To the gas chambers-go!? Earlier today-one Philip Shropshire seemed to imply that some of us (specifically godless capitalist)-want to round up those on the left-end of the Bell Curve and send them to concentration camps or something. This is the sort of ad hominem attack that silences people and allows sites like Stormfront to monopolize the discussion of race differences. I will concede that I might be wrong-that races might not be that different in anything aside from the most superficial of outward phenotypic characteristics and prevalence of certain diseases in certain groups. But would Mr. Shropshire concede that those who believe major racial differences exist might be right? What if we are right? What if attempts to silence us push everyone to the sidelines except those who talk about white pride and the late great Fuhrer? (if Mr. Shropshire doesn't know-both godless and I are non-white and from an ethnic group who's average IQ might be rather low). Personally, I wish academic biological scientists would explore race differences. But at this time there isn't a chance in hell that's going to happen. Look at many of the scientists who are backed by the Pioneer Fund, which backs Mr. Rushton's work. They're psychologists and economists-who can diagnose the social illness. But it will take hard-core geneticists and neuroscientists to probe whether there are race differences biologically, as opposed to being artifacts of the way we view the data. Speaking for myself-I don't think acknowledging race differences would imply a rejection of the principle of equality before the law. Men and women are probably different in their very nature, the essentialist position. Yet we usually (military service being an exception) treat men and women the same. I personally think we should treat them the same 100% the same (Women should be able to serve in combat positions-granting that they can fulfill certain physical and psychological requirements that all soldiers have to clear). But aside from the radical Left-the fact that men and women are different allows society to not be shocked that most firefighters are men and most interior designers are women. Acknowledging race differences might stop the yearly lament that there aren't enough black scientists or engineers, and allow us to appreciate the many blacks in the entertainment field. The truth is always better than falsehood. If humans were altruistic, a classless utopia on the communist model might work, but human nature isn't based on altruism, or even group selection. Humans look to their individual needs first, and that is why capitalism is superior to communism (though I will grant that capitalism can be tempered by social democratic policies-though I don't like it myself). This confusion as to human nature-as to the truth-cost millions of lives. Are mainstream environmentalists willing to allow room for those of us who dissent from the orthodoxy? Or are we to be marginalized as racist kooks. I'm fine with being called a kook, since I think 100-proof environmentalism is pretty wacky myself. But I wouldn't ascribe all sorts of nefarious motives motives to them. Sure, excessive concern with genetic heritage was part of the Nazi program, but overemphasis on environment was part of Communism. I'm not "racist," I don't give a damn what race my friends are. Humans should be judged as individuals in ideal conditions-that is true. But when talking of societal issues, I think it's fine to lump them into groups. Marketers do it all the time. Why exempt race? We talk about it to promote "social justice" all the time. So what is it? You can talk about race, as long as you toe the party line? So let's get back to the dialogue. If you're looking for Nazis, move on. Postscript: To Mr. Shropshire-godless was wrong and he fessed up to it rather quickly, didn't he? You seem to have a problem with his tone rather than his substance (which you might still disagree with of course).