Of ducks and men

There is much concern over the fate of the Florida Mottled duck:

Historically, wild mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) normally winter in Florida in widely scattered, small flocks and are seldom seen in large concentrations except in some of the northern counties. These wild birds migrate out of our state to northern breeding areas in the spring and are not present in Florida during the mottled duck breeding season.

However, captive-reared mallards are being unlawfully released by humans in large numbers in Florida. It is estimated that more than 12,000 mallards are purchased statewide from feed-and-seed stores and potentially are released each year. These domesticated mallards are being purchased by well-intentioned individuals and are being released on local ponds, lakes and canals for aesthetic reasons…

…They are not part of Florida’s native wildlife and like other exotic species, are causing problems.
State biologists are observing more and more mixed flocks and mixed pairs in the wild and these feral mallards are mating with mottled ducks, producing a hybrid offspring (see details). These hybrid offspring are fertile, which further compounds the problem. Every mallard released in Florida can potentially contribute to the hybridization problem and the result is that fewer and fewer pure-bred Florida mottled ducks are left each year. An estimated 7 to 12 percent of mottled ducks are already exhibiting genetic evidence of hybridization and biologists list this hybridization as the biggest immediate threat to the conservation of Florida’s mottled duck.

Because of the relatively small size of the mottled duck breeding population (estimated at 30,000 to 40,000), the complete hybridization could result in the extinction of the Florida mottled duck.

History has proved that the concern over the loss of the Florida mottled duck to hybridization is a real one and should not be taken lightly.

Of course, in the eyes of the leftist elite, diversity is to be treasured in the animal kingdom but scorned among humans.  They do not believe in human biodiversity (HBD).  Or do they?

Recent headlines (in “mainstream” newspapers) have recently proclaimed:

The Tibet plateau is a land of yaks and sherpas — and rapid evolution.

Over a mere 3,000 years, a blink of an evolutionary eye, Tibetan highlanders have developed a unique version of a gene that apparently helps them cope with life at extremely high altitudes, according to a study published Friday in the journal Science.

Reading the same story in the Oregonian (which somebody had left laying around) while taking my break today at work, I wondered out loud, “can a social construct protect people from altitude sickness?  I suppose this lays to rest any doubts about the reality of race.”  It is worthy of mention that while the Tibetans diverged from the Han Chinese a mere 3,000 years ago, Europeans diverged from black Africans at least tens of thousands of years ago.  Who in their right mind would doubt that there are meaningful genetic differences between the major races after reading such an article?

At this point, it should be fairly obvious that race is more than skin deep and that human groups possess genetic uniqueness in relation to other human groups.  We should demand to know why preserving the genetic purity of a race of ducks is paramount but to do so for humans is “evil”.  This point was strongly made by Richard D. Fuerle in his book Erectus Walks Amongst Us.

A leftist might possibly answer that unlike ducks, humans possess free choice and tend to marry out of love.  Since choice only exists at the individual level, it should exclusively be up to the individuals who they should marry.  Once we accept this as the ideal scenario for dating and marriage, then all other concerns become secondary at best.  The assumption, at least in the modern West, is that love (between individuals) is the most important thing in life.  Marriage is the culmination of such love and procreation merely a possible byproduct of it.

I do not claim to be an expert on love but my understanding is that it is chemicals floating around in the brain.  Over time they wear off, their entire raison d’etre being to promote procreation.  Love is just a trick our genes use to replicate themselves.  Ever since we were slimy mold on a rock, we’ve been slaves to our genes.  But now millions of leftists are finally getting back at those genes by refusing to have children, raising dogs instead.  That’ll show them!

Traditional Jews often say that among the gentiles and secular Jews love precedes marriage – and most of their marriages end in divorce.  In contrast, among traditional Jews (and others), marriage comes first and love follows.  Since there is no love at the time of marriage, more rational criteria can be weighed in deciding if there is a good match.  Each parent examines the other family and tries to determine if they will get along.  They know that, in a real community, a marriage is much more than simply the union of two individuals.  Each parent makes sure that finances will not be too much of a problem.  Each parent verifies that there is a good match in regards to traditions, ethnicity, language and values.  Even through all this, there is still divorce in traditional communities – but not at the levels we see elsewhere.  Furthermore, it is a fact that the outside world cannot be completely kept out of such communities and this influence takes its toll.

I think it odd that one of the most notorious leftists of our time, Hillary Clinton, stated that “it takes a village to raise a child“.  Certainly she has no objections to intermarriage in all its forms.  So I wonder if she even appreciates the contradiction in her views.  In a village composed of many nationalities, mores, languages and races – our hypothetical child would be confused indeed!  One could imagine what would happen when he did something wrong.  On villager would spank him while another would tell him a story.  Yet another would banish him from the village and another might ignore the misdeed.  At meal time, one villager might insist on feeding him only kosher or hallal while another might feed him pork.  Within a few days riots would tear the village apart.

But it does take a village to raise a child.  This is why we must protect the integrity of our village.  This is why it is important that intermarriage remain the exception and not the rule.  We can only preserve our village if we behave like men.  If we behave like ducks, then extinction will be our lot as we are swallowed up by the Mallards.

This entry was posted in miscegenation, racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Of ducks and men

  1. Gaurav Ahuja says:

    One might psychological torment and physical abuse is allowed in traditional communities much more so than among modern people. Hence, you cannot compare divorce rates among such disparate groups given that the modern standards are higher. How do you reply?

    • jewamongyou says:

      I can only judge based on what I’ve seen and experienced. Based on my own experiences, there is no more abuse among traditional (Jewish) couples than other couples. Do you have statistics, or some sort of evidence, to back up your claim? Furthermore, it is possible that even if we take abusive relationships into account, the divorce rate is still lower in traditional communities.
      Also, I may have come across as advocating “arranged” marriages where the parents dictate whom their youngsters will marry. Actually, I only meant that the parents can screen marriage prospects – with the youngsters making the final choice.

  2. Bay Area Guy says:

    Ah yes, the whole “race is just a social construct” line.
    You know what? I actually agree. But so what?
    -Language is a social construct.
    -Religion is a social construct (apologies to the religious types out there, but that’s how I see it)
    -Ethnicity is a social construct.
    -Countries are social constructs
    Does that mean that they’re irrelevant? Of course not.
    I suppose we should tell the Japanese to stop despising the Koreans, the Greeks and Turks to come together, and different ethnic groups in Africa to embrace one another because hey, all of their identities are simply “social constructs!”
    Human groups don’t define themselves by what they have in common, but who they are against. We are an inherently prejudiced and tribal species.
    Race is just one of the newest forms of social division, and it is no less relevant than the others. While I am opposed to scientific racism (simply because it’s inaccurate), I don’t buy into the whole “race doesn’t exist” line either, regardless of what anthropology and biology say.
    No, this isn’t me being anti-intellectual. I’ve taken a course on anthropology and race and I understand that race isn’t that meaningful biologically, and I acknowledge that the anti-racist scientific left makes good points.
    But When I see a person from Africa and a person from Europe, I see two radically different people with clearly distinguishable features. They’re hardly the same.
    So yes, race is a “social construct.” But again, who cares?

    • Portland Realist says:

      Race is sometimes a social construct, like the way the Nazis classified the Jews as untermenschen. However, race is a biological construct in the case of the negro vs. the caucasian. This is widely accepted among medical science. Genetic predisposition to disease among different racial groups is one example. Yes there are large variations among these groups yada yada..
      Just what part of “Scientific Racism” are you opposed to? What about it is innacurate?
      Did you read this post? Just take this quote alone:
      “Over a mere 3,000 years, a blink of an evolutionary eye, Tibetan highlanders have developed a unique version of a gene that apparently helps them cope with life at extremely high altitudes, according to a study published Friday in the journal Science.”
      Isn’t this mainstream scientific journal guilty of “scientific racism”?

  3. Valkea says:

    I claim that traditions that make the marriage decision more demanding and possible divorce more difficult, of course reduce the divorce rate (likely better selection of couples and greater threshold of divorce), but also increase the relationship related problem solving capabilities and mutual conforming according to the spouses’ qualities, and thus reduce the psychological stress and increase the satisfaction in marriages and further reduce the divorce rate. Would you say this is true concerning traditional Jewish couples?

    • jewamongyou says:

      The truly traditional Jewish couples I’ve known seemed to enjoy harmony mainly because each spouse’s role was clearly defined and because they never went into marriage with the idea that divorce was an option. Of course, I was never privy to any private conflicts there might have been. Does this answer your question?

      • Valkea says:

        Yes, thank you. Roles were clearly defined -is a good piece of information. In liberal marriages roles are de facto anarchical, and this contributes to the many problems in them.

  4. Pingback: The savages of Europe « Jewamongyou's Blog

  5. Pingback: White genocide « Jewamongyou's Blog

  6. Pingback: The cost of diversity: Isolation | Jewamongyou's Blog

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *