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.