← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · TexasAnarch

Thread 8056

Thread ID: 8056 | Posts: 23 | Started: 2003-07-11

Wayback Archive

TexasAnarch [OP]

2003-07-11 18:53 | User Profile

**OP-ED COLUMNIST Is Race Real? By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

XFORD, England I had my DNA examined by a prominent genetic specialist here, and what do you know! It turns out I'm African-American. The mitochondria in my cells show that I'm descended from a matriarch who lived in Africa, possibly in present-day Ethiopia or Kenya. O.K., this was 70,000 years ago, and she seems to be a common ancestor of all Asians as well as all Caucasians. Still, these kinds of DNA analyses illuminate the raging scientific debate about whether there is anything real to the notion of race. "There's no genetic basis for any kind of rigid ethnic or racial classification at all," said Bryan Sykes, the Oxford geneticist and author of "The Seven Daughters of Eve." "I'm always asked is there Greek DNA or an Italian gene, but, of course, there isn't. . . . We're very closely related." Likewise, The New England Journal of Medicine once editorialized bluntly that "race is biologically meaningless." Take me. Dr. Sykes looked at a sequence of my mitochondrial DNA to place me on a kind of global family tree. It would have been nice to learn that my ancestors hailed from a village on Loch Ness, but ancestry can almost never be pegged that precisely, and I appear to be a mongrel. One of my variants, for example, is scattered among people in Finland, Poland, Armenia, the Netherlands, Scotland, Israel, Germany and Norway. On the other hand, is race really "biologically meaningless"? Bigotry has been so destructive that it's tempting to dismiss race and ethnicity as artificial, but there are genuine differences among population groups. Jews are more likely to carry mutations for Tay-Sachs, Africans for sickle cell anemia. It's hard to argue that ethnicity is an empty concept when one gene mutation for an iron storage disease, hemochromatosis, affects fewer than 1 percent of Armenians but 8 percent of Norwegians. "There is great value in racial/ ethnic self-categorizations" for medicine, protested an article last year by a Stanford geneticist, Neil Risch, in Genome Biology. It warned against "ignoring our differences, even if with the best of intentions." DNA does tend to differ, very slightly, with race. Profilers thought a recent serial killer in Louisiana was white until a DNA sample indicated he was probably black. (A black man has been arrested in the case.) As genetic science advances, the police may eventually be able to recover semen and put out an A.P.B. for a tall white rapist with red curly hair, blue eyes and perhaps a Scottish surname. On the other hand, genetic markers associated with Africans can turn up in people who look entirely white. Indians and Pakistanis may have dark skin, but genetic markers show that they are Caucasians. Another complication is that African-Americans are, on average, about 17 percent white: they have mitochondria (maternally inherited) that are African, but they often have European Y chromosomes. In other words, white men raped or seduced their maternal ancestors. Among Jews, there are common genetic markers, including some found in about half the Jewish men named Cohen. But this isn't exactly a Jewish gene: the same marker is also found in Arabs. "Genetics research is now about to end our long misadventure with the idea of race," Steve Olson writes in his new book, "Mapping Human History." When I lived in Japan in the 1990's, my son Gregory had a play date with a classmate I hadn't met. I asked Gregory, then 5, whether the boy's mother was Japanese. "I don't know," Gregory replied. "Well," I asked sharply, "did she look Japanese or American?" Although he'd lived in Tokyo for years, Gregory replied blankly, "What does a Japanese person look like?" He was ahead of his time. Genetics increasingly shows that racial and ethnic distinctions are real — but often fuzzy and greatly exaggerated. Genetics will increasingly show that most humans are mongrels, and it will make a mockery of racism. "There are meaningful distinctions among groups that may have implications for disease susceptibility," said Harry Ostrer, a genetics expert at the New York University School of Medicine. "The right-wing version of this is `The Bell Curve,' and that's pseudoscience — that's not real. But there can be a middle ground between left-wing political correctness and right-wing meanness." I'll be searching for that middle ground this year as I'm celebrating Kwanzaa.

Genetic Bazaar Anyone can get a DNA analysis to try to shed light on genetic origins, but for now don't expect to be pegged too precisely. Bryan Sykes of Oxford University founded a company that offers analyses based on the rubric in his book "The Seven Daughters of Eve," and more information is available at www.Oxfordancestors.com. That's the company I used. An alternative is an American company offering DNA analyses with a genealogy focus, www.familytreedna.com.**

  Having worked professionally all my life in the field of metaphysics, as it is taught and understood in department of philosophy  across the land, the question “Is Race Real” rings bells. Time to go to work.

 I address here only the grammar and style of the question, in current political context. One assumes Kristof is a Jew, though in fairness one does not assume this is uppermost as a consciously motivating factor in raising the question for discussion, even though racism and anti-Semitism are very much in the air; nor does one assume the position he advances by working from – “Bigotry has been so destructive that it’s tempting to dismiss race and ethnicity (?-how…?- just slipped in, I guess) as artificial (read: created by prejudicial attitudes), but there are genuine differences among population groups.”  Imagine that.  Just what I was thinking, too.  When a columnist of this rank and statue winds up this long to deliver sliced Liverace, however, cynicism serrupts (see Norman Mailer, chief male Jew serruptionist).

What does Kristof say? (or: “unburden” himself of, in Mailerian maleology – what “we” white males were doing in Iraq, donch’a know – I tell you, these peole are geniuses!) He says:

“It turns out I’m African-American.”  That’s if you take the theory of a common maternal ancestral prototype seriously, plus use of the hyphenated dual-citizenship styled moniker for “black”, wanting them to know he feels at-one with them here, I guess,  Actually, what it says is “I am a blackjew”, Old Adam, with his sin-blackened Shulamite soul.  (See Gnostic/alchemical basis of anti-Semitism, OD forum, Christianity”.

“I appear to be a mongrel>”  I guess that redeems mongrelization.  “One of my variants, for example, is scattered among people in Finland, Poland, Armenia, the Netherlands, Scotland, Israel, Germany and Norway.”  Regular Forrest Gump. But one can hardly fail, having read paleoconservative material, to notice – Khazar strain here; Joseph in Glastonbury/Avalon feed-in.

But back to those differences.  They could be life threatening.  “Jews are more likely to carry mutations for Tay-Sachs, Africans for sickle anemia.”  This alters the picture, this notion of host-friendly mutations.  I had a dream.  White mens cells – or whatever the DNA code is for making whites white (you’ll know it when you see it) – because of some unknown, incalculable fact of nature, encourage a process to take place in and around their personal presences called “intolerance for assholes”; to the extent that, various previously unknown micro-organism come into existence and collect around what are called the “functional nodes” of the anatomical processing apparatus of these white male beings, which act on the organism as a whole in two ways:  1.  as warning agents, scurrying around sending messages to the brain; and 2.  attacking, or threatening to attack with unbridled fury any manifestations of disease-carrying in others, including their speech.   Because of the symbiosis between the ”something” in white male blood and these, for them, very useful adaptive organism attracted to it, they survive (in the dream) by defending themselves consciously from all conversational pronoun – sharing, except “you”, and “they” (to each other) and “your kind.”  They will automatically call you “racist”, and “ant-Semitic”. This will confirm what the little warning agents “suspected”.

Point of fact. Etymological research turns up that “race”, as it began to be used in “racism” (then in “anti-racism” – cf. excellent OD forum under Culture War) DID NOT EXIST AS A TERM OF USE until the mid-1930’s; invented then, as a distinct political thing, as a “bundling” black-Jew dyad-designator, with built-in moral-evaluative force. A political classification over against the white man, Christian, who reproduce at higher levels, more advanced, differentiated and maturely developed through The Spirit, not the blood but wht is in it. That’s why blacks are called White when they’ve got it. (or anyone else – except Jews, who would take it as either an insult or a joke). Now jokermen such as Kristof can come along citing “science” to refute what is a really a discussion of metaphysical categories, of grammar of being, putting “bigotry” in its place with another demonstration of its irrationality. Or does it show just the reverse.

Kurt

2003-07-12 00:37 | User Profile

*Originally posted by Raina@Jul 11 2003, 17:22 * ** I am a human racialist. **

Wow. That is deep. :rolleyes:

Maybe you can get together with [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=9209]tiny123[/url] :wub:

Edana

2003-07-12 01:12 | User Profile

The concept of "human racialism" makes no sense. Human = species. Race (or breed) = sup-group within a species. The human species contains sub-groups (called race, ethnicity, or "populations" - take your pick) and much genetic diversity - for now.

I guess you could start calling yourself a "Human Species-ist", but then you'll look like a jack*ss and PETA will picket outside your house.

Here is a link to a calculator which will show genetic distances between "populations" : [url=http://www.racearchives.com/calc/sforza_profiles.asp?dbname=sforza42world]LINK[/url]

Here are some other links which may be of interest -

[url=http://www.sallysatelmd.com/html/a-nytimes3.html]I Am a Racially Profiling Doctor[/url]

[url=http://www.vdare.com/sailer/cavalli-sforza_ii.htm]Cavalli-Sforza II: Seven Dumb Ideas about Race[/url]

Edana

2003-07-12 01:48 | User Profile

I love it when people just change the definition of race to discredit the idea of race. I'm not going to say that's "Jewish", but I am going to say that it's very annoying. I don't feel like playing that slippery word game, so I'm just going to put the definition of race on the table.

race n. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.

Biology

a. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.

If you want to realize how ridiculous your arguments look, imagine someone claiming that dog breeds do not exist because there are a lot of mutts around and different dog breeds screw in the back alley.

Kurt

2003-07-12 01:57 | User Profile

Raina sounds like she just graduated from a PC Indoctrination 101 class. Either that, or kindergarten. :lol:

Übeltäter

2003-07-12 02:03 | User Profile

[SIZE=4]WE ARE ALL THE SAME, CAN'T YOU TELL!?!?!?![/SIZE]

[img]http://www.ethiopiafirst.com/images/Tourism/Man-face-art.JPG[/img]

[img]http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/action/large/20fa848.jpg[/img]

:sm:

Übeltäter

2003-07-12 02:26 | User Profile

All Humans are Homo Sapien Sapiens. There are 3 major races of man - Negroid, Monogloid, and Caucausoid.

il ragno

2003-07-12 02:49 | User Profile

Has Kurt become the Zen Master of the Smilie, or what?

Übeltäter

2003-07-12 04:20 | User Profile

[SIZE=3]The Races of Humanity[/SIZE]

by Richard McCulloch

The human species is blessed with great variety and diversity. Its rich diversity resulted from its global distribution, which caused the different populations of humanity to be geographically separated and thus reproductively isolated. Reproductive isolation enabled divergence -- the process of divergent evolution -- to occur, causing the isolated populations to evolve in different directions, developing their own distinct ensembles of genetic traits and characteristics.

Divergent evolution is the process by which new life forms are created by the division and separation of life into different branches. Human evolution has seen its share of divergent branching. The generic name commonly used to refer to the genetically different populations, branches or divisions of humanity -- that share both a common biological ancestry and an ensemble of unique, genetically transmitted traits and characteristics which distinguish them from other populations -- is "race." But in the human species, as in any species enjoying a great degree of variety, the constant branching and dividing that characterizes the process of divergent evolution has created many different levels of branches and divisions, each of which possesses genetic traits which distinguish it from other branches or divisions at the same level. For purposes of taxonomic accuracy each of these levels should have its own specific name and definition. The first or highest level is called the species, and it is simply and objectively defined as including all those populations which are capable of interbreeding with each other and producing fully fertile offspring, and which do in fact interbreed under conditions of close and extensive contact. The term race is commonly used to refer to a branch or division of the species possessing genetic traits which distinguish it from other branches or divisions of the same level. Adding to this definition, it will here also be defined as including only those persons who are capable of reproduction with each other without the loss or significant diminishment or alteration of the racially-distinctive genetic traits of either parent stock. The genetically transmitted traits which distinguish a race from other divisions at the same level (i.e., other races) should not be diminished or lost by reproduction within the race. If racially-distinctive traits are lost or diminished by within-group reproduction then the population group is at a level of division too broad and inclusive to be accurately defined as a race. If it is too narrow to be defined as a species, as it does not include all those populations capable of interbreeding, then it is at a level between race and species, which will here be referred to as a subspecies.

The great diversity existing in the human species today is the product of over 100,000 years of divergent evolution. Many of the specific details of that evolution are still not perfectly known or understood, but the fossil record indicates that the genus Homo developed in Africa, and by 1.8 million years ago (the age of fossil remains found on the island of Java in Indonesia) had spread across much of Eurasia where it developed into a variety of regional archaic populations. The genetic evidence from mitochondrial DNA indicates that the modern human species also originated in sub-Saharan Africa, where it began diverging into different populations by 180,000 years ago. By 100,000 years ago some of these populations had migrated out of sub-Saharan Africa and dispersed across Eurasia and North Africa, replacing the regional archaic populations. (The manner of that replacement, and whether or not -- and to what extent -- the modern humans may have interbred with the archaic populations, are subjects of debate.) By 40,000 years ago the divergent evolutionary branching or dividing of the human species had produced five main lines or subspecies which are still extant -- the Congoid and Capoid of sub-Saharan Africa, the Australoid of India, Southeast Asia, Indonesia, New Guinea and Australia, the Mongoloid of Northeast Asia (expanding after 20,000 B.C. into the Americas and replacing the Australoids in Southeast Asia and Indonesia after 4,000 B.C.) and the Caucasoid of Europe, North Africa and West Asia (partly replacing the Australoids in India after 8,000 B.C., the Mongoloids in the Americas after A.D. 1492, and the Australoids in Australia after A.D. 1788). These subspecies branched or divided in turn into separate races, and these races branched in their turn into subraces, as part of the continuing process of divergent evolution.

The different races are often popularly defined and named (often very inaccurately) by skin color, but as this system is based on only one genetic difference, when thousands are involved, it tends to distort the reality of race and racial differences. In the system of racial classification outlined below the names assigned to the various subspecies and races are, with a few exceptions, based on geographical regions that are, or presumably were, at or near the center of their area of evolutionary development and origin.

Outline of Human Racial Classification:

[SIZE=1] I. Capoid or Khoisanid Subspecies of southern Africa ---A. Khoid (Hottentot) race ---B. Sanid (Bushmen) race II. Congoid Subspecies of sub-Saharan Africa ---A. Central African race 1. Palaecongoid subrace (the Congo river basin: Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon, Congo, Angola) 2. Sudanid subrace (western Africa: Niger, Mali, Senegal, Guinea) 3. Nilotid subrace (southern Sudan; the ancient Nubians were of this subrace) 4. Kafrid or Bantid subrace (east and south Africa: Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, Natal) ---B. Bambutid race (African Pygmies) ---C. Aethiopid race (Ethiopia, Somalia; hybridized with Caucasoids) III. Caucasoid or Europid Subspecies ---A. Mediterranid race 1. West Mediterranean or Iberid subrace (Spain, Portugal, Corsica, Sardinia, and coastal areas of Morocco and Tunisia; the Atlanto-Mediterranean peoples who expanded over much of the Atlantic coastal regions of Europe during the Mesolithic period were a branch of this subrace) 2. East Mediterranean or Pontid subrace (Black Sea coast of Ukraine, Romania and Bulgaria; Aegean coasts of Greece and Turkey) 3. Dinaricized Mediterraneans (Residual mixed types resulting from the blending of Mediterranids with Dinarics, Alpines or Armenids; not a unified type, has much regional variation; predominant element [over 60%] in Sicily and southern Italy, principal element in Turkey [35%], important element in western Syria, Lebanon and central Italy, common in northern Italy. The ancient Cappadocian Mediterranean subrace of Anatolia was dinaricized during the Bronze Age [second millennium B.C.] and is a major contributor to this type in modern Turkey.) 4. South Mediterranean or Saharid subrace (predominant in Algeria and Libya, important in Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt) 5. Orientalid or Arabid subrace (predominant in Arabia, major element from Egypt to Syria, primary in northern Sudan, important in Iraq, predominant element among the Oriental Jews) ---B. Dinaric race (predominant in western Balkans [Dinaric Mountains] and northern Italy, important in the Czech Republic, eastern and southern Switzerland, western Austria and eastern Ukraine) ---C. Alpine race (predominant element in Luxembourg, primary in Bavaria and Bohemia, important in France, Hungary, eastern and southern Switzerland) ---D. Ladogan race (named after Lake Ladoga; indigenous to Russia; includes Lappish subrace of arctic Europe) ---E. Nordish or Northern European race (various subraces in the British Isles, Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Belgium; predominant element in Germany, Switzerland, Poland, Finland and the Baltic States; majority in Austria and Russia; minority in France, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary; outlined in detail in The Nordish Race) ---F. Armenid race (predominant element in Armenia, common in Syria, Lebanon and northern Iraq, primary element among the Ashkenazic Jews) ---G. Turanid race (partially hybridized with Mongoloids; predominant element in Kazakhstan.; common in Hungary and Turkey) ---H. Irano-Afghan race (predominant in Iran and Afghanistan, primary element in Iraq, common [25%] in Turkey) ---I. Indic or Nordindid race (Pakistan and northern India) ---J. Dravidic race (India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka [Ceylon]; ancient stabilized Indic-Veddoid [Australoid] blend) IV. Australoid Subspecies ---A. Veddoid race (remnant Australoid population in central and southern India) ---B. Negritos (remnants in Malaysia and the Philippines) ---C. Melanesian race (New Guinea, Papua, Solomon Islands) ---D. Australian-Tasmanian race (Australian Aborigines) V. Mongoloid Subspecies ---A. Northeast Asian race (various subraces in China, Manchuria, Korea and Japan) ---B. Southeast Asian race (various subraces in Indochina, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, some partly hybridized with Australoids) ---C. Micronesian-Polynesian race (hybridized with Australoids) ---D. Ainuid race (remnants of aboriginal population in northern Japan) ---E. Tungid race (Mongolia and Siberia, Eskimos) ---F. Amerindian race (American Indians; various subraces) Dominant or predominant = over 60% majority Majority or major = 50-60% majority Principal or primary = 25-49% plurality; less than a majority, but most numerous racial type Important = 25-49% minority; not most numerous racial type Common = 5-25% minority Minor = less than 5% minority[/SIZE]

The diverse races of the human species outlined above all have their own geographical territory that has historically been exclusively their own, which may be referred to as their racial homeland, and is closely identified with the race that inhabits it. Between most of these exclusive homelands are clinal zones -- areas of contact between different racial territories. These racial borderlands are frequently areas of interracial contact and intermixture where adjacent races merge into one another, creating racially mixed or hybridized populations of intermediate type called racial clines. The Dravidic race of India and Sri Lanka, created by the intermixture of the local Caucasoid (Indic or Nordindid) and Australoid (Veddoid) populations, and the Aethiopid race of Ethiopia and Somalia, created by the intermixture of the local Caucasoid (Mediterranid) and Congoid races, are two very ancient racial clines -- perhaps 10,000 years old -- which have stabilized into distinct races of intermediate type. Racial clines of more recent formation, where the racial blends are not yet stabilized, include the populations of many Latin American and Caribbean countries, which were created over the last 500 years by the intermixture of various Caucasoid (mostly Mediterranid), Congoid and Amerindian elements. The population of Mexico, for example, is about 5% Caucasoid, 30% Amerindian and 65% Mestizo, the Spanish term for persons of mixed Amerindian-Caucasoid ancestry. (The same term is used in the Philippines for persons of mixed Filipino-Caucasoid ancestry.) The multiracialization of the populations of North America and, more recently, Europe, has begun to transform them into racial clines. As discussed in other essays on this site, this process of racial transformation will eventually cause the effective extinction or nonexistence of the European racial types in the affected areas unless adequate preservationist measures are taken to prevent it.

[SIZE=1]This and other things, related to this topic can be found [url=http://www.racialcompact.com/index.html#anchor80975]here[/url] at this site.[/SIZE]

Lewis Wetzel

2003-07-12 04:51 | User Profile

**Dog breeds are kept genetically isolated. No such isolation can be demonstrated for the groups you call "races."

**

ALL natural breeds or subspecies are genetically isolated, generally by geography. If, through some accident, two subspecies were thrown into the same region, either one would drive the other out of the area or into extinction, or they would interbreed until distinctions were eliminated. For humans, through most of history the races have been separated geographically, with frontier areas of blending (Central Asia, North Africa and the Nile Valley, etc.) The fact that there are not absolute case of genetic isolation between the races does not mean that the races don't exist. And while modern transportation makes race-mixing much easier, there's no reason why social sanction and maintenance of national borders can't discourage it. In nature, there's at least on case of two subspecies maintaining their distinctiveness while sharing some degree of territory - and there's every evidence that the mechanism for their separatism is social. Off the coast of the Pacific Northwest there are two breeds of Orca - the "residents" and the [url=http://www.orcanetwork.org/nathist/transients.html]"transients."[/url] The residents are fish eaters; the transients each marine mammals. They differ in vocalization, habitat range, pigmentation, shape of fins, etc. The migration of orcas of either sex has never been observed between the two types. However, in captivity, the two strains have been observed to breed viably - and at a younger age than either breed does in the wild. It's pretty clear that nothing but what might be called social mores are keeping the two strains separate. Furthermore, most paleoanthropologists consider Cro Magnon man identical to modern man; he may have been a different race, but there's no reason to think that the painters of Lascaux have less in common to modern Frenchmen than the latter have with Bantus. And virtually all scientists nowadays consider Neanderthal man a whole different species: [url=http://www.lifesci.utexas.edu/courses/mcmurry/spring98/12/adrian.html]Homo neanderthalensis[/url] rather than Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

Drakmal

2003-07-12 06:19 | User Profile

Ever wonder whether someone is a troll or just terminally obtuse?

"OMG sapiens is the subspecies of homo sapiens that we all belong to, and therefore no further subdividing is possible! People have never been genetically isolated--we have always had rapid transportation across the many thousands of miles of the globe to interbreed with others--and thus no lasting genetic variation could have arisen! The exact same physical and mental traits that help you survive in Africa will help you survive in Scandinavia, which is why Africans and Scandinavians are one and the same! 'Race' is only random skin variations, which is why it's common for two dark-skinned parents to have a light-skinned child, much the same way mating two golden retrievers is as likely to give you a golden retriever pup as a bloodhound pup. Dogs do not vary in their behavior and abilities between breeds, just like humans do not, which is why you can train a retriever to follow scents as well as a hound, or train a setter to race like a greyhound. Speaking of dogs, it is inconceivable that dog breeds may have been genetically isolated without human help--after all, most dogs climb mountains and swim oceans to find their mates just like humans do and always have. By the way have I ever told you how oceans don't exist? It's true, they all connect at some point! That's why Pacific weather and Atlantic weather are exactly the same! 'Ocean' is a social construct!"

... And on, and on.

Leveller

2003-07-12 15:36 | User Profile

What else should differences between major human groups of common descent be called? Any suggestions? Or is it an un-word for an un-idea.

Contrary to the contention that race is a 'social construct' (Frankfurt School alert!) with 'history and modernity' behind it no less, it's the proposition that there aren't racial differences that is relatively new, invented and perpetuated as it was and is chiefly by Marxist idealogues who deny there is even such a thing as an objective fact. So much for the 'scientific objectivity' of race not existing.

For those who haven't read it, Cavalli-Sforas' 'The History and Geography of Human Genes' is a great book on -ial groups, and their relatedness.

Leveller

2003-07-12 15:55 | User Profile

Raina, about your idea that 'white race' is a recent invention:

"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these [the Black] people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government." - Thomas Jefferson

There he was, dividing humans in to two races, black and white, 200 years ago. Truly a man ahead of his time.

TexasAnarch

2003-07-12 17:55 | User Profile

raina,

I'm not playing a "word game." I'm just using "race" in the biological sense. You're using it in a relatively modern political sense that has no scientific foundation.

 I see the opposite:  you are using the notion of "science", as if appeal to objectively determined, and inter-subjectively agreed upon, communicated fact, in the political sense:  to pre-empt the metaphysical alternative I tried to present.  What reproduces itself, among an unconstrained, freely associating population, is not controlled entirely from below, through genes, but "from above", by what the higher part of the communicasting psyche relates to as "spirit".  That will create its own mutating genetic structure, as needed, to produce the higher process results.  You would have to live under the skies of West Texas, every day, for a generation or two, maybe, to understand, experientially -- or do something like that.  Something comes to reproduce itself in genes, through the cells, not from them, except as "tokens".  Its, like, they write another level of text Jews don't get to, because, to the extent that they are Jewish (=affirm a blood-inheritance, for faith) they don't get beyond the physical/human body meaning of "The Word Became Flesh" (which is sacral, if not split off, but only orgasmic, so to speak).

  Anyway:  welcome.  Race is what reproduces from above.  What is reproduced through white will be white.  Trust me.  Be white.  Its O.K.

Okiereddust

2003-07-13 00:40 | User Profile

Is race real? Hate to rain on you guys parade, but to many WN's race is a religion to them. That of course makes it mythical re:

**All I was saying is that it is a book a mythology, like all other religions.

Ubeltator -  [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=9282&st=0&#entry50414]My Essay at VNN[/url]**

madrussian

2003-07-13 01:14 | User Profile

Originally posted by wintermute@Jul 12 2003, 17:56 * *Let that function be solely alloted to Okie. **

Ouch :rolleyes:

Okiereddust

2003-07-13 01:35 | User Profile

Originally posted by wintermute@Jul 13 2003, 00:56 * Many Christians and Pagans on this board are engaged in a co-operative effort to restore an element of the sacred in the particular, namely the particular fact of collective personhood. Without it, we may not survive. This effort depends on co-operation and good will.* Are we talking about the same board? :lol:

Only insults which advance a long standing feud in some substantial way should be allowed - no sniping or trolling, please. Many of you haven't been here long enough to have become engaged in such, so lay off with the unmannered hatefulness already.

Let that function be solely alloted to Okie.

Wintermute**

Sorry that our friend NeoNietzsche isn't around, so only myself is left for you to pick on. :P

Okiereddust

2003-07-13 05:02 | User Profile

Originally posted by wintermute@Jul 13 2003, 04:53 * ** > *Are we talking about the same board? **

[color=blue]*"Both read the Bible day and night

But thou reads't black where I read white."*[/color]

Maybe you aren't looking closely enough.** At least I didn't fall asleep with my head on the screen :lol:

**Sorry that our friend NeoNietzsche isn't around, so only myself is left for you to pick on.

Under the new proposed guidelines, only Walter would be able to say genuinely nasty things to NeoNietzche.

Wintermute **

But will we be able to say nasty things about you?

BTW, things aren't really nasty when they're true :P

Texas Dissident

2003-07-13 07:34 | User Profile

*Originally posted by wintermute@Jul 13 2003, 02:12 * ** Essentially, I am arguing for "grandfathering" in existing feuds, and discouraging the development of new ones. I call my modest ultraconservative plan "pulling up the ladder". **

:lol: You have the heart and wit of a true poet, wintermute.

Phillip Augustus

2003-07-13 08:14 | User Profile

*Originally posted by Edana@Jul 11 2003, 19:12 * ** The concept of "human racialism" makes no sense. Human = species. Race (or breed) = sup-group within a species. The human species contains sub-groups (called race, ethnicity, or "populations" - take your pick) and much genetic diversity - for now.

I guess you could start calling yourself a "Human Species-ist", but then you'll look like a jack*ss and PETA will picket outside your house.

Here is a link to a calculator which will show genetic distances between "populations" : [url=http://www.racearchives.com/calc/sforza_profiles.asp?dbname=sforza42world]LINK[/url]

Here are some other links which may be of interest -

[url=http://www.sallysatelmd.com/html/a-nytimes3.html]I Am a Racially Profiling Doctor[/url]

[url=http://www.vdare.com/sailer/cavalli-sforza_ii.htm]Cavalli-Sforza II: Seven Dumb Ideas about Race[/url] **

Thanks for the link, Edana. I note that the English are genetically closer to the Portuguese than the English are to Austrians and Czechs. So much for that absurd myth that the Portuguese aren't white. That one really, really gets my goat. :lol:

Edana

2003-07-13 14:46 | User Profile

*Originally posted by Raina@Jul 13 2003, 08:28 * ** 200 years ago is rather recent I'd say. As empires go, America is very young.

Thomas Jefferson may have claimed to believe in the "white race." That didn't keep him from having sex with his black female slaves. You can't get much more "unified" than he got with Sally Hennings. **

LoL! Looks like someone fell for the modern myth of Hemmings.

**Backpedaling on Jefferson

Last November, the British journal Nature reported that DNA evidence implicated Thomas Jefferson as the father of his slave Sally Hemmings' youngest child. Black columnist Clarence Page went on to call Jefferson a “deadbeat dad,” and black Baltimore Sun columnist Gregory Kane called him a “horny hypocrite” who betrayed his opposition to miscegenation. Now Nature is backing away from its claims. The chief author of the article, Eugene A. Foster says,  “We never proved it. We never can. We never will.” Although the article was titled “Jefferson Fathered Slave's Last Child,”  the authors admit that the evidence shows only that someone in the Jefferson line was the child's father. The president's younger brother Randolph or any of Randolph's five sons could have been the father. Jefferson would have been 65 years old when the child was born.

Jefferson's defenders note that in a letter written on July 1, 1805, he claimed to have had only one “indiscretion” in his life. As a single man of 25, he made advances to Mrs. John Walker, the wife of a friend. Though rumors were already circulating that he was having an affair with Hemmings, he wrote of his flirtation with Mrs. Walker that “it is the only one [of the rumors] founded in truth among all their allegations against me.” (Andrew Cain, Journal Backs Off on Jefferson Report, Washington Times, January 7, 1999, p. A1.) **

[url=http://www.amren.com/993issue/993issue.html]LINK[/url]

[url=http://www.rumormillnews.com/jefferson.htm]LINK[/url]

Edana

2003-07-13 17:32 | User Profile

Wow, looks like you didn't even read the links or my excerpt. "Jeffersonian DNA" = could have been anyone from Jefferson's rather large family.

na Gaeil is gile

2003-07-14 14:44 | User Profile

Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jul 12 2003, 18:40 * *Is race real?  Hate to rain on you guys parade, but to many WN's race is a religion to them. **

Well that’s an interesting point of view. Consulting yourdictionary.com yields the following:

Religion 1 a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Certainly under interpretation number four many White nationalist could be described as having a religious zeal. Some circles of admiration for Herr Hitler might even qualify under definition number three, although I believe that is more properly described as a cult. For me religion requires faith, a belief in something which is not explicitly proven by empirical observation. Belief in the Christian God requires faith; belief in race does not. Race is merely a mundane fact. A fact I would pay little heed were it not the most pressing problem confronting the remains of Western civilization.