Race Denial:-Seeking Confusion & Anhilation.
The Enlightenment
exchanges. These have usually ended after my antagonists explicitly
admitted their support, and even their desire, for Northern European
extinction.
The arguments used to deny the reality of race usually follow a
similar pattern. The race deniers begin with attempts to discredit
the traditional methods of racial classification, especially racial
typology based on phenotype or physical appearance, the combination of
all one's physical traits. Next they attempt to discredit the
traditional racial divisions that are based on these methods of
classification.
The purpose of this is to create confusion, ambiguity, and uncertainty
about race. A definition of race is usually lacking from the race
deniers' argument, either because they do not know how to define it,
or because they know that an accurate definition of race would refute
their argument. Finally, when enough confusion and ambiguity have
been created, they merely reject the concept of race. But if you
press the matter it usually becomes clear that the real issue for them
is not the methods of racial classification, nor even the reality of
races—the apparent focus of their argument—but the issue
of racial preservation, and especially the issue of Northern European
racial preservation. So when all is said and done, the ultimate issue
is the same for race deniers as it is for racial preservationists: the
continued existence of Northern European peoples and their racial
types. The difference is that deniers are against the continued
existence of the racial distinctiveness that differentiates Northern
European peoples from other populations, whereas preservationists
favor the survival of these racial traits and qualities.
A common tactic of race deniers is to demand proof of the reality of
race, without setting a standard of what constitutes sufficient proof.
Their standards of proof are artificially too high. This is related
to their avoidance of an objective or accurate definition of race.
Proof begins with an accurate definition, and it is the key to an
effective refutation of race denial arguments. So, what is this thing
called race?
To start at the beginning, the word race refers to the different
geographic populations of humanity that share a common ancestry and
can be distinguished from each other by an inherited combination of
morphological traits, i.e., by genetically determined physical
appearance or phenotypes. Race thus refers both to populations and to
the phenotypes that are associated with these populations and by which
they are identified. These populations and phenotypes existed for
many thousands of years before the word race became the common term to
refer to them. Thus the definition of the word race is, quite simply,
those populations and phenotypes to which it refers.
This is extracted in part from:
"Race: Reality and Denial; Richard McCulloch"
<http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no4/rm-race.html>
Full article continues on the above URL.
Is Race A Valid Taxonomic Construct?
<http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no1/jpr-taxonomic.html>
STATEMENT ON RACE AS A BIOLOGICAL CONCEPT
Darren Smith
"The Enlightenment" <bern...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:39556695.03072...@posting.google.com...
fasgnadh
Why are you seeking confusion and Anhilation(sic)? you have a
surplus of the former already, and the latter is guaranteed
because Human females won't let you pollute the gene
pool by swimming in it.
"The Enlightenment" <bern...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:39556695.03072...@posting.google.com...
> Some of my arguments with race deniers have been direct, one-on-one
> exchanges. These have usually ended after my antagonists explicitly
> admitted their support, and even their desire, for Northern European
> extinction.
>
Are you claiming 'Northern European" is one of your unscientific,
superstitious 'races'??? It's a geographic region of course, where
you can find people from Viking, Chinese, and African ancestry,
and of course.. all of them are originally of african ancestry.
So they come from a common, single, human race.
Clearly this makes nonsense of your straw man opening, as
a) I do not deny race, just recognise the scientific truth that there
is ONLY ONE, that we are all out of Africa, and that there is NO
GENETIC basis for a taxonomy of more than one 'race'
b) I do not support, or desire Northern European Extinction,
whatever the fuck you mean by it! B^p
Therefore, as your strawman does NOT represent the RATIONAL
challenge to your racist nonsense, but instead indulges YOUR
idiocy and racist garbage, we apply the GIGO principle to
all the rest, based on these faulty assumptions of yours, and
<snip> it.
The challenge to you, and all the primitive believers in racist
superstition remains.
1. How many 'races' do you claim exist, (including the single
one you have identified here; 'Northern European' (sic))
2. What are theses 'races' called.
2. What detailed genetic taxonomy DISTINGUISHES one 'race' from
another (for example you could start by explaining what makes
someone from your "Northern European" 'race' genetically different
from say, the Southern European 'race', or the Eastern and Western
European 'races'.
As you all hysterically rant that this is 'obvious' (just as the flat
earth was obvious to medieval primitives) this should not take you long...
Waiting for an intelligent response, as I have been for months....
perhaps you need a financial prize as an incentive? B^p
And that's the last of him we will hear for a while, apart from the
hysterical screeching and slanderous character assassinations from the
rest of the Klan Koven! B^p
true-blues believe in a FAIR Go for ALL (no matter what hair,
eye or skin colour)
------------
The Official Aus.Culture.True-Blue FAQ;
http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/faq.html
The True-Blue Homestead;
http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/
The True-Blue Hall Of Fame;
http://www.geocities.com/trueblue_hall_of_fame/index.html
The Tuckerbox;
http://www.geocities.com/true_blue_tucker_box/index.html
-----------
Lev Lafayette
> Some of my arguments with race deniers have been direct, one-on-one
> exchanges. These have usually ended after my antagonists explicitly
> admitted their support, and even their desire, for Northern European
> extinction.
I reckon you're making this up. Seeming that I'm one of you're "race
deniers" (I'm not really, the onus is on you to prove that such a
construct is real), I'd like you to show where "Northern European
extinction" is even a valid comment, let alone on the agenda.
> The arguments used to deny the reality of race usually follow a
> similar pattern. The race deniers begin with attempts to discredit
> the traditional methods of racial classification, especially racial
> typology based on phenotype or physical appearance, the combination of
> all one's physical traits.
Well, the history is one of imprecision.
http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant101/syllabus/race/race2.htm
> Next they attempt to discredit the
> traditional racial divisions that are based on these methods of
> classification.
Er, no. That's not the case at all.
From a third year zoology course (Olkahoma State University)
Definition of Race: A race is a geographically circumscribed
population or set of populations that differ from all other
populations of a species.
A Related Term: Subspecies; a race given formal taxonomic recognition
by assigning a subspecies name. For example neanderthals are sometimes
referred to as a subspecies of our species: Homo sapiens
neanderthalensis
You'll find very similar definitions is in any reputable biology
textbook.
Neanderthals were a subspecies of Homo Sapiens. Homo Sapiens Sapiens
is a subspecies of Homo Sapiens. But "black" or "white" or "blue-eyed"
or "red-haired" or "flat-footed" or O-positive blood type is not.
For example: King and Stansfield's Dictionary of Genetics (1990)
defines race as:
"A phenotypically and/or geographically distinctive subspecific group,
composed of individuals inhabiting a defined geographical and/or
ecological region, and possessing characteristic phenotypic and gene
frequencies that distinguish it from other such groups."
Do you understand yet?
> The purpose of this is to create confusion, ambiguity, and uncertainty
> about race.
No, it's about providing knowledge through precise, definitive and
testable propositions that have scientific credibility.
> A definition of race is usually lacking from the race
> deniers' argument, either because they do not know how to define it,
> or because they know that an accurate definition of race would refute
> their argument.
Bzzt! Wrong. Precise definition - something you've _never_ done -
provided above. And as shown, it's not a case of "race denial", it's a
case of pointing out that people like yourself are trying to create
extra races when they don't exist.
> Finally, when enough confusion and ambiguity have
> been created, they merely reject the concept of race.
If there is confusion and ambiguity over a term any rational person
does reject it. Those who steadfastly believe in the concept are the
one's who hang on to it.
> But if you
> press the matter it usually becomes clear that the real issue for them
> is not the methods of racial classification, nor even the reality of
> races—the apparent focus of their argument—but the issue
> of racial preservation,
Nope, wrong. I have always stated that I'm happy to accept the concept
of 'races', I just doubt whether (a) the human species is sufficiently
aged (b) hetrogenous and (c) subject to sufficient isolation for
racial subspecies to form. And, contrary to what you claimed in
November last year, the onus is _you_ to prove it. You have a
hypothesis that there is such a thing as races within homo sapien
sapiens. Well, prove it.
> and especially the issue of Northern European
> racial preservation.
To the best of my knowledge (which differs from belief), there is no
Northern European race. In fact there is isn't even a single northern
European culture. Or nationality. Or religion. Or, for that matter,
distinct physical trait which is geographically limited to northern
European.
It would seem, to an unprejudiced mind, there is no Northern European
race. Least of all in Australia.
> So when all is said and done, the ultimate issue
> is the same for race deniers as it is for racial preservationists: the
> continued existence of Northern European peoples and their racial
> types.
Note your logical progression here. First you avoid the onus of proof.
Then you are show yourself incapable of providing a definition. Then
you assume a racial group exists. And that someone wants to destroy it
(i.e., the one you evidently identify with). Some psychotherapists
might consider this just a little paranoid.
> The difference is that deniers are against the continued
> existence of the racial distinctiveness that differentiates Northern
> European peoples from other populations, whereas preservationists
> favor the survival of these racial traits and qualities.
But what are they?
> A common tactic of race deniers is to demand proof of the reality of
> race, without setting a standard of what constitutes sufficient proof.
Bzzt! Lie. Go back to earlier threads on aus.politics which you
skeedaddled from. Around November last year will be a good start.
> Their standards of proof are artificially too high. This is related
> to their avoidance of an objective or accurate definition of race.
> Proof begins with an accurate definition, and it is the key to an
> effective refutation of race denial arguments. So, what is this thing
> called race?
This ought to be interesting.
> To start at the beginning, the word race refers to the different
> geographic populations of humanity that share a common ancestry and
> can be distinguished from each other by an inherited combination of
> morphological traits, i.e., by genetically determined physical
> appearance or phenotypes.
Yes, but the standards in science are a little higher, because they
have to work out which physical traits are significant enough and
geographically isolated enough, to warrant the term "subspecies".
Otherwise you will have a "race" of the "blue-eyed" a race of the "red
haired" the "flat footed" and any or every trait you care to pull out
of your arse.
> Race thus refers both to populations and to
> the phenotypes that are associated with these populations and by which
> they are identified. These populations and phenotypes existed for
> many thousands of years before the word race became the common term to
> refer to them. Thus the definition of the word race is, quite simply,
> those populations and phenotypes to which it refers.
Which you still haven't defined.
> This is extracted in part from:
> "Race: Reality and Denial; Richard McCulloch"
> <http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no4/rm-race.html>
Wow. A dot com journal. You're really on the cutting edge of research.
That's up with "I read it on the Internet". Yeah, I read that Bill
Clinton is an lizard alien as well, and even on the aus.politics
newsgroup we have two people who reckons the share 95% of the DNA with
fruit flies.
Go do some serious research.
Here's some material you can _begin_ with.
http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant270/lectures/race/race1.htm
http://zoology.okstate.edu/zoo_lrc/zool3113/Lecture7.htm
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sdarwall/355l1899.txt
http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/ppa730/No-Race.htm
http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/sassaman/pages/classes/ant2000/ANT2000-6.htm
Note the consistent use of .edu - you could learn from that. Not all
websites are of the same quality.
Happy learning! And try not to hang on to beliefs and prejudices. It
really does limit one's capacity to think...
fasgnadh
"James Cameron" <bug...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bfllcm$ffckv$1...@ID-13547.news.uni-berlin.de...
> On 22 Jul 2003 23:44:48 -0700, bern...@yahoo.com.au (The
> Enlightenment) wrote:
>
> >A common tactic of race deniers is to demand proof of the reality of
> >race, without setting a standard of what constitutes sufficient proof.
> > Their standards of proof are artificially too high. This is related
> >to their avoidance of an objective or accurate definition of race.
>
>
> We can all tell the difference between a man who has no hair on his
> head and a man with a full head of hair. However, it's not possible to
> stipulate exactly how many hairs the second man must lose before
> everyone will agree he is bald.
So you are saying that your concept of 'race' is not a genuine
taxonomy, such as our ability to clearly differentiate species
by comparing Human DNA to Chimp DNA, but is instead
a gradual, non differentiated, sliding spectra like hirsute
to baldness, a mere single-trait continuity like tempreature,
or skin colour!
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SCIENTIFIC VIEW STATES!
THAT THERE IS NO BLACK 'RACE' OR WHITE 'RACE'
JUST LIKE THERE IS NO HIRSUTE 'RACE' AND NO BALD
'RACE"
There is simply ONE race, with a continuous variation for EVERY
single feature, tall to short, bald to hirsute, thin to fat, dark to
light hair, dark to light skin....
This is what EVERYONE can plainly observe.
Only those clinging desperately to an outmoded superstition
try to argue that they can draw a line and say 'This is the
Bald race and this other is the Hirsute Race" They are just
humans with varying degrees of hair! Which is CLEARLY
demonstrated when they move from hairless childhood
to hairy puberty and back to aged baldness.. AND IT DOESN'T
MEAN THEY **CHANGE 'RACE** you racist morons! B^D
Thanks for demonstrating that your ridiculous and unscientific
notions have no more basis in fact than declaring the Bald,
Hairy, Fat and Thin races! B^D
You blokes are a RIOT! BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!
Astroguy
So you are just going to plagiarize the whole text to impress us? What's
your thoughts on that?
--
Peace Through Superior Firepower,
Astroguy
--
Famous Quotation from genius:
"No you fucking lame ass homo, steam tanks can kill/attack anything in the
game." - Scott (sco...@columbus.rr.com) - alt.games.warcraft (RoC)
"A MK without his's mana is like a harmless little footman." - Dextr0 on
replayers.com
fasgnadh
"Lev Lafayette" <lev_la...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:95670408.03072...@posting.google.com...
I suspect our modern racists wish, by their posts in
Usenet, to identify themselves with that early subspecies,
and show themselves to be the knuckle dragging
neanderthaler race. ;-)
Watching The Big Picture, on ABC tonight, on "Red Gold, The
Epic Story of Blood" which confirms the self-defeating stupidy of this
unscientific 'racist ' myth.
The first example of self-destruction through irrational intolerance
of difference was the deterioration of German Medicine with
the internment of Jewish Doctors. In Berlin, for example, 70% of the
doctors were Jewish, and once they were purged, German medicine
suffered enormously, moving from world class to mediocrity.
They compounded the loss of life and increased suffering among the
German military by destroying German Blood Science. They would
only accept "Aryan" Blood, and yet, even at the height of the Nazi's
short and spectacularly destructive regime, there were not enough
pure Aryans to provide sufficient blood. Their expertise in
handling blood declined with the purge of Jewish doctors, they had
no transfusion equipment, and the allies, sharing Jew and Gentile blood
saved thousands more lives of theri injured soldiers.
Beautiful irony, don't you think?
Lethally Stupid! A self regulating trait! B^D
I think this fundamental science is still too difficult for them to grasp,
do you have anything with pictures and LARGE PRINT; ;-)
> For example: King and Stansfield's Dictionary of Genetics (1990)
> defines race as:
>
> "A phenotypically and/or geographically distinctive subspecific group,
> composed of individuals inhabiting a defined geographical and/or
> ecological region, and possessing characteristic phenotypic and gene
> frequencies that distinguish it from other such groups."
>
> Do you understand yet?
>
You have much more patience in trying to educate them than I do,
I am convinced they are deliberately obtuse, i.e. they will not
give up their unfounded prejudices no matter what rational
arguments are placed before them. This is because their
irrational belief is their only source of delusional solace.
Those who have no success, no personal achievements,
no talents, can feel worthy, even superior, simply
because of their skin colour, the comforting fantasy
of the infantile regressives;
"If you is white, you is allright,
If brown, stick aroun'
if black, get back"
With this simple mythos they feel 'naturally' superior,
no matter what their lack of sexual, financial, intellectual
or moral success may demonstrate to the contrary.
The one additional necessary delusion is that if reality
is the inverse of what their delusions would predict,
then they must be being cheated of their rightful place
by the evil {insert racist epithet here} B^p
No rational argument will cause them to give up such
a vital ego-prop.
But you do well to educate those almost as stupid as the racists themselves,
and thus prevent their contagion from spreading.
J. A.
can be swayed. Have you had any luck?
bern...@yahoo.com.au (The Enlightenment) wrote in message news:<39556695.03072...@posting.google.com>...
The Enlightenment
"Astroguy" <astrogu...@iinet.net.australia> wrote in message
news:3f1e6fa9$0$23614$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au...
> The Enlightenment wrote:
>
> >
> > This is extracted in part from:
> > "Race: Reality and Denial; Richard McCulloch"
> > <http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no4/rm-race.html>
> >
> > Full article continues on the above URL.
> >
> > Is Race A Valid Taxonomic Construct?
> > <http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no1/jpr-taxonomic.html>
> > STATEMENT ON RACE AS A BIOLOGICAL CONCEPT
>
> So you are just going to plagiarize the whole text to impress us? What's
> your thoughts on that?
>
I agree with Mr McCullochs article.
The "race deniers" are sophists. How can one pretend there is no race than
make it the centerpiece of ones ideology in terms of affirmative action,
politics etc.
It is also clear to me that the "race deniers" want racial annihilation and
ethnocide. By the perpetuating the myth that race doses not exist it
becomes possible to persecute, annihilate one group of people (whites) with
complete lack of remorse.
It is the anti-racists and race deniers who are the "ghosts of the
holocaust" stalking. Almost 1000 white Boer farmers out of 100,000 have
been murdered but it is easy to ignore these as victims because the 'race
deniers' claim that the white race in particular does;t exist.
All of the posters who have attacked me are a perfect parody of what Mr.
McCulloch has argued.
"Some of my arguments with race deniers have been direct, one-on-one
exchanges. These have usually ended after my antagonists explicitly
admitted their support, and even their desire, for Northern European
extinction.
The arguments used to deny the reality of race usually follow a
similar pattern. The race deniers begin with attempts to discredit
the traditional methods of racial classification, especially racial
typology based on phenotype or physical appearance, the combination of
all one's physical traits. Next they attempt to discredit the
traditional racial divisions that are based on these methods of
classification.
The purpose of this is to create confusion, ambiguity, and uncertainty
about race. A definition of race is usually lacking from the race
deniers' argument, either because they do not know how to define it,
or because they know that an accurate definition of race would refute
their argument. Finally, when enough confusion and ambiguity have
been created, they merely reject the concept of race. But if you
press the matter it usually becomes clear that the real issue for them
is not the methods of racial classification, nor even the reality of
races the apparent focus of their argument but the issue
The Enlightenment
"James Cameron" <bug...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bfllcm$ffckv$1...@ID-13547.news.uni-berlin.de...
> On 22 Jul 2003 23:44:48 -0700, bern...@yahoo.com.au (The
> Enlightenment) wrote:
>
> >race, without setting a standard of what constitutes sufficient proof.
> > Their standards of proof are artificially too high. This is related
> >to their avoidance of an objective or accurate definition of race.
>
>
> We can all tell the difference between a man who has no hair on his
> head and a man with a full head of hair. However, it's not possible to
> stipulate exactly how many hairs the second man must lose before
> everyone will agree he is bald.
>
> similarly impossible exactitude of definition. In this way, they hope
> to stifle debate.
>
> It's noticeable that the same standards of racial proof are never
> required for the many "positive" discrimination schemes. White men are
> easily identified as such when they are to be denied jobs or
> university places on the basis of their race.
I have to agree fully. The posters; like the white hating ethnic dross
(possibly part Sri Sanken) calling himself fasgnadh (Gallic to shit or
purge) is an precise example of the kind of person Mr McCulloch portrayed:
disingenuous sophists interested in winning rather than ascertaining truth
or honest compromise. Double standards are an manifestation of a hidden
agenda as Joseph Sobran points out.
They can, as you point out, all identify race when they need to to
discriminate against say whites (or Chinese) to achieve parity.
Their brazenness and ability to continue on his absurd 'race denial tactic
shows that he believes that by repeating a lie often enough it will become
believable. This in essence carries some truth as Marxist critical theory
and propaganda techniques all agree that a moronic repetition is effective.
Our reaction to them can only be revulsion. They are not honest people.
The Enlightenment
"J. A." <thee_pr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b123cd8.03072...@posting.google.com...
> Those who deny race are obviously insane. I don't think crazy people
> can be swayed. Have you had any luck?
It takes a while but I've had some success. There is a process people go
through when they start seeing things differently. You have to stay calm
friendly rational and respectfull of the other person. We need to
understand it and realise it can be difficult for people. During the proces
they sometimes hold two sets of mutualy oppositional view points. Remember
it is hard to go through out education system and not come out 'primed' as
marxist. Guilt mongering and cultural relativism etc are deeply ingrained
and modern political correctness is based around preventing children(white)
from aborbing their own culture.
This web site http://www.propaganda101.com looks at this from a right wing
point of view. The propaganda subweb is usefull:
http://www.propaganda101.com/Propaganda/Propaganda_Frame.htm
I think there is a more modern understanding of persuasion though. We need
to understand persusion. Logic and argument may not be enough but we have
one thing going for us:
Liberalism is dauntingly powerful. But the one force it does not have on its
side is truth. And that finally, is its one invincible enemy, and our one
unshakable friend.
-Fr. Ronald K. Tacelli, S.J.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
[E]recting walls that separate "us" from "them" is a necessary correlate of
morality since it defines the scope within which sympathy, fairness, and
duty operate...
---
The great achievement of Western culture since the Enlightenment is to make
many of us peer over the wall and grant some respect to people outside it;
the great failure of Western Culture is to deny that walls are inevitable or
important.
-James Q. Wilson
The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, or
preventing all possibility of its continuing as a nation at all, would be to
permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.
-Theodore Roosevelt
There are limits to representative government. ...Although anything and
anywhere can be represented, everything and everywhere cannot. A world state
is implausible because states need something to contrast themselves with.
-David Runciman
Darren Smith
"James Cameron" <bug...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bfllcm$ffckv$1...@ID-13547.news.uni-berlin.de...
> On 22 Jul 2003 23:44:48 -0700, bern...@yahoo.com.au (The
> Enlightenment) wrote:
>
> >A common tactic of race deniers is to demand proof of the reality of
> >race, without setting a standard of what constitutes sufficient proof.
> > Their standards of proof are artificially too high. This is related
> >to their avoidance of an objective or accurate definition of race.
>
Darren Smith
So you are saying that if the Scandinavians migrated to the equator that
after 10,.000 years they's still all be blue-eyed blondes with milky white
skin?
Darren Smith
well? But aren't Jews white?
And russians would be asians by your thinking?
"J. A." <thee_pr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b123cd8.03072...@posting.google.com...
Maxine Mallory
> Some of my arguments with race deniers have been direct, one-on-one
> exchanges. These have usually ended after my antagonists explicitly
> admitted their support, and even their desire, for Northern European
> extinction.
>
... other bollox extinguished
WTF are you on about?
WTF is a race denier?
WTF is Northern European extinction?
Get a life man/woman. Life is too short to spend it debating quack
theories on race.
Can an Eskimo man mate with an Australian aboriginal woman and produce
healthy offspring?
Similarly can any man from any part of this small piece of rock
orbiting the sun mate with a woman from any other part?
The answer is YES. That is good enough for me. We're all compatible
with each other. Full stop. End of argument.
The rest is just playing with words and semantics. Are we all the same
race but difference breeds? Different races, same species? Who cares?
Nobody in their right mind does. Apart from those with an agenda, but
then those are not of a right mind are they?
Max
J. A.
> "J. A." <thee_pr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b123cd8.03072...@posting.google.com...
> > Those who deny race are obviously insane. I don't think crazy people
> > can be swayed. Have you had any luck?
>
> It takes a while but I've had some success. There is a process people go
> through when they start seeing things differently. You have to stay calm
> friendly rational and respectfull of the other person.
There see, I have very little patience with these types of people.
They usually react in a childish tantrum which makes me want to cudgel
them over the head. lmao
J. A.
"Darren Smith" <liar...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message news:<3f1e...@news.comindico.com.au>...
Diablo
> Some of my arguments with race deniers have been direct, one-on-one
> exchanges. These have usually ended after my antagonists explicitly
> admitted their support, and even their desire, for Northern European
> extinction.
If you don't want Northern European extinction, start breading.
Then again, we don't want little NAZI turds tunning around.
> The arguments used to deny the reality of race usually follow a
> similar pattern. The race deniers begin with attempts to discredit
> the traditional methods of racial classification, especially racial
> typology based on phenotype or physical appearance, the combination of
> all one's physical traits. Next they attempt to discredit the
> traditional racial divisions that are based on these methods of
> classification.
>
> The purpose of this is to create confusion, ambiguity, and uncertainty
> about race. A definition of race is usually lacking from the race
> deniers' argument, either because they do not know how to define it,
> or because they know that an accurate definition of race would refute
> their argument. Finally, when enough confusion and ambiguity have
> been created, they merely reject the concept of race. But if you
> press the matter it usually becomes clear that the real issue for them
> is not the methods of racial classification, nor even the reality of
> races—the apparent focus of their argument—but the issue
> of racial preservation, and especially the issue of Northern European
> racial preservation. So when all is said and done, the ultimate issue
> is the same for race deniers as it is for racial preservationists: the
> continued existence of Northern European peoples and their racial
> types. The difference is that deniers are against the continued
> existence of the racial distinctiveness that differentiates Northern
> European peoples from other populations, whereas preservationists
> favor the survival of these racial traits and qualities.
What a load of crap.
You have a problem because Northern Europeans breed less. That's life.
> A common tactic of race deniers is to demand proof of the reality of
> race, without setting a standard of what constitutes sufficient proof.
> Their standards of proof are artificially too high. This is related
> to their avoidance of an objective or accurate definition of race.
> Proof begins with an accurate definition, and it is the key to an
> effective refutation of race denial arguments. So, what is this thing
> called race?
>
> To start at the beginning, the word race refers to the different
> geographic populations of humanity that share a common ancestry and
> can be distinguished from each other by an inherited combination of
> morphological traits, i.e., by genetically determined physical
> appearance or phenotypes. Race thus refers both to populations and to
> the phenotypes that are associated with these populations and by which
> they are identified. These populations and phenotypes existed for
> many thousands of years before the word race became the common term to
> refer to them. Thus the definition of the word race is, quite simply,
> those populations and phenotypes to which it refers.
10,000 years ago we were all african;)
How far back in time do you go to define a race???
NAZI's are a danger to our society.
Darren Smith
OK - you should just admit though.
Darren Smith
"amadis" <ama...@people.it> wrote in message
news:bfms0a$eol$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> The Enlightenment wrote:
>
> > Some of my arguments with race deniers have been direct, one-on-one
> > exchanges. These have usually ended after my antagonists explicitly
> > admitted their support, and even their desire, for Northern European
> > extinction.
>
> Sounds like you're talking bollocks again. What on earth is 'Northern
> European extinction'?
Lev Lafayette
> "Astroguy" <astrogu...@iinet.net.australia> wrote in message
> news:3f1e6fa9$0$23614$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au...
> > The Enlightenment wrote:
>
> I agree with Mr McCullochs article.
>
> The "race deniers" are sophists. How can one pretend there is no race than
> make it the centerpiece of ones ideology in terms of affirmative action,
> politics etc.
Nope. Don't do that. As someone who has argued a great deal with you
about this and has been involved in the real world of politics you'll
be struggling to see any instance where I've advocated, let alone
implemented, racially based affirmative action.
> It is also clear to me that the "race deniers" want racial annihilation and
> ethnocide. By the perpetuating the myth that race doses not exist it
> becomes possible to persecute, annihilate one group of people (whites) with
> complete lack of remorse.
This is a paranoid delusion of your own construction.
> It is the anti-racists and race deniers who are the "ghosts of the
> holocaust" stalking. Almost 1000 white Boer farmers out of 100,000 have
> been murdered but it is easy to ignore these as victims because the 'race
> deniers' claim that the white race in particular does;t exist.
You're makling this up. All that's ever been requested is that you
show us what races exist and how you have defined this in a manner
that fits a modern dictionary of genetics.
> All of the posters who have attacked me are a perfect parody of what Mr.
> McCulloch has argued.
You're engaging in assertion.
> "Some of my arguments with race deniers have been direct, one-on-one
> exchanges. These have usually ended after my antagonists explicitly
> admitted their support, and even their desire, for Northern European
> extinction.
Is Northern European a race? If so, why?
> The arguments used to deny the reality of race usually follow a
> similar pattern. The race deniers begin with attempts to discredit
> the traditional methods of racial classification, especially racial
> typology based on phenotype or physical appearance, the combination of
> all one's physical traits.
Nothing wrong with criticism of prior attempts of classification. Is
there?
> Next they attempt to discredit the
> traditional racial divisions that are based on these methods of
> classification.
If the methodology of classification is flawed then the divisions will
probably be flawed as well. Please keep up.
> The purpose of this is to create confusion, ambiguity, and uncertainty
> about race.
No, the purpose is to be precise, unambigious and definite.
> A definition of race is usually lacking from the race
> deniers' argument, either because they do not know how to define it,
> or because they know that an accurate definition of race would refute
> their argument.
Nope, you're lying. I've constantly provided you with a definition,
and one that fits current scientific definitions. You, on the other
hand, have constantly avoided a definition. Instead you have
arbritrarily claimed the existence of particular races through
assertion alone.
> Finally, when enough confusion and ambiguity have
> been created, they merely reject the concept of race.
If confusion and ambiguity exists then it is rational that category is
rejected. Only an insane person hangs onto a theory that struggles to
have a relationship with reality.
> But if you
> press the matter it usually becomes clear that the real issue for them
> is not the methods of racial classification, nor even the reality of
> races the apparent focus of their argument but the issue
> of racial preservation, and especially the issue of Northern European
> racial preservation.
See how you've done this? Firstly you engage in falsities about the
definition and categorization of races. Then, having utterly failed to
provide a definition, you claim that this is really a matter of racial
(Northern European) racial preseveration. _Without_ ever stating what
this is.
This is a temporal fallacy. Of course I don't care less about the
preservation of the Northern European race (yet), because I haven't
been provided the evidence that such a race exists. You're asking
people, as a matter of faith, to care about the leprachauns proir to
showing us what and where the leprachauns are...
> So when all is said and done, the ultimate issue
> is the same for race deniers as it is for racial preservationists: the
> continued existence of Northern European peoples and their racial
> types. The difference is that deniers are against the continued
> existence of the racial distinctiveness that differentiates Northern
> European peoples from other populations, whereas preservationists
> favor the survival of these racial traits and qualities."
It seems to me that your ego is so fragile, you lack sufficient
strength of internal identity, that you need an artificial and
constructed group identity to make you feel like a real person.
Oh well, nationality and religion works for some... Race for others.
The Enlightenment
I think there at 2 types. People that active seek the anihilation of
the white genotype by all means possible: immigraion, asylum seekers,
open borders, promotion of white guilt, discrimination against whites
in the form of affirmitive action. These people are subtle racists
who use double standards to hide their hidden agenda. They often bring
up injustices from hundred of years ago/ Very often (I thinkk mostly)
they are not white themselves. For instace jews in the radical left
that formed some 50% of the NAACP (national Associaltion for the
Advancem,ent of Colored People) but in some cases they are however
white. These people seem to do so for 3 reasons:
1: a sense of moral outrage which is an over reaction or maladpation
of altrusim and sense of fair play to 'percieved' injustices to other
races or
2: a desire to 'status' seek i.e. by adopting 'superior moral
values' they can increase their standing within a particular
community.
3 a desire to avoid racial guilt by becoming self hating.
The second type of person is not a racial anhiliationist but a pretend
nihilst. These people realy do care about their own kind but dare not
speak out to protect themselves against injustice and anti-white
vilification. When challenged they relucatanly and angrily admit that
it doesn't matter if the white race disappears even if it is the only
one. Their anger is an indication it realy does matter and that they
are torn between caring and the fear of being branded a racist,
redneck or Nazi.
Darren Smith
over it dude.
"The Enlightenment" <bern...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:39556695.03072...@posting.google.com...
The Enlightenment
> bern...@yahoo.com.au (The Enlightenment) wrote in message news:<39556695.03072...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Some of my arguments with race deniers have been direct, one-on-one
> > exchanges. These have usually ended after my antagonists explicitly
> > admitted their support, and even their desire, for Northern European
> > extinction.
> >
>
> ... other bollox extinguished
>
> WTF are you on about?
I will take the question to be:
1/ A rhetorical attempt at ad hominem or
2/ An indication that you lack the ability to read and comprehend.
You can read the article again here:
"Race: Reality and Denial; Richard McCulloch"
<http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no4/rm-race.html>
>
> WTF is a race denier?
A person who that believes race doesn't exist but then uses it as a
basis for preferentialy tratment of 'minority' races.
A person who spends a lot of time trying to prove the white race in
particular doesn't exist. The reason that they spend so much time
doing this is becuase race deniel is semantic obfusification and
counter inturitve!
>
> WTF is Northern European extinction?
Northern Europeans or 'white' people are those humans which evolved in
the Northern circumpolar region. They have white skin, fairer in
women (child bearers) which allows then to make vitamins in low light
conditions. They tend to have all color of hair but mainly and
uniquely brown, blond, red as well as black. They tend to have all
colors of eyes but many are uniquely blue.
They have narrow noses, closely spaced eyes, a long ecleptic head with
a large brain space 'on top'. They are paleolithic people and evolved
in Northern Europe under genetic isolation for 30,000-40,000 years due
to the ice age. About 9,000 years ago at the end of a major ice age
some neolithic peoples from the near east immigrated but according to
both y-chromosome and mDNA data this was never more than 20% in any
region. (See E Sykes: the 7 daughters of Eve)
Northern European extinction is happening. The Fertility rate is only
1.5 children per woman per 20 year generation (ie a decline of 30%
every 20 years). This is due to the presures on Nothern Europeans are
under due to "replacement immigration" which is an immigraion rate of
about 1% per year (20% per 20 year generation). This for instance
forces up the price of land and increases competion for emplyment
while stretching the infrastucture and natural resorces of a nation.
>
> Get a life man/woman. Life is too short to spend it debating quack
> theories on race.
Au Contraire, you are the once supporting pernicious quack theories on
race. A race denier deconstucts race so that he can anihilate that
'non existant' race.
Why don't you get real, get honest and join us?
I have chosen to dedicate myself to the protection and preservation of
white people and their defense aginst those who depracate and villifiy
us. Race deniel is a prelude to a potential white holocaust.
I stand for truth and justice but most of all truth.
>
> Can an Eskimo man mate with an Australian aboriginal woman and produce
> healthy offspring?
Yes, but the ofsping will likely not be adapted as well to the
traditional environemnts. The eskimo has short ears and nose to avoid
frostbite and eyes with a monlid to avoid snow blindness. The
aborigigianl has black skin to avoid sun damage anhd possibly a very
large visual cortex by human standards. While the eskimos light skin
allows him/her to make vitamins in the poor light in which an
aboriginal migh get sick. They have certain adaptations: the eskimo
can say healthy on a very high fat diet. The aboriginal has the
ability to shut downb blood flow in his lower legs to conserve heat.
>
> Similarly can any man from any part of this small piece of rock
> orbiting the sun mate with a woman from any other part?
There is a "human species". The human species can be subdivided into
varius races based on the aggregation of phyical charcteristics.
These characteristics correlate with ancestry.
There are no negroes whith ancesters in Finland or Shanghai.
You may follow this link to find a company to test your racial
origins.
<http://www.ancestrybydna.com/>
>
> The answer is YES. That is good enough for me. We're all compatible
> with each other. Full stop. End of argument.
Not true.
Decades of IQ reserach shows that the vast differences in congitive
ability amongst some of the different races are heriditary. Blacks
have 22% higher testosteron than whites (and this leads to behavioral
differences), mature sexualy 1 year earlier and their neckless babies
can lift their heads after only 13 hours wherears a white or asian
child needs 13 WEEKS!
We have mapped genes for IQ, proness to dpression, vulnerability to
criminality, novelty seeking and risk avoidence.
A gene on allele 5 chromosome 6 has even been discovered that
correlates to
4 extra points to IQ.
<http://www.sciencenet.emory.edu/mismeasure/genius/research03.html>
Look at the fact that the black crime rate is 8 times higher than the
white crime rate in the US after 40 years of affirmitve action, look
at how under aprtheid the Sth African crime rate is 6 times the
overall US crime rate. The same in the UK. What about Somalia,
Rwanda, Congo, Zinbabwe, Sth African, Liberia?
Go to http://www.amren.com and download "the color of crime" from
the homepage or go directly to http://www.amren.com/color.pdf
For the UK a similar trend is shown:
"Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System, 2000"
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/s95race00.pdf
You haven't travelled enough have you? Not to the trouble spots
anyway.
>
> The rest is just playing with words and semantics. Are we all the same
> race but difference breeds?
No. While we are all the same species we different races.
Breeds (which you use interchangeably to race) refers to a deliberate
selection and mating of animals by humans while races are the product
of tens of thousands years of natural instead of artifical selection
while in isolation.
> Different races, same species? Who cares?
I do. Love your race I say. There is noting hatefull about that? I
don not hate other races. I just don't deny that they exist!
We are being targeted by people that want what we have, do not care if
they hurt us. They call their plunder and villification of us
"anti-racism" and "justice" just as an extortion racketeer might call
his extortion of shop keepers "protection" or "insurance".
> Nobody in their right mind does.
Why should I not care to protect my interests and those of my kin and
blood brothers and sisters. That is extremely sane. It is you who is
insane. A nihilst lacking concerns!
> Apart from those with an agenda, but
> then those are not of a right mind are they?
>
> Max
We stand on the brink of ethnocide. Of anhilation. Do you care? Do
you dare give me an unequivocal answer?
Why don;t you care? Perhaps you want out ethnocide? Who and what
race are you? Where did your ancestors come from?
*********************************
Philip Rushtons "Race Evolution Behavior". Is a 500 page book but a
free 50
page abridged edition in .pdf format is available from this page
<http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/reb.html>
or can be downloaded directly from:
<http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf>
The Enlightenment
> news:f_vTa.10243$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
>
> So you are saying that if the Scandinavians migrated to the equator that
> after 10,.000 years they's still all be blue-eyed blondes with milky white
> skin?
Depends on their level of technology. If they are highly
technological they will spend much time sheltered in doors and well
clothed and dark skin will offer no advantage and may even be a
disadvatage.
Light skin is better at capturing light for vitamin productions (which
is why women are fairer; to suppor the foetus), a modest temprement
suitable for monogamy, intelligence and foresight for preparing for
winter when stores, adauete shelter, cloting and advanced
tools/weapons for big game hunting are all part of european
adaptations. (Female gathering, as pygamies and african tribes rely
on does not work in winter)
Genes if advantageous propagate rapidly throgh a population.
Something like the ability to digest milk increased the fertility rate
of some people by only a small percentage but this was enough to go
from 5% of the population throught to 95% over only about 800 years.
Just do a calculation similar to 1.01^50 where the 50 represents 50 x
20 year generations over a 1000 year period.
Typicaly eurpeans can not cope with tropical illness which is why we
used to use black slaves. Tey in turn can not handle pulmanory and
lung infections which is why they die in cold weather with flu. Note
the aborignals cricket teams losses in Enfalnd 100 years ago or the
high mortality of Blacks who moved to the Nth afte the civil war.
Someone New
"Diablo" <dia...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:FaFTa.10788$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "The Enlightenment" <bern...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:39556695.03072...@posting.google.com...
> > Some of my arguments with race deniers have been direct, one-on-one
> > exchanges. These have usually ended after my antagonists explicitly
> > admitted their support, and even their desire, for Northern European
> > extinction.
>
> If you don't want Northern European extinction, start breading.
> Then again, we don't want little NAZI turds tunning around.
>
wants Northern Europeans to survive is dismissed by you as a "NAZI turd".
Clearly you hate the thought of Northern European survival.
Now, I wonder, how can I break this to you gently ... ? Oh, heck, I won't
bother with gentility. By your own statement you are a genocidal anti-white
racist piece of filth.
I have a problem with lots of species of animals and plants that "breed
less". For example, bilbies in Oz "breed less" than rabbits, while cane
toads "breed more" than so many more desirable species. That concern makes
me an environmentalist. Yes, the less-than-replacement reproduction rates of
Nordics may be "life", but environmentalists like me equally rejoice when
the bilbies make a bit of a comeback here or there, and mourn when the
rabbits keep destroying our environment.
>
> > A common tactic of race deniers is to demand proof of the reality of
> > race, without setting a standard of what constitutes sufficient proof.
> > Their standards of proof are artificially too high. This is related
> > to their avoidance of an objective or accurate definition of race.
> > Proof begins with an accurate definition, and it is the key to an
> > effective refutation of race denial arguments. So, what is this thing
> > called race?
> >
> > To start at the beginning, the word race refers to the different
> > geographic populations of humanity that share a common ancestry and
> > can be distinguished from each other by an inherited combination of
> > morphological traits, i.e., by genetically determined physical
> > appearance or phenotypes. Race thus refers both to populations and to
> > the phenotypes that are associated with these populations and by which
> > they are identified. These populations and phenotypes existed for
> > many thousands of years before the word race became the common term to
> > refer to them. Thus the definition of the word race is, quite simply,
> > those populations and phenotypes to which it refers.
>
> 10,000 years ago we were all african;)
> How far back in time do you go to define a race???
The Northern European peoples were firmly established in Europe in
Cro-Magnon times, perhaps 35,000 years ago. According to H V Vallois (for
his credentials check him out in an encyclopedia), the Fontechevade people
of perhaps 180,000 years ago were our earlier Nordic ancestors. And
Swanscombe Woman, who again looked like a modern Nordic and who apparently
had a perfectly modern brain, dates from 435,000 to 230,000 years ago.
Is that enough time for you? Our race has been around for up to 435,000
years. Your statement that "10,000 years ago we were all african" is just
insane ignorance.
> NAZI's are a danger to our society.
No: total ignoramuses are a danger to ANY society. Try to get an education
before you make some equally idiotically stupid comments in future.
Jonathan Bratt
<liar...@whitehouse.gov> writes
>When you die and re-incarnat chances are you won't be white that time. Get
>over it dude.
>
>
--
Jonathan Bratt
The Enlightenment
> Sounds like the Aryan myth to me.
>
>
What is this "the aryan myth"
Sounds like the "myth of the aryan myth" to me.
Diablo
"Someone New" <someo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:t_LTa.11728$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Diablo" <dia...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:FaFTa.10788$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "The Enlightenment" <bern...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:39556695.03072...@posting.google.com...
> > > Some of my arguments with race deniers have been direct, one-on-one
> > > exchanges. These have usually ended after my antagonists explicitly
> > > admitted their support, and even their desire, for Northern European
> > > extinction.
> >
> > If you don't want Northern European extinction, start breading.
> > Then again, we don't want little NAZI turds tunning around.
> >
> "The Enlightenment" is right, though, as you have just indicated. Anyone
who
> wants Northern Europeans to survive is dismissed by you as a "NAZI turd".
I was refering to the so called "Enlightment" as a NAZI, not all northern
europeans, dickhead!
> Clearly you hate the thought of Northern European survival.
No I don't hate the survival of northern europeans, dickhead!
Infact, I don't hate the survival of anyone, dickhead!
Unlike yourself and your fellow NAZI wankers.
Tell someone who cares, dickhead!
The only insane ignorant here is you and your fellow NAZI wankers, dickhead!
> > NAZI's are a danger to our society.
>
> No: total ignoramuses are a danger to ANY society. Try to get an education
> before you make some equally idiotically stupid comments in future.
NAZI's ARE total ignoramuses, dickhead!
Diablo
"James Cameron" <bug...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bfo55e$h0clu$1...@ID-13547.news.uni-berlin.de...
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 23:49:57 GMT, "Diablo" <dia...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >10,000 years ago we were all african;)
> >How far back in time do you go to define a race???
>
> Your figures are wrong. Allow me to quote a few paragraphs from the
> following:
>
> Is Race A Valid Taxonomic Construct?
> by
> Professor J. Philippe Rushton, University of Western Ontario
>
> Modern humans evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Africans and
> non-Africans then split about 110,000 years ago. Orientals and Whites
> split about 40,000 years ago, around the time that modern humans were
> first in Europe. Analyses of DNA sequencing, along with the fossil and
> archaeological record, demonstrate this sequence
>
> Sometimes it is claimed by those who argue that race is just a social
> construct that the human genome project shows that because people
> share 99% of their "genes" in common, that there are no races. This is
> silly. Human genes are 98% similar to chimpanzee genes. Yet no one
> thinks that chimpanzees have the same intelligence, brain size, or
> social behavior patterns as human beings; they look and behave very
> differently. In fact humans share 90% of their genes with mice, which
> is why we can use them to test drug therapies. Similarly, although men
> and women are genetically 99% the same, it is foolish to believe that
> sex is just a "social construction".
>
> In summary, the same racial pattern would not occur so consistently
> all around the world and over time if race were a mere social
> construct. If it were a meaningless construct, it would have no power
> to predict phenomena like brain size, growth rate, life span, crime,
> and family stability. Other evidence also shows that race is a
> biological reality. For example, coroners in crime labs can identify
> race from a skeleton or even just the skull. They can even identify
> race from blood, hair, or semen. How could they do this if race was
> only a social construct? The scientific evidence shows that the
> politically correct mantra "race is just skin deep" is a case of deep
> denial.
Jonathan Bratt
<bug...@btinternet.com> writes
>homosexual.
God I hope so. If I continue to live a virtuous life I will come back as
a homosexual something - unless that is I have already reached Nirvana!
--
Jonathan Bratt
Jonathan Bratt
Enlightenment <bern...@yahoo.com.au> writes
>"Darren Smith" <liar...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
>news:<3f1f2632$1...@news.comindico.com.au>...
>> Sounds like the Aryan myth to me.
>>
>>
>
>What is this "the aryan myth"
A blonde German Fraulein?
(With apologies to bo)
--
Jonathan Bratt
Jonathan Bratt
<ama...@people.it> writes
Surely - you can't mean - a Daily Mail reporter!!! The Horror!!!
--
Jonathan Bratt
The Enlightenment
"Lev Lafayette" <lev_la...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:95670408.03072...@posting.google.com...
> "The Enlightenment" <bern...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:<f_vTa.10243$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > "Astroguy" <astrogu...@iinet.net.australia> wrote in message
> > news:3f1e6fa9$0$23614$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au...
> > > The Enlightenment wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Mr McCullochs article.
> >
> > The "race deniers" are sophists. How can one pretend there is no race
than
> > make it the centerpiece of ones ideology in terms of affirmative action,
> > politics etc.
>
> Nope. Don't do that. As someone who has argued a great deal with you
> about this and has been involved in the real world of politics you'll
> be struggling to see any instance where I've advocated, let alone
> implemented, racially based affirmative action.
No, perhaps not you persponaly. The affirmitice action double standard is
so hypocritcal many do not support it openly but they certainly galdly
acqueice to it.
>
>
> > It is also clear to me that the "race deniers" want racial annihilation
and
> > ethnocide. By the perpetuating the myth that race doses not exist it
> > becomes possible to persecute, annihilate one group of people (whites)
with
> > complete lack of remorse.
>
> This is a paranoid delusion of your own construction.
I think if you look at the situation of Sth African and Zimbabwe you will
see it has a rational base. The 4.5 million Ukranians murdered were
murdered by non Ukranians or different race. Many were attached to a theory
of evolution based on Lamark/Lysenko: the ultimate race denial.
it can happen and the conditions are being created. It is almost impossible
to get out of Sth Africa or even Zimbabwe.
>
>
> > It is the anti-racists and race deniers who are the "ghosts of the
> > holocaust" stalking. Almost 1000 white Boer farmers out of 100,000
have
> > been murdered but it is easy to ignore these as victims because the
'race
> > deniers' claim that the white race in particular does;t exist.
>
> You're makling this up. All that's ever been requested is that you
> show us what races exist and how you have defined this in a manner
> that fits a modern dictionary of genetics.
Define a modern dictionary of genetics? By modern you mean politically
correct?
I've posted a web pages severla times that show that the aggregate of only
2-3 characteritics determines ancestral origins.
>
> > All of the posters who have attacked me are a perfect parody of what Mr.
> > McCulloch has argued.
>
> You're engaging in assertion.
Nothing wrong with assertion: it is not a logical fallacy.
I'm not going to list every instance but a reader of the original article
and a reader of these subsequent posts will see merrit in that 'assertion'
and liekly agree.
>
> > "Some of my arguments with race deniers have been direct, one-on-one
> > exchanges. These have usually ended after my antagonists explicitly
> > admitted their support, and even their desire, for Northern European
> > extinction.
>
> Is Northern European a race? If so, why?
Because they look different, have a different physilogy, different
enurophysilogy, and perfrom differently in sports and cogntive areas to
other races eg Africans and Chinese. Alos becuase they split of from
Africans at least 120,000 years ago by the out of africa theory.
>
> > The arguments used to deny the reality of race usually follow a
> > similar pattern. The race deniers begin with attempts to discredit
> > the traditional methods of racial classification, especially racial
> > typology based on phenotype or physical appearance, the combination of
> > all one's physical traits.
>
> Nothing wrong with criticism of prior attempts of classification. Is
> there?
No, it goes on ad nauseum and beyond serious engagement in argument.
>
> > Next they attempt to discredit the
> > traditional racial divisions that are based on these methods of
> > classification.
>
> If the methodology of classification is flawed then the divisions will
> probably be flawed as well. Please keep up.
The traitional methods of racial classification work: they predict ancestry
and racial heritage they correlate with modern DNA methods.
Mongoloid, Caucasian and African are the three basic classifications that
reflect 100% on ancestry.
>
> > The purpose of this is to create confusion, ambiguity, and uncertainty
> > about race.
>
> No, the purpose is to be precise, unambigious and definite.
Implacably disingenious.
>
> > A definition of race is usually lacking from the race
> > deniers' argument, either because they do not know how to define it,
> > or because they know that an accurate definition of race would refute
> > their argument.
>
> Nope, you're lying. I've constantly provided you with a definition,
> and one that fits current scientific definitions. You, on the other
> hand, have constantly avoided a definition. Instead you have
> arbritrarily claimed the existence of particular races through
> assertion alone.
I've never avoided definition. You classicaly will argue that a tan on a
white is evidence that skin color does not determin race.
>
> > Finally, when enough confusion and ambiguity have
> > been created, they merely reject the concept of race.
>
> If confusion and ambiguity exists then it is rational that category is
> rejected. Only an insane person hangs onto a theory that struggles to
> have a relationship with reality.
Can you tell a Japanese from an Nigerian from a From an Estonian?
The only struggle with reality is yours.
>
> > But if you
> > press the matter it usually becomes clear that the real issue for them
> > is not the methods of racial classification, nor even the reality of
> > races the apparent focus of their argument but the issue
> > of racial preservation, and especially the issue of Northern European
> > racial preservation.
>
> See how you've done this? Firstly you engage in falsities about the
> definition and categorization of races.
No. you engage in falsities about the definition and categorization of
races. you deny they exist and having failed that you bare facedly lie by
declaring that i have not provided a definition.
Race is simply ancestry: big familes that evolved and interbred in
isolation. There are no africans with chinese ancestry.
Happy now?
I've provided this link in just about every post I have ever made to you:
Is Race A Valid Taxonomic Construct?
<http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no1/jpr-taxonomic.html>
STATEMENT ON RACE AS A BIOLOGICAL CONCEPT
Race can also be defined by geneitc aggrgation ie a genotype. You can test
your autonomic (non mDNA) and determin which onese came from African, Asian,
Indian or European background.
Then, having utterly failed to
> provide a definition, you claim that this is really a matter of racial
> (Northern European) racial preseveration. _Without_ ever stating what
> this is.
There you go again with your race denial argument.
>
> This is a temporal fallacy. Of course I don't care less about the
> preservation of the Northern European race (yet), because I haven't
> been provided the evidence that such a race exists.
I beleive you are a Liar perhaps to yourself.
You don't care about the preservation of the white human race infact you
prefer its anhiliation.
You deny race becuase it suits your desire. A semantic slight of hand.
> You're asking
> people, as a matter of faith, to care about the leprachauns proir to
> showing us what and where the leprachauns are...
Race is real. you can instantly tell a European from a Chinese or African.
>
> > So when all is said and done, the ultimate issue
> > is the same for race deniers as it is for racial preservationists: the
> > continued existence of Northern European peoples and their racial
> > types. The difference is that deniers are against the continued
> > existence of the racial distinctiveness that differentiates Northern
> > European peoples from other populations, whereas preservationists
> > favor the survival of these racial traits and qualities."
>
> It seems to me that your ego is so fragile, you lack sufficient
> strength of internal identity, that you need an artificial and
> constructed group identity to make you feel like a real person.
I have a very strong sense of identity. I am also out to protect my race
aginst its detractors, villifiers, defamers and deniers.
> Oh well, nationality and religion works for some... Race for others.
As nation states are destroyed people will turn to race, religion, extended
family or other such things.
As the nation state fails to protect us whites will need to become activists
to oppose the other ethnic lobbies.
The Enlightenment
> homosexual.
These nutters no doubt have slugs, tape worms and cockroaches in their past
and expect to in the future.
I'm not surpassed that they adopt the reincarnation myths of the
subcontinent: an area still dotted with ignorance, caste discrimination
against dallits, bride/dowry burning and female infanticide and only saved
from the custom of widow burning the custom of imperialists to hang such
people.
I don't hold much to superstition, however if anything, I'll be feasting in
the great hall Asgar with my father, my ancestors and other men of courage.
The Enlightenment
>
> "Someone New" <someo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:t_LTa.11728$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "Diablo" <dia...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:FaFTa.10788$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > >
> > > "The Enlightenment" <bern...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > > news:39556695.03072...@posting.google.com...
> > > > Some of my arguments with race deniers have been direct, one-on-one
> > > > exchanges. These have usually ended after my antagonists explicitly
> > > > admitted their support, and even their desire, for Northern European
>
> Infact, I don't hate the survival of anyone, dickhead!
No you support multicrapism and oppose assimilation: unless it's of Northern
Europeans.
Anyone that diagrees an you turn into a raveing lunatic as displayed by
these infantile outburst:
> Unlike yourself and your fellow NAZI wankers.
> Tell someone who cares, dickhead!
> The only insane ignorant here is you and your fellow NAZI wankers,
dickhead!
> NAZI's ARE total ignoramuses, dickhead!
I guess this passes for conceding a debate with you?
AlanG
<liar...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>When you die and re-incarnat chances are you won't be white that time.
Not even warm blooded
Get
>over it dude.
>
>
Alan G
The rule of law 'excludes the idea of any exemption
of officials or others from the duty of obedience to
the law which governs other citizens or from the
jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals'
(Dicey)
Ned Latham
in <bflpsv$1ri3$1...@arachne.labyrinth.net.au>:
> James Cameron wrote:
> > "The Enlightenment" wrote:
> > >
> > > A common tactic of race deniers is to demand proof of the reality of
> > > race, without setting a standard of what constitutes sufficient proof.
> > > Their standards of proof are artificially too high. This is related
> > > to their avoidance of an objective or accurate definition of race.
> >
> >
> > We can all tell the difference between a man who has no hair on his
> > head and a man with a full head of hair. However, it's not possible to
> > stipulate exactly how many hairs the second man must lose before
> > everyone will agree he is bald.
>
> So you are saying that your concept of 'race' is not a genuine
> taxonomy,
Wrong again, moron. Learn to read. He's saying that you're using the
Bald Man Fallacy.
Remaining lunatic ranting treated as it deserves.
----snip----
Ned
--
Public key: http://pgp.mit.edu/ http://www.keyserver.net/en/
Fingerprint: D17C FDD5 BBA8 8687 42E3 C8F2 C9FB 0314 E17A 0CD7
Ned Latham
> "The Enlightenment" wrote:
----snip----
> > The arguments used to deny the reality of race usually follow a
> > similar pattern. The race deniers begin with attempts to discredit
> > the traditional methods of racial classification, especially racial
> > typology based on phenotype or physical appearance, the combination
> > of all one's physical traits.
>
> Well, the history is one of imprecision.
Yair. Specialists are still arguing over whether Neanderthals are
a subspecies or a seperate species.
So what?
> http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant101/syllabus/race/race2.htm
Got a URL that works?
> > Next they attempt to discredit the traditional racial divisions
> > that are based on these methods of classification.
>
> Er, no. That's not the case at all.
Wrong. What's that crap about more diversity within the races of man
than between them?
> > From a third year zoology course (Olkahoma State University)
>
> Definition of Race: A race is a geographically circumscribed
> population or set of populations that differ from all other
> populations of a species.
Leave out "geographically circumscribed".
----snip----
> > The purpose of this is to create confusion, ambiguity, and uncertainty
> > about race.
>
> No, it's about providing knowledge through precise, definitive and
> testable propositions that have scientific credibility.
Is that why you inserted the imprecision of "geographically circumscribed"?
> > A definition of race is usually lacking from the race
> > deniers' argument, either because they do not know how to define it,
> > or because they know that an accurate definition of race would refute
> > their argument.
>
> Bzzt! Wrong. Precise definition - something you've _never_ done -
> provided above.
Wrong. "Geographically circumscribed" takes no account of modern mobility,
and in any case is only circumstantial at best.
----snip----
> Nope, wrong. I have always stated that I'm happy to accept the concept
> of 'races', I just doubt whether (a) the human species is sufficiently
> aged (b) hetrogenous and (c) subject to sufficient isolation for
> racial subspecies to form. And, contrary to what you claimed in
> November last year, the onus is _you_ to prove it. You have a
> hypothesis that there is such a thing as races within homo sapien
> sapiens. Well, prove it.
Might as well ask for proof of the same assertion about dogs. You can
deny that negroes are "a population or set of populations that differ
from all other populations" of Homo Sapiens Sapiens until you're black
in the face, but that won't change the fact that it's just as stupid
and irrational as denying that spaniels are "a population or set of
populations that differ from all other populations" of Canis Familiaris.
----snip----
> > To start at the beginning, the word race refers to the different
> > geographic populations of humanity that share a common ancestry and
> > can be distinguished from each other by an inherited combination of
> > morphological traits, i.e., by genetically determined physical
> > appearance or phenotypes.
>
> Yes, but the standards in science are a little higher,
The obfuscations engaged in by the race deniers are not science.
> because they
> have to work out which physical traits are significant enough and
> geographically isolated enough, to warrant the term "subspecies".
> Otherwise you will have a "race" of the "blue-eyed" a race of the
> "red haired" the "flat footed" and any or every trait you care to
> pull out of your arse.
And who has bruited such "race" descriptors about?
Oh yair... ranting lunatics engaged in obfuscation.
Ned Latham
----snip----
> With this simple mythos they
All 427 of you, Guano?
> feel 'naturally' superior,
> no matter what their lack of sexual, financial, intellectual
> or moral success may demonstrate to the contrary.
>
> The one additional necessary delusion is that if reality
> is the inverse of what their delusions would predict,
> then they must be being cheated of their rightful place
> by the evil {insert racist epithet here}
Is that why you spew out the racist epithet "anglo" so often, Guano?
Ned Latham
>
> So are the Jews a race?
Judaism's a religion, dimwit.
> And if so are they semite?
Some of them are, more or less.
> And are Arabs
> Semite
Yes.
> as well?
No.
> But aren't Jews white?
Some of them.
> And russians would be asians by your thinking?
Russia's in Europe, cretin.
Ned Latham
----snip----
> Can an Eskimo man mate with an Australian aboriginal woman and produce
> healthy offspring?
Can an Irish Setter mate with a Golden Retriever and produce healthy
offspring?
Ned Latham
----snip----
> true-blues believe in a FAIR Go for ALL (no matter what hair,
> eye or skin colour)
That's why True Blues spurn you, Guano. You don't even give *yourself*
a fair go, let alone anyone decent.
derek
wrote:
>Ned Latham wrote:
>
>>...ranting lunatics engaged in obfuscation.
>
>Yes, there's a lot of racist loonies posting here.
Lying Shitbag
DG
Diablo
>
> "Diablo" <dia...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:dXMTa.11794$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "Someone New" <someo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:t_LTa.11728$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > >
> > > "Diablo" <dia...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:FaFTa.10788$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > >
> > > > "The Enlightenment" <bern...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > > > news:39556695.03072...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > Some of my arguments with race deniers have been direct,
one-on-one
> > > > > exchanges. These have usually ended after my antagonists
explicitly
> > > > > admitted their support, and even their desire, for Northern
European
> >
> > No I don't hate the survival of northern europeans, dickhead!
> > Infact, I don't hate the survival of anyone, dickhead!
>
> No you support multicrapism and oppose assimilation: unless it's of
Northern
> Europeans.
Really? When have I stated that?
I support the PERSON, independent of their background or color.
The environment that a person is brought up in *IS* the MAJOR factor.
> Anyone that diagrees an you turn into a raveing lunatic as displayed by
> these infantile outburst:
Sometimes.
If they are prepared to argue the point, I will also.
> > Unlike yourself and your fellow NAZI wankers.
>
> > Tell someone who cares, dickhead!
>
> > The only insane ignorant here is you and your fellow NAZI wankers,
> dickhead!
>
> > NAZI's ARE total ignoramuses, dickhead!
>
> I guess this passes for conceding a debate with you?
NO.
Lev Lafayette
> Lev Lafayette wrote in <95670408.03072...@posting.google.com>:
> > "The Enlightenment" wrote:
>
> Yair. Specialists are still arguing over whether Neanderthals are
> a subspecies or a seperate species.
Agreed (wow, wonders will never cease). Personally I'm a bit dubious
of the claim....
> So what?
.. but it shows one what sort of difference is required for a race to
exist.
> > http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant101/syllabus/race/race2.htm
>
> Got a URL that works?
Dead is it? Ahh.. It's still cached in google, and you can have a look
at the follow on instead.
http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant570/topics/hist_pa.htm
and if you really want to give yourself some background here's the
entire syllabus.
http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant570/index.htm
Happy learning.
> Wrong. What's that crap about more diversity within the races of man
> than between them?
What's crap about it?
> > > From a third year zoology course (Olkahoma State University)
> >
> > Definition of Race: A race is a geographically circumscribed
> > population or set of populations that differ from all other
> > populations of a species.
>
> Leave out "geographically circumscribed".
Why? Are you a graduate in zoological taxonomy?
>
> ----snip----
>
> > > The purpose of this is to create confusion, ambiguity, and uncertainty
> > > about race.
> >
> > No, it's about providing knowledge through precise, definitive and
> > testable propositions that have scientific credibility.
>
> Is that why you inserted the imprecision of "geographically circumscribed"?
Nope. I didn't insert it. It's part of the definition.
> Might as well ask for proof of the same assertion about dogs.
That's what taxonomical classification does with dogs.
http://www.emporia.edu/biosci/msl/carniv.htm
> You can
> deny that negroes are "a population or set of populations that differ
> from all other populations" of Homo Sapiens Sapiens until you're black
> in the face, but that won't change the fact that it's just as stupid
> and irrational as denying that spaniels are "a population or set of
> populations that differ from all other populations" of Canis Familiaris.
No it isn't. There is no taxonomic subspecies of canis familiaris for
spaniels.
> The obfuscations engaged in by the race deniers are not science.
Assertion. I have used nothing but references from universities.
> And who has bruited such "race" descriptors about?
Enlightenment. He thinks that race is based on skin colour.
Lev Lafayette
Lev Lafayette
> Peter Wicks (aka "Che Guava"), posting as "fasgnadh", wrote
> in <bfls0j$1stm$1...@arachne.labyrinth.net.au>:
>
> > is the inverse of what their delusions would predict,
> > then they must be being cheated of their rightful place
> > by the evil {insert racist epithet here}
>
> Is that why you spew out the racist epithet "anglo" so often, Guano?
Anlo is a culture, not a race. There are no physical requirements
peculiar to a subspecies to speak English.
Lev Lafayette
> "Darren Smith" wrote in <3f1e...@news.comindico.com.au>:
> >
> > So are the Jews a race?
>
> Judaism's a religion, dimwit.
Well, I'm glad someone's worked that out.
>
> > And if so are they semite?
>
> Some of them are, more or less.
Hebrew is Semitic language. So if it's their native language, yes, they are semites.
>
> > And are Arabs
> > Semite
>
> Yes.
Glad to see that someone's worked that out.
>
> > as well?
>
> No.
What? Jews are Semites, Arabs are Semites but Jews and Arabs are not?
Well, one can't argue with logic like that.
> > And russians would be asians by your thinking?
>
> Russia's in Europe, cretin.
Some of it is, most of it isn't.
Darren Smith
"amadis" <ama...@people.it> wrote in message
news:bfpt0d$a8p$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
> Diablo wrote:
>
> > I support the PERSON, independent of their background or color.
> > The environment that a person is brought up in *IS* the MAJOR factor.
>
> judgement can be mistaken.
>
> The idea that you can 'know' a group or a 'nation' moves to the
ridiculous.
>
> It becomes dangerously insane when people claim to be able to judge people
> on the basis of what they look like.
I'm not a christian but Jesus was spot on with two things - Judge not lest
the be judged and well I guess every religion has a variation on the Golden
Rule - and that's all we really need isn't it?
Lev Lafayette
> "Lev Lafayette" <lev_la...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:95670408.03072...@posting.google.com...
> > "The Enlightenment" <bern...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:<f_vTa.10243$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > "Astroguy" <astrogu...@iinet.net.australia> wrote in message
> > > news:3f1e6fa9$0$23614$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au...
> > > > The Enlightenment wrote:
>
> No, perhaps not you persponaly. The affirmitice action double standard is
> so hypocritcal many do not support it openly but they certainly galdly
> acqueice to it.
> I think if you look at the situation of Sth African and Zimbabwe you will
> see it has a rational base. The 4.5 million Ukranians murdered were
> murdered by non Ukranians or different race.
Are Ukranians a race now as well?
> Many were attached to a theory
> of evolution based on Lamark/Lysenko: the ultimate race denial.
And thoroughly discredited. But that doesn't mean that race is
axiomatically proven. Just because theory x is wrong it doesn't mean
that y is automatically correct.
> it can happen and the conditions are being created. It is almost impossible
> to get out of Sth Africa or even Zimbabwe.
References?
> Define a modern dictionary of genetics? By modern you mean politically
> correct?
I've already posted the definitions and they're from University
sources. If you think that taxonomy is a matter of political
correctness then then there is absolutely no point arguing
scientifically at all - everything will come down to the strength of
assertion.
>
> I've posted a web pages severla times that show that the aggregate of only
> 2-3 characteritics determines ancestral origins.
It might determine ancestral origins, but you'll have to do better
than a couple of average characteristics to define something a
subspecies.
> Nothing wrong with assertion: it is not a logical fallacy.
No, nothing wrong with assertion. But it requires backing. Merely
stating something doesn't make it true.
> I'm not going to list every instance but a reader of the original article
> and a reader of these subsequent posts will see merrit in that 'assertion'
> and liekly agree.
Here's what you claimed:
"All of the posters who have attacked me are a perfect parody of what
Mr. McCulloch has argued."
There is no evidence for this claim. It is unsubstantiated assertion.
> Because they look different, have a different physilogy, different
> enurophysilogy, and perfrom differently in sports and cogntive areas to
> other races eg Africans and Chinese. Alos becuase they split of from
> Africans at least 120,000 years ago by the out of africa theory.
They look different? Scots and Finns look different. Two people in a
Scottish fishing village look different. They perform differently in
sports and academica. You're going to have to do a _lot_ better that
this. In fact, genetically, they are more different than the
differences between a random Scot and a random African and a random
Chinese. That's the genetics of the matter. Deal.
I also dispute your claim that Europeans left Africa en masse 120,000
years ago and have been "split off" since then.
> > Nothing wrong with criticism of prior attempts of classification. Is
> > there?
>
> No, it goes on ad nauseum and beyond serious engagement in argument.
Well when you get people who claim that Persian's have brittle skills
because they wear felt hats, that aethopians have wooly hair because
of the lack of moisture in the air, that there are races of "wild men"
who run about on all fours, troglodytes who live in caves ...
> The traitional methods of racial classification work: they predict ancestry
> and racial heritage they correlate with modern DNA methods.
Yeah, I can see so many people who fit into the troglodyte
subspecies..
> Mongoloid, Caucasian and African are the three basic classifications that
> reflect 100% on ancestry.
One classification reflects 100% - it's called species.
> > No, the purpose is to be precise, unambigious and definite.
>
> Implacably disingenious.
Unsubstantiated assertion. Again.
> I've never avoided definition. You classicaly will argue that a tan on a
> white is evidence that skin color does not determin race.
The variations of melanin in the human species are not sufficient to
determine race, no.
> Can you tell a Japanese from an Nigerian from a From an Estonian?
Well those three are nationalities. Or do you think they're races to?
> The only struggle with reality is yours.
So you say. But you're the one who's not being consistent. Sometimes
you claim there is a thing called the "white" race. At other times you
refer to the "Northern European" race. Apparently now there's such a
thing as the Estonian race.
> No. you engage in falsities about the definition and categorization of
> races.
I have provided references _only_ from university level sources. I
have not falsified any of definitions or categorizations.
> you deny they exist and having failed that you bare facedly lie by
> declaring that i have not provided a definition.
I'm still waiting for a definition.
> Race is simply ancestry: big familes that evolved and interbred in
> isolation.
So because baldness is hereditary there is a bald-headed race? And
because blue eyes is hereitary there's a blue-eyed race? Do we have
the fatso race and the paralyzed streak of piss race as well?
> There are no africans with chinese ancestry.
No Africans with Chinese ancestry? I'm sorry, that simply isn't true.
For starters, back in the days of apartheid 2.7% of the population of
South Africa were classified as "Asians". This included 5,000 Hakka
and 15,000 Cantonese. In neighbouring Botswana there was an additional
1,000 Chinese of Hakka and Cantonese ethnicities. Keep in mind these
are _native_ speakers and doesn't include the many thousands who have
additional Chinese ancestry.
Hell, even in your deeply beloved Norway there's 3,000 people who
speak a Chinese language as their native language.
The species gets around. There is no racial purity.
> Happy now?
I am, but I bet you're not.
> I've provided this link in just about every post I have ever made to you:
Which doesn't provide a scientific definition.
> Is Race A Valid Taxonomic Construct?
> <http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no1/jpr-taxonomic.html>
> STATEMENT ON RACE AS A BIOLOGICAL CONCEPT
Rushton doesn't provide a scientific definition here. He claims the
existence of three races. This is as detailed as he gets:
"Roughly speaking, Orientals are those who have most of their
ancestors from East Asia. Whites have most of their ancestors from
Europe. And Blacks have most of their ancestors from sub-Saharan
Africa."
Basically he's picked three popoulation centres of the species which
are as geographically isolated as possible outside of the Americas and
Australia and said "look, they're different!"
Yeah, but not sufficiently different to fit the scientific and
taxonomical classification of race. Notably most of Rushton's
differences are based on factors that have more to do with
socio-economic development than natural science as well.
> Race can also be defined by geneitc aggrgation ie a genotype. You can test
> your autonomic (non mDNA) and determin which onese came from African, Asian,
> Indian or European background.
Are these the races now? How far back does one have to go before it is
a race?
What happened to the Northern European race which you're so concerned
about?
When you plot 120 allele frequencies you get a very different map.
http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant270/lectures/race/race_gen.gif
And the author of the map considers these differences insufficient for
racial classification of the human species..
> Then, having utterly failed to
> > provide a definition, you claim that this is really a matter of racial
> > (Northern European) racial preseveration. _Without_ ever stating what
> > this is.
>
> There you go again with your race denial argument.
There you go again with your racial assertion. Without proof.
Note I haven't denied the existence of a Northern European race. I
just want you to tell me what it is.
> > This is a temporal fallacy. Of course I don't care less about the
> > preservation of the Northern European race (yet), because I haven't
> > been provided the evidence that such a race exists.
>
> I beleive you are a Liar perhaps to yourself.
Well belief is very different to understanding. One is based on
intelligence and the other on faith.
I can't convince a person who operates on faith.
> You don't care about the preservation of the white human race infact you
> prefer its anhiliation.
White race? What's that? Is that someone with white skin? Like
northern Chinese? Inuit?
> You deny race becuase it suits your desire. A semantic slight of hand.
No, I actually don't care one way or another whether race exists or
not. To me, the question is a little like whether the earth circles
the sun or not. I don't care on any moral or aesthetic level, I just
want to make sure that when people claim that they have scientific
proof that they really have it.
After all, the history of race assertors indicates that there is a
substantial risk factor involved. The question is not trivial.
> > You're asking
> > people, as a matter of faith, to care about the leprachauns proir to
> > showing us what and where the leprachauns are...
>
> Race is real. you can instantly tell a European from a Chinese or African.
I can tell instantly the difference between a cubist and surrealist
art as well, but this doesn't make it a science.
> I have a very strong sense of identity. I am also out to protect my race
> aginst its detractors, villifiers, defamers and deniers.
Which you still haven't defined. You seem to be protecting a phatasm,
a mental construction. Your sense of identity is based on illusion.
You know what that means?
> > Oh well, nationality and religion works for some... Race for others.
>
> As nation states are destroyed people will turn to race, religion, extended
> family or other such things.
All artificial constructions, which deny the things which are most
obvious: our individuality and our common humanity.
> As the nation state fails to protect us whites will need to become activists
> to oppose the other ethnic lobbies.
So white is a race? Is this a different race to Northern Europeans or
the same one?
This is the science of the matter.
http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant270/lectures/race/race1.htm
* The classification [of humans] into races has proved to be a
futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin
(Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994)
* While it is clear that there is only one human species, there
are no objective reasons for splitting or lumping at any lower
taxonomic level (I.e., subspecies, races, varieties)
_No_ objective reasons. Geddit?
Scott Steel
(Lev Lafayette) wrote:
>"The Enlightenment" <bern...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:<ORQTa.12228$OM3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
>> "Lev Lafayette" <lev_la...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
[...]
>> Because they look different, have a different physilogy, different
>> enurophysilogy, and perfrom differently in sports and cogntive areas to
>> other races eg Africans and Chinese. Alos becuase they split of from
>> Africans at least 120,000 years ago by the out of africa theory.
>
>They look different? Scots and Finns look different. Two people in a
>Scottish fishing village look different.
But what about Canadians.....
[...said light-hearted but sort of serious...]
Is it just me or do most Canadians look...well...
"Canadian"?
Even if they're different colours, different heights and
different genders, they still have something Canadianesq
about them, some kind of visual similarity.
Must be the moosepiss in the water.
Scott Steel
Darren Smith
"Scott Steel" <scott...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:ue21iv0ljq9esmjjv...@4ax.com...
Do y ou mean the French Canadians or the Innuit?
nonentity
>
> Because they look different, have a different physilogy, different
> enurophysilogy, and perfrom differently in sports and cogntive areas to
> other races eg Africans and Chinese. Alos becuase they split of from
> Africans at least 120,000 years ago by the out of africa theory.
>
>
Europeans are both Nordic and Alpine in race with some admixture of the
other purely European race , Mediterranean. Nth. European also includes Sami
& similar types who belong to the Mongoliod race rather than Caucasian. The
Enlightenment is mentioning geographical area rather than race in defining
his favoured group. I feel a little left out of the favoured bunch as he
does not seem to think Sth. Europeans / racially Mediterranean types as
being white enough for his standards although they are not reproducing
rapidly either.
Yours,
R.M. O'Donnell
Scott Steel
I mean all of them.
Scott Steel
Darren Smith
Avril Lavigne looks american.
Scott Steel
<liar...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
Avril Lavigne looks like she spent 500 bucks trying to buy
an outfit that emulates 10 bucks worth of second hand
clothes ;-)
Scott Steel
Someone New
<snip>
>
> Sometimes.
> If they are prepared to argue the point, I will also.
Well, yes, you might "argue" - which in your case involves screaming
"dickhead". You can't debate, though. Your abysmal ignorance about racial
history has been exposed to the world, and all you can do is scream
"dickhead" - oh, yes, and the mandatory "Nazi"!
> > 10,000 years ago we were all african;)
> > How far back in time do you go to define a race???
>
> The Northern European peoples were firmly established in Europe in
> Cro-Magnon times, perhaps 35,000 years ago. According to H V Vallois (for
> his credentials check him out in an encyclopedia), the Fontechevade people
> of perhaps 180,000 years ago were our earlier Nordic ancestors. And
> Swanscombe Woman, who again looked like a modern Nordic and who apparently
> had a perfectly modern brain, dates from 435,000 to 230,000 years ago.
>
> Is that enough time for you? Our race has been around for up to 435,000
> years. Your statement that "10,000 years ago we were all african" is just
> insane ignorance.
> > NAZI's are a danger to our society.
>
> No: total ignoramuses are a danger to ANY society. Try to get an education
> before you make some equally idiotically stupid comments in future.
> NAZI's ARE total ignoramuses, dickhead!
Come on, then. Give us some evidence for your insane claim that "10,000
years ago we were all african".
Lev Lafayette
>
> You can read the article again here:
> "Race: Reality and Denial; Richard McCulloch"
> <http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no4/rm-race.html>
A series of assertions about generalized motivations. The claim that
"[t]he purpose of this is to create confusion, ambiguity, and
uncertainty about race." is demonstrably false as this thread has
shown. There is one particularly person who has used confusion,
ambiguity and uncertainty in their definition of race and that's "The
Enlightenment".
> A person who that believes race doesn't exist but then uses it as a
> basis for preferentialy tratment of 'minority' races.
Really? Who does that? References please.
> A person who spends a lot of time trying to prove the white race in
> particular doesn't exist. The reason that they spend so much time
> doing this is becuase race deniel is semantic obfusification and
> counter inturitve!
Who is motivated by counter-intuition and obsfucation? A more
appropriate reason would be (a) an interest in science and (b) a
recognition of social risk that entials the unsubstantiated assertion
of human differences.
> Northern Europeans or 'white' people are those humans which evolved in
> the Northern circumpolar region.
Is that Europe now?
> They have white skin, fairer in
> women (child bearers) which allows then to make vitamins in low light
> conditions.
Apart from the fact their skin isn't "white", this exists as a cline
and is common across the world, not just Europe.
> They tend to have all color of hair but mainly and
> uniquely brown, blond, red as well as black.
Uniquely brown, blonde and red? Fsck me, someone better tell that to
all the red haired, brown skinned individuals who live in the village
of Kuintaal Kiik.
"Hey Dewi, guess what? You're of the Northern European race!"
The gales of laughter echo across the Timor Sea...
Hair-colour is associated with melanin. But like skin colour, it is
not unique to any geographical population.
> They tend to have all
> colors of eyes but many are uniquely blue.
Er, hate to hit on the head with a bit of science, but _all_ eyes are
brown. Do some research.
Perceived eye colour is a factor of presence of melanin again. And
once again, particular amounts are _not_ a feature unique to any
geographical population.
> They have narrow noses, closely spaced eyes, a long ecleptic head with
> a large brain space 'on top'. They are paleolithic people
Northern Europeans are still paleolithic? Fsck me, someone send out
some volunteers to help these people! They're not even literate!
> and evolved
> in Northern Europe under genetic isolation for 30,000-40,000 years due
> to the ice age. About 9,000 years ago at the end of a major ice age
> some neolithic peoples from the near east immigrated but according to
> both y-chromosome and mDNA data this was never more than 20% in any
> region. (See E Sykes: the 7 daughters of Eve)
And according to introduction to The Seven Daughters of Eve:
"Perhaps the most serious objection to these [racial] trees is that
their construction demands that the things at the end of the trees,
the populations, be objectively defined. This process in itself
segregates people into groups in ways that can tend to perpetuate
racial classifications. It gives some sort of overall genetic number
to something that does not really exist. There are certainly people
who live in Japan and Tibet, but there is no genetic meaning to the
population of Tibet or Japan, taken as a whole. As this book will
show, objectively defined races simply do not exist...."
Sorry what was that again? "Objectively defined races simply do not
exist".
Let's go on...
"Even Arthur Mourant realized that fact nearly fifty years ago, when
he wrote: 'Rather does a study of blood groups show a heterogeneity in
the proudest nation and support the view that the races of the pr
esent day are but temporary integrations in the constant process
of...mixing that marks the history of every living species.' The
temptation to classify the human species into categories which have no
objective basis is an inevitable but regrettable conse quence of the
gene frequency system when it is taken too far. For several years the
study of human genetics got firmly bogged down in the intellectually
pointless (and morally dangerous) morass of constructing ever more
detailed classifications of human population groups."
Hoist by own petard I would say. You have referenced a text which
explicitly states that there is no "Northern European" race.
> Northern European extinction is happening. The Fertility rate is only
> 1.5 children per woman per 20 year generation (ie a decline of 30%
> every 20 years). This is due to the presures on Nothern Europeans are
> under due to "replacement immigration" which is an immigraion rate of
> about 1% per year (20% per 20 year generation). This for instance
> forces up the price of land and increases competion for emplyment
> while stretching the infrastucture and natural resorces of a nation.
Wow. Contradictory statements in the same paragraph. First you claim
that population is falling in northern European countries which
requires replacement immigration, who then are responsible for
increases in land prices and infrastructure stresses.
So what is to be? Are there too many people or not enough?
> Au Contraire, you are the once supporting pernicious quack theories on
> race. A race denier deconstucts race so that he can anihilate that
> 'non existant' race.
So now there's only one race?
> Why don't you get real, get honest and join us?
After the lobotomy ...
> I have chosen to dedicate myself to the protection and preservation of
> white people and their defense aginst those who depracate and villifiy
> us. Race deniel is a prelude to a potential white holocaust.
It is also a prelude to potentially getting over superstitions.
> I stand for truth and justice but most of all truth.
Now that is an unsubstantiated assertion.
> Yes, but the ofsping will likely not be adapted as well to the
> traditional environemnts. The eskimo has short ears and nose to avoid
> frostbite and eyes with a monlid to avoid snow blindness. The
> aborigigianl has black skin to avoid sun damage anhd possibly a very
> large visual cortex by human standards. While the eskimos light skin
> allows him/her to make vitamins in the poor light in which an
> aboriginal migh get sick. They have certain adaptations: the eskimo
> can say healthy on a very high fat diet. The aboriginal has the
> ability to shut downb blood flow in his lower legs to conserve heat.
These mode traits of course clines of morphological and phenotypes.
But they don't constitute races. And I guess that's the bit you don't
understand.
> There is a "human species". The human species can be subdivided into
> varius races based on the aggregation of phyical charcteristics.
> These characteristics correlate with ancestry.
The species could be subdivided if there was sufficient reason to do
so. But there isn't.
> There are no negroes whith ancesters in Finland or Shanghai.
Really? What makes you think that?
> You may follow this link to find a company to test your racial
> origins.
> <http://www.ancestrybydna.com/>
Shit, we're all 100% African!
> Decades of IQ reserach shows that the vast differences in congitive
> ability amongst some of the different races are heriditary.
Explicitly rejected by the American Psychological Association.
www.michna.com/intelligence.htm
"The Flynn effect shows that environmental factors can produce
differences of at least this magnitude, but that effect is mysterious
in its own right. Several culturally based explanations of the Black/
White IQ differential have been proposed; some are plausible, but so
far none has been conclusively supported. There is even less empirical
support for a genetic interpretation. In short, no adequate
explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and
Whites is presently available."
> We have mapped genes for IQ, proness to dpression, vulnerability to
> criminality, novelty seeking and risk avoidence.
Yes, vulnerability to crime is genetic. That's possibly one of the
most ridiculous things I've read.
> A gene on allele 5 chromosome 6 has even been discovered that
> correlates to
> 4 extra points to IQ.
> <http://www.sciencenet.emory.edu/mismeasure/genius/research03.html>
Wow. I wonder if you could point to the genetic transformation in the
species that has caused the increase of 3 IQ points per _generation_.
> Look at the fact that the black crime rate is 8 times higher than the
> white crime rate in the US after 40 years of affirmitve action,
Crime is a complex whose causes depend on a variety of social factors,
including the perceived legitimacy of law.
http://magazine.uchicago.edu/9608/9608JournalCenters.html
> look
> at how under aprtheid the Sth African crime rate is 6 times the
> overall US crime rate. The same in the UK. What about Somalia,
> Rwanda, Congo, Zinbabwe, Sth African, Liberia?
Again, you're backing up the wrong tree. Crime _cannot_ be genetic
simply because _laws_ aren't genetic.
> > The rest is just playing with words and semantics. Are we all the same
> > race but difference breeds?
>
> No. While we are all the same species we different races.
Scientifically the previous poster is more accurate. Our genetic
differences are varied as clines.
> > Different races, same species? Who cares?
>
> I do. Love your race I say. There is noting hatefull about that? I
> don not hate other races. I just don't deny that they exist!
But the onus is on you to prove that they exist. I'm not about to love
an illusion over and above something (i.e., the species) which I know
and there is evidence for.
> Why should I not care to protect my interests and those of my kin and
> blood brothers and sisters. That is extremely sane. It is you who is
> insane. A nihilst lacking concerns!
A nihilist is someone who doesn't _believe_ in anything. They can be
very concerned.
> We stand on the brink of ethnocide. Of anhilation. Do you care? Do
> you dare give me an unequivocal answer?
More unsubstantiated assertions. The Anglo ethnic group is the most
powerful in the world today. Up to 90% of the world's cultures will
cease to exist by the end of the twenty first century. What do you
care?
(Krauss, Michael. 1992. The world's languages in crisis. Language
68(1).1-42)
> Why don;t you care? Perhaps you want out ethnocide? Who and what
> race are you? Where did your ancestors come from?
What race am I? Homo sapien sapiens. What race are YOU?
Darren Smith
you'd still fuck her! ;p
we could go go dp
Someone New
"James Cameron" <bug...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bfo55e$h0clu$1...@ID-13547.news.uni-berlin.de...
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 23:49:57 GMT, "Diablo" <dia...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >10,000 years ago we were all african;)
> >How far back in time do you go to define a race???
>
> following:
>
> Is Race A Valid Taxonomic Construct?
> Professor J. Philippe Rushton, University of Western Ontario
>
> Modern humans evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Africans and
> non-Africans then split about 110,000 years ago. Orientals and Whites
> split about 40,000 years ago, around the time that modern humans were
> first in Europe. Analyses of DNA sequencing, along with the fossil and
> archaeological record, demonstrate this sequence.
As you probably know, the African Eve hypothesis is one of two competing
theories among scientists in this field. The other theory is that modern
human races all evolved separately from earlier primitive ancestors in
different parts of the world at a much earlier date.
Rushton is a highly-respected expert, but he clearly falls into one of the
two competing camps. That is ok, because genuine science progresses by
testing established hypotheses against the available evidence, and as a
scientist Rushton will no doubt be prepared to modify his views as new
evidence becomes available.
My only concern with Rushton is that the multi-regional hypothesis seems to
be better able to accommodate the evidence of modern humans like
Fontechevade and Swanscombe in Europe long before "110,000 years ago".
> Sometimes it is claimed by those who argue that race is just a social
> construct that the human genome project shows that because people
> share 99% of their "genes" in common, that there are no races. This is
> silly. Human genes are 98% similar to chimpanzee genes. Yet no one
> thinks that chimpanzees have the same intelligence, brain size, or
> social behavior patterns as human beings; they look and behave very
> differently. In fact humans share 90% of their genes with mice, which
> is why we can use them to test drug therapies. Similarly, although men
> and women are genetically 99% the same, it is foolish to believe that
> sex is just a "social construction".
>
> In summary, the same racial pattern would not occur so consistently
> all around the world and over time if race were a mere social
> construct. If it were a meaningless construct, it would have no power
> to predict phenomena like brain size, growth rate, life span, crime,
> and family stability. Other evidence also shows that race is a
> biological reality. For example, coroners in crime labs can identify
> race from a skeleton or even just the skull. They can even identify
> race from blood, hair, or semen. How could they do this if race was
> only a social construct? The scientific evidence shows that the
> politically correct mantra "race is just skin deep" is a case of deep
> denial.
As to "Diablo's" claim that:
> >10,000 years ago we were all african;)
> >How far back in time do you go to define a race???
it is clear that he simply has no idea even of what he is asking. Logic
means nothing to him. Evidence means nothing to him. He simply can't
understand science. He is like a rabid Catholic Inquisitor from the burning
years - an uneducated fool who simply wishes to silence the modern likes of
Giordano Bruno with his thin little whining insults of "dickhead" and
"NAZI".
But when a fool like "Diablo" shows himself up (as he already has, and at
length), what makes you think that exposing him to the views of a genuine
scientist like Rushton could possibly help him? All he is actually capable
of doing is to keep chirping, like a trained budgie, single words like
"dickhead" and "NAZI".
Sadly, "Polly wants a cracker" would be too long for "diablo". Four words
would tax his memory-span. In fact, he'll probably just keep chirping
"dickhead" and "NAZI" until he falls off the perch as a very dead parrot
indeed.
Diablo
You started by calling me "racist piece of filth".
If you start the abuse I won't hold back.
> You can't debate, though. Your abysmal ignorance about racial
> history has been exposed to the world
Racial history is part of your immagination.
You are the ignorant one, making a fool of yourself trying to define a race.
How far back do you go to define a race?
10, - 1,000 - 1,000,000 years?
The evolution of humans is another story.
> and all you can do is scream
> "dickhead" - oh, yes, and the mandatory "Nazi"!
Anyone who judges a person by their color is a NAZI.
And I'll remind you that you started abusing me.
>
> > > 10,000 years ago we were all african;)
> > > How far back in time do you go to define a race???
> >
> > The Northern European peoples were firmly established in Europe in
> > Cro-Magnon times, perhaps 35,000 years ago. According to H V Vallois
(for
> > his credentials check him out in an encyclopedia), the Fontechevade
people
> > of perhaps 180,000 years ago were our earlier Nordic ancestors. And
> > Swanscombe Woman, who again looked like a modern Nordic and who
apparently
> > had a perfectly modern brain, dates from 435,000 to 230,000 years ago.
> >
> > Is that enough time for you? Our race has been around for up to 435,000
> > years. Your statement that "10,000 years ago we were all african" is
just
> > insane ignorance.
>
> > > NAZI's are a danger to our society.
> >
> > No: total ignoramuses are a danger to ANY society. Try to get an
education
> > before you make some equally idiotically stupid comments in future.
>
> > NAZI's ARE total ignoramuses, dickhead!
>
> Come on, then. Give us some evidence for your insane claim that "10,000
> years ago we were all african".
It was an "indicative" number.
10 > 10,000 > 100,000 > 1,000,000...it's all relative to how far back you
want to go.
People are different from town to town, country to country, time to time.
But we all have the same orgins.
Someone New
>
> "Someone New" <someo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Cu2Ua.13621$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
No, it wasn't. You pretended that it was a fact. There was nothing
"indicative" in what you wrote. This was what you wrote:
> > > > 10,000 years ago we were all african;)
> > > > How far back in time do you go to define a race???
There's nothing "indicative" there. You said quite clearly that "10,000
years ago we were all african;)". And now you can't give any evidence for
your ignoramus claim, can you?
In fact, you have introduced this weasel-word "indicative" to try to get off
the hook, haven't you?
> 10 > 10,000 > 100,000 > 1,000,000...it's all relative to how far back you
> want to go.
>
> People are different from town to town, country to country, time to time.
> But we all have the same orgins.
Of course we all have the same origins, if by that you mean we are all made
up of atoms that were created in the Big Bang. By that logic (and it is
valid as far as it goes) you have the same "origins" as the cane toads that
we're trying to prevent from spreading out of Queensland, or the blowies
that we try to prevent from striking our sheep, or the unwelcome demographic
oil-slick that is washing up on our shores.
Diablo
Since you're an intelligent person:
How do you define a race? Do you base a race on Color? Culture?
What is a "Northern European" race (Hitler's logic???)?
I'll ask you this question again:
How many years do you go back in time to define a race???
10?
100?
1,000?
10,000?
100,000?
1,000,000?
>
> > 10 > 10,000 > 100,000 > 1,000,000...it's all relative to how far back
you
> > want to go.
> >
> > People are different from town to town, country to country, time to
time.
> > But we all have the same orgins.
>
> Of course we all have the same origins, if by that you mean we are all
made
> up of atoms that were created in the Big Bang.
No, I don't mean that.
I mean Humans have the same BASE origins and culture.
"Race" doesn't exist because it is only "RELATIVE", depending how far you go
back in time.
Jonathan Bratt
Lafayette <lev_la...@yahoo.com.au> writes
>Anlo is a culture, not a race. There are no physical requirements
>peculiar to a subspecies to speak English.
There is one human race - that simple. There are merely different
characteristics due to evolving in different physical circumstances.
One drop of blood would enable scientists to say nothing other than it
was human.
There are cultural differences and - most importantly - individual
differences.
--
Jonathan Bratt
Lev Lafayette
> "The Enlightenment" <bern...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:ORQTa.12228$OM3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "Lev Lafayette" <lev_la...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > >
> > > Is Northern European a race? If so, why?
> >
> > Because they look different, have a different physilogy, different
> > enurophysilogy, and perfrom differently in sports and cogntive areas to
> > other races eg Africans and Chinese. Alos becuase they split of from
> > Africans at least 120,000 years ago by the out of africa theory.
> >
> >
> The only race that is entirely Northern European is the Nordic one.
Is this a recursive definition?
> Northern
> Europeans are both Nordic and Alpine in race with some admixture of the
> other purely European race , Mediterranean.
So hang on... Nordics, Alpines and Mediterraneans are races now. But
not Northern Europeans?
Isn't this fun?!
> Nth. European also includes Sami
> & similar types who belong to the Mongoliod race rather than Caucasian.
Sami? That's a language group which consists of the Lule, Southern,
Northern and Pite languages. Not to mention the dialects. Memetically,
there's a relationship with the Hungarians if you go back far
enough....
> The
> Enlightenment is mentioning geographical area rather than race in defining
> his favoured group.
But he changed that to the northern polar region. Sure is confusing
that something that he loves so much he is so ambigious about.
Still, I'm sure he knows what he means when he sees it.
> I feel a little left out of the favoured bunch as he
> does not seem to think Sth. Europeans / racially Mediterranean types as
> being white enough for his standards although they are not reproducing
> rapidly either.
Ahh, maybe race is defined by one's rate of procreation. So now we
have the blue-eyed race, the red-haired race, the black-skinned race
and the lesbian race. Next week we'll have the flat-footers, the
left-handers, the bald, the O+ blood people and after that we'll nail
jelly to the ceiling.
Lev Lafayette
> > by
> > Professor J. Philippe Rushton, University of Western Ontario
> >
> > Modern humans evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Africans and
> > non-Africans then split about 110,000 years ago. Orientals and Whites
> > split about 40,000 years ago, around the time that modern humans were
> > first in Europe. Analyses of DNA sequencing, along with the fossil and
> > archaeological record, demonstrate this sequence.
>
> As you probably know, the African Eve hypothesis is one of two competing
> theories among scientists in this field. The other theory is that modern
> human races all evolved separately from earlier primitive ancestors in
> different parts of the world at a much earlier date.
Yes, an act of sheer brilliance of the human species to arise in
several locations independently. I guess some of us are related to
Adam and Eve and the rest of us aren't really human at all..
But on to Phillip Rushton.
> Rushton is a highly-respected expert, but he clearly falls into one of the
> two competing camps. That is ok, because genuine science progresses by
> testing established hypotheses against the available evidence, and as a
> scientist Rushton will no doubt be prepared to modify his views as new
> evidence becomes available.
Not unless the Pioneer Fund pays him.
The who?
Well, way back in the height of eugenics days, in the 1930s a textile
heir, Wickcliffe Draper was so convinced of the superiority of the
white race and the inferiority of all others he decided to make a
little fund for academics who supported this idea. He was ably
assisted by Frederick Osborn of the American Eugenics Society and
Harry Laughlin, both who were firm Hitler supporters. Osborn describes
Hitler's eugenics programme as "perhaps the most important social
program which has ever been tried" (Summary of the Proceedings of the
Conference on Eugenics in Relation to Nursing, Feb. 24, 1937).
It certainly was.
The fund started its activity by importing the Nazi propaganda film
Applied Eugenics in Present-Day Germany" which potrayed Aryans in
squalor and the severely imparied in well-to-do santitoriums.
An estimated two hundred thousand mentally and physically disabled
people were murdered during the Third Reich.
During the 1960s the fund gave an estimated $180K to William Shockley,
an academic who advocated sterilization to those with an IQ less than
100. Over a three decade period Dr. Jensen, who also advocated
"eugenic foresight" against "blacks" received over $1M from the fund.
From 1981-1991, Roger Pearson received a cool 1/2 million from the
fund. Pearson is an advocate of the breeding of a white "super-race"
and in the late 60s was editor of a magazine which claimed to be
interested in "a penetrating inquiry into every aspect of the Jewish
Question". And that wasn't theology either.
Of course, Pearson has friends in high places. President Ronald Reagan
personally thanked him "substantial contribution to promotion and
upholding those ideals and principles that we value at home and
abroad."
Indeed.
Rushton is a newcomer to the so scene. So far he's received close to
1/2 million from the foundation. I suppose he's highly respected
there. But not among scientists.
Diablo
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 05:17:37 GMT, "Someone New"
> <someo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"James Cameron" <bug...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >news:bfo55e$h0clu$1...@ID-13547.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 23:49:57 GMT, "Diablo" <dia...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >10,000 years ago we were all african;)
> >> >How far back in time do you go to define a race???
> >>
> >> Your figures are wrong. Allow me to quote a few paragraphs from the
> >> following:
> >>
> >> Is Race A Valid Taxonomic Construct?
> >> by
> >> Professor J. Philippe Rushton, University of Western Ontario
> >>
> >> Modern humans evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Africans and
> >> non-Africans then split about 110,000 years ago. Orientals and Whites
> >> split about 40,000 years ago, around the time that modern humans were
> >> first in Europe. Analyses of DNA sequencing, along with the fossil and
> >> archaeological record, demonstrate this sequence.
> >
> >As you probably know, the African Eve hypothesis is one of two competing
> >theories among scientists in this field. The other theory is that modern
> >human races all evolved separately from earlier primitive ancestors in
> >different parts of the world at a much earlier date.
>
> places (and at different times) from earlier species that were very
> similar to each other. In fact, I prefer that theory because it gives
> a better explanation of population distribution prior to the Roman
> Empire.
>
> I quoted Rushton because his argument at least gives the lie to the
> proposal that everyone was an African until 10,000 years ago.
>
> >Rushton is a highly-respected expert, but he clearly falls into one of
the
> >two competing camps. That is ok, because genuine science progresses by
> >testing established hypotheses against the available evidence, and as a
> >scientist Rushton will no doubt be prepared to modify his views as new
> >evidence becomes available.
>
> configuration of the land masses in the distant past. While it's
> acknowledged that the distribution of animal types was affected by
> continental drift, similar analysis has not been widely applied to
> humans. This may be because, until very recently, humans were seen as
> a fairly "new" species. There are now grounds for believing that
> humans must have existed in some form for over a million years, and
> even that estimate may be too low.
>
> >My only concern with Rushton is that the multi-regional hypothesis seems
to
> >be better able to accommodate the evidence of modern humans like
> >Fontechevade and Swanscombe in Europe long before "110,000 years ago".
>
> points. For example, it forces unlikely explanations that mongoloids
> are a recent development (about 40,000 years ago) from caucasoids. If
> that were so, we would expect mongoloid technology of that period to
> be very similar to that of caucasoids.
>
> One example would be the use of the sprung throwing stick. It's
> unlikely that such a useful development would have been readily
> abandoned in favour of the earlier, non-sprung model. Yet, if we are
> to believe that mongoloids moved eastward from Europe, we have to
> accept that their technology degenerated very quickly. This is
> unlikely, given that caucasoids were in the process of enhancing the
> throwing stick with movable weights at about that period.
>
> >As to "Diablo's" claim that:
> >
> >> >10,000 years ago we were all african;)
> >> >How far back in time do you go to define a race???
> >
> >it is clear that he simply has no idea even of what he is asking. Logic
> >means nothing to him. Evidence means nothing to him. He simply can't
> >understand science. He is like a rabid Catholic Inquisitor from the
burning
> >years - an uneducated fool who simply wishes to silence the modern likes
of
> >Giordano Bruno with his thin little whining insults of "dickhead" and
> >"NAZI".
>
> unprepared to at least consider your arguments. When they resort to
> personal attacks, you must assume that they are unable to give up
> their current world view for reasons that are more emotional than
> rational.
I would surely give up my currents views if the alternative views were
logical and rational.
>
> >But when a fool like "Diablo" shows himself up (as he already has, and at
> >length), what makes you think that exposing him to the views of a genuine
> >scientist like Rushton could possibly help him? All he is actually
capable
> >of doing is to keep chirping, like a trained budgie, single words like
> >"dickhead" and "NAZI".
>
> Many people think that some subjects should not be studied because the
> results might be unpalatable.
I study the evolution of ONE HUMAN RACE, not the definition of races.
> I believe it was Gloria Steinem who
> famously claimed on television that studies of male-female brain
> differences should be prohibited precisely because those studies
> proved that there *were* major differences.
>
> Their motives may be pure but their logic is faulty.
My motives are very logic.
Your arguments are irrational and flawed.
I will ask you the same questions.
1) How do you define a race? By Color? Culture?
2) How many years do you go back in time to define a race???
10?
100?
1,000?
10,000?
100,000?
1,000,000?
3) Is the definition of a race "Absolute" or "Relative"?
Maxine Mallory
> > bern...@yahoo.com.au (The Enlightenment) wrote in message news:<39556695.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> >
...
Thank you. Your long and comprehensive reply (and yes I can read and
comprehend - I am a professional linguist by training) only goes to
prove my points that:
1/ Questions of race and racial differences matter only to the insane
2/ You're paranoid about the 'extinction of the Northern European
race'
3/ We ARE all compatible - note I didn't say 'the same' - but
compatible. Mixed 'race' people prove the point
An yes I did once know a mixed Eskimo/Aboriginal woman. Sweated in the
summer and shivered in the winter just like the rest of us, no more
and no less intelligent/stupid/emotional/moody/broody/attractive than
the rest of us were at the time. Oh, she was short-sighted - damn,
maybe you are right after all - NOT!!!
Get a life.
Max
H.Dickmann
> The Enlightenment wrote:
>
> > Some of my arguments with race deniers have been direct, one-on-one
> > exchanges. These have usually ended after my antagonists explicitly
> > admitted their support, and even their desire, for Northern European
>
> Sounds like you're talking bollocks again. What on earth is 'Northern
> European extinction'?
White race extinction is the result of greedy, materialistic white people
who don't want any children. Of couse we can not admit that white people
only have themselves to blame so we blame everyone else.
H.Dickmann
> > On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 08:51:41 +0100, Jonathan Bratt
> > <jonny...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > >In message <3f1f758c$1...@news.comindico.com.au>, Darren Smith
> > ><liar...@whitehouse.gov> writes
> > >>When you die and re-incarnat chances are you won't be white that time.
> Get
> > >>over it dude.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >He'll probably come back as a cockroach again.
> >
> > Which would make him better than you, who will undoubtedly still be a
> > homosexual.
>
> These nutters no doubt have slugs, tape worms and cockroaches in their
past
> and expect to in the future.
>
> I'm not surpassed that they adopt the reincarnation myths of the
> subcontinent: an area still dotted with ignorance, caste discrimination
> against dallits, bride/dowry burning and female infanticide and only saved
> from the custom of widow burning the custom of imperialists to hang such
> people.
>
> I don't hold much to superstition, however if anything, I'll be feasting
in
> the great hall Asgar with my father, my ancestors and other men of
courage.
>
And there you will keep on complaining that there are to many other races up
there.
Diablo
"H.Dickmann" <HERPEM@bigpond,com> wrote in message
news:NU9Ua.14236$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
NAZI racists like "The Enlightenment" are too gutless to take the blame and
try to solve their own problems, so they blame everything on immigration and
other people that aren't white.
I always tell him that if he's concerned that the white population is in
decline, why doesn't he start being contructive by having more children?
John Iser
<95670408.03072...@posting.google.com>:
[snip]
>Rushton is a newcomer to the so scene. So far he's received close to
>1/2 million from the foundation. I suppose he's highly respected
>there. But not among scientists.
Just thought I'd stick my snout in at this point to remind people that
Rushton is the man who once said "more brain or more penis; you can't
have everything" when discussing the differences between the white and
black 'races'.
More on the Pioneer Fund: http://www.fair.org/extra/9501/bell.html
This passage is the highlight of that page IMO: "Rushton was
reprimanded by his school, the University of Western Ontario, for
accosting people in a local shopping mall and asking them how big
their penises were and how far they could ejaculate."
The guy's a nutter.
dormouse
news:NU9Ua.14236$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> news:bfms0a$eol$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> > The Enlightenment wrote:
> >
> > > Some of my arguments with race deniers have been direct, one-on-one
> > > exchanges. These have usually ended after my antagonists explicitly
> > > admitted their support, and even their desire, for Northern European
> > > extinction.
> >
> > Sounds like you're talking bollocks again. What on earth is 'Northern
> > European extinction'?
>
> White race extinction is the result of greedy, materialistic white people
(Editors note re the UK situation)
Who with ever increasing tax burdens can't afford to have children. Where
both the husband and wife have to work simply to keep a roof above their
heads, who because of this can't have children because there's no-one at
home to look after them.
--
regards or otherwise
dormouse
Darren Smith
"dormouse" <bou...@britwar.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bfrgpl$i3385$1...@ID-163332.news.uni-berlin.de...
And that effects only white people?
dormouse
news:3f215062$1...@news.comindico.com.au...
Well 'tiss true that many migrant Indians and Chinese work (and pay tax -
not necessarily the same thing) as do an ever decreasing number of
Pakistanis the overwhelming majority of African, West Indian,
Serbo-Croats/Albanian etc. migrants don't. They are being supported by
government hand-outs extorted from the indigenous population by means of
taxation.
As the number of migrants increases thus increases the tax burden on the
British - making it even more difficult to raise families.
(Notwithstanding issues of declining access to affordable housing, available
public transport, accessible education and health, increasing crime).
abelard
typed:
indeed, and there are those other loons going on about him
being a 'respected scientist'....
i wonder if rushton has a small problem with his penis.....
perhaps the whole bunch of them belong to a club.....
one that you can only join if you take a rushton test......
regards....
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
politics, ethics, education, etc >500,000 document calls yearly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scotius
this idiot had espoused. For one thing, his "research" consisted of
attempts to verify that nazi theory that the biggest brain must be the
most intelligent one. I will refer you to the Guinness Book of World
Records of 1980. I bought it when I was about 12, and one of the
things I found interesting was that a man widely thought to be "the
most intelligent man in the World" also had what as far as scientists
knew, was the Worlds' SMALLEST brain. Anyway, Rushton is not
respected, at least not by intelligent people. According to his
findings, Eastern Europeans are supposed to be the smartest, followed
by Jews, followed by Orientals, followed by Western Europeans,
followed by Africans. He said the Native Americans had large brains,
but for some reason do not appear to follow "the rule". Of course, he
would probably not even bother to take seriously anyone who would
suggest that the World be given over to the Eastern Europeans to run,
with the Jews as their administrators, the Orientals as scientists,
doctors, etc, and the Western Europeans and Africans as the epsilons
of the whole mess. He doesn't believe what he says any more than the
devil believes the lies he tries to convince people of, people like
Mr. Rushton. Respected? I doubt it.
On 25 Jul 2003 02:49:40 -0700, lev_la...@yahoo.com.au (Lev
H.Dickmann
> madm...@easy.com (Maxine Mallory) wrote in message
news:<6a9cc209.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> > bern...@yahoo.com.au (The Enlightenment) wrote in message
news:<39556695.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > > exchanges. These have usually ended after my antagonists explicitly
> > > admitted their support, and even their desire, for Northern European
> > > extinction.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WTF are you on about?
>
>
> I will take the question to be:
> 1/ A rhetorical attempt at ad hominem or
> 2/ An indication that you lack the ability to read and comprehend.
>
> You can read the article again here:
> "Race: Reality and Denial; Richard McCulloch"
> <http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no4/rm-race.html>
>
> >
>
> A person who that believes race doesn't exist but then uses it as a
> basis for preferentialy tratment of 'minority' races.
>
> particular doesn't exist. The reason that they spend so much time
> doing this is becuase race deniel is semantic obfusification and
> counter inturitve!
>
>
> >
>
> Northern Europeans or 'white' people are those humans which evolved in
> women (child bearers) which allows then to make vitamins in low light
> uniquely brown, blond, red as well as black. They tend to have all
> colors of eyes but many are uniquely blue.
>
> in Northern Europe under genetic isolation for 30,000-40,000 years due
> to the ice age. About 9,000 years ago at the end of a major ice age
> some neolithic peoples from the near east immigrated but according to
> both y-chromosome and mDNA data this was never more than 20% in any
> region. (See E Sykes: the 7 daughters of Eve)
What are you on about? The whole of northern Europe was covered in ice from
18000 to 10000 years ago. No one could live there and no one did. There were
no Neolithic from the near east as the near east was also affected by the
ice age. The only place where people could have survived in that part of the
world was in southern Europe and Africa. The ice glaciers were so intense
that they have reshaped the whole landscape of Europe. If any people have
been in northern Europe before the ice age there can't be any evidence.
It is also interesting to note that black jews have been found in Africa.
All jews are descendents of Abraham. In as little as 2500 years and without
cross breeding, some have become white skinned while others have become
black skinned depending on the enviroment in which they lived.
>
> Northern European extinction is happening. The Fertility rate is only
> 1.5 children per woman per 20 year generation (ie a decline of 30%
> every 20 years). This is due to the presures on Nothern Europeans are
> under due to "replacement immigration" which is an immigraion rate of
> about 1% per year (20% per 20 year generation). This for instance
> forces up the price of land and increases competion for emplyment
> while stretching the infrastucture and natural resorces of a nation.
Bullshit. Italy used to have the highest fertility rate in Europe while it
was one of the poorest nation in Europe. Within one decade it became
affluent and the fertility rate dropped to the lowest in Europe. It was only
after their population decreased that they got migrants as replacement.
In Australia the fertility rate is the same for people living in Sydney whe
houses can cost $1/2 Million and in country towns where one can buy a house
for less than $100-000. Don't blame migrants for the low fertility rate.
Face the simple fact that you are the odd one out. Most people don't give a
shit about so called race preservation. The Mercedes besides the boat in the
garage, the wine cellar and the $50.000 bathroom with Jacuzzy are more
important than producing children.
Increased competition for employment is another lot of bull. Who creates
employment? If we send all post war migrants to where they come from, would
the rest have full employment? If everyone would leave and we give the
country back to the Aborigines, would they have full employment working in
our factories, driving the buses and trains, working in the offices and at
Big W. It is people who create jobs and the number of people is immaterial.
>
> >
> > Get a life man/woman. Life is too short to spend it debating quack
> > theories on race.
>
> Au Contraire, you are the once supporting pernicious quack theories on
> race. A race denier deconstucts race so that he can anihilate that
> 'non existant' race.
>
> Why don't you get real, get honest and join us?
>
> I have chosen to dedicate myself to the protection and preservation of
> white people and their defense aginst those who depracate and villifiy
> us. Race deniel is a prelude to a potential white holocaust.
>
> I stand for truth and justice but most of all truth.
>
> >
> > Can an Eskimo man mate with an Australian aboriginal woman and produce
> > healthy offspring?
>
> Yes, but the ofsping will likely not be adapted as well to the
> traditional environemnts. The eskimo has short ears and nose to avoid
> frostbite and eyes with a monlid to avoid snow blindness. The
> aborigigianl has black skin to avoid sun damage anhd possibly a very
> large visual cortex by human standards. While the eskimos light skin
> allows him/her to make vitamins in the poor light in which an
> aboriginal migh get sick. They have certain adaptations: the eskimo
> can say healthy on a very high fat diet. The aboriginal has the
> ability to shut downb blood flow in his lower legs to conserve heat.
If it is best for people to remain in their own environment, then why did
white people come to Australia to get skin cancer? Have you ever considered
the fact that your dependents may naturally become very dark to black within
2000 years if they all remain in Australia? If you want your dependents to
remain white, you better send them to northern Europe to breed.
>
> >
> > Similarly can any man from any part of this small piece of rock
> > orbiting the sun mate with a woman from any other part?
>
> There is a "human species". The human species can be subdivided into
> varius races based on the aggregation of phyical charcteristics.
> These characteristics correlate with ancestry.
>
> There are no negroes whith ancesters in Finland or Shanghai.
>
> You may follow this link to find a company to test your racial
> origins.
> <http://www.ancestrybydna.com/>
>
>
> >
> > The answer is YES. That is good enough for me. We're all compatible
> > with each other. Full stop. End of argument.
>
> Not true.
>
> Decades of IQ reserach shows that the vast differences in congitive
> ability amongst some of the different races are heriditary. Blacks
> have 22% higher testosteron than whites (and this leads to behavioral
> differences), mature sexualy 1 year earlier and their neckless babies
> can lift their heads after only 13 hours wherears a white or asian
> child needs 13 WEEKS!
>
> We have mapped genes for IQ, proness to dpression, vulnerability to
> criminality, novelty seeking and risk avoidence.
>
> A gene on allele 5 chromosome 6 has even been discovered that
> correlates to
> 4 extra points to IQ.
> <http://www.sciencenet.emory.edu/mismeasure/genius/research03.html>
>
> Look at the fact that the black crime rate is 8 times higher than the
> white crime rate in the US after 40 years of affirmitve action, look
> at how under aprtheid the Sth African crime rate is 6 times the
> overall US crime rate. The same in the UK. What about Somalia,
> Rwanda, Congo, Zinbabwe, Sth African, Liberia?
There is a very high crime rate in countries like the Philippines. People
are poor and have to survive. But, in Australia Filipinos are the most law
abiding ethnic group. 200 years ago England had the highest crime rate in
the world and they had to ship criminals and protitutes to all parts of the
world. Crime is partly due to the socio economic environment, partly due to
the breakdown of moral standards partly due to the garbage which comes from
Hollywood and all of this is the result of greed and materialism.
>
> Go to http://www.amren.com and download "the color of crime" from
> the homepage or go directly to http://www.amren.com/color.pdf
>
> For the UK a similar trend is shown:
> "Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System, 2000"
> http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/s95race00.pdf
>
>
> You haven't travelled enough have you? Not to the trouble spots
> anyway.
>
> >
> > The rest is just playing with words and semantics. Are we all the same
> > race but difference breeds?
>
> No. While we are all the same species we different races.
>
> Breeds (which you use interchangeably to race) refers to a deliberate
> selection and mating of animals by humans while races are the product
> of tens of thousands years of natural instead of artifical selection
> while in isolation.
>
> > Different races, same species? Who cares?
>
> I do. Love your race I say. There is noting hatefull about that? I
> don not hate other races. I just don't deny that they exist!
>
> We are being targeted by people that want what we have, do not care if
> they hurt us.
Thats what they said about Europeans when they made colonies in all parts of
the world. Is it a privilege for the "Superior" white people to go and
plunder other nations? Doesn't your argument in fact support the notion that
white people have no right to plunder the natural resources of South Africa
or hold all the farm land in Zimbabwe. Who, in modern times, started the
plundering of other nations?
They call their plunder and villification of us
> "anti-racism" and "justice" just as an extortion racketeer might call
> his extortion of shop keepers "protection" or "insurance".
>
>
> > Nobody in their right mind does.
>
> Why should I not care to protect my interests and those of my kin and
> blood brothers and sisters. That is extremely sane. It is you who is
> insane. A nihilst lacking concerns!
Whatever you do to the least of my brothers--Etc. Jesus was a Jew. Did he
talk about his own Jewish blood brothers or was He a Nihilist to whom race
meant nothing?
>
>
> > Apart from those with an agenda, but
> > then those are not of a right mind are they?
> >
> > Max
>
> We stand on the brink of ethnocide. Of anhilation. Do you care? Do
> you dare give me an unequivocal answer?
>
> Why don;t you care? Perhaps you want out ethnocide? Who and what
> race are you? Where did your ancestors come from?
I can trace my white European ancesters back to 1254. Growing up in Nazi
Germany with all the race hate I choose to become colour blind.
>
> *********************************
>
> Philip Rushtons "Race Evolution Behavior". Is a 500 page book but a
> free 50
> page abridged edition in .pdf format is available from this page
> <http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/reb.html>
> or can be downloaded directly from:
> <http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf>
>
> Is Race A Valid Taxonomic Construct?
> <http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no1/jpr-taxonomic.html>
Ned Latham
> "Someone New" wrote:
> > James Cameron wrote:
Why did you remove the attribution lines, Lev?
> > > Is Race A Valid Taxonomic Construct?
> > > by
> > > Professor J. Philippe Rushton, University of Western Ontario
> > >
> > > Modern humans evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Africans and
> > > non-Africans then split about 110,000 years ago. Orientals and Whites
> > > split about 40,000 years ago, around the time that modern humans were
> > > first in Europe. Analyses of DNA sequencing, along with the fossil and
> > > archaeological record, demonstrate this sequence.
> >
> > As you probably know, the African Eve hypothesis is one of two competing
> > theories among scientists in this field. The other theory is that modern
> > human races all evolved separately from earlier primitive ancestors in
> > different parts of the world at a much earlier date.
>
> Yes, an act of sheer brilliance of the human species to arise in
> several locations independently.
Not really. All you have to do is imagine Homo Erectus differentiating
over time in various parts of the world, then mutating to Homo Sapiens
under the influence of some global event (same cause all over the world,
same result all over the world).
> I guess some of us are related to
> Adam and Eve and the rest of us aren't really human at all..
>
> But on to Phillip Rushton.
Stuff about Draper, Osborn, Laughlin and Nazis removed.
----snip----
> Rushton is a newcomer to the so scene. So far he's received close to
> 1/2 million from the foundation. I suppose he's highly respected
> there. But not among scientists.
And that's all you say about Rushton. Ad hominem and and guilt by
(alleged) association.
Can't say anything about his work?
Ned
--
Public key: http://pgp.mit.edu/ http://www.keyserver.net/en/
Fingerprint: D17C FDD5 BBA8 8687 42E3 C8F2 C9FB 0314 E17A 0CD7
Ned Latham
> > Lev Lafayette wrote:
> > > "The Enlightenment" wrote:
> >
> > Yair. Specialists are still arguing over whether Neanderthals are
> > a subspecies or a seperate species.
>
> Agreed (wow, wonders will never cease). Personally I'm a bit dubious
> of the claim....
Which claim?
> > So what?
>
> .. but it shows one what sort of difference is required for a race to
> exist.
No. The specialists can't agree on whether the differences that they're
considering define a species or a subspecies. Consensus of opinion isn't
science. IOW, what it shows is that taxonomy isn't a science yet.
> > > http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant101/syllabus/race/race2.htm
> >
> > Got a URL that works?
>
> Dead is it? Ahh.. It's still cached in google, and you can have a look
> at the follow on instead.
>
> http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant570/topics/hist_pa.htm
I thought that your reference would have some interesting information
to consider, but all it did for me was confirm your statement "the
history is one of imprecision". Like that needed doing: *all* the
disciplines have such a history.
Um... It did show me that a lot of the pioneers tried to relate
human value to race. I hadn't known that before.
> and if you really want to give yourself some background here's the
> entire syllabus.
>
> http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant570/index.htm
>
> Happy learning.
I learnt that the University of Alabama offers a course in Physical
Anthropology. The site makes nothing about the subject itself available.
> > Wrong. What's that crap about more diversity within the races of man
> > than between them?
>
> What's crap about it?
Haven't you been paying attention, Lev? It's an impossibility: you
should be able to see that whether you look at it physically, logically
or mathematically (once advised to *look* at the idea, at any rate).
> > > > From a third year zoology course (Olkahoma State University)
> > >
> > > Definition of Race: A race is a geographically circumscribed
> > > population or set of populations that differ from all other
> > > populations of a species.
> >
> > Leave out "geographically circumscribed".
>
> Why?
I gave the reason below. Since you've snipped it, '"Geographically
circumscribed" takes no account of modern mobility, and in any case
is only circumstantial at best'.
> Are you a graduate in zoological taxonomy?
I neither accept nor offer arguments by authority. Address the
statements, not the speaker's authority.
> > > > The purpose of this is to create confusion, ambiguity, and
> > > > uncertainty about race.
> > >
> > > No, it's about providing knowledge through precise, definitive
> > > and testable propositions that have scientific credibility.
> >
> > Is that why you inserted the imprecision of "geographically
> > circumscribed"?
>
> Nope. I didn't insert it.
Oh. So it's not your definition, but someone else's. So that someone
else inserted it.
> It's part of the definition.
"The" definition?
Never mind: "Geographically circumscribed" introduces imprecision.
> > Might as well ask for proof of the same assertion about dogs.
>
> That's what taxonomical classification does with dogs.
>
> http://www.emporia.edu/biosci/msl/carniv.htm
Under "Canis Familiaris" that site mentions, of all things, only the
dingo. Do you expect anyone to take that as accurately representing
the taxonomical classification of dogs?
> > You can
> > deny that negroes are "a population or set of populations that differ
> > from all other populations" of Homo Sapiens Sapiens until you're black
> > in the face, but that won't change the fact that it's just as stupid
> > and irrational as denying that spaniels are "a population or set of
> > populations that differ from all other populations" of Canis Familiaris.
>
> No it isn't.
Read it again.
> There is no taxonomic subspecies of canis familiaris for
> spaniels.
How very interesting. There is no "taxonomic subspecies" for a "population
or set of populations" of Canis Familiaris "that differ from all other
populations" of Canis Familiaris (and which, moreover, breed true).
That's exactly the same as the sitaution with "populations or sets of
populations" of Homo Sapiens Sapiens "that differ from all other
populations" of Homo Sapiens Sapiens (and, moreover, breed true), such
as negroes.
So do you deny that raciation has occurred in dogs?
> > The obfuscations engaged in by the race deniers are not science.
>
> Assertion. I have used nothing but references from universities.
I don't care where they're from: they're not science.
> > And who has bruited such "race" descriptors about?
>
> Enlightenment.
You can show evidence of that? I remind you that I was responding to your
statement 'Otherwise you will have a "race" of the "blue-eyed" a race of
the "red haired" the "flat footed" and any or every trait you care to pull
out of your arse': terms of that nature have been thrown about by act-b's
resident ranting lunatic (Peter Wicks), but not by Bernard, AFAIK.
> He thinks that race is based on skin colour.
Skin colour is often used as a racial term. In informal discourse, it
provides an immediately recognisable reference. That doesn't mean that
those who use it think that race is based on skin colour.
Ned Latham
> > >
> > > The one additional necessary delusion is that if reality
> > > is the inverse of what their delusions would predict,
> > > then they must be being cheated of their rightful place
> > > by the evil {insert racist epithet here}
> >
> > Is that why you spew out the racist epithet "anglo" so often, Guano?
>
> Anlo is a culture, not a race. There are no physical requirements
> peculiar to a subspecies to speak English.
As the race deniers (especially Guano) have been so eager to point out,
racism does not depend on the existence of a target race.
Ned Latham
> Lev Lafayette wrote:
> >
> > Anlo is a culture, not a race. There are no physical requirements
> > peculiar to a subspecies to speak English.
>
> There is one human race
There is one human species.
> - that simple. There are merely different
> characteristics due to evolving
IOW, races.
> in different physical circumstances.
We don't know that. And it sounds very much like a bit of Lamarckian
nonsense. "In isolation" is more plausible.
> One drop of blood would enable scientists to say nothing other than it
> was human.
Crap. They can state sex, race, and given comparative data, even family.
----snip----
Ned Latham
> > >
> > > So are the Jews a race?
> >
> > Judaism's a religion, dimwit.
>
> Well, I'm glad someone's worked that out.
Glad to help.
> > > And if so are they semite?
> >
> > Some of them are, more or less.
>
> Hebrew is Semitic language. So if it's their native language, yes,
> they are semites.
And English is a Germanic language. So most of the peoples of Scotland,
Ireland, the USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc are Germans?
> > > And are Arabs
> > > Semite
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Glad to see that someone's worked that out.
Oh dear. The idea of Israeli anti-semitism has been around since at least
the sixties, Lev.
> > > as well?
> >
> > No.
>
> What? Jews are Semites, Arabs are Semites but Jews and Arabs are not?
Some Jews have some semitic ancestry. To equate that with the almost
universal and total semitic ancestry of Arabs, as Darren's "as well"
does, is misleading.
> Well, one can't argue with logic like that.
Try to avoid assuming too much.
> > > And russians would be asians by your thinking?
> >
> > Russia's in Europe, cretin.
>
> Some of it is, most of it isn't.
The heartland is. In my opinion, Trans-Uralic "Russia" is empire,
not nation.
Ned Latham
----snip----
> > There are no africans with chinese ancestry.
>
> No Africans with Chinese ancestry? I'm sorry, that simply isn't true.
Your quibble is based on nothing more than Bernard's loose use of the
words "african" and "chinese". FYI, his statement, more carefully
worded, means "there are no negroes with mongoloid ancestry".
Can you address that?
----snip----
> This is the science of the matter.
You misspelt "propaganda", Lev.
> http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant270/lectures/race/race1.htm
>
> * The classification [of humans] into races has proved to be a
> futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin
> (Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994)
Note that the statement references someone's opinion about Darwin's
appreciation of the matter, and gives no reference to anything stated
by Darwin himself.
> * While it is clear that there is only one human species, there
> are no objective reasons for splitting or lumping at any lower
> taxonomic level (I.e., subspecies, races, varieties)
And that little piece of dogmatism isn't referenced or justified at all.
----snip----
fasgnadh
"Ned Latham" <n...@news.apex.net.au> wrote in message
news:slrnbi3r7...@arthur.valhalla.oz...
> Jonathan Bratt wrote in <g2fHe6$kpNI$Ew...@aol.com>:
> > Lev Lafayette wrote:
> > >
> > > Anlo is a culture, not a race. There are no physical requirements
> > > peculiar to a subspecies to speak English.
> >
> > There is one human race
>
> There is one human species.
>
> > - that simple. There are merely different
> > characteristics due to evolving
>
Height,
Girth
Feet size
Hair colour
Eye colour
Melanin content
TV viewing
Sedentary lifestyle
RSI from keyboards
> IOW, races.
>
He he He!
The fat 'race', the skinny 'race', the tall 'race', the blu-eyed 'race
the big-feet 'race', the diabetic 'race', the TV-couch-potato 'race',
are all as meaningful, just as determined by human evolution,
as Ned's skin-colour racism, but then Ned is from the redneck
banjo-pluckin, pig fucking 'race'.
The difference between the blue-eyed 'race' the tall 'race' and Ned's
the bigots never-defined and thus imaginary 'races' is that the former
can be described by precise genetic markers, the latter has never been
rationally and logically defined! ;-)
The Enlightenment
> >
> > "Lev Lafayette" <lev_la...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > >
> > > Is Northern European a race? If so, why?
> >
> > Because they look different, have a different physilogy, different
> > enurophysilogy, and perfrom differently in sports and cogntive areas to
> > other races eg Africans and Chinese. Alos becuase they split of from
> > Africans at least 120,000 years ago by the out of africa theory.
> >
> >
> The only race that is entirely Northern European is the Nordic one.
> Europeans are both Nordic and Alpine in race with some admixture of the
Sami
> & similar types who belong to the Mongoliod race rather than Caucasian.
Not quite true:-this is old theory. 80% of European genes derive from
paleolithic hunter gatherers that were isolated in Europe between 50,000 to
9,000 years ago. About 9000 years ago a major ice age ended and neolithic
peoples from the middel east started immigrating. In any one region their
concentration does not excede 20%. Eric Sykes covers this in His book "The
Seven Daughters of Eve". (He has also got a book called the 14 daughters of
Eve for non European peoples.) y-chromosome data has confirmed this.
This is the exact opposit theories that became current in the wake of WW2
which claimed that neolithics completely displaced 80% of paleolithic
Europeans. Much of this was bordering quackery and could only have have
gained currency in the wake of WW2 when defending the reality of European
uniqness was difficult.
European Caucausions (by the work of geneiticist) cover a broad range of
physiological types. Alpine and Nordic was one classification. There is
nothing wrong with making finer classifications. For instance the term
caucasian/white covers Arabs as well but clearly Bridgette Bardot is
different from and Arab woman. Celt, Germanic, Alpine, Nordic etc. All are
valud and still reflect Geographical reality to an extent.
The theory that 'Sami' are mongoloid is also woth reconsidering. There are
some unique genetic isolates but this is no indication that they mongoloids
that came back in to the fold after we split of from asians 60,000 years
ago.
> The
> Enlightenment is mentioning geographical area rather than race in defining
> his favoured group.
Races evolved in genetic isolation within geographic areas. I am not a
"Nordacist" though I have affection there. ( Both my nephews are blond
haired with blue eyes one has a classic has a Nordic heads)
I am committed to ALL Europeans against the ethnocidal replacement
immigration we are subjected to. I am I have close Serbian friend and
Ukrainian ones because I recognize that ALL people have a right to develop
their own culture in their own unique way. I do repudiate multiculturalism
gut laud the Swiss model. My Italian connections tend to be Milanese and I
have a soft spot for the Lega Nord but hell love Southern Italy. (note when
I am in Rome I do as the Romans do)
The basis for Pan European racial activism is not that we must emulate the
ethnocidal multiculuralists and homogenize ourselves totally but to
cooperate and passionately defend each others autonomy. Celebrate
Autonomy. I don't want to go to Italy or Denmark and find it over run with
Africans and I don't want to got to Italy and see it Anglicized.
http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no1/v3n1index.html
"Pan-European Genetic Interests: Ethno-States, Kinship Preservation, and the
End of Politics"
> I feel a little left out of the favoured bunch as he
> does not seem to think Sth. Europeans / racially Mediterranean types as
> being white enough for his standards although they are not reproducing
> rapidly either.
I visibly punched the sky when Berlosconi stopped those asylum scamsters.
I user the example of "Northern Europeans" simply because it provides a
stronger contrast because they were subject to the evolutionary conditions
All Europeans experienced just a little longer. Quite often race deniers
will simply use the example that some Southern Europeans have strong tans as
indication that race doesn't exist.
> Yours,
> R.M. O'Donnell
Not exactly a Southern European name is it?
fasgnadh
> > > >
> > > > The one additional necessary delusion is that if reality
> > > > is the inverse of what their delusions would predict,
> > > > then they must be being cheated of their rightful place
> > > > by the evil {insert racist epithet here}
> > >
> > > Is that why you spew out the racist epithet "anglo" so often,
Anglo is not a 'race' Ned, and so, once more you demonstrate;
a) your confusion and
b) that 'race' is not a valid taxonomy, (it's not even definable by
the nutters who use it, like YOU! B^)
> > > Guano?
No thanks, I prefer human food, eat your own lunch.
(Excrement is an epithet you 'spit out so often', is that
another of your 'races', then? I could almost be convinced you
are a member of it! ;-)
> >
> > Anglo is a culture, not a race. There are no physical requirements
> > peculiar to a subspecies to speak English.
By accusing someone of being 'racist' when the term used, "Anglo",
is NOT a race, has nothing to do with 'race' (and is in fact used
accurately and in context by someone who knows there is no such thing as
'race')
Ned hopes to smear others with the racist belief which apparently
even he thinks is offensive! Interesting how those who believe
in the 'race' myth, the racists, try so hard to project that label onto
others, even though they know it is illogical and innapropriate
to do so! B^)
I mean.. does anyone ever accuse Ned of being a Humanist? B^D
> As the race deniers (especially Guano) have been so eager to point out,
> racism does not depend on the existence of a target race.
You misrepresent by merging and confusing 'target' and 'race'.
Racism most definitely DOES depend on a target, but does
not require 'race' to be real. Just as Witchhunts clearly do have
targets, but they AIN'T WICHES, you medieval bovver boy! B^D
The target is formed on a misconception, a mythical construct,
something which does not exist, "race".
However, I am pleased to see you base your argument on accepting
my proposition that racism exists, 'race' doesn't!! B^D
It is very flattering to see you try and dig yourself out of
one lunatic assertion ("Anglo is a race") by accepting that
Anglo is no more a 'race' than any of the other things you claim
to be one! B^D
Of course the consequences for you, logically, are either
a) you claim that there is no such thing as 'Anglos', or
b) you admit that you were wrong to call them a 'race', or
c) you simply agree there are no 'races'!
Ned is so weak in logic he cannot grasp his admission.
Lets have some fun: "Ned tries to prove Witches exist: "
"Fasgnath has said that you can have witchunts even though
Witches are non-existent, so If I call him a witchunter
because he looks for Anglo's it's the same as him
calling me a witchunter for looking for witch's!" B^D
No, you fucking DIMWIT! Racism is the belief that 'RACEs'
exist, NOT the belief that ANGLO's exist!
BWAAAAAHHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA
Of course if you want to put up a case that 'Anglos' do not exist,
(especially as none of us have ever made the claims of unique,
genetic taxonomy for 'Anglo' which you racists have claimed for 'races')
please be our guest! B^D Indeed you seem to be well down
that path already!
(And now we watch Ned slink off, laughter at his stupidity once more
ringing in his ears. ;-)
fasgnadh
Moron. There are greater genetic variations WITHIN
the categories the racists, variously, define, than there
are between them!
So say the peak, reputable, peer reviewed, scientific experts!
Then we have the Usenet Bigots, who all trot out spurious
nonsense, without a single citation of experimental data, peer-
reviewed publications, or even any simple logic, FROM
A PET PSUEDO_SCIENTIST IN THE PAID EMPLOY OF
A NAZI EUGENICS ORGANISATION!!!!!!!!
This is as funny as Benightedment trotting out a Mosley type
website by "Dick Crane" (I kid you not, his monniker
really is a metaphor for fucking with young minds! ;-)
which purports to show crime stats by ethnicity... till you
notice the graphs DON'T EVEN HAVE A SCALE! B^D
From: fasgnadh (fasg...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Chinese immigrants more law abiding than Aussies
Newsgroups: aus.politics, aus.culture.true-blue
Date: 2002-07-16 01:15:33 PST
The weakness of the racists case is only highlighted when they
try to advance PHONie science claptrap, as invariably they
are forced to beat a hasty retreat. B^)
>
> > I guess some of us are related to
> > Adam and Eve and the rest of us aren't really human at all..
> >
> > But on to Phillip Rushton.
>
> Stuff about Draper, Osborn, Laughlin and Nazis removed.
>
> ----snip----
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAA!
Ned snips all the evidence of the fascist organisation
which funds the work of Rushton et al in publishing
their racist psuedo-science.
Ned and the other racists clearly don't want the facts known about
bogus science, produced for a fee, by those with no scientific
credibility, part of an organization dedicated to the promotion of
NAZI EUGENICS!
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
Look you stupid Nazi racist bigots... IT FAILED!
The last time the fucking Aryan UBERMENSCH ( a gross
misconception of Neitzche's idea in the first place) built
a society on your insane RACISM, they removed all the
'filthy Jooz' ...problem was, 70% of the Doctors in Berlin
were Jews! B^p They destroyed medical expertise,
they drove German medicine backwards by decades,
they KILLED THOUSANDS of their own blue-eyed
boys because they threw away blood science, lacked even
decent transfusion equipment and would only accept 'Aryan'
blood, when even at the height of Nazi power, only a tiny
proportion of Germans could be identified as such!
So please.. keep ranting away with this shite for our amusement,
but be aware, (and Hanson is a recent reminder for you),
fair-dinkum aussies HATE THAT RACIST SHIT!
Everytime you snakes try and revive the 1000 year Retch
(which lasted less than a decade and left the Fatherland in RUINS B^p)
you will be introduced to the business end of a shovel;
'Only one thing would have stopped our movement - if our adversaries
had understood its principle and, from the first day, had smashed with
the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement' -Adolf Hitler
> > Rushton is a newcomer to the so scene. So far he's received close to
> > 1/2 million from the foundation. I suppose he's highly respected
> > there. But not among scientists.
>
> And that's all you say about Rushton.
No you fuckwit.. YOU SNIPPED ALL HE HAD TO SAY
ABOUT THAT PHONIE AND FRAUD!
> Ad hominem and and guilt by
> (alleged) association.
Lev posted no ad hom, just the truth about a disreputable whore,
a fraud working as a paid stooge for a fascist group dedicated
to Nazi Eugenics. B^p Wake up and pull your head from
Goebbles arse.
(The Ad hom comes NOW, because you have no logical argument,
and you Nazis deserve nothing but absolute contempt)
A Nazi stooge is a Nazi stooge, ... even a Nazi stooge like you
should be able to work that out! B^D
> Can't say anything about his work?
HE did, you snipped it without adressing a single point, let
alone rebutting any.
You didn't have a thing to say about Rushtons work, so
you just get mocked and derided. B^)
Have a nice day, ...among all your Nazi racist cultists, Cobra!
>
> Ned
> --
> Public key: http://pgp.mit.edu/ http://www.keyserver.net/en/
> Fingerprint: D17C FDD5 BBA8 8687 42E3 C8F2 C9FB 0314 E17A 0CD7
Did they take DNA when they printed you, Number D17C...? ;-)
Lev Lafayette
> Lev Lafayette wrote in <95670408.03072...@posting.google.com>:
> > "Someone New" wrote:
> > > James Cameron wrote:
>
> Why did you remove the attribution lines, Lev?
*shrug* No reason. I'm sure you'll construe something important out of
it.
> Not really. All you have to do is imagine Homo Erectus differentiating
> over time in various parts of the world, then mutating to Homo Sapiens
> under the influence of some global event (same cause all over the world,
> same result all over the world).
Have any other species done it?
> > Rushton is a newcomer to the so scene. So far he's received close to
> > 1/2 million from the foundation. I suppose he's highly respected
> > there. But not among scientists.
>
> And that's all you say about Rushton. Ad hominem and and guilt by
> (alleged) association.
What's alleged about it? Is he funded by a racist eugenicist movement
or not?
> Can't say anything about his work?
Yeah. He doesn't provide a precise and unambigious definition of race,
but he sure use it at lot.
Diablo
"Someone New" <someo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:R33Ua.13658$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 23:49:57 GMT, "Diablo" <dia...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > >10,000 years ago we were all african;)
> > >How far back in time do you go to define a race???
> >
> > Your figures are wrong. Allow me to quote a few paragraphs from the
> > following:
> >
> > by
> > Professor J. Philippe Rushton, University of Western Ontario
> >
> > Modern humans evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Africans and
> > non-Africans then split about 110,000 years ago. Orientals and Whites
> > split about 40,000 years ago, around the time that modern humans were
> > first in Europe. Analyses of DNA sequencing, along with the fossil and
> > archaeological record, demonstrate this sequence.
>
> As you probably know, the African Eve hypothesis is one of two competing
> theories among scientists in this field. The other theory is that modern
> human races all evolved separately from earlier primitive ancestors in
> different parts of the world at a much earlier date.
>
> two competing camps. That is ok, because genuine science progresses by
> testing established hypotheses against the available evidence, and as a
> scientist Rushton will no doubt be prepared to modify his views as new
> evidence becomes available.
>
to
> be better able to accommodate the evidence of modern humans like
> Fontechevade and Swanscombe in Europe long before "110,000 years ago".
>
> > construct that the human genome project shows that because people
> > share 99% of their "genes" in common, that there are no races. This is
> > silly. Human genes are 98% similar to chimpanzee genes. Yet no one
> > thinks that chimpanzees have the same intelligence, brain size, or
> > social behavior patterns as human beings; they look and behave very
> > differently. In fact humans share 90% of their genes with mice, which
> > is why we can use them to test drug therapies. Similarly, although men
> > and women are genetically 99% the same, it is foolish to believe that
> > sex is just a "social construction".
> >
> > In summary, the same racial pattern would not occur so consistently
> > all around the world and over time if race were a mere social
> > construct. If it were a meaningless construct, it would have no power
> > to predict phenomena like brain size, growth rate, life span, crime,
> > and family stability. Other evidence also shows that race is a
> > biological reality. For example, coroners in crime labs can identify
> > race from a skeleton or even just the skull. They can even identify
> > race from blood, hair, or semen. How could they do this if race was
> > only a social construct? The scientific evidence shows that the
> > politically correct mantra "race is just skin deep" is a case of deep
> > denial.
>
> As to "Diablo's" claim that:
>
> > >10,000 years ago we were all african;)
> > >How far back in time do you go to define a race???
>
> it is clear that he simply has no idea even of what he is asking. Logic
> means nothing to him.
Logic to you means believing NAZI funded scientists.
Philippe Rushton is funded by the Pioneer Fund, which was founded by NAZI's.
How can a scientist that is funded by a NAZI group be credible???
"The Pioneer Fund was established in 1937 by the American white supremacist
multimillionaire Wickliffe Draper and others who were supportive of Nazi
race policies in Germany."
http://bethuneinstitute.org/documents/racialscientestrushton.html
> Evidence means nothing to him.
What evidence?
> He simply can't
> understand science. He is like a rabid Catholic Inquisitor from the
burning
> years - an uneducated fool who simply wishes to silence the modern likes
of
> Giordano Bruno with his thin little whining insults of "dickhead" and
> "NAZI".
Bruno Giordano or Galileo can't be compared to NAZI supported "so-called"
scientists you fool.
Btw, I despise the church or any other religion/organisation that interferes
with ANY progress.
> But when a fool like "Diablo" shows himself up (as he already has, and at
> length), what makes you think that exposing him to the views of a genuine
> scientist like Rushton could possibly help him? All he is actually capable
> of doing is to keep chirping, like a trained budgie, single words like
> "dickhead" and "NAZI".
>
> Sadly, "Polly wants a cracker" would be too long for "diablo". Four words
> would tax his memory-span. In fact, he'll probably just keep chirping
> "dickhead" and "NAZI" until he falls off the perch as a very dead parrot
> indeed.
Lev Lafayette
> Lev Lafayette wrote in <95670408.03072...@posting.google.com>:
>
> ----snip----
>
> > > There are no africans with chinese ancestry.
> >
> > No Africans with Chinese ancestry? I'm sorry, that simply isn't true.
>
> Your quibble is based on nothing more than Bernard's loose use of the
> words "african" and "chinese".
If one can't make use of words as they are writ, then what are we
supposed to do? Guess what the person really meant?
> FYI, his statement, more carefully
> worded, means "there are no negroes with mongoloid ancestry".
>
> Can you address that?
Same reasoning can be used. There have been east Asian traders along
the African coast for a long time. Yes, there are "negroes" with
"mongoloid" ancestry. You know this is true.
> > This is the science of the matter.
>
> You misspelt "propaganda", Lev.
If you choose to call references from higher education institutes and
from scientific publications "propaganda" then everything in your
world is propaganda.
That must be a very dizzying world to be in.
> > http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant270/lectures/race/race1.htm
> >
> > * The classification [of humans] into races has proved to be a
> > futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin
> > (Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994)
>
> Note that the statement references someone's opinion about Darwin's
> appreciation of the matter, and gives no reference to anything stated
> by Darwin himself.
Point. Darwin made some fairly ridiculous claims about race. He also
made some fairly sensible ones as well. In fact, he was completely
contradictory when it came to matters of race.
> > * While it is clear that there is only one human species, there
> > are no objective reasons for splitting or lumping at any lower
> > taxonomic level (I.e., subspecies, races, varieties)
>
> And that little piece of dogmatism isn't referenced or justified at all.
The reference is above.
"This course provides an introduction to the current scientific
consensus about human biological and cultural evolution with an
emphasis on the interaction of social behavior and biological change."
Readings come from:
Jurmain, R., Kilgore, L., and Trevathan, W., Nelson, H. 2002.
Introduction to Physical Anthropology, Ninth Edition. New York:
Wadsworth Publishing.
Learn, or forever remain ignorant.
fasgnadh
>
> "nonentity" <none...@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:3f20...@news.comindico.com.au...
> >
> > "The Enlightenment" <bern...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:ORQTa.12228$OM3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > >
> > > "Lev Lafayette" <lev_la...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > Is Northern European a race? If so, why?
> > >
> > > Because they look different, have a different physilogy, different
> > > enurophysilogy, and perfrom differently in sports and cogntive areas
to
> > > other races eg Africans and Chinese. Alos becuase they split of from
> > > Africans at least 120,000 years ago by the out of africa theory.
> > >
> > >
> > The only race that is entirely Northern European is the Nordic one.
> Northern
> > Europeans are both Nordic and Alpine in race with some admixture of the
> > other purely European race , Mediterranean. Nth. European also includes
> Sami
> > & similar types who belong to the Mongoliod race rather than Caucasian.
>
> Not quite true:-this is old theory.
It's not at ALL true! B^D It's just ONE MORE EXAMPLE
of the unbelievably irrational BULLSHIT you racists
believe, and must constantly argue about BECAUSE
THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS TO YOUR
PRIMITIVE SUPERSTITIONS!
Thus we find one of you saying a witch is deifined by her warts,
and the next one that no no, it's her pointy hat!
Then a third pipes in that everyone knows witches are
distinguished by their Black cats, and you have to come along and
explain thats "old theory" because, well, you have a black cat,
but no one better damn well call you a witch! B^D
Remember the scene in Life of Brian?
"Follow the Holy Sandle" "No No, the sacred Gourd!, Follow the gourd!".
Look let me make it somple for you.
It's the broomstick! Witches ride on broomsticks!
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!
Now.. until you SEE, photograph and document a witch flying
through the air on a broomstick.. no one will believe that witchs EXIST.
And until to stupid racist twats can AGREE on a definition
of your jelly, before you try and nail it to the ceiling..
and can provide a SCIENTIFIC basis for your arguements,
citing REPUTABLE sources, from PEER-REVIEWED
journals... no one will take you seriously about your current
fantasy.. the myth of 'race'! B^)
I will snip anything that does NOT come from a reputable scientific source,
with proper citations as being mere opinion by a known dolt (you) who
has already been systematically discretided;
<snip>
> Much of this was bordering quackery
yes, and the rest of it had well and truly crossed the border! B^D
<snip>
>
> > The
> > Enlightenment is mentioning geographical area rather than race in
defining
> > his favoured group.
>
<snip>
> (note when I am in Rome I do as the Romans do)
Of course, people from any culture and ethnicity can fit in,
no matter what skin colour they are. B^)
But how did you like being a Roman Catholic for the duration?
> > I feel a little left out of the favoured bunch as he
> > does not seem to think Sth. Europeans / racially Mediterranean types as
> > being white enough for his standards although they are not reproducing
> > rapidly either.
The thing about racists like Benightedment, with his infinitely
variable 'definition' of 'race' is that if he's advocating against
immigrants from China, you are a 'fellow European' ,
otherwise, to him, you become another 'wog'.
In the 50's he and his ilk were whining about the Italians and the Greeks
coming here, taking our jobs and touching our wimmins.
In the 80's he and his ilk were whining about the Vietnamese
coming here, taking our jobs and touching our wimmins.
Now he and his ilk are whining about the Iranians
coming here, taking our jobs and touching our wimmins.
> > Yours,
> > R.M. O'Donnell
>
> Not exactly a Southern European name is it?
BWAAAAAHAHAHHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAAAA!
Oh, this is too much, now Benightedment is determining ethnic pedigree
by NAME! How scientific is that!
Lets see.. How many Helens do I know. They
must all be Greek. And the Melissas.
My Black Sth African mate is called Derek. He must be
one of the UK blacks whose ancestors reverse migrated
to Africa millennia ago.
I've met Irish blacks named O'Reilly.
And tehre are literally tens of thousands of Indians with
the names of their British fathers wsho could not resist the
susky charms of the local women while they were posted
to the colonial sub-continent.
Obviously Geoff Clarke is a Brit, Nev will have him in his own
Fish and Chips Shop within the week..
Anyone know which country this Boadicea chick comes from?
Sounds a bit woggy to me ....don't ya think? Not like Julian,
a proper English Gents name.. thanks to the Romans! B^D
Someone New
"Diablo" <dia...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ek4Ua.13743$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...> news:aL3Ua.13698$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "Diablo" <dia...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:Ri3Ua.13666$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...> > > news:Cu2Ua.13621$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > >
> > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > > 10,000 years ago we were all african;)
> > > > > > How far back in time do you go to define a race???
> > > > >
> > > > > Cro-Magnon times, perhaps 35,000 years ago. According to H V
Vallois
> > > (for
> > > > > his credentials check him out in an encyclopedia), the
Fontechevade
> > > people
> > > > > of perhaps 180,000 years ago were our earlier Nordic ancestors.
And
> > > > > Swanscombe Woman, who again looked like a modern Nordic and who
> > > apparently
> > > > > had a perfectly modern brain, dates from 435,000 to 230,000 years
> > ago.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is that enough time for you? Our race has been around for up to
> > 435,000
> > > > > years. Your statement that "10,000 years ago we were all african"
is
> > > just
> > > > > insane ignorance.
> > > >
> > > > > > NAZI's are a danger to our society.
> > > > >
> > > > > No: total ignoramuses are a danger to ANY society. Try to get an
> > > education
> > > > > before you make some equally idiotically stupid comments in
future.
> > > >
> > > > > NAZI's ARE total ignoramuses, dickhead!
> > > >
> > > > Come on, then. Give us some evidence for your insane claim that
> "10,000
> > > > years ago we were all african".
> > >
> > > It was an "indicative" number.
> >
> > No, it wasn't. You pretended that it was a fact. There was nothing
> > "indicative" in what you wrote. This was what you wrote:
> >
> > > > > > 10,000 years ago we were all african;)
> > > > > > How far back in time do you go to define a race???
> >
> > years ago we were all african;)". And now you can't give any evidence
for
> > your ignoramus claim, can you?
> >
> > In fact, you have introduced this weasel-word "indicative" to try to get
> off
> > the hook, haven't you?
>
> Since you're an intelligent person:
>
> How do you define a race? Do you base a race on Color? Culture?
> What is a "Northern European" race (Hitler's logic???)?
The first step would be to get Hitler out of the equation. He wasn't a
racist. He was merely a German nationalist.
If Hitler had been a racist, he would have declared war on Japan immediately
after the Japs' attack on Pearl Harbour. The world would now be a very
different place if, after that event, he had stood up in the Reichstag and
declared:
"The Yellow Peril has struck a cowardly and dastardly blow at our white
brothers and sisters in America. In this their hour of peril and need, the
hearts, hands and prayers of every German go out to our American friends
whom we will do our utmost to help."
Something like that is what a racist would have said.
Instead, Hitler automatically declared war on White America on the basis of
his alliance with Asian Japan.
Adolf a racist? Nup, the record of history shows that the jolly old Fuhrer
was no racist.
In hindsight, personally, I wish he had been. The world today may have been
a much better place. But he wasn't, and all we can do is accept that fact.
> I'll ask you this question again:
> How many years do you go back in time to define a race???
> 10?
> 100?
> 1,000?
> 10,000?
> 100,000?
> 1,000,000?
I have already answered that question. As you can see above, I wrote: "Our
race has been around for up to 435,000 years. Your statement that '10,000
years ago we were all african' is just insane ignorance."
> >
> > > 10 > 10,000 > 100,000 > 1,000,000...it's all relative to how far back
> you
> > > want to go.
> > >
> > > People are different from town to town, country to country, time to
> time.
> > > But we all have the same orgins.
> >
> > Of course we all have the same origins, if by that you mean we are all
> made
> > up of atoms that were created in the Big Bang.
>
> No, I don't mean that.
> I mean Humans have the same BASE origins and culture.
> "Race" doesn't exist because it is only "RELATIVE", depending how far you
go
> back in time.
The concept of "species" equivalently doesn't exist according to your
argument, because if we go back far enough in time then you and the
daddy-long-legs spider lurking somewhere in your house both had the same
ancestors. The fact, though, is that "You" and "Daddy" have grown apart over
the millenia. You and a "Daddy" can't reproduce sexually, which proves that
you are different species, but you still share common ancestors.
If the various human races and subraces had had time to develop further
before we were all thrown together, perhaps we would have all ended up
equally and mutually infertile.
> > By that logic (and it is
> > valid as far as it goes) you have the same "origins" as the cane toads
> that
> > we're trying to prevent from spreading out of Queensland, or the blowies
> > that we try to prevent from striking our sheep, or the unwelcome
> demographic
> > oil-slick that is washing up on our shores.
> >
> >
>
>