The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Lance Welton Archive
Are Southpaws Really Sinister? Increased Incidence Suggests We’re Headed for “Mouse Utopia” Collapse
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
lefthand6

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

See also: Of Mice and Men: ”Spiteful Mutations” Look Bad For The West

Between 1968 and 1973, a fascinating experiment took place at the University of Maryland. Led by the startlingly creative scientist John B. Calhoun (1917-1995). Tts aim was to understand what would happen if Darwinian selection massively weakened. [Death Squared: The explosive growth and demise of a mouse population, by John B. Calhoun, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 1973] In creating this “Mouse Utopia” (pictured right) the experiment replicated post-industrial conditions in the West, where child mortality has fallen from 40% to about 1% since 1800, due to dramatically improved medicine and living conditions. The results were horrifying: increasingly bizarre behaviour patterns, a collapse in reproduction, eventual extinction. Are we in our own “Mouse Utopia” in which Darwinian selection has collapsed? The latest piece of evidence for this: we are becoming more left-handed.

A surprising number of recent US presidents have been southpaws. Obama, George W. Bush, Reagan, Carter and Ford would all have probably smudged their writing when they were at school. However, we are not evolved to be left-handed to any significant degree.

According to New Zealand psychologist Michael Corballis,the human propensity to be right-handed is caused by our heightened ability to communicate. The left hemisphere controls vocalization in most species. As our ancestors learned to walk upright, they started using their hands to communicate as well as their voices. They used their right hand, because this is controlled by the left hemisphere. Increased use of the right hand meant that we started employing the right hand for pretty much everything. [From mouth to hand: Gesture, speech, and the evolution of right-handedness, By Michael Corballis, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, April, 2003]

So, the “norm” is to be left-hemisphere-dominant for language. According to Corballis, if somebody is left-handed, this means that they are right-hemisphere dominant for language. This can only happen if they have an asymmetrical brain structure, which uses the right-side more than it should. We are evolved to be symmetrical—that’s why the essence of beauty is symmetry—so it follows that left-handed people have more mutant genes, causing asymmetry directly; or a poor immune system, meaning they are not strong enough to maintain a symmetrical phenotype in the face of disease.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, being left-handed is associated with numerous markers of “developmental instability”—that something has gone wrong; a situation generally reflective of “mutational load.” Left-handed people display elevated levels of depression, autism, slightly lower IQ (an average difference of about one point), outlier high IQ (which often happens due to mutation as it is associated with poor mental and physical heath) or outlier low IQ, psychopathic personality, homosexuality, pedophilia, transsexuality, and of numerous physical conditions, such as allergies. Unsurprisingly, southpaws thus end up with low a lower average socioeconomic status. [Review and theory of handedness, birth order, and homosexuality in men, By Ray Blanchard, Laterality, 2008]

Pedophiles are not only much more likely to be left-handed but also to display other evidence of mutation, such as attached earlobes and facial asymmetry. [Paedophiles ‘most likely to be left handed’, By Danny Boyle, Daily Telegraph,June 10, 2015]

So, if Darwinian selection has collapsed, then we should be becoming more mutated and, therefore, more left-handed and higher in all of the correlates of left-handedness, including low intelligence. And this is exactly the finding of a recently-published study by British psychologist Michael Woodley of Menie and his team. [Sinistrality is associated with (slightly) lower general intelligence: A data synthesis and consideration of secular trend data in handedness, By Michael Woodley of Menie et al., HOMO, May 2018].

Based on studies of photographs of people waving, the team find that left-handedness has increased from 3% of the British population in the mid-nineteenth century to 12% today. This rise in “sinistrality”, they demonstrate, would also reflect decreasing intelligence in Western countries, because mutational load makes the nervous system work less well and so modestly impairs the working of the brain.

But there’s a very interesting wrinkle to this rise in our use of the sinister hand. Another Woodley paper [Social Epistasis Amplifies the Fitness Costs of Deleterious Mutations, Engendering Rapid Fitness Decline Among Modernized Populations, By Michael Woodley of Menie et al., Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2017] argues that in Calhoun’s Mouse Utopia—in the absence of predators, food shortage or adverse weather conditions—the population skyrocketed, just as happened after the Industrial Revolution. Then, just as has happened to us, growth started to slow down, in part because, according to Woodley’s team, more and more surviving mutants no longer had the inclination to breed.

The bizarre behaviour patterns the Calhoun team began to observe: highly aggressive females expelling their offspring from the nest before they’d learnt how to socialise, celibate masculinized females, and groups of effeminate males—known as “the beautiful ones”—who spent all their time grooming each other, with no interest in fighting for territory or in females. Eventually, the majority of mice were mutants of these kinds, meaning that the “normal” mice weren’t socialised properly and so never learnt “normal” behaviour among these relatively complex social animals. As a result, there came a point where no more mice were born, and the colony gradually died out.

Obviously, the parallels to the modern world are striking: Effeminate men, masculine women, the breakdown of the traditional order.

In our harsh, predictable ecology, Europeans have been selected to cooperate and create strongly bounded social bonds, because groups with these characteristics are more likely to survive. So, it shouldn’t be a surprise that in warm, unpredictable environments—where basic needs are met—left-handedness is much higher, because there is less selection against the correlates of left-handedness like autism, psychopathology and low IQ. Among the Yanomamö of Venezuela—one of the most violent tribes in the world, called “The Fierce People” by other tribes—the rate of left-handedness is an astonishing 22.6% [Left-handers flourish in violent society, By Michael Hopkins, Nature, December 7,2004]

Insomuch we have no John Calhoun to maintain our utopia, we won’t die out. We’ll simply become more like the Fierce People as our IQ declines and our lack of empathy—our autism—increases. Indeed, autism is associated with high testosterone, itself associated with low empathy and aggressiveness [The extreme male brain theory of autism, By Simon Baron-Cohen, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2002, 6: 248-254].

It has been shown that females who experience high prenatal exposure to testosterone—through their mother’s adrenal hyperplasia—tend to not only look more masculine but think in a more masculine way. They are lower in empathy, higher in spatial intelligence, and more inclined towards “male” professions, such as engineering [Early hormonal influences on cognitive functioning in congenital adrenal hyperplasia, By S. Resnick et al., Developmental Psychology, (1986)]. These women are also more likely to be left-handed [Congenital adrenal hyperplasia and cerebral lateralizations, By Emanuel Tirosh et al., Pediatric Neurology, May-June 1993], with left-handed women being better at visio-spatial tasks than right-handed ones [Neurological Assessment, By Muriel Lezak et al., Oxford University Press, 2004, p.304].

A large number of studies have found that science students, despite being more intelligent on average than Humanities students, are more likely to be left-handed than Humanities students [Comparative analyses of neurocognitive measures in male and female artists, engineers, and writers, by Patricia Ryaby, Ohio State University, 1987]. Males are consistently about 1.5 times more left-handed than females. Remarkably, roughly 70% of lesbians are non-right-handed. Male to female transsexuals are 36% left-handed [See The Left Hander Syndrome, By Stanley Coren].

So there seem to be two evolutionary forces acting to increase sinistrality. On the one hand, there is a general increase in mutational load, mutations are co-morbid, and, therefore, more people are left-handed and left-handedness is associated with other markers of developmental instability such as transsexuality and homosexuality.

On the other hand, the selection intensity against people who are high in testosterone, aggressive, uncooperative and autistic has specifically weakened, and these people are more likely to be left-handed as well.

Looking on the bright side, people with outstandingly high IQ are prone to being left-handed, so perhaps one of them will find a solution to our problem.

But, at the moment, we seem to be following the same path as Calhoun’s Mouse Utopia. If the mice in the final phases of the experiment could have walked upright, it seems probable they would have been southpaws.

Lance Welton [Email him] is the pen name of a freelance journalist living in New York.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science • Tags: Dysgenic, Left-Handed 
Hide 112 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Gracebear says:

    I’m struck by the number of lefthanded Jews I’ve observed, as well as left handed actors in movies or on tv. So often a character in a 19th century play or novel is shown in a tv dramatization as writing a letter with his or her left hand.

  2. Or else it shows an adaptation to a world where people have to use devices which require competence with both hands. The standards QWERTY keyboard, for example, requires using the left hand more than the right one on average.

  3. FKA Max says: • Website

    high testosterone, itself associated with low empathy and aggressiveness

    I just commented on this on one of your recent articles:


    Testosterone is not a criminality, but primarily a dominance hormone.

    [...]
    In men, high levels of endogenous testosterone (T) seem to encourage behavior intended to dominate–to enhance one’s status over–other people. Sometimes dominant behavior is aggressive, its apparent intent being to inflict harm on another person, but often dominance is expressed nonaggressively.
    [...]
    East Asians were found to have the highest average total plasma testosterone (5,673 ρg/mL) followed by Africans (5,442 ρg/mL) and then Europeans (4,992 ρg/mL).

    http://www.unz.com/article/dysgenics-and-low-creativity-why-china-cant-save-civilization/#comment-2520183

    Single-dose testosterone administration increases men’s preference for status goods

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04923-0

    Asian Americans are more materialistic and status oriented than White/European Americans:

    Asian Americans and materialism: Exploring the phenomenon and its why and when.

    Objectives: Consumer values, including but not limited to materialism, have received much less attention than other topics within research on Asian Americans. Methods: Across 3 studies (N = 6,955), the author explored the difference between Asian Americans and White/European Americans on materialism, and the mediating and moderating mechanisms. Results: Studies 1a–1c found Asian Americans, compared to White/European Americans, more strongly endorsed materialistic values. In Study 2, the author tested a multiple mediation model and demonstrated that Asian Americans, compared to White/European Americans, more strongly endorse materialistic values because they reported higher extrinsic aspirations (i.e., stronger desires for money, image, and popularity). Finally, in Study 3, the author tested a moderation model and found that Asian Americans who are higher on a general tendency to adhere to norms endorse a greater level of materialism than White/European Americans. Conclusions: The author discussed how these results have implications for expanding the research topics within research on Asian Americans, consequences for mental health and provide future directions to counteract materialism.

    http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-24365-001

    There is also this:

    TESTOSTERONE LEVELS can affect performance on some tests. Women with high levels of testosterone perform better on spatial tasks (top) than women with low levels do, but men with low levels outperform men with high levels. On a test of perceptual speed in which women usually excel (bottom), no relation was found between testosterone and performance.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/pollution-perplexity-author-replies/#comment-2528635

  4. I’m left handed. Let that be a warning!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  5. My ex-wife’s mother was born in 1930 and was originally left-handed. When she started school, they re-trained her to be right-handed, which was supposedly a common practice in those days. The ending of this practice could be a significant factor in the increase of left-handedness since then.

  6. Dutch Boy says:

    Testosterone is associated with autism because it enhances the toxicity of heavy metals (which is why boys are four times as likely to develop autism as girls). The heavy metals (aluminum and mercury) and the antigens in vaccines cause a phenomenon known as the cell danger response, in which normal cell functioning is compromised by an alteration in the mitochondria of the nerve cells.
    “However, relatively simple measures like
    distributing vaccinations over time, instead of giving a large number at
    once would decrease the chances of triggering an excessive CDR in
    individual children deemed to be at increased risk.” Of course, our “health” authorities and medical practitioners have been doing the opposite, piling on vaccines and multiple simultaneous administrations.

    http://naviauxlab.ucsd.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Naviaux_APT_Review2017.pdf

  7. El Dato says:
    @Dutch Boy

    Not the “vaccines cause autism” bollocks again. Didn’t that get debunkjed about 20 years ago?

    Also, aluminum is not a heavy metal. Linked to Alzheimer’s though. Don’t eat from alu pots.

    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
    , @Ger
    , @Jo A-S
  8. Gordo says:

    This, and previous related articles, are actually scary.

    The old people knew of course: left-handers are the children of Satan.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  9. Sean says:

    Gay men are more likely to be left handed only if they prefer to have sex by passively taking it up the butt. Gay men who like to sodomise other men (ie take the dominant role in anal intercourse) are no more likely to be left handed than heterosexual men.

    • Replies: @Wally
  10. Sean says:

    https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/01/14/hyper-masculine-behavior-among-iron-age-scandinavian-men/

    It is well attested that strangers, newcomers and trespassers in many societies and at many times have been subjected to homosexual anal violation as a way of reminding them of their subordinate status (Dover 1989: 105). The phallus was the most powerful weapon because it killed a man’s honour, that is, he became socially killed, and it was the medium through which the practitioner (man or woman) was penetrated during the sei∂ r performance.

  11. maltnet says:

    Great article Mr. Welton, from a baseball-pitchin’-southpaw too : ).

  12. Anonymous[176] • Disclaimer says:
    @Gordo

    Thanks, Church Lady. You’re the best!

  13. Biff says:

    I am right handed, but I have used my left on occasion.

  14. Ned Flanders was a notorious “lefty” and a promoter of Left handedness within the community of Springfield. What does that tell us ?
    No seriously, what does it tell us ?

    • Replies: @Anonymous Jew
  15. @Fidelios Automata

    …they re-trained her to be right-handed, which was supposedly a common practice in those days. The ending of this practice could be a significant factor in the increase of left-handedness since then.

    Yes, this seems plausible.

    In my own case, misfortune re-trained me the other way. I started out right-handed, then a badly broken right arm at age six put me in a cast for an extended period. I came out left-handed. I could no longer use my right-hander’s baseball glove. Adults and teachers noted that I had switched hands for writing.

    Whether relevant or not, I developed very serious OCD at age fourteen.

    Much later, after finishing college in fact, I decided to re-learn writing with my right hand. It only took a few days and I have been an ambidextrous writer ever since. The OCD lingers on in muted form, sometimes flaring up badly, and may or may not have anything to do with this subject.

  16. Epigon says:
    @Dutch Boy

    Testosterone is associated with autism because it enhances the toxicity of heavy metals

    The heavy metals (aluminum and mercury)

    Yeah, you totally know what you are writing about.

    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
  17. Miggle says:

    It all looks like nonsense to me. Whether you are left- or right-handed is matter of habit.

    About five years ago an astonishing thing happened. It was observed that a particular pianist was playing the piano with both hands! At the same time! A thing never seen before!

    Even more astonishing, earlier this year news channels all over the world headlined an astonishing, unprecedented event. A touch-typist was seen typing on a keyboard with both hands! Can you believe it!?

  18. Anonymous[392] • Disclaimer says:
    @WorkingClass

    Stay away from my kids!

  19. U. Ranus says:

    Here’s more fun science. Please help me out here… does this mean that Conservative-Republican preference is a marker of developmental instability and mutational load?

    Handedness predicts Conservative-Republican preference and eliminates relations of Big Five personality to political orientation using the 48 contiguous American states as analytical units.

    The two present nomothetic studies focused on the period from 1996 to 2012 to determine relations between handedness and political orientation using the 48 contiguous American states as analytical units. The estimated percentage of left-handers in each state operationally defined handedness. A composite measure of Conservative-Republican preference was created from CBS/New York Times/Gallup polls of state resident conservatism and the percent in each state voting Republican in each presidential election from 1996 to 2012. Study 1 showed that state levels of left-handedness correlated to an extremely high degree with Conservative-Republican preference (r = -.80). As well, with common demographic differences between states reflected in socioeconomic status, White population percent, and urban population percent controlled through multiple regression, handedness still accounted for an additional 37.2% of the variance in Conservative-Republican preference. Study 2 found that each of the Big Five personality variables correlated significantly with handedness and with Conservative-Republican preference, but in the opposite direction. Furthermore, Study 2 demonstrated quite surprisingly that all Big Five personality relations to Conservative-Republican preference were eliminated when handedness was controlled in multiple regression equations. For all regression equations, the global Moran’s I test specifically developed for detecting residual spatial autocorrelation indicated no significant spatial autocorrelation.

  20. Anonymous[392] • Disclaimer says:

    This is very interesting.

    Especially the rise of left handedness amongst the Brittish which correlates with all kinds of debauchery seen from their society including homosexuality and pedofelia.

    I am willing to bet that left handedness is much higher amongst the elite royalty than it is the prole class.

    • Replies: @Alfred
  21. @Fidelios Automata

    Happened to me in early 70s grade school. For 2 years I was retrained to dextrousness (dextrocity?), then the practice was abandoned. I re-re-trained myself with the effect that my handwriting remains messy with either hand so, yay keyboards!

  22. All I know is that a left-handed quarterback is an abomination in the eyes of both God and man. Sorry, Steve Young.

    I am, however, okay with southpaw baseball pitchers.

  23. Is this supposed to be some kind of fricking joke?

    Only someone utterly disconnected from reality could possible compare modern societies to a mouse Utopia. And lefthandedness as a sign of, get this, mutational load? Mutational load is a garbage concept anyway that shows that Lance Welton does not even comprehend the pseudoscience that is genetics. It is idiocy piled on top of idiocy.

    I would say this piece has to be a parody, but unfortunately it is a pretty fair representation of the crap that HBDers actually believe.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
  24. @Dutch Boy

    Perhaps researchers should be trying to work on vaccines that have no heavy metals in them rather than changing the distribution of vaccines over time. We should not have toxic metals in our body at all period.

  25. pyrrhus says:

    Intelligence declining, left handedness increasing….yep.

  26. Andrewk says:

    Could it be that the current fashion of starting to reproduce after 30 is the real culprit of the unwelcome mutations?

  27. The authorI presume has examined the brains of prehistoric humans and has contemporary accounts of their use of hands in communication, as otherwise all of this would be sheer speculation.

    What does “collapse of Darwinian selection” mean? Selection cannnot collapse. It adapts to existent conditionsl. A welfare mother with an IQ of 50 and thierteen retarded children is adapting to environmental conditions, namely welfare. It is not a collapse. The author seems to thik that evoltuion has a direction. It does not.

    • Agree: Beckow
  28. Truth says:

    Now this is a good article. Far cry from the normal divide-and-conquer screed around here.

    Good job Welton and Unz.

  29. Anonymous[392] • Disclaimer says:
    @Frederick V. Reed

    Fred, I think what the author means by Darwinian selection is that in the past we could expect to see a certain percentage of people (especially males) culled from our population due to war, disease, starvation, etc etc.

    Having less people die is presumably a good thing for society, but not without its consequences.

  30. utu says:

    The increase rate of left handedness is related to the spread of homosexual masturbation that demand increased dexterity of both hands. Michael Woodley of Meeny, Miny and Moe should know something about it.

  31. @Frederick V. Reed

    What does “collapse of Darwinian selection” mean? Selection cannnot collapse. It adapts to existent conditionsl. A welfare mother with an IQ of 50 and thierteen retarded children is adapting to environmental conditions, namely welfare. It is not a collapse.

    You continue to misunderstand evolution, Fred. No problem, as many, if not most, people do not understand it. You’re getting old — to the age where one begins to be sure that one’s opinion is inevitably correct. No biggie — I’m almost there meself.

    Natural selection is not an active process. It is not directed. It has no consciousness, no goal, no motivation. Those who survive to reproduce are products of selection; existing environmental factors provide the mechanism.

    When there’s no food, everyone dies — there’s no survival possible. Individuals who are bigger, stronger, smarter die along with the rest. When a disease attacks a population, everyone susceptible dies: only those with resistance to that specific disease/organism survive to reproduce. Individuals who are bigger, stronger, smarter die along with the rest.

    Natural selection is not a question of “better”, but one of sufficiency. If one CAN survive in a specific circumstance, one might. Those who can’t, don’t.

    It’s very simple.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @nickels
    , @obwandiyag
  32. anonymous[220] • Disclaimer says:
    @Frederick V. Reed

    Drinking before noon again.

  33. Just the name “Lance” already have little respect. White peepoo are extremely irrational, ethically and intelectually… Significant part of their philosophy is bullshit, New cults invented by fake profects. Big part of time this trashes has believe d in one of the most ridiculous mythology Ever, a imported satanic cult called “cristianism”. Big part of their history is based on retarded wars against each other, and since discoveries, they have exported and imposed their madness for all other people, even in the end no have until right now a rationally decent religion/culture. Whatever rightness look to you it’s has been a huge rock against only one Path for those with self awareness, universal morality or essencial existentialism and it’s mean the end of primitive conserfism but truly understanding their huge mistakes and great majority of “Aryan” people dont look rational enough to this Step. This little retarded goy called Lance, it’s a Very good example… I could talk about the pseudo article when this white monkey use their “Supreme” analytical skills but It’s always important simulate self awareness for those who dont have this: conserf monkeys.

  34. bjondo says:

    This left handed thug
    is evil: Benyammarin NuthinYahoo.

  35. Ger says:
    @El Dato

    A couple of thoughts: John Manville said asbestos was harmless. That was in the middle of the last century. Ambulance chasing lawyers are still running ads looking for more victims of John Manville.

    Tobacco industry ads in the fifties ‘more doctors smoke C….. than any other brand’. Enough said.

    Yes, aluminum is a heavy metal. At least heavy enough to accumulate in critical areas of the body….”linked to Alzheimer’s though” …. correct as sufficient medical tests indicates as much four times the amount of aluminum in their brains.

    Yet, are we to reach the conclusion aluminum in the brains of young children is harmless? The difference between John Manville and vaccine big pharma is: John Manville did not have the phony ‘vaccine court’.

    One more: Old people (that includes me) have a lot of heart burn/ingestion ….. cheapest item to ease it is from our local really big box store. Store brand aluminum based antacids!!!

    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
    , @Kratoklastes
  36. utu says:
    @BamBam Rubble

    You are misrepresenting him. He understands it and he expressed his objections to how the term the natural selection is used. He was correct.

    • Replies: @BamBam Rubble
  37. @utu

    You continue to misunderstand evolution, Utu. No problem, as many, if not most, people do not understand it.

  38. nickels says:
    @BamBam Rubble

    Natural selection is not an active process. It is not directed. It has no consciousness, no goal, no motivation. Those who survive to reproduce are products of selection; existing environmental factors provide the mechanism.

    An alternative reading is that the entire concept is bunk. A much more likely interpretation.
    What other theory is continually held up after the basis for it collapses?
    Except maybe the evil Kavanaugh theory.

    • Replies: @BamBam Rubble
  39. @Jake the Snake

    Don’t forget the most notorious lefty in the Simpsons universe: Mr. Burns

  40. Was Mouse Utopia ever replicated?
    We now know that many of the famous social science experiments of that era (Stanford Prison Experiment, Milgram, Robbers Cave) were either bull or seriously misrepresented, even for the terrible standards of today.
    Plus, the Universe 25 Mouse Utopia experiment (the most famous one) started with only 8 mice which after several generations grew to a mice population of 2200 which led to severe inbreeding problems that can explain mice abnormal behaviour and extinction. But I guess inbreeding is not a very sexy explanation.

    • Replies: @BamBam Rubble
  41. @nickels

    Nickels, you are a fool of studied intensity. I believe I have read two of your past posts, and noted your amazing stupidity. It’s the Ignore list for you.

  42. @SIMPLEPseudonymicHandle

    Was Mouse Utopia ever replicated?

    Yes.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink

    Calhoun, John (1947–1948). “Crowding and Social Behavior in Animals”. Anchor Books.

    Calhoun, John B. (1950). “The Study of Wild Animals under Controlled Conditions”. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

    Calhoun, John B. (1952). “The Social Aspects of Population Dynamics”. Journal of Mammalogy. American Society of Mammalogists.

    Calhoun, John, B. (1962). “Chapter 22: A Behavioral Sink”. In Bliss, Eugene L. Roots of Behavior. New York: Harper. OCLC 1282144.

    Calhoun, John B. (1962). “Population density and social pathology”. Scientific American. 206 (2): 139–148. PMID 13875732.

  43. Men Must be castrated to the best for this planet. Speaking about problems great majority caused by humans has been caused by males. And White guilt is true. The fact jewish wingers has used this to exterminate physical white european races don’t mean it’s / white guilt/ absolutely wrong. It’s the costs when you decided to invade ALL the world. But cowgoys never had a mental age above 14 years old.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  44. We frankly don’t know what is the total percentage of left handed murrican presidents Just based on few names junior because we don’t have any information If the others presidents weren’t or not forced to write with right hand, to start. No have any absolutely inerent problem about left handedness, but there is contextual issues related with How humanity has evolved. It’s possibly reverted. No have any evidence of huge increasing of left handedness today at least for me and possibly most of this secular increasing was due cultural changes. It’s until speculative but what is most disturbing here is your ethical levels. I bet parasitic wasps have a better moral understanding than you.

  45. @Santoculto

    Alcohol and the Internet: don’t mix.

  46. @Sean

    And you know this how?
    No, I wont come over for coffee to discuss it.

    • LOL: densa
    • Replies: @Sean
  47. ”Fascinating” experiment… and this junior believes he can talk about ethics… disturbable..

    The latest piece of evidence for this: we are becoming more left-handed.

    Are you lefty trance*

    Where is the evidence*

    A surprising number of recent US presidents have been southpaws. Obama, George W. Bush, Reagan, Carter and Ford would all have probably smudged their writing when they were at school. However, we are not evolved to be left-handed to any significant degree.

    EVOLVED…

    Adapted sound better but…

    ”to any significant degree”, so why there are lefties*

    ”We are not ‘evolved’ to have wings… to any significant degree”

    Basic teachings in the land of conserfs..

  48. According to New Zealand psychologist Michael Corballis,the human propensity to be right-handed is caused by our heightened ability to communicate. The left hemisphere controls vocalization in most species. As our ancestors learned to walk upright, they started using their hands to communicate as well as their voices. They used their right hand, because this is controlled by the left hemisphere. Increased use of the right hand meant that we started employing the right hand for pretty much everything

    How explain left handed people who are:

    - gifted
    - good looking and healthier
    - Oprah [great communicators]

    BASIC correlation = / = causation, lancy don’t understood..

    So, the “norm” is to be left-hemisphere-dominant for language. According to Corballis, if somebody is left-handed, this means that they are right-hemisphere dominant for language. This can only happen if they have an asymmetrical brain structure, which uses the right-side more than it should. We are evolved to be symmetrical—that’s why the essence of beauty is symmetry—so it follows that left-handed people have more mutant genes, causing asymmetry directly; or a poor immune system, meaning they are not strong enough to maintain a symmetrical phenotype in the face of disease.

    Really all left handers have the same brain configuration** Are you sure*

    CHEESSUS

    the level of this article is mutantly higher… that guy is jumping from rampant speculation for another in the same sentence. or, otherwise, it’s mutantly BORING..

    but… if most human beings ”evolved” to be right handed so they are not SYMMETRICALLY-HANDED…

    The human history is so symmetrically beautiful…

  49. Based on studies of photographs of people waving, the team find that left-handedness has increased from 3% of the British population in the mid-nineteenth century to 12% today. This rise in “sinistrality”, they demonstrate, would also reflect decreasing intelligence in Western countries, because mutational load makes the nervous system work less well and so modestly impairs the working of the brain.

    Evidence = / = information… posssibly factual.

  50. crimson2 says:

    We are evolved to be symmetrical—that’s why the essence of beauty is symmetry—so it follows that left-handed people have more mutant genes, causing asymmetry directly; or a poor immune system, meaning they are not strong enough to maintain a symmetrical phenotype in the face of disease.

    This is silly for a lot of reasons.

    1. Our brains are asymmetrical–different hemisphere control different things. And left-handers sometimes use both hemispheres for language, which is more symmetrical.

    2. Evolved to be symmetrical? The heart is on one side of the body and that seems to work out fine.

    3. I don’t even know what a “symmetrical phenotype” is supposed to mean or why it’s automatically “good.”

  51. Symmetry on thought = rationality, to be morally/ethically and intellectually right, this is true beauty, something your head don’t evolved to be… as expected coming from a idiotic human breed as well any other, but worst because you have infested entire world with your garbage: capitalism//comunism and christianism [or any other mythological masturbation].

  52. Dutch Boy says:
    @Ger

    Grossly elevated levels of aluminum have also been found in the brains of autistics:

    http://vaccinepapers.org/high-aluminum-content-autistic-brains/

  53. In Italian, left is called “La Sinistra” !
    Never was that a very appropriate designation ?

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  54. Experiences of a left handed man, but I am not totally ambidextrous. With my left I write, shoot pool, fire a rifle, shave and eat. With my right hand I comb my hair, catch or throw, and I box from the orthodox stance. I wipe my ass equally well with either. Does this skew the study? I have no idea.
    In my elementary school each classes held about 30 kids. In my first grade there were 2 lefties, Eugene and I. On the first or second day of class the teacher tried to get us to switch writing hands by verbally assaulting us while smacking our knuckles with a her ruler. Eugene crumbled and switched, and I didn’t. The year was 1954. I was proud of myself.
    Sometime during my elementary years I tested out with an 139 IQ. I had discipline problems that followed me into my military service years. I was certainly an anxious child, and remained so for over 60 years. During those years I drank a lot which caused me minor incarceration, and extended visits to rehabilitation centers, mostly live in ones where group therapy was mandatory along with AA meetings.
    Every once in awhile along my journey I came across written material that spoke some about the history of left handed people. I learned that the word for left handed was in Latin the same as the Italian word for evil. That piqued my interest somewhat, and when I was in group situations like jail, AA meetings, or group therapy sessions, I pay attention to my peers. At every AA meeting the leader asks the group; are there any other alcoholics here? When he asks everyone raises their hands, and I would take a quick survey. I was surprised at how many left hands were raised, close to 50%. When in county jail, though there wasn’t any raising of hands, so I paid attention to the hand guys were eating with, and I assure you it was much more than the normal 10% lefties. During group therapies a sign in sheet was always passed around, and again like the show of hands upwards of 50% were lefties, and sometimes over 60% . What I also noticed is, a higher percent of those populations are smokers.
    So, something’s going on, I just don’t know what it is.

  55. vinteuil says: • Website
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Genetics is a pseudoscience?

    ID – you’re an anonymous guy on the internet. When you say stupid things, people stop listening to you.

  56. @Fidelios Automata

    1954, 1st grade, the teacher tried to get me to write with my right hand by hitting my knuckles with a ruler while SCREAMING. I don’t know exactly when they stopped doing it. She was old, and because she tried only once I’m guessing it ended somewhere around there, not much later.

  57. @Ger

    Old people (that includes me) have a lot of heart burn/ingestion ….. cheapest item to ease it is from our local really big box store. Store brand aluminum based antacids!!!

    You probably know this already, but just for the other viewers…

    Quik-Eze and Rennie alleviate the symptoms, but they set in motion a compensatory mechanism that makes it worse. (SSRIs and other psychotropics generate similar adverse consequences: the body’s compensatory mechanisms ensure that attacks become more frequent and more intense, after a honeymoon period during which people think they’re taking care of the problem).

    Your body’s sensors detect stomach is not sufficiently acidic… and your stomach is directed to produce more acid; since the looseness of (or damage to) the lower oesophogeal sphincter (LES) is still there, the reflux still happens.

    I’ve tried to convince my father of this for over a decade; he’s never without a bottle of dilute bicarb.

    He should be doing the exact opposite: rather than taking an acid-reducer after he gets reflux, he should be drinking a shot or two of fresh lemon juice, or vinegar, before symptoms arise.

    It doesn’t matter which sort of vinegar, either – all the ‘it must be “X” brand organic apple cider vinegar with “mother”‘ horse-shit is bro-science nonsense.

    It fucking sucks for the first week to 10 days – kinda like it sucks the first week or so if you undertake intense exercise after a long break.

    In my 30s I used to ‘have’ to eat a packet of Quik-Eze a day (at its worst I was also on Zantac, and once, even Tagamet).

    In my mid-40s, having had reflux and acid guts for over a decade, someone twigged me to the ‘get more acid in there‘ trick, and it has done the job.

    Increasing the acidity of the stomach contents makes the LES tighten: its job is to prevent reflux, and it is stimulated to do so by a more-acidic stomach environment.

    (It can be bad for your teeth though; gotta drink it with as little tooth contact as possible: shots or a straw).

    Now, in my 50s I sometimes have a Rennie before bed if I have engaged in dietary self-abuse (over and above my routine 1-1.5l of red wine a day) – say, eating an entire ‘New Yorker’ sized pizza while watching football. (The Lovely frowns and grrrs when I have pizza, so I have it relatively rarely… and when I get my mitts on one I tend to wolf it down – a very very bad move).

    • Agree: Liza
  58. Well, as a right-handed, symmetric, high-T, masculine, smelly, hairy man, I can state declaratively that lefties are – in the words of Brick Top – ‘orrible cunts.

    I’m kidding, of course. My Mum was a leftie until the nuns started whacking her on the knuckles (like others have recounted, she was forced to become a rightie, just like Jesus).

    So I’ve obviously got a bit of leftie taint in my soul, from the same source as the Darkie taint. I taught myself to kick left-footed (and to handball left-handed) as a teen, because in Australian Rules football it was both rare and prized to be able to do both.

    I also prefer to bat left-handed in cricket, because most bowlers find it difficult to maintain a decent line outside off-stump to a kack-hander – but if I’m facing a shit bowler and looking to ‘go the tonk’ (i.e., just trying to heave everything to ‘cow corner’ over mid-on) I’ll bat right-handed. As a kid playing baseball I switch-hit, too.

    And I fight southpaw – mostly because my left dollyŏ chagi was always better than my right (TKD roundhouse kicks deploy the rear leg); conversely my right yeop chagi was better than my left.

  59. Alfred says:
    @Anonymous

    “Especially the rise of left handedness amongst the British which correlates with all kinds of debauchery seen from their society including homosexuality and paedophilia” and the insertion of turtles in the vaginas of comatose females.

    Sexual assault investigation launched after Spanish doctors find a TURTLE inside a British woman’s vagina when she complained of stomach ache

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6190167/Spanish-doctors-TURTLE-inside-British-womans-vagina-complained-stomach-ache.html

  60. @Mr Reynard

    Boo*

    Italy it’s just like Rio de Janeiro, it has the best and the worst of the world. Seems Lombroso was correct when he said, sometimes, to born a genius it’s ”need’ a ocean of mediocrity, what’s happen with this country..

  61. Because lefthandedness may be one of the main marks of human psycho-cognitive diversity, i mean, degree of non-conformity, it’s became [ABSOLUTELY] evil for right-mythological doctrine..

    evil = disobedient, more ”independent’-mind.

    Lefthandedness seems common in many extremities, both ”good”, ”neutral” and ”bad”.

  62. I’m lefthanded of course, as well my older brother, which is gifted [and likely to be right winger/tard]. My right handed brother is a typical leftist propagandist.

    Lance believe he is a perfect guy, confusing rightilt mediocrity with perfection.

    He is a believer of Terman Studies which supposedly found the true nature of genius. Genius is not gifted, it’s not all ”gifted” who are geniuses, indeed, seems majority of them are not geniuses. Geniality is strongly correlated with disorders, first of all because itself is a disorder, a extreme expression of complexity of brain, something less-healthy than the typical boring, conformist and rich gifted. It’s already know that creativity is correlated with broader spectrum of mental disorders as autism and psychosis. What made a schizophrenic delusional made a partly psychotic possibly greater on creativity skills. What made a autist excessively obsessed with their interests and often without creativity, made someone with autist-like touch and creative skills possibly sensational.

    Most hbdears, seems, really don’t accept that long-term Terman Studies proved that ”have” a higher IQ-only don’t make you more creative at the point of genius level.

    Human condition itself is morbid, indeed all life is a vapid morbid condition trying to survive to immensity of existence. Humans became so mad so earlier that was needed the invention of mythologies to calm down your excessive minds.

    If you want to start to understand creativity you must need read this text about creative personality, the traits all real geniuses tend to share.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/199607/the-creative-personality

    There are many studies which found that high creativity levels are strongly correlated with attention deficit or lower latent inhibition. You must be hyper-aware about your sorrounds to be capable to internalize a diversity of informations to produce novel associations. And you must be a perfectionist, believe there is something wrong with you, with the world, with specific area, to become intrinsically motivated.

    While hbdears and other proto-eugenicists don’t understand the nature of creativity and its absolute relevance they will continue to produce typical conserf article..

  63. I liked the article, and intend to read the previous ones by the same author. Of course, I am skeptical about some of the claims, and the comment area put forth valid criticism, but overall I found the author’s thesis fascinating. One point he probably gets wrong is about the Yanomami. I think what explains the high rate of left-handedness is the positive selection for dominant behavior. I never heard of any case of autism among them, or among any other American indigenous people for that matter. Same for “psychopathology”.

    A mouse utopia would work fine to counter the Earth’s overpopulation.

  64. An anonymous autist claims that left-handedness is shorthand for mutants who engage in pedophilia, and finds a welcome audience at Unz. Bonus material: A faithful commentator notes that DA JOOOOOOOOOS are, from his carefully detailed observations, primarily left-handed…

    I’ve had cause to wonder where those socially awkward boys from the AV Clubs have wandered off to.

    • Replies: @Sean
  65. @BamBam Rubble

    Replication generally means by someone else.

  66. Sean says:
    @steinbergfeldwtizcohen

    I’ll put the left handed cup back then.

  67. Sean says:
    @PhonyCommentContentDetector

    Steve Jobs was left handed so is Bill Gates. I suppose it is more common among billionaires.

  68. Dutch Boy says:
    @Epigon

    It is you who are ignorant:
    Boyd Haley, Ph.D., Professor and Chair of the Chemistry Department, University of Kentucky discusses the issue of testosterone and mercury:
    “One of the conundrums of autism is the 4:1 ratio of boys to girls that get the disease. We therefore decided to test the effects of both female and male hormones on the neurotoxicity of thimerosal. The results were eye-opening. For example, 50 nanomolar thimerosal causes less than 5% neuron death within the first three hours incubation and 1 micromolar testosterone causes no significant death within this time frame. However, mix these two together and 100% neuron death was observed at the earliest time point checked. This represents a severe enhancement of thimerosal toxicity.”

    • Agree: Liza
  69. Thea says:

    Sometimes I wonder if Unz is just mocking his readers to see what a load we will fall for. Then I read arctickes like this and I’m sure that is what’s going on.

  70. Jo A-S says:
    @El Dato

    Just to point out that not all asbestos is harmful. “Chrysotile asbestos, a less toxic form, comprises over 90% of all the asbestos used in the US. This form of asbestos is not nearly as persistent in lung tissue and low level intermittent exposure is not considered to be a health risk to a healthy person.”

    https://www.naturalhandyman.com/iip/infsisters/infasbestos.html

  71. Blah1337 says:

    The symmetry argument is moot:

    “This can only happen if they have an asymmetrical brain structure, which uses the right-side more than it should. We are evolved to be symmetrical—that’s why the essence of beauty is symmetry”

    There’s not much symmetrical about the human brain! (as actually recognized earlier in the article.)

    There are other arguments for handedness. One would be that being right-handed let people carry a shield with their left hand, leading to higher survival rates (because the heart was thus protected.)

    It’s also unclear to which extent people are left- or right-handed besides writing. Writing is very obvious… other skills are not as obvious.

  72. Retarded rightilts can’t understand things vary… can’t understand diversity, only the difference.

    Thanks for human psychological and cognitive diversity we have science, arts and philosophy…

  73. The key here is the assumption that Darwinian Evolution is real. The last time I checked, the Galapagos iguanas were still iguanas, and the finches were still finches. There has never been any evidence that iguanas were once finches, or vice versa. What Darwin observed was adaption, not evolution.
    A very old theory about the left handed-right handed divide is that the heart is more vulnerable on the left. When defensive weapons were developed, i.e. shields, those carrying a shield in their left hand and striking with the right (right handedness) were less likely to be killed, due to better protection of the heart, than an opponent carrying a shield in the right hand and striking with the left.

    Our writing patterns – left to right – are easier for a right handed person. For other scripts, whether right to left, or top to bottom, left handedness is unimportant.
    I am a mixed left – right dominant who learned to write (some would argue illegibly)left handed with a nib and ink well . I can do many things with both, but am nowhere near ambidextrous. My parents, both of whom were right handed, were wise enough to let me choose, and enforced that on the school. For some things I am left handed, for others right handed, according to what felt comfortable. My older brother was completely left handed, and near 150 IQ. I may have been influenced watching him. Lots of speculation, no real answers in the article.

  74. Conserf mindset is typically domesticated, and i bet if majority of people are both on the right’s… Extremes are more likely to be on the left, what is not a good [speculative] news either because boring moderates or excessive extremists are both wrong.

  75. I love this. Sweeping generalizations based on tiny differences in surveys and some nonsense experiment with mice.

    I know this is totally wrong. I don’t have to study it or investigate it. I can tell just by reading the first couple paragraphs.

  76. @BamBam Rubble

    There is plenty evidence for directed evolution and for Lamarckian evolution. You don’t know everything.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  77. @obwandiyag

    Example of Lamarckian evolution required

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    , @j2
  78. As a left-handed person, I found this highly amusing.

  79. My apefreakan heritage prevent me to learn english in proper way, it’s self-sad!1

    ”Only lefties are in their right mind”

    Invencible argument

    • Replies: @Truth
  80. Let me just chime in:

    I knew a guy who was a heavy drinker and smoker. He w as run over by a car and died.
    So stay away from fatty foods.

  81. j2 says:
    @Santoculto

    “Example of Lamarckian evolution required”

    Lamarckian evolution is inheriting acquired properties.
    Actually it may be possible in some rare cases. As a theoretical example take a case where a new gene is inserted by gene technology to an egg cell. The descendants inherit this acquired property. This could not have happened by gene technology earlier, but theoretically the gene could have been inserted to the genome by a virus. A virus can insert parts of its DNA to the host genome, very rarely it could go to sex cells. Thus, we are not quite as sure as we used to be that acquired properties cannot be inherited. The mechanisms may even finally turn out to be an important one in the creation of new species, who knows.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  82. @j2

    I understand Lamarckian evolution based on classical examples as ”repetive effort” resulting in phenotypical changes and these being passed to the descendents, just like that: a bodybuilder guy transmiting directly their phenotypical body-changes caused by their body building activities to their descendents. First of all, this cannot be, right now, empirically observed.

    • Replies: @j2
  83. j2 says:
    @Santoculto

    Yes, of course you are correct and I am just going around your correct point for the reason that this type of evolution is possible in a bit different way. In the original Lamarckian sense Lamarckian evolution has not been verified and it is considered impossible. But acquired properties may be passed to descendants in certain ways. I mentioned viruses passing genes. You give the bodybuilder as a counterexample, but it is not quite so: your bodybuilder spends time in the company of other bodybuilders, marries a sister of a genetically more muscular bodybuilder, his children grow more muscular than he was, so, in a way, he did pass his hobby to his descendents’ genes. While the exact idea Lamarck proposed is false, similar type of evolution is possible in certain ways and can be even important meaning that Darwinism puts too much emphasis to natural selection and mutations as the main ways of evolution. Selecting a partner in the bodybuilder case is not darwinistic natural selection, it is sexual selection but not in the competitive darwinistic sense.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  84. @j2

    This different way to pass ”properties” you used as a example, seems is not a lamarckian way. I believe epigenetics, correctly understood, is not the same as Lamarck thought. People who are more prone to be mutant tend to be more likely to transmit their mutations than those who are less. It’s seems ”always” a genetic/biological confounding.

    And i commited a mistake because i’m not talked that Lamarckism hypothesis is based on long term phenotypical changes via repetitive effort.

    ”Selecting a partner in the bodybuilder case is not darwinistic natural selection, it is sexual selection but not in the competitive darwinistic sense.”

    I think sexual selection is in the domain of general concept of natural selection, the same mechanisms but to the partly different purposes. And remember that among nonhuman beings reproduction and survive is basically the same thing, at collective levels.

    ”You give the bodybuilder as a counterexample, but it is not quite so: your bodybuilder spends time in the company of other bodybuilders, marries a sister of a genetically more muscular bodybuilder, his children grow more muscular than he was, so, in a way, he did pass his hobby to his descendents’ genes.”

    But this is exactly what darwinian selection is to be.

    My example is to explain classical or original lamarckian way.

    • Replies: @j2
  85. j2 says:
    @Santoculto

    “My example is to explain classical or original lamarckian way.”

    Of course, I accept your statement that so far lamarckian evolution has not been demonstrated.

    About the rest of what you write, I am not so sure. Darwinism was based too much on the 19th century capitalism, competition is the driving force. This may be so in economy, but it is not shown to be so in biology.

    I could argue that the mechanism creating different species is barriers (like seas, mountains, deserts, glaziers). If one population gets divided by a barrier, both subpopulations will drift to different directions and become separate species with or without any natural selection, while it there is no barrier the subpopulations mix and will not create separate species with or without natural selection.

    I could argue that how do we know mutations are random? Getting over 30% different proteins from the same ancestral form in 10 million years, which seems to have happened, should be impossible with random mutations.

    I could argue that competition did not play a role in the bodybuilder example. The woman did not select big muscles, nor did the man select the woman because of her or her brother’s muscles. They become a couple because they met and they met because they moved in the same circles. There was no natural selection of some property, this was drift. Drift also can have a direction: it often leads to separation of similar individuals to subpopulations just because they are similar, not because the similarity has survival value.

    I could continue this way for a long time adding more and more cases against darwinism, but I stop here. My point is that darwinism was the invention of Charles Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, a Freemason. Masons pushed the theory to be accepted as a truth. It draws from the ideas of 19th century capitalistic economy, the hidden hand of competition. Darwinism is mentioned in the list of Communism and Nietzscheism as one of the false isms in the Protocols of the Elders of Sion that the Elders propagate in order to destroy the pillars of the society, though they know that these isms are false. The more I have thought of darwinism, the more false it seems to me.

    This is related to the present article, which in a way suggests that we put lefthanded, atheists and homosexuals to concentration camps and sterilize them as otherwise darwinistic competition does not work. Darwinistic competition is the false idea. That is not the driving force of evolution.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  86. Truth says:
    @Santoculto

    My apefreakan heritage prevent me to learn english in proper way.

    Well my friend, your typing is pretty impressive without an opposable thumb.

  87. @j2

    About the rest of what you write, I am not so sure. Darwinism was based too much on the 19th century capitalism, competition is the driving force. This may be so in economy, but it is not shown to be so in biology.

    Capitalism is the ”maximized culture of food chain” among us/humans… I don’t think Darv ”created” its theory based fundamentally on capitalism. Fight for the survive is competition, isn’t*

    I could argue that the mechanism creating different species is barriers (like seas, mountains, deserts, glaziers). If one population gets divided by a barrier, both subpopulations will drift to different directions and become separate species with or without any natural selection, while it there is no barrier the subpopulations mix and will not create separate species with or without natural selection.

    I don’t think a differential selection can happen without [natural, in natura] selection. Seems you believe natural selection only can happen by competition between species, if i’m not wrong about what you’re writing/saying.

    I could argue that how do we know mutations are random? Getting over 30% different proteins from the same ancestral form in 10 million years, which seems to have happened, should be impossible with random mutations.

    I don’t believe mutations are random but variable or have a possibly variable potential.

    I could argue that competition did not play a role in the bodybuilder example. The woman did not select big muscles, nor did the man select the woman because of her or her brother’s muscles. They become a couple because they met and they met because they moved in the same circles. There was no natural selection of some property, this was drift. Drift also can have a direction: it often leads to separation of similar individuals to subpopulations just because they are similar, not because the similarity has survival value.

    I’m trying to understand your concept of natural selection, don’t seems equivalent to the original.
    Regardless the reason for that, it was a selective processes and it happen in natural/non-forced or human-designed ways.

    Drift also can have a direction: it often leads to separation of similar individuals to subpopulations just because they are similar, not because the similarity has survival value.

    I don’t get this. Similarity is often the result of the best model [to the specific niche] becoming majority in given population.

    ”My point is that darwinism was the invention of Charles Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, a Freemason. Masons pushed the theory to be accepted as a truth.”

    ok… because supposedly he was a mason so he was absolutely wrong because that…

    Darwinism is mentioned in the list of Communism and Nietzscheism as one of the false isms in the Protocols of the Elders of Sion that the Elders propagate in order to destroy the pillars of the society, though they know that these isms are false. The more I have thought of darwinism, the more false it seems to me.

    If it was or is, it’s still doesn’t mean will be completely invalid factually speaking.

    And, if the pillars of the society are constellation of ignorance, so… i don’t think it’s so bad at all. I want smart and truly enlighted people around and not that troglodytes as we have in many places.

    This is related to the present article, which in a way suggests that we put lefthanded, atheists and homosexuals to concentration camps and sterilize them as otherwise darwinistic competition does not work. Darwinistic competition is the false idea. That is not the driving force of evolution.

    If you sterilize people who barrely procreate, so you must be sterilized first because your stupidity, lol.
    If ”you” sterilize atheists, so you hate intelligence, at least about ”mythology versus sanity/heuristics”.
    If you sterilize lefthanded people without trying to understand their nature … well the same thing.

    And i don’t think this example was convencible anyway.

    Natural selection is not ONLY about competition between species even in the end of day FOOD CHAIN is that supra-hierarchy almost living beings are.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @j2
    , @j2
  88. @Santoculto

    And even if natural selection//competition was just competition so it’s often happen intra-species…

  89. j2 says:
    @Santoculto

    „I’m trying to understand your concept of natural selection, don’t seems equivalent to the original.”

    The idea in darwinism is that if the environment does not limit the growth, a population grows geometrically (with a growth rate >1 per generation and often the growth rate is fairly constant). This geometric growth per generation is well approximated by an exponential curve, which reaches any possible level rather fast. Therefore the environment always limits growth and only some can survive. Those who survive are called the fittest, so the fittest survive. The fittest usually have some advantage, so fittest is not a tautology: they are best adapted to the environment in some sense. This mechanism leads to development: features favored by the environment get selected. This is natural selection. If your idea of natural selection is different, then I suggest you read the Origin of Species. Nobody denies that natural selection happens in the nature.

    „Regardless the reason for that, it was a selective processes and it happen in natural/non-forced or human-designed ways.”

    Natural selection is not the only form of selection. Sexual selection for Charles Darwin meant a different kind of selection where one of the sexes selects the partner it prefers. This selection is not always the selection of the fittest. As an example Darwin gave the tail of a peacock: the tail is harmful for survival, but is selected because the female birds like an impressive tail. This means that selection in the original sense Darwin used does not always need to be natural selection. It can also be sexual selection. But not every selection process leads life from less complicated forms to more complicated ones, or to say, raises life to a higher level, is evolution. Darwin needed a mechanism that drives life to a higher level and he found two: natural selection and sexual selection. Separation alone does change the species, but it does not evolve it to a higher level. This is why Darwin did not talk about isolation selection e.g., such is not a force driving evolution to a higher level.

    “Fight for the survive is competition, isn’t*”

    Fight for the survival is competition, you are correct in that, but is this fight for the survival the main mechanism that causes evolution? That is the problem. Fight for the survival (natural selection) is one of the mechanisms, but is it the main mechanism and is it the mechanism that creates new species? That is the problem.

    „I don’t get this. Similarity is often the result of the best model [to the specific niche] becoming majority in given population.”

    Selection of a similar individual is well attested in humans and other animals. Preference of similar individuals leads to a change but not always to better in any sense, so it is not evolution in the sense Darwin meant. For 19th century figures evolution meant development to a higher level, they saw humans and especially Englishmen as the highest level of life. Darwin wanted to find a mechanism that causes development from primitive forms to higher forms. There had to be this direction towards better. Just change is not enough. Must be towards better.

    But selection of similar is usually not selection of the best model for a given niche. In humans females of main races prefer a male of that race, even though the race may not be considered the most successful in the modern society. Therefore the females are not selecting the fittest, so this would not be natural selection for Darwin. He would have called it sexual selection since the females select the race they like best for some reason. However, with sexual selection Darwin meant something that drives evolution, like develops peacocks tails. Even though peacock’s tail is harmful, it still developed to some direction: we can talk about evolution. Selection of similar individuals is not developing them to a higher level.

    „Natural selection is not ONLY about competition between species even in the end of day FOOD CHAIN is that supra-hierarchy almost living beings are.”

    You probably mean that natural selection, the competition mechanism that Darwin describes in his book as the mechanisms creating new species, is not the only mechanism in the real nature. One has to take into account the food chain. You are correct. There are very many things that one has to take into account which Darwin ignored.

    But natural selection means exactly the competition that Darwin described in his book. That is simple and clearly defined. If you say that by natural selection you mean everything that happens in the nature what creates new species, then you cannot explain what you mean by natural selection and you have no explanation for the origin of species.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @Santoculto
  90. j2 says:
    @Santoculto

    “ok… because supposedly he was a mason so he was absolutely wrong because that…”

    If a Jesuit would author a text stating that Jesus did not raise from death and the Jesuit society would propagate this text, you probably would say: this is strange, these are the Society of Jesus, what the hell are they up to?

    Or if a communist would author a text stating that banks must be private and international, and the communistic party would propagate this opinion as the truth, you would say: strange, Marx considered international bankers as the worst capitalists, as do I, and was in the opinion that banks must be socialized, what the hell are these up to?

    But you, Santoculto, an atheist as you think atheists are the clever ones (just to mention, though somewhat on the intelligent side, I am not an atheist, though also not a Christian in the popular sense of the word), do not see any problem with the case that a Freemason (Erasmus Darwin) authored a theory of evolution without a god and Freemasons propagated it. I am sure a society of atheists would have propagated it, since they accept the results of the theory, but Freemasons were no atheists. The mainstream Freemasons (the smoke screen) believed in the Great Architect. The revolutionary ones were kabbalistic, messianic and Judeo-Masonic and certainly not atheistic.

    Here we exactly have the case where a group (Masons) supports a believe (no God) which they themselves consider false. And that is strange. What were they up to? The answer is simple: to destroy the pillars of the society. I did look at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in some detail. In my opinion they were written by Theosophists in order to create anti-Semitism, which was needed to force Jews to Palestine. Theosophists were only a new form of revolutionary Freemasons, since the old form (Mizraim and Memphis, still earlier Egyptian Freemasonry and Illuminati) was forced to stop after the Paris Commune failed. These Theosophists, being a new form of revolutionary Freemasonry, knew very well what the old form had done, and most of the things they wrote were correct: Masons did support socialism, nietzscheism and darwinism. Communism grew out of Masonry.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  91. @j2

    Huge comments, try to synthetize them in the next. I no have that time.

    The idea in darwinism is that if the environment does not limit the growth, a population grows geometrically (with a growth rate >1 per generation and often the growth rate is fairly constant). This geometric growth per generation is well approximated by an exponential curve, which reaches any possible level rather fast. Therefore the environment always limits growth and only some can survive. Those who survive are called the fittest, so the fittest survive. The fittest usually have some advantage, so fittest is not a tautology: they are best adapted to the environment in some sense. This mechanism leads to development: features favored by the environment get selected. This is natural selection. If your idea of natural selection is different, then I suggest you read the Origin of Species. Nobody denies that natural selection happens in the nature.

    No.

    Natural selection is not the only form of selection.

    I said natural selection is a general aspect because it’s happen in natura and it’s a selection. It’s the main domain.

    Sexual selection for Charles Darwin meant a different kind of selection where one of the sexes selects the partner it prefers. This selection is not always the selection of the fittest. As an example Darwin gave the tail of a peacock: the tail is harmful for survival, but is selected because the female birds like an impressive tail.

    It’s a semantic problem here. The fittest can be towards sexual demands too. If a trait can increase sexual attraction and number of individuals of given species via differential reproduction so this trait will be accessorial to fitness, in indirect way, but it is.

  92. @j2

    Fight for the survival is competition, you are correct in that, but is this fight for the survival the main mechanism that causes evolution? That is the problem. Fight for the survival (natural selection) is one of the mechanisms, but is it the main mechanism and is it the mechanism that creates new species? That is the problem.

    First fight for survive starts between organism and environment itself [the first trying to fit in fundamental features of given environment]. Fight is a generalizable concept in its origins, as well tend to happen with many if not most of concepts.

    ”Fight for the survival [natural selection]”

    Natural selection is a result of fight for survive, which is a mechanism before and behind. Natural selection can be to conserve current general configuration of given organism or to ”re-programme” a relative to significative way to deal with it when the synchronicity between organism and its niche is no longer stable.

    Selection of a similar individual is well attested in humans and other animals. Preference of similar individuals leads to a change but not always to better in any sense, so it is not evolution in the sense Darwin meant. For 19th century figures evolution meant development to a higher level, they saw humans and especially Englishmen as the highest level of life. Darwin wanted to find a mechanism that causes development from primitive forms to higher forms. There had to be this direction towards better. Just change is not enough. Must be towards better.

    Preference for similar individuals in some aspect [explicit or implicit] happen because we are descendents from assexual species, so we have that primary feeling to replicate ourselves not just in reproduction but also by our extended self-environment or social environment.

    But selection of similar is usually not selection of the best model for a given niche. In humans females of main races prefer a male of that race, even though the race may not be considered the most successful in the modern society. Therefore the females are not selecting the fittest, so this would not be natural selection for Darwin. He would have called it sexual selection since the females select the race they like best for some reason. However, with sexual selection Darwin meant something that drives evolution, like develops peacocks tails. Even though peacock’s tail is harmful, it still developed to some direction: we can talk about evolution. Selection of similar individuals is not developing them to a higher level.

    You don’t understood what i said. I talked about finnished product where after huge selective processes, only the fittest survived, and it’s tend to result in homogeneization for this best model.

    Higher the selective pressure, less the diversity of types in given species, at priori.

    You are comparing the most complex terrestrial species or using it as a general model. Calm down with it.

    Because long term of patriarcal cultural model, females had historically selecting nothing, otherwise, being selected as a passive social or cultural agent in given antropological niche.

    Different people have different interpretation/representation of the same reality. Different people have different concept of the same thing probably because they tend to overemphasize for different facets of it, for example, intelligence. Different people value different facet of the same domain, intelligence, resulting in different social-selective path in the building of personal social environment as well possible mates. And different people are also diverging in how their hormones or instincts signalize about their best mates. And this narrative where females since always are amazones who have that liberty to choice any males look quite wrong even because the alpha males tend to choice their mates and not ”any female choice their mates they want”, even many females tend to develop rationally unhealthy delusional feelings about primitive and naturally sociopathic alpha immature boys. All about apparence and not essence [the real truth].

    But natural selection means exactly the competition that Darwin described in his book. That is simple and clearly defined. If you say that by natural selection you mean everything that happens in the nature what creates new species, then you cannot explain what you mean by natural selection and you have no explanation for the origin of species.

    I don’t understand this, what you mean*

    • Replies: @j2
  93. @j2

    If a Jesuit would author a text stating that Jesus did not raise from death and the Jesuit society would propagate this text, you probably would say: this is strange, these are the Society of Jesus, what the hell are they up to?

    Or if a communist would author a text stating that banks must be private and international, and the communistic party would propagate this opinion as the truth, you would say: strange, Marx considered international bankers as the worst capitalists, as do I, and was in the opinion that banks must be socialized, what the hell are these up to?

    hummm…

    But you, Santoculto, an atheist as you think atheists are the clever ones (just to mention, though somewhat on the intelligent side, I am not an atheist, though also not a Christian in the popular sense of the word), do not see any problem with the case that a Freemason (Erasmus Darwin) authored a theory of evolution without a god and Freemasons propagated it.

    Atheists are fundamentally or specifically clever ABOUT the very fact every mythology is equal in their essence, included christianism…

    About the rest, many them commit the same basic rational mistakes but in different ways.

    Again, if a satanic evil man say ”the truth is the kindness of balance”, what he said will be wrong by what he is*

    I am sure a society of atheists would have propagated it, since they accept the results of the theory, but Freemasons were no atheists. The mainstream Freemasons (the smoke screen) believed in the Great Architect. The revolutionary ones were kabbalistic, messianic and Judeo-Masonic and certainly not atheistic.

    For me all these cults are made by adapted freaks, included official mythologies as christianism.

    Here we exactly have the case where a group (Masons) supports a believe (no God) which they themselves consider false. And that is strange. What were they up to? The answer is simple: to destroy the pillars of the society. I did look at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in some detail. In my opinion they were written by Theosophists in order to create anti-Semitism, which was needed to force Jews to Palestine. Theosophists were only a new form of revolutionary Freemasons, since the old form (Mizraim and Memphis, still earlier Egyptian Freemasonry and Illuminati) was forced to stop after the Paris Commune failed. These Theosophists, being a new form of revolutionary Freemasonry, knew very well what the old form had done, and most of the things they wrote were correct: Masons did support socialism, nietzscheism and darwinism. Communism grew out of Masonry.

    Because a ideology say some isolated very-truth as nonexistence of human-like god [at priori] or try to destroy a already-stupid ”pillars” of ignorant society it’s doesn’t mean the very-truth will be false or that ignorance is not ignorance.

    I’m against destroy what have a millenia to be built, yes i’m against all this $hit JOOS are doing, with their collaborative, many them who are atheists. These people are powerful and dangerously stupid, because they have the quantitative aspect of intelligence but not the qualitative. They are super-sayadins, lol!!

    • Replies: @j2
    , @j2
  94. j2 says:
    @Santoculto

    “Because a ideology say some isolated very-truth as nonexistence of human-like god [at priori] or try to destroy a already-stupid ”pillars” of ignorant society it’s doesn’t mean the very-truth will be false or that ignorance is not ignorance. ”

    You may be right. The ancient regime which was destroyed was not especially good either. But the tools that were used to destroy it were just tools, one should not take them as truths.

    The old society had rich aristocrats. Communism was used as a tool to destroy the their wealth. This tool was used by bankers, who were no communists. That is, certain bankers funded leftist revolutionaries in order to kick out the old rich class and to take their place. This has nothing to do with the correctness or incorrectness of the ideas of Marx or other leftist theoreticians.

    In a same way darwinism was used as a tool against the power of the Church by people, who themselves were messianic and deep down believed they are the promised nation of God. But to the local people, outsiders, they offered an atheistic ideology. Again, this does not have anything to do with correctness of darwinism and atheism, it only means that these ideologies were used as tools by people, who wanted to replace the Church (that they did not control) as an authority with science (that they completely controlled) as an authority.

    So today people believe in science, which they imagine is honest and non-partial, while it is totally under the control of a certain group. People are told nonsense, which sounds reasonable if you do not think about it, and they believe and repeat this nonsense as a scientific truth. To me it looks like the origin of life and species was not solved at the time when the Church was the authority, and it is not solved today when the so called science is the authority. It is still unsolved and probably will remain so for a long time, but now there is another group which claims to possess the truth. So, one religion has been replaced by another and one set of priests by another set.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  95. j2 says:
    @Santoculto

    ” But natural selection means exactly the competition that Darwin described in his book. That is simple and clearly defined. If you say that by natural selection you mean everything that happens in the nature what creates new species, then you cannot explain what you mean by natural selection and you have no explanation for the origin of species.

    I don’t understand this, what you mean*”

    What I mean is that a term has to have a precise meaning if it is used to explain something. Darwin defines the term natural selection rather narrowly and it has a precise meaning. One can understand what Darwin means by saying that natural selection is the mechanism creating new species. He means that the population tries to grow but the environment limits the size, thus only some can survive, there is the struggle for life. Those who survive must have some advantage, so the fittest survives. This is a clearly explained mechanism. One can say agree or disagree with Darwin if this is the main mechanism which creates new species, but at least everybody understands what Darwin claims. I disagree with him. I say, yes, there is this mechanism, but it is not the mechanism that creates new species. New species are created by other mechanisms which I then can explain.

    However, if you widen in an unclear way the definition of natural selection to include the whole food chain, I do not any more know what is the mechanism that you call natural selection. Then I cannot say if I agree if that mechanism creates new species or not. The mechanism must be clearly explained before one can say if that is the correct mechanism or not.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  96. @j2

    Again, because a truth can be used to support a untruth or partial truth as some ideologies, this don’t invalidate automatically the first.

    All religions use kindness as tool to convince people but this doesn’t mean kidness is not a potential truth in the interactive world of self-conscious creatures.

    • Replies: @j2
  97. j2 says:
    @Santoculto

    “Atheists are fundamentally or specifically clever ABOUT the very fact every mythology is equal in their essence, included christianism…”

    Not only atheists consider present and past religions as myths. I think so too, so do many others. One can very well think that there can be a part of the reality we do not see and know about, meaning not being an atheist, and still consider all established religions as myths. The problem I have with atheists is that they do believe in a religion called atheism, some kind of pseudo-science. They are believers and often defend their faith furiously and in totally irrational ways.

  98. j2 says:
    @Santoculto

    “Again, because a truth can be used to support a untruth or partial truth as some ideologies, this don’t invalidate automatically the first.”

    Of course this could be so. But in the case of darwinism I think it is not so. I have several good arguments against that theory, but let us not go into them here. We just agree that we disagree. Fine?

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  99. @j2

    New species are created by other mechanisms which I then can explain.

    What are these mechanisms* Explain them.

    However, if you widen in an unclear way the definition of natural selection to include the whole food chain, I do not any more know what is the mechanism that you call natural selection. Then I cannot say if I agree if that mechanism creates new species or not. The mechanism must be clearly explained before one can say if that is the correct mechanism or not.

    Sorry but i have the impression you’re not being objective in your comments and i don’t dirt the natural selection concept just applied it in another expanded perspective [food chain].

    Listen: food chain is a product of successive adaptative and evolutive [selectiv] events… Natural selection caused this.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @j2
  100. @j2

    I don’t saw many good arguments against this… proven reality. Sorry. Yes, i agree we disagree, for sure.

    Not only atheists consider present and past religions as myths.

    They are, sorry for that. W hen you die it’s likely will no have a heaven for you.

    Only reason you believe your religion is not a mythology is because you believe mythologies must be polytheistics.

    I think so too, so do many others. One can very well think that there can be a part of the reality we do not see and know about, meaning not being an atheist, and still consider all established religions as myths. The problem I have with atheists is that they do believe in a religion called atheism, some kind of pseudo-science. They are believers and often defend their faith furiously and in totally irrational ways.

    The same essential problem of half of your argumentation here i already explained.

    Yes, so many atheists believe in bullshits. No, it’s doens’t mean a virgin woman impregnant by a MEGA-HUMAN, the creator of universe, is something near to reasonable.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @j2
  101. j2 says:
    @Santoculto

    ” New species are created by other mechanisms which I then can explain.
    What are these mechanisms* Explain them.”

    So, you support the official evolution theory where the natural selection and random mutations are the mechanism for creating new species. I will express a dissident view. It is not a worked out theory. I do not think there is a working theory explaining the origin of species. But I have some thoughts about it:
    1) New species are created by boundaries that divide a population to subpopulations that do not interbreed for a long time. With large mammals, like humans, this time is about 1 million years. After that drift has changed the genomes so much that the populations are separate species.
    2) DNA passed by viruses may have a large role in evolution. It offers one possible way how genes from one far away phyla could reappear in another phyla. This mechanism is shown to exist but its role in evolution has not yet been studied. Apart of viruses, there may be other one-cell organisms passing DNA, this is yet to be seen.
    3) The birth of life from non-life is not explained by the evolution theory and Darwin’s idea of a warm pond is still only a myth after 150 years. There had to be reason. I think the reason is that there is another world in addition to the one we see. I have arguments for it, not related to the evolution theory. Because of these arguments I think it is very possible that information has been moved from another world to our physical world and this explains not only the birth of the life but also the birth of different species.

    I will elaborate 3) as you surely will next ask what are these proofs and naturally you will put proofs into paranthesis, but these arguments actually are good.

    1) The present time argument. This argument continues the Greek puzzle of time and movement. Think of a virtual reality where you are on a street, can walk it back and forth, you see what there is by your virtual eyes. Then you also have a scale to move back and forth in time, so originally the street was like in 1970, you can go to any time between 1930 and 2010. This we can do with present technology. The virtual model is a 4-dimensional space-time. In the model nothing moves. Assume there is an arrow being shot. It is described by a 4-dimensional shape, It does not move: in each moment there is an arrow in different place. You are the only one who moves in this model. You can move because you live in the real time. You define the present time in the model: if you are in 1960, the present time is 1960. We can put a rule to the model that you cannot go backward in time and even that you have to move forward in time with some speed, but there has to be the real time: the time in the model is virtual, it is a coordinate, it does not move. To move in time, instead of feeling that you exist in the same sense in all times from 1930-2010, is caused by you living in the real time. You are conscious and alive in the real time. A 4-dimensional space-time has only coordinates, nothing moves there. Now, let us put another person to the virtual model. He can move in a different time. It looks like every observer defines his own present time, but this is not so in our physical world. We all are in the same present time. Even before humans existed there was the present time. As a conclusion, there is an observer, not a human, who defines the present time, and we all are stuck to the same time as in some way we are a part of the same observer. Try to go through this argument not as an arrogant skeptic but as an honest researcher. Time is a mystery, was so for Greeks and is so for anybody who thinks about it.

    2) The ERP-paradox and a simulation world. The ERP-paradox is the Einstein thought experiment showing that particles which once were together are tied together in all time without any interaction particles being sent between them. The phenomenon has been demonstrated many times and is considered proven. The only logical explanation I have found is that information passed from one particle to the other goes through history meaning that history is changed. That is, a decision to measure the place in one particle causes the impossibility of measuring the momentum in the other particle (for the reason that for waves there cannot be precise place and momentum, it is a logical impossibility). Information must be passed, yet no interactions occur. The only way I see is that measuring one particle selects or changes its history and in that way the history of the other particle. It is easy to change history in a simulation as time is not real. It is impossible to change history if time is real because what happened cannot be changed. Thus, time in this world is virtual. It follows that the physical world is virtual and there is a real world with the real time.

    3) Consciousness problem. We have consciousness. All mammals and probably all birds have consciousness. Consciousness is not needed in the laws of physics (there is the concept of an observer, but most physicists do not think it requires consciousness). We can theoretically build robots that do all we do and do not have consciousness (indeed, a computer is a mill and a library. Put a mill into a library, it does not create consciousness). As there is something in the reality that is not needed by the laws of physics (where everything that is physical reduces to) and not necessary (as computers can do without it), we must conclude that consciousness is an external feature in this world and demonstrates that there is another world.

    4) The Big Bang problem. Nothing comes out of nothing. This world had a beginning. There had to be something before this world. It was not a world like this one. What has a beginning has the end and limits. Beyond limits is something. This may not sound so convincing in the beginning, but it you for a long time think about this, it starts to be very strong.

    There are more, but that is all I will mention to you. The simple ones. The other arguments are more difficult and I will not try to explain them here.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  102. j2 says:
    @Santoculto

    “Sorry but i have the impression you’re not being objective in your comments and i don’t dirt the natural selection concept just applied it in another expanded perspective [food chain].

    Listen: food chain is a product of successive adaptative and evolutive [selectiv] events… Natural selection caused this.”

    There is the food chain, but I do not know in what sense you think the food chain changes Darwin’s idea of the survival of the fittest. As I see it does not change in any way: the fittest survives in the environment. The food chain is a part of this environment. You introduced the food chain as a confusion to make Darwin’s mechanism appear more complicated, but it really is a simple mechanism. It is a good and working mechanism and it occurs in the nature, but I doubt it can explain the origin of the species. There are other mechanisms, like genetic drift and bottlenecks.

  103. j2 says:
    @Santoculto

    “Only reason you believe your religion is not a mythology is because you believe mythologies must be polytheistics.”

    What made you think so? I think Christianity, Judaism and Islam are certainly mythical religions.

    “No, it’s doens’t mean a virgin woman impregnant by a MEGA-HUMAN, the creator of universe, is something near to reasonable.”

    This is because you are a modern person in a modern culture where a miracle is understood as something that should be real. In those times in that culture miracles were common place. Holy men did miracles. These miracles were a proof that they had a message from God. Miracles did not need to break the laws pf physics, the people did not even know what are laws of physics. A miracle could be a trick of a magician, a mystery play, a coincidence, intentional reference to prophesies, many things.
    Jesus was born from a virgin because at that time many Jews read Isaiah so that the Messiah is born from a virgin. It matters none that the place in Isaiah does not refer to the Messiah and the word virgin has another meaning as a young woman. So, if Jesus was the Messiah, he was born from a virgin, as for those people the Scriptures were God’s word. How Jesus was born form a virgin? That is a miracle. In some way he was. You understand that he was physically born from a virgin and say that this is biological nonsense. It seems that Paul did not think so, for Paul Jesus had in flesh been the son of Joseph. So for Paul Jesus was in spirit born from a virgin. Jesus was baptized and there is the story of a dove, the Holy Spirit, descending from the sky. So, truly, Jesus was born from a virgin for his early followers.
    You do not mention the resurrection, but for sure you as a modern person think that resurrection must be the body raising from death. It seems to have meant the spirit raising from the death. There apparently was a ritual, which created the image in the Turin Shroud, and the body was burned. But Jesus appeared in apostle Thomas in India. Jesus’ spirit was in the disciples and appeared in them, so Jesus rose from the death.

    You ridicule what you do not understand. They are myths, but they are not ridiculous myths. People in old times were just as philosophical and intelligent as in our times. These myths have a meaning that is not in contradiction with any laws of physics, yet have a content.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  104. j2 says:
    @Santoculto

    #They are, sorry for that. W hen you die it’s likely will no have a heaven for you.

    Only reason you believe your religion is not a mythology is because you believe mythologies must be polytheistics. #

    About the first, there are some good reasons, not connected with any religion you know but with logical and physical arguments, that consciousness is external to this world and does not need to disappear in death, but that is not what I want to explain to you. I will comment on Christianity. You seem to have a very old Enlightenment time view of Christianity, I may enlighten you in this respect. It was politics, a Jewish effort to the world rule.

    Christianity is not of myths, though Jesus had to fill old myths and prophesies. Christianity was a part of Jewish messianism, a political movement with the goal of throwing out Romans by a war and also capturing Rome by a coup. Jesus was a prophet messiah, the king messiah was originally Herod Agrippa. Herod expected a comet to arise soon as Jews had misinterpreted Caesar comet as Halley comet, of which they knew it appears every 70 years. The rebel was to start when the comet appears, and it started finally in 66 AD. That was the second coming of Christ. Paul was from the Herod family and not any Roman spy. He was a supporter of Herod Agrippa, who was poisoned when his plans to power were revealed. Paul converted pagans to me martyrs (sacrifices), because Jews though that their sins have to be redeemed so that God will fight on their side. Jews did really believe in God at that time. Jesus was sacrificed as the Son for the redemption of the sins of the people. As Jews were to rule the whole world, Jesus died for the redemption of the sins of the mankind. Turn the other cheek, love your enemy are just what a sacrificed lamb should do, not to resist, to be good as God is good, but the goal was just to turn God against the enemy of Jews. The enemy, Romans, would not be pardoned but destroyed.

    Then you read Paul and do not see this political plan. You read that Paul believed that Jesus raised from the death and that Christians will be taken to the sky when Jesus comes. But you should read what Paul writes, he teaches the pagans as children, gives them only milk as children cannot tolerate stronger. For Paul it was fine if the sacrificed pagans believed in miracles as children, but it was not how he himself believed. He especially comments that do not think about the genealogies of Jesus, Why not. Because if you do, you soon notice names of Second temple kings of Israel, like Janneaus. One genealogy of Jesus is that of Herod Agrippa. By studying them pagans would soon have understood that this is a rebellion against Rome, not Gods salvation plan.

    There also was a plan to change the emperor of Rome. A friend of Paul helped Nero in committing suicide, if it was a suicide and not a murder. Notice that Neros one wife Poppaea was verz close to Jews and this is why Nero persecuted Christians. Persecution of Christians, who at the time were seen as Jews, was not because of Jewish hatred towards them, it was because Christians were to die as sacrifices to redeem the sins of the Jews, for them to win the war. One of the four emperors after Nero was a Jewish puppet, the former husband of Poppaea, but he did not win. Vespasian won and he was suspicious of Jews to the end of his life, for good reasons. Very possibly the intended king of Jews, the king messiah, in the rebellion of 66 AD was originally to be Flavius Josephus. He wrote the history and hid his role, so we cannot be sure.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  105. @j2

    So, you support the official evolution theory where the natural selection and random mutations are the mechanism for creating new species. I will express a dissident view. It is not a worked out theory. I do not think there is a working theory explaining the origin of species.

    Try to answer my questions or comments in direct and summarized ways, can you*

    NO, i already told you, it’s not a RANDOM mutations…

    But I have some thoughts about it:
    1) New species are created by boundaries that divide a population to subpopulations that do not interbreed for a long time. With large mammals, like humans, this time is about 1 million years. After that drift has changed the genomes so much that the populations are separate species.

    Random mutations* Or directed mutations caused by some mechanisms… why populations divide*
    - by geographical events;

    - by increasing of behavioral/genetic divergences, and many times it’s result or is caused by conflicts..

    2) DNA passed by viruses may have a large role in evolution. It offers one possible way how genes from one far away phyla could reappear in another phyla. This mechanism is shown to exist but its role in evolution has not yet been studied. Apart of viruses, there may be other one-cell organisms passing DNA, this is yet to be seen.

    I don’t have credentials to talk about it.

    3) The birth of life from non-life is not explained by the evolution theory and Darwin’s idea of a warm pond is still only a myth after 150 years.

    Because ”Darwin’s idea” was not to explain the origin of life but the origin or the causal mechanism to diversity of life.

    There had to be reason. I think the reason is that there is another world in addition to the one we see. I have arguments for it, not related to the evolution theory. Because of these arguments I think it is very possible that information has been moved from another world to our physical world and this explains not only the birth of the life but also the birth of different species.

    I bet life is a type of mutant water state because we can’t survive without it [and remember that air humidity is also water state], but of course it’s a kick into the moon.

  106. @j2

    This is because you are a modern person in a modern culture where a miracle is understood as something that should be real. In those times in that culture miracles were common place. Holy men did miracles. These miracles were a proof that they had a message from God. Miracles did not need to break the laws pf physics, the people did not even know what are laws of physics. A miracle could be a trick of a magician, a mystery play, a coincidence, intentional reference to prophesies, many things.

    ok….

    I’m not a modern person, i dislike to give to me such labels. I barely have a current social life with my pairs of my age. I think more similar with older people, in some ways.

    Jesus was born from a virgin because at that time many Jews read Isaiah so that the Messiah is born from a virgin. It matters none that the place in Isaiah does not refer to the Messiah and the word virgin has another meaning as a young woman. So, if Jesus was the Messiah, he was born from a virgin, as for those people the Scriptures were God’s word. How Jesus was born form a virgin? That is a miracle. In some way he was. You understand that he was physically born from a virgin and say that this is biological nonsense. It seems that Paul did not think so, for Paul Jesus had in flesh been the son of Joseph. So for Paul Jesus was in spirit born from a virgin. Jesus was baptized and there is the story of a dove, the Holy Spirit, descending from the sky. So, truly, Jesus was born from a virgin for his early followers.
    You do not mention the resurrection, but for sure you as a modern person think that resurrection must be the body raising from death. It seems to have meant the spirit raising from the death. There apparently was a ritual, which created the image in the Turin Shroud, and the body was burned. But Jesus appeared in apostle Thomas in India. Jesus’ spirit was in the disciples and appeared in them, so Jesus rose from the death.

    OK.

    You ridicule what you do not understand. They are myths, but they are not ridiculous myths. People in old times were just as philosophical and intelligent as in our times. These myths have a meaning that is not in contradiction with any laws of physics, yet have a content.

    OK.

  107. @j2

    About the first, there are some good reasons, not connected with any religion you know but with logical and physical arguments, that consciousness is external to this world and does not need to disappear in death, but that is not what I want to explain to you. I will comment on Christianity. You seem to have a very old Enlightenment time view of Christianity, I may enlighten you in this respect. It was politics, a Jewish effort to the world rule.

    You light will likely make me blind thought.

    Christianity is not of myths, though Jesus had to fill old myths and prophesies.

    You said myth is a good thing which don’t hurt physical laws…

    Christianity was a part of Jewish messianism, a political movement with the goal of throwing out Romans by a war and also capturing Rome by a coup. Jesus was a prophet messiah, the king messiah was originally Herod Agrippa. Herod expected a comet to arise soon as Jews had misinterpreted Caesar comet as Halley comet, of which they knew it appears every 70 years. The rebel was to start when the comet appears, and it started finally in 66 AD. That was the second coming of Christ. Paul was from the Herod family and not any Roman spy. He was a supporter of Herod Agrippa, who was poisoned when his plans to power were revealed. Paul converted pagans to me martyrs (sacrifices), because Jews though that their sins have to be redeemed so that God will fight on their side. Jews did really believe in God at that time. Jesus was sacrificed as the Son for the redemption of the sins of the people. As Jews were to rule the whole world, Jesus died for the redemption of the sins of the mankind. Turn the other cheek, love your enemy are just what a sacrificed lamb should do, not to resist, to be good as God is good, but the goal was just to turn God against the enemy of Jews. The enemy, Romans, would not be pardoned but destroyed.

    Then you read Paul and do not see this political plan. You read that Paul believed that Jesus raised from the death and that Christians will be taken to the sky when Jesus comes. But you should read what Paul writes, he teaches the pagans as children, gives them only milk as children cannot tolerate stronger. For Paul it was fine if the sacrificed pagans believed in miracles as children, but it was not how he himself believed. He especially comments that do not think about the genealogies of Jesus, Why not. Because if you do, you soon notice names of Second temple kings of Israel, like Janneaus. One genealogy of Jesus is that of Herod Agrippa. By studying them pagans would soon have understood that this is a rebellion against Rome, not Gods salvation plan.

    There also was a plan to change the emperor of Rome. A friend of Paul helped Nero in committing suicide, if it was a suicide and not a murder. Notice that Neros one wife Poppaea was verz close to Jews and this is why Nero persecuted Christians. Persecution of Christians, who at the time were seen as Jews, was not because of Jewish hatred towards them, it was because Christians were to die as sacrifices to redeem the sins of the Jews, for them to win the war. One of the four emperors after Nero was a Jewish puppet, the former husband of Poppaea, but he did not win. Vespasian won and he was suspicious of Jews to the end of his life, for good reasons. Very possibly the intended king of Jews, the king messiah, in the rebellion of 66 AD was originally to be Flavius Josephus. He wrote the history and hid his role, so we cannot be sure.

    OK.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.