The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Laurent Guyénot Archive
Blood and Soul
An Essay in Metagenetics
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

“We are survival machines-robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.” This is Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene. His selfish gene theory, he remarked in 1989, “has become textbook orthodoxy,” because it is merely “a logical outgrowth of orthodox Neo-Darwinism, but expressed as a novel image.”

The image is misleading. Dawkins doesn’t literally believe that genes are selfish entities with a will to replicate themselves. If they were, they would be like animating souls. In the Darwinian world where Dawkins lives, genes are not souls, but merely molecules ruled by the determinist laws of chemistry. And they are the result of a series of chemical accidents over millions of years, starting from the first self-replicating protein.

Notwithstanding scientists’ arrogant claims, the function of genes remains highly mysterious—and overrated. If genes did what the Dawkinses tell us, we would be 99 percent identical to chimps. We are not. On the chemical level perhaps, but we are not chemical beings. We are spiritual beings. Obviously, the hardware of genetics does not explain the totality of our inborn ancestral inheritance.

“Blood” is the name people used to give to the spiritual qualities that pass from generation to generation, before they knew anything about DNA. The idea is that we are genealogical beings, spiritually as well as physically. How does it work? Do we have an ancestral or a racial collective soul? How do “blood” or “genes” account for the sense of kinship that forms the basis of organic societies—what Ludwig Gumplowicz called the “syngenic feeling”?

By reading about White advocacy and “race realism” for the last couple of years, including on this site, I have learned much about what is deceptive in liberal ideologies, but I have not found a satisfying philosophical alternative, a theory of man that would explain the spiritual and social importance of kinship, lineage, ancestry, ethnicity and race.

Cultural wars are fought with cultural weapons, and it seems to me that most “race realists” are using inappropriate weapons, such as Darwinism or Christianism. Those weapons are actually used by our opponents with more efficiency: the mainstream Darwinian dogma is that race is a myth, and the only thing that should matter for Christians is that under Christ all men are brothers. I have already written about the flaws of Christian anthropology (here and here). Now I wish to focus on Darwinism, our aggressively dominant anthropological paradigm. I will start with a critic of Darwinism, both as a nihilist theory of life and as a moribund scientific paradigm. Then I will present alternative views of life and evolution, from Intelligent Design to Rupert Sheldrake’s “morphic resonance”. They are, fundamentally, improved versions of Platonism, which may also be called Idealism. Finally, I will explain how this Platonic science of biological organisms is relevant for understanding the nature of social organisms, as Alexander Dugin also argues in Political Platonism.

The Darwinian Catastrophe

First, a clarification: a distinction must be made between Darwin’s theory of how vegetal and animal species appeared from previous ones, and what is commonly called “social Darwinism,” but should really be called Spencerism. Although Herbert Spencer, who coined the phrase “survival of the fittest”, expressed great enthusiasm for Darwin’s book, his sociological views predate Darwin’s biological theory, and do not depend on it. Sociological concepts cannot validate Darwin’s theory of the “origin of species”, which is the only thing that deserves the name “Darwinism”. It must also be pointed out, as Dawkins does, that the concept of “group selection”, which is useful for understanding race relations, is incompatible with the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection, since altruistic individuals who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the group have less chance of survival. Incidentally, since altruism and group selection do exist even in the animal kingdom, Darwin was right when he said: “I look at it as absolutely certain that very much in the Origin will be proved rubbish.”[1]Darwin to Falconer in 1862, quoted in Stephen Jay Gould, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Harvard UP, 2002, p. 2. Darwin added (but he was wrong): “but I expect and hope that the framework will stand.” It is true that the concept of “group selection” was introduced by Darwin himself in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871), but that doesn’t change the fact that it is incompatible with Darwinism, at least with neo-Darwinism.

But before I expose the scientific fallacy of Darwinism, let’s talk about its impact on our civilization. As Nietzsche correctly characterized it in the second of his posthumous Untimely Meditations, Darwinism means essentially, to the layman, “the lack of all radical difference between man and beast”. And Nietzsche saw that as a philosophical atomic bomb:

if we have these [ideas] thrust on the people in the usual mad way for another generation, no one need be surprised if that people drown on its little miserable shoals of egoism, and petrify in its self-seeking. At first it will fall asunder and cease to be a people. In its place perhaps individualist systems, secret societies for the extermination of non-members, and similar utilitarian creations, will appear on the theater of the future.

Although he characterized Darwinism as “a true but fatal idea”, Nietzsche criticized the mechanical nature of the Darwinian model, and its neglect of the “will to power” inherent to life, of which he had learned from Arthur Schopenhauer. In his preface to the second edition of On the Will in Nature (1836), five years before Darwin’s Origin of Species, Schopenhauer had warned against

the unparalleled zeal and activity displayed in every branch of Natural Science which, as this pursuit is mostly in the hands of people who have learned nothing else, threatens to lead to a gross, stupid Materialism, the more immediately offensive side of which is less the moral bestiality of its ultimate results, than the incredible absurdity of its first principles; for by it even vital force is denied, and organic Nature is degraded to a mere chance play of chemical forces.

Seventy years later, the English writer Bernard Shaw, in his preface to Back o Methuselah (A Metabiological Pentateuch), worried about the secular ethics of ruthless competition implicit in Darwinism, and blamed it for the Great War:

Neo-Darwinism in politics had produced a European catastrophe of a magnitude so appalling, and a scope so unpredictable, that as I write these lines in 1920, it is still far from certain whether our civilization will survive it.[2]Bernard Shaw, preface to Back to Methuselah (1921), on www.gutenberg.org.

As Shaw was writing this, Darwinism was imposing itself as the metaphysical framework of all “human sciences,” and the foundation of a new idea of ​​man, who is no longer distinguished from the animal kingdom by a qualitative leap. Sigmund Freud, among others, owed his success to having re-founded psychology on Darwinian principles, that is to say, on the predicate that the creative spirit of man was only a by-product of his (repressed) animal instincts: “It is merely the principle of pleasure […] which from the outset governs the operations of the psychic apparatus” (Civilization and Its Discontents, 1929). Since, according to Darwinian logic, procreation determines selection, it was naturally in the sex drive that Freud found the key to the human psyche.

ORDER IT NOW

Because we are now all living inside the Darwinian matrix, we don’t easily measure its impact or see where it is driving us. Let’s take, as a good indicator, the success of the latest Darwinian star Yuval Noah Harari, who sold close to 30 million copies in 60 languages. In Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (2015, first published in Hebrew in 2011), he hammers the point: we are no different from animals, and “life has no script, no playwright, no director, no producer—and no meaning.” Then in Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow (2017) came the good news, the promise of redemption, the new alliance of man with himself, the prophecy of his self-deification by the miracle of high technology:

Having reduced mortality from starvation, disease and violence, we will now aim to overcome old age and even death itself. Having saved people from abject misery, we will now aim to make them positively happy. And having raised humanity above the beastly level of survival struggles, we will now aim to upgrade humans into gods, and turn Homo sapiens into Homo deus.

[…] bioengineers will take the old Sapiens body, and intentionally rewrite its genetic code, rewire its brain circuits, alter its biochemical balance, and even grow entirely new limbs. They will thereby create new godlings, who might be as different from us Sapiens as we are different from Homo erectus. Cyborg engineering will go a step further, merging the organic body with non-organic devices such as bionic hands, artificial eyes, or millions of nano-robots that will navigate our bloodstream, diagnose problems and repair damage. …

A bolder approach dispenses with organic parts altogether, and hopes to engineer completely non-organic beings. Neural networks will be replaced by intelligent software, which could surf both the virtual and non-virtual worlds, free from the limitations of organic chemistry. After 4 billion years of wandering inside the kingdom of organic compounds, life will break out into the vastness of the inorganic realm, and will take shapes that we cannot envision even in our wildest dreams. After all, our wildest dreams are still the product of organic chemistry.

So goes the neo-neo-Darwinian doxa: by some genetic miraculous accident which produced the “Cognitive Revolution” 70,000 years ago, chemical determinism gave birth to infinite self-determinism, and the monkey-man is now turning himself into the god-man. Now Dawkins’s “machine-robot” can start to upgrade itself into an eternal electronic zombie. Such fantasy of physical immortality and omnipotence sounds funny in today’s time of Covidophobia, but of course there is a connection: it’s all about spreading the philosophy that the purpose of life is to avoid death (individual physical death, that is).

The Mechanical View of Life

This collective mental disorder that causes a man to think of himself as a machine (is there a name for it in the DSM-5?)[3]Interestingly, Darwin complained about it in his autobiography: “My mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts” (p. 144). can be traced back to Frenchman René Descartes (1596-1650). Descartes was fascinated from childhood by the new machinery of his age, and intuited that animals are no different from sophisticated automatons. Like everyone else, he was impressed by Kepler’s claim that “the celestial machine is to be likened not to a divine organism but rather to clockwork,” and decided that living organisms were also not organisms but machines.

According to the Aristotelian tradition followed by Thomas Aquinas, living beings differed essentially from inanimate matter by their inherent vital principle, or anima, which was conceived as surrounding the body rather than inside it. But since the cosmic organism was now deprived of its anima mundi and converted into a mechanism, Descartes wanted to get rid of the anima in animals too. He was cautious enough to make an exception for man, who had a rational soul located in the pineal gland.

Descartes’ machine theory of life was continuously challenged by a school of thought that came to be called “vitalism” in the nineteenth century. Vitalists claimed that the phenomena of life cannot be fully explained by mechanical or chemical laws derived from the study of inanimate systems, and that the processes of morphogenesis and reproduction require an additional causal factor. For vitalists the evolution of species could be accounted for if the “élan vital” (Henri Bergson, L’Évolution créatrice, 1907) includes some sort of Schopenhauerian “will to evolve”. Bergson wrote:

the more we fix our attention on this continuity of life, the more we see that organic evolution resembles the evolution of a consciousness, in which the past presses against the present and causes the upspringing of a new form of consciousness, incommensurable with its antecedents.[4]Henri Bergson, L’Évolution créatrice, quoted in Rupert Sheldrake, The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature, Icon Books, 2011

Although the term “holism” was only coined in 1926 by Jan Smuts, it clarifies how vitalists distinguish organic from inorganic systems. In the words of Arthur Koestler (The Ghost in the Machine, 1967), every part of a holarchy, called a holon, “has a dual tendency to preserve and assert its individuality as a quasi-autonomous whole; and to function as an integrated part of an (existing or evolving) larger whole.”[5]Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (1967), quoted in Rupert Sheldrake, The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry, Coronet, 2012. In their development, holistic systems require some kind of teleological principle, a preexisting plan, in other words a Platonic or Aristotelian “Form”.

A symbolic representation of holistic systems
A symbolic representation of holistic systems

In 1802, Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck thought to defeat vitalism with his doctrine of transformism, which explained how species evolved from one another by the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Darwin later proposed a different mechanism for evolution (“descent with modification”). Such theories of evolution had the advantage of making the God hypothesis superfluous: machines normally require a designer (Newton imagined God “very well skilled in mechanics and geometry”), but organisms do not, if they evolved progressively through spontaneous variations and natural selection. “Chance and necessity” created all life forms, from the bacteria to man.

With the rediscovery of Mendel’s laws of heredity, Darwinism evolved into what Julian Huxley would call the “modern synthesis” (commonly called neo-Darwinism). In the 1930s, thanks to the electron microscope, the quest for the explanation of life moved from the cellular level to the molecular level. Biology became conceived as a branch of chemistry. Francis Crick, who shared in a Nobel Prize for the discovery of the structure of DNA, wrote in Of Molecules and Men (1966): “the ultimate aim of the modern movement in biology is in fact to explain all biology in terms of physics and chemistry.”[6]Quoted in Rupert Sheldrake, The Science Delusion.

Ironically, the focus on the molecular level unveiled the mind-blowing complexity of living cells, which puts increasing pressure on the simplistic Darwinian model of evolution by accidental mutations.

Intelligent Design

Michael Behe explains in his best-selling book Darwin’s Black Box:

Biochemistry has demonstrated that any biological apparatus involving more than one cell (such as an organ or a tissue) is necessarily an intricate web of many different, identifiable systems of horrendous complexity. The “simplest” self-sufficient, replicating cell has the capacity to produce thousands of different proteins, and other molecules, at different times and under variable conditions. Synthesis, degradation, energy generation, replication, maintenance of cell architecture, mobility, regulation, repair, communication—all of these functions take place in virtually every cell, and each function itself requires the interaction of numerous parts.[7]Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, S&S International, 2006, p. 46.

Can such tremendous complexity have happened by a Darwinian series of mistakes in the replication of genes, by chance alone? It is important to understand that, according to Darwin, the only creative process in evolution is “accidentally produced variations.” Natural selection creates nothing; it acts only negatively by eliminating disadvantageous variations. As Stephen Meyer puts it in Darwin’s Doubt, natural selection explains “only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest.” This is a crucial point, hidden for the general public, who is naively led to believe that natural selection is a creative force. Richard Dawkins, for instance, deceives his readers when he writes in The Selfish Gene that, “evolution works by natural selections.” That statement is blatantly false within Darwinian science, but it is essential for Darwinian indoctrination.

ORDER IT NOW

And remember: Darwin knew nothing about genes. The smallest part of the organism that he could see was the cell, and the cell was for him a “black box”. He had no idea of ​​the nature and causes of the “accidentally produced variations” that could miraculously give birth to selective advantages. It was not until the 1940s that accidental variations were determined to be errors in the replication in the DNA code. However, experiments show that spontaneous or induced genetic mutations only give birth to weaklings or monsters, which are often sterile. In other words, natural selection tends to preserve the genetic heritage by eliminating individuals who deviate too much from the standard.

Darwin insisted, and today’s neo-Darwinists keep insisting, that each variation must be very small, and that only the gradual accumulation of a great number of micromutations can produce a significant change. Behe underlines the biggest obstacle to this theory, with what he calls “irreducible complexity”. A system is “irreducibly complex” if it “is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” The classic example is the eye. Gradual development of the human eye appears to be impossible, since its many sophisticated features are interdependent.

The eye either functions as a whole or not at all. So how did it come to evolve by slow, steady, infinitesimally small Darwinian improvements? Is it really plausible that thousands upon thousands of lucky chance mutations happened coincidentally so that the lense and the retina, which cannot work without each other, evolved in synchrony? What survival value can there be in an eye that doesn’t see?[8]Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, p. 37.

Note that the alternative to Darwin’s gradualism know as “saltationism” doesn’t solve that problem, and neither does Stephen Jay Gould’s theory of “punctuated equilibria”: the appearance of any “irreducibly complex” organ is still probabilistically impossible by mere blind mutation.

Michael Behe is a prominent biochemist who defends the hypothesis of “Intelligent Design”. Since this movement argues that the complexity of life, that appears greater and greater with each new discovery, is the most compelling proof of the existence of God—or Mind, or Purpose—, deicide scientists have entered into crusade mode. Hence the aggressive campaign to ban university professors favorable to Intelligent Design, as documented in the film Expelled: No Intelligent Allowed. There is now a Darwinian selection in academia to eliminate non-Darwinian scientists. I happen to have experienced it on a small scale, when, after I received my doctorate degree, I was refused a university teaching position for the sole reason—it was clearly signified to me—that I had translated, edited and prefaced Phillip Johnson’s book, Darwinism on Trial.

Intelligent Design advocate and populizer Stephen Meyer develops another key argument in his book Darwin’s Doubt:

“the entities that confer functional advantages on organisms—new genes and their corresponding protein products—constitute long linear arrays of precisely sequenced subunits, nucleotide bases in the case of genes and amino acids in the case of proteins. Yet, according to neo-Darwinian theory, these complex and highly specified entities must first arise and provide some advantage before natural selection can act to preserve them. Given the number of bases present in genes, and amino acids present in functional proteins, a large number of changes in the arrangement of these molecular subunits would typically have to occur before a new functional and selectable protein could arise. For even the smallest unit of functional innovation—a novel protein—to arise, many improbable rearrangements of nucleotide bases would need to occur before natural selection had anything new and advantageous to select.”[9]Stephen Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, HarperOne, 2013, p. 177.

Meyer emphasizes that the revolution in biochemistry has led to the realization that life is not fundamentally about matter; it is about information. DNA “codes” information, which can be “transcribed” into RNA molecules, and then “translated” into a sequence of amino acids as protein molecules are synthesized. “Since the molecular biological revolution first highlighted the primacy of information to the maintenance and function of living systems, questions about the origin of information have moved decidedly to the forefront of discussions about evolutionary theory.”[10]Stephen C. Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt, p. 168. Random or accidental changes in any sequence carrying information degrades the information and can in no way add new information. That is why the major challenge to Darwinism has come from mathematicians: in 1966, a distinguished group of mathematicians, engineers, and scientists convened a conference at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia called “Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution.”[11]Stephen C. Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt, p. 170.

Morphogenetic Fields and Morphic Resonance

For Stephen Meyer, “the discovery of digital information in even the simplest living cells indicates the prior activity of a designing intelligence at work in the origin of the first life.”[12]Stephen C. Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt, p. 159. But this “designing intelligence” need not necessarily be conceived as a transcendent God, external to his creation. In other words, the Intelligent Design paradigm should not be narrowed down to a modern version of the watchmaker (the computer-maker), who creates new models once in a while. It is also possible to follow a more pantheist or animist line of thinking and assume that intelligence (or mind, which includes will and emotion) is inherent to life itself. Documentaries on the intelligence of plants can help (here, here or here).

Cambridge biologist Rupert Sheldrake argues along this line: “Living organisms may have an internal creativity, as we do ourselves.”[13]Rupert Sheldrake, The Science Delusion. But Sheldrake gets more interesting when he introduces the notion of “morphogenetic fields”. He did not invent it, and gives credit to Hans Spemann, Alexander Gurwitsch and Paul Weiss, who in the early 1920s proposed that morphogenesis is organized by “developmental”, “embryonic”, or “morphogenetic” fields. These fields organize the development of the embryo, and guide the processes of regulation and regeneration after damage.

The specific nature of the fields, according to Weiss, means that each species of organism has its own morphogenetic field, although fields of related species may be similar. Moreover, within the organism there are subsidiary fields within the overall field of the organism, in fact a nested hierarchy of fields within fields.[14]Rupert Sheldrake, The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature, Icon Books, 2011.

Thinking in terms of fields is necessary, Sheldrake argues, because genetic information cannot be located only within the genes:

“The concept of genetic programs is based on an analogy with computer programs. The metaphor implies that the fertilized egg contains a preformed program that somehow coordinates the organism’s development. But the genetic program must involve something more than the chemical structure of DNA, because identical copies of DNA are passed on to all cells; if all cells were programmed identically, they could not develop differently.”[15]Rupert Sheldrake, Morphic Resonance: The Nature of Formative Causation, Park Street Press, 2009, p. 9.

Part of the information that “gives form” to the organism, therefore, is not materially encoded; it belongs to the morphogenetic fields, not the DNA. Sheldrake uses a simple metaphor to make that idea easy to understand:

Consider the following analogy. The music that comes out of the loudspeaker of a radio set depends both on the material structures of the set and the energy that powers it and on the transmission to which the set is tuned. The music can of course be affected by changes in the wiring, transistors, condensers, etc., and it ceases when the battery is removed. Someone who knew nothing about the transmission of invisible, intangible, and inaudible vibrations through the electromagnetic field might conclude that it could be explained entirely in terms of the components of the radio, the way in which they were arranged, and the energy on which their functioning depended. If he ever considered the possibility that anything entered from outside, he would dismiss it when he discovered that the set weighed the same switched on and switched off. He would therefore have to suppose that the rhythmic and harmonic patterns of the music arose within the set as a result of immensely complicated interactions among its parts. After a careful study and analysis of the set, he might even be able to make a replica of it that produced exactly the same sounds as the original, and would probably regard this result as a striking proof of his theory. But in spite of his achievement, he would remain completely unaware that in reality the music originated in a broadcasting studio hundreds of miles away.[16]Rupert Sheldrake, Morphic Resonance, pp. 111-112.

On the notion of morphogenetic fields, Sheldrake builds up the notion of “morphic resonance”. Since morphogenetic fields contain an inherent memory, that memory might not be immutable, but might be influenced by feedback. In other words, all organisms (or organs, or cells) moved by a certain field enter in resonance with each other, and that resonance constitutes the field itself.

Morphic resonance takes place on the basis of similarity. The more similar an organism is to previous organisms, the greater their influence on it by morphic resonance. And the more such organisms there have been, the more powerful their cumulative influence.[17]Rupert Sheldrake, The Presence of the Past.

This is what Sheldrake also calls “formative causation”: “according to the hypothesis of formative causation, the form of a system depends on the cumulative morphic influence of previous similar systems”; “morphic fields are not precisely defined but are probability structures that depend on the statistical distribution of previous similar forms.”[18]Rupert Sheldrake, Morphic Resonance, pp. 94, 109. That still doesn’t explain the appearance of new species, a question that Sheldrake leaves open.

I cannot get into more detail about Sheldrake’s theories, but here is his own summary, from The Presence of the Past:

let us recall the hypothetical properties of these fields at all levels of complexity: They are self-organizing wholes. They have both a spatial and a temporal aspect, and organize spatio-temporal patterns of vibratory or rhythmic activity. They attract the systems under their influence towards characteristic forms and patterns of activity, whose coming-into-being they organize and whose integrity they maintain. The ends or goals towards which morphic fields attract the systems under their influence are called attractors. The pathways by which systems usually reach these attractors are called chreodes. They interrelate and co-ordinate the morphic units or holons that lie within them, which in turn are wholes organized by morphic fields. Morphic fields contain other morphic fields within them in a nested hierarchy or holarchy. They are structures of probability, and their organizing activity is probabilistic. They contain a built-in memory given by self-resonance with a morphic unit’s own past and by morphic resonance with all previous similar systems. This memory is cumulative. The more often particular patterns of activity are repeated, the more habitual they tend to become.

Platonism and the Organic Society

Perhaps the highest accomplishment of European pre-Christian thinking had been the philosophical concept of the divine Creative Intelligence, often personified as Hagia Sophia, Holy Wisdom. In those days, scholars were “philosophers,” lovers of Sophia, who believed that the Intelligence that designed and animated the cosmos could be approached by the human intelligence in which it was reflected.

ORDER IT NOW

Plato, the prince of philosophers, considered that all manifestations in this world of sense-experience were imperfect reflections of archetypal Forms or Ideas. With Intelligent Design and Sheldrake’s Morphic Resonance, we are witnessing the return of Plato. This is a general trend in science, where concepts of energy fields are replacing matter. Werner Heisenberg, one of the founders of quantum mechanics, wrote:

On this point modern physics has definitely decided for Plato. For the smallest units of matter are, in fact, not physical objects in the ordinary sense of the word; they are forms, structures, or—in Plato’s sense—ideas, which can be unambiguously spoken of only in the language of mathematics.[19]Quoted in Rupert Sheldrake, The Presence of the Past.

Since Plato’s central thesis is the reality of Ideas, Platonism may be called “Idealism”. In the broad sense, Idealism affirms the existence of another world, more real than the material world but inaccessible to our physical senses. Idealism is the theory that postulates the primacy of Mind over Matter.

With this we can begin to form an organic political theory. A community or a nation can only be organic or holistic if it has a life of its own, an anima, a collective soul that unites men in morphic resonance not just physically and socially, but spiritually. Interestingly, it was Herbert Spencer who drew the first systematic comparison between the structure of individual organisms and that of societies, in an article titled “the social organism”. Like biological organisms, he remarked, social organisms grow and increase in complexity and differentiation as they grow. Both are made of interdependent micro-organisms. A civilization is the most developed form of social organisms.[20]Herbert Spencer, Social Statics: or, the Conditions Essential to Human Happiness Specified, and the First of Them Developed, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1888, p. 497, quoted here.

The implicit political theory of Western liberal society is based on individualism and materialism, the exact opposites of holism and Idealism. The individual is declared to be the ultimate, in fact the only, human reality. The individualistic conception of man first led to “contractualist” political theories, starting with Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan, 1651).[21]T. D. Weldon called them “mechanical political theories”, as opposed to organic ones, in States and Morals, 1947. In his wake came Bernard Mandeville, who argued in The Fable of the Bees; or, Private Vices, Publick Benefits (1714) that vice is the indispensable motive that produces a society of luxury, while virtue is useless or perhaps detrimental to public prosperity. Then came Adam Smith (The Wealth of Nations, 1776). Postulating, like Hobbes, that human beings are motivated exclusively by their own personal profit, Smith speculated that in a society of free competition, the sum of everybody’s selfishness would create a just society: “Every individual […] intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.” We know the result: money is not the blood of a social organism made of cells and organs, but the fuel of a social machine where individuals are reduced to dispensable and interchangeable parts.

In a recent essay, Alexander Dugin puts the blame on “nominalism”, the philosophy that challenged Platonic Idealism (also called “essentialism” or “realism”) by denying the existence of universals in the fourteenth century. “Nominalism laid the foundation for future liberalism, both ideologically and economically. Here humans were seen only as individuals and nothing else, and all forms of collective identity (religion, class, etc.) were to be abolished.” According to Dugin, nominalism caused the greatest harm by destroying “the collective identity of the Church,” understood as “the mystical body of Christ.”

That’s true, but the Church is a supernatural, not a natural organism. And with its exclusivism, it has contributed to undermine other holistic systems. In the early fifth century, the Christian poet Prudentius protested against the respect due to the protective “genius” of Rome, denying that such “ghost” had the slightest reality. As Edward Gibbon sees it, it was Christians, with their eyes focused on the City of God, who caused the fall of the Roman Empire by showing an “indolent, or even criminal, disregard for the public welfare.”[22]Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, quoted in Catherine Nixey, The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2018, p. 31. Christianity has replaced the pagan hero who sacrifices his life for his community, by the saint who renounces family ties and dies for his creed, or starves himself in the desert! Who needs saint Anthony or saint Ignatius? It is commonly agreed that, with its egalitarian, atomistic concept of the human soul and its focus on individual salvation, Christianity begot individualism, and later modern democracy: from “one salvation per person” to “one vote per person”.[23]Louis Dumont, Essays on Individualism: Modern Ideology in Anthropological Perspective, University of Chicago Press, 1992, pp. 23-59.

So I’m all for Christian race realists to fight with “The Sword of Christ”, but the notion that White people need to turn back to the Christian faith in order to save themselves collectively is a dangerous delusion. We might as well do the Ghost Dance.

Anthropologist Weston La Barre used the Ghost Dance as the symbol for the theory that relationship with the dead ancestors is the foundation of traditional societies (The Ghost Dance: The Origins of Religion, 1970). That’s food for thought.

But let me point out another lesson in the concept: with the Ghost Dance, Native Americans were trying to bring a magical end to their own genocide. The movement ended with the Wounded Knee massacre. Ten days before, Lyman Frank Baum, editor of South Dakota’s Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer (and future author of The Wizard of Oz), wrote:

The nobility of the Redskin is extinguished, and what few are left are a pack of whining curs who lick the hand that smites them… The Whites, by law of conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American continent and the best safety of the frontier settlements will be secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians. Why not annihilation? Their glory has fled, their spirit broken, their manhood effaced; better that they should die than live like the miserable wretches that they are.”[24]Quoted in David E. Stannard, American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World, Oxford UP, 1992, p. 126.

Replace “Redskins” by “Whites” and “Whites” by “Jews”, and you have a view of White Americans’ future as some would like it. There is surely a karmic connection between the two scenarios: collective destiny means collective responsibility. Exterminating the Indians who couldn’t be enslaved and importing inhumanly millions of Africans instead brought a curse on White civilization. Yahweh made you do it perhaps (Schopenhauer blamed Western barbarity on the Judaic spirit), and Yahweh is now making you (us) pay for it.

The Transgenerational Factor

But we are not ready for the Ghost Dance yet. Whites will fight for their lives, their identity, their dignity, their freedom of speech, their legitimate place of leadership. Very difficult times are ahead.

We know our enemy’s strength: Jews, wrote Martin Buber, make blood “the deepest, most potent stratum of [their] being.” The Jew perceives “what confluence of blood has produced him. […] He senses in this immortality of the generations a community of blood”[25]Quoted by Brendon Sanderson in his review of Geoffrey Cantor and Mark Swetlitz’s Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism, in The Occidental Observer. (more of the same in my article “Israel as One Man”). Our weakness is individualism. Our sense of blood is weak. To most Whites, the word itself evokes nothing but what prolongs their miserable individual life. Where else than America can you buy blood?

If there is some truth in the science of life I presented here, there is a lesson too, a philosophical path to break free from individualism and start listening to our inner genetic self. In a sense, Dawkins’s metaphor has its value, if only we add the missing spiritual dimension. The genes, he writes, “created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence.”[26]I wonder, by the way, how Dawkins justifies having only one child in three marriages. Is he smarter than his genes? But “preservation” is the wrong concept: you share your genes when you mate; you mix your blood, your lineage, with another one. This is the highest human responsibility. Genetic heritage is the real wealth of nations. There once was, by the way, a European movement based entirely on that idea: now that Americans have destroyed it, they can read about it in Johann Chapoutot, The Law of Blood: Thinking and Acting as a Nazi (2018).

Our core identity, whether we like it or not, is that we are all members of family trees. Our liberal mindset might tell us otherwise, but blood doesn’t lie. Our ancestors live within us. Sometimes they fight within us; think of the racial war going on inside the head of a man of mixed origin but always identified as Black, never as White.

It is probably a privilege of old age to realize how much our psychology and our destiny were shaped by our genealogy. In his eighties, Carl Jung said:

I feel very strongly that I am under the influence of things or questions which were left incomplete and unanswered by my parents and grandparents and more distant ancestors. It often seems as if there were an impersonal karma within a family, which is passed on from parents to children. It has always seemed to me that I had to answer questions which fate had posed to my forefathers, and which had not yet been answered, or as if I had to complete, or perhaps continue, things which previous ages had left unfinished. It is difficult to determine whether these questions are more of a personal or more of a general (collective) nature. It seems to me that the latter is the case.[27]Carl Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections, recorded and edited by Aniela Jaffé (1963), Vintage Books.

Transgenerational psychology has yielded a lot of surprising confirmation of Jung’s intuition. One pioneer was Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy, who documented those “invisible loyalties” that unconsciously connect us with our ancestors and shape our destiny, on the basis of a system of values, debts and merits.[28]Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy, Invisible Loyalties: Reciprocity in Intergenerational Family Therapy, Harper & Row, 1973. French sociologist Vincent de Gaulejac speaks of “genealogical impasses,” neurotic knots of the type: “I do not want to be what I am.” An individual who tries to break away from his family “remains overdetermined by a filiation which imposes itself on him even if he thinks he is escaping from it.”[29]Vincent de Gaulejac, L’Histoire en héritage. Roman familial et trajectoire sociale, Payot, 2012, pp. 141–142, 146–147. The French bestseller on the subject was written by “psychogenealogist” Anne Ancelin Schutzenberger, and is translated as The Ancestor Syndrome: Transgenerational Psychotherapy and the Hidden Links in the Family Tree (Routledge, 1998). I had the privilege to meet the author during a seminar on psychogenealogy. The subject has long interested me for personal reasons. I grew up in a family haunted by one of those “family secrets” that seem to mysteriously produce transgenerational neuroses. When I finally discovered what it was after decades of speculation, I began to understand why “extra-pair paternity” (the anthropological technical term) is seen as a seriously destructive factor in most civilized societies (but not to the Himba).

Anthropology teaches that the complex network of blood and marital relationships that surrounds each person from birth to death (what Lewis H. Morgan in 1871 called “systems of consanguinity and affinity”) forms the distinctive structure of every society. Our ancient kinship system, inherited from the Roman world, has been torn to pieces. Whether we want to save our civilization or prepare for a new one, we should perhaps work on restoring the clan from the grassroots level. Building a new clan culture is quite a challenge, because the clan can only sustain itself on the basis of natural hierarchies, which clash with our democratic and mercantile “values”.

But if we prioritize building big strong healthy sustainable families, good men and women will come from them—heroes, perhaps. Some will fail, some will be killed, but their memory will live on, and new ones will come. It reminds me of something Laurence Leamer wrote about the Kennedys:

Joseph P. Kennedy created one great thing in his life, and that was his family. […] Joe taught that blood ruled and that they must trust each other and venture out into a dangerous world full of betrayals and uncertainty, always returning to the sanctuary of family.[30]Laurence Leamer, Sons of Camelot: The Fate of an American Dynasty, HarperCollins, 2005.

Laurent Guyénot, Ph.D., is the author of From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land … Clash of Civilizations, 2018, and JFK-9/11: 50 years of Deep State, 2014 (banned from Amazon). He has collected some of his earlier Unz Review articles in “Our God is Your God Too, But He Has Chosen Us”: Essays on Jewish Power.

Notes

ORDER IT NOW

[1] Darwin to Falconer in 1862, quoted in Stephen Jay Gould, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Harvard UP, 2002, p. 2. Darwin added (but he was wrong): “but I expect and hope that the framework will stand.” It is true that the concept of “group selection” was introduced by Darwin himself in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871), but that doesn’t change the fact that it is incompatible with Darwinism, at least with neo-Darwinism.

[2] Bernard Shaw, preface to Back to Methuselah (1921), on www.gutenberg.org.

[3] Interestingly, Darwin complained about it in his autobiography: “My mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts” (p. 144).

[4] Henri Bergson, L’Évolution créatrice, quoted in Rupert Sheldrake, The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature, Icon Books, 2011

[5] Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (1967), quoted in Rupert Sheldrake, The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry, Coronet, 2012.

[6] Quoted in Rupert Sheldrake, The Science Delusion.

[7] Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, S&S International, 2006, p. 46.

[8] Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, p. 37.

[9] Stephen Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, HarperOne, 2013, p. 177.

[10] Stephen C. Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt, p. 168.

[11] Stephen C. Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt, p. 170.

[12] Stephen C. Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt, p. 159.

[13] Rupert Sheldrake, The Science Delusion.

[14] Rupert Sheldrake, The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature, Icon Books, 2011.

[15] Rupert Sheldrake, Morphic Resonance: The Nature of Formative Causation, Park Street Press, 2009, p. 9.

[16] Rupert Sheldrake, Morphic Resonance, pp. 111-112.

[17] Rupert Sheldrake, The Presence of the Past.

[18] Rupert Sheldrake, Morphic Resonance, pp. 94, 109.

[19] Quoted in Rupert Sheldrake, The Presence of the Past.

[20] Herbert Spencer, Social Statics: or, the Conditions Essential to Human Happiness Specified, and the First of Them Developed, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1888, p. 497, quoted here.

[21] T. D. Weldon called them “mechanical political theories”, as opposed to organic ones, in States and Morals, 1947.

[22] Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, quoted in Catherine Nixey, The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2018, p. 31.

[23] Louis Dumont, Essays on Individualism: Modern Ideology in Anthropological Perspective, University of Chicago Press, 1992, pp. 23-59.

[24] Quoted in David E. Stannard, American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World, Oxford UP, 1992, p. 126.

[25] Quoted by Brendon Sanderson in his review of Geoffrey Cantor and Mark Swetlitz’s Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism, in The Occidental Observer.

[26] I wonder, by the way, how Dawkins justifies having only one child in three marriages. Is he smarter than his genes?

[27] Carl Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections, recorded and edited by Aniela Jaffé (1963), Vintage Books.

[28] Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy, Invisible Loyalties: Reciprocity in Intergenerational Family Therapy, Harper & Row, 1973.

[29] Vincent de Gaulejac, L’Histoire en héritage. Roman familial et trajectoire sociale, Payot, 2012, pp. 141–142, 146–147.

[30] Laurence Leamer, Sons of Camelot: The Fate of an American Dynasty, HarperCollins, 2005.

 
• Category: Ideology, Science • Tags: Creationism, Darwinism, Evolution, Selfish Gene 
Hide 113 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Stogumber says:

    The basic argument for individualism was made by Karl Popper when he said that it is only the individual who can feel pain and suffer. Every attempt to “overcome” individualism tends to ignore or devalue human suffering.
    And by the way, “liberal Protestants” like Harnack praised Christianity as the first religion to have given the individual human soul its eternal value. So arguably Christianity is not a foe but a friend of individualism.

  2. I didn’t get past the first few sentences.
    Not worth the time.

  3. “However, experiments show that spontaneous or induced genetic mutations only give birth to weaklings or monsters, which are often sterile. In other words, natural selection tends to preserve the genetic heritage by eliminating individuals who deviate too much from the standard.”

    “Notwithstanding scientists’ arrogant claims, the function of genes remains highly mysterious—and overrated. If genes did what the Dawkinses tell us, we would be 99 percent identical to chimps. We are not.”

    This is actually not accurate, in my experience. You are bypassing the effect of demonstrable ”non-clocklike” evolution. Failure to account for non-clocklike evolution and its descendancy alterations are a simple oversight that leads to many complex statistical failures – of many variants.

    Even within the human pantheon, different genetic lineages commonly demonstrate different biological ‘clock’ rates, and numerous other biological differences and alterations related to this factor.

    Some factors have almost zero to actually do with genetic makeup. When I was a small child, my babysitters were an older Jewish couple, and they provided me with the first actual books that I ever owned, before I could even read. (I am not biologically or religiously Jewish). Before that time, all the books I had access to were picture books or coloring books that contained only material that was simple entertainment, intended to amuse or distract children.

    I have no idea how common this practice is overall within Jewish populations, but if you provide very young children with encyclopedias, read them material that contains elements requiring true learning or memorization, its likely to pay off from a standpoint of indoctrinating “how to learn”, which is most of the battle.

    So, I think you are bypassing some very real genetic and cultural factors that lead to varied outcomes and capacities. People have innate capacity limitations, but also act out of indoctrination or instruction, up to their capacity.

    “non interire, sed transire”

    The Celts were a military juggernaut in central Europe up til the point that their Roman opponents realise that the fearsome aggressiveness was indoctrinated due to a religious precept incorporating re-incarnation for those killed memorably in battle. This was coupled with strategically disastrous tactics, as an offshoot of the requirement to die in battle in a fantastic or heroic fashion.

    Armed with that knowledge of their opponent, the same Celts become unable to mount any significant self defense, from that time on, not due to any biological factor, but because the indoctrinated cultural precept is known to the opponent, who does not share the practice and exploits it to their advantage.

    The eventual failure of the Huns was due almost entirely to the practice of hostage-taking common as means to ensure performance of obligations, which results over time in educating your Gothic and Roman opponents in the weak links of your comms systems, and how to exploit and overcome these factors in future conflicts.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
    , @Oscar Peterson
  4. gay troll says:

    It seems you are justifying race essentialism by arguing that living things have ideal or Platonic forms, with intrinsic differences between these forms, rather than being a giant slop of incestuous protoplasm exploiting various niches of Earth’s ecosphere. Strangely, you are not the first author on this site to justify racism by asserting the primacy of Plato over Darwin.

    The evolution of biological organisms is plainly observable. You are correct that by not accounting for the divine will, “natural selection” leaves something to be desired. But the facts remain. Despite the cell being a black box, we still believe that all cells have a common ancestor. Do you deny this?

    Since all cells have a common ancestor, something must cause species to diverge. We know what characterizes the divergence of species: the divergence of the genetic code. The information encoded in the genes is altered, and new forms develop. Now, you can argue that genes are altered by divine will. But we know how that usually manifests: ribonucleic acid is highly mutable. Our cells use strategies for error correction but these are not infallible. Our genetic code mutates inevitably.

    This actually argues strongly against Plato. The “form” of an organism is not defined by some astral ideal, it is defined by its environment. In an unchanging environment, an adapted organism is not likely to evolve, instead it will conform. Conformity sometimes entails the loss of attributes (loss of genetic information) as when animals who live underground lose their eyesight. Are you familiar with genetic drift? It is all that is needed to explain evolution. It does not mean that life is not divine.

    The information encoded in our genomes is not like a blueprint, instead it tells our cells what proteins to make in what order. You put that information in the wrong environment and it will make no sense, it will not produce a living thing. Thus the form we take is the intersection of two sets of information: the information that defines our environment, and the information that defines our genome. Each constitutes half of the living form. One without the other is formless.

    The truth is that all life is experienced by the same self, and for this reason alone, all life is in some sense equal. What we do to another living thing we do also to ourselves. God is the totality one self. It is the source of all intelligence; even in the presence of lesser intelligence we should recall that we are in the presence of the Divine.

    Namaste

    • Replies: @Franz
  5. The Intelligent-Design advocates agree with Darwinists that mechanical principles sufficiently explain how living organisms work. They just differ from Darwinists about the origins of these biological machines.

    In other words, the ID people have already conceded more to the Darwinists than they care to admit.

  6. I strongly agree in building strong families and culture and hope Europe realizes the necessity.

    But I must warn against basing identity on whiteness. whiteness is the refuge of the amerimutt who is an odd combination of ethnicities and cultures living in a land psychologically unadoptable if they identify as of European origin. Ties of blood and soil, are impossible for those with European blood and American soil. Furthermore they are an amalgam of European blood. Europe is a blood soaked continent where Europeanness didn’t exist and unity was only achieved under blood-blind ideology such as catholicism, not Christianity, because European Orthodox were betrayed by their brothers in Christ.

    Europe must return to a united front nationalism, a warsaw pact for european culture, not jeans and jazz from the land of Amerimutts.

    Atheist Turks are more European than superstitious bible worshipping snake handling battery acid drinking whites in Appalachia(look it up) who buy crusader themed patches for their ZOG uniforms for deployments to South Korea.

  7. @Stogumber

    In South and East Asian religions, there is arguably a much higher and broader vision of compassion and suffering, given that the suffering of any and all creatures, not just humans, is reckoned as spiritually important and tragic

    The legendary very first act of the Buddha beginning his public career, was stepping forward and intervening to block the animal ‘sacrifice’ of a goat, Buddha setting the goat free

    Whereas the Judaic-Abrahamic religions focus on certain aspects of some humans, on nature less so … Abraham ‘beginning’ the religions by mutilating his own and others’ genitals, and then nearly murdering his child, per the ‘holy books’

    Tho the ‘individual in eternal heaven’ is a nice idea – and not ‘new’ – it is offset amongst Abrahamics by the savage terrorist cruelty of ‘eternal hell’, a quite horrific notion from an Asian spiritual perspective … For Asian faith believers, there is always hope through the cycle of lifetimes, and indeed everyone makes it to eternal paradise in the end

    Laurent Guyénot’s essay themes, benefit from Vedic and other ancient wisdom for further elaboration … it is all with spirit, all with divine elements … there is individual and family and clan and ethnic character for a time and an age, or ages, tho all as well amidst oneness … and all that is good, exists forever

    • Agree: gay troll
  8. anonymous[324] • Disclaimer says:

    Laurent Guyenot falsely claims that “Darwinian dogma is that race is a myth.” Yet Charles Darwin’s book “The Descent of Man” contains a chapter 7 entitled “On the Races of Man.” Maybe next time when Guyenot makes a claim about Darwin, he should take a minute to at least skim the Table of Contents of one of Darwin’s texts, before making a fool of himself.

    To be sure, Darwin wrote a letter in February 6, 1862, to the Reverend Charles Kingsley, stating, “It is very true what you say about the higher races of men, when high enough, replacing & clearing off the lower races.” That’s race-realism.

    Obviously, race is not a “myth” to Darwin. Furthermore, later evolutionary science provides plenty of evidence of race differences. A couple examples:

    1. “Importantly, scholars have noted that mean levels of self-regulation differ across racial categories with Black respondents tending to score higher on measures of impulsivity compared to Asians and Whites.” doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141954

    2. “Blacks are more likely than Whites to be narcissistic.” doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.06.001

    If you want to trash liberals, point out the simple observation that they don’t accept evolutionary science any more than do creationists, as does a 2007 Slate magazine article by William Saletan entitled “Liberal Creationism,” in which he writes, “the threat is racial genetics, and the people struggling with it are liberals.”

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
  9. Realist says:

    A horrible religious, antiscience screed.

    This should not be listed under Science Articles.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  10. @anonymous

    When I write about “Darwinian dogmas”, I am not referring to Darwin’s books. Darwin was not dogmatic. It could almost be said that he was not Darwinian, since (dogmatic) Darwinism started with August Weismann. I was talking here about the way Darwinism is used in mainstream popular science: it is used to claim that races don’t exist, regardless of what Darwin wrote. There are dozens of book arguing this point with Darwinian arguments. It is always painful to be criticized by people who don’t seem to understand, or purposefully misunderstand, what you are writing.

    • Replies: @Realist
  11. @john cronk

    Now you know the value of a philosophy major.

  12. Mr. Guyénot –

    It is a fine article you have written, and there is a sense of intellectual sublety to it that I find highly admirable. You also give a fine overview of the genealogy of the ideas you cover.

    However – the subject is exceedingly convoluted. You are, in essence dealing with how God becomes matter, and expresses through matter – or so it seems to me, at least. This is not something that can be easily done – or perhaps done at all, in its fullest sense – as it borders on mysticism, notoriously paradoxical. How to marry modern science and religion, and create a functional and true whole? Ah… this is an ambitious project, to put it mildly. If civilization continues on this planet, and the pursuit of truth still lives on in years hence, I should think that many deep minds will be working on it. I do have a feeling of hope that it shall, and that it will, so – we shall see 🙂

    I still think it is a valiant attempt, though. And your concluding suggestion of building strong families does not seem to me to be a bad idea.

    On the other hand, throwing Christianity so off-handedly aside as you seem to do does not strike me as a prudent suggestion. Christianity has been a mighty force for good in this world, despite its excesses and extensive contemporary corruption. Replacing it simply with “blood”, I fear that that is what will come of it – blood.

    Better with Spirit, I think 🙂

    Gay Troll’s comment is worth considering – there is something there, even though none of us have a full-fledged answer for this complex topic.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  13. Peg B says: • Website

    I’m not seeing any references to writings by Frans De Waal, who studied primates for 40 years and just published Mama’s Last Hug: Animal Emotions and What They Tell Us About Ourselves.
    He also wrote Chimpanzee Politics and more recently, Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?
    Nor are quotes from women included. Emotions rule both genders, but men – and scientists!- are actively discouraged from making judgements which they fear – ironically – can be made fun of as emotional.
    And so behavior right in front of everyone is cast aside – because it’s so plain even children can see the truth – animals (which we are) do feel pain, are social, bond, make decisions, remember, learn, can plan for the future, have a sense of fairness and morality, are territorial and some have a sense of humor.
    Primates (which we are) are inherently manipulative, but so are other mammals. An arson dog (fire detecting police dog) sometimes tries to dupe the handler into giving a treat by falsely indicating a “yes” during training, his handler told me. (So they train a lot.) De Waal gives examples of all the behavior I listed.
    In other words, “scientists” like the rest of us don’t see really, except through filters put before their eyes by other scientists, parents, religion, and so forth.
    I have noticed that while I think men and women are equally empathetic, women tend to not be afraid to empathize. Most of the people I know who rescue children, unwanted pets, injured wildlife and needy people are women. We aren’t subject to ridicule for it.
    So I wonder if a broader reading of modern men and women thinkers, and the deliberate kicking aside of blind morons (or so I think) like Descartes and reductionist science is way overdue. I recommend, besides De Waal, PHD botanist Robin Wall Kimmerer’s book, Braiding Sweetgrass.
    And there’s this perspective to consider: we animals came from plants and the like. Think about that for awhile. The very air we breathe, O2, was created burp by burp from microscopic plants.
    And, plants have been found to be sentient beings.

  14. zimriel says:
    @john cronk

    I started reading, then started skimming, gave up at the Behe reference.

  15. SND says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    I’m a pretty much standard issue atheistic type. I saw this video a couple years ago & there was something about Stephen C. Meyer’s attitude which really impressed me. I went & got his two books & read them. They have a brilliant argumentation style. The man has a “beautiful mind.” Furthermore, he is a heroic individual who has to go up against an incredibly powerful & united scientific establishment. The drama behind this alone is worth the price of admission. I highly recommend Meyer’s stuff to the Unz readership. He’s got a new book coming out right now which looks to be more theological than scientific, so maybe that will turn me off. But I can’t wait to read it.

  16. Great minds, etc. Shaw, Schopenhauer, Sheldrake, Jung… it’s almost as if you’ve been reading my essays at Counter-Currents (and collected in Mysticism After Modernism (Manticore, 2021). Humbling yet appropriate, as I have been a great fan of your books and essays.

    May I return the favor with a few items:

    Shaw’s Preface to Methuselah points out that Darwinism won over the public not because of evidence (there was none, and the public couldn’t evaluate it anyway) but because it promised to liberate them from the meddlesome Calvinist God. It was too late, when they realized it also eliminated all meaning and purpose to life.

    Huston Smith, in Forgotten Truth, uses an early article by Daniel Dennett (more recently known as one of those meddlesome “New Atheists”) to explain that natural selection only SEEMS reasonable if you assume atheism, which you must do only if you want to construct an entirely materialistic science; otherwise the more plausible explanation is what’s now called Intelligent Design. No one would think that the obvious explanation of how a hurricane tearing through a junkyard could assemble a working 747 is “by chance” unless the really obvious explanation — intelligent design — was ruled out to begin with.

    As another example of what might be called “strange not so new respect,” a reader of Watts’ Beyond Theology (Pantheon, 1965) finds that the hip, Zen-meditated, LSD-expanded young intelligentsia of 1965 were applying their psychedelic insights against dreary old Bible-thumping Dad by advocating . . . intelligent design:

    “A universe which grows human beings is as much a human, or humaning, universe as a tree which grows apples is an apple tree. . . . There is still much to be said for the old theistic argument that the materialist-mechanistic atheist is declaring his own intelligence to be no more than a special form of unintelligence. . . .

    “The real theological problem for today is that it is, first of all, utterly implausible to think of this Ground as having the monarchical and paternal character of the Biblical Lord God. But, secondly, there is the much more serious difficulty of freeing oneself from the insidious plausibility of the mythology of nineteenth-century scientism, from the notion that the universe is gyrating stupidity in which the mind of man is nothing but a chemical fantasy doomed to frustration. It is insufficiently recognized that this is a vision of the world inspired by the revolt against the Lord God of those who had formerly held the role of his slaves. This reductionist, nothing-but-ist view of the universe with its muscular claims to realism and facing-factuality is at root a proletarian and servile resentment against quality, genius, imagination, poetry, fantasy, inventiveness and gaiety. Within twenty or thirty years it will seem as superstitious as flat-earthism.”

    Well, he seems to have been a little off on that prediction; the argument is still valid, though. Archeo-futurism: who’s more “old fashioned” than a “free-thinking” atheist/materialist?

  17. @john cronk

    Was this guy on drugs when he wrote this? Behe …..are you kidding me? Ron is really pushing the envelope with this type of stuff. This article makes Ancient Astronauts look scientific.

  18. The tiniest of fact checking would help espouse the validity of the article….George Bernard Shaw was an Irishman, not English.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  19. Jorge Videla [AKA "richard walter darre"] says:

    “blut und boden” means gxe. it means that with a few exceptions genes only have whatever effect they may have through the environment. it means that societies are not mere sums of individuals not are individuals distinct from their societies. it means that until very recently everyone lived in a homogeneous society. there were no minorities. therefore, such societies are where men are most likely to thrive. homo economicus is an invention of autistic professors of economics, puppets of global capital.

    hereditists can’t understand what guido von list called “the biune bifidic dyad”. for them the phenotype is a simple sum of genes and environment. psychology is a pseudoscience and psychology professors are dumb.

    palengenetic ultranationalism in the case of the nazis meant eugenics in an attempt to recover a people which had been lost. that people was the indo-europeans. no historical linguistics, no nazis.

    here mearsheimer explains why all good people with IQs above room temperature are nazis.

    • Thanks: Peripatetic Itch
  20. @Stogumber

    Proper collectivism is about ensuring a decent existence for ALL individuals. Individualism, in contrast, seeks to remove all prospect of a good life from as many other individuals, the enemy according to race, class, religious etc xenophobia, as possible. Individual rights only extend as far as the rights of others in the first instance, and in the second they are unbounded and the rights of others are irrelevant.

  21. @john cronk

    Do you not see that your assertions contradict each other?

  22. Franz says:
    @gay troll

    Our cells use strategies for error correction but these are not infallible. Our genetic code mutates inevitably… This actually argues strongly against Plato. The “form” of an organism is not defined by some astral ideal, it is defined by its environment.

    But Plato stood on those who preceded him. The pre-Socratic Heraclitus tells us all is in flux; so the dynamic aether of the ancients would be the locus of the “form”. Since the aether would change constantly, the forms would only seem eternal and immutable to transient beings like, well, us.

    Or to borrow from Heraclitus, you can’t drop down from the same form twice. The form is in living aether and not precisely the same all the time, so their creations won’t be either.

  23. Scotist says:

    ‘the function of genes remains highly mysterious—and overrated’

    Yes. Finally, someone on this site is writing about this issue.

  24. @Realist

    Call it “meta-science”, then it becomes acceptable.

    • Agree: Realist
  25. Schuetze says:

    “Joseph P. Kennedy created one great thing in his life, and that was his family. […] Joe taught that blood ruled and that they must trust each other and venture out into a dangerous world full of betrayals and uncertainty, always returning to the sanctuary of family.”

    This is why childless couples, or adults, are so toxic for society, especially when they get the vote or are allowed to have positions of power in government. Childless adults should be forced to live on the periphery, or outer rings of society, a little closer that homo’s and miscegenators. Childless adults are a genetic cul de sac. Only wealth creating families that actively contribute to society, tax payers being one metric, with children, should be allowed to vote. It is important to note here that government employees effectively do not pay taxes since their salaries are extracted involuntarily and so should not be eligible to vote.

    As a grand parent, my guiding star is my grand children. My entire weltanschauung is based on the fundamental question “Is it good for my grand children and the grand children I want them to have”. Of course in my mind those great, great grand children are the same race as me, are not homo or trans anything.

    • Agree: Alfred
    • Replies: @Franz
    , @Laurent Guyénot
  26. cranc says:

    We face a choice between spirit and the machine. Harari was a speaker at the WEF of course, and their vision of the Covid reset is one that would see the banishment of any conception of spirit : a technological prison, a hell on earth. It would be the victory of individualist materialism.
    It could have been (and could be) different.
    Alfred Russel Wallace arguably got there first with evolutionary theory, but unlike Darwin, reserved a place for spirit in mankind. He was not from the circle of ‘gentleman scientists’ though and was airbrushed out the picture. His story needs reclaiming.

    I have not found a satisfying philosophical alternative, a theory of man that would explain the spiritual and social importance of kinship, lineage, ancestry, ethnicity and race.

    As mentioned before, I wonder that more spiritually inclined race realists don’t consider the work of Rudolf Steiner. He wrote about things such as the Ideal component of race and the importance of renewal in the social organism. His philosophy is rooted in a refutation of materialism and the development of freedom as the quintessential human endeavour. There is no way out back through faith religion, we live at the beginning of the age of science. The questions are : what philosophy will undergird our science ? and what do we carry forward into the scientific age?
    I do not see a way out through a return to tribal collectivism either. That way lies war, in an age of planet destroying weaponry. I am fascinated that so many people who – rightly in my mind, criticise Jewish tribalism, seem to advocate it for white people as a moral response. I mean it makes sense on a very basic level, but was all universalism a cul-de-sac ? At the end of From Yahweh to Zion Laurent declares that Jewish ‘universalism’ is a fraud. I agree, but that leaves me wanting to expose it and reclaim the concept, rather than emulate particularist Yahweh-ism.
    The development of individualism is double edged, bringing us freedom and isolation. The challenge is to connect to the whole and to nature (including racial heritage) in a formation that enables a genuine science to develop based upon a sincere universalism .
    ‘Not fare well, but fare forward, voyagers.’

    • Replies: @cranc
  27. Alfred says:

    Obviously, the hardware of genetics does not explain the totality of our inborn ancestral inheritance.

    Agreed.

    I suspect “magical” properties of water – its ability to store information no matter how many times it is diluted – has something to do with this. We are mostly water – 60%. The brain is 73% water. Newborns share the water of their mother.

    Mice “remember” the experiences of their predecessors for several generations.

    ‘Memories’ pass between generations

    How Water Has Memory

  28. MarkU says:

    Re: Rupert Sheldrake

    I appear to have missed the bit where Sheldrake made some predictions using his ‘Morphic Resonance’ Hypothesis and then designed and performed some experiments to test those predictions. Did Sheldrake make any useful predictions about the way nature works? of any type? Advancing a picturesque hypothesis (and making yourself money in the process) is not actually science, I would say the same about Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis. Even if we relax our standards a bit we should still expect valid ideas to at least highlight some fertile areas for research. So far as I am aware neither Sheldrake’s nor Lovelock’s colourful and attractive ideas have advanced our understanding of the way that the universe works (though they have made themselves quite a lot of money) What we are dealing with is essentially mysticism with a ‘sciency’ sort of flavour, a halfway house for people who like to think of themselves as rational but haven’t entirely given up on the skyfairy hypothesis.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  29. Re: How is evolution going to end?

    If you look at the evolution of the human race a few elements seem to stand out:
    – If current theories are correct the extinction of the dinosaurs opened a window of
    opportunity for other animals. A small apelike animal somehow succeeded in developing
    intelligence and mastering the planet (at least for some time). Did other animals succeed
    before him? Who knows?
    – The history of the human race typically seems to involve larger and larger groupings of
    cooperating humans (cavern tribes, small settlements, small districts protected by warlords,
    larger and larger countries, and presently civilizations (linked by language/religion/tradition).
    – An overriding principle of this evolution seems to be
    a) the increasing size of the collaborating groups
    b) the increasing specialization and increasing interdependency of the individual humans.
    – If we extrapolate this (so far irresistible) evolution we seem to march toward some sort of
    collective existence where everybody needs the collective to survive (which is in fact already
    to some extent true today).

    • Agree: Zarathustra
  30. dimples says:

    “I have not found a satisfying philosophical alternative, a theory of man that would explain the spiritual and social importance of kinship, lineage, ancestry, ethnicity and race.”

    I would not argue with Mr Guyenot, whose erudicity, knowledge and understanding is far greater than my feeble attempts in this direction, however I would say that he is going to be pushing shit uphill to find this satisfying philosophical alternative anytime sooner rather than later. Concerning the social importance of kinship, race, lineage, ancestry, ethnicity and race, I don’t think there is any kind of natural law which defines this specifically for each and every person. Therefore there cannot be any theory of man which explains or encompasses these things.

    In an attempt to deal with the spiritual aspect of man Mr Guyenot has introduced various concepts and ideas dealing with supra-materialistic fields and the like, but these are of a generalist nature and are not going to alter the entrenched reductionism that characterises modern science. At least it means that Mr Guyenot has begun his journey, or is well on his way, as a student of the paranormal. This means to ask what is the nature of the supernatural and what is it’s connection with the physical. Can supernatural effects be proven? Obviously, Sheldrake provided a number of examples, and there are of course a myriad of examples elsewhere. But these have no effect on the attitudes of institutional science.

    In science fiction and New Age thought, if it can be described thus, the 21st century was supposed to be the era when these spiritual things came into being. Instead we are seeing widespread cultural decline and a headlong rush towards progessivist civilizational chaos. Myself, I think it is only when psychical technology becomes available and widespread will the spiritual improvements that Mr Guyenot favors begin to occur. The time for messiahs and preachers is over, and its the hardware or nothing.

  31. I was talking here about the way Darwinism is used in mainstream popular science: it is used to claim that races don’t exist,

    Darwinism is used by popular science to say race doesn’t exist, and the idea of things happening by accident makes me unhappy; therefore spiritualism.

    Your essay in one line.

  32. @john cronk

    I put up with all racial religious rubish, endured to read this “spiritual, intellectual” rant in its entirety…only to see a little bunch of “white” trash at the end. Kevin Barret, his “intellectual” friend, must have been happily “panic”. I just guess!

  33. Realist says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    You wrote a 6,800 word article yet there are people who don’t know what you are talking about. It is incumbent upon you to write in such a manner to convey your thoughts accurately…especially in 6,800 words.

    • Replies: @St-Germain
  34. @john cronk

    By the way, my 10 years old grand niece once sincerely and innocently asked back my niece (her Catholic mother) that since everything must be intelligently created by God, then God must be created by another more powerful Creator!

    I was there at the time but kept silent and thought gleefully “what a childish child, indeed!”

  35. Brilliant essay, Laurent Guyénot. It was humbling to see how smoothly one thinker was able to track the red thread of logic — from Sheldrake’s morphic resonance and Mayer/Behe/Eberlin’s intelligent design back though Werner Heisenberg, Carl Jung, Lewis Henry Morgan and Herbert Spencer to reach the towering heights of Plato.

    Now you have again stirred up the hornet’s nest of complacent knee-jerk materialists, one true-believer so angry that he felt compelled to comment without bothering to read the article. Dawkins must also be tearing his hair out. Those “banned by Amazon” book censors may have to dispatch another “fact-checker” swat team.

    The powerful theses of Sheldrake and Mayer et al. have long resonated with me. Their connection with the rest of the mind-over-matter thinkers you presented here came as a welcome surprise. Having mined years of research for a couple of books on the ethnogenesis of a family, I’m delighted to learn that the archaic role of heredity may be making a comeback. Without the concept of an immortal soul, all that would have been wasted effort.

    Many thanks for your thoughtful essay. And a salute to Unz Review for featuring it.

    • Agree: Franz
    • Replies: @anonymous
  36. Adrian says:

    A rich essay and I am glad that Mr. Guenot shared it with us. I only want to provide a footnote to it. Schopenhauer thought that we could encounter Plato’s Ideas (”paradeigmata”) in the realm of art. As far as painting is concerned he referred particularly to the still life paintings of the Dutch Golden Era. They are a testimonial to a spiritual peace in whch the observer and the observed are as one.

    The Wiki on Schopenhauer uses a picture of Verneer’s “Milkmaid” to illustrate this. There are two things wrong with this. Vermeer, who dates from the seventeenth century, got practically forgotten in the eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth century, except in very special circles. It is very unlikely that Schopenhauer thought of him in his remarks about Dutch art. He might never even have heard of him because Vermeer was only “rediscovered” after the philosopher’s death (in 1860). The Goncourt brothers referred to him in 1861 and called his View of Delft “la plus belle peinture du monde” (a judgment with which I sympathise – we have a painted reproduction of it).

    More importantly, the French art crtic Théodore Thoré-Bürger devoted a series of articles to him in 1866.

    The second thing wrong with this Wiki illustration is that the Milkmaid is standing at a table that has a bread on it large enough for a family of six – plus a jug of milk of course. But Schopenhauer had explicitly excluded paintings with edibles on them as they may lead to reflections incompatible with spiritual peace.

    About one’s next meal of course and even about the cost of it.
    An amusing example of the latter was provided by the Dutch writer Simon Carmiggelt who described how he had overheard a couple that was standing in front of Nicolaes Maes’ paiting of an old woman praying for supper, a picture that can be found in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. The husband points out to his wife that that “old biddy” has victuals on her table that must have cost a pretty penny and then proceeds to compute their price…

  37. anonymous[324] • Disclaimer says:

    Just chemicals? Creationist who couldn’t pass Chemistry 101 often use that sort of derogatory terminology against scientific knowledge they can’t comprehend. But let’s humor Mr. Guyénot anyway, and run with it. I will agree and amplify with the following statement:

    Life is just physics! Which physics? Specifically, the Maximum Power Principle (Lotka, 1922; Odum & Pinkerton, 1955; Odum, 1994) sometimes named the Fourth Law of Thermodynamics. For the wise, the named references are sufficient to explore the physics explaining the origins of life. To break-it-down-Barney-style, I offer the following nugget:

    [T]he origin and subsequent evolution of life follow from the fundamental laws of nature and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.”

    A New Physics Theory of Life
    Quanta Magazine, 2014

    Even the stoned can comprehend rocks rolling down a hill; yet, have you ever hear anybody say “just physics?” I haven’t; physics is hard! Because the laws of physics are the God in the Machine. Physics is spiritual, especially when one accepts GNON, i.e., Nature or Nature’s God (acronymed backwards.)

    GNON originates in the US Declaration of Independence’s phrase, “The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” That phrase originates from Spinoza’s famous “Deus, sive Natura” (God, or Nature.) (Interesting historical tidbit: Not only did John Locke have Spinoza’s works, so did Jefferson in his own library.)

    GNON is esentially pantheistic. God, or Nature. Deus, sive Natura. One and the same. To say that Life originated from “just physics,” is to say that life originated from, “just God.” Remove the derogatory word just and you can say Nature’s God created life, or Nature’s Physics created life, and mean exactly the same thing.

    Christianity is already panentheistic, claiming all is in God. Pantheism bypasses the Jewish magic and Jew-worship of Christianity by removing a single two-letter preposition and and says all is God.

    Pantheism is the scientific religious viewpoint for intelligent, nationalist, GNON worshiping Whites. It accepts the White man’s science of physics and theory of natural selection, and rejects the Jews’ magic and the Jews’ choseness that Laurent depicts so well in his Unz article entitled The Holy Hook.

    • Thanks: gay troll
  38. Merci, Laurent Guyénot.
    Thank you for this excellent essay.
    It can only be hoped that”universities”, as institutes of free academic enquiry/debate, may be liberated from the Darwin-Freud-Marx straitjacket.

  39. Similar musings have led me to postulate that Nietzsche was the last, great, Christian theologian.

    It doesn’t surprise me that Jewish biologists have the most trouble with accepting the principle of Elan Vital. Jews aren’t particularly smart people. For them, all of life is in the nature of a bargain. Recall, Job wrangling with God about how he had made all the correct sacrifices, observed all the outward rituals and yet still, God had the temerity to heap shit upon him. “What kind of God is that!” the archetypal Jew asks, expecting his encounter with the world to be akin with bartering in the marketplace.

    There was one Jew though, Albert Einstein, who, through his study of European science, came to a hazy understanding of the Superior European Intellect which had formulated the fundamental principles of Nature. And he, admitting that all that he had seen had come from standing upon the shoulders of European Giants, came closest to acknowledging the vast gulf that separates European consciousness from the small-mindedness of Gould and the like.

    Jewish biologists will never understand that the complexities of living organisms cannot have arisen from chance processes, that there must be a wellspring, an impetus for natural selection to act upon, that life is as much about pushing out as it is hedging in. Evolution is not merely a process of chiseling away what is not needed by a blind sculptor.

    One either sees this or doesn’t. It’s a spiritual capacity which Jews seem deficient in. The moment one proposes this sort of thing, Jews go off on a tangent about an Intelligent Designer as though such were a personal God etc. They can’t let their imagination expand and must instead immediately reduce the concept to something tangible. This is why I claim they are not really smart. They can’t withstand the dynamic tension involved in suspending judgement, but must posit a Thing, a something they can deride and mock. But what they mock is a shibboleth that is the product of their own limited and limiting imagination.

    Why can’t they accept that there may be processes which are currently beyond their understanding? How can we move forward in the true spirit of science if we are not open minded? This is why I don’t expect much scientific advancement from our future totally-Jewish dominated USA. They are a dogmatic people.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
    , @Anonymous
  40. Demguy says:

    Since we are talking evolution, I thought I would throw out my somewhat depressing theory for comment. You are more than welcome to call me crazy.

    Mankind evolved for the”sole” purpose of replenishment of CO2 in the atmosphere. Neanderthal and other species didn’t have the intelligence to bore into the earth and extract sequestered carbon, so they had to go.

    CO2 levels had dropped to about 170 ppm about a million years ago, from about 7000 ppm during the Cambrian explosion, and botonist will tell you that plants begin to starve at 150 ppm. The earth had to evolve an intelligent creature that could bore into the ground to extract carbon and burn it to replenish CO2 levels in the atmosphere. If it didn’t then all plant and animal life on earth would become extinct.

    If this is true, one must ask what is the CO2 set point? And what happens to humans when the set point is reached?

  41. anonymous[324] • Disclaimer says:
    @St-Germain

    Complacent knee-jerk materialists? Oh dear, let me guess, you’re a Jew-worshiper who hates Mother. (Yes, the matter- in mater-ial means precisely Mother.) Laurent Guyénot has addressed your hatred of Mother in his excellent Unz article entitled “The Crucifixion of the Goddess.”

    The Epicurian philosophy of mater-(mother-)ialism is simply the rejection of Jewish magical storytelling of their chosenite spirituality. Nobody puts this battle of the ages more succinctly than Thomas Jefferson, who wrote on April 13, 1820, “I am a Materialist; he [Jesus] takes the side of Spiritualism.”

    All the woo-woo “spiritualism” an intelligent White man needs is found in the White man’s material sciences. The Christian man already accepts panetheism, i.e., all is in God. It’s one small step for White mankind to reject Jewish magical thinking and accept scientific pantheism, i.e., all is God. GNON. Deus, sive Natura. Scientific GNONism honors Mother-Mater. I dare say, Deus, sive Mother Natura.

    And Mr. Guyénot, your articles are quite often the best, but I find it extremely disappointing to see you attempt to re-crucify Mother-Mater in this article. Why so? Instead, embrace Mater Nature! White’s intelligent understanding of Mater has led to great Mater-ial wealth. Jewish magical “spiritual” thinking is always trying to compete, and in a fit of parasitic envy, trying to suck our Mother-Mater-ial wealth away from us, as illustrated best by this Jewish-authored tidbit: “For if the Goyim have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their Mother-Mater-ial blessings.” (RO 15:27) Let’s quit sharing Mother with the self-styled magically-thinking “spiritual” confidence men.

    P.S. Mother’s Holy-Day, Ēostre (an Ishtar derivative, or as Mr. Guyénot puts it in his Crucifixion of the Goddess article, the “Queen of Heaven”) is upon us this Spring Equinox season. What better time to reject the “spiritualism” of a perverted Jewish child-sacrifice holiday and reacquaint ourselves with Mater-Mother Nature.

    • Replies: @St-Germain
  42. nsa says:

    Let’s summarize what the self-serving jew gas bag author has to say in under 10 words: an invisible sky nazi started the whole shit show.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  43. AReply says:

    I’m learning to not waste time with the pseudo-intellectual screedling of these articles and just skim to find the ideological basis of the tract, which here on Unz is
    always a turd. In this one you can watch the author walk back and forth in the hallway outside the mens room before entering, dropping one, then wiping with a bibliography. The mens room here always seems all clean and polished, but shit still stinks, and here’s the redolent nugget:

    //… “preservation” is the wrong concept: you share your genes when you mate; you mix your blood, your lineage, with another one. This is the highest human responsibility. Genetic heritage is the real wealth of nations. There once was, by the way, a European movement based entirely on that idea: now that Americans have destroyed it, they can read about it in Johann Chapoutot, The Law of Blood: Thinking and Acting as a Nazi (2018).//

    Did this dickweed author Laurent Guyénot literally write that since Americans have destroyed European purity of they must read up about their loss in a tract titled being a Nazi?

    All I can add to that is FFFFFFFUUUUUUU!

    Oooh, whoops… I mean I can hardly wait!

    I’m an ardent follower of the Santa Barbara Royals. It seems the family has a problem with inbreeding but Prince Albert-in-a-can doesn’t like Markle’s-baby as a solution: apparently too dark.

    General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you recall what Clemenceau once said about war?

    Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No, I don’t think I do, sir, no.

    General Jack D. Ripper: He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

    General Jack D. Ripper: Your Commie has no regard for human life, not even his own. And for this reason, men, I want to impress upon you the need for extreme watchfulness. The enemy may come individually, or he may come in strength.

    + + +

    “Back in his day, my grandfather was a member of an anti-fascist group… It was called the U.S. Army.”
    — The Interwebz

  44. Mefobills says:
    @Trial by Wombat

    The Celts were a military juggernaut in central Europe up til the point that their Roman opponents realise that the fearsome aggressiveness was indoctrinated due to a religious precept incorporating re-incarnation for those killed memorably in battle. This was coupled with strategically disastrous tactics, as an offshoot of the requirement to die in battle in a fantastic or heroic fashion.

    That is pretty fascinating. Do you have any thoughts on why Constantine removed reincarnation from Christianity after the Nicean council? Constantine maybe didn’t want a fierce form of tribes invading the Roman Empire? Arianism (not Aryansim) believed in reincarnation.

    https://www.thoughtco.com/arian-controversy-and-council-of-nicea-111752

    Arianism regained momentum and evolved (becoming popular with some of the tribes that were invading the Roman Empire, like the Visigoths) and survived in some form until the reigns of Gratian and Theodosius, at which time, St. Ambrose (c. 340–397) set to work stamping it out.

    But the debate by no means was over in the 4th century. Debate continued into the fifth century and beyond, with:

    ” … confrontation between the Alexandrian school, with its allegorical interpretation of scripture and its emphasis on the one nature of the divine Logos made flesh, and the Antiochene school, which favoured a more literal reading of scripture and stressed the two natures in Christ after the union.” (Pauline Allen, 2000)

  45. Mefobills says:
    @ThreeCranes

    Why can’t they accept that there may be processes which are currently beyond their understanding? How can we move forward in the true spirit of science if we are not open minded? This is why I don’t expect much scientific advancement from our future totally-Jewish dominated USA.

    Good comment.

    Why can’t certain individuals vibrate in alignment with Sheldrake type resonance fields? What if what I and other’s call the Jewish spirit, is actually a field emitted by Jews and their fellow spiritual travelers.

    It may be a function of biology or choice, that some individuals are tuned to a Jewish resonance field at birth.

    Life is a bargain, and eternal wrangling with God to then get the best deal. That is the spirit of the merchant.

    Sheldrake’s fields cannot be poo-pooed away, as the science is repeatable.

  46. Tom Verso says:

    Neither Darwin or Intelligent Design …

    The Third Way

    This essay perpetuates the popular myth that natural scientific evolutionary theory is essentially divided between two schools: Neo-Darwinism and Intelligent Design (and variations on its theme e.g. morphogenetics).

    It completely ignores the voluminous number of natural research scientist who are in neither pop-culture evolutionary camps; such as James A. Sharpiro (Natural Genetic Engineering), Mae-Wan Ho (epigenetics), etc.

    The web site “The Third Way” list a mind boggling number of scientist who are neither Darwinist or Intelligent Designers.

    See: https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com

  47. Franz says:
    @Schuetze

    Childless adults should be forced to live on the periphery, or outer rings of society, a little closer that homo’s and miscegenators.

    I can agree with that partly; but in the end I see too much of Heinlein’s dictum:

    “It is good that some people not reproduce. It is genetically self-correcting.”

    Heinlein may well have been talking about his own ill-health but is point covers a lot. Joe Kennedy was a strong man and his children were given the best start possible. Good on the old man.

    Others contribute in other ways; Michael Bradley in much his writings dealing with The Cronos Complex noted that genius is dysgenic. Tesla, the Wright Brothers, various mathematicians and physicists are noted for NOT reproducing.

    It may well be that genius of some kinds and madness really are connected. But who would slag them for their performance in other areas?

    Moreover if you look at the real high-end innovators you can’t help but notice a tendency toward eccentricity that might be evidence of a “family demon” as they used to be called. There might be an Inborn Error of Metabolism that would be unwise to pass on.

    So accept that a certain number of people in every generation will contribute in other ways. But for the most part, even childless geniuses accept the ideal of family and take pro-natal positions. It seems they’ll always be the minority.

    The demographic dive Europeans are taking right now is driven by cultural and economic factors; factors that suggest enemy action. If a man is economically challenged it would be irresponsible to breed for the simple reason that, unlike Joe Kennedy, he’d have no control over the future of his kids. Making future slaves for Zion is too much of a possibility.

    In this situation he’s being responsible staying childless. If he’s poor already, why should we add guilt? If he’s wise he’ll join the large number of DINKs the last generations have resorted to: Double Income No Kids. Then he’ll get by and not have to worry about sleeping under bridges. And one less woman will be at risk.

    I can see both sides, but I’ve known too many hard cases. I’d think before I add another shaming category for an ethnic group under siege already.

  48. Always good to see a new piece from Guyénot.

    I myself have been radically revising my views on race and biology over the past few years since I started visiting Unz–and especially since the scamdemic began last year, which showed me how utterly corrupted modern ‘science’ has become. I still accept basic Darwinism, though I now regard the ‘missing link’ hypothesis with a little more suspicion, and the ‘out of Africa’ thesis as altogether risible. Instead, I have become much more interested in alt-anthropology, such as the ideas of Robert Sepehr, who is just as likely to draw upon the Blavatskyite concept of ‘root races’ as the theories of Darwin. If ever you’re feeling the need for an interesting rabbit-hole some rainy Sunday afternoon, try his Atlantean Gardens channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQDWr4j4m3b0Hj7d88fXbDA

    Interestingly, it was Herbert Spencer who drew the first systematic comparison between the structure of individual organisms and that of societies, in an article titled “the social organism”.

    Really? What about Plato’s own Republic? Didn’t he there expressly make an analogy between the just society and the just man?

    Overall, Msr. Guyénot, excellent work! I look forward to your next installment.

    • Replies: @cranc
  49. “In a recent essay, Alexander Dugin puts the blame on “nominalism”, the philosophy that challenged Platonic Idealism (also called “essentialism” or “realism”) by denying the existence of universals in the fourteenth century.”

    We don’t need some mystical Russian beardo weirdo to tell us that. Richard Weaver wrote a whole book about it, in the 1940s, called Ideas Have Consequences, which most right wingers cite but likely few have read.

    In the most recent edition, Roger Kimball says in his intro: “If we need to refute William of Ockham to solve our problems, we are doomed.”

    Weaver, from his comfortable office at the Un. of Chicago, pleaded for the govt. to stop rural electrification, as it would cause the souls of poor white folk to wither up and die.

    He also condemned shoes. No, really, no kidding, he actually went there, before any liberal reviewer could mock him. Get a kindle version and search “shoes”.

    Sound like he and Dugin would get along famously, drinking tea at the dacha while the happy, shoeless peasants sang in the dark.

    https://counter-currents.com/2020/03/richard-weavers-ideas-their-consequences/

    • Replies: @kba56
    , @Thim
  50. You are utterly insane and I love you.

  51. padre says:

    The main problem is that we tend to jump to conclusion! Now we have solved it, that is, how it is, we say and mother nature says no it’s not it’s only a fracture of it!

  52. bayviking says:

    Mainstream Darwinian dogma is that race is a myth, and the only thing that should matter for Christians is that under Christ all men are brothers. Darwinism means essentially, to the layman, “the lack of all radical difference between man and beast”. And Nietzsche saw that as a destructive anti-social force. Bernard Shaw… blamed ruthless competition, implicit in Darwinism, for the Great War.

    Hogwash.

    In fact life is a continuum of the simple and increasingly complex. We are social beings with complex audible and written language skills. Man has developed complexity which has permitted him to dissect and understand the world around him, like no other animal. Through that knowledge he has been able develop powers which enable him to reshape the world around him for his own comfort and safety, like no other animal. But unlike other animals, those skills threaten to disrupt the natural balance inherent to negative feedback systems which has stabilized water in a partially melted state for billions of years.

    Can such tremendous complexity have happened by a Darwinian series of mistakes in the replication of genes, by chance alone? YES they can, because there is, if not infinite time for these experiments to be tested, at least tens of billions of years. There are many examples here on earth of convergant evolution taking place over tens of thousands of years which demonstrate the adaptive time scale of our biochemical life system. One such example is the dire wolf recovered from the La Brea Tar Pits and modern wolf, with nearly identical skeletal features, long thought to be closely related. The Dire Wolf developed over the course of 50,000 years to look exactly like the modern wolf, before going extinct. Yet, genetic studies now show that you have to go back 5.7 million years to find a common ancestor between the two distinct species. As Richard Dawkins clearly explains, natural selection drives evolution. While it is certainly true that most mutations are detrimental to the individual, it is certainly not true that ALL mutations are detrimental. That is nonsense which hardly implies the need for intelligent design. Single cell Fungi growth colonies are able to grow efficiently towards new food sources. No one should seriously ascribe intelligence to single cell fungi, yet it behaves intelligently. They do not grow randomly in every direction, instead the colony wastes no time growing towards the nearest potential food source. Is this intelligent design or just biochemistry we do not understand yet? Rupert Sheldrake’s invention of “morphogenetic fields” is no different than a high Priest inventing the “soul”, to explain something we do not actually understand. How does a third or fourth generation monarch butterfly know how to return to its place of origin?

    Genes, like money, survive death, not as distinct individuals, but through remixed genes of new unique individuals. Skin color follows latitudinal lines with the darkest skin located nearest the equator, except migration can obfuscate that natural relationship. The ability to design something for a purpose can be a measure of intelligence, as we define and use the term. Such activity has nothing to do with a rational understanding of the natural mechanisms governing life on earth, most of which operates outside our normal ability to perceive.

    Dogs and wolves are social beings, ready at any time to sacrifice themselves for the good of the pack. The New Testament, much of it inspired through Jesus, leads us to understand that if we are prepared to sacrifice ourselves as individuals, our tribe will proper exponentially more than if we go through life only concerned for ourselves. In fact almost every animal exhibits this behavior towards its immediate offspring, or they could not survive.

    We don’t need the supernatural to explain our place in the universe. The natural suffices. There is not sound reason to segregate by race and fight for our race. It is easier to see why the rich seek to segregate us all by class, so that they can preserve their class privileges. John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King are both extraordinary examples of fine human being from different classes and races. But, we are all part of a forever changing human gene pool.

    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  53. bayviking says:

    Mainstream Darwinian dogma is that race is a myth, and the only thing that should matter for Christians is that under Christ all men are brothers. Darwinism means essentially, to the layman, “the lack of all radical difference between man and beast”. And Nietzsche saw that as a destructive anti-social force. Bernard Shaw… blamed ruthless competition, implicit in Darwinism, for the Great War.

    In fact life is a continuum of the simple and increasingly complex. We are social beings with complex audible and written language skills. Man has developed complexity which has permitted him to dissect and understand the world around him, like no other animal. Through that knowledge he has been able develop powers which enable him to reshape the world around him for his own comfort and safety, like no other animal. But unlike other animals, those skills threaten to disrupt the natural balance inherent to negative feedback systems which has stabilized water in a partially melted state for billions of years.

    Can such tremendous complexity have happened by a Darwinian series of mistakes in the replication of genes, by chance alone? YES they can, because there is, if not infinite time for these experiments to be tested, at least tens of billions of years. There are many examples here on earth of convergant evolution taking place over tens of thousands of years which demonstrate the adaptive time scale of our biochemical life system. One such example is the dire wolf recovered from the La Brea Tar Pits and modern wolf, with nearly identical skeletal features, long thought to be closely related. The Dire Wolf developed over the course of 50,000 years to look exactly like the modern wolf, before going extinct. Yet, genetic studies now show that you have to go back 5.7 million years to find a common ancestor between the two distinct species. As Richard Dawkins clearly explains, natural selection drives evolution. While it is certainly true that most mutations are detrimental to the individual, it is certainly not true that ALL mutations are detrimental. That is nonsense which hardly implies the need for intelligent design. Single cell Fungi growth colonies are able to grow efficiently towards new food sources. No one should seriously ascribe intelligence to single cell fungi, yet it behaves intelligently. They do not grow randomly in every direction, instead the colony wastes no time growing towards the nearest potential food source. Is this intelligent design or just biochemistry we do not understand yet? Rupert Sheldrake’s invention of “morphogenetic fields” is no different than a high Priest inventing the “soul”, to explain something we do not actually understand. How does a third or fourth generation monarch butterfly know how to return to its place of origin?

    Genes, like money, survive death, not as distinct individuals, but through remixed genes of new unique individuals. Skin color follows latitudinal lines with the darkest skin located nearest the equator, except migration can obfuscate that natural relationship. The ability to design something for a purpose can be a measure of intelligence, as we define and use the term. Such activity has nothing to do with a rational understanding of the natural mechanisms governing life on earth, most of which operates outside our normal ability to perceive.

    Dogs and wolves are social beings, ready at any time to sacrifice themselves for the good of the pack. The New Testament, much of it inspired through Jesus, leads us to understand that if we are prepared to sacrifice ourselves as individuals, our tribe will proper exponentially more than if we go through life only concerned for ourselves. In fact almost every animal exhibits this behavior towards its immediate offspring, or they could not survive.

    We don’t need the supernatural to explain our place in the universe. The natural suffices. There is not sound reason to segregate by race and fight for our race. It is easier to see why the rich seek to segregate us all by class, so that they can preserve their class privileges. John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King are both extraordinary examples of fine human being from different classes and races. But, we are all part of a forever changing human gene pool.

    • Replies: @Malla
  54. anonymous[324] • Disclaimer says:
    @nsa

    An invisible sky nazi started the whole shit show? Heil, yeah, ’tis a great scientific theory!* Bacteria is indeed invisible to the naked eye, and Our Father ᛋkyGod fucked Mo✙her Earth good! We are their children.

    One argument that supports the panspermia theory is the emergence of life soon after the heavy bombardment period of earth, between 4 and 3.8 billion years ago.

    ORIGIN OF LIFE: THE PANSPERMIA THEORY
    Helix Magazine, 2008

    There is nothing esentially Jewish about a panspermatic SkyDaddy, even as told Genesis, an ancient, pre-Jewish origins myth the Jews lifted from other cultures. (The Jewish garbage in Genesis really cranks up with Jacob, the shyster kike who fucked his brother over and stole his inheritance by trickery, as Jews are wont to do.)

    The European’s Sky Daddy is named God. Or Gott-Godin-Odin-Woden-Gotin-Wotan, all variations of God. In a couple days, it’ll be Woden’s Day (Wednesday,) or to put it in a more modern pronunciation and spelling variation, God’s Day.

    To be sure, our Gawd is NOT Jewish. Jewish skykike is Yahweh. Yahweh hate Gawd. Bible says so. “But you who forsake Yahweh, who forget my holy mountain, who prepare a table for Gawd.” (Isaiah 65:11) The Jewish cult of Christianity, with their traitorous translators, has deceitfully conflated the Teutonic name God (and Greek Theos and Latin Deos) with the Jewish name Yahweh. The Jewish authors of the New Testament even deceitfully conflate the divine Uranus/Ouranos, the son and husband of Gaia (another name for Mother Earth,) with Jewhovah. Sad, isn’t it? Tell a christmonger that the Jew Testament states Uranus has a heavenly voice, if you want to get one riled, and perhaps thinking just a bit. 🙂
    _____
    * Panspermia does not contradict life’s origins via physic’s Maximum Power Principle, i.e., “The origin of ordered structures is…openness and a flow of energy.” Life could have began many times on Mo✙her Earth, only to be pushed aside from her evolutionary cervix by the ᛋky-Father’s cosmic fucking. Without a time machine go gather physical evidence, we’ll never know.

  55. anonymous[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thomas Faber

    Tzimtzum, the “congealing” or “freezing” of God’s substance, of light. The sun is the first “step-down” of the background energy of the universe, yet massively energetic, without diminution for (as best we can figure) billions of years.

    Every heavier, less energetic element is a further “step-down” of that background energy.

    It is all Divine Will. Biomorphogenetic fields are real, as Sheldrake posits, they are the governing reality of the complex “chemicals” we call DNA.

    The Divine Will is the fundamental resonance, harmony, if you will, of reality. The Divine Will is reality. Reality cannot be separate from the Divine Will.

    Only the Human Will can separate itself from the Divine Will. The result has been disastrous.

    • Replies: @Thomas Faber
  56. Agent76 says:

    John 14:6 “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

    Aug 6, 2013 Evolution Vs. God Movie

    Hear expert testimony from leading evolutionary scientists from some of the world’s top universities.

  57. @Tom Verso

    One of my purposes here was to introduce Rupert Sheldrake, who is definitely neither a Darwinist nor an Intelligent Designist. So I don’t think it is fair to characterize my essay as “perpetuating” that alternative.
    But I am extremely happy to learn about the Third Way. Thanks.

  58. utu says:

    Laser action of harnessed Jewish morphogenetic field deployed against Nazis as envisioned by Hollywood:

    And here by a pedestrian Jew (in recent Linh Dinh’s article):

    https://www.unz.com/ldinh/dying-thoughts/#comment-4554853
    I just got this message, however:

    Greeting
    Mar 28 at 3:39 PM
    ashlegal (null) [email protected]
    To: [email protected]
    Jew haters commonly suffer a gruesome death. Let’s hope and pray you will.

  59. radio says:

    It’s a shame your words are lost on materialists. People who think they’re wiser for having had closed off their mind’s eyes to the eternal will learn soon why we are spiritual beings and always will be

  60. Memejon says:

    Joe biden needs you…

  61. @anonymous

    Well – I do not doubt the existence of God. And somehow, He gets it to work.

    The question is how, exactly, and how does it fit together with the things that science has found? That question has not been answered, as far as I know.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  62. @Realist

    Have you tried Mother Goose? It rhymes better than the confusing thoughts you read.

    • Replies: @Realist
  63. @bayviking

    Your example of convergent evolution, the dire wolf and modern does not accomplish what you think it does.

    As Laurent describes in his essay, what we see, what is, is by virtue of the fact that it exists in a coherent energy field. It is a coherent field within larger coherent fields. Only certain coherent schemes are viable. Incoherent schemes will either fail to materialize in the first place or immediately be canceled out e.g. the particles created in high energy sub atomic collisions produced in accelerators. Only certain energy configurations are viable. What you point to as an example of randomness is anything but. It confirms just the opposite. Some Forms are viable and some are not, because of the larger context in which they come into being–which is just what natural selection asserts.

    As I said before in a prior comment, a great intellectual revolution lies in the social sciences incorporating the knowledge of wave mechanics and quantum states in their understanding. Notions of coherence, positive feedback, negative feedback, resonance and energy states.

    Another thing. Current biologists are enamored of the notion that genetic modifications are a product of random chance because they are operating from a model that is based upon statistical probabilities. Given that all that you comprehend is fit into a framework of statistics, what other agent of change could possibly exist? If your entire world map consists of mathematical models, then randomness is only way you can introduce change into the system. Am I the only one who can see this? Hello, anybody out there? Your method predetermines your options.

    • Replies: @bayviking
  64. Turk 152 says:

    Science is based on experimentation, evidence and proof. There is no proof of Darwin, it is just a theory, no different than the Big Bang. There is proof of evolution, mutations, and natural selection, but there is no way to prove that these aberrations created everything in its entirety. Every, plant, every protozoa, every human, every giraffe, not only now but millions of years ago.

    Similarly, until you meet someone who has died, gone to heaven/hell and come back to earth to discuss his experiences, you have no idea if there is a God or not, let alone the cosmic lottery system commonly referred to as organized religion.

    We have no idea how we got here.

  65. Vigilius says:
    @Tom Verso

    Tom Verso
    Creative (Qualitative) evolution guided by Spirit versus Quantitative evolution guided
    by Matter and Chance .
    Thesis versus Antithesis open the way to Synthesis.

    • Replies: @Tom Verso
  66. kba56 says:
    @James J O'Meara

    dr wallach: “We can all benefit from a little more energy and while quality food and sunshine are important sources, ultimately the best energy on earth comes from, well… the earth. Which is constantly streaming pieces of electricity called electrons from its core.

    When we walk barefoot, directly on the earth, these electrons enter into our bodies. Scientists call this earthing, and in addition to amping up our biological energy, it can reduce inflammation, pain and help prevent chronic diseases.

    But we don’t need scientists to tell us the biochemistry of why earthing works. All you need to know is walking barefoot in the sand or cool dirt connects you with nature, improves your health and can just make you feel really good.”

    • Thanks: Thim
    • Replies: @kba56
  67. How come monkeys are so hairy yet they have pink arses with no hair on, whilst I am bald as a coot and I’ve got a big hairy arse ? Perhaps Charles Darwin could explain that !

    • LOL: Iris
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  68. kba56 says:
    @kba56

    excuse me – Ben Fuchs quote

  69. Thim says:
    @James J O'Meara

    When I was young in Virginia the kids did not wear shoes yet, not even to school. It was great. In 3rd grade they passed a law saying we had to wear shoes to school. This was 1963.

    At least we still had separate schools for the blacks, but the yankees completely raped us on that in 1969, and everything since has been downhill.

  70. Thim says:

    Individualism has resulted in white people going through life alone, unmarried, unloved, lonely, cruelly lonely.

    Freedom, ah Freedom
    That’s just some people talking
    Your prison is walking through
    This world all alone

    Don Henley (Desperado)

  71. Realist says:
    @St-Germain

    Have you tried Mother Goose? It rhymes better than the confusing thoughts you read.

    I don’t waste my time with confused writing. You evidently relish it.

  72. anon[323] • Disclaimer says:

    Hi folks, so what’s you bets now on the virus dyin’ out within a year? Not so good, huh?
    Okay, what about the virus losing within two years? Not so great either?
    Well, did not a few people a year ago tell you that if you don’t fight and beat this virus like the Irish beat the English, then maybe you never get rid of it.
    Point here is that the governments who controlled it played politics with a virus which doesn’t give a shit about politics.
    Take the complete idiot Trudeau or the complete idiot Trump or the complete, soon to be idiot Joe Biden.
    They all thought they were dealing with politics and they were wrong. They are dealing with a virus which does not give a fig about war, peace, destruction or anything human could possibly care about. They were designed by nature completely beyond our control and if they are going to destroy us would it not be a better idea to destroy them before they have a chance? Because we may not get a second chance?

    Covid 19 is a nano creature and does not have a single gene in common with us. So when are we going to stop pretending that this is not an existential threa,t but actually a threat to our very existence? It ain’t what you think popsicle nose, it is a threat to our very existence. How long will stupid governments play politics with it before they die of oxygen starvation?
    How long? Before the virus attacks younger and younger people to stay alive. Just like it is already doing in Brazil?
    How long before we as decent human beings realize as decent human beings that we have to fight for our existence in this universe? Instead of fighting each other, There is no free candy floss on this planet darling. Anywhere than anywhere else in the universe. Get used to it. Because it will last less long than short time panties in a Chinese whore house.

  73. @Dodge City Pete

    Much the same explanation as Ashkenazi Jews having more than their fair share of people with Tay-Sachs, Gaucher’s and several other neurological diseases. If they aren’t associated with genes for advantageous traits they could still survive just because they have not been damaging enough to prevent reproduction by carriers.

  74. SafeNow says:

    French sociologist Vincent de Gaulejac speaks of “genealogical impasses,” neurotic knots of the type: “I do not want to be what I am.” An individual who tries to break away from his family “remains overdetermined by a filiation which imposes itself on him even if he thinks he is escaping from it.”[29] The French bestseller on the subject was written by “psychogenealogist” Anne Ancelin Schutzenberger,

    Perhaps this explains the cliche “opposites attract.” That is, one can sense that while he himself cannot break free from the overdetermined filiation, his descendants can break free, because the potential mate he has just barely met carries the perfect break-free genetics. Example: Philip Roth created many protagonists who, aware of their own contentious, contrarian natures, were attracted to the fair-mindedness of another.

  75. @john cronk

    Everything has a silver lining: As I was taking a dump after reading the article + comments, it occurred to me that Yuval Harari’s assertion “Life has no meaning” (quoted in the article) has no meaning. The whole endeavor of skimming and scrolling had led me there. Time well spent!

  76. @Trial by Wombat

    If the Celts were such a juggernaut in Central Europe then how did the Germans push them into Western Europe and then to the fringes even of that?

  77. Skeptikal says:

    No discussion of extra-pair paternity is complete without a mention of Robin Baker’s “Sperm Wars.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_Wars

  78. Abbybwood says:
    @john cronk

    Seriously.

    I keep waiting for someone of note to write a definitive article here at Unz about the fact that the DNC, Dr. Jill Biden, Kamala Harris, Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, all of Joe Biden’s physicians have committed criminal fraud against The People of the United States when they ALL knew (save poor Joe) that Joseph R. Biden was mentally incompetent to RUN for President let alone actually assume the position. (“Keep the record player on at night”? “President Harris and I….”.)

    This is a criminally dangerous fraud against the American people and Joseph Biden is obviously a victim of Elder Abuse. Just watch last weeks “press conference”.

    Will someone besides me and Sean Hannity please come out and state what is painfully obvious to everyone, especially the leaders of China, Russia, North Korea etc.?

    We are in a Constitutional crises and this is a major National Security issue now because OBVIOUSLY someone other than Joseph R. Biden is making major decisions for our country.

    • Agree: Skeptikal
  79. It is time for you to BDS “israel”, Laurent Guyénot.
    That photo of evil next to Macron was as far as I got.
    Just what are you advertising?

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
  80. @anon

    There was this guy who put foods, motor oil, etc and sent them for a PCR test. They all came back with CONJOB19.
    That man was PM of Tanzania. He refused WHO conjob bribes of 100million. He is now dead. They killed him.
    So much for ‘science’ and ‘truth’ hey anon?

    Don’t forget to immunize your pets. Cuz ‘science’.

  81. @Schuetze

    Speaking about the Kennedys:

    • Thanks: Arthur MacBride
  82. @Badger Down

    What? You think I am advertising Harari (or Macron)? You need to read the article, not just look at the pictures.

  83. Tom Verso says:
    @Vigilius

    But the synthesis would not be science. Science is strictly quantitative.

    Galileo : “The universe is written in mathematical language…”

    Feynman: “Calculus is the language God talks.”

    • Replies: @Vigilius
  84. cranc says:
    @cranc


    farewell ?

    If the above mentioned philosophy is correct and thinking is our most immediate experience of spiritual activity, then us thinking within the machine of the internet arguably cannot go anywhere but down.
    I am from one of the last generations (in my country at least) who, when children, were left to play outside, in the woods, parks and streets, unsupervised with other kids. I believe it was here that we learned to experience nature, imagination, we learned to how to think and how to socialise.
    Once that was gone, the generations seem to kind of mentally thin out, as if there is something spiritually missing from them.
    Maybe smashing the screen is our only hope. ?

  85. anonymous[262] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thomas Faber

    There is a lecturer at Cambridge in quantum physics, David Tong, who gives a magnificent talk (in the very room where Cavendish and Rutherford lectured, IIRC), talking about the latest understanding of quantum fields, and precise measurements and modeling of the background energy of the universe (space is not empty by any means). Watching it, it seemed to dovetail with my understanding of how we might approach analysis of this Superenergy or Superfield which seems to be the substrate of reality. The idea that all particles, even light, are simply glimpses of surface perturbations in fundamental force fields (a core of modern quantum physics) is difficult for a brain made of “stuff” to wrap itself around.

    “The Universe is made of Fields that transcend all dimensions. Matter, Space, and Time emerge from these fields on the Planck scale.”

    Tong’s a great lecturer, perhaps too basic for Unzians (lol):

    Or skip to 43 minutes where he dissects the Standard Model “Theory of everything.”

    • Thanks: Arthur MacBride
  86. bayviking says:
    @ThreeCranes

    Even though mutations appear random, they are governed by the laws of biochemistry including permitted energy states, thermodynamics, wave mechanics including permitted resonances and permitted quantum states all restrict any pure definition of randomness. Planetary chemistry history, weather and volcanic and meteoric activity, natural symbiotic and parasitic relationships, positive feedback and negative feedback also restrict evolutionary outcomes. So randomness has some strong limitations, but nothing compels the intelligent design assumption or theory. Certainly every intelligent design by a human is less than perfect. But testing confirms functionality, which is integral to natural selection without the introduction of intelligent design. This neither outlaws nor requires intelligent design.

  87. bayviking says:

    If genes did what the Dawkinses tell us, we would be 99 percent identical to chimps. We are not. On the chemical level perhaps, but we are not chemical beings. We are spiritual beings. In fact, Bonobos and Chimpanzees both share close to 98% of their genome in common with humans. We probably differ from chimps, elephants and dolphins in our pondering the past and future, yet I am certain my dog dreams, which seems to be an excursion in time. Again nothing we know excludes the supernatural. But everything we completely understand so far can be explained without reverting to the supernatural, a term closely associated with spiritual. Both are possible but as far as we know completely unnecessary.

  88. mikael_ says:

    Great article!

    I only strongly disagree with

    Gradual development of the human eye appears to be impossible, since its many sophisticated features are interdependent.

    Without ever reading any such claims before, I had decades before wondered myself if I’d be able to come up with a (rough) theory how [Darwinian] evolution could have created something like an eye. And it wasn’t so hard:

    You start with a photosensitive cell. (That alone is a small wonder, but a separate exercise to theorize how that had formed.) Maybe some proto-fish had such cells sparsely spread on his skin. That could help it determine up and down, for example, or large shadows passing above. For more directional “vision”, two solutions then formed: each photosensitive cell was put in a depression, leading ultimately to insects’ compound eye, or a clump of photosensitive cells were put together in one bigger depression, but either to allow for some finer directional vision. Such (deeper) depressions then bring the problem of foreign objects getting lodged in them. So some precursor eye lid formed that could close the depression – but also disabled sight. So as a later improvement a thin film “window” formed at the opening of the depression, closing off the depression permanently from the surroundings (some type of pressure equalization mechanism had to form as well) but still allowing to see through it, and getting clearer and less distorting over evolutionary time. Then the inside of the cavity was replaced by some gel instead of liquid. A brightness adaption mechanism, an iris, formed under the “film window.” Finally then some film formed into a lens, first a fixed lens, then a variable-focussing lens evolved out of it with a circular muscle regulating it. At some point the whole originally fixed depression became slightly movable, by other muscles, all the way to finally become an eyeball. Somewhere along the way photosensitive cells for different wavelengths forked. And only in passing I will mention the quite complicated signal pre-processing in the retina that also formed and evolved.

    So where’s the impossibility?

  89. Vigilius says:
    @Tom Verso

    Tom Verso
    Agree . Philosophical Synthesis .

  90. Fr. John says:
    @john cronk

    “I didn’t get past the first few sentences. Not worth the time.”
    That’s because the fundamental premise is flawed, in extremis.

    “…and the only thing that should matter for Christians is that under Christ all men are brothers.”
    This sentence is both true… and false.

    1) Whose ‘Christianity’ is being discussed here? If it is Roman Catholi-schism, then we are starting from not just a false premise, but a HERETICAL one. The Cult of Rome has been in apostasy from the True Orthodox Faith, for over a thousand years. So, too, her erring/whoring daughters, almost all of the Protestant sects, cults, and [sic] Churches. Heresy does not determine truth- only Orthodoxy does.

    2) Christ (as God) incarnated into Adamic humanity, 2000 years ago. The record of the N.T. confirms this, the writings of the Fathers confirm it, and the praxis of Europe for the first millennium confirmed it… in spades! For ‘Christ is the Last [telos] Adam.’ [ I Cor. 15:45]

    If this is the case (and it is ) then it is ONLY to the ‘sons of Adam’ that Christ’s mission, death, resurrection, and salvation CAME TO- and that is exactly what we read in Scripture [“his people”- Matt. 1:21] St. Paul’s letters, his theology are all of a piece on this- there is a race of Elect, and there is…. everyone else. (leaving aside the further ‘choosing’ from among the recipients of that salvation)

    The PRESUMPTION that all hominids ARE those ‘sons of Adam’ is DENIED by the N.T., as well as the outreach to people groups in the expansion of Christendom, as witnessed by history! As an Orthodox father cogently noted, ” We are all his CREATION, but we are not all his OFFSPRING.”

    Rome’s departure from true theology started 500 years prior to Luther. ANYTHING that gives credence to the thought that non-Adamics are either our ‘brethren’ -or our ontological equal, is as a result of the Roman HERESY. Even African writer Enaboakpe’s book is clear enough for deluded Whites of the West, “Black Man: NOT Descendant of Adam.” Q.E.D.

  91. @Fr. John

    Adam is a myth. Who cares if one is descended from a myth or not?

  92. @Fr. John

    I’ve read fairly extensively into CI and it’s my impression that Orthodxy doesn’t subscribe to it — certainly the rest of “churchianity” does not, but “churchianity” is simply a judeo-marxist circus act that has completely lost its way …

    It’s interesting to see the very strong opposition you are drawing from Whites …

  93. @MarkU

    I’ve watched many of Sheldrake’s video presentations and bought one of his books but he’s an awful author.

    Sheldrake is exposing issues with current understanding and making associations via small experiments that are intriguing.

    Consider watching this short video on Synchronization:

    I think Sheldrake is on to something. Maybe we haven’t discovered some technique that allows minds to connect over time and space, even subconsciously. Genes don’t explain how instinct works and yet, animals instinctively know certain things that enable them to survive after birth. Fred Reed has several articles concerning instinctive behavior that conventional science can’t explain.

    Sheldrake is expanding the scope of questions but has few if any answers. He’s still contributing just by making people aware of anomalies.

    • Thanks: Laurent Guyénot
    • Replies: @MomsBasement
  94. cranc says:
    @Digital Samizdat

    I left a couple of comments about Rudolf Steiner (above), as one person who tried to set a non-materialistic basis for society in the modern world.
    Here is Sepehr’s short video on Steiner:

  95. The author seems to perceive morphogenetic field/blood as more or less self-contained, holistic identity. That could be supported by the movement to RECONSTRUCT something when it is destroyed, eg. to rebuild Notre Dame in a-Christian society as France today: the movement of rebuilding Notre Dame would be to restore the integrity of the field, rooted in the past.

    But what about such a case when Hitler falsely claimed that Germans are Atlanteans, whereas in fact Aryans destroyed the older civilizations of India during Aryan invasion, the older civilization to which actually swastika belonged? That Aryans emerged from an area around Caucasus excludes them as Atlanteans.
    Did Germans lose because they actually fought under the banner of the condemned past, which swastika actually was? Could the morphic field of pre-Aryan culture and its swastika erase an influence of the morphic field of the Aryan identity of Germans? If so, then yes, morphic field is a pure information. Or was one field stronger than other? Or maybe both were non-existent?
    What about the morphic field of Hilter and his cronies who proposed the tainted ideology to Germans?

    In the end, morphic field (or ‘blood’ as its synonym here) seems to be unnecessary entity, easily replaced by notions like culture, heritage or legacy.

    I think there is more to biological information than genes, but that unknown quality does not extend to history

  96. Anonymous[357] • Disclaimer says:
    @ThreeCranes

    Pertinent here would be David Bohm’s writings on the Implicate Order. In short (if I may), Bohm believed that we exist in a visible, manifest Explicate Order which was merely a surface reflection of the vast Implicate Order, of fields folding and unfolding, which is the true basis of what we would call reality.

    Bohm, the quantum physicist, was deeply interested in Buddhism. Planck, Heisenberg, Bohr, all were interested in what the “new” quantum physics meant for such concepts as human free will.

    But they missed the the larger point, I would humbly note. The Implicate Order, the vast complex sea of interacting fields occuring on the Planck scale, is merely the glimpse we have of the Divine Will. Bohm in his writings superbly articulated this understanding but stopped short of giving name to what underpinned this (now measurable) reality.

    The Prime Mover is the Divine Will. Time is merely an abstraction to denote this eternal motion. Time’s arrow seems to point forward because we can describe a point X1, the “past,” that is not X2, “now.” Our own mental processes, emotions, memories (per Bohm) are likely non-localizable, more holographic than neurochemical. One might say the neurochemistry is the explicate manifestation of the implicate holographic ordering of what is, in fact, information. And our model of chemistry is that reactions move “forward.” DNA is “read” like a software program, correct?

    Perhaps the model is flawed, and the quaternary, electrochemical structure of DNA is actually an antenna that receives the Divine instruction and broadcasts the morphogenetic manifestation. Phylogeny is deeper than chemical structure, and is a type of Implicate Order, and Ontogeny is the Explicate.
    ———————

    The universe is information, which is the mind of the Divine. DNA is a method of transferring information from the “past” into the “future.”

    This is a wonderful talk describing how the rules of information storage at the quantum level are different than we might imagine.

  97. Malla says:
    @bayviking

    There is not sound reason to segregate by race and fight for our race.

    Segregation by race is the soundest policy that can be taken.

    Martin Luther King are both extraordinary example

    Martin Luther King, an extraordinary example??? LOL.

  98. Anonymous[974] • Disclaimer says:

    Quoting Dugin, too, now? Well…not an unexpected, but final disappointment.

    Anyway. We both know, what you are doing here and what this platform actually is. Give my regards to Moshe Kantor and Boris Spiegel.

  99. @Fr. John

    Where do you see Rome departing from ‘true theology’…? Filioque debate?

  100. the pair says:

    good work by guyenot as usual. odd that it’s on a site filled with the very biological determinists and gene worshipers it refutes but whatever. i’d only add that:

    – the simplest way to address any philosophical discussion is “material vs immaterial”. i suppose you could say “physical vs metaphysical” as well.

    – many of these concepts were dissected (if not defined) in the work of evola. even the title of this essay brings to mind his “myth of blood”. he did occasionally slip into temporal generalizations about black folks but then so did almost every white person of his time (he actually used a quote by jung to accent his criticisms and lovecraft made an art form of unrestrained bigotry). otherwise you can go back to the official race policy he was asked to draft for the italian government and his “racial” trinity of “body/mind/spirit” and see the accessible and obvious refutaion of biological determinism.

    – shaw was irish. not a big oversight ut one that might annoy a few paddys here and there.

    • Thanks: Laurent Guyénot
  101. @RoatanBill

    A small experiment I have made:

    When I practice meditation, I usually find myself mingling with a light that is ever newly vibrant, and engrossing. The lights that come seems to consist of subtle standing waves but with no container for them. A void but not merely an absence.

    If I go to sleep directly after such an experience, my dreams are much more organized than otherwise. The experience of a void seems to give rise to structure! For example, if there is a daylight scene in the dream, there will also be a night scene. If there is good, there will also be evil. If there is restraint, there will also be action; if there are children in the dream, there will also be old-age and death. Dualities seem to appear in an more obvious rhythm in a dream after meditation. Do they reflect the internal content of crests and troughs of unconscious thought-waves experienced as light in the meditation? Are wave forms the forms that Plato was looking for? Not astral images of tables and chairs, but mathematical wave forms?

    Of course, there is still plenty of chaotic material in these dreams, but the increased structure seems to have its roots, paradoxically, in the meditation experience of a void…

    So, my little sleep-laboratory experiment seems to tell me that vibrating void (a Fourier frequency domain, for those who think in such mathematical terms) gives rise to the structure I experience in a dream domain of space-time. So, Is our external reality, including our genetic makeup, a collective dream of space time shared by myriad entities present as interfering sinusoidal thought waves from the Fourier frequency domain outside of space and time? That would explain clairvoyance, Sheldrake’s experiments with telepathy among dogs, for example, without invoking the absurdity of extremely low-energy physical waves traversing great distances through space-time and would explain many other things as well, possibly evolution.

    If there are myriad entities existing as thought waves in the Fourier frequency domain, then we are back to Heraclitus, “The gods are many but he is one.” These “gods,” evolving humans included, would have particular wills, but the one governing all would will only harmony of the whole, as Leibnitz surmised. Sounds right to me.

    A few nights ago I had a dream in which I visited the Devil’s library – quite an impressive place in the dream – books made out of silver, impressive skylights in a magnificent architectural expanse. The Devil seems civil enough as well and gave me his card. The next morning, I received a call from someone I had not heard from in a long time. He wanted to meet, but only to discuss up-beat topics (no Covid-19 news, no conspiracies of any kind.). Without being informed about my dream at all, he pleaded, “Don’t bring anything with you from the Devil’s library…”

    P.S. My apologies for using the “I” word so much.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  102. @MomsBasement

    I certainly can’t explain how an abandoned kitten, near death, is able to become a cat with all cat qualities after we rescue it, not having been taught how to be a cat. What we call instinct is very mysterious. Many other things are as yet unexplained by science and I’m not inclined to ignorantly write them off as some god manifestation.

    I believe Bohmian Mechanics explains how things work better than Quantum Mechanics. I’ve often thought that particles don’t exist, just waves. Maybe waves don’t exist either and it’s something else entirely that we’re too ignorant to understand. What our senses tell us and what we infer to be the truth isn’t in many cases. I suspect a broader definition of Electromagnetism might be the much sought after grand unified theory.

    Ancient man chalked up everything he didn’t understand, to some god. They had thousands of gods. Today, at least, the bulk of the population has whittled that number down to one. Still one too many, but it’s progress. Sooner or later we’re going to figure out how current mysteries and unknowns are to be analyzed and understood. Maybe there are other forces we’re ignorant of.

    When Sheldrake made his observation that the brain is like a TV receiver and the mind is outside the body, that was something that caught my attention. His animal and chemical experiments raise lots of questions with no answers provable beyond assertion. I’m grateful he’s willing to stick his neck out and make his ideas known.

    • Replies: @Realist
  103. Realist says:
    @RoatanBill

    I believe Bohmian Mechanics explains how things work better than Quantum Mechanics. I’ve often thought that particles don’t exist, just waves. Maybe waves don’t exist either and it’s something else entirely that we’re too ignorant to understand. What our senses tell us and what we infer to be the truth isn’t in many cases. I suspect a broader definition of Electromagnetism might be the much sought after grand unified theory.

    While Quantum Mechanics works quite well on atomic and subatomic scales, the current efforts to combine General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics to provide a theory of Quantum Gravity and thereby produce the GUT has met with failure after failure. Even though Quantum Mechanics works, no one knows why or truly understands the concepts. Therefore I believe the failure to achieve the GUT is mainly the fault of the Quantum Mechanics theory as it presently stands.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  104. @Realist

    If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.
    RICHARD P. FEYNMAN

    I’ve tried to wrap my head around QM several times. That’s how I chanced upon Bohmian Mechanics. As you say, QM appears to work but no one can explain how or why. There’s something wrong with a theory that’s as non intuitive as QM and no one has seemed to come up with a way of making it less weird in decades.

    The physics folks keep looking for a ‘beautiful’ explanation for how nature works.

    Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.
    Albert Einstein

    At least one person thinks the current trends in physics, cosmology, astronomy, etc are in the weeds. All the nonsense about dark energy, dark matter, neutron starts, black holes, etc gets all the attention creating an ever expanding menagerie of unicorns while largely ignoring what the plasma physicists have to say.

    • Replies: @Realist
  105. Realist says:
    @RoatanBill

    Two great quotes, I know you collect them.

    There’s something wrong with a theory that’s as non-intuitive as QM and no one has seemed to come up with a way of making it less weird in decades.

    Quite so. Einstein was very leery of QM for that very reason…non-intuitive.

    The physics folks keep looking for a ‘beautiful’ explanation for how nature works.

    Yes, supersymmetry (SUSY) is all the rage. When physicists run into a problem they start running after unicorns (fudge factors). Case in point astrophysicists have determined that there is not enough mass in the universe to explain the observed interactions, from gravity, in the cosmos. What is their first response…start chasing unicorns…in this case dark energy and dark matter. Perhaps a better approach would be to consider that their observations are wrong…or that their assumptions are wrong…or that their calculations are wrong.

    Mathematics is a tool for physics ….mathematics is not physics.

    The problem with physics over the last 100 years is the use of mathematics as a substitute for insight or imagination.

    Physics is not applied mathematics. It is a natural science in which mathematics is applied.
    Robert Heinlein

    At least one person thinks the current trends in physics, cosmology, astronomy, etc are in the weeds. All the nonsense about dark energy, dark matter, neutron starts, black holes, etc gets all the attention creating an ever expanding menagerie of unicorns while largely ignoring what the plasma physicists have to say.

    I am a big fan of Sabine Hossenfelder…also Peter Woit. I read Peter’s book Not Even Wrong some years back.

    Sabine’s book Lost In Math is excellent.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  106. @Realist

    The assumptions the cosmos crowd uses are wrong. The universe is not expanding because Halton Arp showed that red shift is intrinsic to galaxies, quasars, etc. Red shift for the most part is a measure of age, not distance.

    Electromagnetism is almost completely ignored by cosmologists even though it’s 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. The amount of money and time wasted on black holes, etc is mind boggling.

    • Replies: @Realist
  107. Realist says:
    @RoatanBill

    The amount of money and time wasted on black holes, etc is mind boggling.

    Yes, many physicists are mathematicians at heart. Put another way many mathematicians masquerade as physicists. They come up with these metaphysical concepts to gain a research grant…their lunch ticket.

  108. tru3 says:

    “ We know our enemy’s strength: Jews, wrote Martin Buber, make blood “the deepest, most potent stratum of [their] being.” The Jew perceives “what confluence of blood has produced him. […] He senses in this immortality of the generations a community of blood”

    They also have a morphic resonance as every bit as powerful as blood: the will of Canaan

    “ Five things did Canaan charge his sons: love one another, love robbery, love lewdness, hate your masters and never speak the truth.” Genesis 9:25

    This “will” is, imo, a memetic virus that is epi-genetic; it is an energetic seed that falls into the fertile soil (blood), growing stronger and more in bred with every generation. who knows? Maybe future geneticists will find that methylation and histone changes will account for (((their))) paranoia, fear, and sociopathy moreso than some sequence of genes.

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 have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Laurent Guyénot Comments via RSS