An Epigenetic Explanation for the Decline of the West

Nelson Rosit


Jim Penman, Biohistory: Decline and Fall of the West (Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing), 2015, $5.92.

In 2009 I wrote an article outlining the emerging field of biohistory.[1] So when I came across a book written by Jim Penman entitled Biohistory: Decline of the West my interest was immediately piqued. Published in 2015, I wondered how the book had escaped my notice for two years. One reason might be that, although he holds a Ph.D. in history, Penman is an Australian businessman rather than an academic. This could explain why the book has not been reviewed by the customary American media.

My TOQ article was primarily a survey of some relevant historiography. I noted how various historians had incorporated human biology, and ecological influences such as climate, geography, diet, and disease, into their research while generally eschewing the significance of race. Penman also denies the importance of race, but he takes biohistory in a different direction with the use of epigenetics.

Epigenetics is a “new science which looks at the way on which genes are switched on or off by the environment” (9). It appears that “environmental influence turn up or down the activity of certain genes while not altering the DNA” (25). It is particularly significant that: “Epigenetic regulation seems to operate in an almost Lamarckian fashion . . . [and] can produce effects in gene expression that may echo over many generations.” [2]

Epigenetics has been described as evolution without Darwinism. It appears particularly important in determining temperament. Two significant epigenetic environmental factors are diet and stress. To greatly simplify things we can say that gluttony and ease produce weak men, who produce weak sons leading to decadence, and societal decline. This theory is not new, but epigenetics suggests that these changes are physiological and heritable, not just cultural. And it provides some scientific evidence to support this paradigm.

Penman’s thesis is engaging and epigenetics is gaining wide acceptance, but at times his presentation is overstated and reductionist. For example, historians and economists have been studying the Great Depression for decades. They disagree on the causes, but generally believe that, as with almost all major historical events, it was precipitated by a confluence of factors. In this case the lingering effects of World War I, policies pursued by major economies, as well as the mistaken beliefs of millions of economic actors. In contrast, Penman believes “the explanation of recession involves a change in the temperament of the general population” (141), and “that governments have little or no power to halt the underlying forces of economic and political change, because these forces are driven by changes in temperament” which are in turn shaped by epigenetics (153).  Certainly there is a psychological component within economic downturns as the terms “depression” and “panic” imply. But it is difficult to believe that epigenetic changes alone account for economic cycles.

Rather than being the key to understanding history epigenetics could prove to be another useful tool for analyzing human societies past and present. As mentioned above, the author’s goal is to develop a biological explanation of history sans race. He “takes particular issue with the idea that [cultural development] might be about race or genetic differences” (5). His interpretation of “biohistory takes issue with the idea that differences between peoples can be explained by genetics such as the idea that Europeans and East Asians are more intelligent” (8).

Penman does, however, made selective use of genetics and ethnic differences. The one example of the latter regards Ashkenazi Jews whose intelligence “appears to have risen significantly over the course of about five centuries due to the selective pressure caused by their mercantile role” (192).

Other than this Penman has little to say about intelligence, temperament being all important. There is nothing in this book, however, that would preclude the agency of race in history. Nor is there anything to say that human genetics, as well as culture and epigenetics determine temperament. Thus the author is somewhat contradictory when he admires the work of Cochrane and Harpending, and especially of Gregory Clark, authors I cite in the 2009 article who have argued for the influence of human genetic change within historical times.[3] Penman concedes that “genetic change could account for the increase in C-type [civilized] behaviors in Europe between about 1200 and 1850, but the rapid collapse of C since than indicates that this is primarily an epigenetic rather than a genetic change” (34). This sounds credible — genetics was a major reason for the rise of the West, and epigenetics is a major reason for its decline.

It is telling that the author’s axis of world history runs from the West, including the Mediterranean, to the Far East, while Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, is not part of the model. Whatever its shortcomings, this book is worth reading because it provides a cogent explanation for the decline of the West.

One of the strengths of Penman’s analysis is the use of animal studies to supply evidence (though not proof) for his thesis. Apparently, “all of the mating and childrearing behaviors that distinguish complex and small-scale human cultures have direct equivalents in monkeys and apes” (16). The author’s supporting evidence also uses studies involving rats and other animals.

Penman labels the cultural characteristics that create and maintain a civilization as C. C includes industriousness, ability to cooperate, and moderation in food, drink, and sex. Chronic mild hunger produces hormonal, behavioral, and epigenetic changes that make people harder working and more cooperative. In societies with plentiful food similar effects can be achieved through religion and other social institutions: “Human societies, by a process of trial and error, have developed cultural practices which mimic the physiological effects of hunger” (14).

While C behaviors are required; “A successful civilization needs . . . some level of warlike aggression” (39). This should be disciplined aggression, group or collective assertion, not individual violence. Penman labels this component of civilization as V for vigor. Characteristics of V are a pioneering spirit, high morale, and the urge to expand and explore. The author offers Victorian Britain as a good mix of C and V.

V promoters include: intermittent (not chronic) stress, patriarchy, “an anxious but affectionate mother” and exposure to adult authority in late childhood” (48). “One final V-promoter in human societies is control of women’s sexual behavior” (49). In summary, “the temperamental complexes labeled C and V can be considered the fundamental building blocks of civilization” (54).

Thus childrearing practices are seen as particularly important in determining temperament and thus C and V. In turn, temperament is transmitted from generation to generation via cultural practices and epigenetic inheritance. Penman thus minimizes or ignores the influence of genetics (what behavior geneticists term additive genetic variance—genes that have the same effect throughout the range of normal environments) in determining intelligence and behavior. It would have enhanced his thesis if he had integrated his epigenetics to complement, rather than displace, genetic-based history, and then incorporate genetics/epigenetics into the wider field of biohistory.

One broad area of agreement with the author is on the importance of cycles in human affairs. The presence of cycles seems to be ubiquitous within the universe. The cycle of life, the nitrogen cycle, the carbon cycle, the hydrologic cycle, the rotation of the planets, moons, suns that produce tides, night and day, and seasons are all examples. As biological entities and social animals it seems likely human collectives would also be subject to cycles.

Dr. Jim Penman and Tara McCarthy

In Chapter Seven Penman describes his civilization cycle. Low C leads to a raise of V that raises stress. High V and stress cause C to increase. As C rises it causes V and stress to fall. Eventually the fall in V and stress will cause C to fall, and “when C falls to a certain level, V begins to rise and we return to step 1” (102).

We can, however, explain the fall of a civilization, the medieval world for example, without including changes in childrearing, temperament, or epigenetics. Many scholars divide the history of the West into three distinct civilizations: classical, medieval, and modern.  Historians generally agree that during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries medieval civilization declined and was replaced by the early modern age. How did this happen?

One explanation sees the High Middle Ages as a period of particularly favorable weather in Northern and Western Europe. This, coupled with technological developments, increased food production along with population and trade. Beginning in the fourteenth century the climate turned colder and wetter. Food production decreased and was unable to feed Europe’s larger population. Trade with the East had introduced or reintroduced new diseases from Asia that now ravaged the malnourished population. The social and economic disruptions lead to increased armed conflict such as the Hundred Years War.

The disintegration of the old order paved the way for capitalism to replace manorialism, nationalism replaced feudalism, and eventually science to modified theology. Here we have a biohistory that includes climate, demography, nutrition, and disease. This not to argue against changes in childrearing and temperament, only that the above factors can be considered independent of epigenetic influences.

In the next chapter Penman discusses cycles in wildlife populations. For millennia as Homo sapiens pursued game, men have noticed that animal populations rise and fall in cyclical patterns. Today these cycles have been well documented by wildlife biologists, but are not entirely understood. The author introduces the concept of G, or growth phase, and relates this to population cycles of muskrats. During the growth phase these swamp rodents, valued for their fur, are more disease resistant, breed earlier with larger litters, and tolerate high population density. During their decline phase they are more susceptible to disease, breed later with small litters, nest farther apart, and “react poorly to any form of stress” (p. 105). There appears to be some parallels to human societies.

Penman notes that, being affluent and urban, elites are especially susceptible to decadence and decline. He believes that the high population density of city life tends to decrease both C and V. Though the author does not deal with race his analysis has certain similarities to early twentieth-century racialists such as Madison Grant and Theodore Roosevelt. Grant thought that cities were toxic to Nordics who required the fresh air and heavy labor of country life. Roosevelt held a neo-Lamarckian belief that the strenuous life lived outdoors would help extend the pioneering character of eighteenth and nineteenth century Americans into the twentieth century.

In Chapter Thirteen Penman introduces his S factor — stability. He contends that long-established civilizations become more stable, but less innovative, over time. India and China are given as examples. Here the author makes limited use of genetics as an explanation despite repeatedly claiming his biohistory is epigenetic rather than genetic (5,8,25,193,256). He explains that “the process of collapse causes people to go through a genetic change, which makes them more indulgent of infants and less so of older children” (187). A bit later, however, we learn that it is not just civilizational collapse, but rather the conquest from an outside force that produces the S factor. This explains why the West despite two collapses — fall of classic civilization in the fifth century and the decline and replacement of medieval civilization circa 1500 — has remained low S, innovative, and creative. The West has survived two periods of decline because the people who created the god Apollo and the spacecraft Apollo were genetically similar.

Penman predicts that “if and when Western Civilization collapses the successor civilization will be poorer and less brilliant, but more stable” (195). The explanation is that “when civilizations collapse, people with a genetic predisposition to indulge infants (high S) are better at maintaining traditional values, because they tend to have lower infant C and higher child V. This means they tend to have more children and high S genes spread” (202). All this is highly speculative, especially given that the author admits “we have no direct evidence of how children were raised in ancient China and India” (213). Such conjecture would probably not pass muster in a peer-reviewed historical monograph. But let’s face it, plausible speculation is often more interesting than meticulously documented case studies.

In the last several chapters Penman discusses the current state and future prospects of the West. He makes the startling statement and grim prediction that “the traditional culture of the Middle East . . . is arguably the most advanced culture on earth . . . not in terms of technology or wealth, but in its ability to endure and reproduce. It is the product of thousands of years of cultural evolution. In the future, it may well be our world as well” (218). The author believes “Europe will become an Islamic continent in a century or so. The 1,400 year struggle between Islam and the West is coming to the end” (230). This was written before the 2015–2016 alien deluge into Europe. If present trends continue we have far less than a century before the creation of Eurarbia.

Penman mentions in passing his disagreement with Francis Fukuyama, the Asian-American author of The End of History.[4] Fukuyama, influenced by the end-of-the cold-war triumphalism, saw liberal democratic globalism of the contemporary West as the final stage of human social and political development. How ironic that the rot was becoming increasingly apparent to a perceptive few as this book became a best seller.

For Penman the decadence and decline of the West is manifest in low birthrates, broken families, obesity, drug use, increasing public and private debt, and rising state dependence. Western societies are experiencing “a decline in morale and cultural confidence. . . . Perhaps the strongest expression of this change is the theory and practice of multiculturalism” (237). Amen to that.

The author predicts that the decline of the West will also pull down prosperous urban sectors of East Asia society. Then, after a Dark Age there will be a partial restoration. “Eventually, as poverty and the revival of traditional values do their work, V and C will revive.  But this will be a very different world,” poorer, more authoritarian, and less innovative (255). It will also be genetically quite different given the invasion of all Western countries by non-Whites.

In the final chapter Penman reiterates that, “the future of the West looks bleak. Levels of C and V, following the course of the civilization cycle, are in long-term decline. Such a decline, over the next century or two must bring about the end of Western civilization” (256). The trouble is, if you frame the problem as something that will happen a century or two, most people will be uninterested. In a hundred years they, their children, and maybe even their grandchildren will be gone. We need to emphasize that the decline of the West has already impacted the quality of life in Europe and America, and will increasingly do so in the years ahead.

It should also be mentioned that historians and social scientists set quite a low bar for defining a civilization. A civilization is a human culture with permanent settlements of 5,000 or more inhabitants, with buildings constructed of permanent materials, and a written language. So Iraq and Afghanistan are civilized places though few Westerners would consider them tolerable places to live.

All may not be lost. Penman sees glimmers of hope. Perhaps a religious revival could save the West. “Far from being an outdated relic, biohistory shows religious practices to be the key driver of the high C temperament” (257). Christianity is the traditional religion of the West, and millions still believe. Millions more are cultural or secular Christians. But many, especially among the scientifically educated, have turned away from the faith. And others correctly see the establishment churches as working against the interests of their traditional adherents.[5]  There is a possibility for a new religion in the West, one that combines faith and science. Monism, Beyondism, and Cosmotheism have been suggested for consideration.[6]

Penman puts forward two other chances for saving the West. One is “C-promoting supplements” — presumably dietary supplements. The other hope is that as the West declines a segment of society might break away from the larger culture and pursue traditional values. This strategy is not an option today as no one is permitted to opt out of  left/liberal cultural hegemony. But if the system weakens this could be a choice for the future.

A German biochemist and medical school professor, Gerhard Meisenburg, raises the latter possibility in his book In God’s Image.[7] Meisenburg, who also predicts the end of global civilization in a century or two, believes that if an elite did manage, say through eugenics, to avoid societal decline, the degraded masses would eventually rise up and destroy them.

Biohistory is a glass more than half full. On the plus side the book introduces to a wider audience the role of epigenetics as a causal factor in societal development and change. Determining causation is a difficult problem in historiography; much more challenging than merely chronicling events. What reader has not wondered how Western civilization got into its present predicament? This book offers a comprehensive explanation.  However, one gets the feeling that the author is bending over backwards to avoid discussing race-based genetic differences, not to mention the enervating effects of ideologies such as cultural-Marxism and critical theory as factors in Western decline.

Penman readily admits that his ambitious thesis needs additional research. The strength, duration, and pervasiveness of epigenetic inheritance are unclear at best. Indeed, epigenetics has provided a lifeline for many in the social sciences eager to find environmental causes and reject additive genetic influences. Obviously a short review cannot fully develop the author’s intriguing ideas on history and sociology. In addition to the paperback edition for general readers reviewed here, there is a longer hardcover edition entitled simply Biohistory that includes more supporting data and citations for those who wish to delve further into epigenetics.


[1] Nelson Rosit, “Biohistory: A Brief Prospective,” The Occidental Quarterly 9, no. 2 (Summer 2009): 79-90.

[2] John L. Brooke and Clark Spencer Larsen, “The Nurture of Nature: Genetics, Epigenetics, and Environment in Human History,” American Historical Review 119, no. 5 (December 2014): 1502.

[3] Gregory Cochrane and Henry Harpending, The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution (New York: Basic Books, 2009). Gregory Clark, A Farewell to Arms: A Brief Economic History of the World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007).

[4] Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Free Press, 1992).

[5] James C. Russell, Breach of Faith: American Churches and the Immigration Crisis (Raleigh, NC: Representative Government Press, 2004)

[6] Nelson Rosit, “Ernst Haeckel Reconsidered,” The Occidental Quarterly, V. 15, #2 (Summer 2015) 81-96.

[7] Gerhard Meisenburg, In God’s Image: The Natural History of Intelligence and Ethics (Brighton, UK: Book Guild Publishers, 2007). See Nelson Rosit, “Whither the Future?” A Review of Gerhard Meisenburg’s In God’s Image: The Natural History of Intelligence and Ethics, The Occidental Quarterly, v. 10 #4 (Winter 2010-2011) 117-120.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

89 Comments to "An Epigenetic Explanation for the Decline of the West"

  1. October 7, 2017 - 7:06 pm | Permalink

    The IQ level and civilization are not reserved for a particular race, nationality or culture.

    The world’s oldest civilizations had been Chinese, Egyptian, Persian, Greek and Roman. Most of Europe was going through its Dark and Middle Ages when Mughals in India, Arabs in Spain and Sicily established world’s most scientific, liberal and progressive civilizations.

    Gender disparity played a significant role in the decline of Western civilization. For example, a 2009 study conducted by professors Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers (University of Pennsylvania) for the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) – concludes that though American women are better off economically since 1970s – socially they feel more miserable than before.

    This could be due the American feminist movement, mostly run by Jewish communist women or women working for the CIA, such as Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, Gloria Steinem, Gloria Allred, etc.? These so-called “women’s rights’ activists have made the American women see themselves as the victim of oppressive patriarchy in which their true worth will never be recognized and any success is beyond their reach.

    https://rehmat1.com/2009/10/17/study-american-women-are-not-happy/

    • Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
      October 8, 2017 - 3:44 pm | Permalink

      …that though American women are better off economically since 1970s – socially they feel more miserable than before.

      It’s an issue of choosing the type of misery one prefers. For a woman with children to be financially dependent on a man can be a precarious situation, because lots of men can be childish and insist on having their way – or so I have both seen and heard of countless times. So the wife pretty much has to do as she’s told since she has little money and often, no place to go with those children.

      For every woman who is “more miserable than before”, there is a feminist who is glad she troubled herself to train for a decent career. Probably because she saw how her mother suffered for being dependent on a jerk.

      Sorry, boys – it’s true. Going back to tradition does not mean going back 100%.

    • Tudor's Gravatar Tudor
      October 8, 2017 - 11:23 pm | Permalink

      Many people don’t know:

      Before the glory that was Greece and Rome, even before the first cities of Mesopotamia or temples along the Nile, there lived in the Lower Danube Valley and the Balkan foothills people who were ahead of their time in art, technology and long-distance trade.

  2. Weaver's Gravatar Weaver
    October 7, 2017 - 8:20 pm | Permalink

    It’s cultural. I’m no complete Darwinist, but Lamarckism is ridiculous.

    If someone set up Sparta, hard men would be trained. Children are raised in a culture as crops are raised in agriculture. (Admittedly you’d have some who’d likely be killed or at least malnourished in a fully Spartan society, so some moderation might be ideal.)

    Look at immigrant vigour, how quickly it falls off.

    Respectfully, a weakness among some of the “rational” WN right is an overemphasis on genetics. Culture and community (small groups) matter also – and occupation, population density, access to cell phones (which seem harmful), things like that.

    The “fusion of religion and science” would just lead to madness. It’s a worship of progress that falls to relativity without some mooring. Life would be seen as but a disease of the dust.

    Many on the “Right” do seem to have followed evolution and genetics into cosmotheism, and in my view that places them as anti-white and of the “Left”. For me, that myth of man having a soul, that tie to the land, sense of community, piety towards ancestors and the Creator: These things give life meaning, not “progress”.

    What we see with the tech/religion fusion attempts are essentially a doubling down on the West’s disease.

  3. October 7, 2017 - 9:48 pm | Permalink

    Before people resort to epigenetics, they need to understand extended phenotypics, which are as pervasive in nature as are parasites. And, this isn’t even controversial. Ironically, Dawkins laid into E. O. Wilson recently about the scientific paper “The Evolution of Eusociality” by Nowak et al (including Wilson) because it supposedly supports “group selection”. What it really supports (and Wilson isn’t clear enough about this in his popular writings about it) is that the sterile castes are victims of extended phenotypics — in particular parasitic castration. The queen parasitically castrates her offspring to turn them into virtual body parts. Wilson’s failure to adequately describe this as extended phenotypics and Dawkins’s failure to see what Nowak et al are really saying is a kind of farce.

    Those concerned about human ethology should seriously consider Dawkins’s notion of memetics in combination with extended phenotypics — but in a borderland Dawkins fears to tread: Memes as extended phenotypes of genes.

    Dawkins says that memetic evolution is divorced from genetic evolution except insofar as psychological appeal selects for memes. Well, whence psychological appeal, Dick? Are we to assume that there can be no genetic component to psychological appeal that produces memes advantageous to the “selfish genes”?

    But both Dawkins and Wilson fail to grasp the potential for parasites that utilize memes to in effect castrate competing populations, the way, say, a coevolved pathogen might serve as an biological weapon of conquest.

    Such thoughts are, apparently beyond their powers of intellect. How strange.

    But, as Dawkins says, in “The Extended Phenotype”:

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

    • Edmund Connelly's Gravatar Edmund Connelly
      October 8, 2017 - 5:44 am | Permalink

      James, I’ve been reading you long enough to believe that when you write about the “extended phenotype,” you are thinking partially or primarily about Jews. And except for Rehmat’s mention of Jews in feminism, this critical factor regarding human civilization is ignored in Rosit’s article and most comments thus far.

      We at TOO, however, generally do focus on the roles Jews play, and this discussion of epigenetics, I believe, desperately deserves a serious inclusion of consideration about Jewish behavior. The first question, to my mind, is “Are Jews are REACTION to other factors at play in the ups and downs of a specific civilization?” Or “Are Jews more properly understood as active agents significantly influencing the rise or fall of civilizations?”

      Given my long acquaintance with TOO, I would say yes to the latter question, in which case Rosit and others should consider taking this Jewish factor into direct consideration, as it could result in many new insights indeed.

      And Mr. Bowery, I know you have the intellect to entertain this issue as well, so I hope you will greatly expand on this topic, possibly as a stand-alone TOO essay.

      • October 8, 2017 - 8:36 am | Permalink

        As a student of Western and Muslim history, I tends to agree with Pastor Dr. Jim Rigby who said: “The war in the Middle East is not about religion at all. It is a fight over land hiding behind the cloak of religion. I doubt very seriously the primary motive for the Crusades was for rescuing the holy lands from Islam. I suspect the booty captured by “pious” European kings was much more to the point.”

        From Crusades to present-day ISIS terrorist – the organized Jewry have played a significant role in destroying humanity and civilization which it considered a threat to it dominance around the world.

        The war in the Middle East is not about religion at all. It is a fight over land hiding behind the cloak of religion. I doubt very seriously the primary motive for the Crusades was for rescuing the holy lands from Islam. I suspect the booty captured by “pious” European kings was much more to the point

        • Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
          October 8, 2017 - 11:25 pm | Permalink

          Same with the Islamic wars of conquest (“jihad”) : booty was the main motive, and of course the capture of women to be used as sex slaves. The prophet Muhammad gave a good example by his own conduct.

          • October 9, 2017 - 8:57 am | Permalink

            You should read book by American historian Tamam Kahn
            “UNTOLD: A History of the Wives of Prophet Muhammad” to learn why he married three of your Jew-Christian sex slaves.

            https://rehmat1.com/2011/03/14/untold-a-history-of-the-wives-of-prophet-muhammad/

          • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
            October 9, 2017 - 12:13 pm | Permalink

            Mr. Ryckaert: Apart from the fact that I am by no means in full agreement with the current conceit that the Crusades were somewhere on the spectrum of venal to genocidal, I applaud your rebuke of our resident camel jockey.

            As for the latter’s reference to “American historian Tamam Kahn,” the fact that neither of the two adjectives in this quotation conforms with truth is sufficient grounds for filing Kahn’s writings under “fabulism.”

          • Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
            October 9, 2017 - 10:52 pm | Permalink

            @Rehmat

            From your article : “… Islam is the only genuinely feminist faith…”

            That is as true as saying : “…Islam is the only genuinely pacifist faith…”

      • October 8, 2017 - 11:19 am | Permalink

        I am increasingly ill-disposed to invest much in “epigenetics” due to increasing signs of it becoming yet another intellectual movement akin to the 20th century movements that set human self-knowledge back a century or more. To wit: When various people — I know to have interest in avoiding the importance of genetics, let alone extended phenotypics — originally brought it to my attention, there was at least some semblance of intellectual rigor in relatively accessible places, not the least of which was the usually cultural Marxist Wikpedia. This was in evidence as the first thing I searched for was “meiosis” and it came right up in that article in passages that pointed out the meiotic epigenetic mechanism and the key points of controversy. The evidence didn’t look good for expansive implications then, but the resulting research questions were well enough defined that I expected progress in the form of fairly rapid invalidation or validation of those implications.

        As time has gone on, the focus on meiotic mechanisms have been submerged in the multiplying accessible sources — becoming more and more reminiscent of Stephen Jay Gould’s popular science writings. The Wikipedia article has expanded to 130k with “meiosis” (or its related words) occurring in only one place — a quote about the how term “epigenetic” is rigorously defined. That’s it. The rest of the article is basically the foggy, anti-Occam banter one will find in the Wikipedia article on “race”. Other easily accessible sources are about the same even as they multiply in number.

        This stinks of a cover-up of the real results of research into the meiotic mechanisms of epigenetics and made me suspect it didn’t pan out except as squid ink response to the explosion of bioinformatics.

        I’ll take another look, though.

        In the mean time, the two big areas of heritability that I’ve point out the need for more attention — with direct application to the controversy over Hamilton’s inequality and human eusociality — remain utterly ignored by not only mainstream science but by the precious few courageous intellects in the beleaguered invisible college of human ethology:

        1) Extended phenotypics, as I described above, and 2) Removing Lewontin’s Fallacy from Hamilton’s Rule:

        https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/removing_lewontins_fallacy_from_hamiltons_rule

        The latter, I believe, would shed light on the inclusive fitness vs parasitic castration controversy ignited by “The Evolution of Eusociality” by Nowak et al. Henry Harpending, with whom I became acquainted when Salter, out of desperation, asked me to review Harpending’s math, kindly posted a public response to it at my invitation on my Feral Observations blog. However, as years went by and I became even more of a pariah, I felt obligated not to abuse his kindness by tainting his “normie” reputation, what little there remained of it after Salter’s book came out, and deleted any sign of his presence from my blog. IIRC, he seemed to think the proper approach would be something of a Monte Carlo simulation of the evolutionary dynamics (not that he used those terms). I, of course, regret that over the intervening years, I’ve lost track of my backup of his response.

        • October 10, 2017 - 6:55 am | Permalink

          Read the book Evolution in Four Dimensions.

        • Sgt. Pepper's Gravatar Sgt. Pepper
          October 14, 2017 - 2:22 am | Permalink

          Couldn’t we just look at the human genome and determine which genes are epigenetic, and then look at what these genes do?

          My guess would be that any epigenetic genes would tend to be metabolic or immunological in function— that is, they would tend to influence susceptibility to diabetes or to allergies, things like that, rather than alter personality.

    • Weaver's Gravatar Weaver
      October 8, 2017 - 2:59 pm | Permalink

      James Bowery,

      extended phenotypes is a potent topic. Parasites but also synergies and phenotypes that thrive in one situation or another in a cyclical environment. I could write a fair bit on similar concepts, which are probably as old as man (usually the most developed social ideas seem found in the oldest texts).

      I’m not sure if it’s included in your terms, but a failure of Dawkins, whom I certainly do not follow, is he doesn’t mention *groups* of genes acting synergetically. He seems to view genes as each singularly striving to reproduce as individuals when there might also be cases where some genes are primarily beneficial only with other genes (such as one might find in a homogeneous and secluded population). But when genes are mixed willy nilly, they then lose their fusion. I posted this criticism originally when this selfish gene stuff was floating about.

      Another interesting comment that I wrote some years ago, is whether one ought to serve his race or seek to reproduce like Genghis Khan. Dawkins seems to believe Khan is the supreme, since he spread his individual genes so well.

      It’s interesting because for some genes become everything. So, the question then becomes, “What does that mean?” (race vs. spreading individual genes). And another conclusion is of course the pursuit of evolution, that some fuzzy concept of “advancement” is the purpose.

      My chief complaint on these topics is those writing about them seem to intentionally make them dense when in a few statements, or in a simple cartoon (as we get in school texts), one could explain the simple concepts really. So, it becomes a challenge as to whether a person is willing to sift through boring, lengthy texts to find the few actual arguments.

      But I agree that you’re on a potent topic, so I offer you my praise.

      • October 9, 2017 - 7:20 am | Permalink

        A key concept to understanding genetic synergy is the evolutionary medical notion of optimal virulence which has two basic dimensions: Vertical transmission and horizontal transmission. Vertical transmission evolves symbiosis (genetic synergy/cooperation). Horizontal transmission evolves virulence (genetic parasitism/defection). Within a single genome, this isn’t much of an issue so long as we’re talking about mitotic reproduction — all the genes on the same genome have only one route into the next generation: vertically. However, when sexual reproduction arises with meiosis, the meiotic lottery permits foreign genes to enter the next generation. Contrary to the portrayal of “hybrid vigor” as supreme over “inbreeding depression”, sex requires there to be genetic correlation structures (see Lewontin’s Fallacy) in a deme (a closed breeding population of individuals) so that vertical transmission can evolve symbiosis over long stretches of time. Of course, there is also meiotic drive (segregation distorters or defectors in the meiotic lottery) but that is of a different order of virulence.

        Such symbiosis entails _mutual_ extended phenotypes arising over possibly vast stretches of time, and are detectable via bioinformatics as genetic correlation structures. This is why it is so important that before we permit Nowak et al to throw out the baby with the bathwater (the bathwater being ignorance of parasitic castration as the origin of sterile castes, rather than simple “altruism”) we must quantify the degree to which the Price equations may be modified to take into account the genetic correlation structure as a “fuzzy” unit of selection.

        This instauration of the deme is, by the way, one of the motivations for Sortocracy: Sorting proponents of social theories into governments that test them. (http://sortocracy.org)

        There are legitimate controversies over the evolution of symbiosis (strength in _proximate_ diversity or heterogeneity) and how fast it can arise given various rates of interdemic gene/meme flow. It is clear, however, that the present fanatical hybrid supremacist moral zeitgeist, that is imposing its childish experiment on vast human populations without their consent, must be brought to heel if not straitjacketed.

    • Weaver's Gravatar Weaver
      October 8, 2017 - 3:05 pm | Permalink

      Another concept that relates to my argument on why the ancients tend to be so superior to us today is a competition of ideas. If an Athenian’s ideas were weak, he might find himself and his family enslaved.

      So, those with useful, healthy ideas would thrive while those without would die/become enslaved.

      Also, in our society today, it’s advantageous to manipulate others. Whereas tiny Athens would be more harmonious. So, the ideas that we advance today tend to be intended to manipulate society towards some end. So, they aren’t a pursuit of truth, only a pursuit of power. Those pursuing truth in our society seem to die out.

  4. Dave's Gravatar Dave
    October 7, 2017 - 10:11 pm | Permalink

    This sounds quite similar to r/K theory. Rabbits are hard-wired for fast-breeding, low-investment “r” parenting, while wolves are fixed on competitive, high-investment “K” parenting. Humans have various epigenetic switches so as to breed like rabbits when resources are abundant, and compete like wolves when resources are scarce.

    For this, we cue off environmental signals. For example, single mothers don’t survive long in a dog-eat-dog K-environment, so their existence is a sign of r. Thus girls who live with their fathers reach menarche a year later on average than girls who don’t.

    This also explains why countries that suffered 45 years of communist privation have now closed their borders to migrants, while countries that basked in capitalist luxury say, “Come on in, there’s plenty for everyone!” Rabbits literally cannot imagine a world where there isn’t enough to go around.

    This is of course unsustainable in humans, and it only works for rabbits because constant predation keeps them from ever making a serious dent in their food supply.

    • October 10, 2017 - 6:55 am | Permalink
    • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
      October 14, 2017 - 2:47 am | Permalink

      Dave- the problem with the r/k theory is that in England for example, 100 years ago when the people were poor and food was NOT abundant, they had lots of children. Now food is cheap the descendants of these same people have very few children. This is the opposite of what is predicted by that theory.

      The reason the whites have fewer children is not the effect of plenty versus famine, it is due to lifestyle changes that arise from our wealth and technology leading to loss of family structure, enabling us to all live away from the rest of the family on our own or in pairs given the choice (This is what people choose, although this actually results in loneliness and stress for many). We as humans are adapted to social group living and now this has suddenly gone in the West suddenly genes for behaviour that leads to childlessness are asserting themselves.

      – Living away from the group removes pressure to have children from the women. They are no longer told by the wider family to have children. They are able to do other things apart from motherhood to occupy themselves (eg socialise continuously (and pointlessly from the view of the species continuation), or follow a career).

      – Living away from the group as individuals (young white people are told to go off on their own to some distant city to get that job) postpones marriage, as, apart from those with stranger-group-social-skills (as opposed to within-family-social-skills which are actually what matters in raising children), it is harder to find a partner and this delays having children and in a very high proportion of cases the person with a low level of stranger-interaction-skills never finds a partner before it is too late.

      – contraception. Note that the immigrant populations from muslim countries have access to contraception but tend not to use it. They still live in groups that control the women.

      – delayed maturity. A typical 20 year old today generally acts as maturely as a 12 year old from 100 years ago due to ‘school’ lasting into the 20s. This delays the arrival of the time when the person wants to settle down and have children.

      – the genes for not wanting children are able to express themselves and prevent not one but two people from having them, if the one that wants the couple to be childless is dominant, now that group pressure has gone and contraception has arrived. This behaviour urge (to be childless) will soon be bred out of the population now it is able to ‘exert its will’ which it could not do in the past when culture overrode it. (And the same goes for homosexuality – although these tendencies are not simply a gene that can be bred out and so re-appear).

      We have to accept that (1) a typical 18 year old simply does not want to have children as their current aim in life. (2) Even if they do, it is harder to find a partner for many.

      What a strange way for 18 year old humans to be – ie sexually mature and not wanting children! Clearly a severe handicap to the continuation of the species! How can this be explained? The answer must be that these urges to be childless in the past made no difference – culture and group living meant they all had them anyway. But now those with these urges to be childless are able to be so. So this super-harmful behaviour instinct (to be childless) is able to express itself and will in a short time eliminate itself.

      Also, the urges to have children in the past were not actually simply urges to have children! They were urges to have sex and this is the urge in the main that led to the children as there was no contraception. The production of children is therefore the outcome of TWO urges (a) to have children (b) to have sex.

      In the past (b) alone would be sufficient (in the absence of contraception) to guarantee that children were produced. Today the requirement is (a) not (b).
      Nature will need some time to catch up now that suddenly it is not (b) that leads to children, it is (a). Nature (nat sele) will make (a) the criterea more than (b).

      Also, Nature will increase the proportion of people with stranger-skills (as opposed to having the qualities that the older members of the group value) as today these people with stranger-skills find partners more easily, and the effect of someone finding a partner based on recommendations of the group is diminished. In other words, someone who is kind and reliable and hard working (or came from an influential family) but quiet, such a person in the past would have still been given 9/10 by the group and would undoubtedly have been assigned a partner by the group and therefore have no trouble finding someone to breed with. Now, suddenly, now the group has gone as the partner-finder, being quiet is a major disadvantage, so today in ‘find your own partner time’ nat sele does not like it, whereas in the past it being quiet was no handicap, as the group had different criterea to value. Being charming was much lower on the list, but now has gone higher. Now it is not the opinion of the group that counts when allocating a score (we no longer live in groups where the older control the younger), it is ability to walk into a group of strangers in a strange city or social situation and make a good impression. How many candidates for partner is an introvert person likely to meet? Not many. In the past the group would have found many for him/her. (We can see the sort of man many women choose when they make the decision and not the group – men with high social skills but who are poor fathers). So personal qualities (hard working, virtuous, being a good provider) count for less, and ability to impress and good looks and charm counts for more, and psychopaths are generally not shy people and can be charming, and no group means no-one to tell the girl to avoid this person.

  5. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    October 8, 2017 - 12:35 am | Permalink

    Epigenetics are unnecessary and irrelevant in understanding the Great Depression, the seeds of which are to be found in Federal Reserve’s monetary policy errors of the 1920’s.

    • October 8, 2017 - 5:02 am | Permalink

      The idea that genes can be switched on and off is something that ‘needs further research’. So of course is the idea that Jews controlling the Fed since 1913 had a bit of effect on things. I’d guess Jim Penman, described as a ‘businessman’, is just another Jew.

      • October 10, 2017 - 6:56 am | Permalink

        The microbiome (our second genome) can switch genes on or off as well.

    • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
      October 9, 2017 - 12:25 pm | Permalink

      T, I would add ” deliberate ” errors. The famous American Bankers Association directive, which ordered all member banks to call all loans and issue no new ones, on a prescribed date, was part and parcel.

      And we all know the names of the two Hamburger brothers
      and whose agents they were. Rothschild’s Viennese Commerzbank was the first to collapse, bringing the malaise to the continent, coinciding with the several Russian-Jewish coups in the West.

      A reputable economist stated, that the total US currency in circulation at the time, averaged $ 40 per person, while of course 98 % of said average did not possess a ‘dime’.

      Communications during that era were slow [ Marconi aside ] and it took them that long to attempt to bring communism to the US, as they did with innumerable, well-documented endeavors in all spheres up to the commencement of the Cold War.

      Schiff purportedly died in ’22. Yet there is a photograph of ’23, I swear of him, after scores of comparisons, in the company of an already demented Lenin, accompanied by his cohort Krupskaya. How many visitors would Lenin have received, who were attired in expensive wool blazers, a white V-neck tennis sweater, accented by a silk ascot or cravat, in this Workers and Peasants Paradise ?

      [ Much later, during the nascent DDR the wearing of even a simple tie was eschewed, all but making you suspect of being a counter-revolutionary ].

      Recall, that the young SU was going under economically, obliging Lenin to institute his New Economic Policy in ’22. Who better to help than the Revolution’s Banker Godfather ?.

      ” One of these days ” I shall ask the Anthropology Department at the University of Toronto, or Forensics at the RCMP, to superimpose said ’23 photo over his acknowledged photos to compare the bone structure of his face scientifically.

      Your own library may well have a copy of the popular book CENTURY, a compendium of photographs, ordered by year, of the most important developments. Look under 1923.

      Addressing you here, doesn’t foreclose others from joining in the fun to possibly rewrite a chapter or two of ’17 after corroboration gleaned from contemporaneous files from Moscow State University’s colossal, fourteen Departments Faculty of History.

      • Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
        October 9, 2017 - 7:12 pm | Permalink

        “…Schiff purportedly died in ’22. Yet there is a photograph of ’23, I swear of him, after scores of comparisons, in the company of an already demented Lenin, accompanied by his cohort Krupskaya…”

        You should try to take a picture of this with a phone camera or whatever you have and post it here. A not perfect photo beats a nonexistent photo every time.

        • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
          October 10, 2017 - 11:03 am | Permalink

          Good idea. I need to ask a friend to do just that.

          I spoke by phone and several e-mails with one Elena, Webmaster solely for the Faculty, as they term it, of History at Moscow State. She was open, exceedingly personable, with great humor, smelled no subterfuge and gave me names of four Professors in their 1920s section.

          None responded; half were probably Jews suspecting my trajectory. .

          I tried the same with two specialist Professors at the Humboldt University in former East-Berlin, where the topic would have been writ large in sycophantic terms: same results.

          It is trite to say that the formulation of something as consequential and counterintuitive as a New Economic Policy, to feed a rumbling proletariat, partly rolling back communism, would create tons of protocols, memos, personal notes and position papers. I was fishing for handwritten notes by Schiff in German or English , whose family came from Frankfurt where they were neighbors with Rothschild in adjacent row-houses, with a mutual cellar and escape tunnel on Judengasse. [ Now escape tunnels are called TARP ].

          Hundreds before and after Schiff have faked their deaths and some funerals successfully for as many reasons. His would have been his partners’ objection to advise Lenin personally, considering the Kuhn Loeb & Co. image, as well as his son-in-law Paul Warburg’s nascent scheme for the Fed.

          The ’23 photo of the terminally ill Lenin in a wheelchair, his ” wife ” and what I take to be Schiff, was simply unpublishable in the SU and only came to the fore, after its collapse, as noted below it on the original.

          I lay great value in the cooperation of our in-house Chief Detective Pierre de Craon, since he could conveniently research Schiff’s obituary and funeral [ in Linden, NJ ? ] at the splendid New York Public Library.

          If we were right, it would make a bigger splash than Captain Machin, RN, catching Trotsky with ten thousand of Schiff’s money in his pocket, after he arrested him, his wife and two sons on April 3, 1917 in the war harbor of Halifax, Nova Scotia.

          I have the document copy on which T signs himself into the POW camp at Amherst, Nova Scotia, while wife and sons were accommodated by Dentist Horowitz and family.

          What did I read here about ” pattern recognition ” ?

          Follow-up questions and recommendations will be welcome from one and all.

          The phone camera pictures came out quite well but I have to wait for yet another friend to post them here: hopefully by this afternoon. In the interval, allow me to close this segment to free up the laptop.

          You guessed right: I flunked ” Computers for Dummies “.

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      October 10, 2017 - 11:11 am | Permalink

      Trenchant’s comment and Charles’s constitute invaluable reminders that the impulse to raise one’s head from time to time from the microscope or the palimpsest oughtn’t to be scorned or discouraged.

      Put less flippantly, there seems sometimes to be an irresistible, pendulum-like impulse at work to attribute the motivation for darn near all human activity by turns to nature, then to nurture, then to nature, and so on back and forth.* Alas, the fans of “life’s a bloody muddle, ain’t it?” get little or no respect in the pendulum forum.
      ___________________________
      *In illustration of this curious tendency, perhaps T. or someone else with the search savvy I lack could locate a video of one of those forty-plus-year-old beer commercials structured around two drinkers whose “reasoned” discussion with each other amounts to shouts of “great taste!” and “less filling!”

      • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
        October 11, 2017 - 8:46 am | Permalink

        Pierre, don’t ” pendulum-like ” motions induce hypnosis; depriving you momentarily of peripheral vision ?

        When, at 5, your train is strafed by Soviet fighter-bombers and only half of those who fled to the ditches get back on, you tend to think more in terms of fire power than magnifying power.

  6. Red's Gravatar Red
    October 8, 2017 - 3:08 am | Permalink

    This is absolute nonsense. The idea of transgenerational epigenetics as a source of evolution is laughable. Kevin Mitchell has put it so succinctly and well that I’ll just link to him. To say that epigenetics is a source of evolution has the same plausibility as saying that magic pixies cause evolution.

    All the “evidence” for this phenomenon in humans consists of minuscule p-hacked studies. Please don’t promote this politically correct pseudoscience.

  7. Ger Tzedek's Gravatar Ger Tzedek
    October 8, 2017 - 5:44 am | Permalink

    Certainly society can be interpreted in too many ways, and history. Now I have come up with my own interpretation from game theory. I start with a brief introduction then come back to our old friends, Jews.

    It has been ascertained that Homo Neanderthalis was more intelligent than Homo Sapiens. Then why did we survive and neanderthals go extinct? Simple. We had a smarter food game. Game in the sense of game theory, math and matrices, nothing personal. Neanderthals were better hunters than us. Meat provides more energy. When times were good, they increased in number more than us, but we too increased in numbers in that sparse hostile world. When times were bad, we both went down, but humans went down much less than neanderthals. We could eat a vast sort of plants. Plants are poor in nutrition value, they keep you stupid and emaciated, but very alive. After every cycle like this, more humans survived than neanderthals. These cycles repeated yearly with the winter-summer cycle. It adds up that we’re here and smart neanderthals are gone.

    Whether a game is a winning game or a losing game, that also depends on circumstances, which change all the time. The forgiveness of Christians is a winning game in a Christian society moderated by some religious constraint. It is a losing game in a mixed society. Generation after generation, it helps the prosperity of people with Borderline Personality Disorder, BPD. It is the same thing in the forests. American pine went near extinction because we were able to extinguish all the fires all the time. Now they are practicing moderate fires on pine forests.

    The human equivalent of small fires? Retaliation. I know that it sounds bad, but it might save us.

    How about Judaism, is it a winning or a losing game? Well, Jews were millions four thousand years ago, are millions today. The ultimate criterion for judging a game is the biological success. Big loser. But there is more into it. Judaism is a boom-and-bust game. Judaism is the BPD game. Like all BPDs, it has the cycles of boom and bust. We are at the end of a big boom for Judaism, and the bust is here, and they know it. Israel might go the way of Khazaria in this bust cycle. Nothing to celebrate for the damage that they leave behind.

    How about Islam? Boom and bust, but with bigger cycles, and more moderate busts. No limits on booms.

    The smartest and most-winning game around? China. Too elaborate of a game to describe quickly, but very winning.

    • Ger Tzedek's Gravatar Ger Tzedek
      October 8, 2017 - 5:48 am | Permalink

      The key to the survival of Israel (I don’t care) and to our own survival? Change morals. For Jews, start treating goyim at least 10% as well as you treat yourselves. For Whites, make retaliation moral.

    • Ger Tzedek's Gravatar Ger Tzedek
      October 8, 2017 - 9:06 am | Permalink

      This is the reason why Judaism is still around. Were it a pure losing game, it would have gone extinct long ago. But it is a boom-and-bust game. When bust comes, Jews move elsewhere and the cycle restarts. Now Jews have nowhere to go as everybody knows them. In fact, they only come to USA, Canada, Australia, and Israel. In USA they’re fast disappearing. They busted the whole France, and now unsurprisingly are leaving it behind.

    • Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
      October 9, 2017 - 7:43 pm | Permalink

      “…Boom and bust…”

      Good analogy. I’ve heard another good explanation of (((them)). Instead of chess they play high stakes poker, all in on every single hand. Another reason I think they are a tribe of psychopaths as that’s what Spaths do.

  8. October 8, 2017 - 6:46 am | Permalink

    Just added this classic book by Elmer Pendell in PDF to my main website. Check it out.

    https://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/djetc/other_sex_v.html

  9. October 8, 2017 - 7:30 am | Permalink

    This may be true but the same end could be achieved through Darwinian selection in this plausible scenario. In any human population it is reasonable to assume there is an innate variation of personality because in even the most simple of organisms differences in behaviour can be seen, for example, one member of a species may display more energy than another or be more or less adventurous. A good example in humans would be a de facto experiment created by the Chinese during the Korean War.
    The Chinese decided to make the control of Western POWs easier by removing those who were in leadership roles amongst the POWs. First they removed the officers and non-commissioned officers. Unofficial leaders arose. The Chinese removed them. More unofficial leaders arose. The Chinese removed them. After four or five bouts of removing leaders no more leaders arose. At this point around 80% of the original POWS were still in the group. The Chinese did this a number of times and always found that only 15-20% displayed leadership qualities.

    If human beings are born with a range of innate personalities or characters then natural selection will work on them. For example, in a warrior society those who are physically strong and courageous will be preferentially selected; in a sophisticated industrial society those with high IQ and intellectual curiosity will win out genetically.

    However, it is quite possible that natural selection and epigenetics are both in evidence here for one does not exclude the other.

    • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
      October 13, 2017 - 4:09 am | Permalink

      Robert Henderson – this shows how rapidly natural selection can operate as the Chinese effectively changed the gene pool even without breeding taking place.

      There is no need to invoke Darwinism ie new genes to explain significant differences in human behaviour caused by differences in genes , as there is easily sufficient variation at present with existing gene pools to account for the differences. Take dogs for example – the dalmation and sheepdog and pitbull have been bred over a period of just decades or centuries and all from the same gene pool. No new genetic material is needed to account for the differences. And when there is a natural disaster, within a short time the dogs form packs and interbreed and all end up like a sort of wolf-like dog.

      So sometimes natural selection can operate very rapidly.

      But at other times it is slow and unable to make significant changes in human populations as opposed to rapidly breeding dogs, so that in the end the impact of natural selection in humans goes to almost zero. This is because humans have few offspring and put all their energies into ensuring they grow to adults. This serves to reduce the effects of natural selection, as no matter what their faults the parents try and compensate. ie nurture is more important than nature in determining who breeds and how many children they have. The parents ‘protect’ the effects of bad genes in their children by taking 20 years (age 0 -2 0) to make them successful. So bad teeth or bad eyes or low IQ or antisocial behaviour or laziness or criminal behaviour are no longer selected against, as they would have been in prehistoric times. Today such types have the same capacity to reproduce. Or more capacity, in terms of the idle and feckless, as the state favours this sub group and diverts the wealth of the nation to their breeding.

      Another example of human populations blocking nat selection from operating by means of culture (the state favouring lower types was the first example) is the corruption of places like Pakistan and Africa that keeps them poor. One would expect the honest to have an advantage, but no, anyone who stops favouring cousins is soon turned on by the group. Thus culture preserves the bad gene that makes people have no objection to corruption.

      Another example of culture blocking nat sele from operating is the way all physically healthy people used to be ‘forced’ to breed (ie pressure from the group to marry and have children). This meant that homosexuals or heterosexuals who did not want children still had to have them. Now that group pressure has gone, any individual who does not want children does not have to breed any longer (or the pressure is greatly reduced at least), so this gene variation (not wanting children) is suddenly able to influence breeding, whereas in the past it was ‘out voted’ by the group ie culture. So we can expect rapidly diminishing numbers of whites with genes who do not want children, and very strong selection for those who do, whereas in the past society prevented this gene from being selected against.

      Another way nat sele operates rapidly is for a subgroup to leave the main group and migrate. It is possible that this might operate in humans in the future by migration by politics, however, the factors that bring about this are not in play at present as we are still rich and safe. When war and poverty return due to the West committing national suicide, different factors will come into play and activate latent animal behaviour patterns now being suppressed by the anti-Western MSM culture, and sorting by migration might occur. Already people are self-sorting to different states in the USA.

      Due to the breeding method (few children, long cycle) the only way

  10. puzzled's Gravatar puzzled
    October 8, 2017 - 1:31 pm | Permalink

    Why is that real peoples that have occupied real countries whether in Europe or Asia, however advanced their culture, never seem to manage an average IQ above 100-105? Well this is because the highly gifted do not wish to do mundane jobs so they are prepared to pay those less intelligent than themselves to do that work; hence the lower orders survive because they have a role in society. Conclusion: a people that claim a higher level of intelligence than the civilized norm have never occupied a living space and are not a real people. Real peoples are not reliant on members of other races in order to survive.

  11. Lou's Gravatar Lou
    October 8, 2017 - 1:59 pm | Permalink

    Off topic,

    Have you seen the 5.2017 cover of ‘National Geographic?’
    The naked couple. He, Black, she, blonde, and in a mating embrace.

    I preferred the magazine when it was about apes and primitives, in their own habitat.

    https://postimg.org/image/8ylx3tombv/

    • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
      October 9, 2017 - 1:31 pm | Permalink

      Lou, far from ” off topic “. Nor does the image ‘stand’ alone. The four by-lines below, referring to its invaluable content, read:
      Reshaping a continent / 23
      Winning the war against racism / 39
      Cultural identity myths / 62
      The benefits of biracial children / 67

      Don’t dismay, your primitives and apes are still there. They merely migrated from the content pages to the offices of the writers and definitely to those of the Editors; including those who canvass their loyal, or doubly-loyal funders.

      This formerly great magazine now even dares to sponsor ” historical films ” on its network. With accuracy similar to those shown on the Canadian History Channel, supported by the tax-evading Bronfmans.

      While waiting for your dentist or lawyer, to alleviate your problems, instead now you have to suffer through this shit as well, or stare at the wall.

      • October 16, 2017 - 6:45 pm | Permalink

        “Formerly great magazine”. You need to update your historical perspective perceptions. It was always rubbish.

    • Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
      October 9, 2017 - 10:58 pm | Permalink

      Absolutely disgusting ! A sure sign that National Geographic has been taken over by the Eternal Subversives.

    • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
      October 10, 2017 - 3:14 am | Permalink

      Lou – maybe it is not off-topic. The article says “To greatly simplify things we can say that gluttony and ease produce weak men, who produce weak sons leading to decadence, and societal decline.”

      Clearly a society must have reached a stage of weakness when that picture goes on the cover and no-one dares to say anything. Basically, the ones who say ‘this is wrong’ will not have any more children than the ones who say ‘this is great’. In fact, the government is channeling the vast wealth of the West into this kind of family, so they have more children than educated middle class who are often childless. We have to accept that the ones who approve are rapidly out breeding the ones who do not, and this has become possible because the wealth of the west has broken the connection between personal qualities (better genes) and being able to raise children. In the past the lazy alcoholic would not have been able to raise a family – now he can have five children whilst the professional woman has none.

      So there is no need to invoke Lamarckism – natural selection is operating pretty intensely at present.

      This is one way a race changes its gene pool. Another way, the way human races rose in the past, was when subsections with a different subset of genes emigrated from the main group, and perhaps one day this will happen again, this time by political opinion. Already in the US people are self-sorting into different states.

      Re your picture and the way the west have accepted their demise.

      There is one consolation in all this. We can no longer feel frustrated that the people are being tricked, and if only they were aware of the true agenda of the white left (and their allies who laugh and cheer and encourage and finance what the white-hating minority are doing to the majority) – if only the majority or the thinking people were aware of the national suicide being practised against themselves, then if their eyes were opened they would immediately stop voting for more of the same, and would vote for a different type of politician instead, ie ones who advocated halting the suicide.

      But the consolation today for those who despair at the suicide of the West is that at least the suicide agenda is no longer hidden, so there is no frustration involved in thinking ‘if only the people knew what was happening’ – there is no frustration here because now the people clearly DO know what is happening. The front of this magazine is happening. So if they still want it, that is their decision. But at least whilst they are going on this path they are fully aware that it is their own choice, and they do have another option to stop it and reverse it.

      We have full and free democracy in the West (still) – Le Penn WAS available to the people as an option and they rejected her – despite all that has happened to France recently as they embraced the third world, ie they were not deceived as they were already fully experiencing the third world so the left could not trick them and lie and say the third world would be a great thing for the country.

      So we have gone from the previous stage decades ago of the people not knowing what the elite were doing to them whilst the elite pretended to be on their side, we have gone from this stage to the elite openly declaring its hand that the whites MUST submit to the third world and invite them over – and the majority have accepted this message because their left have made this message into their cultural narrative, and the people obey whatever cultural narrative they are given, even one of self-destruction, as this behaviour is in their wiring as individualistic culture-followers.

      The magazine is saying – ‘This is your future, we know you do not object, so get used to it’

      The message of self-hatred and self-destruction is slapping us in the face and could not be less subtle. It is in most TV adverts for example, with a similar message to this magazine. It is the message that the West needs destroying because its superiority offends the left and their allies, and superiority is morally wrong. In other words, being superior or better is morally wrong and must be rectified by going lower and worse. The people have accepted this cultural message to such an extent that when in the privacy of the voting booth they STILL vote to go lower. They do not have to stand up and be counted like Kevin MacDonald did before retirement in academia. All they have to do is vote secretly and the current culture of self-hate can be halted and reversed.

      But they do not vote to halt the suicide, even though they are no longer being deceived (the magazine cover shows how there is no deception or subtlety any more – the future they have chosen is there on the cover) , so therefore they have accepted it, even whilst they could easily reject it without war or civil unrest, or without anyone knowing how they voted.

      So the cultural message of self-destruction for the ‘crime’ of being superior has gone right into their thought patterns and they have accepted it, not in the sense of a defeated people submitting to a strong conqueror, but to actually ‘signing/giving their consent’ in their inner thoughts whilst they are still strong and the conqueror (the third world) is still weak and could easily be sent packing.

      It is not as if the French nodded to political correctness whilst at work, then secretly voted for Le Penn (which would not have taken ANY courage). No, when no-one is looking and they are in the voting booth, they STILL accept the current cultural narrative that they must become lower as the culture tells them they must.

      Does Merkel hide her immigration intentions? Do the Democrats? No, there is nothing hidden any more.

      The people STILL vote for the same politicians whose agenda is not hidden, so it MUST be that they consent to their own demise.

      This shows how the individualistic average person operates, and this explains more than Lamarckism. The individual accepts the prevailing culture in the West (as set by the schools and MSM) and accepts it so deeply that they can even accept a culture that is telling them they need to be brought down to a lower level as higher levels offend the left. And this ‘accepting’ includes voting for their own country to become poor, corrupt, and third world, and to abandon civilisation and order, and to assist in the genocide of their own race – including their own future descendants, their own future grandchildren. They go along with all this, as their individualistic animal behaviour tells them to follow whatever is the current culture.

      In their own inner animal behaviour wiring they have ticked the inner box which says ‘I agree to the demise of my people’. And ‘I agree’ so much that when no-one is looking, ie when I vote, I still agree.

      All this has happened because the wealth of the West has allowed the whites with lefty genes (plus allies who are laughing now at our demise) to take over and set the current culture. You no longer get to high positions of power or authority by being able to fight for land and lead men. The wealth of the nation has removed the connection between wealth and land. Bill Gates, Zuckerberg – hugely rich from the system and no land and no ability to lead men required. So the ones who get on are a different type, and nothing to do with defending land, and, at a lower level in the job market, your survival no longer depends on you being able to get up in the morning and toil in the farm – now you can never work and be a drunk and still raise five children. So the connection between personal qualities and reproductive success has been broken. In fact the state gives you more money if you are like this (a drunk and idle), taken from the others.

      The wealth of the west means that the factors have been changed and this change has helped the left to take the positions of authority. At work, when it comes to government jobs, there is no link between ability to deliver and getting promotion (as there was in the past). The only criteria is political views. Because the left care about these and the rest in the main do not, because of this the rest have allowed the left to promote their own, so now they have taken over our institutions and authorities, and they spend the public funds.

      Therefore nothing can be done about the self-destruction of the West until there is economic collapse and civil unrest, and only at this stage can the alternative culture of self-interest become attractive to sufficient numbers (it might be 1 in 20 at present) that it can become an alternative cultural narrative for the people to follow.

    • Andy's Gravatar Andy
      October 16, 2017 - 4:24 pm | Permalink

      I did a search on ebay and amazon.com and amazon.co.uk. This magazine cover image did not come up. I used the search terms “national geographic may 2017”.

      https://www.amazon.com/national-geographic-may-2017/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Anational%20geographic%20may%202017

  12. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    October 8, 2017 - 2:44 pm | Permalink

    The banal is much more interesting to me as a source of explanation. Young minds are highly malleable, prone to emotional suggestion, and in a seeming desperate need for the attainment of some type of moral rectitude. But put garbage in and you get garbage out. The West has had at least two generations wherein young minds have been polluted with false universals that contradict and incapacitate our normal human instincts for survival, freedom, and kinship. Western social(ist) science is and has been basically a mechanism for collective suicide.

  13. Karen T's Gravatar Karen T
    October 8, 2017 - 2:50 pm | Permalink

    “Modern scientific theories can necessarily never be more than hypothetical, since their starting-point is wholly empirical, for facts in themselves are always susceptible of diverse explanations and so never have been and never will be able to guarantee the truth of any theory.”
    ― René Guénon
    The ‘Great Depression’ was wholly the work of (((international bankers))), gluttony the work of (((advertising agencies))), emasculation of men (((feminists))), and the welcoming of invaders into the West promoted by Jews.
    This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States)… this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”….Winston Chrchill
    But I’m preaching to the choir. White Western civilization is all that stands between evolution and a world based on arrested development which they will be able to control as prophesized in their ‘holy books.’…cattle.

  14. Harry Covert's Gravatar Harry Covert
    October 9, 2017 - 2:08 am | Permalink

    The role of enforced vaccination should not be overlooked considering that vaccines contain animal and human DNA, animal viruses, heavy metals and a concoction of toxic chemicals and that many are given at once during “Well Baby” visits. From the National Vaccine Center: http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/October-2017/is-the-childhood-vaccine-schedule-safe.aspx

    “In 1953, health officials at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control told doctors to give children 16 doses of four vaccines by age six.

    In 1983, it was 23 doses of 7 vaccines by age six.

    In 2013, it was 69 doses of 16 vaccines by age 18, with 50 doses given by age six.

    With infants and children in America getting four times as many vaccinations as their grandparents got, how healthy are they?

    Today, 1 child in 6 is learning disabled. In 1976, it was 1 child in 30.

    Today, 1 child in 9 has asthma. In 1980, it was 1 child in 27.

    Today, 1 child in 50 develops autism. In the 1990s, it was 1 child in 555.

    Today, 1 child in 400 has diabetes. In 2001, it was 1 child in 500.

    On top of that, millions of children suffer with seizures, inflammatory bowel syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, thyroid disease, multiple sclerosis, life-threatening allergies, anxiety, depression and behavior disorders.”

    Some of the animal viruses found in vaccines can be passed on to children such as the infamous cancer causing Simian Virus 40 found in the polio vaccines of the 1950’s.

    When the unhealthy becomes the new normal and when a few points are shaved off the general population’s IQ due to brain inflammation following vaccinations, it does not bode well for society at large.

    • Harry Covert's Gravatar Harry Covert
      October 9, 2017 - 2:25 am | Permalink

      National Vaccine Center – should read National Vaccine Information Center

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      October 9, 2017 - 11:57 am | Permalink

      Very interesting and valuable information—much more so than the article itself in some ways. Thank you.

      The one way in which the numbers fail to inform fully, however, is in the absence of correlation of the ratios over time to the immigration invasion, which has transformed the youthful population beyond recognition since the mid-forties, when I was born. Do you know of any data that relate the older figures, which refer to an overwhelmingly white Christian population, to that very same but radically smaller population cohort today? Such data, I think, would be of much greater significance to TOO readers.

    • Santoculto's Gravatar Santoculto
      October 9, 2017 - 12:22 pm | Permalink

      Maybe because many children who probably would not survive in other times is having a minimally normal life expectancy and be capable to build families. Other possible complementary explanation is the excessive clean environment where many children has been raised.

      And combine with big reduction of fertility + increase of pregnancy age we have a increase of proportion or representativeness of mutants of all types among general populations.

      More interesting of all is the increase of natural life expectancy.

      • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
        October 9, 2017 - 5:08 pm | Permalink

        The life expectancy increase is largely illusory and definitely misleading, as the end-of-life figures are distorted by the start-of-life figures. That is, the mortality decrease among those under twenty, especially among those under five, grossly distorts the overall expectancy data.

        Put otherwise, in 1817 those who made it to sixty were only slightly less likely to make it to eighty than is the case today. That goes treble for those born in, say, 1967.

        • Santoculto's Gravatar Santoculto
          October 10, 2017 - 1:33 pm | Permalink

          Recently I wonder if people tend to confuse life expectancy with lifetime avg. They think for most people the avg of their lifetime is their life expectancy but make little sense that only 30% of Japanese people this days, the most aged of the human populations, of their generations, was/has been capable to surpass 60 years old border while “it’s expected that ~ half of population/avg were capable to do it”. Or I really don’t know what it’s mean or what I’m talking about.

        • Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
          October 11, 2017 - 10:25 am | Permalink

          So glad you said this, Pierre. It’s hard to tell anyone these things, though. Back in 1990 I saw an excellent letter to the editor in a health magazine written by Gary Martin Cohen wherein he debunks the whole life expectancy nonsense. He takes us through the untenable assumptions that are being made in order to get us to conclude that we are all just going to get older and older as the centuries pass. LOL!

          Therefore, anyone making it to, say, age 80 or older today, did not get there on his own steam. He is more than likely the product of endless expensive input from technological medicine. If you have not visited a nursing home full of “delightful oldsters” recently, then have a look. I recall old people from my childhood, 50 yr. ago, before everyone was stitched together with wax, string and a heart or kidney transplant. A different species, almost.

        • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
          October 14, 2017 - 5:22 pm | Permalink

          Santoculto & Barkingmad: I’m returning to your comments very late, for which I’m sorry. I think you are both squarely on the money.

    • Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
      October 9, 2017 - 7:50 pm | Permalink

      I read a few days ago that Iceland has a lot of the same vaccines but they schedule them apart form each other and they don’t have the same problems.

      I personally don’t take any vaccines at all. I did take a tetanus shot a few years ago as I felt it was worth the risk. I think the quality of these things is very low. Too bad someone doesn’t start a vaccine company and advertise it as safer with higher quality and watch the product better.

    • Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
      October 11, 2017 - 10:00 am | Permalink

      Thanks for your comment; what you say makes sense. You can’t go injecting such crap into a small child’s blood and think it won’t have nasty effects sooner or later. I never had my offspring poked.

      Also, there’s no safe or effective vaccine irrespective of mercury content: the whole idea behind them is as mistaken as anything can possibly be. If you want your progeny to be healthy, if you want to be healthy yourself, you have to work at it, in every way, shape & form. Just sticking your arm out and getting punctured with a ghastly mix of chemicals won’t protect you in any meaningful sense. That’s not the way nature works.

      Now as to Today, 1 child in 9 has asthma. In 1980, it was 1 child in 27. I’m not saying there’s no connection between vaccines and asthma, only that there’s other things that may make a child more susceptible, such as being born by C-Section (caesarian). Rate is now 32%.

      https://asthma.net/living/the-link-between-c-section-births/

      The squeezing action of the birth canal on the baby during normal birth apparently somehow clears its lungs of substances that could predispose it to lung weakness later on.

      • Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
        October 12, 2017 - 2:44 am | Permalink

        “…Also, there’s no safe or effective vaccine irrespective of mercury content: the whole idea behind them is as mistaken as anything can possibly be…”

        I don’t agree with this at all. Vaccines have saved a lot of lives. I don’t doubt that many have also been hurt from vaccines but without them it’s possible the same people would have fared no better if no one took them. Just because all vaccines don’t work 100% or are perfectly safe 100% of the time in no way proves that vaccines don’t work at all. I don’t believe that people should be forced to take them. The people who say it dangers the public are saying things that are contrary to the whole point of vaccines in the first place. Non vaccinated people should be no risk to the vaccinated at all. I bet people who have the money will start spreading out when they are taken and possibly private higher quality vaccines will start being made.

        “…Today, 1 child in 9 has asthma. In 1980, it was 1 child in 27. ..”

        I think this is because children don’t play in the dirt like they used to and get exposed to various soil bacteria and what not. They don’t go outside much at all.

        • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
          October 15, 2017 - 1:36 am | Permalink

          Re asthma – when the windows are tightly sealed shut as in modern houses, there is little fresh air, and chemicals from aerosols, plastics etc, build up inside the house.

          And there is all the chemicals sprayed on food. A tomato or lettuce is so perfect in shape and appearance as it has been made poisonous to insects, in the hope that the poison is not strong enough to harm humans. We just ‘hope’ the poison does not affect us, and we ‘hope’ it is all washed off and we ‘hope’ not much enters the fruit. If officialdom declares the tomato is safe, then ‘it must be’. Just as they declared the cladding on Grenfell Tower in London ‘safe’, only for it to produce an inferno. It was not safe at all.

          Note that this relentless spraying has made it so when you drive along in Britain, the windscreen remains insect-free. In the 60s it would be covered in dead insects.

          And if you go in a garden shed there will be many chemical poisons – and just because it says in tiny writing ‘do not pour into the drain’ – this does not guarantee that it will not be.

          Thousands of children are hospitalised each year by household poisons. We need to realise that it actually does not matter if your lawn is perfect, and it is more important that the level of dangerous chemicals is reduced.

          People assume that because it is sold in the local shop and has a ‘stamp of approval’ then it is safe. Officialdom does not know what it is doing and is incompetent and money-driven. Proof of this is that the cladding on a tower block in London (Grenfell Tower) recently went up in flames as it was highly flammable, but – here is the important point – it passed all ‘safety standards’. This shows that officials ticking boxes to approve this or that does not mean it is safe, These officials are corrupt or incompetent. Remember, people these days are not promoted by competence, they are promoted in such a way as to ‘make society fairer’, including quota systems. As the lower types take over, they rise in proportion in positions of power and authority, we must expect therefore an increasing level of incompetence from the authorities and institutions (including in medicine). And this includes the area of chemicals allowed in shops (for gardens) and allowed on food, just as much as it applies to the cladding on the tower.

  15. ex South African's Gravatar ex South African
    October 9, 2017 - 3:46 am | Permalink

    Or the decline has more to do with flagrant political mistakes done by a few political criminals rather than epigenetics, but then again, the one does not necessarily exclude the other.

  16. Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
    October 9, 2017 - 8:30 am | Permalink

    Snort. There’s nothing magical about genes. They are just another body part. Nourish the whole body properly, genes & all, and those genes will work the way they are supposed to. No need to turn anything on or off.

    Truly, the biggest medical/scientific scam yet is the attribution of all manner of diseases, tendencies or conditions of recent years and of the past, to “genes”, as if they are separate from the rest of us. What horseshit, what a delusional outlook.

    Man was created from the dust of the earth. Look to the minerals (dust) and access (or not) to them, for their role in human development and history. God created us perfect but then his creation turned on him and things went downhill. An inelegant, badly edited, but valuable book on this topic is Rare Earths, Forbidden Cures.

    • Karen T's Gravatar Karen T
      October 9, 2017 - 4:06 pm | Permalink

      I can argue your point by referencing Nature documentaries and the breeding of specialized purebred dogs, but on the other hand I see your point. Does this mean that only wild animals and purebred dogs have not fallen from Grace?

      • Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
        October 11, 2017 - 10:37 am | Permalink

        Not sure, Karen. But I would say that every living thing has fallen from grace, including wild animals. We, human and animal both, are all subject to the same laws of creation and, knowingly or otherwise, have disregarded them.

        You know what they say: when everyone (or just about everyone) is behaving the same way, it’s not their fault – something to do with our solar system passing through a malevolent portion of the cosmos. Mind you, I better leave this to the high-IQ folks now.

    • October 10, 2017 - 6:57 am | Permalink

      Genes aren’t “causes”. People anthropomorphize genes for no reason at all.

      • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
        October 15, 2017 - 2:03 am | Permalink

        RaceRealist – and yet if you raise a pitbull puppy in a loving litter of labrador puppies, and treat it just as you treat the other puppies – ie kindly and properly, in the end you will find that when the dogs grow up the pitbul is going to be vicious and the others gentle. This can only be explained by the genes, as the environent was identical.

        Humans might think they are ‘above it all’ but their behaviour is totally controlled by their genes – including their morals. Here is a thought experiment. Imagine you see an elderly person walking along and they drop a wallet. It has all their credit cards and money – about 100 $ or £.
        Within YOUR brain (ie not a lower type’s), neurons arranged together by your genes – ie your wiring – these neurons will actually fire off electricity, which will present your conscience part of the brain with a value of 1 out of 10 for stealing, and value the empathy for the other person at 9/10 or 10/10, so you return the wallet, as the total final score for this notion is 9.99 out of 10, all contributing scores combined (empathy, honesty, probabilty of being found out, inner shame at keeping it, the pleasure of the ‘thank you’).

        Now consider a lower type of human in the same situation . Within their brains neurons will also fire off and give a final score of returning the wallet of .3 and of keeping it as .999 ie the opposite.

        So your consciousness and that of the lower type of human will be presented with entirely different ‘recommendations’ from the subconscious to the conscious, and your eventual reaction is based on this wiring, that you were born with, but was modified by environment, ie how you were raised.

        Another example – (a) a pitbul dog is walking along when it sees another dog. Its wiring suggests to its consciousness that it attacks. (b) a labrador in a similar situation – its consciousness tells it to be friendly.
        Each dog reacts in accordance with the scores assigned to the alternatives.

        This also explains political behaviour in humans, although human societies are more complex and select for DIFFERENT types within the population (left wing and right wing), whereas in dog populations the animals tend to end up the same, and you do NOT get one dog specialising in scent detecting and another in puppy guarding.

        Within human populations you get some specialising in making (the right and the apolitical) and others in taking (the left and lower types).

        One population where the level of variation is probably lower than average is the Jewish population, which is why they shun certain professions.

  17. Santoculto's Gravatar Santoculto
    October 9, 2017 - 12:14 pm | Permalink

    How explain epigenetics/mutations that tends to harm organisms to this context while westerners became throughout generations: taller, healthier and if Flynn effect is right, smarter??

    I still can’t see where men, on considerably avg, became so different than the past. It’s not a excess of red pilled men instead factual reality??

    Population now is bigger: more people; more different type of people; more visible; things which people did out of public reach now has been overly exposed. Yeas, there is more freedom than in (recent) past but I don’t know if our grandparents were exposed earlier in life to same environment they would not “enjoy” the variety of choices/and risks, namely about socio-sexual behaviors or also catch current “virtue” names to conform/adapt…

    Seems another way to say that western decadence is due exclusively because westerners/people and not because certain peopl.

    • Santoculto's Gravatar Santoculto
      October 10, 2017 - 2:52 am | Permalink

      It’s not “epigenetics” (a “”leftist”” invention to dismiss genetics) nor directly cultural (real westerners became mad by spontaneous decadence). It’s socially structural. The most individualistic and less “white cells” types of European demos was putted on the top of social hierarchy, as well those who are fully aware who’s and why’s. Humans has been evolved to specific functions and on the new-left functions is not to defend borders.

      • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
        October 14, 2017 - 5:33 pm | Permalink

        All of your comments on this thread have been valuable and helpful to me (I am by no means well informed on these matters), but your description of epigenetics as “a ‘leftist’ invention to dismiss genetics” puts the entire subject into a perspective that explains far more than any other perspective I’m aware of. Thank you.

    • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
      October 15, 2017 - 2:17 am | Permalink

      Santculto – You are correct in my view when you say that the gene pool has not changed so much over three generations that it accounts for the changes in behaviour in Western populations, going from strong to submissive. As Kevin MacDonald describes, we take our lead from the culture and follow it. The people are following the current culture, which tells them to lie down and submit to the third world, and the people are merely following the dominant culture, set by the MSM and education and politicians, ie the current elite.

      The current elite (and their genes) are a subsection of the population that have always been within the population, but not as the elite in power, as only recently (over 100 years) has this small subsection become dominant. Factors have changed ((1) wealth, (2) land no longer equaling power and money) and these new and recent factors have enabled the lefty subsection to take over the cultural narrative, which the majority now follow, and follow not just in the way of a resentful submissive, they have actually absorbed the message, which is why the Germans STILL vote for Merkel even when no-one is looking.

      If the cultural narrative was a new one – from the right, a nationalist one – these same people in the majority would readily switch loyalty to it, as they are flexible. The left would not switch, as their politics is stronger, whereas the majority are apolitical, and base their voting on such things as whether or not the MSM shows them pictures of a dead baby on the beach.

  18. Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
    October 9, 2017 - 7:00 pm | Permalink

    “…“Are Jews are REACTION to other factors at play in the ups and downs of a specific civilization?” Or “Are Jews more properly understood as active agents significantly influencing the rise or fall of civilizations?”…”

    I think it’s more number one which begets number two. I believe that Jews are a parasitical tribe of psychopaths that prey on empathetic people. I think that they are more animalistic. Animals rarely have empathy for anyone not close to them unless they are domesticated. Domesticated, breed for empathy. Jews are like what Men were before history. Jews will get their ass handed to them in China or India but they do well in White countries.

    I have my own theory about what made civilization. I think that in pre-history people were much more like the Jews and Africans with empathy for very close kin but none or next to none for others. With this kind of attitude you can imagine it would be difficult to have any sort of advanced society. When any time anyone could take advantage of you they would then it would leave little time for the actual building of the society. The advance of broad based empathy made it so people could work together on a large scale. EMPATHY IS THE FOUNDATION OF CIVILIZATION. Empathy is what allows civilization to flourish. Without empathy everyone cheats everyone else so routinely that civilization can not flourish. It’s why Jews have never made any decent sort of civilization when it’s just themselves in it. Lack of empathy. Wild animals are less like humans because they have very little in the way of universal “empathy”. Mankind did nothing before the flowering that came after Cro-Magnon Man came. The Neanderthals were in Europe for 250,000 years and did…nothing. Cro-Magnon Man came and began to develop empathy for others and things started being built.

    Where are the places in the US where there in no real civil society? Where the Africans rule. If it were not for Whites intervention I believe they would be eating each other in a decade or two. Africans have been shown to have a much lower empathy for others than Whites. I think it’s what dooms them to decivilize.

    This could also explain the rise and fall of civilizations quite nicely. A poorer society will be much less lenient of psychopaths. They would likely be killed off. I read a book where Eskimos were asked if they had people with the attributes of psychopaths. They said they did and that they were quietly pushed off the ice into the water to drown. In the middle ages a Woman who married a non caring psychopath could perish. When societies build up where there are lots of resources Women have kids with those with the most gab and flash. Vastly increasing the number of psychopaths. Over time the psychopaths aggressive behavior moves them up and up in the chain of people that control the society(same as Jews). As they are only interested in power and not duty slowly but surely the society becomes unhinged. I think it extremely likely that a large number of psychopaths run a large part of Western society. If even a minuscule amount of the rumors of child sexual abuse and financial malfeasance at the top are true then I’d say we’re at the end times of this society and peak psychopath.

    Doesn’t mean that it can’t be turned around. Look at what happened to Germany and Japan. They were totally destroyed and came back quickly. The key is to get rid of the Spaths at the top. The single most important thing Trump could do to stabilize our society would be to fire the top 10% of every single agency in the US government. Especially the intelligence branches and the military.

    Biohistory is just a little too much for me to believe as THE cause for the rise and decline of societies. However I do believe everything he says is true just not that it’s the all powerful answer. I also believe in epigenetics and I believe that genes are very powerful at explaining temperament. Anyone who doubts this should try to explain the Russian generational taming of foxes program. It would be difficult to do so.

    http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160912-a-soviet-scientist-created-the-only-tame-foxes-in-the-world

    • Santoculto's Gravatar Santoculto
      October 10, 2017 - 1:27 pm | Permalink

      Roman empire don’t look like a kindergarten teacher, please. I can agree that servilization need masses of domesticated/”empathetic”/cooperative humans. But not that empathy is the foundation of any known civilization. What would be interesting to analyze is the foundation or origins of parasitic behavior in nature. I know what it’s mean, I want to know how this appeared and if there are certain environments that push more for that. But I don’t disagree with you that they are considerably more malignant than other populations. Jews just become like that after their expulsion from Levant or they “always” were like that. Jews seems existed since Babylon. I thought if they are particularly adapted to urban/densely populated environments and if this environment namely on the top of social structures push for sociopathic behaviors. Well roman emperors and their families are well known for higher levels of sociopathy. Power is corruptible or people who are power-seekers who are??

      • Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
        October 11, 2017 - 3:48 pm | Permalink

        “…empathy is the foundation of any known civilization…”

        I fully get what the Romans were about and every other bloodthirsty group in our past. What I’m saying is a bit subtle in “empathy is the foundation of civilization”, that it’s not just any one civilization but without it you can’t have it. It’s fairly easy to pump up the mob and the army and go against as our natural underlying nature is to have much lass empathy but that doesn’t negate what I said that without it there would be NO civilization.

        • Andy's Gravatar Andy
          October 16, 2017 - 6:48 pm | Permalink

          Sister Simone Roach wrote a book “The Human Act of Caring: a Blueprint for the Caring Professions” (1987). It is considered a classic in its field but is unfortunately out of print, and very expensive to buy second-hand. She expands on the point that the only reason that humans have been able to form any kind of tolerable society is down to their capacity to care. I have heard it said that the words ‘kin’ and ‘kind’ are very close, and that we learn human kindness from our kin in family life. Couples freely joined – as opposed to forced marriages – are a potentially great incubator for humane values.

          A few years ago I had to write something up about the book. I’ve put what I wrote at that time below to help provide a sense of her reflections on care, where it comes from, what it involves, and how it is particularly challenged in our current materialist western culture. Sister Roach’s work is the fruit of an intelligent and empathetic mind that is aiming to consolidate the values which make a humane society possible:-

          It will be necessary to start by considering the significance of caring and how essential it is to the definition of our humanity. The nature of caring in a professional capacity will be then explained by looking at the the five C’s of: compassion; competence, confidence, conscience, and commitment. These are necessary for sustained and skilful caring. Some have doubted the need to be caring in this full sense and have opted for an approach based on economic exchange and service delivery. The nature of the cultural backdrop which gives play to such an approach will explained and some observations on contemporary culture will be provided. I will conclude by noting the limitations of a materialistic and anti-metaphysical culture.

          Roach argues care is fundamental to humanity and our survival as a species. She notes the long time which offspring need parental support and how care and co-operation have enabled the human race to survive for so long. She notes that considered and enduring care have been in evidence since the Neanderthal stage of human development, and that caring is beyond being just an attribute, among others, which humans possess but that it is fundamental to the nature of our humanity.

          Roach explains that caring is not just an action or an emotion but involves both of these as a reaction to the significance and value of another and their suffering. She then goes on to explain the five C’s: care requires compassion otherwise it falls short of what care is (essentially concerned with the welfare of another). Care needs to be helpful – not hurtful – thus it requires competencies and skills. The person who is receiving care would wish to have justified confidence in the professional providing care, trusting in their knowledge, trustworthiness, and conscientiousness. To be worthy of this confidence the professional carer needs an active conscience to provide the impetus to act on the value of the person cared for and bring the resources of their profession to bear. It is essential that this process is sustained through time, which is essentially expressed by ongoing commitment.

          Roach has provided a thorough-going articulation of what being in a caring profession means, and this meaning is challenging as it claims access to the core of our humanity. She notes that not all understand it in this way and have argued that all that is required is service delivery in exchange for economic gain. Roach places the meaning of caring in a cultural and historical context and notes the contrast between the culture prior to the renaissance and the kind of culture we have now.

          The pre-renaissance culture had the non-physical world an ever-present reality which informed its understanding of the mundane world. The world was full of meaning and humankind was seen as made in the image of God with a destiny in eternity of which this life was the preparation. Human suffering had meaning and life had hope. In contemporary culture the emphasis is on the sensate world and anything which cannot be grasped by science is relegated to the realms of speculation and private belief. Thus religion, which in the past was the main vehicle for articulating the value of
          humanity, is receding more and more from public life. In contemporary culture humans are reduced from their former status as the material image of God to being materials to be understood and acted on by an evermore powerful science and technology. Sister Roach notes that we have become more powerful yet diminished at the same time with a pervasive cynicism regarding the possibility for us to be self-giving and genuinely moral. Thus the current culture is more fitted to the service-exchange model of caring briefly touched on earlier.

          Having described the tension between the old and new patterns of culture Roach does not shrink from calling it a crisis and asserts that western material culture is coming to a point of exhaustion. She calls this the ‘not yet’ phase as western culture struggles without having a place for the metaphysical and an insistence on the sufficiency of a philosophical naturalism.

          In conclusion Sister Roach has elaborated the meaning of caring and its professional aspect. She has place it in the context of the history of western culture and shown the limitations of contemporary sensate culture. She has also given grounds for believing that the quality – or lack thereof – in culture will not completely stifle the expression of true care as it is intrinsic to human nature.

          Bibliography: Sister Roach, M. Simone, The human act of caring: a bluepring for the health professions. (1987). Ottowa: Canadian Hospital Association.
          ——————————————————————–

          I wrote this a little before I became so aware of the threats to Western culture as high-lighted by pro-white advocates. I think her work, and the spirit behind it exemplifies, why there has been so much advance in western societies.

    • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
      October 11, 2017 - 7:23 am | Permalink

      Sam “I believe that Jews are a parasitical tribe of psychopaths that prey on empathetic people.”

      In the MSM (as oppose to here) we are just about allowed to discus whether men and women are different in behaviour, but to discuss the things Sam mentions is definitely taboo, ie race differences in behaviour based on genes.

      One characteristic of a psychopath as opposed to an empathetic person is that if you help an empathetic person there is some measure of gratitude. Eg the West has given billions in foreign aid, and how many ‘thank you’ letters exist in the government’s archives? Enough to stretch from one end of a desk to another perhaps, ie less than 10 I would guess. That is the measure of the empathy of the third world.

      Meanwhile the misplaced empathy of some Westerners manifests in the form of missionaries who went to Africa and whose children died from diseases as a result. This shows how too much of a good thing (empathy) becomes a bad thing when distorted or applied to a non-empathetic group.

      Anyone who goes to Breitbart can observe the following:
      Plenty of posts from the gentiles saying how they admire the Jews and wish them the best of luck. This is evidence of empathy. And in return? Posts such as ‘Do you blame the Jews for giving Russia communism after X and y happened?’ and ‘This is what the Romans did to us in x thousand years ago
      so no wonder we are ……’ (<—-insert euphamism for 'hostile') . Kevin MacDonald sometimes describes their approach to history as one of focusing on all their grievances, and remembering them.

      In other words, the hand of friendship (and a lot of dollars) is handed to them in Breitbart (especially from the Christians) and in return I sense a large level of hostility. And can Germany get any more prostrate on the floor regarding the H, imprisoning anyone who questions wartime propaganda?

      A psychopath is unaffected by anything generous or kind that you do for them. And as this is genetic, there is no way to educate people out of it.

      • Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
        October 11, 2017 - 4:07 pm | Permalink

        “…Sam “I believe that Jews are a parasitical tribe of psychopaths that prey on empathetic people.”…”

        A lot of people think I’m foolish for saying this or that I’m just calling the Jews names like the SJW call Whites White Nationalist to shut them up. I’m not. It may very well be that a large part of the Jews aren’t psychopaths but the practical result of having a lot of Jews in a country over time is in no way distinguishable from having a tribe of psychopaths invade it. So I may very well be wrong but for all practical purposes if you assume the Jews are tribe of psychopaths you will most likely understand them better and be able to predict their behavior. Behavior prediction is the foundation of science. It behooves those who feel this is inaccurate to tell us any long term habitation of a society by Jews in large numbers where they didn’t act stereotypicaly like a tribe of psychopaths. I can’t think of any. They’ve been thrown out of every single country in all known history where they’ve been in substantial numbers as long as we have records for.

        All of their trademark behaviors lying, conspiracies, fondness for lewd sexual practices, lust for power, as you mentioned no gratitude for favors, each of these is in all populations but the strength and aggressive means they go to push these is an exact trait of psychopaths.

        One reason I post this constantly is you must understand a tendency of psychopaths that puts Whites in danger. Most normal people when they have submission from others tend to let up a little bit. Jews don’t do this. They seem to oppress their victims more and more the more power they have. So just hunkering down is not going to save you.

        “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

        Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

        Solzhenitsyn said the Jews killed 60 million Russians. Maybe it wasn’t that many but it certainly wasn’t less than 30 million. He gives wise advice. If they take over the US they will slaughter as many as they can because they would not want to have anyone left to retaliate.

  19. pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
    October 10, 2017 - 3:51 am | Permalink

    Interesting to note that a current Russian ‘Scientific’ Journal (National Academ.. something or other) they still espouse Lamarckism, but not for reasons of science, and more to do with patriotism, as they want a Russian to have the best theory and not a British man (Darwin). They write lengthy and patriotic articles slagging off Darwinism and praising Lammarckism, but steer clear of details.

    Then some Russians actually made a decent theory that did indeed back Lamarckism – ie that the environment controls the genes.

    But then they went silent because it invokes a level of pre-planning, and this supports the notion of a higher intelligence, and although this does not have to be God, inevitably the religious would claim it was God (and not maths or another intelligence on another planet using computers).

    Basically they said that the genes for vast numbers of species were preloaded into simple amoeba-type organisms that were seeded on earth, and therefore the genes for wings etc were already present and just were dormant until that stage in evolution arrived where the ENVIRONMENT caused the next stage to be triggered, ie reveal the new genes, so the next animal could be released/revealed.

    • October 10, 2017 - 6:58 am | Permalink

      What do you know about Lamarck’s ideas?

      • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
        October 11, 2017 - 5:05 am | Permalink

        Lamarckism suggests that the environment drives evolutionary changes, eg cold winters lead to thicker fur and this is somehow passed on to the next generations, as opposed to Darwin’s explanation that it is a combination of two things: (1) spontaneous genetic changes in the genes leading to new genetic material appearing which is somehow the code for new features, and (2) some genes are selected for by natural selection over others, and this leads to changes in the gene pool, such as thicker fur.

        No-one doubts (2) apart from in the field of race where we are not allowed to suggest that natural selection could operate, as that would be racist and even Nature herself dare not commit the ultimate sin of racism, so if the left in academia declare that Nature cannot be racist and must conform to their equality legislation, then it must be so, and all races are equal, and no genetic differences are allowed (apart from superficial physical ones). But apart from that, everyone accepts (2)

        (They have also declared that Nature is not allowed to make differences in behaviour between the sexes for humans, making the humans the only higher animal in which this is the case, and thus revealing academia have today abandoned true science whenever it contradicts their world view. They have also ordered the planet to warm up in accordance with their Global Warming Theory. In fact Nature gets quite a lot of orders from the left these days to conform with their thinking. But Nature is very insolent and defies the left by not warming up and still making men drive skip lorries more than women do).

        (1) is accepted not because the theory is a good one, but because people WANT to believe it. Of 1000 people who believe it I would be surprised if more than 1 had ever read anything that questioned whether or not this theory stands up to scrutiny. We should allow this scrutiny if we have an open mind, and allow it without having to provide an alternative explanation about the universe, which I do not have, although I think the answer lies more in maths than other fields. Theories should be tested, not defended simply because they conform to other beliefs a person might have. I am always suspicious of any theory that has a wall of protection around it that prevents scrutiny.

        The question is, is (1) a viable theory? Fruit flies have been bombarded for decades to prompt such genetic changes but so far no new features have evolved as predicted by this theory, and not for want of trying, plus speeding up the process of change by the use of radiation. Therefore a prediction from this theory has been made (which is that fruit flies can be induced to evolve and demonstrate the equivalent of millions of years of human evolution in a few years, due to fast breeding and radiation) and the prediction is not yet fulfilled.

        The current Russians in their journal are attempting to support Lamarck, possibly for reasons of patriotism, which comes through in their articles, although these journals do not mention the pre-loaded theory, they just are vague and say nothing much except how great Lamarck was and he should be a hero not Darwin. As for the theory that some other Russians proposed (not published in the journals), this was the pre-loaded theory, which was rejected, I assume the reason being it would be endorsing some sort of intelligent design, which immediately makes it a ‘no-go’ zone.

        The preloaded theories have been around for some time.

        They require asexual reproduction as a mechanism for suddenly-revealed new genetic material (revealed in a Lamarckian way, ie triggered by environment) to be passed on, ie a higher animal making a fertile egg from its own genes alone, to release the next stage. This is not so far-fetched as one might imagine, for in mammal eggs including humans the fertilised egg actually starts off with the final stage of meiosis ‘delayed’ ie there is more genetic material in the human egg than simply half from each parent. If the last stage of meiosis ‘goes wrong’ the mother can in theory make a copy of herself (the immaculate conception).

        I will try and look up a reference for you. Strangely, nothing appears on a quick Google look apart from some of my own postings from eight years ago! That is how long ago I last mentioned this. I suppose there are some things that people are not much interested in, or they steer clear as this is a place where science meets religion so proper reasoning is not possible. Both religious people and fervent atheists bring their own beliefs into the issue and completely block out any proper logical discussion. Religious people want magic to be involved, and atheists are determined that no intelligent design aspect gets a look in, even ones where no ‘personal god’ is involved, in the sense that I can show you a chess program that is so short it could fit in the 48K Spectrum computer and yet still ‘create’ chess moves far more ‘intelligent’ than itself, ie it designed something higher than itself via maths rather than design intelligence.

        • Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
          October 11, 2017 - 4:18 pm | Permalink

          I don’t think Lamarckism is exactly correct but there have been studies where it’s premises have been proven too carry onto future generations. I believe what’s happening is the environment is passing on EXPRESSION of genes that are already there. Example if it gets colder fur grows thicker on the next generation through higher expression of the genes for furry coats. There’s all kinds, massive amounts, of DNA in human and other animals that we have no idea what it does. They call it trash DNA but who knows.

          On a far out note some has speculated that aliens could have dropped packages of fungi or bacteria or yeast that have all the various DNA needed to populate a planet and that it only needed the proper environment for it to start producing. Until then it just stays as yeast or whatever. This is part of the plot of a series of Sci-Fi novels by Larry Niven called the “Known Space” series. Very good stuff.

          • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
            October 12, 2017 - 2:29 am | Permalink

            I do not believe in Lamarckism in any sense apart from the one you describe and which is also called the preloaded theory, in which case the environment would trigger the next stage of evolution from some pre-existing gene sets that were already present and ‘hidden’ ie switched off and waiting to be revealed (and which were designed either by a high intelligence like God who used cleverness to design gene sequences, or by a low intelligence such as man who used trial and error rather than cleverness). This is only Lamarckian in the sense that the environment is the trigger, but not Lamarckian in the sense that Lamarck proposed.

            How would we, as humans, put life in other parts of the universe if we wanted to? Would we send over massive rockets with Noah’s Ark in them? Or would it be easier to pre-load as describe and send microbes?

            Furthermore, all it requires to design the genes is not a higher intelligence than we have already, just enough time and computing power and a simulator to simulate physiology at the biochemical level. Each animal including humans is coded by a number several billion digits long (ie a digital number). Looking it from a maths point of view, all these numbers exist already for all animals and plants, and it is just a question of a simulator program finding them. This is how a computer plays chess. Not with any foresight or intelligence, just by going through all the permutations of moves and selecting ones that work.

            The same approach can be used to design animals and plants, provided you have enough time to simulate and reject one after the other of the gene sequences until you find the numbers that work (and providing a simulator could be written as computer code). By this method one can create something that is far beyond what can be created by intelligence and cleverness (In other words, man-like intelligence could create animals as opposed to requiring a God-like intelligence).

            Basically this is saying maths is actually supreme, never wrong, explains everything, and can do anything, whilst at the same time having zero intelligence. Even the human’s concept of God – even this God cannot change or contradict maths, making maths higher and making God not all powerful after all. And maths itself is not invented, it is discovered, and will exist even of the universe does not.

            A laptop computer has more than enough computing power to design animals and plants, provided (1) enough time (2) a viable simulator of biochemistry and animal forms going right down to the molecular level. It is the same principle that enables the 48K Spectrum home computer from the 80s to play chess. By using trial and error ( ie simulating alternative chess moves) the Spectrum ‘discovers’ winning moves rather than ‘inventing’ them, and the same principle could ‘discover’ viable gene sequences rather than inventing them. The number for a brontosaurus already exists as a digital number (it exists but we do not know what it is, unlike the number for humans, which we do know – the human genome project found it) and this number could either be (a) found (as the Spectrum plays chess) or (b) designed (as a human plays chess).

          • Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
            October 12, 2017 - 10:54 pm | Permalink

            “…Furthermore, all it requires to design the genes is not a higher intelligence than we have already, just enough time and computing power and a simulator to simulate physiology at the biochemical level…”

            I agree.

            I want meat nut trees. Where pecan, or the like, trees grow thick shelled rib eye steaks we can pick off of them. Maybe we’ll have this before I die.

            There’s some guys that are growing food, not sure I understand completely whether it’s a bacteria or yeast or what, by using only electricity and air. Soylent!!! Apparently with a little solar power you could grow this stuff in the desert.

            http://www.alphr.com/bioscience/1006463/scientists-discover-how-to-make-food-using-just-air-and-electricity-in-star-trek

  20. Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
    October 13, 2017 - 8:17 am | Permalink

    Genes are a bodily substance. They are a reflection, not a cause of anything.

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      October 14, 2017 - 5:35 pm | Permalink

      Dear B.,

      Your comments on this thread, along with Santoculto’s, have been extremely illuminating and helpful. I’m in your debt and his.

  21. pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
    October 15, 2017 - 3:17 am | Permalink

    “The author predicts that the decline of the West will also pull down prosperous urban sectors of East Asia society. Then, after a Dark Age there will be a partial restoration. ”

    An important point is that a few thousand years ago the population was sparse, so any subgroup that was different from the main group could leave and emigrate (ie escape) to places where no-one wold bother them, often to harsher climes where the individualistic qualities were more valuable to survival and reproduction. ie individualistic types would emigrate away from tribal loyalty types.

    If emigration is not possible when the individualistic types emerge, the main group will just ‘swallow them up’. A large, low IQ, poor, inbreeding, tribal population are going to overwhelm and conquer a small population that is different (and better) than themselves. They are NOT going to say ‘Thanks for selling us those herb potions that cure diseases, thanks for working out how to store grain for winter – you really are a great asset’.

    It is important to note that in the future there will be nowhere to emigrate to. Even if some white nationalists went to live on the moon and could not be said to ‘deprive’ anyone, their very existence would still arouse the intense hatred of the white left (plus allies). (Although the blacks would not obsess about them, and they would resent paying taxes to raise money for the attack rockets ie nothing in it for them. Meanwhile the white left would readily pay any price and make themselves poor in order to pay for these rockets).

    For a manifestation of such hate, see the way the international white community (and allies) still seethes with hatred and hostility towards white S.Africans, for the ‘crime’ of being better, so that even as they are now victims of genocide, still there is no sympathy, and the white leaders in the West even block them from returning to their historic homelands (Holland and Britain) and in fact favour black Africans and muslims from the ME over them.

    This same hatred will be directed against ANY whites ANYWHERE, from lefty whites and allies, and wherever the white lefties have the upper hand, they will use the military against such whites, as they used NATO against the Serbs to prevent them ejecting the muslims. It is in their genes to make them like this. They act not out of self interest, but according to their animal behaviour wiring from the genes.

    The only way this can be rectified is if a new elite takes over in significant areas of the West, and then the majority switches cultural loyalty to them rather than to the lefty self-hating elite as at present. This might happen when the people are no longer rich and pampered, and when the state is no longer so wealthy after economic collapse.

    But we have to recognise that the real enemy is not the muslims (who could easily be stopped from taking us over out without any bloodshed and just over a few years as they would follow the money, (and the halal practices) and if this money lured them back to muslim countries, they would readily go. At present our lefty elite uses our money to lure them to the West. This could easily be reversed. The muslims in the West ‘love’ Pakistan etc even though they are third generation and have never been there. Simply make their current benefits payable in their own countries). Neither are blacks the real enemy or threat, they can easily be told to leave if they cannot behave themselves eg cannot stop murdering and robbing, they will just have to do it in Africa to each other.

    The blacks and muslims are only causing problems because our white lefty elite WANTS it to be so, and all the trouble they cause now and in the future only exists because the WHITE LEFTY elite and allies WANT the blacks and muslims to cause trouble.

    The whites still have FULL CONTROL over the entire situation. It is not as if they have not got a clue how to sort out the problem of immigration and crime – they (ie their elite) WANT THESE PROBLEMS and they therefore currently spend the wealth of the nation in such a way as to GIVE US these problems, and to LURE the third world over to the West, as far as they dare, bearing in mind if they push too hard or too fast the people might wake up and stop voting for their own national suicide.

    Until the whites recognise that their real enemy is lefty whites and allies, they will just become more and more third world, and in the end, when no longer strong, they really will be conquered and genocided, with the white left leading the final charge against them.

  22. pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
    October 16, 2017 - 3:31 am | Permalink

    Some comments about the points in the article:

    (1) “genetic change could account for the increase in C-type [civilized] behaviors in Europe between about 1200 and 1850, but the rapid collapse of C since than indicates that this is primarily an epigenetic rather than a genetic change” (34). This sounds credible — genetics was a major reason for the rise of the West, and epigenetics is a major reason for its decline.

    An alternative explanation is that basically the population is the same.
    (Although the Wars will have wiped out a significant proportion of better genes and lowered the overall quality of the gene pool. Contrast this with wars in prehistoric times which increased the quality of the gene pool, as the victors had many wives and spread their genes. Eg if there were 5 contenders for chief and only 1 survived, whilst the other 4 with their top genes perished, but the 5th one and his followers had enough children to make up for the loss from the battles.)

    Despite the comments in brackets (and the rapid breeding of the underclass), the general quality of the white population is the same in the West over 100 years, but A DIFFERENT SUBGROUP became dominant, and this different subgoup now sets the tone for the current decadent culture. This is a simpler explanation that explains our current decline. It also explains the self-hate. This arises not from changes in genes of the general population, it arises from the people simply following the prevailing culture – even if it goes against some of their other instincts. The majority will readily switch to another culture and readily reject the self-hate and no need to invoke any genetic changes.

    Basically, the left love ANY theory, anything that diminishes the notion that some groups are better in their gene pool – dare I say ‘superior’ – to others, and the notion that the environment is the explanation why some races are more intelligent than others is attractive to them as it enables them to diminish the importance of the general gene pool. They cannot stand the notion that some races simply have an inferior gene pool. The fact that they have made the word ‘superior’ into a negative term proves this point.

    So they want to tells us that blacks in the USA have lower IQ and commit more crime simply because the environment makes them like this, not their genes. And who is to blame for this environment – whites of course! And the solution? – more positive discrimination! More state funds redirected in their direction!

    As Nelson Rosit concludes above: “Indeed, epigenetics has provided a lifeline for many in the social “sciences eager to find environmental causes and reject additive genetic influences. “

    2) Nowhere in the article is mentioned evidence that genetic changes in the genes in the general body (the muscle cells, the brain cells) are passed onto the sperm or egg cells, as opposed to making changes in an individual that last the duration of the individual’s life but have no way of changing the DNA in the egg or sperm.

    It is not necessary for the entire population to ‘change their genes’ in order to explain cycles or to explain why population changes its behaviour over time as the population grows.

    Re the Muskrats – the equivalent for humans would be if a small group went to a new geographical region. Initially there would be plenty of wild animals for them all to hunt, and plenty of fruit to pick, and fresh water and plenty of places for building homes without any squabbling over who gets the best cave.

    So the humans would have large families and live stress free lives.
    Later on after a hundred years, all these large families would mean food was short, and diseases had a better chance of spreading, and life would be stressful.

    This cycle is the way any population forms an equilibrium with a new environment, and there is no mystery or puzzle about it. And technology means suddenly 1000 can live where 100 could before, for example, due to improvements in farming, eg a prehistoric farmer finding wheat, and so suddenly an overpopulated area is immediately redefined as under-populated from the point of view of food – but not from disease.

    The alternative to going through a stress phase would be to have a big meeting and agree that everyone has only 4 children each instead of 6. Obviously this is out of the question, so the population just has to find its equilibrium the hard way – by going past the point of comfort into the zone of discomfort caused by having a population that is larger than the ideal one, then any of the following would cause a collapse of numbers ie a cycle: a poor winter, or crowding leading to war, or a disease spreading that requires crowding to spread, or just a large number of babies growing up in a cohort to find that as adults there are too many whilst as babies they were no strain – any of these can trigger a collapse of population numbers.

    Also it can be noted that even when the population is over the ideal number, (in terms of disease and food shortages eg no abundance of rabbits to snare, no more acorns to pick, diseases going around), even when the population goes over the ideal number, there will still be certain sub groups who benefit from the famine and stress stage – eg those whose wealth depends on the number of people who need their services, and not on how wonderful life is for the general population.

    3) “The 1,400 year struggle between Islam and the West is coming to the end”
    It is very important to note that 1000 years ago it was a battle between equals ie one army versus another. Today the scenario is entirely different – we are strong and they are weak. We could completely wipe them all out in a week if we CHOSE to do so. The point is, we do not choose this. We CHOOSE to invite them over and take us over, ie the strong invite over the weak to conquer them. This is because despite being strong, our leaders actually hate us and wish to destroy us, as they have lefty genes that make them hate their own people for being superior.


Comment Policy
Comments that include personal insults, epithets, or profanity may be censored. Comments that promote or suggest illegal activities will be censored.


Comment Formatting
<b>BOLD</b>
<u>UNDERLINE</u>
<i>ITALIC</i>
<a href="http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net">HYPERLINK</a>

<blockquote> BLOCKQUOTE </blockquote>

Leave a Reply