We will leave this running. We may approve comments. But we are done writing Editorials.
Analogously, the product cycle has completed and it is time to move on to the next.
Now, we will not abandon the Free Media Productions domain.
We feel that we made all the points we needed to make. We have developed all our theories. Now we can do something else with our time.
If we keep writing more of these, all the other Editorials will get buried beneath them. I think we are at a good point to stop. Just like every few years Console Manufactures, cpu designers, graphics card makers etc. decide to stop manufacturing the current line and move to the next.
it is time. If we keep going, we no longer have any real theories to develop and we will just bury the previous content. We may go back and improve, grammatically edit and maintain older articles.
Free Media Productions Staff @ May 12, 2012
Back in the days before genetic studies, the process of how to measure what a race is and is not was clear. It involved precise measurements of the structure of the bones.
Many casual and informal posters on anthro boards take advantage of the fact that now our process is more confusing. They claim that “the latest research supports their findings” and count on the fact that the average person will be too confused to actually understand it.
The fact of the matter is that understanding the implications of SNP Markers / Autosomal DNA / Y Chromosomes / MT-DNA and exactly what they mean is more confusing than it was in the old days when it was based on a ruler. And so many informal posters count on the fact that their audience cannot force them to verify their claims and thus claim whatever they want to.
I was very careful in writing my previous article to point out that even if the number of races in existence that I alluded to are wrong, that races should be defined based on a repeatable, consistent and impartial process. Thus even if we miscalculated, the proper move then is to calculate properly and not to then conclude that race is “whatever I want it to be.” So even if there are in fact six races or four races instead of five, the reason for making that argument should be based on a mechanical and reproducible process and not based on politics. (Now you can see how I have studied a lot about process and procedures, I do have a background in using computers to build business processes so do not be surprised!)
The bottom line is that once you take this view, the odds of Jews being “a race separate from humanity” or “genetic drift stopping in Europe” are as close to Zero as you can get. Even if all Jews were identical twins, they still would not be external to the grouping which humanity can impartially be divided into.
Metal Gear @ May 12, 2012
A casual comment : Read what I actually say before you try to refute what I say! I am not arguing that Jews are simply people who converted from all over Europe and the Middle East without a standard pattern. There is a pattern, but it does not constitute a race. If your read this carefully, I am not arguing that typical Jews do not have a genetic signature, but I am saying they are not a race or non-white. I am referring to Jews who do not have any recent converts in their family line. I am aware that you can test someone’s DNA and forensically examine evidence that they are probably Jewish, but you can do the same thing to find that someone is of French ancestry and not German as my links below will prove.
(Another Note: I do not think this applies just to Jews, but also to Arabs and North Africans. They are not “races” either. they tend to be part of the greater Caucasoid race centered around the Mediterranean sea. However Jews without recent converts, both Ashkenazi and Sephardic, cluster near Southern Europeans and they cluster further away from Arabs and Israeli Geneticists AND White Nationalists never admit this! Ashkenazi Jews also have levels of Eastern European admixture, but it is not the majority of the ancestry.)
“We were surprised to find evidence that Ashkenazi Jews have higher heterozygosity than Europeans, contradicting the widely-held presumption that they have been a largely isolated group,” says first author Steven Bray, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in Warren’s laboratory.
“The division of the Caucasoid stock into Europids and non-Europids is a totally arbitrary division. The Caucasoid race has local types in both Europe, Asia and Africa, and these blend into each other whenever the natural environment presents no obstacles. There are (in particular) no obstacles that separate Europe from West Asia, or Central Asia. To claim that a magical line that separates Europids from non-Europids can be drawn is to (automatically) give “peripheral” Europid status to the European people living on the western fringe of this fictitious line.” – Dienekes Pontikos, anthropology expert
No, your eyes aren’t deceiving you. This paper is proof positive that European ethnicities can be distinguished from each other genetically. Even close-by populations (in this case the French and the Italians) are neatly separated. When geographic distance increases there isn’t even a hint of confusion: e.g., Russians, Orcadians, and Basque are neatly and clearly separated from other groups. Doubtlessly there would be some more overlap if more individuals/population were used, but the thrust of the discovery is intact: it seems that several European ethnicities and local populations make sense not only culturally but also biologically. – Dienekes Pontikos
The reason Jews are not a race is based on what the definition of what a race is. Before the liberals took over society, race was defined based on measurable characteristics, chiefly bone structure. The term “race” was also used to describe Mediterraneans and Nordics, by Coon, but Coon explained this by saying that they were one race, Nordics were “depigmented Mediterraneans.” So while Coon may have talked about a Nordic race and a Mediterranean race he meant they were both still part of the Caucasian race and thus the implication is that these are not really races but subraces. The layman’s explanation, is that hair color and skin pigmentation are not what a race should be categorized based on, but bone structure and that those other traits are subracial traits.
I am not speculating here, it is pretty obvious that that is what Coon meant, so read it yourself!
Based on these measurements of bone structure and not “genetics hokus pokus” (good word from Jon Entine) which is interpreted wrongly to “prove” that anything that can be “distinguished” is as different as a Black person is from a White, the five races are Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, Capoid and Australoid (notice that native Americans – who are Mongoloids – and Hispanics – who contain people of every race – are not included). Now pretend for a minute that I am wrong. Pretend there are really more races or less races. Even so, I am taking a six sigma “DMAIC” view that the number of races can be defined based on a process and that the result can be based on an objective criteria. The basis of my critique is that “race” must be properly and consistently defined and calculated in an impartial way before it is measured and quantified. You cannot define the process in a way to promote the political objective that Jews and “Aryans” are separate, but you have to define the process objectively and then apply it mechanically. Six Sigma is a tactic used by most successful manufacturing companies to reduce the number of defects by arguing that everything should be measured and the process should be clear.
Analogously, there are a certain number of continents, a certain number of Planets (even though Pluto was kicked out) and there are also a certain number of races. Within these races, variation is really a “subrace” not a race. In fact modern dna does confirm that the basic races exist, but it what it shows is that genetic drift is a gradual process that is separated by major barriers such as the Sahara Desert and Ural Mountains. Modern genetics show that DNA changes in each of these races, but it also shows that parts of the genome were blocked by those barriers. So while an Italian may be different from a Russian and a Syrian, both have Caucasian DNA that Negroids or Mongoloids (East Asians) do not have.
In order for Jews to be a race and not an ethnic group or subrace, Jews would have to have DNA that is outside of those five groups or outside of whatever other number of groups are produced by a measurable process. The races would have to be : Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, Capoid, Australoid and Jews.
See how it is kind of ridiculous! Even if we were to suggest that Jews were not Caucasoid, the rest of their ancestry would fall into the normal human groups. However, non-converted Jews are overwhelmingly Caucasoid and mostly (but not completely) Mediterranean. The most similar population is the Italian population and this is logical because of Italy’s geographical location and the dominance of the Roman Empire during which Jews converted in large number when now they do not.
Now one may think that the Jews are just a religion. They are a religion but they are not just a religion, (except during the Roman Empire) the religion did not attract many converts and thus many Jews married other Jews. One mistake I made was to argue that there is no genetic profile of a stereotypical Jew. I was wrong to do this, but this genetic profile is not the result of Jews being a pure race but of the normal random variation that exists in human beings. You and your parents also have a genetic signature! Because Jews have existed in Western Eurasia (Europe and the Middle East) primarily, most Jews are Caucasoid.
Now to talk about whether Jews are white or not. Unlike white nationalists claim, “European” and “Caucasian” are not different enough to be separate races, neither were they isolated from one another because boats have existed since 3200 B.C (another source : When were boats invented). Like Jews, Southern Europeans also come from the Middle East and Northern Europeans are depigmented Southern Europeans and thus they also have Middle Eastern ancestry, but lost their pigmentation. The idea that the Mediterranean sea was an uncrossable barrier, causing genetic variation, but then that genetic variation stopped once entering Europe is false. Instead, genetic drift is slow and steady! Crossing the Mediterranean Sea is far easier than crossing an Ocean to go to the Americas.
A final point of interest is that even though non-converted Jews do not have a majority of ancestry form Northern Europe because the majority comes from the Mediterranean, they do have more ancestry from Northern Europe than Italians and Greeks, because they lived there in recent history.
Metal Gear @ May 12, 2012
Many of the posts here are written about subjects other than “me.” However, since this a blog and not a discussion forum, there is nothing wrong with talking about me. If you do not like it, read another post.
This whole process of inventing the whole “theory of Basarab ideological evolution” caused me to think a lot about why I do the things I do.
Going through this and revising this, as I have revised it a few times, builds strength in both my confidence and in the stability of the theory. Now people people can know why I think what I do. A lot of people told me growing up that they “still have not figured me out!” Well, now you know the way I think.
I welcome people to examine how they think and see if they can challenge me or confirm me. Certainly this is my mentality, that of someone who is pushing forward as a competitor, not that of someone who is afraid to be challenged. Yes I am happy to be correct and that is one of my goals, but my other goal is to push the pace forward as well. If I am wrong, I certainly do not want it hidden. I want someone who is better trained to defeat me or improve what I have written. This is not only about my ego it is also about understanding the world.
When you understand the way I think, the things I am doing start to make sense. I see discussion as a forward moving process, not a territorial fight.
edit: I am more about pushing fowwards, most people are afraid they will offend people. My realization was that people who get offended simply because their ideas are put under question will eventually backstab you so why not just ignore them? I am also not concerned with advancing a political cause outside of opposing American imperialism. I may offend people who need the Jews to be blamed or need race not to exist, etc.
Metal Gear @ May 12, 2012
Some people may mistake people who take an arrogant view towards non-whites and conspiratorial view towards Jews as part of the proletariat. After all, the upper class since at least 1960 has clearly not desired their company. These people are arrested for denying the holocaust, demonized by the media and claim to care about the people instead of making money.
In actuality, these people used to be bourgeoisie and they were replaced. These are the ideologies of Yesterday’s bourgeoisie!
Arguing that these people represent the true working class socialist proletariat is like arguing that the Monarchy of Britain represents this!
Metal Gear @ May 11, 2012
One way that European and American and Israeli civilizations are inferior is that they seem to always need a scapegoat starting with other races in America, moving to Jews, moving now to Muslims. I don’t see that need for a scapegoat outside of the capitalist western civilization. You certainly didn’t see it in North Korea, USSR, China. You don’t see Jews mistreated in Iran.
Metal Gear @ May 11, 2012
Most young people do not even pay attention to mass media. Most old people have already made up their political opinions.
The mass media is not the center of the universe.
As I alluded in my theory, some people develop their political opinions with age, but most people close their minds. Just like most people gain weight with age but some people stay in shape!
Metal Gear @ May 11, 2012
I have learned a lot of backstabbing over the past few years. First the economy crashed and the rich bailed themselves out. Then at the same time, the young were blamed for not working hard enough to find work but the stats show that the young were hurt the most.
I learned that people who pretend to critique our way of life are really just as bad. Many of these “free speech” advocates are just as bad as the liberals they complain about. Plenty of forums have taken advantage of me, inviting me in and then either ganging up on me later or outright using the controversy I have to build traffic at my expense. These people paraded my personal information like it was a public exhibit and then acted self-righteous when I fought back against it! Those same people were willing to contact employers who – guess what – were willing to be backstabbers too!
All the while I thought that maybe I should soften my message. Maybe I really shouldn’t criticize society the way it should be criticized, because it might affect my employability. This ass kissing got me nowhere! Plus people who are supposedly unconditionally on your side, family members, friends of the family, they too act arrogant and bash their own friends/family for not making as much money as them!
I now know that there’s no reason not to tell the truth about the hypocrisy in society, because people who are fake will backstab you eventually anyways. I would rather do the right thing and be martyred quickly than kiss ass to a bunch of hypocrites and be backstabbed later.
Metal Gear @ May 9, 2012
Comments on Theory in Paragraph Form
The Basarab theory of ideological evolution elaborates on the foundational precepts of a given society, the thought process of individuals and the relationship between the two. It explains how individuals can change and how the official institutions and government that control society can successfully stay in power despite much shaking “under the ground” and still hold onto slogans that were invented long ago. This theory systematically explains this phenomenon without any references to “human nature” and genetics, focusing instead on systemic factors (sociological and means of production), typical human thinking and potential human thinking! According to Basarab, people are capable of challenging the status quo but history has shown that ideologies that are no longer relevant tend to stay in existence due to the fact that people do not live up to their potential to change (due to societal factors, laziness, believing to have figured out the answer) and also due to the tangled sociological and economic relationships inherit to society. While technology may improve, people may relocate and demographics may change, many people create a way of thinking and then hold on to it, certain opinions are popular and certain opinions are understood to be the law.
Basarab also denies that revolutions are caused solely by horizontal movements in society’s thinking, but instead postulates that the type of thinking that leads to the revolution may have existed long before the conditions rose to the surface and gained a material advantage which, as opposed to popularity or “justice,” determines who rules. Fighting a revolution is like fighting a war with another country, the winner takes all. To Basarab, society has its dissidents, but the ruling group in society restricts the appearance of any substantial dissent and often systematically tries to keep it in the closet. A revolution then is mainly a dissident group achieving material advantage and the horizontal agreement of ideology is only important to the extent that it aids this material advantage. In short, while having the support of populist opinion makes ruling a society easier, unpopular regimes can still exist and hold onto power. As conditions change and philosophers think and communicate, the views of large segments of society can eventually change while the ideologies of the ruling class stay constant and this makes for tension (comment: the intersection between Basarab and Marx). In contemporary society, this is not rare.
The “popular opinions” of society may move a modest amount faster when the means of production change or a message is communicated and the slow changes eventually do add up and while the consensus of society can perhaps superficially appear to circle around, knowledge is only erased from people who have amnesia. This is important, society may be slow moving, but it is not “stopped.” Young people are influenced by the developments of the previous generation and continue the process and if they rebel, that is still not “backwards movement” but reactionary movement, still classified as “forwards.” A current slow pace of change, according to Basarab, explains the present but not ancient status of society and its agonizing apparent state of being stuck in liberal capitalism more than “the media” which is one environmental factor out of many, regulated by market forces and not a vacuum separate from society. Evolution can be devolution, depending on a person’s perspective. Individuals, perhaps in alienation to popular opinion, may change their opinions more but the perception of what is “normal” does not change as fast as the opinions of the most innovative people in society.
His theory leaves open the possibility that this could change if the will power existed to change it. If enough people are willing to self-criticize, then the cumulative pressures against the “normal opinions” would accumulate faster than otherwise which helps to gain a material advantage (but is insufficient on its own). Another important component of the theory is the breakdown of the idea that the media completely dictates society and alternative suggestions which instead relegates the media to “just being a business.” Basarab is a skeptic of the idea that the media is like a computer programmer who can just engineer any ideology into society easily and even believes such attempts to vertically engineer society out of touch with the material conditions typically leads to a backlash. This does not necessarily stop the media from trying, as Basarab realizes that the ruling class promotes ideologies through media, but he does not see this as an excuse for YOU to improperly develop YOUR OWN thinking! If you accept Basarab’s theory, then you have no excuse for not questioning authority and really engaging your thought process and can only blame yourself!
The key themes that appear in the theory are business forces, will power, the brainwashing of children, the bigotry of adults, the limitations of the media to change the opinions of adults without consent, the invention of ideologies around conditions and the transmission of ideology through communication based on the open-mindedness of the audience. This theory is not a “racial nationalist” theory. The implications of the theory imply that the environment is extremely important, perhaps genetics even play “second fiddle” to the environment (to quote “John Jones”) but they suggest as well that ideology is an invention. Basarab’s analysis would imply that the pace of ideological change is tied to the characteristics of the thinking of people and affected by the opportunistic desire to rise in society while also suggesting that the media cannot force someone to open their mind. His analysis allows that it is not necessary for adults to close their minds and thus suggests that people do have more potential to change society than they actually realize. However, his analysis also maintains that a change in popular opinion is not equal to a shift in power politics.
-Genetics do not directly determine ideology. They may influence attitude and temperament and therefore make certain ideologies likely, but ultimately they do not determine ideology. This theory does not deny that genetics exist, or that they are a material reality. What it does deny, however, is that ideology is “passed through” genetics, which Darwin never claimed such a thing himself.
-The Environment does not directly determine ideology either. Like genetics, it indirectly influences ideology. In the opinion of Basarab, for the purpose of determining ideology, the environment is more important than genetics. Marx himself never claimed that all people react to the environment in the exact same way.
-”Free will” does play a very substantial role but ideology is not created in vacuum. People invent their own ideologies based around their environments and this process may be modified by the temperaments and personality traits that genetics influence, but ideology is still “invented.” For example, one person may chose to react to losing a competition by training harder and another person may chose to give up. But if it was not for losing the competition, then neither would react. Whether or not they give up is probably not genetic. Exactly how they react cannot be predicted based on a mathematical model that calculates in the opinion of Basarab, not even in theory. This is the small amount of spiritualism that is in Basarab’s thinking – The power of the human will.
-It may sound elementary but just to state the obvious, ideology is transmitted and created both by language and introspective thinking.
Less Obvious Assumptions
-Most people close their minds progressively as they age. Obviously children learn in a different way than adults. People make important life choices and commit to them. This is not absolute like the laws of physics, but it is the tendency.
-People who are aware of this tendency may be able to mitigate it more successfully. Focus and will power are not irrelevant.
-If people do change their minds, especially but not exclusively in large numbers, changes in material conditions of daily life (the environment) are likely related to the change. I must cite this discussion and this article.
-Society moves at a slow pace, from point a to point b to point c, unless there are major changes in the material conditions. It does move, that is indisputable, but it is a tortoise rather than a hair. Individuals may move faster.
-When the material conditions of society cause society to change more rapidly, it does not move in a single direction. Different people respond to the same problems in different ways (in the same way that one basketball player may drive the lane, the other may shoot, the other may punch the ref). Most people, even under extreme conditions, do not change much but they will change more.
-Once people have reconciled their position in life with the new material conditions, the pace slows again. It never stops, but it goes back to being a tortoise.
-The thought process is provoked by the environment most of the time but not all the time. Some people do brainstorm. There are a minority of people who change their ideologies more than others.
-Slogans do not change society directly (they may indirectly have a domino effect). The environmental effect of slogans communicated by language are but one factor out of many other material conditions. Society is defined by actions and influenced by words. Saying “I’ll drive the truck there” does not actually carry the freight.
-A media source can only manipulate close minded people by using their own prejudices against them. The media’s ability to manipulate these people is limited to encouraging tendencies that already exist. Most people who have settled on a single piece of media have already closed their mind.
-The bottom line (literally) is that the media is not all-powerful. It has to observe the reactions of its usually slow-moving audience and cannot move too much faster than its target if it wants to maintain control. Also, the media cannot be viewed as a vacuum that is separate from the rest of the environment but must be viewed in business terms (like a construction company, programming company, retail store). It is one environmental factor out of many. The concise truth is that it matters as much as people make it matter. People who open their minds to a media source are doing it consensually and a magnet cannot be placed too far ahead of the metal it is attracting.
A Note on Revolutions
-Revolutions may make it appear that society changes quickly in a single cohesive direction, but really they are just the victory of forces that already existed beneath the surface in a struggle for power. Revolutions may be more comparable to the straw that broke the camel’s back.
-Examples of forces that already existed before revolutions: Class struggle existed before the Russian Revolution. Discontent with society existed before the French Revolution. Hatred of the British existed before America was created. The Torah existed before Zionism. Anti-semitism existed before Nazism (though Nazism was not a true revolution, Hitler took power legally).
-With money and resources, there are various routes that may be available for different groups to take power, but that does not mean the other groups disappear.
-Most people will not openly come forward with disagreements regarding the official ideology of society. Many disagreements, new and old, are masked by the desire to advance inside of society or avoid problems. This causes a “natural selection” (to make an analogy to Darwin) that makes it appear as if a single ideology dominates, as “recessive” ideologies get swept beneath the power structure. Money and power determine what is recessive and what is dominant.
-Revolutions do not succeed based on ideals alone. Several other environmental factors are relevant (which are beyond the scope of this post).
-When Pol pot was “officially deposed,” he still continued to rule unofficially everywhere but the capital for a decade. The fact that he was “officially deposed” did not matter, it was a slogan.
People’s minds continually invent explanations for their conditions and they consider the environment (which also includes written texts) when building but this process is very nuanced and steady. It may change paces but society as a whole does not move very quickly by my standards (perhaps even during revolutions). This is partially due to the fact that many people do not think outside of the box (just like most Americans are overweight), but also because those who do face market forces and societal pressures that makes them “recessive” until revolution.
-People who “return” to old ideologies do not “go backwards” they go around in a circle. Someone who changes their mind and then changes it to something that has a similar slogan is actually a much different thinker. Certainly when someone supports an idea, then moves away, then moves to something similar, they do not view the ideology the same the second time, no matter what slogans they chant.
-The media should not be seen as the center of society, but as a part of the environment that is affected by all the same business factors. Therefore you cannot make excuses generally about the media single-handedly destroying society and more specifically about Jews single-handedly destroying society.
-No movement is truly inevitable. Nazism was not inevitable. Like Lenin realized (by realizing that a vanguard party was necessary), Marx’s theories were not inevitable either. Zionism is not inevitable. The characteristics of the Jewish community are less important than the fact that Zionists were given the money they needed while nationalist assimilationist Jews were not given that money.
Metal Gear @ May 8, 2012
I made a strong case in an important article that the idea of a genetically-motivated Jewish conspiracy to control Gentiles THROUGH THE ENVIRONMENT is dubious. I don’t believe that theory.
I do want to say one thing, however. I do believe that the people who control the media are professionals and they are very organized at what they do. At the end of the day, their goal is to make a profit, not to do the right ethical thing. On the other hand, your average Joe is not an organized professional, just an open minded person.
Basically, I do agree that the media can confuse people, but I do not believe it has the ability to take salt and turn it into pepper. As said before, the ability to manipulate an audience is based on the audience.
Metal Gear @ May 5, 2012