In this video of a Ukrainian girl raised by dogs, what you see, for all intents and purposes, is behaviour without genes. It is apparent from the video that genes cannot possibly account for the the girl’s dog-like behaviour. Within the context of what Karl Popper referred to as falsifiability, the singular existence of a human that behaves like a dog serves to show that the universal statement “genes determine human behaviour” is false. We are thus forced to conclude, on the face of this evidence, that other factors need to be considered in explaining human behaviour.

(I don’t want to get bogged down in evolutionary psychology (EP) theory, as said topic embraces a wide scope of interpretations, some good, some bad. The emphasis here is specifically on genocentrism)

There is of course the question of the video’s authenticity and whether or not it is a hoax. It has thus far not been proven to be a hoax. In this review, Douglas Candland suggests that the experience of feral children can be put down to traumatic abuse prior to being “raised” by animals. However, that does not explain how a child appears to have adopted some of the very mannerisms of the animals that raised her. Academics are taking the case of the dog-girl seriously, and insofar as it has not yet been proven to be a hoax, perhaps so should we. It has important implications for our cause.

While we cannot disprove genocentrism to genocentrists any more than we can disprove Creationism to Creationists, what we can do is provide some compelling reasons, to our own satisfaction, why an extensive review of mainstream interpretations is necessary. I suggest that the following observations are relevant to understanding the case of the dog-girl:

Associationism – an infant or young child raised among animals are subjected to associations that people raised in cultures are not. Any child raised in unusual circumstances will be exposed to unusual associations that compel them to construct narratives that lie beyond normal human experience;

The brain that changes itself – the brain “rewires” itself in accordance with experience. Clinical examples abound that violate the genocentrist presumption that the brain, with it cast-in-concrete functional specializations, is wired according to a genetic blueprint. Consider, for example, this astonishing example of hydrocephalus. The message that appears to evade genocentrists is that self-organization is the principle by which the brain structures itself, and not just a clever little epigenetic adaptation, almost as if an afterthought;

Theoretical frameworks outside of the Church of Genocentrism do exist, for example within the semiotic sciences, that can shed light on the case of the dog-girl, Victor, the wild boy of Aveyron, Genie and other examples of the feral condition.

And in exactly the same way, associationism and the brain that changes itself are relevant to understanding gender roles and our opposite sex. The choices that we make from our ecosystem (for humans, that ecosystem is culture), based on our biological predispositions with male mind-bodies and female mind-bodies, wire our brains. In other words, the same forces that impact on the behaviour of the dog-girl impact on how gender roles evolve in a culture.

In explaining the behaviour of any organism, all that genocentrism provides is a black box and an accompanying assertion that “it’s all in the genes, you dummy”. Not unlike the Creationists’ God and their accompanying assertion that “it’s all in the bible, you heathen”. Genocentrism does not enable us to make any inferences about women’s motivations. It provides no explanation whatsoever as to how and why Game works. Genocentrism has been the source of much unsubstantiated prattle, for example, along the lines that Game is adaptive and it works because of female hypergamy predisposing women to choosing the “best” genes in alpha males. But there is nothing in such a bland assertion that explains women’s insecurities, priorities, motivations or desires. There is nothing therein that explains their “rationalization hamster”, their manner of reasoning, their impulsive responses that can be harnessed with effective Game. Genocentrism provides nothing of practical value that can be tapped into and harnessed.

This is not to say that genes are not important. Far from it. Genes are important, but not in the manner that genocentrists assert.

Thus in the absence of any reliable, established paradigms to work with, let us advance on the assumption that the case of the dog-girl, taken seriously by the academic community, is not a hoax. The girl raised by dogs is thus the equivalent of Karl Popper’s famous example of the one black swan that refutes the previously held European assumption that all swans are white. Indeed, it goes further than the black swan/white swan analogy, because it demands a very different account for how it is that a human animal can behave like a non-human animal in spite of possessing the genes that purportedly blueprint her human behavior. The case of the girl raised by dogs has struck at the foundations of the genocentric hypothesis, which needs to be challenged. Thus science being science needs to advance alternative theories that can account for animal behaviour in a human.

We need only one black swan, one example, one video. We have it. It may not be perfect, but in the absence of anything else to go on, the stakes are much too high to ignore it. We thus invoke Popper’s hypothesis to reaffirm our previous conclusion (it ain’t in the genes) that genocentrism remains unsubstantiated. Genes do not cause behaviour.

In divesting ourselves of this sterile, genocentric death science, we place ourselves in a better position to explore our primal, animal natures.

WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO DUMP GENOCENTRISM

When we dispense with genocentrism, we can liberate ourselves from the genocentric ball-and-chain to conclude:

In conjunction with biological predispositions, gender roles are learned. Nature-nurture constitutes a single process, and this enables us to make more compelling observations. Men and women like the roles to which they have been assigned. Women like being provided for. Women like having a provider take care of them. Women are comfortable with not having to take responsibility for the decisions they make, especially when men are available to wear the consequences. Women with maternal options stay at home because they can – culture grants them the pussy-pass that entitles them to the stay-at-home escape-hatch should work become too uncomfortable for them. Men work because they must – for men, there is no such thing as a penis-pass that entitles them to every manner of entitlement freeby. For men, work is not a hobby, it is not something you do if you like, something you do if your fancy takes you. Men have no choice but to work and to provide. Men compete because they provide. And men learn to deal with it. That’s why men learn to enjoy competition and challenges. That’s why intelligence and capability, honour and respect, mean very different things to men and women;

Credentialism and affirmative action may have blurred traditional definitions of “achievement”, but a very different reality will quickly re-establish itself should women ever have to compete with men on equal terms – minus their pussy-pass, of course. Saying that the drive to achieve and to compete is programmed into men’s genes while the drive to nurture and support is programmed into women’s genes is nonsense and explains nothing. Saying that it’s all in the genes is a richly warm pile of steaming that sheds no light whatsoever on how the real world works, and only serves to perpetuate the lie;

Domestic violence, and who does what, how often and to whom, is quite secondary to a much more important question… whence do children first learn violence? Whence do children first establish the priorities that matter? I’m talking about the children that go on to become adults, of course. Children first learn all this good stuff from their primary nurturer. You know, the one that is also most likely to be their primary abuser. And who might that be? One guess.

And a whole bunch of other good stuff follows. Let us open up this can of worms. Genocentrism denies us access to these kinds of insights. We should dump it forthwith. We are now in a position to comment on feminism within a more primal, first-cause context.

A THEORY OF PRIMAL MOTIVATIONS

Theory is of little use unless it has practical applicability. We’ve already touched on this above, but we should take our analysis to deeper levels in order to really get a sense of the implications. I would therefore like to expand on Adam Kostikas’ and Fidelbogen’s analyses of feminism as a hate movement. Paul’s made references in the past to wanting to explore the dark feminine. Let’s see where this might lead.

We know that rape fantasies are common among women. There is also this website (definitely needs to be updated) that provides a convenient summary of Woman’s dark side. Anais Nin writes of Woman’s secret erotic need and violation, and Roissy also ventures into the dark feminine in some of his essays. Indeed, the very inspiration for much of Roissy’s online persona appears to be grounded in The Story of O. Bottom line? At a primal, visceral level, women are drawn to the ruff stuff. There is something about female sexuality, at a primal, visceral level, that is self-destructive. How might this translate to the hatred of men? Very simple. It’s part of a self-fulfilling context where Woman’s “secret erotic need” – violation – requires a violator to fulfil it. For Woman, the thrill of the forbidden requires a transgressor of the forbidden – someone prepared to trample across boundaries – to arouse her. The sullying of a woman’s virtue can be very arousing for a woman, but it is not a sustainable mindset – it comes at a cost.

It thus betrays commonsense to suggest that violation can be enjoyed by a woman in the absence of at least residual contempt.

Clearly then, violators are inherently not gentle, kind, sweet, loving people. They are unlikely to make good fathers or reliable providers. At a primal level, a violator is formidable, arousing anything from fear to respect. The worst among violators… those most predisposed to fulfilling women’s self-destructive impulses, must be inherently contemptible, almost by definition. That’s why women choose thugs. And so this brings us to a comment that I’ve made on the odd occasion, that feminism is a systemic manifestation of the slut mindset. That is to say, a direct relationship exists between feminism, our contraceptive technologies, the sexual revolution and ultimately, the hatred of men.

This accounts for the paradox, then, of women’s tendency to gravitate towards those men most likely to fulfil their self-destructive impulses. No wonder that women are so contradictory and messed up. Paradox no more. It makes perfect sense. This is the love-hate duality that can never be transcended.

Integral to the slut’s mindset are a set assumptions about men, and they aren’t pretty. She learns these assumptions from the types of men to whom she gives air-time. In other words, she learns from her choices (thugs and losers) what men are supposed to be like, and she tars all men with the same brush.

Otto Weininger explored similar themes in the relationship between criminality and prostitution.

So what might we conclude about feminism as a hate movement, particularly once we establish its relationship with respect to our contraceptive technologies and the sexual revolution? Surely it must be that in any sexually permissive society, the hatred of men by women is a foregone conclusion.

CONCLUSION

A proper theoretical framework enables us to penetrate to deeper levels of understanding. Within such a framework, we are better able to identify relationships and first-causes. Genocentrism provides nothing of the sort. With its credentialist references to conceptual black boxes like “instinct”, “epigenetics”, “natural selection”, and so on, it makes no attempt to get inside the heads of the living entities whose choices are being studied, and so it affords no comprehension of the nature of a desire. We need an alternative framework that encourages us to imagine ourselves within the context of the entity making the choices.

And with this approach, we arrive at an intriguing, compelling conclusion that makes sense of the taboo nature of human sexuality across the millennia of human history. Why has huamn sexuality always been such a big deal? Pregnancy, childbirth? Maybe. But what happens when you remove these inconveniences via contraceptive devices and technologies?

In feminism and contemporary culture, we have a laboratory within which we have conducted a scientific experiment of frightening magnitude. Framed from this analytical perspective, our hypotheses are:

H 0 (null hypothesis): Feminism and the sexual revolution have no impact on our consciousnes or motivations, because everything is already accounted for by way of the genetic blueprint;

(null hypothesis): Feminism and the sexual revolution have no impact on our consciousnes or motivations, because everything is already accounted for by way of the genetic blueprint; H 1 (alternative hypothesis): Feminism and the sexual revolution do impact on our consciousness and motivations in a very powerful way, because experiences and the choices we make impact on how our brains are structured and ultimately, what we become.

Clearly, H 1 wins out. In any sexually permissive society, the hatred of men by women is a foregone conclusion. Feminism is a hate movement that strikes at the most primal level of our being.



…