Cricket infected with gordian worm committing suicide

Posted by James Bowery on Friday, 15 December 2006 23:31.

And a more in-depth video:

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.”

Tags:

Comments:

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 16 Dec 2006 01:03 | #

James,

It would be rather interesting to know what the very liberal RD would make of the GOD theory. Have a seizure, I expect ... no doubt through the inability to compute the slavery in his own brain cells. You should run it past him if you are ever in need of a little light entertainment.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 16 Dec 2006 01:25 | #

Dawkins has repeatedly pointed to himself as an example of evolutionary failure, and done to the point one must consider him nearly proud of the fact. He has, in fact, abandoned all hope for a future abiding by his liberal principles. “The Extended Phenotype” took him too close to the abyss and he recoiled to position himself as the great defender of Darwinism against—not political correctness—but “religion” in a very narrow definition of the term.

He dare not face the fact that not only is political correctness a religion—it is a theocracy—for that would disturb his opiated sleep of which he previously states:

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?”

Posted by Englander on Sat, 16 Dec 2006 02:40 | #

The video might have been for the purpose of an analogy which is the point of the thread, but I can’t think straight after watching that video. I don’t normally get creeped out by anything but that was really disturbing.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 16 Dec 2006 03:32 | #

Now imagine western civilization is the cricket.

Posted by Steve Edwards on Sat, 16 Dec 2006 07:36 | #

“Now imagine western civilization is the cricket.”

Dare I ask as to the identity of the worm?

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 16 Dec 2006 08:32 | #

Since analogic thinking is the strongest correlate of general intelligence among the various component tests, I’ll leave the identity of the worm as an exercise to the most intelligent among us.

For some assistance the intelligent might look at <a >the rank order list of strongest determinants of US ecological correlations at the granularity of State</a>.

Posted by Kenelm Digby on Sat, 16 Dec 2006 13:28 | #

Fascinating stuff.
I particulary love it when actual examples from nature ‘red in tooth and claw’ are used to exposit genetic theory, and to blow great big holes in verbose Marxist clap-trap.
The point is the ‘selfish-gene’ theory as popularized by Dawkins and others, and ultimately based on a fusion of the works of Mendel and Darwin’s terrible realisation of the ‘struggle for existence’ is basically the only sound, scientific theory that is able to describe the reality of biological life as we uderstand it, and is fit enough for us to use to make predictions from.
Another little anecdote from nature always fascinates me.In Amazonia, apparently there is a species of ant called the ‘stink-ant’.A particularly nasty parasite preying on the stink-ant is a species of fungus.This fungus reproduces in a unique way, its fruing body, which is always situated high up a tree, sheds miriads of spores into the atmosphere, some of which fortunately (or unfortuanately), land in the vicinity of a passing stink-ants head nerve ganglion and are able to penetrate.Now for the fascinating part, by some miracle of evolution (I cannot think of any other word that is fitting), or otherwise (don’t disparage me here for this phenomenon is just sooo subtle and ingenious that it almosts DEMANDS a praeterhuman origin), the fungal spore acts as like a ‘cerebral key’ in that it contains within itself ‘genetic programming’ that is recognised by the stink-ant nervous/ganglion ‘consiousness’ system , hust in the same way a computer program can ‘overrride’ a computer.
Basically the spore program drives the stink-ant mad and compels it to climb the nearest tree, we contrary to normal behavior it clings to the top with its mandibles for dear life.Now the spore works the second part of its magic, by using another set of genetic programming to turn stink-ant flesh into fungal flesh.Hyphae radiate from the ganglion and digest from within.Eventually the stink ant dies, and a new fruiting-body erupts from the head of the ant, showering spores onto the jungle floor.
Of course, here’s the bit your waiting for the, the analogy:
Stink-Ant = The broad mass of the White race.
Fungal Spore = The political class.
Fungal Hyphae = Massive non-White immigration.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 16 Dec 2006 17:55 | #

Soren, if one steps back from Western Civilization to its component nations, tribes or even individuals, there are recognizable cycles that have occurred many times over in parallel.

Posted by Pobble-Face on Sat, 16 Dec 2006 19:54 | #

I dislike the wording used to formulate the GOD hypothesis: I googled it and read Mr. Bowery’s website.

What I dislike about it is this: politically dominant groups are referred to as being GENETICALLY OMNI DOMINANT.

In effect, dominant and recessive alleles are being used as a metaphor for dominating and dominated ethnic groups, defining political structures as part of the Extended Phenotype. But I dont see the validity of refering to a subject political group- i.e. the Zulu’s under British occupation - as being ‘genetically omni recessive’.

According to the extended phenotype, the political structure which would be the natural result of their genotype (see modern Africa) was suppressed by the arrival of the British.

But these genotypes replicate independently of one another, and now, in the South Africa of today, the Zulu-Xhosa-Bantu political extended-phenotype dominates the British-Boer extended-phenotype. What sense would it make to assign the labels ‘dominant’ and ‘recessive’ to separate genotypes, when the winner of the power-contest in question is entirely a matter of environment? Obviously Omni-dominance and Omni-recessivity is not a property of these genotypes in and of themselves, since if you change the conditions, you get a different outcome with the same genotypes.

Jewish political extended-phenotype is expressed and prevails in a situation where governmental power can be achieved through the manipulation of theological and conceptual arguments. Anglo-Saxon political extended-phenotype is expressed and prevails where governmental power can be achieved through the invention and application of technology in the use of overwhelming force. Bantu political extended-phenotype is expressed and prevails when the former phenotype has so paralyzed the latter through specious arguments, that no one sees a moral justification enforcing the Anglo-Sax political extended-phenotype, and the Bantu can dominate on the basis of higher pathology, criminality, and lower parental investment (i.e. quicker breeding).

Also, lest anyone think that ‘Anglo-Saxon political exended-phenotype’ is anything so simple as ‘modern Democracy’, it is in fact the sum total of all previous permutations of political organization which this people have lived under- thus Cromwell’s government, the Pentarchy, the Empire, Canadian government, etc. etc..

Or rather, thats the basis on which this phenotype would be ESTIMATED, since to know it exactly at this point is beyond us. Theoretically, the extended phenotype would be all possible political organizations which would arise on their own as the result of autonomous Anglo-Saxon hegemony. It is the answer to the question: ‘Under every possible combination of different historical conditions, what political organization would arise among independent Anglo-Saxon states?’

The explanation of the GOD hypothesis is also full of unparsimonious phrases like ‘ecological annealing’, which says nothing to me, as someone with a degree in Molecular Biology. I am open to the possibility that I have misunderstood this article, and I have admitted very little experience with ecology, but if Dawkins, Salter, Rushton, and MacDonald are understandable to me, I wonder why this article should be beyond me. I routinely read studies published in Academic journals on a wide variety of subjects relating to Genetics.

I have to say, in addition to this, that I am personally insulted by the references in Mr. Bowery’s GOD Hypothesis article, which refer to people of northern European descent as ‘recessives’. Fair skin and eyes are recessive, but Mr. Bowery’s Omni-Recessive Hypothesis would have looked completely different 150 years ago, when Europeans were colonizing Africa. Would we have been Genetic Omni Dominants then? If four black men rape a white man, they are considered Dominant. If a white community lynches several blacks, are they still recessive? While the blacks were enslaved, were they still expressing their OMNI-DOMINANT PHENOTYPE?

Furthermore, Mr. Bowery’s attempted demonstration of the fact that miscegenation of White males with Asian women was ‘a relief’ for the white population, on the basis of differing sex ratios during the evolution of prehistoric European man, is specious.

There really is something to be said for scientific modesty.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 16 Dec 2006 20:29 | #

Ecological annealing is central to the idea of the GOD hypothesis so I’m not surprised that you failed to understand the distinction between colonial occupation forces and the eventual domination of those occupation forces by genetically dominant populations. Is there a single case where Europeans have colonized a people closer to human origins (at least climate-wise) where they have not eventually lost control not only of the colonized territory but even put their European homelands in danger of being reverse colonized by those former colonies?

It is not a matter of who is in “control” at a particular point of time, but of who ultimately benefits from the interaction despite it starting with military invasion.

In every case that I can think of: India, Africa and the Middle East, Europeans have lost control and invited in Jews, Dravidians and Africans to the European homelands. The cases where Europeans have not suffered a substantial invasion of this type were when they invaded East Asia and North America. Central and South America are a problematic aspect of this hypothesis since the population of those areas was by a relatively peripheral group that eventually went toward the tropical ecology again—and so represent a more complicated history in this respect.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 16 Dec 2006 20:37 | #

Oh, and there is one interesting case that is used to “debunk” the GOD hypothesis, and that is the retention of European Y chromosomes in northern India. The problem with this exception is that it really isn’t an exception if you take into account the relative lack of technical progress in that subcontinent and the climatic variation. These days, however, there is a mass exodus of the more recessive populations aka “upper castes” to the US as part of an apparent deal that was struck between US Jews and upper caste Indians to ally against Islamic enemies. They are escaping the influx of lower castes empowered by industrialization. The natural barriers are dissolving in real time.

Posted by Bo Sears on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 00:30 | #

“Also, lest anyone think that ‘Anglo-Saxon political exended-phenotype’ is anything so simple as ‘modern Democracy’, it is in fact the sum total of all previous permutations of political organization which this people have lived under- thus Cromwell’s government, the Pentarchy, the Empire, Canadian government, etc. etc..”

Excellent point and to build on it, let us at last begin to recognize that “modern Democracy” has long since transformed into a code word for ethnic oligarchic domination by the ethnicity whose members are more able and willing to spend to elect those who speak for all of us. It’s a shell game with the dealer firmly in charge.

To believe that “modern Democracy” in North America actually represents the views of its citizens and taxpayers is living in a dream world. It is sad, but true, that “modern Democracy” has become an oligarchy dominating public discourse through lobbying, staff placement, frequent contact, campaign contributions, and political menacing.

A principal reform would be to allow political contributions only from residents of the affected district. In the USA, a national directorate bundles checks from across the country to defeat noncompliant office-holders. Astonishingly, it is somewhat unusual for the directorate to seek to elect…its real power is based almost solely on its power to defeat office-holders through contributions to opposition campaigns.

Posted by Pobble-Face on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:08 | #

Mr. Bowery,

I would like to ask, for clarification sake, that the GOD hypothesis be stated in a single sentence or in two. Furthermore, I need an explanation of ‘ecological annealing’.
I demand that all concepts, which these definitions make use of, should be parsimonious concepts, which can be defined to some extent on Google or Wikipedia.

I don’t understand how the ultimate outcome of political conflicts (i.e. colonization) can be used to draw conclusions about Genetics. Obviously, in Genetics we are principally concerned with one molecule: DNA. At no point that I can determine does the GOD hypothesis mention anything about DNA. So how can anything you say have anything to do with genetics? I just don’t see the connection.

I am in some way professionally involved in Molecular Biology (ambiguity deliberate). At no where in your GOD website, or on this website, have I seen an explanation which achieved more than a speculative surface plausibility for it’s argument. The spontaneity with which you discovered that Asian female/White male miscegenation was a ‘relief’ to white populations, as a result of the sex ratios present in our prehistoric past, truly boggles the mind. And a scientist of any calibre would have to recognize immediately: truth doesn’t move that fast.

Genuine science is usually characterised by a slow, meticulous elucidation of facts. Charlatan science is usually characterized by too much speed. If someone really wants to explain something, if they really have something to explain, they take their time, they go slow, because they want everyone to follow and arrive at the same point together. If someone goes fast, and there is reason to believe that the science is fake, it generally means they don’t want to take you with them, but just to impress upon you that they are going somewhere.

So where can I find, in discussions of the GOD theory, one single scientific foothold, to understand the rest of it? I already read the explanation, and I found nothing empirical, it was like a wild man throwing conceptual paint on a canvas and insisting he had just depicted a scene from the Bayeux Tapestry.

Yes, Dawkin’s analysis of Parasite-Host interactions does apply to human subspecies. Does this mean, whenever a problem arises, that you can plaster your opinion with some sociobology jargon, add a pinch of genetics, and let yourself be admired by the readership of MR as though you have spoken a profound truth?

Today the garbage man made me angry. I consider him a ‘recessive’ personality type, and I consider myself a ‘dominant’ personality type. The Garbage truck company owns 24 Garbage trucks, each truck is one of the Garbage truck company’s chromosomes; and when it gets taken apart to be maintenanced, that is metaphase. When the garbage truck dumps out its garbage, that’s when it is replicating its DNA. If another brand of Garbage truck comes on the market, it will be constructed differently and out of different parts (the parts are Genes), conditions will select for which garbage truck conveys maximum fitness upon the company using that truck. Garbage truck designers perform natural selection on Garbage trucks by choosing the best from each of the various models of garbage truck: the garbage truck designer’s then build a hybrid truck consisting of the best parts from each truck. When my garbage is placed in the truck, horizontal gene transfer is takingn place. If the garbage shifts around in the back while the truck is moving, thats a transposition event.

But honestly, thats not the only time I’ve seen people essentially ‘free-style’ in sociobiological and genetic jargon. The entertainment value of your scientific hypotheses will increase, by the way, if they rhyme. So next time you compose a hypothesis, for example about how Asian female/White male pairings are a ‘relief for our people’, why not make it rhyme?

“My girlfriend was actin’ all recessive
So I said ‘Hey bitch, don’t make me get
Epigenetic on your ass…”

Posted by of special descent on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 06:04 | #

The whole reason Mr. Worm directs Mr. Cricket to kill himself is because the worm needs to get to water (assumably to survive and reproduce). So how will coaxing the white race to kill itself help the sneaky Jews reproduce?

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 08:08 | #

SD, Mr. Worm doesn’t direct Mr. Cricket to kill himself—he merely directs him to do that which is “Good for the Worms”. What? Do you think the worm is EEEEVIIILL? You probably also think the Worms conspire together and butcher Aryan children to make soup or something, you Nazi psycho. Get back on your meds.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 08:22 | #

Pobble-Face, sorry for the lack of rhyme in what follows. May it not bore you to tears but your criticism of my 30,000 ft altitude survey of the hypothesis (note I didn’t say theory—it isn’t formal enough to qualify) would be more valid if I were presenting it as a quantitative model. It is more a very general way of viewing large scale patterns. (I did present such a pattern for European colonialism.) I don’t think I want to run any more experiments like the colonization of Africa to test it so to that extent I am rather “anti-empirical”. However, I _do_ think it wise to allow _others_ to mix it up, doing things I consider horrifying, so my ideas can be tested with mutually consenting subjects who like the idea of conducting experiments I consider to be highly dangerous. I suspect you may not be so tolerant of such experiments so the question is: Which of us is more hostile to true empirical tests of their hypotheses?

Posted by Pobble-Face on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 14:11 | #

Mr. Bowery,

Politics can create a beautiful life for people, or it can kill hundreds of millions of people. Your insinuation that political activity would be carried out to confirm or disprove a hypothesis, is whimsical.

The colonization of Africa was not an experiment to test a hypothesis. If so, it would have been a terrible experimental setup, because there are too many factors involved to reasonably determine anything. Experiments are carried out in controlled environments where all variables are known, except the variables under investigation. History contains too many variables to refer to historic episodes as ‘experiments’- they were not experiments to those who did them, but rather earnest endeavors. At the very least, they were adventures, but experiments never.

I’m no longer going to comment on this, because I have not found anywhere something I can recognize as science. But expect me to call you on it when you deck out your latest scheme or idea as a sociobiological hypothesis.

The only two ideas I found discussed in this whole thread, including the GOD hypothesis, were:
“Rules of parasite-host interaction apply also to human subspecies.” and “Political structures created by a group of people can be understood as an extended phenotype, since they are the product of this people’s genes.”

And these two ideas were already represented in Dawkins.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:17 | #

If natural situations in which people act in earnest are what we are attempting to model then it makes sense to test our hypotheses about human sociobiology aka human behavioral ecology with people acting in earnest. Such experimental tests are otherwise known as propositional states or constitutional government. The fact that state craft has only reached a very primitive level of scientific rigor doesn’t mean that the impulse to form constitutional states is scientifically invalid, nor that a more rigorous adherence to the principles of assortive separatism aka self-determination aka freedom of association shouldn’t be rigorously formalized precisely as a way of correcting the flaws in the US Constitution which led to the failure of the US as a laboratory of States.

Moreover, since you don’t recognize natural experiments, dirty and relatively uncontrolled as they are, as not just a source of scientific data, but as the primordial source of scientific data (ref Darwin himself) and ignored crucial things I did say both here and in the short introduction to the GOD Hypothesis itself, my most charitable interpretation is that you are pretending to be a militant ignoramus so you can get away with taking an adversarial stance and that the most likely reason is because you don’t like the implications of the GOD Hypothesis were it to be found true.

BTW: There are limits to what I consider appropriate use of anonymous identities, and lacing supposedly sincere questions with insults like suggesting I rhyme to be “more entertaining” is skirting those limits. Moreover, if you are shifting anonymous identities in addition (“Pobble face” just recently appeared in MR) then I think we have a good idea of what kind of person you are for such tactics are quite common in the tools of parasites attempting to evade immune system identification.

Posted by Pobble-Face on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 21:05 | #

Mr. Bowery,

I know I haven’t taken a very civil tone in debating you, but I didn’t feel like it, seeing as you used your scientific hypothesis to support things which are counter to WN.
I’m not shifting anonymous identities. From now on, I won’t use any insults, but will just spit my game without hatred in my heart. [Notorious BIG reference, for all you Rap fans out there!]

I asked for a parsimonious definition of the GOD hypothesis, with every concept described therein defined via either Google or Wikipedia or a Textbook reference*(newly added).

For example, you could not use the concept of ‘Ecological annealing’, which when typed into Google as a complete phrase (between quotes), gives exactly 16 hits, and every one links back to a board on which you are trying to spread your GOD hypothesis. As far as I can tell, you invented this concept yourself out of thin air. The definition I saw on one of the websites, which I am not going to post here, wasn’t really a definition at all.

By contrast, “Co-Immunoprecipitation”, a commonly used technique in molecular biology, returns 572.000 hits. “Green-beard effect”, an idea developed by Dawkins, returns 417 hits. Moreover, regardless of how many hits they return, they can both be explained in terms familiar to all people who have studied genetics.

The GOD hypothesis may be true, just show me the data, or rather, show me that there is even a quantitative aspect to this hypothesis. Or just define the hypothesis in terms which would be acceptable scientific discourse.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:40 | #

I hear mention Democracy. Our Founding Fathers split between Deists/Humanists and Authoritarians created a Republic—They hated democracy and attempted to recreate a Humanist friendly republic.

The Government of Indo-Europeans is the Classical Republic. The Founding Fathers of America created a psuedo-republic.

Here is the link to a true republic <a >Classical definition of a republic</a> I hope this helps in the discussion.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 04:39 | #

As to the definition of “ecological annealing”—it may be a sin in your book to create concepts and terminology without a prior exhaustive reading of the literature, but some of us have to compete with a flood of illegally imported H-1b programmers and don’t have the time to suppress our creativity just so that we have made sure no one thought of it before and used different terms.

However, there is probably some recent work that does bear directly on formalizing “ecological annealing”—the definition of which should be fairly clear from what the short essay said anyway:

<a >Adaptive dynamics</a>:

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 (the classical fitness concept is not directly applicable to situations with frequency dependence).

If you want to assist me (ha ha) you might do something you are good at—which obviously isn’t creative thinking—but which might be finding the proper references to work that bears on complex game theoretic situations—realistic ecological situations—where the evolutionarily stable states are equally complex but also in a well defined gradient from the origin to the limit of the ecological range of a species.

Posted by Of ~*super*~ special descent on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 05:26 | #

No, I really am curious about this (I’m a different person than pobble-face, BTW, in case you think I’m his sockpuppet or whatever). I always hear people—WNs, much like you—claiming (in many more words) that Jews are parasites dedicated to destroying the white race in what is more or less exactly the same manner Gordian worms kill insects. But the Gordian worm’s ‘objective’ isn’t just to murder hapless crickets, it’s to get to water to reproduce. So, what’s the ulterior motive of the sneaky Jew? What part of this macro-organism’s life cycle follows after it induces the white race (or whatever its ‘host’ is) to drown in the metaphorical pool?

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:37 | #

So you didn’t get my joke before? I suppose that is a defense mechanism somewhere in the DSM-IV or something: Play dumb so you can pretend the real answer wasn’t given to you and stay in denial.

OK here it is straight:

The Jews—to the extent that they may be the best analogue to the parasite—don’t care about the destruction of the Aryans or anyone else anymore than the parasite does. Indeed, many parasites are relatively benign rather than virulent.

The entire question boils down to the evolution of virulence.

<a >Search MR for “horizontal transmission”</a> to see why it is that Jews might have evolved virulence.

Posted by dchamil on Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:25 | #

About the cricket—did you see Aliens?

Posted by Pobble-Face on Tue, 19 Dec 2006 22:11 | #

“If you want to assist me (ha ha) you might do something you are good at—which obviously isn’t creative thinking—but which might be finding the proper references to work that bears on complex game theoretic situations—realistic ecological situations—where the evolutionarily stable states are equally complex but also in a well defined gradient from the origin to the limit of the ecological range of a species.”

I don’t know much about game theory, or even about ecology, so in that sense, you’re right. But I still wonder if anyone on this board has any idea what you’re talking about.

I’m not replying to this thread anymore, but I think you are not sufficiently respectfult to scientists who make their life’s work out of such things, to formulate a random hypothesis, and essentially play a never-ending word game with yourself and with MR readers. I imagine that they cannot tell you are bullshitting, because they are not sufficiently informed.

The shit you wrote about genetics was just that.. shit.
You’re a charlatan, taking advantage of readers fuzzy understanding of the concepts you use so carelessly.
You disrespect the entire scientific venture with your snake-oil theories.

I don’t understand why someone would make shit up like this… why did you make up your GOD hypothesis? Why?
I just don’t understand the motivation behind lying to people about something so crucial. If you really think this could be true, you would have submitted it to some higher-up and they would have torn it to shreds with critique.. instead you sell it on political forums….. Does it give you a kick, being the resident scientist-brain here?

These people are struggling to understand the world around them, and biology is the only explanation they can reasonably rely on because its the only explanation thats true.
Why do you make it harder for them? They deserve to have things explained 1) clearly, 2) concisely, 3) honestly.
You do none of the above.

When I first discovered this site, I remember being thrilled to hear them rip into GNXP- because even though the science on that site is interesting (I didnt read very often) they obviously have this anti-White animus. But you are peddling things of a much lower calibre than that which appears on GNXP, and you are a liability to MR.

So, thats all I’m going to say about that. Conversation over.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 20 Dec 2006 03:34 | #

Good grief—how do you know I haven’t submitted my work to ‘higher ups’ and how do you define someone as ‘higher up’ when academia has been sold down the river to the basest? The fact of the matter is that if people did that they would be told “Stop all this race hate and spend the rest of your life jumping through hoops created by Jews for you in academia…”

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 07:20 | #

“The whole reason Mr. Worm directs Mr. Cricket to kill himself is because the worm needs to get to water (assumably to survive and reproduce). So how will coaxing the white race to kill itself help the sneaky Jews reproduce?”

It won’t. The Jewish community is acting maladaptively and will likely effect its own extinction along with ours.

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments