In Can adaptation lead to extinction?, Daniel J. Rankin and Andres Lopez-Sepulcre, Laboratory of Ecological and Evolutionary Dynamics, Dept of Biological and Environmental Science, Univ. of Helsinki discuss the hypothesis that individual adaptation can lead to group extinction due to unrestrained defection at the group level.  In a sense it is clear that if one’s own lineage goes extinct via individual behavior that it is, by definition, maladaptive to engage in antecedent adaptations, however individually advantageous in the short term.  However, their theoretic framework of adaptive dynamics does provide fertile new territory for the exploration of group selection and is probably the best formal foundation for my genetic omni-dominance (GOD) hypothesis within which subspecies of recessive character are prone to go extinct under mixing of ecologies.  Extended phenotypes of invasive subspecies are likely to play a significant role in triggering evolutionary suicide among competing subspecies.

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]...

From the article by Rankin and Lopez-Sepulcre:

J. B. S. Haldane, the pioneer of modern evolutionary biology, suggested that individual adaptation does not necessarily lead to traits which are beneficial to the whole population (Haldane 1932). He suggested that characteristics may evolve that are catastrophically detrimental to the populations in which they are found. It seems counterintuitive that individual adaptations would occur that have such a negative effect on population performance that the population is driven to extinction. While Haldane asserted that this is possible, the phenomenon has been largely dismissed, most likely because his views on the matter have been incorrectly labelled as a ‘‘good for the species’’ argument (Cronin 1993). However, the idea that individual behaviour can harm population performance was rekindled by Garret Hardin, in the form of the tragedy of the commons (Hardin 1968), which stated that, if a common resource is overexploited by individuals acting or their own selfish gain, disaster at the population level can occur. The idea that individual interactions can facilitate extinction should have strong relevance to ecology, but has rarely been observed in natural systems. Here we describe the phenomenon and highlight three examples which allude to extinction due to individual selection. Furthermore, we suggest various systems which may be prone to evolutionary suicide.

Moreover, it is likely that the best counter-strategy—genuinely adaptive behavior for human races which are vulnerable to evolutionary suicide triggered by extended phenotypes of invasive subspecies—is the engineering of countervailing symbionts: both organic and memetic.

Judge dismisses CIA leak lawsuit

A US judge has dismissed a former CIA operative’s lawsuit against senior Bush administration officials, eliminating one of the last court cases over the leaking of Valerie Plame’s identity.

... US District Judge John Bates dismissed the case on Thursday on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the US constitutional arguments.

Bates dismissed the case against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove, former White House aide I Lewis “Scooter” Libby and Richard Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state.

... Plame’s identity was revealed in a syndicated newspaper column in 2003, shortly after Wilson began criticising the administration’s march to war in Iraq.

Armitage and Rove were the sources for that article, which touched off a lengthy leak investigation.

Nobody was charged with leaking but Libby was convicted of lying and obstructing the investigation.

George Bush, the US president, commuted Libby’s 2 1/2-year prison term before the former aide served any time.

Cash for honours: NOBODY will be charged

Tony Blair’s chief fundraiser Lord Levy toasted the collapse of the cash-for-honours case with champagne today.

And No 10 aide Ruth Turner, who was arrested at dawn during the probe, smiled broadly as she emerged from her flat.

... Head of the CPS Special Crime Division Carmen Dowd said: “Having considered all of the evidence in this case I have decided that there is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against any individual for any offence in relation to this matter.”

Well, not if the reader poll in the Daily Mail is any guide ...

Were police right to investigate the cash for honours allegations?
1 Yes 90%
2 No 10%

Not a majoritarian tale this time, but a personal one ...

Back in May I participated on the thread to what very quickly became a famous Guardian article: Margaret Hodge’s A message to my fellow immigrants.

This was the offering in which the erstwhile Labour Industry Minister agreed with the BNP’s long-standing and oft-dismissed plaint about council house allocation:-

We prioritise the needs of an individual migrant family over the entitlement others feel they have. So a recently arrived family with four or five children living in a damp and overcrowded, privately rented flat with the children suffering from asthma will usually get priority over a family with less housing need who have lived in the area for three generations and are stuck at home with the grandparents.

We should look at policies where the legitimate sense of entitlement felt by the indigenous family overrides the legitimate need demonstrated by the new migrants.

It was not a very useful or glorious thread debate from my point of view.  But in the course of it the following message greeted my attempt to re-post:-

This account has had its posting rights withdrawn. This may be because of a breach of our talk policy, or because you picked an unsuitable username. If you have any questions please contact .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

I was summarily banned.

My really very, very close friend, indeed political soulmate John Standing stood in for me as usual, and sent two e-mails to that address before a third elicited a reply.  Well, not much of a reply.  Just another e-mail address I could try.  A further three mails went unanswered, each requesting “a precise and referenced explanation of your withdrawal of my posting rights to CiF”, and asking “which specific words, phrases or comments precipitated your action, and what principles underlie it.”

I had been wondering whether the cause of my troubles was a remark I had made about the Guardian’s outing of BNP member and prima ballerina Simone Clarke:-

English interests have not been placed before the electorate since the end of WW2, except by minute, very poor but very brave parties who have been hated by the liberal Establishment and subjected to every kind of calumny and repression.

Simone Clarke is a case in point. Ian Cobain and Alan Rusbridger broke the law to out her, and neither has been prosecuted. Her hounding was a disgrace, and you should hang your head in shame that you don’t see that.

... The point being that Cobain - who is, I believe, a white Zimbabwean - had joined the BNP as an apparently willing helper and was given access to a computer holding the party membership list.  That list was subject to the Data Protection Act, and leaking data from it was, in my view, clearly a criminal act.  As far as I am aware the police have taken no action against the journalist involved, or his editor.  And this despite the fact that the Guardian had a second bite of the cherry with a follow-up by black journalist, Hugh Muir.

But this causal theory lost some of its lustre yesterday morning when I clicked on a Joseph Harker article alluringly titled Balancing the blogs.  It began:-

White men, are you all stupid? Before you accuse me of racism, or indeed sexism, let me say that I take the question from the book by Michael Moore, who is a white man (though probably not stupid; but is he alone?).

and continued ...

Some time ago I wrote saying that all white people are racist. I didn’t mean in-your-face, BNP-style racism, but the subtle, unthinking, subliminal kind. Now I think I was being too kind. There’s nothing subtle about many of the views expressed on our comment threads.

... if we want to have a sensible discussion about race, or racism, is it possible on a general-access website such as this? Or do we need to find a new corner of cyberspace, and boldly go where no stupid white man has gone before?

Clicking on this character’s name produced this page, with the intriguing information that “Joseph Harker is assistant comment editor of the Guardian.”

In my bones I know Harker -  if yesterday’s article is any guide, a racist and hater by any definition - must have pulled my posting rights.  I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if, beforehand, he also took up anonymity and blogged as one of my non-English interlocutors on the thread.

Now I know I will not be able to post as Guessedworker at the Guardian.  Harker will never relent.  Even if he wanted to, he is probably incapable of responding to my question about “which specific words, phrases or comments precipitated your action, and what principles underlie it.”  In any case, there is plainly no point in continuing the John Standing mails.  Nor in appealing to Harker’s boss.  She is Georgina Henry, and I don’t have much faith that she has attended enough assertiveness classes yet to handle her dusky assistant.

Cobain ... Muir ... Harker.  What an extremely unpleasant organisation Alan Rusbridger runs.

Sir Tom Hunter is set to become Britain’s most prolific philanthropist after committing himself to giving £1 billion of his company’s money to charity.

The 46-year-old billionaire businessman is part of an increasing trend among Britain’s richest people to hark back to their Victorian forebears and give much of their fortunes away before they die.

The Scot, who, when aged 37, made £260 million after selling his Sports Division chain of shops, said the money would come from investments held by his company West Coast Capital in listed companies and shopping centres around the country.

He told The Daily Telegraph today: “This is me challenging myself – making public a very private goal. With great wealth comes great responsibility. We have approached this in a businesslike way.

“My wife Marion and myself are going to leave this world as we came into it – pretty much with nothing. I don’t want to take £1billion to my grave with me. I am being responsible in setting out a way in which this money can go. I have been thinking about it a lot.”

Sir Tom is estimated to be worth £1.1billion. He said he will leave some money to his three teenage children.

“This is not going to leave our children destitute,” he said. “They will be taken care of. I don’t want to burden my kids with great wealth. Warren Buffett [a US billionaire] said that he would leave his kids enough that they can do something but not too much that they will do nothing.”

Three years ago Sir Tom gave £100 million to his charity The Hunter Foundation and the Clinton Hunter Development Initiative, which invests in projects in Africa.

From a Telegraph article on the charitable plans of Scottish billionaire and good buddy of William Jefferson Clinton, Sir Tom Hunter.

It is strange and disturbing that of all the thousands of white men of wealth in the English-speaking world only William Regnery II has had the loyalty and foresight to aid the fight for life of his own people.  Sir Tom Hunter prefers to throw away much of his wealth on Malawi and Rwanda (mean IQs 71 and 70 respectively).

But with his sort of financial muscle we could create a network of think-tanks, charitable organisations, research bodies, university chairs, media, lobbying operations and political parties.  Nothing attracts success like success, and a benefactor like Sir Tom - a Sir Tom with, of course, healthy values - would very likely be the first of many.

As it is, we stand on the sidelines while they all go Africa-mad.

Can the wealthy all be so very stupid and vain?

My father volunteered to join the nascent US Air Force, leaving a Quaker meeting near Beech, Iowa, in response to the press spin placed on this speech by Charles Lindbergh, when Lindbergh said that the US’s air power was weak and the German military was stronger than the US military.  The spin placed on Lindbergh’s speech by the press was that Lindbergh had said that the US could not prevail against Germany—which was not what Lindbergh had said.  Lindbergh made a rhetorical blunder, possibly motivated by his desire to strengthen the US Air Force, but the Jewish press took that blunder and turned it into a challenge to the honor of the US.

Guess what date the speech was given?

Captioned:

On September 11, 1941, (same day as the Pentagon’s ground-breaking ceremony) Charles Lindbergh appeared in Des Moines, Iowa, to speak on behalf of the isolationist America First Committee. The famous aviator criticized the groups he perceived were leading America into war for acting against the country’s interests.

PS: The above audio clip, interestingly, begins just after Lindbergh’s discussion of Jewish promotion of US intervention via media influence.  I have not been able to locate an audio source for the whole speech.  If anyone has located it let me know.

JERUSALEM: Raised on fear and depression, children of Holocaust survivors say the Nazi terror has crossed generations, and want the German government to pay for their psychiatric care.

On Monday, Israelis who call themselves second generation survivors are filing a class action suit in a Tel Aviv court against the German government to finance therapy.

Thousands of people from Holocaust families are incapable of working, live with an irrational fear of starvation and suffer incapacitating bouts of depression, said Baruch Mazor, the director of the Fisher Fund which is filing the suit.

Mazor said 4 to 5 percent of the 400,000 children of survivors in Israel require treatment. Since many cannot hold steady jobs, they cannot pay for their own treatment, and aid from the Israeli government and health insurance has been inadequate, he said.

The suit seeks to set up a German-financed fund to pay for biweekly therapy sessions for 15,000 to 20,000 people, or about US$10 million (€7.3 million) annually for three years.

About 4,000 people have joined the suit, Mazor said.

It was unclear what standing the Israeli court would have in a damages case against a foreign country.

Mazor said the Tel Aviv suit was a first step aimed at winning recognition that Germany should bear responsibility for the suffering of survivors’ children. Armed with that ruling, the plaintiffs would try to negotiate a settlement, or would take their case to a German or an international court, he said.

Since the 1950s, Germany has paid more than US$60 billion (€44 billion) in reparations to concentration camp survivors, families of the some of the 6 million Jewish victims, and to the state of Israel. Much of that money went to the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, a New York-based organization that negotiates with Germany and distributes the payments.

Mazor said money handled by the Claims Conference is earmarked for survivors, and their children did not want to detract from those funds.

Instead, they wanted “recognition and responsibility of the German government” for their problems, he said.

The German Foreign Ministry declined comment.

Source.

I am fast coming to the conclusion that, Jewish activists aside, the British political Establishment does not know what it is doing about race and the future ... does not know the real precondition for a victory over the blood of its own people.

I don’t mean that it is making this up, this attack by migrant proxy, as it goes along.  It is following the general policy of the global elite.  But it is not the global elite itself, merely the executive at national level.  To paraphrase Irving Krystol, it is operating under “truths appropriate for educated adults”, not the global elite’s “truths appropriate for highly educated adults”.

There is an inherent instability to this arrangement that it is our task and privilege to exploit.  The means to do that is a real debate about the blood-reality of Establishment politics.  As the extremis mounts, it should not be, must not be beyond us to organise to that end.

The desire of the Establishment, then as now, will be for guilt-avoidance.  It will evade the terrible meaning of its politics by sheltering behind the barrier of abstract thinking.  That way “race” is an abstract, and so nation, so tradition, so everything.  It works for them today: our arguing from realities declared abstract necessarily consigns us to frustration.  This pattern we must break.  The protective outer layers of liberal self-justification, the faux-moral public breast-beating about fairness, equalness, tolerance etc, must be winnowed away.  A real debate in this context is a debate solely about ethnic survival, about real life and real death.  It is a debate in which, for example, English advocates of race replacement must be forced to answer in terms which it is by no means unrealistic to call genocide.

For this is our ground, our frame of reference in which the Establishment must defend itself against our charge of blood betrayal.  We have understood that this is a blood issue.  We have always done so ...

We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.

Enoch Powell, from his speech to the Annual General Meeting of the West Midlands Area Conservative Political Centre, Birmingham, April 20, 1968.  It remains the last occasion on which a major public figure speaking on race has used the words “we” and “nation” to mean “we the British, owners of these isles”.  There have been no greater British patriots since, and today no man more commands the respect and affection of the aware and the loyal.

READ MORE...

If I could ask Ron Paul only one question, and require an answer, it would be:

Since the value added by government to the state of nature is the existence of property rights beyond subsistence (subsistence property being homestead and tools which we possess through self-defense in the state of nature), why is it that I’ve never seen any of the Austrian School economists suggest that the primary source of government revenue should be a use fee for assets beyond subsistence assets?