Category: Jews vs. Gentiles

Human Symbiosis

What can we say about symbiosis in human interactions?

Symbiosis (from Greek συμβίωσις “living together”, from σύν “together” and βίωσις “living”)[2] is any type of a close and long-term biological interaction between two different biological organisms, be it mutualistic, commensalistic, or parasitic. The organisms, each termed a symbiont, may be of the same or of different species.

Let’s consider some aspects of symbiosis in human interactions, with an emphasis on inter-ethny relations.  This is not meant to be a comprehensive or final determination but merely an introduction, so these paradigms can be applied in future discussions when and where appropriate.

From the standpoint of gross EGI – looking at ethnic genetic interests without doing a full “balancing of the books” with respect to all the costs and benefits that determine the final outcome of adaptive fitness – then the presence of any genetically distinct minority group (no matter how small the genetic distance to the majority group) within a majoritarian state will exhibit parasitism, or at least amensalism, with respect to the majority group. The majority group is always harmed by the presence of the minority group with respect to gross EGI because the fixed carrying capacity of the territory reduces the final number of majority members that can fill that niche space, due to the presence of the minority group. This is akin to Yockey’s “Culture Parasitism” in which the parasitic group (in Yockey’s thesis, the outgroup is defined in terms of culture rather than genetics) reduces the numbers of the host High Culture majority group.  If the parasitic group benefits (as is usual) from living in the territory of the majority group that is parasitism; if there is no benefit, it is amensalism. The majority is harmed in all cases.  If the majority fights back, then we have competition, which can be harmful to both sides.

This conflict can end once assimilation of the minority group takes place; the minority becomes part of the majority so that symbiosis per se is not relevant.  However, the genetic costs to the majority of assimilating the minority is harmful to the EGI of the original majority stock (and is of course harmful to that of the minority stock). Once assimilation is complete however, we have a new people with its own set of genetic (and other) interests.

What about net EGI – the final, adaptive fitness outcome when the “balancing of the books” is complete – as well as proximate interests?  We can consider the various types of symbiosis.

Mutualism – both groups benefit.  For groups living in different polities it is possible – there can be alliances, cultural or economic exchanges, many possible types of mutualistic interactions, particularly between relatively closely related groups. For groups living in the same polity, this becomes more problematic.  One can envision two relatively similar groups supporting each other in competition with more alien competing outgroups – and this alliance become more tenable when the closely related allied groups are undergoing inter-marriage and assimilation. The various European ethnic groups in America are an example of this. Of course, this imposes costs on gross EGI; however, it may, dependent upon context, boost net EGI, if the benefits of the alliance – e.g., outcompeting the more genetically and culturally alien outgroups – outweigh the genetic costs in diluting a more concentrated EGI.

Commensalism – one group benefits while the other is neither harmed nor helped. Commensalism is common in individual or small scale human interactions.  Person A throws out some garbage, while person B finds that garbage useful and derives benefit from it. B is helped, while A is neither helped nor harmed.  It is difficult to think of examples – even when disregarding gross EGI – where larger scale human interactions within the same territory are truly commensal.  Perhaps, interactions between different separate nations can be commensal – the byproducts (even memetic) of one nation/people/ethny benefit another and the originator of the product is neither helped nor harmed.  But if both groups are residing in the same niche space, truly authentic examples of commensalism would be relatively rare.  Usually there are at least some benefits or harms, even if relatively marginal, to one group in contrast to the more obvious benefit enjoyed by another group. Unfortunately, many human interactions in the same niche space is zero sum game – parasitism, predation, and competition will be more common than commensalism. Given the relatively rarity of a true lack of effects on large groups, mutualism will be more common than commensalism as well.

Parasitism – one group benefits while harming the other group is harmed. The classic example is of Jews living in White nations, with the Jews benefiting and the Whites being harmed. This has been such a constant paradigm throughout history that a Wikipedia article has been made on it.  Of course, in some cases, Jewish parasitism descends into predation and/or if the afflicted host peoples fight back, competition.

Bowery’s ideas about extended phenotypes in human groups – as an extension of some of Dawkins’ work – are relevant here. One group controls the behavior of a second group so that the former benefits and the latter are harmed; here the second group acts as the extended phenotype of the first.  Jews controlling the societal milieu so as to modify White gentile behavior for Jewish benefit (and White harm) comes to mind; thus, White gentiles often become the extended phenotypes of Jews. The Whites are unable to control their own behavior and behave self-destructively to serve Jewish interests.

Are White HBDers the extended phenotypes of Jews and Asians, particularly East Asians?  Were “White ethnic” members of the National Alliance the extended phenotype of William Pierce? 

Free-riding also comes into play here. When one group benefits from collective social goods to which they do not contribute, they benefit while the contributing groups are often harmed, since they carry the burden of contributing not only for themselves but for the non-contributing group. That is parasitism.

Predation – one group openly attacks and destroys the other.  For example, considering the role Jews play in America controlling sociopolitical systems to benefit themselves at the expense of Whites, that can be considered parasitism; however, considering Jews in the Soviet Union killing millions of Slavs, that is predation. The criminal attacks of Coloreds against Whites in multiracial nations is also predation, although of course parasitism is another key feature of Colored-White relations (typically, Coloreds benefit while Whites are harmed, although Negro slavery can be an example of the reverse). Race replacement, displacement, and White flight are examples of parasitism moving into predation, with undertones of competition when, rarely, Whites resist.

Neutralism – no effects for either group. Neutralism is possible between peoples living in separate nations, but for people living in the same territory, neutralism is extremely unlikely. There will be some types of positive and negative effects for either or both groups. There may be limited examples of very closely related groups living in the same polity that can have, in certain contexts and for certain periods of time, neutralistic relations, but that is rare.  More distant groups are unlikely to be neutralistic, even when disregarding gross EGI, because the differences between them will always manifest in proximate frictions that affect net EGI.

Amensalism – one group suffers no benefit or harm, but the other group is harmed.  Like commensalism, this is expected to be rare, since it is unlikely that the harm to one group in a polity would not benefit another. Perhaps there can be examples with relatively closely related groups.  If the groups are in separate nations it can be possible that the activities of one harms the other without benefiting the one causing the harm.  Symbiosis in which both groups are affected in some way would be more common than that in which one or both groups are not affected at all.

Competition – both groups are harmed. Competition is considered harmful to both sides, and often this is the case, at least until one side emerges victorious (if such occurs), after which the relationship may change (to, e.g., assimilation, parasitism, etc.).  

Both Yockey and MacDonald have written that the reaction against an intrusive group, even when necessary, can harm the group resisting.  If I recall, Yockey invoked the analogy of a fever, which, while helpful in combating the invasive pathogen, also harms, at least in the short run, the invaded host.

On the other hand, one can think of situations where, in the long term, competition could be beneficial to one or both sides even in the absence of a “final victory.”  Some would say one reason why Europe had so many advancements was the competition between different European nations – a completion that forced and fostered a constant “arms race” of competitive advantages – as opposed of a centralized massive Chinese state lacking in the dynamism of such constant internal turmoil. Of course, today, the level of competition is global, so the same dynamism could be provoked by a confederation of Europe vs. China.  

However, if one defines competition as something which is inherently harmful to both sides, then a situation in which competition is beneficial to one side but not the other would be, for example, parasitism and if beneficial to both sides, mutualism.  

The problem in putting predation into the completion category in that sense is that one could argue that predation benefits the predator (although there are risks in predation, sometimes the prey can kill the predator). One could argue that natural selection from predators improves the prey – mutualism?  It’s complicated.

It is of course possible for the types of symbiosis to change over time (e.g., from parasitism to predation). In heterosexual relationships, particularly marriage, the typical trajectory is that the relationship starts out as mutualism (both sides benefit) then transitions to commensalism (female benefits, male is neutral), and then ends up as parasitism (female benefits, male is harmed).  If the marriage ends up in divorce, female parasitism on the male can become extreme, even moving into predation. Note than even during the mutualism phase, the male can be considered as the extended phenotype of the female, with male behavior controlled through sexual exploitation. Also see this. The man is hormonally domesticated so as to be exploited by the woman in marriage.

Ultimately, the woman is to the man as the Jew is to the gentile.

What is observed in marriage can apply on a broader scale to relations between ethnies.

Genes and Health in Der News

In all cases, emphasis added.

But, but, but….I thought we were all exactly the same:

The inclusion of diverse ancestries in the present meta-analyses allowed us to identify two loci that would have been missed in meta-analyses of European-ancestry individuals alone. In particular, the lead variant (rs141588480) in the SNTA1 locus is only polymorphic in African and Hispanic ancestries, and the lead variant (rs190748049) in the CNTNAP2 locus is four times more frequent in African-ancestry than in European-ancestry. Our findings highlight the importance of multi-ancestry investigations of gene-lifestyle interactions to identify novel loci.

Comparing admixed Latin Americans to the Finnish population isolate: 

Most population isolates examined to date were founded from a single ancestral population. Consequently, there is limited knowledge about the demographic history of admixed population isolates. Here we investigate genomic diversity of recently admixed population isolates from Costa Rica and Colombia and compare their diversity to a benchmark population isolate, the Finnish. These Latin American isolates originated during the 16th century from admixture between a few hundred European males and Amerindian females, with a limited contribution from African founders. We examine whole-genome sequence data from 449 individuals, ascertained as families to build mutigenerational pedigrees, with a mean sequencing depth of coverage of approximately 36×. We find that Latin American isolates have increased genetic diversity relative to the Finnish. However, there is an increase in the amount of identity by descent (IBD) segments in the Latin American isolates relative to the Finnish. The increase in IBD segments is likely a consequence of a very recent and severe population bottleneck during the founding of the admixed population isolates. Furthermore, the proportion of the genome that falls within a long run of homozygosity (ROH) in Costa Rican and Colombian individuals is significantly greater than that in the Finnish, suggesting more recent consanguinity in the Latin American isolates relative to that seen in the Finnish. Lastly, we find that recent consanguinity increased the number of deleterious variants found in the homozygous state, which is relevant if deleterious variants are recessive. Our study suggests that there is no single genetic signature of a population isolate.

Alon Ziv weeps.  In this case, the more admixed populations, with their bottlenecks and consanguinity, have significant stretches of homozygosity and more deleterious alleles than the more isolated Finns.  So, “increased genetic diversity” does not necessarily equate to fewer deleterious alleles.  And all of this doesn’t even consider outbreeding depression from breaking up coadapted gene complexes.

Alcohol consumption, SNPs, and ancestry:

Alcohol consumption is a complex trait determined by both genetic and environmental factors, and is correlated with the risk of alcohol use disorders. Although a small number of genetic loci have been reported to be associated with variation in alcohol consumption, genetic factors are estimated to explain about half of the variance in alcohol consumption, suggesting that additional loci remain to be discovered. We conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of alcohol consumption in the large Genetic Epidemiology Research in Adult Health and Aging (GERA) cohort, in four race/ethnicity groups: non-Hispanic whites, Hispanic/Latinos, East Asians and African Americans. We examined two statistically independent phenotypes reflecting subjects’ alcohol consumption during the past year, based on self-reported information: any alcohol intake (drinker/non-drinker status) and the regular quantity of drinks consumed per week (drinks/week) among drinkers. We assessed these two alcohol consumption phenotypes in each race/ethnicity group, and in a combined trans-ethnic meta-analysis comprising a total of 86 627 individuals. We observed the strongest association between the previously reported single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs671 in ALDH2 and alcohol drinker status (odd ratio (OR)=0.40, P=2.28 × 10-72) in East Asians, and also an effect on drinks/week (beta=-0.17, P=5.42 × 10-4) in the same group. We also observed a genome-wide significant association in non-Hispanic whites between the previously reported SNP rs1229984 in ADH1B and both alcohol consumption phenotypes (OR=0.79, P=2.47 × 10-20 for drinker status and beta=-0.19, P=1.91 × 10-35 for drinks/week), which replicated in Hispanic/Latinos (OR=0.72, P=4.35 × 10-7 and beta=-0.21, P=2.58 × 10-6, respectively). Although prior studies reported effects of ADH1B and ALDH2 on lifetime measures, such as risk of alcohol dependence, our study adds further evidence of the effect of the same genes on a cross-sectional measure of average drinking. Our trans-ethnic meta-analysis confirmed recent findings implicating the KLB and GCKR loci in alcohol consumption, with strongest associations observed for rs7686419 (beta=-0.04, P=3.41 × 10-10 for drinks/week and OR=0.96, P=4.08 × 10-5 for drinker status), and rs4665985 (beta=0.04, P=2.26 × 10-8 for drinks/week and OR=1.04, P=5 × 10-4 for drinker status), respectively. Finally, we also obtained confirmatory results extending previous findings implicating AUTS2, SGOL1 and SERPINC1 genes in alcohol consumption traits in non-Hispanic whites.

Jews and Europeans have, apparently, been enemies from the very beginning.

As members of Der Movement agonize over those dastardly “Big Pharma products” violating our precious bodily fluids via injection (the horrors of vaccination!  Louis Pasteur the cryptic Jew!  Jew doctors!), the real threat to White health is that that the average White has a BMI rivalling that of a black hole singularity. That is why diseases like Type 2 Diabetes are increasing in frequency, including among the young. But, hey, those needles are real scary and all.  Big Pharma!  Big Pharma!  Pass another Big Mac, please.

The Ascent of Saint Adolf

Brief book review. 

Reading this relatively new Hitler book, which concentrates on the first 50 years of Hitler’s life (1889-1939) I note that it contains the usual snide, conformist, and biased anti-Hitler and anti-NS comments one comes to expect from politicized hacks. The anti-Hitler and anti-NS comments come fast and furious; after all, Mr. Ullrich, the author, has to maintain his status in polite society as a good-white cuck (and also does not want to suffer the same fate as David Irving, eh?).

One example of Ullrich’s gratuitous anti-Hitlerism is his smug labelling of the grand architectural plans of Hitler and Speer as “sheer insanity” and “megalomania.”  In contrast, I view those plans as inspiring, and as a reasonable model of what a European Imperium should build – nay, even greater than Hitler and Speer had planned!  

Hitler and Speer planned for the ages, planned for eternity, planned for what they hoped would be a German Empire.  What would the likes of Ullrich wish to see instead, I wonder?  A “Germany” full of mosques, perhaps, with NECs running wild in the streets and African Negroes swinging from the trees?  If that’s what they wish, they are, thanks to Mama Merkel, well along in those developments. “Germany” as a subaltern cuck nation colonized by the Third World: that sounds like a textbook definition of “sheer insanity” to me.

Particularly amusing is the author’s description of the Nuremberg race laws as an example of “grotesque senselessness” because of some sort of alleged inability of the Nazis to define Jewish ancestry (which, for some mysterious reason, the Jews themselves were perfectly capable of doing).  Modern genetics confirms the validity of the Nuremberg concept, as even quarter-Jews can be genetically distinguished from gentile Europeans.  The bulk of what we know as Jews constitute a reasonably defined ethnic group, and certainly, within that larger grouping, the Ashkenazim, consisting of the vast bulk of those Jews that the Nuremberg laws dealt with, constitute a particularly well defined ethny.  Given the strong correspondence between Jewish identity and Jewish genetics, the Nazi identification of, say, a half-Jew, as someone with two grandparents belonging to the “Jewish religious community,” is actually biologically sound, and far from the “grotesque senselessness” that the scientifically illiterate Ullrich pretends it is.

There are some even more obvious factual errors in the book as well; for example, what to make of September 27, 1939 being described as “several weeks before the beginning of the Second World War” (emphasis added)?

An annoying part of the book is all the sob stories about the “persecution” of the Jews during this pre-WWII period of the Nazi regime. We have the gnashing of the teeth about Kristallnacht, as well as the alleged horrors Jews suffered in Vienna after the Anschluss – university professors made to scrub the streets with their bare hands, or “pious” old Jews made to do “leg squats” in temples while yelling “Heil Hitler!”  But didn’t others have things worse, including ethnies that were the victims of Jewish communist-led genocide?  How many Slavs were slaughtered by the Jews in the Soviet Union?  Was scrubbing the streets or doing deep knee bends worse than millions of Ukrainians being deliberately starved to death in the Holodomor, while grinning Levantines carted off the foodstuffs?   Ullrich doesn’t have the common decency to acknowledge that Nazi “persecution” of Jews was at least in part motivated by the knowledge of what Jewish communists did to Europeans in the USSR, and the fear that they would have done the same in Germany if they had the opportunity. Yes, indeed, I would assume that Ukrainians watching their children die from starvation would have wished they could have got off easy by scrubbing streets and squatting up and down a few times.  But, hey, they were only Slav gentiles, so who cares about them, right?  

Ignoring all of these glaring flaws, the book is fairly well-written and the objective facts buried under the subjective hysteria do shed some light on the Hitler phenomenon, but I came away from this book with a profound disrespect for Ullrich and his “character.”

And Hitler himself?  Saint Adolf was like an individual given a choice of what to do with his money: either put it into prudent, long-term investments; or got to a casino and engage in the most risky forms of high-stakes gambling – and chooses the latter, losing everything.  The money in this case represents the long-term EGI of the German people and of Europeans as a whole, and, also, the money represents the legitimacy of “Far Right” nationalism, particularly fascist thought, and especially the tenets of National Socialism.  Hitler, being the archetype of the Type I “movement” Nutzi and ethnic fetishist, of course took the gambling route, losing all and ruining all; indeed, it is no wonder Saint Adolf is a grand hero and role model for Der Movement, Inc., since the behavioral patterns of he and they are exactly the same.  In summary: Hitler was an idiot.

The Scorpion and the Frog

Europeans are the Frog.  Guess who the Scorpion is.

A summary.

A scorpion asks a frog to carry it across a river. The frog hesitates, afraid of being stung, but the scorpion argues that if it did so, they would both drown. Considering this, the frog agrees, but midway across the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both. When the frog asks the scorpion why, the scorpion replies that it was in its nature to do so.

Read this – Quinn’s finale on the MacDonald-Cofnas dustup.

See this article from 2010, which is relevant to the questions and criticisms of Quinn.

Ultimately, in a sense, Quinn is correct in that whether the Jews are, or are not, acting on behalf of their own evolutionary group interests is irrelevant from the perspective of the victims of Jewish behavior.  Maybe the Jews hate Whites more than they love themselves.  Maybe the Jews are dooming themselves by their embrace of, and promotion of, the poisons they are using to undermine European survival.  It could be irrational; it could just be their nature, as like the Scorpion in stinging the Frog.  In Mein Kampf Hitler asserted that if the Jews succeeded in destroying Aryans, they would turn on each other next, in hate-filled struggle.  Of course, whether or not the Jews will destroy themselves does not obligate Europeans to allow themselves to be destroyed as well.  For the victim of murder, a murder followed by the suicide of the murderer is not more palatable than murder alone.

Perhaps Europeans should worry more about defending themselves against Jewish behavior rather than worrying whether or not that behavior is, or is not, evolutionarily beneficial to Jews.  We need to shift the focus on us rather than on them.