The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/s/savage.rick/1995/rs.0595


From rsavage@netcom.com Thu May 25 18:34:50 PDT 1995
Article: 5072 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Identit.FAQ - Pt.1
Message-ID: 
Organization: ftp.netcom.com pub/SF/SFA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 00:45:56 GMT
Lines: 615
Sender: rsavage@netcom9.netcom.com

Frequently Asked Questions and Answers on 
   ISRAEL- IDENTITY  (Part 1 of 3)

Last Updated 2/20/95
Future updates available via anonymous FTP 
  from:  ftp.netcom.com  pub/SF/SFA
Compiled by Rick Savage 

      "And are not they [today's "Jews"] the inventors of the
  Chosen People myth?" -- [Dr. Oscar Levy, preface, "The World
  Significance of the Russian Revolution," George Pitt Rivers 
  (Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell, 1920) vi]
      "Behold, days are coming, says the LORD when I will effect
  a New Covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of
  Judah"  [Hebrews 8:8]

Table Of Contents
---------------------------------
 *   Introduction
 *   The Frequently Asked Questions
 *   Conclusion 
 *   Sources and other resources for further investigation
 *   When the Saxon Learns to Love!
=====================================

INTRODUCTION

     "Here is a paradox, a most ingenious paradox: an 
anthropological fact, many Christians may have much more 
Hebrew-Israelite blood in their veins than most of their Jewish 
neighbors." -- Alfred M. Lilienthal, "What Price Israel" (Chicago: 
Henry Regnery Company, 1953) 223.
     The statement above made by an anti-Zionist "Jew" reflects an 
idea we will prove further in this document of questions and answers.
Since the majority of information concerning the identity of the
true descendants of Biblical "Israelites" today has become so
propagandized we felt the necessity to correctly state the facts that
a growing number of people are beginning to see.  These people have 
learned through the Scriptures, and from new or previously hidden
archeological discoveries, that the "traditions of men" (Matt 15:2-6,
16:12; Col. 2:8, 1Peter 1:18) have been the controlling force in
mainstream Churchianity for a very long time.
     There are some people who blindly oppose this message.  Their
opinion is based solely on the opposition's propaganda without even
having the chance to hear, or see, both sides of the issue.  This
brief will provide an opportunity for those who are NOT so hasty to
believe that they can discern truth before hearing the whole story. 
The Apostle Paul advised us of the wisdom of hearing a matter before
we form opinions regarding it when he said:  "if anyone supposes that
he knows anything, he has not known as he ought to know," (I
Corinthians 8:2). 
     We want you to be as noble as the Bereans who "received 
the word with all readiness of mind, and search the scriptures....to 
see if these things are so" (Acts 17:11).  May the Spirit of Truth 
help you to discern what stands upon the Rock of Truth and what is 
built on the sinking sands of tradition.
 
1.  What is the Christian message of Israel's Identity in a nutshell?
    Why is it such a "minority" belief and so maligned by it's 
    detractors?
    ----------------------------------------------------------- 
    These are the core points of Israel's true Identity as evidenced
      by the Scripture and proved in this document:
 *  God has a plan for physical (regenerate) Israel today.
    (Heb. 8:8-10)
 *  The "Jews" of Judaism today admit in their own literature
    (referenced later in this document) that they are NOT
    Israelites but are impostors and are indeed Christ's and
    Christian Israel's principal enemies.
 *  The truth concerning the identity of modern-day "Israel" is 
    vital information for the body of Christ, i.e. for true 
    Israel, and even for the rest of the world.
 *  The so-called or self-styled "Jews" of today are mainly 
    of Turko-Mongol Khazars who became spiritual converts to
    the condemned religion of the Pharisees (which is called 
    Judaism today) several centuries after Jesus Christ walked 
    the earth.  The Germanic kindred (white) peoples are the 
    true descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel.
 *  This understanding, i.e. knowing one's heritage or family
    tree, is in no way "anti-Semitic," especially when we find
    out who are really "Semites."  This document exposes the
    real anti-Semites!
 *  Most importantly, it was Christ who told us to "know the
    Truth, because the Truth shall make you free" (John 8:32).

    These simple truths are the core points of the Israel-Identity
message.  The opposition has flooded the media with a great deal of
disinformation.  But, if their position is as correct as it is massive,
then the numbers of people who are coming to this truth (that has
been "hidden in plain sight" in God's Word) would not be growing.
Who is the final Word on what is truth - man's word or God's
Word?  The people coming to the truth of Israel's true Identity
today are those who love God and trust the evidence of His Word
over the "traditions of men."  
     It is a known fact that a person does not change their beliefs 
easily.  It is far easier to believe as we always have and not "rock
the boat" with family, friends, or church.  However, if you are one
who desires to live in truth rather than fear you will join the many
others who did not let anything suppress their search to know truth
and live by it.
     Unfortunately, there are many people who do not desire true 
information reaching the general public and will do everything in
their power to keep the masses ignorant.  Some of these people and
their organizations are motivated out of a terror of being exposed.
Others simply don't want the change that truth inspires because they
profit from the perpetuation of the lies.  The mainstream are lazy
and don't want to expend the effort to change and many merely
respond knee-jerk fashion with what they have been indoctrinated
to believe.  Whatever the reason, when these truths are made
public those who love ease and comfort more than they love God
will create smear campaigns through Hollywood, the media,
schools, peers, as well as from the pulpits of JUDEOchurchianity.
Their purpose again is to defame, libel, slander, and attempt to
discredit what they oppose with unearned labels such as:  anti-
Semitism, racism, neo-Nazi, white supremacy, hater, or even 
"right-wing religious fanatic."  (It seems that the only FANatic that
is acceptable is the one who cheers for the local sports team and not
God.)  Some people will choose to believe these venomous lies and
call good evil and evil good.  But it is all to no avail.  The Word is
fact and the truths it contains are not going to change for our comfort,
convenience, or ill-gotten profit.
     Those who oppose honest investigation and inquiry into this
matter have a standard attack that has served their hateful purposes:
  *  Their first attempted attack is to ignore the light cast on them
     in their darkness and hope that it does not awaken those whom they
     have deluded.  
  *  This is followed by ridicule of the person, or persons, supplying
     the light.  
  *  If that doesn't work, the next step is character assassination. 
     This is usually done through the asking of unsubstantiated 
     questions to insinuate a lack of credibility or "evil" intent of 
     the person or their sources.  For example, we have all heard 
     questions like "How often do you beat your wife?". 
  *  Next, the victim, if deemed a sufficient threat, will be made the
     object of a fabricated scandal.
  *  Finally if all else fails, these emotional manipulators will
     stoop to direct intimidation and physical attack.
    This sort of behavior has many Christians afraid to even
investigate the subject of Israel's true identity today.  They do not
seek out God's truth because of a "fear of the Jews." (John 7:13). 
This fear and unbelief is an insult to the courage of Jesus the Christ
and is sin.  This lack of belief in and fear of (YHWH) God will be
our destruction.  Christ Jesus only allows us to fear God -- "...fear
not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but
rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body"
(Matt. 10:28).  The fearful, cowardly and unbelieving get top billing
of those whose "place will be in the lake which burns with fire and
brimstone: which is the second death" (Rev. 21:8).  This is a terrible
price to pay for such a lack of love and faith.  Pray that our
Redeemer, Jesus the Christ, might help our unbelief and give us
courage!
     A lack of courage in our duty to bring all men to Christ's 
Salvation and Truth (I Tim. 2:4) is a failure to recognize what kind 
of Spirit we were given.  "For God has *not* given us the spirit of 
fear; but of POWER, and of LOVE, and of a SOUND MIND.  Be 
therefore not ashamed of the testimony of our Lord...who has saved 
us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our own 
works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was 
given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" (2 Timothy 1:7-9).
     Perfect love knows no fear and truth fears no investigation.  
"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because 
fear hath torment.  He that feareth is not made perfect in love" (I 
John 4:18).  If you fear to search out the truth, or fear the anti-
Christs in their attempts to prevent the truth from being told, you 
don't have love like you out to have it.


2.  What difference does the Israel-Identity Christian message 
    make?
    ----------------------------------------------------------- 
     The identity of Israel is primarily important because it is the 
truth and Christ desires that "all men be saved AND come to the
knowledge of the truth," (1 Tim. 2:4). 
     It is important to discover the true identity of Israel (redeemed 
white people called of God) so that they may be restored to their 
rightful purpose and duty.  That purpose is a duty of servanthood
to their God and His world (Gen. 1:27-28; Matt. 28:18-20).  
     In this great commission, after having been redeemed and 
brought into God's Kingdom, He asks them to begin to make a 
difference in their world.  It starts by reforming their lives, their 
families, and their daily walk before Him and men.  Evangelism 
means teaching people of the Kingdom of God and to obey His 
Law-Word, through the empowering of God's Spirit.  Evangelism 
means obedience.  This is the message of Jesus as it is recorded
in the Gospel of John (14:15):  "If you love me, keep my 
commandments."  Love never contradicts God's Law-Word, but 
rather is a fulfilling of the Law (Romans 2:13; 6:1-2).  Law has 
dominion over all men (Rom. 7:1), but those who come into Christ's 
redemptive grace and walk by a desire to keep His commandments 
are redeemed from our past transgressions of His law which leads to
death.  Through our Love for Him, He helps us obey His command-
ments.  For we know that those who live after their own law will die
and are at enmity with God, but those who live after Christ's Law-
Word shall live (Rom. 8:1-13).  So, this great commission is to save
the world from the law of carnal men that leads to death, by the
saving power of God's Law-Word which leads to life.
     The Bible tells us that all of creation groans for the revealing
of the sons of God:
     "For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the 
revealing of the sons of God.  For the creation was subjected to 
futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in 
hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery
to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God 
(redeemed Israel).  For we know that the whole creation groans and 
suffers the pains of childbirth..." (Romans 8:19-22)   
     Who are these sons of God?  We are given a clue in verses 14 & 
15 in chapter 8 of Romans, "For as many as are led by the Spirit of 
God, they are the sons of God.  For you have not received the spirit 
of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, 
whereby we cry, Abba, Father."
     The prophet Hosea prophesied that the Israelites (not "Jews") 
would become sons of God (i.e. Christians).  At the time of Hosea, 
the Israelites were divided into two nations known as the house of 
Israel and the House of Judah.  Hosea said in Hosea 1:10,11 that 
those Israelites who were cast off (divorced) by God (and no longer 
known as "His people") would be gathered together under one 
leader (who was Christ) and be called the "sons of the living God."  
This was confirmed in the Covenant Christ made with these two 
nations of Israelites described in Hebrews 8:8-10.
     God has used other peoples for His purposes when Israel has 
been delinquent in her duty.   It is not ultimately "imperative," 
though important to Christ, to define "Israel" and return them to 
their duty.  Even though Christ came only to Israelites (Matt. 15:24) 
and is very concerned about them being fed, tended and shepherded 
(John 21:15-17), God's plan will be carried out even if He has to 
raise up children of Abraham from the very stones (Luke 3:8).  
     It *is* imperative to remove the pretenders who are fighting 
against God's purposes on His earth in the name of "Israel," (I Cor. 
15:25; Luke 19:27).  THE imperative duty of every creature is to 
fear God and see that His Will be done *on Earth* as it is in 
heaven (Eccl. 12:13,14; Matt. 6:10).  God's plan for the world is to 
bring freedom, life and salvation into it through His servants, i.e. 
Christ and everyone who follows Him (John 3:16; John 17:3; 
Romans 6:4,23 & 8::34-39; 2 Cor. 3:17; Gal. 5:1, etc, etc.).  This 
can't be done when an usurper is using the name of God's chosen 
people in direct opposition to God's plan.
     The impostors (self-styled "Jews") who have attempted to steal 
the birthright of true Israel (to rule & reign as kings and priests
with God - Ex 19:3-6) are, in reality, simply God's punishing rod on 
His rebellious people (Israel) to return them back to Him and His duty 
for them.  The "Jews" will continue to be a curse to His true Israel 
people until they repent (turn back and obey Him).  Until God's true
Israel people repent, they will continue to suffer the curses for
disobedience as outlined in Deuteronomy 28, which includes the
worst of the heathen ruling over and devouring them, 
(Deut. 28:33,43-52).
     Modern Churchianity has failed to heed the warning of Col. 2:8 
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, 
after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not 
after Christ," because they have dropped the charge given to them in 
II Corinthians 10:5.  Most "churches" have not heard this warning 
and have passively accepted these "Jewish Fables and 
commandments (traditions) of men" (Titus 1:14).  Thus, their 
message has become impotent and of no affect in bringing life and 
liberty into the world.
     A redeemed and awakened Israel to their Identity and duty 
toward God will again catch the Spirit that indwelled the men of 
Marlborough, Connecticut in 1773 when they made this unanimous 
proclamation:
     "Death is more eligible than slavery.  A freeborn people are not 
required by the religion of Jesus Christ to submit to tyranny, but 
may make use of such power as God has given them to recover and 
support their laws and liberties... (we) implore the Ruler above the 
skies, that He would make bare His arm in the defense of His 
church and people, and let Israel go." ('The Light and the Glory,' by 
Peter Marshal and David Manuel, p. 267)


3. What is the *central* proof of the Israel-Identity Christian 
   message?  What about the so-called "Messianic Jews"?
   ----------------------------------------------------------- 
     Genetic evidence is not "central" to the Israel-Identity
Christian message.  If anything, genetics, science and His(S)tory 
supply supporting and confirming evidence of God's plan for His 
people and the world.   The Bible, God's Law-Word, is the central 
source and authority of the Israel-Identity Christian message.
     God's history, as recorded in his Word, establishes the character 
of His major players on His world-stage (ie. His sheep, Jacob/Israel; 
and His enemies, the dogs, goats and specifically - Esau/Edom -
Romans 9:13) and reveals the standards by which we can distinguish
them.  "By their fruits you shall know them" (Matt. 7:20),  "My 
sheep hear My voice and they follow Me"(John 10:27),  "If you 
obey the Lord your God...these  blessings shall come upon you..." 
(Deut. 28:1,2), "I will put My law upon their minds and I will write
them upon their hearts (Hebrews 8:10)," etc, etc.  
     Those who obey and follow Christ are His people (Gal. 3:29) and
those who denounce and hate Christ are anti-Christ enemies (I John
2:22,23).  So THE central proof of Israel's Identity would be the
acceptance of Christ Jesus as Saviour, Messiah and God.  While the
majority of people following after Christ and attempting to do His
will are the kindred Germanic (white) peoples, the self-styled
"Jewish" impostors hate Christ, Christianity, and oppose His will.
For example:
     "The widespread idea that the Jews, while rejecting Jesus' claim 
to divinity, consider him a great teacher and moral figure is 
completely false.  We don't accept his claims and we are oblivious 
to his teachings; we are simply not interested in him nor in what he 
has to say,  any more than Christians are interested in Mohammed."  
- 'Living Jewish - The Lore and Law of the Practicing Jew' by 
Michel Asheri.
     They further give us reason why they are enemies of Christ and 
Christianity in the Jewish Encyclopedia edition of 1925, vol. 5, page 
41 which states, "Edom is in modern Jewry."  The significance of 
this admission becomes more clear when we understand the 
struggle between Jacob and Esau for the birthright and get an 
understanding of why God stated that He loved Jacob and hated 
Esau (Edom) in Romans 9:13.  We suggest the book "Who is 
Esau/Edom," by Charles Weisman for an exhaustive study on the 
subject (made available below).
     As another witness, Rabbi Meir Kahane once stated: 
     "I have not the slightest sympathy for Christianity or Jesus.  As 
a believing Jew, not only is Jesus not "God" but he is neither 
Messiah nor prophet.  For the Jew he was a blasphemer, one who 
attacked the Torah as unchanging divine law and who was a false 
prophet and heretic.  ...As for Christianity, this is the faith that, in
the name of Jesus, has made life for the Jewish people a living hell 
for 19 centuries.  In its name, and in the name of Jesus, millions of 
Jews were massacred and the agony of life under Christians can 
never be sufficiently described in all its horror."  The Jewish Press, 
N.Y. Jan 6, 1989, page 49 
     Rabbi Kahane laments about Jewish persecution under 
Christians.  Is this a just complaint or merely due justice deserved?  
Are not the modern day "Jews" the inheritors of the judgment that 
their spiritual predecessors called down upon themselves when they 
stated to Pilate "Let His blood be upon us and our children" (Matt. 
27:25)?  Do these people really have any right to complain if they 
continue in the spirit of those early Jews who persecuted those who 
followed Christ in Judea, who "both killed the Lord Jesus and their 
own prophets, and have persecuted us (Christians); and they please 
not God, and are contrary to all men"?
     Some want to point to the so-called "Messianic Jews" or "Jews 
for Jesus."  The glaring fact that they still refer to themselves as 
"Jews" is an omission of their true lack of submission and sincerity 
toward Christ (Colossians 2:18-23).  Their pride in their own 
identity as "Jews" (I Corinthians 2:1-3), and their traditions (Mark 
7:8-9), supersedes what a true repentant servant of Christ would 
think of themselves.  
     The Apostle Paul referred to himself as a "prisoner", a "debtor," 
a "slave" and a "servant" who surrendered his life and identity to 
Christ so that Christ might live through Him (Gal. 2:15-21).  Gal. 
3:26-28 speaks of this surrender and submersion of our own 
identity into the identity of Christ and His body.  We "put on 
Christ" and His name, i.e. CHRISTians when we are baptized into 
Christ's death and Resurrection (Romans 6, Col 2, etc.)  We are 
then no longer known as "Jew," or "Greek," or whatever, but rather 
as CHRISTIAN.  Why then not call themselves Christian?  Why 
cling to their identity as "Jews"?  We read about what these "Jews"
really mean by the term "Messianic Jews" in Q#4 in Baruch Levy's 
letter.  The very term is blasphemy.  The Messiah has already 
come and He is Jesus the Christ.  The "Jews" are not the Messiah
or "Messianic" in any way.
     Dr. Benjamin Freedman was a converted Jew to Christianity 
who dedicated his whole fortune and life to bringing to light the 
religion of the "Jews" and the teachings of their Talmud.  To quote 
>from  his letter to Dr. Goldstein, which was compiled into a booklet 
entitled 'Facts are Facts' (made available below), he said:
     "Stimulated by this statement by an imminent Jewish Rabbi 
every Christian especially every pastor should take time to 
investigate if this is true.  Ask yourself, what do I know about the 
Talmud?  From the birth of Jesus to the present there has never 
been recorded a more vicious, vile and libelous blasphemy against 
Jesus and Christians then you will find in the pages of these 63 
volumes.  The Talmud reviles Christ and Christians in unbelievably 
foul, obscene, indecent, lewd and vile language."
     Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer, Director of Interreligious Activities
for the American Jewish Committee, considered the Talmud essential
to the training of rabbis because it is the legal basis for their
religious law:
     "The TALMUD consists of 63 books of legal, ethical and 
historical writings of the ancient rabbis.  It was edited five
centuries after the birth of Jesus.  It is a compendium of law and
lore.  It is the legal code which forms the basis of Jewish religious
law and it is the textbook used in the training of rabbis."  ("What is
a Jew," by Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer, quoted in LOOK Magazine,
17 June 1952)
     As former followers of the religion of Judaism (Talmudism) 
these so called "Messianic Jews" know it's anti-Christian basis and 
hatred for Christ better than any other.  Their identification with the
Talmudic "Jews", and their failure to warn the Christians as to the 
true nature of these people and their religion, is a glaring admission 
of where their true sympathies are.  For it is the duty of every 
Christian to "let love be without hypocrisy, abhor what is evil and 
cling to what is good" (Romans 12:9).
     With these witnesses is there any doubt as to where the self-
styled "Jews" stand?  If you are still unsure, listen to the warnings 
of your Saviour King, Christ Jesus:  "Jesus therefore said to those 
Jews which had not believed him,..Ye (Jews) are of your father the 
devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do...He that is
of God heareth the words of God:  for this cause, ye (Jews) hear
them not, because ye are not of God."  (John 8:31,44,47)   and,
     "I know...the blasphemy by those who say they are 'Jews' and 
are not, but are a synagogue of Satan."  (Rev 2:9)
     "Who is the liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?"
(I John 2:22.)  Who is the liar indeed?  We have just seen who
denies that Jesus is the Christ in word, deed and action.


4.  Isn't the "Jewish" god the God of the Old Testament?  Isn't this 
    why we refer to the popular belief in Christ as the 
    "Judeo"-Christian religion?
    ----------------------------------------------------------- 
     Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser wrote in "Judaism and the Christian 
Predicament" (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967) p. 59:  "This is 
not an uncommon impression and one finds it sometimes among 
Jews as well as Christians - that Judaism is the religion of the 
Hebrew Bible.  It is, of course, a fallacious impression... Judaism is 
*not* the religion of the Bible."  
     Rabbi Moshe M. Maggal, wrote:  "...you will notice the great 
difference between the Jewish and Christian religions.  But these are 
not all.  We consider the two religions so different that one excludes 
the other.  ...we emphasized that there is no such thing as a Judeo-
Christian religion.  ...There is not any similarity between the two 
concepts."  Rabbi Maggal (President, National Jewish Information 
Service) letter, 21 August 1961.
     So what is the nature of the "Jewish" god?  It is not the God of 
the Hebrew Bible as we have just seen by their own admission.  
They have no need of the concept of God as they have "killed off 
God" a long time ago as James Yaffe comments:  
     "And so it seems we must agree with Rabbi Richard Israel, who 
writes in "Commentary's" symposium on Jewish belief, "[The 
current discussion on] the Death of God will cause Jews to ask, 'So 
what else is new?' ... The Jewish funeral was a much more private 
affair.  We buried him [YHWH-God] quietly and in the middle of 
the night." -- James Yaffe, "The American Jews" (New York: 
Random House, 1968) 161
     James Yaffe's statement was a comment to a statement made by 
Rabbi Sherwin Wine of the Birmingham Temple:  "...the whole 
concept of God is outdated; Judaism can function perfectly well 
without it." 
     If the self-styled "Jews" have "killed off God", then what sort
of "god" do they have?  The Jewish God is the "Jew" as the Jewish 
Cabala (Kabbalah) puts it: "The Jew is the living God, God 
incarnate: he is the heavenly man.  The other men are earthly, of 
inferior race.  They exist only to serve the Jew.  They are the cattle 
seed."  Who are the racist supremacists?  "You will know them by
their fruits..."  
     In the following quote we begin to understand this "Jewish" 
idea of their "god" a little better as it is applied more directly to 
today:   "The Jewish people as a whole will be its own Messiah.  It 
will attain world dominion by the dissolution of other races, by the 
abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy, and by the 
establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will everywhere 
exercise the privilege of citizenship.  In this *new world order* the 
children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering 
opposition.  The Governments of the different peoples forming the 
world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the
Jews.  It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private 
property, and everywhere to make use of the resources of the state.  
Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which is said 
that when the Messianic time is come, the Jews will have all the 
property of the whole world in their hands."  -Baruch Levy, Letter to 
Karl Marx, 'La Revue de Paris', p. 574, June 1, 1928


5.  Who are these self-styled "Jews" then if they are not Israelites?
    ----------------------------------------------------------- 
     One American Jew woke up to the lie after living in the Israeli 
occupational state in Palestine.  He put it this way:  
     "The American people have been led to believe that Jews are 
"God's chosen people."  This myth was started by a small group of 
Jews.  A few Jewish leaders took excerpts from the Bible and 
interpreted them to mean that God designated them as "chosen 
people." ...
     "Leading the cry, 'We are God's Chosen People,' are the 
Zionist/Marxist (Ashkenazi) Jews who for political purposes chose 
Judaism and who don't have a drop of biblical Jewish blood in 
them....
     "The Judeo-Christian ethic we hear so much about in America is 
a big joke - the result of an intense Zionist propaganda campaign.
     "I'll toss in one last thought about the "God's chosen people" 
myth: God said, "Beware of those who call themselves Jews and are 
not, for they lie."  Could it be the Ashkenazi Jews are the people to 
whom God was referring?"  - Jack Bernstein, "The Life of an 
American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel" (California: The Noontide 
Press, 1984) p.15-17 (To order this book see end of FAQ)
     In their own writings these self-styled "Jews" tell us it is 
incorrect to call a contemporary "Jew" an "Israelite" or a "Hebrew."  
Under the heading "A Brief History of the Terms for Jew," in the 
1980 Jewish Almanac, is the following:   "Strictly speaking it is 
*incorrect* to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a 
contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew." 1980 Jewish Almanac, 
P.3
     In "The Pharisees--The Sociological Background of Their 
Faith," Rabbi Louis Finkelstein describes these self-styled "Jews" 
and their origins:
     "Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval 
Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism.  
But throughout these changes in name...the spirit of the ancient 
Pharisee survives unaltered.  When the Jew studies the Talmud, he 
is actually repeating the arguments used in the Palestinian 
academies..."  "...rabbinic Judaism, the first-born child of 
Pharisaism, remains a unit until this day."  (p.XXI of Forward to 1st 
Edition, "The Pharisees," Vol. 1, Philadelphia: The Jewish 
Publication Society of America, 1938 & Vol. 2, p. 622
     Jesus had quite a verbal scathing for the Pharisees in Matthew 
23.  He exposed them for the sort of people they were:  
"Hypocrites," "sons of hell," "blind guides," "fools," "full of 
robbery and self-indulgence," "whitewashed tombs...full of dead 
men's bones and all uncleanness," "full of hypocrisy and 
lawlessness," "partners with them in shedding the blood of the 
prophets," and "serpents and brood of vipers."  Not quite an 
endorsement by the One and Only Sovereign God, Jesus the Christ, 
is it?  And some fools have the gall, or should we say "Chutzpah," 
to call Jesus a "Jew!"  What blasphemy!  
     Professor of Medieval Jewish History, Abraham N. Poliak of 
Tel Aviv University, has stated "The large majority of world Jewry 
is descended from the Jews of Khazaria." ("The Thirteenth Tribe" 
by Arthur Koestler (New York: Random House, 1976) p.226) 
(Made available below.)
     The people living in Palestine in the 20th century have no racial 
nor historic connection with Palestine and are, in reality, descendants 
>from  a Turko-Mongolian tribal people who created a kingdom 
called Khazaria which existed until the 12th century.  These 
Khazarian "Jews" could just as easily have practiced Christianity, 
but for whatever reason they chose Judaism (Talmudic Pharisaism) 
and there is nothing that can be done about it.
     Obviously, if these people have *no racial, or historic connection 
with Palestine* they have no claim to the promises made to 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel or the land known as "Israel" 
(Palestine) today.
     If this is true then there should be more evidence to support
this position, and there is.  The American People's Encyclopedia for 
1964 at 15-292 records the following reference to Khazars:
     "In the year 740 the Khazars were officially converted to 
Judaism.  A century later they were cursed by the in-coming Slavic-
speaking people and were scattered over central Europe where they 
were known as Jews.  It is from this grouping that most German 
and Polish Jews are descended, and they likewise make up a 
considerable part of that population now found in America.  The 
term Aschenazim is now applied to this....division."
     Alfred Lilienthal writes, in What Price Israel (Henry Regenery 
Co., 1953)  "Perhaps the most significant mass conversion to the 
Judaic Faith occurred in Europe, in the 8th century A.D., and that 
story of the Khazars (Turko-Finnish people) is quite pertinent to the 
establishment of the modern state of Israel."  Again, "That the 
Khazars are the lineal ancestors of Eastern European Jewry is a 
historical fact.  Jewish historians and religious textbooks 
acknowledge the fact, though the propagandists of Jewish 
nationalism belittle it as pro-Arab propaganda."
     Arthur Koestler's book 'The Thirteenth Tribe' (New York: 
Random House, Inc., 1976) blew the lid off this suppressed fact.  
Koestler notes, "In the 1960's, the number of the Sephardim was 
estimated at 500,000.  The Ashkenazim, at the same period, 
numbered about eleven million.  Thus in common parlance, Jew is 
synonymous with Ashkenazi Jew."  He further states, "For the sake 
of piquantry it should be mentioned that the Ashkenaz of the Bible 
refers to a people living somewhere in the vicinity of Mount Ararat 
and Armenia.  The name occurs in Genesis 10:3 and 1 Chronicles 
1:6 as one of the sons of Gomer, who was a son of Japheth.  
Ashkenaz is also a brother of Togarmah (and a nephew of Magog) 
whom the Khazars, according to King Joseph, claimed as their 
ancestor."
     Koestler further quotes an early source indicating that the 
Khazars had some connection with Gog of the land of Magog.  "At 
some date earlier than 864, the Westphalian monk, Christian 
Druthmar of Acquitania, wrote a Latin treatise 'Esposito in 
Evangelium Mattei,' in which he reported that 'there exist people 
under the sky in regions where no Christian can be found, whose 
name is Gog and Magog, and who are Huns; among them is one, 
called the Gazari (Khazars) who are circumcised and observe 
Judaism in its entirety.'"  For those interested in Bible prophecy,
the implications of this last sentence are staggering.  Read Genesis 
10:2-3 to see from whom Ashkenaz descended; notice who his 
relatives are.  Then read Ezekiel 38 & 39.
     Jewish author Alfred Lilienthal further stated: "These 
Ashkenazim Jews...have little or no trace of Semitic blood." - p. 
222, "What Price Israel."  This is now understandable from what 
Koestler revealed.
     The Jews fully understand their Khazarian heritage as the third 
edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia for 1925 records:
     "Chazars: a people of Turkish origin whose life and history are 
interwoven with the very beginnings of the history of the Jews of 
Russia." The Jewish Encyclopedia, Third Edition, 1925
     There are two main "racial" branches of modern Jewry.  The 
smaller of the two is called the Sephardim, some of whose ancestors 
fled after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and spread across North 
Africa to Spain.  This group has been from the outset so small, in 
terms of a viable gene pool, and has mixed with such regularity over 
the centuries with the indigenous peoples wherever they lived that 
Dr. Raphael Patai, a leading Jewish scholar, felt compelled to write a 
book entitled 'The Myth of the Jewish Race' (Scribners, 1975).  In 
reviewing an earlier work by Dr. Patai, 'Israel Between East and 
West,' Dr. Camille Honig, literary editor for the Voice (Jewish 
Voice of California, Sept. 25, 1953), stated:  "If you studied Jewish 
types and communities in five continents, as this writer had the 
opportunity of doing, you would have realized that it is sheer 
nonsense, and very dangerous nonsense, as well as unscientific, to 
speak about a Jewish race."  
     In a book entitled "Races in Europe", the author, William Z. 
Ripley, states under ethnology:  "The findings of physical 
anthropology show that contrary to all popular view, there is no 
Jewish race.  "Our conclusion then is final.  It is paradoxical yet 
true, we affirm.  The Jews are not a race, but only a people after
all."
     Perhaps it can be understood why this is.  The World Book 
Encyclopedia states:  "The Jews were once a sub-type of the 
Mediterranean race, but they have mixed with other peoples until the 
name Jew has lost all racial meaning."
     Since the majority of people in modern Palestine and the world 
who call themselves "Jews" are descendants from a "Turko-
Mongolian tribal people" known as Khazars, and have "little or no 
trace of Semitic blood in them," but are rather descendants of 
Ashkenaz who was one of the sons of Gomer, who was a son of 
Japheth, then anyone who would be critical or oppose these people 
cannot be anti-Semitic.  Anti-impostors, anti-liars, anti-deceivers, 
anti-con artists, anti-Christ haters, yes.  But anti-Semitic, no.

---------------------
FAQ - ISRAEL IDENTITY continued in parts 2 and 3.

-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|   For unique political commentary & Christian views        Rick Savage    | 
|     Anonymous FTP:  ftp.netcom.com  - pub/SF/SFA           PO Box 5251    |
|   To obtain files by e-mail write me for help file       Denver, CO 80217 |
|       In your message ask for FTP-EMAIL help.                 (u)SA       |


From rsavage@netcom.com Thu May 25 18:35:04 PDT 1995
Article: 5073 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Identit.FAQ - Pt.2
Message-ID: 
Organization: ftp.netcom.com pub/SF/SFA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 00:46:22 GMT
Lines: 597
Sender: rsavage@netcom9.netcom.com

Frequently Asked Questions and Answers on 
   ISRAEL- IDENTITY  (Part 2 of 3)

Last Updated 2/20/95
Future updates available via anonymous FTP 
  from:  ftp.netcom.com  pub/SF/SFA
Compiled by Rick Savage 

Continued from "FAQ-Israel_Identity.pt1"

6.  Is the Israel Identity Christian message "anti-semitic"?
    ----------------------------------------------------------- 
     The term "anti-semitism" is a nonsense smear word that is 
used to intimidate and silence those who would criticize the "Jews."
Today the true meaning of the word, "anti-semite," is anyone who
the self-styled "Jews" don't like.
     Albert Einstein exposed the true origins and use of anti-semitism
by the "Jews" when he said:  "Anti-Semitism is nothing but the 
antagonistic attitude produced in the non-Jew by the Jewish group.
The Jewish group has thrived on oppression and on the antagonism
it has forever met in the world."  (Collier's Magazine, Nov. 26, 1938)
Einstein was describing their common use of "chutzpah" for their 
own gain and profit while crying "persecution."
     Mr. Koestler, in his book, 'The Thirteenth Tribe,' stated the 
following:  "In this last chapter I have tried to show that the evidence
>from  Anthropology concurs with history in refuting the popular 
belief in a Jewish race descended from a biblical tribe." p. 199
     He again stated on p. 226, "Nevertheless the lingering influence 
of Judaism's racial and historical message, *though based on 
illusion*, acts as a powerful emotional break by appealing to tribal 
loyalty....  It is perhaps symbolic that Abraham Poliak, a professor 
of history at Tel Aviv University and no doubt an Israeli patriot, 
made a major contribution to our knowledge of Jewry's Khazar 
ancestry, *undermining the legend of the Chosen Race.*"  
     It is interesting to know that Random House advertised 
Koestler's book quite extensively and began some of their ads with 
the headline:  "What if Most Jews Aren't Really Semites at All?"  
Not only should most "Jews" be asking themselves this question 
but so should modern-day Christians.
     Identifying Israel today, while at the same time exposing the
self-styled "Jews" as impostors, cannot properly be labeled "Anti-
Semitism" as we have seen in (Q#5 above), because the people 
known as "Jews" today are primarily of Japheth's lineage, rather
than Shem's.  They have virtually no Shemite (Semite) blood 
running through their veins except for what they gained through 
inter-marriage with the European and Arabic peoples.  It could also
be argued that they have a trace of Edomite blood in them which is
present through intermarriage from an earlier time in their history
as revealed in the Jewish Encyclopedia edition of 1925, vol. 5, 
page 41, "Edom is in Modern Jewry."
     On the other hand, the majority of the white race is a race which 
has descended from Noah's son Shem and, consequently, is 
predominantly Semitic.  Many of the white race today are accused 
of being anti-Semitic.  What utter nonsense.  The accused are 
Semites!  If you want to identify people who are truly anti-Semitic"
find the people who are anti-White and anti-Christ
     "Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of 
hate - healthy, virile hate - for what the German personifies and for 
what persists in the German." - Elie Wiesel, "Legends of Our Time" 
(Hold, Rinehart and Winston, 1968) p. 142


7.  What is the difference between a Semite, a Hebrew, an Israelite, 
    and a "Jew"?  Are these terms equivalent in any way and can they
    be used interchangeably?
    ----------------------------------------------------------- 
     A Semite (or, "Shemite") is someone descended from Shem, one 
of the sons of Noah.  A Hebrew is someone descended from Heber 
(or, "Eber"), one of the great-grandsons of Shem.  So all Hebrews 
are Semites, but not all Semites are Hebrews.
     Six generations after Heber, Abraham was born to his line, so 
Abraham was both a Hebrew and a Semite, born of the line of 
Heber and Shem. 
     Isaac was born of Abraham; then Jacob of Isaac.  Jacob's name 
was changed to "Israel," and he fathered 12 sons.  His sons and 
their descendants are called Israelites, and they would be both 
Semitic and Hebrew.  However, this would not make either 
Abraham or Isaac "Israelites."  Some, who interchange the words 
"Jew" and Israelite, call Abraham a Jew, even though Abraham was 
not even an Israelite, and the word "Jew" is not used in the Bible 
until 1,000 years after Abraham.
     One of Jacob-Israel's children was Judah (Hebrew - Yehudah).  
His descendants were called Yehudim ("Judahites").  In Greek this 
reads Ioudaioi ("Judeans").
     The confusing factor is that almost all Bible translations employ 
the word "Jew," which is a modern, shortened form of the word 
"Judahite."  Every time you come to the word "Jew" in the Old 
Scriptures, you should read "Judahite;" and every time you come to 
the word "Jew" in the New Scriptures, you should read it as 
"Judean."
     Once you have those proper translations in mind, then we have to 
interpret those words further, because they can have more than one 
meaning, depending on the context.  In the Old Testament, the word 
"Judahite" has three distinct usage's: (1) one who is of the tribe of 
Judah in a racial sense; (2) one who is a citizen of the southern 
"House of Judah," including the tribes of Benjamin and Levi.  Thus, 
this word can be used either tribally (racially) or geographically 
(nationally).  (3) This is also used in a religious sense of those who 
followed the religion of Judah.  At the time of Esther, many non-
Israelites "became Jews" (that is, Judahites) as the result of the 
Judahite victory (Esther 8:17).
     In the New Testament, the Greek word Ioudeos should be 
translated "Judean."  Again, this term was used in the same manner:  
(1) one who is of the tribe of Judah in the racial sense; (2) one who 
is a citizen of the province of Judea (as opposed to Galilee and 
Samaria), as is shown in John 7:1.  This usage is geographical, and 
it applied also to the non-Israelite citizens of Judea who had been 
incorporated into the nation in 135 B.C.; and (3) a follower of the 
religion of Judah as given by Moses and the prophets.  This usage 
is found in Romans 2:28 and 29.
     Most churches today make no distinction between these terms.  
One of their arguments is that the Apostle Paul said in Romans 11:1 
that he was an "Israelite," and then in Phil. 3:5 he called himself "a 
Hebrew of the Hebrews."  Therefore, they say, the terms are 
identical, and by implication they include the word "Jew" as well.  
However, Paul was also a Benjamite (Rom. 11:1), but the fact that 
he descended from Benjamin, Israel, and Heber did not mean that all 
of these men were the same person.
           Therefore, we can say:
1.  All Israelites are Hebrews and Semites.
2.  Only a few of the Israelites were called Jews (or, Judahites, 
     Judeans).
3.  Many non-Israelites were called Jews (Judahites, Judeans) 
     simply because they lived in Judah or claimed to follow the 
     religion of the Judeans.
4.  And as we have seen previously, the self-styled or so-called
     "Jews" of Judaism are not Israelites, Hebrews or Semites but
     rather Khazars (Turkish Mongol Huns).


8.  Who are the Gentiles?  Does the word "gentile" simply mean
    non-Jew?  What does the word really mean?
    ----------------------------------------------------------- 
    This is from "A Study Into the Meaning of the Word "Gentile"
as Used in the Bible" by Curtis Clair Ewing:
     A great deal of confusion and misunderstanding has been 
caused by the use of the word "gentile" in the English translation of 
the Bible.  
     The word 'gentile' is a translation of the Hebrew word 'goi' 
(singular) and 'goyim' (plural) and the Greek word 'ethnos' 
(singular) and 'ethne' (plural).  Using the word 'gentile' to translate 
these words is often misleading because it is a misapplication of 
the Hebrew and Greek words as used in the Bible.  The modern use 
of the word has come to mean non-Jew or non-Israel, but that 
meaning cannot be maintained in the face of the evidence.
     The Hebrew word 'goi' is a collective noun meaning 'nation' or 
sometimes a collective body of people.  But it has been translated 
into English many different ways.  The word occurs 557 times in 
the Old Testament.  The Authorized Version of the Bible translates 
it 'gentile' 30 times; 'heathen' 142 times; 'nation' 373 times; 'people' 
11 times; 'another' once.  But the American Standard Revised 
Version cuts the occurrence of  gentile from 30 to 9 times, and then 
shows in the footnotes of 5 of those 9 times that the word 'nations' 
should have been used.
     Of course the word 'nation' is not always an exact equivalent 
term because there is too much of a political significance attached 
to it.  But it is much better than the word 'gentile' and some of our 
best translators prefer the word 'nations.'   This is also shown by 
the way the Revised Version eliminates the word 'gentiles."
     The same thing is true of the Greek word 'ethnos.'  It occurs 164 
times in the New Testament.  In the Authorized Version it is 
translated 'gentiles' 93 times; 'heathen' 5 times; 'nation' or 'nations' 
64 times; and 'people' twice.  In the American Standard Revised 
Version it is 'gentiles' 96 times in the text and 7 times in the 
footnotes, making 103 occurrences altogether.  But in the footnotes 
it is corrected 15 times to read 'nations,' making the final count 88. 
So not only the Hebrew word 'goi' but also the Greek word 'ethnos' 
has been translated to read 'nations' more than any other word.
     If the reader will consult a good dictionary, you will find that 
the word 'gentile' is derived from the Latin word 'gentilis' and 
properly understood means 'non-something'.  As used by a Jew or 
an Israelite it would mean 'non-Jew' or 'non-Israelite.'  But they are 
not the only people who have a right to use the word.
     For instance, suppose a Buddhist priest spoke Latin and he 
wanted to refer to the nations that were not Buddhist, he would call 
them 'gentilis.'  In Hebrew and Greek, there is no exact equivalent 
to the Latin word 'gentilis' or the English word 'gentile,' 
nevertheless, if this same priest spoke Hebrew and Greek along 
with his Latin and wanted to refer to the nations that were not 
Buddhist, he would call them 'goyim' if speaking Hebrew and 
'ethne' if speaking Greek, and each time he would naturally include 
the Jewish and Israel people.  Likewise a Moslem priest could use 
the three languages and refer to the Jews and Israel as 'gentilis, 
goyim and ethne.'
     One important thing to always keep in mind is that 'goi' and 
'ethnos' are collective nouns and cannot properly be translated to 
mean an individual person.  They always refer to a group.  There is 
no such thing as A GENTILE; it is always plural.  'Gentiles' in its 
plural sense may at times be used to translate 'goi' and 'ethnos' but 
its use gives an added thought not intended in the original word 
which cannot in every case be justified.
     Another important word found in the Hebrew text, which needs 
only passing notice is the Hebrew word "am" and is found many 
times in the Old Testament text.  It is translated 'nation' 17 
times.  It is usually translated 'people', for it occurs that way 1,835 
times in our English text.  Occasionally it is qualified by the 
phrase, "every people," but when it is rendered "the people" it 
usually means Israel.  But this is not the word that has been the 
source of the misunderstanding.  Translations of the Hebrew word 
'goi' and the Greek word 'ethnos' have caused the trouble.
     The Hebrew word 'goi' and the Greek word 'ethnos' in their 
singular and plural forms are used in three ways in the Bible.

  1.  'In referring to the Israel and Jewish people,' let us note the 
verses which follow below found in the Old Testament and New 
Testament which refer either to Israel or the Jews as a nation and 
use the Hebrew word 'goi' and the Greek word 'ethnos.'  To 
demonstrate the absurdity of always translating the word 'goi' or 
'ethnos' as 'gentile' we suggest that you read the following verses 
substituting the word 'gentile' or 'heathen,' for 'nation' or
'nations':
     Gen. 12:2 - "I will make of thee a great nation."
     Gen. 17:4,5 - "A father of many nations have I made thee."
     Gen. 20:1 - "Lord, wilt thou slay a righteous nations?" 
                 (heathen).
     Gen. 25.23 - "Two nations are in thy womb."  (Try the word 
                  heathen or gentile in that verse).
     Gen. 35:11 - "A nation and a company of nations."
     Gen. 48:19 - "Thy seed shall become a multitude of nations."
     Isa. 1:4 - "Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity."
     Isa. 10:6 - "Send him against an hypocritical nation."
     Jer. 31:36 - "Shall cease from being a nation before me."
     Luke 7:5 - "He loveth our nation and hath built us a synagogue."
     John 11:48 - "The Romans will come and take our place and 
                   nation."
     Acts 24:2 - "Worthy deeds are done unto this nation by the 
                 providence."
     Acts 24:17 - "I came to bring alms to my nation."
 
     From the foregoing verses and many others that could be given, 
it can easily be seen that the Hebrew word 'goi' and the Greek word 
'ethnos' do not always refer to non-Israel people.

  2.  Now let us read a few verses where the same words are used 
and, as can be seen, refer very definitely to non-Israel people.
     Gen. 14;9 - "With Chedorlaomer the king of Elam, and with 
                 Tidal king of nations."
     Gen. 21:13 - "And also the son of the bond woman will I make 
                 a nation."
     Gen. 21:18 - "For I will make of him a great nation."
     Ex. 9:21 - "...There was none like it in all the land of Egypt 
                since it became a nation."
     Ex. 34:24 - "...For I will cast out the nations before thee."
     Isa. 37:12 - "Have the gods of the nations delivered them which 
                  my fathers have destroyed?"
     Matt. 10:5 - "Go not in the way of the gentiles."
     Matt. 24:7 - "For nation shall rise against nation."
     Luke 21:24 - "They shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall 
                  be led away captive into all nations."
     Acts 7:7 - "And the 'nation' to whom they shall be in bondage 
                will I judge, said God."
     Acts 8:9 - "But there was a certain man called Simon which 
                before time in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched 
                the 'people' of Samaria."
     Acts 10:45 - "... Because that on the 'Gentiles' also was poured 
                out the gifts of the Holy Ghost."

     In the above verses three words have been used to translate the 
same Greek word 'ethnos', and they are 'nations,' 'gentiles' and 
'people'.

  3.  Now we come to the third way in which the words have been 
used, and that is to describe all nations, which of course always 
'includes Israel and non-Israel nations.'
     Gen. 22:18 - "And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth 
                  be blessed."
     Gen. 25:23 - "Two nations are in thy womb."
     I Chron. 16:23,24 - "Declare his glory among the 'heathen' ...his 
                  marvelous works among the 'nations.'"
     Psa. 9:19,20 - "...Let the 'heathen' be judged in thy sight.  Put 
                  them in fear, oh Lord; that the 'nations' may know 
                  themselves to be but men."

     - Notice the last two verses have used the two words 'heathen' 
and 'nations' to translate the same word in one passage.

     Matt. 24:9,14 - "...and ye shall be hated of all nations for my 
                  name's sake," "This gospel of the kingdom shall be 
                  preached for a witness to all nations."
     Matt. 28:19 - "Go ye therefore and teach all nations."
     Acts. 10:35 - "But in every nation he that feareth him, and 
                  worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."
     
     Attention should also be called to another Greek word 
erroneously translated 'gentiles.'  The word is 'hellen' and means 
'Greeks.'  It is used 27 times in the New Testament.  In 20 places it 
is properly translated 'Greeks', but in 7 other places in the 
Authorized Version it is erroneously translated 'gentiles.'  This has 
been corrected in the Revised Version and nearly all subsequent 
translations.  For example, the Authorized Version translates John 
7:35 to read:  "Will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, 
and teach the Gentiles?"  Nearly all revised versions translate this 
to read:  "Will he go unto the dispersed among the Greek and teach 
the Greek?"  Take as another example I Corinthians 10:32, "Give 
none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the 
church of God."  Now the writer has read several articles by well-
known Bible teachers who reject the Israel identity of the Anglo-
Saxon people because they say that this verse gives the only 
classes that God now recognizes.  In other words they claim on the 
authority of this verse that the human race is divided into Jews, 
Gentiles, and the Church of God.
     That is a good example of how anything can be proved by 
taking a verse out of its context.  The context shows that Paul was 
admonishing people to be conscientious in their walk so as not to 
offend a weak brother.  The division made in the text is only 
incidental to the point he was trying to make.  And then too, the 
text does not say that there are 'only three classes of people'.  What 
it does say is, "Give none offense,' neither to the Jews, nor to the 
Gentiles, nor to the church of God."
     Now if this text were given to show a division of humanity, 
then it leaves the vast majority of the race out entirely, because the 
word that is translated 'gentiles' is a palpable mistranslation and 
should be translated 'Greeks'.  This is exactly the way the Revised 
Version gives it, as is also true of most private translations.  But 
you do not even need a Revised Version to discover this error.  
Any good Bible with a marginal reading will show this to be true.  
The Greek word that has been translated 'gentiles' in this verse is 
'hellen' and means 'Greeks'.  So, if, as these men have claimed, this 
verse proves there are only three classes of people in the world 
which God now recognizes, then they are the Jews, the Greeks and 
the Christians.  Everybody else is left out.
     By using the same method of reasoning we could quote 
Galatians 3:28 and prove that God does not recognize any 
distinction in the human race; then we could go to the other 
extreme and quote Colossians 3:11 to prove that God recognizes 
eight divisions of mankind.  In both cases we would be taking the 
verse out of their context just as these men have done.  But all of 
the confusion over this text would have been avoided if the word 
'Greeks' had been used instead of 'gentiles.'  Paul was writing to the 
Corinthians, Corinth was in Greece.  They had three classes of 
people there - Jew, Greek and Christian.  Had Paul been writing to 
the Romans he no doubt would have said, "Give none offense, 
neither to the Jews, nor to the Romans, nor to the church of God.
     Besides these two examples, there are four other places where 
hellen has been translated 'gentiles' where it should have been 
translated 'Greeks'.  These are found in Romans 2:9,10; 3:9; and I 
Corinthians 12:13.
     While on this subject a few words should be said about the way 
the word "gentiles" has been used in the Epistle to the Romans, one 
of the important books in the New Testament.  And on this matter I 
will borrow some thoughts from the late Dr. Wm. Pascoe Goard.
     In Dr. Goard's book, "Epistle to the Romans," he has given 
some illuminating comments on how the word 'ethne' refers to the 
ten-tribed Israel.  These are found in the fourth and fifth chapters 
of his book.  He shows very clearly that chapters 9,10 and 11 of 
Romans refer to ten-tribed Israel.  In these chapters the Apostle 
Paul quotes quite freely from Hosea, Isaiah and Elijah, and as Dr. 
Goard shows, all these quotations refer to facts in the history of 
Judah nor in the history of any other nation.  Thus when the word 
'gentiles'  (Greek word 'ethne') is used in these three chapters it 
definitely is ten-tribed Israel.  It is not a contrast between Israel and 
non-Israel people.  It is a contrast between Israel in 975 B. C. and 
Israel known as the nations in A.D. 60.
     Do not let the word 'gentiles mislead you.  The Greek word is 
'ethne' and means 'nations.'  The Apostle Paul in this Israel section 
of his epistle is merely contrasting Israel's former state when she 
was known as Israel with her state in his day when she was known 
as the 'nations.'  To use the popularized meaning of the word, they 
had become 'gentilized' in the sense that they were not known as 
Israel.  Israel was one nation God had called out from among the 
other nations; now she was just like the other nations.
     She had lost her identity so much that the Apostle Paul said that 
blindness was to stay on Israel until the "fullness of the gentiles" 
(nations) be come in.  (Romans 11:25)  This 'fullness of the 
gentiles' should be fullness of 'nations'.  It is a direct reference to 
Genesis 18:19, where it is stated that Ephraim was to become a 
"multitude of nations" in the last days.  This is confirmed by the 
fact that both Dr. Delitzsch's translation of the New Testament into 
Hebrew - sold by the British and Foreign Bible Society - and 
Ginsburg -Salkinson's New Testament, published by the Trinitarian 
Bible Society, for the use of the Jews, have the very same Hebrew 
words - me lo hag-goyim- in Romans 11:25, that we find in 
Genesis 48:19, in the Hebrew Old Testament, and in this verse 
ONLY.  We use the expression "multitude of nations" because it is 
given as the correct reading in most Bibles in preference to fullness 
of nations.  That time has arrived now and that is the reason our 
identity as Israel is becoming known.  As Isaiah 25:7 reads, "He 
will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all 
people, and the veil that is spread over all nations."  That veil is 
being lifted now and our real identity and the identity of other 
nations is becoming known.
     Some scholars, in translating Genesis 48:19, where the Hebrew 
is 'me lo hag-goyim' render it a 'company of gentile nations.'  The 
writer is convinced that a 'company' or 'multitude of nations' is the 
better translation.  However, there is nothing wrong with the 
translation if the right meaning is attached to the word 'gentile.  
That is, they would become so much like other nations that they 
would not be recognized as Israel.  That, of course, is a different 
meaning given to the word than is meant in the original text.
                      To summarize:
     The word 'gentile' is derived from the Latin word 'gentilis' and
is only one of several words that are used to translate the Hebrew 
word 'goi' and the Greek word 'ethnos' into English.  The best word 
to use is 'nations.'  It would have been better if the word 'gentile' 
had never appeared in the English text.  Neither 'goi' nor 'ethnos' 
necessarily mean non-Israel, as has been shown above.


9.  Is the Israel Identity Christian message "racist" and "white 
    supremacist?"  What about 'non-white' races?  Inferior?  
    Superior?  Equal?  
    ----------------------------------------------------------- 
     Every race was created by God (Col. 1:16) unique and different.  
God called His creation *good* (I Timothy 4:4).
     He established the order of "kind after kind."  Every creature, 
beast and "race" of people were to reproduce after their own kind.  
Thus Christians should love and strive to keep each race as God 
created them.  In other words Christians should be opposed to racial 
nihilism and support racial preservation.
     Man's belief in equality is a hatred of the unique traits of every 
"race" God created.  Man hates what God called good if he mixes 
the races through interracial marriage which ultimately destroys the 
uniqueness of each racial type.  Each race has its superior traits and 
inferior ones.  There is no race that can claim "superiority" in 
everything, the key point is that they are *unique* and good 
according to His own purpose.  
     It is the duty of every Christian to preserve God's creation and 
defend the order He established! ("Kind after kind.")  The Christian 
("Identity") message is that of love for all races and a desire to 
preserve them as God created them.  If anyone claiming to be a 
Christian, "Identity" or otherwise, preaches hatred of any original 
racial type for simply being what God created them, then they are 
not preaching the Word of God, but rather that which is contrary to 
His Will.
     We are told in the parables of Christ that what God did not plant 
will be uprooted and burned (Matt. 13:25-30).  God did not create 
racially mixed people, that is man's doing through man's rejection of 
God's law-order of "kind after kind". 
     God demonstrated his dislike for the mixing of the races by 
saving only one man, Noah and we find out why in Gen.6:9,  
"These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and 
PERFECT in his GENERATIONS, and Noah walked with God."
     The word "generations" in the Hebrew concordance (Strong's 
#8435), means "descent, family, history, birth-generations."  Noah 
was perfect in all of his descent or family, there could not then have 
been any "mixed" seed in his genealogy.  We see in Genesis 11:6, 
"And the Lord said, Behold, the people is *one*."  (#259 - 
Strong's).  The meaning here is that the people were united, 
undivided, or had mixed racially, instead of being separate peoples.
God not only saved Noah because he was perfect in his generations,
but also because he "walked with God," which is just another way
of saying He obeyed God's commandments to be separate and holy
unto Him.
     Jesus came as a sword (Matt. 10:34, Rev. 2:12,16; 19:13-15), to 
divide out a people for Himself.  In Matt. 10: 5&6, Christ instructed 
His disciples to not go "into the way of the heathen, but rather go 
unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."  Christ's message was 
not of inclusion; but separation.  All throughout Jesus' parables we 
read how he came to separate the sheep from the goats, the wheat 
>from  tares, the good seed from the bad seed, etc.  Separation is the 
message of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.
     Most Pastors are taking the safe—and profitable—road by 
preaching "love" as a code-word for liberal "non-exclusion."  We 
Christians must surely preach the accomplishment of Christ on the 
Cross, and all that it provides for those who surrender to and accept 
it in repentance and faith, but today it is important—critically 
important—to draw an absolute distinction between "whosoever 
will" (follow Christ) and the leftist spawned false universalist non-
exclusion doctrine, which has most denominations bringing 
Buddhist monks, Islamic clerics, shamans, witches, homosexuals 
and, of course, Rabbis into their congregations to "teach" that, after 
all, we all worship the same God.
     On what basis—and why—did God separate Cain from Abel, 
Abraham from his worldly family, Isaac from Ishmael, Jacob from 
Esau?  Read Leviticus 16 about the annual ritual God gave as a 
statute to the Israelites, which He called the Day of Atonement.  
Consider carefully the significance of the two goats which were 
chosen by lot (a method of choosing which indicated God's choice), 
and their subsequent fates.  We read that we did not choose God 
but rather Jesus the Christ (God in the flesh) chose us, the white 
Israelite race.  It was a matter of choice, HIS Sovereign choice, and 
He separated them from out of the world not to be "superior" but to 
be a chosen generation (NASV says "race"), and a holy nation for 
His own possession (I Peter 2:9; John 6:44,45; II Cor. 6:17). 
     Unfortunately, the "chosen" or favored child is usually hated and 
envied by the other children as we read about in the story of Joseph 
(Genesis. 37:3-) and how he was sold to the Egyptians into slavery 
by his brothers because of their father's special favor toward 
Joseph.  But Joseph was blessed by this and raised up by God to 
eventually save his brothers and family when we read the "rest of 
the story."  So shall it be with true Christian Israel and the other 
peoples of the world when Israel is returned to their God and His 
duty for them.
     God's ways have always been "repent" or "perish."  Man can't 
blame God for the evil that man creates when he rebels against 
God's law-order.  Man has only himself to blame if he is 
responsible for mixing the races.  Any suffering brought about by 
the sin of inter-racial marriage is the responsibility of rebellious 
man, not God!
     "Now it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they 
separated from Israel all the mixed (mongrel) multitude" (Neh. 13:3, 
Josh. 23:12-13, etc.).
     Identifying the white peoples as Israel cannot be correctly 
labeled "White Supremacy" because this teaching does not elevate 
one race above another but separates them and mandates that one 
race (the white race) be a servant unto God and others by *God's* 
standards.  It is not "White Supremacy"; if anything, it is White 
SERVANTHOOD.  As a rule, whenever the thought of race leads
us to boastfulness or contempt, there is something false in it.  
     Israel was to be a blessing to the world.  They were given God's 
Law (Ps. 147:19-20) to be a model and "light" to the world through 
their obedience to and enforcement of His Law-Word.  Through 
their obedience they would be blessed and prosper and from these 
blessings were to teach the other people the Laws of God (Micah 
4:1,2; Rev.3:12; Rev. 21:1,2,10).  This is still Israel's duty (Gen. 
1:27-28; Matt. 28:18-20).  Christians (redeemed Israel) must begin 
applying the Great Commission, indeed, ALL of Scripture, to the 
fundamental institutions of social order: the family, the Church, and 
the State in order that nation after nation will bow before Him Who 
has "all Authority and Dominion in Heaven and on Earth," (Eph. 
1:21; I Timothy 6:14-16).  We do this by obeying His commands 
found in His Law-Word.  "For He must reign until He has put all 
His enemies under His feet," (I Cor. 15:25).
     His Word tells us, "All creation longs for the revealing of the 
Sons of God".  True Israel, the Germanic, Celtic, Scandinavian and
kindred (white) peoples, have been a blessing to the world and
continue to be at the for-front of fulfilling this duty.  When true
Israel wakes up to their identity and duty to their God, this will be
manifested in an even greater way.  


10.  Can the redemption of the house of Israel through accepting the 
    Covenant offered by Christ, *only* be granted to descendants of 
    Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?  Or is this same redemption available
    to all?  And if the same redemption is available to all, to black and 
    white, Khazar and non-Khazar, 'false' and 'true' Israelites, then 
    why does the 'identity' of the tribe of Israel matter?  How does 
    the redemption of different races or kinds or types differ,?
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    Yes, only "Israel" can be "redeemed" (to be bought back).  Jesus 
Christ came to save His own (John 1:11) and to do this took on the 
very seed of Abraham (Hebrews 2:16) in order to keep the promise 
made to Abraham (Genesis 17:7).  He came into this world to 
REDEEM only Israel.  Salvation is another story and is to those 
who believe by faith.  Only true Israel was ever cast off and in need 
of being "bought back."  That Christ did come and did Redeem His 
people Israel is the testimony of the New Testament writers.  (See 
Luke 1:54-55,68-73, John 1:31, St. Matthew 15:24, Acts 5:31; 
13:23).  To keep the Law of Redemption (Lev. 25), Jesus Christ had 
to be genetically related to those that He redeemed.  Jesus the Christ 
was of the Seed of Abraham (Hebrews 2:16), of the Tribe of Judah 
(Hebrews 7:14), of the House of David (Romans 1:3), and of the 
Adamic 'race' (Matthew 1:1-16).  Besides, "original sin" (Gen. 3:6-
7, 17-19) only applies to Adam and His descendants (Romans 
5:12 also see Q#11).  Since the Bible is only a story about the 
Adamic family, specifically through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel, 
we would expect it's specific application would generally be 
applicable only to Adamic Israelites in general.
    This does not mean that non-Israelites cannot put themselves 
under the dominion rule of Christ and under His Law-Covenant.  
Isa. 56 speaks of such people as receiving a *greater* reward, 
because they did and obeyed what was required of a people other 
than themselves.  This duty to the King of Kings and to the 
Covenant He made with Israel is one of dominion in Christ's name.  
Non-Israelites are welcome to pick up that commission and will be 
blessed for their service to the King of kings.  They shall be saved
by their faith.  
    Salvation is a consequence of redemption.  Here is how it works:
1.  Redemption is only through the King of kings, Christ Jesus (1 
     Tim. 6:14-16), as our great High Priest after the order of 
     Melchizedek (Hebrews chpts. 5-7), who has taken His seat at the 
     right hand of God (Heb. 8:1), and Has made a New Covenant 
     with His People, Israel (Heb. 8:8-10,13).
2.  When Israel is redeemed through Christ, they will again obey 
     His commandments and do their duty, i.e carry out His Will on 
     Earth (Heb. 3:18,19; Heb. 4:1,5,6,11).
3.  The duty of Israel is to bring everything into obedience to Christ 
     Jesus and His Law-Dominion (Romans 13:4, 1 Cor. 6:2; 2 Cor. 
     10:3-6, Hebrews. 10:26-31; Heb. 12:28,29; James 1:22-25).
4.  Through His Law-Dominion, peace, law and order will be 
     restored and all the earth shall be blessed and "saved" from those 
     who would oppress, enslave and destroy the people of God's 
     creation (Rev. chpts. 21 & 22).

     The key to redemption is a love for His Will to be done on Earth 
as it is in Heaven,  i.e. obedience.  "If you love Me, Keep (obey) My 
commandments" (Deut. 6:4-5, 11:1;  Matt. 22:40; I John 2:3,5).  If 
you love God, Christ Jesus, and hear His voice, you will seek out 
His plan of redemption and do what it requires of you.  This is 
merely doing our duty out of love for what He has already done for 
us in making our redemption possible by dying in our place to 
atone for our sins (rebellion against His Law - I John 3:4).  The 
plan for redemption is revealed in His New Covenant plan found in 
His Word.  We can attempt to sum it up in Matt. 28:18-20; John 
3:3,5; Acts 2:38; 8:37-39; 19:5; Romans 6; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:11-14; 
Eph. 4:5; I Peter 3:21; etc, etc., but there is so much more.  Christ 
promised those who diligently seek shall find and those who hunger 
and thirst after it will find it. 

-----------------------------
FAQ - ISRAEL IDENTITY continued in part 3.

-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|   For unique political commentary & Christian views        Rick Savage    | 
|     Anonymous FTP:  ftp.netcom.com  - pub/SF/SFA           PO Box 5251    |
|   To obtain files by e-mail write me for help file       Denver, CO 80217 |
|       In your message ask for FTP-EMAIL help.                 (u)SA       |


From rsavage@netcom.com Thu May 25 18:35:16 PDT 1995
Article: 5074 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Identit.FAQ - Pt.3
Message-ID: 
Organization: ftp.netcom.com pub/SF/SFA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 00:47:01 GMT
Lines: 626
Sender: rsavage@netcom9.netcom.com

Frequently Asked Questions and Answers on 
   ISRAEL- IDENTITY  (Part 3 of 3)

Last Updated 2/20/95
Future updates available via anonymous FTP 
  from:  ftp.netcom.com  pub/SF/SFA
Compiled by Rick Savage 

Continued from "FAQ-Israel_Identity.pt2"

11.  What about Adam and Eve?  Were they of the white 'race' or 
     are they the mother and father of all the "races"?  
     -----------------------------------------------------------
     We can not fully answer these questions in the breadth 
and depth they should be answered because of space limitations, but 
we will try to give a brief over-view.  A good reference for an 
exhaustive study on the matter is "Origins of Race and Civilization," 
by Charles Weisman, which is made available below.
1.  Adam was white:
     The book we call the Bible is a family His(S)tory of God's 
people-- the generations of Adam and more specifically of his 
descendants through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel.  All 
Scriptural evidence indicates Adam was created a white man.  The 
name "ADAM" (aw-dawm') in Hebrew means a "ruddy human 
being" (Strong's O.T. #120).  It is derived from Strong's O.T. #119 
- ADAM (aw-dam'), which means "to show blood (in the face), i.e. 
flush or turn rosy."  The attributes of skin color are described by 
one geneticist as follows:
     "The color of normal human skin is due to the presence of three 
kinds of colored chemicals, or pigments.  The most important of 
these pigments is melanin, a dark-brown substance... The second of 
the three pigments is carotene.  This is a yellow substance which is 
present in carrots (from which it gets its name) and egg yokes as 
well as human skin...  The third pigment is hemoglobin, which is the 
red coloring matter of blood...the hemoglobin occurs in the blood 
vessels beneath the skin, so that very little can show through..  The 
presence of fair amounts of either melanin or carotene in the skin 
covers it up completely.  Hemoglobin does show up however in the 
skin of white men, particularly in those of light complexion.  It is 
the hemoglobin that accounts for pink cheeks and the ability to 
blush."   -William C. Boyd, Ph.D.  'Races and People' (1955) 
pp.43-45
     Adam was fair and white which caused the hemoglobin (blood) 
to show in his skin making him look "ruddy" or to give him a 
"flush" look.  Thus the word "ADAM" is a descriptive name but 
here indicates certain physical characteristics that the man Adam 
possessed.  It is a common practice in both Hebrew and English 
languages to name something according to some *outstanding 
feature* or characteristic.  We thus call a bird a "red-headed 
woodpecker" because it has a red head and pecks wood.
     Adam was evidently called or named "ADAM" because he 
possessed 'aw-dam' characteristics - that being of a ruddy or rosy 
complexion coming from the blood (hemoglobin) showing through 
his non-pigmented skin. This is what ADAM meant.  People of a 
very fair complexion often appear as though they are reddish or 
sunburnt since the hemoglobin readily shows through their skin.  
This was the case with Adam and Eve.
     It is argued that other racial types get rosy cheeked as well and 
"blush".  Two facts that they can't argue with is that other races just 
don't show "blood in the face" as pronounced as the white race can 
and secondly one never asks if these other races "who blush" have 
any white mixed into their past generations.  Regardless, the ability 
to "blush, turn rosy" is an *outstanding feature* of the fair skinned 
white race.  The word "ADAM" was a descriptive term to describe 
this outstanding feature of Adam & Eve over the other races.
     That Adam and Eve were of the white race with this fair, ruddy or 
rosy complexion is verified in the Bible by the descriptions of their 
descendants.  King David, who was one of Adam's direct 
descendants, was described as being "ruddy, and of fair 
countenance." (I Samuel 16:12 and 17:42)  David's daughter Tamar 
was "fair" (2 Samuel 13:1).  Sarah and Rebekah, who were both 
descendant from Adam, were both described as being "very fair" 
(Genesis 12:11,14; Gen. 24:16; Gen. 26:7).  The daughters of Job, 
one of the Adamic patriarchs, were known as the fairest women "in 
all the land" (Job 42:15).  Solomon was described as being "white 
and ruddy" (Song of Solomon 5:10).  The Nazarites (consecrated 
persons) of Judah were "whiter than milk" and "more ruddy in 
body than rubies" (Lamentations 4:7).
-----------
2.  Were they of the white 'race' or are they the mother and father of 
all the "races"? 
     Where does the idea come from that believes Adam and Eve were 
the only (first) two people on God's created earth?  Both Creationists 
and Evolutionists agree with this false assumption.   Both positions
are wrong, but their adherents stubbornly cling to this concept as the
only  possible explanation when the truth lies elsewhere.  The
hypocrisy of the creationist's rejection of evolution should be self
evident when they claim that all men have sprung from a single pair
(Adam and Eve).   
     The "common origin" concept is needed in order to promote the 
real doctrine that is desired --the doctrine of "equality of the races."  
Without a common origin, all "equalitarian" arguments disintegrate.
The Bible does not support the "common origin" concept.  God's
creation reveals the opposite.
     When we look up at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, we see 
Adam, supposedly the first man, unquestionably depicted as a 
handsome white man.  When we look at the various religious tracts 
on "creationism," we see Adam and Eve portrayed as the most 
perfect and attractive representatives of the white European race. 
Yet  these same religious denominations, such as Jehovah's Witness, 
also state that:  "All races descended from the first man and 
woman."  ('Did Man Get Here by Evolution or by Creation,'  
Published by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York 
(1967) p. 113.)
     Certainly if Michelangelo had painted Adam as being a Pygmy 
or carved the marble statue of David into a Bushman type, he would 
have been excommunicated.  It would appear that the only way 
White Christians will accept a unity of races doctrine is if Adam and 
Eve are attractive white people -- yet at the same time they want all 
racial types being their descendants.  Strange inconsistency or the 
Law of Truth speaking to their hearts? 
     Bible chronologists, and those who believe in creationism, place 
Adam's creation around 4004 B.C.   There is no evidence in the 
Scriptures that indicates Adam was the first man and the progenitor 
of all races or types of man.  However, there is ample evidence that 
proves many other people were all ready in existence by the time 
Adam was created.  
      The book of Genesis provides most of this evidence.  For 
example, after Cain killed Abel he was cursed and driven out of the 
land by God.  In the fourth chapter of Genesis, Cain makes the 
statement:  "I shall be a FUGITIVE and a vagabond in the earth: it 
shall come to pass, that EVERY ONE that findeth me shall slay 
me."  If only Adam and Eve existed, then who was Cain afraid of 
that would kill him?  Who was it that he would be a fugitive from?  
It is quite clear that the "every one" which Cain was referring to 
could not be Adam and Eve.  Who was Cain referring to?  Cain was 
well aware that many people existed in the lands around them.  This 
fact is verified by God in His response to Cain in verse 15.  God 
told Cain that "whosoever" of the other people that might slay you, 
vengeance shall be on that person.  Why did God have to give Cain 
an identifying mark if the only other people that existed (Adam and 
Eve) knew Cain perfectly well?  This mark was not a signal so 
Adam and Eve could recognize Cain, but rather so that "any" of the 
other people then living could recognize Cain upon their "finding 
him."  
     If Adam and Eve were the first and only people at this time, 
then from where did Cain find a wife?  Not only was he able to find 
a wife, but there were obviously enough people to be part of the city 
built by Cain.  Cain's marriage, the birth of his son Enoch, and his 
building of a city all took place before the birth of Seth.  All these 
circumstances thus point to the existence of men independent of 
Adam.
     Adam was the "first man" only in the same sense that Christ 
was the "second man," for Adam "was the figure of Christ" (Rom. 
5:14).  The basic theme of the Bible is:  Death in Adam, Life in 
Christ.  This is the "resurrected" life that was promised to be 
RESTORED to Adam and his descendants, and thus pertains to no 
other races.  The Bible is simply not a comprehensive historical
record of the origins of any other people besides the Adamic
family.  If it was, it would have to be many volumes in length.
     The Bible is quite clear about there being many people on the 
earth at the time of the story of Adam and Eve.  The Bible does not 
support the idea that Adam and Eve gave birth to all the different
races on the earth, but rather implies that Adam and Eve were a
separate creation in the midst of other people who existed prior to 
them. Since these "other" people existed before Adam, they are
called "pre-Adamic."    
     Adam was a special creation who was called for God's own 
purpose.  The Bible, and Genesis specifically, is not a comprehensive 
account on all of God's creation.  What is covered is just the history 
God felt relevant to include.  The Bible simply does not detail the 
creation and origin of any other people besides the Adamic family, 
though we read about these other people later in the Bible.  This 
understanding will eventually end the false arguments over the two
wrong concepts of Evolution vs. Creation.  
     We could go into many more details and examples but space will
not permit.  Again, we recommend C. Weisman's excellent book 
"Origins of Race and Civilization" for more details. (available 
below.)


12. If true Israel is the white 'race' how do you account for the 
    many diverse nations of Europe?  Do the different European
    peoples have a common origin?
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    The simple answer is yes and we could say that the white "race" is
generally descended from the basic Germanic tribes.
     The Germanic tribes include several groups (Angles, Balts, Brits, 
Celts, Cimmerians, Danes, Franks, Frisians, Gaels, Goths, Jutes, 
Letts, Lombards, Normans, Rus, Saxons, Scots, Scythians, Swedes, 
Vandals, Walloons, etc.)  When we talk about the Anglo-Saxon, Indo-
German, Indo-Aryan or any other European-descended people we are
referring to the white race.  It should be noted that the 'Germans' are
but one of the many branches of the 'Germanic' peoples.  The
Germanic peoples were around for at least 1000 years before the
Germans and spread out over all of Europe.
     The word "German" comes from the Latin 'Germ nus' which
means "Genuine" or "authentic" in relation to a family or klan of 
people.  The peoples living in the land known as Germany today
during the Roman Empire were known as Scythians to the Romans.
As their numbers grew and they spread abroad the Romans began to
call the Scythians in the Germanic lands the "Genuine Scythians",
hence the word "German".  
     So who were the Scythians?  The Scythians were first mentioned
in history around 681-699 B.C. in Assyrian tablets found in Ninevah
(now in the British museum).  At this time the Scythians were located
among the Medes.
     It was in Assyria, specifically the cities of the Medes, where the
so-called "lost ten-tribes" were taken away into captivity (II Kings 
18:11) by Shalmaneser V of Assyria.
     Dr. Hans Gunther, professor of Berlin University in the 1920's
in his book, "Racial Elements of European History, stated,
     "... ancient writers, such as Polemon of Ilium, Galienos, Clement
of Alexandria, and Adamantios, state that the Scythians [Sacae] were
like the Kelts and Germans, and describe them as ruddy-fair.  The
Scythian tribe of the Alans are also described as having a Nordic
appearance.  Ammianus [c350 A.D.] describes them as "almost all
tall and handsome, with hair almost yellow, and a fierce look."
      Colonel J.C. Gawler states, "The Scythians were later known as
Goths, or Gothi, possibly because the Getae, an important branch of
the Scythian nation, were most in contact with the Romans, with
whom, therefore, all Scythians were [called] Gothi."
     The Roman Historian, Pliny the Elder (c50 A.D.) indicated,
     "The name Scythian has extended in every direction, even to the
Sarmatae and the Germans...beyond the Danube are the peoples of
Scythia.  The Persians have called them by the general name of 
Sacae...The more ancient writers give them the name of Aramii
(Arameans).  The multitude of these Scythians is quite innumerable
(note: Gen. 13:16; 15:5; 17:4,6); in their life and habits they much 
resemble the people of Parthia.  The tribes among them that are
better known are the Sacae, the Messagetae, the Dahae..."
    It should be noted that the land of Israel in the days of the Bible
was part of Syria.  The Israelites themselves are described in
Scripture as Syrians, and Abraham's family was Syrian. (Deut. 26:5;
Gen. 25:20.  The word Syrian (#761) means an Aramaean; a
highlander.)  The people known today as Syrians are as different
>from  the original Syrians, as the Portuguese and Egyptians were 
entirely different peoples from those who now predominate in the
lands which carry the names of their builders.
     Greater evidence that the Scythians who sired the Germanic
peoples are in fact the Israel of the Bible, is to be found in the
Scythian tombs (called tumuli) themselves which have been found
in southern Russia (Scythia and Crimea).  These tombs date from
580 B.C. to the 1st century and contain many of the symbols of the
Israelites, as well as fine animal drawings of near eastern derivation.
(These can be seen in the American Journal of Archaeology, 1914,
Vol 18, and the Illustrated London News; Jan. 3 & Feb. 14, 1914.) 
In several of these tombs, Hebrew manuscripts were found, some of
which are translated by Professor Hannay as follows:
     "I am Jehudi, the son of Moses, the son of Jehudi the Mighty, a
man of the tribe of Naphtili, which was carried captive with the
other tribes of Israel, by Prince Shalmaneser, from Samaria during
the reign of Hoshea, King of Israel.  They were carried to Halah, to
Habor-- which is Cabul --to Gozan and to the Cheronesus--which
is the Crimea."  (Haberman, p.129)
     Thousands of tombstones have been found in the Crimea in
Scythian graveyards with Hebrew-Phoenician inscriptions, 700 of
which have been translated by Professor Chwolsen of Petrograd.
Some of these read as follows:
     "This is the tombstone of Buki, the son of Itchak the priest; may
his rest be in Eden, at the time of the salvation of Israel.  In the
year 702 of the years of our exile."
     We could go on and on, but space does not permit for such a 
discussion.  For further confirming evidence we recommend the
book _Missing Links Discovered in Assyrian Tablets_ by Biblical
archaeologist E. Raymond Capt.  The book answers the question, 
"What happened to the lost 10 tribes of Israel?".  (Available below).

                    Bibliography
                    -----------
Missing Links Discovered in Assyrian Tables by E. Raymond Capt
Tracing Our White Ancestors, by Haberman
God's Covenant People - Yesterday, Today and Forever, by Ted Weiland
    (available below)
Origins of Race and Civilization, by Charles Weisman
    (available below)
Your Inheritance: Best Kept Secret in the World, by Robert Allen
Our Scythian Ancestors, W.E. Filmer
Racial Elements of European History, by Dr. Hans Gunther


13.  What are the consequences of the self-styled "Jews" NOT 
     being who they claim to be, i.e. Israelites?  (Also see Q #4)
    ----------------------------------------------------------- 
    "We Jews, who have posed as Saviors of the World, we are today 
nothing else but the world's seducers, its destroyers, its incendiaries, 
its executioners."  -Dr. Oscar Levy, "The World Significance of the 
Russian Revolution," preface (Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1920) x
    "We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain destroyers forever.  
Nothing that you will do will meet our needs and demands.  We will 
forever destroy because we need a world of our own."  -Maurice 
Samuels, 'You Gentiles', p. 155, Harcourt, Brace. 1924
     These confessions sound rather grim, don't they?  Have these 
two witnesses accurately predicted the fate of the world if these
self-styled "Jews" are allowed to continue unhindered in their evil 
schemes and destructive purposes?  What should the consequences 
be when their impersonation of and pretending to be God's 
"chosen" is exposed for the lie that it is?  What does the law on 
your heart (and the Law of God) say should be done with 
"destroyers," "executioners," and murderers?  
     Not only is the pretender's claim to be "Israel" a false and 
fraudulent one, but these same self-styled "Jews" are in fact the 
most dangerous enemies of true Israel and the world.  The 
impostors' claim on the title "Israel" is at the core of any issue 
regarding the self-styled "Jews" because it is the first and foremost 
LIE that every other "fact" concerning these people rests upon.  If 
the lie of the impostor's impersonation of God's "chosen people" 
crumbles then their very identity is founded on nothing but fraud 
and falsehood.  Any issue or claim they may make follows this lie, 
and can't be taken seriously or given any validity.
     Because this is the foundational lie upon which all of their other 
"facts" are established regarding "Jewish" identity and claims, this 
matter establishes the integrity of all their arguments which follow.  
Anything that is built on the shifting sands of falsehood and fraud 
cannot stand, that is why those who have built their foundation upon 
the Rock of Christ (1 Cor. 10:1-5; Isa. 28:16; Matt. 12:42, 24:27; 2 
Tim. 2:19) and His Truth (John 14:6) will stand eternal and will 
eventually fill the whole earth (Dan. 2:35, Isaiah 9:7.)
     With the above (Q#4), we can conclude that the Talmudists (self-
styled "Jews") have no relation to the physical Israelites, except by 
religion which they adopted and perverted to their own ends.  This 
invalidates their arguments and claims for the land in Palestine, 
since they were never a people from that area.  It makes them out to 
be representing themselves as something they are not, which makes 
them impostors who are lying about their identity.  If they lie about 
something so fundamental as their identity, how can anything else 
they say be taken seriously?  "Who is the liar, except he who denies 
that Jesus is the Christ?" (I John 2:22.)
     These self-styled "Jews" don't take too kindly to being exposed 
and are full of all sorts of hate, sarcasm and vindictive demonization 
for those who would bring these facts into the light of day.  They 
rarely have the honesty in them to admit the facts and repent from 
their political and religious agenda.  They will hardly ever admit any 
error and do not attempt to seriously refute the accusations because 
they have no desire to repent nor have they an answer for the Truth.  
They would rather indulge in ridicule, name-calling and libel, or try
to divert the discussion away from the more condemning facts.  
"He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself, and he who 
reproves a wicked man gets insults for himself" (Proverbs 9:7).
     They have no defense, so they have no choice but to indulge in 
these fruitless activities or else admit their guilt.  Through their 
unashamed use of their "Chutzpah" they wail non-stop for 
unearned sympathy like a whining two-year-old who needs a 
spanking (Prov. 22:15).  Because people can only take so much of
this, it is only a matter of time, give them enough rope to expose 
themselves and the rest is history...  The Truth WILL out! 
     Some have weakly given in to these name-calling venom 
spewers.  Very few are tolerant enough to put up with this childish 
behavior and speak the truth regardless.  The "Jews" have 
absolutely no shame in their use of the "Jewish Persecution 
Complex" (tm) and few are those who give them what they 
truly need (i.e. Prov. 22:15).
     According to Leo Rosten's "Joy's of Yiddish" (1968), the word 
"Chutzpah" is from the Hebrew and means insolence, audacity, gall, 
effrontery:  "A 'Chutzpahnik' may be defined as the man who 
shouts 'Help!' 'Help!' while beating you up."  This is a perfect 
definition of Jewish expression.  This has been a most effective 
weapon against the faithless and fearful unbelievers who are 
separated from their God, Christ Jesus.  "If God be for us, who can 
stand against us?" (Romans 8:31-39.)
     As for the "Jewish Persecution Complex" (tm), it was observed 
and first identified in print by the Jewish author, Howard F. Stein, 
writing in 'The Journal of Psychohistory' (Fall, 1978) on "Judaism 
and the Group-Fantasy of Martyrdom".  In a follow-up on this 
article he wrote the following for 'The Journal of Historical Review' 
(Winter, 1980,):
     "For the Jews, the term "Holocaust" does not simply denote a 
single catastrophic era in history, but is a grim metaphor for the 
meaning of Jewish history.  The word "Holocaust" lies at the heart 
of the Jewish experience of time itself.  One is either anxiously 
awaiting persecution, experiencing persecution, recovering from it, 
or living in a period that is a temporary reprieve from it."  -The 
Holocaust and the Myth of the Past History.
     The oft-quoted Yiddish phrase, It's "tough to be a Jew" ("schwer 
tsoo zine a Yid") perfectly illustrates the Jewish Persecution 
Complex (tm).  This sounds like a very sad way to live, but their 
pride keeps them from surrendering to Christ and acknowledging 
Him as Lord, Messiah and Sovereign God.  Who knows, they may 
be spared this self-imposed terror if they were not so unwilling to 
give up and expose the evil of the Talmudic religion and way of life 
for the damnable thing that it is in the hope that they may find grace 
>from  Jesus the Christ and only true God.  "God is the one who 
justifies" (Romans 8:33).
     More and more honest inquirers, who see through this insulting 
and distasteful behavior, are finding their belief in the infallible 
"Jew" crumbling.  These truth seekers see these people as our Lord 
Jesus the Christ saw them: "a synagogue of Satan" (Rev. 2:9, 3:9) - 
liars, pretenders, persecutors, murderers, destroyers and benefactors 
of ill-gotten gains.  It is amazing that such a people can exist, but 
these impostors who call themselves "Jews" are their own worst 
enemy because the more people they defraud, insult and enslave the 
more people will eventually awaken to the "Jews" true nature and 
identity. 
     George Washington (1732-1799), our first president in America 
recognized the self-styled "Jews" for what they were: "The Jews 
work more effectively against us than the enemy's armies.  They are 
a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause 
we are engaged in.  It is much to be lamented that each State, long 
ago has not hunted them down as pests to society and the greatest 
enemies we have to the happiness of America"  (Maxims of George 
Washington, by A.A. Appleton and Co, pp. 125,126.)


14.   Conclusion - LET THE BLIND SEE!
     ----------------------------------------------------------- 
     Isaiah prophesied of a time in Israel's future when the blind 
would see:
     "Then the eyes of those who see will not be blinded, and the ears 
of those who hear will listen. And the mind of the hasty will discern 
the truth." (Isaiah 32:3,4)
      In spite of the confusion in this present day and age, you must 
decide upon the action you will take regarding this information on 
Israel's Identity.  It is my prayer that you will be honest enough to 
seek out the true facts of the matter and accept the responsibility
that is incumbent upon you. 
      You must decide who you are going to believe:
*  The Zionist "Jews" who lie for their own political gain and profit 
    as they falsely claim to be Israelites, the Chosen People of God, 
    but who refuse to acknowledge the facts to the contrary.  
*  Your pastors who falsely declare that the "Jews" are "God's 
    Chosen People" without any proof whatsoever to substantiate 
    their claim.  
*  "Jews" who truthfully admit, to their own kind and occasionally 
    to those outside of "Jewry," (as we have seen in the above 
    Q&A's) what Jewish and non-Jewish historians have verified; 
    that the Jews of today have no historical or racial lineage to the
    sons of Jacob/Israel. 
*  The Almighty God of the Bible when He warned us of "the 
    blasphemy by those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a 
    synagogue of Satan." (Rev. 2:9, 3:9) and "Who is the liar, except
    he who denies that Jesus is the Christ?" (I John 2:22.)

     The Bible warns us, and the "Jews" themselves confess that 
these Khazar "Jews" are impostors.  Consequently, we no longer 
have any excuse for perpetrating the LIE that the modern-day self-
styled "Jews" are Israelites, the Chosen People of God.

     It does not take a genius to see that the white Christian nations 
and their people are not what they once were: that their grandeur and 
greatness are declining.  Why has it happened? Could it be because 
Israel lost her identity and her sense of obligation to her God?:

    "For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as is 
YHWH our God whenever we call on Him?  Or what great nation is 
there that has statutes and judgments as righteous as this whole law 
which I am setting before you today?  Only give heed to yourself 
and keep your soul diligently, lest you forget the things which your 
eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of 
your life; but make them known to your sons and your grandsons." 
(Deuteronomy 4:7-9) 

       This description will only be said again of Israel when she 
awakens to her identity and returns to her God and His laws!
       May we who have been graciously granted a deeper 
understanding of God's Word, and who have been privileged to see 
and hear a higher calling in Jesus(Yhshua) the Christ, prove 
ourselves worthy and true to this calling. Let us awaken to the 
tremendous impact which can be made on our generation and the 
generations to come with the knowledge of Israel’s true identity.  

     LISTEN to me, you who pursue righteousness,
            Who seek YHWH (the LORD):
            Look to the rock from which you were hewn,
            And to the quarry from which you were dug.
            Look to Abraham your father,
            And to Sarah who gave birth to you in pain.
                         (Isaiah 51:1,2)

     OH THAT My people would listen to Me,
       That Israel would walk in My ways!
       I would quickly subdue their enemies,
       And turn My hand against their adversaries.
                         (Psalm 81:13,14)

     God had, and continues to have, a plan for His Covenant People 
Israel -- the kindred Germanic (white) peoples. May YHWH (the LORD
God of Israel) be magnified through YHSHUA (Jesus) THE CHRIST!
     The Creation groans for the revealing of the Sons of God!  It is
time for Israel to awaken from her slumber and turn back to her God.
---------------------------------------------------

Acknowledgments:
Our heavenly Father, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel 
for His Son, Christ Jesus who makes our redemption possible.
All questions posed by several helpful Khazar critics
____________________________________

For further study, we recommend the following books available 
through Scriptures For America, PO Box 766-c, LaPorte, CO 80535.
Write Scriptures for America and ask for their free newsletter.
----------------
*  God's Covenant People: Yesterday, Today and Forever by Ted R. 
Weiland -- THE resource book for the Israel-Identity Christian 
message.  This book proves that God continues to have a plan for 
the physical Israelites under the New Covenant dispensation.  It 
exposes the impostors and establishes who Israel *is* today from 
the Scriptures, archaeology, and history, and discloses why this is of 
such significance to us.  A hard bound book, 14 chapters, in excess 
of 700 quotes with footnotes, over 30 early American and European 
testimonies, and more than 40 Biblical, archaeological, and historical 
proofs of Israel's modern-day identity.  460 pages.  $23.00 
postpaid.

*  The Greatest Love Story Never Told by Pastor Pete Peters -- A 
novel introduction to the Israel-Identity message that tells the story 
of the Great I-Am of the Bible as the husband, Abraham as the 
father of the Bride, Israel as the unfaithful wife and the children of 
Israel as the cast of millions.  A love story involving love, romance, 
intrigue, divorce, conspiracy and murder.  A Bible story that will 
bring you a deeper appreciation for the love of God and how love 
truly overcomes all.  An entertaining, yet serious, study into the 
Israel-Identity truth.  $5.00

*  Love: The Greatest Commandment (6 Part audio album), by 
Pastor Pete Peters.  These tapes show how important it is to 
understand what love is and is not.  We know God's ways are not 
ours, but do we know our ways are not His?  What is love?  Has 
love been perverted and if so how and why?  How do we increase in 
love?  The Bible has clear step by step instructions on how to love 
God's way.  What can steal our love?  It is time to love the King 
with all our hearts, minds, souls and strength.   $24.00

*  Facts are Facts by Benjamin H. Freedman -- A reproduction of 
Dr. Freedman's letter addressed to Dr. David Goldstein, LL.D. of 
Boston, Massachusetts, in which Dr. Freedman demonstrates the 
Khazarian ancestry of the majority of today's Jews.  This authority 
provides proof that these Khazars are not descendants of Abraham, 
Isaac, and Jacob and consequently have no lawful claim to the land 
of Palestine.  $3.00

*  Missing Links Discovered in Assyrian Tablets by Archaeologist 
Raymond Capt --  Mr. Capt verifies the Identity of Israel from 
archaeological evidence.  It is specifically a study of recently 
discovered Assyrian tablets that reveal the fate of the "Lost" Tribes 
of Israel.  256 pages, $10.00

*  The Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler --  Renowned Jewish 
author, Arthur Koestler, fully documents that over 90% of today's 
"Jews" are not descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but rather 
they are descendants of the fierce Turkish, Mongolian Khazar tribes 
of the Southern Steppes of Russia.  These tribes adopted the 
religion of Judaism and thus became known as "Jews" not because 
of race but because of religion.  255 pages.  $6.00

*  Origins of Race and Civilization by Charles Weisman -- an 
expose' on the false Christian doctrines and distorted historical and 
scientific teachings on the origins of races and civilizations.  176 
pages, 83 Illustrations, 204 Footnotes, references, Bibliography, 6 
chapters.  Finally the truth about YOUR origins and destiny!  No 
other book like it.  Only $9.00

*  The Life of an American Jew in Racist, Marxist Israel by Jack 
Bernstein -- Mr. Bernstein relates his story of returning to the land 
of Israel after the 1967 Six-Day War and discovering the truth 
regarding the Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews, who they are and 
who they are not.  48 pages.  $3.00

*  Who is Esau-Edom? by Charles Weisman -- Mr Weisman 
documents how Edomite blood runs through the veins of most 
"Jewish" people today.  A book which expounds upon the age-old 
battle between Esau-Edom and Jacob-Israel.  132 pages.  $8.00

*  Who Rules America -- This document will provide you with the 
documentation that can be reproduced in most public libraries on 
who controls today's media outlets.  $1.00

*  America the Conquered by Pastor Pete Peters -- This book 
provides an understanding of how America was conquered and the 
manner of her conquest.  It describes how a people can be 
conquered unaware and the motives behind the conquerors.  
Discover how it happened and what we must do.  220 pages $8.00

_____________________________
Scriptures for America's Shortwave Radio Log

WINB 11.915 (EST)  5:00-6:00pm    Monday - Friday
WINB 11.915 (EST)  9:00-11:00pm  Monday - Friday
WINB 11.915 (EST)  8:00-9:00pm    Saturday
WINB 11.915 (EST)  8:00-10:00pm  Sundays
WHRI   7.315 (EST)  5:00-6:00pm    Monday - Friday
WHRI   7.315 (EST)  9:00-10:00pm  Monday - Friday
WHRI   7.315 (EST)  11-12:00pm     Sundays

SATELLITE SETTINGS

WHRI:  Galaxy 4, Channel 15, 7.55 Mghz
WINB:  Galaxy 3, Channel 11, 7.38 Mghz

_____________________________

SATELLITE TELEVISON
*  Truth for the Times -- Television Program hosted by Pastor
Pete Peters, aired three times a week by Satellite on Keystone
Inspirational Network:  Galaxy 3, Transponder 11
Saturday 12:00am - 1:00 am (EST)
Monday  10:30 - 11:30pm (EST)
_____________________________

Other Highly Recommended Sources:

*  The Jubilee Newspaper, P.O. Box 310, Midpines, California 
95345.  Ph:  (209) 742-NEWS. --Newspaper of news, reviews and 
views from the Patriotic Christian perspective.  $2.50 for a sample 
copy.
*  NewsLight -- News Radio hosted by Paul Hall, Chris Temple 
and Louis Beam -- Every Saturday evening on 11.950 short-wave 6-
7 p.m. Pacific Time.
*  Music - Watch Out For Martial Law by Carl Klang -- inspired 
by this nation's modern-day life-and-death struggles for freedom.  
Federal Reserve Isn't Federal At All, Why the Banksters Keep Us 
Dumb, Hang-um High, Blinded By the Lies, Leave Our Guns Alone 
and more!  Carl Klang, PO Box 217, Colton, OR 97017 ($10.00 
postpaid)
__________________________________

WHEN THE SAXON LEARNS TO LOVE
 by - S. Grace

To a Candle, tall and white, Comes a wonder (from above):
A flame, like a guiding Light, When the Saxon learns to love.
And a world, once grim and dark, Sunk in clouds of sullen fear,
Rejoices to see the spark in his eyes, so bright and clear!
Like a lion, poised to leap, Or a sweetly-singing dove
Who watches (while others sleep) from a tower lit by love;
Like the sun, he shares a fate (Once a shadowed world revolves)
To shine, until gloomy hate, Like a morning mist, dissolves;
And the rule of Christ on earth (which the prophets much spoke of)
Arrives, like a blessed birth -- When the Saxon learns to love,

When the Saxon BURNS with love!

-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|   For unique political commentary & Christian views        Rick Savage    | 
|     Anonymous FTP:  ftp.netcom.com  - pub/SF/SFA           PO Box 5251    |
|   To obtain files by e-mail write me for help file       Denver, CO 80217 |
|       In your message ask for FTP-EMAIL help.                 (u)SA       |


From rsavage@netcom.com Thu May 25 18:35:26 PDT 1995
Article: 5079 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Preserve Racial Diversity!
Message-ID: 
Organization: ftp.netcom.com pub/SF/SFA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 00:14:12 GMT
Lines: 237
Sender: rsavage@netcom9.netcom.com

From:   ftp.netcom.com/pub/SF/SFA/social
----------------------------------------

              Notes from:  _The Racial Compact_
   A Call for Racial Rights, Preservation, and Independence
                   by Richard McCulloch
 
     There are different kinds of human variation.  Some 
differences are biological or genetic, others are cultural or 
environmental.  There are also different levels of human variation.  
Some differences are at the individual level, others are at the 
population or racial level.  The first distinguished us as separate 
individuals, the second distinguish a population of individuals as a 
separate race.
     In the system of biological classification called taxonomy a 
race is a subdivision or branch of a species, and a species in turn 
is a subdivision or branch of a genus.  All populations which are 
capable of interbreeding with each other and producing fertile 
offspring are considered to be members of the same species, 
regardless how great their differences or how distinct their 
relationship.  (Edward O. Wilson, _The Diversity of Life_ 
(Harvard University Press, 1992), p.38).
     A race is a population that can be distinguished as a distinct 
subgroup within a species by genetically transmitted physical 
characteristics.  It possesses a unique and distinct ensemble of 
genes, and is identified by the traits (both mental and physical) 
produced by this genetic ensemble.  Members of the same race 
share distinguishing genetic characteristics because they share a 
common genetic ancestry and a consequently similar genetic 
ensemble.  They are capable not only of producing offspring but 
of producing offspring who also share and continue their racially 
unique genetic ensemble and its distinctive traits and 
characteristics.  
     Among non-human animal populations the degree of genetic 
differences between many species is far less than the degree of 
genetic difference between human races, and many of these 
species are biologically capable of interbreeding, but as they do 
not interbreed under natural conditions -- instinctively 
discriminating in selecting mates of their own kind -- they are 
classified as separate species.  
     There is variation among individuals in the degree of racial 
discrimination in selecting a mate.  Only a minority of 
INDIVIDUALS in any given generation interbreed with other 
races under conditions of extensive contact.  Over the course of 
generations all POPULATIONS end up mixed as the cumulative 
effect of a minority in each generation adds up to a majority -- and 
eventually a total population -- over a space of generations.)
     Traditionally, species and races have been identified by their 
morphological (external physical) traits and characteristics, and 
this is still the primary determinant, generally taking priority over 
others in the even of disagreement.  Other determinants of racial 
identity -- such as biochemical and molecular genetic analysis -- 
are usually consistent with the morphological identification when 
one allows for the extent of individual variation one can expect to 
find for these traits within a race.  
    The human genome or genetic code consists of about 100,000 
genes, each consisting of many thousands of "genetic letters," or 
nucleotide pairs of DNA (DioxyriboNucleicAcid), numbering 
three billion base pairs in total.  The interaction of these genes in 
producing genetic traits is often complex.  At least five different 
genes work together to determine skin color, and as many as 100 
work together to determine skin texture.)  All the human races 
share at least 99.5% of their three billion genetic letters in 
common, their genetic differences being limited to .5%, a 
proportion which represent about FIFTEEN MILLION genetic 
differences or mutations.  (Humans also share 98.4% of their 
DNA in common with Chimpanzees)
     This rich racial diversity of modern humanity owes its 
existence to geographic separation and the reproductive isolation 
this separation has preserved.
     In racial classification there is often a tendency to group a wide 
range of diverse racial types together into one race, attempting to 
contain all human racial variation within a few very broadly 
defined racial categories.  As a rule, what these broad racial 
categories gain in simplicity they lose in accuracy.  They can be 
regarded as useful only if they are recognized as a first level 
subdivision of species, or subspecies.
     Based on the nuclear DNA studies of Luigi Luca 
CarvalliSforza and his colleagues we can define 7 further 
branches of racial grouping or divisions.  The CONGOID 
subspecies of subSaharan Africa; CAUCASOID of Europe, Asia 
west of the Himalayas and Africa north of the Sahara; the 
NORTHEAST ASIAN of Mongolia, China, Korea and Japan; the 
AMERINDIAN, which branches from the Northeast Asians and 
migrated to the Americas; the SOUTHEAST ASIAN of 
Indochina, Burma, Malaya, Indonesia, and the Philippines; the 
PACIFIC ISLANDERS of Polynesia; and the AUSTRALOID of 
Australia, Melanesia and New Guinea.
    A branch of humanity can be regarded as a race only when its 
different genetic elements are sufficiently homogenous -- or 
genetically compatible -- that they can freely intermix without 
negating or diminishing their unique genetic ensemble and racial 
traits.  For example, the Caucasoid group includes such distinctly 
different and separate peoples as those of Sweden, Italy, Armenia, 
Egypt, Iran and India) it is clear that these groupings are too broad 
to be accurately defined as races, but should properly be regarded 
as subspecies -- or groupings of more or less related, but still 
distinctly separate, races within a species.
     Reproductive isolation, provided by geographic separation, 
made human racial diversity possible.  Reproductive isolation 
assures that those individuals who do reproduce will reproduce 
their own racial type, as it effectively limits their choice of partners 
to their own racial type.  This condition is required for the 
preservation of racial diversity.
     Even without considering the effects of interbreeding, 
geographic separation is required for the continued existence of 
all the different races in the long term.  If different races occupied 
the same territory the resulting competition between the races in 
the multiracial environment would have different effects on the 
races involved.  Some races might thrive in the multiracial 
environment while others would suffer a decline in population, not 
only in the relative terms of population share but also in absolute 
terms.  
    (Note:  Gause’s law of Exclusion states that multiple animal 
species with the same requirements cannot coexist for any length 
of time in the same habitat.  All but one will eventually become 
extinct.  This law can also be applied to human races occupying 
the same territory, where the more successful race (usually 
measured by rate of population growth) eventually assimilates or 
replaces its competitors.)
     Thus the racial changes that occur in a multiracial environment 
tend toward a decrease in overall human racial diversity.  It is 
therefore misleading to identify a multiracial environment or 
society with racial diversity, as the long term effects of such a 
multiracial condition are actually to reduce and negate diversity.
     The ideology (or system of beliefs and values) that favors a 
multiracial social condition, or multiracialism, often describes this 
condition as "racial diversity."  It is a type of racial diversity, but a 
type which consists of mixing together in the same territory 
diverse races which previously were geographically separated, and 
whose diversity -- and existence -- was preserved by separation.  
This type of racial diversity that violates the conditions 
(reproductive isolation) required for continued preservation, 
creates the conditions (extensive contact) that promote 
interbreeding and the consequent destruction of racial diversity.  It 
is really a form of social diversity or racial diversity in a social 
sense.  But it in the biological or genetic sense it is anti-diversity, 
as its effects are destructive of the racial diversity.
     The two types of racial diversity (social & biological) should 
not be confused, as they are in fact incompatible opposites.  In the 
long term one cannot have both, as the social type is destructive of 
the biological type, nor can one be for both, as the promotion of 
biological racial diversity requires opposition to multiracial 
societies.  
     The racial interbreeding that is an unavoidable consequence of 
a multiracial society does add a new element to social racial 
diversity in the form of the racially-mixed or hybrid offspring of 
different parent racial stocks.  But this hybrid element does not 
add to biological racial diversity.  It takes existing genetic 
characteristics from the different parent racial stocks and either 
mixes them into a new combination, blends them together into an 
intermediate form or, if they are recessive, diminishes or negates 
their occurrence.  These hybridized recombinations of racial-
genetic traits actually reduce, and are destructive of, biological 
racial diversity to the extent that they replace or deplete the parent 
racial stocks.
     The two opposing forces in the existence of races are the 
forces of life and death, or creation and destruction.  While there 
is only one creation of a race, there are many ways by which a 
race can die, many forces of racial destruction.  The racial 
destructive force of intermixture undoes, destroys or decreates the 
diversity of creation by blending different races together in a 
multiracial social condition descriptively and accurately referred to 
as a "melting pot."  The racially unique and distinct ensembles of 
genes are dissolved in the common blend and all distinctive traits 
and differences are destroyed and lost in a racial melt-down.
    The migration of vast numbers of people around the world, 
made possible by modern advances in transportation, has 
facilitated the development of multiracial societies and the 
transformation of many previously monoracial countries into 
multiracial ones.  As in many other areas of technology, 
transportation technology has advanced much more rapidly than 
our understanding of its effects, or the development of 
philosophical and moral concepts to deal with those effects and 
avoid those that are harmful.
    The implications of this vast bringing together of different races 
that had been preserved under conditions of geographic separation 
-- replacing reproductive isolation with its antithetical opposite, 
extensive contact -- are profound.  Yet these implications have 
received little attention or consideration.  If geographic separation 
of the races is replaced by multiracial social conditions it can be 
expected that racial diversity will be replaced by racial intermixture 
and result in a diminishment and loss in racial diversity.
     If those races which are most vulnerable to the effects of racial 
intermixture -- because of recessiveness of their genetic 
characteristics or the sensitivity of their reproductive behavior -- 
are subjected to multiracial conditions on a sufficient scale it is 
likely that they will become extinct, and their distinctive traits will 
be lost.  They will exist only in submersion with the  traits of 
other races, submerged in the multiracial blend or mixture  of the 
"melting pot."  The preservation of racial diversity requires  the 
preservation of the conditions of geographic separation that made 
and makes diversity possible.
     Under the impetus of two factors, modern transportation 
systems and a dominant destructive ideology, the age-old 
conditions of geographic separation are being destroyed.  The 
dominant ideology that promotes multiracialization of previously 
monoracial societies perceives the continued existence of different 
races as a matter of little or now value, importance or concern, or 
even with outright hostility as something to oppose.
     The Senegalese conservationist Baba Dioum said, "In the end, 
we will conserve only what we love."  If the world is to be made 
safe for racial diversity -- or safe AGAIN for racial diversity - its 
preservation will first have to be regarded as a matter of great 
value, importance and concern.  As we begin to have a sense of 
reverence for life in general, we should develop a reverence for the 
diversity of life, and particularly the diversity of human life.  As 
we have learned to regard that which promotes life as good, and 
that which destroys life as evil, so we should learn to regard that 
which promotes the diversity of life as good, and that which 
destroys that diversity as evil.  
     An effective racial conservation movement would depend upon 
a sense of appreciation and reverence for that which it sought to 
conserve.  Only under the protection of the ethical concept of 
rights -- in this case racial rights -- can racial diversity, the 
existence of different races, be protected and preserved in an age 
when this former protector, geographic distance, is no longer 
effective in preserving the condition of geographic separation 
racial diversity requires for its continued existence.  An ethical 
philosophy or racial preservation is needed to provide the diverse 
races with the protected habitats - the geographic separation which 
is the only effective barrier to interbreeding - that the fallen 
barriers can no longer provide. -- 

Continued in the file "Racial_Rights" and "Charter_Race_Rights" 
avaiable from FTP site below.

-----------------------------------------
Get the "Identity.faq" and many other files by
anonymous FTP from:    ftp.netcom.com /pub/SF/SFA
-------------------------------------------------

-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|   For unique political commentary & Christian views        Rick Savage    | 
|     Anonymous FTP:  ftp.netcom.com  - pub/SF/SFA           PO Box 5251    |
|   To obtain files by e-mail write me for help file       Denver, CO 80217 |
|       In your message ask for FTP-EMAIL help.                 (u)SA       |


From rsavage@netcom.com Thu May 25 18:35:39 PDT 1995
Article: 5081 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Preserve Racial Rights!
Message-ID: 
Organization: ftp.netcom.com pub/SF/SFA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 00:15:20 GMT
Lines: 595
Sender: rsavage@netcom9.netcom.com

From:    ftp.netcom.com /pub/SF/SFA/social
------------------------------------------

   Our calling as stewards of God's Creation includes preserving it as He 
created it.  This includes securing the purity of the original races as 
God created them.  Toward this end, I believe Richard McCulloch has made 
some great advances in furthing this goal. 
   Be sure to read the related file entitled, "Charter_Race_Rights"

   My notes from:  _The Racial Compact_  by Richard McCulloch
   A Call for Racial Rights, Preservation, and Independence
                  
                     Racial Rights

     Rights are a concept that requires belief, for in actual
practice rights exist only because people believe in them. 
Rights are values that people hold and assert.  A value emerges
and becomes normative whenever a critical mass, or a powerful
minority, of people share it and persistently act in accordance
with it.
     The belief in rights can either be an ethical or factual
belief.  Rights are an ethical concept.  A belief that rights 
should be practiced is an ethical belief, expressing what is
believed to be ethically right or wrong.  Beliefs that relate to the 
nature of rights are factual beliefs, expressing what is
believed to be factually true or false.  For example, the belief
in a human right or freedom is an ethical belief, but the belief
that the source of this right is endowed by the Creator is a
factual belief.
     Ethical and factual beliefs are often confused which makes
it important that a clear distinction be drawn between them. 
Factual beliefs are more objective, pertaining to things or
events that exist outside of the mind.  Ethical beliefs are more
subjective, pertaining to something which exists inside the mind. 
Ethical beliefs are concerned primarily with human behavior, and
in essence consist of what we believe human behavior should be or
should have been.  Factual beliefs apply across the entire
spectrum of existence or nonexistence, including human behavior,
and in essence consist of what we believe actually is, was, or
will be, not what should be or should have been.  Factual beliefs
are not necessarily factually true, and ethical beliefs are not
necessarily ethically right.  They are what the believer believes
to be true and right.
     Much of the confusion between factual and ethical beliefs
stems from the attempt to reduce complex matters of human
behavior and causation to a simple explanation.  This is an
example of reductionist thinking.  The causation of human
behavior is not simple, but is rather enormously complex and
varied.  In spite of the great influence that genetic or
inherited characteristics have on human behavior, there are so
many other random and interactive influences that defy all
attempts to reduce human behavior to scientific levels of
predictability and control.
     Human emotions, values, needs and desires often influence
the progression of ethical beliefs, principles and conduct much
more than do factual beliefs, with the result that ethical
conduct often varies widely from what the subject's factual
beliefs might lead one to expect.
     Values are commonly more influential in determining ethical
beliefs than are factual beliefs.  Values can be more accurately
described as the qualities of life and existence that are
regarded as important and desirable than as beliefs.  They are
more deeply held and more resistant to change than beliefs.  When
there is a conflict between values and beliefs, values often
prevail and the beliefs are often either rejected or modified so
as to be consistent with and reinforce the values.
     Values are one of the most important distinctions separating
humanity from inhumanity and brutality, civilization from
savagery.  Some values may be inborn or natural to human nature. 
If there are innate values it can be assumed they have a genetic
basis like all genetic characteristics, in which case they would
likely vary between individuals and between races.
     While it is appropriate for ethical beliefs to be determined
by an interaction of factual beliefs and values, it is not
appropriate for factual beliefs to be determined and influences
by ethical beliefs and values.  Ideally, factual beliefs should
be determined by an objective reasoning process whose first duty
is to the continuous search for empirical truth.  Unfortunately,
factual beliefs have been very strongly influenced, and even
determined, by ethical beliefs and values.  Factual beliefs have
even been judged by the standards of ethical beliefs -- as
ethically good or bad rather than as factually true or false.
     Ideologies are systems of values, thought and belief which
can frequently be dogmatic, requiring conformance to their dogma
or prescribed beliefs, both factual and ethical.  Dogmatic
ideologies are intolerant of any beliefs which vary from those
they prescribe.  Their ethical beliefs hold that any deviance
>from  the orthodox or prescribed beliefs is immoral.  They judge
factual beliefs that are deviant or unorthodox not only as
erroneous on factual grounds but also on ethical ground.
     Scientists, historians, philosophers, theologians, artists
and many others have repeatedly suffered persecution for their
factual beliefs when they deviated from the prescribed beliefs of
a dominant and intolerant ideology.  Their deviant factual
beliefs were not judged on factual grounds but rather on the
grounds that the holding of any deviant belief was ethically in
error, immoral and intolerable.  Of course, philosophy, theology
and the arts commonly expound ethical beliefs, and it is proper
for these ethical beliefs to be judged by the standards of
ethics, as morally right or wrong.  But they also deal with
factual beliefs, as do science and history, and it is not proper
for these factual beliefs to be judged by ethical standards as
morally right or wrong, or by any standards other than the
standard of whether they are factually true or false.  Ethical
judgments should be reserved for ethical beliefs.
     Unfortunately, the practice of intolerant ideologies, either
religious or secular, have regarded any belief - or disbelief -
which differs from their own prescribed factual or ethical
beliefs as a threat.  They have perceived any threat in moral
terms as ethically wrong and evil.  This practice of judging
factual beliefs on ethical grounds can generally be traced to the
misconception that factual beliefs are the sole cause of ethical
beliefs.
     The persecution of deviant factual beliefs, and the practice
of making ethical judgments about persons based on their factual
beliefs, is a common characteristic of intolerant ideologies. 
Ironically, these ideologies often seem more inclined to
ethically condemn a person for deviant factual beliefs than for
deviant ethical beliefs.  
     Christianity, over the centuries has persecuted "heretics"
for their different factual beliefs.  The development of science
was long retarded by this persecution, of which the case of the
astronomer Galileo is only one of the more famous examples.  
     The intolerant and dogmatic secular ideologies in the modern
age have continued the custom of making ethical judgments about
factual beliefs.  These secular ideologies have persecuted, as
far as their power to do so goes, those factual beliefs that
conflicted with their policies and goals.  Science (especially as
it relates to the study of genetics, human nature, and individual
and racial inequalities, differences or diversity), economics and
history have been the primary targets of this persecution of
conflicting factual beliefs. 
     The beliefs of established religious ideologies were
enforced under the direction of a priesthood which presumed to
dictate beliefs and values.  The modern secular dogmatic
ideologies behave in essentially the same intolerant manner.  If
they are "established" they are enforced by the police and
judicial power of the government.  If they are not established
their means of control are less overt, but not necessarily less
effective.  In both cases the control is directed by what can be
described as a secular ideological priesthood.  If the ideology
is established this "priesthood" is concentrated in the
government.  If the ideology is not established, its priesthood
is concentrated in those positions which exercise the greatest
degree of control over ideas, especially in academia and the
communications and cultural media.
     The MARXIST ideology that held established status in the
Soviet Union (1917-1991) was quite blatant in its control of
scientific, economic and historical factual beliefs.
     In BIOLOGY it held a dogmatic factual belief in both human
equality and human malleability, and persecuted factual belief
(in the new science of genetics) in the existence of innate human
characteristics that were both unequal and resistant to efforts
to change them by external means.
     Its ECONOMIC factual beliefs were dictated by arbitrary
ethical beliefs and value judgments, and produced an economic
system that condemned its practitioners to material
impoverishment and eventually collapsed from its own inherent
inner contradictions.
     In HISTORY it held a dogmatic factual belief in dialectical
materialism, and forbade any historical interpretation or factual
belief that deviated from this doctrine.
 
     The dominant secular ideologies in the modern Western World
have shared many beliefs in common with Marxism -- which can
often be traced to the same underlying ethical beliefs and value
judgments.  This ideology has also tended to be dogmatic and
intolerant, typically persecuting and repressing beliefs that
conflicted with their own as far as it was in their power to do
so.  In particular, they have shared the factual belief in innate
human biological or genetic equality.  This version of
egalitarianism that is quite different from the primarily ethical
belief in human legal and political equality of Thomas Jefferson
had its beginnings before there was a science of genetics.  It
has persisted to the present in a continuous ideological line
that has opposed and sought to repress the development of
conflicting factual beliefs by denouncing them on ethical grounds
with an intolerant dogmatism of religious intensity.
     The study of genetics, particularly as it relates to human
racial diversity and differences, has been gravely retarded by
the organized intolerance, hostility and persecution it has
encountered whenever it has challenged the dogmatic factual
beliefs -- and the values and goals they support -- of the
prevailing ideological orthodoxy.
     In history, as in science, the same secular ideological
elements are dominant, and promote those historical factual
beliefs that tend to support their position while seeking to
persecute and repress those historical beliefs that differ from
their own.  Their intolerance of conflicting historical factual
beliefs typically assumes a posture of ethical judgment, and the
holding of the deviant belief is condemned as immoral.  
     Conformance to the prescribed (or "Politically Correct")
factual beliefs is required as a demonstration of good faith, and
is often sustained by faith alone, as the critical faculties are
suspended for the sake of moral respectability.  In this anti-
intellectual environment, where beliefs that disagree with the
orthodox position are in effect forbidden as heresy, the pursuit
of objective truth is effectively restricted to the factual
beliefs deemed acceptable by the dominant ideology.
     The intent of those engaging in the condemnation of factual
beliefs on moral grounds can only be the enforcement of
conformity to their own preferred factual beliefs by the
repression of conflicting beliefs.  The situation is reminiscent
of Hans Christian Andersen's tale of _The Emperor's New Clothes_,
wherein the ability to see something (in this example nonexistent
clothing) which did not really exist (belief or faith in the
prescribed factual beliefs) was regarded as proof of virtue, with
the result that all pretended to see something which did not
really exist, except for a child who was innocent of pretense.
     Nowhere is the enforcement of factual beliefs by ethical
judgment and intimidation more pronounced than in academia.  If
this is surprising, it should be remembered that, historically,
universities and other institutions of higher education have more
commonly been centers for the promotion and enforcement of
ideological orthodoxy and conformity of belief than for the
promotion of intellectual and academic freedom.  The perception
of universities as havens of free thought, belief and speech,
which we cherish so highly, is a very fragile ideal promoted by
the ideology of classical liberalism, and often violated by the
very persons who claim to hold it most dear.  So called
"political correctness" is merely the re-establishment of the
illiberal norm by the rise of a new dogmatic and intolerant
ideology to a position of dominance.
     The existence of rights is probably the best evidence for
the power and importance of ethical beliefs.  Rights are an
ethical belief.  These values are expressions of ethics and
values that depend on a consensus of belief to keep its structure
intact, without which it would collapse.  That is why rights have
been so seldom recognized in the past or present, and why they
have so often been gained only at great cost and after difficult
struggle.
     To achieve a consensus of acceptance and achieve
recognition, rights should meet certain criteria.  Not all rights
are equally valid.  Some are arbitrary and capricious, applied
selectively or unequally, granted to some but not to others by a
double or multiple standard of application.  Valid rights apply
equally to all, by one common standard of application.  They can
be granted to all, for their possession by some does not require
their denial to others.  It is this reciprocity in the
recognition of rights, by which one party recognizes for others
the same rights they want recognized for themselves, that is the
basis for the consensus of acceptance upon which the existence of
rights depends.
     Some rights take priority over others, and those of the
foremost priority may be referred to as primary rights.  Primary
rights are the most fundamental and are founded on the most basic
and universal human existential needs and desires.
     The first among these is the right to life.  This right
includes the right to the conditions required for life, without
which the right to life would be meaningless.  Next, is the right
of a living entity to control its own life, the right to be free,
to self-determination, independence, liberty.
     With recognition of, or ethical belief in, these primary
rights, humanity rose to a higher level of ethical existence and
civilization.  From the beginning these primary rights were
recognized not only for individual living beings, but for the
living populations which are the larger whole of which
individuals constitute the parts -- namely peoples, nations and
races.  The early documents, such as the U.S. Declaration of
Independence, explicitly affirmed and promoted the rights of
nations and peoples to independence and liberty. 
     The influence of a global movement to minimize and eliminate
human particularities, diversity and differences has discouraged
and inhibited the further development and recognition of rights
for population groups.  Where national, ethnic and racial rights
have been upheld they have only been applied selectively and
unequally.
     Primary rights should be clearly described, affirmed and
recognized for all human racial or ethnic populations.  Those
other alleged rights which are not essential to life or liberty,
and particularly those which conflict with the rights of other
peoples to life and liberty, are secondary rights, and should
yield when they conflict with primary rights.
     The United Nations Organization produced a number of
documents which gave increased legal recognition and standing to
the ethical concepts of racial rights.  These documents addressed
the right of a people to both life and liberty (independence or
self-determination).  The first responding to allegations of the
commission of genocide during the recently concluded conflict of
W.W. II, the second responding to the growing demands of
colonized or subject people for freedom, and recognizing their
aspirations as legitimate.  The following passage, taken from the
Encyclopedia Britannica, describes some of the provisions of the
U.N. document which sought to define and prohibit genocide, and
which gave effective recognition to the right of every race to
life and the conditions necessary for its continued existence.
 
     According to the United Nations _Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide_, which was
approved by the General Assembly in 1948 and went into effect in
1951, genocide is a crime whether it is committed in time of
peace or of war (distinguishing it from crimes against humanity
which are acts committed in connection with crimes against peace,
or war crimes) and under its term "genocide means any of the
following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in
part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such: 
(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or
mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting
on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures
intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly
transferring children of the group to another group." 
Conspiracy, incitement, attempt, and complicity in genocide are
also made punishable.  Perpetrators may be punished whether they
are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials, or
private individuals.  One of the results of the convention has
been the establishment of the principle that genocide, even if
perpetrated by a government in its own territory, is not an
internal matter ("a matter essentially within the domestic
jurisdiction") but a matter of international concern.
 
     The document was, in theory, a great step forward in the
recognition and promotion of the ethical concept of racial
rights, but in practice it has been applied rarely and
selectively, and ignored whenever those with the power to ignore
it found it to be inconsistent with their own goals.  In
particular, its definition of genocide as including means of
racial destruction other than the actual mass murder of
individuals is a critical breakthrough for the concept of racial
rights, recognizing that racial destruction can be, and has been,
caused by means other than actual mass murder. 
     The recognition, affirmation and defense of racial rights --
particularly the primary racial rights to life and liberty, or
independence -- is also a recognition and defense of the value
and importance of human life and human racial diversity.  Human
rights include racial rights, for races are the branches or
divisions of humanity.  If the diverse races of humanity are to
COEXIST and share the planet earth together they must first agree
to recognize and defend the right of all races TO EXIST. 
Humanity needs to adopt a concept of racial relations that is
based on the principle of racial rights, permitting the different
races to share the earth, their common home, together by assuring
their secure possession of their own racially exclusive homelands
or countries where they will enjoy the conditions of geographic
separation and reproductive isolation required for their
continued existence.


                 Charter of Racial Rights

     Racial rights are primary rights as they are concerned
either with the right of all races to life or the right of all
races to control their own life and destiny.  Taken together they
can be regarded as a _Charter of Racial Rights_, the essential
foundation of the Racial Compact.  They are as follows:
  1.  All races have a right to be unique and different, to be
themselves, and to love, value and be proud of what they are.
  2.  All races have a right to have their existence and identity
recognized, respected and protected, to define, affirm and
celebrate their existence and identity, and to promote their
legitimate rights and interests.
  3.  All races have a right to racial life, a right to live, a
right to exist as what they are and preserve what they are, a
right to exist as a separate form of life, and a right to the
conditions they require for continued life, existence and
evolution.
  4.  All races have a right to independence and peaceful self-
determination, to racial freedom and liberty, to separate
development, to exclusive control of their own life and
existence, their own future and destiny, free from domination,
control or interference by other races.
  5.  All races have a right to their own living space or
territory, to possession of their own racial homeland, to exist
within secure borders, to have and hold their own country,
separate from and exclusive of other races, as a condition
required for both their continued life and independence.
  6.  All races have a right to self-government, to their own
sovereign and fully independent government to govern their own
country, their own life and existence, and determine their own
future.
  7.  All races have a right to the affections and loyalties,
love and care of their members, and this right takes precedence
over any ideology -- or system of beliefs and values -- that
would promote disaffection or alienation of loyalties, or censure
racial love and caring.
  8.  All races have a right to exclusive control over the
creation, upbringing, development and education of their own
children, to control over their own reproduction -- the renewal 
of their racial life, the transmission of their genes and culture
to successor generations -- free of interference by other races.
  9.  All races have a right to racial integrity, to exclusivity,
reproductive isolation and geographic separation, to be free,
safe and secure from the racially destructive effects of racial
intermixture and replacement.
  10.  All races have a right to the material product of their
own creation, and to use that product for their own benefit, free
of any claim upon it by other races.
 
     These rights apply equally and by the same standard to all
human races.  No race, regardless of its status as either a
majority or minority, has a right to violate the above primary
and inalienable rights of any race.  There is no such thing as
minority or majority rights, only racial rights, which are
exactly the same regardless of demographic status as a racial
minority or majority.  No group, whether a majority or minority,
has a right to deny or violate the right of another race to the
conditions it requires for racial life, liberty and independence,
or to its own territory or government.  Therefore, no race has a
right to be in the living space or territory of another race, or
to be involved in the government of another race, as the first
violates the racial right to a separate and racially secure
homeland, and the second violates the racial right to
independence, sovereignty and self-determination.  
 
     The recognition and defense of the racial rights listed
above requires support for certain other related ethical beliefs,
values, policies and positions, and the practice of certain
ethical principles, which include the following:
  1.  Support for the ethical belief or principle that no race
should be a slave or servant to another, that all races are an
end in themselves and not a means to the ends of others, that
they should serve and benefit their own ends and not the ends of
others, and that no race should interfere with or unduly
influence the affairs or development of another.
  2.  Opposition to any and all doctrines or forms of racial
supremacy, dominance or mastery, whereby one race is supreme,
dominant or master over another, whether in whole or in part,
totally or partially, overtly or covertly, by force or by guile.
  3.  Support for the moral principle of reciprocity as the basis
of racial relations, recognizing the same rights for all races
(the racial "Golden Rule").
  4.  Opposition to all forms of invasion, migration or movement,
whether forceful or peaceful, by members of one race into the
establishment and recognized living space, territory, country or
homeland of another.
  5.  Opposition to and rejection of all claims made for transfer
of wealth from one race to another, or claims for material
support made by one race on another, either as reparations for
alleged past wrongs or for any other reason.
  6.  Rejection of the concept of "collective guilt," which holds
all members of a racial, religious, national or ethnic group
responsible and guilty for the wrongs committed by some members
of the group, and thus both responsible for reparations and
subject to punishment.
  7.  Opposition to any and all forms of genocide or racial
destruction or diminishment, whether with or without the consent
or cooperation of its victims, whether inflicted by other races,
self-inflicted, or a combination of both, including the
following:
    a.  Any action, policy, value system or condition which
prevents, obstructs, restricts or discourages the successful
reproduction of a race.
    b.  Any action, policy, value system or condition which
denies a race the conditions it needs for its continued life or
well-being, especially the condition of multiracialism which
denies a race the condition of racial isolation it needs for its
successful reproduction free from the racially destructive
effects of racial intermixture.
    c.  Any action, policy or process of racial dispossession,
displacement or replacement whereby members of one race move, or
are moved, into the established, clearly defined and recognized
living space, territory or homeland of another race and
dispossess, displace or replace it.
    d.  Any action, policy, process or condition which is the
result of human action and has the effect of lessening or
diminishing the existence of a race, or altering, distorting or
diluting its racial traits and characteristics, in the short term
or the long term, in the existing generation or in the course of
the generations to come.
    e.  Any action, policy, process, value system or condition
which promotes, encourages or has the effect of increasing the
racially destructive practice of racial intermixture.
    f.  Any action, policy, process, value system or condition
which has the effect of taking persons away from their race, in
mind or in body, physically or in alienation of affections or
loyalties, and transferring them, or their affections and
loyalties, to another race.
    g.  Any action, policy, process, value system or condition
which opposes, resists or discourages racial preservation, or the
continuation or renewal of racial life.
    h.  Any use of allegations of past wrongs to deny a race its
present or future vital rights and interests, the conditions it
needs to live and preserve its existence, especially its own
exclusive territory and its separation and independence from
other races.
 
     The ethical belief in rights, including racial rights, has
an effect on political, social and cultural ethics and values. 
In particular, it requires government to recognize and defend the
rights believed in as part of its fundamental purpose.  It also
expects the dominant or "mainstream" social and cultural
institutions to affirm and support these rights.  Therefore, the
ethical belief in racial rights promotes the following ethical
beliefs and principals concerning political, social and cultural
institutions:
  1.  The belief that a fundamental end or purpose of government
is to serve and preserve the race, to defend its separateness and
independence, to serve its interests, and preserve it form
dilution, diminishment or extinction by intermixture with, or
replacement by, other races.  Therefore, when a government
becomes destructive of this end, or harmful to this purpose, when
it becomes racially oppressive by denying the race its vital
rights -- the conditions of independence, separation and
reproductive isolation required for its continued life -- or when
it threatens, endangers or violates the vital rights or interests
of any race, its own race or another race, the members of the
race have the right and the moral responsibility to work for the
change of that government.
  2.  The belief that a fundamental end or purpose of a socially,
culturally and politically dominant morality, philosophy,
ideology or religion, or system of beliefs and values, is to
serve and promote the welfare, well-being, health and best
interests of the race, especially its vital or life-essential
rights and interests, including its successful reproduction, and
to act to preserve its existence.  Therefore, when a dominant
morality, philosophy, ideology or religion becomes destructive or
harmful to this end or purpose, or when it promotes the violation
of the vital rights and interests of any race, its own race or
another race, the members of the race have the right and the
moral responsibility to work for the change of the dominant
morality, philosophy, ideology or religion.
  3.  The belief that the primary purpose of an international
organization is to promote the Racial Compact and uphold the
Charter of Racial Rights, promoting the coexistence and continued
existence of the diverse human races by protecting the
reproductive isolation, geographic separation and political
independence of races and preventing the violation of the rights,
independence or separateness of one race by another.
 
     Racial independence and self-determination are concerned
with the right of a race to exercise control over its own life,
existence, future, and destiny.  Racial independence is cultural
and economic as well as political and biological.  To truly
control its own life a race must also exercise exclusive and
sovereign control over its culture, history, art and myths, its
self-image, soul, heart and mind, its view of its past, present
and future, its purpose and destiny, nature and identity.  No
race can be truly free if another race exercises control over it,
in whole or in part, in any of these areas.
     The sovereignty of a government is derived from the people
or race, the branch of life or Creation, that it serves.  It is a
means to an end, not an end in itself.  When its actions and
policies become destructive of the proper end or purpose of
government, when it works against the vital or life-essential
interests of the people or race it was created to serve, and upon
service to whom its legitimacy depends, it becomes illegitimate
and loses its ethical justification for existence.
     The ethical belief in racial rights extends the ethical
concept of human rights to explicitly include, recognize and
respect the rights of human races as well as individuals.
     The race is the whole of which the individual is a part, and
that which is destructive of the whole is also destructive of its
parts.  The true interests of the individual are intimately
connected to, and consistent with, the interests of its race in a
natural mutuality or commonality of interest.  They are joined
together by the bonds of biological relationship -- sharing the
same genes -- and the "mystic cords of memory" from thousands of
generations of common ancestry.
     For an individual to deny their race is to deny themselves,
their place and role in nature, where they came from and what
they are, the cause of their existence as well as the greater
purpose of their existence.  
     Humanity has reached a point in its development --
technological and moral -- where racial rights are required for
the preservation of its racial diversity.  The continued
existence of certain racial groups is dependent upon the
implementation of the Racial Compact and the principles of racial
rights upon which it is based.
     It is not constructive to attempt to impose these principles
on the past, or to judge past generations by their standard, or
to dwell obsessively on past deeds which violated them.  Past
generations were in a different situation from the present, and
the EX POST FACTO application of current values, standards, and
ideologies upon the past do it an injustice and our understanding
a disservice.  But what was then was then and what is now is now. 
Our concern should be with the present and the future, with where
we go from here, not with the deeds or misdeeds of the past.
     People want something to exist when they regard its
existence as a valuable, important and desirable part of life and
existence.  Therefore racial rights will exist only when enough
people regard them as important and desirable.  To do that they
must first regard races and what they represent as valuable,
important and worth preserving -- their own race in particular,
but also other races and racial differences and diversity in
general.  If they do they will make racial rights, and the Racial
Compact, a fact.
     That will be a great step forward for humanity.  It will
replace the ages-old rule of "the survival of the fittest" -- a
condition of existence that is the antithesis of civilization,
and which civilization has progressively sought to replace --
with the values and concepts of racial rights as the governing
principle of racial relations, affirming and protecting the right
of every race to life and liberty, existence and independence. 
That will be the world of the Racial Compact, a world safe for
human racial diversity.

------------------------------
Check out the many other interesting files at:
    ftp.netcom.com /pub/SF/SFA

-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|   For unique political commentary & Christian views        Rick Savage    | 
|     Anonymous FTP:  ftp.netcom.com  - pub/SF/SFA           PO Box 5251    |
|   To obtain files by e-mail write me for help file       Denver, CO 80217 |
|       In your message ask for FTP-EMAIL help.                 (u)SA       |


From rsavage@netcom.com Thu May 25 18:35:52 PDT 1995
Article: 5082 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Racial Nihilism
Message-ID: 
Organization: ftp.netcom.com pub/SF/SFA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 00:16:36 GMT
Lines: 619
Sender: rsavage@netcom9.netcom.com

Racial Nihilism  (from:  ftp.netcom.com pub/SF/SFA/social)
 
   Notes from:  _The Racial Compact_  by Richard McCulloch
   A Call for Racial Rights, Preservation, and Independence
 
   Life is a continuum of generations.  The different branches of
life -- species and races -- are themselves separate and distinct
continuums, composed not only of genetically similar individuals
in the currently existing generation, but also of a potentially
unlimited number of generations, each genetically linked with its
ancestors and descendants.
   Human continuums are cultural as well as genetic.  Each
generation transmits both its culture and its genes to its
successors.  The generations in the racial continuum come and go,
and gradually evolve or change over time, but the life they
embody and share in common continues through the continuum of its
generations.
   The continued existence of a continuum cannot be taken for
granted.  A continuum can cease to exist, can be ended, can cease
to continue, in spite of the implications in its name, if any
succeeding generation should ever fail to continue the legacy
bequeathed to it by its ancestral generations. 
   The choice of racial nonexistence over existence, of racial
death over racial life, of racial discontinuation over
continuation, the rejection or repudiation -- or willingness to
reject and repudiate -- the racial continuum of which one is a
part and to which one belongs, is racial nihilism.
   The term nihilism is derived from the Latin 'nihilum,' which
means "nothing."  Nihilism is literally nothingism.  There are
various forms of nihilism, each either denying the existence, or
promoting the nonexistence -- through a reduction to nothing --
of a continuum that has existed through many generations. 
Literary and artistic nihilism rejects and repudiates
distinctions or standards in literary or artistic merit or value. 
Moral nihilism is the rejection and repudiation of moral
distinctions, standards and values.  Racial nihilism is the
rejection and repudiation of all racial distinctions and values. 
It either denies racial existence or seeks its annihilation --
literally, its reduction to nothingness or nonexistence.
   The ideological motivation for nihilism is often a radical or
extreme egalitarianism, which seeks to abolish all inequalities
by abolishing all distinctions, differences and diversity, as
well as all values and standards.  But whatever its motivation or
form -- whether moral, cultural or racial -- nihilism is an
ideology of denial and destruction.  It often denies the very
existence of the continuum it repudiates and seeks to destroy,
unwilling to admit that the object of its destructive intent even
exists.  As moral nihilism commonly asserts that morality does
not exist, so racial nihilism often denies the existence of
races, claiming that nothing exists to preserve or conserve. 
This is racial deconstructionism, the ideological annihilation of
race or ideological reduction of race to nothingness, defining
race out of existence by "deconstructing" its terms or
classifications. 
   This denial is often implied or indirect, as in the following
statement by Miami Herald columnist Joel Achenbach, who writes
that "...'races' are the arbitrary inventions of the colonialist
era."  ("Robobaby," Tropic, April 5, 1992, p. 19).  Sometimes the
denial by deconstruction is explicit and direct, as in the
following assertions by Joan Steinau Lester, executive director
of Equity Institute, a "diversity consulting firm," who writes,
"The idea of 'white' is a fiction, created at a time when
Europeans were labeling and classifying everything... 'Race' is a
system of thought created for the purpose of maintaining
separation and power.  As we attempt as a nation to dismantle
'racial' divisions and inequities, it is time to disassemble the
ideas and words made to fortify the old ways... Folks, race is a
bigger scam than Santa Claus.  Not only does this dog not hunt,
it doesn't exist."  ("is he white?  Is he black?  And, can you
always really tell?" The Miami Herald, Feb. 20, 1994, p. 3C.)
   Actually, it was during the era of Western discovery and
exploration -- of which the colonialist era was the final
expansionist phase -- that the different races of humanity became
aware of each other, that actual knowledge of human racial
diversity began to replace centuries of myth and speculation, and
that the study of human racial diversity became a serious
scientific discipline.  In that sense the different races were
"invented" during that era, as it was then that they were first
studied, defined, categorized, classified, and given names.  
They were not created by such means.
   Racial nihilism is the opposite or antithesis of racial
preservationism and conservationism.  It is opposed to racial
preservation (continued racial life), and to the conditions
required for preservation (separation and reproductive
isolation).  In ideological terms, racial nihilism can be defined
as any system of ideas, beliefs, and values that opposes racial
preservation and conservation, that supports or promotes the
causes of racial destruction, or that denies racial rights,
especially the racial right to life and the conditions of
separation required for continued racial life (racial
preservation).
   Those who reject the continuation or preservation of their own
race are racial nihilists regardless of whether or not they also
oppose the continuation of other races.  Thus some racial
nihilists only reject the continuation or preservation of their
own race, while approving the continuation of other races.  Other
racial nihilists reject the continuation of all races, all racial
differences and all racial diversity, seeking an egalitarian
levelling of all humanity into one uniform race consistent with
the goal or dream of the "One World" ideology.
   Racial nihilism, in its rejection of racial values, caring and
love, and goal of racial levelling, holds that it is wrong to
value, care for and love one's own race, and even more wrong to
value, care for and love it more than others, or to accord it any
preference or special concern.  Racial nihilism demands the
egalitarian elimination of all racial particularities and
distinctions in preferences and concerns, and asserts that it is
wrong to value, care for and love one's race in any degree, even
the same as others, if that valuing, loving and caring includes a
desire for the preservation and continuation of one's own race as
a particular type distinct from the others.
   Racial nihilism can be passive as well as active, be
characterized by acts of omission as well as commission, as the
preservation or continuation of a continuum often requires
positive, sustaining and affirming actions.  The lack of racial
caring or interest, the lack of affirmation of racial rights and
values, and the acquiescence to the causes of racial destruction,
are all examples of racial nihilism by default, the nihilism of
indifference.  
   This type of racial nihilism -- a simple lack of interest,
care and concern, often not consciously intended -- is by far the
most common form, and also the most insidious.  No statement
expresses the essence of nihilism more than the rhetorical
question, "Who cares?"  It is an expression of denial and
rejection of caring, and even of contempt for caring.  When
nihilism rejects or denies the value or importance of something,
or even denies its existence, it condones its sacrifice or
destruction, and resents and condemns as immoral those who do
care for, and seek to uphold and preserve, that which is
threatened.
   If racial diversity is to be preserved in the modern world,
where the preserving barriers of geographic distance have been
overcome by advances in transportation, racial nihilism -- even
in its passive, acquiescent, indifferent and unconscious form -- 
is a luxury humanity can no longer afford.  
   The two causes of racial destruction are intermixture and
replacement.  Intermixture causes racial destruction by genetic
dilution or submergence, replacement involves one race being
dispossessed -- or "squeezed-out" -- by others who take its
place.  
   Multiracialism is the ideology, or system of beliefs and
values, that supports multiracial conditions and the resulting
racially destructive processes of intermixture and replacement. 
Racial nihilism is the underlying ideology, psychological
attitude or view of existence that provides the foundation for
multiracialism by denying and rejecting racial rights and values,
particularly the right of a race to life, independence, and the
condition of separation required for both.
   In the chain of causation, racial nihilism causes or supports
multiracialism, which causes or promotes multiracial conditions,
which cause -- or make possible -- racial intermixture and
replacement, which cause racial destruction.  Each leads to the
other in a progression of cause and effect.  Each also requires
the other as a precondition for its existence, each effect
requiring its cause.  Thus racial destruction requires racial
intermixture or replacement, which require multiracial
conditions, which requires the effective dominance of
multiracialism, which requires racial nihilist beliefs, attitudes
and values -- whether passive or active, conscious or
unconscious, intended or unintended, knowing or unknowing.  
   Racial destruction by intermixture and replacement is an
effectively unavoidable consequence of a multiracial society, but
is effectively prevented in a monoracial society.  The reasons
why certain individuals interbreed with members of different
races are many and varied, but only occur under multiracial
conditions (where there is contact between different races). 
They do not occur under monoracial conditions of geographic
racial separation and reproductive isolation, the conditions in
which the different races were created and preserved until modern
times.
   A "wasteland" is a land, place, society or situation where
life is deprived of the conditions it needs to exist.  A
multiracial society is a racial wasteland, where racial life
cannot be continued, where the forces that cause racial death,
destruction and extinction are dominant over those that promote
racial life, preservation and continuation.  
   The wasteland of the Modern Age is the secular faith or dogma
of multiracialism -- the interracialist and internationalist
ideology of universalism or "Oneness" -- that denies and prevents
racial freedom (independence), uniqueness, growth and
development, and continued racial life, and promotes the
submergence of races in a multiracial "melting pot," replacing
racial preservation and independence with the racially
destructive process of racial nihilism.
   In the modern intellectual and ideological wasteland of
dogmatic racial nihilism the study of knowledge relating to race
and racial differences is suppressed and inhibited, or banned as
"politically incorrect," as such knowledge is inconsistent with
its own beliefs, which either deny the existence of races and
racial differences or regard them as being without value or
importance.
   The tendency of dominant ideologies is to encourage ideas and
beliefs that agree with it, and to discourage, repress, censor or
ban those that disagree.  In the Middle Ages ideas or beliefs
that disagreed with the orthodox ideology of the Catholic church
were labeled heresy.  The current dominant ideological orthodoxy
of nihilistic egalitarianism labels racial, sexual, historical,
cultural and moral ideas or beliefs as 'politically'
(ideologically) correct or incorrect on the basis of whether or
not they tend to agree with and support its position.  "Political
correctness" -- or conformance to the orthodox ideological
position -- is given precedence over factual correctness and the
classical liberal ideals of freedom of inquiry, belief and
conscience, and the failure to give it precedence is regarded as
a moral fault or evil, proving a lack of virtue.
   The Oneness ideal of "One World" and "One Race" seeks to
eliminate human diversity by a process of blending or convergence
of all into one, replacing the great variety of types with one
uniform type.  It began with the concept of "One Religion," a
universal religion for all humanity which would replace all other
religions.  This set the pattern for numerous secular
universalist creeds which also sought to impose themselves on all
humanity.  The process of ideological missionary work,
proselytizing and conversion, both religious and secular,
continues on a vast scale to this day, promoted by the
universalist ideal of Oneness, which is consistent with
multiracialist and racial nihilist ideology.
   The modern multiracial society is a racial wasteland, and its
orthodox ideology is racial nihilism, promoted and enforced by
both secular and religious authorities or priesthoods.  All
"mainstream" cultural, political and social institutions conform
to it.  Any deviance from its doctrines, particularly any
manifestation of racial preservationism, is marginalized to a
fringe position outside the "mainstream," where it is denied
serious consideration as an alternative.
   Racial nihilism is inherently hostile toward any affirmation
or acknowledgement of the reality of racial existence.  Racial
nihilism, in its denial and rejection of the value and importance
of race, racial diversity and racial existence, has made race a
"bad" word, taboo for all but its priesthood, who are entrusted
with its use or incantation solely for the purpose of promoting
the racial nihilist agenda of racial destruction.  Given the
dominant status of racial nihilism in the mass communications
media and educational institutions, a situation exists where
racial knowledge and appreciation are discouraged, and any
objective study or discussion of racial matters -- of racial
differences and diversity, or the conditions required for
continual racial existence -- is regarded as a forbidden subject,
and effectively repressed, banned or censored.
   Racial nihilism has created an air of unreality with regard to
racial matters, where the subjects of racial variation, diversity,
differences, uniqueness and continued existence are confronted
with evasion, dissimulation or denial, where it is regarded as
morally proper to pretend that races and racial differences do
not exist, and where those who openly acknowledge, recognize
and affirm these differences -- and especially those who
celebrate them and assert their value and importance -- are
regarded as immoral.  In this ideological climate, human racial
diversity and differences are denied, trivialized or belittled as
unimportant and not worth preserving, or are actually regarded
as immoral and as something which should be destroyed.  It
logically follows that racial rights are also denied or belittled,
and their assertion regarded as immoral.
   To the racial nihilist racial differences are something evil,
and racial diversity, variation and uniqueness is something to be
denied, belittled and destroyed rather than affirmed, loved and
preserved.  The racial nihilist seeks the egalitarianism of
sameness and oneness, and wants all humanity to be the same, the
rich diversity of human racial types to be reduced to one uniform
type.  Racial nihilism is racial egalitarianism in its most
extreme form, eliminating all racial inequalities by the
elimination of all racial diversity and differences.
   Extreme racial nihilists deny the existence of races while
working to destroy and undo racial existence.  They believe it is
immoral to even admit that different races exist, and it would
seem that some "true believers" actually believe that races do
not exist, as their ethical beliefs (that the existence of
different races is immoral) and values (preference for a world
without racial diversity) determines their factual beliefs. 
Others dissimulate, seeking the end of racial diversity and
knowing that the denial of racial existence promotes the actual
destruction of that existence.  Racial rights cannot be logically
acknowledged or defended if the existence of races is not
recognized.  Without the factual belief in the existence of
differences between the races there is no basis for the ethical
belief in racial rights.
   The factual belief that there are no racial differences, or
that they are trivial and unimportant, or that different races do
not really exist, is often asserted to support the ethical belief
that races have no right to life, liberty and independence, and
to justify the denial and violation of those rights.  If a race
does not exist it has no rights that can be violated.  By denying
racial existence, racial nihilism can rationalize its opposition
to racial rights and assume a moral pose while promoting racial
genocide.  But to be logically consistent, the denial of the
existence of different human races not only requires the denial
of the existence of genetically distinct human populations, but
also the denial of the existence of all different life forms.  If
one is an illusion all are an illusion, and at this point racial
nihilism becomes racial gnosticism.
 
Racial Gnosticism 
 
   GNOSTICISM is the belief that physical life and existence are
not real, that everything in the material world is an illusion,
without meaning or value.  It is a form of metaphysical nihilism. 
Gnostics belittle or deny the importance -- in fact the reality
or existence -- of all that is physical or material, claiming
that the only true reality is nonmaterial or spiritual.  They
seek to escape from life and physical existence, or to end it.  
   The word "gnosticism" is derived from the Greek word for
knowledge, and the original gnostics -- "those with knowledge" --
were the initiates in the Greek Mystery religions.  It was not
until the Hellenistic period (the three centuries preceding the
Christian era) that gnosticism became associated with a disbelief
in the reality of physical existence.  This development can be
attributed in part to the influence of Indian Buddhist
missionaries, who brought their ideas to the Mediterranean world
during the Hellenistic era. (Joseph Campbell, "The Masks of God:
Occidental Mythology" Penquin Books, 1964, p. 362).  
   In the Christian era various gnostic sects developed within
Christianity which believed in an incorporeal or illusory Christ
who never existed as a real or physical man.
   As gnosticism does not believe in physical reality, but
regards it as an illusion, so it also does not believe in the
reality of any differences or distinctions in the material world. 
It believes that all people and peoples, all individuals and
races, are the same, interchangeable and impersonal, that none
are unique, different or special in any significant way.  It
follows that gnosticism is completely egalitarian, regarding all
as equal and the same, with no important differences or
distinctions.  
   The gnostic is especially egalitarian in love, believing it is
immoral to love any person or people more than any other, but
that all people and peoples should be loved and valued equally. 
This egalitarian form of love was applied equally to all,
impersonally, without differentiation, distinction, or
discrimination.  This lead the gnostic sects to reject monogamy
and promote either celibacy or a promiscuous community of sexual
partners where exclusive relationships and strong personal
attachments were forbidden.  One Christian gnostic sect, the
Phibionites, engaged in orgies as part of their religious rites.
   Both personal love and love for one's race or people, which
differentiate, discriminate and draw distinctions, which value a
particular person or people more than others, were condemned. 
The gnostics practiced no exclusivity, loyalty or fidelity in
love, advocating equal and nondiscriminating love for all, to be
given equally to all, without preference or special emotions,
loyalties or attachments.  The gnostics were no more loyal or
attached to their race, people or nation than they were to their
sexual partners, professing themselves to be kosmopolites,
cosmopolitans, or citizens of the world.
   Gnosticism, in its denial and rejection of the reality and
value of life and existence, is a quest for nonexistence, seeking
the end of existence, the destruction of the continuum of the
generations.  Thus many of the gnostic sects, both pagan and
Christian, condemned procreation as a continuation of life and
existence they sought to bring to an end.  Racial gnosticism, the
belief that race is not real, but an illusion without meaning,
significance or value, also seeks the end of racial existence,
the destruction of the racial continuum, and opposes procreation
or anything else which tends to continue or preserve racial life.
   The modern Western world has witnessed a resurgence of gnostic
thinking, again -- as in ancient times -- largely influenced by
Hindu and Buddhist thought.  Much of the philosophy of the so-
called "New Age" movement, a continuum of the "counterculture"
which began in the mid-sixties, is directly attributable to Hindu
and Buddhist influence, with many of its members proclaiming
themselves to be followers of various Asian "gurus."  The strong
current of gnosticism that runs through this movement should
therefore come as no surprise.  
   Such pagan gnostic sayings as "Leap clear of all that is
corporeal," "Nothing is impossible," and "Think that you are
everywhere at once," are very reminiscent of _Jonathan Livingston
Seagull_, written by Richard Bach, one of the better known "New
Age" authors, whose other philosophical works, especially
_Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah_, also express
gnostic ideas.
   The "love" which was the 'leitmotif' of the counterculture was
the egalitarian and promiscuous love that is characteristic of
gnosticism; universal, impersonal, and nondiscriminating,
unfocused, without any special intensity of emotion or feeling
for any particular person, people or thing.  In sexual relations
this promiscuous love was euphemistically referred to as "free
love."  In political and social matters it expressed itself as
universalism and the cosmopolitan "One World, One-Race, One-
People" ideal of Oneness.
   Gnosticism's influence on racial beliefs and values in
particular, are only part of the explanation for the current
dominance of racial nihilism in the Western world.  The dominant
trend of the "popular" or mass culture in recent times, from
"pop" philosophy to "pop" psychology, has been to emphasize the
individual while ignoring, denying, rejecting, violating, and
sacrificing the interests of the larger entity -- the continuum
or race -- of which the individual is a part and from which the
individual came, the larger genetic entity whose existence
continues through the generations while the existence of the
particular individual is limited to one generation.
   This cultural trend is not limited to the secular sphere, but
dominates in the religious sphere as well, where the "salvation"
that is promised is the salvation of the individual, not the
salvation or continued life of the racial continuum to which the
individual belongs.

The Extreme Individualist - Racial Idiots
 
   Some racial nihilists are extreme individualists, who only
recognize the rights of individuals (and perhaps only the
existence of individuals) in a very atomistic sense, not
recognizing the rights (and perhaps the existence) of the
biological group of which they are a part, whose existence
transcends the sum of its parts and is potentially immortal.  
   This excessive preoccupation with the atomized individual,
divorced or separated from the context of the larger genetic
continuum of which it is a part, is a classic example of not
being able to see the forest because of the trees.  The
individual entities, whether tree or human being, come and go in
their generations, but the larger entity of which they are a
part, whether forest or race, lives on.  It is the enduring
reality, the continuing reality, the continuum.  The life of the
individual is transient and passes quickly.  It is the life of
the forest or race that is potentially immortal.  But one cannot
exist without the other.  The single individual and the forest or
race, the part and the whole, both depend on the health and well-
being of the other.
   The ancient Greek word for separate was 'idios.'  Persons who
were excessively preoccupied with their own private or individual
affairs, to the point of neglecting or rejecting their
responsibilities or involvement in the larger entity of which
they were a part, and thereby separating themselves from it, and
>from  care or concern for its interests, were called 'idiotes.' 
It is therefore etymologically correct to refer to the condition
in which an individual is so preoccupied with their own private
interests as to be separated from involvement in -- and care and
concern for -- the interests of their race, as racial idiocy. 
This common condition of racial idiocy is a major cause of racial
nihilism, in both its active and passive forms.  In a healthy
culture racial idiocy would be regarded as dysfunctional, but in
the present culture the dominant position of racial nihilism
enables the racial idiot to enjoy the conceit of moral
superiority over those individuals who do not separate themselves
>from  their race, but who care for it and promote its interests
and preservation.
   Those individuals who are excessively preoccupied with the
interests of their own race to the point of rejecting the
legitimate rights and interests of other races, or the interests
of life or the planet as a whole, and separating themselves and
their race from those interests, could be described as another
type of racial idiot.  The promotion of racial rights,
independence and preservation is as incompatible with this form
of racial idiocy as it is with the racial nihilist form.
   The relationship between individual and racial rights (i.e.,
the rights of the larger entity of which the individual is a
part) can be illustrated by the story of a group of people in a
boat.  One person claimed a right to drill a hole in the bottom
of the boat under his own seat.  The others objected, explaining
that if he were in a boat by himself he would have a right to do
as he pleased, as only he would suffer the consequences, but as
there were others in the same boat with him, and the consequences
of his actions would not be limited to his own seat and himself
alone, but would sink the entire boat and adversely effect them
all, he did not have a right to endanger the boat they shared in
common.  This story can be seen as a metaphor, with the would-be
hole driller representing his race, the water representing a
threat to the existence of his race, and the boat representing
the condition that protects the existence of his race from the
threat.  This metaphor can be applied to the situation that
occurs when some individuals claim a right to introduce the genes
of other races (represented in the metaphor by the surrounding
body of water) into their race -- either through intermixture,
adoption, immigration or some other means -- thereby making a
hole or breach in the protective condition of racial separation
(the boat), through which the genes of other races (the water)
can enter and spread throughout their race, threatening all --
including the generations to come -- with destruction by genetic
flooding and sinking.

Economic motive behind Racial Nihilism
 
   Another cause of racial nihilism is an excessive preoccupation
with economic matters and concerns.  As a result, racial
considerations, including racial preservation and independence,
are routinely subordinated to economic considerations.  Much of
the impetus behind the "One-World, One-Race" movement comes from
economic interests.  
   The call for a unified world economy without restrictions on
the movement of "labor" (people), permitting the free movement or
immigration of people into the homelands of other races, is a
clear expression of racial nihilism, denying and violating the
right of every race to life and independence by denying it the
racially exclusive territory required for both.  The essence of
this form of racial nihilism is that it sees all people as
interchangeable units of production and consumption, without any
differences -- including racial differences -- worthy of caring
about or preserving.  It is willing, even eager, to sacrifice
racial interests for the sake of economic gain.  Typically, it
promotes multiracial immigration for economic purposes
(especially to lower labor costs) with racially destructive
effects on the existing population (displacement and replacement,
or extinction by intermixture and genetic submergence).
   Racial nihilism, particularly in its more activist forms, is
often associated with internationalism and the "One-World" goal
of a world government.  For many persons this goal is motivated
by a desire to end war and conflict by establishing a rule of law
among peoples, nations and races similar to the rule of law that
government enforces among individuals.  This rule of law is a
worthy goal provided it is based on the concept of racial and
national rights as well as individual rights, but many
internationalists adopt the racial nihilist position that human
conflict can only be abolished by the abolishment of human
diversity and differences, by the destruction of whatever
separates humanity into different types and distinguishes one
type from the others. 

Racial Nihilism vs. Racial Preservationism
 
   Some people sincerely believe that the world would be a better
place if all the races would join and become one, the race of
none, and are motivated by this belief to support racial nihilism
in the conscious knowledge of its racially destructive effects. 
(John Lennon's song 'Imagine' is an expression of this belief and
desire).  Others are motivated by racial nihilism and the desire
for racial annihilation -- the reduction of race to nothingness -
- as an end in itself, and merely use internationalism as a
pretext to justify their position and a cloak to cover their true
motives.
   The "One-World, One-Race" dream provides an effective vehicle
to promote racial nihilism, as it allows no race a right to its
own territory, independence or existence, but would consign them
all to the multiracial "melting-pot," where the traits that once
distinguished the different races would exist only in solution,
blended with all the others, effectively diluted out of
existence.  The dream of racial "Oneness" is really a simplistic
and reductionist dream.  It seeks to reduce the complex to the
simple, to replace the many existing forms and types with one
uniform type, by diluting racial differences to the point of non
existence or nothingness. It is an irony of semantics that the
racial intermixture that is often referred to as racial
'integration' actually caused racial 'disintegration,' the
dissolution and destruction of races and racial diversity.
   The influence of racial nihilism permeates contemporary
culture.  Its values are promoted in the schools and the
Judeochristian churches, in print and on television, by teachers
and preachers, journalists and talk-show hosts.  Even so, the
support for racial nihilism among the general population is more
passive than active, more unconscious than conscious, more the
result of ignorance and misplaced trust than knowledge and
understanding.  
   The public is well-indoctrinated with racial nihilist values,
but not well-informed regarding the effects of racial nihilist
policies, or the existence of possible alternatives.  The
combination of pervasive indoctrination with inertia and
conformism, and the exclusion of possible alternatives from
consideration by the mainstream media, maintains the culture on a
racial nihilist course and permits the pace of racial destruction
to be gradually increased, even if the fanaticism of the "true
believer" is limited to a relative few.  The few who are driven
by a passionate intensity have more influence than the many who
lack all conviction, who do not care, and who consign their race
to oblivion with the deathstroke of indifference.
   In the multiracial society, ideologically justified and
supported by racial nihilism, the different races are denied
their sense of racehood or racial identity, their organic
connection to the continuum of life of which they and their own
life is a part, from which it came and to which it belongs, the
natural object of their loyalties and affections, their love and
responsibilities.  People are taught from childhood to neither
value their race, nor have any love or care for it, or loyalty
toward it.  The message may not be worded in these terms.  More
commonly it is asserted that morality requires a person to love
and value all races equally, in accordance with the egalitarian
concept of love, and that it is morally wrong to value or love
one's own race and kind, one's own continuum of life and
evolution, one's own genetic traits and those who share them,
more than any other.  This, for the purposes of racial nihilism,
has the same effect as not valuing or loving one's race at all. 
Such are the values instilled by racial nihilism, beginning with
children, depriving the race of the love and loyalty of its
members, so that its existence is not regarded as a value but is
denied and violated.  These are the genocidal values of racial
destruction through alienation and disaffection of natural love
and loyalty.
   Racial conservation has much in common with the conservation
of nature.  The conservation and protection of nature and the
natural environment depended on the development of a
conservationist or environmentalist ethic, a system of morals and
values that appreciate and recognize the importance of the
natural environment and seek to preserve it.  Racial preservation
depends upon the development of a conservationist ethic for race,
or human nature, similar to the conservationist ethic developed
for non-human nature.  It requires an ethic, a morality, of
racial affirmation and conservation to replace the current ethic
of racial denial and destruction, a morality with a positive view
of race as a good to be appreciated, cherished, valued, loved and
preserved rather than the current negative view of race as an
evil to be discarded, rejected, and destroyed.  Such an ethic or
morality is the essential foundation of the Racial Compact.
   Al Gore, in his book _Earth in the Balance_ wrote:  "In its
deepest sense the environmentalism that concerns itself with the
ecology of the whole earth is rising powerfully from the part of
our being that knows better, that knows to consolidate, protect,
and conserve those things we care about before we manipulate and
change them, perhaps irrevocably."  In truth, much the same can
be said for the preservation or conservation of the human
ecology, of the human racial diversity.  Racial annihilation or
extinction is the change sought by racial nihilism, a change that
will occur if present trends continue, a change that will be
irrevocable.  After all, extinction is forever.  
   Only a racial preservationist ethic that rises powerfully from
a part of our being that knows better, that knows to value and
care about racial existence and protect and conserve it, can
reverse the trend and stop the destruction.  The challenge facing
this generation is not only to save the earth, but to save the
endangered racial diversity of humanity.

Be sure to get these related files:
   Racial_diversity
   Racial_rights

-----------------------------------------
Get the "Identity.faq" and many other files by
anonymous FTP from:    ftp.netcom.com /pub/SF/SFA
-------------------------------------------------

-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|   For unique political commentary & Christian views        Rick Savage    | 
|     Anonymous FTP:  ftp.netcom.com  - pub/SF/SFA           PO Box 5251    |
|   To obtain files by e-mail write me for help file       Denver, CO 80217 |
|       In your message ask for FTP-EMAIL help.                 (u)SA       |


From rsavage@netcom.com Thu May 25 18:35:58 PDT 1995
Article: 5083 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: What is Racism?
Message-ID: 
Organization: ftp.netcom.com pub/SF/SFA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 00:17:31 GMT
Lines: 271
Sender: rsavage@netcom9.netcom.com

From:    ftp.netcom.com /pub/SF/SFA/social
------------------------------------------

                          WHAT IS RACISM?                        
                         by Thomas Jackson
   {Originally Published in American Renaissance, Vol 2, No. 8}

     There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism"
in greater horror than does the United States. Compared to other
kinds of offenses, it is thought to be somehow more
reprehensible. The press and public have become so used to tales
of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most
spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable
texture of American life. "Racism" is never shrugged off.        
For example, when a white Georgetown Law School student reported
earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as
white students, it set off a booming, national controversy about
"racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would
have attracted far less attention and criticism.
     Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities
are on full alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it,
churches preach against it, America is said to be racked with it,
but just what *is* racism?
     Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is
meant by the word. They usually define it as the belief that
one's own ethnic stock is superior to others, or as the belief
that culture and behavior are rooted in race. When Americans
speak of racism they mean a great deal more than this.        
Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a clue to
understanding what Americans *do* mean. A peculiarly American
meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are
equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have
been declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and
anyone who questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong
but evil.
     The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly
important. If blacks, for example, are equal to whites in every
way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and
dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been
outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is
white racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone,
and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive racism.
Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state.      
     All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid
logic. Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on
white wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden
territory of racial differences. Thus, even if today's whites can
find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's
whites must have oppressed them. If whites do not consciously
oppress blacks, they must oppress them UNconsciously. If no
obviously racist individuals can be identified, then
*institutions* must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so
terribly in America, there simply must be millions of white
people we do not know about, who are working day and night to
keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no
room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some
fashion, an indictment of white people.
    The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are
required to believe that the only explanation for non-white
failure is white racism, every time a non-white is poor, commits
a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, white society stands
accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or misbehavior
by non-whites is standing proof that white society is riddled
with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-whites fail
to succeed in life at exactly the same level as whites, whites
will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them. This
obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions.
First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be committed
almost exclusively by white people. Indeed, a black congressman
>from  Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of
Detroit, have argued that only white people *can* be racist.
Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State
Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which
she explained that *all* whites are racist and that *only* whites
can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained
without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?      
     Although some blacks and liberal whites concede that non-whites
can, perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-whites have
been forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of white
oppression. What appears to be non-white racism is so
understandable and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name.
Thus, whether or not an act is called racism depends on the race
of the racist. What would surely be called racism when done by
whites is thought to be normal when done by anyone else. The
reverse is also true.
     Examples of this sort of double standard are so common,
it is almost tedious to list them: When a white man kills a black
man and uses the word "nigger" while doing so, there is an 
enormous media uproar and the nation beats its collective breast;
when members of the black Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of
random whites, the media are silent (see AR of March, 1991).
College campuses forbid pejorative statements about non-whites as
"racist," but ignore scurrilous attacks on whites.
     At election time, if 60 percent of the white voters vote
for a white candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote
for the black opponent, it is white who are accused of racial
bias. There are 107 "historically black" colleges, whose
fundamental blackness must be preserved in the name of diversity,
but all historically white colleges must be forcibly integrated
in the name of... the same thing. To resist would be racist.     
     "Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but
anything that could be construed as an expression of white pride
is a form of hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world
immigrants to expect school instruction and driver's tests in
their own languages, whereas for native Americans to ask them to
learn English is racist.
     Blatant anti-white prejudice, in the form of affirmative
action, is now the law of the land. Anything remotely like
affirmative action, if practiced in favor of whites, would be
attacked as despicable favoritism.
     All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs
and caucuses are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic
solidarity, but any club or association expressly for whites is
by definition racist. The National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) campaigns openly for black
advantage but is a respected "civil rights" organization. The
National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP)
campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but is said to
be viciously racist.
     At a few college campuses, students opposed to
affirmative action have set up student unions for whites,
analogous to those for blacks, Hispanics, etc, and have been
roundly condemned as racists. Recently, when the white students
at Lowell High School in San Francisco found themselves to be a
minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club like the ones
that non- whites have. They were turned down in horror. Indeed,
in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a white
enclave but whose members simply happen all to be white is
branded as racist.
     Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the
asymmetric quality of American racism is "celebration of
diversity." It has begun to dawn on a few people that "diversity"
is always achieved at the expense of whites (and sometimes men),
and never the other way around. No one proposes that Howard
University be made more diverse by admitting whites, Hispanics,
or Asians. No one ever suggests that National Hispanic University
in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity of having
non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black
Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the
Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a
lack of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them
to celebrate *homogeneity*. And yet any all-white group - a
company, a town, a school, a club, a neighborhood - is thought to
suffer from a crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied
as quickly as possible. Only when whites have been reduced to a
minority has "diversity" been achieved.
      Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate" or "embrace"
diversity, as we are so often asked to do, is no different from
*deploring an excess of whites.* In fact, the entire nation is
thought to suffer from an excess of whites. Our current
immigration policies are structured so that approximately 90
percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are non-white. The
several million illegal immigrants that enter the country every
year are virtually all non-white. It would be racist not to be
grateful for this laudable contribution to "diversity."        
It is, of course, only white nations that are called upon to
practice this kind of "diversity." It is almost criminal to
imagine a nation of any other race countenancing blatant
dispossession of this kind.
     What if the United States were pouring its poorest,
least educated citizens across the border into Mexico? Could
anyone be fooled into thinking that Mexico was being "culturally
enriched?" What if the state of Chihuahua were losing its
majority population to poor whites who demanded that schools be
taught in English, who insisted on celebrating the Fourth of
July, who demanded the right to vote even if they weren't
citizens, who clamored for "affirmative action" in jobs and
schooling?
     Would Mexico - or any other non-white nation - tolerate
this kind of cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not.
Yet white Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of
Hispanics and Asians entering their country as a priceless
cultural gift. They are supposed to "celebrate" their own loss
of influence, their own dwindling numbers, their own
dispossession, for to do otherwise would be hopelessly racist.   
     There is another curious asymmetry about American racism.
When non- whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever
accuses them of "hating" another group. Blacks can join "civil
rights" groups and Hispanics can be activists without fear of
being branded as bigots and hate mongers. They can agitate openly
for racial preferences that can come only at the expense of
whites. They can demand preferential treatment of all kinds
without anyone ever suggesting that they are "anti-white."       
    Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to
affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject
racial policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be
called racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that
they prefer the company of their own kind, that they wish to be
left alone to enjoy the fruits of their European heritage, they
are irredeemably wicked and hateful.
     Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about
American race relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the
company of their own kind, to think of themselves as groups with
interests distinct from those of the whole, and to work openly
for group advantage. None of this is thought to be racist. At the
same time, *whites* must *also* champion the racial interests of
non-whites. They must sacrifice their own future on the altar of
"diversity" and cooperate in their own dispossession. They are to
encourage, even to subsidize, the displacement of a European
people and culture by alien peoples and cultures. To put it in
the simplest possible terms, white people are cheerfully to
slaughter their own society, to commit racial and cultural
suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.
     Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United
States is perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more
natural than to love one's people and to hope that it should
flourish. Filipinos and El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished
to discover that simply by setting foot in the United States they
are entitled to affirmative action preferences over native-born
whites, but can they be blamed for accepting them? Is it
surprising that they should want their languages, their cultures,
their brothers and sisters to take possession and put their mark
indelibly on the land? If the once-great people of a once-great
nation is bent upon self-destruction and is prepared to hand
over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for it, why
should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?
     No, it is the white enterprise in the United States that
is unnatural, unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites
have let themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to
object to dispossession, much less to work for their own
interests. Never in the history of the world has a dominant
people thrown open the gates to strangers, and poured out its
wealth to aliens. Never before has a people been fooled into
thinking that there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its
heritage, and giving away to others its place in history.        
Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked into
thinking that a preference for one's own kind is racism. Only
whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow
"hatred" of others. All healthy people prefer the company of
their own kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men
love their families more than their neighbors, but this does not
mean that they hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial
family need bear no ill will towards non-whites. They only wish
to be left alone to participate in the unfolding of their racial
and cultural destinies.
     What whites in America are being asked to do is
therefore utterly unnatural. They are being asked to devote
themselves to the interests of other races and to ignore the
interests of their own. This is like asking a man to forsake his
own children and love the children of his neighbors, since to do
otherwise would be "racist."
     What then, is "racism?" It is considerably more than any
dictionary is likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to
official policies of racial preference for non-whites. It is any
preference by whites for their own people and culture. It is any
resistance by whites to the idea of becoming a minority people.
It is any unwillingness to be pushed aside. It is, in short, any
of the normal aspirations of people-hood that have defined
nations since the beginning of history - but only so long as the
aspirations are those of whites.

------------------------

For further study on the issue of race listen to the recorded message,
_Scriptural Understanding of Race_ by Pastor Pete J. Peters.  Audio tape 
$4.00 offering, booklet by same name $1.00.

Available from Scriptures for America, 
P.O. Box 766-c, 
LaPorte, CO 80535 

---------------------------------------
Get the "Identity.faq" and many other files by
anonymous FTP from:    ftp.netcom.com /pub/SF/SFA
-------------------------------------------------

-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|   For unique political commentary & Christian views        Rick Savage    | 
|     Anonymous FTP:  ftp.netcom.com  - pub/SF/SFA           PO Box 5251    |
|   To obtain files by e-mail write me for help file       Denver, CO 80217 |
|       In your message ask for FTP-EMAIL help.                 (u)SA       |


From rsavage@netcom.com Fri May 26 00:02:45 PDT 1995
Article: 5072 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Identit.FAQ - Pt.1
Message-ID: 
Organization: ftp.netcom.com pub/SF/SFA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 00:45:56 GMT
Lines: 615
Sender: rsavage@netcom9.netcom.com

Frequently Asked Questions and Answers on 
   ISRAEL- IDENTITY  (Part 1 of 3)

Last Updated 2/20/95
Future updates available via anonymous FTP 
  from:  ftp.netcom.com  pub/SF/SFA
Compiled by Rick Savage 

      "And are not they [today's "Jews"] the inventors of the
  Chosen People myth?" -- [Dr. Oscar Levy, preface, "The World
  Significance of the Russian Revolution," George Pitt Rivers 
  (Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell, 1920) vi]
      "Behold, days are coming, says the LORD when I will effect
  a New Covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of
  Judah"  [Hebrews 8:8]

Table Of Contents
---------------------------------
 *   Introduction
 *   The Frequently Asked Questions
 *   Conclusion 
 *   Sources and other resources for further investigation
 *   When the Saxon Learns to Love!
=====================================

INTRODUCTION

     "Here is a paradox, a most ingenious paradox: an 
anthropological fact, many Christians may have much more 
Hebrew-Israelite blood in their veins than most of their Jewish 
neighbors." -- Alfred M. Lilienthal, "What Price Israel" (Chicago: 
Henry Regnery Company, 1953) 223.
     The statement above made by an anti-Zionist "Jew" reflects an 
idea we will prove further in this document of questions and answers.
Since the majority of information concerning the identity of the
true descendants of Biblical "Israelites" today has become so
propagandized we felt the necessity to correctly state the facts that
a growing number of people are beginning to see.  These people have 
learned through the Scriptures, and from new or previously hidden
archeological discoveries, that the "traditions of men" (Matt 15:2-6,
16:12; Col. 2:8, 1Peter 1:18) have been the controlling force in
mainstream Churchianity for a very long time.
     There are some people who blindly oppose this message.  Their
opinion is based solely on the opposition's propaganda without even
having the chance to hear, or see, both sides of the issue.  This
brief will provide an opportunity for those who are NOT so hasty to
believe that they can discern truth before hearing the whole story. 
The Apostle Paul advised us of the wisdom of hearing a matter before
we form opinions regarding it when he said:  "if anyone supposes that
he knows anything, he has not known as he ought to know," (I
Corinthians 8:2). 
     We want you to be as noble as the Bereans who "received 
the word with all readiness of mind, and search the scriptures....to 
see if these things are so" (Acts 17:11).  May the Spirit of Truth 
help you to discern what stands upon the Rock of Truth and what is 
built on the sinking sands of tradition.
 
1.  What is the Christian message of Israel's Identity in a nutshell?
    Why is it such a "minority" belief and so maligned by it's 
    detractors?
    ----------------------------------------------------------- 
    These are the core points of Israel's true Identity as evidenced
      by the Scripture and proved in this document:
 *  God has a plan for physical (regenerate) Israel today.
    (Heb. 8:8-10)
 *  The "Jews" of Judaism today admit in their own literature
    (referenced later in this document) that they are NOT
    Israelites but are impostors and are indeed Christ's and
    Christian Israel's principal enemies.
 *  The truth concerning the identity of modern-day "Israel" is 
    vital information for the body of Christ, i.e. for true 
    Israel, and even for the rest of the world.
 *  The so-called or self-styled "Jews" of today are mainly 
    of Turko-Mongol Khazars who became spiritual converts to
    the condemned religion of the Pharisees (which is called 
    Judaism today) several centuries after Jesus Christ walked 
    the earth.  The Germanic kindred (white) peoples are the 
    true descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel.
 *  This understanding, i.e. knowing one's heritage or family
    tree, is in no way "anti-Semitic," especially when we find
    out who are really "Semites."  This document exposes the
    real anti-Semites!
 *  Most importantly, it was Christ who told us to "know the
    Truth, because the Truth shall make you free" (John 8:32).

    These simple truths are the core points of the Israel-Identity
message.  The opposition has flooded the media with a great deal of
disinformation.  But, if their position is as correct as it is massive,
then the numbers of people who are coming to this truth (that has
been "hidden in plain sight" in God's Word) would not be growing.
Who is the final Word on what is truth - man's word or God's
Word?  The people coming to the truth of Israel's true Identity
today are those who love God and trust the evidence of His Word
over the "traditions of men."  
     It is a known fact that a person does not change their beliefs 
easily.  It is far easier to believe as we always have and not "rock
the boat" with family, friends, or church.  However, if you are one
who desires to live in truth rather than fear you will join the many
others who did not let anything suppress their search to know truth
and live by it.
     Unfortunately, there are many people who do not desire true 
information reaching the general public and will do everything in
their power to keep the masses ignorant.  Some of these people and
their organizations are motivated out of a terror of being exposed.
Others simply don't want the change that truth inspires because they
profit from the perpetuation of the lies.  The mainstream are lazy
and don't want to expend the effort to change and many merely
respond knee-jerk fashion with what they have been indoctrinated
to believe.  Whatever the reason, when these truths are made
public those who love ease and comfort more than they love God
will create smear campaigns through Hollywood, the media,
schools, peers, as well as from the pulpits of JUDEOchurchianity.
Their purpose again is to defame, libel, slander, and attempt to
discredit what they oppose with unearned labels such as:  anti-
Semitism, racism, neo-Nazi, white supremacy, hater, or even 
"right-wing religious fanatic."  (It seems that the only FANatic that
is acceptable is the one who cheers for the local sports team and not
God.)  Some people will choose to believe these venomous lies and
call good evil and evil good.  But it is all to no avail.  The Word is
fact and the truths it contains are not going to change for our comfort,
convenience, or ill-gotten profit.
     Those who oppose honest investigation and inquiry into this
matter have a standard attack that has served their hateful purposes:
  *  Their first attempted attack is to ignore the light cast on them
     in their darkness and hope that it does not awaken those whom they
     have deluded.  
  *  This is followed by ridicule of the person, or persons, supplying
     the light.  
  *  If that doesn't work, the next step is character assassination. 
     This is usually done through the asking of unsubstantiated 
     questions to insinuate a lack of credibility or "evil" intent of 
     the person or their sources.  For example, we have all heard 
     questions like "How often do you beat your wife?". 
  *  Next, the victim, if deemed a sufficient threat, will be made the
     object of a fabricated scandal.
  *  Finally if all else fails, these emotional manipulators will
     stoop to direct intimidation and physical attack.
    This sort of behavior has many Christians afraid to even
investigate the subject of Israel's true identity today.  They do not
seek out God's truth because of a "fear of the Jews." (John 7:13). 
This fear and unbelief is an insult to the courage of Jesus the Christ
and is sin.  This lack of belief in and fear of (YHWH) God will be
our destruction.  Christ Jesus only allows us to fear God -- "...fear
not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but
rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body"
(Matt. 10:28).  The fearful, cowardly and unbelieving get top billing
of those whose "place will be in the lake which burns with fire and
brimstone: which is the second death" (Rev. 21:8).  This is a terrible
price to pay for such a lack of love and faith.  Pray that our
Redeemer, Jesus the Christ, might help our unbelief and give us
courage!
     A lack of courage in our duty to bring all men to Christ's 
Salvation and Truth (I Tim. 2:4) is a failure to recognize what kind 
of Spirit we were given.  "For God has *not* given us the spirit of 
fear; but of POWER, and of LOVE, and of a SOUND MIND.  Be 
therefore not ashamed of the testimony of our Lord...who has saved 
us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our own 
works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was 
given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" (2 Timothy 1:7-9).
     Perfect love knows no fear and truth fears no investigation.  
"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because 
fear hath torment.  He that feareth is not made perfect in love" (I 
John 4:18).  If you fear to search out the truth, or fear the anti-
Christs in their attempts to prevent the truth from being told, you 
don't have love like you out to have it.


2.  What difference does the Israel-Identity Christian message 
    make?
    ----------------------------------------------------------- 
     The identity of Israel is primarily important because it is the 
truth and Christ desires that "all men be saved AND come to the
knowledge of the truth," (1 Tim. 2:4). 
     It is important to discover the true identity of Israel (redeemed 
white people called of God) so that they may be restored to their 
rightful purpose and duty.  That purpose is a duty of servanthood
to their God and His world (Gen. 1:27-28; Matt. 28:18-20).  
     In this great commission, after having been redeemed and 
brought into God's Kingdom, He asks them to begin to make a 
difference in their world.  It starts by reforming their lives, their 
families, and their daily walk before Him and men.  Evangelism 
means teaching people of the Kingdom of God and to obey His 
Law-Word, through the empowering of God's Spirit.  Evangelism 
means obedience.  This is the message of Jesus as it is recorded
in the Gospel of John (14:15):  "If you love me, keep my 
commandments."  Love never contradicts God's Law-Word, but 
rather is a fulfilling of the Law (Romans 2:13; 6:1-2).  Law has 
dominion over all men (Rom. 7:1), but those who come into Christ's 
redemptive grace and walk by a desire to keep His commandments 
are redeemed from our past transgressions of His law which leads to
death.  Through our Love for Him, He helps us obey His command-
ments.  For we know that those who live after their own law will die
and are at enmity with God, but those who live after Christ's Law-
Word shall live (Rom. 8:1-13).  So, this great commission is to save
the world from the law of carnal men that leads to death, by the
saving power of God's Law-Word which leads to life.
     The Bible tells us that all of creation groans for the revealing
of the sons of God:
     "For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the 
revealing of the sons of God.  For the creation was subjected to 
futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in 
hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery
to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God 
(redeemed Israel).  For we know that the whole creation groans and 
suffers the pains of childbirth..." (Romans 8:19-22)   
     Who are these sons of God?  We are given a clue in verses 14 & 
15 in chapter 8 of Romans, "For as many as are led by the Spirit of 
God, they are the sons of God.  For you have not received the spirit 
of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, 
whereby we cry, Abba, Father."
     The prophet Hosea prophesied that the Israelites (not "Jews") 
would become sons of God (i.e. Christians).  At the time of Hosea, 
the Israelites were divided into two nations known as the house of 
Israel and the House of Judah.  Hosea said in Hosea 1:10,11 that 
those Israelites who were cast off (divorced) by God (and no longer 
known as "His people") would be gathered together under one 
leader (who was Christ) and be called the "sons of the living God."  
This was confirmed in the Covenant Christ made with these two 
nations of Israelites described in Hebrews 8:8-10.
     God has used other peoples for His purposes when Israel has 
been delinquent in her duty.   It is not ultimately "imperative," 
though important to Christ, to define "Israel" and return them to 
their duty.  Even though Christ came only to Israelites (Matt. 15:24) 
and is very concerned about them being fed, tended and shepherded 
(John 21:15-17), God's plan will be carried out even if He has to 
raise up children of Abraham from the very stones (Luke 3:8).  
     It *is* imperative to remove the pretenders who are fighting 
against God's purposes on His earth in the name of "Israel," (I Cor. 
15:25; Luke 19:27).  THE imperative duty of every creature is to 
fear God and see that His Will be done *on Earth* as it is in 
heaven (Eccl. 12:13,14; Matt. 6:10).  God's plan for the world is to 
bring freedom, life and salvation into it through His servants, i.e. 
Christ and everyone who follows Him (John 3:16; John 17:3; 
Romans 6:4,23 & 8::34-39; 2 Cor. 3:17; Gal. 5:1, etc, etc.).  This 
can't be done when an usurper is using the name of God's chosen 
people in direct opposition to God's plan.
     The impostors (self-styled "Jews") who have attempted to steal 
the birthright of true Israel (to rule & reign as kings and priests
with God - Ex 19:3-6) are, in reality, simply God's punishing rod on 
His rebellious people (Israel) to return them back to Him and His duty 
for them.  The "Jews" will continue to be a curse to His true Israel 
people until they repent (turn back and obey Him).  Until God's true
Israel people repent, they will continue to suffer the curses for
disobedience as outlined in Deuteronomy 28, which includes the
worst of the heathen ruling over and devouring them, 
(Deut. 28:33,43-52).
     Modern Churchianity has failed to heed the warning of Col. 2:8 
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, 
after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not 
after Christ," because they have dropped the charge given to them in 
II Corinthians 10:5.  Most "churches" have not heard this warning 
and have passively accepted these "Jewish Fables and 
commandments (traditions) of men" (Titus 1:14).  Thus, their 
message has become impotent and of no affect in bringing life and 
liberty into the world.
     A redeemed and awakened Israel to their Identity and duty 
toward God will again catch the Spirit that indwelled the men of 
Marlborough, Connecticut in 1773 when they made this unanimous 
proclamation:
     "Death is more eligible than slavery.  A freeborn people are not 
required by the religion of Jesus Christ to submit to tyranny, but 
may make use of such power as God has given them to recover and 
support their laws and liberties... (we) implore the Ruler above the 
skies, that He would make bare His arm in the defense of His 
church and people, and let Israel go." ('The Light and the Glory,' by 
Peter Marshal and David Manuel, p. 267)


3. What is the *central* proof of the Israel-Identity Christian 
   message?  What about the so-called "Messianic Jews"?
   ----------------------------------------------------------- 
     Genetic evidence is not "central" to the Israel-Identity
Christian message.  If anything, genetics, science and His(S)tory 
supply supporting and confirming evidence of God's plan for His 
people and the world.   The Bible, God's Law-Word, is the central 
source and authority of the Israel-Identity Christian message.
     God's history, as recorded in his Word, establishes the character 
of His major players on His world-stage (ie. His sheep, Jacob/Israel; 
and His enemies, the dogs, goats and specifically - Esau/Edom -
Romans 9:13) and reveals the standards by which we can distinguish
them.  "By their fruits you shall know them" (Matt. 7:20),  "My 
sheep hear My voice and they follow Me"(John 10:27),  "If you 
obey the Lord your God...these  blessings shall come upon you..." 
(Deut. 28:1,2), "I will put My law upon their minds and I will write
them upon their hearts (Hebrews 8:10)," etc, etc.  
     Those who obey and follow Christ are His people (Gal. 3:29) and
those who denounce and hate Christ are anti-Christ enemies (I John
2:22,23).  So THE central proof of Israel's Identity would be the
acceptance of Christ Jesus as Saviour, Messiah and God.  While the
majority of people following after Christ and attempting to do His
will are the kindred Germanic (white) peoples, the self-styled
"Jewish" impostors hate Christ, Christianity, and oppose His will.
For example:
     "The widespread idea that the Jews, while rejecting Jesus' claim 
to divinity, consider him a great teacher and moral figure is 
completely false.  We don't accept his claims and we are oblivious 
to his teachings; we are simply not interested in him nor in what he 
has to say,  any more than Christians are interested in Mohammed."  
- 'Living Jewish - The Lore and Law of the Practicing Jew' by 
Michel Asheri.
     They further give us reason why they are enemies of Christ and 
Christianity in the Jewish Encyclopedia edition of 1925, vol. 5, page 
41 which states, "Edom is in modern Jewry."  The significance of 
this admission becomes more clear when we understand the 
struggle between Jacob and Esau for the birthright and get an 
understanding of why God stated that He loved Jacob and hated 
Esau (Edom) in Romans 9:13.  We suggest the book "Who is 
Esau/Edom," by Charles Weisman for an exhaustive study on the 
subject (made available below).
     As another witness, Rabbi Meir Kahane once stated: 
     "I have not the slightest sympathy for Christianity or Jesus.  As 
a believing Jew, not only is Jesus not "God" but he is neither 
Messiah nor prophet.  For the Jew he was a blasphemer, one who 
attacked the Torah as unchanging divine law and who was a false 
prophet and heretic.  ...As for Christianity, this is the faith that, in
the name of Jesus, has made life for the Jewish people a living hell 
for 19 centuries.  In its name, and in the name of Jesus, millions of 
Jews were massacred and the agony of life under Christians can 
never be sufficiently described in all its horror."  The Jewish Press, 
N.Y. Jan 6, 1989, page 49 
     Rabbi Kahane laments about Jewish persecution under 
Christians.  Is this a just complaint or merely due justice deserved?  
Are not the modern day "Jews" the inheritors of the judgment that 
their spiritual predecessors called down upon themselves when they 
stated to Pilate "Let His blood be upon us and our children" (Matt. 
27:25)?  Do these people really have any right to complain if they 
continue in the spirit of those early Jews who persecuted those who 
followed Christ in Judea, who "both killed the Lord Jesus and their 
own prophets, and have persecuted us (Christians); and they please 
not God, and are contrary to all men"?
     Some want to point to the so-called "Messianic Jews" or "Jews 
for Jesus."  The glaring fact that they still refer to themselves as 
"Jews" is an omission of their true lack of submission and sincerity 
toward Christ (Colossians 2:18-23).  Their pride in their own 
identity as "Jews" (I Corinthians 2:1-3), and their traditions (Mark 
7:8-9), supersedes what a true repentant servant of Christ would 
think of themselves.  
     The Apostle Paul referred to himself as a "prisoner", a "debtor," 
a "slave" and a "servant" who surrendered his life and identity to 
Christ so that Christ might live through Him (Gal. 2:15-21).  Gal. 
3:26-28 speaks of this surrender and submersion of our own 
identity into the identity of Christ and His body.  We "put on 
Christ" and His name, i.e. CHRISTians when we are baptized into 
Christ's death and Resurrection (Romans 6, Col 2, etc.)  We are 
then no longer known as "Jew," or "Greek," or whatever, but rather 
as CHRISTIAN.  Why then not call themselves Christian?  Why 
cling to their identity as "Jews"?  We read about what these "Jews"
really mean by the term "Messianic Jews" in Q#4 in Baruch Levy's 
letter.  The very term is blasphemy.  The Messiah has already 
come and He is Jesus the Christ.  The "Jews" are not the Messiah
or "Messianic" in any way.
     Dr. Benjamin Freedman was a converted Jew to Christianity 
who dedicated his whole fortune and life to bringing to light the 
religion of the "Jews" and the teachings of their Talmud.  To quote 
>from  his letter to Dr. Goldstein, which was compiled into a booklet 
entitled 'Facts are Facts' (made available below), he said:
     "Stimulated by this statement by an imminent Jewish Rabbi 
every Christian especially every pastor should take time to 
investigate if this is true.  Ask yourself, what do I know about the 
Talmud?  From the birth of Jesus to the present there has never 
been recorded a more vicious, vile and libelous blasphemy against 
Jesus and Christians then you will find in the pages of these 63 
volumes.  The Talmud reviles Christ and Christians in unbelievably 
foul, obscene, indecent, lewd and vile language."
     Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer, Director of Interreligious Activities
for the American Jewish Committee, considered the Talmud essential
to the training of rabbis because it is the legal basis for their
religious law:
     "The TALMUD consists of 63 books of legal, ethical and 
historical writings of the ancient rabbis.  It was edited five
centuries after the birth of Jesus.  It is a compendium of law and
lore.  It is the legal code which forms the basis of Jewish religious
law and it is the textbook used in the training of rabbis."  ("What is
a Jew," by Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer, quoted in LOOK Magazine,
17 June 1952)
     As former followers of the religion of Judaism (Talmudism) 
these so called "Messianic Jews" know it's anti-Christian basis and 
hatred for Christ better than any other.  Their identification with the
Talmudic "Jews", and their failure to warn the Christians as to the 
true nature of these people and their religion, is a glaring admission 
of where their true sympathies are.  For it is the duty of every 
Christian to "let love be without hypocrisy, abhor what is evil and 
cling to what is good" (Romans 12:9).
     With these witnesses is there any doubt as to where the self-
styled "Jews" stand?  If you are still unsure, listen to the warnings 
of your Saviour King, Christ Jesus:  "Jesus therefore said to those 
Jews which had not believed him,..Ye (Jews) are of your father the 
devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do...He that is
of God heareth the words of God:  for this cause, ye (Jews) hear
them not, because ye are not of God."  (John 8:31,44,47)   and,
     "I know...the blasphemy by those who say they are 'Jews' and 
are not, but are a synagogue of Satan."  (Rev 2:9)
     "Who is the liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?"
(I John 2:22.)  Who is the liar indeed?  We have just seen who
denies that Jesus is the Christ in word, deed and action.


4.  Isn't the "Jewish" god the God of the Old Testament?  Isn't this 
    why we refer to the popular belief in Christ as the 
    "Judeo"-Christian religion?
    ----------------------------------------------------------- 
     Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser wrote in "Judaism and the Christian 
Predicament" (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967) p. 59:  "This is 
not an uncommon impression and one finds it sometimes among 
Jews as well as Christians - that Judaism is the religion of the 
Hebrew Bible.  It is, of course, a fallacious impression... Judaism is 
*not* the religion of the Bible."  
     Rabbi Moshe M. Maggal, wrote:  "...you will notice the great 
difference between the Jewish and Christian religions.  But these are 
not all.  We consider the two religions so different that one excludes 
the other.  ...we emphasized that there is no such thing as a Judeo-
Christian religion.  ...There is not any similarity between the two 
concepts."  Rabbi Maggal (President, National Jewish Information 
Service) letter, 21 August 1961.
     So what is the nature of the "Jewish" god?  It is not the God of 
the Hebrew Bible as we have just seen by their own admission.  
They have no need of the concept of God as they have "killed off 
God" a long time ago as James Yaffe comments:  
     "And so it seems we must agree with Rabbi Richard Israel, who 
writes in "Commentary's" symposium on Jewish belief, "[The 
current discussion on] the Death of God will cause Jews to ask, 'So 
what else is new?' ... The Jewish funeral was a much more private 
affair.  We buried him [YHWH-God] quietly and in the middle of 
the night." -- James Yaffe, "The American Jews" (New York: 
Random House, 1968) 161
     James Yaffe's statement was a comment to a statement made by 
Rabbi Sherwin Wine of the Birmingham Temple:  "...the whole 
concept of God is outdated; Judaism can function perfectly well 
without it." 
     If the self-styled "Jews" have "killed off God", then what sort
of "god" do they have?  The Jewish God is the "Jew" as the Jewish 
Cabala (Kabbalah) puts it: "The Jew is the living God, God 
incarnate: he is the heavenly man.  The other men are earthly, of 
inferior race.  They exist only to serve the Jew.  They are the cattle 
seed."  Who are the racist supremacists?  "You will know them by
their fruits..."  
     In the following quote we begin to understand this "Jewish" 
idea of their "god" a little better as it is applied more directly to 
today:   "The Jewish people as a whole will be its own Messiah.  It 
will attain world dominion by the dissolution of other races, by the 
abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy, and by the 
establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will everywhere 
exercise the privilege of citizenship.  In this *new world order* the 
children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering 
opposition.  The Governments of the different peoples forming the 
world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the
Jews.  It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private 
property, and everywhere to make use of the resources of the state.  
Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which is said 
that when the Messianic time is come, the Jews will have all the 
property of the whole world in their hands."  -Baruch Levy, Letter to 
Karl Marx, 'La Revue de Paris', p. 574, June 1, 1928


5.  Who are these self-styled "Jews" then if they are not Israelites?
    ----------------------------------------------------------- 
     One American Jew woke up to the lie after living in the Israeli 
occupational state in Palestine.  He put it this way:  
     "The American people have been led to believe that Jews are 
"God's chosen people."  This myth was started by a small group of 
Jews.  A few Jewish leaders took excerpts from the Bible and 
interpreted them to mean that God designated them as "chosen 
people." ...
     "Leading the cry, 'We are God's Chosen People,' are the 
Zionist/Marxist (Ashkenazi) Jews who for political purposes chose 
Judaism and who don't have a drop of biblical Jewish blood in 
them....
     "The Judeo-Christian ethic we hear so much about in America is 
a big joke - the result of an intense Zionist propaganda campaign.
     "I'll toss in one last thought about the "God's chosen people" 
myth: God said, "Beware of those who call themselves Jews and are 
not, for they lie."  Could it be the Ashkenazi Jews are the people to 
whom God was referring?"  - Jack Bernstein, "The Life of an 
American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel" (California: The Noontide 
Press, 1984) p.15-17 (To order this book see end of FAQ)
     In their own writings these self-styled "Jews" tell us it is 
incorrect to call a contemporary "Jew" an "Israelite" or a "Hebrew."  
Under the heading "A Brief History of the Terms for Jew," in the 
1980 Jewish Almanac, is the following:   "Strictly speaking it is 
*incorrect* to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a 
contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew." 1980 Jewish Almanac, 
P.3
     In "The Pharisees--The Sociological Background of Their 
Faith," Rabbi Louis Finkelstein describes these self-styled "Jews" 
and their origins:
     "Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval 
Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism.  
But throughout these changes in name...the spirit of the ancient 
Pharisee survives unaltered.  When the Jew studies the Talmud, he 
is actually repeating the arguments used in the Palestinian 
academies..."  "...rabbinic Judaism, the first-born child of 
Pharisaism, remains a unit until this day."  (p.XXI of Forward to 1st 
Edition, "The Pharisees," Vol. 1, Philadelphia: The Jewish 
Publication Society of America, 1938 & Vol. 2, p. 622
     Jesus had quite a verbal scathing for the Pharisees in Matthew 
23.  He exposed them for the sort of people they were:  
"Hypocrites," "sons of hell," "blind guides," "fools," "full of 
robbery and self-indulgence," "whitewashed tombs...full of dead 
men's bones and all uncleanness," "full of hypocrisy and 
lawlessness," "partners with them in shedding the blood of the 
prophets," and "serpents and brood of vipers."  Not quite an 
endorsement by the One and Only Sovereign God, Jesus the Christ, 
is it?  And some fools have the gall, or should we say "Chutzpah," 
to call Jesus a "Jew!"  What blasphemy!  
     Professor of Medieval Jewish History, Abraham N. Poliak of 
Tel Aviv University, has stated "The large majority of world Jewry 
is descended from the Jews of Khazaria." ("The Thirteenth Tribe" 
by Arthur Koestler (New York: Random House, 1976) p.226) 
(Made available below.)
     The people living in Palestine in the 20th century have no racial 
nor historic connection with Palestine and are, in reality, descendants 
>from  a Turko-Mongolian tribal people who created a kingdom 
called Khazaria which existed until the 12th century.  These 
Khazarian "Jews" could just as easily have practiced Christianity, 
but for whatever reason they chose Judaism (Talmudic Pharisaism) 
and there is nothing that can be done about it.
     Obviously, if these people have *no racial, or historic connection 
with Palestine* they have no claim to the promises made to 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel or the land known as "Israel" 
(Palestine) today.
     If this is true then there should be more evidence to support
this position, and there is.  The American People's Encyclopedia for 
1964 at 15-292 records the following reference to Khazars:
     "In the year 740 the Khazars were officially converted to 
Judaism.  A century later they were cursed by the in-coming Slavic-
speaking people and were scattered over central Europe where they 
were known as Jews.  It is from this grouping that most German 
and Polish Jews are descended, and they likewise make up a 
considerable part of that population now found in America.  The 
term Aschenazim is now applied to this....division."
     Alfred Lilienthal writes, in What Price Israel (Henry Regenery 
Co., 1953)  "Perhaps the most significant mass conversion to the 
Judaic Faith occurred in Europe, in the 8th century A.D., and that 
story of the Khazars (Turko-Finnish people) is quite pertinent to the 
establishment of the modern state of Israel."  Again, "That the 
Khazars are the lineal ancestors of Eastern European Jewry is a 
historical fact.  Jewish historians and religious textbooks 
acknowledge the fact, though the propagandists of Jewish 
nationalism belittle it as pro-Arab propaganda."
     Arthur Koestler's book 'The Thirteenth Tribe' (New York: 
Random House, Inc., 1976) blew the lid off this suppressed fact.  
Koestler notes, "In the 1960's, the number of the Sephardim was 
estimated at 500,000.  The Ashkenazim, at the same period, 
numbered about eleven million.  Thus in common parlance, Jew is 
synonymous with Ashkenazi Jew."  He further states, "For the sake 
of piquantry it should be mentioned that the Ashkenaz of the Bible 
refers to a people living somewhere in the vicinity of Mount Ararat 
and Armenia.  The name occurs in Genesis 10:3 and 1 Chronicles 
1:6 as one of the sons of Gomer, who was a son of Japheth.  
Ashkenaz is also a brother of Togarmah (and a nephew of Magog) 
whom the Khazars, according to King Joseph, claimed as their 
ancestor."
     Koestler further quotes an early source indicating that the 
Khazars had some connection with Gog of the land of Magog.  "At 
some date earlier than 864, the Westphalian monk, Christian 
Druthmar of Acquitania, wrote a Latin treatise 'Esposito in 
Evangelium Mattei,' in which he reported that 'there exist people 
under the sky in regions where no Christian can be found, whose 
name is Gog and Magog, and who are Huns; among them is one, 
called the Gazari (Khazars) who are circumcised and observe 
Judaism in its entirety.'"  For those interested in Bible prophecy,
the implications of this last sentence are staggering.  Read Genesis 
10:2-3 to see from whom Ashkenaz descended; notice who his 
relatives are.  Then read Ezekiel 38 & 39.
     Jewish author Alfred Lilienthal further stated: "These 
Ashkenazim Jews...have little or no trace of Semitic blood." - p. 
222, "What Price Israel."  This is now understandable from what 
Koestler revealed.
     The Jews fully understand their Khazarian heritage as the third 
edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia for 1925 records:
     "Chazars: a people of Turkish origin whose life and history are 
interwoven with the very beginnings of the history of the Jews of 
Russia." The Jewish Encyclopedia, Third Edition, 1925
     There are two main "racial" branches of modern Jewry.  The 
smaller of the two is called the Sephardim, some of whose ancestors 
fled after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and spread across North 
Africa to Spain.  This group has been from the outset so small, in 
terms of a viable gene pool, and has mixed with such regularity over 
the centuries with the indigenous peoples wherever they lived that 
Dr. Raphael Patai, a leading Jewish scholar, felt compelled to write a 
book entitled 'The Myth of the Jewish Race' (Scribners, 1975).  In 
reviewing an earlier work by Dr. Patai, 'Israel Between East and 
West,' Dr. Camille Honig, literary editor for the Voice (Jewish 
Voice of California, Sept. 25, 1953), stated:  "If you studied Jewish 
types and communities in five continents, as this writer had the 
opportunity of doing, you would have realized that it is sheer 
nonsense, and very dangerous nonsense, as well as unscientific, to 
speak about a Jewish race."  
     In a book entitled "Races in Europe", the author, William Z. 
Ripley, states under ethnology:  "The findings of physical 
anthropology show that contrary to all popular view, there is no 
Jewish race.  "Our conclusion then is final.  It is paradoxical yet 
true, we affirm.  The Jews are not a race, but only a people after
all."
     Perhaps it can be understood why this is.  The World Book 
Encyclopedia states:  "The Jews were once a sub-type of the 
Mediterranean race, but they have mixed with other peoples until the 
name Jew has lost all racial meaning."
     Since the majority of people in modern Palestine and the world 
who call themselves "Jews" are descendants from a "Turko-
Mongolian tribal people" known as Khazars, and have "little or no 
trace of Semitic blood in them," but are rather descendants of 
Ashkenaz who was one of the sons of Gomer, who was a son of 
Japheth, then anyone who would be critical or oppose these people 
cannot be anti-Semitic.  Anti-impostors, anti-liars, anti-deceivers, 
anti-con artists, anti-Christ haters, yes.  But anti-Semitic, no.

---------------------
FAQ - ISRAEL IDENTITY continued in parts 2 and 3.

-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|   For unique political commentary & Christian views        Rick Savage    | 
|     Anonymous FTP:  ftp.netcom.com  - pub/SF/SFA           PO Box 5251    |
|   To obtain files by e-mail write me for help file       Denver, CO 80217 |
|       In your message ask for FTP-EMAIL help.                 (u)SA       |


From rsavage@netcom.com Fri May 26 00:03:00 PDT 1995
Article: 5073 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Identit.FAQ - Pt.2
Message-ID: 
Organization: ftp.netcom.com pub/SF/SFA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 00:46:22 GMT
Lines: 597
Sender: rsavage@netcom9.netcom.com

Frequently Asked Questions and Answers on 
   ISRAEL- IDENTITY  (Part 2 of 3)

Last Updated 2/20/95
Future updates available via anonymous FTP 
  from:  ftp.netcom.com  pub/SF/SFA
Compiled by Rick Savage 

Continued from "FAQ-Israel_Identity.pt1"

6.  Is the Israel Identity Christian message "anti-semitic"?
    ----------------------------------------------------------- 
     The term "anti-semitism" is a nonsense smear word that is 
used to intimidate and silence those who would criticize the "Jews."
Today the true meaning of the word, "anti-semite," is anyone who
the self-styled "Jews" don't like.
     Albert Einstein exposed the true origins and use of anti-semitism
by the "Jews" when he said:  "Anti-Semitism is nothing but the 
antagonistic attitude produced in the non-Jew by the Jewish group.
The Jewish group has thrived on oppression and on the antagonism
it has forever met in the world."  (Collier's Magazine, Nov. 26, 1938)
Einstein was describing their common use of "chutzpah" for their 
own gain and profit while crying "persecution."
     Mr. Koestler, in his book, 'The Thirteenth Tribe,' stated the 
following:  "In this last chapter I have tried to show that the evidence
>from  Anthropology concurs with history in refuting the popular 
belief in a Jewish race descended from a biblical tribe." p. 199
     He again stated on p. 226, "Nevertheless the lingering influence 
of Judaism's racial and historical message, *though based on 
illusion*, acts as a powerful emotional break by appealing to tribal 
loyalty....  It is perhaps symbolic that Abraham Poliak, a professor 
of history at Tel Aviv University and no doubt an Israeli patriot, 
made a major contribution to our knowledge of Jewry's Khazar 
ancestry, *undermining the legend of the Chosen Race.*"  
     It is interesting to know that Random House advertised 
Koestler's book quite extensively and began some of their ads with 
the headline:  "What if Most Jews Aren't Really Semites at All?"  
Not only should most "Jews" be asking themselves this question 
but so should modern-day Christians.
     Identifying Israel today, while at the same time exposing the
self-styled "Jews" as impostors, cannot properly be labeled "Anti-
Semitism" as we have seen in (Q#5 above), because the people 
known as "Jews" today are primarily of Japheth's lineage, rather
than Shem's.  They have virtually no Shemite (Semite) blood 
running through their veins except for what they gained through 
inter-marriage with the European and Arabic peoples.  It could also
be argued that they have a trace of Edomite blood in them which is
present through intermarriage from an earlier time in their history
as revealed in the Jewish Encyclopedia edition of 1925, vol. 5, 
page 41, "Edom is in Modern Jewry."
     On the other hand, the majority of the white race is a race which 
has descended from Noah's son Shem and, consequently, is 
predominantly Semitic.  Many of the white race today are accused 
of being anti-Semitic.  What utter nonsense.  The accused are 
Semites!  If you want to identify people who are truly anti-Semitic"
find the people who are anti-White and anti-Christ
     "Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of 
hate - healthy, virile hate - for what the German personifies and for 
what persists in the German." - Elie Wiesel, "Legends of Our Time" 
(Hold, Rinehart and Winston, 1968) p. 142


7.  What is the difference between a Semite, a Hebrew, an Israelite, 
    and a "Jew"?  Are these terms equivalent in any way and can they
    be used interchangeably?
    ----------------------------------------------------------- 
     A Semite (or, "Shemite") is someone descended from Shem, one 
of the sons of Noah.  A Hebrew is someone descended from Heber 
(or, "Eber"), one of the great-grandsons of Shem.  So all Hebrews 
are Semites, but not all Semites are Hebrews.
     Six generations after Heber, Abraham was born to his line, so 
Abraham was both a Hebrew and a Semite, born of the line of 
Heber and Shem. 
     Isaac was born of Abraham; then Jacob of Isaac.  Jacob's name 
was changed to "Israel," and he fathered 12 sons.  His sons and 
their descendants are called Israelites, and they would be both 
Semitic and Hebrew.  However, this would not make either 
Abraham or Isaac "Israelites."  Some, who interchange the words 
"Jew" and Israelite, call Abraham a Jew, even though Abraham was 
not even an Israelite, and the word "Jew" is not used in the Bible 
until 1,000 years after Abraham.
     One of Jacob-Israel's children was Judah (Hebrew - Yehudah).  
His descendants were called Yehudim ("Judahites").  In Greek this 
reads Ioudaioi ("Judeans").
     The confusing factor is that almost all Bible translations employ 
the word "Jew," which is a modern, shortened form of the word 
"Judahite."  Every time you come to the word "Jew" in the Old 
Scriptures, you should read "Judahite;" and every time you come to 
the word "Jew" in the New Scriptures, you should read it as 
"Judean."
     Once you have those proper translations in mind, then we have to 
interpret those words further, because they can have more than one 
meaning, depending on the context.  In the Old Testament, the word 
"Judahite" has three distinct usage's: (1) one who is of the tribe of 
Judah in a racial sense; (2) one who is a citizen of the southern 
"House of Judah," including the tribes of Benjamin and Levi.  Thus, 
this word can be used either tribally (racially) or geographically 
(nationally).  (3) This is also used in a religious sense of those who 
followed the religion of Judah.  At the time of Esther, many non-
Israelites "became Jews" (that is, Judahites) as the result of the 
Judahite victory (Esther 8:17).
     In the New Testament, the Greek word Ioudeos should be 
translated "Judean."  Again, this term was used in the same manner:  
(1) one who is of the tribe of Judah in the racial sense; (2) one who 
is a citizen of the province of Judea (as opposed to Galilee and 
Samaria), as is shown in John 7:1.  This usage is geographical, and 
it applied also to the non-Israelite citizens of Judea who had been 
incorporated into the nation in 135 B.C.; and (3) a follower of the 
religion of Judah as given by Moses and the prophets.  This usage 
is found in Romans 2:28 and 29.
     Most churches today make no distinction between these terms.  
One of their arguments is that the Apostle Paul said in Romans 11:1 
that he was an "Israelite," and then in Phil. 3:5 he called himself "a 
Hebrew of the Hebrews."  Therefore, they say, the terms are 
identical, and by implication they include the word "Jew" as well.  
However, Paul was also a Benjamite (Rom. 11:1), but the fact that 
he descended from Benjamin, Israel, and Heber did not mean that all 
of these men were the same person.
           Therefore, we can say:
1.  All Israelites are Hebrews and Semites.
2.  Only a few of the Israelites were called Jews (or, Judahites, 
     Judeans).
3.  Many non-Israelites were called Jews (Judahites, Judeans) 
     simply because they lived in Judah or claimed to follow the 
     religion of the Judeans.
4.  And as we have seen previously, the self-styled or so-called
     "Jews" of Judaism are not Israelites, Hebrews or Semites but
     rather Khazars (Turkish Mongol Huns).


8.  Who are the Gentiles?  Does the word "gentile" simply mean
    non-Jew?  What does the word really mean?
    ----------------------------------------------------------- 
    This is from "A Study Into the Meaning of the Word "Gentile"
as Used in the Bible" by Curtis Clair Ewing:
     A great deal of confusion and misunderstanding has been 
caused by the use of the word "gentile" in the English translation of 
the Bible.  
     The word 'gentile' is a translation of the Hebrew word 'goi' 
(singular) and 'goyim' (plural) and the Greek word 'ethnos' 
(singular) and 'ethne' (plural).  Using the word 'gentile' to translate 
these words is often misleading because it is a misapplication of 
the Hebrew and Greek words as used in the Bible.  The modern use 
of the word has come to mean non-Jew or non-Israel, but that 
meaning cannot be maintained in the face of the evidence.
     The Hebrew word 'goi' is a collective noun meaning 'nation' or 
sometimes a collective body of people.  But it has been translated 
into English many different ways.  The word occurs 557 times in 
the Old Testament.  The Authorized Version of the Bible translates 
it 'gentile' 30 times; 'heathen' 142 times; 'nation' 373 times; 'people' 
11 times; 'another' once.  But the American Standard Revised 
Version cuts the occurrence of  gentile from 30 to 9 times, and then 
shows in the footnotes of 5 of those 9 times that the word 'nations' 
should have been used.
     Of course the word 'nation' is not always an exact equivalent 
term because there is too much of a political significance attached 
to it.  But it is much better than the word 'gentile' and some of our 
best translators prefer the word 'nations.'   This is also shown by 
the way the Revised Version eliminates the word 'gentiles."
     The same thing is true of the Greek word 'ethnos.'  It occurs 164 
times in the New Testament.  In the Authorized Version it is 
translated 'gentiles' 93 times; 'heathen' 5 times; 'nation' or 'nations' 
64 times; and 'people' twice.  In the American Standard Revised 
Version it is 'gentiles' 96 times in the text and 7 times in the 
footnotes, making 103 occurrences altogether.  But in the footnotes 
it is corrected 15 times to read 'nations,' making the final count 88. 
So not only the Hebrew word 'goi' but also the Greek word 'ethnos' 
has been translated to read 'nations' more than any other word.
     If the reader will consult a good dictionary, you will find that 
the word 'gentile' is derived from the Latin word 'gentilis' and 
properly understood means 'non-something'.  As used by a Jew or 
an Israelite it would mean 'non-Jew' or 'non-Israelite.'  But they are 
not the only people who have a right to use the word.
     For instance, suppose a Buddhist priest spoke Latin and he 
wanted to refer to the nations that were not Buddhist, he would call 
them 'gentilis.'  In Hebrew and Greek, there is no exact equivalent 
to the Latin word 'gentilis' or the English word 'gentile,' 
nevertheless, if this same priest spoke Hebrew and Greek along 
with his Latin and wanted to refer to the nations that were not 
Buddhist, he would call them 'goyim' if speaking Hebrew and 
'ethne' if speaking Greek, and each time he would naturally include 
the Jewish and Israel people.  Likewise a Moslem priest could use 
the three languages and refer to the Jews and Israel as 'gentilis, 
goyim and ethne.'
     One important thing to always keep in mind is that 'goi' and 
'ethnos' are collective nouns and cannot properly be translated to 
mean an individual person.  They always refer to a group.  There is 
no such thing as A GENTILE; it is always plural.  'Gentiles' in its 
plural sense may at times be used to translate 'goi' and 'ethnos' but 
its use gives an added thought not intended in the original word 
which cannot in every case be justified.
     Another important word found in the Hebrew text, which needs 
only passing notice is the Hebrew word "am" and is found many 
times in the Old Testament text.  It is translated 'nation' 17 
times.  It is usually translated 'people', for it occurs that way 1,835 
times in our English text.  Occasionally it is qualified by the 
phrase, "every people," but when it is rendered "the people" it 
usually means Israel.  But this is not the word that has been the 
source of the misunderstanding.  Translations of the Hebrew word 
'goi' and the Greek word 'ethnos' have caused the trouble.
     The Hebrew word 'goi' and the Greek word 'ethnos' in their 
singular and plural forms are used in three ways in the Bible.

  1.  'In referring to the Israel and Jewish people,' let us note the 
verses which follow below found in the Old Testament and New 
Testament which refer either to Israel or the Jews as a nation and 
use the Hebrew word 'goi' and the Greek word 'ethnos.'  To 
demonstrate the absurdity of always translating the word 'goi' or 
'ethnos' as 'gentile' we suggest that you read the following verses 
substituting the word 'gentile' or 'heathen,' for 'nation' or
'nations':
     Gen. 12:2 - "I will make of thee a great nation."
     Gen. 17:4,5 - "A father of many nations have I made thee."
     Gen. 20:1 - "Lord, wilt thou slay a righteous nations?" 
                 (heathen).
     Gen. 25.23 - "Two nations are in thy womb."  (Try the word 
                  heathen or gentile in that verse).
     Gen. 35:11 - "A nation and a company of nations."
     Gen. 48:19 - "Thy seed shall become a multitude of nations."
     Isa. 1:4 - "Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity."
     Isa. 10:6 - "Send him against an hypocritical nation."
     Jer. 31:36 - "Shall cease from being a nation before me."
     Luke 7:5 - "He loveth our nation and hath built us a synagogue."
     John 11:48 - "The Romans will come and take our place and 
                   nation."
     Acts 24:2 - "Worthy deeds are done unto this nation by the 
                 providence."
     Acts 24:17 - "I came to bring alms to my nation."
 
     From the foregoing verses and many others that could be given, 
it can easily be seen that the Hebrew word 'goi' and the Greek word 
'ethnos' do not always refer to non-Israel people.

  2.  Now let us read a few verses where the same words are used 
and, as can be seen, refer very definitely to non-Israel people.
     Gen. 14;9 - "With Chedorlaomer the king of Elam, and with 
                 Tidal king of nations."
     Gen. 21:13 - "And also the son of the bond woman will I make 
                 a nation."
     Gen. 21:18 - "For I will make of him a great nation."
     Ex. 9:21 - "...There was none like it in all the land of Egypt 
                since it became a nation."
     Ex. 34:24 - "...For I will cast out the nations before thee."
     Isa. 37:12 - "Have the gods of the nations delivered them which 
                  my fathers have destroyed?"
     Matt. 10:5 - "Go not in the way of the gentiles."
     Matt. 24:7 - "For nation shall rise against nation."
     Luke 21:24 - "They shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall 
                  be led away captive into all nations."
     Acts 7:7 - "And the 'nation' to whom they shall be in bondage 
                will I judge, said God."
     Acts 8:9 - "But there was a certain man called Simon which 
                before time in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched 
                the 'people' of Samaria."
     Acts 10:45 - "... Because that on the 'Gentiles' also was poured 
                out the gifts of the Holy Ghost."

     In the above verses three words have been used to translate the 
same Greek word 'ethnos', and they are 'nations,' 'gentiles' and 
'people'.

  3.  Now we come to the third way in which the words have been 
used, and that is to describe all nations, which of course always 
'includes Israel and non-Israel nations.'
     Gen. 22:18 - "And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth 
                  be blessed."
     Gen. 25:23 - "Two nations are in thy womb."
     I Chron. 16:23,24 - "Declare his glory among the 'heathen' ...his 
                  marvelous works among the 'nations.'"
     Psa. 9:19,20 - "...Let the 'heathen' be judged in thy sight.  Put 
                  them in fear, oh Lord; that the 'nations' may know 
                  themselves to be but men."

     - Notice the last two verses have used the two words 'heathen' 
and 'nations' to translate the same word in one passage.

     Matt. 24:9,14 - "...and ye shall be hated of all nations for my 
                  name's sake," "This gospel of the kingdom shall be 
                  preached for a witness to all nations."
     Matt. 28:19 - "Go ye therefore and teach all nations."
     Acts. 10:35 - "But in every nation he that feareth him, and 
                  worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."
     
     Attention should also be called to another Greek word 
erroneously translated 'gentiles.'  The word is 'hellen' and means 
'Greeks.'  It is used 27 times in the New Testament.  In 20 places it 
is properly translated 'Greeks', but in 7 other places in the 
Authorized Version it is erroneously translated 'gentiles.'  This has 
been corrected in the Revised Version and nearly all subsequent 
translations.  For example, the Authorized Version translates John 
7:35 to read:  "Will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, 
and teach the Gentiles?"  Nearly all revised versions translate this 
to read:  "Will he go unto the dispersed among the Greek and teach 
the Greek?"  Take as another example I Corinthians 10:32, "Give 
none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the 
church of God."  Now the writer has read several articles by well-
known Bible teachers who reject the Israel identity of the Anglo-
Saxon people because they say that this verse gives the only 
classes that God now recognizes.  In other words they claim on the 
authority of this verse that the human race is divided into Jews, 
Gentiles, and the Church of God.
     That is a good example of how anything can be proved by 
taking a verse out of its context.  The context shows that Paul was 
admonishing people to be conscientious in their walk so as not to 
offend a weak brother.  The division made in the text is only 
incidental to the point he was trying to make.  And then too, the 
text does not say that there are 'only three classes of people'.  What 
it does say is, "Give none offense,' neither to the Jews, nor to the 
Gentiles, nor to the church of God."
     Now if this text were given to show a division of humanity, 
then it leaves the vast majority of the race out entirely, because the 
word that is translated 'gentiles' is a palpable mistranslation and 
should be translated 'Greeks'.  This is exactly the way the Revised 
Version gives it, as is also true of most private translations.  But 
you do not even need a Revised Version to discover this error.  
Any good Bible with a marginal reading will show this to be true.  
The Greek word that has been translated 'gentiles' in this verse is 
'hellen' and means 'Greeks'.  So, if, as these men have claimed, this 
verse proves there are only three classes of people in the world 
which God now recognizes, then they are the Jews, the Greeks and 
the Christians.  Everybody else is left out.
     By using the same method of reasoning we could quote 
Galatians 3:28 and prove that God does not recognize any 
distinction in the human race; then we could go to the other 
extreme and quote Colossians 3:11 to prove that God recognizes 
eight divisions of mankind.  In both cases we would be taking the 
verse out of their context just as these men have done.  But all of 
the confusion over this text would have been avoided if the word 
'Greeks' had been used instead of 'gentiles.'  Paul was writing to the 
Corinthians, Corinth was in Greece.  They had three classes of 
people there - Jew, Greek and Christian.  Had Paul been writing to 
the Romans he no doubt would have said, "Give none offense, 
neither to the Jews, nor to the Romans, nor to the church of God.
     Besides these two examples, there are four other places where 
hellen has been translated 'gentiles' where it should have been 
translated 'Greeks'.  These are found in Romans 2:9,10; 3:9; and I 
Corinthians 12:13.
     While on this subject a few words should be said about the way 
the word "gentiles" has been used in the Epistle to the Romans, one 
of the important books in the New Testament.  And on this matter I 
will borrow some thoughts from the late Dr. Wm. Pascoe Goard.
     In Dr. Goard's book, "Epistle to the Romans," he has given 
some illuminating comments on how the word 'ethne' refers to the 
ten-tribed Israel.  These are found in the fourth and fifth chapters 
of his book.  He shows very clearly that chapters 9,10 and 11 of 
Romans refer to ten-tribed Israel.  In these chapters the Apostle 
Paul quotes quite freely from Hosea, Isaiah and Elijah, and as Dr. 
Goard shows, all these quotations refer to facts in the history of 
Judah nor in the history of any other nation.  Thus when the word 
'gentiles'  (Greek word 'ethne') is used in these three chapters it 
definitely is ten-tribed Israel.  It is not a contrast between Israel and 
non-Israel people.  It is a contrast between Israel in 975 B. C. and 
Israel known as the nations in A.D. 60.
     Do not let the word 'gentiles mislead you.  The Greek word is 
'ethne' and means 'nations.'  The Apostle Paul in this Israel section 
of his epistle is merely contrasting Israel's former state when she 
was known as Israel with her state in his day when she was known 
as the 'nations.'  To use the popularized meaning of the word, they 
had become 'gentilized' in the sense that they were not known as 
Israel.  Israel was one nation God had called out from among the 
other nations; now she was just like the other nations.
     She had lost her identity so much that the Apostle Paul said that 
blindness was to stay on Israel until the "fullness of the gentiles" 
(nations) be come in.  (Romans 11:25)  This 'fullness of the 
gentiles' should be fullness of 'nations'.  It is a direct reference to 
Genesis 18:19, where it is stated that Ephraim was to become a 
"multitude of nations" in the last days.  This is confirmed by the 
fact that both Dr. Delitzsch's translation of the New Testament into 
Hebrew - sold by the British and Foreign Bible Society - and 
Ginsburg -Salkinson's New Testament, published by the Trinitarian 
Bible Society, for the use of the Jews, have the very same Hebrew 
words - me lo hag-goyim- in Romans 11:25, that we find in 
Genesis 48:19, in the Hebrew Old Testament, and in this verse 
ONLY.  We use the expression "multitude of nations" because it is 
given as the correct reading in most Bibles in preference to fullness 
of nations.  That time has arrived now and that is the reason our 
identity as Israel is becoming known.  As Isaiah 25:7 reads, "He 
will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all 
people, and the veil that is spread over all nations."  That veil is 
being lifted now and our real identity and the identity of other 
nations is becoming known.
     Some scholars, in translating Genesis 48:19, where the Hebrew 
is 'me lo hag-goyim' render it a 'company of gentile nations.'  The 
writer is convinced that a 'company' or 'multitude of nations' is the 
better translation.  However, there is nothing wrong with the 
translation if the right meaning is attached to the word 'gentile.  
That is, they would become so much like other nations that they 
would not be recognized as Israel.  That, of course, is a different 
meaning given to the word than is meant in the original text.
                      To summarize:
     The word 'gentile' is derived from the Latin word 'gentilis' and
is only one of several words that are used to translate the Hebrew 
word 'goi' and the Greek word 'ethnos' into English.  The best word 
to use is 'nations.'  It would have been better if the word 'gentile' 
had never appeared in the English text.  Neither 'goi' nor 'ethnos' 
necessarily mean non-Israel, as has been shown above.


9.  Is the Israel Identity Christian message "racist" and "white 
    supremacist?"  What about 'non-white' races?  Inferior?  
    Superior?  Equal?  
    ----------------------------------------------------------- 
     Every race was created by God (Col. 1:16) unique and different.  
God called His creation *good* (I Timothy 4:4).
     He established the order of "kind after kind."  Every creature, 
beast and "race" of people were to reproduce after their own kind.  
Thus Christians should love and strive to keep each race as God 
created them.  In other words Christians should be opposed to racial 
nihilism and support racial preservation.
     Man's belief in equality is a hatred of the unique traits of every 
"race" God created.  Man hates what God called good if he mixes 
the races through interracial marriage which ultimately destroys the 
uniqueness of each racial type.  Each race has its superior traits and 
inferior ones.  There is no race that can claim "superiority" in 
everything, the key point is that they are *unique* and good 
according to His own purpose.  
     It is the duty of every Christian to preserve God's creation and 
defend the order He established! ("Kind after kind.")  The Christian 
("Identity") message is that of love for all races and a desire to 
preserve them as God created them.  If anyone claiming to be a 
Christian, "Identity" or otherwise, preaches hatred of any original 
racial type for simply being what God created them, then they are 
not preaching the Word of God, but rather that which is contrary to 
His Will.
     We are told in the parables of Christ that what God did not plant 
will be uprooted and burned (Matt. 13:25-30).  God did not create 
racially mixed people, that is man's doing through man's rejection of 
God's law-order of "kind after kind". 
     God demonstrated his dislike for the mixing of the races by 
saving only one man, Noah and we find out why in Gen.6:9,  
"These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and 
PERFECT in his GENERATIONS, and Noah walked with God."
     The word "generations" in the Hebrew concordance (Strong's 
#8435), means "descent, family, history, birth-generations."  Noah 
was perfect in all of his descent or family, there could not then have 
been any "mixed" seed in his genealogy.  We see in Genesis 11:6, 
"And the Lord said, Behold, the people is *one*."  (#259 - 
Strong's).  The meaning here is that the people were united, 
undivided, or had mixed racially, instead of being separate peoples.
God not only saved Noah because he was perfect in his generations,
but also because he "walked with God," which is just another way
of saying He obeyed God's commandments to be separate and holy
unto Him.
     Jesus came as a sword (Matt. 10:34, Rev. 2:12,16; 19:13-15), to 
divide out a people for Himself.  In Matt. 10: 5&6, Christ instructed 
His disciples to not go "into the way of the heathen, but rather go 
unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."  Christ's message was 
not of inclusion; but separation.  All throughout Jesus' parables we 
read how he came to separate the sheep from the goats, the wheat 
>from  tares, the good seed from the bad seed, etc.  Separation is the 
message of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.
     Most Pastors are taking the safe—and profitable—road by 
preaching "love" as a code-word for liberal "non-exclusion."  We 
Christians must surely preach the accomplishment of Christ on the 
Cross, and all that it provides for those who surrender to and accept 
it in repentance and faith, but today it is important—critically 
important—to draw an absolute distinction between "whosoever 
will" (follow Christ) and the leftist spawned false universalist non-
exclusion doctrine, which has most denominations bringing 
Buddhist monks, Islamic clerics, shamans, witches, homosexuals 
and, of course, Rabbis into their congregations to "teach" that, after 
all, we all worship the same God.
     On what basis—and why—did God separate Cain from Abel, 
Abraham from his worldly family, Isaac from Ishmael, Jacob from 
Esau?  Read Leviticus 16 about the annual ritual God gave as a 
statute to the Israelites, which He called the Day of Atonement.  
Consider carefully the significance of the two goats which were 
chosen by lot (a method of choosing which indicated God's choice), 
and their subsequent fates.  We read that we did not choose God 
but rather Jesus the Christ (God in the flesh) chose us, the white 
Israelite race.  It was a matter of choice, HIS Sovereign choice, and 
He separated them from out of the world not to be "superior" but to 
be a chosen generation (NASV says "race"), and a holy nation for 
His own possession (I Peter 2:9; John 6:44,45; II Cor. 6:17). 
     Unfortunately, the "chosen" or favored child is usually hated and 
envied by the other children as we read about in the story of Joseph 
(Genesis. 37:3-) and how he was sold to the Egyptians into slavery 
by his brothers because of their father's special favor toward 
Joseph.  But Joseph was blessed by this and raised up by God to 
eventually save his brothers and family when we read the "rest of 
the story."  So shall it be with true Christian Israel and the other 
peoples of the world when Israel is returned to their God and His 
duty for them.
     God's ways have always been "repent" or "perish."  Man can't 
blame God for the evil that man creates when he rebels against 
God's law-order.  Man has only himself to blame if he is 
responsible for mixing the races.  Any suffering brought about by 
the sin of inter-racial marriage is the responsibility of rebellious 
man, not God!
     "Now it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they 
separated from Israel all the mixed (mongrel) multitude" (Neh. 13:3, 
Josh. 23:12-13, etc.).
     Identifying the white peoples as Israel cannot be correctly 
labeled "White Supremacy" because this teaching does not elevate 
one race above another but separates them and mandates that one 
race (the white race) be a servant unto God and others by *God's* 
standards.  It is not "White Supremacy"; if anything, it is White 
SERVANTHOOD.  As a rule, whenever the thought of race leads
us to boastfulness or contempt, there is something false in it.  
     Israel was to be a blessing to the world.  They were given God's 
Law (Ps. 147:19-20) to be a model and "light" to the world through 
their obedience to and enforcement of His Law-Word.  Through 
their obedience they would be blessed and prosper and from these 
blessings were to teach the other people the Laws of God (Micah 
4:1,2; Rev.3:12; Rev. 21:1,2,10).  This is still Israel's duty (Gen. 
1:27-28; Matt. 28:18-20).  Christians (redeemed Israel) must begin 
applying the Great Commission, indeed, ALL of Scripture, to the 
fundamental institutions of social order: the family, the Church, and 
the State in order that nation after nation will bow before Him Who 
has "all Authority and Dominion in Heaven and on Earth," (Eph. 
1:21; I Timothy 6:14-16).  We do this by obeying His commands 
found in His Law-Word.  "For He must reign until He has put all 
His enemies under His feet," (I Cor. 15:25).
     His Word tells us, "All creation longs for the revealing of the 
Sons of God".  True Israel, the Germanic, Celtic, Scandinavian and
kindred (white) peoples, have been a blessing to the world and
continue to be at the for-front of fulfilling this duty.  When true
Israel wakes up to their identity and duty to their God, this will be
manifested in an even greater way.  


10.  Can the redemption of the house of Israel through accepting the 
    Covenant offered by Christ, *only* be granted to descendants of 
    Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?  Or is this same redemption available
    to all?  And if the same redemption is available to all, to black and 
    white, Khazar and non-Khazar, 'false' and 'true' Israelites, then 
    why does the 'identity' of the tribe of Israel matter?  How does 
    the redemption of different races or kinds or types differ,?
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    Yes, only "Israel" can be "redeemed" (to be bought back).  Jesus 
Christ came to save His own (John 1:11) and to do this took on the 
very seed of Abraham (Hebrews 2:16) in order to keep the promise 
made to Abraham (Genesis 17:7).  He came into this world to 
REDEEM only Israel.  Salvation is another story and is to those 
who believe by faith.  Only true Israel was ever cast off and in need 
of being "bought back."  That Christ did come and did Redeem His 
people Israel is the testimony of the New Testament writers.  (See 
Luke 1:54-55,68-73, John 1:31, St. Matthew 15:24, Acts 5:31; 
13:23).  To keep the Law of Redemption (Lev. 25), Jesus Christ had 
to be genetically related to those that He redeemed.  Jesus the Christ 
was of the Seed of Abraham (Hebrews 2:16), of the Tribe of Judah 
(Hebrews 7:14), of the House of David (Romans 1:3), and of the 
Adamic 'race' (Matthew 1:1-16).  Besides, "original sin" (Gen. 3:6-
7, 17-19) only applies to Adam and His descendants (Romans 
5:12 also see Q#11).  Since the Bible is only a story about the 
Adamic family, specifically through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel, 
we would expect it's specific application would generally be 
applicable only to Adamic Israelites in general.
    This does not mean that non-Israelites cannot put themselves 
under the dominion rule of Christ and under His Law-Covenant.  
Isa. 56 speaks of such people as receiving a *greater* reward, 
because they did and obeyed what was required of a people other 
than themselves.  This duty to the King of Kings and to the 
Covenant He made with Israel is one of dominion in Christ's name.  
Non-Israelites are welcome to pick up that commission and will be 
blessed for their service to the King of kings.  They shall be saved
by their faith.  
    Salvation is a consequence of redemption.  Here is how it works:
1.  Redemption is only through the King of kings, Christ Jesus (1 
     Tim. 6:14-16), as our great High Priest after the order of 
     Melchizedek (Hebrews chpts. 5-7), who has taken His seat at the 
     right hand of God (Heb. 8:1), and Has made a New Covenant 
     with His People, Israel (Heb. 8:8-10,13).
2.  When Israel is redeemed through Christ, they will again obey 
     His commandments and do their duty, i.e carry out His Will on 
     Earth (Heb. 3:18,19; Heb. 4:1,5,6,11).
3.  The duty of Israel is to bring everything into obedience to Christ 
     Jesus and His Law-Dominion (Romans 13:4, 1 Cor. 6:2; 2 Cor. 
     10:3-6, Hebrews. 10:26-31; Heb. 12:28,29; James 1:22-25).
4.  Through His Law-Dominion, peace, law and order will be 
     restored and all the earth shall be blessed and "saved" from those 
     who would oppress, enslave and destroy the people of God's 
     creation (Rev. chpts. 21 & 22).

     The key to redemption is a love for His Will to be done on Earth 
as it is in Heaven,  i.e. obedience.  "If you love Me, Keep (obey) My 
commandments" (Deut. 6:4-5, 11:1;  Matt. 22:40; I John 2:3,5).  If 
you love God, Christ Jesus, and hear His voice, you will seek out 
His plan of redemption and do what it requires of you.  This is 
merely doing our duty out of love for what He has already done for 
us in making our redemption possible by dying in our place to 
atone for our sins (rebellion against His Law - I John 3:4).  The 
plan for redemption is revealed in His New Covenant plan found in 
His Word.  We can attempt to sum it up in Matt. 28:18-20; John 
3:3,5; Acts 2:38; 8:37-39; 19:5; Romans 6; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:11-14; 
Eph. 4:5; I Peter 3:21; etc, etc., but there is so much more.  Christ 
promised those who diligently seek shall find and those who hunger 
and thirst after it will find it. 

-----------------------------
FAQ - ISRAEL IDENTITY continued in part 3.

-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|   For unique political commentary & Christian views        Rick Savage    | 
|     Anonymous FTP:  ftp.netcom.com  - pub/SF/SFA           PO Box 5251    |
|   To obtain files by e-mail write me for help file       Denver, CO 80217 |
|       In your message ask for FTP-EMAIL help.                 (u)SA       |


From rsavage@netcom.com Fri May 26 00:03:13 PDT 1995
Article: 5074 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Identit.FAQ - Pt.3
Message-ID: 
Organization: ftp.netcom.com pub/SF/SFA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 00:47:01 GMT
Lines: 626
Sender: rsavage@netcom9.netcom.com

Frequently Asked Questions and Answers on 
   ISRAEL- IDENTITY  (Part 3 of 3)

Last Updated 2/20/95
Future updates available via anonymous FTP 
  from:  ftp.netcom.com  pub/SF/SFA
Compiled by Rick Savage 

Continued from "FAQ-Israel_Identity.pt2"

11.  What about Adam and Eve?  Were they of the white 'race' or 
     are they the mother and father of all the "races"?  
     -----------------------------------------------------------
     We can not fully answer these questions in the breadth 
and depth they should be answered because of space limitations, but 
we will try to give a brief over-view.  A good reference for an 
exhaustive study on the matter is "Origins of Race and Civilization," 
by Charles Weisman, which is made available below.
1.  Adam was white:
     The book we call the Bible is a family His(S)tory of God's 
people-- the generations of Adam and more specifically of his 
descendants through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel.  All 
Scriptural evidence indicates Adam was created a white man.  The 
name "ADAM" (aw-dawm') in Hebrew means a "ruddy human 
being" (Strong's O.T. #120).  It is derived from Strong's O.T. #119 
- ADAM (aw-dam'), which means "to show blood (in the face), i.e. 
flush or turn rosy."  The attributes of skin color are described by 
one geneticist as follows:
     "The color of normal human skin is due to the presence of three 
kinds of colored chemicals, or pigments.  The most important of 
these pigments is melanin, a dark-brown substance... The second of 
the three pigments is carotene.  This is a yellow substance which is 
present in carrots (from which it gets its name) and egg yokes as 
well as human skin...  The third pigment is hemoglobin, which is the 
red coloring matter of blood...the hemoglobin occurs in the blood 
vessels beneath the skin, so that very little can show through..  The 
presence of fair amounts of either melanin or carotene in the skin 
covers it up completely.  Hemoglobin does show up however in the 
skin of white men, particularly in those of light complexion.  It is 
the hemoglobin that accounts for pink cheeks and the ability to 
blush."   -William C. Boyd, Ph.D.  'Races and People' (1955) 
pp.43-45
     Adam was fair and white which caused the hemoglobin (blood) 
to show in his skin making him look "ruddy" or to give him a 
"flush" look.  Thus the word "ADAM" is a descriptive name but 
here indicates certain physical characteristics that the man Adam 
possessed.  It is a common practice in both Hebrew and English 
languages to name something according to some *outstanding 
feature* or characteristic.  We thus call a bird a "red-headed 
woodpecker" because it has a red head and pecks wood.
     Adam was evidently called or named "ADAM" because he 
possessed 'aw-dam' characteristics - that being of a ruddy or rosy 
complexion coming from the blood (hemoglobin) showing through 
his non-pigmented skin. This is what ADAM meant.  People of a 
very fair complexion often appear as though they are reddish or 
sunburnt since the hemoglobin readily shows through their skin.  
This was the case with Adam and Eve.
     It is argued that other racial types get rosy cheeked as well and 
"blush".  Two facts that they can't argue with is that other races just 
don't show "blood in the face" as pronounced as the white race can 
and secondly one never asks if these other races "who blush" have 
any white mixed into their past generations.  Regardless, the ability 
to "blush, turn rosy" is an *outstanding feature* of the fair skinned 
white race.  The word "ADAM" was a descriptive term to describe 
this outstanding feature of Adam & Eve over the other races.
     That Adam and Eve were of the white race with this fair, ruddy or 
rosy complexion is verified in the Bible by the descriptions of their 
descendants.  King David, who was one of Adam's direct 
descendants, was described as being "ruddy, and of fair 
countenance." (I Samuel 16:12 and 17:42)  David's daughter Tamar 
was "fair" (2 Samuel 13:1).  Sarah and Rebekah, who were both 
descendant from Adam, were both described as being "very fair" 
(Genesis 12:11,14; Gen. 24:16; Gen. 26:7).  The daughters of Job, 
one of the Adamic patriarchs, were known as the fairest women "in 
all the land" (Job 42:15).  Solomon was described as being "white 
and ruddy" (Song of Solomon 5:10).  The Nazarites (consecrated 
persons) of Judah were "whiter than milk" and "more ruddy in 
body than rubies" (Lamentations 4:7).
-----------
2.  Were they of the white 'race' or are they the mother and father of 
all the "races"? 
     Where does the idea come from that believes Adam and Eve were 
the only (first) two people on God's created earth?  Both Creationists 
and Evolutionists agree with this false assumption.   Both positions
are wrong, but their adherents stubbornly cling to this concept as the
only  possible explanation when the truth lies elsewhere.  The
hypocrisy of the creationist's rejection of evolution should be self
evident when they claim that all men have sprung from a single pair
(Adam and Eve).   
     The "common origin" concept is needed in order to promote the 
real doctrine that is desired --the doctrine of "equality of the races."  
Without a common origin, all "equalitarian" arguments disintegrate.
The Bible does not support the "common origin" concept.  God's
creation reveals the opposite.
     When we look up at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, we see 
Adam, supposedly the first man, unquestionably depicted as a 
handsome white man.  When we look at the various religious tracts 
on "creationism," we see Adam and Eve portrayed as the most 
perfect and attractive representatives of the white European race. 
Yet  these same religious denominations, such as Jehovah's Witness, 
also state that:  "All races descended from the first man and 
woman."  ('Did Man Get Here by Evolution or by Creation,'  
Published by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York 
(1967) p. 113.)
     Certainly if Michelangelo had painted Adam as being a Pygmy 
or carved the marble statue of David into a Bushman type, he would 
have been excommunicated.  It would appear that the only way 
White Christians will accept a unity of races doctrine is if Adam and 
Eve are attractive white people -- yet at the same time they want all 
racial types being their descendants.  Strange inconsistency or the 
Law of Truth speaking to their hearts? 
     Bible chronologists, and those who believe in creationism, place 
Adam's creation around 4004 B.C.   There is no evidence in the 
Scriptures that indicates Adam was the first man and the progenitor 
of all races or types of man.  However, there is ample evidence that 
proves many other people were all ready in existence by the time 
Adam was created.  
      The book of Genesis provides most of this evidence.  For 
example, after Cain killed Abel he was cursed and driven out of the 
land by God.  In the fourth chapter of Genesis, Cain makes the 
statement:  "I shall be a FUGITIVE and a vagabond in the earth: it 
shall come to pass, that EVERY ONE that findeth me shall slay 
me."  If only Adam and Eve existed, then who was Cain afraid of 
that would kill him?  Who was it that he would be a fugitive from?  
It is quite clear that the "every one" which Cain was referring to 
could not be Adam and Eve.  Who was Cain referring to?  Cain was 
well aware that many people existed in the lands around them.  This 
fact is verified by God in His response to Cain in verse 15.  God 
told Cain that "whosoever" of the other people that might slay you, 
vengeance shall be on that person.  Why did God have to give Cain 
an identifying mark if the only other people that existed (Adam and 
Eve) knew Cain perfectly well?  This mark was not a signal so 
Adam and Eve could recognize Cain, but rather so that "any" of the 
other people then living could recognize Cain upon their "finding 
him."  
     If Adam and Eve were the first and only people at this time, 
then from where did Cain find a wife?  Not only was he able to find 
a wife, but there were obviously enough people to be part of the city 
built by Cain.  Cain's marriage, the birth of his son Enoch, and his 
building of a city all took place before the birth of Seth.  All these 
circumstances thus point to the existence of men independent of 
Adam.
     Adam was the "first man" only in the same sense that Christ 
was the "second man," for Adam "was the figure of Christ" (Rom. 
5:14).  The basic theme of the Bible is:  Death in Adam, Life in 
Christ.  This is the "resurrected" life that was promised to be 
RESTORED to Adam and his descendants, and thus pertains to no 
other races.  The Bible is simply not a comprehensive historical
record of the origins of any other people besides the Adamic
family.  If it was, it would have to be many volumes in length.
     The Bible is quite clear about there being many people on the 
earth at the time of the story of Adam and Eve.  The Bible does not 
support the idea that Adam and Eve gave birth to all the different
races on the earth, but rather implies that Adam and Eve were a
separate creation in the midst of other people who existed prior to 
them. Since these "other" people existed before Adam, they are
called "pre-Adamic."    
     Adam was a special creation who was called for God's own 
purpose.  The Bible, and Genesis specifically, is not a comprehensive 
account on all of God's creation.  What is covered is just the history 
God felt relevant to include.  The Bible simply does not detail the 
creation and origin of any other people besides the Adamic family, 
though we read about these other people later in the Bible.  This 
understanding will eventually end the false arguments over the two
wrong concepts of Evolution vs. Creation.  
     We could go into many more details and examples but space will
not permit.  Again, we recommend C. Weisman's excellent book 
"Origins of Race and Civilization" for more details. (available 
below.)


12. If true Israel is the white 'race' how do you account for the 
    many diverse nations of Europe?  Do the different European
    peoples have a common origin?
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    The simple answer is yes and we could say that the white "race" is
generally descended from the basic Germanic tribes.
     The Germanic tribes include several groups (Angles, Balts, Brits, 
Celts, Cimmerians, Danes, Franks, Frisians, Gaels, Goths, Jutes, 
Letts, Lombards, Normans, Rus, Saxons, Scots, Scythians, Swedes, 
Vandals, Walloons, etc.)  When we talk about the Anglo-Saxon, Indo-
German, Indo-Aryan or any other European-descended people we are
referring to the white race.  It should be noted that the 'Germans' are
but one of the many branches of the 'Germanic' peoples.  The
Germanic peoples were around for at least 1000 years before the
Germans and spread out over all of Europe.
     The word "German" comes from the Latin 'Germ nus' which
means "Genuine" or "authentic" in relation to a family or klan of 
people.  The peoples living in the land known as Germany today
during the Roman Empire were known as Scythians to the Romans.
As their numbers grew and they spread abroad the Romans began to
call the Scythians in the Germanic lands the "Genuine Scythians",
hence the word "German".  
     So who were the Scythians?  The Scythians were first mentioned
in history around 681-699 B.C. in Assyrian tablets found in Ninevah
(now in the British museum).  At this time the Scythians were located
among the Medes.
     It was in Assyria, specifically the cities of the Medes, where the
so-called "lost ten-tribes" were taken away into captivity (II Kings 
18:11) by Shalmaneser V of Assyria.
     Dr. Hans Gunther, professor of Berlin University in the 1920's
in his book, "Racial Elements of European History, stated,
     "... ancient writers, such as Polemon of Ilium, Galienos, Clement
of Alexandria, and Adamantios, state that the Scythians [Sacae] were
like the Kelts and Germans, and describe them as ruddy-fair.  The
Scythian tribe of the Alans are also described as having a Nordic
appearance.  Ammianus [c350 A.D.] describes them as "almost all
tall and handsome, with hair almost yellow, and a fierce look."
      Colonel J.C. Gawler states, "The Scythians were later known as
Goths, or Gothi, possibly because the Getae, an important branch of
the Scythian nation, were most in contact with the Romans, with
whom, therefore, all Scythians were [called] Gothi."
     The Roman Historian, Pliny the Elder (c50 A.D.) indicated,
     "The name Scythian has extended in every direction, even to the
Sarmatae and the Germans...beyond the Danube are the peoples of
Scythia.  The Persians have called them by the general name of 
Sacae...The more ancient writers give them the name of Aramii
(Arameans).  The multitude of these Scythians is quite innumerable
(note: Gen. 13:16; 15:5; 17:4,6); in their life and habits they much 
resemble the people of Parthia.  The tribes among them that are
better known are the Sacae, the Messagetae, the Dahae..."
    It should be noted that the land of Israel in the days of the Bible
was part of Syria.  The Israelites themselves are described in
Scripture as Syrians, and Abraham's family was Syrian. (Deut. 26:5;
Gen. 25:20.  The word Syrian (#761) means an Aramaean; a
highlander.)  The people known today as Syrians are as different
>from  the original Syrians, as the Portuguese and Egyptians were 
entirely different peoples from those who now predominate in the
lands which carry the names of their builders.
     Greater evidence that the Scythians who sired the Germanic
peoples are in fact the Israel of the Bible, is to be found in the
Scythian tombs (called tumuli) themselves which have been found
in southern Russia (Scythia and Crimea).  These tombs date from
580 B.C. to the 1st century and contain many of the symbols of the
Israelites, as well as fine animal drawings of near eastern derivation.
(These can be seen in the American Journal of Archaeology, 1914,
Vol 18, and the Illustrated London News; Jan. 3 & Feb. 14, 1914.) 
In several of these tombs, Hebrew manuscripts were found, some of
which are translated by Professor Hannay as follows:
     "I am Jehudi, the son of Moses, the son of Jehudi the Mighty, a
man of the tribe of Naphtili, which was carried captive with the
other tribes of Israel, by Prince Shalmaneser, from Samaria during
the reign of Hoshea, King of Israel.  They were carried to Halah, to
Habor-- which is Cabul --to Gozan and to the Cheronesus--which
is the Crimea."  (Haberman, p.129)
     Thousands of tombstones have been found in the Crimea in
Scythian graveyards with Hebrew-Phoenician inscriptions, 700 of
which have been translated by Professor Chwolsen of Petrograd.
Some of these read as follows:
     "This is the tombstone of Buki, the son of Itchak the priest; may
his rest be in Eden, at the time of the salvation of Israel.  In the
year 702 of the years of our exile."
     We could go on and on, but space does not permit for such a 
discussion.  For further confirming evidence we recommend the
book _Missing Links Discovered in Assyrian Tablets_ by Biblical
archaeologist E. Raymond Capt.  The book answers the question, 
"What happened to the lost 10 tribes of Israel?".  (Available below).

                    Bibliography
                    -----------
Missing Links Discovered in Assyrian Tables by E. Raymond Capt
Tracing Our White Ancestors, by Haberman
God's Covenant People - Yesterday, Today and Forever, by Ted Weiland
    (available below)
Origins of Race and Civilization, by Charles Weisman
    (available below)
Your Inheritance: Best Kept Secret in the World, by Robert Allen
Our Scythian Ancestors, W.E. Filmer
Racial Elements of European History, by Dr. Hans Gunther


13.  What are the consequences of the self-styled "Jews" NOT 
     being who they claim to be, i.e. Israelites?  (Also see Q #4)
    ----------------------------------------------------------- 
    "We Jews, who have posed as Saviors of the World, we are today 
nothing else but the world's seducers, its destroyers, its incendiaries, 
its executioners."  -Dr. Oscar Levy, "The World Significance of the 
Russian Revolution," preface (Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1920) x
    "We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain destroyers forever.  
Nothing that you will do will meet our needs and demands.  We will 
forever destroy because we need a world of our own."  -Maurice 
Samuels, 'You Gentiles', p. 155, Harcourt, Brace. 1924
     These confessions sound rather grim, don't they?  Have these 
two witnesses accurately predicted the fate of the world if these
self-styled "Jews" are allowed to continue unhindered in their evil 
schemes and destructive purposes?  What should the consequences 
be when their impersonation of and pretending to be God's 
"chosen" is exposed for the lie that it is?  What does the law on 
your heart (and the Law of God) say should be done with 
"destroyers," "executioners," and murderers?  
     Not only is the pretender's claim to be "Israel" a false and 
fraudulent one, but these same self-styled "Jews" are in fact the 
most dangerous enemies of true Israel and the world.  The 
impostors' claim on the title "Israel" is at the core of any issue 
regarding the self-styled "Jews" because it is the first and foremost 
LIE that every other "fact" concerning these people rests upon.  If 
the lie of the impostor's impersonation of God's "chosen people" 
crumbles then their very identity is founded on nothing but fraud 
and falsehood.  Any issue or claim they may make follows this lie, 
and can't be taken seriously or given any validity.
     Because this is the foundational lie upon which all of their other 
"facts" are established regarding "Jewish" identity and claims, this 
matter establishes the integrity of all their arguments which follow.  
Anything that is built on the shifting sands of falsehood and fraud 
cannot stand, that is why those who have built their foundation upon 
the Rock of Christ (1 Cor. 10:1-5; Isa. 28:16; Matt. 12:42, 24:27; 2 
Tim. 2:19) and His Truth (John 14:6) will stand eternal and will 
eventually fill the whole earth (Dan. 2:35, Isaiah 9:7.)
     With the above (Q#4), we can conclude that the Talmudists (self-
styled "Jews") have no relation to the physical Israelites, except by 
religion which they adopted and perverted to their own ends.  This 
invalidates their arguments and claims for the land in Palestine, 
since they were never a people from that area.  It makes them out to 
be representing themselves as something they are not, which makes 
them impostors who are lying about their identity.  If they lie about 
something so fundamental as their identity, how can anything else 
they say be taken seriously?  "Who is the liar, except he who denies 
that Jesus is the Christ?" (I John 2:22.)
     These self-styled "Jews" don't take too kindly to being exposed 
and are full of all sorts of hate, sarcasm and vindictive demonization 
for those who would bring these facts into the light of day.  They 
rarely have the honesty in them to admit the facts and repent from 
their political and religious agenda.  They will hardly ever admit any 
error and do not attempt to seriously refute the accusations because 
they have no desire to repent nor have they an answer for the Truth.  
They would rather indulge in ridicule, name-calling and libel, or try
to divert the discussion away from the more condemning facts.  
"He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself, and he who 
reproves a wicked man gets insults for himself" (Proverbs 9:7).
     They have no defense, so they have no choice but to indulge in 
these fruitless activities or else admit their guilt.  Through their 
unashamed use of their "Chutzpah" they wail non-stop for 
unearned sympathy like a whining two-year-old who needs a 
spanking (Prov. 22:15).  Because people can only take so much of
this, it is only a matter of time, give them enough rope to expose 
themselves and the rest is history...  The Truth WILL out! 
     Some have weakly given in to these name-calling venom 
spewers.  Very few are tolerant enough to put up with this childish 
behavior and speak the truth regardless.  The "Jews" have 
absolutely no shame in their use of the "Jewish Persecution 
Complex" (tm) and few are those who give them what they 
truly need (i.e. Prov. 22:15).
     According to Leo Rosten's "Joy's of Yiddish" (1968), the word 
"Chutzpah" is from the Hebrew and means insolence, audacity, gall, 
effrontery:  "A 'Chutzpahnik' may be defined as the man who 
shouts 'Help!' 'Help!' while beating you up."  This is a perfect 
definition of Jewish expression.  This has been a most effective 
weapon against the faithless and fearful unbelievers who are 
separated from their God, Christ Jesus.  "If God be for us, who can 
stand against us?" (Romans 8:31-39.)
     As for the "Jewish Persecution Complex" (tm), it was observed 
and first identified in print by the Jewish author, Howard F. Stein, 
writing in 'The Journal of Psychohistory' (Fall, 1978) on "Judaism 
and the Group-Fantasy of Martyrdom".  In a follow-up on this 
article he wrote the following for 'The Journal of Historical Review' 
(Winter, 1980,):
     "For the Jews, the term "Holocaust" does not simply denote a 
single catastrophic era in history, but is a grim metaphor for the 
meaning of Jewish history.  The word "Holocaust" lies at the heart 
of the Jewish experience of time itself.  One is either anxiously 
awaiting persecution, experiencing persecution, recovering from it, 
or living in a period that is a temporary reprieve from it."  -The 
Holocaust and the Myth of the Past History.
     The oft-quoted Yiddish phrase, It's "tough to be a Jew" ("schwer 
tsoo zine a Yid") perfectly illustrates the Jewish Persecution 
Complex (tm).  This sounds like a very sad way to live, but their 
pride keeps them from surrendering to Christ and acknowledging 
Him as Lord, Messiah and Sovereign God.  Who knows, they may 
be spared this self-imposed terror if they were not so unwilling to 
give up and expose the evil of the Talmudic religion and way of life 
for the damnable thing that it is in the hope that they may find grace 
>from  Jesus the Christ and only true God.  "God is the one who 
justifies" (Romans 8:33).
     More and more honest inquirers, who see through this insulting 
and distasteful behavior, are finding their belief in the infallible 
"Jew" crumbling.  These truth seekers see these people as our Lord 
Jesus the Christ saw them: "a synagogue of Satan" (Rev. 2:9, 3:9) - 
liars, pretenders, persecutors, murderers, destroyers and benefactors 
of ill-gotten gains.  It is amazing that such a people can exist, but 
these impostors who call themselves "Jews" are their own worst 
enemy because the more people they defraud, insult and enslave the 
more people will eventually awaken to the "Jews" true nature and 
identity. 
     George Washington (1732-1799), our first president in America 
recognized the self-styled "Jews" for what they were: "The Jews 
work more effectively against us than the enemy's armies.  They are 
a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause 
we are engaged in.  It is much to be lamented that each State, long 
ago has not hunted them down as pests to society and the greatest 
enemies we have to the happiness of America"  (Maxims of George 
Washington, by A.A. Appleton and Co, pp. 125,126.)


14.   Conclusion - LET THE BLIND SEE!
     ----------------------------------------------------------- 
     Isaiah prophesied of a time in Israel's future when the blind 
would see:
     "Then the eyes of those who see will not be blinded, and the ears 
of those who hear will listen. And the mind of the hasty will discern 
the truth." (Isaiah 32:3,4)
      In spite of the confusion in this present day and age, you must 
decide upon the action you will take regarding this information on 
Israel's Identity.  It is my prayer that you will be honest enough to 
seek out the true facts of the matter and accept the responsibility
that is incumbent upon you. 
      You must decide who you are going to believe:
*  The Zionist "Jews" who lie for their own political gain and profit 
    as they falsely claim to be Israelites, the Chosen People of God, 
    but who refuse to acknowledge the facts to the contrary.  
*  Your pastors who falsely declare that the "Jews" are "God's 
    Chosen People" without any proof whatsoever to substantiate 
    their claim.  
*  "Jews" who truthfully admit, to their own kind and occasionally 
    to those outside of "Jewry," (as we have seen in the above 
    Q&A's) what Jewish and non-Jewish historians have verified; 
    that the Jews of today have no historical or racial lineage to the
    sons of Jacob/Israel. 
*  The Almighty God of the Bible when He warned us of "the 
    blasphemy by those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a 
    synagogue of Satan." (Rev. 2:9, 3:9) and "Who is the liar, except
    he who denies that Jesus is the Christ?" (I John 2:22.)

     The Bible warns us, and the "Jews" themselves confess that 
these Khazar "Jews" are impostors.  Consequently, we no longer 
have any excuse for perpetrating the LIE that the modern-day self-
styled "Jews" are Israelites, the Chosen People of God.

     It does not take a genius to see that the white Christian nations 
and their people are not what they once were: that their grandeur and 
greatness are declining.  Why has it happened? Could it be because 
Israel lost her identity and her sense of obligation to her God?:

    "For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as is 
YHWH our God whenever we call on Him?  Or what great nation is 
there that has statutes and judgments as righteous as this whole law 
which I am setting before you today?  Only give heed to yourself 
and keep your soul diligently, lest you forget the things which your 
eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of 
your life; but make them known to your sons and your grandsons." 
(Deuteronomy 4:7-9) 

       This description will only be said again of Israel when she 
awakens to her identity and returns to her God and His laws!
       May we who have been graciously granted a deeper 
understanding of God's Word, and who have been privileged to see 
and hear a higher calling in Jesus(Yhshua) the Christ, prove 
ourselves worthy and true to this calling. Let us awaken to the 
tremendous impact which can be made on our generation and the 
generations to come with the knowledge of Israel’s true identity.  

     LISTEN to me, you who pursue righteousness,
            Who seek YHWH (the LORD):
            Look to the rock from which you were hewn,
            And to the quarry from which you were dug.
            Look to Abraham your father,
            And to Sarah who gave birth to you in pain.
                         (Isaiah 51:1,2)

     OH THAT My people would listen to Me,
       That Israel would walk in My ways!
       I would quickly subdue their enemies,
       And turn My hand against their adversaries.
                         (Psalm 81:13,14)

     God had, and continues to have, a plan for His Covenant People 
Israel -- the kindred Germanic (white) peoples. May YHWH (the LORD
God of Israel) be magnified through YHSHUA (Jesus) THE CHRIST!
     The Creation groans for the revealing of the Sons of God!  It is
time for Israel to awaken from her slumber and turn back to her God.
---------------------------------------------------

Acknowledgments:
Our heavenly Father, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel 
for His Son, Christ Jesus who makes our redemption possible.
All questions posed by several helpful Khazar critics
____________________________________

For further study, we recommend the following books available 
through Scriptures For America, PO Box 766-c, LaPorte, CO 80535.
Write Scriptures for America and ask for their free newsletter.
----------------
*  God's Covenant People: Yesterday, Today and Forever by Ted R. 
Weiland -- THE resource book for the Israel-Identity Christian 
message.  This book proves that God continues to have a plan for 
the physical Israelites under the New Covenant dispensation.  It 
exposes the impostors and establishes who Israel *is* today from 
the Scriptures, archaeology, and history, and discloses why this is of 
such significance to us.  A hard bound book, 14 chapters, in excess 
of 700 quotes with footnotes, over 30 early American and European 
testimonies, and more than 40 Biblical, archaeological, and historical 
proofs of Israel's modern-day identity.  460 pages.  $23.00 
postpaid.

*  The Greatest Love Story Never Told by Pastor Pete Peters -- A 
novel introduction to the Israel-Identity message that tells the story 
of the Great I-Am of the Bible as the husband, Abraham as the 
father of the Bride, Israel as the unfaithful wife and the children of 
Israel as the cast of millions.  A love story involving love, romance, 
intrigue, divorce, conspiracy and murder.  A Bible story that will 
bring you a deeper appreciation for the love of God and how love 
truly overcomes all.  An entertaining, yet serious, study into the 
Israel-Identity truth.  $5.00

*  Love: The Greatest Commandment (6 Part audio album), by 
Pastor Pete Peters.  These tapes show how important it is to 
understand what love is and is not.  We know God's ways are not 
ours, but do we know our ways are not His?  What is love?  Has 
love been perverted and if so how and why?  How do we increase in 
love?  The Bible has clear step by step instructions on how to love 
God's way.  What can steal our love?  It is time to love the King 
with all our hearts, minds, souls and strength.   $24.00

*  Facts are Facts by Benjamin H. Freedman -- A reproduction of 
Dr. Freedman's letter addressed to Dr. David Goldstein, LL.D. of 
Boston, Massachusetts, in which Dr. Freedman demonstrates the 
Khazarian ancestry of the majority of today's Jews.  This authority 
provides proof that these Khazars are not descendants of Abraham, 
Isaac, and Jacob and consequently have no lawful claim to the land 
of Palestine.  $3.00

*  Missing Links Discovered in Assyrian Tablets by Archaeologist 
Raymond Capt --  Mr. Capt verifies the Identity of Israel from 
archaeological evidence.  It is specifically a study of recently 
discovered Assyrian tablets that reveal the fate of the "Lost" Tribes 
of Israel.  256 pages, $10.00

*  The Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler --  Renowned Jewish 
author, Arthur Koestler, fully documents that over 90% of today's 
"Jews" are not descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but rather 
they are descendants of the fierce Turkish, Mongolian Khazar tribes 
of the Southern Steppes of Russia.  These tribes adopted the 
religion of Judaism and thus became known as "Jews" not because 
of race but because of religion.  255 pages.  $6.00

*  Origins of Race and Civilization by Charles Weisman -- an 
expose' on the false Christian doctrines and distorted historical and 
scientific teachings on the origins of races and civilizations.  176 
pages, 83 Illustrations, 204 Footnotes, references, Bibliography, 6 
chapters.  Finally the truth about YOUR origins and destiny!  No 
other book like it.  Only $9.00

*  The Life of an American Jew in Racist, Marxist Israel by Jack 
Bernstein -- Mr. Bernstein relates his story of returning to the land 
of Israel after the 1967 Six-Day War and discovering the truth 
regarding the Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews, who they are and 
who they are not.  48 pages.  $3.00

*  Who is Esau-Edom? by Charles Weisman -- Mr Weisman 
documents how Edomite blood runs through the veins of most 
"Jewish" people today.  A book which expounds upon the age-old 
battle between Esau-Edom and Jacob-Israel.  132 pages.  $8.00

*  Who Rules America -- This document will provide you with the 
documentation that can be reproduced in most public libraries on 
who controls today's media outlets.  $1.00

*  America the Conquered by Pastor Pete Peters -- This book 
provides an understanding of how America was conquered and the 
manner of her conquest.  It describes how a people can be 
conquered unaware and the motives behind the conquerors.  
Discover how it happened and what we must do.  220 pages $8.00

_____________________________
Scriptures for America's Shortwave Radio Log

WINB 11.915 (EST)  5:00-6:00pm    Monday - Friday
WINB 11.915 (EST)  9:00-11:00pm  Monday - Friday
WINB 11.915 (EST)  8:00-9:00pm    Saturday
WINB 11.915 (EST)  8:00-10:00pm  Sundays
WHRI   7.315 (EST)  5:00-6:00pm    Monday - Friday
WHRI   7.315 (EST)  9:00-10:00pm  Monday - Friday
WHRI   7.315 (EST)  11-12:00pm     Sundays

SATELLITE SETTINGS

WHRI:  Galaxy 4, Channel 15, 7.55 Mghz
WINB:  Galaxy 3, Channel 11, 7.38 Mghz

_____________________________

SATELLITE TELEVISON
*  Truth for the Times -- Television Program hosted by Pastor
Pete Peters, aired three times a week by Satellite on Keystone
Inspirational Network:  Galaxy 3, Transponder 11
Saturday 12:00am - 1:00 am (EST)
Monday  10:30 - 11:30pm (EST)
_____________________________

Other Highly Recommended Sources:

*  The Jubilee Newspaper, P.O. Box 310, Midpines, California 
95345.  Ph:  (209) 742-NEWS. --Newspaper of news, reviews and 
views from the Patriotic Christian perspective.  $2.50 for a sample 
copy.
*  NewsLight -- News Radio hosted by Paul Hall, Chris Temple 
and Louis Beam -- Every Saturday evening on 11.950 short-wave 6-
7 p.m. Pacific Time.
*  Music - Watch Out For Martial Law by Carl Klang -- inspired 
by this nation's modern-day life-and-death struggles for freedom.  
Federal Reserve Isn't Federal At All, Why the Banksters Keep Us 
Dumb, Hang-um High, Blinded By the Lies, Leave Our Guns Alone 
and more!  Carl Klang, PO Box 217, Colton, OR 97017 ($10.00 
postpaid)
__________________________________

WHEN THE SAXON LEARNS TO LOVE
 by - S. Grace

To a Candle, tall and white, Comes a wonder (from above):
A flame, like a guiding Light, When the Saxon learns to love.
And a world, once grim and dark, Sunk in clouds of sullen fear,
Rejoices to see the spark in his eyes, so bright and clear!
Like a lion, poised to leap, Or a sweetly-singing dove
Who watches (while others sleep) from a tower lit by love;
Like the sun, he shares a fate (Once a shadowed world revolves)
To shine, until gloomy hate, Like a morning mist, dissolves;
And the rule of Christ on earth (which the prophets much spoke of)
Arrives, like a blessed birth -- When the Saxon learns to love,

When the Saxon BURNS with love!

-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|   For unique political commentary & Christian views        Rick Savage    | 
|     Anonymous FTP:  ftp.netcom.com  - pub/SF/SFA           PO Box 5251    |
|   To obtain files by e-mail write me for help file       Denver, CO 80217 |
|       In your message ask for FTP-EMAIL help.                 (u)SA       |


From rsavage@netcom.com Fri May 26 00:03:23 PDT 1995
Article: 5079 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Preserve Racial Diversity!
Message-ID: 
Organization: ftp.netcom.com pub/SF/SFA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 00:14:12 GMT
Lines: 237
Sender: rsavage@netcom9.netcom.com

From:   ftp.netcom.com/pub/SF/SFA/social
----------------------------------------

              Notes from:  _The Racial Compact_
   A Call for Racial Rights, Preservation, and Independence
                   by Richard McCulloch
 
     There are different kinds of human variation.  Some 
differences are biological or genetic, others are cultural or 
environmental.  There are also different levels of human variation.  
Some differences are at the individual level, others are at the 
population or racial level.  The first distinguished us as separate 
individuals, the second distinguish a population of individuals as a 
separate race.
     In the system of biological classification called taxonomy a 
race is a subdivision or branch of a species, and a species in turn 
is a subdivision or branch of a genus.  All populations which are 
capable of interbreeding with each other and producing fertile 
offspring are considered to be members of the same species, 
regardless how great their differences or how distinct their 
relationship.  (Edward O. Wilson, _The Diversity of Life_ 
(Harvard University Press, 1992), p.38).
     A race is a population that can be distinguished as a distinct 
subgroup within a species by genetically transmitted physical 
characteristics.  It possesses a unique and distinct ensemble of 
genes, and is identified by the traits (both mental and physical) 
produced by this genetic ensemble.  Members of the same race 
share distinguishing genetic characteristics because they share a 
common genetic ancestry and a consequently similar genetic 
ensemble.  They are capable not only of producing offspring but 
of producing offspring who also share and continue their racially 
unique genetic ensemble and its distinctive traits and 
characteristics.  
     Among non-human animal populations the degree of genetic 
differences between many species is far less than the degree of 
genetic difference between human races, and many of these 
species are biologically capable of interbreeding, but as they do 
not interbreed under natural conditions -- instinctively 
discriminating in selecting mates of their own kind -- they are 
classified as separate species.  
     There is variation among individuals in the degree of racial 
discrimination in selecting a mate.  Only a minority of 
INDIVIDUALS in any given generation interbreed with other 
races under conditions of extensive contact.  Over the course of 
generations all POPULATIONS end up mixed as the cumulative 
effect of a minority in each generation adds up to a majority -- and 
eventually a total population -- over a space of generations.)
     Traditionally, species and races have been identified by their 
morphological (external physical) traits and characteristics, and 
this is still the primary determinant, generally taking priority over 
others in the even of disagreement.  Other determinants of racial 
identity -- such as biochemical and molecular genetic analysis -- 
are usually consistent with the morphological identification when 
one allows for the extent of individual variation one can expect to 
find for these traits within a race.  
    The human genome or genetic code consists of about 100,000 
genes, each consisting of many thousands of "genetic letters," or 
nucleotide pairs of DNA (DioxyriboNucleicAcid), numbering 
three billion base pairs in total.  The interaction of these genes in 
producing genetic traits is often complex.  At least five different 
genes work together to determine skin color, and as many as 100 
work together to determine skin texture.)  All the human races 
share at least 99.5% of their three billion genetic letters in 
common, their genetic differences being limited to .5%, a 
proportion which represent about FIFTEEN MILLION genetic 
differences or mutations.  (Humans also share 98.4% of their 
DNA in common with Chimpanzees)
     This rich racial diversity of modern humanity owes its 
existence to geographic separation and the reproductive isolation 
this separation has preserved.
     In racial classification there is often a tendency to group a wide 
range of diverse racial types together into one race, attempting to 
contain all human racial variation within a few very broadly 
defined racial categories.  As a rule, what these broad racial 
categories gain in simplicity they lose in accuracy.  They can be 
regarded as useful only if they are recognized as a first level 
subdivision of species, or subspecies.
     Based on the nuclear DNA studies of Luigi Luca 
CarvalliSforza and his colleagues we can define 7 further 
branches of racial grouping or divisions.  The CONGOID 
subspecies of subSaharan Africa; CAUCASOID of Europe, Asia 
west of the Himalayas and Africa north of the Sahara; the 
NORTHEAST ASIAN of Mongolia, China, Korea and Japan; the 
AMERINDIAN, which branches from the Northeast Asians and 
migrated to the Americas; the SOUTHEAST ASIAN of 
Indochina, Burma, Malaya, Indonesia, and the Philippines; the 
PACIFIC ISLANDERS of Polynesia; and the AUSTRALOID of 
Australia, Melanesia and New Guinea.
    A branch of humanity can be regarded as a race only when its 
different genetic elements are sufficiently homogenous -- or 
genetically compatible -- that they can freely intermix without 
negating or diminishing their unique genetic ensemble and racial 
traits.  For example, the Caucasoid group includes such distinctly 
different and separate peoples as those of Sweden, Italy, Armenia, 
Egypt, Iran and India) it is clear that these groupings are too broad 
to be accurately defined as races, but should properly be regarded 
as subspecies -- or groupings of more or less related, but still 
distinctly separate, races within a species.
     Reproductive isolation, provided by geographic separation, 
made human racial diversity possible.  Reproductive isolation 
assures that those individuals who do reproduce will reproduce 
their own racial type, as it effectively limits their choice of partners 
to their own racial type.  This condition is required for the 
preservation of racial diversity.
     Even without considering the effects of interbreeding, 
geographic separation is required for the continued existence of 
all the different races in the long term.  If different races occupied 
the same territory the resulting competition between the races in 
the multiracial environment would have different effects on the 
races involved.  Some races might thrive in the multiracial 
environment while others would suffer a decline in population, not 
only in the relative terms of population share but also in absolute 
terms.  
    (Note:  Gause’s law of Exclusion states that multiple animal 
species with the same requirements cannot coexist for any length 
of time in the same habitat.  All but one will eventually become 
extinct.  This law can also be applied to human races occupying 
the same territory, where the more successful race (usually 
measured by rate of population growth) eventually assimilates or 
replaces its competitors.)
     Thus the racial changes that occur in a multiracial environment 
tend toward a decrease in overall human racial diversity.  It is 
therefore misleading to identify a multiracial environment or 
society with racial diversity, as the long term effects of such a 
multiracial condition are actually to reduce and negate diversity.
     The ideology (or system of beliefs and values) that favors a 
multiracial social condition, or multiracialism, often describes this 
condition as "racial diversity."  It is a type of racial diversity, but a 
type which consists of mixing together in the same territory 
diverse races which previously were geographically separated, and 
whose diversity -- and existence -- was preserved by separation.  
This type of racial diversity that violates the conditions 
(reproductive isolation) required for continued preservation, 
creates the conditions (extensive contact) that promote 
interbreeding and the consequent destruction of racial diversity.  It 
is really a form of social diversity or racial diversity in a social 
sense.  But it in the biological or genetic sense it is anti-diversity, 
as its effects are destructive of the racial diversity.
     The two types of racial diversity (social & biological) should 
not be confused, as they are in fact incompatible opposites.  In the 
long term one cannot have both, as the social type is destructive of 
the biological type, nor can one be for both, as the promotion of 
biological racial diversity requires opposition to multiracial 
societies.  
     The racial interbreeding that is an unavoidable consequence of 
a multiracial society does add a new element to social racial 
diversity in the form of the racially-mixed or hybrid offspring of 
different parent racial stocks.  But this hybrid element does not 
add to biological racial diversity.  It takes existing genetic 
characteristics from the different parent racial stocks and either 
mixes them into a new combination, blends them together into an 
intermediate form or, if they are recessive, diminishes or negates 
their occurrence.  These hybridized recombinations of racial-
genetic traits actually reduce, and are destructive of, biological 
racial diversity to the extent that they replace or deplete the parent 
racial stocks.
     The two opposing forces in the existence of races are the 
forces of life and death, or creation and destruction.  While there 
is only one creation of a race, there are many ways by which a 
race can die, many forces of racial destruction.  The racial 
destructive force of intermixture undoes, destroys or decreates the 
diversity of creation by blending different races together in a 
multiracial social condition descriptively and accurately referred to 
as a "melting pot."  The racially unique and distinct ensembles of 
genes are dissolved in the common blend and all distinctive traits 
and differences are destroyed and lost in a racial melt-down.
    The migration of vast numbers of people around the world, 
made possible by modern advances in transportation, has 
facilitated the development of multiracial societies and the 
transformation of many previously monoracial countries into 
multiracial ones.  As in many other areas of technology, 
transportation technology has advanced much more rapidly than 
our understanding of its effects, or the development of 
philosophical and moral concepts to deal with those effects and 
avoid those that are harmful.
    The implications of this vast bringing together of different races 
that had been preserved under conditions of geographic separation 
-- replacing reproductive isolation with its antithetical opposite, 
extensive contact -- are profound.  Yet these implications have 
received little attention or consideration.  If geographic separation 
of the races is replaced by multiracial social conditions it can be 
expected that racial diversity will be replaced by racial intermixture 
and result in a diminishment and loss in racial diversity.
     If those races which are most vulnerable to the effects of racial 
intermixture -- because of recessiveness of their genetic 
characteristics or the sensitivity of their reproductive behavior -- 
are subjected to multiracial conditions on a sufficient scale it is 
likely that they will become extinct, and their distinctive traits will 
be lost.  They will exist only in submersion with the  traits of 
other races, submerged in the multiracial blend or mixture  of the 
"melting pot."  The preservation of racial diversity requires  the 
preservation of the conditions of geographic separation that made 
and makes diversity possible.
     Under the impetus of two factors, modern transportation 
systems and a dominant destructive ideology, the age-old 
conditions of geographic separation are being destroyed.  The 
dominant ideology that promotes multiracialization of previously 
monoracial societies perceives the continued existence of different 
races as a matter of little or now value, importance or concern, or 
even with outright hostility as something to oppose.
     The Senegalese conservationist Baba Dioum said, "In the end, 
we will conserve only what we love."  If the world is to be made 
safe for racial diversity -- or safe AGAIN for racial diversity - its 
preservation will first have to be regarded as a matter of great 
value, importance and concern.  As we begin to have a sense of 
reverence for life in general, we should develop a reverence for the 
diversity of life, and particularly the diversity of human life.  As 
we have learned to regard that which promotes life as good, and 
that which destroys life as evil, so we should learn to regard that 
which promotes the diversity of life as good, and that which 
destroys that diversity as evil.  
     An effective racial conservation movement would depend upon 
a sense of appreciation and reverence for that which it sought to 
conserve.  Only under the protection of the ethical concept of 
rights -- in this case racial rights -- can racial diversity, the 
existence of different races, be protected and preserved in an age 
when this former protector, geographic distance, is no longer 
effective in preserving the condition of geographic separation 
racial diversity requires for its continued existence.  An ethical 
philosophy or racial preservation is needed to provide the diverse 
races with the protected habitats - the geographic separation which 
is the only effective barrier to interbreeding - that the fallen 
barriers can no longer provide. -- 

Continued in the file "Racial_Rights" and "Charter_Race_Rights" 
avaiable from FTP site below.

-----------------------------------------
Get the "Identity.faq" and many other files by
anonymous FTP from:    ftp.netcom.com /pub/SF/SFA
-------------------------------------------------

-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|   For unique political commentary & Christian views        Rick Savage    | 
|     Anonymous FTP:  ftp.netcom.com  - pub/SF/SFA           PO Box 5251    |
|   To obtain files by e-mail write me for help file       Denver, CO 80217 |
|       In your message ask for FTP-EMAIL help.                 (u)SA       |


From rsavage@netcom.com Fri May 26 00:03:35 PDT 1995
Article: 5081 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Preserve Racial Rights!
Message-ID: 
Organization: ftp.netcom.com pub/SF/SFA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 00:15:20 GMT
Lines: 595
Sender: rsavage@netcom9.netcom.com

From:    ftp.netcom.com /pub/SF/SFA/social
------------------------------------------

   Our calling as stewards of God's Creation includes preserving it as He 
created it.  This includes securing the purity of the original races as 
God created them.  Toward this end, I believe Richard McCulloch has made 
some great advances in furthing this goal. 
   Be sure to read the related file entitled, "Charter_Race_Rights"

   My notes from:  _The Racial Compact_  by Richard McCulloch
   A Call for Racial Rights, Preservation, and Independence
                  
                     Racial Rights

     Rights are a concept that requires belief, for in actual
practice rights exist only because people believe in them. 
Rights are values that people hold and assert.  A value emerges
and becomes normative whenever a critical mass, or a powerful
minority, of people share it and persistently act in accordance
with it.
     The belief in rights can either be an ethical or factual
belief.  Rights are an ethical concept.  A belief that rights 
should be practiced is an ethical belief, expressing what is
believed to be ethically right or wrong.  Beliefs that relate to the 
nature of rights are factual beliefs, expressing what is
believed to be factually true or false.  For example, the belief
in a human right or freedom is an ethical belief, but the belief
that the source of this right is endowed by the Creator is a
factual belief.
     Ethical and factual beliefs are often confused which makes
it important that a clear distinction be drawn between them. 
Factual beliefs are more objective, pertaining to things or
events that exist outside of the mind.  Ethical beliefs are more
subjective, pertaining to something which exists inside the mind. 
Ethical beliefs are concerned primarily with human behavior, and
in essence consist of what we believe human behavior should be or
should have been.  Factual beliefs apply across the entire
spectrum of existence or nonexistence, including human behavior,
and in essence consist of what we believe actually is, was, or
will be, not what should be or should have been.  Factual beliefs
are not necessarily factually true, and ethical beliefs are not
necessarily ethically right.  They are what the believer believes
to be true and right.
     Much of the confusion between factual and ethical beliefs
stems from the attempt to reduce complex matters of human
behavior and causation to a simple explanation.  This is an
example of reductionist thinking.  The causation of human
behavior is not simple, but is rather enormously complex and
varied.  In spite of the great influence that genetic or
inherited characteristics have on human behavior, there are so
many other random and interactive influences that defy all
attempts to reduce human behavior to scientific levels of
predictability and control.
     Human emotions, values, needs and desires often influence
the progression of ethical beliefs, principles and conduct much
more than do factual beliefs, with the result that ethical
conduct often varies widely from what the subject's factual
beliefs might lead one to expect.
     Values are commonly more influential in determining ethical
beliefs than are factual beliefs.  Values can be more accurately
described as the qualities of life and existence that are
regarded as important and desirable than as beliefs.  They are
more deeply held and more resistant to change than beliefs.  When
there is a conflict between values and beliefs, values often
prevail and the beliefs are often either rejected or modified so
as to be consistent with and reinforce the values.
     Values are one of the most important distinctions separating
humanity from inhumanity and brutality, civilization from
savagery.  Some values may be inborn or natural to human nature. 
If there are innate values it can be assumed they have a genetic
basis like all genetic characteristics, in which case they would
likely vary between individuals and between races.
     While it is appropriate for ethical beliefs to be determined
by an interaction of factual beliefs and values, it is not
appropriate for factual beliefs to be determined and influences
by ethical beliefs and values.  Ideally, factual beliefs should
be determined by an objective reasoning process whose first duty
is to the continuous search for empirical truth.  Unfortunately,
factual beliefs have been very strongly influenced, and even
determined, by ethical beliefs and values.  Factual beliefs have
even been judged by the standards of ethical beliefs -- as
ethically good or bad rather than as factually true or false.
     Ideologies are systems of values, thought and belief which
can frequently be dogmatic, requiring conformance to their dogma
or prescribed beliefs, both factual and ethical.  Dogmatic
ideologies are intolerant of any beliefs which vary from those
they prescribe.  Their ethical beliefs hold that any deviance
>from  the orthodox or prescribed beliefs is immoral.  They judge
factual beliefs that are deviant or unorthodox not only as
erroneous on factual grounds but also on ethical ground.
     Scientists, historians, philosophers, theologians, artists
and many others have repeatedly suffered persecution for their
factual beliefs when they deviated from the prescribed beliefs of
a dominant and intolerant ideology.  Their deviant factual
beliefs were not judged on factual grounds but rather on the
grounds that the holding of any deviant belief was ethically in
error, immoral and intolerable.  Of course, philosophy, theology
and the arts commonly expound ethical beliefs, and it is proper
for these ethical beliefs to be judged by the standards of
ethics, as morally right or wrong.  But they also deal with
factual beliefs, as do science and history, and it is not proper
for these factual beliefs to be judged by ethical standards as
morally right or wrong, or by any standards other than the
standard of whether they are factually true or false.  Ethical
judgments should be reserved for ethical beliefs.
     Unfortunately, the practice of intolerant ideologies, either
religious or secular, have regarded any belief - or disbelief -
which differs from their own prescribed factual or ethical
beliefs as a threat.  They have perceived any threat in moral
terms as ethically wrong and evil.  This practice of judging
factual beliefs on ethical grounds can generally be traced to the
misconception that factual beliefs are the sole cause of ethical
beliefs.
     The persecution of deviant factual beliefs, and the practice
of making ethical judgments about persons based on their factual
beliefs, is a common characteristic of intolerant ideologies. 
Ironically, these ideologies often seem more inclined to
ethically condemn a person for deviant factual beliefs than for
deviant ethical beliefs.  
     Christianity, over the centuries has persecuted "heretics"
for their different factual beliefs.  The development of science
was long retarded by this persecution, of which the case of the
astronomer Galileo is only one of the more famous examples.  
     The intolerant and dogmatic secular ideologies in the modern
age have continued the custom of making ethical judgments about
factual beliefs.  These secular ideologies have persecuted, as
far as their power to do so goes, those factual beliefs that
conflicted with their policies and goals.  Science (especially as
it relates to the study of genetics, human nature, and individual
and racial inequalities, differences or diversity), economics and
history have been the primary targets of this persecution of
conflicting factual beliefs. 
     The beliefs of established religious ideologies were
enforced under the direction of a priesthood which presumed to
dictate beliefs and values.  The modern secular dogmatic
ideologies behave in essentially the same intolerant manner.  If
they are "established" they are enforced by the police and
judicial power of the government.  If they are not established
their means of control are less overt, but not necessarily less
effective.  In both cases the control is directed by what can be
described as a secular ideological priesthood.  If the ideology
is established this "priesthood" is concentrated in the
government.  If the ideology is not established, its priesthood
is concentrated in those positions which exercise the greatest
degree of control over ideas, especially in academia and the
communications and cultural media.
     The MARXIST ideology that held established status in the
Soviet Union (1917-1991) was quite blatant in its control of
scientific, economic and historical factual beliefs.
     In BIOLOGY it held a dogmatic factual belief in both human
equality and human malleability, and persecuted factual belief
(in the new science of genetics) in the existence of innate human
characteristics that were both unequal and resistant to efforts
to change them by external means.
     Its ECONOMIC factual beliefs were dictated by arbitrary
ethical beliefs and value judgments, and produced an economic
system that condemned its practitioners to material
impoverishment and eventually collapsed from its own inherent
inner contradictions.
     In HISTORY it held a dogmatic factual belief in dialectical
materialism, and forbade any historical interpretation or factual
belief that deviated from this doctrine.
 
     The dominant secular ideologies in the modern Western World
have shared many beliefs in common with Marxism -- which can
often be traced to the same underlying ethical beliefs and value
judgments.  This ideology has also tended to be dogmatic and
intolerant, typically persecuting and repressing beliefs that
conflicted with their own as far as it was in their power to do
so.  In particular, they have shared the factual belief in innate
human biological or genetic equality.  This version of
egalitarianism that is quite different from the primarily ethical
belief in human legal and political equality of Thomas Jefferson
had its beginnings before there was a science of genetics.  It
has persisted to the present in a continuous ideological line
that has opposed and sought to repress the development of
conflicting factual beliefs by denouncing them on ethical grounds
with an intolerant dogmatism of religious intensity.
     The study of genetics, particularly as it relates to human
racial diversity and differences, has been gravely retarded by
the organized intolerance, hostility and persecution it has
encountered whenever it has challenged the dogmatic factual
beliefs -- and the values and goals they support -- of the
prevailing ideological orthodoxy.
     In history, as in science, the same secular ideological
elements are dominant, and promote those historical factual
beliefs that tend to support their position while seeking to
persecute and repress those historical beliefs that differ from
their own.  Their intolerance of conflicting historical factual
beliefs typically assumes a posture of ethical judgment, and the
holding of the deviant belief is condemned as immoral.  
     Conformance to the prescribed (or "Politically Correct")
factual beliefs is required as a demonstration of good faith, and
is often sustained by faith alone, as the critical faculties are
suspended for the sake of moral respectability.  In this anti-
intellectual environment, where beliefs that disagree with the
orthodox position are in effect forbidden as heresy, the pursuit
of objective truth is effectively restricted to the factual
beliefs deemed acceptable by the dominant ideology.
     The intent of those engaging in the condemnation of factual
beliefs on moral grounds can only be the enforcement of
conformity to their own preferred factual beliefs by the
repression of conflicting beliefs.  The situation is reminiscent
of Hans Christian Andersen's tale of _The Emperor's New Clothes_,
wherein the ability to see something (in this example nonexistent
clothing) which did not really exist (belief or faith in the
prescribed factual beliefs) was regarded as proof of virtue, with
the result that all pretended to see something which did not
really exist, except for a child who was innocent of pretense.
     Nowhere is the enforcement of factual beliefs by ethical
judgment and intimidation more pronounced than in academia.  If
this is surprising, it should be remembered that, historically,
universities and other institutions of higher education have more
commonly been centers for the promotion and enforcement of
ideological orthodoxy and conformity of belief than for the
promotion of intellectual and academic freedom.  The perception
of universities as havens of free thought, belief and speech,
which we cherish so highly, is a very fragile ideal promoted by
the ideology of classical liberalism, and often violated by the
very persons who claim to hold it most dear.  So called
"political correctness" is merely the re-establishment of the
illiberal norm by the rise of a new dogmatic and intolerant
ideology to a position of dominance.
     The existence of rights is probably the best evidence for
the power and importance of ethical beliefs.  Rights are an
ethical belief.  These values are expressions of ethics and
values that depend on a consensus of belief to keep its structure
intact, without which it would collapse.  That is why rights have
been so seldom recognized in the past or present, and why they
have so often been gained only at great cost and after difficult
struggle.
     To achieve a consensus of acceptance and achieve
recognition, rights should meet certain criteria.  Not all rights
are equally valid.  Some are arbitrary and capricious, applied
selectively or unequally, granted to some but not to others by a
double or multiple standard of application.  Valid rights apply
equally to all, by one common standard of application.  They can
be granted to all, for their possession by some does not require
their denial to others.  It is this reciprocity in the
recognition of rights, by which one party recognizes for others
the same rights they want recognized for themselves, that is the
basis for the consensus of acceptance upon which the existence of
rights depends.
     Some rights take priority over others, and those of the
foremost priority may be referred to as primary rights.  Primary
rights are the most fundamental and are founded on the most basic
and universal human existential needs and desires.
     The first among these is the right to life.  This right
includes the right to the conditions required for life, without
which the right to life would be meaningless.  Next, is the right
of a living entity to control its own life, the right to be free,
to self-determination, independence, liberty.
     With recognition of, or ethical belief in, these primary
rights, humanity rose to a higher level of ethical existence and
civilization.  From the beginning these primary rights were
recognized not only for individual living beings, but for the
living populations which are the larger whole of which
individuals constitute the parts -- namely peoples, nations and
races.  The early documents, such as the U.S. Declaration of
Independence, explicitly affirmed and promoted the rights of
nations and peoples to independence and liberty. 
     The influence of a global movement to minimize and eliminate
human particularities, diversity and differences has discouraged
and inhibited the further development and recognition of rights
for population groups.  Where national, ethnic and racial rights
have been upheld they have only been applied selectively and
unequally.
     Primary rights should be clearly described, affirmed and
recognized for all human racial or ethnic populations.  Those
other alleged rights which are not essential to life or liberty,
and particularly those which conflict with the rights of other
peoples to life and liberty, are secondary rights, and should
yield when they conflict with primary rights.
     The United Nations Organization produced a number of
documents which gave increased legal recognition and standing to
the ethical concepts of racial rights.  These documents addressed
the right of a people to both life and liberty (independence or
self-determination).  The first responding to allegations of the
commission of genocide during the recently concluded conflict of
W.W. II, the second responding to the growing demands of
colonized or subject people for freedom, and recognizing their
aspirations as legitimate.  The following passage, taken from the
Encyclopedia Britannica, describes some of the provisions of the
U.N. document which sought to define and prohibit genocide, and
which gave effective recognition to the right of every race to
life and the conditions necessary for its continued existence.
 
     According to the United Nations _Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide_, which was
approved by the General Assembly in 1948 and went into effect in
1951, genocide is a crime whether it is committed in time of
peace or of war (distinguishing it from crimes against humanity
which are acts committed in connection with crimes against peace,
or war crimes) and under its term "genocide means any of the
following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in
part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such: 
(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or
mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting
on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures
intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly
transferring children of the group to another group." 
Conspiracy, incitement, attempt, and complicity in genocide are
also made punishable.  Perpetrators may be punished whether they
are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials, or
private individuals.  One of the results of the convention has
been the establishment of the principle that genocide, even if
perpetrated by a government in its own territory, is not an
internal matter ("a matter essentially within the domestic
jurisdiction") but a matter of international concern.
 
     The document was, in theory, a great step forward in the
recognition and promotion of the ethical concept of racial
rights, but in practice it has been applied rarely and
selectively, and ignored whenever those with the power to ignore
it found it to be inconsistent with their own goals.  In
particular, its definition of genocide as including means of
racial destruction other than the actual mass murder of
individuals is a critical breakthrough for the concept of racial
rights, recognizing that racial destruction can be, and has been,
caused by means other than actual mass murder. 
     The recognition, affirmation and defense of racial rights --
particularly the primary racial rights to life and liberty, or
independence -- is also a recognition and defense of the value
and importance of human life and human racial diversity.  Human
rights include racial rights, for races are the branches or
divisions of humanity.  If the diverse races of humanity are to
COEXIST and share the planet earth together they must first agree
to recognize and defend the right of all races TO EXIST. 
Humanity needs to adopt a concept of racial relations that is
based on the principle of racial rights, permitting the different
races to share the earth, their common home, together by assuring
their secure possession of their own racially exclusive homelands
or countries where they will enjoy the conditions of geographic
separation and reproductive isolation required for their
continued existence.


                 Charter of Racial Rights

     Racial rights are primary rights as they are concerned
either with the right of all races to life or the right of all
races to control their own life and destiny.  Taken together they
can be regarded as a _Charter of Racial Rights_, the essential
foundation of the Racial Compact.  They are as follows:
  1.  All races have a right to be unique and different, to be
themselves, and to love, value and be proud of what they are.
  2.  All races have a right to have their existence and identity
recognized, respected and protected, to define, affirm and
celebrate their existence and identity, and to promote their
legitimate rights and interests.
  3.  All races have a right to racial life, a right to live, a
right to exist as what they are and preserve what they are, a
right to exist as a separate form of life, and a right to the
conditions they require for continued life, existence and
evolution.
  4.  All races have a right to independence and peaceful self-
determination, to racial freedom and liberty, to separate
development, to exclusive control of their own life and
existence, their own future and destiny, free from domination,
control or interference by other races.
  5.  All races have a right to their own living space or
territory, to possession of their own racial homeland, to exist
within secure borders, to have and hold their own country,
separate from and exclusive of other races, as a condition
required for both their continued life and independence.
  6.  All races have a right to self-government, to their own
sovereign and fully independent government to govern their own
country, their own life and existence, and determine their own
future.
  7.  All races have a right to the affections and loyalties,
love and care of their members, and this right takes precedence
over any ideology -- or system of beliefs and values -- that
would promote disaffection or alienation of loyalties, or censure
racial love and caring.
  8.  All races have a right to exclusive control over the
creation, upbringing, development and education of their own
children, to control over their own reproduction -- the renewal 
of their racial life, the transmission of their genes and culture
to successor generations -- free of interference by other races.
  9.  All races have a right to racial integrity, to exclusivity,
reproductive isolation and geographic separation, to be free,
safe and secure from the racially destructive effects of racial
intermixture and replacement.
  10.  All races have a right to the material product of their
own creation, and to use that product for their own benefit, free
of any claim upon it by other races.
 
     These rights apply equally and by the same standard to all
human races.  No race, regardless of its status as either a
majority or minority, has a right to violate the above primary
and inalienable rights of any race.  There is no such thing as
minority or majority rights, only racial rights, which are
exactly the same regardless of demographic status as a racial
minority or majority.  No group, whether a majority or minority,
has a right to deny or violate the right of another race to the
conditions it requires for racial life, liberty and independence,
or to its own territory or government.  Therefore, no race has a
right to be in the living space or territory of another race, or
to be involved in the government of another race, as the first
violates the racial right to a separate and racially secure
homeland, and the second violates the racial right to
independence, sovereignty and self-determination.  
 
     The recognition and defense of the racial rights listed
above requires support for certain other related ethical beliefs,
values, policies and positions, and the practice of certain
ethical principles, which include the following:
  1.  Support for the ethical belief or principle that no race
should be a slave or servant to another, that all races are an
end in themselves and not a means to the ends of others, that
they should serve and benefit their own ends and not the ends of
others, and that no race should interfere with or unduly
influence the affairs or development of another.
  2.  Opposition to any and all doctrines or forms of racial
supremacy, dominance or mastery, whereby one race is supreme,
dominant or master over another, whether in whole or in part,
totally or partially, overtly or covertly, by force or by guile.
  3.  Support for the moral principle of reciprocity as the basis
of racial relations, recognizing the same rights for all races
(the racial "Golden Rule").
  4.  Opposition to all forms of invasion, migration or movement,
whether forceful or peaceful, by members of one race into the
establishment and recognized living space, territory, country or
homeland of another.
  5.  Opposition to and rejection of all claims made for transfer
of wealth from one race to another, or claims for material
support made by one race on another, either as reparations for
alleged past wrongs or for any other reason.
  6.  Rejection of the concept of "collective guilt," which holds
all members of a racial, religious, national or ethnic group
responsible and guilty for the wrongs committed by some members
of the group, and thus both responsible for reparations and
subject to punishment.
  7.  Opposition to any and all forms of genocide or racial
destruction or diminishment, whether with or without the consent
or cooperation of its victims, whether inflicted by other races,
self-inflicted, or a combination of both, including the
following:
    a.  Any action, policy, value system or condition which
prevents, obstructs, restricts or discourages the successful
reproduction of a race.
    b.  Any action, policy, value system or condition which
denies a race the conditions it needs for its continued life or
well-being, especially the condition of multiracialism which
denies a race the condition of racial isolation it needs for its
successful reproduction free from the racially destructive
effects of racial intermixture.
    c.  Any action, policy or process of racial dispossession,
displacement or replacement whereby members of one race move, or
are moved, into the established, clearly defined and recognized
living space, territory or homeland of another race and
dispossess, displace or replace it.
    d.  Any action, policy, process or condition which is the
result of human action and has the effect of lessening or
diminishing the existence of a race, or altering, distorting or
diluting its racial traits and characteristics, in the short term
or the long term, in the existing generation or in the course of
the generations to come.
    e.  Any action, policy, process, value system or condition
which promotes, encourages or has the effect of increasing the
racially destructive practice of racial intermixture.
    f.  Any action, policy, process, value system or condition
which has the effect of taking persons away from their race, in
mind or in body, physically or in alienation of affections or
loyalties, and transferring them, or their affections and
loyalties, to another race.
    g.  Any action, policy, process, value system or condition
which opposes, resists or discourages racial preservation, or the
continuation or renewal of racial life.
    h.  Any use of allegations of past wrongs to deny a race its
present or future vital rights and interests, the conditions it
needs to live and preserve its existence, especially its own
exclusive territory and its separation and independence from
other races.
 
     The ethical belief in rights, including racial rights, has
an effect on political, social and cultural ethics and values. 
In particular, it requires government to recognize and defend the
rights believed in as part of its fundamental purpose.  It also
expects the dominant or "mainstream" social and cultural
institutions to affirm and support these rights.  Therefore, the
ethical belief in racial rights promotes the following ethical
beliefs and principals concerning political, social and cultural
institutions:
  1.  The belief that a fundamental end or purpose of government
is to serve and preserve the race, to defend its separateness and
independence, to serve its interests, and preserve it form
dilution, diminishment or extinction by intermixture with, or
replacement by, other races.  Therefore, when a government
becomes destructive of this end, or harmful to this purpose, when
it becomes racially oppressive by denying the race its vital
rights -- the conditions of independence, separation and
reproductive isolation required for its continued life -- or when
it threatens, endangers or violates the vital rights or interests
of any race, its own race or another race, the members of the
race have the right and the moral responsibility to work for the
change of that government.
  2.  The belief that a fundamental end or purpose of a socially,
culturally and politically dominant morality, philosophy,
ideology or religion, or system of beliefs and values, is to
serve and promote the welfare, well-being, health and best
interests of the race, especially its vital or life-essential
rights and interests, including its successful reproduction, and
to act to preserve its existence.  Therefore, when a dominant
morality, philosophy, ideology or religion becomes destructive or
harmful to this end or purpose, or when it promotes the violation
of the vital rights and interests of any race, its own race or
another race, the members of the race have the right and the
moral responsibility to work for the change of the dominant
morality, philosophy, ideology or religion.
  3.  The belief that the primary purpose of an international
organization is to promote the Racial Compact and uphold the
Charter of Racial Rights, promoting the coexistence and continued
existence of the diverse human races by protecting the
reproductive isolation, geographic separation and political
independence of races and preventing the violation of the rights,
independence or separateness of one race by another.
 
     Racial independence and self-determination are concerned
with the right of a race to exercise control over its own life,
existence, future, and destiny.  Racial independence is cultural
and economic as well as political and biological.  To truly
control its own life a race must also exercise exclusive and
sovereign control over its culture, history, art and myths, its
self-image, soul, heart and mind, its view of its past, present
and future, its purpose and destiny, nature and identity.  No
race can be truly free if another race exercises control over it,
in whole or in part, in any of these areas.
     The sovereignty of a government is derived from the people
or race, the branch of life or Creation, that it serves.  It is a
means to an end, not an end in itself.  When its actions and
policies become destructive of the proper end or purpose of
government, when it works against the vital or life-essential
interests of the people or race it was created to serve, and upon
service to whom its legitimacy depends, it becomes illegitimate
and loses its ethical justification for existence.
     The ethical belief in racial rights extends the ethical
concept of human rights to explicitly include, recognize and
respect the rights of human races as well as individuals.
     The race is the whole of which the individual is a part, and
that which is destructive of the whole is also destructive of its
parts.  The true interests of the individual are intimately
connected to, and consistent with, the interests of its race in a
natural mutuality or commonality of interest.  They are joined
together by the bonds of biological relationship -- sharing the
same genes -- and the "mystic cords of memory" from thousands of
generations of common ancestry.
     For an individual to deny their race is to deny themselves,
their place and role in nature, where they came from and what
they are, the cause of their existence as well as the greater
purpose of their existence.  
     Humanity has reached a point in its development --
technological and moral -- where racial rights are required for
the preservation of its racial diversity.  The continued
existence of certain racial groups is dependent upon the
implementation of the Racial Compact and the principles of racial
rights upon which it is based.
     It is not constructive to attempt to impose these principles
on the past, or to judge past generations by their standard, or
to dwell obsessively on past deeds which violated them.  Past
generations were in a different situation from the present, and
the EX POST FACTO application of current values, standards, and
ideologies upon the past do it an injustice and our understanding
a disservice.  But what was then was then and what is now is now. 
Our concern should be with the present and the future, with where
we go from here, not with the deeds or misdeeds of the past.
     People want something to exist when they regard its
existence as a valuable, important and desirable part of life and
existence.  Therefore racial rights will exist only when enough
people regard them as important and desirable.  To do that they
must first regard races and what they represent as valuable,
important and worth preserving -- their own race in particular,
but also other races and racial differences and diversity in
general.  If they do they will make racial rights, and the Racial
Compact, a fact.
     That will be a great step forward for humanity.  It will
replace the ages-old rule of "the survival of the fittest" -- a
condition of existence that is the antithesis of civilization,
and which civilization has progressively sought to replace --
with the values and concepts of racial rights as the governing
principle of racial relations, affirming and protecting the right
of every race to life and liberty, existence and independence. 
That will be the world of the Racial Compact, a world safe for
human racial diversity.

------------------------------
Check out the many other interesting files at:
    ftp.netcom.com /pub/SF/SFA

-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|   For unique political commentary & Christian views        Rick Savage    | 
|     Anonymous FTP:  ftp.netcom.com  - pub/SF/SFA           PO Box 5251    |
|   To obtain files by e-mail write me for help file       Denver, CO 80217 |
|       In your message ask for FTP-EMAIL help.                 (u)SA       |


From rsavage@netcom.com Fri May 26 00:03:49 PDT 1995
Article: 5082 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: Racial Nihilism
Message-ID: 
Organization: ftp.netcom.com pub/SF/SFA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 00:16:36 GMT
Lines: 619
Sender: rsavage@netcom9.netcom.com

Racial Nihilism  (from:  ftp.netcom.com pub/SF/SFA/social)
 
   Notes from:  _The Racial Compact_  by Richard McCulloch
   A Call for Racial Rights, Preservation, and Independence
 
   Life is a continuum of generations.  The different branches of
life -- species and races -- are themselves separate and distinct
continuums, composed not only of genetically similar individuals
in the currently existing generation, but also of a potentially
unlimited number of generations, each genetically linked with its
ancestors and descendants.
   Human continuums are cultural as well as genetic.  Each
generation transmits both its culture and its genes to its
successors.  The generations in the racial continuum come and go,
and gradually evolve or change over time, but the life they
embody and share in common continues through the continuum of its
generations.
   The continued existence of a continuum cannot be taken for
granted.  A continuum can cease to exist, can be ended, can cease
to continue, in spite of the implications in its name, if any
succeeding generation should ever fail to continue the legacy
bequeathed to it by its ancestral generations. 
   The choice of racial nonexistence over existence, of racial
death over racial life, of racial discontinuation over
continuation, the rejection or repudiation -- or willingness to
reject and repudiate -- the racial continuum of which one is a
part and to which one belongs, is racial nihilism.
   The term nihilism is derived from the Latin 'nihilum,' which
means "nothing."  Nihilism is literally nothingism.  There are
various forms of nihilism, each either denying the existence, or
promoting the nonexistence -- through a reduction to nothing --
of a continuum that has existed through many generations. 
Literary and artistic nihilism rejects and repudiates
distinctions or standards in literary or artistic merit or value. 
Moral nihilism is the rejection and repudiation of moral
distinctions, standards and values.  Racial nihilism is the
rejection and repudiation of all racial distinctions and values. 
It either denies racial existence or seeks its annihilation --
literally, its reduction to nothingness or nonexistence.
   The ideological motivation for nihilism is often a radical or
extreme egalitarianism, which seeks to abolish all inequalities
by abolishing all distinctions, differences and diversity, as
well as all values and standards.  But whatever its motivation or
form -- whether moral, cultural or racial -- nihilism is an
ideology of denial and destruction.  It often denies the very
existence of the continuum it repudiates and seeks to destroy,
unwilling to admit that the object of its destructive intent even
exists.  As moral nihilism commonly asserts that morality does
not exist, so racial nihilism often denies the existence of
races, claiming that nothing exists to preserve or conserve. 
This is racial deconstructionism, the ideological annihilation of
race or ideological reduction of race to nothingness, defining
race out of existence by "deconstructing" its terms or
classifications. 
   This denial is often implied or indirect, as in the following
statement by Miami Herald columnist Joel Achenbach, who writes
that "...'races' are the arbitrary inventions of the colonialist
era."  ("Robobaby," Tropic, April 5, 1992, p. 19).  Sometimes the
denial by deconstruction is explicit and direct, as in the
following assertions by Joan Steinau Lester, executive director
of Equity Institute, a "diversity consulting firm," who writes,
"The idea of 'white' is a fiction, created at a time when
Europeans were labeling and classifying everything... 'Race' is a
system of thought created for the purpose of maintaining
separation and power.  As we attempt as a nation to dismantle
'racial' divisions and inequities, it is time to disassemble the
ideas and words made to fortify the old ways... Folks, race is a
bigger scam than Santa Claus.  Not only does this dog not hunt,
it doesn't exist."  ("is he white?  Is he black?  And, can you
always really tell?" The Miami Herald, Feb. 20, 1994, p. 3C.)
   Actually, it was during the era of Western discovery and
exploration -- of which the colonialist era was the final
expansionist phase -- that the different races of humanity became
aware of each other, that actual knowledge of human racial
diversity began to replace centuries of myth and speculation, and
that the study of human racial diversity became a serious
scientific discipline.  In that sense the different races were
"invented" during that era, as it was then that they were first
studied, defined, categorized, classified, and given names.  
They were not created by such means.
   Racial nihilism is the opposite or antithesis of racial
preservationism and conservationism.  It is opposed to racial
preservation (continued racial life), and to the conditions
required for preservation (separation and reproductive
isolation).  In ideological terms, racial nihilism can be defined
as any system of ideas, beliefs, and values that opposes racial
preservation and conservation, that supports or promotes the
causes of racial destruction, or that denies racial rights,
especially the racial right to life and the conditions of
separation required for continued racial life (racial
preservation).
   Those who reject the continuation or preservation of their own
race are racial nihilists regardless of whether or not they also
oppose the continuation of other races.  Thus some racial
nihilists only reject the continuation or preservation of their
own race, while approving the continuation of other races.  Other
racial nihilists reject the continuation of all races, all racial
differences and all racial diversity, seeking an egalitarian
levelling of all humanity into one uniform race consistent with
the goal or dream of the "One World" ideology.
   Racial nihilism, in its rejection of racial values, caring and
love, and goal of racial levelling, holds that it is wrong to
value, care for and love one's own race, and even more wrong to
value, care for and love it more than others, or to accord it any
preference or special concern.  Racial nihilism demands the
egalitarian elimination of all racial particularities and
distinctions in preferences and concerns, and asserts that it is
wrong to value, care for and love one's race in any degree, even
the same as others, if that valuing, loving and caring includes a
desire for the preservation and continuation of one's own race as
a particular type distinct from the others.
   Racial nihilism can be passive as well as active, be
characterized by acts of omission as well as commission, as the
preservation or continuation of a continuum often requires
positive, sustaining and affirming actions.  The lack of racial
caring or interest, the lack of affirmation of racial rights and
values, and the acquiescence to the causes of racial destruction,
are all examples of racial nihilism by default, the nihilism of
indifference.  
   This type of racial nihilism -- a simple lack of interest,
care and concern, often not consciously intended -- is by far the
most common form, and also the most insidious.  No statement
expresses the essence of nihilism more than the rhetorical
question, "Who cares?"  It is an expression of denial and
rejection of caring, and even of contempt for caring.  When
nihilism rejects or denies the value or importance of something,
or even denies its existence, it condones its sacrifice or
destruction, and resents and condemns as immoral those who do
care for, and seek to uphold and preserve, that which is
threatened.
   If racial diversity is to be preserved in the modern world,
where the preserving barriers of geographic distance have been
overcome by advances in transportation, racial nihilism -- even
in its passive, acquiescent, indifferent and unconscious form -- 
is a luxury humanity can no longer afford.  
   The two causes of racial destruction are intermixture and
replacement.  Intermixture causes racial destruction by genetic
dilution or submergence, replacement involves one race being
dispossessed -- or "squeezed-out" -- by others who take its
place.  
   Multiracialism is the ideology, or system of beliefs and
values, that supports multiracial conditions and the resulting
racially destructive processes of intermixture and replacement. 
Racial nihilism is the underlying ideology, psychological
attitude or view of existence that provides the foundation for
multiracialism by denying and rejecting racial rights and values,
particularly the right of a race to life, independence, and the
condition of separation required for both.
   In the chain of causation, racial nihilism causes or supports
multiracialism, which causes or promotes multiracial conditions,
which cause -- or make possible -- racial intermixture and
replacement, which cause racial destruction.  Each leads to the
other in a progression of cause and effect.  Each also requires
the other as a precondition for its existence, each effect
requiring its cause.  Thus racial destruction requires racial
intermixture or replacement, which require multiracial
conditions, which requires the effective dominance of
multiracialism, which requires racial nihilist beliefs, attitudes
and values -- whether passive or active, conscious or
unconscious, intended or unintended, knowing or unknowing.  
   Racial destruction by intermixture and replacement is an
effectively unavoidable consequence of a multiracial society, but
is effectively prevented in a monoracial society.  The reasons
why certain individuals interbreed with members of different
races are many and varied, but only occur under multiracial
conditions (where there is contact between different races). 
They do not occur under monoracial conditions of geographic
racial separation and reproductive isolation, the conditions in
which the different races were created and preserved until modern
times.
   A "wasteland" is a land, place, society or situation where
life is deprived of the conditions it needs to exist.  A
multiracial society is a racial wasteland, where racial life
cannot be continued, where the forces that cause racial death,
destruction and extinction are dominant over those that promote
racial life, preservation and continuation.  
   The wasteland of the Modern Age is the secular faith or dogma
of multiracialism -- the interracialist and internationalist
ideology of universalism or "Oneness" -- that denies and prevents
racial freedom (independence), uniqueness, growth and
development, and continued racial life, and promotes the
submergence of races in a multiracial "melting pot," replacing
racial preservation and independence with the racially
destructive process of racial nihilism.
   In the modern intellectual and ideological wasteland of
dogmatic racial nihilism the study of knowledge relating to race
and racial differences is suppressed and inhibited, or banned as
"politically incorrect," as such knowledge is inconsistent with
its own beliefs, which either deny the existence of races and
racial differences or regard them as being without value or
importance.
   The tendency of dominant ideologies is to encourage ideas and
beliefs that agree with it, and to discourage, repress, censor or
ban those that disagree.  In the Middle Ages ideas or beliefs
that disagreed with the orthodox ideology of the Catholic church
were labeled heresy.  The current dominant ideological orthodoxy
of nihilistic egalitarianism labels racial, sexual, historical,
cultural and moral ideas or beliefs as 'politically'
(ideologically) correct or incorrect on the basis of whether or
not they tend to agree with and support its position.  "Political
correctness" -- or conformance to the orthodox ideological
position -- is given precedence over factual correctness and the
classical liberal ideals of freedom of inquiry, belief and
conscience, and the failure to give it precedence is regarded as
a moral fault or evil, proving a lack of virtue.
   The Oneness ideal of "One World" and "One Race" seeks to
eliminate human diversity by a process of blending or convergence
of all into one, replacing the great variety of types with one
uniform type.  It began with the concept of "One Religion," a
universal religion for all humanity which would replace all other
religions.  This set the pattern for numerous secular
universalist creeds which also sought to impose themselves on all
humanity.  The process of ideological missionary work,
proselytizing and conversion, both religious and secular,
continues on a vast scale to this day, promoted by the
universalist ideal of Oneness, which is consistent with
multiracialist and racial nihilist ideology.
   The modern multiracial society is a racial wasteland, and its
orthodox ideology is racial nihilism, promoted and enforced by
both secular and religious authorities or priesthoods.  All
"mainstream" cultural, political and social institutions conform
to it.  Any deviance from its doctrines, particularly any
manifestation of racial preservationism, is marginalized to a
fringe position outside the "mainstream," where it is denied
serious consideration as an alternative.
   Racial nihilism is inherently hostile toward any affirmation
or acknowledgement of the reality of racial existence.  Racial
nihilism, in its denial and rejection of the value and importance
of race, racial diversity and racial existence, has made race a
"bad" word, taboo for all but its priesthood, who are entrusted
with its use or incantation solely for the purpose of promoting
the racial nihilist agenda of racial destruction.  Given the
dominant status of racial nihilism in the mass communications
media and educational institutions, a situation exists where
racial knowledge and appreciation are discouraged, and any
objective study or discussion of racial matters -- of racial
differences and diversity, or the conditions required for
continual racial existence -- is regarded as a forbidden subject,
and effectively repressed, banned or censored.
   Racial nihilism has created an air of unreality with regard to
racial matters, where the subjects of racial variation, diversity,
differences, uniqueness and continued existence are confronted
with evasion, dissimulation or denial, where it is regarded as
morally proper to pretend that races and racial differences do
not exist, and where those who openly acknowledge, recognize
and affirm these differences -- and especially those who
celebrate them and assert their value and importance -- are
regarded as immoral.  In this ideological climate, human racial
diversity and differences are denied, trivialized or belittled as
unimportant and not worth preserving, or are actually regarded
as immoral and as something which should be destroyed.  It
logically follows that racial rights are also denied or belittled,
and their assertion regarded as immoral.
   To the racial nihilist racial differences are something evil,
and racial diversity, variation and uniqueness is something to be
denied, belittled and destroyed rather than affirmed, loved and
preserved.  The racial nihilist seeks the egalitarianism of
sameness and oneness, and wants all humanity to be the same, the
rich diversity of human racial types to be reduced to one uniform
type.  Racial nihilism is racial egalitarianism in its most
extreme form, eliminating all racial inequalities by the
elimination of all racial diversity and differences.
   Extreme racial nihilists deny the existence of races while
working to destroy and undo racial existence.  They believe it is
immoral to even admit that different races exist, and it would
seem that some "true believers" actually believe that races do
not exist, as their ethical beliefs (that the existence of
different races is immoral) and values (preference for a world
without racial diversity) determines their factual beliefs. 
Others dissimulate, seeking the end of racial diversity and
knowing that the denial of racial existence promotes the actual
destruction of that existence.  Racial rights cannot be logically
acknowledged or defended if the existence of races is not
recognized.  Without the factual belief in the existence of
differences between the races there is no basis for the ethical
belief in racial rights.
   The factual belief that there are no racial differences, or
that they are trivial and unimportant, or that different races do
not really exist, is often asserted to support the ethical belief
that races have no right to life, liberty and independence, and
to justify the denial and violation of those rights.  If a race
does not exist it has no rights that can be violated.  By denying
racial existence, racial nihilism can rationalize its opposition
to racial rights and assume a moral pose while promoting racial
genocide.  But to be logically consistent, the denial of the
existence of different human races not only requires the denial
of the existence of genetically distinct human populations, but
also the denial of the existence of all different life forms.  If
one is an illusion all are an illusion, and at this point racial
nihilism becomes racial gnosticism.
 
Racial Gnosticism 
 
   GNOSTICISM is the belief that physical life and existence are
not real, that everything in the material world is an illusion,
without meaning or value.  It is a form of metaphysical nihilism. 
Gnostics belittle or deny the importance -- in fact the reality
or existence -- of all that is physical or material, claiming
that the only true reality is nonmaterial or spiritual.  They
seek to escape from life and physical existence, or to end it.  
   The word "gnosticism" is derived from the Greek word for
knowledge, and the original gnostics -- "those with knowledge" --
were the initiates in the Greek Mystery religions.  It was not
until the Hellenistic period (the three centuries preceding the
Christian era) that gnosticism became associated with a disbelief
in the reality of physical existence.  This development can be
attributed in part to the influence of Indian Buddhist
missionaries, who brought their ideas to the Mediterranean world
during the Hellenistic era. (Joseph Campbell, "The Masks of God:
Occidental Mythology" Penquin Books, 1964, p. 362).  
   In the Christian era various gnostic sects developed within
Christianity which believed in an incorporeal or illusory Christ
who never existed as a real or physical man.
   As gnosticism does not believe in physical reality, but
regards it as an illusion, so it also does not believe in the
reality of any differences or distinctions in the material world. 
It believes that all people and peoples, all individuals and
races, are the same, interchangeable and impersonal, that none
are unique, different or special in any significant way.  It
follows that gnosticism is completely egalitarian, regarding all
as equal and the same, with no important differences or
distinctions.  
   The gnostic is especially egalitarian in love, believing it is
immoral to love any person or people more than any other, but
that all people and peoples should be loved and valued equally. 
This egalitarian form of love was applied equally to all,
impersonally, without differentiation, distinction, or
discrimination.  This lead the gnostic sects to reject monogamy
and promote either celibacy or a promiscuous community of sexual
partners where exclusive relationships and strong personal
attachments were forbidden.  One Christian gnostic sect, the
Phibionites, engaged in orgies as part of their religious rites.
   Both personal love and love for one's race or people, which
differentiate, discriminate and draw distinctions, which value a
particular person or people more than others, were condemned. 
The gnostics practiced no exclusivity, loyalty or fidelity in
love, advocating equal and nondiscriminating love for all, to be
given equally to all, without preference or special emotions,
loyalties or attachments.  The gnostics were no more loyal or
attached to their race, people or nation than they were to their
sexual partners, professing themselves to be kosmopolites,
cosmopolitans, or citizens of the world.
   Gnosticism, in its denial and rejection of the reality and
value of life and existence, is a quest for nonexistence, seeking
the end of existence, the destruction of the continuum of the
generations.  Thus many of the gnostic sects, both pagan and
Christian, condemned procreation as a continuation of life and
existence they sought to bring to an end.  Racial gnosticism, the
belief that race is not real, but an illusion without meaning,
significance or value, also seeks the end of racial existence,
the destruction of the racial continuum, and opposes procreation
or anything else which tends to continue or preserve racial life.
   The modern Western world has witnessed a resurgence of gnostic
thinking, again -- as in ancient times -- largely influenced by
Hindu and Buddhist thought.  Much of the philosophy of the so-
called "New Age" movement, a continuum of the "counterculture"
which began in the mid-sixties, is directly attributable to Hindu
and Buddhist influence, with many of its members proclaiming
themselves to be followers of various Asian "gurus."  The strong
current of gnosticism that runs through this movement should
therefore come as no surprise.  
   Such pagan gnostic sayings as "Leap clear of all that is
corporeal," "Nothing is impossible," and "Think that you are
everywhere at once," are very reminiscent of _Jonathan Livingston
Seagull_, written by Richard Bach, one of the better known "New
Age" authors, whose other philosophical works, especially
_Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah_, also express
gnostic ideas.
   The "love" which was the 'leitmotif' of the counterculture was
the egalitarian and promiscuous love that is characteristic of
gnosticism; universal, impersonal, and nondiscriminating,
unfocused, without any special intensity of emotion or feeling
for any particular person, people or thing.  In sexual relations
this promiscuous love was euphemistically referred to as "free
love."  In political and social matters it expressed itself as
universalism and the cosmopolitan "One World, One-Race, One-
People" ideal of Oneness.
   Gnosticism's influence on racial beliefs and values in
particular, are only part of the explanation for the current
dominance of racial nihilism in the Western world.  The dominant
trend of the "popular" or mass culture in recent times, from
"pop" philosophy to "pop" psychology, has been to emphasize the
individual while ignoring, denying, rejecting, violating, and
sacrificing the interests of the larger entity -- the continuum
or race -- of which the individual is a part and from which the
individual came, the larger genetic entity whose existence
continues through the generations while the existence of the
particular individual is limited to one generation.
   This cultural trend is not limited to the secular sphere, but
dominates in the religious sphere as well, where the "salvation"
that is promised is the salvation of the individual, not the
salvation or continued life of the racial continuum to which the
individual belongs.

The Extreme Individualist - Racial Idiots
 
   Some racial nihilists are extreme individualists, who only
recognize the rights of individuals (and perhaps only the
existence of individuals) in a very atomistic sense, not
recognizing the rights (and perhaps the existence) of the
biological group of which they are a part, whose existence
transcends the sum of its parts and is potentially immortal.  
   This excessive preoccupation with the atomized individual,
divorced or separated from the context of the larger genetic
continuum of which it is a part, is a classic example of not
being able to see the forest because of the trees.  The
individual entities, whether tree or human being, come and go in
their generations, but the larger entity of which they are a
part, whether forest or race, lives on.  It is the enduring
reality, the continuing reality, the continuum.  The life of the
individual is transient and passes quickly.  It is the life of
the forest or race that is potentially immortal.  But one cannot
exist without the other.  The single individual and the forest or
race, the part and the whole, both depend on the health and well-
being of the other.
   The ancient Greek word for separate was 'idios.'  Persons who
were excessively preoccupied with their own private or individual
affairs, to the point of neglecting or rejecting their
responsibilities or involvement in the larger entity of which
they were a part, and thereby separating themselves from it, and
>from  care or concern for its interests, were called 'idiotes.' 
It is therefore etymologically correct to refer to the condition
in which an individual is so preoccupied with their own private
interests as to be separated from involvement in -- and care and
concern for -- the interests of their race, as racial idiocy. 
This common condition of racial idiocy is a major cause of racial
nihilism, in both its active and passive forms.  In a healthy
culture racial idiocy would be regarded as dysfunctional, but in
the present culture the dominant position of racial nihilism
enables the racial idiot to enjoy the conceit of moral
superiority over those individuals who do not separate themselves
>from  their race, but who care for it and promote its interests
and preservation.
   Those individuals who are excessively preoccupied with the
interests of their own race to the point of rejecting the
legitimate rights and interests of other races, or the interests
of life or the planet as a whole, and separating themselves and
their race from those interests, could be described as another
type of racial idiot.  The promotion of racial rights,
independence and preservation is as incompatible with this form
of racial idiocy as it is with the racial nihilist form.
   The relationship between individual and racial rights (i.e.,
the rights of the larger entity of which the individual is a
part) can be illustrated by the story of a group of people in a
boat.  One person claimed a right to drill a hole in the bottom
of the boat under his own seat.  The others objected, explaining
that if he were in a boat by himself he would have a right to do
as he pleased, as only he would suffer the consequences, but as
there were others in the same boat with him, and the consequences
of his actions would not be limited to his own seat and himself
alone, but would sink the entire boat and adversely effect them
all, he did not have a right to endanger the boat they shared in
common.  This story can be seen as a metaphor, with the would-be
hole driller representing his race, the water representing a
threat to the existence of his race, and the boat representing
the condition that protects the existence of his race from the
threat.  This metaphor can be applied to the situation that
occurs when some individuals claim a right to introduce the genes
of other races (represented in the metaphor by the surrounding
body of water) into their race -- either through intermixture,
adoption, immigration or some other means -- thereby making a
hole or breach in the protective condition of racial separation
(the boat), through which the genes of other races (the water)
can enter and spread throughout their race, threatening all --
including the generations to come -- with destruction by genetic
flooding and sinking.

Economic motive behind Racial Nihilism
 
   Another cause of racial nihilism is an excessive preoccupation
with economic matters and concerns.  As a result, racial
considerations, including racial preservation and independence,
are routinely subordinated to economic considerations.  Much of
the impetus behind the "One-World, One-Race" movement comes from
economic interests.  
   The call for a unified world economy without restrictions on
the movement of "labor" (people), permitting the free movement or
immigration of people into the homelands of other races, is a
clear expression of racial nihilism, denying and violating the
right of every race to life and independence by denying it the
racially exclusive territory required for both.  The essence of
this form of racial nihilism is that it sees all people as
interchangeable units of production and consumption, without any
differences -- including racial differences -- worthy of caring
about or preserving.  It is willing, even eager, to sacrifice
racial interests for the sake of economic gain.  Typically, it
promotes multiracial immigration for economic purposes
(especially to lower labor costs) with racially destructive
effects on the existing population (displacement and replacement,
or extinction by intermixture and genetic submergence).
   Racial nihilism, particularly in its more activist forms, is
often associated with internationalism and the "One-World" goal
of a world government.  For many persons this goal is motivated
by a desire to end war and conflict by establishing a rule of law
among peoples, nations and races similar to the rule of law that
government enforces among individuals.  This rule of law is a
worthy goal provided it is based on the concept of racial and
national rights as well as individual rights, but many
internationalists adopt the racial nihilist position that human
conflict can only be abolished by the abolishment of human
diversity and differences, by the destruction of whatever
separates humanity into different types and distinguishes one
type from the others. 

Racial Nihilism vs. Racial Preservationism
 
   Some people sincerely believe that the world would be a better
place if all the races would join and become one, the race of
none, and are motivated by this belief to support racial nihilism
in the conscious knowledge of its racially destructive effects. 
(John Lennon's song 'Imagine' is an expression of this belief and
desire).  Others are motivated by racial nihilism and the desire
for racial annihilation -- the reduction of race to nothingness -
- as an end in itself, and merely use internationalism as a
pretext to justify their position and a cloak to cover their true
motives.
   The "One-World, One-Race" dream provides an effective vehicle
to promote racial nihilism, as it allows no race a right to its
own territory, independence or existence, but would consign them
all to the multiracial "melting-pot," where the traits that once
distinguished the different races would exist only in solution,
blended with all the others, effectively diluted out of
existence.  The dream of racial "Oneness" is really a simplistic
and reductionist dream.  It seeks to reduce the complex to the
simple, to replace the many existing forms and types with one
uniform type, by diluting racial differences to the point of non
existence or nothingness. It is an irony of semantics that the
racial intermixture that is often referred to as racial
'integration' actually caused racial 'disintegration,' the
dissolution and destruction of races and racial diversity.
   The influence of racial nihilism permeates contemporary
culture.  Its values are promoted in the schools and the
Judeochristian churches, in print and on television, by teachers
and preachers, journalists and talk-show hosts.  Even so, the
support for racial nihilism among the general population is more
passive than active, more unconscious than conscious, more the
result of ignorance and misplaced trust than knowledge and
understanding.  
   The public is well-indoctrinated with racial nihilist values,
but not well-informed regarding the effects of racial nihilist
policies, or the existence of possible alternatives.  The
combination of pervasive indoctrination with inertia and
conformism, and the exclusion of possible alternatives from
consideration by the mainstream media, maintains the culture on a
racial nihilist course and permits the pace of racial destruction
to be gradually increased, even if the fanaticism of the "true
believer" is limited to a relative few.  The few who are driven
by a passionate intensity have more influence than the many who
lack all conviction, who do not care, and who consign their race
to oblivion with the deathstroke of indifference.
   In the multiracial society, ideologically justified and
supported by racial nihilism, the different races are denied
their sense of racehood or racial identity, their organic
connection to the continuum of life of which they and their own
life is a part, from which it came and to which it belongs, the
natural object of their loyalties and affections, their love and
responsibilities.  People are taught from childhood to neither
value their race, nor have any love or care for it, or loyalty
toward it.  The message may not be worded in these terms.  More
commonly it is asserted that morality requires a person to love
and value all races equally, in accordance with the egalitarian
concept of love, and that it is morally wrong to value or love
one's own race and kind, one's own continuum of life and
evolution, one's own genetic traits and those who share them,
more than any other.  This, for the purposes of racial nihilism,
has the same effect as not valuing or loving one's race at all. 
Such are the values instilled by racial nihilism, beginning with
children, depriving the race of the love and loyalty of its
members, so that its existence is not regarded as a value but is
denied and violated.  These are the genocidal values of racial
destruction through alienation and disaffection of natural love
and loyalty.
   Racial conservation has much in common with the conservation
of nature.  The conservation and protection of nature and the
natural environment depended on the development of a
conservationist or environmentalist ethic, a system of morals and
values that appreciate and recognize the importance of the
natural environment and seek to preserve it.  Racial preservation
depends upon the development of a conservationist ethic for race,
or human nature, similar to the conservationist ethic developed
for non-human nature.  It requires an ethic, a morality, of
racial affirmation and conservation to replace the current ethic
of racial denial and destruction, a morality with a positive view
of race as a good to be appreciated, cherished, valued, loved and
preserved rather than the current negative view of race as an
evil to be discarded, rejected, and destroyed.  Such an ethic or
morality is the essential foundation of the Racial Compact.
   Al Gore, in his book _Earth in the Balance_ wrote:  "In its
deepest sense the environmentalism that concerns itself with the
ecology of the whole earth is rising powerfully from the part of
our being that knows better, that knows to consolidate, protect,
and conserve those things we care about before we manipulate and
change them, perhaps irrevocably."  In truth, much the same can
be said for the preservation or conservation of the human
ecology, of the human racial diversity.  Racial annihilation or
extinction is the change sought by racial nihilism, a change that
will occur if present trends continue, a change that will be
irrevocable.  After all, extinction is forever.  
   Only a racial preservationist ethic that rises powerfully from
a part of our being that knows better, that knows to value and
care about racial existence and protect and conserve it, can
reverse the trend and stop the destruction.  The challenge facing
this generation is not only to save the earth, but to save the
endangered racial diversity of humanity.

Be sure to get these related files:
   Racial_diversity
   Racial_rights

-----------------------------------------
Get the "Identity.faq" and many other files by
anonymous FTP from:    ftp.netcom.com /pub/SF/SFA
-------------------------------------------------

-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|   For unique political commentary & Christian views        Rick Savage    | 
|     Anonymous FTP:  ftp.netcom.com  - pub/SF/SFA           PO Box 5251    |
|   To obtain files by e-mail write me for help file       Denver, CO 80217 |
|       In your message ask for FTP-EMAIL help.                 (u)SA       |


From rsavage@netcom.com Fri May 26 00:03:56 PDT 1995
Article: 5083 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!rsavage
From: rsavage@netcom.com (Rick Savage)
Subject: What is Racism?
Message-ID: 
Organization: ftp.netcom.com pub/SF/SFA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 00:17:31 GMT
Lines: 271
Sender: rsavage@netcom9.netcom.com

From:    ftp.netcom.com /pub/SF/SFA/social
------------------------------------------

                          WHAT IS RACISM?                        
                         by Thomas Jackson
   {Originally Published in American Renaissance, Vol 2, No. 8}

     There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism"
in greater horror than does the United States. Compared to other
kinds of offenses, it is thought to be somehow more
reprehensible. The press and public have become so used to tales
of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most
spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable
texture of American life. "Racism" is never shrugged off.        
For example, when a white Georgetown Law School student reported
earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as
white students, it set off a booming, national controversy about
"racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would
have attracted far less attention and criticism.
     Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities
are on full alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it,
churches preach against it, America is said to be racked with it,
but just what *is* racism?
     Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is
meant by the word. They usually define it as the belief that
one's own ethnic stock is superior to others, or as the belief
that culture and behavior are rooted in race. When Americans
speak of racism they mean a great deal more than this.        
Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a clue to
understanding what Americans *do* mean. A peculiarly American
meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are
equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have
been declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and
anyone who questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong
but evil.
     The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly
important. If blacks, for example, are equal to whites in every
way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and
dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been
outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is
white racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone,
and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive racism.
Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state.      
     All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid
logic. Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on
white wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden
territory of racial differences. Thus, even if today's whites can
find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's
whites must have oppressed them. If whites do not consciously
oppress blacks, they must oppress them UNconsciously. If no
obviously racist individuals can be identified, then
*institutions* must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so
terribly in America, there simply must be millions of white
people we do not know about, who are working day and night to
keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no
room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some
fashion, an indictment of white people.
    The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are
required to believe that the only explanation for non-white
failure is white racism, every time a non-white is poor, commits
a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, white society stands
accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or misbehavior
by non-whites is standing proof that white society is riddled
with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-whites fail
to succeed in life at exactly the same level as whites, whites
will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them. This
obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions.
First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be committed
almost exclusively by white people. Indeed, a black congressman
>from  Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of
Detroit, have argued that only white people *can* be racist.
Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State
Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which
she explained that *all* whites are racist and that *only* whites
can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained
without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?      
     Although some blacks and liberal whites concede that non-whites
can, perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-whites have
been forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of white
oppression. What appears to be non-white racism is so
understandable and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name.
Thus, whether or not an act is called racism depends on the race
of the racist. What would surely be called racism when done by
whites is thought to be normal when done by anyone else. The
reverse is also true.
     Examples of this sort of double standard are so common,
it is almost tedious to list them: When a white man kills a black
man and uses the word "nigger" while doing so, there is an 
enormous media uproar and the nation beats its collective breast;
when members of the black Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of
random whites, the media are silent (see AR of March, 1991).
College campuses forbid pejorative statements about non-whites as
"racist," but ignore scurrilous attacks on whites.
     At election time, if 60 percent of the white voters vote
for a white candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote
for the black opponent, it is white who are accused of racial
bias. There are 107 "historically black" colleges, whose
fundamental blackness must be preserved in the name of diversity,
but all historically white colleges must be forcibly integrated
in the name of... the same thing. To resist would be racist.     
     "Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but
anything that could be construed as an expression of white pride
is a form of hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world
immigrants to expect school instruction and driver's tests in
their own languages, whereas for native Americans to ask them to
learn English is racist.
     Blatant anti-white prejudice, in the form of affirmative
action, is now the law of the land. Anything remotely like
affirmative action, if practiced in favor of whites, would be
attacked as despicable favoritism.
     All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs
and caucuses are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic
solidarity, but any club or association expressly for whites is
by definition racist. The National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) campaigns openly for black
advantage but is a respected "civil rights" organization. The
National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP)
campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but is said to
be viciously racist.
     At a few college campuses, students opposed to
affirmative action have set up student unions for whites,
analogous to those for blacks, Hispanics, etc, and have been
roundly condemned as racists. Recently, when the white students
at Lowell High School in San Francisco found themselves to be a
minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club like the ones
that non- whites have. They were turned down in horror. Indeed,
in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a white
enclave but whose members simply happen all to be white is
branded as racist.
     Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the
asymmetric quality of American racism is "celebration of
diversity." It has begun to dawn on a few people that "diversity"
is always achieved at the expense of whites (and sometimes men),
and never the other way around. No one proposes that Howard
University be made more diverse by admitting whites, Hispanics,
or Asians. No one ever suggests that National Hispanic University
in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity of having
non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black
Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the
Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a
lack of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them
to celebrate *homogeneity*. And yet any all-white group - a
company, a town, a school, a club, a neighborhood - is thought to
suffer from a crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied
as quickly as possible. Only when whites have been reduced to a
minority has "diversity" been achieved.
      Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate" or "embrace"
diversity, as we are so often asked to do, is no different from
*deploring an excess of whites.* In fact, the entire nation is
thought to suffer from an excess of whites. Our current
immigration policies are structured so that approximately 90
percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are non-white. The
several million illegal immigrants that enter the country every
year are virtually all non-white. It would be racist not to be
grateful for this laudable contribution to "diversity."        
It is, of course, only white nations that are called upon to
practice this kind of "diversity." It is almost criminal to
imagine a nation of any other race countenancing blatant
dispossession of this kind.
     What if the United States were pouring its poorest,
least educated citizens across the border into Mexico? Could
anyone be fooled into thinking that Mexico was being "culturally
enriched?" What if the state of Chihuahua were losing its
majority population to poor whites who demanded that schools be
taught in English, who insisted on celebrating the Fourth of
July, who demanded the right to vote even if they weren't
citizens, who clamored for "affirmative action" in jobs and
schooling?
     Would Mexico - or any other non-white nation - tolerate
this kind of cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not.
Yet white Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of
Hispanics and Asians entering their country as a priceless
cultural gift. They are supposed to "celebrate" their own loss
of influence, their own dwindling numbers, their own
dispossession, for to do otherwise would be hopelessly racist.   
     There is another curious asymmetry about American racism.
When non- whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever
accuses them of "hating" another group. Blacks can join "civil
rights" groups and Hispanics can be activists without fear of
being branded as bigots and hate mongers. They can agitate openly
for racial preferences that can come only at the expense of
whites. They can demand preferential treatment of all kinds
without anyone ever suggesting that they are "anti-white."       
    Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to
affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject
racial policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be
called racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that
they prefer the company of their own kind, that they wish to be
left alone to enjoy the fruits of their European heritage, they
are irredeemably wicked and hateful.
     Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about
American race relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the
company of their own kind, to think of themselves as groups with
interests distinct from those of the whole, and to work openly
for group advantage. None of this is thought to be racist. At the
same time, *whites* must *also* champion the racial interests of
non-whites. They must sacrifice their own future on the altar of
"diversity" and cooperate in their own dispossession. They are to
encourage, even to subsidize, the displacement of a European
people and culture by alien peoples and cultures. To put it in
the simplest possible terms, white people are cheerfully to
slaughter their own society, to commit racial and cultural
suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.
     Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United
States is perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more
natural than to love one's people and to hope that it should
flourish. Filipinos and El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished
to discover that simply by setting foot in the United States they
are entitled to affirmative action preferences over native-born
whites, but can they be blamed for accepting them? Is it
surprising that they should want their languages, their cultures,
their brothers and sisters to take possession and put their mark
indelibly on the land? If the once-great people of a once-great
nation is bent upon self-destruction and is prepared to hand
over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for it, why
should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?
     No, it is the white enterprise in the United States that
is unnatural, unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites
have let themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to
object to dispossession, much less to work for their own
interests. Never in the history of the world has a dominant
people thrown open the gates to strangers, and poured out its
wealth to aliens. Never before has a people been fooled into
thinking that there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its
heritage, and giving away to others its place in history.        
Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked into
thinking that a preference for one's own kind is racism. Only
whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow
"hatred" of others. All healthy people prefer the company of
their own kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men
love their families more than their neighbors, but this does not
mean that they hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial
family need bear no ill will towards non-whites. They only wish
to be left alone to participate in the unfolding of their racial
and cultural destinies.
     What whites in America are being asked to do is
therefore utterly unnatural. They are being asked to devote
themselves to the interests of other races and to ignore the
interests of their own. This is like asking a man to forsake his
own children and love the children of his neighbors, since to do
otherwise would be "racist."
     What then, is "racism?" It is considerably more than any
dictionary is likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to
official policies of racial preference for non-whites. It is any
preference by whites for their own people and culture. It is any
resistance by whites to the idea of becoming a minority people.
It is any unwillingness to be pushed aside. It is, in short, any
of the normal aspirations of people-hood that have defined
nations since the beginning of history - but only so long as the
aspirations are those of whites.

------------------------

For further study on the issue of race listen to the recorded message,
_Scriptural Understanding of Race_ by Pastor Pete J. Peters.  Audio tape 
$4.00 offering, booklet by same name $1.00.

Available from Scriptures for America, 
P.O. Box 766-c, 
LaPorte, CO 80535 

---------------------------------------
Get the "Identity.faq" and many other files by
anonymous FTP from:    ftp.netcom.com /pub/SF/SFA
-------------------------------------------------

-- 
 _____________________Rick Savage ______________________
|   For unique political commentary & Christian views        Rick Savage    | 
|     Anonymous FTP:  ftp.netcom.com  - pub/SF/SFA           PO Box 5251    |
|   To obtain files by e-mail write me for help file       Denver, CO 80217 |
|       In your message ask for FTP-EMAIL help.                 (u)SA       |


From Robert.Piccolo@wind.tor250.org Sat Jun  3 22:39:53 PDT 1995
Article: 64086 of alt.conspiracy
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!scipio.cyberstore.ca!skypoint.com!news3.mr.net!mr.net!winternet.com!io.org!innuendo.tlug.org!gvc.com!tor250!wind!robert.piccolo
From: Robert.Piccolo@wind.tor250.org (Robert Piccolo)
Date: 29 May 95 15:59:33 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Conspiracies: Who Rules?
Message-ID: 
X-FTN-To: Rsavage@Netcom.Com
Organization: Gateway: Where the Wind Blows /=/ 1200<->21600 /=/ (416)231-2885 
References: 
Lines: 17

*** Quoting Rsavage@Netcom.Com to All dated 05-23-95 ***
> : we should kill all Jews (don't worry, Rick, I've saved the relevant
> : posts where you advocate genocide), he thinks that blacks did
> : not descend from Adam, and he thinks that Northern Europeans
> : somehow have descended from Adam without ever intermixing 
> : their blood lines, a bit of hokum that about five minutes worth
 
I hate to have to break it to you but the biblical stories are myths!  That's
right, almost every single one of them!  Adam and Eve never existed.  Noah
never existed.  These are just Jewish stories, which have a relevant moral
lesson noe the less.  But still, you shouldn't take them so seriously.  Also,
how can yo talk about races?  Everybody is a mix of different blood.  In fact,
the term race is ignorant (it was created by a German bigot).  There is only
one race: the human race.  
--
| Fidonet : Robert Piccolo 1:250/705
| Internet: Robert.Piccolo@wind.tor250.org



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.