 |
| 4/15/11 - Click to Enlarge |
The article speaks of a new linguistics study by some one-worlder psychopath academic type who claims human language originated with click-like sounds (Starvin Marvin, anyone?) among the bushmen of southwest africa, then spread gradually northwards and eastwards.
Hmm.
Never once does Wade in this monstrosity of "we're all identical" propaganda even hint at the enormous differences in complexity that exist between the different languages used by different groups.
Like a child throwing a temper tantrum, the disingenuous reality fugitives at the New York Times want their one-world Out of Africa fantasy of humanity to be true so so badly, that they will repeat over and over the tired old argument of "there is more genetic variety between individuals of a same race than between races," or some such nonsense. This article is nothing more than another smokescreen to perpetuate such perhaps well-intentioned but foolish views, which our lying eyes tell us on a daily basis cannot possibly be true.
From the article :
Yes, even though we're all equal in ability, some groups are more equal than others when it comes to evil, i.e. the destruction of the environment and the hoarding of resources. No mention here of course that the population of Africa doubled - to one billion - in the last 30 years, or that rampant poaching on that blessed continent has resulted in the quasi extinction of all the once-great mammals.
From the comments section:
I would not be surprised if the person who posted the above comment looked like the white chick in the photo below, as she gazes with stars in her eyes at a Ugandan politician who ran for president and lost. And yeah, I know his name is "Tim."
5 comments:
Only thr NYT could publish such an obviously subversive, race-mixing picture.
The poor girl in the background will be raped by an African savage - it is a matter of time and mathematics.
Jesus Christ ! Where did that blond-haired, blue eyed white chick come from? She looks like she was airlifted from a hovering spaceship from Outer-Space. Of course the only way she can achieve ANY kind of validity in the sick twisted world view of the freakoids at the New York Times, is if she interbreeds with the co-speciation specialists from the dark continent, and produces a noble little half-breed mulatto mud puppy. \\ Here in the formerly United States, it's not bad enough that we are inundated with taco niggers right and left - the NWO fanzoids at the NYT want to create a situation where white people are bred out of existence by the muds. Oh well/ Let's have a good laugh and not be so depressed, even though it is darn fucking depressing, to say the least
This being more in group variation than out group variation observation is also true of cats, dogs, fish and deers etc. This observation is being presented as being unique only to humans when it clearly is not.
Another interesting fact is that Some populations of Brown Bears were found to be more closely related to polar bears than to other populations of brown bears. This exact same argument has been used to dismiss the different human races as merely social constructs, yet polar bears are allotted species status!
Another argument is that there is simply not enough genetic differences between the races to warrent different categorizations such as race / sub-species.
Again not true.
There is less mtDNA differences between dogs, wolves and coyotes than there is between the various ethnic groups of human beings, which are recognized as a single species.
(Coppinger & Schneider, 1995 )
A butterfly is genetically 100% identical to a caterpiller, the only thing that changed was the gene frequency.
So what matters most is not genetic variation per se' but gene frequency. The different human races can be identified through multiple allele markers. This makes them genetically categorizable > sub species.
The only thing that is stopping this is politics.
"Another argument is that there is simply not enough genetic differences between the races to warrent different categorizations such as race / sub-species."
No, the argument is that there are so many different possible ways to classify race based on genetic differences that it is pseudoscience to pick one classification system and assume that it is more meaningful than others. For example, should people with different blood types be considered as belonging to different races?
Scientific attitude: "This is the data. How many ways can it be classified?"
Racist (ie. pseudoscientific) attitude: "This is the classification system we like. What data fits it?"
There are many so many different possible ways to classify race based on genetic differences that it is pseudoscience to pick one classifaction......Should people with a particular blood type be considered distinct racial group.
There are so many different ways to classify species based on genetic differences that it is pseudoscience to pick one classifaction.
There are six recognized definitions for Species, all of which have flaws.
Typoloical.
Biological.
Mate-recognition.
Phylogenetic.
Evolutionary.
Ecological.
Pick one.
Alan Templeton 2003) claimed that in the nonhuman literature an FST of at least 25%-30% is a standard criterion for the identification of a subspecies. In conttradiction to this view it has been observed that autosomal FST values derived for humans are typically equal to and in some instances greater than those derived for other species acknowledged to be polytypic with respect to subspecies.
Post a Comment