Thursday, March 10, 2011

Race? Part Three...

Dear Timster,
It may be that we disagree on what we’re doing here. I think we are discussing whether there is a biological aspect involved in the heinous behavior of many conspiring jews. A different subject is the subject of what will or won’t be effective in combating the judaic criminal hold on our country and the world. I suggest that we not mix the two subjects. I seek truth and clarity on the first issue, for myself and other interested readers. After we do what we can with the first issue, then I would be willing to discuss strategy.
My line of reasoning is simple. It’s step by step. Our discussion has already helped me to distill it:
1. Among humans, we obviously have DNA-based differences, such as male v. female; and groups of people (races/ethnicities) with physical features different from other groups.
2. Also, it seems obvious that different groups (races/ethnicities) have DNA-based differences in susceptibilities for different diseases to cause significant harm. (You and I, not having performed the scientific studies ourselves, make our choices based on our own knowledge and experience. We can disagree.)
3. The final step. Let me offer it by way of a simple example. It can be so simple as this: If my race has a DNA-based heightened sensitivity to testosterone, then my race will be more aggressive in behavior, in general, than races without that DNA quirk.
Now that’s what I call clarity! Step 3 is simply true, isn’t it?
If I’m wrong, help me.
Please remember, in this discussion I am not concerned with how other people may twist, abuse, or attack the truth we’re trying to distill. I’m concerned with you and I (and commenters) sharing and reasoning our way along. My final conclusion remains open to adjustment.

James,
I am not a biologist.  And although I can understand most research that is placed before me...the whys and wherefores, the conclusions and theories concerning most things medical, it isn't my strong suit to do so.  I usually leave that to the more scientifically inclined.  I will, as we all do, speculate on known scientific findings/theories... and I think that is more the nature of the discussion here.  As far as I know...and I have done quite a bit of reading on the subject... there is no proof that ethnic-based DNA markers have anything significant to do with the behaviour of groups of people.  As a matter of fact...the very nature of these theories are reminiscent of the "intelligent design" theories that have recently been shot down.  In the 50's and 60's, these race-based theories were discounted and labeled "scientific racism".  And not necessarily by jewish scientists(if anything, I would think that the yiddish would tend toward your way of thinking...divide and conquer).  No agenda here...just true scientific study. This label indicates that non-biologists were drawing conclusions about racial behaviour that simply did not exist, and that the very search for such scientific verification of racial pigeon-holing was highly suspect in itself.  I have always agreed with this.  That is why, although I admire the writings of people like Eustace Mullins, or Kevin McDonald or even David Duke, I stop short when they grasp at straws attempting to prove that ethnicities possess behavioral tendencies.  I also believe that this is why such writers are always kept on the fringe of what they could have become as truly popular writers.  Because they choose to cling to the "nature" explanations, rather than the "nurture".
So yes, I say there is no definitive proof of your theory, and since it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something...as in atheism, the burden of proof lies in your camp.
What I can assert, which makes more sense is that the jewish persona, like all cultural behaviour, is learned.
As far as your example in step three is concerned: IF that was indeed a fact, which I don't allow without credible reference, it would, as you posit, be only a sensitivity...not a measurable behavioral pattern spanning your "race".  Especially not transferable to the wholly measurable behaviour of the ashkanazi.  But again, this is academic.
So what ARE we doing in this discussion?  For my part, the question of biological influence in behavioral patterns of ethnic groups, is already settled.  It doesn't exist.  I was under the impression that you could present proof to the contrary. Or at the very least, provide a plausible reason why I should consider this theory.  However what I find just as interesting a topic to discuss, are the reasons why someone would research such a postulate.  What could be the motive?  In your view of things, would a particular group with no, or little DNA-driven behavioral tendencies shown in this research, then be lauded as the ideal?  Or would such a group be allowed in your science?  If we accept your theory, then what role DOES environment play?  Any?
I don't accept your assertions for the same reason that I don't lend credence to the suggestion that "joos are from outer space", as one of our commenters put it.  I have yet to see any plausible evidence to even consider either story. 
Many books have been written on this subject; Nature vs. Nurture...and they almost without exception, lead back to examinations concerning the "why" of such theories.  I think this is because of the lack of genuine science supporting your views.  So, yes in the absence of such science I find the implications of this rumination more viable a topic of discussion...especially where it concerns our agreement on the topic of rational disdain for the judaic philosophy.  Therefore unless you have some solid science to offer...shall we continue along these lines?  Or just agree to disagree...

No comments: