Friday, August 21, 2015

Index #1 - All Posts before this One

Here are all posts before the current one:

  1. The real Image of Sociobiology

  2. Why Evolution made Souls!

  3. Darwin is Dead: Sexual and Natural Selection on Evolution!

  4. The truth of God, Species and Sexual Selection

  5. Sociobiology: Not So Simple, let's Romanticize!

  6. Schopenhauer, Darwin and Me

  7. Species' Will or Will of the Species: Definition and Concept

  8. DEVOTION: As natural as "Believing in God"

  9. Species Will: The real root of Sexism

  10. SAMPLING: As natural as "the Death of my Little Brother"

  11. Common Good: The Species Will on Individual Emancipation

  12. Eugenics - From Obligation to Voluntarism

  13. The myth of Diversity in a error-prone Environment

  14. The Ilusion of Organisms' Sexual Preferences

  15. Why we born Racist!

  16. From Flatness to Trinity a depart from the Materialistic view

  17. The Trinity of Suicide and Self Preservation

  18. Overdominance: The Good, the Bad and the Untermensch

  19. Junk DNA or Junk DENIAL...?

  20. There is no Nurture but Nature!

  21. Entropy Law: Shit Happens!

  22. Why Shame on Sex!

  23. EVOLUTION #4 - CONFUCIUS, ONE PICTURE IS WORTH TEN THOUSAND WORDS

  24. EVOLUTION #3 - GALILEI, AND YET IT MOVES

  25. EVOLUTION #2 - MENDEL, THE WHYS GUY

  26. EVOLUTION #1 - DARWIN, THE PRIEST OF THE PRIESTS

  27. The Selfish Gene - Not so much!

  28. Species' Definition - A materialistic one

  29. New species evolve in bursts - One more to the score

  30. Important FAQs about Evolution - Fighting the Status Quo

  31. Eukaryotes from Prokaryotes and the Greatest Lie - For the Folks

  32. Sex is the mechanism of speciation! - For the Septicks

  33. The Truth about Species! - Part 4 (Entropic Nature)

  34. The Truth about Species! - Part 3 (Inductive Nature)

  35. The Truth about Species! - Part 2 (Cambrian Mystery)

  36. The Truth about Species! - Part 1 (Why Sex)

  37. Ring Species another Illusionist Trick

  38. Nature Sucks

 For more check my yahoo answer page here:

Saturday, August 15, 2015

The real Image of Sociobiology

Some events, like the 2014 Isla Vista killings or the 2015 Donald Trump Campaign, remind us that before we belong to many Societies we belong to one single Species! Unfortunately we are blind to the point of don't see it, despite all evidences that go beyond the most extreme cases.

Sociobiology studies the behavior that underlines and in some extent undermines all Societies. Societies by nature try to restrict and despise the Species and their animals as something that exists only in the jungle, where humans don't make part of it. Even worst, when Societies go to the point of paint this wild side as naive Nature without evils, trying to show that Civilization is able to correct all evils because they only exist in it. The Noble Savage opposed to the Civilized Man is a good example...

The roots of all this drama are in the illusion of "Free Will". Societies to be accepted need to be popular, and the best way to sell a product is to say it fits to all people. Nowadays, to make it more realistic, and due to globalization, dream numbers are used, 99% are satisfied or Nine in Ten. In this scenario of extreme optimism is difficult not being convinced of its success. There is no place to Pessimism when it comes to Sell...


In reality your Free Will is restricted by the Image's Will (the Will of the Species), and accordingly to your conformity your Free Will is more or less Free.

Reality, Image and Conscience (Why Evolution made Souls)

From the moment you start to interact with others, you start to be placed in a hierarchy, Social exclusion in the school environment is increasingly being recognized as a form of relational aggression or bullying, in which a child is exposed to harm through the manipulation of their social relationships and status (Edith Cowan University, 2009). This exclusion is just the tip of the iceberg. Its much more, it's the result of the Will that excludes the ones that do not conform in any way. In reality, the big majority isn't excluded, thanks to the commitment of accepting their rule in their Sociobiological Hierarchy.

The Image of our Conscience (Consciousness), that controls it, is the proof of the needed commitment between the individual and its Species. This commitment is forcefully guaranteed trough Emotions that are quite strong to the point of forcing the Conscience drop its control to the Image. One of those Emotions is Frustration, the main source of violence. When Conscience isn't successful, the impatience of the Image gains control, and that means visceral violence, because is a much simpler and basic form of control, much more "natural"! Nevertheless, this type of violence normally doesn't do more harm than a broken keyboard or a smashed phone.

Image taking control over Conscience/Consciousness

When Conscience regains control regret follows as a question, why I did it? With time we may be able trough experience to endure greater levels of Frustration, or decrease it due to the knowledge of its impacts.

Another big lie that societies sell, is the lie of diversity, a byproduct of the first lie of Free Will. There is a "place for everyone", there are no handicaps there are only personalities, everyone is legally equal despite their differences and their Reality! Natural Selection is incredibly used to maintain this State of Affairs, were everyone thinks being the start of a new evolutionary ramification of their own species, or when every limitation is transformed in strength! Bio diversity between Species is transformed in Biodiversity inside Species, despite the reality pointing in the opposite direction, as modern humans display less genetic diversity than great apes, a puzzling finding given our much larger census population size. Interestingly, recent studies have shown that modern humans are not the only hominins characterized by comparatively low levels of genetic diversity (L. S. Premo1 and Jean-Jacques Hublin, 2008).

The most important difference between Conscience and Image is that the second one is a Standard, a Biological Normalization like Species. All humans share a very similar Image, despite a different Conscience. However is the Image and not the Conscience that ultimately regulate the Sociobiology Hierarchy. The right Smiles, the right facial expressions, the right phrases and the way and time they are used are more due to the Image than the Conscience. In fact, the one who uses more the Conscience than the Image in his daily basis relationships is more prone to suffer from Psychosis, due to the fact of using a more expensive  type of cognition. More, he is in risk of develop an emotional conflict between Image and Conscience that normally results in Bipolar disorders. This pressure of the Image over the Conscience, is many time relieve with the use of drugs, however the Image always prevails, and the relieved that Conscience had, sooner than later disappears leaving Conscience at the mercy of an even stronger Image. In this conflict, only conformity to the Image of the Species' Will brings peace.

The great mayoralty of the population manages to accept its place in the Sociobiological Hierarchy, more or less frustrated, their perceived gains compensate their perceived losses, while the Species always gain.

So, to Species always win, the Image has to represent its Will. And the will that best serves Species is the Will to Sex. This Will has to be very strong to allow great levels of Selection (filtering). Like a coffee filter that requires high pressure levels. As a result you get high levels of human waste, already explained in SAMPLING: As natural as "the Death of my Little Brother". So that in the end "can't do it" really means it!

On the other hand, the filter is shaped in a form of Shame, that reduces even more the chances of passing through so that only the best quality organisms are really chosen! Emotions are the main tool for Sex segregation in the Division of labor and other divisions based on sexuality. To Species, there shouldn't be shortcuts in the right stages of sexual intimacy, while Organisms should feel promiscuity as uncomfortable as possible. Emotions like shame are there to make all this unseen, to work under the societies' eyes, unable to see the Will of the Species. Societies are only able to make Individuals express phrases and thoughts that they don't really believe.

Like everything else, the pressure to Sex is greater in men than in woman, and this single fact explains the greater violence of men over woman. Men is in a greater fight with his cognitive Image than Woman, and consequently has more episodes of rupture that result in violence, including against himself (Gender differences in suicide).

Normally this frustration leads to devotion and servitude towards the chosen ones, seen as heroes or role models, promoting this way the Sociobiological Hierarchy. However, in cases of extreme frustration, where heroes and role models aren't no more or even seen as what they really are, collateral damage might happen, and some superior and benefited specimens might be lost, as the price to accommodate the Species' greatest good. As a result of Evolution, the cognitive Image is perverse enough to put the guilty on Organisms instead on Species, firstly when Men think and express negatively on Woman, and secondly, when Men are seen as the real perpetrators (materialism)!


Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Why Evolution made Souls!

Is there a thing as a Soul? In some extent there is, but is not what you think. When it comes to Abstractions, Evolution made many of them where Species was just the beginning.

As I already posted in From Flatness to Trinity a depart from the Materialistic view, the modern philosophy is dominated by Materialism, that denies the multi level reality despite all evidences. Is not just Species that are denied, the Representation nature of consciousness also is!

Consciousness is a miracle that materialism can't explain. The miracle is nevertheless simple to explain, you just need to use Layers, Multi layering is always the answer, because reality isn't flatness!


Before you ask how, you should ask why. Why Conscience works in a Representative Image and not on Reality? Why Indirect instead of Direct action on Reality?

The advantage of working on an Image instead of Reality itself is easy to explain, while Reality is rigid in Nature an Image isn't. Also, in terms of Cognitive costs Brains consume too much energy, having an Image on which conscience works makes all the sense, and doubtfully Evolution was blind to it!

With the evolution of this Image, this abstraction, Evolution gained a new Object of Selection, now was not exclusive to the physical body, this Cognitive Image was also a subject. This way Sexual Selection was the result of this new interaction, Body vs Image, physical vs logical.

The consequence of this new scheme is that Conscience doesn't act directly on Reality, it works on an Image that is perceived as a Reality. This doesn't mean that that Image isn't an accurate representation of that Reality, what it means is that doesn't need to be, at least completely, and that is its great accomplishment!

In the dichotomy Conscience vs Image, is important that Image is perceived as Reality, and so it should be out of reach to the "free will" of Conscience, and the best way to do it is make it out of Conscience, make it Subconscious.

However this layer is there, and some times you see its glimpse. One typical phenomenon that you likely already experienced, is the Broken escalator phenomenon. When you step in a escalator that is Stoped, you may have the conscience of it, but who acts on Reality is not your Conscience is instead "your" Image, and for it the Escalator is running, because Image represents that single and experienced reality, so, when you step on your legs obey to your Image not your Conscience!


Never wondered what really means know it as Second Nature? Or on the contrary when some one says, it didn't look Natural! This is the difference between your Image and you Conscience working on Reality, because your Conscience doesn't act directly on it and thus it will always look clumsy, unnatural!

The process of learning is a good example of that, basically you have the Cognitive phase and then the Associative phase, like learning to drive a car, things go like this:

  • Cognitive phase:
    1. Insert key;
    2. Push the clutch down;
    3. Put the gear in neutral;
    4. Turn key;
    5. Wait motor to Start;
    6. Free key;
    7. Free clutch.
  • Associative phase:
    1. Put motor running.

The transition from the Cognitive phase to the Associative phase is done with practice, and the small steps when repeated become part of the Image instead the Conscience. Then Conscience recall it in a form of purpose, put motor running, the task now in the Procedural memory is run without effort, as second nature! In some way, is like comparing the Development of the Prototype with the Factoring of the respective Product.

At this point you realize that Cognitive phase is much more expensive than the Associative one, this is the consequence of the cost to maintain a Conscience in terms of energy costs and in efficiency in dealing with the Reality, so naturally all your actions with practice and experience go from Conscience to Subconscious (Image), making you an extremely automated individual, efficient and fast. For instance, in the following example, children use buses more often than adults, and so, they have the bus drawn at their Image level, contrary to the adult that normally uses the car making him only able to use the Conscience, much more slow and inefficient to make conclusions.

Which way is this school bus headed?  

By experience, you immediately guess that heads to the left, because the entrance is in the other side (US Direction)! Children, with more recent experience on buses, are much better at answering this question than adults.

Contrary to the Image, the Conscience (Consciousness) is able to be On/Off whenever necessary as a mean to manage energy and as the result of its no physical reality (logical). In terms of conscience everything is possible to be On/Off, just like a dream, contrary to the physical world that is always On. In Reality nothing can be more volatile than Consciousness, or if you prefer, than Soul!

Science is in some domains has dropped the pure materialist view, and are starting to considerate other levels, also Logical and not only Physical.
A lot of what we think is real and obvious, in fact, is, well you could call it an illusion in a way. If I got pain in my hand the pain is not actually in the hand, the pain is my brain. My brain creates a three-dimensional model of the world and associates the nerve impulses coming from the pain receptors in my hand with pain in the hand and it create this illusion that the pain is actually in the hand itself, and it isn't. The more you look into neuroscience the more strange and confusing it becomes. - On how the brain creates pain, Neurosurgeon Henry Marsh.

Henry Marsh - BBC Documentary Storyville The English Surgeon english subtitles

The pain is a good proof of the Image, because you (AKA "soul") are living in a box of perception, and in this way pain is a Perception served to you by the Image. There are two Interfaces, the physical, between Reality and the Image, and the Logical one, between you and the Image. This means that in the end you are an Abstraction that Image manipulates the way it wants, your "existence" is only there to make ends meet, to make the syntheses of a Will that isn't really yours. Again, Souls are perceptions created to conform with the real Will, the Will of the Species encapsulated in the Image the only one that represents its physical reality. If there are so many wasted Organisms in the name of the Species, why it should be different with "Souls" (Consciences)? Independent layers is the main concept here!

This Image is in constant change, and it might be changed by trauma or stress. A post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is produced when due to trauma the Image is misfitted to a normal Reality, for instance when someone panics with fireworks perceived as a military attack.

The PTSD is however a overlooked issue. When it comes to social interactions not even the most perverse mind is able to conceive the Reality of the Image. Accordingly to the value of the Organism defined mainly by its biology, the Image is the cornerstone of the Sociobiological Hierarchy! By experience each Organisms' Image is shaped to its Real position in this Hierarchy, where Conscience isn't no more than an housewife trying to make ends meet. This is well seen in the Master/Slave relationship between role models and their fans! This relationship has Devotion as its main ingredient!


In the end, conscience is like someone in a control room, with manipulated pictures and emotions that are representations of Reality that isn't perceived directly. Like a big TV showing a processed reality (Image), not only by experience but also by instinct. The Image is the System outside which no Conscience is able to exist, because this System is what The Will of the Species really is.

This image is not only shaped by experience, it was also shaped by evolution, like the Cognitive Sexual Image. In reality is expected that the great part of this Image is instinctive instead of contextual, the fear of death isn't learned but inherited. Despite that, you may be afraid of death trough instinct or trough context (Conscience). You are instinctively afraid of highs but contextually afraid of a stripped electrical wire. The first one is produced directly by Reality acting on the Image, while the second one is produced by Conscience acting on that same image!

Instinctive vs Conscious fear of Death

Contrary to the Instinctive fear of Death, the Conscious one depends on Conscience, of learning. To be afraid of electrocution you need to know what electricity is and the respective Associative phase that instinct dispenses.

Is this contextual perception that makes Conscience very useful, because no mater how sophisticate a Reality might be, the puppet Conscience is there to work it out for its puppeteer Image, like a Slave serving its Master. Image wasn't shaped to foreseeing the Reality of the futuristic technology, or the new sophisticate tools that require learning and understanding that the crude and predefined Image can't conceive, so Conscience is there to allow Image to perceive and assimilate all the novelties, with the final purpose of having the real control where it belongs.

This Image was shaped by Evolution to make Conscience a believer of its materialism and control on Reality. This feeling of control and reality is so strong that Conscience sees it self as an immortal Soul despite its failure in giving a good explanation for it. So be it, as long as the work is well done and Species become rewarded by their so deluded Consciences.

Here is where the materialist is religious as religious people are! A materialist refuses the existence of a Soul because for him physical death means "Soul" death, while for a believer Soul is immortal. The Materialist, like the believer, is also corrupted by the Image, because he puts at the same level Physical and Logical phenomena, sustaining that Conscience "Soul" lives the same as body lives.

In reality, the believer, the religious, gives you a better clue of the real nature of the Soul than the Materialist. Because the believer expresses what he feels, he expresses his second nature, his Image, and unintentionally he gives the truth of what a Soul really is, the Conscience of an immortal Image in a volatile Reality, where its real duration is surely far less than the body where it "lives" in (multiple instantiations). However, the Materialist is corrupted by is naive and benevolent view of reality, failing to see the crude reality prevents him to see reality itself, because the best way to see reality is to conceive the worst one!

So, in conclusion, Evolution made Souls to better serve their Species accordingly to its Will.

Friday, July 31, 2015

Darwin is Dead: Sexual and Natural Selection on Evolution!

"The best way to conceive the worst reality, is to see it as it is." - The Author
I am myself influenced by the culture of the Natural Selection primacy. For everything I have write I wold like to adjust one thing, and that thing concerns what Evolution trough Sexual Selection.
"The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!" - Darwin
The reason that make Darwin sick when it comes to Sexual Selection, had to due with its reasoning being much different of the Natural Selection one, where he could easily show a relationship of cause and effect with the help of fossils and also with the typification of different environments and their relation to physical traits in a given Species.

I will show here that all the Natural Selection theory is just a glimpse of what is really going on, I will show how rudimentary is that theory without Sexual Selection, simple because Sexual Selection is the main force of Evolution in Eukaryotes, and that also is the correction of what I have being saying that Evolution is exclusive to Natural Selection.

"Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. Perhaps no other natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has sowed as much confusion. The insights of Darwin and Mendel, which have illuminated so many mysteries, have so far failed to shed more than a dim and wavering light on the central mystery of sexuality, emphasizing its obscurity by its very isolation." - The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution of Genetics and Sexuality
As I post in The Truth about Species! - Part 4 (Entropic Nature), Natural Selection per see isn't able to maintain a Species (Eukaryote), simple because Species are vulnerable to Entropy and so only trough Sexual Selection are able to avoid extinction due to Genetic Meltdown.

From here we can raise a good question, if Sexual Selection is the only one able to avoid Species to become extinct due to Entropy, isn't Sexual Selection the main Evolutionary force when it comes to Eukaryotes.

In Eukaryotes, Species centers the relationship between Sexual and Natural Selection, it represents the result of this two different and normally opposing evolutionary forces.

PropertyNatural SelectionSexual Selection
InterfaceEnvironment vs. SpeciesSpecies vs. Organism
DiversityIncreases DiversityReduces Diversity
EnvironmentSpecies External / PhysicalSpecies Internal / Cognitive
EvolutionTrait SpecificTrait Exhaustive
ComplexityUnsupportedSupported

The above small table is an update to the one already made in the post Eukaryotes from Prokaryotes and the Greatest Lie - For the Folks.

Returning to our conversation, why is Sexual Selection so problematic, even to Darwin,  the God of Evolution trough Natural Selection. The first thing you must realize as to due with Environment, the Environment that works in Natural Selection is not the same Environment working in Sexual Selection.

The first life on earth was shaped only by Natural Selection, the Environment was the External and Physical Environment, whose actions had a direct impact on Evolution. This way, for instance, high and low temperatures, or low and high oxygen levels, shaped different Prokaryotic strains, which causality is easy to grasp and explain.

The problem that Darwin faced however, has to due with Environment identification. In Natural Selection was clear what kind of Environment was that, the planet itself, the mountains, the underground, the rivers and oceans among many other surroundings. Fossils made it clear the close link between that Environment and Species, in conclusion, the Feedback source is easy to identify.

In Sexual Selection the scenario is quite different, because first of all, there isn't a well identified source of feedback for this Selection, and thus all given explanations start with the killing expression "for some reason".
"In the past when peacocks had ordinary colour and length tails, peahens (for some reason) showed a preference to mate with males with slightly longer and more flamboyant than average tails. Thus, the characteristic of slightly longer, more brightly coloured tails would be passed on to the next generation and over many generations the peacocks' tails would become longer and brighter. Thus, the ornate tail gives such an advantage in terms of mating success that it is selected for despite being a disadvantage in terms of general survival." - Darwin and Sexual Selection
This is the Darwin's struggle, struggle to find the Feedback Source for Evolution based on Sexual Selection, and he knew it that the "some reason" was not a reason at all! Other big problem, and not so evident, is how to be sure that a trait credited to Natural Selection is not in fact due to Sexual Selection. This last problem is so corrosive that Evolutionists go straight to the Natural Selection explanation for any given trait, running away from what scares them most, Sexual Selection!

In Eukaryotes we have two different Selections, so is not far fetched to assume two different Environments. The first Environment, the only one that Darwin recognized, is the Feedback source of Natural Selection. The second Environment, different from the first, is the Feedback source of  Sexual Selection. So, the first step here is identify and define this second Environment.
  1. First Environment (Natural)
    • Natural environment encompasses all living and non-living things occurring naturally on Earth or some region thereof. It is an environment that encompasses the interaction of all living species. Climate, weather, and natural resources that affect human survival and economic activity.
  2.  Second Environment (Sexual)
    • Sexual interaction between Organisms with their Cognitive Sexual Image defined at the respective Species Level.

This second Environment arrives from the interaction between Organisms with their Cognitive Sexual Image, is this second Environment that might be responsible for the great majority of traits in Eukaryotes, something that will forcefully change the way we think Evolution has being done. If Natural Selection isn't the main force that has been shaping Eukaryotes, then the actual evolutionary rhetoric centered in Natural Selection made so popular need to be refrained and reviewed.

This second Environment is the Cognition of Organisms in a form of a Cognitive Sexual Image, that despite being very normalized is prone to deviations and has it its own Evolution. Brains are greatly allocated to Sexual Matting. Humans are a good example of that, much of a human time is dedicated to discuss sexual issues, and despite all social restrictions, Sexual Attractiveness is king in human interactions and conversations, for the best and for the worst (to Species is always for the best), an overwhelming obstinacy that for sure is not exclusive to Humans. In this strictly Eukaryotic Environment, sexual identification, fetishism, inherited sexual attraction, idealized perfection among others are the logic support for Evolution trough Sexual Selection.

Darwin didn't saw this Cognitive Sexual Image, that encompasses the ideal Physical and Physiologic blueprint before its materialization in a real body. Is the Evolution of this Image that leads trough Sexual Selection to the Evolution of the Real Existent Body and Mind. We may say that the existence of this eccentric Image proves its own Evolutionary advantage. The simple fact of having an ideal Organism before its existence in a form of Cognition is a major Evolutionary force when it comes to Sexual Selection. The big problem with the Evolution of the Cognitive Sexual Image, is that contrary to the physical Evolution trough Natural Selection, there is no way to have fossils or records of this Abstract Image living in Animals' Brains.

At this moment you may ask if this Cognitive Sexual Image is not a way of sweep under the carpet, because the question remains, if not the real Organism but a Cognition, what did cause the evolution of that Cognition in the first place? Here is where "for some reason" makes sense! Because the Cognitive Sexual Image, contrary to the physical Organism, is not bonded to Genes, is not hardwired to the physical restrictions of an existent and real organism. The Cognitive Sexual Image is an abstraction from the Physical world and so is able to reflect and ideal that accordingly with its success might or might not trigger the respective Evolution ot the real Organism trough Sexual Selection. The prove of the existence of this Cognitive Sexual Image comes from the disparity between the Ideal Organism and the Real one... So the Real Organism is not perfect just because its degree of biological inferiority, but also, because the utopian characteristic of the Cognitive Sexual Image!

Evolution trough Sexual Selection is a tool that Species uses to obtain the best of its Organisms accordingly to the optimal system of sexual reproduction. So, accordingly to a predefined spectrum of Sexual preferences, more successful organisms in the Species' System may induce different Sexual Traits on that System. In this system, there is a full Cognitive Sexual Image of how a Female and a Male must be, and how it must behave. Also in the Human case, every organism is able to spot what is too fat or too skinny, what is too thin or too thick, the right amount of body hair, the right body proportions and even the right skin color (Why we born Racist!), all this accordingly to an Ubiquitous and Standardized perception (Species' Will).

There is however a trade off with Natural Selection, when a Sexual promoted trait represents a real handicap, Natural Selection will restrain its Evolution (and vice versa), in Humans, a possible example is armpit hair, where the Cognitive Sexual Image isn't the same of the existing human body.

Because it collides with my Cognitive Sexual Image!

When the ideal body image is different of the existing body, a Sexual Selection pressure rises, and Evolution is the result. The reason for this difference between Image and Reality might be caused by Sex Identification, where body air in a woman gives the sexual repulsive and contradictory sign of being a man. Nevertheless, the point is that Cognitive Sexual Image is the Evolutionary feedback source of Sexual Selection, something clearly difficult to encompass in a fossil or reproduce in a simple cause and effect scheme.

Considering that traits resultant of Sexual Selection exist to favor the respective Species, some traits might exist to reinforce a sociobiological hierarchy accordingly to the biological quality of its Organisms. Same to say, make rulers out of superior organisms, and slaves from inferior ones. All this accordingly to what I have told in DEVOTION: As natural as "Believing in God".

So, Sexual Evolution might be the cause of thick red slips in humans as it might be the cause of laugh, scorn, prejudice, facial blushing, shame and many others... All in the Species best interest!

Evolutionists that search in Natural Selection all the traits that can find, don't realize that some traits are intended to prejudice the Organism in favor of the Species. So scorn and disrespect together with laugh may work in favor of the Species, mainly when its purpose is to diminish the respective inferior organisms in the sociobiological hierarchy. When someone hasn't a body accordingly to the Cognitive Sexual Image, the existing differences will be used to keep that someone in the right place of the hierarchy, while on the other hand, the superior one that is closest to that Cognitive Sexual Image is able to dictate and forge how others must behave and stay, all that with the Species' sponsorship at the top of the sociobiological hierarchy.


This way, if cognition can't be disassociated from Sexual Selection, this is a good clue to how volatile and unphysical this second Environment is.

In my another post, The Truth about Species! - Part 2 (Cambrian Mystery), I try to give an explanation to something that despite the doubts, is still regarded as the Cambrian Explosion.
"Complex brains evolved much earlier than previously thought, as evidenced by a 520-million-year-old fossilized arthropod with remarkably well-preserved brain structures. Representing the earliest specimen to show a brain, the fossil provides a "missing link" that sheds light on the evolutionary history of arthropods, the taxonomic group that comprises crustaceans, arachnids and insects." - Cambrian fossil pushes back evolution of complex brains
If Complex Brains are the main feedback of Evolution trough Sexual Selection, Cambrian Explosion might be more due to Sexual Selection that Natural Selection, supporting the Complexity Threshold. In this moment you might find a contradiction, how Sexual Selection may be the main source of the Cambrian Explosion and at the same time reduces Diversity. Again, Diversity and Evolution aren't the same thing, you have Speciation, from one Species trough Speciation you are able to have two or more completely different Species, and also, the same Species may simple evolve and despite that become even less diverse! More Species doesn't mean that they are more diverse, it simple means that they are in more number. To know more about Diversity see my post The myth of Diversity in a error-prone Environment. And as in my post The Truth about Species! - Part 3 (Inductive Nature), Natural Selection is balanced with Sexual Selection trough a process of Induction allowing faster and fitter adaptations to the existing first Environment type.

When it comes to Evolution, the Second Environment has a much stronger feedback that the First one, and so, Sexual Selection is much more powerful that Natural Selection in promoting it.
"Sexual selection is responsible for the evolution of male ornaments and armaments, but its role in the evolution of cognition—the ability to process, retain and use information—is largely unexplored. Because successful courtship is likely to involve processing information in complex, competitive sexual environments, we hypothesized that sexual selection contributes to the evolution and maintenance of cognitive abilities in males. To test this, we removed mate choice and mate competition from experimental populations of Drosophila melanogaster by enforcing monogamy for over 100 generations. Males evolved under monogamy became less proficient than polygamous control males at relatively complex cognitive tasks. When faced with one receptive and several unreceptive females, polygamous males quickly focused on receptive females, whereas monogamous males continued to direct substantial courtship effort towards unreceptive females. As a result, monogamous males were less successful in this complex setting, despite being as quick to mate as their polygamous counterparts with only one receptive female. This diminished ability to use past information was not limited to the courtship context: monogamous males (but not females) also showed reduced aversive olfactory learning ability. Our results provide direct experimental evidence that the intensity of sexual selection is an important factor in the evolution of male cognitive ability." - Male cognitive performance declines in the absence of sexual selection
Once you understand that Cognition in Eukaryotes is the main source of Evolution trough Sexual Selection in Animals (Eukaryotes), and that Humans among evolved mainly due to Sexual Selection, it will become clear that Darwin Died when Cambrian Explosion Started! The real world is much more perverse and relentless that the one envisioned by Darwin. In conclusion, blessed are the Prokaryotes that live under the basic laws of Darwin.
"Only one thing oppresses and manipulates the entire humanity, that thing is the Species and its Will" - The Author
Reproduction of the Cognitive Sexual Image

Monday, July 20, 2015

Schopenhauer, Darwin and Me


There are three books that made a century, those books are:
  1. The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer, 1818;
  2. On the Origin of Species, Darwin, 1859;
  3. The Interpretation of Dreams, Freud, 1900.
One interesting thing is that both time gaps are of 41 years, but there is something much more important that this curiosity, starting with the oldness of each one.

Philosophy - A Guide to Happiness: Schopenhauer on Love

Schopenhauer was a philosopher, but it could be saw as a naturalist like Darwin. Contrary to Darwin, Schopenhauer focus his attention only on Humans, despite that, his observations are singular. Schopenhauer explains how individuals follow instincts in the best interest of Species wrongly believing as their how interests.

The problem with Schopenhauer is that he put Nature and Species in the same bucket, his Will to Life is a product of Nature, he isn't able to make the distinction between Nature and Species, or at least, he doesn't establish a connection between the two like he was able to establish between Individuals and Species.

On the other hand, Darwin was able to establish the relation between Species and Nature, but he was unable to see the relationship between Species and Organisms, for him, Species and Organisms were the same thing, When he saw fossils, he saw species, he was unable to make the distinction.

Darwin with his work much more robust and scientific, was able to overshadow Schopenhauer, however what really killed is work was Freud. Freud never gave any model of life, contrary to Schopenhauer and Darwin, what he did was spread a bunch of interesting examples, and for each one he tried multiple and distinct explanations, and doing so, the concept of The Will of the Species was grounded until today. Ego, Super Ego and Id, are examples of the complex and obscure theories that Freud produced against a simple and clean view of how things really work. Freud is the paradigm of the vicious Scientific Materialism, always focused on the object without seeing the big picture behind it, as exposed here. In some extent, Nietzsche is another minor figure that contribute to the Schopenhauer lowering, like a Paulo Coelho of his time, writing self help books, something very popular then as today, a proof that hope is the essential ingredient of believe despite if true or not.

The void that Darwin leaved, was occupied by Freud not Schopenhauer, and so, that void still exists today, and extraordinary, psychology and not biology stills today as the main source of logic in the Organism vs Species interface. Both are right in seeing Sexuality as the main force of action, but they differ in the explanation of why things are as they are.

For instance, when explaining suicide, there isn't a better explanation than the one that Schopenhauer gives:
"Suicide does not reject life itself, but only the conditions under which life is given. Suicide is a surrender of life, but it is not a surrender of the will-to-live. The individual who commits suicide gives up living, but does not give up willing. In the act of suicide, the will affirms itself, even though it puts an end to its individual manifestation." - Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Idea, translated by Jill Berman (London: Everyman, 1995), pp. 250-1.
Much better and understandable that the clumsy and forced Altruistic Suicide of the Pure Darwinian Natural Selection way of thinking, well saw in the Selfish Gene paradigm (microevolution).

The problem when you only have a single Split and two Layers, is that everything that needs that extra layer is inevitable swept under the carpet.

Because Schopenhauer had not the theory of Natural Selection given by Darwin, for him there was not other reason for Love than reproduction. He was unable to see the interaction between Nature and Species like Darwin was. He was unable to see Evolution. So, happiness for him was not what was driving individuals to Love, neither pleasure was, but the subconscious Will to Live, will to have children. This subconscious is the excuse he gave when missing a real explanation, this is the carpet he needed to explain something he couldn't.

Other limitation of him, come from not embracing the extreme Standardization of Species, so he didn't spoke very much on the repulsive feelings for aberration avoidance, instead he points out the existence of an individual will, like short people choosing tall people intended to produce a balanced offspring. He could at least realize that a dwarf would not profit of this unreal individual choice, because there is only the standard will that is very restrictive on variation, the Will of the Species shaped by Nature.

If Schopenhauer was able to distinguish Species from Nature, he would understand that Entropy, a natural phenomenon, is something that Species have to cope with, and so, offspring quality is more important than offspring quantity, he would be able to understand what Species and their comprised extincts are, the mere result of Evolution, intended to solve difficulties posed by Nature. So, happiness plays an important rule, like sexual pleasure does, something that is very conscious and vivid, together with the contradictory feeling of repulsion for biological inferior organisms that the same species doesn't care or wants in its gene pool. This way is easy to realize what Species really wants and loves, and how Happiness and Pleasure are its main instruments.

The same way, pure Darwinists aren't able to explain Sexual Selection, and also, they swept under the carpet, they embrace the Red Queen Hypothesis just to sleep well in their ignorance. So, they ignore Induction, another natural phenomenon, they ignore Punctuated Equilibrium, a result of Natural Selection working on Species instead of Organisms (macroevolution), and so, they don't see macroevolution as a better adaptation to new environments, a scheme that allows Species to cope in a much faster way than microevolution, and so, they still believe that is not Evolution in bursts, but instead, mere randomness reconfiguring a kind of safe combination. They don't see any equilibrium between Sexual and Natural Selection, they just see a endless and absolute continuity no matter what.


Darwin made his point, no one was able to dismantle it, no one was able to blur his simple and clear model of Natural Selection. However, Schopenhauer was not so lucky, Darwin open a much more robust and sustained theory, despite not being contradictory with the one of Schopenhauer, it was much more convenient at the time, and then, as the final blow, Freud took the place of Schopenhauer, with their much more colorful theories, a Soap Opera which popularity and romanticism, the rationality and incompleteness of Schopenhauer couldn't compete.


Friday, July 3, 2015

Species' Will or Will of the Species: Definition and Concept

"The sexual impulse is an instinct, and like most instincts, it represents the will of the species, which creates the delusion in individuals that they are seeking their own good when in fact they are seeking the good of the species (the continued existences of individuals of its kind)" - Historical Dictionary of Schopenhauer's Philosophy By David E. Cartwright

If you ask what is a Human Being the answer is simple, a member of the Homo Sapiens Species. An Eukaryotic organism is first of all something belonging to a Species.

Eukaryote Scheme of Natural and Sexual Selection

In the Eukaryotic universe, Species are nuclear, they aggregate all the information given by Natural Selection, working as a Proxy, they define what an Organism must be.

There are two conditions to the Existence of the Species' Will, and those two conditions are:
  1. Species are real in the same sense as Organisms are;
  2. Species are able to aggregate and control the traits of its Organisms.
For the first condition we have the following scientific support:
"Claridge and I agree that the entities we call species are real biological units." - Species Are Not Uniquely Real Biological Entities, Brent D. Mishler
The second one is about Macroevolution, where Species instead of Genes are the aggregated unit of Selection, and so:
"This extension of selection theory to the species level will concentrate, instead, on the relation between fitness and the species character, whether aggregate or emergent. Examination of the role of genetic variability in the long-term evolution of clades illustrates the cogency of broadening the definition of species selection to include aggregate characters." - Species selection on variability, E A Lloyd and S J Gould
There is a systematically confusion between Sampling and Diversity. In many situations where there is a great level of Sampling we see it called as Diversity. A good example is Football, where the richness of different races in Dream Teams is saw as an example of applied Diversity. This is wrong, because the rules of football are the same for all of them, and in this case those rules work like a Species not an Environment, where the firsts are rigid and the second in continuous changing. So, the football players are being Sexually Selected instead of Natural Selected. In this way you have the "best player" to be chosen, and this superior player needs to be obtained from the biggest population possible, because for extreme perfection you need extreme sampling. The so perceived diversity is no more than the consequence of greater population number needed to get the perfect player, already defined by the rules of football, already Specified.

Species aggregate not only the physical characteristics of an organism, as a woman or a man looks like, but also how they must behave. However, because the right organism requires great levels of Sampling, many waste is produced, many deviations of that Standard are obtained. This is wrongly misunderstood as diversity, an error that Species don't make. For species, deviations are exactly that, deviations, and the Species' Will is there to point out exactly that, in a way that many call prejudice, prejudice to the Hypocritical and Delusional Diversity.

Two heads Turtle, let's call it Diversity!

The Species' Will may be defined in the following way:
"The Species' Will is the Indirect Control of Organisms' Actions accordingly to an Equilibrium of Contradictory Emotions"
This Equilibrium produces Organisms meant to be Slaves and others meant to be Devoted. The emotion to be accepted is a very strong one, so the "superman" that everyone appreciates is accepted by a priori and so is free to discard the respective contradictory emotion to serve (others), in this way he is free to impose its own rules. In contrast, the Slave, has extreme difficulties to be accepted and so he is captive of the contradictory emotion to serve others as the price to obtain its castrated acceptance and respective allowance to survive, endless hoping and believing that better days will come! This equilibrium is many times the result of the conflict between Sexual and Natural Selection, where the equilibrium between the Will to Conform and the Will to Survive is well pictured in the suicidal tendencies of frustrated acceptance, because while Nature crafted Species to Survive at all cost, Species crafted Organisms to Conform at all cost avoiding this way any biological contamination mainly due to systematic deleterious mutations. The reality of this conflict results in the very common outcome of Suicide, making triumphant the Sexual Selection over the Natural one.

Other example of contradictory emotions, discussed in the post Why Shame on Sex, are Passion and Shame. The equilibrium for this two contradictory feelings is different for the biological superior and inferior organisms. So, while one succumbs to Passion, the other to Shame. While one is destined to sin, the other is doomed to chastity.


Other Emotions in the Species' Will are the Goodness of its nature opposed to the Corruption of Societies. This first emotion is such that is misunderstood as the God's Will, despite the respective contradiction that serves the Species. This God's Will is the pretty face of the Species' Will, a way to make it benevolent and good while in reality is pervert and crude. Religions' Priests or Species' Supermen, are well embody in Rasputin, a Saint at Sight and a Devil out of It, always taking advantage of the inferiority of others!



If the God's Will was really benevolent and good, there wouldn't be so many asking why they were abandoned, if Emotions were not contradictory, hardly someone become socially inept, and if  conformity was not the ultimate purpose of the Species' Will, Outcast would be a word without meaning.

The gene centered micro evolutionists well might insistently say that God doesn't exists, they may say all the time that Religion is nonsense, what they can't do is grasp the real source of what they despise, because that would hurts the Nature of Life that they so much appreciate. To see the full picture you need macroevolution, you need to realize the Species' Will.


Species' Will sees no Blue Blood

Monday, June 29, 2015

DEVOTION: As natural as "Believing in God"

Life is sacred, and for a good reason. That reason is servitude, servitude to the chosen ones.

Species are the physical and psychological blueprint of its organisms. That blueprint molded by Natural Selection defines the best fitted Species, meanwhile, species chose their best organisms in accordance to that blueprint. The same way the physical hardware of an organisms has its own purpose, feelings also play its equally decisive rule.

As saw before about Sampling, there is a great deal of waste in terms of living organisms. However, Species throughout Natural Selection, adjusted their feelings in an way to avoid complete waste, and more important, to take advantage of it.

Devotion has a very specific function, devoid the Organism of self interest in favor of the Species interest. Doing so, it produces two results, first increases will pressure to sexual reproduction, allowing a more restricted filter that increases the effect of Sampling (in war and love everything is fair), and second maintains a share of organisms willing to serve the chosen ones in exchange of the pleasure of being accepted by them.

In religions, where devotion is mandatory, the concept of "created at the image of God" is a classic. When it happens, it's important that God itself represents how a male or female should be at the eyes of the Species!

So for Jesus Crist we have the following male model:


Despite the reality being slightly different:


But who says that Religion is about reality? Religions are Synthesis of Devotion, extensions of the Species Will.
Let us make man in our image, in our likeness” (Genesis 1:26)

So, in all religions the figure of God is a important matter. Some religions, like Islam, avoid the problem by simple not showing any face, nevertheless, there is a devoid of individualism towards collectivism. Humans have the instinct to veneration and subjugation.

If it's truth that some religions are restricted in human body veneration, others have an history of promoting it. Renaissance and its art is a good example of that body veneration.


Of course that Shame on Sex plays its rule here, and the modern veneration of it is more discrete:


Devotion is an instrument of Species to impose servitude trough standardized feelings. The classic example is on Superstars Devotion, where common people is willing to offer them selves to the Superstar without compromises. The brains of common people are cooked to the point of extreme hysteria, including fainting and self mutilation.



This happens in the best interest of Human Species, because it promotes the greater success of biological superior organisms, where the inferior people is the happy red carpet. This would be impossible if there wasn't a standardized Species Will guiding the entire humanity.
Justin Bieber reduces size 14 fan to tears after allegedly calling her a "beached whale"
So, Love is not only about affections is also about exploitation, in this way there is Affective Love and Exploitive Love.
"Despite reports that the majority of pimps used violence to keep the women in the trade, violence was rarely reported as being used to first get the women into the trade. Instead, most pimps use one or a combination of the following five techniques: (a) love, (b) debt, (c) drugs, (d) the “gorilla” technique, and (e) position of authority. 
Love. Sixteen percent of the prostituted women interviewed described being turned out by a boyfriend or a pimp to which they had an emotional attachment. The seduction process was also described by informants from the Prostitution Offender Program. It appears that pimps were able to convince underage girls to prostitute themselves by pretending to love them. Playing on their vulnerabilities, stereotypes, and insecurities, pimps could distort a young woman’s sense of right and wrong with alarming speed. Several ways that this seduction process could occur were reported but, in most cases, a pimp would scout out a vulnerable, insecure teenager and woo her with attention and gifts. Not only would he wine and dine her, but he would make sure that she was aware of how much money he had been spending on her. Then, after the girl had fallen madly in love with her new ‘boyfriend,’ the pimp told her that they were out of money. Knowing how much money her ‘boyfriend’ had spent on her, the girl felt responsible for the situation and was willing to do anything to help. And so, with the help of her ‘boyfriend,’ the girl found herself prostituting on the corner to bring home some money." - Research Article: Routes of Recruitment into Prostitution
The inverse is also true when it comes to servitude of the superior organism, it doesn't matter if women or man, in the end superior biology it's all it matters, with many extremely wealthy man giving their dimes for a pretty woman.

To know how devotion works out in favor of superior organisms you may read Daniel Hamermesh and its "Beauty Pays". There is no need to give examples here, you just need the facts Daniel Hamermesh  gives, they are so many that they become boring!

As shown in SAMPLING: As natural as "the Death of my Little Brother", as more perfection you demand, more samples you need. This means that there is an hierarchy of samples, where less and less samples are at the top, in a logarithmic way. This way biology works like a system of casts, where morals exist to preserve that cast system and serve the biological superior ones. So this cast system may be compared with the Indian cast System, with religion supporting and justifying this hierarchy this Sociobiological Hierarchy.

Sociobiological Hierarchy (analogy)

As an analogy, the untouchable are all those that Species doesn't want to be reproduced, and so sexually untouchable, where the condition to satisfy their instinct of survival is to serve the upper class. They live in a box of perception, where shame on sex works to maintain that restrained perception. The upper cast, priests, are the ones who make their own rules, deciding how, what and who should be respected.

The real "Superman" by its superiority is easily capable to become a source of devotion, normally in the universe of arts and culture, like theater, cinema, music and others alike. The common plot is the nonconformity with the social norms, a kind of liberation. However what is really going on, is the exclusive liberation of the Superman by supporting "secondary" rules that specify who is cool, who is a Priest of these new rules, that in reality have nothing new in the way that are just an extension of the old rules. This extension is many times saw as the Evil side of Humans, like a constant slip from Good to Evil. But what it really is, is the allowance of the chosen ones to be over the mainstream moral, and this is why they are associated to a kind of dark side, sometimes as Sweet Evil Figures. All this supported by, and in accordance with, the Species Will!

Contrary to a clumsy social moral, the Species Moral is much more perverse and subtle. If it is easily to complain about an unjust social system, saying that doesn't give you access to food, shelter, it's a very different deal to complain about beauty, sexuality or vanity. The morality is there to allow just an elite to come out as while as complies with the Species Will.


The devotion trough the Superman makes him out of critic, any one making a critic is immediately confronted with its terrain cast. "Who are you to say that?" In a world of devotion there is no way to wake up some one whose devotion means devotion of criticism. But the most important of all, is the aggregated will that roller over any critic that makes you realize the Species Will protecting the chosen ones.

For instead The Species Will is used in marketing to sell products, where a pretty face is unavoidable. What many see as Capitalism creating a Will, is in reality Capitalism taking advantage of that Will.


Scarlett Johansson signed on as the first-ever “global ambassador” for SodaStream, which sells snazzy home-carbonating technology. - in The Politics of Celebrity Ambassadors

As far as diversity is allowed to go, is to dress superior organisms with even more mysticism, and so, diversity doesn't go further than a sexy vampire. This system of casts is not compatible with diversity, that is why diversity is the last big lie that exists to feed the "Perception Box" that imprisons the lower casts, believing that there is value in their difference, while everyone is devoting the same God.



Friday, June 12, 2015

Species Will: The real root of Sexism

I already show how Shame on Sex and Racism have nothing to do with Religion or Ideologies, but instead with the ubiquitous Species Will. In the following issue, some one is guessing that there is something more ancient concerning Sexism! Something that we already know what it is...

From: The Real Roots of Sexism in the Middle East (It's Not Islam, Race, or 'Hate')

Arab societies suffer from deep misogyny, but the problem is not as particularly Arab or Islamic as you might think.


Picture a woman in the Middle East, and probably the first thing that comes into your mind will be the hijab. You might not even envision a face, just the black shroud of the burqa or the niqab. Women's rights in the mostly Arab countries of the region are among the worst in the world, but it's more than that. As Egyptian-American journalist Mona Eltahawy writes in a provocative cover story for Foreign Policy, misogyny has become so endemic to Arab societies that it's not just a war on women, it's a destructive force tearing apart Arab economies and societies. But why? How did misogyny become so deeply ingrained in the Arab world?

As Maya Mikdashi once wrote, "Gender is not the study of what is evident, it is an analysis of how what is evident came to be." That's a much tougher task than cataloging the awful and often socially accepted abuses of women in the Arab world. But they both matter, and Eltahawy's lengthy article on the former might reveal more of the latter than she meant.

There are two general ways to think about the problem of misogyny in the Arab world. The first is to think of it as an Arab problem, an issue of what Arab societies and people are doing wrong. "We have no freedoms because they hate us," Eltahawy writes, the first of many times she uses "they" in a sweeping indictment of the cultures spanning from Morocco to the Arabian Peninsula. "Yes: They hate us. It must be said."

But is it really that simple? If that misogyny is so innately Arab, why is there such wide variance between Arab societies? Why did Egypt's hateful "they" elect only 2 percent women to its post-revolutionary legislature, while Tunisia's hateful "they" elected 27 percent, far short of half but still significantly more than America's 17 percent? Why are so many misogynist Arab practices as or more common in the non-Arab societies of sub-Saharan Africa or South Asia? After all, nearly every society in history has struggled with sexism, and maybe still is. Just in the U.S., for example, women could not vote until 1920; even today, their access to basic reproductive health care is backsliding. We don't think about this as an issue of American men, white men, or Christian men innately and irreducibly hating women. Why, then, should we be so ready to believe it about Arab Muslims?

A number of Arab Muslim feminists have criticized the article as reinforcing reductive, Western perceptions of Arabs as particularly and innately barbaric. Nahed Eltantawy accused the piece of representing Arab women "as the Oriental Other, weak, helpless and submissive, oppressed by Islam and the Muslim male, this ugly, barbaric monster." Samia Errazzouki fumed at "the monolithic representation of women in the region." Roqayah Chamseddine wrote, "Not only has Eltahawy demonized the men of the Middle East and confined them into one role, that of eternal tormentors, as her Western audience claps and cheers, she has not provided a way forward for these men." Dima Khatib sighed, "Arab society is not as barbaric as you present it in the article." She lamented the article as enhancing "a stereotype full of overwhelming generalizations [that] contributes to the widening cultural rift between our society and other societies, and the increase of racism towards us."

Dozens, maybe hundreds, of reports and papers compare women's rights and treatment across countries, and they all rank Arab states low on the list. But maybe not as close to the bottom as you'd think. A 2011 World Economic Forum report on national gender gaps put four Arab states in the bottom 10; the bottom 25 includes 10 Arab states, more than half of them. But sub-Saharan African countries tend to rank even more poorly. And so do South Asian societies -- where a population of nearly five times as many women as live in the Middle East endure some of the most horrific abuses in the world today. Also in 2011, Newsweek synthesized several reports and statistics on women's rights and quality of life. Their final ranking included only one Arab country in the bottom 10 (Yemen) and one more in the bottom 25 (Saudi Arabia, although we might also count Sudan). That's not to downplay the harm and severity of the problem in Arab societies, but a reminder that "misogyny" and "Arab" are not as synonymous as we sometimes treat them to be.

The other way to think about misogyny in the Arab world is as a problem of misogyny. As the above rankings show, culturally engrained sexism is not particular to Arab societies. In other words, it's a problem that Arab societies have, but it's not a distinctly Arab problem. The actual, root causes are disputed, complicated, and often controversial. But you can't cure a symptom without at least acknowledging the disease, and that disease is not race, religion, or ethnicity.

Some of the most important architects of institutionalized Arab misogyny weren't actually Arab. They were Turkish -- or, as they called themselves at the time, Ottoman -- British, and French. These foreigners ruled Arabs for centuries, twisting the cultures to accommodate their dominance. One of their favorite tricks was to buy the submission of men by offering them absolute power over women. The foreign overlords ruled the public sphere, local men ruled the private sphere, and women got nothing; academic Deniz Kandiyoti called this the "patriarchal bargain." Colonial powers employed it in the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, and in South Asia, promoting misogynist ideas and misogynist men who might have otherwise stayed on the margins, slowly but surely ingraining these ideas into the societies.

Of course, those first seeds of misogyny had to come from somewhere. The evolutionary explanations are controversial. Some say that it's simply because men are bigger and could fight their way to dominance; some that men seek to control women, and particularly female sexuality, out of a subconscious fear being of cuckolded and raising another man's child; others that the rise of the nation-state promoted the role of warfare in society, which meant the physically stronger gender took on more power. You don't hear these, or any of the other evolutionary theories, cited much. What you do hear cited is religion.

Like Christianity, Islam is an expansive and living religion. It has moved with the currents of history, and its billion-plus practitioners bring a wide spectrum of interpretations and beliefs. The colonial rulers who conquered Muslim societies were skilled at pulling out the slightest justification for their "patriarchal bargain." They promoted the religious leaders who were willing to take this bargain and suppressed those who objected. This is a big part of how misogynistic practices became especially common in the Muslim world (another reason is that, when the West later promoted secular rulers, anti-colonialists adopted extreme religious interpretations as a way to oppose them). "They enshrined their gentleman's agreement in the realm of the sacred by elevating their religious family laws to state laws," anthropologist Suad Joseph wrote in her 2000 book, Gender and Citizenship in the Middle East. "Women and children were the inevitable chips with which the political and religious leaders bargained." Some misogynist practices predated colonialism. But many of those, for example female genital mutilation, also predated Islam.

Arabs have endured centuries of brutal, authoritarian rule, and this could also play a role. A Western female journalist who spent years in the region, where she endured some of the region's infamous street harassment, told me that she sensed her harassers may have been acting in part out of misery, anger, and their own emasculation. Enduring the daily torments and humiliations of life under the Egyptian or Syrian or Algerian secret police, she suggested, might make an Arab man more likely to reassert his lost manhood by taking it out on women.

The intersection of race and gender is tough to discuss candidly. If we want to understand why an Egyptian man beats his wife, it's right and good to condemn him for doing it, but it's not enough. We also have to discuss the bigger forces that are guiding him, even if that makes us uncomfortable because it feels like we're excusing him. For decades, that conversation has gotten tripped up by issues of race and post-colonial relations that are always present but often too sensitive to address directly.

Spend some time in the Middle East or North Africa talking about gender and you might hear the expression, "My Arab brother before my Western sister," a warning to be quiet about injustice so as not to give the West any more excuses to condescend and dictate. The fact that feminism is broadly (and wrongly) considered a Western idea has made it tougher for proponents. After centuries of Western colonialism, bombings, invasions, and occupation, Arab men can dismiss the calls for gender equality as just another form of imposition, insisting that Arab culture does it differently. The louder our calls for gender equality get, the easier they are to wave away.

Eltahawy's personal background, unfortunately, might play a role in how some of her critics are responding. She lives mostly in the West, writes mostly for Western publications, and speaks American-accented English, all of which complicates her position and risks making her ideas seem as Westernized as she is. That's neither fair nor a reflection of the merit of her ideas, but it might inform the backlash, and it might tell us something about why the conversation she's trying to start has been stalled for so long.

The Arab Muslim women who criticized Eltahawy have been outspoken proponents of Arab feminism for years. So their backlash isn't about "Arab brother before Western sister," but it does show the extreme sensitivity about anything that could portray Arab misogyny as somehow particular to Arab society or Islam. It's not Eltahawy's job to tiptoe around Arab cultural anxieties about Western-imposed values, but the fact that her piece seems to have raised those anxieties more than it has awakened Arab male self-awareness is an important reminder that the exploitation of Arab women is about more than just gender. As some of Eltahawy's defenders have put it to me, the patriarchal societies of the Arab world need to be jolted into awareness of the harm they're doing themselves. They're right, but this article doesn't seem to have done it.