* Truthseeker 24 … Darwinian Conservatism
» Truthseeker 24, Whispers of a Womanist, Darwinian Conservatism
* 09 Mar: Whispers of a Womanist: Contemplating Kalief Browder, The Young Man and his Documentary Portrayal via Truthseeker24. Whispers of a Womanist: A Conscious Clapback; via Truthseeker 24. Darwinian Conservatism: Thinking About Galapagos (6): Animal Mating, Marriage, and Parenting. Excerpts from Robert Ardrey: The Social Contract: A Personal Inquiry into the Evolutionary Sources of Order and Disorder.
* Stefan Molyneux: Story of your Enslavement; Sew You Know: Stan McChrystal on Helping Afghanistan Communities to Learn to Manage their Well Water.
* IG: 16-08-16_vputineopwipsocialcontract.
* Tygae: EoP Leg Sub / EoP NWO SCO: US v TJ McVeigh, EoP v WiP Media, EoP v WiP ism, EoP Axis MilNec Evac, EoP v WiP NWO Neg.
Whispers of a Womanist: Contemplating Kalief Browder, The Young Man and his Documentary Portrayal: Comment; via Truthseeker24’s Anti-NWO Corner: Comment.
Found your article via http://truthseeker2473.blogspot.co.za/
This may be helpful for anyone interested in finding and cooperating with others who are involved in EoP root cause problem solving:
Summary of Difference between EoP and WiP Strategic Intelligence Policy Formulators & Problem Solvers:
Masonic War is Peace is about consciously or unconsciously identifying the root cause of the problem, and applying STRATINT to deliberately perpetuate the problem indefinitely so as to socio-politically and financially parastically profit of the misery resulting from the problem. The tap has been left on, the bath is overflowing. Masonic War is Peace profiteers argue about what colour mops to use; who is mopping; who is hiring chinks or japs or coolies to do the mopping, blah blah.
Ecology of Peace identifies the root cause of any problem and applies STRATINT skills to eliminate the root cause of the problem. EoP considers ‘the right to breed and consume with total disregard for ecological carrying capacity limits clauses’ – aka policy — of the Masonic War is Peace international law social contract; as the root cause of the majority of socio-economic and political problems resulting from resource depletion and resource wars: including among others: climate change, food shortages, food inflation, cost of living increases, urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, pollution, peak oil, peak water, peak food, peak population, species extinction, loss of biodiversity, peak resources, climate change, terrorism, feminism, nazism, Islamism, capitalism, communism, militarization of police, etc. Ecology of Peace STRATINT advisors simply point out the tap is causing the bath to overflow; and find out who is willing to cooperate to turn off the tap.
A copy of this correspondence shall be documented at eop-v-wip.tygae.org.za
Whispers of a Womanist: A Conscious Clapback: Comment; via Truthseeker 24: Comment:
WiP civilized patriarchy White Supremacy is not very different to WiP civilized patriarchy Black / Asian / Muslim etc Supremacy; where if you be the wrong black / asian / muslim tribe from the Black / Muslim / Asian ruling tribe, you may as well be a member of the black tribe living in white supremacy. See how minority african tribes are treated in african countries, such as for example: Mugabe’s Matabeleland massacres; or European tribes were treated in Europe by other Europeans: Inquisition; or how the Japanese slaughtered and enslaved the Chinese, and on and on and on and on.
The only difference would be that the WiP liberal supremacists .. make allot of effort to pretend that their WiP slavery plantation is a duhmockery… where they be trying to help the poor.. while profiting off the poor. They understand it helps to make their slaves more obedient and docile. The right wingers are more in your face mean: so you don’t have any illusions that you be living on a slavery plantation.
What Malcolm X referred to as the growling wolf conservatives vs the smiling fox liberals.
It is all about resource conflict — or as Hitler called it Lebensraum aka Living Space — resulting from overpopulation and overconsumption of resources in a given area, and finding excuses to resource thieve another group or tribes resources.
“Investigation shows that whenever two nations have become engaged in warfare they have been advancing on converging lines of (resource acquisition for growing consumption or procreation) self-interest and aggrandizement. When the contact takes place, the struggle for supremacy, or even survival is at hand. This inevitable hour is approximately fixed and determined by the angles of convergence plus the sum of the relative (consumption / breeding war) speed by which the nations are moving along their respective lines. Thus it is that, when the angle of (breeding / consumption war) convergence of both or even one of the nations is acute and the speed or progress along one or both of the converging lines correspondingly great, war results in a few years or decades.” – EoP Amended quote of Homer Lea, Valour of Ignorance.
Any WiP Revolution.. whether it is WiP White Power Apartheid » WiP Black Power Mandela or WiP DNC Barack Obama » WiP GOP Donald Trump.. is simply replacing the Masonic War is Peace Slavery Farm Managers, with new Managers; while the slavery farm continues for their profits off racial, religious and class resource conflict and misery.
Ecology of Peace revolution aims to abolish the slavery farm; by abolishing the root causes which the slavery system: the right to breed and consume with total disregard for ecological carrying capacity limits clauses of international law.
If or when an Ecology of Peace international law social contract is implemented; EoP scientific and cultural law shall allow for Cultural Law Self Rule for any group of individuals with Groups with Subjective Racial, Religious& Gender Culture-Conflict Identities; who had signed their Responsible Freedom Declarations.
A copy of this comment shall be posted to eop-v-wip.tygae.org.za
Darwinian Conservatism: Thinking About Galapagos (6): Animal Mating, Marriage, and Parenting: Comment:
In Robert Ardrey’s The Social Contract: A Personal Inquiry into the Evolutionary Sources of Order and Disorder, he provides numerous examples of a significant number of animals who are capable of ecologically literate procreation; i.e. animal-cultural-consciously or genetic-unconsciously choosing to practice family planning: control or restrict their breeding with regard to abundance or scarcity of their resource environment; such as Norway rats, red grouse; Australian magpie; Uganda kob antelope; wildebeest, waterbuck, Grant’s & Thomson’s gazelle; southern springbok, hartebeest, topi, puku, oribi, dik-dick, steenbok, lion, kittiwake; etc.
EoP: Re: WiP Conservatism and Liberalism et al
If your ‘conservatism’ has no buck stops here concern for establishing a legal social contract that legally conserves your nations resources; upon which all of life’s species rely upon for survival and sustenance; in accordance with ecological carrying capacity limits; by requiring your nation’s citizens to restrict their procreation and/or consumption to below ecological carrying capacity limits; then your ‘conservatism’ efforts to pretend to be concerned about conserving any other religious, racial or class cultural values is akin to farting against thunder. Put simply: If your conservatism is not about conserving the ecological carrying capacity resource foundations upon which all of life reside; your ‘conservatism’ ain’t nothing but fuck honour bullshit the public relations image management vote welfare bribery.”
Of course the same could be said for WiP liberalism, socialism, communism, nationalism, monarchism, progressivism, capitalism, racial powerism, Nazism, Zionism, Pan Africanism, etc.
EoP New Rules or WiP No Rules Los Pepes Negotiations:
‘If Wilson was right that competition occurs only when overcrowded numbers struggle for a scarce resources, then Malthus is confirmed; and humanity has little to look forward to but that chaotic day when in unlimited number we assassinate one another in our pursuit of inadequate resources. But if Wynne-Edwards is right, any population, human or non-human, has within its power the limitation of numbers through conventional rules and regulations and the capacity to abide by them.” – Ardrey quoted in EoP v WiP NWO Negotiations infographic: 16-08-16_vputineopwipsocialcontract.
EoP v WiP NWO Negotiations focus is to ascertain whether anyone is interested in cooperating to ‘turn off the tap’ — i.e. the breeding / consumption above ecological carrying capacity limits — causes of war; by implementing an Ecology of Peace New World Order international law social contract; that requires all the worlds citizens of all races and religions to procreate and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits; enabling humane and orderly deindustrialization and depopulation return to ecological carrying capacity limits.
A copy of this comment shall be posted at eop-v-wip.tygae.org.za
Excerpts from Robert Ardrey: The Social Contract: A Personal Inquiry into the Evolutionary Sources of Order and Disorder:
As detailed in The Social Contract: A Personal Inquiry into the Evolutionary Sources of Order and Disorder, by Robert Ardrey: A significant number of animals are capable of ecologically literate procreation; i.e. animal-cultural-consciously or genetic-unconsciously choosing to practice family planning: control or restrict their breeding with regard to abundance or scarcity of their resource environment; such as Norway rats, red grouse; Australian magpie; Uganda kob antelope; wildebeest, waterbuck, Grant’s & Thomson’s gazelle; southern springbok, hartebeest, topi, puku, oribi, dik-dick, steenbok, lion, kittiwake; etc.
Yet throughout all the natural sciences the definition of a domesticated animal is one that is the product of controlled breeding, which man — aside from a few temporary and unsuccessful efforts in the periods of slavery – is not.
In terms of the social contract, we may say that just as society must furnish the young with freedom to develop their genetic potential, so the breeding adult must not provide society with more young than the group can handle. The propositions are poised in equity, and the neglect of one must result in the nullification of the other. Fifty-one guppies, controlling their numbers through a blend of cannibalism and infanticide which we must assume seems quite normal to guppies, can scarcely be regarded as furnishing a sufficient case for the toppling of a Malthus, the indictment of a Pope, or the elaboration of a social contract. But other evidence exists.
..[..].. In the following section of this chapter I shall explore the self-regulating devices which in many species prevent a buildup to such numbers that only a population crash can provide natural limitation. The species we have been considering — in a sense, the freaks — lack such mechanisms and so are subjected to cyclical control. And while there must remain a temptation to equate man with the lemming and the snowshoe hare, we had best defer our consideration of men until we know more about animals. And we had best defer too those questions facing the new devotees of population dynamics in the 1950’s: How, when density reaches a certain point, does a form of birth control take place so that fewer young are born, or are even conceived? And why — a more difficult question — do the elders drop dead?
..[..].. Norway rats form stable societies when nomore than a dozen adults share a territory and jointly defend it. Within this little world adults form a hierarchy led by an alpha male. The amity-enmity complex which I described in The Territorial Imperative turns hostility outward and preserves peace within the group. Calhoun wrote that the territories, and the buffer zones between, “seemed essential to the maintenance of group integrity.” But they likewise divided up the available space into.homesteads for groups of limited number. So population control was achieved.
Up to ten adults defend as a team a property of five to twenty acres. And these are the only birds that successfully breed. Carrick’s study area was about five square miles of savanna, broken here and there by eucalyptus clumps, supporting thousands of magpies. Both food supply and nesting sites were unlimited. A few non-territorial groups nested in trees, but never succeeded in raising young. The crow-like flocks in the fields never tried. Successful breeding was confined to that 20 percent of the total population within the territorial bands. What, precisely, prevented normal reproduction in any but the propertied bands? Carrick made a surprising discovery. While all males in the total population produced motile sperm, only the hens in the territorial groups ovulated normally.
..[..].. This was the Uganda kob, a species in which males occupy an arena of territorial competition to which females are attracted for copulation. Females will accept no other than the successful, and the masses of surplus males amuse themselves in their bachelor herds. In the few short years since I published my review, territorial systems of breeding have been described in the wildebeest and waterbuck, in the Grant’s and Thomson’s gazelle and the comparable southern springbok, in the harte-beest and topi and puku, and in the smallest of them all, the oribi and dik-dik and steenbok. Systems vary, from the modified arena competition of the wildebeest and puku, to the bird-like family territories of the steenbok. But, in all, the main propositions hold true: The female will be attracted only by a territorial male; the male who has failed in the territorial competition will retire into the careless existence of males in groups.
..[..].. The lion, preyed on by none, not too susceptible to disease or parasites, could in a few generations be a victim of overpopulation. The lioness produces her several cubs in a short period of gestation, and, should she lose them, comes into heat again at once. Yet in the Serengeti a stable population of about a thousand lions varies little in number from season to season. The area’s immense numbers of prey animals, such as wildebeest, Thomson’s gazelle, and zebra, could support far more lions. What keeps their numbers down? A subtle combination of behavior patterns, foremost among them maternal neglect, provides that only so many lions will reach a breeding age and situation.
..[..].. The first control is territorial. As with the Australian magpie, only those females who are part of a permanently resident pride breed successfully. The second control is a dominance order like those of few other species. The young eat last ..[..].. Infant mortality in the lion runs to about 50 percent. And we may contrast that with the quite opposite behavior of the adult hunting dog, which I earlier described, who will touch no food till the young are finished. One may deplore the lion, praise the hunting dog, but either judgment would be anthropomorphic. The behavioral contrasts are expressions of population control. The hardy lion, once he reaches maturity, will be around for a long time. Control must fall on the young. But the delicate hunting dog, so susceptible to disease, must do all in his power to keep adult social numbers replenished.
..[..].. The controversy that has arisen around Wynne-Edwards’ work expresses far more than the reaction of the unsophisticated to a highly sophisticated hypothesis. The opposition is to his concept of group selection, and it has enlisted as fastidious a scientist as David Lack. The fundamental problem facing any theorist attempting to relate clutch size or territorial competition or social rank to population control is how to explain the willingness of the individual to accept certain rules and regulations that exist not in his interest, but in the interest of the whole population. The nesting habits of seabirds provide a clear illustration. A final limitation on the numbers of the kittiwake is offered not by food supply but by a scarcity of cliff-hanging nesting sites which the species favors as a defense against predators. The kittiwake pair can easily raise three young to maturity, yet three quarters of all nests in a colony will show an egg clutch of two. The population is thereby kept within reasonable bounds. But if you are a kittiwake and you have a nest, then why not three? What process of natural selection has induced this self-imposed birth control?
Early in his career, when Wynne-Edwards was working as a biologist in Canada, he took a superb photograph of a large gannet colony on a Newfoundland headland. The photograph, published in Scientific American, required the shortest of cap tions to tell its enigmatic story. One bump of the headland is white with breeding gannets on their nests. An adjacent headland is just as white with “unemployed” birds, those excluded from breeding because they have no nesting territories. But nests can be built anywhere. Why are only a limited number of sites acceptable as breeding stations? We may of course immediately skip to the consequence, that the arbitrary limit placed on nesting sites arbitrarily limits the population. But why do the unemployed birds, having competed and lost in their efforts to gain territories, accept the rules and regulations? They resemble nothing so much as human children in some game who have been declared “out” by the umpire and have been relegated to the sidelines. And we may ask, also, what processes of natural selection could evolve and enforce such a natural treaty between a population and its members?
..[..].. The controversy will be resolved one day by the specialists involved. If Wilson was right at Washington, and competition occurs only when overcrowded numbers struggle for a scarce resource, then Malthus is confirmed. And humanity has little to look forward to but that chaotic day when in unlimited number we assassinate one another in our pursuit of inadequate resources. But if Wynne-Edwards is right, any population, human or non-human, has within its power the limitation of numbers through conventional rules and regulations and the capacity to abide by them.