“Racial differences caused by climate variations are not restricted to climate adaptations. For example, cold weather played a role in increasing the brain size of European hominids, but once the extra cerebral matter was there, natural selection found ways to put it to work that had nothing to do with the weather.”
I’d like to see your evidence that encephalization is a climatic adaptation, not to mention your application of that claim to white superiority.
i) If encephalization confers a survival advantage, then how did hominids survive before they evolved bigger brains?
ii) "Hominids” occupy inhospitable regions through out world. If encephalization is an adaptation to environmental challenges, then that would apply with equal force to many different races, not just “European hominids.”
“Mixing races undoes the natural process of genetic mismatch weeding and "sets the clock back" by a dozen generations or more, since it will take that long, assuming that no more racial mixing occurs in the family line, to recover the inner harmony of the genotype.”
I also don’t see how your appeal to evolution justifies your opposition to interracial mating. As one evolutionary biologist explains:
“Physical characteristics such as skin color, hair texture, shape of the incisors, and stature vary geographically in humans, and they have been used by various authors to define anywhere from 3 to more than 60 ‘races.’ The number of races is arbitrary, for each supposed racial group can be subdivided into an indefinite number of distinct populations. Among Africans, for example, Congo pygmies are the shortest of humans, and Masai are among the tallest. Variation in allozyme allele frequencies among villages of the Yanomama tribe in Venezuela is as great as it is among the Mongoloid, Negroid, and Caucasoid ‘races” taken as a whole. The pattern of overall genetic variation among human populations, determined from proteins and other molecular markers, differs substantially from traditional racial divisions. Genetic differences among human populations consist of allele frequency differences only: at no known loci are ‘races’ or other regional populations fixed for different alles,” D. Futuyma, Evolution (Sinauer 2005), 220.
Continuing with David:
“There is no such thing as a ‘biracial child.’ Children who are called that actually have no race at all.”
Which just goes to show the fairly arbitrary character of racial classifications.
“If you changed your race, either of two things would happen to your IQ. If you remained at the same percentile in your new race as your old race, then you'd either be smarter or stupider, depending on whether the new race's average IQ was higher or lower than the other race's average IQ.__On the other hand, maybe you figure you can keep the same IQ by having a different spot on the "bell curve" of the new race than the one you had on the curve for the old race. In the latter case, you're not only changing your race, you'd also be changing your LUCK, and if you could do that, why not wish genius upon yourself while you're at it? And a pile of money. Wings, too.”
You’re confusing individual identity with group identity. A human being is not a statistical mean. My membership in a particular social group tells you precious little about my unique, individual characteristics. I might be a member of a football team. That tells you next to nothing about my athletic ability. I’m might be the star player or a backbencher.
“Your family is more closely related to you than most of your race is.”
That’s true with reference to offspring. However, families include in-laws as well as blood-relatives. Husbands and wives, mothers-in-law and fathers-in law, in addition to parents, children, and siblings.
Therefore, your racial argument breaks down since in-laws need not be members of the same race.
And, of course, a child can be related to more than one race if his parents belong to two different races.
“But the hominids of our times are largely characterized by race, which is proved by the fact that more hominid populations are found in clumps than between them.”
Of course, people tend to “clump” together for reasons of nationality or locality rather than race, per se. We generally prefer to live with the people we grew up with, went to school with, people of the same social class, people who speak the same language, &c.
This “clumping” can occur, by turns, in a racially homogenous environment (e.g. Norway) or a racially heterogeneous environment (e.g. New York, SoCal).
“Race is why emotional bonds evolved.”
I can’t form a close emotional bond with member of another race?
“Love evolved as an emotional pressure to remain in the service of someone else, or several someones else, when it would be contrary to your personal interest to do so.”
So I fall in love with a girl to remain in her “service”? It’s contrary to my “personal interest” to fall in love with the girl in question?
“It came from natural selection with events in which a person sacrificed his own interests to those persons most nearly related to him, so that his genes (incorporated in the bodies of those other people) would gain an advantage that they could not gain if the sacrifice had not been made.”
I don’t know what planet you live on, but in my world mating criteria have far more to do with who’s good looking, and not what race they are. Another criterion has to do with one’s bank account.
“That's why love causes people to do ‘crazy’ things, like willingly dying to save their children, to name an instance that might not seem all that crazy to most people. Biological relatedness is intrinsic to an emotional bond, and anyone who denies it is kidding someone... perhaps himself.”
What about military heroism—where one soldier will die for his biologically unrelated comrade?
“Being close to your White family members does not mean that you are AS CLOSE to the members of a different White family. But you are indeed ‘closer’ (emotionally) to that other White family than you could ever be to a Black family.”
You have a habit of making dogmatic assertions without any empirical evidence, and in the teeth of empirical evidence to the contrary. It’s perfectly absurd to say that a white man will be emotionally closer to any white family than he’ll be to any black (Asian, Latino, Indian, &c.) family.
“Being White DOES mean that you are related to me.”
By that token, I’m also related to Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Josef Mengele. Sorry to disappoint you, but that doesn’t begin to create an emotional bond.
“If your best friend is someone of another race, then you have had a very unusual life.”
An unusual life where? Iceland? Tibet? Paris? New York? SoCal?
“Cultural conditioning for White people is all about dispossessing them of their racial identity.”
Which doesn’t mean we should adopt your reactionary alternative.
“To the extent they still have it, they've had to oppose the conditioning of the parts of the ambient culture (which is created by Jews and disseminated via the media) that would have them discard it. The culture tells White people that race does not matter, that it's only skin color.”
To the contrary, the liberal establishment is fixated on race. And you are the mirror image of the liberal establishment. You share the same obsession with identity politics.
“There's a correlation between race and culture because culture originates in race. That is, a culture grows out of a race as your hair and fingernails grow from your body.”
That’s another absurd statement. Culture originates in many things—not least of which is geography.
In addition, Western civilization has many different cultures and ethnicities feeding into it. Same thing with the ANE.
“America originally was composed of White free citizens. Negroes did some labor, but the did not count insofar as America's founding went. All the Founding Fathers were White, not just some of them. Negroes neither made the decisions, nor participated in choosing the men who did make them. And because America was White, it prospered and grew strong enough to throw off colonialism and become independent - and do even better independent than under colonialism (something that not all former colonies can truthfully claim).”
Other issues to one side, let’s take two issues:
i) Western Civilization is a cross-cultural amalgam of Greco-Roman culture with Judeo-Christian culture. Do you include the Jewish input in your definition of “White”? Where does a Jewish book (i.e. the Bible) figure in your cultural synthesis?
ii) What about Latinos? What about Latin America? That was settled by another European colonial power. Is that white or non-white in your book?
“A grave mistake was made in the middle 19th century, when leaders in the North and in the South permitted Jewish bankers in Europe to turn America against itself in a bloody war, out of which both sides emerged burdened with war debt in the Jews' favor.”
Ah, yes, the International Jewish Conspiracy. Odd how that failed to prevent the Holocaust.
“But those mistakes occurred because Jews were not kept out of the United States, as they should have been.”
That “mistake” probably occurred because white settlers had a nasty habit of reading a book by Jews about a Jewish messiah. It’s set us back centuries from our noble Nordic-Teutonic pantheon. No wonder Thor no longer answers our prayers.
BTW, why do you have a Jewish name, David?
“Letting Jews come into America along with White immigrants was the original mistake of the United States, the mistake that led directly to the others.”
Notice that David is switching horses in midstream. All this talk of white bonding, but he complains that we allowed the wrong white immigrants to settle here. There are good white immigrants and bad white immigrants. And here I thought we were all one big family.
Isn’t in time that we identify the phenotype which distinguishes the right kind of white immigrant from the wrong kind of white immigrant? Without these genetic markers, how can we prevent ‘mismatches’ between right whites and Jacobite whites?
“Without the Jews, the Negroes would have been shipped back to Africa in the last half of the 19th century (at which time, they were willing to go).”
And I’m sure the Iroquois would be more than happy to ship you back to wherever your ancestors originally came from.
“There has been limited racial interbreeding, and although White people have been intimidated (with laws) to the point of fearing to show their distaste for mixed children (and for the White parents who helped to produce them), that distaste has not gone away. It remains, and you can see it in glances followed by a quick look-away. Once it was followed by a frown, but as I said, laws have intimidated White people to the point of making them fear to show what they really think.”
You mean, like the reaction many people have at the sight of skinheads and Klansmen and other “white nationalists”?
“Anyone who refers to White nationalism as supremacy has been getting too much misinformation from Jewish TV.”
Yes, the Mossad is beaming Zionist signals to my satellite dish. I think I’m watching a commercial for Count Chocula, but it’s really a subliminal message to vote for neocon candidates.
Speaking of which—why is the "Jewish media" so hostile to Bush's neocon foreign policy? And why isn't it doing more to support McCain's neocon foreign policy?