Professor Brian Boutwell writes:
If you observe the residents of Japan and compare them to residents of the rural southern United States, you’ll note some differences. Some differences will be stark, others less so, yet they will not be isolated to religious and cultural practices. The differences that emerge will bleed into psychological and temperamental traits that also vary in noticeable ways across populations.
The reason for the existence of these differences, though, admits of no simple answer. Prevailing wisdom holds that the cultural and psychological differences that exist across human population groups were shaped largely by a confluence of history, sociological forces, and pure chance. This is likely true to some degree, but the prevailing wisdom — from my point of view — is incomplete. In Part I, we argued that human races exist, meaning that humans can be meaningfully classified into coherent groups based on genetic ancestry. If we’re going to take seriously the existence of meaningful racial variation we also have to at least consider that the genetic differences that exist across racial and ethnic groups also contribute to psychological and ultimately cultural differences across those same groups.
To suggest that races might possess slightly different temperamental, cognitive, and other psychological traits, and that some of these differences are partly genetic in origin, is to violate a powerful — perhaps the most powerful — academic taboo. The incendiary nature of the subject seems to flow largely from the fear that discussing biological group differences will foster racial prejudice among the general public. Indeed, people bent on quantifying human worth have erected racial hierarchies, propped them up with pseudo-scientific theories and folk understandings about group differences, and conscripted them into service towards reprehensible ends. History, in places, is a wasteland of tragedy when it comes to the treatment of minority individuals. Yet, the reprehensible treatment of minority groups currently, or in the past, does not constitute empirical evidence that race is a fiction, or that differences in the psychological constitutions across racial groups are purely environmental in origin.
* Race is the beginning of separation of species. This was the spark that kindled the idea of evolution in Darwin when he saw this. The idea is you take one species and divide it into different areas. The first difference that appears is color. If they stay separated long enough they become two species.
* What’s remarkable is that all those racial scientists from a hundred years ago; like Grant, Stoddard or Guenther, were basically right on the money, even without the benefit of modern genetic knowledge. It’s taken decades of incessant propaganda to prevent people from seeing what’s right in front of their eyes.
I focused on color because that seems to be the first marker. Maybe there are others. Color is what got Darwin thinking and I also noticed the same thing. Take a species lets say squirrels and separate it. Put one set into the USA and the other into the USSR. After some time one comes out grey and the other brown. Same with birds in England. There are lots of examples.
I sometimes feel like we’re just rediscovering “lost knowledge”, like Babylonian mathematics or Roman-style arch building or something.
It requires a strenuous effort to imagine the Parthenon or the cathedral of Notre Dame are just the same as one-storey mud huts and that identical worth-values can be assigned to their relative builders.
Actually, the current racial war that the Sandpeople are waging against us has its advantages too. Now we can see that treating them like civilised white Europeans doesn’t work. People are surely starting to piece together that culture is a function of biological inheritance. Every year that this nonsense continues, the more unpleasant the solution will be.
* I’m sure Darwin was not thinking of Germans and Ukranians.
His comments on Australian aborigines have become notorious but they are more relevant.
This is very much a live issue. The equalizers have mandated ‘closing the gap’, following an expose of brutal treatment of uncontrollable teenage brutes in the Northern Territory correctional system.
The indigene ‘leaders’ themselves are not too sure if they really want all the dirty laundry exposed by a Royal Commission. The white do-gooders are stunned at the rebuff. They thought they were doing the right thing. Anyhow, it’s all been resolved by putting a part aborigine judge onto the Commission.
Still, 65 IQ humanoids will run around with knives, clubs an
* “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” (Darwin)
* The race narrative serves the globalist agenda, otherwise it would be a fringe view like creationism. Celebrating diversity means rejecting the idea that there is anything special about your own race or nation. Having given up the identity you were born with, you are ready to purchase your new identity as an iPhone user or a Pepsi drinker.
* Speaking of minorities who should be given special consideration and deserve protection, humans with blond hair number only 1 – 2 % of the world’s population while those having blue eyes constitute only 8% of the world’s population. By any objective standard, both are endangered.
Brown/blackies gloat and love to point out that inasmuch as both the above traits are recessive, then it is likely that they will ultimately disappear from the human gene pool. Of course, this isn’t deemed racist, it is simply realistic. By means of this sleight of hand they deny their implicit agency and so the race war continues apace.
Certain tribes of brown/blackies say this with a tone of vindictive glee, as though they will be perfectly happy to sacrifice the higher standard of living that the blond/blue Industrial/Scientific Revolution has wrought in exchange for a promised, largely-imaginary Age of Peace that will dawn just as soon as they get their mitts on the tiller. With little to offer but promises and, lacking fundamental navigational skills, it is unlikely that this will take place as envisioned.
* The problem of people applying different rules to humans than to the natural world would be easily solved if humanity could get over the delusion that we are somehow separate from the natural world. We are animals, in most ways quantitatively different from the rest of the animal kingdom, but not qualitatively. We are genetically similar, inhabit the same closed system, and have identical needs for survival. Religious people have a set of beliefs that include a divine spark (or whatever the terminology) that sets humans apart. I disagree, obviously, but at least devout Jews and Christians also adhere to other, societally beneficial, ideas that go along with that. Atheist liberals have taken the simplest and most reductive approach to removing God from the culture that is unavoidably ingrained in them — they think if they just take out the icky religious words it’ll all be fine. Sadly, “All men are created equal” doesn’t mean the same thing as “All men are equal.” Evolutionary theory is only valid if we are animals too. “Scientific” liberals really don’t want to admit this, they’re too bogged down in being Christian believers with only the blind faith and no Christianity.