are controlled. You skittish little apes do not even know you live under threat; indeed are intelligent enough to rationalize this process as something other than a threat matrix leading to your digestion by successive generations of your masters.

The ancient method for dealing with aberrant and seditious persons was exile. This process in a global society is more or less internal, with passive nonconformists enjoying less privilege—very often as a homeless man. Passive non-conformists in modern America are almost all homeless males.

Aggressive non-conformists can best be illustrated by referring back to the Mountain Men of the 19th Century American West. Numbering no more than a hundred at any given time, these men had rejected civilization. They lived in the primal hunting sphere of the Native Americans, as individuals. A rough average of 10 human kills was required for these men to maintain their personal autonomy over the course of what was usually a mere two decades of such living, often resulting in a violent death. This perilous and most free form of individualist life was made possible by four factors:

1. Violent means, with all of these men being effective killers on the order of a modern special warfare soldier with a sniper or hand-to-hand specialty.

2. Alliances with as many Native American tribes as one was at war with

3. A voluntary reciprocal complex in which these individuals pledged assistance to one another. They did not band together for protection, but rather banded together for vengeance when one of their lonely kind was killed, robbed or dishonored by a band, tribe or nation. Liver-Eater Johnson was elected to lead at least three of these mini genocidal expeditions.

4. The absence of a federating macroparasitic entity. To the extent that the Mountain Men continued their ways after the U.S. gained control of these lands, they did so as criminals. Johnson was reprimanded for taking Cherokee scalps when serving with the Union Cavalry in Missouri. A friend of his was eventually killed by a posse of Latino fighters, bringing to an end his decades of abducting ‘wives’ from that community [He did return them unharmed when he got sick of them]. In our day and age, the men who understand that autonomy has only been had by violent means, either ply violence on behalf of the state [police/military] as Johnson sometimes did, or ply it in the shadows of the collective, alone or alongside temporary allies, as criminals, as Johnson usually did. The 21st Century American corollary to the Mountain Man—who enjoyed more autonomy than perhaps any humans that ever lived, at the cost of great hardship—is the urban gang set player, who likewise has a famously short, if colorful, life.

Personally speaking, as a collector of futuristic ideas, an interesting development is the exploration by some of the brighter passive dissidents among you of anarchist/libertarian models for non-violent autonomous human interaction. Now, you are not only my favorite life form, but the subject of my doctoral thesis as well, so I would like to see humans colonizing the moons, the planets and distant worlds—just not in the Regal System thank you!

So, it is interesting to wonder if there is a way that humanity can exist without constant threat of, and implementation of, lethal force. Thus far, I have found no evidence that this has ever been the case. And as far as the increased lethality of force down through the ages, the corollary development has been, well, the air conditioner. If you renounced forcing and killing one another, the evidence suggests that technology would wither.

And if this came to pass, how would I be able to keep cool during your torrid summers?

Would you libertarians agree to take turns fanning me?

Or would I have to break open my aerosol contingency canister and ‘make of your daughter a slave’ as one of your more notable autonomous males of ancient times once warned?

The human condition itself is defined by the grasping materialism of the collective female impulse—gather those nuts and thatch that nest baby—amplified by the predatory male hunting complex—dude, it’s just a cave! What could go wrong?

Throughout most of human history the collectivist impulse has served the hunter’s need as expressed by the apex human predator, the military-backed politician, who occupies most of the pages of your history books. Although many a million little ape has died horribly in the process this does appear to be a symbiotic relationship, with the vast collective typically content that the force wielded by its ruling class is wielded in its name, for its own collective good. Besides, you are still multiplying, objective proof that your violent politicians have been right all along.

Although I am far from an economist, I suppose the extent to which it is true that living collectively under protection of a military force is a progressive act, could be proven by a natural increase in the material wealth of the collective masses and a reduction in the material wealth of the ruling class—you know, like when Genghis Khan, Liver-Eating Johnson, and other mass-murdering nomad leaders gave most of their wealth away.

-Regal M-116-S