Thread: "We are all the Same Race" - Dr. William Pierce

YouTube - ‪We are all the Same Race Dr William Pierce‬‏

When they say there is only a small difference genetically between the races, there is only a small difference genetically between man and a chimp...so that difference is a HUGE difference.

We all know it isn't just skin color. Whites have been indoctrinated with this business of "being nice", and wanting approval. Being Politically Correct is linked with being educated. But that is far from the truth. An educated person can find the differences between the races.

They really believe this stuff.

Black supremacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anybody with half a brain knows there are tremendous differences.Look at the skeleton.We can tell by its makeup what race and whether male or female.People are more prone to get blood diseases and such by race than others.It goes on and on.To think there are no differences and we are all just the human race is insane in my book.In fact for me its things like this that woke me up.Its quite scary to think people believe this kind of crap

Originally Posted by Dennis D

Anybody with half a brain knows there are tremendous differences.Look at the skeleton.We can tell by its makeup what race and whether male or female.People are more prone to get blood diseases and such by race than others.It goes on and on.To think there are no differences and we are all just the human race is insane in my book.In fact for me its things like this that woke me up.Its quite scary to think people believe this kind of crap

Yes and Yes!!!

And when they say they can't tell the difference with the skeletons...they sure can. They can ID a Negroid from a Caucasian, the same way they decided Solutrean man was not Asian.

If you have seen pictures of Negroid albinos, they don't look Caucasian.

I can't understand White people not investigating this crap either. Do they really believe what they are taught in school is the whole truth? Do they really think some textbook is the authority?

Few explanations got as well summarized with accuracy as by the late Glayde Whitney:

The Percent Scams
Knowledge from the genome project has already helped put in perspective some previously misunderstood, or intentionally misrepresented, genetic information — what I call the “percent scams.” There have been two main scams, one at one percent, another at six percent.

The one percent scam started from genuine surprise among scientists at the similarity in base sequences between early samples of chimp and human DNA. In some comparisons it appeared that we shared about 99 percent of our genetic material with the chimpanzee, and egalitarian anthropologists immediately exploited this similarity. If there is only one percent of difference between the two species, it must follow that all men are genetically functionally equivalent. By this “proof,” racial differences must be due to historical accident and cultural differentiation — not genetic differentiation — since there is no room for genetic differentiation.
Better understanding of the genome reveals that “percent difference,” is not a relevant comparison. Small differences can matter tremendously. Mice and humans, for example, have many DNA sequences in common, and many mouse genes are very similar to human genes. It takes a lot of the same genetic blueprint to build mammalian bodies with liver, spleen, digestive tract, skeletal systems, and nervous systems. And, in fact, there are many similarities between mouse and man, as any anatomy student can verify by direct examination. There are also important differences. With apes we share many of our genes. However, we could share 99 percent of our base pair sequences and still differ in 100 percent of our gene products,
depending on how the one percent difference were distributed throughout the genome. Since genes and protein products interact in complex ways, often small differences in genes can cascade to enormous differences in final traits.

As an example, consider that among humans the manifold differences between the sexes are, on present evidence, the result of a difference in only one gene. The gene in question is a regulatory gene, that is, its primary product interacts with the DNA to regulate the expression of many other genes. With the tdf gene (testes determining factor, also known as Sry, or the Sex determining Region of the y chromosome) you get a male; without the tdf gene, a
female. Sry is only one gene out of 50,000 to 100,000. The argument that the “only one percent difference” between ape and man is evidence for genetic identity among humans can now only be maintained as a deliberate scam.

The six percent scam began in 1972 with Richard Lewontin. He is the brilliant Harvard biologist who co-authored (with Leon Kamin and Steven Rose) the Marxist screed Not in Our Genes, and coined the term “jensenism” to denigrate and demonize both an outstanding scientist and an entire area of investigation. In the early days of population comparisons of allelic patterns, Lewontin catalogued the frequencies across seven racial groups for 29 alleles from 17 gene loci, from which he calculated a statistical genetic diversity index. He reported that 85.4 percent of the genetic diversity was contained within local populations, an additional 8.3 percent of the diversity was between populations within a race, and only 6.3 percent of the genetic diversity differentiated the major races. (These are percentages of Lewontin’s index, and not percentages of genes, so the numbers are not comparable to the percentage of genes shared by humans and chimps.) Other investigators have reported similar results. From the finding that only about six percent of the diversity differentiated the major races, Lewontin ended his 1972 paper with the politically correct non sequitur that:
Quote:

“Human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations. Since such racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance either, no justification can be offered for its continuance.”

That paper and its conclusion became a classic in the egalitarian armamentarium but the Lewontin argument is a scam in the same way the Chimpanzee comparison is a scam. The fact that there is much genetic diversity among people within local populations is very important. However, the meaningful question about racial differences is not the percentage of total diversity, but rather how the diversity is distributed among the races, what traits it influences, and how it is patterned. It has indeed been a surprise
to many geneticists to discover how much genetic diversity there is in local populations. Two brothers, for example, share fully half their alleles by descent, but differ in countless ways.
According to Lewontin’s statistical formulation they account for much genetic diversity just between the two of them. Nevertheless, to understand how meaningless this approach is as an analysis of racial differences, one might consider the extent to which humans and macaque monkeys share genes and alleles. If the total genetic diversity of humans plus macaques is given an index of 100 percent, more than half of that diversity will be found in a troop of macaques or in the population of Belfast.
This does not mean Irishmen differ more from their neighbors than they do from macaques — which is what the Lewontin approach slyly implies.

Pattern Diversity
Since the mid-1980s there have been a number of population surveys looking at genetic diversity, and virtually all the serious ones find the same racial patterning. The thousand-page tome published in 1994 by L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues ( The History and Geography of Human Genes) is one of the better known. They present 491 world populations using data for 128 alleles at 45 polymorphic loci. The populations are grouped in various meaningful ways, aggregated into 42 populations, which are combined into nine clusters. Cavalli-Sforza et.al. are adamant that they are not studying races, but rather populations of humans. However, their nine clusters have a familiar ring: “Africans (sub-Saharan), Caucasoids (European) … Northern Mongoloids (excluding Arctic populations) …” (1994, p.79) The figure on this page presents a graphic schematization of their major findings with regard to patterning of genetic diversity. In their words, from their genetic data, “the greatest difference within the human species is between Africans and non-Africans … The cluster formed by Caucasoids, northern Mongoloids, and Amerinds is reasonably compact in all analyses.” (1994, p. 83)

... [regarding hybrid vigor:]
While hybrid vigor is a biological reality, so are hybrid incompatibilities. Some crosses, particularly between genetically distant races, can lead to mixes that don’t work very well. Until quite recently there was much scientific concern over hybrid incompatibilities between blacks and whites, and remember from recent evidence the Africans are genetically most different from all others. Before about 1950 the scientific literature openly discussed the problem of what Madison Grant called “disharmonious combinations”. After the 1950s, concern over miscegenation almost completely disappeared from mainstream scientific literature. The only thing that had changed was the politics, not the data. I would like to suggest that modern data, those gold nuggets laying about,contain much that is suggestive of hybrid incompatibilities between blacks and whites. For example, according to the so-called “one drop” rule, hybrids are almost always classified as blacks, so almost all blacks have some white genes. And one of the best reported phenomena in present-day America is that the African-American population suffers a very wide range of health problems. Blacks tend to die sooner and younger from almost every cause but osteoporosis. There are reports that even after all known causes are accounted for there is still “unexplained” poor health among blacks.

This difference is often ascribed to the stresses of “racism,” but this is not a very convincing explanation. Recently, Surgeon General David Satcher appeared on television to point out that in America, black babies are 2-1/2 times more likely than whites to die in the first year of life. It is not clear how infants suffer from the stresses of “racism.” It may simply be that just as blacks mature more rapidly than whites, they succumb to disease more easily and die at younger ages. On the other hand, if there are no inherent racial differences in longevity and resistance to disease, the poor health could be caused by one of the greatest taboos of all: biological, genetic hybrid incompatibility.

-- G. Whitney; "Race, Genetics & Society", 2002, Scott-Townsend Publishers.

There is something more sinister (left) to allowing nonwhites to proliferate over Whites. Whites are obviously the superior species of the Homo genera. I cannot believe for a minute we are the same species as Negroes. Take away skin color, which they make the BIG reason, and other reasons, such as the wide nose, the nappy hair, the lower IQ, all become JUST as significant, if not MORE. No black society was ever able to construct a single sea-worthy ocean vessel. Heh.

I believe evolution is being jerked in a wrongful direction by letting lesser form hominids to take over. I believe someone out there KNOWS that they are not our equal with some kind of genetic proof. Heck, we SEE it every day, we SEE it right in their faces, their behaviors, their lifestyles. There has to be some proof backing this. But think of what it would be like if it were let out. All of the Whites who have mated and had offspring with this other species would be shocked. Or maybe they wouldn't, since so many like the idea of rolling with something very different from themselves.

Speciation of the Negro within the genus homo sapiens has been questioned as early as the 16th century. Indeed, the name homo sapiens was originally invented to refer to Europeans. Other schemes that have been proposed are homo-sapiens-africanus, or more bluntly homo africanus.

Indoctrination about race: http://www.understandingrace.org/humvar/index.html "Only Skin Deep" (sic)

Good thoughts on different species: http://us.altermedia.info/news-of-in...hals_7276.html

Rock on: http://www.americancivilrightsreview...101facts1.html

People admit blacks are different genetically http://isitnormal.com/story/is-it-no...species-62540/

I am really surprised they told the statistical truth here about blacks, but they did. http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Black_Africans

Its very simple. Anyone who believes we are all the same should come to Australia and see the Abos.

Originally Posted by Hobbit

Its very simple. Anyone who believes we are all the same should come to Australia and see the Abos.

Yes, I've heard some things about them. Just their pictures alone are frightening.

We are all the same race = Communist Internationale

Negro does NOT = Chinese, etc.

Originally Posted by mistek

Yes and Yes!!!

And when they say they can't tell the difference with the skeletons...they sure can. They can ID a Negroid from a Caucasian, the same way they decided Solutrean man was not Asian.

If you have seen pictures of Negroid albinos, they don't look Caucasian.

I can't understand White people not investigating this crap either. Do they really believe what they are taught in school is the whole truth? Do they really think some textbook is the authority?

Blacks or negroes are fully human ,but that doesn't mean that all who share the human likeness are equal.

All races are a product of human evolution and each race evolved on different paths.

One way to see this in the african-american or black race person is to study their monochromatic primary racial characteristics.

Also look at the asymmetrical bone structure . Both of these traits indicate a less evolved primal evolutionary past.

Look at the discolored palm and foot soles of the africa american ;also indicative of a more closely visibly related connection to the lower orders of primates and non-human ,but related mammals.

Blacks are not sub-human ,only a less evolved race of humanity.