Given that the Amish accomplish your goals without any special laws, you have failed to make a case for these special laws.
Given that you are not going to find 10,000 genetically coherent people who want to separate from the rest of society, (if you can’t persuade us without resorting to repeating the “you don’t understand” mantra, how are you going to persuade the rest of the world?), your desire to break up the country into thousands of little homelands is silly. (280,000,000 Americans / 10,000 people to a group = 28,000 groups. That is a rather serious disruption of our current situation, in which anyone who wants to mate with anyone else (similar or dissimilar) is permitted to do so.)
.
You think so? H. sapiens diverged from H. erectus around 400,000 years ago (after which H. erectus went extinct). G. gorilla gorilla and G. gorilla graueri separated between 338,000 and 436,000 years ago. In the article I cited earlier, the single subspecies of Lowland Gorilla (G. gorilla gorilla) was significantly more diverse than humans. Given that their “branching” point was either barely earlier or barely later, a claim that their diversity is a result of greater age does not actually appear to be the case. (And the gorillas did not impose any silly laws to achieve their diversity.)
.
This is simply nonsense. Name someone whose work was “suppressed.” If you have only invented the concept of “genetic freedom” yourself, recently, then no one has attempted to perform research on this topic and you are simply making up resistance that has never been demonstrated. Claiming that “studies . . . are suppressed” when no one has attempted such a study is purely a lie. (By the way, your claim that you have “several times” made this point, (inaccurate as it is and unsupported by any evidence), is actually only the second time you’ve even mentioned it. Hardly a result of “several” references.)
Basically:
You claim that life is based on genetics
. . . we note that that is a truism.
You claim that this provides some great philosophical truth
. . . we note that it is simply a factoid or truism that contains no deeper meaning.
You claim that this truism is a self-evident justification for your odd beliefs,
. . . yet you cannot articulate your point sufficiently that a dozen or so observers can even figure out why you are nattering on about the topic.
You claim that the differences between (never clearly identified) groups is some fundamental right, inherited by the members of these nebulous groups to perpetuate,
. . . we note that you are free to mate within whatever group you choose without let or hindrance from the government.
You claim that that is not enough; that the government will not support you in your effort to create homelands to prevent the weaker minded of your groups from being lured away by outsiders and that laws must be created to permit your groups to separate themselves from society,
. . . we note that there are already groups who are successfully practicing endogamous breeding practices without the burden of your changes to law, which appear to make your new laws unnecessary.
People ar people and trying to establish some vague borders around people and them enshrining those arbitrary borders in law seems silly on the face of it and harmful given any thought about it. (You claim that allowing people to separate genetically will lead to peace. This flies in the face of history that demonstrates that the “genetic” Greeks and Irish and Saxons and Norse and any number of other groups, when isolated long enough to become recognizable, launched continuous warfare on themselves. Genetic coherence does nothing to alleviate internecine warfare (hence the actual word, internecine).
In the midst of all this, you have failed to persuade even one person reading this thread that there is some greater good to be had from creating little pockets of genetically distinct people all over the world, yet you claim that it is an “obvious” truth and that you are sure that the whole world will take up the cause once they understand it–despite the fact that you cannot persuade even a small handful of bright and literate people to agree with you.
In the midst of your campaign, you have displayed an amazing ignorance of history, science, language, and sociology. You repeatedly fail to demonstrate the validity of your position, resorting to claims that “it is obvious” (nothing is obvious that cannot be described) and that you have “won” (when you have failed to persuade anyone to accept your nonsense).
I suspect that you are going to have a long row to hoe getting this silly idea into the world.