Given the recent paper by Xing et al and the tendency for “The Wayback Machine” to suffer “technical difficulties”, I’m posting a somewhat out-of-date hypothesis explaining some of the seeming suicidal behavior of Euroman. 

What follows is an hypothesis concerning the (ecological) distance from human origins of human genetic variations concerned with regulating gene expression in general including extended phenotypes.  I came up with it after a visit to sub-Saharan Africa during June of 2000 (mostly spent on a compound fenced in with barbed wire in Harare).  It tends to anger folks of Mediterranean origin because it is written from a Eurocentric view and therefore tends to place undue emphasis on intraeuro variation.  If one is careful in reading it, however, it is clear that the primary “criticism” is leveled at Scandinavians due to the fact that they are most susceptible to being extended phenotypes of non-Europeans: “race traitors” if you will.  My opinion is that the main sensitivity by Mediterraneans is from a subtype that does not like the idea of being physically excluded from European nations that are currently expressing “race treason”.  This is an understandable sentiment and is likely to remain problematic until Euromen in general cease to be an extended phenotype of other nations, including Jews.

Another weakness of this hypothesis is the failure to mention Jewish virulence as resulting primarily from horizontal transmission between nations.  It needs mentioning because horizontal transmission is actually a more important aspect of Jewish virulence than the contributions from omnidominance as hypothesized.

PS:  My apologies for the lengthy front page lead.  It was the most obvious way to get ExpressionEngine software to accept the entire text.

GENETIC OMNI-DOMINANCE: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS

By .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
  Version 06/08/2003

 

Copyright James A. Bowery 06/08/2003
The author grants the right to copy without modification.

INTRODUCTION

Freedom is the ability to express self-interest.

Oppression is the inability to express self-interest.

Slavery is the compulsion to express other-interest.

Dominance acquires freedom by taking it from others, resulting in oppression if not slavery.

To the extent that phenotypes extend outside the bodies within which their genes reside (as described by Dawkins), genetic dominance (including as modifier genes and epistasis, as well as simple dominance described by Mendel) has social implications. To the extent that mutations tend to be recessive (as described by Wright) those social implications are the oppression and slavery of recently evolved populations by older populations when they come into intimate contact through ecological mixing.

This is the essence of hypothesis of genetic omnidominance; The GOD Hypothesis.

GENETIC OMNI-DOMINANCE: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS

The conventional concepts of the evolution of Mendelian dominance, epistasis (influence over remote parts of the same genome) and extended phenotypics (influence over parts of remote genomes), can be usefully unified to form a new concept called herein “genetic omni-dominance” (GOD) as the joint product of ecological annealing.

The bold acronym of GOD matches the boldness of the genetic omni-dominance hypothesis. GOD is the generalized result of sustained competition for phenotypic expression among self-interested complexes of DNA with intersecting ecological ranges. As the outgrowth of the struggle for genetic expression, GOD is perhaps the most crucial aspect of the Darwinian struggle for existence. For a genetic system to influence its own destiny, it must be capable of expression. The less capable of expression, the less influence it has over its own destiny.

Within an individual species, or within a co-evolved system of species, a gradient of GOD may exist from the interior to the periphery of its ecological range due to what might be called “ecological annealing”—or the general tendency of evolutionary systems to find, at least locally and temporariliy, ecological stability.  The study of ecological stability vs instability, arising from evolutionary processes is a relatively new discipline called adaptive dynamics.  Wikipedia’s introduction to adaptive dynamics describes it thus:

Adaptive dynamics is a set of techniques for studying long-term phenotypical evolution developed during the 1990s. It incorporates the concept of frequency dependence from game theory but allows for more realistic ecological descriptions, as the traits vary continuously and gives rise to a non-linear invasion fitness [emphasis JAB]...

An otherwise viable system of recessive mutations, typically co-evolved at a newly colonized periphery of the ecological range, may become incapable of co-expression with the introduction or invasion of systems with greater GOD and therefore become deleterious due to incoherent expression. Having been rendered deleterious by incoherent expression, said recessive system would, in general, be gradually selected out of existence. This is particularly relevant under environmental modifications such as those that occur due to natural climate shifts or synthetic conditions such as those that occur with human transportation and habitation technologies.

In sexual species, the male determinant (for example, the Y chromosome in humans) will be a primary locus of intraspecific GOD due to the fact that intraspecific competition is primarily carried out between males. This has important implications
  for the relationship between the Major Histocompatibility Group genes and sexual attraction and would predict greater signaling/manipulation of MHC disease presence/resistance by males.

The center of the ecological range will also tend to have more genetic diversity per capita (with consequent heterozygosity) but express it less due to dominance whereas the periphery of the ecological range will have less genetic diversity percapita (with consequent homozygosity) but will tend to express that diversity despite recessiveness.

PARASITISM VS MUTUALISM

The GOD Hypothesis predicts that mutualistic (mutually beneficial symbiotic) relationships at the center of the ecological range may, as one progresses toward the periphery, become parasitic due to inadequate ecological annealing at the periphery. The dispersion of a sub species outward, away from the center of the ecological range via environmental compensation for its weaknesses in these marginal habitats will, therefore, tend to displace indigenous members of that species by introducing greater parasite loading on the indigenous members of that species and healthier non-indigenous competitors for that portion of the range.

The human situation is particularly interesting due to the fact that a species coevolved with a human subspecies may be memetic in nature and therefore be transmitted entirely via verbal and/or visual forms of communication.  For instance, a population that has coevolved with a variety of religious forms may disperse into a population that has not so coevolved and reduce the fitness of the indigenous population if religions promoting universal altruism are the only religions promoted among the indigenous population (religions promoting reciprocal, or even kin, altruism remaining within the dispersing population).  This appears to have happened when the technical infrastructure of the Roman Empire compensated for the naturally harsh conditions at the frontiers of that Empire creating an environment within which the universal altruism of Christianity was promoted among Europeans by Paul and the other early Christian Proselytes who were Jews.  Jewish religious belief, however, retained its tribal character, expressing both reciprocal and kin altruism.  The result was an extended period of Jewish success in diaspora among Europeans in competition with holders of indigenous niches involving religious beliefs and inter-tribal trade.  This successful displacement of indigenous religions and trade niches has continued till this day (including recent innovations in religion such as Marxist economics, Rosenbaumian philosophy aka “Objectivism”, Boasian anthropology/sociology, Freudian psychology, etc.).  Jews have typically led political movements to liberalize immigration laws for a variety of reasons.  Interestingly, however, anti-immigrationism among Jews has recently arisen.  This appears due to a profound change in Western Civilization resulting from their very success and is largely the result of advancing technologies of the empires of the modern era as they result in integration of immigrants to the West from ecologies closer to human origins than those in which Jews evolved.  Just as religions and peoples coevolved in locations closer to human origins than Europe once displaced indigenous European religions and trade niches, so now cultures from even closer to human origin than the Levant are starting to displace those from the Levant in its niches in the West.

It appears that William H. McNeill was aware of some of these anthro-centric phenomena within his book “Plagues and Peoples” where he discusses the degree to which various populations are “diseased experienced” and even allows that certain memetic forms can act as parasites.  A more general case is made by Alfred W. Crosby in “Ecological Imperialism”. It is significant that both McNeill and Crosby are focused primarily on the most politically fashionable topic of their time (circa 1975-1985) which was the evil of European Imperialism—most specifically the evil of north and western European (Protestant) Imperialism—and seem unable to deal with the fact that sub-Saharan Africa is the source of highly sophisticated and ancient human-borne ecosystems capable of subverting urbane “disease experience” outside of Africa.  The fact that this political fashion corresponded with the time during which Jews were overthrowing “white anglo-saxon protestant” power in the United States (and the peak of the predominantly-Protestant female fertility) via their political movements (as thoroughly documented by Kevin MacDonald in “The Culture of Critique”) adds general credence to the above thesis.

This incursion of coevolved species displacing indigenous species is a form of extended genetic dominance in the sense that the co-evolved species is suppressing the expression of the phenotypes of the indigenous subspecies and allowing the phenotypes of the nonindigenous sub/species to dominate.

THE EXTENDED PHENOTYPE

The aspect of the genetic omni-dominance hypothesis that is most difficult to accept is based on a new and revolutionary way of viewing the relationship between genes and phenotypes within ecological systems christened by Richard Dawkins “the extended phenotype”.

Here is a brief introduction to the concept from the book ”The Extended Phenotype” by Richard Dawkins
  (of which he says “It doesn’t matter if you never read anything else of mine, please at least read this.”):

————BEGIN QUOTE OF DAWKINS FROM “THE EXTENDED PHENOTYPE”————

Let us briefly take stock of where we have reached in our outward march.   The phenotypic expression of a gene can extend outside the cell in which the   genes exert their immediate biochemical influence, to affect gross features   of a whole multicellular body. This is commonplace, and we are conventionally   used to the idea of a gene’s phenotypic expression being extended this far.  

In the previous chapter we took the small further step of extending the phenotype   to artifacts, built by individual behavior which is subject to genetic variation,   for instance caddis houses. Next we saw that an extended phenotype can be   built under the joint influence of genes in more than one individual body.   Beaver dams and termite mounds are collectively built by the behavioral efforts   of more than one individual. A genetic mutation in one individual beaver could   show itself in phenotypic change in the shared success of replication of the   new gene, natural selection would act, positively or negatively, to change   the probability of similar artifacts existing in the future. The gene’s extended   phenotypic effect, say an increase in the height of the dam, affects its chances   of survival in precisely the same sense as in the case of a gene with normal   phenotypic effect, such as an increase in the length of the tail. The fact   that the dam is the shared product of the building behavior of several beavers   does not alter the principle: genes that tend to make beavers build high dams   will themselves, on average, tend to reap the benefits (or costs) of high   dams, even though every dam may be jointly built by several beavers. If two   beavers working on the same dam have different genes for dam height, the resulting   extended phenotype will reflect the interaction between the genes, in the   same way as bodies reflect the gene interactions. There could be extended   genetic analogues of epistasis, of modifier genes, even of dominance and recessiveness.  

————END QUOTE OF DAWKINS FROM “THE EXTENDED PHENOTYPE”————

And thus we see Dawkins, himself, anticipated one of the two key concepts that under-gird the hypothesis of genetic omni-dominance, unifying Mendelian dominance, epistasis and extended phenotypics, just as I have already outlined in The GOD Hypothesis above. The key concept that he misses is actually relatively straightforward once one understands the fundamental role the competition for expression plays in evolution:

A gradient of decreasing dominance from the interior to the periphery of the ecological range, giving rise to greater GOD in the interior than toward the periphery.

THE EVOLUTION OF OMNI-DOMINANCE

As the outgrowth of the struggle for genetic expression, genetic omni-dominance is perhaps the most crucial aspect of the Darwinian struggle for existence. For a genetic system to influence its own destiny, it must be capable of expression. The less capable of expression, the less influence it has over its own destiny.  DNA patterns that are incapable of expression continue to exist only so long as they are not in competition with other genetic systems.  Even in such unrealistically-benign circumstances they will gradually mutate—or drift—into nonexistence.

Within an individual species, or within a co-evolved system of species, a gradient of GOD may exist from the interior to the periphery of its ecological range due to ecological annealing.

“Ecological annealing” is the phrase used rather than mere “adaptation” or “co-adaptation” since we are addressing a large-number effect of genes and their adaptations in an ecosystem, similar to the way statistical mechanics can be applied to the Newtonian mechanics of a large number of “billiard ball” molecules to yield thermodynamics.  Ecological annealing has its analogue in thermal annealing:  a substance can be made stronger by heating it up and then slowly cooling it over a long period of time.  The ecological analogy to heating a substance is ecological instability.  This can happen in a number of ways, but the most common ecological instabilities arise at the boundary of the ecological range where the carrying capacity of old adaptations can be far lower than new adaptations.  Beneficial mutations at the periphery of an ecological range can enjoy dramatic success by expanding the ecological range.  When that happens, a number of other mutations may become beneficial as well and a subspecies emerge.

The struggle for expression, however, continues over time scales longer than the initial struggle for existence.  Why this is so becomes clear when one considers how genes resolve their conflicts with each other that arise, not just between subspecies, but within a subspecies.

If a beneficial trait appears due to a mutation, but that mutation interferes with the expression of another beneficial trait, the individuals carrying the new mutation may survive despite losing the benefit of the old trait.  Furthermore, the selective pressures that gave rise to the original beneficial trait still exist.  Thus additional mutations will tend to re-expresses the original trait.  This process can go one for quite some time before an accomodation is reached between various mutations and the older genes about exactly how they are all to get along and express the best traits.  When they do come to such an accomodation, it is usually because there are multiple ways of expressing the essential aspects of the most important traits so that those traits are stablized in the population.  In the special case of Mendellian dominance, what can happen is that a gene for a critical trait may produce an enzyme or catalyst, so that even in the heterozygous state there is enough of the critical substance to result in the expression of the critical trait.  However the accomodation is reached, the point is that it takes many more generations to evolve dominance than it does to evolve new beneficial traits.

In this sense, “ecological annealing” is the processes by which the self-interested complexes of DNA in the ecosystem arrive at greater levels of stability in their co-evolutionary states.  This ever-greater stability results in higher degrees of robustness against perturbations of all kinds, environmental as well as genetic.  This is a principle defining characteristic of genetic dominance extended to the level of ecosystems—of genetic omni-dominance.

Y CHROMOSOMES

The GOD Hypothesis predicts that the Y chromosome will be a primary locus of
  intraspecific Genetic Omni-Dominance due to the fact that intraspecific competition
  is primarily carried out between males.

From “The History and Geography of Human Genes” 2.4.c “The Y Chromosome”:

“The following notes on the Y chromosome are from an unpublished review by   A. S. Santachiara-Benerecetti. Among the numerous sequences isolated from   the Y chromosome, only a few have Y-specific polymorphisms… The molecular   basis of the variation is not clearly understood, but the system is powerful   in distinguishing ethnic origins…

“In studies on Mediterranean populations (Torroni et al. 1990; A. S. Santachiara-Benerecetti,   unpubl.), several haplotypes showed unusually large variations in frequency   among neighboring populations (Algerians, Tunisians, northern Italians, southern   Italians and Sardinians).

I belabor this point on how “powerful in distinguishing ethnic origins” the
  Y chromosome is because evolutionary ethnology simply cannot advance beyond
  its present primitive state if its scholars fail to bear in mind the primary
  place of male-male competition in intraspecific evolution—and it is all too
  obvious that such failure of intellect is tragically endemic to the discipline.

The GOD hypothesis predicts that when ethnicities disperse further from human origin, their cultural norms will tend to take the offensive at a genetic level. The GOD hypothesis also predicts that when ethnicities disperse closer to human origin, their cultural norms will tend to take the defensive or to die out. “further” and “closer” are in ecological distance which merely correlates with geographic distance.

This is exactly what we observe in the case of the Jewish diaspora, one of the more extreme and well-studied cases of such migrations.

In the case of European Jewery, the dispersion was to further from human origin
  and we see, except for the core population of Cohanim, Jewish identity is matrilineal
  with no formal prohabilition against more recessive males marrying into Jewish
  identity. The recessive Y
  chromosome lineages that marry into the Jewish religion do not seem to have
  had a substantial impact on the long-term dominance of the Cohanim Y chromosome.
  This is exactly the opposite of what we observe in the case of the Lemba—
  the Jews who long ago dispersed to Zimbabwe, closer to human origin. Among the
  Lemba Jews, who share Y chromosome markers with European Cohanim, external Y
  chromosomes are excluded by the patrilineal tribal law of Lemba Judaism, but
  females from outside are not formally prohibited from marrying into Jewish identity.

As mentioned in the introduction to the GOD hypothesis above “This has important
  implications for the relationship between the Major
  Histocompatibility Group genes and sexual attraction - and would predict
  greater signaling/manipulation of MHC disease presence/resistance by males.”

The GOD hypothesis predicts that the Y chromosome will be a very good candidate
  for epistatic or modifier genes that switch on MHC signaling to females—signaling
  that enhances sexual attractiveness of foreign males. This sexual attractiveness
  is multifaceted from an evolutionary point of view:

 
1. Since the male with the foreign Y chromosome has survived invasion of the   deme (a subregion of the ecological range of the species, environmentally   isolated from others within which a subspecies breeds) of which the female   is a member, it is likely the foreign male is competitive.
 
2. Since the foreign male’s arrival is likely not an isolated incident, the   diseases brought by the foreign male’s deme are likely to show up in the female’s   deme soon—and the female urgently needs to acquire the immunities of the   foreign deme for her children—immunities mediated by the MHC group of genes.  
 
3. For demes that have undergone greater ecological annealing, there is generally   a greater likelihood that they have adapted to a wider variety of pathogens,   thereby multiplying the urgency that would accompany a typical incursion of   a foreign deme’s males.

Although only point 2 above has been reported as a hypothetical explanation
  for the observed increases of sexual attractiveness of foreign males, points
  1 and 3 are readily surmised. In the case of 3, the widely accepted practical
  reality of sexual selection during ecological mixing is that more genetically
  dominant males are generally more sexually attractive to more recessive females,
  and that the reciprocal sexual attractions, of recessive males to more genetically
  dominant females, are less common. Marriage statistics between American blacks
  and whites reflect this bias in sexual selection, as
  marriages in which a black male marries a white female are 3 times more common
  than the reverse. While there are many alternative explanations offered for
  this phenomenon, the history of white male violence against black males who
  have sex with white females is clear evidence that sexual jealousy, a primary
  motivator of male on male violence, is at play in interracial relations, exactly
  as is expected from traditional views of racial differences.

The practical reality of this sort of sexual attraction is so well accepted that it forms a common theme in popular culture. For example, from “Jews don’t hitch”: Northern Exposure’s depiction of a Jew’s assimilation to the American Religion by David Porush:

“The most common sign of the Jew’s choice to assimilate is in the automatic   pairing of clearly - almost stereotypically Jewish men to non-Jewish women.   Under Jewish law, a Jewish man must choose a Jewish woman to remain Jewish   and, more importantly, to keep his children Jewish. Yet just the shows in   the last few seasons illustrating this transgression presents a stunning list:   Friends, Seinfeld, Mad About You, Murphy Brown, Beverly Hills, 90210. In persistently   showing the Jew in the last stages of divesting himself of his Jewish religion,   television has taken over the theme from popular films like Abie’s Irish Rose,   The Jazz Singer, Diner, Crossing Delancey, A Gentleman’s Agreement, Annie   Hall, and The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz.”

Of course, this whole issue of “Jewish identity” ignores the flow of Y chromosomes
  into the surrounding, relatively recessive, population and the potential for
  Y resident (as well as other—autosomal—nuclear DNA) GOD to cause a shift in expressed
  characteristics.

Something else Mr. Porush fails to mention about this most interesting series (the exposure of a GOD genotype to a gene pool far from human origin) is an episode in which the most desirable female of this female-starved frontier town has an emotional attachment to a relatively recessive male at the same time that she has unemotional sex with the GOD genotype male. In the final scene of the episode, she confronts them both with the female’s confused state when presented with a choice between the sexual attraction to the genetic omni-dominance, and correlated resistance to disease etc. now arriving from cosmopolitan centers, of the Jewish male and her emotional attachment to the idealistic environmentalist recessive male.

An implied answer is, of course, obvious:

Domestic life with the idealistic recessive male caring for children sired
  by the Jewish male, because one of the chief laws of “The American Religion”
  discussed by Mr. Porush is that “genes don’t matter”—something else that
  Mr. Porush fails to expound upon in his essay on said religion.

MONOGAMY

Harem size will tend to increase with GOD. The relatively obvious reasons for this are two fold:

 
• It is lower status males that tend to be driven to the periphery of the   ecological range.
 
• The periphery of the ecological range has a lower carrying capacity and   therefore requires greater paternal investment for child rearing.

If sexual subspecies can maintain themselves for enough generations, genetic predispositions toward decreasing harem size with decreasing GOD should arise. In extreme cases, this may exhibit itself as monogamy. For the purposes of this article, I’ll call such monogamy Ecologically Imposed Monogamy (EIM) to distinguish it from the Socially Imposed Monogamy (SIM) exhibited in human societies that is a popular topic of study among sociologists. During periods of environmental change, such as that which occurs in human ecologies during the advance of technologies for trade, transport and habitat construction, we should expect to see ethnic conflict centered on the Y chromosome crossing GOD clines, including parasitic castration of indigenous males by males of greater GOD.

A primary failing of the literature on SIM is its lack of attention to:

 
• The underlying genetic predisposition for EIM of populations at the periphery   of human ecological ranges
 
• The disruption of EIM by the introduction of technologies that cause gene-flow   to cross GOD clines (such as the Viking traders) and
 
• The resulting need for SIM to preserve populations that, in their natural   state exhibit EIM (see Tacitus’s Germania for his comment on the manifest   EIM of Germanic tribes where the only exceptions are occasional polygynous   marriages of alliance among the nobles) during periods of such disruption.   Christianity may, therefore, be seen as a SIM necessitated by the increasing   traffic between the northern frontiers of the Roman Empire and the middle   East.

PARASITIC CASTRATION

A genetic omni-dominant phenotype that appears frequently throughout nearly all ecosystems is called “parasitic castration” by ethologists. In parasitic castration, the parasite diverts resources, closely linked to the host’s reproductive behavior, to the general propagation of the parasite’s genes. In the most primitive cases, this starts with the parasite actually eating the gonads of the host male—mechanical castration via tissue consumption. This is quite common as these tissues are not vital for the survival of the individual host and provide a meal for the parasite. But the resources offered by the meal are trivial compared to what comes long after the gonads have been consumed—in the form of resources that would otherwise go to mating investments and nurturing of the host’s offspring that would result from such mating investments.

Despite the rather obvious and overwhelming long-term benefits of host castration to parasites, parasitologists have historically been reluctant to face, squarely, the rather disturbing, from a host’s perspective, idea that there may be more to parasitic castration than a single meal. From Richard Dawkins’ “The Extended Phenotype” chapter “Host Phenotypes of Parasite Genes”:

“For instance, an important review of parasitic castration in Crustacea (Reinhard   1956) is packed with detailed information and speculation on the precise physiological   routes by which parasites castrate their hosts, but is almost devoid of discussion   on why they might have been selected to do so, or whether, instead, castration   is simply a fortuitous byproduct of parasitization.”

However, direct gonadal consumption is not even necessary for the achievement
  of the big long term payoff resulting from diversion of reproductive resources.
  The “chemical castration” that is used as criminal punishment for rapists is
  far more direct even though it does not require mechanical excision of gonads
—and ethologists such as Baudoin have pointed to cases in which parasites
  achieve host castration by synthesis of host hormones—not even bothering
  to consume the gonadal tissues. (With such overwhelming evidence that parasitic
  castration is a highly specific adaptation, not dependent on the immediate nutritional
  value of the gonads, one can only speculate on the possibilty that the thesis
  presented in “Mind Control and The GOD Hypothesis” may be operative among ethologists
  described by Dawkins in the preceding passage.)

TESTOSTERONE AND PARASITIC CASTRATION

Testosterone is a primary hormone produced by male reproductive systems and is an obvious point of attack.  The fascinating thing about testosterone is the variety of ways its levels can be altered without directly removing the testes (male gonads or reproductive glands that produce most testosterone).  For example, diet can profoundly affect testosterone levels.  For 3/4 of the United States population, who are genetically ill-adapted to post-neolithic-revolution dietary patterns, starch (the cheapest source of calories) is at dangerously high levels in their diet (”The Zone”, by Barry Sears, p. 31) .  For males this can directly suppress testosterone levels as well as having a variety of side effects.  For those “Paleolithic” males the author’s advice is “Eat less starch and more protein until you feel better.”  Some minimum level of moderate exercise (at least 20 minutes walking at a moderately fast pace at least every other or third day) is also crucial.

THE AMYGDALA AND PARASITIC CASTRATION

A key structure in human fertility, particularly male fertility, is the amygdala,
  which dramatically reduces in size upon castration.  According to Malsbury and McKay, the amygdala shrinkage can be about 25% within 8 weeks of castration.  (Malsbury, C.W. and K. McKay.  Neurotrophic effects of
    testosterone on the medial nucleus of the amygdala in adult
    male rats. J. Neuroendocrinology, 1994, 6:57-69.)  Although reduction in size
  is not the only way this brain-structure may be reprogrammed to effect parasitic
  castration, it is a possible observable. Furthermore, since large changes in
  human migration patterns have occurred in living memory, there should be plenty
  of intact amygdala specimens that can be correlated with their genotype as well
  as changes in the environmental genotypes that may impose extended phenotypic
  parasitic castration.

During the period of greatest environmental influx of more dominant genes into
  the environments traditionally reserved for more recessive males in the United
  States, autism rates have increased four-fold, from 1 in 2000 before 1970 to
  1 in 500 in 2000. Furthermore, although reporting is always problematic, the
  increases are most apparent in peripheral geographic regions associated with
  more recessive traits that have experienced some of the greatest rates of change
  in geneflow as measured by dominant:recessive ratio—regions such as the Pacific
  Northwest.

Furthermore, as reported in The Geek Syndrome:

In the past decade, there has been a significant surge in the number of kids diagnosed with autism throughout California… Through the ‘90s, cases tripled in California. “Anyone who says this is due to better diagnostics has his head in the sand.”

California is not alone. Rates of both classic autism and Asperger’s syndrome are going up all over the world, which is certainly cause for alarm and for the urgent mobilization of research. Autism was once considered a very rare disorder, occurring in one out of every 10,000 births. Now it’s understood to be much more common - perhaps 20 times more. But according to local authorities, the picture in California is particularly bleak in Santa Clara County.

What genetic change has occurred in Santa Clara more than in California, in California more than in the rest of the world, and in the rest of the world over the last decade, more than other times in history ?

Immigration and high degrees of integration among populations that have undergone very little coevolution.

Furthermore, according to Dr. Jeff Bradstreet a little-mentioned fact is that over 90% of autistics are blood type A.  If true, that would be better than twice the expected frequency for American “whites” and so close to 100% that the probability of it being due to chance is disappearingly small.  Add to that the fact that the only type A blood common among “whites” is called ABO*A2, and that this blood type is centered in northern Scandinavia, according to the gene map on page 3 of the world gene maps in “The History and Geography of Human Genes” (unabridged), and you have a very strong set of cross-checked evidence that what we are witnessing is a syndrome that preferentially attacks people indigenous to the periphery of humanity’s ecological range.

Might we then suspect that autism is an extended phenotype of GOD   populations enjoying greater integration and interpenetration of traditionally   recessive preserves—indeed, parasitic castration involving the human amygdala   just discussed? The clincher seems to appear in the fact that the amygdala,   the brain structure most subject to alteration by castration in males is also   the brain structure observably modified in cases of autism. Furthermore the   preponderance of autistic children are males—a feature that would be predicted   by the emphasis placed on territorial competition among Y chromosomes by the   GOD hypothesis (territorial competition, itself, being most closely associated   with the R complex and, even more specifically, the amygdala). While this sub-hypothesis of autism as amygdala-involved parasitic castration is speculative, the confluence of evidence suggests that genetic omnidominance is at the root of the profound increase in cases of reported autism, and that this class of hypotheses should be investigated by ethical researchers.

Among the biological pathogens that are candidates are viruses which are found with increasing frequency and diversity as human diversity is enforced at every opportunity by governments over recessive demographies. Not only should retroviruses (related to HIV which is known to damage the amygdala and surrounding tissues) be looked into but also the more mundane neural pathogens such as Human Herpes Virus which has also been linked to amygdala damage.

Toward the identification of a specific pathogen whether memetic or genetic, research into the epidemiology of autism can yield clues as to their origin(s).  Such research has proceeded since the development, and under the guidance of the GOD hypothesis.  The results are supportive of the GOD hypothesis via the subhypothesis of autism’s etiology.  The research supports the specific hypothesis that the susceptibility to autism’s recent profound increase is found in the HLA A3 gene, appearing among populations descended from the extreme northern reaches of Europe, and that this susceptibility is somehow potentiated by coming into close environmental contact with recent immigrants from India—thereby resulting in the primary demographic correlate of autism.

EMOTIVE MEMES AS HUMAN PHEROMONES

As discussed above, it is plausible that territorial competition between males
  has resulted in a variety of mechanisms for manipulating the amygdalae of rivals
  via extended phenotypics. The amygdala is a key structure in the processes of
  smell. One of the more plausible neurochemical routes for such genetic omnidominant
  expression would be the emission of olfactory signals. Pheromones are among
  the more evolutionarily sophisticated mechanisms by which such extended phenotypic
  manipulation might occur. In humans, smell has been shown to play some role
  in sexual attractiveness, with some studies indicating a feminine ability to
  discriminate between MHC genotypes with consequences for sexual attractiveness.
  It is natural to presume, therefore, that pheromones play a similar role in
  humans. However, Jacobson’s organ, and the associated structures for the
  neurochemical pathways involving pheromones are, in humans, atrophied compared to their counterparts in other animals. This leads one to suspect that a new
  mechanism has arisen with humans that largely displaces the role played by pheromones
  in other animals. A clue as to what this new mechanism might be can be found
  in the other, primary, function of the amygdala—and that is in the storage
  of emotive memory. In human evolution, memes—replicators that rely on human
  memory as their raw material—are transmitted between humans with sophistication
  that rivals and indeed, in many areas, easily surpasses the sophistication of
  pheromones. Furthermore, such enormous reliance on memes for intraspecific communication
  seems as unique to humans as is the vestigial nature of structures for pheromones.
  It is plausible, therefore, that with the development of neurochemical pathways
  for memes—particularly memes associated with intense emotions—humans lost
  many of the evolutionary pressures that maintain the pheromone-specific neurochemical
  pathways in other animals.

Spatial structure in populations has been shown by Oliphant (Oliphant, M. (1994).
  Evolving cooperation in the non-iterated prisoner’s dilemma: The importance
  of spatial organization. In Brooks, R. and Maes, P. (Eds.) Proceedings of the
  fourth artificial life workshop, pp. 349-352 MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.) to be
  sufficient to evolve memetic capability in kin-based societies. However, in
  non-kin environments, such as those predicted by the genetic omnidominance hypothesis
  to produce intraspecific parasitic castration, one should expect to find Saussurean
  communication progressively degenerating as evolutionary pressure drives the
  expression of increasingly sophisticated means of transmitting emotive memes
  that take up residence as emotive memories in the amygdala of rivals thereby
  reducing their reproductive competence.

INDIRECT CASTRATION

Castration can also be quite indirect. For example, isolating a male from females
  could qualify as a kind of indirect and temporary “castration”. Indeed, some
  forms of male-male competition, particularly within species whose male reproductive
  behavior involves nurturing of young, can be viewed as indirect parasitic castration
—especially if the males so castrated end up with enhanced contributions to
  the reproductive viability of the castrating males.

The GOD Hypothesis predicts that males will be parasitically castrated by other relatively GOD males in a variety of ways. In “Y Chromosomes and The GOD Hypothesis” the importance of male-male competition to intraspecific evolution was emphasized (primarily human evolutionary ethnology), particularly with reference to male fertility rates as they vary with relative genetic omni-dominance within the same community.

Because the word “parasite” usually applies to inter-species competition, the intra-species usage of “parasitic castration” may cause some cognitive dissonance. However, it is easy to see how parasitism applies:

 
• Brood parasites secretly leave their offspring with other species to nurture.   The classic example is the “cuckoo” who secretly lays its eggs in the nests   of other species of birds. If the host species is monogamous, the female is   rendered less sexually receptive to the male by the presence of an additional   gaping mouth to feed and the male can be viewed as having been reproductively   isolated from his female and therefore parasitically castrated.
 
• “cuckold”, which derives from the word “cuckoo”, is a folk term used to   describe intraspecific brood parasitism in humans. In “cuckoldry”, a human   male secretly copulates with a human female who is in a pair-bond with another   human male, leaving the pair-bond to dutifully raise the cuckolder’s offspring   to maturity. In extreme cases, the cuckolded male may find himself divorced   from his wife to raise the child on his own—although this is rare.

Despite appearing to have grown in recent decades, cuckoldry is receiving a good deal of competition from another form of parasitic castration in the rising numbers of childless males since the 1970s in the West—males who nevertheless pay a disproportionate amount of the taxes that provide for the general welfare of children sired by other males.

The data on cuckoldry in urban environments, where we would see greatest GOD
  differentials, is sketchy, but what we see is what would be predicted by the
  GOD hypothesis: Rising cuckoldry rates followed by rising divorce rates followed
  by rising direct access to income by females (avoiding dependency on males)
  coupled with single motherhood and male isolation from fertile sexuality which
  is compensated for by direct access to non-fertile sex by males, such as pornography,
  older women, homosexuality and unstable sexual relationships with single mothers
  followed by a general societal increase in childless bachelorhood.

There is strong circumstantial evidence that the principles outlined in “Mind
  Control and The GOD Hypothesis” are in operation here:

 
• There is an utter absence of published ethnospecific data on cuckoldry.   This may be the real reason for the generally obscure nature of data on cuckoldry   despite, for example, blood banks and divorce courts having collected large   volumes of such data.
 
• It is virtually taboo to even hypothesize the causes and effects of feminism   and the sexual revolution in terms that derive from ethnic biases in cuckoldry   subsequent to urbanization of historically rural populations.

As an example of this bias in thinking and its consequences, the feminist book,
  “Women of Tomorrow” written by Yvonne Baskin for Bob Guccione’s wife, Kathy
  Keeton (a former stripper from South Africa who helped with Guccione’s sexual
  revolutionary Penthouse magazine and founded the science and technology oriented
  OMNI magazine), was published in the mid 1980s. In it, Baskin takes a surprisingly
  conciliatory tone given the intensely hostile attitudes toward men by feminists
  during that period (the peak of boomer female fertility). However, Baskin blames
  feminism on a generalized male propensity to break their marriage vows and initiate
  divorce—however 2 out of 3 divorces are initiated by women.  Perhaps men are philandering within marriage more and this violation of marriage vow is the predominant cause of the increase in women filing for divorce?  If so the subject is never broached let alone investigated in such a way as to lighten the darkness of clandestine sexual affairs and how they distribute among men of various backgrounds

Feminist accusations of this nature in mass media publications impact all male-female relationships, but the GOD hypothesis predicts the impact on actual fertile couplings will be greatest on couplings involving males of lowest status, greatest predisposition toward monogamy and lesser GOD—resulting in a form of parasitic castration for those males.

Guccione, a mass media publisher widely reputed to be connected with Mediterranean mafias, is reasonably seen as being of greater GOD than the males likely to be most impacted by Baskin’s accusations, which were read by a good many technically oriented males under the influence of Keeton’s OMNI magazine—accusations which were made and published with Guccione’s resources. Further, both Baskin and Guccionne’s wife were of lesser GOD and therefore predicted by the GOD hypothesis to express Guccione’s extended phenotypes and therefore the interests of his Y Chromosome over the interests of Y Chromosomes with which they may be more closely related.

The purpose of this illustration is not to rile up anger against Guccione, nor even the Mediterranean mafias. I seriously doubt Guccione or his associates that met with him occasionally at the Isle of Malta would have been thinking about their feminist extended phenotypics anymore consciously than an occasional ethnic joke such as about how German women prefer Italian men to possessive German men.

But reality is not so kind as to allow us full access to all of our unconscious motives, let alone automatic biophysical effects on the world.

It is instructive that Baskin went on to write a book titled “The Gene Doctors” and has most recently authored a book “The Work of Nature: How the Diversity of Life Sustains Us” with a foreword written by Paul Ehrlich. Ehrlich, a Stanford University professor of Jewish heritage, had a profoundly negative impact on male-female relationships among the leadership of the rural Midwest via his Zero Population Growth movement. It is significant that much of this indoctrination occurred from the pulpits of their liberal Protestant churches, calling on their moral capacity to voluntarily cease reproduction for the good of the planet while he, himself, sired 4 children. Guccione had 5 children, although he never advocated population or fertility reduction among Baskin’s coethnics as did Ehrlich. Yvonne Baskin, to the best of my knowledge, had no children with her husband of lesser GOD.

Like all case histories, this is merely illustrative of a more general hypothetical
  condition under which we all operate, but we don’t need to look very far to
  find plenty of support:

PRISONER RAPE

“The first night I was approached by three men. Two of them were about my size and the third was about 9 kilos and 15cms smaller. They asked who I was and what I was in for. I told them and then one of them asked if I had ever been fucked. I said, “no, and I wasn’t planning on it”. He said, “we’re going to fuck you”.

“I was filled with fear like I had never felt before. I swung at him with a left hook and as he blocked it his partner swung and hit me in the face knocking me to the floor. One of them grabbed me by the hair and slammed my face into the concrete, knocking me out.

“When I woke I was on my stomach. My pants had been pulled off; my legs were spread wide apart, with one guy sitting on each leg and the other guy laying on my back. The guy on top was slapping me awake and said “I want you to feel this.”

Example of imprinting an emotive memory on the amygdala of a young man, excerpted from “Fear or favour: sexual assault of young prisoners”, by David Heilpern

Guccione’s own Penthouse magazine carried an article in its August 1995 issue titled “Prisoner Rape: Every Man’s Greatest Fear” which documents the pervasive terror of the government experienced by the very men who pay the most taxes. Being brutally feminized by the government that has taken on the role of protector and provider for much of the female population is a fundamental shift in gender relations, but like virtually all intraspecific parasitic castration, it has hit males with the least genetic omni-dominance hardest.

According to a quote of a black prisoner in the book No Escape: Male Rape in US Prisons by Joanne Mariner of the Human Rights Watch:

“The belief that all or most white men are effete or gay is very prevalent…”

According to Jim Hogshire, author of “You Are Going to Prison”:

“Prisoner Rape, especially gang rape, is almost exclusively a black on white   occurrence. More than 90% of prison rapists are black and the instance of   a white raping a black is rarest of all… Most victims are young and white.”  

What Hogshire fails to mention, but which is often mentioned in the literature, is that the market for sex slaves in the prison system, like the market for Russian sex slaves in Israel, targets young blond and red haired people most heavily, in this case males, for adopting the feminine sexual role. Documents from Stop Prisoner Rape discuss the distinction between non-Mediterranean European cultures and Mediterranean European cultures when it comes to retaining or abrogating male sexual identity in prisoner rape—with Mediterranean males more likely to retain their male sexual identity and non-Mediterranean European males more likely to “go punk”, ie: take on a feminine identity. Although the Home Box Office network has carried a fictional series called “Oz” which attempts to portray this differently—that Jews and Italians are targeted more than are Protestant heritage males—one must recall that the motion picture industry continues to be dominated by people of Mediterranean extraction.

The fact that many recessive males turn to gang formation should be no surprise since much of the immunity to prisoner gang rape enjoyed by Mediterranean and black males derives from their criminal gang organizations whose reach extends into the prison system. However, the recessive male gangs are under the additional burden of being uniquely demonized by the government and political hierarchy as “Nazi”. Therefore, any attempts to form effective self-protection groups are more vigorously attacked by prison officials than are similar attempts by other ethnicities. It should be no surprise that black men are killed by these would be “Nazis” at a higher frequency than are the “Nazis” killed by black men, despite the fact that it results in life imprisonment for the “Nazi” whereas prisoner gang rape results in far lesser punishments in those exceedingly rare cases where it is reported, assuming prosecution is successful.

This situation—in which the government selectively targets recessive males for parasitic castration via prisoner gang rape and high rates of taxation in support of women’s material and physical security (including their children who are sired by more genetically dominant men)—is a relatively recent innovation outside of societies with much greater harem sizes and corresponding genetic omni-dominance.  It may well reflect extended phenotypic omni-dominance at the level of the overall culture and its governance as it has become infused with individuals of said omni-dominance.

Finally, a casual walk through any video store, counting the phenotypes, demonstrates that Hollywood, where the decision makers are more GOD than the population among whom they have traditionally operated, generally portrays recessive phenotypes as secondary sexual characteristics of females. While some have argued that within a given demography, females have somewhat less pigmentation than males the extremes to which this has been exaggerated in media may be the most intensive form of parasitic castration manifest in the daily life of the West.

THE FINAL SOLUTION TO THE JEWISH QUESTION

Much has been made of the role of Jews in Western Civilization.  Most of the debate can be compressed in the following perspective derived directly from the GOD Hypothesis:

Think variance, not mean.

For example, the important figure in a highly centralized and specialized civilization isn’t so much the average IQ of a genetic group but how many of its members are geniuses rare enough in the overall population that they can occupy those central points of control?

Once those control points are occupied, ethnic nepotism can do the rest.

The way you accomplish this is through a combination of heterozygosity (which results in higher variance in characteristics) and intense selection pressure, which assures variance in the desired dimension(s).

This pattern is known to hold to a significant degree in European nations.

Source: Buj, V., 1981, Average IQ values in various European countries, Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 168-169
Source: Greek IQ by Dienekes Pontikos

Any relatively dominant genetic group will have more heterozygosity.

All they need to replicate the phenomenon of takeover of central points of control is a diaspora into a relatively recessive population that has undergone “civilizing”.

Make no mistake: Blacks are on their way.

Higher-than mean IQ with low variance characterizes northern Europeans and is almost certainly due to their relative homozygosity, recessivity and need for self-reliance/individualism as opposed to specialization.

Thus we should expect Jews, a group with one of the longest histories of successful dispersion into more recessive demes as those recessive demes have become more civilized, to dominate positions of influence and to exhibit ethnic nepotism within those positions of influence.  This of course results in a profound tension between the recessive demes and the Jewish deme with the long history of “anti-Semitism” the result.

Indeed, there is evidence that among Ashkenazi Jews, who represent Jewish group with the most influence and greatest number of geniuses per capita of any ethnic group, there are multiple recessive homozygous diseases such as Tay-Sachs, affecting the central nervous system that are a direct result of genes that increase intelligence in the heterozygous state.

The real “final solution” to this “Jewish question” is not to exterminate Jews or even eliminate the genes for their genetic diseases, but to:

1. Terminate their positions of trust and authority over other peoples where conflicts of ethnic interest are a fundamentally flawed ethical foundation for society, and
2. Preserve their genetic heritage for the benefit of all humanity, but in their own society where their ethnic nepotism will have the least conflict of interest with others.
3. Continue and increase the already wide-spread practice among some Rabbis of putting Jewish couples through genetic testing to warn them of any potential match-ups between these potentially deliterious recessive genes.

This implies a kind of preservationist, as opposed to supremacist, Zionism.

The Oslo Accords are a good, and politically acceptable, start, but the idea of preventing ethnic conflicts of interest by separating ethnic groups is so vigorously opposed—particularly by those groups benefitting from such conflicts of interest—that it is nearly impossible to accomplish without violence.  Let us hope for some sort of new Enlightenment that will remove the recent dark ages of ignorance about human biodiversity and ethnic nepotism, and also hope that the religious wars that so characterized the Protestant reformation’s prelude to the Enlightenment are somehow rendered an unnecessary concomitant.

MIND CONTROL

When mental processes—particularly those concerning the genetics of kin identification and reproduction—are up for grabs, the GOD hypothesis predicts genetic omni-dominance will override the mental processes of individuals of lesser GOD producing behavior that seems bizarre if one does not consider the externality of the genes being served by said behavior.

For example, arguing in good faith about genetics with those subject to the “logical fallacies” of “political correctness” is frequently akin to arguing with the bee in the following passage from “The Extended Phenotype” by Richard Dawkins chapter titled “Host Phenotypes of Parasite Genes”:

“Many fascinating examples of parasites manipulating the behavior of their   hosts can be given. For nematomorph larvae, who need to break out of their   insect hosts and get into water where they live as adults, ‘...a major difficulty   in the parasite’s life is the return to water. It is, therefore, of particular   interest that the parasite appears to affect the behavior of its host, and   “encourages” it to return to water. The mechanism by which this is achieved   is obscure, but there are sufficient isolated reports to certify that the   parasite does influence its host, and often suicidally for the host… One   of the more dramatic reports describes an infected bee flying over a pool   and, when about six feet over it, diving straight into the water. Immediately   on impact the gordian worm burst out and swam into the water, the maimed bee   being left to die’ (Croll 1966).”

We can rest assured the bee was not thinking “I must atone for the abuses to which my species’ immune system has put the poor little nematomorph larvae throughout our history of coevolution together. Therefore, with full knowledge and forethought, I now die for my little friend inside, and it I feel _so good about myself_!” despite how impressive our little parable of “the politically correct bee” is. However, when the mental processes are as complex as those supported by human nervous systems, the GOD influences of parasite genes may be masked in entire academic and theological disciplines with libraries filled with the scholarly works of the generations.

The fact that such genetically suicidal behavior is almost entirely on behalf of more GOD gene pools—with the most extremes of “political correctness” exhibited by the most recessive gene pools ecologically furthest from human origin, in places like Stockholm, Sweden (one of the last benefactors of Zimbabwe’s Mugabe regime to withhold its enormous monetary gifts during Zimbabwe’s extended low level war against white farmers) or Seattle, Washington (the Gates Foundation gives more to benefit sub-Saharan African populations than any other) expressing altruism toward places closest to human origin—is something directly predicted by the GOD hypothesis. Likewise it is unsurprising when populations not so far from human origins are less charitable toward those populations even nearer to human origins.  Take, for example, this quote:

“Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted
upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw
Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a
certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in
indolence and nakedness.”

—Mahatma Ghandi Collected Works II p. 74

Lest the dramatic example of the _internal_ parasite leave some wondering how genes _external_ to a body might lead to the control of that body’s nervous system, I’ll further transcribe from the introduction of the chapter “Host Phenotypes of Parasite Genes”:

“This chapter will develop two further ideas. One is that phenotypes that   extend outside the body do not have to be inanimate artefacts: they can themselves   be built of living tissue. The other idea is that whenever there are ‘shared’   genetic influences on an extended phenotype, the shared influences may be   in conflict with each other rather than cooperative. The relationships we   shall be concerned with are those of parasites and their hosts. I shall show   that it is logically sensible to regard parasite genes as having phenotypic   expression in host bodies and behavior.”

And now the closing of that chapter:

“But we have not yet reached the end of our continuum of proximity. Not all   parasites live physically inside their hosts. They may even seldom come into   contact with their hosts. A cuckoo is a parasite in very much the same way   as a fluke. Both are whole-organism parasites rather than tissue parasites   or cell parasites. If fluke genes can be said to have phenotypic expression   in a snail’s body, there is no sensible reason why cuckoo genes should not   be said to have phenotypic expression in a reed warbler’s body. The difference   is a practical one, and a rather smaller one than the difference between,   say, a cellular parasite and a tissue parasite. The practical difference is   that the cuckoo does not live inside the reed warbler’s body, so has less   opportunity for manipulating the host’s internal biochemistry. It has to rely   on other media for its manipulation, for instance sound waves and light waves.   As discussed in Chapter 4, it uses a supernormally bright gape to inject its   control into the reed warbler’s nervous system via the eyes. It uses an especially   loud begging cry to control the reed warbler’s nervous system via the ears.   Cuckoo genes, in exerting their developmental power over host phenotypes,   have to rely on action at a distance.”

And finally, scholars of revolutions may find the following passage from chapter 4, “Arms Races and Manipulation” particularly interesting:

“Several species of ant have no workers of their own. The queens invade nests   of other species, dispose of the host queen, and use the host workers to bring   up their own reproductive young. The method of disposing of the queen varies.   In some species, such as the descriptively named Bothriomyrmex regicidus and   B. decapitans, the parasite queen rides about on the back of the host queen   and then, in Wilson’s (1971) delightful description, ‘begins the one act for   which she is uniquely specialized: slowly cutting off the head of her victim’   (p. 363).”

“Monomorium santschii achieves the same result by more subtle means. The   host workers have weapons wielded by strong muscles, and nerves attached to   the muscles; why should the parasite queen exert her own jaws if she can subvert   the nervous systems controlling the numerous jaws of the host workers? It   does not seem to be known how she achieves it, but she does: the host workers   kill their own mother and adopt the usurper. A chemical secreted by the parasite   queen seems the likely weapon, in which case it might be labeled a pheromone,   but it is probably more illuminating to think of it as a formidably powerful   drug. In line with this interpretation, Wilson (1971, p 413) writes of symphylic   substances as being ‘more than just elementary nutritive substances or even   analogues of the natural host pheromones. Several authors have spoken of a   narcotizing effect of symphylic substances.’ Wilson also uses the word ‘intoxicant’   and quotes a case in which worker ants under the influence of such a substance   become temporarily disoriented and less sure of their footing.”

“Those who have never been brainwashed or addicted to a drug find it hard   to understand their fellow men who are driven by such compulsions. In the   same naive way we cannot understand a host bird’s being compelled to feed   an absurdly oversized cuckoo, or worker ants wantonly murdering the only being   in the whole world that is vital to their genetic success. But such subjective   feelings are misleading, even where the relatively crude achievements of human   pharmacology are concerned. With natural selection working on the problem,   who would be so presumptuous as to guess what feats of mind control might   not be achieved?”

When we see words such as “prejudice” and “discrimination” used in morally perjorative and even medically diagnostic ways that are otherwise indistinguishable from “knowledge”, “wisdom” and “discernment”—particularly in the areas of thought about “genes”—who would be so presumptuous as to assert no genetic interests are at work generating emotional confusion of clear headedness?

Finally, Dawkins completes this paragraph on mind control with a warning:

“Do not expect to see animals always behaving in such a way as to maximize   their own inclusive fitness. Losers in an arms race [genetic omni-recessives   —jab] may behave in some very odd ways indeed. If they appear disoriented   and unsure of their footing, this may be only the beginning.”