Why Invasive Species Prosper: Less Specific Knowledge, Fewer Enemies

A new study on the genomes of reeds gives us an insight into what gives invasive species an upper hand over native ones:

“Smaller genomes are more nimble,” she said. “They can grow in variable environments and at almost all latitudes.”

The findings of the research team raise the question of why plants with small genomes are more likely to become invasive. She thinks they have the answer.

“The main theoretical reason has to do with minimum generation time,” she explained. “The idea is that a smaller genome can be replicated more quickly than a larger genome. So if a plant is in a stressful environment, it can be replicated more quickly than if it had a larger genome. It needs fewer resources and can use its resources quickly to reproduce before its luck runs out.

“On the other hand, a smaller genome also means that it may lose genes that are potentially beneficial,” added Pyšek, the first author of the paper. “So there may be a trade-off.”

Smaller genomes means fewer instructions, which means a generalist — “can grow in variable environments and at almost all latitudes” — with fewer genes coded to specific adaptations such as would anchor a plant in one environment. This generalist status means that the plant has a lower burden of fitting into an ecosystem and therefore, more energy to reproduce, and a simpler form to reproduce as well.

As time goes on, such plants become adapted because the ones that develop specific adaptations become more efficient. They therefore have more energy than their less-specialized cousins, and gradually genetically predominate. The same will be true of invasive animals, including humans. The ones that are least adapted to their specific country of origin, and therefore most generalized and simplest, will arrive in new lands and out-reproduce the natives, displacing them and eventually, genetically absorbing them.

In effect, this is a “race to the bottom” where simpler species constantly overwhelm and destroy more complex ones, unless the environment is hostile enough that generalists do not thrive in it because they lack the specific adaptations.

Invasive species have another advantage, which is that they lack the predators and enemies that they had back in their homelands, while invasive species must contend with such others, meaning that all of the energy which would have to go to defending the invasive species can instead be invested in reproduction:

“Our native Phragmites in North America is getting hammered by both native and introduced insects, whereas the invasive Phragmites in North America suffers far less herbivory than it does in its native Europe,” she said. “That’s partly because when invasives are introduced to a new place, they leave their enemies behind and can devote their resources to greater growth.”

The same applies to immigration. People of simpler genomes, with fewer specific adaptations, can abandon their enemies at home and gain an easy foothold abroad. At that point, the only thing that holds them back is xenophobic elitism on the part of the natives, who will recognize assimilation in progress and resist it, at least if not restrained by government and media.

Clarence Thomas: Race Is More Important Than Politics

From Daily Caller, an interview with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas:

In an epic speech some 20 years ago to black judges in Memphis, Thomas boldly stated that he came not to defend his views, “but rather to assert my right to think to myself, to refuse to have my ideas assigned to me as though I was an intellectual slave because I’m black.” He wrote that speech, he says today, to draw attention to, “the right, among blacks, to think for themselves, the right to be that invisible man, to be the one who lays claim to his own thoughts.”

While this is a positive statement, it asserts the importance of race above all else, which is especially necessary as a thought process when one is from a minority ethnic group. Although he is rebelling against being defined by his race, he is also affirming it, because he sees blackness as essential to his choice of how to interpret his views. This rare honest insight into the ethnic crisis in America shows us how it is impossible to be “post-racial” even when thoroughly accepted.

“Progress Can Kill”


Survival International has released a new short report, “Progress Can Kill,” which describes how well-intentioned attempts to bring modern society to isolated tribes can in fact destroy those tribes through obesity, suicide, AIDS, starvation, addiction and loss of life expectancy.

As the authors summarize:

If they are to survive, indigenous people must control the changes they want to make to their own lives. The key to tribal peoples’ futures is to ensure their land remains under their control.

In an echo of Nationalist movements of the last century, Survival International emphasizes control over land, including the ability to exclude outsiders, and self-determination or control of destiny as essential to the survival of these tribes. The report illustrates how modern lifestyles destroy these tribes by altering their lifestyle to one that is alien to their needs, all under the guise of “progress” that enables their lands to be exploited for economic gains.

Eradication of Indigenous Cultures By Globalism Is Slow Genocide


We are accustomed to thinking of genocide as what happens when men in snappy uniforms lock up certain races in concentration camps and work them to death. But what if a company bought up an entire country, then introduced new cultural practices that replaced the people there, and imported foreign workers to mix genetically with the population, so that in two generations the original population no longer existed?

Sadly, this condition is the norm around most of the world, only it is not a single corporation or dictator doing it, but the force of globalism itself. International commerce buys up the land, hires the people, changes local government, and imports its own labor force which genetically replaces the original population. Soon the values, culture, folkways and tribe itself have vanished, replaced by generic modern people.

Native Planet gives us a good synopsis of why this type of genocide is so prevalent:

The future of our planet depends on saving both the remaining biologically diverse ecosystems and the cultural, credible diversity of the tribal peoples of the world. The ancient cultures of native peoples, threatened by modern assimilation, are the only known, proven time-tested models for the sustainable consumption of the Earth’s threatened natural resources.

The new ways replace the old. The more convenient modern methods sweep in and drive out the old ways. Soon they are forgotten and, when the genetic stock that created them is gone, they will never be rediscovered. Cultural Survival writes about the destructive effects of this process:

What are the rights that indigenous peoples seek?

First, they want to be recognized for who they are: distinct groups with their own unique cultures. Indigenous peoples want to enjoy and pass on to their children their histories, languages, traditions, modes of internal governance, spiritual practices, and all else that makes them who they are. They want to be able to pray on their ancestral lands without finding that those lands have been dug up to construct a gold mine, fenced off to create a safari park, or watered with sewage effluent pumped from a nearby city.

Second, they want the governments of the countries in which they live to respect their ability to determine for themselves their own destinies. For indigenous peoples, “self-determination” has a different meaning than it did for colonial-dominated nations in the mid-20th century. Self-determination relates to autonomy, not the right to secede from the state. It means the right to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development inside the country in which they live. They want to govern themselves in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, and to retain their distinct political, legal, economic, social, and cultural institutions. They want to educate their children in their own languages, and about their own traditions; to worship in their own ways; to establish media in their languages; to retain their traditional modes of resolving internal disputes; and to fully participate in any outside decision-making that could have an impact on their lives. At the same time, recognizing their interdependence with the country in which they live, they want to be able to participate in the political and economic life of that country, if they so choose.

Third, indigenous peoples want to enjoy the same rights as all other people without discrimination of any kind. They want to be regarded by everyone as full and equal human beings. They want to be protected from genocide, arbitrary execution, torture, forced relocation, or assimilation, and they want to enjoy their rights to freedom of expression, association, and religion. They want to be treated equally with respect to opportunities for education, health care, work, and other basic needs.

The United Nations codified a recognition of the need for indigenous peoples to be free from assimilation, including by globalism, with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples issued in 2007. It reads in part:

Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such,

Affirming also that all peoples contribute to the diversity and richness of civilizations and cultures, which constitute the common heritage of humankind,

Affirming further that all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust,

Recognizing the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources,

What makes the globalist genocide difficult to recognize is that it occurs through a type of inverse racial superiority: in their desire to be diverse, globalist entities create a mixed-heritage group which assimilates and replaces the indigenous group. This is genocide through genetic discrimination in favor of the mixed-heritage by global industry and governments.

The Commission on Legal Pluralism issued a study which revealed that genetic assimilation of indigenous peoples occurs through the expansion of global industry, which by its lack of inherent culture is biased against indigenous culture and the genetics of those people, replacing both permanently altering their local ecosystem:

Industrial civilization destroys natural environment and, hence, the basis for traditional resource use, by destroying the mechanism that supports the peoples’ ethnic identity and by stimulating total assimilation of the nations into a demographically uniform conglomeration.

As part of this industrial expansion, the use of diversity to undermine social trust enables the destruction of local culture and encourages its replacement with universal modern anti-culture. As Robert Putnam observed with a statistical study, introduction of ethnic diversity destroys the sense of commonality and shared values required for culture:

New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.

The same procedure is enacted with plant biology: new crops are imported, which breaks up the functioning of the local ecosystem in a process which is akin to a loss of social trust, and then this new universal crop makes the native biology irrelevant along with the cultural methods of using it. As the Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism writes:

As indigenous people have taken a more critical look at genetics, many have voiced their concern and have started to speak out against some of the negative aspects of biotechnology. In fact, a widespread movement against genetic theft, or biopiracy, has started to build around the world. Many of the protesters at the World Trade Organization meeting in late 1999 in Seattle were opposed to the negative impacts biotechnology can have when the interests of corporations are favored over societal needs. Those opposed to the control corporations have over science and genetic resources include a broad range of people, from indigenous peoples to shareholder activists, from students to tenured professors.

This biological assimilation replaces the native ecosystem and population, destroying the indigenous group and its culture in the same motion that genetically obliterates both its traditional food sources and the ethnic group itself. In this way, the group is destroyed just as thoroughly as if its people were executed en masse. It just takes longer and happens through indirect methods instead of tyrannical power.

The United Nations defines genocide as:

Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The authors of this statement included the language “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” in order to cover all methods of genocide, and by using the “in part” language, they indicated that incremental genocide of the type described in this article was covered as well.

Biocolonialism, or replacing indigenous ecosystems and peoples with plants, animals and people from afar, qualifies under the UN definition of genocide. As more interest occurs in the protection of indigenous peoples against assimilation and displacement, the globalist method of biological replacement will become seen as the genocide that it is.