I'm not following the reasoning for the (irrelevant) racism of the author either:

1. I once knew a guy who agreed with the author. He also had a non-white manager at roughly the same time he agreed with the author.

2. ???

3. Therefore the author if this article is racist.

2. The author writes a silly racist article celebrating eugenics and racial purity

This assumes what it aims to prove, namely that the authors argument is invalid.

The word 'racist' succeeds in generating an emotional swirl with unpleasant connotations while failing to communicate what is meant when it is used. It's just a lazy expletive.

In case anyone else is interested in becoming a virtuoso logician like quanticle and hingisundhorsa, here are some helpful links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

Your masterful logician skills appear to have failed to notice that the author being wrong and being racist were unrelated. One can be racist and right, or non-racist and wrong, but in this case the author is wrong about where China is coming from and going to, and then later also keeps flashing his racist colors.

Not all observations are extrapolations from a single observation.

I agree. This type of racism should be punishable by law. I don't need science to confirm or deny any of this hate. It's just plain wrong.

What? Let's knee-jerk our way into legislating thought-crime, really?

No thank you. Free-speech also means speech you do not like, otherwise you don't actually have free-speech. But rather just, "state-approved speech".

That's a really sad world to live in, even more so with the state-sponsored and state-seeded social-ostracism we already have in place to control freedom of speech.

Are you being sarcastic?

And I recognize your username, do / did you post on a forum dedicated to a certain music genre?