My wife and I are also expecting our fourth. But unlike Vance, our child will be a White child.

Point?

The point is that race matters. The genetic inheritance of a people has a vast determinative influence on the art, science, and civilization that they can create. Saying that race doesn't matter is like saying to someone that the heritage of all your ancestors for the last 50,000 years doesn't matter. Don't fool yourself. It does. By taking a "race doesn't matter" stance the controlled "conservative" movement is taking nearly exactly the same position as the controlled Left, and is just as destructive, just as genocidal.

Does the idea of mixed-race relationships disturb or upset you? Do you accept that cultures evolve and merge? What do the concepts of tribalism and binary thinking mean to you?

Meditate on this thoughtfully for a day or two: The merging of already long-diverged human varieties is the opposite of evolution, and, if sufficiently widespread, can cancel out hundreds of thousands of years of divergent evolution in a single generation. Had it happened on a large scale in the past, as it is happening now, there would have been no Siddhartha Gautama, no Socrates, no Nietzsche -- no Phidias, no Titian, no John William Waterhouse -- no Parthenon, no transistor, no Saturn V rocket -- since humanity would still be barely above the level of Homo erectus.

so you believe in darwinian evolution

You did not answer the questions. Also, from a scientific or spiritual perspective, it’s all moot anyway. We come from the stars and we go back to the stars. Race, although part of the human experience, has nothing to do with value or capabilities. To think otherwise is sadly ignorant and lacks eternal awareness. Jesus and Siddhartha were the antithesis of tribal and insular. They saw and were connected to the eternal truth that we are all one.

If you had meditated on my reply, as I asked, you would understand that I did answer. And, no, the issue of whether we should exterminate our kind by racial mixing is not "moot." It's the difference between whether we shall _actually_ ascend to the stars and begin a new phase of Life in the Universe, or just vainly philosophize about it. It's the difference between continuing the upward evolution of our bodies, intellect, consciousness, and souls -- or stagnating and descending ever lower with each passing generation. Consider this: All divergent evolution begins with tiny, barely perceptible differences, some physical, some mental, between otherwise identical races. Gradually, given enough spatial or behavioral/spiritual/intellectual separation, those differences increase and a new race is formed. Eventually the differences become so great that interbreeding no longer takes place, or nearly so -- and thus a new species is born. All evolution proceeds in this manner; there are no exceptions. It is the means by which ALL species, from plankton to the grasses of the fields, from the snow egret to Leonardo da Vinci, were born. Therefore racial separation is a NECESSARY component of evolution. Evolution could not take place without it. None of us would be here -- there would be no humanity at all, in fact, without racial separation. So racial separation is not only NOT evil -- it is ESSENTIAL, even sacred.

Take care Kevin. 🙏🏻

Yes, the evolution of Life is about as obvious a fact as you could want. Although Darwin and Mendel and Watson were the great geniuses who brought our understanding to its zenith, the fact (if not the mechanism) of evolution was known at least as early as the ancient Greeks. Just a simple thought experiment will suffice to show how obvious it is. We know for certain that in earlier ages, say for example the Cambrian, most current species didn't exist, and the ones that did exist were vastly different from any we see today. Therefore -- unless you believe in new species just magically popping into existence or arriving on flying saucers hundreds of thousands of times at least (and if you do believe that, no one can help you) -- they must have evolved. It's also obvious in another way: We know that genes mutate. We know that mutations are passed on to offspring. We know that a few mutations are beneficial and not only are passed on, but become widespread. Therefore we know that species evolve (change) over time.

it's not obvious in any way most mutations destroy, don't create even if one created something there would be no reason for that mutation to become widespread unless you evoke natural selection however most mutations can't be selected because they are useless a chain of thousands of lucky mutations would be necessary before anything could be selected so no, random mutations can't do it

You said: "a chain of thousands of lucky mutations would be necessary before anything could be selected." That is exactly what exists. Mutations occur daily, by the billions. Only a few are beneficial, but that is enough. The few beneficial ones become widespread over time. Therefore genetic change happens, and that is evolution. Q.E.D.

you missed the "chain" part what I meant was that these mutations must occur in the same direct individual family tree A gets a mutation that will give him 0.001% of a new ability then his son must by sheer chance get exactly a mutation that will give him 0.002% and so on 1000 generations pass and you finally get a new ability that can be selected by the environment

the stuff that happens inside the cells is absurdly complex

Not all genetic changes confer such a tiny percentage of a trait, though some might. Many, such as the gene for brown or blue eyes for example, act in an almost binary manner, with one trait dominant, but the other instantly at full expression when conferred by both mother and father. Others merely push the average of some quality, such as, say, frontal lobe size, or hormone density, in one direction or another, and that is enough to make observable, meaningful differences. Either way, even in your speculative scenario, genetic and phenotypic/behavioral/qualitative change does indeed take place, which is all one needs for selective forces to act upon. Thus, evolution must take place. You'd need one Hell of a lot of extraordinary proof to seriously suggest that it doesn't.

I'm not denying that organisms changed, I'm just saying that the Darwinian mechanism is not only insufficient, it is absurd read Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe

Full disclosure, I probably have autism and find hierarchy difficult to understand. I think that's why I focus on the individual vs. the collective. DaVinci was a great painter who happened to be white. Jackson Pollack painted like he was in kindergarten. He was also white. I do think there is something to culture that seems like software uploaded to a computer. Some software is more productive than other software. Genes matter, for sure, but it's not everything. Even if we accept some of Charles Murray's conclusions (which I am not saying I do) geniuses from other races will still exist.

Everyone acknowledges genius exists in many human races. But it's feel-good (or intentionally deceptive) nonsense to assert that it is equally distributed among them, in either quantity or quality. Yet that nonsense seems to have become a moral tenet in the West (at the insistence of the Jewish minority and a large number of Christians and egalitarians) -- to the point now that people of European ancestry are attacked as "evil" if they try in any way to ensure the survival of their kind or refuse to grant free entry to anyone and everyone into their hard-won territories. That is a serious error that may well be fatal. I also acknowledge that culture is a powerful force, but it is downstream from biology.

Thank you for your response. It helps me understand your position better. Like I said before I like talking to you because you are honest and don't try to defend your position with b.s. :) I do think much of the woke newspeak makes certain tail-risk events(eg. Civil war) more likely, but I'm not well read on sociology and this position is based on a Sam Harris podcast, who is ironically of Jewish decent. His mom created the Golden Girls and it was pretty liberal for it's time. I don't watch much TV anymore so I don't know much about the cultural wars. Thanks again for your respectful response. I hope my questions do not offend you.