Exercising My Free Speech: Homosexual and “Anti-Racist” Edition, part 8,942
by David Sims
THE FOLLOWING comment of mine, made on YouTube, has been getting replied to for the past seven years. I’ll include my original remarks here, along with my replies to others who’ve reacted to what I said.
* * *
ALTHOUGH A person isn’t blameworthy because of an inherited defect [like a genetically inherited tendency toward homosexuality], it remains true that:
(1) The defect is a defect, and not merely an “alternative mode” of normality, and
(2) Nobody else is to blame, either, and therefore nobody else is obligated to grant you concessions on account of your defectiveness. The absence of blame and the holding of debt in your favor are entirely different things.
Other people don’t need to adjust for your existence. They aren’t required to move over and make room for you. They shouldn’t have to give you any of their money, or work in any manner so that your life will be easier. They need not allow you into their groups, clubs, associations, institutions, etc., if it isn’t their wish that you be there.
I suppose you could offer to fight them about it. But you are, after all, the minority. You are the minority because you are the ones with the abnormality. You are the ones with the abnormality because evolution has proved that your configuration isn’t as advantageous, in survival terms, as the normal configuration is.
You can generally tell what normal is because it’s the most frequently observed result. For example, the sex chromosomes of men are normally XY. It’s the molecular configuration favored by the evolutionary process of natural selection. If XXY or ˣʎ or жч, or whatever, were better than XY because it was relatively advantageous in the phenotype, then it would be the most common male variation of the sex chromosomes.
The decay of culture probably usually begins with the promotion of counter-intuitive nonsense, such as the idea that homosexuals are “normal” or that different races are “equal,” even when every objective test shows that such ideas are false. People believe them, or, rather, pretend to believe them, in order to get along, to avoid social friction, to evade the smear-tactics of organized deviants — and to keep their paychecks.
That last reason is perhaps the most significant. Most of the cultural treason that has happened lately has been motivated by nothing more than the traitor’s desire to keep his regular paycheck, a threat to which will make most people pretend to believe every lie they ever heard.
* * *
One commenter asked:
First, what exactly do you mean by race? Do you mean the different groups within the human species?
Yes. That is what I mean.
Because if that is the case, then biologically speaking, there are no separate ‘races’ in the human species.
The human species is certainly characterized by different races. Just as dogs are characterized by different breeds. You called them “groups,” but the word that has been used most often to refer to those groups is “race.”
Skin color is an indication of what someone’s race might be, but skin color isn’t race itself. Two different races might overlap quite a bit in their distribution of a specified characteristic, such as skin color.
As you have noticed, south Indians and Africans (and certain other groups, such as the Negritos of Panay in the Philippines) all have dark skin color. You might be unable to sort members of these groups into their correct racial categories by visual inspection alone. But they differ in other ways, which might show up in X-rays, or in medical testing, or in tests of mental or physical performance, or in DNA tests.
There are several dark-skinned races within Africa alone. And there are several more dark-skinned races outside of Africa. The skin color is the same. The nappy hair texture is often the same too. But they differ in other ways, and at root the differences are genetic; i.e., despite the similarity of appearance, they belong to distinct races.
And the same is true for light-skinned races. Not all persons with light skin belong to the same race that I do. There are light-skinned groups that are genetically quite some distance away from the European White cluster, including the Ashkenazi Jews and the Turks. Fair-skinned or not, they aren’t White, or, that is, they don’t belong to the same race that I do.
A commenter tried to make an analogy between discriminating against those with a certain hair texture and discriminating against those with abnormal sexual orientations:
So, while having straight hair might cause social stigma, it is not biologically a disadvantage.
Comparing the texture of someone’s hair with sexual orientation makes a poor analogy. Your hair texture doesn’t divert human energy from such a basic survival function as reproduction. Homosexuality does. Your hair texture doesn’t spread diseases at rates much greater than male-female mating; homosexuality does. Your hair texture isn’t a public health hazard that carries substantial economic burdens; homosexuality is.
You can argue the same about homosexuality; it doesn’t cause disease by itself, so biologically speaking, it is harmless in spite of the social stigma.
Let’s not play cute games with semantics. I’m sure that there aren’t many people here who can’t see right through them. Homosexuality doesn’t “cause” (originate) disease germs. But it does “cause” (infect) diseases among people who didn’t have those diseases before.
I have said before that I will tolerate homosexuality on the condition that no one who isn’t a homosexual ever suffers any harm, risk, or cost that he wouldn’t suffer if homosexuals did not exist. And that will forever be my position on the matter. Homosexuals must bear all of the risk, pay all of the cost, and suffer all of the harm that results from what they do. Any transfer of those things to heterosexuals, no matter how indirect, must never occur.
* * *
Another commenter tried to frame everything in terms of individualism. I replied:
Individuals aren’t really the “players” in Nature’s game. Races are. Individuals die; they can by no means endure for long. (I already said that, didn’t I?) Races don’t have a guarantee, either, but at least there is a possibility for them to last for a very long time, and to become the ancestral race for whatever comes next.
So, to voice Nature: It doesn’t matter what individuals need. What matters is what the race needs. The individual will just have to adjust.
Taken to extremes, favoritism for the individual at the expense of his race means that the race will become extinct and produce no more individuals; whereas favoritism for the race at the expense of its individuals means a rough life for the individuals, but the race endures — and new individuals just keep getting born throughout all the ages. Which is better? The answer would be obvious to everyone after 80 years of individualism, when the last human on Earth is preparing himself to die. It is, however, obvious to me right now.
* * *
Forensic anthropologists will tell you specifically that you can tell someone’s race (or racial background) from his bone structure (or his dentition, or his DNA), but you can’t tell what culture someone had very easily from his skeleton or his DNA.
The existence of race as a biological reality was proved by Hua Tang, Tom Quertermous, and Beatriz Rodriguez in “Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies,” published in American Journal of Human Genetics, 76: 268-275 (2005). By doing so, the researchers disproved the Lewontin Hypothesis.
Try not to rely on strawman arguments. Nobody ever said that the races weren’t related in some degree. Race is what happens when the distribution of characters is multi-modal; i.e., where there is distinct clustering of the location of the world’s human groups in a suitably dimensioned genetic space. When Cavalli-Sforza and his collaborators studied the distribution of these loci, they didn’t see a uniformity or homogeneity in them. Rather, they saw clusters in which several related nations/tribes are much nearer to each other than the global mean separation, with gulfs of sparsely populated genetic space between the clusters. That’s the graphical manner in which race is exhibited.
To be simplistic: Race is what it is — the genetic variation, especially the clustering found in the distribution of it, are the clearest proof that race exists immanently in Nature; i.e., that it is not merely a “social construct.” But although the genes are the cause of race, the phenomenon of race is more than its origin. In addition to the genetic variation itself, there are the mental, morphological, chemical, and behavioral differences that the genetic differences bring into being.
If the only differences between races were in the genes, and nowhere in the organism, then race could be ignored because the races would have identical distributions for everything that organisms are and do. But, of course, it isn’t true that the races are equals in such ways, and the racial differences at the level of the organism do matter. There are plant species that you shouldn’t grow together because they are rivals for the same resources in the soil. Likewise, no country should ever have more than one race among its permanent residents.
The model of human genetic variation and the historical migration of human genes produced by Cavalli-Sforza and his collaborators isn’t any sort of a priori judgement. They didn’t preconceive the conclusion and then force the data to fit, as pseudo-scientists pushing a political or religious agenda might do. Instead, the only political statements in their book appear in the first chapter, as squid ink, to placate leftist editors who work within the academic press. For the entire rest of the book, the work contradicts the squid ink, which asserts what the authors know full well to be contrary to fact: that racial differences are unimportant. Apart from that effort at political protective coloration, The History and Geography of Human Genes (HGHG) is a valuable resource because it presents the result of an empirical, statistical examination of its subject. No, it doesn’t “dictate reality,” and it does not try to do so. Instead, it is a study of reality and an attempt to describe it, like any other good scientific work.
We are examining objects in order to understand them better. We are not, as yet, trying to use that understanding to make predictions. HGHG is to human behavior as a catalog of mineral types is to cartographers; it has not yet become so applied that it has the predictive value that the catalog of mineral types would have to, say, gemstone hunters. That particular extension is to be found when the genetic variation responsible for race is linked solidly with fields in which applications are more prevalent: psychology, politics, and law.
Take a look at “Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies,” by Hua Tang, Tom Quertermous, and Beatriz Rodriguez.
Read the paper for yourself. The authors studied a sample (N=3636) of “Hispanics,” east Asians, “non-Hispanic Whites,” and Blacks, sorting them according to the standard procedure in genetic cluster analysis. The authors did not use any information about the physical characteristics often used to identify race when they made their racial assignments: They went strictly by the distribution of alleles. When that was done, they asked each person in the sample what he considered his race to be. The predictive power of the genetic information was proved to exist when 3631 respondents’ answers matched their respective racial assignments, while only 5 respondents gave answers that differed. The success rate was, therefore, about 99.86%.
I understand the humanitarian sentiment that makes some people hostile to realism about race. However, humans are what they are: a tribal species that competes for dominance in and between groups. Humans are not what you might wish they were, and the legal establishment of social policies that assume things that are contrary to Nature will always cause trouble. Karl Marx, for example, assumed that humans would, or could be made to, behave more altruistically than they really can. Ayn Rand assumed that humans would, or could learn to, behave more rationally than they really can. Neither of them had the right idea, and both of their ideas, if made into public policy, would cause needless trouble for many people.
I don’t “scheme to divide the races.” The races are already divided, and as long as there are different races they always will be divided. Multiracialism itself is a problem, in that it strives to build a world that can be undone by a single Politically Incorrect word spoken at the wrong time, whereupon it will collapse back into division, acrimony, and mutual suspicion.
Liberals hope thus to build a figurative house of cards and keep it standing by legislating bans on sneezing and passing breezes. We sometimes hear liberals lamenting that some “racist” or other has undone, with his speech alone, a decade’s worth of “progress” in building interracial comity. But what kind of fool (or villain) would want a world so fragile? Houses should not be built on explosive foundations.
Today I responded to a particularly ill-informed, near-illiterate, and crude commenter:
U keep your bull**** to yourself.People can do what they like . We don’t care about your homophobia n racism .I’m a straight boy n I support A LGBTQ community . People like you r inhumane for trying to force people to change their sexuality .you r butthurt n toxic.
Just because you can call a statement “racist” or “homophobic” does not mean that it is false. Many “racist” and many “homophobic” statements are perfectly true. And, anyway, I don’t care what you think any more than you care what I do. I have just as much right to say what I think as you do, and, whether you like it or not, I’m going to keep on doing it.
* * *