About anything we could talk about, is linked to genetics: Evolution, racism, the metapsychics, health, sex. Genetics is the key to understanding everything about humans, about us, about the world we live in. But I don’t mean everyone needs to go through a 500-page manual (on the other hand it doesn’t hurt and I couldn’t laud the effort more !). To really make a change in the future, will require a solid understanding of heredity and evolution, of the kind even most specialists (part because of their overspecializing, part due their intellectual cowardice) is an extreme rarity. And so, we must first acquire solid notions in genetics, most holy of sciences.
We must also draw the consequences of the cause of racial transcendence, and be ready to do anything for it, whatever the cost. Whatever the personal sacrifices and how society and other countries will see it. Ultimately, we abide by entirely different sets of morals - beyond good and evil - that we must define.
At last to bring back our species to its ancestral state of biological perfection and continue existing indefinitely in the future, a plan needs be drawn: leanring from the failure of last century’s eugenic policies of all kinds and go further beyond.
The basics of genetics
The debate between nature and nurture has raged throughout this century in the fields of genetics and psychology. For fifty years, it was believed that genes, as the presumed factors of heredity were called even before the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA, amounted to no more than to protein recipes. This is still in essence the summary fed to children in elementary and middle school.
Since Darwin, it has been taught that genetic wealth is due to random mutations, which accumulate at random and on which natural selection, the survival of the fittest, is based.
These notions fit perfectly with the belief in a materialist world, purposeless and chaotic, impersonal and careless, truly Lovecraftian. The idea of an extrasensory influence in matter itself (pantheism), of the action of a spiritual principle that Ancients used to personify as gods or God with a capital D, immediately goes out the window.
Same for any idea of an intelligence of the living… Except Lamarck was totally right with his idea of an active intelligent adaption by one’s body, contributing to the genepool.
Darwin too, who incidentally explicitly endorsed and developed Lamarck and to whom the current
In The Origin of Species, Darwin developed a theory about how this might happen: He theorized that if changes in the soma occur as a result of physiological adaptation, something would be transmitted to the germ cells to carry the information. He invented the idea of gemmules, small particles that he assumed would travel (presumably through the blood) to carry the relevant influences.
darwinist religion would taste very sour indeed.
This theory (called pangenesis) is found in the 1868 book The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication. It doesn’t seem too far-fetched to identify these factors with exosomes and retroviruses .
At that time no modern notion of mutation (nor even of nucleic acids) existed. So if the mechanism of natural selection was not denied by anyone - not even (decent) creationists - the theoretical question revolved mainly around the source of variations, and an obvious hypothesis was for a lot people, in Darwin’s eyes, an internal origin of the change species underwent in the direct moment of confrontation with the environment (compounded by habits) seeping into the germplasm, what we would call today a true evolutionary feedback system. He also realized how mixing species led to dissolution of their respective qualities, while crossing an animal with its own preserves its special characteristics acquired with difficulty…
preserves breeds, races.
The mythical Weismann barrier
August Weismann, a German biologist and physician, and Francis Dalton are responsible at the turn of the 18th century for initiating the idea (which would flourish latter for psychoanalytic reasons we will analyze another time), that the physical vectors of heredity could not possibly be directly altered by lifetime experiences, or only pathologically, through degeneration.
We came to see this nonetheless invisible frontier around the gonads as the Weismann barrier, akin to the blood-brain barrier. A dogma won in absence of the slightest evidence. This conception bonded strongly with the eugenics movement as a whole, which never truly embraced Darwin before. However one chooses to dissect this strange, aberrant cultural shift, as a result our understanding of heredity and biology in general suffered a massive sterilization, and a dearth of researchers for the
debunked Lamarckian perspective. Yet a sum of inconvenient data piled up… and faced silence.
Experiments gradually undermined Weismann’s tale especially with the likes of Ted J. Steele, uncovering the molecular basis of the mechanisms for the heredity of acquired traits, revealing an information structure or plan deep within the DNA molecule itself. And a plan implies an intelligence… that of the brain or higher forces, no real difference as far as we should concern ourselves.
A conclusive evidence is the paper: To address these issues, we have now generated a mouse model xenografted with human melanoma cells stably expressing EGFP-encoding plasmid.
Cossetti C, Lugini L, Astrologo L, Saggio I, Fais S, et al, 2014,
Soma-to-Germline Transmission of RNA in Mice Xenografted with Human Tumour Cells: Possible Transport by Exosomes
We find that EGFP RNA is released from the xenografted human cells into the bloodstream and eventually in spermatozoa of the mice. Tumor-released EGFP RNA is associated with an extracellular fraction processed for exosome purification and expressing exosomal markers, in all steps of the process, from the xenografted cancer cells to the spermatozoa of the recipient animals, strongly suggesting that exosomes are the carriers of a flow of information from somatic cells to gametes
Together, these results indicate that somatic RNA is transferred to sperm cells, which can therefore act as the final recipients of somatic cell-derived information.
To address these issues, we have now generated a mouse model xenografted with human melanoma cells stably expressing EGFP-encoding plasmid.
For more papers see below1. The life you go through and what you learn, the choices you make and habits of thought and body you indulge in are used by cells to modify their genetic makeup, including germline cells generating sperm and eggs, by triggering programmed mutation.
One by one, all the assumptions of genetic science set up as religious corner stones for 100 years have been proved wrong as even mainstream science now acknowledges the fluidity of DNA and its considerable sensitivity to environmental variations.
One of the paradigms of modern genetics (until now) is the random segregation of genes, assumed by Mandel (with his pees). What he observed was the segregation in a batch of peas from the same cross of the different traits studied, as if they were independent of each other.
Except when they don’t, and are then considered linked. Today we know the structure of the chromosomes, which in most animals go at least by pairs (hence in our case the label diploid for a normal cell with full complement).
When the genes (contiguous part of a chromosome involved in a trait) associated to an allele (the corresponding sequence or version of a gene, one for each homologue) are on the same chromosome, they may segregate together as a group. Only sexual chromosomes, tend to be show very different morphology and so do their sequence so we don’t speak of homologues:
This point matters a lot as it echoes the conviction that chaos rules over evolution, even on the molecular level. Traits of the body and brain (mind), what defines us and cemented in the course of hundreds of thousands of years, reflect each other intimately. Nature created mechanisms to preserve the coherence of these groupings when they proved useful throughout evolutionary timescale. Our cells actively nurture races.
During meiosis homologous associate and bond, exchanging strands along the chromosome’s length. Such crossing-overs happen at 7 places on average (over a varying length of DNA and distance from each others) and are responsible for a reshuffling of alleles, their redistribution, leading to the same sequence of genes along the molecules but a different combination of alleles between the two homologues.
Then the pair separates and migrate to opposite ends of the nucleus, forming two different gametes whose total DNA is the same as the original cell, but pairs broke up, so each cell keeps only one chromosome thusly one version of each gene. In humans a full haplotype complement (that of a gamete, spermatozoid or ovule) makes for 23 chromosomes, and fecundation restores the pairs, for a total of 46. The whole of your DNA, is divided in all those separate molecules. But genes on different chromosomes have no reason to segregate together as they are on physically separate molecules.
Even on the same molecule, while other factors intervene (the distance of said genes from the centromere, the scaffold connecting a chromosome’s identical double DNA molecules or sister chromatids) the farther the pair of genes from one another the more likely crossing-over will take place and separate them. On the contrary the closer a pair of genes the less frequently the combination of alleles of a given chromosome will be disrupted for any gamete. We call these statistical unions
disequilibrium linkage and said genes are linked.
This is where I am getting at: are these exchanges occurring at random depending only on distances, or are there structures and regulations ?
For the longest time (still today) an omerta ruled among scientists completely forbidding the question, because along with the Weismann barrier this postulate of randomness is a key conceptual gatekeeper safeguarding the materialist/reductionist religion.
In the incest article I stated how our genetics has been built over millions of years, forming sets of genes made to work together (epistasy), for an optimal result in a specific natural environment. But how could these sets be conserved, if at each meiosis everything is mixed up?
It’s been believed until now that blind statistics sufficed to account for this: by reproducing within your original population (a fortiori within your own family), you will find partners having necessarily in common a large part of your own patrimoine, therefore reproducing the allelic combinations… and we could postulate that natural selection would have over time put genes functionally interdependent close to each other, maximizing their linkage and minimizing the frequency of unfit recombinant phenotypes or set of traits.
Population genetics teaches, that free recombination should prevent such packaging of polymorphisms, some even considere this feature the main advantage of sex as mentioned in the incest article.
Quantal genomics, on the contrary emphasizes the natural clustering and conservation of polymorphism, on a much wider scale and frequency than entailed by distance only. Ancestral haplotypes are specific sequences of up to 1 million base pairs in length conserved identical across hundreds to thousands of generations, counting sometimes in millions of years of age.
They represent alternative versions of Polymorphic Frozen Blocks (PFBs in short), continuous sets of genes in which mutations and recombinations (often less than 1% of recombinants within a population) are effectively suppressed. Multiple unrelated families display the same identical AHs, hinting at an extremely remote origin.
These blocks often regulate genes expressed by cis (on the same chromosome) trans or epistatic interaction, as one super-gene. But not always, thence natural selection alone (nature killing recombinant mutants) can not explain such conservation:
Linkage disequilibrium (non-independence of genes) when it occurs is simply a reflection of this conservation with some alleles relatively common in one haplotype compared to others. But each is ancestral. Only active preservation as an innate active cellular mechanism can account for this, a protection whose efficacy exceeds by several orders of magnitude (thousands of times) what we know of. And it appears the vast majority of genes lie in such blocks.
If what I described above is a very controversial view (though very valid!), questioning can go much further. The generations of your ancestors did not give birth to you by chance, a happy series (I hope) of uninterrupted copy errors.
Central Dogma of genetics (funny how even geneticists use outright religious terms !) states that mutations - the source of all novelties and adaptations - were random… that evolution was blind, purposeless, and since Larmarck’s demise question this has been thought of nothing short of a blasphemy, condemning the brave unorthodox researchers to utter villipending and ostracism.
But science had greatly underestimated the intelligence of the living, and its beauty. Studies and experiments showed how our body both represses and stimulates mutations, in a directed, designful manner.
Your ancestors created and improved their race through sheer grit and will, and changed their own DNA, literally depositing pieces of their hopes training and traces of memories: direct exchanges of brain genetic material to sperm (ovules too, certainly) have been observed, and gametes themselves are especially sensitive to any surrounding material, featuring an important retro transcriptional activity… Your seed spontaneously absorbs the information it receives.
If what I say reminds you of the novel Dune, it is probably justified: reality caught up with fiction.
For several years (still essentially today) it was necessary not to pass for a heretic, when one wanted to study epigenetics (in the broad sense, the effect of the environment on the expression of genes ), distinguish itself noisily from lamarckism.
In this context we consider only the narrow definition:
It refers to more or less hereditary adaptations or changes, which do not involve the DNA sequence but instead reversible chemical modifications on it, mostly cytidine methylation.
Such modifications would pass to the offspring either through RNA molecules distributed in a stochastic (random) non-mendelian manner, multiplying or not in various body parts and influencing early development, or would impact the DNA itself, stable for generations.
Studies showed that our lives - metabolic stress of all kinds (drugs, tobacco, starvation, diet), emotional traumas also - do leave clear methylation profiles on our DNA, regulating genetic expression through a whole range of specialized enzymes readers and writers, probably to better cope with a repeating situation and giving a head start to one’s descendants.
We commonly suspect an epigenetic origin in features with certain heritability but imperfect penetration and above all not respecting Mendelian segregation from one generation to the other.
Epigenetics has been all the rage since the 2000s, and much effort has been devoted, demonstration the complexity of a body bursting with somehow conflicting yet harmonious regulatory pathways operating at varying scales, deeply interdependent…
And those fine transient chemical tunings can remain stable over dozens of generations in animals.
However, after a time methylated cytosines do tend to mutate, making the attemptive adaptation definitive, breaching the gap between accepted soft epigenetics and neo-lamarckism.
However the first real breach of the Central Dogma (as well of the notion of chaotic mutations) took place in the early 1990s when the phenomenon of somatic hypermutation was discovered, in which immune system cells (lymphocytes B), to produce an exponential variety of antibodies out of proportion to the smallness of the genetic repertoire inherited from the parents (the V repertoire) routinely undergo localized and controlled rounds of mutations.
Quelques références pour ceux ayant suivi des cours de génétique.
The ties with raw paleo diet
I shall allow myself here a small parenthesis as this is intimately linked to instincto. Steele has shown that the new combinations produced were sometimes returned to the germ lines to be inherited.
It was not taken well by the scientific community, retorting that however we always catch polio, flu etc.
But with principles of instinctonutrition the contradiction disappears: the body does not adapt to fight viruses, but on the contrary to get sick more efficiently and use these
pathogens in the context of endogenous processes of elimination of denatured molecules, mostly cooking-originating molecules nowadays.
The error is simply to project the parasitic-hote model on the virus… Steele being a doctor, blame it on professional deformation ! However these adaptations are not limited to immunity and antibodies.
The genetic variations known as Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs, pronounced as snips) which are the bulk of genetic variation world-wide, show for lots of them if not most, a mutational signature typical of deaminase activity, the main means of DNA/RNA edition at our disposal.
That means a significant part of all changes considered so far as random (usually hazardous) could be non-random adaptations adaptive innovations, either through the the aforementioned very slow, unreliable change of methylated cytosines, or the fast potent way featured by the somatic hypermutation:
Genes transcribed into RNA get holes punched into them with deaminases, holes then filled with faulty polymerases, then the result is retrotranscribed into DNA like viruses do, to replace the old version, with the new mutations. Data suggest, that the totality of the genome functional genes RNAs pseudogenes and repeated sequences alike have at some point or another, been subjected to hypermutation.
Incidentally, we have known for a long time embryos and gametes, though in theory the most guarded against retrotransposition/integration of foreign genetic material, actually demonstrates the opposite: Mature spermatozoa and early embryos are extremly permeable to foreign DNA and RNA molecules, by design.
These mutations would thus affect all organs, the muscles, ears, eyes. Not unlike what Frank Herbert described.
Conclusion and consanguinity
In this conception of evolution currently work-in-progress, selection still does matter, but its role is limited to sorting out endogenous ordered adaptations, putting to test the product of lives and intelligences.
Evolution of this type gives a satisfactory explanation to the enormous complexity of behavioral instincts: Such traits would be lost by mixing with other groups bearing adaptations of their own to wholly different selective pressures, born of different ecologies, social environment and pre-existing racial background. Mating within your family which in all likelihood experienced the same things under the same cognitive constraints, leads also in all likelihood to the same solutions, because your genetics are therefore compatible, essentially doubling down on your adaptation. Thus justifying the ancient practice of hereditary monarchies and noble marriages.
Despite the relative lack of diversity
, such a model not only would not suffer from debilitating mutations nigh absent in a raw setting, but would allow an explosion of true genetic diversity with numerous small consanguineous lineages developping independently. However one should probably forget the whole spiel about muh diversity entirely, as it likely derived entirely from the irrational fear of insect treated in the homonymous article. It is customary to think that it would be necessary to maintain a great heterozygosity (both alleles of a pair of chromosomes differing), the greatest genetic variety, to stay adaptable to a changing environment. It is also believed that a consanguineous species would become uniformly homozygous and vulnerable to environmental changes. These two assumptions are false. In addition, adaptation to a changing environment is not necessarily based on a heterozygous population. Asserting the advantages of inbreeding, Shields (1982: 266) observes: Adaptation to ecological conditions should not be limited to the allelic substitution in response to each fluctuation in the environment. A current alternative seems to be the fixing of complex epigenetic systems which respond adaptively to environmental flows in a phenotypic rather than genetic way. Characters such as developmental and genetic homeostasis, switching genes controlling phenotypic expression in heterogeneous environments, pipes and experiential modification of behavior (learning), all allow and promote the development of favored phenotypes in the face of considerable environmental disturbance. The fact that human populations are, and were largely dispersed geographically, assured the heterozygoty of the species even when local isolates are highly homozygous. This ensured the survival of the species even in the event of local extinction. In short, evolution acted on our genetic system, precluding the need for any more insane sieve culling 90% of each generations, something tadpoles rats or mosquitoes know something about.
More on a theoretical the notion doesn’t hold well to criticism either.
It is customary to think that it would be necessary to maintain a great heterozygosity (both alleles of a pair of chromosomes differing), the greatest genetic variety, to stay adaptable to a changing environment. It is also believed that a consanguineous species would become uniformly homozygous and vulnerable to environmental changes. These two assumptions are false.
In addition, adaptation to a changing environment is not necessarily based on a heterozygous population. Asserting the advantages of inbreeding, Shields (1982: 266) observes:
Adaptation to ecological conditions should not be limited to the allelic substitution in response to each fluctuation in the environment. A current alternative seems to be the fixing of complex epigenetic systems which respond adaptively to environmental flows in a phenotypic rather than genetic way. Characters such as developmental and genetic homeostasis, switching genes controlling phenotypic expression in heterogeneous environments, pipes and experiential modification of behavior (learning), all allow and promote the development of favored phenotypes in the face of considerable environmental disturbance. The fact that human populations are, and were largely dispersed geographically, assured the heterozygoty of the species even when local isolates are highly homozygous. This ensured the survival of the species even in the event of local extinction.
In short, evolution acted on our genetic system, precluding the need for any more insane sieve culling 90% of each generations, something tadpoles rats or mosquitoes know something about.
Exemples of immediate Lamarck transmissions of relatively complex adaptations of the most impressive kind do exist however:
We can see the potency of mating relatives who shared the same experience at play. One should absolutely replicate these experience, and evaluating statistically the strength of the protection shared depending on the level of consanguinity of matings. As a conclusion, science teaches us today that working to improve and live most intensely and precisely up to the limit of human potential is not a right but a duty to your species.
While poor victims of parents’ crimes can not be blamed (unless they promote their disability) and sterilization is morally preferable in most cases, however religious people preaching the degradation of life, ironically calling their stance
pro-life, deserve death. Your choices aren’t just yours to make, you have responsibility. In the interest of the coming Thousand Years Reich, I henceforth order you, to start on raw food, train hard and breed with your family.
Our most sacred purpose: The Eugenic imperative
When talking to people, it becomes apparent that purity spiral is never suddenly as bothersome, as when applied to oneself. People are often eager to endorse racism, only so long as they can be counted among the übermensch: very few accept their imperfection and its consequences. This raises a few questions which deserve some considerations:
- Is furthering one’s self-interest always legitimate ?
- Should Whites favor themselves because of an alleged biological drive (which the white cuck majority apparently has little problem ignoring !) ?
- Or rather follow a higher sense of ethics, favoring not
those who look like usbut rather the best and brightest ?
A rational and objective understanding of evolution and what happened after cooking, teaches us that most of our degeneration from Neanderthals was caused by cooking, Aberrant mutations induced by a loss of selection and auto domestication. And not mixing.
Before cooking and Neolithic, mixing has been exceedingly rare as though one could make a case for our ancestors being quite capable of building boats and crossing continents as they please, it is a fact that mixing is not found in the fossil archive. Asians (Denisova) and Europeans would interbreed very rarely, or said individuals would not propagate their genome, their taint, further.
We don’t see that today, do we?
Then not until the advent of widespread colonial empires starting from the 15th century causing big and quick migration flux did mixing with other continents become a thing. Some migrations did occur before though, through lands. In the South of France with Spaniards for instance, enough to change France’s phenotype completely. Or through Mongol invasions or the turmoil at the end of the bronze age or Italians from the Roman Empire mixing with Celts.
But coastal locations were more mixed already, being the places of much inter-cultural and commercial exchanges and population too. Modern means of transportation, in a way, merely accelerated (exponentially) what would already happen slowly but surely. This shows how the origin of all the issues has been the Neolithic with its technological improvements, and even more so, its drive to develop into nonsensical complex societies.
Hence the root and origin of mixing, was the diet change in the Neolithic, without which none of that could have happened, as indeed none of it had happened for hundreds of thousands of years prior, despite much intellectual capabilities to do so (we did find some Neanderthal remains in Africa after all).
Knowing this, what is the moral action to take, what is the most ethical and rational behavior ?
It is not to simply reproduce the brightest, with the biggest brains or whatnot. Race-blind IQ eugenics is nonsensical. Lineages separated for tens to hundreds of millennia, can not blend qualities in such a simplistic way: our mind qualities and tendencies originate from separate factors, separate pathways, adaptive complexes of genes [which individually have little value].
Instead of standing currently at the peak of evolution, we current Europeans are mere shadows of ourselves. Once you’re white there’s no upgrade, and it is proved too that statistical outliers tend to breed toward the average of their race, not all genetic traits are hereditary, assuming they are indeed genetic.
And more importantly, once we understand what happened in history and prehistory and what kind of unimaginably majestic otherworldly beings we once were, our objective can not be to simply select
the best: no intellectual criteria can approach the wisdom of age, the selective pressures that create our (three) races. We can not substitute our intellect for evolution, and we do not know what evolution had in store for any race, because evolution was stopped dead in its tracks by cooking or the indirect effects of it.
Mixed Africans have bigger brains, but on average they tend to design smarter and more cruel ways to eat and massacre each other, while the character of blacker (or purer) Blacks, such as the Nilotic, Negrito, San or Pygmy people, is usually more temperate. Mixed Blacks are agitated morons just smart enough to think too much of themselves, while isolated pure Black ethnies stayed the more respectable and amenable animals moving peacefully along their evolutionary path. Perhaps climbing it or falling, but according to nature’s dictate and it is not our role to intervene.
Just as we should not suffer mixed people to breed, especially among ourselves. It is not that brown-haired Europeans are inferior to others, though statistical truth holds (the purer the bigger the brain and more intelligent), but their breeding is undesirable and its consequence unfathomable.
Perfection (relative to our current state) lies in the past, not the future. We were perfect and fell, but that means everything is still there, as seeds.
As long as we don’t mix.
Said otherwise, traits lost to cooking might be temporary losses only, such as a bigger brain or those classical old-age Neanderthal facial traits. Those are developmental traits rather than genetic ones, though the notions overlap. The point is, the information that made us is not gone so much as we can’t access it anymore, hence any regenerative process is much easier with purer people as subjects, preserving more of the original perfect racial scheme.
The genetic dead-end of mixed-race people
On the opposite a mixed people can never go back in and of itself: adding incompatible data destroys forever the integrity of this genetic scheme. This is why interbreeding is the worst crime imaginable, from God’s perspective.
Hitler (among others) had no liking for evolutionary reasonings, instead mentioning God’s will to create races separate, to not dilute their essences through mixing. He had an excellent intuition: each race should follow its evolutionary path and by continuing to breed obviously mixed people we further our Neolithic forebears’ mistakes. Each passing decade considering today’s rate, sees more and more sullying of the pure Nordic race.
I did mention
God, but this is not a mere turn of phrase: a mere scientific point of view leads to these conclusions, but stepping outside into mysticism or religion strengthens them significantly. God and evolution are one and the same, in the sense that extrasensory intervention be it through luck having a hand in which species survive and which don’t, or through direct genetic weird quantum effects or extraordinary unlikely events allowing for impossible qualitative jumps.
We don’t know what the gods or destiny had intended for any wild animal species we killed off, and we’ll never know because they’re dead. We simply can not fathom what direction destiny intended each race to go along, because cooking happened, messing with genetics with an onslaught of chaotic mutations and shunting the natural barriers against mixing that existed, first and foremost Europeans’ unfathomable wide gap in intelligence and robustness with Blacks, now limited to just a very big one. So, the only thing to do and way to meaningfully improve our race is to seek purity compared Neanderthals’ phenotype, and breed the best of us inside the Nordic race, rejecting any and all manifest impurity or admixture.
Logic dictates that non-Nordic Whites or anyone identifying with Europeans, putting their lots with them and suffering with them, should get sterilized - voluntarily - and adopt or nurture Nordic children: in a word cuck for Nords, while breeding is left to the experts. Purifying the race by correcting those thousands of years or straying away from nature and instincts being the most sacred task imaginable, it entails that it could not possibly be left to individual choices… Breeding should be the privilege of the few, according to a collective decision.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the of the few, as classical utilitarianism tells: with the sole difference that my
many includes the infinity of all future generations. In front of that, no amount of imagined or real suffering of a few individuals - or entire generations worth of strife and efforts - can even begin to compare.
Now the question is: let’s ignore most of what I said, why don’t all people cuck for their betters with abnegation and joy like many Germans did, an attitude considered of the highest nobility and worthy of the utmost praise ?
Because like Plato taught, the overwhelming majority of people since the [Fall] does not breed out of love and congruence with a sense of providence announcing an important destiny to fulfill for the incoming soul like in all myths about virgin births (common around the world).
This question is at the center of metapsychoanalysis: people have always projected the transcendence herring to the metapsychic instinctive program on to the breeding program, so investing much libido (both in the nervous enery sense or the narrow sexual one) into breeding, seeking to achieve a kind of immortality through making one’s own kids, looking like ourselves, regardless of our objective qualities.
Despite the fact we should value the qualities within ourselves in and of themselves, without always egotistically relating everything two ourselves as the point of reference, as I mentioned at the beginning of this article.
Most people can’t think otherwise, and women (or females of any species) by far the least easily (while funnily enough having less issue catering for others’ kids), owing to their accentuated biological wiring toward breeding.
We should desire the White (or East-Asian) race to prosper and improve, not because it’s
us but because it’s the best or at least has a unique set of qualities, and its evolutionary potential is much greater than Africans or any mixed groups, as anthropology and biology taught us. So whoever is part of the
folk should work in favor of the whitest of whites, meaning, Nords. To work in hope of some personal reward is a dishonest fallacious motivation and quickly runs out as our misguided desires reveal to oppose the greater good of all, eventually of all life on Earth. If killing your whole family plus a million white children could set every back in time and save billions upon billions of future life, would you do it ?
IQ nationalism fallacy
Since over generations children’ IQ align on racial averages and not their parents’ IQ, it makes sense if we have plenty of candidates, to select only aryans. For a lot of physical traits such as health and (some form) of intelligence the parents’ traits matter less than their genetic potential, and the latter is more clearly indicated by their extended family, as nurture plays a big role.
Also complex traits often depend on what is called
non-additive genetics, which is the effect of precise sets of alleles hardly heritable because of the disruption of their unity through gametic segregation regardless of how much alleles are passed down because their effects comes from (epistatic) interaction. Individual alleles’ effects do not stack up.
The best way to preserve those traits depending precise combinations, is group or family selection: one gets a much better idea of a person’ hereditary potential by looking at its family and breeding the family as a whole. That way gene complexes are preserved as such, the same way we want to preserve the whole race.
Otherwise, breeding high IQ people whose family is only sub-average, would not help at all, you would choose on
outlier unable to pass on its qualities.
It’s safer to base your criteria on the most genetically-determined traits, skull shape first and foremost. Therefore the SS valued physical beauty and strength and conformity with aryan measurements over intelligence, because the SS was meant to be a RACIAL elite, the new nobility seeding Europe with their offspring.
In short, we’d better breed a group of stupid but pure, clumsy faggoty weak aryans which suffered from a terrible diet education and lifestyle than from intelligent and strong niggers assuming you can provide a good education and diet to these kids, because their offsrpings’ qualitty will align on racial averages.
The definition of a
good trait isn’t always straightforward, including a subjective element. However things like reaction time or nerve transmission speed are universally adaptive, their value is intrinsic. One could also owe his big skull to either mutations, or a wholly different racial ancestry, Asian for instance. A
good skull ideally isn’t just about size, it gets shaped like a Neanderthal’s, something on which a specialist would deliberate on better than the average joe.
It’s also difficult to measure IQ.
School results are an indicator only as many tests and educational opportunities are standardized, which imply control for parental influences (and reform the entirety of the school system !) so that everyone gets the same training.
Discaring IQ tests completely would be preferable as they are rather mechanical, hardly involving any efforts, unlike actual school work. This is shown by psychological studies. Yet it’s about the most trustworthy indicator in all of psychology…
Hence no effort should be spared, to develop the science of psychometry and neurology to an extreme degree: the scientific, objective measurement of acultural and mostly physical traits indicative of intelligence, brain efficiency or development. More on this at a later point, but clearly any idea of a multi-centuries breeding effort requires in order to assess progress, a reliable - non-invasive ! - means to define then quantify qualities by discovering physical measurements unambiguously and strongly correlated with them, limiting the interpretative, subjective work.
I lay out the basics of such method of education here and there .
We need that fanaticism and sense of self-sacrifice in service of the community. The book Iron Dream from Norman Spinrad expressed that abnegation perfectly:
Then, after the most powerful and twisted stand-in for Jews (the Doms, for
dominators, hell-bent on destroying
true humans to lord over an universe of enslaved genetic abominations bred for their own purpose)
Racial transcendence, the purpose for anyone human’s existence is to ascend to a new state of existence and repair the damage cooking imparted on our history and life on Earth in general. Which is increasingly quicker and better achieved as purification and cultural conditioning are both more intense, pushed to the brink of biological and psychological capacity. The more we suffer in this endeavor, the more divine next generations will be.
Our grand eugenic plan
Why eugenics failed until now
Germans and other eugenicists of that time were utterly impotent, because they lacked everything:
- the financial resource
- a wide access to the population and the ability to order around matings as a State resource, regardless of Christian or liberal morality.
While classical breeding methods proved efficient enough with animal husbandry for centuries, the time they take is not one human beings could ever have the luxury of spending. People live longer lives than rats, fortunately or unfortunately depending on said human or said people. Ergo what does work to create pure races of hundreds of rats or cows from a select few individuals - while already taking its fair share of time - would take centuries in humans. Or rather millennia, taking into account millions of people. We imperatively need genetic engineering to accomplish that goal.
This is also way the early efforts, when such molecular methods were simply nonexistent, could never achieve anything. Moreover, while the Nazi emphasis on Nordic phenotypes was commendable, these early anthropological classifications appear today worthless. One had to understand the process of degeneration first, before drawing any conclusion. We do not advocate for gassing all imperfect people, first off because it’s not necessarily quick nor practical, then the moral outcry… What a bother. Sterilizing the unfits but convincing them to help the society in which they’ll have no genetic legacy has so much more benefits. I will lay out a plan to enact in order to purify Europeans’ DNA of all flaws brought about by cooking, both gross and subtle, in order to get back the Neandertals perfect phenotype.
This would only apply to Nordic Europeans matching satisfying criteria, the rest of mixed Europeans should be morally obliged (in time) to get sterilized and help society, enjoying the exact same rights as pure Nordics except for breeding, which is not a right but a duty for those necessitate by the eugenic program. Adoption should be generalized and seen as a noble sacrifice or not a sacrifice at all, given than loving a child is so much more important emotionally, erotically and spiritually speaking, than begetting them. Furthermore the term of “purity” is relative, and shouldn’t go much further than simply acknowledging the presence of all three major recessive traits such as fair skin, hair and eye color. High brain volume and later high score in the psychometric tests yet to be designed, are of course to consider these won’t be genuine indices of hereditary value before the educative conditions have been optimized and normalized in the whole (breeding) population otherwise we can not tell apart nurture from nature.
On the other hand, those recessive traits can not be influenced by the environment. Purity is only relative since the Neanderthal phenotype faded from this world, and our goal is to recreate it. So between pure and impure, Aryans and non-Aryans, the difference is just quantitative, not qualitative, and even a seemingly high-quality individual should consider this matter-of-factly, in the eventuality of even purer candidates available.
This endeavor will take multiple steps and probably at least a few centuries, probably millennia.
- The first will be to remove from the gene pools all gross genetic flaws, and by that I mean recessive (or dominant for the matter) genes whose full expression require both parents to provide the same defective version. This defect would show up and in most cases stop development early dead it in its track, leading to miscarriages in the overwhelming majority of cases.
- Studies on those cases would lead to an increased knowledge of said mutations present in common haplotypes (sets of genes inherited as a bloc in the population.
- Then through genetic engineering, it will be possible to correct them in the current generation, by copying over the same haplotypes still existing in the population.
Once all ancestral alleles still present in the population will gathered into pure bloodlines, the next step is to improve ourselves through training and a hardening of our lifestyle, while trusting Lamarck mechanisms to bring out the rest of Neanderthal traits.
However without a definitive change of diet none of this would make any sense as it has been up until now virtually the only source of chaotic mutations.
First step : gamete formation and inbreeding
Beside de novo chromosomal anomalies such as trisomies which always result either in stillbirths, early death or sterility (hence can’t propagate), the grossest genetic flaws consist in recessive alleles who presence in the heterozygotic state (one allele flawed over two) does not cause death or a major trouble. It has been established that more than 70 % of the genetic load is made up of these alleles. When an allele is fixated – meaning all chromosomes in an entire population include it – there is no possible selection or improvement – save for new mutations to arise – as there is no possible variation between individuals, over which to select.
To select the healthy from the flawed, there needs to be a difference between the two ! Hence, to remove defects, one needs to either isolate them by amplifying their detriment in the homozygous state (then weeding out those bloodlines), or generate variation by concentrating their overall proportion (in the whole genome) in a select number of lines.
In fact, both endeavours cross and find achievement through consanguinity, as stated in the incest article. Among the same average genepool mating close kin has the automatic effect of heightening variance, depending on the existing allelic diversity.
Clearly, according to fossil remains we ought to be a fairly consanguineous species, with a fairly high degree of homozygosity or individual uniformity on a chromosomal level, hence while a few heterozygous recessives do not necessarily constitute defects (the resulting trait could be advantageous… theoretically!) our species is not meant to carry a lot of them and most likely not to profit from them either: within a natural mating framework, with the small effective population number that was ours, they could not remain heterozygous for long.
So with consanguinity degenerate bloodlines die out (mostly in embryo, or through predation, natural or artificial selection) whereas other survive and become much healthier, purged from the genetic load, minus some loss of diversity and « bad » but not lethal alleles which got fixated.
Hence once those purified bloodlines have been obtained, it is advantageous to mix them with each others, to increase variance and diversity again, and remove those other bad alleles as well, as each consanguineous line is susceptible to fixate by chance (or genetic drift) a different set of unwanted traits, not present in others.
Three factors determines the efficiency of this protocol:
- The more related parents are the faster recessives show themselves
- the more offspring such matings produce the more available combinations you produce out of the parents’ genome, out of which a harsher selection can apply to find the ones completely devoid of lethals, hence the healthiest children and so also the least susceptible to fix non-lethals detrimental alleles
- the more diversity population-wise and more bloodlines subjected to this purification, the further the operation can be carried out and repeated by crossing those lines to concentrate good haplotypes and remove the bad ones through selective breeding.
It entails that the ultimate unmasking of alleles would be selfing, as a (very) low number of animals (mostly invertebrates) though a fair proportion of plants do. Selfing is different from cloning. We won’t consider forms of vegetative reproduction but only sexual reproduction without genetic input from another partner. From a vertebrate-minded genetic perspective, we can sort them in three types, depending on their relation to “normal” meiosis followed by fecundation:
- a perfect preservation of the parental (maternal) sequence without formation of haploid gametes nor crossing over is very rare in vertebrates, and theoretically difficult to induce in superior ones as suppressing the very formation of the first polar body is not possible. Instead cloning requires a stupidly costly lab procedure, while all the others mentioned in this document can be done in batch. Breeders would find interest in multiplying a prolific specimen ad libitum to maximize production or ease in practicing line-breeding (keeping the same sire over generations), but we don’t, instead we mind the improvement of traits. This requires shuffling existing materials, sexuality.
- Is the development of embryos from sexual tissues without adjunction from male material.
Virginbirths. It typically is automictic: diploidy is restored through fusion of a polar body with the ovocyte’s haploid nucleus. Fusion of the first polar body avoiding a loss of material happens in some lower vertebrates (such as mole salamanders , which incidentally prefaces the process with a doubling of chromosomes and sees close to no crossing-overs, making it almost identical to cloning) but typically birds and other facultative parthenogenetic vertebrates perform automictic parthenogenesis, in which the early state of meiosis eggs do go through chromosome reduction, then diploidy is restored through either fusion with the second polar body (known as terminal fusion automixis) or the suppression of the first mitotic division (fusion of the first two blastomere).
As shown in the diagram, the haploid complement of the second polar body is not exactly identical, since on average one sister chromatid has undergone crossing-overs prior (while the other not), so reuniting them produce (on average) 50% homozygous pairs, not 100%, while the first generation maintains 75% of the maternal information. Also allelic recombination (hence the heterozygous state) is more frequent for some chromosomes than others, and the closer to the centromere. o compare, the offspring of normal sibling (or parent-child) incest is 25% homozygote. Fusing the blastomere on the other hand, guarantees total 100% homozygotes or
- Selfing on the other hand
- It implies the production of gametes of both sexes within oneself, followed by fertilization. The result of this seemingly counter-intuitive method is the exact same as automictic parthenogenesis though the ensuing genetic structure is different, as for each chromosome pair it is possible for both or no chromosome to be recombined while in the aforementioned model, one is always recombinant and the other not.
Hence selfing produces more varieties to pick from. This, would be the ultimate form of natural incest. One impossible to emulate per se since we cannot produce both gamete types, we are not hermaphrodite snails.
Or are we not ?
Producing ovules out of a man yet (or sperm out of a female, though that would be much easier) is out of the question and with the current craze about transsexuals I hope will stay that way, but inducing gynogenesis (a synonymous of parthenogenesis) is possible through two kinds of chromosomal manipulation, which precipitates in respectively 3-4 generations or just one the genetic result of 12 generations of sibling matings. Gynogenesis is a common feature of reptiles, amphibians and fish, mostly associated with external fertilization.
Since the species of interest always require a fake fecundation (without syngamy) to initiate development, gynogenesis always requires sperm sterilized through UV rays. Suppressing the ejection of the second polar body is done through either/or osmotic shock (temporary pressurization) or heat shock.
All ectotherms (vertebrates beside mammals) can be treated like this fairly easily, and do so naturally on a regular basis owning to the frequency of external fertilization as those shocks aren’t uncommon and easily disturb meiosis (which is not finished until the very moment of fecundation), though there are genetic factors too. Also such species are often much more labile with surprising physiological resilience to polyploidy (plus sex change) and hybridization, as shown by fish and amphibians in particular.
On the other hand, mammals are notably more complicated with polyploidy being extremely infrequent and aberrant, and hybridization as rare as detrimental. Medical conditions in which one or more pairs of chromosomes come from the same parent are called uniparental disomy, and are nearly always lethal, very early…
Even sharing fragments of chromosomes has the same effect, because of a phenomenon called parental imprinting which we won’t detail here. Progress on mastering this phenomena (erasing it to be precise, to fool the cell into thinking the chromosome comes from someone else) on mammals (after decades of failures) just started to show up this very year of 20222.
Without a doubt, testing our ambitious eugenic program on rats will soon be a reality.
One must wonder though: in practice, assuming total access to the purest Aryan sample, how many defects would we observe in humans with such a drastic method ?
Hard to gauge. While normal incest with sound parents is usually very safe, these protocols we discuss entail from twice to four times the amount of consanguinity of sibling incest in one go, making dead certain to reveal whatever might be hiding in the recesses of your genome.
Fish species throughout evolution went through several rounds of entire genome duplications, and some species - like trouts - more recently than others, producing highly redundant gene families, acting in effect as multiple extra alleles, hence in these cases the resilience to higher degrees of homozygosity than customary for us.
Even then, fishes respond in a variety of way:
Consequently, to obtain the sufficient DH genetic materials without reducing reproductivity for many fish species is still an important challenge. In this study, all six gynogenetic fish were successfully induced to produce DH offspring, whereas only one common fish did. In addition, both the CHR and the CNR of the common fish were lower than those of the gynogenetic fish. Induction rates of DH increased with Parental fish homozygosity rising, and a very significant correlation was found. Meiotic gynogenesis could provide an effective means to rapidly obtain homozygotes in fish. As indicated earlier, meiotic gynogenesis is easier to conduct than mitotic gynogenesis. The mean survival rate of offspring produced by mitotic gynogenesis was very poor (4.1%) when compared to meiotic gynogenesis (19.3%) in loach (Arai 2001). Goudie, Simco, Davis and Liu (1995) tried meiotic and mitotic gynogenesis in channel catfish. They documented survival rates at 1.5 months of 2% for meiotic and 0.2% for mitotic gynogenesis. We observed a similar result: the CNRs of C1 and G3 for mitotic gynogenesis were 10.34% and 20.40%, respectively, compared to 48.42% and 57.25% for meiotic gynogenesis. […]
In this study, CHR increased from 0% to 20.00% in outbred females **to 21.74% to 44.59% in the first generation of meiotic gynogenesis. This phenomenon could be due to a decrease in the number of recessive lethal alleles (Nagy, Rajki, Horvath & Csanyi 1978), because deleterious genes should be eliminated from proximal regions of chromosomes by consecutive meiotic gynogenesis. Therefore, this may be a feasible method to obtain DH genetic materials for flounder.
This shows the efficacy of the method. The more inbred the stock, the more intense inbreeding it can tolerate without failure, purging bloodlines even faster. However in the wild brown trout3 whose DNA is 2.37 GB in length4 compared to our 6.4 GB , the deformation rate following mitotic gynogenesis was 35.1 compared to the 13.6% in the control group. The survival rate up to the hatching stage though, was hatching stage 42.1 ± 3.17 %, against 91.9 ± 1.30 % for normal heterozygous brow truta fishes.
The probability of two alleles to be identical by descent for Father/daughter, mother/son or brother/sister matings is 25% while it is 6.25% for first-cousins, so considering the birth defect rate for first-cousins offspring is quite low 5, extrapolating for a 100% chance of identity by descent would give 41,62,6 * (100/6,25) = 41.6 which matches, while obviously the 13.6% in the wild doesn’t.
Another method to mate two individuals almost entirely genetically identical, save for the sexual chromosome. Actually, there are homologous parts on the Y and X, which therefore sees crossing-over and shuffling, so as we’ll see slight manipulations could make for actual twins save for about one gene responsible for sexual differentiation, plus the few Y-specific sequences. This would make selfing possible and thus, the ultimate form of incest, with minimal manipulation. Such individuals would bear no inbreeding and might feel an unbelievably strong sexual attraction for opposite-sex siblings hot enough to melt the ice of Pluto… But most of all their offspring’s heterozygosity would halve immediately, and again each generation. Compared to usual breeding practices the time saved would be tremendous, considering that one human generation canonically takes 20 years and fish take… 6 months or less. Yeah, not quite the same time schedule. With such couples one could dial the speed up to eleven.
There is one reason it has never been seen except in lab mice clonal lines, taking at least ten generations to make: parental epigenetic imprinting. This is a system where DNA is loaded with transient chemical marks altering the expression of genes, and are recognized as Self, so that fecundations or later fetal development is automatically aborted for a single pair of chromosomes inherited from the same parent as a bloc, whether it be a duplicate chromosome or the two homologs.
Even for a short piece of chromosome, not even an entire one
However as I mentioned2 these issues might not long before being resolved.
What still lacks in modern techniques
For the moment, beside the we lack one technology in particular, that hasn’t shown much development is the ability to cut and paste pieces or whole chromosomes from a cell or egg to another, seamlessly, as the epigenetic programming of any cell is a pretty annoying hindrance to any such manipulation past a number of genes
For a long time I’ve been against genetic engineering (of any form), because the way we usually do it. Our case would chiefly qualify as
knock-in procedures that substitute a sequence provided from the outside to an existing one. Changing an allele or haplotype for a designer one. But efficient manipulations on a large scale (hundreds of genes) would require perfect reading, digitization and synthesis of millions of base pair, follow by their integration into a cell without side effects. And sadly enough, none of this is possible yet, not even the reading part.
To enable modifications at the nucleotide (single base pair) level, we employ sets of enzymes basically acting as scissors, cutting then pasting or calling the cell’s gluer.
Collaborating with nature or dissecting it ?
I would like to take up the question of positive eugenics, which aims to amplify characters that are thought to be desirable for mankind. For this purpose, microscopic surgery of genes mentioned in the previous section is a not very useful method. The principle reason for this is that the traits that are the focus of positive eugenics, such as general intelligence, health, social cooperativeness, etc. depend on the subtle interactions of many genes, individual differences are large, and cannot be improved by replacing a specific defective gene by the normal type.
The issue with this technology (CRISPR-Cas9 among some others) is its unavoidable imprecision: the cutting place is hardly controlled and the pasting no more, while multiple instances of the gene often get integrated. Which doesn’t bother plants or bacteria… Fish can take much but the mammalian system doesn’t, or (if some) products are viable, it is easy to overlook detrimental various health effects on (domestic) animals fed processed food regardless. But such crude, gross and uncaring editions on human germlines should be banned internationally, and it is. For once that convention has been enforced quite effectively world-wide, until that ridiculous Chinese anti-HIV supersoldier experience which will probably get those poor kids killed by cancer. Scientists have no clue what a virus is, so who the hell can predict what knocking out an important receptor whose functions beside viral entry we don’t anything about ?
On the other hand, the very first method we used for genetic edition (beside dumb blind irradiation) to use was very different, and called homologous recombination. The idea was simply to inject and propose an alternative DNA strand, with which the cell will substitute to the one it already has, based on their overall similarity and/or a prior double-strand breaking of two boundary-limiting motifs.
Obviously the reason better methods were sought out is the inherent slowness and random nature of this one, in the sense that such phenomena would normally occur under control of interrelated sequences underpinned by complex protein scaffoldings, specific to meiosis. Without direction, the success rate of insertions at the right place has historically been around the percentage level…
Not much of an issue (time and money aside) for plants, bacteria or animal cell cultures, but for genetic therapies on fragile genetically ill sacrosanct poor Jewish children, huh ! Yeah. Same for gamete manipulations, considering the limiting rarity of ovules plus ethical regulations.
Yet this way has the advantage of inserting only once and possibly much more precisely, safely. Artificial scissors, being artificial, are an external aggression on an insanely complicated machinery which will always elude us as long as we maintain the optics of manipulating the living like a machine.
Homologous recombination or its variant, gene conversion, are in vivo highly directed and controlled, animal cells have been capable of autonomous complex genetic edition as part of Lamarckian processes forever6. The majority being die-hard reductionists, has impeded even acknowledging this reality and stunted progress in this direction until now. Using multiple approaches, we provide evidence for an endogenous IHR mechanism in the early embryo that can be enhanced by RAD51. This process can be harnessed to generate homozygotes from wild-type zygotes using exogenous donors and to convert heterozygous alleles into homozygous alleles without exogenous templates. Genetic elements that are inherited at super-Mendelian frequencies could be used in a ‘gene drive’ to spread an allele to high prevalence in a population with the goal of eliminating invasive species [such as subhuman genes] or disease vectors.
Progresses have been made though, thanks to which techniques for minute efficient inducing of gene conversion wherever needed will undoubtedly be available in a matter of years.
Using multiple approaches, we provide evidence for an endogenous IHR mechanism in the early embryo that can be enhanced by RAD51. This process can be harnessed to generate homozygotes from wild-type zygotes using exogenous donors and to convert heterozygous alleles into homozygous alleles without exogenous templates.
Genetic elements that are inherited at super-Mendelian frequencies could be used in a ‘gene drive’ to spread an allele to high prevalence in a population with the goal of eliminating invasive species [such as subhuman genes] or disease vectors.
I particularly endorse the following rationale:
One approach to gene therapy is to replace defective genes with wild-type functional genes at a targeted site in the genome. This approach has the advantage of ensuring gene expression at endogenous levels under the physiological control of normal gene regulatory elements.
If we could learn to collaborate with cells like with an intelligent system with its own rationale, we could profit from their own innate capabilities. I am ferociously against against a human reproductive use of artificial molecular tools.
The solution is to stop wanting just about anywhere in the genome at our discretion, but study quantal genetics that we discussed prior .
We must learn to see genes not as a continuous stream of base pairs but as the cells themselves understand them, as a network of isolated yet interconnected atoms of information of many different kinds, inside a predictable yet open-ended system, A living entity qualitatively different from a machine as it is its own designer, evolving its own rules and purposes as it goes.
Cells don’t see genes but ancestral haplotypes and polymorphic frozen blocs, separated by efficient though fluid boundaries, mainly driven by the PRDM9 gene family. In many eukaryotes, sites of meiotic recombination, also called hotspots, are regions of accessible chromatin, but in many vertebrates, their location follows a distinct pattern and is specified by PR domain-containing protein 9 (PRDM9). The specification of meiotic recombination hotspots is achieved by the different activities of PRDM9: DNA binding, histone methyltrans-ferase, and interaction with other proteins. Remarkably, PRDM9 activity leads to the erosion of its own binding sites and the rapid evolution of its DNA-binding domain. PRDM9 may also contribute to reproductive isolation, as it is involved in hybrid sterility potentially due to a reduction of its activity in specific heterozygous contexts.
For those who want to inquire:
In many eukaryotes, sites of meiotic recombination, also called hotspots, are regions of accessible chromatin, but in many vertebrates, their location follows a distinct pattern and is specified by PR domain-containing protein 9 (PRDM9). The specification of meiotic recombination hotspots is achieved by the different activities of PRDM9: DNA binding, histone methyltrans-ferase, and interaction with other proteins. Remarkably, PRDM9 activity leads to the erosion of its own binding sites and the rapid evolution of its DNA-binding domain. PRDM9 may also contribute to reproductive isolation, as it is involved in hybrid sterility potentially due to a reduction of its activity in specific heterozygous contexts.
Steele7 showed experimentally the deeply intricate relationship between the quantal structure and acquired inheritance mechanisms: To be more speciﬁc, a large RNA recombinant string is formed […]. The RT- priming step would be as envisaged for Somatic HyperMutation such that the nicked transcribed strand (TS) DNA with a free 3=-OH end anneals to the long modiﬁed RNA thus allowing extension of the cDNA to produce a long newly synthesized transcribed strand with all the RNA mutations now embodied within the DNA strand 287 as SNPs (or indels, etc). The last steps would involve strand invasion, endonuclease action to remove the displaced resident strand “ﬂap” and then integration to seal the gap on the TS (via ligation). These events could happen during gametogenesis and meiosis and manifest as a biased or directional DNA conversion tract from one parental chromosome to another. It may involve alterations of the structure and position of recombination hotspot motifs, such as the PRDM9 gene, and their reallocation to the boundaries of the PFB and thus minimize recombination within the newly formed Polymorphic Frozen Bloc. That is, the donor strand low in PRDM9 motifs would invade and convert the target strand to create a tract of low density PRDM9 motifs.
PRDM9-directed homologous recombination and Lamarckian hypermutation processes as both often require an RNA intermediary with potential for endogenous hypermutation
Mastery of directed gene conversion respectful of this structure would allow seamless and efficient manipulations without size limit.
To be more speciﬁc, a large RNA recombinant string is formed […]. The RT- priming step would be as envisaged for Somatic HyperMutation such that the nicked transcribed strand (TS) DNA with a free 3=-OH end anneals to the long modiﬁed RNA thus allowing extension of the cDNA to produce a long newly synthesized transcribed strand with all the RNA mutations now embodied within the DNA strand 287 as SNPs (or indels, etc). The last steps would involve strand invasion, endonuclease action to remove the displaced resident strand “ﬂap” and then integration to seal the gap on the TS (via ligation). These events could happen during gametogenesis and meiosis and manifest as a biased or directional DNA conversion tract from one parental chromosome to another. It may involve alterations of the structure and position of recombination hotspot motifs, such as the PRDM9 gene, and their reallocation to the boundaries of the PFB and thus minimize recombination within the newly formed Polymorphic Frozen Bloc. That is, the donor strand low in PRDM9 motifs would invade and convert the target strand to create a tract of low density PRDM9 motifs.
My second criticism of current genetic manipulation and arguably a much more fundamental one is our incapacity to predict the consequences of our modifications.
Like this Chinese madman : even assuming he did inserted his knocked-out gene exactly where intended and nowhere else (he apparently couldn’t…). No one has any clue what a virus is, so who the hell can predict what knocking out an important receptor whose functions beside viral entry we don’t anything about ?
The same goes for most designer sequences. Our gene plan, either God-given or a result of (a not quite blind) evolution, can’t be cut in pieces without dire repercussions…
But said plan can be entered.
My suggestion amounts to letting the tried and true natural selection pit the clean natural haplotypes against their flawed versions, incapable to sustain life under homozygous expression as revealed through the many proposed methods some theoretical (artificial selfing), some common and starting to work on mammals after decades of failure. Then more artificial methods (in vivo through implants for instance and/or widespread retroviruses, or in vitro) could inhibit or reject the gametes featuring defectuous haplotypes, stacking the odds considerably towards increasingly better offspring. Or possibly cause a population-wide correction. Possibilities are endless.
At last, the truly limiting factor in any of these kinds of research is, alas, the low number of mature eggs in women, compounded by the rarity of very pure Nordic women, foreclosing anything close to what we do with fish, cutting down the practical degree of consanguinity allowed or speed of selection by a factor 10 to 20.
Obviously if your mating scheme generates, say, only 5% (for argument’s sake, as it would be significantly worse in practice) of embryos (that we assume infinitely superior) while all other get crippled and die, you would need at least twenty attempts (with at least 20 mature eggs) to statistically get one success.
Hardly a number conducive to any eugenics purpose. No hormonal treatments can change that.
Hence an incredibly desirable scientific progress would consist in the ability to produce ovules de novo (from DNA samples) or duplicate them in cell cultures, in order to remove this limitation.
A truly eugenicist State will extend a Lebensborn project to the totality of the population, and collect all this DNA for study or breeding purpose. It would provide unlimited resources along with millions upon millions of Nordic candidates. This is our dream.
the last step: from Lamarck to Neanderthals
Lastly, I must straighten out that not every objectively undesirable trait can be singled out this way, even in the best case scenario.
It is because I specifically mention flaws borne from cooking accumulated throughout millennia. These are chaotic mutations of a rather gross nature, typically so much so they do not sustain homozygous expression at least not in number.
They constitute the mutational load as commonly defined.
But a lot of what separates us from Neanderthal, are rather misadaptations, divergent mutations fixating and changing our whole ontogenesis (development along species-specific morphological lines), without reduced lethality or even sublethality.
Just gearing us toward different though objectively inferior courses of development, weaker more fragile bodies and brains. Once we reach total purification down to the ground level of chaotic errors (infinitely small in raw primates, compared to insects or bacteria), how to go further toward full recovery of the Neanderthal phenotype ?
Motoo Kimura, a leader of the synthetic theory of evolution and later the neutral theory of molecular evolution (stating that most mutations are synonymous hence neutral and random drift being the principal driver of change) said very well:
Even if in the distant future it will become possible to freely replace DNA base pairs in the nucleus, it is premature to think that the genetic qualities of the human can be freely improved. This is comparable to the notion that the blueprint for any splendid machine can be drawn provided paper and a pencil are available, and ignores the higher dimensional problem of information. Moreover, the conundrum exists of how far the human can improve its brain by using its brain.
Regardless of computers, what does the comprehension in last analysis is always the brain, and nothing ensures our brain can outdo millions of years of evolution nor is designed to understand itself totally. The intellect can not exceed itself by its own means.
What Kimura couldn’t know is that we don’t evolve but devolve, so one simply needs to amplify the ancestral part of us: we don’t know why molecularly speaking the past was better, we just know it was from reasoning and looking at bones. And then Lamarckian mechanisms do not require our understanding either, we just need to set up the good conditions for their application.
Lastly, the brain does not only possess intellect but also the extrasensory, infinite in scope and depth and superseding everything material . Hence it open the path for a possible conscious genetic improvement under divine guidance, such as that Teilhard De Chardin would have called for.
Here the heredity of acquired characters starts to play. Through a comprehensive physical, physiological and cognitive conditioning , fully integrated into a totalitarian culture pervading every aspect of our lives, we’ll bring out the total potential of the genetic gifts of all children. As well as induce the self-evolution of our species through the feedback mechanisms shown by Sally S. Lloyd, Edward J. Steele, Roger L. Dawkins and others, by exposing ourselves willfully and systematically, to the very limit of human experiences, stress tolerance while our mind also reaches its very spiritual limit.
In order to recreate, in a directed manner, the outer (environment) and inner (the mind) evolutionary pressures which brought forth our species in its state of biological, evolutionary near-perfection. In this dream, you are welcome to participate.
- Steele, E.J et al., Lamarck and Panspermia - On the Efficient Spread of Living Systems Throughout the Cosmos
- The evidence for Larmarck , Steele, which also summarizes the theoretical foundations.
- I also summarizes the similarity between viruses and exosomes and what hitherto unknown extended identical roles they may have in evolution .
Viable offspring derived from single unfertilized mammalian oocytes ↩︎ ↩︎
the wild Salmo trutta m. fario (the brown trout), a diploid species like us ↩︎
The genome sequence of the brown trout, Salmo trutta Linnaeus 1758 - PMC ↩︎
Risk factors for congenital anomaly in a multiethnic birth cohort: an analysis of the Born in Bradford study - The Lancet
Pakistani community had a 3.6% greater risk of being born with a congenital anomaly than children born to unrelated couples, whose risk was 2.6%. ↩︎
Haplotype structures and polymorphisms of dog leukocyte antigen (DLA) class I loci shaped by intralocus and interlocus recombination events ↩︎
Genesis of ancestral haplotypes: RNA modiﬁcations and reverse transcription–mediated polymorphisms ↩︎