The Science of Nobility
Futuristic Nobleman


What follows is a discussion that is primarily about male-male competition. For a discussion about women and their memetic footprints, see Female Memetics. For more information about the emerging field of genopolemology, please visit the Research Institute of Genopolemology.

One of the foundational premises of scientific progress is the logic that a difference in observation between 2 composite objects can be attributed to the difference in their constituents. This is the staging ground for establishing correlation and it is the very basis of comparative analysis and, in turn, controlled experimentation. Using comparative analysis, this essay will demonstrate a number of meaningful correlations and deductions related to the Y chromosome, historical aristogenesis, and the Proto-Semaglottic Hypothesis (on the origin of the symbolic language). Moreover, context will be used to establish causality where applicable.

Introduction to Epigenetics

A recurrent theme throughout this analysis will be that of epigenetics, i.e. the effect of a gene’s molecular environment upon its expression. To better understand epigenetics, there is no better case study than the very inception of its academic history which began with the pivotal experiment that proved the occurrence of genomic imprinting[1] , i.e. parent-of-origin specific gene expression.

In 1984, Surani et al. published a paper entitled “Development of reconstituted mouse eggs suggests imprinting of the genome during gametogenesis”. They conducted an experiment where they would manipulate mouse embryos to inherit both sets of chromosomes from a single parent; androgenetic means both sets are inherited from the father and gynogenetic means inheritance from the mother. The result was severe maldevelopment.

Here, we have a clear application of comparative analysis. We have 2 composite objects: a control group called “ordinary mice” and a test group called “androgenetic and gynogenetic mice”. The only constituent traits that differentiate these 2 objects is the parent-of-origin variable. Therefore, we can not only establish a correlation between the configuration of those traits but, from the context and design of the experiment, we can even assert causality. In other words, 2 sets of chromosomes which largely code for the same proteins resulted in maldevelopment, depending on whether the parent-of-origin variable was manipulated.

If (largely) the same genes are resulting in widely different outcomes, then it can only be the case that they are being expressed differently. From this, we can conclude that there is something different about those sets of chromosomes other than the DNA itself. Since DNA is a molecule and can only react to other molecules, we can ascertain that there is something in the molecular environment that is acting upon genes (hence, the prefix epi-) causing them to “turn on and off”.

The Y-Dominance Effect

An autosome is a non-sex chromosome and it is already known that the sex chromosomes can modulate autosomal gene expression:

Through linear modeling of autosomal gene expression in cells from individuals with zero to three Xi and zero to four Y chromosomes, we found that Xi and Y impact autosomal expression broadly and with remarkably similar effects.

Roman et al. (2023)

The Y-Dominance effect refers to the overwhelming effect size of the Y chromosome on phenotypes related to male-male competition and, as discussed later, its self-selection. In the Social Antler Theory, I hypothesize that female intelligence is vestigial:

If real antlers develop in puberty in relation to testosterone, can we not say that the same would be the case for social antlers? […] due to the same selective pressures which delay real antler formation, namely the limitation of bioenergetic resources[,] there is no evolutionary benefit for a prepubescent deer to invest its bioenergetic resources to develop antlers. The human brain is similarly very bioenergetically resource-intensive. Why would we expect the male brain to develop the capacity to produce a sexually competitive memetic footprint before puberty?


Women have memetic footprints. However, women do not undergo the biological processes which weaponize the memetic footprint into social antlers; women will never engage in male-male competition because women are the choosers of males. […] is it possible that women have inherited the brain structures which produce the intellectual components of memetic footprints simply because it was selected for in men?

Regime (2022a)

Here, I corroborate this hypothesis. There are 2 groups (males and females) and 3 variables at play:

  1. hormonal profiles,
  2. intelligence differences,
  3. & natural inclinations.

Hormonal Profiles

Contrary to popular belief, the causal association between testosterone and aggression is purely fictional. Instead, the acute behavioral effect of testosterone is to push one’s natural inclination to the extreme, even when the inclination is pro-social[3] . Dreher et al. (2016) demonstrated that testosterone’s extremism effect is due to its ability to enhance social status perception. When a behavior, be it anti-social or pro-social, is likely to increase one’s social status, it is more likely to occur with higher testosterone levels by virtue of the fact that one is now more sensitized to social status thanks to its enhanced perceptibility.

By itself, testosterone can only account for the extremism of male behavior, such as the outlier nature of extreme male accomplishments, rather than the capability or inclination of the behavior itself. The cascade of events and traits related to male sex differences (which include hormonal profile) is initiated by the SRY gene (responsible for sex determination)[5] , located on the Y chromosome.

Intelligence Differences

A simple comparative test of intra-group intelligence differences by gender reveals a clear association between intelligence and the Y chromosome. We begin with the famous bell-curves:

Attribution: Grabinski et al. (2020) – CC BY 4.0

In essence, there is no significant difference when comparing the group averages in intelligence between men and women. However, there are more geniuses and mental handicaps among men, whereas women tend to cluster more towards the mean. At the intra-group level, males and females tend to be highly genetically related to each other and this effect is even more pronounced in societies that encourage cousin marriages. If males and females largely share the same genes and yet they exhibit a clear difference, the prime suspect is the Y chromosome. Yet, no polygenic studies have found a Y-linked gene for intelligence.

Since the non-Y genome is shared between the genders, it cannot explain the distribution. That leaves us with the Y chromosome but there are no Y-linked gene(s) for intelligence. By process of elimination, it can only be the case that the disparity in outlier intelligence is due to Y-linked epigenes.

Here, we definitively establish that the capability for outlier male accomplishment is due to the Y chromosome’s epigenetic programs. This corroborates the vestigiality hypothesis: if females were also under selection for traits related to male-male competition, they would not be relegated to the Y chromosome. The Y-specific nature of this adaptation proves that it is the males which were under selection for such traits and not females.

However, an important question remains. How could Y-epigenes affect intelligence if there are no Y-linked genes for intelligence? In short, there is no doubt that there are Y-epigenes which regulate the expression of protocadherin 11 (PCDH11), which is deeply involved in neurodevelopment; more on PCDH11 below. In addition, the findings of Roman et al. (2023) evidence the possibility of autosomal modulation.

Natural Inclinations

Protocadherins (PCDHs) are a class of proteins involved in cell-cell adhesion, cell-type recognition[7] and neuronal self-avoidance[6]. One such protein, PCDH11, is involved in the central nervous system and its underlying gene is found on both the X & Y chromosomes – PCDH11X & PCDH11Y, respectively[5] . In turn, the PCDH11Y protein has a slight difference in amino acid sequence from its X homologue.

In the brain, transcripts from both PCDH11X and PCDH11Y are present most highly in the cortex, and also in several subregions including the amygdala, caudate nucleus, hippocampus and thalamus.

Kopsida et al. (2009)

Each of these brain regions has a distinct role:

  1. Cortex: The cerebral cortex, particularly the outer layer of the brain, is involved in high-level functions like thought, memory, consciousness, language, and perception.
  2. Amygdala: It plays a key role in emotional responses, especially fear and pleasure. It’s also involved in forming emotional memories.
  3. Caudate Nucleus: Part of the basal ganglia, it’s important for motor processes and associative learning.
  4. Hippocampus: Critical for memory formation, particularly in converting short-term memory to long-term memory, and spatial navigation.
  5. Thalamus: Acts as a relay station for sensory and motor signals to the cerebral cortex, and is involved in regulating consciousness, sleep, and alertness.

Without a Y chromosome, women thus lack the PCDH11Y protein. The causal role of PCDH11Y mutations in neuropsychiatric disorders[5] not only corroborates its differential function in neurodevelopment of the regions mentioned above, but it also establishes that the difference has a meaningful effect on the neural processing of those regions.

In other words, gender differences in the functions of those brain regions are directly attributable, at least in part, to PCDH11. Altogether, the behavioral effects of those brain regions comprise one’s natural inclinations. It is self-evident how PCDH11 polymorphism can account for gender differences in cortex-related reasoning (i.e. the propensity to apply reason to produce scientific theory in men vs solutions to immediate social problems in women) and gender differences in amygdala-related emotionality.

Here, we have established the third Y-linked component of the social antler, namely male-type neurodevelopment of natural inclinations.

What Is Y-Dominance?

Y-Dominance refers to the Y chromosome’s self-selection and unilateral effect on the social antler. The winners of male-male competition pass on their genes and the determinant of victory is the social antler, i.e. the memetic output of male-type neurodevelopment, high intelligence, and high testosterone. The more formidable the social antler, the greater the likelihood of victory.

In turn, the social antler is heritable. As such, women who have a greater affinity for signals of social antler formidability are more likely to pass on their genes, as they will produce fitter offspring. The initial signal itself always precedes the female receptivity to that signal as an evolutionary adaptation. This tells us that the female’s role as the ultimate selector is an illusion because females were first selected by males for their affinity of males like themselves. Essentially, man or, more accurately, the Y chromosome selected itself and this is corroborated by the fact that females judge the formidability of the social antler based on the respect of other men[8], i.e. males selecting males – the Y-Dominance effect.

Further to Y-Dominance, the Y chromosome also assortatively selects the non-Y genome of males and liberally selects females sexually. Given the intelligence requirement of social antlers, males which select for intelligence in females are less likely to dilute alleles for intelligence in their offspring. This leads to an evolutionary relationship where the Y chromosome is akin to a pilot, the non-Y genome is akin to the airplane, and they mutually select for the best version of each other. Non-Y genes can pass on more copies of themselves with a better Y chromosome and Y-genes can pass on more copies of themselves with better non-Y genes.

An empirical demonstration of Y-Dominance can be gleaned from the Central Subsaharan Hausa people who possess the Indo-European Y chromosome R1b at rates which are roughly equivalent to Northwestern Europe. Relative to other African cultures, they are culturally dominant and an objective comparison between Hausa culture and non-Hausa African culture will corroborate its greater relative sophistication. Again, we see that the non-Y genome is largely identical to its neighboring African people while the Y chromosome is Indo-European. Thus, the relative formidability of the Hausa social antler is an instance of the Y-Dominance effect.

Similarly, we see that human social parasitism (HSP) also exhibits the Y-Dominance effect. In the alloparasitic stage, we see that the social parasite cares only to spread its Y chromosome, being perfectly content to dilute away its non-Y genome with that of the host. If we repeat this exogamous process inter-generationally, the end result is that, after 9 generations, the non-Y genome of the social parasite will differ with that of the host by less than 0.1% while retaining the original Y chromosome. Given the great lengths the social parasite goes in order to accomplish this, it can only be the case that this outcome is deliberate and, thus, the final outcome is to be understood as the social parasite’s ideal type. More to this point, the Y chromosome in HSP can itself be understood as a molecular inquiline, i.e. existing within the genome without being of the genome. Even at the molecular level, we find ourselves with a wandering alien.

In any case, a comparative analysis of HSP further corroborates Y-Dominance. Even in the extreme case where the non-Y genome of the social parasite has been diluted away by that of the host, the social parasite remains a non-martial mercantile culture-creator. Once again, we find that the only factor which can account for this difference in social antler is the Y chromosome.

Mating patterns also corroborate the dominance of the Y chromosome. The bottom ~80% of males do not enter a female’s sexual calculus until after the female has reached an age of rapid declines in attractiveness and fertility. To contrast, the top ~20% – elite males – are possible mates for all available women. This further debunks the myth of the average female being chased by 10 guys because, as far as she is concerned, those guys don’t even exist. The reality is that most females are vying for a handful of elite men. As such, the sexual market power is not, in fact, in the hands of women, as internet lore would have us believe; even here, the Y chromosome reigns supreme. Indeed, we find that incels and manospherians are wrong about women. Shocker.

While some women may feel offended by this revelation of inevitable patriarchy, they can just as easily rejoice at the relief of knowing that their problems are caused by bad patriarchs and thus can be solved by good ones.


Genetic elites are an outgrowth of male coalitional behavior. In turn, males coalesce assortatively. The lower the genetic distance between any two males, the greater the brain similarity, the greater the overlap in worldviews (i.e. memetic similarity). When blood ties are formed by way of isolated breeding within the coalition, an elite nucleus forms. When the newly formed genetic cluster is of Noble descent (i.e. haplogroups R1a or R1b), the formation of that cluster is called an “aristogenesis”, from the Greek aristo- (meaning excellence / nobility) and genesis- (meaning origin / beginning).

With isolated breeding comes lower genetic diversity and this, in turn, enables epigenetic complexity thanks to the Systems Complexity Axiom (SCA) applied to genes:

Genetic diversity, i.e., genetic distance or dissimilarity in DNA or protein sequences between individuals or species, is restricted by the complexity of epigenetic programs.

Huang (2009)

The same logic applies to memes:

Memetic diversity, i.e., memetic distance or dissimilarity in memetic sequences between memetic footprints or cultures, is restricted by the complexity of epimemetic programs.

Regime (2023a)

Epimemetic complexity is the hallmark of cultural sophistication (i.e. social antler formidability). Thanks to epimemetic constraints, memes which are incongruent with sophistication are pruned. Aristogenesis (i.e. elitism, in general) is both a result of complexity and, by process of self-perpetuation, a promoter of it.

However, it must, at all times, contend with the reality of downward mobility. Due to mutational load, the youngest siblings are the most genetically diverse; see the Germ Cell Mutation Equation. The greater the genetic diversity, the lower the epigenetic complexity, the lower the intelligence[11] , the lower the epimemetic complexity, and, finally, the greater the memetic diversity. In addition, genetic diversity is positively correlated with neuro-atypicality, such as schizophrenia. [12]

More simply put, if you throw logical restrictions out the window, then a whole lot of bad ideas start to look really good, all of a sudden. More importantly, subcultural echo chambers appear to stem and spread in a manner that is mechanistically identical to cancer:

DNA methylation is one of the key forms of epigenetic interaction. Carcinocytes (cancer cells) are notoriously undermethylated and present an increasing mutational load over time as a function of their proliferation. This demonstrates that a relaxation of epigenetic constraints (which would have otherwise prevented the fixation of most mutations) have allowed for greater genetic diversity in carcinocytes.


The memes of scams, cults, conspiracy theorists, extremists groups, and other subcultural echo chambers (SECs) are notoriously unmediated by truth and falsifiability. As such, they present an increasing memetic diversity over time as a function of their memetic replication. This demonstrates that a relaxation of epimemetic constraints (which would have otherwise prevented the fixation of many memetic mutations) have allowed for greater memetic diversity in SECs. Interestingly, this establishes that SECs are literally the cultural equivalent of cancer.

Regime (2023a)

Since males coalesce assortatively, more genetically diverse males will begin to cluster together, forming sub-groups. In turn, this will lead to intra-group competition. In most cases, these groups will lose the competition because with greater genetic diversity comes:

  • less formidable social antlers,
  • lower fidelity of information inheritance,
  • divergences of opinion,
  • lower in-group cooperation,
  • the undermining of authority.

In other words, genetic diversity leads to low positive ethnocentrism. Nevertheless, it is possible for one of these sub-groups to re-attain epigenetic complexity from a combination of isolated breeding and intense selection. In the case where a mutation is found on the Y chromosome (which defines a new haplotype), a competing elite (and worldview) can be formed.

HSP is one of the possible outcomes, with its pre-parasitic stage being the most common to humans, its autoparasitic stage being uncommon, and finally, its alloparasitic stage being the least common (only 1 known example). However, HSP can only occur if the pre-parasite is a loser of male-male competition and the stages of parasitism cannot progress to the autoparasitic (and beyond) without a different haplotype.

There are also cases where mutational load is sufficiently high for sub-group formation but not sufficiently high to cause a loss of sexual access. With isolated breeding, intense selection, and a new haplotype, such a sub-group is likely going to represent a new competing sub-type within the genetic cluster. Here, we use a comparative analysis of the Indo-European haplogroups R1a & R1b, as our case study.

Social Antlers Compared: R1a vs R1b

Due to the Y-Dominance effect and its effect size on the social antler, we must understand that all differences in cognitive output related to intra-group and inter-group male-male competition are subject to Y-Dominance. As such, a comparative analysis of cultures and geographical differences in haplogroup clusters and scatter patterns are highly indicative of the effect of each haplotype.

Indo-European Migrations

Click to Expand

R1a map

R1a Map

Attribution: Mauricio Lucioni

License: CC BY-SA 4.0

R1b map

R1b Map

Attribution: Mauricio Lucioni

License: CC BY-SA 4.0

An immediate observation is that the 2 haplogroups tend to coexist in areas where cluster scatters overlap. In addition, they cluster apart from one another, suggesting that differences in migratory opinions and decision-making are at the root of divergences in clustering. Another observation is that clusters scatter away from their nuclei with an affinity for other clusters, including those which are of the other haplogroup. The latter observation suggests inter-group cooperation.

Distant outposts demonstrate that clusters can be diluted. Taken to its natural conclusion, we must observe the haplogroup maps with the assumption of there being “ghost clusters” which is to say that the maps can only show clusters which have not been diluted to the point of dissipation. For example, distant outposts in Eastern South and North Asia are examples of diluted clusters; note that their nuclei are dissipated, leaving behind a faint scatter pattern. Nevertheless, we see that the scatter patterns of the Eastern Eurasian Steppe radiate in the direction of those outposts.

If we look at the R1b scatter pattern of the Maghrebi cluster, we see that a branch extends Southwest-ward from the nucleus, towards modern-day Mauritania. It is very likely that a ghost cluster exists at the tip of that branch. In the opposite scenario, one might have to conclude that intermittent R1b settlements formed between the nucleus and tip with no particular destination in mind during the migration (which would imply that the direction is random) – highly implausible.

The key differences between the scatter patterns of R1a and R1b is in their dispersion and aggregation rates, i.e. how diffusely a nucleus scatters within the same radius and how many clusters form per nucleus, respectively. R1a has the higher aggregation rate and decentralization suggests a more generalist competition strategy:

By foregoing economies of scale, generalism foregoes the higher carrying capacity of a larger population. In turn, a smaller population has less genetic diversity which allows for higher epigenetic complexity (read: higher average intelligence). Moreover, the less rigid structure permits higher status males to engage in more unilateral actions in a shorter period of time, thereby making the system more adaptable to instability and more resilient to stressors, like civilizational conflict.

Regime (2023b)

The greater presence of R1a clusters in geographical areas near competing civilizations entails a greater exposure to tribal conflict and instability. As such, a relatively more generalist strategy would be required to thrive in such circumstances. In itself, the higher propensity for aggregation (leading to decentralization) is an adaptation to a strategy that is higher in reward but also higher in risk. Those who avoid putting too many eggs in a single basket are more likely to pass on their genes. From this, we can deduce a cognitive difference: greater risk tolerance. One can imagine how this difference could have been the cause of divergent interests and strategic opinions and a source of discord among the ancient Nobility, perhaps leading to divergent clustering and migratory choices.

To contrast, the higher dispersion rate of R1b demonstrates that this lineage has a greater geographical affinity for the nucleus. The ability to place more eggs in the same basket requires a more stable environment which selects for specialization due to its resulting economies of scale and competitive advantages. Thus, R1b benefits from a higher carrying capacity:

In a reproductively healthy population, such an increase in carrying capacity leads to an increase in population size and, correspondingly, genetic diversity. With greater genetic diversity comes greater intra-group variation along a variety of morphological traits, many of which are maladaptive phenotypes. In the past, this wouldn’t matter because they would be weeded out of the gene pool. However, an entire market now exists known as the medical industry where the majority of its (well-intended) work consists of keeping genetic mutants alive.

This exacerbates the genetic distance between commoners and elites, leading to a deterioration of institutions. As institutions decay, so does the infrastructure which supports the carrying capacity of the population. The specialist social structure not only fosters its own degeneration, but its rigid and unadaptable foundation removes all resilience in the face of civilizational stressors.

Regime (2023b)

This is not only corroborated by the incidence of the industrial revolution in Northwestern Europe, but also by the fact that it is precisely where the genetic decline is most strikingly observed. To further corroborate R1b’s more specialist inclination, the liberal world order is the social antler of R1b:

[Specialization] is at the root of the liberal geopolitical argument in favor of global integration (a global order with decentralized control, aka the “international system”); the belief is that world peace and “human rights democracies” [i.e. stability] can be achieved by way of structural co-dependence – a weak form of mutually assured destruction. Ostensibly, war and tyranny can be deterred if everyone is hooked upon a foundation which can be damaged from war and tyranny

Regime (2023b)

R1a vs R1b Culture

Here, we corroborate the cognitive differences highlighted above, using direct cultural comparison. Eupedia Genetics is used to ascertain the haplogroup of each elite male mentioned below. Moreover, males are compared within similar fields and occupations.

David Hume vs Benjamin Franklin

David Hume (R1a) and Benjamin Franklin (R1b), though contemporaries, had distinct worldviews shaped by their unique backgrounds and focuses.

David Hume (1711-1776):

  1. Empiricism and Skepticism: Hume was a Scottish philosopher central to the Scottish Enlightenment. He is best known for his philosophical empiricism and skepticism. Hume believed that all human knowledge derives from experience and that reason is slave to the passions.
  2. Religious Skepticism: He was also known for his skepticism of religion. Hume argued against the design argument for God’s existence and suggested that human reason falls short of knowing religious truths.
  3. Influence on Utilitarianism: Hume’s ethical works laid the groundwork for utilitarianism, emphasizing utility and happiness as significant.

Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790):

  1. Pragmatism and Enlightenment Ideals: Franklin, an American polymath, was deeply influenced by the ideals of the Enlightenment. He valued practical knowledge and was an advocate of education, hard work, and community spirit.
  2. Religious Beliefs: Franklin held a more deist perspective, believing in God but skeptical of organized religion and dogma. His views were more focused on ethical conduct and less on spiritual doctrine.
  3. Political and Social Reforms: Franklin was actively involved in politics and social reforms. He was instrumental in the American Revolution and had a keen interest in political philosophy, focusing on liberty, civic responsibility, and democratic values.

In summary, Hume’s worldview was deeply philosophical, emphasizing empiricism, skepticism, and questioning of religious doctrines, whereas Franklin’s was more practical, focusing on enlightenment ideals, ethical conduct, and political and social reforms. Both contributed significantly to their respective fields and the broader context of Western thought, but in markedly different ways. Hume demonstrates a more progressive instinct with his willingness to challenge prevailing dogma – a high-risk, high-reward strategy. Franklin demonstrates a (Schmittian) conservative instinct, looking to enforce his liberal values and preserve the legitimacy of liberal institutions.

Thomas Edison vs Nikola Tesla

Thomas Edison (R1b) and Nikola Tesla (R1a) were two of the most influential inventors and electrical pioneers whose contributions had a profound impact on the modern world. Their inventions and discoveries reflect their differing approaches and philosophies.

Thomas Edison (1847-1931):

  1. Inventions and Innovations: Edison is best known for inventing the practical incandescent light bulb and developing the phonograph. He also improved the telegraph and telephone systems. His work on motion pictures laid the groundwork for the modern film industry.
  2. Business Acumen: Edison was not just an inventor but also a shrewd businessman. He founded General Electric, which became one of the largest companies in the world.
  3. Direct Current (DC) System: Edison championed the direct current system for electric power distribution, believing it to be safer and more efficient for the time.

Nikola Tesla (1856-1943):

  1. Innovations in Electromagnetism: Tesla is renowned for his groundbreaking work in electromagnetism. His development of alternating current (AC) electrical systems was his most notable achievement, providing a more efficient means of transmitting electrical power over long distances.
  2. Wireless Communication and Energy Transfer: Tesla experimented with wireless communication and energy transfer. He conceptualized the idea of a “world wireless system” for global telecommunication and attempted to create a wireless power transmission system.
  3. Futuristic and Unfinished Projects: Tesla had many ambitious projects, such as the Tesla coil and plans for a particle beam weapon. Many of these were not completed or fully realized in his lifetime.


  • Approach to Innovation: Edison was more of a practical inventor who focused on creating devices that had immediate commercial applications. Tesla was a visionary who dreamed big and worked on futuristic technologies, some of which were too advanced for his time.
  • AC vs. DC: Their most famous rivalry was over electric power distribution systems. Edison’s DC system was initially more popular, but Tesla’s AC system eventually proved to be more practical for long-distance power transmission.
  • Legacy: Edison’s inventions directly led to the creation of industries and had immediate practical applications, while Tesla’s work laid the foundation for future technologies in wireless communication and power systems.

Both Edison and Tesla left indelible marks on the world with their inventiveness and foresight. While Edison is often remembered for his entrepreneurial success and practical inventions, Tesla is celebrated for his brilliant theoretical work and contributions to the understanding of electricity and magnetism. Once again, we find a more progressive, high-risk / high-reward tendency with R1a and a more conservative one with R1b.

Ernest Hemingway vs Alexander Pushkin

Ernest Hemingway (R1b) and Alexander Pushkin (R1a) were influential literary figures in their respective cultures, but their styles, themes, and contributions to literature were quite distinct, reflecting their different historical and cultural contexts.

Ernest Hemingway (1899-1961):

  1. Writing Style: Hemingway is known for his concise, direct, and unadorned prose style, often described as the “iceberg theory” of writing, where the underlying meaning of a text is implicit rather than explicit. His style had a significant impact on 20th-century fiction.
  2. Themes: His works often explored themes like masculinity, loss, and the nature of courage. His experiences as an ambulance driver in World War I and as a journalist in the Spanish Civil War greatly influenced his writing.
  3. Notable Works: Some of Hemingway’s most celebrated works include “The Old Man and the Sea,” “A Farewell to Arms,” and “For Whom the Bell Tolls.” He won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1954.

Alexander Pushkin (1799-1837):

  1. Writing Style: Pushkin is often considered the founder of modern Russian literature and is known for his use of vernacular Russian, which brought the language of literature closer to the spoken word. His style was characterized by its simplicity, elegance, and emotional depth.
  2. Themes: Pushkin’s works often dealt with themes of love, honor, and Russian society. He was deeply involved in the intellectual and social debates of his time.
  3. Notable Works: Pushkin’s major works include the epic poem “Eugene Onegin,” the drama “Boris Godunov,” and various short stories and fairy tales. His work had a profound influence on Russian literature, paving the way for other great Russian writers.


  • Cultural Influence: Both writers were immensely influential in their respective cultures. Hemingway was a key figure in American literature, known for his narrative style and themes of existentialism and disillusionment. Pushkin is often seen as the greatest Russian poet and the founder of modern Russian literature.
  • Literary Style: While Hemingway’s style was notably sparse and understated, Pushkin’s was more lyrical and rich in its use of the Russian language.
  • Themes: Both explored universal themes such as love, honor, and society, but their approaches and the contexts in which they wrote were markedly different, with Hemingway focusing more on the disillusionment of the modern age and Pushkin on the complexities of Russian society in the 19th century.

In summary, while both Hemingway and Pushkin were masters of their craft and left lasting legacies in their respective literatures, their styles, themes, and cultural impacts were shaped by their unique experiences and historical contexts. However, Pushkin, with his willingness to go beyond the literary, cultural, and ideological norms of his time, was indeed the more progressive author, clearly adopting the higher-risk, higher-reward strategy. On the other hand, Hemingway instead reinforced the cultural and ideological norms of his time – a conservative inclination.

Proto-Semaglottic Hypothesis (PSH)

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? […] It would certainly explain how two uncoordinated and hostile groups came to mutually agree on the esoteric meanings of the same symbols.

Regime (2022b)

Mark Brahmin has previously voiced his suspicion that Sumer was the origin point of the symbolic language; I’ll refer to this as the Sumerian Origin Hypothesis (SOH). I was initially skeptical of the SOH because, in order for the PSH to be true, 2 requirements must be met:

  1. the ancestor group must be Indo-European, &
  2. the subversive use of the symbolic language (JEM) must be a cultural appropriation by a sub-group of the ancestor group’s elite.

Until now, there was no evidence to suggest that the Sumerian founding stock was Indo-European, given the absence of genetic data. Having analyzed the scatter patterns of R1a and R1b, I can demonstrate that Sumer may very well be an Indo-European ghost cluster.

Indo-European Founder

Notice the branching patterns. Again, clusters do not aimlessly disperse into the void. The fact that a culturally vibrant civilization existed there makes it even less plausible that the direction of branching is a matter of coincidence. Moreover, this pattern is observed once (if not 4 times) in R1a and thrice in R1b. There is far too much smoke for there to be no fire.

Click to Expand

R1a Sumer

R1a Branching Towards Sumer

Attribution (Modified): Mauricio Lucioni

License: CC BY-SA 4.0

R1b Sumer

R1b Branching Towards Sumer

Attribution (Modified): Mauricio Lucioni

License: CC BY-SA 4.0

A basic experiment further confirms Sumer as a ghost cluster. In windows paint, one can mimick the migration patterns of the region and see if one obtains a ghost cluster. Using the spray paint, let’s setup the experiment. The spray is released at a fixed rate per second. To mimick migration patterns, we first create 3 starting & finishing points (Indo-European clusters) along a linear plane where the middle node is a focal point for trade routes (i.e. Sumer). The mouse remains in constant motion when clicked, except for a one second pause at each node. The left and right nodes each make 5 return trips to Sumer.

scatter pattern

Next, we use white spray to simulate the genetic dilution of Sumer by way of high-volume migration. In every corner, we assume there is a non-Indo-European cluster and they must pass through Sumer to get to the node opposite from each other. We now repeat the experiment from the corner nodes such that the migrants pass through Sumer without stopping (i.e. no 1-second pause in Sumer).

Above: Sumer becomes a ghost cluster. Left & right clusters seemingly disperse into the void.

In addition, the clear use of the symbolic language in Sumerian mythology further corroborates the Indo-European founding stock thesis:

The facts of memetic inheritance and imperfect meme replication prove that phylomemetics is a conceptually valid parallel to phylogenetics. This is eminently clear in the existence of root words, as they directly (and consciously) evidence memetic ancestry.

Regime (2023a)

Examples include the Jupiterian sky God An (Akkadian: Anu) and the Apollonian solar God Utu (Akkadian: Shamash). These, along with other aspects of the Sumerian pantheon, establish a clear phylomemetic relationship with the Greek and Roman pantheons, most likely one of common descent.

Cultural Appropriation by a Sub-group

In order for the SOH to be true, Sumer must meet the 2nd prerequisite of PSH: JEM must have originated from within a sub-group of the Sumerian elite. The obvious suspect is Akkad, a mercantile and verbally able alien and culture creator in the land of Sumer. From what little is known about the origins of the Akkadians, their role in Sumerian civilization appears to be that of HSP.

The Akkadians inhabited a region in Mesopotamia that was strategically located between the Assyrian cities in the north and the Sumerian cities in the south. This location likely facilitated trade and cultural exchanges, thereby enhancing their influence.

The Akkadian language, a Semitic language, gradually spread throughout the region. It was used for trade, diplomacy, and eventually became the lingua franca of much of Mesopotamia and the Near East. This widespread use of their language was a significant factor in their cultural influence.

The Akkadians were adept at assimilating and adapting elements of Sumerian culture, which was already well-established in the region. They adopted the cuneiform writing system and many aspects of Sumerian religion, art, and literature, blending these with their own traditions. Here, we see an alien attempting to blend in.

It is entirely plausible that the Akkadian elite engaged in exogamy with Sumerian females, thus creating a hybrid diaspora – a subversive subgroup of the Sumerian elite. Thus, Sumer is an ideal candidate for an ancestral group from which the symbolic language emerged. Due to the degenerative nature of archeological data, it is unlikely that better evidence will ever be discovered.

The evidence presented is highly supportive of both the PSH and the SOH.

  1. Surani MA, Barton SC, Norris ML. Development of reconstituted mouse eggs suggests imprinting of the genome during gametogenesis. Nature. 1984 Apr 5-11;308(5959):548-50. doi: 10.1038/308548a0. PMID: 6709062.
  2. Regime, A. 2022a. Social Antler Theory. uri:
  3. Eisenegger, C., Naef, M., Snozzi, R. et al. Prejudice and truth about the effect of testosterone on human bargaining behaviour. Nature 463, 356–359 (2010).
  4. Dreher JC, Dunne S, Pazderska A, Frodl T, Nolan JJ, O’Doherty JP. Testosterone causes both prosocial and antisocial status-enhancing behaviors in human males. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Oct 11;113(41):11633-11638. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1608085113. Epub 2016 Sep 26. PMID: 27671627; PMCID: PMC5068300.
  5. Kopsida E, Stergiakouli E, Lynn PM, Wilkinson LS, Davies W. The Role of the Y Chromosome in Brain Function. Open Neuroendocrinol J. 2009;2:20-30. doi: 10.2174/1876528900902010020. PMID: 20396406; PMCID: PMC2854822.
  6. Grabinski, Michael & Klinkova, Galiya. (2020). Scrutinizing Distributions Proves That IQ Is Inherited and Explains the Fat Tail. Applied Mathematics. 11. 957. 10.4236/am.2020.1110063.
  7. Rubinstein R, Thu CA, Goodman KM, Wolcott HN, Bahna F, Mannepalli S, Ahlsen G, Chevee M, Halim A, Clausen H, Maniatis T, Shapiro L, Honig B. Molecular logic of neuronal self-recognition through protocadherin domain interactions. Cell. 2015 Oct 22;163(3):629-42. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.09.026. Epub 2015 Oct 17. PMID: 26478182; PMCID: PMC4624033.
  8. Kordsmeyer TL, Hunt J, Puts DA, Ostner J, Penke L. The relative importance of intra- and intersexual selection on human male sexually dimorphic traits, Evolution and Human Behavior. ISSN 1090-5138,
  9. Huang, S. Inverse relationship between genetic diversity and epigenetic complexity. Nat Prec (2009).
  10. Regime, A. 2023a. Maximum Memetic Diversity. uri:
  11. Wang, M., Huang, S. The collective effects of genetic variants and complex traits. J Hum Genet 68, 255–262 (2023).
  12. He P, Lei X, Yuan D, Zhu Z, Huang S. Accumulation of minor alleles and risk prediction in schizophrenia. Sci Rep. 2017 Sep 15;7(1):11661. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-12104-0. PMID: 28916820; PMCID: PMC5601945.
  13. Regime, A. 2023b. The Dependence Game. uri:
  14. Regime, A. 2022b. Genocentrism Is The Future. uri:
  15. Adrianna K. San Roman, Helen Skaletsky, Alexander K. Godfrey, Neha V. Bokil, Levi Teitz, Isani Singh, Laura V. Blanton, Daniel W. Bellott, Tatyana Pyntikova, Julian Lange, Natalia Koutseva, Jennifer F. Hughes, Laura Brown, Sidaly Phou, Ashley Buscetta, Paul Kruszka, Nicole Banks, Amalia Dutra, Evgenia Pak, Patricia C. Lasutschinkow, Colleen Keen, Shanlee M. Davis, Angela E. Lin, Nicole R. Tartaglia, Carole Samango-Sprouse, Maximilian Muenke, David C. Page, The human Y and inactive X chromosomes similarly modulate autosomal gene expression, Cell Genomics, 2023, 100462, ISSN 2666-979X,
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.