Egregoros

@trom
Culture is downstream from race. This is why all European peoples, be they in US, Australia, or elsewhere have similar cultures. Africans everywhere also have cultures more similar to each other than to Europeans.

Although people may mimic or adopt cultures of another race, they cannot create or improve those cultures. Culture is created amongst a homogeneous population. Some people are capable of producing high culture and civilization from it.

Culture is lost when it is mixed into other cultures. If you take all the colorful crayons in a box and melt them together, you get an ugly grey.

> There is no other race than the human race.

I love this line because it actually runs contrary to Darwin's theory AT IT'S CORE.

In short, Darwin discovered that species undergo random mutations which make the more or less evolutionarily fit, and some flourish while others die out - leading to an "evolution" of the species.

Concretely this means that any given mutation "splits" a species into those which have it and those which don't. If the mutation is eugenic, then those with it compete better, if it's dysgenic then it's the other way.

If the human species is subject to mutations, then it has "splits", which means there are different "groups" (i.e. races). If it's not, then you don't believe in evolution.

That's taxonomy, which is inherently subject to debate. We might agree that the position postulated here is bad faith, but we can't formally disprove it.

However, a claim that there are NO competing sub-species existing within the human species is directly contrary to evolution. It is impossible to believe both at the same time.

So if you embrace "one race, human race", you are forced to either eschew evolution entirely, or adopt the Catholic perspective that it only applies to animals, humans are an entirely different physical construct.

This of course drives one-racers up a wall 😏

@ergo @cjd @tio @trom
Yes indeed. The categorization of species is wrought with many challenges and different criteria. That I was I recommend not getting too wrapped up how animals are currently categorized.

Europids have some neanderthal DNA, but they have no homo erectus DNA. Negroids have up to 17% of DNA from an extinct species like homo erectus, and they have some Neanderthal. This proves that Europids did not come out of Africa, but some Europids did go into Africa.

Other studies disprove the out of Africa theory pushed by jews.
https://samuelgabrielsg.substack.com/p/rethinking-human-origins-why-the
https://www.scirp.org/html/19566.html

@ergo @cjd @tio @trom

Wolves and coyotes are different species who can mate to produce fertile offspring.

The wolf is twice the size of a coyote and hunts big game in packs. The coyote solo hunts small game like gophers and rabbits.

If they mate to produce a coywolf, that coywolf will have neither of the specialized skills needed for hunting game in a niche. It will starve in the wild. This is why they do not mate in nature, similar to lions and tigers.

Only in domesticated situations such as zoos, farms, and cities do different species interbreed. On the farm, bulls will mate with mares, roosters with ducks, and goats with sheep. In natural conditions, Europids with high intelligence, creativity, and strategic thinking would not breed with Negrids possessed with skills for running fast and surviving the intense sun. They need to be forced together into the same place like a school and city and coaxed to do so.

@ergo @Bernard @cjd @tio @trom you should look into something called ring species, there's a bunch of examples of salamanders that can breed with neighboring salamanders but can't breed with the salamanders that are 2 sections over. there's also plenty of examples of fertile hybrids like coywolves.

essentially, the idea of species is a social construct with almost no bearing for the ambiguity and messiness of genetic reality. it's great for explaining to children that horses are different from cats but anyone who's interested in this stuff should ignore it. the fact that there are multiple extinct hominids that interbred with humans also disproves the "one species the human species" nonsense.

if you want to apply the genetic distance standards to humans that we apply to animals, humans should AT MINIMUM be broken up into 3 distinct subspecies going by the fst distance between africans and australian aboriginals.

@cjd @Bernard @tio @trom
Saying humans are all one race completely goes against the branching nature seen in all things. It isn't even just evolution on the species level. As mountains erode, so can the physical components of reproduction be changed, whether current gene theory is even accurate or not. You will end up with branching groups whose differences need to be accounted for one way or another.

To deny this is to deny everything we know about nature on a fundamental level. It would be an absolutely massive and game-changing thing with widespread implications.

Disproving that humans evolved up from single-cell organisms would be much less disruptive than whatever would be needed to explain away the lack of significantly different groups within humanity.

If I'm not mistaken, they believe that every Human is a unique and special brother who is created by God and has a soul, and is NOT comparable to animals. This belief is the origin of two assumptions which have snuck into ostensibly science based thinking:

1. There is only one race, the human race - obviously bunk for reasons discussed already

2.There's a 30% (or whatever %) chance you would have been born African.

This one is slightly more tricky to debunk, but there are two problems with it: Firstly, if you accept that logic then there's a 99.999% chance you would have been born a speck of bacteria. Secondly, unless you believe in a soul, what is the "you" in that sentence...

@cjd @Bernard @tio @trom
Do Catholics not believe in a separate soul, and thus race not existing on the soul level means it cannot exist on the physical? It sounds like Catholics believe in separate souls, but that heredity doesn't exist with each human body being uniquely crafted AND not crafted according to observable heredity. If humans are uniquely crafted, but with similarities to their parents, race exists.

Even if we have separate souls from the physical, if our physical bodies modify the expression of those souls, which would need to be the case to match what we observe, then in terms of this world heredity groups still exist and matter.

From a spiritual perspective that cares about the spirits inhabiting this world, denying race would be evil. It would be like denying the reality of a cripple because his brain is the same, which would do a lot of harm by preventing people from dealing with his situation appropriately.

It is not possible for a spiritualist who loves all souls to deny race and its consequences in this world. His love would prevent doing such an evil act.

Any separate "you" or chance you might have been born an African would be irrelevant.

>Firstly, if you accept that logic then there's a 99.999% chance you would have been born a speck of bacteria.
If bacteria doesn't get same the category of thing that "you" are, then "you" could not be born as one.

@naneko @cjd @tio @trom

Most Christian sects have this universal equality of souls. The below is interesting to consider:

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴏᴄᴛʀɪɴᴀʟ ᴄᴏɴᴛʀᴀᴅɪᴄᴛɪᴏɴꜱ ʙᴇᴛᴡᴇᴇɴ ɴᴀᴛɪᴏɴᴀʟ ꜱᴏᴄɪᴀʟɪꜱᴍ ᴀɴᴅ ᴄʜʀɪꜱᴛɪᴀɴɪᴛʏ

Getting into the philosophical concepts of National Socialism, we can point to two main ideas:

1.) 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐝𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐥
National Socialist racial theory rejected the Christian separation of body and soul by arguing that the soul is biologically rooted in blood and race. Since Christianity teaches that the soul and salvation are universal and not determined by race, it demonstrates that the two concepts are irreconcilable.

2.) 𝐑𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐠𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐯𝐬 𝐎𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐢𝐧
National Socialism rejects the Christian idea that human history is centered on universal sin and redemption, instead interpreting history as a biological and racial struggle between competing peoples and racial souls. The NS worldview is based on racial determinism and race-based destiny, not sin based destiny.

Biology is the basis for the National Socialist worldview. When taken to it's fullest extent, National Socialism points to the rejection of everything that is foreign. The first principle of National Socialism comes from the fact that: The Volk is the meaning and purpose of our existence.

Contemporary Third Reich comparisons between the National Socialist worldview and the Christian worldview:
SS training material from the Reich Security Main Office
Training Guide for SS leader candidates in the Sicherheitsdienst

You're free to believe what you want, and if what you believe keeps you alive by preventing you from up-ending established tradition, that's a good thing.

However, if your belief that all humans descend from Adam leads you to thinking that importing little boats full of random un-vetted Africans is a great and good thing because We're All Brothers and helping your brother is an obligation, well, if you end up living in an African style shithole as a result, then that belief a bad thing.

Trying to explain that belief systems have real world consequences is kind of the breakfast question for a lot of Christians, because they just say "it's not belief, it's fact", but those who can't step out of their belief system long enough to see if it's suicidal will be replaced by those who can... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

> No it don't
Incorrect English

> ?
Unsure if making an argument of asking a question

> additional assumption that that these mutations are so rare, few, and major

Okay, I am fairly confident at this point that you have no real understanding of what the Darwin's theory actually claims. Perhaps it was explained to you by a group of Christians who were hoping to setup a straw-man that they could destroy - something like "and then one day a monkey turned into a man" or such nonsense.

> that it would be possible to meaningfully cluster humans such that in-cluster differences are negligible and cross-cluster differences are big

You can cluster ANYTHING, you can say Pitbull and Chihuahua are both species "Dog". My point is that there are subgroups (i.e. "breeds", or "races") within a species, and within those there are more subgroups, and more and more, forever.

> differences are negligible

According to you, but that's YOUR taxonomy. You can say differences of blacks and whites negligible, you can say differences of Pitbull and Chihuahua are negligible, it's your opinion. BUT, once you cross the line into saying there is NO difference, then you are actually denying evolution.