Forget any connotations that have previously gone along with "wolves" or "coyotes" for a few minutes. I am not talking about the "wolves and sheep", or "wolves and sheepdogs", or anything else like that. I have a different point here that doesn't involve those. It may not be original, but I just thought of it.
Wolves are pack animals. They need a leader. Either you are the leader, the alpha-wolf, or you are just a member of the collective pack. Wolves are the statists of the canine world.
Coyotes are loners. They will often hang out with their mate, but they don't travel in packs. There is no "alpha-coyote". They must prey on smaller or weaker prey than wolves do. Coyotes are the canine anarchists.
Because of these traits, wolves were selectively bred over thousands of years to become domestic dogs. With dogs the obedience programming has been stregthened and the aggression has been minimized. Their need for a leader makes them easily manipulated by a strong human "alpha-wolf". Coyotes, on the other hand, do not respond to orders. They don't get the concept of following an alpha animal. They have therefore not been domesticated to anywhere near the extent that wolves and their decendants have been.
The problem is that when a pack of wolves confront a lone coyote, the coyote will lose. It is a simple matter of numbers. When confronted by the state and its enablers and apologists, the anarchist will lose unless he fights an all-or-nothing battle with his mind and is lucky. Human anarchists have the advantage of having a strong mind. Knowing the disadvantages of "one against the pack", we can avoid getting into situations where we are devoured or displaced from our territory.
The pack works well for wolves, and for predatory statists. The question arises: are humans a pack animal which needs a leader? Or did we fall into this pattern because of the manipulation of the human wolves?
You make a good point regarding our ideological fight.
ReplyDeleteBiologically, however, we know that humans are pack animals in nature. In fact, we even assume or posit that the human brain is so big because it had to deal with complex social hierarchies, as well as the language necessary to navigate it. So the essence of the human being may very well be the ability to manipulate other people into submission, not to manipulate concepts.
In that sense, you could say that politicians are mentally unevolved humans.