Putting Nowak, et al, In Perspective With “The Extended Phenotype”

Posted by James Bowery on Tuesday, 10 July 2012 12:55.

Reiterating my Amazon book review of “The Extended Phenotype” by Richard Dawkins:

Ever since Richard Dawkins wrote “The Extended Phenotype” (of which he says “It doesn’t matter if you never read anything else of mine, please at least read _this_.”) he has been made to pay penance in the form of attacks on creationists when not addressing his books to assorted popular scientific fashions. As someone who sees more to life than mechanism, I certainly have a bone or two to pick with Darwinians and mainstream science in general; but as mechanistic science goes, “The Extended Phenotype” was, indeed, a triumph of intellectual synthesis on par with Darwin’s original “Origin of Species”—and that is precisely why I believe Dawkins was stopped intellectually dead in his tracks once it was published it in 1982. I couldn’t agree with his assessment more: If you read nothing else of his, please at least read “The Extended Phenotype” and I would go further and say, don’t bother reading anything else by Dawkins after “The Extended Phenotype” as it amounts to paying penance to the new inquisition for heresy. Further still, if you read nothing else in main stream scientific literature, please, at least read “The Extended Phenotype” chapter “Host Phenotypes and Parasite Genes” with particular attention to his comment on the extended phenotypic generalization of epistasis, modifier genes and dominance—because that will be the insight future historians of science recognize as the most important, not only of Dawkins’ work, but of 20th century science.

The seeming hyperbolic nature of this review will herein receive some support in the context of the momentous paper “The Evolution of Eusociality” by Martin A. Nowak, Corina E. Tarnita & Edward O. Wilson.

Quoting E. O. Wilson’s book “The Social Conquest of Earth”, page 55, chapter “The Creative Forces”:

Natural selection at the individual level, with strategies evolving that contribute maximum number of mature offspring, has prevailed throughout the history of life.  It typically shapes the physiology and behavior of organisms to suit a solitary existence, or at most to membership in loosely organized groups.  The origin of eusociality, in which organisms behave in the opposite manner, has been rare in the history of life because group selection must be exceptionally powerful to relax the grip of individual selection.  Only then can it modify the conservative [emphasis JAB*] effect of individual selection and introduce highly cooperative behavior into the physiology and behavior of the group members.

The ancestors of ants and other hymenopterous eusocial insects (ants, bees, wasps) faced the same problem as those of humans.  They finnessed it by evolving extreme plasticity of certain genes, programmed so that the altruistic workers have the same genes for physiology and behavior as the mother queen, even though they differ drastically from the queen and among one another in these traits.  Selection has remained at the individual level, queen to queen.  Yet selection in the insect societies continues at the group level, with colony pitted against colony.  This seeming paradox is easily resolved.  As far as natural selection in most forms of social behavior is concerned, the colony is operationally only the queen and her phenotypic extension [emphasis JAB] in the form of robot-like assistants.

Here E. O. Wilson all but credits Richard Dawkins with the critical insight that forms the basis of “The Evolution of Eusociality” by Nowak, et al, of which Wilson was coauthor, but not even Richard Dawkins himself gets it, as can be seen in his critique of “The Evolution of Eusociality”.

Let me restate what Wilson haphazardly tried to state, but botched, when he introduced the term “group” in the final paragraph of the above quote:

The hymenopterous eusocial insects consist only of reproductive individuals: queens and drones.  The so-called “workers”, “soldiers”, etc. are not individuals and therefore give only the illusion of being insects.  They are mere extended phenotypes of queens and reproductive drones.

The fact that E. O. Wilson, in his own haphazard way, gets this and Richard Dawkins himself fails to get it merely adds credence to the hypothesis I put forth in my Amazon book review, that something horrifying happened to Dawkins—upon the publication of “The Extended Phenotype”—that may even have turned him from a semi-functioning intellect, to something more resembling this cricket:

*The use of the word “conservative” here is very apt—more so than E. O. Wilson recognizes—and will be the subject of a future post.

 

Tags:



Comments:


1

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:57 | #

The so-called “workers”, “soldiers”, etc. are not individuals and therefore give only the illusion of being insects.

Sounds, to me, like a paraphrased quote from the Talmud regarding Gentiles. The horrifying aspect, of course, is that it could be true.


2

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 11 Jul 2012 03:58 | #

How does Wilson explain the adaptive phenotypes of the neutered workers? They display phenotype adaptations that do not appear in the reproductive queens. As Dawkins suggests it can not be attributed to group selection.


3

Posted by Wilbur on Wed, 11 Jul 2012 04:50 | #

Let me restate what Wilson haphazardly tried to state, but botched, when he introduced the term “group” in the final paragraph of the above quote:

The hymenopterous eusocial insects consist only of reproductive individuals: queens and drones.  The so-called “workers”, “soldiers”, etc. are not individuals and therefore give only the illusion of being insects.  They are mere extended phenotypes of queens and reproductive drones.

How much of this is a semantic issue?

Dawkins’s main beef seems to be with Wilson’s use of the word “group” and the semantics of the word.

Here is how Wilson and other group selectionists have defined the term “group” in group selection:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/altr-grp/

For Wilson and Wilson (2007), as in earlier work by Sober and Wilson (1989), a “group” is any aggregate of individuals that is small compared to the total population to which they belong and where individuals non-randomly interact in a way that affects each other’s fitness. This is an extremely abstract understanding of what constitutes a group: one that fits many kinds of cases and is almost completely unconstrained by any particular population structure, dynamic, duration or size. Nor does it require groups to multiply as anything like cohesive wholes in order to acquire heritable variance in fitness. Indeed, such a broad definition of “group” is central for Wilson and Wilson’s definition of “group selection:” “the evolution of traits based on the differential survival and reproduction of groups” (Wilson and Wilson, p. 329).

I think Dawkins takes issue with this definition. And this definition of “group” seems at odds with what you articulate above and what “Wilson haphazardly tried to state”. I don’t think Dawkins would necessarily have a problem with what you articulate above. I think he just wouldn’t call it “group” selection.

 


4

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 11 Jul 2012 05:09 | #

Desmond, E. O. Wilson’s explanation of sterile worker phenotypes is essentially the same as Dawkins’ explanation of extended phenotypes.  However, Wilson specifically points out phenotypic plasticity as exceptionally important within the context of an individual considered as so-called “group”.  In this case—the case of the eusocial insects—the exceptional phenotypic plasticity (analogous to the plasticity of stem cells) is augmented by the genetic diversity added by the drone.


5

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:57 | #

James, Not having read the book, Wilson’s discussion of plasticity seems settled around altruism…“so that the altruistic workers have the same genes for physiology and behavior as the mother queen”...however the sterile workers may vary beyond behaviour.

Secondly, how does Wilson explain an extended phenotype possessing a genotype?

“Alex Kacelnik points out to me that kin selection is the only way in which worker adaptations such as soldier jaws and honeypot abdomens – phenotypes that are never expressed in reproductive individuals – could have evolved.”

Isn’t a phenotype = genotype + environment? How can the sterile workers be an extended phenotype of the queen if they possess unique phenotypic traits? Dawkins does define it as…

“An animal’s behaviour tends to maximize the survival of the genes “for” that behaviour, whether or not those genes happen to be in the body of the particular animal performing it.”

However that position appears to be in reference to parasites that actually afflict its host and alter behaviour. Is Wilson actually suggesting that group selection will produce phenotypic traits, not just behaviour, not shared with the replicator, genetically w/o affliction?


6

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:37 | #

Dawkins discusses parasitic castration as an extended phenotype targeted at redirecting an organism’s resources from its own reproduction to that of the parasite.

If a parasite can do that to an organism of another species, it is trivial for a parent to do it to their own child.  That is the way to view the sterile castes: As castrati parasitized by their parents.

Indeed, it is my contention that the vast majority of what we see as non-familial “altruism” in civilization is parasitic castration of ethnic groups by other ethnic groups.  It is also my conjecture that Dawkins came too close to exposing this to be allowed to survive intellectually.


7

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 11 Jul 2012 19:20 | #

Indeed, it is my contention that the vast majority of what we see as non-familial “altruism” in civilization is parasitic castration of ethnic groups by other ethnic groups. (JB)

This is thought-provoking, but not obvious to me. Please elaborate, esp what is meant by “parasitic castration” (ie, is it along the lines of a white family forgoing another child in order to pay taxes some portion of which benefits, or deal with costs associated with, nonwhites?).


8

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 11 Jul 2012 23:05 | #

The most general definition of parasitic castration is the extended phenotypic diversion of reproduction from the host organism’s genes to the parasite’s.  In that sense, it clearly would include political economic phenomena as well as a “host” of other phenomena.


9

Posted by Eric on Thu, 12 Jul 2012 01:40 | #

When you say that Dawkins’s book is “The Most Important Book of the 20th Century” and that “something horrifying happened to Dawkins”, are you being hyperbolic? Do you really believe the former, and if so, why? And do you really think something bad happened to Dawkins, like being threatened with physical violence?


10

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 12 Jul 2012 02:04 | #

If a parasite can do that to an organism of another species, it is trivial for a parent to do it to their own child.

Unlike the parasite it is not actually the parent that is doing it but a reproductive differential that confers a benefit upon their kin/colony. The difference being that the parasite does not actually change the genes of the host, yet still is able to modify the behaviour.

The point is that the EP is not the phenotype of the organism whose genes it encodes; it is the phenotype of a nest, a dam or, in the case of parasite–host interaction, changes in the host’s behaviour or appearance. This can be best demonstrated by one of the more dramatic examples of the EP: nematodes that infect ants and make them resemble ripe fruits (Hughes et al, 2008). Frugivorous birds that normally avoid ants now eat them—as their abdomens look similar to berries—and thus disperse the nematode eggs in their droppings, which are collected by ants looking for seeds and fed to their larvae, thus completing the cycle. In this case, as in others, the nematode does not, in any direct way, change the ant’s own genes; rather, it modifies the ant’s behaviour and appearance through its own genes. The ant’s new ‘fruit phenotype’ is actually the EP of the nematode.

The parent/parasite relationship differs in that one is adaptation through reproductive differential while the other is an affliction. How then do certain ethnic groups inflict “altruism” upon others when eggs are not fed to the host’s young, if you will? It also suggests that if the affliction is removed the behavioural change will be removed.


11

Posted by Eric on Thu, 12 Jul 2012 04:02 | #

Indeed, it is my contention that the vast majority of what we see as non-familial “altruism” in civilization is parasitic castration of ethnic groups by other ethnic groups.

How general is this? Would you apply it to the Catholic Church breaking up various European tribes and clans? What about the rise of the nation-state?


12

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 12 Jul 2012 04:51 | #

Eric, given my opinion of the significance of extended phenotypics in—that ecological interactions (including human social interactions) are largely a war of expression of genes not necessarily resident in the body expressing the phenotype—then where would you place his book?

As for the horror of what became of Dawkins’ intellect post-Extended Phenotype, if he did pen the most important book of the 20th century, how would you characterize the loss of that intellect due to some force as subtle as the one which drives the cricket, linked to in the original post?  Indeed, the horror of Dawkins becoming such an Extended Phenotype as a direct result of his having come close to discovering the ethnic wars of gene expression and regulation which extend into other ethnic groups, is so poetic that it would qualify as mythic.

And, no, I don’t think anyone consciously thought “Hey, Dawkins is getting close to exposing our evolutionary game, let’s neutralize him!”  Evolution can be vastly more malign and ruthless than any conspiracy we can imagine.  These are the thoughts of the Creator we’re talking about here.  Not the gibbering neurons of some post-primate brains.


13

Posted by daniel on Thu, 12 Jul 2012 08:15 | #

While humans would obviously have more ways to mediate and alter eusocial exploitation than would insects, my experience corroborates that elements of these motivational strains and effects are there in people - not merely a benign, happy cultural alternative - and Jim makes some really interesting inferences along that analogy; specifically, a creepy way in which people are rendered less human.

What to do about those who would treat us as worker bees or make queens of themselves? It seems to me that, particularly when it is, or should be looked upon as a situation where inter-group cooperation is appropriate, that some go the route of imposing eusociality. I might hypothesize (perhaps ironically), that it may often be the case that those who endeavor to impose eusociality are overly satisfied with naturalistic explanations - “that’s nature.”

However, I still feel comfortable about the notion of cooperation of individuals in group defense of Whites. It seems there needs to be some teasing apart of the notion of cooperation vs exploitation toward gentotypic defense..

From talking to Jim and reading Graham’s comments under my White Left essay, I can see that my own siblings tried to do this to some extent…as did some folks in Pila, Poland - a post communist repository of former K.G.B. operatives and American ‘dreams’ by way of American movies, a context that provided perfect illustrations of hypocrites and other characters, the works, from the extended prisoner’s dilemma as described by Bowery..

I am wondering more about Jewish influences.


...more in a few..gotta go now.

 

 

 

 


14

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 12 Jul 2012 16:38 | #

Desmond, you need to revisit The Selfish Gene with particular attention to The Battle of the Generations.

The relatedness of the queen to the genes of the organisms expressing its extended phenotypes is a second-order issue.  It does come into play, certainly, but it is not decisive.  Nowak et al did temper their language in the supplementary materials somewhat to allow for relatedness to enter into their model of eusocial insects but don’t be confused by the relatedness.  It is not essential.

If altruism, as opposed to parasitic castration, exists in the intracolony relations of eusocial insects (and I believe it does) it exists between the queen and drone and their reproductive young.


15

Posted by Mick Lately on Thu, 12 Jul 2012 22:44 | #

Is it too fanciful to consider nuclear weapons, and the medium of television, as extended phenotypes of the Jews?

In both cases one could say that a signal (a deterrent signal in the case of nuclear weapons) is emitted which can induce a kind of mental paralysis in Gentiles (e.g. Cold War era (MAD), “The Samson Option” (Israel)).


Also, of all Dawkins’s “children”, he has publicly professed that The Extended Phenotype is the one that he wants to survive. This might fit in with his interest in memetic transmission.
Does he want the book to survive as some sort of warning? Or is it mere realization that it was the last thing he did while still intellectually “alive”?


16

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:17 | #

I wouldn’t say television was an extended phenotype of Jews but it is almost certainly the case that memes transmitted are frequently extended phenotypes of Jews and the effect of those memes on the population is where the extended phenotypics does its biological damage.

But the human ecology of civilization’s panmixia is filled with more than Jewish extended phenotypics and it is likely they have been expressing some extended phenotypes of more highely “evolved” parasites from Africa.  That’s why they’re so self-destructive.  When you see that kind of evolutionarily crazy behavior Dawkins warns us it may be just the beginning.  I suspect they are being set up as patsies after having done the dirty work not just to others but to themselves.  I don’t know what the endgame is here but it isn’t pretty unless you love Africanization (which, itself, is a _very_ wide-spread extended phenotype).


17

Posted by daniel on Fri, 13 Jul 2012 03:46 | #

Mulatto Supremacism

The article could perhaps use work, but MacDonald liked it enough to give it some feedback.

It was worrisome enough to the progenitors of Wikipedia that they doggedly blocked its publication - saying it was not real - despite its having literal historical expression in the Hatian slave revolt and W.E.B. Dubois. Moreover, a clear inference as an upshot of what you term, “panmixia”

http://www.resist.com/WolfEurope-20100103/Mulatto Supremacism.html


I propose mulatto supremacism as a “meme” that may be effective to put out there. While it will not work in some cases, as it puts the deliverer one-down in some ways, advocating the oppressed (not always the game one wants to play) there is truth enough to it and occasions where it should be effective as a kind of re-routing meme, as it begins to build force against both source and effect of Jewish virulence:


Raising the charge of Mulatto Supremacism is both valid regarding one of the worst effects of what Jews and Blacks are doing to the White race while confronting neither group directly so as to initiate direct response; nor failing to use the leverage of their own potential grievance as to the matter.


18

Posted by Kearns on Fri, 13 Jul 2012 07:08 | #

But the human ecology of civilization’s panmixia is filled with more than Jewish extended phenotypics and it is likely they have been expressing some extended phenotypes of more highely “evolved” parasites from Africa.

 

Do you have any examples or ideas of what these extended phenotypes might be? Are the parasites from Africa bugs, bacteria, viruses, etc., or Africans themselves? Both?

Does this have anything to do with the fact that Jews, including Ashkenazis, have African admixture:

http://forward.com/articles/140721/genes-tell-tale-of-jewish-ties-to-africa/

In the Book of Kings, Solomon is depicted as an international businessman of sorts who sent ships from the port of Etzion-Geber, near modern day Eilat, to trade precious metals and other goods with various parts of the world, including Africa. Solomon also famously received a visit from the Queen of Sheba, who is thought to be from what is presently Ethiopia.

Now, a new scientific paper offers a genetic timeline that could support these biblical tales. The paper builds on two studies published last summer that were the first to use genome-wide analyses to trace the history of the Jewish people through DNA.

“It demonstrated that there was a biological basis for Jewishness,” said Dr. Harry Ostrer, director of the human genetics program at the New York University School of Medicine, who led one of the studies.

Among its many findings, Ostrer’s paper indicated that Jews have African ancestry — an observation that David Reich, associate professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School, and his colleagues decided to explore further.

Reich’s team analyzed more than half a million DNA markers across the entire genomes of people from seven diverse Jewish populations — including Ashkenazim from northern Europe; Sephardim from Italy, Turkey and Greece, and Mizrahim from Syria, Iraq and Iran. They then compared the genetic data with DNA from 15 sub-Saharan African populations.

Reporting in the April issue of PLoS Genetics, the researchers found that modern day Jews can attribute about 3% to 5% of their ancestry to sub-Saharan Africans, and that the exchange of genes between Jews and sub-Saharan Africans occurred approximately 72 generations, or about 2,000 years, ago.

Priya Moorjani, a doctoral student in Reich’s lab who led the research, was surprised that the degree of African DNA was so consistent across the various Jewish populations. She had expected, for example, that North African and Middle Eastern Jews would have a greater degree of genetic mingling than Europeans, based on their geographic proximities.

...

Lawrence Schiffman, a professor of Hebrew and Judaic studies at Yeshiva University, said two time periods came to mind that could support the geneticists’ findings. The first is during the First Temple Period, between about 950 B.C.E. and 600 B.C.E., when Solomon’s kingdom would have had contact with Africans.

Or, Schiffman said, the mixing of populations could have taken place a bit later, during the Hellenistic period, from about 320 B.C.E. to 30 B.C.E., when Jews were living all over the southern shore of the Mediterranean Sea and could have come into contact with Africans to the south of them.

Other possibilities could be Egypt and the Roman period.


19

Posted by Kearns on Fri, 13 Jul 2012 07:57 | #

I don’t know what the endgame is here but it isn’t pretty unless you love Africanization (which, itself, is a _very_ wide-spread extended phenotype).

What is the Africanization extended phenotype? Is it very wide spread because there are black communities around the world? Does it extend to non-blacks?


20

Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 13 Jul 2012 17:30 | #

Indeed, it is my contention that the vast majority of what we see as non-familial “altruism” in civilization is parasitic castration of ethnic groups by other ethnic groups.  It is also my conjecture that Dawkins came too close to exposing this to be allowed to survive intellectually.

Notably, this (the point regarding parasitic castration) is the one point that Steve Sailer has repeatedly censored in my comments at his blog.


21

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 00:30 | #

Kerns asks: “What is the Africanization extended phenotype?”

Some of the more conspicuous examples are the way philanthropists, particularly the very rich ones like Bill Gates, and the national ones with very low immunity, like Scandinavian countries, are falling all over themselves to serve Africans.  Then there are all the “wiggers” who actually want to be Africans.  Indeed, there are a large, and growing, number of folks who really wish they had been born African or at least “Black”.

The misnamed “serial monogamy” is actually an Africanization more properly called “serial polygyny” and Africans are notably more polygynous than other cultures.  It is interesting that the one major exception, Imperial China, burned all their eunuchs’ merchant ships when they brought Africans back to China.  Even the misnaming of serial polygyny as “monogamy” is the kind of thing one would expect to appear as an extended phenotype of Africans.

In particular, the whole idea of liberating females—attempting to make them more “independent” so they can be more “free to choose” the sires of their children without relying on paternal investment—is an exceedingly vicious Africanization given the failure to, at the same time, free men to challenge other men to natural duel.  Its hog heaven for Africans.  Jews labored long and hard to achieve that at the same time that they managed to get the government to remove even private property rights that would allow whites to exclude Africans from their mating environments.  They are living to regret that.


22

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 05:29 | #

Some of the more conspicuous examples are the way philanthropists, particularly the very rich ones like Bill Gates, and the national ones with very low immunity, like Scandinavian countries, are falling all over themselves to serve Africans.

Interesting thought in light of the Dawkins passage you referenced. Dawkins argues that the behavioural manipulation is a two way street and it is of interest that the Gates foundation is promoting lower maternal mortality, via family planning, in the third world as a means of promoting women’s health.

It brought back a conversation from years ago when a Jamaican women argued that the reason her sisters on the island eschewed contraception was because it was a plot by white men to exterminate black people.

Julian Huxley, the first Director-General of UNESCO and a member of the English Eugenics Society : “We must face the fact that now, in this year of grace, the great majority of human beings are substandard: they are undernourished, or ill, or condemned to a ceaseless struggle for bare existence; they are imprisoned in ignorance or superstition. ... We must see to it that life is no longer a hell paved with unrealized opportunity…. In this light, the highest and most sacred duty of man is seen as the proper utilization of the untapped resources of human beings.”

Evolutionary humanism or population control?


23

Posted by daniel on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 06:22 | #

Comment number 23 was extremely articulate Jim - thank you.


24

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 18:06 | #

And, no, I don’t think anyone consciously thought “Hey, Dawkins is getting close to exposing our evolutionary game, let’s neutralize him!”

The international Jewish bankers did precisely that.

Evolution can be vastly more malign and ruthless than any conspiracy we can imagine.

Bowery only says this because he is himself part of the international Jewish banking conspiracy.  Denial, you see, is conclusive evidence of complicity.


25

Posted by daniel on Sat, 14 Jul 2012 18:22 | #

Jim, I didn’t know you were an international banker. LOL


26

Posted by Drexler on Sat, 21 Jul 2012 15:34 | #

Does all this mean that the sprinting advantage of West Africans is diminished as running distances increase?

White Guy win 800-meter U.S. Olympic Trials


27

Posted by John on Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:52 | #

Would this be pertinent to the topic?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JJXeJDtmYeo#


28

Posted by Gary on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:29 | #

Here E. O. Wilson all but credits Richard Dawkins with the critical insight that forms the basis of “The Evolution of Eusociality” by Nowak, et al, of which Wilson was coauthor, but not even Richard Dawkins himself gets it, as can be seen in his critique of “The Evolution of Eusociality”.

Let me restate what Wilson haphazardly tried to state, but botched, when he introduced the term “group” in the final paragraph of the above quote:

The hymenopterous eusocial insects consist only of reproductive individuals: queens and drones.  The so-called “workers”, “soldiers”, etc. are not individuals and therefore give only the illusion of being insects.  They are mere extended phenotypes of queens and reproductive drones.

Wilson has written several books on ants and the social insects with a biologist named Bert Hölldobler. They specifically write about the colony being an “extended phenotype” of the queen and her mates, and explicitly credit Richard Dawkins for the concept of the “extended phenotype”. From their book The Leafcutter Ants: Civilization by Instinct:

“[T]he entire colony represents an extended phenotype of the queen and her mates on which evolutionary selection operates”. (pg. 9)

“Nest structres are the product of innate collective behavior. They are, to use a metaphor coined by Richard Dawkins, the “extended phenotype” of each superorganism in turn.” (pg. 124)

Hölldobler specifically mentioned the extended phenotype in an article about his and Wilson’s books and work:

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_hive_mind

““There are traits that are expressed in the workers that are not expressed in the queen,” says Hölldobler. “The colony’s traits are the phenotype of the queen, but it is not really the queen’s phenotype. It is the extended phenotype. The colony, even the nest structure, is part of this extended phenotype.””



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: Euro-DNA Nations
Previous entry: A monument in Green Park

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:55. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:38. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:36. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 12:50. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 10:26. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 05:37. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 15:07. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 11:00. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 05:02. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:39. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:56. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:51. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:46. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:41. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 12:25. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 00:42. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 22:01. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:20. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 20:51. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 20:45. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:26. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 15:56. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:55. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:07. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:12. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:51. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:38. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 10:01. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 05:13. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:51. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:14. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Thu, 21 Mar 2024 05:14. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:42. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:01. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:41. (View)

affection-tone