E O Wilson 1978 On Human Nature
Review by 'Rerevisionist' 27 August 2015'Sociobiology' was completely misunderstood. 'Human Nature' is just another Jewish propaganda worldview, for the Post-1960s Era. It is not science! Apparently written by a simple insect man.
I'd assumed this is a serious scientific work; such is the poor quality of modern reviewing. In fact it's painfully weak; in the process of reading it, I realised it's simply another part of the Jewish imposition of their ridiculous worldview. Let me start with an overview: my copy is a tatty small format mass market book published by Bantam, no doubt owned by Jews. The copyright statement is © President and Fellows of Harvard College, rather than Edward Osborne Wilson (born 1929) FMLS. (Whatever that is; a statement somewhere says he was 'curator of entomology'). The book 'won' a Pulitzer Prize, a sort of guarantee of kosherness; royalties presumably to Harvard. Part of the short cover blurb is 'hope must derive from a new scientific understanding of what it means to be human'. And it says, with splendid ignorance of the power of language and media, 'altruism, morality, religion, even love—are merely the survival strategies of our "selfish" genes ...'
On Human Nature is in roughly ten parts: 1 Dilemma/ 2 Heredity/ 3 Development/ 4 Emergence/ 5 Aggression/ 6 Sex/ 7 Altruism/ 8 Religion/ 9 Hope/ Glossary, Endnotes, Index.
To situate this book in time and place, remember E. O. Wilson grew up in the Truman/ Eisenhower era. Eisenhower thought he was a Jew; I haven't checked on Truman, but he certainly was a Jewish pawn. They assisted Stalin in the post-1945 continuing attacks on Germany, for resisting Jews, and the post-1945 support for Jews in the USSR, which was achieved (in my opinion) by the Jewish-controlled pretence of 'nuclear weapons' and 'Cold War'. Kennedy seems to have been less of a Jewish pawn; unfortunately was murdered in 1963, when E O Wilson was aged early 30s, and Johnson slipped into place. The Jewish era consolidated with L B Johnson (1963-1969). The link surveys Jewish interests at the time: war, weapons, drugs, paper money, ruining blacks in the USA, and the 'Civil Rights Act' as a muffler of free speech. The 'Holocaust' fraud gained momentum; Johnson (a full Jew on both sides, I'm told) supported Israel with the attack on the 'Liberty'. It was necessary for U.S. home consumption to suppress US war crimes since 1941 as well as USSR genocide of whites, and war crimes; in fact 'brainwashing' was an invention to deflect from US war crimes in Korea for Jewish media propagation. There was considerable unrest, managed usually by Jews, about US genocide in Vietnam: there's now a whole industry of pretending the 1960s were a cause rather than effect. Anyway, Nixon (1969-1974), Ford (1974-1977), and then Carter (President 1977-1981) buried the issue rather than face it. Carter "forgave America".
Jewish liars planned out a new scheme of future fakes, mostly based on simple lies, in the Jewish manner: pretended environmental concerns (after chemical warfare etc in Vietnam), pretence of interest in 'human rights', removal of the death penalty except for opponents of Jews, abortion, increased anti-white activity, training of a generation of worthless historians of the 'Professor Evans' type in Britain, and academic controls to hide criticisms of Jews in finance and financial history. Thus for example 'universal human rights'—'more refined human rights in the European-American sense'—are given a 'primary value'. Wilson is probably too stupid to see the ludicrous irony in this absurdity. Another exquisite irony is the avoidance of discussion of eugenics, even though he presumably knows natural selection is slow, cruel and tedious, and doesn't work with a technological society.
Darwinism is one of the most important generalisations about life ever made, and could not be suppressed entirely. There must have been casting about for Jew-friendly versions, designed to carry Jewish memes. Here's a link to Jewish phony psychologists—one typical line of 'research' was into the idea that Christians/whites were insanely cruel; another was into ways to crush opposition to race mixing. Even such a shrewd observer as Kevin MacDonald said there was an attack by Jews on Darwinism and Sociobiology, bracketing the two together as though they were similar. Sociobiology was largely based on the 'kinship' idea of sharing genes, despite its weaknesses, suggested I think by J B S Haldane in the 1930s, but usually attributed to William D Hamilton (in 1964). Sociobiogy: the New Synthesis based largely on ants, with a single chapter on human beings, came out in 1975. The Use and Abuse of Biology: An Anthropological Critique of Sociobiology by Marshall Sahlins (1976) was early opposition, looking at real-life people, though not I think developed civilisations. Dawkins' The Selfish Gene of 1976 was equally irrelevant to human beings. Dawkins wrote a chapter Sociobiology: The New Storm in a Teacup (1986) for a volume edited by the Steven Rose, yet another phoney Jewish scientist. It's interesting to note the censorship of evil obtains in many 'disciplines': I recall Atkins, of chemistry textbooks, getting excited over the fraud of the 'Holocaust', the simple old fool indifferent to millions burnt alive, killed by high explosives, suffering from birth defects, thanks to chemical engineers.
Two ideas flicker and surface throughout the book: one is determinism vs free will, which Wilson doesn't grasp: he can't understand that complete determinism is consistent with all life, though it can't possibly have much predictive value, as the world is much too complex. The other is evolution, which Wilson also doesn't grasp anything like fully. This may seem an odd claim to make; but here are four examples. 1. Insects have an elaborate lifecycle, with eggs, larvae, pupae, and the 'perfect insect'. How can this have evolved, and how did many insects become social? 2. 'Natural selection has been broadened to include kin selection'. (In Altruism, discussing social insects). But of course it's not 'broadened' at all. 3. Wilson doesn't seem to have a theory of gene pools, tho he's aware that any individual after n generations must have had 2^n ancestors to that point. He's aware the contributions presumably become vanishingly small, but nevertheless has no way to fix a point where one odd ancestor's influence terminates. 4. He has no genetic rationale for the existence of sex, i.e. what reasons might there be for two parents being better than one.
Ideas are one thing; the way they are presented is another. Wilson's writing style needs to be outlined here. It's reminiscent of many writers on evolution who are religious, or evasive: Dobzhansky (if I remember correctly...) is that type. Wilson's style also reminds me of Marshall McLuhan's, with strings of short dubious assertions, mixed with longer, vague, but equally dubious assertions. Many of the assertions are endnoted; the sources are mostly heavily-promoted, but not particularly good, books, often with then-current memes, such as the 'deep structure of religious belief' with a Chomskyesque feel, Dawkins' selfish gene, even the 'uncertainty principle'. So the result has a pub quiz quotation feeling: we have James Jones on 'the sheer excitement of battle' in WW2 (Altruism chapter); 'In The Denial of Death, Ernest Becker reminds us that the guru phenomenon is a device for surrendering the self to a powerful and benevolent force'. Of course it is! Ernest Jones and Erich Fromm are quoted, but not their chieftain Freud, possibly to avoid accusations of pseudo-scientific contagion which had started to surface about Freud.
Wilson's use of words has to be examined; how did he get away with this stuff? I have two theories here: 1. Neologisms. If something isn't understood, people may be impressed if you coin a new word; 'sociology', when new, illustrates the point. In Wilson's final chapter, on 'Hope', he looks forward to neurobiology, ethology, and sociobiology helping out; even if (among other things) the brain isn't understood. One of his conclusions is 'The principal task of human biology is to identify and to measure the constraints that influence the decisions of ethical philosophers and to everyone else, and to infer their significance through neurophysiological and phylogenetic reconstructions of the mind. ...' and no doubt 'ethical philosophers' were pleased.
Where actual content is needed, poor Wilson has no idea. Mankind, or parts of it, has lived in changed conditions for—well, how long? There have perhaps been agricultural ages, stone ages, bronze and iron ages; is there a helpful name for what's been happening? Modernity? Technology? Industrialism? Organisational Processes? Communication Revolution?
2. My second comment on Wilson's word structures is his use of fake continuisms. To illustrate, consider e.g. G M Trevelyan's English Social History: at one point 'We' were Britons, then 'We' were Romans, then 'We' were Angles and Saxons, then 'We' were Normans. The subject changes being elided away. In Wilson's case, 'We' were all Africans—it said so in Time magazine. Then 'We' survived the Arctic ice-cap. Then 'We' were largely in the Middle East, and then 'We' were 'Judaeo-Christian'. 'Slavery' is another type of continuism, where a word is applied to very different conditions: in the chapter on Emergence, we are told Orlando Paterson of Harvard made a 'systematic study of slave societies' and found 'true, formalized slavery passes through approximately the same cycle... [ending with] its destruction' (1977). Maybe; or, of course, maybe not, since slavery, caste, child labour, and conquered territories are with us still. 'War' is another example of Wilson's incompetence or insensitivity or indifference. 'Wars' may mean tribal fighting; Maoris, for example. Then Wilson casually mentions WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam as though the process is the same. This of course is in keeping with the Jewish worldview: a lot of goyim died, fortunately. Many goyim were shelled, burnt to death, shot, and so on, but Wilson states '.. a large percentage of ... Medals.. were awarded to men who threw themselves on top of grenades to comrades, aided the rescue of others ... at the cost of certain death [sic] ..' with almost ludicrous irrelevance, but full awareness of his simple audience.
At a lighter level, let's look at some of his chapters. On Sex, he says 'the processes of sexual pairbonding vary greatly... but are everywhere steeped in emotional feeling'. He appears to know nothing of (for example) women used as sex objects, for example in 'modern' Israel. As I've pointed out, he has no idea that sex, despite the emotional feeling, is a mechanism for two sets of genes to come into play: why should this be practically useful? He also copies other authors on crypsis in women, as opposed to many creatures, who have mating seasons. He doesn't seem to recognise other infinitely important forms of crypsis: I'll say more of these below.
On Religion, his opening sentence is a typical unsubstantiated assertion: 'The predisposition to religious belief is the most complex and powerful force in the human mind ...' One of his examples of religion is Neanderthals decorating a grave with seven species of flower. He has routine material on monotheism; he seems unaware of things like 'Muti'.. He gives a 'Mother' Teresa joke: she 'cares for the desperately poor of Calcutta ... lives a life of total poverty and grinding hard work'. Of course she does!
On Aggression, a popular topic at the time—I'd guess related to the US invasion and war crimes in Vietnam. (Wilson's references to 'genocide' are mostly from 1971, Pakistan and Bengal/Bangla Desh. I can only imagine he wanted to distance himself from Jewish 'Holocaust' claims). His Glossary gives his definition of aggression: 'Any physical act or threat of action by one individual that reduces the freedom or genetic fitness of another'. I wonder if shouting at someone is considered 'aggression'.
Wilson has a shotgun attitude to endnotes and sources: Robert Conquest and Sorokin rub shoulders with the considerably lesser Gilbert Ryle, A J Ayer, Antony Flew, John Keegan. Lists of names are dropped: the Huxleys, Waddington, Monod ... Vico, Marx, Spencer ... Bakunin... ending with Aeschylus' Prometheus at the end.
One of the omissions characteristic of propagandists is an absence of feeling for possibilities and likelihoods, and I attribute these omissions to lack of genuine interest in the topics. Why would a propagandist bother with more than a few facts? I could find no 'human nature' material on the need to eat, for water, for excretion, and bodily structure and the resulting constraints for example on movements. Wilson has little feeling for evolution in response to other evolutions: oxygen in the air after photosynthesis developed, grass eating animals after grasses evolved. But especially (after, on his only diagram, band, tribe, chiefdom, then) the complete absence of possibilities of co-operation and parasitism and exploitation, which language and information make possible in a way no other animal can rival. Wilson seems to have no feeling for the astronomical range of possible combinations: if a group of just ten males and 10 females form 10 couples, there are more than three and a half million combinations.
An interesting omission is crypsis, not of menstruating women, but of all types of human interaction. Consider for example secrecy of exams: it might be important to assess (say) black children, or overseas doctors, but completed exam papers are never made public, even anonymously. Consider secret family courts. More broadly, consider promises, treaties, contracts, secret clauses e.g. in immigration, legal ownership, legal documents, debts—all invisible to everyday observation, and yet hugely influential. Many examples of crypsis involve time: perhaps 'chronocrypsis' would be a useful neologism. Debts become due, information on populations can be secret. If minds could be read, social relationships would presumably be very different indeed. But Jews avoid discussions on these lines for reasons obvious enough to them: they want to keep their activities secret.
Darwinism has been explained as a 19th century projection of 'capitalism' and struggles for money into the natural world. Is there any similar interpretation, also omitting finance, of Wilson's Heredity and Emergence of Societies/ Aggression/ Sex/ Altruism/ Religion/ Hope? 'Altruism' seems an oddity: why not the reverse, presumably selfishness? I suspect his list comes indirectly from Talmudic sources, but adjusted to look less menacing. Wilson's list looks different from chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience, kindness, and humility. And different from possessive versus creative impulses, impulses versus conscious purpose, and vanity and love of possession, love of family, love of country. And different from prior patriotism and heroism and glory. As with Lewis Fry Richardson's attempts to identify what might make ideals, probably there's some cryptic rationale in Wilson's chapters. The complete absence of discussion on intelligence and skills must be significant!
Skimming through, we find Aaron Director's Law is that 'income in a society is distributed to the benefit of the class that controls the government. In the USA this is of course the middle class.' We find 'new species have been created in the laboratory'. We find Wilson expects computers with 'the memory capacity of a human being' despite the fact memory is not understood. We find he doesn't seem to know that in Islam, often enough many sons went to war with each other. Looking online, we might puzzle over his photos: a cabinet maker perhaps? A skilled mechanic? A cunning peasant? And we find a talk on TED in 2007—how we really must do something about greenhouse gases. Human nature appears to be variable; it may take a long time to understand people—after all, most people can't understand Jews. Nor do most people understand media propaganda.
Here are just a VERY FEW relevant reviews, most of them in this same page; click return arrow to come back here.
Anti-white movements among Jews were planned DURING the Second World War. I haven't reviewed Gunnar Myrdal's book (presumably the author was chosen on the same crypsis principle that 'Haagen Dazs' sounded good to Americans). However, here's a British equivalent, Rose (and other Jews): British Race Relations. On intelligence, here's a 'debate' of sorts between Eysenck & Kamin. J P Rushton's Race, Evolution, Behavior looks at large issues of race. Here's a book on British social workers, showing the fraudulent policies used to push the Jewish agenda: L Dominelli: Anti-Racist Social Work part of the whole process of censoring out lack of achievements by low-IQ blacks and others.
On Jews forcing immigration into white countries, K. B. MacDonald's Culture of Critique has almost achieved the status of a classic. Conway's Demographic History of Britain is a counter to the lies of Jewish journalists. Myles Harris's UK Asylum Policy gives accounts of legal profiteering. The use of bogus human rights legislation (it of course doesn't apply to victims of wars) Grayling: Struggles for Liberty & Rights. The abolition of capital punishment as a fake: Arthur Koestler: Hanged by the Neck.
Hilaire Belloc's The Jews is a 1920s book surveying Jews in an objective way. However, like almost all commentators, Belloc excludes 'Jewish' writings: Carol Valentine put the Talmud in English translation on the web; Michael A. Hoffmann II is the only other serious researcher known to me. Wise's DVD The Greatest Story Never Told gives some idea of the truths behind the Second World War. Bertrand Russell's War Crimes in Vietnam is an introduction to post-1945 Jewish methods, though Russell was a lifelong dupe of Jews, as are a great many modern 'thinkers'. On the crypsis of lies and deception, here's a review of Noam Chomsky's Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, in which Chomsky, the old fraud, omits vast structures of lies.