Jews Suppressed Intra-Species Group Evolution Ideas

Ramifications of nuclear issues are everywhere: subjects loosely or remotely linked to the nuclear bomb myth

Jews Suppressed Intra-Species Group Evolution Ideas

Postby rerevisionist » 28 Jan 2012 14:43

Jewish Suppression of Discussion of Evolution of Competition Between Intra-Species Groups

Apologies for the dull-sounding title. This piece is intended to supplement Kevin MacDonald's work on Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy.


Darwin on competition. Chapter 10 - On the Geological Succession of Organic Beings

... the number of species has not gone on indefinitely increasing, at least during the later geological periods, so that looking to later times we may believe that the production of new forms has caused the extinction of about the same number of old forms.
    The competition will generally be most severe, as formerly explained and illustrated by examples, between the forms which are most like each other in all respects. Hence the improved and modified descendants of a species will generally cause the extermination of the parent-species; and if many new forms have been developed from any one species, the nearest allies of that species, i.e. the species of the same genus, will be the most liable to extermination.


The simple point I'm claiming is that Jewish-style behaviour - a group fairly isolated from other of its species, and acting in a wolf-pack like manner towards its 'out group' - is not discussed in what purport to be scientific discussions of evolution.

I noticed this when pondering a book The Herd Instinct published about 1916 by Wilfred Trotter, a surgeon. Trotter thought one-celled creatures were limited; evolution into multicellular creatures allowed fresh scope; then herds, which have further scope. His evidence comes from animals - including sheep and, especially, wolves.

Trotter has quite a convincing argument that herbivores have to spend a lot of time grazing, because their food isn't very high in nutrition. Any herd which acts in a group, and which has warning lookouts, will survive better than single animals. The same sort of thing applies to predators - wolf packs with any sort of organisation presumably will do better than isolated individuals. (Assuming in each case there's sufficient food supply).

Modern sheep are bred, of course, and the breeds (or races) have their own distinctive behaviours; some breeds stick together, but some scatter. But then after all modern 'Jews' are bred, too.

There are individual behaviours - for example pointers are dogs which stand rigidly, their faces pointing to a likely prey creature - a shot bird, for example. This must be quite complicated physiologically - there must be some link between the eyes and perceptual system, and body movements. It's possible there's some bred-in behaviour selected for in 'Jews', helping for example their tendency to tell lies.

Anyway, the subsidiary point here is that discussion on these topics is more or less taboo. To illustrate the point, a popular book of about the same time was Gustav le Bon's The Crowd - ... one of the best-selling scientific books in social psychology and collective behavior ever written - published in English in 1897. This was based on traditional views of the French Revolution, and the whole emphasis is on irrational action, foolish beliefs, impetuous acts etc.

There's a long passage (pages 30-38) in The Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald on Stephen Jay Gould [a 'Jew'] including this: '.. despite the widespread belief that Gould has a highly politicized agenda and is dishonest and self-serving as a scholar, the prominent evolutionary biologist John Maynard Smith (1995..) notes that "he has come to be seen by non-biologists as the pre-eminent evolutionary theorist. In contrast, the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with... and followed similar comments by other evolutionary biologists. Gould of course gets promoted by 'Jews' in the New York Times and so on.

(Apologies for putting 'Jews' in quote marks - this of course is necessitated by the Khazar origin idea).

http://www.amazon.com/Instincts-Herd-Peace-War/product-reviews/1171936109/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_pop_hist_2?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addTwoStar
User avatar
rerevisionist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1056
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 11:40

Re: Jews Suppressed Intra-Species Group Evolution Ideas

Postby FirstClassSkeptic » 28 Jan 2012 18:03

Grazing animals survive better in a herd because predatory dogs see a bunch of animals as one large animal. And they don't want to attack something that big.

Sheep dogs are bred to herd, but actually, all dogs heard naturally, somewhat. And the sheep cooperate by doing what they do naturally, which is to bunch up when they see a predatory animal close by. The trick is to breed a dog that doesn't eat the sheep after herding them up.

All dogs point. They point with their nose. Other dogs know what they are pointing at. A human points with his finger, and a dog can understand that, and so, you can point at a bowl of food, and the dogs sees that, and looks into the bowl, by pointing his nose into it. The dogs thinks of your finger as a nose.

The trick is to selectively breed a dog that stops and poises while he's pointing. Most other dogs, when they point, just continue on in and eat the prey.

And, so, this has nothing to do with the original posting. Except to say that selective breeding is not evolution. An neither is 'natural selection', that Darwin talked about a lot. Dogs have been bred that look very much like cats, but they are still dogs.

That is; dogs didn't evolve into sheep dogs, or pointer dogs. They were selectively bred from dogs that already had the traits desired. It's more like, the traits that weren't desired were bred out.
User avatar
FirstClassSkeptic
 
Posts: 671
Joined: 20 Mar 2011 21:19

Re: Jews Suppressed Intra-Species Group Evolution Ideas

Postby rerevisionist » 28 Jan 2012 18:37

Yes, maybe I haven't worded it very well. MacDonald is talking about evolutionary strategies of Jews, meaning breeding strategies and behaviour - he's not discussing new species. Hence 'intra-species', i.e. within, or inside, species.

You missed my point about grazing animals. They perhaps need some of their number to keep an eye out for predators, and warn the rest of the herd, so they can run. Trotter's book looks at the way herds might develop special behaviours like that - and wolf packs show the same sort of possibility. (I've seen doubt cast on whether wolves do in fact co-operate; and maybe sheep don't - maybe if there are enough of them, even if they're all eating, there are enough pauses to check for predators). But anyway arguably herds have new types of behaviour in addition to being multicellular organisms.

Another thing about human groups is breeding strategy - there's quite a bit of detail in books like Darlington's Evolution of Man and Society where e.g. tribes intermarry with other tribes, and pick different types of partners, so the total effect is to keep the gene pool more or less unchanged. I don't know if newer books look at this - it may be censored.

I don't know if there's intra-group competition in other species than man and maybe monkeys - I'm pretty sure Dawkins, who is cowardly in his human-related discussions, does NOT mention such things in animals; in human beings Dawkins only discusses the spread of e.g. altruism - he doesn't consider entire self-breeding groups and the effects they might have. So I'm saying this is a deliberate censorship, with the aim of course to prevent people discussing 'Jews'.

This is different from many other groups. For example the Church had a policy of NOT allowing priests to marry - there's a late-Victorian book on 'Sacerdotal Celibacy'. So it was not a closed breeding group. Nobles and kings were too small a group to count as a genetic group.
User avatar
rerevisionist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1056
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 11:40

Re: Jews Suppressed Intra-Species Group Evolution Ideas

Postby rerevisionist » 10 Feb 2012 21:52

BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES IN THE SOVIET UNION
- No doubt there was Jewish censorship in the Soviet Union of competition within species; certainly the disputes with Michurin and Vavilov and Lysenko seem to have revolved round this issue. 'In 1936 Medico-genetical institute was attacked by Pravda, closed.. geneticists.. Siberia.. labor camp.. deaths... terror.. Vavilov died 1942.. Lysenko 'fell' in 1954'. (I quote from my notes on Martin Gardner's 'Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science'). Julian Huxley described Lysenko as 'illiterate' in 1954. [Note added 12 July 2017: I've seen Miles Mathis state Lysenko was a Jew. It's perfectly possible his wrong genetic theories were intended to damage the wheat harvest in the USSR, to help kill off whites] It seems wherever there are Jews, there is large-scale science fraud.

"WHY CAN'T WE ALL GET ON?"
- Good question. Without claiming an exclusive answer, and group which arrogates to itself as much as possible, with as few scruples as possible, will prevent us all 'getting on'.
User avatar
rerevisionist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1056
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 11:40

Return to Other Revisionisms, Hyper-Revisionisms & Off-Topic Debates


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest