>on-topic

on topic (I know that the command of English is a sign of superiority in Russian blogosphere, but I am fairly indifferent to it).

The original point of discussion was my amusement at the "color-blind" attitude expressed in the memo combined with sexism of the most vulgar kind. However, you've done nothing but continuously restate this absurd point of view, expressing brutish indifference towards extended human phenotype, represented here by "culture".

I have certain ideas about the sort of people who may benefit from such divisive rhetoric. It cannot be Western Europeans with their long-established tradition of respect towards women's personhood. Besides, the largest and most affluent ethnic group populating the US will not gain any reproductive benefits from a cleavage between the sexes as they compete for the highest-paying jobs.

If we were to believe Trivers, this kind of people must have greatly benefited from hybrid vigor in the past, since moralistic aggression has altruism as its basis ("if it worked well for me, it must work well for you, and you will help me walk the line if I fail to"). I cannot come up with a term better than "moralistic aggression" to describe the vitriol you and many others have displayed towards the opponents of replacement migration.