Showing posts with label Genes and Culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Genes and Culture. Show all posts

Sunday, 3 May 2009

Culture is in the Genes




Image - Queen Victoria in mourning dress. Note the clothing that covers the body entirely as a result of generations of puritan christian tradition and culture. Also the clothing corresponds to the climate of Northern Europe and therefore one of the reasons why white skin is a European genetic trait.




Image - African tribal woman with lip plate and scarrification as part of indigenous African traditions. Her lack of clothing corresponds to the environment of Africa resulting in skin tone being black.


The research below demolishes entirely the myth of multi-culturalism.

First the scientific truth that racial differences exist destroyed the 'one race' myth of the liberal marxist multi-culturalists, and now the myth that all cultures are able to embraced by anyone has now been undermined.

Some may pretend to be part of that culture, such as when they marry into it or adopt it, but in reality they never can be as culture is hardwired into DNA. In the end the innate cultural wiring re-asserts itself at some point.

For instance India was once ruled by the British Empire and its culture was socially engineered during the Empire to become a copy of British culture, laws, way of life etc - but as soon as the British left it reverted slowly back to what it was.

This has also occured most spectacularly in Zimbabwe which has reverted to its ancestral culture of ethnic violence, corruption and ethnic and tribal conflict.

The idea that people from different countries who for hundreds of generations have embraced their own unique indigenous cultures can suddenly 'adapt' to different cultures and adopt those cultures when they move abroad has been shown now to be false.

Culture is hard wired into our genes - and the moment that another population is moved into the territory of another population, both the cultures are destroyed.

Assimilation is merely an illusion, for after a few generations those populations begin to assert their own cultural forms in the new host community.

Take a walk around the East End of London, Tower Hamlets and the 'enriched' areas of Birmingham and Oldham and you can see that the new populations that have moved to the UK have merely colonised those areas and imposed their own cultures on the area.

The myth of integration and assimilations is based yet again on 19th century Marxist mythology.

This probably explains why so many people from the African continent experience mental illness in Britain, as they are forced to adopt and adapt too the British culture which conflicts with their own hard wired cultural phenotype.

This is the beginning of a whole new science of 'Cultural Genetics' which will demolish entirely the myth of assimilation, integration and multi-cultural ideological myths.


http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/songbirdculture/


Culture May Be Encoded in DNA

* By Lizzie Buchen Email Author
* May 3, 2009 |


Disco, Mother’s Day and even Lolcats may have been a biological inevitability, according to a new study that suggests culture is written in our genes.

Zebra finches, which normally learn their complex courtship songs from their fathers, spontaneously developed the same songs all on their own after only a few generations.

“We found that in this case, the culture was pretty much encoded in the genome,” said Partha Mitra of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, co-author of a study in Nature on Sunday.

Birds transmit their songs through social interactions, as humans do for languages, dances, cuisine and other cultural elements. Though birds and humans have clearly followed different evolutionary paths, birdsong culture can still inform theories of human culture.

Normally, male finches learn their complex courtship songs (MP3) from their uncles and fathers. But if there are no vocal role models around, the song will deviate from the traditional song and be harsh to female finch ears (MP3). Each bird, then, must learn from his father or uncles, as they learned from their fathers, and so on — but this can only take us so far down the lineage.

“It’s the classic ‘chicken and the egg’ puzzle,” Mitra said. “Learning may explain how the son copies its father’s song, but it doesn’t explain the origin of the father’s song.”

Mitra’s team wanted to find out what would happen if an isolated bird raised his own colony. As expected, birds raised in soundproof boxes grew up to sing cacophonous songs.

But then scientists let the isolated birds give voice lessons to a new round of hatchlings. They found that the young males imitated the songs — but they tweaked them slightly, bringing the structure closer to that of songs sung in the wild. When these birds grew up and became tutors, their pupils’ song continue to conform, with tweaks.

After three to four generations, the teachers were producing strapping young finches that belted out normal-sounding songs.

You can listen to the progression below, but keep in mind that the elements that are important to female finches — duration of beats, rise and fall of pitch — can be difficult for the untrained human ear to pick up on. (QuickTime works best for these)

* birds raised in isolation (MP3)
* first generation (MP3)
* second generation (MP3)
* third generation (MP3)
* fourth generation (MP3)
* wild birds (MP3, MP3)

“It all happened so fast, and there was so little difference between the colony and in the one-to-one tutoring environment,” said lead author Olga FehĂ©r of City College of New York. “So the process is pretty much hardwired. And the interesting thing was also that they could only get so close in a single generation, so the three to four generations were necessary for the phenotype to emerge.”

“Song culture can emerge ‘from the egg,’ as it were, if one allows for multiple generations to elapse,” Mitra said. ”In a similar way, we may ‘grow’ our languages.”

Though there are approximately 6,000 different languages in the world, they all share certain structural and syntactic elements. Even when a language arises spontaneously, as it did in the 1970s among deaf school children in Nicaragua, it adheres to these stereotypical human language features.

The study’s findings might have implications beyond language to other culturally-transmitted systems, said evolutionary biologist and cognitive scientist Tecumseh Fitch, at the University of St. Andrews.

“We can think about both birdsong and human culture — especially language but including other aspects of human culture, like music, cuisine, dance styles, rituals, technological achievements, clothing styles, pottery decoration and a host of others — in similar terms,” he said. These culturally-transmitted systems must all pass through the filter of biology.

“Look at all the different human cultures,” said Mitra. “They’re different, but they’re all within certain constraints, so those differences aren’t genetic. But now compare with the chimp culture — there are key differences. The possibilities between those cultures are constrained by biology.”

Mitra admits that the analogies between bird culture and human culture are tenuous. “But there are resemblances. Culture is just learned behaviors. The motivating scenario is, if you isolate human babies from culture, put them on an island and come back after a few generations, what would their culture be like? What sort of language would they have? What sort of politics would evolve?”

That experiment probably won’t take place in the near future. In the meantime, Fitch says we can learn valuable lessons about human culture from songbirds, both at theoretical and mechanistic levels.

“Social learning is shared between the two, and songbirds are a well-understood and experimentally tractable system,” he said. “These biologically-grounded studies will lead us beyond the tired ‘nature versus nurture’ or ‘biology versus culture’ dichotomies which dominate the social sciences today.”
























Add to Technorati Favorites

Wednesday, 23 January 2008

Genes and Culture and the New Zionists

The recent events with Robert Spencer have awakened me to an issue that has had very little attention, this being The New Zionism.

Unilke the old style of Zionism, which was an aspiration of the Jewish peoples of the world for a national Jewish homeland, the New Zionism is neither Jewish nor nationalist.

It is based on the eschatology of the Christian Fundamentalists and concerns a theological climax where the risen Christ will return and either convert the Jews of Israel to Christianity or slaughter them all.

In America the political system is dominated by two blocs, this being the pro-Israel lobby groups and the Christian Fundamentalist lobby groups. Both wield vast power and it was their influence which allowed George Bush to wage his neo-conservative war for oil with their support (and also to appease the rising Third power and lobby bloc in the US which is Saudi Arabian economic bloc which supplies the US with its oil and which funds both Republican and democratc political campaigns and organisations linked to candidates in those elections).

Whilst the Christian Fundamnentalists whipped up public support for the war, the Jewish pro-Israel lobby used their power and influence in the media to propagandise the war in the US media. Whilst the left like to demonise George Bush, they remain silent about the role the pro-Israel media and Christian Fundamentalists had in acting as the 'drummers' for the War In Iraq.

The funny thing about the New Zionists is that the Jewish community in the US, which has always been mainly leftist in attitude, is now in a large part firmly anti-Zionist, same as in the United Kingdom.

It is only the non-Jewish, Christian Fundamentalists and Neo-Conservatives who are the main supporters of Israel.

This brings us neatly to the issue of race and culture. The Bush adminstration invaded Iraq as the Neo-Conservatives believe that they can export democracy to the world and this idea is the basis of their global project to 'fight the war on terror and democratise the Middle East'.

The flaw in this is quite clear and the example of the Jewish people is an apt lesson. Wherever in the world the Jewish people have lived throughout history they have retained their identity, heritage and culture. They have lived in many, many nations and always remained Jewish both in terms of identity and culture. Once Israel was created it became naturally a jewish state with a Jewish identity and Jewish cultures. The 'democracy' of Israel was built by Ashkenazi jews of mixed European and Jewish blood and culture. Therefore democracy took root in Israel as it was rooted in the genes of the people that built Israel.

The same thing happened when the British Empire was built as the British emigrants re-created their own British culture in foreign lands they settled in. The Irish did it in America as did the Italians, the Koreans etc.

Wherever a racial group with a specific culture settle, the re-create their own culture again.

This brings us to the idea that democracy can be exported to the Middle East.

Democracy is a European creation rooted in the genes of Europeans. The Neo-Conservative idea that it can be exported is based on an assumption that genes and culture are not linked in any way which has been proved throughout history to be a baseless theory.

Therefore the Neo-Conservative project will fail.

Seeing as the ideological guru of the Neo-Conservatives was Leo Strauss, a Jewish emigre to the US, then the neo-cons of the Bush administration must have been aware that the propaganda about 'exporting democracy' was bogus as the very fact that their guru retained his Jewishness when he came to America was direct proof that race, genes and culture are linked.

Strauss was Jewish in Germany both in terms of his self identifcation of himself as Jewish both by blood and culture, and also Jewish in America both in terms of his self identification of himself as Jewish by blood and culture.

Therefore the idea that genes and culture are not linked was bogus from the beginning.

Transplant the individual and you also transplant with them their culture.

Even the Communist experiment in China and Russia could not erase this inbuilt genetic and cultural wiring in individuals. The Communists spent 70 years using the communist jackboot, gulags, Laogai and machine guns to erase all knowledge of genes and culture in the people they conquered (The Lamarkian genetic theory was itself an attempt to disengage genes and culture with an nurture not nature theory of human development) and they failed.

The Communists prohibited all forms of ancestral identity, brainwashed the masses from birth with communist theory and created a monolithic Communist culture to replace ethno-specific cultures and national identities.

A 100 million dissidents were slaughterd in order to ensure that all notions of identity and culture were eradicated.

Yet as soon as the Communist regimes in Europe collapsed, the ancestral identities of those peoples and their ancestral cultures sprang forth once more.

Old national identities were reclaimed, ancestral cultures recreated and the old hatreds between them all were rekindled.

If the Communists with their gulags, mass killings and brainwashing could not destroy the link between genes and culture then what idiot in the Bush adminstration thought they could !!!!

People such as Robert Spencer on Jihad Watch are guilty of the most disgusting disingenousness when they say that genes and culture are not linked and that universal human rights must replace the reality of genes and cultures.

They are either idiots or liars.

Robert Spencer is simply a neo-conservative tool of the New Zionists and the Pro-Israel bloc in the US.

Universalist values such as the concept of universal human rights translate eventually into a repressive universal world government, a universal global culture based on consumerism that will kill the eco-sphere of the planet, a universal economic system that destroys national control over internal social development and turns individual human beings into dehumanised abstract entities. Individuals become defined not by who they are, but simply by the collection of rights they are given, may possess and may claim. Government degenerates from the defence of nation, culture, environment and people into the defender of abstract rights whilst liberty becomes simply a collection of meanigless rights ( most of which are only able to be claimed via the legal system at vast expense which ensures only the rich have any real and meaningful rights ). National cultures become homogenised globalised consumer cultures where the values and culture of all nations converge to a mean that is neither freedom nor cultural in any way. National control over the economic system is denuded as the concept of 'economic justice' is linked with Globalism via the WTO and the UN etc and rampant destruction of the national environments of the planet destroys the planet.

But the fact is that this repressive system based on the theory of universal rights for all will fail, just as the Communists failed.

The Communist plan of 'Universal Brotherhood' of the Communist International was as asinine and insane as the Neo-Conservative plan for the democratisation of the planet. The Neo-Conservatives are truly the heirs of the Trotskyites.

In the real world the only universal truth is that genes and culture are linked and no amount of ideological nonsese, invasions, mass murders and plastic democracies will change that fact.

We are who we are and no ideology can change that.