The Genetic OmniDominance Hypothesis

Posted by James Bowery on Monday, 26 July 2010 18:04.

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by Xing et al and the tendency for “The Wayback Machine” to suffer “technical difficulties”, I’m posting a somewhat out-of-date hypothesis explaining some of the seeming suicidal behavior of Euroman. 

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

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

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

GENETIC OMNI-DOMINANCE: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS

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

 

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

INTRODUCTION

As a rule, hybrids do not represent the form exactly intermediate between the parental strains…Those traits that pass into hybrid association entirely or almost entirely unchanged, thus themselves representing the traits of the hybrid, are termed dominating, and those that become latent in the association, recessive.
- Gregor Mendel (1865)

...mutations are most frequently in the direction of inactivation and that for physiological reasons inactivation should generally behave as recessive.
- Sewall Wright (1929)

If two beavers working on the same dam have different genes for dam height, the resulting extended phenotype will reflect the interaction between genes, in the same way as bodies reflect the gene interactions. There could be extended genetic analogues of epistasis, of modifier genes, even of dominance and recessiveness.

- Richard Dawkins (1982)

Freedom is the ability to express self-interest.

Oppression is the inability to express self-interest.

Slavery is the compulsion to express other-interest.

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

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

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

GENETIC OMNI-DOMINANCE: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PARASITISM VS MUTUALISM

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

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

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

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

THE EXTENDED PHENOTYPE

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

THE EVOLUTION OF OMNI-DOMINANCE


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

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

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

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

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

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

Y CHROMOSOMES

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

In the case of European Jewery, the dispersion was to further from human origin
  and we see, except for the core population of Cohanim, Jewish identity is matrilineal
  with no formal prohabilition against more recessive males marrying into Jewish
  identity. The recessive Y
  chromosome lineages that marry into the Jewish religion do not seem to have
  had a substantial impact on the long-term dominance of the Cohanim Y chromosome.

  This is exactly the opposite of what we observe in the case of the Lemba—
  the Jews who long ago dispersed to Zimbabwe, closer to human origin. Among the
  Lemba Jews, who share Y chromosome markers with European Cohanim, external Y
  chromosomes are excluded by the patrilineal tribal law of Lemba Judaism, but
  females from outside are not formally prohibited from marrying into Jewish identity.

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

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

     
  1. Since the male with the foreign Y chromosome has survived invasion of the   deme (a subregion of the ecological range of the species, environmentally   isolated from others within which a subspecies breeds) of which the female   is a member, it is likely the foreign male is competitive.
  2.  
  3. Since the foreign male’s arrival is likely not an isolated incident, the   diseases brought by the foreign male’s deme are likely to show up in the female’s   deme soon—and the female urgently needs to acquire the immunities of the   foreign deme for her children—immunities mediated by the MHC group of genes.  
  4.  
  5. For demes that have undergone greater ecological annealing, there is generally   a greater likelihood that they have adapted to a wider variety of pathogens,   thereby multiplying the urgency that would accompany a typical incursion of   a foreign deme’s males.

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

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


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

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

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

An implied answer is, of course, obvious:

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

MONOGAMY

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

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

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

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

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

PARASITIC CASTRATION

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

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


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

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

TESTOSTERONE AND PARASITIC CASTRATION

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

THE AMYGDALA AND PARASITIC CASTRATION

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

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

Furthermore, as reported in The Geek Syndrome:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EMOTIVE MEMES AS HUMAN PHEROMONES

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

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

INDIRECT CASTRATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRISONER RAPE


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

THE FINAL SOLUTION TO THE JEWISH QUESTION

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

Think variance, not mean.

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

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

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

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


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

Any relatively dominant genetic group will have more heterozygosity.

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

Make no mistake: Blacks are on their way.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

MIND CONTROL

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

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


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

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

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

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

—Mahatma Ghandi Collected Works II p. 74

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

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

And now the closing of that chapter:


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

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


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


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


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

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

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


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

Tags:



Comments:


1

Posted by PF on Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:55 | #

Some minor quibs and quibbles, and then the main point:

According to GOD:

The dispersion of a sub species outward, away from the center of the ecological range via environmental compensation for its weaknesses in these marginal habitats will, therefore, tend to displace indigenous members of that species by introducing greater parasite loading on the indigenous members of that species and healthier non-indigenous competitors for that portion of the range.

I don’t quite follow. How does a sub-species disperse via environmental compensation for its weaknesses?

I presume there is a group of “invaders” replacing the “indigenous” in this example. Why is it a given that the “invaders” will introduce greater parasite loading? Also this doesn’t describe the historical black phenomenon in America - where blacks were brought in by “invaders” (whites) who then built up the state that could sustain their “parasitism”.

This seems like a description of very specific outcomes, but it is not clear why it is worded as generalization - implying that this situation somehow unfolds/recurs naturally in these terms.

Quoting GOD:

In the special case of Mendellian dominance, what can happen is that a gene for a critical trait may produce an enzyme or catalyst, so that even in the heterozygous state there is enough of the critical substance to result in the expression of the critical trait.  However the accomodation is reached, the point is that it takes many more generations to evolve dominance than it does to evolve new beneficial traits.

How does dominance evolve? From wikipedia:

It is critical to understand that dominance is a genotypic relationship between alleles, as manifested in the phenotype.

Leaving aside the discussion of ‘evolving’ new traits, each phenotype-altering mutation (allele) will have a certain expression pattern when combined with the unmutated allele - that determines whether it is dominant or not. Is it not that simple?

How then does dominance evolve? The gene mutates, and dominance either is or isn’t, depending on the phenotypic expression observed. What am I misunderstanding?

—-

One thing I take issue with is the reference to memes as if they were living entities:

GOD wrote:

The human situation is particularly interesting due to the fact that a species coevolved with a human subspecies may be memetic in nature and therefore be transmitted entirely via verbal and/or visual forms of communication.

 

GOD says:

As the outgrowth of the struggle for genetic expression, genetic omni-dominance is perhaps the most crucial aspect of the Darwinian struggle for existence. For a genetic system to influence its own destiny, it must be capable of expression.

Getting to the meat of the argument, one of the questions the GOD hypothesis raises is this:
Can human cultural conflicts be seen as conflicts over gene expression, understanding culture as an extended phenotype?

From a theoretical point of view, potentially, yes. Factually, no, since we don’t know the genes involved in the creation of culture yet. So this is a preview of an understanding that might make more sense given 20 more years of research.

In my view, one potential flaw of the GOD hypothesis is viewing dominance/recessivity in expression patterns of genes as an analogy for dominance/submission in conflicts for the control of culture. It is an understanding based on an analogy and the inference that all behavior constitutes an extended phenotype, instead of empirical observation. Does this analogy and inference hold?

The central point here is whether the attribute of omni-dominance/submission when applied to genes for extended phenotypes, actually describes a lasting characteristic of these genes, thus making GOD a meaningful descriptor of genes and populations.

Dominant/recessive is a valuable descriptor for genes because it describes, all other things being equal, their relative expression patterns. This ‘all other things being equal’ is the crux of the matter with respect to the GOD hypothesis. The nutritional and chemical environment in which species evolve typically has a certain stability - the existence of the organism presumes this stability. So within this chemical environment, its possible to say whether eye color will express as blue or brown. If we change the environment to include anti-sense mRNA blocking the expression of the brown eyed gene, then the expression pattern changes. Implicit therefore in the dominance/recessive dichotomy is a baseline environment which remains unchanged.

What is the baseline environment for testing the expression of GOD genes? The American welfare state circa 1970, the Jewish pale of settlement circa 1870, or a Silicon Valley high-rise block in 1995? If it turns out that extended phenotype genes manifest differently according to the environment they are in and the prior historical causality they are exposed to - then it is not so clear in itself what is GOD and what is not GOD, even though you posit that central-range populations (mediterranean basin presumably?) have more GOD than peripheral populations (british isles?). If a change in historical circumstances alters the respective fates of two groups, have their levels of GOD changed accordingly?


2

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:30 | #

PF asks: How does a sub-species disperse via environmental compensation for its weaknesses?

The primary example is man with his extended phenotypes (technologies) “taming the frontier” for follow-on populations.  There certainly can be other examples where a subspecies may have developed extended phenotypes that make the environment more habitable for the species.

PF asks: Why is it a given that the “invaders” will introduce greater parasite loading?

One of the advantages of expanding to the periphery of the species’ ecological range is one is less likely to encounter parasites adapted to one’s older habitat (we can ignore the very temporary advantage of moving to an area not already “seeded” with coadapted parasites).  Moreover, if the separation goes on long enough, various adaptations may arise in the original population that render the parasites less virulent to them, if not benign.  It is far less likely that a peripheral population will have undergone that selective pressure.

PF points out: “...blacks were brought in by “invaders” (whites) who then built up the state that could sustain their “parasitism”.”

This is a case where whites clearly acted in the interests of blacks and to the detriment of whites.  The hypothesis would explain this as some sort of invasive foreign influence exploiting the white population.  The Black Muslims point to the Jews on this one.  The same appears to be the case with the British Empire (Cromwell cum Disraeli).  What madness made the Aryans invade the Dravidians?  Perhaps in that case it was simply the lactose tolerance causing an expansion of ecological range in an unfortunate direction. 

This is one of the better critiques of the hypothesis:  Y-chromosomes in Northern India still largely reflect the Aryans.  This means the parasitic castration predicted by the hypothesis failed to express until very recent history.  My best defense is to point to the technological retardation surrounding the caste system may have delayed the wholesale destruction of Hindus until the British Jews imposed English on them, and even then it took nearly a century before technological advancement unleashed the destruction of the caste system’s defenses.

PF asks: How then does dominance evolve? The gene mutates, and dominance either is or isn’t, depending on the phenotypic expression observed. What am I misunderstanding?

My view is pseudo-Lamarkian:

Just as genetic evolution of a learned trait may be misunderstood as Lamarkian, so the genetic dominance of a trait may evolve in the presence of a recessive form of the trait.  Recessive traits may be thought of as “learned” in the sense that they are the most likely genes to first produce the adaptive trait since the vast majority of mutations are recessive.  Just as with learned behavior, recessive traits are costly relative to dominant equivalent traits in that they _must_ be paired with matching recessives in order to express.

More later… (and thanks for the questions)


3

Posted by TF on Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:15 | #

This is the biggest crock of shit I’ve ever read, Bowery.  Nobody in the scientific community would take this nonsense seriously.  Even n/a thinks that this half-assed “hypothesis” is a steaming pile of horseshit.

Stick to computers, Bowery.  You’re out of your element.


4

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:43 | #

Until the Civil War, the South presented a fairly valid example of mutualism. These two organism clearly received a fitness benefit (i.e. increased survivorship). The white population of the South grew from 1.2 million in 1790 to over 8 million by 1860 with very little immigration. The black population grew from ~650,000 to 3.9 million over the same period without the slave trade.


5

Posted by PF on Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:55 | #

Alex Zeka wrote:

Would you say that “Game”* is non-GOD males learning to mimic GOD phenotypes?

Wow, Zeka, agree with you very much on that observation.


6

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 28 Jul 2010 02:29 | #

PF asks: “Can human cultural conflicts be seen as conflicts over gene expression, understanding culture as an extended phenotype?”

That is my primary criticism of Dawkins:  He just doesn’t admit the possibility that memes can, themselves, be extended phenotypes of other replicators.

PF states: “From a theoretical point of view, potentially, yes. Factually, no, since we don’t know the genes involved in the creation of culture yet. So this is a preview of an understanding that might make more sense given 20 more years of research.”

Yes.  Longer if the peripheral environments are further dominated, as appears to be the trend.  Shorter if this underestimates the degree to which Jews have specialized in selectively lobotomizing science and are the vast majority of the problem with science.  Jews are losing their mind control powers to their real GODs:  Sub-Saharan Africans.  China is something of a wild card here.  Subcons, although they are quite capable of genetic research (at least compared to lobotomized Euroman), but then so are Jews and look what they do with their intellect in this arena.  Razib et al are the new Lewontins—defending a much smaller, but most critical, territory against scientific progress.

PF states:  “In my view, one potential flaw of the GOD hypothesis is viewing dominance/recessivity in expression patterns of genes as an analogy for dominance/submission in conflicts for the control of culture.”

If one accepts the idea that culture can be an extended phenotype of genes, I’m not sure how one can argue against the proposition.  It is not mere analogy.  If there is a problem with the generalized usage of “dominance” then it starts with Dawkins’ speculation quoted in the introduction.  Yes, it _is_ speculative.  It _is_ subject to selective perception and “over-fitting” in the absence of controlled experiments in human ecology to test the hypothesis and its implications.  Humans are in a terrible predicament since governments have decided that “scientific state” means the kind of “science” represented by the humanities over the last century or two:  Social science, political science, economics, etc.  A founder of one of the Federal agencies actually told me that central planning and application of treatments of the entire population without adequate controls, and without individual consent, is ethically defensible on the grounds that there are “rules of inference” one can follow to tease out causality from natural observations.  This guy spent time in the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies and his specialty was statistics.

Wow…

PF asks: “What is the baseline environment for testing the expression of GOD genes?”

You are essentially asking me to come up with a control group or groups.  Researchers in natural ecology have a similar problem due to the historic lack of controls, except those naturally imposed.  Such natural controls have been largely nullified in human ecologies by Jews and other proponents of horizontal transmission.  This is just one of the ways that Jews have lobotomized science, but its implications are profound.  Jews have made it impractical and, in fact, a blasphemy of Holocaustianity’s strangle hold on governments of Euroman, to form separate human ecologies for themselves since that would violate the prime directive of evolving virulence via horizontal transmission.  Nor do others have the predisposition to fair contest required for controlled experiments in human ecology to be meaningful.  Jews have successfully undone the enlightenment in favor of a Holocaustian Theocracy in which most crucial science is blasphemy, precisely because it is enlightening about human ecology.


7

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 28 Jul 2010 02:35 | #

Zeka, I’d agree with you if you would agree with me that, for example, public health measures that prevent mosquitoes from accessing the sickest “mimics the phenotype” of immunity to malaria offered by sickle cell anemia.  (See Ewald regarding malaria.)


8

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 28 Jul 2010 02:38 | #

TF: Whatever you say, whatever you are.  I appreciate the dominant posture you’ve taken with me to put me in my place with your oracular derision, the primary foundation of which is an appeal to an anonymous “authority” who, himself, bottoms out the recursion with oracular derision.

Only the most dominant of authorities could be so incisive without anything resembling a valid argument.

PS:  Might I suggest you could better invest your time than perusing the ancient Usenet history of someone so insignificant?


9

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 28 Jul 2010 06:11 | #

I am fascinated by this article. Thank you very much, Mr. Bowery.


10

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 28 Jul 2010 07:19 | #

Mind control of young females is all important in the GOD “game”.  So why don’t we see more white pimps? 

Ever watch “American Pimp”?


11

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:09 | #

AZ states: “You’re reasoning above is akin to noting that humans take swimming lessons, and then wondering why fish are better swimmers.”

Actually, since I thought you were using “game” in the sense of the urban dictionary’s definition definition of “play”:

2) to get hella game from the opposite or same sex.
Example 1:

Tracy: Um, My friend told me you were at the mall with some other skeez.

Rob: WTF? You trying to say i as PLAYing on you??

Tracy: You fucking PLAYER!...I’m gonna bust a cap up in yo ass!.. bitch!

Example 2:

Tracy: Yo!.. you go out with the boys last night?

Rob: Fo sho’s.. I had much PLAY up in the club…Cuz I was mad bling up in my new Threads.

Tracy: Shiiet!.. only PLAY you got was from yo mom!..NIGGA!

It should be apparent that I, too, was being sarcastic in a different way that makes the same point you were making.

In other words, its not really a good idea to combat a fitness invasion of an environment made by Euromen by training them to be wiggers (white niggers—just to be clear).


12

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:47 | #

After doing a search on “Race Gender and the Frontier” to refer you to my 1992 essay, I, amusingly, found this comment on Roissy’s site (I don’t recall posting that comment, BTW).  It will answer your question:

Jimbo
From “Race, Gender and the Frontier” by Jim Bowery

The progress of humanity, from its earliest hunter-gatherer ?hominid groups in subsaharan Africa to the technological ?progress of Western Civilization, has been driven by ?pressures to survive in marginal habitats placed on excess ?or “beta” males by the polygamy of dominant or “alpha” males ?selected by the reproductive preferences of females.  It is ?this process of expansion into marginal habitats driven by ?the inequities of polygamy that gave rise, first, to racial ?gradients with climate and then to a moral of monogamy ?arising from the harsh necessities of northern climates. 

Monogamy only exists where successful rearing of children to ?reproductive age requires the exclusive support of a male. 

In benign environments, social adaptations that characterize ?polygamous cultures were prevalent including homosexual ?behavior, frequent small-scale battles and stable social ?cycles.  In more northerly climates, social adaptations ?that characterize monogamous cultures were prevalent ?including a lesser incidence of homosexual behavior, ?relatively infrequent wars of technically sophisticated ?genocide and progressive traditions.

Northern climates also gave rise to a profound biological selection for morality imprinting since it was only through total acceptance and observance of tribal rules, adapted for the unique environment, that survival in such “unnatural” environments was possible.  Indeed, immorality could threaten the fragile adaptations of the entire tribe.  Instinct, taking too long to evolve, was supplanted by a
meta-instinct which allowed one’s behavior to be imprinted by the tribe’s moral rules for survival.

A couple of days after “jimbo” posted that to Roissy’s site, this comment appeared on Sailer’s blog:

Wayne said…
She rejected white males and went off with a black guy, and the product of her ‘liberated sexuality, Barack Obama, is supposed to the ideal model of future America—black male/white female union.

Liberal white males are okay with this socio-racial reality because they are a bunch of Ken Burnsy wussies who’ve been psychologically castrasted—like the inmates under Nurse Ratched in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

Interesting. This seems to tie in with the modern sexual dynamics (serial monogamy, de facto polygyny), “alphas”, “betas”, type stuff that “Game” bloggers like Roissy in DC have been writing about recently.

Incidentally, all this stuff on alphas, betas, sex dynamics, was being written about by James Bowery way back in 1992 in his essay “Race, Gender and the Frontier” Part 1 and Part 2. It’s pretty fascinating. It’s like the beta male theory of human expansion/history.
10/08/2009</a>

So I suspect “jimbo” and “Wayne” are the same person.

PS: It would be unfortunate if my quest for racial truth spawned Roissy’s “game”, but science is always subject to abuse.  On the other hand a hallmark of science is independent discovery as a substitute for replication.  Objective reality is what it is whoever the observer.


13

Posted by jcdavis on Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:15 | #

@ James Bowery

Fascinating stuff.

How does the well-established phenomenon of the Charisma Man i.e. geeky Northern European males who aren’t successful with women back home but are alpha studs in East Asia fit into your hypothesis?

Presumably, according to your theory the N Euro males would be of greater GOD than the NE Asian males.  But aren’t N Euro traits such as light hair and eyes recessive compared to NE Asian traits such as dark hair and eyes?


14

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:08 | #

jcdavis, what does this graph tell you?


15

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:20 | #

Also, what does this mating’s progeny tell you?


PLUS

Gives rise to <a >this comment from the “Charisma Man”</a>:

Much to our surprise, my fair-and-pasty genes somehow put one over on Anna’s Asian genes, and the little guy has blond hair.</a>

BTW: If you’ve ever personally interacted with the father, you’ll notice he is on the autism spectrum—specifically a mild form of Aspergers.


16

Posted by jcdavis on Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:52 | #

@ James Bowery

That’s an interesting example.  But don’t the offspring of such unions tend to have darker hair and eye coloration?

Is your point that overall East Asians are more recessive than N Euros even if for certain traits such as hair and eye coloration they may be relatively more dominant?


17

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 29 Jul 2010 02:58 | #

Yes.  That is consistent with the hypothesis and the data.


18

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:05 | #

AZ states: “I don’t think there’s anything that unfortunate about you’re theory spawning “Game”. It’s basic point is to allow non-GODs (betas) to replicate GOD traits.”

Earlier AZ states: “GODs don’t need Game any more than fish need swimming lessons. You’re reasoning above is akin to noting that humans take swimming lessons, and then wondering why fish are better swimmers.”

I go along with your notion that humans taking swimming lessons should not be led to believe that they’ll out-swim fish.

That’s what I find objectionable in Roissy’s “game”.

Now, I’ll admit that he could only slightly modify his “game” and make me more sympathetic:

“Look, guys, women have been mind controlled because the environment is polluted and it is not only illegal to clean up the environment, it is viewed by the defacto theocracy ruling the white world, as the equivalent of Satan (Hitler) worship.  So here’s the best we can do, trapped and sexually tortured as we are.  It ain’t pretty but then what’s been done to us and our women is a _lot_ uglier and until they catch on, this is considered only “naughty”—not From Hell.”


19

Posted by n/a on Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:27 | #

James,

Someone asked my opinion and I gave it. I didn’t feel like wasting my time detailing the problems with what you call “a somewhat out-of-date hypothesis”. You are good at generating ideas (many of which I like), but I think you could stand to devote a bit more effort to checking the plausibility of your own theories.

“If there is a problem with the generalized usage of “dominance” then it starts with Dawkins’ speculation quoted in the introduction.”

It starts with your ignoring “analogues” and assuming that “dominant genes” = “dominant extended phenotypes”. Also, the assumption that blacks have genes that are “dominant” over white genes. In the case of hair or eye color, this may be true. In the case of skin color or IQ, it’s not (mulattoes are intermediate between whites and blacks, tending slightly to the white side if anything).

“What follows is an hypothesis concerning the (ecological) distance from human origins of human genetic variations concerned with regulating gene expression in general including extended phenotypes.”

So Bushmen, Pygmies, and skinny East Africans should dominate over West African types. But full-sized Congoids eat Pygmies.

“GOD is the generalized result of sustained competition for phenotypic expression among self-interested complexes of DNA”

Whether an allele is “dominant” or “recessive” has no real bearing on its adaptiveness. What matters is whether it confers a fitness advantage.

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

This is gibberish. The Y chromosome contains few genes, and men and women have identical MHC genes. Anyway, you’ll find blacks in America carry a substantial fraction of European Y chromosomes (likewise for Brazilian blacks).

“the history of white male violence against black males who
have sex with white females is clear evidence that sexual jealousy, a primary
motivator of male on male violence, is at play in interracial relations, exactly
as is expected from traditional views of racial differences.”

It is not in the interest of European men to allow non-European men access to their women, period. Read old newspapers and you’ll find that whites likewise did not look kindly on Chinese men fraternizing with white women. Contra you and Sailer, it does nothing to show black men are “more masculine”. From what I observe today, seeing a black woman with a white man evokes much more rage in the average black man than the reverse evokes in the average white man. Whites should be angrier, but being more intelligent, they are better able to suppress their natural reactions and behave in what they are taught is the “moral” way.

“The practical reality of this sort of sexual attraction is so well accepted that it forms a common theme in popular culture.”

Jewish wish-fulfillment. TV is not reality.

Finally, Dawkins has written:

To take a more extreme example than these commentators consider, when I am asked by lay people (as I frequently am) whether buildings count as extended phenotypes, I answer no, on the grounds that the success or failure of buildings does not affect the frequency of architects’ genes in the gene pool. Extended phenotypes are worthy of the name only if they are candidate adaptations for the benefit of alleles responsible for variations in them. I might admit the theoretical possibility of generalising to other kinds of replicators such as memes (or something ‘epigenetic’ that Eva Jablonka might be able to explain but I wouldn’t), in which case my ‘no’ answer might be softened. But it is enough of a problem already, getting my more hard-headed scientific colleagues to accept the extended phenotype, without arousing their active hostility by mentioning memes (which many see as simplistic) or ‘epigenetic inheritance systems’ (which some might write off as obscurantist).

[RICHARD DAWKINS. Extended Phenotype – But Not Too Extended. A Reply to Laland, Turner and Jablonka. Biology and Philosophy 19: 377–396, 2004.]

To think about just one of the examples raised in the comment thread concretely, it’s nonsensical to imagine West Africans had some genetic adaptation that predisposed them to tricking Europeans into buying them and shipping to North America. Those slaves who happened to end up in North America benefited, but those who remained in Africa could have just as easily been consumed by their fellow Africans and only something like 10% of slaves shipped across the Atlantic ended up in North America.

Perhaps you could also explain how the hypothesis accounts for Hispanic immigration to the US, at present diminishing the relative population size and genetic interests of American blacks despite the fact that the dominant (Amerindian) component among the invaders hails from about are as far from human origins as it’s possible to get?


20

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:46 | #

Thanks for presenting some arguments.  To avoid spending too much time on this myself (I’ve already denied myself some money to make these responses) I’ll try to answer the strongest argument first and get around to the second strongest, etc. as “time permits”:

n/a writes: Perhaps you could also explain how the hypothesis accounts for Hispanic immigration to the US, at present diminishing the relative population size and genetic interests of American blacks despite the fact that the dominant (Amerindian) component among the invaders hails from about are as far from human origins as it’s possible to get?

The moral authority of invading Hispanics/Latinos/Mestizos/etc. is virtually nil.  Basically all they are good for is Jewish virulence removing safety-net employment for the US middle class (as well as making the lower class more dependent on politics via the Democratic Party to get their “daily bread”).  At present, they are simply making people angry by their blatant disregard for the law and manifest ethnic nepotism—both of which are Jewish inspired postures.  In short the illegal immigrants from the south look as though they are setting themselves up for a huge backlash that may even shatter the union into independent sovereignties.  Whose interests would that serve?

More later…


21

Posted by Dylan R. on Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:28 | #

Regarding Hispanics, would their non-trivial Med and Negro admixture have any implications here?  The “Game” blogger mentioned above “Roissy” has a recent post (http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/chicks-dig-jerks-game-is-its-own-status/) about some thuggish “player” type Hispanic surnamed “Camacho” that two White girls were infatuated with and involved in a love triangle with.  One of the girls stabbed the other in the heart in a fit of jealous rage and killed her.  Camacho’s phenotype suggests a good deal of Negro admixture.


22

Posted by Fr. John on Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:26 | #

‘This appears to have happened when the technical infrastructure of the Roman Empire compensated for the naturally harsh conditions at the frontiers of that Empire creating an environment within which the universal altruism of Christianity was promoted among Europeans by Paul and the other early Christian Proselytes who were Jews. 

Jewish religious belief, however, retained its tribal character, expressing both reciprocal and kin altruism.  The result was an extended period of Jewish success in diaspora among Europeans in competition with holders of indigenous niches involving religious beliefs and inter-tribal trade. ‘

This is a faulty premise, mired in a mistaken assumption, predicated on a philosphical error that has gone on for over 1000 years.

First off, Christianity is NOT an ‘atruistic’ universalist belief. IT is the supercession of BIBLICAL Judaism, which, in turn, bears NO relationship to post-AD70 Talmudism, which is the stated belief of all those (as St. John in his Apocalypse noted in AD96) ‘say they are Jews, but are not.’ [REv. 2:8,9]

Because Christianity DID spread to the “Ecumene,” does not necessarily presume a universalist belief, prior to the Great Schism of the West in 1054. As I have been at pains to point out on my blog, the error of modern ‘Multiculturalist’ Xianity, is because, in 1054, Rome divorced herself both theologically and philosophically from the Apostolic Church, by adopting the ‘filioque’ in the [heretofore] agreed upon Symbolon of the Catholic Faith, the Nicene Creed.

Dr. J. Photios Farrell (PhD, Oxon) has written a very good critique of this error, and its’ ramifications in all of Western History, entitled ‘God, history and Dialectic.’ http://godhistorydialectic.wordpress.com/

Before presuming on Roman models (which all protestant nations partake of, merely by being offshoots of Rome’s Thomism) one needs in this ‘diversity-conscious age’ to be enlightened about the Byzantine pov, which differs markedly from the West’s.

Christianity clearly was articulated by Christ ( who else?) when he stated, “I am come ONLY to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel.” [Matt. 15:24] St. John’s Gospel, chapter 8, clearly shows that the [sic] Jews were NOT that people- indeed Christ, called them ‘sons of their father, the Devil.’ [John 8:44]

So, to presume that either what passes for Xianity is the Christianity of the Ages, or that the imposter Talmudics are the ‘Chosen People of God’ is shoddiness in scholarship raised to the nth degree.


23

Posted by PF on Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:06 | #

Dylan wrote:

Regarding Hispanics, would their non-trivial Med and Negro admixture have any implications here?  The “Game” blogger mentioned above “Roissy” has a recent post (http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/chicks-dig-jerks-game-is-its-own-status/) about some thuggish “player” type Hispanic surnamed “Camacho” that two White girls were infatuated with and involved in a love triangle with.  One of the girls stabbed the other in the heart in a fit of jealous rage and killed her.  Camacho’s phenotype suggests a good deal of Negro admixture.

This prompts me to sound off on Game! How convenient!

The whole idea of game is a worship of lower IQ behavior based on the fact that emotionally messed up girls who are very hot and very inexperienced at life (being mostly 18-23), are visibly and observably falling into the trap of going out with guys who can manifest the behaviors that are being studied. The Game guy observes this, is crushed by it, and spawns this philosophy/tactics, some of which obviously work. People from low IQ strata/groups always think they are the shit because they lack the social self-consciousness to not be constantly amazed with themselves just for breathing. That is the essence of ‘thug confidence’ and guys who write poems about their own ‘swagger’. White society asks you to be quite a lot more than able to walk and threaten people, so whites are conscious of existing in a hierarchy where ‘high status’ is by no means guaranteed. Hence our beta-ness, which is a constriction in the chest in social situations which prevents our voices from having resonance and our body language from becoming expansive because we are less sure of reward. We have evolved a more complex understanding of what social ‘reward’ means, during the ice ages. So we have no inherent Game.

The central question of game is whether you want to have sexual flings with the emotionally distraught babes of the future underclass, or form something like meaningful relationships with girls you can relate to. Some people can use game to have sex with these problem-having chix (I say that a girl who has sex with a guy on the basis of his ‘looking cool’ and saying some caveman-type shit to her, is going to have problems, girls like this dont have their shit together). Roissy implicitly wants to bring women into his life who are unstable enough that they would commit murder over a guy who texts them with ‘bring movies’. As long as they are hot, thats all that matters. Thats what is implied in posting those girls pictures and talking about how ‘hot’ they are (um?). Its desperation on his part that just wants a hot girl, apparently he is not aware (huh?) about what these chix bring with them. Or about the fact that you cant be having sex with her 24/7 and sometimes you will actually be having conversations, which if you have this type person, will all spiral out of control and lead to alienation - quickly driving her/you off and limiting the time spent in enjoyment of things.

So there is straight game for sex with distraught future-underclass chicks, modded mixed-game for getting a leg up with college girls by being more outgoing/mysterious/occasionally doing wacky stuff, and RSD-style authenticity-anti-game-game for if you the pleasure of dealing with a woman who is smart enough to see through behaviors that you learned off the internet, who is too refined for your imitating mediterranean basin mating rituals in all your paleface glory. (Also you can practice these behavior tricks until it becomes natural, but this contains its own catch-22 because this, too, is very beta and pathetic even if it looks good and manifests results: spending a year play-acting off of stuff you read on the internet generally requires a lack of Self to accomplish).

For acquiring top shelf lady-friendship i.e. ladies you can have a conversation with and dont have to chuck overboard afterwards, the answer to Roissy is better screening and qualification of the chick, higher emphasis on initial interest level(her gut response to you), realization of target demographics (i.e. if you’re smart you have to write off lots of girls being realistic), discovery of genuineness (ala RSD) in order to make an authentic connection, and mix with 2% game to get you out of doors. Also there are kinds of ‘inner game’ that go beyond what is available to these guys, which resolve all/most of these problems altogether, but that is something difficult to understand and approach. These tactics manuever you into the demographic sweet spot where game becomes unnecessary for you, as opposed to the “I will be able to have sex with all types of woman on earth if I learn enough complex rules” school of thought.

This is put into words here:

http://attractwomenanywhere.com/blog/2010/05/30/understanding-indifference-part-deux/

4.  What type of women does Indifference best work on?

What about pure indifference as it’s taught?  Surely, you’ve read advice that has instructed you to act like you don’t care about her or women in general, ever!  TWO key points about pure indifference that you ought to remember:

Point 1:    The pure indifference “Don’t ever show you care” advice is ONLY designed to GET YOU A PIECE OF ASS! It is NOT designed to allow you to connect with another human being, because you’ve most likely dragged the interaction down to gamesmanship.  So if you want a cool girl to date or if you want a girlfriend, you just threw it all away.

Point 2:  That advice is also NOT designed to get you a quality woman of high value. A quality girl with high self-esteem is going to want to know & feel that she is somewhat valued by the guy she is dating.  Remember, she’s got a lot of choices too.

Having said that, I’ll again concede that certain women respond well to that pure indifference.  If this is all you ever do, then you’ll find unequivocally that Club-skanks, certain party chicks, and socialites respond well to this type of behavior.

Why is that so?

Here is the reason:  The archetypes of women I just mentioned are mostly EXTERNALLY VALIDATED. When you withhold that external validation, it fucks with their system, to put it scientifically.

The reason it does not work well with high QUALITY women is because they have some sort of an INTERNAL source of validation (not to be mistaken with ego).

http://attractwomenanywhere.com/blog/2010/03/12/how-to-spot-promiscuous-girls-part-2/

and elsewhere.

Well, thats all settled then!


24

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:57 | #

Dylan wrote: Regarding Hispanics, would their non-trivial Med and Negro admixture have any implications here?

No doubt, but the negroid admixture is not the norm among those displacing lower class labor in the US as one can see from the typical phenotype of “Hispanics”.  That said, the Hispanic situation in “the Americas” much is more complex than one would be led to believe by by Xing et al. in their selection of “Americans” if for no other reason than the population expansion was from North to South, hence from ecologies more ecologically distant from human origins to those ecologically closer to human origins.  Add to that speculation on pre-Columbian migration straight out of Africa to central America, as well as more recent admixture with the post-Columbian migrations, and you definitely have a problematic situation that may provide a number of human ecology outliers.

Nevertheless, if we are to presume that, in general, Hispanics are on a gradient from Spaniard to central American Amerindians, we cannot simply dismiss the importance of n/a’s question—indeed it is transforming the populations of the United States as the elites “elect a new people” via race replacement and hence is most important.

An illustrative anecdote may help here:

A Pacific Northwest Mormon family I know, directly and multiply-descendant from the original Apostles of the LDS, had an attractive teenage daughter who, it was found, had over $10,000 in her bank account from unknown origins.  I recall the one evening I was staying with the family overnight, their daily “Scriptures and Prayer” session started and although her father obviously admonished her to stay, she walked out for the evening.

It turns out she was a black-tar heroin addict and she was dealing black-tar heroin.  She had been “adopted” by a local Hispanic gang.

Well, out where I was living was reservation territory and the local law enforcement guys, with whom I had an occasional beer or 3, informed me that the primary mode of operation of the black tar heroin Hispanic gangs was to buddy up with the PNW tribes that had reservation lands—huge unpopulated lands—as their base of operation.  Anyone who has been around the northern tribes can see that they are of obviously superior stock to the Hispanics—particularly as you get further north into places around Yellow Knife Canada.  Yet they in essence put themselves at risk for their “Hispanic brothers” and probably get no more than 10% of the profits.  The PNW is far from a white man’s refuge.


25

Posted by Wexler on Sat, 31 Jul 2010 00:12 | #

PF - good comments on game. Practicing game, as a non-natural alpha, requires a certain lack of natural, distinct, character. If your personality is so malleable, then who are you really? Somewhat sociopathic, i would say.

As for JB’s article, i slogged through it. As i’ve said before, the science is beyond me, but it doesn’t seem far-fetched that groups not dominating the mating game will be compromised in ways that are not immediately apparent, and that these ways might be expressed in developmental disorders.


26

Posted by n/a on Sat, 31 Jul 2010 01:44 | #

James,

“In short the illegal immigrants from the south look as though they are setting themselves up for a huge backlash that may even shatter the union into independent sovereignties.  Whose interests would that serve?”

Compared to what we have now: whites’.

“It turns out she was a black-tar heroin addict and she was dealing black-tar heroin.  She had been “adopted” by a local Hispanic gang.”

A hundred years ago, one can find examples enough of white women “adopted” by Chinamen into opium dens. You are correct to sense a problem/threat. The problem is solved by removing foreign men from one’s territory—not by spinning silly theories about how non-white men are more “dominant” or “charismatic” than white men.


27

Posted by LEW on Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:34 | #

I have to say love the work on this Web site.

I hate to horn in with a comment that doesn’t contribute anything to the discussion, but the water here is much too deep for me, so for now at least I will just keep reading.


28

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 31 Jul 2010 07:25 | #

I quote Dawkins:

“If two beavers working on the same dam have different genes for dam height, the resulting extended phenotype will reflect the interaction between genes, in the same way as bodies reflect the gene interactions. There could be extended genetic analogues of epistasis, of modifier genes, even of dominance and recessiveness.“

- Richard Dawkins (1982)

On which I commented: If one accepts the idea that culture can be an extended phenotype of genes, I’m not sure how one can argue against the proposition.  It is not mere analogy.  If there is a problem with the generalized usage of “dominance” then it starts with Dawkins’ speculation quoted in the introduction.

n/a critiques:It starts with your ignoring “analogues” and assuming that “dominant genes” = “dominant extended phenotypes”.

The jury has now, more recently than when I wrote the GOD Hypothesis, rendered a “not guilty” verdict on the idea that regulation of expression is the primary mode of genetic action.

Dawkins called it a mere analog.

I contradict Dawkins in that I view the regulation of expression of any phenotypes, extended or organismic, as more than a mere “analogue” for Mendelian dominance, modifier genes and epistasis.  I’d like to see Dawkins’ current view on this given the recent discoveries about regulation of gene expression.

What seems “silly” to me is to think that an extension is mere analogy.  Dawkins screwed up.


29

Posted by PF on Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:36 | #

Bowery wrote:

I contradict Dawkins in that I view the regulation of expression of any phenotypes, extended or organismic, as more than a mere “analogue” for Mendelian dominance, modifier genes and epistasis.  I’d like to see Dawkins’ current view on this given the recent discoveries about regulation of gene expression.

The causal relationship between gene and phenotype could be established for Mendelian dominance, e.g. in pea pod size or eye color.

There is as yet no strong causal relationship established between specific genes and cultural phenotypes, although it is speculated on by HBD bloggers. The analysis that could look specifically at isolated factors and control for the slew of covariates which would be required - is a long way off.

This analysis not only requires that some causal links be established (gene->extended phenotype), but in order to test it we would have to arrive at an understanding of gene-human-environment interactions that was near comprehensive, even across large swathes of time, in order to rule out confounding interactions between variables. To know whether this hypothesis works or not, you have to know something like an exhaustive catalogue of all gene->environment interactions, and environment->environment interactions, and gene->gene interactions, for several human populations.

For example, if we can link certain genes to different levels of violence, but these also were linked to low income level, then our cultural phenotype analysis would have to include an estimation of the non-genetic impact of violence on income levels and vice versa. It would also have to discriminate between environmental causes unfolding in real-time and the knock on effects of the past legacy of violence - discriminating between variables which we can call legacy load (of a trait) based on the amount known to spontaneously arise given a certain genotypic distribution and the time coefficient of time-passed-since-this-genotype-distribution-obtains. Its probably likely that, when genetics arrives at the point where it has to/wants to carry out these analyses, scientists will develop new paradigms which allow for a simpler analysis.

For example, (i.e. allow me to show off) it may become possible to represent the entire catalogue of possible human brain states using symbolic dynamics notation. In this process EEG readings of electric activity in various brain regions are transformed into a state notation such as a0e44sk32l43k4kl5, which might signify that I’m pondering a blogger’s hypothesis. a039k384kdj563 would signify a level of activity that was known to correspond to me posting constructive criticism. You could then link a genotypic analysis to the distribution of brain states which would show the real-time psychology resulting from a given genotype, provided it was possible to follow lots of people around or expose them to many stimuli and build a database. Then rather than use measures of the external world to represent things, which adds confounds by the noise introduced at the decision-state/world interface, you could provide a probabilistic map of who spends how much time residing in what brain state and what does that brain state mean given the neural architecture of the person - a matrix of corrective factors interpreting/transforming the neuronal state into the ‘behavior’ space - and then what is the distribution of brain states in the society, and how does that relate to observable behavior. I mean, it circumvents the correlation-causation conundrum involved in assessing the effect of genes for low alcohol tolerance + olicanthic eye folds + high population density on # of car crashes, given that olicanthic eye folds, low alcohol tolerance and high population density could all contribute but only with the help of control groups - which we are never realistically going to have for most extended phenotype traits - can one say whether they do so significantly.

The testing of your hypothesis presumes that this problem is already solved. To test the GOD hypothesis we have to perform a meta-analysis of the emerging data across all of genetically-caused phenotypic variation. So it presumes something like 50-100 years of knowledge gain from where we currently are at (even AI can’t carry out experiments on human beings quickly).

The question is will the paradigm of dominance survive the sophistication of analysis which this hypothesis requires. Its not impossible to trace the demographic-sociobiological observations which inspire the backbone of this hypothesis: Jewish phenotypic traits for group competition displacing British-islander traits in American society. Or alternately, African phenotypic traits for violent domination/territoriality displacing British-islander traits in American society.

Interesting dialogue James and n/a.

James wrote:

What seems “silly” to me is to think that an extension is mere analogy.  Dawkins screwed up.

Until the causal relationship is demonstrated with a control group(impossible for extended phenotype traits at present), the relationship (genes->extended phenotypes) is inferred by analogy. I’m aware that certain principles are shared across different levels of complexity and thus can be extrapolated (as above so below), but until these (genetic causation of phenotype) are observed at the higher extended-phenotype level, I dont know cases of scientists “extending” theories where data is nonexistent.


30

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:07 | #

PF writes: There is as yet no strong causal relationship established between specific genes and cultural phenotypes, although it is speculated on by HBD bloggers. The analysis that could look specifically at isolated factors and control for the slew of covariates which would be required - is a long way off…. Until the causal relationship is demonstrated with a control group(impossible for extended phenotype traits at present), the relationship (genes->extended phenotypes) is inferred by analogy.

What I mean when I say “Dawkins screwed up.” is that he is contradicting himself when he calls these things mere analogy.  The very concept of an “extended phenotype” is predicated on an environmental impact of population genetics which suffers from the problem of teasing out cultural from genetic causality.  To use one of Dawkins’ favorite examples:  How do we know the beaver dam isn’t cultural?  Have experiments actually been done where beavers were separated at birth from other beavers, raised to adolescence and reintroduced to the wild to see if they build dams?

Moreover, this is really an ecological hypothesis.  Even assuming that such experiments were carried out on beavers, it may be that environmental triggers are required for the genetic behavior to express.  So you may have to tease out those environmental triggers.

Ecological hypotheses are very difficult to test, but that is what a large portion of epidemiology is about—the “germ theory of disease”.  Believe it or not, I know some cultural determinists who believe that the placebo effect is so strong that it is unnecessary to posit a germ theory of disease.  Miracles happen.


31

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 01 Aug 2010 00:29 | #

A quick thanks to Lew on behalf of all the writers here for his kind comment.  The great unknown for political bloggers is the sum of the effect we have in the world.  Obviously, we don’t expect much ... a world revolution by tea-time would suffice!  But it’s good to know that there are people out there who find value in what we do, and can be troubled to tell us so.


32

Posted by n/a on Mon, 02 Aug 2010 02:42 | #

“recent discoveries about regulation of gene expression.”

What discoveries make you imagine complex behavioral phenotypes are simple Mendelian traits at the genetic level?

“So why don’t we see more white pimps?”

Replied.


33

Posted by carolan on Sun, 08 Aug 2010 05:29 | #

Henry Harpending has said that he believes in the GOD Hypothesis but that it’s unlikely to be received seriously by mainstream academia because of its political implications.


34

Posted by Fr. John on Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:09 | #

‘Does Dr. Farrell get into the reasons for modern Christianity’s aiding and abetting Euro-race genocide and ways to cure that?’

He does, in that he calls the modern [Western, filioquist] ‘Europe’ not ‘EUROPE’ at all, but a philosophical imposter. His PhD is in Philosophy, not sociology, etc. But the realities of Jewish dominance, the re-writing of history (by said ‘victors’) and the growth of the Talmudic culture of modern post-Christian Europe is readily visible, for ‘those with eyes to see, and ears to hear,’ as it were.

When the soul of a people is removed, the vacuum will fill with all sorts of sh*t. Augustine knew that in AD 420; so did Luther. But they both confused person with substance, and made the H.S. out to be the ‘love’ between the Father and the Son, and not the God that He rightly is. the papacy filled in that ‘missing link’ in the Trinity for over 500 years, and the Word (Bible) filled it in after the Reformation until the ‘Englightenment,’ when MAN (qua man) began to be universalized (think of Beethoven’s ‘Ode to Joy’ and you will see what I mean) until even the ‘Black’ man became the ‘new God’ of the post-Christian, post-Englightenment, post-Lincolnian liberal.

That is where we find ourselves at this moment. Reading some of the excellent posts of http://www.cambriawillnotyield.blogspot.com helped me crystallize this view, but Farrell’s work enabled me to see the philosophical error behind the filiqoue, which led me to jettison ALL Roman/Thomism as even ‘potentially’ valid- which is something 99.5% of Westerners can’t even get their minds around…...


35

Posted by Denys on Thu, 12 Aug 2010 06:40 | #

James Bowery:

This is a very interesting hypothesis.  Thank you for sharing it with us.

There was a study published a few months ago that may be relevant to this hypothesis:

“Modern Man Found to Be Generally Monogamous, Moderately Polygamous”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100302112018.htm

Did women and men contribute equally to the lineage of contemporary populations? Did our ancestors, Homo sapiens, lean more toward polygamy or monogamy? To answer these questions, Dr. Damian Labuda, an investigator at the Sainte-Justine University Hospital Research Center and a professor at the Department of Pediatrics of the Universit? de Montr?al, headed a team that analyzed genomic data from three population samples of African, Asian and European origin. The study’s findings are published in the most recent issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics.

Genetic Population History

In a strictly monogamous population, one would expect to have an equal number of breeding females and males and, therefore, a breeding sex ratio of one female to one male. In a population where males tend to have more than one female mate, more females than males contribute to reproduction; for this reason the breeding ratio exceeds one. The authors of this study estimate that the breeding ratio varies between 1.1 and 1.4 according to population: 1.1 in Asia, 1.3 in Europe and 1.4 in Africa.


36

Posted by wegman on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:32 | #

The anthropologist Peter Frost completely disrespected and dismissed James Bowery and his “Genetic Omnidominance Hypothesis”:

http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-infidelity.html?showComment=1282676193385#c218433239404970037

Peter Frost says that the “Genetic Omnidominance Hypothesis” is “not easy to read and is perhaps not meant to be taken seriously. I see little merit in it, sorry.”


37

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 06 Dec 2011 21:13 | #

Brilliant, James.


38

Posted by Northern Exposure on Sat, 10 Nov 2018 15:36 | #

An episode in which a Nordic woman discusses her nature to confront the Augustinian (Augustinian devils = natural devils, e.g., the cold), and anthropomorphized as such, exposes her natural inclination’s potential naivete and susceptibility to invasive, human species, particularly those of a more Manichean, trickster nature (Manichean = human, trickster devils, that can change the rules).

- Observation by DanielS


39

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 21 Jul 2021 18:54 | #

Strange that in the early 1970s, Grinnell College was teaching this stuff in its undergraduate microbiology classes but in 2018, it was considered news by in the journal Cell:

Spatially Correlated Gene Expression in Bacterial Groups: The Role of Lineage History, Spatial Gradients, and Cell-Cell Interactions

It’s almost as though _something_ detected how dangerous it would be if people saw the analogy to human culture autophagy secondary to technologically fostered panmixia, and decided to, uh, de-emphasize certain problematic features biological evolution right about the time the Boomers were coming of age.


40

Posted by Thorn on Thu, 22 Jul 2021 22:39 | #

Noticed Jimmy Marr in the comments. I wonder how he’s doing. The last I heard (several years ago) is he was hospitalized after being physically assaulted by a group of Antifa types. I hope he’s fully recovered and doing well.

Anyone have an update?


41

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 28 Nov 2021 02:18 | #

Here is a lecture on some of the advances in understanding the importance of gut bacteria since 2002 when the H-1b invasion began turning the San Francisco area into an open sewer where you aren’t admitted to hotels without checking the soles of your feet.

The thing to notice most about this lecture is 1) the clearly dominant role gut bacteria play in the total genetic ecology of an individual’s body, 2) failure to mention that toying with this ecology is like toying with your DNA, 3) the unalloyed praise of “diversity of gut bacteria” and blaming everything that might be wrong with one’s gut bacteria on antibiotics, 4) no mention of the evolution of virulence of bacteria arising from other-than-vertical transmission (parent to child) and, again, focusing only on antibiotic resistance, 5) short shrift given to interactions between human genetic diversity and the bacteria DNA.


42

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 12 Apr 2022 14:07 | #

From “You Gentiles”:

…We try to adapt your institutions to our needs, because while we live we must have expression; and trying to rebuild them for our needs, we unbuild them for yours.

and

Samuel later wrote that he happily grew up in Manchester identifying with England and its heroes and history, until at a certain point he did not feel it was his England in the same way as for his school fellows. Throwing himself into Jewish culture and Zionism solved his perceived problem, and forced his conclusion that Jews best not live among others.

 



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: Black parents, white baby, Jewish journalism?
Previous entry: News from around the MultiCult

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

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Fri, 22 Nov 2024 00:28. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Thu, 21 Nov 2024 12:46. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Wed, 20 Nov 2024 17:30. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Wed, 20 Nov 2024 12:07. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Mon, 18 Nov 2024 00:21. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Sun, 17 Nov 2024 21:36. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 18:37. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 18:14. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 17:30. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Trump will 'arm Ukraine to the teeth' if Putin won't negotiate ceasefire' on Sat, 16 Nov 2024 11:14. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke Badenoch wins Tory leadership election' on Tue, 12 Nov 2024 00:04. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke Badenoch wins Tory leadership election' on Mon, 11 Nov 2024 23:12. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke Badenoch wins Tory leadership election' on Mon, 11 Nov 2024 19:02. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Nationalism's ownership of the Levellers' legacy' on Sun, 10 Nov 2024 15:11. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke Badenoch wins Tory leadership election' on Fri, 08 Nov 2024 23:26. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke Badenoch wins Tory leadership election' on Wed, 06 Nov 2024 18:13. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke Badenoch wins Tory leadership election' on Mon, 04 Nov 2024 23:48. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Sat, 02 Nov 2024 12:19. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Sat, 02 Nov 2024 04:15. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Sat, 02 Nov 2024 03:57. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Sat, 02 Nov 2024 03:40. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Fri, 01 Nov 2024 23:03. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'The legacy of Southport' on Tue, 29 Oct 2024 17:21. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Mon, 28 Oct 2024 23:14. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Fri, 25 Oct 2024 22:28. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Fri, 25 Oct 2024 22:27. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Thu, 24 Oct 2024 23:32. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Wed, 23 Oct 2024 16:37. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Wed, 23 Oct 2024 14:54. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Sun, 20 Oct 2024 23:23. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Fri, 18 Oct 2024 17:12. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:51. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:44. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:19. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 05:59. (View)

affection-tone