The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/m/mckinstry.colin/1996/stone.1096


From Ourobouros Tue Oct  1 08:35:28 PDT 1996
Article: 31866 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!news1.erols.com!howland.erols.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 30 Sep 1996 22:36:33 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 121
Message-ID: <52qal1$j0h@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$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> <52d93t$scl@lex.zippo.com> <52ov65$f2g@maud.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port867-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:45390 alt.politics.nationalism.white:31866

In article <52ov65$f2g@maud.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <52d93t$scl@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <52bp5j$ic2@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...

>> >> 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"?
> 
>Huh?
>
The playing dumb tactic again.

Is the word "rac-ist" still a pow-er-ful in-sult?

Do people recoil at being 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.
>
>You accuse me of belittling, right after emmitting yet another *sigh* intended
>to sound patronizing? IKWYABWAI, Ouro.
>
It would seem liberals have more fanaticism about the conspiracy than I do.
I rarely mention any notion of a conspiracy.  You and Judd seem more
concerned about it than I am.

>>  For once notice
>> the political climate.
>
>Meaning what?
>
"Open your eyes," as the expression goes.

>> >> >> 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?
>
>As far as I can see, it was a gradual awakening. Interprete that any way you
>like.
>
Uh huh.

I assume by "gradual awakening" you mean that we have correct enlightenment.

>>  And please don't resort to the conspiracy
>> either.  It would nice for you to construct a rational explanation for
>> once.
>
>Oh? Like calling people names when they do not take your wild claims at face
>value? 

If you and your comrades are so keen on calling me names, then I return
the compliment.

>Like referring to various scientists to support your views, when it
>turns out you've misunderstood them completely (C-S, for example)? 

I have yet to misunderstand them completely.  The only one that comes close
is the "four skin genes" and that was a only minor fault.  C-S did publish 
that it was thought that at least four genes different between white and 
black skin colour.

I have never claimed Cavalli-Sforza uses the term White race or any synonym
to it, nor have I placed 100% proof to Cavalli-Sforza PC (principle 
component) maps for racial differences.  The only thing I have maintained
is that it is a start to illustrate the genetic distances between the
races.

>Like your
>claims regarding the negroid brain? Like your habit of dodging difficult
>questions?
>
I have given "Morris' Human Anatomy."

To your questions bit:  I don't reply to dumb questions which are so
popular among liberals.

>> >> 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.
>
>Don't you already have your modern weapons?
>
No, we are a disarmed population.

>>  Afterall, we have improved the land a thousandfold (and probably
>> more).  They get the land they never knew about, we get our modern weapons.
>
>As I said before; sounds like a good deal (for the Maories, anyway). They get
>the land, you get the guns. I'm behind you on this, Ouro.
>
By modern weapons I mean more than gimmicky modern pop-guns.  

BTW, the word is "Maori", there is no plural except "the Maori", though it 
is common to use (incorrectly) "Maoris".  I mention this only because of
your repeated use of "Maories" and not because of any other point.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Oct  1 08:36:53 PDT 1996
Article: 45390 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!news1.erols.com!howland.erols.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 30 Sep 1996 22:36:33 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 121
Message-ID: <52qal1$j0h@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$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> <52d93t$scl@lex.zippo.com> <52ov65$f2g@maud.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port867-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:45390 alt.politics.nationalism.white:31866

In article <52ov65$f2g@maud.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <52d93t$scl@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <52bp5j$ic2@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...

>> >> 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"?
> 
>Huh?
>
The playing dumb tactic again.

Is the word "rac-ist" still a pow-er-ful in-sult?

Do people recoil at being 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.
>
>You accuse me of belittling, right after emmitting yet another *sigh* intended
>to sound patronizing? IKWYABWAI, Ouro.
>
It would seem liberals have more fanaticism about the conspiracy than I do.
I rarely mention any notion of a conspiracy.  You and Judd seem more
concerned about it than I am.

>>  For once notice
>> the political climate.
>
>Meaning what?
>
"Open your eyes," as the expression goes.

>> >> >> 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?
>
>As far as I can see, it was a gradual awakening. Interprete that any way you
>like.
>
Uh huh.

I assume by "gradual awakening" you mean that we have correct enlightenment.

>>  And please don't resort to the conspiracy
>> either.  It would nice for you to construct a rational explanation for
>> once.
>
>Oh? Like calling people names when they do not take your wild claims at face
>value? 

If you and your comrades are so keen on calling me names, then I return
the compliment.

>Like referring to various scientists to support your views, when it
>turns out you've misunderstood them completely (C-S, for example)? 

I have yet to misunderstand them completely.  The only one that comes close
is the "four skin genes" and that was a only minor fault.  C-S did publish 
that it was thought that at least four genes different between white and 
black skin colour.

I have never claimed Cavalli-Sforza uses the term White race or any synonym
to it, nor have I placed 100% proof to Cavalli-Sforza PC (principle 
component) maps for racial differences.  The only thing I have maintained
is that it is a start to illustrate the genetic distances between the
races.

>Like your
>claims regarding the negroid brain? Like your habit of dodging difficult
>questions?
>
I have given "Morris' Human Anatomy."

To your questions bit:  I don't reply to dumb questions which are so
popular among liberals.

>> >> 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.
>
>Don't you already have your modern weapons?
>
No, we are a disarmed population.

>>  Afterall, we have improved the land a thousandfold (and probably
>> more).  They get the land they never knew about, we get our modern weapons.
>
>As I said before; sounds like a good deal (for the Maories, anyway). They get
>the land, you get the guns. I'm behind you on this, Ouro.
>
By modern weapons I mean more than gimmicky modern pop-guns.  

BTW, the word is "Maori", there is no plural except "the Maori", though it 
is common to use (incorrectly) "Maoris".  I mention this only because of
your repeated use of "Maories" and not because of any other point.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Oct  1 15:01:10 PDT 1996
Article: 31884 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 30 Sep 1996 22:38:01 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 121
Message-ID: <52qanp$j0v@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$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> <52d93t$scl@lex.zippo.com> <52ov65$f2g@maud.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port867-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:45417 alt.politics.nationalism.white:31884

In article <52ov65$f2g@maud.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <52d93t$scl@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <52bp5j$ic2@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...

>> >> 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"?
> 
>Huh?
>
The playing dumb tactic again.

Is the word "rac-ist" still a pow-er-ful in-sult?

Do people recoil at being 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.
>
>You accuse me of belittling, right after emmitting yet another *sigh* intended
>to sound patronizing? IKWYABWAI, Ouro.
>
It would seem liberals have more fanaticism about the conspiracy than I do.
I rarely mention any notion of a conspiracy.  You and Judd seem more
concerned about it than I am.

>>  For once notice
>> the political climate.
>
>Meaning what?
>
"Open your eyes," as the expression goes.

>> >> >> 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?
>
>As far as I can see, it was a gradual awakening. Interprete that any way you
>like.
>
Uh huh.

I assume by "gradual awakening" you mean that we have correct enlightenment.

>>  And please don't resort to the conspiracy
>> either.  It would nice for you to construct a rational explanation for
>> once.
>
>Oh? Like calling people names when they do not take your wild claims at face
>value? 

If you and your comrades are so keen on calling me names, then I return
the compliment.

>Like referring to various scientists to support your views, when it
>turns out you've misunderstood them completely (C-S, for example)? 

I have yet to misunderstand them completely.  The only one that comes close
is the "four skin genes" and that was a only minor fault.  C-S did publish 
that it was thought that at least four genes different between white and 
black skin colour.

I have never claimed Cavalli-Sforza uses the term White race or any synonym
to it, nor have I placed 100% proof to Cavalli-Sforza PC (principle 
component) maps for racial differences.  The only thing I have maintained
is that it is a start to illustrate the genetic distances between the
races.

>Like your
>claims regarding the negroid brain? Like your habit of dodging difficult
>questions?
>
I have given "Morris' Human Anatomy."

To your questions bit:  I don't reply to dumb questions which are so
popular among liberals.

>> >> 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.
>
>Don't you already have your modern weapons?
>
No, we are a disarmed population.

>>  Afterall, we have improved the land a thousandfold (and probably
>> more).  They get the land they never knew about, we get our modern weapons.
>
>As I said before; sounds like a good deal (for the Maories, anyway). They get
>the land, you get the guns. I'm behind you on this, Ouro.
>
By modern weapons I mean more than gimmicky modern pop-guns.  

BTW, the word is "Maori", there is no plural except "the Maori", though it 
is common to use (incorrectly) "Maoris".  I mention this only because of
your repeated use of "Maories" and not because of any other point.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Oct  1 15:06:44 PDT 1996
Article: 45417 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!howland.erols.net!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 30 Sep 1996 22:38:01 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 121
Message-ID: <52qanp$j0v@lex.zippo.com>
References: <51f7gp$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> <52d93t$scl@lex.zippo.com> <52ov65$f2g@maud.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port867-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:45417 alt.politics.nationalism.white:31884

In article <52ov65$f2g@maud.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <52d93t$scl@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <52bp5j$ic2@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...

>> >> 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"?
> 
>Huh?
>
The playing dumb tactic again.

Is the word "rac-ist" still a pow-er-ful in-sult?

Do people recoil at being 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.
>
>You accuse me of belittling, right after emmitting yet another *sigh* intended
>to sound patronizing? IKWYABWAI, Ouro.
>
It would seem liberals have more fanaticism about the conspiracy than I do.
I rarely mention any notion of a conspiracy.  You and Judd seem more
concerned about it than I am.

>>  For once notice
>> the political climate.
>
>Meaning what?
>
"Open your eyes," as the expression goes.

>> >> >> 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?
>
>As far as I can see, it was a gradual awakening. Interprete that any way you
>like.
>
Uh huh.

I assume by "gradual awakening" you mean that we have correct enlightenment.

>>  And please don't resort to the conspiracy
>> either.  It would nice for you to construct a rational explanation for
>> once.
>
>Oh? Like calling people names when they do not take your wild claims at face
>value? 

If you and your comrades are so keen on calling me names, then I return
the compliment.

>Like referring to various scientists to support your views, when it
>turns out you've misunderstood them completely (C-S, for example)? 

I have yet to misunderstand them completely.  The only one that comes close
is the "four skin genes" and that was a only minor fault.  C-S did publish 
that it was thought that at least four genes different between white and 
black skin colour.

I have never claimed Cavalli-Sforza uses the term White race or any synonym
to it, nor have I placed 100% proof to Cavalli-Sforza PC (principle 
component) maps for racial differences.  The only thing I have maintained
is that it is a start to illustrate the genetic distances between the
races.

>Like your
>claims regarding the negroid brain? Like your habit of dodging difficult
>questions?
>
I have given "Morris' Human Anatomy."

To your questions bit:  I don't reply to dumb questions which are so
popular among liberals.

>> >> 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.
>
>Don't you already have your modern weapons?
>
No, we are a disarmed population.

>>  Afterall, we have improved the land a thousandfold (and probably
>> more).  They get the land they never knew about, we get our modern weapons.
>
>As I said before; sounds like a good deal (for the Maories, anyway). They get
>the land, you get the guns. I'm behind you on this, Ouro.
>
By modern weapons I mean more than gimmicky modern pop-guns.  

BTW, the word is "Maori", there is no plural except "the Maori", though it 
is common to use (incorrectly) "Maoris".  I mention this only because of
your repeated use of "Maories" and not because of any other point.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Thu Oct  3 10:52:16 PDT 1996
Article: 45625 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news1.wtn.mci.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) [long]
Date: 2 Oct 1996 12:14:11 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 189
Message-ID: <52ueu3$n19@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> <52p5uh$fh7@lex.zippo.com> <52qu1h$7hs@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <52ruh1$514@lex.zippo.com> <52u93o$5f9@gyda.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port883-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <52u93o$5f9@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <52ruh1$514@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <52qu1h$7hs@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>> >> 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.
>> >First of all, you'd have to demonstrate that there is such a thing as a "white
>> >race". As for these "dolichocephalic" skulls, are they found among *all*
>> >caucasians, or only among the germanic tribes?
>> I don't equate Caucasians = White race.
>
>Good for you.
>
>>  Celtic, Germanic, Scandinavian,
>> Finns (not Lapps) and a few others have dolichocephalic skulls.
>
>And what are the distinguishing features of a "dolichocephalic skull"?
>
The cephalic index.  This should have been obvious.  

>> >> >>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.
>> >
>> >How about a photo of that gold mask that was found in his tomb? You can find
>> >it at:
>> >	http://www.arab.net/photos/tutankhamunmask.html
>> >
>> >Are you going to tell me this guy was "white"? The lips are certainly
>> >"thickish". I'd say he's what you'd call a "mongrel".
>> Apart from the poor quality, no.
>
>Oh, come on! Unless you're using a truely shitty monitor, that picture is
>more than good enough to see the features of his face.
>
I have seen much better pictures of his death mask than that.

>>  Nor does his death mask have lips that
>> compare with Negroes.
>
>Maybe you should take another look. Oh, I forgot, you're only interested in
>the stereotypes. Most *real* negroes have lips about the same size as those
>depicted in Tutankhamun's mask. But since they don't fit with your
>stereotypes, they can't *real* negroes, can they?
>
His death mask's lips are small compared to a Negro's lips.

>Seems you'll say anything to avoid admitting that the egyptians weren't
>"white".
>
Uh huh.  More like you are clutching at straws.

>>  It most certainly doesn't have a flat nose which
>> so many liberals here have tried to claim either.
>
>No. The nose is narrow, like those of present-day Ethiopians (who certainly
>aren't "white").
>
You'll be surprised at how many people have posted that Tutankhamun's death
mask has Negroid features of both nose and lips.  One wonders whether they
have even bothered to look or are just parroting somebody else.

>> I notice you snipped the reference to Piankhy and Dynasty XII.  Afraid
>> of something?
>
>No. I just didn't see the purpose of replying to the same comment twice just
>because you decided to post it twice (on two seperate threads).
>
>> The Egyptians of Dynasty XII were extremely xenophobic and they discriminate
>> heavily on skin colour.  An attitude that doesn't disappear until quite
>> late on the scene.
>
>This still does not prove that they were "white". Racism isn't restricted to
>"whites", you know. Just because they discriminate against people with skin
>darken than their own does not make them "white".
>
It does demonstrate that they aren't Black.  So many of your compatriots
believe that the Egyptians were Black -- because Egypt is in Africa.

>And do you have any evidence of their racism? Regardless of whether you have
>this evidence, do you find "extremely xenophobic" to be a positive attribute?

Yes.
>
>> >> Well I'm afraid the Mayan calender (non religious one) is actually
>> >> similar to the Egyptian one.
>> >A "non-religious" Mayan calender? Was there ever such a thing? Please,
>> >describe it to us. And describe the Egyptian calender while you're at it.
>
>Here's another of Ouro's attempts at imitating an adult:
>
If you bothered putting together intelligent statements then I wouldn't
use *sigh*.

>>                    *sigh*
>
>> The Mesoamerican societies had two calenders.  The religious calender was
>> based on 260 days.
>
>And the "non-religious calender"? Aren't you going to describe it to us?
>
It was a solar calender (like the Egyptian's calender) based on 365 days.

>Here's a drawing of the Aztec calender:
>
>	http://copan.bioz.unibas.ch/meso/sunstone.jpg
>
>Can you provide us with a drawing/phot of an Egyptian calendar that has the 
>least resemblance to that?

Since I am not interesting in scouring the Web fulfilling your requests, no.

>Here's a web page on the Mayan calender:
>
>	http://www.astro.uva.nl/michielb/maya/calendar.html
>
>Can you find any similarities between that and the Egyptian calender? Other
>than the number of days, that is...
>
Perhaps.  I have yet to delve into the exact details of either.  Both used
astronomical settings for their calenders and both were solar calenders of
365 day years.

>And while we're on the subject of "whites" in mesoamerica, take a look at this
>site. Read it. Tell us what you think:
>
>	http://copan.bioz.unibas.ch/meso/whitepeople.html
>
The author is against Whites being in America before Columbus.

We have albinos, mutations and so forth as explanations for the oddities 
that point out Whites before Columbus.  Neither does he like Fell (at
least he uses "IMHO") nor has he read "Kon tiki" or "Ra" based upon his
arguments (or at least ignored parts that didn't fit his bias).

>> The Egyptian calender was based upon the dog star, an astronomical setting
>> that gave them a 365 day year (which I have already mentioned).
>
>And what makes it so similar to the Mesoamerican calender?
>
Solar calender, 365 days.

>> >> >>>1.  The rocket
>> >> >>>2.  The knife
>> >> >>>3.  The axe
>> >> >>>4.  The spear
>> >> >>>5. The bow and arrow
>> >> >>>6. Cloth weaving
>> >> >>>7. Metalworking
>> >> >>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.
>> >Why should we have to disprove a statement you can't back up in the first
>> >place? As for axes and spears, these weapons/tools were not only not invented
>> >by "whites", they predate humans altogether. Just like firebuilding. 
>> So you believe in something like Martians?
>
>Don't be silly.
>
>Have you never heard of evolution? Many of the pre-humans were tool-wielders.
>
So they had axes and spears?

[snip]

>> >By all
>> >likelyhood, the same goes for knives. As for bows, arrows, and clothesweaving,
>> >I think it likely that they first appeared in Africa.
>> If you consider Egypt as part of Africa then you may have a case.  The 
>> Negroes (at the time of Dynasty XII) didn't have bows, arrows or clothes-
>> weaving until the Egyptians conquered Nubia.
>
>And you can provide some documentation of this?
>
The dynasty XII documents themselves.  They give all sorts of reasons why
Negroes should be despised -- Black skin, woolly hair, animal skins and the
like for clothes, feeble dwelling places, and so forth.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sat Oct  5 09:53:00 PDT 1996
Article: 45750 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news1.wtn!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: White MENcreated everything
Date: 4 Oct 1996 13:50:43 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <533tb3$192@lex.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port838-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <5309mf$3bb@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>Perhaps.  I have yet to delve into the exact details of either.  Both used
>>astronomical settings for their calenders and both were solar calenders of
>>365 day years.
>
>You have "yet to delve into the exact details of either", yet you claim that
>because the two calendars are "so similar", they constitute evidence that
>the Maya calendar was the product of Old World minds?  This kind of argument
>is about on par with the one about pyramids - both bigger at the bottom and
>smaller at the bottom, and this is an "overwhelming similarity".  Any common
>denominator working here?  Like gravity and in the second case, and the time
>it takes earth revolve around the sun in the first?  Any chance that is what
>explains the similarities observed?
>
Demonstrate where I have said that the calenders are "overwhelming similar"
or "so similar".  I have said they have similarities which is not what you
are suggesting.

As for the pyramid argument, please read "Fingerprints of the Gods."

As I have suggested to you before, please read the relevant pages of "Ra"
(I gave them before).

Please stop putting words into my mouth.
>
>>>Have you never heard of evolution? Many of the pre-humans were tool-wielders.
>
>>So they had axes and spears?
>
>Ever heard of Aucheulian handaxes?
>
No, explain them.  Do they have holes in head for pieces of wood or are
we talking about clubs and stone daggers?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sat Oct  5 09:53:01 PDT 1996
Article: 45751 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news1.wtn!newsfeed.internetmci.com!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: White MEN created everything
Date: 4 Oct 1996 14:29:17 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <533vjd$387@lex.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port838-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <5317ir$498@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>How may times do I have to say this: "white" as in paler than the next guy. If
>>>the "next guy" is dark brown, then someone who is light brown may well be
>>>called "white". And to repeat a question you've avoided so far: By "white"
>>>skin, do you mean "white" as in snow? As in chalk?
>
>>Uh huh.  So why didn't the poem simply say "light brown", "lighter than 
>>me" or some other synonym?
>
>I trust your proffered translation from the ancient Egyptian as much as I
>did your deconstruction of the word "Aztec" to mean "white people".  Where
>did you come up with that particular fiction, anyway, "Mr. Stone"?
>
I quoted B. Watterson for the poem "Finsten" so please shut up.  If you
care to look through some old posts you'll find the poem.  Please notice
the likeness of her fingers to the lotus.  Would either Mr. Lund or
yourself care to tell the world what colour a lotus flower is?  If you
say brown or any synonym to brown, I am going to laugh until my throat
hurts.

As to your difficulty to the word Aztec:  I have got the word "Azt" meaning
"white" from a number of sources, including the Encyclopedia Britannica, but
I have not quoted from any to date.  This will wait until I have time to
find at least five books that state "Azt" means "white."  I will also 
hopefully have a reference to the dictionary I have mentioned before as 
well.

>>>If you're assuming that the EB is correct in some places, and not in others,
>>>what makes you think *you* know what is correct and what is not?
>
>>Why not?
>
>Because you have a poor track record?
>
And who are you to judge from your poor past track record?

>>Do Europeans have predominantly recessive genes?  Do Negroes have 
>>predominantly dominant genes?
>
>For which traits, "Mr. Stone", or is this another of you ill-thought out
>rhetorical questions?
>
Uh huh.

More playing dumb tactics.

Who has the dominant skin colour, eye colours, nose shape and so forth?

>>If a non European people built x buildings (which was unearthed) then we
>>could expect to see traces of those people today.
>
>>Negroes having predominantly genes would indicate the opposite.
>
>Please explain the connections between construction of "x building" and some
>totally unspecified "predominantly genes".
>
                 *sigh*

I am not arguing which genes built "x building", instead if Blacks built
a building in central Europe (ages ago) then we will still expect to see
residues of those particular traits still in the population.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sat Oct  5 13:51:46 PDT 1996
Article: 45777 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news1.wtn!news.internetMCI.com!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: Christopher Henrik Lund:  A God among us mortals (was: White MEN...
Date: 4 Oct 1996 23:27:49 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <534v55$s0b@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$6hd@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <52p7fb$gmu@lex.zippo.com> <52r0re$bm0@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <52s1nt$7h3@lex.zippo.com> <5310mp$3io@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <534evo$fou@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port857-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <534evo$fou@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> O' enlightened one, the 13th Messiah*, please allow me to bask in your
>> omniscient light.  You who knows everything and has come forth to show
>> men the error of their ways.  We are not worthy to recieve your
>> grandiose and sophisticated words, please forgive us.  You are Ra and
>> Apollo incarnate.  You are Nebo and Thoth returned.  How could we be
>> so ignorant for so many years.
>
>  "You need to improve your sarcasm."   - 'Ourobouros' himself
>
Very good.

Any suggestions on improvement or is this an empty comment?  BTW, it was 
delibrately laid on thick. You should have included the other comment as 
well.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sat Oct 12 12:08:00 PDT 1996
Article: 46315 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news1.wtn.mci.net!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.vivanet.com!myth.vianet.on.ca!news2.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-pen-4.sprintlink.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: White MEN created everything
Date: 11 Oct 1996 13:19:41 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <53ma4t$rgv@lex.zippo.com>
References: <533udu$271@lex.zippo.com> <535hgt$49u@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <536kst$iep@lex.zippo.com> <53dpnp$s4r@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <53edv4$pm8@lex.zippo.com> <53l9c0$d6a@maud.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port844-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <53l9c0$d6a@maud.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <53edv4$pm8@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <53dpnp$s4r@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>> >So he has thin lips when seen from the side, and thick lips when seen from the
>> >front. I have to see that to believe it.
>> The two pictures you gave are from one angle only and therefore you are
>> making all your conclusion on that one angle.
>
>You still haven't explained why his lips look thick from one angle and thin
>from the other.
>
Which way should width be calculated?  Along the face, or along the jaw?

>> Here seems a good a place than any.
>> 
>> Tutankhamun/Tutankhaten was the real successor of Amunhotep IV/Ankhaten.
>> Amunhotep IV was the man reasonable for bringing a monothiestic religion
>> upon Egypt (a sun cult).  In so bringing this new religion he radically
>> changes the art (my assumption).  Both he and his wife are displayed in
>> most unusual ways.  Some of the pictures would make you believe they were 
>> (half) Negro, others (especially Nefertiti) are of perfect (north) European 
>> type.  The King typically displays himself as effeminate (pregnant, wide 
>> hips & thighs, and feminine facial features).  He also is the first king to 
>> have himself depicted as affectionate towards his children (had six 
>> daughters).  His queen is typically depicted as a perfect north European
>> (though not always).
>
>I have never claimed that there were no euros in Egypt. Only that the majority
>were not. Your post tells me nothing I didn't know before.
>
Please prove that only a minority of Egyptians were of european type.

[Nefertiti]

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Oct 13 10:31:02 PDT 1996
Article: 46367 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news1.wtn.mci.net!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!zdc-e!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Even aluminum foil's now kosher nowadays! [was: Re: Two Questions for Charles (Month 4)]
Date: 10 Oct 1996 20:03:42 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <53kdee$pbe@lex.zippo.com>
References: <535f3o$5mj@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <535rmk$82i@tor-nn1-hb0.netcom.ca> <5365ro$qtb@news1.panix.com> <538hir$rr9@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>  <539eus$4i1@lex.zippo.com>  <539toe$ff7@lex.zippo.com> <53bb7v$g01@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <53cmml$3kq@lex.zippo.com> <53df97$2ib@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <53fcpp$k4b@lex.zippo.com> <53inff$3js@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port831-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:46367 alt.politics.nationalism.white:32777

In article <53inff$3js@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <53df97$2ib@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>>>>So please tell us what stage(s) of production that non-kosher grape-wines 
>>>>touch(es) "unclean" elements?
>
>>>>Do they use pigs for crushing the grapes or something?
>
>>>Here's the question, folks.  Is "Mr. Stone" just playing dumb, or is he
>>>really as dense as this suggests?
>
>>The second question is purely sarcastic.  Nice try though.
>
>No, "Mr. Stone", my question was not intended to be sarcastic.  

"Finsten" how many questions did you write (1 or 2)?  My question was
sarcastic.  Yet more proof that the fault between us is your lack of
understanding rather than my supposedly poor semantics.

>And now that
>you confirm that you are genuinely serious with your question, you have in 
>fact provided me with an indirect answer to mine.  Thank you.
>
It is amusing to watch how you draw conclusions.

>>Are you going to attempt to answer the first question?
>
>No.
>
Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Oct 13 10:31:03 PDT 1996
Article: 46368 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news1.wtn.mci.net!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!zdc-e!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Effigies and "Brown"
Date: 10 Oct 1996 20:17:25 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <53ke85$pl1@lex.zippo.com>
References: <52svud$1bf@lex.zippo.com> <52udlp$qek@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <53139p$94s@lex.zippo.com> <533m36$q2c@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <534ukg$rk8@lex.zippo.com> <53aoq4$qod@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <53bggr$3nd@lex.zippo.com> <53dj2c$2ib@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <53fglt$muj@lex.zippo.com> <53iuka$8nv@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port831-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <53iuka$8nv@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <53dj2c$2ib@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>[...]
>
>>>>An earlier sentence of yours "No this..." had correct syntax, but you'll
>>>>note the semantics were wrong once more.
>
>>>Try reading the sentence without the "I", which was inadvertently left in
>>>when I decided mid-sentence to write it differently.  Perhaps then you
>>>can get the meaning, and drop this silly flame.
>
>>I had no problem deducing that "I" was incorrect, instead I was illustrating
>>your poor semantic skills.  Don't expect to me to stand idly by while you
>>make all sorts of allegations, "Finsten."  I will use your "weapons" against
>>you.
>
>No, by your own admission you were deliberately misreading a sentence which
>you knew was correct but contained a typo.  

Almost there "Finsten", I was mocking you instead.  If you want to pretend
that my semantics are poor then I will show up your poor semantic skills.

>My only expectation is that you
>will continue to spew your nonsense and drivel, providing hours of amusement
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>and entertainment pleasure for the readers of this newsgroup.  And I'm sure
>you won't disappoint, "Mr. Stone".
>
And we are to believe you don't "spew your nonsense and drivel" on these
newsgroups?

Which side do you think gets the entertainment, my side who sees you
consistently mocked by the very weapons you supposedly champion, or your
side whose only polished "skill" is hypocrisy?

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Mon Oct 14 09:58:16 PDT 1996
Article: 46462 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news1.wtn.mci.net!pull-feed.internetmci.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.texas.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: White MENcreated everything
Date: 11 Oct 1996 12:56:05 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 122
Message-ID: <53m8ol$qum@lex.zippo.com>
References: <533tb3$192@lex.zippo.com> <536gdi$hml@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <539ppc$cg5@lex.zippo.com> <53bpvn$1oa@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <53cosr$5d5@lex.zippo.com> <53dft1$2ib@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <53fdoe$kst@lex.zippo.com> <53jo0u$sus@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port844-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <53jo0u$sus@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <53dft1$2ib@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>
[lengths and months of Egyptian versus Mesoamerican calenders]

>>Other *evidence* is the emphasize on the Sun.  While other mythologies 
>>have the Sun playing an important role (e.g., Apollo: Oracle of Delphi),
>>both these "cultures" (for a lack of a better word) have the Sun as
>>the important God.  Remember both are Solar calenders.
>
>The *Maya*, who preceded the Aztecs by more than a thousand years, the sun 
>was but one of many deities, "Mr. Stone", and had no particular importance
>or prominence.
>
I will have to go through my notes on mythology again for that.  I will
state here that the Egyptians also wavered concerning the prominence of
the Sun depending on the time period.  For example, Dynasty V were really
the first to make Ra (Re) worship "universal" in Egypt.

>And the sun *was* the most prominent deity among the Inca, yet they did
>not have a solar year.  So the connection you make between the religious
>prominence of the sun and the 365 day solar is extremely weak.
>
Perhaps.  So what did the Incas have?
>
>>>>>And I have never said that you claimed "overwhelming similarities" in their
>>>>>calendars, "Mr. Stone".  Perhaps you might stop putting words in my mouth,
>>>>>as well.
> 
>>>>So you deny you wrote this (message ID not needed as it still should exist
>>>>on everybody's newserver).
>
>>>>Begin quote:
>
>>>>You have "yet to delve into the exact details of either", yet you claim that
>>>>because the two calendars are "so similar", they constitute evidence that
>>>>the Maya calendar was the product of Old World minds?  This kind of argument
>>>>is about on par with the one about pyramids - both bigger at the bottom and
>                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>smaller at the bottom, and this is an "overwhelming similarity".  Any common
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>denominator working here?  Like gravity and in the second case, and the time
>>>>it takes earth revolve around the sun in the first?  Any chance that is what
>>>>explains the similarities observed?
>
>>>>End quote.
>
>>>>Please note "so similar" and "overwhelming similarity".  Two part-phrases
>>>>that I never made in connection with the two calenders.
>
>>>>You're a liar, plain and simple.
>
>>>Oh dear.  You really can't read.  I've taken the liberty of underscoring
>>>part of the sentence in which I repeated your use of the phrase "overwhelming
>>>similarity".  
>
[snip]

>>>Can you see now that it is talking about pyramids, "Mr.
>>>Stone"?  No, you didn't use this phrase to describe the two calendars.  And
>>>I never said that you did.  
>
>>So what does "...on par with..." mean?
>
>Oh, how about "of the same calibre as"?  In other words, your argument
>equating the Egyptian and Mesoamerican calendars is as lame as your
>argument equating Egyptian and Mesoamerican pyramids.
>
Ignoring the argument I see.

>>>You used the phrase "quite similar".  How 
>>>exactly, in terms of semantic, does that differ from "so similar"?  What
>>>is the purpose of quibbling over this?  You implied a likely Old World
>>>origin for the Maya calendar.  Now you're trying to get out of the hole
>>>you've dug for yourself.
>
>>In what context did I use "quite similar"?
>
>Interesting that you should ask that after editing out the part where I
>reproduced this.  Here it is one more time, courtesy of DejaNews:
>
To do a "Brown" where is the word "quite"?

>Subject:      Re: White MEN created everything (II) [long]
>From:         Ourobouros
>Date:         1996/09/30
>Message-Id:   <52p5uh$fh7@lex.zippo.com>
>
>[Edited for brevity - LF]
>
>>>>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.
>
>
>[Remainder deleted for brevity-LF]
>
>Is there supposed to be something significant about this?  Other than 
>your waffling around, I mean?  Are you now saying that you were not
>implying that the similarities suggest to you an Old World origin for
>the Mesoamerican calendar?
>
I said what I said.  The Mayan calender is actually similar to the Egyptian
one.  It does suggest that the ancient Egyptians helped set up the solar
calender used in Mesoamerica.  As I said earlier, "feasible."  It does not
mean 100% certainity as you are trying to make me assert.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Mon Oct 14 09:58:18 PDT 1996
Article: 46463 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news1.wtn.mci.net!pull-feed.internetmci.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.texas.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: White MEN created everything II [longer]
Date: 11 Oct 1996 13:14:15 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 141
Message-ID: <53m9qn$r8u@lex.zippo.com>
References: <536mlo$jq7@lex.zippo.com> <53drsh$1ak@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <53effl$r0b@lex.zippo.com> <53l8kf$950@maud.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port844-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <53l8kf$950@maud.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <53effl$r0b@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <53drsh$1ak@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...

[cephalic index]

>>  As to
>> your claim of irrelevance, please prove so.
>
>The CI merely states the width to length ratio. It says nothing of the various
>bulges and dimples peculiar to each ethnic group. Yes, some groups may have a
>dominance of a particular range of CIs, but they overlap. The CI is not enough
>to determine which ethic group someon comes from, nor does it give a very good
>description of the scull. And it says nothing at all of the brain volume.
>
The cephalic index is one determinable measurement.

>	[snip]
>
>> >So are the Somalis "white"? Could not Tutenkhamun have belonged to the same
>> >ethnic group?
>> How?  This is the 18th Dynasty and Blacks are still despised.  Not even the
>> effeminate Ankhaten brooks rebellion of the Negro slaves -- the only Negroes
>> in Egypt at the time.
>
>But according to you, the Somalis are not "blacks", they are "mongrels". Thus
>bigotry you claim was rampant during those times would not affect them.
>
The Somalis are black as the ace of spades.

>BTW; I have not seen any references to this bigotry other than the claims you
>have been making, so I am not convinced there ever was such a thing.
>
You are looking for texts concerning Sesostris I & III.

>	[extreme xenophobia]
>
>> >You concider "extreme xenophobia" to be of the good. I looked "phobia" up in 
>> >Webster's:
>> >
>> >	"pho.bia \'fo--be--*\ n [NL, fr. LL -phobia, fr. Gk, fr. -phobos 
>> >	fearing, fr. phobos]fear, flight; akin to Gk phebesthai to flee, 
>> >	be frightened, Lith be.gti to flee : an exaggerated usu. inexplicable
>> >	and illogical fear of a particular object or class of objects"
>> >
>> >Then I looked up "xenophobia":
>> >
>> >	"xeno.pho.bia \.zen-*-'fo--be--*\ n [NL] : fear and hatred of 
>> >	strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign"
>> >
>> >In other words, you concider having an extreme, inexplicable, illogical fear
>> >and hatred of anything strange and foreign to be positive attribute. This
>> >isn't about political correctness, this is about having a neurotic disorder
>> >that can be treated.
>> >
>> Xenophobia is the wrong word then.
>
>No. It is a highly appropriate word.
>
>>  It should be a word that means "Hatred 
>> of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign" as
>> they certainly didn't fear Nubians.
>
>Hate and fear are closely linked, Ouro, as hate is often based in fear. The
>word you are looking for is "xenophobia".
>
Or so they say.  Sometimes hate is based on fear, but I severely doubt the
Egyptians would have feared the Nubians (until much, much later).

>> >	[calendars]
>
>> >Again, a simpe call to your local search engine would take only a minute. Not
>> >hours. As for "something that might not yet be available", that probably
>> >includes most of your "evidence".
>> >
>> I got over 7,000 hits (using Egypt + calender or Egypt & calender) I am
>> not interested at present in going through them.
>
>I did not ask you to go through *all* the hits. Two or three should have been
>enough. But of course, the "7000 hits" line was a convenient way to duck the
>issue.
>
"Two or three" isn't enough.
 
>> As for your latter part, are you hinting that all the information of the 
>> world is on the Web?
>
>Nope. But don't you find it strange that you are the only one who can't seem
>to find anything on the web to support your claims? Particularily when we're
>discussing egyptology and archaeology. There's quite a lot of information on
>both subjects out there.
>
I don't use the Web all that often as I find quite boring.

>	[calender stuff dealt with in other postings]
>
>> >> >> >> If you consider Egypt as part of Africa then you may have a case.  The 
>> >> >> >> Negroes (at the time of Dynasty XII) didn't have bows, arrows or clothes-
>> >> >> >> weaving until the Egyptians conquered Nubia.
>> >> >> >And you can provide some documentation of this?
>> >> >> The dynasty XII documents themselves.  They give all sorts of reasons why
>> >> >> Negroes should be despised -- Black skin, woolly hair, animal skins and the
>> >> >> like for clothes, feeble dwelling places, and so forth.
>> >> >You described those people as being "extremely xenophobic". That makes it
>> >> >quite likely that ther descriptions were based on prejudices, not factual
>> >> >reality.
>> >> Your proof of your allegations is?
>> >Your use of the phrase "extremely xenophobic".
>> You'll need to do better than that.  They might have had a very good reason
>> to do so.
>
>The "xenophobia" bit is all the evidence I need.
>
I nice blanket statement btw.  Unfortunately it doesn't cut ice.

>> >If the nearest African tribes didn't build more that simple huts, and had no 
>> >means of writing, the egyptians (being bigots) would very likely have
>> >exaggerated their "sub-humanity", and made them sound even more
>> >materialisticly primitive than they arleady were. 
>> Of course anyone that disagrees with your ideals must be a bigot.
>
>Not if they can provide evidence supporting their views.
>
ROFL.

>> >Besides, even if the tribes
>> >immediatly south of Egypt didn't have bows and arrows, that does not prove
>> >that the peoples further south didn't either.
>> Could we have proof.  The Nubians were the most likely to be more advanced
>> than their "brothers" down south, simply from some Egyptians trading with 
>> them for baubles and the like (an assumption by me).
>
>If that's an assumption by you, maybe you should provide any evidence of that
>before I bother to try disproving it.
>
You doubt there was trade between the two?  

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Mon Oct 14 14:17:25 PDT 1996
Article: 46530 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news1.wtn.mci.net!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: White MEN created everything
Date: 12 Oct 1996 14:05:56 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <53p17k$h5n@lex.zippo.com>
References: <533udu$271@lex.zippo.com> <535hgt$49u@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <536kst$iep@lex.zippo.com> <53dpnp$s4r@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <53edv4$pm8@lex.zippo.com> <53l9c0$d6a@maud.ifi.uio.no> <53ma4t$rgv@lex.zippo.com> <53o17v$74t@gyda.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port849-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <53o17v$74t@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <53ma4t$rgv@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <53l9c0$d6a@maud.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>> >> >So he has thin lips when seen from the side, and thick lips when seen from the
>> >> >front. I have to see that to believe it.
>> >> The two pictures you gave are from one angle only and therefore you are
>> >> making all your conclusion on that one angle.
>> >You still haven't explained why his lips look thick from one angle and thin
>> >from the other.
>> Which way should width be calculated?  Along the face, or along the jaw?
>
>I know the difference between the thickness of the lips and the width of the
>mouth, thank you.
>
>BTW: What do you mean by "along the face"?
>
If say the body is entombed east (feet) to west (head) and face up (face
facing the sky) can you work it out.  By "along the face" I mean the
dimensions of the lips in that direction.  All you have done is present
pictures (and make bold assertions) of so-called Negro lip size based on 
one direction only.  I claim they are still too small for Negro lips even 
on that frontal view.  I can also claim that the lip type came from 
Akhenaten's heretical reign. 

>	[snap]
>
>> >I have never claimed that there were no euros in Egypt. Only that the majority
>> >were not. Your post tells me nothing I didn't know before.
>> Please prove that only a minority of Egyptians were of european type.
>
>Maybe you should try looking at the pictures the Egyptians made of themselves.
>That's proof enough. If the avegrave Egyptian was "white", why did they
>portray themselves as being reddish-brown with black hair?
>
Hair:  From about Dynasty XII onwards they wore wigs.  I would assume the
original colour is blue (lapis lazuli), not black (consider the poem
again, women have ideally blue hair).

Reddish-brown is one colour of a White man.  Something that is not a 
colour of any other race.

>And in addition to the pictures, there's your lack of proof...
>
Only in your dreams.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Oct 15 11:05:22 PDT 1996
Article: 46621 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Unchanging Polynesians ("Finsten") -- repost
Date: 14 Oct 1996 23:23:15 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <53vakj$n23@lex.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port816-auck.ihug.co.nz

For "Finsten":

"The New Zealand Herald", Saturday, March 2 1996

 10 YEARS' JAIL FOR HITCHHIKER WHO RAPED MALE MOTORIST

   A hitchhiker who raped a male motorist who picked him up felt he had
 been taken over by "spiritual forces beyond his control," a lawyer,
 Marie Dyhrberg, told the high court at Auckland yesterday.
   She told Justice Elias that her client, Siliileao Maulolo, also
 known as Trevor Maxwell Maulolo, considered that his lifestyle was
 "wicked."
   He felt that he suffered from a curse called "malaia" in which
 victims were taken over by spiritual forces beyond their control.
 This had been recognised as an unquestioned social reality in Western
 Samoa and it was now being recognised by Western health experts (as
 afflicting some Samoans).
   Maulolo, age 28, unemployed of Lower Hutt, appeared for sentencing on
 two charges of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and one
 of kidnapping.  He had pleaded guilty.
   The judge said the victim picked up Malolo near Wellsford and was
 repaid for his kindness by being raped and forced to commit oral sex.
 Sentencing Malolo to 10 years imprisonment, she said her main
 consideration was the protection of the public.  It had been a
 particularly horrifying and prolonged crime.
   For the Crown, Mr Lester Cordwell had said that the "starting point"
 for sentence should be 8 years jail.  Marie Dyhrberg said that Malolo
 had been abused sexually and physically as a child.

Have Samoans changed from the description given in B. Danielsson's book,
"Finsten"?

Which Western society wants "malaia" in their society?  Perhaps we should
accept it because it is cultural?

BTW, the Judge is an Armenian Jewess married to Sir Hugh Fletcher, who
sits on the (NZ) business roundtable.  The Canadians would better know
him for his company "Fletcher Challenge." -- The Canadian's favourite
lumbering company.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Tue Oct 15 20:46:35 PDT 1996
Article: 46670 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Unchanging Polynesians ("Finsten") -- repost
Date: 15 Oct 1996 16:15:45 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <5415v1$fp8@lex.zippo.com>
References: <53vakj$n23@lex.zippo.com>  <540oeq$51j@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port841-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <540oeq$51j@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> Once again you have conveniently snipped.  Please review the original post
>> where "malaia" is mentioned.  Why do you always seem to clip out the core
>> piece in an argument, is it because you are afraid that your response will
>> show up your idiocy?
>
>"Stone" could try answering the question I've asked of many racists on Usenet: 
>
>  What do the actions of one member of any group prove about any other member
>  of that group?
>
>I doubt he will -- I have yet to find a racist who will respond honestly
>to that question. But it is within the realm of possibility.
>
>"Stone" has dodged the question once now. Let's just wait and see...
>
No "Brown,"  I have not dodged.  You have conveniently snipped.  I have
told you to re-read the part concerning "malaia" but you have chosen to
ignore sound advice.

Please stop posting your bullshit, as you are not fooling no-one.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Sat Oct 19 12:13:41 PDT 1996
Article: 47028 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!mr.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Unchanging Polynesians ("Finsten") -- repost
Date: 18 Oct 1996 14:15:13 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <548s11$9ja@lex.zippo.com>
References: <53vakj$n23@lex.zippo.com> <541b4d$1hk@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <5436ll$s5a@lex.zippo.com> <54564e$b22@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port860-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <54564e$b22@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, ai433@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says...
>
>
> (Ourobouros) writes:
>> In article <541b4d$1hk@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, ai433@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says...
>>>
>>>
>>> (Ourobouros) writes:
>>>
>>>[his usual nazi crap]
>>>
>> Curious.  What part of it was nazi?
>
>Your agenda is obvious. Don't play around. Or are you ashamed to stand up
>for what you believe in?
>
Perhaps you'd like to prove I'm a Nat-see.
>> 
>>>> Have Samoans changed from the description given in B. Danielsson's book,
>>>> "Finsten"?
>>>> 
>>>> Which Western society wants "malaia" in their society?  Perhaps we should
>>>> accept it because it is cultural?
>>>
>>>Let's pretend that I have just posted an article about Jeffrey Daumer.
>>>Now: is pedophilic cannibalism something we want in our society,
>>>"Ourobouros"? Should we accept it because it is "cultural"? Have whites
>>>changed since his conviction and sentence?
>>>
>> Please explain how one "unquestioned social reality" is the same as
>> Daumer's crimes?
>
>The "unquestioned social reality" is the existence of what we would call
>in our culture "criminal insanity." Or do you have stats indicating that
>"malaia" is the *norm* in Samoa? Funny, I don't remember reading that in
>Margaret Mead...
>
"Malaia" is accepted in Western Somoa.  Criminal insanity is not
accepted (except for liberals) in Western society.  Perhaps Margeret
Mead is painting a rosy coloured picture.

>PS: Interesting that the Samoan individual in question was living in NZ.
>Have any stats about the Maori? No, thought not.
>
When did stats come into the argument?

The police once upon a time used to publish the various crimes and their
ethnic composition, but it was judged as racially offensive.  I could 
tell you the prison population is mainly Maori, then Polynesian, but
there are no official statistics, because they aren't available to the
public and so you'd have to visit the prisons themselves to check the
numbers.

Before political stupidity moved in, the Maori were tops in rape cases (in
NZ).

Reminds me of a joke:

Q. What does a Maori get after having sex?
A. 12 years.

Ourobouros.








From Ourobouros Sat Oct 19 12:13:41 PDT 1996
Article: 47031 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!newspump.sol.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Unchanging Polynesians ("Finsten") -- repost
Date: 18 Oct 1996 14:15:14 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <548s12$99h@lex.zippo.com>
References: <53vakj$n23@lex.zippo.com> <541b4d$1hk@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <5436ll$s5a@lex.zippo.com> <54564e$b22@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port860-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <54564e$b22@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, ai433@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says...
>
>
> (Ourobouros) writes:
>> In article <541b4d$1hk@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, ai433@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says...
>>>
>>>
>>> (Ourobouros) writes:
>>>
>>>[his usual nazi crap]
>>>
>> Curious.  What part of it was nazi?
>
>Your agenda is obvious. Don't play around. Or are you ashamed to stand up
>for what you believe in?
>
Perhaps you'd like to prove I'm a Nat-see.
>> 
>>>> Have Samoans changed from the description given in B. Danielsson's book,
>>>> "Finsten"?
>>>> 
>>>> Which Western society wants "malaia" in their society?  Perhaps we should
>>>> accept it because it is cultural?
>>>
>>>Let's pretend that I have just posted an article about Jeffrey Daumer.
>>>Now: is pedophilic cannibalism something we want in our society,
>>>"Ourobouros"? Should we accept it because it is "cultural"? Have whites
>>>changed since his conviction and sentence?
>>>
>> Please explain how one "unquestioned social reality" is the same as
>> Daumer's crimes?
>
>The "unquestioned social reality" is the existence of what we would call
>in our culture "criminal insanity." Or do you have stats indicating that
>"malaia" is the *norm* in Samoa? Funny, I don't remember reading that in
>Margaret Mead...
>
"Malaia" is accepted in Western Somoa.  Criminal insanity is not
accepted (except for liberals) in Western society.  Perhaps Margeret
Mead is painting a rosy coloured picture.

>PS: Interesting that the Samoan individual in question was living in NZ.
>Have any stats about the Maori? No, thought not.
>
When did stats come into the argument?

The police once upon a time used to publish the various crimes and their
ethnic composition, but it was judged as racially offensive.  I could 
tell you the prison population is mainly Maori, then Polynesian, but
there are no official statistics, because they aren't available to the
public and so you'd have to visit the prisons themselves to check the
numbers.

Before political stupidity moved in, the Maori were tops in rape cases (in
NZ).

Reminds me of a joke:

Q. What does a Maori get after having sex?
A. 12 years.

Ourobouros.








From Ourobouros Sat Oct 19 12:13:42 PDT 1996
Article: 47033 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Unchanging Polynesians ("Finsten") -- repost
Date: 18 Oct 1996 14:15:14 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <548s12$98n@lex.zippo.com>
References: <53vakj$n23@lex.zippo.com> <541b4d$1hk@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <5436ll$s5a@lex.zippo.com> <54564e$b22@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port860-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <54564e$b22@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, ai433@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says...
>
>
> (Ourobouros) writes:
>> In article <541b4d$1hk@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, ai433@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says...
>>>
>>>
>>> (Ourobouros) writes:
>>>
>>>[his usual nazi crap]
>>>
>> Curious.  What part of it was nazi?
>
>Your agenda is obvious. Don't play around. Or are you ashamed to stand up
>for what you believe in?
>
Perhaps you'd like to prove I'm a Nat-see.
>> 
>>>> Have Samoans changed from the description given in B. Danielsson's book,
>>>> "Finsten"?
>>>> 
>>>> Which Western society wants "malaia" in their society?  Perhaps we should
>>>> accept it because it is cultural?
>>>
>>>Let's pretend that I have just posted an article about Jeffrey Daumer.
>>>Now: is pedophilic cannibalism something we want in our society,
>>>"Ourobouros"? Should we accept it because it is "cultural"? Have whites
>>>changed since his conviction and sentence?
>>>
>> Please explain how one "unquestioned social reality" is the same as
>> Daumer's crimes?
>
>The "unquestioned social reality" is the existence of what we would call
>in our culture "criminal insanity." Or do you have stats indicating that
>"malaia" is the *norm* in Samoa? Funny, I don't remember reading that in
>Margaret Mead...
>
"Malaia" is accepted in Western Somoa.  Criminal insanity is not
accepted (except for liberals) in Western society.  Perhaps Margeret
Mead is painting a rosy coloured picture.

>PS: Interesting that the Samoan individual in question was living in NZ.
>Have any stats about the Maori? No, thought not.
>
When did stats come into the argument?

The police once upon a time used to publish the various crimes and their
ethnic composition, but it was judged as racially offensive.  I could 
tell you the prison population is mainly Maori, then Polynesian, but
there are no official statistics, because they aren't available to the
public and so you'd have to visit the prisons themselves to check the
numbers.

Before political stupidity moved in, the Maori were tops in rape cases (in
NZ).

Reminds me of a joke:

Q. What does a Maori get after having sex?
A. 12 years.

Ourobouros.








From Ourobouros Sat Oct 19 12:13:43 PDT 1996
Article: 47032 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Unchanging Polynesians ("Finsten") -- repost
Date: 18 Oct 1996 14:15:16 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <548s14$97h@lex.zippo.com>
References: <53vakj$n23@lex.zippo.com> <541b4d$1hk@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <5436ll$s5a@lex.zippo.com> <54564e$b22@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port860-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <54564e$b22@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, ai433@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says...
>
>
> (Ourobouros) writes:
>> In article <541b4d$1hk@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, ai433@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says...
>>>
>>>
>>> (Ourobouros) writes:
>>>
>>>[his usual nazi crap]
>>>
>> Curious.  What part of it was nazi?
>
>Your agenda is obvious. Don't play around. Or are you ashamed to stand up
>for what you believe in?
>
Perhaps you'd like to prove I'm a Nat-see.
>> 
>>>> Have Samoans changed from the description given in B. Danielsson's book,
>>>> "Finsten"?
>>>> 
>>>> Which Western society wants "malaia" in their society?  Perhaps we should
>>>> accept it because it is cultural?
>>>
>>>Let's pretend that I have just posted an article about Jeffrey Daumer.
>>>Now: is pedophilic cannibalism something we want in our society,
>>>"Ourobouros"? Should we accept it because it is "cultural"? Have whites
>>>changed since his conviction and sentence?
>>>
>> Please explain how one "unquestioned social reality" is the same as
>> Daumer's crimes?
>
>The "unquestioned social reality" is the existence of what we would call
>in our culture "criminal insanity." Or do you have stats indicating that
>"malaia" is the *norm* in Samoa? Funny, I don't remember reading that in
>Margaret Mead...
>
"Malaia" is accepted in Western Somoa.  Criminal insanity is not
accepted (except for liberals) in Western society.  Perhaps Margeret
Mead is painting a rosy coloured picture.

>PS: Interesting that the Samoan individual in question was living in NZ.
>Have any stats about the Maori? No, thought not.
>
When did stats come into the argument?

The police once upon a time used to publish the various crimes and their
ethnic composition, but it was judged as racially offensive.  I could 
tell you the prison population is mainly Maori, then Polynesian, but
there are no official statistics, because they aren't available to the
public and so you'd have to visit the prisons themselves to check the
numbers.

Before political stupidity moved in, the Maori were tops in rape cases (in
NZ).

Reminds me of a joke:

Q. What does a Maori get after having sex?
A. 12 years.

Ourobouros.








From Ourobouros Sat Oct 19 12:13:43 PDT 1996
Article: 47030 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!newspump.sol.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Unchanging Polynesians ("Finsten") -- repost
Date: 18 Oct 1996 13:53:08 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <548qnk$8km@lex.zippo.com>
References: <53vakj$n23@lex.zippo.com> <542t7f$q57@scoop.eco.twg.com> <543864$t7s@lex.zippo.com> <5455br$oo2@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port860-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <5455br$oo2@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:

>>"Malaia" being accepted in Western Samoa -- an "unquestioned social
>>reality," and "...spiritual forces..."  
>
>Do you know anyone who suffers from schizophrenia?
>
Once.  He wasn't into rape or sodomy though.

>>While it may not be approved, it is accepted part of life in
>>Western Samoa.  Please couple this with the book B. Danielsson "Love
>>in the South Seas."
>
>Since you are the one attempting to argue the direct link between
>this particular case of aberrant behaviour and Danielsson's little
>treatise, the responsibility for "coupling" is yours.
>
>>Once upon a time we put most people with "criminal insanity" to
>>death (hanging comes to mind).  You'll find no equivalent in 
>>(Eastern or Western) Samoa.  
>
>Gee, we've finally come to the same conclusion the Samoans had
>all along - that "criminal insanity" is a disease, and that sick
>people shouldn't be murdered by the state.  If the situation were
>reversed, you would be arguing that the Samoans had finally
>accepted some modern Western ideals.
>
And it is really working.  You remind me of a case of a pedophile
who raped a three year old girl.  A few years later a psychiatrist
gave him the clean bill of health, and so was released.  Almost as
soon as he was released he raped a two year old boy.  He was
also released recently, and what do you know, another child raped.
"Oh he's sick, the poor man, blah, blah, blah."  If he'd been
strung up the first time he would never have raped another child,
and the victims' parents could be rest assured that their taxes
weren't paying for the sick man's food, shelter and counselling.

What a wonderful system we have.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Sat Oct 19 12:13:44 PDT 1996
Article: 47029 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!mr.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Ourobouros' sample definition of the White race
Date: 18 Oct 1996 14:34:57 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <548t61$aph@lex.zippo.com>
References: <536kb7$ici@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <536oug$lfp@lex.zippo.com>  <544hfa$2vo@lex.zippo.com> <546o3s$bas@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port860-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <546o3s$bas@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>I don't agree with the standard dogma of physical anthropologists
>>concerning race (Amerind, Causasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, and
>>Oceanonic (sp?)).
>
>According to which physical anthropologists, exactly, to these
>five groups constitute the "standard dogma of physical anthropologists
>concerning race"?
>
There is the Encyclopedia Britannica, but more importantly is C-S & Co.s' 
book "History and Geography of Human Genes."  Please note how the book is
divided.

>How, exactly, and why do you disagree with this classification?
>Please be specific and tell us about the morphological and genetic
>criteria used to establish these categories and the variance within
>or across these classes that you think renders this system untenable.
>
I believe I have given sufficient information in the past.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Oct 20 10:57:24 PDT 1996
Article: 47094 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: DO I BOTHER YOU RACISTS!
Date: 19 Oct 1996 20:21:08 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <54c5r4$bkf@lex.zippo.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port828-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article , live@6.t9 says...
>
>Please let me know how much you hate me!  Mr. Hernandez is backing me on
>this one!  If you want to tell me to SEIKE HELPE do that too!  
>
Most of us don't hate you, we think you're great.  You are in our 
perception a "honest liberal" or one that has yet to learn any 
sophistication.

We would appreciate you limiting the number of SEIKE HELPEs in your posts,
but otherwise stay and feel free to continue posting the way you do.  It
is about time that we saw the real face of liberal intelligence.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Oct 20 10:57:38 PDT 1996
Article: 47095 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: DO I BOTHER YOU RACISTS!
Date: 19 Oct 1996 20:23:41 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <54c5vt$blo@lex.zippo.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port828-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article , live@6.t9 says...
>
>Please let me know how much you hate me!  Mr. Hernandez is backing me on
>this one!  If you want to tell me to SEIKE HELPE do that too!  
>
Most of us don't hate you, we think you're great.  You are in our 
perception a "honest liberal" or one that has yet to learn any 
sophistication.

We would appreciate you limiting the number of SEIKE HELPEs in your posts,
but otherwise stay and feel free to continue posting the way you do.  It
is about time that we saw the real face of liberal intelligence.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Oct 20 11:00:45 PDT 1996
Article: 47096 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Unchanging Polynesians ("Finsten") -- repost
Date: 19 Oct 1996 20:37:05 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <54c6p1$cgm@lex.zippo.com>
References: <53vakj$n23@lex.zippo.com>   <54bcts$kkk@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port828-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <54bcts$kkk@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> [...deletia...]
>
>> Malaia is a curse (see article).  All curses are simply accepted without
>> question. 
>
>Uh huh. Is it "Stone's" position that we should accept his assertions
>without question, as well?
>
It is hardly my problem if you insist in being ignorant of other races'
cultures, "Brown."

>> [...deletia...]
>
>> The only people that would question malaia would be Western
>> medical "experts" -- (a very loose term.)
>
>Strange -- it is these self-same loosely-termed Western medical "experts"
>whom "Stone" trumpeted as having "recognized" "malaia". They didn't have
>quotations around their expert status then...
>
I often wonder what criteria the media makes when they label someone an
"expert."  They seem to give it out freely to some people.

>> [...deletia...]
>
>> Seeing as you love multiculturalism, you should actually bother your-
>> self and find out just what the other cultures have to offer (beside 
>> dancing.)
>
>This _is_ funny, coming from a creature who wants nothing more than to
>remove all other cultures from his sight.
>
A most curious interpretation from a man who prides himself on being
pedantic.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Oct 21 07:33:57 PDT 1996
Article: 47165 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.infi.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Unchanging Polynesians ("Finsten") -- repost
Date: 20 Oct 1996 12:51:37 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 140
Message-ID: <54dvs9$9ig@lex.zippo.com>
References: <53vakj$n23@lex.zippo.com> <5432ss$bf3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <8tEQOHAhokayEwlQ@bebbo.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port850-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <8tEQOHAhokayEwlQ@bebbo.demon.co.uk>, Dene says...
>
>Ourobouros  wrote:
>>In article , Dene says...
>>>
>>>Ourobouros  wrote:
>>>>Most of NZ public want the death penalty brought back.  Most of
>>>>New Zealand is tired of funding idiotic liberal programs for
>>>>criminals.
>>>
>>>If this is true then why don't they do something about it, like setting
>>>up their own non-liberal political parties with policies aimed at what
>>>the apparently non-liberal majority of NZ want? If they're not happy
>>>with the status quo then why don't they overcome their inertia and work
>>>towards a new political system? After all, if they're the majority then
>>>they should be able to carry significant political influence.
>>>
>>Since we have just had our elections (a week and one day from this post) I
>>should be able to answer this one quite easily.
>>
>>1. People continue to vote the way they have always voted unless a 
>>charismatic individual is present.  This showed up with the Labour Party.
>>Despite all the predictions that she was basically flushed down the
>>toilet, she got her familiar spot at being the second biggest party again,
>>ie., the same people last election or their families before them voted 
>>Labour.
>
>If they really felt as strongly about some things as you make out then
>perhaps they would do something about it, like vote for a party that
>gives them what they want. Either you are wrong as to the wishes of the
>NZ public, or possibly they deserve what they get if they can't be
>bothered to use their political influence to change things.
>
I suspect the latter.  Winston Peters, leader of New Zealand First, and 
btw a Maori, played the anti-Asian immigration ticket.  When he did this
move his popularity soared.  He still only got third spot, seats a lot
less than either of the two bigger parties.  From all the polls he was
expecting to come second.
>>
>>2. Our new election system (Mixed Member Proportion) means a lesser party
>>hijacks government.  Despite National getting the biggest percentage of
>>seats (and votes) and then Labour another party, New Zealand First, is the
>>party that decides who will be the government (whoever they go too will be
>>government).  
>>
>>3. A party needs more than one policy.  The Legalize Cannabis Party only
>>got a few votes (26,000 Nationwide).  This party, despite their claim to
>>a 800,000 signed petition, got nowhere.  They are a single issue party
>>(legalize cannabis).
>
>What do you suggest, perhaps referenda on major issues would be a
>possibility?
>
No longer feasible.  New Zealand had a referenda to change the political
system so that petitions would finally work (politicians just ignored
them).  Now the system is draconian for getting referendas into parliament.
It is not impossible to have a referenda, but you have to get a gross
amount of signatures (in a petition first), and it cannot change existing
legislation.  I suspect the latter was made law so things like the
homosexual law reform cannot be overthrown (816,000 people signed a
petition to stop this particular law even getting in).

In the end a change in the political system failed its goal (I suspect
delibrately).  While there is now law for politicians to accept petitions, 
getting an acceptable petition is next to impossible.
>>
>>4. The media is left-wing and slams at every opportunity right wing parties
>>(NZ First -- anti Asian immigration, National -- centre right, ACT -- middle
>>right, Christian Coalition -- more rightwing than ACT) whereas they promote
>>left wing parties (Labour -- centre left, Alliance -- near communism, 
>>heavily socialist).  The party that wants to re-introduce the death
>>penalty (say Christian Coalition) is always viewed as right wing and
>>therefore evil.
>
>But if most people really believe in the death penalty then surely they
>will ignore such demonisation.
>
It will eventually have its heyday.  The more it is forcibly suppressed
the more violent the end-reaction will be. 

>>  Except for talk-back radio, all other forms of media are
>>against the death penalty being re-introduced.  Paper after paper has 
>>produced articles on the evils of the death penalty, how the executioner
>>feels after killing scum, innocent "criminals", mental insanities, how the
>>USA system fails, and on and on and on.  
>
>I do agree that the media is often in the hands of a relatively small
>number of people and not always representative of public opinion. But
>since you say that most NZers are in favour of the death penalty then
>obviously the media viewpoint on this issue isn't getting through.
>
People are slowing turning on the media.  People are starting to realize
that the media churns out lies and half-truths constantly.

The other major problem is you need more than one policy.  Even if people
are so impressed by that one policy, they will vote either out of tradition
or for a party that behaves like Santa Claus.  The classic example is
Winston Peters' advocating anti-Asian immigration, immensely popular, but
not enough to win the day.

>>
>>While I am sure I would get a lot of publicity, the foreseen problems are 
>>
>>1) Changing people's voting habits.
>>
>>2) Having charisma, something I don't have in abundance (too cynical).
>>
>>3) Having more policies than "Bring back the death penalty", and being
>>racialist, I will have the smear campaigns against me from the beginning.
>>
>>4) If on the off-chance I got in, the death penalty would be viewed as a
>>racist institution because she would favour Polynesians (rape and murder)
>>and Asians (deaths on the road).  This IS NOT saying Whites would not be
>>put to death, just an uneven ratio.
>>
>>5) I don't like our democratic system, and therefore I am not prepared to
>>play by the rules, since you should be aware by now, the system is rigged
>>against me if I play by the system's rules.  
>
>I'd certainly agree that democratic systems are perfect - but then which
>systems ever are. But I think that if views such as yours were as
>prevalent as you make out then a political movement based on these ideas
>should start to get considerable political influence.
>
The question comes down too this: does democracy work?

No, as you have to be charismatic, and getting that charisma is completely
at the mercy of the media.

What would work?

A system in which the leaders are not above the law, any major law-making 
is out of their greedy little hands.  Normal Monarchy (not absolutism) or
Aristocracy.  Oligarchy may work as could Dictatorship.  Having a 
constitution may work, but Clinton and his cronies are showing how well
a constitution works.  

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Tue Oct 22 14:43:15 PDT 1996
Article: 47282 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Unchanging Polynesians ("Finsten") -- repost
Date: 21 Oct 1996 21:58:06 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <54hk8u$ncv@lex.zippo.com>
References: <53vakj$n23@lex.zippo.com> <5432ss$bf3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4zKxpAAZt6ayEwkZ@bebbo.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port866-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <4zKxpAAZt6ayEwkZ@bebbo.demon.co.uk>, Dene says...
>
>Ourobouros  wrote:
>>In article <8tEQOHAhokayEwlQ@bebbo.demon.co.uk>, Dene says...
>>>I'd certainly agree that democratic systems are perfect - but then which
>>>systems ever are. But I think that if views such as yours were as
>>>prevalent as you make out then a political movement based on these ideas
>>>should start to get considerable political influence.
>>>
>>The question comes down too this: does democracy work?
>>
>>No, as you have to be charismatic, and getting that charisma is completely
>>at the mercy of the media.
>
>I certainly can't disagree that the media can have a large effect on
>opinion and how public figures come across. Whilst it is a good thing
>that we have political systems that allow a free press, the
>concentration of many media interests in very few hands (Murdoch springs
>to mind) is somewhat unhealthy.
>
This is agree with.
>>
>>What would work?
>>
>>A system in which the leaders are not above the law, any major law-making 
>>is out of their greedy little hands.  Normal Monarchy (not absolutism) or
>>Aristocracy.  Oligarchy may work as could Dictatorship.  Having a 
>>constitution may work, but Clinton and his cronies are showing how well
>>a constitution works.  
>
>I'm unclear as to why you think such systems as monarchy or aristocracy
>would reflect the majority outlook in terms of policies any more than
>democracy. As for Oligarchy, democractic systems often seem to have much
>in common with this anyway since those small number of elected
>representatives are in effect an Oligarchy. Although I'm tempted to
>wonder if many democracies are actually more plutocratic in nature since
>it seems to be the wealthy who often have the most influence.
>
I prefer a decentralised state, as opposed to a centralised state.  I
realize our society needs a centralised state at the moment, btw (standing
army and all that).

The monarchy and aristocracy are typically involved in the justice system.
The problem arises when they perform under a centralised system, as they
become removed from the mass.

What we call democracy today is in reality a wierd form of oligarchy, read
Aristotle concerning elections.

>And as for dictatorship, well we all know that these can be far less
>representative of what the people want, and they usually have the
>drawback that it is an enforced system which brokers no debate or
>opposition to its policies.
>
Hence the necessity of having a dictator under the law, not above it.  The
advantage of a dictatorship is the speed upon which the state can act.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Tue Oct 22 14:43:16 PDT 1996
Article: 47283 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Unchanging Polynesians ("Finsten") -- repost
Date: 21 Oct 1996 22:16:22 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <54hlb6$ocd@lex.zippo.com>
References: <53vakj$n23@lex.zippo.com>  
NNTP-Posting-Host: port866-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article , Dene says...
>
>Ourobouros  wrote:
>>In article <5NRRWKA3ukayEwnB@bebbo.demon.co.uk>, Dene says...
>>>These are the sort of statements that made me ask the question
>>>originally! And I note that you neither answered the question, nor
>>>provided any substantiation for further assertions.
>>>
>>I have answered the question -- "All curses are simply accepted without
>>question."
>
>You haven't substantiated that statement, but simply asserted it.
>
As I later suggested, you could read practically any book concerning
Polynesian culture with reference to curses.  What I said is common
knowledge, but you could read "Aku Aku" by T. Heyerdahl or perhaps 
"The New Maori Myth" by M.L. Drake (A Maori), a sample quote:

 [The revival of Maori culture]

  "What is forgotten is that culture is always an out-working of religious
  belief.  Maori culture was cruel and corrupt because the ancient Maori
  placed his faith in cruel and hellish spirits. ...These aspects were
  integral to that society and are already becoming an integral part of
  our new society."  

>>
>>Feel free to pick up and read a book of Polynesian culture concerning
>>religion.  Curses are very real things to them.
>
>Many things are very real to many people, but going from that to a
>stronger statement of "unquestioned reality" cannot be taken at face
>value.
>
Interesting.  The article did say "unquestioned social reality."  Does
that finally mean you understand the point I was trying to raise?

>>>There is a difference between so called pandering to weak individuals,
>>>and recognising that there may indeed be such a thing as mental illness.
>>>
>>I suspect hypochondria would be a mental illness, self imposed but 
>>nevertheless real (for some).  Do I therefore deny the existence of
>>mental illnesses as you seem to be suggesting?
>>
>>>And I note that you didn't answer the question.
>>>
>>I guess you have a warped version of what "no" means then.
>
>If only you'd actually said this clearly.
>
If you care to sift through the old posts you will discover "No. ..." in
regard to this point.  I do not know how I could have put it any clearer.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Tue Oct 22 14:43:17 PDT 1996
Article: 47284 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: White MEN created everything
Date: 21 Oct 1996 22:55:17 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 279
Message-ID: <54hnk5$pud@lex.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port866-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <54ghit$fcu@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <548uub$c64@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <547q3q$fi5@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>> >> >How many "specimens" 
>> >> >did you observe to decide that their lips are similar to those found in racist
>> >> >cartoons? The same goes for their foreheads, btw.
>> >> Racist cartoons (which I don't read very often) delibrately exaggerate
>> >> various features.  You seem to think I would use that as a model for
>> >> Negro lips, you are mistaken.
>> >Your description of negros are very similar to the cartoons I've seen, but
>> >don't really match with the people.
>> That is because your prejudices are seeping through.
>
>You really like to toss that word around, don't you. Whenever you're backed
>into a corner, you bring up prejudism.
>
Was I really backed into a corner?  

>> >And you haven't answered my question.
>> I have, over and over again.  You just cannot (or refuse too) fathom it.
>
>You have not answered my question. But that is no surprize, considering your
>habit of dodging.

I have answered your question many times in the past.  You have refused
to understand my explanation everytime.  Why bother re-iterating words
which you will never understand?

>> >> >> >> >>  I claim they are still too small for Negro lips even 
>> >> >> >> >> on that frontal view. 
>> >> >> >> >"You just don't wanna know."
>> >> >> >> >And how can someone's lips be thicker when seen from the front than when seen
>> >> >> >> >from the side?
>> >> >> >> Dimensions again.
>> >> >> >Bullshit. You're just trying to back out of your corner.
>> >> >> That is bullshit from you.
>> >> >Stop ducking the question: How can someone's lips be thicker when seen from
>> >> >the front than from the side? And don't give me any bs like you've been doing
>> >> >so far.
>> >> Why don't you get out a book on Tutankhamun to find out.  I have tried
>> >> explaining it, but you are wilfully ignorant on the matter.
>> >What is so special about Tutankhamun's lips that make it necessary for me to
>> >go to a library to find out why they are thicker en face than in profile? Why
>> >don't you just answer my question (no, the word "dimensions" is not an answer)?
>> >Is this because you don't really know (as with the cranial index)? Or is it
>> >because you've backed yourself into another corner, and just aren't willing to
>> >admit it?
>> You are trying to assert the Egyptians had black blood in them (it would
>> seem).
>
>I am trying to get through to you the fact that Tutenkhamun's lips were to
>thick for your definition of "white". As for the Egyptians having "black"
>blood, that is well enough documented in their own paintings.
>
I am trying to get it through to you that fact that Tutankhamun's lips are
fine for my definition of "White." 

As for your latter comment, it is bullshit.  The only time the Egyptians
had black blood in them is from the third intermediate period onwards,
especially with the infusion under Piankhy.

>>  May I ask why the police always have two mug shots of criminals
>> (front and side)?
>
>This is feeble, even by your standards.
>They have two mugs shots so they can see what they look like when seen from 
>the front and side. It is *not* to determine the thickness of their lips from 
>either side, as they need only *one* picture to determine the thickness of the
>lips.
>
               *sigh*

You cannot get depth perception from one photograph.  I am sure that they
do not place special emphasize upon the lips, but you get depth over the
whole face by the second angle.

>> >> >> >	[snip]
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >I'm not going to argue over the blue hair. I think I read somewhere that lapis 
>> >> >> >> >lazuli was used as a symbol of power in some places, and it's quite likely
>> >> >> >> >they found some way of coloring their hair with it. But that does not explain
>> >> >> >> >why I haven't managed to find any paintings of blond people. What about
>> >> >> >> >*before* Dynasty XII? Not all the paintings I've found are from Dynasty XII 
>> >> >> >> >and after, you know...
>> >> >> >> There are reliefs depicting men and women with blond hair before Dynasty
>> >> >> >> XII.  I have even given Chephren's wife.  Heyerdahl in "Ra" also has some
>> >> >> >> pictures of blond haired workers.
>> >> >> >Sure. There were *some* blond people in Egypt (I still haven't seen any
>> >> >> >pictures of them, but what the hey). But just because there were *some* blond
>> >> >> >people in Egypt doesn't mean that *all* Egyptians were blond. Or "white", for
>> >> >> >that matter.
>> >> >> The pictures in "Ra" show both blond and brunette haired workers.  Are all
>> >> >> Scandinavians blond?
>> >> >In which way does that relate to the topic?
>> >> You seem to have come to this conclusion that I am saying all Egyptians
>> >> were blond. 
>> >No; You're saying *most* Egyptians were "white". I am asking you why there are
>> >so few paintings of "white" egyptians, and you keep ducking the question.
>> Almost all paintings of Egyptian men are red.  This is as clear as day to
>> most people.  As I have tried to point out to you, but nobody is home, red
>> is a common colouration of White people.
>
>So now they're "red"? What happened to "reddish-brown"? Red, btw, is not a
>typical color for the caucasians, particularily the reddish-brown color found
>on those paintings. Or maybe you should provide some evidence to the contrary,
>for example by making a color photo of yourself or some of your "red" buddies
>available on your website. Or maybe provide me with a pointer to some pictures
>of red "whites". BTW: If "whites" are really red, why aren't they called
>"reds"?
>
                   *sigh*

First point, the Egyptians used red ochre.  Second point, the Egyptians
called themselves red.  Third point, there are plenty of tanned Whites
in the alt.binaries.pictures.* groups, feel free to download pictures
>from  those newgroups anytime.  If you go to the nudey ones, you can compare 
the tan lines directly.  Fourth point, as to why the Egyptians called
themselves red, I cannot give you a direct answer, except perhaps the
typical colouration from working outside (they wore kilts btw).  The could
have also had their blood vessels extremely close to the skin, for example
a sodden alcoholic typically has a permanent red face.   Fifth point,
why aren't we called red?  That is an easy answer, until more recently we
avoided the sun, so we never tanned.  As I tried to explain to you, how
did the term "redneck" occur?  The reply was sunburn on the back of the
neck (paraphrased), to which (I believe it was "Finsten") never thought
about her reply.

>> >> Perhaps you have confused the issue by thinking only blonds
>> >> are White?
>> >The ideal "aryan" is blond and blue-eyed, among other things. What did your
>> >definition of the "White Race" say about hair color? (I don't remember)
>> The ideal Natsee (or at least under modern propaganda by liberals) is 
>> blond and blue-eyed.
>
>All the propaganda the nazis spewed out during the occupation showed blond,
>blue-eyed "Aryans".
>
Ah well, I have never paid to much attention to Natsee propaganda.  I do
know that liberals propagate that Natsees say Aryans are blond and blue-
eyed.

>>  Blond hair colour is but one colour of the White
>> race.
>
>By *your* definition, maybe.
>
So you have decided to come up with your own definition have you?

>>  Some Polynesians were recorded by the early mariners as having
>> blond and red hair colours.
>
>So even the polynesians are "white"?
>
Did I even hint that they were "white"?

>> >> How does it relate to the topic?  I am attacking your position on blond
>> >> haired being the only Whites.
>> >Thus making another attempt at ducking the question. Now why don't you dish up
>> >enough paintings of "white" egyptians to make the brown ones I've found a
>> >minority, and thus settle the issue once and for all.
>> I could ask you to view a picture, or coffee table, books of the monuments
>> of Ancient Egypt.  To reiterate, most pictures of men are red.
>
>Again, why the change of color? You used to say "reddish-brown".
>Or are you trying to back out of a tight spot?
>
Red is more convenient than reddish-brown, and I gave a better reason
above.

>> >	[snip]
>> >
>> >> >> >I didn't say you were *pure* Maori. Only *part* Maori. Which *would* permit a
>> >> >> >reddish-brown color.
>> >> >> I have no Maori in me Lund.
>> >> >Maybe, maybe not. It isn't really a big deal to me.
>> >> You seem to think it is, because you have kept on discussing it.  It
>> >> would seem it is an important point to you.
>> >You keep talking about "throwing people's arguments back at them". Now I'm
>> >throwing your "lesser" races back at you. Only a racist would get annoyed at
>> >the thought of having a "dark" person in his/her family tree. The rest of us
>> >wouldn't mind having a few exotic family members.
>> You'd be surprised at how many Europeans perish the thought (to this day)
>> of having any Maori or Polynesian in them.  Only liberals seem to think
>> having exotic ancestry is worth while, and despite your believes, liberals
>> are a minority.
>
>This may surprise you, but I don't think of myself as a "liberal". As for "Only
>liberals seem to think having exotic ancestry is worth while"; that's sheer
>bs. Depends on your definiton of "liberal", of course.
>
Oh?  

>Say! Why don't you start a new thread: "Ourobouros' sample definition of
>Liberal".
>
Perhaps.

>	[snip]
>
>> >> >>  The furthest ancestor I have that lived in
>> >> >> New Zealand is three generations back (I am fourth generation).  Keeping
>> >> >> geneological records for that time is quite easy.
>> >> >Assuming none of the women have had a fling on the side, of course...
>> >> Uh huh.  Well you get a D- for your New Zealand History.
>> >So now you're claiming that nobody in New Zealand ever had an affair or brief
>> >fling?
>> Location, location, location.  Maori were only brought into the cities
>> since the 1950s.  None of my family lived near any of the Maori before the
>> 1950s.  Until around the 1970s any Maori-European couples were ostracized
>> from both communities.
>
>Have you never heard of being discreet? Or for that matter; you seem to hold
>the notion that the Maori think rape is acceptable (re that other thread
>you've got going)...
>
They were more than a hop, skip and jump away you know.  Not to forget that
most women until more recently thought it was improper to drive a car.

>> >	[snip]
>
>> >Ahem. I believe most (if not all) of the so-called "evidence" you've
>> >brought up in this ng has been flushed. But of course, you've got this near-
>> >religious notion about "white supremacy", and that makes you deaf to critizism.
>> I could make similar comments about your own arguments being flushed down
>> the toilet.
>
>But you comments wouldn't be true.
>
Oh?

>>  So what evidence (of mine) has been flushed?
>
>Offhand, I can't think of any of your "evidence" that *hasn't* been flushed.
>
Please give examples, or give us your definition of "flush" because you may
have a strange meaning.  I have yet to come across a definition of "flush"
that means something highly contested, but in the end continues to remain
strong.

>> >>  Some of them probably
>> >> find my non-PC stance refreshing.
>> >"Entertaining" is probably a better word for it.
>> Again you presume the majority of Whites are PC and liberal.  While I
>> happily admit they aren't racialist either, they tend to resent PC and
>> liberals.
>
>Whatever. I am neither.
>
You are now claiming that you are not PC?!?

>	[snip]
>
>> Amusing.  I have looked at the man riding the camel, and he is dark brown.
>> Where is the red?
>
>Reddish-brown, Ouro. Reddish-brown. Your expression. "Reddish-brown" being
>mainly brown with a measure of red in it. I produce a picture of a man with
>reddish-brown skin, and suddenly you claim that his skin isn't red. Of course
>it isn't red; it's reddish-brown.
>
>You're just trying to worm your way out of a tight spot. Again.
>
I still have yet to discover this red pigment in his dark brown skin that
you claim.  Could you point out where this aberration is on his dark-
brown skin?

>>  Where is the similarities between him and a picture of
>> an ancient Egyptian?
>
>Gee... The skin? I admit his skin isn't *exactly* the same tone of
>reddish-brown, but it is close enough.
>
No, it is not.  His skin is not reddish-brown, except perhaps for some
discreet blemishes only you have noticed/imagined.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Tue Oct 22 14:43:18 PDT 1996
Article: 47285 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!mr.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: White MEN created everything II
Date: 21 Oct 1996 22:58:31 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <54hnq7$q78@lex.zippo.com>
References: <54ghrt$fh3@gyda.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port866-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <54ghrt$fh3@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>In article <548vja$cmr@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <547qga$fup@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>	[snip]
>
>> >I am mature enough to accept that I have been proven wrong. It has happened
>> >before, and will doubtless happen again. I wish I could say the same for you.
>> That I can't admit my errors?  You are mistaken old chap.  Whenever I have
>> been proven wrong, I have acknowledged the error.
>
>Oh? Then why haven't you admitted that you were wrong re the negro brains?
>(among other things)
>
Because I am not wrong.

>> >> >	[*Now* we're discussing brains]
>
>> >> >And I'd like to see a reference to something a bit more up to date than a 19th
>> >> >century textbook.
>> >> Not at the present.
>> >Which leads to the conclusion that there is no evidence supporting your claim.
>> Not readily available, no.  At the moment I am (or should be busy) studying
>> for exams.  I am not prepared at present to scour through the University
>> libraries for this information, as it can often take many hours.
>
>Why don't you just admit you made a mistake and be done with it?
>
Because I am not wrong.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Oct 22 23:21:58 PDT 1996
Article: 47318 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!mr.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: White MEN created everything
Date: 22 Oct 1996 13:49:53 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <54jc1h$ikt@lex.zippo.com>
References: <533udu$271@lex.zippo.com> <535hgt$49u@gyda.ifi.uio.no>  <54bf2a$maf@lex.zippo.com> <54eu4g$5f4@orion.cybercom.net> <54f3k2$879@lex.zippo.com> <54j5hp$hms@orion.cybercom.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port839-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <54j5hp$hms@orion.cybercom.net>, amatthews@cybercom.net says...
>
>In article <54f3k2$879@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <54eu4g$5f4@orion.cybercom.net>, amatthews@cybercom.net wrote
>>>
>>>Hey, Ol' Burro's ass, I'm still waiting for you to show that Buddhism was 
>>>created by white men.  And black powder.  And printing.  And, well you get the
>>>idea...
>>>
>>>Still laughing loudly at you,
>>>allan
>>>
>>   "The loud laugh that spoke the vacant mind"
>>               -- Oliver Goldsmith, The Deserted Village.
>
>Cute, but doesn't answer the question.  Besides, as a Zen Buddhist I have no 
>problem with having a vacant mind.   Are you finally admitting that you can't 
>back up these assertions?   Quit dodging and put up or shut up.
>
The vacant mind explains why you missed the boat.  I have said all I am 
going to say on the matter for now.  If your comprehensions skills were
lacking because of your vacant mind, then it is no problem of mine.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Fri Oct 25 09:52:52 PDT 1996
Article: 47492 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Unchanging Polynesians ("Finsten") -- repost
Date: 23 Oct 1996 20:38:35 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <54mobr$5nr@lex.zippo.com>
References: <53vakj$n23@lex.zippo.com> <541b4d$1hk@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <5436ll$s5a@lex.zippo.com> <54564e$b22@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <548s11$9ja@lex.zippo.com> <54deog$79q@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <54f1or$6q0@lex.zippo.com> <54l4nf$drt@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port843-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <54l4nf$drt@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <54deog$79q@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>>>
>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>In article <54564e$b22@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, ai433@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says...                                 
>      
>When did you start posting out of Les Griswold's old ISP?
>
More proof of your incompetence in arguing rationally.  Start dealing with
facts based on actual posts and not facts based on your imagination.
>
>[...]
>
>>>Criminal insanity is accepted as a plea in the judicial systems of most
>>>western nations.  Whether you as an individual reject it is irrelevant
>>>to pretty much anything.  
>
>>Ah yes, but then we have changed for the worse.  Polynesians haven't
>>changed at all.
>
>It is better to kill the mentally ill, in your opinion?  You do have a
>rather odd concept of what constitutes "civilised behaviour".  Cannibalism,
>sexual practices that deviate from your own Christianised puritanism etc
>etc are all "uncivilised".  But putting mentally ill people to death, now
>that is "civilised"!!!
>
Do all the mentally ill (sounds awfully PC) rape and sodomize?

Actually, can there be any claim for men into sodomy of being anything but
mentally ill?

I also take it that cannabalism is acceptable ("civilised") in your eyes?
I suppose you must do, otherwise you would be critising modern China, and 
that would ruin your pro-multiculturalism stance.

>>>Just as whether you think the earth is flat
>>>or the Holocaust never happened has no bearing on reality.
>  
>>Uh huh. Belittling mode again I see, or should I say ad hominem attack?
>
>No, a simple observation of fact.
>
Note the double standard.  When I make such a simple observation of fact,
"Finsten" screams "ad hominem" attack, but when she does it, it is 
acceptable.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Fri Oct 25 09:52:53 PDT 1996
Article: 47581 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeeder.servtech.com!news1.io.org!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!EU.net!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: White MEN created everything
Date: 24 Oct 1996 13:50:46 -0700
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 181
Message-ID: <54okr6$a9t@lex.zippo.com>
References: <54hnk5$pud@lex.zippo.com> <54o7v6$l5g@maud.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port865-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <54o7v6$l5g@maud.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <54hnk5$pud@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <54ghit$fcu@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>	[snip]
>
>> >> >And you haven't answered my question.
>> >> I have, over and over again.  You just cannot (or refuse too) fathom it.
>> >You have not answered my question. But that is no surprize, considering your
>> >habit of dodging.
>> I have answered your question many times in the past.  You have refused
>> to understand my explanation everytime.  Why bother re-iterating words
>> which you will never understand?
>
>By "answer", I do not mean dropping the first word that pops into your head
>("dimensions", in this case). And I think there are plenty of people out there
>who agree when I claim that you have a habit of dodging questions, or just
>producing some or other "red herring".
>
The only people that would agree with you are other one-eyed liberals that
think that because they are similarly PC, they don't dodge or use red
herrings.  What a joke, wake up and smell the roses.

[Tutankhamun snipped because of circular argument and Lund's refusal to
comprehend simple points]
>
>> >>  May I ask why the police always have two mug shots of criminals
>> >> (front and side)?
>> >This is feeble, even by your standards.
>> >They have two mugs shots so they can see what they look like when seen from 
>> >the front and side. It is *not* to determine the thickness of their lips from 
>> >either side, as they need only *one* picture to determine the thickness of the
>> >lips.
>
>Haven't seen this for a while:
>
>>                *sigh*
>
>> You cannot get depth perception from one photograph.  I am sure that they
>> do not place special emphasize upon the lips, but you get depth over the
>> whole face by the second angle.
>
>You do not need "depth perception" to determine the thickness of someone's
>lips, Ouro. One single photo, side or front, will do.
>
Or so you say.  I disagree, which is why I wantt you to see Tutankhamun's
side profile on his deathmask.

I will also point out for the second time that the art that Akhenaten
started continued in Tutankhamun/Tutankhaten's reign.

[Red Egyptians, Blond haired Egyptians and Norwegians]

>I see your asthma is back:
>
>>                    *sigh*
>
>> First point, the Egyptians used red ochre.  Second point, the Egyptians
>> called themselves red.  Third point, there are plenty of tanned Whites
>> in the alt.binaries.pictures.* groups, feel free to download pictures
>> from those newgroups anytime.  If you go to the nudey ones, you can compare 
>> the tan lines directly.
>
>Why should I do your homework? Go get your own evidence!
>
What I write concerning tans is common knowledge to most people.

>BTW: I see a lot of tanned Norwegians during the summer. We do *not* turn
>red, except when sunburned. We become tan, and the more fanatic sunbathers
>become near-brown.
>
We tan "reddish-brown."  Take a closer look, note the red pigmentation in
the skin.

>>  Fourth point, as to why the Egyptians called
>> themselves red, I cannot give you a direct answer, except perhaps the
>> typical colouration from working outside (they wore kilts btw).
>
>Maybe because they were red when compared to people from the south ("black") and
>to people from the north ("brown" or "white")?
>
I suspect Barbara Watterson is more correct in that the Sun had something
to do with it, as most women are portrayed creamy yellow and not reddish-
brown (or simply red).

It is quite easy to conclude that they considered themselves red because
they were red.

>	[snip]
>
>> >> >> Perhaps you have confused the issue by thinking only blonds
>> >> >> are White?
>> >> >The ideal "aryan" is blond and blue-eyed, among other things. What did your
>> >> >definition of the "White Race" say about hair color? (I don't remember)
>> >> The ideal Natsee (or at least under modern propaganda by liberals) is 
>> >> blond and blue-eyed.
>> >All the propaganda the nazis spewed out during the occupation showed blond,
>> >blue-eyed "Aryans".
>> Ah well, I have never paid to much attention to Natsee propaganda.  I do
>> know that liberals propagate that Natsees say Aryans are blond and blue-
>> eyed.
>
>Remember that Norway was occupied for five years. I *know* what the nazi ideal
>human looks like.
>
You were living in Norway (as an adult) at the time of the Natsee 
occupation?

[snip]

>> >>  Some Polynesians were recorded by the early mariners as having
>> >> blond and red hair colours.
>> >So even the polynesians are "white"?
>> Did I even hint that they were "white"?
>
>Then why did you bring up their hair color?
>
It was clear in the original post.

>	[snip]
>
>> >Say! Why don't you start a new thread: "Ourobouros' sample definition of
>> >Liberal".
>> Perhaps.
>
>Make sure you tell us whether *all* points have to be correct to make a
>Liberal, or at least the minimal number of points. I'm curious, would I fit
>your definition? I know I don't fit my idea of the PC Liberal.
>
I suspect few PC liberals consider themselves PC Liberal, but point at 
people they think are more extreme as being PC liberals.  Almost all
criminals think the same way.  Al Capone, for example, thought he was
doing the public a great service, and wasn't "evil" in any regard.

>	[Maori ancestry; who cares anyway?]
>
Errr, you do, you brought it up.

>> >>  So what evidence (of mine) has been flushed?
>> >Offhand, I can't think of any of your "evidence" that *hasn't* been flushed.
>> Please give examples, or give us your definition of "flush" because you may
>> have a strange meaning.
>
>OK: The "evidence" for your comments on the negro brain, your "evidence" re
>the origins of GZ, and your evidence re the "white" origins of the Chinese
>culture.
>
Now we are getting closer to the heart of the matter.  Sorry, the only way
the evidence I produced was "flushed" is because of your PC stance.  All
19th century work is wrong, the strong controversy to GZ is wrong (only
your side can be right), and all speculation, evidence and their own 
legends concerning the origins of Chinese culture is wrong simply because 
it doesn't fit your view of the world.

>	[flush]
>
>> >> >>  Some of them probably
>> >> >> find my non-PC stance refreshing.
>> >> >"Entertaining" is probably a better word for it.
>> >> Again you presume the majority of Whites are PC and liberal.  While I
>> >> happily admit they aren't racialist either, they tend to resent PC and
>> >> liberals.
>> >Whatever. I am neither.
>> You are now claiming that you are not PC?!?
>
>I do not think of myself as PC, no. But again, that depends on what you mean
>by the word.
>
Do you have a problem with racialist language? If you say not, why are you
here?

>	[the camel-rider]
>
>I don't care. You can say what you want about his skin. Those who've taken a
>look at the photo know what's what.
>
And they know you suffer from colour blindness.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Oct 28 08:10:17 PST 1996
Article: 47822 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.infi.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!voskovec.radio.cz!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: White MEN created everything
Date: 27 Oct 1996 13:11:25 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 215
Message-ID: <550j5t$nd2@lex.zippo.com>
References: <54hnk5$pud@lex.zippo.com> <54o7v6$l5g@maud.ifi.uio.no> <54okr6$a9t@lex.zippo.com> <54vcsn$1hd@gyda.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port873-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <54vcsn$1hd@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <54okr6$a9t@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <54o7v6$l5g@maud.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>> [Tutankhamun snipped because of circular argument and Lund's refusal to
>> comprehend simple points]
>
>No. You snipped it because I refused to accept your dodges as a valid reply.
>
Hah!

>	[snip]
>
>> >You do not need "depth perception" to determine the thickness of someone's
>> >lips, Ouro. One single photo, side or front, will do.
>> Or so you say.  I disagree, which is why I wantt you to see Tutankhamun's
>> side profile on his deathmask.
>
>Oh, you don't have to show me Tutankhamun's death mask to prove this point;
>just show me a mug shot of *anyone* where the lips are thick when seen from
>the front, and thin when seen from the side.
>
I have asked you to read a book on Tutankhamun.  You have not, nor would it
seem you are ever going too.

>	[yes/no argument re Egyptian skin snipped]
>
>> >> >> >> Perhaps you have confused the issue by thinking only blonds
>> >> >> >> are White?
>> >> >> >The ideal "aryan" is blond and blue-eyed, among other things. What did your
>> >> >> >definition of the "White Race" say about hair color? (I don't remember)
>> >> >> The ideal Natsee (or at least under modern propaganda by liberals) is 
>> >> >> blond and blue-eyed.
>> >> >All the propaganda the nazis spewed out during the occupation showed blond,
>> >> >blue-eyed "Aryans".
>> >> Ah well, I have never paid to much attention to Natsee propaganda.  I do
>> >> know that liberals propagate that Natsees say Aryans are blond and blue-
>> >> eyed.
>> >Remember that Norway was occupied for five years. I *know* what the nazi ideal
>> >human looks like.
>> You were living in Norway (as an adult) at the time of the Natsee 
>> occupation?
>
>You really are stupid, aren't you?
>Let me walk you through this:
>
>1) Norway was occupied by the nazis from 1940 to 1945. That means five years.
>
As if I didn't know this.

>2) During the occupation, the nazis spewed out acres of propaganda in a feeble
>attempt to justify their actions and recruit members of the "super race" (us
>norsies).
>
I am sure they did.

>3) This propaganda usually featured images of "Ideal Aryans" (and non-ideal
>jews).
>
And you have seen it?  Your family preserved the acres and acres of 
propaganda to show you, or have you been merely told this?

>4) When the nazis were defeated, they left their posters and shit behind.
>
Undoubtedly, but of course you are suggesting that Norway had no cleaning
facilities...

>5) In Norway, we learn about WWII in school.
>
Who doesn't?

>6) Most of the stuff we learn about WWII is about the nazi occupation.
>
Strange, I would have thought it would have been about the hoaxacost.  
Earlier this year I did a paper at University that specialized on the
build up to WWII, and we heard a lot about the hoaxacost, even though it
was irrelevant to the paper.

>7) You cannot learn about the nazi occupation without also learning about the
>propaganda they threw all over the place.
>
Or at least their interpretation.

>IOW: I know what the nazi ideal looks like.
>
You probably do, but when I was unsure whether the blond, blue eyed ideal
was really the NAZI ideal, or the trumped up NAZI ideal by bleeding heart
liberals.

>> >> >Say! Why don't you start a new thread: "Ourobouros' sample definition of
>> >> >Liberal".
>> >> Perhaps.
>> >Make sure you tell us whether *all* points have to be correct to make a
>> >Liberal, or at least the minimal number of points. I'm curious, would I fit
>> >your definition? I know I don't fit my idea of the PC Liberal.
>> I suspect few PC liberals consider themselves PC Liberal, but point at 
>> people they think are more extreme as being PC liberals.  Almost all
>> criminals think the same way.  Al Capone, for example, thought he was
>> doing the public a great service, and wasn't "evil" in any regard.
>
>Again, post your definition of "PC liberal". Then I'd get to check off the
>points and see whether I truely fit your definition. Maybe I, in return, would
>bring up my own definition (of PC...).
>
Not at the moment.

>> >	[Maori ancestry; who cares anyway?]
>> Errr, you do, you brought it up.
>
>Halfheartedly. I was fishing, and caught nothing much.
>
I am not surprised.  I was amazed you'd even resort to such a petty tactic.
It shows the depths you'd go to try and discredit me though, then again
PC liberals all seem to wallow in the pig sty's shit.

>> >> >>  So what evidence (of mine) has been flushed?
>> >> >Offhand, I can't think of any of your "evidence" that *hasn't* been flushed.
>> >> Please give examples, or give us your definition of "flush" because you may
>> >> have a strange meaning.
>> >OK: The "evidence" for your comments on the negro brain, your "evidence" re
>> >the origins of GZ, and your evidence re the "white" origins of the Chinese
>> >culture.
>> Now we are getting closer to the heart of the matter.  Sorry, the only way
>> the evidence I produced was "flushed" is because of your PC stance.
>
>No. The evidence was flushed because it didn't hold water.
>
Hah!

Only to your PC brain.

>>  All
>> 19th century work is wrong,
>
>Nope. For example, there was a lot of good, solid research done on
>thermodynamics and electricity in the 19th century. All still valid, all still
>respected. But that racism that was PC back then has since been refuted.
>
Uh huh.  The racialism back then has only been refuted by PC bigots, it
still stands.  Gould's work is crap, and the so called argument "There
is more diversity within a race than between races" is completely obvious
when you realize how PC bigots define the races.  The Jew Boas supposedly
disproved skull shapes, yet they remain the Police pathologist's main
stay in identifying race in criminal or victim.

There stands your racialism refuted -- utter crap.

>> the strong controversy to GZ is wrong (only
>> your side can be right),
>
>There is no longer any controversy. The controversy ended when the site was
>given a thurough going-over by someone without the prejudices of those who
>first found GZ.
>
Uh huh.  Or so you'd like us to believe.  The indirect evidence; gold mines,
stonemasonry, the progression southwards of a people, and the fact that
hunter-gatherers were still common, all point to outside influence.  But of
course you could never accept any of that, because it goes against PC
doctrine, so you do what you have been doing, playing dumb or ignoring it
in the hope it goes away.

>> and all speculation, evidence and their own 
>> legends concerning the origins of Chinese culture is wrong simply because 
>> it doesn't fit your view of the world.
>
>Nope. It's wrong because there is no evidence supporting your view. A hundred
>caucasian mummies found along the silk road is not evidence of a "white"
>origin of the chinese culture.
>
But of course we'll be picky and choosy when it comes to which oral
history we'll believe or not.  If it doesn't agree with PC views, then it
is wrong, not only wrong but something to be scorned at by anybody that
tries to quote it, or did you forget (again) the legends of red, blond 
haired and white skin legends that Mair referred too?

>> >> >> >>  Some of them probably
>> >> >> >> find my non-PC stance refreshing.
>> >> >> >"Entertaining" is probably a better word for it.
>> >> >> Again you presume the majority of Whites are PC and liberal.  While I
>> >> >> happily admit they aren't racialist either, they tend to resent PC and
>> >> >> liberals.
>> >> >Whatever. I am neither.
>> >> You are now claiming that you are not PC?!?
>> >I do not think of myself as PC, no. But again, that depends on what you mean
>> >by the word.
>> Do you have a problem with racialist language? If you say not, why are you
>> here?
>
>I have a problem understanding what you mean with the above comment. It just
>doesn't make any sense. Please refrase it.
>
0. You are claiming you are not PC.  

1. There are two main hallmarks of PC:  One is sexualism, the other is 
racialism.  Depending on the situation it depends which one outranks the 
other.

2. You have shown repeatedly that you loathe racialism, the very fact you
are here arguing with racialists is ample proof.  If it were a non issue
then you wouldn't bother being here.

3. The arguments concerning this newsgroup are towards racialism, in
other words, the sexualism part rarely shows up here, therefore the PC
stance here is racialism first then sexualism.

Proof.  You are PC.

If you were not PC then you would have no problem with racialist having
their own corner on the Internet. However, you claim you are not PC, which
is why I asked you why you stick around these newsgroups.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Mon Oct 28 08:10:17 PST 1996
Article: 47823 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.texas.net!news1.best.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!EU.net!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: White MEN created everything II
Date: 27 Oct 1996 12:35:42 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <550h2u$mk3@lex.zippo.com>
References: <54ghrt$fh3@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <54hnq7$q78@lex.zippo.com> <54o655$c3i@maud.ifi.uio.no> <54oj1i$9g7@lex.zippo.com> <54vb6c$15c@gyda.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port873-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <54vb6c$15c@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <54oj1i$9g7@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <54o655$c3i@maud.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>> >> >> >I am mature enough to accept that I have been proven wrong. It has happened
>> >> >> >before, and will doubtless happen again. I wish I could say the same for you.
>> >> >> That I can't admit my errors?  You are mistaken old chap.  Whenever I have
>> >> >> been proven wrong, I have acknowledged the error.
>> >> >Oh? Then why haven't you admitted that you were wrong re the negro brains?
>> >> >(among other things)
>> >> Because I am not wrong.
>> >
>> >This is like arguing with a True Believer;
>> >
>> >Believer: My religion is the only true and correct religion!
>> >Skeptic: Do you have any evidence?
>> >Believer: The Bible!
>> >Skeptic: The bible is just a book. It doesn't prove anything.
>> >Believer: Uh... Ok, but I know I'm right!
>> >Skeptic: How can you say that when you can't even back it up with any evidence?
>> >Believer: Because I am right!
>> >
>> >You *know* you are right, even though you can't produce any evidence but a
>> >Politically Correct book from the 19th century.
>> 
>> Thank you, thank you for admitting that you are just another PC bigot.  All
>> nineteenth century books are wrong in your eyes.  All their research is
>> meaningless because it doesn't match your PC thinking.  I'll give credit
>> where credit is due and admit that at least "Finsten" did not make such
>> a blunder as you just did.
>
>Let's see;
>
>I compare arguing with you to arguing with a religious fruitcake.

Which I ignored because you were waffling.

>I point out that you stubborny hang on to your faith, despite the fact that
>you are able to pony up any evidence to supp0rt your claims.

This makes sense.  I have quoted the book, it is up to your wisdom to
act upon it.

>I point out that all the evidence you have is a book that was Politically
>Correct in the 19th century.
>
There was no PC in the 19th century.  If you were to compare today with the
late 19th century then it would be this:

In the late 19th century they were eager to uncover the truth in all her 
glory.

In the late 20th century they (PC bigots) are eager to hide the truth
because they don't want her glory.

>Then you claim that I have admitted that I am "just another PC bigot"???
>
That you are.

>Do you have a problem reading sentences with more than a few words? Do you
>have a problem going from one sentence to the next without forgetting the
>contents of the first sentence? Do you have a problem comprehending what you
>read?
>
The religious element is irrelevant to the argument.  The fact is I have
referenced a book already on the subject, and seeing that "Finsten" (and
possibly yourself) are unable to find it, I am prepared to eventually
look for the information in other tomes.  You have delibrately forgotten
this, so you can continue your emotional argument that I have not offered
proof, tough biccies, Lund. 

BTW, if you are going to parrot me, you had better do a better job.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Thu Oct 31 07:02:48 PST 1996
Article: 48049 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!mr.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: White MEN created everything
Date: 30 Oct 1996 10:58:23 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <5588gf$b5r@lex.zippo.com>
References: <533udu$271@lex.zippo.com> <535hgt$49u@gyda.ifi.uio.no>  <54bf2a$maf@lex.zippo.com> <54eu4g$5f4@orion.cybercom.net> <54h6lb$p36@news1.epix.net> <54ig9n$nuv@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <54jbma$i5g@lex.zippo.com> <54o8sl$pgl@maud.ifi.uio.no> <54om83$ap8@lex.zippo.com> <54vfhd$2td@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <550li9$ohj@lex.zippo.com> <555gm6$2bs@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port863-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <555gm6$2bs@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>[big snip]
>
>>White skin colour is having no pigmentation and being at rest.  Lack of
>>oxygen or being in the cold, typically brings a bluish tint to the skin,
>>and being under immediate stress (like lifting heavy weights) causes the
>>skin to turn to red.
>
>The only people who have no "pigmentation" (melanin) in their skin cells
>are albinos.  Albinism is an extremely rare genetic conditiiont that 
>occurs in virtually all human populations.  Albinism, the lack of melanin,
>which is the substance that produces skin pigmentation, is *not*
>characteristic of any human population, European in origin or otherwise.
>
All right.  "Next to no" or "very little" pigmentation.  Please stop being 
pedantic "Finsten."

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Thu Oct 31 23:22:10 PST 1996
Article: 48147 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!panix!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!EU.net!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: White MEN created everything
Date: 31 Oct 1996 20:01:01 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 251
Message-ID: <55bslt$emc@lex.zippo.com>
References: <533udu$271@lex.zippo.com> <535hgt$49u@gyda.ifi.uio.no>  <54bf2a$maf@lex.zippo.com> <54eu4g$5f4@orion.cybercom.net> <54h6lb$p36@news1.epix.net> <54ig9n$nuv@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <54jbma$i5g@lex.zippo.com> <54o8sl$pgl@maud.ifi.uio.no> <54om83$ap8@lex.zippo.com> <54vfhd$2td@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <550li9$ohj@lex.zippo.com> <55app2$hjc@gyda.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port875-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <55app2$hjc@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <550li9$ohj@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <54vfhd$2td@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>> >What isn't documented is that you can buy human flesh on the markets of China.
>> I believe Mr. Verady (sp?) quoted some books concerning the subject.
>
>So who are the authors of those books? Exactly what is it these people say on the subject
>of cannibalism in China? May they have misunderstood something? Might *he* have
>misunderstood them (as you apparently did with C-S)? Might they just have written down
>some juicy gossip without beothering to check their sources?
>
Lund: deaf, dumb and blind.

You did reply to him, it is not surprising however that you have already
forgotten -- doesn't fit your prejudices, must be wrong, must be forgotten.

>>  Of
>> course we witnessed your silly reply about Christians instead.
>
>Explain why that is silly.
>
>Mind you; if you don't like the idea of Christians being compared to cannibals, how about
>organ transplants? The flesh/organ isn't masticated and digested, but still, it is
>transferred from one body to the next, and the closer the relative, the better.
>
?

>> If you knew about world events, or at least were observant, you would know
>> that it was discovered a while back of a Chinese restaurant [in China]
>> that had on the menu items that consisted of baby girl.
>
>Which resterant was this? Where in China was this? Which newspapers said this?
>And was the item specified as "infant girl"? Was the meat being served actually "infant
>girl"? Or was this simply a flowery way of describing mutton? You are aware that the
>Chinese have a tendency to give their meals rather misguiding names? Such as "Lion's Head
>in a Golden Field" (meat, but not lion, served in a reddish-brown sauce with plenty of 
>maize).
>
I am not fluent in Chinese, Lund, therefore the names haven't gelled.

If I recall the story correctly, they combined girl-flesh with other meats.
I had presumed that this story would have been common knowledge -- except
to those living in the whop-whops.  I admit it isn't highly publicised, but
when you deal with liberals, anything that may disfavour non-whites is
quickly overlooked.

[Lund's crudity snipped]

>> >> Yes I can.  I suppose you are also unaware that the Chinese are knocking
>> >> off their baby daughters?
>> >Yes, I am aware of that. That is mostly in the provinces, though. People living
>> >in more central areas (of China) have begun to see the advantages of having 
>> >only one child, and they don't really care whether it's a girl or boy.
>> Or so you have been told, I rather doubt it myself.  *Some* would have
>> realized this, but I doubt the major population even in the cities would
>> have grasped this.
>
>Which only shows how little you know of the world.
>
Well then, perhaps you'd like to prove your assertion that the Chinese in
the central areas have grasped the concept the girl is as good as a boy.

[snip]

>> >Cannibalism is *not* acceptable in China, and even if there was a couple who
>> >were twisted enough to sell their daughter's corpse on the market, they would
>> >find no buyers. And anyone who tried to do so would risk the death penalty.
>> Then again, Norway doesn't get weekly news, so you wouldn't know, just 
>> another unbacked assertion by a PC liberal.
>
>You don't even know what the Weekly World News is, do you? It's a rag sold next to the
>cash register in most US stores. I got a few as souvinirs. They have headlines such as:
>
Yes, you knew something I didn't, amazing.

[snip]

>> >And since we're on the subject of mistreating children, have you heard what's
>> >been going on in Belgia the past couple of months? I believe you'd call those
>> >people "white".
>
>	[bloodlust]
>
>> While we're on the subject of mistreating children, have you heard what has
>> ben going on in Thailand the past couple of years?  I believe you'd call
>> those people your "best buddies" (re: non-whites.)
>
>Past decade, you mean. Yes, I've heard of "white" men going to Thailand to have sex with
>little children. In fact, the bulk of their customers/rapists are from Europe. Yes, I am
>aware that there are plenty of Japanese child-molesters in Thailand, too.
>
That wasn't what I referring too, when I wrote the above, I had just
finishing watching the news on Television (standard news), on a whole heap
of Siamese child molesters into kidnapping Chinese, Siamese and etc., 
children for their own benefits.

Could we please have proof that most of the child molesters are in fact
European, rather than Siamese or Japanese.

>> >Oh, there *was* one period when cannibalism was documented in China; in the
>> >50's, during Mao's "great leap foreward", there was a food shortage. *Then*,
>> >there was cannibalism. But again, cannibalism as a result of food shortage
>> >doesn't really count. You'll find that in all ethnic groups and cultures,
>> >including the "white" cultures.
>> So Mr. Verady's quotes don't exist, because you don't want them to exist?
>
>No. What I'm saying is that hunger will drive people to cannibalism. And if Verady's
>quotes turn out to be stories from the 50's, they don't count. That is also why I
>mentioned the Donner party.
>
He was writing concerning the T'ang Dynasty and onwards, O' forgetful one.

[snip]

>> >> Now, were the Chinese in the habit of delibrate mummification?
>> >Not that I know. Why do you ask? Those caucasian mummies were not deliberatly
>> >mummified (as stated in the document *you* provided), but became mummified as
>> >a result of the climate.
>> I'll have to re-read that document, I am pretty sure they were preserved
>> through delibrate means (it is strange to use the word mummy for accidental
>> preservation). AND, you have put into words that any white mummies found in 
>> the interior of China were favoured concubines of gooks.
>
>Those concubines were purely hypothetical. So are the mummies found in the interiour of
>China. You have the habit of telling people to read the threads before posting to them. I
>suggest you follow your own advice. So far I've only seen evidence for caucasian mummies
>found in the outskirts of China, and along the silk road at that. Not in central China.
>
You haven't got the point I was trying to make (again).  You have already
decided that any mummy (of a Caucasian) found in the Chinese interior must 
be a concubine.

>> >> Oh goody, now you have proof (whatever I say must be lies mustn't it?)
>> >                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >A lot of it is.
>> Yes, more proof that you are a PC bigot.
>
>No. It isn't bigotry when I'm talking from experience. 

Curious.  One of racialist White friends was brought up around a lot of
Maori (most of the inhabitants were Maori), he knows from experience how
bad the Maori are.  Therefore he is not a bigot by YOUR definition. Since
he is one of my close friends, I can relate that the Maori are extremely
hazardous to Western society, and not be a bigot doing so either.

Or are you going to come up with new rules?

>Most of the claims made by those of
>your persuasion on this ng usually turn out to be unsubstantiated rumours or blatant lies.

Or so you claim.  While it is true that some of things said are bogus I
have yet to see it mount to the most category.  If anything, most of the
people of your persuasion turn out unsubstantiated rumours.

>Have you never heard the story of the boy that cried "wolf"? You bigots have spouted so
>much crap (on this ng as well as elsewhere) that I can safely assume that what you lot say
>is just that unless it is confirmed in some or other way.
>
Or so your rosy coloured spectacles relate.  You have pre-judged  
(prejudiced in other words) the matters at hand.  

>> >> that there were people who called themselves Aryans.
>> >Yup. Now we have proof. We do not have proof that they were "white", though.
>> Oh gee, I wonder if I have quoted things in the past?
>
>Oh, certainly; lots of quotes. But none that proves that they were "white" except when
>compared with other ethnic groups in the area.
>
    "The foolish and the dead alone never change their opinion."
          -- James Russell Lowell, My Study Windows

>> >> >I'll repeat a question you've dodged about 10 000 000 000 times: Is your skin
>> >> >the color of chalk? 
>> >> No, well not to my knowledge anyway.
>> >In other words, your skin isn't really white, is it?
>> Incorrect.
>
>What? Well, then. Either you're a freak or you're a liar. Or have you been bathing in
>bleach all your life? There is nobody, *nobody* in this room with pure white skin. Not me,
>nor anybody else. And the majority of the people here are "pure" Euros.
>
What is your point?

Please keep your answer succinct.

>	[snip]
>
>> >> are brown, because white is a comparative term, even if you compare
>> >> yourself to white things [like lotus flowers] it still means you are
>> >> brown. Why? Because I say so!"
>> >Not because I say so, but because white is not a color found in human skin.
>> >You yourself admitted above that you do not have white skin. Yet you
>> >stubbornly persist in insisting that "ancient peoples" did have white skin.
>> >What does this mean? That you are not a member of the "white race"?
>> I have white skin, Lund.  My lower arms, neck and face are exposed to the
>> elements and are reddish-brown, the rest of me is lilly white (when at
>                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> rest).
>
>So now it's "reddish-brown"? What happened to plain "red"?

When I lift weights I go red (a deep rosy red), but at rest the limbs that
are exposed to the sun are reddish-brown.  Comprehende?

>As to "lilly white"; if your lilies are as white as the flower I'm thinking of, you're
>either a freak or a liar (but I've already said that).
>
Make your point, and be succinct about it.

>> White is a skin colour, perhaps it won't be in a few generations, but at
>> the moment it still is.
>
>Not on a human it isn't.
>
Whatever.

>> >BTW: Please describe the "white skin" pigment to me? Does it contain magnesium
>> >oxide? Zink oxide? Where does this "white" color come from?
>> I have given a chart by C-S (not the infamous book quoted many times) which
>> uses the reflections of light for it's data.
>> White skin colour is having no pigmentation and being at rest.
>
>No. Albinos have no pigments. Normal humans *do* have pigments (apologies to the albinos).
>
Sorry for being succinct.  Yes you are right, I should have used a term
that means very little or equivalent.

>	[snip]
>
>> HOWEVER, when a poet likens someones skin to a white flower, you would
>> assume that there is little difference, except to a PC liberal.
>
>The person being described is pale when compared with most people, and so is the lily.
>
As Barbara Watterson pointed out, Lund, women of Ancient Egypt have pale 
skin, they were stereotyped that way.  Then again you've probably forgotten
that as well.

>> >> Lund; the world authority of knowing what the ancients really said when
>> >> they described themselves.
>> >Childish.
>> You are the one being childish, Lund.  I am having to resort to such
>> methods, because you don't understand anything else.
>
>What a lame reply. It's only one rung above your standard IKWYABWAIs.
>
Yet it is so true.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Thu Oct 31 23:22:11 PST 1996
Article: 48148 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!panix!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Getting a piece of paper (was: Unchanging Polynesians)
Date: 31 Oct 1996 20:23:11 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <55btvf$f5e@lex.zippo.com>
References: <555k6k$o41@lex.zippo.com> <558fji$hbd@news1.ucsd.edu> <55963l$o5j@lex.zippo.com> <55b888$t16@news1.ucsd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port875-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <55b888$t16@news1.ucsd.edu>, fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>: In article <558fji$hbd@news1.ucsd.edu>, fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu says...
>: >
>: >Ourobouros wrote:
>: >
>: >: I have yet to discover a Ph.D awarded (at least in the 90s) to a budding 
>: >: anthropologist doing actual field research. Reading books, yes, going 
>: >: amongst his subjects, no.  In other words quoting somebody else to back
>: >: up your opinions, BUT, never actually getting out there and knowing for
>: >: sure.  Not the he would ever tell you he has a piece of paper not even
>: >: worth the ink its written on.  I am un-impressed by people waving around a
>: >: doctorate these days.  So long as you can put up with the boredom and
>: >: bootlick your supervisor, you have an almost guaranteed doctorate in the
>: >: art papers.
>: >
>: >I would like some concrete evidence (for example citations that can
>: >be looked up in DA) for these assertions. What, by the way, are the
>: >'art papers'.  
>: >
>: Have you ever heard of a Bachelor of Arts degree, and etc.,?  Can you
>: now claim to have been to a University AND recieved a doctorate (except
>: perhaps an honourary one)?
>
>I'm lost. Are you now claiming that there is such a thing as a
>doctorate in Bachelor of Arts? What is a 'doctorate in the art
>papers'? Why did you refuse to provide evidence for your assertion?
>
Bizarre.  More proof that Ledgister has never set forth and a 
University course for anything.

>: >Specifically, how do you know that Dr Finsten did no field work? How
>: >do you know that I didn't? (I haven't read Laura's dissertation, but
>: >I would like to know exactly how my dissertation 'brown-nosed' my
>: >dissertation adviser/committee chair and th e rest of my committee.
>: >I await your response eagerly.)
>: >
>: Her obvious ignorances, and her inability to comprehend the written word.
>
>In other words, you made it up. (Inability to comprehend the
>written word, coming from you this is rich.) Once again, you stand
>revealed as a liar.

Uh huh. Please prove the connections, otherwise you're making invalid
conclusions (your favourite tactic).

>: For you, your obvious ignorances, your inability to conceptualise and your
>: inability to argue appropriately based on the written word.  All your
>: replies to me so far have made these three points quite clear.
>
>This is rich. How am I unable to conceptualise? What obvious
>ignorances? How do I fail to argue appropriately? You've
>consistently refused to document your assertions, can't write
>standard English, and have real difficulty understanding what you
>read.

Your garbage written above hardly matters anymore, you don't have a
doctorate.  The point is moot.

>: If you don't bootlick your supervisor, your Ph.D course doesn't even get
>: off the ground.  Therefore, brown-nosing is part of the game of getting
>: a Ph.D, especially in art papers.  
>
>What the hell is 'art papers'? What evidence do you have for these
>assertions? (Couldn't prove it by me, my dissertation rejects the
>major thesis of my adviser's work.)
>
More proof you have never been to University.

>: How do these points determine whether either of you have done field 
>: research for your dissertations?  Simple, both of you have proven you
>: cannot analyse, by your argument styles.  Field research requires you to be 
>: analytical, something neither of you possess, for if you were analytical 
>: once you'd be analytical for life.  Supposedly you should both be able
>: to think laterally as well (University of Auckland boasts that a BA and
>: above gives you lateral thinking (ha ha ha)), but we know from your
>: arguments produced that neither of you possess that either.
>
>
>In what way is this proven? 
>
By your replies.  They are consistent in the fact you are unable to
analyse.

>: >Unless you provide the evidence, I can only assume that you are
>: >lying.
>: >
>: I have not read your dissertation or "Finsten's" one.  Neither am I 
>: terribly interested in reading a load of PC bullshit (I have read enough
>: of it already), which means I therefore unlikely to read either yours or
>: "Finsten's" theses -- I suspect your respective Universities are no
>: different to New Zealand when it comes to PC and anthropology, linguistics,
>: education, history, women studies and so forth.
>
>Do you know what either dissertation is about? You make assertions
>without evidence, and then try to bullshit your way out. I wonder
>why?
>
I have not read "Finsten's" thesis, but I need not worry about yours. Your
thesis is non-existent, much like your intelligence.

I am not the first to comment that Western Universities are overun with
PC ideas, and I dear say, I will not be the last.  

I have made valid points concerning this argument, but not that you'd 
notice given your inability to analyse.

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.