From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Feb  1 07:49:32 PST 1996
Article: 13006 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!skypoint.com!news3.mr.net!mr.net!chi-news.cic.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.net99.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Aryans came from central Asia
Date: 25 Jan 1996 01:13:16 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET 
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <4e6lfc$kbq@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <822341014snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host27.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:13006 alt.politics.white-power:17319

> Aryans came from central Asia.
>
> Have you seen the inhabitants of that area?

Those people are Turks. Aryans came from what is now Anatolia.

> They do not look like the white supremacist ideal of
> a blond-haired, blue-eyed person with light skin.

Idiot, read some history. The Celts only arrived in Europe about
2500 BC. Aryans split up into two major groups, one going West to
Europe and the other going South into Iran (meaning Aryan) and
India (becoming the upper 3 classes of Indian society today). Between
4000 B.C. and 2000 B.C., there were successive migrations of Aryans
into Europe (becoming the European people of today).


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                  http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889
                 We must secure the existence of our people
                     and a future for White children.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Feb  3 10:26:43 PST 1996
Article: 13077 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.coast.net!news.net99.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: A sense of history, not racism
Date: 1 Feb 1996 22:56:51 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET 
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <4ergfj$ia7@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <199601270054.QAA09078@infinity.c2.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host15.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)


> On January 26 at 4:47, Arthur LeBouthillier wrote that
>> "You NEED biological racism to justify your continuous hatred
>> of Whites!!!"
>
> It isn't a "continuous hatred of Whites." It is a continuous hatred
> of White hoods.
>
> It isn't a sense of racism, but of history.

O.K. Fine. How about this sense of history: if you continually deny
a people's nationhood, and seek to subvert it, they will react
violently. You still haven't learned that lesson.

Arthur LeBouthillier




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Feb  3 10:26:44 PST 1996
Article: 13079 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!news.physics.uiowa.edu!news.uiowa.edu!chi-news.cic.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.coast.net!news.net99.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Towards a Free White Nation
Date: 2 Feb 1996 13:22:25 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET 
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <4et36h$oj9@gate.cyberg8t.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host21.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)


                      Towards a Free White Nation
                       By Arthur E. LeBouthillier

	Realizing the need for our people’s renationalization after
the decades of U.S. Government’s attempts to denationalize us (or
renationalize us into something different), we Whites must set a
visionary course into the future. But which course? There are so
many different ways of thinking about what to do. Should we be
radical, should we be tame, should we be scientific or should we
be down-home simple? Despite the many questions that we encounter,
however, there is one sure way that provides great insight into what
we must do: we must build up our White national community while
weakening or eliminating the control of anti-White forces over us.
	Contrary to how the government and media portray it, a
community is more than the sum total of people who live in a given
territory. The media and others like to use a territorial definition
of community, but it is more proper to use a social definition of
community. A community is that body of people who are cooperatively
working towards common ideals of society and group solidarity; a
community may or may not be situated in a single territorial area.
Communities provide a number of socializing institutions to educate
their members and make them productive to their ends. About the only
thing that a community needs to function as a whole is for adequate
communication to occur between its members; that way, the members of
the community can be aware of common concerns, organize their work
towards the common ends, and if there is sufficient analysis and
learning, adapt to new situations. When communication is disrupted,
a community ceases to exist.
	The Federal government has realized that it is the community
and the social and moral support that it povides that gives strength
to people. That is why it seeks to integrate non-whites into our
community so that it becomes something other than a White
community; that is why the government seeks to control access to
public media from proud pro-Whites since no community can exist
without communication; that is why its agent-provocateurs work to
create a seige mentality in our White community so that it becomes
a confining bunker that people want to get away from rather than
the nourishing society that it should be; and that is why it
represents pro-Whites so negatively. In order to subject Whites to
its multi-racial empire, it must weaken pro-White forces and
integrate us into its multi-racial program. It therefore must seek
to resocialize us and destroy our community.
	Against this background, pro-Whites have often failed to
provide the nourishing community that most people need. When
non-Whites colonize our homeland, they create theaters, movies,
community centers and support groups that express their culture
to avoid the socializing institutions of their foreign host.
Looking for those same things among the pro-White community in
this country, it is obvious that they barely exist. Granted, some
small aspects of the White community exist, but for the most part,
the community lacks much of what is needed to maintain itself and
grow.
	Before people can be politicized, they must be socialized.
White activists in this country have sought to politicize everyone
while neglecting the background support society. In this way, they
have left it to opposing forces in the media, local government and
churches to provide the social support. These are the very
institutions by which any group socializes its members and pro-Whites
have left these to the opposing forces to control. There are few to
any pro-White private schools, daily newspapers, entertainment
venues or entertainment and educational videos. About the only
thing that exists are a number of politically-oriented groups with
bad attitudes. I don’t mean to imply that there aren’t groups with
positive features, but for the most part, they haven’t developed
the necessary social infrastructure to be worthy of leading a White
nation.
	 Before there can be a political movement, there has to
be a strong social basis for that politics. In any movement, only
a small percentage are directly involved in political activism;
the rest are supporters who provide a background society.  We will
be a free White nation when we think, act and work like one; no
shackles or chains will bind a community of people dedicated to
their own national existence.




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Mon Feb  5 09:59:30 PST 1996
Article: 22759 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.coast.net!news.net99.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Another Functional Illiterate for Truth, Justice and the American Way was: Re: Hypocrits! You Don't Live With the Blacks, Because You Are Liars
Date: 4 Feb 1996 15:35:59 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET 
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <4f2jov$eu8@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4ep6q5$9pq@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4eq955$rv7@pipe10.nyc.pipeline.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host20.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:17830 alt.politics.nationalism.white:13326 alt.discrimination:42496 alt.revisionism:22759

James W. White  whines:

> You are still a functional illiterate and unlikely to improve for
> the rest of your miserable life.  You were doomed by inferior
> genes which produced a very limited mind and stunted.


Again, looking at my Dictionary of Quick and Witty Retorts to Obviously
Retarded Statements, I came up with: POOP BUTT!!

It's obvious that you are rhetorically challenged. Why don't you get
an argument?!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Arthur LeBouthillier
                         pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                 http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889
                We must secure the existence of our people
                      and a future for White children.
------------------------------------------------------------------------





From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Mon Feb  5 10:17:51 PST 1996
Article: 13325 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.coast.net!news.net99.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.nationalism.black,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Louis Farrakhan in Libya?
Date: 4 Feb 1996 15:31:14 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET 
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <4f2jg2$eu8@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4ejmti$nck@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu>  <4els4f$4ls@anarchy.io.com> <4eo8up$jl9@anarchy.io.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host20.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.conspiracy:30043 alt.politics.nationalism.white:13325

Patrick Crumhorn  says:


> Au contraire.  The Post has always been known to be the unofficial
> house organ of the CIA, hardly an organization opposed to "everything
> Western, White, mainstream".  

Get real, nothing in this government supports "everything Western, White,
mainstream." I wish it did. The United States is not a racist government
anymore (I wish it were) and it definitely does not represent our
interests. Its organs, like the CIA, are as hostile to White interests
as anything that threatens government power.

> Read any good biography of former Editor Ben Bradleee (who began
> his "journalism" career writing disinformation propaganda for the
> OSS, predecessor agency of the CIA). Under Bradley and owner
> Katherine Graham, the Post has always made its pages available for
> deliberately planted CIA disinformation and false stories.

So? What's your point. If they do those things, it is to secure
government power, not "everything Western, White,
mainstream."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Arthur LeBouthillier
                         pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889
               We must secure the existence of our people
                     and a future for White children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Mon Feb  5 10:17:52 PST 1996
Article: 13327 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.coast.net!news.net99.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,soc.culture.nordic,alt.society.anarchy,alt.save.the.earth,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Ashamed of being white.
Date: 4 Feb 1996 15:50:32 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET 
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <4f2kk8$eu8@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4clusk$agl@merkurius.lu.se> <4cvk8k$4f7@axe.netdoor.com>  <4ekojh$mlt@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4eln4k$oav@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host20.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:13327 soc.culture.nordic:45287 alt.society.anarchy:23963 alt.save.the.earth:8796 alt.politics.radical-left:72996 alt.activism:26143

Laura Finsten  bemoans:

> Don't forget slavery, the near-slave labour of Chinese who built the
> western railroads (or at least in Canada, they did, and I believe
> this was also at least partly true in the western US).  And don't
> forget to mention that the nation-state was founded on land stolen
> from and or swindled from native North Americans.

Who gives a shit? I didn't have anything to do with that. It's too
bad for them that the advancement of our interests came at their
expense. It is good that our interests get advanced. Besides, don't
pretend you have any concern for the Indians. You can give all of
your property to them today and go back to Europe if you feel so
concerned for them....What are you waiting for? Are you just full
of hypocritical anti-White bull but you can't really do what your
crocodile tears imply you should: go back to Europe (or Palestine if
that's your heritage).

> This is an interesting 1990s expression of earlier US isolationist
> policies, like the Munroe (sp?) doctrine which endeavored to define
> US interests "broadly" to include anything that occurred within
> the entire western hemisphere.  The US right to self-determination,
> it seems, did not recognise Canada's right to self-determination,
> nor Mexico's, nor Nicarauga's....

Tough. I don't care about them. Good is that which serves the White
nation. End of statement.

> And what loss of territory would that be?

North America. The Indians didn't own North America (they didn't
even know it existed in toto) nor did they have any titles which
we recognize. Too bad. If we used their morality, we fairly and
squarely took it from them, as they were wont to do from each
other. In accordance with our legal system, we claimed it and we
owned it.

> So "white American" is an ethnic group?  Bound together by this
> revisionist and fallacious retelling of American history?

No, some White Americans are an ethnic group bound together by the
nation-state that they created to represent our interests (albeit
which has degenerated into an anti-White empire). But yes, we are
an ethnic group bound by culture and blood.


Get a clue. It's obvious that you are exactly what I said earlier,
an anti-White hatemonger with no arguments but blame. I didn't do
what you are claiming responsibility for me. I am not responsible
for what my ancestors may have done. I have no concern for the
non-Whites or their interests and neither do you. Your real agenda
is to destroy Whites whatever it takes, no matter what lies you
have to propagate to do that.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Arthur LeBouthillier
                           pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                   http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889
                  We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Feb  8 08:40:15 PST 1996
Article: 22996 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!van-bc!news.rmii.com!newsjunkie.ans.net!chi-news.cic.net!brutus.bright.net!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!noc.netcom.net!news4.noc.netcom.net!nntp.coast.net!news.net99.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,can.general,soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Lesson #1 about Race Issues: The Jew
Date: 8 Feb 1996 03:16:54 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 129
Message-ID: <4fbpv6$itj@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References:  <4eifet$ip4@rl0001.rulimburg.nl> <4esl01$776@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4etie2$t3j@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host37.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:13466 alt.revisionism:22996 can.general:68058 soc.culture.jewish:31194 soc.culture.usa:78134

Laura Finsten  says:

>>>People should start thinking of themselves as global citizens
>>>instead of thinking of themselves as citizens of one particular country.
>>>
>>Why?
>
> How about because earth is all we've got?  Because national boundaries
> are artificial and if we squabble over them too much, we could
> obliterate the only known habitable plant?

Artificial? Is that supposed to be a reason to get rid of them? Education
is artificial, and surely you don't recommend getting rid of that.
Borders are there for a reason. They are a statement to the world about
the existence of a social group. Not recognizing borders is not
recognizing the existence of social groups. Not recognizing borders
means not recognizing the interests of people in securing a plot of
property for themselves in order to satisfy their needs. Rights are
an artificial construct. Do you also recommend getting rid of them?

>> What is wrong with continuing nuclear testing?  Please give a logical
>> reason [insult edited out]
>
> The logical reason that comes immediately to my mind is that in the
> hands of someone like you, nuclear bombs could very likely result
> in the annihilation of humans and penguins.

Sorry, Laura, that's a pretty poor reason. An ad-hominem attack is
not a valid argument.

>>Would you care to state reasons for increasing violence?
>
> Poverty, growing gaps between the wealthy and the poor, fear,
> intolerance, racism, antisemitism, discrimination, ignorance, despair

Oh stop pretending that you're against all of those things. You
PROMOTE those things in your daily diatribes on this network. You're
the one who is constantly provoking hatred towards Whites. You're the
one who with your Marxist/socialist pie-in-the-sky utopian fantasies
seeks the elimination of all ethnic groups and nations.

How about, increasing violence is on the rise because people like
you refuse to recognize national and racial existence and seek to
impose conditions on millions of people for which they are strongly
opposed?

How about, violence is the natural order of man without a social
order and if you destroy the social order (as you are trying to
do to our society), then you increase the violence. The key issue
of course (and that is what we racists have been saying all along)
is that you and your kind are trying to impose a social order on
us that we find illegitimate and will not support. Because it is
through the violence that your kind supports (i.e. laws that violate
our association, contract and property rights) that we must organize
ourselves to eliminate the "New World Order" that you and your kind
are trying to impose on us. Violence is justified in order to
secure our national existence.

>> Would you please refrain from discriminating?  My belief is that
>> everybody has the right to discriminate, and you're being
>> discriminatory against that belief.
>
> Do you see a contradiction here?  I see a contradiction.  You have
> followed a complaint that your racist and antisemitic ideology is
> being discriminated against, by stating that you believe that
> "everybody has the right to discriminate".  Both of these things
> cannot be.  One logically and necessarily obviates the other.

To discriminate is to exercise a choice. To eliminate discrimination
is to eliminate choices for people. To say that everyone has the
right to discriminate is to say that people have the right to make
choices of their own. However, that does not imply that one must
like the choices that another makes.

You see, we racists believe that people have the right to
discriminate (to make choices) but that we are not obligated to
live with those people who make choices that we don't like.

>> I also look at reality and realize that nobody (except possibly
>> identical twins) are equal.  For example, I cannot sprint as fast
>> as say Carl Lewis, therefore to be equal, we should break some of
>> his leg bones at strategic points so that when they mend, his
>> sprinting ability is gone.
>
> You confuse "identical" with "equal".  The first is a state of being.
> The second is an evaluation, according to some standard. 

And what standards are you using to say that all people are equal?

Standards are artificial creations ( provided artificial or social
goals). "Equality" is based on an evaluation of your goals
or values. However, "equality" is a binary operator, requiring two
properties which are being compared. Now, you have stated that one
of the objects is a person and another is a standard (probably of
people). However, standards require goals and goals are arbitrary and
not objective. Therefore, standards are artificial constructs which
are not universal. It would be just as "logical" (a term which you
fling around with ease) for some to say that people are not equal
(because they have different standards) as well as to say that people
are equal (again because of different standards). Rest assured that we
don't have your standards. But, of course you knew this....you merely
wanted to obfuscate the issue in order to make outlandish statements.

> Objects, people, whatever, do not have to be identical in order to
> be equal. And with all due respect to Carl Lewis, I would suggest
> that in order for you to be Carl Lewis' equal, he would have to be
> transmogrified into a self-important, ignorant and offensive racist
> and antisemite who is, to borrow a phrase from Michael Stein, several
> french fries short of a happy meal.

Laura, I've seen this term "anti-Semite" come from your mouth very
often and I don't know what you mean by it. From an earlier statement,
one is led to believe that you are opposed to "artificial" constructs
and yet "Semitism" by which you probably mean "Jewishism" is an
artificial construct. Are you so hateful that you can accept artificial
constructs of some people (i.e. Jews) and not artificial constructs
of others (i.e. White)?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
                             Arthur LeBouthillier
                             pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                    http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889
                   We must secure the existence of our people
                         and a future for White children.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Fri Feb  9 05:36:52 PST 1996
Article: 13545 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!news.physics.uiowa.edu!news.uiowa.edu!chi-news.cic.net!brutus.bright.net!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: How Many Have Communists Murdered?
Date: 9 Feb 1996 00:17:27 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 300
Message-ID: <4fe3qo$2e9@gate.cyberg8t.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host13.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)

Although I disagree with the conclusion of this author (or better yet,
I'm not sure that I agree with him), I offer the following as something
to think about. I found this article at the Social Construction of
Reality site by Brad Cox.

                                                Arthur LeBouthillier
------------------------------------------------------------------------



How Many Have Communists Murdered?

R. J. Rummel
Professor of Political Science
University of Hawaii

Based on R.J.Rummel, Death By Government (New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1994)

        With the passing of communism into history as an
ideological alternative to democracy it is time to do some
accounting of its human costs.
Few would deny any longer that communism--Marxism-Leninism
and its variants--meant in practice bloody terrorism,
deadly purges, lethal gulags and forced labor, fatal
deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions
and show trials, and genocide. It is also widely known that
as a result millions of innocent people have been murdered
in cold blood. Yet there has been virtually no concentrated
statistical work on what this total might be.
        For about eight years I have been sifting through
thousands of sources trying to determine the extent of
democide (genocide and mass murder) in this century. As a
result of that effort I am able to give some conservative
figures on what is an unrivaled communist hecatomb, and to
compare this to overall world totals.
        First, however, I should clarify the term
democide. It means for governments what murder means for an
individual under municipal law. It is the premeditated
killing of a person in cold blood, or causing the death of
a person through reckless and wanton disregard for their
life. Thus, a government incarcerating people in a prison
under such deadly conditions that they die in a few years
is murder by the state--democide--as would parents letting
a child die from malnutrition and exposure be murder. So
would government forced labor that kills a person within
months or a couple of years be murder. So would government
created famines that then are ignored or knowingly
aggravated by government action be murder of those who
starve to death. And obviously, extrajudicial executions,
death by torture, government massacres, and all genocidal
killing be murder. However, judicial executions for crimes
the internationally would be considered capital offenses,
such as for murder or treason (as long as it is clear that
these are not fabricated for the purpose of executing the
accused, as in communist show trials), is not democide. Nor
is democide the killing of enemy soldiers in combat or of
armed rebels, nor of noncombatants as a result of military
action against military targets.
        With this understanding of democide, the following
lists all communist governments that have committed any
form of democide and gives their estimated total domestic
and foreign democide and its annual rate (the percent of a
government's domestic population murdered per year). It
also shows the total for communist guerrillas (including
quasi-governments, as of the Mao soviets in China prior to
the communist victory in 1949) and the world total for all
governments and guerrillas (including such
quasi-governments as of the White Armies during the Russian
civil war in 1917-1922).
        Each line in the list gives, in order, the
communist regime or group, years in existence up through
1987, amount of democide in thousands, and the annual rate
of democide in percent. The world total democide of all
regimes and groups, whether communist or not.

Afghanistan     1978-87 228             .157
Albania 1944-87 100             .118
Angola  1975-87 125             .302
Bulgaria        1944-87 222             .062
Cambodia        1975-79 2,035           8.161
Cambodia        1979-87 230             .398
China           1949-87 35,236  .120
Cuba            1959-87 73              .028
Czech.  1948-68 65              .024
Ethiopia        1974-87 725             .162
Germany,E.      1948-87 70              .011
Grenada 1983            0.106           NA
Hungary 1948-87 27              .007
Korea, North    1948-87 1,663           .250
Laos (PDR)      1975-87 56              .124
Mongolia        1926-87 100             .187
Mozambique      1975-87 198             .123
Nicaragua       1979-87 5               .020
Poland  1948-87 22              .002
Rumania 1948-87 435             .055
USSR            1917-87 61,911  .422
Vietnam 1945-87 1,670           .105
Yemen, S.       1967-87 1               .002
Yugoslavia      1944-87 1,072           .118

SUBTOTAL        1900-87 106,267 .477
GUERRILLAS      1900-87 4,019           NA
TOTAL   1900-87 110,286 .477
WORLD TOTAL     1900-87 169,199 .235

        Of course, even though systematically determined
and calculated, all these figures and their graph are only
rough approximations. Even were we to have total access to
all communist archives we still would not be able to
calculate precisely how many the communists murdered.
Consider that even in spite of the archival statistics and
detailed reports of survivors, the best experts still
disagree by over 40 percent on the total number  of Jews
killed by the Nazis. We cannot expect near this accuracy
for the victims of communism. We can, however, get a
probable order of magnitude and a relative approximation of
these deaths within a most likely range. And that is what
the figures in list are meant to be. Their apparent
precision is only due to the total for most communist
governments being the summation of dozens of subtotals (as
of forced labor deaths each year) and calculations (as in
extrapolating scholarly estimates of executions or
massacres).
        With this understood, the Soviet Union appears the
greatest megamurderer of all, apparently killing near
61,000,000 people. Stalin himself is responsible for almost
43,000,000 of these. Most of the deaths, perhaps around
39,000,000 are due to lethal forced labor in gulag and
transit thereto. Communist China up to 1987, but mainly
>from  1949 through the cultural revolution, which alone may
have seen over 1,000,000 murdered, is the second worst
megamurderer. Then there are the lesser megamurderers, such
as North Korea and Tito's Yugoslavia.
        Obviously the population that is available to kill
will make a big difference in the total democide, and thus
the annual percentage rate of democide is revealing. By
far, the most deadly of all communist countries and,
indeed, in this century by far, has been Cambodia under the
Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot and his crew likely killed some
2,000,000 Cambodians from April 1975 through December 1978
out of a population of around 7,000,000. This is an annual
rate of over 8 percent of the population murdered, or odds
of an average Cambodian surviving Pol Pot's rule of
slightly over just over 2 to 1.
        In sum the communist probably have murdered
something like 110,000,000, or near two-thirds of all those
killed by all governments, quasi-governments, and
guerrillas from 1900 to 1987. Of course, the world total
itself it shocking. It is several times the 38,000,000
battle-dead that have been killed in all this century's
international and domestic wars. Yet the probable number of
murders by the Soviet Union alone--one communist country--
well surpasses this cost of war. And those murders of
communist China almost equal it.
        I should note that communist forced labor was
particularly deadly, killing about 53,000,000 people. It
not only accounts for half the deaths under communism, but
is close to the world total of almost 59,000,000, which
also includes colonial forced labor deaths (as in German,
Portuguese, and Spanish colonies). Communists also
committed genocide, to be sure, killing almost 12,000,000
people because of their race, religion, or ethnicity, is
about a quarter of the world total . Communists are much
less disposed to massacre then were many other noncommunist
governments (such as the Japanese military during World War
II, or the Nationalist Chinese government from 1928 to
1949). Communists were much more discriminating in their
killing overall, even to the extent that in the Soviet
Union, communist China, and Vietnam, at least, they used a
quota system. Top officials would order local officials to
kill a certain number of "enemies of the people,"
"rightists", or "tyrants".
        How can we understand all this killing by
communists? It is the marriage of an absolutist ideology
with absolute power. Communists believed that they knew the
truth, absolutely. The believed that they knew through
Marxism what would bring about the greatest human welfare
and happiness. And they believed that power, the
dictatorship of the proletariat, must be used to tear down
the old feudal or capitalist order and rebuild society and
culture to realize this utopia. Nothing must stand in the
way of its achievement. Government--the Communist
Party--was thus above any law. All institutions, cultural
norms, traditions, and sentiments were expendable. And the
people were as though lumber and bricks, to be used in
building the new world.
        Constructing this utopia was seen as though a war
on poverty, exploitation, imperialism, and inequality. And
for the greater good, as in a real war, people are killed.
And thus this war for the communist utopia had its
necessary enemy casualties, the clergy, bourgeoisie,
capitalists, wreckers, counterrevolutionaries, rightists,
tyrants, rich, landlords, and noncombatants that
unfortunately got caught in the battle. In a war millions
may die, but the cause may be well justified, as in the
defeat of Hitler and an utterly racist Nazism. And to many
communists, the cause of a communist utopia was such as to
justify all the deaths. The irony of this is that communism
in practice, even after decades of total control, did not
improve the lot of the average person, but usually made
their living conditions worse than before the revolution.
It is not by chance that the greatest famines have occurred
within the Soviet Union (about 5,000,000 dead during
1921-23 and 7,000,000 during 1932-3) and communist China
(about 27,000,000 dead from 1959-61). In total almost
55,000,000 people died in various communist famines and
associated diseases, a little over 10,000,000 of them from
democidal famine. This is as though the total population of
Turkey, Iran, or Thailand had been completely wiped out.
And that something like 35,000,000 people fled communist
countries as refugees, as though the countries of Argentina
or Columbia had been totally emptied of all their people,
was an unparalleled vote against the utopian pretensions of
Marxism-Leninism.
        But communists could not be wrong. After all,
their knowledge was scientific, based on historical
materialism,  an understanding of the dialectical process
in nature and human society, and a materialist (and thus
realistic) view of nature. Marx has shown empirically where
society has been and why, and he and his interpreters
proved that it was destined for a communist end. No one
could prevent this, but only stand in the way and delay it
at the cost of more human miser y. Those who disagreed with
this world view and even with some of the proper
interpretations of Marx and Lenin were, without a scintilla
of doubt, wrong. After all, did not Marx or Lenin or Stalin
or Mao say that. . . . In other words, communism was like a
fanatical religion. It had its revealed text and chief
interpreters. It had its priests and their ritualistic
prose with all the answers. It had a heaven, and the proper
behavior to reach it. It had its appeal to faith. And it
had its crusade against nonbelievers.
        What made this secular religion so utterly lethal
was its seizure of all the state's instruments of force and
coercion and their immediate use to destroy or control all
independent sources of power, such as the church, the
professions, private businesses, schools, and, of course,
the family. The result is what we see in the above list.
        But communism does not stand alone in such mass
murder. We do have the example of Nazi Germany, which may
have itself murdered some 20,000,000 Jews, Poles,
Ukrainians, Russians, Yugoslavs, Frenchmen, and other
nationalities. Then there is the Nationalist government of
China under Chiang Kai-shek, which murdered near 10,000,000
Chinese from 1928 to 1949, and the Japanese militarists who
murdered almost 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians,
Indochinese, Koreans, Filipinos, and others during World
War II. And then we have the 1,000,000 or more Bengalis and
Hindus killed in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in 1971 by
the Pakistan military. Nor should we forget the mass
expulsion of ethnic Germans and German citizens from
Eastern Europe at the end of World War II, particularly by
the Polish government as it seized the German Eastern
Territories, killing perhaps over 1,000,000 of them. Nor
should we ignore the 1,000,000 plus deaths in Mexico from
1900 to 1920, many of these poor Indians and peasants being
killed by forced labor on barbaric haciendas. And one could
go on and on to detail various kinds of noncommunist
democide.
        But what connects them all is this. As a
government's power is more unrestrained, as its power
reaches into all the corners of culture and society, and as
it is less democratic, then the more likely it is to kill
its own citizens. There is more than a correlation here. As
totalitarian power increases, democide multiplies until it
curves sharply upward when totalitarianism is near
absolute. As a governing elite has the power to do whatever
it wants, whether to satisfy its most personal desires, to
pursue what it believes is right and true, it may do so
whatever the cost in lives. In this case power is the
necessary condition for mass murder. Once an elite have it,
other causes and conditions can operated to bring about the
immediate genocide, terrorism, massacres, or whatever
killing an elite feels is warranted.
        Finally, at the extreme of totalitarian power we
have the greatest extreme of democide. Communist
governments have almost without exception wielded the most
absolute power and their greatest killing (such as during
Stalin's reign or the height of Mao's power) has taken
place when they have been in their own history most
totalitarian. As most communist governments underwent
increasing liberalization and a loosening of centralized
power in the 1960s through the 1980s, the pace of killing
dropped off sharply.
        Communism has been the greatest social engineering
experiment we have ever seen. It failed utterly and in
doing so it killed over 100,000,000 men, women, and
children in cold blood, not to mention the near 30,000,000
of its subjects that died in its often aggressive wars and
the rebellions it provoked. But there is a larger lesson to
be learned from this horrendous sacrifice to one ideology.
That is that no one can be trusted with power. The more
power the center has to impose the beliefs of an
ideological or religious elite or impose the whims of a
dictator, the more likely human lives are to be sacrificed.
This is but one reason, but perhaps the most important one,
for fostering liberal democracy.




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Feb 10 08:49:09 PST 1996
Article: 13596 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!van-bc!uniserve!news1.ottawa.istar.net!fonorola!news.ottawa.istar.net!istar.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Helping White Nationalists (was: War Against Griswold )
Date: 9 Feb 1996 13:17:07 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <4ffhgl$83p@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References:  <4f8067$g73@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host20.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:18363 alt.politics.nationalism.white:13596 alt.discrimination:42718

> Isn't Bob Matthews dead?

No. The body that they found at Widbey Island has never been proven
to be his. Rumour has it that he fled to the Great White North.
Bob Matthews lives.


Sincerely yours,
Arthur LeBouthillier




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Fri Feb 16 12:17:33 PST 1996
Article: 13908 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!lade.news.pipex.net!pipex!news00.sunet.se!sunic!nntp.coast.net!news.net99.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Chinese racism in Richmond, BC....
Date: 15 Feb 1996 13:15:55 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <4fvbmc$6da@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4flh55$9ek@ionews.io.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host29.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:13908 alt.politics.white-power:18927

Mark Zajac,  asks:

> Why should Canada continue to support a dying language by continuing
> to support French as an official language?  If Canada wants to
> survive economically it should be making Mandarin the official
> second language of this country.  If you want to survive in the
> world economy, you should be speaking the most common languages
> which of course includes English, but not French.

Mr. Zajac, I'm sure that you realize that the reason that French is
a supported language has little to do with economics and more with
politics: the politics of empire. Since we French refuse to recognize
the legitimacy of a government that doesn't represent our people,
culture and interests, the Canadian gov't. has been forced to reconcile
us in order to maintain its power. It's that simple. Still, as events
are showing, it will have to continue to do so if it. However, I
agree with you on some aspects. The Chinese should continue to speak
Chinese, the French should speak French and, if you would like, you
may trade your language in for Mandarin. Ni Hoa ma?

Sincerely yours,
Arthur LeBouthillier




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Fri Feb 16 16:04:24 PST 1996
Article: 13911 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.kei.com!nntp.coast.net!news.net99.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.aol-sucks,alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.fuck.the.communications.decency.act,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.immigration,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.president.clinton,alt.society.conservatism,alt.usa-sucks,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: New Economic System
Date: 15 Feb 1996 13:25:36 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <4fvc8g$6da@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4fmoko$a08@cloner4.netcom.com> <4fqdjd$l4u@studium.student.umu.se>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host29.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.activism:29029 alt.aol-sucks:29753 alt.fan.bill-gates:17562 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:271845 alt.politics.clinton:206213 alt.politics.correct:81237 alt.politics.economics:39283 alt.politics.libertarian:139251 alt.politics.nationalism.white:13911 alt.politics.perot:34744 alt.politics.radical-left:74629 alt.politics.reform:51763 alt.politics.usa.misc:58654 alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich:39387 alt.politics.usa.republican:150183 alt.president.clinton:60192 alt.society.conservatism:31861 talk.politics.drugs:44540 talk.politics.guns:234145 talk.politics.libertarian:67258 talk.politics.misc:329315


> The structure of the capitalistic society implies that a rich man is
> a man of good morality.

A structure implies nothing. A moral "lesson" is infered by people
such as yourself. This is a false statement.

> But the common view of mankind is that people have the same human
> values.

The "common" dogma may state that but it is a false statement.

> This is why the capitalistic society corrupts and destroys all
> naturale instincts of morality.

I will agree with you here that capitalistic society is corrupt but
only because it corrupts a racial-based society.

> But since the capitalistic economy became the dominating force of
> so called progressing society, a minority of wealthy people managed
> to increase this same minorities value as human beeings.

Value is not an absolute, but is relative. If YOU think that they
hold more value, then YOU'RE the problem.

>  Therefore we must brake the evil bond of capitalism and reinstate
> the naturale view upon human values and create a society
> where possessions have no influence on moral values.

Here I would disagree with you since possessions (material goods)
must have some influence on the processes of its acquisition in order
to maintain feedback and efficiency.


>  This can only be achived in the fulfilment of Karl Marx`last
> pillar in the "COMMUNISTIC MANIFESTO" And this is as far as I
> can see the only salvation of humankind. 

First, whether "humankind" should "salvation" is a not a fact, but
a wish on your part. Second, how many millions will you kill to
impose your viewpoint on despite their wishes. I would disagree 
with you on this point since Marx's ideas are based on a combination
of false and bad premises.

> THIS IS A LOGICAL FACT, OR ISN'T IT?

If you think it is, you need to go back to learning logic. You have
yet to have established your premises as fact in order to prove
your conclusion.

Marxism is the opiate of the evil and stupid.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Arthur LeBouthillier
                          pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                  http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889
                 We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                



From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Feb 18 10:27:00 PST 1996
Article: 14012 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.nationalism.black,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Louis Farrakhan in Libya?
Date: 15 Feb 1996 23:03:19 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <4g0e3o$b0g@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4ejmti$nck@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu>  <4els4f$4ls@anarchy.io.com> <4eo8up$jl9@anarchy.io.com> <4f2jg2$eu8@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4foiiq$64q@delta.misha.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host07.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.conspiracy:32039 alt.politics.nationalism.white:14012

MSimon,  snidely asks:


> How can I be sure you are not a front man for some Jew bastard
> Mossad plot to round up all the true white people and put them
> in concentration camps?

ah my son, that is a difficult issue. How does one prove anything?
Well, I would suggest that one can judge a man by two factors:
his faith and his works. Since my faith (what I truly believe) is
beyond direct examination, you must judge me by my works. Rest
assured that I have no other highest ideal than the existence of
the White race as a distinct national entity.

> I know that the Jews often get people to gather all right minded
> people together and then burn them and their children (Waco).

You know this? How?

> And usually they buy off the leaders to sell out their followers.
> Pat Buchannan is a case in point. How could he get a TV show
> without the connivance of the Jew bastards? Why isn't someone
> asking the hard questions - like where does he get his money?

> Where do you get your money?

Money? What money? I'm a racist. I'm relatively poor. What makes
you think I have any money?

> M. Simon is a Master in The Ascended Bastard School of Yoga

Whatever.

> Our Aim is Money and Power

My aim is:

               We must secure the existence of our people
               and a future for White children.

Arthur LeBouthillier
http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Feb 18 10:27:01 PST 1996
Article: 14033 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!en.com!chesco.com!netaxs.com!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!usenet.seri.re.kr!news.dacom.co.kr!nntp.coast.net!news.net99.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: 28th question
Date: 6 Feb 1996 00:52:04 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <4f68nk$qnm@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <823438061snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host01.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:14033 alt.politics.white-power:19108

Caesar  asks:

> Why do white nationalists who want to send all blacks back to
> Africa, not want to move all whites back to Europe?

Your question is based on one false premise and one misconception.
First, not all White nationalists want to send all blacks back to
Africa. Many of us would be content with just creating our own new
country. Second, for those who do advocate such a thing, they do so
for clearly consistent reasons: they want what is best for Whites.

Arthur LeBouthillier




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Feb 18 10:27:02 PST 1996
Article: 14036 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Helping White Nationalists (was: War Against Griswold )
Date: 16 Feb 1996 13:12:29 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <4g1vru$gd1@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4ffhgl$83p@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4fj0a3$eq4@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host07.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:19111 alt.politics.nationalism.white:14036 alt.discrimination:43104

> Yeah, Arthur, and I suppose he lives up there with Santa Claus, right?
>
> They couldn't identify him because he was burned to a crisp.  His
> island was completely surrounded when it was firebombed. How do
> you supposed he escaped?  Underground?
> 
> Even YOU couldn't be that stupid.
>
> Wait a minute...

Fresh! Fresh? Is that you?.... You still aren't posting are you? I've
been waiting for that definition of Jewishness that would uniquely
distinguish Jews from non-Jews. You haven't come up with it yet? Are
you still avoiding that question?

Bob Matthews Lives!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Arthur LeBouthillier
                         pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889
               We must secure the existence of our people
                     and a future for White children.
------------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Feb 18 10:45:11 PST 1996
Article: 19111 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Helping White Nationalists (was: War Against Griswold )
Date: 16 Feb 1996 13:12:29 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <4g1vru$gd1@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4ffhgl$83p@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4fj0a3$eq4@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host07.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:19111 alt.politics.nationalism.white:14036 alt.discrimination:43104

> Yeah, Arthur, and I suppose he lives up there with Santa Claus, right?
>
> They couldn't identify him because he was burned to a crisp.  His
> island was completely surrounded when it was firebombed. How do
> you supposed he escaped?  Underground?
> 
> Even YOU couldn't be that stupid.
>
> Wait a minute...

Fresh! Fresh? Is that you?.... You still aren't posting are you? I've
been waiting for that definition of Jewishness that would uniquely
distinguish Jews from non-Jews. You haven't come up with it yet? Are
you still avoiding that question?

Bob Matthews Lives!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Arthur LeBouthillier
                         pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889
               We must secure the existence of our people
                     and a future for White children.
------------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Mon Feb 19 08:55:57 PST 1996
Article: 14095 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Positively Racist
Date: 18 Feb 1996 21:03:19 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 108
Message-ID: <4g846o$aa9@gate.cyberg8t.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host18.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)


                              Positively Racist

       "It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness."

     Ours is a noble goal: We must secure the existence of our people
and a future for White children. For all of the goodness this goal
represents, we are often unable to adequately communicate to our own
people the Cause for which we fight. We must recognize that our
Movement has been too negative for too long. This negativeness has
slowed down the positive work that must be accomplished and has
permitted many well-intentioned activists to be misled and misdirected.
If we are to learn and grow as individuals and as a nation, a new way
of examining our task is necessary. I propose a new viewpoint which I
call Positivism and Constructivism.
     If we are to attain our goal, we must recognize the manner in
which the negativeness has evidenced itself in our Movement. First
and foremost, there has been a constant siege mentality and attempt
to keep ourselves as a secret society. This siege mentality has
created the conditions where we often distrust and fight against our
fellow comrades and spend more time guarding what little we have from
our own Movement members than in actively promoting our goal together.
Because of this, I have watched one of our comrades after another
leave our Movement from frustration. I have also seen high quality
people not join our Movement because of the apparent negativeness
and disorganization; we have thus lost important new members because
of our own actions.
     We can lay some of the blame for this siege mentality on our
enemies. Causing in-group fighting has been an important tactic
used by our enemies against us. The FBI's Cointelpro program regularly
had agent provocateurs sow the seeds of mistrust and misdirection.
Even organizations like the ADL have used paid informants to sow the
negativity. Jewish military leader Shlomo Gazit outlined a program
of counter-insurgency depending primarily on sowing intergroup
mistrust, disaffection with leaders and misrepresenting the group
to its public. However, knowing that this is an important tactic
of our enemy, we must resolve to deny him these tactics.
     I offer a new viewpoint from which to evaluate our Movement
and our activities; I call it Positivism and Constructivism. Very
basically, Positivism is defining the positive goal you hope to
achieve and Constructivism means to do that work which will have
lasting effects. It offers a simple way to evaluate your own goals
and activity.
     Positivism can best be summed up as "Define the positive goal
you hope to achieve." This may seem like a simple idea (and it is)
but it is an important first step to accomplishing any goal. There
is one significant thing to know in accordance with Positivism: the
difference between a positive goal state and a negative goal state.
A positive goal refers to a goal state that you would like to
maintain or bring about to a greater degree. A negative goal refers
to a goal state that you would like to stop or bring about to a
lesser degree. Therefore, an example of a positive goal is to have
a White homeland; an example of a negative goal is to stop non-White
immigration. The importance of defining the positive goal that you
are working towards is that you can consider where to put your
efforts to get the best effect. You can put all of your efforts
into stopping negative states without ever attaining the positive
state that you hope to achieve because you are not allocating your
efforts in the most effective way. Considering things in accordance
with Positivism, you can plan better how to attain your goal.
     Constructivism can best be summed up as "Make your labor count
for something." It is possible to select goals which have little
effect on our eventual goal of having a sovereign homeland. You can
go out and get in a fight with a solitary Negro and get thrown in
jail for five or more years for the "hate crime," but what did you
accomplish? Our nation needs to build a number of institutions and
reach important milestones on the road to victory but instead, you
are wasting your time in jail for little or no benefit to our Cause.
Therefore, Constructivism entails selecting an important and
significant goal and working towards its attainment. But how do you
know what is important and significant? You must learn. Learning is
one of the most constructive things you can do in preparation for
work. By knowing beforehand what must be done and what to avoid,
you ensure the most efficient application of your efforts. Therefore,
by educating yourself and others, you ensure that you are the most
knowledgeable and skilled to attain the goals for our Movement. The
next most constructive thing you can do is engage more people in
the accomplishment of your task. By bringing new people into our
Movement and educating them to become productive in our Cause, you
bring more people to work on our goal while denying those people to
our enemy. Another constructive thing you can do is to lay a long-
term foundation to simplify the work of those who follow you or
create the conditions for others to accomplish their work better.
A good term for this is "building infrastructure."
     By examining our Movement positively and constructively, we can
bring a new vitality to it. We will deny our enemy the means to
destroy us from within by misdirecting us and turning us against
each other and we will deny them the opportunity to misrepresent
us to our own people. We will work efficiently toward the attainment
of our goal and we will lay the foundation for future Movement activity.
We will also make our Movement a more enjoyable place for our people
to come.



--------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Arthur LeBouthillier
                              pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                    http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889

                        Official Nizkor Surveillance:
             http://www.almanac.bc.ca/people/l/lebouthillier.arthur

                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Mon Feb 19 08:55:57 PST 1996
Article: 14096 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Affirmative Action: What's Changed?
Date: 18 Feb 1996 21:10:47 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 163
Message-ID: <4g84ko$ail@gate.cyberg8t.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host18.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)

Affirmative Action: What's Changed?

 
        Recently, three Supreme Court decisions and the California
UC Regent's board decision to end the use of racial preference
schemes have headlined the news. The way that the Left portrays
these events, one might think that we have reached the end of
affirmative action. One might also think that non-Whites' rights
and interests have been violated. The Los Angeles Times headlined
the story as "High Court Deals Severe Blow to Federal Affirmative
Action." Even the rightist Conservatives portrayed it as a significant
event. Pete Wilson, a Conservative Republican said "The country is
moving into a new era..." Despite the frenzy that both statist wings
seek to raise on this issue, these decisions were neither effective
nor conclusive. Though symbolic attempts to remain credible in
White's eyes, neither of these decisions means that the government
will protect or promote the interests of our White nation.

        In the first decision on racial issues, the Supreme Court
ruled in mid-June that government branches and lower courts must
use "strict scrutiny" in providing special racial privilege
programs; it didn't abolish Affirmative Action. The court said
that other government branches and courts may impose or support
Affirmative Action programs as long as there is, in the courts
own words, "compelling government interests."

        The case arose as a result of a lawsuit brought by a
White construction contractor who had been unfairly discriminated
against by the federal government's Affirmative Action programs.
In this particular case, the Federal government gives contractors
large sums of money to subcontract to "minority owned" businesses.
Because of this, the White contractor lost a bid even though his was
the lowest bid; he sued. After a lower court ruled against him, he
appealed to the Supreme Court, whereby it said that the lower court
must be more careful in examining whether his rights had been violated
or not. The Supreme Court sent the contractor's case back to the lower
court for review. The White contractor is still awaiting a decision.
        On the surface, this decision appears to be against affirmative
action. In reality, it sets a precedent confirming the principle of
governments using Affirmative Action. Although it does require that
governments be more careful in their application of it, however, if
the court deems that it serves a compelling interest, then the
Affirmative Action is acceptable. It is entirely possible that the
courts might decide that a broad array of cases meet compelling
government interests, especially with a liberal court. Because the
majority decision of the court stated that "all racial
classifications..." are "...inherently  suspect and presumptively
invalid," there will be many more lawsuits brought by Whites against
various governments as they question whether the discrimination
targeted at them served a compelling interest. However, this decision
was not the nail in the coffin of Affirmative Action. As the court
said, in response to "...the unhappy persistence of both the practice
and the lingering effects of racial discrimination against minority
groups in this country..." the "...government is not disqualified
>from  acting in response to it."
        In a second decision, the federal Supreme Court ruled against
a long-running school desegregation program in the Kansas City school
system. In this case, federal judge Russell Clark had ordered Kansas
City school districts to upgrade their schools to create better
conditions for the blacks there and force busing programs on the
White students. After $1.3 billion dollars were spent and there was
no appreciable improvement in black academic standards, the school
district was ordered to spend more money, an order which they appealed
to higher courts. The Supreme Court ruled that the broad orders
"...are beyond the District Court's remedial authority"  and that
low academic standards among black students is not sufficient reason
to force the expenditure of large sums of money to correct. The
court did nothing to say that these policies were inappropriate
or illegal, it merely decided that in this particular case the
district court had been egregiously wrong in applying them. This
decision didn't negate integrationist policies but merely reined-in
the power of lower courts to impose them. If it served any positive
purpose, it told district courts that there was a limit to their
jurisdiction and scope.
        In a third June decision on race, the Federal Supreme Court
ruled that the government could not use race as the sole basis for
creating voting districts to provide benefits and privileges to
minorities. In response to the ill-conceived Voting Rights Act of
1965, many states had gerrymandered voting districts to create
special mostly-black districts. In the case under review, a Georgia
electoral district was created which ensured a black congressman;
in order to do that, the district wound its way along thin regions
where mostly blacks lived to create an artificial black majority
within its convoluted borders. The sole reason for the shape of the
district was to create a black-majority district. The Federal Supreme
Court ruled that this action was illegal because it ruled that
governments cannot use race as the sole basis for creating a voting
district.
        In actuality, the court did not negate using race as a basis,
it merely said that it couldn't be the only factor for carving out
special voting districts. The court's decision stated that the
government must "cleanse" itself of using race as a basis for
decision-making. Although this decision is good as it applies
to creating non-White voting districts, it also makes it illegal
to create White voting districts, hence it hurts Whites as much as
it hurts non-Whites. Lastly, this decision confirms the U.S.
government's intent to distance itself from considering and
promoting White interests as it was created it to do. In its
majority opinion, the court stated that "Just as the state may not
segregate citizens on the basis of race it its public parks, buses,
golf courses, beaches and schools, it may not separate its citizens
into different voting districts on the basis of race." It now
pretends that it is the "government for all" when it is in fact
the "government for none."
        Finally, in the state of California, Governor Pete Wilson
motivated the University of California's Board of Regents to end
affirmative action in admissions and hiring. Although heralded as
a significant breakthrough, it is not all that significant of an
event. First, the change is ONLY at the UC colleges (which are for
the upper 10% of students) and not all state colleges. Therefore,
affirmative action programs will continue at most of the state's
institutions of higher learning. Second, it does not apply to
private colleges. In fact, private colleges have institutionalized
their affirmative action programs into special minority recruiting
departments. This means that there are still departments and people
in those departments who have a vested interest in perpetuating those
programs. An example of the attitudes of employees of those
departments is seen in the statements of  Ana Rafferty, the
Associate Dean of Admissions at Claremont McKenna college. She
said ""We work very, very hard to get a diverse [freshman] class."
She continues to say, "Very hard. Will the regents' decision change
anything? It's the status quo for us. If an application is from a
underrepresented minority...race is an important factor [in the
admissions process]. That will not change."
        In summary, most of the Supreme court decisions distanced
the U.S. government from representing White interests. In the first,
it confirmed its support for affirmative action. In the second, it
merely decided that only the upper courts and not the lower courts
could impose outrageous penalties. In the third, it confirmed that
it would not consider any race's interests. Finally, the University
of California Board of Regents made a symbolic concession to Whites
on the issue of affirmative action at its universities. None of these
decisions has any long-lasting benefits for the White nation. In fact,
one thing showed most evident: the federal government's lack of concern
for any race's interests. As one Supreme Court judge stated on the U.S.
government's intent to ignore its racial ethnic groups, "In the eyes
of government, we are just one race here. It is American." The future
for the White nation is questionable under a government intent on
ignoring our existence and neglecting our interests.



Copyright 1995, Vanguard
Vanguard
P.O. Box 86221
Los Angeles, CA. 90086-0221




--------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Arthur LeBouthillier
                              pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                    http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889

                        Official Nizkor Surveillance:
  http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/l/lebouthillier.arthur

                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Mon Feb 19 08:55:58 PST 1996
Article: 14097 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Towards a Free White Nation
Date: 19 Feb 1996 01:09:26 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <4g8ik7$c4u@gate.cyberg8t.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host40.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)

                      Towards a Free White Nation
                       By Arthur E. LeBouthillier

	Realizing the need for our people’s renationalization after
the decades of U.S. Government’s attempts to denationalize us (or
renationalize us into something different), we Whites must set a
visionary course into the future. But which course? There are so
many different ways of thinking about what to do. Should we be
radical, should we be tame, should we be scientific or should we
be down-home simple? Despite the many questions that we encounter,
however, there is one sure way that provides great insight into what
we must do: we must build up our White national community while
weakening or eliminating the control of anti-White forces over us.
	Contrary to how the government and media portray it, a
community is more than the sum total of people who live in a given
territory. The media and others like to use a territorial definition
of community, but it is more proper to use a social definition of
community. A community is that body of people who are cooperatively
working towards common ideals of society and group solidarity; a
community may or may not be situated in a single territorial area.
Communities provide a number of socializing institutions to educate
their members and make them productive to their ends. About the only
thing that a community needs to function as a whole is for adequate
communication to occur between its members; that way, the members of
the community can be aware of common concerns, organize their work
towards the common ends, and if there is sufficient analysis and
learning, adapt to new situations. When communication is disrupted,
a community ceases to exist.
	The Federal government has realized that it is the community
and the social and moral support that it povides that gives strength
to people. That is why it seeks to integrate non-whites into our
community so that it becomes something other than a White
community; that is why the government seeks to control access to
public media from proud pro-Whites since no community can exist
without communication; that is why its agent-provocateurs work to
create a seige mentality in our White community so that it becomes
a confining bunker that people want to get away from rather than
the nourishing society that it should be; and that is why it
represents pro-Whites so negatively. In order to subject Whites to
its multi-racial empire, it must weaken pro-White forces and
integrate us into its multi-racial program. It therefore must seek
to resocialize us and destroy our community.
	Against this background, pro-Whites have often failed to
provide the nourishing community that most people need. When
non-Whites colonize our homeland, they create theaters, movies,
community centers and support groups that express their culture
to avoid the socializing institutions of their foreign host.
Looking for those same things among the pro-White community in
this country, it is obvious that they barely exist. Granted, some
small aspects of the White community exist, but for the most part,
the community lacks much of what is needed to maintain itself and
grow.
	Before people can be politicized, they must be socialized.
White activists in this country have sought to politicize everyone
while neglecting the background support society. In this way, they
have left it to opposing forces in the media, local government and
churches to provide the social support. These are the very
institutions by which any group socializes its members and pro-Whites
have left these to the opposing forces to control. There are few to
any pro-White private schools, daily newspapers, entertainment
venues or entertainment and educational videos. About the only
thing that exists are a number of politically-oriented groups with
bad attitudes. I don’t mean to imply that there aren’t groups with
positive features, but for the most part, they haven’t developed
the necessary social infrastructure to be worthy of leading a White
nation.
	 Before there can be a political movement, there has to
be a strong social basis for that politics. In any movement, only
a small percentage are directly involved in political activism;
the rest are supporters who provide a background society.  We will
be a free White nation when we think, act and work like one; no
shackles or chains will bind a community of people dedicated to
their own national existence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Arthur LeBouthillier
                              pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                    http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889

                     Official Nizkor Surveillance Archive:
 http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/l/lebouthillier.arthur

                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Mon Feb 19 20:57:17 PST 1996
Article: 14121 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: More love mail from the anti-White hatemongers
Date: 20 Feb 1996 02:03:22 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <4gba5a$nv3@gate.cyberg8t.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host27.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)

From: adam3t@aol.com
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 20:54:07 -0500
Posted-Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 20:54:07 -0500
Reply-To: adam3t@aol.com (Adam 3T)
To: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Subject: Re: Positively Racist
X-Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
References: <4g846o$aa9@gate.cyberg8t.com>

LeBouthillier claims that Jewish authorities are involved in planting
informants and provocateurs to disrupt racist cells.  Mr LeB. thinks 
small.  Jewish plans for dealing with racist groups include the use of 
assassination and terror in the event that these groups become more than 
a nuisance.  I support such contingency plans.  After the sufferring 
inflicted on Jews in this and in centuries past, it is a foregone 
conclusion that any attempted rising by racist forces will be stopped by
force.  The very lives of people like Mr LeBouthillier are safe because
they are nothing more than a nuisance right now-----they have no real 
power.It just shows how out of touch the racists are with reality that 
they think that Jewry will just sit by helplessly in the face of a rising 
by the racists.  Let's just wait and see what happens to the racists if 
they become a threat. If you went to Little Italy in New York and started 
cracking jokes about the Mafia, it might not be altogether surprising if 
you wound up in the East River. If the racists had any real brains, they 
would realize that the Jews have their own Mafia, as it were, by another 
name, which will act (and has acted in the past) forcefully to protect 
Jews.  The racists thinks they are the only players in this game who are 
prepared to use violence to advance their interests. 

Adam





From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Tue Feb 20 17:00:31 PST 1996
Article: 24314 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,can.general,soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Lesson #1 about Race Issues: The Jew
Date: 20 Feb 1996 01:47:47 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 183
Message-ID: <4gb984$ns2@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References:  <4eifet$ip4@rl0001.rulimburg.nl> <4esl01$776@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4etie2$t3j@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4fbpv6$itj@gate.cyberg8t.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: host27.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:14137 alt.revisionism:24314 can.general:69832 soc.culture.jewish:33457 soc.culture.usa:78850

A = Some earlier poster
B = Laura Finsten
C = Arthur LeBouthillier
D = Elias Halldor Agustsson


A >>Why?
  >
B > How about because earth is all we've got? Because national boundaries
B > are artificial and if we squabble over them too much, we could
B > obliterate the only known habitable plant?
  >
C > Artificial? Is that supposed to be a reason to get rid of them? 
  >
D >Nothing of the sort was implied.

Elias, is your name Laura? No. So how do you know what she implied.
Let me help you read. She specifically said:

          1) How about because A?
	  2) Because B and C, D

	Where A = Earth is all we've got.
              B = national boundaries are artificial
  	      C = if we squabble over them too much
	      D = we could obliterate the only known habitable planet

	She said in statement 2 that because B _AND_ C, D.
        In other words, B _AND_ C imply D

	The issue of the artificiality of borders was one of the
        reasons she put forth.

A >> What is wrong with continuing nuclear testing?  Please give a 
A >> logicalreason [insult edited out]
  >
B > The logical reason that comes immediately to my mind is that in the
B > hands of someone like you, nuclear bombs could very likely result
B > in the annihilation of humans and penguins.
  >
C > Sorry, Laura, that's a pretty poor reason. An ad-hominem attack is
C > not a valid argument.
  >
D > The above statements contain no ad-hominem arguments.  On the other
D > hand, they do contain very valid argument against nuclear weapons: 
D > they are bound to fall into the hands of the wrong people one day
D > and then there is no turning back.

Any natural language conveys information in two ways: explicitly and
implicitly. She used an ad hominem implicitly. She said "...in the
hands of someone like you..." What's that mean? It is an implied
insult. Does "someone like you" mean "the most intelligent, rational
people?" Does "someone like you" mean "rocket scientists?" Grow up!

A >>Would you care to state reasons for increasing violence?
  >
B > Poverty, growing gaps between the wealthy and the poor, fear,
B > intolerance, racism, antisemitism, discrimination, ignorance, despair
  >
C > Oh stop pretending that you're against all of those things. You
C > PROMOTE those things in your daily diatribes on this network. You're
C > the one who is constantly provoking hatred towards Whites. You're
C > the one who with your Marxist/socialist pie-in-the-sky utopian
C > fantasies seeks the elimination of all ethnic groups and nations.
  >
D > How do you deduct that Ms Finsten has been promoting such things?
D > How is she promoting hatred towards "whites"?

Because she, like you, continually attacks the basis of White ethnicity.

B > How about, increasing violence is on the rise because people like
C > you refuse to recognize national and racial existence and seek to
C > impose conditions on millions of people for which they are strongly
C > opposed?
  >
D > This is a very bad excuse for ill breeding.

Ill breeding? What's that mean? Are you an eugenicist or are you
just trying to [childishly] insult me.

C > ... we must organize ourselves to eliminate the "New World Order"
C > that you and your kind are trying to impose on us. Violence is
C > justified in order to secure our national existence.
  >
D > Funny you should mention the imaginary "New World Order".  It is
D > quite obvious that such an order of things would benefit your
D > political affiliates the most, since it is inconceivable that
D > such an order would not result in greater relegation of power to
D > local authorities.

The "New World Order" is not imaginary; it was an official proposition
of a former president of the U.S.

Additionally, it is not "quite obvious" that such an order would
result in greater relegation of power to local authorities. I would
say that the opposite would be the end result.

C > To discriminate is to exercise a choice. To eliminate discrimination
C > is to eliminate choices for people. To say that everyone has the
C > right to discriminate is to say that people have the right to make
C > choices of their own. However, that does not imply that one must
C > like the choices that another makes.
  >
D > Sorry, but there are some things that should never be left to
D > personal choice, but to principle.  Ever heard of Justice?

Justice? What's that? If what you call justice is where Jews and
other non-Whites get to have ethnicity, but Whites don't, I fail
to recognize it as such. If justice means the destruction of my
race and nation, I'm against your conception of "justice."
 
C > You see, we racists believe that people have the right to
C > discriminate (to make choices) but that we are not obligated to
C > live with those people who make choices that we don't like.
  >
D > Then don't live with them.

I won't.

D > Move somplace else where you can excercise your whims at your
D > own peril.

Blah, blah, blah.

C > And what standards are you using to say that all people are equal?
  >
D > The first legal principle of all known civilized countries past
D > and present.
 
Prove this statement. First, prove your "imaginary" "first legal
principle." Then prove your imaginary "civilized" countries. Then
show some examples of such "civilized" countries and the fact that
they use your "imaginary" principle as their first legal principle.
You can't. As usual, you've confused flatulence with thought.

C > Rest assured that we don't have your standards. But, of course you
C > knew this....you merely wanted to obfuscate the issue in order to
C > make outlandish statements.
  >
D > Huh?  Who is obfuscating here?  Who is making outlandish statements?
D > You know, you are representing to us the state of things that
D > Hammurabi's legal reforms sought to eliminate and you have the nerve
D > to claim that anyone who does not agree with your ridiculously
D > atavistic worldview is "outlandish"?

If you had a point, I might address it. Since you don't, I won't.

D > Well, according to what I have read about the Jewish faith etc.,
D > "Jewishness" seems to be definable to a great extent.  "Whiteness"
D > is not by a far shot.

Again, is this part of your "justice?" Prove the existence of Jews.
Prove that their existence is other than delusions which you are
claiming that I suffer from. Jews may have their own nation-state
but Whites can't! Sure, sounds like justice to me.

D > So, to put things straight:  Mr LeBouthillier advocates a society
D > where a person's status before the law is determined by an
D > indefinable factor that only exists in the mind of the
D > decision-maker.  What an admirable concept of Justice!

You haven't put anything straight. You have failed to prove anything
of the sort. If you had any inkling of what I was talking about, you
wouldn't be saying such things. In fact, if you could think you
wouldn't be saying such things. Lastly, you hardly know what I
advocate since I haven't really been advocating much of anything
lately. Why don't you tell me what you THINK I'm advocating; then
I'll tell you what I'm really advocating.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Arthur LeBouthillier
                           pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                 http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889

                       Official Nizkor Surveillance:
  http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/l/lebouthillier.arthur

                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Tue Feb 20 17:04:57 PST 1996
Article: 14137 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,can.general,soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Lesson #1 about Race Issues: The Jew
Date: 20 Feb 1996 01:47:47 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 183
Message-ID: <4gb984$ns2@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References:  <4eifet$ip4@rl0001.rulimburg.nl> <4esl01$776@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4etie2$t3j@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4fbpv6$itj@gate.cyberg8t.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: host27.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:14137 alt.revisionism:24314 can.general:69832 soc.culture.jewish:33457 soc.culture.usa:78850

A = Some earlier poster
B = Laura Finsten
C = Arthur LeBouthillier
D = Elias Halldor Agustsson


A >>Why?
  >
B > How about because earth is all we've got? Because national boundaries
B > are artificial and if we squabble over them too much, we could
B > obliterate the only known habitable plant?
  >
C > Artificial? Is that supposed to be a reason to get rid of them? 
  >
D >Nothing of the sort was implied.

Elias, is your name Laura? No. So how do you know what she implied.
Let me help you read. She specifically said:

          1) How about because A?
	  2) Because B and C, D

	Where A = Earth is all we've got.
              B = national boundaries are artificial
  	      C = if we squabble over them too much
	      D = we could obliterate the only known habitable planet

	She said in statement 2 that because B _AND_ C, D.
        In other words, B _AND_ C imply D

	The issue of the artificiality of borders was one of the
        reasons she put forth.

A >> What is wrong with continuing nuclear testing?  Please give a 
A >> logicalreason [insult edited out]
  >
B > The logical reason that comes immediately to my mind is that in the
B > hands of someone like you, nuclear bombs could very likely result
B > in the annihilation of humans and penguins.
  >
C > Sorry, Laura, that's a pretty poor reason. An ad-hominem attack is
C > not a valid argument.
  >
D > The above statements contain no ad-hominem arguments.  On the other
D > hand, they do contain very valid argument against nuclear weapons: 
D > they are bound to fall into the hands of the wrong people one day
D > and then there is no turning back.

Any natural language conveys information in two ways: explicitly and
implicitly. She used an ad hominem implicitly. She said "...in the
hands of someone like you..." What's that mean? It is an implied
insult. Does "someone like you" mean "the most intelligent, rational
people?" Does "someone like you" mean "rocket scientists?" Grow up!

A >>Would you care to state reasons for increasing violence?
  >
B > Poverty, growing gaps between the wealthy and the poor, fear,
B > intolerance, racism, antisemitism, discrimination, ignorance, despair
  >
C > Oh stop pretending that you're against all of those things. You
C > PROMOTE those things in your daily diatribes on this network. You're
C > the one who is constantly provoking hatred towards Whites. You're
C > the one who with your Marxist/socialist pie-in-the-sky utopian
C > fantasies seeks the elimination of all ethnic groups and nations.
  >
D > How do you deduct that Ms Finsten has been promoting such things?
D > How is she promoting hatred towards "whites"?

Because she, like you, continually attacks the basis of White ethnicity.

B > How about, increasing violence is on the rise because people like
C > you refuse to recognize national and racial existence and seek to
C > impose conditions on millions of people for which they are strongly
C > opposed?
  >
D > This is a very bad excuse for ill breeding.

Ill breeding? What's that mean? Are you an eugenicist or are you
just trying to [childishly] insult me.

C > ... we must organize ourselves to eliminate the "New World Order"
C > that you and your kind are trying to impose on us. Violence is
C > justified in order to secure our national existence.
  >
D > Funny you should mention the imaginary "New World Order".  It is
D > quite obvious that such an order of things would benefit your
D > political affiliates the most, since it is inconceivable that
D > such an order would not result in greater relegation of power to
D > local authorities.

The "New World Order" is not imaginary; it was an official proposition
of a former president of the U.S.

Additionally, it is not "quite obvious" that such an order would
result in greater relegation of power to local authorities. I would
say that the opposite would be the end result.

C > To discriminate is to exercise a choice. To eliminate discrimination
C > is to eliminate choices for people. To say that everyone has the
C > right to discriminate is to say that people have the right to make
C > choices of their own. However, that does not imply that one must
C > like the choices that another makes.
  >
D > Sorry, but there are some things that should never be left to
D > personal choice, but to principle.  Ever heard of Justice?

Justice? What's that? If what you call justice is where Jews and
other non-Whites get to have ethnicity, but Whites don't, I fail
to recognize it as such. If justice means the destruction of my
race and nation, I'm against your conception of "justice."
 
C > You see, we racists believe that people have the right to
C > discriminate (to make choices) but that we are not obligated to
C > live with those people who make choices that we don't like.
  >
D > Then don't live with them.

I won't.

D > Move somplace else where you can excercise your whims at your
D > own peril.

Blah, blah, blah.

C > And what standards are you using to say that all people are equal?
  >
D > The first legal principle of all known civilized countries past
D > and present.
 
Prove this statement. First, prove your "imaginary" "first legal
principle." Then prove your imaginary "civilized" countries. Then
show some examples of such "civilized" countries and the fact that
they use your "imaginary" principle as their first legal principle.
You can't. As usual, you've confused flatulence with thought.

C > Rest assured that we don't have your standards. But, of course you
C > knew this....you merely wanted to obfuscate the issue in order to
C > make outlandish statements.
  >
D > Huh?  Who is obfuscating here?  Who is making outlandish statements?
D > You know, you are representing to us the state of things that
D > Hammurabi's legal reforms sought to eliminate and you have the nerve
D > to claim that anyone who does not agree with your ridiculously
D > atavistic worldview is "outlandish"?

If you had a point, I might address it. Since you don't, I won't.

D > Well, according to what I have read about the Jewish faith etc.,
D > "Jewishness" seems to be definable to a great extent.  "Whiteness"
D > is not by a far shot.

Again, is this part of your "justice?" Prove the existence of Jews.
Prove that their existence is other than delusions which you are
claiming that I suffer from. Jews may have their own nation-state
but Whites can't! Sure, sounds like justice to me.

D > So, to put things straight:  Mr LeBouthillier advocates a society
D > where a person's status before the law is determined by an
D > indefinable factor that only exists in the mind of the
D > decision-maker.  What an admirable concept of Justice!

You haven't put anything straight. You have failed to prove anything
of the sort. If you had any inkling of what I was talking about, you
wouldn't be saying such things. In fact, if you could think you
wouldn't be saying such things. Lastly, you hardly know what I
advocate since I haven't really been advocating much of anything
lately. Why don't you tell me what you THINK I'm advocating; then
I'll tell you what I'm really advocating.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Arthur LeBouthillier
                           pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                 http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889

                       Official Nizkor Surveillance:
  http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/l/lebouthillier.arthur

                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Tue Feb 20 17:51:33 PST 1996
Article: 33457 of soc.culture.jewish
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,can.general,soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Lesson #1 about Race Issues: The Jew
Date: 20 Feb 1996 01:47:47 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 183
Message-ID: <4gb984$ns2@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References:  <4eifet$ip4@rl0001.rulimburg.nl> <4esl01$776@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4etie2$t3j@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4fbpv6$itj@gate.cyberg8t.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: host27.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:14137 alt.revisionism:24314 can.general:69832 soc.culture.jewish:33457 soc.culture.usa:78850

A = Some earlier poster
B = Laura Finsten
C = Arthur LeBouthillier
D = Elias Halldor Agustsson


A >>Why?
  >
B > How about because earth is all we've got? Because national boundaries
B > are artificial and if we squabble over them too much, we could
B > obliterate the only known habitable plant?
  >
C > Artificial? Is that supposed to be a reason to get rid of them? 
  >
D >Nothing of the sort was implied.

Elias, is your name Laura? No. So how do you know what she implied.
Let me help you read. She specifically said:

          1) How about because A?
	  2) Because B and C, D

	Where A = Earth is all we've got.
              B = national boundaries are artificial
  	      C = if we squabble over them too much
	      D = we could obliterate the only known habitable planet

	She said in statement 2 that because B _AND_ C, D.
        In other words, B _AND_ C imply D

	The issue of the artificiality of borders was one of the
        reasons she put forth.

A >> What is wrong with continuing nuclear testing?  Please give a 
A >> logicalreason [insult edited out]
  >
B > The logical reason that comes immediately to my mind is that in the
B > hands of someone like you, nuclear bombs could very likely result
B > in the annihilation of humans and penguins.
  >
C > Sorry, Laura, that's a pretty poor reason. An ad-hominem attack is
C > not a valid argument.
  >
D > The above statements contain no ad-hominem arguments.  On the other
D > hand, they do contain very valid argument against nuclear weapons: 
D > they are bound to fall into the hands of the wrong people one day
D > and then there is no turning back.

Any natural language conveys information in two ways: explicitly and
implicitly. She used an ad hominem implicitly. She said "...in the
hands of someone like you..." What's that mean? It is an implied
insult. Does "someone like you" mean "the most intelligent, rational
people?" Does "someone like you" mean "rocket scientists?" Grow up!

A >>Would you care to state reasons for increasing violence?
  >
B > Poverty, growing gaps between the wealthy and the poor, fear,
B > intolerance, racism, antisemitism, discrimination, ignorance, despair
  >
C > Oh stop pretending that you're against all of those things. You
C > PROMOTE those things in your daily diatribes on this network. You're
C > the one who is constantly provoking hatred towards Whites. You're
C > the one who with your Marxist/socialist pie-in-the-sky utopian
C > fantasies seeks the elimination of all ethnic groups and nations.
  >
D > How do you deduct that Ms Finsten has been promoting such things?
D > How is she promoting hatred towards "whites"?

Because she, like you, continually attacks the basis of White ethnicity.

B > How about, increasing violence is on the rise because people like
C > you refuse to recognize national and racial existence and seek to
C > impose conditions on millions of people for which they are strongly
C > opposed?
  >
D > This is a very bad excuse for ill breeding.

Ill breeding? What's that mean? Are you an eugenicist or are you
just trying to [childishly] insult me.

C > ... we must organize ourselves to eliminate the "New World Order"
C > that you and your kind are trying to impose on us. Violence is
C > justified in order to secure our national existence.
  >
D > Funny you should mention the imaginary "New World Order".  It is
D > quite obvious that such an order of things would benefit your
D > political affiliates the most, since it is inconceivable that
D > such an order would not result in greater relegation of power to
D > local authorities.

The "New World Order" is not imaginary; it was an official proposition
of a former president of the U.S.

Additionally, it is not "quite obvious" that such an order would
result in greater relegation of power to local authorities. I would
say that the opposite would be the end result.

C > To discriminate is to exercise a choice. To eliminate discrimination
C > is to eliminate choices for people. To say that everyone has the
C > right to discriminate is to say that people have the right to make
C > choices of their own. However, that does not imply that one must
C > like the choices that another makes.
  >
D > Sorry, but there are some things that should never be left to
D > personal choice, but to principle.  Ever heard of Justice?

Justice? What's that? If what you call justice is where Jews and
other non-Whites get to have ethnicity, but Whites don't, I fail
to recognize it as such. If justice means the destruction of my
race and nation, I'm against your conception of "justice."
 
C > You see, we racists believe that people have the right to
C > discriminate (to make choices) but that we are not obligated to
C > live with those people who make choices that we don't like.
  >
D > Then don't live with them.

I won't.

D > Move somplace else where you can excercise your whims at your
D > own peril.

Blah, blah, blah.

C > And what standards are you using to say that all people are equal?
  >
D > The first legal principle of all known civilized countries past
D > and present.
 
Prove this statement. First, prove your "imaginary" "first legal
principle." Then prove your imaginary "civilized" countries. Then
show some examples of such "civilized" countries and the fact that
they use your "imaginary" principle as their first legal principle.
You can't. As usual, you've confused flatulence with thought.

C > Rest assured that we don't have your standards. But, of course you
C > knew this....you merely wanted to obfuscate the issue in order to
C > make outlandish statements.
  >
D > Huh?  Who is obfuscating here?  Who is making outlandish statements?
D > You know, you are representing to us the state of things that
D > Hammurabi's legal reforms sought to eliminate and you have the nerve
D > to claim that anyone who does not agree with your ridiculously
D > atavistic worldview is "outlandish"?

If you had a point, I might address it. Since you don't, I won't.

D > Well, according to what I have read about the Jewish faith etc.,
D > "Jewishness" seems to be definable to a great extent.  "Whiteness"
D > is not by a far shot.

Again, is this part of your "justice?" Prove the existence of Jews.
Prove that their existence is other than delusions which you are
claiming that I suffer from. Jews may have their own nation-state
but Whites can't! Sure, sounds like justice to me.

D > So, to put things straight:  Mr LeBouthillier advocates a society
D > where a person's status before the law is determined by an
D > indefinable factor that only exists in the mind of the
D > decision-maker.  What an admirable concept of Justice!

You haven't put anything straight. You have failed to prove anything
of the sort. If you had any inkling of what I was talking about, you
wouldn't be saying such things. In fact, if you could think you
wouldn't be saying such things. Lastly, you hardly know what I
advocate since I haven't really been advocating much of anything
lately. Why don't you tell me what you THINK I'm advocating; then
I'll tell you what I'm really advocating.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Arthur LeBouthillier
                           pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                 http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889

                       Official Nizkor Surveillance:
  http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/l/lebouthillier.arthur

                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Wed Feb 21 11:20:54 PST 1996
Article: 69832 of can.general
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,can.general,soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Lesson #1 about Race Issues: The Jew
Date: 20 Feb 1996 01:47:47 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 183
Message-ID: <4gb984$ns2@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References:  <4eifet$ip4@rl0001.rulimburg.nl> <4esl01$776@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4etie2$t3j@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4fbpv6$itj@gate.cyberg8t.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: host27.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:14137 alt.revisionism:24314 can.general:69832 soc.culture.jewish:33457 soc.culture.usa:78850

A = Some earlier poster
B = Laura Finsten
C = Arthur LeBouthillier
D = Elias Halldor Agustsson


A >>Why?
  >
B > How about because earth is all we've got? Because national boundaries
B > are artificial and if we squabble over them too much, we could
B > obliterate the only known habitable plant?
  >
C > Artificial? Is that supposed to be a reason to get rid of them? 
  >
D >Nothing of the sort was implied.

Elias, is your name Laura? No. So how do you know what she implied.
Let me help you read. She specifically said:

          1) How about because A?
	  2) Because B and C, D

	Where A = Earth is all we've got.
              B = national boundaries are artificial
  	      C = if we squabble over them too much
	      D = we could obliterate the only known habitable planet

	She said in statement 2 that because B _AND_ C, D.
        In other words, B _AND_ C imply D

	The issue of the artificiality of borders was one of the
        reasons she put forth.

A >> What is wrong with continuing nuclear testing?  Please give a 
A >> logicalreason [insult edited out]
  >
B > The logical reason that comes immediately to my mind is that in the
B > hands of someone like you, nuclear bombs could very likely result
B > in the annihilation of humans and penguins.
  >
C > Sorry, Laura, that's a pretty poor reason. An ad-hominem attack is
C > not a valid argument.
  >
D > The above statements contain no ad-hominem arguments.  On the other
D > hand, they do contain very valid argument against nuclear weapons: 
D > they are bound to fall into the hands of the wrong people one day
D > and then there is no turning back.

Any natural language conveys information in two ways: explicitly and
implicitly. She used an ad hominem implicitly. She said "...in the
hands of someone like you..." What's that mean? It is an implied
insult. Does "someone like you" mean "the most intelligent, rational
people?" Does "someone like you" mean "rocket scientists?" Grow up!

A >>Would you care to state reasons for increasing violence?
  >
B > Poverty, growing gaps between the wealthy and the poor, fear,
B > intolerance, racism, antisemitism, discrimination, ignorance, despair
  >
C > Oh stop pretending that you're against all of those things. You
C > PROMOTE those things in your daily diatribes on this network. You're
C > the one who is constantly provoking hatred towards Whites. You're
C > the one who with your Marxist/socialist pie-in-the-sky utopian
C > fantasies seeks the elimination of all ethnic groups and nations.
  >
D > How do you deduct that Ms Finsten has been promoting such things?
D > How is she promoting hatred towards "whites"?

Because she, like you, continually attacks the basis of White ethnicity.

B > How about, increasing violence is on the rise because people like
C > you refuse to recognize national and racial existence and seek to
C > impose conditions on millions of people for which they are strongly
C > opposed?
  >
D > This is a very bad excuse for ill breeding.

Ill breeding? What's that mean? Are you an eugenicist or are you
just trying to [childishly] insult me.

C > ... we must organize ourselves to eliminate the "New World Order"
C > that you and your kind are trying to impose on us. Violence is
C > justified in order to secure our national existence.
  >
D > Funny you should mention the imaginary "New World Order".  It is
D > quite obvious that such an order of things would benefit your
D > political affiliates the most, since it is inconceivable that
D > such an order would not result in greater relegation of power to
D > local authorities.

The "New World Order" is not imaginary; it was an official proposition
of a former president of the U.S.

Additionally, it is not "quite obvious" that such an order would
result in greater relegation of power to local authorities. I would
say that the opposite would be the end result.

C > To discriminate is to exercise a choice. To eliminate discrimination
C > is to eliminate choices for people. To say that everyone has the
C > right to discriminate is to say that people have the right to make
C > choices of their own. However, that does not imply that one must
C > like the choices that another makes.
  >
D > Sorry, but there are some things that should never be left to
D > personal choice, but to principle.  Ever heard of Justice?

Justice? What's that? If what you call justice is where Jews and
other non-Whites get to have ethnicity, but Whites don't, I fail
to recognize it as such. If justice means the destruction of my
race and nation, I'm against your conception of "justice."
 
C > You see, we racists believe that people have the right to
C > discriminate (to make choices) but that we are not obligated to
C > live with those people who make choices that we don't like.
  >
D > Then don't live with them.

I won't.

D > Move somplace else where you can excercise your whims at your
D > own peril.

Blah, blah, blah.

C > And what standards are you using to say that all people are equal?
  >
D > The first legal principle of all known civilized countries past
D > and present.
 
Prove this statement. First, prove your "imaginary" "first legal
principle." Then prove your imaginary "civilized" countries. Then
show some examples of such "civilized" countries and the fact that
they use your "imaginary" principle as their first legal principle.
You can't. As usual, you've confused flatulence with thought.

C > Rest assured that we don't have your standards. But, of course you
C > knew this....you merely wanted to obfuscate the issue in order to
C > make outlandish statements.
  >
D > Huh?  Who is obfuscating here?  Who is making outlandish statements?
D > You know, you are representing to us the state of things that
D > Hammurabi's legal reforms sought to eliminate and you have the nerve
D > to claim that anyone who does not agree with your ridiculously
D > atavistic worldview is "outlandish"?

If you had a point, I might address it. Since you don't, I won't.

D > Well, according to what I have read about the Jewish faith etc.,
D > "Jewishness" seems to be definable to a great extent.  "Whiteness"
D > is not by a far shot.

Again, is this part of your "justice?" Prove the existence of Jews.
Prove that their existence is other than delusions which you are
claiming that I suffer from. Jews may have their own nation-state
but Whites can't! Sure, sounds like justice to me.

D > So, to put things straight:  Mr LeBouthillier advocates a society
D > where a person's status before the law is determined by an
D > indefinable factor that only exists in the mind of the
D > decision-maker.  What an admirable concept of Justice!

You haven't put anything straight. You have failed to prove anything
of the sort. If you had any inkling of what I was talking about, you
wouldn't be saying such things. In fact, if you could think you
wouldn't be saying such things. Lastly, you hardly know what I
advocate since I haven't really been advocating much of anything
lately. Why don't you tell me what you THINK I'm advocating; then
I'll tell you what I'm really advocating.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Arthur LeBouthillier
                           pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                 http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889

                       Official Nizkor Surveillance:
  http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/l/lebouthillier.arthur

                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Wed Feb 21 19:33:00 PST 1996
Article: 24475 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!skypoint.com!umn.edu!spool.mu.edu!pravda.aa.msen.com!news.eecs.umich.edu!caen!hookup!cunews!nott!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,can.general,soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Lesson #1 about Race Issues: The Jew
Date: 21 Feb 1996 13:19:35 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <4gf657$3cv@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References:  <4g9522$jvk@grivel.une.edu.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host01.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:14191 alt.revisionism:24475 can.general:70039 soc.culture.jewish:33761 soc.culture.usa:78952


Subject: Re: Lesson #1 about Race Issues: The Jew
From: Elias Halldor Agustsson, eha@itn.is
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 03:48:54 +0000
In article  Elias Halldor
Agustsson, eha@itn.is writes:
>
>First: on the time-scale of recorded history, the idea of "Nation" is
>brand new.  Second: if you had ever read any history you'd realize that
>racism is also a very recent phenomenon.

First,: on the time-scale of recorded history, the idea of "nation"
isn't brand new. It has existed as long as there have been humans.
Of course the word "nation" hasn't been used but similar ideas
of "tribe," "people," or other such in-group ideas have always
existed. The idea of "NATION-STATE and the idea that the nation
legitimizes the state is a recent phenomenon, being like someone
else stated, a product of the enlightenment. The new idea delegitimized
the empire and the devine right of Kings and stated that the State
must serve the nation.

Second: perhaps you should look at Zoroastrian and proto-Zoroastrian
religion. Race is integrated into that religion. Early Celtic religions
also unified race and religion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Arthur LeBouthillier
                              pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                    http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889

                        Official Nizkor Surveillance:
  http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/l/lebouthillier.arthur

                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Wed Feb 21 20:14:50 PST 1996
Article: 14200 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!helix.net!unixg.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.uoregon.edu!news-feed.iguide.com!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: white trash, who built this country???
Date: 21 Feb 1996 01:37:52 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <4gdt1g$23h@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4fj0qc$f0i@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4fqj97$49c@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host30.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:14200 alt.skinheads:12612


> Wasn't the point of this country being founded so that oppressed
> people from all over the world could escape persecution?

Huh? Where'd you get that from? Thomas Jefferson envisioned that the
country was for Europeans who were fed up with the misrule of Europe.
He said that only Whites might become citizens in the Immigraiton
and Naturalization Act of 1790. The Supreme Court upheld those ideas
in the Dredd Scot decision. Wherever you got that garbage, take it
back; it is all lies.


> I don't like the idea of illegal aliens coming into the country
> and getting anything from the state.  Not because of their skin
> but because they are not paying taxes but they are using tax money.

Of course I don't like illegal aliens for their economic impact as
well as other reasons. However, I am strongly opposed to non-White
immigration, not because of their skin color, but because they're
not White!

> So I guess it's also your right as an american to think the way
> you do but it kind of goes against the whole reason of this
> country's existance.

Why don't you learn something ABOUT the founding of the country
before you spout half-truths and misconceptions!

>  So maybe all the nazi traitors should leave if it's so horrible.
>  BEN

Blah, blah, blah!

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Arthur LeBouthillier
                              pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                    http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889

                        Official Nizkor Surveillance:
  http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/l/lebouthillier.arthur

                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Wed Feb 21 20:14:51 PST 1996
Article: 14201 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!helix.net!unixg.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.uoregon.edu!news-feed.iguide.com!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Pat Buchanan
Date: 21 Feb 1996 03:21:35 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <4ge33v$26t@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4gajdm$c4o_003@ind-010-237-152.iquest.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host09.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)

>  Is Buchanan a moderator for this group?
> Gary

No, he's too liberal and too much of a system stooge.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                  http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889

                     Official Nizkor Surveillance Archive:
  http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/l/lebouthillier.arthur

                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Wed Feb 21 20:37:05 PST 1996
Article: 12612 of alt.skinheads
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!helix.net!unixg.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.uoregon.edu!news-feed.iguide.com!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: white trash, who built this country???
Date: 21 Feb 1996 01:37:52 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <4gdt1g$23h@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4fj0qc$f0i@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4fqj97$49c@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host30.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:14200 alt.skinheads:12612


> Wasn't the point of this country being founded so that oppressed
> people from all over the world could escape persecution?

Huh? Where'd you get that from? Thomas Jefferson envisioned that the
country was for Europeans who were fed up with the misrule of Europe.
He said that only Whites might become citizens in the Immigraiton
and Naturalization Act of 1790. The Supreme Court upheld those ideas
in the Dredd Scot decision. Wherever you got that garbage, take it
back; it is all lies.


> I don't like the idea of illegal aliens coming into the country
> and getting anything from the state.  Not because of their skin
> but because they are not paying taxes but they are using tax money.

Of course I don't like illegal aliens for their economic impact as
well as other reasons. However, I am strongly opposed to non-White
immigration, not because of their skin color, but because they're
not White!

> So I guess it's also your right as an american to think the way
> you do but it kind of goes against the whole reason of this
> country's existance.

Why don't you learn something ABOUT the founding of the country
before you spout half-truths and misconceptions!

>  So maybe all the nazi traitors should leave if it's so horrible.
>  BEN

Blah, blah, blah!

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Arthur LeBouthillier
                              pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                    http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889

                        Official Nizkor Surveillance:
  http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/l/lebouthillier.arthur

                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Feb 22 13:12:03 PST 1996
Article: 14205 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: 28th question
Date: 22 Feb 1996 04:59:56 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <4ggt8c$b6j@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <823438061snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4f68nk$qnm@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4g7rgp$e1v@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host50.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:14205 alt.politics.white-power:19469

Ken McVay,  asks:

> In article <4f68nk$qnm@gate.cyberg8t.com>,
> Arthur LeBouthillier  wrote:
>
>>Caesar  asks:
>
>>> Why do white nationalists who want to send all blacks back to
>>> Africa, not want to move all whites back to Europe?
>
>>Your question is based on one false premise and one misconception.
>>First, not all White nationalists want to send all blacks back to
>>Africa. Many of us would be content with just creating our own new
>>country. Second, for those who do advocate such a thing, they do so
>>for clearly consistent reasons: they want what is best for Whites.
>
> How, then, do we explain the statement made by one Gerhard
> Lauck, on national (CBS, "Hitler and Stalin, Legacy of Hate")
> television, that he (his government, should he ever form one)
> would either (1) deport non-whites, or (2) put them in
> concentration camps, or (3) exterminate them?

First, I don't think that Mr. Lauck is a White nationalist. I think
he is a National Socialist. I don't think that the two are necessarily
synonymous. White Nationalism has at least two meanings, one in a
general way, that refers to all who see Whites forming a nation of
sorts and in a particular way, those who apply the principles of
orthodox nationalist principles to White survival. I suppose in a
general way, Mr. Lauck might be considered as a nationalist, but I
even have my doubts about that.

Second, Mr. Lauck is an individual and does not speak for White
nationalists in general. Though he may represent the NSDAP-AO because
he is a leader of that organization, he is neither affiliated with
me or my organization or with a host of others. Mr. Lauck does not
speak for all of us any more than you speak for the Simon Weizenthal
Centre; he does not speak for me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Arthur LeBouthillier
                           pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                 http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889

                        Official Nizkor Surveillance:
  http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/l/lebouthillier.arthur

                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Feb 22 13:39:12 PST 1996
Article: 19469 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: 28th question
Date: 22 Feb 1996 04:59:56 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <4ggt8c$b6j@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <823438061snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4f68nk$qnm@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4g7rgp$e1v@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host50.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:14205 alt.politics.white-power:19469

Ken McVay,  asks:

> In article <4f68nk$qnm@gate.cyberg8t.com>,
> Arthur LeBouthillier  wrote:
>
>>Caesar  asks:
>
>>> Why do white nationalists who want to send all blacks back to
>>> Africa, not want to move all whites back to Europe?
>
>>Your question is based on one false premise and one misconception.
>>First, not all White nationalists want to send all blacks back to
>>Africa. Many of us would be content with just creating our own new
>>country. Second, for those who do advocate such a thing, they do so
>>for clearly consistent reasons: they want what is best for Whites.
>
> How, then, do we explain the statement made by one Gerhard
> Lauck, on national (CBS, "Hitler and Stalin, Legacy of Hate")
> television, that he (his government, should he ever form one)
> would either (1) deport non-whites, or (2) put them in
> concentration camps, or (3) exterminate them?

First, I don't think that Mr. Lauck is a White nationalist. I think
he is a National Socialist. I don't think that the two are necessarily
synonymous. White Nationalism has at least two meanings, one in a
general way, that refers to all who see Whites forming a nation of
sorts and in a particular way, those who apply the principles of
orthodox nationalist principles to White survival. I suppose in a
general way, Mr. Lauck might be considered as a nationalist, but I
even have my doubts about that.

Second, Mr. Lauck is an individual and does not speak for White
nationalists in general. Though he may represent the NSDAP-AO because
he is a leader of that organization, he is neither affiliated with
me or my organization or with a host of others. Mr. Lauck does not
speak for all of us any more than you speak for the Simon Weizenthal
Centre; he does not speak for me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Arthur LeBouthillier
                           pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                 http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889

                        Official Nizkor Surveillance:
  http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/l/lebouthillier.arthur

                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Fri Feb 23 18:25:56 PST 1996
Article: 34207 of soc.culture.jewish
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,can.general,soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Lesson #1 about Race Issues: The Jew
Date: 24 Feb 1996 00:56:28 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 114
Message-ID: <4glnnt$4vi@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References:  <4eifet$ip4@rl0001.rulimburg.nl> <4esl01$776@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4etie2$t3j@infor <4f54m9$14h@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4fco4r$me@newsource.ihug.co.nz> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: host59.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:14347 alt.revisionism:24774 can.general:70375 soc.culture.jewish:34207 soc.culture.usa:79144

Elias Halldor Agustsson,  while talking to Ouroboros said:

> First: on the time-scale of recorded history, the idea of "Nation"
> is brand new.  

First: this is a false statement. The MODERN notion of nation, as
a body of people which legitimizes a political order is new.  In
_On_Nationality_ by David Miller, Copyright 1995 by Oxford
University Press, he provides an understanding of the modern
definition of nationality, that it is a community:

	1) constituted by shared belief and mutual commitment
	2) extended in history
	3) active in character
	4) connected to a particular territory
	5) marked off from other communities by a distinct
	   public culture.

After putting forth that definition, he says:
	
        We are no better placed to see in what sense nationality
     is a modern idea. Three of its constituent elements can
     readily be discovered in pre-modern cultures, for instance
     in Greek and Roman periods: the idea that peoples are marked
     off from one another by distinct characteristics, so that
     a line can be drawn between compatriots and foreigners (i.e.
     Greeks and Barbarians); the idea that each people has its own
     homeland, for which they should rightly feel a special
     affection; and the idea that a nation is a fitting object
     of loyalty, and service to it is a virtue...But what is
     missing here, and is new and distinctive in modern ideas
     of nation and nationality, is the idea of a body of people
     capable of acting collectively and in particular of conferring
     authority on political institutions [p 30].

He goes on to say

     It seems, then that those who see nationality as an exclusively
     modern phenomenon and those who see it as the continuation of
     ancient tribalism are both half right. There was no sudden
     conceptual break, no invention of a radically new way of
     thinking about human communities. Ideas of national character
     and so forth were of long-standing. What was new was the
     belief that nations could be regarded as active political
     agents, the bearers of the ultimate powres of sovereignty.

Therefore, your statement is false. First, the concept of nation
has been developing for millenia. Of course, it is not a "finished"
concept but is constantly being developed.

> Second: if you had ever read any history you'd realize that racism
> is also a very recent phenomenon.  Ever heard of racism in Ancient
> Rome?

Actually, the word "race" ORIGINATED in Rome. Zoroastrianism and
proto-Zoroastrianism were based on racial ideas extending into
pre-history. Like I said, early Celtic religions were quite racial
in that they believed that Celts were descended from their gods.
What you are referring to as "racism" is the Biological justifications
of race which is a product of Darwinism. However, racism extends far
before that. On that basis, I would say that Darwinism has ruined
racism, confusing the true end of racism: love of one's people.

> Whoever said that tolerance per se was desirable?

Leftists are always whining that we need to practice "tolerance"
like it is some kind of virtue.

> You are confusing local terminology with a universal one.  The word
> "equal" in LISP and Prolog (as you describe it) seems to have the
> same meaning as "same" in all other applications.

But as I'm sure you're aware of, LISP has several different kinds
of "equal:" equal, eq, eq# and hosts of other ways of comparing
equality. The issue in each of them relates to the properties
being compared. Obviously, equality requires that one specify
the property being compared. In LISP, it requires that you choose
the proper operator for the object otherwise the result is meaningless.

Therefore, whether popular meaning refers to equality in a particular
way does not mean that it is a valid concept when studied in a
technical manner.

> I'm afraid that no decent person will consider Ourobouros the equal
> of Ms Finsten.

No, he's her better :-)

> However, in the legal sense, as a member of the human species,
> he is.  That is the point.

In what "legal sense?" Is there a universal law to which we can
verify this statement? Besides, what is the point you're making?
That several countries might have something codified in their
laws does not necessarily imply the legitimacy of that proposition.

>#To reassert the question: To you consider yourself equal with me?
>
> The question is flawed.  

I don't think that the question is flawed. It merely requires a
simple yes or no answer. Why are you avoiding it?

> This is not about what Ms. Finsten (or anyone else, for that matter)
> thinks about her qualities in regard to yours, but whether you should
> be treated equally by society and law.

Of course, you are wrong. This is about the fallacies that people
like you promote as fact. It is about the ingrained hatred which you
parade as rationality. It is about the inconsistencies which you
exhibit when trying to appear as the rational arbiter of all that
is good and bad.




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Fri Feb 23 18:25:58 PST 1996
Article: 34208 of soc.culture.jewish
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,can.general,soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Lesson #1 about Race Issues: The Jew
Date: 24 Feb 1996 00:58:47 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 454
Message-ID: <4glns7$4vi@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References:  <4eifet$ip4@rl0001.rulimburg.nl> <4esl01$776@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4etie2$t3j@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4fbpv6$itj@gate.cyberg8t.com>  <4gb984$ns2@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4gcodd$dmk@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host59.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:14348 alt.revisionism:24775 can.general:70376 soc.culture.jewish:34208 soc.culture.usa:79145

I found that I had replied to your post but had forgotten to post
my own reply. From my records:

Laura Finsten  says:

> Uh, where did I say that we should get rid of national boundaries?  I
> said that squabbling over them all the time is potentially very
> destructive.

Perhaps you didn't. However, "squabbling" (whatever that means) is
the only way to ensure that they exist. "Squabbling" refers to the
ongoing competition between large, organized groups over resources.
That competition will not, ever go away. It is the nature of man to
require and strive for resources.

> I did not say that we should get rid of them.  God
> forbid, I would never want to see the border between Canada and the
> US dissolve. Are you saying that our two choices are "get rid of
> boundaries" and "blow ourselves up perpetuating them"?  I'm not.

O.K. Fine. Then you're agreeing that borders serve a necessary and
good purpose?

> Well, then let me rephrase it.  Nuclear bombs are very dangerous
> things. They are incredible destructive.  I suppose an argument can
> be made that they make great deterrents.  The great fear, of course,
> is that someone, some day will think it necessary to use them.

Yes, nuclear bombs are very dangerous things. I understand that they
are incredibly destructive. They do make great deterrents and
eventually, yes, someone will use them (again). It will not be the
end of the world, although it may be the end of many lives.

> I think that anyone who would make that decision is loony tunes,
> frankly, but then maybe I just haven't yet been in the position
> where I could decide whether not just all human life but most life
> forms on the planet should be sacrificed for some "greater good".

One thinks you are fond of hyperbole. Few countries of the world
possess sufficient nuclear bombs to sacrifice "most life forms on
the planet..." Eventually, some bombs will be used. Much life will
be lost. End of story; not the end of life. I'm not saying that it
is good, I'm merely saying that it will probably happen.

> It isn't a decision that any individual ought to be able to make.

In your opinion. I'm sure that we both agree that eventually some
individual WILL make that decision (again). A good candidate appears
to be either Pakistan or India. 

> Uh, Msr. LeBouthillier, speaking of ad hominem attacks...  I promote
> these things?

Yes, at least some of them.

> So I guess your argument is that if everyone were racist, there
> wouldn't be any racism?

No. My arguement is that if everyone were a racist...they would
be racists. However, racism, to me does not mean hatred. I am
guessing that the real translation of your question is: "So I
guess your argument is that if everyone were racist, there
wouldn't be any HATRED." Hatred and racism aren't the same thing.

> I promote growing gaps between the wealthy and the poor?

Oh, and I do? Quite the opposite. I demand that business enterprises
interests' be subsumed under the national interests. International
business is a disease which must be controlled. Remember, *I'M* the
self-avowed nationalist; I'm the one opposed to internationalism.

> Oh yeah, I am just enamoured of an economy in which a few people are
> getting stinking rich and half the people I know are barely making
> ends meet while the other half are worried about whether they'll
> have jobs in two months.

I'm not quite so concerned that people might be filthy stinking
rich as long as they don't use the power that comes with that in
anti-social ways. However, the only answer to the stinking rich
not abusing their power is the existence of national and ethnic
groups who strongly oppose international business (or at least
require that it fill their national interests). Rights and freedom
imply that some people will use their rights and freedom in ways
that make themselves very rich. Where did they go wrong? What was
the evil that they did? Now, I'm not suggesting that because they
haven't done anything wrong that they are doing something right.
No, there's a difference. To me, the nation must require positive
obligations from business; that means, that by virtue of their
incorporation that they must perform certain obligatory activities
which are in the national interests; that also implies that they
may not do other things.

A nation has been defined as a moral community and a nation-state
must require that members of the nation act in ways that satisfy
that people's morality. However, it is empires, devoid of national
existence that let anything go, that let international business
beep-bop all over the world at everyone else's harm.

See, let's talk about things morally. In moral understanding, there
are two kinds of obligations, positive and negative. A positive
obligation is a requirement that someone do something whereas
a negative obligation requires that someone NOT do something. There
is a difference. The concept of rights is dependent upon the an
imposition (or support through force) of negative obligations; therefore
a "right" does not impose positive obligations but negative ones.
To secure someone's right to life, liberty, property etc merely
requires that you impose a negative obligation that another not
take those things. But a negative obligation is not a positive one.
To require that another give something (i.e. their money, time,
effort, children or lives) for something is a positive obligation.
You are requiring that someone do something. A privilege is the
condition that exists when someone who can make a demand of another
and that other has some positive obligation to comply.

Let's both agree that we wish to impose positive obligations on
people. Let's agree that such positive obligations come at the
expense of their rights. In other words, we are talking about
violations of people's rights. Do you agree? You think that
business should have certain positive obligations to community
(as do I). However, if you promote the elimination of communities,
you eliminate the means by which those impositions might come about.
The perfect consumer, devoid of self-identification with a group
and its interests cannot interfere with the perfect super-corporation's
media slogans and manipulation of right and wrong. To the super-
corporation, good is that which serves their bottom line. To eliminate
that we must impose 

> Pardon my obtuseness, but what is your basis for these rather
> extraordinary claims?

My observation that you are seeking to eliminate the existence of
certain moral communities (i.e. the White community).

> Wherever have I said that all ethnic groups and nations should be
> eliminated? What utopian fantasies are you alluding to, and how
> precisely do you see them as more utopian than your own fantasies?

By your previous refusal to recognize the existence of Whites, not
as a group of people with a certain color of skin, but as a social
group with rights and interests of its own. By your attack on the
premises of our existence. But of course, those attacks aren't
targetted at ALL ethnic groups, but merely one: Whites. And that
is what I have a problem with.

> How about common lineo-ethnic and cultural heritage is not the only
> basis for social order, as you argue?

I can admit that there can be different bases for social order, but
I don't recognize those other ones as having much legitimacy (at
least when applied to Whites). Remove the "common lineo-ethnic and
cultural heritage" as the basis and all you have is ideology. Right?
All you have is competing ideas without any underlying basis for
veracity. In fact, the only common interest that arises is whatever
arises by pure force, popular misconception or popular deception.

My argument is, that whether you like it or not, there *IS* a group
which identifies itself by its "common lineo-ethnic and cultural
heritage" which has existed for centuries; that group is White. When
Thomas Jefferson talked about America, he meant White Europeans in
North America. The reason for the creation of the United States was
for White interests. Ergo, we ARE the American NATION (not state,
not citizen, but nation). Whether the state chooses to make others
citizens or not, does not erase the existence of that particular
nation.

> You argue that social order cannot exist with lineo-ethnic and
> cultural heterogeneity.  I have argued that that is not true. 

I've never argued anything of that sort. In fact, I recognize that
there are other bases for social order. However, any such bases
are experimental or, to me, proven bad. I don't need to wonder what
a multicultural society is like. I live in one here in Southern
California. It is bullshit. I know I don't like. Nor, do I have to
wonder what living in a strong ethnic society is like, I've done that
too (notice my name is French...French Canadian). I prefer an ethnic
society over an empire. I've experienced both. Additionally, to me,
White is as valid a social group as French, English, Jewish, or
any other ethnic identification; in fact, more so (to me).

> History has shown that ethnicity itself, both the ethnic labels
> themselves and their perceived importance, is dynamic.  I realise
> that you are uninterested in history, but your "American white"
> ethnic category is itself evidence of the plasticity of ethnic groups.

What a ridiculous argument! History has shown that everything that
one believes is right or wrong is dynamic, therefore it has no
validity!!! I could just as easily turn that around to say that
whatever you think is good or bad is merely a dynamic representation
of the time in which you now live and therefore has no validity!
To me, history has shown that the best communities are founded in
lineo-ethnic and cultural homongeneity. That is the lesson that
I learn from both historical and current events.

> I would suggest that right now, an extremely divisive element that
> you ignore and attempt to translate into "lineo-ethnic and cultural
> heritage" terms is ideological differences. 

I'm not ignoring those things. No social group is homogenous in
belief. The ideal is to make a certain group homogenous on certain
first principles of their social existence. Ideology is a fickle and
wasteful thing. Without a sound basis, it is equivalent to "popular."
Popular places such things as Madonna and Easy-E in the forefront of
human thought. These people are scum; what they stand for is transitory
and bad.

> You use the label "anti-white" to describe everyone who does not
> share your racial ideology.

Big deal. You use the label "anti-semitic" to describe everyone who
does not share your baseless international ideology. Actually, as I've
stated, "Good is that which serves the White nation." Therefore, I
group ALL things into the two categories, those things that support
the White nation (pro-White) and those that are harmful to the
White nation (anti-White). I feel that any social group must accept
its own existence as the ultimate good.

> Don't pussy-foot around, Msr. LeBouthillier, come right out and say it.
> Is the implied label, by any chance "Jew/Jew-dupe"? Nice focussed
> argument. 

Ha! Ha! See, you are exactly what I said you were. Everything is
judged by its benefit to the Jews or not! Actually, I didn't say
or mean "Jew/Jew-dupe." First, I don't know that you're Jewish,
although I surmise that Finsten is a shortening of Fienstein. Second,
I don't blame the Jews for everything. Liberal and Convervative Whites
are just as much to blame (actually more to blame). Even White racists
themselves are to blame for their ineffectiveness. Again, I think that
you're stereotyping me, Mrs. Finsten. Third, what if I were? Are you
implying that to be "anti-Semitic" would somehow be worse than being
"anti-Mexican" or "anti-Maori" or "anti-White" or "anti-Indian" or
something like that? Nice focused implication there.

> Ideological differences.  How tolerant will your "white American
> nation" be of ideological differences, Msr. LeBouthillier?

Not very. I've never said that tolerance was a virtue.

> After you've scrutinised the genealogies and physiognomy of all those
> trying to qualify as "white Americans" and discarded those who aren't
> up to snuff, how much freedom of thought or expression will your new
> nation tolerate?

Probably not as much as you'd like to see. But you don't have my
people's best interests in mind. No nation can "tolerate" too much
fragmentation. That is the reason that all countries of the world
are at this moment doing their best to stifle free speech on the
internet. Too much diversity causes problems for a government. Even
when they mouth the phrase "Unity through diversity", they are in
the process of machinations to eliminate that diversity.

> I don't have a lot of American friends, but I have enough to wager
> a guess that after you're done with your ethnic cleansing you're
> going to have a lot of diversity of opinion on the defining matters.
> What do you have in mind for those folks, gulags?  Violence?

Now you're putting words in my mouth (or at least assuming that you
know a lot about my viewpoints). I've never once advocated ethnic
cleansing or gulags or even violence.

Perhaps I should turn the question around: What do you have in mind
for those of us who refuse to submit to your "New World Order?" What
will you do with those who refuse to recognize the legitimacy
of either the Canadian or US governments and seek to establish
their own governments in place of those? What happens to those kind
of people in your "ideological" nation? I don't need to wonder; I
can look and see what you're doing in the United States and Canada
right now. In Canada, every attempt is made to stifle and hinder
the development of White identity. The truth is that the current
order can only exist through suppression of Whites. So what are
you going to do when we no longer accept that suppression?

> You do, however, understand, at least in theory, the difference
> between discrimination and prejudicial discrimination?

No. Although, I will recognize that there are two different concepts
in those two words, in my view, the difference is that one is based
on a deeper rationality whereas the other is based on a poor
understanding or ability to justify. In other words, one is
ideologically supported whereas the other is instinctually understood.
The solution, in my mind, is education. The "prejudicial discriminator"
must be taught why such discrimination is good and just ( or if
it's the case, why it's bad).

> Actually, it is quite apparent already from what you have said that
> in addition to feeling justified in eliminating those whose "choice"
> of lineo-ethnic and cultural heritage (rather than nation-state) does
> not suit your taste, those whose ideological, political and, I gather
> religious choices don't go down well with you will be deemed just as
> undesirable.

You're putting words in my mouth. I've never stated my views
on those particular issues. Again, what are you going to do with
those who refuse to recognize the legitimacy of your multi-ethnic,
multi-racial empires based purely on ideology? And again, one need
not wait to find out one merely needs to look at the US and Canada:
stifle speech, imprisonment, disenfranchisement, take their property
and livelihood away, call them nasty names, socially rebuke them
in the popular media, re-educate their children ... so forth and so
on. That's a great basis for a social order.

> Sounds a lot like tales from behind the Iron Curtain.

I think your multi-racial/multi-ethnic ideological empire is
starting to sound like tales from behind the Iron Curtain.

> I did not say that all people are equal.  At the same time, I do
> not think that it is justifiable on scientific grounds to equate
> whatever differences one might identify between different "racial
> groupings" with an evaluative ranking.

Nor do I. That's why I don't do it.

> Both you and I have snipped in ways that have taken this out of
> the context in which the debate about the fallacy of equating
> identical:equal (and the all important obverse different:unequal)
> was made and hence its signficance is lost. 

But see, my point is that the "equality" that you are talking about
is based on doctrine, not on anything that really exists. In other
words, your equality is a social construct. It is culture; and it's
not my culture.

  Teacher: "O.K. Class, everyone repeat after me: We are all equal"
  Class (in unison): "We are all equal"

> I believe, however, that all people have the right to equality of
> opportunity and equal treatment under the law. 

And when do those "opportunities" stop? Referring to what I early
stated, those "opportunities" are not rights. They are privileges.
In order to create those "opportunities," you will have to violate
peoples property, contractual, associational and speech rights.
What you are talking about is that all people have the PRIVILEGE
to equality of opportunity and equal treatment under the law.
The more you seek to expand those "opportunities," the more you
violate peoples' rights.

Besides, equality of opportunity NEVER can and never will exist
except in the totalitarian state. The Soviet Union promised those
things and it couldn't deliver. In fact, those ideas of "equality
of opportunity" arise among the Marxists, not liberals or
libertarians. They are invalid in my opinion.

> For example, I believe that everyone who has the intelligence and
> motivation to benefit from a university education should have the
> opportunity to compete for admission on their own merits.

I might accept the same idea but I certainly wouldn't try to
misrepresent it as a right. Rather, it is a privilege which
can only exist because of the taxation of people. As such,
whether or not it should exist should be subject to rational
discussion by those who will be taxed. People like you (not
necessarily Jew/Jew-Dupes) try to represent any questioning of
the creation of such privileges as suggestion of violation of
rights. The debate over those issues is very real and I don't
think that I agree that creating those opportunities are always
necessarily a good thing.

> That all people should be able to choose which movie theatres
> they will attend, and which seats in those theatres they will occupy.

Of course, I disagree with you on this issue. That kind of thing
can only happen by violating the property rights of the Theatre
owner. This "opportunity" is not one that I support. In fact, I would
seek to ensure that the theatre owner have the privilege to exercise
certain of his property rights.

> Logic is an essential part of debate, but so too are factual
> accuracy as well as more subjective elements.

There are two kinds of knowledge: Positive and Normative. Now,
although I will not argue that logic does not apply to each,
I will state that Logic applies differently to normative reasoning.
Morality (in the form of normative statements) is an attempt
to bring rational logic to normative thinking, but it too has its
limit. My point is that "illogical" does not necessarily apply
in many cases to the normative field of thought since normatives
are "pre-logical" (they are assumptions).

> I can say until I'm blue in the face that I'm not a "jew-dupe", I'm
> not "anti-white". 

Well fine. I'll accept your statement although I will hold you up
to that standard.

> I can trot out my own lineo-ethnic and cultural heritage. But by
> your very definition of "pro-white", I am these things.  

Aw!!! You obviously don't understand my definition of "pro-White."

> Your ethnic category is not only biologically (in a very limited way),
> ethnically and culturally homogenous, but is by definition
> ideologically homogenous.  There can't be any meaningful debate,
> but then that isn't the purpose of this, is it.  

What is the purpose of debate if it results in the destruction
of all that I see is good? There is no debating my people out of
existence. What do you want to debate, whether Whites should
exist or not? I'm not going to participate in that debate. If there
should be any debate, it should be on those ideas that are harmful
to White existence (like your attempt to create "opportunities"
for everyone around the world at the expense of White existence
and rights).

> Very clever style of argument, if you want to call it that.

It's developed from years of dealing with people who start with
the assumption that we must eliminate Whites from the face of the
earth.

> I also see that you either actually believe that the only people who
> do not share your values are ZOG operatives and Jew-dupes (you don't
> seem to like to use these terms, but I prefer to be more direct
> and concise), or you say this in order to manipulate your audience.

Like I said, I don't blame Jews for our conditions. I blame other
White people. A community can only exist through the contributions
of its members and their sacrifice to its common ends. If the White
community is failing, it is because Whites have failed to contribute.
On the other hand, I'm not going to contribute to any other kind of
society (most especially to one that will destroy my people).

> You're joking, right?  You don't know what the word "antisemite"
> means? I don't use the word "semitism", or "Semite".  I have been
> known to use the phrase "Semitic languages".

I'm not joking. Why does "anti-Semite" have more validity than
"anti-White?" As I pointed out, there is not really a Semitic
element in "anti-Semitism" since it is not targeted uniquely at
the Semitic people.

> You know very well what the commonly accepted meaning of the word
> "antisemitic" is, just as you probably are familiar with the
> etymology of the phrase "rule of thumb" and also know its
> contemporary common usage in English.

I know what people WANT it to mean. But I don't think that it has
much of a basis. It is basically name-calling. Anyways, on that
basis, we can define White as a "rule of thumb" that most people
understand the common usage of in English.

> What anyone chooses to call him/herself is nobody else's business,
> really.  But when that label has real implications for others, you
> know, implications like disenfranchisement of citizens, forced
> deportation and violence, then it is indeed everybody's business.

What anyone chooses to call him/herself is vitally important. Whether
they want to contribute to the existence of my people is significant.
Ideas have consequences and I don't think even you would argue that.

Sincerely yours,
Arthur Lebouthillier




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Fri Feb 23 18:25:59 PST 1996
Article: 34209 of soc.culture.jewish
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,can.general,soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Lesson #1 about Race Issues: The Jew
Date: 24 Feb 1996 01:01:43 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <4glo1n$4vi@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4gb984$ns2@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4genv0$fem@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host59.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:14349 alt.revisionism:24776 can.general:70377 soc.culture.jewish:34209 soc.culture.usa:79146

> A,B,C,D.  You forgot E, Arthur.  E=Suck my Jewish cock, Arthur.
> Suck it dry.
>
> All the best,
>                                                                        > Adam

Wow! Not only is this guy a Jewish imposter (he's really probably
a Muslim or Hare Krishna), but he's also homosexual. Here we see
that he is offering me sexual favors!

Uh..Adam....no thanks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Arthur LeBouthillier
                              pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                    http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889

                        Official Nizkor Surveillance:
  http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/l/lebouthillier.arthur

                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Fri Feb 23 23:34:00 PST 1996
Article: 24774 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,can.general,soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Lesson #1 about Race Issues: The Jew
Date: 24 Feb 1996 00:56:28 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 114
Message-ID: <4glnnt$4vi@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References:  <4eifet$ip4@rl0001.rulimburg.nl> <4esl01$776@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4etie2$t3j@infor <4f54m9$14h@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4fco4r$me@newsource.ihug.co.nz> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: host59.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:14347 alt.revisionism:24774 can.general:70375 soc.culture.jewish:34207 soc.culture.usa:79144

Elias Halldor Agustsson,  while talking to Ouroboros said:

> First: on the time-scale of recorded history, the idea of "Nation"
> is brand new.  

First: this is a false statement. The MODERN notion of nation, as
a body of people which legitimizes a political order is new.  In
_On_Nationality_ by David Miller, Copyright 1995 by Oxford
University Press, he provides an understanding of the modern
definition of nationality, that it is a community:

	1) constituted by shared belief and mutual commitment
	2) extended in history
	3) active in character
	4) connected to a particular territory
	5) marked off from other communities by a distinct
	   public culture.

After putting forth that definition, he says:
	
        We are no better placed to see in what sense nationality
     is a modern idea. Three of its constituent elements can
     readily be discovered in pre-modern cultures, for instance
     in Greek and Roman periods: the idea that peoples are marked
     off from one another by distinct characteristics, so that
     a line can be drawn between compatriots and foreigners (i.e.
     Greeks and Barbarians); the idea that each people has its own
     homeland, for which they should rightly feel a special
     affection; and the idea that a nation is a fitting object
     of loyalty, and service to it is a virtue...But what is
     missing here, and is new and distinctive in modern ideas
     of nation and nationality, is the idea of a body of people
     capable of acting collectively and in particular of conferring
     authority on political institutions [p 30].

He goes on to say

     It seems, then that those who see nationality as an exclusively
     modern phenomenon and those who see it as the continuation of
     ancient tribalism are both half right. There was no sudden
     conceptual break, no invention of a radically new way of
     thinking about human communities. Ideas of national character
     and so forth were of long-standing. What was new was the
     belief that nations could be regarded as active political
     agents, the bearers of the ultimate powres of sovereignty.

Therefore, your statement is false. First, the concept of nation
has been developing for millenia. Of course, it is not a "finished"
concept but is constantly being developed.

> Second: if you had ever read any history you'd realize that racism
> is also a very recent phenomenon.  Ever heard of racism in Ancient
> Rome?

Actually, the word "race" ORIGINATED in Rome. Zoroastrianism and
proto-Zoroastrianism were based on racial ideas extending into
pre-history. Like I said, early Celtic religions were quite racial
in that they believed that Celts were descended from their gods.
What you are referring to as "racism" is the Biological justifications
of race which is a product of Darwinism. However, racism extends far
before that. On that basis, I would say that Darwinism has ruined
racism, confusing the true end of racism: love of one's people.

> Whoever said that tolerance per se was desirable?

Leftists are always whining that we need to practice "tolerance"
like it is some kind of virtue.

> You are confusing local terminology with a universal one.  The word
> "equal" in LISP and Prolog (as you describe it) seems to have the
> same meaning as "same" in all other applications.

But as I'm sure you're aware of, LISP has several different kinds
of "equal:" equal, eq, eq# and hosts of other ways of comparing
equality. The issue in each of them relates to the properties
being compared. Obviously, equality requires that one specify
the property being compared. In LISP, it requires that you choose
the proper operator for the object otherwise the result is meaningless.

Therefore, whether popular meaning refers to equality in a particular
way does not mean that it is a valid concept when studied in a
technical manner.

> I'm afraid that no decent person will consider Ourobouros the equal
> of Ms Finsten.

No, he's her better :-)

> However, in the legal sense, as a member of the human species,
> he is.  That is the point.

In what "legal sense?" Is there a universal law to which we can
verify this statement? Besides, what is the point you're making?
That several countries might have something codified in their
laws does not necessarily imply the legitimacy of that proposition.

>#To reassert the question: To you consider yourself equal with me?
>
> The question is flawed.  

I don't think that the question is flawed. It merely requires a
simple yes or no answer. Why are you avoiding it?

> This is not about what Ms. Finsten (or anyone else, for that matter)
> thinks about her qualities in regard to yours, but whether you should
> be treated equally by society and law.

Of course, you are wrong. This is about the fallacies that people
like you promote as fact. It is about the ingrained hatred which you
parade as rationality. It is about the inconsistencies which you
exhibit when trying to appear as the rational arbiter of all that
is good and bad.




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Fri Feb 23 23:34:01 PST 1996
Article: 24775 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,can.general,soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Lesson #1 about Race Issues: The Jew
Date: 24 Feb 1996 00:58:47 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 454
Message-ID: <4glns7$4vi@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References:  <4eifet$ip4@rl0001.rulimburg.nl> <4esl01$776@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4etie2$t3j@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4fbpv6$itj@gate.cyberg8t.com>  <4gb984$ns2@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4gcodd$dmk@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host59.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:14348 alt.revisionism:24775 can.general:70376 soc.culture.jewish:34208 soc.culture.usa:79145

I found that I had replied to your post but had forgotten to post
my own reply. From my records:

Laura Finsten  says:

> Uh, where did I say that we should get rid of national boundaries?  I
> said that squabbling over them all the time is potentially very
> destructive.

Perhaps you didn't. However, "squabbling" (whatever that means) is
the only way to ensure that they exist. "Squabbling" refers to the
ongoing competition between large, organized groups over resources.
That competition will not, ever go away. It is the nature of man to
require and strive for resources.

> I did not say that we should get rid of them.  God
> forbid, I would never want to see the border between Canada and the
> US dissolve. Are you saying that our two choices are "get rid of
> boundaries" and "blow ourselves up perpetuating them"?  I'm not.

O.K. Fine. Then you're agreeing that borders serve a necessary and
good purpose?

> Well, then let me rephrase it.  Nuclear bombs are very dangerous
> things. They are incredible destructive.  I suppose an argument can
> be made that they make great deterrents.  The great fear, of course,
> is that someone, some day will think it necessary to use them.

Yes, nuclear bombs are very dangerous things. I understand that they
are incredibly destructive. They do make great deterrents and
eventually, yes, someone will use them (again). It will not be the
end of the world, although it may be the end of many lives.

> I think that anyone who would make that decision is loony tunes,
> frankly, but then maybe I just haven't yet been in the position
> where I could decide whether not just all human life but most life
> forms on the planet should be sacrificed for some "greater good".

One thinks you are fond of hyperbole. Few countries of the world
possess sufficient nuclear bombs to sacrifice "most life forms on
the planet..." Eventually, some bombs will be used. Much life will
be lost. End of story; not the end of life. I'm not saying that it
is good, I'm merely saying that it will probably happen.

> It isn't a decision that any individual ought to be able to make.

In your opinion. I'm sure that we both agree that eventually some
individual WILL make that decision (again). A good candidate appears
to be either Pakistan or India. 

> Uh, Msr. LeBouthillier, speaking of ad hominem attacks...  I promote
> these things?

Yes, at least some of them.

> So I guess your argument is that if everyone were racist, there
> wouldn't be any racism?

No. My arguement is that if everyone were a racist...they would
be racists. However, racism, to me does not mean hatred. I am
guessing that the real translation of your question is: "So I
guess your argument is that if everyone were racist, there
wouldn't be any HATRED." Hatred and racism aren't the same thing.

> I promote growing gaps between the wealthy and the poor?

Oh, and I do? Quite the opposite. I demand that business enterprises
interests' be subsumed under the national interests. International
business is a disease which must be controlled. Remember, *I'M* the
self-avowed nationalist; I'm the one opposed to internationalism.

> Oh yeah, I am just enamoured of an economy in which a few people are
> getting stinking rich and half the people I know are barely making
> ends meet while the other half are worried about whether they'll
> have jobs in two months.

I'm not quite so concerned that people might be filthy stinking
rich as long as they don't use the power that comes with that in
anti-social ways. However, the only answer to the stinking rich
not abusing their power is the existence of national and ethnic
groups who strongly oppose international business (or at least
require that it fill their national interests). Rights and freedom
imply that some people will use their rights and freedom in ways
that make themselves very rich. Where did they go wrong? What was
the evil that they did? Now, I'm not suggesting that because they
haven't done anything wrong that they are doing something right.
No, there's a difference. To me, the nation must require positive
obligations from business; that means, that by virtue of their
incorporation that they must perform certain obligatory activities
which are in the national interests; that also implies that they
may not do other things.

A nation has been defined as a moral community and a nation-state
must require that members of the nation act in ways that satisfy
that people's morality. However, it is empires, devoid of national
existence that let anything go, that let international business
beep-bop all over the world at everyone else's harm.

See, let's talk about things morally. In moral understanding, there
are two kinds of obligations, positive and negative. A positive
obligation is a requirement that someone do something whereas
a negative obligation requires that someone NOT do something. There
is a difference. The concept of rights is dependent upon the an
imposition (or support through force) of negative obligations; therefore
a "right" does not impose positive obligations but negative ones.
To secure someone's right to life, liberty, property etc merely
requires that you impose a negative obligation that another not
take those things. But a negative obligation is not a positive one.
To require that another give something (i.e. their money, time,
effort, children or lives) for something is a positive obligation.
You are requiring that someone do something. A privilege is the
condition that exists when someone who can make a demand of another
and that other has some positive obligation to comply.

Let's both agree that we wish to impose positive obligations on
people. Let's agree that such positive obligations come at the
expense of their rights. In other words, we are talking about
violations of people's rights. Do you agree? You think that
business should have certain positive obligations to community
(as do I). However, if you promote the elimination of communities,
you eliminate the means by which those impositions might come about.
The perfect consumer, devoid of self-identification with a group
and its interests cannot interfere with the perfect super-corporation's
media slogans and manipulation of right and wrong. To the super-
corporation, good is that which serves their bottom line. To eliminate
that we must impose 

> Pardon my obtuseness, but what is your basis for these rather
> extraordinary claims?

My observation that you are seeking to eliminate the existence of
certain moral communities (i.e. the White community).

> Wherever have I said that all ethnic groups and nations should be
> eliminated? What utopian fantasies are you alluding to, and how
> precisely do you see them as more utopian than your own fantasies?

By your previous refusal to recognize the existence of Whites, not
as a group of people with a certain color of skin, but as a social
group with rights and interests of its own. By your attack on the
premises of our existence. But of course, those attacks aren't
targetted at ALL ethnic groups, but merely one: Whites. And that
is what I have a problem with.

> How about common lineo-ethnic and cultural heritage is not the only
> basis for social order, as you argue?

I can admit that there can be different bases for social order, but
I don't recognize those other ones as having much legitimacy (at
least when applied to Whites). Remove the "common lineo-ethnic and
cultural heritage" as the basis and all you have is ideology. Right?
All you have is competing ideas without any underlying basis for
veracity. In fact, the only common interest that arises is whatever
arises by pure force, popular misconception or popular deception.

My argument is, that whether you like it or not, there *IS* a group
which identifies itself by its "common lineo-ethnic and cultural
heritage" which has existed for centuries; that group is White. When
Thomas Jefferson talked about America, he meant White Europeans in
North America. The reason for the creation of the United States was
for White interests. Ergo, we ARE the American NATION (not state,
not citizen, but nation). Whether the state chooses to make others
citizens or not, does not erase the existence of that particular
nation.

> You argue that social order cannot exist with lineo-ethnic and
> cultural heterogeneity.  I have argued that that is not true. 

I've never argued anything of that sort. In fact, I recognize that
there are other bases for social order. However, any such bases
are experimental or, to me, proven bad. I don't need to wonder what
a multicultural society is like. I live in one here in Southern
California. It is bullshit. I know I don't like. Nor, do I have to
wonder what living in a strong ethnic society is like, I've done that
too (notice my name is French...French Canadian). I prefer an ethnic
society over an empire. I've experienced both. Additionally, to me,
White is as valid a social group as French, English, Jewish, or
any other ethnic identification; in fact, more so (to me).

> History has shown that ethnicity itself, both the ethnic labels
> themselves and their perceived importance, is dynamic.  I realise
> that you are uninterested in history, but your "American white"
> ethnic category is itself evidence of the plasticity of ethnic groups.

What a ridiculous argument! History has shown that everything that
one believes is right or wrong is dynamic, therefore it has no
validity!!! I could just as easily turn that around to say that
whatever you think is good or bad is merely a dynamic representation
of the time in which you now live and therefore has no validity!
To me, history has shown that the best communities are founded in
lineo-ethnic and cultural homongeneity. That is the lesson that
I learn from both historical and current events.

> I would suggest that right now, an extremely divisive element that
> you ignore and attempt to translate into "lineo-ethnic and cultural
> heritage" terms is ideological differences. 

I'm not ignoring those things. No social group is homogenous in
belief. The ideal is to make a certain group homogenous on certain
first principles of their social existence. Ideology is a fickle and
wasteful thing. Without a sound basis, it is equivalent to "popular."
Popular places such things as Madonna and Easy-E in the forefront of
human thought. These people are scum; what they stand for is transitory
and bad.

> You use the label "anti-white" to describe everyone who does not
> share your racial ideology.

Big deal. You use the label "anti-semitic" to describe everyone who
does not share your baseless international ideology. Actually, as I've
stated, "Good is that which serves the White nation." Therefore, I
group ALL things into the two categories, those things that support
the White nation (pro-White) and those that are harmful to the
White nation (anti-White). I feel that any social group must accept
its own existence as the ultimate good.

> Don't pussy-foot around, Msr. LeBouthillier, come right out and say it.
> Is the implied label, by any chance "Jew/Jew-dupe"? Nice focussed
> argument. 

Ha! Ha! See, you are exactly what I said you were. Everything is
judged by its benefit to the Jews or not! Actually, I didn't say
or mean "Jew/Jew-dupe." First, I don't know that you're Jewish,
although I surmise that Finsten is a shortening of Fienstein. Second,
I don't blame the Jews for everything. Liberal and Convervative Whites
are just as much to blame (actually more to blame). Even White racists
themselves are to blame for their ineffectiveness. Again, I think that
you're stereotyping me, Mrs. Finsten. Third, what if I were? Are you
implying that to be "anti-Semitic" would somehow be worse than being
"anti-Mexican" or "anti-Maori" or "anti-White" or "anti-Indian" or
something like that? Nice focused implication there.

> Ideological differences.  How tolerant will your "white American
> nation" be of ideological differences, Msr. LeBouthillier?

Not very. I've never said that tolerance was a virtue.

> After you've scrutinised the genealogies and physiognomy of all those
> trying to qualify as "white Americans" and discarded those who aren't
> up to snuff, how much freedom of thought or expression will your new
> nation tolerate?

Probably not as much as you'd like to see. But you don't have my
people's best interests in mind. No nation can "tolerate" too much
fragmentation. That is the reason that all countries of the world
are at this moment doing their best to stifle free speech on the
internet. Too much diversity causes problems for a government. Even
when they mouth the phrase "Unity through diversity", they are in
the process of machinations to eliminate that diversity.

> I don't have a lot of American friends, but I have enough to wager
> a guess that after you're done with your ethnic cleansing you're
> going to have a lot of diversity of opinion on the defining matters.
> What do you have in mind for those folks, gulags?  Violence?

Now you're putting words in my mouth (or at least assuming that you
know a lot about my viewpoints). I've never once advocated ethnic
cleansing or gulags or even violence.

Perhaps I should turn the question around: What do you have in mind
for those of us who refuse to submit to your "New World Order?" What
will you do with those who refuse to recognize the legitimacy
of either the Canadian or US governments and seek to establish
their own governments in place of those? What happens to those kind
of people in your "ideological" nation? I don't need to wonder; I
can look and see what you're doing in the United States and Canada
right now. In Canada, every attempt is made to stifle and hinder
the development of White identity. The truth is that the current
order can only exist through suppression of Whites. So what are
you going to do when we no longer accept that suppression?

> You do, however, understand, at least in theory, the difference
> between discrimination and prejudicial discrimination?

No. Although, I will recognize that there are two different concepts
in those two words, in my view, the difference is that one is based
on a deeper rationality whereas the other is based on a poor
understanding or ability to justify. In other words, one is
ideologically supported whereas the other is instinctually understood.
The solution, in my mind, is education. The "prejudicial discriminator"
must be taught why such discrimination is good and just ( or if
it's the case, why it's bad).

> Actually, it is quite apparent already from what you have said that
> in addition to feeling justified in eliminating those whose "choice"
> of lineo-ethnic and cultural heritage (rather than nation-state) does
> not suit your taste, those whose ideological, political and, I gather
> religious choices don't go down well with you will be deemed just as
> undesirable.

You're putting words in my mouth. I've never stated my views
on those particular issues. Again, what are you going to do with
those who refuse to recognize the legitimacy of your multi-ethnic,
multi-racial empires based purely on ideology? And again, one need
not wait to find out one merely needs to look at the US and Canada:
stifle speech, imprisonment, disenfranchisement, take their property
and livelihood away, call them nasty names, socially rebuke them
in the popular media, re-educate their children ... so forth and so
on. That's a great basis for a social order.

> Sounds a lot like tales from behind the Iron Curtain.

I think your multi-racial/multi-ethnic ideological empire is
starting to sound like tales from behind the Iron Curtain.

> I did not say that all people are equal.  At the same time, I do
> not think that it is justifiable on scientific grounds to equate
> whatever differences one might identify between different "racial
> groupings" with an evaluative ranking.

Nor do I. That's why I don't do it.

> Both you and I have snipped in ways that have taken this out of
> the context in which the debate about the fallacy of equating
> identical:equal (and the all important obverse different:unequal)
> was made and hence its signficance is lost. 

But see, my point is that the "equality" that you are talking about
is based on doctrine, not on anything that really exists. In other
words, your equality is a social construct. It is culture; and it's
not my culture.

  Teacher: "O.K. Class, everyone repeat after me: We are all equal"
  Class (in unison): "We are all equal"

> I believe, however, that all people have the right to equality of
> opportunity and equal treatment under the law. 

And when do those "opportunities" stop? Referring to what I early
stated, those "opportunities" are not rights. They are privileges.
In order to create those "opportunities," you will have to violate
peoples property, contractual, associational and speech rights.
What you are talking about is that all people have the PRIVILEGE
to equality of opportunity and equal treatment under the law.
The more you seek to expand those "opportunities," the more you
violate peoples' rights.

Besides, equality of opportunity NEVER can and never will exist
except in the totalitarian state. The Soviet Union promised those
things and it couldn't deliver. In fact, those ideas of "equality
of opportunity" arise among the Marxists, not liberals or
libertarians. They are invalid in my opinion.

> For example, I believe that everyone who has the intelligence and
> motivation to benefit from a university education should have the
> opportunity to compete for admission on their own merits.

I might accept the same idea but I certainly wouldn't try to
misrepresent it as a right. Rather, it is a privilege which
can only exist because of the taxation of people. As such,
whether or not it should exist should be subject to rational
discussion by those who will be taxed. People like you (not
necessarily Jew/Jew-Dupes) try to represent any questioning of
the creation of such privileges as suggestion of violation of
rights. The debate over those issues is very real and I don't
think that I agree that creating those opportunities are always
necessarily a good thing.

> That all people should be able to choose which movie theatres
> they will attend, and which seats in those theatres they will occupy.

Of course, I disagree with you on this issue. That kind of thing
can only happen by violating the property rights of the Theatre
owner. This "opportunity" is not one that I support. In fact, I would
seek to ensure that the theatre owner have the privilege to exercise
certain of his property rights.

> Logic is an essential part of debate, but so too are factual
> accuracy as well as more subjective elements.

There are two kinds of knowledge: Positive and Normative. Now,
although I will not argue that logic does not apply to each,
I will state that Logic applies differently to normative reasoning.
Morality (in the form of normative statements) is an attempt
to bring rational logic to normative thinking, but it too has its
limit. My point is that "illogical" does not necessarily apply
in many cases to the normative field of thought since normatives
are "pre-logical" (they are assumptions).

> I can say until I'm blue in the face that I'm not a "jew-dupe", I'm
> not "anti-white". 

Well fine. I'll accept your statement although I will hold you up
to that standard.

> I can trot out my own lineo-ethnic and cultural heritage. But by
> your very definition of "pro-white", I am these things.  

Aw!!! You obviously don't understand my definition of "pro-White."

> Your ethnic category is not only biologically (in a very limited way),
> ethnically and culturally homogenous, but is by definition
> ideologically homogenous.  There can't be any meaningful debate,
> but then that isn't the purpose of this, is it.  

What is the purpose of debate if it results in the destruction
of all that I see is good? There is no debating my people out of
existence. What do you want to debate, whether Whites should
exist or not? I'm not going to participate in that debate. If there
should be any debate, it should be on those ideas that are harmful
to White existence (like your attempt to create "opportunities"
for everyone around the world at the expense of White existence
and rights).

> Very clever style of argument, if you want to call it that.

It's developed from years of dealing with people who start with
the assumption that we must eliminate Whites from the face of the
earth.

> I also see that you either actually believe that the only people who
> do not share your values are ZOG operatives and Jew-dupes (you don't
> seem to like to use these terms, but I prefer to be more direct
> and concise), or you say this in order to manipulate your audience.

Like I said, I don't blame Jews for our conditions. I blame other
White people. A community can only exist through the contributions
of its members and their sacrifice to its common ends. If the White
community is failing, it is because Whites have failed to contribute.
On the other hand, I'm not going to contribute to any other kind of
society (most especially to one that will destroy my people).

> You're joking, right?  You don't know what the word "antisemite"
> means? I don't use the word "semitism", or "Semite".  I have been
> known to use the phrase "Semitic languages".

I'm not joking. Why does "anti-Semite" have more validity than
"anti-White?" As I pointed out, there is not really a Semitic
element in "anti-Semitism" since it is not targeted uniquely at
the Semitic people.

> You know very well what the commonly accepted meaning of the word
> "antisemitic" is, just as you probably are familiar with the
> etymology of the phrase "rule of thumb" and also know its
> contemporary common usage in English.

I know what people WANT it to mean. But I don't think that it has
much of a basis. It is basically name-calling. Anyways, on that
basis, we can define White as a "rule of thumb" that most people
understand the common usage of in English.

> What anyone chooses to call him/herself is nobody else's business,
> really.  But when that label has real implications for others, you
> know, implications like disenfranchisement of citizens, forced
> deportation and violence, then it is indeed everybody's business.

What anyone chooses to call him/herself is vitally important. Whether
they want to contribute to the existence of my people is significant.
Ideas have consequences and I don't think even you would argue that.

Sincerely yours,
Arthur Lebouthillier




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Fri Feb 23 23:34:02 PST 1996
Article: 24776 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,can.general,soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Lesson #1 about Race Issues: The Jew
Date: 24 Feb 1996 01:01:43 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <4glo1n$4vi@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4gb984$ns2@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4genv0$fem@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host59.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:14349 alt.revisionism:24776 can.general:70377 soc.culture.jewish:34209 soc.culture.usa:79146

> A,B,C,D.  You forgot E, Arthur.  E=Suck my Jewish cock, Arthur.
> Suck it dry.
>
> All the best,
>                                                                        > Adam

Wow! Not only is this guy a Jewish imposter (he's really probably
a Muslim or Hare Krishna), but he's also homosexual. Here we see
that he is offering me sexual favors!

Uh..Adam....no thanks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Arthur LeBouthillier
                              pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                    http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889

                        Official Nizkor Surveillance:
  http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/l/lebouthillier.arthur

                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Feb 24 00:13:45 PST 1996
Article: 14365 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,can.general,soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Lesson #1 about Race Issues: The Jew
Date: 24 Feb 1996 05:38:31 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 158
Message-ID: <4gm88n$6q9@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References:  <4eifet$ip4@rl0001.rulimburg.nl> <4esl01$776@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4etie2$t3j@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4fbpv6$itj@gate.cyberg8t.com>  <4gb984$ns2@gate.cyberg8t.com> <312A64D6.856@itn.is> <4ghpu2$f1t@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4giffb$eom@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host91.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:14365 alt.revisionism:24823 can.general:70398 soc.culture.jewish:34262 soc.culture.usa:79182

Laura Finsten  says:

>> If artificiality
>> wasn't an issue, then she would have said something like:
>>
>>    if we squabble over borders too much, we could obliterate the only
>>    known habitable plant?

> [in my response, which you apparently have not seen, this is
> indeed what I said.]

O.K. then, with your correction, I understand the point that you
made. To some degree, I agree with it too. However, my solution
is different than yours: strengthen borders. Severely punish violators.

> Hmmmmm, I have indeed clarified.  I took a lot of time to respond
> to your dissection of my post to Ourobouros.  I reposted it a couple
> of days ago, and its hanging up there on my newsreader if not yours.
> Would you like me to send it to you via e-mail?

Yes, you have and I appreciate it. However, by the time that I had
posted this, I did not have a definitive understanding of your
position.

> Gosh, I just hate sitting here listening to people talk about me as
> if I'm not present!!!!  

It is not my intention to do so.

> Perhaps Elias' point is that he did not interpret what I said the
> way that you did, and that perhaps his interpretation of my
> comments is more valid (or at least as valid) as yours?????

However, as I showed, my deducation was not unfounded. But now
I understand the point you were making.

> ... from what I do know of Ourobouros (which, admittedly is not
> a whole heckuva lot), the idea of nuclear weapons in his hands
> is a scary idea indeed.  He presents himself as a great expert
> in biological anthropology, but clearly he doesn't know the first
> thing about it.

It is, like I said in an earlier post, a shame that biological
Darwinism has become infused into racism. I think it was so much
more meaningful and romantic without it.

> Gosh, he might very well say he understands which button releases
> the damn things, even though he doesn't, and then start WWIII
> when he accidentally sets his White Power Rangers manual on the
> wrong part of the control panel by mistake.

I don't know him well enough to know whether that might be true.
He and I have never spoken to any depth.

> But it is not a coherent identity, and it seems that it does not
> exist within in any context except that of a particular political
> agenda.  I would suggest to you that most people who even you
> would otherwise describe as "white" do not consider it to be
> part of their national or ethnic identity.

I know quite a few people who identify themselves as 'White' and
for whom I would say that their identity is quite developed.
However, I would agree that for many it is not as well developed
as it is for others. However, it is my intention to do whatever
I can to help it develop.

I think you are missing the historical significance of why it is
in a shambles. In the latter half of this century, the great States
have set about to eliminate White identity because it threatens
their power over the non-Whites. Hence, there has been a concerted
effort to eliminate it by misrepresenting it, by mislabeling it,
by treating it differently than other identities, by not letting
us develop the necessary institutions needed to develop our identity.
That is not a mistake, but an organized program. There has developed, 
under Marxists and other liberals, whole programs of thought to
destroy White identity and White identity has been targeted as the
major enemy to the international order. One Marxist journal, Race
Traitor, says that White identity is the only thing that stands in
the way between them and their socialist utopia.

I think that you're missing that fact that the elite of our societies
have taken it upon themselves to deconstruct (sometimes the very
term they use) White identity in order to eliminate White existence.
Without adequate institutions to develop and apply it, it is in
many cases a backwater belief system undeveloped in the last 50
years. To the best of my ability, I will change that.

It's no accident that White ethnicity is in a shambles. People like
you have set about as a program to eliminate it while those who
think that they are promoting it are often doing it the most harm.

Even you, pretending that you are the most objective, rational person
in the world apply different standards to Whiteness that you don't
apply to other identities/ethnicities. Every society is based on myths
and common misconceptions. It has been said that a nation is a people
unified by a common misunderstanding of history. That doesn't matter.
I have shown that even Jewish identity is largely a myth just as you
have tried to do with White identity. Does that make it any less valid
or important? Not to me. Now you might try to say that we should seek
to eliminate all such myths/misconceptions but that is not possible
since ALL social activity is an abstraction (and hence is short of
reality). You can no more justify an international order without
appealing to the very same ideas that a nation needs to exist since
it too is an "imagined community" based on half-truths and
misconceptions.

However, I would disagree with your understanding of the significance
of nationality. Rather than being a freedom sapping cocoon, it rather
represents the greatest degree of freedom. It is the product of
people's sacrifices, dreams, ideals, and wishes. Nations exist because
people WANT them to exist. If nations are destroyed, it is because
other people set out to destroy what others have. To me, that is the
biggest evil of all time.

> And that "white national interest" would, of course, mean the end
> of most personal, political, religious and ideological freedoms,
> even for "white nationals".  

I don't think so. In fact, one of the first of the White republics,
the United States enjoyed tremendous liberties until the Federal
Gov't got out of control.

I think that freedom is a great thing and should be permitted to
flourish to the greatest degree that it is not destructive to
national existence. I have said so in what I consider to be my
political principles in the National Party web page. Points 7
and 9 express my views on freedom and liberty.

In fact, YOUR social order comes at the greatest expense of freedom
since the liberal democracies require a tremendous tax burden in
order to maintain themselves. By taxing their citizens upwards of
50% of their earnings to support the governments and their programs,
it ensure that the individual's time is spent working twice as long
and putting a large percentage of his financial freedom in the hands
of the government. THAT is a tremendously underrated violation of
freedom since time = money = liberty = freedom. Sure, you can think
and say whatever you like because the vast majority of people have
neither the time nor inclination to actually think.

> But that is a small price to pay????

No price is too large for the survival and prosperity of my people.

White Power.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Arthur LeBouthillier
                              pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                    http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889

                        Official Nizkor Surveillance:
  http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/l/lebouthillier.arthur

                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Feb 24 00:56:48 PST 1996
Article: 24823 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,can.general,soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Lesson #1 about Race Issues: The Jew
Date: 24 Feb 1996 05:38:31 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 158
Message-ID: <4gm88n$6q9@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References:  <4eifet$ip4@rl0001.rulimburg.nl> <4esl01$776@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4etie2$t3j@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4fbpv6$itj@gate.cyberg8t.com>  <4gb984$ns2@gate.cyberg8t.com> <312A64D6.856@itn.is> <4ghpu2$f1t@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4giffb$eom@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host91.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:14365 alt.revisionism:24823 can.general:70398 soc.culture.jewish:34262 soc.culture.usa:79182

Laura Finsten  says:

>> If artificiality
>> wasn't an issue, then she would have said something like:
>>
>>    if we squabble over borders too much, we could obliterate the only
>>    known habitable plant?

> [in my response, which you apparently have not seen, this is
> indeed what I said.]

O.K. then, with your correction, I understand the point that you
made. To some degree, I agree with it too. However, my solution
is different than yours: strengthen borders. Severely punish violators.

> Hmmmmm, I have indeed clarified.  I took a lot of time to respond
> to your dissection of my post to Ourobouros.  I reposted it a couple
> of days ago, and its hanging up there on my newsreader if not yours.
> Would you like me to send it to you via e-mail?

Yes, you have and I appreciate it. However, by the time that I had
posted this, I did not have a definitive understanding of your
position.

> Gosh, I just hate sitting here listening to people talk about me as
> if I'm not present!!!!  

It is not my intention to do so.

> Perhaps Elias' point is that he did not interpret what I said the
> way that you did, and that perhaps his interpretation of my
> comments is more valid (or at least as valid) as yours?????

However, as I showed, my deducation was not unfounded. But now
I understand the point you were making.

> ... from what I do know of Ourobouros (which, admittedly is not
> a whole heckuva lot), the idea of nuclear weapons in his hands
> is a scary idea indeed.  He presents himself as a great expert
> in biological anthropology, but clearly he doesn't know the first
> thing about it.

It is, like I said in an earlier post, a shame that biological
Darwinism has become infused into racism. I think it was so much
more meaningful and romantic without it.

> Gosh, he might very well say he understands which button releases
> the damn things, even though he doesn't, and then start WWIII
> when he accidentally sets his White Power Rangers manual on the
> wrong part of the control panel by mistake.

I don't know him well enough to know whether that might be true.
He and I have never spoken to any depth.

> But it is not a coherent identity, and it seems that it does not
> exist within in any context except that of a particular political
> agenda.  I would suggest to you that most people who even you
> would otherwise describe as "white" do not consider it to be
> part of their national or ethnic identity.

I know quite a few people who identify themselves as 'White' and
for whom I would say that their identity is quite developed.
However, I would agree that for many it is not as well developed
as it is for others. However, it is my intention to do whatever
I can to help it develop.

I think you are missing the historical significance of why it is
in a shambles. In the latter half of this century, the great States
have set about to eliminate White identity because it threatens
their power over the non-Whites. Hence, there has been a concerted
effort to eliminate it by misrepresenting it, by mislabeling it,
by treating it differently than other identities, by not letting
us develop the necessary institutions needed to develop our identity.
That is not a mistake, but an organized program. There has developed, 
under Marxists and other liberals, whole programs of thought to
destroy White identity and White identity has been targeted as the
major enemy to the international order. One Marxist journal, Race
Traitor, says that White identity is the only thing that stands in
the way between them and their socialist utopia.

I think that you're missing that fact that the elite of our societies
have taken it upon themselves to deconstruct (sometimes the very
term they use) White identity in order to eliminate White existence.
Without adequate institutions to develop and apply it, it is in
many cases a backwater belief system undeveloped in the last 50
years. To the best of my ability, I will change that.

It's no accident that White ethnicity is in a shambles. People like
you have set about as a program to eliminate it while those who
think that they are promoting it are often doing it the most harm.

Even you, pretending that you are the most objective, rational person
in the world apply different standards to Whiteness that you don't
apply to other identities/ethnicities. Every society is based on myths
and common misconceptions. It has been said that a nation is a people
unified by a common misunderstanding of history. That doesn't matter.
I have shown that even Jewish identity is largely a myth just as you
have tried to do with White identity. Does that make it any less valid
or important? Not to me. Now you might try to say that we should seek
to eliminate all such myths/misconceptions but that is not possible
since ALL social activity is an abstraction (and hence is short of
reality). You can no more justify an international order without
appealing to the very same ideas that a nation needs to exist since
it too is an "imagined community" based on half-truths and
misconceptions.

However, I would disagree with your understanding of the significance
of nationality. Rather than being a freedom sapping cocoon, it rather
represents the greatest degree of freedom. It is the product of
people's sacrifices, dreams, ideals, and wishes. Nations exist because
people WANT them to exist. If nations are destroyed, it is because
other people set out to destroy what others have. To me, that is the
biggest evil of all time.

> And that "white national interest" would, of course, mean the end
> of most personal, political, religious and ideological freedoms,
> even for "white nationals".  

I don't think so. In fact, one of the first of the White republics,
the United States enjoyed tremendous liberties until the Federal
Gov't got out of control.

I think that freedom is a great thing and should be permitted to
flourish to the greatest degree that it is not destructive to
national existence. I have said so in what I consider to be my
political principles in the National Party web page. Points 7
and 9 express my views on freedom and liberty.

In fact, YOUR social order comes at the greatest expense of freedom
since the liberal democracies require a tremendous tax burden in
order to maintain themselves. By taxing their citizens upwards of
50% of their earnings to support the governments and their programs,
it ensure that the individual's time is spent working twice as long
and putting a large percentage of his financial freedom in the hands
of the government. THAT is a tremendously underrated violation of
freedom since time = money = liberty = freedom. Sure, you can think
and say whatever you like because the vast majority of people have
neither the time nor inclination to actually think.

> But that is a small price to pay????

No price is too large for the survival and prosperity of my people.

White Power.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Arthur LeBouthillier
                              pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                    http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889

                        Official Nizkor Surveillance:
  http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/l/lebouthillier.arthur

                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Feb 24 08:06:33 PST 1996
Article: 14392 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!helix.net!unixg.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!news.jmls.edu!chi-news.cic.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Yet more hatemail from the "love and peace" crowd
Date: 23 Feb 1996 13:11:49 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <4gkeem$rdn@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4gbkh4$p79@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4gdies$opa@news1.panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host22.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)

Semitic Avenger, 

> Adam never claimed to be a "love and peace" type, Artie.
>
> Now go play in traffic like a good Nazi, ok?

Fresh? Fresh! Is that you? I'm still waiting for that universal
definition of Jewishness. Where is it? It's a simple question isn't
it? Please define Jewishness in a way that uniquely defines all
Jews and which would include a group of humans which would all
recognize each other as Jews. It's a simple question isn't it?

Besides, I thought all of you guys were of the "love and peace"
crowd. The reason that you're such assholes on this board was
because you just couldn't bare to see "haters" [i.e. Whites,
non-Jews] speaking their minds about issues and their values.
I thought that the issue was "hate," which means that you guys
must be the "anti-hate" group. Or do you just want to make sure
that your kind of hate prospers?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Arthur LeBouthillier
                              pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                    http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889

                        Official Nizkor Surveillance:
  http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/l/lebouthillier.arthur

                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Feb 24 08:25:32 PST 1996
Article: 34262 of soc.culture.jewish
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,can.general,soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Lesson #1 about Race Issues: The Jew
Date: 24 Feb 1996 05:38:31 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 158
Message-ID: <4gm88n$6q9@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References:  <4eifet$ip4@rl0001.rulimburg.nl> <4esl01$776@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4etie2$t3j@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4fbpv6$itj@gate.cyberg8t.com>  <4gb984$ns2@gate.cyberg8t.com> <312A64D6.856@itn.is> <4ghpu2$f1t@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4giffb$eom@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host91.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:14365 alt.revisionism:24823 can.general:70398 soc.culture.jewish:34262 soc.culture.usa:79182

Laura Finsten  says:

>> If artificiality
>> wasn't an issue, then she would have said something like:
>>
>>    if we squabble over borders too much, we could obliterate the only
>>    known habitable plant?

> [in my response, which you apparently have not seen, this is
> indeed what I said.]

O.K. then, with your correction, I understand the point that you
made. To some degree, I agree with it too. However, my solution
is different than yours: strengthen borders. Severely punish violators.

> Hmmmmm, I have indeed clarified.  I took a lot of time to respond
> to your dissection of my post to Ourobouros.  I reposted it a couple
> of days ago, and its hanging up there on my newsreader if not yours.
> Would you like me to send it to you via e-mail?

Yes, you have and I appreciate it. However, by the time that I had
posted this, I did not have a definitive understanding of your
position.

> Gosh, I just hate sitting here listening to people talk about me as
> if I'm not present!!!!  

It is not my intention to do so.

> Perhaps Elias' point is that he did not interpret what I said the
> way that you did, and that perhaps his interpretation of my
> comments is more valid (or at least as valid) as yours?????

However, as I showed, my deducation was not unfounded. But now
I understand the point you were making.

> ... from what I do know of Ourobouros (which, admittedly is not
> a whole heckuva lot), the idea of nuclear weapons in his hands
> is a scary idea indeed.  He presents himself as a great expert
> in biological anthropology, but clearly he doesn't know the first
> thing about it.

It is, like I said in an earlier post, a shame that biological
Darwinism has become infused into racism. I think it was so much
more meaningful and romantic without it.

> Gosh, he might very well say he understands which button releases
> the damn things, even though he doesn't, and then start WWIII
> when he accidentally sets his White Power Rangers manual on the
> wrong part of the control panel by mistake.

I don't know him well enough to know whether that might be true.
He and I have never spoken to any depth.

> But it is not a coherent identity, and it seems that it does not
> exist within in any context except that of a particular political
> agenda.  I would suggest to you that most people who even you
> would otherwise describe as "white" do not consider it to be
> part of their national or ethnic identity.

I know quite a few people who identify themselves as 'White' and
for whom I would say that their identity is quite developed.
However, I would agree that for many it is not as well developed
as it is for others. However, it is my intention to do whatever
I can to help it develop.

I think you are missing the historical significance of why it is
in a shambles. In the latter half of this century, the great States
have set about to eliminate White identity because it threatens
their power over the non-Whites. Hence, there has been a concerted
effort to eliminate it by misrepresenting it, by mislabeling it,
by treating it differently than other identities, by not letting
us develop the necessary institutions needed to develop our identity.
That is not a mistake, but an organized program. There has developed, 
under Marxists and other liberals, whole programs of thought to
destroy White identity and White identity has been targeted as the
major enemy to the international order. One Marxist journal, Race
Traitor, says that White identity is the only thing that stands in
the way between them and their socialist utopia.

I think that you're missing that fact that the elite of our societies
have taken it upon themselves to deconstruct (sometimes the very
term they use) White identity in order to eliminate White existence.
Without adequate institutions to develop and apply it, it is in
many cases a backwater belief system undeveloped in the last 50
years. To the best of my ability, I will change that.

It's no accident that White ethnicity is in a shambles. People like
you have set about as a program to eliminate it while those who
think that they are promoting it are often doing it the most harm.

Even you, pretending that you are the most objective, rational person
in the world apply different standards to Whiteness that you don't
apply to other identities/ethnicities. Every society is based on myths
and common misconceptions. It has been said that a nation is a people
unified by a common misunderstanding of history. That doesn't matter.
I have shown that even Jewish identity is largely a myth just as you
have tried to do with White identity. Does that make it any less valid
or important? Not to me. Now you might try to say that we should seek
to eliminate all such myths/misconceptions but that is not possible
since ALL social activity is an abstraction (and hence is short of
reality). You can no more justify an international order without
appealing to the very same ideas that a nation needs to exist since
it too is an "imagined community" based on half-truths and
misconceptions.

However, I would disagree with your understanding of the significance
of nationality. Rather than being a freedom sapping cocoon, it rather
represents the greatest degree of freedom. It is the product of
people's sacrifices, dreams, ideals, and wishes. Nations exist because
people WANT them to exist. If nations are destroyed, it is because
other people set out to destroy what others have. To me, that is the
biggest evil of all time.

> And that "white national interest" would, of course, mean the end
> of most personal, political, religious and ideological freedoms,
> even for "white nationals".  

I don't think so. In fact, one of the first of the White republics,
the United States enjoyed tremendous liberties until the Federal
Gov't got out of control.

I think that freedom is a great thing and should be permitted to
flourish to the greatest degree that it is not destructive to
national existence. I have said so in what I consider to be my
political principles in the National Party web page. Points 7
and 9 express my views on freedom and liberty.

In fact, YOUR social order comes at the greatest expense of freedom
since the liberal democracies require a tremendous tax burden in
order to maintain themselves. By taxing their citizens upwards of
50% of their earnings to support the governments and their programs,
it ensure that the individual's time is spent working twice as long
and putting a large percentage of his financial freedom in the hands
of the government. THAT is a tremendously underrated violation of
freedom since time = money = liberty = freedom. Sure, you can think
and say whatever you like because the vast majority of people have
neither the time nor inclination to actually think.

> But that is a small price to pay????

No price is too large for the survival and prosperity of my people.

White Power.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Arthur LeBouthillier
                              pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                    http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889

                        Official Nizkor Surveillance:
  http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/l/lebouthillier.arthur

                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Feb 25 10:20:21 PST 1996
Article: 14455 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!helix.net!unixg.ubc.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!tribune.usask.ca!decwrl!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: System whores (was: The bait more taken...)
Date: 21 Feb 1996 13:13:52 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <4gf5qg$3cv@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References:  <4g26br$os3@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host01.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)

> Bob Matthews.....isn't he living in an urn someplace?

Fresh? Fresh. Is that you? I'm still waiting for that universal
definition of Jewishness. Please provide me with a definition of
Jewishness which applies uniquely to all Jews and to which no Jews
would disagree. It's a simple question isn't it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Arthur LeBouthillier
                              pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                    http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889

                        Official Nizkor Surveillance:
  http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/l/lebouthillier.arthur

                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Feb 25 10:20:21 PST 1996
Article: 14466 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!helix.net!unixg.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.uoregon.edu!news.dacom.co.kr!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Warning! Jewish Imposter
Date: 23 Feb 1996 22:52:15 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <4glgf0$45o@gate.cyberg8t.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host08.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)

You guys should be real careful There's a Jewish imposter posting
hateful e-mail. I know this guy isn't a real Jew but he pretends he
is. I think that he's really a hateful instigator. After all, Jews
are supposed to be the most loving people on the planet aren't they?


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


From: Adam3T@aol.com
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 11:44:08 -0500
To: pendragn@cyberg8t.com
Subject: Re: Towards a Free White Nation

You DO realize, cocksucker, that the ADL files on you were turned over to 
the Mossad.  The ADL has been passing on information to Jerusalem for, 
oh, about 40 years.  This means, stupid, that your name has come to the 
attention of people who are just a bit more proactive than the ADL.  I 
would imagine that the only reason they haven't messed with you is that 
in their estimation you're just another powerless bag of hot air and 
therefore not a real threat.  Now you be sure to lick my ass clean, 
Arthur.





--------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Arthur LeBouthillier
                              pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                    http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889

                        Official Nizkor Surveillance:
  http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/l/lebouthillier.arthur

                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Mon Feb 26 02:06:21 PST 1996
Article: 25100 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!fdn.fr!r2d2.fdn.org!uunet!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,can.general,soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Lesson #1 about Race Issues: The Jew
Date: 26 Feb 1996 03:38:54 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <4gra0f$1ss@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4gm88n$6q9@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4goiev$dc9@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host92.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:14537 alt.revisionism:25100 can.general:70646 soc.culture.jewish:34560 soc.culture.usa:79336

> I've heard that LeBouthillier is the 1996 National Blowjob Poster
> Child. Is this true?

You'd better be careful, I'm going to tell your mom that you're
using her computer when she's at work. Have you asked her if you
can use her computer?

> But seriously, folks, due to the US ratification of the so-called
> Genocide Convention in 1989, Arthur et al have some serious legal
> exposure.  The convention declares racists and racialists to be
> beyond the pale, "in hostis humanis generis" is the term used,
> i.e. international outlaws.  A careful reading of the Convention,
> particularly Article 6, can support an interpretation that allows
> not only nation states to apprehend and punish racists, but also
> makes racists fair game for ad hoc vigilantes-----just like
> outlaws were fair game for anyone in the old west.

"A careful reading of the Convention ... can support an
interpretation..." I don't think you *CAN* read carefully. :-)
Anyways, you haven't DEFINED racism under this provision.

> These provisions have yet to be litigated.  They can be read to
> mean that racists cannot seek the protection of local law or
> courts, and are stripped of the rights they may have as citizens
> of any particular country. It should be noted that conservatives
> in the US opposed ratification of the Genocide convention for
> decades.  The above reasons may well be why. It should also be
> noted that the Convention is expressly designed not only to
> punish racists after the fact but to prevent their rise to power
> in the first place.
>
> The term"genocide" is defined so broadly that even infliction
> of emotional distress on a member of a minority group is covered.
> Sooner or later, someone will produce a test case. 

Right, you'd better be careful. If I don't fit your definition of
racist, then YOU are guilty of genocide under this definition.
After all, it is so often claimed that we White nationalists are
a minority, well... we're a minority; "infliction of emotional
distress" on us would also be classified as genocide. That shows
how ridiculous that proclamation is.

> Maybe it will
> be Arthur or one of his friends, screaming and demanding their
> rights as citizens of this or that country as they are trundled
> off to an international tribunal convened by some ad hoc group.
> Some of us lawyers can pull together a rump court in minutes flat.

I would welcome an opportunity to be "trundled off" to an
international tribunal. Despite the fact that I wouldn't
recognize the legitimacy of a UN tribunal, it would make a
great news story.

> Now Arthur, you be sure to eat my shorts, okay?

You're a riot. Please keep it up.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Arthur LeBouthillier
                              pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                    http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889

                        Official Nizkor Surveillance:
  http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/l/lebouthillier.arthur

                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Mon Feb 26 22:50:47 PST 1996
Article: 25206 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,can.general,soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Lesson #1 about Race Issues: The Jew
Date: 27 Feb 1996 00:35:34 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <4gtjkm$bnu@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References:  <4eifet$ip4@rl0001.rulimburg.nl> <4esl01$776@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4etie2$t3j@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4fbpv6$itj@gate.cyberg8t.com>  <4gb984$ns2@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4ghcqb$6n0@floyd.santarosa.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host01.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:14599 alt.revisionism:25206 can.general:70730 soc.culture.jewish:34729 soc.culture.usa:79422

Wandering  asks:

> Arthur, since you're continually blathering about white ethnicity,
> perhaps you'll be able to answer these questions:
>
> 1) What do you define as the "White Race"?

First, I define a race to be a lineal ethnic group (i.e. an ethnic
group limited in blood and relationship to certain lineages). Second,
I define White to be those people of Celtic, Germanic or Slavic
heritage who believe that that heritage is the basis of their
nationhood.

2) Why are you afraid of people who don't fit that definition?

I've never stated that I was "afraid of people who don't fit
that definition." What I am worried about is the future of my
people, White people. It is obvious that our interests are continually
and flagrently being violated and I fear for their future.

3) How are your beliefs different from clinical paranoia?

Are you still practicing without a license? You naughty boy you!


--------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Arthur LeBouthillier
                              pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                    http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889

                        Official Nizkor Surveillance:
  http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/l/lebouthillier.arthur

                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Tue Feb 27 07:45:47 PST 1996
Article: 25269 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,can.general,soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Lesson #1 about Race Issues: The Jew
Date: 27 Feb 1996 13:24:43 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <4gv0mr$hmp@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References:  <4g9522$jvk@grivel.une.edu.au> <4gf657$3cv@gate.cyberg8t.com> <312B5EC1.2FBC@itn.is> <4ghqgr$f1t@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4gi1sg$hl4@curly.cc.emory.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host01.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:14630 alt.revisionism:25269 can.general:70781 soc.culture.jewish:34831 soc.culture.usa:79458

> And his point was that your point is incorrect, since there is no
> mention of race in any account of any ancient Celtic religion.
> Read often?

And his point, like yours would be wrong. As R.J. Stewart says in
Celtic Gods Celtic Goddesses, copyright 1990, published by Blandford:

    The Irish Book of Invasions describes six waves of people or
    races arriving in Ireland, and attempts to merge its pagan
    tradition, originally derived from a lost Druidic mythical
    cycle of creation, with Christian pseudo-history...The first
    five races are:
                 1. Cessair
                 2. Partholon
                 3. Nemed
                 4. Fir Bolg
                 5. Tuatha De Danann

This viewpoint would be similar to the early Greek religions which
also held that the Earth had been populated by 5 successive races.

The author also says:

     Underpinning much of Celtic religion is the concept of
     ancestral descent, or ancestor worship. This should not
     be regarded as a crude or savage practice, for it conceals
     a very sophisticated psychology and metaphysics running
     through all legends, myths and manifestations of the gods
     and goddesses, and was interwoven deeply into Celtic society.

Ancestral descent was a key aspect of Celtic belief. One source,
which I don't have handy (although if you REALLY want it I'll
get it) said that this ancestor worship extended to the entire
people, whereby the early Celts believed that they were descended
>from  the gods themselves.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Arthur LeBouthillier
                              pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                    http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889

                        Official Nizkor Surveillance:
  http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/l/lebouthillier.arthur

                   We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

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