Human Social Parasitism
Apollo Strikes Yahweh with Jupiter's Lightning

Topic: A mechanistic analysis of social parasitism, its evolutionary origin, and proving its existence in human beings.

What Is Social Parasitism?

Social parasitism is a form of parasitism where a parasite takes advantage of the social behavior of its host. This phenomenon is most commonly observed in insects, especially among ants, bees, and wasps. In this essay, I demonstrate its existence and emergence in humans; I refer to it as Human Social Parasitism (HSP).

What follows is a detailed description of social parasitism as it is generally described by the preceding literature whose focus is solely on insects, primarily on ants and bees and their social structures:

Definition: A relationship in which one organism (the parasite) exploits the social colony structure of another species (the host) for its own benefit, often at the expense of the host.

Types of Social Parasitism

  • Inquilinism: The parasite species lives inside the nest of the host species and exploits its resources. The inquiline might not harm the host directly but takes advantage of the host’s food and shelter. HSP is a human instance of inquilinism and this type of parasitism will be the focus of this analysis.
  • Temporary Social Parasitism or Dulosis: In this form, the queen of the parasitic species invades the nest of the host species, kills or evicts the host queen, and then forces the host workers to care for her and her offspring. Over time, the host workers die off, and the colony becomes purely of the parasitic species.
  • Brood Parasitism: The parasitic species lays its eggs in the nests of the host species. The host workers then care for the parasitic brood as if it were their own. This is common in some birds and bees.
  • Slave-making: Some ant species, known as slave-making ants, raid the nests of other ant species, capturing their brood and bringing them back to their own nest. Once the captured brood matures, they serve the slave-making ants as if they were in their original colony.

Implications

  • Evolutionary Adaptations: Social parasites often exhibit specific adaptations that enable them to exploit their hosts. These can include chemical mimicry (where the parasite mimics the pheromones of the host to avoid detection) or specialized behaviors for raiding or invading host nests.
  • Impact on Host Colonies: Social parasitism can have detrimental effects on host colonies. It can lead to reduced reproductive success, colony disruption, or even colony collapse.
  • Ecological Significance: Social parasitism plays a role in shaping the dynamics of ecological communities. It can influence species distributions, community structures, and the evolution of defensive behaviors in host species.

Evolutionary Origin of Social Parasitism

1. Emergence

Fully eusocial species are those that respect the strict queen-worker model of reproduction and social organization. Across species that conform to this model, its instances present a great deal of variety along a number of parameters, such as the mating system (polygyny vs monogyny) and mating strategy (near-nest mating vs swarming). As determined by Buschinger (1990), social parasitism can only occur in polygynous species; I will elaborate on why this is later but, for the moment, suffice it to say that the model that this analysis is concerned with is one with the following characteristics:

  • the specie is polygynous – there can be more than one queen at any given time;
  • males are typically produced preceding the mating season;
  • depending on the specie, the males outnumber the queens by a factor of 2:1 to 10:1;
  • males die shortly after mating;
  • the queens produce a handful of reproductive males and females (queens), and the remainder of the colony (> 95%) compose of workers (sterile females);
  • the specie is polydomous – the social organization consists of a supercolony of multiple “sister”-colonies, i.e. the founding queens of each colony are sisters and each colony descends from a lineage of a “mother”-colony;
  • the mating strategy must be one of swarming (the sexuals of multiple colonies fly out to a mating spot where an orgie ensues);

Species become eusocial when the proto-colonies of an ancestor specie are subjected to selective pressures in favor of collective labor. As with any other specie, there is genetic variation within the ancestor specie. A handful of the females will have a mutation which increases the likelihood of its offspring being sterile. Ordinarily, this “deficiency” would be selected against but, in a scenario where labor can increase the evolutionary success of the females reproductive offspring, this “deficiency” is an advantage.

The sterile workers are no longer their own independent specie but, rather, organs of the queen that made them; their purpose is to ensure that the queen (who has copies of the workers’ genes) can produce more copies of the workers’ genes. The workers pass on their genes through the queen. Hence, queens will be selected for their ability to produce better workers – ones who are more effective at labor, more cooperative, and more altruistic.

Such species are often adelphogamous – they mate with their siblings. This results in homozygosity in the consanguinous offspring and, as a result, it can lead to a quicker fixation of adaptations, such as the adaptive “deficiency” mentioned. Over time, the differences in social organization may result in preferences pertaining to sexual strategies and geography, leading to prolonged periods of isolation which results in divergences in evolutionary trajectory (exacerbating differences in morphology and social organization). Finally, the genetic distance has sufficiently increased, such that the organism can no longer produce viable offspring with the ancestor specie. The organism now fits the definition of a new specie.

2. Autoparasitism

Queens are said to be totipotent – capable of the whole (i.e. to produce workers and sexuals). The females of a proto-eusocial specie can be said to be unipotent – capable of only one type. Here, I introduce the concept of fraudanpotency – the capacity to cheat. Indeed, some queens can cheat the system and reap the rewards of the colony’s social organization without paying the cost. In essence, this is tragedy of the commons. Fraudanpotent queens can only continue to pass on their genes when the social organization has no mechanism for punishing free-loaders.

Autoparasitism means self-parasitism – when a subset of queens within a (super)colony freeloads. This evolutionary stage is often referred to as the “preparasite” stage where speciation has yet to occur. Totipotency emerges when the cost of producing fewer reproductives is offset by the gain of producing sterile workers. As with the ancestor specie, there is a natural variation within the specie. While it is true that most queens of this specie are totipotent, it is also true that a queen will eventually emerge with a mutation which renders it “deficient” in its ability to produce sterile workers. This “deficient” queen not only benefits by saving its bioenergetic resources on producing only reproductive offspring, it will also continue to benefit from the workers of totipotent sisters without paying the evolutionary tax of producing its own workers. Thus, this type of queen is said to be cheating – a fraudanpotent queen. Fraudenpotent queens unwittingly and unintentionally pursue an evolutionary strategy of autoparasitism.

Moreover, autoparasitism has a limited potential, in and of itself. Without the ability to spread to other colonies, an increasing ratio of sexuals vs workers can lead to a collapse of the colony. Since parasites are dependent on the survival and continued existence of the host, the collapse of a colony will kill the autoparasites within it. Unless, of course, there are other colonies to spread to; this is why polydomy is one of the prerequisites for the emergence of social parasitism. Social parasites inherit the ability to spread to colonies due to their preparasitic ancestors being polydomous and, therefore, having migratory queens.

By extension, a colony would have to be polygynous, rather than monogynous, in order to be accepting of migrant queens. Moreover, if the only queen of a colony is fraudanpotent, then there won’t be any workers at all; the colony will collapse. This is why polygyny in the ancestor specie is also a prerequisite for social parasitism, along with polydomy.

3. Alloparasitism

Alloparasitism means parasitism of the other. How do autoparasites become alloparasitic? Colonies are subject to a stabilizing selection between two pressures. The first is the need to preserve adaptations to the local environment and this need favors a mating strategy of near-nest mating, e.g. ants selecting sexuals from within the colony; this increases the likelihood of adelphogamy. The second pressure is homozygosity acquired as a result of inbreeding and this need favors a mating strategy of swarming which makes it unlikely for inbreeding to occur.

The greater the ecological variation over a smaller geographical area, the greater the need to preserve adaptations to the local environment. When the evolutionary benefit of local adaptation inheritance exceeds the evolutionary cost of homozygosity, the specie will be selected for near-nest mating. Conversely, the lesser the ecological variation over a greater geographical area, the lower the need to preserve adaptations to the local environment. When the evolutionary benefit of local adaptation inheritance is exceeded by the evolutionary cost of homozygosity, the specie will be selected for swarming.

In a colony of near-nest maters, autoparasites are less likely to engage in adelphogamy, due to the presence of non-autoparasites. In order for autoparasites to speciate, fraudenpotent queens must not only reliably reproduce fraudenpotent queens, but the more fraudenpotent the queens are, the more successful they will be at autoparasitism. This requires the very strict adaptation of fraudenpotency by way of homozygosity and, in the presence of non-autoparasites, the lower likelihood of adelphogamy makes it just as unlikely for this homozygosity to occur. As such, a host of near-nest maters is unsuitable for the speciation of autoparasites.

In a colony of swarmers, the first autoparasites will also be swarmers. Initially, they will not produce as many queens, nor will they be as fraudenpotent as possible. However, as the autoparasite population expands, so will its genetic diversity. Eventually, there will be a variant of the autoparasites which fail to engage in swarming, such as in the case where a mutation leads to a loss of wings. This new variant of autoparasite will not only default back to near-nest maters, but it will almost guarantee that adelphogamy occurs because the only other near-nest maters within this colony will themselves be fellow autoparasites. In turn, this leads to homozygosity and, thus, the ability to produce not only more queens but ones which are highly (if not fully) fraudenpotent.

The conditions described are such that a colony is now comprised of two types of the same species who only mate amongst themselves. Over time, this reproductive isolation leads to a divergent clustering of genes and the phenotypes they produce. At a social level, the hosts will become more resistant to autoparasitism by way of being selected for social structures which are more resilient to autoparasitism, e.g. monogyny, monodomy, and worker non-cooperativeness with fraudenpotent queens. Similarly, the autoparasites will adapt to overcome the defences of the host colony, e.g. they can become more aggressive or daring in their approach – oh, the khutzpah of these parasites… unbelievable!

In any case, when given a sufficient period of time from the point of reproductive isolation, the evolutionary trajectories of these two groups will sufficiently diverge such that they will no longer be able to produce viable offspring together. Hence, the definition of a new specie is met. When parasitism occurs between two different species, it is no longer autoparasitism but, rather, alloparasitism – a now-unique specie of social parasite. This explanation of speciation is called the sympatric speciation theory and it was proposed by Alfred Buschinger (1990). His 1990 paper has been widely cited and a number of genetic analyses have supported his conclusions.

An alternative hypothesis has been proposed by Jaclyn et al. (2013); it is called the allopatric hypothesis. It differs from the sympatric model in that it suggests that the prolonged period of isolated reproduction between the two subspecies are caused by geographical isolation, rather than by the differences in mating strategies. Having read this paper, I remain open to this alternative model; however, the methodology used is based on the flawed assumption that most mutations are neutral (benign) and this has been thoroughly debunked by Professor Huang’s Maximum Genetic Diversity theory. Lastly, I question the assumption that speciation time and phylogeny in any way implies geographical isolation – in fact, this is the very basis of the sympatric model. Either way, both models agree that, whichever way it happened, these subpopulations had to have reproduced amongst themselves for a considerable amount of time and this is all that matters as far as humans are concerned.

4. Traits for Parasitic Success

Social parasites are greatly helped by the following traits, starting with “propaganda substances”:

This paper reports the first discovery of “propaganda substances” in a workerless inquiline ant, the European myrmicine Leptothorax kutteri Buschinger. These substances are used by the parasite queen as a chemical weapon for defense against hostile workers of the host species L. acervorum. The substances also have an unusual behavioral effect: they cause host workers to attack each other, and they therefore appear to override nestmate recognition in host colonies.

Allies et al. (1986)

By default, hosts evolve defences against social parasitism, as previously discussed. Similarly, social parasites get better at parasitism, acquiring adaptations to these defences. One of the most broad-spectrum adaptations possible – one might even call a universal adaptation – is that of coevolution. The way farmers evolve to select better cattle, social parasites evolve to select better hosts:

Our results suggest that in Vermont the slave-maker has a sparing strategy when raiding L. longispinosus

Blatrix et al. (2003)

In other words, the parasitic ant selects which host ant gets to pass on its genes and which doesn’t.

5. Social Parasitism in Humans

5.1. Origins of the Pre-Parasitic Stage

Let’s begin with a human model of social parasitism. In this model, the final stage of the social parasite is not a distinct species, but a distinct subspecies. We begin with a hypothetical ancestor population of nomadic (and thus isolated) hunter-gatherers; their mating system is synchronous polygyny (one man with many women at the same time). Our population begins with a size of 20 to 50 people consisting of families, extended families, and perhaps distantly related families. Due to the high risk of homozygosity, behaviors which maximize genetic distance in the offspring are strongly selected for (see Fit Bastard theory). Unlike ants, we do not have the luxury of outbreeding in a swarm-like manner and unlike monkeys we do not have the luxury of female dispersal; such are the conditions simulated by the GMSS. Under these circumstances, the next best option for maximizing genetic diversity is adultery.

Now, let’s fast-forward to the advent of farming and more sedentary lifestyles. In this scenario, we have the advent of walls, confined spaces, and villages; due to a higher carrying capacity, we can now sustain much higher population sizes. Predation is no longer a significant limiting factor of population growth whose effect size is far outweighed by the carrying capacity itself. We can now afford to divert energy away from sex and invest the surplus into our offspring; perhaps as part of this effort, humans abandoned synchronous polygyny in favor of asynchronous polygyny, i.e. serial monogamy. We would want to reallocate our resources in this manner because as life-history strategy slows down, our evolutionary success will be much more tied to our local environments, making it that much more important to preserve local adaptations.

Now that men invest in their offspring, there is an evolutionary cost to being cuckolded, as the man risks wasting his investment on another man’s offspring. By default, this selects for more of the traits that lead to victory in male-male competition. In other words, sexual victory (literally being the superior male) is the de facto mate-guarding strategy. The wives of the losers of male-male competition are those who have the most incentive to engage in adultery because women do not cheat downward (there would be no point to it) [5].

We now introduce new evolutionary conditions, such as population density and urban environments. In this scenario, the wives have much easier access to other men, thereby increasing the likelihood of adultery taking place. We now have a radical increase in the selection for traits related to mate-guarding, such as the intensity of paternal anxiety and the propensity to act on it. Moreover, these traits are more likely to pre-exist in a subset of the population, due to the genetic diversity which naturally increases with population size. It is thus not a coincidence that the lower classes are not only more genetically diverse but that they would be the ones most extremely selected for mate-guarding (as they are the prime targets of cuckoldry). Lahey (2009) established a significant negative correlation between neuroticism and socio-economic status (SES); while SES is not what I mean by class as a genetic cluster (in the context of genopolemology) the concept is nevertheless sufficiently overlapping that we can still infer a positive relationship between genetic diversity and neuroticism.

For traits which correlate, Wang et al. (2023) demonstrated that the collective effects of genetic variants can be studied using overall genetic variation, rather than looking at individual variants. Thus, we can not only further support the higher genetic diversity of the more neurotic lesser men, but we can also infer an association between lower empathy and genetic diversity because empathy and neuroticism are themselves linked [3]. The increased risk of sexual defeat in urban conditions is the likely explanation for this neuroticism, given its effect size on allele frequency. The lower empathy predicts a greater willingness to engage in anti-social behavior and to resort to zero-sum solutions (e.g. their interactions with women, as I discuss later).

Moreover, neuroticism predates autoparasitism which, as we shall see, predates mercantile non-martial phenotypes. As such, I must respectfully conclude that Emil Kirkegaard is incorrect about there being a direct association between mercantilism and neuroticism. This essay demonstrates instead a common cause of both. That being said, this does not preclude the possibility of a mutually reinforcing effect.

Details on Pre-Parasitism

 

For more details on the pre-parasitic stage in humans, see The Master Class.

5.2. Human Autoparasitism

One can predict that the best way for lesser men to alleviate their anxiety is the restriction of sexual competition. No matter what form this takes, in will inevitably involve the placing of limitations on women, such that higher-quality men are removed from the females’ dating pool. E.g. the formation of isolated communities (ghettos), strict rules pertaining to how women shall dress or behave, participating in rituals which are sufficiently outlandish so as to “otherize” the group, etc. Due to their lower empathy, they will be more willing to profit (evolutionarily) at the expense of the females.

In order to successfully form an information bubble of the kind which satisfies the constraints mentioned, one must be able to cohere a group of people together by cultural means; otherwise, the ghetto would surely fail – why would women voluntarily submit themselves to such men? Moreover, the formation of such a ghetto can only be formed and maintained by cultural means because violence is not a valid option; its use would violate the state monopoly of violence, resulting in criminal proceedings. In other words, there are no martial means available to maintain such a cult. The ability and propensity for culture-creation is thus highly selected within such a ghetto, but not any martial quality. Due to the autoparasite’s history as a survivor of sexually superior martial men, it becomes absolutely necessary as part of its mating call to produce a culture which not only moralizes itself but also emasculates the martial type. At this stage, we now have an inquiline subset of the population.

Self-moralization overcomes its sense of sexual dysphoria: “why bother competing?” Emasculating the martial type reorients female sexual preference. Here, we see the emergence of autoparasitism in the ghetto. They enjoy the societal benefits of martial men but do not use any of their bioenergetic resources towards producing any themselves. They only produce culture creators.

As one might predict, human societies evolve to punish freeloaders. In a cultural context that is increasingly antiparasitic, those autoparasites who are best able to manage their reputations are those who are more likely to survive antiparasitic uprisings and persecution. This selects for social anxiety, as well as traits which lend themselves to “selling” that which is detrimental to the buyer, starting with the ability to make a compelling case in support of the host’s relationship with the autoparasite. In fact, it would be ideal for them to create a perception of themselves wherein they are our “greatest ally”. (huh!)

This evolved ability explains why of the few autoparasites who do engage in manual labor, the value of that which is being sold is entirely determined by the cultural connotations and public perceptions associated to it. Nevertheless, they are the lowest kind of autoparasite, by the standard of the autoparasite – one who actually produces the thing being sold. A perfect example of such a manual trade is a smith who trades in precious metals; note the use of the word “precious” – who creates the cultural perception of something being precious?

In the middle of the hierarchy of such a ghetto are merchants of the kind that do not produce the thing they sell. Instead, they engage in arbitrage – earning a risk-free profit from price discrepancies, e.g. money-changing.

At every level of the hierarchy, every autoparasite functions as a culture-creator. While it is true that the sophistication of culture-creation declines as we descend the autoparasite hierarchy, sophistication is not the only thing that differentiates the autoparasite elite. In non-parasitic humans, the genetic elite is defined as the genes that create the dominant culture. But if every autoparasite is a culture-creator, what is so different about its elite?

The autoparasite elite differs in that the culture it creates is for the parasite, in contrast to commoner autoparasites which create culture for the host. As such, the autoparasite elite quite literally has the role of a tribal teacher. In fact, they might even be referred to as such!

We now have an anxious mercantile subset of a polygynous people who not only differ in their mating strategies but also breed in isolation. In addition, they are lead by an upper-class of “teachers”.

It should be noted that as population size increases along with genetic diversity, the degree of genetic variation at the lowest levels might reach a point where the members of the autoparasite are too undifferentiated to be capable of autoparasitism. For this reason, one would predict that these lower members of the hierarchy would be considered “no longer one of them” and, in fact, they would be subject to the same demoralization of the host. This might be a form of culturally-directed eugenics.

5.3. Human Alloparasitism

Due to the small population size and isolation of the autoparasite, inbreeding will occur. In fact, one could prove this by looking at runs of homozygosity, even in a modern alloparasite population. In any case, the autoparasite stands to gain from outbreeding vigor – exogamy. In order to engage in exogamy, it must be able to signal its mating call to the target brides of a foreign tribe. Presumably, it must send missionaries, in some form.

Given that females judge the sexual value of men based on how other men treat them (i.e. how respected they are), one would expect that the focus of these missionaries would be on lower status men of the foreign tribe. Their objective is to gain the respect and approval of as many men as possible, so as to realign the target brides’ perceptions of the autoparasites. Of course, only the lower status men of the host would be sufficiently resentful so as to welcome the sexual signaling of foreign men in competition with the elite of their own tribe; such is the inherently anti-ethnocentric nature of populism and such is the nature of the parasite’s mating call – ethnic cuckoldry. Indeed, to facilitate this process, one might even expect themes of not only ethnic cuckoldry within the cultures they create,[9] but even the association of purity as something unclean and the consumption or sacrifice of it (a metaphor for admixture) as a remedy. [8]

Philo-parasitism is an honest signal of low status and genetic quality. In order to preempt such an association among the females, one would predict that the social parasite would raise the social cost of anti-parasitism as a means of scaring females away from the sexually superior males of the host.

The better the autoparasite is in its ability to acquire language, the better its chances of conveying this mating call. Thus, one would predict that the autoparasite will, at this stage, be under selection for high verbal ability.

In any case, the few brides it initially succeeds in attracting will produce offspring who benefit from hybrid vigor. Moreover, the hybrids possess a competitive advantage over their unmixed relatives in engaging in parasitism within this new host, not only due to the resemblance thanks to the mother’s contribution but also because of the inheritance of the mother’s language and accent. The moment that a hybrid diaspora is created in a new host, the inquilines are no longer autoparasites, but alloparasites.

In fact, these alloparasite diasporas will be healthier, better-looking, more intelligent, and wealthier than their co-ethnics within the ghetto. They will also be more of all of the above relative to the commoners of the host and their sexual advantage over them will likely be the cause of discontent. Whether this frustration is directed at the social parasite or the host’s elite will likely depend on cultural conditions, i.e. whether the social parasite has successfully propagated its “propaganda substances”. In either case, the social parasite has an incentive to associate anti-parasitic attitudes with genocidal intent and to raise the social costs of perceived genocidal intent; it is correct in identifying anti-parasitism as an existential threat. Both the host and the parasite are potentially existential threats to each other.

I can demonstrate this model of HSP empirically. For this purpose, I will study a sample population and I will, for legal reasons, refer to them as the Kronosites – a totally hypothetical Semitic people who worship Kronos (bare with me). The Kronosites possess every characteristic mentioned from sections 4.1 until now, making them an ideal model type.

Consistent with the HSP model, Kronosites are the least intelligent within their homeland and ghettos and inversely so within their host diasporas. Given that intelligence and the correlates previously mentioned inversely relate with genetic diversity [4], the RCS predicts this pattern of allele frequency in the social parasite tribe perfectly and without exception.

The Kronosites

For the sake of this study, let’s suppose our hypothetical ideal model population was the real originator of the Abrahamic faiths. Right off the bat, we can establish inquilinism and a preparasitic common ancestor:

Can the presence of semaglottic (the symbolic language) in both Semitic and Indo-European civilizations be explained by the inheritance of an ancestral, more primitive proto-semaglottic language originating in the ancestor group of Semites and Indo-Europeans? I call this the Proto-Semaglottic Hypothesis (PSH). It would certainly explain how two uncoordinated and hostile groups came to mutually agree on the esoteric meanings of the same symbols.

Regime (2022)

We can further establish the “propaganda substances” for non-parasites in the form of Christianity, Islam, “pagan” religions of the Wotanic variety, the cults of Saturn and Mercury, the subversive stories developed in late Greece and then in the late pre-Christian Rome whose purpose were to emasculate Apollo, and a number of older Semitic Mesopotamian cults.

In all cases, the top god of any parasite-made religion is a representation of the social parasite as a whole. Thus, that god will be as vengeful as the social parasite, as evidenced by the meaning of “Jesus” – Yahweh avenges. [12] Yahweh is to be understood as a representation of the… uh… Kronosites

As for coevolution, I demonstrate this in the RCS:

At every stage of civilization, the social parasite promotes the losing strategy among its host by religious means. When the stage flips, tribes which would have otherwise engaged in a losing strategy now find themselves with a winning strategy. As such, genes which would have otherwise been selected against are now allowed to exist, thanks to the social parasite. Without the religion that was promoted by the social parasite, the host will collapse. This means that the host population is now genetically dependent on the social parasite, thereby conferring upon it the ability to favor what kinds of people breed and those who do not.

[…]

What we must remember is that the social parasite must pair the losing strategy with the promise of a new era where, presumably, those who adhere this losing strategy will have “heaven on Earth” when this new era comes. In biological terms, the losing strategy now is the winning strategy in the next stage of civilization (the “new era”).

Regime (2023)

With the use of “propaganda substances”, I demonstrate coevolution with real-world examples:

Given the competition strategy of the social parasite, it has an evolutionary incentive to promote certain ideas among its hosts, such as ideas which welcome the acceleration of the course of civilization and the consumption of the host. One can thus predict some common symbolic elements or themes from religions or ideologies created by the social parasite:

  • Moralizing the consumer (e.g. Semitic fire gods such as Vulcan & Yahweh) and demoralizing the consumed (e.g. Indo-European archetypes, such as the Seraphim)
  • New eras (e.g. Ragnarok, Messianic era, Apocalypse, Qiyamah, Saoshyant)
  • Dying and rising deities (Phoenix, Osiris, Adonis, Jesus, etc.)
  • Cyclical representations of time, e.g. Kronos (time) as the consumer of eras, leading to more “new eras”
  • Expressions such as “rising from the ash” being used in the context of fire gods and new eras
  • “The last shall finish first and the first shall finish last”
Regime (2023)

One example of such a symbol is the Caduceus, which I argue is a vehicle for the Kronosites’ collective unconscious:

Conclusion

I conclude with an explanation of the thumbnail of this essay. For convenience, here it is again:

Apollo Strikes Yahweh with Jupiter's Lightning
Apollo Strikes Yahweh with Jupiter’s Lightning

The original of this famous painting is Thor battling the giants. Thor’s hammer is replaced with thunder and his ornaments are replaced with Apollonian symbolism. Why would I want to convey the message of Apollo striking the stone tablet? Because he does so with Jupiter’s lightning and this is an important concept I wish to part with.

To this day, Europeans continue to benefit from the memes of their ancestors. These memes comprise institutions, concepts, and so on. Just as ant social parasitism selects for resilience in its social organization, the same can be said in humans and this is where I believe genopolemology is leading us. I think we are developing the intellectual tools needed to increase the resilience of European institutions.

HSP is a strictly biological form of warfare and if we are to understand it and win that gene war, we must develop biological solutions for this fight – many of which will be cultural, in nature (AIM). Perhaps I have misused the symbolism (I hope not), but as I understand the modified image, Apollo (the ideal future European) is wielding Jupiter’s lightning (rejuvenated ancestral memes, Jupiter’s institutions, laws, and order) against the table of stone. The intended message is both profound and based on the biological realities outlined in this essay.

I would be honored to see this concept and message properly represented in an original work of art – very genocentric and moralizing!

Acknowledgements

The theory of HSP is an intellectual marriage between the preceding concepts of genopolemology (a field still in its infancy), the indispensable work of Mark Brahmin on REM, and the pivotal work of Professor Alfred Buschinger on the speciation of ant social parasites. The theory of HSP could not have drawn many of the conclusions it has without all 3 of these theoretical components.

I would also like to thank my autistic friend, Vincent, for introducing me to the concept of ant social parasitism, years ago. I hope he now sees that HSP is a very real and serious topic of study, rather than a merely humorous comparison between ant parasites and our beloved friends from a certain community.

References
  1. Buschinger, A. (1990), Sympatric speciation and radiative evolution of socially parasitic ants – Heretic hypotheses and their factual background. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research, 28: 241-260. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0469.1990.tb00379.x
  2. Jaclyn A. Smith, Luke B. Chenoweth, Simon M. Tierney, Michael P. Schwarz, Repeated origins of social parasitism in allodapine bees indicate that the weak form of Emery’s rule is widespread, yet sympatric speciation remains highly problematic, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 109, Issue 2, June 2013, Pages 320–331, https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12043
  3. Guo Q., Peng Sun, P., Li L., Why neurotic individuals are less prosocial? A multiple mediation analysis regarding related mechanisms, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 128, 2018, Pages 55-61, ISSN 0191-8869, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.02.026.
  4. Wang, M., Huang, S. The collective effects of genetic variants and complex traits. J Hum Genet 68, 255–262 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s10038-022-01105-1
  5. David M. Buss, Cari Goetz, Joshua D. Duntley, Kelly Asao, Daniel Conroy-Beam, The mate switching hypothesis, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 104, 2017, Pages 143-149, ISSN 0191-8869, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.022.
  6. Lahey BB. Public health significance of neuroticism. Am Psychol. 2009 May-Jun;64(4):241-56. doi: 10.1037/a0015309. PMID: 19449983; PMCID: PMC2792076.
  7. Allies, A.B., Bourke, A.F.G. & Franks, N.R. Propaganda substances in the cuckoo ant Leptothorax kutteri and the slave-maker Harpagoxenus sublaevis . J Chem Ecol 12, 1285–1293 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01012348
  8. Brahmin, M. (2019). Jewish Notions of “Cleanliness” and “Holiness”: The Aryan as “Discharge”. The Apollonian Transmission. URI: https://theapolloniantransmission.com/2019/10/07/jewish-notions-of-cleanliness-and-holiness-the-aryan-as-discharge-and-leprosy-made-clean-by-admixture
  9. Brahmin, M. (2019). Esoteric Apollo: The Crow or Raven, Symbol of Racial Cuckoldry. The Apollonian Transmission. URI: https://theapolloniantransmission.com/2019/04/13/esoteric-apollo-the-crow-or-raven-symbol-of-racial-cuckoldry
  10. Blatrix, R. and Herbers, J.M. (2003), Coevolution between slave-making ants and their hosts: host specificity and geographical variation. Molecular Ecology, 12: 2809-2816. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.2003.01947.x
  11. Regime, A. (2022). Genocentrism Is The Future. Apollonian Regime. URI: https://apollonianregime.com/genocentrism-is-the-future
  12. Regime, A. (2023). Genosupremacy: Religious Competition Simulator. Apollonian Regime. URI: https://apollonianregime.com/genosupremacy-religious-competition-simulator
  13. Brahmin, M. (2019). An Important Riddle Solved: The Name Jesus means “Jewry Avenges”. URI: https://theapolloniantransmission.com/2019/09/06/an-important-riddle-solved-the-name-jesus-means-yahweh-avenges

Apollonian Regime Telegram Channel

Click to view.

Conceptual Open-Source License (COSL)

The original ideas and arguments presented herein are published under the COSL license.