From finsten@mcmaster.ca Mon Sep 16 06:49:03 PDT 1996
Article: 66002 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!hunter.premier.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 16 Sep 1996 00:14:07 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 152
Message-ID: <51i64f$r8o@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: abb-annex3-port20.cis.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:43412 alt.politics.nationalism.white:29686 alt.revisionism:66002

Ourobouros wrote:

>NOTE!!!   NOTE!!!   NOTE!!!   NOTE!!!   NOTE!!!   NOTE!!!   NOTE!!!

>For those that like to be continuously ignorant, like Mr. "Brown", this
>post will no doubt be non-existent.  Please watch in future months how
>people like, Mr. "Brown" will claim that I and my colleagues have never
>defined the White race.  Please also watch how they will try and label 
>this as an ad hominem attack to divert the topic, which they claim they
>never do.

So, does this mean that all white supremacists and white separatists
accept your list of criteria for "whiteness", "Mr. Stone"?

>As more information comes to hand then this definition will be expanded
>and become more precise.

That's certainly encouraging.  So all the folks who get deported and/or
killed under "false pretenses" will be reinstated, posthumously if
necessary?

>1.  There is four known skin genes, all of which have to correspond to
>being white.  That being able to show blue-coloured veins through the skin,
>and showing red under intense and immediate stress (like blushing).

"The genetics of skin color is not completely understood.  Some researchers
believe that, rather than a single locus of a major gene, many loci and
their *multiple alleles*  work in combination to determine a person's
pigmentation."  Noel T. Boaz (I know you'll like that name) and Alan J.
Almquist, "Biological Anthropology: A Synthetic Approach to Human
Evolution", 1997.  Prentice Hall. p.467.

So, how are you going to determine how many "white alleles" a person
has, "Mr. Stone"?  The blush test?  Looking for blue veins?  I did a
blue vein test (in response to one of your silly posts about armpits
and "royal blue" many months ago).  I had a small sample, but it 
included 3 people with a good measure of African ancestry, and you know
what?  On the palms of their hands and the insides of their wrists, you
could see blue veins.  Even on the darkest fellow, who is pretty dark.

>2.  The skull shape is that of longhead of Mediterranean or Nordic stock.
>    Appropriate facial angle, and within an acceptable cephalic index.  
>    Also includes the jaw shape, structure and teeth.

So how does this differ from a longhead of, say Sudanid stock?  And are
you really going to say that someone who's cranial index is 80.0 is in,
while someone whose cranial index is 79.9 is out?  Really?????

How variable are facial angles within a population, "Mr. Stone", since
individuals, of course, don't have "average" facial angles.  What range
is acceptable for "whiteness"?

Please be explicit about the acceptable jaw shape(s), structure(s) and
teeth.

>3.  The pupil of the eye is visible.  Colours being blue, green, hazel and
>brown variations.

I've never met a person with normal eyes whose pupils were not visible.

>4.  Round eyes.

Does the oft-described "almond shape", considered a great sign
of beauty in a lot of schlock fiction, disqualify a person from
"whiteness", "Mr. Stone"?

>5.  Fine hair.  Colours ranging in blonde, red and brunette variations.
>    Type ranges from straight to kinky.  Also reasonably hirsute.
  
So where is the line drawn between "fine hair" and "not fine hair",
"Mr. Stone"?  There is tremendous variation in hair shaft thickness,
as I'm sure you know, even within populations.
Are you saying any colour but black is acceptable?  Hmmmm, there are
some folks who won't like that.  Even if they have milky white skin?
Straight to kinky about covers everything, doesn't it.  Or were you
talking about sex?
Hirsute hair?  Does that mean baldies are out?

>6.  Long nose.

But I thought cute little short noses were a pretty common European
characteristic, although they certainly aren't a defining one.  That's
the whole problem, isn't it, trying to find characteristics that are
definitive.  Does Doris Day have a "long nose"?

>7.  Thinnish lips.

As opposed to "mediumish" lips?  Is that before or after the silicone
injections that have become so popular?  And what about all those models
who are blessed with naturally pouty lips?  Are they out of luck on the
"whiteness" scale?

>8.  Highly developed frontal lobes and "wrinkling" of outer brain.

I recall you citing a book for this, but when I asked you to provide
the year of publication, publisher and ISBN, you fell silent.  It 
wasn't listed in our medical school library, and I found it odd that
a medical school that has an international reputation for excellence
would not have what you described as "the" book on neuroanatomy.
How are you going to determine this, anyway, "Mr. Stone"?  Require
a catscan of anybody whose "whiteness" is in doubt?

>9.  Other possibilities including: long fingers, fingerprints, earwax,
>and proportions of the body, e.g., centre of gravity.

Do be more specific, "Mr. Stone".  How long is long?  Tell us about
how fingerprints can be used to determine "race", and cite a source
for this.  Elaborate on earwax (Les Griswold is no longer with us,
so you might as well entertain us with a reprise of this lunacy).
And do explain how variable centres of gravity can be within polymorphic
populations, "Mr. Stone".  You do realise, don't you, that using a
trait like this could easily result in fully genetic siblings being
categorised as belonging to different "races", don't you? 

>10.  At some point in the future genetic distance maps visibly 
>demonstrating the White gene pool, as has vaguely being done by Cavalli-
>Sforza and his team in "History and Geography of Human Genes", 1994.  For
>a person to be White they will have to be within the appropriate area.

Well I guess that'll leave you out, won't it, "Mr. Stone", since it is
difficult to imagine how New Zealand would fall into any such sphere.

By the way, Cavalli-Sforza et al. have *not* identified, delimited or 
even *mentioned* a "White gene pool" in "The History and Geography of
Human Genes".  "White" does not appear in the index of this book,
which I have sitting right before me (Santa did indeed come early
this year).  Or would you care to direct me to a specific page or 
quotation?

How would you describe this little fabrication, "Mr. Stone"?  In your
terminology, is this mere embroidery, or is it lying?  I would tend to
call it the latter, but am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt
and assume that you don't understand the book (a conclusion for which you
have already provided ample evidence).

>11.  No known mongrelisation, eg., no nigger in the woodpile.

And how will this be determined, "Mr. Stone"?  Will you demand everyone's
genealogies and family records going back 10 generations?  25 generations?


Having seen your list of "traits", I would like to ask you for
clarification about how they, theoretically, of course, would work in
concert to delineate the "white race".  For example, must an individual
"pass" all of these (still poorly defined) tests?  What if full-blooded
siblings ended up in different categories?


"If I can't dance..... I don't want to be part of your revolution."
     Emma Goldman

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