Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

511

>One of the best arguments i've read is Genetic Entropy by John Sanford. Sanford is not just a geneticist, is the most renowned of all geneticists and inventor of GMO, although his name is now mud. He says in his book that because of his invention he is independently wealthy and can say what his colleagues can't afford to say (because they need jobs). That is that the more science and technology advances, the more the field of genetics proves evolution is impossible. In fact it proves the opposite: de-evolution. He says it's very likely the first humans lived hundreds of years. Says genetic information follows the 2nd law of thermodynamics -- entropy and that the gene pools of all species are less than 10,000 years old. He converted from atheism to Christianity because of his field of study. I've bought many copies for friends and family.

>>One of the best arguments i've read is Genetic Entropy by John Sanford. Sanford is not just a geneticist, is the most renowned of all geneticists and inventor of GMO, although his name is now mud. He says in his book that because of his invention he is independently wealthy and can say what his colleagues can't afford to say (because they need jobs). That is that the more science and technology advances, the more the field of genetics proves evolution is impossible. In fact it proves the opposite: de-evolution. He says it's very likely the first humans lived hundreds of years. Says genetic information follows the 2nd law of thermodynamics -- entropy and that the gene pools of all species are less than 10,000 years old. He converted from atheism to Christianity because of his field of study. I've bought many copies for friends and family.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (5).
[–] • 1 pt (edited )

My father used to say that jews don't need nazis to build watchtowers and barbed wires all around themselves, and I think he was right, they have a natural propensity to segregate themselves since forever, it starts with this us vs them mentality, "chosen by god" vs the rest, the losers, the shits, goys... They made a fuckton of associations/NGO dedicated to the "jewish survivros of the holocaust and their descendants" like, fuck the rest essentially, you're not a jew even if you or your grandpa got murdered in a nazi camp, it doesn't count, you can't apply

The phrase "A people that shall dwell alone" comes to mind

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture_of_Critique_series#A_People_That_Shall_Dwell_Alone_(1994) MacDonald describes Judaism as having or being a "group evolutionary strategy" aimed at limiting exogamy, enforcing cultural segregation, promoting in-group charity and economic cooperation, and regulating in-group marriage and births to achieve high levels of intelligence, ability to acquire resources, parenting care, and group allegiance. He examines evidence from Jewish history, culture, and genetics supporting his thesis, arguing that Judaism is based on a strong—and possibly genetically based—predisposition to ethnocentrism characteristic of Middle Eastern cultures generally but exacerbated as a result of selective effects resulting from Jewish cultural practices. He considers the use of the complex and extensive Jewish scriptures and the high prestige of Rabbinic learning as eugenic mechanisms for promoting Jewish verbal intelligence and dexterity.[citation needed][original research?]

Separation and Its Discontents (1998) Developing his work in A People That Shall Dwell Alone, MacDonald examines antisemitism as a test case for an evolutionary analysis of ethnic conflict in general, applying social identity theory to three critical periods of institutionalized antisemitism: the Roman Empire in the fourth century; the Iberian inquisitions from the fourteenth century; and German Nazism in the period 1933–45. He argues that antisemitism is a consequence of resource competition between groups in which each group is rationally pursuing its own interests rather than a manifestation of irrational malice by non-Jewish out-groups, and asserts that Jews, particularly strongly identified Jews, will be relatively prone to self-deception by ignoring or rationalizing negative information about themselves and their in-group. Finally, he discusses whether Judaism has ceased to be an evolutionary strategy because of the current levels of intermarriage among some groups of diaspora Jews, arguing that it has not ceased to be so and that it continues to flourish.[citation needed][original research?]

The Culture of Critique (1998) MacDonald examines Boasian anthropology, political radicalism, psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt School, and The New York Intellectuals, arguing that Jews dominated these intellectual movements and that a strong sense of Jewish identity was characteristic of the great majority of the individuals in these movements. He argues that these individuals were pursuing a Jewish ethnic agenda in establishing and participating in these movements, while writing that the Jewish community does not constitute a unified movement and that only a small and elite minority of that community participated in these movements.[citation needed][original research?]

He claims Jewish efforts to shape United States immigration policy were in opposition to what he sees as the interests of the peoples of non-Jewish European descent, particularly the peoples of Northern and Western Europe. He concludes the book by claiming that the intellectual movements he examines are movements that are either "Jewish" by nature or Jewish-controlled: "the result has been a widening gulf between the cultural successes of Jews and Gentiles and a disaster for society as a whole."[citation needed][original research?]

Describing the evolution of his thinking over the course of his writing the trilogy, MacDonald says in his preface to the 2002 paperback edition of The Culture of Critique:

I think there is a noticeable shift in my tone from the first book to the third simply because (I'd like to think) I knew a lot more and had read a lot more. People often say after reading the first book that they think I really admire Jews, but they are unlikely to say that about the last two and especially about CofC. That is because by the time I wrote CofC I had changed greatly from the person who wrote the first book.[12]