Genes are literally not real. The concept of a gene is completely pointless since all structural functions of DNA are already described by the language of molecular biology without the need for this 'concept.'

That means a gene is a metaphysical idea.

The notion of a gene began as a way to describe the supposed essence of biological organisms that existed at their expense. Lysenko refuted this impractical metaphysical garbage and Anglo institutions of 'science' have smeared him ever since.

Lysenko wasn't a molecular biologist and never claimed to be. Its just that when his actual practical findings contradicted Mendeloid dogma, the Westoid Mendeloid 'scientists' attempted to purge and discredit him.

Now his findings are almost totally confirmed.

The West's rejection of Lysenko had nothing to do with science. During WWII they actually engaged with his ideas earnestly. Then, they started to politicize him right at the outset of the cold war and solely for political reasons.

Rejecting Mendeloid 'gene' has nothing to do with rejecting heredity. In fact Lysenko was a strong hereditarian, even more than the neodarwinists. The point is what grounds the heredity, for Lysenko this is the organism taken as a whole metabolism, and not a gene essence.

The implication for humanity is simple: We cannot take it for granted. In the West we experience a post human era. This spiritual degradation of human beings literally will affect our very biological essence.

Reddit and Marvel is slow transition to becoming monkeys and swine.

  • sooper_dooper_roofer [none/use name]
    ·
    3 years ago

    Your implication that “black people do inherit an innate intellectual inferiority but this would change if we got rid of capitalism” is hardly an improvement on HBD

    my insinuation was about developing countries and oppressed people in general

    what you’re dancing around is clear

    okay, so what's the alternative? Pretend everything is currently equal and nobody is oppressed?

    What's the difference between "yes inequalities lead to heritable deleterious changes which can be mostly reversed within a generation" and "inequalities lead to deleterious changes which aren't heritable whatsoever"? I mean it sounds like you're arbitrarily offended by the first one for some reason, but wouldn't the 2nd one be almost just as bad? Not to mention it softens the real impacts of inequality.

    Should we also pretend that children who are forcibly separated from the parents at birth don't experience lifelong trauma?

    • riley
      ·
      1 year ago

      deleted by creator

      • sooper_dooper_roofer [none/use name]
        ·
        3 years ago

        I think the first formulation is dangerous because it suggests that even independent of the social forces buffeting people there can be something in their blood

        literally doesn't though. Because these are completely CAUSED by those social forces. The idea that social forces CANNOT change genetic expression is complete westoidery. They do, all the time, and if you change the environment they change back.

        I'm not interested in what's considered "dangerous" or "ethnically targetable" by normie chuds, because those are always going to behave like that no matter what. If 50% of whites were born with a large mole on their scalp, they'd mentally contort their heads into finding a way to make that a mark of superiority.

        You also fail to mention the "default" mode of thinking, which is already that all differences are hard-genetic and almost 100% nature. Chuds and even normies still say stuff like "Asians/Indians are genetically short" despite Chinese young adults being literally taller than Southern European countries which have had nutritionally perfect diets for a century+.