DEFINITION OF: NORM OF REACTION.
This
is a standard concept in developmental biology. This is also a highly sophisticated
concept and not easily explained. I will try to make this very simple!
One
might say that "norm of reaction" could mean the variations a species is capable
of, but this is far too broad and could involve an actual change in genes resulting
in the variations. In other words, your genes are different from mine, therefore
we look different: that is NOT "norm of reaction." That's variation; the
genome is different yet we are still the same species. But because the actual
genes are different, we look different. This is NOT "norm of reaction."
Norm of reaction is not about genes. Norm of reaction refers to when the genome
is of the SAME SPECIES, i.e., more or less the same, or even identical as with
clones of plants and flies, the most famous example being the yarrow plant. If
you grow clones of one yarrow plant at different altitudes on a mountainside,
they grow into plants that look so different, leaf shape, size, height, it is
so wildly different - and NOT gradually different, that one would think these
are completely different plants. Let me focus on the clones because their genes
are identical. You can see that an organism develops differently in different
environments, so long as they are not lethal environments. There is a RANGE at
which the organism can develop different wings, eyes, leaves, etc; drastic differences
show up. Sometimes the difference is so great that you are convinced it's a different
species on sight. There are some very great norms of reactions. Nutrition and
environment cause these vast differences to show up - EVEN IN CLONES with plants;
the genes are identical yet, due to nutrition and environment, they look radically
different, so different that they are often wrongly considered different species,
genera and families! Some characteristics, e.g. with fingerprints, are so small
it's not notable, but some characteristics are so great, like leaf shape or wing
shape that you think you are looking at different tree or animal.
In the
case of human beings, we know NOTHING about the norm of reaction, we have done
no experiments, we can't even discuss it except where you know there is no really
big variation. We are not allowed to subject humans to different temperatures
or deprive humans of this or that nutrient, to find out what the norm of reaction
is in humans. Again, this has nothing to do with genes. It's not a genetic difference.
It is a purely environmental effect and it can be extremely drastic. We know there
are many variations of humans, we drastically look different to each other. However,
we have NO idea what amount of that difference is due to genes or norm of reaction
due to environment. We DO NOT KNOW. It is easy to say "oh, it's genes." But there
is absolutely no proof of this. You'd have to take an embryo or zygote
in a mother and subject the pregnant woman to extremes of environment, like low
oxygen, extreme cold, drastically different nutrition, daylight 24 hours a day,
night 24 hours, things like that.
It is called the NORM of reaction because
it is normal. You get wild types, radically different types of organisms; they
are NOT deformed or sick at all, they are totally healthy. There is no genetic
difference. You can't say which one is the "right one" since they are ALL normal.
Geneticists have tried to say that "one type" is normal, the true species representative.
This proved to be 100% wrong - it ALL depends on the environment. Geneticists
have always tried to pick one e.g. fly to say "that is the normal fly, the perfect
example" but this is 100% wrong. They might see another of the same species of
fly with different wings, monstrously big - and he flies differently. Geneticists
have thought that this was an abnormal fly. This is 100% wrong. That other fly
is just as normal, in fact he might be CLONE of the first fly that developed in
a very different environment. There is a RANGE of normal. Again, the range can
be so wide that they can look like completely different animals. This is AMAZING!
********************
To have or not have children.People
brought up mother instinct and oxytocin, child-birthing pain and girl children
playing with dolls being the possible causes of some nubile women wanting to be
mothers. People brought up the possibility that innate genetic disorders of an
inheritable kind might be the thing motivating some women to feel strongly against
childbirth. Someone #3: I am of the school that believes that biology is right,
humans are biological animals with instincts according to their species. I tend
toward the belief that most things are genetically determined and that the environment
only affects the "norm of reaction." If some women hate the idea of having children
that much (and I am not referring to the ones who have the deep desire
for children and then decide it is a bad idea for personal or practical
reasons), if they have such a strong instinct against the natural process
itself, then I do believe it is 100% genetic. I also believe some people are born
gay. They have no choice to change. I believe that IQ is genetically determined
and it definitely counts to show intelligence.
(Note: Half the experts
in this field of study also have this view. Those that violently disagree on the
side of environment/nurture/culture are often called Lysenkoites, especially if
they debate using vitriolic polemic and try to shut the opposition up, often legally
or via career ruination. The term is misapplied. Lysenkoism in the USA is the
doctrine that there is no such thing as race at all, it possibly includes the
idea that gender means nothing, that there are no races at all, and that genes
do not determine anything involving choice, behavior, or thinking, possibly includes
gender. Richard Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene," has the extreme geneticism
view. Lysenkoism is wrongly considered to be the extreme environmentalist/culture
view, but that's what that term means in the USA. The term is from the name of
a man, Lysenko, a botanist. It is primarily due to extreme propaganda on both
sides (both false) that his name got an "ism" tacked onto it and came to mean
this in the USA.)
Someone #3 mentioned the possibility that oxytocin causes
the desire to have children.
Someone #2 mentioned pain in childbirth and
during menses (menstruation) possibly being caused by oxytocin.
I said:
But
not all women have pain during menses or during childbirth. I don't know if oxytocin
has anything to do with causing the desire to have kids. No one ever measured
this (they SHOULD). I've heard it called the "cuddle hormone" that kicks in after
the child is born, it causes the mother to be motherly. It does not kick in when
the mother beholds a deformed child - she does not lactate. Hence, missionaries
used to see mothers kill such children or "refuse" to feed them. They didn't refuse.
They couldn't feed them.
Someone #2 said:I think that the "mothering instinct"
is defined as the desire to nurture something, be it a child or a pet or even
a doll in some cases. I think that some of this may be innate though, as in a
little girl caring for a doll. But I think a lot of this is learned behavior.
Note the example of young female apes and monkeys in captivity who are so unskilled
at parenting when they give birth that zoo staff have to remove the infant before
she kills it. These females have had very little interaction within their troops
where they would have been able to see experienced (good) mothers in action. Infants
garner intense interest among the females in any simian troop, and amidst this
frolicking good parenting skills are learned. So even though the ape or the female
child exhibit nurturing behaviors, this doesn't mean that they have the skills
to raise a child effectively without killing it.
I said:
I know about
the apes/chimps in captivity. It's not a good test of such things. The test would
be to have a lost chimp, lost in the wild long enough NOT to have learned parenting
from the chimp tribe. Let that chimp then be reunited and see what it does. Animals
in captivity often won't even breed. They are in captivity! Using anything they
do as a standard of behavior is not a valid method.
Chimps in captivity,
lone captivity or pets of humans, often don't even know how to have sex when they
are released into the wild again - hard to believe, but true. They have the desire
and have no clue what to do with it. They also have estrus. This observation holds
true for primates we've studied, but not for cats or dogs that are kept as pets.
They seem to know what to do when estrus kicks in. No other cat or dog has to
teach them.
Someone #2 said:
I think that humans may still experience
this "mothering instinct" in the form of playing with dolls, keeping pets, and
having an affection for children; BUT I feel that we have moved so far away from
the wild state, that most of our motivations are cultural and psychological. As
humans, we can rationalize our motivations based on our cultural condition and
experience.
Someone #3:
I disagree and I do so based on the women
I've known very closely in my own family and among close family friends. It seems,
based on observation and what these women said and did, including my wife, that
the instinct is to have something inside, to get pregnant. You'd almost
think they were experiencing something akin to what animals that have estrus experience.
Only after we found out they had conceived, did this raging desire for sex cease.
If that's not instinct, I don't know what else to call it. How could they possibly
know they had conceived days afterward? Yet, judging by their actions, I'd say
on hindsight, they knew. These women, especially back then, were taught lessons
and these and lessons were basically lessons in ethics (Talmud), taught things
in an in-cultural setting in our own schools. You might say that the ethics and
worldview was extremely "left wing." Strong emphasis was placed on the mind, on
education, on using the mind and on controlling the instinct. To get into a street
fight, for us, was the heights of vulgarity and seen as "like animals." To discuss
and debate, that was the Jewish way. It was no surprise to me, for instance, to
find out that Leonard Nimoy was Jewish. He seems to me to be Mr. Spock no matter
what he does. This was the ideal amongst Jews: emphasis on the mind, control
of the body and instincts. That is what we'd consider a real human being. Anything
other than that is "like an animal" and is looked down upon, whether we'd deny
that or not in public. Left wing people are not supposed to look down on others;
but we do this to a great extent.
I said:
Moreover, not all children
play with dolls or cuddly things. Even in the USA. Not all girl/boy children play
with gender-role type toys. I personally know of no woman, (my relatives, myself
included) that ever had pain in childbirth or during periods. I personally ran
into this later on, though at first I thought the women were carrying on as they
always did in their own cultures, being overly emotional and "putting on" an act
of some kind; trying to get out of doing work or going to work especially. I really
thought this. I didn't really believe they were in pain. In addition, we never
played with dolls. We played, as very young kids, with something you can bounce,
throw and kick: a ball. All the girls were what one might call tomboys and we
played rough and wild type running games as well as card games. Boys and girls
played exactly the same with each other - but this was all before puberty.
At the onset of puberty things changed almost overnight; something definitely
"clicked on."
Someone #1 said
If you don't want to breed, then don't.
We have too many humans in the world anyway. Breeding is a natural instinct in
healthy animals. If you don't want to become pregnant because it makes you feel
uneasy, maybe that's just "natures way of telling you" that your genes are not
healthy.
Someone #3:
That is an excellent point. It is very possible
that this kind of feeling in these women with no mother's instinct is biochemical
and completely determined by genes, bad genes that their instinct tells them not
to hand down. There is definitely a chemical known, oxytocin, that has something
to do with a mother's ability to love her children, or love in general.
Someone
#4 said:
Very interesting. Mental illness runs rampant in my family, as
does cancer of the esophagus. I believe I've avoided the former (had plenty of
opportunity to make comparisons). Time will tell about the latter. But I'm probably
carrying some lousy genes. I am capable of loving adults, but not children. No
maternal instinct. Both my parents would have died of pneumonia in childhood,
if not for penicillin. And childbirth has been a problem too. Any child of mine
would almost certainly be a caesarian, like I was (very narrow pelvis). Basically,
I only exist because of modern medicine. My own body has cells that can recognize
the DNA of a virus and go fight it, so I'm quite open to the idea that it could
recognize its own bad genes and choose not to put out the chemicals that would
make me desire my own child. Thank you very much, this is really food for thought.
I said:
No one ever did any kind of investigation into what Someone
on here said, the genetic factor involved, or the hormone oxytocin, as far as
I know. On the other hand, if they did, I never heard of it. We all know that
people with terrible genetic disorders, that know they have them, often DO have
kids and want them. Irresponsible. Some have always thought like a Richard Dawkins
person, even before Dawkins was around. Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene." The
first time I ever opened my mouth about what I thought about Dawkins (I trashed
him), such people called me a Lysenkoite. (See above for definition.)
I
do know, there is endoplasmic, cytoplasmic (whole cell, not RNA or DNA) and mtDNA
and nuclear (with DNA) inheritance - and there is culture and there is environmental
niche as I explained in "Tree of Destruction" (Can be read on www.satanicreds.com
under the Socio-political articles section, scroll down.) However, these might
be having an effect only on the "norm of reaction." Include in the environment
RNA viruses that can alter DNA. The only thing that has ever been studied semi
in-depth is nuclear DNA and, recently, a LOT of mind-blowing things happened to
bust up a lot of preconceived theories about that.
It's really not easy
to see exactly what makes us do what we do - it's hard to separate it and look
at it. Instinct? Or culture? This is a long, vitriolic debate. Everyone debating
is an expert, too. There is no way to look even at the mother-instinct-thing if
the women live in dictatorial patriarchal societies. No one, no expert, can say
they really know - and experts on both sides have their proofs - and unfortunately,
their agendas. Stephen J. Gould? Or Richard Dawkins? Which one is right?
Referring
to the above mention of Lysenkoism and Lysenkoites and who is saying what. Since
I own everything Lysenko ever wrote, every word, I can explain this in modern
scientific language made simple. Specifically, Lysenkoism would state: "there
is no such thing as race within a species (he was talking about plants,
but we can stretch it to mean humans). There is variation. The variation could
be genetic, but no one has any proof of this at all; yet they make claims
as if they do. This variation could be solely the effect of the environment on
the norm of reaction. The variations can phenotypically appear to be subject to
categorization by people who study, but genotypically these little cubby holes
you categorized them into may prove to be false and prove to show a whole other
way to categorize things. Phenotypically it might look like another species, while
genotypically they might be genetically identical." That is what Lysenko was saying
regarding the plants and flies. He was right. 100% RIGHT. All other things, including
propaganda and fights and slanders and false accusations the likes of which make
alt.satanism's worst flame wars look tame - are ignored. Extreme anti-geneticist
environmentalists in the USA are called Lysenkoites. Extreme geneticist views,
such as genetic determinism fans, are called Fascist, but we all know that. This
is why I explained this.
The Race Issue - or Non-Issue.
How
do humans categorize race? By looks. Just by looks. How about by blood types?
How about by immunological factors? Nope. Human society uses looks only to lump
people into this or that "race." That is an invalid categorization in terms of
biology, even in terms of genetics. Primitive man did not know biology or genetics.
However, primitive man knew what it was to be attracted to this type for a mate
- but not that type for a mate.
Preaching that, "There is no such thing
as race," to the audience is futile. What are they saying? Are they saying that
social constructions are wrong? People also make a social distinction between
a truck, van, car and bus. Yet they are all vehicles that have a similar function.
One is not better than the other; they are different. Nevertheless, the owner
of the vehicle might think what he has is better than the other things since he
chose that for himself, for his needs. Important note: he CHOSE it, selected
it. The audience will say, "Ok then, breed," "Ok, type." People in society use
eyesight, not smell or any other sense, to sexually select partners. Though pheromones
may be the underlying thing that is making this or that type "look good"
since the sense of smell is the only sense we have that is directly connected
to the limbic brain, the point is still moot to this broad subject since in everyday
speech and in society we categorize people at a distance, categorize whole nations
and live in a society where there are perfumes and deodorants. Therefore, what
pheromones may or may not do is irrelevant to this conversation right now:
humans still go by eyesight - they look at the person's looks to
categorize them into this or that "race." Just as there are many styles of cars,
there are also types of vehicle. Humans do not mind calling a Nissan Sentra and
a VW Bug "cars." However, they'd not call a Ford Van 250 a "car." They'd not call
a public transportation bus a "van."
A group selects for and against characteristics
that exist within the group; the group becomes a tribe, tribe becomes nation.
The nation appears to be homogenous and, within human historical times, there
were recognizable "races" of people all in specific areas, all each in their own
places. People sexually select: this one is yummy, that one is yuch. And so, you
end up with similar looking groups. I strongly feel that pheromones come
into play and might be the real, underlying cause of, "I love that group"
and "I hate that group" feelings. I would say that appearance alone and
selection, not so much the environment except for the effect in terms of norm
of reaction, is what has caused these variations to appear in humans. Very few
of these variations might actually be genetic. I.e., there is NO GENE for browns
eyes, blue eyes, etc. Surprised? There are a bunch of genes involved in making
melanin. They first start to make this melanin in the ectoderm of the zygote.
Then the iris is formed from little pieces of the ectoderm, but your tongue, e.g.
is not. The tongue is formed from pieces of the mesoderm. There are a whole group
of genes that act in dosages, a large dose would make what comes from the ectoderm
darker. To think there is some gene for blue eyes or brown eyes is a Mendelian
error.
It is proven wrong now. How many genes you have for this dosage
for melanin is genetic and depends solely on how many you get from
your parents.
Now, if a person, or if social custom wants to categorize
these variations into races - or use the word breeds, different breeds - well,
is that valid? It is a thing humans DO based on the very thing they use to sexually
select partners to mate with. They use EYESIGHT, not smell or anything else especially
if they categorize someone at a distance. Since the eyeball sense, the "lookism"
alone, ends up being connected to sexual selection, then it DOES have impact.
So
one might say this: there is no such thing as race. But then, yes there is. It
depends on what connecting factors you tag onto it. Include the sexual selection
aspect and you see it is important. Scandinavians and Chinese did not get to look
the way they all look, recognizably different from each other and recognizably
similar to their own citizens by NOT selecting what turned them on sexually. And
that is what one might call - BIOLOGICALLY SPEAKING - the prime directive.
These
studies are stifled for one reason and one reason alone: the agenda of those that
are almost religiously "anti-racist." Which brings us to the problem of what exactly
causes racism? Michael Levin (Why Race Matters) has his theories, and they
are very good, imo - but definitely not politically correct. Gould also has his
theories (Mismeasurement of Man) and they are also very good - and they
are very politically correct. Both men are experts. Those are only two men whose
books are very easy to read. There are many experts on both sides of this
argument.
I have a theory too and it's very simple. It has to do with behavior,
pheromones and ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. Racism exists in capitalist societies. Racism
exists in societies where people have to compete for resources, including jobs.
Racism exists when the area is crowded. If it does not exist, it benefits the
capitalists to make it exist. That racism comes into play so easily and is, at
the same time, so hard to eradicate tells me there is a lot more to it
than just a passing phase of philosophy or ideology. I refer back to the "LOOK-ism"
concept and sexual selection. Sexual selection can extend into friend selection,
community selection, and so forth. Though there may not genetically be races as
we categorize them, there are indeed races in this other sense.
I don't
like it when people on the Dawkins side, or Lumsden and Wilson side, or Levin
or Rushton side (or dare I mention them, even Jensen and Shockley, Herrenstein
and Murray "The Bell Curve" side), are threatened, silenced and destroyed
for having an idea. I don't like it when some person with a severe case of cranialanusitus
accuses me of being a racist for picking up the arguments of these experts when
I feel like challenging a self-righteous, condescending snob. I STRONGLY object
to the people who went after these professors being called Lysenkoites! I don't
care if I violently disagree with the ideas of these professors. They should have
had the ability to let us know the damned idea before being stifled, let the tests
be done. It was due to those that agree with me doing such repressive actions
against these professors, that led me to get Michael's Levin's book and read it
for myself. This is all in the political arena, btw. It's all politics; it is
no longer nature vs. nurture or any of that. Make no bones about it - it's about
free speech versus politically correct censorship and has nothing to do
with science.
And so, since these professors can no longer argue their
case, back up their theses, I can do that instead. I have no job to lose if I
do this. What do I find? I find that none that objected can argue their case -
they resorted to flaming and frothing hatreds. I get a face full of PC garbage
- and against that I DO rebel. I hate it. I get a snob misrepresenting me to an
enemy that stole copyrighted material and used it to slander me with what? RACIAL
EPITHETS. Oh, how hilariously funny this is. Where is my god damned pie? I need
to heave it at the face of these sickeningly righteous PROTOSTOMES. Do they have
an agenda? You bet they do. They have some hard modern genetics to back their
line up: there is no such thing as race - only HUMAN race. True, true. But there
IS the social concept and that is real because it affects us personally.
As
I told someone else on here that mentioned "Cult of the Child," in the circles
I have traveled - and I'm a traveler alright (Hard Left, old style Communist)
- I have run into the Cult of the Anti-Child for years. Women are even accused
of having allowed a man rape her, if she is married and has a kid. I'm serious.
"All Sex is RAPE" according to radical Left feminist Katherine MacKinnon. Now
that's nuts - and this is heterosexual women saying this about male/female hetero
sex. Is masturbation rape? Lmao. They call the child a parasite and go into the
same details Elaine Morgan went into in "Descent of the Woman" or "Descent
of the Child" in describing it. They talk as if it's an inflicted harm. I
have never run into the cult of the child.
Ok. Which "view" do I "officially"
agree with on here: Instinct versus Culture? Nurture versus Nature? Genes versus
Environment? For some reason, people want to try to pin me down personally as
if "I" constitute the very varied opinions in the SR organization! Well, they
have a "cult of personality" hang up. SR does not. First of all, on our application
we do not ask your race, ethnic group OR GENDER; that's not considered important
in SR. We ask only if you are 18 or over. Ok. What do I agree with?
I agree
with both. I don't know how to explain it, but I see that both extremes of the
"versus" options dialectically bleed into each other, affect each other, even
cause each other. I think nothing about this (knowledge about our own species)
should be censored and I think people that resort to slander are the worst censors
on the planet. People should be shown both views and given the freedom of CHOICE
to choose which they FEEL is right. I have flamed, argued polemically, and
debated on both sides of the race coin with people: pro black, pro white, and
pro neither - and also anti all. Doing that, only makes ME (selfish) think more
about it. That is highly dialectical though it might ruffle some poor little feathers.
Someone
PC brought up the fact that they can not "figure out" where I'm coming from on
the race issue. They saw me flame whites, they saw me flame blacks and well well.
They thought I was angry? Nah. Where I'm coming from? Well, heh, I'm a loner on
the Wheel of Life and I don't stick myself in paradigms - that's like being in
samsara INSIDE OF samsara - HA! If something looks like fun to dip into, I do
it. If it looks like fun to give a challenge or smash paradigms, I do it. I always
learn something from it. Do others learn? Sure, some do. Some never will: their
emotions prevent them from even thinking about it objectively.
I explain:
When it comes to the all-American "RACE" (non) issue, I can talk the talk in any
given paradigm. I can talk it better than the ones in the paradigms.
When
I talk my own true theory, I find those that THINK they agree with me and they
turn out to be the most suffocating, regulator types agreeing, but they FOCUS
on "RACISTS," they are religiously fanatic AGAINST all racism and consider some
of the most normal things to be "racism," while excusing the lousiest behavior
of whole groups or nations and going on a Jihad if a geneticist claims the behaviors
are genetic. They outwardly agree with me, but inwardly they are my enemies. I
inwardly REBEL against them, whether they agreed with me or not. They DO NOT agree
with me. My theory is about the beauty of the infinite forms and shapes. My knowledge
tells me there has been seriously deep disenfranchisement on both sides of the
black/white/other/etc. issue and this is NOT going to vanish, especially since
we learn history in school. It's like vendetta. Vendetta's are known to last for
generations. The ones who outwardly think they agree with me have agendas and
they are really all about regulating speech. I CHALLENGE them and oh, I can sure
the hell do that very well - a real diabolos. These regulating PC types on the
"left" - who, imo, gave the left a lousy reputation, are anti-self to a degree
that I find HORRIFYING. I find it only too amusing that one of these protostomes
has run to the very people who have made exclusively racist slanders against me,
for new allies. (A protostome is an animal that has only one opening for anus
and mouth, heh).
The racists of today are at least rebelling against these
anti-self types and the anti self PC crap put into laws as agendas that wrecked
lives, neighborhoods and schools in real life, they rebel against past brutalization
that they were often personally forced to grin and bear. BOTH whites and
blacks. BOTH. BOTH black and white racism is a REaction to DEEP disenfranchisement
on the inner level. BOTH. When both the black and white (and Amerind) start to
whine, however, and play the guilt trip game, that's an attack on kundalini: I
can challenge the white racists by going over to the black side and I can also
challenge the blacks by going over to the white side but the attacks that cause
the eternal ouch on blacks is very different from the one that affects the whites.
Which side am I on? NEITHER.
I can RELATE TO and really FEEL both sides
- empathy - real empathy. I can usually "speak" their side better than any of
them can themselves due to not BEing in their paradigm. I'm neither white nor
black - it's easy.
Someone PC asked:
And what of the "cause" of
"fighting racism?" It is self-serving to fight racism. I said:Is it? Well, that
depends on who is being self-served, no? Yes! That is a circle that goes round
and round and goes nowhere. You fight it how? Legislating laws against speech?
People learn to lie. Legislating laws against discrimination? People do it in
more insidious and subtle ways. How can you fight racism? By applying education?
And what will you say? "There is no such thing as race?" (See above on experts
on both sides.) "It's wrong to hate for that reason?" Oh, is there another reason?
HA! When it is right to hate? We are Satanists, hello. We don't repress hate,
we let it go, release it, get it out. Yeah, but what if you hate the group DESPITE
the fact that they "JUST HAPPEN TO BE" of this other noticeable race? What if
you hate the group for real wrongs they've done to you personally? Then you do,
period. There is no right or wrong on here. This goes round and round. People
hate their own brothers. Same race, same family. You can't stop hate especially
if there is a REASON for it (See above about disenfrancisement.) The cause of
anti-racism? It's a LOST cause.
The thing to fight is on LABOR issues,
on health care issues (see above on capitalist societies and racism.) Putting
guilt trips on people is a very dangerous thing to do causing DEEP repression:
it backfires with genocide. That IS the catharsis. Witness the catharsis. When
times are bad regarding cost of living, jobs, all that real stuff, it would be
WISE of any minority group to exit stage OUT of any country where they are the
minority. If not, the predictable might very well happen.
I got lectured
on how "bad" this looks to others that see it online, me posting this or that,
to this or that person on this issue - and it's all flaming on all sides too.
Oh, do flames look bad on usenet? Bwhaha. I care? Someone else worries (?) that
I have no real opinion, I'm not making any real stand. And yeah? I have an opinion
(see above). What stand? Taking a stand on this non-issue is like jumping into
a level of samsara beneath samsara. The stand goes nowhere, means nothing. Fix
the society, labor, cost of living, all that: and racism will vanish. Like MAGIC.
There is also RATIONAL racism that Dinesh DeSousa (from India) talked about -
it exists for very real reasons. And then there is the irrational kind which erupts
every time the economy sucks. Fix the economy.
TJ
