The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/f/forman.frank/1995/forman.0895


From forman@ix.netcom.com Tue Aug  1 08:20:58 PDT 1995
Article: 6938 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Regional Continuity vs. Out of Africa
Date: 31 Jul 1995 23:26:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 120
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3vjore$3vd@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3utdvf$gci@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>  <3uv5v8$28v@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>  <3vbs93$jmo@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vbvd7$kpv@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vdrlk$6vl@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <3ve3pb$j98@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vghep$n7u@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vgtc0$do1@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc7-23.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.revisionism:24782 alt.skinheads:18832 alt.politics.white-power:6938 alt.politics.nationalism.white:7135 alt.discrimination:26528

In <3vgtc0$do1@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> lsd@ix.netcom.com (Lane Singer)
writes: 
>
>In <3vghep$n7u@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank
>Forman) writes: 
>>>I am going to wait a few more months until _Science_ publishes a 
>>flock of letters on the May 26 article. It took that long for them 
>>to publish a similar flock on the "African Eve" (=mtDNA) studies of 
>>a few years ago. Indeed, the African Eve hypothesis went out of 
>>favor for a long time, though it seems that the May 26 article 
>>is going to bring it back. 
>
>Nonsense. It has been holding its own all along. The AAAS annual 
>conference was held in January, and the Out of Africa hypothesis was
>reigning supreme, even then. You paint an inaccurate picture. Is this
>intentional?

Not at all. I wasn't at the annual conference and missed the write-up
on it in _Science_. The issue I am raising is not just the "African
Eve" issue, but its interpretation and whether the second Out-of-Africa
wave totally exterminated all descendants from the first wave. I think
that issue is still up in the air. But, as I must not have made clear,
there were many letters to _Science_ bunched up together in one issue
that were critical of the "African Eve" article and I want to wait to
see what criticisms of the new "African Adam" article there might be. I
am in no hurry on this subject.

>>>And as for physiognomy - what are the prominent features of the 
>>>Neanderthal? Well, a large nose, for one. And, large brow ridges,
>>>which are something you have associated with Asians, have you not?
>>>But just taking the nose: How do you explain the large noses present
>>>in the new world population? The people who ventured into 
>>>the Americas
>>>came from Asia, not Europe, or do you dispute that?
>>
>>The big chart in Cavalli-Sforza, et al., _HGHG_, of genetic 
>>distances seems to support the idea that the American Indians 
>>have both Caucasoid and Mongoloid features. Evidently, a 
>>group of Caucasoids had migrated to far north-east Asia and
>>mixed with the Mongoloids there and that some of these mixed 
>>people crossed the Bering Strait.
>
>This is completely false, Frank. I have looked for this interpretation
>of yours, and it is absent. The trees on page 78 clearly show that
>the Amerind were 100% Asian. It's the Caucasians who were derived from
>the Asian branch. The Amerind are listed under the Northeast Asian
>branch, and they bear no European influence whatsoever.
>
>If there are genetic similarities between Asians and Europeans, that's
>because we are all so recently descended from the same stock: out of
>Africa.

I will look at the book again the next time I visit an academic
library. I may have remembered things wrong. If so, I thank you for
correcting me and will strive to be more careful in the future.

>>>Could it be, Frank, that there is a great deal of plasticity in
>>>the very physiognomical and pigmentation areas that are the +only
>>>differences that are manifest between "races"?
>>
>>Yes, up to the word "only" in the sentence: why should I suppose 
>>that other things like genes having to do with reasoning ability 
>>and hormones affecting temperament cannot also be selected 
>>for rapidly? I'd like to some actual evidence that the
>>physiognomy and pigmentation are special. 
>
>>Of course, the more rapidly things can evolve, the more likely 
>>that there will be racial differences. The issue for these 
>>political newsgroups is, again, whether
>>racial differences in brains are real and go a long way to 
>>explain the roughly one standard deviation on tests of 
>>intelligence.
>
>I offer you, here, a quote from HGHG:
>
>"Ripley was not to blame (Coon 1954) for the psychological taxonomy
>of European 'races,' which became very popular at the beginning of
>this century and forms one of the most ludicrous confusions among
>customs, culture, and genetics - in short, a perfect example of
>'scientific' racism."

This is not relevant to my question of the comparative rates of
evolution of the brain and other parts of the body. But I do feel that
Cavalli-Sforza is being unfair to Ripley. What he had done may seem
"ludicrous" now but could very well have been intelligent at the time.
He needs a little more Christian charity! Please take a look at Antonio
Damasio's splendid _Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human
Brain_ (NY: Putnam, 1994) and read his kind words for phrenology, of
all things. You might be interested to know that I attended a meeting
of the AAAS a few years ago and, at a session on dreams, I asked Alan
Hobson (Harvard) whether we should be bashing Freud for not
understanding the neurology of the 1990s. He said that was an excellent
question.

>To this I add the following: Speaking of the genetic variability
>since the first fissure (about 100kya), he states, "The total
>evolutionary time in this case is short, and only a few new
>mutations have occurred in its course."

But apparently enough to cause racial differences in physiognomy. So
why not for brains? This is the question I want answered.

>>Lastly, even if there are no biological reasons for differences in
>>scholastic and economic achievement, we would need a theory of
>>justice to mandate such things as affirmative action programs. 

>So your search for scientific justification for racism is all in an
>effort to derive justice?

You typed up this last sentence too quickly, because I can't figure it
out. I do say that if most of the differences in academic and economic
achievement between the races is due to genetic factors, then I cannot
see the warrant for affirmative action programs. But the obverse is not
true, namely it is not true that if there are no genetic reasons for
these differences, then affirmative action programs *are* warranted.
For that we need some additional justification. There are lots of
conservatives and libertarianswho believe the premise but not the
conclusion.

Frank


From forman@ix.netcom.com Tue Aug  1 08:51:22 PDT 1995
Article: 18832 of alt.skinheads
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Regional Continuity vs. Out of Africa
Date: 31 Jul 1995 23:26:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 120
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3vjore$3vd@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3utdvf$gci@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>  <3uv5v8$28v@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>  <3vbs93$jmo@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vbvd7$kpv@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vdrlk$6vl@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <3ve3pb$j98@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vghep$n7u@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vgtc0$do1@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc7-23.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.revisionism:24782 alt.skinheads:18832 alt.politics.white-power:6938 alt.politics.nationalism.white:7135 alt.discrimination:26528

In <3vgtc0$do1@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> lsd@ix.netcom.com (Lane Singer)
writes: 
>
>In <3vghep$n7u@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank
>Forman) writes: 
>>>I am going to wait a few more months until _Science_ publishes a 
>>flock of letters on the May 26 article. It took that long for them 
>>to publish a similar flock on the "African Eve" (=mtDNA) studies of 
>>a few years ago. Indeed, the African Eve hypothesis went out of 
>>favor for a long time, though it seems that the May 26 article 
>>is going to bring it back. 
>
>Nonsense. It has been holding its own all along. The AAAS annual 
>conference was held in January, and the Out of Africa hypothesis was
>reigning supreme, even then. You paint an inaccurate picture. Is this
>intentional?

Not at all. I wasn't at the annual conference and missed the write-up
on it in _Science_. The issue I am raising is not just the "African
Eve" issue, but its interpretation and whether the second Out-of-Africa
wave totally exterminated all descendants from the first wave. I think
that issue is still up in the air. But, as I must not have made clear,
there were many letters to _Science_ bunched up together in one issue
that were critical of the "African Eve" article and I want to wait to
see what criticisms of the new "African Adam" article there might be. I
am in no hurry on this subject.

>>>And as for physiognomy - what are the prominent features of the 
>>>Neanderthal? Well, a large nose, for one. And, large brow ridges,
>>>which are something you have associated with Asians, have you not?
>>>But just taking the nose: How do you explain the large noses present
>>>in the new world population? The people who ventured into 
>>>the Americas
>>>came from Asia, not Europe, or do you dispute that?
>>
>>The big chart in Cavalli-Sforza, et al., _HGHG_, of genetic 
>>distances seems to support the idea that the American Indians 
>>have both Caucasoid and Mongoloid features. Evidently, a 
>>group of Caucasoids had migrated to far north-east Asia and
>>mixed with the Mongoloids there and that some of these mixed 
>>people crossed the Bering Strait.
>
>This is completely false, Frank. I have looked for this interpretation
>of yours, and it is absent. The trees on page 78 clearly show that
>the Amerind were 100% Asian. It's the Caucasians who were derived from
>the Asian branch. The Amerind are listed under the Northeast Asian
>branch, and they bear no European influence whatsoever.
>
>If there are genetic similarities between Asians and Europeans, that's
>because we are all so recently descended from the same stock: out of
>Africa.

I will look at the book again the next time I visit an academic
library. I may have remembered things wrong. If so, I thank you for
correcting me and will strive to be more careful in the future.

>>>Could it be, Frank, that there is a great deal of plasticity in
>>>the very physiognomical and pigmentation areas that are the +only
>>>differences that are manifest between "races"?
>>
>>Yes, up to the word "only" in the sentence: why should I suppose 
>>that other things like genes having to do with reasoning ability 
>>and hormones affecting temperament cannot also be selected 
>>for rapidly? I'd like to some actual evidence that the
>>physiognomy and pigmentation are special. 
>
>>Of course, the more rapidly things can evolve, the more likely 
>>that there will be racial differences. The issue for these 
>>political newsgroups is, again, whether
>>racial differences in brains are real and go a long way to 
>>explain the roughly one standard deviation on tests of 
>>intelligence.
>
>I offer you, here, a quote from HGHG:
>
>"Ripley was not to blame (Coon 1954) for the psychological taxonomy
>of European 'races,' which became very popular at the beginning of
>this century and forms one of the most ludicrous confusions among
>customs, culture, and genetics - in short, a perfect example of
>'scientific' racism."

This is not relevant to my question of the comparative rates of
evolution of the brain and other parts of the body. But I do feel that
Cavalli-Sforza is being unfair to Ripley. What he had done may seem
"ludicrous" now but could very well have been intelligent at the time.
He needs a little more Christian charity! Please take a look at Antonio
Damasio's splendid _Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human
Brain_ (NY: Putnam, 1994) and read his kind words for phrenology, of
all things. You might be interested to know that I attended a meeting
of the AAAS a few years ago and, at a session on dreams, I asked Alan
Hobson (Harvard) whether we should be bashing Freud for not
understanding the neurology of the 1990s. He said that was an excellent
question.

>To this I add the following: Speaking of the genetic variability
>since the first fissure (about 100kya), he states, "The total
>evolutionary time in this case is short, and only a few new
>mutations have occurred in its course."

But apparently enough to cause racial differences in physiognomy. So
why not for brains? This is the question I want answered.

>>Lastly, even if there are no biological reasons for differences in
>>scholastic and economic achievement, we would need a theory of
>>justice to mandate such things as affirmative action programs. 

>So your search for scientific justification for racism is all in an
>effort to derive justice?

You typed up this last sentence too quickly, because I can't figure it
out. I do say that if most of the differences in academic and economic
achievement between the races is due to genetic factors, then I cannot
see the warrant for affirmative action programs. But the obverse is not
true, namely it is not true that if there are no genetic reasons for
these differences, then affirmative action programs *are* warranted.
For that we need some additional justification. There are lots of
conservatives and libertarianswho believe the premise but not the
conclusion.

Frank


From forman@ix.netcom.com Tue Aug  1 09:24:40 PDT 1995
Article: 24782 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Regional Continuity vs. Out of Africa
Date: 31 Jul 1995 23:26:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 120
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3vjore$3vd@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3utdvf$gci@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>  <3uv5v8$28v@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>  <3vbs93$jmo@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vbvd7$kpv@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vdrlk$6vl@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <3ve3pb$j98@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vghep$n7u@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vgtc0$do1@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc7-23.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.revisionism:24782 alt.skinheads:18832 alt.politics.white-power:6938 alt.politics.nationalism.white:7135 alt.discrimination:26528

In <3vgtc0$do1@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> lsd@ix.netcom.com (Lane Singer)
writes: 
>
>In <3vghep$n7u@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank
>Forman) writes: 
>>>I am going to wait a few more months until _Science_ publishes a 
>>flock of letters on the May 26 article. It took that long for them 
>>to publish a similar flock on the "African Eve" (=mtDNA) studies of 
>>a few years ago. Indeed, the African Eve hypothesis went out of 
>>favor for a long time, though it seems that the May 26 article 
>>is going to bring it back. 
>
>Nonsense. It has been holding its own all along. The AAAS annual 
>conference was held in January, and the Out of Africa hypothesis was
>reigning supreme, even then. You paint an inaccurate picture. Is this
>intentional?

Not at all. I wasn't at the annual conference and missed the write-up
on it in _Science_. The issue I am raising is not just the "African
Eve" issue, but its interpretation and whether the second Out-of-Africa
wave totally exterminated all descendants from the first wave. I think
that issue is still up in the air. But, as I must not have made clear,
there were many letters to _Science_ bunched up together in one issue
that were critical of the "African Eve" article and I want to wait to
see what criticisms of the new "African Adam" article there might be. I
am in no hurry on this subject.

>>>And as for physiognomy - what are the prominent features of the 
>>>Neanderthal? Well, a large nose, for one. And, large brow ridges,
>>>which are something you have associated with Asians, have you not?
>>>But just taking the nose: How do you explain the large noses present
>>>in the new world population? The people who ventured into 
>>>the Americas
>>>came from Asia, not Europe, or do you dispute that?
>>
>>The big chart in Cavalli-Sforza, et al., _HGHG_, of genetic 
>>distances seems to support the idea that the American Indians 
>>have both Caucasoid and Mongoloid features. Evidently, a 
>>group of Caucasoids had migrated to far north-east Asia and
>>mixed with the Mongoloids there and that some of these mixed 
>>people crossed the Bering Strait.
>
>This is completely false, Frank. I have looked for this interpretation
>of yours, and it is absent. The trees on page 78 clearly show that
>the Amerind were 100% Asian. It's the Caucasians who were derived from
>the Asian branch. The Amerind are listed under the Northeast Asian
>branch, and they bear no European influence whatsoever.
>
>If there are genetic similarities between Asians and Europeans, that's
>because we are all so recently descended from the same stock: out of
>Africa.

I will look at the book again the next time I visit an academic
library. I may have remembered things wrong. If so, I thank you for
correcting me and will strive to be more careful in the future.

>>>Could it be, Frank, that there is a great deal of plasticity in
>>>the very physiognomical and pigmentation areas that are the +only
>>>differences that are manifest between "races"?
>>
>>Yes, up to the word "only" in the sentence: why should I suppose 
>>that other things like genes having to do with reasoning ability 
>>and hormones affecting temperament cannot also be selected 
>>for rapidly? I'd like to some actual evidence that the
>>physiognomy and pigmentation are special. 
>
>>Of course, the more rapidly things can evolve, the more likely 
>>that there will be racial differences. The issue for these 
>>political newsgroups is, again, whether
>>racial differences in brains are real and go a long way to 
>>explain the roughly one standard deviation on tests of 
>>intelligence.
>
>I offer you, here, a quote from HGHG:
>
>"Ripley was not to blame (Coon 1954) for the psychological taxonomy
>of European 'races,' which became very popular at the beginning of
>this century and forms one of the most ludicrous confusions among
>customs, culture, and genetics - in short, a perfect example of
>'scientific' racism."

This is not relevant to my question of the comparative rates of
evolution of the brain and other parts of the body. But I do feel that
Cavalli-Sforza is being unfair to Ripley. What he had done may seem
"ludicrous" now but could very well have been intelligent at the time.
He needs a little more Christian charity! Please take a look at Antonio
Damasio's splendid _Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human
Brain_ (NY: Putnam, 1994) and read his kind words for phrenology, of
all things. You might be interested to know that I attended a meeting
of the AAAS a few years ago and, at a session on dreams, I asked Alan
Hobson (Harvard) whether we should be bashing Freud for not
understanding the neurology of the 1990s. He said that was an excellent
question.

>To this I add the following: Speaking of the genetic variability
>since the first fissure (about 100kya), he states, "The total
>evolutionary time in this case is short, and only a few new
>mutations have occurred in its course."

But apparently enough to cause racial differences in physiognomy. So
why not for brains? This is the question I want answered.

>>Lastly, even if there are no biological reasons for differences in
>>scholastic and economic achievement, we would need a theory of
>>justice to mandate such things as affirmative action programs. 

>So your search for scientific justification for racism is all in an
>effort to derive justice?

You typed up this last sentence too quickly, because I can't figure it
out. I do say that if most of the differences in academic and economic
achievement between the races is due to genetic factors, then I cannot
see the warrant for affirmative action programs. But the obverse is not
true, namely it is not true that if there are no genetic reasons for
these differences, then affirmative action programs *are* warranted.
For that we need some additional justification. There are lots of
conservatives and libertarianswho believe the premise but not the
conclusion.

Frank


From forman@ix.netcom.com Wed Aug  2 13:45:28 PDT 1995
Article: 24782 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Regional Continuity vs. Out of Africa
Date: 31 Jul 1995 23:26:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 120
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3vjore$3vd@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3utdvf$gci@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>  <3uv5v8$28v@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>  <3vbs93$jmo@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vbvd7$kpv@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vdrlk$6vl@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <3ve3pb$j98@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vghep$n7u@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vgtc0$do1@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc7-23.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.revisionism:24782 alt.skinheads:18832 alt.politics.white-power:6938 alt.politics.nationalism.white:7135 alt.discrimination:26528

In <3vgtc0$do1@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> lsd@ix.netcom.com (Lane Singer)
writes: 
>
>In <3vghep$n7u@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank
>Forman) writes: 
>>>I am going to wait a few more months until _Science_ publishes a 
>>flock of letters on the May 26 article. It took that long for them 
>>to publish a similar flock on the "African Eve" (=mtDNA) studies of 
>>a few years ago. Indeed, the African Eve hypothesis went out of 
>>favor for a long time, though it seems that the May 26 article 
>>is going to bring it back. 
>
>Nonsense. It has been holding its own all along. The AAAS annual 
>conference was held in January, and the Out of Africa hypothesis was
>reigning supreme, even then. You paint an inaccurate picture. Is this
>intentional?

Not at all. I wasn't at the annual conference and missed the write-up
on it in _Science_. The issue I am raising is not just the "African
Eve" issue, but its interpretation and whether the second Out-of-Africa
wave totally exterminated all descendants from the first wave. I think
that issue is still up in the air. But, as I must not have made clear,
there were many letters to _Science_ bunched up together in one issue
that were critical of the "African Eve" article and I want to wait to
see what criticisms of the new "African Adam" article there might be. I
am in no hurry on this subject.

>>>And as for physiognomy - what are the prominent features of the 
>>>Neanderthal? Well, a large nose, for one. And, large brow ridges,
>>>which are something you have associated with Asians, have you not?
>>>But just taking the nose: How do you explain the large noses present
>>>in the new world population? The people who ventured into 
>>>the Americas
>>>came from Asia, not Europe, or do you dispute that?
>>
>>The big chart in Cavalli-Sforza, et al., _HGHG_, of genetic 
>>distances seems to support the idea that the American Indians 
>>have both Caucasoid and Mongoloid features. Evidently, a 
>>group of Caucasoids had migrated to far north-east Asia and
>>mixed with the Mongoloids there and that some of these mixed 
>>people crossed the Bering Strait.
>
>This is completely false, Frank. I have looked for this interpretation
>of yours, and it is absent. The trees on page 78 clearly show that
>the Amerind were 100% Asian. It's the Caucasians who were derived from
>the Asian branch. The Amerind are listed under the Northeast Asian
>branch, and they bear no European influence whatsoever.
>
>If there are genetic similarities between Asians and Europeans, that's
>because we are all so recently descended from the same stock: out of
>Africa.

I will look at the book again the next time I visit an academic
library. I may have remembered things wrong. If so, I thank you for
correcting me and will strive to be more careful in the future.

>>>Could it be, Frank, that there is a great deal of plasticity in
>>>the very physiognomical and pigmentation areas that are the +only
>>>differences that are manifest between "races"?
>>
>>Yes, up to the word "only" in the sentence: why should I suppose 
>>that other things like genes having to do with reasoning ability 
>>and hormones affecting temperament cannot also be selected 
>>for rapidly? I'd like to some actual evidence that the
>>physiognomy and pigmentation are special. 
>
>>Of course, the more rapidly things can evolve, the more likely 
>>that there will be racial differences. The issue for these 
>>political newsgroups is, again, whether
>>racial differences in brains are real and go a long way to 
>>explain the roughly one standard deviation on tests of 
>>intelligence.
>
>I offer you, here, a quote from HGHG:
>
>"Ripley was not to blame (Coon 1954) for the psychological taxonomy
>of European 'races,' which became very popular at the beginning of
>this century and forms one of the most ludicrous confusions among
>customs, culture, and genetics - in short, a perfect example of
>'scientific' racism."

This is not relevant to my question of the comparative rates of
evolution of the brain and other parts of the body. But I do feel that
Cavalli-Sforza is being unfair to Ripley. What he had done may seem
"ludicrous" now but could very well have been intelligent at the time.
He needs a little more Christian charity! Please take a look at Antonio
Damasio's splendid _Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human
Brain_ (NY: Putnam, 1994) and read his kind words for phrenology, of
all things. You might be interested to know that I attended a meeting
of the AAAS a few years ago and, at a session on dreams, I asked Alan
Hobson (Harvard) whether we should be bashing Freud for not
understanding the neurology of the 1990s. He said that was an excellent
question.

>To this I add the following: Speaking of the genetic variability
>since the first fissure (about 100kya), he states, "The total
>evolutionary time in this case is short, and only a few new
>mutations have occurred in its course."

But apparently enough to cause racial differences in physiognomy. So
why not for brains? This is the question I want answered.

>>Lastly, even if there are no biological reasons for differences in
>>scholastic and economic achievement, we would need a theory of
>>justice to mandate such things as affirmative action programs. 

>So your search for scientific justification for racism is all in an
>effort to derive justice?

You typed up this last sentence too quickly, because I can't figure it
out. I do say that if most of the differences in academic and economic
achievement between the races is due to genetic factors, then I cannot
see the warrant for affirmative action programs. But the obverse is not
true, namely it is not true that if there are no genetic reasons for
these differences, then affirmative action programs *are* warranted.
For that we need some additional justification. There are lots of
conservatives and libertarianswho believe the premise but not the
conclusion.

Frank


From forman@ix.netcom.com Wed Aug  2 18:15:35 PDT 1995
Article: 7135 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Regional Continuity vs. Out of Africa
Date: 31 Jul 1995 23:26:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 120
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3vjore$3vd@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3utdvf$gci@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>  <3uv5v8$28v@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>  <3vbs93$jmo@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vbvd7$kpv@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vdrlk$6vl@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <3ve3pb$j98@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vghep$n7u@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vgtc0$do1@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc7-23.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.revisionism:24782 alt.skinheads:18832 alt.politics.white-power:6938 alt.politics.nationalism.white:7135 alt.discrimination:26528

In <3vgtc0$do1@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> lsd@ix.netcom.com (Lane Singer)
writes: 
>
>In <3vghep$n7u@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank
>Forman) writes: 
>>>I am going to wait a few more months until _Science_ publishes a 
>>flock of letters on the May 26 article. It took that long for them 
>>to publish a similar flock on the "African Eve" (=mtDNA) studies of 
>>a few years ago. Indeed, the African Eve hypothesis went out of 
>>favor for a long time, though it seems that the May 26 article 
>>is going to bring it back. 
>
>Nonsense. It has been holding its own all along. The AAAS annual 
>conference was held in January, and the Out of Africa hypothesis was
>reigning supreme, even then. You paint an inaccurate picture. Is this
>intentional?

Not at all. I wasn't at the annual conference and missed the write-up
on it in _Science_. The issue I am raising is not just the "African
Eve" issue, but its interpretation and whether the second Out-of-Africa
wave totally exterminated all descendants from the first wave. I think
that issue is still up in the air. But, as I must not have made clear,
there were many letters to _Science_ bunched up together in one issue
that were critical of the "African Eve" article and I want to wait to
see what criticisms of the new "African Adam" article there might be. I
am in no hurry on this subject.

>>>And as for physiognomy - what are the prominent features of the 
>>>Neanderthal? Well, a large nose, for one. And, large brow ridges,
>>>which are something you have associated with Asians, have you not?
>>>But just taking the nose: How do you explain the large noses present
>>>in the new world population? The people who ventured into 
>>>the Americas
>>>came from Asia, not Europe, or do you dispute that?
>>
>>The big chart in Cavalli-Sforza, et al., _HGHG_, of genetic 
>>distances seems to support the idea that the American Indians 
>>have both Caucasoid and Mongoloid features. Evidently, a 
>>group of Caucasoids had migrated to far north-east Asia and
>>mixed with the Mongoloids there and that some of these mixed 
>>people crossed the Bering Strait.
>
>This is completely false, Frank. I have looked for this interpretation
>of yours, and it is absent. The trees on page 78 clearly show that
>the Amerind were 100% Asian. It's the Caucasians who were derived from
>the Asian branch. The Amerind are listed under the Northeast Asian
>branch, and they bear no European influence whatsoever.
>
>If there are genetic similarities between Asians and Europeans, that's
>because we are all so recently descended from the same stock: out of
>Africa.

I will look at the book again the next time I visit an academic
library. I may have remembered things wrong. If so, I thank you for
correcting me and will strive to be more careful in the future.

>>>Could it be, Frank, that there is a great deal of plasticity in
>>>the very physiognomical and pigmentation areas that are the +only
>>>differences that are manifest between "races"?
>>
>>Yes, up to the word "only" in the sentence: why should I suppose 
>>that other things like genes having to do with reasoning ability 
>>and hormones affecting temperament cannot also be selected 
>>for rapidly? I'd like to some actual evidence that the
>>physiognomy and pigmentation are special. 
>
>>Of course, the more rapidly things can evolve, the more likely 
>>that there will be racial differences. The issue for these 
>>political newsgroups is, again, whether
>>racial differences in brains are real and go a long way to 
>>explain the roughly one standard deviation on tests of 
>>intelligence.
>
>I offer you, here, a quote from HGHG:
>
>"Ripley was not to blame (Coon 1954) for the psychological taxonomy
>of European 'races,' which became very popular at the beginning of
>this century and forms one of the most ludicrous confusions among
>customs, culture, and genetics - in short, a perfect example of
>'scientific' racism."

This is not relevant to my question of the comparative rates of
evolution of the brain and other parts of the body. But I do feel that
Cavalli-Sforza is being unfair to Ripley. What he had done may seem
"ludicrous" now but could very well have been intelligent at the time.
He needs a little more Christian charity! Please take a look at Antonio
Damasio's splendid _Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human
Brain_ (NY: Putnam, 1994) and read his kind words for phrenology, of
all things. You might be interested to know that I attended a meeting
of the AAAS a few years ago and, at a session on dreams, I asked Alan
Hobson (Harvard) whether we should be bashing Freud for not
understanding the neurology of the 1990s. He said that was an excellent
question.

>To this I add the following: Speaking of the genetic variability
>since the first fissure (about 100kya), he states, "The total
>evolutionary time in this case is short, and only a few new
>mutations have occurred in its course."

But apparently enough to cause racial differences in physiognomy. So
why not for brains? This is the question I want answered.

>>Lastly, even if there are no biological reasons for differences in
>>scholastic and economic achievement, we would need a theory of
>>justice to mandate such things as affirmative action programs. 

>So your search for scientific justification for racism is all in an
>effort to derive justice?

You typed up this last sentence too quickly, because I can't figure it
out. I do say that if most of the differences in academic and economic
achievement between the races is due to genetic factors, then I cannot
see the warrant for affirmative action programs. But the obverse is not
true, namely it is not true that if there are no genetic reasons for
these differences, then affirmative action programs *are* warranted.
For that we need some additional justification. There are lots of
conservatives and libertarianswho believe the premise but not the
conclusion.

Frank


From forman@ix.netcom.com Sat Aug  5 08:56:15 PDT 1995
Article: 25033 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Regional Continuity vs. Out of Africa
Date: 3 Aug 1995 22:24:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 32
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3vriaj$s05@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3utdvf$gci@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>  <3uv5v8$28v@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>  <3vbs93$jmo@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vbvd7$kpv@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vdrlk$6vl@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <3ve3pb$j98@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vghep$n7u@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vgtc0$do1@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <3vjore$3vd@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc10-13.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.revisionism:25033 alt.skinheads:19129 alt.politics.white-power:7184 alt.politics.nationalism.white:7326 alt.discrimination:26901

In  arish  writes:

>
>forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman) wrote:
> 
>>>
>>>In <3vghep$n7u@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank
>>>Forman) writes: 
>
>>But apparently enough to cause racial differences in physiognomy. So
>>why not for brains? This is the question I want answered.
>
>	Happening on this thread a bit late, I may have missed some
statements.  
>However, the following may be relevant. 
>While some physiogamy changes may involve one or a few genes (melanin 
>e.g.), brain development has been demonstrated to involved
multi-genetic 
>factors, all of which contribute to long evolutinary time scales in 
>advances.  This is not a simple matter of saying "look, there are 
>differenced in skin color, therefore there are differences in brain 
>size/function etc". This is exactly the kind of racist science that
>was practiced in the past.

Why can't selective pressures operate on many genes at the same time?

While differences in apprearance does not imply differences in brains,
I would like to see *positive* evidence that the various races are
equal in intelligence. I ran a thread on this several months ago, but
no one there at the time had any. Since you are new to these
discussions, perhaps you can furnish some.



From forman@ix.netcom.com Sat Aug  5 21:11:01 PDT 1995
Article: 7326 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Regional Continuity vs. Out of Africa
Date: 3 Aug 1995 22:24:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 32
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3vriaj$s05@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3utdvf$gci@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>  <3uv5v8$28v@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>  <3vbs93$jmo@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vbvd7$kpv@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vdrlk$6vl@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <3ve3pb$j98@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vghep$n7u@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vgtc0$do1@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <3vjore$3vd@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc10-13.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.revisionism:25033 alt.skinheads:19129 alt.politics.white-power:7184 alt.politics.nationalism.white:7326 alt.discrimination:26901

In  arish  writes:

>
>forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman) wrote:
> 
>>>
>>>In <3vghep$n7u@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank
>>>Forman) writes: 
>
>>But apparently enough to cause racial differences in physiognomy. So
>>why not for brains? This is the question I want answered.
>
>	Happening on this thread a bit late, I may have missed some
statements.  
>However, the following may be relevant. 
>While some physiogamy changes may involve one or a few genes (melanin 
>e.g.), brain development has been demonstrated to involved
multi-genetic 
>factors, all of which contribute to long evolutinary time scales in 
>advances.  This is not a simple matter of saying "look, there are 
>differenced in skin color, therefore there are differences in brain 
>size/function etc". This is exactly the kind of racist science that
>was practiced in the past.

Why can't selective pressures operate on many genes at the same time?

While differences in apprearance does not imply differences in brains,
I would like to see *positive* evidence that the various races are
equal in intelligence. I ran a thread on this several months ago, but
no one there at the time had any. Since you are new to these
discussions, perhaps you can furnish some.



From forman@ix.netcom.com Sat Aug  5 21:43:00 PDT 1995
Article: 7184 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Regional Continuity vs. Out of Africa
Date: 3 Aug 1995 22:24:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 32
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3vriaj$s05@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3utdvf$gci@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>  <3uv5v8$28v@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>  <3vbs93$jmo@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vbvd7$kpv@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vdrlk$6vl@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <3ve3pb$j98@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vghep$n7u@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vgtc0$do1@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <3vjore$3vd@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc10-13.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.revisionism:25033 alt.skinheads:19129 alt.politics.white-power:7184 alt.politics.nationalism.white:7326 alt.discrimination:26901

In  arish  writes:

>
>forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman) wrote:
> 
>>>
>>>In <3vghep$n7u@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank
>>>Forman) writes: 
>
>>But apparently enough to cause racial differences in physiognomy. So
>>why not for brains? This is the question I want answered.
>
>	Happening on this thread a bit late, I may have missed some
statements.  
>However, the following may be relevant. 
>While some physiogamy changes may involve one or a few genes (melanin 
>e.g.), brain development has been demonstrated to involved
multi-genetic 
>factors, all of which contribute to long evolutinary time scales in 
>advances.  This is not a simple matter of saying "look, there are 
>differenced in skin color, therefore there are differences in brain 
>size/function etc". This is exactly the kind of racist science that
>was practiced in the past.

Why can't selective pressures operate on many genes at the same time?

While differences in apprearance does not imply differences in brains,
I would like to see *positive* evidence that the various races are
equal in intelligence. I ran a thread on this several months ago, but
no one there at the time had any. Since you are new to these
discussions, perhaps you can furnish some.



From forman@ix.netcom.com Sat Aug  5 22:17:55 PDT 1995
Article: 7203 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!skypoint.com!news3.mr.net!mr.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Regional Continuity vs. Out of Africa
Date: 3 Aug 1995 22:42:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 121
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3vrjci$sbb@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3utdvf$gci@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>  <3uv5v8$28v@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>  <3vbs93$jmo@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vbvd7$kpv@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vdrlk$6vl@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <3ve3pb$j98@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vghep$n7u@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vgtc0$do1@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <3vjore$3vd@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vlfp2$29o@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc10-13.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.revisionism:25059 alt.skinheads:19146 alt.politics.white-power:7203 alt.politics.nationalism.white:7338 alt.discrimination:26919

In <3vlfp2$29o@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> lsd@ix.netcom.com (Lane Singer)
writes: 
>
>
>Frank Forman  writes:
>
>>I wasn't at the annual conference and missed the write-up
>>on it in _Science_. The issue I am raising is not just the "African
>>Eve" issue, but its interpretation and whether the 
>>second Out-of-Africa
>>wave totally exterminated all descendants from the first wave. I
think
>>that issue is still up in the air. But, as I must not have made
clear,
>>there were many letters to _Science_ bunched up together in one issue
>>that were critical of the "African Eve" article and I want to wait to
>>see what criticisms of the new "African Adam" 
>>article there might be. I
>>am in no hurry on this subject.
>
>The original African Eve study was performed almost 15 years ago.
>Are you talking about that? Since then the findings have been 
>duplicated in several studies: Maryellen Ruvolo of Harvard,
>using mtDNA; Tishkoff and Kidd of Yale, using nuclear DNA, to 
>name two.
>
>..
>>This is not relevant to my question of the comparative rates of
>>evolution of the brain and other parts of the body. ...

The issue, for me at least, is which African Eve theory is true. Is it
one in which her descendants exterminated all other humans, including
those in Africa? Is it one in which her descendants exterminated some
and mated with others? Could it be that her descendants left Africa
much earler and exterminated and/or mixed with homo erectus? The time
estimates have wide variability, and no one really knows that h.sap.
could not interbreed with h.erectus. 

>From HGHG:
>
>"Because genetic divergence was subject more to random than
>selective forces, much of the gradient of the human gene pool
>goes from west to east. The first principal component therefore
>extends in this direction and explains 35% of the total human
>variation, showing only moderate, if any, influence of climatic
>factors at the level of the nuclear genes investigated, but a
>greater influence on genetic factors involved in the adaptation <***
>of bodily surface characteristics which notoriously respond to <****
>climate. A dichotemy is thus observed between genetic data, and
>observations based on the physical constitution..."

I don't know what "first principal component means." I'd better go
study the book.

>[Singer]
>>>To this I add the following: Speaking of the genetic variability
>>>since the first fissure (about 100kya), he states, "The total
>>>evolutionary time in this case is short, and only a few new
>>>mutations have occurred in its course."
>>
>>But apparently enough to cause racial differences in physiognomy. So
>>why not for brains? This is the question I want answered.
>
>From coverage of the 1995 AAAS annual meeting in my local paper:
>---
>Cavalli-Sforza, in a recent book on human genetic diversity that
>synthesizes 50 years of research in population genetics, found
>such a wide range of genetic variation in bothe the African and
>non-African groups that it makes the conventional notion of race
>meaningless.
>
>In short, looks can be deceiving.

I still want to know about non-human animals in which there definitely
are races, those in which there are definitely not, and how humans fit
into the continuum. I did not find any discussion of the concept of
race in the book.

>"There are some superficial traits like skin color and body build,"
>Cavalli-forza said Sunday. "They are striking, and we notice them.
>That is what misleads us."

Aren't the differences between man and chimp also superficial? Again,
we really need some bases for comparision.

>[Forman]
>>>>Lastly, even if there are no biological reasons for differences in
>>>>scholastic and economic achievement, we would need a theory of
>>>>justice to mandate such things as affirmative action programs. 
>>
>>>So your search for scientific justification for racism is all in an
>>>effort to derive justice?
>>
>>You typed up this last sentence too quickly, because I can't figure
it
>>out. 
>
>I find it ironic that you would search for a scientific justification
>for discrimination, and state that you are pursuing it in the name
>of "a theory of justice to mandate such things as affirmative 
>action programs." It's the use of the word "justice" that seems
>out of place here.

I was thinking about the celebrated book by John Rawls, called _A
Theory of Justice_ (1971). This book was an attempt to replace
utilitarianism notions of justice with a Kantian one and, moreover, one
that all rational men would accept behind a "veil of ignorance," in
which they did not know their future position in society. The books
argued that rational men would chose a two-level concept of justice. At
the first level, men would choose maximum liberty for all. Once chosen,
they would choose, at the second level, that distribution of goods that
would make the least well-off people in society as well-off as
possible. This latter, known as the "maximin criterion," has gotten the
lion's share of the mountain of critical attention the book has
received.

But regardless of what I was thinking of, affirmative action programs
should have some sort of rationale in some theory about the nature of
justice.

Frank


From forman@ix.netcom.com Sat Aug  5 22:36:21 PDT 1995
Article: 19129 of alt.skinheads
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Regional Continuity vs. Out of Africa
Date: 3 Aug 1995 22:24:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 32
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3vriaj$s05@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3utdvf$gci@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>  <3uv5v8$28v@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>  <3vbs93$jmo@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vbvd7$kpv@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vdrlk$6vl@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <3ve3pb$j98@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vghep$n7u@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vgtc0$do1@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <3vjore$3vd@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc10-13.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.revisionism:25033 alt.skinheads:19129 alt.politics.white-power:7184 alt.politics.nationalism.white:7326 alt.discrimination:26901

In  arish  writes:

>
>forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman) wrote:
> 
>>>
>>>In <3vghep$n7u@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank
>>>Forman) writes: 
>
>>But apparently enough to cause racial differences in physiognomy. So
>>why not for brains? This is the question I want answered.
>
>	Happening on this thread a bit late, I may have missed some
statements.  
>However, the following may be relevant. 
>While some physiogamy changes may involve one or a few genes (melanin 
>e.g.), brain development has been demonstrated to involved
multi-genetic 
>factors, all of which contribute to long evolutinary time scales in 
>advances.  This is not a simple matter of saying "look, there are 
>differenced in skin color, therefore there are differences in brain 
>size/function etc". This is exactly the kind of racist science that
>was practiced in the past.

Why can't selective pressures operate on many genes at the same time?

While differences in apprearance does not imply differences in brains,
I would like to see *positive* evidence that the various races are
equal in intelligence. I ran a thread on this several months ago, but
no one there at the time had any. Since you are new to these
discussions, perhaps you can furnish some.



From forman@ix.netcom.com Sat Aug  5 22:36:33 PDT 1995
Article: 19146 of alt.skinheads
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!skypoint.com!news3.mr.net!mr.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Regional Continuity vs. Out of Africa
Date: 3 Aug 1995 22:42:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 121
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3vrjci$sbb@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3utdvf$gci@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>  <3uv5v8$28v@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>  <3vbs93$jmo@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vbvd7$kpv@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vdrlk$6vl@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <3ve3pb$j98@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vghep$n7u@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vgtc0$do1@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <3vjore$3vd@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vlfp2$29o@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc10-13.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.revisionism:25059 alt.skinheads:19146 alt.politics.white-power:7203 alt.politics.nationalism.white:7338 alt.discrimination:26919

In <3vlfp2$29o@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> lsd@ix.netcom.com (Lane Singer)
writes: 
>
>
>Frank Forman  writes:
>
>>I wasn't at the annual conference and missed the write-up
>>on it in _Science_. The issue I am raising is not just the "African
>>Eve" issue, but its interpretation and whether the 
>>second Out-of-Africa
>>wave totally exterminated all descendants from the first wave. I
think
>>that issue is still up in the air. But, as I must not have made
clear,
>>there were many letters to _Science_ bunched up together in one issue
>>that were critical of the "African Eve" article and I want to wait to
>>see what criticisms of the new "African Adam" 
>>article there might be. I
>>am in no hurry on this subject.
>
>The original African Eve study was performed almost 15 years ago.
>Are you talking about that? Since then the findings have been 
>duplicated in several studies: Maryellen Ruvolo of Harvard,
>using mtDNA; Tishkoff and Kidd of Yale, using nuclear DNA, to 
>name two.
>
>..
>>This is not relevant to my question of the comparative rates of
>>evolution of the brain and other parts of the body. ...

The issue, for me at least, is which African Eve theory is true. Is it
one in which her descendants exterminated all other humans, including
those in Africa? Is it one in which her descendants exterminated some
and mated with others? Could it be that her descendants left Africa
much earler and exterminated and/or mixed with homo erectus? The time
estimates have wide variability, and no one really knows that h.sap.
could not interbreed with h.erectus. 

>From HGHG:
>
>"Because genetic divergence was subject more to random than
>selective forces, much of the gradient of the human gene pool
>goes from west to east. The first principal component therefore
>extends in this direction and explains 35% of the total human
>variation, showing only moderate, if any, influence of climatic
>factors at the level of the nuclear genes investigated, but a
>greater influence on genetic factors involved in the adaptation <***
>of bodily surface characteristics which notoriously respond to <****
>climate. A dichotemy is thus observed between genetic data, and
>observations based on the physical constitution..."

I don't know what "first principal component means." I'd better go
study the book.

>[Singer]
>>>To this I add the following: Speaking of the genetic variability
>>>since the first fissure (about 100kya), he states, "The total
>>>evolutionary time in this case is short, and only a few new
>>>mutations have occurred in its course."
>>
>>But apparently enough to cause racial differences in physiognomy. So
>>why not for brains? This is the question I want answered.
>
>From coverage of the 1995 AAAS annual meeting in my local paper:
>---
>Cavalli-Sforza, in a recent book on human genetic diversity that
>synthesizes 50 years of research in population genetics, found
>such a wide range of genetic variation in bothe the African and
>non-African groups that it makes the conventional notion of race
>meaningless.
>
>In short, looks can be deceiving.

I still want to know about non-human animals in which there definitely
are races, those in which there are definitely not, and how humans fit
into the continuum. I did not find any discussion of the concept of
race in the book.

>"There are some superficial traits like skin color and body build,"
>Cavalli-forza said Sunday. "They are striking, and we notice them.
>That is what misleads us."

Aren't the differences between man and chimp also superficial? Again,
we really need some bases for comparision.

>[Forman]
>>>>Lastly, even if there are no biological reasons for differences in
>>>>scholastic and economic achievement, we would need a theory of
>>>>justice to mandate such things as affirmative action programs. 
>>
>>>So your search for scientific justification for racism is all in an
>>>effort to derive justice?
>>
>>You typed up this last sentence too quickly, because I can't figure
it
>>out. 
>
>I find it ironic that you would search for a scientific justification
>for discrimination, and state that you are pursuing it in the name
>of "a theory of justice to mandate such things as affirmative 
>action programs." It's the use of the word "justice" that seems
>out of place here.

I was thinking about the celebrated book by John Rawls, called _A
Theory of Justice_ (1971). This book was an attempt to replace
utilitarianism notions of justice with a Kantian one and, moreover, one
that all rational men would accept behind a "veil of ignorance," in
which they did not know their future position in society. The books
argued that rational men would chose a two-level concept of justice. At
the first level, men would choose maximum liberty for all. Once chosen,
they would choose, at the second level, that distribution of goods that
would make the least well-off people in society as well-off as
possible. This latter, known as the "maximin criterion," has gotten the
lion's share of the mountain of critical attention the book has
received.

But regardless of what I was thinking of, affirmative action programs
should have some sort of rationale in some theory about the nature of
justice.

Frank


From forman@ix.netcom.com Sun Aug  6 15:34:44 PDT 1995
Article: 25033 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Regional Continuity vs. Out of Africa
Date: 3 Aug 1995 22:24:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 32
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3vriaj$s05@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3utdvf$gci@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>  <3uv5v8$28v@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>  <3vbs93$jmo@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vbvd7$kpv@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vdrlk$6vl@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <3ve3pb$j98@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vghep$n7u@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vgtc0$do1@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <3vjore$3vd@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc10-13.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.revisionism:25033 alt.skinheads:19129 alt.politics.white-power:7184 alt.politics.nationalism.white:7326 alt.discrimination:26901

In  arish  writes:

>
>forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman) wrote:
> 
>>>
>>>In <3vghep$n7u@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank
>>>Forman) writes: 
>
>>But apparently enough to cause racial differences in physiognomy. So
>>why not for brains? This is the question I want answered.
>
>	Happening on this thread a bit late, I may have missed some
statements.  
>However, the following may be relevant. 
>While some physiogamy changes may involve one or a few genes (melanin 
>e.g.), brain development has been demonstrated to involved
multi-genetic 
>factors, all of which contribute to long evolutinary time scales in 
>advances.  This is not a simple matter of saying "look, there are 
>differenced in skin color, therefore there are differences in brain 
>size/function etc". This is exactly the kind of racist science that
>was practiced in the past.

Why can't selective pressures operate on many genes at the same time?

While differences in apprearance does not imply differences in brains,
I would like to see *positive* evidence that the various races are
equal in intelligence. I ran a thread on this several months ago, but
no one there at the time had any. Since you are new to these
discussions, perhaps you can furnish some.



From forman@ix.netcom.com Sun Aug  6 15:35:00 PDT 1995
Article: 25059 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!skypoint.com!news3.mr.net!mr.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Regional Continuity vs. Out of Africa
Date: 3 Aug 1995 22:42:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 121
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3vrjci$sbb@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3utdvf$gci@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>  <3uv5v8$28v@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>  <3vbs93$jmo@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vbvd7$kpv@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vdrlk$6vl@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <3ve3pb$j98@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vghep$n7u@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vgtc0$do1@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <3vjore$3vd@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vlfp2$29o@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc10-13.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.revisionism:25059 alt.skinheads:19146 alt.politics.white-power:7203 alt.politics.nationalism.white:7338 alt.discrimination:26919

In <3vlfp2$29o@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> lsd@ix.netcom.com (Lane Singer)
writes: 
>
>
>Frank Forman  writes:
>
>>I wasn't at the annual conference and missed the write-up
>>on it in _Science_. The issue I am raising is not just the "African
>>Eve" issue, but its interpretation and whether the 
>>second Out-of-Africa
>>wave totally exterminated all descendants from the first wave. I
think
>>that issue is still up in the air. But, as I must not have made
clear,
>>there were many letters to _Science_ bunched up together in one issue
>>that were critical of the "African Eve" article and I want to wait to
>>see what criticisms of the new "African Adam" 
>>article there might be. I
>>am in no hurry on this subject.
>
>The original African Eve study was performed almost 15 years ago.
>Are you talking about that? Since then the findings have been 
>duplicated in several studies: Maryellen Ruvolo of Harvard,
>using mtDNA; Tishkoff and Kidd of Yale, using nuclear DNA, to 
>name two.
>
>..
>>This is not relevant to my question of the comparative rates of
>>evolution of the brain and other parts of the body. ...

The issue, for me at least, is which African Eve theory is true. Is it
one in which her descendants exterminated all other humans, including
those in Africa? Is it one in which her descendants exterminated some
and mated with others? Could it be that her descendants left Africa
much earler and exterminated and/or mixed with homo erectus? The time
estimates have wide variability, and no one really knows that h.sap.
could not interbreed with h.erectus. 

>From HGHG:
>
>"Because genetic divergence was subject more to random than
>selective forces, much of the gradient of the human gene pool
>goes from west to east. The first principal component therefore
>extends in this direction and explains 35% of the total human
>variation, showing only moderate, if any, influence of climatic
>factors at the level of the nuclear genes investigated, but a
>greater influence on genetic factors involved in the adaptation <***
>of bodily surface characteristics which notoriously respond to <****
>climate. A dichotemy is thus observed between genetic data, and
>observations based on the physical constitution..."

I don't know what "first principal component means." I'd better go
study the book.

>[Singer]
>>>To this I add the following: Speaking of the genetic variability
>>>since the first fissure (about 100kya), he states, "The total
>>>evolutionary time in this case is short, and only a few new
>>>mutations have occurred in its course."
>>
>>But apparently enough to cause racial differences in physiognomy. So
>>why not for brains? This is the question I want answered.
>
>From coverage of the 1995 AAAS annual meeting in my local paper:
>---
>Cavalli-Sforza, in a recent book on human genetic diversity that
>synthesizes 50 years of research in population genetics, found
>such a wide range of genetic variation in bothe the African and
>non-African groups that it makes the conventional notion of race
>meaningless.
>
>In short, looks can be deceiving.

I still want to know about non-human animals in which there definitely
are races, those in which there are definitely not, and how humans fit
into the continuum. I did not find any discussion of the concept of
race in the book.

>"There are some superficial traits like skin color and body build,"
>Cavalli-forza said Sunday. "They are striking, and we notice them.
>That is what misleads us."

Aren't the differences between man and chimp also superficial? Again,
we really need some bases for comparision.

>[Forman]
>>>>Lastly, even if there are no biological reasons for differences in
>>>>scholastic and economic achievement, we would need a theory of
>>>>justice to mandate such things as affirmative action programs. 
>>
>>>So your search for scientific justification for racism is all in an
>>>effort to derive justice?
>>
>>You typed up this last sentence too quickly, because I can't figure
it
>>out. 
>
>I find it ironic that you would search for a scientific justification
>for discrimination, and state that you are pursuing it in the name
>of "a theory of justice to mandate such things as affirmative 
>action programs." It's the use of the word "justice" that seems
>out of place here.

I was thinking about the celebrated book by John Rawls, called _A
Theory of Justice_ (1971). This book was an attempt to replace
utilitarianism notions of justice with a Kantian one and, moreover, one
that all rational men would accept behind a "veil of ignorance," in
which they did not know their future position in society. The books
argued that rational men would chose a two-level concept of justice. At
the first level, men would choose maximum liberty for all. Once chosen,
they would choose, at the second level, that distribution of goods that
would make the least well-off people in society as well-off as
possible. This latter, known as the "maximin criterion," has gotten the
lion's share of the mountain of critical attention the book has
received.

But regardless of what I was thinking of, affirmative action programs
should have some sort of rationale in some theory about the nature of
justice.

Frank


From forman@ix.netcom.com Tue Aug  8 00:30:17 PDT 1995
Article: 30246 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!library.ucla.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Regional Continuity vs. Out of Africa
Date: 6 Aug 1995 00:29:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 195
Message-ID: <4012dm$omq@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3utdvf$gci@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>  <3uv5v8$28v@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>  <3vbs93$jmo@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vbvd7$kpv@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vdrlk$6vl@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <3ve3pb$j98@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vghep$n7u@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vgtc0$do1@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <3vjore$3vd@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vlfp2$29o@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <3vrjci$sbb@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <3vs9t0$lsp@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc9-12.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:30246 alt.skinheads:24713 alt.politics.white-power:11390 alt.politics.nationalism.white:11852 alt.discrimination:32951


Ending this thread is indeed a good
idea, as Lane suggests, for no one
is budging from his and/or her
position. My fundamental position
is that the work of Cavalli-Sforza,
et alia, _History and Geography of
Human Genes_, is not conclusive of
anything that has to do with White
Nationalism or discrimination.
Nevertheless, I thank Lane for
quoting _HGHG_ for us. 

I should point out that genetic
studies are only one aspect of
evolution, namely that of micro-
evolution. I've been reading a
splendid new book by John Brockman,
_The Third Culture: Beyond the
Scientific Revolution_, which
contains interviews of many
scientists and comments by many of
them on each of the ones
interviewed. Among them are Richard
Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould.
Dawkins is known for his belief
that evolution takes place only at
the level of individual genes,
whereas Gould thinks it takes place
at the level of the organism and
the species as well. This is one of
those debates that look like they
will never end. I know of no essay
or book that lays out the logic of
evolution, using the exact tools of
set theory and with the necessary
semantic assumptions that connect
the theoretical models to the
world, in order to resolve the
problem of units. This is probably
due to the lack of knowledge of
sets by most biologists or vice
versa among mathematicians.
Furthermore, when biologists use
mathematics, they often employ
equations resulting from modelling
equilibrium conditions. This
generates elegant results, but the
real action on the next level up (I
suspect) is where things do not
settle down into equilibrium or
deviate from it by chance.

This reliance on competitive
equilibrium models is certainly
true in my field, economics, and in
effect rules out creativity and
entrepreneurship from economics, as
not a few economists realize, in
fact. But it is very difficult to
mathematize non-equilibrium
conditions, so not very many
professors get tenure if they don't
publish. Innovation is possible in
the economy, since competition is
not "perfect," in other words. I
suspect also that *macro*-evolution
happens because biological
competition for genes is not
"perfect." Gould keeps hammering
that we have no really good theory
of *macro*-evolution, though it is
a major part of his life's goal to
supply one.

And how the great differences,
genera, order, and still higher up,
manage to take place is a further
great problem. Of course, we will
find correspondingly great
differences at the level of
individual genes, but this does not
explain morphology. Indeed, the
typical genetic distances
separating mere subspecies in some
parts of the animal kingdom is
greater than those between orders
in other parts. A fortiori,
microevolutionists, like C-S, may
not be able to tell, simply from
studies of genetic differences,
that humans and chimps cannot
interbreed! I add that the fossil
record (now this records
*macro*differences) cannot tell
specihood without further ado, for
we cannot bring fossils back to
life and try to interbreed them.
And what is called Anatomically
Modern Man (h.sap.sap.) may be
*genetically* close to early h.sap.
and even h.erectus. Anthropologists
distinguish among them on the basis
of *macro*features. The trick is to
combine genetic studies of living
men, adduce genetic trees from
them, make assumptions about the
rate of genetic divergence, and
come up with conclusions. But our
knowledge of the genetic structure
of fossils is not very good at
present (though this may change
with new technologies), and so
there is considerable room for
controversies.

All of us, of course, hope that
further studies will reduce the
domain of uncertainty, and this
certainly includes me. But, as
witnessed by the continuing debate
between Dawkins and Gould (I
personally like to side with Gould
here--though not with his writings
on the level of intelligence among
the races), a great deal of what is
basically philosophical analysis
needs to be done. And whatever
conclusions are reached by genetic
studies, I still want to know why
it is that we can *apparently*
trace geographic, or racial,
features running from h.erectus to
the present.

None of this has much bearing, so
far, on the discussion of racial
differences in intelligence, or
just observed differences among
human breeding groups in what seems
to be an ability to reason, however
vaguely defined. Those who maintain
that these differences do reflect
evolutionary histories may be
pleased that there were eons for
these differences to arise and so
might champion multi-regional
models, and those who oppose the
idea may champion Out-of-Africa
models *and* go on to maintain that
there was simply not enough time
for evolution to have affected a
one standard deviation difference
in innate intelligence.

Until and unless the opponents can
establish their case, esp. the part
that comes after the "*and*" in the
previous sentence, they will have
to come up with different
arguments. They will have to
explain how it is that black Iqs
have remained one sd behind whites
for eighty years and why it is that
this same one sd gap is present
even before schooling has begun.
(This is all reported by the
article on race in Robert
Sternberg, ed., _Encyclopedia of
Human Intelligence_ (NY: Macmillan,
1994). This article was written by
Arthur Jensen, but Sternberg is a
liberal who has made public attacks
on _The Bell Curve_ and other such
books, while quietly allowing
Jensen his say in a work he has
edited. I've had the pleasure of
seeing Jensen and Howard Gardner,
another liberal, give papers at the
same seminar at an A.A.A.S.
convention.)

Of course, even if the differences
in intelligence between blacks and
whites should turn out to be
environmental (evidently *before*
schooling has begun), it is not
obvious why the coercive power of
the state should be employed in
eroding freedom of contract with
anti-discrimination laws, to say
nothing of affirmative action
programs and the like.

Frank


From forman@ix.netcom.com Tue Aug  8 23:15:20 PDT 1995
Article: 30539 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Head Jew Contradicts himself
Date: 8 Aug 1995 23:11:39 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <408qvb$j3a@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
References: <400gmt$55a@clam.rutgers.edu>   <405gag$t5g@bell.maths.tcd.ie>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc11-20.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.politics.nationalism.white:12069 alt.discrimination:33330 alt.revisionism:30539

Derek,
    It's very clear to me that Les is making fun of
the hypocrisy he sees among Jews. They are supposed
to be liberal and yet don't allow women preachers. But
Roman Catholics and Mahometans don't pretend to be
liberals, so their not allowing women preachers is
not an act of hypocrisy.
    I don't know what Les' religion is, or whether
he has one, or whether he thinks women should be
preachers. I would prefer that no one of *either*
sex be preachers, so that there would be no preachers
at all. All religions are false.
    Now you could have pointed out that not all Jews
are liberal or pretend to be liberal. But somehow I
think Les knows this. Question for you, Sir, do
Reform Jews regularly urge Orthodox Jews to change
their ways and allow women preachers? Or do they
more or less leave them alone? If the latter, do
have an explanation.

Frank
(Your post below for reference)

In <405gag$t5g@bell.maths.tcd.ie> dbell@maths.tcd.ie (Derek Bell)
writes: 
>
>bn946@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Les Griswold) writes:
>>Ha ha ha!!!  Has anyone ever DENIED the Muslims are gynephobes?  Oh,
the
>>stories I could relate about the Koran...
>
>	The poster singled out a Rabbi for criticism, yet were that
poster
>to be consistent then Muslims would have been criticised for not
allowing
>women Kadis.
>
>>> BTW, are women allowed to be Catholic priests? 
>>But... but didn't Catholics BURN jews during the Inquisition?  Why
defend
>>the practices of your "faith" by comparing it to a faith that
persecuted
>>your ancestors?  
>
>	The poster who started this thread only criticised a Rabbi for
>opposing a woman rabbi; for some reason the Catholic church escaped
criticism
>whereas the Catholic church has *no* women priests, yet there are
women Rabbis.
>
>>Ah, does their duplicity know no bounds?
>
>	Take that bucket off your head, Les; it helps to actually see
what
>you're following-up to.
>
>	Derek Bell
>-- 
>Derek Bell  dbell@maths.tcd.ie  WWW:
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/index.html
> Death confronts us not unlike the historical battle scene that hangs
on the
>   wall of the classroom. It is our task to obscure or quite
obliterate the
>        picture by our deeds while we are still in this world. - Kafka



From forman@ix.netcom.com Tue Aug  8 23:15:44 PDT 1995
Article: 30556 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: What Does Racial Superiority Mean?
Date: 8 Aug 1995 23:31:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <408s5a$jjv@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3utdvf$gci@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>  <3uv5v8$28v@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>  <3vbs93$jmo@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vbvd7$kpv@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vdrlk$6vl@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <3ve3pb$j98@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vghep$n7u@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vgtc0$do1@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <3vjore$3vd@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>  <3vukb6$2jo@jobes.sierra.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc11-20.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:30556 alt.skinheads:25028 alt.politics.white-power:11641 alt.politics.nationalism.white:12081 alt.discrimination:33345

In <3vukb6$2jo@jobes.sierra.net> orion@sierra.net (L B Olson) writes: 
>
>arish  wrote:
>>	But as you state, "You would need both strong selection pressure
and
>>good food supplies to get smarter brains." Thus other adaptations
which 
>>cropped up, may have required less selective pressure, press=
>>ure which, while not enough to start the route to smarter brains,
were 
>>enough to start the route to these changes.  It may or may not be
more 
>>difficult to "evolve" a smarter brain, but it is easier to make
certain=
>>adaptations.  (e.g. When the sun caused changes in the survival of
certain 
>>groups, they could have a) devised means to block the sun and ensure
their 
>>survival (which may equate to smarter brains) or b) change certain 
>>metabolic enzymes such that they are now protected.(not necessarily
due to 
>>smarter brains)
>
>>Ras Arish
>
>That's a good description of one process; we were walking long before
we
>got smart. It's doubtful that ever have without free hands - upright
>gait is not smarts, but it started us on that path, as you say. The
>point I make though: Modern humans already know how to grow large
>cerebrums. That's the human specialty. To meet the selective pressure
of
>pre-civil society, we developed just as much of that mass as was
>required to do our symbolic logic. That pressure would have to weigh
>hard against other uses for all those calories, such as for making
more
>babies. There is a dynamic equlibrium there. It may not be
particularly
>difficult or time consuming (in evolutionary terms) to increase
>intelligence, given hard environmental pressure and a large caloric
>benefit by doing so.
>
>So there is this supposition: There may not be much coding involved in
>increasing intelligence, or more accurately, a heritable ability to
>learn kinds of skills more easily. That supposition meets the race
>argument. There's no reason to think that this isn't the real
situation
>- it would explain the IQ scoring quite well. Not that one race is
>inherently superior, but that they cognitively adapted to somewhat
>different survival requirements. People fear that idea sure enough,
but
>it is only has consequences now in the modern world, in which
>individuals of different races are living and competing together
>directly under the same rules.
>
>If this is crackpot, I'd like to know why.

I see nothing crackpot with what you say, but
I do wonder what you mean when you deny the
superiority of some races over others *in the
present*. I see it get denounced all the time,
but I'm not sure what it is that is being
denounced.

I ran a thread a few months ago (which I saved
but can't send you, since my hard disk was
destroyed by a power surge) called, "What Are
the Race Deniers Denying?" No one really seemed
to know, that is no one could show examples of
species that everyone agrees are divided into
races, other species where everyone agrees said
division makes no sense, and then show where
humans fall in on this spectrum.

My motive in asking this question, as always, is
to get people to think. There is a lot more of you
than there is of me; so rather than I telling you
what to think, I'll let you all tell me.

Frank



From forman@ix.netcom.com Tue Aug  8 23:15:53 PDT 1995
Article: 30562 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Regional Continuity vs. Out of Africa
Date: 8 Aug 1995 23:33:20 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 5
Message-ID: <408s80$jm5@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3utdvf$gci@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>  <3uv5v8$28v@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>  <3vbs93$jmo@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vbvd7$kpv@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vdrlk$6vl@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <3ve3pb$j98@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vghep$n7u@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3vgtc0$do1@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <3vjore$3vd@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>  <3vukb6$2jo@jobes.sierra.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc11-20.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:30562 alt.skinheads:25032 alt.politics.white-power:11646 alt.politics.nationalism.white:12084 alt.discrimination:33348

I have posted a reply to this, starting a new
thread, "What Does Racial Superiority Mean?"
See you there.

Frank


From forman@ix.netcom.com Fri Aug 11 11:15:30 PDT 1995
Article: 31057 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: The Jews
Date: 12 Aug 1995 15:11:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <40igap$8d2@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
References: <400p9t$okt@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> <408m0r$pmh@bell.maths.tcd.ie>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc8-11.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:31057 alt.politics.nationalism.white:12311 alt.politics.white-power:11967

In <408m0r$pmh@bell.maths.tcd.ie> dbell@maths.tcd.ie (Derek Bell)
writes: 
>
>Aryan Crusader  writes:
>>Well, folks, I'm still working on my essay about the Jews.
>
>	I'm sure that the world of scholarship is holding its collective
>breath - not!
>
>>I've looked and looked, and I can't find anything against Jews in
general (I 
>>don't accept John 8:44).  The only argument against them, as a group,
is 
>>that they are genetically or culturally incompatible with Western 
>>Christian civilization.  However, Ygg reports that they have a 70% 
>>intermarriage (race-mixing) rate, which has or will soon alter any 
>>genetic incompatibility. 
>
>	"Genetically or culturally incompatible"? Where did you get that
from??
>As for Yggdrasil, I would take what he says with several tonnes of
NaCl.
>
>	You are preoccupied with genes!
>
>	Where is Yggdrasil anyway?
>
>>My preliminary conclusion, then, is that Jews are not a problem, only
a 
>>few elites -- elites even among the Jewish population.  I suspect
that 
>>when my comrades speak of the "Jewish problem" they are refering to 
>>these elites.  If I am wrong, I would appreciate someone pointing out
my 
>>error.
>
>	Well, none of the following have a name that is remotely
>stereotypically Jewish: Clinton, Gore, Bush, Quayle, Reagan, Carter,
Ford,
>Nixon, Agnew, Johnson, Kennedy.
>
>	Or are you talking about the Illuminati? Fnord!!!
>
>>But if I'm right, then I suggest a new strategy for combatting these 
>>enemies of White America.  Publicly, we should only refer to them by 
>>name, not race.  If I write that Abe Cooper, Laurence Tisch, and Dave
>>Strassler are teaming up to destroy America and say why, people might
>>listen. 

>	Yeah, you may even get sued by the people you name!!!
>	That may not be such a bad idea! Say what you like about them,
I'm
>sure the lawsuits will make life very interesting for you!
>
>>But if I write that ZOG is destroying America and say why, people
>>will pre-judge me as a raving anti-semite.
>
>	No shit?!!
>
>>Please give me some feedback on this one.
>
>	You're a raving anti-semite.

Reuben sounds to *me* that he is an
ex-raving anti-semite, or well maybe an
raving ex-anti-semite. He is now
renouncing the idea that the perfidy of
Jews is in their genes and that, indeed,
the real interests of Jews are being betrayed
by both their own supposed leaders and
some so-far unnamed global elite that
consists of both Jews and Gentiles.
He should drop mention of ZOG and
use S-FUGOG for now and a better name
when he does name the group. Or better
yet, speak of misty things like
Zeitgeist or "climate of opinion" rather
than personifications like Occupational
Gummint.

The moral is that it takes a while for
a raving ex-anti-semite to shed all his
old terminology, like ZOG, and develop
new ones. Or if he becomes an
ex-raver, to see the world more in
impersonal processes than in conspiracies.

As for his preoccupation with genes, you'd
better ask him that again.

Frank


From forman@ix.netcom.com Fri Aug 11 11:15:39 PDT 1995
Article: 31062 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Adolf Hitler - Racist?
Date: 12 Aug 1995 15:35:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <40ihn7$kk3@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
References: <807920465snz@abaron.demon.co.uk> <40c7n7$9t0@rover.ucs.ualberta.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc8-11.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:31062 alt.politics.nationalism.white:12312 alt.politics.white-power:11968

My server has evidently not delivered all the
postings on this thread, but it seems to me
that we need agreement on the meaning of 
"racist." In the last quote from Hitler,
he says he is free of racial hatred but that
he is opposed to racial intermarriage. I
take this to mean that he thinks man's
divisions into races is a splendid thing. So
this makes him pro-race. On this account,
someone who wanted to exterminate all races
but one would not be a racist, as would someone
who wanted to make the world into one race by
repeated race-mixing.

You may be confusing racism with a belief in
the superiority of one particular race. That is
quite compatible with wanting other races on
the globe.

Question for you: why is "the present enemy the
white racists and nationalists"? And enemy to
whom? I think the greatest enemy *to* lovers of
big gummint are the folks who are inventing
methods of encryptioning the transfer of money
so that tax collectors can't get their cotton-
pickin' hands on it. How nationalists could
have a nation without taxes is beyond me.

Frank
[message reproduced below, unchanged]



In <40c7n7$9t0@rover.ucs.ualberta.ca> jmorris@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (John
Morris) writes: 
>
>I feel certain that many of our white racist and nationalist readers
>have put up with Alexander Baron's maunderings, since they keep me and
>my kind busy trying to keep the historical record straight rather than
>dealing with the present enemy, you, the white racists and
>nationalists. Nevertheless it is beyond me why you put up with what,
>in a peculiar way, are his slanderous attacks on Adolf Hitler.
>
>Are you really going to let him get away with characterizing Hitler as
>some kind of liberal multiculturalist?
>
>Alexander Baron  wrote:
>
>>"The white races did, of course, give some things to the natives, 
>>and they were the worst gifts that they could possibly have made, 
>>those plagues of our own modern world - materialism,  fanaticism, 
>>alcoholism  and syphilis. For the rest, since these peoples  pos-
>>sessed qualities of their own which were superior to anything  we 
>>could offer them, they have remained essentially unchanged. Where 
>>imposition  by  force was attempted, the results were  even  more 
>>disastrous...One solitary success must be conceded to the coloni-
>>zers: everywhere they have succeeded in arousing hatred..." 
>>Adolf Hitler February 7th 1945   
>
>
>
>>"For us, Japan will always remain an ally and a friend. This  war 
>>will  teach us to appreciate and respect her more than  ever.  It 
>>will encourage us to draw more tightly the bonds which unite  our 
>>two countries." Adolf Hitler 18th February, 1945
>
>
>>"...I promise you I am quite free of all racial hatred. It is, in 
>>any case, undesirable that one race should mix with other  races. 
>>Except  for  a few gratuitous successes, which I am  prepared  to 
>>admit,   systematic  cross-breeding  has  never   produced   good 
>>results...Pride in one's own race - and that does not imply  con-
>>tempt for other races - is also a normal and healthy sentiment. I 
>>have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior 
>>to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilizations, and I  freely 
>>admit  that their past history is superior to our own. They  have 
>>the  right  to be proud of their own past, just as  we  have  the 
>>right to be proud of the civilization to which we belong."  Adolf 
>>Hitler, 13th February, 1945
>
>--
> John Morris                              

> at University of Alberta     
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
- 
> The Nizkor Project: An Electronic Holocaust Resource
>  File archives - ftp://ftp.almanac.bc.ca
>  Web page - http://nizkor.almanac.bc.ca
>



From forman@ix.netcom.com Fri Aug 11 11:15:46 PDT 1995
Article: 31066 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Head Jew Contradicts himself
Date: 12 Aug 1995 16:42:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 173
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <40illo$m29@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
References: <400gmt$55a@clam.rutgers.edu>  
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc8-11.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.politics.nationalism.white:12314 alt.discrimination:33722 alt.revisionism:31066

In  bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
writes: 
>
>
>From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
>>Derek,
>>    It's very clear to me that Les is making fun of
>>the hypocrisy he sees among Jews. They are supposed
>>to be liberal and yet don't allow women preachers.
>
>Well, since Judaism doesn't have any "preachers"...

I'm just using this as a generic word to cover
rabbis, pastors, ministers, mullahs, whatever.

>As I understand it Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism allows female
>rabbis.
>
>You're making the common error of assuming Judaism speaks with one
>voice, methinks.
>
>The original post you are responding to quoted one particular rabbi as
>not accepting female rabbis. Now, you can certainly find many rabbis
>who would go along on that point, no argument. But I think you are
>generalizing just a bit much with "they are supposed to be liberal..."
>There are plenty of such "liberals" within judaism.

You are confusing what I said and what I was
attributing to Les, which was that Les was
seeing hypocrisy.

>>But
>>Roman Catholics and Mahometans don't pretend to be
>>liberals, so their not allowing women preachers is
>>not an act of hypocrisy.
>
>Nor is that comment by that rabbi particularly hypocritical...
>
>Where did you get this "liberal" idea. It seems to me you set up a
>strawman and knocked it down. I'd hardly describe the views, eg, of
>orthodox jews as "liberal".

Again, this is something I attributed to Les.
However, I think about 2/3 of the American
Jewish electorate votes for Democratic candidates.
This is higher than any other group, except blacks,
I believe.

>>    I don't know what Les' religion is, or whether
>>he has one, or whether he thinks womenFrom: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Head Jew Contradicts himself
References: <400gmt$55a@clam.rutgers.edu>  

In  bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
writes: 
>
>
>From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
>>Derek,
>>    It's very clear to me that Les is making fun of
>>the hypocrisy he sees among Jews. They are supposed
>>to be liberal and yet don't allow women preachers.
>
>Well, since Judaism doesn't have any "preachers"...

I'm just using this as a generic word to cover
rabbis, pastors, ministers, mullahs, whatever.

>As I understand it Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism allows female
>rabbis.
>
>You're making the common error of assuming Judaism speaks with one
>voice, methinks.
>
>The original post you are responding to quoted one particular rabbi as
>not accepting female rabbis. Now, you can certainly find many rabbis
>who would go along on that point, no argument. But I think you are
>generalizing just a bit much with "they are supposed to be liberal..."
>There are plenty of such "liberals" within judaism.

You are confusing what I said and what I was
attributing to Les, which was that Les was
seeing hypocrisy.

>>But
>>Roman Catholics and Mahometans don't pretend to be
>>liberals, so their not allowing women preachers is
>>not an act of hypocrisy.
>
>Nor is that comment by that rabbi particularly hypocritical...
>
>Where did you get this "liberal" idea. It seems to me you set up a
>strawman and knocked it down. I'd hardly describe the views, eg, of
>orthodox jews as "liberal".

Again, this is something I attributed to Les.
However, I think about 2/3 of the American
Jewish electorate votes for Democratic candidates.
This is higher than any other group, except blacks,
I believe.

>>    I don't know what Les' religion is, or whether
>>he has one, or whether he thinks women otherwise why would they each do what they do?) But I
>don't believe either claims any authority over the other.

I don't make that mistake, but it is an easy
one to make. The reason has to do with the
way Protestants view Catholics. For a Prot, he
himself, or any backwoods preacher (here I am
using the term correctly!), knows just as
much about first and last things as the Pope.
(This view is correct, since they all know
exactly nothing.) But more than this, it is
appalling to a Protestant who takes his
religion seriously that anyone should
surrender the truth about ghostly matters
to some outside authority. This is because
Protestants are individualists. My own
atheism is, in a way, just an extreme form
of Protestantism.

But for Catholics, the Bible is not what
the invividual believer makes out of it but
what the authorities say it means. And
Catholicism does indeed have a hierarchy,
culminating in the Pope. Now Judaism is
like Catholicism, in that the believer
likewise must rely on authorities to 
interpret his Bible. These authorities are
coded in the Talmud, and the Talmud's Talmud,
and so on, endlessly. A Jew, like a Catholic,
is not allowed to just do things on his own.

So it seems that Judaism, which certainly has
plenty of interpreters scribbling away, also
is organized hierarchically and culminates
in a Head Rabbi, who may or may not be part
of a group called the Elders of Zion, the
counterpart to the Catholic College of
Cardinals. (I may be on to something here.)

I am not clear how Judaism *was* organized
before Reform Judaism came into being, in
this country or in the world as a whole. An
Orthodox friend tells me that if he has some
problem (say, over exactly what constitutes
work on the Sabbath), he just takes it to a
rabbi, from whom there is no appeal. But,
he says, he is free to pick the rabbi. I 
asked him, why not pick the rabbi that would
give him the answer he wanted. He said you
have to be honest with yourself.

I may have misunderstood him, and perhaps he
doesn't understand how Orthodox Jewry is
organized all that well. But, in any case,
it is natural to conclude that, as long as
the individual cannot decide theological
matters on his own, the opposite extreme
holds, namely that there is a hierarchically-
organized Church that culminates in a
central figure.

>It's hard to fathom your point, I think maybe you're squeezing the
>situation a bit too hard.

You are probably right. I was just trying to
see things from Les' perspective, but I think
I've added some thoughts of interest in
general.

Frank


From forman@ix.netcom.com Fri Aug 11 15:34:01 PDT 1995
Article: 31072 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: What Does Racial Superiority Mean?
Date: 12 Aug 1995 17:22:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <40io13$mbk@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
References: <408s5a$jjv@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <408uot$m8g@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc8-11.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:31072 alt.skinheads:25354 alt.politics.white-power:11974 alt.politics.nationalism.white:12318 alt.discrimination:33727

I'm trying to find out what the *concept*
of racial superiority is all about, not
which races are superior to which other
races. The latter is what the discussants
so far have been up to.

As far as my being done in with my "obsession"
with race, it is happening awfully slowly.

It seems to me that there is now in the world
a critical mass of creative scientists to
make genetic engineering a reality. Neither the
liberals nor the goddam Christians are going
to be able to stop parents from upgrading
their children, bit by bit. So race, while
important in the past and important in the
present, as far as explaining achievement
goes, it is not going to matter in the future.

But that is a couple of hundred years off.
In the meantime, we have the sceptre of lots
of dumb kids being born who will more and more
find no productive place in society. These
kids are concentrated more in some races than
in others. I may be wrong in thinking that
it is biology that primarily accounts for
the uneveness life's rewards, but no one has
any proposals about *HOW* to alter the
environment to even out the inequality.
Sure, there are lots of proposals to spend
more money on schools, say, but these proposals
are not backed-up with arguments that they
will work.

Whatever the source of racial differences in
achievement, the only feasible solution to
the very real human misery that comes about
>from  being marginal to productive society--
no not solution, but rather reduction--is
for certain groups to cut down on their
births.

As usual, if anyone has a different solution,
I want to hear about it.

Frank


From forman@ix.netcom.com Fri Aug 11 15:34:10 PDT 1995
Article: 31079 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Jewish Hell
Date: 12 Aug 1995 18:46:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <40isth$bbq@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3vc2f4$lua@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3vpfbf$rgt@pipe2.nyc.pipeline.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc8-11.ix.netcom.com

In <3vpfbf$rgt@pipe2.nyc.pipeline.com> donald05@nyc.pipeline.com
(Donald Moffitt) writes: 
>
>On 29 Jul 1995 in article , 'forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank
>Forman)' wrote: 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>>Quick question: what was the major group of reptiles to come into
being 
>>after the Age of Mammals got under way? I had to look it up! 
>> 
>>Frank 
>> 
>> 
>The Jukes, the Callicutts and the Griswolds? 
> 
>Donald Moffitt 
>---Remarkable discovery by Les Griswold, White Trash Idiot Child: 
Adolf
>Hitler was tall, blond, blue-eyed and Nordic, and died a fighting
man's
>death. 
> 
Dunno your reference source, but the Encyclopaedia Britannica
says snakes.

Frank


From forman@ix.netcom.com Fri Aug 11 15:58:00 PDT 1995
Article: 12311 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: The Jews
Date: 12 Aug 1995 15:11:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <40igap$8d2@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
References: <400p9t$okt@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> <408m0r$pmh@bell.maths.tcd.ie>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc8-11.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:31057 alt.politics.nationalism.white:12311 alt.politics.white-power:11967

In <408m0r$pmh@bell.maths.tcd.ie> dbell@maths.tcd.ie (Derek Bell)
writes: 
>
>Aryan Crusader  writes:
>>Well, folks, I'm still working on my essay about the Jews.
>
>	I'm sure that the world of scholarship is holding its collective
>breath - not!
>
>>I've looked and looked, and I can't find anything against Jews in
general (I 
>>don't accept John 8:44).  The only argument against them, as a group,
is 
>>that they are genetically or culturally incompatible with Western 
>>Christian civilization.  However, Ygg reports that they have a 70% 
>>intermarriage (race-mixing) rate, which has or will soon alter any 
>>genetic incompatibility. 
>
>	"Genetically or culturally incompatible"? Where did you get that
from??
>As for Yggdrasil, I would take what he says with several tonnes of
NaCl.
>
>	You are preoccupied with genes!
>
>	Where is Yggdrasil anyway?
>
>>My preliminary conclusion, then, is that Jews are not a problem, only
a 
>>few elites -- elites even among the Jewish population.  I suspect
that 
>>when my comrades speak of the "Jewish problem" they are refering to 
>>these elites.  If I am wrong, I would appreciate someone pointing out
my 
>>error.
>
>	Well, none of the following have a name that is remotely
>stereotypically Jewish: Clinton, Gore, Bush, Quayle, Reagan, Carter,
Ford,
>Nixon, Agnew, Johnson, Kennedy.
>
>	Or are you talking about the Illuminati? Fnord!!!
>
>>But if I'm right, then I suggest a new strategy for combatting these 
>>enemies of White America.  Publicly, we should only refer to them by 
>>name, not race.  If I write that Abe Cooper, Laurence Tisch, and Dave
>>Strassler are teaming up to destroy America and say why, people might
>>listen. 

>	Yeah, you may even get sued by the people you name!!!
>	That may not be such a bad idea! Say what you like about them,
I'm
>sure the lawsuits will make life very interesting for you!
>
>>But if I write that ZOG is destroying America and say why, people
>>will pre-judge me as a raving anti-semite.
>
>	No shit?!!
>
>>Please give me some feedback on this one.
>
>	You're a raving anti-semite.

Reuben sounds to *me* that he is an
ex-raving anti-semite, or well maybe an
raving ex-anti-semite. He is now
renouncing the idea that the perfidy of
Jews is in their genes and that, indeed,
the real interests of Jews are being betrayed
by both their own supposed leaders and
some so-far unnamed global elite that
consists of both Jews and Gentiles.
He should drop mention of ZOG and
use S-FUGOG for now and a better name
when he does name the group. Or better
yet, speak of misty things like
Zeitgeist or "climate of opinion" rather
than personifications like Occupational
Gummint.

The moral is that it takes a while for
a raving ex-anti-semite to shed all his
old terminology, like ZOG, and develop
new ones. Or if he becomes an
ex-raver, to see the world more in
impersonal processes than in conspiracies.

As for his preoccupation with genes, you'd
better ask him that again.

Frank


From forman@ix.netcom.com Fri Aug 11 15:58:04 PDT 1995
Article: 12312 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Adolf Hitler - Racist?
Date: 12 Aug 1995 15:35:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <40ihn7$kk3@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
References: <807920465snz@abaron.demon.co.uk> <40c7n7$9t0@rover.ucs.ualberta.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc8-11.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:31062 alt.politics.nationalism.white:12312 alt.politics.white-power:11968

My server has evidently not delivered all the
postings on this thread, but it seems to me
that we need agreement on the meaning of 
"racist." In the last quote from Hitler,
he says he is free of racial hatred but that
he is opposed to racial intermarriage. I
take this to mean that he thinks man's
divisions into races is a splendid thing. So
this makes him pro-race. On this account,
someone who wanted to exterminate all races
but one would not be a racist, as would someone
who wanted to make the world into one race by
repeated race-mixing.

You may be confusing racism with a belief in
the superiority of one particular race. That is
quite compatible with wanting other races on
the globe.

Question for you: why is "the present enemy the
white racists and nationalists"? And enemy to
whom? I think the greatest enemy *to* lovers of
big gummint are the folks who are inventing
methods of encryptioning the transfer of money
so that tax collectors can't get their cotton-
pickin' hands on it. How nationalists could
have a nation without taxes is beyond me.

Frank
[message reproduced below, unchanged]



In <40c7n7$9t0@rover.ucs.ualberta.ca> jmorris@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (John
Morris) writes: 
>
>I feel certain that many of our white racist and nationalist readers
>have put up with Alexander Baron's maunderings, since they keep me and
>my kind busy trying to keep the historical record straight rather than
>dealing with the present enemy, you, the white racists and
>nationalists. Nevertheless it is beyond me why you put up with what,
>in a peculiar way, are his slanderous attacks on Adolf Hitler.
>
>Are you really going to let him get away with characterizing Hitler as
>some kind of liberal multiculturalist?
>
>Alexander Baron  wrote:
>
>>"The white races did, of course, give some things to the natives, 
>>and they were the worst gifts that they could possibly have made, 
>>those plagues of our own modern world - materialism,  fanaticism, 
>>alcoholism  and syphilis. For the rest, since these peoples  pos-
>>sessed qualities of their own which were superior to anything  we 
>>could offer them, they have remained essentially unchanged. Where 
>>imposition  by  force was attempted, the results were  even  more 
>>disastrous...One solitary success must be conceded to the coloni-
>>zers: everywhere they have succeeded in arousing hatred..." 
>>Adolf Hitler February 7th 1945   
>
>
>
>>"For us, Japan will always remain an ally and a friend. This  war 
>>will  teach us to appreciate and respect her more than  ever.  It 
>>will encourage us to draw more tightly the bonds which unite  our 
>>two countries." Adolf Hitler 18th February, 1945
>
>
>>"...I promise you I am quite free of all racial hatred. It is, in 
>>any case, undesirable that one race should mix with other  races. 
>>Except  for  a few gratuitous successes, which I am  prepared  to 
>>admit,   systematic  cross-breeding  has  never   produced   good 
>>results...Pride in one's own race - and that does not imply  con-
>>tempt for other races - is also a normal and healthy sentiment. I 
>>have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior 
>>to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilizations, and I  freely 
>>admit  that their past history is superior to our own. They  have 
>>the  right  to be proud of their own past, just as  we  have  the 
>>right to be proud of the civilization to which we belong."  Adolf 
>>Hitler, 13th February, 1945
>
>--
> John Morris                              

> at University of Alberta     
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
- 
> The Nizkor Project: An Electronic Holocaust Resource
>  File archives - ftp://ftp.almanac.bc.ca
>  Web page - http://nizkor.almanac.bc.ca
>



From forman@ix.netcom.com Fri Aug 11 15:58:11 PDT 1995
Article: 12318 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: What Does Racial Superiority Mean?
Date: 12 Aug 1995 17:22:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <40io13$mbk@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
References: <408s5a$jjv@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <408uot$m8g@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc8-11.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:31072 alt.skinheads:25354 alt.politics.white-power:11974 alt.politics.nationalism.white:12318 alt.discrimination:33727

I'm trying to find out what the *concept*
of racial superiority is all about, not
which races are superior to which other
races. The latter is what the discussants
so far have been up to.

As far as my being done in with my "obsession"
with race, it is happening awfully slowly.

It seems to me that there is now in the world
a critical mass of creative scientists to
make genetic engineering a reality. Neither the
liberals nor the goddam Christians are going
to be able to stop parents from upgrading
their children, bit by bit. So race, while
important in the past and important in the
present, as far as explaining achievement
goes, it is not going to matter in the future.

But that is a couple of hundred years off.
In the meantime, we have the sceptre of lots
of dumb kids being born who will more and more
find no productive place in society. These
kids are concentrated more in some races than
in others. I may be wrong in thinking that
it is biology that primarily accounts for
the uneveness life's rewards, but no one has
any proposals about *HOW* to alter the
environment to even out the inequality.
Sure, there are lots of proposals to spend
more money on schools, say, but these proposals
are not backed-up with arguments that they
will work.

Whatever the source of racial differences in
achievement, the only feasible solution to
the very real human misery that comes about
>from  being marginal to productive society--
no not solution, but rather reduction--is
for certain groups to cut down on their
births.

As usual, if anyone has a different solution,
I want to hear about it.

Frank


From forman@ix.netcom.com Fri Aug 11 05:40:12 PDT 1995
Article: 25354 of alt.skinheads
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: What Does Racial Superiority Mean?
Date: 12 Aug 1995 17:22:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <40io13$mbk@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
References: <408s5a$jjv@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <408uot$m8g@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc8-11.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:31072 alt.skinheads:25354 alt.politics.white-power:11974 alt.politics.nationalism.white:12318 alt.discrimination:33727

I'm trying to find out what the *concept*
of racial superiority is all about, not
which races are superior to which other
races. The latter is what the discussants
so far have been up to.

As far as my being done in with my "obsession"
with race, it is happening awfully slowly.

It seems to me that there is now in the world
a critical mass of creative scientists to
make genetic engineering a reality. Neither the
liberals nor the goddam Christians are going
to be able to stop parents from upgrading
their children, bit by bit. So race, while
important in the past and important in the
present, as far as explaining achievement
goes, it is not going to matter in the future.

But that is a couple of hundred years off.
In the meantime, we have the sceptre of lots
of dumb kids being born who will more and more
find no productive place in society. These
kids are concentrated more in some races than
in others. I may be wrong in thinking that
it is biology that primarily accounts for
the uneveness life's rewards, but no one has
any proposals about *HOW* to alter the
environment to even out the inequality.
Sure, there are lots of proposals to spend
more money on schools, say, but these proposals
are not backed-up with arguments that they
will work.

Whatever the source of racial differences in
achievement, the only feasible solution to
the very real human misery that comes about
>from  being marginal to productive society--
no not solution, but rather reduction--is
for certain groups to cut down on their
births.

As usual, if anyone has a different solution,
I want to hear about it.

Frank


From forman@ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 13 15:46:29 PDT 1995
Article: 25432 of alt.skinheads
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: What Does Racial Superiority Mean?
Date: 13 Aug 1995 22:00:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <40lsl7$kio@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
References: <408s5a$jjv@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <408uot$m8g@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <40io13$mbk@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc15-26.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:31186 alt.skinheads:25432 alt.politics.white-power:12071 alt.politics.nationalism.white:12384 alt.discrimination:33797

In  bcat@netcom.com (Bearcat) writes: 
>
>Frank Forman (forman@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>           (do you mean "spectre"?)vvv
>: In the meantime, we have the sceptre of lots
>: of dumb kids being born who will more and more
>: find no productive place in society. These
>: kids are concentrated more in some races than
>: in others. 
>
>No. These kids are concentrated more in some 
>socio-economic groups than others.

We are both right. If you factor our SES,
a large racial element remains. I'm not
sure you are very familiar with the
literature here.

>: I may be wrong in thinking that
>: it is biology that primarily accounts for
>: the uneveness life's rewards, but no one has
>: any proposals about *HOW* to alter the
>: environment to even out the inequality.
>
>This is untrue. It has been demonstrated quite
>clearly that neonatal and postnatal nurture have
>greater impact on the intellect and behavior of
>children (and the adults they become) than any
>ancestral influence can even remotely claim.

It seems you have seen literature I haven't.
Do you have some citations?

>: Sure, there are lots of proposals to spend
>: more money on schools, say, but these proposals
>: are not backed-up with arguments that they
>: will work.

>Education is very important, yes, but when does
>it begin? Age 5? We are, for all intents and 
>purposes, irrevocably formed by that age into
>the people we will eventually become, 
>physically, emotionally and intellectually.

Do you recommend the end of public funding
for education after that age? I'd very much
like to know what goes on in the education
process before age five, esp. how it differs
in whites and blacks. Also, how the education
impacts on IQ scores.

>Where the education that ensues after age 5
>comes into play is in the development of 
>character and social behavior, as well as
>self-esteem - a most crucial element in the
>expression of what intelligence we do have:
>low self-esteem can lower a child's test
>scores regardless of how much native intellect
>he/she may possess.

This seems to reverse common opinion, as in
the (supposed) claim of Jesuits: "Give me
a child up to age seven, and you can have
him after that." In other words, attitudes
are generally pretty much set by then.

Question: what's the difference between
self-esteem and self-respect, and what
research deals with the difference? My
understanding is that self-esteem is more
a feel-good attitude, while self-respect
is earned by one's own behavior.

>Also, it's imperative to educate young people
>about the importance of bringing children into
>this world only when they're fully capable of
>providing just the kind of nurture for that
>child that is so essential to its health and
>well-being. 

Excellent! But what should be done with
children with irresponsible parents? Should
the government take them away?

>You see, we know all of this, and have known
>it for decades. The question is - how to ensure
>that such knowledge is put to use to improve
>the situation for our future children, and thus
>our future.

Is there an explanation of why this hasn't
happened that is not a character attack on
American voters?

Frank


From forman@ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 13 17:41:11 PDT 1995
Article: 31186 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: What Does Racial Superiority Mean?
Date: 13 Aug 1995 22:00:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <40lsl7$kio@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
References: <408s5a$jjv@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <408uot$m8g@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <40io13$mbk@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc15-26.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:31186 alt.skinheads:25432 alt.politics.white-power:12071 alt.politics.nationalism.white:12384 alt.discrimination:33797

In  bcat@netcom.com (Bearcat) writes: 
>
>Frank Forman (forman@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>           (do you mean "spectre"?)vvv
>: In the meantime, we have the sceptre of lots
>: of dumb kids being born who will more and more
>: find no productive place in society. These
>: kids are concentrated more in some races than
>: in others. 
>
>No. These kids are concentrated more in some 
>socio-economic groups than others.

We are both right. If you factor our SES,
a large racial element remains. I'm not
sure you are very familiar with the
literature here.

>: I may be wrong in thinking that
>: it is biology that primarily accounts for
>: the uneveness life's rewards, but no one has
>: any proposals about *HOW* to alter the
>: environment to even out the inequality.
>
>This is untrue. It has been demonstrated quite
>clearly that neonatal and postnatal nurture have
>greater impact on the intellect and behavior of
>children (and the adults they become) than any
>ancestral influence can even remotely claim.

It seems you have seen literature I haven't.
Do you have some citations?

>: Sure, there are lots of proposals to spend
>: more money on schools, say, but these proposals
>: are not backed-up with arguments that they
>: will work.

>Education is very important, yes, but when does
>it begin? Age 5? We are, for all intents and 
>purposes, irrevocably formed by that age into
>the people we will eventually become, 
>physically, emotionally and intellectually.

Do you recommend the end of public funding
for education after that age? I'd very much
like to know what goes on in the education
process before age five, esp. how it differs
in whites and blacks. Also, how the education
impacts on IQ scores.

>Where the education that ensues after age 5
>comes into play is in the development of 
>character and social behavior, as well as
>self-esteem - a most crucial element in the
>expression of what intelligence we do have:
>low self-esteem can lower a child's test
>scores regardless of how much native intellect
>he/she may possess.

This seems to reverse common opinion, as in
the (supposed) claim of Jesuits: "Give me
a child up to age seven, and you can have
him after that." In other words, attitudes
are generally pretty much set by then.

Question: what's the difference between
self-esteem and self-respect, and what
research deals with the difference? My
understanding is that self-esteem is more
a feel-good attitude, while self-respect
is earned by one's own behavior.

>Also, it's imperative to educate young people
>about the importance of bringing children into
>this world only when they're fully capable of
>providing just the kind of nurture for that
>child that is so essential to its health and
>well-being. 

Excellent! But what should be done with
children with irresponsible parents? Should
the government take them away?

>You see, we know all of this, and have known
>it for decades. The question is - how to ensure
>that such knowledge is put to use to improve
>the situation for our future children, and thus
>our future.

Is there an explanation of why this hasn't
happened that is not a character attack on
American voters?

Frank


From forman@ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 13 17:41:16 PDT 1995
Article: 31190 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Gassing in the 'Old Reich'
Date: 13 Aug 1995 22:18:51 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <40ltob$1h6@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
References: <79263086wnr@stumpy.demon.co.uk> <40geqs$o0j@gwdu19.gwdg.de> <40itfh$kk4@gwdu19.gwdg.de> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc15-26.ix.netcom.com

In  dkeren@world.std.com (Daniel Keren)
writes: 
>
>According to the "Institute for Contemporary History" in
>Munich, the camps in the "Old Reich" in which gassing took 
>place are (note, this list does not include the "Euthanasia"
>institutions, in which tens-of-thousands of mentally retarded
>and insane Germans were murdered, many by gas):
>
>Mauthausen, Neuengamme, Sachsenhausen, Natzweiler,
>Stutthof, Ravensbruck, and Dachau.
>
>For more documentation, one can see "Nazi Mass Murder",
>Yale Uni. Press, 1993.

I've read in the Revisionist literature that Martin
Brozat, head of this very Institute for Contemporary
History (as it is translated into English) got a
letter printed in _Die Zeit_ in 1960 (I think) saying
that there were no homocidal gas chambers in the
Old Reich. Is this just Revisionist folklore, or
did Brozat actually say this?

Frank


From forman@ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 13 19:58:48 PDT 1995
Article: 31186 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: What Does Racial Superiority Mean?
Date: 13 Aug 1995 22:00:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <40lsl7$kio@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
References: <408s5a$jjv@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <408uot$m8g@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <40io13$mbk@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc15-26.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:31186 alt.skinheads:25432 alt.politics.white-power:12071 alt.politics.nationalism.white:12384 alt.discrimination:33797

In  bcat@netcom.com (Bearcat) writes: 
>
>Frank Forman (forman@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>           (do you mean "spectre"?)vvv
>: In the meantime, we have the sceptre of lots
>: of dumb kids being born who will more and more
>: find no productive place in society. These
>: kids are concentrated more in some races than
>: in others. 
>
>No. These kids are concentrated more in some 
>socio-economic groups than others.

We are both right. If you factor our SES,
a large racial element remains. I'm not
sure you are very familiar with the
literature here.

>: I may be wrong in thinking that
>: it is biology that primarily accounts for
>: the uneveness life's rewards, but no one has
>: any proposals about *HOW* to alter the
>: environment to even out the inequality.
>
>This is untrue. It has been demonstrated quite
>clearly that neonatal and postnatal nurture have
>greater impact on the intellect and behavior of
>children (and the adults they become) than any
>ancestral influence can even remotely claim.

It seems you have seen literature I haven't.
Do you have some citations?

>: Sure, there are lots of proposals to spend
>: more money on schools, say, but these proposals
>: are not backed-up with arguments that they
>: will work.

>Education is very important, yes, but when does
>it begin? Age 5? We are, for all intents and 
>purposes, irrevocably formed by that age into
>the people we will eventually become, 
>physically, emotionally and intellectually.

Do you recommend the end of public funding
for education after that age? I'd very much
like to know what goes on in the education
process before age five, esp. how it differs
in whites and blacks. Also, how the education
impacts on IQ scores.

>Where the education that ensues after age 5
>comes into play is in the development of 
>character and social behavior, as well as
>self-esteem - a most crucial element in the
>expression of what intelligence we do have:
>low self-esteem can lower a child's test
>scores regardless of how much native intellect
>he/she may possess.

This seems to reverse common opinion, as in
the (supposed) claim of Jesuits: "Give me
a child up to age seven, and you can have
him after that." In other words, attitudes
are generally pretty much set by then.

Question: what's the difference between
self-esteem and self-respect, and what
research deals with the difference? My
understanding is that self-esteem is more
a feel-good attitude, while self-respect
is earned by one's own behavior.

>Also, it's imperative to educate young people
>about the importance of bringing children into
>this world only when they're fully capable of
>providing just the kind of nurture for that
>child that is so essential to its health and
>well-being. 

Excellent! But what should be done with
children with irresponsible parents? Should
the government take them away?

>You see, we know all of this, and have known
>it for decades. The question is - how to ensure
>that such knowledge is put to use to improve
>the situation for our future children, and thus
>our future.

Is there an explanation of why this hasn't
happened that is not a character attack on
American voters?

Frank


From forman@ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 13 19:58:55 PDT 1995
Article: 31190 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Gassing in the 'Old Reich'
Date: 13 Aug 1995 22:18:51 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <40ltob$1h6@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
References: <79263086wnr@stumpy.demon.co.uk> <40geqs$o0j@gwdu19.gwdg.de> <40itfh$kk4@gwdu19.gwdg.de> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc15-26.ix.netcom.com

In  dkeren@world.std.com (Daniel Keren)
writes: 
>
>According to the "Institute for Contemporary History" in
>Munich, the camps in the "Old Reich" in which gassing took 
>place are (note, this list does not include the "Euthanasia"
>institutions, in which tens-of-thousands of mentally retarded
>and insane Germans were murdered, many by gas):
>
>Mauthausen, Neuengamme, Sachsenhausen, Natzweiler,
>Stutthof, Ravensbruck, and Dachau.
>
>For more documentation, one can see "Nazi Mass Murder",
>Yale Uni. Press, 1993.

I've read in the Revisionist literature that Martin
Brozat, head of this very Institute for Contemporary
History (as it is translated into English) got a
letter printed in _Die Zeit_ in 1960 (I think) saying
that there were no homocidal gas chambers in the
Old Reich. Is this just Revisionist folklore, or
did Brozat actually say this?

Frank


From forman@ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 13 22:59:46 PDT 1995
Article: 11967 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: The Jews
Date: 12 Aug 1995 15:11:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <40igap$8d2@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
References: <400p9t$okt@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> <408m0r$pmh@bell.maths.tcd.ie>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc8-11.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:31057 alt.politics.nationalism.white:12311 alt.politics.white-power:11967

In <408m0r$pmh@bell.maths.tcd.ie> dbell@maths.tcd.ie (Derek Bell)
writes: 
>
>Aryan Crusader  writes:
>>Well, folks, I'm still working on my essay about the Jews.
>
>	I'm sure that the world of scholarship is holding its collective
>breath - not!
>
>>I've looked and looked, and I can't find anything against Jews in
general (I 
>>don't accept John 8:44).  The only argument against them, as a group,
is 
>>that they are genetically or culturally incompatible with Western 
>>Christian civilization.  However, Ygg reports that they have a 70% 
>>intermarriage (race-mixing) rate, which has or will soon alter any 
>>genetic incompatibility. 
>
>	"Genetically or culturally incompatible"? Where did you get that
from??
>As for Yggdrasil, I would take what he says with several tonnes of
NaCl.
>
>	You are preoccupied with genes!
>
>	Where is Yggdrasil anyway?
>
>>My preliminary conclusion, then, is that Jews are not a problem, only
a 
>>few elites -- elites even among the Jewish population.  I suspect
that 
>>when my comrades speak of the "Jewish problem" they are refering to 
>>these elites.  If I am wrong, I would appreciate someone pointing out
my 
>>error.
>
>	Well, none of the following have a name that is remotely
>stereotypically Jewish: Clinton, Gore, Bush, Quayle, Reagan, Carter,
Ford,
>Nixon, Agnew, Johnson, Kennedy.
>
>	Or are you talking about the Illuminati? Fnord!!!
>
>>But if I'm right, then I suggest a new strategy for combatting these 
>>enemies of White America.  Publicly, we should only refer to them by 
>>name, not race.  If I write that Abe Cooper, Laurence Tisch, and Dave
>>Strassler are teaming up to destroy America and say why, people might
>>listen. 

>	Yeah, you may even get sued by the people you name!!!
>	That may not be such a bad idea! Say what you like about them,
I'm
>sure the lawsuits will make life very interesting for you!
>
>>But if I write that ZOG is destroying America and say why, people
>>will pre-judge me as a raving anti-semite.
>
>	No shit?!!
>
>>Please give me some feedback on this one.
>
>	You're a raving anti-semite.

Reuben sounds to *me* that he is an
ex-raving anti-semite, or well maybe an
raving ex-anti-semite. He is now
renouncing the idea that the perfidy of
Jews is in their genes and that, indeed,
the real interests of Jews are being betrayed
by both their own supposed leaders and
some so-far unnamed global elite that
consists of both Jews and Gentiles.
He should drop mention of ZOG and
use S-FUGOG for now and a better name
when he does name the group. Or better
yet, speak of misty things like
Zeitgeist or "climate of opinion" rather
than personifications like Occupational
Gummint.

The moral is that it takes a while for
a raving ex-anti-semite to shed all his
old terminology, like ZOG, and develop
new ones. Or if he becomes an
ex-raver, to see the world more in
impersonal processes than in conspiracies.

As for his preoccupation with genes, you'd
better ask him that again.

Frank


From forman@ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 13 22:59:56 PDT 1995
Article: 11974 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: What Does Racial Superiority Mean?
Date: 12 Aug 1995 17:22:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <40io13$mbk@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
References: <408s5a$jjv@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <408uot$m8g@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc8-11.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:31072 alt.skinheads:25354 alt.politics.white-power:11974 alt.politics.nationalism.white:12318 alt.discrimination:33727

I'm trying to find out what the *concept*
of racial superiority is all about, not
which races are superior to which other
races. The latter is what the discussants
so far have been up to.

As far as my being done in with my "obsession"
with race, it is happening awfully slowly.

It seems to me that there is now in the world
a critical mass of creative scientists to
make genetic engineering a reality. Neither the
liberals nor the goddam Christians are going
to be able to stop parents from upgrading
their children, bit by bit. So race, while
important in the past and important in the
present, as far as explaining achievement
goes, it is not going to matter in the future.

But that is a couple of hundred years off.
In the meantime, we have the sceptre of lots
of dumb kids being born who will more and more
find no productive place in society. These
kids are concentrated more in some races than
in others. I may be wrong in thinking that
it is biology that primarily accounts for
the uneveness life's rewards, but no one has
any proposals about *HOW* to alter the
environment to even out the inequality.
Sure, there are lots of proposals to spend
more money on schools, say, but these proposals
are not backed-up with arguments that they
will work.

Whatever the source of racial differences in
achievement, the only feasible solution to
the very real human misery that comes about
>from  being marginal to productive society--
no not solution, but rather reduction--is
for certain groups to cut down on their
births.

As usual, if anyone has a different solution,
I want to hear about it.

Frank


From forman@ix.netcom.com Sun Aug 13 23:01:24 PDT 1995
Article: 12071 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: What Does Racial Superiority Mean?
Date: 13 Aug 1995 22:00:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <40lsl7$kio@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
References: <408s5a$jjv@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <408uot$m8g@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <40io13$mbk@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc15-26.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:31186 alt.skinheads:25432 alt.politics.white-power:12071 alt.politics.nationalism.white:12384 alt.discrimination:33797

In  bcat@netcom.com (Bearcat) writes: 
>
>Frank Forman (forman@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>           (do you mean "spectre"?)vvv
>: In the meantime, we have the sceptre of lots
>: of dumb kids being born who will more and more
>: find no productive place in society. These
>: kids are concentrated more in some races than
>: in others. 
>
>No. These kids are concentrated more in some 
>socio-economic groups than others.

We are both right. If you factor our SES,
a large racial element remains. I'm not
sure you are very familiar with the
literature here.

>: I may be wrong in thinking that
>: it is biology that primarily accounts for
>: the uneveness life's rewards, but no one has
>: any proposals about *HOW* to alter the
>: environment to even out the inequality.
>
>This is untrue. It has been demonstrated quite
>clearly that neonatal and postnatal nurture have
>greater impact on the intellect and behavior of
>children (and the adults they become) than any
>ancestral influence can even remotely claim.

It seems you have seen literature I haven't.
Do you have some citations?

>: Sure, there are lots of proposals to spend
>: more money on schools, say, but these proposals
>: are not backed-up with arguments that they
>: will work.

>Education is very important, yes, but when does
>it begin? Age 5? We are, for all intents and 
>purposes, irrevocably formed by that age into
>the people we will eventually become, 
>physically, emotionally and intellectually.

Do you recommend the end of public funding
for education after that age? I'd very much
like to know what goes on in the education
process before age five, esp. how it differs
in whites and blacks. Also, how the education
impacts on IQ scores.

>Where the education that ensues after age 5
>comes into play is in the development of 
>character and social behavior, as well as
>self-esteem - a most crucial element in the
>expression of what intelligence we do have:
>low self-esteem can lower a child's test
>scores regardless of how much native intellect
>he/she may possess.

This seems to reverse common opinion, as in
the (supposed) claim of Jesuits: "Give me
a child up to age seven, and you can have
him after that." In other words, attitudes
are generally pretty much set by then.

Question: what's the difference between
self-esteem and self-respect, and what
research deals with the difference? My
understanding is that self-esteem is more
a feel-good attitude, while self-respect
is earned by one's own behavior.

>Also, it's imperative to educate young people
>about the importance of bringing children into
>this world only when they're fully capable of
>providing just the kind of nurture for that
>child that is so essential to its health and
>well-being. 

Excellent! But what should be done with
children with irresponsible parents? Should
the government take them away?

>You see, we know all of this, and have known
>it for decades. The question is - how to ensure
>that such knowledge is put to use to improve
>the situation for our future children, and thus
>our future.

Is there an explanation of why this hasn't
happened that is not a character attack on
American voters?

Frank


From forman@ix.netcom.com Tue Aug 15 06:55:59 PDT 1995
Article: 12384 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: What Does Racial Superiority Mean?
Date: 13 Aug 1995 22:00:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <40lsl7$kio@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
References: <408s5a$jjv@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <408uot$m8g@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <40io13$mbk@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc15-26.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:31186 alt.skinheads:25432 alt.politics.white-power:12071 alt.politics.nationalism.white:12384 alt.discrimination:33797

In  bcat@netcom.com (Bearcat) writes: 
>
>Frank Forman (forman@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>           (do you mean "spectre"?)vvv
>: In the meantime, we have the sceptre of lots
>: of dumb kids being born who will more and more
>: find no productive place in society. These
>: kids are concentrated more in some races than
>: in others. 
>
>No. These kids are concentrated more in some 
>socio-economic groups than others.

We are both right. If you factor our SES,
a large racial element remains. I'm not
sure you are very familiar with the
literature here.

>: I may be wrong in thinking that
>: it is biology that primarily accounts for
>: the uneveness life's rewards, but no one has
>: any proposals about *HOW* to alter the
>: environment to even out the inequality.
>
>This is untrue. It has been demonstrated quite
>clearly that neonatal and postnatal nurture have
>greater impact on the intellect and behavior of
>children (and the adults they become) than any
>ancestral influence can even remotely claim.

It seems you have seen literature I haven't.
Do you have some citations?

>: Sure, there are lots of proposals to spend
>: more money on schools, say, but these proposals
>: are not backed-up with arguments that they
>: will work.

>Education is very important, yes, but when does
>it begin? Age 5? We are, for all intents and 
>purposes, irrevocably formed by that age into
>the people we will eventually become, 
>physically, emotionally and intellectually.

Do you recommend the end of public funding
for education after that age? I'd very much
like to know what goes on in the education
process before age five, esp. how it differs
in whites and blacks. Also, how the education
impacts on IQ scores.

>Where the education that ensues after age 5
>comes into play is in the development of 
>character and social behavior, as well as
>self-esteem - a most crucial element in the
>expression of what intelligence we do have:
>low self-esteem can lower a child's test
>scores regardless of how much native intellect
>he/she may possess.

This seems to reverse common opinion, as in
the (supposed) claim of Jesuits: "Give me
a child up to age seven, and you can have
him after that." In other words, attitudes
are generally pretty much set by then.

Question: what's the difference between
self-esteem and self-respect, and what
research deals with the difference? My
understanding is that self-esteem is more
a feel-good attitude, while self-respect
is earned by one's own behavior.

>Also, it's imperative to educate young people
>about the importance of bringing children into
>this world only when they're fully capable of
>providing just the kind of nurture for that
>child that is so essential to its health and
>well-being. 

Excellent! But what should be done with
children with irresponsible parents? Should
the government take them away?

>You see, we know all of this, and have known
>it for decades. The question is - how to ensure
>that such knowledge is put to use to improve
>the situation for our future children, and thus
>our future.

Is there an explanation of why this hasn't
happened that is not a character attack on
American voters?

Frank


From forman@ix.netcom.com Sat Aug 19 09:22:49 PDT 1995
Article: 12809 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: What Does Racial Superiority Mean?
Date: 18 Aug 1995 21:46:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 264
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4131n2$458@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc14-29.ix.netcom.com

Thread title: What does racial superiority mean
Conversations between Frank and Bearcat:

Frank 1:
/: >: In the meantime, we have the scepter of lots
/: >: of dumb kids being born who will more and more
/: >: find no productive place in society. These
/: >: kids are concentrated more in some races than
/: >: in others. 

Bearcat 1:
/: >No. These kids are concentrated more in some 
/: >socio-economic groups than others.

Frank 2:
/: We are both right. If you factor our SES,
/: a large racial element remains. I'm not
/: sure you are very familiar with the
/: literature here.

Bearcat 2:
/This is by no means settled, especially if you're
/talking about the "statistical" analysis presented
/in _The Bell Curve_.

Frank 3 (now):
I am not sure what you are driving at.

Frank 1:
/: >: I may be wrong in thinking that
/: >: it is biology that primarily accounts for
/: >: the unevenness life's rewards, but no one has
/: >: any proposals about *HOW* to alter the
/: >: environment to even out the inequality.

Bearcat 1:
/: >This is untrue. It has been demonstrated quite
/: >clearly that neonatal and postnatal nurture have
/: >greater impact on the intellect and behavior of
/: >children (and the adults they become) than any
/: >ancestral influence can even remotely claim.

Frank 2:
/: It seems you have seen literature I haven't.
/: Do you have some citations?

Bearcat 2:
/I can simply bring up things you may already be
/aware of, e.g., the fact that alcohol consumption
/during pregnancy contributes to low birth-weight
/babies, as does cigaret smoking.

/The Soviets were at one point so concerned about
/the whole alcohol issue that they began a campaign
/to stop consumption among women at all, even
/suggesting that the incidence of mentally deficient
/children being born could be correlated to the
/*conception* occurring when the mother was dead drunk.

/That these factors can have such an impact implies
/that nutrition is terribly important, as well.

/As for postnatal environment, again, the examples
/abound. Back to the Soviets, when they tried to
/warehouse infants so that the mothers could work
/while a few nurses attended to dozens of babies,
/they found that the babies were not only inconsolable
/without the avid attentions of a devoted care-taker,
/but that even their growth was stunted. The implications
/of this on intellect are obvious.

/Experiments performed on monkeys has also shown that
/touch deprivation in infancy leads inevitably to 
/lifelong complexes which mirror depression in humans.

/In fact, the only experiments ever really performed
/on the effects of an enriched environment, carried out
/with rats and mice, show an unmistakable effect of
/such enrichment on developing young in their ability
/to perform cognitive tasks.

/Conversely, when subjected to overcrowding their
/abilities deteriorate. 

/These are just off the top of my head. One would
/almost have to have one's head buried in something
/not to have been exposed to such general knowledge.

Frank 3 (now):
I don't disagree that all these things may have
an effect on intelligence, whether great or small.
But what you claimed was that the sum of these
things was greater than the effects of heredity.
Could you provide concrete estimates for each?

Frank 1:
/: >: Sure, there are lots of proposals to spend
/: >: more money on schools, say, but these proposals
/: >: are not backed-up with arguments that they
/: >: will work.

Bearcat 1:
/: >Education is very important, yes, but when does
/: >it begin? Age 5? We are, for all intents and 
/: >purposes, irrevocably formed by that age into
/: >the people we will eventually become, 
/: >physically, emotionally and intellectually.

Frank 2:
/: Do you recommend the end of public funding
/: for education after that age? 

Bearcat 2:
/I think the answer to that question is obviously
/no.

Frank 3 (now):
It's not at all obvious to me, if after age 5
a child is *irrevocably* formed toward becoming
the adult he is going to become.

Frank 2:
/: I'd very much
/: like to know what goes on in the education
/: process before age five, esp. how it differs
/: in whites and blacks. 

Bearcat 2:
/Again, you should be looking for the effects
/of ignorance and poverty on infants and toddlers,
/not the effects of blackness or whiteness.

Frank 3 (now):
But its now a fabrication of Herrnstein and
Murray that a sizable factor remains for race
after Socio-Economic Status (or just parental
income alone) has been factored out. No one, as
far as I know, has ever disputed this.

Frank 2:
/: Also, how the education
/: impacts on IQ scores.

Bearcat 2:
/[no response]

Frank 3 (now):
I very much would like to know just
exactly *how* the educational process
works on developing IQ. If it does, then
we need to know how it does, so that 
something *concrete* might be done about
it. (Justifying taxing people to do so
is another issue, though.)

Bearcat 1:
/: >Where the education that ensues after age 5
/: >comes into play is in the development of 
/: >character and social behavior, as well as
/: >self-esteem - a most crucial element in the
/: >expression of what intelligence we do have:
/: >low self-esteem can lower a child's test
/: >scores regardless of how much native intellect
/: >he/she may possess.

Frank 2:
/: This seems to reverse common opinion, as in
/: the (supposed) claim of Jesuits: "Give me
/: a child up to age seven, and you can have
/: him after that." In other words, attitudes
/: are generally pretty much set by then.

Bearcat 2:
/Actually, the good Fathers are saying pretty
/much what I said, it's just that one doesn't
/write off 8 year-olds just because they haven't
/received any breaks up till then. And one's 
/personality really has at least 25% left
/unformed at that age, which might leave room for 
/the crucial difference between a defeatist and
/a can-do attitude.

Frank 3 (now)
So now you are saying that intervention after
age 5 (or 8, as the Jesuits say) *does* matter.
Just what is the evidence here?

Frank 2:
/: Question: what's the difference between
/: self-esteem and self-respect, and what
/: research deals with the difference? My
/: understanding is that self-esteem is more
/: a feel-good attitude, while self-respect
/: is earned by one's own behavior.

Bearcat 2:
/[no response]

Frank 3:
Maybe you don't know anything here.

Bearcat 1:
/: >Also, it's imperative to educate young people
/: >about the importance of bringing children into
/: >this world only when they're fully capable of
/: >providing just the kind of nurture for that
/: >child that is so essential to its health and
/: >well-being. 

Frank 2:
/: Excellent! But what should be done with
/: children with irresponsible parents? Should
/: the government take them away?

Bearcat 2:
/Probably not, since the government is bound to
/do an even worse job of it.

Frank 3 (now):
Instead then, I gather, the government (and
society as a whole) should strongly discourage
likely irresponsible parents from having
children. I am strongly inclined to view the
proposal to require Norplant of welfare
mothers favorably. Someday, if we *do* figure
out how to improve the environments of what are
called "at-risk" children, this may be less
necessary. But so far, no one really knows 
anything *concrete* about what to do and how
far it will work.

Bearcat 1:
/: >You see, we know all of this, and have known
/: >it for decades. The question is - how to ensure
/: >that such knowledge is put to use to improve
/: >the situation for our future children, and thus
/: >our future.

Frank 2:
/: Is there an explanation of why this hasn't
/: happened that is not a character attack on
/: American voters?

Bearcat 2:
/It hasn't happened for the same reason we 
/haven't acted on any of the wisdom we've
/developed up to this point: humans, as a
/whole, are short-sighted, selfish and
/stupid.

Frank 3 (now):
By "humans," do you mean high-income people,
who generally mind their own business and
themselves do nothing to harm low income
parents? Are they the ones at fault? Or are
the low-income parents the ones at fault?

I'd like to know more about this alleged
"wisdom," too. So would all 50 state
Departments of Education. And so would all
parents, regardless of income, who do
care about their children.

Frank



Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.