[political-research] Re: What's wrong with conspiracy theories?
For all the Islamists among us the German minister of the interior wants to add a new element of offense: conspiracy.Conspiracy = Verschwoerung http://news.google.de/news?hl=dened=deq=Sch%C3%A4uble+Verschw%C3%B6ru\ ngbtnG=News-Suche He would also love to have targeted killings. This means that Schaueble takes at least Laurie Mylroie's conspiracy theory very very serious. I am wondering if we are in the process to get some kind of new high security camps, to fight the war on terrorism US style: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,492424,00.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,492424,00.html MEASURING THE TERRORIST THREATPakistan May Return Detained Islamists to Germany By Holger Stark, Yassin Musharbash mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] , Simone Kaiser and Matthias Gebauer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For the first time since Sept. 11, 2001, agovernment task force responsible for preparing for terrorist threatshas met in Berlin. Indications that terrorists may be planning attackson Europe are growing following a slew of arrests of Islamists inPakistan. They had traveled from Germany Saeed and Aleem N. got a head start on the morning of June 18. Theytook a taxi from the city center of populous Lahore, Pakistan to AllamaIqbal International Airport. The brothers hugged one more time at thecheck-in counter of Qatar Airways. Aleem's plane was scheduled todepart for Frankfurt, via Doha, at 7:35 a.m. Aleem, a 45-year-oldPakistani with a German passport, was to be picked up at the FrankfurtAirport by his wife Katja.Aleem had returned from Peshawar two days earlier, says hisbrother Saeed M. He was carrying a bag containing 25 kilograms (55pounds) of lapis lazuli. Aleem said the blue gemstones sell well inGermany, according to Saeed. As usual, the gemstone trader spoke littleabout what else he had been doing in the region near the Afghan border,a region Germany's foreign intelligence service, BND, calls al-Qaida'sstaging are ... --- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In terms of addressing any of the substantive arguments of leading 9/11 skeptics, this post from Lenin's Tomb is useless -- the author is not a meaningful contributor to the debate. He's nibbling selectively around the edges. Nice of him, however, to mention a few real conspiracies, including Operation Gladio, Operation Northwoods, Lockerbie and the Gulf of Tonkin. World history has largely been a competition among powerful interest groups which often employ conspiratorial methods to achieve their objectives. Michael Pugliese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://leninology.blogspot.com/ One's divine incipience posted Lenin's Tomb Sunday, July 08, 2007
[political-research] It may well be that the key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings
Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: It may well be that the key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings via 911Blogger.com - Paying Attention to 9/11 Related Alternative News by Reprehensor on Jul 09, 2007 Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston [Ontario] says this about bolstering morale for the War on Terror, as reported by Andrew Chung of the Toronto Star. It may well be that the key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago, he says. Lt.-Col. Delaney, just remember what happened in Spain after the Madrid bombings. Aznar's party was swept from office, installing the Spanish Socialist Workers Party under Zapatero. The Madrid bombing bears many of the signatures of a False Flag attack, Webster Tarpley discusses some of them here. Your fellow Canadian, David MacGregor, refers to these inspired incidents as Machiavellian State Terror. False Flag attacks do not always have the desired effect... just sayin'. -- Why military might does not always win A new study suggests that involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan might be doomed from the outset It may well be that the key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago July 08, 2007 Andrew Chung Staff Reporter Toronto Star Does this sound familiar? A war with no visible payoff against an opponent who poses no direct threat will come under increasing criticism as battle casualties rise and economic costs escalate . . . It was written more than 30 years ago, after the end of the ill-fated Vietnam War, in one of the first analyses of battles between states and insurgents or guerrillas who are weak in military might but pumped up on resolve. Experts call them asymmetrical wars. But, of course, it could very well have been written today, about Iraq - or about Afghanistan, where Canadian soldiers keep dying along dusty roadsides, blown up in their armoured vehicles by improvised yet powerful bombs. Six on Easter Sunday. Three more on June 20. Another six last Wednesday. The total number of casualties since Canada joined the Afghan mission in 2001: 66 soldiers, plus one diplomat. Criticism is increasing. Public sentiment about the war is primarily negative, polls show. Politicians are ratcheting up their opposition. It's the wrong mission, NDP Leader Jack Layton argued last week, insisting troops leave the war-ravaged country now. It's not working; it's not going to accomplish the goals. Continued... read more Things you can do from here: - Visit the original item on 911Blogger.com - Paying Attention to 9/11 Related Alternative News - Subscribe to 911Blogger.com - Paying Attention to 9/11 Related Alternative News using Google Reader - Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
[political-research] Re: It may well be that the key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings
Sean McBride wrote: Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston [Ontario] says this about bolstering morale for the War on Terror, as reported by Andrew Chung of the Toronto Star. It may well be that the key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago, he says. Lt.-Col. Delaney, just remember what happened in Spain after the Madrid bombings. Aznar's party was swept from office, installing the Spanish Socialist Workers Party under Zapatero. The Madrid bombing bears many of the signatures of a False Flag attack, Webster Tarpley discusses some of them here. Your fellow Canadian, David MacGregor, refers to these inspired incidents as Machiavellian State Terror. False Flag attacks do not always have the desired effect... just sayin'. -- Why military might does not always win A new study suggests that involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan might be doomed from the outset It may well be that the key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago July 08, 2007 Andrew Chung Staff Reporter Toronto Star Does this sound familiar? A war with no visible payoff against an opponent who poses no direct threat will come under increasing criticism as battle casualties rise and economic costs escalate . . . It was written more than 30 years ago, after the end of the ill-fated Vietnam War, in one of the first analyses of battles between states and insurgents or guerrillas who are weak in military might but pumped up on resolve. Experts call them asymmetrical wars. But, of course, it could very well have been written today, about Iraq - or about Afghanistan, where Canadian soldiers keep dying along dusty roadsides, blown up in their armoured vehicles by improvised yet powerful bombs. Six on Easter Sunday. Three more on June 20. Another six last Wednesday. The total number of casualties since Canada joined the Afghan mission in 2001: 66 soldiers, plus one diplomat. Criticism is increasing. Public sentiment about the war is primarily negative, polls show. Politicians are ratcheting up their opposition. It's the wrong mission, NDP Leader Jack Layton argued last week, insisting troops leave the war-ravaged country now. It's not working; it's not going to accomplish the goals. Continued... read more Things you can do from here: - Visit the original item on 911Blogger.com - Paying Attention to 9/11 Related Alternative News - Subscribe to 911Blogger.com - Paying Attention to 9/11 Related Alternative News using Google Reader - Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
[political-research] The ongoing journalistic scandal at the New York Times
[neocon op The New York Times] Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: The ongoing journalistic scandal at the New York Times via Salon: Glenn Greenwald by Glenn Greenwald on Jul 09, 2007 The NYT Public Editor documents that the paper's war coverage today is unchanged when compared to its disgraceful pre-war failures. Things you can do from here: - Visit the original item on Salon: Glenn Greenwald - Subscribe to Salon: Glenn Greenwald using Google Reader - Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
[political-research] Israeli/neocon op New York Times Iraq War
The New York Times (and the rest of the mainstream media) played a much more important role in engineering the Iraq War than any oil company. Now the Times is desperately trying to wash its hands of the mess it helped to create, while frantically searching for scapegoats. Quite a sleazy performance. At no time in the run-up to the Iraq War did the New York Times question the absurd rationale provided for the war by Dick Cheney and other leading Bush 43 administration members. On the contrary: this neocon op ran interference for Iraq War ringleaders and gave them a prominent platform in its pages. 1. Israeli/neocon op Sulzberger family New York Times Andrew Rosenthal Iraq War 2. Israeli/neocon op Sulzberger family New York Times Arthur Sulzberger Jr. Iraq War 3. Israeli/neocon op Sulzberger family New York Times Bill Keller Iraq War 4. Israeli/neocon op Sulzberger family New York Times David Brooks Iraq War 5. Israeli/neocon op Sulzberger family New York Times Judith Miller Iraq War 6. Israeli/neocon op Sulzberger family New York Times Michael Gordon Iraq War 7. Israeli/neocon op Sulzberger family New York Times Thomas Friedman Iraq War 8. Israeli/neocon op Sulzberger family New York Times William Safire Iraq War Does it seem unfair, excessive, to focus on the Israeli agenda of the New York Times? Try this thought experiment: imagine if the Times were as obsessed with the interests of, say, China, Ireland or Pakistan as it is with the interests of Israel. Would you notice? Yes, we would all take notice and be quite astonished. And we would be outraged if the New York Times helped drive the United States into a self-destructive war on behalf of any of those nations or any foreign nation. Now we see Michael Gordon priming the pump for an Iran War, an activity for which Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Bill Keller and Andrew Rosenthal bear full responsibility: Israeli/neocon op Sulzberger family New York Times Michael Gordon Iran War
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These are areas where the general public has moved far ahead of academia. Most people are very comfortable now with the idea that there are genetic and biological bases for human behavior, and accept this as established fact (quite appropriately in my view). Not so in academia, where there are still howls of outrage over such ideas. Much of the outrage over MacDonald's work is par for the course for anyone who accepts these simple facts of life. The reason for this major disconnect is obvious. If you follow through with these ideas what seems to emerge is a biological and evolutionary basis for tribalism, ethnocentrism, and racism. Everyone thinks immediately of Nazi Germany and the gas chambers, and thinks that we are moving perilously close to a scientific justification. Very understandable that the mind would just shut down at that point! Tim Howells RESPONSE More examples of Tim's demagoguery. Why would I give a hoot is the general public accepts genetic theories of human behavior or not? These are issues of science, not public opinion. Quite a few million people believe the Apocalypse will occur, as written. Should this be given equal time in cosmology journals? Tim, you give away your pseudoscientific propagandizing when you say If you follow through with these ideas what seems to emerge is a biological and evolutionary basis for tribalism, ethnocentrism, and racism. Hence, you posit that we should take an unproven theory--whether Macdonald's, Jensens, Rushton's--and then conduct an imaginary follow through (read: without an iota of experimental verification) and POOF! what emerges is a biological and evolutionary basis fo0r the same unsupported pseudotheory you posited in the first place! Thats a tasty pretzel! - Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
I read New Scientist, Science, Nature and Scientific American regularly, and my impression is that there is a major trend in the scientific world linking human behavior and personality traits with genetic factors. You haven't noticed this? Do you disagree? This area of research could prove to be most revolutionary scientific movement in human history to date. If genetic factors play an important role in influencing ethnic conflicts and wars, shouldn't we try to figure this out? I am especially curious to know why some people seem to be much more ethnocentric in their outlook on the world than others -- there is something obsessive-compulsive about their behavior which suggests a genetic origin. I wouldn't be the least surprised if scientists discover a human xenophobia gene, or a complex of genes which produce personality traits like tribalism and xenophobia. (One can use content analysis to measure the relative ethnocentrism of individuals and groups -- simply keep track of how many times they mention their ethnic enemies.) tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These are areas where the general public has moved far ahead of academia. Most people are very comfortable now with the idea that there are genetic and biological bases for human behavior, and accept this as established fact (quite appropriately in my view). Not so in academia, where there are still howls of outrage over such ideas. Much of the outrage over MacDonald's work is par for the course for anyone who accepts these simple facts of life. The reason for this major disconnect is obvious. If you follow through with these ideas what seems to emerge is a biological and evolutionary basis for tribalism, ethnocentrism, and racism. Everyone thinks immediately of Nazi Germany and the gas chambers, and thinks that we are moving perilously close to a scientific justification. Very understandable that the mind would just shut down at that point! Tim Howells RESPONSE More examples of Tim's demagoguery. Why would I give a hoot is the general public accepts genetic theories of human behavior or not? These are issues of science, not public opinion. Quite a few million people believe the Apocalypse will occur, as written. Should this be given equal time in cosmology journals? Tim, you give away your pseudoscientific propagandizing when you say If you follow through with these ideas what seems to emerge is a biological and evolutionary basis for tribalism, ethnocentrism, and racism. Hence, you posit that we should take an unproven theory--whether Macdonald's, Jensens, Rushton's--and then conduct an imaginary follow through (read: without an iota of experimental verification) and POOF! what emerges is a biological and evolutionary basis fo0r the same unsupported pseudotheory you posited in the first place! Thats a tasty pretzel! - Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.
[political-research] Behavioral Genetics (Searching for Genes that Explain Our Personalities)
[Behavioral genetics is very mainstream these days -- unless you consider the American Psychological Association to be on the fringe.] http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep02/genes.html APA Monitor on Psychology Volume 33, No. 8 September 2002 APA forms working group on genetics research issues Members of the BSA working group Searching for genes that explain our personalities Identifying such genes could eliminate the distinction psychologists make between personality and psychopathology. BY BETH AZAR Finding any real personality genes is decades away. But researchers have a good start. In fact, more researchers are jumping into the complex fray of behavioral genetics each year, fueled by the hope that identifying genes related to personality traits will not only help them better understand what makes people tick but also what goes wrong when normal ticking turns pathological. The goal is to discover genes that affect brain functions that in turn affect how people interact with their environments. The research is slowed by the complexity of the search: Many genes are responsible for various aspects of people's temperament, and those genes appear to interact with each other in complicated ways that influence several traits at once--and then likely only in very subtle ways, with any one gene likely accounting for only 1 or 2 percent of the variance in a trait. Researchers do, however, believe that their work will eventually pay off and they'll have a new, more comprehensive, understanding of personality and psychopathology as well as the complex play between genes and environment in shaping personality. Progress to date Scientists have a strong foundation for their search for personality genes from the years of basic psychology and neuroscience studies that have explored just exactly what personality is and how personality-related behaviors might be influenced by specific neural mechanisms. And although researchers still debate exactly how to define personality, they have identified certain core personality dimensions that are consistent across cultures, including novelty-seeking, neuroticism and agreeableness. Intriguing to people has been research in animals and humans that links certain neurotransmitters with some of these dimensions or traits. For example, many studies have found a connection between high levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine and behaviors related to novelty-seeking. That gives researchers a place to start looking--genes related to dopamine--among the nearly 50,000 in the human genome. To date, there are only two real candidate genes that anyone speaks of with any confidence. The first potential link is between some behaviors related to the Big-Five trait novelty-seeking and a gene that produces the protein responsible for creating a dopamine receptor called DRD4. While some studies have failed to replicate this connection, others have identified a link between the DRD4 gene and other traits linked to novelty-seeking, such as drug abuse and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. The indication is that this gene--or perhaps some other gene related to it--may influence all these interrelated characteristics. The second candidate--linked to the Big Five trait neuroticism--is commonly called the Prozac gene because it produces a protein related to the neurotransmitter serotonin. Also known as the serotonin transporter gene or 5-HTTLPR, it has the strongest evidence linking it to neuroticism and other anxiety-related traits, such as harm avoidance. Even so, the gene appears to account for only about 1 to 2 percent of the variance for these traits, says National Cancer Institute molecular biologist Dean Hamer, PhD, one of the first scientists to search for personality genes. If that's as good as it gets, he says, everything else is likely worse. That means perhaps hundreds of genes influence each of our personality traits ever so slightly. In fact, the work is so difficult from a molecular biology point of view, Hamer is all but abandoning it. After 10 years or so, it's quite clear to me that at least for most traits there are a very large number of genes involved, he says. The only area he'll continue working on is sexual orientation. There he feels there's a better chance of finding just a few key genes. Blurring lines between 'normal' and pathological The difficulty of the work isn't stopping others who anticipate the promise of a greater understanding of personality as well as psychopathology. Already, research has begun to blur the traditional line delineating personality and psychopathology as separate entities. For example, over the past decade, studies have established a connection between high scores on the standard personality trait of neuroticism and major depression. In fact, high neuroticism scores can predict whether someone will develop major depression, says Kenneth Kendler, MD, director of the
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
Sean Is your opposition to ethnocentrism linked genetic factors? Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I read New Scientist, Science, Nature and Scientific American regularly, and my impression is that there is a major trend in the scientific world linking human behavior and personality traits with genetic factors. You haven't noticed this? Do you disagree? This area of research could prove to be most revolutionary scientific movement in human history to date. If genetic factors play an important role in influencing ethnic conflicts and wars, shouldn't we try to figure this out? I am especially curious to know why some people seem to be much more ethnocentric in their outlook on the world than others -- there is something obsessive-compulsive about their behavior which suggests a genetic origin. I wouldn't be the least surprised if scientists discover a human xenophobia gene, or a complex of genes which produce personality traits like tribalism and xenophobia. (One can use content analysis to measure the relative ethnocentrism of individuals and groups -- simply keep track of how many times they mention their ethnic enemies.) tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These are areas where the general public has moved far ahead of academia. Most people are very comfortable now with the idea that there are genetic and biological bases for human behavior, and accept this as established fact (quite appropriately in my view). Not so in academia, where there are still howls of outrage over such ideas. Much of the outrage over MacDonald's work is par for the course for anyone who accepts these simple facts of life. The reason for this major disconnect is obvious. If you follow through with these ideas what seems to emerge is a biological and evolutionary basis for tribalism, ethnocentrism, and racism. Everyone thinks immediately of Nazi Germany and the gas chambers, and thinks that we are moving perilously close to a scientific justification. Very understandable that the mind would just shut down at that point! Tim Howells RESPONSE More examples of Tim's demagoguery. Why would I give a hoot is the general public accepts genetic theories of human behavior or not? These are issues of science, not public opinion. Quite a few million people believe the Apocalypse will occur, as written. Should this be given equal time in cosmology journals? Tim, you give away your pseudoscientific propagandizing when you say If you follow through with these ideas what seems to emerge is a biological and evolutionary basis for tribalism, ethnocentrism, and racism. Hence, you posit that we should take an unproven theory--whether Macdonald's, Jensens, Rushton's--and then conduct an imaginary follow through (read: without an iota of experimental verification) and POOF! what emerges is a biological and evolutionary basis fo0r the same unsupported pseudotheory you posited in the first place! Thats a tasty pretzel! - Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out. - Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
It might well be -- I wouldn't be surprised to discover that most aspects of human behavior, personality and temperament are strongly influenced by genetic factors. Why should this be so difficult to believe? Why are some fruit flies more adventurous, more possessed of the pioneering spirit, than others? Well, behavioral geneticists have been able to identify the precise genes which produce the Christopher Columbus personality type among fruit flies. Why are tigers more aggressive than rabbits? Did they learn the behavior from a book? Can human beings overcome genetic predispositions through cultural conditioning and will power? Probably to some degree. But we may all be on rather short leashes. There is something about extreme xenophobia that is strongly suggestive of obsessive-compulsive disorders -- I'm betting on a genetic origin for the mindset. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean Is your opposition to ethnocentrism linked genetic factors? Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I read New Scientist, Science, Nature and Scientific American regularly, and my impression is that there is a major trend in the scientific world linking human behavior and personality traits with genetic factors. You haven't noticed this? Do you disagree? This area of research could prove to be most revolutionary scientific movement in human history to date. If genetic factors play an important role in influencing ethnic conflicts and wars, shouldn't we try to figure this out? I am especially curious to know why some people seem to be much more ethnocentric in their outlook on the world than others -- there is something obsessive-compulsive about their behavior which suggests a genetic origin. I wouldn't be the least surprised if scientists discover a human xenophobia gene, or a complex of genes which produce personality traits like tribalism and xenophobia. (One can use content analysis to measure the relative ethnocentrism of individuals and groups -- simply keep track of how many times they mention their ethnic enemies.) tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These are areas where the general public has moved far ahead of academia. Most people are very comfortable now with the idea that there are genetic and biological bases for human behavior, and accept this as established fact (quite appropriately in my view). Not so in academia, where there are still howls of outrage over such ideas. Much of the outrage over MacDonald's work is par for the course for anyone who accepts these simple facts of life. The reason for this major disconnect is obvious. If you follow through with these ideas what seems to emerge is a biological and evolutionary basis for tribalism, ethnocentrism, and racism. Everyone thinks immediately of Nazi Germany and the gas chambers, and thinks that we are moving perilously close to a scientific justification. Very understandable that the mind would just shut down at that point! Tim Howells RESPONSE More examples of Tim's demagoguery. Why would I give a hoot is the general public accepts genetic theories of human behavior or not? These are issues of science, not public opinion. Quite a few million people believe the Apocalypse will occur, as written. Should this be given equal time in cosmology journals? Tim, you give away your pseudoscientific propagandizing when you say If you follow through with these ideas what seems to emerge is a biological and evolutionary basis for tribalism, ethnocentrism, and racism. Hence, you posit that we should take an unproven theory--whether Macdonald's, Jensens, Rushton's--and then conduct an imaginary follow through (read: without an iota of experimental verification) and POOF! what emerges is a biological and evolutionary basis fo0r the same unsupported pseudotheory you posited in the first place! Thats a tasty pretzel! - Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out. - Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
[political-research] Rick Santorum, Christian Zionism and False Flag Terrorism
Rick Santorum, Christian Zionism and False Flag Terrorism Background on Rick Santorum, the Christian Zionist who just assured us with great confidence that America would soon be the victim once again of devastating terrorist attacks: [begin quote] A Wall Street Journal piece described the dual covenant theory in an article about a Christian Zionist meeting in Washington two weeks ago. In particular it reported on Rev. John Hagee, who founded Christians United for Israel and organized the event. Now, Jerry Falwell and other evangelicals who once opposed the thesis have joined the Hagee group board of directors. They urge no peace concessions by Israel and, now, war with Iran. The 3,500 delegates held a major rally in Washington attended by, among others, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), Senators Sam Brownback (R-Kans.) and Rick Santorum (R-Penn.), Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, Israel's ambassador to the U.S., and other leading Zionists. As the Journal reports, They see, and even sometimes seem to embrace, the notion of a global conflict between Islam and the Judeo-Christian West, just as do many zealous Muslims. (Protesters outside the meeting were led by Carol Moore, who long ago first brought media attention to the Waco and Weaver travesties.) [end quote] [begin article] http://www.antiwar.com/utley/?articleid=9456 August 2, 2006 'Dual Covenant' Christians Christian Zionists and the strangest alliance in history by Jon Basil Utley Antiwar.com The major internal conflict for the strangest alliance in history is about what will happen to Jews who don't convert to evangelical Christianity. The Armageddonites, those 30 million Americans who happily see Mideast chaos as hastening their one-way trip to paradise, are being increasingly questioned about the fate of Jews whom they urge to help fulfill the prophecies. Once their death wish agenda is realized, the end-of-the-worlders believe that Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims (of course), other Christians (apparently including Catholics and Orthodox), and all the rest of humanity will be killed. But the born-again will be raptured to Heaven. (See The Brutal Christ of the Armageddonites.) Now some enterprising Texans have resolved the big question. The Jews God kills will go to a parallel heaven, their kind of heaven, to enjoy eternity alongside the good Christians. The Jewish heaven will presumably be what they would like, perhaps different from the evangelical heaven, where there will be no booze, no bars, and no need to mow the grass on one's lawn, according to a popular Gaither Singers song. (The fact that the Jewish faith has no afterlife at all similar to the Christian one is irrelevant, nor do the faithful Texans probably even know it.) It is called the dual covenant theory the belief that Jews and Christians have separate deals with God. However, Muslims, Hindus, and others have no deal. A Wall Street Journal piece described the dual covenant theory in an article about a Christian Zionist meeting in Washington two weeks ago. In particular it reported on Rev. John Hagee, who founded Christians United for Israel and organized the event. Now, Jerry Falwell and other evangelicals who once opposed the thesis have joined the Hagee group board of directors. They urge no peace concessions by Israel and, now, war with Iran. The 3,500 delegates held a major rally in Washington attended by, among others, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), Senators Sam Brownback (R-Kans.) and Rick Santorum (R-Penn.), Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, Israel's ambassador to the U.S., and other leading Zionists. As the Journal reports, They see, and even sometimes seem to embrace, the notion of a global conflict between Islam and the Judeo-Christian West, just as do many zealous Muslims. (Protesters outside the meeting were led by Carol Moore, who long ago first brought media attention to the Waco and Weaver travesties.) Interestingly, polls indicate that most Americans are nowhere near as pro-Israel as their elected representatives. Recent polls show strong majorities of Americans do not want the U.S. to intervene on Israel's behalf in its current military campaign. There are many other strange facets to the Zionist-Evangelical alliance: # God needs Jews to gather in Israel for the fulfillment of His plans. To further this, the Christian Zionists collect money (from churchgoers and on TV programs) to pay for primarily Russian Jews to emigrate to Israel, because God can't end the world until most Jews have returned to the holy land. However, American Jews apparently can stay in America without hindering His agenda. # The great advantage of being raptured is that there is no Judgment Day. Everybody who is born again automatically goes to Heaven, their sins all forgiven, and no good works are necessary. But it must happen soon. If John Hagee, Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson should die before
[political-research] The Litvinenko Mystery Thriller: A Primer of Conspiracy Theories
Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: The Litvinenko Mystery Thriller: A Primer of Conspiracy Theories via Edward Jay Epstein's Web Log by Edward Jay Epstein on Jul 09, 2007 The proliferation of conspiracy theories deserves a taxonomy THE FIRST QUESTION: HOW DID LITVINENKO DIE? I. The Poisoned Sushi Theory Proponent: Alexander Litvinenko Thesis: Litvinenko had been poisoned by thallium, a rat poison, in the Itsu Sushi restaurant on November 1 while dining with Mario Scaramella.Selling points:*** Litvinenko had sharp stomach pains on November 1st after eating Sushi with Mario ScaramellaDrawbacks:*** It was not Thallium but Polonium 210 that poisoined Litvinenko*** Litvinenko's Russian associates got contaminated before Litvinenko got to the Sushi restaurant. Status: DOAII. The Spiked Tea Theory Proponent: Scotland Yard Thesis: Tea served to Litvinenko at the Pine Bar of the Millenium Hotel on November 1st 2001 was spiked with Polonium 210 by his Russian associate Andrei Lugovoie.Selling points:*** Witnesses saw Litvinenko in the Pine Bar with his Russian associates*** A hotel tea pot tested positive for Polonium 210 *** A November 1st bus ticket (found among Litvinenko's effects) did not test positive for Polonium 210, suggesting Litvinenko had been Polonium-free shortly before going to the Pine Bar. Drawbacks: *** Polonium 210 is not an efficient assassination weapon. Not only is it expensive, slow-acting, and difficult to obtain, but it is a tell-tale poison, traceable back to its source. *** The tea pot was cycled through a dishwasher for weeks before the police tested it. It is therefore difficult to fit into a chain of evidence. *** The absence of Polonium on a ticket does not really prove that Litvinenko was free of polonium contamination. It only suggests that it was not on the hand he used to handle the ticket. *** The autopsy showed that Litvinenko was exposed to Polonium 210 on more than one occasion, so there is no way to exclude the possibility that he contaminated the tea cup in the same way that he contaminated Mario Scaramella at his next meeting at the Itsu Sushi. Status: In abeyance awating a British extradition request that has been turned down.III. The Serial Poisoner Theory Proponents: autopsy doctors Thesis: Litvinenko was poisoned twice, first in Mid-October, then again, at the Pine Bar on November 1st Selling Point:*** It explains why the post mortem examination shows two different times Litvinenko was exposed to Polonium 210. Drawback:*** Polonium can take many weeks, if not months, to kill someone. So how would a murderer know after only 2 weeks that the first dose was not effective ?*** If Polonium 210 did not work the first time, why not use another poison (or a bullet) in the follow-up assassination attempt. Status: Awaiting release of the Coroner's Report IV. Accident Theory Proponent: Vyacheslav Zharko Thesis: Litvinenko had come in contact with smuggled Polonium 210 and a speck leaked onto his clothes, possessions or person, and it then fell into his food. According to Vyacheslav Zharko, a Russian FSB officer who Litvinenko helped recruit for British intelligence in 2002, Litvinenko kept telling me that he needed money badly Possibly, that with the help of [Akhmed] Zakayev and his other Chechen 'friends' he could have got involved in smuggling of radioactive materials, and then - by accident or not - received a lethal dose. Selling Points:*** Historic context: All 5 previously known deaths from Polonium poisoning, including Irene Curie, were accidental. See Follow the Polonium *** Litvinenko was in contact with Polonium 210 long before he entered the hospital in November. According to one of his associates in Moscow, material he received from Litvinenko in the summer of 2006 proved to be Polonium-tainted. (The date of the Polonium contamination can be determined by spectrographic analysis.) In any case, he was certainly in contact with Polonium 210 in Mid-October. *** Polonium 210 leaks. In London alone over 100 people were accidentally contaminated by the Polonium 210 that killed Litvinenko, including 3 of Litvinenko's associates. Litvinko could have been contaminated by the same spillage.Drawback: *** It is not probable that spilled Polonium 210 would get into food or drink. Retort: Isn't murder by Polonium 210 also improbable? THE SECOND QUESTION: WHO (IF ANYONE) DID IT? I. Vladimir Putin Proponent: Marina Litvinenko (J'Accuse in Wall Street Journal). Thesis: Putin personally ordered an agonizing death for Litvinenko. Selling points: ***- Litvinenko accused Putin on his death bed ***- Putin had a motive for vengeance: Litvinenko accused Putin of being a pedophile ***- Putin had access to the Sarov facility, where Polonium 210 is manufactured.Drawback: ***- The leak of Polonium 210 was not necessarily authorized by President Putin. The security of Russia's nuclear facilities has been breached many times before. Even nuclear suitcase bombs,
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
Actually, as far as I understand, ALL aspects of human behavior, personality and temperament are ENTIRELY the outcome of genetic factors. Genetic factors being understood here as that which puts together a human being. All its saying is that we are who/what we are. You seem to be leaning towards the pop version of current science which has embued mass consciousness with the notion that certain genes cause certain things. Genes don't by and large cause anything, certainly not behavior, individual or collective. Genes encode proteins. With some variations (hence, Darwinism) we all react/behave/respond roughly the same (whether as individuals, and moreso as groups) to the same stuff. And those variations (see Lewontin) are more pronounced within populations than between them. So Sean and Jean and Bean McBride are more likely to have differing outlooks on ethnicities and levels of xenophobia than any of them is compared to a random other anywhere on the globe. What does any of this have to do with some supposed genetic theory of Jewish behavior, a la Macdonald? Nothing. He's making it up as he goes along. But, you may argue, arent there things like Tay Sachs, and sickle cell disease, real life physical differences tied to certain populations? Yup, and they are complex and interesting, and have zero to do with Macdonald's claptrap. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It might well be -- I wouldn't be surprised to discover that most aspects of human behavior, personality and temperament are strongly influenced by genetic factors. Why should this be so difficult to believe? Why are some fruit flies more adventurous, more possessed of the pioneering spirit, than others? Well, behavioral geneticists have been able to identify the precise genes which produce the Christopher Columbus personality type among fruit flies. Why are tigers more aggressive than rabbits? Did they learn the behavior from a book? Can human beings overcome genetic predispositions through cultural conditioning and will power? Probably to some degree. But we may all be on rather short leashes. There is something about extreme xenophobia that is strongly suggestive of obsessive-compulsive disorders -- I'm betting on a genetic origin for the mindset. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean Is your opposition to ethnocentrism linked genetic factors? Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I read New Scientist, Science, Nature and Scientific American regularly, and my impression is that there is a major trend in the scientific world linking human behavior and personality traits with genetic factors. You haven't noticed this? Do you disagree? This area of research could prove to be most revolutionary scientific movement in human history to date. If genetic factors play an important role in influencing ethnic conflicts and wars, shouldn't we try to figure this out? I am especially curious to know why some people seem to be much more ethnocentric in their outlook on the world than others -- there is something obsessive-compulsive about their behavior which suggests a genetic origin. I wouldn't be the least surprised if scientists discover a human xenophobia gene, or a complex of genes which produce personality traits like tribalism and xenophobia. (One can use content analysis to measure the relative ethnocentrism of individuals and groups -- simply keep track of how many times they mention their ethnic enemies.) tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: tim_howells_1000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These are areas where the general public has moved far ahead of academia. Most people are very comfortable now with the idea that there are genetic and biological bases for human behavior, and accept this as established fact (quite appropriately in my view). Not so in academia, where there are still howls of outrage over such ideas. Much of the outrage over MacDonald's work is par for the course for anyone who accepts these simple facts of life. The reason for this major disconnect is obvious. If you follow through with these ideas what seems to emerge is a biological and evolutionary basis for tribalism, ethnocentrism, and racism. Everyone thinks immediately of Nazi Germany and the gas chambers, and thinks that we are moving perilously close to a scientific justification. Very understandable that the mind would just shut down at that point! Tim Howells RESPONSE More examples of Tim's demagoguery. Why would I give a hoot is the general public accepts genetic theories of human behavior or not? These are issues of science, not public opinion. Quite a few million people believe the Apocalypse will occur, as written. Should this be given equal time in cosmology journals? Tim, you give away your pseudoscientific
Re: [political-research] Behavioral Genetics (Searching for Genes that Explain Our Personalities)
Actually, I very much consider the American Psychological Association to be on the fringe, at least scientifically speaking. I'm not a science worshipper, and find plenty problematic with Big Science, but no one in the scientific community would consider the APA terribly relevant to scientific concerns or research, except maybe wonks in Big Pharma, to the extent that the APA can help them push Prozac. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Behavioral genetics is very mainstream these days -- unless you consider the American Psychological Association to be on the fringe.] http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep02/genes.html APA Monitor on Psychology Volume 33, No. 8 September 2002 APA forms working group on genetics research issues Members of the BSA working group Searching for genes that explain our personalities Identifying such genes could eliminate the distinction psychologists make between personality and psychopathology. BY BETH AZAR Finding any real personality genes is decades away. But researchers have a good start. In fact, more researchers are jumping into the complex fray of behavioral genetics each year, fueled by the hope that identifying genes related to personality traits will not only help them better understand what makes people tick but also what goes wrong when normal ticking turns pathological. The goal is to discover genes that affect brain functions that in turn affect how people interact with their environments. The research is slowed by the complexity of the search: Many genes are responsible for various aspects of people's temperament, and those genes appear to interact with each other in complicated ways that influence several traits at once--and then likely only in very subtle ways, with any one gene likely accounting for only 1 or 2 percent of the variance in a trait. Researchers do, however, believe that their work will eventually pay off and they'll have a new, more comprehensive, understanding of personality and psychopathology as well as the complex play between genes and environment in shaping personality. Progress to date Scientists have a strong foundation for their search for personality genes from the years of basic psychology and neuroscience studies that have explored just exactly what personality is and how personality-related behaviors might be influenced by specific neural mechanisms. And although researchers still debate exactly how to define personality, they have identified certain core personality dimensions that are consistent across cultures, including novelty-seeking, neuroticism and agreeableness. Intriguing to people has been research in animals and humans that links certain neurotransmitters with some of these dimensions or traits. For example, many studies have found a connection between high levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine and behaviors related to novelty-seeking. That gives researchers a place to start looking--genes related to dopamine--among the nearly 50,000 in the human genome. To date, there are only two real candidate genes that anyone speaks of with any confidence. The first potential link is between some behaviors related to the Big-Five trait novelty-seeking and a gene that produces the protein responsible for creating a dopamine receptor called DRD4. While some studies have failed to replicate this connection, others have identified a link between the DRD4 gene and other traits linked to novelty-seeking, such as drug abuse and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. The indication is that this gene--or perhaps some other gene related to it--may influence all these interrelated characteristics. The second candidate--linked to the Big Five trait neuroticism--is commonly called the Prozac gene because it produces a protein related to the neurotransmitter serotonin. Also known as the serotonin transporter gene or 5-HTTLPR, it has the strongest evidence linking it to neuroticism and other anxiety-related traits, such as harm avoidance. Even so, the gene appears to account for only about 1 to 2 percent of the variance for these traits, says National Cancer Institute molecular biologist Dean Hamer, PhD, one of the first scientists to search for personality genes. If that's as good as it gets, he says, everything else is likely worse. That means perhaps hundreds of genes influence each of our personality traits ever so slightly. In fact, the work is so difficult from a molecular biology point of view, Hamer is all but abandoning it. After 10 years or so, it's quite clear to me that at least for most traits there are a very large number of genes involved, he says. The only area he'll continue working on is sexual orientation. There he feels there's a better chance of finding just a few key genes. Blurring lines between 'normal' and pathological The difficulty of the work isn't stopping others who anticipate the promise of a greater
Re: [political-research] Behavioral Genetics (Searching for Genes that Explain Our Personalities)
Ok -- what's wrong with this particular article? tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, I very much consider the American Psychological Association to be on the fringe, at least scientifically speaking. I'm not a science worshipper, and find plenty problematic with Big Science, but no one in the scientific community would consider the APA terribly relevant to scientific concerns or research, except maybe wonks in Big Pharma, to the extent that the APA can help them push Prozac. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Behavioral genetics is very mainstream these days -- unless you consider the American Psychological Association to be on the fringe.] http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep02/genes.html APA Monitor on Psychology Volume 33, No. 8 September 2002 APA forms working group on genetics research issues Members of the BSA working group Searching for genes that explain our personalities Identifying such genes could eliminate the distinction psychologists make between personality and psychopathology. BY BETH AZAR Finding any real personality genes is decades away. But researchers have a good start. In fact, more researchers are jumping into the complex fray of behavioral genetics each year, fueled by the hope that identifying genes related to personality traits will not only help them better understand what makes people tick but also what goes wrong when normal ticking turns pathological. The goal is to discover genes that affect brain functions that in turn affect how people interact with their environments. The research is slowed by the complexity of the search: Many genes are responsible for various aspects of people's temperament, and those genes appear to interact with each other in complicated ways that influence several traits at once--and then likely only in very subtle ways, with any one gene likely accounting for only 1 or 2 percent of the variance in a trait. Researchers do, however, believe that their work will eventually pay off and they'll have a new, more comprehensive, understanding of personality and psychopathology as well as the complex play between genes and environment in shaping personality. Progress to date Scientists have a strong foundation for their search for personality genes from the years of basic psychology and neuroscience studies that have explored just exactly what personality is and how personality-related behaviors might be influenced by specific neural mechanisms. And although researchers still debate exactly how to define personality, they have identified certain core personality dimensions that are consistent across cultures, including novelty-seeking, neuroticism and agreeableness. Intriguing to people has been research in animals and humans that links certain neurotransmitters with some of these dimensions or traits. For example, many studies have found a connection between high levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine and behaviors related to novelty-seeking. That gives researchers a place to start looking--genes related to dopamine--among the nearly 50,000 in the human genome. To date, there are only two real candidate genes that anyone speaks of with any confidence. The first potential link is between some behaviors related to the Big-Five trait novelty-seeking and a gene that produces the protein responsible for creating a dopamine receptor called DRD4. While some studies have failed to replicate this connection, others have identified a link between the DRD4 gene and other traits linked to novelty-seeking, such as drug abuse and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. The indication is that this gene--or perhaps some other gene related to it--may influence all these interrelated characteristics. The second candidate--linked to the Big Five trait neuroticism--is commonly called the Prozac gene because it produces a protein related to the neurotransmitter serotonin. Also known as the serotonin transporter gene or 5-HTTLPR, it has the strongest evidence linking it to neuroticism and other anxiety-related traits, such as harm avoidance. Even so, the gene appears to account for only about 1 to 2 percent of the variance for these traits, says National Cancer Institute molecular biologist Dean Hamer, PhD, one of the first scientists to search for personality genes. If that's as good as it gets, he says, everything else is likely worse. That means perhaps hundreds of genes influence each of our personality traits ever so slightly. In fact, the work is so difficult from a molecular biology point of view, Hamer is all but abandoning it. After 10 years or so, it's quite clear to me that at least for most traits there are a very large number of genes involved, he says. The only area he'll continue working on is sexual orientation. There he feels there's a better chance of finding just a few key genes. Blurring lines between
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Elucidate: you are saying that there is a genetic basis for diseases like Tay-Sachs and sickle cell anemia among certain ethnic groups, but there is a not a genetic basis for mental and personality traits among certain groups? Do I misunderstand you? REPLY You understand perfectly. How does the reality a genetic basis for Tay-Sachs or sickle cell anemia translate into there being a genetic basis for mental and personality traits among certain groups. That is so illogical as to not even qualify as bad science (or, as some science nerds say, it not even wrong. note also, in your statment, you are positing that there ARE mental and personality traits among certain groups. Sez who? Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course one can Google up many thousands of solid and reputable scientific articles exploring the genetic basis of mind, personality and culture -- right? Do I need to Google up all the cites here, or do you acknowledge this? REPLY Actually, if youre talking about serious research on a genetic basis for any of those things among a specific group, no, I dont acknowledge it. Google away. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With regard to MacDonald: this discussion would be much more meaningful to me if you and Tim anchored your disagreements around particular direct quotes from MacDonald. REPLY Quotes mean nothing to me; I'm not interested in a textual analysis of someone claiming to be doing science. I'm interested in proof of their scientific claims. Macdonald has zero. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In general, I find MacDonald, even in his white ethnic nationalist mode, to be less offensive and dangerous than militant Jewish ethnic nationalists like David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes, who have access to the mainstream media. REPLY Sean, if you can consider a white fascist like Macdonald--who represents the dominant ethnic group in America to be less dangerous than ideologues who happen to be member of a tiny minority group, and who (please try to wrap your brain around this) do not speak for that minority group (Jews), then I dont know what to tell ya. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you actually compared MacDonald's language to their hate speech against Muslims? I know naked incitement to genocide when I see it. The Israeli government and the Israel lobby are not only permitting this kind of hate speech among pro-Israel extremists in America, but are actively encouraging it. REPLY The vast majority of hate speech (and violence) against Muslims is committed by non-Jews (including fellow Muslims). Coming in a distant third are the Zionists. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MacDonald is strictly small change compared to this xenophobic political machine, in terms of representing an immediate extremist threat to humanity. And he has the virtue of being much smarter than Horowitz and Pipes. The neocons are uniformly the dumbest group of pseudo-intellectuals on the American scene, pure agitprop bots. REPLY Make up your mind. The neocons have held power for a decade; Macdonald is, you claim, small change. Whose the dummy? Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I strongly condemn, it goes without saying, attempts by anyone to use MacDonald's writings to stir up hatred against Jews or any other ethnic groups, or to use them to violate the civil rights of anyone. REPLY Disingenuous. MacDonald's writings ARE hatred against Jews. - Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
Re: [political-research] Behavioral Genetics (Searching for Genes that Explain Our Personalities)
There's nothing wrong with the article, any more than there is nothing wrong with an article with an article from 2002 promoting a new rock group that's being touted as the next supergroup, but which winds out disappearing from public view within a few years. Same with the attempts by Hamer discussed in the APA article--it just never panned out, an in fact has hit a brick wall, although silly press hype about Hamer's work at the time (Gay gene found!!) were not really Hamer's fault. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok -- what's wrong with this particular article? tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, I very much consider the American Psychological Association to be on the fringe, at least scientifically speaking. I'm not a science worshipper, and find plenty problematic with Big Science, but no one in the scientific community would consider the APA terribly relevant to scientific concerns or research, except maybe wonks in Big Pharma, to the extent that the APA can help them push Prozac. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Behavioral genetics is very mainstream these days -- unless you consider the American Psychological Association to be on the fringe.] http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep02/genes.html APA Monitor on Psychology Volume 33, No. 8 September 2002 APA forms working group on genetics research issues Members of the BSA working group Searching for genes that explain our personalities Identifying such genes could eliminate the distinction psychologists make between personality and psychopathology. BY BETH AZAR Finding any real personality genes is decades away. But researchers have a good start. In fact, more researchers are jumping into the complex fray of behavioral genetics each year, fueled by the hope that identifying genes related to personality traits will not only help them better understand what makes people tick but also what goes wrong when normal ticking turns pathological. The goal is to discover genes that affect brain functions that in turn affect how people interact with their environments. The research is slowed by the complexity of the search: Many genes are responsible for various aspects of people's temperament, and those genes appear to interact with each other in complicated ways that influence several traits at once--and then likely only in very subtle ways, with any one gene likely accounting for only 1 or 2 percent of the variance in a trait. Researchers do, however, believe that their work will eventually pay off and they'll have a new, more comprehensive, understanding of personality and psychopathology as well as the complex play between genes and environment in shaping personality. Progress to date Scientists have a strong foundation for their search for personality genes from the years of basic psychology and neuroscience studies that have explored just exactly what personality is and how personality-related behaviors might be influenced by specific neural mechanisms. And although researchers still debate exactly how to define personality, they have identified certain core personality dimensions that are consistent across cultures, including novelty-seeking, neuroticism and agreeableness. Intriguing to people has been research in animals and humans that links certain neurotransmitters with some of these dimensions or traits. For example, many studies have found a connection between high levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine and behaviors related to novelty-seeking. That gives researchers a place to start looking--genes related to dopamine--among the nearly 50,000 in the human genome. To date, there are only two real candidate genes that anyone speaks of with any confidence. The first potential link is between some behaviors related to the Big-Five trait novelty-seeking and a gene that produces the protein responsible for creating a dopamine receptor called DRD4. While some studies have failed to replicate this connection, others have identified a link between the DRD4 gene and other traits linked to novelty-seeking, such as drug abuse and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. The indication is that this gene--or perhaps some other gene related to it--may influence all these interrelated characteristics. The second candidate--linked to the Big Five trait neuroticism--is commonly called the Prozac gene because it produces a protein related to the neurotransmitter serotonin. Also known as the serotonin transporter gene or 5-HTTLPR, it has the strongest evidence linking it to neuroticism and other anxiety-related traits, such as harm avoidance. Even so, the gene appears to account for only about 1 to 2 percent of the variance for these traits, says National Cancer Institute molecular biologist Dean Hamer, PhD, one of the first scientists to search for personality genes. If that's
Re: [political-research] Behavioral Genetics (Searching for Genes that Explain Our Personalities)
Behavioral genetics is yesterday's flash in the pan rock star? I doubt it. There is a huge momentum in this field that will carry it forward for decades and centuries to come. It is possible that we will learn how to program life forms with the same skill that we now create computer programs. In fact, all life forms may essentially be tweakable computer programs. There is tremendous excitement about this field at elite universities and research centers all around the world -- many of the best minds are attracted to it. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's nothing wrong with the article, any more than there is nothing wrong with an article with an article from 2002 promoting a new rock group that's being touted as the next supergroup, but which winds out disappearing from public view within a few years. Same with the attempts by Hamer discussed in the APA article--it just never panned out, an in fact has hit a brick wall, although silly press hype about Hamer's work at the time (Gay gene found!!) were not really Hamer's fault. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok -- what's wrong with this particular article? tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, I very much consider the American Psychological Association to be on the fringe, at least scientifically speaking. I'm not a science worshipper, and find plenty problematic with Big Science, but no one in the scientific community would consider the APA terribly relevant to scientific concerns or research, except maybe wonks in Big Pharma, to the extent that the APA can help them push Prozac. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Behavioral genetics is very mainstream these days -- unless you consider the American Psychological Association to be on the fringe.] http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep02/genes.html APA Monitor on Psychology Volume 33, No. 8 September 2002 APA forms working group on genetics research issues Members of the BSA working group Searching for genes that explain our personalities Identifying such genes could eliminate the distinction psychologists make between personality and psychopathology. BY BETH AZAR Finding any real personality genes is decades away. But researchers have a good start. In fact, more researchers are jumping into the complex fray of behavioral genetics each year, fueled by the hope that identifying genes related to personality traits will not only help them better understand what makes people tick but also what goes wrong when normal ticking turns pathological. The goal is to discover genes that affect brain functions that in turn affect how people interact with their environments. The research is slowed by the complexity of the search: Many genes are responsible for various aspects of people's temperament, and those genes appear to interact with each other in complicated ways that influence several traits at once--and then likely only in very subtle ways, with any one gene likely accounting for only 1 or 2 percent of the variance in a trait. Researchers do, however, believe that their work will eventually pay off and they'll have a new, more comprehensive, understanding of personality and psychopathology as well as the complex play between genes and environment in shaping personality. Progress to date Scientists have a strong foundation for their search for personality genes from the years of basic psychology and neuroscience studies that have explored just exactly what personality is and how personality-related behaviors might be influenced by specific neural mechanisms. And although researchers still debate exactly how to define personality, they have identified certain core personality dimensions that are consistent across cultures, including novelty-seeking, neuroticism and agreeableness. Intriguing to people has been research in animals and humans that links certain neurotransmitters with some of these dimensions or traits. For example, many studies have found a connection between high levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine and behaviors related to novelty-seeking. That gives researchers a place to start looking--genes related to dopamine--among the nearly 50,000 in the human genome. To date, there are only two real candidate genes that anyone speaks of with any confidence. The first potential link is between some behaviors related to the Big-Five trait novelty-seeking and a gene that produces the protein responsible for creating a dopamine receptor called DRD4. While some studies have failed to replicate this connection, others have identified a link between the DRD4 gene and other traits linked to novelty-seeking, such as drug abuse and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. The indication is that this gene--or perhaps some other gene related to it--may influence all these interrelated
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
[begin quote] Sean, if you can consider a white fascist like Macdonald--who represents the dominant ethnic group in America to be less dangerous than ideologues who happen to be member of a tiny minority group, and who (please try to wrap your brain around this) do not speak for that minority group (Jews), then I dont know what to tell ya. [end quote] Jewish ethnic nationalism (Zionism) has been embraced by the Jewish mainstream in America, which is an enormously influential group in the mainstream media and in the Republican and Democratic Parties. European ethnic groups in American have rejected white ethnic nationalism on largely moral (as well as practical) grounds. Kevin MacDonald, whose rhetoric is temperate compared to mainstream Jewish ethnic nationalists, is not being supported by the white ethnic mainstream in America. Jewish ethnic extremists like Avigdor Lieberman, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, Daniel Pipes, Richard Perle and David Horowitz ARE being supported by the Jewish political mainstream (including AIPAC, the American Jewish Committee, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and similar groups). The double standards on these issues are flagrant and unsustainable over the long run. We are already seeing the beginnings of a major backlash. If you want to pretend these developments aren't occurring, be my guest. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Elucidate: you are saying that there is a genetic basis for diseases like Tay-Sachs and sickle cell anemia among certain ethnic groups, but there is a not a genetic basis for mental and personality traits among certain groups? Do I misunderstand you? REPLY You understand perfectly. How does the reality a genetic basis for Tay-Sachs or sickle cell anemia translate into there being a genetic basis for mental and personality traits among certain groups. That is so illogical as to not even qualify as bad science (or, as some science nerds say, it not even wrong. note also, in your statment, you are positing that there ARE mental and personality traits among certain groups. Sez who? Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course one can Google up many thousands of solid and reputable scientific articles exploring the genetic basis of mind, personality and culture -- right? Do I need to Google up all the cites here, or do you acknowledge this? REPLY Actually, if youre talking about serious research on a genetic basis for any of those things among a specific group, no, I dont acknowledge it. Google away. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With regard to MacDonald: this discussion would be much more meaningful to me if you and Tim anchored your disagreements around particular direct quotes from MacDonald. REPLY Quotes mean nothing to me; I'm not interested in a textual analysis of someone claiming to be doing science. I'm interested in proof of their scientific claims. Macdonald has zero. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In general, I find MacDonald, even in his white ethnic nationalist mode, to be less offensive and dangerous than militant Jewish ethnic nationalists like David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes, who have access to the mainstream media. REPLY Sean, if you can consider a white fascist like Macdonald--who represents the dominant ethnic group in America to be less dangerous than ideologues who happen to be member of a tiny minority group, and who (please try to wrap your brain around this) do not speak for that minority group (Jews), then I dont know what to tell ya. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you actually compared MacDonald's language to their hate speech against Muslims? I know naked incitement to genocide when I see it. The Israeli government and the Israel lobby are not only permitting this kind of hate speech among pro-Israel extremists in America, but are actively encouraging it. REPLY The vast majority of hate speech (and violence) against Muslims is committed by non-Jews (including fellow Muslims). Coming in a distant third are the Zionists. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MacDonald is strictly small change compared to this xenophobic political machine, in terms of representing an immediate extremist threat to humanity. And he has the virtue of being much smarter than Horowitz and Pipes. The neocons are uniformly the dumbest group of pseudo-intellectuals on the American scene, pure agitprop bots. REPLY Make up your mind. The neocons have held power for a decade; Macdonald is, you claim, small change. Whose the dummy? Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I strongly condemn, it goes without saying, attempts by anyone to use MacDonald's writings to stir up hatred against Jews or any other ethnic groups, or to use them to violate the civil rights of anyone. REPLY Disingenuous. MacDonald's
Re: [political-research] Re: The Root Cause of Anti-Semitism
You're extremely emotional about Jewish subjects, aren't you. For instance, do you find discussion about the role of the Israel lobby in dominatingAmerican Mideast policy, and helping to create a foreign policy catastrophe in Iraq, to be personally threatening? One definitely gets that impression. Your ducking and weaving on this subject is quite reminiscent of the evasive tactics of the neocons themselves, who are chronically incapable of accepting responsibility for their mistakes and bad judgment. If AIPAC doesn't express of the views of the Jewish establishment in American politics -- the very same lobby which is the only lobby which is agitating to expand the Iraq War to Iran -- which organization does express the views of the Jewish establishment? Why hasn't the Jewish majority in the United States been able to exert any significant influence on AIPAC? When Colin Powell blamed the JINSA crowd (persons associated with the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) for the Iraq War, did he know what he was talking about? He was, after all, secretary of state in the administration which launched the war. Was Powell expressing an anti-Semitic viewpoint or simply telling the truth about what happened from his standpoint as a high-level government insider? When Wesley Clark singled out the New York money people (the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations) as the driving force behind an Iran War, did Clark know what he was talking about? Is Clark an anti-Semite? Perhaps the JDL will start threatening Powell and Clark, in the same way that Lewis Libby supporters issued terrorist threats to Reggie Walton and his family. There is a certain unmistakable drift to events here, and it is a familiar historical pattern which just won't seem to go away. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most Jews havent a clue who Avigdor Lieberman, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, Daniel Pipes, Richard Perle and David Horowitz are. Most polls put mainstream Jewish attitudes as being quite antithetical to what these particular largely unknown Jewish leaders espouse. It seems to me the people who seem to have the most interest in these individuals are either the fringe hard core Zionist right wing, or anti-Semites. Likewise, few people know who Kevin Macdonald is. You seem to have trouble distinguishing between the hard core Zionist right wing, and a basic belief in and support of the right of a few million Jews in Israel to live in safety. Many of us Jews, in the west and in Israel, can entertain the notion of supporting Palestinian rights (Ive militantly supported it for decades) while still maintaining an ability to distinguish various trends within the Jewish community, within Zionism, within Jewish-American politics and the like, without the sort cognitive dissonance that results in the sort of knee jerk, simple minded stereotypes of Jews--replete with vast overgeneralizations of Jewish influence that I'm seeing on this list. Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [begin quote] Sean, if you can consider a white fascist like Macdonald--who represents the dominant ethnic group in America to be less dangerous than ideologues who happen to be member of a tiny minority group, and who (please try to wrap your brain around this) do not speak for that minority group (Jews), then I dont know what to tell ya. [end quote] Jewish ethnic nationalism (Zionism) has been embraced by the Jewish mainstream in America, which is an enormously influential group in the mainstream media and in the Republican and Democratic Parties. European ethnic groups in American have rejected white ethnic nationalism on largely moral (as well as practical) grounds. Kevin MacDonald, whose rhetoric is temperate compared to mainstream Jewish ethnic nationalists, is not being supported by the white ethnic mainstream in America. Jewish ethnic extremists like Avigdor Lieberman, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, Daniel Pipes, Richard Perle and David Horowitz ARE being supported by the Jewish political mainstream (including AIPAC, the American Jewish Committee, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and similar groups). The double standards on these issues are flagrant and unsustainable over the long run. We are already seeing the beginnings of a major backlash. If you want to pretend these developments aren't occurring, be my guest. tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Elucidate: you are saying that there is a genetic basis for diseases like Tay-Sachs and sickle cell anemia among certain ethnic groups, but there is a not a genetic basis for mental and personality traits among certain groups? Do I misunderstand you? REPLY You understand perfectly. How does the reality a
Re: [political-research] Washington Times
If white ethnic nationalists had heavily infiltrated the White House, and if George W. Bush was a white ethnic nationalist, this article might be scary. But they haven't. Instead, George W. Bush is a Christian Zionist, and neocons (Jewish ethnic nationalists) have heavily infiltrated the White House and set the United States on a path of self-destructive murder and mayhem in the Middle East, creating the worst foreign policy catastrophe in American history. Priorities, my good fellow, priorities. Not all threats are equal. Michael Pugliese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://georgearchibald.typepad.com/george_archibald/2007/04/06/index.html -- Michael Pugliese
