One side argues about terminology.

The other side speaks about morality.

That about says it all.

Which is the genetically superior “race”: whites or non-whites?

This is the point that seems to be missed or ignored (deliberately) when comparing discussions of race and human beings to “zoological nomenclature.”

One discussion involves the classification of living things for purposes of scientific analysis, the other is, as one of the “fathers real conservatism” pointed out, a belief that “the White community is ENTITLED [to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically], because, for the time being, IT IS THE ADVANCED RACE. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but IT IS A FACT that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.”

THIS DISCUSSION HAS MOVED TO A NEW THREAD: “In Their Own Words: The Undisguised Racism of the Far, Far, Far Right”.

In this article; http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no4/rm-race.html , there is a diagram of genetic distance between human populations. Lest you worry about the impure source, the diagram is taken from an article in Molecular Biology , written by two non-whites (Japanese and Indian) . Non-white, non-western people are generally less squeemish about these things.

The idea that race is not a valid scientific entity is a rather new suggestion by politically correct (primarily) social scientist. It is clearly an idea that is intended to validate a political dogma. It did not arise because the science demands it. In fact, the casual observer knows it is false.

This is really beyond my expertise, but the often stated justification for this counterintuitive idea that there is more genetic difference within groups than between is meaningless. This is dishonestly playing with the numbers. Because we all share a very significant amount of DNA in common. Similar to the way that the evolutionists often state that we share 98 or 99% of our DNA with the Chimpanzee. We are dealing with numbers on the margin. So the fact that the between group differences are less than the intra group differences is misleading. And it does not rule out the idea that groups exist.

For example, recent genetic studies reveal that domestic dogs of every type are entirely wolves in their DNA. In fact, it has been suggested that they be reclassified as a subspecies of wolf instead of a separate species. But only a fool would suggest that Chihuahuas and Great Danes are a “social construct.”

Another way of illustrating this would be that height which is very genetic (assuming adequate nutrition) differs more within group than between. So what. We can still say that on average Caucasians are taller than Asians even though Yao Ming is much taller than Michael J. Fox.

We can use DNA to determine race. Forensic DNA experts have been doing this for a while.

Your formulation would play havoc with zoological nomenclature as we know it.

Without a doubt, that would be wonderful.

Now, if you are going to expand the term “race” out to include things such on the same level as the observable differences between, for example, people who are referred to as “white” and people who are referred to as “black,” the term “race” loses any real meaning. I might as well say that my “race” differs from that of my brother, since he is tall with blonde hair and blue eyes, and I am short with brown hair and brown eyes. The differences between “white” people and “black” people, biologically speaking, are not generally greater than those found within populations of “white” people. “

There are obvious biological differences between the races – skin pigment, facial features, musculature, hair texture. We know blacks have different health issues such as sickle cell anemia. If race is a “myth”, than why are there medications aimed at individual races?

If there are no biological differences between the races, how can we have and why do we have, different cultures? If we all really are one big human blob of biological homogeneity, how can this be?

Further, if race does not exist on a biological level then how do crime scene investigators accurately predict the race of a perpetrator based on DNA evidence? Look at how different any two people of the same race are due to tiny, tiny genetic differences.

If you would send a blood sample to the good folks at DNAPrint Genomics, Inc., (www.dnaprint.com), they’d be happy tell tell you, through genetic analysis, whether you are European, Jewish (Ashkenazi or Sephardic), Arab, many types of Asian, or African, or others. How could they do that if there wasn’t a genetic basis for race and biological variation by race?

If race does not exist, then why will two white parents always produce white offspring? Likewise everyone else. If race did not exist, you could marry whomever you liked, and the race of your children would be totally random.

Claiming that the races don’t exist is like claiming that the sexes don’t exist. If there is no such thing as a black man or a white woman, then couldn’t it also be said that there’s no such thing as a man or a woman, period? After all, both the races and the sexes have unique characteristics (both physical and otherwise) that make identifying them very easy. If the differences between the supposed races are merely made up, and the races don’t actually exist, then couldn’t the differences between the sexes also be “myths”, and the sexes themselves be nonexistent?

Couldn’t you say this about any “group” using the same logic.

I mean, if you go up high enough in an airplane you’ll see that human beings share certain biological characteristics, such as eyes, feet, mouth, etc., with lesser creatures. Therefore, “man” is merely a “myth”.

That’s not accurate. At all. What didn’t work in the 1950s, or 1960s, or any time ever, and will never work any time every, is forced integration. The myth of “race” has been used in attempts at social engineering. The idea of a “color-blind society” isn’t what failed. Race-based policies are what failed (and they continue to fail, as Affirmative Action clearly demonstrates). They will always fail, because policies based on “race” are based on myth.

What has been done for a number of decades now is unrelated to the idea of a color-blind society. Forced integration is obviously not any more color blind than forced segregation.

Today’s so-called “neoconservative” idea of color-blindedness is completely different, in that there is no insane attempt to force integration, segregation, create policy, hire, or whatever, based on mythical “race.”

Thank you for bringing some sanity to this discussion.

Others,

The basic position of neoconservatives today is one of a “color-blind society.” It is basically the position of 1950s liberals. I ask you this: If it did not work for 1950s liberals, what makes you think it will work today? It is naive utopianism.

Paleoconservatives by and large reject nationalism. (Buchanan is an exception.) It is a construct of the 18th Century. Prior to the rise of this abstract nationalism, people had more loyalty to their immediate land, family and clans. Nationalists undermined this immediate loyalty by changing allegiances to abstract principles.

A more accurate term felt by paleoconservatives would be ‘patriotism’. As the etymology suggests (cf. Latin, Pater), it involves the relationship to one’s father, to one’s distant relatives, to one’s clan, to one’s neighboring clans, to one’s region. The original meaning of ‘nationalism’ (cf. Latin, natio) indicated something like this too, but that meaning was lost in the camps of Napoleon.

The reason I brought up bloodlines (which eluded poor Phil) was to show that one’s obligation would be stronger to an immediate relative, and even to a distant relative over a complete stranger in another land. It is a natural inclination for a mother to save the life of her child over the life of an unknown child in a distant foreign land.

White nationalists believe in a national bond between whites. Although paleoconservatives do not deny that such a bond may be felt, they argue that one’s more natural allegiances are to one’s local clan / tribe / region, etc. People should be able to live in small communities, as they see fit, without the interference of Big Brother.

I agree with Red’s estimation above, but I also think that influences for paleoconservatives are Aristotle and Cicero.

In the essay, “What is Paleoconservatism?,” Chilton Williamson defines it as:

“Paleoconservatism is the expression of rootedness: a sense of place and of history, a sense of self derived from forebears, kin, and culture—an identity that is both collective and personal.  This identity is missing from the psychological and emotional makeup of leftists of every stripe—including “neoconservatives”—and is now disavowed by mainline conservatives of the Republican variety, seemingly bent on eradicating as much of the primeval stain as they can from their consciousnesses while apologizing for the faint discoloration that remains.”

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/January2001/0101RoundTable.htm

Now, if you are going to expand the term "race" out to include things such on the same level as the observable differences between, for example, people who are referred to as "white" and people who are referred to as "black," the term "race" loses any real meaning. I might as well say that my "race" differs from that of my brother, since he is tall with blonde hair and blue eyes, and I am short with brown hair and brown eyes. The differences between "white" people and "black" people, biologically speaking, are not generally greater than those found within populations of "white" people.

This is so basic that only a person completely ignorant of real scientific research on the subject or a person with an emotionally charged ideological agenda (and these are usually combined in the racist/racialist) would reject it.

"Only a white person could believe something like that?" All you have to do is read that line for an example of someone who treats science like magic. Since there is absolutely no scientific backing for the assertion of the existance of different "races," a belief in such obviously requires the type of belief in fairy tales that you insanely assert for those who believe the well-known results of extensive scientific research, what is actually common knowledge.