GENE <> MEME

In a sheltered manmade environment popularity is normality. There is no other source of falsification or validation than the judgement of a collective who are also sheltered and detached from the world beyond.
If the shelter is effective, for a long enough period, within its artifices sanity can become insanity. There is no immediately perceptible cost to its participating individuals, but only to the collective, which, depending on fluctuating quantities, disseminates the costs – sometimes relatively evenly (socialism/Marxism) sometimes relatively unevenly (capitalism), making them imperceptible.
Costs gradually accumulate, like an unsettled debt, until individuals are faced with a sudden realization of the accumulated debt, which they cannot trace back to its sources – lost in time and multiplicity. At that point individuals seek-out a singular cause in what is most immediate – the tip of an imperceptible iceberg.

Bravo Thomas Sewell.

“Culture comes from race”

“The people in Nigeria live in slums, not because of the colour of their skin but because of the race that also produces that colour.”

“There’s a deeper genetic reason for why Africa looks like Africa and Australia looks like… [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Robert Jones (@Robert____Jones) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From what have been stated it is implied, but dumbing-down has made the obvious difficult to comprehend by the desperate degenerates, so bluntness is more effective....even if it must remain careful about political-corresctness, protecting desperate degenerates from the real world, but...for how long?:

there are two ways to genocide a people - genetic and memetic in its approach - masculine or feminine methods.
The first is crass and obvious - physical extermination; the second is subversive nd indirect, psychological, pretending to be a benefactor it seeds ideological self-annihilation; it makes the target want to end itself, protecting the instigator.

How does the saying go:
A male punches you in the face - the pain is physical, with the implied threat of ending your life; a woman destroys your soul - the pain is psychological, emotional; she makes you want to die.

In his desperation a degenerate wilfully confuses memes and genes, or the real and the ideal.
Selectively inverting their relationship, or completely ignoring the sequence of gene and then meme as an extension - real first from which the idea emerges in living minds to represent or to nullify it....

They cannot endure reality - not in its totality....so certain concepts lacking external referents - as they define them - remain the Guard Towers of their defensive semiotics - words already mentioned, e.g., god, morality, will, free, value, race, sex etc.
They refuse to connect them to tangible, experienced reality, preferring them to remain as obscure and intangible - abstract - as possible, so as to not place them in an uncomfortable objective corner - corners they've subjectively avoided their entire lives.

Order limits how words can be defined...and this is what they wish to avoid.

When Gene precludes Meme, Mankind as with animals, must be forced to deal with and eat the costs of their mistakes in Nature.  If you fuck up, then Nature ensures you pay immediately.  Nature is cruel, violent, painful, and merciless.  This forces man's mind into survival mode, where rationality becomes exponentially beneficial to itself (heightened IQ).  This state of mankind in survival is Natural, while its antithesis in Urban-Civilization is Artificial.  Man is not allowed to be his "Animal-self", must be suppressed, repressed, emasculated, domesticated, a process which females happily and freely adapt to.  Civilization is the pressure of Memetics, upon and over Genetics (Abrahamism: Humanity as the civilized, yoked Man).

When Meme precludes Gene, Man absolves himself with 'God'.  Man is seduced, enticed by Abrahamic propaganda.  How can you not, when 99.99% of those around you repeat the lies that your mind develops a ringing around, cognitive dissonance.  "Do people really believe this bullshit??"  Abrahamic Nihilism is seductive, always offering the final prize, Immortality, Bliss, Happiness, daily heroin injections into the vein.  Man is absolved of his Sin, hands washed of all blood, sweat, and dirt.  Man dons the White Robes, sanctified.  And it doesn't take long for men to forget, or deny altogether, that "Nature" even exists.

Nature becomes an unwelcome rumor, in dark, damp, forgotten stone corridors under the tombs of the Cathedral.

A meme, i.e., an ideology, a dogma, a religion, may not be able to predict, with absolute certainty, what an individual will do, i.e., how he will judge and what choice this judgement will produce, but it will give as an approximation, viz., it will reveal the range of options it will choose among.
A world-view determines this range of options, exposing what an individual is blind to and what it considers an unthinkable option; like glasses emphasizing or obscuring reality to the eyes, genetically evolved to perceive reality within a specific spectrum, ideology/dogma is an additional manmade filter between the world and an organism's ocular organ.

Using this metaphor the eye is an organism's evolved method (genetic) of perceiving the world and glasses are manmade additions (memes) that either selectively filter out the world, or emphasize/deemphasize specific aspects of the world, or accentuate the organism's eyesight to increase tis range of perception.
Naturalistic, i.e., realistic, memes, accentuate, extending the eye's evolved perceptual range; nihilistic memes arbitrarily or completely conceal the world from the eyes - in the latter, extreme, case they would be like a blind-man's glasses with the outer surface completely darkened - allowing no light to pass through to the eye - making the inner surface a mirror the reflects back to the eye (esoteric) its own image (solipsistic), only distorted do to the short distance (shallow); the eye will see its own reflection as some mysterious 'thing' with strange shapes and colourations.

Therefore, knowing an individual's cultural background, or the ideology/dogma - secular or spiritual - offers an indication of the range of probabilities that compel his choices by influencing his judgements.
The individuals dominant ideology would be like being made aware of an individual's preferred eye-wear; its type and make indicating its lenses and their manufactured intent, and then juxtaposing it with the sight organ, knowing its intent and its perceptual ranges and method of interpreting electromagnetic energies.
Knowing the evolved intent and range of the perceiving organ, and comparing it to manmade intentionally fabricated eyewear will expose their intent and their range, or the glass maker's intent and the method of warping or concealing a specific range of the electromagnetic range that would normally be accessible to the naked eye.

An individual's meme - his/her adopted fabricated ideology, secular or spiritual - offers insight into the range of options that will compel an individual and which ones it will not be compelled by, since we know which parts of reality its ideology accentuates and which ones it conceals or warps.
This shrinks the range of probable options we can objectively approximate as being more accessible to another's subjectivity.
Decreasing possibilities means increasing probabilities - less options being available to accessible to an individual aids in the assessment of the probable range of options it will choose from - making them more predictable.
Ergo, an animal is more comprehensible and predictable to man than man is to an animal; a simple man is more predictable to a complex man than a complex man is to a simple man - insanity being the unpredictable factor.

This pertains to free-will in as much as morality, being an aspect of a world-view, makes individual choices more predictable, and amorality releases him from this manmade predictability, returning him to nature's more mystifying state, because there's an absence of human motives in nature, unless man projects them there.
Why, for example, does the eye work as it does and why does it not perceive beyond a certain light spectrum range?
Here a man used to fabricated eyeglasses seeks the maker and his intentions - here the concept of trial & error, over huge spans of time, and the balancing factor of cost/benefit, that imposes upon organic form a range of proportions that cannot be exceeded without creating an imbalance, is far too complex to be approximated - so a simple mind reverts to simple binaries that allude to ranges that do not require precision.
It is far easier to speculate on the eyewear maker's intent than it is on nature's methods and an absence of intent.
Intent must be clear and obvious.
If god's will is absent, then so is man's; if man's is absent then will must be found elsewhere.
The range of probability adjusted by manmade fabricated glasses, adding an intentional layer over an existing, unintentional method of perception.
Man must find the obvious intent represented in fabricated glasses to cope with the underlying absence of a clear and obvious intent represented by his eyes.
How can a sophisticated organ that facilitates intentionality be, itself, a product of an absence of intent?
Leading to the confusion of a meaningless cosmos, with no purpose, producing an organism seeking and desperately craving for meaning and purpose.
How can existence lacking will produce a willful organism?

What perpetuates will would will perpetuation.
What has intent would have an advantage over what lacks intent.
What creates purpose would have an advantage over what lacks it, or what depends on other to give it purpose.
What has more freedom of choice would have an advantage over what has less freedom of choice.

An benefit is always accompanied by a cost, therefore an advantage is accompanied by a disadvantage.
The perception of increasing ranges of probabilities makes choice more difficult - too many variable to evaluate probable outcomes - necessitating a more sophisticated organ of evaluating and estimating, and a particular constitution that can simply approximate and then deal with the unforeseen consequences.

Physical proportionality places limits on how big of a calculating organ an organism can endure without suffering severe penalties – already man is born undeveloped so as to not kill the female at childbirth.
Nature establishes a balance between form and functionality, adopting the riskier approximation methodology. This is clearly indicated in individuals where what they cannot compute or endure is disregarded – sheltering increases this method of dismissing what cannot be comprehended nor endured, socially selecting downward, toward increasingly simpler and simpler minds with simpler world-views, such as absolutist binaries. Range of probability are imploded and assimilated in the abstraction of one/nil, positive/negative, good/bad, and good/evil. Range of perception shrinks, and where there is darkness the individual approximates either negativity or, most often, positivity.

How do genes/memes relate to world, i.e., reality, nature, existence?
this is their issue.
The world remains indifferent to both. It cannot care.
Only they, as references to organic processes, can care...and will.....and suffer.

World, existence, remains apathetic.
If they correctly perceive and interpret, and/or create clever ways to distract and to deceive themselves, they survive; if not, they perish.....and with them their false perspectives.

Human dominance intervenes on natural processes, e.g., culling, disease, etc., sheltering the human species allowing it to multiply - causing a natural imbalance on the planet.
To accommodate these increases masses of Homo sapiens, they intervene upon naturally evolved moral behaviour, adjusting it - each using their own cultural ideals - to accommodate, and manage all these masses of humans.
I call these human intervention on human behaviour and the already evolved moral impulse, ehtics....so as to distinguish and clarify.

Such expansions of numbers produces increasing levels of those who would have been exterminated under natural conditions - due to culling diseases, competitions etc.
These ae the ones attracted to nihilism and 'slave ethical systems'.

Evolved moral behaviour makes social cooperative strategies possible.
Without it social species could never have evolved.

Moral objectivity is about discerning which behaviours are considered 'immoral' not because someone decided it, but because of the negative consequences a behaviour, a choice, may have on a group, and tis members.
So, incest is considered 'immoral' not because someone decided it, but because this increases the reproduction of unfit mutations, and such mutations would risk the health and welfare of an entire group.
We can make a similar argument in regard to paedophilia, or a multitude of sexual deviances, just as we could for the act of in-group violence nd killing...

8:18 Identical Strangers
Genes = inherited range of potentials - inherited memories guiding an individual's development - multiplying probabilities (nature).
Memes = environmental cultivation of these inherited range of potentials; integration of genetic inheritance within environnemental circumstances, i.e., socioeconomic and cultural - first & second hand experiential memories adjusting an individual's inherited probabilities (nurture).

Nature = 70% - 80% range
Personae = organ proportionality and symmetry determining strength/dominance within an organism - personality, tastes impulses, dispositions.

Nurture = 20% - 30% range.
Character = individual's cultural, socioeconomic environmental effects imposing the range of a persona's expression, i.e., degree of self-repression, adaptation.

Trying to reconcile the parasite meme, with their basic sexual impulses.
A nature so perverted and retarded, it sees no other choice.

Dr. Russell Barkley, researcher on ADHD:
‘Your child is not a blank slate on which you get to write’
Great speech for current and future parents [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Tansu YEĞEN (@TansuYegen) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Americanization is setting in.

This got really close to a million views too! [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— James Lindsay, Dga.F. (@ConceptualJames) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Abrahamism is the ancestral species from where all these memetic variants emerged: Marxism, Postmodernism, Transhumanism, Americanism...
Abrahamism can be traced back to Babylon, Zoroastrianism, and further back to ancient-Egypt monotheism and death cults.

If genetics produce genotypes and phenotypes, then memes extent thin semiotically, producing memotypes (culture) and ideologies (civilization).
DNA - 4-codes - becomes Semiotic - binary codes.
Genome becomes Language.

Language can be used to trace out the historical development of an ethno-racial group - its roots, expansions, mixtures, i.e., evolution across time.

Once you can distinguish the difference between natural and manmade, i.e., artificial, you can distinguish the difference between evolved moral behaviours and man's ethical amendments, relative to gene/meme dynamics within nature, i.e., world, cosmos, which is not entirely ordered, but is also chaotic.

Robert Greene said in his book 48 Laws of Power that one way to discover each man's "thumbscrew" (Law #33) is by looking for contrasts.

Exact quote by him:

Robert Greene wrote:

An overt trait often conceals its opposite. People who thump their chests are often big cowards; a prudish exterior may hide a lascivious soul; the uptight are often screaming for adventure; the shy are dying for attention. By probing beyond appearances, you will often find people’s weaknesses in the opposite of the qualities they reveal to you

This reminds me of Sun Tzu's ancient wisdom:

Sun Tzu wrote:

Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak

So... It seems that it is possible that an individual is genetically strong, but memetically weak (I mean that one is seeming weak... is considered weak by first glance... or is considered weak by some human judgement rather than by an objective measure) or the other way around.

A powerlifter is most probably stronger than a same-sized bodybuilder, but a bodybuilder perhaps looks stronger. So this kind of conflict between seeming and being can occur at this level too.

Now the question is... when you are judging an individual, how often it is the case that you should make a judgement that is pretty much the opposite of what is the first impression? 
Or is this "look for contrasts" advice utter bullshit? 
Is it generally the case that if an individual seems intelligent/modest/strong/restrained/whatever, he probably is?
Or should you generally make the opposite conclusion that if a person seems restrained, he actually can't control himself and is prone to all kinds of harmful behavior?

In mating I know many males and females alike who broke up with their partner very quickly, "because he/she was not what was first seem".
So how come we are today so bad at judging characters?
Is this due to the modern nihilist mindset or is there a deeper rooted confusion in our heads regarding what is what actually?

A poor man always pretends to be wealthy; a wealthy man pretends to be of modest means.

Contrasts are always reveling.
Contrast between what is being stated and what is being acted.....even a good actor cannot control all his/her movements, facial expressions.....
Repeating disparity between words and deeds expose a pattern.
I always consider actions more relevant than words. Words are cheap and easy.
A moment of weakness should not lead to a final judgement. Duration in space and time, exposes the essence of a man. How is he under stress compared to how he is when comfortable.
Stress/Passion lets the masks fall. That's why in love and war we see the true spirit of the other.

In mating duplicity is always part of it.
We always present our best, ideal, selves so as to seduce and impress and be noticed.....and this cannot continue indefinitely, and after prolonged contact.
Fortunately, females in particular, are intoxicated hormonally, so they are truly 'swept of their feet, their grounding, and can see no flaw in the male that inspired them physically, unconsciously. Their brains flooded by intoxicating hormones that bond her to the source of their pleasing effects.
But, like all highs, lows are deepest when sobriety inevitably follows.
So, the more intoxicating, passionate, physical, instinctual, the erotic high the more devastating the fall.

More rational minds are less inclined to such highs and lows.
Agape, for example, is based on conscious, rational, shared goals, ideals, values.
If eros has no underlying agape, then it will not last more than 7 years, or as long as it takes for a human offspring to reach relative independence.
Eros lasts between 5-7 years, the cycle of female promiscuity. then she is looking for new genetic material to give herself to - become another's means to his ends.

In youth this is more a factor, as man ages hormones decline. Eros is reduced, making agape more impactful.
This is why you find women always 'trying to find themselves' when they reach a certain age - the age of their awakening is determined by their inherited cycles of fertility, and when these will end - the proverbial fertility clock they speak of.
Women sew their seeds in youth and then become less selective, less erotic, more rational as they age - more masculine. Another reason many men prefer younger females.

*****
The gene/meme thing...
We all recognized the genetic markers of fitness: 7/10 chest to waist for males, chest to hips for females, height, skin and hair texture, etc.
We are genetically programmed to be attracted to it, without knowing how or why.
most don't bother to know how or why, they enjoy surrendering to beauty.
Understanding always diminishes the magic.


Yet, we are also culturally, socially, memetically, trained to appreciate social fitness.
Body and mind are now in conflict.
Those, most likely, to cultivate social markers of fitness, are those who are lacking in genetic markers.
A male may compensate, for example, for being short, or less fit, less attractive, by becoming wealthier, or nicer, helpful accommodating, generous, or more adventurous, exciting, risk taking, interesting, complicated, intelligent, mysterious etc.
Sports cars are self-handicappnig mating signals, saying to potentials mates: look at how many resources I can waste on useless toys and frivolous luxuries and still survive.
And it works.
The age and IQ of the female are factors.

We then have a conflict between genetic and memetic markers.
Genetics are more innate, visceral, powerful....memetics are more rational, calculating, conscious...
In most females, again determined by age and IQ, the innate is more powerful than the rational.