Tweet
Despite the current ideologically biased state of academia, race is a real thing. It is not a "social construct" as many claim it to be. The first obvious objection to race is it is visible to us. It is alive and speaks to us in bloodtypes and genotypes; in culture and civilization. Despite current efforts at trying to subdue any talk of the reality of race due to egalitarian fiction and fraud, I will address the issue of race. Race is biological. It is the biological differences found amongst different peoples. Culture and civilization are a reflection of that given people, as each civilization is unique to those people. This does not mean that one should hate someone blindly because they are of a different race, this only means that no one is alike, and differences pervade as the rule, not the exception, and the achivement and civilization of different peoples is tied to their race. The egalitarian police will have you believe that to talk of racial differences means one is automatically a hate monger. That is untrue propaganda propogated by non other than the racial equality polizei who themselves wish to stifle any criticism of their egalitarian fiction. With that being said no one is "pure", and differences are in degrees, and not in kind, i.e. some are "purer" than others ( England, Japan for example ).
With that said, I think we should first clear the issue around the ambiguiqity of "equality". Many contend that "we are all equal", yet cannot see that nature itself has chiseled great inequalities of minds, of strengths, of characters, and capacities. What is "equality"? It means the quality of being the same in quantity or measure or value or status. With that definition, what can we point to in nature where that definition applies to? It is a fact of nature that no two things are alike, and that no two humans are alike. We can extend this to different racial groups and see the same results. The fact that different racial groups produced different civilizations, is itself evidence of racial inequalities, not equalities, of superiors and inferiors, which simply means higher ranked or quality. When we take this further and state that Asians and Jews by far are the most intelligent as evidenced by IQ, followed by whites intermediate, then blacks we are told we are racist and IQ is "not reliable" and "biased" and/or "racist". Yet we don't need IQ to determine the differneces in racial groups all we can do is point to the different civilizations and see the capacity of each racial group in their development. For the purposes of clarity I will use "Mongoloid" and "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" as basic terms long ago abandoned by the new egalitarian "science". Thus it is no wonder that the premise of many modern ideologies, from Marxism, to Socialism, to Communism, to Civil Rights, to political correctness, all are in some way, shape or form, based on this assumption of "equality", or achieving that desired state.
To know science, we must understand science. Science, like anything else, is a social institution surrounded by an abundance of misunderstanding, even among those who are a part of the "scientific community". We think that science is an institution, a set of methods, a set of people, a great body of knowledge, and we call that scientific, and that somehow is apart from the forces that rule our everyday lives and that govern the structure of our society. We think science is objective, just like we think journalism is objective, or at least ought to be, but they are not. Science is greatly influenced by the structure of all our other social institutions, and the ideas that pervade the ruling circles. The problems that science entangles are ideas that it uses in investigating those problems, even the so clled scientific results that come out of scientific investigation, are all influenced by preconceived ideas and predispositions that derive from society in which we live. Scientists don't start life as scientists, but as social beings, immersed in a family, a state, and the ideological structure that pervades.
It then follows that science is molded by society because it is guided by those who have and control time and money. People earn their living with science as it uses commodity so people rely on their living for science. As a side effect, the dominant social and economic forces in society will determine to a large extent what science does and how it does it. That the current science trumpets the claim of "racial egalitarianism", or "egalitarianism" in general, goes hand in hand with the biased media such as the NYT that would report such things regarding race and the human genome that "race is nothing more than skin deep" ( NYT August 22, 2000 ). It is the control and influence of what scientsits do and say, and the use what scientists do and say to support the institutions of society, i.e. "diversity is our strength", endless "immigration", "egalitarian legislations" such as affirmitive action, forced integration and assimilation, etc.
That Mongoloids are by far more intelligent with a higher response time, than Caucasoids who in turn are higher than Negroids is indeed evidence of racial inequality, and an idea of superiorty or inferiorty. Moreover, in the bestseller, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life by by Richard J. Herrnstein, Charles Murray, we see evidence of how success is dependent on intelligence and the different groups that comprise this society. Although the authors were careful in their efforts of trying to show the correlation between intelligence and success, by cloaking their argument in "class", and not race, they nonetheless were smeared all over the media and egalitarian circles.
The further fact that some groups are more violent than others is itself a result of "race" and not "socio-economic" causes, as is common in this day and age of Marxian-lite sociology. That blacks or Negroids are by far the most violent in society is not a "racist" statement, it is a realistic statement. The fact that someone who walks by a black man feels "threatened", is not because he/she is racist or hateful, but because he she knows and realizes blacks are the most violent and hence is careful. Such discrmination is the natural, rather the cognitive ability of humans to differentiate. This is not "racist", aside from the "egalitarians" making it "racist", an all encompassing smear label used for anything and everything to stifle and silence those whom dare to critique the egalitarian wisdom.
The fact that blacks on average have higher levels of testosterone than Caucasoids or Mongoloids, shows why they are more violent, as testosterone and aggression provide a clear link, as any non egalitarian psychologist will tell you. The fact that men are more violent than women is itself grounded in testosterone, and why more younger men committ crimes than older men. We can see the evidence of the disproportionate involvement of blacks in crime by U.S. Government statistics.
Anyone who visits the U.S. Department of Justice can see this too:
With that said, I think we should first clear the issue around the ambiguiqity of "equality". Many contend that "we are all equal", yet cannot see that nature itself has chiseled great inequalities of minds, of strengths, of characters, and capacities. What is "equality"? It means the quality of being the same in quantity or measure or value or status. With that definition, what can we point to in nature where that definition applies to? It is a fact of nature that no two things are alike, and that no two humans are alike. We can extend this to different racial groups and see the same results. The fact that different racial groups produced different civilizations, is itself evidence of racial inequalities, not equalities, of superiors and inferiors, which simply means higher ranked or quality. When we take this further and state that Asians and Jews by far are the most intelligent as evidenced by IQ, followed by whites intermediate, then blacks we are told we are racist and IQ is "not reliable" and "biased" and/or "racist". Yet we don't need IQ to determine the differneces in racial groups all we can do is point to the different civilizations and see the capacity of each racial group in their development. For the purposes of clarity I will use "Mongoloid" and "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" as basic terms long ago abandoned by the new egalitarian "science". Thus it is no wonder that the premise of many modern ideologies, from Marxism, to Socialism, to Communism, to Civil Rights, to political correctness, all are in some way, shape or form, based on this assumption of "equality", or achieving that desired state.
To know science, we must understand science. Science, like anything else, is a social institution surrounded by an abundance of misunderstanding, even among those who are a part of the "scientific community". We think that science is an institution, a set of methods, a set of people, a great body of knowledge, and we call that scientific, and that somehow is apart from the forces that rule our everyday lives and that govern the structure of our society. We think science is objective, just like we think journalism is objective, or at least ought to be, but they are not. Science is greatly influenced by the structure of all our other social institutions, and the ideas that pervade the ruling circles. The problems that science entangles are ideas that it uses in investigating those problems, even the so clled scientific results that come out of scientific investigation, are all influenced by preconceived ideas and predispositions that derive from society in which we live. Scientists don't start life as scientists, but as social beings, immersed in a family, a state, and the ideological structure that pervades.
It then follows that science is molded by society because it is guided by those who have and control time and money. People earn their living with science as it uses commodity so people rely on their living for science. As a side effect, the dominant social and economic forces in society will determine to a large extent what science does and how it does it. That the current science trumpets the claim of "racial egalitarianism", or "egalitarianism" in general, goes hand in hand with the biased media such as the NYT that would report such things regarding race and the human genome that "race is nothing more than skin deep" ( NYT August 22, 2000 ). It is the control and influence of what scientsits do and say, and the use what scientists do and say to support the institutions of society, i.e. "diversity is our strength", endless "immigration", "egalitarian legislations" such as affirmitive action, forced integration and assimilation, etc.
That Mongoloids are by far more intelligent with a higher response time, than Caucasoids who in turn are higher than Negroids is indeed evidence of racial inequality, and an idea of superiorty or inferiorty. Moreover, in the bestseller, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life by by Richard J. Herrnstein, Charles Murray, we see evidence of how success is dependent on intelligence and the different groups that comprise this society. Although the authors were careful in their efforts of trying to show the correlation between intelligence and success, by cloaking their argument in "class", and not race, they nonetheless were smeared all over the media and egalitarian circles.
The further fact that some groups are more violent than others is itself a result of "race" and not "socio-economic" causes, as is common in this day and age of Marxian-lite sociology. That blacks or Negroids are by far the most violent in society is not a "racist" statement, it is a realistic statement. The fact that someone who walks by a black man feels "threatened", is not because he/she is racist or hateful, but because he she knows and realizes blacks are the most violent and hence is careful. Such discrmination is the natural, rather the cognitive ability of humans to differentiate. This is not "racist", aside from the "egalitarians" making it "racist", an all encompassing smear label used for anything and everything to stifle and silence those whom dare to critique the egalitarian wisdom.
The fact that blacks on average have higher levels of testosterone than Caucasoids or Mongoloids, shows why they are more violent, as testosterone and aggression provide a clear link, as any non egalitarian psychologist will tell you. The fact that men are more violent than women is itself grounded in testosterone, and why more younger men committ crimes than older men. We can see the evidence of the disproportionate involvement of blacks in crime by U.S. Government statistics.
Anyone who visits the U.S. Department of Justice can see this too:
Comment