'Human Races' are socially defined constructs

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Miss Kitty suggested that we discuss this video, in which Noel Ignatiev is addressing the problem of white privilege.

 
Last edited:
Greetings, Miss Kitty
You guys are too wordy.
So let us not forget that Noel Ignatiev is an academic clown. I.e. A Cultural Marxist worthy of his three...
Wikipedia said:
Ignatiev views race distinctions and race itself as a social construct, not a scientific reality.
...stooges prototypes - Horkheimer, Adorno & Marcuse.

Human races arose from longstanding effects in different regions e.g. light skin from vitamin D deficiency in cloudy cold climates. Hence, due to geographical contiguity, there is a White Race (Caucasian) and Mongoloid Race (Oriental and Amerindian peoples). However there is no Black Race as Africans are quite distinct genetically from Asian and Australasian black populations.

I.e. Ignatiev makes these statements merely to confuse and disarm people - as if the color of one's skin makes one inherently bad or good. I.e. his antiracism underpins an 'ethical' racism of the Cultural Marxist kind, these leftists o_O being too dumbed down to understand the implications.

Or does pointing out these genetic and anthropological facts merely entitle one to be clawed badly, academically or otherwise?

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Noel Ignatiev Urging White Genocide
That video is obviously chopped up to take Ignatiev's statements out of context. And I wish he'd be more careful and less sensationalist with his choice of words. But he is not calling for "White Genocide".

Here is his manifesto from ~2005:

http://www.racetraitor.org

The white race is a historically constructed social formation. It consists of all those who partake of the privileges of the white skin in this society. Its most wretched members share a status higher, in certain respects, than that of the most exalted persons excluded from it, in return for which they give their support to a system that degrades them.
The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race, which means no more and no less than abolishing the privileges of the white skin. Until that task is accomplished, even partial reform will prove elusive, because white influence permeates every issue, domestic and foreign, in US society.
The existence of the white race depends on the willingness of those assigned to it to place their racial interests above class, gender, or any other interests they hold. The defection of enough of its members to make it unreliable as a predictor of behavior will lead to its collapse.
[....]
New to Race Traitor?
You may be confused. Read this:
Dear Race Traitor:
I read your statement "What We Believe." I am a sixteen-year-old white girl and so far as I know I have never done anything wrong to any person of another color. Why do you hate me simply because I have white skin? You say you want to abolish the white race. You people are as bad as the Ku Klux Klan.
A reader
Editors' reply:
Thank you for writing. You have misunderstood our meaning. We do not hate you or anyone else for the color of her skin. What we hate is a system that confers privileges (and burdens) on people because of their color. It is not fair skin that makes people white; it is fair skin in a certain kind of society, one that attaches social importance to skin color. When we say we want to abolish the white race, we do not mean we want to exterminate people with fair skin. We mean that we want to do away with the social meaning of skin color, thereby abolishing the white race as a social category. Consider this parallel: To be against royalty does not mean wanting to kill the king. It means wanting to do away with crowns, thrones, titles, and the privileges attached to them. In our view, whiteness has a lot in common with royalty: they are both social formations that carry unearned advantages.
Reader writes back:
Thank you for your explanation. I see what you mean, and I am sorry I jumped to conclusions.
Although to be fair, kings and nobles (especially those who work to maintain their privileges) do sometimes get killed in revolutionary times.

Human races arose from longstanding effects in different regions e.g. light skin from vitamin D deficiency in cloudy cold climates. Hence, due to geographical contiguity, there is a White Race (Caucasian) and Mongoloid Race (Oriental and Amerindian peoples). However there is no Black Race as Africans are quite distinct genetically from Asian and Australasian black populations.
What you're describing is a smooth distribution of genetic variation across geographical space, which of course has been muddled by extensive migration and admixture over time. It's ridiculous to consider this as the basis for a scientific classification system.

We catch a lot of flack around here, for referring to Wikipedia. But it's often a quick way to access the "mainstream consensus" or "official story", if there is one, and to identify the extent of the "Overton Window" of "acceptable" discourse. And, as Wikipedia says:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

Modern scholarship views racial categories as socially constructed, that is, race is not intrinsic to human beings but rather an identity created, often by socially dominant groups, to establish meaning in a social context. This often involves the subjugation of groups defined as racially inferior, as in the one-drop rule used in the 19th-century United States to exclude those with any amount of African ancestry from the dominant racial grouping, defined as "white".[1] Such racial identities reflect the cultural attitudes of imperial powers dominant during the age of European colonial expansion.[2] This view rejects the notion that race is biologically defined.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][excessive citations]
So there's nothing unusual about Ignatiev's view that race is a social construct.

FWIW, Ignatiev is also highly critical of Israel, and Jewish racism. And he's quite an interesting writer on a lot of topics. Here are his current blogs:

http://www.pmpress.org/content/index.php?topic=bl_ignatiev

https://hardcrackers.com
 
Last edited:
People misunderstand what Ignatiev is trying to do - his approach is NOT benign though it fits the perverted agenda of "modern scholarship".
Jerry Russell said:
That video is obviously chopped up to take Ignatiev's statements out of context. And I wish he'd be more careful and less sensationalist with his choice of words. But he is not calling for "White Genocide".
Of course Ignatiev is not calling for white genocide in terms of active eradication, but you do not see what is hidden in his words.
Jerry Russell quoting Ignatiev said:
http://www.racetraitor.org

The white race is a historically constructed social formation. It consists of all those who partake of the privileges of the white skin in this society. Its most wretched members share a status higher, in certain respects, than that of the most exalted persons excluded from it, in return for which they give their support to a system that degrades them.
The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race, which means no more and no less than abolishing the privileges of the white skin. Until that task is accomplished, even partial reform will prove elusive, because white influence permeates every issue, domestic and foreign, in US society.
The existence of the white race depends on the willingness of those assigned to it to place their racial interests above class, gender, or any other interests they hold. The defection of enough of its members to make it unreliable as a predictor of behavior will lead to its collapse.
Firstly, the poorest whites in the West do not have a higher status than other people - though racists of the Right may try to flatter them with that claim, even though the poorest whites have, by definition, not benefitted from their white color, even though their % is lower among whites than the poorest blacks among the total % of blacks!
Secondly, according to Ignatiev, abolishing "the white race" means "abolishing the privileges of white skin". Rather, absolutely the opposite is true: he is abolishing anyone's ability and right to call out and identify those who benefit from capitalist privileges (most of whom happen to be white). It is an attempt to shut down debate about the privilege of wealth by trying to turn the issue into merely one of a person's skin color, using skin color to mask class privileges. How?

Jerry Russell quoting Race Traitor conversation said:
New to Race Traitor?
You may be confused. Read this:
Dear Race Traitor:
I read your statement "What We Believe." I am a sixteen-year-old white girl and so far as I know I have never done anything wrong to any person of another color. Why do you hate me simply because I have white skin? You say you want to abolish the white race. You people are as bad as the Ku Klux Klan.
Editors' reply:
Thank you for writing. You have misunderstood our meaning. We do not hate you or anyone else for the color of her skin. What we hate is a system that confers privileges (and burdens) on people because of their color. It is not fair skin that makes people white; it is fair skin in a certain kind of society, one that attaches social importance to skin color. When we say we want to abolish the white race, we do not mean we want to exterminate people with fair skin. We mean that we want to do away with the social meaning of skin color, thereby abolishing the white race as a social category. Consider this parallel: To be against royalty does not mean wanting to kill the king. It means wanting to do away with crowns, thrones, titles, and the privileges attached to them. In our view, whiteness has a lot in common with royalty: they are both social formations that carry unearned advantages.
The point is that Ignatiev is trying to abolish the white race as a social category (having already obliterated it genetically & hereditarily), which, since he asserts that the white race is a mere "historical construct", means that by abolishing whiteness, he can then claim that anyone who brings up the FACT that most of the class privileged are white (due to historical reasons of course) can be labelled "racists" and thus silenced.

Do you see what I mean? - or do you have to run to Uncle Joe (be he Stalin, Atwill or whomever) to find the answer? And so I fear that Miss Kitty will be sharpening her claws!

Yours faithfully
Claude

Jerry Russell said:
FWIW, Ignatiev is also highly critical of Israel, and Jewish racism...
So were Karl Popper and Noam Chomsky, both of Jewish background, but adopting the outlook of either of these actors leads to one adopting similar (though not identical) paralyzing moralizing views about the world.
 
Last edited:
Jerry Russell said:
Claude B said:
Human races arose from longstanding effects in different regions e.g. light skin from vitamin D deficiency in cloudy cold climates. Hence, due to geographical contiguity, there is a White Race (Caucasian) and Mongoloid Race (Oriental and Amerindian peoples). However there is no Black Race as Africans are quite distinct genetically from Asian and Australasian black populations.
What you're describing is a smooth distribution of genetic variation across geographical space, which of course has been muddled by extensive migration and admixture over time.
That's right: human races are 'blended' with the number of admixed people outnumbering the racial extremes. Nevertheless they remain 'races' because by definition a race is a geographical variant of a species.
Jerry Russell kowtowing to the Wikideity said:
It's ridiculous to consider this as the basis for a scientific classification system.
It is ridiculous from a 'modern science' perspective, but genuine science accepts that racial categorization of humans, animals and plants contains much largely arbitrary subclassification - but this does not render the racial extremes and classification 'unscientific'.
Jerry Russell said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

Modern scholarship views racial categories as socially constructed, that is, race is not intrinsic to human beings but rather an identity created, often by socially dominant groups, to establish meaning in a social context. This often involves the subjugation of groups defined as racially inferior, as in the one-drop rule used in the 19th-century United States to exclude those with any amount of African ancestry from the dominant racial grouping, defined as "white".[1] Such racial identities reflect the cultural attitudes of imperial powers dominant during the age of European colonial expansion.[2] This view rejects the notion that race is biologically defined.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][excessive citations]
So there's nothing unusual about Ignatiev's view that race is a social construct.
Rather, the genes that control racial differences - head shape, skin color, limb length, calcium metabolism etc. are comparatively few, but they are important in that physical differences have been naturally selected by the environment or the result of bizarre prehistorical accidents whose origin is officially obscure. (In contrast, Wikipedia's BS above just reflects popular modern nonsense).*

One of these accidents is the fact that Australian Aborigines have long wavy hair much like Whites, whereas native New Guineans have fuzzy hair like Africans - the very word 'New Guinea' based on the observation that people there looked like those of Guinea. Yet 10,000 years ago Australia and New Guinea were joined as the one continent of Sahul. Hence another racial subclassification which is NOT, repeat NOT, merely some arbitrary social construct.

Dogs too have multiple breeds with vast physical differences but relatively little genetic difference - they are not races because they do not have a native distribution.

There are a lot of wacky social constructs found in the Pacific Palisades etc. - but these cannot be applied to all the regions of the world like simple-minded people apply to them to Africa and Europe, i.e where most US immigrants come from.

Yours faithfully
Claude

*The racial divide also includes lions and tigers which are interfertile though they are classed as separate species. People claim that the interbreeding only occurs in zoos so that they are really separate species. However, India is the only country with BOTH lions and tigers, and the fact that the two species do not occur in adjacent regions is because of the 1,000,000,000+ Indians separating the lion and tiger habitats. I.e. they clearly interbred in the past - and this also sheds light on the classification of American 'lions' found e.g. at La Brea. Genetics supports a lion connection I believe, but geographical contiguity over the Bering Strait supports the tiger connection. But I suspect they are just out of Miss Kitty's league!:cool:
 
Last edited:
Hi Claude,

Yeah, this nonsense of race as a social construct is annoying, to say the least, and it is certainly part of the whole Cultural Marxist program that is well under way in America. I personally find it evil because it's false, and they're selling it to little children. My sister-in-law just took her nine year old out of public school for this reason, along with wildly distorted anti-white American history, pushing gender as a social construct, a couple of little boys wearing tutu skirts at dance class, and too many Mexican kids with lice who can't speak English. Who started this, I wonder?

We must defend freedom of speech and freedom of association for white Americans. Jews are well on their way to passing anti free speech laws - like the ones they had in the Soviet Union and the ones they have now in Europe. They will do it incrementally:

https://raycom-wwsb-prod.origin.arcpublishing.com/2019/04/29/florida-passes-anti-semitism-bill-public-schools/
 
Last edited:
Frankly, ridiculous academic theories, as well as those who buy into them, will be irrelevant when America breaks up into territories. If you don't want to be murdered, probably best to move to an area where people can easily accept you as one of their own. If there is any sort of race based social construct, it's visual. People don't know by looking at you that you are 1/10th Cherokee. People almost always congregate mainly with people who look more or less like themselves. If you don't believe it, move to Los Angeles. How many Chinese only doctor's offices or Jewish neighborhoods or Mexican barrios or Little Indias or this town or that town do we need to see in order to be understanding this? People are inherently different. They like to live differently. I suspect it's only white people that truly imagine this isn't so. You can bet that Jews do not believe this for a minute. China isn't down with it. Neither is Russia. The relevant question is - what group is going to defend me if the SHTF? We simply are not meant to live in the Tower of Babel. Deus vult!
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Firstly, the poorest whites in the West do not have a higher status than other people - though racists of the Right may try to flatter them with that claim,
The fact that they can be, an are, flattered by such talk, is in itself a sort of status reward. But some would say that being white has other advantages, even for the lowest status whites.

Secondly, according to Ignatiev, abolishing "the white race" means "abolishing the privileges of white skin". he is abolishing anyone's ability and right to call out and identify those who benefit from capitalist privileges (most of whom happen to be white).
This may be a problem with identity politics, but Ignatiev isn't confused about this. He explicitly complains that some whites "place their racial interests above class, gender, or any other interests they hold." This is absolutely true; the entire Republican Party is based on appealing to voters to put their racial interests above their class interest.

It is ridiculous from a 'modern science' perspective, but genuine science accepts that racial categorization of humans, animals and plants contains much largely arbitrary subclassification - but this does not render the racial extremes and classification 'unscientific'.
So you are trying to make a distinction between 'modern science' vs. 'genuine science'? If you agree that your claim is 'ridiculous' from the perspective of modern science, then I'm also willing to admit that some pseudo-scientific concept of 'human race' can be built based on application of various clustering algorithms to genetic data, resulting in LARGELY ARBITRARY subclasses. By tinkering with the clustering algorithms, you might even be able to get those arbitrary subclasses to have some rough statistical correlation with socially constructed racial concepts.

But it doesn't change the fact that 'human races' such as White, Black, Jewish etc., are socially and historically constructed, and are not based in any genetic analysis.

(In contrast, Wikipedia's BS above just reflects popular modern nonsense*)
Wow, I can see why you ran into trouble in your scientific career. It's one thing to disagree with a scientific consensus; quite another to stand up and denounce it as "popular BS nonsense".

*The racial divide also includes lions and tigers which are interfertile though they are classed as separate species. People claim that the interbreeding only occurs in zoos so that they are really separate species.
No, people claim that they are separate species because they can't interbreed without a loss of fertility. They are also physically isolated, and individual specimens can easily be sorted by morphology into two distinct populations with little if any overlap. I'm sure a genetic clustering algorithm would also easily identify two distinct clusters.

The Wikipedia entry on this topic was written by some random dude who is definitely not a deity, since he couldn't come up with a reference for his definition of a 'monotypic species'. Nevertheless, the entry has not been stricken by any other editor, and has not been subject to any edit warring for several years. Claude, you yourself could drop in at Wikipedia and change it to something else if you want, and see how long your change survives.

In biological terms, rather than in relation to nomenclature, a polytypic species has two or more genetically and phenotypically divergent subspecies, races, or more generally speaking, populations that differ from each other so that a separate description is warranted.[12] These distinct groups do not interbreed as they are isolated from another, but which can interbreed and have fertile offspring, e.g. in captivity. These subspecies, races, or populations, are usually described and named by zoologists, botanists and microbiologists.[citation needed]
In a monotypic species, all populations exhibit the same genetic and phenotypical characteristics. Monotypic species can occur in several ways:[citation needed]

  • All members of the species are very similar and cannot be sensibly divided into biologically significant subcategories.
  • The individuals vary considerably, but the variation is essentially random and largely meaningless so far as genetic transmission of these variations is concerned.
  • The variation among individuals is noticeable and follows a pattern, but there are no clear dividing lines among separate groups: they fade imperceptibly into one another. Such clinal variation always indicates substantial gene flow among the apparently separate groups that make up the population(s). Populations that have a steady, substantial gene flow among them are likely to represent a monotypic species, even when a fair degree of genetic variation is obvious.
With respect to 'human races', you'll see that this has been extensively discussed and debated on the associated talk page. The (so-called) 'consensus of Wikipedia editors' is that there are no human subspecies or 'races', because the separate groups fade imperceptibly into one another as a result of steady, substantial gene flow among them. The human race is monotypic; or, if you prefer, the 'human race' is a singular noun, there is no plurality of 'human races'.

The term 'race', even with respect to populations of animals and plants, seems to be considered a deprecated term in 'modern science' because of the sociological baggage.
 
Last edited:
Jerry Russell said:
Ignatiev explicitly complains that some whites "place their racial interests above class, gender, or any other interests they hold." This is absolutely true; the entire Republican Party is based on appealing to voters to put their racial interests above their class interest.
Not even all Republicans hold such views - after all, it was the Republicans who championed the ending of slavery in the Civil War - though they are evolving that way!
Jerry Russell said:
So you are trying to make a distinction between 'modern science' vs. 'genuine science'? If you agree that your claim is 'ridiculous' from the perspective of modern science, then I'm also willing to admit that some pseudo-scientific concept of 'human race' can be built based on application of various clustering algorithms to genetic data, resulting in LARGELY ARBITRARY subclasses. By tinkering with the clustering algorithms, you might even be able to get those arbitrary subclasses to have some rough statistical correlation with socially constructed racial concepts.

But it doesn't change the fact that 'human races' such as White, Black, Jewish etc., are socially and historically constructed, and are not based in any genetic analysis.
The fact of race is obvious from geographical variations since the involved genes cluster in the geographic areas of the native peoples - though not of course with later immigrants of all sorts. White and Black are not reducible to mere social constructions; Jews are not a race but a culture, so they have no bearing on the race question. Furthermore there are extinct races of humans too - Neanderthals, Peking Man, Java Man, the Denisovans, the Flores 'hobbits' and even (apparently) the Naledi Man, the last two having small brains but human capabilities, judging from the evidence.

The modern conception of race is to create straw-man racial stereotypes by imagining that there ought to be distinct races which only blend later on, rather than realizing that an interbreeding continuum is perfectly valid in racial assignments for humans, plants and animals alike, a continuum which emerged with human evolution as humans spread out from Africa! Rather, the modern fantasy uses the continuum to deny any racial and thus geographic variation-assignments in the first place, despite the fact that geographic differences arise DESPITE such interbreeding continua. Such variations occur with many bird species, scientific people happy to assign geographical variants the term 'race' or 'variety' as synonymous for the different variants even though some might vary the classification.
Jerry Russell said:
The (so-called) 'consensus of Wikipedia editors' is that there are no human subspecies or 'races', because the separate groups fade imperceptibly into one another as a result of steady, substantial gene flow among them. The human race is monotypic; or, if you prefer, the 'human race' is a singular noun, there is no plurality of 'human races'.
The plurality of races is true of other animals too - but the geographic variants (races) still exist despite the potentially diluting gene flow, hence the reality of race and racial difference as genuine scientific observations.* The term 'human race' merely reflects the fact of human interfertility across the world. The Wikipedia claim is contrast is prejudicial, blurring over differences so that racial, cultural, social and class differences are confused one with another in the average reader's mind - which is of course what the financial elites want i.e. the question of human geographical variational differences CANNOT be addressed objectively!

It is modern science that reifies these varieties into stereotypes, all the more to justify their nullification so that actual white privilege from class and historical origins cannot be addressed without the addressor being labelled 'racist' due to the muddling of categories.

Indeed, modern science here uses only FORMAL logic, rather than Dialectical Logic (an optional extra for modernity) which accepts the 'excluded middle.' (I thought you would know more about Hegel's ideas on logic).

Yours faithfully
Claude

*What matters of course is any supposed moral or intellectual differences attributable to geography-based genetic differences, an issue only blurred and confused with cultural (e.g. Judaism), class (Marx) and social (traditional) differences by the likes of Ignatiev.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
It's nice that we finally agree that today's non-Semitic Jews (Ashkenazi) are a Scapegoat Class, probably after we explained that they are also in the dual role of a Sheepdog Class, just like their predecessor OG synthetic Jews. That said wwwe've [sic] gone horribly off-topic again.

Semites look like Arabs and such, hence Jews are White people, because they are ... White. John Fitzgerald Kennedy and his brothers are Melungeons, which means they are Jews. OK, Jews by conversion, but aren't they all. The Fitzgerald, as we have learned from a Fitzgerald, portion of the blood is from good Norman stock, meaning that they are .... White people, (pretending to be Irish. And according to the self-proclaimed late leader of the Norman tribe, the shep-eeps who created this whole social construct in the first place. Which, in some conflated eyes makes them Jews as well.

Guess what I discovered in my backyard the night before last fellow chimpigs? Racoons. Yes, I know they have them in Los Angeles, but I live in the freaking middle of the desert, in the middle of a medium sized city. The only way for racoons to get there is via hillbillies. Bible thumping, White hillbillies from the South. Racoons make them feel culturally at home in the desert. They came here to make a living building airplanes to fight the Cold War, and now we can't get them to return. Why would they, they can't get their slaves back. They'd have to keep them hidden in their basement like David Duke does, and that's agin the Good Book that mandates that slaves be treated kindly.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Not even all Republicans hold such views - after all, it was the Republicans who championed the ending of slavery in the Civil War - though they are evolving that way!
This is only somewhat true. One has to realize that the Republican Party underwent a quantum transformation (peaceful revolution not evolution) with its implementation of the so-called Southern Strategy. Thus so-called southern Blue Dog Democrats switched wholesale to becoming Republicans and facilitated Reagan's rise to power, and opening the floodgates of laissez faire off-shoring of American jobs, his economic miracle built on credit expansion. Now Hair Trump has performed a similar miracle turning the Republicans into the Populist base for his fascist coup in process.

And his fascist coup is quietly supported by all the Georgetown Jesu staffing the White House, the real Deep State.

Reagan, another fake Presbyterian, like Trump, recognized the Vatican as a nation.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Having defeated the inadequately-supplied Whites in the Civil War, Lenin, having established increasingly tight bureaucratic control over the country, faced an anarchist rebellion in Kronstadt!
Would you agree that these 'Whites' are a socially defined construct? As opposed to the 'Reds'? We do know that these Russian social groups are not of the same gene pool.

And didn't you say that those who win a struggle are smarter than those who lose? Were the Putinesque Reds smarter for a while then the Putinesque Whites got smarter? Oh no. Those Whites haven't won ... yet, so Putin is Off-White perhaps? Maybe the Whites are waiting for the Return of the King? The same King that the White serfers in America await, the serfers that the 'White' Jews, Daweed Duke and Miss Kitty, hates. But is this awaited King White or Orange?

For the Off-White Russians' take on the awaited King and Miss Kitty's fate: https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/is-america-the-russians-antichrist.2220/
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Indeed, modern science here uses only FORMAL logic, rather than Dialectical Logic (an optional extra for modernity) which accepts the 'excluded middle.'
No, modern science is fully aware of both "formal" and "dialectical" concepts (as you've defined them). It has precise language and mathematics to deal with both situations.

Humanity is a single population of interbreeding individuals, with clinal variations originating in ancient geographical dispersion modified by substantial admixture, resulting in a smooth continuum of characteristics. The scientific concept of "race" or "subspecies" is not applicable to this set of circumstances.

If humanity were divided into subspecies, we would have the vocabulary to describe that. But the facts don't support that description.

Such variations occur with many bird species, scientific people happy to assign geographical variants the term 'race' or 'variety' as synonymous for the different variants even though some might vary the classification.
No, biologists today are well aware of the difference between monotypic species and clinal variations vs. polytypic species and their subspecies. This wasn't so clearly understood back in the 18th century, when the current Linnaean system of taxonomy was worked out.

A major problem is that there are believed to be about 66,000 species of vertebrate animals on the planet, as well as 307,000 plants and more than a million insects, bacteria and algae. So there simply isn't time or money to do all the scientific work needed to clarify the relationship between all these species and their subspecies.

actual white privilege from class and historical origins cannot be addressed without the addressor being labelled 'racist' due to the muddling of categories.
You are welcome to address such issues here at our little marginalized website.

I'd appreciate it if you'd respect our view that terminology regarding "human races" such as "Whites" should be used to describe the corresponding social constructs. If you aren't willing to accept this as a Universal Truth, then please respect us by considering it as a definition or convention.

I understand your desire to use the vocabulary of "race" to address the smooth continuum of human genetic variability. But I insist that we don't use it here, because I'm concerned that it's confusing to casual visitors to the website. It makes you (and by extension, us) look like pseudo-scientific racist bigots.

Whereas if you want to talk about relationships between clinal variations in human DNA arising from evolutionary adaptations to local geographical conditions, versus white privilege arising from class and historical origins, please do go right ahead.

Furthermore there are extinct races of humans too - Neanderthals, Peking Man, Java Man, the Denisovans, the Flores 'hobbits' and even (apparently) the Naledi Man, the last two having small brains but human capabilities, judging from the evidence.
The term 'human race' merely reflects the fact of human interfertility across the world.
I do think you'd be very interested to read Gene McCarthy's work at www.macroevolution.net. McCarthy agrees that it's a well known fact that humans have a fertility problem. His explanation is that the human species originated as a chimpanzee-pig hybridization. Apparently, hybridization often leads directly to fertility issues.

McCarthy doesn't talk about this, but there's a presumably related theory that modern human genetic variability could be partly a result of ancient hybridizations or admixture between African humans, and those other extinct species or sub-species of humans that you mention, occurring in different parts of the world.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
It makes you (and by extension, us) look like pseudo-scientific racist bigots.
I'm looking at my article from 2015, "Genetics of the Oligarchs: Eloi, or Upstarts", and realizing that it isn't as clear as it could be, when it comes to the fact that human racial categorization is a social construct. Instead, it develops a "fuzzy" racial classification scheme based on morphological characteristics, and then points out the shortcomings of that analysis.

Could it be my fault, that we get so many racists and/or fascists showing up here at the forum?
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Jews are not a race but a culture, so they have no bearing on the race question. Furthermore there are extinct races of humans too - Neanderthals, Peking Man, Java Man, the Denisovans, the Flores 'hobbits' and even (apparently) the Naledi Man, the last two having small brains but human capabilities, judging from the evidence.
"Jews are not a race but a culture".

Lesson for Miss Kitty:

Jews were once ~10% of the Roman empire and, unlike today, they liked to proselytize the pagans. It was an easy sell to the pagan women, as these liked the appeal of monogamy reigning in their lusty mates. It was a hard sell to the male goyim as they also had to get their tallywhackers trimmed, with no anesthesia. But nevertheless these Jews persisted, and converted a sizable number of goyim their culture cult. This put the fear of Zeus-Jupiter in the Greco-Romans and thus the solution was found to create a new culture cult that might help nip the Judaic cult in the bud. But to do so, they would have to provide some honey to their Christian honeypot, and provide what their matronly women were digging. Monogamy, yeck!!! How degrading to mankind. I'm on your side on this one Miss Kitty. The Jews gotta go.

The Roman ... Catholic workaround, of course, was/is the Madonna-Whore Complex, albeit not actually new at the time.

McCarthy doesn't talk about this, but there's a presumably related theory that modern human genetic variability could be partly a result of ancient hybridizations or admixture between African humans, and those other extinct species or sub-species of humans that you mention, occurring in different parts of the world.
Claude left out the Cro-Magnons and their big brain cases, compared to our mere modern human brains, that is. Also, there is some hypothesis/theory that the Neanderthals genetically bequeathed us the ability to speak, via the production of the same protein that songbirds use for the same.

Did anyone say racoons?

I told some of my neighbors about the racoons, and now we're wondering if this is why so many of our Odinist neighbor's cats have been dissappearing lately. These White Odinists just let their cats breed continually (because that's Nature after all), and if you think Austalian rabbits can multply ... And cat poop all over your lawns is not fun, like with rabbit pellets. The Odinist's next door neighbors can't play soccer (they're Mexican-Americans) because they go sliding all over.

One can't say anything, or call the Deep State authorities, about the cats to these Odinists for fear of initiating automatic weapons fire, whether you're White or not. Fortunately the oldest son has gotten married (monagamously .. so far) and moved away. He told me about the heroin trade in Afghanistan that he and his US Army friends were there to protect for the Taliban. They converted their home in the desert into a virtual Nordic forest, and turned the pool into a koi pond. Koi are Japanese fish. WTF?

But I'm thinking that the evangelical's racoons have been doing Dogod's work and eating the excess cats. Maybe they've found the koi as well, as has an odd migrating egret that turns up every year for a nice meal.

Who's going to protect me from these carazy White People? Evangelical hillbillies, Odinists, Catholic cryptoMonarchists,? Oy vey!!!!

Give them nations of their own? I have a Sicilian-American friend who says, just kill them all. But then he watched helicopters land pallet loads of dead American (black, yellow, red, and white) soldiers onto his hospital ship during the Vietnam war. No orange though, just Agent Orange.
 
Thank you Jerry for having split this off into a separate thread.

I wrote: "Having defeated the inadequately-supplied Whites in the Civil War, Lenin, having established increasingly tight bureaucratic control over the country, faced an anarchist rebellion in Kronstadt!"
Richard Stanley said:
Would you agree that these 'Whites' are a socially defined construct?
Very funny ha ha! Of course I agree since 'Whites' here refers to the Russian White Army of anti-communist forces, not white-skinned people.
Richard Stanley said:
As opposed to the 'Reds'? We do know that these Russian social groups are not of the same gene pool.

And didn't you say that those who win a struggle are smarter than those who lose?
Not if dumb and corrupt winners are backed by outside forces e.g. U - S - A etc.
Richard Stanley said:
Were the Putinesque Reds smarter for a while then the Putinesque Whites got smarter? Oh no. Those Whites haven't won ... yet, so Putin is Off-White perhaps? Maybe the Whites are waiting for the Return of the King? The same King that the White serfers in America await, the serfers that the 'White' Jews, Daweed Duke and Miss Kitty, hates. But is this awaited King White or Orange?

For the Off-White Russians' take on the awaited King and Miss Kitty's fate: https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/is-america-the-russians-antichrist.2220/
Off-Whites - a good name for Putin's middle class supporters who can neither win Russia's left nor secure the acceptance of outside Western forces.:D

Yours laughingly
Claude
 
Last edited:
You have made a vital point here Jerry...
No, modern science is fully aware of both "formal" and "dialectical" concepts (as you've defined them). It has precise language and mathematics to deal with both situations.
...in that modernity (modern science) reduces and obscures physical facts and differences with precise-yet-ambiguous language (e.g. Whites as Caucasians or as the Russian White Army) and mathematics (the physical differences reduced to mathematical measurements) with the result that only the maths is dealt with in the belief that only quantification is objective while qualitative differences are merely 'phenomenal' hence unimportant. What you are expressing here is part of the modern agenda of manipulation. The mathematicizing reduction of genetics and evolution has ended up obscuring the causal processes, leading e.g. to the sidelining of the concept of rapid change - punctuated equilibrium (Niles Eldredge & Stephen Jay Gould) - which even today is deprecated by modernity's evolutionary apologists such as Richard Dawkins.

Jerry Russell said:
Humanity is a single population of interbreeding individuals, with clinal variations originating in ancient geographical dispersion modified by substantial admixture, resulting in a smooth continuum of characteristics. The scientific concept of "race" or "subspecies" is not applicable to this set of circumstances.
The term 'cline' or 'clinal variations' is inadequate since it means merely "a continuum with an infinite number of gradations from one extreme to the other."

The term 'clinal variations' is misleadingly reductionist if not prejudicial since the stable variants have to be identified, especially as interbreeding in so many cases was very minor or even absent (e.g. Tasmanian Aborigines for 10,000 years as Bass Strait cut them off from the Australian mainland - indeed you have pictures of them on the website here). The physical differences between Australian aborigines and New Guineans results from admixture of two original separate populations who colonized the continent of Sahul, these two separate populations comprising different geographic variants ('races'* in old terminology), humans of different physical appearance.

There is NO smooth continuum of characteristics as you imagine but rather a sharp change across the Torres Strait islands. The native peoples on either side of Torres Strait look quite different - a fact obvious to them too. This occurred because the genetic characteristics in Sahul had not fully merged between the two populations of Australia and New Guinea when sea level rose to cut them off, resulting in the obvious physical differences between them.
Jerry Russell said:
If humanity were divided into subspecies, we would have the vocabulary to describe that. But the facts don't support that description.
The term 'subspecies' is a stronger category of separation, implying subfertility. Perhaps lions and tigers fit into that category rather than being separate species (I believe that 'ligers' are fertile though I might be wrong). Humans don't have subspecies, despite having geographical variants, though as the Flores 'hobbit people' were so small, there would have been interfertility problems!
Jerry Russell said:
No, biologists today are well aware of the difference between monotypic species and clinal variations vs. polytypic species and their subspecies. This wasn't so clearly understood back in the 18th century, when the current Linnaean system of taxonomy was worked out.

A major problem is that there are believed to be about 66,000 species of vertebrate animals on the planet, as well as 307,000 plants and more than a million insects, bacteria and algae. So there simply isn't time or money to do all the scientific work needed to clarify the relationship between all these species and their subspecies.
This is a classificatory question. With multicellular organisms the existence of geographic variants (races) is well understood - and humans have geographic variants, irrespective of the fact that classifications vary and that intermediate types exist. Trying to say that humans have no geographic variants is to deny the obvious - as if native Nigerians cannot reliably be distinguished from native Swedes.
Jerry Russell said:
You are welcome to address such issues here at our little marginalized website.

I'd appreciate it if you'd respect our view that terminology regarding "human races" such as "Whites" should be used to describe the corresponding social constructs. If you aren't willing to accept this as a Universal Truth, then please respect us by considering it as a definition or convention.
OK so I will consider 'Whites' as a conventional label for people of European origin and those from neighboring areas. The correct though misleading racial term is 'Caucasian'. The term 'White' then becomes a cultural convention describing even non-whites who adopt what might be called 'a Western outlook,' a term so sloppy and broad that it includes the Russian White Army!:confused:
Jerry Russell said:
I understand your desire to use the vocabulary of "race" to address the smooth continuum of human genetic variability. But I insist that we don't use it here, because I'm concerned that it's confusing to casual visitors to the website. It makes you (and by extension, us) look like pseudo-scientific racist bigots.
But human geographical variation is NOT a mere social construct as your definition above implies hence a term is needed to describe this genetic segregation. And so I will use the term 'geographic variant', it being understood that this term does NOT include the later colonial migrations of peoples but rather describes the physical differences existing (or presumed to exist)among the human race at the end of the Ice Age about 10,000 years ago when the cut-off of Tasmanian Aborigines occurred.
Jerry Russell said:
Whereas if you want to talk about relationships between clinal variations in human DNA arising from evolutionary adaptations to local geographical conditions, versus white privilege arising from class and historical origins, please do go right ahead.
All AOK - as these questions are extremely distinct ones, unless one can prove a genetic causal connection showing the opposite, which hasn't been done as far as I am aware!
Jerry Russell said:
The pictures of chimpigs shown there are of badly deformed foetuses of pigs, sheep or goats. Primates and pigs have been genetically separated for over 70,000,000 years so are not interfertile (despite the fact that Australian politicians keep making us think that there must be some 'bestial' heredity involved). Indeed pigs are Laurasiatheres whereas primates belong to the Archontoglires superorder which they share with rodents and rabbits (as far as present evidence indicates).
Jerry Russell said:
McCarthy doesn't talk about this, but there's a presumably related theory that modern human genetic variability could be partly a result of ancient hybridizations or admixture between African humans, and those other extinct species or sub-species of humans that you mention, occurring in different parts of the world.
:cool:
Your last statement here is vital and correct since humans (archaic humans with big brow ridges) migrated from Africa about 2,000,000 years ago. Modern humans (with small brow ridges) were a second migration from Africa about 200,000 years ago. I.e. all human races are hybrids as I pointed out in another posting where I gave my reference, however, the modern human genes predominate overall, but this has nothing to do with supposed greater intelligence commonly claimed for modern humans. Milford Wolpoff's work has long disposed of such modern claims as "modern human" intellectual superiority.

Yours faithfully
Claude

*Indeed, Carleton Coon, a truly racist anthropologist, realized the puzzle of the people he called 'Australoids' but could not answer it (see his Origin of Races p. 427).
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The pictures of chimpigs shown there are of badly deformed foetuses of pigs, sheep or goats.
How can one procreate a chimpig with a sheep or goat? Therefore, I highly suspect these representations are not chimpigs you are observing. He does show a hupig though.

As such, perhaps McCarthy is claiming that Science has been corrupted by its claims that cross species hybridization is impossible, albeit rare?

Surely you are not suggesting that it was only humans, no doubt corrupted by protomasons, that invented bestiality. Those sneaky Jews of the day using reverse psychology on the goyim, getting them to mate with cows and ducks:

O Sibili, se ergo, Fortebus es inero. O Nobili, demis trux Si vatsinum, causan dux.

Under McCarthy's hypothesis, Adam would be a chimp and Eve would be a boaring sow, not a boring cow. And in the above verse, one can see the true origins of the Nobility, having the relative social advantage of being highly educated (hence the erudite Latin) to differentiate between buses, trucks, cows, ducks, and dukes. One can also tease out the relationship between the Sibylls and the Sabeans.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The physical differences between Australian aborigines and New Guineans results from admixture of two original separate populations who colonized the continent of Sahul, these two separate populations comprising different geographic variants ('races'* in old terminology), humans of different physical appearance.
In some cases of highly isolated indigenous populations, there might very well be enough geographical separation to prevent any gene flow. These highly isolated populations could arguably represent distinct subspecies or races. However, the description of clinal variations is accurate for Africa and the Eurasian continent, where there is little if any local geographic isolation. The indigenous have been under massive attack from Eurasian-based civilization, their numbers have been decimated, and interbreeding is extensive.

And I don't think you're interested in talking about indigenous peoples, anyhow. In our context, this is a red herring.

The term 'subspecies' is a stronger category of separation, implying subfertility. Perhaps lions and tigers fit into that category rather than being separate species (I believe that 'ligers' are fertile though I might be wrong).
I don't know where you get this idea. Or, can you give a reference? Wikipedia definitely contradicts you, and so does everything else I can find on the web. 'Subspecies' and 'Race' are synonymous, although the latter term is deprecated. Lions and tigers are separate species, just as donkeys and horses are separate species, even though both pairs can readily hybridize. Ligers and mules have drastically reduced fertility compared to lions, tigers, donkeys or horses, but back crosses have been demonstrated.

But human geographical variation is NOT a mere social construct as your definition above implies hence a term is needed to describe this genetic segregation. And so I will use the term 'geographic variant'...
There is human geographical variation, but no "genetic segregation" aside from the tiny, isolated indigenous populations you mentioned. We agree, however, that human geographical variation does exist.

Primates and pigs have been genetically separated for over 70,000,000 years so are not interfertile
All I can say is that McCarthy has carefully considered this issue, and doesn't believe it's a problem.

See http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins-2.html

You say his examples of hupigs and such are mutants, he says they're the result of bestial encounters. McCarthy's PhD seems to be as good as anyone else's, and nobody is claiming to have done the necessary genetic analysis. So it seems that only Mother knows for sure, or maybe she doesn't know either.

McCarthy says there is indeed genetic evidence that the platypus is a bird-mammal hybrid, which is exactly what it looks like.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Here's a clip of a notorious Jew spilling the beans:
Unfortunately, this sentence has been showing on the front page (wordpress) site, as the clip/summary for this thread. Inasmuch as Miss Kitty's insinuation is that the "spilled beans" are a Jewish plot to commit white genocide, this is a vicious anti-semitic slur. And it's wrong because (1) Ignatiev isn't talking about white genocide; (2) there is no such Jewish plot, and thus there are no "beans" to be spilled; and (3) Ignatiev may or may not have Jewish ancestry, but he has clearly repudiated and rejected Zionism, the Jewish state, and the Jewish religion, and he represents himself as a "white" person (thus his ironic "Race Traitor" self-appelation.) Also, "notorious" implies some sort of famous level of criminality, and thus it's just another slur.

I probably shouldn't be allowing anti-semitic slurs anywhere on the website. But I'm certainly not going to allow such to appear on the front page. So I've edited Miss Kitty's statement, and I presume the front page clip will update in the next day or two.

Update: Edited again. To avoid any appearance of putting words in Miss Kitty's mouth, I've put the first post in the thread under my byline.
 
Last edited:
Top