Bad Science: Harper's article, "Mighty White of You"

[Scott W]

Its interesting that you keep emphasizing that. Im not sure what it proves. That biological race exists? No. All it proves is that DNA technology is sophisticated enough to pinpoint what general region of the world your ancestors came from. In fact, using DNA technology, scientists can tell you what region of Europe, Africa, and Asia you come from. Does that mean that every country of the world is now a separate race? Being able to pinpoint ancestry doesnt mean that humans have subspeciated. I have also already admitted that race has a sociological reality.

This is the part I would have bolded from the same article:

Put another way, the genetic difference between two individuals of the same race can be greater than those between individuals of different races--table sugar may look like salt, but it has more similarities with corn syrup.

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

Put another way, the genetic difference between two individuals of the same race can be greater than those between individuals of different races--table sugar may look like salt, but it has more similarities with corn syrup.

exactly
I don't have any Hispanic people anywhere in my family tree, but because I'm a mullatto (or possibly because I was born jaundiced so badly that I almost died) I have a "Hispanic-looking skin-color" I know that Abe Lincoln and the Civil War general named Burnsides were both incapable of growing mustaches but I'm not related to either of them so even though I'm not hispanic, my moustache grows faster that the rest of my face (the same as every hispanic male i've ever seen) as opposed to my mustache growing slower than the rest of my face like the non-hispanic "hippie" men that comepletely stopped shaving and grew "sideburns" durring the 60s/70s
so no matter how busy I get I still get up and shave my mustache because even when I've got my upper lip cleanshaven I'm still getting every hispanic person i ever interact with trying to talk to me in Spanish because somehow i look hispanic even though I'm not

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

It's great that you're backing me up on this LRD. Your personal experience is really convincing evidence about genes being important to which culture you are drawn towards.
I have heard that usually when a black child is adopted at birth by a white couple, the child usually goes back to black culture when old enough. It could be argued that it was just a random choice, but what we choose involves a mental process. And I'm sure our preferences are instinctive, except in cases were a conditioning influence is present.

It's pretty obvious that most of (if not all of) the cultural differences between blacks and whites are controlled (or at least influenced) by genetics

 

[Norsemaiden]

Scott W! You should have answered "Yes" to my first point AS WE BOTH AGREE that species move towards speciation, but it takes thousands upon thousands of years. Races are not species however. Races are sub-sets of species and they happen before species seperate.

We both AGREE that some species of animals have not speciated for millions of years - such as crocodiles and some sharks I think. We agree that this is because they have a niche and no pressure to evolve.

We agree that evolution doesn't have to occur and also that it is not directional. (The idea some people have that humans are more highly evolved than rats is ignorant speciesist talk! Survival is the criterion of a successful species - nothing else.)

Races are sub-sets of species, so they are groups potentially seperating into species. Humans haven't been around long enough to speciate, agreed, but they have been around long enough to form different racial groups. (With a lot of blending around the edges and the ongoing process of mixing due to immigration).

I have no problem with all races originating in Africa. That is why there is so much diversity within Africa compared with areas of more homogeneity such as China. In Africa you will find the best example of genetic differences between 2 individuals of the same race that are greater than the differences between different races. Tribal warfare is a result of this diversity. It explains why Africans are still primitive, as these are the people who never migrated out and are still where we left them.

Although someAfrican characteristics like frizzy hair have recently evolved - after the migration of the Africans who turned into the various other races. So evolution in Africa is continuing.

 

[tr_ofdallas]

exactly
I don't have any Hispanic people anywhere in my family tree, but because I'm a mullatto (or possibly because I was born jaundiced so badly that I almost died) I have a "Hispanic-looking skin-color" I know that Abe Lincoln and the Civil War general named Burnsides were both incapable of growing mustaches but I'm not related to either of them so even though I'm not hispanic, my moustache grows faster that the rest of my face (the same as every hispanic male i've ever seen) as opposed to my mustache growing slower than the rest of my face like the non-hispanic "hippie" men that comepletely stopped shaving and grew "sideburns" durring the 60s/70s
so no matter how busy I get I still get up and shave my mustache because even when I've got my upper lip cleanshaven I'm still getting every hispanic person i ever interact with trying to talk to me in Spanish because somehow i look hispanic even though I'm not

hillarious

 

[Norsemaiden]

LRD I was trying to imagine you growing your moustache and shaving it, but I don't know what you look like. When will you send a picture?
(Perhaps we have to get back on topic now - the moderators are watching)

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

It's pretty obvious that most of (if not all of) the cultural differences between blacks and whites are controlled (or at least influenced) by genetics

I totaly expected to have someone vehemently disagreeing with this^^^

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

LRD I was trying to imagine you growing your moustache and shaving it, but I don't know what you look like. When will you send a picture?
(Perhaps we have to get back on topic now - the moderators are watching)

me talking about my mustache was me trying to make the point that "you can't judge a book by it's cover" and i don't have any pix of myself... yet

 

[Scott W]

Races are sub-sets of species, so they are groups potentially seperating into species. Humans haven't been around long enough to speciate, agreed, but they have been around long enough to form different racial groups. (With a lot of blending around the edges and the ongoing process of mixing due to immigration).

This is the logical step that I dont agree with. My point in my post was that there has to be an inability for subspecies to come back an interbreed. Thereby creating a situation where both populations are mutating and changing, with no gene flow, and eventually inability to interbreed. There hasnt been enough time, nor enough reproductive isolation to do either. If the two populations can come back and interbreed, speciation of any kind WONT happen, and humans have always been interbreeding, and NOT reproductively isolated.

Subspecies alone, forget different species, takes a very long time, and that very long time MUST coincide with reproductive isolation. The history of humanity fails on both counts. There hasnt been enough time, nor has there been reproductive isolation. What we think of as races are really just geographically different morphologies as our one species has adapted to many different ecosystems and climates. Just because we have adapted in different ways does NOT mean we are subspeciating.

 

[tr_ofdallas]

This is the logical step that I dont agree with. My point in my post was that there has to be an inability for subspecies to come back an interbreed. Thereby creating a situation where both populations are mutating and changing, with no gene flow, and eventually inability to interbreed. There hasnt been enough time, nor enough reproductive isolation to do either. If the two populations can come back and interbreed, speciation of any kind WONT happen, and humans have always been interbreeding, and NOT reproductively isolated.

Subspecies alone, forget different species, takes a very long time, and that very long time MUST coincide with reproductive isolation. The history of humanity fails on both counts. There hasnt been enough time, nor has there been reproductive isolation. What we think of as races are really just geographically different morphologies as our one species has adapted to many different ecosystems and climates. Just because we have adapted in different ways does NOT mean we are subspeciating.

I think what you're saying is that the differences in people's skin color is kind of like the differences in the fur colors in an animal species where a cat that's got white fur could still breed with a cat that's got black fur cuz their still both cats

 

[Scott W]

I think what you're saying is that the differences in people's skin color is kind of like the differences in the fur colors in an animal species where a cat that's got white fur could still breed with a cat that's got black fur cuz their still both cats

Basically, yes. But Im not speaking in absolutes, there are just as many cases in which two physically different populations ARE subspecies, as there are cases in which physically different populations arent. It has to do with reproduction and gene flow. If these populations are always mutating and breeding with each other, the mutations get passed around, and not just on the peripheral edges. If thats the case, these populations will always remain the same species, and not subspeciate. When we talk about different species, it has to do with how different they are genetically. Thats what causes the inability to breed, or produce fertile offspring. If two organisms are so different genetically, they cant breed. So for two populations that are speciating, or subspeciating, they MUST be reproductively isolated.

 

[tr_ofdallas]

Basically, yes. But Im not speaking in absolutes, there are just as many cases in which two physically different populations ARE subspecies, as there are cases in which physically different populations arent. It has to do with reproduction and gene flow. If these populations are always mutating and breeding with each other, the mutations get passed around, and not just on the peripheral edges. If thats the case, these populations will always remain the same species, and not subspeciate. When we talk about different species, it has to do with how different they are genetically. Thats what causes the inability to breed, or produce fertile offspring. If two organisms are so different genetically, they cant breed. So for two populations that are speciating, or subspeciating, they MUST be reproductively isolated.

now it makes a little more sense than it did earlier sometimes you have just a little bit of a problem expressing your ideas in a way understandable to the people that are arguing with you partialy because they don't comepletely understand what you said
that's a compliment btw
you're noticebly smarter than most of the other people here especially when it comes to biology

 

[Blaphbee]

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/10/rushton_revisit.php

The Biological Reality of Race

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/02/world-of-difference-richard-lynn-maps.php

"What makes the current study, published in the February issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics, more conclusive is its size. The study is by far the largest, consisting of 3,636 people who all identified themselves as either white, African-American, East Asian or Hispanic. Of these, only five individuals had DNA that matched an ethnic group different than the box they checked at the beginning of the study. That's an error rate of 0.14 percent.

According to Neil Risch, PhD, a UCSF professor who led the study while he was professor of genetics at Stanford, the findings are particularly surprising given that people in both African-American and Hispanic ethnic groups often have a mixed background. "We might expect these individuals to cross several different genetic clusters," Risch said. This is especially true for Hispanics who are often a mix of Native American, white and African-American ancestry. But that's not what the study found. Instead, each self-identified racial/ethnic group clumped into the same genetic cluster."

more: http://mednews.stanford.edu/releases/2005/january/racial-data.htm

The idea that human races are only social constructs has been the consensus for at least 30 years.



But now, perhaps, that is about to change. Last fall, the prestigious journal Nature Genetics devoted a large supplement to the question of whether human races exist and, if so, what they mean. The journal did this in part because various American health agencies are making race an important part of their policies to best protect the public - often over the protests of scientists. In the supplement, some two dozen geneticists offered their views. Beneath the jargon, cautious phrases and academic courtesies, one thing was clear: the consensus about social constructs was unraveling. Some even argued that, looked at the right way, genetic data show that races clearly do exist.



The dominance of the social construct theory can be traced to a 1972 article by Dr. Richard Lewontin, a Harvard geneticist, who wrote that most human genetic variation can be found within any given "race." If one looked at genes rather than faces, he claimed, the difference between an African and a European would be scarcely greater than the difference between any two Europeans. A few years later he wrote that the continued popularity of race as an idea was an "indication of the power of socioeconomically based ideology over the supposed objectivity of knowledge." Most scientists are thoughtful, liberal-minded and socially aware people. It was just what they wanted to hear.



Three decades later, it seems that Dr. Lewontin's facts were correct, and have been abundantly confirmed by ever better techniques of detecting genetic variety. His reasoning, however, was wrong. His error was an elementary one, but such was the appeal of his argument that it was only a couple of years ago that a Cambridge University statistician, A. W. F. Edwards, put his finger on it.



The error is easily illustrated. If one were asked to judge the ancestry of 100 New Yorkers, one could look at the color of their skin. That would do much to single out the Europeans, but little to distinguish the Senegalese from the Solomon Islanders. The same is true for any other feature of our bodies. The shapes of our eyes, noses and skulls; the color of our eyes and our hair; the heaviness, height and hairiness of our bodies are all, individually, poor guides to ancestry.



But this is not true when the features are taken together. Certain skin colors tend to go with certain kinds of eyes, noses, skulls and bodies. When we glance at a stranger's face we use those associations to infer what continent, or even what country, he or his ancestors came from - and we usually get it right. To put it more abstractly, human physical variation is correlated; and correlations contain information.



Genetic variants that aren't written on our faces, but that can be detected only in the genome, show similar correlations. It is these correlations that Dr. Lewontin seems to have ignored. In essence, he looked at one gene at a time and failed to see races. But if many - a few hundred - variable genes are considered simultaneously, then it is very easy to do so. Indeed, a 2002 study by scientists at the University of Southern California and Stanford showed that if a sample of people from around the world are sorted by computer into five groups on the basis of genetic similarity, the groups that emerge are native to Europe, East Asia, Africa, America and Australasia - more or less the major races of traditional anthropology.



One of the minor pleasures of this discovery is a new kind of genealogy. Today it is easy to find out where your ancestors came from - or even when they came, as with so many of us, from several different places. If you want to know what fraction of your genes are African, European or East Asian, all it takes is a mouth swab, a postage stamp and $400 - though prices will certainly fall.



Yet there is nothing very fundamental about the concept of the major continental races; they're just the easiest way to divide things up. Study enough genes in enough people and one could sort the world's population into 10, 100, perhaps 1,000 groups, each located somewhere on the map. This has not yet been done with any precision, but it will be. Soon it may be possible to identify your ancestors not merely as African or European, but Ibo or Yoruba, perhaps even Celt or Castilian, or all of the above.



The identification of racial origins is not a search for purity. The human species is irredeemably promiscuous. We have always seduced or coerced our neighbors even when they have a foreign look about them and we don't understand a word. If Hispanics, for example, are composed of a recent and evolving blend of European, American Indian and African genes, then the Uighurs of Central Asia can be seen as a 3,000-year-old mix of West European and East Asian genes. Even homogenous groups like native Swedes bear the genetic imprint of successive nameless migrations.

http://courses.biology.utah.edu/jorgensen/2030/opinion/Races OpEd.htm

Replaying the game of race science

By Marek Kohn
January 30, 2006

RACIAL science has discovered the art, and the power, of flattery. Last year, three scholars published a paper, Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence, in which they argued that Ashkenazi Jews were considerably more intelligent than other Europeans because their history of moneylending and other financial occupations favoured genes associated with cleverness.

The principle at stake was essentially the same as the one underlying The Bell Curve, a provocative tome in which Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein suggested that black people might be innately less intelligent than white people, that race is biologically real and that some races are intellectually superior to others. But the public reaction was strikingly different. There was none of the outrage that followed The Bell Curve's appearance in 1994. Instead there were thoughtful commentaries on the paper's arguments, and an undertone of complacency.

At a meeting in New York at which psychologist Steven Pinker spoke about the Ashkenazi paper, though, one writer was troubled. Maggie Wittlin, reporting for Seed magazine, said: "People will hear what they want to hear. And many in attendance were there to hear that Jews are naturally smarter than everyone else." Seduction is more powerful than provocation — and more insidious.

And it is not directed at one ethnic group. As Pinker has noted, race has raised its head in public several times in the past year, and the reaction — or lack of it — has been notable. Murray restated his case, more magisterially than ever, in the magazine Commentary. British biologist Armand Marie Leroi argued in The New York Times that race was a scientifically meaningful and medically valuable concept. His case has the implicit support of the US Food and Drug Administration, which has approved a heart drug, BiDil, that is intended specifically for black people. Discredited by association with the Third Reich, and discarded by mainstream science thereafter, racial science is pushing for rehabilitation on a range of fronts.

Last month, Pinker told the Edge website that "the dangerous idea of the next decade" will be the notion that "groups of people may differ genetically in their average talents and temperaments". It is all the more dangerous for being bound up with ideas about how populations vary in their susceptibility to disease. The implication is that we must take these ideas as a package. Health must come first, of course — and the dangerous elements must follow. We are ill-prepared to respond to the complex challenges posed by racial arguments bobbing in the unstoppable tide of genetic research.

In the past it was easy: an ominous reference to the Nazis and a snippet of scientific reassurance — such as the observation that there is more variation within so-called races than between them — would do the trick. But the hard-core advocates of race science have spent years working out answers to the standard rebuttals. And you cannot refute a scientific claim by referring to its historical baggage.

Over the years, the denial of race became almost absolute. Differences were only skin-deep, it was said — despite the common knowledge that certain groups had higher incidences of genetically influenced diseases. It became a taboo, and as the taboo starts to appear outdated or untenable, the danger is that unreflective denial will be replaced by equally uncritical acceptance.

We don't need to take it as a package, though. In particular, we should not be misled into thinking that sexes and races are the same kind of thing. Evolutionary theory affirms that, in general, male and female behaviour will differ. On race, however, it has little or nothing to say. Whereas there is a fundamental asymmetry between the genetic interests of men and women, because women are obliged to invest more resources in their offspring than men are, different peoples are much the same. Although hard-core race theorists talk about the bracing effects of cold open spaces upon East Asian mental abilities (which they consider to be greater than those of any other group), they are pushed to explain why such environments should promote intelligence any more than, say, the Australian outback. If life in groups of clever primates was the main driving force behind human intelligence, as many scientists nowadays consider, it's harder still to see why intelligence should vary with the landscape.

For most people these are unfamiliar and perhaps uncomfortable arguments. Critical and frank discussion from publicly engaged scientists on racial issues would be welcome. But perhaps the most constructive thing to do is to reflect on our own attitudes. Our ideas about race are a mishmash of received opinions, partly remembered facts and subjective impressions. They probably include more old-fashioned racial notions than we would like to think, but clever approaches such as the Ashkenazi paper may lure them to the surface.

We have gone beyond the stage where the question of racial science could be seen as a straightforward contest between decent values and sinister pseudoscience. It's no longer black and white.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opini...of-race-science/2006/01/29/1138469605363.html

LOS ANGELES -- Even when they smoke the same amount -- up to a pack a day -- black people are more likely than white people and others to develop lung cancer, suggesting genes might help explain the racial differences long seen in the disease, researchers say.

The largest study ever done on the subject found that whites who smoke up to a pack a day have half the risk of lung cancer of blacks and native Hawaiians who smoke the same amount. Hispanic and Asian smokers also were found to be less likely than blacks to develop the disease. However, the racial differences disappeared among heavy smokers.

Doctors have long known that blacks are substantially more likely than whites to develop lung cancer and more likely to die from it. But the reasons for the disparity are unclear. . . .

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060126/NEWS07/601260498/1009

"A common genetic mutation may explain why Asian heart patients are less likely than others to get relief from chest pain when they take nitroglycerin, a new Chinese study finds. Fudan University researchers examined 111 coronary heart disease patients who were self-administering nitroglycerin under the tongue whenever they experienced an acute angina attacks. Eighty (72 percent) of the patients reported that they had pain relief within 10 minutes of taking the nitroglycerin, while the remainder of the patients experienced no pain relief. The researchers found that many of the patients who didn't respond to nitroglycerin had an inactive mutant form of the ALDH2 gene. This mutant version is called ALDH2*2. In order for nitroglycerin to be effective, a patient's body has to be able to convert the nitroglycerin into nitric oxide. This process requires ALDH2. It's estimated that 30 percent to 50 percent of the Asian population has the ALDH2*2 mutation. This information needs to be considered when doctors recommend nitroglycerin for Asian patients, the study authors said".

http://health.yahoo.com/news/143619

"It is not a subject scientists generally wax about. But a seven-page scientific paper published today is solely devoted to the genetics of earwax. Human earwax comes in two varieties -- wet and dry. According to the journal Nature Genetics, dry earwax is seen in up to 95 per cent of East Asians, but no more than 3 per cent of Europeans and Africans. The reason for the difference is a gene called ABCC11 which controls earwax-altering molecules. A 39-strong international team did the research. The role of earwax was unclear, said the scientists. "Insect trapping, self-cleaning and prevention of dryness of the external auditory canal are its plausible functions," they wrote. Armpit (axillary) odour was associated with wet-type earwax, raising the possibility that earwax might be involved in sexual attraction."

http://heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,17974764%5E662,00.html

Discriminating Medicine
Using race and ethnicity to improve medical care
http://www.reason.com/rb/rb111805.shtml

Genetic Find Stirs Debate on Race-Based Medicine

An Icelandic company says it has detected a version of a gene that raises the risk of heart attack in African-Americans by more than 250 percent.
http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=ht...Q7DQ3B7Q7D Nu
http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/cour...ews/DG301.html

 

[Scott W]

now it makes a little more sense than it did earlier sometimes you have just a little bit of a problem expressing your ideas in a way understandable to the people that are arguing with you partialy because they don't comepletely understand what you said
that's a compliment btw
you're noticebly smarter than most of the other people here especially when it comes to biology

Thats my fault, because Im used to discussing this stuff with my research professors, or fellow students. Im also always trying to balance putting the information into words that people can understand, without losing the meaning, or making it more confusing than it already is.

And thanks for the compliment

 

[Blaphbee]

Its interesting that you keep emphasizing that. Im not sure what it proves. That biological race exists? No. All it proves is that DNA technology is sophisticated enough to pinpoint what general region of the world your ancestors came from. In fact, using DNA technology, scientists can tell you what region of Europe, Africa, and Asia you come from. Does that mean that every country of the world is now a separate race? Being able to pinpoint ancestry doesnt mean that humans have subspeciated. I have also already admitted that race has a sociological reality.

This is the part I would have bolded from the same article:

Put another way, the genetic difference between two individuals of the same race can be greater than those between individuals of different races--table sugar may look like salt, but it has more similarities with corn syrup.

Even if one is to accept as fact that there exists more variation within a race rather than between races, the conclusion that race does not exist is non sequitur. Variation within a population will always exist due to mutations, which, in the rare case that they are beneficial, will give rise to polymorphisms. This is necessary to allow a group to adapt to its changing environment, which however slight, can cause drastic genetic drift over the course of millenia--given, of course, that natural selection is still in effect. Unfortunately, modernity destroys any opportunity for humanity to evolve.

http://bbs.anus.com/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=000093

Natural selection is most commonly misunderstood by those who believe it to be no more than a game of chance—yet little could be farther from the truth! While it is true that chance alone cannot produce complex structures, the only indeterminate level of evolution occurs during meiosis, when “the genes an individual inherits from its parents are recombined by independent segregation of chromosomes and by crossing over within chromosomes.”12 Natural selection is a deterministic process, not a random one—it is subject to antecedent environmental causes, or stressors. “The random processes of evolution, mutation, and genetic drift do not in themselves result in the evolution of complexity;”13 these processes merely give rise to variation among individuals, and allow the fixture of this variation into a population in the form of polymorphisms. Evolution only occurs relative to the stressors of a particular environment, and that particular environment is subject to change over geological time. Therefore, a species had better continue to evolve to its changing environment or else it will no longer remain extant. The deliberate direction of evolution is always towards adaptation to the environment when selection is in effect. This is why evolutionary divergence is seen throughout natural history, and it is the means by which the various human races evolved. It is also why any sort of racial superiority cannot be argued from a universal standpoint, but only relative to the environment in question.

http://www.anus.com/zine/db/race/biology_of_race.html

http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html

 

[Blaphbee]

Carter Reveals Begin Viewed
Jews As The Master Race
All Hail The Jewish Master Race
By Texe Marrs
11-25-3

"Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves."

If I asked you what group of people embrace a set of doctrines like this, what would your answer be? Most of you would probably answer, "The Nazis."

Today, in fact, it is Jews who make all these poisonous claims to racial superiority. No, not all the Jews. But, as I will document, a huge number of leaders among the Jews ascribe to these wicked and dangerous theories of racial and blood superiority.

No Basis for Peace

In his memoirs of his years in the White House, former President Jimmy Carter wrote that there could have been peace between the Arabs and the Israelis had it not been for the bigoted, Nazi-like racial views of Israeli's Prime Minister Menachem Begin.

Begin, Carter recalled, believed the Jews were a Master Race, a holy people superior to Egyptians and Arabs. Begin also believed that God wanted the Jews to own the land, so there was absolutely no basis for peace. The Jews lusted after the land and intended to have it. Period.

Jews a Totally Different Species?

Rabbi Mendel Schneerson, the late Jewish Lubavitcher and friend of the senior George Bush, also believed the Jews are a superior Master Race. Many Jews today agree with the late Rabbi. Some even believe that Schneerson will himself someday be resurrected and return as the Jewish World Messiah. Schneerson once explained his theory of Jewish racial superiority this way. He said, "We have a case of the Jew...a totally different species."

"The body of a Jewish person," Schneerson bragged, "is of a totally different quality from the body of members of all other nations of the world. Bodies of the Gentiles are in vain. An even greater difference is in regard to the soul...A non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness."

Holocaust activist Elie Wiesel, whose lies about his holocaust experiences seem to be legion, also claims that Jews are a superior race. "Everything about us is different," Wiesel boasts. "Jews are ontologically exceptional."

No Mixed Marriages for the Superior Race

This poisonous theory of the Jews impacts their relations with all other nations and peoples. Because they are convinced they are the Master Race, superior, god souls living amongst inferior beasts, Israel does not sanction or allow mixed marriages (The Jerusalem Report, October 20, 1994, p.26). In the U.S.A., liberal Jews scream out for more mixed marriages, but only among Gentiles! Jewish leaders fund civil rights organizations and are in favor of increased immigration of foreign races. But back home in Israel, the Sharon government is now building a Berlin-style wall creating an apartheid nation, to keep "inferior" Arabs in their segregated ghettos.

Ze'ev Chafeto, the courageous Jewish editor of The Jerusalem Report magazine, notes that Israeli laws harshly prohibit people of non-Jewish races from immigrating to Israel. The Jews are determined to keep their race "pure" and unblemished, just as the Nazis sought for the Aryans. Christians are especially not welcome, and Israelis frequently use words similar to the condescending slang word "******" to describe Christians and Gentiles÷vulgar, Yiddish slur words like "shiksa," "schwartze," and "shegetsz."

Since the Jews are claimed to be the Master Race, whose souls are said by the Talmud to be on a far higher plane than the animalistic, "satanic souls" of Gentiles, it is common for Jewish authorities to brand all Gentiles by the derogatory Yiddish term "goy," a term akin to a curse word. Meanwhile, Arabs are deemed so inferior they are even lower than the goy.

Jewish Blood vs. Inferior Blood

When several of his students were accused of murdering a teenage Arab girl, Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg insisted: "Jewish blood is not the same as the blood of a (Gentile) goy." In other words, if a god-like Jew kills an inferior goy, how can that be murder?

Israeli Yeshiva (school) students often demonstrate and chant, "Death to the Arabs." Defending their extreme behavior, Rabbi Ido Elba explains, "According to the Talmud (Jewish book of traditions), one may kill any Gentile." Rabbi Schlomo Aviner adds that normal human codes and laws of justice and righteousness do not apply to the Jews.

The widely studied Gush Emunim holds that, "Jews are not and cannot be a normal people...The Covenant made between God and the Jewish people effectively nullifies moral laws that bind normal nations."

"Jesus a Bastard," says Jewish Talmud

Even the leaders of Israel My Glory, a fanatically pro-Zionist, supposedly Christian ministry, have made note of the bizarre views of the Jews as found in their own book of laws and traditions, the Jewish Talmud. The organization's magazine (Dec./Jan. 1995/1996) published a revealing article detailing many of the hate-filled Talmudic beliefs of the Rabbis and their Zionist followers.

These beliefs include the teaching that Jesus was born a bastard and his mother, Mary, was a harlot (Mishna Yebamoth 4,13); that Jesus practiced black arts of magic (Sanhedrin 1076), and that Jesus is now suffering eternal punishment in a boiling vat of filthy excrement (Mishna Sanhedrin X, 2). These references come from the English translation of the Talmud known as The Soncino Talmud.

Indeed, the hate-filled, anti-Christian movie, The Last Temptation of Christ, produced by Universal Studios and its Chairman, the Jew, Lewis Wasserman, was an accurate, if disgusting, reflection of what the Jews' most holy book, the Talmud, teaches. And yet the Rabbis and leaders of the Jewish-led Simon Wiesenthal Center, The ADL, and the Southern Poverty Law Center have the audacity to blast and criticize Mel Gibson's upcoming movie merely because it recounts the gospel truth about the trial and death of Jesus. What hypocrites!

Memory of Jesus to be Blotted Out

The Talmud is full of language that portrays the Jews as God's Master Race and depicts all other races as trash and garbage. It warns Jews to stay away from Christians because Christians are said to be "unclean" and "murderers."

On the other hand, a Jew is pictured as one of God's Chosen People. The Jew is said to possess so great a dignity that no one, not even an angel, can share equality with him. In fact, the Jew is said to be the equal of God. Rabbi Chanina says that, "He who strikes an Israelite acts as if he slaps the face of God's Divine Majesty."

Because the Christian is considered unclean, a murderer, and an idolater, he must be exterminated, slaughtered without pity, squashed like a bug. "The memory of that man (Jesus) should be forever blotted out."

"Kill All Christians"- Talmud

The famous Jewish rabbi, Maimonides, acclaimed by Christian apologists and defenders of Zionism as "a great man of God," encouraged Jews to kill all Christians. In the Talmud (Hilkoth Akrum, X, 1), Maimonides says, "Do not have pity for them. Show no mercy unto them. Therefore, if you see one in difficulty of drowning, do not go to his help... it is right to kill him by your own hand by shoving him into a well or in some other way."

The monstrous and barbaric treatment Israel gives to Palestinians and other Arabs taken prisoner is easily understood when we realize that the Jews' own holy book, the Talmud, commands that heretics and traitors be killed without delay (Abhodah Zarah, 266) and that a Gentile taken prisoner may be killed, "even before he confesses...the sooner the better" (Choschen Hammischpat, 388, 10).

Murder of Gentiles Praised as a "Holy Sacrifice"

Moreover, the murder of Gentiles by Jews is said by the Talmud to be a "holy sacrifice" to God (Zohar, III, 2276 and I, 38b and 39a). Death of Gentiles by beheading is especially recommended (Pesachim, 49b).

The award-winning Jewish propaganda movie, Schindler's List, depicts Schindler lamenting how few Jews he has been able to save from a Nazi labor camp. But a little, old Jewish man says to him, "In our holy book, the Talmud, it says that if you save just one life, it is as if you have saved the entire world."

Actually, the exact wording in the Talmud says that if you save just one Jewish life, it is as if you have saved the entire world. According to the Talmud, Gentile lives, of course, have no value at all.

It is important to remember that, to the Jews, the Talmud is not an obsolete and crusty document. The rabbis teach that it is a living and breathing instructional document, a modern-day, indispensable holy book. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an ardent Jewish believer, was quoted in The New York Times as giving credit to the Talmud for her success on the bench. "The Talmud," said Ginsburg, "is my sacred guide for daily living."

Children Raped and Murdered

In Rome, Italy, in 2000, Italian police broke up a ring of eleven top Jewish gangsters. It was discovered that they had been kidnapping Gentile (non-Jewish) children between the ages of two and five from orphanages, raping them, and then murdering the children. These despicable crimes were recorded live on film and sold throughout the infamous global "snuff film" industry. Over 1,700 customers had paid as much as $20,000 per film to view little children being raped and murdered.

Both the Associated Press and Reuters agencies reported this heinous crime on September 27, 2000 (Also see The Rome Observer, October 1, 2000). But few U.S. newspapers and none of America's TV news networks carried this shocking news story. Why?

When Italian TV broadcast scenes of the arrests of the snuff film perverts at prime time to more than eleven million viewers, Jewish officials went berserk. Claiming "blood libel," they demanded that the Jewish elite who sat on the board of directors of the Italian TV network punish those responsible for allowing this news to surface. It was done. The TV executives were fired.

One cannot help but wonder: Was it Judaism's most holy book, the Talmud, that put it in the hearts of those monsters to commit such brutish and evil crimes against children? After all, their Talmud says that if a grown man rapes a young girl under three years of age, "it is nothing." And Gentiles, according to the Talmud, may be killed practically without restriction.

The Master Race - Beyond Good and Evil

In any event, the Jewish Master Race cannot be held to normal standards of righteousness and morality. They are said to be "beyond good and evil." That is what Adolf Hitler believed about the Aryans. It is what Ariel Sharon and hundreds of Jewish rabbis and Illuminists believe about the Jews.

When questioned about his earlier role in the genocidal massacre by Israeli defense forces of thousands of unarmed Egyptian POWs during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin snapped, "I'm not going to discuss that.

That's ancient history." An odd and telling comment, indeed, since the Jews insist there is no statute of limitations that prevents the capture, trial, and execution of Germans accused of war crimes that occurred in the 1930s and 1940s, over six decades ago.

The Jews fervently believe their blood is divine, and that only the Jews comprise a Holy Nation. They view themselves as "God's Chosen," a special Master Race. Their Zionist leaders smugly view other peoples as vermin, as inferior and of little value.

Gene Research Shows Jews
And Palestinians Almost Identical; article follows below:

By Robin McKie Science
Editor The Observer - London (11-25-01)
4-15-2

A keynote research paper showing that Middle Eastern Jews and Palestinians are genetically almost identical has been pulled from a leading journal.

Academics who have already received copies of Human Immunology have been urged to rip out the offending pages and throw them away.

Such a drastic act of self-censorship is unprecedented in research publishing and has created widespread disquiet, generating fears that it may involve the suppression of scientific work that questions Biblical dogma.

'I have authored several hundred scientific papers, some for Nature and Science, and this has never happened to me before,' said the article's lead author, Spanish geneticist Professor Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, of Complutense University in Madrid. 'I am stunned.'

British geneticist Sir Walter Bodmer added: 'If the journal didn't like the paper, they shouldn't have published it in the first place. Why wait until it has appeared before acting like this?'

The journal's editor, Nicole Sucio-Foca, of Columbia University, New York, claims the article provoked such a welter of complaints over its extreme political writing that she was forced to repudiate it. The article has been removed from Human Immunology's website, while letters have been written to libraries and universities throughout the world asking them to ignore or 'preferably to physically remove the relevant pages'. Arnaiz-Villena has been sacked from the journal's editorial board.

Dolly Tyan, president of the American Society of Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics, which runs the journal, told subscribers that the society is 'offended and embarrassed'.

The paper, 'The Origin of Palestinians and their Genetic Relatedness with other Mediterranean Populations', involved studying genetic variations in immune system genes among people in the Middle East.

In common with earlier studies, the team found no data to support the idea that Jewish people were genetically distinct from other people in the region. In doing so, the team's research challenges claims that Jews are a special, chosen people and that Judaism can only be inherited.

Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East share a very similar gene pool and must be considered closely related and not genetically separate, the authors state. Rivalry between the two races is therefore based 'in cultural and religious, but not in genetic differences', they conclude.

But the journal, having accepted the paper earlier this year, now claims the article was politically biased and was written using 'inappropriate' remarks about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its editor told the journal Nature last week that she was threatened by mass resignations from members if she did not retract the article.

Arnaiz-Villena says he has not seen a single one of the accusations made against him, despite being promised the opportunity to look at the letters sent to the journal.

He accepts he used terms in the article that laid him open to criticism. There is one reference to Jewish 'colonists' living in the Gaza strip, and another that refers to Palestinian people living in 'concentration' camps.

'Perhaps I should have used the words settlers instead of colonists, but really, what is the difference?' he said.

'And clearly, I should have said refugee, not concentration, camps, but given that I was referring to settlements outside of Israel - in Syria and Lebanon - that scarcely makes me anti-Jewish. References to the history of the region, the ones that are supposed to be politically offensive, were taken from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and other text books.'

In the wake of the journal's actions, and claims of mass protests about the article, several scientists have now written to the society to support Arnaiz-Villena and to protest about their heavy-handedness.

One of them said: 'If Arnaiz-Villena had found evidence that Jewish people were genetically very special, instead of ordinary, you can be sure no one would have objected to the phrases he used in his article. This is a very sad business.'

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001 http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,2763,605806,00.html

 

[Scott W]

Even if one is to accept as fact that there exists more variation within a race rather than between races, the conclusion that race does not exist is non sequitur. Variation within a population will always exist due to mutations, which, in the rare case that they are beneficial, will give rise to polymorphisms. This is necessary to allow a group to adapt to its changing environment, which however slight, can cause drastic genetic drift over the course of millenia--given, of course, that natural selection is still in effect. Unfortunately, modernity destroys any opportunity for humanity to evolve.

Actually, the nonexistence of race does follow logically from that. People need to stop thinking they can define race however they want. Its not just differences between general groups of people. Race means subspecies, it has a biological meaning. If races ARE genetically meaningful, that means they have ancestry in common. If thats the case, they have to be more related to each other than a different race intrinsically. In the same way that a bird cant have more in common with a human than with another bird, two africans cant have more in common with whites than with each other. This is all tied into genetics. Yes variation will always exist, thats also an argument against race. Variation DOES exist, but race doesnt depend upon variation, it depends upon genetics.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Basically, yes. But Im not speaking in absolutes, there are just as many cases in which two physically different populations ARE subspecies, as there are cases in which physically different populations arent. It has to do with reproduction and gene flow. If these populations are always mutating and breeding with each other, the mutations get passed around, and not just on the peripheral edges. If thats the case, these populations will always remain the same species, and not subspeciate. When we talk about different species, it has to do with how different they are genetically. Thats what causes the inability to breed, or produce fertile offspring. If two organisms are so different genetically, they cant breed. So for two populations that are speciating, or subspeciating, they MUST be reproductively isolated.

Here is a novel idea to consider. AIDs is affecting Black Africans much more than white Europeans. This could be partly because of sexual practices being different and partly because Europeans may have genes that make them less vulnerable to the disease. If AIDs were kill sufficient numbers of Africans it could end up with the only ones left unaffected having a particular mutation that stops them dying of AIDs while at the same time being HIV positive. These individuals would become the new population. Apparantly healthy, but HIV positive.

The result of this would most likely be that other, unaffected, people (races) would not be able to have intercourse with the Africans as HIV was endemic in the population. Are we talking speciation now?

 

[tr_ofdallas]

Here is a novel idea to consider. AIDs is affecting Black Africans much more than white Europeans. This could be partly because of sexual practices being different and partly because Europeans may have genes that make them less vulnerable to the disease. If AIDs were kill sufficient numbers of Africans it could end up with the only ones left unaffected having a particular mutation that stops them dying of AIDs while at the same time being HIV positive. These individuals would become the new population. Apparantly healthy, but HIV positive.

The result of this would most likely be that other, unaffected, people (races) would not be able to have intercourse with the Africans as HIV was endemic in the population. Are we talking speciation now?

there are some white people that are comepletely immune to AIDS its a dubling up of a reccesive gene in their DNA (a reccesive gene that isn't found at all ever in black people) it's the part of DNA that makes these white people immune from the plague (i saw this on discovery or TLC or something) and according to Lord Red Dragon this is because the plague is a bacterial form of the AIDS virus
also there was a fort-worth star-telegram report a few years back that there is a cure for AIDS but that this drug will never be available to the general public because it ONLY works on black people

 

[Blaphbee]

Actually, the nonexistence of race does follow logically from that. People need to stop thinking they can define race however they want. Its not just differences between general groups of people. Race means subspecies, it has a biological meaning. If races ARE genetically meaningful, that means they have ancestry in common. If thats the case, they have to be more related to each other than a different race intrinsically. In the same way that a bird cant have more in common with a human than with another bird, two africans cant have more in common with whites than with each other. This is all tied into genetics. Yes variation will always exist, thats also an argument against race. Variation DOES exist, but race doesnt depend upon variation, it depends upon genetics.

Does that mean that there can be individuals of another race to whom you differ less than to members of your own race (merely by quantitatively counting different genes)? Yes, although the average distance will be larger.

This is one of these arguments that shall prove that race is irrelevant, but has many flaws:

- It is rather obvious or could be expected that most differences occur within a race (or are shared by all races): you get tall and small people; people with round heads and others; people that tend to obesity or addiction and others that don't; strong, muscular people and lean people; people with short fingers and long ones; smart ones and dumb ones, people gifted in languages and others gifted in music; hyper-active people and phlegmatic ones; people who are aggressive and others that aren't; people with more oestrogen and others with less; people with blood group A, and others with 0, &c. ad infinitum.
- The argument exactly proves what it wanted to disprove, namely that races exist and are relevant: about one sixth [and that appears to be a lot] of the whole genetic diversity is racial [according to the Human Genome Project numbers stating about 85% of the whole human genetic diversity (differences) exists within a race (or is not race-specific), while 15% of the genetic diversity account for racial differences.]
- The argument is just based on a quantitative gene count and says nothing about the significance or quality of differences. The implications, effects and repercussions of the existing racial differences (be they now 15%, 10% or even less of the total human genetic diversity) are obviously severe, as science has documented again and again (see Eysenck, Jensen, Herrnstein, Rushton, Brand, Lynn, Hu, & al.) and as we can observe daily around us, if we decide to observe reality with an open mind.