>Race? Part Two…

>

Welcome to part two of our discussion on race.  This is an ongoing debate over whether or not there is any evidence to claim that racial biology is responsible for the historically reprehensible behaviour of the judiac.  We will continue with James’ second reply and my response.  Again, feel free to chime in and comment.  We welcome your input to this what we both feel to be an important debate.
Great. I hope this is as engaging for readers as it is for me. And I see you’ve posted our discussion on your site. I approve, though you never need my approval to post what I say. I only hope for fairness.
I think I need to assure readers of what is NOT going on here. Two points follow, the first long, the second short.
1. A racial-supremacy argument is not being made, nor is a racial-inferiority argument. Until recently, I never allowed thoughts on race-based differences in humans to take root in my brain. But now I’m open to it. I’ve read a lot of material in the last two years, from the low-key Eustace Mullins to white-supremacist websites. And let’s not forget that there’s a lot of jew-supremacist material available, too, written by jews, based on race, culture, and both.
IF I wind up convinced that there are race-based behavioral differences among humans, I will not assign supremacy nor inferiority to them. Differences don’t have to involve superiority. For example, there are obviously DNA-based differences between males and females: We are different, and gladly so, and supremacy is not involved. Also, I think we have shown, despite our Common Enemy’s best efforts, that a variety of races can get along well enough in our U.S.A. And whether “jews” have a race-based component in their historically criminal and treasonous behavior, I will always keep in mind that individuals are innocent until their behavior proves them otherwise.
2. As you said (and I embellish), the “judaic” will “denounce” or “cling” to anything from any angle, with truth, half-truth, and/or blatant lies, “when it suits them to do so.” As I’ve said on the Equal Party site, the liars and criminals don’t get to tell us what to think, say, do, who to vote for, nor how to run our country. I proceed carefully, but unafraid.
NOW, let’s get back to Timster’s introductory points above.
I want to be concise today and not further broaden the discussion. I want to stick to the question of “jews” having a race-based component at work in their covert and overt conspiratorial criminal behavior.
Timster, you wrote, in dismissing the idea: “One might as well say that the DNA markers in the blood of an Irishman produces the tendency to drink Guinness. This biology that you reference, has never been proven to favour any type of personal behaviour in any culture of the world.”
I don’t accept that premise. Being half Irish, I wouldn’t be offended if compiled evidence were to suggest that Irish are more likely to enjoy alcoholic beverages, or more likely to be alcoholics than other races/ethnicities. I would find it interesting and worthy of study. And whether biology has ever “been proven” to be connected to behavior does not stop me from being open to the idea. After all, the people doing the “proving” of things and subsequently announcing those things in the media have been proved to have lied to us our whole lives.
So, can we return to a simple point related to DNA? I hope so. I think it’s an important point on which to agree or disagree. And after that, we may or may not want to cross into behavior.
* We seem to know that there are DNA-based differences in who gets particular diseases and how frequently. Examples: For jews, Tay-Sachs disease is well known, but there are many more. (Links: http://mazornet.com/genetics/ and http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Health/genetics.html) For blacks/African-Americans, and lesser for Hispanic-Americans, sickle-cell anemia is well known. (A government link: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/posters/chromosome/sca.shtml) And here’s one that’s more fun, related to red hair (including me!) (Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair).
So, can we agree there are disease-related genetic differences involving race/ethnicity? I think this is an important bridge to cross before we (I) attempt to apply genetics to some behavior.
James,
Thank you for your speedy reply.
I would begin by saying that although I am not a world-class chess player…I ain’t bad.  And I think I can see a few moves into your strategy.
If by your logic, I accept that certain known diseases have been proven(by your links) to be racially specific….then I must accept the intrinsic biology of  “race”  as well.  Then we go down the speculative garden path of whether or not anti-social, or sociopathic behaviour cannot be considered a disease…dictated by the very biology that I have already allowed can be racially generated.  I don’t think I’ll go there.
Here are the reasons.  First you balk at scientific evidence that dissuades arguments for genetically based behaviour.  Then you use conclusions of the same scientific community that supports gender-specific diseases.  Your selection is a bit divisive on these points, I believe.
I too have read about and am familiar with the observation of preponderance of selected diseases for certain races.  This is well known scientific observation.  However this demonstrates that these recessive traits…the proclivity for a certain disease…are only inherited ‘susceptibility’ for these diseases.  The fact that, for instance, only 1 in 12 blacks even actually carries the sickle-cell trait, would be tenuous ground on which to base a social/ethnic or even biological bias.  That is to say, if that is where you were going with this evidence.  To go from this study of dominate and recessive susceptibility for biological diseases, to how a jew interacts with a Gentile is, to me, a far stretch of science and one’s imagination.  And I again stress that I have heard this being argued before…and I say that it is poor science and a winding path to try to explain behaviour that when looked at from a more straightforward approach…Nurture, not Nature…it is much simpler.  It is not seemingly provable, given its psychological nature, but actually much more reasonable in the long run.  Here is where someone would quote Occam’s razor….but I never bought that one either.
We agree that the official waffling jewish “race/not race” position can be discounted.  But there is something important that lies in this constantly changing explanation of their own identity.  It is a cleverly set trap.  You cannot win, when they will not be pinned down to a determination of themselves.  If they say they are a race, you are a racist to point out their racial characteristics, especially if they are by your account, behavioural in nature.
If they say they are merely a culture/religion, to ascribe anything jew-specific is religious/cultural persecution.  You can’t win on their playing field.
But when you take race and ethnicity out of the equation,you stand a better chance of being heard.  
So if we view this issue in a less biological and more utilitarian light…even if your position could be proven scientifically and was an accepted fact, which it isn’t…what have we gained?
We would on one hand, begin a journey down that slippery slope of ascribing all manner of what white European-background males might consider abhorrent behaviour as disease.  Blacks tend more toward violent crime.  Asians are not to be trusted.  And yes even your own wife has the gender-specific mental disorder of shopping(and I disagree that gender based differences do not become a basis for discrimination…and so would a few billion women).  Are we prepared to go there?  That’s where this leads.  

On the other hand what do we gain by espousing this, as yet unproven, theory?  Well, in the case of the judaic, we certainly do not gain a foothold in our battle against this cult…we give them an out.  An excuse for behaviour that “he simply cannot help”  .  It’s in his blood.  Do we really want to go there?  You open yourself to charges of the racism for which he is guilty.  Even though you say that you will not assign superiority nor inferiority to race based differences, I would again disagree.  That is the historical nature of all acceptance of racial difference.  And this bias is fomented by the ruling judaic themselves to their benefit.
So I say let’s take the ADL’s proclamation that “jews are not a race”

and run with it.  If nothing else we open up debate on the precepts of his filthy religion …for which even HE credits his action as a culture.  In my mind, when we seek race-based scientific explanations for human behaviour, we denigrate, muddy and digress in our efforts.  Racism, for this is what it is…is “their” domain.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “>Race? Part Two…

  1. >(pt.1)"Give me a baby, and I can make any kind of man" -John Watson, founder of Behaviorism.He is alleged to have said "Give me the baby, and I'll make it climb and use its hands in constructing buildings of stone or wood… I'll make it a thief, a gunman or a dope fiend. The possibilities of shaping in any direction are almost endless… Men are built, not born."The film "Human Resources" details when, drawing on the works of Pavlov and others, Watson applied the scientific method to social engineering, underwritten by the Rockefellers. http://metanoia-films.org/humanresources.phpNurture:Indisputably, by adulthood we are all creatures of the conditioned response. Us Gentiles are conditioned by the State in no small measure to be servile, and the Jew is conditioned by his parents and their 'sacred' texts and mythologies to be superior.Nurture:I recall a study which found a high percentage of serial killers had both been severly abused as children, and had experienced past traumatic brain injuries. While experiencing only one or the other didn't lead to significantly higher levels of violent or irrational behavior, when combined, the result was someone not fully in control of their judgements and impulses. I don't know how formal or comprehensive the study was, but it is logical, and food for thought. The gist of the argument is on pages 3 & 4 of How Stuff Works, and it's heavy with references. – http://people.howstuffworks.com/serial-killer3.htmHere's an interesting read – "Three Models of the Jewish Problem -a Comparison – by Knud Eriksen"It's annotated here by Noorhttp://snippits-and-slappits.blogspot.com/2011/03/three-models-of-jewish-problem.htmlThe three models are listed as;1:“Conspiracy to Enslave”,2:“Survival of the Fittest” and3:“Mental Illness”.While I personally disregard the notions of DNA influencing anything more than tendancies to specific neurological diseases, of which learned psychopathy does not count, and dismiss the notion of "anglo protectionism" – or however one would put it, it's a pretty well reasoned theory, relevant and worth the read.From Noor's notes;""Idiocy and imbecility are found comparatively more often among Jews than among non-Jews . . . The Mongolian type of idiocy is also very frequently observed among Jews . . . Among the Jews the proportion of insane has been observed to be very large . . . Jews are more liable to acute psychoses of early age than are non-Jews." (The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. VI, (1904), p. 556, 603-04). "The Jews are more subject to diseases of the nervous system than the other races and peoples among which they dwell. Hysteria and neurasthenia apear to be most frequent. Some physicians of large experience among the Jews have even gone so far as to state that most of them are neurasthenic and hysterical." (The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. IX, (1905), p. 225)."If the above statements are, or were indeed true, I think 'imbecility' due to inbreeding or other genetic factors is quite a different matter than premeditated treason.

  2. >(pt.2)The brain is far more malliable and adaptable than we presently percieve, of course the sciences recognize this already.I'm tempted to dismiss the whole debate as an irrelevant exercise in academics, possibly even counterproductive, along the lines of debating the cause of a fire before it is extinguished. But, there is some merit to establishing how exactly to go about countering their sophisticated methods of social control. Cognitive dissonance- optimism in the face of hopelessness.Perhaps, if we ever find ourselves in the position to adopt our own "final solution", it will involve FMRI's to identify psychopathic brain responses, research into past, unpunished criminal behavior, and a humane prison system. Perhaps we could set up an armed perimiter around Corfu Island and put them all there. I understand the accomodations are quite nice.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s