| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Mike" |
| Date: |
21 Nov 2004 07:18:38 AM |
| Object: |
Darwin's Evolution And Modern Racism |
EVOLUTION AND MODERN RACISM
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.*
The Bible and Racial Origins
Some people today, especially those of anti-Christian opinions, have
the mistaken notion that the Bible prescribes permanent racial
divisions among men and is, therefore, the cause of modern racial
hatreds. As a matter of fact, the Bible says nothing whatever about
race. Neither the word nor the concept of different "races" is found
in the Bible at all. As far as one can learn from a study of
Scripture, the writers of the Bible did not even know there were
distinct races of men, in the sense of black and yellow and white
races, or Caucasian and Mongol and Negroid races, or any other such
divisions.
The Biblical divisions among men are those of "tongues, families,
nations, and lands" (Genesis 10:5,20,31) rather than races. The vision
of the redeemed saints in heaven (Revelation 7:9) is one of "all
nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues", but no mention is
made of "races". The formation of the original divisions, after the
Flood, was based on different languages (Genesis 11:6-9),
supernaturally imposed by God, but nothing is said about any other
physical differences.
Some have interpreted the Noahic prophecy concerning his three sons
(Genesis 9:25-27) to refer to three races, Hamitic, Semitic and
Japhetic, but such a meaning is in no way evident from the words of
this passage. The prophecy applies to the descendants of Noah's sons,
and the various nations to be formed from them, but nothing is said
about three races. Modern anthropologists and historians employ a
much-different terminology than this simple trifurcation for what they
consider to be the various races among men.
Therefore, the origin of the concept of "race" must be sought
elsewhere than in the Bible. If certain Christian writers have
interpreted the Bible in a racist framework, the error is in the
interpretation, not in the Bible itself. In the Bible, there is only
one race--the human race! "(God) hath made of one, all nations of men"
( Acts 17:26).
What Is a Race?
In modern terminology, a race of men may involve quite a large number
of individual national and language groups. It is, therefore, a much
broader generic concept than any of the Biblical divisions. In the
terminology of biological taxonomy, it is roughly the same as a
"variety", or a "sub-species". Biologists, of course, use the term to
apply to sub-species of animals, as well as men.
For example, Charles Darwin selected as the subtitle for his book
Origin of Species the phrase "The Preservation of Favoured Races in
the Struggle for Life". It is clear from the context that he had races
of animals primarily in mind, but at the same time it is also clear,
as we shall see, that he thought of races of men in the same way.
That this concept is still held today is evident from the following
words of leading modern evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson:
"Races of man have, or perhaps one should say 'had', exactly the same
biological significance as the sub-species of other species of
mammals." 1
It is clear, therefore, that a race is not a Biblical category, but
rather is a category of evolutionary biology. Each race is a
sub-species, with a long evolutionary history of its own, in the
process of evolving gradually into a distinct species.
As applied to man, this concept, of course, suggests that each of the
various races of men is very different, though still inter-fertile,
from all of the others. If they continue to be segregated, each will
continue to compete as best it can with the other races in the
struggle for existence and finally the fittest will survive. Or else,
perhaps, they will gradually become so different from each other as to
assume the character of separate species altogether (just as apes and
men supposedly diverged from a common ancestor early in the so-called
Tertiary Period).
Most modern biologists today would express these concepts somewhat
differently than as above, and they undoubtedly would disavow the
racist connotations. Nevertheless, this was certainly the
point-of-view of the 19th century evolutionists, and it is difficult
to interpret modern evolutionary theory, the so-called neo-Darwinian
synthesis, much differently.
Nineteenth-Century Evolutionary Racism
The rise of modern evolutionary theory took place mostly in Europe,
especially in England and Germany. Europeans, along with their
American cousins, were then leading the world in industrial and
military expansion, and were, therefore, inclined to think of
themselves as somehow superior to the other nations of the world. This
opinion was tremendously encouraged by the concurrent rise of
Darwinian evolutionism and its simplistic approach to the idea of'
struggle between natural races, with the strongest surviving and thus
contributing to the advance of evolution.
As the 19th century scientists were converted to evolution, they were
thus also convinced of racism. They were certain that the white race
was superior to other races, and the reason for this superiority was
to be found in Darwinian theory. The white race had advanced farther
up the evolutionary ladder and, therefore, was destined either to
eliminate the other races in the struggle for existence or else to
have to assume the "white man's burden" and to care for those inferior
races that were incompetent to survive otherwise.
Charles Darwin himself, though strongly opposed to slavery on moral
grounds, was convinced of white racial superiority. He wrote on one
occasion as follows:
"I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more
for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit....
The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish
hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very
distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been
eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."2
The man more responsible than any other for the widespread acceptance
of evolution in the 19th century was Thomas Huxley. Soon after the
American Civil War, in which the negro slaves were freed, he wrote as
follows:
"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average
negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if
this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities
are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no
favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete
successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a
contest which is to be carried out by thoughts and not by bites."3
Racist sentiments such as these were held by all the 19th century
evolutionists. A recent book4 has documented this fact beyond any
question. In a review of this book, a recent writer says:
"Ab initio, Afro-Americans were viewed by these intellectuals as being
in certain ways unredeemably, unchangeably, irrevocably inferior."5
A reviewer in another scientific journal says:
"After 1859, the evolutionary schema raised additional questions,
particularly whether or not Afro-Americans could survive competition
with their white near-relations. The momentous answer was a resounding
no.... The African was inferior--he represented the missing link
between ape and Teuton."6
The Modern Harvest
In a day and age which practically worshipped at the shrine of
scientific progress, as was true especially during the century from
1860 to 1960, such universal scientific racism was bound to have
repercussions in the political and social realms. The seeds of
evolutionary racism came to fullest fruition in the form of National
Socialism in Germany. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, a
contemporary of Charles Darwin and an ardent evolutionist, popularized
in Germany his concept of the superman, and then the master race. The
ultimate outcome was Hitler, who elevated this philosophy to the
status of a national policy.
"From the 'Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'
(i.e., Darwin's subtitle to Origin of Species) it was a short step to
the preservation of favoured individuals, classes or nations--and from
their preservation to their glorification.... Thus it has become a
portmanteau of nationalism, imperialism, militarism, and dictatorship,
of the cults of the hero, the superman, and the master race ... recent
expressions of this philosophy, such as Mein Kampf, are, unhappily,
too familiar to require exposition here."7
However one may react morally against Hitler, he was certainly a
consistent evolutionist. Sir Arthur Keith, one of the leading
evolutionary anthropologists of our century, said:
"The German Fuhrer ... has consciously sought to make the practice of
Germany conform to the theory of evolution."8
With respect to the question of race struggle, as exemplified
especially in Germany, Sir Arthur also observed:
"Christianity makes no distinction of race or of colour: it seeks to
break down all racial barriers. In this respect, the hand of
Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of
mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long
ages to produce?"9
In recent decades, the cause of racial liberation has made racism
unpopular with intellectuals and only a few evolutionary scientists
still openly espouse the idea of a long-term polyphyletic origin of
the different races.10 On the other hand, in very recent years, the
pendulum has swung, and now we have highly vocal advocates of "black
power" and "red power" and "yellow power", and these advocates are all
doctrinaire evolutionists, who believe their own respective "races"
are the fittest to survive in man's continuing struggle for existence.
The Creationist Position
According to the Biblical record of history, the Creator's divisions
among men are linguistic and national divisions, not racial. Each
nation has a distinct purpose and function in the corporate life of
mankind, in the divine Plan (as, for that matter, does each
individual).
"(God) hath made of one, all nations of men for to dwell on all the
face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and
the bounds of their habitation: That they should seek the Lord, if
haply they might feel after Him, and find Him" (Acts 17:26,27).
No one nation is "better" than another, except in the sense of the
blessings it has received from the Creator, perhaps in measure of its
obedience to His Word and fulfillment of its calling. Such blessings
are not an occasion for pride, but for gratitude.
References
1. George Gaylord Simpson: "The Biological Nature of Man," Science,
Vol. 152, April 22, 1966, p. 474.
2. Charles Darwin: Life and Letters, I, letter to W. Graham, July 3,
1881, p. 316; cited in Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, by
Gertrude Himmelfarb (London, Chatto and Windus, 1959), p. 343.
3. Thomas Huxley: Lay Sermons, Addresses and Reviews (New York,
Appleton, 1871), p. 20.
4. John S. Haller, Jr.: Outcasts from Evolution: Scientific
Attitudes of Racial Inferiority, 1859 - 1900 (Urbana, University of
Illinois Press, 1971), 228 pp.
5. Sidney W. Mintz: American Scientist, Vol. 60, May - June 1972, p.
387.
6. John C. Burnham, Science, Vol. 175, February 4, 1972, p. 506.
7. Gertrude Himmelfarb, op cit, pp. 343 - 344.
8. Arthur Keith: Evolution and Ethics (New York, G. P. Putnam's
Sons, 1949), p. 230.
9. Ibid, p. 72.
10. One notable exception, among others, is the leading anthropologist
Carleton Coon. See The Origin of Races (New York, Alfred Knopf',
1962), 724 pp.
* Henry M. Morris is Director of the Institute for Creation Research,
as well as Academic Vice-President of Christian Heritage College. He
received his Ph.D. in hydraulics, with minors in geology and
mathematics. He has spent thirty years in education and research,
including thirteen years as Professor of Hydraulic Engineering and
Chairman of the Department of Civil Engineering at the Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-007.htm
.
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: Darwin's Evolution And Modern Racism |
02 Dec 2004 08:48:44 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 00:06:51 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
If the paycheck is from the government, it's not a real job.
Policemen don't have real jobs? What about the guys who pave the
roads?
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Magenta Magic" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Evolution And Modern Racism |
03 Dec 2004 10:14:54 AM |
|
|
Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3ukvq0l9h28395il94gcf2c67m4t2re690@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 00:06:51 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
If the paycheck is from the government, it's not a real job.
Policemen don't have real jobs? What about the guys who pave the
roads?
You are arguing with aging ace hardware clerk, who likes to call himself "*****".
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Darwin's Evolution And Modern Racism |
01 Dec 2004 05:34:05 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:56:18 GMT, Gabrielle Rapagnetta
<cut-out@gmx.n0spam.net> wrote:
Topaz wrote:
We should evolve. "Survival of the Fittest" should be replaced by
sterilization as this is more humane. And we should also encourage the
most intelligent people to have a lot of children.
Do you like guns?
Yes
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nivlem" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Evolution And Modern Racism |
29 Nov 2004 03:35:01 PM |
|
|
Topaz wrote:
On 28 Nov 2004 13:22:02 -0800, (Ryan Tanaka) wrote:
This "study" does not address any of the socioeconomic factors, which
any credible social analyst will point out that there is always an
undeniable link between factors such as social standings/economic
wealth and education. The poor tend to score lower than the rich, and
this is found in ANY ethnicity. You did not "refute" anything, you
just ignored it.
The poor tend to be less intelligent than the rich. Nothing was
stopping the Africans from building colleges before Whites went to
Africa. But instead they were primative naked head hunters. Look at
the real pictures in old National Geopraphics magazines rather than
the picture Hollywood movies make up.
Environment, dumshit. If food were easy to find, and the temperature
usually comfortable, you wouldn't need to invent all the ***** Europeans
did, and you wouldn't need quite such an efficient and complex trading
system, etc. You'd be less likely to have such things. It just wouldn't
be smart for most societies to waste the effort. There still were
societies that did develop something we might call "civilization",
though. The African city-state of Songhai comes to mind. Nubia competed
with Egypt, although it lost out. The Zulus had something resembling a
modern state, although the level of technology was primitive, and the
European colonizers of South Africa eventually kicked the ***** out of
them because of it. The unabashed ignorance of your head-hunter comment
is noted. This was not a cultural feature common to African tribes. Try
Borneo.
These genetical studies are always flawed and its "conclusions"
reached are almost always useless except to promote a thinly veiled
racial attack. Say if I actually bought into your article's findings,
From the studies and IQ tests it is easy to see the true
conclusions. But your mind is closed.
Your understanding of the validity of IQ measurement schemes appears
minimal.
what course of action should I take from there on? Should we
impliment policies based on the idea that blacks are "naturally"
inferior, and treat them as such?
We should have nations for White people and preserve the White race.
Whatever for? Cultural factors tend to prevent wholesale admixture
anyway, in my experience. Most of what you wish to perceive as racial
differences are in fact merely cultural differences. If you want to
argue that some cultures are better than others, I might be prepared to
consider that idea. Cultural relativism often seems to me to lead to
palpably absurd statements, stupid policies, and tolerating the
intolerable. You come to my country, you learn my language, and start
doing what everyone else expects. Look what the Netherlands got by
tolerating the medieval social practices of their Muslim immigrants.
If I were a racist, this sort of thing would give me great comfort,
because I can feel special about myself just because of my skin color
without having to actually do anything. It's the sort of thing
insecure people use to delude themselves into thinking their superior,
especially if they don't have any accomplishments of their own that
they can be proud of.
Other useless research articles written on the subject, which you
might have seen before, is the idea of "separated twins scoring
similarly on tests." Supposedly they separated the twins at birth,
moving them into different households...ironically, which arn't that
much different from each other. They live in similar heterosexual
households with similar racial make-ups, with similar socioeconomic
status, learning under a similar educational system, etc...and yet,
they act all surprised when the twins performed with an 80% margin of
similarity in their test scores. Which incidentally, isn't very hard
to do, given that close-ended multiple-choice tests have a tendency to
converge towards a singularity (100%) anyway.
No matter how perfect we make the tests you will always find some
excuse because your mind is closed.
You will insist that the tests are more perfect than they actually are
because racism allays some sort of feeling of insecurity or inadequacy.
You will never let go of your preconceived conclusion.
It would have been a lot more insteresting to look at what sorts of
creative outputs that the twins might have produced, but I guess you
have to keep in mind that the sorts of people who conduct these tests
arn't very creative to begin with.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Darwin's Evolution And Modern Racism |
29 Nov 2004 06:25:55 PM |
|
|
Here is part of David Duke's newsletter:
"Entering my old neighborhood of Gentilly Woods in New Orleans had
a profound effect upon me. My once tidy and well-kept neighborhood was
now mostly Black and disheveled. It once sported many homes that
seemed to always have a fresh-painted look. Now they were adorned with
peeling paint an unkempt lawns of weeds and trash. In talking to some
old holdouts in the neighborhood, they told me that the once rare
burglary, vandalism and assault had now become commonplace. The
diehard White remnants who remained had adapted to the changes and
found a way to endure each indignity and violation the best they
could. The change had been so gradual that they were no longer shocked
by new instances of crime, just resigned to them.
"The streets had scattered groups of hard-featured Black men
standing around dilapidated cars giving hostile stares to an obviously
unknown White person trespassing in their neighborhood.
"Even though it had been many years since my last visit, my
memories became more vivid as I entered the boundaries of the
neighborhood. It seemed as though I had only been away a few scant
hours. Now those memories crashed against the images of the present
causing me to feel off balance. It was akin to visiting a healthy
friend and then after a few short weeks to see him wasting away with
cancer. Afraid that perhaps me recollection was more idealized than it
really was--as soon as I returned home, I ferreted out my old
photographs.
"Those photos clearly portrayed a community even more attractive
than I had remembered. Well-kept homes filled the album, often
accented with blooming flowers and finely trimmed shrubbery, sidewalks
edged closely, and many homes had a fresh paint look. Polished autos
dotted the clean streets. Even more dramatic were the Tom Sawyer and
Becky Thatcher-like bright faces of the children with whom I spent so
many happy hours of childhood.
"In my time they were the ruddy faces that filled our streets
yards and parks. They were all gone now, replaced by dark, angry
teenagers, with scarred skin and boomboxes; often with pistols and
crack in their pockets, menacing the streets where children now fear
to venture. A picture repeated, I believe, all over the United States
of America. For the current White residents of Gentilly Woods their
story is much like the story fo the frog that is put in a pot of warm
water while the temperature is slowly increased until the poor
creature is boiling and it is too late to save itself. Is the
traditional American already too lulled by the tepid water to realize
what is ahead?
"Amercians can glimpse the future in the inner cities of
America. The political corruption, failing schools, drug problems,
crime, the run down housing and even the trash in the streets- all
hold a preview of the coming attractions of 21st century America. When
all of America is of the same racial proportion as that of the inner
cities, there will be no White infrastructure, and no white cornucopia
of tax revenue mitigating the Third Worldism. Criminals will no longer
be held in check by White police, prosecutors, juries and judges. The
shrinking White tax base will be inadequate to the costs of the
criminal justice system and jails needed to house lawbreakers. The
housing, food, medical care, and schooling of those who cannot provide
their own--will no longer be able to live off the support of the aging
and diminishing European population."
The address for this newsletter is David Duke Report, Box 88,
Covington, LA 70434
http://www.duke.org
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nivlem" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Evolution And Modern Racism |
29 Nov 2004 10:09:55 PM |
|
|
Topaz wrote:
Here is part of David Duke's newsletter:
So your response is to quote me a bunch of ***** from some ex-KKK
confidence man. Marvelous.
<Horseshit snip>
"Amercians can glimpse the future in the inner cities of
America. The political corruption, failing schools, drug problems,
crime, the run down housing and even the trash in the streets- all
hold a preview of the coming attractions of 21st century America. When
all of America is of the same racial proportion as that of the inner
cities, there will be no White infrastructure, and no white cornucopia
of tax revenue mitigating the Third Worldism. Criminals will no longer
be held in check by White police, prosecutors, juries and judges. The
shrinking White tax base will be inadequate to the costs of the
criminal justice system and jails needed to house lawbreakers. The
housing, food, medical care, and schooling of those who cannot provide
their own--will no longer be able to live off the support of the aging
and diminishing European population."
Obsevation 1: Poor whites do not live that much differently than what is
described above.
Observation 2: Blacks are not growing as an overall percentage of the US
population. What is being complained about is a result of migration, not
being outreproduced by those of African descent. Blacks left the
countryside and came to the inner cities. Whites split to the suburbs.
Rather than insisting that the blacks that showed up stop living like
they did when they were in a tar paper shack in Missisippi, the local
whites went, "There goes the neighborhood!" and sold. More people with
less income and a culture adapted to Southern rural poverty came. The
whites must bear some small portion of blame for letting Dukey's old
neighborhood turn to *****. Not to mention most of the blame for holding
them down and giving them a *****-poor education so that they got like
that in the first place. Believe it or not, there was a time when poor
blacks thought learning to read was important, and the opportunity was
often unavailable. I view most aspects of black street culture as
atrocious, but the fact is, they couldn't have done it without us and
our short-sighted Jim Crow policies. Lest you think that I'm arguing for
reparations here, I might point out that I accept no personal
responsibility for this. I didn't make such laws, nor did anyone I voted
for, nor have I ever personally profited from their having existed. Why
the ***** should I pay? Beyond that, what's the statute of limitations?
Next they'll be claiming Europeans should pay the Arabs back with
interest for the Crusades. Another factor I might point out is that the
decay in these neighborhoods the Blacks got a foothold in was far less
evident before the sort of manufacturing and heavy industry jobs that
allowed them to buy the houses in the first place got exported somewhere
else.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Darwin's Evolution And Modern Racism |
30 Nov 2004 07:10:33 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:09:55 -0800, Nivlem
<mlml@svnspamsomeoneelse.net> wrote:
So your response is to quote me a bunch of ***** from some ex-KKK
confidence man. Marvelous.
Responce to what? I read your post up until the second word. If you
wanted me to read the rest of it you wouldn't have been rude and
obnoxious.
Obsevation 1: Poor whites do not live that much differently than what is
described above.
I see the difference between White neighborhoods and Black
neighborhoods. You argue my eyes don't tell the truth?
Observation 2: Blacks are not growing as an overall percentage of the US
population. What is being complained about is a result of migration, not
being outreproduced by those of African descent. Blacks left the
countryside and came to the inner cities. Whites split to the suburbs.
Rather than insisting that the blacks that showed up stop living like
they did when they were in a tar paper shack in Missisippi, the local
whites went, "There goes the neighborhood!" and sold.
The former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black
nations and India are the third world. In the middle, or the second
world are the Arabs and China. It is just as racialists would predict.
It is because the White race is on average much more intelligent than
the Black race. The people in Japan are much lighter in color than the
people in India.
All IQ tests have proven that Whites are on average much more
intelligent than Blacks. White people invented just about everything
important. Most leftists admit that Whites on average score higher on
the tests. They have their excuses for it, but all of their excuses
are demolished in "My Awakening" by David Duke. Here is an example:
"One of the most powerful direct studies of race and environment
was conducted by psychologists Sandra Scarr, Richard Weinberg and I.
D. Waldman. All three were quite well-known for their environmental
opinions. The study analyzed White, Black, and Mixed-race adopted
children in more than 100 White families in Minnesota. The study was
an egalitarian's dream, because the children's adoptive parents had
prestigious levels of income and education and were anti-racist enough
to adopt a Black child into their own family. Scarr is a strong
defender of racial equality and maintained that environment played an
almost exclusive role in IQ differences between the races. Scarr
supports the importance of heredity in causing individual differences
within a race, but she has argued that between-race differences are
mostly environmental.
The children in the study included Whites, Blacks, and Mulattos as
well as the biological children of the White adoptive couples. At the
age of 7, the children were tested for IQ, and all of the groups
including the Blacks and Mulattos, scored above average in IQ. Scarr
and Weinberg published a paper claiming to have proven the almost
exclusive power of environment over race in IQ, even though they had
to admit that the White children, whether adopted or not, scored well
above the Black and Mulatto children and that the Mulatto children
scored above the Blacks. (88)
A decade later, when the children reached the age of 17, a
follow-up study was conducted that that again included IQ
measurements. As they matured, Black children had dropped back to an
average of 89 in IQ, which is the average IQ for Blacks in the region
of the United States where the study was done. The White adopted
children scored an average of 106 in IQ, 17 points higher than the
Black children, which is consistant with traditional studies of Black
and White IQ differences. In line with genetic theory the half-White,
half-Black Mulatto adopted children scored almost exactly between the
adopted Whites and Blacks. (89)
RESULTS OF MINNESOTA TRANSRACIAL ADOPTION STUDY
IQ
Parental IQ 115.35
Biological Children 109.4
White Adopted children 105.6
Mulatto parents adopted children 98.5
Black parents adopted children 89.4
Scarr and Wienberg reluctantly published their data from the
follow up survey, but they waited close to four years to do so, almost
as if they were embarrassed by what they had found. Through a tortured
reasoning process, they still argued that environment played a
dominant role in IQ. But in their follow-up survey, unlike their first
paper, they also admitted that genes had an important impact as well.
Both Richard Lynn and Michael Levin effectively showed in their
re-analysis of Scarr's own data, that genes clearly comprise the
dominant role in intelligence levels of those adopted children. (90)
(91)"
(88) Scarr, S, & Weinberg R. A. (1976). IQ Test Perfomance of Black
Children Adopted By White Families. American Psychologist. Vol. 31.
p.26-739
(89) Weinberg, R. A. , Scarr, S., & Waldman, I. D. (1992). The
Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. A Follow-Up of IQ Test
Performance at Adolescence, Intelligence. Vol 16.
p.17-135
(90) Lynn, R. (1994). Reinterpretations Of The Minnesota Transracial
Adoption Study. Intelligence. Vol. 19. p.1-27
(91) Levin, M. (1994). Comment on The Minnesota Transracial Adoption
Study. Intelligence Vol. 19. p.3-20
More people with
less income and a culture adapted to Southern rural poverty came. The
whites must bear some small portion of blame for letting Dukey's old
neighborhood turn to *****. Not to mention most of the blame for holding
them down and giving them a *****-poor education so that they got like
that in the first place.
Letter To The Citizen by F. Rundle
A White Man's Apologies.
Along with the other South African Whites who are
apologising for
Apartheid, we Whites who are not part of that
liberal select group
would like to apologise to the Black people for the
following heinous
crimes:
We apologise for bringing clothing to a land where
the Black people
were naked or only had animal skin loincloths to
cover themselves
before our arrival;
We apologise for bringing doctors and free medical
care, as a result
of which the Black people have been able to survive
plagues and
catastrophes and grow in numbers;
We apologise for teaching Black people to read and
write;
We apologise for providing the money to build
schools and
universities for the Black people, always rebuilding
them when they
were burned down or vandalised;
We apologise for bringing vehicles and roads to a
land, which did
not have the wheel, before we arrived here 350 years
ago;
We apologise for building dams which stored water
for times of
drought, and we apologise for bringing running water
systems to the
houses we built;
We also apologise for bringing electricity to this
country;
We apologise for building factories, highways, and
buildings that
gave Black people employment and money;
We apologise for developing commercial farms which
to this day feed
the bulk of Africa, the like of which the Black
people never had
before;
We apologise for taking minerals from the earth,
which the Black
people neither used, nor wanted, nor even knew were
there;
We apologise for those among us who have established
welfare
organisations and have devoted their entire lives
towards making
life richer and better for the Black people;
We apologise for paying the lion's share of taxation
while spending
less
on ourselves than on the Black people;
For all these sins we humbly beg forgiveness, and if
they will only
accept our apology we will be happy to take back all
of the above
evil and horrible things we have done to you and
return to Europe.
F Rundle
Believe it or not, there was a time when poor
blacks thought learning to read was important, and the opportunity was
often unavailable. I view most aspects of black street culture as
atrocious, but the fact is, they couldn't have done it without us and
our short-sighted Jim Crow policies. Lest you think that I'm arguing for
reparations here, I might point out that I accept no personal
responsibility for this. I didn't make such laws, nor did anyone I voted
for, nor have I ever personally profited from their having existed. Why
the ***** should I pay? Beyond that, what's the statute of limitations?
Next they'll be claiming Europeans should pay the Arabs back with
interest for the Crusades. Another factor I might point out is that the
decay in these neighborhoods the Blacks got a foothold in was far less
evident before the sort of manufacturing and heavy industry jobs that
allowed them to buy the houses in the first place got exported somewhere
else.
You are right about the jobs.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nivlem" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Evolution And Modern Racism |
30 Nov 2004 08:53:27 PM |
|
|
Topaz wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:09:55 -0800, Nivlem
<mlml@svnspamsomeoneelse.net> wrote:
So your response is to quote me a bunch of ***** from some ex-KKK
confidence man. Marvelous.
Responce to what? I read your post up until the second word. If you
wanted me to read the rest of it you wouldn't have been rude and
obnoxious.
Obsevation 1: Poor whites do not live that much differently than what is
described above.
I see the difference between White neighborhoods and Black
neighborhoods. You argue my eyes don't tell the truth?
Absolutely. If you don't live in a trailer park, you should go take a
nice unbiased look at one.
Observation 2: Blacks are not growing as an overall percentage of the US
population. What is being complained about is a result of migration, not
being outreproduced by those of African descent. Blacks left the
countryside and came to the inner cities. Whites split to the suburbs.
Rather than insisting that the blacks that showed up stop living like
they did when they were in a tar paper shack in Missisippi, the local
whites went, "There goes the neighborhood!" and sold.
The former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black
nations and India are the third world. In the middle, or the second
world are the Arabs and China. It is just as racialists would predict.
It is because the White race is on average much more intelligent than
the Black race. The people in Japan are much lighter in color than the
people in India.
So you think that somehow melanin correlates with intelligence? That's
absurd. Since you have all these papers from David Duke, perhaps he's
proven that getting a tan takes 5 points off your IQ? I tend to think
that racists make things up to justify existing conditions, rather than
predicting anything.
All IQ tests have proven that Whites are on average much more
intelligent than Blacks. White people invented just about everything
important. Most leftists admit that Whites on average score higher on
the tests. They have their excuses for it, but all of their excuses
are demolished in "My Awakening" by David Duke. Here is an example:
More Duke. Jeebus. Get it through your head. The guy's a professional
liar who's been scamming people out of money for years with bogus white
supramcist organizations and poltical campaigns whose sole goal is to
get him access to matching funds. Not a source to be trusted on anything
whatsoever. And I and others have told you that IQ tests aren't a
paticularly foolproof measuremnt of intelligence. Yet here you go again,
failing to address the validity of IQ tests, and spewing more
pseudoscientific crap based on them. Go ahead. Put on your white sheet
and hate them "nigrahs". But don't tell me there's any reason for it
other than sociopathy and mindless habit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Darwin's Evolution And Modern Racism |
01 Dec 2004 05:32:55 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:53:27 -0800, Nivlem
<mlml@svnspamsomeoneelse.net> wrote:
Absolutely. If you don't live in a trailer park, you should go take a
nice unbiased look at one.
I have been to trailer parks that were poor. But any adult could
safely walk around these parks at midnight. Black neighborhoods are a
lot worse. Stores in Black areas have metal bars over the windows.
So you think that somehow melanin correlates with intelligence?
I say cheetahs are faster than other cats. You arguement is- So you
think the color of the fur somehow correlates to speed?
That's
absurd. Since you have all these papers from David Duke, perhaps he's
proven that getting a tan takes 5 points off your IQ? I tend to think
that racists make things up to justify existing conditions, rather than
predicting anything.
You tend to think what your Jewish controlled media tells you to
think. And of course Duke said nothing like that about tans.
More Duke. Jeebus. Get it through your head. The guy's a professional
liar who's been scamming people out of money for years with bogus white
supramcist organizations and poltical campaigns whose sole goal is to
get him access to matching funds. Not a source to be trusted on anything
whatsoever. And I and others have told you that IQ tests aren't a
paticularly foolproof measuremnt of intelligence. Yet here you go again,
failing to address the validity of IQ tests, and spewing more
pseudoscientific crap based on them. Go ahead. Put on your white sheet
and hate them "nigrahs". But don't tell me there's any reason for it
other than sociopathy and mindless habit.
The Jews control your media and everything you think you know is
lie.
DAVID DUKE RECEIVES DOCTORATE
EURO National President David Duke received an honorary doctorate in
political science from a large university in Eastern Europe. This is a
great
honor and has opened many doors for our message. Unlike America,
Eastern
Europe is bristling with open debate and free thought. After 75 years
of
Jewish communism, the people of Eastern Europe are much more aware of
the
dangers of Jewish supremacism than anywhere else in the world. Dr.
David
Duke has been invited to teach an advanced political science course
this
summer and is currently touring Europe, where he will be speaking at
rallies
and meeting with nationalist leaders throughout the month of August.
To learn more read that latest issue of the David Duke Report online
at:
<http://www.whitecivilrights.com/flyers/Dr55.pdf>
YOU DID IT! HATE CRIME BILL SHELVED
Just two years ago, the US Senate passed a new federal hate crime bill
that
would make "hurtful words" and "verbal intimidation" a federal hate
crime.
This ADL-authored bill titled "The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2000,"
also
known as S625, was set for an easy passage in the US House when EURO
brought
national attention to the murder of Jesse Dirkhising, a 13-year-old
boy from
Rogers, Arkansas, who was sexually tortured to death by two
homosexuals. The
story soon received national headlines and gave Republicans the reason
they
needed to oppose S625. The measure was killed, and we won a major
victory.
Last year, a new version of the bill was introduced again by Sen. Ted
Kennedy and was renamed "The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001." This
new
bill sat in committee until 3 months ago, when Democratic senators
pushed
for a quick vote without debate.
In January 2002, EURO launched a major effort to educate the public
about
the dangers of S625 and dedicated our websites to the task of teaching
our
members and supporters how to effectively lobby against this bill.
On June 11th, your hard work paid off when Republican members of the
US
Senate voted against a quick vote. This effectively killed S625, as
debate
on this measure would have certainly led to an exposure of the real
effects
this bill would have had on freedom of speech. Remember, just two
short
years ago this measure sailed through the Senate. Sources have told us
that
their change of heart was due to your letter writing. Republican
Senators
were receiving well-written letters and were able to show that they
had an
educated constituency opposed to this bill.
Senator Gordon Smith, R-OR, has vowed to re-enter S625 as part of a
spending
bill this fall, but for now, S625 has suffered a major defeat.
Learn more about hate crime laws online at:
<http://www.davidduke.com/hatecrimes/hatecrimelawsexplained.shtml>
EURO MEMBERSHIP INCREASES
We have experienced a dramatic increase in the numbers of new EURO
members
this month. This may be due to our increased media profile after our
successful events in South Carolina and Mississippi. It may also be
the
result of concerns for the economy forcing many to start worrying
about
their future. We have also received a larger than normal amount of
calls to
the EURO National office asking for legal assistance.
ONLINE CATALOG UPDATES
Our online catalog has a new look and now includes a whole new line of
EURO
clothing. We are also offering more books, videos flags and novelty
swords
and daggers. We offer quick shipping and process your orders within
two
days.
Visit out online catalog at www.davidduke.net
<http://www.davidduke.net>
JEWISH SUPREMACISM E-BOOK NOW ON CD
We still do not have David Duke's new book "Jewish Supremacism"
published in
hard back. The book is still available as an e-book, but we now have
the
book available on CD. This new CD version includes a recent version of
Adobe
Acrobat and assorted fliers.
Learn more at:
<http://www.davidduke.net/store/commerce.cgi?page=jewishsupremacism.html>
Listen to the David Duke Internet Radio Report at:
<http://www.davidduke.com/radio>
David Duke and EURO online store at www.davidduke.net
<http://www.davidduke.net>.
Join EURO today: <http://www.whitecivilrights.com/join.shtml>
Learn more about EURO at: <http://www.whitecivilrights.com/faq.shtml>
Support our efforts with a contribution:
<http://www.whitecivilrights.com/donate.shtml>
Read previous EURO press releases:
<http://www.whitecivilrights.com/news/>
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Evolution And Modern Racism |
21 Nov 2004 01:07:01 PM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<f6abd7f3.0411210518.47981e63@posting.google.com>,
the lovely and talented Mike
broadcast on alt.atheism:
EVOLUTION AND MODERN RACISM
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.*
The Bible and Racial Origins
Some people today, especially those of anti-Christian opinions, have
the mistaken notion that the Bible prescribes permanent racial
divisions among men and is, therefore, the cause of modern racial
hatreds.
Evidently xtians have changed their tune. For generations "the
Mark of Ham" was bedrock xtian doctrine, justifying the enslavement
and destruction of dark-skinned people.
What Is a Race?
In modern terminology, a race of men may involve quite a large number
of individual national and language groups. It is, therefore, a much
broader generic concept than any of the Biblical divisions. In the
terminology of biological taxonomy, it is roughly the same as a
"variety", or a "sub-species". Biologists, of course, use the term to
apply to sub-species of animals, as well as men.
*****. There is no biological basis for the division of living
human beings into races. That is just your cross-burning xtian
propaganda.
--
Rev. Lars Eighner, ULC, Atheist #1965 http://www.io.com/~eighner
"It's hard to be religious when certain people
are never incinerated by bolts of lightning." --Calvin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tron" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Evolution And Modern Racism |
21 Nov 2004 08:16:11 PM |
|
|
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> skrev i melding
news:slrncq1pkp.1bd1.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<f6abd7f3.0411210518.47981e63@posting.google.com>,
the lovely and talented Mike
broadcast on alt.atheism:
EVOLUTION AND MODERN RACISM
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.*
The Bible and Racial Origins
Some people today, especially those of anti-Christian opinions, have
the mistaken notion that the Bible prescribes permanent racial
divisions among men and is, therefore, the cause of modern racial
hatreds.
Evidently xtians have changed their tune. For generations "the
Mark of Ham" was bedrock xtian doctrine, justifying the enslavement
and destruction of dark-skinned people.
A turn-coat with a 150 year reaction time. Really useful.
Nice of them to finally reopen the case on and clear Galilei, however.
T
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Energumen" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Evolution And Modern Racism |
24 Nov 2004 12:53:56 PM |
|
|
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrncq1pkp.1bd1.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<f6abd7f3.0411210518.47981e63@posting.google.com>,
the lovely and talented Mike
broadcast on alt.atheism:
EVOLUTION AND MODERN RACISM
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.*
The Bible and Racial Origins
Some people today, especially those of anti-Christian opinions, have
the mistaken notion that the Bible prescribes permanent racial
divisions among men and is, therefore, the cause of modern racial
hatreds.
Evidently xtians have changed their tune. For generations "the
Mark of Ham" was bedrock xtian doctrine, justifying the enslavement
and destruction of dark-skinned people.
What Is a Race?
In modern terminology, a race of men may involve quite a large number
of individual national and language groups. It is, therefore, a much
broader generic concept than any of the Biblical divisions. In the
terminology of biological taxonomy, it is roughly the same as a
"variety", or a "sub-species". Biologists, of course, use the term to
apply to sub-species of animals, as well as men.
*****. There is no biological basis for the division of living
human beings into races.
Oh yes there is,
Physical
http://www.wku.edu/~darlene.applegate/forensic/lab7.html
Genetic
http://ancestrybydna.com/
they also provide DNA race tests to law enforcement.
That is just your cross-burning xtian
propaganda.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Energumen" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Evolution And Modern Racism |
24 Nov 2004 01:28:44 PM |
|
|
"Energumen" <ener_gumen@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41a4d8c5$0$43601$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrncq1pkp.1bd1.eighner@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<f6abd7f3.0411210518.47981e63@posting.google.com>,
the lovely and talented Mike
broadcast on alt.atheism:
EVOLUTION AND MODERN RACISM
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.*
The Bible and Racial Origins
Some people today, especially those of anti-Christian opinions, have
the mistaken notion that the Bible prescribes permanent racial
divisions among men and is, therefore, the cause of modern racial
hatreds.
Evidently xtians have changed their tune. For generations "the
Mark of Ham" was bedrock xtian doctrine, justifying the enslavement
and destruction of dark-skinned people.
What Is a Race?
In modern terminology, a race of men may involve quite a large number
of individual national and language groups. It is, therefore, a much
broader generic concept than any of the Biblical divisions. In the
terminology of biological taxonomy, it is roughly the same as a
"variety", or a "sub-species". Biologists, of course, use the term to
apply to sub-species of animals, as well as men.
*****. There is no biological basis for the division of living
human beings into races.
Oh yes there is,
Physical
http://www.wku.edu/~darlene.applegate/forensic/lab7.html
Genetic
http://ancestrybydna.com/
they also provide DNA race tests to law enforcement.
To which I might add,
Skull A
http://tinyurl.com/5xour
Skull B
http://www.boneroom.com/set4/bc-31a.jpg
Skull C
http://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/BC16-lg.jpg
Skull D
http://tinyurl.com/4lzfs
One of these skulls is recognised by modern science as being a subspecies of
homo sapiens different from homo sapiens sapiens. The other three are
recognised as the same subspecies homo sapiens sapiens. This is obviously
political nonsense. If someone were to argue that all four were of different
subspecies that would be reasonable, if someone were to argue that they are
all the same subspecies, well it would be a supportable opinion which I
would personally disagree with, but to argue that one belongs to a
particular subspecies and the other three belong to the same different
subspecies is obviously stupid. Pure politics, not science.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Evolution And Modern Racism |
22 Nov 2004 09:44:17 AM |
|
|
Lars Eighner <eighner@io.com> wrote in message news:<slrncq1pkp.1bd1.eighner@goodwill.io.com>...
In our last episode,
<f6abd7f3.0411210518.47981e63@posting.google.com>,
the lovely and talented Mike
broadcast on alt.atheism:
What Is a Race?
In modern terminology, a race of men may involve quite a large number
of individual national and language groups. It is, therefore, a much
broader generic concept than any of the Biblical divisions. In the
terminology of biological taxonomy, it is roughly the same as a
"variety", or a "sub-species". Biologists, of course, use the term to
apply to sub-species of animals, as well as men.
*****. There is no biological basis for the division of living
human beings into races. That is just your cross-burning xtian
propaganda.
Yes, in fact there is not enough genetic drift among the human
population to have "races" as bioligists define them. (There *is*,
however, among dogs.)
It's sobering to consider that such differing genetic markers as blood
type, rhesus factor, and immune profile are evenly spread among all
human populations, no matter how much they differ from one another in
appearance, and good science is showing that female mate selection has
a basis in immune profile, making "race" rather biologically
irrelevant. (Socially, of course, it is relevant.)
-Hypatia
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Powers" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Evolution And Modern Racism |
24 Nov 2004 11:37:38 PM |
|
|
(Hypatia Kosh) wrote in message news:<1048bc8e.0411220744.4a60e4d@posting.google.com>...
Lars Eighner <eighner@io.com> wrote in message news:<slrncq1pkp.1bd1.eighner@goodwill.io.com>...
In our last episode,
<f6abd7f3.0411210518.47981e63@posting.google.com>,
the lovely and talented Mike
broadcast on alt.atheism:
What Is a Race?
In modern terminology, a race of men may involve quite a large number
of individual national and language groups. It is, therefore, a much
broader generic concept than any of the Biblical divisions. In the
terminology of biological taxonomy, it is roughly the same as a
"variety", or a "sub-species". Biologists, of course, use the term to
apply to sub-species of animals, as well as men.
*****. There is no biological basis for the division of living
human beings into races. That is just your cross-burning xtian
propaganda.
Yes, in fact there is not enough genetic drift among the human
population to have "races" as bioligists define them. (There *is*,
however, among dogs.)
What is the biologist's definition of race?
It's sobering to consider that such differing genetic markers as blood
type, rhesus factor, and immune profile are evenly spread among all
human populations, no matter how much they differ from one another in
appearance, and good science is showing that female mate selection has
a basis in immune profile, making "race" rather biologically
irrelevant. (Socially, of course, it is relevant.)
-Hypatia
.
|
|
|
| User: "Energumen" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Evolution And Modern Racism |
25 Nov 2004 03:46:04 AM |
|
|
"Patrick Powers" <frisbieinstein@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9511688f.0411242137.d987ac7@posting.google.com...
Phillips.66.berliv2@spamgourmet.com (Hypatia Kosh) wrote in message
news:<1048bc8e.0411220744.4a60e4d@posting.google.com>...
Lars Eighner <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:<slrncq1pkp.1bd1.eighner@goodwill.io.com>...
In our last episode,
<f6abd7f3.0411210518.47981e63@posting.google.com>,
the lovely and talented Mike
broadcast on alt.atheism:
What Is a Race?
In modern terminology, a race of men may involve quite a large number
of individual national and language groups. It is, therefore, a much
broader generic concept than any of the Biblical divisions. In the
terminology of biological taxonomy, it is roughly the same as a
"variety", or a "sub-species". Biologists, of course, use the term to
apply to sub-species of animals, as well as men.
*****. There is no biological basis for the division of living
human beings into races. That is just your cross-burning xtian
propaganda.
Yes, in fact there is not enough genetic drift among the human
population to have "races" as bioligists define them. (There *is*,
however, among dogs.)
What is the biologist's definition of race?
The physical anthropologist Carleton S. Coon's races
http://www.angeltowns.com/members/racialreal/racesofman.html
The physical characteristics of skeletal remains which distinguish the
races,
http://www.wku.edu/~darlene.applegate/forensic/lab7.html
A genetic test distinguishing between the races,
http://ancestrybydna.com/
A variant of this test from the same company is used by law enforcement
agencies in order to help identify the victims and perpetrators of crimes.
Note that the PCised terms "african", "european" actually correspond to the
races such as caucasoid, negroid etc. and not their primary meaning eg.
North Africans are "european" not "african". It is a race test not a
geographical location test.
Real biological race, contrary to the beliefs of many racists, has little to
do with skin colour.
It's sobering to consider that such differing genetic markers as blood
type, rhesus factor, and immune profile are evenly spread among all
human populations, no matter how much they differ from one another in
appearance, and good science is showing that female mate selection has
a basis in immune profile, making "race" rather biologically
irrelevant. (Socially, of course, it is relevant.)
-Hypatia
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Evolution And Modern Racism |
22 Nov 2004 11:22:38 PM |
|
|
Lars Eighner wrote:
In our last episode,
<f6abd7f3.0411210518.47981e63@posting.google.com>,
the lovely and talented Mike
broadcast on alt.atheism:
EVOLUTION AND MODERN RACISM
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.*
The Bible and Racial Origins
Some people today, especially those of anti-Christian opinions, have
the mistaken notion that the Bible prescribes permanent racial
divisions among men and is, therefore, the cause of modern racial
hatreds.
Evidently xtians have changed their tune. For generations "the
Mark of Ham" was bedrock xtian doctrine, justifying the enslavement
and destruction of dark-skinned people.
What Is a Race?
In modern terminology, a race of men may involve quite a large number
of individual national and language groups. It is, therefore, a much
broader generic concept than any of the Biblical divisions. In the
terminology of biological taxonomy, it is roughly the same as a
"variety", or a "sub-species". Biologists, of course, use the term to
apply to sub-species of animals, as well as men.
*****. There is no biological basis for the division of living
human beings into races. That is just your cross-burning xtian
propaganda.
The OT does that, giving fanciful and nasty tall tales as
the supposed beginning of various races.
Lot having survived Sodom and Gomorah is gotten drunk
by his daugters who impregnate themselves incestously,
giving rise to Moabites and Ammonites. Isreal's enemies.
Tall tales and sniggering lies.
Western xians believed this crap for centuries leaving them
open to simliar tale tales of Aryans and other nonsense.
And bible thumpers telling us the mark of Ham was on blacks.
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "freigeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Evolution And Modern Racism |
25 Nov 2004 11:49:42 AM |
|
|
Not a grain of truth is contained in the assertions regarding mutation
and heredity, i.e. the heredity of acquired characteristics, as
advanced by the theory of evolution. Essentially we know of only two
instances of hereditary transmission of acquired characteristics:
those acquired by alcoholism and syphilis. But here we actually can
speak only of a passing on of a corruption of the organism and not of
the emergence of a new hallmark of the species in the sense of the
theory of evolution. Mendel, who is beginning to live only now after
his death, has given us the real scientific theory of heredity without
mutation_. Not, of course, the explanation, but the knowledge of
heredity. With this knowledge we now possess the final empirical
refutation of the entire evolutionary-metaphysical incubus; and more
soundly based than ever now appears the truth of the constancy of
species. There is no natural mutation, and we are not capable of
producing it artificially except within those limits which the
potentialities of the species permit. The species, therefore, remains
immutable within the sphere particular to itself inclusive of all
possible variations under all possible conditions, and can never put
forth a new species from within itself—such, in brief, is the
impregnable result of Mendelism. Whatever difficulties still remain
are inherent in the uncertainty which, understandably, still attaches
to our systematic classification of species. Mendel's feat for biology
has been evolution's executioner.
Constantin Brunner, _Science, spirit, superstition_, 507.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Icarus" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Evolution And Modern Racism |
25 Nov 2004 12:32:14 PM |
|
|
freigeister wrote:
Not a grain of truth is contained in the assertions regarding
mutation and heredity, i.e. the heredity of acquired
characteristics, as advanced by the theory of evolution.
<snip rest>
The Theory of Evolution asserts nothing of the sort, so your post
is pointless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Evolution And Modern Racism |
21 Nov 2004 08:02:18 AM |
|
|
On 21 Nov 2004 05:18:38 -0800, (Mike)
wrote:
EVOLUTION AND MODERN RACISM
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.*
One gullible moron posting a few hundred lines of somebody else's
deliberate falsehood.
What do you hope to achieve with this?
Other than telling the world just how stupid you are?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "theBeaver" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Evolution And Modern Racism |
22 Nov 2004 08:55:32 AM |
|
|
There are great evils in this world beyond racism. Fascism, communism,
violent fundamentalism, cruelty to animals, blind optimism that
self-serving action today will have no consequence for tomorrow, etc. A
strong case can be made that all of these evils are engendered and
perpetuated by faith and that they are enemies of reason. Stalin's
language is full of reminiscences of the theological seminary in which
he received his training. Blind faith and fatuous optimism destroy
people's ability to discern the many deceptions of man. Recognition of
what each of us shares with other humans and animals is consistent with
science and reason, but faith can take you any direction your religious
leader chooses. Science can look objectively at human self-deception
and speak of its purely psychological roots, while faith treats
self-serving delusion as Godlike. Ever notice how God manifests the
same disgusting behavior as his human inventors? Threats, anger, and
punishment? Attributing these to God justifies them in humans; it makes
them seem eternal, absolute, and right. Reason is the natural enemy of
all the delusions that a man uses to lead his fellows into nefarious
schemes, whether Marxism, Nazism, or the absurdity of trickle-down
economics. Open your eyes.
Mike wrote:
EVOLUTION AND MODERN RACISM
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.*
--
Philosophy is a stage in intellectual development, and is not compatible
with mental maturity. -- Bertrand Russell
Philosophy, as opposed to science, springs from a kind of
self-assertion: a belief that our purposes have an important relation to
the purposes of the universe, and that, in the long run, the course of
events is bound to be, on the whole, such as we should wish. -- Bertrand
Russell
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions,
a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a
personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the
unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein in Albert Einstein: The Human
Side , edited by Helen Dukas (Einstein's secretary) and Banesh Hoffman,
and published by Princeton University Press.
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the
spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should
be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality,
deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how
despiceable an ignoreable war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than
be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under
the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder." [Albert Einstein]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Darwin's Evolution And Modern Racism |
22 Nov 2004 05:43:02 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:55:32 GMT, theBeaver <none@yahoo.com> wrote:
There are great evils in this world beyond racism.
"The modern definition of a racist: someone who is winning an
argument with a liberal."
Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation (1996)
by Thomas Jackson
There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in greater
horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of
offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press
and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and
arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as
part of the inevitable texture of American life. "Racism" is never
shrugged off. For example, when a White Georgetown Law School student
reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as
White students, it set off a booming, national controversy about
"racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would have
attracted far less attention and criticism.
Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full
alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach
against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what is
racism?
Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the
word. They usually define it as the belief that one's own ethnic stock
is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are
rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal
more than this. Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a
clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American
meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are
equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been
declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who
questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil.
The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If
blacks, for example, are equal to Whites in every way, what accounts
for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of
racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation
for black failure is White racism. And since blacks are markedly poor,
crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive
racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state.
All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic.
Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on White
wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of
racial differences. Thus, even if today's Whites can find in their
hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's Whites must have
oppressed them. If Whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must
oppress them Unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be
identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since
blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be
millions of White people we do not know about, who are working day and
night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no
room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion,
an indictment of White people.
The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to
believe that the only explanation for non-White failure is White
racism, every time a non-White is poor, commits a crime, goes on
welfare, or takes drugs, White society stands accused of yet another
act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-Whites is standing
proof that White society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For
precisely so long as non-Whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the
same level as Whites, Whites will be, by definition, thwarting and
oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange
conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be
committed almost exclusively by White people. Indeed, a black
congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black
mayor of Detroit, have argued that only White people can be racist.
Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State
Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she
explained that all Whites are racist and that only Whites can be
racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without
flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?
Although some blacks and liberal Whites concede that non-Whites can,
perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-Whites have been
forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of White
oppression. What appears to be non-White racism is so understandable
and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not
an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist. What would
surely be called racism when done by Whites is thought to be normal
when done by anyone else. The reverse is also true.
Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost
tedious to list them: When a White man kills a black man and uses the
word "*****" while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and
the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black
Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random Whites, the media are
silent (see AR of March, 1991). College campuses forbid pejorative
statements about non-Whites as "racist," but ignore scurrilous attacks
on Whites.
At election time, if 60 percent of the White voters vote for a White
candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black
opponent, it is Whites who are accused of racial bias. There are 107
"historically black" colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be
preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically White
colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name of... the same thing.
To resist would be racist.
"Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything
that could be construed as an expression of White pride is a form of
hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect
school instruction and driver's tests in their own languages, whereas
for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist.
Blatant anti-White prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is
now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if
practiced in favor of Whites, would be attacked as despicable
favoritism.
All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses
are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club
or association expressly for Whites is by definition racist. The
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected "civil rights"
organization. The National Association for the Advancement of White
People (NAAWP) campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but
is said to be viciously racist.
At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have
set up student unions for Whites, analogous to those for blacks,
Hispanics, etc, and have been roundly condemned as racists. Recently,
when the White students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found
themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club
like the ones that non-Whites have. They were turned down in horror.
Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a
White enclave but whose members simply happen all to be White is
branded as racist.
Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality
of American racism is "celebration of diversity." It has begun to dawn
on a few people that "diversity" is always achieved at the expense of
Whites (and sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one
proposes that Howard University be made more diverse by admitting
Whites, Hispanics, or Asians. No one ever suggests that National
Hispanic University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity
of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black
Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the
Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a lack
of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to
celebrate homogeneity. And yet any all-White group - a company, a
town, a school, a club, a neighborhood - is thought to suffer from a
crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as
possible. Only when Whites have been reduced to a minority has
"diversity" been achieved.
Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate" or "embrace" diversity, as we
are so often asked to do, is no different from deploring an excess of
Whites. In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess
of Whites. Our current immigration policies are structured so that
approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are
non-White. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the
country every year are virtually all non-White. It would be racist not
to be grateful for this laudable contribution to "diversity." It is,
of course, only White nations that are called upon to practice this
kind of "diversity." It is almost criminal to imagine a nation of any
other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind.
What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated
citizens across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into
thinking that Mexico was being "culturally enriched?" What if the
state of Chihuahua were losing its majority population to poor Whites
who demanded that schools be taught in English, who insisted on
celebrating the Fourth of July, who demanded the right to vote even if
they weren't citizens, who clamored for "affirmative action" in jobs
and schooling?
Would Mexico - or any other non-White nation - tolerate this kind of
cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not. Yet White
Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians
entering their country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed
to "celebrate" their own loss of influence, their own dwindling
numbers, their own dispossession, for to do otherwise would be
hopelessly racist.
There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non-
Whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of
"hating" another group. Blacks can join "civil rights" groups and
Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and
hate mongers. They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can
come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential
treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are
"anti-white."
Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to
affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial
policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called
racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the
company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy
the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked
and hateful.
Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race
relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their
own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct
from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None
of this is thought to be racist. At the same time, whites must also
champion the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their
own future on the altar of "diversity" and cooperate in their own
dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the
displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and
cultures. To put it in the simplest possible terms, White people are
cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and
cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.
Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is
perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to
love one's people and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and
El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by
setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative
action preferences over native-born whites, but can they be blamed for
accepting them? Is it surprising that they should want their
languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take
possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the once-great
people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is
prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for
it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?
No, it is the White enterprise in the United States that is unnatural,
unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have let
themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to
dispossession, much less to work for their own interests. Never in the
history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates to
strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens. Never before has a
people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in
surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in
history. Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked
into thinking that a preference for one's own kind is racism. Only
whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow
"hatred" of others. All healthy people prefer the company of their own
kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men love their
families more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they
hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no
ill will towards non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to
participate in the unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies.
What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly
unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests
of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like
asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his
neighbors, since to do otherwise would be "racist."
What then, is "racism?" It is considerably more than any dictionary is
likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies of
racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for
their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the
idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be
pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of
people-hood that have defined nations since the beginning of history -
but only so long as the aspirations are those of whites.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
