Sunday, October 30, 2011

Finding purpose

For those looking for direction in life, I think I've found a method. Ask yourself what you are willing to die for, and live for that. When I pose the question to myself, the answer that immediately comes to mind is my children.

15 comments:

Mike Kenny said...

I'm reminded of the remark attributed to JBS Haldane: "I would lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins"--quote gotten from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection

pzed said...

And that, my friends, is how jihadists are born.

Jim Bowery said...

Obviously, one's children is the answer....

Unless one has no children, in which case one runs into what Sailer calls the "affordable family formation" red/blue polarization of the body politic. I don't call it that. I call it the extended phenotypics of parasitic castration due primarily to Jewish virulence.

In those cases, the vast majority of the castrati feel mysteriously compelled to "die" for people in Africa -- the endangered animals be damned. This seems to point to Jewish virulence being something that is, itself, an African extended phenotype.

Anonymous said...

In those cases, the vast majority of the castrati feel mysteriously compelled to "die" for people in Africa

Are you sure about this?

Isn't it mostly due to feminism and economics?

Jokah Macpherson said...

I would say "poontang" except that dying sort of defeats the point.

Jim Bowery said...

"Isn't it mostly due to feminism and economics?"

Centralization of male fecundity and male wealth come quite naturally to the Bantu. Feminism is simply a way for non-Bantu females to indulge their inner Bantu while rationalizing it in high sounding jargon. That's why "Game" works.

Centralization of wealth is merely a way to for non-Bantu guys to try to compete with real Bantus for females.

This used to be held in check by individual male combat -- not boxing but real live tool-using kill-the-other-guy-with-everything-you've-got natural duels. Civilization took that defense against Africanization from us.

Anonymous said...

Centralization of wealth by "non-Bantu guys" has existed even where there were no "real Bantus" around. And how are they competing with "real Bantus" for females? Racial and ethnic groups still tend to stick to their own for the most part.

Why do they need to centralize wealth to compete against "real Bantus"? Or engage in "individual male combat" to defend against them? Why can't they just war against them or kick them out?

Jim Bowery said...

The competition for females is not direct. In large measure it is competition for control of females rather than mating with them directly: Intermediating sex.

Jews tend to do this by maintaining stables for females such as middle management, the arts (Hollywood being the most prominent example) and academia (where females just out of high school are put under their authority and indoctrinated into Holocaustianity).

The Bantus tend to do this via government but are making serious inroads into the areas traditionally dominated by Jews.

WASP are has-been wannabes in this game -- who are now reduced to trying to suck up to Bantus to maintain any status (ie: Bill Gates).

The reason war doesn't work is that it requires government and government is vulnerable to Bantu takeover. Witness dynstic Egypt and the US.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps they are in government, Obama and Cain being the most prominent examples.

But are the Bantus really making serious inroads into areas like corporations, Hollywood, finance, the media, etc.?

They have the highest unemployment rates. And last I checked, Hollywood, Wall St., MSM, etc. are still dominated by Jews.

Where's the evidence that Dynastic Egypt got taken over by Bantus? The Bantus were slaves in Egypt who were trafficked in along the Nile.

Jim Bowery said...

There are 3 separate issues here:

1) Over half of the Fortune 500 Chairmen/CEOs who every were black are currently holding those high positions. Hollywood has shifted its Christ figures from Jews to Blacks -- especially over the last 10 years as Holocaust movies have increasingly given way to innocent victim numinous Bantu heroes. Literally, the state religion is decreasingly Holocaustianity and increasingly Bantuanity. For a good analysis of this see the conclusion of Prof. Andrew Fraser's recent lecture introducing his book "The WASP Question." Hollywood Jews seem, once again, to be exposed as Bantu extended phenotypes just as the WASP elites (Episcopalians etc) became Jewish extended phenotypes up until their more recent conversion to Bantuanity.

2) There is more genetic variation among the Bantu than non-Bantu. One should expect a corresponding higher standard deviation in almost all other measures -- employment included. Averages for that group are virtually meaningless except insofar as they point to a strong pressure toward hierarchy and specialization in Bantu societies. Moreover, if you include civil service jobs you'll see that the US's jobs with the highest security*income product have gone preferentially to American Bantu.

3) Egyptian history is, of course, a focal point of much controversy. Let me simply point out that all efforts to colonize Africa by Europeans have resulted in population replacement of Euroman in Europe and its colonies -- and prime beneficiaries are Bantus.

Anonymous said...

1) What exactly do you mean by "extended phenotype"? How or why does one group become another group's extended phenotype? And how do we know that one group has become another's extended phenotype? What are the signs, evidence, etc. that suggest it?

2) You mention "a strong pressure toward hierarchy and specialization in Bantu societies". But isn't this more of a characteristic of the more advanced societies and civilizations in Eurasia among non-Bantus, rather than the relatively primitive societies of the Bantu? Civilization seems to be all about hierarchy, specialization, kings, aristocrats, class, etc.

Jim Bowery said...

1) Watch this video for an example of extended phenotypics in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df_iGe_JSzI

From the book "The Extended Phenotype" by Richard Dawkins chapter titled "Host Phenotypes of Parasite Genes":

"Many fascinating examples of parasites manipulating the behavior of their hosts can be given. For nematomorph larvae, who need to break out of their insect hosts and get into water where they live as adults, '...a major difficulty in the parasite's life is the return to water. It is, therefore, of particular interest that the parasite appears to affect the behavior of its host, and "encourages" it to return to water. The mechanism by which this is achieved is obscure, but there are sufficient isolated reports to certify that the parasite does influence its host, and often suicidally for the host... One of the more dramatic reports describes an infected bee flying over a pool and, when about six feet over it, diving straight into the water. Immediately on impact the gordian worm burst out and swam into the water, the maimed bee being left to die' (Croll 1966)."


2) Civilization may be seen as an Bantu extended phenotype. Think about a would-be bee-keeper who is so undisciplined that he can't resist destroying the bees as he goes for the honey.

The exploitation is along the lines of this passage taken from "The Extended Phenotype" chapter 4, "Arms Races and Manipulation":

"Several species of ant have no workers of their own. The queens invade nests of other species, dispose of the host queen, and use the host workers to bring up their own reproductive young. The method of disposing of the queen varies. In some species, such as the descriptively named Bothriomyrmex regicidus and B. decapitans, the parasite queen rides about on the back of the host queen and then, in Wilson's (1971) delightful description, 'begins the one act for which she is uniquely specialized: slowly cutting off the head of her victim' (p. 363)."

"Monomorium santschii achieves the same result by more subtle means. The host workers have weapons wielded by strong muscles, and nerves attached to the muscles; why should the parasite queen exert her own jaws if she can subvert the nervous systems controlling the numerous jaws of the host workers? It does not seem to be known how she achieves it, but she does: the host workers kill their own mother and adopt the usurper. A chemical secreted by the parasite queen seems the likely weapon, in which case it might be labeled a pheromone, but it is probably more illuminating to think of it as a formidably powerful drug. In line with this interpretation, Wilson (1971, p 413) writes of symphylic substances as being 'more than just elementary nutritive substances or even analogues of the natural host pheromones. Several authors have spoken of a narcotizing effect of symphylic substances.' Wilson also uses the word 'intoxicant' and quotes a case in which worker ants under the influence of such a substance become temporarily disoriented and less sure of their footing."

"Those who have never been brainwashed or addicted to a drug find it hard to understand their fellow men who are driven by such compulsions. In the same naive way we cannot understand a host bird's being compelled to feed an absurdly oversized cuckoo, or worker ants wantonly murdering the only being in the whole world that is vital to their genetic success. But such subjective feelings are misleading, even where the relatively crude achievements of human pharmacology are concerned. With natural selection working on the problem, who would be so presumptuous as to guess what feats of mind control might not be achieved?"

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the video and excerpts.

1) So can any and all manipulation/influence be regarded as extended phenotypics? If so then it seems that almost any kind of social interaction is susceptible to, and will likely involve, extended phenotypics. Even the normal social interaction in our everyday lives is rife with manipulation and influence, however subtle it may be. A "pure" or neutral social interaction seems almost impossible.

2) When you say that "civilization can be seen as a Bantu extended phenotype", do you mean contemporary Western civilization? Or do you mean the original, ancient civilizations which seem to have risen relatively independently from non-Bantus in various parts of the Mideast and Eurasia? If the latter, are you suggesting that Bantus or Bantu influence was somehow transmitted to these areas and expressed as civilization?

Or by "Bantu" do you mean something less literal and more metaphorical, signifying more primitive, older instincts within non-Bantus?

Jim Bowery said...

1) Yes. Humans have a serious problem with verbal communication, or, more generally "memes": They are replicators -- mind viruses, mind parasites, etc -- that are undergoing continual engineering by interested parties. Dawkins's book on the Extended Phenotype was, in fact, his swan song. I think he felt himself slipping away somehow and left a lasting legacy before going off into "deity worship nuts are the problem" land where he would never be a danger to the real meme engineers in places like media and academia. Indeed, when I met him in 1996 in Stanford, he spoke proudly of how he and his wife were evolutionary dead-ends. The cricket speaks.

But to the general point, the evolution of communication -- as opposed to manipulation -- is very much akin to the evolution of altruism. It is subject to the same exploits in a cosmopolitan environment. So manipulation via signaling taking on the appearance of communication is far more common in the present environment than in the environment in which communication evolved. We're in an evolutionary arms race to defect faster than the other guy while maintaining keeping active his obsolete instincts to think communication is still viable.

The end result of civilization is a bifurcation: 1) communication terminates as a genetic capacity and/or 2) communication takes a form similar to that in eusocial species even as civilization takes that form.

2) "Or by "Bantu" do you mean something less literal and more metaphorical, signifying more primitive, older instincts within non-Bantus?"

See this TED talk:

http://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_mcdougall_are_we_born_to_run.html


It is my working hypothesis that the real importance of McDougall's insight is that Africa -- very early Africa -- is the origin of civilization via such running packs of humans and the resulting near-eusociality as exemplified by his anecdote about Derartu Tulu.

As some moved out of Africa, wolf symbionts allowed them to recover a more individualistic character, but the eusociality trait is still latent and can be exploited.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the discussion, James Bowery.

You've opened my eyes to some things and "engineered" some memes into my mind.

I'll have to check out Dawkins' The Extended Phenotype and look into this topic some more.