The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/m/mckinstry.colin/1996/stone.0996


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Sun Sep  1 08:39:10 PDT 1996
Article: 41566 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!icarus.lon.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!act.news.telstra.net!nsw.news.telstra.net!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: "Ourobouros" 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.flame,alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Ken the Mc-a-voidly lie'n: Bully, Blowhard, Coward
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 09:37:30 +1200
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <01bb9785.a5449380$aea11dcb@peasant>
References: <4v9ejf$18j@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <32248DB5.562@gryn.org> <5042vo$ff2@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>  <507g0u$46i@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <01bb96f2.92889fe0$81a11dcb@peasant> <508lkq$f67@solaris.cc.vt.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port936-auck.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1085
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.conspiracy:83870 alt.flame:24483 alt.fan.ernst-zundel:2789 alt.politics.white-power:41566



> x@y.z (x) wrote in article <508lkq$f67@solaris.cc.vt.edu>...
> In article <01bb96f2.92889fe0$81a11dcb@peasant>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz 
> says...

[topic concerning McVay's own hypocrisy snipped]

> "Pot calls kettle black" is a way of calling someone a hypocrite.
> 
> Ourobouros is obviously a pseudointellectual.
> 
Ah yes the typical "Lets dodge to an irrelevant topic."  I'll bite, what
in your opinion is an "intellectual" as opposed to a "pseudo-
intellectual"?  Is the difference based strictly upon your view of the
world, ie., he doesn't agree with my prejudices so therefore he is 
only a pseudointellectual?

BTW, is it part of your normal tactic to move a topic you don't like 
onto a trivial one?

Ourobouros.



From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Sun Sep  1 09:39:55 PDT 1996
Article: 83870 of alt.conspiracy
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!icarus.lon.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!act.news.telstra.net!nsw.news.telstra.net!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: "Ourobouros" 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.flame,alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Ken the Mc-a-voidly lie'n: Bully, Blowhard, Coward
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 09:37:30 +1200
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <01bb9785.a5449380$aea11dcb@peasant>
References: <4v9ejf$18j@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <32248DB5.562@gryn.org> <5042vo$ff2@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>  <507g0u$46i@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <01bb96f2.92889fe0$81a11dcb@peasant> <508lkq$f67@solaris.cc.vt.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port936-auck.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1085
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.conspiracy:83870 alt.flame:24483 alt.fan.ernst-zundel:2789 alt.politics.white-power:41566



> x@y.z (x) wrote in article <508lkq$f67@solaris.cc.vt.edu>...
> In article <01bb96f2.92889fe0$81a11dcb@peasant>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz 
> says...

[topic concerning McVay's own hypocrisy snipped]

> "Pot calls kettle black" is a way of calling someone a hypocrite.
> 
> Ourobouros is obviously a pseudointellectual.
> 
Ah yes the typical "Lets dodge to an irrelevant topic."  I'll bite, what
in your opinion is an "intellectual" as opposed to a "pseudo-
intellectual"?  Is the difference based strictly upon your view of the
world, ie., he doesn't agree with my prejudices so therefore he is 
only a pseudointellectual?

BTW, is it part of your normal tactic to move a topic you don't like 
onto a trivial one?

Ourobouros.



From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Sun Sep  1 22:02:45 PDT 1996
Article: 61575 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!aurora.cs.athabascau.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!tribune.usask.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!scramble.lm.com!news.math.psu.edu!news.cse.psu.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!news.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!act.news.telstra.net!nsw.news.telstra.net!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: "Ourobouros" 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe,alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Whites Created Everything
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 09:56:31 +1200
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <01bb9851.bcdb9260$8da11dcb@peasant>
References:  <506b5j$mab@gyda.ifi.uio.no>  <509cmr$q7i@gyda.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port903-auck.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1085
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.europe:47411 alt.politics.white-power:41615 alt.revisionism:61575



> christop@ifi.uio.no (Christopher Henrik Lund) wrote in article
<509cmr$q7i@gyda.ifi.uio.no>...
> 
> In article , qut@netcom.com (Dave Harman OBC)
writes:
> > ! >         One such mummy of a teenaged girl with blond hair and blue
eyes,
> >  The color of the eyes of the Chinese mummy on display is 
> > visible as blue, the color of her eyes when she was alive.
> 
> I think this is a load of crap. Please give me a pointer to a photo of
this
> "mummy" of yours.

Reader's Digest did an article a few years ago on it.  Look for
information
concerning the Wusun dynasty for "Scandinavian" mummies in China.  The
Reader's Digest published a few photographs of these mummies.  I don't
remember the issue number but I'm sure if you have the motivation you
could find out from them (Reader's Digest).

To re-iterate; look for information concerning the Wusun dynasty of China.
The Wusun dynasty is the most blatant of non-yellow rulers over China.
There are other discrepancies as well, for example, how did the (now
extinct) Indo-European language, known as Tocharian, become 
dominant in East China for x centuries.

BTW, Ramesses II's mummy has blond hair.  Check any picture of his
mummy.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Sat Sep  7 13:30:33 PDT 1996
Article: 42274 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Ken the Mc-a-voidly lie'n: Bully, Blowhard, Coward
Date: 6 Sep 1996 22:29:57 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 135
Message-ID: <50r18l$c78@lex.zippo.com>
References: <4v9ejf$18j@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <32248DB5.562@gryn.org> <5042vo$ff2@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>  <507g0u$46i@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <01bb96f2.92889fe0$81a11dcb@peasant> <50at7u$sde@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <50iha0$s2g@lex.zippo.com> <50k7c3$h4j@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <50le5n$d5k@lex.zippo.com> <50ppn4$a8h@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port934-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <50ppn4$a8h@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <50k7c3$h4j@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>>It wasn't the Nazis that destroyed freedom of speech 
>>>>Finstein, it was people like you.
>
>>>By the way "Mr. Stone", what in your books, exactly, constitutes
>>>censorship?  The Nazis burned books by the tens of thousands,
>>>removed artworks from display for no reason other than that they
>>>disapproved of the religion and/or ethnic origin of the artist,
>>>and established a government office whose role it was to "oversee"
>>>all newsprint and radio publications (and this was established
>>>and operational well before World War II began).  These acts, by
>>>my definition, constitute censorship and so serve to destroy
>>>freedom of speech.
>
>>1. I am neither a Nazi nor a Neo-Nazi, despite what you might think 
>>(your opinions hardly rate anyway).
>
>Sure.  You deny the Holocaust (or am I wrong about that, "Mr. Stone"?),
>you are extremely antisemitic, you are a white supremacist and a
>tad on the totalitarian side.  Call it whatever you like.  Hey, 
>wasn't it you who said of me "if it walks like a duck, quacks like
>a duck..."?
>
I don't deny the holocaust outright Miss Finsten, I deny the ludicrous
numbers.  I cannot work out how wartime Germany could have mobilised more
than 12 million people in to concentration camps in less than "6" years.
Please note the word "wartime".

I also get extremely suspicious when an idea is repetited over and over
again -- whatever it is.

Lastly, I am not a socialist.  Probably your biggest contention to try
and make me a Neo-Nazi.

>>2. I was referring to New Zealand, not Germany.
>
>I think that, had the Nazis won World War II and conquered New
>Zealand, you would have far less freedom of speech than you have
>right now, "Mr. Stone"?  Or do you disagree with that?
>
For you perhaps, but not for me.  I am sure my racial ideas would have
been acceptable to Nazi Germany ideas.  

One other thing, Germany had given both Australia and New Zealand to Japan 
to conquer, it is a major problem I have with Nazi Germany.  Something I
hold against them in a major way.

>>3. The Jews were seen as an enemy and they took (what they thought
>>were) necessary precautions.  
>
>This is a rather sanitised description of the Nazi treatment of
>Europe's Jewish population during World War II, isn't it, "Mr.
>Stone"?  It is also rather misleading on the Nazi's depiction of
>Jews, too, since a critical aspect was their belief that Jews
>were not only inherently evil but subhuman. 
>
And?

The National Socialists were not the first with that theory.

>>Very much like the German settlement
>>in Puhoi (Northland, NZ, and it is probably spelt wrong) was 
>>"censored", for example.
>
>Since I don't know any of the details of this case, I'm not sure
>what sort of analogy you are implying.  Was this a settlement
>of New Zealanders of German descent who were interred during
>World War II?    
>
To your question: Yes, or at least put under heavy surveillance.
The analogy (I'm glad you asked rather than put your foot in it) is 
that we were doing the exact same thing as the axis allies.

>>Or one could see what you Yankees did to 
>>Japanese students as another example.  
>
>I am not a "Yankee", but Canada too interred Japanese Canadians
>after Pearl Harbour.  It was a disgrace.  There is a difference,
>though between the Nazi/Jewish case and this one (and perhaps the
>New Zealand one you mention above), although I don't think it
>excuses Canadians, Americans, or New Zealanders.  Germany and
>the Axis countries were at war with America, Canada, New Zealand
>and the other Allies.  Germany chose to make war on its own
>citizens, if they were Jewish.  It isn't the same thing.
>
I recommend you to read the book:

"Odd man out: The story of the Singapore Traitor" by P. Elphick
and M. Smith.

No, it is not a racist book, even though the traitor was a half-
breed (and NZer) called Capt. Patrick Heenan.

Part of the story is on the mistake of the British for not rounding
up the Japanese in Singapore.

As for citizenship you and McVay are on weak ground.  McVay also
supposes he is for freedom of speech, yet he was fond of the idea
of Ernst Zundel being exiled from Canada.

Tell me the difference.

>Nazi propaganda worked very hard to convince Germans that Jews
>were their enemies.  All Jews.  Regardless of their records of
>military service in the first world war, the citizenship, their
>expressed loyalties, anything.
>
As I stated earlier, they were the enemy.  Nor was Germany the first to
undertake such programs, in fact Germany was quite slow in that regard.
  
>>I am not arguing whether it 
>>is right or wrong but rather how the situation was viewed.  The 
>>last thing a "war-time" country wants is its enemies working within 
>>its borders to spread their poison, that is why traitors are executed
>>in sane countries -- NZ with Geoffrey Palmer banned the death
>>sentence for treason.  Another situation was that NZ mothers were not
>>allowed to see photographs of their sons at war.  Why?  Because the
>>mothers would not have allowed their sons to go.  "Freedom of Speech"
>>is such a relative commodity, no?  
>
>War is hell of free speech.  No doubt about it.
>
Exactly, so why is it under so much attack by liberals who want to censor
everything they don't like under "Hate" laws?  Are we already in civil war 
perhaps?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sat Sep  7 13:45:01 PDT 1996
Article: 42273 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Finsten: Proponent for Freedom of Speech
Date: 6 Sep 1996 20:19:17 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <50qpjl$9lp@lex.zippo.com>
References: <50nn6u$kvo@lex.zippo.com>  <50q12o$rt0@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port900-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article , joelr@winternet.com says...
>
>In article <50q12o$rt0@lex.zippo.com> Ouroburos. writes:
>>From: Ouroburos.
>>Subject: Re: Finsten: Proponent for Freedom of Speech
>>Date: 6 Sep 1996 13:20:40 -0700
>
>>In article , joelr@winternet.com says...
>>>
>>>In article <50nn6u$kvo@lex.zippo.com> Ourobouros writes:
>>>>From: Ourobouros
>>>>Subject: Finsten: Proponent for Freedom of Speech
>>>>Date: 5 Sep 1996 16:19:58 -0700
>>>
>>>>The quote:
>>>>  Where have I ever advocated censorship, "Mr. Stone"?  I am a
>>>>  strong proponent of free speech. 
>>>
>>>>As usual a liberal has decided to entertain us.  What amazes me
>>>>is that this one is supposed to a Professor, perhaps the old
>>>>adage is appropriate, "There are two classes of people; those
>>>>that can, and those that teach."
>>>
>>>>Well since she is a Professor perhaps she will consider the
>>>>following (varsity) scenerios before stating again that she is a 
>>>>proponent for freedom of speech.  
>>>
Lets play Joel's favourite game:  Misappropriation.  Using Joel's own words
lets say what he really meant:
---------------
Receive my latest bit of geekitry:

I really answer chemistry questions from the theory that all chemical 
reactions are demons fighting among themselves.  I did expect to get the 
idea that I was a figure of a demon worm.

Me a idiot.
---------------
Thanks for making the most sense in your life Joel.  Misappropriation has
really improved your intellectual capacity and your ability to argue.

What a drastic improvement from your usual crap.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sat Sep  7 13:45:02 PDT 1996
Article: 42275 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Whites Created Everything
Date: 6 Sep 1996 20:37:05 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <50qql1$a0l@lex.zippo.com>
References:  <506b5j$mab@gyda.ifi.uio.no>  <509cmr$q7i@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <01bb9851.bcdb9260$8da11dcb@peasant> <322AE488.1D75@unb.ca> <50ft6l$gmg@lex.zippo.com> <50gmnf$hn3@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <50i6f3$not@lex.zippo.com> <50k4s4$1ug@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <50krg3$614@lex.zippo.com> <50l399$8sg@lex.zippo.com> <50pmkd$6ej@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port900-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <50pmkd$6ej@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>
>>Mr Lund, I have discovered something on:
>
>>http://www.astc.org/inquirer/mummy.html
>
>>While you have admitted to be too lazy to pick up a book maybe we will hear 
>>an excuse about typing now?  (You can always cut & paste if typing is too
>>much strain).
>
>"Mr. Stone", your snide remark here implies that you supplied Mr. Lund with
>the reference to a book, which of course is untrue, as is obvious to anyone
>who has been following this exchange.  A vague reference to Reader's Digest
>hardly qualifies as a reference to a book.  Or is that sort of thing
>acceptable in New Zealand universities?
>
I don't remember saying the Reader's Digest article was in a book.

Here, however, is a book (written by a Jew so it must be true):

Tribes, by Yair Davidy.

Uses both spellings of Wusun and Woosun.  

I am sure that this is not the only book that mentions (in reference to
China) the Wusun(s).

However, the snide remark did not imply any such thing as you suggest.  Mr.
Lund, has stated previously that he was unprepared to look in any book,
preferring the comforts of the WWW instead.

>>It is strange that I was able to discover something yet you weren't.  BTW,
>>that was first go, so there is probably more sites out there (go have a 
>>look).
>
>You assume that Mr. Lund went off in search of the specific references
>which you have used to substantiate your argument, without having been
>given the specific references by you.  As anyone who has followed this
>thread is aware, of course, Mr. Lund indicated that he had no intention
>of attempting to locate your sources until you ponied them up.  You make
>a statement based on empirical evidence, the onus is on you to provide
>the empirical evidence when your statement is challenged.
>
Excuse me, he stated that he "found nothing on Wusun yet."  Mr. Lund asked
for a pointer for European mummies in China, I gave him one.  As far as I am
aware the Web does not have any sites concerning the Wusun(s).  Instead I
found another pointer of European mummies in China.  It even mentions the
language Tocharian which Mr. Lund was ignorant of.  The rest of the 
language was to goad him into action as you liberals seem so apathetic.

Whatever the case, I gave a source, so the onus is on Mr. Lund to use his
wisdom to act upon it.  The same goes for you.  Either put up or shut up.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Sat Sep  7 13:45:03 PDT 1996
Article: 42277 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: "Aryan " mummies (was Re: Whites Created Everything
Date: 6 Sep 1996 23:23:40 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <50r4dc$daf@lex.zippo.com>
References:  <506b5j$mab@gyda.ifi.uio.no>  <509cmr$q7i@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <01bb9851.bcdb9260$8da11dcb@peasant> <50ekrh$mth@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <50gkgu$ff3@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <50i7ta$ode@lex.zippo.com> <50k1c9$9bh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <50l411$965@lex.zippo.com> <50pn4i$a8h@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port934-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <50pn4i$a8h@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <50k1c9$9bh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>>>Please explain the Tocharian language.  BTW, Tocharian is considered very
>>>>important (for linguists of Indo-European) in the reconstruction of IE. 
>
>>>Perhaps you are the only one who seems surprised at the thought that
>>>there was contact, in a variety of socially expressed forms, among the
>>>various populations of the Old World, long before the era of modern
>>>history.
>
>>It always amazes how you ever became a Professor when you make such 
>>conclusions.
>
>Well you do seem to be rather easily amazed.  I am not a linguist, and it
>would be great to have Eugene Holman step in here, because I'm sure he
>could enlighten us all on the subject of Tocharian.  I've never heard of 
>it.  What, exactly does it mean, to say that "Tocharian is important in
>the reconstruction of Indo-European", anyway, "Mr. Stone"?  Can you cite
>a source for this?  Are you saying that there are apparently many
>words shared by Tocharian and Indo-European, which are presumably borrowed?
>
Do you remember the "massive" tomb by Cavalli-Sforza?  Somewhere amongst
the linguistic section of the European section Tocharian is mentioned in
reasonable detail.  Presumably you read it, but you discharged it from
your mind because it doesn't fit with ideology.

I would quote it to you except some pusshead here has got the book until 
next year and everytime I recall it, I barely get to examine it before the
he recalls it back.

According to Web site I gave in earlier posts, Tocharian is supposed to be
closest to Celtic and Germanic than to any other Indo-European language.

As for you not hearing about it, I am not surprised.  Liberals seem to 
excel in wilful ignorance.

The reconstruction of IE (in brief):  The original language of Indo-
European, not German, Latin, Greek or Sanskrit but the original tongue.
It is guessed that something similar to "Pa" is for father and "Ma" for
mother as just two examples.

>Why would I conclude that there has been contact among Old World populations
>since the dawn, nearly, of hominids?  Fossil evidence, archaeological
>evidence, biological evidence and yes, linguistic evidence.  
>
           *sigh*

According to netiquette I should put a smiley (:-)) when I'm being
sarcastic, except that IMO it spoils the fun.  What's the point of being
sarcastic when you just give away the plot at the beginning?

>>Explain how it became dominant among mongoloids, especially if you still
>>want to hold dear that non-whites could build civilisations without Whites.
>
>Please cite a source which describes Tocharian as Indo-European, and claims
>that it was "dominant among mongoloids", "Mr. Stone".  Until you do so,
>I see no reason to believe a word you say on this.  Not unless you understand
>linguistics and language history a whole heckuva lot better than you do
>human population genetics.
>
Apart from C-S' book here is the Webster dictionary:
1 One of an ancient cultured people known to the Greeks and Chinese as 
having inhabited central Asia in the first Christian millennium: conquered
by the Uigurs.
2 The language of the Tocharians, belonging to the centum division of the
Indo-European language family: unknown before 1904, when it was brought to
light through manuscripts of the seventh century found in ruined temples in
Chinese Turkestan.  Two dialects have been distinguished, usually referred
to as Tocharian A and Tocharian B.  Also spelled Tokharian.

Not overly accurate, but enough to get you of my case.  Tocharian exists!

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sat Sep  7 13:45:32 PDT 1996
Article: 42267 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Date: 6 Sep 1996 16:38:03 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <50qckr$2rr@lex.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port935-auck.ihug.co.nz

There seems to be a new pattern occuring in liberal arguing techniques.
Be aware that liberals are trying to misquote what you say.  This is
especially true for Mr. Lund, Rosenberg, and Brown-nose.  All of who 
have snipped various and important parts of what I have written to 
try desperately to make themselves look intelligent rather than fools.
Unfortunately for them, it has backfired and they look even more dopey
than before.

We must be doing something right if they have to resort to desperate
techniques in a bid to win an argument.

Be aware also the Mr. Brown-nose likes to put words in your mouth. This
was highlighted dramatically in the debate Brown-nose lost over 'Why are
niggers in Africa backwards?'

Recently, Brown-nose also asked for a citation on a liberal that believes
a mud hut is equal to say putting a man upon the moon.  Would that Brown
would use his comrade's facility at "We hope to remember."  This comrade
has a content search engine for his ftp archives.  Using the keyword
"aborigine" I came across an old argument in Graves0895.  Because McVay's
archives are poorly thought out I had to follow the argument over various
files (and McVay's site is so slooooooow).  Someone (argument is 
unattributed -- delibrate?) believes that the Australian aborigine's
ability to survive in the outback is in fact superior to the White man's
achievements.  One better that what Brown-nose requested.

Ourobouros.




From apollo@flash.net Sat Sep  7 13:50:55 PDT 1996
Article: 85920 of alt.conspiracy
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!realtime.net!news
From: Apollo 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: End-of-Summer Conspiracy Clearance
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 1996 10:36:03 -0500
Organization: Real/Time Communications Internet customer posting
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <32319663.1C4F@flash.net>
References: <50hn0i$hkt@lex.zippo.com>
Reply-To: apollo@flash.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: apm0-33.realtime.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-RTcode: a0f9c40932a0342fc43195c3
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b6Gold (Win95; I)

M. Ciccone wrote:
> 
> Well, Labor Day weekend is over. Time to check on how our favorite
> conspiracy rumors/predictions are doing.
> 
[snip]
> 
> Chicago - Bill Clinton is the Democratic nominee. No terrorist
> incidents occurred. No folding chairs exploded (I hope Sherman
> Skolnick warned the janitors about the chairs before they started

Have you never heard of "contact explosive" ... I am 43. When I was 16 a
friend of mine and I found a formula in a chemistry book that involved
using iodine crystals to make a liquid that you could paint onto a
surface and, when touched, would give off a relatively harmless VERY low
level bang. Well we failed due to the inability to purchase iodine
crystals .... BUT the formula was real .... and that was OVER 20 years
ago. I would imagine our government has things that BY FAR exceed OUR
wildest imaginative ravings ... both mine AND yours!

Regards
Len

[snip]


From kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca Sat Sep  7 18:07:04 PDT 1996
Article: 63216 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!not-for-mail
From: kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism
Subject: 12 million into camps, Mr. "Stone?"
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Date: 7 Sep 1996 13:30:25 -0700
Organization: The Nizkor Project
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <50sm11$neh@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
References: <4v9ejf$18j@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <50le5n$d5k@lex.zippo.com> <50ppn4$a8h@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <50r18l$c78@lex.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.almanac.bc.ca
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:42278 alt.revisionism:63216

In article <50r18l$c78@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:

>I don't deny the holocaust outright Miss Finsten, I deny the ludicrous
>numbers.  I cannot work out how wartime Germany could have mobilised more
>than 12 million people in to concentration camps in less than "6" years.
>Please note the word "wartime".

And which historian, pray tell, Mr. "Stone," has written that
12 million were put into camps in less than 6 years?

Feel free to provide all of the citations you have available.
We'll wait.

-- 
The Nizkor Project     | http://www.nizkor.org/
-----------------------| Random Giwer Whoppers Served Here
                       |--------------------------------------
    http://www1.ca.nizkor.org/random-giwer-lie.cgi


From joelr@winternet.com Sat Sep  7 18:29:51 PDT 1996
Article: 42280 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!winternet.com!joelr.winternet.com!joelr
From: joelr@winternet.com (Joel Rosenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Finsten: Proponent for Freedom of Speech
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 12:43:57
Organization: StarNet Communications, Inc
Lines: 14
Message-ID: 
References: <50nn6u$kvo@lex.zippo.com>  <50q12o$rt0@lex.zippo.com>  <50qpjl$9lp@lex.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-67-77.dialup.winternet.com
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A]

In article <50qpjl$9lp@lex.zippo.com> Ourobouros writes:

>Me a idiot.

Well, yes, you are, Wormy.




---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.winternet.com/~joelr
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0380973227/joelrosenbergA/
...and for the last bit of geekitry:  to receive the latest version of my FAQ, 
send me a message with the phrase "your FAQ" anywhere in the subject line.


From joelr@winternet.com Sat Sep  7 18:29:52 PDT 1996
Article: 42282 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!winternet.com!joelr.winternet.com!joelr
From: joelr@winternet.com (Joel Rosenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 12:47:24
Organization: StarNet Communications, Inc
Lines: 18
Message-ID: 
References: <50qckr$2rr@lex.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-67-77.dialup.winternet.com
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A]

In article <50qckr$2rr@lex.zippo.com> Ourobouros writes:

>There seems to be a new pattern occuring in liberal arguing techniques.
>Be aware that liberals are trying to misquote what you say.  This is
>especially true for Mr. Lund, Rosenberg, 

Well, no, Wormy.  I'm not a liberal, by any sane or sober definition (oh.  
Well.  Never mind), and the problem is that I quote you accurately, not 
inaccurately.

Makes you desperate, eh?  Shouldn't wondah, as the Maine types would say...


---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.winternet.com/~joelr
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0380973227/joelrosenbergA/
...and for the last bit of geekitry:  to receive the latest version of my FAQ, 
send me a message with the phrase "your FAQ" anywhere in the subject line.


From pkasieck@lynx.dac.neu.edu Sat Sep  7 18:29:54 PDT 1996
Article: 42297 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news3.near.net!nntp.neu.edu!pkasieck
From: pkasieck@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Philip Kasiecki)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: More Black Savagery
Date: 7 Sep 1996 20:06:07 GMT
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA
Lines: 88
Message-ID: <50skjf$65c@chaos.dac.neu.edu>
References: <5026mv$l12@molokini.conterra.com> <502vs3$db0@chaos.dac.neu.edu> <504j5i$q6d@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <322DDBFC.1B1D@ibm.net> <50n6vs$cn1@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <50oeld$su4@lex.zippo.com>  <50pv8t$r9v@lex.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lynx.dac.neu.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

In article <50pv8t$r9v@lex.zippo.com>, Out of bounds wrote:
: In article , 
: jeff_brown@pol.com wrote:
: >In article <50oeld$su4@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros the Worm wrote:
: >> We could use the old Spanish method for categorising, "Sambo", 
: >> "Dringo", and so on, but why bother?  Either you're white or 
: >> you're not.

: >And how do you determine who is "white", Worm?

: You could have got off from the couch and stopped drinking beer and 
: watching TV, and spent sometime at your comrade's Nizkor (we hope to
: remember).  You'll find a bunch of files in the miscellenous 
: archives, in one of them is my definition.  Is that to difficult,
: Brown-nose?

    WTFE.  Now, ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION!!

: >> [...deletia...]
: >
: >> More importantly however, are categories wrong?  Should we (in the
: >> greater sense -- society) not categorise people, like he's a 
: >> murderer and he's not? 

: >Or a category like you're a bigot and a liar, perhaps.

: Or a category like you're a sore loser and hypocrite, perhaps.

    Bullshit.

: >> Or perhaps we shouldn't bother distinguishing between cats and dogs...

: >Cats and dogs are different species. The various races of humanity are
: >not. Perhaps we shouldn't bother Worm with such facts.

: Oh please, lets be a typical mediaphile and clip how it suits you.

    "Clip how it suits you"... seems you're doing just that.  What did
you say about a hypocrite?

: >> If you wish to make a point, Miss Finsten, please think about what
: >> you write first.  Your points often lead to such silly endings.  I
: >> mean lets be like you and throw away comprehension...

: >Too late for you, Worm. You already have.

: To quote someone brown-nosing:

: "You made the claim you back it up"

    It's right in front of you; so there's no need, if you haven't seen
it by now, 'cause you'll never get it.

: >> No wonder (some) liberals define mud huts as advanced civilisation, 
: >> the equal of say, putting a man upon the moon.

: >Name the liberal who has done so. Provide the citation.

: Just watch a documentary on some backward* people.  They'll come up 
: with all sorts of B.S telling you how advanced they are.  That 
: involves watching television in case you couldn't figure it out.

    Idiot.  I've never seen what you're talking about happen.

: >You're lying again, Worm. I guess that puts you squarely in the
: >category of "lying bigot".

: No, it puts you into the category of being an "ignorant bigot",
: Brown-nose.

    Bullshit.

        Phil "this dude loves to talk about himself" Kasiecki

--
Philip T. Kasiecki           Electrical and Computer Engineering
Northeastern University Class of 1999

"Hate soon consumes itself, because hate eats up oxygen
and other life-giving properties.  Hate can't yield
anything of worth or value, not for very long anyway."

"The price we've paid (for hate) is measured in big
things--lost joy and unrealized understanding, and in
our stupid refusal to see each other's beauty, or to
detect each other's goodness and potential."

- both by Patricia Raybon, "My First White Friend"


From Ourobouros Sun Sep  8 08:01:49 PDT 1996
Article: 63356 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 12 million into camps, Mr. "Stone?"
Date: 7 Sep 1996 16:10:07 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <50svcf$em4@lex.zippo.com>
References: <4v9ejf$18j@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <50le5n$d5k@lex.zippo.com> <50ppn4$a8h@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <50r18l$c78@lex.zippo.com> <50sm11$neh@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port763-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:42333 alt.revisionism:63356

In article <50sm11$neh@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>, kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca says...
>
>In article <50r18l$c78@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>I don't deny the holocaust outright Miss Finsten, I deny the ludicrous
>>numbers.  I cannot work out how wartime Germany could have mobilised more
>>than 12 million people in to concentration camps in less than "6" years.
>>Please note the word "wartime".
>
>And which historian, pray tell, Mr. "Stone," has written that
>12 million were put into camps in less than 6 years?
>
>Feel free to provide all of the citations you have available.
>We'll wait.
>
This is ironical coming for you, McVay.  Would you care to restate the
header of the Nizkor home-page, something "Dedicated to the 12 million..."
What were the years Germany was placing the heaviest numbers into 
concentration camps McVay?

Next question.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Sun Sep  8 08:43:11 PDT 1996
Article: 42329 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Ken the Mc-a-voidly lie'n: Bully, Blowhard, Coward
Date: 7 Sep 1996 15:49:52 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <50su6g$e9f@lex.zippo.com>
References: <4v9ejf$18j@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <32248DB5.562@gryn.org> <5042vo$ff2@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>  <507g0u$46i@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <01bb96f2.92889fe0$81a11dcb@peasant> <50at7u$sde@informer1.ci 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port763-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article , joelr@winternet.com says...
>
>In article <50r18l$c78@lex.zippo.com> Ourobouros writes:
>
>
>>I also get extremely suspicious when an idea is repeated over and over
>>again -- whatever it is.
>
>Then, Wormy, why do you "repet" the same bilge over and over?   Inquiring 
>minds, and all that.  
>
Because people like you are dull of mind.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Sep  8 08:43:12 PDT 1996
Article: 42331 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: More Black Savagery
Date: 7 Sep 1996 16:24:55 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <50t087$ev0@lex.zippo.com>
References: <5026mv$l12@molokini.conterra.com> <502vs3$db0@chaos.dac.neu.edu> <504j5i$q6d@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <322DDBFC.1B1D@ibm.net> <50n6vs$cn1@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <50oeld$su4@lex.zippo.com>  <50pv8t$r9v@lex.zippo.com> <50skjf$65c@chaos.dac.neu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port763-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <50skjf$65c@chaos.dac.neu.edu>, pkasieck@lynx.dac.neu.edu says...
>
>In article <50pv8t$r9v@lex.zippo.com>, Out of bounds wrote:
>: In article , 
>: jeff_brown@pol.com wrote:
>: >In article <50oeld$su4@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros the Worm wrote:
>: >> We could use the old Spanish method for categorising, "Sambo", 
>: >> "Dringo", and so on, but why bother?  Either you're white or 
>: >> you're not.
>
>: >And how do you determine who is "white", Worm?
>
>: You could have got off from the couch and stopped drinking beer and 
>: watching TV, and spent sometime at your comrade's Nizkor (we hope to
>: remember).  You'll find a bunch of files in the miscellenous 
>: archives, in one of them is my definition.  Is that to difficult,
>: Brown-nose?
>
>    WTFE.  Now, ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION!!
>
To prove Joel wrong I don't like repeating myself.  McVay has conveniently
stored some of my old posts.  Go examine them.  


>: >> More importantly however, are categories wrong?  Should we (in the
>: >> greater sense -- society) not categorise people, like he's a 
>: >> murderer and he's not? 
>
>: >Or a category like you're a bigot and a liar, perhaps.
>
>: Or a category like you're a sore loser and hypocrite, perhaps.
>
>    Bullshit.
>
Oh hum, the ever-so intelligent reply of a liberal.  My life is ruined
because of that one statement, O' how should I recover?

>: >> Or perhaps we shouldn't bother distinguishing between cats and dogs...
>
>: >Cats and dogs are different species. The various races of humanity are
>: >not. Perhaps we shouldn't bother Worm with such facts.
>
>: Oh please, lets be a typical mediaphile and clip how it suits you.
>
>    "Clip how it suits you"... seems you're doing just that.  What did
>you say about a hypocrite?
>
Note: The playing dumb tactic has been enacted again.

Context, context, context, context, context,context,context,context,
context,context,context,context,context,context,context,context,context,
context,context,context,context,context,context,context,context,context,
context,context,context,context,context,context,context,context,context,
and context.

Please review the entire argument before you start making (pre) judgements.

>: >> If you wish to make a point, Miss Finsten, please think about what
>: >> you write first.  Your points often lead to such silly endings.  I
>: >> mean lets be like you and throw away comprehension...
>
>: >Too late for you, Worm. You already have.
>
>: To quote someone brown-nosing:
>
>: "You made the claim you back it up"
>
>    It's right in front of you; so there's no need, if you haven't seen
>it by now, 'cause you'll never get it.
>
Well, you don't seem to have comprehension either.  Can you spot your flaw
in your previous comment?  

>: >> No wonder (some) liberals define mud huts as advanced civilisation, 
>: >> the equal of say, putting a man upon the moon.
>
>: >Name the liberal who has done so. Provide the citation.
>
>: Just watch a documentary on some backward* people.  They'll come up 
>: with all sorts of B.S telling you how advanced they are.  That 
>: involves watching television in case you couldn't figure it out.
>
>    Idiot.  I've never seen what you're talking about happen.
>
Lets all play the dumb tactic.  It is strange how people like myself can
pick up information in programs and books so much easier than those that
call themselves liberals.  Case in point, Finsten has supposedly digested
a book by Cavalli-Sforza, which mentions the language of Tocharian in
reasonable detail, yet recently, Finsten was stated she had never heard of
Tocharian before.  Can I imply that you fail from the same set of 
circumstances, and that is you wish to remain ignorant?

Ourobouros.

[snip]


From Ourobouros Sun Sep  8 08:43:13 PDT 1996
Article: 42361 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Date: 7 Sep 1996 15:54:12 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <50suek$eb5@lex.zippo.com>
References: <50qckr$2rr@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port763-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article , joelr@winternet.com says...
>
>In article <50qckr$2rr@lex.zippo.com> Ourobouros writes:
>
>>There seems to be a new pattern occuring in liberal arguing techniques.
>>Be aware that liberals are trying to misquote what you say.  This is
>>especially true for Mr. Lund, Rosenberg, 
>
>Well, no, Wormy.  I'm not a liberal, by any sane or sober definition (oh.  
>Well.  Never mind), and the problem is that I quote you accurately, not 
>inaccurately.
>
Sorry but I default all Jews into the liberal basket, unless they can prove
otherwise.

As for quoting me accurately, that is rich.

Let me guess, when I go "No, ..." that means you can quote me as saying 
"No"

I'd love to hear your definition of "accurately."

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Sun Sep  8 08:43:14 PDT 1996
Article: 42362 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Date: 7 Sep 1996 15:44:05 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 324
Message-ID: <50strl$e3b@lex.zippo.com>
References: <50qckr$2rr@lex.zippo.com>  <50qnkf$927@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port763-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <50qnkf$927@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >
>> >In article <50qckr$2rr@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:

[snip]

>> Let me ask, Brown-nose, who was the one that added "all" to "Why are
>> niggers in Africa backwards" and who on another occasion removed the words
>> "in Africa"?  
>> 
>> You are the one that is resorting to outright lies, Brown-nose.
>
>Cite the article ID in which I added -- or deleted -- words within a
>quoted passage from one of your posts, Worm.
>
First point.  It would seem you have been brown-nosing McVay as you do not
have any folders at "we hope to remember."

Second point.  the bulk of the argument has either not been recorded or it
has been conveniently removed for you, but not enough was taken :->

Lo and behold (relevant point in CAPS):

>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.

>> >Do I trim what I quote, in accordance with Usenet netiquette, to the
>> >relevant passages? Yes. If you disagree with the way I trim your posts,
>> >that's unfortunate -- but it does not constitute misquoting.
>> >
>> Let me re-arrange your above paragraph then:
>> 
>> >Do I trim what I quote in the way that does constitute misquoting? Yes.
>> 
>> Fair is fair.
>
>To quote you -- accurately: "Utter bullshit."
>
Then prove yourself, Brown-nose.  Saying so doesn't make it so.

>> Face reality, Brown-nose, you delibrately left out Finsten's definition on
>> how categories were made.  This was the crucial factor in my reply, and was
>> everything my reply was based on.  With that piece gone, my reply looked 
>> ridiculous, which was your intention.  If you kept that piece in then you
>> would have looked like a moron.  You felt for some unknown reason that you 
>> needed to reply, but to do so you had to get rid of disadvantageous 
>> statements first.  In other words, you were desperate.
>
>In other words, you're engaging in telepathy. What card am I thinking of?
>
Please stop acting moronic.  It is a valid conclusion.

>Your opinions as to what was "the crucial factor in [your] reply" and mine
>differ, as they do on so many things. Your opinion that "If [I had] kept
>that piece in then [I] would have looked like a moron" is an opinion,
>nothing more. The fact remains that you were quoted accurately. 
>
Ah, my point is, if you had left all the pieces involved with how categories
were made then you couldn't make a valid reply.  You quoted out of context,
and that is what I am illustrating.

[snip]

>> >(Note: That, Worm, is a paraphrase, not a misquote.)
>> >
>> Oh hum.
>> 
>> Please explain your quote "Ourobouros the worm wrote:" then.
>
>Eh? That's not a quote of anything of yours. What, precisely, do you want
>explained, Worm? 
>
Note: Here is the playing dumb tactic for those keeping tabs.

In one of your recent posts, instead of "Ourobouros wrote", you added 
"Ourobouros the worm wrote."  Stop acting dumb and conclude how this can
be resolved with a "paraphrase."

[More B.S. of Brown-nose snipped]
[Another snip concerning Aborigines]

>Please note that you still haven't cited the file in question. I am not
>required to do your homework for you, especially when you claim to have
>done it once already but failed to take the simple step of writing down
>the URL of the file you claim to have found.
>
I am sure you can find graves0895 at Nizkor, stop playing dumb.  BTW, in
academia, I only have to cite the place where I got the information.  
If the information is a citation from somewhere else, then it is your
responsiblity to following the line back to its source, not mine.  Nice try
though.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Sun Sep  8 08:43:14 PDT 1996
Article: 42363 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Finsten: Proponent for Freedom of Speech
Date: 7 Sep 1996 15:46:36 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 7
Message-ID: <50su0c$e8f@lex.zippo.com>
References: <50nn6u$kvo@lex.zippo.com>  <50q12o$rt0@lex.zippo.com>  <50qpjl$9lp@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port763-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article , joelr@winternet.com says...
>
>Me a idiot.
>
I'll agree with that.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Sep  8 11:00:34 PDT 1996
Article: 63524 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!eloi.vir.com!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!chi-news.cic.net!news.cic.net!nntp.coast.net!swidir.switch.ch!01-newsfeed.univie.ac.at!Austria.EU.net!EU.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 12 million into camps, Mr. "Stone?"
Date: 7 Sep 1996 23:15:13 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 163
Message-ID: <50to9h$n8e@lex.zippo.com>
References: <4v9ejf$18j@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <50le5n$d5k@lex.zippo.com> <50ppn4$a8h@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <50r18l$c78@lex.zippo.com> <50sm11$neh@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <50svcf$em4@lex.zippo.com>  <50tfjd$klc@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port907-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:42384 alt.revisionism:63524

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <50tfjd$klc@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >
>> >In article <50svcf$em4@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <50sm11$neh@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>,
>> >kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca says...
>> >> >
>> >> >In article <50r18l$c78@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>I don't deny the holocaust outright Miss Finsten, I deny the ludicrous
>> >> >>numbers.  I cannot work out how wartime Germany could have mobilised more
>> >> >>than 12 million people in to concentration camps in less than "6" years.
>> >> >>Please note the word "wartime".
>> >> >
>> >> >And which historian, pray tell, Mr. "Stone," has written that
>> >> >12 million were put into camps in less than 6 years?
>> >> >
>> >> >Feel free to provide all of the citations you have available.
>> >> >We'll wait.
>> >> >
>> >> This is ironical coming for you, McVay.  Would you care to restate the
>> >> header of the Nizkor home-page, something "Dedicated to the 12 million..."
>> >
>> >I will. The heading on the Nizkor home page at http://www.nizkor.org says,
>> >_in full_:
>> >
>> >  "Dedicated to the nearly twelve million victims ruthlessly destroyed 
>> >   by Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime"
>> >
>> >Please note that, contrary to the obvious conclusion that Mr. "Stone" had
>> >hoped to convey through his deliberate misquoting of the heading, it does
>> >_not_ say that 12 million victims were put into camps in less than six
>> >years.
>> >
>> Pray tell, Brown-nose, where was the vast bulk of these 12 million victims 
>> ruthlessly destroyed?  Hollywood?
>>
>> And, when were the camps created, Brown-nose?  Remember, as has being
>> commonly pointed out, Simon Wiesanthal has stated that no concentration
>> camps were on German soil.
>
>"Stone's" contention, if I understand it correctly, is that the accepted
>wisdom holds that all of the nearly 12 million victims of the Holocaust
>were killed in concentration camps. "Stone" was challenged to provide any
>and all citations of historians who make this claim. "Stone" responded to
>this challenge by misquoting the first six words of the sixteen in the
>heading of the Nizkor home page -- an attempt at diversion, since the
>Nizkor home page is not a historian nor a citation of one. "Stone" was
>called on this misquoting (the same heinous crime he accuses me of, sans
>actual evidence). "Stone's" response is to attempt to divert the
>discussion again, this time to the questions of where the victims were
>actually killed and when the camps were created. 
>
Triviality:
Please notice the "something", while I forgot to place "like" between
the "something" and the """ is happens to fit quite nicely.  In other words,
I was not suggesting the continuation was necessarily correct, only 
something akin to it.

Yes you are correct, the Nizkor home page is neither a historian or a
citation.  However the people involved in making it (Ken McVay & Co.) like
to consider themselves historians.  Did the original statements (of mine)
require too many stages in logic. 

Now you consider that I am diverting, please prove so.  In case you cannot
fathom it, I am trying to garner McVay's knowledge to continue the
argument (or to stop it in its tracks).  It is misfortunate that you have
decided to enter the fray because the argument was between McVay and 
myself, but since you did join McVay's side, you can help to defend McVay,
especially noting his history on avoiding answering any of my questions 
posed to him.
 
>One could say that such deliberate misquoting, and the attempted
>diversions that followed, are the acts of a desperate man.
>
Well now you know that it isn't. If you failed to comprehend my earlier
paragraph marked with "Triviality" please re-read the "something" before
the quotation marks.  I regret not including "like" alongside it (missed it
when I was checking my reply), but there you have it.

>> Can you put two and two together?
>
>Yes. Two and two is four. I can also perform addition in binary and
>hexadecimal. I wonder why "Stone" is now diverting the discussion into the
>realm of basic mathematics?
>
Recognising sarcasm is not one of your strong-points is it? Either that or
you are clutching at straws.

The phrase "can you put two and two together?" means (at least in NZ) I am
challenging you to make a logical deduction.  It is not, as you suggest,
any attempt at diversion.

Hopefully what follows will show you what I have been meaning.

1.  W.W.II happened between the years 1939 & 1945.  1945-1939=6.

2. McVay, has stated many a time that holocaust numbers were "nearly"
12 million.  I did not assume that when I stated 12 million without using
such words as "approximately" that it cause massive controversy.  Or isn't
this a point?

3. Simon Wiesanthal has stated that no concentration camps were on
German soil.  Therefore, unless Germany was buying land in Poland and so
forth before W.W.II they couldn't have made concentration camps before no
1939.  Is that a reasonable conclusion?

4. Camps such as the Auchwitz complex hold (according to dogma) are where
most of the killing occurred, or is this wrong?  Assuming that I am correct
in stating that most of the killings occurred at the concentration camps,
the figure of 12 million would still hold, though admittedly I should be
using "nearly" since you are so concerned about it.

5. If all the points are so far correct, then I can make this conclusion:
Within 6 years, nearly 12 million people were killed in concentration 
camps.   

Now, if all the above is correct, I would like to see how it is feasible
for Germany, at war against the allies, to mobilise nearly 12 million
people into concentration camps.  

If most of killings didn't occur in concentration camps, then where did 
they occur?

>> >There seems to be a new pattern occuring in Mr. "Stone's" techniques. Be
>> >aware that he is trying to misquote what you say.  He has snipped various
>> >and important parts of what Mr. McVay wrote on the Nizkor home page to try
>> >desperately to make himself look intelligent rather than a fool.
>> >Unfortunately for him, it has backfired and he looks even more dopey than
>> >before.
>> >
>> >We must be doing something right if he has to resort to desperate techniques
>> >in a bid to win an argument.
>> >
>> >You were saying something about irony, I believe, Worm...
>> >
>> Ooh!
>> 
>> Brown-nose has used sarcasm.
>> 
>> Touche.
>
>Touche indeed. What I did was use a paraphrase of "Stone's" own words to
>demonstrate (backed by the evidence of "Stone's" own post) that "Stone"
>uses the same tactic he has accused myself and others of (backed by no
>credible evidence at all).
>
Sorry, I was using sarcasm again.  However, I did like your tactic.  Please
keep it up, one day you might become good at it.

It would seem that you have an incredibly distorted view on what constitutes
evidence.  I have a major contention how you clipped my argument with
Finsten to suit yourself.  

It would seem, Mr. Brown, that you are the one trying to divert the topic.
What would you call this part of thread and who started it?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Sep  8 11:00:34 PDT 1996
Article: 63530 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-2.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!new-news.sprintlink.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 12 million into camps, Mr. "Stone?"
Date: 7 Sep 1996 20:46:53 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <50tfjd$klc@lex.zippo.com>
References: <4v9ejf$18j@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <50le5n$d5k@lex.zippo.com> <50ppn4$a8h@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <50r18l$c78@lex.zippo.com> <50sm11$neh@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <50svcf$em4@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port907-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:42389 alt.revisionism:63530

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <50svcf$em4@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article <50sm11$neh@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>,
>kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca says...
>> >
>> >In article <50r18l$c78@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> >>I don't deny the holocaust outright Miss Finsten, I deny the ludicrous
>> >>numbers.  I cannot work out how wartime Germany could have mobilised more
>> >>than 12 million people in to concentration camps in less than "6" years.
>> >>Please note the word "wartime".
>> >
>> >And which historian, pray tell, Mr. "Stone," has written that
>> >12 million were put into camps in less than 6 years?
>> >
>> >Feel free to provide all of the citations you have available.
>> >We'll wait.
>> >
>> This is ironical coming for you, McVay.  Would you care to restate the
>> header of the Nizkor home-page, something "Dedicated to the 12 million..."
>
>I will. The heading on the Nizkor home page at http://www.nizkor.org says,
>_in full_:
>
>  "Dedicated to the nearly twelve million victims ruthlessly destroyed 
>   by Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime"
>
>Please note that, contrary to the obvious conclusion that Mr. "Stone" had
>hoped to convey through his deliberate misquoting of the heading, it does
>_not_ say that 12 million victims were put into camps in less than six
>years.
>
Pray tell, Brown-nose, where was the vast bulk of these 12 million victims 
ruthlessly destroyed?  Hollywood?

And, when were the camps created, Brown-nose?  Remember, as has being
commonly pointed out, Simon Wiesanthal has stated that no concentration
camps were on German soil.

Can you put two and two together?

>There seems to be a new pattern occuring in Mr. "Stone's" techniques. Be
>aware that he is trying to misquote what you say.  He has snipped various
>and important parts of what Mr. McVay wrote on the Nizkor home page to try
>desperately to make himself look intelligent rather than a fool.
>Unfortunately for him, it has backfired and he looks even more dopey than
>before.
>
>We must be doing something right if he has to resort to desperate techniques
>in a bid to win an argument.
>
>You were saying something about irony, I believe, Worm...
>
Ooh!

Brown-nose has used sarcasm.

Touche.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Sun Sep  8 11:25:22 PDT 1996
Article: 42387 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.cloud9.net!imci4!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Finsten: Proponent for Freedom of Speech
Date: 7 Sep 1996 22:12:20 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 220
Message-ID: <50tkjk$m1i@lex.zippo.com>
References: <50nn6u$kvo@lex.zippo.com> <50sj22$42r@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port907-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:42387 alt.politics.nationalism.white:28793

In article <50sj22$42r@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>As usual a liberal has decided to entertain us.  What amazes me
>>is that this one is supposed to a Professor, perhaps the old
>>adage is appropriate, "There are two classes of people; those
>>that can, and those that teach."
>
>More ad hominem drivel (just thought I'd point that out).
>
>>Well since she is a Professor perhaps she will consider the
>>following (varsity) scenerios before stating again that she is a 
>>proponent for freedom of speech.
>
>I'll consider your little scenarios, to the extent to which I am 
>able to give them serious consideration.  But I'll repeat my
>support of free speech, too, just because your penchant for
>ordering people around really raises my hackles.  
>
Isn't ordering people around part of free speech or is the limit?  Are
you trying to stop my freedom in ordering people around?

I would also get used to it if you wish to keep arguing with me.  I have
an extremely dominating personality.

>>1. Instead of following Political stupi...I mean correctness,
>>a student consistently uses the male pronoun instead of "she or 
>>he,"* 
>
>Well, "Mr. Stone", I know you are going to whine that I'm dodging,
>but this really does depend on the context.  As a more appropriate
>parallel example, though, I strongly encourage students to use
>the word "human" to refer to people in general, rather than the
>more limited one "man".  I don't mark people down for such things,
>though, but I do correct them on papers.  On the pronoun thing,
>it hasn't really come up.
>
Ah, if someone uses "he" in his papers you put in read "he or she"?

I would have imagined similes to have occured, like "mankind", 
"workmanship" and "man-made."  Yes or no?

Perhaps referring to countries in the feminine has also occurred?

>>insists on addressing women formally, ie., never "Ms," or
>>"waitress" as opposed to "waiter,"*
>
>Um, since I don't go to bars and restaurants with my students,
>what they call the people serving them is both unknown to me
>and none of my business.  By the way, "Ms." is as much a formal
>address for women as are "Miss" and "Mrs.".  The advantage of
>Ms., of course, is that one doesn't need to make guesses about
>a person's marital status.  I address female students by "Ms."
>unless they ask me to do otherwise, and when students address
>me as "Mrs.", "Miss", or "Ms." I correct them and tell them my
>title (in the context of work, of course) is "Dr." or "Professor".
>
I don't recognise "Ms." nor do many other people.  Neither do I
recognise your title of "Dr." or "Professor."

More to the point the above examples (including the homosexual one)
were used against the University of Otago's Computer science department.  
You see, when I did my third year course there was only one girl in the 
3rd year course (and she was part-time), one girl in the fourth year 
course (the only female post-grad.) and in second year there was a 80 20
ratio between the sexes.  The University council was forcing the the
computer science department to use such language to encourage women into
their courses, they also insisted that it be 'dumbed down' as well. 

Incidentally, the same year only had one Asian (Vietnamese) and one Black
(Indian) in third year, but that is getting off the topic.

>>and calls homosexuality abnormal.* 
>
>Again, you will no doubt accuse me of dodging, but this is not
>something that comes up in the courses I teach, so I can't
>tell you how I deal with it without inventing a scenario that
>would include a particular academic context, and this exercise
>doesn't merit that sort of attention, in my opinion.
>
The reason I called it to attention is that if that University council
insisted upon such speech, would yours be any different?  And if so, do
you ignore such restrictions or follow them?

Also, seeing as these are only examples, you should be able to fathom
other criteria that you could come across (like "mankind").

>>Are you offended by such action and mark such exams
>>or essays accordingly?
>
>None of these things, to the extent to which the examples you
>give are relevant for me, professionally, have any bearing on
>the way in which I evaluate students' performance on exams or
>papers.  As I said before, I have no idea how they address the
>service personnel in bars or restaurants, I am more concerned
>that pronouns be used in a grammatically correct manner than
>a "politically correct" one, and whether they call me "Mrs.",
>"Ms.", "Miss", "Dr." or "Professor" concerns me anymore than
>does whether they spell my surname correctly.
>
Curious, one of ex-girlfriend's mother (admittedly a feminist) always
marked down any paper that used the male pronoun and its relatives.
She was a lecturer in the Education department at Otago.  When I wrote
my research paper (3rd yr.) I was also told to use "he or she" or I
would lose marks (please remember this was a department heavily 
dominated by men, and was being marked within the department).  

>>2. Supposing a student decides to against your creed and defines
>>race according to say my conventions.  He does an essay combined 
>>with establishment citations and logic that disproves the current
>>PC anthropology stance.  What is your reaction?  Do you: 
>>a. Fail him for not observing protocol? 
>>b. Give him a scraping pass for fear that someone like myself get
>>holds of it and uses against you?
>>c. Take an unbiased stand and judge it accordingly?  <-- Be 
>>careful of this one, we have lots of records that prove you doing
>>otherwise on the 'net.
>
>Gee, "Mr. Stone", what *are* your "conventions" for defining race?
>Was that the long list of nose shapes, hirsuteness, head shape and
>all that?  I would have to see it before I could say.  However,
>since the current literature in human biology would make such a
>paper impossible to write, I would have to evaluate it accordingly,
>wouldn't I?  I mean, such a paper must show familiarity with and
>comprehension of the current literature and issues in the field 
>of human biology.  In other words, you present an oxymoron, "Mr.
>Stone".  Enough said.
>
>>3. How about a devout Christian in your lecture who insists on
>>disproving the theory of evolution in every essay and exam and
>>quotes Christian biologists and anthropologists as his 
>>legitimate sources.  Do you fail him? Please don't be stupid 
>>and say "it depends on the question", by this I mean ANSWERING
>>the question along the Christian dogma, ie., Adam and Eve, the
>>deluge and Noah's sons being the source of the three base races,
>>and the tower of Babel being the source of language diffusion or
>>whatever fundamentals or orthodoxy believe these days.
>
>Now this is something that I have actually had to deal with.
>My response to the occasional Christian fundamentalist who has
>answered an essay question about fossil evidence for hominid
>evolution with something like "I don't believe in evolution" 
>has always been this:  I do not ask anyone to *believe* in
>evolution.  But if they chose to take a course that introduces
>the subject of human evolution from an anthropological 
>perspective, than I expect them to be able to tell me what
>the fossil evidence is, what the different evolutionary
>scenarios are, what evolutionary theory is all about.  I
>don't care what they chose to *believe*, but my expectation
>is that they demonstrate that they *understand* what the
>arguments and evidence are.  If they want to discuss the
>book of Genesis, then they should take a course in the 
>divinity school or the department of religious studies.
>
Obviously you have not been exposed to the full argument before.  There
is some Christian fundamentalist with too many letters after his name
(his surname I believe starts with "W"  -- Wilbur, Wilson?) who goes around 
the world "disproving" the theory of evolution and has written x books.  
What if your Christian fundamentalist starts quoting those books?

What you are basically stating is that no man can challenge anthropology
and be credible.  Hardly "freedom of speech" is it?  While technically he
can say whatever he likes the result is ostracism.

>>If you cannot take at face value any of these scenerios please
>>stop pretending that you support freedom of speech.  If you
>>cannot accept non-establishment book citations in any academic
>
>"non-establishment book citations"???  By this do you mean that
>everything that is written deserves to be given equal consideration
>and due, for no other than the reason that it is written?  Forgive
>me while I pick myself up of the floor, I'm laughing so hard.  
>The medium of print does not make something good scholarship or
>science, "Mr. Stone".  I rely on human biologists for my information
>about human variation, not on engineers like William Pierce.  I
>prefer accredited historians as sources of information about the
>Holocaust to dubious organisations like CODOH.  And for good
>reason.
>
If I remember an old argument you had with Les Griswold, you threw out
Charles Putnam's Race and Reason because Mr. Putnam said Boas was a Jew.
BTW, I have never read any of Charles Putnam's works, in case you were
wondering.
 
Oh, that Christian fundamentalist (can't remember his name) has biology
and related letters after his name.  Do you accept his arguments?  I'm
pretty sure you must of heard of him, especially since you have admitted
having to deal with Christian fundamentalists, they seem to be able to
parrot him with considerable ease (at least the ones that I know).

>If you genuinely think that "freedom of speech" means that 
>everything uttered in oral speech or put into print must be
>treated as equally credible, then you are a bigger fool than
>even I thought. 
>
No I didn't state that.  What I am basically saying is:  There is an
established path, and none may dare to change it beyond certain bounds.
If a book does, it is thrown onto pile to be burned.  You see, if I were
to quote David Irving in a history essay concerning W.W.II it would be
thrown out, or to quote a lecturer "large red lines would be put through
it."  While you may not physically burn books you basically achieve the
same results.

I imagine if someone used Charles Putnam's works in anthropology they 
would get a similar result (even if it met "established" dogma's 
standards).

Oh, some American (U.S) anthropologists have come across a New Zealander 
by the name of Joan Leaf (maybe you have heard of her).  Strangely enough
they will not accept any of her artifacts from her Museum, even though the
general public can come and gaze at these artifacts as much as they like
(they don't "exist" apparently). Is she wrong (she used to a principal of a 
secondary school)?  Or are these anthropologists, fearing for their jobs, 
trying to suppress her? This argument was presented in case you have heard 
of (or maybe one day hear of) Joan Leaf.

Ourobouros.

P.S. I thank you for replying in a rational way.  


From Ourobouros Sun Sep  8 11:25:23 PDT 1996
Article: 42390 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.cloud9.net!imci4!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Date: 7 Sep 1996 22:24:19 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <50tla3$m9a@lex.zippo.com>
References: <50qckr$2rr@lex.zippo.com>  <50suek$eb5@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port907-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article , joelr@winternet.com says...
>
>In article <50suek$eb5@lex.zippo.com> Ourobouros writes:
>>From: Ourobouros
>>Subject: Re: Desperate times call for desperate measures.
>>Date: 7 Sep 1996 15:54:12 -0700
>
>>In article , joelr@winternet.com says...
>>>
>>>In article <50qckr$2rr@lex.zippo.com> Ourobouros writes:
>>>
>>>>There seems to be a new pattern occuring in liberal arguing techniques.
>>>>Be aware that liberals are trying to misquote what you say.  This is
>>>>especially true for Mr. Lund, Rosenberg, 
>>>
>>>Well, no, Wormy.  I'm not a liberal, by any sane or sober definition (oh.  
>>>Well.  Never mind), and the problem is that I quote you accurately, not 
>>>inaccurately.
>>>
>>Sorry but I default all Jews into the liberal basket, unless they can prove
>>otherwise.
>
>Well, yes, you do -- but that just goes to show that you're not only a coward 
>hiding behind a nom-de-bigotry, but an idiot, as well. 
>
Can you prove otherwise (to being a liberal), Mr. Rosenberg or are you full 
of hot-air?

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Sun Sep  8 11:25:24 PDT 1996
Article: 42391 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.cloud9.net!imci4!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Ken the Mc-a-voidly lie'n: Bully, Blowhard, Coward
Date: 7 Sep 1996 22:30:24 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <50tllg$mfo@lex.zippo.com>
References: <4v9ejf$18j@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <32248DB5.562@gryn.org> <5042vo$ff2@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>  <507g0u$46i@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <01bb96f2.92889fe0$81a11dcb@peasant> <50at7u$sde@informer1.ci 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port907-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article , joelr@winternet.com says...
>
>In article <50su6g$e9f@lex.zippo.com> Ourobouros writes:
>>From: Ourobouros
>>Subject: Re: Ken the Mc-a-voidly lie'n: Bully, Blowhard, Coward
>>Date: 7 Sep 1996 15:49:52 -0700
>
>>In article , joelr@winternet.com says...
>>>
>>>In article <50r18l$c78@lex.zippo.com> Ourobouros writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I also get extremely suspicious when an idea is repeated over and over
>>>>again -- whatever it is.
>>>
>>>Then, Wormy, why do you "repet" the same bilge over and over?   Inquiring 
>>>minds, and all that.  
>>>
>>Because people like you are dull of mind.
>
>So you admit that you're figuring if you keep repeating the same lies over and 
>over, you'll be believed, eh?
>
It is only bilge to people like yourself.

>Hmmm... does sound familiar, doesn't it, eh, Dirt-eater?
>
Another ignoramus.  Ourobouros, the cosmic alchemic symbol, doesn't eat
dirt, he eats his own tail -- recursion.

Neither is worm correct, because Ourobouros is officially a dragon not a
worm, snake would be more correct.

Ourobouros.
  


From Ourobouros Sun Sep  8 17:24:05 PDT 1996
Article: 63613 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!voskovec.radio.cz!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 12 million into camps, Mr. "Stone?"
Date: 8 Sep 1996 12:11:35 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 115
Message-ID: <50v5p7$jba@lex.zippo.com>
References: <4v9ejf$18j@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <50le5n$d5k@lex.zippo.com> <50ppn4$a8h@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <50r18l$c78@lex.zippo.com> <50sm11$neh@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <50svcf$em4@lex.zippo.com>  <50tfjd$klc@lex.zippo.com>  <50to9h$n8e@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port931-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:42427 alt.revisionism:63613

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <50to9h$n8e@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>> > [...deletia...]
>
>> >"Stone's" contention, if I understand it correctly, is that the accepted
>> >wisdom holds that all of the nearly 12 million victims of the Holocaust
>> >were killed in concentration camps. "Stone" was challenged to provide any
>> >and all citations of historians who make this claim. "Stone" responded to
>> >this challenge by misquoting the first six words of the sixteen in the
>> >heading of the Nizkor home page -- an attempt at diversion, since the
>> >Nizkor home page is not a historian nor a citation of one. "Stone" was
>> >called on this misquoting (the same heinous crime he accuses me of, sans
>> >actual evidence). "Stone's" response is to attempt to divert the
>> >discussion again, this time to the questions of where the victims were
>> >actually killed and when the camps were created. 
>> >
>> Triviality:
>> Please notice the "something", while I forgot to place "like" between
>> the "something" and the """ is happens to fit quite nicely.  In other words,
>> I was not suggesting the continuation was necessarily correct, only 
>> something akin to it.
>> 
>> Yes you are correct, the Nizkor home page is neither a historian or a
>> citation.  However the people involved in making it (Ken McVay & Co.) like
>> to consider themselves historians.  Did the original statements (of mine)
>> require too many stages in logic. 
>
>"Stone's" original statement was: 
>
>   >I cannot work out how wartime Germany could have mobilised more
>   >than 12 million people in to concentration camps in less than "6" years.
>
>"Stone" takes it as a given that the historical claim has been made that
>nearly 12 million victims of the Holocaust were, in fact, all moved to
>concentration camps. His original statement requires evidence, in the form
>of citations from historians of the Holocaust that make said claim. Far
>from having too many stages of logic, his original statement simply lacks
>any supporting evidence.
>
Well perhaps you are prepared to fill the void and tell me were these
alleged victims were killed?  Perhaps I will retract my comment if you do
so...

>> Now you consider that I am diverting, please prove so. 
>
>(1) "Stone" asserts that the claim that nearly 12 million were moved to
>camps in 6 years is "ludicrous".
>
>(2) "Stone" is challenged to cite any historian who claims that they were.
>
>(3) "Stone" chooses instead to misquote the header from a web page (see
>message-ID: <50svcf$em4@lex.zippo.com>)
>
>(4) "Stone's" misquote is pointed out to him.
>
>(5) "Stone" ignores the fact that his misquote has been noted, and chooses
>to divert the discussion once more by asking where the nearly 12 million
>were in fact killed, and when the camps were built (see message-ID:
><50tfjd$klc@lex.zippo.com>).
>
Well considering I never said this was in fact the actual quote and had
"something" before my quote would indicate to rational people that it was
a paraphrase.

>> [...deletia...]
>
>> Hopefully what follows will show you what I have been meaning.
>> 
>> 1.  W.W.II happened between the years 1939 & 1945.  1945-1939=6.
>> 
>> 2. McVay, has stated many a time that holocaust numbers were "nearly"
>> 12 million.  I did not assume that when I stated 12 million without using
>> such words as "approximately" that it cause massive controversy.  Or isn't
>> this a point?
>> 
>> 3. Simon Wiesanthal has stated that no concentration camps were on
>> German soil.  Therefore, unless Germany was buying land in Poland and so
>> forth before W.W.II they couldn't have made concentration camps before no
>> 1939.  Is that a reasonable conclusion?
>> 
>> 4. Camps such as the Auchwitz complex hold (according to dogma) are where
>> most of the killing occurred, or is this wrong?  Assuming that I am correct
>> in stating that most of the killings occurred at the concentration camps,
>> the figure of 12 million would still hold, though admittedly I should be
>> using "nearly" since you are so concerned about it.
>> 
>> 5. If all the points are so far correct, then I can make this conclusion:
>> Within 6 years, nearly 12 million people were killed in concentration 
>> camps.   
>> 
>> Now, if all the above is correct, I would like to see how it is feasible
>> for Germany, at war against the allies, to mobilise nearly 12 million
>> people into concentration camps.  
>> 
>> If most of killings didn't occur in concentration camps, then where did 
>> they occur?
>
>"Stone's" assumption that his point 4 is correct is the crux of his
>argument. Yet he seems oddly reluctant to demonstrate that point 4 is
>supported by any historian of the Holocaust. This is the basic challenge
>he was initially presented with by Ken McVay, and is the challenge he has
>yet to respond with anything other than diversionary tactics.
>
Considering the amount of "true" historians (anti-revisionists) on 
alt.revisionism, I shouldn't have to cite anything.  One of them should
stand up and tell us where the majority of these "victims" were killed.  

Why is this request so difficult?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Sep  8 17:24:06 PDT 1996
Article: 63614 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!voskovec.radio.cz!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!newspump.sol.net!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 12 million into camps, Mr. "Stone?"
Date: 8 Sep 1996 12:01:34 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <50v56e$j8n@lex.zippo.com>
References: <4v9ejf$18j@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <50r18l$c78@lex.zippo.com> <50sm11$neh@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <50svcf$em4@lex.zippo.com> <50uoh2$4gl@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port931-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:42428 alt.revisionism:63614

In article <50uoh2$4gl@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>, kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca says...
>
>In article <50svcf$em4@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>In article <50sm11$neh@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>, 
>kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca says...
>
>>>And which historian, pray tell, Mr. "Stone," has written that
>>>12 million were put into camps in less than 6 years?
>
>>>Feel free to provide all of the citations you have available.
>>>We'll wait.
>
>>This is ironical coming for you, McVay.  Would you care to restate the
>>header of the Nizkor home-page, something "Dedicated to the 12 million..."
>>What were the years Germany was placing the heaviest numbers into 
>>concentration camps McVay?
>
>>Next question.
>
>...is: And which historian, pray tell, Mr. "Stone," has
>written that 12 million were put into camps in less than 6
>years?
>
You're the one the preaches the 12 million McVay.  If they weren't 
supposedly killed in the concentration camps where were they killed?

>...and...
>
>Where, within Nizkor's archives, does Nizkor say that 12
>million were placed into camps?
>
>I'll wait, Mr. "Stone."
>
It is a deduction based on modern propaganda.

Now if you would be so kind, where were (or the vast bulk of them) these
alleged victims killed?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Sep  8 17:32:25 PDT 1996
Article: 42429 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!news1.erols.com!howland.erols.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: "Wusun" dynasty (was Re: "Aryan " mummies (was Re: Whites Created Everything
Date: 8 Sep 1996 12:49:54 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <50v812$k4u@lex.zippo.com>
References: <50u67j$etd@gyda.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port931-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <50u67j$etd@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <50koem$4ta@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <50k5u4$261@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>	[snap]
>
>> >> never going to discover it.
>> >
>> >Yet another "I know the easy answer but you're such an idiot that I'm not
>> >wasting the time to tell you" ploy to avoid answering a difficult question.
>> >
>> Perhaps you should stop your garbage first...
>
>What a scathingly intellectual response... BP
>
>> Here is a Chinese dynasty that doesn't correspond with your bullshit:
>> The Manchu dynasty (1644-1911/12).
>
>
>I know someone who has studied Chinese history for the last decade or so. She
>showed me a Chinese dictionary that included a list over all the Chinese 
>dynasties. Guess what...? The "Wusun" dynasty was not one of them.
>This list included the present day People's Republic of China, and went all
>the way back to the Zhou dynasty (771 BC). It also included two dynasties that
>were recorded in oral tradition, the earliest of which was the Xia dynasty
>(2100 BC). I also subscribed to soc.culture.china, and asked about the "Wusun"
>dynasty. They had two things to say about "Wusun":
>
>1) There was never any "Wusun" dynasty: 
>
>	"Wusun dynasty? There is a Wu Dai period, which just means "five
>	dynasties." "Wusun" could just be rubbish.  The dynasties are: Xia,
>	Shang, Zhou, Chun Qiu, Zhan Guo, Qin, Han, San Guo, Xi Jin, Dong Jin,
>	Nan Bei, Sui, Tang, Wu Dai Shi Guo, Song, Liao, Xi Xia, Jin, Yuan, Ming,
>	Qing."
>
>2) There *did* exist a "Wusun", but it wasn't a dynasty; it was a minor
>kingdom somewhere in Xin-Jiang, north of Han China. The Wusun people still 
>exist.
>
Point accepted.  

>As for your "Manchu" dynasty:
>Manchuria was a "barbarian" region north of the great wall. The wall was built
>to protect China from the Manchurians. In 1644, the Manchurians conquered all
>of China, and all the dynasties from then on were of Manchurian descent.
>However, none of them were called "Manchu".
>The closest you'll get to a "Manchu" dynasty was when the Japanese allowed
>the last emperor, Pu Yi, to rule a small part of northern China. This was a
>puppet regime, and cannot be considered a "dynasty".
>BTW: Where did you hear of the "Manchu" dynasty? "Reader's Digest"?
>
No, the Encyclopedia Britannica.

The Ch'ing dynasty.

Of course there was the Mongol Yuan dynasty as well.  Of course, on the
same token as the Wusun they weren't "Chinese."

>> Please note the TWO syllables and NOT ONE syllable.  BTW, they were Chinese,
>> not Mongols (in case you decide to give us some more bullshit).
>
>If you take a look at the list of dynasties, you'll find plenty of dynasties
>with two one-syllable words in their names, but none with two syllables. Of
>course, it could be that "Manchu" should have been written "Man Chu". I
>wouldn't know.
>
>> Can I call you a moron?
>
>Do you still think you have the *right* to call me a moron, moron?
>
I was asking for your permission first, unlike you.

>Many of the replies I got on soc.culture.china included remarks such as:
>
>	"Good luck, and don't waste your time on fools,"
>	"Your opponent was probably lying through his teeth."
>
And?  There opinions are worth?

>
>	[gibberish]
>
>> >Provided there *is* such a thing as "Wusun".
>> >
>> Well now you are back to square one.  An alternative spelling to Wu-sun is
>> Woo-sun (just in case you decide to pick up a book on Chinese history and
>> it has this alternative spelling).
>
>Read that list above. See how many "Wu Sun" or "Woo Sun" you can find.
>
Well, I accept dynasty was probably wrong.

Still, you were asking for a pointer for White mummies in China...

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Sep  8 22:23:16 PDT 1996
Article: 42482 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Desperate times call for desperate measures. [WARNING: LONG]
Date: 8 Sep 1996 00:23:27 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 401
Message-ID: <50ts9f$ofr@lex.zippo.com>
References: <50qckr$2rr@lex.zippo.com>  <50qnkf$927@lex.zippo.com>  <50strl$e3b@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port907-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <50strl$e3b@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >
>> >In article <50qnkf$927@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article ,
>> >jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >> >
>> >> >In article <50qckr$2rr@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> 
>> >> Let me ask, Brown-nose, who was the one that added "all" to "Why are
>> >> niggers in Africa backwards" and who on another occasion removed the words
>> >> "in Africa"?  
>> >> 
>> >> You are the one that is resorting to outright lies, Brown-nose.
>> >
>> >Cite the article ID in which I added -- or deleted -- words within a
>> >quoted passage from one of your posts, Worm.
>> >
>> First point.  It would seem you have been brown-nosing McVay as you do not
>> have any folders at "we hope to remember."
>
>I invite you, then, to use any of the excellent Usenet archives available
>via the Web. I would suggest that, for the purpose at hand, you may find
>DejaNews  the most useful. It will allow you to not
>only to search for posts I have made to Usenet -- at this writing, it
>contains 616 of them -- but also to reconstruct the threads in which my
>posts occurred, affording you the opportunity to compare that which I have
>quoted with the original words of those whom I quote.
>
>I also broaden the challenge I made to you, by way of making your task
>easier. Cite the article ID in which I added -- or deleted -- words within a
>quoted passage from _any_ post to which I have responded, in _any_
>newsgroup. The universe of posts which may yield proof of my iniquity has
>just been greatly expanded. Surely, now, you can easily find evidence of
>this technique which you allege I have been forced to resort to in my
>desperation (see article <50qckr$2rr@lex.zippo.com>).
>
>> Second point.  the bulk of the argument has either not been recorded or it
>> has been conveniently removed for you, but not enough was taken :->
>> 
>> Lo and behold (relevant point in CAPS):
>> 
>> 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:
>
>> [...deletia...] 
>
>   (...Which deletia, by the way, I undertake with great trepidation, fearing
>   that at any moment Mr. "Stone" may object that I have elided a crucial
>   passage, paragraph, sentence, phrase, word, syllable, letter, punctuation
>   mark, or white space in a craven attempt to mislead the Gentle Reader into
>   an erroneous impression of Mr. "Stone's" finely reasoned dissertation.
>   
>   But then I look below and find great chunks of my own post deleted from 
>   "Stone's" reply, and realize that he must not give a shit about it 
>   unless it's _his_ words being deleted.)
>
Let me put it this way, Mr. Brown, I do not mind you clipping irrelevant
parts of a thread, however in the point of contention we are having you
snipped the crucial point of the entire argument.  That being you snipped
the criteria (of Finsten's) for making categories.  When you did that, it
made your assertion about cats, dogs and species seem intelligible.  In
case you are as dense as you are pretending to be, I was arguing about the
stupidity of Miss Finsten's point about how categories are made (in 
a contorted summary).

BTW, I like your use of sarcasm, " (...Which deletia, by the way, I 
undertake with great trepidation...".  Quite amusing.  
   
>> >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.
>
>> [...oh, dear...deletia again...]
>
>> 
>> Ourobouros.
>
>Let me understand this clearly, "Stone": I challenged you to cite an article ID
>in which I added -- or deleted -- words within a quoted passage from one of
>your posts.
>
>And lo and behold: You respond by citing one of your _own_ posts. Hmmm... In
>this post, you are responding to my comment that you have changed your
>assertion from "A" to "B". Note carefully that no one in particular is being
>quoted here -- the quotes are placed around the paraphrases simply for
>clarity. In your response to my comment, you assert that I and my
>"compatriots" (and, yes, that is a quote -- I _do_ see that word in your
>text above, do I not?) have attempted to change the question that (if memory
>serves) was originally asked by Les Griswold.
>
Yes I realize that I did not quote your own post, basically because Nizkor
doesn't archive your files.  I shall (at some stage) take up your suggestion
to use Dejanews and avoid McVay's politics about what he archives and what
he doesn't.

This was the only reference I could find at Nizkor that had any part of
the argument still intact (the rest, probably for some political reason,
was not archived).  I was hoping it would be sufficient enough to jog your
memory, obviously it isn't.

Yes, Les Griswold originally asked the question, however it is one (in case
you don't remember) I took up for my own.

>I note that you did not then assert, nor have you now asserted, that
>anything in my post  (the only
>post of mine which I can infer that you are offering into evidence) is in
>fact a misquote of anything that you or any other poster said. And you have
>not, in fact, cited any other article ID in which it can be demonstrated
>that I misquoted anyone.
>
>I can only conclude that my challenge has not been met. You are certainly
>welcome to try again, of course.
>
Yes I will (at some stage).

>Lo and behold yet again: The claim you are defending is that I am one who...
>
>> added "all" to "Why are niggers in Africa backwards" and who on 
>> another occasion removed the words "in Africa"
>
>(A quote, if you'd care to check its accuracy, from
><50qnkf$927@lex.zippo.com>.)
>
>Strangely, I see no evidence in your post <4lkk54$8to@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
>from 24 April that supports this claim.
>
So you are going on record that you never added the word "all" to "Why are
niggers in Africa backwards?"  Nor at some point removing "in Africa" from
said question?


>> >> >Do I trim what I quote, in accordance with Usenet netiquette, to the
>> >> >relevant passages? Yes. If you disagree with the way I trim your posts,
>> >> >that's unfortunate -- but it does not constitute misquoting.
>> >> >
>> >> Let me re-arrange your above paragraph then:
>> >> 
>> >> >Do I trim what I quote in the way that does constitute misquoting? Yes.
>> >> 
>> >> Fair is fair.
>> >
>> >To quote you -- accurately: "Utter bullshit."
>> >
>> Then prove yourself, Brown-nose.  Saying so doesn't make it so.
>
>Oh, dearie me. Surely you didn't mean to delete the next paragraph in my
>post, in which I challenged you to cite an article ID in which I rearrange
>the words within a quoted passage from one of your posts as you did with my
>words. Certainly you wouldn't be so desperate as to use such a tactic, now
>would you, "Stone"?
>
I was, as far I was concerned, using your own tactics.  You felt that you
needed to remove Finsten's definition on how categories were made, to 
which I viewed as doing the same to you in yonder paragraph.

>But perhaps I was too subtle, too hopeful in expecting that my meaning could
>be determined. Mea culpa. Let me state it clearly, then: 
>
>The deletion of material irrelevant to the discussion does not constitute
>misquoting. Rearranging the words in a post, to give the impression that the
>original author wrote something that he did not write, does. Your attempt to
>equate the former with the latter is, and I quote, "Utter bullshit".
>
Well the contention is whether what you snipped was irrelevant then isn't
it?  I say it is, as your argument would have been stupid had the entire
point on Finsten's categories been included, and unless you are an imbecile,
you wouldn't want to appear as stupid.

>> >> Face reality, Brown-nose, you delibrately left out Finsten's definition on
>> >> how categories were made.  This was the crucial factor in my reply, and was
>> >> everything my reply was based on.  With that piece gone, my reply looked 
>> >> ridiculous, which was your intention.  If you kept that piece in then you
>> >> would have looked like a moron.  You felt for some unknown reason that you 
>> >> needed to reply, but to do so you had to get rid of disadvantageous 
>> >> statements first.  In other words, you were desperate.
>> >
>> >In other words, you're engaging in telepathy. What card am I thinking of?
>> >
>> Please stop acting moronic.  It is a valid conclusion.
>
>Ah, well, to quote: "Saying so doesn't make it so."
>
As far as I am concerned, leaving out crucial parts of the argument was an
act of desperation to look intelligent.

It would seem making you understand this point is futile.  Apart from
finding your posts in which you added "all" to said question and you
removed "in Africa", this thread is getting pathetic.  You are never going
to agree that you delibrately took out relevant material because you cannot
accept that you are wrong.  Hence this long and boring argument that has
insured.

>> >Your opinions as to what was "the crucial factor in [your] reply" and mine
>> >differ, as they do on so many things. Your opinion that "If [I had] kept
>> >that piece in then [I] would have looked like a moron" is an opinion,
>> >nothing more. The fact remains that you were quoted accurately. 
>> >
>> Ah, my point is, if you had left all the pieces involved with how categories
>> were made then you couldn't make a valid reply.  You quoted out of context,
>> and that is what I am illustrating.
>> 
>> [snip]
>
>I do wish to point out that among that which you [snipped] here, you have
>deleted something I consider to be of great importance, "Stone". You said:
>
>   > In other words you are not taking responsibility for your words.  Do you 
>   > have such poor memory that you cannot remember your own conversation?
>   > 
>   > If you insist I will quote word for word what you said.  Not only will it
>   > prove you are the one at fault, but an utter fool at the same time.
>   
>And I responded with a challenge:
>
>   Cite the article ID in which I quote you as saying something which you did
>   not say, Worm.
>
>I wouldn't want anyone to think that you'd deleted this out of
>desperation, "Stone". Surely that can't be the case.
>
Considering that you kept asking the question over and over again, one
wouldn't think that it was necessary to keep all your requests now would 
it (once being enough)?

Alas, I have yet to use Dejanews to find the relevant posts.

I will however (at some stage) demonstrate that you did indeed add "all"
to "Why are niggers in Africa backwards" to change the entire context of
the question.

>> >> >(Note: That, Worm, is a paraphrase, not a misquote.)
>> >> >
>> >> Oh hum.
>> >> 
>> >> Please explain your quote "Ourobouros the worm wrote:" then.
>> >
>> >Eh? That's not a quote of anything of yours. What, precisely, do you want
>> >explained, Worm? 
>> >
>> Note: Here is the playing dumb tactic for those keeping tabs.
>> 
>> In one of your recent posts, instead of "Ourobouros wrote", you added 
>> "Ourobouros the worm wrote."  Stop acting dumb and conclude how this can
>> be resolved with a "paraphrase."
>
>Let me point out that it is neither a quote, a misquote, nor a paraphrase.
>It is, I would say, both an indication of who wrote the post to which I am
>responding, and perhaps an expression of my opinion of the character and/or
>motives of said individual.
>
>I would ask you if, perhaps, you had not the same sort of sly comment in
>mind in your post <4tn1t9$k0v@newsource.ihug.co.nz> of 31 Jul 1996, in which
>you preface quoted material with "Fragano trying to bootlick Laura wrote:".
>Was this a misquote, a paraphrase, or something else entirely?
>
Ah, Mr. Brown, would you care to say how "Worm" is a paraphrase of 
"Ourobouros the Worm wrote"?  I am quite aware that "Worm" can ignorantly 
be paraphrased for "Ourobouros", but I wanted to know how "Worm" could be
paraphrased from "Ourobouros the Worm."  To logic, it would have to be 
"Worm the Worm" which is not "Worm" as they are two different entities. 
 
>In any event, since it brings you so much undeserved anguish, I will abandon
>the practice. You're welcome.
>
It did not bring me any anguish, Mr. Brown, hopefully you can comprehend the
point I was trying to make.

>> [More B.S. of Brown-nose snipped]
>
>The "B.S." to which you refer, and which I am certain you did not delete out
>of desperation at your inability to respond, was:
>
>   > Actually, in other words, you should explain why the inability of one
>   > New Zealander to explain how the response time of a Web site
>   > correlates to the veracity of the information contained therein means
>   > that anybody _else_ is incompetent. 
>
>> [Another snip concerning Aborigines]
>> 
>> >Please note that you still haven't cited the file in question. I am not
>> >required to do your homework for you, especially when you claim to have
>> >done it once already but failed to take the simple step of writing down
>> >the URL of the file you claim to have found.
>> >
>> I am sure you can find graves0895 at Nizkor, stop playing dumb.  BTW, in
>> academia, I only have to cite the place where I got the information.  
>> If the information is a citation from somewhere else, then it is your
>> responsiblity to following the line back to its source, not mine.  Nice try
>> though.
>
>I do have the file graves.0895, in fact. What you have said was (quoting
><50qckr$2rr@lex.zippo.com> now, in case anyone wants to make sure I'm not
>pulling some desperate trick):
>
>   > Using the keyword "aborigine" I came across an old argument in
>   > Graves0895. Because McVay's archives are poorly thought out I had to
>   > follow the argument over various files (and McVay's site is so
>   > slooooooow).  Someone (argument is unattributed -- delibrate?)
>   > believes that the Australian aborigine's ability to survive in the
>   > outback is in fact superior to the White man's achievements.
>
>I find exactly 8 references to "aborigine" in that file. All of them are in
>the single message <41o42v$431@news2.aimnet.com>, dated 26 Aug 1995, and all
>the references occur in a single paragraph.
>
>I could, of course, attempt to reproduce your search for the file in which
>you assert you find someone claiming that "the Australian aborigine's
>ability to survive in the outback is in fact superior to the White man's
>achievements". (Was that an accurate quote? Gosh, I sure hope so...) There
>are three possible outcomes: (A) I would succeed in finding the file and
>passage you did; (B) I would find some other file and passage, believing it
>(in error) to be the one to which you refer; or (C) I would fail to find any
>such file or passage.
>
>In the case of (C), no conclusion can be drawn one way or the other about
>your claim.
>
>The difficulty with cases (A) and (B) is that if case (A) occurs, and I do
>find the passage you refer to, you can always claim that case (B) has
>actually occurred instead. The matter of whether you actually found someone
>who made said claim about aborigines and white men would thus be left
>conveniently unresolved.
>
>Now, if you accept the responsibility of citing the place where you found
>someone saying that "the Australian aborigine's ability to survive in the
>outback is in fact superior to the White man's achievements", then do so.
>Simply cite the exact file where this statement, or its equivalent, can be
>found.
>
>What you've done so far is the equivalent of a footnote saying, "I found a
>clue to what I was looking for in a book entitled Thus-and-so, and by
>following the trail through several other volumes, I proved my point." (Oh,
>gee, you didn't actually think I was quoting you there, did you? Oh,
>golly...)
>
>I somehow doubt that the footnote tactic I describe above would be
>acceptable in academia, yet you seem to believe that this is all the
>evidence necessary to support your assertion. Why don't you just cite the
>precise file and article ID, and let us all judge for ourselves? 
>
>Or is there, perhaps, some tinge of -- dare I say it -- desperation in your
>decision not to do so?
>
At some stage I will take better note of the relevant files.  At the moment
however I have spent hours I couldn't have afforded in finding your
requests.  So until I know I have several hours in a row that I can afford
to throw away, you will have to wait.

BTW, in case you weren't aware I avoiding any clipping of your message 
since you are acting in a pathetic manner at the moment.  My apologies to 
those that would have liked to have seen, Mr. Brown's garbage deleted.

The argument (between us) over whether you clipped the wrong parts out of 
said posts is dead, unless you actually have something worthwhile to 
contribute.  The empasse is basically over what you think is irrelevant or
not and it seems that it cannot be rectified.  I will endeavour to find the 
posts and files that you seem to think I am defrauding you by at some stage i
n the future.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros. Mon Sep  9 08:20:55 PDT 1996
Article: 63766 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!news.cstone.net!news.accessone.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-ana-24.sprintlink.net!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!decwrl!news.PBI.net!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 12 million into camps, Mr. "Stone?"
Date: 8 Sep 1996 19:09:22 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <50vu8i$s1d@lex.zippo.com>
References: <4v9ejf$18j@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <50le5n$d5k@lex.zippo.com> <50ppn4$a8h@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <50r18l$c78@lex.zippo.com> <50sm11$neh@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <50svcf$em4@lex.zippo.com> <50uu2s$b0k@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port938-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:42537 alt.revisionism:63766

In article <50uu2s$b0k@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <50sm11$neh@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>, kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca says...
>
>>>In article <50r18l$c78@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:

[snip]

>
>Ever heard of the Einsatzengruppen (hope I spelled that right), "Mr. Stone"?

Yes it is spelled correctly.

To quote the Encyclopedia Britannica:

  Gestapo members were included in the Einsatzgruppen (Task Forces), which
  were mobile death squads that followed the German regular army into
  Poland and Russia for the purpose of killing Jews and other 
  "undesirables" there.  Section (Amt) IV.b of the Gestapo, under Adolf
  Eichmann, organized the deportation of Jews from other occupied countries
  to the extermination camps in Poland.

I do not believe that helps you, but there you go.

As for the rest, please view another reply of mine.  In that post is my
standard.  I refuse to consider these other posts.

Ourobouros.






From Ourobouros Mon Sep  9 09:26:09 PDT 1996
Article: 42496 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!netaxs.com!news1.erols.com!howland.erols.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Beware of Brown changing your Quotes!
Date: 8 Sep 1996 12:23:59 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 102
Message-ID: <50v6gf$jj3@lex.zippo.com>
References: <50tv56$pa7@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port931-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <50tv56$pa7@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> To those that have been following the extremely boring argument between
>> Mr. Brown and myself over whether Brown misquotes or adds words to your
>> quotes here is the article-ID that Brown believes doesn't exist:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> In which he decided to change the question "Why are niggers in Africa 
>> backwards?" to requesting (Les and especially myself) us to defend
>> the previously unknown question "Why are all Negroes backwards?"
>> 
>> Jeffrey G. Brown, the file is found, I thank you for directing to me to
>> dejanews in the first place.
>> 
>> Thus Brown's assertion that I am a liar is false, would that the old laws
>> concerning perjury were still in place, in which Brown would be labelled 
>> the liar.
>> 
>> Anyway, please be careful of what, Mr. Brown, quotes as he may try, this
>> trick he says he doesn't do, again.
>
>"Stone's" statement concerning the contents of the post in question are
>incorrect. At no point in the post do I quote anyone as asking "Why are
>all Negroes backwards?"
>
>Article  was posted on
>04/14/96; its subject line was 'Re: Q: Are "white power" hate mongers
>"Backwards"?'. I commend DejaNews to anyone who wishes to view the entire
>post. The relevant section of it is as follows:
>
>--- begin excerpt from  ---
>
>>>Would you care to provide:
>>>
>>> (1) your definition of "backwards"?
>>>
>>It has been stated twice.  To make it easier for you, both have been 
>>posted in the thread "If ..."
>
>One wonders why you won't state it again, when asked.
>
>I assume you are referring to your use of:
>
>> backward (bak'ward) adj.
>> 3 Slow in growth or development; retarded
>> 4 Late; slow; behindhand.
>
>as a definition. Fine. Now for the evidence: where is it?
>
>>> (2) your evidence that all Negroes in Africa meet this definition?
>>>
>>Since you're being pedantic Mr Brown, you should point out where I stated
>>the word "ALL" in context of the question. 
>
>You didn't. You didn't specify what percentage of Negroes you and Griswold
>were referring to. Is there any reason to assume that a racist _wouldn't_
>believe that all Negroes are "backwards"?
>
>--- end excerpt from  ---
>
>Note that I did not, in fact, quote anyone as asking "Why are all Negroes
>backwards?". I did ask, in a previous message, for the racists' "evidence
>that all Negroes in Africa meet ["Stone's"] definition" of 'backwards'.
>"Stone" immediately challenges me to point out where the word "all" was
>used by anyone of his persuasion, and I just as immediately acknowledged
>that it had not been.
>
Does anyone else think that Mr. Brown is getting quite desperate in all
this?

The original question was "why are niggers in Africa backwards."  You 
asked for me:

     (2) your evidence that all Negroes in Africa meet this definition?

and

     You didn't. You didn't specify what percentage of Negroes you and 
     Griswold were referring to. Is there any reason to assume that a 
     racist _wouldn't_believe that all Negroes are "backwards"?

This for all intensive purposes these are the equivalent of 

     "Why are all Negroes backwards?"

Please demonstrate how the original question posed did not change (by
you) to "Why are all Negroes backwards?"  

Please demonstrate how it isn't a correct paraphrase of your comments.

>"Stone's" allegation that I quoted anyone as having asked "Why are all
>Negroes backwards?" is, to put it bluntly, an outright lie. Please be
>careful of accepting "Stone's" statements at face value, as he may lie yet
>gain.
>
Crap, "Why are all Negroes backwards?" is a succinct form of your post.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Mon Sep  9 09:26:10 PDT 1996
Article: 42508 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!decwrl!news.PBI.net!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: More Black Savagery
Date: 8 Sep 1996 21:56:56 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <51082o$2bd@lex.zippo.com>
References: <5026mv$l12@molokini.conterra.com> <502vs3$db0@chaos.dac.neu.edu> <504j5i$q6d@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <322DDBFC.1B1D@ibm.net> <50n6vs$cn1@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <50oeld$su4@lex.zippo.com>  <50pv8t$r9v@lex.zippo.com> <50skjf$65c@chaos.dac.neu.edu> <50t087$ev0@lex.zippo.com> <50va5o$ihb@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port885-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <50va5o$ihb@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>Lets all play the dumb tactic.  It is strange how people like myself can
>>pick up information in programs and books so much easier than those that
>>call themselves liberals.  Case in point, Finsten has supposedly digested
>>a book by Cavalli-Sforza, which mentions the language of Tocharian in
>>reasonable detail, yet recently, Finsten was stated she had never heard of
>>Tocharian before.  Can I imply that you fail from the same set of 
>>circumstances, and that is you wish to remain ignorant?
>
>
>You are referring to The History and Geography of Human Genes?  Cite an
>URL from Dejanews to demonstrate that I have ever claimed to have read
>that entire book, "Mr. Stone".  I have read the chapters on Europe and
>Africa, and the methods chapters at the beginning.  I have *never* claimed
>to have read the entire book
>
So sorry, I had presumed that you would have at least read the entire
European section, since you seemed to like the parts about Iceland & Co.

>What I infer from this "set of circumstances" is that you are falsely
>claiming, without a shred of evidence to support your claim, that I said
>something I did not.  Pony up the post, "Mr. Stone", or withdraw your
>false claim.
>
I suppose this post offers proof that you have read the relevant chapters
>from  said book "I have read the chapters on Europe and Africa,..." would
seem to imply that you have read the European section.  Obviously not...

As for the other parts, I withdraw, though you'll find it alters the
argument by no degree.  Basically, if you were more perceptive then you
would not be ignorant when the Indo-European language known as Tocharian
was mentioned.  You would also know of its importance to linguistics from
the same book.

Ourobouros.
   


From Ourobouros Mon Sep  9 09:26:11 PDT 1996
Article: 42512 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Lost "Aryan" cultures; proof of "White Supremacy"? Phah!
Date: 8 Sep 1996 12:56:09 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <50v8cp$k7h@lex.zippo.com>
References: <50gn85$hv6@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <50i7i9$o6j@lex.zippo.com> <50k5lp$23d@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <50kp22$56p@lex.zippo.com> <50u6jt$eua@gyda.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port931-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <50u6jt$eua@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <50kp22$56p@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <50k5lp$23d@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>> >> >an evolutionistic point of view, the survival and spreading of one's own
>> >> >genetic material is the only mark of success.
>> >> >
>> >> There is an easy answer, but your bigotry prevents you from seeing the 
>> >> obvious.
>> >
>> >I don't think there is an answer, which is why you won't give any. I see you
>> >once again found an opportunity to call me a bigot. Rediculous.
>
>>                             *sigh*
>
>Yeah yeah yeah. Right. Stop pretending to be an adult.
>
In New Zealand you are considered to be an adult at age 18.  I am well over
18, how old do you have to be where you come from (to be an adult)?

>> Isn't there a recommendation that you read a newsgroup for two weeks before
>> considering posting?  You should have followed that recommendation rather
>> than demonstrate your wilful ignorance at every opportunity.
>
>Here we go. The "lurk before posting flame". I've been on and off this ng for
>the last two years. And since you seem to have the opinion that I do not know
>what this ng is about, I'd like you to tell me just which inappropriate
>statements I've made.
>
Considering that various elements of this original post occur every so 
often, you would have thought that in your two years who would have noticed 
it.  

>> We have never claimed that White race is perfect.  We have liberals as an 
>> obvious disproof of perfection.
>> 
>> It could be said that liberals have been our downfall every single time. Do
>> you honestly believe this is the first age where liberals have been allowed
>> to run rampant?
>
>This is just silly. Tell me, were these "Liberals" a minority or a majority
>when they caused the "downfall" of the current "white" culture? If they were a
>minority, why were the majority so feeble as to let a small group of
>"Liberals" mess up their act? If the "Liberals" were a majority, what's the
>loss? The majority got their way, and the racist minority vanished.
>
The majority follow the minority.  

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Sep  9 09:26:12 PDT 1996
Article: 42513 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Desperate times call for desperate measures. [WARNING: LONG]
Date: 8 Sep 1996 12:39:17 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <50v7d5$jt6@lex.zippo.com>
References: <50qckr$2rr@lex.zippo.com>  <50qnkf$927@lex.zippo.com>  <50strl$e3b@lex.zippo.com>  <50ts9f$ofr@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port931-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <50ts9f$ofr@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> Let me put it this way, Mr. Brown, I do not mind you clipping irrelevant
>> parts of a thread, however in the point of contention we are having you
>> snipped the crucial point of the entire argument.  That being you snipped
>> the criteria (of Finsten's) for making categories.  When you did that, it
>> made your assertion about cats, dogs and species seem intelligible.  In
>> case you are as dense as you are pretending to be, I was arguing about the
>> stupidity of Miss Finsten's point about how categories are made (in 
>> a contorted summary).
>
>Then we must simply agree to disagree concerning what is 'relevant' to
>your argument. "De gustibus non disputandum", if I quoted that correctly.
>
I would think "gustibus" is wrong.  Though it could be an idiomatic
expression (to/by a light meal(s) = gustibus).
  
[discussion of whether Mr. Brown added "all" and removed "In Africa" is in
a more appropriate thread]

[snip <-- I did say I wasn't going to continue arguing this thread unless
Mr. Brown was going to add something relevant]

>BTW: the Nizkor search engine returns _twenty_ hits against the search
>term 'aborigine', rather than the single hit you claimed it gave you.
>
I did state that only ONE relevant hit was returned.  You can check the
others if you don't believe me.  Please note "relevant" in original thread.

Did you misquote me?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Sep  9 09:26:13 PDT 1996
Article: 42514 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!psgrain!iafrica.com!pipex-sa.net!plug.news.pipex.net!pipex!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!decwrl!news.PBI.net!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Beware of Brown changing your Quotes!
Date: 8 Sep 1996 19:38:39 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 121
Message-ID: <50vvvf$sjb@lex.zippo.com>
References: <50tv56$pa7@lex.zippo.com>  <50v6gf$jj3@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port830-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <50v6gf$jj3@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:

>> Does anyone else think that Mr. Brown is getting quite desperate in all
>> this?
>> 
>> The original question was "why are niggers in Africa backwards."  You 
>> asked for me:
>> 
>>      (2) your evidence that all Negroes in Africa meet this definition?
>> 
>> and
>> 
>>      You didn't. You didn't specify what percentage of Negroes you and 
>>      Griswold were referring to. Is there any reason to assume that a 
>>      racist _wouldn't_believe that all Negroes are "backwards"?
>
>Replace the challenge from "Stone" to which I am replying in that second
>passage for the full context:
>
>  >Since you're being pedantic Mr Brown, you should point out where I stated
>  >the word "ALL" in context of the question. 
>
>  You didn't. You didn't specify what percentage of Negroes you and Griswold
>  were referring to. Is there any reason to assume that a racist _wouldn't_
>  believe that all Negroes are "backwards"?
>
>(Deleting relevant portions to use my words out of context against me,
>"Stone"? Tsk, tsk.)
>
You see (or perhaps you don't see), Mr. Brown, I had a contention with this
>from  the beginning, hence:

  Since you're being pedantic Mr Brown, you should point out where I stated
  the word "ALL" in context of the question. 

Then your reply was thus:

  You didn't. You didn't specify what percentage of Negroes you and Griswold
  ^^^^^^^^^^
  were referring to. Is there any reason to assume that a racist _wouldn't_
  believe that all Negroes are "backwards"?

You even admitted at the time I did not include the word "all" in context
to the question "Why are niggers in Africa backwards?"  Therefore it 
remains to known, who, if it wasn't you, felt the word "all" should be
there.

You even tried to justify your action, "Is there any reason to assume that
a racist _wouldn't...".  The quotes right above if you are thinking I am
defrauding you.  It puts the idea that someone else came up with the idea
of including the word "all" in the remote box.  Who but you, decided to
include the word "all."

If case you are completely ignorant of logic, "all" means in every case. Do
you wonder why I complained in the first place?

>> This for all intensive purposes these are the equivalent of 
>> 
>>      "Why are all Negroes backwards?"
>> 
>> Please demonstrate how the original question posed did not change (by
>> you) to "Why are all Negroes backwards?"  
>
>And I must decline, until "Stone" first demonstrates that I _quoted_
>anyone of his persuasion as having asked "Why are all Negroes backwards?".
>He _is_ accusing me of "changing... Quotes!", after all (see Subject:
>line). I think I deserve at least one verifiably changed Quote! to respond
>to.
>
Note: Mr. Brown is playing dumb again.

If there isn't a time you haven't misquoted me then this is the time.
Please demonstrate where I said you *asked* me "Why are all Negroes
backwards?", especially given the fact that you disbelieve Negroes are
of inferior stock.

I'll admit "Why are all Negroes backwards" is a paraphrase of your argument.
What is your next move?

You incorrectly misquoted me by inserting the word "all".  Do you or did
you not add "all."?

Can we have a succinct answer from you for a change?

>> Please demonstrate how it isn't a correct paraphrase of your comments.
>
>"Stone" seems unaware of the difference between a "quote" (which he, in
>the title of this thread, claims I change for my own nefarious ends) and a
>"paraphrase". Perhaps he should now revise the subject line, starting a
>new thread entitled "Beware of Brown Paraphrasing you in an Unapproved
>Manner!"
>
                            *sigh*

I am arguing with someone who wants to be an imbecile.

>  [I wrote:]
>
>> >"Stone's" allegation that I quoted anyone as having asked "Why are all
>> >Negroes backwards?" is, to put it bluntly, an outright lie. Please be
>> >careful of accepting "Stone's" statements at face value, as he may lie yet
>> >gain.
>> >
>> Crap, "Why are all Negroes backwards?" is a succinct form of your post.
>
>Ah. "Stone" now appears to consider a "succinct form" to be the same as a
>"quote". A desperate man, it appears, is willing to lacerate the language
>no end if it will prevent his argument from collapsing of its own
>unsubstantiated weight.
>
Explain to me why you added the word "all" to the question, Mr. Brown?

>"Stone" promised that he would "quote word for word what [I] said" in
>order to prove my sins. We are still waiting for him to fulfill that
>promise.
>
"Ignorance is bliss"

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Sep  9 09:26:13 PDT 1996
Article: 42518 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!decwrl!news.PBI.net!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Beware of Brown changing your Quotes!
Date: 8 Sep 1996 23:10:42 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 113
Message-ID: <510cd2$3s6@lex.zippo.com>
References: <50tv56$pa7@lex.zippo.com>  <50v6gf$jj3@lex.zippo.com>  <50vvvf$sjb@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.49.255.126

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <50vvvf$sjb@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> You see (or perhaps you don't see), Mr. Brown, I had a contention with this
>> from the beginning, hence:
>> 
>>   Since you're being pedantic Mr Brown, you should point out where I stated
>>   the word "ALL" in context of the question. 
>> 
>> Then your reply was thus:
>> 
>>   You didn't. You didn't specify what percentage of Negroes you and Griswold
>>   ^^^^^^^^^^
>>   were referring to. Is there any reason to assume that a racist _wouldn't_
>>   believe that all Negroes are "backwards"?
>> 
>> You even admitted at the time I did not include the word "all" in context
>> to the question "Why are niggers in Africa backwards?"  Therefore it 
>> remains to known, who, if it wasn't you, felt the word "all" should be
>> there.
>> 
>> You even tried to justify your action, "Is there any reason to assume that
>> a racist _wouldn't...".  The quotes right above if you are thinking I am
>> defrauding you.  It puts the idea that someone else came up with the idea
>> of including the word "all" in the remote box.  Who but you, decided to
>> include the word "all."
>
>No one but I. I used the word "all" in a question of my own devising. I
>did not use the word "all" in any quote of anyone saying anything. 
>
>"Stone" maintains that I changed a Quote! -- that I inserted the word
>"all" into the words written by someone else, and attributed by me to
>someone else. He has been challenged repeatedly to demonstrate where this
>was done, and has failed repeatedly to do so.
>
You were nonetheless putting words into my mouth.  Words I uttered not.  In
other words you misquoted the question for your own purposes.

>> If case you are completely ignorant of logic, "all" means in every case. Do
>> you wonder why I complained in the first place?
>> 
>> >> This for all intensive purposes these are the equivalent of 
>> >> 
>> >>      "Why are all Negroes backwards?"
>> >> 
>> >> Please demonstrate how the original question posed did not change (by
>> >> you) to "Why are all Negroes backwards?"  
>> >
>> >And I must decline, until "Stone" first demonstrates that I _quoted_
>> >anyone of his persuasion as having asked "Why are all Negroes backwards?".
>> >He _is_ accusing me of "changing... Quotes!", after all (see Subject:
>> >line). I think I deserve at least one verifiably changed Quote! to respond
>> >to.
>> >
>> Note: Mr. Brown is playing dumb again.
>> 
>> If there isn't a time you haven't misquoted me then this is the time.
>> Please demonstrate where I said you *asked* me "Why are all Negroes
>> backwards?", especially given the fact that you disbelieve Negroes are
>> of inferior stock.
>
>"Stone" demands: 
>
>  > Please demonstrate where I said you *asked* me "Why are all 
>  > Negroes backwards?"
>
>He did so thusly:
>
>  > This for all intensive purposes these are the equivalent of 
>  > 
>  >      "Why are all Negroes backwards?"
>  > 
>  > Please demonstrate how the original question posed did not change (by
>  > you) to "Why are all Negroes backwards?"  
>
To repeat:

Please demonstrate where I said you *asked* me "Why are all Negroes
backwards?"

If you are think that "(by you)" somehow implies that you were asking the
question of me (which would be ludicrous anyway) then you are mistaken.
"(by you)" refers to you changing the context of the question, I am
surprised you would resort to this type of tactic.

>> I'll admit "Why are all Negroes backwards" is a paraphrase of your argument.
>> What is your next move?
>> 
>> You incorrectly misquoted me by inserting the word "all".  Do you or did
>> you not add "all."?
>> 
>> Can we have a succinct answer from you for a change?
>
>Certainly.
>
>I used the word "all" in a question of my own devising. I did not use the
>word "all" in any quote of anyone saying anything. 
>
Considering that the base argument was over whether "Why are niggers
backwards?" was a valid question, you decided that I (and perhaps Les)
should defend "all Negroes" as being a valid question.  

>"Stone" maintains that I changed a Quote! -- that I inserted the word
>"all" into the words written by someone else, and attributed by me to
>someone else. He has been challenged repeatedly to demonstrate where this
>was done, and has failed repeatedly to do so.
>
Pedantics, nothing more, nothing less.

[snip]

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Sep  9 09:26:14 PDT 1996
Article: 42532 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!news.cstone.net!newshost.cyberramp.net!news.iadfw.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!decwrl!news.PBI.net!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Whites Created Everything
Date: 8 Sep 1996 21:45:50 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <5107du$27k@lex.zippo.com>
References:  <506b5j$mab@gyda.ifi.uio.no>  <509cmr$q7i@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <01bb9851.bcdb9260$8da11dcb@peasant> <322AE488.1D75@unb.ca> <50ft6l$gmg@lex.zippo.com> <50gmnf$hn3@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <50i6f3$not@lex.zippo.com> <50k4s4$1ug@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <50krg3$614@lex.zippo.com> <50l399$8sg@lex.zippo.com> <50pmkd$6ej@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <50qql1$a0l@lex.zippo.com> <50vaj0$ihb@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port885-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <50vaj0$ihb@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <50pmkd$6ej@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...

[snip]

>>Either put up or shut up.
>
>Well my my my.  Aren't we grumpy today.
>Speaking of putting up or shutting up, have you responded to my questions
>about Tocharian and Indo-European yet, "Mr. Stone".  My newsfeed is flaky
>this week, and I wouldn't want to miss your answers to my questions.
>
I have partially answered it.  I gave a quote on Tocharian from a 
dictionary in my collection and I told you that C-S' book "History and
Geography of Human Genes" contains a lot more information on the subject
(in Europe, in the linguistic section).

As for you newserver, I know what that is like, except that, unlike you, I
tended to try and stop arguing until the newserver appeared to come right.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Sep  9 13:18:46 PDT 1996
Article: 63848 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 12 million into camps, Mr. "Stone?"
Date: 9 Sep 1996 02:22:33 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <510nkp$9iv@lex.zippo.com>
References: <4v9ejf$18j@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <50le5n$d5k@lex.zippo.com> <50ppn4$a8h@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <50r18l$c78@lex.zippo.com> <50sm11$neh@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <50svcf$em4@lex.zippo.com> <50uu2s$b0k@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <50vu8i$s1d@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port905-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:42564 alt.revisionism:63848

In article , atticus@mindspring.com says...
>
>In article <50vu8i$s1d@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros. wrote:
>
>  :In article <50uu2s$b0k@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>  :>Ever heard of the Einsatzengruppen (hope I spelled that right), "Mr. Stone"?
>  :
>  :Yes it is spelled correctly.
>  :
>  :To quote the Encyclopedia Britannica:
>  :
>  :  Gestapo members were included in the Einsatzgruppen (Task Forces), which
>  :  were mobile death squads that followed the German regular army into
>  :  Poland and Russia for the purpose of killing Jews and other 
>  :  "undesirables" there.  Section (Amt) IV.b of the Gestapo, under Adolf
>  :  Eichmann, organized the deportation of Jews from other occupied countries
>  :  to the extermination camps in Poland.
>  :
>  :I do not believe that helps you, but there you go.
>
>Recap:
>
>You implied that the "conventional wisdom" was that 12 million people died
>in camps.
>
>Challenged on that assertion, you fell back to "if they didn't die in
>camps, where did they die?"
>
>That question was answered. You then proceded to answer it yourself, which
>seems to render the original question a bit disingenuous. 
>
Sorry if I am wrong, but [liberals please note] isn't there something after
Adolf Eichmann that goes against what you just said?

Where was it answered, Daniel Mittleman (sp?) has been the most rational
of the antagonists to date, who says 6 million died in camps, 6 million
outside.  Proof would be nice, other than the "gas-wagons" that Rich Graves
was muttering about.  The Einsatzgruppen which Rich Graves cites from
Nizkor (which I have only skimmed) mention something about 137,000 
"victims" which is insignificant compared to 12 million, oh sorry, "around"
in both cases.

The gas-wagons seem (from Nizkor) to be a joke -- slow and inefficient. I 
would also love to know the labour force needed to pack those bodies in
the first place (apparently 150 could fit into 5.8mx2.5m (theoritically 
feasible, practically I doubt) and then to remove the corpses.  Not to
mention the disposal of the bodies...were they cremated too?

>So, is this discussion over now?
>
I somehow doubt it.  Mr. Brown will continue to argue over pedantic points
and I am sure some "historians" from alt.revisionism will join his
bandwagon.  

If Mr. Mittleman is correct in his statement about 6 million outside the
camps, were the majority of those 6 million still mobilized somewhere --
like to a mobile gas chamber (sic)?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Sep  9 13:23:10 PDT 1996
Article: 63848 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 12 million into camps, Mr. "Stone?"
Date: 9 Sep 1996 02:22:33 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <510nkp$9iv@lex.zippo.com>
References: <4v9ejf$18j@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <50le5n$d5k@lex.zippo.com> <50ppn4$a8h@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <50r18l$c78@lex.zippo.com> <50sm11$neh@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <50svcf$em4@lex.zippo.com> <50uu2s$b0k@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <50vu8i$s1d@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port905-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:42564 alt.revisionism:63848

In article , atticus@mindspring.com says...
>
>In article <50vu8i$s1d@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros. wrote:
>
>  :In article <50uu2s$b0k@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>  :>Ever heard of the Einsatzengruppen (hope I spelled that right), "Mr. Stone"?
>  :
>  :Yes it is spelled correctly.
>  :
>  :To quote the Encyclopedia Britannica:
>  :
>  :  Gestapo members were included in the Einsatzgruppen (Task Forces), which
>  :  were mobile death squads that followed the German regular army into
>  :  Poland and Russia for the purpose of killing Jews and other 
>  :  "undesirables" there.  Section (Amt) IV.b of the Gestapo, under Adolf
>  :  Eichmann, organized the deportation of Jews from other occupied countries
>  :  to the extermination camps in Poland.
>  :
>  :I do not believe that helps you, but there you go.
>
>Recap:
>
>You implied that the "conventional wisdom" was that 12 million people died
>in camps.
>
>Challenged on that assertion, you fell back to "if they didn't die in
>camps, where did they die?"
>
>That question was answered. You then proceded to answer it yourself, which
>seems to render the original question a bit disingenuous. 
>
Sorry if I am wrong, but [liberals please note] isn't there something after
Adolf Eichmann that goes against what you just said?

Where was it answered, Daniel Mittleman (sp?) has been the most rational
of the antagonists to date, who says 6 million died in camps, 6 million
outside.  Proof would be nice, other than the "gas-wagons" that Rich Graves
was muttering about.  The Einsatzgruppen which Rich Graves cites from
Nizkor (which I have only skimmed) mention something about 137,000 
"victims" which is insignificant compared to 12 million, oh sorry, "around"
in both cases.

The gas-wagons seem (from Nizkor) to be a joke -- slow and inefficient. I 
would also love to know the labour force needed to pack those bodies in
the first place (apparently 150 could fit into 5.8mx2.5m (theoritically 
feasible, practically I doubt) and then to remove the corpses.  Not to
mention the disposal of the bodies...were they cremated too?

>So, is this discussion over now?
>
I somehow doubt it.  Mr. Brown will continue to argue over pedantic points
and I am sure some "historians" from alt.revisionism will join his
bandwagon.  

If Mr. Mittleman is correct in his statement about 6 million outside the
camps, were the majority of those 6 million still mobilized somewhere --
like to a mobile gas chamber (sic)?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Sep  9 16:22:35 PDT 1996
Article: 42588 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!decwrl!news.PBI.net!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: "Aryan" Mummies, again (was Re: Whites Created Everything
Date: 8 Sep 1996 17:05:56 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 142
Message-ID: <50vn14$pc3@lex.zippo.com>
References:  <506b5j$mab@gyda.ifi.uio.no>  <509cmr$q7i@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <01bb9851.bcdb9260$8da11dcb@peasant> <322AE488.1D75@unb.ca> <50ft6l$gmg@lex.zippo.com> <50gmnf$hn3@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <50i6f3$not@lex.zippo.com> <50k4s4$1ug@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <50krg3$614@lex.zippo.com> <50l399$8sg@lex.zippo.com> <50u955$fhs@gyda.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port855-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <50u955$fhs@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <50l399$8sg@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> Mr Lund, I have discovered something on:
>> 
>> http://www.astc.org/inquirer/mummy.html
>
>I see I've finally nagged you into providing some data. Your debating
>techniques have improved. Somewhat.
>
Well considering that you were incompetent in being able to find anything
on the Web...

>I'm looking at this site right now. When I first scanned the thing, I wondered
>if maybe you had been right after all. But...
>Why are there no good, clear photos of these caucasian mummies. There's only
>one photo there, and from that angle, it's impossible to tell which ethnic
>group it belongs to.

And you are an expert to make such a judgement?

Did you have a read of the text?  Which BTW, blue-eyed face that was 
something Dave Harman was talking about and ou believed couldn't have
occurred:

  In one grave, excavators discovered a saddle cover and a pair of 
  trousers"with human on one leg -- one face had blue eyes,"  Kamberi 
  said."On the other leg was a horse's body, with a human hat. It's 
  some mystery we can find in the Greek mysteries -- a Greek tale.

>As for the location; Xinjiang is the most remote, northwest province of China.
>Hardly a central part, neither geographically nor culterally. It borders on
>Afkhanistan and Khazakstan, among other places, and accordiing to 
>soc.culture.china, there are, in fact, blond people living there. But that
>would hardly be very surprizing, considering the location.
>
You wanted a reference to Aryan mummies in China, I gave you one.  An
apology to Dave Harman for mocking him would seem appropriate.

>The article you pointed out my well be 100% accurate. But that wouldn't make
>any difference, as Xinjiang isn't exactly in central China. I have no problem
>accepting the presence of blond people that far west.

Ah, you are trying to back out of the hole you dug.

Please consider what may be behind this quote:

  In an article Mair wrote for Archaeology magazine last year, he, himself, 
  says: "The new finds are also forcing a reexamination of old Chinese 
  books that describe historical or legendary figures of great height, with 
  deep-set blue or green eyes, long noses, full beards, and red or blond 
  hair. Scholars have traditionally scoffed at these accounts, but it now 
  seems that they may be accurate."

Perhaps Aryans were all over the show in China.

>Also, as soc.culture.china pointed out, the mummies were found near the silk
>road. As such, they do not prove that the Chinese culture was founded by
>"white" people, but rather that there was commerce between the peoples of 
>Europe, Africa, and Asia:
>
>	"The notion that this is evidence of a White civilization
>	is shaky. I would say that it is more likely evidence of inter-
>	ethnic cooperation and commerce."
>
According to the article they had culture there for 1500 years, possibly
lasting to the 2nd century (AD or BC not given).  

But according to the Encyclopedia Brittanica (vol.16, p.68):

  A Chalcolithic Age stretching back to the mid-5th millennium may be
  dimly perceived.  A growing number of 3rd millennium sites, primarily
  in the North-west but also in Honan and Shantung, have yielded
  primitive knives, awls, amd drills made of copper and bronze.  
  Stylistic evidence, such as the sharp angles, flat bottoms, and strap
  handles of certain Ch'i-chia clay pots (in Kansu; c. 2250-1900 BC),
  has led some scholars to posit an early sheet- or wrought-metal
  tradition possibly introduced from the west by migrating Indo-European
  peoples, but no wrought-metal objects have been found.

Perhaps there is more to China's history than your prejudices will allow?

>Here's another way a caucasian could end up in China: The vikings took slaves
>from all over Europe. Some they took home to Scandinavia, others they sold to
>arabs in what is now known as Israel and Turkey. These arabs travelled the
>silk road. Some of these Europeans could thus easily have ended up as
>concubines for a Chinese emporor who wanted a bit of something exotic. That
>trend still holds; wealthy chinese men often have caucasian mistresses
>(primarily from Russia). This trend is most noticable in Beijing.
>
Possible, but unlikely to yield mummification now is it?

>Also from soc.culture.china:
>
>	"I can't see how few mummies can prove a civilization. If that guy is
>	an idiot, tell him that those mummies were slaves."
>
I can't see how mummies (embalming and so forth) could be anything other
than a symbol that civilisation was once there.  

Civilisation imples having an efficient means of production, thereby 
allowing the labour force to do something other than collect food, like
embalming the dead.  Do remember that these Aryans obviously put some time
and effort into mummification, as the mummies have lasted to our era quite
comfortably.

>> While you have admitted to be too lazy to pick up a book maybe we will hear 
>> an excuse about typing now?  (You can always cut & paste if typing is too
>> much strain).
>
>Childish.
>
It would seem to be true however.  You played dumb with Dave Harman didn't
you?  You could have thought about logical names for commencing a search.

>> It is strange that I was able to discover something yet you weren't.  BTW,
>> that was first go, so there is probably more sites out there (go have a 
>> look).
>
>There is a lot of stuff on www. The problem is sorting out the crap from the
>rest. I wouldn't be surprized if you were able to discover some crap I
>couldn't find.
>
You could of used keywords "mummies" and "Caucasian", but obviously logic
escapes you.

I mean, how difficult would it of been to guess those words?

>If you're going to make more uninformed comments about Chinese history, may I
>suggest you crosspost this discussion to soc.culture.china? There are some
>people there who may find some entertainment in your opinion of reality...
>
You accuse me of being childish?

This is from the man who couldn't believe caucasian mummies were in China.
That is being uninformed over Chinese history is it not?  Or how about the
language Tocharian?  While I admire you acknowledging you knew almost 
nothing about the topic and therefore wouldn't debate it, it still 
demonstrates that you are once again, uninformed.

Ourobouros


From Ourobouros Mon Sep  9 19:42:11 PDT 1996
Article: 42609 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!hunter.premier.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Beware of Brown changing your Quotes!
Date: 8 Sep 1996 01:12:22 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <50tv56$pa7@lex.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port907-auck.ihug.co.nz

To those that have been following the extremely boring argument between
Mr. Brown and myself over whether Brown misquotes or adds words to your
quotes here is the article-ID that Brown believes doesn't exist:



In which he decided to change the question "Why are niggers in Africa 
backwards?" to requesting (Les and especially myself) us to defend
the previously unknown question "Why are all Negroes backwards?"

Jeffrey G. Brown, the file is found, I thank you for directing to me to
dejanews in the first place.

Thus Brown's assertion that I am a liar is false, would that the old laws
concerning perjury were still in place, in which Brown would be labelled 
the liar.

Anyway, please be careful of what, Mr. Brown, quotes as he may try, this
trick he says he doesn't do, again.
  
Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Tue Sep 10 07:19:06 PDT 1996
Article: 64064 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!decwrl!news.PBI.net!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 12 million into camps, Mr. "Stone?"
Date: 8 Sep 1996 17:34:13 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <50vom5$q3n@lex.zippo.com>
References: <4v9ejf$18j@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <50tfjd$klc@lex.zippo.com>  <50to9h$n8e@lex.zippo.com> <50v2p2$755@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port855-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:42670 alt.revisionism:64064

 
I shall retract my statements on these conditions:

1.  When exactly the concentration camps were built.

2.  Where the vast bulk of nearly 12 million "victims" died.

Only then will I reconsider that I was in error.  

Nothing more, nothing less.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Sep 10 07:19:07 PDT 1996
Article: 64067 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!decwrl!news.PBI.net!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 12 million into camps, Mr. "Stone?"
Date: 8 Sep 1996 18:55:52 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <50vtf8$ro8@lex.zippo.com>
References: <4v9ejf$18j@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <50le5n$d5k@lex.zippo.com> <50ppn4$a8h@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <50r18l$c78@lex.zippo.com> <50sm11$neh@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <50svcf$em4@lex.zippo.com>  <50tfjd$klc@lex.zippo.com>  <50to9h$n8e@lex.zippo.com>  <50v5p7$jba@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port938-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:42671 alt.revisionism:64067

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <50v5p7$jba@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
[snip]

I have said all I am going to say about this topic in another reply.  That
is all, and I will not be moved to enter anymore into this farce you call 
an argument.  End story.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Sep 10 12:44:21 PDT 1996
Article: 64157 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!psgrain!iafrica.com!pipex-sa.net!plug.news.pipex.net!pipex!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 12 million into camps, Mr. "Stone?"
Date: 10 Sep 1996 00:07:18 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <513436$lab@lex.zippo.com>
References: <4v9ejf$18j@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <50v2p2$755@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <50vom5$q3n@lex.zippo.com>  <511e11$k9d@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port897-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:42716 alt.revisionism:64157

In article <511e11$k9d@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>, kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca says...
>
>In article , 
>jeff_brown@pol.com (Jeffrey G. Brown) wrote:
>
>[Mr. "Stone," proven a liar, backed down]
>
>>We have a saying in America concerning folks with "Stone's" viewpoint. We
>>point out that said viewpoint is the equivalent of claiming 'I may not
>>always be right, but I'm never wrong.'
>
>On alt.revisionism, we call it the "Because! I! Say! So!" defense.
>
These childish responses of yours and Brown deserve a child's rhyme for an
answer:

"Stick and stone may break my bones, but words will never hurt me!"

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Tue Sep 10 13:05:11 PDT 1996
Article: 42717 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!psgrain!iafrica.com!pipex-sa.net!plug.news.pipex.net!pipex!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Beware of Brown changing your Quotes!
Date: 10 Sep 1996 00:14:31 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 136
Message-ID: <5134gn$lfe@lex.zippo.com>
References: <50tv56$pa7@lex.zippo.com>  <50v6gf$jj3@lex.zippo.com>  <50vvvf$sjb@lex.zippo.com>  <510cd2$3s6@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port897-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <510cd2$3s6@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>
>> >"Stone" maintains that I changed a Quote! -- that I inserted the word
>> >"all" into the words written by someone else, and attributed by me to
>> >someone else. He has been challenged repeatedly to demonstrate where this
>> >was done, and has failed repeatedly to do so.
>> >
>> You were nonetheless putting words into my mouth.  Words I uttered not.  In
>> other words you misquoted the question for your own purposes.
>
>"Stone" has failed to demonstrate that I have inserted the word "all" into
>the words written by someone else, and attributed by me to someone else.
>Since the "words [he] uttered not" were attributed to him not, "Stone" is
>in error when he says that he was misquoted.
>
Crap, you are being a pedantic idiot.

>> >> >> This for all intensive purposes these are the equivalent of 
>> >> >> 
>> >> >>      "Why are all Negroes backwards?"
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Please demonstrate how the original question posed did not change (by
>> >> >> you) to "Why are all Negroes backwards?"  
>> >> >
>> >> >And I must decline, until "Stone" first demonstrates that I _quoted_
>> >> >anyone of his persuasion as having asked "Why are all Negroes backwards?".
>> >> >He _is_ accusing me of "changing... Quotes!", after all (see Subject:
>> >> >line). I think I deserve at least one verifiably changed Quote! to respond
>> >> >to.
>> >> >
>> >> Note: Mr. Brown is playing dumb again.
>> >> 
>> >> If there isn't a time you haven't misquoted me then this is the time.
>> >> Please demonstrate where I said you *asked* me "Why are all Negroes
>> >> backwards?", especially given the fact that you disbelieve Negroes are
>> >> of inferior stock.
>> >
>> >"Stone" demands: 
>> >
>> >  > Please demonstrate where I said you *asked* me "Why are all 
>> >  > Negroes backwards?"
>> >
>> >He did so thusly:
>> >
>> >  > This for all intensive purposes these are the equivalent of 
>> >  > 
>> >  >      "Why are all Negroes backwards?"
>> >  > 
>> >  > Please demonstrate how the original question posed did not change (by
>> >  > you) to "Why are all Negroes backwards?"  
>> >
>> To repeat:
>> 
>> Please demonstrate where I said you *asked* me "Why are all Negroes
>> backwards?"
>> 
>> If you are think that "(by you)" somehow implies that you were asking the
>> question of me (which would be ludicrous anyway) then you are mistaken.
>> "(by you)" refers to you changing the context of the question, I am
>> surprised you would resort to this type of tactic.
>
>Ah. "Stone" is correct; he did not assert that I *asked* him "Why are all
>Negroes backwards?". 
>
>I see my error. My error was in allowing "Stone" to alter, subtly, the
>nature of the discussion. "Stone" is much practiced at this. 
>
>Let us review the events:
>
>I wrote:
>
>  >> And I must decline, until "Stone" first demonstrates that I _quoted_
>  >> anyone of his persuasion as having asked "Why are all Negroes backwards?".
>  >> He _is_ accusing me of "changing... Quotes!", after all (see Subject:
>  >> line). I think I deserve at least one verifiably changed Quote! to respond
>  >> to.
>
>...to which "Stone" replies:
>
>  > Please demonstrate where I said you *asked* me "Why are all Negroes
>  > backwards?", especially given the fact that you disbelieve Negroes are
>  > of inferior stock.
>
>Now note well, "Stone" is asking me to defend an assertion I did _not_
>make. I had said that he should demonstrate that 'I _quoted_ anyone of his
>persuasion' -- that is to say, "Stone", Griswold, et.al. --  'as having
>asked "Why are all Negroes backwards?"'. He then retorts by demanding I
>show where he said _I_ asked _him_ that question -- not my original
>assertion at all.
>
>I hang my head in shame at having been caught by such an obvious
>deception. What response "Stone" makes to having his deception thus
>exposed is, of course, his choice.
>
>And we return to Ground Zero. I again challenge "Stone" to provide at
>least one verifiably changed Quote! for me to respond to.
>
You dug your own pit, Mr. Brown, I merely pushed you into it.  Please 
don't attribute "deception" on behalf when you are the one being both
pedantic and incompetant.

>> Considering that the base argument was over whether "Why are niggers
>> backwards?" was a valid question, you decided that I (and perhaps Les)
>> should defend "all Negroes" as being a valid question.  
>
>"Stone" can, perhaps, explain how his speculation that '[I] decided that
>[he] (and perhaps Les) should defend "all Negroes" as being a valid
>question' is any proof of a misquote, given that he has yet to demonstrate
>that I have changed a Quote! -- that I inserted a word or words into,
>deleted, or changed the words written by someone else, and attributed the
>resulting passage to someone else.
>
Pedantics again.

>> >"Stone" maintains that I changed a Quote! -- that I inserted the word
>> >"all" into the words written by someone else, and attributed by me to
>> >someone else. He has been challenged repeatedly to demonstrate where this
>> >was done, and has failed repeatedly to do so.
>> >
>> Pedantics, nothing more, nothing less.
>
>Despite his dismissive air, the fact remains that "Stone" has failed to
>demonstrate that I changed a quote.
>
More pedantics.  

You have yet to provide even a basic counter-argument.  All you have 
decided to do was argue the definition of 'quote.'

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Sep 10 19:11:35 PDT 1996
Article: 42759 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!imci5!imci4!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Ken the Mc-a-voidly lie'n: Bully, Blowhard, Coward
Date: 10 Sep 1996 00:25:17 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 120
Message-ID: <51354t$lsh@lex.zippo.com>
References: <4v9ejf$18j@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <32248DB5.562@gryn.org> <5042vo$ff2@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>  <507g0u$46i@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <01bb96f2.92889fe0$81a11dcb@peasant> <50at7u$sde@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <50iha0$s2g@lex.zippo.com> <50k21h$9bh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <50l5p2$9u3@lex.zippo.com> <50pokl$a8h@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <50r2rr$cp2@lex.zippo.com> <51180s$5hv@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port897-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <51180s$5hv@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:

>>Is it true (that professorships are handed like candy)?
>
>>I fail to see someone of your calibre getting near even a Ph.D,
>>then again with subjects like "Women studies", "Maori Studies",
>>"Socialogy" and the like anything is possible.  Do you know if
>>California has varsity subjects in frizbee throwing?  I heard a
>>rumour of it a couple of years ago, and it seems an apt time to
>>ask.
>
>I won't rise to the flame bait, except to say, since you seem
>to be quite unfamiliar with the geography of North America,
>that California is not only 5 or 6 thousand kilometres from
>where I am, but it is also located in a different country.
>
Considering that you are a professor (sic), you are more likely
to know whether or not California has frizbee throwing papers.

Comprehende?

>>>A nice demonstration of your antisemitism, "Mr. Stone".
>
>>Where?
>
>Let me explain it for you.  You think it is a form of insult
>to me to spell my name in such a way to imply that I am Jewish.
>I infer from this that you think that being called a Jew is 
>tantamount to being insulted.  From this, I surmise that,
>in your opinion, "Jewishness" is a negative thing.  Thus, I
>conclude that you are an antisemite.  Or, since you don't
>"recognise" the term in its common usage for more than a
>century, you are a Jew-hater.  I know you try to run the old
>red herring on the etymology of the word "antisemitic" in the
>part I've snipped below.  The history of the term has been
>explained countless times in the months I've been on this ng,
>so I'm not going to take it up again.  If you want to write
>your own version of English, fine.  Just don't expect others
>to kowtow to your idiosyncratic uses of common terms.  
>
I thought you would have been proud to be identified with Jewry.
Have you got something against being identified as a Jew?
>
>>>To correct your errors so impressionistic folks won't be fooled
>>>by your lies and distortions.  I am merely exercising my right
>>>to free speech here, "Mr. Stone".  Your right to free speech
>>>does not entitle to you lie without being called on it.
>
>>Citations where I have lied Finsten.  Please don't confuse this
>>with your usual mis-interpretation of what I write.
>
>When I have time, I'll look up the series of exchanges where you
>denied that you ever said that Cavalli-Sforza said that "whites"
>have something like 88 genes and "blacks" have only about half
>of that.  The original error may not have been purposeful
>misrepresentation of Cavalli-Sforza's words, but rather likely
>were the result of your lack of understanding of genetics.
>But your denial that you ever said this, which I documented
>using your own posts retrieved from Dejanews, was clearly a
>lie.
>
I believe context may sort this out, and no, your "proofs"
shown in the past I have refuted.

>>No Finsten, your presence here would indicate the opposite of
>>your advocacy and that is to hamper my freedom of speech.  Why else
>>would you bore readers with your interpretation of anthropology?
>
>I "bore" readers with some real anthropology because you attempt
>to mislead readers with outdated, misinterpreted and/or distorted
>"anthropology".
>
Rubbish.
>
>>>More ad hominem attack.  Doesn't take you long to seek this
>>>last refuge, does it, "Mr. Stone".
>
>>I prefer to call it goading or reverse pyschology.  Unfortunately
>>for you, I happen to like using it.
>
>I think that it is more unfortunate for you than it is for me,
>because when you resort to such sleazy and weak tactics, it is
>apparent to any intelligent reader that you have run out of
>substantive commentary.  Instead of attacking the arguments or
>the data, you attack me.  Whoopee.  Makes you look bad.
>
'Sleazy and weak tactics', oh hum.

I use 'ad hominem' attacks to find out more information in case
such comprehension is beyond you.
>
>>I saw the phrase even before you did.  Do you remember me continuely
>>asking about what right anthropologists have in calling the Portuguese
>>Caucasian?
>
>>Webster dictionary:
>>1. A member of the white-skinned division of the human race: so called
>>from a skull found in the Caucasus, which was taken as establishing the
>>type.
>
>>Sure the Portuguese once could be classified as Caucasiod, but not 
>>anymore.
>
>Gasp, Webster's dictionary is the last word on human biology!!
>Who woulda thunk it!  Throw away all those silly books and articles
>on skeletal morphology, genetics, physiology and all those
>"superfluous" stuff and just buy yourself a copy of Webster's
>dictionary!!
>
>Since you think it is such an authority, "Mr. Stone", what does
>Webster's say about the definition of "antisemitic" (or its various
>spellings)?
>
Before I even bother to answer such a question, please answer me
this:  Is it or is it not true that the Caucasian race is supposed
to be the White or pale-skinned race?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Sep 10 19:11:36 PDT 1996
Article: 42760 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Finsten: Proponent for Freedom of Speech
Date: 10 Sep 1996 01:22:48 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 277
Message-ID: <5138go$n26@lex.zippo.com>
References: <50nn6u$kvo@lex.zippo.com> <50sj22$42r@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <50tkjk$m1i@lex.zippo.com> <50vsia$up@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port897-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <50vsia$up@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <50sj22$42r@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>>>Ourobouros wrote:

[snip]

>>>>1. Instead of following Political stupi...I mean correctness,
>>>>a student consistently uses the male pronoun instead of "she or 
>>>>he,"* 
>
>>>Well, "Mr. Stone", I know you are going to whine that I'm dodging,
>>>but this really does depend on the context.  As a more appropriate
>>>parallel example, though, I strongly encourage students to use
>>>the word "human" to refer to people in general, rather than the
>>>more limited one "man".  I don't mark people down for such things,
>>>though, but I do correct them on papers.  On the pronoun thing,
>>>it hasn't really come up.
>
>>Ah, if someone uses "he" in his papers you put in read "he or she"?
>
>No, if someone used "man" for a generic noun to refer to "humans", I 
>would suggest that they use "human" or "humanity".  I don't fuss over
>pronouns.
>
>>I would have imagined similes to have occured, like "mankind", 
>>"workmanship" and "man-made."  Yes or no?
>
>I suggest to students that "humankind" is better than "mankind",
>and that "cultural" is preferable to "man-made".  These are common,
>perfectly acceptable English words that have not had to be distorted
>or modified to convey a broader meaning.  Since I cannot think of
>such a substitute for "workmanship", I would not suggest an alternative.
>
Before I do a Mr. "Brown" tactic, are the words "better" and "preferable"
what you mean?  As they imply that you would prefer to see them in an
essay and mark accordingly.

>>>>insists on addressing women formally, ie., never "Ms," or
>>>>"waitress" as opposed to "waiter,"*
>
>>>Um, since I don't go to bars and restaurants with my students,
>>>what they call the people serving them is both unknown to me
>>>and none of my business.  By the way, "Ms." is as much a formal
>>>address for women as are "Miss" and "Mrs.".  The advantage of
>>>Ms., of course, is that one doesn't need to make guesses about
>>>a person's marital status.  I address female students by "Ms."
>>>unless they ask me to do otherwise, and when students address
>>>me as "Mrs.", "Miss", or "Ms." I correct them and tell them my
>>>title (in the context of work, of course) is "Dr." or "Professor".
>
[irrelevance snipped]

>>More to the point the above examples (including the homosexual one)
>>were used against the University of Otago's Computer science department.  
>>You see, when I did my third year course there was only one girl in the 
>>3rd year course (and she was part-time), one girl in the fourth year 
>>course (the only female post-grad.) and in second year there was a 80 20
>>ratio between the sexes.  The University council was forcing the the
>>computer science department to use such language to encourage women into
>>their courses, they also insisted that it be 'dumbed down' as well. 
>
>Your realm of experience is very limited, then, isn't it, "Mr. Stone".
>Perhaps you should be cautious not to generalise too broadly based on
>it.
>
Well considering the report (for lecturers) was to encourage women into
the department your statement above is naive.

[homosexuality part snipped]

[snip]

>>>>Are you offended by such action and mark such exams
>>>>or essays accordingly?
>
>>>None of these things, to the extent to which the examples you
>>>give are relevant for me, professionally, have any bearing on
>>>the way in which I evaluate students' performance on exams or
>>>papers.  As I said before, I have no idea how they address the
>>>service personnel in bars or restaurants, I am more concerned
>>>that pronouns be used in a grammatically correct manner than
>>>a "politically correct" one, and whether they call me "Mrs.",
>>>"Ms.", "Miss", "Dr." or "Professor" concerns me anymore than
>>>does whether they spell my surname correctly.
>
>>Curious, one of ex-girlfriend's mother (admittedly a feminist) always
>>marked down any paper that used the male pronoun and its relatives.
>>She was a lecturer in the Education department at Otago.  When I wrote
>>my research paper (3rd yr.) I was also told to use "he or she" or I
>>would lose marks (please remember this was a department heavily 
>>dominated by men, and was being marked within the department).  
>
>So are you disappointed that academia is not the same everywhere?
>
Don't be so naive.  While a University theoritically sets its own
standards to its academic requirements they all tend to follow each
other.  The deviance in most cases of difference is trivial.  All
the Western Universities all preach equality of races and sexes as
just one example.

[snip]

>>>>3. How about a devout Christian in your lecture who insists on
>>>>disproving the theory of evolution in every essay and exam and
>>>>quotes Christian biologists and anthropologists as his 
>>>>legitimate sources.  Do you fail him? Please don't be stupid 
>>>>and say "it depends on the question", by this I mean ANSWERING
>>>>the question along the Christian dogma, ie., Adam and Eve, the
>>>>deluge and Noah's sons being the source of the three base races,
>>>>and the tower of Babel being the source of language diffusion or
>>>>whatever fundamentals or orthodoxy believe these days.
>
>>>Now this is something that I have actually had to deal with.
>>>My response to the occasional Christian fundamentalist who has
>>>answered an essay question about fossil evidence for hominid
>>>evolution with something like "I don't believe in evolution" 
>>>has always been this:  I do not ask anyone to *believe* in
>>>evolution.  But if they chose to take a course that introduces
>>>the subject of human evolution from an anthropological 
>>>perspective, than I expect them to be able to tell me what
>>>the fossil evidence is, what the different evolutionary
>>>scenarios are, what evolutionary theory is all about.  I
>>>don't care what they chose to *believe*, but my expectation
>>>is that they demonstrate that they *understand* what the
>>>arguments and evidence are.  If they want to discuss the
>>>book of Genesis, then they should take a course in the 
>>>divinity school or the department of religious studies.
>
>>Obviously you have not been exposed to the full argument before.  There
>>is some Christian fundamentalist with too many letters after his name
>>(his surname I believe starts with "W"  -- Wilbur, Wilson?) who goes around 
>>the world "disproving" the theory of evolution and has written x books.  
>>What if your Christian fundamentalist starts quoting those books?
>
>I have read a number of books on the subject of "Creation Science".
>Well, if a student can only explain the fossil evidence by saying
>that G-d put it there to test our faith, I would say that they have 
>not demonstrated to me that they understand the physical evidence
>that does exist and how, within an anthropological framework, it
>fits within one or more scenarios of hominid evolution.    
>
Oh, if you weren't aware, you'll find most (religious) Jews use "G-d."
I haven't heard of a fundamentalist saying that God put them there
"to test our faith" before.  I have heard them say that dating according
to the various radioactive substances (like uranium) start off on the
wrong premise, and therefore can't be trusted.

But my point is not argue whether fundamentalists are right or wrong,
but merely, if they have done the work, shouldn't they be credited for
it?  I know the usual reaction is just to scoff.

For a hypothetical example, say a Christian fundamentalist actually 
comes up with a (concrete) method that disproves all the ages of the 
fossil evidence.  However, as usual, the top-notch anthropologists
just scoff and so "no it doesn't, how trivial, come back tomorrow
with some real proof" yet you having actually read his notes, believe
him.  What is your reaction?  Do you: 

a. Throw your support behind him.
b. Remain silent for fear of your peers also laughing at you.
c. Join your peers as say it is wrong, when you know it isn't.
d. other, please state reason.

Please remember, this is a hypothetical example.

>>What you are basically stating is that no man can challenge anthropology
>>and be credible.  Hardly "freedom of speech" is it?  While technically he
>>can say whatever he likes the result is ostracism.
>
>No, that is not what I'm saying.  What you seem to be saying, "Mr. Stone"
>is that anything in print constitutes a credible source, and that
>universities have no right to define the scope of subject material
>to be covered in courses.  Creation Science is taught in many churches.
>Anthropology is not.  Those who wish to learn about Creation Science
>should go to those places which specialise in it and leave the 
>universities to teach things that are not dealt with in church.
>
Your interpretation is false.  What I am trying to do is gauge your limits.
IMO, that no matter what is brought forward, unless it agrees to dogma, is
rejected outright.  I was using the Christian fundamentalist argument
purely because I can be certain that there will be some in your lectures.
And they, most certainly don't agree with what you "preach" and behind your
back they will poke holes in your presentation of anthropology.  Most will
not dare do it in front of you because of fear of being failed for it.
 
>>>>If you cannot take at face value any of these scenerios please
>>>>stop pretending that you support freedom of speech.  If you
>>>>cannot accept non-establishment book citations in any academic
>
>>>"non-establishment book citations"???  By this do you mean that
>>>everything that is written deserves to be given equal consideration
>>>and due, for no other than the reason that it is written?  Forgive
>>>me while I pick myself up of the floor, I'm laughing so hard.  
>>>The medium of print does not make something good scholarship or
>>>science, "Mr. Stone".  I rely on human biologists for my information
>>>about human variation, not on engineers like William Pierce.  I
>>>prefer accredited historians as sources of information about the
>>>Holocaust to dubious organisations like CODOH.  And for good
>>>reason.
>
>>If I remember an old argument you had with Les Griswold, you threw out
>>Charles Putnam's Race and Reason because Mr. Putnam said Boas was a Jew.
>
>Well, "Mr. Stone", you remember only part of this argument.  I discounted
>Carlton Putnam's "Race and Reason" because the only argument he presented
>to "demonstrate" that Boasian anthropology was erroneous was the fact 
>that Boas and some of his students were Jews.
>
I believe Les said there was more than pointing out Boas was a Jew.  It
would be hard to write a complete book that said what you just said.
Was it a geneological work (Race and Reason) proving Boas was a Jew
perhaps?

>>BTW, I have never read any of Charles Putnam's works, in case you were
>>wondering.  [please leave in, without it, people like Mr. Brown will
start making bogus assertions]
> 

>>>If you genuinely think that "freedom of speech" means that 
>>>everything uttered in oral speech or put into print must be
>>>treated as equally credible, then you are a bigger fool than
>>>even I thought. 
>
>>No I didn't state that.  What I am basically saying is:  There is an
>>established path, and none may dare to change it beyond certain bounds.
>
>Well "Mr. Stone", perhaps you don't realise that your path was the
>established one a century ago.  You're not "breaking new ground",
>you are retreading old and disproven ground.
>
I am using "old ground' because of its familiarity to both parties.  Is
that too difficult to understand?

>>If a book does, it is thrown onto pile to be burned.  You see, if I were
>>to quote David Irving in a history essay concerning W.W.II it would be
>>thrown out, or to quote a lecturer "large red lines would be put through
>>it."  While you may not physically burn books you basically achieve the
>>same results.
>
>Utter nonsense.  A source on "Creation Science" which rests on the premise
>of Christian religious faith in the book of Genesis is not a credible
>source in the context I am talking about.  All the creationist "arguments"
>that rely on anything else can easily be refuted.
>
Are you saying that a history lecturer would not put red lines through 
any quotation of David Irving or am I missing something here?

>>I imagine if someone used Charles Putnam's works in anthropology they 
>>would get a similar result (even if it met "established" dogma's 
>>standards).
>
>Perhaps you should read it before you pass judgement on it, "Mr. Stone".
>Then you could tell me what arguments, based on what evidence, you find
>compelling in Putnam's book.
>
I remember you throwing out the book because Charles Putnam said Boas was
a Jew.  Unless most of the book was about proving Boas and some of his
students were Jews your argument is flimsy.

>>Oh, some American (U.S) anthropologists have come across a New Zealander 
>>by the name of Joan Leaf (maybe you have heard of her).  Strangely enough
>>they will not accept any of her artifacts from her Museum, even though the
>>general public can come and gaze at these artifacts as much as they like
>>(they don't "exist" apparently). Is she wrong (she used to a principal of a 
>>secondary school)?  Or are these anthropologists, fearing for their jobs, 
>>trying to suppress her? This argument was presented in case you have heard 
>>of (or maybe one day hear of) Joan Leaf.
>
>I can't see an answerable question in this paragraph.
>
It was thrown in on the off chance you hear about it.  If I hear of a
Laura "Finsten" refuting on the basis "they don't exist", then I will
know 100% that your claim to freedom of speech is a farce.



From Ourobouros Wed Sep 11 07:13:51 PDT 1996
Article: 64316 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism
Subject: To my current opponents
Date: 10 Sep 1996 15:40:58 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <514qpq$mk6@lex.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port898-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:42801 alt.revisionism:64316

All the posts so far on 10 September 1996 (U.S date) are extremely poor.
Not one is worth replying too.  Either forget about engaging me in an
argument or re-submit a more thought-out post.

For example, one such pos(t)er had concluded that the post in which I was
using Daniel Mittleman's information concerning (roughly) six million in 
camps, six million out of camps was simply about Jews.  This is not so, 
nor has the term "Jew" being used in this thread before that pos(t)er. One 
need not mention the content that is supposed to pass for an argument by 
Mr. "Brown."

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Wed Sep 11 21:34:51 PDT 1996
Article: 64526 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!eloi.vir.com!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!new-news.sprintlink.net!howland.erols.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sgi.com!news-out.microserve.net!news-in.microserve.net!zdc-e!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 12 million into camps, Mr. "Stone?"
Date: 11 Sep 1996 12:13:16 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <51730c$17t@lex.zippo.com>
References: <4v9ejf$18j@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>  <510nkp$9iv@lex.zippo.com> <512ur7$krq@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port879-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:42912 alt.revisionism:64526

In article , dkeren@world.std.com says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
># The Einsatzgruppen which Rich Graves cites from
># Nizkor (which I have only skimmed) mention something
># about 137,000 "victims"
>
>No, dummkopf. You're talking about one single report,
>the "Jager Report", about the murders by Einsatzkommando
>3, during July-November 1941.
>
Perhaps, Mr. "McVay", may like to put some figures down.
Rich Graves was holding them as some sort of authority,
along with Gas Wagons.

>But then again, you're the guy who wrote that people
>can protect themselves against cyanide gas by holding
>their breath, right?
>
Only if you wish to believe your distorted half-truths.
Are you following Mr. "Brown"'s tactics?  You may care
to fathom why I included beetles in your half-truth or
are you an uncomprehending bigot?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Wed Sep 11 21:34:52 PDT 1996
Article: 64527 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!eloi.vir.com!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!news.sgi.com!news-out.microserve.net!news-in.microserve.net!zdc-e!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 12 million into camps, Mr. "Stone?"
Date: 11 Sep 1996 12:13:45 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <517319$18j@lex.zippo.com>
References: <4v9ejf$18j@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>  <510nkp$9iv@lex.zippo.com> <512ur7$krq@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port879-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:42913 alt.revisionism:64527

In article , dkeren@world.std.com says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
># The Einsatzgruppen which Rich Graves cites from
># Nizkor (which I have only skimmed) mention something
># about 137,000 "victims"
>
>No, dummkopf. You're talking about one single report,
>the "Jager Report", about the murders by Einsatzkommando
>3, during July-November 1941.
>
Perhaps, Mr. "McVay", may like to put some figures down.
Rich Graves was holding them as some sort of authority,
along with Gas Wagons.

>But then again, you're the guy who wrote that people
>can protect themselves against cyanide gas by holding
>their breath, right?
>
Only if you wish to believe your distorted half-truths.
Are you following Mr. "Brown"'s tactics?  You may care
to fathom why I included beetles in your half-truth or
are you an uncomprehending bigot?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Thu Sep 12 12:39:45 PDT 1996
Article: 64726 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sgi.com!news-out.microserve.net!news-in.microserve.net!zdc-e!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 12 million into camps, Mr. "Stone?"
Date: 11 Sep 1996 12:13:16 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <51730c$184@lex.zippo.com>
References: <4v9ejf$18j@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>  <510nkp$9iv@lex.zippo.com> <512ur7$krq@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port879-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:43002 alt.revisionism:64726

In article , dkeren@world.std.com says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
># The Einsatzgruppen which Rich Graves cites from
># Nizkor (which I have only skimmed) mention something
># about 137,000 "victims"
>
>No, dummkopf. You're talking about one single report,
>the "Jager Report", about the murders by Einsatzkommando
>3, during July-November 1941.
>
Perhaps, Mr. "McVay", may like to put some figures down.
Rich Graves was holding them as some sort of authority,
along with Gas Wagons.

>But then again, you're the guy who wrote that people
>can protect themselves against cyanide gas by holding
>their breath, right?
>
Only if you wish to believe your distorted half-truths.
Are you following Mr. "Brown"'s tactics?  You may care
to fathom why I included beetles in your half-truth or
are you an uncomprehending bigot?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros. Fri Sep 13 10:18:02 PDT 1996
Article: 43076 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!guitar.sound.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-chi-13.sprintlink.net!demos!news.stealth.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Another free-speech debate (was Ken Mcvay...)
Date: 12 Sep 1996 12:01:07 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <519mlj$eq9@lex.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port950-auck.ihug.co.nz

Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>Laura says...
>
[snip]

In answering your conclusion in the thread "To my current opponents"
need I remind you that I used to post a standard to which I would or
would not reply?

>
>>I thought you would have been proud to be identified with Jewry.
>>Have you got something against being identified as a Jew?
>
>Why should I feel any pride in being identified as something I am not?
>The only thing I have "against" being identified as a Jew is the
>fact that it is incorrect.
>Are you suggesting that you imply that I am Jewish in order to
>complement me?  I think not, "Mr. Stone".
>
I would have thought that being identified with Jewry to be an 
honour for you.  I tend to take effigies from liberals as compliments
to doing something right (getting under their skin).
>
>>>>Citations where I have lied Finsten.  Please don't confuse this
>>>>with your usual mis-interpretation of what I write.
>
>>>When I have time, I'll look up the series of exchanges where you
>>>denied that you ever said that Cavalli-Sforza said that "whites"
>>>have something like 88 genes and "blacks" have only about half
>>>of that.  The original error may not have been purposeful
>>>misrepresentation of Cavalli-Sforza's words, but rather likely
>>>were the result of your lack of understanding of genetics.
>>>But your denial that you ever said this, which I documented
>>>using your own posts retrieved from Dejanews, was clearly a
>>>lie.
>
>>I believe context may sort this out, and no, your "proofs"
>>shown in the past I have refuted.
>
>That is not my recollection.  You did not respond to my last "proofs",
>which were pretty darn definitive.  
>
Too bad then, I guess you are like "Mr. Brown" in your definitions.
>
[snip]

>>>Since you think it is such an authority, "Mr. Stone", what does
>>>Webster's say about the definition of "antisemitic" (or its various
>>>spellings)?
>
>What's the matter, "Mr. Stone"?  Not so confident in Webster's
>as the ultimate source anymore?
>
This is not worth answering at the present.

>>Before I even bother to answer such a question, please answer me
>>this:  Is it or is it not true that the Caucasian race is supposed
>>to be the White or pale-skinned race?
>
>Well, that is a good question, "Mr. Stone".  Carlton Coon, an
>anthropologist often cited by white power rangers, included in the
>group Caucasian peoples living in Europe, western Asia, North Africa,
>most of India, and the Ainu of Japan.  (Carlton Coon, 1962, "Origin
>of Races", New York, Knopf).  So what do you think?
>
Please note the word 'supposed' in my earlier comments.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Fri Sep 13 10:18:03 PDT 1996
Article: 43077 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!guitar.sound.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-chi-13.sprintlink.net!demos!news.stealth.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Finsten: Proponent for Freedom of Speech
Date: 12 Sep 1996 12:13:10 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 123
Message-ID: <519nc6$evv@lex.zippo.com>
References: <50nn6u$kvo@lex.zippo.com> <50sj22$42r@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <50tkjk$m1i@lex.zippo.com> <50vsia$up@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <5138go$n26@lex.zippo.com> <516dlj$4ai@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port950-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <516dlj$4ai@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <50vsia$up@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>>>I suggest to students that "humankind" is better than "mankind",
>>>and that "cultural" is preferable to "man-made".  These are common,
>>>perfectly acceptable English words that have not had to be distorted
>>>or modified to convey a broader meaning.  Since I cannot think of
>>>such a substitute for "workmanship", I would not suggest an alternative.
>
>>Before I do a Mr. "Brown" tactic, are the words "better" and "preferable"
>>what you mean?  As they imply that you would prefer to see them in an
>>essay and mark accordingly.
>
>I mean what I wrote.  Your perceived implication, however, is incorrect.
>I realise that you are trying to back me into a corner where you think
>you can legitimately accuse me of bias in my evaluations of students'
>work.  I also tell students who write their exams in mauve ink that it
>would be far better to use black or blue ink, those whose handwriting
>is nearly illegible that it would be better to take the time to print,
>and those whose handwriting is difficult to read if single-spaced that
>it would be preferable to double-space.  That doesn't mean that I deduct
>marks for using mauve ink (which is hard on the eyes, especially if one
>is marking a lot of exams), poor handwriting (unless it is so poor that
>I can't read it, but then the marks are lost because the content is
>a mystery), or single-spacing.
>
I disbelieve you on this point.  It is well known that a well presented
essay is worth more marks that a poorly presented one.  Advertising is
an art, and it can be used in essays.

>>>So are you disappointed that academia is not the same everywhere?
>
>>Don't be so naive.  While a University theoritically sets its own
>>standards to its academic requirements they all tend to follow each
>>other.  The deviance in most cases of difference is trivial.  All
>>the Western Universities all preach equality of races and sexes as
>>just one example.
>
>I am truly not sure what you mean by this last sentence.  If you mean
>that within each group students, faculty, staff should be according
>equal treatment (i.e., that no one should be discriminated against
>on the basis of their sex, religion, national origin etc.), then you
>are absolutely right.  All western nations have laws which require
>such treatment of their citizens, and universities are not likely
>to flaunt such reasonable laws, are they?
>
I am talking about political correctness.  Universities are the one
of the biggest influences in making PC acceptable.
>
>>>I have read a number of books on the subject of "Creation Science".
>>>Well, if a student can only explain the fossil evidence by saying
>>>that G-d put it there to test our faith, I would say that they have 
>>>not demonstrated to me that they understand the physical evidence
>>>that does exist and how, within an anthropological framework, it
>>>fits within one or more scenarios of hominid evolution.    
>
>>Oh, if you weren't aware, you'll find most (religious) Jews use "G-d."
>>I haven't heard of a fundamentalist saying that God put them there
>>"to test our faith" before.  I have heard them say that dating according
>>to the various radioactive substances (like uranium) start off on the
>>wrong premise, and therefore can't be trusted.
>
>>But my point is not argue whether fundamentalists are right or wrong,
>>but merely, if they have done the work, shouldn't they be credited for
>>it?  I know the usual reaction is just to scoff.
>
>No, "Mr. Stone".  Doing the work, as you put it, isn't enough if the end
>result of the work fails to demonstrate an understanding of the material
>that constitutes the scope of the course, essay question, or assignment.
>
No, "Miss Finsten".  You are saying that no matter what, unless they 
accept the dogma, then they have failed to accept the dogma and its
"truth."  

>>For a hypothetical example, say a Christian fundamentalist actually 
>>comes up with a (concrete) method that disproves all the ages of the 
>>fossil evidence.  However, as usual, the top-notch anthropologists
>>just scoff and so "no it doesn't, how trivial, come back tomorrow
>>with some real proof" yet you having actually read his notes, believe
>>him.  What is your reaction?  Do you: 
>
>>a. Throw your support behind him.
>>b. Remain silent for fear of your peers also laughing at you.
>>c. Join your peers as say it is wrong, when you know it isn't.
>>d. other, please state reason.
>
>>Please remember, this is a hypothetical example.
>
>Gee thanks for reminding me that this is a hypothetical example.  Otherwise
>how would I know?
>
Please review your comrades, this wasn't specifically for you, but your
uncomprehending comrades that desire to amuse us with their stupidity.

>My answer is a very simple one: "d. other".  The techniques used to determine
>the ages of fossil evidence all stem from the geophysical sciences, and I
>am not a geophysical scientist.  There are very few anthropologists who
>would have the specialised knowledge necessary to evaluate the challenge
>to geophysics implied in your hypothetical scenario.  I would leave the
>debate to the geophysicists and other scientists who know what they are
>talking about.
>
In other words, "Go to the apartment down the hall."  Typical inefficient
bureaucracy.

[Carlton Putnam's Race and Reason]

I will have to read it then, but I can almost guarantee that it is not
a geneology book proving Boas and some of his students were Jews which
you seem to imply.

>>It was thrown in on the off chance you hear about it.  If I hear of a
>>Laura "Finsten" refuting on the basis "they don't exist", then I will
>>know 100% that your claim to freedom of speech is a farce.
>
>I have no idea what you are blathering about.
>
Perhaps some day you will.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Sun Sep 15 09:27:31 PDT 1996
Article: 65719 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.structured.net!news.cais.net!op.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 14 Sep 1996 22:11:42 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 195
Message-ID: <51g36e$m87@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port924-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:43295 alt.politics.nationalism.white:29551 alt.revisionism:65719

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> NOTE!!!   NOTE!!!   NOTE!!!   NOTE!!!   NOTE!!!   NOTE!!!   NOTE!!!
>> 
>> For those that like to be continuously ignorant, like Mr. "Brown", this
>> post will no doubt be non-existent.  Please watch in future months how
>> people like, Mr. "Brown" will claim that I and my colleagues have never
>> defined the White race.  Please also watch how they will try and label 
>> this as an ad hominem attack to divert the topic, which they claim they
>> never do.
>> 
>> As more information comes to hand then this definition will be expanded
>> and become more precise.
>> 
>> 1.  There is four known skin genes, all of which have to correspond to
>> being white.  That being able to show blue-coloured veins through the skin,
>> and showing red under intense and immediate stress (like blushing).
>
>Which genes, specifically, determine skin color?
>
Check for the author Cavalli-Sforza, and no, it is not mentioned in the
book "History and Geography of Human Genes."

>> 2.  The skull shape is that of longhead of Mediterranean or Nordic stock.
>>     Appropriate facial angle, and within an acceptable cephalic index.  
>>     Also includes the jaw shape, structure and teeth.
>
>What is an 'appropriate facial angle'?
>
>What is 'an acceptable cephalic index'?
>
>What 'jaw shape' is part of the 'White' definition?
>
All details I have given before in the dim past.  

Facial Angle: around 82 degrees.

Cephalic Index:  check any pre-Boas and some modern anthropology texts.
Look for such terms as dolichocephalic or longhead.  These terms are still
used in modern (establishment) texts, e.g.,

   "A few skulls that have been studied belong, like those from Byblos to
Jericho, to a 'large-toothed variety of the long-headed Mediterranean 
race', which suggests a unity [a dirty word today] of population
throughout the Fertile Crescent in late Neolithic times."

G. Roux, Ancient Iraq, 3rd Ed., 1992, Middlesex, p. 50.

If you can, please take extra time to memorise this as you will otherwise
show more ignorance when an argument arises about who started civilisation.
The Fertile crescent is the region known as Mesopotamia and the Sumerians
were her first city builders.

Jaw shape:  Either consult a non-liberal (need not be racist) dentist or
perhaps you can persuade yourself to read, "Nature", vol. 228, by W.G. 
Kinsey, Department of Anthropology, University of California.

>> 3.  The pupil of the eye is visible.  Colours being blue, green, hazel and
>> brown variations.
>> 
>> 4.  Round eyes.
>
>How is 'roundness' of the eye defined?
>
Lack of fat-folds I believe is the correct term (a non-Mongolian eye if
you wish to contrast).

>> 5.  Fine hair.  Colours ranging in blonde, red and brunette variations.
>>     Type ranges from straight to kinky.  Also reasonably hirsute.
>
>How is 'fine hair' defined?
>
>How does one quantify 'blonde, red and brunette'?
>
>How is hair classified as being between 'straight' and 'kinky'?
>
>How is 'reasonably hirsute' defined?
>

                            *sigh*

Here we go again on a recent argument about categories.   

Please feel free to investigate any physical anthropology book that uses
the term "race."  These are (combined with long nose) stereotypes of 
Caucasoids.  Assuming Miss "Finsten" wants to play ball she should be able
to confirm this.
 
>> 6.  Long nose.
>
>'Long' compared to what? 'Long' on what sort of scale?
>
>> 7.  Thinnish lips.
>
>'Thinnish'? Where does 'thinnish' leave off and 'thickish' begin?
>
Both details needing to be worked out to full definitions.  Drastic
contrasts can be easily identified between say an Englishman and an
Australian Aborigine discounting skin colour.  Fat lips and flat noses
are stereotypical of Negros, Polynesians, Melanesians and Australian 
Aborigines.  Some half-breeds, such as Ethiopians, are classified as Negro 
but lack these features (as a general rule).

BTW, assuming your wilful ignorance continues unabashed, please consult
Miss "Finsten" about Ethiopians been half-breeds if you somehow wish to
become knowledgeable.

>> 8.  Highly developed frontal lobes and "wrinkling" of outer brain.
>
>How does one measure the 'development' of the frontal lobe? Which 'races'
>of man have a smooth outer brain?
>
The Negroid brain has quite a smooth outer brain and a retarded frontal
lobe (when compared to a White man).  It is quite easy to see the contrast.
BTW, I have in times past, quoted the Negro brain.  Miss "Finsten" should
hopefully remember the argument.  Her defence was something like [please
take extra time reading "like"] her University not having the particular
book I referenced.

>> 9.  Other possibilities including: long fingers, fingerprints, earwax,
>> and proportions of the body, e.g., centre of gravity. 
>
>'Other possibilites'? Apparently, "Stone's" definition of 'white' hasn't
>been completely worked out yet. How are we supposed to know whether
>someone is 'white' or not until it is determined how long their fingers
>have to be, what their fingerprints must look like, what color and
>viscosity of earwax they must have, and where their center of gravity has
>to be?
>
Please reconsider the title of the thread.  It does not say "Ourobouros'
precise definition of the White race" now does it?

A lot of these points have been only briefly touched before, of more
recent has been the White Chinese mummy saga.  Mr. Mair who is in charge
of the archeological digs of these mummies mentions his regret of a 
particular stone that had a fingerprint on it.  If they still had it they
could identify whether it was Caucasian or not.  Perhaps you delibrately
miss details like this?  -- a WWW site was given with the information.
NZ (Rugby) Sports commentators are fond of mentioning the superiority of
the Polynesian in Rugby due to their lower centre of gravity.  Les Griswold
has propounded (disliked and belittled) information on earwax before.
 
One may assume that there is more than skin colour in racial difference,
despite the typical liberal stance.

>> 10.  At some point in the future genetic distance maps visibly 
>> demonstrating the White gene pool, as has vaguely being done by Cavalli-
>> Sforza and his team in "History and Geography of Human Genes", 1994.  For
>> a person to be White they will have to be within the appropriate area.
>
>'At some point in the future'? '[T]he appropriate area'? It seems that the
>Great White State will have a potent means of getting rid of
>troublemakers, regardless of how well they fit into the extremely vague
>categories heretofore enumerated. Just change the definition of 'White'
>and hey presto! You're outta here!
>
The Human Genome project has not been completed yet.  Offshoots of the
research, such as the aforementioned book, have revealed that there is
genetic distances between the races.  More detail is pending on more
published research.

>> 11.  No known mongrelisation, eg., no nigger in the woodpile.
>
>As determined by whom? Are all of these oh-so-scientific measurements
>going to be available for everyone's ancestors, as well? 
>
I am sure various geneological centres (such as the Mormon church) maybe 
able to help.

>The devil is in the details, it is said. Truly, we expected better of New
>Zealand's finest scientific mind. 
>
I never promised details, Mr. Brown, and even then you'd never accept them.
You'd want to keep re-defining categories as I can almost guarantee you
could never accept that a *racist* could be right -- as shown in your
recent knee-jerk and ego-damaged posts.

>"[T]his definition will be expanded and become more precise"? I should
>hope so. There's enough imprecision in it as it stands to drive the
>proverbial Mack truck through. Given that, I would say that "Stone"
>_still_ has not defined the 'white race'.
>
>Perhaps "Stone" can work out these little details and come back to us when
>his "definition" has not quite so many loose ends.
>
It is what I call a start.  Considering that all these newsgroups to which
this thread is posted are supposed to have more affiliation with me, it
should be you who should come back when you have a worthwhile argument.

Ourobouros.


Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Sep 15 09:27:32 PDT 1996
Article: 65729 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Subject: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 14 Sep 1996 14:19:21 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port908-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:43299 alt.politics.nationalism.white:29556 alt.revisionism:65729

NOTE!!!   NOTE!!!   NOTE!!!   NOTE!!!   NOTE!!!   NOTE!!!   NOTE!!!

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

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

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

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

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

4.  Round eyes.

5.  Fine hair.  Colours ranging in blonde, red and brunette variations.
    Type ranges from straight to kinky.  Also reasonably hirsute.

6.  Long nose.

7.  Thinnish lips.

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

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

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

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

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Sep 15 09:27:33 PDT 1996
Article: 65795 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 12 million into camps, Mr. "Stone?"
Date: 14 Sep 1996 14:48:59 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <51f98b$dak@lex.zippo.com>
References: <4v9ejf$18j@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <50le5n$d5k@lex.zippo.com> <50ppn4$a8h@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <50r18l$c78@lex.zippo.com> <50sm11$neh@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <50svcf$em4@lex.zippo.com>  <50tfjd$klc@lex.zippo.com>  <50to9h$n8e@lex.zippo.com>  <50v5p7$jba@lex.zippo.com> <519ggk$7s2@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port908-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:43338 alt.revisionism:65795

In article <519ggk$7s2@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, mgiwer@ix.netcom.com says...
>
>On 8 Sep 1996 12:11:35 -0700, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>>"Stone's" assumption that his point 4 is correct is the crux of his
>>>argument. Yet he seems oddly reluctant to demonstrate that point 4 is
>>>supported by any historian of the Holocaust. This is the basic challenge
>>>he was initially presented with by Ken McVay, and is the challenge he has
>>>yet to respond with anything other than diversionary tactics.
>>>
>>Considering the amount of "true" historians (anti-revisionists) on 
>>alt.revisionism, I shouldn't have to cite anything.  One of them should
>>stand up and tell us where the majority of these "victims" were killed.  
>
>>Why is this request so difficult?
>
>	Because the never make an assertion first.  They want other to make it
>so they can be in the attack mode.  
>
This is extremely true.  Very few of them actually add to the conversation
or argument.  By making no assertions it also helps to hide their ignorance
as they can forever and a day say "No, not good enough" which doesn't
require much thought.

About the only opponent I have found that actually tries to do some work
is Stewart King.  I have an immense amount of respect for him as unlike his
comrades he is prepared to expound his ideas and research.  Very 
occasionally one will also find Miss "Finsten" doing the same, but only
after persistent goading.  Mr. Lund also has some potential as well.

Apart from these three all the others flee from making any commitment.
Please note especially Mr. "Mcvay's" double standards.  According to his
rules he can make the questions, but he'll never answer any.

>	And they were so "surprised" when I suggested revisionists always be
>in the attack mode.  
>
Of course they were.  Ignorance is their specialty.  Would you expect them
to know their own tactic?  Knowledge is an anathema to them.  

>	They simply will not be the first to speak for themselves.  Remember
>how long it took me to get Keren to make his one and only calculation?
>And then remember he shot himself in the foot a week later by
>condemning the room size he used when I used it?  
>
Ah yes, you forget the basic rule, "This is my toy, you aren't allowed to
play with it."  

>	Holohuggers have not intention of being reasonable in this matter.  It
>is their sole purpose to attempt to annoy people enough to run them
>off of the conference and nothing else.  
>
I thought their tactic was to bore anyone attempting an alternative view
of the hoaxacost.  You are right however, their tactic is not to have a
meaningful argument.  I have done the ultimate sin by asking them to 
actually provide some answers.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Sep 15 20:38:23 PDT 1996
Article: 43389 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: White MEN Created Everything
Date: 15 Sep 1996 01:08:27 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 103
Message-ID: <51gdhr$p9p@lex.zippo.com>
References:  <505i5q$j3a@news1.gte.net> <507kp8$hnq@opera.iinet.net.au>  <509eap$r52@gyda.ifi.uio.no>  <50h86u$h4j@news1.ucsd.edu> <32332AA5.24DC@ibm.net> <515akt$gtj@orion.cybercom.net>    <51g09q$1jt@orion.cybercom.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port912-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <51g09q$1jt@orion.cybercom.net>, amatthews@cybercom.net says...
>
>In article , moo@midtown.net (Bryan Cowan) wrote:
>>In article ,
>>rajiv_gandhi@bc.sympatico.ca (Rajiv K. Gandhi) wrote:
>>
>>> In article ,
>>> schwartz@infinet.com wrote:
>>> 
>>> > In article <515akt$gtj@orion.cybercom.net>, amatthews@cybercom.net (Allan
>>> > Matthews) wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > > In article <32332AA5.24DC@ibm.net>, Conrad  wrote:
>>> > > >Look it up.
>>> > > 
>>> > > Ok, "rad,"  I've looked up a great deal of this sort of material over
>>> > time and 
>>> > > I'd like to know where you learned that white men created the following:
>>> > > 
>>> > > 1.  Gun powder
>
>The Chinese
>
Sorry, alchemists invented gunpowder.

>>> > > 2.  Paper
>>Egyptians, right? Or was that the Jews?
>
>The Chinese again.
>
Papyrus was invented by the Egyptians, an early form of paper and also
predates paper.

You should also discover that paper was invented by alchemists.

>>> > > 3.  Printing
>
>Yet again the Chinese.
>
Please re-examine Summerian civilisation and cylinder seals.  

>>> > > 6.  Zen Buddhism
>>Chinese, I believe. Buddha was an Indian (from India). 
>
>Correct on both counts (Bodhidharma was Indian, though).
>
>>> > > 7.  Stone architecture (all examples of it:  e.g. Pre-Columbian America)
>>Were the builders of the megaliths white?
>
Using Thor Heyerdahl's theories, yes.  Several other authors have taken up
the gauntlet as well, for example, "The Fingerprints of the Gods" claims
that the same (super) race built all of them due to their overwhelming
similarities.  BTW, Imhotep is credited with designing the step pyramid.

>If you mean things like Stonehenge, then, yes they were white.
>
>> How about Great Zimbabwe in Africa?
>
>Black
>

How did civilisation come to be with hunter-gatherers being alongside
cultivators?  And, why did civilisation come quickly?

Most scholars agree that the builders of the now ruins were from the
North, what lay north?

How come the early excavators said they were non-Negro?

>>> > > 9.  High altitude crop cultivation
>>The Japanese use terraced crops, but I'm not sure who invented the above.
>
>I believe this originated in the Andes during pre-Colombian times.
>
I believe you'll find the Urarats (Indo-European speaking) had high
altitude crop cultivation.

>>> > > 17.  Polyrhythm
>>Sounds Black African to me.
>
>Many examples from around the world of this.
>
Proof.

>>> > > 19.  monotheism
>>Jews (gasp!) ;)
>
>No, it was the Egyptians (King Tut's dad)
>
Wrong, alchemists core belief is the one-God and we have been around a lot
longer than heretic pharaoh.  Minor detail:  Tutankhamun was not the son of 
Akhenaten.

We also propounded the Christian idea of resurrection well before Jesus.
Though unlike Christianity we didn't limit ourselves to the human body.
Lead dies and resurrects into gold being one of our infamous ideas 
(transmutation).

Sorry to say, with the exception of investigation into the heavenly bodies,
the art is the root of all technological and scientific progression.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Mon Sep 16 06:11:34 PDT 1996
Article: 65992 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!news.cstone.net!news1.slip.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!swrinde.nde.swri.edu!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 15 Sep 1996 11:56:19 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 121
Message-ID: <51hjgj$ihe@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51gnna$m2@gyda.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port935-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:43409 alt.politics.nationalism.white:29682 alt.revisionism:65992

In article <51gnna$m2@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> NOTE!!!   NOTE!!!   NOTE!!!   NOTE!!!   NOTE!!!   NOTE!!!   NOTE!!!
>> 
>> For those that like to be continuously ignorant, like Mr. "Brown", this
>> post will no doubt be non-existent.  Please watch in future months how
>> people like, Mr. "Brown" will claim that I and my colleagues have never
>> defined the White race.  Please also watch how they will try and label 
>> this as an ad hominem attack to divert the topic, which they claim they
>> never do.
>
>Oh, there's been no end of definitions of "white". It's just that these
>definitions are vague and contradictionary. The latter because one racist's
>definition of "white" excludes other racists who concider themself to be
>"white".
>
Not to so many of you anti-racists.  It is a recurring theme that we have
given no definition of the White race.

>> As more information comes to hand then this definition will be expanded
>> and become more precise.
>> 
>> 1.  There is four known skin genes, all of which have to correspond to
>> being white.  That being able to show blue-coloured veins through the skin,
>> and showing red under intense and immediate stress (like blushing).
>> 
>> 2.  The skull shape is that of longhead of Mediterranean or Nordic stock.
>>     Appropriate facial angle, and within an acceptable cephalic index.  
>>     Also includes the jaw shape, structure and teeth.
>
>So if you don't have a "longhead" skull, you're not "white". Very well. You've
>just excluded large portions of the European population. Including my youngest
>brother.
>
I am well aware of the European population, and no, the European race /=
White race.

Unless your brother is a cripple or something like it, yes he is not white.
It would also put serious doubts upon you as well.

>> 3.  The pupil of the eye is visible.  Colours being blue, green, hazel and
>> brown variations.
>> 
>> 4.  Round eyes.
>> 
>> 5.  Fine hair.  Colours ranging in blonde, red and brunette variations.
>>     Type ranges from straight to kinky.  Also reasonably hirsute.
>> 
>> 6.  Long nose.
>
>As compared to what? I've seen Africans with longer noses than... say, some of
>the people in the same room I'm in. And I'm talking of the so-called "whites".
>
zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz 

>> 7.  Thinnish lips.
>
>Uh huh. That would be a surprise to many Northern Europeans. I guess I'm not
>"white" either. Mind you, I can trace my ancestry back to the late 1300's.
>Only Europeans there.
>Also, when I was in the army, I had to live with an extremely racistic moron
>for the better part of nine months. One of his favourite phantasies was
>chopping the head of each and every "nigger" in Africa. This guy had
>"thickish" lips. I wish I could have shown him your definition of "white".
>
These thick lips, do they come close to the stereotypical nigger?

BTW, your above Negroes are most probably half-breeds, such as the
Ethiopians.

>> 8.  Highly developed frontal lobes and "wrinkling" of outer brain.
>
>*All* humans are like that, except for some unfortunate individuals (of *any*
>ethnic group).
>
Consider the term "comparative."

A Chimpanzee has almost none, an Australian Aborigine has a bit more,
a African Negro has even more, but all are small and retarded compared to
the White man.

Pathologists are supposed to be able to identify race on the brain, as 
Enoch Powell forced a police pathologist to admit in the UK back in the
70s.

>> 9.  Other possibilities including: long fingers,
>
>I know many "whites" with short fingers.
>
Comparatively speaking.  You must remember that I am contrasting a lot of
these definitions with the other races.  You should find an absence of 
stubby, negro & polynesian fingers in the White race.

>> fingerprints, earwax,
>> and proportions of the body, e.g., centre of gravity. 
>> 
>> 10.  At some point in the future genetic distance maps visibly 
>> demonstrating the White gene pool,
>
>Or demonstrating how ridiculous the whole "race" debate is once and for all.
>
>> as has vaguely being done by Cavalli-
>> Sforza and his team in "History and Geography of Human Genes", 1994.  For
>> a person to be White they will have to be within the appropriate area.
>
>Phhhht.
>
BTW, Miss "Finsten" admires Cavalli-Sforza, and you are?

>> 11.  No known mongrelisation, eg., no nigger in the woodpile.
>
>We all came out of Africa, you know...
>Dig deep enough in your own "woodpile", and you'll probably find a few
>"niggers" yourself.
>
Prove we came out of Africa.  And do explain how the Australian Aborigine
managed to get to Australia in your African theory/"proof."

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Sep 16 09:13:11 PDT 1996
Article: 66054 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 15 Sep 1996 20:03:07 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <51ig1b$s2o@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51hmhu$pn1@news1.panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port937-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:43433 alt.revisionism:66054 alt.politics.nationalism.white:29710

In article <51hmhu$pn1@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>
[snip]
>
>We'll I'm mostly Meditteranean; 1/4 Alpine; 1/4 Semitic in background.
>
I take it the other half is wit?

[snip]

Ourobouros.

P.S Your reply so far is the best.



From Ourobouros Mon Sep 16 18:53:40 PDT 1996
Article: 29793 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!news.ironhorse.com!news.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 15 Sep 1996 16:33:20 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 110
Message-ID: <51i3o0$nuk@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <323C4740.429B@unb.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port939-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:43494 alt.politics.nationalism.white:29793 alt.revisionism:66174

In article <323C4740.429B@unb.ca>, Keith says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> As more information comes to hand then this definition will be expanded
>> and become more precise.
>> 
>> 1.  There is four known skin genes, all of which have to correspond to
>> being white.  That being able to show blue-coloured veins through the skin,
>> and showing red under intense and immediate stress (like blushing).
>
>As opposed to green-coloured veins I suppose.  All veins are blue.  Right
>now I have a hard time seeing the ones in my wrist, but then again my arms
>are rather deeply tanned from the sun.  I also don't blush very well in the
>summer.
>
>So, does this mean I'm white for the winter only?
>
Wilfully stupid at its finest.

Please note "show blue-coloured veins through the skin" should be taken
in the entire sentence, please don't dissect it into many sentences as
you have just done.

The Spanish blue-blood test required one to show blue veins through the
skin under the arm-pit, where most sane people wouldn't tan, ie., workers
don't get a tan there.

>> 2.  The skull shape is that of longhead of Mediterranean or Nordic stock.
>
>Interesting definition.  Using this criteria, present Nordic types are
>less white than a few of the Chinese students sitting in the same room
>I am.
>
So what skull shape are present Nordic types?

Are you suggesting that Chinese students are longheads?

>> 3.  The pupil of the eye is visible.  Colours being blue, green, hazel and
>> brown variations.
>
>Which sort of covers just about every human eye on the planet.
>
The Negro "black eye" or "pupil-less eye" is something you have missed.  It
is also a good way of picking out half-breeds in a crowd.  Some hispanics
have this type of eye as well.
>> 
>> 4.  Round eyes.
>
>African and European.
>
>> 
>> 5.  Fine hair.  Colours ranging in blonde, red and brunette variations.
>>     Type ranges from straight to kinky.  Also reasonably hirsute.
>
>Asian and European.
>
Mongolian Asiatics have coarse and straight hair, unless of course you mean 
an Asian to be Chinks/gooks, then Asians, predominatly have only coarse and
straight hair.  Two exceptions being the Ainu and a particular "high-born" 
set in Japan who sometimes have wavy and a reddish tint to their hair, they 
also have white skin and sometimes have "round eyes".  They are thought to 
be the remnant of the Horse Riders who ruled Japan 1st-6th Century.  The 
Horse Riders are believed to be the Scythians who weren't Mongolian.   

BTW, I gave the details of Japan many months ago.  Japan was in the header
if you wish to use Dejanews to find that post.  I believe you'll find that
both the given exceptions still have coarse hair as opposed to fine hair.
>> 
>> 6.  Long nose.
>
>Native North American and European
>
>> 7.  Thinnish lips.
>
>Asian and European
>
Please notice how we are getting a nice set of categories from yourself
appearing.
>
>> 9.  Other possibilities including: long fingers, fingerprints, earwax,
>> and proportions of the body, e.g., centre of gravity.
>
>Your forgot body odor.  By the by, earwax and body odor are the same
>in Europeans and Africans and different in Asians.  Long fingers are
>a ridiculous point.  I have short fingers and I'm about as European
>as you can get.  
>
The body odour is not the same between Europeans and Africans.  The famed
nigger smell would point to the complete opposite.  The long fingers were
reference to a contrast between Negro and European finger types.  Please
also note "other possibilities" if you wish to continue this point.
>
>> 10.  At some point in the future genetic distance maps visibly
>> demonstrating the White gene pool, as has vaguely being done by Cavalli-
>> Sforza and his team in "History and Geography of Human Genes", 1994.  For
>> a person to be White they will have to be within the appropriate area.
>
>Whatever.
>
>> 
>> 11.  No known mongrelisation, eg., no nigger in the woodpile.
>
>Given that all human types except Neandertals are know to have originated
>in Africa, sort of hard to get around that one.
>
Sort of hard to explain the existence of Australian Aborigines too, but 
that hasn't stopped you believing your pet theories.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Sep 16 18:53:58 PDT 1996
Article: 43464 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!imci5!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Another free-speech debate (was Ken Mcvay...)
Date: 15 Sep 1996 17:02:38 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <51i5eu$ohk@lex.zippo.com>
References: <519mlj$eq9@lex.zippo.com> <51h22h$222@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port939-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <51h22h$222@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros. wrote:
>>Laura says...
>
>[snip]
>
>>In answering your conclusion in the thread "To my current opponents"
>>need I remind you that I used to post a standard to which I would or
>>would not reply?
>
>
>And it appears that standard is clear evidence that your "questions"
>about the details of the Holocaust were founded on utter ignorance of
>what mainstream historians have actually said about it.
>
So you are saying that one shouldn't ask the "experts" to fill in the
gaps?

Apparently "McVay" has read 300 books on the topic.  Such details should
be a triviality for people like himself.

Except for a few times, Miss "Finsten" you'll note I tend to keep away
>from  Hoaxacost arguments.  The times I have engaged in such pursuits you 
should note the obvious flaws in my opponents arguments.
>
>>>>>>Citations where I have lied Finsten.  Please don't confuse this
>>>>>>with your usual mis-interpretation of what I write.
>
>
>>Too bad then, I guess you are like "Mr. Brown" in your definitions.
>
>Well, how about I ask you to affirm something for me, to save a little
>time.  Did you, or did you not, claim that a table on page 160 of
>Jonathon Marks' "Human Biodiversity: Genes, Race and History" indicates
>that Caucasoids' heads are dolichocephalic in shape?  Are you going to
>deny having claimed this?  I haven't looked up your post, so you may
>have said "whites".  It doesn't matter.  However you phrased it, you
>lied either about having consulted the book, or about what it said
>on this subject.
>
>You did make this claim, "Mr. Stone".  I reproduced the relevant line
>from the table in this book, which says that Caucasoid head forms are
>"medium" and that only Negroids have "long heads".
>
>You lied, either about having consulted this book, or about what the
>book actually said.  Whichever way it goes, you lied.
>
Ah, I believe I have discovered the point you were trying to make.  If you
care to go through the old arguments again, you should find that I was
referring to the fact that anthropologists, really police pathologists, 
still use skull shapes in determining race.  Still in use when they were 
supposedly debunked by the Jew Boas.  If I somehow made this point unclear 
I apologize.  The point about Police pathologists has been added here for
the first time, though you will note Mr. Marks is writing about them in 
said reference.  You should note your claim about "craniometry" being
outdated was around this time as well, oh sorry "cephalic index" as you
later claimed you said.

I would never say any modern anthropologist would classify a Caucasoid as
dolichocephalic.  I might venture to say some modern anthropologists may
classify the Nordic section as being dolichocephalic.  Some at least still
mention it in the history of anthropology.  

Ourobouros.





From Ourobouros Mon Sep 16 18:53:59 PDT 1996
Article: 43494 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!news.ironhorse.com!news.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 15 Sep 1996 16:33:20 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 110
Message-ID: <51i3o0$nuk@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <323C4740.429B@unb.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port939-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:43494 alt.politics.nationalism.white:29793 alt.revisionism:66174

In article <323C4740.429B@unb.ca>, Keith says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> As more information comes to hand then this definition will be expanded
>> and become more precise.
>> 
>> 1.  There is four known skin genes, all of which have to correspond to
>> being white.  That being able to show blue-coloured veins through the skin,
>> and showing red under intense and immediate stress (like blushing).
>
>As opposed to green-coloured veins I suppose.  All veins are blue.  Right
>now I have a hard time seeing the ones in my wrist, but then again my arms
>are rather deeply tanned from the sun.  I also don't blush very well in the
>summer.
>
>So, does this mean I'm white for the winter only?
>
Wilfully stupid at its finest.

Please note "show blue-coloured veins through the skin" should be taken
in the entire sentence, please don't dissect it into many sentences as
you have just done.

The Spanish blue-blood test required one to show blue veins through the
skin under the arm-pit, where most sane people wouldn't tan, ie., workers
don't get a tan there.

>> 2.  The skull shape is that of longhead of Mediterranean or Nordic stock.
>
>Interesting definition.  Using this criteria, present Nordic types are
>less white than a few of the Chinese students sitting in the same room
>I am.
>
So what skull shape are present Nordic types?

Are you suggesting that Chinese students are longheads?

>> 3.  The pupil of the eye is visible.  Colours being blue, green, hazel and
>> brown variations.
>
>Which sort of covers just about every human eye on the planet.
>
The Negro "black eye" or "pupil-less eye" is something you have missed.  It
is also a good way of picking out half-breeds in a crowd.  Some hispanics
have this type of eye as well.
>> 
>> 4.  Round eyes.
>
>African and European.
>
>> 
>> 5.  Fine hair.  Colours ranging in blonde, red and brunette variations.
>>     Type ranges from straight to kinky.  Also reasonably hirsute.
>
>Asian and European.
>
Mongolian Asiatics have coarse and straight hair, unless of course you mean 
an Asian to be Chinks/gooks, then Asians, predominatly have only coarse and
straight hair.  Two exceptions being the Ainu and a particular "high-born" 
set in Japan who sometimes have wavy and a reddish tint to their hair, they 
also have white skin and sometimes have "round eyes".  They are thought to 
be the remnant of the Horse Riders who ruled Japan 1st-6th Century.  The 
Horse Riders are believed to be the Scythians who weren't Mongolian.   

BTW, I gave the details of Japan many months ago.  Japan was in the header
if you wish to use Dejanews to find that post.  I believe you'll find that
both the given exceptions still have coarse hair as opposed to fine hair.
>> 
>> 6.  Long nose.
>
>Native North American and European
>
>> 7.  Thinnish lips.
>
>Asian and European
>
Please notice how we are getting a nice set of categories from yourself
appearing.
>
>> 9.  Other possibilities including: long fingers, fingerprints, earwax,
>> and proportions of the body, e.g., centre of gravity.
>
>Your forgot body odor.  By the by, earwax and body odor are the same
>in Europeans and Africans and different in Asians.  Long fingers are
>a ridiculous point.  I have short fingers and I'm about as European
>as you can get.  
>
The body odour is not the same between Europeans and Africans.  The famed
nigger smell would point to the complete opposite.  The long fingers were
reference to a contrast between Negro and European finger types.  Please
also note "other possibilities" if you wish to continue this point.
>
>> 10.  At some point in the future genetic distance maps visibly
>> demonstrating the White gene pool, as has vaguely being done by Cavalli-
>> Sforza and his team in "History and Geography of Human Genes", 1994.  For
>> a person to be White they will have to be within the appropriate area.
>
>Whatever.
>
>> 
>> 11.  No known mongrelisation, eg., no nigger in the woodpile.
>
>Given that all human types except Neandertals are know to have originated
>in Africa, sort of hard to get around that one.
>
Sort of hard to explain the existence of Australian Aborigines too, but 
that hasn't stopped you believing your pet theories.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Sep 16 19:19:05 PDT 1996
Article: 66174 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!news.ironhorse.com!news.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 15 Sep 1996 16:33:20 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 110
Message-ID: <51i3o0$nuk@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <323C4740.429B@unb.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port939-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:43494 alt.politics.nationalism.white:29793 alt.revisionism:66174

In article <323C4740.429B@unb.ca>, Keith says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> As more information comes to hand then this definition will be expanded
>> and become more precise.
>> 
>> 1.  There is four known skin genes, all of which have to correspond to
>> being white.  That being able to show blue-coloured veins through the skin,
>> and showing red under intense and immediate stress (like blushing).
>
>As opposed to green-coloured veins I suppose.  All veins are blue.  Right
>now I have a hard time seeing the ones in my wrist, but then again my arms
>are rather deeply tanned from the sun.  I also don't blush very well in the
>summer.
>
>So, does this mean I'm white for the winter only?
>
Wilfully stupid at its finest.

Please note "show blue-coloured veins through the skin" should be taken
in the entire sentence, please don't dissect it into many sentences as
you have just done.

The Spanish blue-blood test required one to show blue veins through the
skin under the arm-pit, where most sane people wouldn't tan, ie., workers
don't get a tan there.

>> 2.  The skull shape is that of longhead of Mediterranean or Nordic stock.
>
>Interesting definition.  Using this criteria, present Nordic types are
>less white than a few of the Chinese students sitting in the same room
>I am.
>
So what skull shape are present Nordic types?

Are you suggesting that Chinese students are longheads?

>> 3.  The pupil of the eye is visible.  Colours being blue, green, hazel and
>> brown variations.
>
>Which sort of covers just about every human eye on the planet.
>
The Negro "black eye" or "pupil-less eye" is something you have missed.  It
is also a good way of picking out half-breeds in a crowd.  Some hispanics
have this type of eye as well.
>> 
>> 4.  Round eyes.
>
>African and European.
>
>> 
>> 5.  Fine hair.  Colours ranging in blonde, red and brunette variations.
>>     Type ranges from straight to kinky.  Also reasonably hirsute.
>
>Asian and European.
>
Mongolian Asiatics have coarse and straight hair, unless of course you mean 
an Asian to be Chinks/gooks, then Asians, predominatly have only coarse and
straight hair.  Two exceptions being the Ainu and a particular "high-born" 
set in Japan who sometimes have wavy and a reddish tint to their hair, they 
also have white skin and sometimes have "round eyes".  They are thought to 
be the remnant of the Horse Riders who ruled Japan 1st-6th Century.  The 
Horse Riders are believed to be the Scythians who weren't Mongolian.   

BTW, I gave the details of Japan many months ago.  Japan was in the header
if you wish to use Dejanews to find that post.  I believe you'll find that
both the given exceptions still have coarse hair as opposed to fine hair.
>> 
>> 6.  Long nose.
>
>Native North American and European
>
>> 7.  Thinnish lips.
>
>Asian and European
>
Please notice how we are getting a nice set of categories from yourself
appearing.
>
>> 9.  Other possibilities including: long fingers, fingerprints, earwax,
>> and proportions of the body, e.g., centre of gravity.
>
>Your forgot body odor.  By the by, earwax and body odor are the same
>in Europeans and Africans and different in Asians.  Long fingers are
>a ridiculous point.  I have short fingers and I'm about as European
>as you can get.  
>
The body odour is not the same between Europeans and Africans.  The famed
nigger smell would point to the complete opposite.  The long fingers were
reference to a contrast between Negro and European finger types.  Please
also note "other possibilities" if you wish to continue this point.
>
>> 10.  At some point in the future genetic distance maps visibly
>> demonstrating the White gene pool, as has vaguely being done by Cavalli-
>> Sforza and his team in "History and Geography of Human Genes", 1994.  For
>> a person to be White they will have to be within the appropriate area.
>
>Whatever.
>
>> 
>> 11.  No known mongrelisation, eg., no nigger in the woodpile.
>
>Given that all human types except Neandertals are know to have originated
>in Africa, sort of hard to get around that one.
>
Sort of hard to explain the existence of Australian Aborigines too, but 
that hasn't stopped you believing your pet theories.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Sep 17 11:49:59 PDT 1996
Article: 29890 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!zdc-e!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.telecom
Subject: Re: Big Brother is watching *you*
Date: 16 Sep 1996 12:36:15 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <51ka7f$99@lex.zippo.com>
References: <199609151301.JAA03560@anon.lcs.mit.edu> <323c32de.12722881@newsbeta.dircon.co.uk> <842861930.6189.0@machine67.rcseng.ac.uk> <51k59o$ett@bell.maths.tcd.ie>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port922-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <51k59o$ett@bell.maths.tcd.ie>, dbell@maths.tcd.ie says...
>
>iclarke@rcseng.ac.uk (Ian Clarke) writes:
>>Personnally I think this could be a good idea.
>
>	Think again.
>
>>"Big Brother" certainly isn't interested in me and I have nothing to
>>hide but if it catches criminals and gets my stolen car back quickly
>>enough before some little shit wreaks it and gets away with a 100UKP
>>fine and ten hours community service then I am all for it!!!
>
>	What limits would there be on cameras? Would you tolerate cameras
>being installed in every dwelling to catch criminals?
>
Derek and I actually agree on something.

You say "Big Brother" isn't interested in you because you have nothing to
hide...assumption being you are a law-abiding citizen.  What say the
government overnight changes legislation which makes you a criminal
overnight?

It won't happen right?

Wrong, dead wrong.

Case in point.  After the massacre in Aramoana New Zealand our benevolent
government changed gun ownership laws overnight.  About 30,000 people
suddenly became criminals.  They were expected to hand over expensive
rifles and ammunition over for nothing or face charges.

Do you possess something in your household that might someday be made
illegal?  

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Tue Sep 17 18:09:45 PDT 1996
Article: 29945 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!gatech!arclight.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 17 Sep 1996 13:24:34 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 189
Message-ID: <51n1e2$c8v@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51gnna$m2@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <51hjgj$ihe@lex.zippo.com> <51loud$8aq@maud.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port920-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:43613 alt.politics.nationalism.white:29945 alt.revisionism:66459

In article <51loud$8aq@maud.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <51hjgj$ihe@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <51gnna$m2@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...

>> >> 2.  The skull shape is that of longhead of Mediterranean or Nordic stock.
>> >>     Appropriate facial angle, and within an acceptable cephalic index.  
>> >>     Also includes the jaw shape, structure and teeth.
>> >
>> >So if you don't have a "longhead" skull, you're not "white". Very well. You've
>> >just excluded large portions of the European population. Including my youngest
>> >brother.
>> >
>> I am well aware of the European population, and no, the European race /=
>> White race.
>
>So if you only have European ancestors, you're white?
>
Not necessarily.  Few modern Portuguese are white.

>> Unless your brother is a cripple or something like it, yes he is not white.
>
>He is definitly not a cripple. But he is blond, has blue eyes, and does not
>stand out from the Norwegian population.
>
>> It would also put serious doubts upon you as well.
>
>Did it never dawned on you that Euros do not look all exactly alike? We're not
>clones, you know. Some Euros have "long" heads, like myself, others have
>"round" heads, like my brother.

Is he your full brother, not a half or step brother?

>
>> >> 6.  Long nose.
>> >
>> >As compared to what? I've seen Africans with longer noses than... say, some of
>> >the people in the same room I'm in. And I'm talking of the so-called "whites".
>> >
>> zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz
>
>And what's that supposed to mean? Speaking of long noses; I thought a long nose
>was something one only found in the stereotypical Jew (*real* Jews are another
>thing)...
>
Ethiopians are half-breeds.  I don't know how many times I have had to
repeat this, but it is getting extremely tiresome.

>> >> 7.  Thinnish lips.
>> >
>> >Uh huh. That would be a surprise to many Northern Europeans. I guess I'm not
>> >"white" either. Mind you, I can trace my ancestry back to the late 1300's.
>> >Only Europeans there.
>> >Also, when I was in the army, I had to live with an extremely racistic moron
>> >for the better part of nine months. One of his favourite phantasies was
>> >chopping the head of each and every "nigger" in Africa. This guy had
>> >"thickish" lips. I wish I could have shown him your definition of "white".
>> >
>> These thick lips, do they come close to the stereotypical nigger?
>
>The stereotypical "nigger" has lips remniscent of a folded bicycle tube dipped
>in red paint. I've never seen lips like that on a living being, human or non-.
>
>But I don't care what the stereotypes are; this is about real humans.
>
                  *sigh*

Generally Negroes have fat lips.  Now for you to say x group doesn't have 
fat lips, then I will say x group is a half-breed and then the cycle 
continues.

>> BTW, your above Negroes are most probably half-breeds, such as the
>> Ethiopians.
>
>So how far south do you have to go before you get to the "purebreeds". Where
>do you draw the line between "half-bred" and "purebred"? I'm talking geography
>here, not Euros in the woodpile.
>
You'd have  to look for signs of Arabian travel inside Africa to know that
one.  Generally speaking the jungle dominated areas are where purebreds
are.

>> >> 8.  Highly developed frontal lobes and "wrinkling" of outer brain.
>> >
>> >*All* humans are like that, except for some unfortunate individuals (of *any*
>> >ethnic group).
>> >
>> Consider the term "comparative."
>
>Uh huh.
>
>> A Chimpanzee has almost none, an Australian Aborigine has a bit more,
>> a African Negro has even more, but all are small and retarded compared to
>> the White man.
>
>Do you have *any* evidence to support these claims? I think not. During WWII,
>the nazi doctors were trying to find conclusive evidence, proving once and for
>all, that the germanic "race" was supiriour to the others. They failed.
>
I have quoted a book before, ask "Finsten."

Could we have proof that the Nazi doctors failed to do so.

>> Pathologists are supposed to be able to identify race on the brain, as 
>> Enoch Powell forced a police pathologist to admit in the UK back in the
>> 70s.
>
>But does this identification rely on the "development of the frontal lobes and
>wrinkling of the outer brain"? Or rather on skull shape due to ethnic
>variations?
>
It is probably a combination of both.

>> >> 9.  Other possibilities including: long fingers,
>> >
>> >I know many "whites" with short fingers.
>> >
>> Comparatively speaking.
>
>So just how short do these fingers have to be? 3 cm? 2 cm?.
>
          *sigh*

I was contrasting them with Negro fingers.

>>  You must remember that I am contrasting a lot of
>> these definitions with the other races.  You should find an absence of 
>> stubby, negro & polynesian fingers in the White race.
>
>	[I make a quick scan of the room. Notice the hands of a "nigger"]
>
>This guy's fingers are as long as mine. And mine are average when compared to
>others of the "white race".
>
Palm size in comparison is?  Thickness of the fingers in comparison is?

>> >> 10.  At some point in the future genetic distance maps visibly 
>> >> demonstrating the White gene pool,
>> >
>> >Or demonstrating how ridiculous the whole "race" debate is once and for all.
>> >
>> >> as has vaguely being done by Cavalli-
>> >> Sforza and his team in "History and Geography of Human Genes", 1994.  For
>> >> a person to be White they will have to be within the appropriate area.
>> >
>> >Phhhht.
>> >
>> BTW, Miss "Finsten" admires Cavalli-Sforza,
>
>I noticed that Finsten made some very interesting comments on your above
>statement. I'll leave it at that.
>
>> and you are?
>
>Huh?
>
Well you are putting yourself on a pedestral.  My comment is on what
authority.

>> >> 11.  No known mongrelisation, eg., no nigger in the woodpile.
>> >
>> >We all came out of Africa, you know...
>> >Dig deep enough in your own "woodpile", and you'll probably find a few
>> >"niggers" yourself.
>> >
>> Prove we came out of Africa.
>
>May I refer you to a newsgroup called sci.bio.paleontology? They'll bury you
>in evidence. I'd give you a bunch of links to follow, but Metacrawler seems to
>be down at the moment, so the only link I can give you at the moment is:
>
>	http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/
>
>I'll call you back on this, if it's important you you.
>
>Are you by any chance a Creationist?
>
I don't believe in the theory of evolution if thats what you mean.  I am
definitely not a Christian either.

>>  And do explain how the Australian Aborigine
>> managed to get to Australia in your African theory/"proof."
>
>Have you ever heard of boats?
>
Have you ever heard of Australian Aborigines?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Sep 17 18:35:39 PDT 1996
Article: 66459 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!gatech!arclight.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 17 Sep 1996 13:24:34 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 189
Message-ID: <51n1e2$c8v@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51gnna$m2@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <51hjgj$ihe@lex.zippo.com> <51loud$8aq@maud.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port920-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:43613 alt.politics.nationalism.white:29945 alt.revisionism:66459

In article <51loud$8aq@maud.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <51hjgj$ihe@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <51gnna$m2@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...

>> >> 2.  The skull shape is that of longhead of Mediterranean or Nordic stock.
>> >>     Appropriate facial angle, and within an acceptable cephalic index.  
>> >>     Also includes the jaw shape, structure and teeth.
>> >
>> >So if you don't have a "longhead" skull, you're not "white". Very well. You've
>> >just excluded large portions of the European population. Including my youngest
>> >brother.
>> >
>> I am well aware of the European population, and no, the European race /=
>> White race.
>
>So if you only have European ancestors, you're white?
>
Not necessarily.  Few modern Portuguese are white.

>> Unless your brother is a cripple or something like it, yes he is not white.
>
>He is definitly not a cripple. But he is blond, has blue eyes, and does not
>stand out from the Norwegian population.
>
>> It would also put serious doubts upon you as well.
>
>Did it never dawned on you that Euros do not look all exactly alike? We're not
>clones, you know. Some Euros have "long" heads, like myself, others have
>"round" heads, like my brother.

Is he your full brother, not a half or step brother?

>
>> >> 6.  Long nose.
>> >
>> >As compared to what? I've seen Africans with longer noses than... say, some of
>> >the people in the same room I'm in. And I'm talking of the so-called "whites".
>> >
>> zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz
>
>And what's that supposed to mean? Speaking of long noses; I thought a long nose
>was something one only found in the stereotypical Jew (*real* Jews are another
>thing)...
>
Ethiopians are half-breeds.  I don't know how many times I have had to
repeat this, but it is getting extremely tiresome.

>> >> 7.  Thinnish lips.
>> >
>> >Uh huh. That would be a surprise to many Northern Europeans. I guess I'm not
>> >"white" either. Mind you, I can trace my ancestry back to the late 1300's.
>> >Only Europeans there.
>> >Also, when I was in the army, I had to live with an extremely racistic moron
>> >for the better part of nine months. One of his favourite phantasies was
>> >chopping the head of each and every "nigger" in Africa. This guy had
>> >"thickish" lips. I wish I could have shown him your definition of "white".
>> >
>> These thick lips, do they come close to the stereotypical nigger?
>
>The stereotypical "nigger" has lips remniscent of a folded bicycle tube dipped
>in red paint. I've never seen lips like that on a living being, human or non-.
>
>But I don't care what the stereotypes are; this is about real humans.
>
                  *sigh*

Generally Negroes have fat lips.  Now for you to say x group doesn't have 
fat lips, then I will say x group is a half-breed and then the cycle 
continues.

>> BTW, your above Negroes are most probably half-breeds, such as the
>> Ethiopians.
>
>So how far south do you have to go before you get to the "purebreeds". Where
>do you draw the line between "half-bred" and "purebred"? I'm talking geography
>here, not Euros in the woodpile.
>
You'd have  to look for signs of Arabian travel inside Africa to know that
one.  Generally speaking the jungle dominated areas are where purebreds
are.

>> >> 8.  Highly developed frontal lobes and "wrinkling" of outer brain.
>> >
>> >*All* humans are like that, except for some unfortunate individuals (of *any*
>> >ethnic group).
>> >
>> Consider the term "comparative."
>
>Uh huh.
>
>> A Chimpanzee has almost none, an Australian Aborigine has a bit more,
>> a African Negro has even more, but all are small and retarded compared to
>> the White man.
>
>Do you have *any* evidence to support these claims? I think not. During WWII,
>the nazi doctors were trying to find conclusive evidence, proving once and for
>all, that the germanic "race" was supiriour to the others. They failed.
>
I have quoted a book before, ask "Finsten."

Could we have proof that the Nazi doctors failed to do so.

>> Pathologists are supposed to be able to identify race on the brain, as 
>> Enoch Powell forced a police pathologist to admit in the UK back in the
>> 70s.
>
>But does this identification rely on the "development of the frontal lobes and
>wrinkling of the outer brain"? Or rather on skull shape due to ethnic
>variations?
>
It is probably a combination of both.

>> >> 9.  Other possibilities including: long fingers,
>> >
>> >I know many "whites" with short fingers.
>> >
>> Comparatively speaking.
>
>So just how short do these fingers have to be? 3 cm? 2 cm?.
>
          *sigh*

I was contrasting them with Negro fingers.

>>  You must remember that I am contrasting a lot of
>> these definitions with the other races.  You should find an absence of 
>> stubby, negro & polynesian fingers in the White race.
>
>	[I make a quick scan of the room. Notice the hands of a "nigger"]
>
>This guy's fingers are as long as mine. And mine are average when compared to
>others of the "white race".
>
Palm size in comparison is?  Thickness of the fingers in comparison is?

>> >> 10.  At some point in the future genetic distance maps visibly 
>> >> demonstrating the White gene pool,
>> >
>> >Or demonstrating how ridiculous the whole "race" debate is once and for all.
>> >
>> >> as has vaguely being done by Cavalli-
>> >> Sforza and his team in "History and Geography of Human Genes", 1994.  For
>> >> a person to be White they will have to be within the appropriate area.
>> >
>> >Phhhht.
>> >
>> BTW, Miss "Finsten" admires Cavalli-Sforza,
>
>I noticed that Finsten made some very interesting comments on your above
>statement. I'll leave it at that.
>
>> and you are?
>
>Huh?
>
Well you are putting yourself on a pedestral.  My comment is on what
authority.

>> >> 11.  No known mongrelisation, eg., no nigger in the woodpile.
>> >
>> >We all came out of Africa, you know...
>> >Dig deep enough in your own "woodpile", and you'll probably find a few
>> >"niggers" yourself.
>> >
>> Prove we came out of Africa.
>
>May I refer you to a newsgroup called sci.bio.paleontology? They'll bury you
>in evidence. I'd give you a bunch of links to follow, but Metacrawler seems to
>be down at the moment, so the only link I can give you at the moment is:
>
>	http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/
>
>I'll call you back on this, if it's important you you.
>
>Are you by any chance a Creationist?
>
I don't believe in the theory of evolution if thats what you mean.  I am
definitely not a Christian either.

>>  And do explain how the Australian Aborigine
>> managed to get to Australia in your African theory/"proof."
>
>Have you ever heard of boats?
>
Have you ever heard of Australian Aborigines?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Sep 17 19:45:22 PDT 1996
Article: 66470 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!eloi.vir.com!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!imci2!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!EU.net!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 17 Sep 1996 13:36:14 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <51n23u$ci1@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51gnna$m2@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <51hjgj$ihe@lex.zippo.com> <51jbgh$bmj@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port920-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:43618 alt.politics.nationalism.white:29953 alt.revisionism:66470

In article , stephen@waikato.ac.nz says...
>
>
>>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>
>>>A Chimpanzee has almost none, an Australian Aborigine has a bit more,
>>>a African Negro has even more, but all are small and retarded compared to
>>>the White man.
>
>Can I just observe that in the matters of body hair, "lip thickness", and
>ratio of arm to leg length, your typical European resembles a chimpanzee
>more than any African.
>
According to one of those trivial bits of information that float around, we 
are supposed to be more hirsute than chimpanzees (hairs per square inch of 
skin).  If this is true, it would interesting to note how many hairs per
square inch a Negro has compared to a chimp.

Lip thickness is perhaps true.

Ratio of arm to leg length is completely false though.  The ratio supports
that Negroes are closer to chimpanzees than Whites are.

>Stephen "ape-man" Judd
>
Figures.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Sep 17 22:26:33 PDT 1996
Article: 66489 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!eloi.vir.com!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!chi-news.cic.net!newspump.sol.net!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.erols.net!EU.net!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 16 Sep 1996 23:15:22 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <51lflq$db9@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port901-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:43627 alt.politics.nationalism.white:29966 alt.revisionism:66489

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>
>The devil is in the details, it is said. Truly, we expected better of New
>Zealand's finest scientific mind. 
>
>"[T]his definition will be expanded and become more precise"? I should
>hope so. There's enough imprecision in it as it stands to drive the
>proverbial Mack truck through. Given that, I would say that "Stone"
>_still_ has not defined the 'white race'.
>
>Perhaps "Stone" can work out these little details and come back to us when
>his "definition" has not quite so many loose ends.
>
Could you be precise about the proverbial Mack Truck, "Brown"?  

Just which proverbial Mack Truck is it?

Where is the proverbial Mack Truck?

The dimensions of the proverbial Mack Truck?

Do be sure to cite references.  The devil is the details, it is said.

Don't forget to give us a working definition of a New Zealand scientific
mind as well.

Ourobouros.
 





From Ourobouros Tue Sep 17 22:26:34 PDT 1996
Article: 66491 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!eloi.vir.com!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!n1van.istar!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!EU.net!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 16 Sep 1996 23:48:33 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 221
Message-ID: <51lhk1$dq4@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51i64f$r8o@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port901-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:43628 alt.revisionism:66491 alt.politics.nationalism.white:29970

In article <51i64f$r8o@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>NOTE!!!   NOTE!!!   NOTE!!!   NOTE!!!   NOTE!!!   NOTE!!!   NOTE!!!
>
>>For those that like to be continuously ignorant, like Mr. "Brown", this
>>post will no doubt be non-existent.  Please watch in future months how
>>people like, Mr. "Brown" will claim that I and my colleagues have never
>>defined the White race.  Please also watch how they will try and label 
>>this as an ad hominem attack to divert the topic, which they claim they
>>never do.
>
>So, does this mean that all white supremacists and white separatists
>accept your list of criteria for "whiteness", "Mr. Stone"?
>
No, they do not have to accept my definition.  Arthur, for example, would 
include more people into the White race than I would.

>>As more information comes to hand then this definition will be expanded
>>and become more precise.
>
>That's certainly encouraging.  So all the folks who get deported and/or
>killed under "false pretenses" will be reinstated, posthumously if
>necessary?
>
Considering I am not currently wielding governmental powers, "Miss 
Finsten" your argument is nothing.

>>1.  There is four known skin genes, all of which have to correspond to
>>being white.  That being able to show blue-coloured veins through the skin,
>>and showing red under intense and immediate stress (like blushing).
>
>"The genetics of skin color is not completely understood.  Some researchers
>believe that, rather than a single locus of a major gene, many loci and
>their *multiple alleles*  work in combination to determine a person's
>pigmentation."  Noel T. Boaz (I know you'll like that name) and Alan J.
>Almquist, "Biological Anthropology: A Synthetic Approach to Human
>Evolution", 1997.  Prentice Hall. p.467.
>
>So, how are you going to determine how many "white alleles" a person
>has, "Mr. Stone"?  The blush test?  Looking for blue veins?  I did a
>blue vein test (in response to one of your silly posts about armpits
>and "royal blue" many months ago).  I had a small sample, but it 
>included 3 people with a good measure of African ancestry, and you know
>what?  On the palms of their hands and the insides of their wrists, you
>could see blue veins.  Even on the darkest fellow, who is pretty dark.
>
I am sure I mentioned something about armpits.  You do remember the
Spanish blue-blood test don't you?  That was their criteria for purity
of blood or "limpieza de sangre" if you want to consult any Spanish
books.

>>2.  The skull shape is that of longhead of Mediterranean or Nordic stock.
>>    Appropriate facial angle, and within an acceptable cephalic index.  
>>    Also includes the jaw shape, structure and teeth.
>
>So how does this differ from a longhead of, say Sudanid stock?  And are
>you really going to say that someone who's cranial index is 80.0 is in,
>while someone whose cranial index is 79.9 is out?  Really?????
>
Does someone of Sudanid stock have a longhead of Mediterranean or Nordic
stock?
 
>How variable are facial angles within a population, "Mr. Stone", since
>individuals, of course, don't have "average" facial angles.  What range
>is acceptable for "whiteness"?
>
That will have to be determined.
 
>Please be explicit about the acceptable jaw shape(s), structure(s) and
>teeth.
>
Not at this point in time.

>>3.  The pupil of the eye is visible.  Colours being blue, green, hazel and
>>brown variations.
>
>I've never met a person with normal eyes whose pupils were not visible.
>
                   *sigh*

True to some extent.  Negroes (non half-breeds or albinos) have black or
pupil-less eyes.  Yes they strictly have pupils.

>>4.  Round eyes.
>
>Does the oft-described "almond shape", considered a great sign
>of beauty in a lot of schlock fiction, disqualify a person from
>"whiteness", "Mr. Stone"?
>
zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz zzz

>>5.  Fine hair.  Colours ranging in blonde, red and brunette variations.
>>    Type ranges from straight to kinky.  Also reasonably hirsute.
>  
>So where is the line drawn between "fine hair" and "not fine hair",
>"Mr. Stone"?  There is tremendous variation in hair shaft thickness,
>as I'm sure you know, even within populations.

We'll have to discover that from mongolian hair then wont we?

>Are you saying any colour but black is acceptable?  Hmmmm, there are
>some folks who won't like that.  Even if they have milky white skin?
>Straight to kinky about covers everything, doesn't it.  Or were you
>talking about sex?

My brother has black hair.  However, under close inspection black hair
(of Whites) is an extremely dark brown.  Not so for Negroes (excepting
such members as Hottentots) or Mongolians

Do Whites with kinky hair get close to typical Negro hair "Miss Finsten"?

>Hirsute hair?  Does that mean baldies are out?
>
                  *sigh*

Is this worth a response?

>>6.  Long nose.
>
>But I thought cute little short noses were a pretty common European
>characteristic, although they certainly aren't a defining one.  That's
>the whole problem, isn't it, trying to find characteristics that are
>definitive.  Does Doris Day have a "long nose"?
>
Is this worth a response?

>>7.  Thinnish lips.
>
>As opposed to "mediumish" lips?  Is that before or after the silicone
>injections that have become so popular?  And what about all those models
>who are blessed with naturally pouty lips?  Are they out of luck on the
>"whiteness" scale?
>
Is this worth a response?

>>8.  Highly developed frontal lobes and "wrinkling" of outer brain.
>
>I recall you citing a book for this, but when I asked you to provide
>the year of publication, publisher and ISBN, you fell silent.  It 
>wasn't listed in our medical school library, and I found it odd that
>a medical school that has an international reputation for excellence
>would not have what you described as "the" book on neuroanatomy.
>How are you going to determine this, anyway, "Mr. Stone"?  Require
>a catscan of anybody whose "whiteness" is in doubt?
>
Perhaps.

>>9.  Other possibilities including: long fingers, fingerprints, earwax,
>>and proportions of the body, e.g., centre of gravity.
>
>Do be more specific, "Mr. Stone".  How long is long?  Tell us about
>how fingerprints can be used to determine "race", and cite a source
>for this.  Elaborate on earwax (Les Griswold is no longer with us,
>so you might as well entertain us with a reprise of this lunacy).
>And do explain how variable centres of gravity can be within polymorphic
>populations, "Mr. Stone".  You do realise, don't you, that using a
>trait like this could easily result in fully genetic siblings being
>categorised as belonging to different "races", don't you? 
>
Fingerprints has been covered recently.

Earwax between Europeans and Mongolians are supposed to be different.
The ones which have non-conformity are probably due to being half-breeds.

>>10.  At some point in the future genetic distance maps visibly 
>>demonstrating the White gene pool, as has vaguely being done by Cavalli-
>>Sforza and his team in "History and Geography of Human Genes", 1994.  For
>>a person to be White they will have to be within the appropriate area.
>
>Well I guess that'll leave you out, won't it, "Mr. Stone", since it is
>difficult to imagine how New Zealand would fall into any such sphere.
>
                *sigh*

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

Considering that Judd and I covered an extremely akin argument to this
I am surprised to see you trying it.

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

Not worth a response.

>>11.  No known mongrelisation, eg., no nigger in the woodpile.
>
>And how will this be determined, "Mr. Stone"?  Will you demand everyone's
>genealogies and family records going back 10 generations?  25 generations?
>
While I dislike Christianity (or at least its 20th century form), the
Churches typically enforced separation of the races til about the 18th
century.  One could assume that this would be a suitable dividing line.
>
>Having seen your list of "traits", I would like to ask you for
>clarification about how they, theoretically, of course, would work in
>concert to delineate the "white race".  For example, must an individual
>"pass" all of these (still poorly defined) tests?  What if full-blooded
>siblings ended up in different categories?
>
They would have to pass all these tests (which I admit are poorly designed
at the present).  Barring abnormalities, this would also be another good
way of showing whether one parent is a half-breed.  The mongol spot comes
to mind.

Your arguments are returning to your old and useless standards.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Tue Sep 17 23:17:47 PDT 1996
Article: 66500 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!eloi.vir.com!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!clicnet!news.clic.net!news.bconnex.net!news1.erols.com!howland.erols.net!EU.net!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 17 Sep 1996 13:03:17 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <51n065$bti@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com>  <51lflq$db9@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port920-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:43629 alt.politics.nationalism.white:29972 alt.revisionism:66500

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <51lflq$db9@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >
>> >In article <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >The devil is in the details, it is said. Truly, we expected better of New
>> >Zealand's finest scientific mind. 
>> >
>> >"[T]his definition will be expanded and become more precise"? I should
>> >hope so. There's enough imprecision in it as it stands to drive the
>> >proverbial Mack truck through. Given that, I would say that "Stone"
>> >_still_ has not defined the 'white race'.
>> >
>> >Perhaps "Stone" can work out these little details and come back to us when
>> >his "definition" has not quite so many loose ends.
>> >
>> Could you be precise about the proverbial Mack Truck, "Brown"?  
>> 
>> Just which proverbial Mack Truck is it?
>> 
>> Where is the proverbial Mack Truck?
>> 
>> The dimensions of the proverbial Mack Truck?
>> 
>> Do be sure to cite references.  The devil is the details, it is said.
>> 
>> Don't forget to give us a working definition of a New Zealand scientific
>> mind as well.
>
>As "Stone" himself would say:
>
>  "*sigh*  Is this worth a response?"
>
"Brown" provides another evasion in response to another direct question.

>"Stone" has offered a "definition" of the "White" race that is vague,
>imprecise, and under which it would be impossible to determine the
>"Whiteness" of any given individual. Let someone point this out, however,
>and "Stone" merely whines that the arguments are "returning to... old and
>useless standards".
>
>It is "Stone's" definition that is "useless". 
>
"Brown" provides another evasion in response to another direct question.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Wed Sep 18 00:34:18 PDT 1996
Article: 43632 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!portc01.blue.aol.com!psinntp!psinntp!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!EU.net!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: White MEN Created Everything
Date: 17 Sep 1996 00:29:08 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 170
Message-ID: <51lk04$ehf@lex.zippo.com>
References:  <505i5q$j3a@news1.gte.net> <507kp8$hnq@opera.iinet.net.au>  <509eap$r52@gyda.ifi.uio.no>  <50h86u$h4j@news1.ucsd.edu> <32332AA5.24DC@ibm.net> <515akt$gtj@orion.cybercom.net>    <51g09q$1jt@orion.cybercom.net> <51gdhr$p9p@lex.zippo.com> <51j5p1$e39@maud.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port901-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <51j5p1$e39@maud.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <51gdhr$p9p@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <51g09q$1jt@orion.cybercom.net>, amatthews@cybercom.net says...
>> >
>
>	[snip]
>
>> >>> > > I'd like to know where you learned that white men created the following:
>> >>> > > 
>> >>> > > 1.  Gun powder
>> >
>> >The Chinese
>> >
>> Sorry, alchemists invented gunpowder.
>
>Chinese alchemists, then. Or are you claiming that the alchemists are a
>seperate "race"?
>
Alchemists in China.  Not; Alchemists of China.

Please try and do what no (chinese) historian has been able to do and that
is explain the rapid disappearance of alchemy in China.

Noting that alchemy is essentially a father-to-son trade, please explain
how China got alchemists.

>> >>> > > 2.  Paper
>> >>Egyptians, right? Or was that the Jews?
>> >
>> >The Chinese again.
>> >
>> Papyrus was invented by the Egyptians, an early form of paper and also
>> predates paper.
>
>Papyrus predates paper, yes, but unless memory fails me, papyrus is made in a
>completely different process than paper. The asians invented rice paper. I
>don't know who thought of using wood.
>
>> You should also discover that paper was invented by alchemists.
>
>Is this alchemist "race" supiriour to the "white race"?
>
Which race or "people" started the discipline of alchemy?
  
>> >>> > > 3.  Printing
>> >
>> >Yet again the Chinese.
>> >
>> Please re-examine Summerian civilisation and cylinder seals.
>
>I think this depends on what you mean by "printing".
>
Well now, I can quite easily say the Chinese didn't invent the printing
press, because it doesn't rate compared to the Gutenberg invention.

If historians are going to credit the Chinese with that invention then I
can fairly state the Sumerians predated the concept by over 3,000 years.

>> >>> > > 7.  Stone architecture (all examples of it:  e.g. Pre-Columbian America)
>> >>Were the builders of the megaliths white?
>> >
>> Using Thor Heyerdahl's theories, yes.
>
>Using Thor Heyerdahl's thoeries, no.
>
Please read at least his book "Ra."  Please look up references concerning
mummies.

You do know Thor Heyerdahl's theories don't you?

>>  Several other authors have taken up
>> the gauntlet as well, for example, "The Fingerprints of the Gods" claims
>> that the same (super) race built all of them due to their overwhelming
>> similarities.  BTW, Imhotep is credited with designing the step pyramid.
>
>You haven't confused Heyerdahl with Van Daniken, have you?
>
>> >If you mean things like Stonehenge, then, yes they were white.
>> >> How about Great Zimbabwe in Africa?
>> >Black
>> How did civilisation come to be with hunter-gatherers being alongside
>> cultivators?
>
>Is there any reason why it shouldn't?
>
Please think about the logistics.

>>  And, why did civilisation come quickly?
>
>Is there any reason why it shouldn't?
>
Please think about the logistics.

>> Most scholars agree that the builders of the now ruins were from the
>> North, what lay north?
>
>Central Africa (assuming you're still talking about Great Zimbabwe).
>
Re-phrased, what (major) civilisation lay north?  

>> How come the early excavators said they were non-Negro?
>
>The early excavators were "white" bigots like yourself, who refused to accept
>that pale skin is not a necessary requirement to be able to build a house.
>
Considering that they found intact skeletons your prejudices are showing.

>> >>> > > 19.  monotheism
>> >>Jews (gasp!) ;)
>> >
>> >No, it was the Egyptians (King Tut's dad)
>> >
>> Wrong, alchemists core belief is the one-God and we have been around a lot
>> longer than heretic pharaoh.  Minor detail:  Tutankhamun was not the son of 
>> Akhenaten.
>
>"Alchemists" again... What happened to the "whites"?
>
Your argument is?

>> We also propounded the Christian idea of resurrection well before Jesus.
>
>And that is relevant to ...?
>
Just stomping on a possible argument before it happens.

>> Though unlike Christianity we didn't limit ourselves to the human body.
>> Lead dies and resurrects into gold being one of our infamous ideas 
>> (transmutation).
>
>Wait... You believe in turning lead to gold?
>
Why not?

Next you'll say fusion and fission doesn't exist too.

As I see it, with the advent of nuclear technology the "disproof" of
transmutation has been disproved.

While still beyond current capabilities to turn lead into gold, using
the concept of fusion, it may just be possible tomorrow.  Whether anybody
would want too is another story altogether.

Anyway, I was illustrating a point.  Transmutation is the concept of an
element dying and being resurrected into a new element.

What do Christians preach what happens to them when they're dead?

To any wannabe "Browns" out there please consider this as a whole.  The
usual dissection techniques employed will render this incomprehensible.

>> Sorry to say, with the exception of investigation into the heavenly bodies,
>> the art is the root of all technological and scientific progression.
>
>Huh? What *are* you smoking, Ouro? You're previous postings were more or less
>coherent, albeit prejudiced, but this last bit sounds like something out of a
>New Age session.
>
I was bored.  I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, New Age.

I am and always have been fascinated by the art.  Alchemy was the beginning
of scientific investigation and has continued to be dominant in scientific
thought till this century.  Alchemy can make no claims about progress into
the study of heavenly bodies, except for the Sun.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Wed Sep 18 10:08:38 PDT 1996
Article: 43641 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!cs.utexas.edu!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: White MEN Created Everything
Date: 17 Sep 1996 00:33:29 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <51lk89$emt@lex.zippo.com>
References:  <505i5q$j3a@news1.gte.net> <507kp8$hnq@opera.iinet.net.au>  <509eap$r52@gyda.ifi.uio.no>  <50h86u$h4j@news1.ucsd.edu> <32332AA5.24DC@ibm.net> <515akt$gtj@orion.cybercom.net>    <51g09q$1jt@orion.cybercom.net> <51gdhr$p9p@lex.zippo.com> <51jcft$bmj@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port901-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <51jcft$bmj@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <51g09q$1jt@orion.cybercom.net>, amatthews@cybercom.net says...
>
>[...]
>
>>>>> > > 7.  Stone architecture (all examples of it:  e.g. Pre-Columbian America)
>>>>Were the builders of the megaliths white?
>
>>Using Thor Heyerdahl's theories, yes.  Several other authors have taken up
>>the gauntlet as well, for example, "The Fingerprints of the Gods" claims
>>that the same (super) race built all of them due to their overwhelming
>>similarities.  BTW, Imhotep is credited with designing the step pyramid.
>
>The author of "The Fingerprints of the Gods" is, I believe, a journalist?
>With no formal training or qualifications in architecture or archaeology?
>
I believe he claims the opposite, except perhaps the journalism part [note
"perhaps"].

>Apart from the fact that New World and Old World pyramids both are bigger 
>at the bottom and smaller at the top, just what are their alleged 
>"overwhelming similarities", "Mr. Stone"?
>
Please read his book as he discusses them.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Wed Sep 18 10:08:39 PDT 1996
Article: 43687 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!news.ironhorse.com!news.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Finsten: Proponent for Freedom of Speech
Date: 17 Sep 1996 16:53:17 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <51ndld$h4c@lex.zippo.com>
References: <50nn6u$kvo@lex.zippo.com> <50sj22$42r@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <50tkjk$m1i@lex.zippo.com> <50vsia$up@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <5138go$n26@lex.zippo.com> <516dlj$4ai@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <519nc6$evv@lex.zippo.com> <51jmvh$k1i@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port943-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <51jmvh$k1i@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <516dlj$4ai@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>>>>But my point is not argue whether fundamentalists are right or wrong,
>>>>but merely, if they have done the work, shouldn't they be credited for
>>>>it?  I know the usual reaction is just to scoff.
>
>>>No, "Mr. Stone".  Doing the work, as you put it, isn't enough if the end
>>>result of the work fails to demonstrate an understanding of the material
>>>that constitutes the scope of the course, essay question, or assignment.
>
>>No, "Miss Finsten".  You are saying that no matter what, unless they 
>>accept the dogma, then they have failed to accept the dogma and its
>>"truth."
>
>No, "Mr. Stone".  I am saying that if the question or assignment asks them
>to demonstrate that they *understand* a certain body of theory, data and
>interpretations and their responses fail to demonstrate that they have
>acquired that understanding, then they have not done what they were asked
>to do.  Please note that the key word is "understanding", not "acceptance"
>or "belief".  I can demonstrate that I "understand" the 17th and 18th
>century concept of "The Great Chain of Being", and discuss what was used
>as "evidence" to support this ordering of life on earth.  This does *not*
>mean, however, that I *accept* this as a valid or useful way to explain
>the variety of life on earth or the relationships between different life
>forms, or that I believe literally in the creation account in the book
>of Genesis.  
>
Clever.

So you are stating that you don't necessarily teach facts?  

>>>Gee thanks for reminding me that this is a hypothetical example.  Otherwise
>>>how would I know?
>
>>Please review your comrades, this wasn't specifically for you, but your
>>uncomprehending comrades that desire to amuse us with their stupidity.
>
>"review my comrades"????  Gee, I'm the drill sargeant here and nobody told
>me.  I'm miffed.  I coulda been ordering people around all this time and
>instead I've just been sitting here all by lonesome posting away...
>
One would of thought that having a Ph.D would mean you were a leader of
sorts.

>>>My answer is a very simple one: "d. other".  The techniques used to determine
>>>the ages of fossil evidence all stem from the geophysical sciences, and I
>>>am not a geophysical scientist.  There are very few anthropologists who
>>>would have the specialised knowledge necessary to evaluate the challenge
>>>to geophysics implied in your hypothetical scenario.  I would leave the
>>>debate to the geophysicists and other scientists who know what they are
>>>talking about.
>
>>In other words, "Go to the apartment down the hall."  Typical inefficient
>>bureaucracy.
>
>Bureaucracy???  Ah "Mr. Stone" the wise, so intelligent that he has mastered
>not only an entire discipline and all its internal subdivisions, but also
>every related science or other area of study that has any relationships to 
>that discipline.  So you are saying that people who study fossil hominids
>should not only be palaeoanthropologists (and experts in every other field
>of anthropology, as well), but should also know as much about geophysics
>as a geophysicist, about palaeontology as a palaeontologist, about
>palaeogeography as a palaeogeographer, about geology as a geologist,
>about primate behaviour and anatomy as a primatologist...  
>My aren't you exacting in your standards.
>
What else is a Professor good for if they haven't studied and mastered a
multiplicity of disciplines?

Let us not forget that you are only too willing to provide your opinions
on many levels.  I have not seen you restrict yourself to posts that
concern only anthropology "Miss Finsten."

Let us not forget your comrades expect me to cover and master a multi-
plicity of disciplines as well.  Perhaps the standard you decree as 
unfair is really the consequence of the standards your comrades exact.

Ourobouros.








From Ourobouros Wed Sep 18 12:52:13 PDT 1996
Article: 66633 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!eloi.vir.com!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!clicnet!news.clic.net!wesley.videotron.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-pen-14.sprintlink.net!newsreader.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-atl-21.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!howland.erols.net!EU.net!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 17 Sep 1996 16:28:26 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <51nc6q$ggd@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51gnna$m2@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <51hjgj$ihe@lex.zippo.com> <51loud$8aq@maud.ifi.uio.no> <51n1e2$c8v@lex.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port943-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:43704 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30062 alt.revisionism:66633

In article <51n1e2$c8v@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros says...
>
>In article <51loud$8aq@maud.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>>
>>
>>In article <51hjgj$ihe@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>>> In article <51gnna$m2@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>

>>> >We all came out of Africa, you know...
>>> >Dig deep enough in your own "woodpile", and you'll probably find a few
>>> >"niggers" yourself.
>>> >
>>> Prove we came out of Africa.
>>
>>May I refer you to a newsgroup called sci.bio.paleontology? They'll bury you
>>in evidence. I'd give you a bunch of links to follow, but Metacrawler seems to
>>be down at the moment, so the only link I can give you at the moment is:
>>
>>	http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/
>>
>>I'll call you back on this, if it's important you you.
>>
I have read bits and pieces of it.  It doesn't overly interest me, since
I am neither an evolutionist or a creationist.  It may interest me if I
ever tire of lively debate on these newsgroups as I like arguing.

>>Are you by any chance a Creationist?
>>
>I don't believe in the theory of evolution if thats what you mean.  I am
>definitely not a Christian either.
>
On retrospect I should be more specific before some moron/liberal gets the
wrong impression as the usually do.

There are some aspects of the theory of evolution I agree with, natural
selection, possibly mutations*, but not things like common descent.  One
of the biggest holes in evolution is polar molecules.

I would not classify myself as a Creationist.  Things like a recent global 
flood are nonsense with me.

>>>  And do explain how the Australian Aborigine
>>> managed to get to Australia in your African theory/"proof."
>>
>>Have you ever heard of boats?
>>
>Have you ever heard of Australian Aborigines?
>
Please be careful in your reply to this one.

Ourobouros.

* Not mutations persay, but whether they have a long term effect, ie., 
the population removes the mutation over time.


From Ourobouros Thu Sep 19 07:41:27 PDT 1996
Article: 66714 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!newsfeed.internetmci.com!demos!news.stealth.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 18 Sep 1996 11:37:28 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <51pfh8$lsb@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51gnna$m2@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <51hjgj$ihe@lex.zippo.com> <51loud$8aq@maud.ifi.uio.no> <51n1e2$c8v@lex.zippo.com> <51nc6q$ggd@lex.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port898-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:43748 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30107 alt.revisionism:66714

In article <51nc6q$ggd@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros says...
>
>In article <51n1e2$c8v@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros says...
>>
>>In article <51loud$8aq@maud.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>>>
>>>
>>>In article <51hjgj$ihe@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>>>> In article <51gnna$m2@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>>
>
[snip]

>On retrospect I should be more specific before some moron/liberal gets the
>wrong impression as the usually do.
>
>There are some aspects of the theory of evolution I agree with, natural
>selection, possibly mutations*, but not things like common descent.  One
>of the biggest holes in evolution is polar molecules.
>
Polar molecules is wrong.  I don't remember the correct terminalogy at
the moment, but they are mirror compounds -- two ways to which the
molecule can exist and each is a mirror image of the other.

[snip]

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Thu Sep 19 09:34:36 PDT 1996
Article: 66810 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!hookup!newsfeed.internetmci.com!demos!news.stealth.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 18 Sep 1996 12:25:55 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 194
Message-ID: <51pic3$n7f@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51gnna$m2@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <51hjgj$ihe@lex.zippo.com> <51loud$8aq@maud.ifi.uio.no> <51n1e2$c8v@lex.zippo.com> <51p76e$b6r@gyda.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port898-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:43790 alt.revisionism:66810 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30179

In article <51p76e$b6r@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <51n1e2$c8v@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <51loud$8aq@maud.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>> >So if you only have European ancestors, you're white?
>> >
>> Not necessarily.  Few modern Portuguese are white.
>
>So where does the geographical boundry between "white" and "non-white" go in
>Europe?
>
Why does there have to be a geographical boundary?  That's the fallacy of
modern anthropologists.  If you in greater Europe then your Caucasian.

>
>> >Did it never dawn on you that Euros do not look all exactly alike? We're not
>> >clones, you know. Some Euros have "long" heads, like myself, others have
>> >"round" heads, like my brother.
>> 
>> Is he your full brother, not a half or step brother?
>
>He is my full brother.
>Of course, he may have a "rounded" version of the "longhead" skull you're
>talking about...
>
Without a pair of calipers and your brother around I have absolutely no
way of knowing.  This could be a standard bluff (which I suspect).

>> >> >> 7.  Thinnish lips.
>> >> >
>> >> >Uh huh. That would be a surprise to many Northern Europeans. I guess I'm not
>> >> >"white" either. Mind you, I can trace my ancestry back to the late 1300's.
>> >> >Only Europeans there.
>> >> >Also, when I was in the army, I had to live with an extremely racistic moron
>> >> >for the better part of nine months. One of his favourite phantasies was
>> >> >chopping the head of each and every "nigger" in Africa. This guy had
>> >> >"thickish" lips. I wish I could have shown him your definition of "white".
>> >> >
>> >> These thick lips, do they come close to the stereotypical nigger?
>> >
>> >The stereotypical "nigger" has lips remniscent of a folded bicycle tube dipped
>> >in red paint. I've never seen lips like that on a living being, human or non-.
>> >
>> >But I don't care what the stereotypes are; this is about real humans.
>> >
>
>Here comes Ouroburous' "adult" sigh:
>
>>                   *sigh*
>> 
>> Generally Negroes have fat lips.
>  ^^^^^^^^^
>
>So you're saying there *are* negroes with thin lips?
>
Ethiopians don't have fat lips.  According to geographical boundaries
they are Negro.

>>  Now for you to say x group doesn't have 
>> fat lips, then I will say x group is a half-breed and then the cycle 
>> continues.
>
>Uh huh. So if I can find pictures of people from areas further south, with
>thin lips, you'll still claim that they're "half-breeds"? I know of a book
>that describes the people of all the most important tribes in Africa south of
>Sahara. If I can get my hands on a copy, I might be able to dig up a few
>examples of tribes that contradict your claims.
>
The Arabs went quite a distance into Africa.

>> >> BTW, your above Negroes are most probably half-breeds, such as the
>> >> Ethiopians.
>> >
>> >So how far south do you have to go before you get to the "purebreeds". Where
>> >do you draw the line between "half-bred" and "purebred"? I'm talking geography
>> >here, not Euros in the woodpile.
>> >
>> You'd have  to look for signs of Arabian travel inside Africa to know that
>> one.  Generally speaking the jungle dominated areas are where purebreds
>> are.
>
>So in other words, just about every single African is a "half-breed"?
>
No, just where Arabs or their subjects couldn't have penetrated.

>> >> >> 8.  Highly developed frontal lobes and "wrinkling" of outer brain.
>> >> >
>> >> >*All* humans are like that, except for some unfortunate individuals (of *any*
>> >> >ethnic group).
>> >> >
>> >> Consider the term "comparative."
>> >
>> >Uh huh.
>> >
>> >> A Chimpanzee has almost none, an Australian Aborigine has a bit more,
>> >> a African Negro has even more, but all are small and retarded compared to
>> >> the White man.
>> >
>> >Do you have *any* evidence to support these claims? I think not. During WWII,
>> >the nazi doctors were trying to find conclusive evidence, proving once and for
>> >all, that the germanic "race" was supiriour to the others. They failed.
>> >
>> I have quoted a book before, ask "Finsten."
>
>If you mean "Cavalli-Sforza", I think she's still laughing at that one.
>
No, brain-dead.  I have not used C-S in the frontal lobe argument.

I have also noticed you have removed my question asking for proof of your
Nazi doctor claim.

Strange.

>> >> Pathologists are supposed to be able to identify race on the brain, as 
>> >> Enoch Powell forced a police pathologist to admit in the UK back in the
>> >> 70s.
>> >
>> >But does this identification rely on the "development of the frontal lobes and
>> >wrinkling of the outer brain"? Or rather on skull shape due to ethnic
>> >variations?
>> >
>> It is probably a combination of both.
>
>Could you provide some evidence of this?
>
At the present, no.

>> >> >> 9.  Other possibilities including: long fingers,
>> >> >
>> >> >I know many "whites" with short fingers.
>> >> >
>> >> Comparatively speaking.
>> >
>> >So just how short do these fingers have to be? 3 cm? 2 cm?.
>> >
>Here's another "adult" sigh:
>
>>           *sigh*
>> 
>> I was contrasting them with Negro fingers.
>> 
>> >>  You must remember that I am contrasting a lot of
>> >> these definitions with the other races.  You should find an absence of 
>> >> stubby, negro & polynesian fingers in the White race.
>> >
>> >	[I make a quick scan of the room. Notice the hands of a "nigger"]
>> >
>> >This guy's fingers are as long as mine. And mine are average when compared to
>> >others of the "white race".
>> >
>> Palm size in comparison is?  Thickness of the fingers in comparison is?
>
>Instead of just asking *me* for the measurements of the hands of some guy I
>saw yesterday, why don't you just tell us all the numbers, indexes, ratios,
>whatever, that seperate a "white" hand from a "black" hand. The complete lack
>of specific figures makes your side of the discussion look rather silly.
>
For God's bloody sake, I said "OTHER POSSIBILITIES INCLUDE" in the
original post.  If you can please insert this into your brain.  

Will you stop acting moronic.

>> >> >> 11.  No known mongrelisation, eg., no nigger in the woodpile.
>
>BTW: You're from New Zealand, yes? How long since your ancestors immigrated?
>How can you be certain that there isn't a Maori somewhere in your woodpile?
>
I'm afraid we can.  Remembering geneologies is part of the Maori "culture."
It is also one of the fundamental basis for pre-European history for
historians.  Not only are the Maori religious about geneologies, Europeans
have long since kept geneology tables.

Last but not least, until political stupidity, Maori-Europeans marriages
were ostracised.

It is quite easy to know whether there is any Maori in my ancestry and no,
I don't have any.

>> >>  And do explain how the Australian Aborigine
>> >> managed to get to Australia in your African theory/"proof."
>> >
>> >Have you ever heard of boats?
>> >
>> Have you ever heard of Australian Aborigines?
>
>What is that supposed to mean? And you didn't answer my question.
>
As to its meaning, I am not surprised to find you can't comprehend it.  And
yes, it does answer the question.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Thu Sep 19 11:55:40 PDT 1996
Article: 66833 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!spool.mu.edu!newspump.sol.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!zdc-e!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: McVay's bullshit and double standards
Date: 19 Sep 1996 00:04:04 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <51qr94$892@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51nesm$hme@lex.zippo.com> <323FEE40.2747@ccnis.net> <51paa4$m1h@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port949-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:43803 alt.revisionism:66833 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30188

In article <51paa4$m1h@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>, kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca says...
>
>In article <323FEE40.2747@ccnis.net>, 
>"Annie Alpert, OFB"  wrote:
>
>>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>> For reference:
>>> http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/nyms/stone/cavalli-sforza-fabrication
>>> For all onlookers please note that McVay has this specially marked and
>>> without my reply.
>>> What is McVay's game?
>>> Does he attempt to be fair or does he need to resort to such tactics to
>>> keep the money flowing in?
>
>>It's comforting to know that you avail yourself of the Nizkor resources.
>>It is a pretty amazing collection of information, isn't it!
>
It's also a piece of proverbial shit.

>It is also comforting to know that Mr. "Stone" hasn't changed
>his spots, either. His reply (Note the "without my reply," above)
>is quite openly archived in stone.0996. In short, he is still
>a liar.
>
>It's comforting to know that some things never change.
>
What good is my reply in stone.0996 O' coward?

You are delibrately misrepresenting my argument to gain some "brownie
points" from your comrades.  Do you need to use such tactics to brown-
nose your donators?

If you are going to have a special file just for sole representation of
Finsten's feeble arguments then it is straight misrepresentation.  You
have not recorded my reply directly to your jumped-up file.  That is my
complaint, you are delibrately trying to cloud the waters with more of
your bullshit.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Thu Sep 19 16:50:30 PDT 1996
Article: 43831 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!news.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Another free-speech debate (was Ken Mcvay...)
Date: 18 Sep 1996 11:49:52 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <51pg8g$m69@lex.zippo.com>
References: <519mlj$eq9@lex.zippo.com> <51h22h$222@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <51i5eu$ohk@lex.zippo.com> <51m9gu$437@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port898-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <51m9gu$437@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <51h22h$222@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>

>>Except for a few times, Miss "Finsten" you'll note I tend to keep away
>>from Hoaxacost arguments.  The times I have engaged in such pursuits you 
>>should note the obvious flaws in my opponents arguments.
>
>You just can't admit error, can you "Mr. Stone"?  You asked a series
>of questions about the Holocaust that were based on false claims about
>what mainstream historians have said about it.  Period.  The "obvious
>flaws" are in your understanding of the history of the Holocaust.
>
In other words the "holocaust" had no time limit, it happened over an
indefinite period of time and of course people just died all over the
place without reference to an approximate number.  Yes, I asked the
wrong questions when the "holocaust" is such a vague entity. I wonder
how you anti-revisionist comrades support you.

>>>>>>>>Citations where I have lied Finsten.  Please don't confuse this
>>>>>>>>with your usual mis-interpretation of what I write.
>

>>>Well, how about I ask you to affirm something for me, to save a little
>>>time.  Did you, or did you not, claim that a table on page 160 of
>>>Jonathon Marks' "Human Biodiversity: Genes, Race and History" indicates
>>>that Caucasoids' heads are dolichocephalic in shape?  Are you going to
>>>deny having claimed this?  I haven't looked up your post, so you may
>>>have said "whites".  It doesn't matter.  However you phrased it, you
>>>lied either about having consulted the book, or about what it said
>>>on this subject.
>
>>>You did make this claim, "Mr. Stone".  I reproduced the relevant line
>>>from the table in this book, which says that Caucasoid head forms are
>>>"medium" and that only Negroids have "long heads".
>
>>>You lied, either about having consulted this book, or about what the
>>>book actually said.  Whichever way it goes, you lied.
>
>>Ah, I believe I have discovered the point you were trying to make.  If you
>>care to go through the old arguments again, you should find that I was
>>referring to the fact that anthropologists, really police pathologists, 
>>still use skull shapes in determining race.  Still in use when they were 
>>supposedly debunked by the Jew Boas.  If I somehow made this point unclear 
>>I apologize.  The point about Police pathologists has been added here for
>>the first time, though you will note Mr. Marks is writing about them in 
>>said reference.  You should note your claim about "craniometry" being
>>outdated was around this time as well, oh sorry "cephalic index" as you
>>later claimed you said.
>
>No, "Mr. Stone", you cited the table on page 160 of Marks' book as
>supporting your assertion that "even a liberal anthropologist" like
>Marks' agrees that "Whites'" heads are long.  And now you are claiming
>to have "meant" something utterly different.  What utter crap.
>
>I'll tell you what, I'll post the URL for this lie of yours, and you
>can post the URL for my alleged statement that craniometry is outdated.
>I've challenged you to do so at least a half dozen times, and yet you
>have not provided it.  
>
Post your assertion away.

>>I would never say any modern anthropologist would classify a Caucasoid as
>>dolichocephalic.  I might venture to say some modern anthropologists may
>>classify the Nordic section as being dolichocephalic.  
>
>
>"might venture to say".....  Well, that sounds like prevarication if
>I ever heard it.  So your list of definitive traits for "Whites" is
>based on what some anthropologist, at some point in the last century
>or so, "might [have] venture[d] to say"???  
> ...
Most modern anthropologists aren't interested in race, right or wrong?
The will debunk any notion of race to keep the paycheck coming, right or
wrong?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Thu Sep 19 20:31:20 PDT 1996
Article: 43838 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!zdc-e!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 19 Sep 1996 00:25:39 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <51qshj$8kd@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com>  <51g36e$m87@lex.zippo.com>  <51m9h8$437@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port949-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <51m9h8$437@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>jeff_brown@pol.com (Jeffrey G. Brown) wrote:
>>In article <51g36e$m87@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>> In article ,
>>jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>[...]
>
>>> >Which genes, specifically, determine skin color?
>
>>> Check for the author Cavalli-Sforza, and no, it is not mentioned in the
>>> book "History and Geography of Human Genes."
>
>>In other words, "Stone" either doesn't know, or prefers to remain vague in
>>order to give himself room to maneuver.
>
>Yes, this is one of "Mr. Stone's" favourite gimmicks.  He tosses out the
>name of a reputable scientist, and expects his critics to scramble to
>uncover the nuggets of wisdom that he himself has tripped across.  This
>is both ironic and idiotic for several reasons.  First, as is evident
>from the quotation I cited (with authors, book title and publisher), 
>the loci of the gene(s) controlling melanin content in the skin have not
>yet been identiified, and so the number of genes involved, and the number
>of alleles for these loci, are unknown at present.  But he pretends to
>have the support of Cavalli-Sforza for this claim.  Second, Cavalli-
>Sforza is the author or co-author of scores, if not hundreds, of journal 
>articles, book chapters and books.  In the bibliography for "The History
>and Geography of Human Genes", there are 25 which list him as first or
>sole author.  And finally, "Mr. Stone" has already demonstrated clearly
>his inability to understand Cavalli-Sforza's work and/or his propensity
>to misrepresent what it actually says.  And he expects his readers to
>take his vague claims that the literature supports his views seriously!
>
I admit I have made some errors here, though not as drastic as "Miss
Finsten" would like to believe.

  "Certainly the most conspicuous difference existing between the races
  is that of skin color.  We know that the differentiation of black and
  white is due to at least four genes, although we have not identified
  these genes individually.  There are also some differences in body
  build and in facial traits among the various racial groups.  These all
  help us to recognize the racial group that an individual belongs to
  from his appearance."

C-S, "Elements of Human Genetics", California, 1977, p.115.

You may also wish to examine:

C-S, "Genetics of Human Populations", San Fransisco, 1971, p.527-531.

Which is on skin colour.


>>> >> 10.  At some point in the future genetic distance maps visibly 
>>> >> demonstrating the White gene pool, as has vaguely being done by Cavalli-
>>> >> Sforza and his team in "History and Geography of Human Genes", 1994.  For
>>> >> a person to be White they will have to be within the appropriate area.
>
>[...]
>
>>> The Human Genome project has not been completed yet.  Offshoots of the
>>> research, such as the aforementioned book, have revealed that there is
>>> genetic distances between the races.  More detail is pending on more
>>> published research.
>
>Oh goody, I can hardly wait to see the additional citations of published
>research.  Cavalli-Sforza's work is not an "offshoot" of the Human
>Genome Project, "Mr. Stone".  The Human Genome project is mapping the
>genes on the human chromosome.  Cavalli-Sforza's research is concerned
>with population genetics.  That you don't yet understand this difference
>undermines further what little credibility you may have had remaining.
>
So you are saying the population genetics is a self-contained entity and
never ever looks outside its own discipline?  

If true, it would explain your incredible (and wilful) ignorance on most
things.  For someone who claims to admire C-S you do your best to not
know anything he writes.

Please tell me that human population genetics conducts its own genetic
tests and completely ignores all other human genetic fields.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Thu Sep 19 20:31:21 PDT 1996
Article: 43852 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!news.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 18 Sep 1996 12:45:42 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <51pjh6$nlh@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com>  <51g36e$m87@lex.zippo.com>  <323DD95D.3CE7@conterra.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port898-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <323DD95D.3CE7@conterra.com>, Bob says...
>
>None of these clones ever has the slightest trouble with defining white
>when they are insulting or atttacking the white race.  If anyuone says
>anything  good about it, it becomes the "so-called white race".
>    If anyone defends the white race, the answer of ll of them, as
>befits clones, is DUHHHH!!!   This particular DUHHH!!!  means "What is
>this so-called white race?"  As I say, in case of insulting whites or
>demanding reparations, they know exactly who whites are, no problem.
>    
I don't know if I agree with you here, Bob.  Liberals have yet to have
trouble supporting logical contradictions.  For example, the label us as
White trash, because we're racially aware, yet they have no problem
supporting Affirmative Action, which is against "racist" rich white men.
They have no problem with the two opposite definitions.

It is hard to imagine whether liberals possess coherant thought with such
blatant fallacies as their root doctrines.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Thu Sep 19 20:31:21 PDT 1996
Article: 43853 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!news.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism.alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 18 Sep 1996 12:07:02 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <51ph8m$ml4@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <323C4740.429B@unb.ca> <51i3o0$nuk@lex.zippo.com> <323F2397.22E2@unb.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port898-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <323F2397.22E2@unb.ca>, Keith says...
>
>I'm curious how the New Zealand Wormmeister would define the members of
>this group.
>
>Male: shorter than North American average, black hair, long nose, dark
>      complexion, fairly thick body hair, muscular, thick build
>
>female: shorter than North American average, light brown hair, light
>        complexion
>
>male:  Average North American height, small nose, prominent jaw
>       and chin, light brown hair, not much body hair, muscular
>       thick build
>
>male:  Taller than North American Average, dark brown hair, long nose,
>       thin wiry build
>
>female:  Average North American height, small nose, blonde hair
>
>Note that this group was selected almost at random.  Note that I have
>not stated where they orginated.
>
>Now, Mr Stone, who in this group, according to your definitions, is
>white, who isn't and why?
>
According to my definitions you haven't completed the list.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Fri Sep 20 01:16:07 PDT 1996
Article: 67005 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!hookup!chi-news.cic.net!usc!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!zdc-e!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ken McVay and double standards at Nizkor
Date: 18 Sep 1996 23:56:52 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <51qqrk$7uv@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51nesm$hme@lex.zippo.com> <51p9de$o1j@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port949-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:43881 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30280 alt.revisionism:67005

In article <51p9de$o1j@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/nyms/stone/cavalli-sforza-fabrication
>
>>For all onlookers please note that McVay has this specially marked and
>>without my reply.
>>
>>What is McVay's game?
>>
>>Does he attempt to be fair or does he need to resort to such tactics to
>>keep the money flowing in?
>>
>>Ken McVay: Blowhard, coward and hypocrite.
>
>"Mr. Stone", it is possible that your reply has not made it onto the Nizkor
>site yet, is it not?  After all, I only saw it this morning.  And I notice
>that it doesn't address my suggestion that you are either purposely lying or 
>unintentionally misrepresenting Cavalli-Sforza's position and data because
>you don't understand it.
>
If your question gets special providence from McVay, so should my reply.

As for what you think of my reply I don't really care.  Like Judd tried you 
are trying to put words in my mouth.  I never said that C-S made a White
race in his book, you are making it up.  I detest your supposed 
interpretation of my posts to try and boast your deflated ego.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Fri Sep 20 10:53:47 PDT 1996
Article: 43860 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!news.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism.alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 18 Sep 1996 12:07:02 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <51ph8m$me2@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <323C4740.429B@unb.ca> <51i3o0$nuk@lex.zippo.com> <323F2397.22E2@unb.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port898-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <323F2397.22E2@unb.ca>, Keith says...
>
>I'm curious how the New Zealand Wormmeister would define the members of
>this group.
>
>Male: shorter than North American average, black hair, long nose, dark
>      complexion, fairly thick body hair, muscular, thick build
>
>female: shorter than North American average, light brown hair, light
>        complexion
>
>male:  Average North American height, small nose, prominent jaw
>       and chin, light brown hair, not much body hair, muscular
>       thick build
>
>male:  Taller than North American Average, dark brown hair, long nose,
>       thin wiry build
>
>female:  Average North American height, small nose, blonde hair
>
>Note that this group was selected almost at random.  Note that I have
>not stated where they orginated.
>
>Now, Mr Stone, who in this group, according to your definitions, is
>white, who isn't and why?
>
According to my definitions you haven't completed the list.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Fri Sep 20 11:46:46 PDT 1996
Article: 67091 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.intersurf.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power.alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 19 Sep 1996 12:06:44 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 212
Message-ID: <51s5k4$436@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51gnna$m2@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <51hjgj$ihe@lex.zippo.com> <51loud$8aq@maud.ifi.uio.no> <51n1e2$c8v@lex.zippo.com> <51p76e$b6r@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <51pic3$n7f@lex.zippo.com> <51rr6e$8t3@maud.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port939-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <51rr6e$8t3@maud.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <51pic3$n7f@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <51p76e$b6r@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...

>> >So where does the geographical boundry between "white" and "non-white" go in
>> >Europe?
>> >
>> Why does there have to be a geographical boundary?  That's the fallacy of
>> modern anthropologists.
>
>Oh! It's ok to have a "racial" boundry based on stereotypes, but it's not ok
>to have a geografical boundry, which is clearly visible on any map!
>
According to your definition of race the Whites in Rhodesia would be
Negro.

>>  If you in greater Europe then your Caucasian.
>
>Huh? "Greater Europe"???
>
>And if you're from Caucasia?
>
If you care about looking up the geographical boudaries that most 
anthropologists have given for the Caucasian race you have all of Europe,
North Africa, Russia, and down through the Middle East, including Turkey.

It's much easier to say "greater Europe" than all that mess.

>> >> >Did it never dawn on you that Euros do not look all exactly alike? We're not
>> >> >clones, you know. Some Euros have "long" heads, like myself, others have
>> >> >"round" heads, like my brother.
>> >> Is he your full brother, not a half or step brother?
>> >He is my full brother.
>> >Of course, he may have a "rounded" version of the "longhead" skull you're
>> >talking about...
>> Without a pair of calipers and your brother around I have absolutely no
>> way of knowing.
>
>So there is such a thing as a "rounded longhead"? In other words, you do
>accept that not all "white" skulls are exactly equal?
>
You were asserting that your brother was brachycephalic and yourself as
dolichocephalic.  It was only in your last post that you decided that he
was a rounded longhead.

>> This could be a standard bluff (which I suspect).
>
>Are you calling me a liar? Of course, that would be an easy way out of the
>hole you've dug for yourself...
>
Considering that you were the one who went from round head to rounded
longhead I would say you are the one with a spade.
>
>> >> >> >> 7.  Thinnish lips.
>
>	[snip]
>
>> >Uh huh. So if I can find pictures of people from areas further south, with
>> >thin lips, you'll still claim that they're "half-breeds"? I know of a book
>> >that describes the people of all the most important tribes in Africa south of
>> >Sahara. If I can get my hands on a copy, I might be able to dig up a few
>> >examples of tribes that contradict your claims.
>> >
>> The Arabs went quite a distance into Africa.
>
>I see you're still keeping your escape hatch open.
>
What escape hatch?  You are the one who is ignorant on the matter.

>	[snip]
>
>> >So in other words, just about every single African is a "half-breed"?
>> >
>> No, just where Arabs or their subjects couldn't have penetrated.
>
>Could you please tell me what parts of Africa that definitly weren't visited
>by the Arabs *before* I start looking for thin-lipped tribes?
>
The Hottentots are one example.

>> >> >> >> 8.  Highly developed frontal lobes and "wrinkling" of outer brain.
>
>	[brain development]
>
>> >> >Do you have *any* evidence to support these claims? I think not. During WWII,
>> >> >the nazi doctors were trying to find conclusive evidence, proving once and for
>> >> >all, that the germanic "race" was supiriour to the others. They failed.
>> >> I have quoted a book before, ask "Finsten."
>> >If you mean "Cavalli-Sforza", I think she's still laughing at that one.
>> No, brain-dead.
>
>I saw that movie. Entertaining.
>
It was.

>>  I have not used C-S in the frontal lobe argument.
>
>Oops! My mistake. The C-S argument was about... "white" genes, yes?
>
Let me re-iterate to stop the stupid interpretation of liberals.  C-S has
never (to my knowledge) said anything about white genes.  

>> I have also noticed you have removed my question asking for proof of your
>> Nazi doctor claim.
>> Strange.
>
>I wasn't in the mood to give you even a minor victory in a point that diverged
>from the issue (frontal lobes and smooth brains), but I see it was important
>to you, so: No, I have no *direct* evidence that they failed to find evidence of
>racial supiriority.
>
I see.

>But I do have *indirect* evidence:
>
This is not good enough for "Brown" and he is your comrade.  If such are
his standards should I accept the following?

>If the nazi doctors had managed to find evidence of racial supiriority, you,
>and others like you, would be referring to it at each and every opportunity.
>Furthermore, I would have seen this evidence and accepted it, and would not be
>having this argument with you now.
>But this evidence is nowhere to be found, so by all likelihood, it does not
>exist.
>
Or perhaps the evidence was secreted or destroyed.  You must remember places
like Bletchley Park stand as monuments of secrecy and documents.

>	[fingers and hands]
>
>> >Instead of just asking *me* for the measurements of the hands of some guy I
>> >saw yesterday, why don't you just tell us all the numbers, indexes, ratios,
>> >whatever, that seperate a "white" hand from a "black" hand. The complete lack
>> >of specific figures makes your side of the discussion look rather silly.
>> >
>> For God's bloody sake, I said "OTHER POSSIBILITIES INCLUDE" in the
>> original post.  If you can please insert this into your brain.
>
>Ah, you were just tossing out vague suggestions for future possible use in
>defining "white"...
>
Exactly, it is strange however that you are your comrades all thought that
these were set in stone.  Can liberals interpret information correctly?

>> Will you stop acting moronic.
>
>Your entire list was moronic.
>
Uh huh.

>> >> >> >> 11.  No known mongrelisation, eg., no nigger in the woodpile.
>> >
>> >BTW: You're from New Zealand, yes? How long since your ancestors immigrated?
>> >How can you be certain that there isn't a Maori somewhere in your woodpile?
>> >
>> I'm afraid we can.  Remembering geneologies is part of the Maori "culture."
>> It is also one of the fundamental basis for pre-European history for
>> historians.  Not only are the Maori religious about geneologies, Europeans
>> have long since kept geneology tables.
>
>So the Maori and European communities are strictly seperated? Tell me then;
>how do you view the Europeans of New Zealand: As invaders of other people's
>land, or as settlers in an unpopulated area?
>
Strictly "as settlers in an unpopulated area."  Before you get on your
high-horse read some early history of New Zealand concerning colonization.

>> Last but not least, until political stupidity, Maori-Europeans marriages
>> were ostracised.
>
>Which would lead to secrecy; in other words, eventual Maori ancestors would
>not be recorded.
>
No to ostracism.  The Maori still record their geneologies as there are no
full blooded Maori left.  A non argument based on ignorance by you.

>> It is quite easy to know whether there is any Maori in my ancestry and no,
>> I don't have any.
>
>How can you be absolutely certain? What is the color of your eyes? Hair? How
>kinky is it (on a scale of 0-10 ranging from straight to pure Afro)? Does your
>skin have a rosy complexion, or is it deeply tanned? How are you built?
>Slight, or really *big*, like some Polynesians?
>
I am absolutely certain.  My family is only four generations old in New
Zealand (both sides).  Geneologies for such a period are dead easy.

>> >> >>  And do explain how the Australian Aborigine
>> >> >> managed to get to Australia in your African theory/"proof."
>> >> >Have you ever heard of boats?
>> >> Have you ever heard of Australian Aborigines?
>> >What is that supposed to mean? And you didn't answer my question.
>> As to its meaning, I am not surprised to find you can't comprehend it.  And
>> yes, it does answer the question.
>
>Oh, let me guess; you're saying that Australian Aborigines don't build boats
>*now*, so they never did so before either. That's plain stupid (provided
>that's what you mean). Their ancestors may well have come on boats. But
>Australia is kinda huge, and they may not have needed boats. Which is why they
>would have forgotten how to build and use them.
>
              *sigh*

Africa is an even larger place than Australia.  Your argument is so flimsy
that "Brown's" proverbial Mack Truck would be a piece of dust in one of
the holes.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Fri Sep 20 11:46:47 PDT 1996
Article: 67099 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.structured.net!news.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Subject: Ken McVay and double standards at Nizkor
Date: 17 Sep 1996 17:14:14 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <51nesm$hme@lex.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port943-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:43923 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30331 alt.revisionism:67099

For reference:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/nyms/stone/cavalli-sforza-fabrication

For all onlookers please note that McVay has this specially marked and
without my reply.

What is McVay's game?

Does he attempt to be fair or does he need to resort to such tactics to
keep the money flowing in?

Ken McVay: Blowhard, coward and hypocrite.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sat Sep 21 09:51:23 PDT 1996
Article: 67283 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!chi-news.cic.net!newspump.sol.net!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!enews.sgi.com!news.sgi.com!news-out.microserve.net!news-in.microserve.net!zdc-e!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 20 Sep 1996 22:55:29 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 293
Message-ID: <52000h$299@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51i64f$r8o@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <51lhk1$dq4@lex.zippo.com> <51p08v$7nt@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port901-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44003 alt.revisionism:67283 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30443

In article <51p08v$7nt@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <51i64f$r8o@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>>>Ourobouros wrote:

>>>>1.  There is four known skin genes, all of which have to correspond to
>>>>being white.  That being able to show blue-coloured veins through the skin,
>>>>and showing red under intense and immediate stress (like blushing).
>
>>>"The genetics of skin color is not completely understood.  Some researchers
>>>believe that, rather than a single locus of a major gene, many loci and
>>>their *multiple alleles*  work in combination to determine a person's
>>>pigmentation."  Noel T. Boaz (I know you'll like that name) and Alan J.
>>>Almquist, "Biological Anthropology: A Synthetic Approach to Human
>>>Evolution", 1997.  Prentice Hall. p.467.
>
>>>So, how are you going to determine how many "white alleles" a person
>>>has, "Mr. Stone"?  The blush test?  Looking for blue veins?  I did a
>>>blue vein test (in response to one of your silly posts about armpits
>>>and "royal blue" many months ago).  I had a small sample, but it 
>>>included 3 people with a good measure of African ancestry, and you know
>>>what?  On the palms of their hands and the insides of their wrists, you
>>>could see blue veins.  Even on the darkest fellow, who is pretty dark.
>
>>I am sure I mentioned something about armpits.  You do remember the
>>Spanish blue-blood test don't you?  That was their criteria for purity
>>of blood or "limpieza de sangre" if you want to consult any Spanish
>>books.
>
>Let me try this again, since you don't seem to have grasped the significance 
>of what I said earlier.  You are claiming that it is absolutely known 
>that four genes control the melanin content of the skin in humans.  The
>quotation I included above (and if I had access to my books I could give
>you half a dozen others), though, was intended to illustrate to you that
>in fact scientists do *not* yet know how many genes are involved in
>melanin production in humans, or how many different alleles may potentially
>exist for any given locus. In other words, "Mr. Stone", your statement
>is false.
>
Discovery which genes [well hopefully you can comprehend this] are 
reasonable for white pigmentation is only a matter of time.  I personally
believe this research has been slowed down for fear of discovering racial
differences.

I admit that I didn't quote C-S correctly, but it is not as severe as 
you would like to believe.

>You think that "scientific objectivity" can be achieved with the "armpit
>test"?  After you first posted this back in February or March, I did a
>little inner wrist/palm test of my own.  In winter, people here don't
>run around in sleeveless clothing, and I wasn't about to ask my colleagues
>and acquaintances to disrobe in order to demonstrate that you are, as usual,
>full of hot air.  Did you see what I wrote in the second paragraph earlier,
>"Mr. Stone"?  Do you actually know any dark-skinned people well enough to
>try this yourself?  You see, I asked a couple of folks if I could look at
>their inner wrists and the palms of their hands.  It was sort of embarrassing,
>but I explained to them why I wanted to do it.  The three of African descent
>ranged in skin colour from a lovely mocha to a very, very dark brown.  In
>all cases, blue veins were visible on the inner surface of the wrist and
>the palm of the hand.  Had I asked them to take off their shoes, I would
>expect that they would also be visible on the soles of the feet.
>
>I suppose that if the "armpit test" was good enough for Spanish blue bloods,
>it ought to be good enough as we approach the 21st century, eh, "Mr. Stone"?
>With such precision and objectivity, who needs genetics.
>
                *sigh*

I imagine gene tests to be time consuming and expensive.  Finding quicker
ways to discover half-breeds would be welcome, this is just one.

>>>>2.  The skull shape is that of longhead of Mediterranean or Nordic stock.
>>>>    Appropriate facial angle, and within an acceptable cephalic index.  
>>>>    Also includes the jaw shape, structure and teeth.
>
>>>So how does this differ from a longhead of, say Sudanid stock?  And are
>>>you really going to say that someone who's cranial index is 80.0 is in,
>>>while someone whose cranial index is 79.9 is out?  Really?????
>
>>Does someone of Sudanid stock have a longhead of Mediterranean or Nordic
>>stock?
>
>Tell me how "longhead" differs in these contexts, "Mr. Stone".  Are you
>suggesting that there are different kinds of longheads?  Please do detail
>these differences for us.  What are the ranges of the cranial index for
>each of these variants of "longheads"?
>
              *sigh*

The skulls are physically distant.  How else could they say that this
skull is of Mediterranean stock or this skull is Negro? I don't remember 
stating that a Sudanid's cephalic index is different from a Nordic's 
cephalic index.  Please stop putting words into my mouth.
 
>>>How variable are facial angles within a population, "Mr. Stone", since
>>>individuals, of course, don't have "average" facial angles.  What range
>>>is acceptable for "whiteness"?
>
>>That will have to be determined.
>
>And how are you going to determine it, "Mr. Stone"?  If it is to be a
>defining characteristic of the "White race", how will you determine who
>is "White", using facial angle, until you know which range of facial 
>angles is acceptable among members of the "White race"?
>
Statistics from an appropriate proportion of White society.  Individuals
could probably be taken from such places as Iceland.
 
>>>Please be explicit about the acceptable jaw shape(s), structure(s) and
>>>teeth.
>
>>Not at this point in time.
>
>Yet you present these as defining attributes of the "White race".
>
I don't have the gory details on me.

>>>>3.  The pupil of the eye is visible.  Colours being blue, green, hazel and
>>>>brown variations.
>
>>>I've never met a person with normal eyes whose pupils were not visible.
>
>>                   *sigh*
>
>>True to some extent.  Negroes (non half-breeds or albinos) have black or
>>pupil-less eyes.  Yes they strictly have pupils.
>
>Read what I said again, "Mr. Stone".  I said that I've never met a person
>with normal eyes whose pupils were not *visible*.  I did *not* say that
>I had never met a person with normal eyes who did not have pupils.
>
True.  I suppose I will have to define at some stage a distance category.
Like the blue-blood test it is not perfect.  They do however help in
quickly determining half-breeds.

>>>>5.  Fine hair.  Colours ranging in blonde, red and brunette variations.
>>>>    Type ranges from straight to kinky.  Also reasonably hirsute.
>  
>>>So where is the line drawn between "fine hair" and "not fine hair",
>>>"Mr. Stone"?  There is tremendous variation in hair shaft thickness,
>>>as I'm sure you know, even within populations.
>
>>We'll have to discover that from mongolian hair then wont we?
>
>So "fine hair" is a defining attribute of members of the "White race",
>yet you don't know how variable hair shaft thickness is among
>European populations, or Asian populations.  
>
If you have the relevant data please be forward about it.

>>>Are you saying any colour but black is acceptable?  Hmmmm, there are
>>>some folks who won't like that.  Even if they have milky white skin?
>>>Straight to kinky about covers everything, doesn't it.  Or were you
>>>talking about sex?
>
>>My brother has black hair.  However, under close inspection black hair
>>(of Whites) is an extremely dark brown.  Not so for Negroes (excepting
>>such members as Hottentots) or Mongolians
>
>Oh really?  Is hair colour so limited in all but Europeans?  Can you 
>cite a source to support this assertion, "Mr. Stone"?
>
Stupidity still reigns supreme amongst liberals.  

>>Do Whites with kinky hair get close to typical Negro hair "Miss Finsten"?
>
>Gee, I don't know, "Mr. Stone", I thought you were the expert here.  How
>does a European's kinky hair differ in kinkiness from the kinkiness of
>an African's kinky hair?  
>
Apparently you are an anthropologist.

>>>Hirsute hair?  Does that mean baldies are out?
>
>>Is this worth a response?
>
>I must admit I asked myself that question when I saw your list of
>"defining characteristics".
>
Ah, the belittling tactic again.

>>>>6.  Long nose.
>
>>>But I thought cute little short noses were a pretty common European
>>>characteristic, although they certainly aren't a defining one.  That's
>>>the whole problem, isn't it, trying to find characteristics that are
>>>definitive.  Does Doris Day have a "long nose"?
>
>>Is this worth a response?
>
>Well, I'd really like an answer to the question, "Mr. Stone".  Neither I
>nor any of my siblings have what I would describe as a "long nose", and 
>now I'm really worried that I'm not "White" after all, even though my
>mother is from Scotland and my father's ancestry is Irish/Norwegian.
>
Most of what I wrote are comparative to the other races, you have decided 
to use standalone tactics.  Do you have a Negro nose?

>>>>7.  Thinnish lips.
>
>>>As opposed to "mediumish" lips?  Is that before or after the silicone
>>>injections that have become so popular?  And what about all those models
>>>who are blessed with naturally pouty lips?  Are they out of luck on the
>>>"whiteness" scale?
>
>>Is this worth a response?
>
>Well, in my estimation it is.  My point is that lips are highly variable.
>That's what makes people so interesting, "Mr. Stone".  I find it rather
>entertaining (although also rather depressing) that you seem to acknowledge,
>at least implicitly, that people of European descent can be fairly 
>variable in physical characteristics (this is why you say "is this
>worth a response").  Yet you don't recognise that such variation exists
>in all large groupings of people.  But perhaps you are beginning to
>catch on.
>
Do you have Negro fat lips?

>>>>8.  Highly developed frontal lobes and "wrinkling" of outer brain.
>
>>>I recall you citing a book for this, but when I asked you to provide
>>>the year of publication, publisher and ISBN, you fell silent.  It 
>>>wasn't listed in our medical school library, and I found it odd that
>>>a medical school that has an international reputation for excellence
>>>would not have what you described as "the" book on neuroanatomy.
>>>How are you going to determine this, anyway, "Mr. Stone"?  Require
>>>a catscan of anybody whose "whiteness" is in doubt?
>
>>Perhaps.
>
>So how about the complete reference for the book that you say 
>supports this rather astonishing (and incredible) claim about
>frontal lobe development? 
>
Perhaps.

>>>>10.  At some point in the future genetic distance maps visibly 
>>>>demonstrating the White gene pool, as has vaguely being done by Cavalli-
>>>>Sforza and his team in "History and Geography of Human Genes", 1994.  For
>>>>a person to be White they will have to be within the appropriate area.
>
>[...]
>
>>>By the way, Cavalli-Sforza et al. have *not* identified, delimited or 
>>>even *mentioned* a "White gene pool" in "The History and Geography of
>>>Human Genes".  "White" does not appear in the index of this book,
>>>which I have sitting right before me (Santa did indeed come early
>>>this year).  Or would you care to direct me to a specific page or 
>>>quotation?
>
>>                *sigh*
>
>>Considering that Judd and I covered an extremely akin argument to this
>>I am surprised to see you trying it.
>
>"Trying it"?  How about answering the question, "Mr. Stone"?  You
>claim that Cavalli-Sforza et al. have delineated a "White gene pool"
>in this book.  Now I can't very well cite quotations or page numbers
>to show that they have not, can I, since what you say is in the book
>isn't.  But you could support your assertion with quotations and
>citations.  Or can't you, "Mr. Stone", because they aren't there?
>
Long, long ago I posted bits and pieces I thought were relevant here.  I
believe you were present and that you were arguing against me.  While I
would like to requote the relevant parts again I will need the book, and
that unfortunately is the problem.

>>>How would you describe this little fabrication, "Mr. Stone"?  In your
>>>terminology, is this mere embroidery, or is it lying?  I would tend to
>>>call it the latter, but am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt
>>>and assume that you don't understand the book (a conclusion for which you
>>>have already provided ample evidence).
>
>Which is it, "Mr. Stone"?  I really am curious.  Do you understand this
>stuff so poorly that you really think the book does this?  Or are you
>knowingly lying?
>
You have your interpretation, I have mine.  It will interesting to see in
future years who holds the correct definition.  I predict that PC days are
numbered, and we will revert to finding truths again.  

I will give you that in these stupid times your interpretation holds, 
because the media will back you against me.
>
>>Your arguments are returning to your old and useless standards.
>
>Still waiting for the citations to support your assertions, "Mr. Stone".
>
Still waiting for you to provide a good argument.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sat Sep 21 09:51:24 PDT 1996
Article: 67322 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.structured.net!news.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Chiral molecules: irrelevant to apw-p, but here anyway.
Date: 19 Sep 1996 12:27:08 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <51s6qc$4eu@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51gnna$m2@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <51hjgj$ihe@lex.zippo.com> <51loud$8aq@maud.ifi.uio.no> <51n1e2$c8v@lex.zippo.com> <51nc6q$ggd@lex.zippo.com> <51pfh8$lsb@lex.zippo.com> <3240E332.2781@itsa.ucsf.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port939-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44015 alt.revisionism:67322 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30462

In article <3240E332.2781@itsa.ucsf.edu>, Brian says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>> 
>> In article <51nc6q$ggd@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros says...
>> >
>> >In article <51n1e2$c8v@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros says...
>> >>
>> >>In article <51loud$8aq@maud.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>In article <51hjgj$ihe@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> >>>> In article <51gnna$m2@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>> >>
>> >
>> [snip]
>> 
>> >On retrospect I should be more specific before some moron/liberal gets the
>> >wrong impression as the usually do.
>> >
>> >There are some aspects of the theory of evolution I agree with, natural
>> >selection, possibly mutations*, but not things like common descent.  One
>> >of the biggest holes in evolution is polar molecules.
>> >
>> Polar molecules is wrong.  I don't remember the correct terminalogy at
>> the moment, but they are mirror compounds -- two ways to which the
>> molecule can exist and each is a mirror image of the other.
>
>Chiral molecules: any molecule that cannot be superimposed by its mirror
>   		  image, despite the fact that the chemical formula
>  		  between the molecular and it's mirror image are the same.
>
>
>	  Cl   	        NH3
>	  |		|	
> say  H3C-C-NH3  vs H3C-C-Cl   
>          |             |   
>          CH2CH3	CH2CH3 		
>
>Carbon can have four single bonds to other atoms or molecules. If all of these 
>atoms are unique, there are two unique arrangements of these atoms. 
>The only chemical way you can determine which isomer you have is how 
>a pure solution of a given chiral compound rotates plane polarized light.
>(biological enzymes, with their assymetric active sites, 
> are quite adept at distinguishing different stereoisomers, 
> however.)
>
>The non-superimposable mirror image of a chiral molecule is
>called an enantiomer. Another example of an enantiomer that 
>folks are more familiar with are your two hands.
>
>You've piqued my curiousity. In what way are chiral molecules evidence that
>evolution did not occur?
>
>I would argue that the fact that all amino acids in all known proteins in all 
>known organisms use a single enantiomer* rather than a mix of both forms actually 
>supports evolution, in particular the notion of a common origin of life. 
>
>Taking this a step further, the fact that the genetic code (both the use
>of nucleic acids and how this code is translated into protein) is conserved
>from the wee bacteria to the large mammal again argues both
>for evolution and for a common origin of life.
>
My argument is:  What happens if you make up a bunch of chemicals of the
chiral molecule type?

You get both forms of roughly equal proportion.

If life is consistent then life should also contain not only both forms
of the same molecules but also in the same quantity.  However only one
form is present in life, suggesting that life was formed rather than left
to happenchance.  Nor can it be argued that a particular form is superior
to the other.  Somehow only one form of the chiral molecules was "created"
in life.
  
Thanks for the name, btw.

Ourobouros.

>* The one exception to this is glycine, which is not a 
>chiral amino acid.


From Ourobouros Sat Sep 21 09:51:25 PDT 1996
Article: 67340 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!voskovec.radio.cz!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Chiral molecules: irrelevant to apw-p, but here anyway.
Date: 20 Sep 1996 22:09:08 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <51vt9k$149@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51gnna$m2@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <51hjgj$ihe@lex.zippo.com> <51loud$8aq@maud.ifi.uio.no> <51n1e2$c8v@lex.zippo.com> <51nc6q$ggd@lex.zippo.com> <51pfh8$lsb@lex.zippo.com> <3240E332.2781@itsa.ucsf.edu> <51s6qc$4eu@lex.zippo.com> <32433147.668A@unb.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port901-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44037 alt.revisionism:67340 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30480

In article <32433147.668A@unb.ca>, Keith says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> My argument is:  What happens if you make up a bunch of chemicals of the
>> chiral molecule type?
>> 
>> You get both forms of roughly equal proportion.
>> 
>> If life is consistent then life should also contain not only both forms
>> of the same molecules but also in the same quantity.  However only one
>> form is present in life, suggesting that life was formed rather than left
>> to happenchance.  Nor can it be argued that a particular form is superior
>> to the other.  Somehow only one form of the chiral molecules was "created"
>> in life.
>
>Well, at least its clear that our New Zealand amateur anthropologist
>isn't really a bigot.  He's just clueless when it comes to evolutionary
>biology.
>
>For the unitiated the absence of "other-handed" molecules does *not*
>mean that evolutionary theory is wrong.  What it does suggest is that
>life originated from a common ancestor that just by chance happened to
>use chiral molecules of one type.
>
Lets make a circular argument then.  I disagree.  How is it feasible for
"chance" to form the chiral molecules in only one way without outside
help?

>To use another example, take arms and legs.  Is there any particular
>advantage to having four limbs instead of six among the vertebrates?
>The reason that the vertebrates that have limbs have four is that the
>original stock of vertebrates evolved with four.  Since the beginnings
>of four limbs was initiated *before* fish crawled out of the water
>there is clearly nothing magical about living on land that indicates
>vertebrates should only have four limbs.  That's just the way it happened.
>If events had turned out another way six limbs might be standard.
>
I would like to see how fast a six-legged cheetah would run.  Any
estimates?

Four limbs are more efficient for larger animals.

>And so it is with chiral molecules.
>
Or so you hope.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Sat Sep 21 09:51:26 PDT 1996
Article: 67341 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!voskovec.radio.cz!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Chiral molecules: irrelevant to apw-p, but here anyway.
Date: 20 Sep 1996 22:08:55 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <51vt97$uv@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51gnna$m2@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <51hjgj$ihe@lex.zippo.com> <51loud$8aq@maud.ifi.uio.no> <51n1e2$c8v@lex.zippo.com> <51nc6q$ggd@lex.zippo.com> <51pfh8$lsb@lex.zippo.com> <3240E332.2781@itsa.ucsf.edu> <51s6qc$4eu@lex.zippo.com> <32433147.668A@unb.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port901-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44038 alt.revisionism:67341 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30481

In article <32433147.668A@unb.ca>, Keith says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> My argument is:  What happens if you make up a bunch of chemicals of the
>> chiral molecule type?
>> 
>> You get both forms of roughly equal proportion.
>> 
>> If life is consistent then life should also contain not only both forms
>> of the same molecules but also in the same quantity.  However only one
>> form is present in life, suggesting that life was formed rather than left
>> to happenchance.  Nor can it be argued that a particular form is superior
>> to the other.  Somehow only one form of the chiral molecules was "created"
>> in life.
>
>Well, at least its clear that our New Zealand amateur anthropologist
>isn't really a bigot.  He's just clueless when it comes to evolutionary
>biology.
>
>For the unitiated the absence of "other-handed" molecules does *not*
>mean that evolutionary theory is wrong.  What it does suggest is that
>life originated from a common ancestor that just by chance happened to
>use chiral molecules of one type.
>
Lets make a circular argument then.  I disagree.  How is it feasible for
"chance" to form the chiral molecules in only one way without outside
help?

>To use another example, take arms and legs.  Is there any particular
>advantage to having four limbs instead of six among the vertebrates?
>The reason that the vertebrates that have limbs have four is that the
>original stock of vertebrates evolved with four.  Since the beginnings
>of four limbs was initiated *before* fish crawled out of the water
>there is clearly nothing magical about living on land that indicates
>vertebrates should only have four limbs.  That's just the way it happened.
>If events had turned out another way six limbs might be standard.
>
I would like to see how fast a six-legged cheetah would run.  Any
estimates?

Four limbs are more efficient for larger animals.

>And so it is with chiral molecules.
>
Or so you hope.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Sat Sep 21 09:51:27 PDT 1996
Article: 67342 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!voskovec.radio.cz!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Chiral molecules: irrelevant to apw-p, but here anyway.
Date: 20 Sep 1996 22:08:55 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <51vt97$12b@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51gnna$m2@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <51hjgj$ihe@lex.zippo.com> <51loud$8aq@maud.ifi.uio.no> <51n1e2$c8v@lex.zippo.com> <51nc6q$ggd@lex.zippo.com> <51pfh8$lsb@lex.zippo.com> <3240E332.2781@itsa.ucsf.edu> <51s6qc$4eu@lex.zippo.com> <32433147.668A@unb.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port901-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44039 alt.revisionism:67342 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30482

In article <32433147.668A@unb.ca>, Keith says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> My argument is:  What happens if you make up a bunch of chemicals of the
>> chiral molecule type?
>> 
>> You get both forms of roughly equal proportion.
>> 
>> If life is consistent then life should also contain not only both forms
>> of the same molecules but also in the same quantity.  However only one
>> form is present in life, suggesting that life was formed rather than left
>> to happenchance.  Nor can it be argued that a particular form is superior
>> to the other.  Somehow only one form of the chiral molecules was "created"
>> in life.
>
>Well, at least its clear that our New Zealand amateur anthropologist
>isn't really a bigot.  He's just clueless when it comes to evolutionary
>biology.
>
>For the unitiated the absence of "other-handed" molecules does *not*
>mean that evolutionary theory is wrong.  What it does suggest is that
>life originated from a common ancestor that just by chance happened to
>use chiral molecules of one type.
>
Lets make a circular argument then.  I disagree.  How is it feasible for
"chance" to form the chiral molecules in only one way without outside
help?

>To use another example, take arms and legs.  Is there any particular
>advantage to having four limbs instead of six among the vertebrates?
>The reason that the vertebrates that have limbs have four is that the
>original stock of vertebrates evolved with four.  Since the beginnings
>of four limbs was initiated *before* fish crawled out of the water
>there is clearly nothing magical about living on land that indicates
>vertebrates should only have four limbs.  That's just the way it happened.
>If events had turned out another way six limbs might be standard.
>
I would like to see how fast a six-legged cheetah would run.  Any
estimates?

Four limbs are more efficient for larger animals.

>And so it is with chiral molecules.
>
Or so you hope.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Sat Sep 21 09:51:27 PDT 1996
Article: 67361 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!hookup!chi-news.cic.net!newspump.sol.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 20 Sep 1996 21:53:26 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <51vsc6$see@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51gnna$m2@gyda.ifi.uio.no>  <51ve69$n2q@lex.zippo.com> <51vphp$o57@lendl.cc.emory.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port901-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44050 alt.revisionism:67361 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30499

In article <51vphp$o57@lendl.cc.emory.edu>, libwca@curly.cc.emory.edu says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>: BTW, I am not German.  I assume [note] that Mr. Lund is in fact referring 
>: the Aryan race* to which most of the Germans belonged (Jews, Gypsies being
>: notable exceptions).
>
>There is no "Aryan race."  There is an Aryan language group; none of 
>the languages in it is the native language of any Northern European.
>
So what is the Aryan language group then?

Do you know what the etymology for Ireland is?

>Please refrain from basing your posts on nineteenth-century pseudo-
>science.  It causes, you see, terrible coffee problems...
>
Tough biccies.

Aryan is a convenient label for the broad-browed longhead of fair
complexion race.  Nordic is too recent a term to be adequate for more
ancient peoples.

Ourobouros.


 


From Ourobouros Sat Sep 21 10:40:10 PDT 1996
Article: 30444 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Is it true?  Is Stone REALLY a liar? WASRe: Stone's bullshit and double standards
Date: 20 Sep 1996 17:28:46 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <51vcru$mhd@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51nesm$hme@lex.zippo.com> <323FEE40.2747@ccnis.net> <51paa4$m1h@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <32407E0C.4178@ccnis.net>  <51s634$46a@lex.zippo.com>  <51v0u4$i0d@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port948-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44004 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30444

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <51v0u4$i0d@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >
>> >In article <51s634$46a@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article ,
>> >rajiv_gandhi@bc.sympatico.ca says...
>> >> >
>> >> >In article <32407E0C.4178@ccnis.net>, "Annie Alpert, OFB"
>> >> > wrote:
>> 
>> >> >> It is true?  Were you lying that your response was not archived--or were
>> >> >> you merely ignorant?
>> >> >
>> >> >He can plead ignorance, but I'd wager it was a lie.
>> >> 
>> >> Neither.  If "Finsten" argument gets placed on a pedestral then so should
>> >> my reply.  Who wants to read stone0996 to find the reply and will liberals
>> >> make such a logical connection to read said file?
>> >
Note carefully how Mr. "Brown" is diverting the argument, the same thing
that she accuses *racists* of doing.

>> >Note carefully, that this is the self-same Mr. "Stone" who, when asked for
>> >a citation to a quote he claims can be found in the Nizkor archives, gave
>> >this simple, straightforward reference:
>> >
>> >  > Once in people at nizkor, use the search engine for searching for
>> >  > content. Use the keyword "aborigine" to find the relevant files (only
>> >  > one relevant file is returned (graves0895).  Go through the file to
>> >  > find the arguments concerning the difference between Negros and
>> >  > Aborigines.  You'll find a few people in the argument, you'll need to
>> >  > see their archives as I don't believe it is contained in graves0895. 
>> >  > In one of the archives is an unnamed person (all leaders are snipped)
>> >  > who states how good the aborigine is in the outback. 
>> >
>> >               -- Subject: Re: Desperate times call for desperate measures.
>> >               -- Date: 6 Sep 1996 19:45:35 -0700
>> >               -- Message-ID: <50qnkf$927@lex.zippo.com>
>> >
>> >So much work to avoid a simple citation. One wonders what it is that
>> >"Stone" himself might be misrepresenting here...
>> >
>> More proof that liberals are the most imbecilic people on the planet.
>> 
>> Easy answer, "Brown.":  Are you not a prime example of a liberal?  How much
>> effort was there needed in getting you to read graves0895?  Can I make a 
>> valid conclusion from my experience of a prime liberal in action?
>
>I have read graves0895, and in fact have a copy of it on my hard drive.

I didn't say you haven't read it.  I said the opposite, however you have
read what you have wanted, and not what is there.  Typical liberalism, and
hence why there is this thread -- all because of liberal ineptness.

>'Aborigine' is mentioned (in the singular or plural) eight times; at no
>point does the discussion make direct reference to the aborigine's
>survival skills, in the outback or elsewhere. The word 'outback' occurs
>exactly once, in the sentence: "Most Americans should be aware of the
>Australian outback being a desert." (Message-ID
><41o42v$431@news2.aimnet.com>, 26 Aug 1995, from George Graves, who is
>quoting Colin McKinstry.) Again, no mention is made of the aborigine's
>survival skills in the outback or elsewhere.
>
>The file graves0895 does not, therefore, contain any material that would
>support "Stone's" original claim that:
>
>  > Someone (argument is unattributed -- delibrate?) believes that the
>  > Australian aborigine's ability to survive in the outback is in fact
>  > superior to the White man's achievements.
>
>               -- Subject: Desperate times call for desperate measures.
>               -- Date: 6 Sep 1996 16:38:03 -0700
>               -- Message-ID: <50qckr$2rr@lex.zippo.com>
>
>"Stone" has given no other usable reference to a file that might support
>said claim. The valid conclusion, drawn from observation of "Stone" in
>action, is that "Stone" demands better references from others than he is
>willing to provide himself.
>
Noticeably you have given the name of somebody else who you could cross-
check, but no, that is beyond your comprehension.

Please also note that dejanews is useless at this timeframe.  The file
of said person has listed no references to whom he was replying, the
trail ends there, unless of course you know the identity of the original
author (which I don't).

Please note the clever diversion "Brown" has made.  When "Brown" next 
accuses a *racist* of diverting to another topic please feel free to
remind "Brown" of his hypocrisy.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Sat Sep 21 10:40:12 PDT 1996
Article: 30466 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.structured.net!news.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Is it true?  Is Stone REALLY a liar? WASRe: Stone's bullshit and double standards
Date: 19 Sep 1996 12:14:44 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <51s634$46a@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51nesm$hme@lex.zippo.com> <323FEE40.2747@ccnis.net> <51paa4$m1h@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <32407E0C.4178@ccnis.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port939-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44018 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30466

In article , rajiv_gandhi@bc.sympatico.ca says...
>
>In article <32407E0C.4178@ccnis.net>, "Annie Alpert, OFB"
> wrote:

[snip]

>> It is true?  Were you lying that your response was not archived--or were
>> you merely ignorant?
>
>He can plead ignorance, but I'd wager it was a lie.

Neither.  If "Finsten" argument gets placed on a pedestral then so should
my reply.  Who wants to read stone0996 to find the reply and will liberals
make such a logical connection to read said file?

No, it is a delibrate attempt by McVay at defamation.  I am misrepresented
by not having the same opportunity for reply.

The liberal arguments as usual are wrong as we have come to expect.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sat Sep 21 10:40:13 PDT 1996
Article: 30474 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!globe.indirect.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-fw-22.sprintlink.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sgi.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.PBI.net!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Is it true?  Is Stone REALLY a liar? WASRe: Stone's bullshit and double standards
Date: 20 Sep 1996 14:05:08 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <51v0u4$i0d@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51nesm$hme@lex.zippo.com> <323FEE40.2747@ccnis.net> <51paa4$m1h@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <32407E0C.4178@ccnis.net>  <51s634$46a@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port927-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:30474 alt.politics.white-power:44030

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <51s634$46a@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>rajiv_gandhi@bc.sympatico.ca says...
>> >
>> >In article <32407E0C.4178@ccnis.net>, "Annie Alpert, OFB"
>> > wrote:

>> >> It is true?  Were you lying that your response was not archived--or were
>> >> you merely ignorant?
>> >
>> >He can plead ignorance, but I'd wager it was a lie.
>> 
>> Neither.  If "Finsten" argument gets placed on a pedestral then so should
>> my reply.  Who wants to read stone0996 to find the reply and will liberals
>> make such a logical connection to read said file?
>
>Note carefully, that this is the self-same Mr. "Stone" who, when asked for
>a citation to a quote he claims can be found in the Nizkor archives, gave
>this simple, straightforward reference:
>
>  > Once in people at nizkor, use the search engine for searching for
>  > content. Use the keyword "aborigine" to find the relevant files (only
>  > one relevant file is returned (graves0895).  Go through the file to
>  > find the arguments concerning the difference between Negros and
>  > Aborigines.  You'll find a few people in the argument, you'll need to
>  > see their archives as I don't believe it is contained in graves0895. 
>  > In one of the archives is an unnamed person (all leaders are snipped)
>  > who states how good the aborigine is in the outback. 
>
>               -- Subject: Re: Desperate times call for desperate measures.
>               -- Date: 6 Sep 1996 19:45:35 -0700
>               -- Message-ID: <50qnkf$927@lex.zippo.com>
>
>So much work to avoid a simple citation. One wonders what it is that
>"Stone" himself might be misrepresenting here...
>
More proof that liberals are the most imbecilic people on the planet.

Easy answer, "Brown.":  Are you not a prime example of a liberal?  How much
effort was there needed in getting you to read graves0895?  Can I make a 
valid conclusion from my experience of a prime liberal in action?

Ourobouros, wondering when liberals will ever think about what a poster
writes or in fact their own scribbles.


From Ourobouros Sat Sep 21 10:58:26 PDT 1996
Article: 44049 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!news.sgi.com!news-out.microserve.net!news-in.microserve.net!zdc-e!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Ancient America (was: White MEN ...)
Date: 20 Sep 1996 23:01:29 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <5200bp$2fe@lex.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port901-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <51p7dv$k9p@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <51jcft$bmj@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>>Using Thor Heyerdahl's theories, yes.  Several other authors have taken up
>>>>the gauntlet as well, for example, "The Fingerprints of the Gods" claims
>>>>that the same (super) race built all of them due to their overwhelming
>>>>similarities.  BTW, Imhotep is credited with designing the step pyramid.
>
>>>The author of "The Fingerprints of the Gods" is, I believe, a journalist?
>>>With no formal training or qualifications in architecture or archaeology?
>
>>I believe he claims the opposite, except perhaps the journalism part [note
>>"perhaps"].
>
>Pardon me?  He claims that he does have formal training in architecture
>and/or archaeology?  He is not a journalist?  What are you saying?
>
I believe he claims to have formal training in architecture and/or 
archeology.  I do not know about the journalism part.

>>>Apart from the fact that New World and Old World pyramids both are bigger 
>>>at the bottom and smaller at the top, just what are their alleged 
>>>"overwhelming similarities", "Mr. Stone"?
>
>>Please read his book as he discusses them.
>
>No, no, no, "Mr. Stone".  What are the supposed "overwhelming similarities"
>between New World and Old World pyramids?  Both are bigger at the bottom
>than they are at the top.  What else?  You are, apparently, sympathetic
>to his argument, so let's hear it.  
>
Warum?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sat Sep 21 10:58:27 PDT 1996
Article: 44056 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!zdc-e!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: White MEN created everything (II)
Date: 18 Sep 1996 23:51:08 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 213
Message-ID: <51qqgs$7tf@lex.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port949-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <51p3a8$72n@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <51lk04$ehf@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <51j5p1$e39@maud.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>> >> >>> > > 1.  Gun powder
>> >> >The Chinese.
>> >> Sorry, alchemists invented gunpowder.
>> >Chinese alchemists, then. Or are you claiming that the alchemists are a
>> >seperate "race"?
>> Alchemists in China.  Not; Alchemists of China.
>
>Ah. You mean; Yes, gunpowder was invented by alchemists working in China, but 
>these alchemists were not Chinese, yes? So who were these alchemists? Let me
>guess... !!! Those caucasian mummies found Xinjiang!!! Pffft. As was shown
>at the end of the Caucasian Mummy Saga, Xinjiang was not central to the
>evolution of the Chinese culture, as wasn't even a part of China at the time.
>Try again.
>
               *sigh*

Where did alchemists come from, regarding China?

As a related topic: Who was Buddha and where did he come from?

>> Please try and do what no (chinese) historian has been able to do and that
>> is explain the rapid disappearance of alchemy in China.
>
>Could alchemy have been replaced by chemistry? Hmmm? That's what happened in
>the west.
>
No.  There was no parallel in China.

>> Noting that alchemy is essentially a father-to-son trade, please explain
>> how China got alchemists.
>
>My guess is you're going to claim the first ethnic Chinese alchemist was trained
>by a "white" man. But tell me; if that is so, and alchemy is only passed down
>father to son, where did the first "white" alchemist get his knowledge from?
>
By being paid to study.

>Other than that; The father taught his son everything he knew, and the son
>made a minor improvement. Then *he* taught his son everything he knew, who
>later made his small contribution. Kind of like evolution.

Except for the times it goes backwards.
>
>> Which race or "people" started the discipline of alchemy?
>
>1) I don't know. I assume it started independantly and later grew as a result
>of culteral interaction.
>
All fingers point to Whites.  Specifically India and Egypt.

>2) Why are you so hung up in alchemy anyway? 

Because you don't need a piece of paper to practise it.

>It's a pseuodoscience that
>currently exists only among the adherents of New Age cultures. Can you say: 
>Ommmmm...?
>
Mediation has nothing whatsoever to do with alchemy.  Sorry o' ignorant
and prejudiced one. 

>> >> >>> > > 3.  Printing
>> >> >Yet again the Chinese.
>> >> Please re-examine Summerian civilisation and cylinder seals.
>> >I think this depends on what you mean by "printing".
>> Well now, I can quite easily say the Chinese didn't invent the printing
>> press, because it doesn't rate compared to the Gutenberg invention.
>
>Gutenberg's printing press was better than any other method of mass production
>of writing that existed at the time. I'll give you that, no argument. But to
>rephrase my question; where do you draw the line between printing and pressing
>carved wooden blocks into wet clay?
>Go to:
>	http://www.digitalcentury.com/encyclo/update/print.html
>
>and read the section called China: The Technological Roots. *Now* who invented
>printing?
>
Okay, the Chinese had moveable clay "bits."  Hardly a printing press,
despite PC types falling over backwards to find stuff to make the Chinese
look good.

>> If historians are going to credit the Chinese with that invention then I
>> can fairly state the Sumerians predated the concept by over 3,000 years.
>
>Could you please describe the Sumerian printing processes to me? Or at least
>give me a link? That way I'd have something to compare with.
>
You could always try looking up a book on Sumerian civilisation.  Especially
concerning cylinder seals.

>BTW: Why the Sumerian hangup? I doubt they'd pass your definition of "white".
>
Wrong again.  While they (at times) had inferior races amongst them, the
bust of Gudea of Lagash is a perfect stereotype of a White.  BTW, I have
recently quoted a book describing both the builders of Jericho and of
Sumeria being longheads of Mediterranean type.

>> >> >>> > > 7.  Stone architecture (all examples of it:  e.g. Pre-Columbian America)
>> >> >>Were the builders of the megaliths white?
>> >> Using Thor Heyerdahl's theories, yes.
>> >Using Thor Heyerdahl's thoeries, no.
>> Please read at least his book "Ra."  Please look up references concerning
>> mummies.
>> You do know Thor Heyerdahl's theories don't you?
>
>Being Norwegian, I can't avoid knowing who he is. But your reference to his
>book does not really mean much, as you have previously shown your ability to
>interprete everything just the way you want. Your reference to Cavalli-Sforza
>is a good example of this. Why don't you give me some quotations from "Ra"
>concerning these mummies. Also tell me where they were found, not just "in
>pre-Columbian America".
>
You may have a trouble comprehending this as it is opposed to you highly
prejudiced view of the world.

  "No mummies of men or beasts will last in a jungle climate, but we know
  that important persons were embalmed to attain eternal life by the
  sun-worshippers of ancient America, because hundreds of carefully
  embalmed mummies are preserved in desert tombs in Peru.  Their grave-
  goods proclaim their high rank.  While some Peruvian mummies have
  coarse, straight, black hair like modern Indians, others have reddish
  and even blond, wavy and soft hair, and their great body height is in
  striking contrast to the Indians living in Peru today, who are among the
  shortest races in the world."*

This is not the first time I have quoted it, nor would it seem to be the
last as more and more wilfully ignorant people swarm this newsgroup.

>> >> >> How about Great Zimbabwe in Africa?
>> >> >Black
>> >> How did civilisation come to be with hunter-gatherers being alongside
>> >> cultivators?
>> >
>> >Is there any reason why it shouldn't?
>> >
>> Please think about the logistics.
>
>What about them? Why should logistics make it impossible for hunter-gatherers
>to exist in the same area as cultivators? Or are you just saying it's
>impossible only when both parts are "black"?
>
No and no.

You cannot have the same people who are hunter-gatherers also by themselves
developing into cultivators, otherwise there wouldn't be anymore hunter-
gatherers in the area.  

Basically a new group would have been necessary to start civilisation
there if hunter gatherers were to "co-exist."

>> >>  And, why did civilisation come quickly?
>> >
>> >Is there any reason why it shouldn't?
>> >
>> Please think about the logistics.
>
>Again, what about logistics? Is this a new word you've recently dug up? Please
>tell me why "logistics" should make it impossible for Africans to build Great
>Zimbabwe:
>
I shouldn't need to explain myself, but here goes and I only hope this
doesn't go above your head as so many other things have done:

Unless outsiders set up shop, civilisation by the (for the lack of a 
better term) indigeousness people is a gradual process.  You are expecting
me to believe that the place of ruins is an exception.

For this to be so, you will have to prove that this was an exception.









>> >> Most scholars agree that the builders of the now ruins were from the
>> >> North, what lay north?
>> >Central Africa (assuming you're still talking about Great Zimbabwe).
>> Re-phrased, what (major) civilisation lay north?
>
>Mali, but that was more like north-west. There's always Egypt, but I doubt
>you'd have to go that far. If I had that map of pre-colonial Africa here, I'd
>probably be able to give you a few more names.
>
Considering they built with stone, who would be the most likely candidate?

>> >> How come the early excavators said they were non-Negro?
>> >The early excavators were "white" bigots like yourself, who refused to accept
>> >that pale skin is not a necessary requirement to be able to build a house.
>> Considering that they found intact skeletons your prejudices are showing.
>
>You managed to convince me I was wrong concerning the Caucasian mummies in 
>China, *after* showing me a few links. Now give me some evidence on the finds
>of caucasian skeletons in the ruins of Great Zimbabwe.
>
I would somehow doubt they would be on the Web.  Nor is the Web the be all
and end all of research.
>
[snip]

Ourobouros.

*  T. Heyerdahl, "Ra", trans. G. Allen, London, 1971.


From Ourobouros Sat Sep 21 15:07:11 PDT 1996
Article: 67401 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!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 20 Sep 1996 17:51:21 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <51ve69$n2q@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51gnna$m2@gyda.ifi.uio.no> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port948-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44068 alt.revisionism:67401 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30534

In article , Dene says...
>
>Ourobouros  wrote:
>>In article <51loud$8aq@maud.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>>
>>>Do you have *any* evidence to support these claims? I think not. During WWII,
>>>the nazi doctors were trying to find conclusive evidence, proving once and for
>>>all, that the germanic "race" was supiriour to the others. They failed.
>>>
>>I have quoted a book before, ask "Finsten."
>>
>>Could we have proof that the Nazi doctors failed to do so.
>>
>
>Er, the Germans lost both world wars?!
>
>Sorry, no offence meant to any Germans reading this, I'm just trying to
>point out the stupidity and inanity of talking about proving any "race"
>to be superior.
>
                     *sigh*

Please read the history of the thread before you enter it.  Besides, 
considering the forces and manpower stacked against Germany in both wars,
Germany did extremely well.

BTW, I am not German.  I assume [note] that Mr. Lund is in fact referring 
the Aryan race* to which most of the Germans belonged (Jews, Gypsies being
notable exceptions).

Your other post I can't be bothered replying too as it is quite pathetic.

Ourobouros.

* Broad-browed longhead.


From Ourobouros Sat Sep 21 16:14:54 PDT 1996
Article: 67415 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!netaxs.com!news1.erols.com!hunter.premier.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!zdc-e!zdc!super.zippo.com!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 20 Sep 1996 04:27:22 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <51tv2q$5dn@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51gnna$m2@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <51hjgj$ihe@lex.zippo.com> <51loud$8aq@maud.ifi.uio.no> <51n1e2$c8v@lex.zippo.com> <51p76e$b6r@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <51pic3$n7f@lex.zippo.com> <51rl6a$8k6@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port868-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44078 alt.revisionism:67415 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30545

In article <51rl6a$8k6@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <51p76e$b6r@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>[...]
>
>>>So where does the geographical boundry between "white" and "non-white" go in
>>>Europe?
>
>>Why does there have to be a geographical boundary?  That's the fallacy of
>>modern anthropologists.  If you in greater Europe then your Caucasian.
>                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Isn't that putting a geographic boundary around the group, "Caucasian"?
>
>[...]
>
>>Ethiopians don't have fat lips.  According to geographical boundaries
>>they are Negro.
>
>Now you are putting geographical boundaries around the group "Negro".
>But you said that defining "race" in terms of geographic boundaries 
>is a fallacy, "Mr. Stone".
>
I am arguing with imbeciles.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I do not like
calling people imbeciles, but you have continually acted dumb and stupid.

I am using my opponents arguments to argue.  Please note that this is not
necessarily, Mr. Lund, as you would like it to imply.

Anthropologists have classified race into geographical entities.  Please
note this.  Hopefully your "professor" brain has the capacity to input 
data.

>[...]
>
>>>> >But does this identification rely on the "development of the frontal lobes and
>>>> >wrinkling of the outer brain"? Or rather on skull shape due to ethnic
>>>> >variations?
>
>>>> It is probably a combination of both.
>
>>>Could you provide some evidence of this?
>
>>At the present, no.
>
>Then why should anyone accept is as anything more than a product of your fevered,
>racist imagination, "Mr. Stone"?
>
I was asked for my opinion, "Miss Finsten" and I gave it.  Please never
mark your students' essays or exams, as you'll miss what they say in them.
This btw, is not an ad hominem attack, it is simply fact.
>
>[...]
>>>> >>  And do explain how the Australian Aborigine
>>>> >> managed to get to Australia in your African theory/"proof."
>
>>>> >Have you ever heard of boats?
>
>>>> Have you ever heard of Australian Aborigines?
>
>>>What is that supposed to mean? And you didn't answer my question.
>
>>As to its meaning, I am not surprised to find you can't comprehend it.  And
>>yes, it does answer the question.
>
>No, it doesn't, "Mr. Stone".
>
Yes it does, "Miss Finsten."

Answering a question with a question is fully legitimate.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sat Sep 21 16:15:52 PDT 1996
Article: 30546 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!netaxs.com!news1.erols.com!hunter.premier.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sgi.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!zdc-e!zdc!super.zippo.com!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Ken McVay and double standards at Nizkor
Date: 20 Sep 1996 04:42:24 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <51tvv0$5m4@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51nesm$hme@lex.zippo.com> <323FEE40.2747@ccnis.net> <51paa4$m1h@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <32407E0C.4178@ccnis.net> <3242440F.18A@ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port868-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44079 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30546

In article <3242440F.18A@ix.netcom.com>, Kevin says...
>
>Mr. Ourobouros certainly provoked a chorus of squeaks from the hamster 
>cage tonight!
>
>One of the things that the Niz-kids like to do, in addition to archiving 
>the writings of dissidents for possible future use, is to archive the 
>responses to those posts -- but only when these responses seem (to the 
>Niz-kids, presumably) particularly damaging to the reputation or point of 
>view of a particular dissident. As far as I can tell, replies to 
>dissidents are not routinely archived by them.
>
>These special files are separate from the archive files of the 
>dissident's posts, and to see his or her replies to them involves a 
>moderately laborious search process, switching back and forth between 
>what are usually rather large files.
>
>What Mr. Ourobouros said was:
>
>"For reference:
>
>http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/nyms/stone/cavalli-sforza-fabrication
>
>For all onlookers please note that McVay has this specially marked and
>without my reply."
>
>Ourobouros didn't say that his replies were not archived elsewhere -- he 
>said that (emphasis mine) "McVay has _this_ specially marked and without 
>my reply."
>
>Deja News is a lot more fun, and threads can usually be followed in their 
>entirety without a Niz-kid to selectively edit them for you.
>
>With happy equinox wishes,
>
My my, somebody is using their brain, and surprise, surprise, it is not a
liberal.

Thank you Kevin for your post in my defence.

However, I believe it is a waste of time.  Nothing you can say or do can
influence the liberal mind.  They will only interpret what we write in
one way and one way only.  According to them I am still wrong and they 
are right.  To fully appreciate this just wait to see how many (full
blown) apologies I receive over the issue from my accusers.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sat Sep 21 19:12:33 PDT 1996
Article: 30570 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Is it true?  Is Stone REALLY a liar? WASRe: Stone's bullshit and double standards
Date: 20 Sep 1996 17:35:48 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <51vd94$moa@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51nesm$hme@lex.zippo.com> <323FEE40.2747@ccnis.net> <51paa4$m1h@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <32407E0C.4178@ccnis.net>  <51s634$46a@lex.zippo.com> <32429045.7298@ccnis.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port948-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44099 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30570

In article <32429045.7298@ccnis.net>, "Annie says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>> >In article <32407E0C.4178@ccnis.net>, "Annie Alpert, OFB"
>> > wrote:
>[snip]
>> >> It is true?  Were you lying that your response was not archived--or were> >> you merely ignorant?
>> >
>> Neither.  If "Finsten" argument gets placed on a pedestral then so should> my reply.  Who wants to read stone0996 to find the reply and will liberals> make such a logical connection to read said file?
>
>Oh, so it's the PEDESTAL you object to, not the contents?  You know,
>Stone, standing up on a pedestal isn't all it's cracked up to be . . .
>You wouldn't like it.
>> 
And of course this is the strong counter-argument. 

"Finsten's" argument is allotted special priviledge at "We hope to 
remember."  Should I not be allowed to defend myself on equal terms or
is that only reserved for anti-racists?

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Sat Sep 21 19:12:44 PDT 1996
Article: 44086 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Ancient America (thread II) (was: White MEN ...)
Date: 20 Sep 1996 23:21:38 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <5201hi$2r3@lex.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port901-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <51p862$k9p@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <51j5p1$e39@maud.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>>Noting that alchemy is essentially a father-to-son trade, please explain
>>how China got alchemists.
>
>By this apparent criterion, no society could have "got" alchemists, then,
>could they?  Good grief.
>
Warum?

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
>
>>>> >>> > > 7.  Stone architecture (all examples of it:  e.g. Pre-Columbian America)
>>>> >>Were the builders of the megaliths white?
>
>>>> Using Thor Heyerdahl's theories, yes.
>
>>>Using Thor Heyerdahl's thoeries, no.
>
>>Please read at least his book "Ra."  Please look up references concerning
>>mummies.
>>You do know Thor Heyerdahl's theories don't you?
>
>
>Hey, "Mr. Stone", why do you think that all the iconography at ancient Maya
>sites portrays people whose profiles look just like those of folks walking
>around the the Yucatan today?  Or do you think that's just an odd coincidence?
>
I have seen profiles of the Mayan people that correspond to White and
Semitic types as well (read: Vanished Civilizations -- a huge coffee table
book full of colour pictures).
>
>>>> How did civilisation come to be with hunter-gatherers being alongside
>>>> cultivators?
>
>>>Is there any reason why it shouldn't?
>
>>Please think about the logistics.
>
>Well, I'm stumped.  What is it about the "logistics" that renders this 
>impossible, in your opinion, "Mr. Stone"?  Funny that.  It happened in
>Mexico.  The Valley of Mexico, where Teotihuacan grew to cover 23 square
>kilometres, had a population of at least 150,000, and built the biggest
>masonry pyramid (yes, a pyramid - bigger at the bottom and smaller at
>the top) in the western hemisphere.  Just to the north of the Valley,
>the climate gets much drier, and it gets hotter too as you go north.
>Lots of hunter-gatherers until European conquest.
>
               *sigh*

Well I claim, using Thor Heyerdahl and a few others like Barry Fell,
that other peoples (Whites) came and helped civilise America.  Do you 
remember the Phoenician quote?  According to Dr./Mrs. S.M. Temms 
(Univerisity of Auckland) there is a thought of Phoenician interaction
with America amongst established Phoenician Historians.  BTW, her area of
expertise is this area, not like you.

>>>>  And, why did civilisation come quickly?
>
>>>Is there any reason why it shouldn't?
>
>>Please think about the logistics.
>
>Did it come quickly?  In the New World, permanent settlements had emerged
>in Mexico by at least 3500 years ago, and the first writing dates to at
>least 2500 years ago.  (Note that that is a 1000 year lag).  Big urban
>centres emerged around 2000 years ago.  Public architecture was being
>built by at about 3000 years ago.  Depending on time scales, of course,
>it seems to me that the "elements of civilisation" over a pretty long
>period of time.
>
Well if Whites made it, it explains it.  My logistics statement has not
been refuted.  Strangely enough I back Thor Heyerdahl on Whites been in
America.  For me to believe otherwise then I will have to see Thor
Heyerdahl disproved.  

>
>>I was bored.  I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, New Age.
>
>Then why do you rely on New Age tripe like "Fingerprints of the Gods"
>for your information about pyramids?
>
It was recommended to me by a friend (who isn't NA either), but is because
of his job he often reads books like these (due to the nature of his job).

I assume you consider it tripe because it doesn't fulfil PC dogma?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sat Sep 21 19:12:45 PDT 1996
Article: 44099 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Is it true?  Is Stone REALLY a liar? WASRe: Stone's bullshit and double standards
Date: 20 Sep 1996 17:35:48 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <51vd94$moa@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51nesm$hme@lex.zippo.com> <323FEE40.2747@ccnis.net> <51paa4$m1h@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <32407E0C.4178@ccnis.net>  <51s634$46a@lex.zippo.com> <32429045.7298@ccnis.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port948-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44099 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30570

In article <32429045.7298@ccnis.net>, "Annie says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>> >In article <32407E0C.4178@ccnis.net>, "Annie Alpert, OFB"
>> > wrote:
>[snip]
>> >> It is true?  Were you lying that your response was not archived--or were> >> you merely ignorant?
>> >
>> Neither.  If "Finsten" argument gets placed on a pedestral then so should> my reply.  Who wants to read stone0996 to find the reply and will liberals> make such a logical connection to read said file?
>
>Oh, so it's the PEDESTAL you object to, not the contents?  You know,
>Stone, standing up on a pedestal isn't all it's cracked up to be . . .
>You wouldn't like it.
>> 
And of course this is the strong counter-argument. 

"Finsten's" argument is allotted special priviledge at "We hope to 
remember."  Should I not be allowed to defend myself on equal terms or
is that only reserved for anti-racists?

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Sun Sep 22 07:52:08 PDT 1996
Article: 67546 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!netaxs.com!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!nntp.newsfirst.com!nntp.crosslink.net!news.magicnet.net!iag.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!zdc!super.zippo.com!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 20 Sep 1996 05:17:48 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <51u21c$6h2@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51i64f$r8o@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <51lhk1$dq4@lex.zippo.com> <51p08v$7nt@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <51rop6$19f@maud.ifi.uio.no> <51sspp$r4m@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port868-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:30608 alt.revisionism:67546 alt.politics.white-power:44127

In article <51sspp$r4m@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>christop@ifi.uio.no (Christopher Henrik Lund) wrote:
>
>
>
>>You know, I've just gotten hold of Cavalli-Sforza's email address (I think;
>>his name is given as "L.L. Cavalli-Sforza"). I'll mail it to either one of you,
>>if you're interested. I can't think of a better authority on this particular 
>>issue...
>
>That's the one.  But I'm not going to e-mail to ask him what his book says.
>I've read enough of it to know that it does not say what "Mr. Stone" is
>claiming it says.  I've challenged him to document his claim using citations
>from the book.  The last time he tried, he said that Cavalli-Sforza was
>saying that "whites" had 88 genes and "blacks* had only something like 44.
>Utter nonsense.  All humans have something like 100,000.  "Mr. Stone"
>does not know enough about basic human genetics to understand the book.
>Period.
>
                *sigh*

More proof that "Miss Finsten" is an uncomprehending idiot.  While it is
feasible that my original post, with some faulty thinking may have 
alluded to the "Finsten" interpretation, I have repeatedly gone over this
point to make sure clarification is in order.  "Miss Finsten" has
repeatedly ignored such clarifications in order to "win" this argument.
Each time she does so, I follow with similar posts to this one.

I do not, nor ever have limited Europeans to 88 +-0.1 genes and whatever
for Africans. 

Comprehende?

You are incredibly tiresome in your interpretations.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Sun Sep 22 07:52:09 PDT 1996
Article: 67562 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!clicnet!news.clic.net!news.alfred.edu!news.sprintlink.net!news-pen-14.sprintlink.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!swrinde!news.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!zdc!super.zippo.com!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: McVay's bullshit and double standards
Date: 20 Sep 1996 05:03:58 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <51u17e$66o@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51nesm$hme@lex.zippo.com> <323FEE40.2747@ccnis.net> <51paa4$m1h@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <51qr94$892@lex.zippo.com> <51st0i$r4m@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port868-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:30620 alt.revisionism:67562 alt.politics.white-power:44139

In article <51st0i$r4m@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>If you are going to have a special file just for sole representation of
>>Finsten's feeble arguments then it is straight misrepresentation.  You
>>have not recorded my reply directly to your jumped-up file.  That is my
>>complaint, you are delibrately trying to cloud the waters with more of
>>your bullshit.
>
>Maybe if your "reply" had addressed my comments, your argument might
>have some merit.  But face it, "Mr. Stone", you didn't even try to
>address them.  I'm sure that if you would like to do so, Ken could
>be persuaded to append your response (and my comments on your 
>response) to the file.
>
Why should I have addressed your reply directly?  If anybody had read the
history then they would know you claim was based on your own faulty
thinking.  As it stands, both you and Judd have tried to put words into 
my mouth which I uttered not.  AND, if I had known previously that McVay
was going to make a special case of your feeble interpretation/reply then
I would have not bothered with the Judd reference.  Believe it or not,
both you and Judd have used the exact same sequence to try and undermine
what I have said concerning C-S and the White race.  Since Judd had done
the same thing many months ago, it would seem fair for you to review (via
dejanews) the same argument.

Ourobouros.








From Ourobouros Sun Sep 22 07:52:10 PDT 1996
Article: 67587 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!news.misty.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Chiral molecules: irrelevant to apw-p, but here anyway.
Date: 21 Sep 1996 14:08:44 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <521lgs$6td@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51gnna$m2@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <51hjgj$ihe@lex.zippo.com> <51loud$8aq@maud.ifi.uio.no> <51n1e2$c8v@lex.zippo.com> <51nc6q$ggd@lex.zippo.com> <51pfh8$lsb@lex.zippo.com> <3240E332.2781@itsa.ucsf.edu> <51s6qc$4eu@lex.zippo.com> <32433147.668A@unb.ca> <51vt97$12b@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port948-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44156 alt.revisionism:67587 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30642

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <51vt97$12b@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> Lets make a circular argument then.  I disagree.  How is it feasible for
>> "chance" to form the chiral molecules in only one way without outside
>> help?
>
>"Stone" reverts here to a common tactic among racists and Holocaust
>deniers. Having made and assertion, having been challenged to support said
>assertion, and having been unable to provide support for said assertion,
>he now demands that his assertions be proven wrong by someone else. He
>thus attempts to convert his responsibility for supporting his own claims,
>into a responsibility of others to refute him.
>
"Brown" learn your argument before opening your mouth. 

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Sep 22 07:52:11 PDT 1996
Article: 67588 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!news.misty.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!news.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ken McVay and double standards at Nizkor
Date: 21 Sep 1996 14:06:05 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <521lbt$6rt@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51nesm$hme@lex.zippo.com> <51p9de$o1j@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <51qqrk$7uv@lex.zippo.com> <51sue9$r4m@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <51u1g4$691@lex.zippo.com> <51vcmv$bmj@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port948-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44157 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30643 alt.revisionism:67588

In article <51vcmv$bmj@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <51sue9$r4m@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
[snip]

>>I wouldn't accuse me of not understanding.  Isn't there some Christian
>>saying about getting the beam in your own eye out before trying to get
>>your neighnour's mote out?  It would seem fitting advice for someone like
>>you.
>
>Oh I'm sure you wouldn't accuse yourself of not understanding his data,
>or his argument.  But I also sure wouldn't expect someone who thinks
>that humans have fewer than 100 genes, and that "blacks" have fewer genes
>than they have chromosomes, would get much out of a discussion of 
>population genetics and population history. 
>
Here we go again:  I do not believe humans have fewer than 100 genes, and
that "blacks" have fewer genes than they have chromosomes.  I will be
amazed the day that "Finsten" realizes this.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Sep 22 07:52:12 PDT 1996
Article: 67589 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!news.misty.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!news.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 21 Sep 1996 14:55:13 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 100
Message-ID: <521o81$7rt@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51gnna$m2@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <51hjgj$ihe@lex.zippo.com> <51loud$8aq@maud.ifi.uio.no> <51n1e2$c8v@lex.zippo.com> <51p76e$b6r@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <51pic3$n7f@lex.zippo.com> <51rl6a$8k6@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <51tv2q$5dn@lex.zippo.com> <520tgm$2us@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port948-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:30645 alt.politics.white-power:44159 alt.revisionism:67589

In article <520tgm$2us@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <51rl6a$8k6@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>In article <51p76e$b6r@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>>>>>So where does the geographical boundry between "white" and "non-white" go in
>>>>>Europe?
>
>>>>Why does there have to be a geographical boundary?  That's the fallacy of
>>>>modern anthropologists.  If you in greater Europe then your Caucasian.
>
>>>Isn't that putting a geographic boundary around the group, "Caucasian"?
>[...]
>>>>Ethiopians don't have fat lips.  According to geographical boundaries
>>>>they are Negro.
>
>>>Now you are putting geographical boundaries around the group "Negro".
>>>But you said that defining "race" in terms of geographic boundaries 
>>>is a fallacy, "Mr. Stone".
>
>>I am arguing with imbeciles.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I do not like
>>calling people imbeciles, but you have continually acted dumb and stupid.
>
>And you continually contradict yourself, and misrepresent what others say,
>"Mr. Stone".
>
And you continually misrepresent what I have to say, "Dr. Finsten."  Take
for example this previously (and still visible) paragraph:

I wrote with poor grammar:

Why does there have to be a geographical boundary?  That's the fallacy of
modern anthropologists.  If you in greater Europe then your Caucasian.

Rephrased with correct grammar (via emphasize):

Why does there have to be a geographical boundary?  That's the fallacy of
modern anthropologists.  If you ARE in greater Europe then you ARE 
Caucasian.

You replied:
Isn't that putting a geographic boundary around the group, "Caucasian"?

Please note the stupidity of your reply.  You are saying that I believe
the above category, when in fact the second sentence goes against your
interpretation (That's the fallacy...).  Can you comprehend this?

>>Anthropologists have classified race into geographical entities.  Please
>>note this.  Hopefully your "professor" brain has the capacity to input 
>>data.
>
>I was merely observing that you have, in the past, complained bitterly
>about the idiocy of the geographical delimitation of "races" and other
>population groupings, "Mr. Stone".  Given your apparent contempt for
>this practice, I wondered why you were now resorting to doing the same
>thing yourself, or accepting the legitimacy of others doing it.  This
>struck me as inconsistent, although such inconsistency is not unusual
>for you.
>
Duh, didn't you say something about ad hominem attacks?

Please prove my inconsistency, and please be wary of sarcastic comments of
mine.

Please prove that I use geographical limits to define race.  

[How the Negro got his peculiar brain]

>>I was asked for my opinion, "Miss Finsten" and I gave it.  Please never
>>mark your students' essays or exams, as you'll miss what they say in them.
>>This btw, is not an ad hominem attack, it is simply fact.
>
>You were also asked to provide some evidence to support your "opinion", "Mr.
>Stone".  Evidence is what separates baseless "opinion" from a reasoned one
>that readers might consider worthy of their serious consideration.  This is
>not ad hominem attack, either, "Mr. Stone".  It is simply the way it is
>in debate and critical thinking.  Without evidence to support your "opinion",
>there is no reason for anyone to take your "opinion" seriously.  This is
>simply fact.
>
It seems reasonable that the reason a Negro brain looks the way it does is
due to both the confines of his skull and his (non-skull forming) genes.
Is this wrong?

>>Answering a question with a question is fully legitimate.
>
>But it doesn't answer the question, does it, "Mr. Stone"
>
I disagree.  First, it often helps to further define the argument.  Second,
it forces the opponent to think rather than rely on spoon-feeding.  Third,
it helps clarify where your opponent is coming from.

>~~e-mail replies to usenet posts may be posted~~
>
I tremble in my boots.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Sep 22 07:52:13 PDT 1996
Article: 67592 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!news.misty.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Chiral molecules: irrelevant to apw-p, but here anyway.
Date: 21 Sep 1996 14:21:04 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <521m80$77d@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51gnna$m2@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <51hjgj$ihe@lex.zippo.com> <51loud$8aq@maud.ifi.uio.no> <51n1e2$c8v@lex.zippo.com> <51nc6q$ggd@lex.zippo.com> <51pfh8$lsb@lex.zippo.com> <3240E332.2781@itsa.ucsf.edu> <51s6qc$4eu@lex.zippo.com> <32433147.668A@unb.ca> <51vt97$12b@lex.zippo.com> <324448B6.451B@unb.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port948-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44162 alt.revisionism:67592 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30647

In article <324448B6.451B@unb.ca>, Keith says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> >For the unitiated the absence of "other-handed" molecules does *not*
>> >mean that evolutionary theory is wrong.  What it does suggest is that
>> >life originated from a common ancestor that just by chance happened to
>> >use chiral molecules of one type.
>> >
>> Lets make a circular argument then.  I disagree.  How is it feasible for
>> "chance" to form the chiral molecules in only one way without outside
>> help?
>
>Simple.  The first life on Earth used one type of chiral molecule, at
>least the first life that had descendants to the present day.
>
Prove its feasibility.  Simply describe how chance (no design) would give
only one form of the chiral molecule.
>
>> >To use another example, take arms and legs.  Is there any particular
>> >advantage to having four limbs instead of six among the vertebrates?
>> >The reason that the vertebrates that have limbs have four is that the
>> >original stock of vertebrates evolved with four.  Since the beginnings
>> >of four limbs was initiated *before* fish crawled out of the water
>> >there is clearly nothing magical about living on land that indicates
>> >vertebrates should only have four limbs.  That's just the way it happened.
>> >If events had turned out another way six limbs might be standard.
>> >
>> I would like to see how fast a six-legged cheetah would run.  Any
>> estimates?
>
>Please describe how, four hundred or so million years ago nature "knew"
>that there were going to be cheetahs.  All this means is that if six legs
>means not as fast, animals today would not be as fast.  
>
>> Four limbs are more efficient for larger animals.
>
>Prove it.  On what biomechanical basis do you make that statement?  Why
>not six-limbs?  Four for walking and two manipulators, or for flying
>animals four legs and two dedicated wings.  It'd make a hell of a more
>efficient bat.
>
A bat is perfectly adapted for its environment.  A faster bat does 
necessarily mean a better bat.

BTW, do you include fish amongst vertebrate?  How about snakes?

As for proving it, I cannot, but neither can you disprove it.

>What you are doing is arguing for predestination.  To get the animals
>*now* you need for four limbs to evolve.  However there is no obvious
>biological reason why six limbs could not have just as easily been the
>basis.  Or, to use another example, why do vertebrates have five toes
>(which can later evolve out, ie ungulates)?  Please describe the evolutionary
>advantage given by five toes instead of four, three or six.  In fact, five
>toes are generally considered in nature to be too many, thus many animals
>lose them through evolution, yet their ancestors had them.  So if
>this predestination kick you are on is real, why bother "creating" an
>animal with five toes if its descendents were just going to get rid
>of four of them eventually?  
>
This is a non-argument.  Could we have some prove that in nature five toes
are a hindrance?

Ourobouros.

P.S. Arguing over evolution is not relevant to any of these newsgroups, so
unless you have some worthwhile "thing" to contribute let this thread die.


From Ourobouros Sun Sep 22 07:52:15 PDT 1996
Article: 67614 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!netaxs.com!news-out.microserve.net!news-in.microserve.net!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Chiral molecules: irrelevant to apw-p, but here anyway.
Date: 21 Sep 1996 22:54:20 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <522kac$i4r@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51gnna$m2@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <51hjgj$ihe@lex.zippo.com> <51loud$8aq@maud.ifi.uio.no> <51n1e2$c8v@lex.zippo.com> <51nc6q$ggd@lex.zippo.com> <51pfh8$lsb@lex.zippo.com> <3240E332.2781@itsa.ucsf.edu> <51s6qc$4eu@lex.zippo.com> <32433147.668A@unb.ca> <51vt97$12b@lex.zippo.com> <324448B6.451B@unb.ca> <521m80$77d@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port937-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44181 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30665 alt.revisionism:67614

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <521m80$77d@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> Simply describe how chance (no design) would give only one form of 
>> the chiral molecule.
>
>"Stone" made the initial assertion:
>
>  > If life is consistent then life should also contain not 
>  > only both forms of the same molecules but also in the same quantity.
>
>               - Message-ID: <51s6qc$4eu@lex.zippo.com>
>               - Date: 19 Sep 1996
>
>Yet, strangely, he has provided no evidence that would support his
>assertion. Instead, it somehow becomes the responsibility of any who
>question his claim to prove the obverse.
>
      *sigh*

Please take a chemistry (1st year) course at any University to learn
about chiral molecules.  To people that claim to know anything about
chemistry know about "mirror" molecules, ie., common knowledge.

>> P.S. Arguing over evolution is not relevant to any of these newsgroups, so
>> unless you have some worthwhile "thing" to contribute let this thread die.
>
>Note well that it was "Stone" himself who initiated this thread. Now, for
>some reason, he seems oddly eager to abandon it.
>
I did not initiate this part of the thread.  I distinctly remember saying
earlier that I did not want to argue over whether evolution or creationism
is correct.  I was asked why I thought chiral molecules were a major hole
in the theory of evolution, I have given it.  Quite frankly it is up to
my opponents to prove that it is feasible (by chance) of only one form
of chiral molecules to exist in life.  You should keep out of arguments
that you know nothing about.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Sun Sep 22 08:17:49 PDT 1996
Article: 30604 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!imci5!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Ourobouros - Our new expert on earwax!
Date: 20 Sep 1996 21:20:23 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <51vqe7$rn2@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51F7GP$CL4@LEX.ZIPPO.COM> <19960916.132408.067498.NETNEWS@WVNVM.WVNET.EDU> <51pman$8i1@orion.cybercom.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port901-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44125 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30604

In article <51pman$8i1@orion.cybercom.net>, amatthews@cybercom.net says...
>
>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>9.  Other possibilities including: long fingers, fingerprints, earwax,
>>>and proportions of the body, e.g., centre of gravity.
>
>Earwax??  Who'd you pick this up from, Bucky Griswold?  Please, oh please, 
>enlighten us as to the wonderous properties of white earwax, Burrobutt.
>
>ROTFL!
>
>allan
>
>p.s.  If this clown is superior the only question is "superior to what?"
>
We have another resident meathead it would seem.

Europeans have wet and some other category, whereas mongoliods have dry
and flaky.  These are not hard and fast rules, but I suspect that the
exceptions are more due to an element of mongelisation than with 
unexpected freaks of nature.

Ourobouros.

>=================================================
>            amatthews@cybercom.net
>=================================================
>A monk asked Un Mun, "What is Buddha?"          
>Un Mun replied, "Dry shit on a stick."           
>=================================================
>http://www.cybercom.net/~amatthews/amatthews.html
>=================================================


From Ourobouros Sun Sep 22 08:17:50 PDT 1996
Article: 30644 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!news.misty.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!news.sgi.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!cpk-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Ken McVay and double standards at Nizkor
Date: 21 Sep 1996 14:31:40 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <521mrs$7gb@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51nesm$hme@lex.zippo.com> <323FEE40.2747@ccnis.net> <51paa4$m1h@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <32407E0C.4178@ccnis.net> <3242440F.18A@ix.netcom.com> <51tvv0$5m4@lex.zippo.com> <520rvf$9j0@news1.panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port948-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44158 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30644

In article <520rvf$9j0@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>In article <3242440F.18A@ix.netcom.com>, Kevin says...
>>>
[snip]

>>My my, somebody is using their brain, and surprise, surprise, it is not a
>>liberal.
>
>>Thank you Kevin for your post in my defence.
>
>>However, I believe it is a waste of time.  Nothing you can say or do can
>>influence the liberal mind.  They will only interpret what we write in
>>one way and one way only.  According to them I am still wrong and they 
>>are right.  To fully appreciate this just wait to see how many (full
>>blown) apologies I receive over the issue from my accusers.
>
>Wow, you got defended by a confirmed Nazi.
>
>I'm really jealous now.
>
And because he's a Nazi he must be wrong mustn't he?

Talk about *racists* being bigots.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Sep 22 08:17:50 PDT 1996
Article: 30654 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Ourobouros - Our new expert on earwax!
Date: 21 Sep 1996 17:04:27 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <521vqb$akj@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51F7GP$CL4@LEX.ZIPPO.COM> <19960916.132408.067498.NETNEWS@WVNVM.WVNET.EDU> <51pman$8i1@orion.cybercom.net> <51vqe7$rn2@lex.zippo.com> <521kg7$kgs@orion.cybercom.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port917-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44173 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30654

In article <521kg7$kgs@orion.cybercom.net>, amatthews@cybercom.net says...
>
>In article <51vqe7$rn2@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <51pman$8i1@orion.cybercom.net>, amatthews@cybercom.net says...
>>>
>>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>>9.  Other possibilities including: long fingers, fingerprints, earwax,
>>>>>and proportions of the body, e.g., centre of gravity.
>>>
>>>Earwax??  Who'd you pick this up from, Bucky Griswold?  Please, oh please, 
>>>enlighten us as to the wonderous properties of white earwax, Burrobutt.
>>>
>>>ROTFL!
>>>
>>>allan
>>>
>>>p.s.  If this clown is superior the only question is "superior to what?"
>>>
>>We have another resident meathead it would seem.
>
>Yes, we know, but you really shouldn't talk about yourself this way, 
>Burrobutt.
>
Considering that the original comment had "Other possibilities 
including:..." and you have decided that it should read "Other hard and
fast categories:...", who is the meathead?

>>Europeans have wet and some other category, whereas mongoliods have dry
>>and flaky.  These are not hard and fast rules,
>
>If these aren't "hard and fast rules" then how can you list earwax as a 
>determining factor in whether or not someone is white?
>
Would it have occurred to you that "Other possibilities including:..."
may imply that I haven't done a lot of research into the area?

>> but I suspect that the
>>exceptions are more due to an element of mongelisation than with 
>>unexpected freaks of nature.
>
>Like you.  BTW, could you please provide some references we can all inspect 
>that deal with the ethnic variations in earwax??   Put up or shut up. 
>
First point:  None of these groups pertain to you.
Second point:  I will at some stage provide a reference.  
Third point:  We supposedly have a resident professor of anthropology,
perhaps she already knows a suitable reference.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Sep 22 08:19:36 PDT 1996
Article: 44118 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: White MEN created everything (II)
Date: 20 Sep 1996 20:16:12 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 317
Message-ID: <51vmls$qb7@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51qqgs$7tf@lex.zippo.com> <51v1n6$mp8@maud.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port946-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <51v1n6$mp8@maud.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <51qqgs$7tf@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <51p3a8$72n@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>	[alchemists in China]
>
>"Adult" sigh coming up:
>
When you start acting like an adult I will treat you like an adult.  

>>                *sigh*
>> 
>> Where did alchemists come from, regarding China?
>
>Seeing as the Chinese culture is a very old one, they probably evolved their
>own form of alchemy. Or maybe you could point out some simularities between
>the Oriental and Occidental vriations of alchemy? Any real simularities are
>likely to have travelled the silk road, via arab merchants. I wouldn't ignore
>the possibility of European alchemists being influenced by Chinese alchemists
>as well (again, via the arabs).
>
No.  China, like their martial arts came from India.

>> As a related topic: Who was Buddha and where did he come from?
>
>Buddha started buddhism. I don't remember his real name, but he came (I thnk)
>from India. Now could you perhaps tell me what the heck that has to do with 
>alchemy?
>
I wouldn't have thought I would need to spoon-feed you.

Buddha was an Aryan that spread his version of *religion* to Asia.  Please
note its wide acceptance and influence.  It came from a White man.

>> >> Please try and do what no (chinese) historian has been able to do and that
>> >> is explain the rapid disappearance of alchemy in China.
>> >
>> >Could alchemy have been replaced by chemistry? Hmmm? That's what happened in
>> >the west.
>> >
>> No.  There was no parallel in China.
>
>How would *you* know? 

Please note my organization.

>And what do you think happened?
>
There was nobody suitable to continue the art.

>> >> Noting that alchemy is essentially a father-to-son trade, please explain
>> >> how China got alchemists.
>> >My guess is you're going to claim the first ethnic Chinese alchemist was trained
>> >by a "white" man. But tell me; if that is so, and alchemy is only passed down
>> >father to son, where did the first "white" alchemist get his knowledge from?
>> By being paid to study.
>
>That must be one of the dumbest things you've said so far. Some "white" guy
>told another "white" guy that he'd pay him if he invented alchemy? And if you
>think that was what happened in Europe, why couldn't the same thing have
>happened in China?
>
One of the aspects of civilisation is the formation of non-survival oriented
pursuits.  Things like literacy come to mind.  Someone living in a hand-to-
mouth existence doesn't need to know how to read and write.  Alchemy is in
the same category, I was amazed at the shortfall of your insight to my
reply.

As to why it couldn't happen in China:  Mongoloids have no history of
being inventive (aside from a few hiccups), whereas we have a long and
illustrous history of being inventive.  No doubt you'll object to it, but
please prove how the Chinese would have invented it.  BTW, ourobouros is
an cosmic alchemic symbol.  If your argument has any relevancy, how did 
they receive ourobouros (independently)?  Also note its age.

[snip]

>> >> Which race or "people" started the discipline of alchemy?
>> >1) I don't know. I assume it started independantly and later grew as a result
>> >of culteral interaction.
>> All fingers point to Whites.  Specifically India and Egypt.
>
>India and Egypt were hardly "white". So your fingers are pointing the wrong
>way.
>
You are incorrect again.  Please read the Vedi hymns concerning India, and
please interpret this Egyptian poem (quoted about the fourth time),
emphasize mine:

   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,
   Her hair is true lapis lazuli
   Her arm surpasses gold
   And her fingers are like LOTUS BUDS.
   With rounded thighs and trim waist,
   Her legs display her beauty when,
   With graceful gait, she treads the earth.[1]

The comment before it is:
  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.[2]

Also from the same book:

One convention was that in painted reliefs and statues a woman's flesh
should be a CREAMY yellow, whereas for men it should be a reddish-brown.
The CREAMY yellow of 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.[3]

Another book (and slightly off topic):

The Negro home is considered to be West Africa and Equatoria.[4]

more implicitly:

  "The NON-NEGRO stock recognized in the Sahara is certainly not related
  to the Mechta-Afalou race, but another race has been distinguished in
  northwest Africa and here the resemblances are said to be close. ...
  It is appreciably less ruggard than the Mechta-Afalou race; is long-
  headed; long-faced; of slender build and approaches a primitive
  MEDITERRANEAN type."[5]

This is from the Green Sahara (when it was green), which is around 5,000-
3,000 B.C.

Your so-called Negro migration into Egypt is from the Sahara at this time
period.  Strange that they weren't Negro...

>> >2) Why are you so hung up in alchemy anyway? 
>> 
>> Because you don't need a piece of paper to practise it.
>
>And because, like your racial theories, don't need to have anything to do with
>reality.
>
Uh huh.

>> >It's a pseuodoscience that
>> >currently exists only among the adherents of New Age cultures. Can you say: 
>> >Ommmmm...?
>> >
>> Mediation has nothing whatsoever to do with alchemy.
>
>No. But meditation has a lot to do with new Age. And in these modern times, so
>does alchemy.
>
As I have already stated O' uncomprehending one, I am not new age.

>>  Sorry o' ignorant
>> and prejudiced one. 
>
>As a racist, you should be wary of the word "prejudiced".
>
So you are stating that you aren't prejudiced?

>> >> >> >>> > > 3.  Printing
>> >> >> >Yet again the Chinese.
>> >> >> Please re-examine Summerian civilisation and cylinder seals.
>> >> >I think this depends on what you mean by "printing".
>> >> Well now, I can quite easily say the Chinese didn't invent the printing
>> >> press, because it doesn't rate compared to the Gutenberg invention.
>> >Gutenberg's printing press was better than any other method of mass production
>> >of writing that existed at the time. I'll give you that, no argument. But to
>> >rephrase my question; where do you draw the line between printing and pressing
>> >carved wooden blocks into wet clay?
>> >Go to:
>> >	http://www.digitalcentury.com/encyclo/update/print.html
>> >and read the section called China: The Technological Roots. *Now* who invented
>> >printing?
>> Okay, the Chinese had moveable clay "bits."  Hardly a printing press,
>> despite PC types falling over backwards to find stuff to make the Chinese
>> look good.
>
>Yeah right. And you racist shits keep falling over backwards to make all
>non-"whites" look bad. You'll just keep redefining "printing" until you get
>something that suits your purposes. And you still haven't told me what these
>Sumerians you hold so high were doing. If you really know, tell me:
>
What is printing, Mr. Lund?

Is it not the mass reproduction of texts?

Do not the cylinder seals of Sumeria fulfil this requirement?
>
>> >> If historians are going to credit the Chinese with that invention then I
>> >> can fairly state the Sumerians predated the concept by over 3,000 years.
>> >Could you please describe the Sumerian printing processes to me? Or at least
>> >give me a link? That way I'd have something to compare with.
>> You could always try looking up a book on Sumerian civilisation.  Especially
>> concerning cylinder seals.
>
>No. I'm asking you to describe it to me. Again.
>
Writing and pictures were etched into (sometimes) large cylinders were the
owner could roll his seal over a prepared clay tablet.  This could (and
was) repeated for as many copies as necessary.  It was one factor that
allowed the epic of Gilgamesh to become widespread, as but one example.

>> >BTW: Why the Sumerian hangup? I doubt they'd pass your definition of "white".
>> Wrong again.  While they (at times) had inferior races amongst them, the
>> bust of Gudea of Lagash is a perfect stereotype of a White.  BTW, I have
>> recently quoted a book describing both the builders of Jericho and of
>> Sumeria being longheads of Mediterranean type.
>
>If the Sumerians had (at times) "inferiour races" among them, does not that
>make them a bunch of "half-breeds"? Sounds like these "white" Sumarians of
>yours had an awful lot of "niggers" in their woodpiles.
>
The inferior races moved in at later times.  Until the civilisation got
well under way they were all longheads of Mediterranean type.  It was only
later that roundheads moved in.

>> >> >> >>> > > 7.  Stone architecture (all examples of it:  e.g. Pre-Columbian America)
>> >> >> >>Were the builders of the megaliths white?
>> >> >> Using Thor Heyerdahl's theories, yes.
>> >> >Using Thor Heyerdahl's thoeries, no.
>> >> Please read at least his book "Ra."  Please look up references concerning
>> >> mummies.
>> >> You do know Thor Heyerdahl's theories don't you?
>> >Being Norwegian, I can't avoid knowing who he is. But your reference to his
>> >book does not really mean much, as you have previously shown your ability to
>> >interprete everything just the way you want. Your reference to Cavalli-Sforza
>> >is a good example of this. Why don't you give me some quotations from "Ra"
>> >concerning these mummies. Also tell me where they were found, not just "in
>> >pre-Columbian America".
>> You may have a trouble comprehending this as it is opposed to you highly
>> prejudiced view of the world.
>
>Again, a racist should not use the word "prejudiced".
>
Again, are you stating that you aren't "prejudiced"?

>>   "No mummies of men or beasts will last in a jungle climate, but we know
>>   that important persons were embalmed to attain eternal life by the
>>   sun-worshippers of ancient America, because hundreds of carefully
>>   embalmed mummies are preserved in desert tombs in Peru.  Their grave-
>>   goods proclaim their high rank.  While some Peruvian mummies have
>>   coarse, straight, black hair like modern Indians, others have reddish
>>   and even blond, wavy and soft hair, and their great body height is in
>>   striking contrast to the Indians living in Peru today, who are among the
>>   shortest races in the world."*
>
>This is from "Ra"? Point to you. But: Seeing as these "Aryans" lived among
>Mayas and Incas and whatever, would they not all have "niggers" in their
>woodpiles? And just because there were (if there were) found any "white"
>mummies there, that does not in any way prove that they made any important
>contributions to the cultures.
>
Considering that Kukulcan (Mayan) and Quetzecoatl were both the accredited
to the start of their respective civilizations you are quite simply wrong.

Also please note these Aztec words:

Azt: White.
Ec: People.

Aztec means ..... ......

>> This is not the first time I have quoted it, nor would it seem to be the
>> last as more and more wilfully ignorant people swarm this newsgroup.
>
>However, I'm not entire certain you've gotten the quote right...
>
Feel free to read it.

[The ruins or "Zimbabwe"]

Movement of farmers south.[6]

   By the 8th century Arab traders began to visit more southerly harbours,
   and between the 11th and 15th centuries they founded some 37 new towns.
   Though these towns never united politically, they developed a common
   Afro-Arab, or Swahili, culture and a splendour that amazed the 
   Portuguese when they encountered them in the 15th century.
      The Limpopo and Save rivers appear to have early arteries of trade
   to the southernmost Arab trading posts and settlements, with African
   intermediaries initially bringing ivory, and later copper and gold to
   the cost. ...In Zimbabwe alone there are more than 1,100 prehistoric
   gold mines and 150 copper mines ... [7]

[Zimbabwe proper]
   
   Fierce controversy has raged around the racial identity of its
   occupants.  Early excavators refused to accept that it could have been
   built by blacks.[8]
  
[snip]
>> 
>> *  T. Heyerdahl, "Ra", trans. G. Allen, London, 1971.
>
>BTW; Who is this G. Allen? What other things has he translated? The name is
>vaguely familiar...
>
G. Allen is the standard translator of the book "Ra."

Ourobouros.

[1] B. Watterson, Women in Ancient Egypt, New York, 1991, p.9,10.
[2] ibid., p.9.
[3] ibid., p.4.
[4] J.D. Clark, The Prehistory of Africa, 1970, p.165.
[5] ibid., p.167.
[6] Encyclopedia Britanica, vol. 27, p.917.
[7] ibid., p.918.
[8] ibid.


From Ourobouros Sun Sep 22 08:19:38 PDT 1996
Article: 44121 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Finsten: Proponent for Freedom of Speech
Date: 20 Sep 1996 21:39:58 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <51vriu$s41@lex.zippo.com>
References: <50nn6u$kvo@lex.zippo.com> <50sj22$42r@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <50tkjk$m1i@lex.zippo.com> <50vsia$up@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <5138go$n26@lex.zippo.com> <516dlj$4ai@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <519nc6$evv@lex.zippo.com> <51jmvh$k1i@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <51ndld$h4c@lex.zippo.com> <51pf8b$3p@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port901-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <51pf8b$3p@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <51jmvh$k1i@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>[...]
>
>>>>No, "Miss Finsten".  You are saying that no matter what, unless they 
>>>>accept the dogma, then they have failed to accept the dogma and its
>>>>"truth."
>
>>>No, "Mr. Stone".  I am saying that if the question or assignment asks them
>>>to demonstrate that they *understand* a certain body of theory, data and
>>>interpretations and their responses fail to demonstrate that they have
>>>acquired that understanding, then they have not done what they were asked
>>>to do.  Please note that the key word is "understanding", not "acceptance"
>>>or "belief".  I can demonstrate that I "understand" the 17th and 18th
>>>century concept of "The Great Chain of Being", and discuss what was used
>>>as "evidence" to support this ordering of life on earth.  This does *not*
>>>mean, however, that I *accept* this as a valid or useful way to explain
>>>the variety of life on earth or the relationships between different life
>>>forms, or that I believe literally in the creation account in the book
>>>of Genesis.  
>
>>Clever.
>>So you are stating that you don't necessarily teach facts?
>
>You know, I am always careful to try to highlight and encourage students to
>see the difference between "evidence" and "interpretation".  These things
>often blur into each other, nearly interceptibly, but I have always believed
>that it is important for students to realise that our information about the
>past is fragmentary, and that present interpretations are not final "truths".
>They will change with new evidence, with the development of new methods,
>and as theory improves.  But that doesn't mean that there aren't fossil 
>hominids and palaeolithic sites.  
>
And of course you wouldn't impede progress now would you?  One thing that
irks me then, if I state I disagree with an interpretation then why do you
bicker so much?  

>

>>>Bureaucracy???  Ah "Mr. Stone" the wise, so intelligent that he has mastered
>>>not only an entire discipline and all its internal subdivisions, but also
>>>every related science or other area of study that has any relationships to 
>>>that discipline.  So you are saying that people who study fossil hominids
>>>should not only be palaeoanthropologists (and experts in every other field
>>>of anthropology, as well), but should also know as much about geophysics
>>>as a geophysicist, about palaeontology as a palaeontologist, about
>>>palaeogeography as a palaeogeographer, about geology as a geologist,
>>>about primate behaviour and anatomy as a primatologist...  
>>>My aren't you exacting in your standards.
>
>>What else is a Professor good for if they haven't studied and mastered a
>>multiplicity of disciplines?
>
>Well I'm sure you don't think that professors are good for much, no matter
>what they have mastered.  I think, though, that if you look at the requirements
>for PhD degrees, you'll find that your expectations are not the same as those
>of graduate faculties.  I think that if you ever sat down for a couple of years
>and actually tried to master one discipline, you would find that your expectations
>are absurdly unrealistic.
>
Some professors I admire, but you're not one of them.  IMO you don't even
rate.  Whoever promoted you to professor-hood should be shot.

If I look at the requirements of a Ph.D I see the need to do a lot of
research.  One would have thought that once the Ph.D period was over it
would have continued a habit rather than enforce stagnation as it appears
with you.  I know several professors and doctors that are multi-talented
and they strive to master all sorts of fields.

>>Let us not forget that you are only too willing to provide your opinions
>>on many levels.  I have not seen you restrict yourself to posts that
>>concern only anthropology "Miss Finsten."
>
>Except where I offer opinions, I do in fact tend to limit my postings to
>areas of anthropology, which I have some familiarity with.  I occasionally
>post a thing or two relevant to the Holocaust, if it touches on something
>that I have read about and so can claim to have some knowledge of.
>
Considering that you only know population genetics you have over-stepped
your boundaries many times.

>>Let us not forget your comrades expect me to cover and master a multi-
>>plicity of disciplines as well.  Perhaps the standard you decree as 
>>unfair is really the consequence of the standards your comrades exact.
>
>Ah, "Mr. Stone", your critiques merely expect you to be able to support
>your assertions and claims.  If you haven't the knowledge to back them
>up, then you shouldn't make them.
>
No, I am expected to know a whole variety of disciplines.  I would like to
keep to a single topic within a conversation, but people like "Brown" keep
diverting to other topics which are often unrelated and asking me petty
questions which they think are extremely intelligent.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Sun Sep 22 23:08:55 PDT 1996
Article: 67803 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!psgrain!iafrica.com!pipex-sa.net!hole.news.pipex.net!pipex!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!hunter.premier.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race [long]
Date: 21 Sep 1996 23:43:10 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 246
Message-ID: <522n5u$j2a@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51i64f$r8o@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <51lhk1$dq4@lex.zippo.com> <51p08v$7nt@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <52000h$299@lex.zippo.com> <521t6f$mim@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port937-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44249 alt.revisionism:67803 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30733

In article <521t6f$mim@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <51p08v$7nt@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>[...]
>
>>Discovery which genes [well hopefully you can comprehend this] are 
>>reasonable for white pigmentation is only a matter of time.  I personally
>>believe this research has been slowed down for fear of discovering racial
>>differences.
>
>Despite your poor grammar and/or typing, yes, I get the gist of what you
>are saying.  I think.  Are you suggesting that the Human Genome Project
>has been slowed down "for fear of discovering racial differences"?
>
I am suggesting that studies into human genetics concerning directly or
indirectly race have slowed down "for fear of discovering racial 
differences."

>>I admit that I didn't quote C-S correctly, but it is not as severe as 
>>you would like to believe.
>
>Perhaps it is "not...severe" in this instance.  It is, however, part of
>a clear pattern of misquotation and misrepresentation of published works
>which you claim support your views.
>
I was referring to the book I quoted concerning the "four genes" --
"Elements of Human Genes" or some similar title. Not "History and Geography 
of Human Genes" which I presume you are meaning.

>>>You think that "scientific objectivity" can be achieved with the "armpit
>>>test"?  After you first posted this back in February or March, I did a
>>>little inner wrist/palm test of my own.  In winter, people here don't
>>>run around in sleeveless clothing, and I wasn't about to ask my colleagues
>>>and acquaintances to disrobe in order to demonstrate that you are, as usual,
>>>full of hot air.  Did you see what I wrote in the second paragraph earlier,
>>>"Mr. Stone"?  Do you actually know any dark-skinned people well enough to
>>>try this yourself?  You see, I asked a couple of folks if I could look at
>>>their inner wrists and the palms of their hands.  It was sort of embarrassing,
>>>but I explained to them why I wanted to do it.  The three of African descent
>>>ranged in skin colour from a lovely mocha to a very, very dark brown.  In
>>>all cases, blue veins were visible on the inner surface of the wrist and
>>>the palm of the hand.  Had I asked them to take off their shoes, I would
>>>expect that they would also be visible on the soles of the feet.
>
>>>I suppose that if the "armpit test" was good enough for Spanish blue bloods,
>>>it ought to be good enough as we approach the 21st century, eh, "Mr. Stone"?
>>>With such precision and objectivity, who needs genetics.
>
>>I imagine gene tests to be time consuming and expensive.  Finding quicker
>>ways to discover half-breeds would be welcome, this is just one.
>
>While you sigh yet again, let me try to run my question past you one more
>time, since you have failed to address the very real issues I raised.  Are
>you saying that scientific objectivity can be achieved with the "armpit
>test"?  If blue veins are visible on the inner wrists and palms of individuals
>with very dark skin, what good is your "armpit test"?
>
Have you ever done a course in CPR or something equivalent?  Part of the
study is to know whether the air flow has stopped or regained on a dark
man (not necessarily black).  Guess where one tells the story from?

Under the armpit was chosen by the Spanish because there is no sane way 
that someone would have a tan there.  This was the Spanish test.  Perhaps 
they were too prudish to consider the glutus maximus area :-)  Someone of
dark race continues to have dark skin under the armpits, either that or
you are calling the Spanish test unfounded.

>>>>>>2.  The skull shape is that of longhead of Mediterranean or Nordic stock.
>>>>>>    Appropriate facial angle, and within an acceptable cephalic index.  
>>>>>>    Also includes the jaw shape, structure and teeth.
>
>>>>>So how does this differ from a longhead of, say Sudanid stock?  And are
>>>>>you really going to say that someone who's cranial index is 80.0 is in,
>>>>>while someone whose cranial index is 79.9 is out?  Really?????
>
>>>>Does someone of Sudanid stock have a longhead of Mediterranean or Nordic
>>>>stock?
>
>>>Tell me how "longhead" differs in these contexts, "Mr. Stone".  Are you
>>>suggesting that there are different kinds of longheads?  Please do detail
>>>these differences for us.  What are the ranges of the cranial index for
>>>each of these variants of "longheads"?
>
>>              *sigh*
>
>Perhaps you should be careful, "Mr. Stone".  You don't want to hyperventilate
>and pass out on your keyboard, I'm sure.
>
Perhaps you could think of better arguments to post thereby limiting the
chance of me hyperventilating.

>>The skulls are physically distant.  How else could they say that this
>>skull is of Mediterranean stock or this skull is Negro? I don't remember 
>>stating that a Sudanid's cephalic index is different from a Nordic's 
>>cephalic index.  Please stop putting words into my mouth.
>
>What skulls are physically distant?  How physically distant are the skulls
>of all the people currently resident in New Zealand?  And what one earth
>does physical distance have to do with cranial index values?  I'm not
>"putting words in your mouth", I'm trying to make some sense out of the
>words that you are posting here.  How many different kinds of "longheads"
>are distinguished in the anthropometry literature, "Mr. Stone"?  And how
>are they distinguished, in terms of their cranial index values?
>
Personally I am only interested in the longheads pertaining to the White
race.  While I am aware of Negroes also having dolichocephalic heads they
have other characteristics that make them distinct, for example a more
radical facial angle (70 degree mean).

>Or are you now saying that your lengthy list of criteria for defining
>the "White race" is *not* a list of independent measures?  Perhaps you 
>did not in fact claim that they were.  However, I assumed that they were,
>since I assumed that your intent was to show that there are *lots* of
>different criteria, all objective, which can be used to delimit your
>group of select individuals.  But now you seem to be saying that one must
>know beforehand what "stock" an individual belongs to before one can
>say whether something like "longhead" is useful or not.  Doesn't that
>sort of defeat the purpose, since the purpose is to determine what "stock"
>a person belongs to?
>
Not really.  Perhaps I should have used a sense of priority in the list,
but I doubt whether it would have been noticed.  Notice how your comrades
major in the minors.
>[...]
>
>>>>Is this worth a response?
>
>>>I must admit I asked myself that question when I saw your list of
>>>"defining characteristics".
>
>>Ah, the belittling tactic again.
>
>I admit that it isn't relevant to the substance of this discussion, but
>I am very curious about something, "Mr. Stone".  Now, you have just said
>that my doubts about whether what you had posted merited a response were
>"belittling" to you.  Yet as you can see, this is precisely how you 
>responded to a comment by Christopher Lund.  So are you saying that it is
>OK for you to belittle your protagonists but not for them to belittle you?
>Or that the same comment only constitutes belittling if it comes from one
>of your protagonists?
>
I respond in kind.  Insult me, I insult you back.  Behave intelligently,
then I behave intelligently.  One of my tactics in arguments is to use
the exact same tactics of my opponents.  I discovered something when I
was very young:  there are plenty of people that can give it, but few that
can take it.  Why else do you think I am so keen on demonstrating liberals
are ignorant, prejudiced and bigoted?  Because they are the exact same
labels that liberals use on us.

This is why I can have an extremely good argument with people such as
Stewart King, but only occasionally with you.

>>>>>>6.  Long nose.
>
>>>>>But I thought cute little short noses were a pretty common European
>>>>>characteristic, although they certainly aren't a defining one.  That's
>>>>>the whole problem, isn't it, trying to find characteristics that are
>>>>>definitive.  Does Doris Day have a "long nose"?
>
>>>>Is this worth a response?
>
>Were you belittling me here, "Mr. Stone"?  Not that I care, but I am
>curious about whether you operate by a double standard.
>
I considered your response to be trivial and unimportant.  I was gracing
it by asking whether I should have replied or not.

>>>Well, I'd really like an answer to the question, "Mr. Stone".  Neither I
>>>nor any of my siblings have what I would describe as a "long nose", and 
>>>now I'm really worried that I'm not "White" after all, even though my
>>>mother is from Scotland and my father's ancestry is Irish/Norwegian.
>
>>Most of what I wrote are comparative to the other races, you have decided 
>>to use standalone tactics.  Do you have a Negro nose?
>
>Does Karl Malden?
>
I am not familiar with Karl Malden.
>
>>Do you have Negro fat lips?
>
>What is your point, other than demonstrating yet again how you subscribe
>to some rather crude stereotypes about human physiognomy?
>
You were the one complaining about "thinnish lips."  Try as I might, I
have not been able to convince you that I was comparing them to Negroes.
The advantage of stereotypes is that they are often good generalisation.

Before you start White racist = White trash nonsence, could you explain
why there are so many programs to stop White businessmen from employing
only Whites (men)?  You need only answer this if you were trying to use
said stereotype.
>
>>>"Trying it"?  How about answering the question, "Mr. Stone"?  You
>>>claim that Cavalli-Sforza et al. have delineated a "White gene pool"
>>>in this book.  Now I can't very well cite quotations or page numbers
>>>to show that they have not, can I, since what you say is in the book
>>>isn't.  But you could support your assertion with quotations and
>>>citations.  Or can't you, "Mr. Stone", because they aren't there?
>
>>Long, long ago I posted bits and pieces I thought were relevant here.  I
>>believe you were present and that you were arguing against me.  While I
>>would like to requote the relevant parts again I will need the book, and
>>that unfortunately is the problem.
>
>I'll wait.  I'm in no hurry.  You managed to get it from the library before,
>so I'm sure you can come up with it again soon.  I can empathise, since it
>took me months to get it from interlibrary loan.
>
My library unfortunately has it out on permanent loan.  Getting hold of it
for any length of time is difficult as he automatically recalls it.
>
>>>Which is it, "Mr. Stone"?  I really am curious.  Do you understand this
>>>stuff so poorly that you really think the book does this?  Or are you
>>>knowingly lying?
>
>>You have your interpretation, I have mine.  It will interesting to see in
>>future years who holds the correct definition.  I predict that PC days are
>>numbered, and we will revert to finding truths again.
>
>If you are so convinced that all modern science is so utterly tainted by 
>PC that none of it can be believed, what makes you think that previous
>prevailing ideologies have not similarly tainted the science that was
>conducted during their tenure?  
>
Sciences such as physics and chemistry are hardly tainted by political
stupidity.  Basically only sciences or parts of them that deal with social 
subjects (humans) are subject to PC standards.  Wouldn't want to upset
liberals and/or the media now would we?  Just look at the commotion that
the "Bell Curve" caused.

>>I will give you that in these stupid times your interpretation holds, 
>>because the media will back you against me.
>
>Tell me how what "the media" may or may not think about gene frequencies 
>can have an effect on them, "Mr. Stone".  Or how what "the media" may or
>may not think about principal component maps can have an effect on the
>number of categories chosen to construct those maps.
>
If enough people believe in it, it becomes fact "Miss Finsten."  Whether
they such things are correct is another story entirely.  

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Mon Sep 23 07:45:54 PDT 1996
Article: 67886 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news-dc.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-10.sprintlink.net!netnews.fast.net!news.fast.net!netaxs.com!news.misty.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race [long]
Date: 22 Sep 1996 22:29:32 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <52577s$3r9@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51i64f$r8o@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <51lhk1$dq4@lex.zippo.com> <51p08v$7nt@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <52000h$299@lex.zippo.com> <521t6f$mim@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <522n5u$j2a@lex.zippo.com> <524l5s$97s@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port943-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44301 alt.revisionism:67886 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30785

In article <524l5s$97s@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <521t6f$mim@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>>I am suggesting that studies into human genetics concerning directly or
>>indirectly race have slowed down "for fear of discovering racial 
>>differences."
>
>Do you mean specifically studies which use "races" as their units of
>analysis?
>
Not necessarily.  That is why I included "directly or indirectly" above.
Any discipline (science or no) that treads into social issues, especially
race, treads on thin ice.
>
>>Under the armpit was chosen by the Spanish because there is no sane way 
>>that someone would have a tan there.  This was the Spanish test.  Perhaps 
>>they were too prudish to consider the glutus maximus area :-)  Someone of
>>dark race continues to have dark skin under the armpits, either that or
>>you are calling the Spanish test unfounded.
>
>"Mr. Stone", if I can see the blue veins on the inner wrist and the palm
>of the hand on individuals whose skin elsewhere is deep mocha or dark
>chocolate brown in colour, who cares about the flaming armpit?!?!?  Blue
>veins are visible through the skin on some areas of the body of all people.
>
So all the Spanish were idiots in the 15th & 16th centuries?  

The palm of a Negro is well known for being "white."
>
>>>>The skulls are physically distant.  How else could they say that this
>>>>skull is of Mediterranean stock or this skull is Negro? I don't remember 
>>>>stating that a Sudanid's cephalic index is different from a Nordic's 
>>>>cephalic index.  Please stop putting words into my mouth.
>
>>>What skulls are physically distant?  How physically distant are the skulls
>>>of all the people currently resident in New Zealand?  And what one earth
>>>does physical distance have to do with cranial index values?  I'm not
>>>"putting words in your mouth", I'm trying to make some sense out of the
>>>words that you are posting here.  How many different kinds of "longheads"
>>>are distinguished in the anthropometry literature, "Mr. Stone"?  And how
>>>are they distinguished, in terms of their cranial index values?
>
>>Personally I am only interested in the longheads pertaining to the White
>>race.  While I am aware of Negroes also having dolichocephalic heads they
>>have other characteristics that make them distinct, for example a more
>>radical facial angle (70 degree mean).
>
>So what you are saying is the cranial index values are useless as an
>independent means to determine "race"?  (please note the question mark,
>I am not putting words in your mouth, but asking for clarification)
>
Again, not necessarily.  The cranial index is but one measure.  If 
someone lacks having a dolichocephalic skull then they're not White.
However, just having a dolichocephalic skull doesn't make you White on
its own.

>>>Or are you now saying that your lengthy list of criteria for defining
>>>the "White race" is *not* a list of independent measures?  Perhaps you 
>>>did not in fact claim that they were.  However, I assumed that they were,
>>>since I assumed that your intent was to show that there are *lots* of
>>>different criteria, all objective, which can be used to delimit your
>>>group of select individuals.  But now you seem to be saying that one must
>>>know beforehand what "stock" an individual belongs to before one can
>>>say whether something like "longhead" is useful or not.  Doesn't that
>>>sort of defeat the purpose, since the purpose is to determine what "stock"
>>>a person belongs to?
>
>>Not really.  Perhaps I should have used a sense of priority in the list,
>>but I doubt whether it would have been noticed.  Notice how your comrades
>>major in the minors.
>
>Well, I can assure you that I would have noticed, since I have indeed noticed
>its absence.  I think you have an awful lot of work left to do on your list,
>"Mr. Stone".
>
It is not in its complete form that I freely admit.  The most emphasize
I would place on a White test at the moment is skull shape, skin colour,
facial features, eye shape and hair type, in roughly that order for
priority.  I would of course also use the Spanish test as well.

[noses and lips removed]

>>Before you start White racist = White trash nonsence, 
>
>I have never done this.  I have *never* used the expression "White trash".
>
Good.  A lot of these extra statements aren't necessitated towards you,
but your incompetent colleagues.  
>
Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Sep 23 07:45:55 PDT 1996
Article: 67904 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!chi-news.cic.net!nntp.coast.net!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Ourobouros teaches CPR (was: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race [long])
Date: 22 Sep 1996 11:49:58 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <5241om$fa4@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51i64f$r8o@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <51lhk1$dq4@lex.zippo.com> <51p08v$7nt@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <52000h$299@lex.zippo.com> <521t6f$mim@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <522n5u$j2a@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port916-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44307 alt.revisionism:67904 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30790

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <522n5u$j2a@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> Have you ever done a course in CPR or something equivalent?  Part of the
>> study is to know whether the air flow has stopped or regained on a dark
>> man (not necessarily black).  Guess where one tells the story from?
>
>I have been trained in CPR by the US Red Cross, and in fact was a CPR
>instructor for a few years in the 1970s. I am not familiar, of course,
>with how CPR is taught in New Zealand; but I can tell you that "Stone"
>would be laughed out of any CPR class in the US.
>
>During initial evaluation of a stricken subject, airflow is determined by
>the simple expedient of placing one's ear next to the mouth of the
>subject. Not, as one might think, to listen to the subject breathing,
>although one might hear something. The rationale is that the fine hairs
>along the side of the face near the ear are extremely sensitive to
>movement, and that any exhalations will be felt more reliably than they
>can be heard.
>
>It appears that "Stone" is claiming that to determine whether a
>dark-skinned subject is breathing or not, one must examine the veins under
>the armpit. If so, perhaps he can expound on the changes one will observe
>in said veins if the subject stops breathing. Given that veins are blue
>even when a person is breathing normally, it is difficult to understand
>what useful information can be gleaned from examination of the armpit in
>an emergency situation.
>
>Perhaps "Stone" can also refer us to a standard text on CPR that describes
>more fully the armpit test for breathing. Or perhaps, as he has so many
>times before, he will simply sigh and wonder aloud why so many people
>expect him to document his assertions beyond the Because! I! Say! So! that
>he usually employs.
>
Typical liberal reply using distortion.  I did not say that anyone applying
CPR checks for blue coloured veins under the armpit.  I was talking about
skin colouration.  BTW, I received (from the Red Cross) my training in
1987.

One hopes that "Brown" has a fathoming bone in his body.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Mon Sep 23 07:45:56 PDT 1996
Article: 67944 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!news.misty.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race [long]
Date: 22 Sep 1996 22:28:25 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <52575p$3qa@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51i64f$r8o@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <51lhk1$dq4@lex.zippo.com> <51p08v$7nt@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <52000h$299@lex.zippo.com> <521t6f$mim@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <522n5u$j2a@lex.zippo.com> <524l5s$97s@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port943-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44333 alt.revisionism:67944 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30820

In article <524l5s$97s@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <521t6f$mim@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>>I am suggesting that studies into human genetics concerning directly or
>>indirectly race have slowed down "for fear of discovering racial 
>>differences."
>
>Do you mean specifically studies which use "races" as their units of
>analysis?
>
Not necessarily.  That is why I included "directly or indirectly" above.
Any discipline (science or no) that treads into social issues, especially
race, treads on thin ice.
>
>>Under the armpit was chosen by the Spanish because there is no sane way 
>>that someone would have a tan there.  This was the Spanish test.  Perhaps 
>>they were too prudish to consider the glutus maximus area :-)  Someone of
>>dark race continues to have dark skin under the armpits, either that or
>>you are calling the Spanish test unfounded.
>
>"Mr. Stone", if I can see the blue veins on the inner wrist and the palm
>of the hand on individuals whose skin elsewhere is deep mocha or dark
>chocolate brown in colour, who cares about the flaming armpit?!?!?  Blue
>veins are visible through the skin on some areas of the body of all people.
>
So all the Spanish were idiots in the 15th & 16th centuries?  

The palm of a Negro is well known for being "white."
>
>>>>The skulls are physically distant.  How else could they say that this
>>>>skull is of Mediterranean stock or this skull is Negro? I don't remember 
>>>>stating that a Sudanid's cephalic index is different from a Nordic's 
>>>>cephalic index.  Please stop putting words into my mouth.
>
>>>What skulls are physically distant?  How physically distant are the skulls
>>>of all the people currently resident in New Zealand?  And what one earth
>>>does physical distance have to do with cranial index values?  I'm not
>>>"putting words in your mouth", I'm trying to make some sense out of the
>>>words that you are posting here.  How many different kinds of "longheads"
>>>are distinguished in the anthropometry literature, "Mr. Stone"?  And how
>>>are they distinguished, in terms of their cranial index values?
>
>>Personally I am only interested in the longheads pertaining to the White
>>race.  While I am aware of Negroes also having dolichocephalic heads they
>>have other characteristics that make them distinct, for example a more
>>radical facial angle (70 degree mean).
>
>So what you are saying is the cranial index values are useless as an
>independent means to determine "race"?  (please note the question mark,
>I am not putting words in your mouth, but asking for clarification)
>
Again, not necessarily.  The cranial index is but one measure.  If 
someone lacks having a dolichocephalic skull then they're not White.
However, just having a dolichocephalic skull doesn't make you White on
its own.

>>>Or are you now saying that your lengthy list of criteria for defining
>>>the "White race" is *not* a list of independent measures?  Perhaps you 
>>>did not in fact claim that they were.  However, I assumed that they were,
>>>since I assumed that your intent was to show that there are *lots* of
>>>different criteria, all objective, which can be used to delimit your
>>>group of select individuals.  But now you seem to be saying that one must
>>>know beforehand what "stock" an individual belongs to before one can
>>>say whether something like "longhead" is useful or not.  Doesn't that
>>>sort of defeat the purpose, since the purpose is to determine what "stock"
>>>a person belongs to?
>
>>Not really.  Perhaps I should have used a sense of priority in the list,
>>but I doubt whether it would have been noticed.  Notice how your comrades
>>major in the minors.
>
>Well, I can assure you that I would have noticed, since I have indeed noticed
>its absence.  I think you have an awful lot of work left to do on your list,
>"Mr. Stone".
>
It is not in its complete form that I freely admit.  The most emphasize
I would place on a White test at the moment is skull shape, skin colour,
facial features, eye shape and hair type, in roughly that order for
priority.  I would of course also use the Spanish test as well.

[noses and lips removed]

>>Before you start White racist = White trash nonsence, 
>
>I have never done this.  I have *never* used the expression "White trash".
>
Good.  A lot of these extra statements aren't necessitated towards you,
but your incompetent colleagues.  
>
Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Sep 23 07:45:57 PDT 1996
Article: 67945 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: ATTN O' feeble-minded ones: earwax citation
Date: 22 Sep 1996 22:44:53 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <52584l$45m@lex.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port943-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44334 alt.revisionism:67945 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30821

Please remember that this was included in the other possibilities category 
list in the thread "Ourobouros' sample...".

On the subject of ears:

   "Also, while at this task, spare a thought for the stickiness or
   dryness of wax.  Mongoloids in general have dry, odourless ear-wax,
   and if Japanese do have sticky was it has been inherited as a 
   dominant gene.  Negroes, however, are 100% sticky, Europeans 70%,
   Chinese 3% (B. Adahi, a Japanese, seems to have done most of the
   work on this score in 1937.)"

He then goes onto explain that the odour of earwax is connected to the
sweat glands, but gives no details.[1]

Unlike my previous posts, where I try to discourage silly replies, I
would like as many silly replies as possible as some of my colleagues
and I have a bet going on whether liberals are as silly as I have 
supposed.

Ourobouros.

[1] A. Smith, "The Human Pedigree: Inheritance and the genetics of
mankind", London, 1975, p.114.


From Ourobouros Mon Sep 23 07:45:57 PDT 1996
Article: 67947 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 22 Sep 1996 16:37:39 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <524ik3$p8a@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51gnna$m2@gyda.ifi.uio.no>  <51ve69$n2q@lex.zippo.com> <51vphp$o57@lendl.cc.emory.edu> <51vsc6$see@lex.zippo.com> <522ktc$67l@lendl.cc.emory.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port800-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44339 alt.revisionism:67947 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30823

In article <522ktc$67l@lendl.cc.emory.edu>, libwca@larry.cc.emory.edu says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>: In article <51vphp$o57@lendl.cc.emory.edu>, libwca@curly.cc.emory.edu says...
>
>: >There is no "Aryan race."  There is an Aryan language group; none of 
>: >the languages in it is the native language of any Northern European.
>: >
>: So what is the Aryan language group then?
>
>It's a group of languages--more properly known as "Indo-Aryan" or "Indo-
>Iranian"--spoken in Iran and parts of India and Pakistan.
>
Could you explain this to me then (since Northern European languages are
dissimilar):  in Sanskrit, the word for god is Dius, Greek; theos, Latin;
deus; english; diety?  I am sure I could find similar words in the 
Celtic group and the other Germanic groups.

>: Do you know what the etymology for Ireland is?
>
>"Ireland" is an anglization of the Irish Gaelic "Eire".  I don't know
>the exact etymology, and neither do you.  It's possible it comes from
>the same proto-Indo-European root as "Aryan".  Irish Gaelic, however,
>is not an Indo-Aryan language.
>
Proof.  In other words, what makes Indo-Aryan separate from Indo-European?
>: 
>: >Please refrain from basing your posts on nineteenth-century pseudo-
>: >science.  It causes, you see, terrible coffee problems...
>: >
>: Tough biccies.
>: 
>: Aryan is a convenient label for the broad-browed longhead of fair
>: complexion race.  Nordic is too recent a term to be adequate for more
>: ancient peoples.
>
>"Aryan" is a convenient label if you're into nineteenth-century
>pseudo-science, yes.
>
Could you explain why scientists this century were still using the term
then?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Sep 23 08:20:09 PDT 1996
Article: 44306 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: White MEN created everything (II)
Date: 21 Sep 1996 23:54:08 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <522nqg$jbu@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51qqgs$7tf@lex.zippo.com> <51v1n6$mp8@maud.ifi.uio.no> <51vmls$qb7@lex.zippo.com> <521m34$kgs@orion.cybercom.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port937-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <521m34$kgs@orion.cybercom.net>, amatthews@cybercom.net says...
>
>In article <51vmls$qb7@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>Buddha was an Aryan that spread his version of *religion* to Asia.  Please
>>note its wide acceptance and influence.  It came from a White man.
>
>Given that Shakyamuni was born in Nepal and spent most of his life teaching in 
>India - how could he spread his religion "to" Asia?  Its not like he came from 
>somewhere else.   
>
Pedantics:  Mongoloid Asia.

>Also, given that Shakyamuni was not a Brahmin it is a stretch, using the caste 
>system's definition, to call him Aryan.  He was almost certainly a decent 
>shade of brown.  Therefore, by your twisted "logic", it would be very 
>questionable to call him white.  Nevermind, of course, that all people living 
>on the Indian subcontinent are caucausoid.  
>
Proof that Buddha was "a decent shade of brown" is in order.  I have 
encouraged various people to read the Vedi hymns and how they considered
themselves, but to no-avail.

>Finally, Buddhism's "wide acceptance and influence" did not, until recently, 
>include the West, and it is still far from acceptance here.  Why this white 
>antipathy to a supposedly white "religion" (most forms of Buddhism are not 
>religions in the Western sense anyway, twit)?  
>
How large an area and how populous is Mongoloid Asia?

The wickermen aren't acceptable to our modern civilisation either, twit.  

>And as for your claiming to be an alchemist - just because you call yourself 
>one doesn't mean that you actually know anything about it.  Just look at all 
>the other ignorant stuff you've posted with your superior Aryan knowledge and 
>intellect.    
>
Proof of allegations is required.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Sep 23 08:20:10 PDT 1996
Article: 44337 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Chiral molecules: irrelevant to apw-p, but here anyway.
Date: 22 Sep 1996 16:16:08 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <524hbo$lbs@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51gnna$m2@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <51hjgj$ihe@lex.zippo.com> <51loud$8aq@maud.ifi.uio.no> <51n1e2$c8v@lex.zippo.com> <51nc6q$ggd@lex.zippo.com> <51pfh8$lsb@lex.zippo.com> <3240E332.2781@itsa.ucsf.edu> <51s6qc$4eu@lex.zippo.com> <32433147.668A@unb.ca> <51vt97$12b@lex.zippo.com> <324448B6.451B@unb.ca> <521m80$77d@lex.zippo.com>  <522kac$i4r@lex.zippo.com> <324590FE.7BC6@unb.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port917-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <324590FE.7BC6@unb.ca>, Keith says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
[snip]

>> I did not initiate this part of the thread.  I distinctly remember saying
>> earlier that I did not want to argue over whether evolution or creationism
>> is correct.  I was asked why I thought chiral molecules were a major hole
>> in the theory of evolution, I have given it.  Quite frankly it is up to
>> my opponents to prove that it is feasible (by chance) of only one form
>> of chiral molecules to exist in life.  You should keep out of arguments
>> that you know nothing about.
>
>And you should avoid starting those you have no hope of winning.
>
Uh huh.

>You I generally don't hold any sort of antipathy for creationists as I
>can understand their wanting to believe.  I can appreciate that they think
>they are living up to their faith.
>
Yet you would have me believe that by faith chiral molecules of only one
form in life just occurred.  Sounds awfully like a religion to me.

>On the other hand, someone like you simply disgusts me.  The hubris to
>believe that there is a Deity and that you were created to be on top and
>that no one else is worthy to be there with you is appalling.  I want 
>nothing to do with your God.
>
I don't remember shoving God down your throat, perhaps you'd like to
demonstrate where I have done so.

Anyway, you'd never be welcome. People that major in the minors and believe
in logical contradictions aren't welcome.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Sep 23 08:20:11 PDT 1996
Article: 44349 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!psgrain!iafrica.com!peacenjoy.mikom.csir.co.za!news.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Ancient America (was: White MEN ...)
Date: 22 Sep 1996 23:12:51 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <5259p3$4oa@lex.zippo.com>
References: <5200bp$2fe@lex.zippo.com> <523sck$ksr@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port943-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <523sck$ksr@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <51p7dv$k9p@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
[snip]

>>>>>Apart from the fact that New World and Old World pyramids both are bigger 
>>>>>at the bottom and smaller at the top, just what are their alleged 
>>>>>"overwhelming similarities", "Mr. Stone"?
>
>>>>Please read his book as he discusses them.
>
>>>No, no, no, "Mr. Stone".  What are the supposed "overwhelming similarities"
>>>between New World and Old World pyramids?  Both are bigger at the bottom
>>>than they are at the top.  What else?  You are, apparently, sympathetic
>>>to his argument, so let's hear it.  
>
>>Warum?
>
>I'll try asking the question again, "Mr. Stone".  Don't forget that this is
>one of the lynchpins in the arguments of those who claim that New World
>civilisations were the product of European minds.  Aside from the rather
>obvious fact that both Old World and New World pyramids are bigger at the
>bottom and smaller at the top, what are the so-called "overwhelming
>similarities" that lead the author of Fingerprints of the Gods and others 
>to argue that the presence of pyramids in both hemispheres is a product 
>of transoceanic travel thousands of years ago between the New World and
>the Middle East?  And, of course, for you to accept these arguments,
>"Mr. Stone", since it seems that you do.
>
Here is an extremely rough attempt (I don't have the book on hand):

Both the 3rd Dynasty of Egypt and the Mesoamerican civilisation have
stepped pyramids.  Both are believed to be religious complexes to the Sun.
The pyramid at Teotihuacan, for example, has an avenue of the dead, whereas 
the Egyptians had their city of the dead.  Both were tombs and only for
important people (rulers and their lackeys).  Both were heavily into
serpents -- the feathered serpent of Mesoamerican infamy, and you also
can witness winged serpents in Egypt, inside their mortuary complexes.
Both were centres of religion.  I believe they are also supposed to use the 
same angle in construction for their respective STEPPED pyramids.

With the exception of the "I believe..." sentence the details for the
Mesoamerican pyramids are in the Encyclopedia Brtiannica vol.26, p.4-25.
The details of Egyptian pyramids should be common knowledge.

As a passing comment, the Mayan Kukulcan and the Aztec Queztecoatl was
also the feathered serpent.  Them both being famous of the White God-king
of Mesoamerican civilisation.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Sep 23 13:03:15 PDT 1996
Article: 68032 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Ourobouros teaches CPR (was: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race [long])
Date: 22 Sep 1996 11:49:25 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <5241nl$f9s@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51i64f$r8o@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <51lhk1$dq4@lex.zippo.com> <51p08v$7nt@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <52000h$299@lex.zippo.com> <521t6f$mim@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <522n5u$j2a@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port916-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44370 alt.revisionism:68032 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30852

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <522n5u$j2a@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> Have you ever done a course in CPR or something equivalent?  Part of the
>> study is to know whether the air flow has stopped or regained on a dark
>> man (not necessarily black).  Guess where one tells the story from?
>
>I have been trained in CPR by the US Red Cross, and in fact was a CPR
>instructor for a few years in the 1970s. I am not familiar, of course,
>with how CPR is taught in New Zealand; but I can tell you that "Stone"
>would be laughed out of any CPR class in the US.
>
>During initial evaluation of a stricken subject, airflow is determined by
>the simple expedient of placing one's ear next to the mouth of the
>subject. Not, as one might think, to listen to the subject breathing,
>although one might hear something. The rationale is that the fine hairs
>along the side of the face near the ear are extremely sensitive to
>movement, and that any exhalations will be felt more reliably than they
>can be heard.
>
>It appears that "Stone" is claiming that to determine whether a
>dark-skinned subject is breathing or not, one must examine the veins under
>the armpit. If so, perhaps he can expound on the changes one will observe
>in said veins if the subject stops breathing. Given that veins are blue
>even when a person is breathing normally, it is difficult to understand
>what useful information can be gleaned from examination of the armpit in
>an emergency situation.
>
>Perhaps "Stone" can also refer us to a standard text on CPR that describes
>more fully the armpit test for breathing. Or perhaps, as he has so many
>times before, he will simply sigh and wonder aloud why so many people
>expect him to document his assertions beyond the Because! I! Say! So! that
>he usually employs.
>
Typical liberal reply using distortion.  I did not say that anyone applying
CPR checks for blue coloured veins under the armpit.  I was talking about
skin colouration.  BTW, I received (from the Red Cross) my training in
1987.

One hopes that "Brown" has a fathoming bone in his body.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Mon Sep 23 19:20:56 PDT 1996
Article: 68149 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!netaxs.com!news-out.microserve.net!news-in.microserve.net!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 22 Sep 1996 16:29:33 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <524i4t$ln8@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51gnna$m2@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <51hjgj$ihe@lex.zippo.com> <51loud$8aq@maud.ifi.uio.no> <51n1e2$c8v@lex.zippo.com> <51p76e$b6r@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <51pic3$n7f@lex.zippo.com> <51rl6a$8k6@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <51tv2q$5dn@lex.zippo.com> <520tgm$2us@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <521o81$7rt@lex.zippo.com> <523qlu$ksr@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port800-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44413 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30900 alt.revisionism:68149

In article <523qlu$ksr@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <520tgm$2us@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...

>>Why does there have to be a geographical boundary?  That's the fallacy of
>>modern anthropologists.  If you ARE in greater Europe then you ARE 
>>Caucasian.
>
>Fine.  I misunderstood you.  You did not express yourself clearly and
>perhaps I did not take as much time as I should have to try to figure
>out what you were really trying to say.
> 
I thank you for displaying some measure of an apology.  As a point of
reference for you I believe in succinctness.  By that I mean I don't
expand my explanations or statements unless I feel [for a lack of a
better word] my sentences are ambiguous.
>
>>>>Anthropologists have classified race into geographical entities.  Please
>>>>note this.  Hopefully your "professor" brain has the capacity to input 
>>>>data.
>
>Yes.  Anthropologists classify human populations into geographically-
>bounded entities.  Do you have any idea why that is the case?  Do you
>know how population geneticists, population biologists and ecologists
>identify and delimit subdivisions of single species, "Mr. Stone"?
>
Convenience I suspect or being simplistic-- 1st question.

Only vaguely as they change their minds on a regular basis -- 2nd question.
>
>>It seems reasonable that the reason a Negro brain looks the way it does is
>>due to both the confines of his skull and his (non-skull forming) genes.
>>Is this wrong?
>
>The question posed did not ask you to speculate about why "the Negro brain
>looks the way it does", but to support your claim that "the Negro brain"
>looks any different from any other human brain.  Until you have demonstrated
>the validity of your underlying premise (that there are such differences),
>explaining them is moot.  In other words, you haven't yet established that
>there is anything to explain.  I have been asking you to do that.  You haven't.  
>
I was asked why there might be differences, 1st point.  And, I gave you
a reference a while back: "Morris' Dictionary of Human Anatomy" to which
your excuse was your fabulous Uni library didn't have it.  While I haven't
given you the ISBN number and etc., that is because I don't have it on
hand.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Tue Sep 24 07:37:52 PDT 1996
Article: 68303 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 23 Sep 1996 12:38:23 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 111
Message-ID: <526ovf$3c0@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51i64f$r8o@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <51lhk1$dq4@lex.zippo.com> <51p08v$7nt@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <52000h$299@lex.zippo.com> <521t6f$mim@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <522n5u$j2a@lex.zippo.com> <525m21$ai5@gyda.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port939-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44476 alt.politics.nationalism.white:30979 alt.revisionism:68303

In article <525m21$ai5@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <522n5u$j2a@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <521t6f$mim@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...

>> >Despite your poor grammar and/or typing, yes, I get the gist of what you
>> >are saying.  I think.  Are you suggesting that the Human Genome Project
>> >has been slowed down "for fear of discovering racial differences"?
>> >
>> I am suggesting that studies into human genetics concerning directly or
>> indirectly race have slowed down "for fear of discovering racial 
>> differences."
>
>Because you're only *suggesting* instead of claiming, does that mean you don't
>have any evidence of this?
>Your conspiracy theory is nothing short of ridiculous.
>
Perhaps you could explain the almost dead discussion in science over
racial differences from the mid 80s to now?  The only books you'll
discover are books concerned with social implications.

Why the drop off?

>
>> I respond in kind.  Insult me, I insult you back.
>
>Seems to me that you usually are the one to start with the insults, Ouro.
>
Incorrect.

>>  Behave intelligently,
>> then I behave intelligently.
>
>Uh huh... Except "behave intelligently" means agreeing with everything you
>say. Disagree and the word "moron" (or similar insult) will pop up.
>
Stewart King never agreed with me, therefore you are incorrect again.

>>  One of my tactics in arguments is to use
>> the exact same tactics of my opponents.
>
>We've noticed. But when a racist calls someone a bigot, that tactic only seems
>silly. How'd you respond if I call you a "nigger"?
>
Can you prove it?

>>  I discovered something when I
>> was very young:  there are plenty of people that can give it, but few that
>> can take it. 
>
>Including you.
>
When and where?

>> Why else do you think I am so keen on demonstrating liberals
>> are ignorant, prejudiced and bigoted? 
>
>Wishful thinking. The hat doesn't fit, and when you keep on calling us bigots,
>you only end up looking silly, "nigger".
>
The hat does fit.  What is your opinions concerning (White) racists?

>> Because they are the exact same
>> labels that liberals use on us.
>
>Only we use those labels because the hat fits on you.
>
As it does you.


>> If enough people believe in it, it becomes fact "Miss Finsten."  Whether
>> they such things are correct is another story entirely.
>
>Have you ever considered applying the above paragraph to your own racial
>theories, "nigger"?
>
Not enough people believe in it for a start.  This should have been obvious 
to even the dimmest of people.  The media are completely opposed to us.

>Speaking of dark skin; I noticed that you discontinued our discussion re your
>definition of "white". Was that because I was asking you to describe yourself?
>
>Tell us now: what kind of hair do you have (color, thickness, etc)? Eyes?
>Skin? How tall are you? How heavy? How is your skull shaped? What texture and
>color does your earwax have, and so on?
>
Not that I consider this overly relevant:

Hair: blond, fine, slightly wavy (very slight).
Eyes: Blue.
Skin: Lilly white.
Height: 6ft2.
Weight: 260-70lbs (I lift weights).
Skull:  Longhead of Nordic type.

>And while I'm on the subject of discontinued threads:
>
>How do you, a "white man", think of yourself regarding the Maories? Are you an
>invader? Or have you merely settled "uninhabited land"? Should all Euros Go
>Home?
>
These I have answered.

We settled uninhabited or waste land.

I don't mind if the Maori get all the land, so long as we get our weapons
back.  Since we developed the land for them, we should also get our 
developed weapons at the same time.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Sep 24 09:23:41 PDT 1996
Article: 44445 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!psgrain!iafrica.com!peacenjoy.mikom.csir.co.za!news.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: White MEN created everything (II) [long]
Date: 22 Sep 1996 12:33:34 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 344
Message-ID: <5244ae$g9l@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51qqgs$7tf@lex.zippo.com> <51v1n6$mp8@maud.ifi.uio.no> <51vmls$qb7@lex.zippo.com> <52368m$f2k@gyda.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port916-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <52368m$f2k@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <51vmls$qb7@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <51v1n6$mp8@maud.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
> 
>> >> Where did alchemists come from, regarding China?
>> >
>> >Seeing as the Chinese culture is a very old one, they probably evolved their
>> >own form of alchemy. Or maybe you could point out some simularities between
>> >the Oriental and Occidental vriations of alchemy? Any real simularities are
>> >likely to have travelled the silk road, via arab merchants. I wouldn't ignore
>> >the possibility of European alchemists being influenced by Chinese alchemists
>> >as well (again, via the arabs).
>> >
>> No.  China, like their martial arts came from India.
>
>Uh... I assume you mean "chinese alchemy came from India"...
>Very well, but what does that have to do with the "supremacy of the white
>race"?
>
Duh, who were the Aryans?

>> >> As a related topic: Who was Buddha and where did he come from?
>> >Buddha started buddhism. I don't remember his real name, but he came (I thnk)
>> >from India. Now could you perhaps tell me what the heck that has to do with 
>> >alchemy?
>> I wouldn't have thought I would need to spoon-feed you.
>
>Only when explaining concepts that don't have anything to do with the real
>world.
>
Obviously you have a strange definition of the real world.

>> Buddha was an Aryan that spread his version of *religion* to Asia.  Please
>> note its wide acceptance and influence.  It came from a White man.
>
>Now he's claiming Buddha was "white"...
>You're gonna have to spoon feed a lot more people than me, I think. Note that
>Buddhism came to the west as a part of the "New Age" culture. It is not widely
>considered as a "white" religion.
>
Now you think I am a Buddhist, no I am not.  Nor have I implied its
acceptance in the Western world.  The Aryans rejected Buddha as well.

>> >> >> Please try and do what no (chinese) historian has been able to do and that
>> >> >> is explain the rapid disappearance of alchemy in China.
>> >> >Could alchemy have been replaced by chemistry? Hmmm? That's what happened in
>> >> >the west.
>> >> No.  There was no parallel in China.
>> >How would *you* know? 
>> Please note my organization.
>
>"Order of Alchemists".
>
>In other words, you believe in that alchemy nonsense? You sit in a dark room,
>chanting magical formulas over a beaker full of mercury when the stars are
>right, hoping something happens?
>
Alchemy never has chanted magical formulas nor has it ever been involved
with star positions.

>Shows what a "scientific" person you are, Ouro.
>
Alchemy is the foundation of science.

>> >And what do you think happened?
>> There was nobody suitable to continue the art.
>
>This is getting sillier by the posting.

Only through your (lack of) comprehension.

>So why did they discontinue alchemy in the west? Same reason?
>
Alchemy's popularity died when transmutation was proved impossible late 
last century.  However it continued through other disciplines like 
chemistry.

>BTW: I can't help but notice that you're referring to alchemy as an "art",
>and not as a "science". I'm glad you at least concede that difference.
>
Alchemy is a late word.

>> >> >> Noting that alchemy is essentially a father-to-son trade, please explain
>> >> >> how China got alchemists.
>> >> >My guess is you're going to claim the first ethnic Chinese alchemist was trained
>> >> >by a "white" man. But tell me; if that is so, and alchemy is only passed down
>> >> >father to son, where did the first "white" alchemist get his knowledge from?
>> >> By being paid to study.
>> >That must be one of the dumbest things you've said so far. Some "white" guy
>> >told another "white" guy that he'd pay him if he invented alchemy? And if you
>> >think that was what happened in Europe, why couldn't the same thing have
>> >happened in China?
>
>	[snip]
>
>> As to why it couldn't happen in China:  Mongoloids have no history of
>> being inventive (aside from a few hiccups), whereas we have a long and
>> illustrous history of being inventive. No doubt you'll object to it, but
>> please prove how the Chinese would have invented it.
>
>So who invented their culture? Those mummies that were found in an area
>that wasn't even inside China at the time? Unless you manage to dig up some
>evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to assume that the Chinese
>"invented" their own culture, on their own. yes, they were subject to outside
>impulses, but so was everyone else.
>As for "proof", you are not the one to demand it.
>
So now culture is an invention?  Guess that is why you consider Negroes to
be your equal (or superiors).  

I do remember (via Mair) that the Chinese legends mention Red, blond,
tall people in their history.  Your response was akin to "Dwarfs, Giants
and Elves" for our legends.  I didn't think this was worth a response 
since I hoped you'd realize your own stupidity using such words.  Red,
blond, tall people are real not fictionary.

>> BTW, ourobouros is
>> an cosmic alchemic symbol.  If your argument has any relevancy, how did 
>> they receive ourobouros (independently)?  Also note its age.
>
>How are you so sure the chinese "received" it? It is a symbol we're talking
>about, yes?
>Ourobouros (the serpent hat encircles the world?) could have originated
>anywhere, and been spread everywhere by, among other things, trades.
>Particularily arab traders.
>
Arabs are too late in the peace.  No, ourobouros is not the midgard
serpent, though it has a similar concept.

>> >> >> Which race or "people" started the discipline of alchemy?
>> >> >1) I don't know. I assume it started independantly and later grew as a result
>> >> >of culteral interaction.
>> >> All fingers point to Whites.  Specifically India and Egypt.
>> >India and Egypt were hardly "white". So your fingers are pointing the wrong
>> >way.
>> >
>> You are incorrect again.  Please read the Vedi hymns concerning India, and
>> please interpret this Egyptian poem (quoted about the fourth time),
>> emphasize mine:
>
>	[poem snipped]
>
>> The comment before it is:
>>   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.[2]
>
>"Pale" is subjective, as is "white". What the poem means is that the women
>should have *paler* skin than the men.
>
The poem doesn't use a comparative adverb or adjective in case you didn't
notice.  It simply said "WHITE" (emphasize mine).  The "PALE skin" is
Barbara Watterson's interpretation.  Please note that she doesn't use a
comparative adverb or adjective either.  The word "comparative" should
be connected to both adverb and adjective.

>> One convention was that in painted reliefs and statues a woman's flesh
>> should be a CREAMY yellow, whereas for men it should be a reddish-brown.
>> The CREAMY yellow of 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.[3]
>
>"Creamy yellow" is a color easily attained by most US "blacks" simply by
>staying indoors. This is not evidence that the people were "white".
>
Your explanation is?

>> Another book (and slightly off topic):
>
>	[quote snipped]
>
>> This is from the Green Sahara (when it was green), which is around 5,000-
>> 3,000 B.C.
>> Your so-called Negro migration into Egypt is from the Sahara at this time
>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> period.  Strange that they weren't Negro...
>
>What makes you so certain that the founders of Egypt came from the Sahara? Do
>you have any evidence of this?
>
Ask an afrocentric scholar.  This is standard dogma for them, and I assumed
that you had allied with them.

>> >> >2) Why are you so hung up in alchemy anyway? 
>> >> 
>> >> Because you don't need a piece of paper to practise it.
>
>You don't need a piece of paper to practice science. Anyone can do that. All
>you need is a little common sense and objectivity.
>
To have any credibility you need a piece of paper otherwise your words 
carry no weight in our modern world.

>> >> >It's a pseuodoscience that
>> >> >currently exists only among the adherents of New Age cultures. Can you say: 
>> >> >Ommmmm...?
>> >> Mediation has nothing whatsoever to do with alchemy.
>> >No. But meditation has a lot to do with new Age. And in these modern times, so
>> >does alchemy.
>> As I have already stated O' uncomprehending one, I am not new age.
>
>Yet you belong to the "Order of Alchemists". That places you firmly in the
>camp of New Age, even though you don't meditate, sit up all night watching for
>UFOs, and various other New Age activities.
>
>> >>  Sorry o' ignorant
>> >> and prejudiced one. 
>> >As a racist, you should be wary of the word "prejudiced".
>> So you are stating that you aren't prejudiced?
>
>In which way am I prejudiced?
>
An example of you being prejudiced:

Yet you belong to the "Order of Alchemists". That places you firmly in the
camp of New Age, even though you don't meditate, sit up all night watching 
for UFOs, and various other New Age activities.

[printing and invention]

>> Is it not the mass reproduction of texts?
>
>In medieval Europe, monks spent their entire life copying the Bible by hand.
>That was mass "reproduction of texts", yet I wouldn't call that "printing".
>
Yet the Sumerians had a primitive mechanised system, unlike the Monks.
>	[snip]
>
>> >> >> If historians are going to credit the Chinese with that invention then I
>> >> >> can fairly state the Sumerians predated the concept by over 3,000 years.
>> >> >Could you please describe the Sumerian printing processes to me? Or at least
>> >> >give me a link? That way I'd have something to compare with.
>> >> You could always try looking up a book on Sumerian civilisation.  Especially
>> >> concerning cylinder seals.
>> >No. I'm asking you to describe it to me. Again.
>> Writing and pictures were etched into (sometimes) large cylinders were the
>> owner could roll his seal over a prepared clay tablet.  This could (and
>> was) repeated for as many copies as necessary.  It was one factor that
>> allowed the epic of Gilgamesh to become widespread, as but one example.
>
>OK; this I can accept as printing, albeit crude. now can you tell me where the
>similarity is between this and the movable bits used by the chinese? The
>Sumarians may have invented the first method of printing, but the chinese
>(unless an earlier example pops up) invented the method used today.
>
Only if you accept paper as the relevant medium.
>
>> >If the Sumerians had (at times) "inferiour races" among them, does not that
>> >make them a bunch of "half-breeds"? Sounds like these "white" Sumarians of
>> >yours had an awful lot of "niggers" in their woodpiles.
>> The inferior races moved in at later times.  Until the civilisation got
>> well under way they were all longheads of Mediterranean type.  It was only
>> later that roundheads moved in.
>
>Do you have any evidence of this?
>
The first five chapters of the establishment book "Ancient Iraq", 3rd. Ed.,
by G. Roux.  Take special note of terms of longhead, dolichocephalic and
brachycephalic.  Before I get quoted wrong, no, he is not forward in this
interpretation.  You'll just notice longhead, longhead, longhead and then
dolichocephalic and brachycephalic (an extreme paraphrase).

>> >> >> >> >>> > > 7.  Stone architecture (all examples of it:  e.g. Pre-Columbian America)
>
>	[prejudiced]
>
>> >>   "No mummies of men or beasts will last in a jungle climate, but we know
>> >>   that important persons were embalmed to attain eternal life by the
>> >>   sun-worshippers of ancient America, because hundreds of carefully
>> >>   embalmed mummies are preserved in desert tombs in Peru.  Their grave-
>> >>   goods proclaim their high rank.  While some Peruvian mummies have
>> >>   coarse, straight, black hair like modern Indians, others have reddish
>> >>   and even blond, wavy and soft hair, and their great body height is in
>> >>   striking contrast to the Indians living in Peru today, who are among the
>> >>   shortest races in the world."*
>> >This is from "Ra"? Point to you. But: Seeing as these "Aryans" lived among
>> >Mayas and Incas and whatever, would they not all have "niggers" in their
>> >woodpiles? And just because there were (if there were) found any "white"
>> >mummies there, that does not in any way prove that they made any important
>> >contributions to the cultures.
>> Considering that Kukulcan (Mayan) and Quetzecoatl were both the accredited
>> to the start of their respective civilizations you are quite simply wrong.
>
>I am not disputing that "Kukulcan (Mayan) and Quetzecoatl were both the 
>accredited to the start of their respective civilizations", but that a few
>(sheerly hypothetical) "whites" among them would make any difference. So where
>was I wrong? Please read my previous posting carefully before responding.
>
If Kukulcan and Quetzecoatl were both considered the founding fathers of
their respective civilisation then Whites would have made important
contributions to their respective civilisations.

>> Also please note these Aztec words:
>> 
>> Azt: White.
>> Ec: People.
>> 
>> Aztec means ..... ......
>
>As I stated somewhere else; "white" is relative. the Aztecs may well have been
>pale when compared to the other ethnic groups in the area, but they were by
>all likelyhood *not* "white", ie Euros.
>
They could have been possibly White at the beginning and mongrelised later
on.  It is a possibility that cannot be ignored like your flippant remark.
Also note Pizarro who investigated the Incas.  Thor Heyerdahl goes into
Pizarro in reasonably detail and the Inca legends on their origins.

>> [The ruins or "Zimbabwe"]
>
>	[text on arab traders in Africa]
>
>The text you quoted did not say anything new. Instead of proving that Great
>Zimbabwe was not built by Africans, you've just confirmed that there was much
>trade going on down there. They found chinese coins in the ruins, and they
>probably were brought there by the arabs.
>
Do not traders seek to improve methods of production if their is a strong
possibility of return?  Please note the various production plants placed
around the Pacific by the European countries into colonisation in the last
few centuries, as an example of this phenomena in action.

>> [Zimbabwe proper]
>>    
>>    Fierce controversy has raged around the racial identity of its
>>    occupants.  Early excavators refused to accept that it could have been
>>    built by blacks.[8]
>
>Sure. That little passage says it all: "Early excavators refused to accept 
>that it could have been built by blacks." Their own prejudices, like yours,
>prevented them from accepting that being "white" was not a necessary
>requirement for being able to build a house.
>
So they were just plain wrong because you say it is so.  Please state how
I am prejudiced and you are not.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Sep 24 09:23:42 PDT 1996
Article: 44495 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!howland.erols.net!news1.erols.com!news.bconnex.net!news.abs.net!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Ancient America (thread II) (was: White MEN ...)
Date: 23 Sep 1996 22:28:28 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <527rhs$hhc@lex.zippo.com>
References: <5201hi$2r3@lex.zippo.com> <52650t$58k@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port909-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <52650t$58k@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <51p862$k9p@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>>>Hey, "Mr. Stone", why do you think that all the iconography at ancient Maya
>>>sites portrays people whose profiles look just like those of folks walking
>>>around the the Yucatan today?  Or do you think that's just an odd coincidence?
>
>>I have seen profiles of the Mayan people that correspond to White and
>>Semitic types as well (read: Vanished Civilizations -- a huge coffee table
>>book full of colour pictures).
>
>So why do you think it is that modern Maya languages don't show any trace
>whatsoever of Old World "admixture", "Mr. Stone"?  Doesn't that strike you
>as odd?  Wouldn't you think that is someone appeared from nowhere with 
>newfangled things like "pyramids", "states", "agriculture" and all that,
>that the words for these things would probably be borrowed from the language
>of the donor?  That seems to be what happens nowadays with when technological
>or other innovations are adopted by folks speaking different languages.
>
Perhaps the non-white inhabitants were more numerous and returned to their
original language.  However I do know of two old world words that could
possibly have some etymological foundation.  Those being "maya" and "can"
(pronounced something akin to "carn" and not the english "can") 

>>>>>> How did civilisation come to be with hunter-gatherers being alongside
>>>>>> cultivators?
>
>>>>>Is there any reason why it shouldn't?
>
>>>>Please think about the logistics.
>
>>>Well, I'm stumped.  What is it about the "logistics" that renders this 
>>>impossible, in your opinion, "Mr. Stone"?  Funny that.  It happened in
>>>Mexico.  The Valley of Mexico, where Teotihuacan grew to cover 23 square
>>>kilometres, had a population of at least 150,000, and built the biggest
>>>masonry pyramid (yes, a pyramid - bigger at the bottom and smaller at
>>>the top) in the western hemisphere.  Just to the north of the Valley,
>>>the climate gets much drier, and it gets hotter too as you go north.
>>>Lots of hunter-gatherers until European conquest.
>
>>Well I claim, using Thor Heyerdahl and a few others like Barry Fell,
>>that other peoples (Whites) came and helped civilise America.  Do you 
>>remember the Phoenician quote?  According to Dr./Mrs. S.M. Temms 
>>(Univerisity of Auckland) there is a thought of Phoenician interaction
>>with America amongst established Phoenician Historians.  BTW, her area of
>>expertise is this area, not like you.
>
>Barry Fell's "evidence", if I recall, is found in the northern United 
>States.  Teotihuacan is a couple thousand kilometres to the south.
>Temms' area of expertise is New World civilisations?  What is Barry Fell's
>area of expertise, "Mr. Stone"?
>
Barry Fell is a former Harvard Professor of Zoology I do believe.  No, 
Temms' area of expertise is the Near East which includes the Phoenicians.
Yes, Barry Fell is concerned with North America as opposed to South
America.

[snip]

>>>>>>  And, why did civilisation come quickly?
>
>>>>>Is there any reason why it shouldn't?
>
>>>>Please think about the logistics.
>
>>>Did it come quickly?  In the New World, permanent settlements had emerged
>>>in Mexico by at least 3500 years ago, and the first writing dates to at
>>>least 2500 years ago.  (Note that that is a 1000 year lag).  Big urban
>>>centres emerged around 2000 years ago.  Public architecture was being
>>>built by at about 3000 years ago.  Depending on time scales, of course,
>>>it seems to me that the "elements of civilisation" over a pretty long
>>>period of time.
>
>>Well if Whites made it, it explains it.  My logistics statement has not
>>been refuted.  Strangely enough I back Thor Heyerdahl on Whites been in
>>America.  For me to believe otherwise then I will have to see Thor
>>Heyerdahl disproved.
>
>Are you now saying that it *didn't* come quickly (which was the point I
>was trying to make with the dates I cited), and that too can be explained
>by "whites" being responsible for it?
>
Outside influence.

>Just because "Whites" could have been in the western hemisphere does not
>constitute evidence that they were, "Mr. Stone", anymore than the idea that
>extraterrestrials "could have" visited the earth constitutes evidence that
>they have done so.  Nor in either case would evidence to support a
>minimal presence constitute evidence that all change and development flowed 
>from that.  If it did, one would like then want to suggest that the Aztec
>and Inka empires were the product of Norse incursions in eastern North
>America.  I don't think so.  
>
I'm afraid both Barry Fell and Thor Heyerdahl timescales are well before
the Vikings.  I suggest you read some of Heyerdahl's works.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Sep 24 16:40:19 PDT 1996
Article: 44520 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!en.com!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: White MEN created everything (II) [long]
Date: 23 Sep 1996 12:17:56 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 332
Message-ID: <526np4$2vm@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51qqgs$7tf@lex.zippo.com> <51v1n6$mp8@maud.ifi.uio.no> <51vmls$qb7@lex.zippo.com> <52368m$f2k@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <5244ae$g9l@lex.zippo.com> <5263ph$t9b@baugi.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port939-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <5263ph$t9b@baugi.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <5244ae$g9l@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <52368m$f2k@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>	[alchemy]
>
>> >> No.  China, like their martial arts came from India.
>> >Uh... I assume you mean "chinese alchemy came from India"...
>> >Very well, but what does that have to do with the "supremacy of the white
>> >race"?
>> Duh, who were the Aryans?
>
>Indians with paler skin than other indians. "White" only when compared to
>people from further south. The way you "white supremists" keep leaning on this 
>semi-mythical group of people is getting somewhat pathetic.
>
Uh huh.  You're going to have to do better than that.

[snip]

>> >> Buddha was an Aryan that spread his version of *religion* to Asia.  Please
>> >> note its wide acceptance and influence.  It came from a White man.
>> >Now he's claiming Buddha was "white"...
>> >You're gonna have to spoon feed a lot more people than me, I think. Note that
>> >Buddhism came to the west as a part of the "New Age" culture. It is not widely
>> >considered as a "white" religion.
>> >
>> Now you think I am a Buddhist, no I am not.
>
>When did I claim you were a Buddhist? Please include a quote.
>
It's a supposition.  You are claiming that I am New Age, and that Buddhism
came to the west through "New Age."  

>> Nor have I implied its
>> acceptance in the Western world.  The Aryans rejected Buddha as well.
>
>Then why did you bring him up?
>
The influence factor upon Mongoloids.  I thought that would have been
obvious.

[snip]

>> >Shows what a "scientific" person you are, Ouro.
>> Alchemy is the foundation of science.
>
>Alchemy was the precursor of chemistry, but hardly it's foundation. Chemistry
>appeared when one began basing one's work on experiments and observation,
>instead of old wive's tales. That's why chemistry is a science, and alchemy is
>not.
>
Uh huh.

>	[stupid insult]
>
>> >So why did they discontinue alchemy in the west? Same reason?
>> Alchemy's popularity died when transmutation was proved impossible late 
>> last century.
>
>According to that article I was referring to, it died because people started
>equating "alchemist" with "fraud".
>
As a passing comment, do you know Sir Isaac Newton was an alchemist?

[snip]
>
>> >> As to why it couldn't happen in China:  Mongoloids have no history of
>> >> being inventive (aside from a few hiccups), whereas we have a long and
>> >> illustrous history of being inventive. No doubt you'll object to it, but
>> >> please prove how the Chinese would have invented it.
>> >
>> >So who invented their culture? Those mummies that were found in an area
>> >that wasn't even inside China at the time? Unless you manage to dig up some
>> >evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to assume that the Chinese
>> >"invented" their own culture, on their own. yes, they were subject to outside
>> >impulses, but so was everyone else.
>> >As for "proof", you are not the one to demand it.
>> >
>> So now culture is an invention?
>
>So I should have said "invention" instead of invention. You brought up that
>word anyway.
>
But not in relevance to culture.  You were the one that did that.

>Your quibbling over my choise of words is only a ploy to avoid my question: 
>If the Chinese did not "invent" their own culture (or create, evolve, whatever 
>suits you best), who did?
>
I don't even consider it relevant.  The Buddhist part was developed by
Buddha who you don't think was white.  Taoist part was heavily influenced
by Aryan alchemy.  I hope this helps.

>>  Guess that is why you consider Negroes to
>> be your equal (or superiors).
>
>If you think I'll be distracted by your childish insults, think again.
>
At the time you considered culture to be an important invention.  Far be
it from me to assume that Negroes [in Africa] had no semblance to a 
culture.

>> I do remember (via Mair) that the Chinese legends mention Red, blond,
>> tall people in their history.  Your response was akin to "Dwarfs, Giants
>> and Elves" for our legends.  I didn't think this was worth a response 
>> since I hoped you'd realize your own stupidity using such words.  Red,
>> blond, tall people are real not fictionary.
>
>Do you have any evidence for this? You keep making these claims and then
>insulting everyone who doesn't take them at face value.
>
Proof for what?

I have already quoted before Mair concerning the red, blond tall people.

If you don't think that red, blond tall people exist, well, I am 6ft2 with
blond hair.  Both tall and blond, and I exist.  One of my Uncles is 6ft
and has red hair, so he is tall and red, and he exists too.

>
>> >>   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.[2]
>> >
>> >"Pale" is subjective, as is "white". What the poem means is that the women
>> >should have *paler* skin than the men.
>> >
>> The poem doesn't use a comparative adverb or adjective in case you didn't
>> notice.  It simply said "WHITE" (emphasize mine).  The "PALE skin" is
>> Barbara Watterson's interpretation.  Please note that she doesn't use a
>> comparative adverb or adjective either.  The word "comparative" should
>> be connected to both adverb and adjective.
>
>"White", when used to describe the color of human skin, is comparative. Or are
>you claiming to have skin the color of chalk? If so, you'd have a great career
>as a side-show freak. It seems that Watterson had no trouble comprehending a
>point that your prejudices prevented you from seeing; "white" simply means 
>comparatively pale. Not "white", as in paper or snow. Not "white" as in "aryan".
>
So white in what regard?

>> >> One convention was that in painted reliefs and statues a woman's flesh
>> >> should be a CREAMY yellow, whereas for men it should be a reddish-brown.

>
>> >> soft skin rather than one ROUGHENED BY EXPOSURE to the elements is not to
>> >> be dismissed.[3]
>> >"Creamy yellow" is a color easily attained by most US "blacks" simply by
>> >staying indoors. This is not evidence that the people were "white".
>> Your explanation is?
>
>What I'm saying is [picks up teaspoon]; that the people described in the above
>text could have belonged to *any* but the darkest ethnic group.
>
>Get it?

So Brown people have can have a semblance to creamy yellow skin, and they
go reddish-brown when exposed to the elements?   How about Mongoloids?
>
>
>> >> >> >2) Why are you so hung up in alchemy anyway? 
>> >> >> Because you don't need a piece of paper to practise it.
>> >You don't need a piece of paper to practice science. Anyone can do that. All
>> >you need is a little common sense and objectivity.
>> To have any credibility you need a piece of paper otherwise your words 
>> carry no weight in our modern world.
>
>That's sheer bullshit. If you can produce a result that can be replicated by
>others, you'll be heard.
>
Bullshit.  The only area I know that allows amateurs in is astronomy, and
only then if they spot new "things" in the void.

>Seems to me you're slighly bitter where scientists are concerned. Did you get
>bad grades on some crucial science (chemistry?) exams?
>
Actually no.  I have always done incredibly well in the sciences and 
mathematics to the annoyance of my compatriots.  I am slightly bitter at
the treatment of some inventors I know.
>
>> >> >>  Sorry o' ignorant
>> >> >> and prejudiced one. 
>> >> >As a racist, you should be wary of the word "prejudiced".
>> >> So you are stating that you aren't prejudiced?
>> >In which way am I prejudiced?
>> An example of you being prejudiced:
>> Yet you belong to the "Order of Alchemists". That places you firmly in the
>> camp of New Age, even though you don't meditate, sit up all night watching 
>> for UFOs, and various other New Age activities.
>
>This is not prejudism. I used "alchemy" as a search word, and found a whole
>bunch of sites, several of which were definitly New Age-y. Concider this one
>(it's on my screen now):
>
[snip]
>
>Now, am I being prejudiced (re alchemy)?
>
Yes.  New Agers accept various versions of Christianity, are Christians
"New Age"?

>	[printing]
>
>> >> Writing and pictures were etched into (sometimes) large cylinders were the
>> >> owner could roll his seal over a prepared clay tablet.  This could (and
>> >> was) repeated for as many copies as necessary.  It was one factor that
>> >> allowed the epic of Gilgamesh to become widespread, as but one example.
>> >OK; this I can accept as printing, albeit crude. now can you tell me where the
>> >similarity is between this and the movable bits used by the chinese? The
>> >Sumarians may have invented the first method of printing, but the chinese
>> >(unless an earlier example pops up) invented the method used today.
>> Only if you accept paper as the relevant medium.
>
>Rolling a sylinder over a surface, and pressing a plate with movable types, are
>somewhat different methods, don't you think? In addition to this, the movable
>types enabled the press to be used to reproduce more than one text, *and* the
>similarity to gutenberg's press is somewhat striking.
>
I won't deny that the Chinese had a printing press if that's what you mean.

>	[Sumarian "whites"]
>
>> >Do you have any evidence of this?
>> The first five chapters of the establishment book "Ancient Iraq", 3rd. Ed.,
>> by G. Roux.  Take special note of terms of longhead, dolichocephalic and
>> brachycephalic.  Before I get quoted wrong, no, he is not forward in this
>> interpretation.  You'll just notice longhead, longhead, longhead and then
>> dolichocephalic and brachycephalic (an extreme paraphrase).
>
>"Longhead"s again... and I take it you interprete that as "white"? And before
>you go on about blonds and blue eyes, sure, there may have been "whites" among
>them, but I doubt they were vital in the development (better than "invent",
>yes?) of their culture.
>
So sorry, that should be longheads of Mediterranean race.  The Sumerians
weren't blond either.  So you are saying that brachycephalics developed
Sumerian civilisation?

>	[central america]
>
>> >I am not disputing that "Kukulcan (Mayan) and Quetzecoatl were both the 
>> >accredited to the start of their respective civilizations", but that a few
>> >(sheerly hypothetical) "whites" among them would make any difference. So where
>> >was I wrong? Please read my previous posting carefully before responding.
>> If Kukulcan and Quetzecoatl were both considered the founding fathers of
>> their respective civilisation then Whites would have made important
>> contributions to their respective civilisations.
>
>What you're saying now is that Kukulcan and Quetzecoatl were both "white"?
>Again, "white" is relative.
>
Explain then.

>> >> Also please note these Aztec words:
>> >> 
>> >> Azt: White.
>> >> Ec: People.
>> >> 
>> >> Aztec means ..... ......
>> >
>> >As I stated somewhere else; "white" is relative. the Aztecs may well have been
>> >pale when compared to the other ethnic groups in the area, but they were by
>> >all likelyhood *not* "white", ie Euros.
>> >
>> They could have been possibly White at the beginning and mongrelised later
>> on.  It is a possibility that cannot be ignored like your flippant remark.
>
>What flippant remark?
>
Flippant remark concerning "Euros".  Was Thor Heyerdahl wrong when he
mentioned the blond and red haired mummies in Peru?

>And as for their "mongrelization", I'd like to see some evidence. As someone
>else pointed out (and you ignored, I believe), if the early Mayas, Incas,
>Aztecs, whatever, really were Euros, why do all the statues, reliefs, and
>drawings look so much like the present people living there, and so little like
>the Europeans.
>
You obviously haven't looked very far.  You could try and read "Ra" by
Thor Heyerdahl.

>	[Zimbabwe]
>
>> >The text you quoted did not say anything new. Instead of proving that Great
>> >Zimbabwe was not built by Africans, you've just confirmed that there was much
>> >trade going on down there. They found chinese coins in the ruins, and they
>> >probably were brought there by the arabs.
>> Do not traders seek to improve methods of production if their is a strong
>> possibility of return?  Please note the various production plants placed
>> around the Pacific by the European countries into colonisation in the last
>> few centuries, as an example of this phenomena in action.
>
>Or maybe the trading possibilities were a result of the existing culture?
>
Considering that the "civilisation" at Zimbabwee developed late, no.  Just
like the Pacific islands, civilisation was brought by outside sources.

>> >> [Zimbabwe proper]
>> >>    
>> >>    Fierce controversy has raged around the racial identity of its
>> >>    occupants.  Early excavators refused to accept that it could have been
>> >>    built by blacks.[8]
>> >
>> >Sure. That little passage says it all: "Early excavators refused to accept 
>> >that it could have been built by blacks." Their own prejudices, like yours,
>> >prevented them from accepting that being "white" was not a necessary
>> >requirement for being able to build a house.
>> >
>> So they were just plain wrong because you say it is so.  Please state how
>> I am prejudiced and you are not.
>
>You, like the early excavators, have no evidence that Great Zimbabwe was built
>by "whites". You simply assume that the Africans are incapable of building
>anything that big and close your eyes to any evidence to the contrary. If
>there was found traces of "white" people in those ruins, you'd be touting the
>evidence at me right now.
>
I would assume the early excavatoris had evidence -- just what were they
digging up?  Did it ever occur to you that the Encyclopedia Britannica has
a bias?

How much time do you think I have to spend on projects like Zimbabwee?  --
In reply to "touting evidence".

What evidence do you have they were Black?  Because it was Africa?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Sep 24 16:40:20 PDT 1996
Article: 44528 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 24 Sep 1996 12:45:42 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <529dp6$1ct@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51i64f$r8o@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <51lhk1$dq4@lex.zippo.com> <51p08v$7nt@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <52000h$299@lex.zippo.com> <528eth$g9b@news1.ucsd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port923-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44528 alt.revisionism:68450 alt.politics.nationalism.white:31033

In article <528eth$g9b@news1.ucsd.edu>, fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>: >
>: Discovery which genes [well hopefully you can comprehend this] are 
>: reasonable for white pigmentation is only a matter of time.  I personally
>: believe this research has been slowed down for fear of discovering racial
>: differences.
>
>Your evidence for this being? (What, btw, explains your fear of
>conjunctions?)
>
Considering that C-S postulated (with some evidence) that there were at
least four genes different between Black and White skin colour back in
1977 (and before) no result has been discovered.  Meantime discoveries
into a diabetes gene and so forth have resulted.  In fact literature into
racial difference (aside from social sciences) have been practically nil.
Any that have promoted difference, for example, the Bell Curve, have
become subjects of scorn.  It is a reasonable conclusion that they do not
want to discovery racial differences anymore.
>
>1: I admit that I didn't quote C-S correctly, but it is not as severe as 
>: you would like to believe.
>
>In other words it was only a white lie.
>
At the time I was quoting from memory.

>: I imagine gene tests to be time consuming and expensive.  Finding quicker
>: ways to discover half-breeds would be welcome, this is just one.
>
>
>The purpose of this being? (If I understand the above, you know
>nothing about genetic testing, but make assumptions about it.)
>
So you are saying gene tests are simple and inexpensive?  Howabout for a
whole nation?

>: True.  I suppose I will have to define at some stage a distance category.
>: Like the blue-blood test it is not perfect.  They do however help in
>: quickly determining half-breeds.
>
>Again, what is the purpose?
>
To determine halfbreeds which is what I stated.
>: >
>: >Oh really?  Is hair colour so limited in all but Europeans?  Can you 
>: >cite a source to support this assertion, "Mr. Stone"?
>: >
>: Stupidity still reigns supreme amongst liberals.  
>
>Instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks, cite your source or be
>revealed (once again) as a liar.
>
Meathead, the Ainu exist.  They are not European.  Also I have quoted 
another section of Japanese society that often have a red tint to their
head.  BTW, the Ainu are regarded as "native non-Japanese."  In Polynesia,
before the European journeys there, there were occurences of red and 
blond haired savages among them.

All these have been quoted before.  Therefore I am justified in saying
"Stupidity still reigns supreme amongst liberals."
>
>: >
>: Do you have Negro fat lips?
>
>What are 'Negro fat lips'?
>
Lips that most Negroes has (exceptions being some halfbreeds).  This
should have been obvious.
>: >
>: >So how about the complete reference for the book that you say 
>: >supports this rather astonishing (and incredible) claim about
>: >frontal lobe development? 
>: >
>: Perhaps.
>
>In other words, there's no such source, and the circle-worm stands
>revealed as a filthy liar.
>
Proof of your allegations is required.  I have quoted the book before, but
not the gory details that "Finsten" wishes.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Tue Sep 24 16:40:21 PDT 1996
Article: 44529 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!hookup!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 24 Sep 1996 13:09:48 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <529f6c$2d2@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51i64f$r8o@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <51lhk1$dq4@lex.zippo.com> <51p08v$7nt@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <52000h$299@lex.zippo.com> <521t6f$mim@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <522n5u$j2a@lex.zippo.com> <525m21$ai5@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <526ovf$3c0@lex.zippo.com> <5292if$t7f@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port923-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:31035 alt.revisionism:68453 alt.politics.white-power:44529

In article <5292if$t7f@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>Perhaps you could explain the almost dead discussion in science over
>>racial differences from the mid 80s to now?  The only books you'll
>>discover are books concerned with social implications.
>
>>Why the drop off?
>
>There is LOTS of recent literature on human variation, "Mr. Stone".
>So it is not really accurate to say that no one is studying human
>biology and human variation anymore.  Try looking at some journals,
>like the American Journal of Physical Anthropology.
>
I didn't say there weren't studies into human biology, "Dr. Finsten."
I will however try and read some of the above journals (if my library
collects them).

I seem to recall a favoured expression "There is more genetic difference
in a race than between the races" or something akin to it.  You'll note
my attack on how anthropologists define the races (Caucasiod, Negroid, 
Amerind, Oceanonic (sp?) and Mongoloid), with special reference to the
Caucasiod.  And that expression, quite frankly, sums up my argument rather 
nicely.  "They don't wanna know."  

In this miraculous series of journals you couldn't be more specific on
which issues talk about valid racial differences?  Or perhaps issues that
attack how anthropologists are wrong in their classification of Caucasiod?

Ourobouros.






From Ourobouros Tue Sep 24 17:42:40 PDT 1996
Article: 68450 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 24 Sep 1996 12:45:42 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <529dp6$1ct@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51i64f$r8o@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <51lhk1$dq4@lex.zippo.com> <51p08v$7nt@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <52000h$299@lex.zippo.com> <528eth$g9b@news1.ucsd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port923-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44528 alt.revisionism:68450 alt.politics.nationalism.white:31033

In article <528eth$g9b@news1.ucsd.edu>, fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>: >
>: Discovery which genes [well hopefully you can comprehend this] are 
>: reasonable for white pigmentation is only a matter of time.  I personally
>: believe this research has been slowed down for fear of discovering racial
>: differences.
>
>Your evidence for this being? (What, btw, explains your fear of
>conjunctions?)
>
Considering that C-S postulated (with some evidence) that there were at
least four genes different between Black and White skin colour back in
1977 (and before) no result has been discovered.  Meantime discoveries
into a diabetes gene and so forth have resulted.  In fact literature into
racial difference (aside from social sciences) have been practically nil.
Any that have promoted difference, for example, the Bell Curve, have
become subjects of scorn.  It is a reasonable conclusion that they do not
want to discovery racial differences anymore.
>
>1: I admit that I didn't quote C-S correctly, but it is not as severe as 
>: you would like to believe.
>
>In other words it was only a white lie.
>
At the time I was quoting from memory.

>: I imagine gene tests to be time consuming and expensive.  Finding quicker
>: ways to discover half-breeds would be welcome, this is just one.
>
>
>The purpose of this being? (If I understand the above, you know
>nothing about genetic testing, but make assumptions about it.)
>
So you are saying gene tests are simple and inexpensive?  Howabout for a
whole nation?

>: True.  I suppose I will have to define at some stage a distance category.
>: Like the blue-blood test it is not perfect.  They do however help in
>: quickly determining half-breeds.
>
>Again, what is the purpose?
>
To determine halfbreeds which is what I stated.
>: >
>: >Oh really?  Is hair colour so limited in all but Europeans?  Can you 
>: >cite a source to support this assertion, "Mr. Stone"?
>: >
>: Stupidity still reigns supreme amongst liberals.  
>
>Instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks, cite your source or be
>revealed (once again) as a liar.
>
Meathead, the Ainu exist.  They are not European.  Also I have quoted 
another section of Japanese society that often have a red tint to their
head.  BTW, the Ainu are regarded as "native non-Japanese."  In Polynesia,
before the European journeys there, there were occurences of red and 
blond haired savages among them.

All these have been quoted before.  Therefore I am justified in saying
"Stupidity still reigns supreme amongst liberals."
>
>: >
>: Do you have Negro fat lips?
>
>What are 'Negro fat lips'?
>
Lips that most Negroes has (exceptions being some halfbreeds).  This
should have been obvious.
>: >
>: >So how about the complete reference for the book that you say 
>: >supports this rather astonishing (and incredible) claim about
>: >frontal lobe development? 
>: >
>: Perhaps.
>
>In other words, there's no such source, and the circle-worm stands
>revealed as a filthy liar.
>
Proof of your allegations is required.  I have quoted the book before, but
not the gory details that "Finsten" wishes.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Tue Sep 24 17:42:41 PDT 1996
Article: 68453 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!hookup!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 24 Sep 1996 13:09:48 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <529f6c$2d2@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51i64f$r8o@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <51lhk1$dq4@lex.zippo.com> <51p08v$7nt@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <52000h$299@lex.zippo.com> <521t6f$mim@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <522n5u$j2a@lex.zippo.com> <525m21$ai5@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <526ovf$3c0@lex.zippo.com> <5292if$t7f@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port923-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:31035 alt.revisionism:68453 alt.politics.white-power:44529

In article <5292if$t7f@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>Perhaps you could explain the almost dead discussion in science over
>>racial differences from the mid 80s to now?  The only books you'll
>>discover are books concerned with social implications.
>
>>Why the drop off?
>
>There is LOTS of recent literature on human variation, "Mr. Stone".
>So it is not really accurate to say that no one is studying human
>biology and human variation anymore.  Try looking at some journals,
>like the American Journal of Physical Anthropology.
>
I didn't say there weren't studies into human biology, "Dr. Finsten."
I will however try and read some of the above journals (if my library
collects them).

I seem to recall a favoured expression "There is more genetic difference
in a race than between the races" or something akin to it.  You'll note
my attack on how anthropologists define the races (Caucasiod, Negroid, 
Amerind, Oceanonic (sp?) and Mongoloid), with special reference to the
Caucasiod.  And that expression, quite frankly, sums up my argument rather 
nicely.  "They don't wanna know."  

In this miraculous series of journals you couldn't be more specific on
which issues talk about valid racial differences?  Or perhaps issues that
attack how anthropologists are wrong in their classification of Caucasiod?

Ourobouros.






From Ourobouros Tue Sep 24 23:07:51 PDT 1996
Article: 44545 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!op.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: White MEN created everything (II)
Date: 23 Sep 1996 01:44:03 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <525ikj$7h5@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51qqgs$7tf@lex.zippo.com> <51v1n6$mp8@maud.ifi.uio.no> <51vmls$qb7@lex.zippo.com> <52368m$f2k@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <524k4n$7ns@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port947-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <524k4n$7ns@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>christop@ifi.uio.no (Christopher Henrik Lund) wrote:
>>
>>In article <51vmls$qb7@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>

>>> Also please note these Aztec words:
> 
>>> Azt: White.
>>> Ec: People.
> 
>>> Aztec means ..... ......
>
>"people from Aztlán", and "Aztlán" means "place of the reeds"
>
None of my establishment books gives that meaning for Aztlan, a citation is
in order, "Finsten."  

>In Nahuatl, the language spoken by the Aztecs, "ixt/itz" means "white".
>Two examples:  the first emperor of the Triple Alliance was Itzcoatl,
>which means "white snake".  And one of the permanently snowcapped
>volcanoes to the east of the Valley of Mexico, where the Aztec capital
>city of Tenochtitlán was located, is still today called "Ixtaccihuatl",
>which means "white woman".  It sort of looks like a reclining woman
>and, because it is covered in snow, is white.
>
Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Sep 24 23:07:52 PDT 1996
Article: 44547 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!op.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Finsten: Proponent for Freedom of Speech
Date: 23 Sep 1996 01:12:04 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <525gok$6v0@lex.zippo.com>
References: <50nn6u$kvo@lex.zippo.com> <50sj22$42r@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <50tkjk$m1i@lex.zippo.com> <50vsia$up@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <5138go$n26@lex.zippo.com> <516dlj$4ai@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <519nc6$evv@lex.zippo.com> <51jmvh$k1i@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <51ndld$h4c@lex.zippo.com> <51pf8b$3p@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <51vriu$s41@lex.zippo.com> <523ssr$ksr@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port947-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <523ssr$ksr@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>And of course you wouldn't impede progress now would you?  One thing that
>>irks me then, if I state I disagree with an interpretation then why do you
>>bicker so much?
>
>All interpretations are not equally plausible, "Mr. Stone".  Some are based
>on faulty data, poor reasoning, and so on.  Or do you think that von Daniken's
>"interpretation" of the Nazca lines is as good as any other?  
>
What is von Daniken's "interpretation" of the figures scrawled on the
desert in southern Peru?

>>Some professors I admire, but you're not one of them.  IMO you don't even
>>rate.  Whoever promoted you to professor-hood should be shot.
>
>>If I look at the requirements of a Ph.D I see the need to do a lot of
>>research.  One would have thought that once the Ph.D period was over it
>>would have continued a habit rather than enforce stagnation as it appears
>>with you.  I know several professors and doctors that are multi-talented
>>and they strive to master all sorts of fields.
>
>More ad hominem drivel.  Are you claiming to have knowledge of my research
>and publication record, "Mr. Stone"?  Or are you merely engaging in a little
>slander in order to try to irritate me?
>
You stated that you thought that I didn't like professors.  I can admire
professors that actually try and put their hand to other tasks other than
their Ph.D thesis.  A major contrast with "professors" like you.

>>Considering that you only know population genetics you have over-stepped
>>your boundaries many times.
>
>Really?  Why don't you answer my question about Old World and New World
>pyramids, "Mr. Stone"?  Or the one I've asked you about the cranial indices
>of the different "longhead stocks" you've been referring to?
>
So what fields do you know, "Finsten", other than population genetics and
a dabble of conformity holocaust material?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Wed Sep 25 13:29:12 PDT 1996
Article: 68734 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!news1.erols.com!hunter.premier.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!zdc!super.zippo.com!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Ken McVay and double standards at Nizkor
Date: 20 Sep 1996 05:08:36 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <51u1g4$691@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51nesm$hme@lex.zippo.com> <51p9de$o1j@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <51qqrk$7uv@lex.zippo.com> <51sue9$r4m@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port868-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:31181 alt.revisionism:68734 alt.politics.white-power:44648

In article <51sue9$r4m@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <51p9de$o1j@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>[...]
>
>>>"Mr. Stone", it is possible that your reply has not made it onto the Nizkor
>>>site yet, is it not?  After all, I only saw it this morning.  And I notice
>>>that it doesn't address my suggestion that you are either purposely lying or 
>>>unintentionally misrepresenting Cavalli-Sforza's position and data because
>>>you don't understand it.
>
>>If your question gets special providence from McVay, so should my reply.
>
>>As for what you think of my reply I don't really care.  Like Judd tried you 
>>are trying to put words in my mouth.  I never said that C-S made a White
>>race in his book, you are making it up.  I detest your supposed 
>>interpretation of my posts to try and boast your deflated ego.
>
>My ego is just fine, but thanks for the expression of your concern.
>No, you never said that Cavalli-Sforza "made a White race in his book"
>(he's an excellent scientist, but nobody has succeeded in making a race
>yet).  However, you did claim that his data support the existence of
>a distinctive "White race".  So you weren't lying?  OK, then you absolutely
>misrepresented his position and data (that is exactly what I said before
>and I stand by it).  I guess you just don't understand his book.

I wouldn't accuse me of not understanding.  Isn't there some Christian
saying about getting the beam in your own eye out before trying to get
your neighnour's mote out?  It would seem fitting advice for someone like
you.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Wed Sep 25 22:40:50 PDT 1996
Article: 31233 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.structured.net!news.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Ken McVay and double standards at Nizkor
Date: 24 Sep 1996 12:50:11 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <529e1j$1j6@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51nesm$hme@lex.zippo.com> <323FEE40.2747@ccnis.net> <51paa4$m1h@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <32407E0C.4178@ccnis.net> <3242440F.18A@ix.netcom.com> <51tvv0$5m4@lex.zippo.com> <520rvf$9j0@news1.panix.com> <521mrs$7gb@lex.zippo.com> <527q3b$j3a@news1.panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port923-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44690 alt.politics.nationalism.white:31233

In article <527q3b$j3a@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>In article <520rvf$9j0@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>>>
>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <3242440F.18A@ix.netcom.com>, Kevin says...

[snip]

>>>Wow, you got defended by a confirmed Nazi.
>>>
>>>I'm really jealous now.
>>>
>>And because he's a Nazi he must be wrong mustn't he?
>
>yes, he must.
>
>>Talk about *racists* being bigots.
>
>they are.
>
No further proof that anti-racists are incredibly bigoted is needed.  All
we need now is for Mr. Lund to read this and absorb it.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Thu Sep 26 20:38:35 PDT 1996
Article: 69156 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!news.sgi.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.PBI.net!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Oroborous draws a bead on his foot...
Date: 26 Sep 1996 11:45:10 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <52eivm$g29@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51nesm$hme@lex.zippo.com> <323FEE40.2747@ccnis.net> <51paa4$m1h@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <51qr94$892@lex.zippo.com> <52ca7l$3ka@access5.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port880-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44801 alt.revisionism:69156 alt.politics.nationalism.white:31365

In article <52ca7l$3ka@access5.digex.net>, mstein@access5.digex.net says...
>
>In article <51qr94$892@lex.zippo.com>,   wrote:
>>In article <51paa4$m1h@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>, 
>>kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca says...
>>>
>>>In article <323FEE40.2747@ccnis.net>, 
>>>"Annie Alpert, OFB"  wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>
>>>>> For reference:
>>>>> http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/nyms/stone/cavalli-sforza-fabrication
>>>>> For all onlookers please note that McVay has this specially marked and
>>>>> without my reply.
>
>    For which you should be grateful.
>
>
>[snip]
>
>>What good is my reply in stone.0996 O' coward?
>
>    Having made a special point to look for it, I must say: not very. 
>"zzz zzz zzz zzz", "*sigh*," and "That will have to be determined" don't
>seem to be very good answers to cogent points about definite claims you
>made.
>
Considering that the point of McVay in specially marking said post was
for a supposed fabrication of C-S.  "Finsten" claims that I said C-S
makes mention of a White race, which is totally false.
>
>>You are delibrately misrepresenting my argument to gain some "brownie
>>points" from your comrades.  Do you need to use such tactics to brown-
>>nose your donators?
>>
>>If you are going to have a special file just for sole representation of
>>Finsten's feeble arguments then it is straight misrepresentation.  You
>>have not recorded my reply directly to your jumped-up file.  That is my
>>complaint, you are delibrately trying to cloud the waters with more of
>>your bullshit.
>
>    Well, if you _insist_ on exposing your lack of ability to answer Ms.
>Finsten's points about the problems you will face applying your standards
>of whiteness, perhaps I can prevail upon Ken McVay to oblige you. 
>
Are you confusing two different threads?

>    The problem is this: any supposedly objective test you devise will
>both pass individuals you would prefer to consider nonwhite, and fail
>people with lily-white (by your definition) ancestry.  I'm Jewish (and by
>birth, not by conversion), but I have a hunch you would have a really
>tough time finding an _objective_ standard which would mark me as nonwhite
>without dumping a bunch of your fellow whites at the same time. 
>
Do remember that it is only a sample definition.  I never claimed it was
the be-all and end-all.  I suspect I could find a category for you in
the non-white category.  

>    Are you _sure_ you don't know a fellow named Colin McKinstry?

Warum?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Fri Sep 27 00:55:08 PDT 1996
Article: 69198 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.structured.net!news.cais.net!chi-news.cic.net!news.math.psu.edu!news.cse.psu.edu!uwm.edu!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 25 Sep 1996 23:50:37 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <52d93t$scl@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51i64f$r8o@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <51lhk1$dq4@lex.zippo.com> <51p08v$7nt@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <52000h$299@lex.zippo.com> <521t6f$mim@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <522n5u$j2a@lex.zippo.com> <525m21$ai5@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <526ovf$3c0@lex.zippo.com> <52bp5j$ic2@gyda.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port851-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44811 alt.politics.nationalism.white:31376 alt.revisionism:69198

In article <52bp5j$ic2@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <526ovf$3c0@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <525m21$ai5@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>> >> I am suggesting that studies into human genetics concerning directly or
>> >> indirectly race have slowed down "for fear of discovering racial 
>> >> differences."
>> >Because you're only *suggesting* instead of claiming, does that mean you don't
>> >have any evidence of this?
>> >Your conspiracy theory is nothing short of ridiculous.
>> Perhaps you could explain the almost dead discussion in science over
>> racial differences from the mid 80s to now?  The only books you'll
>> discover are books concerned with social implications.
>
>If the scientific discussion in "racial" differences has nearly died after
>being active for a century or so, does not that indicate that there are no
>differences worth debating?
>
No.  Isn't there an effigy that still hurts people when called "racist"?

>> Why the drop off?
>
>Or are you claiming that there is a conspiracy out to silence those that do
>find any differences? Kind of like "Project Blue Book", eh? And Holden's
>paleontological conspiracy...
>
            *sigh*

It doesn't have to be explained away in a conspiracy.  It seems you are
using "the conspiracy" as a vehicle for more belittling.  For once notice
the political climate.

>> >> If enough people believe in it, it becomes fact "Miss Finsten."  Whether
>> >> they such things are correct is another story entirely.
>> >Have you ever considered applying the above paragraph to your own racial
>> >theories, "nigger"?
>> Not enough people believe in it for a start.  This should have been obvious 
>> to even the dimmest of people.  The media are completely opposed to us.
>
>And so is everyone else.
>
And who started this development?  Did the people suddenly switch or were
they reprogrammed by the media?  And please don't resort to the conspiracy
either.  It would nice for you to construct a rational explanation for
once.

>> >How do you, a "white man", think of yourself regarding the Maories? Are you an
>> >invader? Or have you merely settled "uninhabited land"? Should all Euros Go
>> >Home?
>
>> We settled uninhabited or waste land.
>
>So where did the Maories come from?
>
The Maori inhabited the best land.  I did once suggest reading some early
history of New Zealand.  The only time we can be accused of taking "good
land" off the Maori was after the Maori wars when we confisicated part of
their lands for breaking the treaty.

>> I don't mind if the Maori get all the land, so long as we get our weapons
>> back.  Since we developed the land for them, we should also get our 
>> developed weapons at the same time.
>
>So if the Maories give you all the guns they have, you'll climb into a boat
>and start rowing? Sounds like a good deal.
>
No, we Europeans are to be equipped with our modern weapons, then we'll
leave.  Afterall, we have improved the land a thousandfold (and probably
more).  They get the land they never knew about, we get our modern weapons.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Fri Sep 27 10:30:56 PDT 1996
Article: 44834 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.structured.net!news.cais.net!news1.erols.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: White MEN created everything (II) [long]
Date: 26 Sep 1996 12:08:49 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <52ekc1$h0n@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51qqgs$7tf@lex.zippo.com> <51v1n6$mp8@maud.ifi.uio.no> <51vmls$qb7@lex.zippo.com> <52368m$f2k@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <5244ae$g9l@lex.zippo.com> <5263ph$t9b@baugi.ifi.uio.no> <526np4$2vm@lex.zippo.com> <52bojk$hs6@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <52dahp$8g@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port880-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <52dahp$8g@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article <52bojk$hs6@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>> [...deletia...]
>
>> >Again you just make a claim and refuse to back it up. What evidence do you
>> >have that the civilization at Zimbabwe happened "suddenly"? What evidence do
>> >you have that it was not made by Africans?
>> >
>> I suggest you read before and after the Encyclopedia Britannica citation
>> for that information.
>
>More of the 'go-do-my-homework-for-me' tactic so popular amongst the
>racists. Of course, if the evidence isn't there, "Stone" can simply claim
>that you are too stupid/brainwashed/anti-racist/politically correct to
>accept it -- all without ever actually producing any evidence for his
>position.
>
Do you actually have a point?

>> [...deletia...]
>
>> The Encyclopedia Britannica like most things is subject to political
>> stupidity.
>
>...which would seem to indicate that "Stone" will pick and choose those
>parts of the EB that support his thesis, and write off anything that
>contradicts him as being the result of "political stupidity".
>
Which is no different from modern scholarship (they pick and choose),
except that in the case of old texts they'd claim "insensitivity,"
"intolerance," "biasism," and so forth to validate their claims.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Fri Sep 27 10:30:57 PDT 1996
Article: 44835 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Ancient America (thread II) (was: White MEN ...)
Date: 26 Sep 1996 21:07:21 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <52fjtp$lht@lex.zippo.com>
References: <5201hi$2r3@lex.zippo.com> <52650t$58k@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port832-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article , Dene says...
>
[snip]
>
>I'm not too sure what Ourobouros is arguing about South Americans, but I
>read in a book about genetics recently that the premise of Hyerdahl's
>Kon-Tiki has been effectively demolished by genetic evidence. If true
>this isn't entirely surprising since, as Laura points out, just because
>such a raft journey could have been made it doesn't follow by necessity
>that it actually was.
>
Lets see this conclusive proof then.

>The author of the book I mention suggests that America was populated
>originally by Siberians who crossed the Bering Land Bridge onto the
>American continent. And over a period of about two millenia they
>spread/moved into South America.
>
And?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Fri Sep 27 15:18:28 PDT 1996
Article: 69412 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!rainrgnews0!pacifier!trellis.wwnet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 25 Sep 1996 23:39:27 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <52d8ev$rt8@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51i64f$r8o@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <51lhk1$dq4@lex.zippo.com> <51p08v$7nt@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <52000h$299@lex.zippo.com> <528eth$g9b@news1.ucsd.edu> <529dp6$1ct@lex.zippo.com> <52b8l1$l79@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port851-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44889 alt.revisionism:69412

In article <52b8l1$l79@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <528eth$g9b@news1.ucsd.edu>, fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu says...
>
>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>>: Discovery which genes [well hopefully you can comprehend this] are 
>>>: reasonable for white pigmentation is only a matter of time.  I personally
>>>: believe this research has been slowed down for fear of discovering racial
>>>: differences.
>
>>>Your evidence for this being? (What, btw, explains your fear of
>>>conjunctions?)
>
>>Considering that C-S postulated (with some evidence) that there were at
>>least four genes different between Black and White skin colour back in
>>1977 (and before) no result has been discovered.  Meantime discoveries
>>into a diabetes gene and so forth have resulted.  In fact literature into
>>racial difference (aside from social sciences) have been practically nil.
>>Any that have promoted difference, for example, the Bell Curve, have
>>become subjects of scorn.  It is a reasonable conclusion that they do not
>>want to discovery racial differences anymore.
>
>You know, "Mr. Stone", I don't think you could find a single physical
>anthropology book that puts forward the idea that there *aren't* differences
>among humans in the alleles related to melanin content in the skin.  The
>quotation I used indicated that we don't know yet how many loci are directly
>related to this, nor do we know how many alleles there are.  Many have
>suggested four loci.  We don't know for sure.  When the Human Genome Project
>is complete, we'll know.
>
Uh huh.  

It doesn't explain the furor over books that promote racial differences.
Shouldn't the Human Genome Project have long since being completed?

>Meantime, the gene for diabetes has been located, a gene that is related 
>to breast cancer, another to colon cancer, and more have been located.
>Hmmmmmm.  Why do you think that there might be a greater sense of urgency
>about those than there is about melanin content and skin colour?  Why do
>you think that there might be a lot more money for *medical research* in 
>genetics than there is for anthropological research in genetics?
>
If we can locate a diabetes gene then we can surely locate the genes 
responsible for skin colour, skull shape and the rest.  

Perhaps they can discover the skin cancer gene(s) alongside finding the
genes responsible for skin colour.  Afterall, we whites do suffer from it.

I understand too well how scientists pander to tune of the almighty
dollar.  

Ourobouros.







From Ourobouros Sat Sep 28 00:22:13 PDT 1996
Article: 44944 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Oroborous draws a bead on his foot...
Date: 27 Sep 1996 13:56:32 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <52hf20$hfs@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51nesm$hme@lex.zippo.com> <323FEE40.2747@ccnis.net> <51paa4$m1h@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <51qr94$892@lex.zippo.com> <52ca7l$3ka@access5.digex.net> <52eivm$g29@lex.zippo.com> <52g83o$l3c@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port831-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44944 alt.revisionism:69552 alt.politics.nationalism.white:31501

In article <52g83o$l3c@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <52ca7l$3ka@access5.digex.net>, mstein@access5.digex.net says...
>
>[...]
>
>>Considering that the point of McVay in specially marking said post was
>>for a supposed fabrication of C-S.  "Finsten" claims that I said C-S
>>makes mention of a White race, which is totally false.
>
>I made no such claim, "Mr. Stone".  I called you on the carpet for this
>statement:
>
>     At some point in the future genetic distance maps visibly 
>     demonstrating the White gene pool, as has been vaguely done
>     by Cavalli-Sforza and his team in "History and Geography of
>     Human Genes", 1994.  For a person to be White they will have
>     to be within the appropriate area. [reproduced from the
>     offending Nizkor file]
>
So this reply (of yours) is a figment of everybody's imagination? :

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

These statements "...have *not* identified, delimited or even *mentioned* 
a 'White gene pool'... 'White' does not appear in the index of this book
..." all imply the opposite of your claim.  If anything the offending file
should be called "finsten-fabricates" but McVay couldn't have that could
he?

>You imply in this statement that Cavalli-Sforza et al. have visibly
>demonstrated the existence and/or spatial distribution of "the
>White gene pool", if vaguely.  They have done no such thing, vaguely
>or clearly.  You, and you alone, are inferring the presence of an
>identifiable "White gene pool" in a limited part of Europe, based
>on a faulty understanding of their methodology and data.  What
>percentage of the variation does the PC map you like so much account
>for, "Mr. Stone"?  How do you explain the fact that more variation is
>accounted for by other principal components that show quite different
>geographic distributions?
>
On p.269, fig. 5.5.2 is a two dimensional graph, no?

Around England, Germany et al. is a seperation from *non-white* 
populations.  C-S uses no such words as "white" or "non-white" just in
case you or Judd decide to try this stunt again.  It is vague because it
is concerned with geographical entities and I therefore only use to
demonstrate that distance from non-whites is feasible via genetics.  I
don't consider it the be-all and end-all.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sat Sep 28 02:09:35 PDT 1996
Article: 69552 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Oroborous draws a bead on his foot...
Date: 27 Sep 1996 13:56:32 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <52hf20$hfs@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51nesm$hme@lex.zippo.com> <323FEE40.2747@ccnis.net> <51paa4$m1h@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <51qr94$892@lex.zippo.com> <52ca7l$3ka@access5.digex.net> <52eivm$g29@lex.zippo.com> <52g83o$l3c@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port831-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:44944 alt.revisionism:69552 alt.politics.nationalism.white:31501

In article <52g83o$l3c@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <52ca7l$3ka@access5.digex.net>, mstein@access5.digex.net says...
>
>[...]
>
>>Considering that the point of McVay in specially marking said post was
>>for a supposed fabrication of C-S.  "Finsten" claims that I said C-S
>>makes mention of a White race, which is totally false.
>
>I made no such claim, "Mr. Stone".  I called you on the carpet for this
>statement:
>
>     At some point in the future genetic distance maps visibly 
>     demonstrating the White gene pool, as has been vaguely done
>     by Cavalli-Sforza and his team in "History and Geography of
>     Human Genes", 1994.  For a person to be White they will have
>     to be within the appropriate area. [reproduced from the
>     offending Nizkor file]
>
So this reply (of yours) is a figment of everybody's imagination? :

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

These statements "...have *not* identified, delimited or even *mentioned* 
a 'White gene pool'... 'White' does not appear in the index of this book
..." all imply the opposite of your claim.  If anything the offending file
should be called "finsten-fabricates" but McVay couldn't have that could
he?

>You imply in this statement that Cavalli-Sforza et al. have visibly
>demonstrated the existence and/or spatial distribution of "the
>White gene pool", if vaguely.  They have done no such thing, vaguely
>or clearly.  You, and you alone, are inferring the presence of an
>identifiable "White gene pool" in a limited part of Europe, based
>on a faulty understanding of their methodology and data.  What
>percentage of the variation does the PC map you like so much account
>for, "Mr. Stone"?  How do you explain the fact that more variation is
>accounted for by other principal components that show quite different
>geographic distributions?
>
On p.269, fig. 5.5.2 is a two dimensional graph, no?

Around England, Germany et al. is a seperation from *non-white* 
populations.  C-S uses no such words as "white" or "non-white" just in
case you or Judd decide to try this stunt again.  It is vague because it
is concerned with geographical entities and I therefore only use to
demonstrate that distance from non-whites is feasible via genetics.  I
don't consider it the be-all and end-all.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sat Sep 28 02:14:19 PDT 1996
Article: 44946 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Ancient America (thread II) (was: White MEN ...)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 23:25:20 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <52d7kg$r56@lex.zippo.com>
References: <5201hi$2r3@lex.zippo.com> <52650t$58k@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <527rhs$hhc@lex.zippo.com> <5293nu$t7f@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port851-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <5293nu$t7f@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <52650t$58k@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>>>Are you now saying that it *didn't* come quickly (which was the point I
>>>was trying to make with the dates I cited), and that too can be explained
>>>by "whites" being responsible for it?
>
>>Outside influence.
>
>But what does that mean?  Seriously?
>
The civilisations of Mesoamerica were influenced from the old world.

>>>Just because "Whites" could have been in the western hemisphere does not
>>>constitute evidence that they were, "Mr. Stone", anymore than the idea that
>>>extraterrestrials "could have" visited the earth constitutes evidence that
>>>they have done so.  Nor in either case would evidence to support a
>>>minimal presence constitute evidence that all change and development flowed 
>>>from that.  If it did, one would like then want to suggest that the Aztec
>>>and Inka empires were the product of Norse incursions in eastern North
>>>America.  I don't think so.  
>
>>I'm afraid both Barry Fell and Thor Heyerdahl timescales are well before
>>the Vikings.  I suggest you read some of Heyerdahl's works.
>
>I read Kon Tiki many years ago.  I've also read America B.C., or whatever it
>is called.
>
T. Heyerdahl wrote more than the "Kon tiki."  If you can get hold of
"American Indians in the Pacific" do.  

B. Fell also wrote more than America B.C.

>Just because a raft could have made it across the Atlantic, with a person
>or two alive on board, doesn't mean that it happened.  There is no good 
>evidence that such an event did happen.  But even if it had, just because
>a couple of people washed up somewhere on the eastern shore of the western
>hemisphere, it does not follow that they would have or did have a 
>significant impact on social, cultural and other developments in the New
>World.  I know that Fell and Heyerdahl are talking about alleged "events"
>well before the era of Norse expansion to Iceland and Greenland.  My point
>is that their "arguments" are no better than the speculations of von Daniken,
>and only very marginally more credible than his.  Can they explain the
>structural characteristics of Maya (and other Mesoamerican) writing systems,
>and why they are so different from Phoenician writing?  Can they explain
>why the Maya calendar was more accurate than contemporary Old World
>calendars?    
>
Kon Tiki, I'm afraid is concerned more with migrations from South America
to the Pacific islands.  He, unlike anthropologists, actually proved the
feasibility of his theories.  He also attempting to solve problems like
the plant and name "Kumara" which comes from South America.  The favoured
(and incredibly stupid) opinion amongst modern anthropologist on how such
plants (and names) came to the Pacific is they sailed back and forth from
South America.  Of course they can make such remarks because of political
stupidity.

Heyerdahl made other trips as well.  The relevant ones to this discussion
are his trips Ra and Ra II.  Again, he proved its feasibility when the
anthropologists even at his time said such a trip was impossible (the
isolationists vs. the others) for the ancient old world populations.  

You also stated that there were no linguistic affinities between old and
new worlds.  After thinking about it, both Fell and Heyerdahl mention a
dictionary made last century on similarities (of words) between both
"worlds."

Also note that the Egyptian hieroglyphs were peculiar to Egypt.  I hardly
consider your argument of a unique written language as relevant.  The
Phoenicians were reasonably late upon the scene btw.

I know the ancient Egyptians kept a 365 day calender due to their alignment
with the dogstar.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Sep 29 09:39:22 PDT 1996
Article: 31641 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.total.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!chi-news.cic.net!news.math.psu.edu!news3.cac.psu.edu!howland.erols.net!EU.net!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Matthew's  moronic posts (was Ourobouros' cop-outout...
Date: 27 Sep 1996 14:09:22 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <52hfq2$i23@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51i64f$r8o@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <51lhk1$dq4@lex.zippo.com> <51p08v$7nt@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <52000h$299@lex.zippo.com> <528eth$g9b@news1.ucsd.edu> <529dp6$1ct@lex.zippo.com> <52b8l1$l79@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <52d8ev$rt8@lex.zippo.com> <52h7bd$bv2@orion.cybercom.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port831-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:45089 alt.politics.nationalism.white:31641

In article <52h7bd$bv2@orion.cybercom.net>, amatthews@cybercom.net says...
>
>Hey Burrobutt - we're all still waiting for you to provide some supporting 
>evidence regarding determining whiteness based on any of the following:
>
>1.  earwax
>2.  finger length
>3.  "longheadedness"
>4.  "longnosedness"
>5.  Brain structure
>
>
>These, of course, are just a sample of the criteria for whiteness you posted 
>but never supported.  Please do so now or admit you don't know what you're 
>talking about (as usual).   Also, remember that saying "these were only 
>possible criteria for determining whiteness" is a cop-out that runs counter to 
>your thesis that you can create a list of white racial characteristics.  
>
>Put up or shut up already, Stonehead. 
>
Hey Meathead, you should read the threads before making such comments like
this one.

I have given reference to European earwax (not White it is true), but I
only said it was a possible classification.  The odour part may prove more
significant.

Both "fingers" and "noses" were in contrast to Negroes relevant anatomy.

The brain argument comes from "Morris's Human Anatomy"

The longhead skull shape has been quoted over and over and over again.

Ourobouros.
 


From Ourobouros Sun Sep 29 09:40:06 PDT 1996
Article: 45081 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!nntp.reed.edu!camelot.ccs.neu.edu!news.dfci.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!cmcl2!news.sprintlink.net!new-news.sprintlink.net!howland.erols.net!EU.net!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: White MEN created everything (II) [long]
Date: 26 Sep 1996 00:15:05 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 180
Message-ID: <52dahp$8g@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51qqgs$7tf@lex.zippo.com> <51v1n6$mp8@maud.ifi.uio.no> <51vmls$qb7@lex.zippo.com> <52368m$f2k@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <5244ae$g9l@lex.zippo.com> <5263ph$t9b@baugi.ifi.uio.no> <526np4$2vm@lex.zippo.com> <52bojk$hs6@gyda.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port851-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <52bojk$hs6@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <526np4$2vm@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <5263ph$t9b@baugi.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>> >> Now you think I am a Buddhist, no I am not.
>> >
>> >When did I claim you were a Buddhist? Please include a quote.
>> >
>> It's a supposition.  You are claiming that I am New Age, and that Buddhism
>> came to the west through "New Age."
>
>So all New Agers are Buddhists? Seems you're a little pejudiced yourself,
>where New Agers are concerned, Ouro.
>
I continue to be amazed how things can be interpretated.  I thought the
one about me supposedly trying to prove that White earwax was superior
one of the most bizarre cases, but then we have you and this.
>
[snip]

>> I don't even consider it relevant.  The Buddhist part was developed by
>> Buddha who you don't think was white.  Taoist part was heavily influenced
>> by Aryan alchemy.  I hope this helps.
>
>You have no evidence that Buddha was "white", despite your stubborn references
>to an "Aryan Race". You have no evidence that alchemy was an "Aryan"
>innovation... I don't care about the origins of alchemy, as it is of no
>concequence. I read recently that alchemy first appeared among the Egyptians
>(non-"white"), and then further developed and spread all over the old world by
>the arabs, also non-"white"). But so what?
>
The Egyptians were white.  If you read the Vedi(c) hymns then you will know
who the Aryans were so far as race is concerned.  Buddha was an Aryan
Indian.

>	[white skin in old poems]
>
>> >"White", when used to describe the color of human skin, is comparative. Or are
>> >you claiming to have skin the color of chalk? If so, you'd have a great career
>> >as a side-show freak. It seems that Watterson had no trouble comprehending a
>> >point that your prejudices prevented you from seeing; "white" simply means 
>> >comparatively pale. Not "white", as in paper or snow. Not "white" as in "aryan".
>> >
>> So white in what regard?
>
>White as in PALE. Is it that hard to comprehend? You don't call yourself
>"white" because your skin is the color of chalk, but because you belong to the
>palest ethnic group you know of. If one has never met anyone belonging to one
>of the germanic tribes, one's standards for "white" skin becomes a lot darker.
>
So you are saying that it really said "brown."

>	[creamy]
>
>> >What I'm saying is [picks up teaspoon]; that the people described in the above
>> >text could have belonged to *any* but the darkest ethnic group.
>> >
>> >Get it?
>> 
>> So Brown people have can have a semblance to creamy yellow skin, and they
>> go reddish-brown when exposed to the elements?   How about Mongoloids?
>
>Ok, old-world mongols do not go reddish-brown "when exposed to the elements".
>
>Most likely the people described were similar to modern day arabs. "Mongrels",
>to use your rather crude term.
>
So arabs have reddish-brown skin when exposed to the elements?  Could we
have proof of this?

[stupid conversation over new age and alchemy removed]

>> >	[central america]
>
>	[snip]
>
>> Flippant remark concerning "Euros".  Was Thor Heyerdahl wrong when he
>> mentioned the blond and red haired mummies in Peru?
>
>Is he just stating that the hair was blond or red, or that the skeletons were
>caucasian? There's a difference there, you know; remember the discussion about
>Ramses' hair color?
>
BTW, long, long ago, in a post far away I quoted Thor Heyerdahl and his
inference on Ramesses II blond hair.  Anyway, you'll be to note Heyerdahl
either uses the word "Caucasian" or synonyms to it.  

>> >And as for their "mongrelization", I'd like to see some evidence. As someone
>> >else pointed out (and you ignored, I believe), if the early Mayas, Incas,
>> >Aztecs, whatever, really were Euros, why do all the statues, reliefs, and
>> >drawings look so much like the present people living there, and so little like
>> >the Europeans.
>> You obviously haven't looked very far.  You could try and read "Ra" by
>> Thor Heyerdahl.
>
>So tell me what chapters to read, if I find a copy of Ra.
>
Unfortunately Thor Heyerdahl likes to tell his adventures.  Around the
periphery of his adventures are these bits of information.  Quite frankly
you'll have to read the whole thing.

>> >	[Zimbabwe]
>
>	[snip]
>
>> >Or maybe the trading possibilities were a result of the existing culture?
>> Considering that the "civilisation" at Zimbabwee developed late, no.  Just
>> like the Pacific islands, civilisation was brought by outside sources.
>
>Again you just make a claim and refuse to back it up. What evidence do you
>have that the civilization at Zimbabwe happened "suddenly"? What evidence do
>you have that it was not made by Africans?
>
I suggest you read before and after the Encyclopedia Britannica citation
for that information.

>> >> >> [Zimbabwe proper]
>
>	[snip]
>
>> >You, like the early excavators, have no evidence that Great Zimbabwe was built
>> >by "whites". You simply assume that the Africans are incapable of building
>> >anything that big and close your eyes to any evidence to the contrary. If
>> >there was found traces of "white" people in those ruins, you'd be touting the
>> >evidence at me right now.
>> I would assume the early excavatoris had evidence -- just what were they
>> digging up?
>
>They were searching for a gold treasure rumoured to have been buried
>underneath the ruins. In the process of turning the place over, they destroyed
>the various strata of debree that could have told us a lot about Great
>Zimbabwe's history.

You don't recognise sarcasm.  One would assume the early excavators were
digging up the ruins.

>If these early excavators had evidence, as you assume, where is it now? Taken
>by the Evil Liberal Conspirators?
>
Is there perhaps some Museum with various artifacts?

>>  Did it ever occur to you that the Encyclopedia Britannica has
>> a bias?
>
>???
>
The Encyclopedia Britannica like most things is subject to political
stupidity.

>> How much time do you think I have to spend on projects like Zimbabwee?  --
>> In reply to "touting evidence".
>
>If there had been *any* conclusive evidence on the supiriourity of the "white
>race", we'd all know it by now. Even though this evidence would be denied and
>ridiculed at first, it would eventually have been accepted. You wouldn't have
>to try convincing anyone of the supiriourity of the "white race", because we'd
>be well aware of it already. However, after at least one century of research
>concerning "racial" supiriourity, isn't it strange that they still haven't
>managed to dig up anything worthwhile?
>
We do have stupid ideas floating around like equality of everybody you know.  

>> What evidence do you have they were Black?  Because it was Africa?
>
>Since Africa is mainly African, there is no reason to assume that anyone else
>*but* the Africans built Great Zimbabwe. Dig up some old arab texts describing
>the commissioning and building of a large stone structure in southern Africa,
>then you might have something. But isn't it strange that arab merchants should
>build something like that in an architectural style unlike any found anywhere 
>else (at least outsideAfrica), and at the same time quite similar to the clay
>huts and villages commonly built by Africans to this very day?
>
So you are prejudiced.  If in Africa it must be blacks!

BTW, it was built in stone which is not similar to huts and villages built
by (non-white influenced) Negroes.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Sep 29 09:40:07 PDT 1996
Article: 45089 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.total.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!news-w.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!chi-news.cic.net!news.math.psu.edu!news3.cac.psu.edu!howland.erols.net!EU.net!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Matthew's  moronic posts (was Ourobouros' cop-outout...
Date: 27 Sep 1996 14:09:22 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <52hfq2$i23@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51i64f$r8o@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <51lhk1$dq4@lex.zippo.com> <51p08v$7nt@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <52000h$299@lex.zippo.com> <528eth$g9b@news1.ucsd.edu> <529dp6$1ct@lex.zippo.com> <52b8l1$l79@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <52d8ev$rt8@lex.zippo.com> <52h7bd$bv2@orion.cybercom.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port831-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:45089 alt.politics.nationalism.white:31641

In article <52h7bd$bv2@orion.cybercom.net>, amatthews@cybercom.net says...
>
>Hey Burrobutt - we're all still waiting for you to provide some supporting 
>evidence regarding determining whiteness based on any of the following:
>
>1.  earwax
>2.  finger length
>3.  "longheadedness"
>4.  "longnosedness"
>5.  Brain structure
>
>
>These, of course, are just a sample of the criteria for whiteness you posted 
>but never supported.  Please do so now or admit you don't know what you're 
>talking about (as usual).   Also, remember that saying "these were only 
>possible criteria for determining whiteness" is a cop-out that runs counter to 
>your thesis that you can create a list of white racial characteristics.  
>
>Put up or shut up already, Stonehead. 
>
Hey Meathead, you should read the threads before making such comments like
this one.

I have given reference to European earwax (not White it is true), but I
only said it was a possible classification.  The odour part may prove more
significant.

Both "fingers" and "noses" were in contrast to Negroes relevant anatomy.

The brain argument comes from "Morris's Human Anatomy"

The longhead skull shape has been quoted over and over and over again.

Ourobouros.
 


From Ourobouros Sun Sep 29 09:40:08 PDT 1996
Article: 45106 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.structured.net!news.cais.net!news1.erols.com!howland.erols.net!EU.net!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: White MEN created everything (II) [long]
Date: 26 Sep 1996 12:03:27 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <52ek1v$gua@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51qqgs$7tf@lex.zippo.com> <51v1n6$mp8@maud.ifi.uio.no> <51vmls$qb7@lex.zippo.com> <52368m$f2k@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <5244ae$g9l@lex.zippo.com> <5263ph$t9b@baugi.ifi.uio.no> <526np4$2vm@lex.zippo.com> <52bojk$hs6@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <52dahp$8g@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port880-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <52dahp$8g@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> I continue to be amazed how things can be interpretated.  I thought the
>> one about me supposedly trying to prove that White earwax was superior
>> one of the most bizarre cases, but then we have you and this.
>
>Actually, what was most amazing about the earwax debate was that "Stone"
>dug up and posted a reference that _undermined_ his own thesis: that
>earwax could be used to distinguish "Whites" from other races. His
>reference made it quite clear that "Whites" (however they were defined by
>the author of said reference) had "sticky" earwax only 70% of the time.
>
Said reference said "Europeans," not "Whites."  Again, you are misquoting
me.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Sep 29 09:40:09 PDT 1996
Article: 45109 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news.sgi.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.PBI.net!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Ancient America (thread II) (was: White MEN ...)
Date: 28 Sep 1996 16:21:03 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 127
Message-ID: <52kbsv$7uc@lex.zippo.com>
References: <5201hi$2r3@lex.zippo.com> <52650t$58k@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <527rhs$hhc@lex.zippo.com> <5293nu$t7f@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <52d7kg$r56@lex.zippo.com> <52j9is$qo8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port861-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <52j9is$qo8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <5293nu$t7f@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>>>>>Are you now saying that it *didn't* come quickly (which was the point I
>>>>>was trying to make with the dates I cited), and that too can be explained
>>>>>by "whites" being responsible for it?
>
>>>>Outside influence.
>
>>>But what does that mean?  Seriously?
>
>>The civilisations of Mesoamerica were influenced from the old world.
>
>Help me out here, "Mr. Stone".  I'm trying to understand your argument,
>but I'm a little bit confused on a couple of points.  Are you saying
>that Mesoamerican civilisations developed quickly or slowly?  You seem
>to have changed your position on this mid-thread.
>
I have not changed my position at all.  This civilisation coming quickly
was reference to Zimbabwe, not Mesoamerica.  You quoted Mesoamerica to try 
and prove the agriculturalist can develop a civilisation when they're 
intermingling (I assume that was your point) with hunter gatherers.

>Given the chronology of known developments in Mesoamerica, how exactly
>do you envision this "influence" unfolding?  What do you figure, maybe
>a dozen or so folks wash up on the shores of Central America, maybe
>sometime around, what, 1300 or 1400 BCE?  If they want to get their
>before the first pyramid-type structures they'd have to have arrived
>by this date.  Now if you want them to bring over the knowledge to
>start agriculture (but not the plants, of course, because the 
>Mesoamerican domesticates are unique to this hemisphere), you'll have
>to have your boatload arrive far earlier.  So are you willing to concede
>that Mesoamericans managed to figure out plant domestication on their
>own? 
>
You are assuming that there was only one contact between new and old world.

>Anyway, so this dozen or so folks arrive, and tell folks, "Hey, have
>we got an idea for you!!".  Why do you think the first pyramid-type
>structure in the New World looks so very different from the Egyptian
>ones, anyway?  And when were the last Egyptian ones built, "Mr. Stone"?
>
The Egyptians stopped building pyramids in the 6th Dynasty.
Possiblities for difference in pyramids:
Different terrain, possibly a different religious perspective and given
the time difference a new impression of how the old world pyramids were
built.

>Despite the passage of about 700 or 800 years (that would be approximately
>30 generations), the descendents of this boatload were responsible for
>inventing writing in Mesoamerica?  Do you think there were any women on
>the boat?  If there weren't, after 30 generations, what proportion of
>their descendents' genes would have been Old World in origin, "Mr. Stone"?
>Any idea?
>
Perhaps some Egyptians wanted to build a new "Egypt."  Pyramids not
withstanding.

>Another 300 to 400 years pass before the construction of the Pyramid of
>the Sun at Teotihuacan is undertaken.  Let's see, that is approximately
>another 12-16 generations.  Whew!!  That old world genetic material is
>getting pretty diluted.  Must be mighty powerful stuff!!!
>
Assuming they were mixing their genes with the natives from the onset. I
suggest you read Dynasty 12 of Egypt of their views of other races and
people.
>
>>Kon Tiki, I'm afraid is concerned more with migrations from South America
>>to the Pacific islands.  He, unlike anthropologists, actually proved the
>>feasibility of his theories.
>
>No, "Mr. Stone", he proved the possibility of transoceanic contact.
>He did not "prove" that such contact was responsible for any significant
>developments in the precolumbian new world, nor did he prove that such
>contact was necessary for such developments.
>
There were in his day two trains of thought in his heyday.  One that said,
"despite these overwhelming coincidences, transoceanic voyages was 
impossible, therefore the 'Amerinds' built their own civilisation by
themselves" the other said "look at these overwhelming coincidences, surely
there must of being contact", the first replied "no transoceanic voyage
was feasible."  Thor came along and proved that it was feasible.  Now they
just ignore what he did.  Those overwhelming coincidences are still there
however.  You can read this argument in more detail in "Ra.", p.38,43,246.

As I said to Judd, prove Heyerdahl wrong.

>The idea that indigenous Mesoamericans were "incapable" of developing
>any of the trappings of civilisation on their own hardly constitutes
>a "theory".  It is an assumption founded on an unsupportable and 
>unsustainable belief that indigenous New World peoples were intellectually
>inferior.   
>
That is because your underlying belief is that everybody has the same
equivalent intellect.
>
>>You also stated that there were no linguistic affinities between old and
>>new worlds.  After thinking about it, both Fell and Heyerdahl mention a
>>dictionary made last century on similarities (of words) between both
>>"worlds."
>
>May I have the reference for the dictionary please.
>
On my to-do list.

>>Also note that the Egyptian hieroglyphs were peculiar to Egypt.  I hardly
>>consider your argument of a unique written language as relevant.  The
>>Phoenicians were reasonably late upon the scene btw.
>
>Well along the same vein, "Mr. Stone", also note that Mesoamerica
>writing was peculiar to Mesoamerica.
>
Which is my point.

>>I know the ancient Egyptians kept a 365 day calender due to their alignment
>>with the dogstar.
>
>And how long had it been out of use when the Mesoamerican calendar emerged?
>Which Old World calendars were in use during the era of the ancient Maya
>calendar, "Mr. Stone", and how do *they* compare in accuracy?

When did the Mesoamerica calender emerge?  Please be sure to have concrete
proof that it didn't come from an earlier era.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Sep 29 09:40:09 PDT 1996
Article: 45110 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news.sgi.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.PBI.net!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: White MEN created everything (II) [long]
Date: 28 Sep 1996 14:16:20 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 177
Message-ID: <52k4j4$23l@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51qqgs$7tf@lex.zippo.com> <51v1n6$mp8@maud.ifi.uio.no> <51vmls$qb7@lex.zippo.com> <52368m$f2k@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <5244ae$g9l@lex.zippo.com> <5263ph$t9b@baugi.ifi.uio.no> <526np4$2vm@lex.zippo.com> <52bojk$hs6@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <52dahp$8g@lex.zippo.com> <52j3qh$oec@orion.cybercom.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port861-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <52j3qh$oec@orion.cybercom.net>, amatthews@cybercom.net says...
>
>In article <52dahp$8g@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>>The Egyptians were white. 
>
>Proof please.  Remember - they have to fit your criteria for judging 
>whiteness.  Good luck.  We won't be holding our breath.
>
BTW, I am referring to ancient Egyptians for those morons out there who
have continual trouble comprehending the simplest of notions.

In the past (on this newsgroup) I have given citations of the Egyptians
being longhead of Mediterranean type.

Recently I quoted a poem which stated the ideal Egyptian women had white
skin.  B. Watterson makes mention of the Egyptian women's pale skin and
the men's reddish-brown skin from exposure to the elements (the sun).

The embalmers did their best to stop corpses from going dark.

>From  Champollion's translations we have Sesostris I's claim of the Egyptians
being the red people.  

Cephren's wife was depicted as blond and blue-eyed.

A bust of Tutankhamun featuring him coming out of a lotus flower (also
the first bust to his tomb) features the king with blue eyes.

There are pictures of blond and brunette workers making the Egyptian boats.

The hair, nose and shape of the eyes are easily visible.  

The other possibilites category are irrelevant.

All of these points have been quoted before in previous posts.

>> If you read the Vedi(c) hymns then you will know who the Aryans were so far 
>>as race is concerned. 
>
>So?  Virtually everyone living on the Subcontinent today is caucasian.  
>However, _by your definition_ I doubt many of them would qualify as white or 
>Aryan.  
>
>What I find amusing about white power rangers (tm) like Ol' Burrobutt here is 
>that they see stuff about Aryans in the Vedas and then talk about how they're 
>somehow Aryan too.  It is to laugh.  
>
What skin colour do the Vedic hymns say the Aryans are?

Who (via the Vedic hymns) do the Aryans despise in their territory and
what skin colour do they have?

>>Buddha was an Aryan Indian.
>
>*sigh*
>
>Before you said he was white (by your definition).   Are you now backing down 
>on that assertion?  Then you said something vague about mongoloid asians.  You 
>still haven't made it clear whether you were asserting that Buddha was 
>mongoloid - though your statements can clearly be taken that way.  Now 
>he's a generic Aryan Indian.  Stick to one story at least, would you?
>
I have never asserted Buddha was a mongoloid.  I have said that Buddhism
is mainly a mongoloid religion.

>Besides, we've been over this before.  He was not a Brahmin.  There is no 
>evidence that Shakyamuni fit your definition of white.  You have no idea what 
>color his skin was or, for that matter, what his skull, fingers, nose, vein 
>visibility, brain structure, earwax or ability to blush were like (those are 
>some of your criteria for whiteness, remember?).  So quit claiming something 
>you can't back up (not that that's ever shut you up before).  
>
We have skulls of the Aryan Indians. We have their description of what they
look like.  

As far as the sample test was concerned, meathead, it is for distinguishing
half-castes.

>Also, you still haven't clearly explained how Buddhism is a white creation, 
>as you claimed previously.  The instances of your being unable or unwilling to 
>back up your assertions are becoming legion.  
>
>From  the new Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, R. Graves:

p. 346.

"We call Jainism and Buddhism 'heretical' because these two religions,
which began to spread throug the area between the Himalayas and the Ganges
in the 7th and 6th centuries before our era, threw off the Vedic 
tradition."

p. 309.

"The Iranians are an offshoot of that branch of the Indo-European race
which is known as Aryan ('noble').  Iran, or Eran, is the land of the
Aryans, who without doubt came from Southern Russia, passed into Asia
either by way of the Caucasus or the Dardenelles, and gained the plareau
of 'Iran'.  Their language, which is very similar to the Vedic of India,
is a variety of the same tongue which is inferred to be the parent 
language of Slavonic, Teutonic, Celtic, Greek and Latin."

p.348.

Buddha lived between about 563 and 483 B.C in the north-east of India.

>For example, we're still waiting for you to show the following:
>
>1.  Black powder was created by whites.  I'll buy your argument that 
>alchemists created it, but white alchemists?  That is not something you've 
>demonstrated.  I guess the historical timeline involved and the exploits of 
>some guy named Marco Polo are beyond your ability to comprehend or admit.
>
I fail to see the relevance of Marco Polo.

Alchemy was essentially a father-son trade.  Alchemy entered China via
the Aryans of India.  Alchemy 'vanishes overnight' in China.

>2.  Printing was developed by whites and whites alone.
>
I didn't say the Chinese didn't have a printing press.

>3.  Stone architecture was invented only by whites.  Thor Hyerdahl's musings 
>are just that - musings.  The more we learn the less credible his notions 
>become, yet you rely very heavily on them with regards to the Americas.  
>Besides, you haven't been able to demonstrate that the folks who went West 
>by Thor's theories were white.   
>
There is always the mummies in Peru which I have already mentioned.  Of 
course there is always the fanaticism of the Polynesians in their beauty
contests.  Beauty being recognised on two factors; obesity and a whiter
skin than the rest (from B. Danielsson, "Love in the South Seas").

Then of course there were their legends of Whites.

The only thing that makes T. Heyerdahl's theories less credible is PC
attitudes.  Since you swallow PC hook, line and sinker Thor must be wrong. 

>4.  The calendar was invented only by whites.  The Mayan calendar bears no 
>resemblance to Old World ones, so how can you argue it was developed by 
>whites?
>
Various White cultures have made their own calenders.  Constrast the
ancient Greeks and the Celts calenders.  Irrelevant point.

>5.  That whites originally domesticated any animals at all.  
>
A nonsensical statement.

>6.  That whites invented all agricultural techniques.
>
>Remember, now, that you were the one arguing that whites "created everything."
>
I came onto the argument late.

>And for our amusement, I'll add a few more items to the list of things I'd 
>like for you to demonstrate were invented by whites and whites alone.
>
>1.  The rocket
>2.  The knife
>3.  The axe
>4.  The spear
>5. The bow and arrow
>6. Cloth weaving
>7. Metalworking
>
>Good luck.  
>
Apart from the axe and spear, look at where the first instances of the
above came from.
 
>p.s.  While you're at it perhaps you can explain why none of the original 5 
>places where civilization appeared (Egypt, Iraq, China, the Indus valley and 
>America) were in Europe.  

Guess Crete isn't in Europe.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Sep 30 08:53:16 PDT 1996
Article: 45218 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Replying to the whiner (was: Hey, ...
Date: 29 Sep 1996 20:56:18 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 119
Message-ID: <52ngd2$mbh@lex.zippo.com>
References: <52mt3b$5f7@orion.cybercom.net> <52n795$ba9@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port879-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <52n795$ba9@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article <52mt3b$5f7@orion.cybercom.net>, amatthews@cybercom.net says...
>> >
>> >O.k. Mr. "Stone"  please tell me if I'm white enough for you based on the 
>> >following:
>> >
>> >1.  I guess I have long, thin fingers  (you've never defined "long")
>> >2.  I guess I have a long, thin nose (you've never defined "long")
>> >3.  Some of my veins are visible through my skin (but you've never
>defined how 
>> >many veins are enough to qualify)
>> >4.  I guess I  blush visibly (you've never defined how visible it must be)
>> >5. I guess my earwax is sticky (but you've enver defined "sticky")
>> >6.  The outer cover of my forebrain is very furrowed (I've got an MRI
>scan to 
>> >prove it) (but you've never quantified the qualification)
>> >7. I guess I have a long skull (you've never defined "long")
>> >
>> Dolichocephalic, plus having a facial angle around 82 degrees.  Dolicho-
>> cephalic is what longhead means.  
>> 
>> You'll need to take some measurements to find out.
>
>Measurements of what? "Stone" here discusses the quantitative measurement
>only of the head and facial angle. Why are quantitative measures for the
>other qualities that define a "white" individual not provided? Why does
>"Stone" discuss the quantitative values of 'long-headedness' and 'facial
>angle', but steadfastly refuse to discuss the quantitative values within
>which the other qualities must fall for "whiteness" to be declared?
>
Unlike most other things, "Brown" finding facial angle and cephalic
indexes are rather easy.  Phyisical anthropologists (as a general rule)
will tell you Caucasiods have fine hair, and conversely Mongoloids have
coarse hair.  They typically don't tell you how such characterisations
are made.  Feel free to prove me wrong on this point.
 
>Do the fingers need to be measured? How? And if so, what is the
>quantitative standard for "white" fingers?
>
>Does the 'fineness' of the hair need to be measured? How? And if so, what
>is the quantitative standard for "white" hair fineness?
>
>Does the 'straightness' of the hair need to be measured? How? And if so,
>what is the quantitative standard for "white" hair straightness?
>
>Does the 'hirsuteness' of the individual need to be measured? How? And if
>so, what is the quantitative standard for "white" hirsuteness?
>
>Does the length of the individual's nose need to be measured? How? And if
>so, what is the quantitative standard for a "white" nose?
>
>Does the 'development' of the individual's frontal lobes need to be
>measured? How? And if so, what is the quantitative standard for "white"
>frontal lobes?
>
>Does the 'wrinkling' of the individual's outer brain need to be measured?
>How? And if so, what is the quantitative standard for "white" brain
>wrinkling?
>
If I had these quantitative measures, "Brown", then the original thread
would be "Ourobouros' precise definition of the White race."  

>Oh, and about the facial angle: "Stone" has never defined just how
>"around" 82 degress one's facial angle can be, and still fall within the
>definition of "white". Is the tolerance +/- 2 degrees? +/- 1 degree? +/-
>0.5 degree? 
>
I will hesitantly say +/- 2 degrees.  This is based on the fact that skulls
can change by 2% for environmental reasons (like famines).

>On such seeming triflesas these will one's citizenship in Mightey Whitey
>Land depend. I should think more precision is called for in such an
>important matter. Why is "Stone" so hesitant to provide said precision? Is
>it a desire to remain vague, or an inability to actually attach verifiably
>valid numbers to these all-important qualities of the true "white" race?
>We await "Stone's" enlightening response.
>
Apart from a few verifiable measurements (like mean facial angle, cephalic
index, triangular palette, and "reflective wavelengths" off skin colour) I
lack tables for the rest.  This I have freely admitted, "Brown".  When I
receive more details then I am sure to post them.  

Comprehende?

>> >Well, do I make the grade or not?
>> >
>> It depends on whether your details are correct. 
>> 
>> Do you blush (rosy) red?
>> 
>> Do you have blue coloured veins showing through places that are exposed
>> to the elements?
>
>Are those the only details that matter? If so, why did "Stone" initially
>include fingers, noses, hair, and brain physiology in his initial
>definition? If not, what details need to be correct for those other
>features?
>
                   *sigh*

>> >Never mind that I can show I'm 100% Welsh.
>> 
>> Are you suggesting that the Welsh aren't White?
>
>Is "Stone" suggesting that if someone is "100% Welsh", that that is all
>that is required for their "whiteness" to be assured, and that they would
>therefore be exempt from meeting the details of his "definition"?
>
As a general rule the Welsh are white.  The only possible change in that
rule is due to half-castes and liberals who insist that any Tom, Dick or
Harry born in Wales is Welsh.  

Otherwise the Welsh already meet my sample definition.  As do the Scots,
Dutch, and so forth.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Sep 30 08:53:16 PDT 1996
Article: 45231 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Replying to the whiner (was: Hey, ...
Date: 29 Sep 1996 18:20:37 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <52n795$ba9@lex.zippo.com>
References: <52mt3b$5f7@orion.cybercom.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port868-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <52mt3b$5f7@orion.cybercom.net>, amatthews@cybercom.net says...
>
>O.k. Mr. "Stone"  please tell me if I'm white enough for you based on the 
>following:
>
>1.  I guess I have long, thin fingers  (you've never defined "long")
>2.  I guess I have a long, thin nose (you've never defined "long")
>3.  Some of my veins are visible through my skin (but you've never defined how 
>many veins are enough to qualify)
>4.  I guess I  blush visibly (you've never defined how visible it must be)
>5. I guess my earwax is sticky (but you've enver defined "sticky")
>6.  The outer cover of my forebrain is very furrowed (I've got an MRI scan to 
>prove it) (but you've never quantified the qualification)
>7. I guess I have a long skull (you've never defined "long")
>
Dolichocephalic, plus having a facial angle around 82 degrees.  Dolicho-
cephalic is what longhead means.  

You'll need to take some measurements to find out.
>
>Well, do I make the grade or not?
>
It depends on whether your details are correct. 

Do you blush (rosy) red?

Do you have blue coloured veins showing through places that are exposed
to the elements?

>Never mind that I can show I'm 100% Welsh.

Are you suggesting that the Welsh aren't White?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Sep 30 21:52:25 PDT 1996
Article: 45329 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.uoregon.edu!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!howland.erols.net!news.sgi.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Replying to the whiner (was: Hey, ...
Date: 30 Sep 1996 01:25:37 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 195
Message-ID: <52o061$4o5@lex.zippo.com>
References: <52mt3b$5f7@orion.cybercom.net> <52n795$ba9@lex.zippo.com>  <52ngd2$mbh@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port867-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <52ngd2$mbh@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >
>> >In article <52n795$ba9@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <52mt3b$5f7@orion.cybercom.net>, amatthews@cybercom.net says...
>> >> >
>> >> >O.k. Mr. "Stone"  please tell me if I'm white enough for you based on the 
>> >> >following:
>> >> >
>> >> >1.  I guess I have long, thin fingers  (you've never defined "long")
>> >> >2.  I guess I have a long, thin nose (you've never defined "long")
>> >> >3.  Some of my veins are visible through my skin (but you've never
>> >defined how 
>> >> >many veins are enough to qualify)
>> >> >4.  I guess I  blush visibly (you've never defined how visible it must be)
>> >> >5. I guess my earwax is sticky (but you've enver defined "sticky")
>> >> >6.  The outer cover of my forebrain is very furrowed (I've got an MRI
>> >scan to 
>> >> >prove it) (but you've never quantified the qualification)
>> >> >7. I guess I have a long skull (you've never defined "long")
>> >> >
>> >> Dolichocephalic, plus having a facial angle around 82 degrees.  Dolicho-
>> >> cephalic is what longhead means.  
>> >> 
>> >> You'll need to take some measurements to find out.
>> >
>> >Measurements of what? "Stone" here discusses the quantitative measurement
>> >only of the head and facial angle. Why are quantitative measures for the
>> >other qualities that define a "white" individual not provided? Why does
>> >"Stone" discuss the quantitative values of 'long-headedness' and 'facial
>> >angle', but steadfastly refuse to discuss the quantitative values within
>> >which the other qualities must fall for "whiteness" to be declared?
>> >
>> Unlike most other things, "Brown" finding facial angle and cephalic
>> indexes are rather easy.  Phyisical anthropologists (as a general rule)
>> will tell you Caucasiods have fine hair, and conversely Mongoloids have
>> coarse hair.  They typically don't tell you how such characterisations
>> are made.  Feel free to prove me wrong on this point.
>
>On the contrary: "Stone" should feel free to tell us all how _he_
>characterizes 'fine' versus 'coarse' hair. The definition does bear his
>name, after all.
>
>"Stone" has _always_ been free to tell us his own characterization of
>these qualities. Why does he not do so?
>
To be answered at some other date (coarse and fine hair).

>> >Do the fingers need to be measured? How? And if so, what is the
>> >quantitative standard for "white" fingers?
>> >
>> >Does the 'fineness' of the hair need to be measured? How? And if so, what
>> >is the quantitative standard for "white" hair fineness?
>> >
>> >Does the 'straightness' of the hair need to be measured? How? And if so,
>> >what is the quantitative standard for "white" hair straightness?
>> >
>> >Does the 'hirsuteness' of the individual need to be measured? How? And if
>> >so, what is the quantitative standard for "white" hirsuteness?
>> >
>> >Does the length of the individual's nose need to be measured? How? And if
>> >so, what is the quantitative standard for a "white" nose?
>> >
>> >Does the 'development' of the individual's frontal lobes need to be
>> >measured? How? And if so, what is the quantitative standard for "white"
>> >frontal lobes?
>> >
>> >Does the 'wrinkling' of the individual's outer brain need to be measured?
>> >How? And if so, what is the quantitative standard for "white" brain
>> >wrinkling?
>> >
>> If I had these quantitative measures, "Brown", then the original thread
>> would be "Ourobouros' precise definition of the White race."  
>
>Ah. Then perhaps a more accurate title for the original thread would have
>been "Ourobouros' vague, imprecise, impractical, and largely subjective
>definition of the White race".
>
Incorrect.  A lack of quantitive measures does not mean "imprecise,
impractical".  "Vague and largely subjective" are correct.

>The simple fact is that "Stone's" definition defines nothing. It cannot be
>applied to any actual individual in any meaningful way.
>
I dispute that it defines nothing, as it gives reasonable headings and
areas of research applicable to "racial" anthropology.  Considerable work
has already been done on both skin colour, skull shape and facial features.
The problem with these is they don't necessarily ascertain half-castes,
more plausible areas of development are needed.  The ABO, MN, and so
forth helped, but again they aren't perfect.

>"Stone" should feel free, of course, to prove me wrong on this point.
>
You could always prove me wrong that when reading physical anthropologist
books on areas concerning race they more often than not give only headings
of racial difference (no detail).

>> >Oh, and about the facial angle: "Stone" has never defined just how
>> >"around" 82 degress one's facial angle can be, and still fall within the
>> >definition of "white". Is the tolerance +/- 2 degrees? +/- 1 degree? +/-
>> >0.5 degree? 
>> >
>> I will hesitantly say +/- 2 degrees.  This is based on the fact that skulls
>> can change by 2% for environmental reasons (like famines).
>> 
>> >On such seeming trifles as these will one's citizenship in Mightey Whitey
>> >Land depend. I should think more precision is called for in such an
>> >important matter. Why is "Stone" so hesitant to provide said precision? Is
>> >it a desire to remain vague, or an inability to actually attach verifiably
>> >valid numbers to these all-important qualities of the true "white" race?
>> >We await "Stone's" enlightening response.
>> >
>> Apart from a few verifiable measurements (like mean facial angle, cephalic
>> index, triangular palette, and "reflective wavelengths" off skin colour) I
>> lack tables for the rest.  This I have freely admitted, "Brown".  When I
>> receive more details then I am sure to post them.  
>> 
>> Comprehende?
>
>I comprehend that "Stone's" definition is useless.
>
That I disagree with.  It is a model that can be worked with.

>> >> >Well, do I make the grade or not?
>> >> >
>> >> It depends on whether your details are correct. 
>> >> 
>> >> Do you blush (rosy) red?
>> >> 
>> >> Do you have blue coloured veins showing through places that are exposed
>> >> to the elements?
>> >
>> >Are those the only details that matter? If so, why did "Stone" initially
>> >include fingers, noses, hair, and brain physiology in his initial
>> >definition? If not, what details need to be correct for those other
>> >features?
>> >
>>                    *sigh*
>
>I am gratified that "Stone's" respiratory functions remain unimpaired.
>Yet, the questions remain unanswered. 
>
Your question is not worthy of a response.

>> >> >Never mind that I can show I'm 100% Welsh.
>> >> 
>> >> Are you suggesting that the Welsh aren't White?
>> >
>> >Is "Stone" suggesting that if someone is "100% Welsh", that that is all
>> >that is required for their "whiteness" to be assured, and that they would
>> >therefore be exempt from meeting the details of his "definition"?
>> >
>> As a general rule the Welsh are white. 
>
>Why?
>
Skull shape, skin colour, hair colour, facial features and eye shape all 
match.

>> The only possible change in that
>> rule is due to half-castes and liberals who insist that any Tom, Dick or
>> Harry born in Wales is Welsh.  
>> 
>> Otherwise the Welsh already meet my sample definition.
>
>Why?
>
How don't they?

>> As do the Scots, Dutch, and so forth.
>
>How can any individual or group of people meet a definition with so many
>undefined, unquantified aspects? On the basis of what aspect or aspects of
>"Stone's" vague, imprecise, and impractical definition does he classify
>the Welsh, Scots, Dutch, and so forth as "White"? I do believe that an
>example of how the definition is applied would be in order. It would be
>most instructive to observe "Stone" himself applying the definition in a
>real-world situation.
>
As I said to "Finsten" I should have included priority in the list.  A
mistake I will remedy when I give another definition.  When I do so I
will try to remember to give a working example.  Hopefully that way they'll
be less people that major-in-the-minors next time. 

>Would anyone care to wager that we will actually be graced with such an
>illustrative example by the master?
>
It beats the normal insults.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Sep 30 23:29:01 PDT 1996
Article: 31820 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!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Matthews'  moronic posts (was Ourobouros' cop-outout...
Date: 29 Sep 1996 22:57:15 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <52nnfr$rmv@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51i64f$r8o@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <51lhk1$dq4@lex.zippo.com> <51p08v$7nt@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <52000h$299@lex.zippo.com> <528eth$g9b@news1.ucsd.edu> <529dp6$1ct@lex.zippo.com> <52b8l1$l79@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <52d8ev$rt8@lex.zippo.com> <52h7bd$bv2@orion.cybercom.net> <52hfq2$i23@lex.zippo.com> <52kl28$1f9@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port860-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:31820 alt.politics.white-power:45339

In article <52kl28$1f9@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>The brain argument comes from "Morris's Human Anatomy"
>
>Which was originally published when?  And what pages are these supposed
>variations in neuroanatomy discussed on please, "Mr. Stone"?
>
As I have already told you, when I get to see the book again.

>>The longhead skull shape has been quoted over and over and over again.
>
>Uh huh.  Are you really going to say that someone with a cephalic index
>of 74.9 is not "White", while someone who measures in at 75.0 is?  And
>if dolichocephaly is such a central feature of Whiteness, then why is
>it the most common cranial form among Africans? 
>
When either I have the time and inclination or somebody else has the time
and inclination then variations will be quantified.  As for your Negro
statement that has been recently discussed.  Having the right cephalic
index is only one factor of skull measurement as I have already told you.

IMO, Whites and Negroes probably have the same sticky earwax as well 
(maybe it is connected with being dolichocephalic).  

It hardly proves that we're the same race now does it?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Sep 30 23:29:42 PDT 1996
Article: 45339 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!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Matthews'  moronic posts (was Ourobouros' cop-outout...
Date: 29 Sep 1996 22:57:15 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <52nnfr$rmv@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$cl4@lex.zippo.com> <51i64f$r8o@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <51lhk1$dq4@lex.zippo.com> <51p08v$7nt@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <52000h$299@lex.zippo.com> <528eth$g9b@news1.ucsd.edu> <529dp6$1ct@lex.zippo.com> <52b8l1$l79@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <52d8ev$rt8@lex.zippo.com> <52h7bd$bv2@orion.cybercom.net> <52hfq2$i23@lex.zippo.com> <52kl28$1f9@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port860-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:31820 alt.politics.white-power:45339

In article <52kl28$1f9@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>The brain argument comes from "Morris's Human Anatomy"
>
>Which was originally published when?  And what pages are these supposed
>variations in neuroanatomy discussed on please, "Mr. Stone"?
>
As I have already told you, when I get to see the book again.

>>The longhead skull shape has been quoted over and over and over again.
>
>Uh huh.  Are you really going to say that someone with a cephalic index
>of 74.9 is not "White", while someone who measures in at 75.0 is?  And
>if dolichocephaly is such a central feature of Whiteness, then why is
>it the most common cranial form among Africans? 
>
When either I have the time and inclination or somebody else has the time
and inclination then variations will be quantified.  As for your Negro
statement that has been recently discussed.  Having the right cephalic
index is only one factor of skull measurement as I have already told you.

IMO, Whites and Negroes probably have the same sticky earwax as well 
(maybe it is connected with being dolichocephalic).  

It hardly proves that we're the same race now does it?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Oct  1 01:45:02 PDT 1996
Article: 45362 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!portc01.blue.aol.com!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!hunter.premier.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: White MEN created everything (II) [long]
Date: 30 Sep 1996 12:10:09 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 225
Message-ID: <52p5uh$fh7@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51qqgs$7tf@lex.zippo.com> <51v1n6$mp8@maud.ifi.uio.no> <51vmls$qb7@lex.zippo.com> <52368m$f2k@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <5244ae$g9l@lex.zippo.com> <5263ph$t9b@baugi.ifi.uio.no> <526np4$2vm@lex.zippo.com> <52bojk$hs6@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <52dahp$8g@lex.zippo.com> <52j3qh$oec@orion.cybercom.net> <52k4j4$23l@lex.zippo.com> <52ou6m$jng@orion.cybercom.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port858-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <52ou6m$jng@orion.cybercom.net>, amatthews@cybercom.net says...
>
>In article <52k4j4$23l@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <52j3qh$oec@orion.cybercom.net>, amatthews@cybercom.net says...
>>>
>>>In article <52dahp$8g@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>The Egyptians were white. 
>>>
>>>Proof please.  Remember - they have to fit your criteria for judging 
>>>whiteness.  Good luck.  We won't be holding our breath.
>>>
>>BTW, I am referring to ancient Egyptians for those morons out there who
>>have continual trouble comprehending the simplest of notions.
>
>I knew that, but you don't seem to comprehend that you haven't demonstrated 
>that ancient Egypt was a white civilization.
>
>>In the past (on this newsgroup) I have given citations of the Egyptians
>>being longhead of Mediterranean type.
>
>However, you haven't shown that "longheadedness" is a defining white 
>characteristic.  Simply stacking your assertions one on top of the other 
>doesn't make them any truer.  
>
How would one prove that dolichocephalic skulls are a feature of the White
race to you?  I make this comment on the basis of you refusing to 
acknowledge facts.

>>A bust of Tutankhamun featuring him coming out of a lotus flower (also
>>the first bust to his tomb) features the king with blue eyes.
>
>As well as dark skin, wide lips and a fairly flat nose.  I guess he wasn't 
>really white then, was he?  
>
The burden of proof is upon you to provide evidence of dark skin, wide lips
and a fairly flat nose.  Don't quote his death mask either (as you
docile comrades have done), because it doesn't show wide lips or flat nose.

>>There are pictures of blond and brunette workers making the Egyptian boats.
>
>There are also pictures of dark skinned workers. Horror of horrors, you don't 
>think that maybe ancient Egypt was a mixed race society?  
>
When one understand that the Egyptians had slaves...

>>The hair, nose and shape of the eyes are easily visible.  
>
>Not that this proves anything about their whiteness.  Here you go stacking 
>unsupported assertions again.
>
>>The other possibilites category are irrelevant.
>
>Huh?  Try sticking to English.  Also, stop trying to define what you can't 
>explain as being "irrelevant."  Its just another form of copping out, of which 
>you are clearly an expert.  
>
                 *sigh*

You are a fanatic for majoring in the minors.  When I said "other 
possibilities" you took it for gospel truth (remember "earwax" and so
forth?).

>>I have never asserted Buddha was a mongoloid.  I have said that Buddhism
>>is mainly a mongoloid religion.
>
>Ok, thanks for clearing up your garbled prose.  However, you still haven't 
>demonstrated that Shakyamuni was white by your definition(s).  That was the 
>original point remember?  Quit trying to duck the question, oh cop out king.  
>
>>As far as the sample test was concerned, meathead, it is for distinguishing
>>half-castes.
>
>Nice try, but it is better to admit you were wrong than to be seen trying to 
>so obviously weasel out of your assertions.  You listed criteria for 
>whiteness, remember?
>
Do you have trouble distinguishing between say a Japanese man and a Northern
European man?

>>>Also, you still haven't clearly explained how Buddhism is a white creation, 
>>>as you claimed previously.  The instances of your being unable or unwilling to
>>>back up your assertions are becoming legion.  
>>>
>>From the new Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, R. Graves:
>>
>>p. 346.
>>
>>"We call Jainism and Buddhism 'heretical' because these two religions,
>>which began to spread throug the area between the Himalayas and the Ganges
>>in the 7th and 6th centuries before our era, threw off the Vedic 
>>tradition."
>
>I fail to see what this has to do with your assertion that Buddhism is a white 
>creation.  
>
            *sigh*

I am quoting a reference that Buddhism started from India.

>>"The Iranians are an offshoot of that branch of the Indo-European race
>>which is known as Aryan ('noble').  Iran, or Eran, is the land of the
>>Aryans, who without doubt came from Southern Russia, passed into Asia
>>either by way of the Caucasus or the Dardenelles, and gained the plareau
>>of 'Iran'.  Their language, which is very similar to the Vedic of India,
>>is a variety of the same tongue which is inferred to be the parent 
>>language of Slavonic, Teutonic, Celtic, Greek and Latin."
>
>Yes, so?  Try sticking to the original point instead of ducking it.  I don't 
>recall questioning the reality of the Indo-European language group.
>
Did the Aryans come from a land full of Blacks or Browns?

>>>For example, we're still waiting for you to show the following:
>>>
>>>1.  Black powder was created by whites.  I'll buy your argument that 
>>>alchemists created it, but white alchemists?  That is not something you've 
>>>demonstrated.  I guess the historical timeline involved and the exploits of 
>>>some guy named Marco Polo are beyond your ability to comprehend or admit.
>>>
>>I fail to see the relevance of Marco Polo.
>
>You would fail to see the relevance of the actual events of history.
>
When was Marco Polo's trip?

>>Alchemy was essentially a father-son trade.  Alchemy entered China via
>>the Aryans of India.  Alchemy 'vanishes overnight' in China.
>
>What does this repeated but unsubstantiated assertion of yours have to do with 
>the fact that the Chinese invented black powder?   Trying to change the 
>subject instead of answering my questions only makes you look foolish. 
>
You only think it is foolish because you lack deductive reasoning.

>>>2.  Printing was developed by whites and whites alone.
>>>
>>I didn't say the Chinese didn't have a printing press.
>
>ROTFL!  You have tried (unsuccessfully and poorly) to claim printing was 
>invented by whites.  More weaseling on your part.  Besides, the Chinese didn't 
>invent the printing press - a white guy did.  
>
It is more than likely that a White was responsible for the creation of
the Chinese printing press, but I have never asserted that Whites did
invent it.  The locality and people whom the idea came from is an area of 
study to which I have only done periphery work.

>>The only thing that makes T. Heyerdahl's theories less credible is PC
>>attitudes.  Since you swallow PC hook, line and sinker Thor must be wrong. 
>
>Bzzzz!  Wrong answer, but thanks for playing.  There is no archeological, 
>linguistic or genetic evidence to support Thor's theories.  Are these 
>disciplines nothing more than "PC attitudes" to you, Stonehead?
>
A sweeping statement from the doormatt.

>>>4.  The calendar was invented only by whites.  The Mayan calendar bears no 
>>>resemblance to Old World ones, so how can you argue it was developed by 
>>>whites?
>>>
>>Various White cultures have made their own calenders.  Constrast the
>>ancient Greeks and the Celts calenders.  Irrelevant point.
>
>No, unfortunately for you, its not.  You claimed whites created everything.  
>Here is something they alone did not create.  Thanks for finally admitting it.
>
Well I'm afraid the Mayan calender (non religious one) is actually
similar to the Egyptian one.

>>>5.  That whites originally domesticated any animals at all.  
>>>
>>A nonsensical statement.
>
>Its only nonsensical to you because its true.  Name some domesticated animals 
>and demonstrate to us that whites introduced their domestication.  Or don't 
>you consider the domestication of animals to be an "invention?"
>
Where were agricultural practises developed?

>>>6.  That whites invented all agricultural techniques.
>>>
>>>Remember, now, that you were the one arguing that whites "created everything."
>>>
>>I came onto the argument late.
>
>More weaseling from the cop out king.  
>
Rubbish.

>>>And for our amusement, I'll add a few more items to the list of things I'd 
>>>like for you to demonstrate were invented by whites and whites alone.
>>>
>>>1.  The rocket
>>>2.  The knife
>>>3.  The axe
>>>4.  The spear
>>>5. The bow and arrow
>>>6. Cloth weaving
>>>7. Metalworking
>>>
>>>Good luck.  
>>>
>>Apart from the axe and spear, look at where the first instances of the
>>above came from.
>
>That's what I was asking you to provide, fool.  You asserted whites created 
>everything so the burden of proof lies with you, the asserter.   
>
>Besides, since the axe and spear are important inventions in humanity's 
>history you've finally admitted your original assertion was false. 
>
You can't prove that axes and spears weren't invented by Whites.

>>>p.s.  While you're at it perhaps you can explain why none of the original 5 
>>>places where civilization appeared (Egypt, Iraq, China, the Indus valley and 
>>>America) were in Europe.  
>>
>>Guess Crete isn't in Europe.
>
>Guess the historical chronology is beyond your comprehension.   Besides, last 
>time I looked Crete was in the Mediterranean.  
>
Crete is considered part of Europe. You should also work on your chronology.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Oct  1 01:45:04 PDT 1996
Article: 45363 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!portc01.blue.aol.com!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!howland.erols.net!EU.net!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: White MEN created everything (II) [long]
Date: 30 Sep 1996 12:36:11 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 214
Message-ID: <52p7fb$gmu@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51qqgs$7tf@lex.zippo.com> <51v1n6$mp8@maud.ifi.uio.no> <51vmls$qb7@lex.zippo.com> <52368m$f2k@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <5244ae$g9l@lex.zippo.com> <5263ph$t9b@baugi.ifi.uio.no> <526np4$2vm@lex.zippo.com> <52bojk$hs6@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <52dahp$8g@lex.zippo.com> <52oqli$6hd@gyda.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port858-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <52oqli$6hd@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <52dahp$8g@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <52bojk$hs6@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>> >> >> Now you think I am a Buddhist, no I am not.
>> >> >When did I claim you were a Buddhist? Please include a quote.
>> >> It's a supposition.  You are claiming that I am New Age, and that Buddhism
>> >> came to the west through "New Age."
>> >So all New Agers are Buddhists? Seems you're a little pejudiced yourself,
>> >where New Agers are concerned, Ouro.
>> I continue to be amazed how things can be interpretated.  I thought the
>> one about me supposedly trying to prove that White earwax was superior
>> one of the most bizarre cases, but then we have you and this.
>
>You said: 
>	"Now you think I am a Buddhist"
>You backed this up with:
>	"You are claiming that I am New Age, and that Buddhism
>	came to the west through "New Age."
>
>In other words, by claiming that you are into New Age, I am therefore also
>claiming that you are a Buddhist. Therefore, you believe that all New Agers 
>are Buddhists. Simple logic, really.
>
I am not into New Age.

>	[back to Egypt]
>
>> The Egyptians were white.  If you read the Vedi(c) hymns then you will know
>> who the Aryans were so far as race is concerned.  Buddha was an Aryan
>> Indian.
>
>Some of the Egyptians were "white", yes. Others were "black", but most of them
>were somewhere between the two. If the early Egyptians were *all* white, why
>aren't there any paintings large groups of "white" Egyptians, instead of only
>one or two among all the brown ones? As for the Aryans, you have no evidence
>that they would have filled your criterias for being "white". They were
>Caucasians, yes (if they existed), but only "white" when compared to the other
>locals.
>
[Egyptians]

It depends on the time.  In Piankhy time, there were a lot of Blacks in
Egypt.  But in Dynasty XII there would have been no Blacks in Egypt as 
they had laws for killing them.  

As I have quoted in the past, the Egyptians painted themselves in two
colours, red ochre for men, yellow (a creamy colour) for women.  Most of
the recovered paintings fit these criteria for Egyptians.  The odd brown
one is most probably been altered by the elements.
>
>> >	[white skin in old poems]
>
>> >White as in PALE. Is it that hard to comprehend? You don't call yourself
>> >"white" because your skin is the color of chalk, but because you belong to the
>> >palest ethnic group you know of. If one has never met anyone belonging to one
>> >of the germanic tribes, one's standards for "white" skin becomes a lot darker.
>> So you are saying that it really said "brown."
>
>The word used may well have been "white", but yes, they probably meant "light
>brown" (again, when compared to others).
>
I am linking this up to your comment about Aryans (if you thought I was
dodging).

So now "white" = "light brown"?

>	[reddish-brown skin]
>
>> >Most likely the people described were similar to modern day arabs. "Mongrels",
>> >to use your rather crude term.
>> So arabs have reddish-brown skin when exposed to the elements?  Could we
>> have proof of this?
>
>Lets turn that question around; Do "white" people turn "reddish-brown" when
>exposed to the elements? Or do they go tan? "Reddish-brown" sounds more like a
>bad sunburn.

I go reddish-brown under the sun, and no, it is not a sunburn.  At the
present I have a reddish-brown face from all the walks I like to take (it's
spring here).  I go bright red from sunburn.

>And maybe the Egyptians were an altogether different ethnic group. One that
>really *did* have "reddish-brown" skin.
>
So what about their women?

>BTW: I'm now looking at a relief depicting pharaoh Smenkhkare and his queen 
>Meritaten (1570-1070 B.C.). Their skin is painted a yellow-brown. Definitly
>not "white".
>
They painted with two colours (for themselves) Red and Yellow Ochre.

>	[Ramses II's hair again...]
>
>> >> >And as for their "mongrelization", I'd like to see some evidence. As someone
>> >> >else pointed out (and you ignored, I believe), if the early Mayas, Incas,
>> >> >Aztecs, whatever, really were Euros, why do all the statues, reliefs, and
>> >> >drawings look so much like the present people living there, and so little like
>> >> >the Europeans.
>> >> You obviously haven't looked very far.  You could try and read "Ra" by
>> >> Thor Heyerdahl.
>> >So tell me what chapters to read, if I find a copy of Ra.
>> Unfortunately Thor Heyerdahl likes to tell his adventures.  Around the
>> periphery of his adventures are these bits of information.  Quite frankly
>> you'll have to read the whole thing.
>
>In other words, he never comes straight out and says he's found statues and
>reliefs of "white" people. You've just chosen to interprete him that way.
>
You are incorrect.  Heyerdahl has these bits of information around the
periphery of his adventures.

>> >> >	[Zimbabwe]
>
>> >have that the civilization at Zimbabwe happened "suddenly"? What evidence do
>> >you have that it was not made by Africans?
>> I suggest you read before and after the Encyclopedia Britannica citation
>> for that information.
>
>I am not about to go dashing to a library just to check out some outlandish
>claim made by some rasist. Do your own homework.
>
I gave the Encyclopedia Britannica citation and page reference.  The rest
is up to you.

>> >> >> >> [Zimbabwe proper]
>
>> >> >You, like the early excavators, have no evidence that Great Zimbabwe was built
>> >> >by "whites". You simply assume that the Africans are incapable of building
>> >> >anything that big and close your eyes to any evidence to the contrary. If
>> >> >there was found traces of "white" people in those ruins, you'd be touting the
>> >> >evidence at me right now.
>> >> I would assume the early excavatoris had evidence -- just what were they
>> >> digging up?
>
>	[snip]
>
>> >If these early excavators had evidence, as you assume, where is it now? Taken
>> >by the Evil Liberal Conspirators?
>> Is there perhaps some Museum with various artifacts?
>
>So where is this museum?
>
I do recall a question mark in my reply.

>> >>  Did it ever occur to you that the Encyclopedia Britannica has
>> >> a bias?
>> >???
>> The Encyclopedia Britannica like most things is subject to political
>> stupidity.
>
>Yet you refer to it when I ask for evidence in support of your claims! Let me
>guess: The parts of the Encyclopedia that support your claims are correct,
>while the parts that do *not* support your claims are Politically Correct, and
>therefore wrong.
>You're slipping, Ouro.
>
Please note that part of my quote included a PC part.  I could have just
given "early excavators..." without the "fierce controversy..." part.  

The same with the part concerning possible migrations of Indo-Europeans
through China quotation from the EB.  I could have easily quoted the
parts to supports my argument that Indo-Europeans did migrate into ancient
China.

If I were only quoting parts that were correct explain why I would weaken
my own argument?

>> >If there had been *any* conclusive evidence on the supiriourity of the "white
>> >race", we'd all know it by now. Even though this evidence would be denied and
>> >ridiculed at first, it would eventually have been accepted. You wouldn't have
>> >to try convincing anyone of the supiriourity of the "white race", because we'd
>> >be well aware of it already. However, after at least one century of research
>> >concerning "racial" supiriourity, isn't it strange that they still haven't
>> >managed to dig up anything worthwhile?
>> We do have stupid ideas floating around like equality of everybody you know.  
>
>I see you preferred to dodge the question.
>
No, I did not.

>> >Since Africa is mainly African, there is no reason to assume that anyone else
>> >*but* the Africans built Great Zimbabwe. Dig up some old arab texts describing
>> >the commissioning and building of a large stone structure in southern Africa,
>> >then you might have something. But isn't it strange that arab merchants should
>> >build something like that in an architectural style unlike any found anywhere 
>> >else (at least outsideAfrica), and at the same time quite similar to the clay
>> >huts and villages commonly built by Africans to this very day?
>> So you are prejudiced.  If in Africa it must be blacks!
>
>If some large ruin was unearthed in central Europe, would it be acceptable to
>assume it was built by Europeans, or would you demand evidence in support of
>that claim? As long as there is no evidence that Great Zimbabwe was built by
>anyone else than the Africans, it is quite reasonable to assume that they did.
>
Uh huh.  Talk to me about dodging again.

>> BTW, it was built in stone which is not similar to huts and villages built
>> by (non-white influenced) Negroes.
>
>It is built in stone, yes, and the huts are usually built in straw and clay, 
>yes. I wasn't talking about the material. I was talking about the architecture.
>Great Zimbabwe is virtually without sharp corners and straight walls.
>Everything is round and wavy. Just as with the clay villages. In fact, that's
>what GZ resembles; a gigantic village built in stone. If GZ was built by the
>arabs, why does it not resemble their architecture more?
>
Did not one of the US President build in a Grecian style?  Does that mean
Greeks built it?
	
Ourobouros.



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

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

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

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