Race, Gender and the Frontier
Jim Bowery
a lot of people. I hope it at least stimulates some people to
think about their world-view from a different perspective.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Race, Gender and the Frontier
Introduction
The following is a conjecture as to the relationship between
race, gender and frontiers, which the author believes to a be
good first-order description of human politics and therefore
advocates as a political opinion. There follows a general
prescription for action.
In recent history, this subject has been grossly distorted
and dispationate inquiry relentlessly suppressed. Since this
subject is profoundly relevant, the exposure of the existance,
source and purpose of this distortion and suppression will
inevitably arouse strong feelings in many. These strong
feelings can impel action -- action which should guided by the
information presented in the conclusion.
Look at your life and recent history in this mirror. The
mirror may be warped, cracked and somewhat clouded, but at least
it can shed a fragile ray of light on a most vital area of concern
now darkened by deception, blind rage and massive human suffering.
A First-Order Approximation of Human Politics
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 is stable only where successful rearing of children
to reproductive age requires the exclusive support of a male.
The conjecture presented herein cannot be understood without
an understanding of the above sentence. This essential basis for
monogamy applies across terrestrial vertebrates with very few
exceptions. The evolutionary reasons for it are obvious after a
brief analysis of the genetic self- interest of both males and
females. Males will always maximize the amount of time and
energy they spend seeking reproductive opportunities, consistent
with successful rearing of their offspring. Females will always
seek the male with what they perceive to be the strongest genetic
characteristics, consistent with the successful rearing of their
offspring. Female independence, therefore, correlates directly
and strongly with the form of polygamy known as "polygyny" -- in
which reproductive success among males is centralized, (despite a
higher turn- over rate of reproductively successful males) and in
which males spend most of their time in contention with each
other for sociosexual status, or preparing themselves for it.
Humans, like all animals, possess the ability to express
different behavioral strategies depending on the kind of
environment in which they find themselves. In behaviors
involving reproduction, the genetic or "biological" component is,
necessarily, stronger than in almost any other aspect of
behavior.
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.
Once imprinted, these tribal morals would be observed with
total fidelity -- even to the very point of death. But the
plasticity of the cultural imprinting process created
vulnerabilities not present in the deeper cultures where
instinct, biologically evolved over many hundreds of millennia,
was well adapted to the more "natural" environments. In those of
northern climates, an erroneous or mutant moral imprint would,
with rare exception, be played out to the point of death of the
individual or the tribe if its young were so imprinted.
Thus, access to the mechanisms of moral imprinting in
northern tribes was jealously protected. Alien control of the
mechanisms of moral imprinting could be used to inflict genocide
against a northern people just as surely as the highest
technology weapons or gas ovens can today. To be clear on
terminology, "genocide" here means any activity conducted by one
group which systematically shifts population genetics to itself
and away from another group. "Genocide" normally connotates
force, but in reality, genocide is just as frequently
accomplished via deception.
Deep cultures are those cultures that were the earliest to
arise within relatively benign habitats and also the first to be
left behind by technical progress. They are populated by people
who are evolved to understand and exploit human nature. They
have been at or near their carrying capacity for many
generations. They are culturally "deep" but technically less
sophisticated. Shallow cultures are the later cultures which
arose in increasingly marginal habitats, pioneered by the few
surviving males, expelled from polygamous deep cultures, who
posessed adaptive technical gifts. These males were outcasts
from their originating tribes -- physically, sexually,
politically and/or socially handicapped. The cultures they
founded were populated by people evolved to understand and
exploit nature herself. Their habitats were not at or near their
carrying capacity.
Women tend to be attracted to deeper cultures and all but
the most successful males tend to be driven to the shallower
cultures. This is simply because the larger the harem size, the
less likely a female is to leave the security of the originating
tribe. The only males to stick around are the ones tough enough
to fight it out with the harem master or those who have given up
on their own reproduction, perhaps homosexuals opting for a kin-
selection strategy of caring for reproductively viable relatives.
As habitats are tamed, the necessary technologies mature,
population density increases and trade/transport grows. The
deeper cultures diffuse into the now benign habitats of the
shallower cultures and gradually come to dominance, given the
deep culture's social superiority. As this occurs, the incidence
of polygamy (de facto or institutional) and homosexuality
increases and with it, the pressures on beta males to leave and
open new habitats for population.
However, this also creates regressive pressures as the more
"natural" but less morally rigid deep cultures come into
possession of the technological artifacts of the shallow culture.
Thus, a contingent of the shallow culture population must be
retained and employed by their socio-sexual superiors for the
maintenance of the artifacts that render the habitat benign.
The main technique used by the deeper cultures in this
diffusion is the capture of the shallow culture's moral
imprinting mechanisms.
The language, religions, educational systems, communications
media, political processes and all other key points of
information dissemination in the culture are captured first.
THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL STRATEGY THAT IS ALWAYS EMPLOYED SINCE THE
DEEPER CULTURE IS ALWAYS DIFFERENTIALLY IMMUNE TO MANIPULATIVE
MORAL IMPRINTS WHEN COMPARED TO THE SHALLOW CULTURE. Through
this route, any objective can be achieved, although the primary
objective is usually to weaken or destroy the restrictions on the
exercise of "natural" social and sexual behaviors -- advantages
enjoyed by the deeper cultures.
WOMEN ARE A PARTICULARLY POWERFUL ROUTE OF INSINUATION AS
THEY ARE ATTRACTED TO DEEPER CULTURES AND HEAVILY INFLUENCE THE
MORAL IMPRINTING OF EACH NEW GENERATION BOTH AS MOTHERS AND AS
ARBITERS OF REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS. Thus, the males of the shallow
culture can be imprinted by the females of their own culture to
attack the foundation of their own civilization and play by the
rules of the deeper culture males. For example, a moral attack
on heterosexual males combined with moral adulation of homosexual
males is enough, by itself, to result in a genocidal decimation
of the shallow culture by the deeper culture since the shallow
culture males will take on this evolutionarily suicidal imprint
and pursue it to its logical end more frequently than deeper
culture males.
Shallow culture males are particularly prone to the
homosexual adaptation since the function of homosexuality appears
to be to stablize the male dominance heirarchy by hormonal
alteration of the harem master(s) and the betas. Sociosexual
status among males alters their endocrine systems, sex hormone
levels and biological responses to challenges and stress. These
biological changes have developmental consequences which may
create or amplify neurological differences between males living
under different sociosexual statuses and conditions. A male who
continually receives the message that other males are more
desirable and/or more sociosexually dominant will eventually
respond by fighting, fleeing and/or by altering his hormonal
configuration permanently. Given a moral imprint against
aggression and the lack of a route of escape, many shallow
culture males will find their hormone levels, and therefore their
socio- sexual responses, becoming effeminate. Many will find it
impossible to suppress their aggression, despite rigid moral
imprints against aggression. This is simply because giving up on
reproductive success is the evolutionary equivalent of death.
However, for the deep culture to come to dominance over the
shallow culture, it isn't even necessary for the majority of
shallow culture males to take on this imprint -- merely for a
differential to exist between the cultures. Nor is it necessary
for shallow culture males taking on this imprint to follow its
moral code -- only that it handicap their ability to perceive
and/or deal with reality.
The shallow culture has 3 apparent defenses against such
subtle stratagems by the deeper cultures:
1) Dogma of an almost paranoid nature. 2) Nonsubtle
counter-genocide against the deep culture. 3) Abandonment of the
tamed habitat to the deep culture in preference for the taming
and occupation of a new habitat.
The stagnation of 1 eventually works against the shallow
culture. The genocide of 2, a choice frequently made by shallow
cultures, creates additional moral ammunition against the shallow
culture and may, ironically, speed its decimation. Choosing 3 is
hard on the shallow culture, to the point of being genocidal,
even without the encroachment of the deep culture. But it
becomes all the more difficult as the resources of the shallow
culture are progressively parasitized by the deep culture.
3 is the only route that results in ultimate survival of the
shallow culture and it has the added advantage of promoting
greater options for all in the long run, while it avoids the
inherent evils of stagnation and genocide. The greatest danger
to the shallow culture is that the deep culture will come to such
social, sexual and political dominance that it prohibits the
shallow culture from escaping and achieving a new level of power
in the new habitats that it opens up. For example, this happened
to the Chinese when early merchants were prohibited from
utilizing their, then, superior sailing technologies by the
Emperor's bureaucracy.
Western civilization's tradition of monogamy combined with
its technological adaptations has led it to a state of sufficient
abundance that its females can rear children to reproductive age
without the exclusive assistance of a male. The widespread
availability of birth control techniques created a rationale for
the breakdown of these fragile monogamous traditions, without an
understanding of their contribution to Western progress. We now
see an explosion of de facto polygamy in Western civilization
where sociosexual success is increasingly centralized in fewer
and fewer males while greater numbers of males are increasingly
marginalized. These marginalized males increasingly turn to
homosexuality, virulent aggression and desparate (and highly
consumptive) courtship behavior. These behaviors displace the
nesting building behavior which provides the economic basis for
Western civilization's progressive tradition.
The abusive behavior of the few dominant males is used as
ammunition against the submissive shallow culture males by the
independent and therefore sexually selective females. These
independent females are willing to put up with great abuse from
their bosses in exchange for the jobs that make them independent
of a monogamous marriage. Being free to choose their sexual
partners purely on the basis of sexual appeal, a statistically
small set of males is given sexual access to the growing
population of independent females. Many times, these males are
attractive because of their positions of authority in the places
of work. It is quite rare that such a dominant male actually
suffers for his abusive behavior and quite common for submissive
males to suffer the blame for the behavior of these alpha males.
On those rare occasions when a dominant male is brought to
account, because of the blind logic of the legal or political
system, the situation creates profound cognitive dissonance and
controversy in a culture increasingly adapted to a harem
mentality.
Starting with agriculture and progressing on to the
industrial revolution and now technological civilization, the
expansion of frontiers has transformed so much of the Earth's
habitats that the biological diversity of Earth is threatened and
there are few frontiers left.
In recent years, the white, heterosexual, Christian males of
Western Civilization, as the pinnacle of this process, are blamed
for its destructive side-effects. It is almost to the point that
to simply be a white, heterosexual Christian male is considered
"immoral." Since survival in marginal habitats requires a
profound respect for the rules governing adaptation to those
habitats, these males are particularly prone to carry the morals
they accept to their logical limits. In this case, the logical
limit is to cease being heterosexual or Christian or both, there
being not much one can do about one's race or gender. Many of
the males who choose homosexuality find it very difficult to give
up their Christian faith and yet find it also very difficult to
square that faith with their homosexuality. Most heterosexual
males giving up Christianity find themselves drowning in a sea of
ruthless sexual competition, degraded by embittered women whose
sexuality has been abused by alpha males, whose emotions have
been abused by sterile jobs and who have little biological need
for a monogamous mate.
On the other hand, as in the case of the German people's
enthusiastic support of Hitler against the "international Jewish
financial conspiracy" and "cosmopolitan decadence", many have
been pushed to the limit and are waking up to the manipulation of
their moral faithfulness by the rhetoric of encroaching alpha
males, homosexual beta males and harems made up of "independent"
females. The relentless demands for genocidal "political
correctness" from these advocates of the deep culture is starting
to create a backlash in the shallow culture as its populations
shrink and age.
This is an exceedingly dangerous situation.
As they awaken, many naturally react with violent racism,
misogyny, gay-bashing and other pathological modes. But since
most shallow culture males know they need a moral system within
which to operate, rather than lashing out chaotically, they tend
to contain their hatred, remaining silent as they seethe in anger
awaiting some "leader" who will provide the moral imprint to
guide them out of their predicament.
Given the incredible power of modern technology under the
control of these males around the world, this situation presents
a profound crisis.
White, heterosexual Christian males are profoundly
privileged having been blessed with a technical prowess arising
from countless generations of adaptation to harsh habitats. Each
time they turn away from the challenges, risks and opportunities
of a new frontier and seek the benign safety and comfort of their
past accomplishments or, worse, seek to technologically dominate
primitive deep cultures via colonialism, they deny their strength
and confront an impossible situation in the sexual, social and
political sophistication of the deep cultures that have diffused
into those habitats. Once a shallow culture turns away from its
destiny of expanding frontiers, its only recourse is dogmatic
separatism or technological genocide against the encroaching deep
culture.
Western shallow culture males have chosen to turn away from
the profound challenges of exploring and expanding frontiers in
colonialism and technological wars of genocide. They now find
their technology subjugated in all forms of bureaucracies:
Military, government and corporate. The shallow males find their
reproductive rates, as a group, plummeting. Their civilizations
is transforming into the more technically primitive but sexually
sophisticated states compatible with the deeper cultures. Women
are now contemptuous of them. Their temptation to engage in
genocide or murderous rampages of hate are ever increasing. The
mutually reinforcing phenomena of Christianity, science and
progress are replaced by the vicious cycle of polygamy, politics
and stagnation.
A Prescription for Action
This process can be reversed only when shallow culture males
accept their fate as "outcasts", refuse to resort to genocide and
cease to subjugate themselves to the deeper cultures, whether
they be based in subsaharan Africa, the middle-east, Europe, the
urban east coast of the United States or the management suite in
downtown Los Angeles.
This may mean giving up sexual access to females since they
have, in essence, "married" the corporate and governmental
bureaucracies now being captured by the deep cultures.
Ultimately, such sexual access is as unfulfilling as it is
unfruitful given the widespread use of abortion and birth control
by shallow culture females, their increasingly harem-oriented
preferences and consequent contempt for marginalized males.
Deep culture values must be rejected and those that support
the progressive traditions of Western civilization thoroughly
adopted. The wealth generated by the shallow culture must,
somehow, be protected from parasitism by the deeper cultures so
it can be used in opening the next frontier rather than
empowering the further subjugation of shallow culture. This can
only be done once epithets of "racism" and "sexism" no longer
carry moral weight against the psyche of shallow culture males.
That wealth must then be made available to males of the shallow
culture to empower their natural drive to escape the genocidal
pressures that are mounting against them.
As this escape begins, the natural attractions and wealth of
the new frontier will create a self-reinforcing process that
will, in combination with the rapidity of modern technological
advance, bring to a quick end the terrible crisis we now face,
not just as a race, gender or species, but as a planet.
--
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
Jim Kalb
> Deep cultures are those cultures that were the earliest to
>arise within relatively benign habitats and also the first to be
>left behind by technical progress. They are populated by people
>who are evolved to understand and exploit human nature.
I have trouble with your deep culture/shallow culture distinction, and
with your account of the origin and characteristics of each type of
culture. If the habitat is benign, what's the need to understand and
exploit human nature? Also, in their homeland of origin who would there
be for the people of these deep cultures to exploit?
>They are culturally "deep" but technically less sophisticated.
How does the culture become deep if the environment is so benign? Why
don't its people just follow their impulses instead of developing
cultural depth?
>homosexuals opting for a kin-selection strategy of caring for
>reproductively viable relatives.
To raise a side issue, does this strategy actually have much to do with
human beings? I know a guy whose uncle put the moves on him, but
somehow I doubt that's the sort of kin-selection strategy you have in
mind ...
>The deeper cultures diffuse into the now benign habitats of the
>shallower cultures and gradually come to dominance, given the deep
>culture's social superiority.
Who are these deeper cultures? Peoples from physically benign
environments or places thought to be the cradle of mankind (South Sea
Islanders; Africans) never seem to dominate much of anything. Peoples
who diffuse into benign habitats and prosper (the Jews, the Chinese, the
Indians in East Africa) have cultures that I would call "deep" but
didn't develop them by living in benign environments. Also, such people
are certainly no more natural or less morally rigid than the people
among whom they live. (You speak later of the "more 'natural' but less
morally rigid deep cultures".)
>The greatest danger to the shallow culture is that the deep culture
>will come to such social, sexual and political dominance that it
>prohibits the shallow culture from escaping and achieving a new level
>of power in the new habitats that it opens up. For example, this
>happened to the Chinese when early merchants were prohibited from
>utilizing their, then, superior sailing technologies by the Emperor's
>bureaucracy.
Is it relevant to your example that China has been conquered only by
people from environments less benign than China itself?
--
Jim Kalb (j...@panix.com)
"Nothing has an uglier look to us than reason, when it is not of our side."
(Halifax)
Jim Kalb
>> I have trouble with your deep culture/shallow culture distinction,
>
>It really isn't a distinction. It is a spectrum.
Then my problem is with the conjunction of traits you attribute to deep
cultures -- the more natural and instinctive lifestyle and also the
ability to manipulate and dominate people whose way of life is more
"cultured" in the current sense. The two don't seem to me to go
together. It seems to me that what you call "shallow culture" people
would be more adaptable, quicker to see and take advantage of new
opportunities, and able to cooperate more effectively for common goals.
Those are important advantages if the issue is competition and
domination.
>> and
>> with your account of the origin and characteristics of each type of
>> culture. If the habitat is benign, what's the need to understand and
>> exploit human nature?
>
>Wasn't it clear from the context that by "benign habitat" I was
>referring to the non-human environment?
Yes, of course. I questioned why someone would go to the trouble of
learning how to exploit other people if he could just sit around and eat
breadfruit that grows by itself.
>Pick a place on the spectrum of habitats and your "deeper cultures" are
>those that evolved in the more benign habitats [ . . . ] Secular Jews
>and Indians to a lesser degree (except in Great Britain), take over
>existing niches in society and fit the model of a deeper culture
>coming to dominance.
But Jewish culture developed in quite difficult circumstances and has
always been highly moralistic and bound up with the study of what looks
to an outsider like an extraordinarily artificial system of religious
law. Secular Jews are outstandinly successful in the learned
professions. They look to me like a people who very strikingly fail to
fit at least part of your characterization of a deep culture.
>The only place where secular Jews and Africans are encountering each other
>in large numbers is in the United States. Until recently, the
>overt and active discrimination against Africans and lack of urbanization
>kept them from demonstrating their genetic strengths with respect to
>the secular Jews.
I take it Africans have the deeper culture? It seems to follow from
your view that they will soon be dominating and manipulating the Jews.
Somehow that seems unlikely to me. It's also worth noting that if
Africans are starting to dominate the rest of the country the results
haven't shown up in comparative income figures yet. (I haven't seen the
_Time_ article you mentioned.)
Your theory seems to be based on the observation that some peoples have
cultures that are instinctive and close to nature, others have cultures
that promote the ability to manipulate or exploit, others have cultures
that inculcate a sort of moral naivete that makes people honest and
productive but easy to take advantage of, and so on. I don't deny the
observation, but your theory seems overly simplified to me because it
classifies very different and contradictory things as "deep cultures".
Jim Bowery
> together. It seems to me that what you call "shallow culture" people
> would be more adaptable, quicker to see and take advantage of new
> opportunities, and able to cooperate more effectively for common goals.
> Those are important advantages if the issue is competition and
> domination.
They are also, by the same token, more vulnerable to diseased ideologies.
Deeper cultures like to continually point out the valid example of Naziism,
but other examples are Maxism and the more recent ideologies of "diversity"
combined with the "sexual revolution" that has dramatically decimated the
fertility rates and cultural integrity of the shallower cultures when compared
to the deeper cultures.
The unfortunate thing about Naziism, and the reason deeper cultures love
Hitler so much (even though they will never admit it), is because that is
probably the only example in recent history where shallower cultures even
appeared to recapture control of their own moral imprinting mechanisms
after they had been captured by deeper cultures. Hitler's moral failure of
militarism and genocide has been used to justify preventing any attempt
by shallower cultures to shield themselves from alien ideologies ever since --
and we are living with the results of those alien ideologies today.
> >> and
> >> with your account of the origin and characteristics of each type of
> >> culture. If the habitat is benign, what's the need to understand and
> >> exploit human nature?
> >
> >Wasn't it clear from the context that by "benign habitat" I was
> >referring to the non-human environment?
>
> Yes, of course. I questioned why someone would go to the trouble of
> learning how to exploit other people if he could just sit around and eat
> breadfruit that grows by itself.
Because the carrying capacity of any habitat is limited and in the absence
of technological advance will be reach VERY quickly after a genetic
adaptation marginally expands the ecological range. Therefore, there is
ALWAYS someone ELSE who wants that "breadfruit." (There you go with the
south sea islanders again... I wish you wouldn't do that.)
As a member of the deeper culture where the carrying capacity is high and
is saturated far more frequently than in shallow culture habitats, your
evolutionary pressures are always toward figuring out how to deal with the
other people that want the same things you want.
In deeper cultures, it's always a zero-sum genetic game.
If they can't hold their own in the continual contention WITH OTHERS over
critical resources, they will be very quickly selected from the gene pool
> >Pick a place on the spectrum of habitats and your "deeper cultures" are
> >those that evolved in the more benign habitats [ . . . ] Secular Jews
> >and Indians to a lesser degree (except in Great Britain), take over
> >existing niches in society and fit the model of a deeper culture
> >coming to dominance.
>
> But Jewish culture developed in quite difficult circumstances and has
> always been highly moralistic and bound up with the study of what looks
> to an outsider like an extraordinarily artificial system of religious
> law.
OK, here is where we REALLY differ.
Again, it's a matter of relative position on the spectrum. Agreed, the
religious Jews are quite morally constrained. They are relatively
compatible with the shallower cultures they cohabited after the diaspora.
However, the GENETIC adaptation dictated that a large percentage of
children raised under Judaic law would depart from that law and become
secular WITHOUT BEING EXPELLED FROM THE JEWISH ETHNIC GROUP. This is
crucial to the deep cultural dominance of Jews in Western civilization's
social control centers such as the media, political ideology, academia
and finance.
People like Marx, Engels, Troskey, and more modern versions like
Paul Ehrlich (ZPG), most of the leaders of feminism, most leaders of
the "counter-culture" movement (Ginsberg, Alpert, Rubin, Hoffman,
Bill Graham, Rolling Stone etc.) most of the leaders of "liberal media",
most leaders of technosocialism (the post-Manhattan Project state religion
disguised as state-funded "science") and ancillary academic leaders --
are SECULAR descendants of east european jewery.
From their positions of secular moral authority, they broadcast neomorals
(profeminism, prohomosexuality, pro "diversity", pro-anything-PC) and
those neomorals are (and this is crucial) ADOPTED WITH TOTAL FIDELITY
MORE FREQUENTLY BY SHALLOWER CULTURE YOUTH THAN THEIR OWN YOUTH.
Now that the WASP baby-boomer females have disposed of their own
fertility at the behest of these neomorals, resulting in a reduction
of expected population of between 50 and 100 million for WASP-boomers,
we are FINALLY seeing secular Jews like Allan Bloom out of the U of
Chicago come forth with a denouncement of the neomorals his kindred had
been fervently preaching for the prior decades (of course, no one paid
much attention when WASP George Gilder was saying the same things at the
START of female boomer fertility, did they?). We are FINALLY seeing
some of the secular jewish feminists starting to soft-peddal some
of their hate-speech against males and be more accepting of gender
differences, fertility and not quite so pro abortion/homosexuality.
This is because:
1) The shift in power from the WASP elites such as Episcopalians and
their Ivy League culture, to secular Jews had been pretty much
accomplished (Bush was the last pathetic gasp -- they own Clinton).
2) The potential danger of this power being diluted by WASP baby-boomers
forming healthy families, pursuing real technical breakthroughs and
breaking out into one or more new frontiers, where they would establish
one or more uncontrollable "problems" like the pre-1860's United States,
had been averted.
3) After two decades of preaching these destructive moral systems to the
culture at large, the cultural toxins were starting to affect the better
instincts of their own youth and severely impact their own fertility
rates/family integrity,
> I take it Africans have the deeper culture?
For the most part. (However, Africans are more genetically diverse than
any other "race", so some of their shallowest cultures may be shallower
than or at least comparable to Jews.)
> It seems to follow from
> your view that they will soon be dominating and manipulating the Jews.
> Somehow that seems unlikely to me.
In my opinion, they already are. My paradigm predicts we will see Jews
in the middle east react toward Arabs and Jews in the U.S. react toward
African Americans in ways that are very reminiscent of the ways North
and West Europeans have historically reacted toward Jews.
The recent massacre of Arabs in the West Bank is the tip of the iceburg in
the middle east.
The media hysteria over Farrakhan is also only the tip of the iceburg in
the United States.
Just keep watching.
Providence has provided us with a very good test of the predictive power
of my paradigm.
Jim Kalb
>the GENETIC adaptation dictated that a large percentage of children
>raised under Judaic law would depart from that law and become secular
>WITHOUT BEING EXPELLED FROM THE JEWISH ETHNIC GROUP.
You seem to be implying that Jewish law and Jewish genes are at cross-
purposes to each other. That seems odd to me. It also seems to me that
secular Jews are notable for characteristics inconsistent with "deep
culture" as you describe it -- compared with other people (WASPS, for
example) they have stable monogamous families, their birth rates are
low, they tend toward moralism which sometimes leads to weird
ideologies, they have an inclination toward pursuits that involve formal
learning and abstract reasoning. Also, is it relevant to your
"dictated" language that there really wasn't a significant number of
secular Jews until after the French Revolution?
>From their positions of secular moral authority, they broadcast
>neomorals (profeminism, prohomosexuality, pro "diversity", pro-
>anything-PC) and those neomorals are (and this is crucial) ADOPTED WITH
>TOTAL FIDELITY MORE FREQUENTLY BY SHALLOWER CULTURE YOUTH THAN THEIR
>OWN YOUTH.
I doubt that the all-caps statement is true. I suppose to the extent
total fidelity requires simplemindedness you might find it more often
among those of us with _goyishe kopfe_, but I doubt that Jewish practice
has been affected less by neomorals than non-Jewish practice. You
should look at "Counting the Jews" in the October 1991 issue of
_Commentary_ for a discussion of the effect of modern trends relating to
sex and the family on the Jews. As to the earlier part of your
statement, neomorals have also taken root in European countries without
large numbers of Jews. Also, the obvious philosophical sources of
neomorality (the major philosophers of liberalism, for example) are not
Jewish.
My own view is that the role of the Jews in the creation of our current
situation is very much a side issue. If the Jews had all moved to Mars
in 1500 we'd be in about the same place as in fact we are. Very likely
their position in the world has made it rational for them to favor
particularism for themselves and universalism for everyone else, but
they're not supermen. It's difficult for a highly visible minority
successfully to maintain both sides of an inconsistent position for
long, and it's difficult to promote social dissolution among people who
aren't already headed in that direction.
In any event, present trends (low birth rate and an intermarriage rate
of more than 50%) seem likely to lead to the disappearance of non-
Israeli secular Jewry in a few generations. So it seems pretty clear
that promoting the further loosening of traditional standards and ethnic
ties is not now in the interests of Jews as a people.
Randall J. Burns
>jabo...@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>
>>the GENETIC adaptation dictated that a large percentage of children
>>raised under Judaic law would depart from that law and become secular
>>WITHOUT BEING EXPELLED FROM THE JEWISH ETHNIC GROUP.
>
>You seem to be implying that Jewish law and Jewish genes are at cross-
>purposes to each other. That seems odd to me. It also seems to me that
>secular Jews are notable for characteristics inconsistent with "deep
>culture" as you describe it -- compared with other people (WASPS, for
>example) they have stable monogamous families, their birth rates are
>low, they tend toward moralism which sometimes leads to weird
>ideologies, they have an inclination toward pursuits that involve formal
>learning and abstract reasoning. Also, is it relevant to your
>"dictated" language that there really wasn't a significant number of
>secular Jews until after the French Revolution?
a _clearly_ polygamous religion. I think that one of Jim's
main points is that the degree of "depth" of a culture is
highly related to its experience with polygamy.
What would be interesting is if anyone has any figures for
likelyhood of
1) parternity
2) multiple marriages
among ethnic groups. My sense is that
1) paternity varies more among cultures than does
women's fertility
2) The male reproductive strategies seem to vary between
different groups(i.e. some groups are more clearly
monogamous, others serially monogamous with a pattern
of divorces/remarriages, others most successful
outside of marriage).
I've found it rather difficult to find good statistics
to support or refute this hypothesis. It is clear from the
US census records that interracial births are increasing.
It is also clear that _paternity_ is becoming more
_concentrated_ among fewer men. I have looked, and haven't
seen much really asking
a) who are the men who are most reproductively successful
in the current situation
b) who are men whose reproductive fitness as been most
reduced in recent decades.
My guess is that answer is horribly politically incorrect.
Jim Kalb
>until around 1000AD Judaism was a _clearly_ polygamous religion.
I realize that polygamy wasn't declared illegal under Jewish law until
some time in the later Middle Ages, but had been under the impression
that the declaration simply made explicit and formal what had been the
attitude and practice for a very long time. Maybe I'll take a look at
_Encyclopedia Judaica_ on the issue -- it's an interesting one.
Randall J. Burns
>rbu...@netcom.com (Randall J. Burns) writes:
>
>>until around 1000AD Judaism was a _clearly_ polygamous religion.
>
>I realize that polygamy wasn't declared illegal under Jewish law until
>some time in the later Middle Ages, but had been under the impression
>that the declaration simply made explicit and formal what had been the
>attitude and practice for a very long time.
think) was basically the Christians _forcing_ the Jewish
establishment to abandon polygamy. My guess is that
there existed some real differences between desired public
image and private practice for quite some time.
> Maybe I'll take a look at
>_Encyclopedia Judaica_ on the issue -- it's an interesting one.
I'd be _very_ careful about sources on this one.
--------
My own sense is that historically, urban cultures have
tended to be more polygamous-and that lots of "barbarian"
invasions were essentially the males that got cuckolded
or just left out taking matters into their own hands.
The last thing a con-artist want's is to be noticed-I'd
expect these kinds of issues to be largely ignored in the
historical record.
Jim Bowery
> jabo...@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>
> >the GENETIC adaptation dictated that a large percentage of children
> >raised under Judaic law would depart from that law and become secular
> >WITHOUT BEING EXPELLED FROM THE JEWISH ETHNIC GROUP.
>
> You seem to be implying that Jewish law and Jewish genes are at cross-
> purposes to each other. That seems odd to me.
The disapora was a historically "odd" event occuring within "odd"
historical circumstances. One would expect rather odd adaptations
to arise and persist if successful. One obviously successful strategy
would be a tendency toward hypocrisy in dealings with those outside
community ("Jews are defined by religion" "Jews defined by blood-line"
"Jews are defined by culture" -- take your pick as convenient for the
circumstances at hand and energetically denounce your genetic brethren
who were just yesterday, saying the "wrong" thing).
Remember, Jewish law would ONLY work at cross purposes to Jewish genes
when the law is applied outside of its intended context (ie: in dealings
with those outside the Jewish community). By cloistering the more
religious Jews and spreading the more secular ones into wide contact
in the community, the dilemma is averted.
> It also seems to me that
> secular Jews are notable for characteristics inconsistent with "deep
> culture" as you describe it -- compared with other people (WASPS, for
> example) they have stable monogamous families, their birth rates are
> low,
I dispute these statements, although not as strongly as you might
expect. Until recently, Jewish genetics after the diaspora did not
involve very much deeper culture competition for the exploitation of
the shallower cultures they were cohabiting -- and their "ecological
niche" was relatively limited. This would naturally limit their
birth rates. However, DE FACTO POLYGAMY is a very important genetic
phenomenon. Even Jarred Diamond (jewish geneticist) claims that the rate
of cuckoldery is vastly in excess of what is commonly believed. My own
figures from a blood-type study in London indicate it is one in 3 families
and that is PRE sexual revolution. If you come into the modern sexual
revolution, you will not only see an increase of unacknowledged cuckoldery,
but a rather dramatic rise in serial monogamy and acknowledged step-children.
If you look at the genetics of de facto polygamy, you will see that compared
with WASPS, jewish gene pools have benefitted enormously in terms of
QUALITY first, and secondly in terms of quantity.
> they tend toward moralism which sometimes leads to weird
> ideologies,
Those are only the most visible and they have high leverage. Yes, they
sacrificed the fertility of a number of females as leaders of feminism.
How many? How many children were never born to WASP women as a consequence
of the sacrifice of those feminist leaders?
Yes, they sacrificed the prosperity of Trotsky and other founders of
communism. How many and how much? Now count up the damage done to the
prosperity of shallower cultures as a consequence of communism.
It is an easy trade-off.
> Also, is it relevant to your
> "dictated" language that there really wasn't a significant number of
> secular Jews until after the French Revolution?
My "dictated" language really results from the enormous temptations
presented to a stronger deep culture gene-pool when transported midst a
much shallower (weaker) one with the handicap of environmental harshness
amelerorated by technical adaptations.
The Jews had no warning about the ease with which they would be able
to spread through Europe and influence social and political events.
Their moral leaders were therefore in no position to anticipate and
avert the consequent pogroms and holocaust that would result.
In the early stages right after the diaspora, they didn't need any profoundly
sociopathic off-shoots to exploit the vulnerable populations they found
themselves among. It was probably like falling off a log, even for very
moral and traditional Jews.
> they have an inclination toward pursuits that involve formal
> learning and abstract reasoning.
First, when it comes to politics, a lot of this is just plain sophistry
as I've just pointed out (Marx, feminism, counter-culturalism, ZPG, etc.).
Second, there is nothing about abstract reasoning that is shallow-culture
specific. Abstract reasoning is highly valuable in complex social settings,
just as it would be in a challenging game of chess. There are a lot of
possible moves and it simply isn't reasonable to store all those moves
in the genome. Instead, you store the "move generator" in the genome
and it computes the game-theoretic optimal moves via permutations with
weightings, etc. This is all quite useful for formal derivations and other
mathematical operations where the "game outcome" is, say, a theorem you
are trying to prove.
There is reason to believe Dolphins have large brains and abstract
reasoning for precisely these social dynamic purposes.
Indeed, one might argue that the pressures for abstract reasoning
might be diminished in shallower cultures were it not for Murphy's
Law as exhibited by technology. One must, in a sense, "prove" that
a device or technique will work before relying on it for one's life.
Where the deep cultures win is not in the move generator but in the
accuracy of its "expert rules" or fuzzy logic statements that the
move generator uses as axioms. All chess games/theorem provers
have such heuristic weightings. Deeper cultures simply have better
heuristics.
Shallower cultures win in the inflexibility of their moral imprints so
that they don't "outsmart" themselves with their reason. "At my
initiation, the men of my tribe said 'Don't ever kill a cowbird in
the springtime.' so I'm not going to kill and eat that cowbird over
there even though I'm going to starve -- its springtime. I'll die
happy knowing I served my tribe well."
Total nonsense from an "abstract reason" standpoint. But it may be
absolutely crucial to the survival of his tribe in an unnatural
environment for reasons that only God can fathom.
The deeper culture boy starving in the same habitat REASONS:
"I'm starving. The tribe says don't kill that cowbird because it's
springtime. But, hey, let's be REASONABLE here -- what's the harm
in eating one stupid little cowbird when my LIFE is on the line?
I'm far more valuable to the tribe. I am a great hunter!
No one will even see me eat it so its not like I'm going to
even corrupt the morals of the people who witness this so-called-
'abomination of eating the cowbird in the springtime'. Dinner time!"
Entirely REASONABLE of the deeper culture individual, no?
> >From their positions of secular moral authority, they broadcast
> >neomorals (profeminism, prohomosexuality, pro "diversity", pro-
> >anything-PC) and those neomorals are (and this is crucial) ADOPTED WITH
> >TOTAL FIDELITY MORE FREQUENTLY BY SHALLOWER CULTURE YOUTH THAN THEIR
> >OWN YOUTH.
>
> I doubt that the all-caps statement is true. I suppose to the extent
> total fidelity requires simplemindedness you might find it more often
> among those of us with _goyishe kopfe_,
Translation?
> but I doubt that Jewish practice
> has been affected less by neomorals than non-Jewish practice. You
> should look at "Counting the Jews" in the October 1991 issue of
> _Commentary_ for a discussion of the effect of modern trends relating to
> sex and the family on the Jews.
There are two things you have to look very carefully at here:
1) The jews historically have operated as a relatively benign
immuno-suppressant without a lot of other deeper cultures around
ready to exploit the suppressed immunity of the host cultures.
They only recently found themselves confronted by "opportunistic
infections" in other cultures that would rip through populations
the jews had immune-suppressed before the jews, themselves, could
get around to exploiting in their relatively shallow-culture manner.
2) Modern technologies in mass media have so vastly amplified the
normal techniques of cultural immune suppression historically used
by the Jews that things just got out of hand. Yes, it is impacting
their own population, and yes it is very nasty. But taking into
account my point 1 above, de facto polygamy (cuckoldery and serial
monogamy with many births not really accounted for) AND the raising
of mating standards allowed by increased relative affluence (combined
with a secular jewish male population much less likely to be
morally inhibited from sexual aggression by feminism) and you've
got a pretty strong case for a DIFFERENTIAL between WASPs and Jews
that, in the long run, strongly favors Jews.
> As to the earlier part of your
> statement, neomorals have also taken root in European countries without
> large numbers of Jews.
I was just talking to some guys from Iceland about this issue. They get
95% of their mass media content from the US where 59% of the people
controlling that content were raised in household where Judaism
was practiced. There are virtually NO Jews in Iceland, yet feminism is
absolutely rampant there and their fragile population of 260,000 and
equally fragile culture are being threatened now as never before.
This may be an extreme case but I'm sure the same basic phenomenon of
US media content influencing Europe can be observed in every European
country outside of the Iron Curtain, with a predictable outcome. Inside
the Iron Curtain, Marx, Engles and Trotsky had their way well in advance
of modern mass media, did they not?
> Also, the obvious philosophical sources of
> neomorality (the major philosophers of liberalism, for example) are not
> Jewish.
The liberal philosophers of antiquity NEVER anticipated a world of mass-media
controlled by alien ideas/gene pools and in which genetic transport/mixing
would be nearly what it is today. Their ideas were simply convenient
vehicles for alien cultures/gene pools to use in the immune-suppression
activities required prior to their taking up permanent residence.
> My own view is that the role of the Jews in the creation of our current
> situation is very much a side issue. If the Jews had all moved to Mars
> in 1500 we'd be in about the same place as in fact we are.
I agree with you on this except the "about" in my sentence would be more
flexible than yours, I'm sure.
Also, Jews had a very long time to develop immune-suppressive adaptations
which, when the time came for technology to open up global mixing in a
big way, was ready and waiting as a tool of deep culture encroachment
in general.
The fundamental phenomenon that we are dealing with here is really no
different from the invasion of European bees in the new world by
Africanized bees. Once technology/transport allows ecological
disruption, things WILL become disrupted.
The only question is, what will one do to adapt to the disruption?
This has become as much a question for Jews as it is for the rest of us.
Louis Farrakhan has one answer:
Separatism.
Jim Kalb
[You attribute many more behavioral differences than I would to the
genetic differences among human stocks. I don't know enough to discuss
the matter effectively, though. You might discuss with Mr.
LeBouthillier his view that 80% (I think he said) of the genetic
heritage of Ashkenazi Jews is non-Semitic.]
>Even Jarred Diamond (jewish geneticist) claims that the rate of
>cuckoldery is vastly in excess of what is commonly believed. My own
>figures from a blood-type study in London indicate it is one in 3
>families and that is PRE sexual revolution.
What I know of the effects of marital infidelity makes this very hard
for me to believe.
>> _goyishe kopfe_,
>
>Translation?
"Non-Jewish heads."
Jim Bowery
> jabo...@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>
> [You attribute many more behavioral differences than I would to the
> genetic differences among human stocks.
The best studies indicate genetic influences on behavior are
astoundingly strong. The 1980s University of Minnesota used
large numbers of twins separated at birth. That study was so
embarrassing to establishment thought that it as been relegated
to the status of a virtual "nonstudy". That the results
of this study haven't been integrated into wider intellectual
thought would be equally astounding were it not for the conflicts
of interest in key academic, media and political centers predicted by
my paradigm and apparent to the attentive observer.
I don't want to leave you with the impression, however, that one needs
these extreme levels of genetic influence in order to support my
paradigm. All one needs are populations in which moral pressures
are alleviated by comforts of technical advances to the point that
genetic differences can start to show up in genetic "drifts"
between generations. These "drifts" (actually shifts) can be no
more than a fraction of a percent per generation and be the
evolutionary equivalent of an instantaneous extinction event.
> I don't know enough to discuss
> the matter effectively, though. You might discuss with Mr.
> LeBouthillier his view that 80% (I think he said) of the genetic
> heritage of Ashkenazi Jews is non-Semitic.]
Although Jarred Diamond disagrees with LeBouthillier, I don't take
sides in this debate of "Khazarite vs Semite" or any other such
debate.
My position is simply that the culture we currently identify as
"Jewish" is made up of genes from deeper cultures which the
diaspora (and its latent effects in history) caused to be spread
into shallower cultures just at a time when technical adaptations
in the shallower cultures were increasing carrying capacities to
the point of "friendliness" to the deeper gene pools.
> >Even Jarred Diamond (jewish geneticist) claims that the rate of
> >cuckoldery is vastly in excess of what is commonly believed. My own
> >figures from a blood-type study in London indicate it is one in 3
> >families and that is PRE sexual revolution.
>
> What I know of the effects of marital infidelity makes this very hard
> for me to believe.
What sort of data do you need to see?
David Matthew Deane
>j...@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>> jabo...@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>> >homosexuals opting for a kin-selection strategy of caring for
>> >reproductively viable relatives.
>>
>> To raise a side issue, does this strategy actually have much to do with
>> human beings? I know a guy whose uncle put the moves on him, but
>> somehow I doubt that's the sort of kin-selection strategy you have in
>> mind ...
>
>raised together, if one is homosexual the other is just as likely
>to be either homosexual or heterosexual. This indicates a strong
>genetic or biological CAPACITY for homosexuality given the right
>environment. (A conditional phenotype of a fixed genotype.) Of
>course, this statement alone, as obvious as it is from the evidence
>at hand, is considered heresy by both the gay activist community and
>the moral conservative community. There is little hope that we can
>come to understand the evolutionary function of homosexuality or
>what triggers it in humans in the current social environment. I
>suspect that homosexuality would have been selected out of the
>genepool if it didn't have some kin-selection advantage. I could
>be wrong.
I remember something about the twin study you mention. A lot depends, however,
on what one means by homosexual. Is this an essential "thing" unto itself, or
merely behavior? I recall reading a book by a Reichian psychologist, who was
arguing that homosexuals in the Nazi party weren't _really_ homosexuals, even
though they had sex with other men...my point being, there is a strong
assumption on the part of both the "gay" and anti-gay sides to view
homosexuality as an essential quality, rather then mere behavior. This is in
fact a very recent notion. Anthropologists have found homosexual behavior all
over the world, but nowhere do these "homosexuals" have any concept of
themselves as being something seperate in regards to their sexuality. Also, I
am unsure as to what is meant by kin-selection advantage. Many of these
"homosexuals" also are married and have children - either because their culture
expects it of them, or because they are "bisexual", or both. Take for example,
classical Greece. It has long been know that homosexuality (or to be more
precise: pederasty) was common amongst the Greeks - as their literature and
art testifies (Plato was a "crank" - i.e. he came out against homosexuality
late in life, and against popular opinion). Now, I fail to see how
homosexuality functions in relation to kin-selection, in this example. Various
studies have been done on the subject: some see homosexuality in Greece as a
product of militarism, esp. amongst the Dorians (i.e., all that barracks
living, lack of access to women, etc.). This is seen as a military advantage
(greater group cohesiveness - the Theban "Sacred Band" being a good example).
Others, looking at Athens, see it as essentially a tutorial function (older
male teacher/lover of boy). Others point to even older "initiation"
rites amongst the Greek tribes. The point is, these boys still grew up,
married, raised a family. They weren't "homosexuals" as we understand the term.
So where does "kin-selection" come into all of this?
(deletions)
>The only place where secular Jews and Africans are encountering each other
>in large numbers is in the United States.
Not entirely true. In Britain, they do encounter each other in (relatively)
large numbers. Michael Walker (editor of _The Scorpion_) noted a few years ago
that the Black/Jewish "anti-racist" alliance in Britain had broken down, over
issues such as Israel and affirmative action, among other things - just like
what is happening here in the USA. BTW, I object to the term "African": blacks
do not define "Africa". North Africa is Arabic (i.e., Caucasian rather than
Negroid), while the Bushmen & Hottentots of Southern Africa are not really
negroes, and the Boers certainly aren't...I realize you are using "African" in
the currently fashionable meaning...
> Until recently, the
>overt and active discrimination against Africans and lack of urbanization
>kept them from demonstrating their genetic strengths with respect to
>the secular Jews.
I still have trouble thinking of these things as "strengths"...I suppose,
when society collapses, the greater group solidarity and lack of restraint of
urban blacks will serve them well....I still don't quite understand the
distinction between "shallow" and "deep"...could you restate your definitions?
David Matthew Deane Who would remember Helen's face
de...@binah.cc.brandeis.edu Lacking the terrible halo of spears?
(Robinson Jeffers)
David Matthew Deane
>> I remember something about the twin study you mention. A lot depends, however,
>> on what one means by homosexual. Is this an essential "thing" unto itself, or
>> merely behavior?
>
> was forced to coin due to the semantic obfuscations imposed on evolutionary
> biologists by pepole who don't want human ethology discussed -- a phenogen
> is a manifest dyanmic characteristic of an organism during various stages
> of ontogeny as the genotype and environmental CONTINGENCIES interact with each
> other in serial plieotropy or a sequence of conditional manifestations from
> the same genotype).
I see. I think. :-/
>Kin selection simply means that one's phenogen is expressed because one's
>evolutionary history discovered that in the kind of environment one find's
>one's self in, investing in the offspring of one's kin had a greater
>genetic payoff than investing in one's own offspring. This could be due
>to the need for a "niche" to be filled in an extended family or community,
>sich as teacher or even a more invisible support role with a broad impact.
There seems to have been a lot more homosexuality within the past 30-40
years. Have a bunch of new people "discovered" a new niche for themselves? Most
homosexuals I know have very little, if any, impact on the offspring of their
kin. They couldn't "invest" if they wanted to, since their family tends to be
scattered all over the country, thanks to our mobile society. They strike me,
for the most part, as hedonists who are not interested in their kin anyway.
Their loyalty lies with the "gay community" not their kin.
>> Many of these
>> "homosexuals" also are married and have children - either because their culture
>> expects it of them, or because they are "bisexual", or both.
>
>Many homosexuals have children and many may even have more children than the
>average and many of those children may be more viable than the average
>child in a heterosexual home.
>
>This is not relevant.
No?
>What is relevant is the existence or nonexistence of a phenogen involving
>same-sex behavior which correlates with lowered reproductive success BUT
>higher benefit to reproductive success of kin.
>
>It is statistical.
I gave you an example (classical Greece) where homosexual behavior did not
relate to kin selection as you define it. So, since it is not a universal
phenomenon, you must be implying it is unique to our own, or perhaps some
other, ethnic group. Could you please cite some examples where this is so?
Precisely where is this kin-selection strategy occuring?
>[ .. some history of greek homosexual phenogens .. ]
>
>I suspect we were seeing a variety of strategies here. In all cases one
>could argue that the people involved in the homosexual behavior were
>benefitting their home communities (kin). Whether this is actually the case
>or not is quite beyond my knowledge.
From what I know, it was a matter of benefitting their community/city-state.
Strong emotional attachments, in a highly male dominated society, were with
other males, not with wives. Marriage was for reproduction. Other sexual
behavior was not kin-selected or reproductively oriented. In a society in
which marriage was reproductive/social, and not companionate/emotional, your
homosexual kin-selection idea would not seem to apply.
>Well that would provide further confirmation of my paradigm. However, in the
>case of GB, I think a more interesting relationship to examine would be
>the one between east Indians and Jews. As I understand it, the east Indians
>are displacing Jews in GB.
I'll be sure to tell some of my British Jewish professors. They'll be suprised
to hear it.
> Since India covers so many different climates,
>I would have to examine the indigenous origins of the east Indians who are
>successfully displacing Jews in GB to see if it fit my deep/shallow erocide/
>genocide paradigm. If the east Indians are deeper than Jews, there should be
>increasing tension between those communities that is somewhat reminicent of
>the relationship between Jews and Arabs in the middle east.
Actually, from my knowledge of Britain, Indians tend to fill different niches
from that of Jews, with the exception of the professions. They don't go into
politics or academia or media in large numbers. They do go into business. I'd
like to see some hard evidence, in any case.
One other things: North Africans in France and Turks in Germany. Are you really
saying that these are taking over the "shallower" French and Germans?
>> I still have trouble thinking of these things as "strengths"...I suppose,
>> when society collapses, the greater group solidarity and lack of restraint of
>> urban blacks will serve them well....
>
>Exactly. Although "society" wouldn't totally collapse. I suspect we would
>see a manipulative enslavement of whites within a stagnating/regressive
>society.
This is already happening (and April 15 is not far away). But really, I can't
believe that they will be in control. They lack the skills, the discipline,
the education....and without their allies, where would they be?
>>I still don't quite understand the
>> distinction between "shallow" and "deep"...could you restate your definitions?
>
>Deeper cultures are those who evolved in more benign ecosystems their carrying
>capacity for humans where genetic wisdom involving social interactions would
>dominate selection pressures. Shallower cultures are those who evolved at the
>frontiers of humanity's ecological ranges, highly dependent on "unnatural"
>technical adaptations frequently totally at odds with genetic "instinct".
>Shallower cultures are stronger morally and technically but weaker socially
>and sexually. Deeper cultures have far greater immunity to cultural and
>biological diseases that have coevolved with humans since their origins.
It seems to me that cultures on the frontiers would require a _greater_ amount
of social cooperation - and thus more politics - then cultures in which an
individual or small group could live easily without social cooperation. It
takes a lot more foresight, planning, and group cooperation (politics) for
a tribe of ice-age European hunters to survive (planning for winter, building
shelter, etc), then it does for a band of hunter-gatherers in Africa.
The bushmen live in very small groups with an absolute minimum amount of
politics. I don't think your argument holds up.
Jim Bowery
> In article <jaboweryC...@netcom.com>,
> jabo...@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
> >I am talking about a phenotype or, more precisely, a "phenogen" (a word I
> > was forced to coin due to the semantic obfuscations imposed on evolutionary
> > biologists by pepole who don't want human ethology discussed -- a phenogen
> > is a manifest dyanmic characteristic of an organism during various stages
> > of ontogeny as the genotype and environmental CONTINGENCIES interact with each
> > other in serial plieotropy or a sequence of conditional manifestations from
> > the same genotype).
>
> I see. I think. :-/
Sorry for the jargon, but you asked and I answered. Basically, what I am
saying is that our genetic programming has a lot of "if" statements in it
that look at the environment -- therefore the connection between culture,
genes and the environment is a lot more intimate than the current academic
"nature vs nurture" debate would have us believe. Hope that was a LITTLE
clearer.
> There seems to have been a lot more homosexuality within the past 30-40
> years. Have a bunch of new people "discovered" a new niche for themselves?
No, I think that there are environmental cues which trigger homosexuality
during ontogeny and that our environment has had a lot more of these
cues lately. These cues are mere evolutionary correlates with conditions
that made homosexuality adaptive. I don't think that homosexuality, for
the most part, is fulfilling its evolutionary role these days. The cues
are false.
> Most
> homosexuals I know have very little, if any, impact on the offspring of their
> kin. They couldn't "invest" if they wanted to, since their family tends to be
> scattered all over the country, thanks to our mobile society. They strike me,
> for the most part, as hedonists who are not interested in their kin anyway.
> Their loyalty lies with the "gay community" not their kin.
Exactly. We agree.
> I gave you an example (classical Greece) where homosexual behavior did not
> relate to kin selection as you define it. So, since it is not a universal
> phenomenon, you must be implying it is unique to our own, or perhaps some
> other, ethnic group. Could you please cite some examples where this is so?
> Precisely where is this kin-selection strategy occuring?
The existence of a phenogen which doesn't match the kin-selection strategy
doesn't exclude the existence of another phenogen which exhibits kin-selection.
That's all I'm saying. Your argument does not provide strong evidence
against a kin-selection phenogen which might involve same-sex copulation.
Nor do I claim that I have strong evidence FOR kin-selection except that it
is one of the few hypothetical ways that homosexuality might be preserved
in the gene-pool through selection pressures as opposed to through unintended
side-effects (which is what I think is going on today for the most part).
> One other things: North Africans in France and Turks in Germany. Are you really
> saying that these are taking over the "shallower" French and Germans?
In the absence of racialist countermeasures, I would expect German/Turk
relations to be shallow/deep, genocidal/erocidal. In the case of the French
and North Africans, it is a bit more complex, as it always is with Africans,
since Africans embody such genetic diversity and since the desert climate
of North Africa might tend to select for shallower culture characteristics.
If forced to bet, I would hold the opinion you attribute to me.
> >> I still have trouble thinking of these things as "strengths"...I suppose,
> >> when society collapses, the greater group solidarity and lack of restraint of
> >> urban blacks will serve them well....
> >
> >Exactly. Although "society" wouldn't totally collapse. I suspect we would
> >see a manipulative enslavement of whites within a stagnating/regressive
> >society.
>
> This is already happening (and April 15 is not far away). But really, I can't
> believe that they will be in control. They lack the skills, the discipline,
> the education....and without their allies, where would they be?
You forget that the skills they need to maintain control of a POLITICAL system
are POLITICAL not technical. These they possess at a genetic level in greater
measure than shallower cultures AND they possess fewer moral restraints against
using these genetic strengths.
They can maintain needed allies via their greater political sophistication.
They WILL eventually win any political contest. You can bank on it.
> >Deeper cultures are those who evolved in more benign ecosystems their carrying
> >capacity for humans where genetic wisdom involving social interactions would
> >dominate selection pressures. Shallower cultures are those who evolved at the
> >frontiers of humanity's ecological ranges, highly dependent on "unnatural"
> >technical adaptations frequently totally at odds with genetic "instinct".
> >Shallower cultures are stronger morally and technically but weaker socially
> >and sexually. Deeper cultures have far greater immunity to cultural and
> >biological diseases that have coevolved with humans since their origins.
>
> It seems to me that cultures on the frontiers would require a _greater_ amount
> of social cooperation - and thus more politics - then cultures in which an
> individual or small group could live easily without social cooperation.
This really gets to the definition of "politics" doesn't it?
Resorting to Webster:
politic: 1: political 2: characterized by shrewdness in managing, contriving
or dealing 3: sagacious in promoting a policy 4: shrewdly tactful
shrewd: 1: mischievous 2: abusive shrewish 3: ominous dangerous 4:a: severe,
hard b: sharp, piercing 5:a: marked by clever discerning awareness and hard
headed acumen (common sense) b: given to wily and artful ways or dealing (an
operator)
It really gets down to the difference between "manipulation" and "communication".
In manipulation, one is familiar, perhaps instinctively, with the cognitive
weaknesses and fallacies of those one is manipulating and is generally using
these characteristics for one's own advantage without regard for the
conscious values held by the other party.
In communication, one is giving respect to the conscious values of the other
party and attempts to employ the other person's conscious decision making
abilities to the greatest degree possible.
Communication is critical in unnatural environments because one's "common
sense" instincts, being evolved in natural environements, are frequently
maladaptive. It is precisely this tendency to override common sense that
deeper cultures target in shallower cultures. They do so via media
and academia primarily in modern societies, but on simply social levels
they tend to do so quite well too.
> The bushmen live in very small groups with an absolute minimum amount of
> politics. I don't think your argument holds up.
Jim Bowery
de...@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane) writes:
>In article <jaboweryC...@netcom.com>,
>jabo...@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
won't
>>use it for that purpose.
>
>Really? Not even the Third World terrorists who massacred European settlers
>(Angola, Algeria, Kenya...let's not forget Haiti)...? Granted, this is not
>"genocide", just your run of the mill massacre,
I would call it more of a "race riot" than genocide or even massacre.
This was a situation where the political power was not passing
gradually to the native people and they resorted to the next best
thing they had at their disposal, "Tear the mother down." This is
in fact what I think we were seeing in the LA riots to some degree
where the innacuracies of 19th century "race" definitions failed to
understand that SOME blacks in that community were deeper culture
than other blacks and would thrive in a more primitive environment.
They attacked the symbols of affluence in "their own community."
In fact, in addition to Korean business owners, shallower culture
blacks suffered in that riot. Deeper cultures ended up with a more
favorable environment.
>but what assurance do we have,
>aside from your word, that non-whites won't massacre whites once they
>outnumber them/have power over them?
The massacres will probably occur and will be more along the lines
of Randy Weaver and Waco than genocide. It will all be "legal"
and be for the purposes of preventing "hate" and "genocide".
Erocide doesn't rely on violence anymore than genocide relies on rape
for its genetic encroachment. The counter examples are there by
the score, but they are still the minority of the effect.
>A quick examination of the racial
>breakdown of murder and rape statistics does not reassure one, nor does
>the rhetoric of the Nation of Islam.
Black on white murder appears to be about in line with chance. Rape,
on the other hand, appears to be directed toward white women by black
men about 4 times more frequently than one would expect if the victims
were chosen at random. This is inline with the genocide/erocide
distinction of shallow vs deep cultures during a period of erocide.
>When anti-semites began to talk
>this way, we ended up with the Holocaust.
You'll note that the pogroms against Jews were always conducted by
shallower cultures. When shallower cultures talk, listen to what
they are saying and you can get an idea of what they are going to
do. With deeper cultures, you have to ignore their words and look
at their actions regarding genetic and wealth accumulation.
Crimes by shallower cultures emphasize violence and death.
Crimes by deeper cultures emphasize fraud and sex.
>Are we to infer that certain
>extreme Black Nationalists, Black
>Muslims (of the Elija Mohammed variety), and "5 percenters", don't mean
>what they say, when they gleefully talk about butchering "white devils",
>raping "white bitches", and dashing the brains of white babies against
the
>wall? One simply has to listen to rap music to hear this kind of genocidal
>hate.
Like I said, look at their actions. It turns out the rape rhetoric
is somewhat accurate. The rest of it is just so much noise.
>What you are saying is that the "deep" are outbreeding the "shallow", I take
>it. This is certainly happening, but I doubt very much it will end
peacefully.
>Things are not headed that way.
Erocide always ends in genocide of some type unless a way out can be found.
>>THIS type of FRAUDULENT shift in population genetics should be called
>>"erocide" so as to distinguish it from the FORCEFUL shift in population
>>genetics typically imposed by shallower cultures, which has recently been
>>christened "genocide".
>
>So it is "erocide" when done by stealth and by lies, but "genocide" when
done
>openly?
Openly, but more to the point, emphasizing violence, death and technology.
>I don't see the need for the different terms.
I used to use "genocide" for both, but the connotations of "genocide"
have made it useless for my purposes when talking about a phenomenon
that most people don't even recognize as existing.
>What does "ero" in erocide mean?
Eros, fertility -- killing thereof in the target population. Feminism
is one of the primary tools of erocide, as is homosexuality.
>Genocide means the extinction of a people (geno). It does not matter how
>that is accomplished - when a people is denied its niche, it is denied its
>existence.
I agree but as I said, the connotations made it useless to communicate
the concepts of erocide.
>>Erocide is probably more of a factor in historic conflict than
genocide, but
>>due to its reliance on deception and incidental displacement, it is never
>>as obvious to historians.
>>Any culture when confronted by erocide by a deeper culture, will be tempted
>>to respond with genocide.
>
>Again, however, genocide need not mean massacre (as in the case of the
Indians,
>who were for the most part displaced by force rather then killed). Why
is the
>one "OK" and the other "not OK"? Or am I misinterpreting you, and you are
>simply saying neither is OK, but that most people ignore "erocide" and
condemn
>"genocide"?
People in power emphasize the erocide or genocide of others as it suits
them. Usually, people ignore erocide because it is easier to do so.
However, I think our displacement of Indians may be closer to erocide
than genocide all things considered.
>Perhaps "racialist" is a better term. I guess I'm far less of a "racialist"
>then you, because I think culture is vitally important, and frankly, your
>argument so far strikes me as racial/biological determinism.
It is biological statistics which start to look like determinism when
averaged over a large enough population but which on an individual
basis is highly variable.
>>Wehave far more to gain as an
>>anthrosystem by respecting these people and dealing with them than we
>>do by trying to defend all our past actions of genocide and erocide on
>>the basis simply of "white transcendance."
>
>We've done both? I thought you were saying we were guilty of genocide, not
>erocide?
More genocide than erocide, certainly. And yes we have done both, but
we have done so in a self-erocidal mode. We have to recover our own
moral imprinting mechanisms and pursue sovereignty under our own
cultural heritage -- a heritage which has a great deal of pioneering
and moral integrity to it. Part of that moral integrity must include
a recognition of our past mistakes -- not at the behest of those who
want to pick our pockets, but under our own moral leadership.
>>The solution is for us to seek our fortune in the greater world -- leave
>>them all behind and come back to them when we have established ourselves
>>anew as sovereigns of our own home.
>
>Unfortunately, our "parent" is the State, which, together with all other
>states, has a complete monopoly on force -where exactly are we supposed
to go?
>"Pa" doesn't seem to want to let us leave.
More precisely, "Ma" since erocide is mainly a matriarchal phenomenon
ala feminism and its affinity to deeper cultures.
Ma wants us to be gay boys hanging around at home. She's sick... Real
sick. But when it comes right down to it, we are bigger than she is.
She has us terrified but she is, in fact, totally dependent on us.
She is frightened that we will go "psycho" and kill her or leave her.
She is in trouble and she knows it. She keeps frightening us in the
guise of people like Janet Reno and Hillary Clinton to make us feel
submissive and gay instead of like men who can walk out of the house
and never look back.
Pa? Pa just doesn't seem to be around anymore does he?
Wimp's World.
>Here's my problem. We have been pioneers on this continent for 300
years, tops.
>We were pioneers for a relatively short time in Europe.
I disagree. At the end of each ice age we became pioneers again.
Even in stasis, we are at lower population density (in evolutionary
history). We manipulate nature, not humans.
>Again, the problem: the only areas not now claimed by sovereign states are
>either in space, or underwater. We can't live in either, without massive
>support from people on the Earth/land,
Absolutely false. This is the big lie of technosocialism.
You don't think the Feds spent billions on NASA to promote a
frontier do you? They spent that money to keep us all convinced
that it is SO expensive and SO difficult to do space technology,
that we may as well forget about frontiers.
The absolutely worst thing you can do to advance technology is
absorb inventors into bureaucracies where they are regimented,
their rewards absorbed by managers and their imaginations are
ridiculed by people who feel inferior to them.
>correct, you have a dilemma as I see it: attempt to pioneer, and be
quashed by
>the State (under "deep" cultural control), or, in order to allow
pioneering to
>have a chance, to engage in politics - which you say we are BOUND to lose
>since, according to you, we can't beat "deep" cultures at their own game.
Yes, it appears tough when you're about to leave the security of Ma
and home, doesn't it?
But when it comes right down to it, how long would the U.S. would last
if all those shallower culture cold warriors who are being erocided
into oblivion decided to do something other than watch TV as their
daughters are seduced/raped by deeper culture males and their son's
sodomized by AIDS vectors. They might not take it in good humor if the
U.S. tried to stop them from saving their children.