The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/m/mckinstry.colin/1996/stone.0696


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Thu Jun  6 07:59:29 PDT 1996
Article: 21639 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,soc.culture.african.american,talk.politics.european-union,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: What is the "White Race" anyway?
Date: 6 Jun 1996 03:52:51 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <4p5kmj$t1v@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4p405o$6va@is.bbsrc.ac.uk> <833997183snz@drmac.demon.co.uk> <4p5230$110u@sol.caps.maine.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-2.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:21639 soc.culture.african.american:118935 talk.politics.european-union:3620 alt.politics.usa.republican:209937

In article <4p5230$110u@sol.caps.maine.edu>, scotterb@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb) says:

>Amazing.  Duncan is debunked, and instead of admitting that he doesn't know 
>anything about genetics and that oops, race is NOT a scientifically valid 
>concept, he simply insults to hide the fact he is shown wrong.
>
So what is race?

Is it social or biological?

Do you have a valid Ph.D or Professorship (like Laura Finsten)?  

Our resident anthropology professor doesn't know a thing about genetics
either and she supposed to be an expert.

Here are some overly repeated but not answered questions for our 
Professor, see if you can answer them:

According to Anthropologists, the Portuguese are Caucasian and the 
Ethiopians are Negro.  Unfortunately, both of them are half white/half
black.  Could you why there is a difference in racial classification?

Secondly, an avidly quoted author by liberals here is Davidson.  Now 
according to Finsten, races are purely social and are most definitely not
biological.  However Davidson in one of his books states that of 800
skulls found in predynastic Egypt, a third were Negro.  Please state how
modern anthropology could classify that a third of these skulls were 
Negro according to social principles only.

>This proves Duncan knows that his position is contrary to truth and science, 
>and he holds the position out of some sort of psychological failing.
>
>Typical.
>
Here is how I define the White Race (Nordic Caucasian) -- not complete:

1. Of the four known skin genes, all of them correspond to the white skin
gene type.

2. The skull shape that is typical of a broad-browed long-head

3. A mean facial angle of 82 degrees.

4. Hirsute, and that hair being fine rather than course.

5. What is known as a straight nose.

6. Highly developed frontal lobes in adult specimens, and includes a
highly developed folds ("wrinkles) on the outer brain.

7. "Round eyed."  Blue, grey, green, hazel and brown coloured eyes 
(forgetting albinos).

8.  Hair colour from platinum blond to an incredibly dark brown (black 
>from  a distance).  Straight through to kinky, but not wooly.

9. (Under review), the PC Map given by Cavalli-Sforza in his book "The 
History and Geography of Human Genes" outlines a particular area that
corresponds to those nations that are Nordic Caucasian.

10. No known admixture of another racial type.

11. Stereotypical feature of being able to digest milk as an adult.

12. Unlike the Chinese, glandular fever is glandular fever and doesn't
develop into nasal cancer.

13 Other features include skin texture, body odour, earwax type and
absence of fractal spots on babies.

Social type features include -- not complete:

1. Mastery of the oceans.

2. Mastery over horticulture and agriculture.

3. Technical/mechanical expertise.

4. Strong engineering principles.

5. Ability to withstand the most amount of parasites (Jews, liberals,
Negroes, Polynesians, Lawyers ...) before collapsing.

6. (Typical) Power-shared government.  

7. Overindulgence in concepts such as mercy and typically help those less
fortunate.

8. Allow themselves to be walked over by minorities.

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Fri Jun  7 08:48:21 PDT 1996
Article: 31319 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!brighton.openmarket.com!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: HEY, CLONES, HERE'S MORE HERESY YOU CAN REPORT!
Date: 7 Jun 1996 00:26:37 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <4p7svt$ep@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4ovat2$i5l@molokini.conterra.com>  <4p2ddp$sdi@molokini.conterra.com> <834087205snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-355.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1

In article <834087205snz@augur.demon.co.uk>, Caesar  says:
>
>In article <4p2ddp$sdi@molokini.conterra.com>
>           bwhit@conterra.com "bob whitaker" writes:
>
>>    Your clone denouncd me as a Nazi, so you did.  You have 
>> never disagreed with one of your clones on this ng
>> 
>> 
>
>You have never disagreed with a racist on this ng.
>
You lose.

For your benefit chasar, Bob and I have disagreed on this ng, unless of
course you consider me not to be racist.

Bob once stated that the ancient civilisations outside Europe were not
relevant, I disagreed O' ignorant one.

Bob once stated that what they did has no relevance today whereas I 
maintained that we can or should learn from their mistakes and what they 
did right.

Please apologise for making such a knee-jerk response...and for not
retracting your comments on Africa and Western Europe being equal in the
14th Century.  Remember Cipolla and the mechanical clock?  Also I failed
to notice an apology on your 0.25% of the GDP (UK) spent on foreign aid
when compared to Liberia's total GDP.  You do remember the figure of
the foreign aid being several times that of Liberia's total GDP don't you?

Ourobouros.






From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Fri Jun  7 12:45:57 PDT 1996
Article: 41642 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!newsfeeder.sdsu.edu!news.millennianet.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!ames!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,can.politics
Subject: Re: Leslie Griswold: "Facts, we don't need no....."
Date: 7 Jun 1996 07:01:37 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <4p8k4h$96q@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4obuhn$bia@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4p031h$8lr@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4p1glr$9ef@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4p3kuo$agg@freenet-news.ca <4p4fh2$ej4@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-75.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:31355 alt.revisionism:41642 can.politics:50042

In article <4p4fh2$ej4@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>, kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC) says:
>
>In article <4p3kuo$agg@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, 
>bn946@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Les Griswold) wrote:

[McVay's dribble snipped]

The Quote:
"Ironworking had reached West Africa by the fourth century B.C....The
new metallurgy...spread rapidly over sub-Saharan Africa in a few
centuries."  B.M. Fagan, "People of the Earth". 5th edition, 1986.
Little, Brown. p.360.


So what ever happened to the "new metallurgy"?  Just sort of died out?
It's a pity you weren't around when Stewart King and I had some fun
arguing over the merits of Negroes actually achieving anything towards
civilisation.  

Whoever was responsible for this technological development either moved
on or downbreed.

BTW, a lot of Egyptians were leaving Egypt around that time, it had
something to do with Persians and Greeks...of course the Persians could
have been moving due to the Greeks as well, but you probably wouldn't
have thought of either...ie., various groups of Whites were moving away
>from  invaders.
 
>>I still say bullshit.  Just because you can quote from a book, doesn't
>>prove shit.  You keep your nose in your books, I'll still prefer real
>>life, thank you.
>
>Translation: Damn! Caught lying again, in public again, without
>a shred of evidence to back up my stupid, ignorant and racist
>bullshit. I ask for real life, a scholar gives me real
>life...what to do now? Pierce didn't tell me virtually
>everyone on the net but Schoedel was smarter than I was when I
>got sucked into the National Appliance... I think I've been
>had.
>
Example of McVay desperately trying to piece an argument together by 
insulting Les once again.

(Gosh, Ken McVay insults again... what a  surprise.)

I presume Les was making a succinct argument McVay.  A lot could be said
of your feeble attempt at insults -- long and boring.

Just because metal working elements reached Darkest Africa doesn't mean
Negroes did it McVay.  Why did it happen all of a sudden and not before?

>
>(Hey, Leslie, do you still try and make your hair look like
>Hitler's? Do you still believe Hitler was a tall, blonde
>"Aryan?" Do you still believe he died fighting the Russians in
>the streets of Berlin?)
>
Another example of McVay's inadequacies.  McVay, who cares whether Les
wants to look like Hitler, does it really matter?  You are also 
demonstrating that you are a very slow learner.  Considering that Les
quoted somebody else's opinion on Hitler's physical characteristics
doesn't mean Les actually believed it...but then you are the man that
believes reading 300 Commando comics gives him special insight into the
hoaxacost aren't you?  As for his death could it not be drawn as
speculation?  Who witnessed or reported how Hitler died?*

Ourobouros.

* To McVay and other incompetents, this is speculation.  Please do not
try putting words into my mouth by saying that I confirm that Hitler died
fighting the Russians.

 



From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Sun Jun  9 17:09:57 PDT 1996
Article: 22182 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news2.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!brighton.openmarket.com!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.california,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.oj-simpson,alt.revision
Subject: Re: Who's an Aryan.
Date: 9 Jun 1996 20:21:22 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <4pfbo2$4ju@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <31B3860B.59F7@worldnet.att.net> <4p085n$7g5@peru.it.earthlink.net> <833913036snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <31B661DE.28E9@usaor.net> <834086069snz@a <834315403snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-317.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.california:25938 alt.politics.nationalism.white:22182 alt.politics.white-power:31733 alt.rush-limbaugh:103925 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:318860 alt.fan.oj-simpson:49494

In article <834315403snz@augur.demon.co.uk>, Caesar  says:
>
>In article <31B77023.2FDA@worldnet.att.net>
>           riverbank@worldnet.att.net "Rad" writes:
>
Rad:
  I'd also like to address the question of the "existence" of the Aryan 
  people.  The Aryans are just as much a "people" as the Jews are, perhaps 
  more so. We are characterized by common Indo-European languages, fair 
  coloring, light, tall skeletons and straight, square features. We 
  originated in northern Europe or Asia (the study of Aryan origins has 
  been suppressed in academia). We moved southward and founded Greece, 
  Rome, Persia, India and the Hitite Empire.  Later, the Aryans of 
  northern Europe gained prominence after their Mediterranean cousins 
  decline (probably do to cross-breeding with the locals).

>
>Maybe Aryans were brown-skinned. Northern European
>Aryans got whiter skins after inter-marrying with
>previous inhabitants of the area (e.g. Basques)
>

I take it you're joking?

White skin is recessive as are most White traits.  How would you explain
the occurrence of blue eyes under that definition?

The Vedi hymns which the Aryans wrote describe themselves and the 
original inhabitants.  BTW, the Vedi hymns were written in Sanskrit.  It
appears they were extremely racist as well (at least at the time of its
writing).

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Sun Jun 16 09:20:12 PDT 1996
Article: 22828 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!spool.mu.edu!munnari.OZ.AU!news.mel.connect.com.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!lll-winken.llnl.gov!ames!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,soc.culture.african.american,talk.politics.european-union,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: What is the "White Race" anyway?
Date: 16 Jun 1996 01:59:38 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <4pvpqa$1nh@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4p405o$6va@is.bbsrc.ac.uk> <833997183snz@drmac.demon.co.uk> <4p5230$110u@sol.caps.maine.edu> <4p5kmj$t1v@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4p93ss$t13@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-42.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:22828 soc.culture.african.american:119897 talk.politics.european-union:3941 alt.politics.usa.republican:216976

In article <4p93ss$t13@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, msr16@cus.cam.ac.uk (M.S. Robb) says:
>
>In article <4p5kmj$t1v@newsource.ihug.co.nz>,
>Ourobouros  wrote:
>
>>According to Anthropologists, the Portuguese are Caucasian and the 
>>Ethiopians are Negro.  Unfortunately, both of them are half white/half
>>black.  Could you why there is a difference in racial classification?
>
>? 
>
So sorry you lack the mental ability to realize that the word "explain"
should in the last sentence.

Repeated with the correction in place:
Could you explain why there is a difference in racial classification?

>>Secondly, an avidly quoted author by liberals here is Davidson.  Now 
>>according to Finsten, races are purely social and are most definitely not
>>biological.  However Davidson in one of his books states that of 800
>>skulls found in predynastic Egypt, a third were Negro.  Please state how
>>modern anthropology could classify that a third of these skulls were 
>>Negro according to social principles only.
>
>The social argument is dependent on the idea that all humans interbreed 
>and produce fertile offspring. Variations between and within populationa 
>are normal and irrelevant.
>
This however doesn't answer the question.  Presumably you are a liberal,
as liberals like Finsten just dodge questions.

Using your argument I can readily say the fair-skinned phenotype use to
rule every society and region on the globe and they somehow disappeared
before the colonial appetite hit Europe.  

You cannot refute my arguments based upon your answer.  Neither can you
affirm Davidson's argument that a third of the skulls found in predynastic
Egypt were Negro.

Hence your reply is typical of liberals.  You have two modes of arguing:
1. Dodge the question
2. Belittle the author.

Can you break out of the mold of your compatriots?

>>1. Of the four known skin genes, all of them correspond to the white skin
>>gene type.
>
>So what happens to Portugese?
>
What about them?

Could you please make a sensible dodge if you are going to dodge.

>>1. Mastery of the oceans.
>>2. Mastery over horticulture and agriculture.
>>3. Technical/mechanical expertise.
>>4. Strong engineering principles.
>
>This amounts to having had an industrial revolution in the UK.
>
As well as the other members of the White race.  For example, before the
Romans became multi-cultural (and useless) they were masters of the
above.  The Greeks before they became multi-cultural were masters of the
above.  The Aryans over India and Persia were masters of the above.  The
Egyptians before they became multi-cultural were masters of the above, as
just a few examples.

>>5. Ability to withstand the most amount of parasites (Jews, liberals,
>>Negroes, Polynesians, Lawyers ...) before collapsing.
>>6. (Typical) Power-shared government.  
>>7. Overindulgence in concepts such as mercy and typically help those less
>>fortunate.
>>8. Allow themselves to be walked over by minorities.
>
>This amounts to nothing.
>
Ah, but these are social...and they do help to demonstrate the base or
foundational culture shared by the White race.

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Sun Jun 16 13:05:23 PDT 1996
Article: 119897 of soc.culture.african.american
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!spool.mu.edu!munnari.OZ.AU!news.mel.connect.com.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!lll-winken.llnl.gov!ames!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,soc.culture.african.american,talk.politics.european-union,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: What is the "White Race" anyway?
Date: 16 Jun 1996 01:59:38 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <4pvpqa$1nh@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4p405o$6va@is.bbsrc.ac.uk> <833997183snz@drmac.demon.co.uk> <4p5230$110u@sol.caps.maine.edu> <4p5kmj$t1v@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4p93ss$t13@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-42.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:22828 soc.culture.african.american:119897 talk.politics.european-union:3941 alt.politics.usa.republican:216976

In article <4p93ss$t13@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, msr16@cus.cam.ac.uk (M.S. Robb) says:
>
>In article <4p5kmj$t1v@newsource.ihug.co.nz>,
>Ourobouros  wrote:
>
>>According to Anthropologists, the Portuguese are Caucasian and the 
>>Ethiopians are Negro.  Unfortunately, both of them are half white/half
>>black.  Could you why there is a difference in racial classification?
>
>? 
>
So sorry you lack the mental ability to realize that the word "explain"
should in the last sentence.

Repeated with the correction in place:
Could you explain why there is a difference in racial classification?

>>Secondly, an avidly quoted author by liberals here is Davidson.  Now 
>>according to Finsten, races are purely social and are most definitely not
>>biological.  However Davidson in one of his books states that of 800
>>skulls found in predynastic Egypt, a third were Negro.  Please state how
>>modern anthropology could classify that a third of these skulls were 
>>Negro according to social principles only.
>
>The social argument is dependent on the idea that all humans interbreed 
>and produce fertile offspring. Variations between and within populationa 
>are normal and irrelevant.
>
This however doesn't answer the question.  Presumably you are a liberal,
as liberals like Finsten just dodge questions.

Using your argument I can readily say the fair-skinned phenotype use to
rule every society and region on the globe and they somehow disappeared
before the colonial appetite hit Europe.  

You cannot refute my arguments based upon your answer.  Neither can you
affirm Davidson's argument that a third of the skulls found in predynastic
Egypt were Negro.

Hence your reply is typical of liberals.  You have two modes of arguing:
1. Dodge the question
2. Belittle the author.

Can you break out of the mold of your compatriots?

>>1. Of the four known skin genes, all of them correspond to the white skin
>>gene type.
>
>So what happens to Portugese?
>
What about them?

Could you please make a sensible dodge if you are going to dodge.

>>1. Mastery of the oceans.
>>2. Mastery over horticulture and agriculture.
>>3. Technical/mechanical expertise.
>>4. Strong engineering principles.
>
>This amounts to having had an industrial revolution in the UK.
>
As well as the other members of the White race.  For example, before the
Romans became multi-cultural (and useless) they were masters of the
above.  The Greeks before they became multi-cultural were masters of the
above.  The Aryans over India and Persia were masters of the above.  The
Egyptians before they became multi-cultural were masters of the above, as
just a few examples.

>>5. Ability to withstand the most amount of parasites (Jews, liberals,
>>Negroes, Polynesians, Lawyers ...) before collapsing.
>>6. (Typical) Power-shared government.  
>>7. Overindulgence in concepts such as mercy and typically help those less
>>fortunate.
>>8. Allow themselves to be walked over by minorities.
>
>This amounts to nothing.
>
Ah, but these are social...and they do help to demonstrate the base or
foundational culture shared by the White race.

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Sun Jun 16 13:50:56 PDT 1996
Article: 43871 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.uoregon.edu!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.conspiracy,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Recipe of Hate: The "Kosher Tax" Scam
Date: 16 Jun 1996 19:38:46 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <4q1ns6$i1r@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4or1lf$p8s@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <4pjti5$cbo@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4plido$f7s@news.usaor.net> <4pq6jp$isj@nadine.teleport.com> <4pusqg$7sa@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-282.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:22956 alt.politics.usa.republican:217471 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:322889 alt.conspiracy:59474 alt.revisionism:43871 alt.politics.perot:49133

In article <4pusqg$7sa@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>, 
kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC) says:
>
>In article <4pq6jp$isj@nadine.teleport.com>, 
>kathleen@teleport.com (Kathleen Mulhern) wrote:
>
>>In article <4plido$f7s@news.usaor.net>,
>>   mckinney@usaor.net (Ian McKinney) wrote:
>
>>>Not necessarily related. I can't believe that kosher certification had
>>>anything to do with it. I have never heard anyone say they are more
>>>likely to buy something because of the K or U.
>
>Translating from the RedNeck: "If I admit that vegetarians
>keep kosher, and know what certification implies about
>preparation and quality, I won't be able to bash Jews with
>this 'kosher tax' scam from the Klan. I must therefore feign
>ignorance... which won't be difficult for me."
>
So what you are saying is that aluminium and stuff needs "K or U" stamped
on it not for Jews but for vegetarians?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but mushrooms aren't kosher*, however vegetarians
will eat mushrooms.

McVay, please make a more substantial argument than vegetarians.  BTW, how
do you think vegetarians survive in non-kosher stamping countries?

Do you think Hitler would have been more favourable to Jews if they had
the kosher stamps** in his day? 

In your opinion McVay, shouldn't these businesses that pay Rabbis for 
nothing*** also have a program for Catholics?  Afterall, there are more
Catholics in America AND I'm sure that Catholics would feel more
comfortable eating food ordained by a Priest.  What about the growing
Muslim populations in America, shouldn't they have stamped food as well?
If they don't already outnumber Jews, they soon will, and they have very
strict rules for food.  At least in New Zealand, the Muslims actually pay
for the meat slaughtered in the direction of Mecca****.

*Mushrooms are a fungi which they shouldn't eat if they keep their rules.

** For the many dimwits that pose as non-ignorant liberals, Hitler was a
vegetarian.  

*** Jews are an amazing ability to found ways of making money for nothing.

**** If you visit some of the major freezing-works here, you'll find 
these special chambers built towards Mecca and these special outfits and
knifes and so forth.  But unlike Jews, Muslims actually pay for it.

Ourobouros.


From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Sun Jun 16 19:46:02 PDT 1996
Article: 22984 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ken McVay: Not Addressing the Question
Date: 17 Jun 1996 00:34:18 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 120
Message-ID: <4q296a$lbg@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4pqhis$aq4@freenet-news.carleton.ca <4ptega$1qi@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4pvnsb$1nh@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4pvnsb$1nh@newsource.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:32738 alt.politics.nationalism.white:22984 alt.discrimination:48590 alt.revisionism:43941

p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:
>In article <4ptega$1qi@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>, kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC) says:

>>In article <4pqhis$aq4@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, 
>>bn946@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Les Griswold) wrote, without
>>noting the hilarious irony:

>>>Gee, why am I NOT surprised that Fester engages in a truly spectacular
>>>display of bafflegab when she can't address the question, even with one of
>>>her smart-ass comments?

>>Oh, joy, another opening to remind the world that Mr. Griswold
>>is not, er, too swift when it comes to answering questions....
>>the phrase "pot, kettle, black" comes to mind.... except that
>>Ms. Finsten answers questions, while Mr. Griswold avoids them
>>like the plague:

>[snip]

>Curious McVay.

>Questions:

>1.  If Miss Finsten answers questions why has she always avoided/dodged 
>mine?

Ah, Mr. Stone.  Back telling more lies about me, I see.  It is odd that
you didn't see it, but I posted a lengthy reply to the last thingy I saw
>from  you itemising physical and cultural "traits" of the "white" race.
Never saw a response to it from you.  My post asked a bunch of questions,
but you didn't answer them, Mr. Stone.  Are you avoiding or dodging the
questions I posed to you?  Having newsfeed problems?  Perhaps you did
respond, but I didn't see the response? 

> 1a. Using Finsten's argument on equality, do you consider me to be equal
>to Miss Finsten?

Who on earth cares?  You are the only person who thinks this even
merits being called a question.  Cut the ridiculous whine.  Give it
up, Mr. Stone.

> 1b. According to anthropological classification the Portuguese are
>Caucasian and the Ethiopian is Negro.  However both are half breeds 
>white/black mixes.  Could you please explain the difference in 
>classification?

This will be the fourth or fifth time I ask you to give me a credible
source which describes the Portuguese and Ethiopians as "half breed
white/black mixes".  Got that, Mr. Stone?  Have you seen this?  You
ask a question that doesn't make sense, I ask you for clarification
or substantiation, and you disappear.  Then a week or so later you
come back and whine that I'm "dodging your oh-so-penetrating questions",
as if I had said nothing in response to your idiotic garbage.

In fact, I'll even repost part of one of these "dialogues" from
Dejanews, posted to alt.politics.white-power on 17 Apr 1996 (gosh,
that was TWO MONTHS AGO!!!):

Mr. Stone whimpers at a perceived slight:

Nor will she answer why there is different racial classification between
a half white/black Portuguese and a half white/black Ethiopian.

I responded:

Who, besides you, says that Portuguese are "half white/black", or
that Ethiopians are "half white/black", Mr. Stone?  Have you seen
my other posts about the misunderstandings you seem to harbour 
about Old World population history that would lead you to ask such
an absurd question?  Or are you going to turn this into another
of those absurd spiels about my dodging your questions?  You pose
an idiotic and unanswerable question.    

> 1c. According to Miss Finsten, races are purely a social phenomena and
>is most definitely not biological.  Could you please explain on social
>grounds only how of the 800 skulls found in predynastic Egypt, a third 
>could be Negro?

>From  a post I wrote in response to you (and which you never responded
to, as I recall), dated 1996/01/03:

[My comments about racial identification on the basis of skeletal 
remains:]

Douglas H. Ubelaker, "Human Skeletal Remains", p.118:  "...racial
affiliation is difficult to assess."  Now clearly, Ubelaker means
on the basis of skeletons, but this is what craniometry does.  It
measures and assesses bone structure and morphological variation.
Ubelaker goes on to say that "Individuals classified SOCIALLY
[emphasis added] as members of a particular "race" vary greatly in
physical appearance."

Ubelaker goes on to discuss broad cranial characteristics of the
only "racial groups" that there seems to be any degree of
consensus on: mongoloids, negroids, and caucasoids.  The morphological
features he mentions are projection of the malar bones, circularity
of the orbits, interorbital distances, width of the nasal aperture
and palate.  It is a pretty limited set of features.

[much deletia of excretia]

>7. Could we please also have a review of these 300 books you've supposedly
>read?  You show an extreme ineptness for someone so 'schooled.'

I can't resist.  Mr. Stone, you claim to "wield" a BSc, and yet you
thought that "white" humans have something like 88 genes?  You should
not be called anyone "inept" or "unschooled". 

>All have been questions asked before.  Question 1 pertains to Miss Finsten
>and her avoidance of those questions, all the rest of the questions have
>been asked of you, and to date you have avoided them all.

You are one sleazy little hypocrite, Mr. Stone.  I have not avoided your
questions.  From my newsfeed, what I have seen is your repeated avoidance
of my responses to these "gauntlets" you throw down, repeatedly, all the
while ignoring what I have said in response to them.  Why haven't you
answered my questions, Mr. Stone?

[cut the crap]



From alec@gryn.org Mon Jun 17 07:38:38 PDT 1996
Article: 43984 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!winternet.com!news1.io.org!tor250!org!gryn!alec
From: alec@gryn.org (Alec Grynspan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.conspiracy,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Recipe of Hate: The "Kosher Tax" Scam
Date: 16 Jun 96 21:08:28
Organization: Neuro Mancer's - The Gateway of Choice
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <40a_9606162146@tor250.org>
References: <4or1lf$p8s@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <4pjti5$cbo@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4plido$f7s@news.usaor.net> <4pq6jp$isj@nadine.teleport.com> <4pusqg$7sa@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4q1ns6$i1r@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.231.240.146
X-FTN-To: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23003 alt.politics.usa.republican:217648 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:323030 alt.conspiracy:59572 alt.revisionism:43984 alt.politics.perot:49159

<*[*] [*] [p_stone@alchemy.co.nz] [All] [ALT.REVISIONISM] +>
<+[Recipe of Hate: The "Kosher Tax" Scam] [Sun 16 Jun 96 15:38][Sun 16 Jun 96
17:53][0]*>

 pscn> In your opinion McVay, shouldn't these businesses that pay
 pscn> Rabbis for nothing*** also have a program for Catholics?
 pscn> Afterall, there are more Catholics in America AND I'm sure that

Please name those businesses that pay a Rabbi for nothing. Let me
know when you get past zero.


++GMAIL 1.3++ It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
--
|Fidonet:  Alec Grynspan 1:2424/224
|Internet: alec@gryn.org



From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Wed Jun 19 01:01:47 PDT 1996
Article: 44433 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.uoregon.edu!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ken McVay: Not Addressing the Question
Date: 18 Jun 1996 22:47:25 GMT
Organization: The Internet Group
Lines: 202
Message-ID: <4q7blt$j81@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4pqhis$aq4@freenet-news.carleton.ca <4q296a$lbg@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-308.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33011 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23197 alt.discrimination:48731 alt.revisionism:44433

In article <4q296a$lbg@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura Finsten  says:
>
>p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:
>>In article <4ptega$1qi@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>, kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC) says:
[snip]

>>Questions:
>
>>1.  If Miss Finsten answers questions why has she always avoided/dodged 
>>mine?
>
>Ah, Mr. Stone.  Back telling more lies about me, I see.  It is odd that
>you didn't see it, but I posted a lengthy reply to the last thingy I saw
>from you itemising physical and cultural "traits" of the "white" race.
>Never saw a response to it from you.  My post asked a bunch of questions,
>but you didn't answer them, Mr. Stone.  Are you avoiding or dodging the
>questions I posed to you?  Having newsfeed problems?  Perhaps you did
>respond, but I didn't see the response? 
>

No I did not see your reply to mine on my itemising the physical and
cultural traits of the white race.

>> 1a. Using Finsten's argument on equality, do you consider me to be equal
>>to Miss Finsten?
>
>Who on earth cares?  You are the only person who thinks this even
>merits being called a question.  Cut the ridiculous whine.  Give it
>up, Mr. Stone.
>
Because Finsten, you cared enough to try and tackle the question.  If you
think it is just a whine, then you should be able to easily answer it 
rather than dodge it like you normally do.

>> 1b. According to anthropological classification the Portuguese are
>>Caucasian and the Ethiopian is Negro.  However both are half breeds 
>>white/black mixes.  Could you please explain the difference in 
>>classification?
>
>This will be the fourth or fifth time I ask you to give me a credible
>source which describes the Portuguese and Ethiopians as "half breed
>white/black mixes".  Got that, Mr. Stone?  Have you seen this?  You
>ask a question that doesn't make sense, I ask you for clarification
>or substantiation, and you disappear.  Then a week or so later you
>come back and whine that I'm "dodging your oh-so-penetrating questions",
>as if I had said nothing in response to your idiotic garbage.
>
Actually Cavalli-Sforza makes that assertion in the book you don't like.
He even makes the comment that some Anthrolopologist classify the
Ethiopians as Caucasian because of the mixture.  BTW, the key word is
SOME and not ALL or MOST as you would like to make it so.

>In fact, I'll even repost part of one of these "dialogues" from
>Dejanews, posted to alt.politics.white-power on 17 Apr 1996 (gosh,
>that was TWO MONTHS AGO!!!):
>
>Mr. Stone whimpers at a perceived slight:
>
If you are going to be insulting you'd better make sure you can do better
than that, it is similar to your extremely feeble joke you tried to 
make about being a broken 186 chip.

>Nor will she answer why there is different racial classification between
>a half white/black Portuguese and a half white/black Ethiopian.
>
>I responded:
>
>Who, besides you, says that Portuguese are "half white/black", or
>that Ethiopians are "half white/black", Mr. Stone?  Have you seen
>my other posts about the misunderstandings you seem to harbour 
>about Old World population history that would lead you to ask such
>an absurd question?  Or are you going to turn this into another
>of those absurd spiels about my dodging your questions?  You pose
>an idiotic and unanswerable question.    
>
The Portuguese are too trivial a case to cite anybody.  A standard history
book of the Portuguese Naval power era would suffice in that regard but
then I'm talking to a "true red" liberal aren't I?

Therefore please read a history book on Portugal.  Please be careful how
you interpret it as well, your interpretation of authors to date is
somewhat poor, ie., I don't trust you in being able to comprehend such a
book.

I assume by your feeble comment on Old World populations is concerning
Italy with your extreme ignorance of it?

It is curious that you mention "idiotic and unanswerable question."  ROFL.
Its only idiotic because you can't answer it, liberals have two tactics.
1. Ignore or dodge the question or 2. belittle it and "...idiotic..." is
purely that.

>> 1c. According to Miss Finsten, races are purely a social phenomena and
>>is most definitely not biological.  Could you please explain on social
>>grounds only how of the 800 skulls found in predynastic Egypt, a third 
>>could be Negro?
>
>From a post I wrote in response to you (and which you never responded
>to, as I recall), dated 1996/01/03:
>
>[My comments about racial identification on the basis of skeletal 
>remains:]
>
>Douglas H. Ubelaker, "Human Skeletal Remains", p.118:  "...racial
>affiliation is difficult to assess."  Now clearly, Ubelaker means
>on the basis of skeletons, but this is what craniometry does.  It
>measures and assesses bone structure and morphological variation.
>Ubelaker goes on to say that "Individuals classified SOCIALLY
>[emphasis added] as members of a particular "race" vary greatly in
>physical appearance."
>
If this his true intention rather than an out of context quote then like
you, he has his head up his arse.

"Individuals classified SOCIALLY as members of a particular "race" vary
greatly in physical appearance."

You quoted it, I assume you meant it backs up your position, but it 
doesn't.  Please feel free to point out how it faults my argument that
racial difference could be ascertained biologically if only modern
physical anthropologists got their head out of their arses.  

If their is craniometrical difference then it can't be SOCIALLY explained.
Genetics determine the difference and their lies biology and not 
sociology.

>Ubelaker goes on to discuss broad cranial characteristics of the
>only "racial groups" that there seems to be any degree of
>consensus on: mongoloids, negroids, and caucasoids.  The morphological
>features he mentions are projection of the malar bones, circularity
>of the orbits, interorbital distances, width of the nasal aperture
>and palate.  It is a pretty limited set of features.
>
Which of course must be only SOCIAL.  You're a riot Miss Finsten.  I'd
love to do anthropology under you.  

High cheek bones of Asians must be SOCIAL mustn't they?  Genetics are
completely irrelevant in determining how one looks (inside and out) 
aren't they?  

Of course having Black skin is another SOCIAL event isn't it?  

Surely if something is social rather than biological then it can be 
changed via thought process then couldn't it?  In effect, all those 
Negroes living in poverty in the States and blame it one Whitey have no
such excuse, afterall, if it's only social difference, they could will
themselves to look like White Europeans couldn't they? 


>>7. Could we please also have a review of these 300 books you've supposedly
>>read?  You show an extreme ineptness for someone so 'schooled.'
>
>I can't resist.  Mr. Stone, you claim to "wield" a BSc, and yet you
>thought that "white" humans have something like 88 genes?  You should
>not be called anyone "inept" or "unschooled". 
>
Citation please.  Please ascertain when and where I said "white" humans
have something like 88 genes.  I have stated the Cavalli-Sforza based
his PC Maps (for Europeans) on 88 +- 0.1 genes and I did have an argument
with a Jew over its meaning.  He actually read the book I quoted unlike
you.

I find it even more amusing that you claim to be a professor.  Obviously
they don't want anybody that thinks at your University.  Initially I
would of presumed that you slept your way there, but I doubt any man or
woman would want to risk it with you.  Did the University you attend feel
they needed more women of the staff or something?  Someone of your 
calibre wouldn't even be fit for housekeeping

BTW Miss Finsten, I'm trying to make you a household name, most people I
met and talk about racial topics love hearing your name alongside your
incompetence.  McVay was fun, but nothing so far has compared to you as
a conversation piece.  

>>All have been questions asked before.  Question 1 pertains to Miss Finsten
>>and her avoidance of those questions, all the rest of the questions have
>>been asked of you, and to date you have avoided them all.
>
>You are one sleazy little hypocrite, Mr. Stone.  I have not avoided your
>questions.  From my newsfeed, what I have seen is your repeated avoidance
>of my responses to these "gauntlets" you throw down, repeatedly, all the
>while ignoring what I have said in response to them.  Why haven't you
>answered my questions, Mr. Stone?

Lets review, you refuse to answer the question on equality.  You claim
ignorance over the racial admixture of the Portuguese and Ethiopians which
someone with a professorship in anthropology shouldn't have.  Thereby you
dodge the question by trying to move the topic in another direction.  You
still haven't explained SOCIALLY how of 800 skulls found in predynastic
Egypt, a third were Negro, instead you quote a man who you think backs up
your argument but doesn't.  Therefore you are dodging once more.  And no
I never saw your half-baked responses before today.  

Lastly, there is your lousy excuse for a reply on PC Maps.  According to
you C-S made his (2D) maps based on completely arbitrary scales, ie.,
random.  In should be remembered that it wasn't on one "bar" but TWO.  In
effect just spraying paint on a piece of canvas and then trying to do
genetic analyze.  BTW, I'm delibrately exaggerating the point so you 
hopefully realize your completely irrational interpretation.

Ourobouros.



From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Wed Jun 19 12:11:54 PDT 1996
Article: 23209 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!news.uoregon.edu!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,soc.culture.african.american,talk.politics.european-union,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: What is the "White Race" anyway?
Date: 18 Jun 1996 23:23:02 GMT
Organization: The Internet Group
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <4q7dom$j81@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4p405o$6va@is.bbsrc.ac.uk> <833997183snz@drmac.demon.co.uk> <4p5230$110u@sol.caps.maine.edu> <4p5kmj$t1v@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4p93ss$t13@ly <4q6vll$7qd@shore.shore.net>
Reply-To: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-308.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23209 soc.culture.african.american:120132 talk.politics.european-union:4037 alt.politics.usa.republican:218731

In article <4q6vll$7qd@shore.shore.net>, LauraDavis@aol.com (LauraDavis) says:
>
[snip]

I wrote:
As well as the other members of the White race.  For example, before 
the Romans became multi-cultural (and useless) they were masters of the
above.  The Greeks before they became multi-cultural were masters of 
the above.  The Aryans over India and Persia were masters of the above.  
The Egyptians before they became multi-cultural were masters of the above, 
as just a few examples.

The ill-considered response:
Geez, get a history book.  All that you write above is either a lie, or 
something which is unknowable due to lack of evidence.  Face it, the 
"white" Europeans were the world's most backward barbarians for most of 
history. If biology was determinant, and if they were somehow 'better', 
then they'd have been the rulers.  Instead, it wasn't until the culture 
took some twists and turns that they (copying technology from non-
Europeans...people darker than them, in other words) developed colonialism 
and capitalism.  It's a cultural, not biological phenomenon.  Again, if 
it were biological, they'd have "ruled" throughout history.  Instead, 
they were backwards and ignorant.

First point, I study history.

On the Romans feel free to pick up Gibbons "Decline and Fall of the 
Roman Empire," please also note the reference to Jews as well.

That Egypt became multi-cultural is as common as grass.  For example, even
the Establisment's approved book "A History of Ancient Egypt" by Nicolas
Grimal mentions the multi-cultural aspect and the difficulties that
developed from it.

The others don't take much.

According to the late Sir Arthur Keith, the Sumerians exhumed at Ur were
broad-browed longheads, ie., Aryan.  The late Professor Waddell also did
a lot of secondary work establishing the racial identity of the world's
first known civilisation.  

Unfortunately for you, you have equated the Europeans as being the only
"White race" which has not always been true.  Our race has ruled 
practically for the entire period of civilisation.  In China the most
famous was the Wusun dynasty, however that was not the only period of
white rule.  During the 1st to 6th Centuries AD, the Scythians ruled both
North China and Japan.  In fact they were responsible for setting up the
civilisation of Japan and for the imperial family.  BTW, the Wusun
dynasty has been attributed to the Scandinavians who according to you
were barbarians.  

It should be noted the barbarian was a title given to anybody that wasn't
Greek or Roman.  Even is the so-called barbaric times we still had fully
developed metallurgy and the wheel with evidence of writing (Ogahm).  We
produced chariots, which despite the insistence of modern history, need
roads to function.  We were also very effective in terms of war, as the
Gauls attested in there rampage throughout Europe and Asia-Minor (reached
and settled Galatia).

So what slowed the Europeans down?  With the exception of the Mediterrean
basin, North Europe was an extremely harsh environment (since been
conquered).  We also had an anchor called Christianity, as the 
Renaissance, Reformation and Science Revolution should all blatantly
demonstrate.

Therefore I can say our superiority is biological and our genes help 
determine our culture.

Ourobouros.





  


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Wed Jun 19 12:17:44 PDT 1996
Article: 33028 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.uoregon.edu!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,nz.politics
Subject: Our beloved police force
Date: 19 Jun 1996 01:59:47 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <4q7muj$ntf@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-279.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1

Written by Anton Foljambe, president of the National Front (NZ).

In the News

Showing just how much use the Police really are, cops in Auckland have 
swung swiftly into complete inaction over a spate of violent racist 
attacks against Europeans.  A Police spokesmen admitted being aware of a 
delibrate campaign of anti-White racial attacks being carried out by 
Polynesian youths in New Lynn, but so far absolutely nothing has been 
done, and the attacks are being treated as isolated cases.  This is sharp 
contrast to the hysterical reaction from the Establishment (including 
their lackeys in the Police force), whenever an Asian immigrant is 
attacked by Europeans.

Racist attacks on Whites, the Establisment would let us believe, simply 
don’t happen.  It may here be timely to quote maverick Sydney Morning 
Herald columnist Paul Sheenan, who, in an article on violence in America 
last year, concluded that "Blacks murder Whites at 18 times the rate that 
Whites murder Blacks".  Food for thought.
End Quote.

Posted just as yet more evidence.

Ourobouros


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Wed Jun 19 12:17:44 PDT 1996
Article: 33029 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!quagga.ru.ac.za!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,nz.politics
Subject: Liberals and brain sizes
Date: 19 Jun 1996 01:56:39 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <4q7mon$ntf@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-279.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1

This is from the "New Nationalist" Issue #2 p.1.

Half a mo, Dr Prasad!

National Front leader ANTON FOLJAMBE takes a look at the infamous 
"brain ads."

It will come as no surprise to readers that I am a less than 
enthausiastic supporter of the Race Relations Office.  Not to put too 
fine a point on it, I consider the very existence of the Office an insult 
to the New Zealand people.  The appointment of a recently arrived Asian 
immigrant to head this body has done little to improve my estimation of 
it!

While there can be no doubt that Dr. Rajen Prasad is an intelligent and 
capable man, I have a very principled objection to a guest in our country 
taking it upon himself to lecture his hosts on the way they should think 
and behave.  Indeed, I stated as much to Dr. Prasad, in a letter at the 
time of his appointment.

Since then, this arrogant and opinionated individual has adopted an 
offensively high public profile, and has, perhaps most controversially, 
foisted upon the New Zealand population the most abrasive newspaper 
advertizement seen in a long time.  I refer, of course to the infamous 
"brain ads," which appeared in all major daily newspapers at the end of 
April.  Modelled on a similar advertizing campaign run in Britain 
featuring illustrations of four brains; one labelled "Maori", one 
labelled "Pakeha", one labelled "Asian", and one, dramatically smaller 
than the rest, labelled "Racist."

Everyone seems to have had something to say about these nauseating 
advertizements, but I should like to focus on four points.

Firstly; it can not be ignored that the adverts were sponsored by giant 
advertizing agency Saatchi and Saatchi.  This company are no strangers to 
Establishment propaganda; remember the "Let’s feel good about the 
economy" campaign about a year back?  Furthermore, the offering of 
discount advertizing space by all the papers involved is yet more 
indication of an alliance between the government, Big Business, and the 
media, to promote acceptance of, and adherence to, internationalist 
dogma.

Secondly; the use of the word "Pakeha" to refer to European New 
Zealanders seems to have offended large numbers of people.  Dr. Prasad, 
predictably, has waved aside the objections of these people as being 
"based on a misinformed belief" that the word was originally an insulting 
term used by Maori to describe European settlers.  Leaving aside the 
large body of evidence that it was indeed a contemptuous expression, may 
I beg to claim that the good Doctor has missed the point.  It is 
inherently insulting for we as Europeans to be identified by a word from 
a language that is totally alien to us.  I know of very few Europeans 
happy with the expression "Pakeha".  If Dr. Prasad genuinely wishes to 
improve race relations in this country, he should stop using an 
expression that is as fingernails down a blackboard to the vast bulk of 
New Zealanders.

The third point I wish to raise is the implication, inherent in the 
advert, that small brain size equates with a lack of intelligence.  It is 
ironic that, whenever it is pointed out that members of the Negroid race 
have smaller amounts of brain matter than Europeans (this, I stress, is a 
scientific fact, from which I am not here drawing any conclusions), the 
likes of Dr. Prasad are quick to claim that "size is irrelevant".  In the 
future, they should perhaps add the rider, "when is suits us"!

Fourthly;  I come to the fundemental question -- are racists lacking in 
intelligence?  I shall not attempt to define who is or is not a racist.  
Suffice it to say that Dr. Prasad clearly considers me one.  Therefore I 
am stupid.  Obviously the people who let me into the Gifted Childrens’ 
Society as a youngster, and the teachers who consistently put me in top-
streamed classes throughout my schooling, were way off beam.  It’s a good 
thing I’m a modest sort of chap, or I might be tempted to bring these 
inconsistencies to the Doctor’s attention...

I shall, however, leave the final word to a colleague of mine, who 
commented; "people who are racist may only have half a brain, but people 
who aren’t racist only have a half a country".  Enough said.

End Quote.

BTW, the context is for National Front readers.  Secondly, the bill-board
advertising company OGGI has at least in Auckland given free advertising 
to the "brain ads."

Ourobouros.



From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Wed Jun 19 12:17:45 PDT 1996
Article: 33126 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!quagga.ru.ac.za!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,nz.politics
Subject: Re: Liberals and brain sizes
Date: 19 Jun 1996 05:36:07 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <4q83k7$2cj@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4q7mon$ntf@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4q7qbe$vbj@totara.its.vuw.ac.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-318.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1

In article <4q7qbe$vbj@totara.its.vuw.ac.nz>, 
hrprice@matai.vuw.ac.nz says:
>
>Greetings,
>
>p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:

[snip]

It is not too often you that you met someone of your calibre.  For a 
start, *I am not Anton*

Secondly, English is one of many Indo-European
languages, and which one Anton specified was not mentioned. 

Thirdly, there are not billions of New Zealanders, 

Fourthly, I said it was in context of the National Front audience, so
your prattle on being "one of two billion that weren't" is completely
irrelevant, but thanks for trying.

Fifthly, just because you don't agree with something and therefore 
belittle it doesn't disprove it, otherwise we'd still believe, like you 
obviously, that the world is flat.  

Sixthly, Judging from your awesomely powerful counter-argument one would
presume you failed even at primary school.  You could at least added
something intelligent into your argument, that is if you're even capable
of stringing a logical construction together.

Seventhly, unless you can actually produce something worth reading, 
please refrain from insulting yourself.

Ourobouros.

The first degree of folly is to conceit one's self wise; the second to
profess it; the third to despise counsel.
	-- Ben Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack




From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Thu Jun 20 07:23:51 PDT 1996
Article: 44752 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!enews.sgi.com!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ken McVay: Not Addressing the Question
Date: 20 Jun 1996 02:15:52 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 219
Message-ID: <4qac8o$t72@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pqhis$aq4@freenet-news.carleton.ca <4ptega$1qi@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4pvnsb$1nh@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4q4otf$pbg@panix2.panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-616.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33299 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23358 alt.discrimination:48825 alt.revisionism:44752

In article <4q4otf$pbg@panix2.panix.com>, rakshasa@panix.com (Kevin Filan) says:
>
>In article <4pvnsb$1nh@newsource.ihug.co.nz>,
>Ourobouros  wrote:

[snip]
Question:
 1b. According to anthropological classification the Portuguese are
Caucasian and the Ethiopian is Negro.  However both are half breeds 
white/black mixes.  Could you please explain the difference in 
classification?

>        Serious answer: both Portugese and Ethiopians have African 
>ancestors.  But aren't the Ethiopians listed as Caucasians by some 
>scholars? (Since they're not sub-Saharan Africans, they can't be 
>considered "Negroid" under many systems of classification -- I'll admit 
>that they have dark skin, but so do the "Caucasian" natives of India).  
>
Yes a few scholars classify Ethiopians as Caucasian, however, this does 
not mean that the accepted view is that Ethiopians are Caucasian.  For
example, I could find scholars that classify the Nordic part of the
Caucasians as a different race, but Finsten would have a fit.
 
>        I would list the Portugese as "European" and Ethiopians as 
>"African" based on their geographic location.  I would agree that both 
>cultures have interbred amongst/been influenced by cultures from "the 
>other side of the tracks." 
>
Yes, but there is no "European race."  You should be aware that the term
caucasian is far larger reaching than Europe.  One point I agree with the
mightless Kushite over is that anthropologists classify just about 
anybody with White ancestry as Caucasian -- in reference to mulatto 
peoples.

Question: 
 1c. According to Miss Finsten, races are purely a social phenomena and
is most definitely not biological.  Could you please explain on social
grounds only how of the 800 skulls found in predynastic Egypt, a third 
could be Negro?

>        No idea what you're talking about here.  From what I've seen of 
>Egyptian sculpture and paintings, it would appear to me that at least 
>some of the Egyptian rulers had "Negroid" features.  (Akhenaton & 
>Nefertiti certainly; I'd also point out that you probably wouldn't want 
>your sister to marry a guy with lips like Tutenkhamen).  I don't know 
>much about skulls and how one can look at a skull and determine if it's 
>European or African.
>
Could you please explain where Tutenkhamen's fat lips are?   Could you
please explain why the first bust of Tutenkhamen discovered in his 
crypt has blue eyes and pink skin?  The bust supposedly represents him
coming forth out of lotus flower.  Could you please then explain why I
wouldn't want one of sister's marrying him (about from the fact that he
is dead)?

The only Pharoah I have seen with Negro features was Piankhy (sp?) who
was an extremely late ruler, in fact he was the ruler from Nubia.  

Supposedly a Negro bust is of Narmer, a 1st dynasty Pharoah -- possibly
the first, but this bust is 2nd Dynasty and not 1st Dynasty.  This has all
sorts of implications which I have outlined in earlier posts.

Question:
2. According a new book on the Hoaxacost (Holocost for Beginners) the
idea for using the Jew's own body fat for fuel was abandoned because it
was too inefficient.  Could you please explain how you got this figure of
1/2 hour burning time, of which body fat played a crucial role in your
argument?

>        My response: 30 minutes might not be enough time to reduce a body 
>entirely to ash, but it would be "close enough for shooting."  I'd also 
>add that not all the victims of the Holocaust were burned in ovens; many 
>were buried in open pits after being shot (i.e. Babi Yar), many others 
>were burned in open pits when the kremas broke down (i.e. eyewitness 
>reports from Auschwitz) or in lieu of kremas (I believe this was the case 
>in Treblinka).  
>
Then you disagree with McVay?  He states that 30 minutes was ample time
for cremation.  He also states that they used human fat to speed up the
process.  For better information read McVay's FAQs, they're quite a laugh.

Supposedly they stopped shooting Jews because of the slowness and cost.
Therefore one may conclude that those shot were a minsicule fraction. 
Please explains the mechanics necessary for burning bodies via open pits
as sounds even more ludicruous than McVay's 30 minutes.

Question:
3. Some of the more minor camps (according to you) used Russian tank 
engines for gassing Jews.  Could you please explain why Germany near the
end of the war was diverting all its fuel from the frontline to gassing
Jews?

>        All its fuel? Who said anything about "all its fuel."  Given the 
>size of an average armored battalion, I'd hardly say the fuel to run four 
>or five tank engines would be significant.  (Unless I'm mistaken, that's 
>about how many tank engines they had running at Treblinka).
>
I can state "all its fuel" on this basis.  The frontline were no longer
receiving fuel to run there equipment, it is recorded fact that many
unused tanks were lying on the battlefield as the allies went through.
However, according to McVay, they were still gassing Jews, which includes
using modified Russian tank engines which unfortunately need petroleum and
not human fat (a foreseen argument by McVay).  Any amount of fuel at the
end of the war would have been significant, even it was to move a tank to
bluff the allies.

Question:
4. Could we please have documentation of why a beetle needs less Zyclon B
than a human?

>        Beetles aren't warm-blooded animals; the mechanism of toxicity 
>for Zyklon-B is different for insects than for warm-blooded animals.  
>(Note to the chemists here: I'm probably using the wrong terminology).  
>Insects die from zyklon-B because it blocks their breathing pores.  
>Warm-blooded animals (like humans) die because it interferes with their 
>oxygen uptake (sorta like a nuclear version of carbon monoxide).
>
Yes I realize what you're saying, however it still does not equate to why
a beetle needs more Zyclon B.  I was playing on words above when I said
less btw.  In effect you've backed up my argument :-)

Question:
5. According to the propaganda, the Jews were tricked into going into the
showers, because they were showers and not 'death chambers.'  Could you
please explain the necessity of keeping this illusion when according to
you they busy cramming them into the chambers so that the Jewish made
figures would fit?
>
>        I'm not fluent in this language; could someone schooled in the 
>various offshoots of Giwerundean please translate?
>
Attempting to dodge perhaps?

Slowly:

1.  We are told the Germans soothed the fears of Jews by telling them that
they were going to have a shower.

2.  According to McVay, in his astounding attempt to refute Leuchter, 
flaws Leuchter's argument by stating that more people could have fitted
than Leuchter's estimate.  In effect, McVay is stating for the record that
the Germans crammed them into the chambers.  Leuchter, I assume, based his
case on the witnesses claim of being tricked.

Therefore, on the basis that McVay is correct, why did the Camp Attendents
bother with the illusion of showers when they were (all the time) forcing
the misfits into the chambers en masse.

I have tried many ways to pose this question, hopefully this time you can
comprehend it.  However, I did state that this was for McVay, and that if
you knew McVay's arguments then the above question would not have needed
any background.

Question:
6. You stated back in November that the Nazis were cowards, could we 
please have proof of this allegation?
>
>        I don't know if _I_ would call the Nazis cowards.  I would call 
>Nazism "evil" without hesitation, and would call many Nazis "vile and 
>disgusting human beings."  But there were also some pretty good examples 
>of bravery among Nazi soldiers.
>
Then perhaps you'd also like to see a retraction from McVay as he claims
he doesn't lie over this type of material, only we do.

Question:
7. Could we please also have a review of these 300 books you've supposedly
read?  You show an extreme ineptness for someone so 'schooled.'
>
>        When I next read a book on the Holocaust or race relations in 
>America (and I'm overdue to hit the library), I'll be happy to critique 
>it for you.
>
So you know the 300 books that McVay claims to have read?  

Question:
8. Since you admit to being a Gas Station Attendent and before then you
were on the social welfare, you can easily be classified as 'white-trash.'
Why do you remain silent when your compatriots hassle 'white-trash'? 
Afterall you are in both camps (liberal and 'white-trash.').
>
>        What would Ken's position as a "Gas Station Manager" (a position 
>which differs from "Gas Station Attendant," btw; I suppose you'd also 
>mistake "Hotel Manager" for "Desk Clerk" but that's another story) have 
>to do with the quality or lack thereof of the Nizkor Project?
>
I was unaware of this claim from McVay.  Was he given the money to start
a business?*  We have his own testimony against you, in that he states
that he was a dole bludger when he discovered some people on the 'net 
didn't believe the holocost as told.  We also have his testimony over
been given a 486 DX25 so that he could propagate his version of lunacy on
the 'net.  Thereby assuring us that McVay was on the breadline at least
a year ago.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Nizkor ("We hope to remember")
Project.  It has however the implication of double standards by McVay. He
sits idly by watching his comrades insult us using terminalogies such as
"White Trash" and then buddying up to them afterwards.  We know however
that McVay is White Trash and therefore the insults are also relevant to
him.

*Assuming Manager means owner.  Often a terminology used in NZ for
entrepreneurs to pretend they have a more grandstanding title.  If however
he is just an employee, station managers don't earn a lot and would still
be considered on the lower end of the employment scale.  

>        For the record: I don't like the term "White Trash" and try hard 
>not to use it, although sometimes it's difficult.  
>
Your comrades however do.  Since they do, I have no problems re-applying
them to your leader McVay since the shoe fits him.

I would also like to mention at this point that until I visited these
sites, I had never ever heard of White Supremacists being White Trash. All
the White Supremacists that I know (in NZ) are all considered upper 
middle class.  Admittedly I don't know every White Supremacist here in NZ.

Ourobouros.



From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Thu Jun 20 07:23:52 PDT 1996
Article: 44789 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.starnet.net!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ken McVay: Not Addressing the Question
Date: 20 Jun 1996 09:29:25 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <4qb5ll$1ce@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pqhis$aq4@freenet-news.carleton.ca <4ptega$1qi@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4pvnsb$1nh@newsource.ihug.co.nz> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port11.akl.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33335 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23380 alt.discrimination:48837 alt.revisionism:44789

In article , s.judd@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Judd) says:
>
>In article <4qac8o$t72@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
>(Ourobouros) wrote:
>
I wrote:
I would also like to mention at this point that until I visited these
sites, I had never ever heard of White Supremacists being White Trash. All
the White Supremacists that I know (in NZ) are all considered upper 
middle class.  Admittedly I don't know every White Supremacist here in NZ.
>> 
>
>Again, I begin to suspect that Mr Stone and I don't live in the same
>country. I've never seen anyone who called themselves a  white supremacist
>in New Zealand who isn't  unwashed, uneducated, and unemployed. The
>Outcasts, who live a couple of blocks from my house, are a sterling
>example. I should know, I've been drinking with them in the past. Nice
>enough blokes, actually, apart from being doped-up, intellectually
>deprived losers.
>
Ah, Mr Judd please re-read what you wrote.  Lets see your a Jew and they
are White Supremacists, you are buddies with them, something doesn't 
quite fit...there are plenty of people around that don't like the Maori
and they're not all Europeans.

About the only group I can think of that matches this famous yet poor
description by liberals are the Southern Vikings (a biker gang).  While
the press classify them as such, I very much doubt that is really their
motivation.

Even the so-called Skin head gangs around NZ (except perhaps Christchurch)
aren't even racist ... I've looked.  About the closest I've found was a
wierd lass that hated Chinks but liked Polynesians.

Again, you really shouldn't believe what the media propagates to be true.
It's almost certain to be a lie.

Of the White Supremacists I currently hang around with (Uni), some are
studying engineering, linguistics, history, pyschology, anthropology,
political science, theology!, fine arts, and chemistry.  (Workforce):
accountants, directors, stock-brokers, finance consultants, computer
consultants, tailors, cutters, and entrepreneurs.  

Hardly what liberals would classify as "White Trash".

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Thu Jun 20 07:46:37 PDT 1996
Article: 23345 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!newsfeed.internetmci.com!sgigate.sgi.com!news.tamu.edu!news.utdallas.edu!news.starnet.net!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,soc.culture.african.american,talk.politics.european-union,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: What is the "White Race" anyway?
Date: 20 Jun 1996 03:12:18 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <4qafii$t72@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4p405o$6va@is.bbsrc.ac.uk> <833997183snz@drmac.demon.co.uk> <4p5230$110u@sol.caps.maine.edu> <4p5kmj$t1v@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4p93ss$t13@ly <4pvsef$16bo@sol.caps.maine.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-616.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23345 soc.culture.african.american:120222 talk.politics.european-union:4069 alt.politics.usa.republican:219321

In article <4pvsef$16bo@sol.caps.maine.edu>, scotterb@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb) says:
>
>In article <4pvpqa$1nh@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz says...
>>
I wrote:
Using your argument I can readily say the fair-skinned phenotype use to
rule every society and region on the globe and they somehow disappeared
before the colonial appetite hit Europe.  
>
>How can you make such a claim?  Based on imagination, I presume.  You're 
>delving into fantasy.
>
>What do you mean "phenotype use to"?  
>
I was trying to exaggerate the point so that even the most simplest of 
you would understand.  Obviously, I didn't exaggerate the point enough for
some people.  It was supposed to be fantasy.  I was taking this social
crap and pushing the concept to its logical limit.   Basically, if you
state that racial differences are purely social as Miss Finsten affirms,
then I can make whatever claim I like on which race ruled without the 
need to back up such claims.  Why, because it's social and not something
physical like biology or God forbid former physical anthropology.

>>Hence your reply is typical of liberals. 
>
>Interesting how you feel compelled to categorize your opponents into a 
>group that you can insult.  Most of us believe that arguments stand on 
>their own, and that categorization like yours (typically considered an 
>'ad hominem' argument -- it is irrelevant to whether an argument is 
>correct whether the person is a liberal or a fascist, the argument 
>stands on its own) suggest you are trying to distract away from your 
lack of content.
>
Interesting nonetheless.  I take it that the reference to "a fascist" is
meant to represent me?

If I talk about ravens, Mr Erb, then I have to make generalisations.  It
is unfeasible to talk about each and every one of them.  Hence I make
generalisations about the left wing folk who categorise themselves as
liberal.  

If you were talking about fascists (I assume you dislike them) then you'd
also make generalisations about them.  For one, you would use derogatry
styled remarks as you have done so in your post.

>> You have two modes of arguing:
>>1. Dodge the question
>>2. Belittle the author.
>
>Are you serious here? You've been belittling the person you're responding to, 
>and you are providing no response to his arguments.  Get real.
>
Examples of such.  Do you think I can categorise you as being 
imperceptive Mr Erb?  Afterall you failed to conprehend my exaggeration of 
racial rule, especially when I said I could use his argument to make such
claims.  BTW, part of intelligence is perception...

If I "belittle" someone, Mr Erb, I usually do so with good reason, rather
than for the sake of doing so.  You would have everyone believe that I
know nothing about history yet you offer no support of your claims.  That
is what I call belittling Mr Erb.  For example, I was making the point 
that if you make racial difference purely social then there is no
restriction of me stating that Whites ruled and lived everywhere.  Why?
Well prove me wrong on a social level only.

[snip]

Your comments about my inability of history have been commented on in 
another post.

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Thu Jun 20 07:47:52 PDT 1996
Article: 33323 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!quagga.ru.ac.za!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: nz.politics,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Liberals and brain sizes
Date: 20 Jun 1996 02:48:22 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 140
Message-ID: <4qae5m$t72@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4q7mon$ntf@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <1996Jun19.141544@cantva> <4q84ks$2cj@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <1996Jun19.202656@cantva>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-616.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1

In article <1996Jun19.202656@cantva>, Peter Metcalfe  says:
>
>p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) writes:
>:Peter Metcalfe ::p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) writes:

>hmm.  Tapeworm has snipped the bit pointing out that Prasad is a New
       ^^^^^^^^
>Zealand Citizen and also Indo-European to boot.  I wonder why?  Some
>facts too uncomfortable to confront?
>
I suppose you think the word is on a higher plane that the effigies of
"racist, fascist and nazi"?  You can always tell a loser when he resorts
to name-calling.

As for Prasad, Mr Metcalfe, please review the title of the thread. Do you 
really think (assuming you do) that Dr. Prasad ethnology is relevant to
the argument of "liberals and brain sizes"?  If you do, please take up
debating or some other organization that likes to argue, as you most
certainly don't.

Do you think I am really challenged by the fact that Dr. Prasad is Indian?
If so, why?

>::: I know of very few Europeans happy with the expression "Pakeha".  
>
>::Which speaks volumes about the company he keeps.
>
>: Of course you will try and get around to explaining why you decided to
>: enlighten us with this comment...please don't try and divert to 
>: meaningless topics.
>
>If you didn't understand it the first time round then it's probably 
>useless trying to spell it out for you.  Nevertheless my comment was 
>meant to indicate that Anton's statement is not true for most New
>Zealanders owing to a limited sample size.
>
Hmm, no, wrong conclusion.  Please never do a book review.  If you had
bothered to actually read the entire original post you'd noticed that I
told you that the audience was intended for National Front members.  Hence
why I bothered to question you over your inclusion of something entirely
irrelevant.  It's a bit like your assertion that I care what ethnic
background Dr. Prasad has.

I've discovered that people that are incapable of arguing divert to other
topics when the going gets tough.  Do you think that you are behaving in
the same way?

>::: The third point I wish to raise is the implication, inherent in the 
>::: advert, that small brain size equates with a lack of intelligence.  It is 
>::: ironic that, whenever it is pointed out that members of the Negroid race 
>::: have smaller amounts of brain matter than Europeans (this, I stress, is a 
>::: scientific fact, from which I am not here drawing any conclusions), the 
>::: likes of Dr. Prasad are quick to claim that "size is irrelevant".  
>::
>::I suggest reading 'The Mismeasure of Man' by S.J. Gould for ample rebuttal
>::for this 'scientific fact'.
>
>: Let me guess, you missed the irony.  Either that or S.J. Gould tries to
>: state that Negroes don't have smaller brains than Europeans which is 
>: nothing but nonsense.  
>
>Your latter guess is correct.  S. J. Gould states that Negroes don't 
>have smaller brains than Europeans.  Unlike you, he does not state it 
>without supporting it but instead goes over the literature for the claim
>critically and finds that it is flawed.  Unlike you and Anton who
>probably can't even give a single article in a peer reviewed scientific
>journal to back up the claim.  Why don't you read the book?  
>
I noticed you removed apw-p from the newsgroups, I wonder why?  Alas I've
included it again, and no doubt you'll be seeing a lot more scientific
work on Negroes having smaller brains, including this one:

Olaf Larsell in "Morris's Human Anatomy."

The negro brain (on mean) is 130 grams lighter than that of the European.
Also, the negro cranial capacity is 165 cc less.

He also mentions that the frontal lobes of a Negro are smaller.

Before you jump to irrational conclusions, Mr Larsell is not a racist,
sorry.

If I remember correctly, Gould is the one that complains about how the
data was collected wasn't he?

BTW, I also conclude that you aren't practised in academia.  It is not
normal to cite evidence for things commonly known.

>: Also, Anton doesn't bother making any conclusions
>: of the Negroes brain size, but I notice you're quick to jump on the 
>: bandwagon.  Knee-jerk reaction was it?
>
>No.  I just saw his mention of it as a scientific fact and could
>draw the obvious conclusion (despite his weasel-worded disclaimer)
>that the intended audience was meant to infer that Africans were
>less intelligent than Caucasians.  However it is *not* a scientific
>fact and I pointed that out.
>
Alas, you miss the irony yourself.  No, Anton was pointing out the
hypocrisy of liberals concerning brain sizes.  They'd have us believe that
a smaller brain equates to less intelligence only when it suits them, as
Negroes have smaller brains than Europeans.

>: In case you really are cerebrally challenged, the hypocrisy was that
>: according to the propaganda fed by free and discounted advertising was
>: that racists had smaller brains and therefore were less intelligent.
>
>Drawing upon a popular but erroneous myth that brain size is correlated 
>with intelligence.  The irony is obvious given Anton's claim but so what?
>
If I use a poignant example.  Going back to Germany during the Third
Reich, they said what about who?  AND didn't they propagate it?  Now, 
you'd say that was wrong, yet we move into the "brain ads" propaganda and
which side of the fence do you sit?

>: Yet if someone actually stated this you'd cry 
>: "racist, fascist, nazi" and any other popular insults that don't need too
>: much brain power to think of.
>
>Actually I just posted a rebuttal of the claims.  So your prediction is 
>*wrong* and thus your conclusion:
>
Where was that?  If you missed my statement over the intended audience of
the original quote then you are also likely to be unfit to make 
conclusions about Gould.

Please do not remove apw-p again.  There has been a lot of work done in
the area of brain sizes and my colleagues know most of them.  Hence 
illustrating to your desperate attempt to seem wise.

Please feel free to read "Morris's Human Anatomy", you no doubt think it
is full of racist propaganda, but it isn't.  

Lastly, I was SO impressed by your brilliance in coming up with the term
"Tapeworm", it's good to note that we have intellectual giants like you
around that can come up with such amazing and factual terminalogy.

Ourobouros.



From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Thu Jun 20 11:27:46 PDT 1996
Article: 120132 of soc.culture.african.american
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!news.uoregon.edu!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,soc.culture.african.american,talk.politics.european-union,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: What is the "White Race" anyway?
Date: 18 Jun 1996 23:23:02 GMT
Organization: The Internet Group
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <4q7dom$j81@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4p405o$6va@is.bbsrc.ac.uk> <833997183snz@drmac.demon.co.uk> <4p5230$110u@sol.caps.maine.edu> <4p5kmj$t1v@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4p93ss$t13@ly <4q6vll$7qd@shore.shore.net>
Reply-To: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-308.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23209 soc.culture.african.american:120132 talk.politics.european-union:4037 alt.politics.usa.republican:218731

In article <4q6vll$7qd@shore.shore.net>, LauraDavis@aol.com (LauraDavis) says:
>
[snip]

I wrote:
As well as the other members of the White race.  For example, before 
the Romans became multi-cultural (and useless) they were masters of the
above.  The Greeks before they became multi-cultural were masters of 
the above.  The Aryans over India and Persia were masters of the above.  
The Egyptians before they became multi-cultural were masters of the above, 
as just a few examples.

The ill-considered response:
Geez, get a history book.  All that you write above is either a lie, or 
something which is unknowable due to lack of evidence.  Face it, the 
"white" Europeans were the world's most backward barbarians for most of 
history. If biology was determinant, and if they were somehow 'better', 
then they'd have been the rulers.  Instead, it wasn't until the culture 
took some twists and turns that they (copying technology from non-
Europeans...people darker than them, in other words) developed colonialism 
and capitalism.  It's a cultural, not biological phenomenon.  Again, if 
it were biological, they'd have "ruled" throughout history.  Instead, 
they were backwards and ignorant.

First point, I study history.

On the Romans feel free to pick up Gibbons "Decline and Fall of the 
Roman Empire," please also note the reference to Jews as well.

That Egypt became multi-cultural is as common as grass.  For example, even
the Establisment's approved book "A History of Ancient Egypt" by Nicolas
Grimal mentions the multi-cultural aspect and the difficulties that
developed from it.

The others don't take much.

According to the late Sir Arthur Keith, the Sumerians exhumed at Ur were
broad-browed longheads, ie., Aryan.  The late Professor Waddell also did
a lot of secondary work establishing the racial identity of the world's
first known civilisation.  

Unfortunately for you, you have equated the Europeans as being the only
"White race" which has not always been true.  Our race has ruled 
practically for the entire period of civilisation.  In China the most
famous was the Wusun dynasty, however that was not the only period of
white rule.  During the 1st to 6th Centuries AD, the Scythians ruled both
North China and Japan.  In fact they were responsible for setting up the
civilisation of Japan and for the imperial family.  BTW, the Wusun
dynasty has been attributed to the Scandinavians who according to you
were barbarians.  

It should be noted the barbarian was a title given to anybody that wasn't
Greek or Roman.  Even is the so-called barbaric times we still had fully
developed metallurgy and the wheel with evidence of writing (Ogahm).  We
produced chariots, which despite the insistence of modern history, need
roads to function.  We were also very effective in terms of war, as the
Gauls attested in there rampage throughout Europe and Asia-Minor (reached
and settled Galatia).

So what slowed the Europeans down?  With the exception of the Mediterrean
basin, North Europe was an extremely harsh environment (since been
conquered).  We also had an anchor called Christianity, as the 
Renaissance, Reformation and Science Revolution should all blatantly
demonstrate.

Therefore I can say our superiority is biological and our genes help 
determine our culture.

Ourobouros.





  


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Thu Jun 20 11:27:47 PDT 1996
Article: 120222 of soc.culture.african.american
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!newsfeed.internetmci.com!sgigate.sgi.com!news.tamu.edu!news.utdallas.edu!news.starnet.net!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,soc.culture.african.american,talk.politics.european-union,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: What is the "White Race" anyway?
Date: 20 Jun 1996 03:12:18 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <4qafii$t72@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4p405o$6va@is.bbsrc.ac.uk> <833997183snz@drmac.demon.co.uk> <4p5230$110u@sol.caps.maine.edu> <4p5kmj$t1v@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4p93ss$t13@ly <4pvsef$16bo@sol.caps.maine.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-616.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23345 soc.culture.african.american:120222 talk.politics.european-union:4069 alt.politics.usa.republican:219321

In article <4pvsef$16bo@sol.caps.maine.edu>, scotterb@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb) says:
>
>In article <4pvpqa$1nh@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz says...
>>
I wrote:
Using your argument I can readily say the fair-skinned phenotype use to
rule every society and region on the globe and they somehow disappeared
before the colonial appetite hit Europe.  
>
>How can you make such a claim?  Based on imagination, I presume.  You're 
>delving into fantasy.
>
>What do you mean "phenotype use to"?  
>
I was trying to exaggerate the point so that even the most simplest of 
you would understand.  Obviously, I didn't exaggerate the point enough for
some people.  It was supposed to be fantasy.  I was taking this social
crap and pushing the concept to its logical limit.   Basically, if you
state that racial differences are purely social as Miss Finsten affirms,
then I can make whatever claim I like on which race ruled without the 
need to back up such claims.  Why, because it's social and not something
physical like biology or God forbid former physical anthropology.

>>Hence your reply is typical of liberals. 
>
>Interesting how you feel compelled to categorize your opponents into a 
>group that you can insult.  Most of us believe that arguments stand on 
>their own, and that categorization like yours (typically considered an 
>'ad hominem' argument -- it is irrelevant to whether an argument is 
>correct whether the person is a liberal or a fascist, the argument 
>stands on its own) suggest you are trying to distract away from your 
lack of content.
>
Interesting nonetheless.  I take it that the reference to "a fascist" is
meant to represent me?

If I talk about ravens, Mr Erb, then I have to make generalisations.  It
is unfeasible to talk about each and every one of them.  Hence I make
generalisations about the left wing folk who categorise themselves as
liberal.  

If you were talking about fascists (I assume you dislike them) then you'd
also make generalisations about them.  For one, you would use derogatry
styled remarks as you have done so in your post.

>> You have two modes of arguing:
>>1. Dodge the question
>>2. Belittle the author.
>
>Are you serious here? You've been belittling the person you're responding to, 
>and you are providing no response to his arguments.  Get real.
>
Examples of such.  Do you think I can categorise you as being 
imperceptive Mr Erb?  Afterall you failed to conprehend my exaggeration of 
racial rule, especially when I said I could use his argument to make such
claims.  BTW, part of intelligence is perception...

If I "belittle" someone, Mr Erb, I usually do so with good reason, rather
than for the sake of doing so.  You would have everyone believe that I
know nothing about history yet you offer no support of your claims.  That
is what I call belittling Mr Erb.  For example, I was making the point 
that if you make racial difference purely social then there is no
restriction of me stating that Whites ruled and lived everywhere.  Why?
Well prove me wrong on a social level only.

[snip]

Your comments about my inability of history have been commented on in 
another post.

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Thu Jun 20 14:55:08 PDT 1996
Article: 23419 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,soc.culture.african.american,talk.politics.european-union,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: What is the "White Race" anyway?
Date: 20 Jun 1996 20:56:27 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 101
Message-ID: <4qcdtr$bel@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4p405o$6va@is.bbsrc.ac.uk> <833997183snz@drmac.demon.co.uk> <4p5230$110u@sol.caps.maine.edu> <4p5kmj$t1v@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4p93ss$t13@ly <4qbqqj$6da@sol.caps.maine.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-602.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23419 soc.culture.african.american:120276 talk.politics.european-union:4095 alt.politics.usa.republican:219679

In article <4qbqqj$6da@sol.caps.maine.edu> 
scotterb@maine.maine.edu (Scott D. Erb) says:
>
>In article <4qafii$t72@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz says...
>
>>I was trying to exaggerate the point so that even the most simplest of 
>>you would understand.
>
>Next time try making a point through argumentation and precise evidence.  
>Most of us on the internet are well educated, some of us even have advanced 
>degrees.  Simplistic exaggerated arguments are more likely to be met with 
>disdain than with understanding.
>
Sorry, I won't be limited to your view of the world.  When I use "by your
argument" it should be obvious to even a simpleton what I was meaning.

Obviously you have never encountered logic in your travels.

>>  Obviously, I didn't exaggerate the point enough for some people.
>
>For some, perhaps, but for most including me your exaggeration made the point 
>incoherent and silly.
>
It was meant to be silly.  I was exaggerating the point.  If you are going
to make racial difference purely SOCIAL, then I can take it to its
logical conclusion, namely, you cannot disprove any claims I make
concerning which race ruled and when.

>> Basically, if you
>>state that racial differences are purely social as Miss Finsten affirms,
>>then I can make whatever claim I like on which race ruled without the 
>>need to back up such claims.  Why, because it's social and not something
>>physical like biology or God forbid former physical anthropology.
>
>Nobody that I've read has claimed that differences are purely social.  
>Rather, the categorization of these differences into groups such as "race" or 
>"ethnicity" are social constructions.  There is no warrant for biological 
>determinism or essentialism in these arguments.  Therefore, due to lack of 
>evidence and argumentation, racism is rejected.
>
Then you are an ignoramus.

First off, one of the residents around here is a Professor of 
Anthropology, Laura Finsten.  She has stated that racial difference is
purely social and most definitely not biological.  Perhaps she has an
advanced degree?  Do you think I cannot have fun with Finsten's stupidity?

Secondly, the argument has turned into whether races are social or not.
If you cannot comprehend this, PISS OFF.

Before I can state that races have biological differences I have to 
undermine this social nonsense being the divider of races.  You could try
debating sometime.

>>Interesting nonetheless.  I take it that the reference to "a fascist" is
>>meant to represent me?
>
>No, it was simply a claim that when an argument is weak, it's easy for people 
>to simply try to label their opponent and insult the label, be it fascist or 
>liberal or Communist or whatever.  It is a style of argumentation which 
>usually betrays a weakness in the substance of the argument.
>
Fair enough point.
 
The argument of whether liberalism is left wing or not is irrelevant and
therefore removed.

>>  For example, I was making the point 
>>that if you make racial difference purely social then there is no
>>restriction of me stating that Whites ruled and lived everywhere.  Why?
>>Well prove me wrong on a social level only.
>
>On the social level you're proven wrong because historians and experts who 
>has studied this disagrees and has evidence to support their claim.  That is 
>the social level -- shared understandings and beliefs.  You can, of course, 
>state whatever you wanted.  But on a social level it only is relevant if you 
>can convince people you are right.  Given the lack of evidence you have (and 
>now you admit you were making it up, or exaggerating), you are unlikely to do 
>that.  To convince, you need evidence and a good argument for why your 
>interpretation of the evidence is superior to current scholarship. Until you 
>do that, don't be surprised if people respond in a way which you consider 
>"belittling."

No I am not proven wrong on the social level.  Just stating so doesn't
make it so.  While I agree that to make my argument work I need to
convince other people of it, but that is irrelevant.  What I am stating
is the basis for another silly avenue.

It would seem that you are one of the many people on the 'net who doesn't
have an advanced degree.  Being able to float ideas is practically 
essential at University, and you have failed to float this idea.  Please
do not bother continuing the argument as you have failed to grasp the
concept of floating ideas and it is an essential requirement if you wish
to keep on arguing.

BTW, do you comprehend sarcasm?

Ourobouros.





From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Thu Jun 20 19:07:31 PDT 1996
Article: 44900 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!wizard.pn.com!brighton.openmarket.com!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ken McVay: Not Addressing the Question
Date: 20 Jun 1996 20:26:11 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 125
Message-ID: <4qcc53$bel@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4pqhis$aq4@freenet-news.carleton.ca <4qboo3$7ip@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-602.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33421 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23420 alt.discrimination:48860 alt.revisionism:44900

In article <4qboo3$7ip@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura Finsten  says:
>
>p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:
>>In article <4q296a$lbg@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura Finsten  says:
>
>>>p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:

Mr. Stone asked:

     1b. According to anthropological classification the Portuguese are
     Caucasian and the Ethiopian is Negro.  However both are half breeds 
     white/black mixes.  Could you please explain the difference in 
     classification?

I replied:

     This will be the fourth or fifth time I ask you to give me a credible
     source which describes the Portuguese and Ethiopians as "half breed
     white/black mixes".  Got that, Mr. Stone?  Have you seen this?  You
     ask a question that doesn't make sense, I ask you for clarification
     or substantiation, and you disappear.  Then a week or so later you
     come back and whine that I'm "dodging your oh-so-penetrating questions",
     as if I had said nothing in response to your idiotic garbage.

Mr. Stone responded:

     Actually Cavalli-Sforza makes that assertion in the book you don't like.
     He even makes the comment that some Anthrolopologist classify the
     Ethiopians as Caucasian because of the mixture.  BTW, the key word is
     SOME and not ALL or MOST as you would like to make it so.


>Life is truly amazing.  I wrote a lengthy response to Mr. Stone
>yesterday, saying (among other things) that I doubted his attribution
>of this "classification" to Cavalli-Sforza was accurate.  I asked for
>a specific reference, which he didn't supply, but the only Cavalli-
>Sforza publication I have ever seen Mr. Stone refer to is "The History
>and Geography of Human Genes", a massive book (it turns out) that he
>mentions later in his post (snipped) but which my local library does 
>not have.  But low and behold, it arrived this morning by interlibrary 
>loan.  It looks like an amazing book, and I'm hoping that Santa might 
>see fit....  Na, better save up my book credits! 
>
I hardly think that it is a massive book.  Some of computer science texts
rival it.  Though if you and Judd think that it is a massive book, well
it might indicate the level of research you ar prepared to go to.

>What do Cavalli-Sforza and his coauthors say about the Portuguese in
>"The History and Geography of Human Genes"?  Well, "Portuguese" is
>listed three times in the index.  (The book is more than 500 pages 
>long, so I have only been able to read fragments of it so far.)
>
Actually I'm unaware that he classifies the Portuguese as mixed, at least
in that book.  He does however mention Ethiopians.

The Portuguese is from their own history.  They mixed with their Black
slaves.  A direct quotation has been made from the Encyclopedia 
Brittanica (1940) which stated what the Portuguese did, it even went on
to state that it was the cause of their downfall (miscegenation). However,
it seems no matter how many times I tell you won't listen.


>p.268  In the context of an analysis of genetic distance among various
>populations of Europe, C-S et al. identify 7 genetic groups, one of
>which is "Southwestern Europeans (Spaniards, Portuguese, and Italians)".
>
>Actually this entire section is really interesting, and I wonder what
>Mr. Stone, Herr Griswold, and Mr. LeBouthillier would have to say about
>it.  After the outliers are eliminated (and, interestingly enough, among
>these outliers are Icelanders and Finns), Celtic peoples are the most
>peripheral, genetically, of the seven groups.  In other words, Southwestern
>Europeans, including the Portuguese, are more closely related, genetically,
>to Germanic populations than are Celtic people.  Fascinating, no?  I wonder
>what that means about "White" "blood relations"?
>
I believe the only group you can say are closest to the Portuguese are 
the Irelanders Miss Finsten.  Please state where Scotland is situated.  In
case you are unaware the Southern French heavily mixed with the Moors.

Even in the case of Ireland, they aren't that close.

>p.270  Is a table of genetic distances.
>
>p.286  Here the Portuguese are mentioned in the context of a more detailed
>analysis and interpretation of genetic data from the Iberian peninsula. In
>an effort to explain the distributions of genes across the peninsula, C-S
>and his coauthors write: "The three main Romance languages of Latin origin
>spoken in the Iberian peninsula are Galician in the northwest, from which
>the Portuguese language took its origin; Castilian, originally from the
>north-central area, from which the Spanish language took its origin; and
>Catalan, in the northeast.  They all came from the north and spread to the
>south...  The center of origin of Catalan may superficially seem to 
>correspond with the second peak of the second component [synthetic gene
>maps], but is actually not in the Pyrenees.  In addition, the lowest
>values of the second PC do not correspond to the areas where the Moorish
>influence was strongest, which are in the *south and east*." (emphasis
>mine)
>
>Source:  L.Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, Alberto Piazza
>             1994  The History and Geography of Human Genes.
>                   Princeton University Press.  Princeton, N.J.
>                   ISBN  0-691--8750-4
>
>
>So, Mr. Stone, it appears that you have not understood what Cavalli-
>Sforza and his coauthors have to say about the Portuguese.  I'm kind
>of busy right now and don't have time to read the sections on
>Ethiopia and Ethiopians (lots more listings in the index), but I'll
>get back to you on that. 
>
			*sigh*

What is this the fourth or fifth time?

I have been saying consistently that the only thing that interests me in
that book are the facts. His interpretations and his opinions I don't hold
as *gospel*.

Do you BTW still hold to your silly interpretation of PC Maps?

Lastly, the book is out of my frequented library until June 26.  If you
still have the book at that time, I'd *love* to debate it :->

Ourobouros.
 


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Thu Jun 20 19:37:15 PDT 1996
Article: 23422 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-9.sprintlink.net!news.net66.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-200.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-10.sprintlink.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!oleane!jussieu.fr!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.uoregon.edu!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,soc.culture.african.american,talk.politics.european-union,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: What is the "White Race" anyway?
Date: 20 Jun 1996 21:28:56 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 164
Message-ID: <4qcfqo$bel@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4p405o$6va@is.bbsrc.ac.uk> <833997183snz@drmac.demon.co.uk> <4p5230$110u@sol.caps.maine.edu> <4p5kmj$t1v@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4p93ss$t13@ly <4q7rtp$9rs@sol.caps.maine.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-602.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23422 soc.culture.african.american:120279 talk.politics.european-union:4097 alt.politics.usa.republican:219702

In article <4q7rtp$9rs@sol.caps.maine.edu>, scotterb@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb) says:
>
>In article <4q7dom$j81@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz says...
>>
>>In article <4q6vll$7qd@shore.shore.net>, LauraDavis@aol.com (LauraDavis) 
>says:
>
>Note: your history is as good as your attributes.  Namely, what you call "the 
>ill considered response" is from me, Scott Erb.

Note: "The ill-considered response" doesn't name anybody.  In other words
you are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
>
The ill-considered response:
Geez, get a history book.  All that you write above is either a lie, or 
something which is unknowable due to lack of evidence.  Face it, the 
"white" Europeans were the world's most backward barbarians for most of 
history. If biology was determinant, and if they were somehow 'better', 
then they'd have been the rulers.  Instead, it wasn't until the culture 
took some twists and turns that they (copying technology from non-
Europeans...people darker than them, in other words) developed colonialism 
and capitalism.  It's a cultural, not biological phenomenon.  Again, if 
it were biological, they'd have "ruled" throughout history.  Instead, 
they were backwards and ignorant.
>>
>>First point, I study history.
>
>I don't believe you, quite frankly.  I think you study propaganda.
>
Too bad.  But then, you seem to have a problem with comprehension. 

>>On the Romans feel free to pick up Gibbons "Decline and Fall of the 
>>Roman Empire," please also note the reference to Jews as well.
>>
>>That Egypt became multi-cultural is as common as grass.  For example, even
>>the Establisment's approved book "A History of Ancient Egypt" by Nicolas
>>Grimal mentions the multi-cultural aspect and the difficulties that
>>developed from it.
>
>Note: you seem to be asserting causality without proof.
>
Perhaps because it is doted throughout the book?

>Even if the Egyptians were multicultural (perhaps a reason WHY their empire 
>was so great), asserting that this caused the decline in their dominance is 
>dubious.  I see nothing in Gibbons' which attributes the fall of the Roman 
>Empire to racial impurity.  You can list names, but they neither support your 
>argument nor are connected to any of your specific points.  In fact, to have 
>an argument you actually have to draw links between your claims and evidence, 
>and provide specifics.  You provide vague generalizations without evidence.  
>You do a poor job, in other words.
>
Egypt started monoculture, sorry, please stop studying propaganda.  Please
read the original "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" and not the
unabridged editions since.

>>According to the late Sir Arthur Keith, the Sumerians exhumed at Ur were
>>broad-browed longheads, ie., Aryan.  The late Professor Waddell also did
>>a lot of secondary work establishing the racial identity of the world's
>>first known civilisation.  
>
>First, by any racial classification that is accepted in science, the white 
>race includes a lot of different groups (including Jews).  The term "Aryan" 
>is unscientific.  Second, even if some exhumed skeltons were likely of white 
>skin, what does this prove?  Again, you are not making an argument here. 
>
You really are quite poor at floating ideas aren't you?

One of the fundemental aims, Mr Erb, is to prove that the Nordic part of
the Caucasian race is a different race.  For one, they are broad-browed
long heads.  Secondly, you stated that we were barbarians and the
equivalent of being slow developers.  If the Sumerians were Aryan, then
it refutes your entire point, but then if you couldn't float ideas in
the first place you most certainly wouldn't have deduced this one.


>>Unfortunately for you, you have equated the Europeans as being the only
>>"White race" which has not always been true.  Our race has ruled 
>>practically for the entire period of civilisation.
>
>Bullfeathers.  You are simply wrong.
>

To quote you:
Note: you seem to be asserting causality without proof.

>>  In China the most
>>famous was the Wusun dynasty, however that was not the only period of
>>white rule.  During the 1st to 6th Centuries AD, the Scythians ruled both
>>North China and Japan.  In fact they were responsible for setting up the
>>civilisation of Japan and for the imperial family. 
>
>So you are asserting that Chinese rulers were really "whites"?  This is 
>getting comical!  What wild leaps of illogic to do you use to justify such a 
>proposterous claim.  It seems you are groping to try to find some way of 
>interpreting history to fit your theory.  You appear to follow the "if the 
>facts don't fit the theory, change the facts" approach to historiography.
>

Sorry you miss the point again, and this time you've put words into my
mouth.  I'm afraid "...was not the only period of white rule" cannot
unify with "...that Chinese rulers were really whites".  First off, my
comment hints at various dynasties/areas ruled by Whites.  It does not
say ALL.  Secondly, I would have to somehow refute the "Yellow Emperor" 
to which the Book of Omens is in honour of.  Incidentally, they make a
point about his uniqueness.  A point I may (but not with you) float at a
later date.

>> BTW, the Wusun
>>dynasty has been attributed to the Scandinavians who according to you
>>were barbarians.  
>
>You are smoking something wild.  I guess you also figure that the bigger the 
>lie you tell, the more likely people will believe it.  (It's also cute how 
>you use the passive 'has been' -- the development of biological life has been 
>attributed to spontaneous generation, and the spread of disease has been 
>attributed to God's will.  Saying something 'has been attributed' is 
>extremely weak).
>
Saying "has been attributed" saves me from retracting if they happen to
decide that the Wusun dynasty was ruled by the Welsh (through new 
evidence).  Please note the word IF, IF is a subjunctive.  Please 
remember this if you bother to respond as arguing with you is extremely
tiresome when you divert to so many pointless areas.

>BUT, even if the dynasty was started by some wayward Vikings, that hardly 
>means whites were responsible for the centuries of advanced civilization in 
>China, from LONG BEFORE THE WUSUN DYNASTY!
>
Sorry, Vikings is wrong.  However, I did say the most famous, I did not
say "THE WUSUN DYNASTY STARTED THE CIVILIZATION ON THE YELLOW RIVER".
A small but extremely valid point.

BTW, do you know who Buddha was?

Oh, before you get on the bandwagon again, please note I DID NOT  
STATE THAT BUDDHA STARTED THE CIVILIZATION OF THE YELLOW RIVER.

You seem to have a problem with what is actually written. 

>>Therefore I can say our superiority is biological and our genes help 
>>determine our culture.
>
>You can have your little myth if it makes you feel good and helps you conquer 
>your own little insecurities, but it is just that, a myth.
>
>Face it, there is no evidence to support any claim that whites are superior 
>as a group.  In fact, there is no evidence to support a claim that the 
>differences in skin color cause cultural change or specific cultural 
>attributes.  You have a theory with which you can consider yourself superior 
>(my, isn't that CONVENIENT).  This says nothing about reality or history.  
>From an academic perspective, you flunk.
 
ROFL.

If you weren't so serious about what you say you'd make an excellent
comic relief.  BTW, people like you seem to have this problem in thinking
that skin colour is the only difference between races, my, aren't people
like you extremely ignorant.

BTW, Charles Darwin stated that the Negro was the missing link and the
Asian was an infant.  Was Charles Darwin a liar?

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Thu Jun 20 19:39:31 PDT 1996
Article: 33435 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!gatech!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!psgrain!iafrica.com!uct.ac.za!quagga.ru.ac.za!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: nz.politics,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Our beloved police force
Date: 20 Jun 1996 09:39:26 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <4qb68e$1ce@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4q7muj$ntf@newsource.ihug.co.nz>  <31c90133.47646613@news.iprolink.co.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port11.akl.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1

In article <31c90133.47646613@news.iprolink.co.nz>, stevense@iprolink.co.nz (Eric Stevens) says:
>
>On 19 Jun 1996 21:15:45 GMT, s.judd@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Judd)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <4q7muj$ntf@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
>>(Ourobouros) wrote:
>>
Part of the quote:
Racist attacks on Whites, the Establisment would let us believe, simply 
don’t happen.  It may here be timely to quote maverick Sydney Morning 
Herald columnist Paul Sheenan, who, in an article on violence in America 
last year, concluded that "Blacks murder Whites at 18 times the rate that 
Whites murder Blacks".  Food for thought.
End Quote.
>>
>>No body in the US collects this information, so  I wonder where Paul
>>Sheenan gets his information from? (unless he's been misquoted, of
>>course). 
>
>I bet this information is available - who murders who, on a racial
>basis. I would be surprised if someone has not made some kind of study
>of it. I wonder why it is that no one has the courage to publish it?
>Hah!
>
Paul Sheenan did.  31 May 1995 Sydney Morning Herald -- The Dirty War.  If 
you want I can have it posted here, though I'd imagine it wouldn't be well 
received as there are too many close-minded people on the nz.* sites.  He 
also makes an interesting comment why the US media keeps quiet about the 
findings.

apw-p added back in.

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Fri Jun 21 09:13:32 PDT 1996
Article: 33504 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!news.sdsmt.edu!news.mid.net!newsfeeder.gi.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!quagga.ru.ac.za!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: nz.politics,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Liberals and brain sizes
Date: 21 Jun 1996 01:08:56 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <4qcsn8$igt@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4q7mon$ntf@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <1996Jun19.141544@cantva> <4q84ks$2cj@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <1996Jun19.202656@cantva> <4qae5m$t72@newsource. <4qbuqr$7ip@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-58.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1

In article <4qbuqr$7ip@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura Finsten  says:
>
>p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:
>
>>"Morris's Human Anatomy" was/is regarded as an authority, therefore Mr
>>Larsell must also be an authority.  With the advent of political stupidity
>>of today, I wouldn't know how much of an authority the book holds *today*.  
>
>Would you kindly provide the full reference for this book, Mr. Stone?
>Year and place of original publication, publisher, ISBN if available?
>
Not available at the present.  If I see it again I will get you that
information.
 
>
>>The book would be authoritive to a number of disciplines including
>>human anatomy (which should of been obvious in the first place).
>
>But oddly enough, it is not owned by my university library, which
>has a very large, internationally recognised medical school.  Is it
>a little out-of-date, perhaps?
>
Perhaps.  However, as you so kindly pointed out your library doesn't
have "History and Geography of Human Genetics" either, so it is hardly
surprising.

>
>By the way, perhaps you are interpreting the billboard (or whatever)
>literally, when it was intended to be more metaphoric?  Perhaps it
>was equating racism with small-mindedness (rather than small brains)?
>

This is actually quite good Miss Finsten.  It's a pity you can't make
equivalent comments more regularly.

There is one fundamental flaw however.  The advertisements used small 
brains (drastically smaller) for racists.  While you can say small-
mindedness, these ads were directed at the common mass, for people about
as intelligent as Peter Metcalfe, who find it difficult to think too
often and prefer to let other people think for them.  'Monkey see, monkey
do'

Small-mindedness was very good though :-)

Ourobouros.


  



From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Fri Jun 21 10:54:37 PDT 1996
Article: 120276 of soc.culture.african.american
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,soc.culture.african.american,talk.politics.european-union,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: What is the "White Race" anyway?
Date: 20 Jun 1996 20:56:27 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 101
Message-ID: <4qcdtr$bel@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4p405o$6va@is.bbsrc.ac.uk> <833997183snz@drmac.demon.co.uk> <4p5230$110u@sol.caps.maine.edu> <4p5kmj$t1v@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4p93ss$t13@ly <4qbqqj$6da@sol.caps.maine.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-602.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23419 soc.culture.african.american:120276 talk.politics.european-union:4095 alt.politics.usa.republican:219679

In article <4qbqqj$6da@sol.caps.maine.edu> 
scotterb@maine.maine.edu (Scott D. Erb) says:
>
>In article <4qafii$t72@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz says...
>
>>I was trying to exaggerate the point so that even the most simplest of 
>>you would understand.
>
>Next time try making a point through argumentation and precise evidence.  
>Most of us on the internet are well educated, some of us even have advanced 
>degrees.  Simplistic exaggerated arguments are more likely to be met with 
>disdain than with understanding.
>
Sorry, I won't be limited to your view of the world.  When I use "by your
argument" it should be obvious to even a simpleton what I was meaning.

Obviously you have never encountered logic in your travels.

>>  Obviously, I didn't exaggerate the point enough for some people.
>
>For some, perhaps, but for most including me your exaggeration made the point 
>incoherent and silly.
>
It was meant to be silly.  I was exaggerating the point.  If you are going
to make racial difference purely SOCIAL, then I can take it to its
logical conclusion, namely, you cannot disprove any claims I make
concerning which race ruled and when.

>> Basically, if you
>>state that racial differences are purely social as Miss Finsten affirms,
>>then I can make whatever claim I like on which race ruled without the 
>>need to back up such claims.  Why, because it's social and not something
>>physical like biology or God forbid former physical anthropology.
>
>Nobody that I've read has claimed that differences are purely social.  
>Rather, the categorization of these differences into groups such as "race" or 
>"ethnicity" are social constructions.  There is no warrant for biological 
>determinism or essentialism in these arguments.  Therefore, due to lack of 
>evidence and argumentation, racism is rejected.
>
Then you are an ignoramus.

First off, one of the residents around here is a Professor of 
Anthropology, Laura Finsten.  She has stated that racial difference is
purely social and most definitely not biological.  Perhaps she has an
advanced degree?  Do you think I cannot have fun with Finsten's stupidity?

Secondly, the argument has turned into whether races are social or not.
If you cannot comprehend this, PISS OFF.

Before I can state that races have biological differences I have to 
undermine this social nonsense being the divider of races.  You could try
debating sometime.

>>Interesting nonetheless.  I take it that the reference to "a fascist" is
>>meant to represent me?
>
>No, it was simply a claim that when an argument is weak, it's easy for people 
>to simply try to label their opponent and insult the label, be it fascist or 
>liberal or Communist or whatever.  It is a style of argumentation which 
>usually betrays a weakness in the substance of the argument.
>
Fair enough point.
 
The argument of whether liberalism is left wing or not is irrelevant and
therefore removed.

>>  For example, I was making the point 
>>that if you make racial difference purely social then there is no
>>restriction of me stating that Whites ruled and lived everywhere.  Why?
>>Well prove me wrong on a social level only.
>
>On the social level you're proven wrong because historians and experts who 
>has studied this disagrees and has evidence to support their claim.  That is 
>the social level -- shared understandings and beliefs.  You can, of course, 
>state whatever you wanted.  But on a social level it only is relevant if you 
>can convince people you are right.  Given the lack of evidence you have (and 
>now you admit you were making it up, or exaggerating), you are unlikely to do 
>that.  To convince, you need evidence and a good argument for why your 
>interpretation of the evidence is superior to current scholarship. Until you 
>do that, don't be surprised if people respond in a way which you consider 
>"belittling."

No I am not proven wrong on the social level.  Just stating so doesn't
make it so.  While I agree that to make my argument work I need to
convince other people of it, but that is irrelevant.  What I am stating
is the basis for another silly avenue.

It would seem that you are one of the many people on the 'net who doesn't
have an advanced degree.  Being able to float ideas is practically 
essential at University, and you have failed to float this idea.  Please
do not bother continuing the argument as you have failed to grasp the
concept of floating ideas and it is an essential requirement if you wish
to keep on arguing.

BTW, do you comprehend sarcasm?

Ourobouros.





From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Fri Jun 21 10:54:38 PDT 1996
Article: 120279 of soc.culture.african.american
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-9.sprintlink.net!news.net66.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-200.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-10.sprintlink.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!oleane!jussieu.fr!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.uoregon.edu!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,soc.culture.african.american,talk.politics.european-union,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: What is the "White Race" anyway?
Date: 20 Jun 1996 21:28:56 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 164
Message-ID: <4qcfqo$bel@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4p405o$6va@is.bbsrc.ac.uk> <833997183snz@drmac.demon.co.uk> <4p5230$110u@sol.caps.maine.edu> <4p5kmj$t1v@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4p93ss$t13@ly <4q7rtp$9rs@sol.caps.maine.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-602.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23422 soc.culture.african.american:120279 talk.politics.european-union:4097 alt.politics.usa.republican:219702

In article <4q7rtp$9rs@sol.caps.maine.edu>, scotterb@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb) says:
>
>In article <4q7dom$j81@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz says...
>>
>>In article <4q6vll$7qd@shore.shore.net>, LauraDavis@aol.com (LauraDavis) 
>says:
>
>Note: your history is as good as your attributes.  Namely, what you call "the 
>ill considered response" is from me, Scott Erb.

Note: "The ill-considered response" doesn't name anybody.  In other words
you are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
>
The ill-considered response:
Geez, get a history book.  All that you write above is either a lie, or 
something which is unknowable due to lack of evidence.  Face it, the 
"white" Europeans were the world's most backward barbarians for most of 
history. If biology was determinant, and if they were somehow 'better', 
then they'd have been the rulers.  Instead, it wasn't until the culture 
took some twists and turns that they (copying technology from non-
Europeans...people darker than them, in other words) developed colonialism 
and capitalism.  It's a cultural, not biological phenomenon.  Again, if 
it were biological, they'd have "ruled" throughout history.  Instead, 
they were backwards and ignorant.
>>
>>First point, I study history.
>
>I don't believe you, quite frankly.  I think you study propaganda.
>
Too bad.  But then, you seem to have a problem with comprehension. 

>>On the Romans feel free to pick up Gibbons "Decline and Fall of the 
>>Roman Empire," please also note the reference to Jews as well.
>>
>>That Egypt became multi-cultural is as common as grass.  For example, even
>>the Establisment's approved book "A History of Ancient Egypt" by Nicolas
>>Grimal mentions the multi-cultural aspect and the difficulties that
>>developed from it.
>
>Note: you seem to be asserting causality without proof.
>
Perhaps because it is doted throughout the book?

>Even if the Egyptians were multicultural (perhaps a reason WHY their empire 
>was so great), asserting that this caused the decline in their dominance is 
>dubious.  I see nothing in Gibbons' which attributes the fall of the Roman 
>Empire to racial impurity.  You can list names, but they neither support your 
>argument nor are connected to any of your specific points.  In fact, to have 
>an argument you actually have to draw links between your claims and evidence, 
>and provide specifics.  You provide vague generalizations without evidence.  
>You do a poor job, in other words.
>
Egypt started monoculture, sorry, please stop studying propaganda.  Please
read the original "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" and not the
unabridged editions since.

>>According to the late Sir Arthur Keith, the Sumerians exhumed at Ur were
>>broad-browed longheads, ie., Aryan.  The late Professor Waddell also did
>>a lot of secondary work establishing the racial identity of the world's
>>first known civilisation.  
>
>First, by any racial classification that is accepted in science, the white 
>race includes a lot of different groups (including Jews).  The term "Aryan" 
>is unscientific.  Second, even if some exhumed skeltons were likely of white 
>skin, what does this prove?  Again, you are not making an argument here. 
>
You really are quite poor at floating ideas aren't you?

One of the fundemental aims, Mr Erb, is to prove that the Nordic part of
the Caucasian race is a different race.  For one, they are broad-browed
long heads.  Secondly, you stated that we were barbarians and the
equivalent of being slow developers.  If the Sumerians were Aryan, then
it refutes your entire point, but then if you couldn't float ideas in
the first place you most certainly wouldn't have deduced this one.


>>Unfortunately for you, you have equated the Europeans as being the only
>>"White race" which has not always been true.  Our race has ruled 
>>practically for the entire period of civilisation.
>
>Bullfeathers.  You are simply wrong.
>

To quote you:
Note: you seem to be asserting causality without proof.

>>  In China the most
>>famous was the Wusun dynasty, however that was not the only period of
>>white rule.  During the 1st to 6th Centuries AD, the Scythians ruled both
>>North China and Japan.  In fact they were responsible for setting up the
>>civilisation of Japan and for the imperial family. 
>
>So you are asserting that Chinese rulers were really "whites"?  This is 
>getting comical!  What wild leaps of illogic to do you use to justify such a 
>proposterous claim.  It seems you are groping to try to find some way of 
>interpreting history to fit your theory.  You appear to follow the "if the 
>facts don't fit the theory, change the facts" approach to historiography.
>

Sorry you miss the point again, and this time you've put words into my
mouth.  I'm afraid "...was not the only period of white rule" cannot
unify with "...that Chinese rulers were really whites".  First off, my
comment hints at various dynasties/areas ruled by Whites.  It does not
say ALL.  Secondly, I would have to somehow refute the "Yellow Emperor" 
to which the Book of Omens is in honour of.  Incidentally, they make a
point about his uniqueness.  A point I may (but not with you) float at a
later date.

>> BTW, the Wusun
>>dynasty has been attributed to the Scandinavians who according to you
>>were barbarians.  
>
>You are smoking something wild.  I guess you also figure that the bigger the 
>lie you tell, the more likely people will believe it.  (It's also cute how 
>you use the passive 'has been' -- the development of biological life has been 
>attributed to spontaneous generation, and the spread of disease has been 
>attributed to God's will.  Saying something 'has been attributed' is 
>extremely weak).
>
Saying "has been attributed" saves me from retracting if they happen to
decide that the Wusun dynasty was ruled by the Welsh (through new 
evidence).  Please note the word IF, IF is a subjunctive.  Please 
remember this if you bother to respond as arguing with you is extremely
tiresome when you divert to so many pointless areas.

>BUT, even if the dynasty was started by some wayward Vikings, that hardly 
>means whites were responsible for the centuries of advanced civilization in 
>China, from LONG BEFORE THE WUSUN DYNASTY!
>
Sorry, Vikings is wrong.  However, I did say the most famous, I did not
say "THE WUSUN DYNASTY STARTED THE CIVILIZATION ON THE YELLOW RIVER".
A small but extremely valid point.

BTW, do you know who Buddha was?

Oh, before you get on the bandwagon again, please note I DID NOT  
STATE THAT BUDDHA STARTED THE CIVILIZATION OF THE YELLOW RIVER.

You seem to have a problem with what is actually written. 

>>Therefore I can say our superiority is biological and our genes help 
>>determine our culture.
>
>You can have your little myth if it makes you feel good and helps you conquer 
>your own little insecurities, but it is just that, a myth.
>
>Face it, there is no evidence to support any claim that whites are superior 
>as a group.  In fact, there is no evidence to support a claim that the 
>differences in skin color cause cultural change or specific cultural 
>attributes.  You have a theory with which you can consider yourself superior 
>(my, isn't that CONVENIENT).  This says nothing about reality or history.  
>From an academic perspective, you flunk.
 
ROFL.

If you weren't so serious about what you say you'd make an excellent
comic relief.  BTW, people like you seem to have this problem in thinking
that skin colour is the only difference between races, my, aren't people
like you extremely ignorant.

BTW, Charles Darwin stated that the Negro was the missing link and the
Asian was an infant.  Was Charles Darwin a liar?

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Mon Jun 24 08:14:26 PDT 1996
Article: 23656 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!wizard.pn.com!brighton.openmarket.com!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Finsten and arguments about anthropology
Date: 23 Jun 1996 20:38:16 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 131
Message-ID: <4qk9vo$8s1@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-21.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33904 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23656

First I’d like to make an apology to Laura Finsten.  She has retracted 
her statement that racial difference is purely social.  My argument over 
this aspect with Scott Erb is now defunct.    BTW, I am extremely 
impressed by Laura Finsten’s admission.  It should be noted to viewers 
that Laura has only once retracted from a claim of hers, albeit extremely 
ungracefully, before.  That was her use of craniometry being defunct, and 
then changing it to cephalic index when her argument was crushed.

This discovery was made when I decided to look at the Niskor Web under 
Laura Finsten’s files to see her counter-argument of me itemising the 
White race (thread: "What is the White race anyway?").  Alas, I noticed 
that even McVay’s mighty Usenet hunting software missed it as well 
(sarcasm included).  Therefore, either Finsten is lying or it was failed 
to be received by my site (which isn’t a surprise) or McVay’s site (which 
theoritically should be a surprise).  Whatever the outcome, this supposed 
defuncting of the categorising I gave has never turned up.

With this in mind, perhaps she’d like to tell us her her new definition 
of race, with the biological aspect to it or is it still muddling her 
head?

On the subject of skull shapes.  I assume that she now believes that the 
difference is now biological and that of 800 skulls found in pre-Dynastic 
Egypt, a third could be classified as Negro (according to her new 
opinions).  

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but the so-called big disproof of the cephalic 
index came from Boas & Co.   In which it is stated that (in America) the 
children born of immigrants there skulls varied away from their parents.  
I believe he recorded a 2% variation.  Some flaws; were the skull shapes 
identical in both parents  of the children examined?  Also, it is 
recorded that various environmental causes (like famines) can change a 
skull shape by 2%, this is used as part of the disproof BTW.  Basically, 
what I am saying is, does this 2% change happen every generation?  I 
believe you’ll find it incorrect, as the skull shape of White Americans 
is still categorised as broad-browed long-head.  There has been enough 
generations in America by now to have radically changed the skull shapes 
of White Americans.  Unfortunately it hasn’t happened.  That 2% variation 
is all there is and that can, as admitted by Boas, be strictly 
environmental.  In effect, White Americans aren’t getting the skull 
shapes of the (original) North American Indians as we would expect, if 
this hypothesis was correct.

She has also misquoted me in affirmation of stating that Europeans have 
only 88 +-0.1 genes.   Alas, while it seemed I did state so in that 
particular reply, she should be reminded that I was carrying through from 
earlier arguments, something that she failed to notice.  I did not, at 
any time, believe or say that Europeans were restricted to 88 +-0.1 
genes.  Sorry Miss Finsten, you are going to have to do better than that.

She also has supposedly flawed me over PC Maps in "History and Geography 
of Human Genetics".  She quotes Cavilla-Sforza’s opinions or 
interpretations as fact when figure 5.5.2 on p.269 spells out something 
quite different from C-S’ writing.  As I’d like to point out, England, 
Scotland, Germany and so forth are closely clustered together.  Iceland, 
the supposed outlier is not to far distant and is isolated from other 
nations.  Only Ireland lies closest to the mulatto nations, however, she 
has stated that the Celtic nations are closest to the Iberian 
populations.  One of my arguments of old, has been stating that many 
members of the Southern Ireland are mixed, thus, the discrepancies over 
them occur.  Southern France mixed with the Moors, despite what Laura 
Finsten’s opinions state otherwise.  Assuming she classifies the French 
as Celtic.

She has repeatedly asked me for proof of the Portuguese being mixed (she 
isn’t much of an anthropologist then).  I have told her to read a history 
book on the subject, something she has refused to do (afraid of facts 
perhaps?).  BTW I wasn’t the man that quoted the Encyclopedia Brittanica 
(1940) and she was around when it was quoted...perhaps the dodge mode is 
too deeply engrained into pysche?  However, since I have failed to exhort 
her in reading a history book on Portugal, perhaps she’d be so kind in 
explaining their extremely swarthy complexion?  She should remember that 
in Henry the Navigator’s time they were a fair-skinned race, also, there 
are pockets of the aristocracy (as in Spain) that are still fair-skinned.

She has also complained of me using ad hominen attacks in reference to 
said book.  May I remind her that she gave us a needless adjective 
(massive) in describing the book.   That in so doing she was inviting 
scorn.

On a more positive note:  She has admitted (finally) that genetics play a 
bearing on the type of society created.  Her example was of polygamy and 
polyandry.

Perhaps we will continue to see Miss Finsten improve both in argument 
style and in thought process.  While no doubt she absolutely despises us, 
some of our arguments are getting through into the liberal and bigoted 
academia.

I for one am pleased with this new approach she is undertaking, i.e., 
thinking about what she says or retracting them if they are false.  Maybe 
my generalisations about liberals will have to change as Stewart King 
often thought about the consequences of what he said. 

Moving off the aspect of anthropology a little, I would like to comment 
on her position of equality.  She has stated for the record that equality 
is in respect of law and judgement before the law.  Perhaps she should 
examine case law more closely.  Very few trials are identical nor are 
those brought before the court able to tried in identical circumstances.  
For example, what one wears in court plays a major role, not only to 
impress the judge, but also the jury, which can be tedious at best.  
Also, gender can often play a role.  The book "Dress for Success" is an 
extremely valid book for this argument.  The author goes through what 
will and what will not work.  That in itself is proof enough of the 
variance at court on purely social events.  Basically, we are not equal 
before the law, what the aim should be however, is consistency.  In that 
regard, there has to be only one law not many, and that is not possible 
when a society wants to have multiculturalism.  No doubt the less 
intelligent viewers will take this the wrong way, one law does not mean 
having only one thing, for example, death sentence for everything, but 
one consistent law.  No matter who they are, they are tried under the 
same law.  Under multi-culturalism however, we have many laws.  Cultural 
sensitivity is a favourite buzzword today, and that plays a role in court.  
For example, a Tongan couple burnt their child with cigarettes.  They got 
away with it because it was a cultural punishment for disobedience.  
Please examine the same circumstances if we replaced Tongan parents with 
European parents...

A new contention for Miss Finsten or whoever would like to place their 
head on the anthropological chopping block:  It is regularly stated that 
Black skin is good for resisting the sun and that White skin is ideal in 
Alpine climates.  Nose shape also plays a role, supposedly a flat nose is 
good hot climates and a straight nose in Alpine climates.  What I would 
like to know is the rationale for Chinks.  We have Eskimoes that live in 
conditions that get less sun than Northern Europe and have yellow skin 
and we have prairie Indians that live in hot climates and have yellow 
skin.  They also have (on the whole) flat noses.  Please explain in 
logical terms and not in emotional terms.

Ourobouros.



From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Mon Jun 24 08:14:27 PDT 1996
Article: 23663 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!news.ac.net!news.cais.net!news.ios.com!vyzynz!bofh.dot!newsfeed.concentric.net!news.texas.net!cdc2.cdc.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!quagga.ru.ac.za!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,nz.politics,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: The dirty war -- as requested
Date: 23 Jun 1996 20:52:39 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 101
Message-ID: <4qkaqn$8s1@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-21.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33910 alt.discrimination:49005 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23663


 
An amazing newspaper article from Australia prints what nobody in America
dare say:  170 Million victims of negro crime wave in America!
--------------------------
The Sydney Morning Herald
Saturday May 20, 1995

Start Quote: 
THE RACE WAR OF BLACK AGAINST WHITE
by Paul Sheehan

The longest war America has ever fought is the Dirty War, and it is not 
over. It has lasted 30 years so far and claimed more than 25 million 
victims.  It has cost almost as many lives as the Vietnam War.  It 
determined the result of last year's congressional election.

Yet the American news media do not want to talk about the Dirty War, which
remains between the lines and unreported.  In fact, to even suggest that 
the war exists is to be discredited.  So let's start suggesting, 
immediately.
 
No matter how crime figures are massaged by those who want to acknowledge 
or dispute the existence of a Dirty War, there is nothing ambiguous about 
what the official statistics portray: for the past 30 years a large 
segment of black America has waged a war of violent retribution against 
white America.
 
And the problem is getting worse, not better.  In the past 20 years, 
violent crime has increased more than four times faster than the 
population.  Young blacks (under 18) are more violent than previous 
generations and are 12 times more likely to be arrested for murder than 
young whites.
 
Nearly all the following figures, which speak for themselves, have not 
been reported in America:

   *  According to the latest US Department of Justice survey of crime 
victims, more than 6.6 million violent crimes (murder, rape, assault and 
robbery) are committed in the US each year, of which about 20 per cent, 
or 1.3 million, are inter-racial crimes.

   *  Most victims of race crime -- about 90 per cent -- are white, 
according to the survey "Highlights from 20 Years of Surveying Crime 
Victims", published in 1993.

   *  Almost 1 million white Americans were murdered, robbed, assaulted or 
raped by black Americans in 1992, compared with about 132,000 blacks who 
were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by whites, according to the 
same survey.

   *  Blacks thus committed 7.5 times more violent inter-racial crimes 
than whites even though the black population in only one-seventh the size 
of the white population.  When these figures are adjusted on a per capita 
basis, they reveal an extraordinary disparity: blacks are committing more 
than 50 times the number of violent racial crimes of whites.

   *  According to the latest annual report on murder by the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, most inter-racial murders involve black 
assailants and white victims, with blacks murdering whites at 18 times 
the rate that whites murder blacks.

These breathtaking disparities began to emerge in the mid-1960s, when 
there was a sharp increase in black crime against whites, an upsurge 
which, not coincidentally, corresponds exactly with the beginning of the 
modern civil rights movement.

Over time, the cumulative effect has been staggering.  Justice Department 
and FBI statistics indicate that between 1964 and 1994 more than 25 
million violent inter-racial crimes were committed, overwhelmingly 
involving black offenders and white victims, and more than 45,000 people 
were killed in inter-racial murders. By comparisons 58,000 Americans died 
in Vietnam, and 34,000 were killed in the Korean war.

When non-violent crimes (burglary, larceny, car theft and personal theft) 
are included, the cumulative totals become prodigious.  The "Bureau of 
Justice Statistics says 27 million non-violent crimes were committed in 
the US in 1992, and the survey found that 31 per cent of the robberies 
involved black offenders and white victims (while only 2 per cent in the 
reverse).

When all the crime figures are calculated, it appears that black Americans 
have committed at least 170 million crimes against white Americans in the 
past 30 years.  It is the great defining disaster of American life and 
American ideals since World War II.

All these are facts, yet by simply writing this story, by assembling the 
facts in this way, I would be deemed a racist by the American news media.  
It prefers to maintain a paternalistic double-standard in its coverage of 
black America, a lower standard.

End Quote.

For those bleeding heart and irrational liberals out there, please 
actually read the this completely before commenting, or better yet save 
yourself some embarrassment by not spewing forth your garbage.

Ourobouros.





From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Mon Jun 24 08:38:51 PDT 1996
Article: 33886 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!news.uoregon.edu!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,nz.politics
Subject: Re: Liberals and brain sizes
Date: 23 Jun 1996 22:22:05 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <4qkg2d$aoo@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4q7mon$ntf@newsource.ihug.co.nz> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-12.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1

In article , holman@katk.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) says:
>
>In article <4q7mon$ntf@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, p_stone@alchemy.co.nz
>(Ourobouros) wrote:

The Quote from the "New Nationalist":

   I shall, however, leave the final word to a colleague of mine, who 
   commented; "people who are racist may only have half a brain, but 
   people who aren’t racist only have a half a country".  Enough said.
 
>We've exchanged a few heated words here in the past, but this time I'm
>approaching you with the request for an honest and straightforward answer
>to some sincere questions.
>
I assume you mean this to be bait.  You are implying that I don't give 
honest and straightforward answers...which can also be redirected to
you in the same vein.

>1. How are Maori-White New Zealander relations nowadays? When you speak
>about 'having' half a country, are the rights of possession to New 
>Zealand equally strong for White New Zealanders as they are for Maoris? 
>Does either group feel that it has only 'half' a country?
>
The Maori-White relations are at an all time low.  The government has at
least had its 1st hearing of a two headed government -- One for Whites and
one for the Maori.  I assume by now the 2nd hearing has already taken
place (confirmation please).  

The Anglican Church squealed its delight at such a proposal as its model
is based on their separation (or Apartheid).  

Oh, the Maori are pushing for apartheid if you didn't already know, except
they obviously want it on their terms.

The rights of possession are not equally as strong for White New 
Zealanders as it is for the Maori.  The Waitangi Tribunal buries any claim
for a few years so people forget and then grant them whatever they want.
One of their ludicrous claims at the moment is for the tourist resort 
known as Queenstown, not to forget the wild horses.  

>2. Until relatively recently, the late 1960s I believe, New Zealand  had a
>'White only' immigration policy. This has obviously been changed. Could
>you expound upon the reasons for the change, and give us some information
>about the kinds of non-White people who are immigrating to New Zealand and
>the consequences of this movement. 
>
In 1950 New Zealand has the third highest standard of living in the world.
In 1953 there were only 3 people recorded as unemployed and that was 
because they were lazy (wanted to surf all day).  In the 1960s, Big
Business wanted a cheap labour force, and alla the Pacific Islanders
arrived.  At the time we were a rich and prosperous country.

In 1987, we were told the lie that we need Asian money to survive* and so
the flood gates were opened to every other race.

>3. I, as an African-American, have occasionally been advised by my
>'fellow' Americans that I should 'go back to Africa', even though some of
>my (Black) ancestors have been in the USA since at least the mid 1700s,
>while others were English and Scottish slave owners. Have you ever been
>told by a Maori to 'go back to England' (or wherever it was your ancestors
>came from)? How do you feel when and if you are given such advice?
>
Yes.

I usually laugh when given such advice.  My usual response is thus:  sure, 
we'll give you back your land, just give us our firearms back...by this I 
mean modern artillery.

That option I believe is not open to you because all your culture 
produced were cruddy spears...though I'm sure a few idiots will claim
they were "superior."

Another reponse of mine is: That they also return to their homeland since
they are just immigrants as well, despite their ludicrous claim to being
indigenous which bleeding heart liberals and other lackeys propagate.

Ourobouros.

* The lie is still being perpetuated today.  If it came to it, New Zealand
doesn't need any other country to survive, we have all the resources we
need.




From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Mon Jun 24 08:38:52 PDT 1996
Article: 33904 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!wizard.pn.com!brighton.openmarket.com!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Finsten and arguments about anthropology
Date: 23 Jun 1996 20:38:16 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 131
Message-ID: <4qk9vo$8s1@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-21.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33904 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23656

First I’d like to make an apology to Laura Finsten.  She has retracted 
her statement that racial difference is purely social.  My argument over 
this aspect with Scott Erb is now defunct.    BTW, I am extremely 
impressed by Laura Finsten’s admission.  It should be noted to viewers 
that Laura has only once retracted from a claim of hers, albeit extremely 
ungracefully, before.  That was her use of craniometry being defunct, and 
then changing it to cephalic index when her argument was crushed.

This discovery was made when I decided to look at the Niskor Web under 
Laura Finsten’s files to see her counter-argument of me itemising the 
White race (thread: "What is the White race anyway?").  Alas, I noticed 
that even McVay’s mighty Usenet hunting software missed it as well 
(sarcasm included).  Therefore, either Finsten is lying or it was failed 
to be received by my site (which isn’t a surprise) or McVay’s site (which 
theoritically should be a surprise).  Whatever the outcome, this supposed 
defuncting of the categorising I gave has never turned up.

With this in mind, perhaps she’d like to tell us her her new definition 
of race, with the biological aspect to it or is it still muddling her 
head?

On the subject of skull shapes.  I assume that she now believes that the 
difference is now biological and that of 800 skulls found in pre-Dynastic 
Egypt, a third could be classified as Negro (according to her new 
opinions).  

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but the so-called big disproof of the cephalic 
index came from Boas & Co.   In which it is stated that (in America) the 
children born of immigrants there skulls varied away from their parents.  
I believe he recorded a 2% variation.  Some flaws; were the skull shapes 
identical in both parents  of the children examined?  Also, it is 
recorded that various environmental causes (like famines) can change a 
skull shape by 2%, this is used as part of the disproof BTW.  Basically, 
what I am saying is, does this 2% change happen every generation?  I 
believe you’ll find it incorrect, as the skull shape of White Americans 
is still categorised as broad-browed long-head.  There has been enough 
generations in America by now to have radically changed the skull shapes 
of White Americans.  Unfortunately it hasn’t happened.  That 2% variation 
is all there is and that can, as admitted by Boas, be strictly 
environmental.  In effect, White Americans aren’t getting the skull 
shapes of the (original) North American Indians as we would expect, if 
this hypothesis was correct.

She has also misquoted me in affirmation of stating that Europeans have 
only 88 +-0.1 genes.   Alas, while it seemed I did state so in that 
particular reply, she should be reminded that I was carrying through from 
earlier arguments, something that she failed to notice.  I did not, at 
any time, believe or say that Europeans were restricted to 88 +-0.1 
genes.  Sorry Miss Finsten, you are going to have to do better than that.

She also has supposedly flawed me over PC Maps in "History and Geography 
of Human Genetics".  She quotes Cavilla-Sforza’s opinions or 
interpretations as fact when figure 5.5.2 on p.269 spells out something 
quite different from C-S’ writing.  As I’d like to point out, England, 
Scotland, Germany and so forth are closely clustered together.  Iceland, 
the supposed outlier is not to far distant and is isolated from other 
nations.  Only Ireland lies closest to the mulatto nations, however, she 
has stated that the Celtic nations are closest to the Iberian 
populations.  One of my arguments of old, has been stating that many 
members of the Southern Ireland are mixed, thus, the discrepancies over 
them occur.  Southern France mixed with the Moors, despite what Laura 
Finsten’s opinions state otherwise.  Assuming she classifies the French 
as Celtic.

She has repeatedly asked me for proof of the Portuguese being mixed (she 
isn’t much of an anthropologist then).  I have told her to read a history 
book on the subject, something she has refused to do (afraid of facts 
perhaps?).  BTW I wasn’t the man that quoted the Encyclopedia Brittanica 
(1940) and she was around when it was quoted...perhaps the dodge mode is 
too deeply engrained into pysche?  However, since I have failed to exhort 
her in reading a history book on Portugal, perhaps she’d be so kind in 
explaining their extremely swarthy complexion?  She should remember that 
in Henry the Navigator’s time they were a fair-skinned race, also, there 
are pockets of the aristocracy (as in Spain) that are still fair-skinned.

She has also complained of me using ad hominen attacks in reference to 
said book.  May I remind her that she gave us a needless adjective 
(massive) in describing the book.   That in so doing she was inviting 
scorn.

On a more positive note:  She has admitted (finally) that genetics play a 
bearing on the type of society created.  Her example was of polygamy and 
polyandry.

Perhaps we will continue to see Miss Finsten improve both in argument 
style and in thought process.  While no doubt she absolutely despises us, 
some of our arguments are getting through into the liberal and bigoted 
academia.

I for one am pleased with this new approach she is undertaking, i.e., 
thinking about what she says or retracting them if they are false.  Maybe 
my generalisations about liberals will have to change as Stewart King 
often thought about the consequences of what he said. 

Moving off the aspect of anthropology a little, I would like to comment 
on her position of equality.  She has stated for the record that equality 
is in respect of law and judgement before the law.  Perhaps she should 
examine case law more closely.  Very few trials are identical nor are 
those brought before the court able to tried in identical circumstances.  
For example, what one wears in court plays a major role, not only to 
impress the judge, but also the jury, which can be tedious at best.  
Also, gender can often play a role.  The book "Dress for Success" is an 
extremely valid book for this argument.  The author goes through what 
will and what will not work.  That in itself is proof enough of the 
variance at court on purely social events.  Basically, we are not equal 
before the law, what the aim should be however, is consistency.  In that 
regard, there has to be only one law not many, and that is not possible 
when a society wants to have multiculturalism.  No doubt the less 
intelligent viewers will take this the wrong way, one law does not mean 
having only one thing, for example, death sentence for everything, but 
one consistent law.  No matter who they are, they are tried under the 
same law.  Under multi-culturalism however, we have many laws.  Cultural 
sensitivity is a favourite buzzword today, and that plays a role in court.  
For example, a Tongan couple burnt their child with cigarettes.  They got 
away with it because it was a cultural punishment for disobedience.  
Please examine the same circumstances if we replaced Tongan parents with 
European parents...

A new contention for Miss Finsten or whoever would like to place their 
head on the anthropological chopping block:  It is regularly stated that 
Black skin is good for resisting the sun and that White skin is ideal in 
Alpine climates.  Nose shape also plays a role, supposedly a flat nose is 
good hot climates and a straight nose in Alpine climates.  What I would 
like to know is the rationale for Chinks.  We have Eskimoes that live in 
conditions that get less sun than Northern Europe and have yellow skin 
and we have prairie Indians that live in hot climates and have yellow 
skin.  They also have (on the whole) flat noses.  Please explain in 
logical terms and not in emotional terms.

Ourobouros.



From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Mon Jun 24 08:38:53 PDT 1996
Article: 33910 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!news.ac.net!news.cais.net!news.ios.com!vyzynz!bofh.dot!newsfeed.concentric.net!news.texas.net!cdc2.cdc.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!quagga.ru.ac.za!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,nz.politics,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: The dirty war -- as requested
Date: 23 Jun 1996 20:52:39 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 101
Message-ID: <4qkaqn$8s1@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-21.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33910 alt.discrimination:49005 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23663


 
An amazing newspaper article from Australia prints what nobody in America
dare say:  170 Million victims of negro crime wave in America!
--------------------------
The Sydney Morning Herald
Saturday May 20, 1995

Start Quote: 
THE RACE WAR OF BLACK AGAINST WHITE
by Paul Sheehan

The longest war America has ever fought is the Dirty War, and it is not 
over. It has lasted 30 years so far and claimed more than 25 million 
victims.  It has cost almost as many lives as the Vietnam War.  It 
determined the result of last year's congressional election.

Yet the American news media do not want to talk about the Dirty War, which
remains between the lines and unreported.  In fact, to even suggest that 
the war exists is to be discredited.  So let's start suggesting, 
immediately.
 
No matter how crime figures are massaged by those who want to acknowledge 
or dispute the existence of a Dirty War, there is nothing ambiguous about 
what the official statistics portray: for the past 30 years a large 
segment of black America has waged a war of violent retribution against 
white America.
 
And the problem is getting worse, not better.  In the past 20 years, 
violent crime has increased more than four times faster than the 
population.  Young blacks (under 18) are more violent than previous 
generations and are 12 times more likely to be arrested for murder than 
young whites.
 
Nearly all the following figures, which speak for themselves, have not 
been reported in America:

   *  According to the latest US Department of Justice survey of crime 
victims, more than 6.6 million violent crimes (murder, rape, assault and 
robbery) are committed in the US each year, of which about 20 per cent, 
or 1.3 million, are inter-racial crimes.

   *  Most victims of race crime -- about 90 per cent -- are white, 
according to the survey "Highlights from 20 Years of Surveying Crime 
Victims", published in 1993.

   *  Almost 1 million white Americans were murdered, robbed, assaulted or 
raped by black Americans in 1992, compared with about 132,000 blacks who 
were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by whites, according to the 
same survey.

   *  Blacks thus committed 7.5 times more violent inter-racial crimes 
than whites even though the black population in only one-seventh the size 
of the white population.  When these figures are adjusted on a per capita 
basis, they reveal an extraordinary disparity: blacks are committing more 
than 50 times the number of violent racial crimes of whites.

   *  According to the latest annual report on murder by the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, most inter-racial murders involve black 
assailants and white victims, with blacks murdering whites at 18 times 
the rate that whites murder blacks.

These breathtaking disparities began to emerge in the mid-1960s, when 
there was a sharp increase in black crime against whites, an upsurge 
which, not coincidentally, corresponds exactly with the beginning of the 
modern civil rights movement.

Over time, the cumulative effect has been staggering.  Justice Department 
and FBI statistics indicate that between 1964 and 1994 more than 25 
million violent inter-racial crimes were committed, overwhelmingly 
involving black offenders and white victims, and more than 45,000 people 
were killed in inter-racial murders. By comparisons 58,000 Americans died 
in Vietnam, and 34,000 were killed in the Korean war.

When non-violent crimes (burglary, larceny, car theft and personal theft) 
are included, the cumulative totals become prodigious.  The "Bureau of 
Justice Statistics says 27 million non-violent crimes were committed in 
the US in 1992, and the survey found that 31 per cent of the robberies 
involved black offenders and white victims (while only 2 per cent in the 
reverse).

When all the crime figures are calculated, it appears that black Americans 
have committed at least 170 million crimes against white Americans in the 
past 30 years.  It is the great defining disaster of American life and 
American ideals since World War II.

All these are facts, yet by simply writing this story, by assembling the 
facts in this way, I would be deemed a racist by the American news media.  
It prefers to maintain a paternalistic double-standard in its coverage of 
black America, a lower standard.

End Quote.

For those bleeding heart and irrational liberals out there, please 
actually read the this completely before commenting, or better yet save 
yourself some embarrassment by not spewing forth your garbage.

Ourobouros.





From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Mon Jun 24 08:38:53 PDT 1996
Article: 33938 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!news.ac.net!news1.erols.com!hunter.premier.net!netnews.worldnet.att.net!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!gatech!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!news.kreonet.re.kr!news.dacom.co.kr!bofh.dot!melba.bby.com.au!news.mira.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.bhp.com.au!comp.vuw.ac.nz!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: nz.politics,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Liberals and brain sizes
Date: 24 Jun 1996 03:40:19 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <4ql2n3$iaq@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <4q7mon$ntf@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <1996Jun19.141544@cantva> <4q84ks$2cj@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <1996Jun19.202656@cantva> <4qae5m$t72@newsource. <4qeaa4$cme@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-583.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1

In article <4qeaa4$cme@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura Finsten  says:
>
>p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:
>>In article <4qbuqr$7ip@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura Finsten  says:
>
>>>p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:
[snip]
[Morris' Human Anatomy and why it isn't at Finsten's Univerity Library]

>>Perhaps.  However, as you so kindly pointed out your library doesn't
>>have "History and Geography of Human Genetics" either, so it is hardly
>>surprising.
>
>Yes, this is true (although they have ordered it, at my request).  But
>the medical school here truly is internationally reknowned, and has
>a huge budget for things like book purchases, so I find it difficult
>to imagine that they would not have a central work in a subject basic
>to the study of medicine.
>
Seeing as I am not part of your medical library's adminstration I can
only guess.  Perhaps it was stolen and they never bothered to re-order it
when they integrated the system to computer records.  Or perhaps they
felt at the time they didn't need it or perhaps since the advent of
political stupidity they got rid of it or ...

[snip]

[advertisements of the four brains really means small mindedness and not
small mindedness -- metaphorical]

>>There is one fundamental flaw however.  The advertisements used small 
>>brains (drastically smaller) for racists.  While you can say small-
>>mindedness, these ads were directed at the common mass, for people about
>>as intelligent as Peter Metcalfe, who find it difficult to think too
>>often and prefer to let other people think for them.  'Monkey see, monkey
>>do'
>
>Surely you are not suggesting that "the common mass" is incapable
>of thinking metaphorically, Mr. Stone.  You don't think much of
>my intellect, and yet this was my interpretation of the description
>I read.
>
The common mass have the potential to think metaphorically Miss Finsten,
they however, prefer to let someone else think for them.  Your average
television soap comes to mind as a good example of this.

As for your interpretation Miss Finsten...I was delibrately provoking the
situation, either you had to accept my analogy or come up with something
different.  Since you hate my guts, it is safe to presume that you 
delibrately tried for the latter approach.  Nice try though. 

This is twice in a row that you've actually come up with reasonable
arguments.  Have you taken up debating recently?  

Another problem which is metaphorical, and therefore was excluded from
the previous post was this:  No one knows for certain where the mind lies.
It is presumed to be in the brain, but nobody knows for sure.  If the
common mass truly thought the way you proposed then they would have also
run into the problem of where the mind actually lies.  Therefore, your
interpretation still has glaring faults.

Sorry, but most people still hearken back to their childhood days in
which insults of having a small brain meant having less intelligence. 
For example, When God was giving out brains, Laura Finsten thought he
said trains, and so asked for a long slow one.

Comprehende?

Ourobouros.


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Mon Jun 24 16:08:57 PDT 1996
Article: 49005 of alt.discrimination
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!news.ac.net!news.cais.net!news.ios.com!vyzynz!bofh.dot!newsfeed.concentric.net!news.texas.net!cdc2.cdc.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!quagga.ru.ac.za!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,nz.politics,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: The dirty war -- as requested
Date: 23 Jun 1996 20:52:39 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 101
Message-ID: <4qkaqn$8s1@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-21.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33910 alt.discrimination:49005 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23663


 
An amazing newspaper article from Australia prints what nobody in America
dare say:  170 Million victims of negro crime wave in America!
--------------------------
The Sydney Morning Herald
Saturday May 20, 1995

Start Quote: 
THE RACE WAR OF BLACK AGAINST WHITE
by Paul Sheehan

The longest war America has ever fought is the Dirty War, and it is not 
over. It has lasted 30 years so far and claimed more than 25 million 
victims.  It has cost almost as many lives as the Vietnam War.  It 
determined the result of last year's congressional election.

Yet the American news media do not want to talk about the Dirty War, which
remains between the lines and unreported.  In fact, to even suggest that 
the war exists is to be discredited.  So let's start suggesting, 
immediately.
 
No matter how crime figures are massaged by those who want to acknowledge 
or dispute the existence of a Dirty War, there is nothing ambiguous about 
what the official statistics portray: for the past 30 years a large 
segment of black America has waged a war of violent retribution against 
white America.
 
And the problem is getting worse, not better.  In the past 20 years, 
violent crime has increased more than four times faster than the 
population.  Young blacks (under 18) are more violent than previous 
generations and are 12 times more likely to be arrested for murder than 
young whites.
 
Nearly all the following figures, which speak for themselves, have not 
been reported in America:

   *  According to the latest US Department of Justice survey of crime 
victims, more than 6.6 million violent crimes (murder, rape, assault and 
robbery) are committed in the US each year, of which about 20 per cent, 
or 1.3 million, are inter-racial crimes.

   *  Most victims of race crime -- about 90 per cent -- are white, 
according to the survey "Highlights from 20 Years of Surveying Crime 
Victims", published in 1993.

   *  Almost 1 million white Americans were murdered, robbed, assaulted or 
raped by black Americans in 1992, compared with about 132,000 blacks who 
were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by whites, according to the 
same survey.

   *  Blacks thus committed 7.5 times more violent inter-racial crimes 
than whites even though the black population in only one-seventh the size 
of the white population.  When these figures are adjusted on a per capita 
basis, they reveal an extraordinary disparity: blacks are committing more 
than 50 times the number of violent racial crimes of whites.

   *  According to the latest annual report on murder by the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, most inter-racial murders involve black 
assailants and white victims, with blacks murdering whites at 18 times 
the rate that whites murder blacks.

These breathtaking disparities began to emerge in the mid-1960s, when 
there was a sharp increase in black crime against whites, an upsurge 
which, not coincidentally, corresponds exactly with the beginning of the 
modern civil rights movement.

Over time, the cumulative effect has been staggering.  Justice Department 
and FBI statistics indicate that between 1964 and 1994 more than 25 
million violent inter-racial crimes were committed, overwhelmingly 
involving black offenders and white victims, and more than 45,000 people 
were killed in inter-racial murders. By comparisons 58,000 Americans died 
in Vietnam, and 34,000 were killed in the Korean war.

When non-violent crimes (burglary, larceny, car theft and personal theft) 
are included, the cumulative totals become prodigious.  The "Bureau of 
Justice Statistics says 27 million non-violent crimes were committed in 
the US in 1992, and the survey found that 31 per cent of the robberies 
involved black offenders and white victims (while only 2 per cent in the 
reverse).

When all the crime figures are calculated, it appears that black Americans 
have committed at least 170 million crimes against white Americans in the 
past 30 years.  It is the great defining disaster of American life and 
American ideals since World War II.

All these are facts, yet by simply writing this story, by assembling the 
facts in this way, I would be deemed a racist by the American news media.  
It prefers to maintain a paternalistic double-standard in its coverage of 
black America, a lower standard.

End Quote.

For those bleeding heart and irrational liberals out there, please 
actually read the this completely before commenting, or better yet save 
yourself some embarrassment by not spewing forth your garbage.

Ourobouros.





From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Sat Jun 29 09:01:38 PDT 1996
Article: 23988 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.california,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.oj-simpson,alt.revision
Subject: Re: "White power" math! (was: African Americans?)
Date: 29 Jun 1996 01:25:55 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <4r20n3$2em@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <31B378D5.419@worldnet.att.net> <31BC70EB.4020@voyager.co.nz> <31bcab0f.3191810@news.demon.co.uk> <31C1DDC7.25AD@worldnet.att.net> <31C2C65E.5 <31D216DD.5519@scott.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-345.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.california:26402 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23988 alt.politics.white-power:34417 alt.rush-limbaugh:105508 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:328381 alt.fan.oj-simpson:49888

In article <31D216DD.5519@scott.net>, evil Beavis 
 says:
>
>The Eat Me Man wrote:

>> You seem to be unaware that there are 8 times more whites than black in America.
>
>There are 12% blacks in this country, so if whites are 8 times as many 
>they would comprise 96% of the popultion!! You are obviously an idiot 
>who has no idea what you're babbling about and cannot count...
>
Footboy, wasn't it propagated not so long ago that Blacks were 12.5% of
the U.S population?

12.5% x 8 = 100%

Also, even it were true that the proportion of blacks was 12%, would it
really matter?  A lot of surveys have a +-5% error rate anyway.

"8 times" is simpler to convey than "8 1/3 times"*

Do you always major in the minor?  If you are losing an argument do you
resort to correcting spelling mistakes for brownie points as well?  

Footboy; not only is he prejudiced and bigoted but he is also 
pathetically pedantic.  The champion of being pathetic.  All hail such
inspiration given to us by footboy.

Ourobouros.

* Assuming your figure is correct.

 


From p_stone@alchemy.co.nz Sat Jun 29 09:13:47 PDT 1996
Article: 34417 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!decwrl!waikato!newsource.ihug.co.nz!usenet
From: p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Newsgroups: alt.california,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.oj-simpson,alt.revision
Subject: Re: "White power" math! (was: African Americans?)
Date: 29 Jun 1996 01:25:55 GMT
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <4r20n3$2em@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References: <31B378D5.419@worldnet.att.net> <31BC70EB.4020@voyager.co.nz> <31bcab0f.3191810@news.demon.co.uk> <31C1DDC7.25AD@worldnet.att.net> <31C2C65E.5 <31D216DD.5519@scott.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-345.ihug.co.nz
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.california:26402 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23988 alt.politics.white-power:34417 alt.rush-limbaugh:105508 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:328381 alt.fan.oj-simpson:49888

In article <31D216DD.5519@scott.net>, evil Beavis 
 says:
>
>The Eat Me Man wrote:

>> You seem to be unaware that there are 8 times more whites than black in America.
>
>There are 12% blacks in this country, so if whites are 8 times as many 
>they would comprise 96% of the popultion!! You are obviously an idiot 
>who has no idea what you're babbling about and cannot count...
>
Footboy, wasn't it propagated not so long ago that Blacks were 12.5% of
the U.S population?

12.5% x 8 = 100%

Also, even it were true that the proportion of blacks was 12%, would it
really matter?  A lot of surveys have a +-5% error rate anyway.

"8 times" is simpler to convey than "8 1/3 times"*

Do you always major in the minor?  If you are losing an argument do you
resort to correcting spelling mistakes for brownie points as well?  

Footboy; not only is he prejudiced and bigoted but he is also 
pathetically pedantic.  The champion of being pathetic.  All hail such
inspiration given to us by footboy.

Ourobouros.

* Assuming your figure is correct.

 



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

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.