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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something rather wonderful happened last week in London’s Green Park.  The long-awaited monument to the aircrew of Bomber Command was unveiled by the Queen in front of some 800 surviving aircrew.  It had been funded by private subscriptions and funds from the National Lottery.  It is sixty-seven years late, but it is there at last.

For those who are unaware, the post-war Labour government of Clement Atlee chose to deny the boys who had flown in Bomber Command - the boys in their Hampdens, Whitleys and Wellingtons, Stirling, Halifaxes and Lancasters - the customary campaign medal marking their service to the nation at war.  The policy of denial was continued in the thirteen years of Conservative government that followed. The bomber aircrew were alone among all those who fought under British arms to be so denied.

The problem, of course, was that the sudden unfolding at the end of the war of the devastation caused to Germany’s cities and towns by the Area Bombing campaign and the USAAF 8th Air Force’s daylight offensive was a huge shock for the political Establishment, and a gift for many ambitious men.  The wartime service values of duty, discipline and self-sacrifice were falling away as the nation struggled to find its feet and move forward.  In the battle for the new moral centre there could only be one victor - moral universalism - and the treatment accorded at this time to Arthur Harris was a highly visible function of that.

The political exodus from support for Bomber Command fractured national feeling more or less along the lines that pee-cee and anti-racism fracture it today.  During the war, aircrew were treated with great affection and generosity by the public.  They understood that in the long years from the Battle of Britain to D-Day the strategic bomber was the only means of carrying the war to Germany.  The service performed for them by Bomber Command constituted an act of endurance at arms matched in British military history only by the BEF in 1914-18.  They, the public, did not shift their opinion as their rulers and “moral betters” shifted theirs.  They did not condemn the aircrew because of the excesses of the campaign, or because of the questions over its strategic value.  If its results were very terrible then that, too, represented a victory of sorts over the enemy, for the Germans, who sunk their development efforts into jets and rockets, never produced a bomber with the lifting capacity of the Lancaster, or any bomber at all with four engines.  Had they done so, they would have used it on Britain’s cities and towns to the same effect.

For nationalists the subject of the Allies’ destruction of urban Germany comes with two large and extremely sore points attached.  First, there is the feeling among many, which I do not share, that “the wrong side” won ... the Jewish side, the side of anti-nationalism, of European national destruction.  The people who make this wholly utilitarian argument are very often American WNs of German descent.  But if pressed on their politics they turn out equally often to be right-liberals (in the English sense of that word).

Second, there is the belief among older British nationalists - the generation who fought (and lost) on the streets to the anti-racist left in the final decades of the 20th century - that National Socialism and like forms of Judaic fantasia are viable and true philosophies in their own right ... indeed, that they are nationalism.  If I thought that I’d give up thinking entirely.

I often wonder what kind of national feeling the boys in those bombers, in all their war-will, would have expressed.  That, too, is there somewhere in the new monument to them in Green Park, in the folds of the battle-dress, in the set of the jaw and the line of the eye’s gaze.  One day before too long, I hope, I shall go there and ponder that.

In the ongoing war of words on the website of the only national daily where some semblance of free speech exists, the poor, benighted anti-racist fraternity, that blight on light of humanity and hope of all who desire a world without white people injustice, has devised a new response to the foul, horrid, nasty, articulate, winning, emotionally-whole racists and haters who have dominated everyone are abominated by everyone.  They’ve discovered the Public Order Act, 1986.

Here’s a few, rather disembodied samples of the fine use to which they are threatening to put it, all from the same DT thread titled Hispanics: the rising power in the United States

simon21
Yesterday 11:39 AM

 Hispanics are white
And as a holocaust denier and advocate of ethnic cleansing you don’t really have any credibility to comment
you may feel you are being satirical, sorry the courts don’t recognise satiical advocates of racial violence.

simon21
Yesterday 10:46 AM

 To advocate ethnic cleansing is against the law full stop.
So is genocide.
You may think this is wit, the courts have decided otherwise
You will end up being reported and arrested.
I urge you to stop posting, the moderators may be compelled to hand over your details such as they are.

simon21
Yesterday 11:11 AM

 I strongly advise youto stop posting.  Blog posts can be used as evidence.
You have advocated ethnic cleansing of Europe’s jewish people.
This is beyond incitement.  May I remind you what happened to David Irving?

zedeyejoe
Yesterday 12:35 PM

 Sorry no, anti-racist is what it says, an equal acceptance of people regardless of their skin colour. To say otherwise is a lie.
Of course you can decry a murderer or thief regardless of their race and should do so.
I feel that you are rapidly approaching the point where you can be prosecuted under section 18 of the Public Order act 1986.

TimMiddleton
Yesterday 02:03 PM

I have repeatedly expressed concern on this site that the Telegraph does an unacceptably poor job of enforcing its own moderation policy. There is material posted on this thread which is truly sickening. Repeatedly, we have been subjected to crude and hysterical racism - including holocaust denial - which would debase the reputation of the back of a toilet door, never mind a supposedly credible national newspaper.
Apart from anything else, much of what has been spewed out below is very probably illegal, and it is to be expected that the Telegraph would be anxious to take such steps required to prevent its own prosecution.
If this newspaper really wishes to be taken seriously by anyone other than a rabble of adolescent hooligans it desperately needs to get a grip.

diatomkid
1 day ago

I have made the same point myself Tim many times.  Sometimes my comments have then been deleted whilst comments quite openly advocating genocide, discrimination and general levels of violence and thuggery have been allowed to stand unchallenged by moderators.  I do wonder just what sort of editorial policy the DT secretly has and just why this contemptible, reprehensible filth is permitted

zedeyejoe
1 day ago

Reading the posts would do it.

Of course we could turn it over to the police and let them sort it out if you prefer?

zedeyejoe
1 day ago

Silence you, rubbish. Just making people aware of the trouble their ranting could get them into if they break the law. The law has been around for over 25 years now of course.

The Act, by the way, sets a reasonably high bar to prosecution.  The Crown must be able to demonstrate not only the presence of language that might be threatening, abusive or insulting, but that racial hatred has been stirred up by same.  There has to be a linkage.  Further, Section 18 states:

A person who is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred is not guilty of an offence under this section if he did not intend his words or behaviour, or the written material, to be, and was not aware that it might be, threatening, abusive or insulting.

It is not easy to manufacture an intention to stir up racial hatred from an articulate presentation of the morality of survival.

Now Dan can come along and tell me that it is!

by Daniel Sienkiewicz

When our advocates call our enemies the Left, they are making a crucial mistake: obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.

In an interview with Dr. Sunic, Professor MacDonald says, “these neocons, their only interest is Israel. [Otherwise] they tend to be on the Left [?]. They still are on the Left [?] when it comes to immigration. All these things are just really leftist.” [?]

Dr. Lowell says that “the Left” [?] has shipped industry and with it, jobs, to China.

In his article Women on the Left, Alex Kurtagic discusses some of the same subject matter that I had dealt with in a previous article, and to which I have given some consideration over the years – among that, sorting out different kinds of feminists in relation to White interests. In concluding that these “leftists” [?] have nothing to offer women, he places feminists in the same category: de Beauvoir, who did indeed fashion herself a leftist of sorts (taking women as her advocacy group, and Marxism as her guide), but was not Jewish; and Friedan, who was Jewish, but more liberal than a leftist.

In an interview for Alternative Right, Kurtagic goes on attacking “the leeeft, the leeeft, the leeeeft,” and I cringe, not for the reasons that he may think; ie, he may think that I am lamenting an attack on a centralized economy, or open borders multiculturalism, PC “enrichment”. Maybe he would think that I am waxing nostalgic for the Soviet Union where he and Sunic had the misfortune to grow up, or that I want to take away private property? Maybe he thinks I am cringing because I want to jealously limit his horizons, tell him what kind of art and architecture that he can have? Maybe he thinks I want everybody to be equal or treated equal? No, I am cringing because another perfect Jewish trick is being promoted to the detriment of White people.

These counterproductive ambiguities are circulating among our best advocates – hence the need of clarification and definition emerges salient. It is not about competing with them and showing them up; it is about getting the framework of our advocacy correct.

READ MORE...

With the recent successes, of the “liberty movement” among Ron Paul supporters, in taking over the Republican Party in several States, the issue among them now has become immigration and it is very intense.  There is now a full-frontal assault going on within the liberty movement to dispense with any notion of national borders so that the threat of the founding stock Americans finding their political voice is terminated.  Founding stock Americans, highly individualistic as they are, become very animated and moved by rhetoric appealing to the “individual” but are bereft of any outside the Austrian School of economics to provide an organized voice on their behalf in the verbose stew of confusing words that is political discourse.  This is where the decades of preparation by the Jews of the Austrian School of economics pays off for them.  They saw this coming.  They prepared for decades.  Now is unleashed a highly disciplined, well versed vanguard.  The hapless founding stock American is deluged by words from high verbal IQ sophists that attack his core being and betray all his deeply rooted feelings about liberty and America.

My prior discussions of the uniquely innate individualism of Euroman making him uniquely valuable at the same time that he is uniquely vulnerable to abuse by civilization, are illustrated in excruciating detail by this heated battle of words that has real potential to go “hot” in the physically violent sense.

Two of the most heated battle of words on the topic of immigration appear at the website “ronpaulforums.com”.  Below the fold, I offer the two responses that appear to have terminated those respective battles within the liberty movement.  Although there will be many more such battles in this war of words (and even these battles may yet linger) they are offered as a kind of instrument for analyzing the structure of that movement as well as a summary of my political economic views that are “friendly to civilization while upholding the individual”.

READ MORE...

Last November Daniel Sienkiewicz published an article at VoR criticising the tendency, prevalent in much WN intellectualism, to target “the left” rather than Jewish activism.  We agreed that I would reproduce the article with some minor revisions at MR and I would offer a commentary on it.  Daniel’s article will be published separately on our page immediately after this first part of my essay.  Here, I am going to put forward my own, no doubt idiosyncratic and shamelessly provocative view of the central problem here, which is the foundation of Jewish thought in the Western religious and secular intellectual canon, and the open doorway that offers Jewish ethnocentric activism.

I am English.  My beautiful, brave, precious people are, today, suffering a vast and shocking physical colonisation by, to my northern eyes, unbeautiful and utterly alien peoples.  These peoples are unadmired, unwanted and unloved by the overwhelming majority of us.  Our will in the matter is clear and is known, and is, on all historical evidential bases, perfectly justified.  But because the power of choice in the matter has been taken from us, and our dissent delegitimised, we can do absolutely nothing in our own defence.  As things stand, the colonisers will minoritise us within the normal lifespan of anyone in his or her early forties today, and beyond that tipping point lies only one foreseeable outcome for us: an increasingly dark and vertiginous descent to the hell of a despised and threatened rump minority.  My child will see the first, my unborn grandchildren the second.

By any reckoning, and notwithstanding the extended temporality of the process, this is a genocide event.  But it is a genocide that nobody is interested in talking about, which is odd because we are given to believe that the decent, educated liberal abhors genocide above all crimes, and strives mightily to eradicate it from the life of Man.  As a creature much given to moral crusades, to non-aggression and opposition to colonisations, to sniffing out any injustice, to empathising with victims, to human rights, and to peace in perpetuity you might think he would have some sympathy for the English, and for all Europe’s children who face this same terrible and final existential disaster.  But he cannot.  He just can’t do it.  Prior considerations exercise too much, in fact, vastly too much control over him.

READ MORE...

In response to the steadfast support for homosexual marriage from the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, a DT thread-jockey named Hugh of Oxford offered the following gut reaction:

Even an illiterate peasant from Peru knows the difference between a pair of men and a husband and wife. Even a nomad in the Namib knows that marriage provides society with children and a future, and same-sex unions deprive society of that benefit and place a burden on it.

As so often with gut reactionaries, good instincts are liable to run out into sketchy assumptions at the slightest test.  A homosexual who regularly pops up to debate his special interest on the DT threads responded with “How?”.  Hugh did not answer.  But any Salterian could have, and one did:

Homosexuals - 1.5% of men and 0.5% of women - are not well-regarded among normal people.  The male homosexual act is especially reviled.  This is so for evolutionary reasons, and it cannot be changed - it might be papered over a little if that is the fashion.  But there is no real choice in the matter for anyone.

This negative feeling is not without consequences. One such is that homosexuals are not role models for normal people.  The effect of this on marriage, should homosexuals succeed in grabbing title to it, can only be negative.  Specifically, marriage will be cheapened and reduced to the status of a lifestyle choice.

But marriage is not a lifestyle choice but the naturally arising, optimum condition for raising healthy children.  It is, therefore, a genetic interest of our ethnic group and our race.

Homosexuals have the same genetic interests as normal people, so the productive course for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike is to increase the status of marriage and not decrease it.

The response to this line of argument was, rather surprisingly, not that genetic interest is voodoo, which was how mention of it was received a few years back, but that the perception among sexually whole people that marriage has been violated and made cheap by its homosexualisation is just conjecture.  The GI element may be becoming more workable in political discourse - something we used to say could never happen because of its abstruse nature.

by Alexander Baron

Anthony Hancock was no saint, let’s be clear about that, but by the same token he is a man to whom all true lovers of freedom owe a considerable debt. What follows is a warts and all portrait from a purely personal perspective.

His friends called him Tony, which as most of you will know was also the name of a famous though in my humble opinion not particularly funny comedian. I always called him AH, another and far more appropriate double entendre.

I began reading Revisionist and related literature in 1980; one of the first such publications I read was The Hoax Of The Twentieth Century, which was published by Historical Review Press, the company started by the father and son team of Alan and Anthony Hancock. I didn’t meet the man though for another ten years, by which time I had moved back to London. Our first meeting was reasonably affable, especially as I had been given an introduction to him by a trusted third party, after that though, things were not so cordial, the reasons for which were due to not so much a misunderstanding as mischievousness by another third party.

This is where it gets rather complicated but I’ll keep it simple. At his Uckfield print works he employed on occasion someone I will call The Cameraman. Shortly before the London meeting organised by David Irving at which Fred Leuchter spoke, I did something totally innocuous which sent him into hysterics. I’ve related this in my book The Churchill Papers, but basically he decided to make me persona non grata with everyone on the so-called far right from then on. Among other things he conspired with Irving to send me a fake ticket for this meeting. This ticket was printed at Uckfield with the connivance of AH’s right hand man, Tom Acton. I know this because when I inquired about it prior to the hoax revealing itself, Acton sniggered. I thought AH was in on the joke, but as things turned out, he wasn’t.

READ MORE...