Here is Cyd's youtube presentation of The Gnostic Gospel Illuminated on Aeon Byte Gnostic Radio, with Miguel Conner. The show lasts over an hour and a half and was streamed live on June 28, 2019. This interview presents Cyd's gnostic illustrations with in-depth descriptions, why's, and wherefore's.
Back in February of 2019, I wrote an article praising the brilliance of lowly slime molds. (click this link to read the article)
Now, here is an update from Scientific American that shows these creatures to be beyond brilliant. It turns out that their method of movement makes for a perfect algorithm that replicates and explains the structure of the universe itself. In my Gnostic Gospel podcast I often liken the Pleroma of the Aeons above as a slime mold colony. And I don't mean it as disrespect to the Aeons, but rather the highest compliment one can pay.
As
Below, So AboveFrom: Scientific American
<newsletters@scientificamerican.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 at 01:00:56 PM PDT Subject: Today in Science: Slime mold and the
formation of the universe |
|
Astrophysicists built an algorithm
based on the movement of slime molds to model how the structure of the
universe affects galaxy formation. Yes, you read that right, slime mold. The
organisms are experts at expanding into new territories, pushing their membranes
outward in a synchronized wave in every direction. When they find a food
source, nearby membranes relax, and the molds push more material into that
region. The scientists hypothesized that this natural behavior might serve as
a good mapping model for the movement of galaxies in the
early universe.
What the experts say: It’s been difficult to measure
how the cosmic web, with its filaments, tendrils and empty voids, affects
galaxy formation, says New York City College of Technology astrophysicist Ari
Maller. “The use of the slime-mold algorithm seems to have accomplished that
goal.” |
I love to say "I told you so"! Yet another in a long line of scientific discoveries verifies the cosmology of A Simple Explanation of Absolutely Everything. Nice going, scientists! Here's a reprint from SciTech Daily, shared with us by a longtime ASEOAE reader. Thank you, Karl!
Magnetic fields in the halo of the Milky Way have a toroidal structure, extending in the radius range of 6000 light-years to 50,000 light-years from the Galaxy center. The Sun is at about 30,000 light-years. Credit: NAOC
Astrophysicists have discovered large magnetic toroids in the Milky Way’s halo, which impact cosmic ray propagation and the physics of interstellar space. Their research, based on extensive Faraday rotation data, reveals that these toroids extend across the galaxy, confirming the presence of significant toroidal magnetic fields.
A long-standing unsolved question at the frontier of astronomy and astrophysics research is the origin and evolution of cosmic magnetic fields. It has been selected as one of the key areas of investigation for many major world-class radio telescopes, including the Square Kilometer Array (SKA) currently under construction. Determining the large-scale magnetic field structures in the Milky Way has been a major challenge for many astronomers in the world for decades.
In a new study published in The Astrophysical Journal on May 10, Dr. Jun Xu and Prof. Jinlin Han from the National Astronomical Observatories of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (NAOC) have revealed huge magnetic toroids in the halo of the Milky Way, which are fundamental for cosmic ray propagation and provide crucially constraint on the physical processes in the interstellar medium and the origin of cosmic magnetic fields.
Prof. Han, a leading scientist in this research field, has determined the magnetic field structures along the spiral arms of the Galactic disk through a long-term project of measuring the polarization of pulsars and their Faraday effects. In 1997, he found a striking anti-symmetry of the Faraday effects of cosmic radio sources in the sky with respect to the coordinates of our Milky Way galaxy, which tells that the magnetic fields in the halo of the Milky Way have a toroidal field structure, with reversed magnetic field directions below and above the Galactic plane.
However, to determine the size of these toroids or the strength of their magnetic fields has been a tough task for astronomers for decades. They suspected that the anti-symmetry of the sky distribution of Faraday effects of radio sources could be produced merely by the interstellar medium in the vicinity of the Sun because pulsars and some nearby radio-emission objects, which are quite near to the Sun, show Faraday effects consistent with anti-symmetry. The key is to show whether or not magnetic fields in the vast Galactic halo had such a toroidal structure outside the vicinity of the Sun.
In this study, Prof. Han innovatively proposed that the Faraday rotation from the interstellar medium in the vicinity of the Sun could be counted by the measurements of a good number of pulsars, some of which have been obtained recently by the Five-hundred Aperture Spherical radio Telescope (FAST) by themself, and then could be subtracted the contribution from the measurements of background cosmic sources. All Faraday rotation measurement data in the past 30 years were collected by Dr. Xu.
Through data analysis, scientists found that the anti-symmetry of the Faraday rotation measurements caused by the medium in the Galactic halo exists in all the sky, from the center to the anti-center of our Milky Way, which implies that the toroidal magnetic fields of such a odd symmetry have a huge size, existing in a radius range from 6000 light-years to 50,000 light-years from the center of the Milky Way.
This study has significantly advanced our understanding of the Milky Way’s physics and marks a milestone in research on cosmic magnetic fields.
Reference: “The Huge Magnetic Toroids in the Milky Way Halo” by J. Xu and J. L. Han, 10 May 2024, The Astrophysical Journal.
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3a61
Here's a reprint of a Science News article dated May 13, 2024.
Scientists previously considered only a small subset of possible topologies
Scientists are considering whether the universe might have a complicated topology, represented by a doughnut shape in this artist’s conception.
In addition to their fried, sugary goodness, doughnuts are known for their shape, or in mathematical terms, their topology. In a universe with an analogous, complex topology, you could travel across the cosmos and end up back where you started. Such a cosmos hasn’t yet been ruled out, physicists report in the April 26 Physical Review Letters.
On a shape with boring, or trivial topology, any closed path you draw can be shrunk down to a point. For example, consider traveling around Earth. If you were to go all the way around the equator, that’s a closed loop, but you could squish that down by shifting your trip up to the North Pole. But the surface of a doughnut has complex, or nontrivial, topology (SN: 10/4/16). A loop that encircles the doughnut’s hole, for example, can’t be shrunk down, because the hole limits how far you can squish it.
The universe is generally believed to have trivial topology. But that’s not known for certain, the researchers argue.
“I find it fascinating … the possibility that the universe might have nontrivial or different types of topologies, and then especially the fact that we think we might be able to measure it,” says cosmologist Dragan Huterer of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who was not involved with the study.
A universe with nontrivial topology might be a bit like Pac-Man. In the classic arcade game, moving all the way to the right edge of the screen puts the character back at the left side. A Pac-Man trek that crosses the screen and returns the character to its starting point likewise can’t be shrunk down.
Scientists have already looked for signs of complex topology in the cosmic microwave background, light from when the universe was just 380,000 years old. Because of the way space loops back on itself in a universe with nontrivial topology, scientists might be able to observe the same feature in more than one place. Researchers have searched for identical circles that appear in that light in two different places on the sky. They’ve also hunted for subtle correlations, or similarities, between different spots, rather than identical matches.
Those searches didn’t turn up any evidence for complex topology. But, theoretical physicist Glenn Starkman and colleagues argue, there’s still a chance that the universe does have something in common with a doughnut. That’s because earlier research considered only a small subset of the possible topologies the universe could have.
That subset includes one type of nontrivial topology called a 3-torus, a cube that loops back on itself like a 3-D version of the Pac-Man screen. In such a topology, exiting any side of that cube brings you back to the opposite side. Searches for that simple 3-torus have come up empty. But scientists haven’t yet searched for some 3-torus variations. For example, the sides of the cube might be twisted relative to one another. In such a universe, exiting the top of the cube would bring you back to the bottom, but rotated by, for example, 180 degrees.
The new study considered a total of 17 possible nontrivial topologies for the cosmos. Most of those topologies, the authors determined, haven’t yet been ruled out. The study evaluated the signatures that would appear in the cosmic microwave background for different types of topologies. Future analyses of that ancient light could reveal hints of these complex topologies, the researchers found.
The search is likely to be computationally challenging, probably requiring machine learning techniques to speed up calculations. The researchers also plan to hunt for signs of nontrivial topology in upcoming data from surveys of the distribution of galaxies in the cosmos, for example from the European Space Agency’s Euclid space telescope (SN: 12/20/23).
There’s good motivation to look for nontrivial topology, says Starkman, of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. Some features of the cosmic microwave background hint that the universe isn’t the same in all directions (SN: 12/23/08). That kind of asymmetry could be explained by nontrivial topology. And that asymmetry, Starkman says, is “one of the biggest new mysteries about the universe that hasn’t gone away.”
Hello, friends! This blog's longtime reader in Spain sent me this torus cartoon. Too funny! Thanks, Jesus!
It's been too long since I posted here, right? The action is all happening over on my two podcasts. This site has almost become legacy.
However, I am happy to report that I read an article this morning out of Scientific American that proves one of the basic tenets of A Simple Explanation of Absolutely Everything. Which one? That consciousness is not based in the brain, and most definitely not confined to humans as a by-product of the brain or otherwise.
Scientists have been studying single-celled creatures like slime molds and simple animals like planaria worms and they have come up with a new branch of cognitive studies called basal cognition. That is the notion that consciousness is a first-cause and not a by-product.
I'm going to quote some passages out of the Scientific American article called Brains are not required:
Until recently, most scientists held that true cognition arrived with the first brains half a billion years ago. Without intricate clusters of neurons, behavior was merely a kind of reflex. But Levin and several other researchers believe otherwise. He doesn't deny that brains are awesome, paragons of computational speed and power. But he sees the differences between cell clumps and brains as ones of degree, not kind. In fact, Levin suspects that cognition probably evolved as cells started to collaborate to carry out the incredibly difficult task of building complex organisms and then got souped-up into brains to allow animals to move and think faster.
That position is being embraced by researchers in a variety of disciplines, including roboticists such as Josh Bongard, a frequent Levin collaborator who runs the Morphology, Evolution, and Cognition Laboratory at the University of Vermont. “Brains were one of the most recent inventions of Mother Nature, the thing that came last,” says Bongard, who hopes to build deeply intelligent machines from the bottom up. “It's clear that the body matters, and then somehow you add neural cognition on top. It's the cherry on the sundae. It's not the sundae.”
In recent years interest in basal cognition has exploded as researchers have recognized example after example of surprisingly sophisticated intelligence at work across life's kingdoms, no brain required. For artificial-intelligence scientists such as Bongard, basal cognition offers an escape from the trap of assuming that future intelligences must mimic the brain-centric human model. For medical specialists, there are tantalizing hints of ways to awaken cells' innate powers of healing and regeneration.
And for the philosophically minded, basal cognition casts the world in a sparkling new light. Maybe thinking builds from a simple start. Maybe it is happening all around us, every day, in forms we haven't recognized because we didn't know what to look for. Maybe minds are everywhere.
Plants can sense their surroundings surprisingly well. They know whether they are being shaded by part of themselves or by something else. They can detect the sound of running water (and will grow toward it) and of bees' wings (and will produce nectar in preparation). They know when they are being eaten by bugs and will produce nasty defense chemicals in response. They even know when their neighbors are under attack: when scientists played a recording of munching caterpillars to a cress plant, that was enough for the plant to send a surge of mustard oil into its leaves.
Plants' most remarkable behavior tends to get underappreciated because we see it every day: they seem to know exactly what form they have and plan their future growth based on the sights, sounds and smells around them, making complicated decisions about where future resources and dangers might be located in ways that can't be boiled down to simple formulas. As Paco Calvo, director of the Minimal Intelligence Laboratory at the University of Murcia in Spain and author of Planta Sapiens, puts it, “Plants have to plan ahead to achieve goals, and to do so, they need to integrate vast pools of data. They need to engage with their surroundings adaptively and proactively, and they need to think about the future. They just couldn't afford to do otherwise.”
The orthodox view of memory is that it is stored as a stable network of synaptic connections among neurons in a brain. “That view is clearly cracking,” Levin says. Some of the demolition work has come from the lab of neuroscientist David Glanzman of the University of California, Los Angeles. Glanzman was able to transfer a memory of an electric shock from one sea slug to another by extracting RNA from the brains of shocked slugs and injecting it into the brains of new slugs. The recipients then “remembered” to recoil from the touch that preceded the shock. If RNA can be a medium of memory storage, any cell might have the ability, not just neurons.
Levin's research has always had tangible applications, such as cancer therapy, limb regeneration and wound healing. But over the past few years he's allowed a philosophical current to enter his papers and talks. “It's been sort of a slow rollout,” he confesses. “I've had these ideas for decades, but it wasn't the right time to talk about it.”
That began to change with a celebrated 2019 paper entitled “The Computational Boundary of a Self,” in which he harnessed the results of his experiments to argue that we are all collective intelligences built out of smaller, highly competent problem-solving agents. As Vermont's Bongard told the New York Times, “What we are is intelligent machines made of intelligent machines made of intelligent machines all the way down.”
Levin hopes this vision will help us overcome our struggle to acknowledge minds that come in packages bearing little resemblance to our own, whether they are made of slime or silicon. For Adelaide's Lyon, recognizing that kinship is the real promise of basal cognition. “We think we are the crown of creation,” she says. “But if we start realizing that we have a whole lot more in common with the blades of grass and the bacteria in our stomachs—that we are related at a really, really deep level—it changes the entire paradigm of what it is to be a human being on this planet.”
Indeed, the very act of living is by default a cognitive state, Lyon says. Every cell needs to be constantly evaluating its surroundings, making decisions about what to let in and what to keep out and planning its next steps. Cognition didn't arrive later in evolution. It's what made life possible.
Okay. That's all I'm going to quote here. You can read the entire article by clicking on the embedded link above.
I think I will further elaborate on this concept in a Gnostic Insights podcast very soon, which will also bring in the spiritual implications. Until then, onward and upward!
Welcome! Here's a reprint from Robert Malone. I happen to agree with it. A Simple Explanation has experienced shadow-banning and search-choking since the pandemic days and my posts concerning viruses. I'm somewhat heartened that the truth is finally coming out. It's a never-ending war! I do hope you are listening to my Gnostic Insights podcast.
cyd
Parasites, by Katrin Alvarez, 2011
I am a biologist, if nothing else. One of the many blessings of being a biologist is the wide range of metaphors for human group behavior which flow from this field. And of these, pondering the various adaptive strategies which species interacting with other species employ can be particularly productive.
I like to use metaphors as an insight engine. A sort of mental bridge from one field of knowledge to another. Reasoning by analogy, insights and knowledge from one discipline can often be used to break open new ways of thinking about another.
If you think of humanity as like a virtual ecosystem, then the ways that social groups (or tribes?) interact with each other can be considered similar to the way species interact in a physical ecosystem. This is one door that can be used to pass into the thought space of sociobiology. E. O. Wilson, a central figure in the history of sociobiology, defined the field as "the extension of population biology and evolutionary theory to social organization".
Which logic leads me to pondering parasites, the various forms of parasitic interactions, parasitic behaviors, and their relevance to a few of the topics which consume much of my thought these days; the Administrative State, the World Economic Forum (WEF), those whose interests the WEF represents, and the culture and technology of Transhumanism which the WEF seeks to shape as a future for the rest of us.
Not to say that corporate media doesn’t also display parasitic behaviors. Let’s park that one for now, and come back in a later essay. Or maybe it is just self-evident and needs no further discussion.
I find it hard to wrap my head around the big picture of what is really going on with the failure of many western governments to effectively serve their citizens, the “Global Reset”, the “Fourth Industrial Revolution”, globally harmonized transsexual and transhumanism advocacy, and the “climate agenda” at a macro level. So I reach out to things that I do understand relatively well, hoping that they can provide insight into these big systemic “global” movements that I find harder to understand.
So, here we go.
For purposes of this thought experiment, consider that since World War II, the American Imperial State has essentially become an apex predator. It certainly acts like one, walking around the earth like Tyrannosaurus Rex, flashing big teeth and consuming whatever high energy animal food it can catch. Apex predators tend towards extinction (as species) due to various general outcomes of their interactions with the ecosystems within which they exist.
One way that predators become extinct is that they can become so successful, so highly adapted, that they outstrip their resource base - they run out of prey (food). As prey become more scarce, or is able to adapt to the pressure of its predators <think asymmetric warfare strategies including gorilla insurgencies and 5th gen. warfare ….>, highly specialized apex predators require larger and larger territories, and will eventually exhaust the environmental resources and conditions which they have become so well adapted to exploit. <Expansionist imperialism, for example, and the limits of petroleum - based energy illustrate this paradox>. The evolutionary question to be solved here is whether the apex predator can maintain itself as a species <or organization, or empire> by adapting to the reality of these changing conditions <safe nuclear power, for example> or will it be so constrained by the evolutionary <or organizational> choices previously made which enabled it to become an apex predator. Decisions which constrain its ability to adapt to the changing conditions.
Evolution is a funny thing - it can result in highly adapted species existing on a sort of evolutionary island of their own making, where the changes (mutations) required to get to a more adaptive solution (distant island) impose a price that cannot be paid without damaging the reproductive fitness of the species so severely that it will never be able to get to that better island (with more food or essential resources). In the case of nation-states, the price to be paid is often political. When politics becomes corrupted or ossified <like in our current gerontocracy>, the ability of a nation-state to adapt to changing conditions, to evolve, becomes very limited. It is often observed in DC that political (or bureaucratic) change cannot happen until certain people retire or die. Which is an argument for why more strict implementation of a fixed retirement age makes sense. Think of it like a form of term limit for bureaucrats. Another way to nourish the tree of liberty. The career of Dr. Anthony Fauci provides a nice case study to illustrate this point.
Gerontocracy: Form of oligarchical rule where leaders are older than most of the population
A gerontocracy is a form of oligarchical rule in which an entity is ruled by leaders who are significantly older than most of the adult population. In many political structures, power within the ruling class accumulates with age, making the oldest individuals the holders of the most power. Wikipedia
The same can happen to social groups or “tribes”. Their “reproductive fitness” can be compromised by becoming too dogmatic, too specialized. I refer to “tribes” in the sense of tribal behaviors, with current examples including the wearing of paper dust masks to prevent viral transmission, dying hair purple or blue, displaying the colors of the Ukraine national flag by non-Ukrainians, and verbal virtue signaling <which pronouns do you use?> which are currently frequently used to display group allegiance to others. Those others that belong to your group, as well as to those who are outside, the non-believers. The terms subculture or mass formation group are less biased ways of expressing the same idea. <Or counter-mass formation group in the case of those who argue that there is no virus, and that “terrain theory” can completely explain infectious disease.> The term “cult” is another word along this spectrum which is even more judgmental, more loaded with bias.
There are competitive (evolutionarily adaptive) advantages in being a generalist, in not being too highly invested in one ecological niche, or one group, tribe or cult. In a sociopolitical sense, generalists are often centrists.
Generalists do not accrue the benefits of becoming apex predators, but are in a much stronger position to adapt to changing conditions- to be able to transport to and survive on the next evolutionary island. In terms of global politics, you might think of the Swiss republic as an example of a generalist political system which has proven (over a very long time) to be able to adapt rapidly to changing political conditions by not seeking to become an apex predator, not seeking to dominate others and unilaterally extract their resources (eat others) to support their own growth and reproduction. Sometimes less (specialized) is more (adaptive) over the long run.
Personally, my sense is that the US Government has become overly specialized in various forms of the various forms of warfare. In contrast to U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt’s foreign policy position of "speak softly, and carry a big stick, you will go far!", current USG policies have downplayed the “speak softly” part (diplomacy) and become overly reliant on an wielding an over-developed stick. I suspect that T. Rex was not known for diplomacy. Why bother with subtle negotiation and laborious crafting of win-win outcomes when you can just march in and gobble up whatever you want to eat.
Another way that apex predators become extinct is environmental change, either from external forces or in some cases due to consequences of their own success <we could use a different political term, and call that problem blowback>.
And then there are parasites. Viruses do exist (just to drop a shovel of cement down that particular rabbit hole), and a case can be made that they are the ultimate (apex?) parasites. Bacteria have viruses, called bacteriophage. Animals, insects, plants, pretty much all living things are preyed upon by one or more viruses. Some make the case that the prototypical viruses arose in plants, which then adapted to insects that eat plants, which then adapted to other animals that eat insects, and on ad infinitum. Viruses are really sort of like genome parasites. And they are ubiquitous. Which is not to say that terrain theory does not have its merits. But that is yet another rabbit hole.
Courtesy of Wikipedia. Virus deniers, don’t attack me for sharing verifiable biological truth!
Fun fact: When you think of Tyrannosaurus Rex, what comes to mind? Big teeth embedded in a big jawbone within a big head (my answer, maybe yours also). The fossil record indicates that T Rex developed a little problem with a freeloader (a Trichomonas-like parasite). This particular parasite appears to have caused the terrible lizard to develop holes in its jaw. That would certainly appear to be a problem if you were a big eater that needs a strong jaw! Gives new meaning to the term “Jawbreaker”.
Above, artists interpretation of T Rex with Trichomonas infection. Below, a microscopic image of a Trichomonas species parasite.
Bureaucracies often develop parasitic characteristics, and I have become convinced that the United States’ Administrative State bureaucracy has become parasitic on its host, the federal government (and the general citizenry of the United States). And not in a good way. More like the Trichomonas-like parasite eating away at T Rex’ jaw.
I am also convinced that the World Economic Forum has become parasitic on the global economy. In both cases, these groups are not providing good value to citizens, and have become self-sustaining subcultures whose primary function seems to be self-preservation and advancement of their own interests and agendas at the expense of the overall “fitness” of the general population.
Now just to be clear, not all host-parasite interactions are bad. There are a wide range of bacteria which live in your gut (even more so that of a cow, for example) that are absolutely essential for you to live and thrive. This is an example of one form of parasitism, commensalism. A case is often made that the little internal engines which power each of our cells, technically called mitochondria, are actually examples of a highly evolved (and ancient) commensal host-parasite relationship, with the mitochondria being a sort of bacterium which has become an evolved and adapted intracellular parasite. You can think of commensalism as win-win. Commensalism typically develops over a very long period of coexistence between parasite and host, in which what might have originally been a more predatory interaction gradually evolved into something that benefits both host and parasite. But the relationship between the modern Administrative State and the Federal Government is relatively new, and is far from a benign commensal relationship. Likewise the WEF and its globalist UN/WHO/WTO allies.
Lets play a game. Allow me a moment to stretch open your Overton window using well documented parasitic strategies as metaphors for the actions and behaviors of the Administrative State and the WEF. Stretching is good, like yoga for your mind.
I will summarize the parasitic strategy, and you ponder whether you can think of any related examples of that type of parasitism in the modern US Administrative state or the WEF? <Use the comments section to discuss your insights (unfortunately this will require a paid subscription, unless you want to publicly comment on this post via GAB, GETTR, Truth Social or Twitter. I know. Life is not fair. Get over it. Or get a paid subscription.>
There are six major parasitic strategies, namely parasitic castration; directly transmitted parasitism; trophically-transmitted parasitism; vector-transmitted parasitism; parasitoidism; and micropredation. These apply to parasites whose hosts are plants as well as animals.[15][21] These strategies represent adaptive peaks; intermediate strategies are possible, but organisms in many different groups have consistently converged on these six, which are evolutionarily stable.
Parasitic castrators
Parasitic castrators partly or completely destroy their host's ability to reproduce, diverting the energy that would have gone into reproduction into host and parasite growth, sometimes causing gigantism in the host. The host's other systems remain intact, allowing it to survive and to sustain the parasite. Parasitic crustaceans such as those in the specialized barnacle genus Sacculina specifically cause damage to the gonads of their many species of host crabs. In the case of Sacculina, the testes of over two-thirds of their crab hosts degenerate sufficiently for these male crabs to develop female secondary sex characteristics such as broader abdomens, smaller claws and egg-grasping appendages.
Directly transmitted
Directly transmitted parasites, not requiring a vector to reach their hosts, include such parasites of terrestrial vertebrates as lice and mites; marine parasites such as copepods and cyamid amphipods; monogeneans; and many species of nematodes, fungi, protozoans, bacteria, and viruses. Whether endoparasites or ectoparasites, each has a single host-species. Within that species, most individuals are free or almost free of parasites, while a minority carry a large number of parasites; this is known as an aggregated distribution.
Trophically transmitted
Trophically-transmitted parasites are transmitted by being eaten by a host. They include trematodes (all except schistosomes), cestodes, acanthocephalans, pentastomids, many roundworms, and many protozoa such as Toxoplasma. They have complex life cycles involving hosts of two or more species. In their juvenile stages they infect and often encyst in the intermediate host. When the intermediate-host animal is eaten by a predator, the definitive host, the parasite survives the digestion process and matures into an adult; some live as intestinal parasites. Many trophically transmitted parasites modify the behaviour of their intermediate hosts, increasing their chances of being eaten by a predator. As with directly transmitted parasites, the distribution of trophically transmitted parasites among host individuals is aggregated. Coinfection by multiple parasites is common. Autoinfection, where (by exception) the whole of the parasite's life cycle takes place in a single primary host, can sometimes occur in helminths <worms> such as Strongyloides stercoralis.
Vector-transmitted
Vector-transmitted parasites rely on a third party, an intermediate host, where the parasite does not reproduce sexually, to carry them from one definitive host to another. These parasites are microorganisms, namely protozoa, bacteria, or viruses, often intracellular pathogens (disease-causers). Their vectors are mostly hematophagic arthropods such as fleas, lice, ticks, and mosquitoes. For example, the deer tick Ixodes scapularis acts as a vector for diseases including Lyme disease, babesiosis, and anaplasmosis. Protozoan endoparasites, such as the malarial parasites in the genus Plasmodium and sleeping-sickness parasites in the genus Trypanosoma, have infective stages in the host's blood which are transported to new hosts by biting insects.
Parasitoids
Parasitoids are insects which sooner or later kill their hosts, placing their relationship close to predation. Most parasitoids are parasitoid wasps or other hymenopterans; others include dipterans such as phorid flies.
Idiobiont parasitoids sting their often large prey on capture, either killing them outright or paralysing them immediately. The immobilised prey is then carried to a nest, sometimes alongside other prey if it is not large enough to support a parasitoid throughout its development. An egg is laid on top of the prey and the nest is then sealed. The parasitoid develops rapidly through its larval and pupal stages, feeding on the provisions left for it.
Koinobiont parasitoids, which include flies as well as wasps, lay their eggs inside young hosts, usually larvae. These are allowed to go on growing, so the host and parasitoid develop together for an extended period, ending when the parasitoids emerge as adults, leaving the prey dead, eaten from inside. Some koinobionts regulate their host's development, for example preventing it from pupating or making it moult whenever the parasitoid is ready to moult. They may do this by producing hormones that mimic the host's moulting hormones (ecdysteroids), or by regulating the host's endocrine system.
Micropredators
A micropredator attacks more than one host, reducing each host's fitness by at least a small amount, and is only in contact with any one host intermittently. This behavior makes micropredators suitable as vectors, as they can pass smaller parasites from one host to another. Most micropredators are hematophagic, feeding on blood. They include annelids such as leeches, crustaceans such as branchiurans and gnathiid isopods, various dipterans such as mosquitoes and tsetse flies, other arthropods such as fleas and ticks, vertebrates such as lampreys, and mammals such as vampire bats.
Do these parasitic strategies describe US Administrative state (deep state) or the WEF? If not, why not?
As I stated at the beginning of this essay, I believe that using strategies found in nature to find analogies for complex political and cultural organizational strategies has merit. It opens up new ways of thinking about human society and social structures. So, can we use biology to predict how these organizations will react on the world stage in the future?
Lets discuss.
