From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Mon Apr  1 08:02:57 PST 1996
Article: 113720 of soc.culture.african.american
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!xmission!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.orst.edu!engr.orst.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!waikato!midland.co.nz!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,soc.culture.african,soc.culture.somalia,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: NOTICE  HOW THE ADVOCATES OF HATE AND LIES IGNORE MY POSTS WHEN THEY ARE FULL OF TRUTH AND EVIDENCE.
Date: 26 Mar 1996 07:23:57 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 120
Message-ID: <4j862d$m85@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4huni7$fv3@hearst.cac.psu.edu> <4i32a3$2jh@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4i4djf$omv@hearst.cac.psu.edu> <4i4ep0$r1r@hearst.cac.psu.edu> <4i4n5m$1fkp <4j4sd0$s6h@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: alchemy.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:23122 soc.culture.african:35595 soc.culture.somalia:7343 soc.culture.african.american:113720

In article <4j4sd0$s6h@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura Finsten  says:
>
>p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:
>>In article <4iudmj$n7s@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura Finsten  says:
>
>>>p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:

[argument over Laura's pettiness on grammar edited]

>Ourobouros, if I had *changed* the focus of the argument, I would have
>discontinued arguing about the genetics and other human biology issues
>and devoted all my comments to dissecting your writing skills.  

Perhaps the only reason you did so was my chiding.  For example, the 
thread "Lessons on Race Issues..." changed completely from when my server
crashed to when it was working again.  Who was responsible for the change?
Nobody but you.

>As you
>should be able to see, I have responded to everyone of your posts in
>response to mine concerning your lack of knowledge in the realm of
>human biology, and I have responded to several of your attacks on
>Stephen Judd, as well.  I have not *changed* the focus of the argument,
>I broadened it.  

If you have indeed responded to the Judd's & Ourobouros's posts then they
have failed to appear on my server, please repost them.

Please only repost them if they are factual.  Your opinions aren't 
appreciated nor are they welcome.

>And I regret it, because it is a waste of bandwidth,
>although for *you* to criticise anyone else's writing skills is just
>so outrageous...
>
Considering that I have (to date) only criticised two people on that
topic, and one of them being you, your comments are a little premature.
If you cared to notice, I only mocked you on your grammar when you
attacked mine.  The same applies to mightless.

What amazed me more, once your pathetic apology.  You stated that you
regretted the spelling bee, but continued on with your supposed lesson.
More hypocrisy really.

>[edit, including Ecyclopedia Britannica definitions of allele and of
>gene frequency in the context of the Hardy-Weinberg law]
>
>>Hope that helps.  Learn anything?
>
>No.  I already knew all that.  Did you?
>
You surprised me.  

>>Just to help us frame the continuation of the "relevant issues",
>>why don't you define a couple of ideas to me:  how can we tell if a
>>neanderthal skull is a neanderthal skull without craniometry?  And the
>>explanation of how a Black/White Portuguese and a Black/White Ethiopian 
>>ARE different in race (Caucasoid and Negroid)?
>
>Craniometry generally, or the cephalic index in particular?  I have not
>said anywhere that craniometry is not used by physical anthropologists.

And I have not said cephalic index either, but you seem to have made that
assumption.  

>How would one be able to say much at all about variation in skeletal
>populations without it?  My criticism was directed specifically at the 
>*cranial or cephalic index* which most human skeletal biologists has
>little or no value.  And so to a certain extent, this is a pointless 
>exercise.
>
Or so you say.  As I stated elsewhere, cranial measurements of modern
races are still in use [Jonathan Marks].  Or at least they were in 1995,
which you stated was outdated (interesting definition).

The last time I looked (no references sorry), there were differences in
bone structure between the Negro and the (Nordic) Caucasian.  Especially
the lower body positions.

>A number of features can be observed without any need for measurement:
>Neanderthal skulls tend to be flattened (rather than rounded) on top, 
>and have very pronounced supraorbital (brow) ridges with frontal sinuses 
>(large air spaces).  In some specimens, the nasal bones jut out nearly 
>horizontally.  Taurodont molars is another distinctive, nonmetric cranial/
>facial characteristic (although it is not unknown in some modern human
>populations).  Most distinctive cranial features are best assessed metrically, 
>and include the breadth and length of the nasal cavity, the absolute size 
>of the anterior teeth and their size relative to the premolars and molars.
>
"Most distinctive cranial features are best assessed metrically..."

Hypocrisy at it's finest.  Could you please give us a dictionary meaning
of "metrically."

[difference in Neanderthals edited]

Perhaps one could state there were different races of Neanderthal?

BTW, aren't there differences in skulls from different races besides the
cephalic index?

I have mentioned facial angle as one...
You could also include jaw shape, skull thickness and other 
classifications.  But then, wouldn't that go against your beloved 
propaganda?


One last thing, you failed to answer the last question from my
previous post.  To jog your memory, it has to do with the difference of
racial classification of a half-breed Portuguese and a half-breed 
Ethiopian.  It is relevant that you answer this question.  That way we
can ascertain whether the standard classifications are fictional or not. 
If they are fictional, then it helps to explain why geneticists cannot 
satisfy themselves on racial differences on a genetic level.  

Ourobouros.

P.S I do hope that you wield a degree in anthropology.  It makes it so
much easier.  



From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Tue Apr  2 07:39:34 PST 1996
Article: 16493 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!realtime.net!news.mindspring.com!gatech!swrinde!sgigate.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!decwrl!waikato!midland.co.nz!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: If...
Date: 2 Apr 1996 06:14:05 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <4jqgjd$fae@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4j3jbb$j16@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <827777800snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4ja80q$793@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4jhv41$12v@orb.direct.ca> <4ji3h 
NNTP-Posting-Host: alchemy.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:23840 alt.politics.nationalism.white:16493 alt.discrimination:45075

In s.judd@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Judd) states with his Jewish sense of
truth and justice:
>
>In article <4jmbuu$8b2@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
>bn946@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Les Griswold) wrote:
>
>> Laura Finsten (finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca) babbles:
>> > bn946@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Les Griswold) wrote:

[snip]

>When did you stop beating your wife, Les?
>
Please cite your evidence Judd.  Afterall, Jews don't lie do they?

Ourobouros.













From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Tue Apr  2 07:42:47 PST 1996
Article: 23840 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!realtime.net!news.mindspring.com!gatech!swrinde!sgigate.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!decwrl!waikato!midland.co.nz!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: If...
Date: 2 Apr 1996 06:14:05 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <4jqgjd$fae@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4j3jbb$j16@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <827777800snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4ja80q$793@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4jhv41$12v@orb.direct.ca> <4ji3h 
NNTP-Posting-Host: alchemy.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:23840 alt.politics.nationalism.white:16493 alt.discrimination:45075

In s.judd@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Judd) states with his Jewish sense of
truth and justice:
>
>In article <4jmbuu$8b2@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
>bn946@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Les Griswold) wrote:
>
>> Laura Finsten (finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca) babbles:
>> > bn946@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Les Griswold) wrote:

[snip]

>When did you stop beating your wife, Les?
>
Please cite your evidence Judd.  Afterall, Jews don't lie do they?

Ourobouros.













From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Thu Apr  4 08:50:45 PST 1996
Article: 16573 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!lamarck.sura.net!ra.nrl.navy.mil!news.math.psu.edu!chi-news.cic.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!panix!netaxs.com!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!news.jsums.edu!gatech!swrinde!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!pacbell.com!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: If...
Date: 4 Apr 1996 06:28:00 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <4jvq5g$11a@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: alchemy.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:24045 alt.politics.nationalism.white:16573 alt.discrimination:45141


[Judd] When did you stop beating your wife, Les?

[Ouro] Please cite your evidence Judd.  Afterall, Jews don't lie do they?

[Finsten] Ah Mr. Stone, you fell for that one.  Mr. Judd's point, which 
seems to have escaped you, is that Herr Griswold has done essentially the
same thing.  Herr Griswold has asked a question which requires one
to accept the premise, unsupported, that "niggers" are "backward".

     *sigh*

If you think we're that stupid perhaps you should go play in another set
of newsgroups.  You aren't interested in white-power or white nationalism,
so you really don't need to be here.  In fact, it isn't even relevant to
you.

Your (and Judd's) premise falls or stands on whether Les beats his wife.  
If you wish to make validate your claim, then you had better come up with
the goodies.  Either that or we can claim that Judd is a liar, and you
are a fool that believes him.
 
[Finsten] Where did you learn to be such an antisemitic little twerp, 
Mr. Stone?

>From  listening to silly little arguments by liberals.  First off, define
Semitic. If you can define it, please determine whether I am also anti it.

If I may, here is a plausible platform to continue Les's comment about
"niggers" and "backward."  Please define (in your definition) the word
"backward."  Once this has been established, then perhaps it will be 
possible to continue.  This definition is necessary because some liberals 
have decided to equate civilisation and mud huts as one.

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Thu Apr  4 08:50:46 PST 1996
Article: 16577 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.starnet.net!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: If...
Date: 4 Apr 1996 07:23:48 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 114
Message-ID: <4jvte4$11a@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: alchemy.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:24056 alt.politics.nationalism.white:16577 alt.discrimination:45146


[Les 1] Indeed.  So why are niggers still so backward?

[Finstein 1] I'm not trying to answer the question because it isn't a 
legitimate question.  

[Les 2] No, you're not trying to answer the question, because you CAN'T.  
Any attempt to address the issue will result in something like this:

[Les 2] continued:
Liberal turd:  "Well, people of colour have played an IMPORTANT ROLE
in the creation and furtherance of White Western culture!"

White racist:  "Really?  Well, name one significant thing that duskies
have done."

Liberal turd:  "Well, there's Dr. Charles Drew.  Also Dr. G.W. Carver."

White racist:  "I said DUSKIES, not mulattoes."

[Les 2] ends.

[Finstein 2] Herr Oberschickenmakenfuhrer displays his brilliant debating 
technique, once again.  Note the "cute" little insertions into the leader 
to indicate what I wrote.  What is really amusing is that he thinks that 
"liberal turd" is an insult while "white racist" is, what, an honorific?

Once upon a time, being called racist and patriotic were synonymous.  Some
of us still use the old definitions of words.  For example, when I call
someone sophisticated, I mean it in a derogatry fashion.  Someone who is
sophisticated is someone who is mixed with inferior substances 
(adulterate).

[Finstein 2] So you are not referring to biological evolution, but instead 
to historical development?  

It would appear that it is.  Would you please state whether the biological
traits (of any living organic organism) would affect the type of "society"
he lives in?  Whether he be canine or human (or other for that matter)?

[Finstein 2] What is "White Western culture", Herr 
Unterschweinenschtickenfuhrer? Do you mean things like writing, the 
development of state institutions and kingship, all of which seem to have 
originated in Mesopotamia?  Where those ancient Mesopotamians "White", 
Herr Oberfarteneinenfuhrer? Do you mean Christianity, which developed 
directly out of Judaism and in the same part of the world?  Do you mean 
the Classical Greek underpinnings of democracy, western philosophy, and 
so on?  Is Greece part of the "White West"?  Are you referring to the 
Renaissance and Enlightenment, which are unintelligible if Italy is 
excluded from Europe?  Is Italy part of the "White West"?  Or are you 
talking about the Norman Conquest, the War of the Roses, the Battle of 
Culloden, the Napoleonic Wars, or Europe's wars of this century?

[Finstein 2] I can play your game, too, Herr Oberschtinkenfuhrer.

Do you think we can't as well?

Comment on this quote from Mesopotamia:

Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh and others. 
S. Dalley, 1989. p.3,4.

"At Sippar the temple of the sun-god Shamash was particularly famous, in
Old Babylonian times when Nur-Aya [an important Priest] lived there, for
its cloister of blue-blooded priestesses who were not allowed to bear
children."

Next time you pass a mirror, please inspect your armpit.  Please consider
whether Wogs, niggers or gooks would have blue veins showing.

The bible (KJV):

Song of Solomon, chapter 5, verse 10:
(to King Solomon) "My beloved is white and ruddy..."
  
Song of Solomon, chapter 1, verse 6:
"Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon 
me..."

Most curious.  I could of course add all those things about the word 
"fair" as well, especially concerning 17th Century English.  You are aware
that fair was synonymous with white aren't you?

I'd just like to add the hated nursery rhyme of B'nai B'rith which is of
course Snow White.

She is the fairest of them all, because of what trait?

Oh, The Prejudice Book is written and published by the B'nai B'rith states
this.  This book of course is written against European children by Jews.

Greece is next.

Please tell the world that Alexander the Great's bust is not depicted as
blonde and blue-eyed (at least one of them is).  Perhaps I can get your
name ridiculed amonst archeologists and historians...

Renaissance?

Could you please tell the world that the people of Florence in 1454 were 
brown?  You seemed to have mixed Naples with Florence.  One was a 
backwater throughout the Renaissance and Absolutism period, the other is
the traditional starting point of the Renaissance.  One of them produced
art depicting white men and women, the other became the vassal of Spain.
One of them was envied by France and Spain, the other was considered a
nuisance.  

BTW, Italy wasn't unified until this century.  Each city state scraped 
amongst themselves.

Do I need to comment on your other misaimed ventures?

Ourobouros.
  


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Thu Apr  4 08:58:21 PST 1996
Article: 24045 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!lamarck.sura.net!ra.nrl.navy.mil!news.math.psu.edu!chi-news.cic.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!panix!netaxs.com!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!news.jsums.edu!gatech!swrinde!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!pacbell.com!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: If...
Date: 4 Apr 1996 06:28:00 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <4jvq5g$11a@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: alchemy.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:24045 alt.politics.nationalism.white:16573 alt.discrimination:45141


[Judd] When did you stop beating your wife, Les?

[Ouro] Please cite your evidence Judd.  Afterall, Jews don't lie do they?

[Finsten] Ah Mr. Stone, you fell for that one.  Mr. Judd's point, which 
seems to have escaped you, is that Herr Griswold has done essentially the
same thing.  Herr Griswold has asked a question which requires one
to accept the premise, unsupported, that "niggers" are "backward".

     *sigh*

If you think we're that stupid perhaps you should go play in another set
of newsgroups.  You aren't interested in white-power or white nationalism,
so you really don't need to be here.  In fact, it isn't even relevant to
you.

Your (and Judd's) premise falls or stands on whether Les beats his wife.  
If you wish to make validate your claim, then you had better come up with
the goodies.  Either that or we can claim that Judd is a liar, and you
are a fool that believes him.
 
[Finsten] Where did you learn to be such an antisemitic little twerp, 
Mr. Stone?

>From  listening to silly little arguments by liberals.  First off, define
Semitic. If you can define it, please determine whether I am also anti it.

If I may, here is a plausible platform to continue Les's comment about
"niggers" and "backward."  Please define (in your definition) the word
"backward."  Once this has been established, then perhaps it will be 
possible to continue.  This definition is necessary because some liberals 
have decided to equate civilisation and mud huts as one.

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Thu Apr  4 08:58:24 PST 1996
Article: 24056 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.starnet.net!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: If...
Date: 4 Apr 1996 07:23:48 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 114
Message-ID: <4jvte4$11a@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: alchemy.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:24056 alt.politics.nationalism.white:16577 alt.discrimination:45146


[Les 1] Indeed.  So why are niggers still so backward?

[Finstein 1] I'm not trying to answer the question because it isn't a 
legitimate question.  

[Les 2] No, you're not trying to answer the question, because you CAN'T.  
Any attempt to address the issue will result in something like this:

[Les 2] continued:
Liberal turd:  "Well, people of colour have played an IMPORTANT ROLE
in the creation and furtherance of White Western culture!"

White racist:  "Really?  Well, name one significant thing that duskies
have done."

Liberal turd:  "Well, there's Dr. Charles Drew.  Also Dr. G.W. Carver."

White racist:  "I said DUSKIES, not mulattoes."

[Les 2] ends.

[Finstein 2] Herr Oberschickenmakenfuhrer displays his brilliant debating 
technique, once again.  Note the "cute" little insertions into the leader 
to indicate what I wrote.  What is really amusing is that he thinks that 
"liberal turd" is an insult while "white racist" is, what, an honorific?

Once upon a time, being called racist and patriotic were synonymous.  Some
of us still use the old definitions of words.  For example, when I call
someone sophisticated, I mean it in a derogatry fashion.  Someone who is
sophisticated is someone who is mixed with inferior substances 
(adulterate).

[Finstein 2] So you are not referring to biological evolution, but instead 
to historical development?  

It would appear that it is.  Would you please state whether the biological
traits (of any living organic organism) would affect the type of "society"
he lives in?  Whether he be canine or human (or other for that matter)?

[Finstein 2] What is "White Western culture", Herr 
Unterschweinenschtickenfuhrer? Do you mean things like writing, the 
development of state institutions and kingship, all of which seem to have 
originated in Mesopotamia?  Where those ancient Mesopotamians "White", 
Herr Oberfarteneinenfuhrer? Do you mean Christianity, which developed 
directly out of Judaism and in the same part of the world?  Do you mean 
the Classical Greek underpinnings of democracy, western philosophy, and 
so on?  Is Greece part of the "White West"?  Are you referring to the 
Renaissance and Enlightenment, which are unintelligible if Italy is 
excluded from Europe?  Is Italy part of the "White West"?  Or are you 
talking about the Norman Conquest, the War of the Roses, the Battle of 
Culloden, the Napoleonic Wars, or Europe's wars of this century?

[Finstein 2] I can play your game, too, Herr Oberschtinkenfuhrer.

Do you think we can't as well?

Comment on this quote from Mesopotamia:

Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh and others. 
S. Dalley, 1989. p.3,4.

"At Sippar the temple of the sun-god Shamash was particularly famous, in
Old Babylonian times when Nur-Aya [an important Priest] lived there, for
its cloister of blue-blooded priestesses who were not allowed to bear
children."

Next time you pass a mirror, please inspect your armpit.  Please consider
whether Wogs, niggers or gooks would have blue veins showing.

The bible (KJV):

Song of Solomon, chapter 5, verse 10:
(to King Solomon) "My beloved is white and ruddy..."
  
Song of Solomon, chapter 1, verse 6:
"Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon 
me..."

Most curious.  I could of course add all those things about the word 
"fair" as well, especially concerning 17th Century English.  You are aware
that fair was synonymous with white aren't you?

I'd just like to add the hated nursery rhyme of B'nai B'rith which is of
course Snow White.

She is the fairest of them all, because of what trait?

Oh, The Prejudice Book is written and published by the B'nai B'rith states
this.  This book of course is written against European children by Jews.

Greece is next.

Please tell the world that Alexander the Great's bust is not depicted as
blonde and blue-eyed (at least one of them is).  Perhaps I can get your
name ridiculed amonst archeologists and historians...

Renaissance?

Could you please tell the world that the people of Florence in 1454 were 
brown?  You seemed to have mixed Naples with Florence.  One was a 
backwater throughout the Renaissance and Absolutism period, the other is
the traditional starting point of the Renaissance.  One of them produced
art depicting white men and women, the other became the vassal of Spain.
One of them was envied by France and Spain, the other was considered a
nuisance.  

BTW, Italy wasn't unified until this century.  Each city state scraped 
amongst themselves.

Do I need to comment on your other misaimed ventures?

Ourobouros.
  


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Mon Apr  8 17:11:57 PDT 1996
Article: 16884 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!comp.vuw.ac.nz!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: If...
Date: 8 Apr 1996 21:27:16 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <4kc0bk$8p9@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4j3jbb$j16@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <827777800snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4ja80q$793@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4jhv41$12v@orb.direct.ca> <4ji3h 
NNTP-Posting-Host: alchemy.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:24645 alt.politics.nationalism.white:16884 alt.discrimination:45338

In article , holman@katk.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) says:
>
>In article <4k1asi$71j@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
>(Ourobouros) wrote:
>
[Ouro] The only possible way you couldn't prove the niggers in Africa 
aren't backwards is by using liberal terminology of words.  I'm sure 
taking liberal logic to its full extent will reveal that coconuts have 
developed civilisation as well.  Nothing short of enforcing liberals to 
live in darkest Africa will change their attitudes on what constitutes 
civilisation.  
>
>Your perception of 'darkest Africa' obviously derives from Tarzan movies.
>Sure there are parts of Africa that are a generation or two removed from
>the stone age, but the same could have been said about certain parts of
>Europe a century or two ago as well (and a century or two means absolutely
>nothing in terms of human evolution or 'backwardness'). I've known dozens
>of Africans from countries like Ethiopia and Somalia who went to the
>Soviet Union during the 1980s to study and were appalled that the people
>were living in conditions worse than anything they knew at home.
>
Well I've known Africans from Zambia, Liberia, Rwanda (refugees), South
Africa and so on.

They paint quite a different story.  

One of the simplest ideas that immigrants from darkest Africa miss is 
basic hygiene.  Most do not even know what a toilet is (they just excrete
in the local washing river). 

>> 
>> In short, liberals non-fathoming of "niggers" and "backwards" indicates
>> their level of intelligence in arguing.  What amazes me is that they don't
>> realize it.  I must say that people like Judd, Cthulhu and Finsten really
>> help bolster our numbers.  No sane person likes to identify themselves 
>> with them.  
>> 
>
>If you were to take the trouble to gather some first-hand experience of
>Africa, and not rely on the mass media, biased towards giving us in the
>West a false sense of superiority, and pure exchange-rate bAsed
>comparisons of living standards according to which many people in Africa
>live in spacious homes, are well educated, dress and eat well, all
>supposedly on $500 a year, you will see that Les's entire question is too
>stupid to be worth honoring with an answer.
>
A few things you lack.

1) I know many people from Africa.

2) I read a lot of books, which include liberal books.  Some of these
books are on Africa.  Books contain all sorts of information, which 
surprises many liberals.

3) The mass media portrays the Africans as noble savages, a righteous
people, an equal people, a more moral people than whites.  Where you get
your impressions of the media defies imagination.

4) Child sponsors (UNICEF, dumb Christian organisations) keep begging for
money for education, food and building programs for the children of
Africa.  Do you think that I could sue them for fraud?

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Mon Apr  8 17:11:58 PDT 1996
Article: 16885 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!comp.vuw.ac.nz!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: If...
Date: 8 Apr 1996 21:32:42 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <4kc0lq$8p9@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4j3jbb$j16@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <827777800snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4ja80q$793@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4jhv41$12v@orb.direct.ca> <4ji3h 
NNTP-Posting-Host: alchemy.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:24646 alt.politics.nationalism.white:16885 alt.discrimination:45339

In article , 
jeff_brown@pol.com (Jeffrey G. Brown) ignorantly states:

[Ouro] [Belarus, Ukraine, Moldava (Moldavia?) also being backward]

[Ouro] First off, no I don't consider a lot of the population of those 
regions to be white.  Most of them a Slavic (round heads).  

[Jeffrey]
What shape is your head, Stone? A dodecahedron, perhaps?

What shape of head is required for someone to be "white", and who
conducted the research establishing the correlation between head shape 
and race?
[Jeffrey ends]

Jeffrey,

You don't pay much attention to these newsgroups do you?  If you had, 
you'd not be so ignorant.

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Mon Apr  8 20:20:44 PDT 1996
Article: 24649 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!brighton.openmarket.com!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Preserving multi"culturalism"
Date: 8 Apr 1996 21:44:10 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <4kc1ba$8p9@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4jvdo4$997@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: alchemy.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1

In article <4jvdo4$997@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, bn946@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Les Griswold) says:
>
>Why does it escape fans of multiCULT that the BEST way to PRESERVE all of
>these wonderful, diverse cultures is through SEPARATION?  Throwing all
>sorts of races together will ONLY result in a bastardized mix.
>
Les,

You should know by now that these fans only deal with emotion and not 
facts and logic.  Take fester for example, she would have you believe that
craniometry is outdated, yet anthropologists still use it.  Even worse is
that she is a supposed professor of anthropology.  

If a liberal professor can't accept facts and logic, what can the rest of
them hope for?

We could of course push your idea to its logical extension.

Okay, say that the liberals are correct.  That the best way to preserve
these other cultures is on the White man's back.  What does that tell you?

It simply tells you that liberals do not believe that these other races
can preserve their culture on their own (inferior).  They need the 
resources and abilities of Whites to preserve their traits.  Their unique
qualities aren't capable of making them survive...

Of course it destroys their pretense that all the cultures are "equal",
but then, whoever did say the liberals were rational?

Ourobouros.
 




From stefan@scott.net Mon Apr  8 22:34:09 PDT 1996
Article: 16903 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!new-news.sprintlink.net!news.scott.net!usenet
From: evil Beavis 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: If...
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 20:59:45 -0500
Organization: Scott Network Services, Inc.
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <3169C491.7E65@scott.net>
References: <4j3jbb$j16@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <827777800snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4ja80q$793@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4jhv41$12v@orb.direct.ca> <4ji3h  <4kbvl3$8p9@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup02.scott.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0GoldB2 (Win95; I)
To: Ourobouros 
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:24686 alt.politics.nationalism.white:16903 alt.discrimination:45347

Ourobouros wrote:
> 
> In article , holman@katk.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) says:
> >
> >In article <4k76ft$16k@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
> >(Ourobouros) wrote:
> >
> >> In article ,
> >holman@katk.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) says:
> >> >
> >> >In article <4k482a$i5k@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
> >> >(Ourobouros) wrote:
> 
> [Belarus, Ukraine, Moldava also being backward]
> 
> >> First off, no I don't consider a lot of the population of those regions
> >> to be white.  Most of them a Slavic (round heads).
> >>
> >
> >But many have blond hair and/or blue eyes. How do you relate to this?
> >
> Ah, that's not to say there aren't some Aryans still living there, and of
> course the race mixing.  The overall population however isn't Aryan.  We
> must also take into consideration the Soviet regime, which while liberal
> and useless, still offered some level of administration.  The Soviet's
> delibrately kept everybody poor (except of course party members). Given
> enough time, the local Aryans will accomplish something worthwhile (so
> long as they don't mix, and can keep the other races at bay).
> 
> >> Secondly, as you have so kindly mentioned before, they were Soviet former
> >> territories.  No further explanation should be required.
> >>
> >
> >Many places in 'black Africa' are former colonial territories. I fail to
> >see a signifant difference between these and former Soviet territories,
> >except, perhaps, that in the former Soviet territories it was people of
> >their 'own race' who were doing the exploiting.
> >
> The colonial powers improved the regions they occupied (built roads,
> buildings, sewage and so forth).
> 
> The Soviet regime ruled many ethnic groups (and often forced integration,
> just like liberals today).  Therefore your exploiting of their own race is
> somewhat premature.  However, the Soviet regime demonstrates the to the
> fullest extent, liberal ideals (we're all equal, mix the races, "freedom
> of speech" and so on).
> 
> Ourobouros.


When is the last time you visited Eastern Europe or the European parts of the former 
Soviet Union? MAybe we can exchange travel notes so that I can understand where you get 
your assertions from??!

eB


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Tue Apr  9 10:04:24 PDT 1996
Article: 16931 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!news.dal.ca!torn!csn!news-1.csn.net!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: If...
Date: 8 Apr 1996 21:15:15 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <4kbvl3$8p9@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4j3jbb$j16@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <827777800snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4ja80q$793@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4jhv41$12v@orb.direct.ca> <4ji3h 
NNTP-Posting-Host: alchemy.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:24724 alt.politics.nationalism.white:16931 alt.discrimination:45360

In article , holman@katk.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) says:
>
>In article <4k76ft$16k@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
>(Ourobouros) wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>holman@katk.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) says:
>> >
>> >In article <4k482a$i5k@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
>> >(Ourobouros) wrote:

[Belarus, Ukraine, Moldava also being backward]

>> First off, no I don't consider a lot of the population of those regions 
>> to be white.  Most of them a Slavic (round heads).  
>> 
>
>But many have blond hair and/or blue eyes. How do you relate to this?
>
Ah, that's not to say there aren't some Aryans still living there, and of 
course the race mixing.  The overall population however isn't Aryan.  We
must also take into consideration the Soviet regime, which while liberal
and useless, still offered some level of administration.  The Soviet's
delibrately kept everybody poor (except of course party members). Given
enough time, the local Aryans will accomplish something worthwhile (so 
long as they don't mix, and can keep the other races at bay).

>> Secondly, as you have so kindly mentioned before, they were Soviet former
>> territories.  No further explanation should be required.
>> 
>
>Many places in 'black Africa' are former colonial territories. I fail to
>see a signifant difference between these and former Soviet territories,
>except, perhaps, that in the former Soviet territories it was people of
>their 'own race' who were doing the exploiting.
>
The colonial powers improved the regions they occupied (built roads,
buildings, sewage and so forth).  

The Soviet regime ruled many ethnic groups (and often forced integration,
just like liberals today).  Therefore your exploiting of their own race is
somewhat premature.  However, the Soviet regime demonstrates the to the
fullest extent, liberal ideals (we're all equal, mix the races, "freedom
of speech" and so on).

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Wed Apr 10 14:56:49 PDT 1996
Article: 24880 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!cancer.vividnet.com!news.sojourn.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!news.texas.net!news1.best.com!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!brighton.openmarket.com!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Miscegenation does NOT describe what happens when two closely related branches cross (was: Miscegenation happened when the Angles met the Sax
Date: 10 Apr 1996 07:10:42 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <4kfmti$7tm@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4jq2pl$7i5@nuacht.iol.ie> <4jsod9$ckc@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4kb9pt$6f3@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-36.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1

In article <4kb9pt$6f3@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>, kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC) says:
>
>In article <4jsod9$ckc@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, Les Griswold wrote:
>
		*sigh*

Here we go again:

[Les]

>   "When two closely related branches cross, that is NOT 
>   miscegenation.  When a White crosses with a non-White, 
>   that IS miscegenation."
>
>Interesting that Mr. Griswold choses to ignore the genetic
>evidence - evidence which makes it clear that his thesis is
>sheer, unadulterated crap.
>
How many times does something have to be repeated?

How many more times will McVay demonstrate that he likes being blissfully
ignorant?

Believe or not, PC Maps can distinguish the races quite well.

Your argument is debunked, please stop repeating such garbage in future.

>Perhaps William Pierce had Griswold in mind, when he wrote
>about the harmful blatherings of juvenile wannabees on the net
>in a recent article in his rag.... it fits.

Perhaps William Pierce foresaw liberals like you on the 'net...it fits.

Are we going to get an apology for calling Nazi's incontinent and cowards
Mr McVay?  Either that or you're still blissfully unaware of W.W.II.

Could we also have a brief summary (make it in another thread) of these
three hundred books you've supposedly read.  I'm quite curious to see how
you summarise 300 Commando comics.

Oh, as for the original question about whether miscegenation occurred
between two different sets of Aryan people, please feel free to look up
the word miscegenation.  The Brits, Cymrii, Scots, Picts, Gauls, Angles,
Danes, Jutes, Franks, Vandals, Saxons, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Lombards,
Norwegian, Swedes, Milesian, Tuatha De Danaan, Hiberian, Celts, Cornish, 
Iberian and so on were all of Aryan stock.  Please explain how two 
members of different stocks (say Lombards and Cymrii), but of same racial 
background, could be classified as miscegenation when they "marry"?

Ourobouros.

P.S The above list is by no means complete.






From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Wed Apr 10 19:27:49 PDT 1996
Article: 30539 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!wizard.pn.com!brighton.openmarket.com!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: Ken Mcvay: Professional Liar
Date: 10 Apr 1996 21:12:41 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <4kh889$di2@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References:  <316913e3.1552455@news.pacificnet.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-44.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:17045 alt.politics.white-power:24901 alt.revisionism:30539 alt.skinheads:17858

In article <316913e3.1552455@news.pacificnet.net>, tm@pacificnet.net (tom moran) says:
>
>bn857@freenet.toronto.on.ca (Milton Kleim) wrote:
>
>>
>>Need anything more be said?
>
>        Yes. I have problem with the word "Professional". 'Childlike'
>would be a more accurate term. 

In the lunacy of it all, McVay is paid.  Therefore he can be classified 
as a professional.  However it doesn't discount the plausibility of McVay
being infantile.  Afterall, he was the one that tried to establish a
myth that Nazis were cowards and incontinent.  Even more blatant is his
claim on his software responding to all hate posts wherever they were on
the 'net.

Then of course these the dissection of his "FAQs."  For example, he 
disputes the figure of Fred Leuchter on how many feasible Jews could be
put in x^2.  McVay states that they can be "sardined" into the showers.
What I want to know is if they were sardined, then why did they bother 
with the illusion of giving them all a shower?  It would be obvious that
Leuchter gave a rational figure, McVay an irrational figure, on this basis
alone.  Another example is the gassing by exhaust fumes from tanks.  
Considering that Germany was facing a oil crisis, one wonders how valid
McVay's comments are.  Afterall, tanks do need petroleum.  It's possible
that McVay forgot this, or that he was delibrately lying.  Another example
is the disposing of the waste products of those cremated.  I mean really,
think about the logistics of throwing it all in the local river, 
especially the fat and bones...

A brief synopsis of the disposal factor:

The average adult male (20-25 yrs) has the lowest mean of body fat 
content (15-16%).  All others have a progressively higher mean.  Since you
have made statements that they weren't emaciated, let's review.

Lets say the average weight of those "cremated" were 50 kg (110 ibs).  And
that due to circumstances, they had an mean of 14% body fat.
To be really generous, say only one million bodies were cremated.

1,000,000 corpses X 50 kg = 50,000,000 kg.
50,000,000 kg X 0.14 fat content = 7,000,000 kg of fat.  Or 7,000 tons of
human fat to be disposed.  To you think that this could be just thrown
into the one river?  Considering I was being extremely generous with the
figures, the logistics become overwhelming.  Could we have a bit more 
logic in your "FAQs" Mr McVay.  Oh, fat is quite resilient to being
reduced via heat.  To the bozos that want to defend McVay over this point.
You had better have done your homework first.  

BTW McVay, you failed to answer a question of mine from a few months back.
Namely, where can I find this information that a beetle needs more Zyclon
B than a human (to die).  I don't necessarily dispute what you stated, but 
I do know about the breathing mechanism of insects.  According to your 
claims, a human could hold his breath to avoid the effects of Zyclon B.  
Such a concept is beyond an insect, even if it wished to do so.

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Wed Apr 10 19:27:50 PDT 1996
Article: 30540 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!brighton.openmarket.com!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: Ken Mcvay: Professional Liar
Date: 10 Apr 1996 21:44:11 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <4kha3b$e90@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References:  <316913e3.1552455@news.pacificnet.net> <4kh889$di2@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-56.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:17047 alt.politics.white-power:24903 alt.revisionism:30540 alt.skinheads:17859

In article <316913e3.1552455@news.pacificnet.net>, tm@pacificnet.net (tom moran) says:
>
>bn857@freenet.toronto.on.ca (Milton Kleim) wrote:
>
>>
>>Need anything more be said?
>>
>        Yes. I have problem with the word "Professional". 'Childlike'
>would be a more accurate term. 
>
In the lunacy of it all, McVay is paid.  Therefore he can be classified 
as a professional.  However it doesn't discount the plausibility of McVay
being infantile.  Afterall, he was the one that tried to establish a
myth that Nazis were cowards and incontinent.  Even more blatant is his
claim on his software responding to all hate posts wherever they were on
the 'net.

Then of course there is the dissection of his "FAQs."  For example, he 
disputes the figure of Fred Leuchter on how many feasible people could be
put in x^2.  McVay states that they can be "sardined" into the showers.
What I want to know is if they were sardined, then why did they bother 
with the illusion of giving them all a shower?  It would be obvious that
Leuchter gave a rational figure, McVay an irrational figure, on this basis
alone.  Another example is the gassing by exhaust fumes from tanks.  
Considering that Germany was facing a oil crisis, one wonders how valid
McVay's comments are.  Afterall, tanks do need petroleum.  It's possible
that McVay forgot this, or that he was delibrately lying.  Another example
is the disposing of the waste products of those cremated.  I mean really,
think about the logistics of throwing it all in the local river, 
especially the fat and bones...

A brief synopsis of the disposal factor:

The average adult male (20-25 yrs) has the lowest mean of body fat 
content (15-16%).  All others have a progressively higher mean.  Since you
have made statements that they weren't emaciated, let's review.

Lets say the average weight of those "cremated" were 50 kg (110 ibs).  And
that due to circumstances, they had a mean of 14% body fat.
To be really generous, say only one million bodies were cremated.

1,000,000 corpses X 50 kg = 50,000,000 kg.
50,000,000 kg X 0.14 fat content = 7,000,000 kg of fat.  Or 7,000 tons of
human fat to be disposed.  To you think that this could be just thrown
into the one river?  Considering I was being extremely generous with the
figures, the logistics become overwhelming.  Could we have a bit more 
logic in your "FAQs" Mr McVay?  Oh, fat is quite resilient to being
reduced via heat.  To the bozos that want to defend McVay over this point.
You had better have done your homework first.  

BTW McVay, you failed to answer a question of mine from a few months back.
Namely, where can I find this information that a beetle needs more Zyclon
B than a human (to die).  I don't necessarily dispute what you stated, but 
I do know about the breathing mechanism of insects.  According to your 
claims, a human could hold his breath to avoid the effects of Zyclon B.  
Such a concept is beyond an insect, even if it wished to do so, as an
example.

Since we're on the Hoaxacost, would you mind explaining why David Irving
was refused a visa to New Zealand?  Afterall, few Jews from NZ had any
connection to the hoaxacost and there is no conspiracy (your own words).

Ourobouros.

P.S Ignore the previous post.


From rbi.com!mvanalst  Wed Apr 10 21:30:59 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Smail3.1.29.1 #8)
	id m0u7E25-000ZYdC; Wed, 10 Apr 96 21:30 PDT
Received: from rbi.rbi.com by nizkor.almanac.bc.ca ; 10 APR 96 21:30:43 PDT
Received: from rbi146.rbi.com (rbi146.rbi.com [204.188.109.146]) by rbi.rbi.com (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id VAA00181; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 21:27:11 -0700
Message-Id: <199604110427.VAA00181@rbi.rbi.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 21:31:24 -0700
From: mvanalst@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine)
To: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros),
        kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC)
Subject: Re: Ken Mcvay: Professional Liar
Organization: rbi software systems
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads
References:  <316913e3.1552455@news.pacificnet.net> <4kh889$di2@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.0.5b5
Status: RO

(A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups:
alt.politics.nationalism.white,
alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads)

In article <4kh889$di2@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
(Ourobouros) wrote:

[snip]

> A brief synopsis of the disposal factor:
> 
> The average adult male (20-25 yrs) has the lowest mean of body fat 
> content (15-16%).  All others have a progressively higher mean.  Since you
> have made statements that they weren't emaciated, let's review.
> 
> Lets say the average weight of those "cremated" were 50 kg (110 ibs).  And
> that due to circumstances, they had an mean of 14% body fat.
> To be really generous, say only one million bodies were cremated.
> 
> 1,000,000 corpses X 50 kg = 50,000,000 kg.
> 50,000,000 kg X 0.14 fat content = 7,000,000 kg of fat.  Or 7,000 tons of
> human fat to be disposed.  To you think that this could be just thrown
> into the one river?  Considering I was being extremely generous with the
> figures, the logistics become overwhelming.  Could we have a bit more 
> logic in your "FAQs" Mr McVay.  Oh, fat is quite resilient to being
> reduced via heat.  To the bozos that want to defend McVay over this point.
> You had better have done your homework first.  

Oh, my! The gauntlet is thrown! How irresistable. 

First, for argument's sake I will use your figures. However, if I come
across more accurate figures I will use those instead.

Now, you ask how 7,000 tonnes of fat could be disposed? By tossing it in
the river? No, the fat was not tossed in the river. The ashes were. The
fat was burned in the incineration process. Despite your protests
otherwise. In fact, fat burns rather well. Ask a modern crematorium
operartor. Fat, as well as tissue, once it has surpassed its activation
barrier, burns. About the only thing that doesn't is the calcium phosphate
in bones. But even bones turn to ash. Or became frangible and are easily
ground fine. 

The combustion equation for the fat glyceryl trimyrisate, C45H86O6, for
example, is: C45H86O6(s) + 127/2 O2(g) -> 45C02(g) + 43H20(l); H = -27820
kJ

The enthaply, then, is exothermic. It gives off heat. Rather a bit too.
Fats, in general, when burned, release (on average) 37.7 kJ/g of heat
energy. That's more than coal does, which is (on average) 32.8 kJ/g.
According to your figures, the "average" corpse would have had 7 kg of
fat. That's the heat energy equivalent of about 8 kg of coal. Or about
234,140 Btu's. And that's just the fat.

This helps explain why the Nazis recovered the fat in the incineration
pits and poured them back onto the burning corpses: it was pretty good
"free" fuel that could be used to help sustain the incineration process.
Likewise, the amount of energy liberated by the burning corpse would
reduce the amount of coke needed to keep the furnaces hot enough to
cremate the corpses. As carbohydrates and proteins only yield about 17
kJ/g when burned, and if whe assume that the skeleton comprises 11% of
body weight, this should mean that the to of the rest of the body should
have the energy equivalent of about 19 kg of coal. Add in the fat and that
would make about 27 kg of coal, or about 785,728 Btu's. This is simply a
rough assumption, of course, but it gives a general idea to the amount of
energy locked up inside a human body.  

Now, your claim that fat is quite resilient to being reduced by heat is
rather odd in that it is easily done so every day. Cook a pork chop over a
flame, for example. Or a hamburger. Or roast a turkey. The trick,
actually, is to NOT burn the food. Fat is reduced all right. Readily
reduced. The melting point for satuatrated (animal) fat, such as
CH3(CH2)22CO2H  (Lignoceric acid), for instance, is only 86C. Not very
high when comared a the temperature found in a furnace or incineration
pit. 

So what does this mean? It means, among other things, that there was no
fat left to dispose of. Just ash and bone. I believe the latest estimate
(in another thread) was that the (average?) human body would yield 1 kg of
ash and bone. If we were to use your figure for those murdered as being 1
million, that would be about 1,000 tonnes of ash and bone. Almost all of
of such remains were either dumped in the Sola and Vistula rivers, or
scattered about the countryside. (Ash and especially bone ash are often
used as fertilizers.) 

> BTW McVay, you failed to answer a question of mine from a few months back.
> Namely, where can I find this information that a beetle needs more Zyclon
> B than a human (to die).  I don't necessarily dispute what you stated, but 
> I do know about the breathing mechanism of insects.  

Try:

http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?camps/auschwitz/cyanide/cyanide.001
http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?camps/auschwitz/cyanide/cyanide.002

> According to your claims, a human could hold his breath to avoid the
effects of Zyclon B. 

Yes. If the concentration was not too high and the exposure not too prolonged.

But how long do you think a person, forewarned, could hold their breath? 5
minutes? 10 minutes? Do you think 1,000 naked, tired, abused, and
terrified people crammed into a room, when the lights go out, would all
collectively hold their breath for 5 minutes? How about when they started
panicking and dying- clawing at and climbing over each other, trampling
the weak and the young underfoot to get away from the gas? Do you think
anybody would be to hold their breath for 5 SECONDS? I don't. 

> Such a concept is beyond an insect, even if it wished to do so.

Of course. That's why fumigants are so effective. Especially ones like
Zyklon B. 
 
Ok, your turn. You've basically stated that the Nazis couldn't possibly
have gotten rid of 7,000 tonnes of fat from the bodies they murdered. I
believe I have shown you to be in serious error in such an assertion.
Defend your claim or retract it.

I hope YOU'VE done YOUR homework... Zippy. };-> 


Mark


posted/e-mailed to Mr. McVay and Ourobouros.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes 
not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties--but
right through every human heart--and all human hearts." 

-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Thu Apr 11 00:27:21 PDT 1996
Article: 17054 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news.tamu.edu!news.utdallas.edu!news.starnet.net!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.politics,soc.culture.intercultural,alt.discrimination,sci.philosophy.meta,alt.politics.nationalism.white,talk.politics.theory,soc.c
Subject: Re: Racist stereotypes
Date: 11 Apr 1996 03:18:54 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 49
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <4khtmu$for@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <828208075snz@stellar.demon.co.uk> <828294792snz@drmac.demon.co.uk> <4kel7p$eo5@er7.rutgers.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-21.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.discrimination:45417 sci.philosophy.meta:16386 alt.politics.nationalism.white:17054 talk.politics.theory:60436

In article <4kel7p$eo5@er7.rutgers.edu>, aston@eden.rutgers.edu (Heather Aston) says:
>
>"Duncan R. MacMillan"  writes:
>
>>       I refer, of course, to white libruls and brown nazis always making out
>>that white racists are just a bunch of knuckledragging bigots.
>
>
>Why does the truth disturb you? Look at the articles on this newsgroup. The
>white racists seem, well, like knuckle dragging (I'm pretty sure that's not
>one word) bigots. I refer to Les Griswold and crew. They display their 
>ignorance of history, lack of rational thought, and bigotry at every 
>opportunity. 

Strange.  When "caesar" stated that (Western) Europe and Africa were of
the same technological level in the fourteenth century, I quoted a history 
book that proved him wrong.  Now who was ignorant of history and who 
wasn't?

Mr McVay has made claims that the Nazis were cowards, which if you knew
history (W.W.II) it would then be obvious that this was blatantly wrong.

When mightless started quoting that Negroes built ancient Egypt, and I
quoted material that proved him wrong, who was ignorant of history?

In fact, a few months ago with *Black* civilisations been the fashion 
here, I went through each one posed, disproving that they were built by
Negroes.  Who was wrong and who wasn't?

Miss Finsten wrote recently concerning that the Renaissance starters 
(Northern Italy, especially Florence) were brown based on her ignorance
of history.  Then of course she mentioned the ancient Greeks and ex cetra.

Now where were you in these debates?  I don't remember you stopping your
compatriots from being ignorant.

As for rational thought...you haven't got your historical reference 
correct, so we discount you from being able to judge who is rational and
who isn't. 

>From  your statements above, it would seem you are the one bigoted.  You
could try and prove me wrong of course...

BTW, what is the difference between you making stereotypes and us making
stereotypes?

Ourobouros.

  


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Sat Apr 13 11:05:11 PDT 1996
Article: 17196 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!olivea!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: If...
Date: 13 Apr 1996 00:26:13 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <4kmsb5$4do@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4j3jbb$j16@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <827777800snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4ja80q$793@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4jhv41$12v@orb.direct.ca> <4ji3h <829036834snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-46.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:25151 alt.politics.nationalism.white:17196 alt.discrimination:45492

In article <829036834snz@augur.demon.co.uk>, Caesar  says:
>
>In article <4kc0bk$8p9@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
>           p_stone@alchemy.co.nz "Ourobouros" writes:
>
>> 
>> One of the simplest ideas that immigrants from darkest Africa miss is 
>> basic hygiene.  Most do not even know what a toilet is (they just excrete
>> in the local washing river). 
>
>People in medieval English towns used to shit in the nearest river as
>well.
>
>There was a massive cholera epidemic in 1840s London because of
>the unhygenic water people were drinking.

Yes, a blight on our otherwise impressive history.  Of course I blame the
vast bulk of this at the feet of Christianity (except perhaps Calvinism),
which delibrately kept the meaner sort of people ignorant.  

It should be noted that 1840s is not considered Medieval.  But I
understand your point.  If we had implemented quarantine in the cities
we'd have been better off.  But there seems to be correlation between
having Jews in a city, and the fanatism over money being introduced.  I
wonder if I could draw a conclusion between the two, that is cities
refused to implement quarantine because they wanted commerce more than
wanted the health of the people.

Fortunately we decided to improve our lot.  Something the Negroes have
been avoiding, despite the wasted funds from the White man for education.

If you went back to pre-multi-cultural Rome, you'd note that they had an 
impressive sewage system.  When they became multi-cultural that is when 
the diseases came.  Something we have nevered learnt from (keep out the 
other races).

Ourobouros.
 


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Sat Apr 13 11:10:20 PDT 1996
Article: 25151 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!olivea!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: If...
Date: 13 Apr 1996 00:26:13 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <4kmsb5$4do@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4j3jbb$j16@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <827777800snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4ja80q$793@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4jhv41$12v@orb.direct.ca> <4ji3h <829036834snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-46.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:25151 alt.politics.nationalism.white:17196 alt.discrimination:45492

In article <829036834snz@augur.demon.co.uk>, Caesar  says:
>
>In article <4kc0bk$8p9@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
>           p_stone@alchemy.co.nz "Ourobouros" writes:
>
>> 
>> One of the simplest ideas that immigrants from darkest Africa miss is 
>> basic hygiene.  Most do not even know what a toilet is (they just excrete
>> in the local washing river). 
>
>People in medieval English towns used to shit in the nearest river as
>well.
>
>There was a massive cholera epidemic in 1840s London because of
>the unhygenic water people were drinking.

Yes, a blight on our otherwise impressive history.  Of course I blame the
vast bulk of this at the feet of Christianity (except perhaps Calvinism),
which delibrately kept the meaner sort of people ignorant.  

It should be noted that 1840s is not considered Medieval.  But I
understand your point.  If we had implemented quarantine in the cities
we'd have been better off.  But there seems to be correlation between
having Jews in a city, and the fanatism over money being introduced.  I
wonder if I could draw a conclusion between the two, that is cities
refused to implement quarantine because they wanted commerce more than
wanted the health of the people.

Fortunately we decided to improve our lot.  Something the Negroes have
been avoiding, despite the wasted funds from the White man for education.

If you went back to pre-multi-cultural Rome, you'd note that they had an 
impressive sewage system.  When they became multi-cultural that is when 
the diseases came.  Something we have nevered learnt from (keep out the 
other races).

Ourobouros.
 


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Sun Apr 14 09:26:17 PDT 1996
Article: 30942 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!izzy.net!aanews.merit.net!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!comp.vuw.ac.nz!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: Ken Mcvay: Professional Liar
Date: 13 Apr 1996 11:19:06 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <4ko2jb$9ku@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References:  <316913e3.1552455@news.pacificnet.net> <4kh889$di2@newsource.ihug.co.nz> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-30.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:17252 alt.politics.white-power:25274 alt.revisionism:30942 alt.skinheads:18275

In article , mvanalst@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) says:
>
>In article <4kh889$di2@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
>(Ourobouros) wrote:
>
[snip]

>> BTW McVay, you failed to answer a question of mine from a few months back.
>> Namely, where can I find this information that a beetle needs more Zyclon
>> B than a human (to die).  I don't necessarily dispute what you stated, but 
>> I do know about the breathing mechanism of insects.  
>
>Try:
>
>http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?camps/auschwitz/cyanide/cyanide.001
>http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?camps/auschwitz/cyanide/cyanide.002
>
>> According to your claims, a human could hold his breath to avoid the
>effects of Zyclon B. 
>
>Yes. If the concentration was not too high and the exposure not too prolonged.
>
>But how long do you think a person, forewarned, could hold their breath? 5
>minutes? 10 minutes? Do you think 1,000 naked, tired, abused, and
>terrified people crammed into a room, when the lights go out, would all
>collectively hold their breath for 5 minutes? How about when they started
>panicking and dying- clawing at and climbing over each other, trampling
>the weak and the young underfoot to get away from the gas? Do you think
>anybody would be to hold their breath for 5 SECONDS? I don't. 
>
Ah, but we must reconcile the concept that the misfits were fooled into
entering the chambers, as they were supposed to be showers.  One wonders
with how the stories all fit together...if they ever do.

>> Such a concept is beyond an insect, even if it wished to do so.
>
>Of course. That's why fumigants are so effective. Especially ones like
>Zyklon B. 
>
Ah, but you failed to notice the implications of this.  According to 
McVay's source, it takes more Zyklon B to kill a beetle than it does to
kill a human (several times more).  I merely mentioned the holding of
one's breath as a temporary 'neutraliser'.   Not only does a beetle have
less surface area as a protectant (as well as less mass and so on), it
does not have the option of 'not breathing'.  Presumably (McVay doesn't
state so) the skin is a protectant against chemicals such as Zyklon B 
which work against the breathing process instead of a straight poison
(affecting the nervous system).

So basically what I am questioning is McVay's assertion on a beetle vs
a human in Zyklon B.  The reason why?  McVay acknowledges that the best
Zyklon B retention source at Auchwitz is in the delousing chamber (where 
the beetles were).  Hopefully I needn't explain the concept further.
 
>Ok, your turn. You've basically stated that the Nazis couldn't possibly
>have gotten rid of 7,000 tonnes of fat from the bodies they murdered. I
>believe I have shown you to be in serious error in such an assertion.
>Defend your claim or retract it.
>
>I hope YOU'VE done YOUR homework... Zippy. };-> 
>
Ah, you see we have a circular argument.  According to both you and McVay, 
the fat was reused in the cremation process.  An error surely with those 
nice formulas you gave.  Surely at 86C we'd expect the fat to slowly 
disappear...but you knew that didn't you?  Do I need to explain further
this flaw of McVay's?  As I said, you needed to do your homework :->

BTW, I realize the fat would normally disappear, but then, what was McVay
talking about?  I was being sarcastic in connection with the fat being 
heat resilent.  If McVay's argument was valid, then fat must be a hardy
substance, and therefore were did it go?

Lastly, most of the fat from frying hamburger patties is removed into the
atmosphere.  If you're into cooking fatty foods, take a look at the
ceiling around the stove (assuming you don't have an outside vent).  Oh,
you'll also notice that your cooking equipment gets fat on the underside
as well.  Fat is primarily used for taste and as a lubricant (so the
food doesn't stick). 

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Sun Apr 14 11:13:07 PDT 1996
Article: 25293 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!en.com!news.his.com!news.akorn.net!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!brighton.openmarket.com!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Miscegenation does NOT describe what happens when two closely related branches cross (was: Miscegenation happened when the Angles met the Sax
Date: 12 Apr 1996 23:48:47 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <4kmq4v$4do@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4jq2pl$7i5@nuacht.iol.ie> <4jsod9$ckc@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4kb9pt$6f3@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4kfmti$7tm@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4kgtuv$h <4kjcmm$boo@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-46.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1

In article <4kjcmm$boo@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura Finsten  says:
>
>bn946@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Les Griswold) wrote:
>
>>Laura Finsten (finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca) talks around:
>
>>[Ouro.]:
>>>>Believe or not, PC Maps can distinguish the races quite well.
>>>>Your argument is debunked, please stop repeating such garbage in future.
> 
>>> Wow, that was a compelling argument.  You sure convinced me, Mr. Stone.
>>> You say it is so, and that's it, isn't it!!  Whataguy!!
> 
>>> As it happens, I came across a book the other day with some PC maps
>>> in it.  It is a book by L.L. Cavalli-Sforza and his son F. C-S,
>>> "The Great Human Diasporas: The History of Diversity and Evolution",
>>> published in 1995.  The maps include Europe west of the Caucasus 
>>> mountains or thereabouts (?), Turkey and parts of the Middle East.
>
I'm fully aware of the so-called definition of the Caucasion race.  But
since you're on it, please tell me the why there is a difference in race
between a half white/half black Portuguese (Caucasion) and a half white/
half/black Ethiopian (Negro).

Miss Finsten is apparently not dodging this argument (though she has 
failed to answer it to date).

As for the PC Maps, please note that those countries that at least I have
said are white, are separated from the rest of "Caucasion" race.  Namely
Britain, Scandinivia, Germany and so forth.

Have you considered this, or did you conveniently miss that too?

Oh, and to make this silly debate of yours succinct, yes I'm fully aware
that C-S doesn't say this section of the PC Maps is a race, I do.  Nice
genetic removal from the other nations within the Caucasion group.  Please
argue this subsection and none of the other stupid little points you so
like to "dodge" too (concerning PC Maps).

>>Was that before or after Cavalli-Sforza said that there should be NO
>>investigations into racial differences?
>
>>(rest of useless Fester cow-snot deleted)
>
[More of Fester's cow-snot deleted]

You state that races are social rather than biological, could this not
be due to the silly division of the races.  Namely the two groups you
refuse to address, the Caucasion half-breed Portuguese and the Negro
half-breed Ethiopian.  In fact a lot of the so-called Caucasion race fits 
into the half-breed category (Turks, Southern Italians, Sicilians, 
Libyans, Corsicans, Most of Spain, Egyptians, the Arabs, most of the Jews
(I'm sure they'd complain if I neglected the Falashas & Co.), the Southern
French and so forth.

>You should be aware, however, Herr Unterclumsilenfuhrer, that Cavalli-
>Sforza is the director of the Human Genome Diversity Project, a 
>project whose goal it is to collect samples of genetic material from
>all existing human populations so that contemporary diversity,
>population histories and evolution itself can be better understood,
>once the Human Genome Project is complete.  Your clumsy attempt to
>cast doubt on Cavalli-Sforza's motivations is duly noted.  Although
>why you didn't raise this issue when your white power ranger buddy
>Mr. Stone was trumpeting his work as supporting his racism, I don't
>know.
>
Les and I have two different tactics in case you didn't notice.  I like to
quote liberal styled books to back up my arguments.  That way, I can laugh
my head off at your silly attempts to debate.  The popular method of those
inable to debate is a curse your source of information.  Something that
you'd find hard to do with me.  If you did so, your own argument goes out
the window.

When and if he completes the Human Genome project, then I'm positive that
I can still wield it to my advantage.  Though I'm sure that C-S (as well
as every liberal anthropologist like yourself) will still state that it
won't define races.  Why will that be so?  Because liberal anthropologists
like yourself still hasn't answered my question on the difference in
category between the Portuguese and the Ethiopians (for a start).

BTW, is the word 'difference' vague to a liberal like the words 
'backwards' and 'the'?  Namely because I'm wondering why you refuse to
address my question.  Afterall, you don't dodge questions do you?

Ourobouros.

P.S When did you stop beating newborn babies?


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Sun Apr 14 13:54:24 PDT 1996
Article: 17318 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!cancer.vividnet.com!news.sojourn.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!news.texas.net!cdc2.cdc.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!brighton.openmarket.com!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: If...
Date: 13 Apr 1996 23:58:17 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <4kpf2p$foo@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4j3jbb$j16@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <827777800snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4ja80q$793@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4jhv41$12v@orb.direct.ca> <4ji3h <4kgku6$8mn@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-21.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:25381 alt.politics.nationalism.white:17318 alt.discrimination:45565

In article <4kgku6$8mn@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura Finsten  says:
>
>bn946@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Les Griswold) wrote:
>
>[edit]
>
>>1)  Is this 1840s London we're discussing, or 1990s Africa?  I thought so.
>
>>2)  Are you then suggesting that negroes are equivalent to 1840s
>>Londoners, and that we therefore have an obligation to "help them out"? 
>>If so, let me point something out to you:  NO ONE helped the 1840s
>>Londoners out of their situation.  They did it themselves.
>
>Do you think that maybe, just maybe, part of the reason that 1840s
>London developed along a different path was because England was the
>recipient of wealth extracted from colonies, rather than the supplier
>of wealth being siphoned by a variety of colonial powers?
>
It's quite curious that you neglected some information Miss Finsten. Have
you heard of missionaries Miss Finsten?

One complaint one of RSA friends make mention of in the interwar period 
is:  When was a lad, his school was visited by missionaries back from
Africa.  All of them were richly clad, and they were visiting schools,
Churches and so forth for further funds.  He didn't even were shoes to
school (his family couldn't afford them).  Yet his family gave money to
these missionaries.  Basically what I getting at Miss Finsten, Great
Britain gave a tremendous amount of money to her colonies.  This was 
especially true in 1840.  Why?  Because a treaty was signed between
representives of the British government and a bunch of savages at the 
behest of thoughtless missionaries.  If you care to find books written
at the time concerning NZ's history, you'd know a lot of wealth was
leaving Great Britain to missionaries.  In fact it's still a tradition
that the royal family indulgies in.

Basically, Great Britain gave away a lot it's wealth to savages via
missionaries for education, hygiene standards (hypocrites didn't teach it
at home), commerce and so forth.

>>BTW, is this just another example of a liberal dichotomy, to whit, any
>>anthropological research more than 30 years old is wrong, but how whites
>>used to live more than a century ago can somehow be used as justification
>>for the squallor and primitiveness of negroes today?
>
>Herr Unterfartenundpimpfenfuhrer, no one ever said that any anthropological
>research more than 30 years old is wrong.  Most of Boas' work is much
>older than that.  What I did say was that many older ideas in anthropology
>have been challenged, reviewed, re-examined (and this process of
>re-examination began a century or more ago) and are no longer accepted
>except by a very few people.  These earlier racist ideas have been so
>soundly discredited that it is no longer possible to accept them and
>reject all else and maintain any semblance of currency and objectivity.
>
Could we please have an answer on why there is a different racial
classification between half breed Portuguese and half breed Ethiopians?
Perhaps we can understand why these earlier ideas were discredited on the
basis of this question alone.

>What is the relevance of Victorian England's living conditions for most
>people to this discussion?  If nothing else, they indicate that "squallor
>and primitiveness" do not have a genetic basis, else those lovely Brits
>would have had to undergo an awful lot of rather rapid evolution to
>suddenly have "evolved" beyond this "savagery".  
>
We could of course draw conclusions to which class we are talking about in
Victorian England.  Were all of the Brits in squallor Miss Finsten?  You
seem to be implying that this is so.  We could also try to find out the
reasons why, but you'd probably dodge that too (oh, sorry I forgot you
don't dodge).

>Despite the numerous posts in this thread by knowledgable people, at least
>one of whom has considerable first hand experience in Africa, you insist
>on generalising from the poorest African nations to talk about the
>"squallor and primitiveness of negroes today".  Is this just another
>example of thickheaded, wilfully ignorant racist bigotry?
>
Please list those nations (in Africa) that do not fall into category Miss
Finsten.  It could prove enlightening to us all :->

Ourobouros.




From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Sun Apr 14 13:59:04 PDT 1996
Article: 25381 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!cancer.vividnet.com!news.sojourn.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!news.texas.net!cdc2.cdc.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!brighton.openmarket.com!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: If...
Date: 13 Apr 1996 23:58:17 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <4kpf2p$foo@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4j3jbb$j16@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <827777800snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4ja80q$793@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4jhv41$12v@orb.direct.ca> <4ji3h <4kgku6$8mn@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-21.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:25381 alt.politics.nationalism.white:17318 alt.discrimination:45565

In article <4kgku6$8mn@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura Finsten  says:
>
>bn946@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Les Griswold) wrote:
>
>[edit]
>
>>1)  Is this 1840s London we're discussing, or 1990s Africa?  I thought so.
>
>>2)  Are you then suggesting that negroes are equivalent to 1840s
>>Londoners, and that we therefore have an obligation to "help them out"? 
>>If so, let me point something out to you:  NO ONE helped the 1840s
>>Londoners out of their situation.  They did it themselves.
>
>Do you think that maybe, just maybe, part of the reason that 1840s
>London developed along a different path was because England was the
>recipient of wealth extracted from colonies, rather than the supplier
>of wealth being siphoned by a variety of colonial powers?
>
It's quite curious that you neglected some information Miss Finsten. Have
you heard of missionaries Miss Finsten?

One complaint one of RSA friends make mention of in the interwar period 
is:  When was a lad, his school was visited by missionaries back from
Africa.  All of them were richly clad, and they were visiting schools,
Churches and so forth for further funds.  He didn't even were shoes to
school (his family couldn't afford them).  Yet his family gave money to
these missionaries.  Basically what I getting at Miss Finsten, Great
Britain gave a tremendous amount of money to her colonies.  This was 
especially true in 1840.  Why?  Because a treaty was signed between
representives of the British government and a bunch of savages at the 
behest of thoughtless missionaries.  If you care to find books written
at the time concerning NZ's history, you'd know a lot of wealth was
leaving Great Britain to missionaries.  In fact it's still a tradition
that the royal family indulgies in.

Basically, Great Britain gave away a lot it's wealth to savages via
missionaries for education, hygiene standards (hypocrites didn't teach it
at home), commerce and so forth.

>>BTW, is this just another example of a liberal dichotomy, to whit, any
>>anthropological research more than 30 years old is wrong, but how whites
>>used to live more than a century ago can somehow be used as justification
>>for the squallor and primitiveness of negroes today?
>
>Herr Unterfartenundpimpfenfuhrer, no one ever said that any anthropological
>research more than 30 years old is wrong.  Most of Boas' work is much
>older than that.  What I did say was that many older ideas in anthropology
>have been challenged, reviewed, re-examined (and this process of
>re-examination began a century or more ago) and are no longer accepted
>except by a very few people.  These earlier racist ideas have been so
>soundly discredited that it is no longer possible to accept them and
>reject all else and maintain any semblance of currency and objectivity.
>
Could we please have an answer on why there is a different racial
classification between half breed Portuguese and half breed Ethiopians?
Perhaps we can understand why these earlier ideas were discredited on the
basis of this question alone.

>What is the relevance of Victorian England's living conditions for most
>people to this discussion?  If nothing else, they indicate that "squallor
>and primitiveness" do not have a genetic basis, else those lovely Brits
>would have had to undergo an awful lot of rather rapid evolution to
>suddenly have "evolved" beyond this "savagery".  
>
We could of course draw conclusions to which class we are talking about in
Victorian England.  Were all of the Brits in squallor Miss Finsten?  You
seem to be implying that this is so.  We could also try to find out the
reasons why, but you'd probably dodge that too (oh, sorry I forgot you
don't dodge).

>Despite the numerous posts in this thread by knowledgable people, at least
>one of whom has considerable first hand experience in Africa, you insist
>on generalising from the poorest African nations to talk about the
>"squallor and primitiveness of negroes today".  Is this just another
>example of thickheaded, wilfully ignorant racist bigotry?
>
Please list those nations (in Africa) that do not fall into category Miss
Finsten.  It could prove enlightening to us all :->

Ourobouros.




From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Sun Apr 14 13:59:05 PDT 1996
Article: 25382 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!cancer.vividnet.com!news.sojourn.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!news.texas.net!cdc2.cdc.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!brighton.openmarket.com!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Miscegenation does NOT describe what happens when two closely related branches cross (was: Miscegenation happened when the Angles met the Sax
Date: 14 Apr 1996 07:50:47 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 187
Message-ID: <4kqaon$jbr@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4jq2pl$7i5@nuacht.iol.ie> <4jsod9$ckc@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4kb9pt$6f3@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4kfmti$7tm@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4kgtuv$hhj@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-60.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1

In article <4kgtuv$hhj@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura Finsten  says:
>
>p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:

[snip]
Miss Finsten writes:

As it happens, I came across a book the other day with some PC maps
in it.  It is a book by L.L. Cavalli-Sforza and his son F. C-S,
"The Great Human Diasporas: The History of Diversity and Evolution",
published in 1995.  The maps include Europe west of the Caucasus 
mountains or thereabouts (?), Turkey and parts of the Middle East.

Now let's see.  How to describe these maps.  First, they are created
by plotting isogenic curves that link areas with the same gene
frequency, just as topographic maps are created by plotting
curves that link areas with the same elevation.  Principal components
(PC) analysis takes the average of many genes, so the results of all
individual genes are substituted in each point of the map by a single 
number which reflects the whole group of genes under consideration.
According to the figure captions for the PC maps, these maps are based
on the frequencies of 95 genes, and although the book doesn't specifically
say which genes, elsewhere Cavalli-Sforza discusses frequency maps for
the B gene (for ABO blood groups), Rh+ and Rh- genes, and the like.  No
brain size, skull shapes, or those sorta things.

The first principal component expresses the highest fraction of genetic
variation that can be extracted from the data.  The PC map for this
component (p.149, Figure 6.10) illustrates variation across the landscape
broken down into an *arbitrary* scale from 1-8, with the Middle East
as 8 and the "numbers" diminishing with increasing distance from the
Middle East.  Number 1 is limited to northeast England, Scotland,
northern Ireland, part of Scandinavia (but not the northernmost part),
and what I am guessing is the northern Netherlands, northernmost
Germany, northern Poland and the northern tips of the Baltic states.

The first principal component explains *only* 28 percent of the
point-to-point variation in gene frequency.  Nearly three-quarters
remains to be explained.  And what is the "cause" of this first
principal component?  According to Cavalli-Sforza, it "faithfully
reflects the spread of agriculture in Neolithic times" (p.149).

The second principal component explains a further 22 percent of the
initial variation.  Again an arbitrary scale from 1-8 is used to
illustrate the geographic distribution.  In this case, number 8 is
limited to small area in the northernmost part of Europe and number 1
is limited to southernmost Europe (I think it's Sicily) as well as
central Spain and a corner of France adjacent to northeast Spain.

Cavalli-Sforza suggests that this PC map "may represent genetic
adaptation to the cold of northern Europe, but it should also be
considered in relatin to the distribution of the Uralic family of
languages(...). Both phenomena are probably the result of a single
large-scale migration." (p.154)

There are two other PC maps in the book I have, but I won't use up
more bandwidth describing each of them in detail.  My point is that
Mr. Stone's contention that Cavalli-Sforza's PC maps support his
racial categories is simply false.  Cavalli-Sforza does not make
racial distinctions among the populations of Europe and the Middle
East.  And if Mr. Stone thinks that he can "read" such distinctions
into Cavalli-Sforza's data, he is wrong.  Two points which should
have emerged from the discussion above underscore this and merit
repeating: 

(1) the PC maps are based on differences in frequencies, and the maps 
themselves are constructed using eight arbitrary categories of 
frequencies to facilitate illustrating genetic variation across Europe 
and the Middle East.  These maps do *not* plot out the distribution of
eight "races", nor do they plot the distribution of eight populations
that are consistent in all principal components.  Areas that are
"homogenous" for one are diverse for another.  It is also important
to realise that the eight categories which correspond to areas on
the maps are arbitrary, and that among individuals within each of these
areas, there is great variation.  These maps are *not* delineating
what are now or ever were genetically (or "racially") homogeneous
locations within Europe or the Middle East.

(2) Cavalli-Sforza's point, which is clearly illustrated by these maps 
if one understands his methodology, is that much of the measurable
genetic variation in modern-day Europe is intelligible in terms of
known historic processes, at times associated with major technological
changes.  The first principal component, for example, is likely 
associated with the spread of agriculture from the Middle East
beginning about 10,000 years ago.  The genetic evidence suggests
very strongly that the technological innovation of agriculture was
accompanied by the movement of people in significant numbers.
The second can be linked to a linguistic distribution and perhaps 
to a migration.  The third (not discussed in detail here) shows 
remarkable correspondence to archaeological data and may reflect 
the spread of Indo-European speakers between 4,500-6,000 years ago.  
The fourth (again not discussed in detail here) probably reflects 
the Greek expansion in the second and first millennia BCE.  

Miss Finsten ends.  

The best post you've written to date, I'm quite impressed.  First some
curiousities:

There is a hint of an (technological )agricultural gene.  There is also
a passing reference to civilisation being passed through the genes.

The book I've read by C-S on PC Maps fails to mention the attribution to
the data presented here.

Could you explain why the PC Maps were done in the first place Miss
Finsten?  Afterall, if they simply collecting data from yet more 
geographical regions as you are suggesting, then the genes are irrelevant.
There fails to be a purpose for collecting the data.  For example, if I
was taking genetic samples from all the States in America (California 
being one and et cetra), and plotted my first category to say alphabetical
order (A-Z).  In effect someone from Washington belongs to the Wash. 
gene list, and someone from Alaska belongs to the Alask. gene list and
never the twain do meet.  Of these I gather from each state, and list
people from various occuptions (computer scientists, anthropologists,
lawyer and so forth) and plot them also to alphabetical order.  What have
I achieved?  Simply a waste of money.  I didn't need to test the genes
in the first place to draw a map.  The genes are irrelevant.  Perhaps you
should review your writings Miss Finsten.

>>>Perhaps William Pierce had Griswold in mind, when he wrote
>>>about the harmful blatherings of juvenile wannabees on the net
>>>in a recent article in his rag.... it fits.
>
>>Perhaps William Pierce foresaw liberals like you on the 'net...it fits.
>
>Did you read Mr. Peirce's post, Mr. Stone?  He was not criticising
>the tactics of liberals, but then you have not demonstrating very
>good reading comprehension.
>
No I was criticising Mr McVay's post.  BTW, I used the words "foresaw
liberals like you" which make your above comment defunct.  So who is
displaying a lack of reading comprehension?  Did I lump all liberals
together in my previous post as you suggested?

[snip]

>>Could we also have a brief summary (make it in another thread) of these
>>three hundred books you've supposedly read.  I'm quite curious to see how
>>you summarise 300 Commando comics.
>
>Yeah, like the summary of Cavalli-Sforza's PC maps that I've asked you
>for countless times.  You know, Mr. Stone, just because you seem
>incapable of reading one book and understanding it doesn't mean that
>there are not people who have read hundreds or thousands of books.
>
I gave the book Miss Finsten.  Mr Judd seems to have read it...strange
that you were incapable, especially since it should be part of your
discipline.  Or is your Ph.D in social anthropology as I suspect?

BTW, your comments concerning book(s) are nonsensical or at the very
least meaningless.

>>Oh, as for the original question about whether miscegenation occurred
>>between two different sets of Aryan people, please feel free to look up
>>the word miscegenation.  The Brits, Cymrii, Scots, Picts, Gauls, Angles,
>>Danes, Jutes, Franks, Vandals, Saxons, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Lombards,
>>Norwegian, Swedes, Milesian, Tuatha De Danaan, Hiberian, Celts, Cornish, 
>>Iberian and so on were all of Aryan stock.  Please explain how two 
>>members of different stocks (say Lombards and Cymrii), but of same racial 
>>background, could be classified as miscegenation when they "marry"?
>
>Well, according to the OED, "miscegenation" as a word was invented in
>the aftermath of the US Civil War.  But if the concept of "other" is
>much older, then the concept embodied in the word must also be much
>older.  Or have you decided to go with a strict dictionary definition
>this time around, Mr. Stone?
>
Point?

How old is the term race (in all its glory and not the formal word "race")
Miss Finsten?

If you don't like the definition of miscegenation please give valid 
reasons for its disproof.

According to the Webster dictionary I have on hand it has this definition:

miscegenation (mis'i-je-na'shen) n. biol.  Interbreeding of races,
especially intermarriage or interbreeding between white and Negro or
white and Oriental races. [
References: <4j3jbb$j16@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <827777800snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4ja80q$793@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4jhv41$12v@orb.direct.ca> <4ji3h <4kopuk$gbd@decaxp.HARVARD.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-259.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:25419 alt.politics.nationalism.white:17343 alt.discrimination:45579

In article <4kopuk$gbd@decaxp.HARVARD.EDU>, slking@scws35.harvard.edu (Stewart King) says:
>
>Ourobouros (p_stone@alchemy.co.nz) wrote:
>
>: This is the fundamental difference between us and you.  You are for the
>: improvement of the individual first, and stuff the nation.  Whereas we
>: believe in putting the nation first, so that we can all reap the benefits.
>: Two totally different tactics. We put the nation first so that individuals
>: will ultimately benefit from it.  You put the individual first whether it
>: benefits the nation or not (and most frequently not).  Your ideas are
>: destroying the nation so that the end result is nobody benefits; all are
>: losers.  
>
>: You promote diversity, whereas a nation needs unity to survive.  This is
>: easily proved:  If an aggressor comes along to a nation that promotes
>: diversity, what happens?  It is easily flattened, because the individuals
>: cannot work together.  But what happens if the aggressor fights a nation
>: that is unified?  There is a battle royal.  Oh, if you're one of these
>: people that abhors fighting and believes in compromise, just look at the
>: interwar period and Great Britain's 'success' at compromising.  Must say,
>: being a wimp in negotiations is really beneficial.
>
>The sad thing is, this isn't really all that wrong.  All I'm saying is 
>that finding the kind of unity you speak of shouldn't be impossible in a 
>society with more than one race in it.  

This should be a laugh.

>All you have to do is found the unity concept on a basis other than race.  
>There are lots.  National identity.  

Nations are formed under monoculture.  If a society refuses to agree in
the initial set up, no society is formed.  Therefore when one culture is
suppressed or moves into the area, they cannot share the national 
identity -- as is witnessed today by your million man march, LA riots and
so forth.

>Geography.  

In the general, races don't like to live in the same area.  For example,
the Asians keep to themselves, much to the dislike of multi-culturalists.

>Economic system.  

Each race has basically formed it's own monetary system.  For example,
commerce practically never existed in the Polynesian system.

>Shared aspects of culture.  

Where?  Even in the basic level of food you have completely different
preparations.  Not to mention shelter (houses and so forth).

>Weird goals.

Interesting statement.  Must be something to do with liberal objectives.

>People don't like to do this, of course.  People suck.
>
Since you belong in the people category and you've just stated that we
suck, why don't shoot yourself?

Basically, multi-culturalism has never worked in the past, and today's
present system offers no solution either.  Why not learn from history
rather than repeat it?  Wouldn't you like your children's children to be
prosperous rather than live in the forthcoming cesspit?

What is wrong with having all the races living separate and never the
twain do meet?  

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Sun Apr 14 21:05:58 PDT 1996
Article: 25419 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!imci5!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!brighton.openmarket.com!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: If...
Date: 14 Apr 1996 23:25:16 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <4ks1gs$nto@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4j3jbb$j16@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <827777800snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4ja80q$793@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4jhv41$12v@orb.direct.ca> <4ji3h <4kopuk$gbd@decaxp.HARVARD.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-259.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:25419 alt.politics.nationalism.white:17343 alt.discrimination:45579

In article <4kopuk$gbd@decaxp.HARVARD.EDU>, slking@scws35.harvard.edu (Stewart King) says:
>
>Ourobouros (p_stone@alchemy.co.nz) wrote:
>
>: This is the fundamental difference between us and you.  You are for the
>: improvement of the individual first, and stuff the nation.  Whereas we
>: believe in putting the nation first, so that we can all reap the benefits.
>: Two totally different tactics. We put the nation first so that individuals
>: will ultimately benefit from it.  You put the individual first whether it
>: benefits the nation or not (and most frequently not).  Your ideas are
>: destroying the nation so that the end result is nobody benefits; all are
>: losers.  
>
>: You promote diversity, whereas a nation needs unity to survive.  This is
>: easily proved:  If an aggressor comes along to a nation that promotes
>: diversity, what happens?  It is easily flattened, because the individuals
>: cannot work together.  But what happens if the aggressor fights a nation
>: that is unified?  There is a battle royal.  Oh, if you're one of these
>: people that abhors fighting and believes in compromise, just look at the
>: interwar period and Great Britain's 'success' at compromising.  Must say,
>: being a wimp in negotiations is really beneficial.
>
>The sad thing is, this isn't really all that wrong.  All I'm saying is 
>that finding the kind of unity you speak of shouldn't be impossible in a 
>society with more than one race in it.  

This should be a laugh.

>All you have to do is found the unity concept on a basis other than race.  
>There are lots.  National identity.  

Nations are formed under monoculture.  If a society refuses to agree in
the initial set up, no society is formed.  Therefore when one culture is
suppressed or moves into the area, they cannot share the national 
identity -- as is witnessed today by your million man march, LA riots and
so forth.

>Geography.  

In the general, races don't like to live in the same area.  For example,
the Asians keep to themselves, much to the dislike of multi-culturalists.

>Economic system.  

Each race has basically formed it's own monetary system.  For example,
commerce practically never existed in the Polynesian system.

>Shared aspects of culture.  

Where?  Even in the basic level of food you have completely different
preparations.  Not to mention shelter (houses and so forth).

>Weird goals.

Interesting statement.  Must be something to do with liberal objectives.

>People don't like to do this, of course.  People suck.
>
Since you belong in the people category and you've just stated that we
suck, why don't shoot yourself?

Basically, multi-culturalism has never worked in the past, and today's
present system offers no solution either.  Why not learn from history
rather than repeat it?  Wouldn't you like your children's children to be
prosperous rather than live in the forthcoming cesspit?

What is wrong with having all the races living separate and never the
twain do meet?  

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Mon Apr 15 07:34:17 PDT 1996
Article: 17362 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!apollo.isisnet.com!uunet.ca!news.uunet.ca!torn!nott!bcarh189.bnr.ca!crchh327.rich.bnr.ca!nrchh45.rich.nt.com!news.utdallas.edu!news.starnet.net!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: If...
Date: 13 Apr 1996 23:37:34 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <4kpdru$foo@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4j3jbb$j16@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <827777800snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4ja80q$793@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4jhv41$12v@orb.direct.ca> <4ji3h 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-21.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:25453 alt.politics.nationalism.white:17362 alt.discrimination:45584

In article , 
jeff_brown@pol.com (Jeffrey G. Brown) blathers:
>
>In article <4kc0lq$8p9@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
>(Ourobouros) wrote:
>
>>In article , 
>>jeff_brown@pol.com (Jeffrey G. Brown) ignorantly states:
>>
[snip]

>>What shape of head is required for someone to be "white", and who
>>conducted the research establishing the correlation between head shape 
>>and race?
>>
>>You don't pay much attention to these newsgroups do you?  If you had, 
>>you'd not be so ignorant.
>
>That's a blatant, useless piece of evasion, Stone. Answer the question:
>
It's hardly evasion Brown.  I've already mentioned it many, many times. If
you like you can ask Miss Finsten if you think (?) I'm being evasive.  
Miss Finsten and I have only recently *finished* an argument over this
area (finished as in Miss Finsten seems reluctant to reply).  As I stated
Mr Brown, if you had paid more attention to these newsgroups, you'd not
be so ignorant.

>What shape of head is required for someone to be "white", and who
>conducted the research establishing the correlation between head shape 
>and race?
>
To be white, you also need to be a longhead.  Quite frankly Brown, it's
being around for a long time.  Who started it, I'm not dead sure, but it
is frequently mentioned in physical anthropological texts.  For example,
Jonathan Marks (a liberal even) mentioned skull shapes in his 1995 book.

Ourobouros.





From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Mon Apr 15 07:34:20 PDT 1996
Article: 17379 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!brighton.openmarket.com!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: If...
Date: 15 Apr 1996 06:13:04 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 121
Message-ID: <4kspdg$q8k@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4j3jbb$j16@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <827777800snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4ja80q$793@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4jhv41$12v@orb.direct.ca> <4ji3h <4kglql$8mn@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-51.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:25483 alt.politics.nationalism.white:17379 alt.discrimination:45600

In article <4kglql$8mn@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura Finsten  says:
>
>p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:
>>In article <4k1b1e$8ov@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura Finsten  says:
>
>>>p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:

>>>But it has shown what a flawed question it is.  And that you don't
>>>seem to understand much.
>
>>Ah, a bit like craniometry being outdated I suppose.  
>
>Oh, you mean those nasty "round headed" Slavs?  Yes, I've addressed
>that in another post, Mr. Stone.  The "cranial index" is not all of
>"craniometry", Mr. Stone, although it does seem to be the only bit
>of it that you ever heard of.  Do you get your intense dislike of
>Slavs from Hitler worship, by the way, Mr. Stone?  
>
Excuse me Miss Finsten, you stated initially that craniometry was outdated,
period.  It was only later when I picked holes in your ridiculous
statement (via neanderthal skulls as your memory is quite poor) that you
restated "cranial index."  The aforementioned by me was simply mocking 
you with your assumptions.

As for Slavs Miss Finsten, I quite like them.  Now isn't that a shock for
a liberal?   

>>>Thank you for the demonstration of your overhelming intellectual power
>>>and well honed ability to reason, Mr. Stone.  We will all study your
>>>example carefully so that next time we have a question about when the
>>>French revolution began, we can be sure to get a perfect mark with the
>>>answer "yes".
>
>>And perhaps you'll understand the word "paraphrased."
>>Yes I understand the point you're trying to make, but it isn't relevant.
>>"No" I never beat my wife, and therefore you are lying.
>>"Yes" I used to beat my wife, and I stopped on X date.
>
>>All this is obvious to most people.
>
>I think you flatter yourself unduly that what you think is what "most
>people" think.

Thanks for confirming my suspicion that you lack the necessary criteria
for critical thinking.
 
>So, if the question is "Have you stopped beating your wife?", and someone
>responded with the answer "No", you would interpret this to mean that
>the respondent is actually saying "No, I never beat my wife and therefore
>you are lying"?  Fascinating.  It is a good thing, I guess, that you
>aren't a police officer, lawyer or judge, since one would be hardpressed
>to imagine what you might read into a single word answer to a fairly
>straightforward question, even if that question is based on a false
>premise.  Thanks for making my point even clearer, Mr. Stone.
>
No, the above is your logic Miss Finsten, not mine.  Which of course 
clears up how you think.  It's amazing that you cannot apply false premise
in this case as you did with "newborn babies."  Was it too much for you
to realize this?  

As I stated before, the whole exercise was PARAPHRASED.  Comprehende? 
My entire initial argument was pointing out whether the question by the
Jew from Waikato was valid, hence why I asked for a citation.  If you
followed the argument through, then you would not be so confused (perhaps
I jest, you seem confused almost perpetually).  To the common man, such
an argument is as plain as day.  It's quite obvious that you're nothing 
but a prattling fool, please clean up your act.

>>With this premise, is the following a valid question?
>
>>When did you stop beating newborn babies Laura?
>
>Trolling to try to get a rise out of me, Mr. Stone?  Your tactics
>are all too obvious and extremely clumsy.
>
It was delibrately clumsy and obvious Miss Finsten.  Anything more subtle
would have been wasted on you.  

>My response to this question is that it is based on a false premise,
>Mr. Stone.  The question assumes that I used to beat newborn babies.
>This assumption is false.
>
Well, well, well, intelligence finally creeping into your skull?  Now all
we need is for you to correspond this thought to what has gone before. 
Is this possible for you?

Afterall it has the same validity as the Jew's question.  Did this ever
occur to you?  Please answer this, if it is no, I will know that in
future I will have to treat you as an unreasoning infant.

>>I should warn you that you need to answer this question.  "Silence is
>>golden" and all that (golden for me).
>
>Do you enjoy ordering people around and threatening them, Mr. Stone? 
>Handing down dire warnings, cautions, admonitions to people to "be
>careful"?  Do you dream about jackboots and goosestepping, Mr. Stone?
>Perhaps your brown shirt is too tight around the neck and is constricting
>the flow of blood to what passes for a brain?
>
Could we have a rational response from you or is that to difficult?

I'm sure you'd not like me to keep posting "When did you stop beating
newborn babies Miss Finsten?" in the same vain as did Joel Rosenberg with
Rev. Ron.  

>>P.S.  Can I use this post of yours as another demonstration of your
>>unwillingness to answer questions and the need to change the topic?
>
>I can think of several uses to which I recommend you put this post, none
>of which would be very comfortable, anatomically.
>
Do you like being a hypocrite Miss Finsten or is the another demonstration
of your ineptness at logic?  Would you like a brownshirt Miss Finsten?

As we can all witness, Miss Finsten has completely dodged the issue of 
"why niggers in Africa are backwards?"

Perhaps she'd like to state why she can't debate, instead of telling us
lies of not dodging as she has done before.

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Mon Apr 15 07:36:34 PDT 1996
Article: 25453 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!apollo.isisnet.com!uunet.ca!news.uunet.ca!torn!nott!bcarh189.bnr.ca!crchh327.rich.bnr.ca!nrchh45.rich.nt.com!news.utdallas.edu!news.starnet.net!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: If...
Date: 13 Apr 1996 23:37:34 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <4kpdru$foo@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4j3jbb$j16@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <827777800snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4ja80q$793@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4jhv41$12v@orb.direct.ca> <4ji3h 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-21.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:25453 alt.politics.nationalism.white:17362 alt.discrimination:45584

In article , 
jeff_brown@pol.com (Jeffrey G. Brown) blathers:
>
>In article <4kc0lq$8p9@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
>(Ourobouros) wrote:
>
>>In article , 
>>jeff_brown@pol.com (Jeffrey G. Brown) ignorantly states:
>>
[snip]

>>What shape of head is required for someone to be "white", and who
>>conducted the research establishing the correlation between head shape 
>>and race?
>>
>>You don't pay much attention to these newsgroups do you?  If you had, 
>>you'd not be so ignorant.
>
>That's a blatant, useless piece of evasion, Stone. Answer the question:
>
It's hardly evasion Brown.  I've already mentioned it many, many times. If
you like you can ask Miss Finsten if you think (?) I'm being evasive.  
Miss Finsten and I have only recently *finished* an argument over this
area (finished as in Miss Finsten seems reluctant to reply).  As I stated
Mr Brown, if you had paid more attention to these newsgroups, you'd not
be so ignorant.

>What shape of head is required for someone to be "white", and who
>conducted the research establishing the correlation between head shape 
>and race?
>
To be white, you also need to be a longhead.  Quite frankly Brown, it's
being around for a long time.  Who started it, I'm not dead sure, but it
is frequently mentioned in physical anthropological texts.  For example,
Jonathan Marks (a liberal even) mentioned skull shapes in his 1995 book.

Ourobouros.





From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Mon Apr 15 07:36:38 PDT 1996
Article: 25483 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!brighton.openmarket.com!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: If...
Date: 15 Apr 1996 06:13:04 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 121
Message-ID: <4kspdg$q8k@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4j3jbb$j16@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <827777800snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4ja80q$793@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4jhv41$12v@orb.direct.ca> <4ji3h <4kglql$8mn@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-51.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:25483 alt.politics.nationalism.white:17379 alt.discrimination:45600

In article <4kglql$8mn@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura Finsten  says:
>
>p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:
>>In article <4k1b1e$8ov@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura Finsten  says:
>
>>>p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:

>>>But it has shown what a flawed question it is.  And that you don't
>>>seem to understand much.
>
>>Ah, a bit like craniometry being outdated I suppose.  
>
>Oh, you mean those nasty "round headed" Slavs?  Yes, I've addressed
>that in another post, Mr. Stone.  The "cranial index" is not all of
>"craniometry", Mr. Stone, although it does seem to be the only bit
>of it that you ever heard of.  Do you get your intense dislike of
>Slavs from Hitler worship, by the way, Mr. Stone?  
>
Excuse me Miss Finsten, you stated initially that craniometry was outdated,
period.  It was only later when I picked holes in your ridiculous
statement (via neanderthal skulls as your memory is quite poor) that you
restated "cranial index."  The aforementioned by me was simply mocking 
you with your assumptions.

As for Slavs Miss Finsten, I quite like them.  Now isn't that a shock for
a liberal?   

>>>Thank you for the demonstration of your overhelming intellectual power
>>>and well honed ability to reason, Mr. Stone.  We will all study your
>>>example carefully so that next time we have a question about when the
>>>French revolution began, we can be sure to get a perfect mark with the
>>>answer "yes".
>
>>And perhaps you'll understand the word "paraphrased."
>>Yes I understand the point you're trying to make, but it isn't relevant.
>>"No" I never beat my wife, and therefore you are lying.
>>"Yes" I used to beat my wife, and I stopped on X date.
>
>>All this is obvious to most people.
>
>I think you flatter yourself unduly that what you think is what "most
>people" think.

Thanks for confirming my suspicion that you lack the necessary criteria
for critical thinking.
 
>So, if the question is "Have you stopped beating your wife?", and someone
>responded with the answer "No", you would interpret this to mean that
>the respondent is actually saying "No, I never beat my wife and therefore
>you are lying"?  Fascinating.  It is a good thing, I guess, that you
>aren't a police officer, lawyer or judge, since one would be hardpressed
>to imagine what you might read into a single word answer to a fairly
>straightforward question, even if that question is based on a false
>premise.  Thanks for making my point even clearer, Mr. Stone.
>
No, the above is your logic Miss Finsten, not mine.  Which of course 
clears up how you think.  It's amazing that you cannot apply false premise
in this case as you did with "newborn babies."  Was it too much for you
to realize this?  

As I stated before, the whole exercise was PARAPHRASED.  Comprehende? 
My entire initial argument was pointing out whether the question by the
Jew from Waikato was valid, hence why I asked for a citation.  If you
followed the argument through, then you would not be so confused (perhaps
I jest, you seem confused almost perpetually).  To the common man, such
an argument is as plain as day.  It's quite obvious that you're nothing 
but a prattling fool, please clean up your act.

>>With this premise, is the following a valid question?
>
>>When did you stop beating newborn babies Laura?
>
>Trolling to try to get a rise out of me, Mr. Stone?  Your tactics
>are all too obvious and extremely clumsy.
>
It was delibrately clumsy and obvious Miss Finsten.  Anything more subtle
would have been wasted on you.  

>My response to this question is that it is based on a false premise,
>Mr. Stone.  The question assumes that I used to beat newborn babies.
>This assumption is false.
>
Well, well, well, intelligence finally creeping into your skull?  Now all
we need is for you to correspond this thought to what has gone before. 
Is this possible for you?

Afterall it has the same validity as the Jew's question.  Did this ever
occur to you?  Please answer this, if it is no, I will know that in
future I will have to treat you as an unreasoning infant.

>>I should warn you that you need to answer this question.  "Silence is
>>golden" and all that (golden for me).
>
>Do you enjoy ordering people around and threatening them, Mr. Stone? 
>Handing down dire warnings, cautions, admonitions to people to "be
>careful"?  Do you dream about jackboots and goosestepping, Mr. Stone?
>Perhaps your brown shirt is too tight around the neck and is constricting
>the flow of blood to what passes for a brain?
>
Could we have a rational response from you or is that to difficult?

I'm sure you'd not like me to keep posting "When did you stop beating
newborn babies Miss Finsten?" in the same vain as did Joel Rosenberg with
Rev. Ron.  

>>P.S.  Can I use this post of yours as another demonstration of your
>>unwillingness to answer questions and the need to change the topic?
>
>I can think of several uses to which I recommend you put this post, none
>of which would be very comfortable, anatomically.
>
Do you like being a hypocrite Miss Finsten or is the another demonstration
of your ineptness at logic?  Would you like a brownshirt Miss Finsten?

As we can all witness, Miss Finsten has completely dodged the issue of 
"why niggers in Africa are backwards?"

Perhaps she'd like to state why she can't debate, instead of telling us
lies of not dodging as she has done before.

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Tue Apr 16 19:48:59 PDT 1996
Article: 17493 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!nic.wat.hookup.net!hookup!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!enews.sgi.com!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa!" :-) (was: If...)
Date: 16 Apr 1996 04:27:12 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <4kv7j0$49i@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4j3jbb$j16@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <827777800snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4ja80q$793@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4jhv41$12v@orb.direct.ca> <4ji3h <4kkfhg$gg2@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-53.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:25722 alt.politics.nationalism.white:17493 alt.discrimination:45681

In article <4kkfhg$gg2@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, bn946@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Les Griswold) says:
>
>Stewart "Chicken a la" King (slking@scws32.harvard.edu) writes:
>> Ourobouros (p_stone@alchemy.co.nz) wrote:

[Dodge to former Soviet territories snipped]

>> All the Europeans wanted from Africa was raw materials; they weren't trying
>> to build up the societies or infrastructures at all.  
>
>But they did anyway.  Really, Stewie, you're letting your obvious
>anti-White passions get in the way of your (supposedly) noble ideas.  This
>reminds me of the loony leftists who were getting woodies over the suicide
>of South Africa in April 1994:  "This is the first time Blacks have voted
>in THREE HUNDRED YEARS!", conveniently forgetting that it was the first
>time that negroes EVER voted.
>
Stewart could we have a citation from you concerning that Europeans only
wanted raw materials from Africa?

Couldn't really blame if they did though.  Who in their right mind would
want to give civilisation to a bunch of savages that would tear down
every accomplishment gotten them (kinda like them in the U.S today)?

On a more amusing topic (but it could be related), the Maoris have claimed
that we destroyed their advances in *civilisation*.  Apparently they built
roads, printing presses (which we tossed into the sea never to be found of
course), radio stations (remember this was the early 1800s) and of course
industry.  So I suppose if this claim is valid (ROFL) then I suppose the
Negroes could also claim that we dumbed them rather than trying to improve
them.  Possibly they have already tried and claimed these things.  Does 
anybody know if this is true?  We know that they're desperately trying for
ancient Egypt and Cleopatra (mightless).  Of course people like Stewart
are trying to say every brick monument in Africa had to have been built by
Negroes, especially when they have shown no propensity to date.
 
Did I ever neglect Negro Mendela's comment about how he feels a kindred
spirit with the Maoris?  Or that Maoris want apartheid on their terms?
Most curious.  Of course the liberals are supporting this apartheid
business, but then, whoever said liberals weren't hypocrites? Reminds of
the Jews in Palestine, every liberal is celebrating the concept of a
separation of Palestinians and Jews, but not the separation of Negroes 
and Whites in the U.S and Sth Africa.

Anyway, the business of the Maoris is a digression.  

>> : This of course demonstrates the liberals quest to twist words. 
>> : Unfortunately for caesar, this thread starts with "Secondly" which would
>> : hint at a "firstly."  It also demonstrates that liberals can only change
>> : topic as opposed to debating them.  Though of course, liberals like Miss
>> : Finsten insist that they do not in fact "dodge" topics.
>> 
>> All liberals, Ouro?  Every last one?
>
It's a bit like white pointers.  I don't know if there is one that eats 
solely kelp and other vegetable matter, but it's normally a good 
generalisation that they meat and refuse rather than kelp.  But hey, maybe
we can all be surprised one day.  Maybe we will find a white pointer that
is a vegetarian, and maybe we will find a liberal that doesn't need to
twist words and change topic when the going gets tough.

I will admit for you Stewart that you have the sensibility of shutting up
when you're outclassed, unlike your compatriots.  I'll even admit I have
enjoyed some of your posts, especially the quote of Matriachal society 
with Negroes.  

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Tue Apr 16 19:50:11 PDT 1996
Article: 25722 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!nic.wat.hookup.net!hookup!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!enews.sgi.com!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa!" :-) (was: If...)
Date: 16 Apr 1996 04:27:12 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <4kv7j0$49i@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4j3jbb$j16@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <827777800snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4ja80q$793@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4jhv41$12v@orb.direct.ca> <4ji3h <4kkfhg$gg2@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-53.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:25722 alt.politics.nationalism.white:17493 alt.discrimination:45681

In article <4kkfhg$gg2@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, bn946@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Les Griswold) says:
>
>Stewart "Chicken a la" King (slking@scws32.harvard.edu) writes:
>> Ourobouros (p_stone@alchemy.co.nz) wrote:

[Dodge to former Soviet territories snipped]

>> All the Europeans wanted from Africa was raw materials; they weren't trying
>> to build up the societies or infrastructures at all.  
>
>But they did anyway.  Really, Stewie, you're letting your obvious
>anti-White passions get in the way of your (supposedly) noble ideas.  This
>reminds me of the loony leftists who were getting woodies over the suicide
>of South Africa in April 1994:  "This is the first time Blacks have voted
>in THREE HUNDRED YEARS!", conveniently forgetting that it was the first
>time that negroes EVER voted.
>
Stewart could we have a citation from you concerning that Europeans only
wanted raw materials from Africa?

Couldn't really blame if they did though.  Who in their right mind would
want to give civilisation to a bunch of savages that would tear down
every accomplishment gotten them (kinda like them in the U.S today)?

On a more amusing topic (but it could be related), the Maoris have claimed
that we destroyed their advances in *civilisation*.  Apparently they built
roads, printing presses (which we tossed into the sea never to be found of
course), radio stations (remember this was the early 1800s) and of course
industry.  So I suppose if this claim is valid (ROFL) then I suppose the
Negroes could also claim that we dumbed them rather than trying to improve
them.  Possibly they have already tried and claimed these things.  Does 
anybody know if this is true?  We know that they're desperately trying for
ancient Egypt and Cleopatra (mightless).  Of course people like Stewart
are trying to say every brick monument in Africa had to have been built by
Negroes, especially when they have shown no propensity to date.
 
Did I ever neglect Negro Mendela's comment about how he feels a kindred
spirit with the Maoris?  Or that Maoris want apartheid on their terms?
Most curious.  Of course the liberals are supporting this apartheid
business, but then, whoever said liberals weren't hypocrites? Reminds of
the Jews in Palestine, every liberal is celebrating the concept of a
separation of Palestinians and Jews, but not the separation of Negroes 
and Whites in the U.S and Sth Africa.

Anyway, the business of the Maoris is a digression.  

>> : This of course demonstrates the liberals quest to twist words. 
>> : Unfortunately for caesar, this thread starts with "Secondly" which would
>> : hint at a "firstly."  It also demonstrates that liberals can only change
>> : topic as opposed to debating them.  Though of course, liberals like Miss
>> : Finsten insist that they do not in fact "dodge" topics.
>> 
>> All liberals, Ouro?  Every last one?
>
It's a bit like white pointers.  I don't know if there is one that eats 
solely kelp and other vegetable matter, but it's normally a good 
generalisation that they meat and refuse rather than kelp.  But hey, maybe
we can all be surprised one day.  Maybe we will find a white pointer that
is a vegetarian, and maybe we will find a liberal that doesn't need to
twist words and change topic when the going gets tough.

I will admit for you Stewart that you have the sensibility of shutting up
when you're outclassed, unlike your compatriots.  I'll even admit I have
enjoyed some of your posts, especially the quote of Matriachal society 
with Negroes.  

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Wed Apr 17 07:38:47 PDT 1996
Article: 17496 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!xmission!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!waldorf.csc.calpoly.edu!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa!" :-) (was: If...)
Date: 16 Apr 1996 10:26:14 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <4kvsk7$8ed@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4j3jbb$j16@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <827777800snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4ja80q$793@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4jhv41$12v@orb.direct.ca> <4ji3h 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-318.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:25731 alt.politics.nationalism.white:17496 alt.discrimination:45684

In article , s.judd@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Judd) says:
>
>In article <4kv7j0$49i@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
>(Ourobouros) wrote:
>> On a more amusing topic (but it could be related), the Maoris have claimed
>> that we destroyed their advances in *civilisation*.  Apparently they built
>> roads, printing presses (which we tossed into the sea never to be found of
>> course), radio stations (remember this was the early 1800s) and of course
>> industry.
>
>Lies, lies, lies. Show me where this was ever claimed - but wait! You
>can't! Because it wasn't!
>
>As usual.
>
Obviously you have nevered followed the news Jew.  Do you remember the
trainee nurse who got failed because she refused to acknowledge some
Maori fantasy (ie., the printing press)?  Or howabout the fiasco 
concerning Maori rights to airwaves -- those thumbprints were symbols
to it, or some other point of garbage.  The roads came from a PhD in
Maori Studies on talkback in Auckland.  The industry came from (admittedly
second hand information) from a high school teacher attending Motat, she
asked the board of directors where all the pre-European Maori inventions
and so forth were.  She had to get that idea from somewhere...

So I can back up these claims Jew.

>You also omit that in the mid ninetheenth century the Maori had a higher
>literacy rate than Europeans in this country. Or that they beat the pants
>off British troops thanks to superior tactics and a grasp of trench
>warfare. 

Are you talking about the Maori wars which according to Sir William Fox,
was infused with Judaism (the Hau-Haus that is)?

I could debate quite successfully the so called tactics of the Maori if
you wish, and your propaganda leaves a lot to be desired.  Afterall, the
are still whining over the land confiscated in 1860s for attacking us 
(they lost).  If you wish to go back to 1840, then you'd know the Maoris
were overly keen in getting British protection (oh dear, where does that
leave your theories?).

>Or that Maori ship made regular trading runs to Sydney and
>Auckland supplying food to the young cities. But it wouldn't suit you,
>would it?
>
So you are trying to tell us that the Maoris braved the Tasman sea in
their wakas making food deliveries?  It's almost as ludicrous as the
printing press.
>
>PS: Hoping no one from an .nz domain was reading, were we?
>
ROFL, you're a bit dense, considering that you've decided to be another
resident parasite around apwp & Co.

Ourobouros.

PS For those that don't know, the waka is an extremely primitive (even 
with European advances on the design today) war canoe, pathetically small.
The Tasman sea is considered one of the roughest seas in the world...


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Wed Apr 17 07:38:48 PDT 1996
Article: 17497 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!xmission!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!waldorf.csc.calpoly.edu!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: If...
Date: 16 Apr 1996 11:11:33 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <4kvv95$8so@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4j3jbb$j16@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <827777800snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4ja80q$793@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4jhv41$12v@orb.direct.ca> <4ji3h 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-602.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:25733 alt.politics.nationalism.white:17497 alt.discrimination:45685

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com (Jeffrey G. Brown) says:
>
>In article <4kkj40$nao@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
>(Ourobouros) wrote:
>
>>Do you always cry 'foul' whenever someones makes a valid comment that 
>>opposes your views?  Take this thread for example, stating that Negroes in 
>>Africa are backwards is a fact.
>
>Nope... it's an unsupported assertion made by you and Griswold. 
>
ROFL, what category would you like Brown?

Economic?
Health & general hygiene?
Invention quotas?
Building Programs?
Welfare?
Education (classifications exclude information on how to mug, drive by
shootings and so forth)?
Crime fatalities?
Advance weaponry in warfare & tactics?
Secure government?
Attire?
Advanced agricultural methods (how many combine harvesters do they have?)?
Research projects (eg., AIDS research -- not supplying patients)?
Computer Science Programs?
Alchemists produced (bit of biased question admittedly)?
Irrigation techniques (buckets and urination do not count)?
Advanced railway and roading use?
Contribution to world-wide humanitarium funds, eg., how much money is sent
to the starving communities?
Advances in solar energy?
Nuclear programs?
Chess Players?
Book Publishing?
How many liberals do they produce?
How many Jews can they support?
Refugee status (not how many refugees they send out, but how many they
receive into good housing, employment, ie., better standard of living 
than where they left)?
Notable symphony composers?
Advanced cooking methods (eg., microwave ovens)?
Humanitarium principles?
Inactiveness of Amnesty International in their countries?  Or how much 
money do they give to them?

Now where were we Brown?
Need anything more, I'm sure what's above will function adequately for
now.

I'll even let you open the debate.

>>The negative views that both you and Mark make 
>>are unfounded unless you're already prejudiced and bigoted.
>
>What are you, if not "already prejudiced and bigoted", Stone?
>
Aha, bit of a foolish question, Brown.  According to your prejudiced I'm
allowed to be prejudiced.  One of the many advantages afforded to us by
liberals (not that liberals could be possibly prejudiced, only those that
disagree with their opinions).  

>>This is the fundamental difference between us and you.  You are for the
>>improvement of the individual first, and stuff the nation.  Whereas we
>>believe in putting the nation first, so that we can all reap the benefits.
>
>...And stuff the individual, eh? "Benefits", in your world, would be
>reaped only  by those with the proper color skin color and head shape.
>
Do you believe or do you not believe that these other races can look after
themselves without our help, Brown?
 
>You can keep your world, Stone. I'll live in the real one, where
>everybody, regardless of skin color or head shape, is considered a human
>being, thank you.
>
Who cares what you think, Brown?  When I get my way, I'll let you live in
the non-backward tribes in say the Congo (I'm sure you'll advance them by
adding protein to their diet)?  Isn't that generous of me?  I'm sure 
they'll treat you like a human being and let you have your individual
rights :->  Don't complain either, it's what you ultimately want.

Ourobouros.



From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Wed Apr 17 19:03:51 PDT 1996
Article: 17542 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!olivea!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: If...
Date: 17 Apr 1996 06:25:50 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <4l22tf$hcl@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4j3jbb$j16@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <827777800snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4ja80q$793@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4jhv41$12v@orb.direct.ca> <4ji3h <829484904snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-124.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:25820 alt.politics.nationalism.white:17542 alt.discrimination:45733

In article <829484904snz@augur.demon.co.uk>, Caesar  says:
>
>In article <4kkj40$nao@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
>           p_stone@alchemy.co.nz "Ourobouros" writes:
>
>> interwar period and Great Britain's 'success' at compromising.  Must say,
>> being a wimp in negotiations is really beneficial.
>
>Actually, Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler was useful in
>buying time for the British army to start re-equiping. British
>military spending increased dramatically between the Munich Agreement
>and the invasion of Poland.
>
True.  However, it does show an innate weakness, like the fact that Great
Britain needed to re-arm herself (compromising with Wilson's 14 points).  
I was referring mainly to the overall effect of the compromising nature.  
It was especially ineffective against the nips.  

I do love Abyssinia though.  Great Britain was prepared to give a port to
Abyssinia on the condition that Abyssinia gives territory to Italy.  I can
really see the brilliance of that scheme.  

Ourobouros.



From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Wed Apr 17 19:03:52 PDT 1996
Article: 17545 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!news.uoregon.edu!hpg30a.csc.cuhk.hk!news.cuhk.edu.hk!agate!spool.mu.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news1.digital.com!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.fan.ernst-zundel
Subject: Re: CAESAR's 25 "questions" show white GREATNESS
Date: 17 Apr 1996 07:05:50 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 151
Message-ID: <4l258e$hcl@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <829071456snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <062320Z14041996@anon.penet.fi> <829491605snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-124.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.history:4875 alt.politics.white-power:25826 alt.politics.nationalism.white:17545 alt.fan.ernst-zundel:727

In article <829491605snz@augur.demon.co.uk>, Caesar  says:
>
>In article <062320Z14041996@anon.penet.fi>
>           an572010@anon.penet.fi "Fool's Gold" writes:
>
>> >1. Egyptic
>> >
>> >Start: c.4000 BC
>> >End: c. 280 AD
>> >Location: Lower Nile
>> >Dominant states: Middle Empire
>> 
>> Race: White, Aryan
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^
>Any proof that the ancient Egyptians were white?
>
>Their cave-paintings show brown-skinned people.    
>

How about this poem (from Egypt):

	Of surpassing radiance and luminous skin
	With lovely clear-gazing eyes,
	Her lips speak sweetly
	With not a word too much.
	Her neck is long, her breast is white, [not brown/black]
	Her hair is true lapis lazuli
	Her arm surpasses gold
	And her fingers are like lotus buds [a brown flower?]
	With rounded thighs and trim waist,
	Her legs display beauty when,
	With graceful gait, she treads the earth.

Watterson, B. Women in Ancient Egypt, New York, 1991, p.9-10.

She also makes this comment (ibid., p.4)
"One convention was that in painted reliefs and statues a women's flesh
should be a creamy yellow, whereas for men it should be a reddish-brown.
The creamy colour of the women's flesh is probably to be taken as an
indication that women had less exposure to the sun since they would spend
more time indoors or under shade engaged in 'women's activities', rather
than as an indication of men's preference.  Even so, the element of 
preference for a soft skin rather than one roughened by exposure to the
elements is not to be dismissed."

On p.9 (ibid.) she makes this comment (concerning the poem):
"The following extract taken from a love poem illustrates what was, for 
most, Egyptian men, the ideal of feminine beauty.  It is the same ideal
that is portrayed in sculpture and painting: a woman should be graceful
and slim, with a small waist and small, firm breasts, a long neck, a pale
skin and blue-black hair."

Grimal, N. A History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford, Cambridge, 1992, p.131.
(Concerning embalming)
"Once the corspe had been emptied of its internal organs, the embalmer
began the task of 'salting' the body by placing it in natron for about
thirty-five days.  Since this treatment had the side-effect of darkening
the flesh, some of the limbs were died with henna or coated with ochre
(red for the men and yellow for the women, as in the painting of statues
and reliefs) in an attempt to counteract this process."

Heyerdahl, T., The Ra Expeditions, London, 1971, p.243.
"The wall paintings of ancient Egypt show men with yellow hair and men
with black hair building the same papyrus boat. ... Under the sand where
we built Ra, at the foot of his pyramid, the Pharoah Chepren, son of
Cheops, buried his queen and protrayed her for all time with yellow hair
and blue eyes.  In a glass case in Cairo Museum, among the mummies of his
kinsmen with their straight, black hair, lies Rameses II himself, with
soft, yellow, silky hair topping his hook-nosed mummy skull.  The north
has no monopoly of blond, fair-skinned peoples."

These are all the books I have on hand sorry.  If you are patient I will
increase the number drastically.
 
>> >3. Indic
>> >
>> >Start: c.3000 BC
>> >End: c. 500 AD
 
>> >Location: Mohenjo-Daro, Indus and Ganges Valleys
>> >Dominant States: Mauryan Empire, Gupta Empire
>> 
>> Race: White, Aryan
>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Since when have Indians been white and "Aryan"?
>
Before the miscegenated with the small, dark, snub nosed people they
despised in the Vedic hymms.  Go read them, and see how they described
themselves. 
 
>> >4. Mayan
>> >
>> >Start: c.2500 BC
>> >End: 1550 AD
>> >Location: Guatemala
>> 
>> Location: Central America
>> Race: Oriental, unsupported speculations of contact with Aryans
>> 
Not according to Thor Heyerdahl.  Does anyone wish me to quote from his
books concerning the subject?  It's quite lengthy though.

>> >13. Polynesian
>> >
>> >Start: c.500 BC
>> >End: 1775 AD
>> 
>> End: 1775?  Contact with Captain Cook didn't end Polynesian civilisation
>
>It was severely weakened by exposure to diseases like measles etc

>> >Location: Samoa and Tonga
>> 
>> Race: Oriental
>>
The Polynesians are a tri-mix of  Asian, Melanesian, and white, or that
is how the Encyclopedia Britanica records them.

BTW, Samoa and Tonga are going quite well, pity they like overstaying here
in New Zealand.

>> >20. Hindu
>> >
>> >Start: c.775 AD
>> 
>> Start: c.3000 BC
>> 
>> >End: still continues
>> 
>> End: speculatvely between 1000 AD and well before 17th century.  The Indian
>>  people lived centuries beyond 500 AD and were finally exterminated by
>>  orientals sometime after 1000 AD
>> 
>> >Location: India
>> >Major states: Mughal raj
>> 
>> Race: White, Aryan
>
>So, you still think Indians are white and "Aryan"?
>
>You'd better tell the British Census Office about this, as they record
>people from the Indian sub-continent as a separate racial
>group!
>
>I'm sure they'd be delighted to hear from you :)
>
They were white before they miscegenated.  Please read the Vedic Hymms for
their own descriptions of themselves.  They document themselves quite 
well.

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Thu Apr 18 08:04:35 PDT 1996
Article: 17566 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!solaris.cc.vt.edu!FQDN!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!munnari.OZ.AU!comp.vuw.ac.nz!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.politics,soc.culture.intercultural,alt.discrimination,sci.philosophy.meta,alt.politics.nationalism.white,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Racist stereotypes
Date: 18 Apr 1996 11:50:38 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 302
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <4l5aae$s6@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <828208075snz@stellar.demon.co.uk> <828294792snz@drmac.demon.co.uk> <4kel7p$eo5@er7.rutgers.edu> <4khtmu$for@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4ki16e$asd <4kuogt$fe9@decaxp.HARVARD.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-295.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.discrimination:45751 sci.philosophy.meta:16394 alt.politics.nationalism.white:17566 talk.politics.theory:60689

In article <4kuogt$fe9@decaxp.HARVARD.EDU>, slking@course2.harvard.edu (Stewart King) says:
>
>Ourobouros (p_stone@alchemy.co.nz) wrote: a lot.
>: slking@fas.harvard.edu (Stewart King) says:
>: >Ourobouros (p_stone@alchemy.co.nz) wrote:
>
>: >Whether or not they were exactly equal isn't really the point.
>: >
>: No, the engineering difference alone was phenomenal.  We are talking about
>: a mechanical clock, and not even the wheel or ocean-going ships.
>
>There is limited evidence suggesting limited ocean excursions on the 
>part of limited Africans before limited European contact, but they were 
>obviously limited.  As for the wheel...
>
>"Another objection to according the title of civilization to the polities 
>of this southern African iron age, it is often held, is that they failed 
>to invent or adopt the wheel.  Pedantry apart, this objection seems to 
>betray a remarkably narrow concept of human growth.  The peoples of 
>medieval Europe did not invent the wheel either, and they used it very 
>little until the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.  Was Scotland 
>altogether barbarous in the sixteenth century?  But Scottish annals for 
>1577 speak of the Regent going from Edinburgh's Tolbooth in "the second 
>coach that came to Scotland, when Queen Mary came from France."  One 
>needs to keep a sense of historical perspective in these matters."
>        - Davidson, "Lost Cities" p. 295
>
Ahem,
Delaney, "The Celts", p.21.
(concerning a burial of a "king" that was discovered):
"In the outer chamber, Dr. Biel found the remains of a cart, a sturdy
four-wheeled wagon made out of ash and elm and maple, elaborately plated,
one strongly crafted iron-bound wheels, festooned with bronze chains and
figurines.'

He also mentions Celtic chariots, which I imagine, are hard to make and
use without wheels.

As for the reference to Scotland, you must remember the time period and
who Mary, Queen of Scots were (to use their own terminalogy).  Mary was
brought up in the French courts.  When she moved to Scotland she expected
the exact same life style there as in France.  Without going into needless
detail, a Coach is a Coach, but it doesn't necessarily mean what you think
it means.  Or more basically, this would have referred to nothing more
than a French coach.  I mean, when you realize that the Scots used carts
(things with wheels) it becomes absurd to think that a coach signifies
a lack of wheeled transport.

>I just found this really tasty chapter, in fact, which basically takes 
>apart everything you've been saying but I can't very well type in the 
>whole thing.  You should really take a look at this book if you can find it.
>
Well we will never know then.  I'm also not prepared to take your word for
it either.

>: Oh dear, who was North?
>
>Arabs.  Tasty ones.
>
You're not assuming, God forbid, they were cannibals? :->

[Ghana]
>: So iron implements were introduced via the Arabs.  The Berbers were once
>: a White people.  
>
>Yeah, well, not that many people invented iron on their own.  The 
>Hittites' claim to fame, isn't it?  Like I said, cultural exchange is 
>tres important in developing a civilization.  Isolation breeds stagnation.
>And the Arabs were about the only contacts the West Africans had, because 
>it was Sahara on one side and Congo on the other, so it's no surprise it 
>came from them.  
>
The Sumerians did quite well by themselves.  Considering that our time
measurements are still based on the Sumerian ideal, it would seem they
knew a lot without cultural exchange...

Poor argument really.  

[the Sahara barrier factor]
>: >It is a mistake to underestimate the importance of 
>: >contact and interaction with other cultures when considering the 
>: >strength and dynamicism of any one civilization.  
>: 
>: Curious that Marco Polo & Co. used to transverse the Middle Eastern 
>: deserts to China and India (the latter dominated by the Portuguese Navy).
>
>But European civilization was not dependent on China and India for the 
>bulk of its economy, nor were they its only link to cultures other than 
>its own.  
>
Ah, but if the Negroes were smart, they could have had it at home, I mean
they had the terrain for it.

Also, I'm throwing a spannar in the works.  Deserts are not a problem if
you are determined to cross them.

>The Mediterranean region was really very handy.  Fertile areas, water for 
>trade, and lots of contact with other civilizations.  Very healthy.  No 
>wonder most things came from there to begin with.  
>
Considering that Africa is considered the richest continent in the world,
this is an empty bravado.

[snip]

>: BTW Stewart, ice makes a harsher desert than sand.  We seemed to have done
>: well living in icy conditions...
>
>No small accomplishment, assuredly.  My genes were there, I saw 
>everything.  But Europe wasn't _cut off_ in the same way Africa was.  
>And "ice makes a harsher desert than sand" is a terrible generalization.  
>Northern Europe isn't all ice, it isn't ice all year, and they were 
>living _on_ it, not across it.  I'd say the Sahara is a harsher place to 
>actually live on than Northern Europe is, wouldn't you?
>
Initially I'd say regions like Scandinavia were much harsher than the
Sahara, but a group of people decided to change that on their own onus.
Cultivating crops in that environment is extremely harsh as you are
restricted by favourable seasons being short. 

If the Negroes had thought about irrigation then the Sahara may have been
tamed, or at least made more successful.

>: Also, if you look at South Africa, the Whites are
>: in the minority, not the majority.  Who built up South Africa?  I can
>: arguably also apply this self same attitude to the "Black" civilisations.
>
>Arguably indeed.  If you have evidence of Arabs being the sole driving 
>force at all stages of early African development, I'd come up with it 
>now, since the information I posted only featured them as late-inning 
>trade partners and consultants.  They never actually ruled these empires 
>like the whites did in South Africa.  Not the same thing.
>
Time to quote Shanghai (China):
Louis, R. "British Strategy in the Far East, 1919-1939", Oxford, 1971.
p.163.
"British residents in China looked upon Shanghai as one of the glories of
Britain's informal Empire.  Men of English stock had transformed it from a
mudhole into the greatest port in the Far East, the fourth largest in the
world"
p.164.
"So far as the whites were concerned, the yellow men had moved into the
settlement to find a haven from the turmoil of China and to enjoy the
benefits if the prosperous trading community."

Britain did not rule China either, but Shanghai should be a useful 
reminder in any further statements that the Arabs did not rule such and
such.

[snip]

[polynesian trade]
>: nevertheless still civilisation.  My point being, that if they wished to 
>: do trade effectively, they needed to improve the area first.  In the 
>: Pacific  islands, there would normally be at least one white overseer.  If 
>: we move 1500 hundred years into the future, could another Stewart King 
>: state that the Polynesians built civilisation by themselves?  Afterall,
>: the Pacific Islands were mainly Polynesian (1).
>
>Not at all.  If they didn't build it, they didn't build it.  This has 
>probably not much to do with their genetic structure and everything to do 
>with their living on islands in the middle of the Pacific and it will be 
>a considerable feat for you to demonstrate otherwise.
>
You need to think extensionally.  I am not presently arguing over whether
they could have built civilisation or not.  What I am saying is that given
1500 hundred years, our records are likely to be lost.  Now if an
anthropologist/archeologist comes along and investigates the now ruins of
our era in the South Pacific and finds these particular race dominant 
(Polynesian), could we then have the same conclusion about Negroes in
African civilisations?  Afterall, one of your quotes from Davidson said
"mainly Negro".  Which is why I tried to indicate the scenerio with a
(1).  Obviously I failed to bring such a thought to your attention.

[race of egyptians]
>
>: Plus of course, lets review Davidson's comment "An analysis of some eight
>: hundred skulls (Miss Finsten where are you?) 
>
>hee hee
>
>: from PRE-dynastic Egypt."
>
>: So first off, it's before the unification and therefore all their glorious
>: buildings, writings and the other great hallmarks of high civilisation.
>
>Well it would have to be if they were some of the buggers as did it in 
>the first place, now wouldn't it?
>
The problems are whether the Negroes put anything useful into it, which
was the debate, wasn't it?  My post under "? 25 Civilizations ?" should
serve as a useful state if you wish to debate it further ("?" are 
wildcards).

[skull shapes and Fester's ineptness clipped]

>: there were hunter-gatherers (Negroes) in the same region and time period.  
>: It would suggest that the Hunter-gatherers (Negroes) weren't responsible 
>: for making the civilisation(s).  Perhaps later, like in South Africa, 
>: they wanted to be part of the bounty and joined the city ranks. 
>
>: Did you forget these points Stewart?  You only mildly challenged them and
>: they still withstood your lame attempts of dispute.
>
>I think we're dealing with a slight difference in perception here.  
>Nonetheless, I never denied that your points had some merit.  I also 
>think you're conveniently forgetting a lot of the points I made because 
>I challenged everything you said, I remember.  It was fun.  
>
>From memory: don't quote me: There was significant migration from the north 
>and east (the general direction of Egypt) by persons not of pure Negroid 
>origin, and they, coming as they did from the vicinity of the fabled 
>cradles of civilization, brought neat toys and ideas.  
>
I quoted the Encyclopedia Britannica.  Something you never challenged even
though you snipped it out in your reply.  This was evident with your
question on why the early excavators thought they weren't Negro. 

>You, however, have provided no evidence for your view that they were the 
>essential architects of African civilization, whereas I have posted 
>things which I'm not about to look up again right now which clearly 
>stated that in these situations the two groups would meld into a new 
>hybrid culture and continue on, and as this influence continued 
>civilizations were built.  The Negroid peoples were key partners.  This 
>kind of thing happened in Europe too, but took a different direction, 
>most directly attributable to the environmental conditions.
>
Negroes as a general rule were given the boot in Europe.  If you care to
read say William the Conqueror's thoughts about Negroes, you'd give up
that view almost immediately (William called them 'Devils').

I also wonder whether slaves can be called equal partners either.
 
>There are also Southern civilizations which I never brought up because I 
>never read that far in the book, but they weren't bad either judging by 
>what I've read in the last five minutes.
>
I don't remember the Hottentots developing anything, in fact I've never
come across anything that these Southern people built anything resembling
the crudest ideal of civilisation.

>: I mean comments like "Why did the early excavators think they weren't
>: Negro?" are really powerful at destroying my points.  The only reason I
>: can think of is why they recorded it as so, was because it was so.  Hence
>: strengthening my argument at your detriment.
>
>I don't remember what you're talking about.  And I'm not always trying to 
>_destroy_ your points.  Maybe I just wondered something.
>
Too bad, because I do (remembering).

As for not destroying my points, we are on opposite ends of the spectrum.
We should conflict on most issues.  

>: If you wish to say I'm wrong, you are going to need stronger stuff than
>: you have so far presented.  
>
>Oh for christ's sake.  You've not presented anything except your own 
>opinions and speculations.  I'd suggest you stop sounding so bloody sure 
>of yourself and do some actual research and present it as such, instead of 
>paraphrasing without references all the time.  
>
What a load of bullshit.  I have presented information all the time, I
resent having to requote matters that have gone before.  As stated before,
I quoted from the Encyclopedia Britannica, and your response was weak, as
noted before.  

As for sounding so sure, I tend to find my opponents say those things 
because they are unsure of their own beliefs.  Don't blame your unsureness
on me.  My confidence comes from my assurdity that I've done sufficient
work in an area to prove my claims.

>: Then where were you when she (the original poster) made these comments? Do
>: you support her in her allegations that racists (especially or only white)
>: are knuckle-draggers?

>No, not at all.  I can, to a somewhat frightening degree, understand a 
>lot of their points of view.  A lot of them aren't too bright, but some 
>of them are only wrong.  One or two - be proud! you're one - actually 
>have heads and make valid points from time to time.  Personally, I miss 
>Frank Weltner a lot.  He was fun, in a warped sort of way.

It's not too often I receive compliments from my would-be enemies.  Still
it must be remarked that of all the liberals witnessed on the 'net, you
present the best cases.  Perhaps it's the Computer Science discipline.
Where I came from at least, you had to be extremely logical.  While I
fermently disagree with you on a lot of areas, I can appreciate your
style of argument.  It's a pity your compatriots don't follow your 
methodology better.  

Frank used a lot of wit in his posts.  Something your compatriots missed.

>: I only hassle people that insist on stereotyping racist because they say
>: they don't stereotype.  

>Oh, I stereotype like mad.  It's tough to avoid if you're going to 
>make it through an average day.  I try to fight it though.

It's part of thinking to discriminate.  If you didn't you would have an
extremely short and unpleasant life.  

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Thu Apr 18 10:37:50 PDT 1996
Article: 17582 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!gatech!news.jsums.edu!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.starnet.net!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.politics,soc.culture.intercultural,alt.discrimination,sci.philosophy.meta,alt.politics.nationalism.white,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Racist stereotypes
Date: 18 Apr 1996 12:54:50 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 194
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <4l5e2q$s6@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <828208075snz@stellar.demon.co.uk> <828294792snz@drmac.demon.co.uk> <4kel7p$eo5@er7.rutgers.edu> <4khtmu$for@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4ki16e$asd <4l0ja0$bae@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-295.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.discrimination:45754 sci.philosophy.meta:16395 alt.politics.nationalism.white:17582 talk.politics.theory:60700

In article <4l0ja0$bae@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura Finsten  says:
>
>p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:

>>Secondly, Miss Finsten has stated that the cranial index is outdated, and
>>she also refuses to acknowledge any skull shape difference between Negroes
>>and Whites (or any other modern day race).  Since she is a professor of
>>modern anthropology, how does Davidson's comments now align?  BTW, this is
>>an attack on Finsten's silliness and not yours.
>
>You know, Mr. Stone, you either have a serious problem with reading
>comprehension or you are a liar, and not a very accomplished one at
>that.  Yes, I have said that the cranial index is outdated.  I cited
>Harrison, a professor of biological anthropology at Oxford University
>as one source to demonstrate this sentiment in contemporary physical
>anthropology.  All you had to say about his comments was that he
>should take a statistics course.
>
And?

[Emotional rant at fester's level]:

I don't happen to agree with his opinions.  My basic premise (to which
you keep dodging from) is why the fucking hell to we include a bastard
people like the Portuguese into the Caucasian race?  Ethiopians are also
of similar mixture, but are classified as Negroid.  Anthropology in
describing the races is bogus.  Their classification system is absurd. 
It's no fucking wonder why the cranial index can not be a determiner of
race because you (pl.) are determined to throw just about anybody into 
any bloody race.  Is it unreasonable to assume that a mulatto Portuguese
is going to have a different fucking skull shape from someone from
Norway on the basis that the Portuguese has a different race in him?  I'm
fucking sick of your avoidance to what could be a very straightforward
point.  Now that I've decided to talk in your language (emotions) perhaps
we may finally have an answer fester on the subject of racial 
classification?  

Now please comprehend this fucking thought before dodging as you always
do concerning race classifications.  It's no fucking wonder why bitches
like yourself cannot classify race according to biology.  It's no fucking
wonder why every attempt to classify race according to the stupid and
arbitrary rules of modern anthropology in determining race fails.  
Biological classification of races could be quite simple if you would just 
think for more than 1 nanosecond.   Of the top of my head, the ability to
absorb milk sugar as an adult increases with the increasing whiteness of 
the base skin colour.  It is also a marked occurance amongst North Western
European and their descendents, indicating that it is a feature lost on
Slavs.  Now could this be a simple biological classification for race?
Yes I'm aware you get half-breeds that can absorb this, but I'm talking
about the greater occurrence of this phenomena.

>And do you know what else, Mr. Stone?  I have NEVER said that *craniometry*
>is outdated, nor have I refused to acknowledge any skull shape differences
>between negroids and caucasoids.  In fact, I responsed to a post of
>yours in which you said that you could tell that Jim Bolger (?), apparently
>a Black Irishman, was "more miscegenated than most" Black Irish, or
>words to that effect, from your examination of a photograph of the
>gentleman.  My response itemised the cranial and facial skeletal traits
>used to distinguish negroids and caucasoids, from a book called "The
>Anatomy and Biology of the Human Skeleton" by D. Gentry Steele and
>Claud A. Bramblett, published in 1988 by Texas A&M University Press.
>My response also quoted cautions by Steele and Bramblett as well as
>by another human osteologist, Douglas Ubelaker, about the difficulties
>in using the criteria outlined for assigning individuals to these
>broad "racial" categories.  My points in citing these works by experts
>in the subject about which you claim (without substantiation) to know
>so much were that (1) you couldn't possibly have made any credible
>evaluation of Mr. Bolger's (?) degree of negroid admixture based on
>examination of a photograph, and (2) that the entire enterprise of
>making "racial" determinations based on cranial traits is viewed by
>experts in human skeletal biology as extremely problematic because
>there is so much variation in all of the traits (none of which, I 
>might add, was the cranial index) used.
>
First off, you at first mentioned craniometry.  You mentioned craniometry
like this "craniometry".  You did so twice.  Yes I realized your 
backpedalling to cranial index, but I have yet to finish my fun with you
over the topic.  

Next I wasn't aware that you could still classify between White and Black
on skull shapes alone.  This is on your words stating that race is 
socially classified.  A difference in skull shape would obviously be
biological, and that is something you most definitely said race wasn't
(biological).  Now was my extension of your sayings incorrect in my
assumption that you couldn't tell the difference between a Negro skull
and a Nordic Caucasian skull?

Jim Bludger.  No, I didn't say I knew from a photographm that was your
poor reading comprehension.  I said to somebody else (presumably Judd)
that he could look at some photographs or meet him in person (since he 
still lives).  I've met Jim Buldger, fester, you haven't.  The most
obvious point in Negro admixture is the heaviness of his skull.  A skull
that could take heavy blows if need be, just like a Negroes.

>Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you missed
>my response to your post on this subject, because as I recall you
>never did answer it.  However, your continually carping to suggest
>that I am wrong about the cranial index is ringing very hollow, Mr.
>Stone, and it is getting very boring.  I've cited sources, not taking
>phrases or tables out of context, from experts in the field to 
>illustrate by point on this matter.  I challenge you to do the same.
>And that does *not* mean referring to a table in Jonathon Marks all
>the while ignoring what he actually says about the broader subject,
>or what he says about the specific subject of the table itself.

No I didn't get your posts about Mr Buldger, and in a way I'm grateful.
On the basis on your posts, I didn't miss much, and saved myself from
getting annoyed by your continuing dodging tactics or your brilliant skill
in boring audiences (a most effective tactic I might add -- bore your
opponents so they ignore you, allowing you to rave on as you do).
  
>[earlier comment by P.Stone:]
>
>>>: Miss Finsten wrote recently concerning that the Renaissance starters 
>>>: (Northern Italy, especially Florence) were brown based on her ignorance
>>>: of history.  Then of course she mentioned the ancient Greeks and ex cetra.
>
>No Mr. Stone, I said that it is impossible to think of the Renaissance
>without thinking of Italy.  I also asked you, when you posted your
>comment about Florence, to specify when you think the great "browning"
>of Italy took place, since darker complected Italians have been found
>through much of what is now Italy for quite some time.  In fact,
>Cavalli-Sforza has some very interesting data on genetic variation in
>Italy.  His first principal component (remember those PC maps you were
>so enamoured of until the other day when I pointed out that you don't
>understand them?) 

Incidentally did you receive my post concerning the subject?  You have
yet to reply to it.  It was quite sarcastic in your interpretation of C-S'
works.

>divides Italy in half from north to south but, 
>interestingly, includes Sicily with the northern half.  And not ony that, 
>the northern half is still distinct by several "degrees" (his artificial 
>divisions) from northernmost Europe. His second principal component lumps 
>all of Italy excepting Sicily with most of western Europe, the British 
>Isles and southeastern Europe (the Balkans).  So how exactly do you see
>the "genetic composition" and distribution of genes in Italy changing
>since the Renaissance?  This is especially significant here because
>Cavalli-Sforza attributes these first two principal components to
>historical "events" that occurred many thousands of years ago.
>
First off, the original Romans were Aryan (White, Nordic).  While they
paid the penalty for miscegenation, some of the original stock still lay
in the rural districts.  Further more, the Germans came and occupied 
parts of Northern Italy, especially Lombardy.

In the twelfth century (I can't remember the Sicilian King's name) the
Sicilians allowed Moors to live there.  The Sicilian Kingdom borders were
also in Southern Italy (Naples).  The Sicilians allowed miscegenation
quite freely.  Thus they became nothing quite quickly.

With the advent of easier travel (starting with steam trains), the
travelling between districts became more intense, until today where we
bring aliens in via our invention the aeroplane, and further add to our
woes by having the automobile.  All this meant that another race could
suddenly travel to where you lived and mix.  Italy's unification this
century broke down the last resistance to the muds from Southern Italy. An
extremely brief history.  BTW, Cavalli-Sforza is a Northern Italian name
(Sforza was a prominent family in the Italian Renaissance), so perhaps he
had a bias in his selection.  As for your interpretation of his PC Maps,
please read my reply in the other thread, it should be quite succinct.

For the stupid: no, I am not saying give up our present technology.

>You really have a penchant for misrepresenting what I say.  Or perhaps
>you're turning blue, trying to see if you can hold your breath long enough
>to avoid dying from inhaling Zyklon B gas, and that has clouded your
>already questionable reading comprehension?
>
Gee, why would I inhale Zyklon B gas for fester?  Surely you're the one
with the reading miscomprehension?  Afterall, you did not get Buldger
right (witness this post).  BTW, the holding of one's breath comes not
>from  me fester, but your idol, McVay.  Please feel free to try and be
sarcastic to him.

>>For example, our resident
>>anthropology professor said that craniometry was outdated, which of
>>course throws out evolution completely as criteria for neanderthals 
>>becomes non-existent.  Not even liberal professors can avoid being 
>>hypocritical.
>
>You're lying about why I said again, Mr. Stone.    
>
No, I'm poking fun.  You did say "craniometry" and making fun of you is
something I've yet to tire of.  This is especially in light of your 
recent attempt to twist my words over Judd's question.

BTW, I normally resist going down to my opponents level, but you seem to
fail in to many regards of the basic elements of arguing.  Also, I detest
swearing normally, I reserve it when I especially want to make a point.
And in this case, your insistent dodging.

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Fri Apr 19 10:51:38 PDT 1996
Article: 17666 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.starnet.net!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Judd's ignorance redux
Date: 19 Apr 1996 13:38:38 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 120
Message-ID: <4l850v$b7o@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4j3jbb$j16@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <827777800snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4ja80q$793@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4jhv41$12v@orb.direct.ca> <4ji3h 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-297.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:25990 alt.politics.nationalism.white:17666 alt.discrimination:45800

In article , s.judd@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Judd) says:
>
>In article <4l5137$7h@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
>(Ourobouros) wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>s.judd@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Judd) says:

>> You could also make yourself available to the "New Maori Myth" by M.L.
>> Drake (a Maori).  Last time I heard it was before the Race Relations
>> Office, so its availiability maybe highly limited (I do own a copy,
>> however).
>
>Perhaps you could lend it to me?
>
No.
 
>> I'm also amused over your backdown over printing presses and radio (air-
>> waves).  Considering that if they had these items alone, it would indicate
>> that they had roads and industry.
>
>Backdown? Since I never claimed this, how can I back down? Weird.
>
You only attacked two sources of my information, Jew.  There were four
sources of information in total.  You neglected to mention the other two.


>> >> If you wish to go back to 1840, then you'd know the Maoris
>> >> were overly keen in getting British protection (oh dear, where does that
>> >> leave your theories?).
>> >
>> >They wanted to be able to fly a recognised flag on their ships so they
>> >wouldn't be impoounded by the Sydney harbour master. They wanted to be
>> >British law in the country to control the lawless settlers.
>> >
>> What a load of crap Jew.  They wanted British soveignity to protect 
>> themselves from the French, who were insistent on slaughtering them for
>> the cannibal acts (of the Maori) on one of their (the French) ships.
>
>Dear me. Getting tetchy, eh? The incident with the harbourmaster, and
>speeches saying that they wished the Governor to protect them against
>criminal settlers, are matters of historical record.
>
So you are ignorant of the French importance then?


>> Only a few, like the Maori miners in the Gold rush in Otago.  
>> Unfortunately for them, they liked "firewater" too much to make any real
>> investment.
>
>Wrong. Guns, ships, the press, new crops - all were eagerly adopted. Have
>you actually read any histories of the time? Do you realise that the
>missionaries made so much headway no because of Christianity, but because
>of the technology they taught?
>
Crap.  Please feel free to summarise the Maori interest in sending their
children to school and other institutions (last century).

>> I tend to refuse to read the modern crap, because it is crap.  They push
>> the white guilt trip which I deplore.  I tend to read the earlier books
>> who prefer to use the term "Maori Wars" instead of the "Land Wars" that
>> liberals like you push (a political aim rather than historical fact).    
>
>As if earlier books were neutral, rather than seeking to justify British
>and NZ government policy?

The older books lack the politically correct stance of modern books, 
namely blaming European men for everything. 

As for your claims on non-neutrality, that is at best arbitrary.  You
prefer books that attack Europeans and favour aborigines, which to me
show anything but neutrality.  

>Actually, your obsession with old books sums you up. Your attitudes and
>beliefs are superseded relics of a distant past. The bulk of what you say,
>based on old books and old theories, is simply irrelevant. Craniometry a
>case in point.
>
ROFL.  Mr Judd, believe it or not, History is rewritten according to the 
political ambitions of the day.  The classic example of this would be the
pre-W.W.II books before Taylor's Origin of the Second World War (1960). A
political change allowed such a book to be written and eventually 
accepted.  Another famous example is who was the better King, Richard I
or John?

As a curious thought, with Marlon Brando's comment of Jews running 
Hollywood.  Could the film "Braveheart" have an ulterior purpose, namely
discrediting Edward I, especially since he had the Jews removed from
England in 1290.  BTW, I am Scottish.  The film was not fact, but a story.
While Hollywood may claim that it is based on a true story, it has many
fallacies.

I dislike the current political genre, so I look back to history books 
of a political environment that I prefer.  This is not to say that I
neglect modern history texts, especially since I need to refer to them
whilst studying History.  

The disproof of "craniometry" is still awaiting fester's answer to my
questions of racial classification.  

BTW Jew, I discovered the original source the other day of your claim of
Europe having a cannibal period.  That source is by S.H. Steinberg, a Jew.
Someone that has a grudge against the goyim.  It should come to light 
that most historians disregard this Jew because of his failure to 
comprehend the new style of warfare of the period.

>It is strange, having to rehash intellectual battles that have already
>been settled long ago, but if it makes you happy, why not.
>
Good. 

 
>> You could try reading Travesty of Waitangi towards Anarchy (Scott).
>
>Which has been laughed at all over the country since it came out.
>
Prove it wrong then.  BTW, you should also have finished your argument in
proving Heyerdahl wrong by now.

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Fri Apr 19 10:53:51 PDT 1996
Article: 25990 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.starnet.net!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Judd's ignorance redux
Date: 19 Apr 1996 13:38:38 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 120
Message-ID: <4l850v$b7o@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4j3jbb$j16@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <827777800snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4ja80q$793@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4jhv41$12v@orb.direct.ca> <4ji3h 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-297.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:25990 alt.politics.nationalism.white:17666 alt.discrimination:45800

In article , s.judd@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Judd) says:
>
>In article <4l5137$7h@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
>(Ourobouros) wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>s.judd@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Judd) says:

>> You could also make yourself available to the "New Maori Myth" by M.L.
>> Drake (a Maori).  Last time I heard it was before the Race Relations
>> Office, so its availiability maybe highly limited (I do own a copy,
>> however).
>
>Perhaps you could lend it to me?
>
No.
 
>> I'm also amused over your backdown over printing presses and radio (air-
>> waves).  Considering that if they had these items alone, it would indicate
>> that they had roads and industry.
>
>Backdown? Since I never claimed this, how can I back down? Weird.
>
You only attacked two sources of my information, Jew.  There were four
sources of information in total.  You neglected to mention the other two.


>> >> If you wish to go back to 1840, then you'd know the Maoris
>> >> were overly keen in getting British protection (oh dear, where does that
>> >> leave your theories?).
>> >
>> >They wanted to be able to fly a recognised flag on their ships so they
>> >wouldn't be impoounded by the Sydney harbour master. They wanted to be
>> >British law in the country to control the lawless settlers.
>> >
>> What a load of crap Jew.  They wanted British soveignity to protect 
>> themselves from the French, who were insistent on slaughtering them for
>> the cannibal acts (of the Maori) on one of their (the French) ships.
>
>Dear me. Getting tetchy, eh? The incident with the harbourmaster, and
>speeches saying that they wished the Governor to protect them against
>criminal settlers, are matters of historical record.
>
So you are ignorant of the French importance then?


>> Only a few, like the Maori miners in the Gold rush in Otago.  
>> Unfortunately for them, they liked "firewater" too much to make any real
>> investment.
>
>Wrong. Guns, ships, the press, new crops - all were eagerly adopted. Have
>you actually read any histories of the time? Do you realise that the
>missionaries made so much headway no because of Christianity, but because
>of the technology they taught?
>
Crap.  Please feel free to summarise the Maori interest in sending their
children to school and other institutions (last century).

>> I tend to refuse to read the modern crap, because it is crap.  They push
>> the white guilt trip which I deplore.  I tend to read the earlier books
>> who prefer to use the term "Maori Wars" instead of the "Land Wars" that
>> liberals like you push (a political aim rather than historical fact).    
>
>As if earlier books were neutral, rather than seeking to justify British
>and NZ government policy?

The older books lack the politically correct stance of modern books, 
namely blaming European men for everything. 

As for your claims on non-neutrality, that is at best arbitrary.  You
prefer books that attack Europeans and favour aborigines, which to me
show anything but neutrality.  

>Actually, your obsession with old books sums you up. Your attitudes and
>beliefs are superseded relics of a distant past. The bulk of what you say,
>based on old books and old theories, is simply irrelevant. Craniometry a
>case in point.
>
ROFL.  Mr Judd, believe it or not, History is rewritten according to the 
political ambitions of the day.  The classic example of this would be the
pre-W.W.II books before Taylor's Origin of the Second World War (1960). A
political change allowed such a book to be written and eventually 
accepted.  Another famous example is who was the better King, Richard I
or John?

As a curious thought, with Marlon Brando's comment of Jews running 
Hollywood.  Could the film "Braveheart" have an ulterior purpose, namely
discrediting Edward I, especially since he had the Jews removed from
England in 1290.  BTW, I am Scottish.  The film was not fact, but a story.
While Hollywood may claim that it is based on a true story, it has many
fallacies.

I dislike the current political genre, so I look back to history books 
of a political environment that I prefer.  This is not to say that I
neglect modern history texts, especially since I need to refer to them
whilst studying History.  

The disproof of "craniometry" is still awaiting fester's answer to my
questions of racial classification.  

BTW Jew, I discovered the original source the other day of your claim of
Europe having a cannibal period.  That source is by S.H. Steinberg, a Jew.
Someone that has a grudge against the goyim.  It should come to light 
that most historians disregard this Jew because of his failure to 
comprehend the new style of warfare of the period.

>It is strange, having to rehash intellectual battles that have already
>been settled long ago, but if it makes you happy, why not.
>
Good. 

 
>> You could try reading Travesty of Waitangi towards Anarchy (Scott).
>
>Which has been laughed at all over the country since it came out.
>
Prove it wrong then.  BTW, you should also have finished your argument in
proving Heyerdahl wrong by now.

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Fri Apr 19 18:44:38 PDT 1996
Article: 31984 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!news.sdsmt.edu!news.mid.net!news.dra.com!news.starnet.net!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: Ken Mcvay: Professional Liar
Date: 19 Apr 1996 14:06:50 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <4l86lq$b7o@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References:  <316913e3.1552455@news.pacificnet.net> <4kh889$di2@newsource.ihug.co.nz> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-297.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:17702 alt.politics.white-power:26025 alt.revisionism:31984 alt.skinheads:19375

In article <4ku6k9$nis@news.nyu.edu>, jal5266@is.nyu.edu (Jeremy A. Litt) says:
>
>Ourobouros (p_stone@alchemy.co.nz) wrote:
>: In article , mvanalst@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) says:
>: >
>: >In article <4kh889$di2@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
>: >(Ourobouros) wrote:

>: >Yes. If the concentration was not too high and the exposure not too prolonged.
>: >
>: >But how long do you think a person, forewarned, could hold their breath? 5
>: >minutes? 10 minutes? Do you think 1,000 naked, tired, abused, and
>: >terrified people crammed into a room, when the lights go out, would all
>: >collectively hold their breath for 5 minutes? How about when they started
>: >panicking and dying- clawing at and climbing over each other, trampling
>: >the weak and the young underfoot to get away from the gas? Do you think
>: >anybody would be to hold their breath for 5 SECONDS? I don't. 
>: >
>: Ah, but we must reconcile the concept that the misfits were fooled into
>: entering the chambers, as they were supposed to be showers.  One wonders
>: with how the stories all fit together...if they ever do.
>
>Hmmmm.....so you're saying, then, that while those who were fooled into 
>going in would be unable to hold their breath for 5-10 minutes while 
>being trampled, those who weren't could clearly do so.
>
>Such wonderful logic!
>
Trying to get a liberal to think extensionally is beyond my skills, or it
shows a delibrately ineptness on their behalf.

No, I am not saying they could hold their breath for 5-10 minutes, nor did
I ever suggest they could hold their breath that long.  I was using the
held breath idea of McVay against that of a beetle.  I was not necessarily
disputing that a beetle needed more Zyclon B than a human, but the basis
on how they came to that conclusion.

Both you and Mark failed to comprehend this point.

My hint at my previous comment was simply this:  The claim is that the
Jews and other misfits were fooled into the gas chambers by the illusion
of them being showers.  Now both McVay and Mark have stated the extreme
crampness of the occupants of the chambers.  If there was an illusion of
showers, then why did they insist of cramming the misfits into the 
chambers, surely that would have dispeled the illusion?  Dodging like you
have done does not resolve the issue...except perhaps to reaffirm me that
my opponents are incapable of disproving it.
 
[snip]

>No, but you should think a little.  Because no one is saying, of course, 
>that it takes more to kill a beetle because a beetle can hold his breath 
>longer, or is more protected by its skin.  The reason it takes more to 
>kill a beetle is because of *physical differences* between beetles and 
>humans.  
>
Now what are those reasons.

>Moreover, the skin is not a protectant against a poison just because the 
>poison attacks the respiratory system.  Just because the poison is 
>absorbed through a porous skin does not mean it can't affect the 
>respiratory system.  Or are you also saying a poison which is swallowed 
>will not affect the respiratory system?
>
According to McVay's description, it's is a process involving the lungs
(affecting hemoglobin essentially) rather than ingestion.

So you question is irrelevant.  These posts of mine required you to know
McVay's FAQs.  Please acquaint yourself more fully with McVay's ramblings
before continuing.

[fat and cooking]  
>
>well, that certainly outdid those "nice formulas."  You apparently think 
>bullsh*t outweighs science.
>
No, you fail entirely to realize the point.  The cooking lesson had
nothing to do with the hoaxacost, but about cooking hamburger patties. 
Mark felt it necessary to mention fat food cooking, and I felt it needed
a reply.  Quite simple really.

Comprehende?

My point about fat not been burnt was alluded to McVay when he stated (in
his FAQs) that the Nazis reused the fat of misfits, in order to speed up
the process of cremation.  Doing so, imples all sorts of other arguments,
all of which you failed to grasp, so it's no point discussing them you.

Ourobouros.



From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Tue Apr 23 11:08:31 PDT 1996
Article: 17931 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!cancer.vividnet.com!hunter.premier.net!news.thenet.net!trellis.wwnet.com!news.inc.net!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!brighton.openmarket.com!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: If...
Date: 21 Apr 1996 00:57:18 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <4lc15e$96n@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4j3jbb$j16@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <827777800snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4ja80q$793@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4jhv41$12v@orb.direct.ca> <4ji3h <829486001snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-577.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:26279 alt.politics.nationalism.white:17931 alt.discrimination:45870

In article <829486001snz@augur.demon.co.uk>, Caesar  says:
>
>In article <4kmsb5$4do@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
>           p_stone@alchemy.co.nz "Ourobouros" writes:
>
>> Fortunately we decided to improve our lot.  Something the Negroes have
>> been avoiding, despite the wasted funds from the White man for education.
>
>Aid funding is miniscule. Less than 0.25% of UK GDP is spent
>on foreign aid.
>
In 1990 UK GDP was
477,747,000,000 pounds.

Therefore foreign aid was 1,194,367,500 pounds.

Liberia's total GDP in 1986 was
L$948,200,000.

Without even considering the exchange rates.  You should retract your
pitiful comments.

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Thu Apr 25 10:17:48 PDT 1996
Article: 26415 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!nic.wat.hookup.net!hookup!olivea!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: If...
Date: 24 Apr 1996 07:10:28 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 212
Message-ID: <4lkk54$8to@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4j3jbb$j16@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <827777800snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4ja80q$793@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4jhv41$12v@orb.direct.ca> <4ji3h 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-594.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:26415 alt.politics.nationalism.white:18031 alt.discrimination:45911

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com (Jeffrey G. Brown) says:
>
>In article <4kvv95$8so@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
>(Ourobouros) wrote:
>
>>In article ,
>jeff_brown@pol.com (Jeffrey G. Brown) says:
>>>
>>>In article <4kkj40$nao@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
>>>(Ourobouros) wrote:
[snip]

Categories, Brown, would like to forget:

ROFL, what category would you like Brown?

Economic?
Health & general hygiene?
Invention quotas?
Building Programs?
Welfare?
Education (classifications exclude information on how to mug, drive by
shootings and so forth)?
Crime fatalities?
Advance weaponry in warfare & tactics?
Secure government?
Attire?
Advanced agricultural methods (how many combine harvesters do they have?)?
Research projects (eg., AIDS research -- not supplying patients)?
Computer Science Programs?
Alchemists produced (bit of biased question admittedly)?
Irrigation techniques (buckets and urination do not count)?
Advanced railway and roading use?
Contribution to world-wide humanitarium funds, eg., how much money is sent
to the starving communities?
Advances in solar energy?
Nuclear programs?
Chess Players?
Book Publishing?
How many liberals do they produce?
How many Jews can they support?
Refugee status (not how many refugees they send out, but how many they
receive into good housing, employment, ie., better standard of living 
than where they left)?
Notable symphony composers?
Advanced cooking methods (eg., microwave ovens)?
Humanitarium principles?
Inactiveness of Amnesty International in their countries?  Or how much 
money do they give to them?

[snip]

I'll even let you open the debate.
>
>You have given your definition of "backwards" as:
>
>   > 3 Slow in growth or development; retarded
>   > 4 Late; slow; behindhand.
>
>The questions you ask (and I note pointedly that you have _not_ offered
>any facts, evidence, or references -- just questions) deal with the state
>of the _societies and cultures_ in Africa (and I also note you have not
>bothered to state _which_ societies or cultures). The implicit assertion
>that "Negroes in Africa are backwards" deals with the development of
>_individuals_ of the Negro race. 
>
>Recall that the original question/implicit assertion from Griswold, which
>opened this thread, was that Negroes had not "evolved". Only later was
>this altered to the less precise "backwards". Still, the implicit
>assertion dealt only with Negroes as individuals -- no mention was made of
>societies or cultures, not can any be inferred.
>
Actually, pedantics included, Negroes is plural.  Therefore I can be 
quite justified in grouping them together in societies.  As for "evolved",
I saw the thread start with "Indeed, why are the niggers in Africa 
backwards?" Or words to the effect.  While the word evolved has come to
mean, and has been interpretated by liberals as such, evolution.  The 
word does not necessarily mean the theory of evolution.  It can quite
happily mean "evolve", therefore Les' rewording is quite justified.  No
doubt you were among the dodgers of that assertion as well. 

BTW Brown, how do individuals progress without a culture or society?  
Surely the basic mechanics of insuring of say, technological innovation,
requires the basic overabundance of food.  By this I mean the ability of
supporting those that don't contribute to the food supply and have time
for other pursuits.  Afterall, if you have to scourge for food daily you
don't have time to build stone monuments and so forth do you?

Also, Brown feel free to pick on any Negro culture or society you like 
within the confines of the African continent.  That is your choice, since
I have given you the pleasure of opening the debate.  You may of course
choice as many Negro cultures and societies as you like (within Africa).

>The racist worldview depends on the assertion that other races are
>genetically less developed, or genetically "flawed". Genetic "flaws" are
>properties inherent to individuals -- not societies or cultures. Nothing
>in the list of questions -- not evidence! -- that you have produced can be
>taken as "proof" of the "genetic flaw" assertion as regards "Negroes in
>Africa". Every single item you enumerate is determined largely, if not
>entirely, by the state of a society or culture.
>
You are the first to mention genetics Mr Brown.  But to address your
statement: if the genetic flaw is present in most members of that 
particular society or culture, then it stands to reason that society or
culture will demonstrate that genetic flaw.  Surely this concept is not
that difficult to grasp is it?  To take a silly example: If most of a
particular village are dwarfs, then you can conclude that there is a high
proportion of what's necessary (genetically speaking) for dwarfs to 
develop in that community.

>As has already been noted (by Stewart King, if memory serves), many of the
>societies and cultures in Africa _are_ deeply troubled ones, for reasons
>environmental and historic. You have, however, demonstrated no linkage
>between the situation many African societies and cultures find themselves
>in, and any genetic "flaws" in the Negro "race".
>
Well Mr Brown, since you are the first to mention genetic "flaws" in this
thread then it stands to reason that I have demonstrated no linkage as you
desire.

>What you have done, in essence, is to change the assertion from "Negroes
>in Africa are backwards" to "African societies and cultures are
>backwards". From the Western standpoint, the latter statement caries much
>truth -- but it is not your original assertion. In short, you've decided
>to dodge the question by changing it, and then "answering" the changed
>question. The vagueness so common to racist "logic" may be a comfort, but
>it is transparent at best.
>
Only in your dreams, Mr Brown.  If African societies and cultures weren't
predominantly Negro then you would have a relevant point.  Alas, you 
don't, so it must be concluded that you are dodging.

Do you think that Les singled out "Africa" for no good reason or why I
have executed any attempt by you and your compatriots to change the 
question to "Why are niggers backwards"?  There is an extremely relevant
reason why this is so.  So far you and your compatriots haven't even
grasped that.

>Now, it is time -- once again -- to stop dodging the question -- the
>original question. What evidence have you that Negroes in Africa (not
>African societies, but Negroes themselves) are by nature (not by dint of
>the environment in which they are nurtured) "slow in growth or
>development", "retarded", "late", "slow", or "behindhand"? That _was_ your
>assertion -- can you back it up?
>
If African societies aren't made up of Negroes Mr Brown, I'll quite
willingly eat my hat.  Since you imagine yourself to be rational Mr Brown,
please forget African societies that aren't Negro.  For example Libya for
some unbeknown reason is Caucasian.  Therefore, use only Negro societies
in your examples.  

As Margaret Thatcher once said "society is made up of individuals".

>While we're at it, I'll ask you this: Do you agree with Griswold's
>original assertion that Negroes "didn't evolve" in comparison to whites?
>If so, what evidence can you offer in support?
>
Define what you mean by evolve.  Do you mean the theory of evolution or do 
you mean evolve in the general term?

[snip]

>>>>This is the fundamental difference between us and you.  You are for the
>>>>improvement of the individual first, and stuff the nation.  Whereas we
>>>>believe in putting the nation first, so that we can all reap the benefits.
>>>
>>>...And stuff the individual, eh? "Benefits", in your world, would be
>>>reaped only  by those with the proper color skin color and head shape.
>>>
>>Do you believe or do you not believe that these other races can look after
>>themselves without our help, Brown?
>
>I don't know. I suspect that, left to their own devices, the societies in
>Africa (I assume that's who you are referring to -- it's  not always easy
>to penetrate the ever-present racist fog of vagueness) would eventually
>reach the level of current Western achievement, and surpass it. I do know
>that those societies are not going to be left to their own devices. The
>planet's gotten too small. Whatever we do will either help them or hinder
>them. My preference, as one of their fellow human beings, is to help.
>
Then why don't you lead by example?  Feel free to move there permanently
at any opportunity.

If you believe mightless (as I imagine you do) then the Negroes got an
impressive head start on most of us.  Pity they weren't consistent.  By
the way, I am referring to Egypt being started as mightless has stated.

>>>You can keep your world, Stone. I'll live in the real one, where
>>>everybody, regardless of skin color or head shape, is considered a human
>>>being, thank you.
>>>
>>Who cares what you think, Brown?  When I get my way, I'll let you live in
>>the non-backward tribes in say the Congo (I'm sure you'll advance them by
>>adding protein to their diet)?  Isn't that generous of me?  I'm sure 
>>they'll treat you like a human being and let you have your individual
>>rights :->
>
>"Your way" is unlikely to come about, Stone. I do not believe that the
>majority of "whites" share your views. I also believe that the racist
>worldview is ultimately self-defeating.
>
Perhaps, perhaps not.  At the moment it is only hearsay, but then, I was
only referring to a "What If."  

>> Don't complain either, it's what you ultimately want.
>
>Do not presume to know "what [I] ultimately want". I'm quite capable of
>deciding that for myself, thank you.
>
Then please keep a consistent doctrine, Mr Brown.

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Thu Apr 25 10:17:51 PDT 1996
Article: 26442 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!cancer.vividnet.com!tau.uac.net!news.sdsmt.edu!news.mid.net!news.dra.com!news.starnet.net!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.british
Subject: Re: Pure blood (was: Asian invasion of England!)
Date: 25 Apr 1996 02:25:00 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <4lmnpt$gg9@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <199604161436.HAA29297@eternity.c2.org> <9604172205414725@election.demon.co.uk> <4l6qdv$j3t@freenet-news.carleton.ca> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-15.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:26442 alt.politics.british:37544

In article <317ec060.4483296@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, mikedaly@ihug.co.nz (Michael Daly) says:
>
>bn946@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Les Griswold) wrote:
>
>>"K. McCabe" (kmccabe@u.washington.edu) writes:
>>> Given that the "racial" ties you assert exist are in all actuality
>>> linguistic ties, and given that the Hindus and Persians belong to the
>>> same linguistic group (Aryan), we'll put you down as being in favor of
>>> multi-cultural marriages Mr. Griswold.
>>
>>What a moron!
>>
>>Les
>
>Methinks this is the strongest case I have yet seen of 
>"the pot calling the kettle black".
>
>Such ignorance married with such prejudice.
>
>Not doubt you will be horrified to learn that I live in a country
>(New Zealand) where mixed-race marriages are commonplace.
>Most of my friends are married to Polynesians.
> 
>BTW, I'm also an commie pinko, well actually a socialist.

Well your socialist intelligence has been fully demonstrated.  Couldn't
you comprehend Les's reply?

The question states that Les is in favour of mixed marriages.  Calling
K McCabe a moron for asserting Les's position for pro-miscegenation should
be quite obvious.  Though it seems such a concept is beyond your thinking.

In case you are unaware, Les is against miscegenation.  Can you now
comprehend Les's reply?  Afterall, only someone of low mental capacity
(moron) would bother asserting that Les is for miscegenation.

McCabe argument is full of holes.  He is trying to assert that "Aryan" is
only a linguistic term for Indo-European.  By his argument then, anyone
that speaks the Indo-European languages is Aryan.  Unfortunately for
McCabe, Aryan isn't just a linguistic term.  I could go into the history 
of the Hindu and Persian languages, but they would be wasted on someone of
your mental capacity.  Though a brief hint would be they are not the same
race as they once were.

What we can assert however, is that you are quite ignorant for not 
knowing the full extent of the word "Aryan" and that you are prejudiced
against Les.  Pot, kettle, black.

BTW, I live in New Zealand as well.  All my (white) friends have married
other whites.  Quite shocking isn't it?  Are you shocked to learn that
more and more (white) people living in New Zealand are taking a similar 
view-point to mine?  In fact it's growing quite rapidly here.  

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Thu Apr 25 10:17:52 PDT 1996
Article: 26445 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!news.sdsmt.edu!news.mid.net!news.dra.com!news.starnet.net!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Housecleaning matters for Miss Finsten
Date: 24 Apr 1996 21:33:30 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <4lm6na$el3@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-20.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1

During the course of Miss Finsten's debating techniques here, she has left 
a trail of unresolved questions.  Perhaps she would be so kind to answer
them for a change.  If anybody else has not their questions answered by
the aforementioned individual, please add them in.

In your firm statement that everybody is equal, no matter their race,
gender or other category you were asked by me this:

Do you consider yourself equal with me?

In the field of your speciality (anthropology) you have also been most
reluctant to respond.

On the matter of racial classifications could we finally have an answer?

Namely, why is a half white/black Portuguese classified as a Caucasian and 
a half white/black Ethiopian classified as a Negro?

Is this question that difficult for an Anthropology Professor?

You have also asserted that racial classification is social and not
biological.  Could you please solve this obvious contradiction over the
skulls found in Egypt?  According to Stewart King of 800 skulls reviewed
in predynastic Egypt, a third of them were Negro.  When I claimed that
modern anthropology could no longer state such things you denied it.  
Therefore, is race biological or social, and if it is social how can you
state whether a skull is Negro or not?  Afterall a difference in skull
shape would be biological and not as you have suggested (social).

Over your interpretation of Cavalli-Sforza's PC Maps, you have stated that
both the 1st coordinate and the 2nd coordinate Maps were from completely
arbitrary scales.  For example, 1 corresponds to Britain and so forth. If
this is so, then why did C-S bother testing 95 genes when drawing those
maps, according to your interpretation?  Drawing identical maps becomes a 
skill in triviality.  If I tested 95 genes of every U.S citizen and had 
the 1st coordinate based on the name of the State and listed them 
alphabetically (A-Z).  Then I based the 2nd coordinate on occupation 
(e.g., plumber, electrician, housewife) and listed them alphabetically,
what was the point of testing 95 genes for?  This is as valid as the
interpretation that you gave of C-S' PC Maps.

On the subject of interpretation, you mentioned from him the assertion 
that agriculture and civilization were passed through the genes.  This was
mentioned on the rough lines of wanting to test migration from 
Mesopotamia.  If this is correct (that agriculture and civilization are
according to the genes) then could you please tell us why you want Negroes
and others that lack these genes in the Western world?   It would seem
obvious that they cannot contribute to society, but rather be takers 
(parasites).

Curiously enough you also stated that you do not dodge.  Please tell the
world how this can be so without you been a hypocrite.  

Perhaps men have the right of being male chauvinists.  For a female that
is supposed to be erudite (a PhD and a Professorship), you show woeful
skill.  You can't even keep your house in order.  It would seem that an
ordinary housewife surpasses you, as at least they can keep their house
in order.

Ourobouros.
 





From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Sat Apr 27 06:44:40 PDT 1996
Article: 32994 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.starnet.net!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: Ken Mcvay: Professional Liar
Date: 26 Apr 1996 21:15:05 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <4lrecp$29m@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References:  <316913e3.1552455@news.pacificnet.net> <4kh889$di2@newsource.ihug.co.nz> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-317.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:18251 alt.politics.white-power:26658 alt.revisionism:32994 alt.skinheads:20393

In article <4lmfqu$m9b@news.nyu.edu>, jal5266@is.nyu.edu (Jeremy A. Litt) says:
>
>Matt Giwer (mgiwer@combase.com) wrote:
>: jal5266@is.nyu.edu (Jeremy A. Litt) wrote:
>
Old Comments by moi:
My hint at my previous comment was simply this:  The claim is that the
Jews and other misfits were fooled into the gas chambers by the illusion
of them being showers.  Now both McVay and Mark have stated the extreme
crampness of the occupants of the chambers.  If there was an illusion of
showers, then why did they insist of cramming the misfits into the 
chambers, surely that would have dispeled the illusion?  Dodging like you
have done does not resolve the issue...except perhaps to reaffirm me that
my opponents are incapable of disproving it.

The ill-thought out reply:
>"Crampness"?  Assuming by that you mean the cramped nature of the gas 
>chambers, could you explain why it is that you think that a cramped 
>shower wold automatically tell a person:  "This is a gas chamber"?
>Just because you have 20/20 hindsight doesn't make it so.

I just love people putting words into my mouth.  All I am asserting is
that given the crampness needed for the figures to be true (see Mcvay's
files) then it wouldn't take long for the occupants to realize they 
weren't showers.  Hence why I was asking the need to keep the illusion of
showers.  It's either that or McVay secretly hates Jews, because he is
insulting their intelligence.

Your assumption that "no shower chamber" = "gas chamber" is irrelevant.  
Please keep to the topic in future.

Once more McVay & Co. are reluctant to answer.  It would seem McVay is
big on asking questions, weak on answering them.

Ourobouros.




From colacino@violet.berkeley.edu Sat Apr 27 09:36:56 PDT 1996
Article: 26680 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.jumppoint.com!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!olivea!spool.mu.edu!agate!usenet
From: Carmine Colacino 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.british
Subject: Re: Pure blood (was: Asian invasion of England!)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 14:59:16 -0700
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <317FF5B4.7072@violet.berkeley.edu>
References: <199604161436.HAA29297@eternity.c2.org> <9604172205414725@election.demon.co.uk> <4l6qdv$j3t@freenet-news.carleton.ca>  <4lmnpt$gg9@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
Reply-To: colacino@violet.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: mediterraneo.hip.berkeley.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Macintosh; I; 68K)
To: Ourobouros 
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:26680 alt.politics.british:37792

Ourobouros wrote:

> McCabe argument is full of holes.  He is trying to assert that "Aryan" is
> only a linguistic term for Indo-European.  By his argument then, anyone
> that speaks the Indo-European languages is Aryan.  Unfortunately for
> McCabe, Aryan isn't just a linguistic term.  I could go into the history
> of the Hindu and Persian languages, but they would be wasted on someone of
> your mental capacity.  Though a brief hint would be they are not the same
> race as they once were.

Aryan is NOT the same as Indo_European. It is a branch of Indo-European 
(actually called Indo_Iranian) including the languages of India, 
Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and other parts of the Hymalayan region, Sri 
Lanka (all these under the collective name "Indo-Aryan"), and the 
Iranian languages. This in linguistics, of course.

Speakers of of Indo-Aryan and Iranian languages share linguistic and 
cultural features, including the name they called themselves (Aryans).

They called themselves Aryans since probably one thousand years BC (or 
more). They are still there, but, accordingly to someone in this 
newsgroup, they are no more Aryans.

It is clear, therefore, that the term Aryan means to them something 
different, could you be so kind to explain what does Aryan mean for you? 
Giving some references too, please.
Thanks.

Carmine Colacino


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Sat Apr 27 15:12:12 PDT 1996
Article: 33175 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.starnet.net!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: The word "anti-Semitic" (theorem)
Date: 27 Apr 1996 02:54:43 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <4ls29j$3t6@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-308.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:26735 alt.revisionism:33175 soc.culture.jewish:45333

Theorem:  The media popular word of anti-Semitic is incorrect.  That the
exclusiveness of it implied to Jews is an outright lie, and the Jews
claim to Semitism is false.

>From  a Webster dictionary:
Semite n. 1 A person believed to be or considered as a descendent of Shem.
2 One of Caucasian stock, now represented by the Jews and Arabs, but 
originally including the ancient Babylonians, Assyrians, Arameans, 
Phoenicians, etc.  Also Shemite.

Also from the same dictionary:
anti-Semitism n. Opposition to, prejudice or discrimination against, or
intolerance of Jews, Jewish culture, etc. -- anti-Semite n.

The word "anti-" from the selfsame Webster dictionary:
1 Against: opposed to.
2 Opposite to; reverse.
And so on.

anti-Semitism should be against or opposed to the word "Semite." 

Next, are the Jews descendents of "Shem."?

If you know the Bible, Shem is reportedly a man (one of Noah's sons). Here
is the problem, Jews are Matrilineal, ie., traces through the mother's
line.  Therefore, Jews cannot trace their lineage to a "Shem."

As most of you probably know, an incredibly large percentage of them are
either Athiests or Agnostics (estimated 95%).  Shem is a biblical 
character.  Therefore you'd have to be religious (in the Bible) to believe
in a "Shem."  Since most do not, they don't believe in Shem.  Therefore,
unlike Christianity, they cannot claim "spiritual" descent either.

By definition, unless a Proselyte is ordinarily of Semitic stock, he 
cannot become Semitic by conversion to Judaism.  Therefore any Proselyte
Jews cannot be included in the definition either. The mass conversion of 
the Khazars to Judaism is indicative of this point.

Most of those accused of being anti-Semitic do not show the same attitude
to Arabs as they do Jews.  Therefore an inconsistency is given in the
definition.

Is the dictionary, like the Pope, infallible?

A few examples:

digital computer: An electronic computing machine which receives problems
and processes the answers in numerical form, especially one using the
binary system.

Sorry, but a digital computer need not be electronic.  Please see 
Babbage's Analytical Engines for simple disproof.

The word "will"

Is this correctly spelt?  Should it be "wil" or "will"?  No matter which
one you choose one of the following is incorrectly spelt: "wilful" or
"willing"

Please note the number of "l"s.

Similar is the word "till" ("until").

To sum up:  The dictionary is inconsistent between "Semite" and 
"Anti-Semite" and the dictionary is not infallible.  Proselytes have no
right to the definition of "Semite".  And finally, the non proselytes Jews
cannot claim lineage or descent to Shem due to their Matriarchal stance
and their general disbelief in the Torah.

QED.

Ourobouros.




From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Sat Apr 27 16:35:26 PDT 1996
Article: 33175 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.starnet.net!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: The word "anti-Semitic" (theorem)
Date: 27 Apr 1996 02:54:43 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <4ls29j$3t6@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-308.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:26735 alt.revisionism:33175 soc.culture.jewish:45333

Theorem:  The media popular word of anti-Semitic is incorrect.  That the
exclusiveness of it implied to Jews is an outright lie, and the Jews
claim to Semitism is false.

>From  a Webster dictionary:
Semite n. 1 A person believed to be or considered as a descendent of Shem.
2 One of Caucasian stock, now represented by the Jews and Arabs, but 
originally including the ancient Babylonians, Assyrians, Arameans, 
Phoenicians, etc.  Also Shemite.

Also from the same dictionary:
anti-Semitism n. Opposition to, prejudice or discrimination against, or
intolerance of Jews, Jewish culture, etc. -- anti-Semite n.

The word "anti-" from the selfsame Webster dictionary:
1 Against: opposed to.
2 Opposite to; reverse.
And so on.

anti-Semitism should be against or opposed to the word "Semite." 

Next, are the Jews descendents of "Shem."?

If you know the Bible, Shem is reportedly a man (one of Noah's sons). Here
is the problem, Jews are Matrilineal, ie., traces through the mother's
line.  Therefore, Jews cannot trace their lineage to a "Shem."

As most of you probably know, an incredibly large percentage of them are
either Athiests or Agnostics (estimated 95%).  Shem is a biblical 
character.  Therefore you'd have to be religious (in the Bible) to believe
in a "Shem."  Since most do not, they don't believe in Shem.  Therefore,
unlike Christianity, they cannot claim "spiritual" descent either.

By definition, unless a Proselyte is ordinarily of Semitic stock, he 
cannot become Semitic by conversion to Judaism.  Therefore any Proselyte
Jews cannot be included in the definition either. The mass conversion of 
the Khazars to Judaism is indicative of this point.

Most of those accused of being anti-Semitic do not show the same attitude
to Arabs as they do Jews.  Therefore an inconsistency is given in the
definition.

Is the dictionary, like the Pope, infallible?

A few examples:

digital computer: An electronic computing machine which receives problems
and processes the answers in numerical form, especially one using the
binary system.

Sorry, but a digital computer need not be electronic.  Please see 
Babbage's Analytical Engines for simple disproof.

The word "will"

Is this correctly spelt?  Should it be "wil" or "will"?  No matter which
one you choose one of the following is incorrectly spelt: "wilful" or
"willing"

Please note the number of "l"s.

Similar is the word "till" ("until").

To sum up:  The dictionary is inconsistent between "Semite" and 
"Anti-Semite" and the dictionary is not infallible.  Proselytes have no
right to the definition of "Semite".  And finally, the non proselytes Jews
cannot claim lineage or descent to Shem due to their Matriarchal stance
and their general disbelief in the Torah.

QED.

Ourobouros.




From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Sun Apr 28 12:23:39 PDT 1996
Article: 26811 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!comp.vuw.ac.nz!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.british
Subject: Re: Pure blood (was: Asian invasion of England!)
Date: 27 Apr 1996 22:46:15 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 146
Message-ID: <4lu83n$g6f@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <199604161436.HAA29297@eternity.c2.org> <9604172205414725@election.demon.co.uk> <4l6qdv$j3t@freenet-news.carleton.ca> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-301.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:26811 alt.politics.british:37899

In article <31817f84.3217608@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, mikedaly@ihug.co.nz (Michael Daly) says:
>
>p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:
[snip]

>I was referring to Mr McCabe's use of irony, oh great wise one.
>
I assumed you were.  Which makes me wonder why you bothered replying to
Les's comment.

>>Trying to assert that there was a marriage of ignorance and prejudice over
>>Les's reply has got to be one of the silliest comments said this month.
>
>Au contraire, I consider it a legitimate comment, but then I can hardly
>be expected to agree with you;)
>
Defend yourself then.  A "smiley" is hardly a defence.

[snip]

>Hmm, I note you're into anti-Semitism as well, why am I not surprised?
>
I take it that there is some relevant point to this comment?  You aren't
trying to move the already butchered topic into some other area?

As for anti-Semitism, you might like to prove your case rather than just
state it.

>>Perhaps you’d also like to clarify why you don’t have low mental capacity.  
>>For instance, your friends that have miscegenated are genetic throwbacks*, 
>>which is quite indicative of your ability to reason.  Please bear in mind the 
>>word you used ("most").
>
>Pray explain to poor dim me why my friends are genetic throwbacks, just
>because they chose partners from a different genetic pool?
>
Your friends are genetic throwbacks because they race-mix.  In the animal,
unless they're put in an artificial environment (ie., forced), only
genetic throwbacks mix.  One case in point: Black and red beaked seagulls.

>>>I am fully aware of the meaning of the word Aryan, ta very much.
>>>Substitute "prejudiced against" with appalled by" Les & all white
>>>supremacists.
>>>
>>If you knew what the meaning of Aryan BEFORE you posted, then your post
>>would have been severely altered, unless of course you are a true 
>>imbecile...which isn't against the cards either.
>
>I was aware of the Sanskrit word 'Arya' (one of noble birth), and how
>this was taken to refer to the pale-skinned people who settled in India.
>I was also aware of the Nazi use of Aryan as referring to some mythical
>blond northern super race. 
>
Strange that you seemed so incompetent in your reply to Les...perhaps my
latter comment is true.

>I commend to you 'In Search Of The Indo-Europeans' by R.A. Mallory.
>
Thanks very much.  You don't have a publishing house of that do you?

>>Mr Daly, has Les & all white supremacists being given a fair trial at 
>>court (or equivalent)?  Just curious...afterall prejudice comes from 
>>pre-judgement (L. praejudicare).
>
>Yes, I believe they were known as the Nuremberg trials.
>I studied Latin for some years and am well aware of the root of the word
>'prejudice'.  I also recognise it when I see it..
>
I'm sorry, but I don't remember ever hearing of a Les Griswold before the 
Nuremberg trials.

It's also a pity that you seem unable to correlate information you know to 
produce a rational argument then.  Two cases so far, the word "Aryan" and
now "prejudice."

>>BTW, how do you rate the general White Supremacists' intelligence?  This
>>is quite poignant because your fellow compatriots believe we are all white
>>trash and are mentally retarded.   A bigoted view no less.  A view that I
>>am quite personally willing for them to keep, as it makes winning an
>>argument all the more much sweeter (except perhaps familiarity breeds
>>contempt).  Reminds me of Alexander the Great's words in reply to the 
>>Persian king.
>
>I would think most White Supremacists would be poorly-educated rather
>then necessarily of low IQ.  
>After defeating Darius III, Alexander gradually fell prey to delusions
>of grandeur, a cautionary tale for us all.
>
Actually I'm not surprised that he did so.  He did afterall conquer the
King of Kings...no small task.  

By poorly educated, do you mean in liberal education?  Things like being
prejudiced is evil, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is evil (B'nai B'rith,
The Prejudice Book), multi-culturalism works, hate those that want 
separation (apartheid), hate is evil, try to be hypocrites, have bleeding
hearts, being emotional is the answer, everybody is equal, and so forth.   
Things with no real substance and only sound good with mass repetition.

>>Too bad, I was shocked myself to find so many White Supremacists here in
>>NZ, but unlike you, I was gladdened.
>>
>>You also seem keen on mixed marriages in preference to same race marriages.
>>Do you mind if I use your name in future for reference?  Afterall it seems 
>>to sadden you that same race marriages take place.
>
>I personally have no preference either way. I was saddened at the
>emergence of White Supremacists here in New Zealand.
>>
It had to happen, in my case it was having Maori shoved done my throat
everyday while I attended school.  And that was in a school that was all
white.  Maori greviences all the day long.  Maori songs all the day long,
maori legends/history all the day long.  How the Maori were a perfect
people and the pakeha (sic) gave them everything bad.  And I wondered when
my own culture would ever be examined, but no, we examined Thailand, China,
Japan and other tin-pot countries, but never Great Britain, Germany, the
Vikings and so forth.  Just fucking darkies.  The only English songs we
learnt at school were those stupid ones by Cat Stevens.

>>For all to witness:  Mr Daly has dodged the issue of pure blood  (same 
>>race) altogether.  Perhaps there is a pattern to the liberal's style of 
>>arguing.  
>
>There is no such thing as 'pure' blood, unless perhaps you were an
>Australian Aborigine 300 years ago and therefore lived in isolation for
>some 40,000 years, assuming your ancestors never 'miscegenated' with any
>shipwrecked explorers.
>
>Most European countries have been subject to waves of immigration
>and invasion over  thousands of years. Not all of these invaders were
>white.  There was at least one black Roman emperor.
>For all you know you could be a descendant of Genghis Khan,
>Hannibal, or maybe simply a Nubian slavegirl.  After a few hundred 
>years you would have no visual clues.
>
State the Black Emperor(s).

Genghis Khan failed to penetrate North Western Europe.
Hannibal was from Carthage, originally white.  
The Romans and Greeks brought back Nubians, thanks to transport technology
at the time, they tended to stay where they were put.  Which included 
their half breed ancestors.  One good thing the Catholic Church preached
for many a year was racial separation.

Therefore you stating that there is no pure blood is still unfounded.
   
Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Sun Apr 28 14:29:03 PDT 1996
Article: 18470 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.starnet.net!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.politics,soc.culture.intercultural,alt.discrimination,sci.philosophy.meta,alt.politics.nationalism.white,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Racist stereotypes
Date: 28 Apr 1996 19:20:11 GMT
Organization: The Internet Group
Lines: 51
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <4m0gdb$m13@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <828208075snz@stellar.demon.co.uk> <828294792snz@drmac.demon.co.uk> <4kel7p$eo5@er7.rutgers.edu> <4khtmu$for@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4ki16e$asd <4lmg2l$di6@orb.direct.ca>
Reply-To: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-256.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.discrimination:46099 sci.philosophy.meta:16421 alt.politics.nationalism.white:18470 talk.politics.theory:61157

In article <4lmg2l$di6@orb.direct.ca>, patrickc@Direct.CA (Cthulhu) says:
>
>In article <4l5e2q$s6@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:

Moi:
I don't happen to agree with his opinions.  My basic premise (to which
you keep dodging from) is why the fucking hell to we include a bastard
people like the Portuguese into the Caucasian race?  Ethiopians are also
of similar mixture, but are classified as Negroid.  Anthropology in
describing the races is bogus.  Their classification system is absurd. 
It's no fucking wonder why the cranial index can not be a determiner of
race because you (pl.) are determined to throw just about anybody into 
any bloody race.  Is it unreasonable to assume that a mulatto Portuguese
is going to have a different fucking skull shape from someone from
Norway on the basis that the Portuguese has a different race in him?  I'm
fucking sick of your avoidance to what could be a very straightforward
point.  Now that I've decided to talk in your language (emotions) perhaps
we may finally have an answer fester on the subject of racial 
classification?  
>
>There you have it, folks. Yet more evidence of the mental instability of 
>white-supremacists.
>
Please state how this is mental instability?  Afterall I stated that I 
lowered my standard to that of Miss Finstein.  Is Miss Finstein mentally
instable?  

Moi:
Now please comprehend this fucking thought before dodging as you always
do concerning race classifications.  It's no fucking wonder why bitches
like yourself cannot classify race according to biology.  It's no fucking
wonder why every attempt to classify race according to the stupid and
arbitrary rules of modern anthropology in determining race fails.  
Biological classification of races could be quite simple if you would just 
think for more than 1 nanosecond.   Of the top of my head, the ability to
absorb milk sugar as an adult increases with the increasing whiteness of 
the base skin colour.  It is also a marked occurance amongst North Western
European and their descendents, indicating that it is a feature lost on
Slavs.  Now could this be a simple biological classification for race?
Yes I'm aware you get half-breeds that can absorb this, but I'm talking
about the greater occurrence of this phenomena.
>
>Resorting to strong language. Hmm.. It usually means that you've lost the 
>ability to think.

I've heard of strong words been fighting words, but I've never heard of
strong words meaning the losing the ability to think.

Proof is required.

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Mon Apr 29 08:08:11 PDT 1996
Article: 33540 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!eng.ufl.edu!usenet.cis.ufl.edu!caen!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!brighton.openmarket.com!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: alchemy@ihug.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Stone's unsupported assertion (was: The word "anti-Semitic" (theorem))
Date: 29 Apr 1996 06:58:02 GMT
Organization: The Internet Group
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <4m1p9q$pmn@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4ls29j$3t6@newsource.ihug.co.nz> 
Reply-To: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-314.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:26980 alt.revisionism:33540 soc.culture.jewish:45860

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com (Jeffrey G. Brown) says:
>
>In article <4ls29j$3t6@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
>(Ourobouros) wrote:
[snip]
>Stone claims that 95% of Jews are either athiests or agnostics.
>
>Stone provides no evidence to back up this claim. It is another of his
>unsupported assertions.
>
>I challenge Stone to provide evidence to back up his claim.

You can either take a course of Jewry, for example, the University of
Otago's first year religious course which covers Christianity, Muslim and
Jewry.

One pamphlet written by an Ashkenazi Jew states that "...only about 5% of
the Jews are religious".

The Life of an American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel by Jack Berstein, 
p.15.

Is it me or do you only major in the minors?

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Mon Apr 29 08:08:13 PDT 1996
Article: 33564 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.umbc.edu!haven.umd.edu!purdue!lerc.nasa.gov!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!brighton.openmarket.com!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: alchemy@ihug.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: The word "anti-Semitic" (theorem)
Date: 29 Apr 1996 07:41:18 GMT
Organization: The Internet Group
Lines: 182
Message-ID: <4m1rqu$pmn@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4ls29j$3t6@newsource.ihug.co.nz> 
Reply-To: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-314.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:26996 alt.revisionism:33564 soc.culture.jewish:45893

In article , jsilver@orion.it.luc.edu (Jason Silverman) says:
>
This post isn't even worth a reply to the irrational being known as Jason
Silverman, but here goes anyway:

>In article <4ls29j$3t6@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
>(Ourobouros) wrote:

[snip]


>Even assuming that English is a language in which the meanings of words
>are determined solely by the additive definitions of their component parts
>(which is false), this is not supported by your premises.  "Semite" does
>not mean "the word 'Semite'."  QED.  (I shall return to this later).
>
Interesting piece of logic "Semite" does not equal 'Semite'.  Would you
mind explaining why?  If and when you reply please refrain from giving us
another emotional rant.
 
BTW, if I had only used the dictionary you may have had a point.  Those
that publish dictionaries also change the definition from time to time
(sophisicated and terrific, to name two).  They usually keep the historic
meaning within the definition, usually under a lower prioritisation.  
Perhaps the true definition of Semite and anti-Semite will eventually be
published.

>> Next, are the Jews descendents of "Shem."?
>> 
>> If you know the Bible, Shem is reportedly a man (one of Noah's sons). Here
>> is the problem, Jews are Matrilineal, ie., traces through the mother's
>> line.  Therefore, Jews cannot trace their lineage to a "Shem."
>
>This, of course, is an utterly irrelevant part of your claim, since it's
>been shown again and again that conceptions like yours regarding English
>usage are false.  However, let me explain something to you.  I am a
>descendant of my father as well as my mother.  While Judaism is
>matrilineal, "descent" involves both.  But I'm sure you knew that. 
>
			*sigh*

If you are matrilineal it does not mean you are all born of virginal 
birth.  Matrilineal is not patrilineal.  

Please try harder next time.

>> As most of you probably know, an incredibly large percentage of them are
>> either Athiests or Agnostics (estimated 95%).  Shem is a biblical 
>> character.  Therefore you'd have to be religious (in the Bible) to believe
>> in a "Shem."  Since most do not, they don't believe in Shem.  Therefore,
>> unlike Christianity, they cannot claim "spiritual" descent either.
>
>Of course, this too is fallacious.  I'm sure now that you've had time to
>reconsider your illogic, you can see that.  "Anti-Semites" don't object to
>people who practice Judaism, they hate Jews.  It's an ethnicity -- I
>believe people like you erroneously call it a "race."  The religious
>belief of people of Semitic descent is irrelevant.  
>
Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.  Please define Jew.  There
has been a battle royal recently on how to classify Jews.  Religion, race,
ethnicity, or culture are incapable of describing Jews, or so your
compatriots would have us believe.

You are being illogically.  I am not saying "Anti-Semites" object to those
that practice Judaism, they are your words not mine.  The religious belief
of people of Semitic descent is relevant.  Do you have proof that Shem
existed?  Can you prove that you're decended from him?

>> By definition, unless a Proselyte is ordinarily of Semitic stock, he 
>> cannot become Semitic by conversion to Judaism.  Therefore any Proselyte
>> Jews cannot be included in the definition either. The mass conversion of 
>> the Khazars to Judaism is indicative of this point.
>
>This claim is disputed by revisionists like you, so why are you invoking
>it to prove your point?  It's like a pre-Columbian prefacing an argument
>with "since we know the earth is round..."  Besides, you've just
>contradicted yourself by first conflating religious identity with ethnic
>identity and then separating them.  Shoddy work.
>
I have not claimed ethnicity, you have.  If anything is shoddy work, it's
your reply.

>> Most of those accused of being anti-Semitic do not show the same attitude
>> to Arabs as they do Jews.  Therefore an inconsistency is given in the
>> definition.
>
>This is because the "definition" only defines anti-Semitism as "hatred of
>Jews."  Your attempt to link anti- with Semite is fallacious.  The example
>has been given before of "guinea pig."  It's not a pig, and I don't know
>if it's from either of the Guineas, but that's what we call it. 
>Definitions are determined by usage.  Anti-Semite is used to mean "hatred
>of Jews."  Therefore, that is its definition.  QED.
>
Then please define "Jew".  

[snip]

>> digital computer: An electronic computing machine which receives problems
>> and processes the answers in numerical form, especially one using the
>> binary system.
>> 
>> Sorry, but a digital computer need not be electronic.  Please see 
>> Babbage's Analytical Engines for simple disproof.
>
>An exceedingly poor analogy.  Technical definitions are hardly
>commensurable with general usage.  There is a greater burden of taxonomic
>precision in technical definitions than in other definitions.  This is
>because imprecisions are judged according to strictly defined and
>empirically demonstrable categories.  Calling a car a toaster is a far cry
>from calling a non-Arab-hating Jew-hater an "anti-Semite."
>
Digital computer is in general usage, how did you post your reply?  By
whistling?

[snip]

>Actually, here we spell "wilful" "willful."  Your point was?  See, usage
>again.  English is known not to follow a purely logical course in its
>usage -- that is why it is considered most difficult to learn.
>
The problem is caused by people like you.

>> Please note the number of "l"s.
>
>Gee, thanks.  Condescending fuck.
>
More evidence of your inability to be rational.

>> Similar is the word "till" ("until").
>
>But to "till" is to plow furrows.  Oh, you meant the contraction, "
>'till"  See above, please.
>
So Americans spell "until" "untill"?

[snip]

>The dictionary is not inconsistent between "Semite" and "anti-Semite,"
>because there is no ground or requirement for consistency between the
>two.  
>
I'm afraid there is.  While I accept your feeble analogy of a guinea pig,
it fails to address word construction, something that you have decided to
dodge.  The prefix "anti-" adds a definite meaning to the word.

>The dictionary is not infallible.  However, this is not proof as to
>specific instances of fallibility.  Common informal fallacy -- don't feel
>too stupid for making it.  But, why do you contest one definition, and not
>the other?  On what ground do you assert the infallibility of the
>dictionary's definition of "Semite"?  Furthermore, the dictionary may be
>fallible, but I am more inclined to accept the definitions given by
>Websters and the OED than some hack from New Zealand.  
>
My challenge of the word "Semite" was also included.  Jews have no claim
to it.

>I have already refuted your claim that not even Jews can claim to be Semites.
>
Really? You are going to have to do better than crowd pressuring tactics
of belittling.  This is further evidenced by your words "...some hack from
New Zealand".  If I had posted the article from New York would it (in 
your eyes) gained more credence?

If nothing was challenged by hacks (sic) then you would probably still
believe that the earth was flat.

All you have done is shown that you cannot apply logic in an argument.

>Finally, your claim about proselytes having no claim to the title "Semite"
>(I have taken the liberty of paraphrasing your poor diction to reflect
>what I suspect you meant) is irrelevant, since that is not a particularly
>disputed claim.  However, since we have seen that anti-Semite means only
>"hatred of Jews," it is clear that someone who has converted can be the
>object of anti-Semitism as surely as someone who was born Jewish.  
>
Since you have failed to show that the dictionary meaning is correct, then
your latter claims are folly.  My point of proselytes is still valid.

Until you reply with a logical counter-argument (assuming that you can)
please refrain from demonstrating your ineptness again.

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Mon Apr 29 08:15:07 PDT 1996
Article: 26999 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.jumppoint.com!news3.ottawa.istar.net!istar.net!torn!nott!bcarh189.bnr.ca!nrchh45.rich.nt.com!news.utdallas.edu!news.starnet.net!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.british
Subject: Re: Pure blood (was: Asian invasion of England!)
Date: 26 Apr 1996 21:19:08 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 128
Message-ID: <4lrekc$29m@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <199604161436.HAA29297@eternity.c2.org> <9604172205414725@election.demon.co.uk> <4l6qdv$j3t@freenet-news.carleton.ca> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-317.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:26999 alt.politics.british:38011

In article <317fd8f9.194630@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, mikedaly@ihug.co.nz (Michael Daly) says:
>
>p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:
>
>>Well your socialist intelligence has been fully demonstrated.  Couldn't
>>you comprehend Les's reply?
>>
>Only too  well, thank you.
>
Makes a change.  Perhaps there is hope for you yet.

>>The question states that Les is in favour of mixed marriages.  Calling
>>K McCabe a moron for asserting Les's position for pro-miscegenation should
>>be quite obvious.  Though it seems such a concept is beyond your thinking.
>>
>>In case you are unaware, Les is against miscegenation.  Can you now
>>comprehend Les's reply?  Afterall, only someone of low mental capacity
>>(moron) would bother asserting that Les is for miscegenation.
>
>Have you not heard of irony? It was lost on Les and apparently also on
>you. But then, racists do seem to rather lack a sense of humour.
>
Yes I have heard of irony, but you didn't use it.  Instead you are trying
to backpedal out of situation that you created.  Yes I realize McCabe was
using irony, but then you decided to add your flimsy comments.  You could
have done the world of favour by not replying. 

>>McCabe argument is full of holes.  He is trying to assert that "Aryan" is
>>only a linguistic term for Indo-European.  By his argument then, anyone
>>that speaks the Indo-European languages is Aryan.  Unfortunately for
>>McCabe, Aryan isn't just a linguistic term.  I could go into the history 
>>of the Hindu and Persian languages, but they would be wasted on someone of
>>your mental capacity.  Though a brief hint would be they are not the same
>>race as they once were.
>
>As I recall, the actual Aryans were pale-skinned people who settled in
>India. However, feel free to enlighten me, I assure you my mental
>capacity will be up to the task.
>
>I am intrigued at your continual references to my supposed lack of
>intelligence. Do you suffer from feelings of inadequacy in this regard?

You did supply a moronic post.  The post could have been left you know.
McCabe's post had a hint of humour, your's did not.

Trying to assert that there was a marriage of ignorance and prejudice over
Les's reply has got to be one of the silliest comments said this month.

Perhaps I wasn't justified in making a judgement of your intellectual
prowess over one post here on apw-p.  Still, it presented a powerful case
in the affirmative (your low mental ability).

It would be pleasant for a change for a liberal from NZ to actually put up
a good argument.  Jeff Drabble was pathetic, the Jew Stephen Judd isn't
much better (though he has made some interesting allegories in the past),
antman was even worse that Drabble if you can believe that and we have 
your two posts to date.  Admittedly your second post is of superior 
calibre to your first, but that is hardly a surprize.  Getting any worse 
would have taken skill. 

I would suggest you look up the word 'continual' as I'm sure two references
to you having low mental capacity wouldn't unify under that word.  I
normally wouldn't complain (we all make mistakes with grammar) but it 
seems a key word in your argument.

Perhaps you’d also like to clarify why you don’t have low mental capacity.  
For instance, your friends that have miscegenated are genetic throwbacks*, 
which is quite indicative of your ability to reason.  Please bear in mind the 
word you used (“most”).

As for inadequacy, Stewart King and Laura Finsten (to name two) have noted 
with concern that I am too confident.  Confidence cannot abide inadequacy.  

>>What we can assert however, is that you are quite ignorant for not 
>>knowing the full extent of the word "Aryan" and that you are prejudiced
>>against Les.  Pot, kettle, black.
>
>I am fully aware of the meaning of the word Aryan, ta very much.
>Substitute "prejudiced against" with appalled by" Les & all white
>supremacists.
>
If you knew what the meaning of Aryan BEFORE you posted, then your post
would have been severely altered, unless of course you are a true 
imbecile...which isn't against the cards either.

You can change the definition of prejudiced all you like, but a cat is a
cat, and you are most definitely prejudiced.

Mr Daly, has Les & all white supremacists being given a fair trial at 
court (or equivalent)?  Just curious...afterall prejudice comes from 
pre-judgement (L. praejudicare).

BTW, how do you rate the general White Supremacists' intelligence?  This
is quite poignant because your fellow compatriots believe we are all white
trash and are mentally retarded.  A bigoted view no less.  A view that I
am quite personally willing for them to keep, as it makes winning an
argument all the more much sweeter (except perhaps familiarity breeds
contempt).  Reminds me of Alexander the Great's words in reply to the 
Persian king.

>>BTW, I live in New Zealand as well.  All my (white) friends have married
>>other whites.  Quite shocking isn't it?  Are you shocked to learn that
>>more and more (white) people living in New Zealand are taking a similar 
>>view-point to mine?  In fact it's growing quite rapidly here.  
>
>Not shocked, but saddened.
>
Too bad, I was shocked myself to find so many White Supremacists here in
NZ, but unlike you, I was gladdened.

You also seem keen on mixed marriages in preference to same race marriages.
Do you mind if I use your name in future for reference?  Afterall it seems 
to sadden you that same race marriages take place.

For Mr Judd's reply/question over numbers of individuals and 
organizations: no.

For all to witness:  Mr Daly has dodged the issue of pure blood  (same 
race) altogether.  Perhaps there is a pattern to the liberal's style of 
arguing.  

Ourobouros.

* Perhaps we will have fun once more over classifying genetic throwback.  It
was a good argument last time, except that the liberals wouldn’t play no
more. Guess it was one more thing their dogma failed to address, 
especially since they couldn’t bring forth any strong argument of 
refutation (just weak measly things -- kind of like your last post).


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Tue Apr 30 23:40:51 PDT 1996
Article: 33834 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!brighton.openmarket.com!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: The word "anti-Semitic" (theorem)
Date: 30 Apr 1996 08:38:53 GMT
Organization: The Internet Group
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <4m4jit$4qm@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4ls29j$3t6@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4lup31$bsf@access5.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-46.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:27153 alt.revisionism:33834 soc.culture.jewish:46263

In article <4lup31$bsf@access5.digex.net>, mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) says:
>
>In article <4ls29j$3t6@newsource.ihug.co.nz>,
>Ourobouros  wrote:
>>Theorem:  The media popular word of anti-Semitic is incorrect.
>>QED.
>>
>>Ourobouros.
>
>    Coming up next: St. Anselm's proof for the existence of G-d,
>and the proof that Alexander the Great had an infinite number of arms.... 

Typical response of the inept.  Instead of trying to tackle the points
raised, all they do is belittle the arguments by innuendos.

Mr Stein, all you are really doing is proving my case is stronger by 
these silly outbursts of yours.  Since you cannot provide a counter-
argument my proposed theorem is faultless. 

Ourobouros.



From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Wed May  1 00:18:22 PDT 1996
Article: 27111 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.starnet.net!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Housecleaning matters for Miss Finsten
Date: 30 Apr 1996 03:40:16 GMT
Organization: The Internet Group
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <4m4230$26r@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4lm6na$el3@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4lpeg2$cs6@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-326.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1

In article <4lpeg2$cs6@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura Finsten  says:
>
>I'm reposting my entire thing on Cavalli-Sforza's PC maps.  You
>clearly don't understand his work, Mr. Stone.  You STILL don't
>understand that he isn't talking about an "agricultural gene".
>You still don't realise how idiotic that statement is.

No Miss Finsten, I understood perfectly of your interpretation of C-S.
I queried the agriculture gene because of your interpretation.  I also
queried your interpretation of the reason he bothered to test 95 genes,
according to YOUR interpretation.  Not HIS, but YOURS.

It is also curious how you also dodged all the other question Miss 
Finsten.  

Please state whether or not you can answer them.

[snip]

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Wed May  1 00:18:29 PDT 1996
Article: 27214 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!inquo!in-news.erinet.com!izzy.net!aanews.merit.net!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.flint.umich.edu!news.gmi.edu!msunews!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news.starnet.net!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: alchemy@ihug.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.british
Subject: Re: Pure blood (was: Asian invasion of England!)
Date: 30 Apr 1996 03:28:58 GMT
Organization: The Internet Group
Lines: 119
Message-ID: <4m41dq$26r@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <199604161436.HAA29297@eternity.c2.org> <9604172205414725@election.demon.co.uk> <4l6qdv$j3t@freenet-news.carleton.ca> 
Reply-To: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-326.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:27214 alt.politics.british:38300

In article , s.judd@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Judd) says:
>
>In article <4lu83n$g6f@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
>(Ourobouros) wrote:
>> Your friends are genetic throwbacks because they race-mix.  In the animal,
>> unless they're put in an artificial environment (ie., forced), only
>> genetic throwbacks mix.  One case in point: Black and red beaked seagulls.
>
>We've been over this many times before.
>
So true, and you always seem to like being on the losing side of the
argument.

>In short:
>
>i. Humans are one species, unlike your two species of gulls.
>
To my knowledge, you were going to discover for us they were two different
species, but like your disproof of Heyerdahl, it never came.

>ii. Disregarding i) above, hybridisation is a natural phenomenon: eg "ring
>species" such as European Herring Gulls, or species with hybrid zones,
>like the Erupean hooded crow.
>
Proof.  

>iii. "race" is not the same as "species" by any normal definition.
>
True.

>iv. rape, muder and incest occur in nature, as do all manner of other
>social phenomena. Can nature (in the form of red-beaked gulls, no less)
>really provide a guide for conduct?  I don't think so.
>
Please examine Polynesian culture.  All those things were present in
acceptable society (Polynesian).  Since you love Polynesians, all those
things must be a guide for conduct (in your eyes), afterall, you'd have
us believe their culture is equal with the Western one.  For the nit-
picker that majors in the minors, please read Bengt Danielsson's "Love in
the South Seas."
 
>> It had to happen, in my case it was having Maori shoved done my throat
>> everyday while I attended school.  And that was in a school that was all
>> white.  Maori greviences all the day long.  Maori songs all the day long,
>> maori legends/history all the day long.  How the Maori were a perfect
>> people and the pakeha (sic) gave them everything bad.  And I wondered when
>> my own culture would ever be examined, but no, we examined Thailand, China,
>> Japan and other tin-pot countries, but never Great Britain, Germany, the
>> Vikings and so forth.  Just fucking darkies.  The only English songs we
>> learnt at school were those stupid ones by Cat Stevens.
>
>I don't remember school in New Zealand as being like this at all. (I
>started school in 1975). For that matter, I work at the Teachers College
>here in Hamilton, and don't believe that the current curriculum fits your
>description either.
>
>As far as I can tell, your account is wildly exaggerated. It seems to me
>that you perceived only what you wanted to. See your own defintion of
>"prejudice" is your previous post...
>
I was brought up pro-multicultural Mr Judd, unlike the masses of people,
I've always questioned anything that is repeated too often.  If you don't 
remember school being like that, then you are incredibly blind.  Perhaps 
you should also talk to the students about how they perceive the current 
Teacher's College in NZ.  All my aquaintances that have completed or are 
currently enrolled in Teacher's College from Dunedin to Auckland have all 
stated that the Colleges are extremely liberal.  BTW, I used aquaintances 
to mean people I know, but aren't my direct friends, many of them are 
liberal themselves.  I suppose another reason that you don't notice it, is
because you support it and that it doesn't go far enough.  

>Where did you go to school, Mr O? Where's your "all white" school, for
>that matter?
>
Have you ever heard of the Hibiscus Coast Mr Judd?  It's changed since my
day, but it used to be White only, the aborigines had put a curse on
Orewa for a start, so they wouldn't live there.  Plus of course it was
primarily a retirement area.  The Polynesians still don't live there in
any real numbers (a few families perhaps), but the Chinks have invaded
the area.

>> Therefore you stating that there is no pure blood is still unfounded.
>
>How about, the small dark aboriginal inhabitants of Europe? Picts?
>Iberians? Basques? The non Indo-European substrate in the Germanic
>languages (from a quarter to a third of the vocabulary)? Phoenicians in
>Cornwall? And so on?
>
Tacitus (98AD) believed the Picts were related to the Germans.  If you
have studied the so-called Dark Ages, you'd be well acquainted with
Tacitus's stereotype of the Germans (blond and blue-eyed).

The Phoenicians according Professor Waddell, Phoenician Origin of the
Scots, Brits and Anglo Saxons (1924), the Phoenicians were Aryan.  

The ancient Iberians were White, as where the emmigrants to Hibernia 
(modern day Ireland).  This also means that the Basques were also White,
as there so-called descendents on the North of Spain are still White to
this day.  So-called because I haven't done enough work in their 
geneologies to know whether it is unbroken by invaders such as the 
Visigoths who may have completely usurped the area.

As for the non Indo-European subset of the Germanic languages I am 
currently waiting on a book (still to arrive) that covers the topic in
intense detail.  From what I know of the book the German base is from
Mesopotamia, especially the Assyrian.  So until then I can only really
speculate.

If the Phoenicians were Aryan as Waddell makes with extreme clarity, then
we have a Semitic language of the Aryans.  And we can follow through. I've
already given an example of the Babylonians being White, and they 
possessed a Semitic language.  From what I know of Hebrew etymology, 
Gesenius drew a lot of sources from the Indo-European languages (Latin, 
Greek and Sanskrit, to name three).

Ourobouros.





From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Wed May  1 00:18:30 PDT 1996
Article: 27215 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!wizard.pn.com!brighton.openmarket.com!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.british
Subject: Re: Pure blood (was: Asian invasion of England!)
Date: 30 Apr 1996 21:32:44 GMT
Organization: The Internet Group
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <4m60ts$9q4@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <199604161436.HAA29297@eternity.c2.org> <9604172205414725@election.demon.co.uk> <4l6qdv$j3t@freenet-news.carleton.ca> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-52.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:27215 alt.politics.british:38301

In article <318603c6.5986999@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, mikedaly@ihug.co.nz (Michael Daly) says:
>
>alchemy@ihug.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:
>
>>In article <3182d3a0.5171168@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, mikedaly@ihug.co.nz (Michael Daly) says:
[snip]

>>>You asked for instances of white supremacists being tried & found
>>>guilty.
>>>
>>Actually I didn't.  I asked for Les Griswold & Co.  Trying to put words in
>>my mouth seems an old trick amongst liberals.
>
>I was referring to his spiritual antecedents. If Les lived here then he
>would certainly earn the deserved ire of the Race Relations Conciliator
>and be prosecuted accordingly.
>
Oh yes, the unbiased Race Relations Conciliator, Maoris are allowed to say
"kill a white a day" without any form of prosecution, but not the other
way around.

What's this about "spiritual"?  More irrationality?

>>As yet you haven't disproved that you are not prejudiced.

>Nor have you, witness your little outburst against Maori,
>(sorry, 'fucking darkies' to you),  plus today's equating negroes with a
>supposed missing link. We _all_ have African ancestors in common.
>
I have never denied being prejudiced.  It's only hypocrites like you that
believe you're not prejudiced.  I was paraphrasing Charles Darwin with
the Negroes being the missing link.

>>Please prove that hate is evil, apartheid is evil and everybody is equal.
>>As a precautionary measure, an Anthropology Professor tried proving the
>>last point, and has failed to date.
>
>The results of hate provide adequate proof, the Holocaust would seem a
>good starting point. Apartheid was simply hate enshrined in legislation.
>
What hoaxacost?

The Negroes in South Africa were the best off in all of Africa.  It would
seem apartheid was more beneficial than detrimental, at least you could
you good walk the streets in relative safety...

>While some might have been gifted with greater ability than others,
>everyone is of equal worth in the eyes of God & should be afforded equal
>opportunity. 
>
Then your God is illogical.  It probably explains why you believe in him.
As you have already stated "some have been gifted with greater ability."

[snip]

>As we are hardly likely to agree on anything apart from Snow White,
>I can't see any point in wasting further bandwidth on this discussion,
>but thank you for providing insight into an alien mindset.
>
You should have avoided the conversation altogether.  As for feeble
comment about alien mindset, you should go back fifty years in social
history.  It also is the way of the future...just witness the wild attempt
in trying to prevent it here in NZ.  The advertisement of the four brains 
is but an example.  I should point out that they did the same in Great
Britain as well, except that Enoch Powell forced a Police Pathologist to
state publically that the brains of the races were different.  If the
liberals are trying desperate means to stop it, it must means there has
been an increase in it.

BTW, if you didn't want an argument you shouldn't have started one.

Ourobouros.





From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Wed May  1 07:57:14 PDT 1996
Article: 27111 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.starnet.net!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Housecleaning matters for Miss Finsten
Date: 30 Apr 1996 03:40:16 GMT
Organization: The Internet Group
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <4m4230$26r@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4lm6na$el3@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4lpeg2$cs6@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-326.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1

In article <4lpeg2$cs6@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura Finsten  says:
>
>I'm reposting my entire thing on Cavalli-Sforza's PC maps.  You
>clearly don't understand his work, Mr. Stone.  You STILL don't
>understand that he isn't talking about an "agricultural gene".
>You still don't realise how idiotic that statement is.

No Miss Finsten, I understood perfectly of your interpretation of C-S.
I queried the agriculture gene because of your interpretation.  I also
queried your interpretation of the reason he bothered to test 95 genes,
according to YOUR interpretation.  Not HIS, but YOURS.

It is also curious how you also dodged all the other question Miss 
Finsten.  

Please state whether or not you can answer them.

[snip]

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Wed May  1 07:57:21 PDT 1996
Article: 27214 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!inquo!in-news.erinet.com!izzy.net!aanews.merit.net!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.flint.umich.edu!news.gmi.edu!msunews!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news.starnet.net!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: alchemy@ihug.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.british
Subject: Re: Pure blood (was: Asian invasion of England!)
Date: 30 Apr 1996 03:28:58 GMT
Organization: The Internet Group
Lines: 119
Message-ID: <4m41dq$26r@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <199604161436.HAA29297@eternity.c2.org> <9604172205414725@election.demon.co.uk> <4l6qdv$j3t@freenet-news.carleton.ca> 
Reply-To: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-326.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:27214 alt.politics.british:38300

In article , s.judd@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Judd) says:
>
>In article <4lu83n$g6f@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
>(Ourobouros) wrote:
>> Your friends are genetic throwbacks because they race-mix.  In the animal,
>> unless they're put in an artificial environment (ie., forced), only
>> genetic throwbacks mix.  One case in point: Black and red beaked seagulls.
>
>We've been over this many times before.
>
So true, and you always seem to like being on the losing side of the
argument.

>In short:
>
>i. Humans are one species, unlike your two species of gulls.
>
To my knowledge, you were going to discover for us they were two different
species, but like your disproof of Heyerdahl, it never came.

>ii. Disregarding i) above, hybridisation is a natural phenomenon: eg "ring
>species" such as European Herring Gulls, or species with hybrid zones,
>like the Erupean hooded crow.
>
Proof.  

>iii. "race" is not the same as "species" by any normal definition.
>
True.

>iv. rape, muder and incest occur in nature, as do all manner of other
>social phenomena. Can nature (in the form of red-beaked gulls, no less)
>really provide a guide for conduct?  I don't think so.
>
Please examine Polynesian culture.  All those things were present in
acceptable society (Polynesian).  Since you love Polynesians, all those
things must be a guide for conduct (in your eyes), afterall, you'd have
us believe their culture is equal with the Western one.  For the nit-
picker that majors in the minors, please read Bengt Danielsson's "Love in
the South Seas."
 
>> It had to happen, in my case it was having Maori shoved done my throat
>> everyday while I attended school.  And that was in a school that was all
>> white.  Maori greviences all the day long.  Maori songs all the day long,
>> maori legends/history all the day long.  How the Maori were a perfect
>> people and the pakeha (sic) gave them everything bad.  And I wondered when
>> my own culture would ever be examined, but no, we examined Thailand, China,
>> Japan and other tin-pot countries, but never Great Britain, Germany, the
>> Vikings and so forth.  Just fucking darkies.  The only English songs we
>> learnt at school were those stupid ones by Cat Stevens.
>
>I don't remember school in New Zealand as being like this at all. (I
>started school in 1975). For that matter, I work at the Teachers College
>here in Hamilton, and don't believe that the current curriculum fits your
>description either.
>
>As far as I can tell, your account is wildly exaggerated. It seems to me
>that you perceived only what you wanted to. See your own defintion of
>"prejudice" is your previous post...
>
I was brought up pro-multicultural Mr Judd, unlike the masses of people,
I've always questioned anything that is repeated too often.  If you don't 
remember school being like that, then you are incredibly blind.  Perhaps 
you should also talk to the students about how they perceive the current 
Teacher's College in NZ.  All my aquaintances that have completed or are 
currently enrolled in Teacher's College from Dunedin to Auckland have all 
stated that the Colleges are extremely liberal.  BTW, I used aquaintances 
to mean people I know, but aren't my direct friends, many of them are 
liberal themselves.  I suppose another reason that you don't notice it, is
because you support it and that it doesn't go far enough.  

>Where did you go to school, Mr O? Where's your "all white" school, for
>that matter?
>
Have you ever heard of the Hibiscus Coast Mr Judd?  It's changed since my
day, but it used to be White only, the aborigines had put a curse on
Orewa for a start, so they wouldn't live there.  Plus of course it was
primarily a retirement area.  The Polynesians still don't live there in
any real numbers (a few families perhaps), but the Chinks have invaded
the area.

>> Therefore you stating that there is no pure blood is still unfounded.
>
>How about, the small dark aboriginal inhabitants of Europe? Picts?
>Iberians? Basques? The non Indo-European substrate in the Germanic
>languages (from a quarter to a third of the vocabulary)? Phoenicians in
>Cornwall? And so on?
>
Tacitus (98AD) believed the Picts were related to the Germans.  If you
have studied the so-called Dark Ages, you'd be well acquainted with
Tacitus's stereotype of the Germans (blond and blue-eyed).

The Phoenicians according Professor Waddell, Phoenician Origin of the
Scots, Brits and Anglo Saxons (1924), the Phoenicians were Aryan.  

The ancient Iberians were White, as where the emmigrants to Hibernia 
(modern day Ireland).  This also means that the Basques were also White,
as there so-called descendents on the North of Spain are still White to
this day.  So-called because I haven't done enough work in their 
geneologies to know whether it is unbroken by invaders such as the 
Visigoths who may have completely usurped the area.

As for the non Indo-European subset of the Germanic languages I am 
currently waiting on a book (still to arrive) that covers the topic in
intense detail.  From what I know of the book the German base is from
Mesopotamia, especially the Assyrian.  So until then I can only really
speculate.

If the Phoenicians were Aryan as Waddell makes with extreme clarity, then
we have a Semitic language of the Aryans.  And we can follow through. I've
already given an example of the Babylonians being White, and they 
possessed a Semitic language.  From what I know of Hebrew etymology, 
Gesenius drew a lot of sources from the Indo-European languages (Latin, 
Greek and Sanskrit, to name three).

Ourobouros.





From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Wed May  1 07:57:22 PDT 1996
Article: 27215 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!wizard.pn.com!brighton.openmarket.com!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.british
Subject: Re: Pure blood (was: Asian invasion of England!)
Date: 30 Apr 1996 21:32:44 GMT
Organization: The Internet Group
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <4m60ts$9q4@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <199604161436.HAA29297@eternity.c2.org> <9604172205414725@election.demon.co.uk> <4l6qdv$j3t@freenet-news.carleton.ca> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-52.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:27215 alt.politics.british:38301

In article <318603c6.5986999@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, mikedaly@ihug.co.nz (Michael Daly) says:
>
>alchemy@ihug.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:
>
>>In article <3182d3a0.5171168@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, mikedaly@ihug.co.nz (Michael Daly) says:
[snip]

>>>You asked for instances of white supremacists being tried & found
>>>guilty.
>>>
>>Actually I didn't.  I asked for Les Griswold & Co.  Trying to put words in
>>my mouth seems an old trick amongst liberals.
>
>I was referring to his spiritual antecedents. If Les lived here then he
>would certainly earn the deserved ire of the Race Relations Conciliator
>and be prosecuted accordingly.
>
Oh yes, the unbiased Race Relations Conciliator, Maoris are allowed to say
"kill a white a day" without any form of prosecution, but not the other
way around.

What's this about "spiritual"?  More irrationality?

>>As yet you haven't disproved that you are not prejudiced.

>Nor have you, witness your little outburst against Maori,
>(sorry, 'fucking darkies' to you),  plus today's equating negroes with a
>supposed missing link. We _all_ have African ancestors in common.
>
I have never denied being prejudiced.  It's only hypocrites like you that
believe you're not prejudiced.  I was paraphrasing Charles Darwin with
the Negroes being the missing link.

>>Please prove that hate is evil, apartheid is evil and everybody is equal.
>>As a precautionary measure, an Anthropology Professor tried proving the
>>last point, and has failed to date.
>
>The results of hate provide adequate proof, the Holocaust would seem a
>good starting point. Apartheid was simply hate enshrined in legislation.
>
What hoaxacost?

The Negroes in South Africa were the best off in all of Africa.  It would
seem apartheid was more beneficial than detrimental, at least you could
you good walk the streets in relative safety...

>While some might have been gifted with greater ability than others,
>everyone is of equal worth in the eyes of God & should be afforded equal
>opportunity. 
>
Then your God is illogical.  It probably explains why you believe in him.
As you have already stated "some have been gifted with greater ability."

[snip]

>As we are hardly likely to agree on anything apart from Snow White,
>I can't see any point in wasting further bandwidth on this discussion,
>but thank you for providing insight into an alien mindset.
>
You should have avoided the conversation altogether.  As for feeble
comment about alien mindset, you should go back fifty years in social
history.  It also is the way of the future...just witness the wild attempt
in trying to prevent it here in NZ.  The advertisement of the four brains 
is but an example.  I should point out that they did the same in Great
Britain as well, except that Enoch Powell forced a Police Pathologist to
state publically that the brains of the races were different.  If the
liberals are trying desperate means to stop it, it must means there has
been an increase in it.

BTW, if you didn't want an argument you shouldn't have started one.

Ourobouros.

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