The drive to deny simple biological truisms is alive and well, from race to gender, and just about anything else in order to explain away differences that are socially unacceptable and inconvenient to an underlying message of endless equality. A “murder” case in Georgia is the latest event receiving wall to wall coverage because white men killed a black man. Had the skin color been reversed, one wouldn’t read all about it, day in and day out.

Wikipedia, the largely unaccountable and publicly editable source of often times unreliable knowledge, describes the event in questionable terms, such as “jogging” and “unarmed.”

On February 23, 2020, Ahmaud Marquez Arbery, an unarmed 25-year-old African-American man, was fatally shot near Brunswick in Glynn County, Georgia, while jogging on Holmes Road just before entering its intersection with Satilla Drive in the Satilla Shores neighborhood.

Certainly the situation could have been handled differently and without incident, but what the narrative leaves out, and anyone with an IQ over 3 can see in the video, is that a struggle for the gun was initiated by Ahmaud and then he lost the fight. Obviously if one is trying to take a gun away from somebody, one is no longer considered “unarmed,” but that’s a minor detail. Furthermore, “jogging” is an interesting characterization after he trespassed on someone’s property, or cased the joint.

Pretty pictures of Mr. Arbery flooded the media, offering an overly polished image of a man that had plenty of criminal troubles, and ignoring a psychological fashion profile that is hard to miss.

In a separate event, creativity became unacceptable because a “Virginia high school banner groups students of color to make dark outline of logo.”

A banner at a Virginia high school intended to celebrate 2020’s graduating class is being called racist after students noticed that seniors of color were grouped to create the dark outline of the school’s logo.

If people’s heights were used to create images or form patterns, would it be heightist? Stupid arguments and positions never fail to prove themselves to be, well… stupid!

But the point here is not about the death of Ahmaud — the judicial system will handle the case — or whether racist behavior is viewed in everything, including innocuous patterns created by skin color. The issue is that those that yell racism at every turn are the same people that will scream in everyone’s face that there’s only one race: the human race. So why point out skin color at every turn?

Here’s the simpler point as outlined in “Diversitopia.”

Word to the wise: Every time one hears or reads about the notion of “social construct,” it’s an indication that someone is not willing to accept the conspicuous and inconvenient truth about something—race, ethnicity, and sexuality, to name a few—and is constructing castles in the air as a mechanism to soothe someone’s fragile ego. To the point, are cheetahs and tigers similar, yet very different, or is it our imagination? Can a cheetah’s running speed reach 75 mph or is it a “social construct” so tigers don’t feel left out at about half the speed?

Yet the silliness never stops, as proven by “Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue.”

Science would favor Du Bois. Today, the mainstream belief among scientists is that race is a social construct without biological meaning. And yet, you might still open a study on genetics in a major scientific journal and find categories like “white” and “black” being used as biological variables.

The “experts” overlook—and don’t understand—the simple measuring stick called socio-techno-economic achievement, which has a centuries-long and unmistakable track record. What do they think caused “An African Tale Of Postcolonial Ineptitude?” Or why “Hunger In Africa Defies Logic But Is Predictable?”

In “Racism’s Assertion Remains Uncontested” the “one human race” conundrum was addressed.

Impossible to be racist with only one race, and that’s why people receive Nobel prizes in literature, not logic. Why distinguish humans from gorillas when just 1.75% of the DNA is different? Is it about looks? In 2007, Dr. James Watson, the Nobel Prize-winning scientist that discovered DNA, made a statement that was inexcusable to the politically correct community and literally ended his career.

Here’s Watson’s statement regarding black people:

He was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really.”

To summarize, race is a social construct only when the objective is to justify the socio-techno-economic shortcomings of entire racial/ethnic groups — it’s about oppression, not intellectual inequality, they claim. However, the social construct premise is thrown out of the window and no effort will be spared to highlight a person’s race and ethnicity as a differentiator when it conveniently serves a socio political purpose.

Why not report that a man killed another man and leave race out of the headline? Because honesty is not a common trait within the progressive circles that ignore simple and irrefutable biology supported by socio-techno-economic achievement — or lack thereof.

---