"Is Race Real?"

The standard appreciation of intelligence involves the number of ways in which an individual can apply his/her intellect. The numeric result is only a reflection of these evidential capabilities. I don’t see what is wrong with quantifying intelligence on the basis of its own application: more applications of a successful nature should denote a higher intelligence.

Why not? The number merely states how many times the individual has used his/her intellect appropriately. If this quantifiable reoccurrence is not a distinguishing feature of intelligence, then what is?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If your going to quote someone you mind placing the name of that person so people know who your talking about?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What a load. Having done a report on poverty levels I can safely say that the largest homeless population is whites. The key point is that the majority of these whites will get out of poverty within the the next few years, whereas the majority of blacks remain at the same level of poverty. Cultural influence? Most likely.

I have no respect for a culture of people who just threw off the bonds of slavery, just attained civil rights, yet throw it all away to make counter-cultural, anti-life commericialism their primary output (I'm talking about hip-hop, 90s forward that is). In a more pathetic fashion they crawl to 'whitie' to fix the problem as if it is HIS fault. I find it amusing that I myself have lived in poverty (near the point of homelessness, yet pulled myself out of it within two years.) Because I'm white? No. Let me give another example: A friend of mine is an Asian from Thailand who came to America with but a shirt on his back. Within 6 years he became middle class. It's funny that a black U.S. citizen can receive 'special' treatment, glamorization in the media and entertainment department, and have lived in the same place for his entire life can't make an honest living. Retarded.

PS. I take the side of the pro-race people here. This whole process is deconstructive. Next I will assume that Chimps and Humans are the same since 99% of their DNA is alike. Where's the defining gene? Well, any sound scientist could point out the defining difference very easily. Why is it so hard for humans?

RACES have always been defined by humans that can be isolated into groups based upon their collection of traits that differ from another collection of traits. Across the spectrum these races may appear to 'blend' with one another, but in the big picture they are distinct.

Furthermore, the fear of racemixing is perfectly sound: averaging and evolution do not co-exist. To hybridize and mix is to destroy the 'race' in question to create an averaged being.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/race.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Its about averages and percentage: there are more rich white people on average per white population then rich black people per black population and there are more poor black people per black population then poor white people per white population.

The problem with race is genetically there are no 5 races, there are hundreds of breeds of humans and thousand of hybrid types, making for a messy situation. Now what is race typing going to be used for anyways? Medically it useless, if far more accurate to test for genetic disorders and types. Socially it been only used for as a weapon of blatant and inaccurate discrimination.

 

Nice try. You now throw in the "well, even if it's so, what's the point?" argument.

MEDICAL USE:
Race was at one point medically useful. For example, Samis were
discouraged from mating with Germanic nordic types because their birth cannals were different sizes between the two, which causes brain damage to the child. Furthermore, germans have stronger legs while Samis have stronger hips, which causes incompatibility problems.

One of the more common problems among mullatos (but certainly not all) is skin irritation, albino splotching, and all sorts of weird disorders. Think I am BSing? Just go ask a mullato.

We also have yet to accuratly study race in terms of behavior. Although most would scoff at such an idea, we must remember that this was serious science 50 years ago. Political motivations no doubt. It has been measured that despite social pressures, poverty, and any other excuse, Africans have a tendency towards more aggressive behavior. I think a good look at Congo or Haitti will show you this.

EVOLUTIONARY USE:
The variations in human beings which we have come to call race were shaped by the environments around us via subjection to many factors. While this may not be a huge deal in the modern world, where humans are allowed all sorts of conveniences, it may play some unseen part. For example, many South Africa whites faced constant sunburn and sun poisoning because they were unequipt for that environment.

Race mixing is discouraged because it averages all traits. If any race is superior in one way or another it simply cancels the traits.

AESTHETIC USE:

What is wrong with a world full of beautiful and unique human beings? Why must we destroy whole races in the name of pity and race guilt? Imagine a world were their are beings with sky blue eyes and fair blonde hair, a world with black beings with skin as dark and beautiful as the very soil. There can be tall people and short people, with different cultures and different ideas? Why is that so wrong? There are many breeds of cats and dogs with so many cherished characteristics and behaviors. Why throw that away? Okay, so I'm arguing with my heart and not my head, call it idealism.

 

Genetic diversity is strength. The broader the gene pool, the fewer shared recessive genes. Therefore fewer genetic diseases.

It is equally likely that interbreeding will bring out the best qualities of all involved, like metal alloys.

And even if it were somehow bad, what do you propose to do to stop it? Humans aren't like breeds of animals that you can keep separate.

Give me a chance with Halle Berry, and we would have some beautiful healthy mixed race children.

 

LOL
I hope aryan super nazis aren't "listening in", you might end up in a halle-proof cage

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Halle is obviously already a "mutt". As is that beyonce girl and that mya chick etc etc... see a trend? Mutts are generally hotter than purebreds. And sexiness usually indicates health. If you want to fuck someone thats nature telling you a you/fuckee mix would make a sweet organism. Or at least an organism better than you.
A true "super race" would be a mixture of all the races with the beneficial traits from each selected through complex breeding programs.
Avoiding interracial breeding would cause the races to stagnate and degenerate in quality, unless they were strictly culled, which won't happen, cause people are opinionated and whiny.

I agree with the points that and2000x made, but disagree that mixed races are bad. We can learn alot from the history of dogs. The pedigree showdogs are far less healthy than the crossbred mutts on the streets. People looking for a dog that actually serves a purpose other than looking a certain way will always go for a crossbred. If we want people just so they look like soil we should keep the pedigrees going but if we want people to be healthy and competent living organisms we should encourage crossbreeding.
Did I just use the words "encourage" and "breeding" in a sentence about humans? *gulp*

Disclaimer: Dr Lou Natic does not encourage human breeding of any kind, he maintains his belief that no human should be breeding untill the the population is at a reasonable and manageable size.
VHEMT

 

and2000x,

Do all Siamese have small birth canals, do all Germans have stronger lags, do all Siamese have stronger hips? So the doctor should go and say well because your germen and because your Siamese you should not have children or should the doctor actually examine them to see if the birth canal is to small, to see if lags and hips are to strong?

Really you have evidence of that and how they seperated culture from race?

Tracking mitochondria and Y chromosome mutations is for more useful in evolutionary studies.

Also who said this was a attempt to destroy culture? Different cultures can still live together and have there own standards of beauty. Also interbreeding does not produce some kind of universal human it makes for even more variety: each child would have a different genetic combination from the two breeds, not some kind of clone combination.

 

and2000x recently said:

Why are you using political situations to justify your theory about genetics? "Whitie" is responsible for the mess going on in Africa right now; many of the problems there come directly from outside interest in the African mineral resources, such as the control of the Ivory Coast diamond supply.

Even if the political causes for the violence weren't readily obvious, you are still using the deaths of those victims of war to justify your obnoxious theory, as if it was their genetic destiny to be killed so that you would be proven right.

A marvelous thing about the argument for quantifiable genetic differentiation of different-looking people, is that it often comes out of the mouths of people like and2000x, who immediately use the argument to bolster their claim that certain kinds of people have "problems" and deserve whatever horrible things are happening to them. Even when they are being killed in their own homes through no fault of their own, and200x will still claim that this is their fault because of their frickin' genes. Never mind that they were people who were alive and had not done anything wrong - they deserved to die for living in Africa.

Perhaps while you are in the fantasy land in which you currently reside, you could go ask the Wizard to give you a heart. You need one.

 

You want proof that blacks cause more violence? Have fun reading this: http://www.amren.com/color.pdf

As for the situation in Congo, yes it is whities fault because he industrialized a society too unstable to handle the transition.

I don't HATE other races or cultures, but it would be stupid for me to hold them on an equal level. Certainly different races exhibit different taught behaviors passed down by generations and their social conditions which allows them to be either superior or inferior in certain aspects. I went to a school where all races were on an equal education level and there was no problem. This was only achieved at forced assimilation, as in adopting whitie's ways. Besides, Asians are obviously ahead of us right now and we need to catch up big time.

How is it NOT their fault? It's THEIR country, run by THEM. If America collapses tommorrow, should I blame Russia? Why do you suppose they have done nothing wrong, because you didn't see that starving guy on tv go home and blow up a village of people then rape their wives with a burning iron? Use reason, not sympathy. Progress will never be made as long as handwringing exists. I can only suggest you read the Unabomber's Manifesto.

I am talking about SAMIS not Siamese. And yes, that seemed to be the usual method of going about things in Germany for several hundred years. Suddenly, with the fall of NS Germany, racial science was seen as a dirty thing.

 

No I want proof that it is race and not culture.

Perhaps you don't understand what I have been getting at here: not all people of a race are universal there is great amount of variation so much so that race does not exist genetically, if you wanted to define people into races genetically then you would end up with hundreds and thousands of different breeds.

Sa’mis? Oh never knew about them thought you misspell Siamese my mistake. Still do all Sa’mis fit the profile? They seem like a small population but they seem far more identifiable by culture then by race. If you could provide more information that would be helpful.
http://www.suri.ee/eup/samis.html

 

That is the argument against race I often hear. At some one point race will bleed together into another. That means nothing! We all came from a root race so of course we have similiarities and large variations. As we have said already THERE IS NO RACE GENE. Race is not and never has been defined by a race GENE, it is defined by the collective characteristics of the group (common morphollogy, height, skin color, internal/external functions). The only thing that has been disproved in the mideviel concept of race, that of three races: mongoloid, negroid, cacausoid. These categorisations haven't been used for over 100 years.
WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO GRASP? Nothing is universal pal, no two cats or dogs are alike even if they are the same pedigree.

 

There are not collective set of genetic characteristic, I also never mentioned anything about a race “gene” I was speaking of race in general. You can not say that a group of genetic traits is universal of all people of a race and there for there is nothing to define race with. For example not all black people are violent (be it genetic or cultural) nor are they good at music, nor do they all have hypertension, in fact not all “black” people have dark skin because of the same genes, nor do they all have curly oily hair or large nostrils. If you want to group characteristic as such you’re going to end up with hundreds of groups that won't fit well to culture or geography.

edit: yes my grammar and spelling skills are at par with my physical development.

 

it seems hard to grasp for the racists that scientists have no use for the scientific term race in population biology.

 

Some 30 years ago they did. Then the leftists came.

 

Hoo boy.

And2000x said:

I don't know what this link actually says because it led to a restricted site.

The Unabomber Manifesto is not a helpful document about moral guidance. It is a pathetic excuse for not learning to deal with "different" people the way you deal with people you consider to be like yourself. The section on the dangers of "Oversocialization" reads like a guy trying to convince himself that he shouldn't feel bad about blowing up a building full of people.

He, and our And2000x, are both products of the popular American miseducation, you know, the one that idolizes serial killers and openly masturbates about the American Civil War.

So... it's obvious I didn't make myself clear. Africa is not a trouble spot because of what the English did 100 years ago... it's having problems because of what the Americans are doing RIGHT NOW. Things like trying to prevent various African countries from purchasing drugs from India, who makes less expensive drugs than the Americans. Why do American companies do this? Because they can. Then, if anyone tries to argue that maybe the Africans deserve a fair shake, the companies go to great lengths to try to convince us that the entire continent is populated only with dog raping baby eaters.

And if you're an idiot, you believe them. After all, why would a big drug company lie to you?

Case in point. According to And2000x, each African person is obviously organizing death squads to come and murder them and their families; this is when they take time off from their own personal raping and pillaging, of course.

My favourite part is that he is arguing that this is GENETIC. (I bet you thought this was offtopic...)

OK. It seems highly unlikely to me that an entire continent full of people EVOLVED to be GENETICALLY more violent than sweet peaceloving American racists like And2000x. Even if it is only a phenotypic expression...

Where is your reason, And2000x? I don't see how your shrill protestations that Africans are all horrible people come from any kind of rational thought. Perhaps you could explain.

 

The Galton Report

A sampling of recent scientific literature

by Glayde Whitney

It's Official: Races Differ Genetically

“Ethnicity can be inferred from the frequencies of alternative forms, or alleles, of genes; allele patterns differ by racial origin.”
Thus spake Science magazine, the official organ of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
We live in confused times. As science increasingly proves the fallacy of the egalitarian myth, politicians and scientists who know better keep feeding the public absurd and wrong banalities to the effect that races do not exist (see cover story). The absurdity of these proclamations is all the greater in that sequencing of genomes from the different “ethnic groups” is only now beginning.

Even so it is already easy to categorize people by race just by looking at their genes. This is because there are many DNA sequences (such as STRs, or Short Tandem Repeats, and SNPs, or Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms) that differ absolutely from one race to another. Many SNPs common in various African tribes have not been found among Caucasians or East Asians, and vice-versa: there are Asian-specific and Caucasian-specific markers not found among sub-Saharan Africans. Also there are markers that are found in all races but at very different frequencies. Combining the results of just a few such markers can determine race with virtual certainty (one out of many millions).

Forensic genetics–DNA profiling–makes use of these differences and could soon replace fingerprinting. In October, 1998, the FBI started CODIS (Combined DNA Index System) to consolidate DNA identification from the various state systems. CODIS looks at only 13 STR chromosome markers, but that is enough for absolutely certain individual identification: As Science notes,

“The chance of two [unrelated] individuals on average having the same DNA profile [of just those 13 STRs] is about one in a million billion.”
Soon to be added will be markers on the Y-chromosome, which is transmitted only in the male line, from father to son, and already a number of race-specific Y-markers have been found. In forensic applications Y-markers will be useful because many violent crimes are male-on-female, and the resulting “bodily fluids” are often a messy mix of DNA from both perpetrator and victim. Analysis of Y-markers will automatically concentrate only on the male DNA.
Forensic identification is also just beginning to use another source of DNA called mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA. This stuff is interesting because it exists outside the nucleus of the cell–in the mitochondria–and is passed in the egg, from mother to offspring. Thus all the individuals in a female line of descent have the same mtDNA. Of course, families differ, and races may be thought of as extended families, or sets of people related by common descent.

MtDNA is useful also because there is a lot of it: As Science notes, “there's probably 10,000 times as much mtDNA as there is nuclear DNA. In a sample that's aged or degraded, it's quite common that the nuclear DNA has been degraded beyond the point of recovery, and yet there is mtDNA that can be recovered.”

This is why mtDNA is extracted from ancient remains, such as 100,000-year-old Neanderthals. It was mtDNA that linked the 9,000 year-old “Cheddar Man” to a “relative living today just down the road in Cheddar, England.” It is mtDNA that would have to be analyzed to determine Kennewick Man's race.

For criminal identification the best is yet to come. There is research at places like the Galton Laboratory (University College London) on determining physical appearance from DNA. “Geneticists can assess the likelihood that a person is a redhead simply by testing for mutations in the gene for the receptor for a hormone that spurs production of the pigment melanin. All facial characteristics are on the agenda. A noble Romanesque profile or deeply cleft chin could be a villain's downfall. . . . [W]ithin 10 years we might be looking at genetic tests for the basis of the main facial characteristics like, for example, nose, chin, and forehead shape.” [Watson, A., “A new breed of high-tech detectives,” Science, Vol. 289, 11 Aug. 2000, Pp. 850-854].

 

Race is a Myth?

The left distorts science for political purposes.

by Michael Rienzi

Racial egalitarianism has failed to produce the “fair and just” society promised by social engineers. At the same time, there has been a marked reawakening of racial and ethnic identity in the post-Cold War world. In response, the left has adopted a new strategy: Deny the very existence of race! This is why we so frequently hear that “race is a social construct, with no biological validity” and that “science proves we are all the same.” Ironically, it is in connection with progress in understanding the human genome–progress in the very field that will definitively prove the biological reality of race–that we most often hear that race is nothing more than “superficial” surface characteristics.



New Guinean Warrior

Against this view, there are first of all the obvious physical differences between human population groups that everyone recognizes. There is also genetic evidence that can be used independently of traditional methods to classify different human populations into racial groups that are virtually identical to those based on the allegedly “superficial” traits studied by traditional physical anthropology. As Professor Glayde Whitney has written in these pages:

“These data are therefore a virtually irrefutable demonstration of the reality of race–a purely statistical analysis of allele frequencies [genetic differences from one group to another] gives results that are essentially identical to the racial groupings established by traditional anthropology.”
An honest evaluation of the data confirms the reality of race. But let us look at the arguments on the other side.
“We are 99.9 percent (or some other number) genetically identical; so there can be no race differences and no races.”
Although it is true that human populations share roughly 99.9 percent of their genes, it is also true that humans share over 98 percent of their genes with chimpanzees, and a very high amount with animals like mice and dogs. Many of these genes produce basic body structures all mammals have in common; differences between organisms are caused by very small genetic differences.

Men and women are 99.998 percent identical but no one suggests that men and women are identical.

Current evidence suggests that all the sex differences between men and women are the result of just one genetic difference–one gene (the Testes Determining Factor) out of an estimated 50,000-100,000! This would mean men and women are 99.998 to 99.999 percent genetically identical, yet no one suggests that sex is a mere “social construct.” In like manner, the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees, which no one denies, can be described as 12 to 20 times the genetic differences between racial groups.

Tiny genetic differences can have huge phenotypic consequences because genes are ordered in a hierarchical fashion. Some genes are “master genes,” and control the expression of a number of other genes, each of which may further control several other genes. Also, the expression of each gene is controlled by regions called “promoters” and “enhancers,” usually located in front of the functional part of the gene. A small change in the promoter region of gene “X” can alter its expression. X may control genes A, B, C, D, E, F. Gene A in turn may control its own set of genes. Even if all of the genes other than “X” are identical between two groups, the one difference in “X” would be sufficient to produce large group differences.

It is not the quantity of genetic difference that is important, but the nature of the differences: which genes are different, in what ways they differ, and the consequences of these differences. Breeds of dogs are analogous to human races. It is likely that different breeds are as close genetically as different races of humans, but there is no doubt that these subtle variations result in significant differences in appearance, intelligence, and behavior.

It is also worth considering that a butterfly and the caterpillar from which it developed are 100 percent genetically identical! The genes do not change; the enormous differences between caterpillar and butterfly result from the activation of different genes at different times. This should give some pause to those who think a 0.1 percent difference in tens of thousands of human genes “makes no difference.”

“There is more genetic variation within human groups than between groups; therefore, group differences are invalid.”
This is another very popular argument that, although true, does not at all mean that race is of no significance. The flaw in this argument is the same as in the “99.9 percent argument,” in that it stresses quantity–genetic “bean counting”–rather than the importance of genetic differences and their consequences. Indeed, there is more genetic variation within groups than between groups, but if this variation does not influence the expression of important genes, it is not of much consequence. There is considerable genetic variation between siblings and between parents and children, but this does not alter the fact that they are more closely related to each other than to strangers.
Once again Prof. Whitney has demonstrated the absurdity of the “variation” argument. He points out that one could take the total genetic diversity contained within the population of Belfast and a troop of macaque monkeys and give it an index of 100 percent. Surprising as it may seem, more than half of that diversity will be found both in the population of Belfast and in the monkey troop. There is great genetic diversity even between two individuals who are very similar to each other. This does not, of course, mean that Irishmen are more like macaques than they are like their neighbors, though this is precisely the way the there-are-no-races advocates use the argument when they apply it to humans.

Prof. Whitney explains that just as in the case of the genetic differences between men and women, “the meaningful question about racial differences is not the percentage of total diversity, but rather how the diversity is distributed among the races, what traits it influences, and how it is patterned.” Small genetic differences can translate into important physical and behavioral differences.

“Population variation is continuous and human traits vary across a spectrum, so discrete racial entities do not exist.”
This is a scientific way of saying that since hybrids (racially or ethnically mixed populations) exist, no single race exists. This is an amazingly popular argument, even though it is easily refuted. No one has ever thought the existence of hybrid populations of animals means these animals cannot be classified into distinct groups. This is self-evident. Your dog may be a mix of German Shepherd and Great Dane, but this does not mean there are no German Shepherds or Great Danes. The existence of dog hybrids means only that different breeds of dog can mate and produce offspring. Dogs and wolves–separate species–can mate and produce offspring but it is still easy to tell a dog from a wolf.
There are certainly places in which there has been much human mixing and where there are racial gradients–Central Asia, Latin America, North Africa. The existence of hybrid populations in these areas in no way disproves the existence of other populations that are genetically more differentiated–in Europe, the Far East, and sub-Saharan Africa.

This “continuous variation” argument is so illogical it is a wonder anyone takes it seriously. The existence of mixtures does not invalidate the existence of the original components of mixtures. The fact that red and yellow can be mixed to produce orange hardly means that red and yellow are illusions or do not exist. Although racial gradation is far from being a perfect and continuous gradient, even those variations in nature that do lie along such a gradient can be classified into distinct groups. The continuous variation of light frequencies in the rainbow, for example, are easily grouped into the distinct colors that virtually all people recognize.

“All human populations are mongrels, there is no such thing as a pure race; thus, there is no such thing as race.”

Australian aborigines

This argument is related to the previous one, except that it says we are all hybrids, so there is no such thing as race. First, no scientists talk about “pure” races. What does racial “purity” mean, anyway? It is true that certain populations are more genetically differentiated and distinct than are other more hybridized groups. If we consider Englishmen, Central Asians, and Koreans, we can make the relative statement that Koreans and Englishmen are more genetically (and phenotypically) distinct and differentiated than Central Asians, who are in some respects intermediate between East Asians and Europeans.

This does not imply that either Koreans or Englishmen are “pure,” which would presumably mean they can all trace their ancestries to a single population at a certain time. The English, for example, are a predominantly Nordic population made up of Anglo-Saxons, Celts, Normans/Vikings, Romans, and possibly early Mediterraneans. Many European groups are similarly composed of multiple related strains; if having an ancestry of different but relatively similar European groups makes someone a “mongrel,” then indeed we are all mongrels. But this does not invalidate in any way the concept of race, or the fact that the various “mongrel” populations are still genetically and phenotypically distinct from each other and thus are separate races. Both genetically and physically, Englishmen clearly belong in the European group and Koreans in the Northeast Asian group.



New Guinean Woman

The “we are all mongrels” arguments fails in two ways. First, the various stocks that have gone into producing many of today's ethnic groups were relatively similar to each other, so it stretches the definition of the word to call them “mongrels.” How different were the Anglo-Saxons from the Celts? Likewise, would a person of mixed English and German ancestry be considered a “mongrel?” French-Italian? Do we call the millions of white Americans of mixed European stock “mongrels?”

Second, mixtures of related stocks can stabilize over time, and form a new, unique, and separate ethnic group, race, or breed. Such is the case with the various European ethnic groups, formed by mixtures of related ethnic strains. Europeans could be bred for hundreds–perhaps thousands–of generations without producing offspring that look like Africans or Asians. The reverse is also true. Even if today's races are the result of ancient mixtures the mixtures are distinct and extremely stable.

“Population differences are superficial and only skin-deep.”
This is simply not true. Many consistent group differences have been found in intelligence, behavior, brain size, resistance to disease, twinning rates, speed of maturation, etc. Prof. Arthur Jensen has gathered irrefutable proof of racial differences in average intelligence. In Race, Evolution and Behavior Prof. Philippe Rushton has not only documented the large number of other racial differences but shown how they fit the varying reproduction strategies followed by different racial groups. Sometimes the race-does-not-exist argument appears to be a desperate attempt to shut down the argument about racial differences that the left has clearly lost. Since egalitarians have nothing to say in the face of mountains of evidence for racial differences, they have suddenly shifted their ground and try to pretend that race itself does not exist.
Even the most anti-racist medical doctors recognize that transplant donors and recipients often have to be matched not just on the basis of race but on close ethnicity within race, because inter-racial transplants are likely to be rejected. They also know that people of different races react differently do the same drugs and suffer from different diseases. To say these differences are only “skin-deep” is completely at odds with reality.

“There has not been enough time for racial differences to have evolved.”
This is an odd argument because there has clearly been enough time for physical differences to evolve. Pygmies and Norwegians presumably once had a common ancestor but are now so different from each other a biologist from another planet might well think them different species. This argument therefore is an attempt to deny differences in average intelligence or other mental traits. In Why Race Matters Professor Michael Levin shows that the IQ difference between Europeans and black Africans has had more than enough time to develop during the estimated 4,400 generations since the two groups split from a common ancestor. According to his calculation,


Canadian Eskimo Couple

it would have required a rate of selection per generation of 0.000106 against recessive genes, a very small rate of genetic change that is the equivalent to a change in 11 individuals per 100,000 per generation. In nature this is an extremely slow rate of evolutionary change.

“The white race–like all the others–is a social construct.”
Here we begin to see the motivation behind all of the “there is no such thing as race” nonsense. If people of European descent can be convinced that race does not exist, in particular that their race does not really exist, there will be no resistance to the displacement of whites by the forces currently at work in America, Europe, and elsewhere. People will not defend something they have been convinced is not real.
If–against their own instincts and the clear evidence of their senses–whites can be made to think race is an illusion they can have no reason to oppose across-the-board integration, miscegenation, and massive non-white immigration. If whites are mixing with and being displaced by people who are really no different from themselves nothing is being lost.

The irony, of course, is that when it comes to “affirmative action”–policies that penalize whites–the very people who say race is a social construct insist that it is a valid basis for preferential treatment. People who say race is not biological somehow have no difficulty claiming to be “black” or “Asian” or “American Indian” if there is an advantage in doing so.

Nor in the vast majority of cases is there the slightest disagreement about who belongs in which race. Children can distinguish race unerringly by the age of two or three. Nature is parsimonious and does not often endow its creatures with senses to distinguish things that do not matter. An inborn ability, acquired at a very early age, of who are “our people” and who are not is essential to group survival. Any attempt to override or downplay that ability is a direct attack on the group itself.

Needless to say, it is only whites who parrot obviously absurd notions about race and who pretend that indifference or even disloyalty to race is a virtue. Non-whites have a healthy consciousness of race and know that it is a fundamental part of individual and group identity. They must be hugely amused by the potentially suicidal silliness they hear whites urging each other to believe.

The claims of certain demagogues notwithstanding, Europeans are both a cultural and a biological reality. Like all racial and ethnic groups they have the right to preserve that reality and to resist efforts to obfuscate science in an attempt to eliminate races in fact, as well as name.

 

Now you assume I don't have any connection with blacks or hispanics because they are oh-so horrible. Actually, I have a large group of different nationalities in my circle.

As for the Unabomber, he doesn't argue against other races, he argues against the dangers of leftism. Nobody says he is giving anymore 'moral' tips.

The south were a bunch of human enslaving idiotic hicks. Ted was not a serial killer, he was a hero.

 

Ted Kaczyinski a hero?

Ok nutjob, you just made my ignore list.