From aimnet.com!gmgraves Sat Aug 26 15:09:58 1995
Return-Path: 
Received: by nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Smail3.1.29.1 #8)
	id m0smTQI-000EurC; Sat, 26 Aug 95 15:09 PDT
Received: from aimnet.com (aimnet.aimnet.com) by nizkor.almanac.bc.ca ; 26 AUG 95 15:09:50 PDT
Received: from 204.247.5.58 ([204.247.5.58]) by aimnet.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA01487 for ; Sat, 26 Aug 1995 15:12:33 -0700
Message-Id: <199508262212.PAA01487@aimnet.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 95 23:19:13 0800
From: George Graves 
Organization: Graves Associates
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; 68K)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
To: kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca
Subject: Re: Every relative killed
References: <41l7u2$l4k@sparky.midwest.net> <41mfa2$hs6@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
X-URL: news:41mfa2$hs6@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Status: RO

kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC) wrote:

>No, I've never noticed that, but it is clear that one-third of
>the world's Jewish community was mercilessly exterminated.
>That makes for a fair chunk of relatives, wouldn't you say?
>
>>protesters come from? What, do they think that they all sprang up like 
>>mushrooms because the weather was right or something...  Give me a break!
>
>Perhaps  "all those protestors," whoever they are, came from
>the 12-million that survived, and from their progeny, eh?
>
>-- 
>     The Nizkor Project: An Electronic Holocaust Educational Resource
>                   Anonymous ftp: ftp.almanac.bc.ca
> Nizkor Web: http://www.almanac.bc.ca (Under construction - permanently!)
>    Kenneth McVay OBC.  Home Page: http://www.almanac.bc.ca/~kmcvay

It's just to damn bad that they didn't get all of the bastards!


"He who cannot reason is a fool; he who will not is a bigot; he who dare
not is a slave." - W. Drummond
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!aimnet.com!news2.aimnet.com!usenet
From: George Graves 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,aus.flame,alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.african.america,soc.culture.african,sci.archaeology,soc.culture.australian,soc.culture.egyptian
Subject: Re: What colour the Egyptians? (Reply to Egypt, Greece and India)
Date: 26 Aug 1995 21:35:27 GMT
Organization: Graves Associates
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <41o42v$431@news2.aimnet.com>
References:  <4071a7$8vl@newsbf02.news.aol.com>    <40nssl$n1g@transfer.stratus.com>   <41lkaf$72q@gwen.ibmpcug.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.247.5.58
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; 68K)
To: Tansu@tunkamanin.win-uk.net
X-URL: news:41lkaf$72q@gwen.ibmpcug.co.uk
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:468 alt.politics.white-power:499 alt.revisionism:4817 soc.culture.african:32905 sci.archaeology:22680 soc.culture.australian:32571 soc.culture.egyptian:3116

Tansu@tunkamanin.win-uk.net (TANSU) wrote:
>
>
>cmck02@cs.auckland.ac.nz (McKinstry) wrote:
>
>>> : >What is an "Abo"? 
>>> 
>>> :  I think the poster meant "aboriginal".  I've been told by many many others 
>>> :  that Native Americans resemble Egyptians. 
>>> 
>>> My use of the word "abo" is an undocumented feature in my usage of English.
>>> Abo=aborigine. An Aussie Aborigine looks a lot like the "Americans of 
>>> African Aboriginal Descent", although they are separate races.
>>> 
>>> I visited Alexandria Egypt thd those people did not look like indiginous 
>>> Americans. They looked like Americans of African Aboriginal Descent.
>>> 
>>> BTW, my web page has a personal .faq file that explains this language bug 
>>> of mine. :) Get poulosio.faq or read it with a web browser.
>>> 
>>Not meaning to offend, but there is quite a bit of difference in the
>>physical appearance of Australian Aborigines and African Negroes.  Granted
>>they both have woolly hair as well as similar skin pigmentation. The skull
>>for one is much thicker and the forehead is more slopped (though not as
>>much a mature Jew's forehead, compare Barbara Steisand side profile as an
>>example.)  It would be amusing to see if a negro's skull can withstand the
>>crushing power of a crocodile jaw as an aborigine's skull can (this is
>>true, recently a crocodile bit the head of an aborigine, who's reflex
>>action was to poke the croc in the eye with his finger -- he walked away
>>as happy as Larry.)  Also the aborigine is far more primitive than the
>>Negro.  The Australian Aborigine has a piercing stare.  It was amusing to
>>see two negroes meeting an aborigine, the two negroes fled.  Because of
>>their extreme primitiveness they also never believed in a higher being (or
>>a god, if you prefer.)  You cannot say that the aborigine was one with
>>nature either.  They wiped out most kangaroo species for one.  Their own
>>myths relate how all of Australia was fruitful.  Most Americans should be
>>aware of the Australian outback being a desert. 
>
>>Incidentally hasn't this thread lost it's topic?  That is the original
>>race of the ancient Egyptians.  I'll agree with Hab on the fact that it
>>seems unlikely the Summerians/Assyrians were white.  Summerian simply
>>means black headed ones and the most popular theory is they were the
>>predecessors to the Chinese (though the Chinese were wanderers or nomads
>>at that time.)  Though Hab cannot rule out the possibility of white
>>involvement in the rise of that civilisation either.  It should be noted
>>that nobody knows the physiogomy of the Summerians as their are no (at
>>least not surviving) statues or arts depicting their form.  However I
>>digress, the ancient egyptians were white.  They misecegenated and became
>>the mulatto and useless race they are today.  Prior to 2000 B.C the
>>paintings and statues were white, and 2000 B.C and on, were often (in the
>>case of men) depicted as red.  Hab unfortunately mentioned Sesostris I to
>>back his claim.  Since the name is out we can now safely say (thanks Hab)
>>that Sesostris I had it enforced by law that any negro caught in Egypt was
>>to be killed.  It should be a downer for the so called black civilisation
>>seekers of Egypt.  So for all pro white supporters out there remember the
>>name Sesostris I.  Niggers were to be killed in at least his reign.  Hab
>>must also realize the misecegenation of the Egyptians (he likes to claim
>>they were brown (a black/white mix.))  Of course his commendable discourse
>>from the Egyptologist Champollian was interesting in regard that Sesostris
>>I separated himself from the Phoenicians as a different race.  This can be
>>explained by the similarity between the Vikings and say France and what
>>the Monks wrote of them.  For those unaware, the Phoenicians and the
>>Vikings went through a similar "stage" in raiding, trading and settling.

Pardon me, but isn't this a fairly simple question with a very easily
confirmed answer?

The statues and busts of various pharohs and their queens (Nefertiti comes to mind) show very clearly that the ancient Egyptians wer=
e a
Semitic people. There is a statue of one ruler, I believe it was Thutmose I (SP?), who's face looks like that of a modern Cairo-ite,=
 even down to the Nassar-like pencil-thin moustache.
In many tomb paintings, negroes are always painted very ebony. Others in the painting are either colored like a Northern European wi=
th a good suntan, in other words, very semitic coloring, or they
are even lighter (especially some of the women. This might indicate female slaves from Asia Minor or even Southern Europe). 
I might also add that most representations of negroes in tomb paintings show them in very subordiante roles, mostly as slaves. What =
is it about Negroes that makes the lighter races of the world look at them and instantly think "slave!" throughout history?

George Graves
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!aimnet.com!news2.aimnet.com!usenet
From: George Graves 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,can.politics,alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: Response to Lemire, Racist & Revisionist at Large
Date: 26 Aug 1995 21:45:03 GMT
Organization: Graves Associates
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <41o4kv$431@news2.aimnet.com>
References: <40ahgf$b5t@inforamp.net>  <40pi11$e5q@lyorn.mdd.comm.mot.com> <40slir$kil@inforamp.net>  <416h0v$mtl@inforamp.net>  <4196ac$11t@inforamp.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.247.5.58
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; 68K)
To: joelr@winternet.com
X-URL: news:joelr.124.0007FBB4@winternet.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:501 alt.revisionism:4819 alt.politics.nationalism.white:470 can.politics:716 alt.skinheads:1398

joelr@winternet.com (Joel Rosenberg) wrote:
>In article <41gjl9$aeq@mail.inforamp.net> cpn@euphoria.com (Marc Lemire) writes:
>
>
>
>>                     Canada's premier Free Speech board
>>                      Specializing in Controversy!!!!
>
>>                          NOW WITH OVER 600 USERS!
>>              AND DAILY NEWS FEED FROM THE ARYAN NEWS SERVICE
>
>Let me guess:  your total background in the promotion of "free speech" 
>consists of support for nazis, revisionazis, white supremacists, and that sort 
>of scum, right?

Joel, your a Jew. You can't possibly understand the thing that your people have trying to destroy for generations. The white race. T=
hat's why you fail. We aren't getting weaker, we're getting stronger. We have begun to take pride in ourselves and our accomplishmen=
ts again after decades of hearing Jewish media tell us we're evil, and have no right to be proud. All our lives we have heard: A whi=
te man who is proud of his race is a racist. A black, yellow, or brown man who feels the same way is merely expressing "racial pride=
".
Go away, Joel. This board is definately NOT for you. In the words of  President Harry Truman, "If you can't stand the heat, get out =
of the kitchen".

George Graves 

Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!aimnet.com!news2.aimnet.com!usenet
From: George Graves 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,can.politics,alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: Response to Lemire, Racist & Revisionist at Large
Date: 26 Aug 1995 21:52:54 GMT
Organization: Graves Associates
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <41o53m$431@news2.aimnet.com>
References: <40ahgf$b5t@inforamp.net>  <40pi11$e5q@lyorn.mdd.comm.mot.com> <40slir$kil@inforamp.net>  <416h0v$mtl@inforamp.net>  <4196ac$11t@inforamp.net>  <41gjl9$aeq@mail.inforamp.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.247.5.58
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; 68K)
To: schwartz@infinet.com
X-URL: news:schwartz-2508951314220001@p54.infinet.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:504 alt.revisionism:4821 alt.politics.nationalism.white:474 can.politics:719 alt.skinheads:1402

schwartz@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) wrote:
>In article <41gjl9$aeq@mail.inforamp.net>, cpn@euphoria.com (Marc Lemire) wrote:
>
>
>> first off I have not lied.  
>
>Please begin a sentence with a capital letter. I believe a comma would be
>approripate after "off."
>
>> You are allowed to have you own opinion, and if 
>> thats what you believe your entitled to that.
> 
>Wow... where to begin? "you own opinion" should be "your own opinion."
>"that's" is the correct usage here, it is a contraction of "that is."
>A coma is necessary after believe.
>Again, the contraction of "you are" is "you're," not "your."
>> 
>> I have chamged my ad not because I feel that I am wrong, but because I don't 
>> feel like argueing all night with you people over a few words.
>>
>Changed, not chamged.
> 
>Arguing.
> 
>> I have posted the new ad and I hoep you like it.
>> 
>Hope.
>> 
>> Here it is again in case you missed it.
>> 
>[67 lines of crap deleted]
> 
> Sara
>
>-- 
>"No human race is superior; no religious faith is inferior. All collective judgements are wrong. Only racists make them."
>     Elie Wiesel


Sara, the most feeble variety of flame on the net is to criticize someone for typos. Most people write these responses online, on
the fly and in simple text entry windows, not in Word 6.1. I know that this was not directed at me, and that I am interloping here, =
but I see it so much on the net, and it is so counterproductive, that I feel compelled to mention it wherever possible.

Regards
George Graves 
From gmgraves@aimnet.com Sun Aug 27 00:03:27 PDT 1995
Article: 507 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!aimnet.com!news2.aimnet.com!usenet
From: George Graves 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: WHITE MEN ARE JEALOUS OF BLACK MEN..
Date: 26 Aug 1995 22:09:09 GMT
Organization: Graves Associates
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <41o625$431@news2.aimnet.com>
References: <41ie7b$o0u@warp.cris.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.247.5.58
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; 68K)
To: NotProvidedBecauseOfFlames@SorryGuys.com
X-URL: news:41ie7b$o0u@warp.cris.com

NotProvidedBecauseOfFlames@SorryGuys.com (RUSH LIMBAUGH) 
wrote:
>MANY Black men get white women cause they're better in bed and can
>have sex longer than a white-devil. I guess you white-devils are just
>jealous that the average white-devil cock is 5 inches and the average
>black mans cock is 7 inches..... 2 inches caused all this?
>Get a life and get a job...
>
>

Rush, I'm generally an admirer of your attempt to point out how badly the USA has been damaged by forty years of liberal legislation=
 And for that, I thank you. But, this post is ridiculous. Most white women I have known who have "had a black man" say that most bl=
acks are only interested in 'getting on and getting off' -if you follow my drift, and are lousy lovers. In fact, if you talk to wome=
n who have 'crossed over' you will find out that most of them did it either to humiliate parents with whom they were not gettin alon=
g, or to prove some college girl-liberal thing. You know, "I'm so liberal and so committed to black rights that I even sleep with a =
negro." And most of them have since, had cause to regret it (get your researchers to find out what percentage of black-white interra=
cial marriages fail compared to marriages in the general population). 
As to penis size, "it aint the size of your hammer, it's the quality of the house you build with it".

Yours Truly
George Graves




From gmgraves@aimnet.com Sun Aug 27 00:03:28 PDT 1995
Article: 508 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news.sprintlink.net!aimnet.com!news2.aimnet.com!usenet
From: George Graves 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Every relative killed
Date: 26 Aug 1995 22:12:46 GMT
Organization: Graves Associates
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <41o68u$431@news2.aimnet.com>
References: <41l7u2$l4k@sparky.midwest.net> <41mfa2$hs6@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.247.5.58
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; 68K)
To: kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca
X-URL: news:41mfa2$hs6@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca

kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC) wrote:

>No, I've never noticed that, but it is clear that one-third of
>the world's Jewish community was mercilessly exterminated.
>That makes for a fair chunk of relatives, wouldn't you say?
>
>>protesters come from? What, do they think that they all sprang up like 
>>mushrooms because the weather was right or something...  Give me a break!
>
>Perhaps  "all those protestors," whoever they are, came from
>the 12-million that survived, and from their progeny, eh?
>
>-- 
>     The Nizkor Project: An Electronic Holocaust Educational Resource
>                   Anonymous ftp: ftp.almanac.bc.ca
> Nizkor Web: http://www.almanac.bc.ca (Under construction - permanently!)
>    Kenneth McVay OBC.  Home Page: http://www.almanac.bc.ca/~kmcvay

It's just to damn bad that they didn't get all of the bastards!




From gmgraves@aimnet.com Tue Aug 29 09:13:34 PDT 1995
Article: 3556 of alt.conspiracy
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!netnet2.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!aimnet.com!news2.aimnet.com!usenet
From: George Graves 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Did anyone see "Alien Autopsy" on Fox?
Date: 29 Aug 1995 05:27:28 GMT
Organization: Graves Associates
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <41u8g0$lqk@news2.aimnet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.247.5.28
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; 68K)
X-URL: news:alt.conspiracy

Tonight I watched a program on the Fox network called 
"Alien Autopsy". It purported to be an actual film of
one of the autopsies performed on the recovered alien
bodies from the Roswell NM. incident.
It was very well done, with Jonathan Frakes as host, and
a cadre of experts like Stan Winston (famous Hollywood
creature fabricator), people from Kodak to examine the film,
various cinematographers and people from Roswell who
claimed to have either seen something themselves, or who
recollect that their parents saw something. 
The film itself was characteristically contrasty, poorly
focused at times (usually on close-ups) and somewhat
jerky. The 'critter' was a about the size of a 10 year old
child, had 'THE' alien head, a bloated abdomen, and six toes and
fingers. the film's authenticity was not established, and there
seemed to be no concensus of opinion that it was real.
Winston and his crew said it could not have been faked in 1947,
because the materials to mimic flesh and organs did not exist
then. He went on to say that even today, it would be a major
undertaking to create such a creature, and whoever did it would
be working for him tomorrow if he  could be found. Winston further
said that he thought it was real, but then again, he was under the 
assumption that Kodak had authenticated the filn as having been
1947 vintage, which was not the case. The careful viewer will note
thet the two Kodak spokespersons said that the film TYPE was
consistant with 1947 films (but no chemical analysis of the 
emulsion was performed, or if it was, it was not mentioned on the
show), and one of them said that the date code could have been from
either 1927, 1947, or 1967. My "Photographic Lab Handbook" by John
S. Carroll shows that the symbols for those date codes are repeated
every 20 years, which means that the film could also have been made
in 1987 as well! This was not mentioned by either Kodak 
representative. If the film were fabricated in1987, the date codes 
would still be consistant with 1947 manufactured film. So, all a 
faker would need do, is to find some 1987 date coded B&W cine film, 
and take the pictures with that.........
The 'critter' looks fake to me. The one incision made from just under 
the left ear to the shoulder looks like it was done with a stage
scalple. That is a fake scalple with a hole in the 'blade' tip and tube 
which runs up the sleeve to a bulb full of stage blood (for color) or 
chocolate syrup (B&W). When the scalple is pulled along the skin, the 
bulb is squeezed leaving a trail of "blood" just as if the blade had 
made a cut. What I saw was certainly consistant with that. The skin
also looked like plastic to me. I ahve a friend who makes critters for
commercials and stage plays and the like, and he says that he can do 
that, no problem. I've seen his work. I believe him.
Also did any one notice that the critter had nipples? Little ones, to
be sure, but why would an alien have them at all? I say "National 
Enquirer". What do you say?
Comments? DIscussion? Government dis-information, the real thing, 
or what?

Regards

George Graves 




From gmgraves@aimnet.com Tue Aug 29 14:28:44 PDT 1995
Article: 5188 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!netnet2.netnet.net!en.com!multiverse!hookup!hudson.lm.com!news.math.psu.edu!psuvax1!news.ecn.bgu.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!panix!zip.eecs.umich.edu!caen!news.tc.cornell.edu!newsserver.sdsc.edu!news.cerf.net!pagesat.net!netserv.com!news2.aimnet.com!usenet
From: "George M. Graves II" 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.skinheads,alt.conspiracy,can.politics
Subject: Re: A Racist's Progress..item 1
Date: 20 Aug 1995 22:16:30 GMT
Organization: Graves Associates
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <418c7u$9m1@news2.aimnet.com>
References: <222309Z19081995@anon.penet.fi> <415u7l$7dj@daily-planet.execpc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dial-pa1-9.iway.aimnet.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; 68K)
To: capmicro@execpc.com
X-URL: news:415u7l$7dj@daily-planet.execpc.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:5188 alt.politics.nationalism.white:704 alt.politics.white-power:830 alt.skinheads:1626 alt.conspiracy:3672 can.politics:1142

"John Q. Public"  wrote:
>an166397@anon.penet.fi (Sharpfang) wrote:
>>
>>
>>A Racist's Progress
>>
>
>
>  I am a racist.  I am for the white race.  And I will never
>>again forget my solidarity with my white brothers and sisters.
>>
>
>Whoo would you rather have as a neighbor when the chips
> are down: Ken Hamblin or Bill Clinton?  Charles Manson
> or Thomas Sowell?  Barbara Boxer or Ali?  
>
>How much solidarity do you want to have with John Wayne Gacy?

This is irrelevant. Certainly there are fine people in any group. I 
suspect that their were even nice communists in Stalin's Russia. But, 
if I might use Stlain's USSR as an example: For every 'GOOD Neighbor 
Ivan' there was a Beria, for every ordinary, hard working Russian there 
was a Molotov. Its the racial or idealogical characteristics of the 
group we have to consider. 

Sharpfang was absolutely correct in his assesment of multicultural 
America. We are becoming a third world nation. The things that 
differentiated western civilization from the rest of the world are 
being erroded away. We are a less civilized country than the one we 
were born into and it gets worse every day. 




From gmgraves@aimnet.com Tue Aug 29 18:44:02 PDT 1995
Article: 5221 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!aimnet.com!news2.aimnet.com!usenet
From: George Graves 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.skinheads,alt.revisionism,alt.discrimination,aus.flame,soc.culture.african.america,soc.culture.african,sci.archaeology,soc.culture.australian,soc.culture.egyptian
Subject: Re: What colour the Egyptians? (Reply to Egypt, Greece and India)
Date: 29 Aug 1995 22:35:18 GMT
Organization: Graves Associates
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <4204n6$7kr@news2.aimnet.com>
References: <41tpkk$1ov4@rover.ucs.ualberta.ca> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.247.5.28
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; 68K)
X-URL: news:cmck02-2908951633480001@uglm3.cs.auckland.ac.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:724 alt.politics.white-power:853 alt.skinheads:1641 alt.revisionism:5221 alt.discrimination:34779 soc.culture.african:32948 sci.archaeology:22700 soc.culture.australian:32615 soc.culture.egyptian:3137

cmck02@cs.auckland.ac.nz (McKinstry) wrote:
>> : Nigger simply means black in both spanish and latin, your point?
>> 
>> Wrong, 1950's-Webster-Dictionary-Boy. The latin is "niger," with one "g," 
>> and the pronunciation (certainly in ecclesiatical Latin and probably in 
>> classical Latin as well, though I would appreciate a classicist's 
>> opinion) would be different from that of your foul slur. As for Spanish: 
>> it's "negro," not "nigger."
>> 
>> And my point: that you're fabricating arguments, as usual.
>> 
>Oh I realize the transliteration from latin and spanish hasn't been
>strictly preserved.  As for spanish you'll have to argue that out with
>werle@aol.com who is one of your own.  You should note that the spanish
>has identical spelling to the latin for nigger (ie., niger.)
>
>Surely you noticed my apology over the dictionary business?
>
>> : Or so we are told (beneficial mutations), why don't we see them today? 
>> 
>> We do, Biology-Boy. What separates us from earlier forms of life is 
>> precisely these mutations.
>> 
>> 
>> : Why did they only happen in the past?  
>> 
>> Because large-scale mutations don't take place in the time it takes you 
>> to watch _Triumph des Willens_; they happen in the present, too, but not 
>> at a rate that will satisfy your attention span and/or intellectual grasp.
>>
>You obviously don't keep up with your religious creed.  The popular
>concept is quick changes, which makes more sense than gradual changes.  It
>should be reasonable obvious why if you done any serious work in
>genetics.     
>> 
>> : Or are these thoughts against your
>> : religious creed?
>> 
>> Religions tend to be the forces opposing the notion of evolution, 
>> Philosophy-Boy.
>> 
>I'm afraid evolution is a religious doctrine.  You have to have faith to
>believe in it, just like all the other religions.  Evolution even has its
>own priests.
>
>Cailean.

Well,I tried to stay out of this one, but flesh is weak.
the word "nigger" as applied to African blacks comes from the 
slave trade. and is an english degeneration of either the Spanish
word negre (accent grave over the first e) or the French word 
neger. It was adopted first by Dutch and later by British slave
traders as an easy, de-humanizing term for their cargo. Contrary
to much popular belief, the word 'nigger' did NOT originate in the 
south, and to this day, is much more used in the north than the 
south. And the British used it to describe everything from the 
fuzzy-wuzzies of the Sudan, to the people of the Indian Penninsula, and the Chinese.
Most southerners call blacks 'nigrahs' (that is, when not 
being ereudite and politically correct and calling them African-
Americans, or Black Americans). The word 'nigrah' is not meant
to be purposely demeaning. It's just the word 'negro' with a strong
southern accent. d'yall uhnduhstand suh?

Regards

George Graves 




From gmgraves@aimnet.com Tue Aug 29 18:51:03 PDT 1995
Article: 724 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!aimnet.com!news2.aimnet.com!usenet
From: George Graves 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.skinheads,alt.revisionism,alt.discrimination,aus.flame,soc.culture.african.america,soc.culture.african,sci.archaeology,soc.culture.australian,soc.culture.egyptian
Subject: Re: What colour the Egyptians? (Reply to Egypt, Greece and India)
Date: 29 Aug 1995 22:35:18 GMT
Organization: Graves Associates
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <4204n6$7kr@news2.aimnet.com>
References: <41tpkk$1ov4@rover.ucs.ualberta.ca> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.247.5.28
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; 68K)
X-URL: news:cmck02-2908951633480001@uglm3.cs.auckland.ac.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:724 alt.politics.white-power:853 alt.skinheads:1641 alt.revisionism:5221 alt.discrimination:34779 soc.culture.african:32948 sci.archaeology:22700 soc.culture.australian:32615 soc.culture.egyptian:3137

cmck02@cs.auckland.ac.nz (McKinstry) wrote:
>> : Nigger simply means black in both spanish and latin, your point?
>> 
>> Wrong, 1950's-Webster-Dictionary-Boy. The latin is "niger," with one "g," 
>> and the pronunciation (certainly in ecclesiatical Latin and probably in 
>> classical Latin as well, though I would appreciate a classicist's 
>> opinion) would be different from that of your foul slur. As for Spanish: 
>> it's "negro," not "nigger."
>> 
>> And my point: that you're fabricating arguments, as usual.
>> 
>Oh I realize the transliteration from latin and spanish hasn't been
>strictly preserved.  As for spanish you'll have to argue that out with
>werle@aol.com who is one of your own.  You should note that the spanish
>has identical spelling to the latin for nigger (ie., niger.)
>
>Surely you noticed my apology over the dictionary business?
>
>> : Or so we are told (beneficial mutations), why don't we see them today? 
>> 
>> We do, Biology-Boy. What separates us from earlier forms of life is 
>> precisely these mutations.
>> 
>> 
>> : Why did they only happen in the past?  
>> 
>> Because large-scale mutations don't take place in the time it takes you 
>> to watch _Triumph des Willens_; they happen in the present, too, but not 
>> at a rate that will satisfy your attention span and/or intellectual grasp.
>>
>You obviously don't keep up with your religious creed.  The popular
>concept is quick changes, which makes more sense than gradual changes.  It
>should be reasonable obvious why if you done any serious work in
>genetics.     
>> 
>> : Or are these thoughts against your
>> : religious creed?
>> 
>> Religions tend to be the forces opposing the notion of evolution, 
>> Philosophy-Boy.
>> 
>I'm afraid evolution is a religious doctrine.  You have to have faith to
>believe in it, just like all the other religions.  Evolution even has its
>own priests.
>
>Cailean.

Well,I tried to stay out of this one, but flesh is weak.
the word "nigger" as applied to African blacks comes from the 
slave trade. and is an english degeneration of either the Spanish
word negre (accent grave over the first e) or the French word 
neger. It was adopted first by Dutch and later by British slave
traders as an easy, de-humanizing term for their cargo. Contrary
to much popular belief, the word 'nigger' did NOT originate in the 
south, and to this day, is much more used in the north than the 
south. And the British used it to describe everything from the 
fuzzy-wuzzies of the Sudan, to the people of the Indian Penninsula, and the Chinese.
Most southerners call blacks 'nigrahs' (that is, when not 
being ereudite and politically correct and calling them African-
Americans, or Black Americans). The word 'nigrah' is not meant
to be purposely demeaning. It's just the word 'negro' with a strong
southern accent. d'yall uhnduhstand suh?

Regards

George Graves 




From gmgraves@aimnet.com Tue Aug 29 18:51:49 PDT 1995
Article: 853 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!aimnet.com!news2.aimnet.com!usenet
From: George Graves 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.skinheads,alt.revisionism,alt.discrimination,aus.flame,soc.culture.african.america,soc.culture.african,sci.archaeology,soc.culture.australian,soc.culture.egyptian
Subject: Re: What colour the Egyptians? (Reply to Egypt, Greece and India)
Date: 29 Aug 1995 22:35:18 GMT
Organization: Graves Associates
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <4204n6$7kr@news2.aimnet.com>
References: <41tpkk$1ov4@rover.ucs.ualberta.ca> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.247.5.28
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; 68K)
X-URL: news:cmck02-2908951633480001@uglm3.cs.auckland.ac.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:724 alt.politics.white-power:853 alt.skinheads:1641 alt.revisionism:5221 alt.discrimination:34779 soc.culture.african:32948 sci.archaeology:22700 soc.culture.australian:32615 soc.culture.egyptian:3137

cmck02@cs.auckland.ac.nz (McKinstry) wrote:
>> : Nigger simply means black in both spanish and latin, your point?
>> 
>> Wrong, 1950's-Webster-Dictionary-Boy. The latin is "niger," with one "g," 
>> and the pronunciation (certainly in ecclesiatical Latin and probably in 
>> classical Latin as well, though I would appreciate a classicist's 
>> opinion) would be different from that of your foul slur. As for Spanish: 
>> it's "negro," not "nigger."
>> 
>> And my point: that you're fabricating arguments, as usual.
>> 
>Oh I realize the transliteration from latin and spanish hasn't been
>strictly preserved.  As for spanish you'll have to argue that out with
>werle@aol.com who is one of your own.  You should note that the spanish
>has identical spelling to the latin for nigger (ie., niger.)
>
>Surely you noticed my apology over the dictionary business?
>
>> : Or so we are told (beneficial mutations), why don't we see them today? 
>> 
>> We do, Biology-Boy. What separates us from earlier forms of life is 
>> precisely these mutations.
>> 
>> 
>> : Why did they only happen in the past?  
>> 
>> Because large-scale mutations don't take place in the time it takes you 
>> to watch _Triumph des Willens_; they happen in the present, too, but not 
>> at a rate that will satisfy your attention span and/or intellectual grasp.
>>
>You obviously don't keep up with your religious creed.  The popular
>concept is quick changes, which makes more sense than gradual changes.  It
>should be reasonable obvious why if you done any serious work in
>genetics.     
>> 
>> : Or are these thoughts against your
>> : religious creed?
>> 
>> Religions tend to be the forces opposing the notion of evolution, 
>> Philosophy-Boy.
>> 
>I'm afraid evolution is a religious doctrine.  You have to have faith to
>believe in it, just like all the other religions.  Evolution even has its
>own priests.
>
>Cailean.

Well,I tried to stay out of this one, but flesh is weak.
the word "nigger" as applied to African blacks comes from the 
slave trade. and is an english degeneration of either the Spanish
word negre (accent grave over the first e) or the French word 
neger. It was adopted first by Dutch and later by British slave
traders as an easy, de-humanizing term for their cargo. Contrary
to much popular belief, the word 'nigger' did NOT originate in the 
south, and to this day, is much more used in the north than the 
south. And the British used it to describe everything from the 
fuzzy-wuzzies of the Sudan, to the people of the Indian Penninsula, and the Chinese.
Most southerners call blacks 'nigrahs' (that is, when not 
being ereudite and politically correct and calling them African-
Americans, or Black Americans). The word 'nigrah' is not meant
to be purposely demeaning. It's just the word 'negro' with a strong
southern accent. d'yall uhnduhstand suh?

Regards

George Graves 




From gmgraves@aimnet.com Tue Aug 29 19:03:17 PDT 1995
Article: 1641 of alt.skinheads
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!aimnet.com!news2.aimnet.com!usenet
From: George Graves 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.skinheads,alt.revisionism,alt.discrimination,aus.flame,soc.culture.african.america,soc.culture.african,sci.archaeology,soc.culture.australian,soc.culture.egyptian
Subject: Re: What colour the Egyptians? (Reply to Egypt, Greece and India)
Date: 29 Aug 1995 22:35:18 GMT
Organization: Graves Associates
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <4204n6$7kr@news2.aimnet.com>
References: <41tpkk$1ov4@rover.ucs.ualberta.ca> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.247.5.28
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; 68K)
X-URL: news:cmck02-2908951633480001@uglm3.cs.auckland.ac.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:724 alt.politics.white-power:853 alt.skinheads:1641 alt.revisionism:5221 alt.discrimination:34779 soc.culture.african:32948 sci.archaeology:22700 soc.culture.australian:32615 soc.culture.egyptian:3137

cmck02@cs.auckland.ac.nz (McKinstry) wrote:
>> : Nigger simply means black in both spanish and latin, your point?
>> 
>> Wrong, 1950's-Webster-Dictionary-Boy. The latin is "niger," with one "g," 
>> and the pronunciation (certainly in ecclesiatical Latin and probably in 
>> classical Latin as well, though I would appreciate a classicist's 
>> opinion) would be different from that of your foul slur. As for Spanish: 
>> it's "negro," not "nigger."
>> 
>> And my point: that you're fabricating arguments, as usual.
>> 
>Oh I realize the transliteration from latin and spanish hasn't been
>strictly preserved.  As for spanish you'll have to argue that out with
>werle@aol.com who is one of your own.  You should note that the spanish
>has identical spelling to the latin for nigger (ie., niger.)
>
>Surely you noticed my apology over the dictionary business?
>
>> : Or so we are told (beneficial mutations), why don't we see them today? 
>> 
>> We do, Biology-Boy. What separates us from earlier forms of life is 
>> precisely these mutations.
>> 
>> 
>> : Why did they only happen in the past?  
>> 
>> Because large-scale mutations don't take place in the time it takes you 
>> to watch _Triumph des Willens_; they happen in the present, too, but not 
>> at a rate that will satisfy your attention span and/or intellectual grasp.
>>
>You obviously don't keep up with your religious creed.  The popular
>concept is quick changes, which makes more sense than gradual changes.  It
>should be reasonable obvious why if you done any serious work in
>genetics.     
>> 
>> : Or are these thoughts against your
>> : religious creed?
>> 
>> Religions tend to be the forces opposing the notion of evolution, 
>> Philosophy-Boy.
>> 
>I'm afraid evolution is a religious doctrine.  You have to have faith to
>believe in it, just like all the other religions.  Evolution even has its
>own priests.
>
>Cailean.

Well,I tried to stay out of this one, but flesh is weak.
the word "nigger" as applied to African blacks comes from the 
slave trade. and is an english degeneration of either the Spanish
word negre (accent grave over the first e) or the French word 
neger. It was adopted first by Dutch and later by British slave
traders as an easy, de-humanizing term for their cargo. Contrary
to much popular belief, the word 'nigger' did NOT originate in the 
south, and to this day, is much more used in the north than the 
south. And the British used it to describe everything from the 
fuzzy-wuzzies of the Sudan, to the people of the Indian Penninsula, and the Chinese.
Most southerners call blacks 'nigrahs' (that is, when not 
being ereudite and politically correct and calling them African-
Americans, or Black Americans). The word 'nigrah' is not meant
to be purposely demeaning. It's just the word 'negro' with a strong
southern accent. d'yall uhnduhstand suh?

Regards

George Graves 




From gmgraves@aimnet.com Thu Aug 31 11:58:34 PDT 1995
Article: 4276 of alt.conspiracy
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!aimnet.com!news2.aimnet.com!usenet
From: George Graves 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Did anyone see "Alien Autopsy" on Fox?
Date: 31 Aug 1995 06:20:04 GMT
Organization: Graves Associates
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <423kak$7h4@news2.aimnet.com>
References: <41u8g0$lqk@news2.aimnet.com> <421riu$t2v@treflan.shout.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.247.5.11
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; 68K)
X-URL: news:vanhorneDE4sCA.Awt@netcom.com

vanhorne@netcom.com (William E. VanHorne) wrote:
>No, I didn't see the bloody alien autopsy on Fox.  How can you people 
>take yourself seriously when you waste your time watching alien crapola
>on the Fox network when, at the very same time, The Learning Channel was
>broadcasting Henry Lincoln's expose of the REAL Conspiracy behind all
>the world's events: "The Secrets Of The Templars".  Sheesh.  How many
>of you are even AWARE of the HIDDEN sacred geometry of Languedoc?  You
>poor pathetic fools.  A.O.M.P.S. is right under your NOSE and you don't
>see them!  And the Cathars!  Geometry is the KEY!  Blue apples.
>
>---Bill VanHorne

Boy you sure take a lot upon yourself. First of all, I saw the "Secret of The Templars" at the later, West Coast feed time, so that I was
able to watch both. Secondly, If you did not see 'Alien Autopsy', why
are you railing against it? If this piece of film were real, wouldn't
you say that the fact that the Earth is being visited by intelligent
beings form another world is AT LEAST as important as the world
Templar conspiracy? Besides, conspiracy theorys are a dime a dozen, and a good case can be made for almost all of them.
As it turns out, the so-called 'Alien Autopsy' is a fairly well produced hoax, but what if it were real? Then who is it who would 
have been watching the wrong program? 

George Graves





From gmgraves@aimnet.com Thu Aug 31 11:58:35 PDT 1995
Article: 4283 of alt.conspiracy
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!aimnet.com!news2.aimnet.com!usenet
From: George Graves 
Newsgroups: alt.alien.research,alt.alien.visitors,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Roswell film opinion after seeing it
Date: 31 Aug 1995 06:34:02 GMT
Organization: Graves Associates
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <423l4q$7h4@news2.aimnet.com>
References: <420hfm$2pd@wally2.hti.net>   <422ltt$77j@sand.cis.ufl.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.247.5.11
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; 68K)
To: mssz@humidity.cis.ufl.edu
X-URL: news:422ltt$77j@sand.cis.ufl.edu
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.alien.research:4367 alt.alien.visitors:71515 alt.conspiracy:4283

mssz@humidity.cis.ufl.edu (Mark S. Schmalz) wrote:
>pjvm@euronet.nl (Pieter_J._van_Megchelen) said:
>
>"Suppose there would be alien creatures who look roughly like small human 
>beings with slight variations on our external body characteristics. Would it 
>be very plausible that their inner anatomy would so grossly differ from our 
>own? Here on earth, we have many different animals with grossly differing 
>outside features, but on the inside, we all look more or less the same. Any 
>opinions on this specific issue?"
>
>Pieter, there are a number of terrestrial animals that don't look like
>humans "on the inside".  Consider the lizards, including the large
>snakes, which do not have digestive systems that resemble our own.  As
>another example, consider marine animals, such as the octopus and
>shark.
>
>*If* the dissected object in the Santilli film was actually a humanoid
>alien (which I doubt), who's to say that the abdominal contents would
>be similar to our own?  One of the problems encountered in
>interpreting the UFO sighting and "alien visitor" phenomena is that,
>if such phenomena are physically realistic in the sense of
>measurability (i.e., can be projected to a metric space), then the
>ontologies, paradigms, and perspectives employed by such entities may
>not match our own.  Within the constraint of the aforementioned
>projections, we may perceive "alien" lifeforms differently than they
>occur physically, and that difference may not be isomorphic to the
>inconsistency with which we perceive our terrestrial environment.
>
>Within the scope of naturalistic humanism, such events would imply a
>dichotomy that would be difficult to bridge rigorously, since
>naturalistic humanism implies a projection of "mind" (whatever that
>is) onto "matter".  If that projection is not everywhere the same, and
>is not governed by the perceiver, then inconsistencies can arise.
>Since much of terrestrial science is derived under constraints of
>naturalistic humanism, it may not be accurate to assume that axioms,
>laws, theories, or postulates of science that hold (or appear to hold)
>here on Earth govern the behavior of "aliens" that live elsewhere.
>
>E-mail me if you want to discuss this further...
>
>Mark.	mssz@cis.ufl.edu

What you say is true. I.E. the very act of observing the phenominon
through human eyes, alters the phenominon.
But still, I question the wisdom that says that so-called space 
aliens would have any human characteristics at all. Why should they?
all life on earth is the result of countless instances of evolution 
taking a particular 'fork in the road' as opposed to taking another 
route. I have no doubt that if we could rewind earth history like a 
tape recorder back to creation and replay it, the results would be different. I am well aware that nature tends to solve similar 
problems in all organisms in a similar fashion, but still, we are the 
result of an infinite number of hapanstances, a change in any one 
of which would cause a different result. 
The chances that life on another world would have followed such a
similar path to that of earth, that the result would be a similar being
is, to me, stretching the laws of chance well beyond the breaking 
point.
This is one (and only one) reason why I discount this film and other
so-called close encounters which have resulted in the description
of creatures which look like this.
Any dialog on this subject would be welcome.

Regards
George Graves 

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