Procedural Analysis and Race

Procedural Analysis is not as mathematically rigorous as Smith’s ESS model. The primary object of PA is to provide a framework from which mathematical models can be set up. Any procedure (by which is meant a particular sequence of actions) should be reducible in terms of signals, markers, tokens and handles. A positive benefit or negative cost can be written as a vector, expressing the various different costs and benefits.

Although there is much to PA, like identifying various procedures, suggesting their evolutionary origin and so forth, probably its most immediate utility is in making human interactions reducible into these four components. Females prefer signals and tokens because they are ambiguous and manipulative, while males prefer markers and handles because they are unambiguous and often involve the wealth that he creates.

PA hardly deals with race at all, practically only inasmuch as the observation made that non-Occidental males express female characteristics. It is strictly a male-female dichotomy.

Negro Signals

However, two distinct Negro signals were identified: Loud Incidental Utterance and Path-Crossing, both of which appear to be directed at white males. They can be classified as attention-seeking.

LOUD INCIDENTAL UTTERANCE: This signal is analogous to the Loud Verbal Utterance Signal as issued by females, but it is louder, does not consist of a recognizable word and is usually emitted from a greater distance. It seems particularly likely to be emitted by Negroes who have recently arrived from Africa. Typically one of a group of blacks standing beside the road will make some ejaculation, but it is also sometimes given by a solitary individual, particularly if he is a recent immigrant.

PATH-CROSSING: This signal can be compared to the Collision Signal, though there is rarely a near or actual collision. Typically the Negro will break away from lounging at the side of the path to ostentatiously cross in front of an approaching white male.

Path-crossing was once apparently executed by a male child who had not long since learnt to walk. Older Negro children will deliberately and very consistently brush past a white male, making unnecessary physical contact, as they pass by (cf. the Jostle Signal). Adult Asian (e.g. Pakistani or Indian) males also have an obvious tendency to emit the Wide Eye Signal. The most notable element in these observations however is that these signals are emitted not by females, but by males.

Pakistani Provocation

Another behaviour that should not go unremarked is the obvious enjoyment some kinds of Asians find in provocation. For example, if they sense that a person is not comfortable with their presence, they will deliberately linger nearby or even follow them around. (Whites tend to have exactly the opposite reaction.) It is a feminine strategy, serving to gather information and test the reactions of the opponent. One shudders to think of the general effect on a society this trait produces.

Behaviour Manipulation by Parasites

The following is a short collection of examples in simple life forms of behaviour manipulation by parasites of their hosts.

• ‘Natural selection normally makes animals behave in their own selfish interests. Even when it favours altruistic behaviour, it is only in the interests of some broader form of selfishness. However, parasites may exploit their hosts, forcing them to behave in ways which do not benefit the hosts (or their genetic relatives). For example, the parasitic fluke (flukes are small, flattened, worm-like animals) Dicrocoelium dendriticum lives in sheep, but uses ants as an intermediate host (in order to get from one sheep to another). The ants become infected with Dicrocoelium from sheep droppings, but how does the fluke get from an ant into another sheep? Ants normally avoid being eaten by sheep, staying in the soil. However, an ant infected with Dicrocoelium changes its behaviour. One of the flukes burrows into the ant’s brain and causes the ant to climb a blade of grass and fasten its jaws to the top of the blade. The ant stays in this position until eaten, hopefully (for the parasite) by a sheep’ (Alan Clamp and Julia Russell, Comparative Psychology, Hodder & Stoughton, 1998, p. 29).
• The fungus Entomophthora muscae infects and kills house flies, but before it kills them, it manipulates the fly to crawl to a high place and adopt a sexually receptive pose, to increase the likelihood of the fungus spreading to other flies (Moller, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 33, 1993, pp. 403-407).
• The parasitic barnacle Sacculina infests crabs, preventing the crab from moulting and reproducing and inducing it to care for the parasite’s brood as if it were its own. Male crabs are feminized to groom as if they had a female’s brood pouch (Zimmer, Parasite Rex, The Free Press, 2000, pp. 79-82).
• The female Hymenoepimecis wasp stings a Plesiometa argyra spider in the mouth. This paralyzes the spider allowing the wasp to lay an egg on the spider’s abdomen. The wasp larva makes small holes allowing it to suck haemolymph (spider blood). Shortly before the larva kills and eats the spider, it induces its host by biochemical manipulation to spin a particular web, unlike its normal pattern, to support the larva’s cocoon. Three biochemical manipulations take place in succession: the anticoagulant to stop the haemolymph solidifying too quickly, and producing a saddle on which the larva is supported; inducing the spider to spin a particular web; and poison (Eberhard, Nature, 2000).
• The hairworm Spinochordodes tellinii grows inside grasshoppers and crickets which, on approaching maturity, produces proteins which affect its host’s behaviour. The normally land-dwelling insect is driven to plunge into water, the natural environment for the parasite but a suicidal one for its host. Once immersed the hairworm, which when extended can be four times the length of the insect, emerges leaving its host dead or dying in the water (Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 2005, reported by New Scientist and Canal IRD).

Parasitic Behaviour in Humans

The theoretical possibility that comparable psychological manipulation occurs between human groups is indubitable. Some say that its incidence in actuality cannot reasonably be denied. Given the complexity of parasitical behaviour in even simple life-forms as illustrated above, similar interaction among human genotypes must be regarded as inevitable. The impartial observer should not be asking “if” but “how.”

The distinction between symbiosis and parasitism can be a fine one; for example, a species might practice one by feigning the other. Or a symbiotic relationship might be extended to involve an element of parasitism. In Disguised Defection, the human female obscures her neglect of the symbiotic functions which would normally justify male investment in her. A very obvious example of this is when she produces a child which is not fathered by her husband. Evidence suggests that one in six children are not of their assumed paternity (search for ‘CSA’ or ‘Child Maintenance’ on this site). This appears to be a consistent phenomenon.

The obvious object for an accusation of parasitism by a different human genotype is Jews. In immediate support of this claim is that 1. Jews possess no "worker caste" (the loss of it is mentioned by Shahak in Jewish History, Jewish Religion); 2. Blending in and even formally changing names to accomplish this object; 3. Their high ethnic cohesion and attraction to positions as “gatekeepers.” It is my contention that Jews are emasculated, express few true (white) male characteristics, and essentially exploit the weaknesses males have for females. Many male perceptions of females are irrational, simply because that irrational perception is evolutionarily advantageous.

The following Table illustrates the general scheme; we might say that while homosexuals can express female characteristics with masculine force, Jews express female traits with singular enterprise and potency.

A number of Jews with influence in psychology and its associated fields strenuously maintain that genes have no influence on behaviour. This might be the natural response of a parasite capable of argument, and the genotype may even evolve an enhanced capacity for verbal dissimulation for this purpose. One thing is obvious: the nature/nurture argument does not apply to one of the best known parasites, the cuckoo. In common with a great number of other parasites, the cuckoo has no contact with its biological parents, so its parasitic behaviour can only be genetically determined, i.e. hereditary.