Politics Are Genetic! Utopia Stock Plummets.

Great. Now they’ve discovered that politics are genetically inherited.

Since they just recently discovered how to create embryos from the genes of multiple persons, this is convenient. Now, politicians can start making future votes. I guess they could donate a portion of campaign funds to some organization created just for the purpose, like the Conservative Heritage Foundation of the Republican National Convention or Democrats for Universal Health Care Trust?

Those organizations could in turn use the funds to bring new life into their party. Literally.

How cool would it be to genetically alter embryos of those who would like to predetermine their offspring’s political leanings…but can’t afford to pay for the procedure?

Parents would no longer need to fear their children might grow up to have liberal socialist yearnings, thereby eliminating the need for pointless trips abroad by high school students who are more likely to end up donating kidneys against their will after a night of debauchery in some foreign dive than learn anything. You won’t have to worry about your ultra-conservative daughter getting high on dope and murdered in Aruba.

While they wouldn’t get the immediate benefit, it would ensure each candidate of a political ideology is keeping the party alive and growing. Ah, science. You have to love the endless possibilities it presents us to destroy the simple beauty and balances in life, right?

Might genetically engineered elections be looming on the horizon?

What Does This Suggest About People, Culture, Race And The Human Condition?

You should at least have a sense of humor and curiosity about it all. Keep that in mind as you read on…

Now, does this sort of lend unintended scientific weight to those arguing the point that multiculturalism is bad for a society? I mean, if a large portion of your population are immigrants genetically predisposed to want to live under, say, Sharia law, dictatorships or communism…you’re just asking for trouble, aren’t you?

There has been some evidence of this sort of predisposition throughout history, but mostly it has been chalked up to culture, i.e., environment. People like what is comfortable and familiar—ideologically speaking. Sort of like shoes.

It raises a lot of questions, though—this discovery. It also sort of confirms what many have thought down through the ages, that fighting and war are in our blood. War is, after all, something politic.

What I am most curious about is this: does this mean it is suggested by nature that people should remain separate from each other based on genetics, as some people think? I’m not talking about racism here either, just the notion that people should “keep to their own kind” sort of thing.

We have viewed it as a sort of backward thinking, a holdover from thousands of years of differences in culture that made us fight and war with each other, and that has taken a long time for enlightened thinking to overcome. So, did culture and religion and a need for resources create those divisions? Or did we create those divisions and appropriate cultures and religious beliefs because they were comfortable fits for what came naturally due to genetics?

Is nature telling us that we have an issue, and the only way it will go away is if people of varying genetic predispositions intermingle and mix around the world enough so that there are no large pockets of radically varying political leanings which might erupt in warfare? That certainly seems to be the ideological goal of the globalists among us.

Is this the answer to Rodney King’s famous question, “Why can’t we all just get along?”

Which Came First: The Culture Or The Gene?

As horrifying as WWII was, was Hitler acting out some genetically driven urge that went beyond merely one man’s mad thoughts? That would certainly explain an entire nation going along with the horrific things that took place as a result. It would take less to convince those predisposed to agreement by genetics. With politics and so many other things being discovered to be wrapped up in our DNA, perhaps the definition of madness and primal urge both need to be rethought and redefined in some respects?

I have heard it numerous times said that both Germany and Japan will be at war again before long, that it is in their blood. History supports that…just a bit, don’t you think?

Here in America, the American Revolution, the birth of the Republic of Texas, and the Civil War were all due in large part to the Scots-Irish, whose genes it seems have made them wary of oppressive central government and given them the urge to push frontiers and fight for independence.

You think I’m kidding?

A Hessian officer even styled the American Revolution as “nothing more or less than a Scotch-Irish Presbyterian rebellion,” while Washington himself said, “If defeated everywhere else, I will make my last stand for liberty among the Scotch-Irish of my native Virginia.”

— James Burns, Ph.D., is professor emeritus at the University of Florida.

The Declaration of Independence was in the handwriting of an Ulster-Scot (Scots-Irish) named Charles Thompson who was a secretary of the Congress, and was first read in public by the son of one—a Colonel John Nixon. The first signee? John Hancock, descended of Ulster-Scots. In the Revolution, 25 Generals were of Ulster-Scots stock.

The Ulster-Scots comprised the majority of those at the Alamo and gave us such famous men as Davey Crockett and Jim Bowie. And later, Sam Houston—whose name was the first word spoken when men landed on the Moon. I would say that the Scots-Irish have been shown by history to push frontiers and fight for independence and advocate self-sufficiency. They did it in Scotland, in Ireland, in America, in Australia and out in space on the moon.

It is in their genes, after all.

Common Sense: Roadkill On The Road To Utopia?

I wonder, is nature suggesting something far greater and more important? Are we looking at the surface, and not seeing what lies beneath: that we are all predisposed to be a certain kind of unique creature? One that has the ability—by reasoning and choice, by will alone—to overcome the compulsion of genetics. Does this discovery warrant a brief moment of reflection to think about what that means?

I certainly think so. Apparently, you do to, if you have read this far.

Sure, our environment plays a factor in who and what we turn out to be. But consider that a moment if you will…the ability to overcome genetics by reasoning and choice!

Is it the edge that allowed mankind, the creative animal, to climb to the top of the evolutionary ladder…rather than opposable thumbs? (There are critters with two thumbs, after all. They’re still hanging around in trees.) A larger brain holds a lot more stuff inside, but would it have been any good to us if we couldn’t will ourselves past those hurdles that our genetics put in our way?

Schrödinger’s Cat Paradox

The physicist Erwin Schrödinger is famous for his paradox involving a cat, a vial of hydrocyanic acid, radioactive material, a Geiger counter, a hammer and a box. Even if I didn’t know the first thing about quantum mechanics that would sound interesting.

Commonly referred to as Schrödinger’s Cat paradox, it is based on the notion that a sub-atomic particle either decays or doesn’t. If it does, the Geiger counter detects it, triggers a hammer fall which cracks the vial and the cat dies in the box.

However, due to what is called superposition, the cat is both alive and dead until someone actually observes it in the box…thanks to quantum mechanics and theories more complex than we need delve into for our purposes.

I thought I would come up with my own example of the experiment in the same spirit, but meant to illustrate possibilities for humankind based upon the discovery of a political gene.

Sean’s Moonbat In A Box Paradox

OK, so we have a NeoCon and a Bezerkeley-ite in a box. In this box there is a vial of hydrocyanic acid, and a hammer. We substitute the political gene for radioactive material.

Now, according to quantum theory, every possibility can and does occur, so that every possible reality coexists. Basically. At the moment of truth when a decision had to be made, reality diverged and each possibility came true.

Now, the question is, which of the two is dead when we peek in the box that represents society?

In one reality, the NeoCon—true to his genetics—smashed the raving liberals head in with a hammer. In another reality, the Bezerkeley-ite became a Neo-NeoCon and crushed the skull of the former NeoCon—who had begun thinking along Theocratic lines.

In yet another reality, the NeoCon evolved into a Socialist and broke open the vile of acid and drank it in order to spare himself (I mean, for the good of society) from having to listen to the idiotic ideas of the moonbat from Bezerkeley (who didn’t evolve into anything because he already knew what was best for everyone else).

In yet a fourth reality, when we peek in the box, they are moderates, getting on fine and having a sing-along (with Kofi Annan, who—through some even weirder aspect of physics—ended up in the box). We call this Utopia (or Hell, depending on your genetic disposition, environmental influences and view of the former UN Secretary General, eh?).

The point is, we get to make those choices.

Now, common sense suggests a likely outcome, and it isn’t Utopia. And what is this common sense, if not a common perception of the genetic predispositions we have noted among our fellow humans?

But, this common sense is different for everyone, depending on the mix of nature and nurture, genetics and environment—and choice. Perhaps now with a little help from science and technology, however, we can just breed common sense out of everyone?

And while I’m thinking about it, now I can’t help but wonder if some political ideologies are the result of genetic mutations? A mutant population in Bezerkeley? I don’t think that theory would shock many people. Maybe it’s something in the water?