show/hide profile info
Register to take part
email

Parasitism

  • 0 Replies
  • 761 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 3562
  • +75/-0
Parasitism
« on: January 04, 2013, 09:42:48 PM »
Guest Writers





03

Jan
2013


Parasitism

Written by Revisionist




Let's try to examine the idea of 'parasitism'.  In nature, it's usually easy enough to identify a parasite; it's some creature (or perhaps fungus etc) which lives off another creature.  It may be fatal, eventually; ichneumon flies and wasps inject eggs into caterpillars, and their larvae eat the caterpillars until ready to pupate.  (This is often seen in cabbage white caterpillars, which - if they aren't killed by insecticides - die, with little yellow cocoons festooned outside them).
 
Some parasites, such as tapeworms, aren't fatal; they breed, in effect, using properties of their hosts' excretions.  Occasionally we have symbiosis, where what would be a parasite helps its host: nitrogen-fixing bacteria in some plant roots, for example.

This phenomenon of course resembles that of predators and prey, except that predators kill and eat their prey.  There is another resemblance with parasites: in neither case is the prey usually wiped out.  If this happened, the predators or parasites themselves would die out.  Cuckoos for example in birds, or malaria parasites, don't manage complete parasitism, no doubt more by luck than anything else.
 
Some interesting examples occur - or allegedly occur; biologists need sensational stuff to live, as much as journalists - amongst social insects, such as ants and some bees.  A rival species of ant, making the same sounds as ants in a nest, seek out the queen, saw its head off, and take the place of the queen; the invading species' eggs are cared for by the ants and displace them.
 
The idea of 'mimicry' is important in parasites where they are not carried internally.  (In this case, what they look like doesn't matter).  Often mimicry is protective: a harmless fly may look like a wasp, with bold colours, and presumably on balance survives better.
 
If we extend this idea to human beings, there are points of comparison, but also of course differences.  No other animal has anything like the learning capacities of human beings.  And, as it turns out, technology enables communications, and moving around of matter, to be enhanced incalculably more than the simple biological basis of a creature responding to close-up, direct stimuli - speech, commands, observation, effects of light and sound - and moving physical objects - food, useful objects etc.
 
Parasitism in people is therefore much more complicated than in the rest of nature. For one thing there is a time element largely missing in nature.  Human beings remain powerless for many years; nobody would call a normal child a parasite (apart from the Jewish Freudian, Erich Fromm) though if a normal child dies young in effect it is.  A productive old person's total life is not parasitic.  At present, Londoners are parasitic on the work of Irish labourers who built their sewage system in the nineteenth century, and Indians parasitic on British engineers who designed their cities.
 
Because of human creativity, it may be difficult to confidently detect a parasite, since someone may be an ancestor of a creative type.
 
The ideas/beliefs issue is probably the most important as regards human beings.  This is because people are physically somewhat similar: the difference between an extremely strong man and a feeble woman is large; but it is nothing compared with the difference between an informed person and someone entirely uneducated.  And groups of people can have mutually-reinforcing effects, which is why in-groups can exist, and secrecy, lies, deception and so on can be hugely important.  This is out of the reach of modern science: the brain is not understood, nor is learning, except as it is observed empirically.  This is why advertisers may be as good or better at prediction that psychologists.
 
Since it's not possible to be scientifically precise, the following comments and comparisons aren't to be regarded as established; they may change with circumstances, though it's impossible to be sure.
 
Mimicry
 
There are interesting possibilities here.  Jewish groups rely on mimicry of their hosts: changes of name to resemble their hosts, imitations of other languages, keeping quiet about hostile beliefs, temporary alliances on a belief basis are all entirely typical.
 
Lower-class people often feel they must mimic upper castes, probably throughout the world.  I wondered if The Midwich Cuckoos (science fiction, soon after 1945) was a science fiction attempt to work through the concept of an intruded group of like-minded aliens.
 
There is some comment on The Hobbit (film) in The Occidental Observer site, but nobody, including me, noted that the baddies are obviously and clearly hostile: they threaten, attack, look, feel, sound, dangerous.
 
There was a German group which wondered about Jews in Europe and speculated that they had evolved to look harmless, like teddy bears: who would imagine that Henry Kissinger is more of a mass murderer than Hitler, or that Cameron and his half-witted cabinet want white British people to disappear?
 
Behavioural Traits
 
I've read (I have no idea if it's true) that some species of chameleons have status depending on stink glands: the smellier, the higher status.  And that other species of chameleons, which pay no attention to smells, achieve high status simply by their ordinary behaviour.
 
Something similar is possible among human beings because of their elaborate belief systems and past learning.  One parasitic style of behaviour is to mimic powerful leaders and leadership characteristics.
 
This is easier with foreigners; there are lots of examples of foreigners becoming leaders (Napoleon wasn't French; Stalin wasn't Russian; many, if not all, British monarchs were foreign; many in India preferred Britons) partly because the locals couldn't combine, partly because the foreigners had some superiority, but partly because they ignored the local pecking order behaviours.  The USA is largely controlled by Jews, and this is certainly partly because their behaviour looks like leadership.
 
This in my view partly explains the success of fanaticism.  Nineteenth century theorists regarded fanaticism as self-defeating in the long run; and this may be true.
 
But in the short run it has advantages.  It leads to unified behaviour: groups of Jews, groups of Muslims, gullible UAF types, fundamentalists, MPs who follow their party orders, have simple-minded views, but they can be effective.
 
There's a case for studying law or medicine to benefit a community (or the world), but people whose only interest is law to benefit their group or to make money from patients have a more powerful motive to study.  In contrast people with a wider view have a much more difficult job of trying to understand and balance different groups and issues.
 
When you see some hideous Jewish woman blithely saying that white girls deserve all they get, or a Jewish political party leader saying things completely the opposite of their party's supposed stance, or a BBC Jewish hack scribbler saying every country should welcome criminals; don't imagine there's a process of thought behind it.

Extended parasitism
 
I don't know if there's an official expression, among people such as Dawkins, for the sort of thing I have in mind.  Because of extended communication between minds, parasites can multiply and extend, and may indeed need to do this.
 
An obvious example, which would certainly be censored by Dawkins, is Jewish behaviour in such things as the 'Holocaust' fraud.
 
In order to keep their money flowing in, they have, or act as though they have, no option but to buy up media, influence 'historians', hire thugs, control people high up in political parties, make up their own parties, and so on.
 
I can't think of any analogy of such 'escalation' in the animal world.  Another type of extended parasitism is the type where a parasitism is extended over large numbers of people.  The paper money aspect of Judaism is a good illustration.  Again I'm not sure there's anything comparable in nature, though possibly spores and bacteria, which can settle on and eat food substrate, might be seen as similar.
 
Group evolution
 
Because of the possibilities of learning, variation within human groups gives possibilities which don't occur in most species, unless you count social insects, whose roles are however firmly determined.
 
Kevin MacDonald is the de facto leading theoretician here, though there are quite a few sociobiologists of the sort quoted by Dawkins.  These latter however are usually optimists, speculating on the spread and decline of 'altruism' for example.
 
Kevin MacDonald in my view isn't completely accurate on whites.  It certainly appears true that whites have been infinitely more inventive than any other group, and clearly this may be related to physical conditions: in Europe we have winter, and any group not planning for winter is liable to starve, unless it can successfully parasitise other group(s).
 
However it seems just as true that planning, agriculture, storage etc. needs people who are plodding, dull, and able to tolerate long periods of boredom, possibly just follow orders.
 
There are plenty of whites with little intellect.  It wouldn't surprise me if this is sex-linked; certainly it's impressive how few women are able to understand or test hypotheses.  MacDonald seems to overstate the benevolence of whites as a result.  His website censors discussion of the Vietnam War: gum-chewing low IQ whites hardly able to speak their language raping Vietnamese women, technicians dropping bombs on defenceless villagers, don't figure in his world-view.
 
Baker's book on race (reprinted recently by Arthur Kemp) examines reproductive strategies around the world, quoting anthropologists, and I think concluded these strategies tend to replicate the spread of qualities in these tribes and groups, usually by ensuring mating between all the different types except those considered undesirable or those who genetically were too weak.
 
My guess is that sexual reproduction itself is an evolutionary device to allow incorrectly-copied DNA to be removed.


email
 
Share this topic...
In a forum
(BBCode)
In a site/blog
(HTML)



COMODO SECURE

Powered by EzPortal
Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 
Comodo SSL