Posted by PF on Fri, 05 Jan 2007 02:36 | #

JB wrote:

~So the hypothesis is this:  Jews are a subspecies of humans coupled with a particular meme complex, whose purpose it is to subvert European societies to the point that Islam’s moral system appears less toxic than the restricted options made available by Jews to Europeans.~

But following a previous metaphor, if a patient contracts AIDS, and then dies of pneumonia, wouldn\‘t this be the equivalent of saying that the purpose of AIDS was to let the patient succumb to pneumonia?

AIDS, like anything else thats alive (see Selfish Gene), doesnt have any purpose aside from its own propagation, because thats the only purpose thats evolutionarily stable.

I see little empirical validation for this hypothesis in current events. If it is simply suggested to provide a new way of conceptualizing middle-east group conflict, I see little practicality, because it doesnt help to more clearly understand anything. I think it confounds two distinct and distinctly opposed threats from two different groups, and if this hypothesis were to really be used as the basis for understanding anything, the person carrying out the analysis would be hopelessly confused in understanding strategy, tactics, and underlying motives of all parties involved. So the person who believes what is written above is in a very bad position to try and understand the world from.

Another reason why this hypothesis should not have been allowed to appear on MajorityRights is this: it is a fabulous sort of wives-tale on the all-decisive issue of the JQ. While it profits us not at all, it is one more gem of an absurd theory for those who want to argue an inept handling of the JQ on MajorityRights. Its one more delusion for people at The Inverted World and Larry Austers View From the Right to laugh and giggle about, and hold up to scorn.

Posted by Billy Joe Daniels on Fri, 05 Jan 2007 02:55 | #

Per James Bowery: “Semites and north Africans have a history of conflict with Europeans going back a very long time—long enough that they may have created/evolved biological weapons targeting Europeans.”

This is a fascinating suggestion. If 50 generations is all it takes for subspeciation, then there has been time enough from the Arabic Semitic war with Christendom since the 700’s for this to be possible. At 20 years per generation, it has been 60 generations since the seizure of the Iberian Peninsula, North Africa, and Southwest Asia from Christendom, heir of the Roman Empire, and mother to Europe.

We mustn’t forget that the non-Arabic Semitic branch left Southwest Asia long before that and infiltrated the settlements of Europeans for at least 2,000 years and, at 20 years per generation, there have been 100 generations since this influx.

“E. O. Wilson in “On Human Nature” estimates 50 generations is all it takes for mere selective pressure to significantly subspeciate and if we look at the dawn of civilization, when animal husbandry may have been generalized to human husbandry, it is reasonable to conjecture that some very long-lived civilizations may have bred subspecies of humans for very specific purposes.”

Subspeciation amongst humans is certainly possible. The Asian Indians tried it with the caste system to some effect, and we see that separated human populations sometimes move quickly to impressive phenotype distinctions. Compare Samoans to Japanese for somewhat of an example.

“Now, admittedly Islam is a very young religion compared to this history, but it may be that Islam is largely an extended phenotype of the semitic and north African peoples—one which, like Christianity, transfers loyalty for family and ethny to a larger memetically controlled group which may itself be controlled by a hypocritical ethnic elite that taxes the large memetically controlled multi-ethnic population.”

The beauty of the overall comment is its implicit recognition that both branches of the Semitic peoples share numerous characteristics which are held firmly even in this age. These characteristics include a kind of hysterical tendency rarely approached in the European peoples, an interest in infant male sexual mutilation, an unearned sense of superiority, shared burial practices, and many others. What the Jews do in 100 years, the other Semitic branch wants to do in 20 years, but there is literally no difference in what the Semitic branches want, namely, dominance over those nearby. Both Semitic branches endorse the practices found in the Book of Joshua, whichever can get its boot on the neck of others first is entirely willing to do so. Both branches endorse assassination and genocide for others, and sometimes for each other.

“So the hypothesis is this: Jews are a subspecies of humans coupled with a particular meme complex, whose purpose it is to subvert European societies to the point that Islam’s moral system appears less toxic than the restricted options made available by Jews to Europeans.”

While Occam would have a problem with the hypothesis as stated, it is a remarkably fruitful hypothesis and offers many questions from an unusual point of view. That Jews could have been bred as agents for Islam (or presumably pre-Islamic EGI) is certainly novel.

The entire hypothesis does do something this web site needs and that is the wedding of genetics and EGI with the very well documented hatred of European societies by Jews. This is the first time I have seen such a marriage on this web site, and it offers a lot of food for thought.

One piece of evidence in support would be the fact that, to Europeans, Jewish literature has praised Islamic society as superior to mere Christianity for a long time. This has largely ended since the last two years, but the literary record is loaded with unbalanced and dishonest descriptions of Islamic society compared with Christian society. Anyone who has read Bernard Lewis before 2000 and who reads him now will be struck by his sudden appreciation for Christian society over that offered by Islamic society.

But I must say that seeing Jews as an advance guard of Arabic Semites to soften up European society to provide an advantage to Islamic invaders has its shortcomings. We do know that Jews welcomed Islamic invaders in the Iberian Peninsula and throughout Central & Eastern Europe, but that could indicate hatred for the hosts of whatever lands they inhabit.

The hypothesis would be strengthened if some connection were made to the Jewish matriarchy practices in combination with male social & political dominance. There is something going on with tribal and religious affiliation depending on the female line while property and inheritances take place through the male line.

Thanks to James Bowery for taking this innovative way of looking at events.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 05 Jan 2007 04:34 | #

PF (presumably my recently-appeared nemesis “Pobble-Face”) writes: But following a previous metaphor, if a patient contracts AIDS, and then dies of pneumonia, wouldn\’t this be the equivalent of saying that the purpose of AIDS was to let the patient succumb to pneumonia?

Unlikely but perhaps.  There are parasites that have sophisticated strategies to facilitate their transmission.  The question of extended genetic dominance arises—which genotype is the (extended) phenotype serving?  We can presume that the HIV is serving its own interests and only incidentally the interests of opportunistic infections.  Certainly there may be ambiguous cases where the extended phenotype is serving both but the same may be said of sexually transmitted diseases that, for instance, make the vector “sexier”.

But part of the problem here is the profound self-destruction and denial of same going on amongst Jews as they dismantle the European cultures upon which they depend.  There is stupidity but is stupidity really adequate here or is slavery required to explain the behavior?

Posted by anothercommenter on Fri, 05 Jan 2007 04:52 | #

While I much enjoy Bowery’s hypotheses and speculations, this current one should be reworked to take in account pre-Mohammed mischief.

While I am at it, I would like to comment on Bowery’s GOD hypothesis.  He has a concept of ‘annealing’ - which if I understand it correctly, he invented to describe what Jews do.  To test my understanding:  One example of annealing would be the way Jewish people go into exile and then return to their homeland to genocide the descendants of Jews who stayed behind.  I count three examples.  After their captivity in Egypt, after their captivity in Babylon and the current state of Israel.  In each time, they return to kill related peoples who inhabit Israel.  There may be more examples in history which I do not know about.  There may be many, many more cycles of annealing if one counts all the expulsions from European countries.  The process of annealing is that Jews seek out opportunites to dominate people.  The genetics changes through harsh selection pressure and also somewhat through intermarriage.  The dominated people, after time, get sick of it and mobilize against them.  Thus the Jews have to find a new land filled with opportunities. 

Another comment:  Cromwell isn’t the only one to blame.  “For example, to finance his conquest of England, William of Orange turned to the Dutch Jewish financiers who, descended from Spanish exiles, had helped to make Holland a major commercial center and played an important role in the finances of the Dutch state.  In 1688, William obtained a loan of two million gulden from the Lopez Suasso family.  After he secured control of the English throne, William encouraged a number of Jewish financiers, most notably the Machado and Pereire families, to move to London where they fnanced William’seffort to form a military coalition against Louis XIV.”  - Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace, p. 16

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 05 Jan 2007 05:19 | #

Billy Joe Daniels writes: There is something going on with tribal and religious affiliation depending on the female line while property and inheritances take place through the male line.

Since the Y chromosome correlates most strongly with territory, it makes perfect sense why the property and inheritances go though the male line.

The tricky thing here with the matriline and religious identity of Jews is precisely where I differ with Keven McDonald:  My working hypothesis is that the indoctrinability of Jews is not, as McDonald claims, a characteristic of Jews but rather a characteristic of those peoples they are invading.  Matrlineal descent of religious identity means that when a male of local identity marries into Judaism, his children are:

<ol><li>More easily indoctrinated than other Jews<li>More vulnerable to exploitation by religious communitarian defection</ol>

I suspect this is part of the reason there is so little observed impact on the Jewish gene pool by indigenous Y chromosomes despite matrilineal descent of Judaism.

Indeed, Jewish evolution selects strongly for the expression of hypocrisy among the territorial expansionism of their patrilines.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 05 Jan 2007 05:55 | #

anothercommenter writes: While I much enjoy Bowery’s hypotheses and speculations, this current one should be reworked to take in account pre-Mohammed mischief.

I was being a bit tendentious to get a point across about the self-destructiveness of Jews.  As I said, this is much older than Islam but Islam may be fair game since Islam appears poised to be the ultimate way European monogamy—first ecologically imposed and then in history socially imposed (Christianity)—may be destroyed to make way for more r-strategic polygynous subspecies of humans.  Polygynous humans are obviously better adapted to high caloric availability provided by technological civilization than are monogamous subspecies—as long as the technical infrastructure built by the monogamous subspecies holds together.  What Jews have done with urbanization is replace Christian monogamy with de facto polygyny that their academic authorities usually term “serial monogamy” (it’s really serial polygyny).  Basically Islam isn’t as sadistic toward monogamous subspecies since its polygyny is open and honest.

This is one of the reasons I’m not so sanguine that “civilization” is a good thing.  Any “civilization” that doesn’t have a built-in self-destruct mechanism the moment its eugenic morals are usurped is simply too much of a hazard—sort of like a poorly constructed building that is unfit for human habitation—and must be razed before it exterminates those who built it by attracting usurpers.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 05 Jan 2007 07:11 | #

With all due respect, to James, the theory does not make sense in light of the evolution, for example, of syphilis.

A new study at Queen Mary, University of London shows that syphilis adapted from a severe illness, which debilitated sufferers and repelled potential sexual partners, to a milder form of the disease, in order to survive.

The new theory, by Dr Robert Knell at Queen Mary’s School of Biological Sciences, suggests that when syphilis first appeared it was too virulent for its own good. Many of the early symptoms of the epidemic – such as disfiguring pustules on the face accompanied by a foul smell – would have been obvious to any potential sexual partners of a sufferer, enabling people to avoid the infected person and thereby reducing transmission.

Given that survival is evolution’s main criteria, if Judaism wished to survive in the Christian hosts it’s best strategy would be to modify its virulence and thus enhance transmission. However, the opposite appears to be the case.

Dr Knell says: “Syphilis changed from a virulent disease to a relatively mild one in a very short period. Our use of antibiotics to treat it means that it may still be evolving towards lower virulence. Syphilis is rare nowadays but its incidence is rapidly increasing, and in recent outbreaks in the UK some of those infected noticed no symptoms at all. This could have serious implications concerning the spread of infectious diseases such as HIV because the chance of contracting HIV through heterosexual sex with someone who is HIV positive is about thirty times greater if you have syphilis.”

A latent syphilis enhances the transmission of HIV probably, at least for now, incidentally. IMO a more plausible argument is that the effect of the Jewish war and the destruction of Jerusalem, by the Romans, on the infant Christian Church may have been so profound that it produced such a transformation that, after AD 70, Christianity became almost a completely new movement.  Christianity evolved rapidly into a much less virulent Judaism. Ultimately, and probably incidentally initially, enhanced the survival of the Jewish Diaspora and now Islam in the Christian host.

Bold hypothesis: Christianity is a Semitic Weapon.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:08 | #

Certainly, having a universal altruistic religion (Chistianity) provide the substrate for expansion of a reciprocal altruistic religion/ethny (Judaism) is primae facie evidence for exploitation—particularly when coupled with the fact that both religions originate with the ethny maintaining its ability to reciprocate.  But if so, Christianity simply resolves to a facet of Jewish subversion of European culture and begs the question.

I suspect the important thing about the Roman Empire cum Christianization was that it replaced a key European eugenic practice, formalized single combat to the death as the appeal of last resort in dispute processing, with the centralization of sovereignty necessary for Semites to take theocratic control over Europeans.  Formal single combat as the appeal of last resort in dispute processing allowed Europeans to maintain low male to female gender ratios characteristic of their paleolithic environment, despite the lower mortality male rates implied by agriculture during the neolithic, and do so without mass warfare.    Removal of that eugenic tradition was necessary for Semitic verbal manipulators to centralize authority and occupy the resulting positions of moral authority within European societies that were characteristic of neolithic societies in the middle east.  I suspect Christianity’s socially imposed monogamy was a compromise reached between Jews and Goths as they allied to dismantle the Roman Empire—the precursor to Christendom.

In that respect Christianity’s socially imposed monogamy might be seen as “cowpox” compared to the “smallpox” we’re now seeing, and which was apparently starting to emerge during the latter stages of the Roman Empire’s decadence.  But this “cowpox” seemed to have a more general immune suppression that grew over time till Christianity is generally downright hostile to European nations now.  The sole exception worth note is probably Orthodox Christianity’s allowance for particularism, suh as Greek Orthodox, vs Russian Orthodox.  This may be a major reason why Russia is becoming seen as “anti-Semitic”.

Posted by Mother Ecclesiastica on Mon, 08 Jan 2007 07:12 | #

Re: Subspeciation in Humans.

I am Nigger-bred.
My Mum was, too.
She was very proud of it: I couldn’t understand why…

I am what used to be known in Britain as a White Nigger.  Not only was there no insult in that description: it was considered to be a highly desirable set of genetics.

In the early 1990’s, I met a full blood Niggerwoman.  She and I became reasonably good friends…  It was she who recognised The Nigger in me.  I hadn’t mentioned it, since for me it was just another one of my Mother’s “Stories from Another Land”.  (i.e. England)

My friend was born in Haiti.
She was smuggled into England, at the age of eight, to pose as a child of a married couple who were trying to stop a deportaton order being enacted against them…..

As soon as there was a ‘child female’ in the equation: the three of them were granted the right to stay in UK and later citizenship.

Back to Subspeciation of Humans.
My friend informed me that while she was living in London and working at the Great Ormond St Hospital, she had done much research on Niggers at the London Public Library.  She was intrigued to know what it was that made Niggers so sure that THEY were the ‘perfect race’.  She found out.  She was disgusted.

Think Slave Trade.  Think Brand Name.  Think human husbandry.  Think systematic infanticide. Think castration of young males who were deemed to be ‘below quality standards’. Think breeding slaves to order. 

Think Big Money.
“Nigger” was a brand name for slaves. It was the best brand for sex/companion slaves.  Living sculptures.  Beauty by the shipload. Male or female. Virgin or versatile. Orders accepted. You may have to wait a few years until it’s properly trained to suit your tastes. Very expensive. Credit cards accepted.

Methinks, it would take much less than 50 generations to produce a subspecies of humans using such callous breeding and culling methods. Perhaps five generations.

The Nigger People were a matriarchal and matrilineal society. Nigger men owned nothing: they were owned.

This “lets breed ourselves a new race for specific purposes and make a whopping profit” was standard procedure in Africa from pre-Roman times. As it was and still is in many parts of the world today.

Arabs and Pakistanis and Japanese come most readily to mind at the moment when thinking of self-professed Pure Races.

Posted by PF on Mon, 08 Jan 2007 08:07 | #

Im afraid Im lost in a whirlwind of sociology and sociobiological terms.

~The beauty of the overall comment is its implicit recognition that both branches of the Semitic peoples share numerous characteristics which are held firmly even in this age.~

One could point out these parallels without implying that group A was using group B as a weapon.

~ My working hypothesis is that the indoctrinability of Jews is not, as McDonald claims, a characteristic of Jews~

I don\‘t remember McDonald claiming that \‘indoctrinability is a characteristic of ....\’ Can you site that?

~That Jews could have been bred as agents for Islam (or presumably pre-Islamic EGI) is certainly novel.~

Is any person from among the many common sense posters on here reading this except me? Non-Arab Semites have been *bred* as *Agents for Islam*.

You do understand the difference between unintentionally serving a rival\‘s purpose and serving it intentionally? Where would the historical evidence be for this *breeding of Islamic agents?*

For this to be true, Islamic or pre-Islamic Arabs would have to have masterminded and programmed Jewish culture. Seriously though, what kind of wild *hypothesizing* is going on here?

Heres my *careful* hypothesis: Non-Arab Semite influence on the West has had the effect of delegitimizing its ethnocentric imperatives and the defense mechanisms which flow from them: leaving Western nations open to takeover by groups holding to an expansionist, implicitly ethnocentric ideology.

Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:57 | #

“You do understand the difference between unintentionally serving a rival\’s purpose and serving it intentionally? Where would the historical evidence be for this *breeding of Islamic agents?*”

You do understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, don’t you?

Why don’t you do some craeative thinking of your own, instead of mocking others’?

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 08 Jan 2007 20:03 | #

Intentionality isn’t operationally relevant to the hypothesis, which is why in my original message I used the construction “created/evolved”.

The reason it isn’t operationally relevant is because the number of generations is large enough (given the definition of “Islam” as an extended phenotype of semitic/north Africans) to allow for evolution given the right selective pressures.

If we want to get into intentional human husbandry—where people are consciously observing European human ecologies and their interactions with various types, it is obvious that the number of generations is much larger than that required. 

It’s rather funny to see “Pobble Face”, whoever he is, taking the same stance as Richard Dawkins with respect to human husbandry.  Dawkins also claims that there is no evidence for intentional breeding of humans by other humans.  The reason this is funny is because this is a cornerstone of Dawkins’ studious ignorance of human genetic behavioral ecology—the other being what might be called “memetic determinism”.  Its obvious that people have bred other people in slave societies, and slave societies are old news.

Posted by PF on Mon, 08 Jan 2007 22:47 | #

>Why don’t you do some craeative thinking of your own, instead of mocking others’?>

Why cant we have a WN website that takes science seriously?
I think science is about 10% creative thinking and about 90% empiricism, method, meticulousness.

For me personally, the reason I am irked by this stuff, is that talking like this and calling it science is dishonest in my eyes.

Rather than a crazy experimental cocktail of sociobiology and selfish-gene theory, why dont we have an article explaining what horizontal gene transmission is, for example? It would only last 2 paragraphs and we would all know something genuinely real. Talk about the Darwinian Threshhold, which is something that (theoretically) exists. What I see presented here is presented on the basis of it appearing plausible, that sounds like an basic drawing-board idea, not a finished hypothesis.

I could write an article outlining Quorum sensing, which is a mechanism by which bacteria recognize related bacteria in their environment and *decide* on the basis of their numbers, whether to switch to pathogenicity or not.
Its a kin recognition mechanism thats present in the earliest life forms, and it even resonates with the discussion of parasitism.

And then you would know about something that does exist.
Or If I allowed myself the same poetic license as is being used here, I could come up with a whole string of equally plausible hypotheses couched in this terminology.

The rigor being applied to these hypotheses is characteristic of the humanities rather than the hard sciences.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:26 | #

It’s reasonable to want a scientific website.  By that I mean website where no topics of importance are off the table and papers are reviewed by peers whose real identities are known at least to the editor, and whose pseudonyms do not change—with the entire review process PUBLIC including the pseudonymous identities of the reviewers and exactly what they said.

If people want to see the stuff that didn’t make it through the peer review process then they can but don’t have to be bogged down in hypotheses that are “more characteristic of the humanities rather than the hard sciences”, which I admit is a reasonable characterization of some of my work, including the hypothesis presented in this posting.

The reality of MR is that much of the content is political news.  You want to change that?  Fine.  You want to exclude me from the peer review process even?  Fine. 

Just “be honest” about it.

Posted by ROnL on Sat, 22 May 2010 02:50 | #

Mr. Bowery is just looking for an excuse for his hatred of Jews. Half the commenter and writers here think that Jews are out to make war on the Muslims. That seems like a contradition to me. And it was the Nazis who liked the Muslims and were indirectly responsible for Germany’s post-War Muslim population, not Jews.
If you look at anti-Islamist and anti-eurabia groups, Jews play disproportional role.

And for those ant Majority Rights who buy into the largely false Khazar myth, they would note that the there were 100 years of near constant war between the Khazar Khaganate and the Caliphate between 640 and 737.

Finally, in Europe it is the Muslims who are the most anti-Jewish and responsible for the vast majority of VIOLENCE against Jews and property. Inviting them in isn’t a Jewish thing, its a liberal thing.