I found this post about Dmitry K Belyaev’s work quite fascinating and wanted to elaborate on the consequences of it. Belyaev, was a Soviet era Russian geniticist and victim of Lysenkoism, [1] losing his job as head of the Department of Fur Animal Breeding at the Central Research Laboratory of Fur Breeding in Moscow in 1948. Belyaev continued his work under the guise of studying animal physiology and his experiment which has lasted 40+ number of years has some interesting consequences.

Belyaev was curious about the physiological or morphological changes accompanied by the process of domestication. Domestication being commonly associated with dogs, he reasoned that one way to test his hypothesis about how these changes occurred was to choose a canine species which never been previously domesticated and attempt to domesticate it. He selected Vulpes vulpes: the silver fox and spent 26 years on his experiment, which was continued post his death in 1985.

Belyaev had noticed that many domestic animals had undergone similar changes in morphology and physiology. Body sizes changed, colour pattern of their coat changed, and even tails changed. His hypothesis was that these changes were influenced by the genetic makeup of the animal and resulted from strong selective pressure. Specifically, he was concerned with the idea of selecting for “tamability”.

Starting with a batch of 30 male foxes and 100 female ones from a commercial farm in Estonia,[2] he conducted his experiment in the following manner. Breeding was only allowed when the foxes were considered “tame” and only the tamest 4-5% of male offspring and 20% of female offspring were allowed to breed. The foxes were untrained otherwise and were simply scored on their tameness evaluated by the metric of friendliness to the scientists. A strict three tier class system was used to categorize how tame foxes were. The friendliest to the experimenters would exhibit behaviour such as whimpering for attention, licking and sniffing the hands of the humans, and an amount of docility.

Here is where things get interesting.

The physical changes in the foxes were quite remarkable and easily distinguishable. They exhibited a fear response to external stimuli earlier than their wild cousins. Their coats changed color and star shaped patterns on their  foreheads were observed similar to certain breeds of dogs. Their ears became floppy which is particularly interesting since it is a characteristic of new born pups which carried over to adulthood.  This is a consequence which has occurred in dogs called paedomorphosis or the retention of juvenile characters in the adult. Another interesting consequence was that the cranial morphology of domesticated adult males became “feminized” i.e their sexual dimorphism decreased.

Now these were some interesting results. Masculinity and indeed physiological signs of adulthood decreased when the species was selected for tameness. In fact animals which escaped returned eventually since they were unable to sustain themselves in the wild.

One can almost see the parallels between the feminized Western man under the selection pressure of feminism and the silver fox living in captivity for domestication. Selection pressure exhibits in the form of non-stop propaganda from the Cathedral of the toxic masculinity of man and how it destroys women. But women’s mating strategies  are still aimed towards exploiting traditionally “alpha” men [3] which is the very definition of toxic masculinity.  And this already exhibits in many male feminists who look weak and effeminate. [4]

While the mechanism is not identical to the foxes, one can see the result of such a domestication of man. Men will become weak, feminized and women will become unhappy with them. Their domestication will leave them open to attack. Violence is golden and without it there is no order. [5] Without the capacity to commit violence, civilization will fall and that capacity comes from trusting the evolutionary benefits of traditional masculinity.

I always love to link to this post of Heartiste‘s  since it quite flawlessly describes the current Western social landscape while drawing parallels to the end of the Holy Roman Empire. While foxes have the experimenters to trust that they will look after them in their domesticated state of mind, humans have no such tangible guiding force and must reckon with the effects of the Cathedral. Perhaps now one can fully comprehend the consequences of liberal propaganda.



[1] Lysenko was a Soviet agrobiologist who attempted to reconcile Marxist theory with science. His rejection of Darwinian genetics in favour of his own ridiculous theories, were so ridiculous that even Stalin knew he was a fraud.

[2] It must be noted that these were already more tame than wild foxes.

[3] The following is an excerpt from the paper linked above.

What does a woman want? The traditional evolutionist’s answer to Freud’s famous query is that a woman’s extensive investment in each child implies that she can maximize her fitness by restricting her sexual activity to one or at most a few high-quality males. Because acquiring resources for her offspring is of paramount importance, a woman will try to attract wealthy, high-status men who are willing and able to help her. She must be coy and choosy, limiting her attentions to men worthy of her and emphasizing her chastity so as not to threaten the paternity confidence of her mate.

The lady has been getting more complicated of late, however. As Sarah Hrdy1 predicted, we now have evidence that women, like other female pri- mates, are also competitive, randy creatures. Women have been seen com- peting with their rivals using both physical aggression2,3 and more subtle derogation of competitors.4 While they are still sometimes coy and chaste, women have also been described recently as sexy and sometimes promis- cuous creatures, manipulating fatherhood by the timing of orgasm, and using their sexuality to garner resources from men.

The real answer to Freud’s query, of course, is that a woman wants it all: a man with the resources and inclination to invest, and with genes that make him attractive to other women so that her sons will inherit his success. Her strategies for attaining these somewhat conflicting aims, and her success in doing so, are shaped by her own resources and options and by conflicts of interest with men and other women.

[4] Unsurprisingly, scientists have found a link between upper body strength and support for right wing politics. Leftists are weaklings.

[5] While Jack Donovan is more accessible in this age of modernity, this truth was first spoken by Sri Krishna –

Everything has its proper utility, and a man who is situated in complete knowledge knows how and where to apply a thing for its proper utility. Similarly, violence also has its utility, and how to apply violence rests with the person in knowledge. Although the justice of the peace awards capital punishment to a person condemned for murder, the justice of the peace cannot be blamed, because he orders violence to another person according to the codes of justice. In Manu-saṁhitā, the lawbook for mankind, it is supported that a murderer should be condemned to death so that in his next life he will not have to suffer for the great sin he has committed. Therefore, the king’s punishment of hanging a murderer is actually beneficial. Similarly, when Kṛṣṇa orders fighting, it must be concluded that violence is for supreme justice, and thus Arjuna should follow the instruction, knowing well that such violence, committed in the act of fighting for Kṛṣṇa, is not violence at all because, at any rate, the man, or rather the soul, cannot be killed; so for the administration of justice, so-called violence is permitted. A surgical operation is not meant to kill the patient, but to cure him. Therefore the fighting to be executed by Arjuna at the instruction of Kṛṣṇa is with full knowledge, so there is no possibility of sinful reaction.