Political Biology

Posted by James Bowery on Wednesday, 07 January 2009 06:54.

You’ve heard of political science, sociobiology, political economy, etc. You may even have heard of “biopolitics”. But what you probably haven’t heard of is “political biology” as an academic discipline unifying political science with biology. This would be strange indeed—given that the origin of political science was in the theoretic implications of human nature as explored by Hobbes, Locke and Hume, among many others—were it not for our familiarity with The Culture of Critique. There are, after all, only about 1300 web search hits for “political biology” of which nearly 400 are references to the Third Reich.

So, here we are, centuries after the foundation of political science, searching for grounding in something other than sophistry due to the forces of political biology. Imagine a pathogen that managed to preferentially infect the brains of medical researchers such as Lister or Pasteur. Such is our misfortune.

Even the few furtive attempts to recover some sapience such as sociobiology have been cursed by the advent of political substitutes such as evolutionary psychology which place even social interactions at arms length and political movements further yet from well-founded thought.

So it comes as some relief when political scientists such as Frank Salter foray into the enormous gaping hole in our thoughts to fill in a tiny conceptual outline or two.

Could it be that a recent (2005) paper, BIOLOGY & POLITICAL SCIENCE. FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES OF POLITICAL BIOLOGY by Mircea BOARI Department of Political Science, University of Bucharest will ..provide more healing of our intelligence, so wounded by the Jewish intellectual movements of the 20th century?

A few excerpts follow…

In their classic formulations, valid to this day, the issue of self-preservation is foundational for both political science and economics. In order to fixate this concept, the Modern theorists relied upon various assumptions about human nature.

Due to the advances of biology and evolutionary theory, we are today in the position of explicating these assumptions in the form of stable scientific certainties.

A foundational concept in biological theory is that of “fitness”.

The paper indicates the relationship between the less determined concept of self-preservation and the more rigorous one of fitness. By that, it accomplishes two things: it gives more solidity to the foundation of political theory and political economy, by anchoring them in biology; it opens the path towards a unification between two social sciences and their immediate juxtaposed science, biology.

The emphasis of the paper is on political science, aiming to define, on the basis of the above argument, its proper object of study. The notion of fitness extraction is thus defined. A lateral exposition differentiates between political action, thus understood, and economic action, defined more generally as fitness transfer. The distinction is to be eventually furthered in a separate study.
...
The purpose of the paper is to anchor political science to biology. As a consequence of this development, some promising pathways will be open for social theory and economic theory as well.

There remains undecidable the question as to whether this anchoring will merely provide a biological foundation for political science, or whether political science will become superfluous as an autonomous discipline, its major processes being explained, and its major mechanisms being described, by theoretical biology. In the first case, the relationship between political science and biology will be much like the one already established between chemistry and physics: at a fundamental level (atomic and sub-atomic), they become indistinguishable, but at a macro-level, for practical purposes, they preserve autonomy. In the second case, the relationship would be much like that between alchemy and chemistry, the first being absorbed and integrated into the second, after having discarded the ballast introduced by superfluous axioms and hypotheses. In the first case, political science, would become a mere art, a technical know-how, just as chemistry is, since chemistry’s real theoretical foundation is ultimately lying with atomic and quantum physics. In the second case, just like alchemy, political science would appear as a pseudo-science, in the non-pejorative and strict sense of the term: namely, a science whose fundamental premises are vitiated by unwarranted hypotheses, this, at its turn, falsifying much of the inferences and constructions thereby grounded. My essay merely exhibits this alternative, since I believe that the decision between one alternative or another would be theoretically unjustified as of now.
...
In this respect, there can be said that social sciences study the variations in individual fitness due to intra-species causes: that which conventionally are identified as interpersonal relations, sociality, culture. Any number of individuals interacting, produce a co-variation of their relative fitnesses. The basic question thus to be addressed is: how do individuals modify their relative fitness during social life?
...
If we shall call Darwinian fitness the collection of strategies evolved by natural selection to extract resources from the environment, than extraction of fitness from con-specifics, or the usage of con-specifics as resource, can be conveniently called Darwinian social fitness.
Darwinian social fitness makes the object of the behavior called politics.
...
Fitness Extraction
The usage of other forms of life for individual fitness is otherwise termed predacity. There is no moral or value connotation attached to the term. It refers to the general capacity of some organisms to use others as resource (mostly food), and as such, is just another description of the trophic chain in nature. Predacity, in the narrow sense of the term, is an inter-species phenomena. This biological function is the result of a matching (co-adaptation, co-evolution) of the specific fitness of the prey versus that of the predator. Since predacity results in death as food, predacity represents any action which has as a result the increase of fitness of self at a cost to the net fitness of another (at the limit, its extinction).

In this respect, and according to the previous section, fitness extraction is a form of intra-species predacity.
...
This definition leaves outside of its domain non-predatory competitive behavior, which is to say, differential access to resources due to differential genotypic fitness. For example, between two individuals of the same species (say, two orangutans) searching resources in the same area (food or a mate). Even though the two specimens never interact one with another, the one which is best endowed genetically, by the very force of his endowment, will reduce the available resources for another less endowed. The same applies when the two specimens interact competitively directly, for example for sexual access. In spite of the fact that one of the individuals is better off and the other is worse off, their rapport is not predatory, since none of the individuals use as resource another individual. All such phenomena belong to the study of biology proper.

Tags:

Comments:

Posted by apollonian on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:39 | #

“How do individuals modify their relative fitness during social life?”

* * * * *

Cyclic Socio-Biology Governed By Means Of Objectivity-Subjectivity Hegelian Anti-Theses
(Apollonian, 7 Jan 09)

Golly, but the question (above) must be one of those “trick” questions. For the Greeks would tell u humans THINK and thus formulate within their minds plans of action by which they ADAPT and contend, etc. And “social life” is natural environment by which humans engage in economics and politics, subsets of ethics.

Thus humans are successful as they heed reality and natural law, hence reason—but fail as they fall into what Greeks called HUBRIS, that excessive subjectivism by which humans imagine they, in God-like fashion, CREATE reality, or control it too easily—as by means of a perfectly “free” human will, thus “good-evil” delusion/conceit/fallacy.

But as humanity is successful, in CYCLIC fashion, it becomes over-populated and such population must be culled back—which then is function of Jew Parasite disease-of-opportunity which Jew specializes in lies, founded again, in subjectivism. For what are lies?—excessive subjectivism which loses context for objectivity deliberately foisted upon a younger (often) or weaker, more trusting or dependent soul. What are liars?—subjectivists, “challenged” for objectivity.

Thus we see civilized activity is a great battle against hubris, subjectivism, hence then Judaism/Talmudism (see RevisionistHistory.org, TruthTellers.org, and Come-and-hear.com for expo/ref.), making use of systematic delusion, called HERETICALISM, especially Pelagianism (“good-evil”), thus Pharisaism-moralism, by which delusion then is ultimately generated the specific criminal enterprise of COUNTERFEITING, called fractional-reserve money and banking—see RealityZone.com for expo/ref.

Thus humanity struggles against CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY, always led, master-minded, and manipulated by Jews, foremost subjectivists (liars—Gosp. JOHN 8:44). Hence we observe socio-biologic (see KevinMacDonald.net) CYCLIC Jew-expulsions which take place in history, in accord with “Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler, by which humanity purges itself of excess subjectivism, subjectivists, and Jews. To be sure, note gentiles are sinners too, but less organized, and after Jew-expulsions, gentile criminals are much more easily dealt with and mopped-up.

CONCLUSION: Such then is CYCLIC human socio-biology as determined by cyclic objectivity and honesty which matures eventually into degeneracy and Spenglerian-type “decline”—as we see presently, etc. Eventually Jew Parasite disease-of-opportunity kills host/victim gentiles and must now turn-in upon/against itself, as we see Walt-Mearsheimer CFR-Bilderberg conspirators pointing “finger” at “The Israel Lobby.” Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian

Posted by cladrastis on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:57 | #

I’ve made this point elsewhere, but can’t predacity actually increase the fitness of another organism, as in the case of corn (with a global distribution) v. teosinte (with a local Mexican distribution) or wheat (w/ a global temperate distribution) v. triticum (w/ a local distribution in C. Asia)? These organisms have benefitted enormously in terms of fitness relative to other grasses. The same is true of virtually all domesticates.

Posted by Dharma Chakra on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:47 | #

The emperor has no clothes.

You guys should like this one; http://www.davidicke.com/content/blogcategory/30/82

Posted by Svigor on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:01 | #

Dharma, I’m starting to not like you. Surely there are better sites to troll?

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:41 | #

Well, I don’t know, James, I’ve read the paper but this Romanian guy seems to need Big Respect from fellow academics more than he needs to make an impact on modern thought. Anyone who writes sentences like ...

The subjective, existential extension of self-preservation is, in a definition which covers the history of the discipline from the British tradition inaugurated by Hobbes, via the entire discipline of economics, to the German tradition culminating with Hegel, the polymorphism of human desire.

... really needs to unscramble his brain. I assume all he is saying is that, as individuals, our need to preserve ourselves is present in everything we desire from life. Am I wrong? Who knows? Perhaps I am just too simple-minded to cut it as a faculty bod.

Mr Boari places a heavy emphasis throughout on the individual, and does not, in my opinion, sufficiently extrapolate at the group level to give us something useful. But I am open to persuasion. Should anyone care to try.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 08 Jan 2009 03:16 | #

One must bear in mind his associations:

In various ways, I am much indebted to many persons for the possibility of starting and realising this work. First, I would like to express my gratitude to the Soros Foundation for an Open Society, whose scholaship allowed me to pursue the course in Political Theory at the University of Manchester. Special thanks I address to dr. Ursula Vogel, coordinator of the Soros Scheme in the Government Department, for the many useful advices touching the most various aspects of scholarly activity…

I find it fascinating that someone who has had Soros as a patron could even approach the topic of political biology in anything but glowing terms praising the peripatetic, let alone posit fitness predacity as central to founding the discipline.

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:26 | #

A couple of random thoughts:

HalfSigma is a douche. He refuses to post ideas he doesn’t like from commenters. I guess the idea that readers can begin to angle in on critical thinking by replacing “Jew” with “white” and “Palestinian” with “black” and observing their own cognitive dissonance is a bit too much for Half.

Btw, textpad SUCKS. At least, it sucks at Half’s end; I never have the trouble posting at other blogs that I do there. Every time I go there, there’s some bullshit with that site/software.

Sascha Baron Cohen is an archetypal Jew:
Sacha Baron Cohen’s black Jesus to shock America
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4206901/Sacha-Baron-Cohens-black-Jesus-to-shock-America.html

Hmm, I wonder if a black Moses is next in line for Cohen’s “shocking” “irreverent” humor? Maybe a black Anne Frank? Don’t hold your breath.

The fact that a black Jesus coming from a Zhid would shock Americans shows how much work we have left to do. If Americans had an inkling of an erg of an iota of a clue they’d only be shocked by a respectful, non-anti-white Jesus coming from a Jew.

Speaking of Jews:
Italy criticizes call for Jewish boycott over Gaza
http://mobile.reuters.com/mobile/m/FullArticle/CTOP/ntopNews_uUSTRE5082FY20090109?src=RSS-TOP

I love this bit:

“I am an Italian citizen and it infuriates me that people don’t differentiate between the mentality and opinions of an Italian from what is happening in Israel,” Jewish Italian shopkeeper Giuseppe Livoli told La Repubblica newspaper.”

Note how the Jew does NOTHING to differentiate himself (“an Italian”) from the Israelis - here, an American trying to make a similar point would distance himself from the opprobrium somehow (“my parents didn’t own slaves”), but for the Jew this isn’t a requirement. Membership has its privileges, I guess.

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:31 | #

HalfSigma is a douche. He refuses to post ideas he doesn’t like from commenters. I guess the idea that readers can begin to angle in on critical thinking by replacing “Jew” with “white” and “Palestinian” with “black” and observing their own cognitive dissonance is a bit too much for Half.

I meant to append this link by way of example:

http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/01/israels-bleak-future.html

Can anyone imagine a conversation about blacks and whites in America being allowed to go like that conversation about Palestinians and Jews, without a big fat “heretic” sticker going up somewhere? But this is a typical American conversation about Ps and Js, really.

Half the Arab-haters in that thread would completely reverse their position in a blacks-whites discussion, and start defending blacks! If you pointed out their rank hypocrisy, the conversation would end with a whimper.

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:44 | #

Another random thought: note to newspapers: you can go paperless and fully online, but you’ll continue to bleed customers until you COMPETE WITH YOUR COMPETITION.

Comments sections sound like a great place to start. Otherwise eyeballs will be driven to the bloggers who regurgitate or link to your content, but allow feedback.

The old model is dead, guys. Better change now while you still have the leverage for it to matter.

Make money from providing information, or go out of business. The old monopoly model where you get to make money and exert mind control is over.

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:16 | #

‘Nother random thought, anyone want to lay odds that the “eugenics baby” in the headlines today is Jewish? No conspiracy theories, and not particularly interesting necessarily, just saying odds are much higher than randomly choosing from population (wealthy, high IQ, inbred, remaining anonymous).