In response to posits stated by an "affirmed, unapologetic racist" in a parking lot in Menlo Park, CA, May, 2009, being:

1) that genome is the single greatest factor affecting intelligence quotient -- quoting a book "the Bell Curve," which is supposedly banned in the U.S. because of the alarming "facts" presented

2) that race, being a genetic trait, affects IQ:
a) that Blacks have the lowest IQ;
b) that Muslims have the second lowest IQ;
c) that Caucasians have the second highest IQ; and
d) Jews have the highest IQ, with a lead by 10 points

3) that the genetic factor is an evolutionary principle based on the idea that "living in the cold, upper, hemispheres causes a greater need for adaptation" -- and the Greeks are evidence of this



My refutations here will be brief, and succinct:

Assuming that the "Bell Curve" followed appropriate and rigorous scientific methodology -- as opposed to simply molding statistical data to fit the desired outcome -- I question the concept of the Intelligence Quotient as a valid entry into intelligence measuring to begin with. I myself have had a range of over 20 points throughout my forty years, as tested on multiple occasions, so although I might claim to be a 'fairly intelligent' person, I would hesitate strongly to ever cite my own IQ number as supportive evidence.

Being a "Jew" must be called into question within the context of the posits listed above -- is the parking lot racist speaking of Sephardic Jews, Occidental Jews, or a combination of both? The Sephardic Jew is, genetically speaking, identical to Muslims and Christians from the Arabian peninsula, meaning, we have a genetically based discrepancy between points 2b and 2d above. The Occidental Jew, if converted solely on religious grounds and not having any Sephardic blood, is Caucasian in genetic terms, and therefore we see a second discrepancy, this time between 2c and 2d above.

"Muslims" of the former Yugoslav republic share identical genetic traits with the other groups in this area, meaning, they are specifically Caucasian by blood. This fact demonstrates a clear discrepancy between points 2b and 2c above.

"Caucasians," if my own understanding is correct -- and I will gladly accept contradictory evidence -- migrated to Europe from the southern Caucus region, and Aryans traveled to Germanic Europe from a region that is now part of Afghanistan. So Caucasians derive little if any benefit from the Northern latitudes, as far as evolutionary development is concerned. As stated above, the "Jews" come from the Middle East, a region which does not experience the winter conditions of Europe.

As far as the "Greeks" are concerned, they are but one in a long line of intellectually-based societies (being differentiated here from military based Empires, although the Greeks were one of these as well), and after the fall of the Roman Empire, while Europe was in its own "dark ages," the Muslims enjoyed such intellectual arenas as Mathematics and Astronomy, and indeed themselves added to the academic library for such scholarly pursuits. Many of the original Greek discoveries were, in fact, salvaged and kept safe by Muslims who appreciated their value, even while Caucasians in Europe at the time failed to do so. Lastly, I would present many such intellectually-based societies who developed in vastly disparate regions of the world: Babylon, Celt, Egypt, Benin, Maya, Inca, Aztec, Persia, China, etc.

Therefore, we have historical representation of supreme intellect from Black Africans, South American Indians, Muslims, Jews, Caucasians, Chinese, and a host of others that, with apology, I have failed to mention -- so, even if race is allowed to be differentiated on a genetic basis (and I'm not sure if the Anthropologists would agree with that approach, given the latest genetic evidence presented for the human genome), we must now turn back to the list, wherein we find discrepancies between 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d.

So, be an "affirmed, unapologetic racist" all you want -- no one with any sense of intelligence will value your judgment, or appreciate your underlying, inciteful motivations; no one will admire your clearly faulty approach; and, no one will feel sorry for you.