The Jews have never had the power to dictate who white people can breed with. This is true of every society they have been in. Even Israel. Then explain why the US is so far ahead of Europe. Or Asia. If racial purity leads to success, why are these cultures following us instead of leading us?
Stay with the Congo situation. Who are the victims? You can tell them that that is the way we do it here, and that if they do not like it, they go back to Pakistan.
They've had a massive influence on immigration policy. Read "Culture of Critique", pdf online. The US was not far ahead of Europe. Europe still leads the US in research, despite being trashed in WW2. We are starting to see East Asia move ahead as "diversity" does its damage.
So? Influence is not control. They are not dictating who white people can breed with. LOL! What research? Their military technology still lags behind ours even now. Ahead in what area? I think we are seeing the exact opposite actually. Robotics used to be something the Japs were the best at...America has passed them up though. Both in the military and civilian sectors.
This means that we have to establish forward and backward. How decides if we are moving forward or backwards, which way is better or worse. This is an old topic and defies a solid right answer.
I'm not saying they are "dictating who white people can breed with" so this is a strawman. Jewish influence was a necessary and the main condition for immigration change. They are responsible (to the extent which a group can be responsible). That's debatable. Anyway, it's largely irrelevant. Whites are making the advances in both cases. East Asia is catching up in all fields. A collapsed Western economy is a major factor. The economy collapsed because of Jewish bankers and minority sub-prime loans.
Your lack of understanding of evolution is staggering. It is on par with the ID crowd. I mean how the heck does wealth have any bearing on evolution since wealth is a human concept?. First and foremost, evolutionary success is defined by whether a group is able to pass down its genes or not. So a species that was able to take advantage of another species to reproduce would be considered successful. If your hypothetical "unsuccessfu" group was allowed to flood en masse into the territory of the successful and they became dominate, by the vary nature of their dominance, they would also be considered successful. Neither case is a reversal of evolution, which brings up another point. A new species does not mean that it is more advanced. There have be many "new" species that went extinct when they had to compete against the older species. By the way, some biologists have suggested the Neanderthal were not a direct ancestor of Homo sapien but rather both species evolved from Homo rhodesiensis. One last thing, nature and evolution are blind and they do not pick sides. There is no plan, there is no path, there is no ultimate goal except to pass down one's genes to the next generation. The idea that a species is inferior much less a race is so blatantly wrong that it makes my head hurt. There is no such thing. A species is either fit or not fit for its environment, and the idea of race is so outdated, that it is laughable when people still use such a silly concept. Physiologically we are identical. Any of the important differences between the "races" is purely cultural and culture can be changed.
I'm aware of all of this (except that Sapiens evolved from Rhodesiensis, of course it evolved from Heidelbergensis), but none of it contradicts anything I said. I have already agreed that in some sense evolution always moves forwards, and if a primitive group replaces a more advanced group, they are more successful. Nevertheless, in another sense, organisms really can be more primitive or advanced in an objective sense. If organisms tend to revert towards the primitive type, in that sense, evolution can be said to be reversing. For example, if some self replicating molecules group themselves into a cell, and then later for some reason separate themselves back into the same self replicating molecules, in some sense, evolution has reversed. I don't see how anyone could seriously deny that.
Hog wash. China is getting modern technology from our corporate swine, which is why our ecconomy is collapsing. Don't blame the minority home buyers for not being able to keep up with mortgage payments after the vulture capitalists gutted our manufacturing sector and moved it to China. The profits from the sub-prime loans went into the off-shoring process, tax-free.
When one species is replaced by another (such as the grey squirrel replacing the red), that species is superior. That is one sense of superior. You can also say one species or race is superior based on your personal opinion. The idea of race is not outdated and simply refers to geographically associated variation and groups with shared ancestry. The idea that race is "outdated" and "wrong" is pure politically motivated pseudo-science. Absolute nonsense. Tell that to an M.D. IQ differences are not cultural.
Whatever the reason, and I doubt it is because minorities job are "in China" , if they couldn't pay they shouldn't have got the loans.
Actually there is. That is one of the reasons it is speculated that "junk" DNA exists, to record earlier genetic adaptions that are now obsolete but may possibly become useful for backwards evolution in the future. It is much easier to store past useful adaptations for the future than it is to have to completely re-evolve every trait. A single mutation in the future can suddenly trigger a whole set of genes responsible for more complex development. Birds that have evolved to become flightless can evolve back much faster than other animals whose ancestors never flew.
Nature doesn't care about equality at all so we would we suppose that groups that have largely evolved rather isolated from each other to be exactly the same? The physical differences are obvious, and I'm inclined to believe there'd be some slight differences in intelligence as well.
Races, in this instance, essentially meant something akin to species. Not really. Populations evolve, individuals survive and compete. Homo sapiens, H. sapiens neanderthalus, and H. heidelbergensis. You always include the genus name, which is capitalized, and the specific epithet is always lower-case. The whole name is always italicized. Someone who can't get that detail right probably doesn't know how evolution actually works. You're assuming that, for instance, this putative behavior is a genetic in origin rather than culturally arising without any proof that it is.
Have you even read On the Origin of Species? It never even mentions human evolution; it's fairly clear from context that he's talking about populations in terms of species, not in terms of human races.
Yes I have. Of course he is not talking about species. When a new trait evolves that gives a selective advantage, is that a new species? Duh!
The origin of Species, from races. "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."
Is English not your first language? You'll notice the usage of the word "or" to separate the title from the subtitle, which is indicative of two equal clauses for this sort of usage in English. "Origin of species" and "preservation of ... races" indicating the same thing.
Which in no way supports your assertion that Darwin is not talking in terms of races. He is talking in terms of races. He uses the term in the title.
