Silence is the greatest persecution -Blaise Pascal

Biological Categorization and Race

It is said by liberals that men belong to a race, and that is the “human race”. Aside from the utter confusion in Zoological categories required for such a judgment, let us examine the logic of it. If it is possible for men to participate in an identity, that is, an identification with a type, then it is a matter for legitimate consideration which identifications are appropriate to him, and whether there may be classes of identifications that can be grouped by resemblance. 

When we say that man is human, do we not mean that he, in certain particulars, conforms to a type, abstracted from the animal kingdom, possessing certain signal characteristics that cause him to resemble this type? Let us take an example: humans birth live young that are warm blooded. We identify this characteristic as “human”, meaning that set of characteristics that all individuals of this type share in common. But it is also a characteristic of mammals that are not human. We would not, therefore, claim that moles and humans are identical. It is an absurdity. However, are there not certain characteristics that are widely dispersed among men, but which are not shared by all men in common? Thus the type “humanity” is really but that least set of characteristics that differentiate man from non-man. So, we conclude that humanity is a type to which some but not all characteristics that men may possess apply. But what of those characteristics that some men share, that are not shared by all, that do not form that least set of identifiable characteristics that form the basis of the claim of uniqueness. We have gained now the admission that humanity is a “type”, now what of the characteristics that distinguish one man from another, and by which men may be grouped into subtypes. It is at this point that the grouping of characteristics in to “least sets” constituting uniqueness and difference within the major type -it is at this point that we run afoul of “permissible” inquiry.

Now, while the facts of common observation cannot easily be denied, and every honest man will surely admit that he detects differences among the human type, and that groups of men seems to share in these differences, those facts must be minimized, if the truth of race is to be suppressed. It is also claimed by liberals that race does not exist beyond the sociological dimension, that is, those ideas that we have of others based upon their characteristics. But what is being claimed is that while men may participate in the type of humanity, there are no sub-types that can be legitimately applied to them. We see the immediate illogic of this claim. It is tantamount to soberly averring that there are only sparrows, and not Henslow’s or Fox sparrows, and that identifying a sparrow as a Henslow or Fox is a sociological phenomenon and a distinction of no value. Now, while this claim might result in no little consternation among ornithologists, a similar claim is made concerning men, and there arises little dissent. How did it come to pass that man became amalgamated into a single category, when the biological evidence, the evidence carefully gathered over many centuries by common observation and then later by physical anthropology, that unfortunate and verboten science, stands like the pole star over a very different conclusion? Little known in some circles and little admitted in others is that the Soviet Union officially barred genetic experimentation and research as violating key principles of Marxism. Nevertheless, the reality of genetic difference was not lost on Soviet scientists, who are known to have surreptitiously conducted many longitudinal genetic studies in the attempt to determine that set of genetic predispositions that made men more or less suitable for life under a totalitarian communist state. Among the many experiments were investigations into irradiation and inter-primate breeding. So much for liberal abjuration of genetic science. That the very fons of hostility to racial distinction (though class distinction seems quite acceptable due to its supposedly remediable nature) seems to have lacked a decorous degree of integrity on this point produces little shock in the effete salons where fashionable opinion is born and gains power over powerful men. Mention of the inherent racial distinctions necessary to execute the social welfare doctrines treasured by our rather illiberal liberal cadres can only be alluded to here, but it is an hypocrisy to which we will have occasion to return ere long, when the subject of the state’s institutionalization of official egalitarianism -and the “progressive” remedies of inequality that mock those who take such state dogma seriously- is undertaken.

While the lumpen-leftists of the United States are currently far from having the influence in the required arenas to put a halt to the billions of dollars of genetic research currently being conducted by their plutocratic counterparts, it is their hope that this research can be minimized, and its results subject to their politically motivated interpretations. 

Comments: