Geno-, Pheno and Archtypes by Tani Jantsang1/24/96Hi Lupo.You seem to be using the word and either using it very oddly or not knowing what the word means. AND SAYING that "TANI MEANS" something and well HUH? Genotype means you have the genes, but they may not EXPRESS themselves in any way at all: not in behavior, appearance, disease, immunity, etc, nor may an environmental factor trigger their expression. Genotype is your total absolute genetic inheritance. Phenotype means ANY of this genotype that is EXPRESSED. A person might have something genotypically, a behavior. Nothing in the environment causes this to express itself: that's a presidposition toward something. A person who can taste phenylketones: PHENOTYPE, and genotype of course, yet you can't SEE this. Phenotypes can be as invisible as genotypes. But phenotypes are the EXPRESSION OF what's IN that genotype. In other words, you can have something in the genotype that is not expressed in the phenotype, BUT if it does express phenotypically, then it MOST CERTAINLY IS in the genotype: absolutely! It doesn't mean "physical appearance." If you knew what you were talking about here, you'd not make the statement you made and seem to disagree with your own statement! Or are you trying to lure out more Tosser morons to prove they know NOTHING about ANYTHING? They are really amazing in that they know NOTHING about ANYTHING! And yet they strive to be brains?I refer to the internet and your comment about dissociative BEHAVIOR. That's a phenotype you are DEFINING right there, Lupo! Yet a person might have the genotype (genetic predisposition) for this neurological state and NOT express it in any way if the environment doesn't trigger it, they'd carry the genes for it nonetheless. Whether this IS developental (environmental: uterine or otherwise, or inborn) is, as yet, unknown to neurology, but not to epidemiology. But to not express it: that would be a genotype only. One way or the other, this "Adamic" thing (whatever you want to call it: dualism? I had used this because I was talking to, uh, er, magicians? occultists? ex-christians? I mean, "Adamic" ain't no medical term I know of, ya know? but in a Satanic context with Satan being all about Eve? Come on!) ...this Adamic thing IS genetic. Absolutely! (Our doctrines which predate neurology state that they are BORN that way and their types are categorized specifically and thought of as "partial people," 3/5 of one whole: we always use the pentacle as a "glyph." Far from what this sounds like to most, no one would want to rule them or "lord it over" them. They are AVOIDED as best as possible.) Schizoid personalities come in degrees of dissociation with the extreme being "BORDERLINE schizophrenic." And there are also degrees of schizophrenia and, oh yes, this is genetic. Don't look to the psych profession for this info: look to the epidemiologists that study the biochemical differences and differences in dissected brains (forensics). So when you say "you don't think it's a phenotype" and then, in the same sentence, define a behavior pattern EXPRESSED in people, well, the epidemiologist tends to say what you probably say with some of our doctrines of physics: "HUH?" Or maybe you don't say that.You seem to imagine that "TANI" has ideas and yet you never even gave ME (like hi there, I EXIST, ya know?) the one-to-one courtesy of ASKING me. You claim to have read "our stuff" and yet? You seem to have not read it at all. I strongly said, in "Serpents/Adamites" article, that YOU CAN NOT TELL who is who by pedigree or appearances or race anymore. I made SURE to emphatically say this. Still, it fell on some deaf ears (we can guess which ears). I copped out and called it a "CHARACTER TYPE." Yes, I did indeed circulate an (hilarious) "page of faces" and yes, I KNOW that got everyone in a tizzy (tiz why I circulated it!) (smile). But that's not sold as any DOCTRINE and, in fact, ISN'T! The monumental joke is that 3 of the people on there are Wayne Hill, our friend of long standing. It's rubbish and more: it's not even OUR rubbish. It's THEIR OWN rubbish I'm feeding BACK at them. Bear with me, here. We call that, eh..."IN YOUR FACE." Pun intended.If I may bring up the subject of Yeshua ben Pandira (no, he was not the son of any Roman), I'll tell you that I put something in Serpents/Adamites about this person as he came down to us in ORAL HISTORY and also as he is known thru pagan sources: 4 pages I typed on this. Also, in Package of Dotrines, at end, I stuck in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls info without misquoting a word and added something for Mythos fans about how the Dagon cults back then adopted Jesus as FISH and put in a few words to explain how they did this using Ruth. It is of interest to Mythos lovers who did get a "WOW" out of it. Aside from the real person here, the one my people KNEW OF and the ones Jews know as ben Pandira or ben Notzri (Notzri, a place), the real person obviously DID NOT LOOK LIKE the Jesus we all (even I recognize it these days) recognize instantly on ANY poster, even if he is dressed in a suit. "He looks like Jesus." RIGHT? But now, we speak of the mythical Jesus and of this there is MUCH to notice just as the MYTHICAL Santa Claus is still identical to our Elder Dionysus in character AND LOOKS. The appearance of Jesus stays the same, more or less, no matter WHO draws him: Slav, Latino, S. European. The appearance is NOT Slav, NOT Latino, NOT S. European. OK? The appearance is also NOTABLY not "Semitic." We didn't draw these Jesuses, why the hell would we? Europeans did. THEY drew him THAT WAY, Lupo. Now, surely, as a member of a magical society of any kind, you DO recognize the importance of this fact? No? OK, then psychologically speaking do you recognize this? NO? If not then do you wonder why black christians want a BLACK Jesus, a Jesus that doesn't look like a: WASP? DUH. Now, somehow when one sees that Nigra hangin up on de cross, one tends to wonder who LYNCHED the Nigra and they don't even NOTICE the cross. One black kid even thought it represended M.L. King and connected it with the KKK. So much for that, eh?You may not know this, but even Nemo (who I consider rather dense) NOTICED that there is also an archetype, among THE SAME EUROPEANS WHO DRAW JESUS, that they feel and react toward as "DEMONIC." I am painfully aware of this since I LOOK like this. My brother was told once: "If you shaved off that beard and moustache you'd not look so much like Satan." Tears filled his eyes, Lupo. Things like this are NOT forgoten. You see, our race ONLY GROW HAIR on the upper lip and chin. The men can NOT grow it anywhere else on the face. They also tend to have widow's peaks, and Spocky eyebrows or at least scanty ones. This is DEFINITELY a racial trait and we sure as hell do have it. I mentioned to Nemo that perhaps the Europeans had this ARCHETYPE of Satan due to 1000 years of Tatar invasions (horrific) and settlements (women married the Tatar men right away). It was like a light went on in Nemo's head as he never thought of that. I call this a racial amnesia about a race of fighters that whites would PREFER to forget? YELLOW PERIL? No! They did NOT mean the Chinese who were so thoroughly isolated. They STILL pray against us in E. Europe. Tatar became Tartar from Tartarus. We rode under the ubiquitous Dragon/Serpent banner and oh, the whole Satanic bit. They even spell our name wrong. "Steak Tartar" in Germany is RAW MEAT. Yes, we ate it. So what. Vlad Tepish was an AVAR prince, he looked nothing like that drawing of him but he probably DID look like Bela Lugosi (like one of us). So what: we all fought like that even in 1928. We never NUKED anyone, not yet anyway, nor did we ever fight for NOTHINGS. A Christian friend (a church of one person) who liked us a LOT felt guilty and confessed it to me, as a friend, that he was THINKING that we all looked like devils. Then he realized that his bible never said Satan was a person or a man, nor did it ever give Satan an appearance. So he wondered why on earth EVERYONE seems to think this is how Satan looks: and he knew that EVERYONE thought it, too. I'd be on target with that Tatar invasion theory, a terror so deep that the whites PERSONIFIED our race into their own anti-god, except for one remarkable thing. The Aryans in Persia ALSO had the same ideas about us: the Turanians or Turia, children of Ahriman whose leader is Aeshma Devi (the later Asmodeus) and who get Wisdom from Ahriman and who cursed them to: BURN IN THE SUN! SAME IDEA, with the added detail about the sun; a similar sentiment is displayed in Isaiah, "In the Kingdom of God the sun shall no longer smite us." Well, I think I'm onto some BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM to explain their INSANE sense of bodily shame? Yowsa! And also in India even earlier: they took our IDEAS and turned them into deities. Then they made them into anti-gods and made US into "races of demons." THEY DID this. Diane has the info on this which I got from Princeton U Bollinger Found. book. Get it from her: it's on Hinduism, as I called it to dumb it down.Now, Lupo, WE didn't do this, nor do we draw "the pretas" to look like any race at all. We rather draw them in exagerrated form to show their obscuring passions, passions which rule them unknown to themselves, passions that are destructive to themselves and which they BRACE AGAINST lest they be overtaken by these passions: which THEY REGARD AS evil! So they don't let go: they DENY the body. Consider the survival tactic as being the underlying biological mechanism for ALL "behavior." WHY would an animal brace against its own bodily instincts like this? The answer is obvious: the PYTHAGOREAN WORD is thanatos. But that's an esoteric word and no, it does not mean "dead," as one MORE Tos know-nothing said. (Tethneos and Necros is Attic Greek for dead, meaning literally dead. Freud knew it well enough and used it accordingly, as we do.) The street-Hellenic word for this sick condition was PHRENES and meant that "organs in the body of one person seem to battle each other as if at war, instead of working in tune." The brain is also an organ. Brain VERSUS body, schizoid; and Schizo-PHRENES. Same word. (Read it in Greek if you do, not in any translation). The only physical attributes anyone, East or West, ever put on such dualistic people in terms of visible appearance was "pinched appearance, caved in, dour, grim, glum, joyless, morose, long in the face, hungering, starving, leering, pale, sad, stone-faced." This does not describe a race, Lupo. By the way, Eros did not mean erotic or have anything to do with this in Attic Greek. Eros was related to being Zoos. Note that Thanatos does not mean azoos. The language was very subtle and no such words for these concepts exist in later European languages. They DO in Asian languages.Point: not us, not we, not I, but EUROPEAN CHRISTIAN PEOPLE have made these drawings of both Jesus and Jesus-like appearances AND of demonic personalities: Faust, Mephistopheles, and the Theurgies tho that was an actual drawing done of what we looked like in Rome: a recognizable race of people. Likewise, Sutonious defined the Christians there as distinct from the Jews as a race and also identifiable. But then, what did these Christians look like? Can we ASSUME this by the way they draw their deity Jesus? No? At least, they WANTED to look like that even if they did NOT look like that (Constantine surely didn't.) So then, you start to breed in favor of that type. And? Get more of em?It is not us, not Africans but again, white European Christians, not Jews (I have quite a few of their essays, written not by religious fanatics but by their "best minds") that equated blackness with evil long before they ever met black human beings. WHY? Their "best minds" try to figure it out and fall flat. Yet still, Lupo, I never saw a Satan picture or character that quite looked like a Negro. The times they've used Negro actors the females had our features (eyes and cheekbones especially) and the males were done up like jinn, turbans and all. But this is NOT what is in the mass-Euro-Xian MIND when they imagine "the demonic." Probably because whites CONQUERED AND enslaved blacks. But why did they say, during the Inquisitional Period of Pornography legalized by the Church, that demons and the devil were BLACK? I could tell you, but that's another bit of esotericism involving real subversive activity and far from the POINT of ARCHETYPES here. In the new Robin Hood, check out what the villian sorcerer looks like. One of us. In the new Hercules comedy show, check out what Hera looks like. Fact, HERACLES was the favored of Hera and Athena. It was DIFFERENT PEOPLE 400-500 years later in Greece that changed this around upsidedown making us and our ideas into gods and then anti-gods. Same BEHAVIOR again and again. Hera comes out of the Shiva-ite, Athena comes out of Libya (Lake Tritones) as in PALAS or PELAS Athena (as in PELASGIANS). Remains were recently excavated in Thera, a land blown up by volcano: original stone carvings, drawings, shown, they look like MANCHUS in appearance and dress. They are not statues made hundreds of years later by LATER Aryanized Greeks nor are they ones made 200 years ago in Germany. In Roots One, at the end of Phil's part, I stuck in a page from a forensic anthropology book on this, a drawing from Egypt and a drawing from China of such a person. Altaic people. Yes, that's a race, same as Tatars. Them again, eh?Point: the IMAGE is in the minds of every single ex-christian neo-satanist out there. "How to look satanic." Well, you make yourself look like a Tatar as much as you can. You know, we DO NOT look Chinese or anything like that. I actually find it a bit funny since they just DO NOT have our malars, or our pouted (snooty-looking) mouths, nor our high-bridged and snub noses, tho some of these whites DO have our sharp and angular or wolf-like/cat-like features, but they lack the cheekbones (malar structure) and they definitely do not have the EYES. Nor are they quite BUILT like us: hour-glass, our men too, due to high hip-bones. I notice also that while they imagine us to look so diabolical and evil, they also LIKE the way we look: blusher to MAKE cheekbones where none are, corsets and even mutilation surgery to make the hour-glass shape, and so forth. We are "sultry, sexy, alluring, tempting" as is Sophia Loren who has "the look." RIGHT? RIGHT? Are you daft here?I didn't invent this. I don't even THINK IT. CHRISTIAN EUROPEANS THINK IT!! I think our race looks BABYISH! BABY-FACES! We're CUTE. My thinking is more along reality: we ARE more foetalized (neotanized, new word for it). We ARE more flexible. We DO have more musculature in our faces able to make MORE expressions. We have very scanty body-hair normally: diet can change that, so can cortisone for injury but this ONLY changes secondary hair not primary hair which is STILL scanty. Their women tweeze their brows and shave their legs. We don't have to (what a PAIN that must be). So please, don't put on me what Euro-morons dreamed up. I'm just "yes sahib-ing" their own SHIT back at them. AGREEING with them. And shoving it: IN THEIR FACES! Gee, that's funny.The actual Jesus HAD to have been much darker skinned than any Hebrew speaking Pharisees because Jesus spoke Aramaic and came from an area where people were darker and had much curlier hair. This IS known to some. Sorry, I can't cite a reference here. His hair may have even been wooly. He was part Moabite and part Edomite: DARKER PEOPLE. So if anything, the Jews were much fairer than these others AT THAT TIME. Jews were also NOT agricultural Semites (I DO like Jews, I NEVER said I like Semites tho Tossers tend to love to misquote, misrepresent, twist, distort and outright lie: guess you can all SEE this now that I got them to DO IT). What the "real Jesus" looked like is aside the point: for one he was a FUCKING BRUISER of a guy, that came down to our oral history, he was an ass-kicker with one MEAN temper. He was also a carpenter: STRONG. Yet he is not portrayed as this. He is shown as typically ectomorphic in build, willowy and slender and "meek" looking. RIGHT? Somehow, Jesus as Conan doesn't seem to RING BELLS. But Jesus as Geek hits right on target. We didn't invent this.So then, we have here TWO definitive archetypes that tend to STICK TIGHT to the Western perception. Blacks have tried in vain to change this. We don't care a whit about it or seek to change it as it doesn't effect us in any way: NONE of us are xians. Some of my people are Moslems but they are nothing like the Semitic or Aryan Moslems of Arabia or Persia, etc. They are merely the same with a new name for their dark deity: Allah...deity of nature! HA! Even the star and moon remains which I also find amusing when Wiccans use it. During the Iraqi war Wiccans wore this. HA! Lots of Mid-Eastern people here noticing all these....sigils on Americans. VERY funny encounters resulted. "I like your medallion," said to Wiccans leading to their talking of the Religious Establishment and the Mid-Easterner hearing it all as political anti-American talk. HILARIOUS.But: I just cleared up what I repeatedly read you think (wrongly) that "TANI THINKS." You know, a person phenotypically type O blood is ONLY genotypically O, he has only O alleles. But a person phenotypically type A blood might be genotypically coded to include A AND O alleles on different sites on chromosomes: but not necessarily. None of this is "appearance" visible, but this is how these words are used, Lupo. The same applies to homo- and heterozygosity for genotypical codes for immunity to diseaase. One generally knows who is homozygous because they are sickly; but one cannot tell who is heterozygous and who else has NOTHING to defend against illness until the illness strikes, i.e. the environmental factor makes it express. But THAT these EXPRESS in a person, whether or not you ever get to see it or find out, is what makes this phenotypical. OK? Schizoid behavior, dualism, has been neurologically found to be a type of brain damage. Reverse this: brain damage (not as yet known to BE a genotype at all but assumed so) is EXPRESSED as schizoid behavior. They can numb or disable parts of your brain and make you THINK "like a Setian," AND FEEL like that which is WHY they THINK UP such nonsense to BEGIN WITH. It's BEEN DONE in the labs. How do WE recognize these people? OH, it's beyond easy! But it's nothing like recognizing a person who is partly Negro or something like that, tho it IS AS EASY. It is obvious in the way they talk, look, express, move. HIGHLY obvious. It is obvious in the normal behaviors they are UNABLE TO DO AND in the behaviors they do INSTEAD as if in compensation.I don't have "silly" ideas, Lupo; when you ask ME about them and get it straight (not a deliberate attempt to push buttons and MAKE the jerks react so that the Cossers can see it in action and learn how it works) there is nothing silly about it. ALL LIFE has one underlying real-reality: a biological one. Humans "behave" for the SAME reasons that worms behave. This is not a dogma or my "belief." Nor is it silly. It is the UNDEFILED HARD COLD TRUTH. There is nothing ideological or psychological about it. Ideological is what I call the "blah blah" and I'm VERY good at that: villifying people, heroizing people, you know, dialectical diabolus. The psychology is what I call the circular hold-my-hand feel-good pipe-dreams, navel gazing, mindist mystical bullshit. Sure, I can take the ideological stance on either side. Why not? But I'm not fooled by any of it. Sure: the people I say it to REACT, yeah, LIKE FOOLS. NONE of them KNOW the underlying carnal biological reality: NOTICE? EH? There are simply two sides to such rubbish: PRO OR CON: THIS OR THAT! Then there are millions of "other sides" one can dream up and I do that so well, blah blah. The only real "side" is not a side at all. It's the REALITY rooted in the carnal world.As to being silly, yeah, I LOVE to get silly, it feels great, laughter is a BIG part of my culture. But that's not what you meant. I'd have to ask you (and I don't expect an answer, do you know the answer?) why on earth a man with the scientific teaching and knowledge you have, a probable atheist or agnostic like most others in your field who studied something normally studied out of a LOVE of knowledge and so hard and for so long a time would suddenly up and go join a CULT, a pseudo-satanic cult, the Temple of Set. You get to read their crackpot lunacy before you join, you GIVE THEM your money, and so forth. Just a peripheral reading and definitely a thorough reading of their neo-fundamentalism is enough to tell you JUST what they are about: fake evolution, fake physics, fake natural laws, fake etymologies, fake history, fake everything. You aren't some tantrum throwing kid sick of xianity and easily duped by the satanic "sounding" words they use. You are a PHYSICIST, (oh Beelzebub in a Spider's Web stuck fast): like, HUH???? YOU are the biggest mystery out there as far as I can see. You are one major: HUH???COS can't be equated in any way with a cult: they are more LIKE the American Atheist Society in how they operate but without the hokey humanitarian moral and ethical "values" that science and especially biology tends to demolish at every turn (BRAVO). I mean, I could definitely see you supporting a Church of Satan for sure and I know of one other physics person in there who keeps himself very unknown. He got in touch with me (at a time I was not easy to locate) due to what I wrote up on the "PHOS", phonons and photons and on the Tantra which he could NOT but read and see physics of SOME KIND he could see in there but could not piece together. I talked to him, tried to get him to understand in all the various "registers" I speak in, from baby concrete to the best I could do in his own lingo. Last I heard from him was around 1993 or so, he got a government grant to DO something! So I could see a physicist in the COS especially with Penrose and his pentacles and that entropy business and surely I can see biology people and biochemists especially and ABOVE ALL those neurologists out there saying EXACTLY the same things about man being EXACTLY like animals. But the Temple of Set? Why did you join that? Dissatisfaction with life maybe? Hate your job? Didn't anyone ever tell you that joining crackpot cults is not wise and that cults tend to try to make trouble if you want to leave? You trusted them with your own personal information and sorrily I have to view your warning to the prospective TOS joiner about this as akin to the drunk driver warning people AFTER he gets out of jail for drunk driving. That's not foresight. That's a sigh of REGRET. Got regrets, eh? I'd not have said a word but ENCOURAGED him to join. I'm firmly believe that stupidity should be made to be PAINFUL. Stupid people among my people die young! Where was your intelligence when you did this? On loan? I'm not trying to flame you here at all. I AM very blunt. I'm just.....AMAZED.No, I'm not expecting an answer. I believe you'd not like to talk about sonoluminescence or anything I'd find truly interesting, or share any kind of REAL IDEAS. I believe you and I could not be friends, even if we are - allies?You know, we tend to find it HIGHLY abberational when people talk about and even rant about things they know NOTHING about. Who are they deceiving? (Themselves). Who are they trying to deceive? (No one, they are trying to impress and don't know that they don't know.) These Tossers are pressuring Diane (and you and HrVad to a lesser extent) to talk against what "my side" says. My side? I have cold hard fact on my side. They want to get people to DENY this, DENY what they really know, and above all DENY WHAT THEY FEEL as if all the world screaming "the world is flat" will MAKE IT FLAT: that is their REAL will, Lupo, as it is with all such people, because, you might not see this, we are DEMOLISHING them with baby-words. EXPOSING them for all to see, Lupo, tearing their fundamental doctrines and their nobody-ness nonselves to shreds. Notice that in all these years now, Aquino has not said ONE SINGLE WORD up against Phil or me.Copyright (c) Tani Jantsang