The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/m/mckinstry.colin/1996/stone.1196


From Ourobouros Sat Nov  2 09:31:28 PST 1996
Article: 78257 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!gatech!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.discrimination
Subject: Another tactic of liberals (was: Unchanging Polynesians)
Date: 1 Nov 1996 12:38:37 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <55dn4d$jrq@lex.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port865-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:48262 alt.politics.nationalism.white:34800 alt.revisionism:78257 alt.discrimination:55458

In article <55b38p$ri6@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <5557lj$nm7@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>[...]
>
>>>So Chinese are just flocking to this alleged restaurant and ordering up the
>>>human flesh, preferring it to pork or chicken?
>>>
>>I would assume if there is one, there is more.  Afterall, parents are
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>knocking the head of their daughters all over China.
>
>
>Well you would, wouldn't you.  Would you also assume that if one
>Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet served up a rat in a bucket with
>fries that not only every bucket from that outlet but every
>bucket from every KFC worldwide served rat?
>
Another bizarre conclusion.  It would seem, that "Brown", "Finsten" and
Ledgister are keen on inserting the word "all" to whatever one says. As a
warning to anyone that wishes to "debate" these three, beware this tactic.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Sat Nov  2 09:31:29 PST 1996
Article: 78259 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!gatech!enews.sgi.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Another tactic of liberals (was: Unchanging Polynesians)
Date: 1 Nov 1996 14:38:13 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <55du4l$n1u@lex.zippo.com>
References: <55dn4d$jrq@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port865-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:48264 alt.politics.nationalism.white:34802 alt.revisionism:78259 alt.discrimination:55460

In article , 
jeff_brown@pol.com desperately clutching at straws wrote...
>
>In article <55dn4d$jrq@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article <55b38p$ri6@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>> >
>> >
>> >Ourobouros wrote:
>> >>In article <5557lj$nm7@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>> >
>> >[...]
>> >
>> >>>So Chinese are just flocking to this alleged restaurant and ordering up the
>> >>>human flesh, preferring it to pork or chicken?
>> >>>
>> >>I would assume if there is one, there is more.  Afterall, parents are
>> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >>knocking the head of their daughters all over China.
>> >
>> >
>> >Well you would, wouldn't you.  Would you also assume that if one
>> >Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet served up a rat in a bucket with
>> >fries that not only every bucket from that outlet but every
>> >bucket from every KFC worldwide served rat?
>> >
>> Another bizarre conclusion.  It would seem, that "Brown", "Finsten" and
>> Ledgister are keen on inserting the word "all" to whatever one says. As a
>> warning to anyone that wishes to "debate" these three, beware this tactic.
>
>Another bizarre lie from "Stone". Not only does the word "all" not even
>appear in the question from Dr. Finsten, and not only is his material
>quoted word for word in Dr. Finsten's post, but "Stone" now would have us
>believe that asking him a question that he apparently prefers not to
>answer is the same as misquoting him.
>
"all" and "every" are synonymous, try, try, try again "Brown."

>"Stone" tried -- and failed -- to pin a "misquoting" rap on me some time
>ago. Despite numerous requests, he was unable to cite a single instance in
>which I changed or added words in any material of his that I quoted in my
>posts.
>
ROTFL.

Err, "Brown," the only one that failed to see me pin your misquote on you 
was you, and that was only because you have already decided that I can 
never be right (prejudiced in other words.)

I must admit I did love your pretense that you asked a "new question" to 
get around you not misquoting me.  Instead of "Why are Negroes in Africa
backwards" you wanted me to prove "all Negroes", what a laugh.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sat Nov  2 12:27:24 PST 1996
Article: 55465 of alt.discrimination
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.uoregon.edu!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Another tactic of liberals (was: Unchanging Polynesians)
Date: 1 Nov 1996 22:26:14 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 127
Message-ID: <55epi6$66k@lex.zippo.com>
References: <55dn4d$jrq@lex.zippo.com>  <55du4l$n1u@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port864-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:48275 alt.politics.nationalism.white:34818 alt.revisionism:78279 alt.discrimination:55465

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <55du4l$n1u@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article , 
>> jeff_brown@pol.com desperately clutching at straws wrote...
>> >
>> >In article <55dn4d$jrq@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <55b38p$ri6@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Ourobouros wrote:
>> >> >>In article <5557lj$nm7@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>> >> >
>> >> >[...]
>> >> >
>> >> >>>So Chinese are just flocking to this alleged restaurant and
>ordering up the
>> >> >>>human flesh, preferring it to pork or chicken?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>I would assume if there is one, there is more.  Afterall, parents are
>> >> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >> >>knocking the head of their daughters all over China.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Well you would, wouldn't you.  Would you also assume that if one
>> >> >Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet served up a rat in a bucket with
>> >> >fries that not only every bucket from that outlet but every
>> >> >bucket from every KFC worldwide served rat?
>> >> >
>> >> Another bizarre conclusion.  It would seem, that "Brown", "Finsten" and
>> >> Ledgister are keen on inserting the word "all" to whatever one says. As a
>> >> warning to anyone that wishes to "debate" these three, beware this tactic.
>> >
>> >Another bizarre lie from "Stone". Not only does the word "all" not even
>> >appear in the question from Dr. Finsten, and not only is his material
>> >quoted word for word in Dr. Finsten's post, but "Stone" now would have us
>> >believe that asking him a question that he apparently prefers not to
>> >answer is the same as misquoting him.
>> >
>> "all" and "every" are synonymous, try, try, try again "Brown."
>
>The specific charge made by "Stone" was that 
>
>  > "Brown", "Finsten" and Ledgister are keen on inserting the word 
>  > "all" to whatever one says'. 
>
>"Stone" now backpedals, claiming that he actually meant "every" when he
>wrote "all".
>
Here is a good example that you are a fool, as I have asserted before, so
it becomes obvious again.

  "all compared to every
  Technically, all means a number of people or things considered as a
  group while every means a number of people or things considered
  individually.  But in practice every and its compounds are often used
  when we are thinking of a group."

A.J. Thomson, A.V. Martinet, "A Practical English Grammar," 4th ed., 
Oxford, 1994, p.64.

  "every 
  1.  ...; ALL taken one by one.  2. ALL possible;... 3. Obs.  ALL: with
  plural noun.
  Synonyms (adj.): ALL,..." [Emphasize mine]
  
  "all
  6. ... See synonyms under EVERY.
  -- pron.  1. Everyone:... 3. Everything: ... 4. Every part, as of a 
  whole."
Webster Dictionary.

Your universe is rapidly shrinking, I believe.

>He also fails to demonstrate that Dr. Finsten, Mr. Ledgister, or myself
>have changed or added words in any material of his that we have quoted in
>our posts. His charge remains unsupported by a single shred of evidence.
>
Let me guess you have already forgotten your preposterous claim that 
because I knew of no Ph.D (in anthropology) students doing field work, then
that meant (in your bizarre form of logic) I was asserting no (as in all)
Ph.D students (in anthropology) were doing field research for their 
doctorates.  Then we had Ledgister backing you up, which meant he agreed
with your sentiments, and then we have in this very post "Finsten's"
blatancy.

Last, but not least, I have not accused "Finsten", "Ledgister" or yourself
that you are misquoting me, despite your desperate aim to guide the
argument that way.

>> >"Stone" tried -- and failed -- to pin a "misquoting" rap on me some time
>> >ago. Despite numerous requests, he was unable to cite a single instance in
>> >which I changed or added words in any material of his that I quoted in my
>> >posts.
>> >
>> ROTFL.
>> 
>> Err, "Brown," the only one that failed to see me pin your misquote on you 
>> was you, and that was only because you have already decided that I can 
>> never be right (prejudiced in other words.)
>> 
>> I must admit I did love your pretense that you asked a "new question" to 
>> get around you not misquoting me.  Instead of "Why are Negroes in Africa
>> backwards" you wanted me to prove "all Negroes", what a laugh.
>
>Incorrect. 
>
>"Stone" charged that I changed a quote -- in other words, that I altered
>or added to the words written by someone else, and attributed those
>modified passages to someone else. In response to that charge, I asked
>that "Stone" identify any post in which I had changed the words written by
>someone else and attributed those changed words to someone else. He
>repeatedly failed to do so.
>
If you couldn't comprehend it before, repeating it will not help you.  We
all had a good laugh at your expense though.

Despite your petty claim above, you failed to grasp the point I was trying
to make in that set of arguments, and that is; you delibrately changed the 
intent of what was written for your own agenda.  I did not need answer
your request, because it was irrelevant.

I have never accused you of doing what you said I claimed you did.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sat Nov  2 12:28:44 PST 1996
Article: 78279 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.uoregon.edu!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Another tactic of liberals (was: Unchanging Polynesians)
Date: 1 Nov 1996 22:26:14 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 127
Message-ID: <55epi6$66k@lex.zippo.com>
References: <55dn4d$jrq@lex.zippo.com>  <55du4l$n1u@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port864-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:48275 alt.politics.nationalism.white:34818 alt.revisionism:78279 alt.discrimination:55465

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <55du4l$n1u@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article , 
>> jeff_brown@pol.com desperately clutching at straws wrote...
>> >
>> >In article <55dn4d$jrq@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <55b38p$ri6@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Ourobouros wrote:
>> >> >>In article <5557lj$nm7@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>> >> >
>> >> >[...]
>> >> >
>> >> >>>So Chinese are just flocking to this alleged restaurant and
>ordering up the
>> >> >>>human flesh, preferring it to pork or chicken?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>I would assume if there is one, there is more.  Afterall, parents are
>> >> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >> >>knocking the head of their daughters all over China.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Well you would, wouldn't you.  Would you also assume that if one
>> >> >Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet served up a rat in a bucket with
>> >> >fries that not only every bucket from that outlet but every
>> >> >bucket from every KFC worldwide served rat?
>> >> >
>> >> Another bizarre conclusion.  It would seem, that "Brown", "Finsten" and
>> >> Ledgister are keen on inserting the word "all" to whatever one says. As a
>> >> warning to anyone that wishes to "debate" these three, beware this tactic.
>> >
>> >Another bizarre lie from "Stone". Not only does the word "all" not even
>> >appear in the question from Dr. Finsten, and not only is his material
>> >quoted word for word in Dr. Finsten's post, but "Stone" now would have us
>> >believe that asking him a question that he apparently prefers not to
>> >answer is the same as misquoting him.
>> >
>> "all" and "every" are synonymous, try, try, try again "Brown."
>
>The specific charge made by "Stone" was that 
>
>  > "Brown", "Finsten" and Ledgister are keen on inserting the word 
>  > "all" to whatever one says'. 
>
>"Stone" now backpedals, claiming that he actually meant "every" when he
>wrote "all".
>
Here is a good example that you are a fool, as I have asserted before, so
it becomes obvious again.

  "all compared to every
  Technically, all means a number of people or things considered as a
  group while every means a number of people or things considered
  individually.  But in practice every and its compounds are often used
  when we are thinking of a group."

A.J. Thomson, A.V. Martinet, "A Practical English Grammar," 4th ed., 
Oxford, 1994, p.64.

  "every 
  1.  ...; ALL taken one by one.  2. ALL possible;... 3. Obs.  ALL: with
  plural noun.
  Synonyms (adj.): ALL,..." [Emphasize mine]
  
  "all
  6. ... See synonyms under EVERY.
  -- pron.  1. Everyone:... 3. Everything: ... 4. Every part, as of a 
  whole."
Webster Dictionary.

Your universe is rapidly shrinking, I believe.

>He also fails to demonstrate that Dr. Finsten, Mr. Ledgister, or myself
>have changed or added words in any material of his that we have quoted in
>our posts. His charge remains unsupported by a single shred of evidence.
>
Let me guess you have already forgotten your preposterous claim that 
because I knew of no Ph.D (in anthropology) students doing field work, then
that meant (in your bizarre form of logic) I was asserting no (as in all)
Ph.D students (in anthropology) were doing field research for their 
doctorates.  Then we had Ledgister backing you up, which meant he agreed
with your sentiments, and then we have in this very post "Finsten's"
blatancy.

Last, but not least, I have not accused "Finsten", "Ledgister" or yourself
that you are misquoting me, despite your desperate aim to guide the
argument that way.

>> >"Stone" tried -- and failed -- to pin a "misquoting" rap on me some time
>> >ago. Despite numerous requests, he was unable to cite a single instance in
>> >which I changed or added words in any material of his that I quoted in my
>> >posts.
>> >
>> ROTFL.
>> 
>> Err, "Brown," the only one that failed to see me pin your misquote on you 
>> was you, and that was only because you have already decided that I can 
>> never be right (prejudiced in other words.)
>> 
>> I must admit I did love your pretense that you asked a "new question" to 
>> get around you not misquoting me.  Instead of "Why are Negroes in Africa
>> backwards" you wanted me to prove "all Negroes", what a laugh.
>
>Incorrect. 
>
>"Stone" charged that I changed a quote -- in other words, that I altered
>or added to the words written by someone else, and attributed those
>modified passages to someone else. In response to that charge, I asked
>that "Stone" identify any post in which I had changed the words written by
>someone else and attributed those changed words to someone else. He
>repeatedly failed to do so.
>
If you couldn't comprehend it before, repeating it will not help you.  We
all had a good laugh at your expense though.

Despite your petty claim above, you failed to grasp the point I was trying
to make in that set of arguments, and that is; you delibrately changed the 
intent of what was written for your own agenda.  I did not need answer
your request, because it was irrelevant.

I have never accused you of doing what you said I claimed you did.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Nov  3 08:09:25 PST 1996
Article: 78328 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.PBI.net!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Another tactic of liberals (was: Unchanging Polynesians)
Date: 2 Nov 1996 20:37:21 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 88
Message-ID: <55h7i1$iuq@lex.zippo.com>
References: <55dn4d$jrq@lex.zippo.com>  <55du4l$n1u@lex.zippo.com>  <55epi6$66k@lex.zippo.com>  <55ggt5$a1d@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: aus66.max4.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:48310 alt.politics.nationalism.white:34848 alt.revisionism:78328 alt.discrimination:55483

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <55ggt5$a1d@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >
>> >In article <55epi6$66k@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article ,
>> >jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >
[Proof that "all" = "every" (in this context) snipped]

>> >The quite specific charge made by "Stone" was that:
>> >
>> > > "Brown", "Finsten" and Ledgister are keen on inserting the word 
>> > > "all" to whatever one says. 
>> >
>> >The specific word that "Stone" accuses myself and two others of inserting
>> >into quotes of his material is the words "all", as denoted by the
>> >quotation marks in "Stone's" original post. "Stone" is incorrect when he
>> >accuses Dr. Finsten, Mr. Ledgister, and myself of inserting the word "all"
>> >into quoted material from his posts, and he is incorrect when he modifies
>> >the charge to inserting the specific word "every" into quoted material
>> >from his posts
>> >
>> Fool...
>
>I notice the emotive tone to "Stone's" statement, and conclude that he is
>trying to discredit me by emotive (and probably prejudiced) language.
>
No.  "Fool" and "Jeffrey G. Brown" from jeff_brown@pol.com are synonymous
terms.

>> ...if you truly believe that I was stupid in choosing "all" when 
>> "Finsten" used "every" then you have severe reality problems.  As I have 
>> tried to say, but you are being delibrately dense, "all" and "every" are 
>> synonymous terms, in other words interchangeable.
>
>I believe that "Stone" originally charged myself and two others with
>inserting the word "all" into quoted material from his posts, as that is
>the word he used in his original accusation. See message-ID
><55dn4d$jrq@lex.zippo.com>.
>
>I believe that when it was pointed out to him that the word "all" did not
>occur in the post from Dr. Finsten to which he was responding, "Stone"
>immediately pointed out that "all" and "every" are considered synonymous
>-- the clear inplication being that he was now changing his accusation,
>and that myself and two others were charged with inserting the word
>"every" into quoted material from his posts. See: message-ID
><55du4l$n1u@lex.zippo.com>.
>
>I believe that Dr. Finsten did not, in fact, insert the word "every" nor
>the word "all" into the material she quoted from "Stone's" post regarding
>cannibalism in China. Compare message-ID
><55b38p$ri6@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> (Dr. Finsten's question concerning
>KFC and rats) with message-ID <55886i$b2u@lex.zippo.com> ("Stone's" post
>to which she was replying, which contains the material to which "Stone"
>claims Dr. Finsten added the word "all" or "every").
>
>I believe that regardless of which word "Stone" uses in his accusation,
>the record clearly shows that his accusation is, in fact, false, and that
>no such modification of quoted material from his posts has taken place.
>
>If "Stone" has evidence to the contrary, let him present it.
>
Your argument is false, not my accusation.  I have no intention of arguing
your trumped up argument, hopefully some year you will realize this.

["Brown's" waffling argument removed]

You have not (wilfully or plain ignorantly) understood the point I was
making.  The following is unlikely to penetrate the thought processes of
"Brown" either, but I suppose I should give him the benefit of the doubt:

Drawing upon the responses of "Finsten," Ledgister, and yourself you have
implicated that I was meaning "all" or "every" (since you don't undertand
what synonymous means) in what I wrote.  This is false, and it is that I
wish to call attention too.

Can you comprehend this?  If not, please stop wasting my time, and find
another set of newsgroups that are more attuned to your kind of thinking,
eg., alt.politics.correct, alt.stupidity, nz.shortland.street, alt.women's.
soaps, alt.no.debating.here, alt.legend.in.own.mind, alt.silly.conclusions
and so forth.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Nov  3 08:09:26 PST 1996
Article: 78343 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news-dc.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-stock.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!hammer.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Another tactic of liberals (was: Unchanging Polynesians)
Date: 2 Nov 1996 19:57:27 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <55h577$hpv@lex.zippo.com>
References: <55dn4d$jrq@lex.zippo.com>  <55du4l$n1u@lex.zippo.com>  <55epi6$66k@lex.zippo.com> <55fm2m$lv8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: aus66.max4.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:48313 alt.politics.nationalism.white:34853 alt.revisionism:78343 alt.discrimination:55486

In article <55fm2m$lv8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>The real point in my Kentucky Fried Chicken example, Twinkletoes,
>is your penchant for gross generalisation from a single example,
>whether true or not.  You move easily, as falsely, from "a Chinese
>restaurant" to "the Chinese", or "a Samoan" to "the Samoans" or 
>"Polynesians".  If you are unaware of your proclivity for such
>false generalisation, then perhaps the significance of my example
>escaped you.  So much does, after all.
>
You should pay more attention to the context of what I write, "Finsten."
I don't generally move falsely from "a" to "the."  Usually there is a 
delibrate purpose, which is relevant, the other times are errors on my
behalf.

Samoans are part of the Polynesian community and share a common culture 
(yes there are differences, but usually minor.)  B. Danielsson did an 
extensive study throughout the Polynesian world for pre-European contact.

As for your Chinese example, I never said that all Chinese restaurants
sold human flesh, I said (paraphrased) that if there was one then there
would no doubt be more.  Nothing in what I wrote can give a rational
explanation to your choice in using the word "every."

Ourobouros.



 


From Ourobouros Tue Nov  5 06:58:52 PST 1996
Article: 78541 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!node2.frontiernet.net!news.texas.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Another tactic of liberals (was: Unchanging Polynesians)
Date: 4 Nov 1996 11:39:53 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <55lgq9$djc@lex.zippo.com>
References: <55dn4d$jrq@lex.zippo.com> <55l4pm$7dc@news1.ucsd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port878-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:48474 alt.politics.nationalism.white:34965 alt.revisionism:78541 alt.discrimination:55565

In article <55l4pm$7dc@news1.ucsd.edu>, fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:

[snip]

>: Another bizarre conclusion.  It would seem, that "Brown", "Finsten" and
>: Ledgister are keen on inserting the word "all" to whatever one says. As a
>: warning to anyone that wishes to "debate" these three, beware this tactic.
>
>: Ourobouros.
>
>Please cite the specific occasions on which I have done it.  In the
>alternative, admit that you are lying.
>
The occasion [note: singular] that you have done so was when you agreed 
that "Brown's" comment concerning that I knew all prospective anthropology
doctors [their theses in other words] was valid.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Tue Nov  5 06:58:52 PST 1996
Article: 78557 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!dish.news.pipex.net!pipex!bt!btnet-feed2!btnet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Another tactic of liberals (was: Unchanging Polynesians)
Date: 4 Nov 1996 17:29:58 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <55m5am$n5r@lex.zippo.com>
References: <55dn4d$jrq@lex.zippo.com>  <55du4l$n1u@lex.zippo.com>  <55epi6$66k@lex.zippo.com> <55fm2m$lv8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <55h577$hpv@lex.zippo.com> <55krjb$gu5@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port854-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:48490 alt.politics.nationalism.white:34978 alt.revisionism:78557 alt.discrimination:55574

In article <55krjb$gu5@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <55fm2m$lv8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>>>The real point in my Kentucky Fried Chicken example, Twinkletoes,
>>>is your penchant for gross generalisation from a single example,
>>>whether true or not.  You move easily, as falsely, from "a Chinese
>>>restaurant" to "the Chinese", or "a Samoan" to "the Samoans" or 
>>>"Polynesians".  If you are unaware of your proclivity for such
>>>false generalisation, then perhaps the significance of my example
>>>escaped you.  So much does, after all.
>
>>You should pay more attention to the context of what I write, "Finsten."
>>I don't generally move falsely from "a" to "the."  Usually there is a 
>>delibrate purpose, which is relevant, the other times are errors on my
>>behalf.
>
>I pay close attention to what you write, Twinkletoes.  This is why I
>said above that one of your favourite strategies is false generalisation.
>It doesn't matter what your "deliberate purpose" is.  If the generalisations
>are false, they are false.  If you must do this in order to fulfill your
>"deliberate purpose", then that says a lot about your intellectual
>honesty, doesn't it.
>
I deny that I make false generalisations, except in the odd occasion for
the purposes of humour or sarcasm.

>>Samoans are part of the Polynesian community and share a common culture 
>>(yes there are differences, but usually minor.)  B. Danielsson did an 
>>extensive study throughout the Polynesian world for pre-European contact.
>
>How much time did Danielsson spend doing the research for "Love in the
>South Seas"?  How much time did he spend studying each of the different
>Polynesian cultures?
>
I wouldn't know at the present.

>>As for your Chinese example, I never said that all Chinese restaurants
>>sold human flesh, I said (paraphrased) that if there was one then there
>>would no doubt be more.  Nothing in what I wrote can give a rational
>>explanation to your choice in using the word "every."
>
>But you did make a generalisation about cannibalism in China, and that
>is the context in which the remark about restaurants was relevant.  Or
>perhaps you've forgotten that.
>
What generalisation was that, "Finsten"?

One restaurant is not most restaurants, therefore I remain perplexed how
I made a generalisation in this instance.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Nov  5 06:58:53 PST 1996
Article: 78560 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!uw-beaver!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!news.acsu.buffalo.edu!csn!nntp-xfer-1.csn.net!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Another tactic of liberals (was: Unchanging Polynesians)
Date: 3 Nov 1996 16:22:09 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <55jcvh$su1@lex.zippo.com>
References: <55dn4d$jrq@lex.zippo.com>  <55du4l$n1u@lex.zippo.com>  <55epi6$66k@lex.zippo.com>  <55ggt5$a1d@lex.zippo.com>  <55h7i1$iuq@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port837-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:48494 alt.politics.nationalism.white:34982 alt.revisionism:78560 alt.discrimination:55575

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
[Another of "Brown's" waffling arguments snipped again]

I have clearly laid down my argument.  You have chosen not to comprehend it,
but have rather decided to deride it by meaningless waffle. Would you do us
all a favour and not bother these newsgroups again for, it is plain that
you cannot or will not make rational arguments based upon statements posted
here.

Ourobouros.
   


From Ourobouros Wed Nov  6 08:58:24 PST 1996
Article: 35045 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Spanish is an Aryan language
Date: 5 Nov 1996 11:49:31 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <55o5ob$327@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbc6b4$6c3ef9a0$308aaec7@default> <55h4cf$2i6@crl11.crl.com> <55ltdn$d0b@news1.panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port870-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:35045 alt.politics.white-power:48570

In article <55ltdn$d0b@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>
>varange@crl.com (Troy Varange) wrote:
>
>>In article <01bbc6b4$6c3ef9a0$308aaec7@default>,
>>Rad  wrote:
>>> The jew controlled media likes to promote Spanish as if it represents the
>>> Third World in America. But Spanish is an Aryan language just as English,
>>> French and German are. The problem with Spanish is the fucking Indian
>>> wetbacks who speak it, not the language itself. Though modern
>>> Mediterraneans are more backward than their northern European counterparts
>>> these days, at one time they were Aryan whites.
>
>>Absolutely correct.  East Indians were once an Aryan people too, but
>>today is completely non-white.  Same situation in North Africa, including
>>the Aryan tribe which founded Jerusalem, now extinct.
>
>This is inane, even for you, Skippy.
>
>The Jebusites, who were, by all accounts, Semites, founded Jerusalem.
>The city was taken by the Israelites c. 1000 BCE.
>
  "3b.  Old Testament:  Jerusalem is also an independent enclave during
  the time of Saul (and David for the first seven years of his reign).  It
  is ruled by the Jebusites -- an Indo-European or Hurrian elite."

D.M. Rohl, "A Test of Time," vol.1, London, 1995, p.203.

The Encycopedia Britannica makes comments on the Jebusites as well:

  "[after taking the city].  The previous (Jebusite) ruler had been both 
  king and high priest, and played the role of mediator between the city 
  and its diety.  There was no precedent for such a mediative and priestly 
  role of kings in Israelite religion, nor of walled cities as the seat of 
  government and worship.  Apparently, David simply took over the Jebusite 
  cult on Zion and adapted it to his own (and Israelite) use.
  ... David thus continued the line of king-priests that had reigned in
  Jerusalem from the founding of the city, and, according to a legend that
  may have developed in this context, the patriarch Abraham had been 
  blessed by Melchizedek, an earlier representative of the line, when he
  had presented tithes to him."

Encyclopedia Britannica, vol.3, p.907.

Should we start a movement, like so many minorities do, that demands the
return of Jerusalem to its rightful owners (us being Indo-European) and
a year by year monetary compensation for the holocaust that happened all
those many years ago?  Lets not also forget they stole our kins' religion 
there as well, and looted our 'synagogues' or are they now going to start 
emphasizing their Khazar origins?

Lets not forget the genocide committed upon the Philistines as well, they
were another Indo-European people, AND their hatred for the Hittites, who
were yet another Indo-European people.

Part of the Jew vow upon several people:

  "But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites [Indo-
  European], and the Amorites, the Canaanites [proto-Phoenicians], and the
  Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites [Indo-European]"

Deuteronomy 20:17.

Some of those people are our kith and kin.

Let us not forget that our own families bought the Holy Land with their
own blood, and then having some traitorous politicians give it away is a
mock on their names.

Ourobouros.
  






From Ourobouros Wed Nov  6 09:08:37 PST 1996
Article: 48569 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Human populations (was: Ourobouros' sample definition...)
Date: 5 Nov 1996 10:46:58 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 239
Message-ID: <55o232$1i3@lex.zippo.com>
References: <55en1i$56l@lex.zippo.com> <55m877$nrb@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port870-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <55m877$nrb@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <55csl5$rpf@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>In article <557pqs$fko@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>
>[...]
>
>>>>>I have never claimed that there are not genetic differences between
>>>>>human populations.  No human biologist has ever made such a claim.
>>>>>You are creating a strawman.
>
>>>>Guess what will happen if I were to be so bold as say there were 
>>>>genetic differences between the races?
>
>>>At what level of Cavalli-Sforza et al.'s analysis do you define "races",
>>>and how to you justify it, both theoretically and empirically? 
>
>>Without the book at hand, and having not taken sufficient notes, I cannot
>>answer this at present.
>
>This seems to be rather a convenient excuse.  Perhaps you failed to anticipate
>the likelihood that your recall of this 2000+ page book might be questioned
>and that it might be foolhardy to argue about its contents when you did not
>have access to the actual book?  Lacking a little in foresight, it seems.
>
I love a challenge, "Finsten."  When I first started arguing about the 
book it was freely available at the University of Auckland.  What I did
not predict was that someone would want the book for the entire year.  

>>>>I may at some future date show you, either that or you can freely
>>>>read some arguments within McVay's biased files (I don't remember
>>>>the filenames), on this very point.
>
>>>Ooooo, I tremble with anticipation.
>
>>This comment was hardly a threat on your person, your sarcastic reply is
>>therefore silly.
>
>I said "anticipation", not "fear".  But you're right about the sarcasm.
>
>>>>>>["History and Geography of Human Genes," chpt.1]
>
>[...]
>
>>>My interpretation was all you had to go on, yet you felt perfectly justified
>>>in claiming that Cavalli-Sforza and his co-authors said something they
>>>did not, and equally justified in claiming that my interpretation was
>>>faulty.  Good work, you are maintaining a consistent record of making stuff
>>>up out of thin air, misrepresenting published works and their authors,
>>>and engaging in ad hominem argument when your imagination fails you.
>
>>You supplied an insufficient representation of their position, "Finsten."
>>Your blather above is therefore moot.
>
>Uh no.  You had *no* comprehension of their position at all, Twinkletoes,
>and therefore your suggestions were purposeful misrepresentation of their
>position.  Have you finally grasped this?  It is something that you might
>want to try to get a handle on if you're studying history.  Pretending to
>know and/or lying about what people have said in books is a bad thing.  It
>is a kind of intellectual dishonesty.
>
While they claim they do not believe in races, "Finsten."  They did decide
to use five races in the book.  It is not an invalid conclusion despite
your pretense otherwise.

>[...]
>
>>>>>I note that you are now using the word "believe" where you were before
>>>>>using the word "accept".  These words have quite different connotations
>>>>>in this discussion
>
>>>>Yes they do, I used "believe" on purpose.
>
>>>Another one of your ingenuous tactics so that you can turn around at some
>>>later point and deny having said what you said.
>
>>Err, you really don't know how to argue do you?
>
>I know the difference between honest debate and intellectually dishonest
>argumentation, yes.
>
It would seem not.

>[Twinkletoes attributes something to Darwin without citation]
>
>>>Please do cite your source for this.
>
>>I already have in the past, I believe it around the time when Michael Daly 
>>was frequenting apnw.
>
>Great answer.  I think I'll try that one on you.
>
The truth be told the name of the book that went into Darwin's thoughts on
races has slipped my memory.  However, I remain confident that in the
argument with Michael Daly, I had read the book in question and therefore
gave your beloved citation.

The other point to remember is you hardly ever give citations or 
references.

>>>>Continuing...
>>>>>Human races are still extremely unstable
>>>>>entities in the hands of modern taxonomists, who define from 3 to 60 or more
>>>>>races (Garn 1971).  To some extent, this latitude depends on the personal
>>>>>preference of taxonomists, who may choose to be "lumpers" or "splitters."
>>>>>Although there is no doubt that there is only one human species, there are
>>>>>clearly no objective reasons for stopping at any particular level of
>>>>>taxonomic splitting.  In fact, the analysis we carry out in Chapter 2 for
>>>>>purposes of evolutionary study shows that the level at which we stop our
>>>>>classification is completely arbitrary....
>
>>>>Point accepted, except that they decided nevertheless to stop at that
>>>>point for classification.
>
>>>My what an astute observation.
>
>>Amazing, I believe I may have discovered the level at which your 
>>intelligence starts to function.
>
>
>[...]
>
>>>>>*At no level can clusters be identified
>>>>>with races, since every level of clustering would determine a different
>>>>>partition and there is no biological reason to prefer a particular one.
>>>>>The successive levels of clustering follow each other in a regular
>>>>>sequence, and there is no discontinuity that might tempt us to consider
>>>>>a certain level as a reasonable, though arbitrary, threshold for race
>>>>>distinctions.*"
>
>>>>Commenting on this portion, so as not to confuse the feeble-minded. Special
>>>>attention being placed upon the sentence "The successive levels of 
>>>>clustering..."
>
>>>>They have decided that there is no threshold for race distinction, please
>>>>bear this in mind.  Without having the raw data on hand, I will withhold
>>>>further comment than to say they have decided there is no reasonable
>>>>threshold, that doesn't mean one doesn't exist, but one they refuse to
>
>>>The phrase "...there is no discontinuity that might tempt us to consider
>>>a certain level as a reasonable, though arbitrary, threshold for race
>>>distinctions" suggests that there is none evident.  
>
>>Or one they are not prepared to comment on.
>
>You're going to have to do better than that, Twinkletoes.
>
Not at the present, except to say they are PC and therefore don't want to 
legitimately find racial differences concerning genetics.
>
>[...]
>
>>>You seem to assume a multiregional evolution of modern humans, with
>>>"pure races" each emerging independently.  This is the only way in which
>>>the existence of such "boundaries" could ever have existed.  The evidence
>>>does not support the multiregional hypothesis.  The idea that boundaries
>>>existed in the past but have since been blurred is flawed and based on
>>>an extremely simplistic view of population history.
>
>>Perhaps, perhaps not.  The ability for rapid travel has only been feasible
>>since around 1,000 BC with the brilliance of the Phoenician seamanship and
>>similar for mass roading. It would be highly feasible to believe that 
>>migrations before this time were slow events, mainly due to the problem of 
>>movement, which would mean (on the whole) isolation and consequently gene 
>>pools of populations would be relatively static.  Your view relies on
>>continual gene flow, which doesn't seem feasible until the classical 
>>period (and let us not forget the Middle Ages put a stop to this.)
>
>Ummmm, Twinkletoes, *rapid* travel is not necessary.  Humans have been highly
>mobile, probably for as long as the species existed.  There is ample evidence
>of a great deal of mobility long before the era of the Phoenicians.  Hell, the
>Inkas strung together an empire extending 6,000 kilometres from north to south,
>and they sure didn't administer it and keep it together sitting on their duffs
>in Cuzco.  People had inhabited all the continents and all the major environments
>of the globe by the end of the Pleistocene, moving into previously uninhabitable
>environments as quickly as the ice retreated (and sometimes before, apparently).
>People get around and always have.
>
The point is it was slow, AND being slow, gene flow was slow.  If gene flow
was slow then changes were slow, and that means the races could still live
quite comfortably apart and not adulterate.

>>>>>L.L. Cavalli-Sforza, P. Menozzi, A. Piazza 1994  "The History and Geography
>>>>>of Human Genes".  Princeton University Press.  p. 19.  (emphasis mine)
>
>>>>>Now, would you like to withdraw your claim that Cavalli-Sforza et al.
>>>>>accept the division of humans into five races in this book?
>
>>>>I will withdraw my comment that they positively believe in five races.  I
>>>>will however say that despite their comment of them being arbitrary, they
>>>>did decide to divide the book according to five races, which would mean
>>>>they had a reason for doing so, despite their claim to arbitrariness.
>
>>>Yeah, they had a reason.  Seems you're too thick to grasp it, though.
>>>Look at the title again, and think about what the word "geography" might
>>>have to do with it.
>
>>Err, no.  While I haven't read all the book, I know the Egyptians and the
>>other northern Africans are treated in the European section and not the
>>African section, as are the Near Eastern peoples.  This would mean your
>>geography argument is a tad weak.  Please try again, or should I say that
>>you are too thick to grasp it?
>
>Funny thing about "continents", no?  I mean, the Old World is considered to
>be three different continents, and yet it is all a single connected land mass.
>
In other words you have not understood my comment concerning the northern
Africans being included in the European section as opposed to the African
section.

>I can't find the post where you commented that Boas' measurements of immigrants'
>children were of no real significance.  You claimed that he found a 2 percent
>different.  I reread Boas' article tonight and, not surprisingly, you are 
>wrong about that.  Boas found a difference on average of about 2.0 index points,
>which are not the same as percentage points.  To realise the significance, 
>we must realise that the two important cephalic index categories have point 
>spreads of 5.0 each.  If we assume that the distribution is even across the
>range for each category, this would suggest that as many as *40 percent* of
>children would have a different cranial type than their parents (this is because
>the change is consistent within immigrant populations, although the direction
>of the change, interesting enough was different for different immigrant populations,
>with some seeing an decrease and others an increase).
>
Cephalic Index:  Anat.  The figure that expresses the ratio of the 
greatest breadth of the human skull to the greatest length, the former
being multiplied by 100. ...

Webster dictionary.

How is it not a percentage?

Why can the children (of immigrants) still be measured by Police 
pathologists as belonging to their respective parents skull type?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Wed Nov  6 09:08:39 PST 1996
Article: 48570 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Spanish is an Aryan language
Date: 5 Nov 1996 11:49:31 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <55o5ob$327@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbc6b4$6c3ef9a0$308aaec7@default> <55h4cf$2i6@crl11.crl.com> <55ltdn$d0b@news1.panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port870-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:35045 alt.politics.white-power:48570

In article <55ltdn$d0b@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>
>varange@crl.com (Troy Varange) wrote:
>
>>In article <01bbc6b4$6c3ef9a0$308aaec7@default>,
>>Rad  wrote:
>>> The jew controlled media likes to promote Spanish as if it represents the
>>> Third World in America. But Spanish is an Aryan language just as English,
>>> French and German are. The problem with Spanish is the fucking Indian
>>> wetbacks who speak it, not the language itself. Though modern
>>> Mediterraneans are more backward than their northern European counterparts
>>> these days, at one time they were Aryan whites.
>
>>Absolutely correct.  East Indians were once an Aryan people too, but
>>today is completely non-white.  Same situation in North Africa, including
>>the Aryan tribe which founded Jerusalem, now extinct.
>
>This is inane, even for you, Skippy.
>
>The Jebusites, who were, by all accounts, Semites, founded Jerusalem.
>The city was taken by the Israelites c. 1000 BCE.
>
  "3b.  Old Testament:  Jerusalem is also an independent enclave during
  the time of Saul (and David for the first seven years of his reign).  It
  is ruled by the Jebusites -- an Indo-European or Hurrian elite."

D.M. Rohl, "A Test of Time," vol.1, London, 1995, p.203.

The Encycopedia Britannica makes comments on the Jebusites as well:

  "[after taking the city].  The previous (Jebusite) ruler had been both 
  king and high priest, and played the role of mediator between the city 
  and its diety.  There was no precedent for such a mediative and priestly 
  role of kings in Israelite religion, nor of walled cities as the seat of 
  government and worship.  Apparently, David simply took over the Jebusite 
  cult on Zion and adapted it to his own (and Israelite) use.
  ... David thus continued the line of king-priests that had reigned in
  Jerusalem from the founding of the city, and, according to a legend that
  may have developed in this context, the patriarch Abraham had been 
  blessed by Melchizedek, an earlier representative of the line, when he
  had presented tithes to him."

Encyclopedia Britannica, vol.3, p.907.

Should we start a movement, like so many minorities do, that demands the
return of Jerusalem to its rightful owners (us being Indo-European) and
a year by year monetary compensation for the holocaust that happened all
those many years ago?  Lets not also forget they stole our kins' religion 
there as well, and looted our 'synagogues' or are they now going to start 
emphasizing their Khazar origins?

Lets not forget the genocide committed upon the Philistines as well, they
were another Indo-European people, AND their hatred for the Hittites, who
were yet another Indo-European people.

Part of the Jew vow upon several people:

  "But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites [Indo-
  European], and the Amorites, the Canaanites [proto-Phoenicians], and the
  Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites [Indo-European]"

Deuteronomy 20:17.

Some of those people are our kith and kin.

Let us not forget that our own families bought the Holy Land with their
own blood, and then having some traitorous politicians give it away is a
mock on their names.

Ourobouros.
  






From Ourobouros Thu Nov  7 06:13:08 PST 1996
Article: 78741 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!node2.frontiernet.net!news.texas.net!cdc2.cdc.net!news.stealth.net!demos!news1.relcom.ru!EU.net!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Another tactic of liberals (was: Unchanging Polynesians)
Date: 3 Nov 1996 21:51:18 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <55k08m$89l@lex.zippo.com>
References: <55dn4d$jrq@lex.zippo.com>  <55du4l$n1u@lex.zippo.com>  <55epi6$66k@lex.zippo.com>  <55ggt5$a1d@lex.zippo.com>  <55h7i1$iuq@lex.zippo.com>  <55jcvh$su1@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port832-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:48661 alt.politics.nationalism.white:35110 alt.revisionism:78741 alt.discrimination:55629

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <55jcvh$su1@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >
>> [Another of "Brown's" waffling arguments snipped again]
>
>Let me just point out, for the record, "Stone's" own opinion of what he
>did when he deleted my argument from his reply:
>
> > [Several individuals] have snipped various and important parts of
> > what I have written to try desperately to make themselves look
> > intelligent rather than fools. Unfortunately for them, it has
> > backfired and they look even more dopey than before.
> > 
> > We must be doing something right if they have to resort to desperate
> > techniques in a bid to win an argument.
>
>                 - Subject:    Desperate times call for desperate measures.
>                 - Date:       1996/09/06
>                 - Message-Id: <50qckr$2rr@lex.zippo.com>
>
>Truly, I could not have given a better evaluation of "Stone's" tactics myself.
>
A couple of points:

1.  I have not snipped various and important parts of what you have 
written, I snipped your entire post, therefore nothing was taken out of
context.  Therefore it has hardly backfired.

2.  You have yet to pay any heed to what I wrote in that post yourself.
You still to this day inappropriately snip what I write, so you are in no 
position to try and use this tactic against me, because it reveals your
own hypocrisy (again.)

Ourobouros.






From Ourobouros Thu Nov  7 08:06:25 PST 1996
Article: 48656 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Getting a piece of paper (was: Unchanging Polynesians)
Date: 6 Nov 1996 17:53:07 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 347
Message-ID: <55rfe3$aq@lex.zippo.com>
References: <555k6k$o41@lex.zippo.com> <558fji$hbd@news1.ucsd.edu> <55963l$o5j@lex.zippo.com> <55b888$t16@news1.ucsd.edu> <55btvf$f5e@lex.zippo.com> <55dagr$7li@news1.ucsd.edu> <55dt7r$mkv@lex.zippo.com> <55kprb$6m9@news1.ucsd.edu> <55lg3t$d7k@lex.zippo.com> <55pvll$3bl@news1.ucsd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port883-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <55pvll$3bl@news1.ucsd.edu>, fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>: In article <55kprb$6m9@news1.ucsd.edu>, fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu says...
>: >
>: >Ourobouros wrote:
>: >: In article <55dagr$7li@news1.ucsd.edu>, fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu says...
>: >: >
>: >: >All that it is proof of is your incapacity to write clear,
>: >: >idiomatic, standard English. You express confusion in your writing,
>: >: >and then chastise readers for not understanding you.
>: >: >
>: >: Bullshit.
>: >
>: >: You asked what were 'art papers.'  I replied (sarcastically) concerning
>: >: the Bachelor of Art degree, which is an extremely valid point, since ALL
>: >: Universities offer a BA course.  You then come up with an extremely obtuse
>: >: reply concerning a doctorate in Bachelor of Arts.  Now you have the
>: >: audacity to accuse me of having poor English skills.  I suggest you take
>: >: a course in remedial English.
>: >
>: >
>: >You really are confused, and you spread confusion in your writing. 
>: >
>: Since you are supposedly a master of the English language, explain why you
>: think there is confusion in my writing.
>
>Because you have a real problem putting together simple declarative
>sentences.     

Poppycock.

>: >k: >I would suggest you look me up in DA (or on Melvyl) before making
>: >: >further assertions. You might also enroll in a primary school (I
>: >: >believe there are a few in Aotearoa) in order to learn the rudiments
>: >: >of grammar, syntax, orthography, and reading comprehension.
>: >: >
>: >: Aotearoa is a fictional word, invented by White liberals at the University
>: >: of Auckland to try and not make the Maori look like total asses.  AND
>: >
>: >May we have the evidence for this assertion, since it is as
>: >believable as everything else you've written.
>: >
>: Why do you doubt then?
>
>Because you're an established liar.

Proof.  

>: >: before you try and accuse me again of poor English skills, please enrol in 
>: >: a primary school yourself, though I wouldn't enrol in one that believes
>: >: Aotearoa is a valid word, as they will only teach you Maori songs and 
>: >: dance (with perhaps Samoan and Tongan thrown in for variation).  Of course,
>: >: New Zealand primary schools don't teach grammar or even spelling anymore,
>: >: and they have abandoned the practise of using phonics for learning how to
>: >: read, so you'd really be in trouble when it comes to expressing yourself
>: >: correctly in English.  They will not even teach it by the time you would
>: >: be old enough to enter secondary school, either Master Ledgister, and while
>: >: University is still many years away for you, they will not teach you these
>: >: skills either.
>: >
>: >Sarcasm needs to be lightly brushed on, not laid on with a trowel.
>
>: Since you are supposedly a master of the English language, where does it
>: state that sarcasm need only be lightly brushed on?
>
>In the sentence I wrote above.

Inept one, I was not referring to what you wrote, but to something that
has been established.

>: For your reference, the inept people (ie., liberals like yourself) wouldn't
>: recognise lightly brushed sarcasm even if hit them in the face (which it 
>: repeatedly does).
>
>I'm not a liberal. How would you know the rest?
>
You are a liberal.  How would I know the rest, because I have repeatedly
used sarcasm on "Brown", "Finsten", & Lund (to name a few) and they 
rarely ever realize it -- only the most blatant forms of sarcasm start
registering in their brains.

>: >: As for looking up your thesis, that would be impossible.  There maybe a
>: >: thesis in the above place, but it is not yours.
>: >: 
>: >
>: >Really? How do you know this?
>: >
>: Because you are completely inept.
>
>Again, how do you know this? And have you seen a solicitor yet?

We know you are inept by the posts you write.

I have seen many solicitors, why do you ask?

>: >: >: >: >Specifically, how do you know that Dr Finsten did no field work? How
>: >: >: >: >do you know that I didn't? (I haven't read Laura's dissertation, but
>: >: >: >: >I would like to know exactly how my dissertation 'brown-nosed' my
>: >: >: >: >dissertation adviser/committee chair and th e rest of my committee.
>: >: >: >: >I await your response eagerly.)
>: >: >: >: >
>: >: >: >: Her obvious ignorances, and her inability to comprehend the written word.
>: >: >: >
>: >: >: >In other words, you made it up. (Inability to comprehend the
>: >: >: >written word, coming from you this is rich.) Once again, you stand
>: >: >: >revealed as a liar.
>: >: >
>: >: >: Uh huh. Please prove the connections, otherwise you're making invalid
>: >: >: conclusions (your favourite tactic).
>: >: >
>: >: >In what way is my conclusion invalid? 
>: >
>: >: You made an unconnected conclusion.  Saying so, doesn't make it so.
>: 
>
>In what way is it unconnected? 
>
This should be obvious to anyone that has at least a mild command of the
English language.
>>
>: >Kindly demonstrate how my conclusion is unwarranted. Stop arguing in
>: >circles.
>: >
>: You have stated that I stand revealed as a liar, this has not be proven by
>: your previous comments, thus it is an unconnected conclusion.  Even someone
>: with only a mild command of the English language would have understood 
>: this. 
>
>You made a statement about Professor Finsten's thesis, and then
>provided not one shred of evidence to back your statement. If this
>doesn't show you're a liar nothing will.
>
The comment I have made about "Finsten's" thesis is that it is PC.  While
you complain bitterly about evidence, the proof of my statements come not
>from  me, but "Finsten" herself.  Her PCness is evident to everyone who is
not engrossed in PCness.  How does this relate to her thesis?  Simple, you
can only talk about what you know, since her thoughts are so heavily PC,
this train of thought will also occur in her past works, in this case her
thesis.  Indirect evidence is of course the hijacking over the last twenty
to thirty years of the anthropology discipline by PC bigots.

[snip]

>: >: You could be a qualified janitor for all I know, so working at a University
>: >: is feasible for you, just that you remain quite ignorant of the inner
>: >: workings (ie., academic courses) of a University.
>: >
>: >
>: >Really? Demonstrate that I am ignorant of the inner workings of a
>: >university in the country of which I am resident.
>: >
>: You don't know what a Bachelor of Arts degree is.  Even Kowalewski knew
>: that one.
>
>Kindly demonstrate this. All you've shown is that the phrase 'art
>papers' is unknown on this side of the Pacific.

Memory failure again is it or do you go into a state of self-denial when
someone destroys your credibility?

>: >: >: >: If you don't bootlick your supervisor, your Ph.D course doesn't even get
>: >: >: >: off the ground.  Therefore, brown-nosing is part of the game of getting
>: >: >: >: a Ph.D, especially in art papers.  
>: >: >: >
>: >: >: >What the hell is 'art papers'? What evidence do you have for these
>: >: >: >assertions? (Couldn't prove it by me, my dissertation rejects the
>: >: >: >major thesis of my adviser's work.)
>: >: >: >
>: >: >: More proof you have never been to University.
>: >: >
>: >: >How?
>: >
>: >: If you knew even the vague workings of a University you would know what
>: >: an "art paper" was.
>: >
>: >
>: >Really? They didn't have them at any university I've attended. It
>: >seems you are projecting your provincialism on the rest of the
>: >world.
>
>: According to Kowalewski you yanks call them AA or Associate of Arts.  What
>: do you yanks call say Remedial English 101?  Is it a paper or do you use
>: another term.
>
>This is not what Ms Kowalewski said. I suggest you reread her posting.

Inept one, from the second sentence onwards, the reference to Kowalewski
is unimportant.  This would have been obvious to even someone who has mild
command of the English language.

>: Secondly, the United States is not an imperial power.  New Zealand is not
>: a province of the United States, and therefore, New Zealanders are not
>: provincials of the United States.  Even someone with a mild command of the
>: English language would know this.
>
>And the relevance of this is? (Or are you saying that a dialect of
>standard English used by 3 million people should be readily
>understood by people using a different standard dialect?)

Stop calling New Zealanders provincials, ignorant one.  

[snip]

>: Since you are suppoesedly a master of the English language you should be
>: able to give a better response than the one you gave.
>
>Where, by the bye, did I claim to be a 'master of the English
>language'? And I note that you are, once again, ducking.

BTW, the expression is by the by, not by the bye, O' master of the English
language.  You have not put into words that you are a master of the English
language, yet you have taken it onto yourself to criticise my supposed
poor English skills.  While I do not claim to be an expert concerning said
topic, I have had enough training to know that I am not incompetent in
writing English as you keep suggesting.  Calling you a liar over the matter
would not be incorrect, but I have resorted to giving you a title that you
have already decided (indirectly) you deserve.  In other words I am being
sarcastic over the issue.  

Do you classify replies that fail to respond to your ad hominem attacks
as dodges?

>: >: >: >: >Unless you provide the evidence, I can only assume that you are
>: >: >: >: >lying.
>: >: >: >: >
>: >: >: >: I have not read your dissertation or "Finsten's" one.  Neither am I 
>: >: >: >: terribly interested in reading a load of PC bullshit (I have read enough
>: >: >: >: of it already), which means I therefore unlikely to read either yours or
>: >: >: >: "Finsten's" theses -- I suspect your respective Universities are no
>: >: >: >: different to New Zealand when it comes to PC and anthropology, linguistics,
>: >: >: >: education, history, women studies and so forth.
>: >: >: >
>: >: >: >Do you know what either dissertation is about? You make assertions
>: >: >: >without evidence, and then try to bullshit your way out. I wonder
>: >: >: >why?
>: >: >: >
>: >: >: I have not read "Finsten's" thesis, but I need not worry about yours. Your
>: >: >: thesis is non-existent, much like your intelligence.
>: >: >
>: >: >In what way is it non-existent? Pray tell? Would you be so kind as
>: >: >to explain why it is listed on Melvyl and in Dissertation Abstracts
>: >: >if it does not exist? I really would like to know, particularly
>: >: >since you have accused me of perpetrating a fraud.
>: >
>: >: Someone else with the name Fragano Ledgister wrote it, either that or you
>: >: paid a lot of money for someone else to gain you a doctorate.
>: >
>: >This is a libel. I advise you to present the proof of either
>: >assertion, or retract it and apologise.
>: >
>: It is a perfectly valid conclusion based upon your perpetual ineptness.  As
>: they say "The proof is in the pudding."
>: 
>Then kindly present the proof. (The proverb you refer to, by the
>way, is 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating'.)

The proof has already been given, and it is not surprising that you could
not recognise it.  As for the proverb, I suppose it depends on which region
you come from.

>>
>: >: Simply admit you're wrong concerning my poor English skills, that you have
>: >: trouble understanding plain English, and that you taint everything you write 
>: >: with political correctness.  Admit these three things and I will believe 
>: >: you really do have a Ph.D, for if "Finsten" can get one, then someone of
>: >: your low calibre can also wield one.
>: >
>: >How does one wield a doctorate, do tell? You really have a hard time
>: >with the English language.
>
>: wield: 
>: 2.  To exercise (authority, power, influence, etc.).
>
>And a doctorate is exercised? This is rich.

I wonder what "Dr." is supposed to imply?  

>: Webster Dictionary.
>
>: You really have a hard time with the English language it would seem.
>
>I do? You really are an idiot.

I believe the arrow of who is an idiot is and always has been pointed at
you.

>: >: >
>: >: >But specifically what are the PC ideas in either Laura's work or
>: >: >mine? Do tell.
>: >: >
>: >: There is your anti-racism for a start, you both refuse revision on the
>: >: only topic that hasn't been revised, and you are both notorious for using
>: >: gender neutral terms.  All favoured things by the PC crowd.
>: >
>: >
>: >What has this got to do with either dissertation? What are they
>: >about?
>
>: You were talking about what are the PC ideas in either Laura's works or
>: your own, for someone you has supposedly mastered the English language the
>: answer should be plain.
>
>You asserted that there were 'PC ideas'. Either you provide
>citations which contain them, or you admit you are lying.
>
Neither, your own incompetence is your downfall.
>
>: >: Logic is one thing at University I sunk my teeth into.  I have a better
>: >: claim to being at University than you do, btw, because I at least know
>: >: what a Bachelor of Arts degree is.
>: >
>: >You haven't demonstrated that.
>: >
>: I was planning on doing a Bachelor of Arts degree with a major in history.
>: This should be ample demonstration that I know what a Bachelor of Arts 
>: degree is.
>
>But you dropped out?
>
After completing my B.Sc., getting a B.A. has losts its appeal.

>: >
>: >: It is hard to master (current) artificial intelligence without having an
>: >: extremely good understanding of logic, and AI was my best topic.
>: >
>: >
>: >This should read:
>: >
>: >	It is hard to be an artificial intelligence without an
>: >internally consisent logic, as an AI I have one.
>: >
>: Ah Ledgister, this alone is proof that you are an incompetant buffoon who
>: has immense trouble with the rudiments of the English language.  While you
>: were trying (desperately) to pull off a witty saying (a joke in itself),
>: the word "consisent" doesn't exist [in the English language].
>
>That's called a typo. A common type of mistake, hardly proof of
>incompetence. So what does it prove?
>
It proves a lot, O' inept one.  You asserted that what you wrote was
correct, whilst what I wrote was wrong.  Supposedly you were correcting
my mistakes, to which there were none, with your jumbled mess.  You 
couldn't even put together your half-done wit without stuffing up.  As I 
said above, you are an incompetent buffoon.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Thu Nov  7 08:06:26 PST 1996
Article: 48657 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: White MEN created everything
Date: 6 Nov 1996 19:33:12 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 558
Message-ID: <55rl9o$2iq@lex.zippo.com>
References: <54hnk5$pud@lex.zippo.com> <54o7v6$l5g@maud.ifi.uio.no> <54okr6$a9t@lex.zippo.com> <54vcsn$1hd@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <550j5t$nd2@lex.zippo.com> <557v9n$oa0@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <558g34$enk@lex.zippo.com> <55i1lc$eo8@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <55jokd$4or@lex.zippo.com> <55qro8$6cp@gyda.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port883-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <55qro8$6cp@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <55jokd$4or@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <55i1lc$eo8@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>	[snip]
>
>> >They say that the blond, blue etc is the ideal.
>> Could we have some evidence of this phenomenon?
>
>It would seem that Norwegian neo-nazis have yet to find out how to use a
>scanner, as their web-site is almost entirely devoid of pictures. But when I
>come across some nazi propaganda som WWII, I'll post the URL. Until then, take
>a look at this site. *Read* it:
>
You could try the National Alliance, since they have a Web site.  

Do you have a valid reason why you think the Norwegian neo-nazis don't
know how to use a scanner or is this just another meaningless (and weak)
flame of yours?

>	http://american.prices.com/books/1250/1259midi.html
>
>Mind you; there is little point in me providing any evidence, because you'll
>just claim it was made by "PC Liberals", and not the nazis themselves.
>
Are you somehow claiming that the site you gave is written either by pro-
Nazis, Nazis, or Neo-Nazis?

>And since we're on the subject of evidence: You claim that the internet is
>"boring". Very well. Go to a library and pick up a book on WWII in northern
>europe. Preferably one with pictures. I'm quite certain you might even find a
>book with a title along the lines of "Propaganda in WWII". Thta might be of
>some interest to you.
>
I claim the World Wide Web is boring.  The best bandwidth I have seen is
3.5 kbps, which is incredibly slow, and when some retard decides to pretty
his page up with thousands of lousy pictures, you give up trying.

The problem with finding a book that you describe is what point they are
trying to claim.  Normally the claim is how evil the Natsees were, and so
only print propaganda that fits their own agenda.

>Question: If you do not agree that the nazi ideal was blond and blue-eyed
>(common knowledge to all Norwegians), what, in your opinion, was the nazi
>ideal?
>
Some of the following is guess work:

Broadbrowed longhead, white skin, tall, athletic build and therefore
healthy.  Added things would be high discipline, good at sports, and
musical talent (being able to show good Aryan prowess).

>	[snip]
>
>> >What? I'd really like to see you explain how you believe Norwegian neo-nazies
>> >are under PC influence.
>> Liberals say the Natsees said that the blond, blue-eyed was the ideal type.
>> They'll probably dislike me for saying this, but you could expect a few of
>> their members joined the Neo-Nazis gangs because they view it as anti-
>> establishment, and it would be these members that would accept the popular
>> view the most.
>
>Most of the neo-nazis in Norway are losers looking for a purpose. Many of
>those who later leave the nazi milieu say that they could just as well have
>become communists.
>
I wouldn't know, though I don't doubt your comments concerning communists.

>>  When these members gain high rank they get to promote their 
>> ideas, which are the reflection of the popular type, made by dopey-eyed
>> liberals.
>
>Except, of course, these ideals are the same ones espoused by the nazis during
>WWII.
>
Or so you are claiming.

>So you're claiming that even the neo-nazi milieus are infiltrated by "us
>Liberals"? That "we" even fuel racism? You are truely paranoid.
>
No, I am not.  What I am saying, though perhaps the inability to express
it is my fault (this time), is that people are affected by what they told
over and over again.  Some of these people, believe wholeheartedly what
they are told by the mass media, like you for example.  Of those who 
believe, some are people you describe above, looking for purpose.  While
they reject some of the liberal teaching, unlike you, they keep parts that
they can still identify with, like the blond, blue eyed ideal, which I
claim (at the present) is a post-war fictionalized ideal by liberals.  You
maybe correct that the Third Reich did believe that the blond, blue eyed
type was the ideal, but I have only read that image in post-war liberal
books, and I therefore have reservations about it.

>	[snip]
>
>> >The holocaust was not central in the reason for going to war, no. None of the
>> >allies went to war to stop the holocaust, and I'm not really sure the
>> >governments of the allied countries really cared all that much. Of course;
>> >they were only hearing rumours. They didn't really know the scale of these
>> >massacres.
>> >The holocaust was central because it was the logical consequence of an
>> >ideology that postulated the existance of a "master race". We saw the same
>> >thing in Bosnia. That same ideology was what started the war in the first
>> >place.
>> >
>> Err, wrong on both counts.
>
>No.
>
>>  Hitler wanted lebensraum for Germans, 
>> specifically to the East of Germany.
>
>Correct.
>
>>  France and Poland had an alliance
>> since the 1920s, and Great Britain decided to make a treaty with Poland
>> on the condition that Germany invaded. 
>
>Wrong. England declared war on Germany when they invaded Poland. They just
>didn't do much about it at first.
>
No, I am not wrong.  Great Britain made a treaty with Poland not long 
before the phoney war started, the condition was if Germany invaded then
Great Britain would come to Poland's defence.  This is quite famous.

>> This is what started the events
>> leading to WWII.  Lebensraum was the central issue of WWII.  Germany wanted
>> it, the allies didn't want Germany to have it.
>
>Lebensraum was *one* logical consequence of the racialist theories of the nazis;
>the nazis thought they belonged to the "master race", and therefore had the
>right to take anything they wanted. It's the same attitude you have regarding
>that hypothetical trade with the Maori; guns for land.
>
Lebensraum was the policy in taking the land, yes.  It is not as you are
suggesting as a logical consequence of the racialist theories of the 
Natsees.  Countries have invaded other countries for land without your so-
called prerequisite of racialist ideologies.  Hitler wanted to make 
Germany self-sufficient and have sufficient land for a growing German 
population.  Hitler was not new in this regard, despite your claim 
otherwise.  AND it is therefore, NOT a logical consequence of the Natsee
racial ideas.

>>  Of course there were other
>> ideologies as well, we were supposedly fighting for freedom of speech would
>> you believe.
>
>Who are "we"? Certainly not the nazis.
>
Guess which side New Zealand fought for?

>> For the second part.  I have both Croats and Bosnians for friends.  The
>> war in former Yugoslavia is not due to race, but a conflict that dates 
>> back to the Ottoman Turkish Empire.
>
>Of course it is not due to race, as they are both human. It's more a
>religious/culteral thing. But as with the holocaust; the massacres are
>committed by people claiming to be bette than other people. So the ideology is
>basically the same.
>
>From  what I can understand it isn't a case of being better, but who went
and bootlicked the Turks and who didn't.

>	[snip]
>
>> >The nazi propaganda is fairly crude and straightforeward, Ouro. It doesn't
>> >take much hard thinking to see what they were getting at.
>> As I have said before, I have only read the liberal interpretation of Nazi
>> propaganda.  What I have read of Nazi propaganda does not induce one to
>> believe (unless one is highly influenced by the liberal media) your 
>> assertion.
>
>Then you have not read very much.
>
I beg to differ.

>> Case in point, I know Nazi propaganda used the term longhead.
>> Liberals (from after the war) have never raised this issue (publicly), and 
>> you were completely ignorant to the meaning until very recently.  This 
>> leads me to believe that you have only ever heard (and are parroting) the 
>> liberal's interpretation of Nazi propaganda, in other words, you do not
>> know for sure what is Nazi propaganda and what isn't.
>
>So you're saying I've been exposed to a pile of fabricated propaganda?
>
It would seem so.

>	[snip]
>
>> >You have not proven that the 19th century racialism still stands (assuming
>> >that's what you're trying to say). Referring to an old textbook just isn't
>> >enough.
>> How would it not stand?
>
>It doesn't stand because it just doesn't fit with reality (but apparently; it
>does fit with your narrow view of reality).
>
This is not a satisfactory answer, if it can be claimed to be an answer at 
all.  The only real interpretation garnered from your statement is that
it doesn't fit your reality, because it fits reality just fine.

>> >>  Of course the usual excuse by PC bigots is "it's 19th century,
>> >> blah, blah, blah."
>> >Such as with the 19th century work on thermodynamics and electromagnetism?
>> I am talking about racialism, not thermodynamics and electromagnetism.  I
>> am paraphrasing the typical response of a liberal concerning the citation
>> of 19th century on racialism.
>
>You claimed that "PC Liberals" discard *all* 19th century research simply
>because it was of the 19th century, Ouro. I have given evidence to the 
>contrary. The racialism is discarded forthe same reasons that the work on
>thermodynamics and elecromagnetism was not.
>
         *sigh*

You have not given reasons why 19th century research into racialism is 
discarded, and I was not, in any context, referring to electromagnetism
and thermodynamics.

>	[snip]
>
>> >There would be a genetic difference between a Norwegian and a "Hottentot" (I
>> >think "Khoisan" is a more correct word), but I doubt that the difference would
>> >be greater than the difference between, say, two Norwegians, or two Khoisan.
>> Proof please. 
>
>You are the one claiming there is a greater difference; you have to provide
>the evidence. It is not possible to prove a negative (such as God's
>non-existance), except by pointing out the lack of positive evidence. In the
>same way, I cannot disprove the existance of unicorns. I don't believe in
>unicorns, not because I have evidence that they do not exist, but because I
>have never seen any evidence that they do. Can you disprove that
>fire-breathing dragons exist?
>
It depends on whether a komodo dragon has inhaled something like methane
gas and is breathing next to fire, I suppose.

Since genetics make up how one essentially looks, here is a brief list of
easily identifiable genetic differences between a Norwegian and a Hottentot:
skin colour, nose shape, jaw shape, facial features, hair type, lip size,
and facial angle.

Whereas two Norwegians are extremely likely to have similar easily 
identifiable features.

The problems arise when you compare todays mongrel of a Portuguese and
the Hottentot, as some of these easily identifiable features have blurred.

>> I am of a completely contrary position.
>
>We are all aware of that.
>
>	[snip]
>
>> >> >I don't care what a handful of ignorant bigots believe. What matters is what
>> >> >everyone else believes.
>> >> Most people haven't heard of the ruins of Zimbabwe, therefore your latter
>> >> comment is purely empty.  As for your former, that is once again an
>> >> unbased assertion.
>> >Let's restrict my comment to those that *have* heard of GZ.
>> Let me make a guess.  Most people that know about GZ would be the people
>> you describe as ignorant bigots. 
>
>You are assuming that (almost) only racists have heard of GZ. I disagree.
>
Could we have some estimations from you then?  

>> The population of archeologists who know
>> about GZ is not overly large when compared to the White Rhodesian racialist
>> and White South African racialist populations.
>
>Do you seriously believe that GZ is unknown outside of Africa?
>
Ah no.  I knew about GZ before you happened to mention it.

>	[snip]
>
>> I'll agree that most Africans value gold today, but they have not always 
>> done so, despite another of your baseless assertions.
>
>The europeans didn't always value gold either, Ouro. And you should not accuse
>others of making baseless assertions.
>
For as long there have being documented records, Europeans have valued gold.
I can easily accuse you of making a baseless assertion, because you did.

>>  A good example is 
>> when the Egyptians (12th Dynasty) enlarged their territory southwards.  One 
>> of their possessions was Punt.  They were not the first to discover gold 
>> there, but they were the first who valued it.  The previous inhabitants 
>> (Negroes) did not know its worth and left the stuff alone. 
>
>And because the people in the newly conquered terretories did not value gold,
>nobody else on the African continent did so either? Quite a sweeping
>statement, Ouro.
>
I am giving an example, meathead.
 
>> Moving onto the trade of gold from GZ.  Now could it occur to you that the
>> reason why GZ was built was to improve the productivity of gold mining?
>
>Don't be rediculous, Ouro.
>In which way would GZ improve the productivity of gold mining? Were the other,
>smaller structers also an "improvement" in the productivity of the gold mines?
>Hmm...?
>
You haven't thought things through very well have you?

GZ would improve production because it would centralise the whole 
operation.  It would also be an improvement from a commercial point of 
view, because the mined gold is in one location, rather than collecting 
them in mud huts scattered around the area.

>> >> >You have yet to explain why they built in a style so completely different from
>> >> >that anywhere else in the world, yet so similar to the style used when
>> >> >building in clay and mud.
>> >> I will wait until I get a satisfactory answer to the above before answering
>> >> this.
>> >I have asked you that question before, and you dodged it every time. I asked
>> >it again, and this time you evade it by saying "well, I'm not answering your
>> >question until you answer mine." you *can't* answer that question, and
>> >therefore you won't. Which, btw, is another example of you being wrong but
>> >unwilling to admit it.
>> The reason I have supposedly dodged this question is until you can 
>> comprehend the relevance of the trade factor.
>
>The reason you dodged it is because you didn't want to admit you were wrong,
>and because:
>
>    "The foolish and the dead alone never change their opinion."
>          -- James Russell Lowell, My Study Windows
>
Complete and utter rubbish asserted by you again.

Here is an answer for you:  you have asserted that the builders of GZ
used the same format as those dwellings around the area.  You have decided
the flow is that direction, what would happen if I said it was the opposite
way around?  That the Negroes copied the structure from the time GZ was
built?  That way they wouldn't have changed their building material or
taxed their brains.

>>  GZ was primarily a trading
>> centre, and it is most likely (due to its uniqueness) that it was the
>> traders that had GZ constructed.
>
>Take another look at this site:
>
>	http://wn.apc.org/mediatech/VRZ10011.HTM
>
>GZ wasn't all that unique. It was just very big.
>
I'll have to do at some stage.

>>  They almost certainly used Negro labour
>> for mining of copper and gold, and probably out of fancy decided to humour
>> them or most likely a negro Chief.
>
>Then why was the masonry also done in a style so completely different from
>that of the arabs?
>
Building unique structures out of stone is not a new phenomenon, Lund.

>> The reason I assert that it was built by the traders and not by Negroes is
>> because of its construction in stone, a building material foreign to Negro
>> hands, except for this so-called exception.
>
>This "exception" has plenty of smaller versions in the same area. And the fact
>that most buildings in Africa were not constructed in stone does not say
>anything about the skin color of it's builders.
>
I stand corrected about GZ being the only exception, except for the 
locality.  Negroes build their houses out of straw and mud, something they
do to this very day, including the area in question.  Why didn't they
continue the habit?

[snip]

>> >Assuming you're correct, what makes you thnk these people were "white"? The
>> >archaeologists think they were the Shona.
>> >
>> Because we are great stone workers.  We have a long and prosperous history
>> of working with stone, something Negroes do not, except for "GZ."
>
>So you *do* admit that GZ was built by negros?
>
I put GZ in quote marks to try and stop this stunt, it didn't work mind.

>	[snip]
>
>> >Uh huh. So if you hear a legend of "white" people, you take that as evidence
>> >that the [whatever] culture was founded by "white" people, and if you hear a
>> >legend of "black" people, you assume they used slave labour. Does the
>> >expression "double standard" ring a bell, Ouro?
>> Who has a history of doing what, Mr. Lund?  If anyone has the double 
>> standard it is you.  You would have us believe that Blacks can suddenly
>> have the urge to make a civilisation and then suddenly regress back into 
>> the standard practise of low culture, AND that Whites who have a long and
>> illustrious history of building and inventing civilisations would have no
>> impact in an area they moved into.
>
>Explain how that is double standard, Ouro. I suspect you don't know the
>meaning of that expression.
>
The above is clear enough.

>>  I am being completely consistent and
>> logical. 
>
>HAH!
>
Read the above.

>> You on the other hand are inconsistent, if Negroes were so
>> capable of churning out civilisations then they would do so, especially
>> in such favourable climates.
>
>But they *did* "churn out civilizations"! but because they lived in such
>favourable climates, they didn't really need to build much. Furthermore;
>most of the African cultures aren't quite so materialistically oriented as
>those of Eurasia.
>
No, they did not churn out civilisations.

>> >How about doing it the other way; the [whatever] culture was founded by
>> >"blacks", and they used "whites" as slave labour.
>> If it were consistent then you would have a point.  It is inconsistent and 
>> is therefore pointless.
>
>Why is this not consistant? I suspect someone from "my side" has used these
>phrases at you, and you, being mighty impressed, used them at the first
>opportunity. Appropriate or not.
>
Bizarre set of statements.  While I am fond of requoting material back at
the authors, that is but one tactic I use.  I am hardly impressed by your
side (except for Stewart King), and I am therefore unlikely to make your
sides dribble part of my retinue of argument styles.  

The above explains why it is not consistent.

>> >> >As long as all you have are some legends, there's no reason to credit them
>> >> >with any more importance than I would the tooth-faery "legend".
>> >> Unlike the tooth fairy, Mr. Lund, blond, red and fair skinned people exist.
>> >> It is not surprising that you have failed to comprehend this point.
>> >I am aware of that fact, Ouro. Here's a possible origin of that legend;
>> >traders coming along the silk road.
>> [1]
>> >> >Mind you; the mummies found along the silk road could well be the origin of
>> >> >those legends. If there was a caucasian community in the outskirts of China,
>> >> >it would not be too unreasonable to believe that some of them found their way
>> >> >(along the silk road) to central China.
>> >> And perhaps they bore the start of civilisation there, afterall, the 
>> >> Chinese people were originally nomads, and civilisation starts with an 
>> >> agricultural base, not a nomadic base.
>> >At the time when these people lived, the Chinese culture was already founded
>> >and thriving. The area where they lived was at that time not within China's
>> >borders. You didn't really read that document you sent me, did you? You just
>> >read the headlines; "Caucasian mummies found in China" and assumed the rest
>> >proved everything you claimed on the "white" origin of the Chinese culture.
>> You are not consistent with your comment in [1].
>
>In which way are those two paragraphs inconsistant? Or are you just using that
>"impressive" phrase again?
>
Time-lines.  Hopefully this should be sufficient, but your side is infamous
for acting dumb.

>> I never sent you any document.
>
>Correct. You sent me an URL. Do you know what I'm talking about now?
>
You are talking about Mair's field research, yes?  I am well aware that
particular site isn't as old (or older) than the start of Chinese
civilisation.  How this upsets the Chinese oral history is beyond me.

>	[true believer]
>
>> Uh huh.  It would seem that the true believer around here is yourself.  Take
>> for example, the poems concerning white skin, you *know* they were light
>> brown.
>
>That is because humans do not have white skin. You admitted as much yourself,
>Ouro. So any mention of "white" skin can only be a comparison.
>
It was good enough for the poets and historians, and I am quite content
with the expression of white skin, even though you are having severe
difficulties with it.

>>  In all my attempts to rectify this have basically gotten the 
>> response of "I don't wanna know."
>
>No. That is *your* responce.
>
HAH!

>>  The same would go for Tutankhamun's
>> death mask, you *know* he has Negro lips, and all attempts to change this
>> have been "I don't wanna know."
>
>Again; your responce. And I am still waiting for an explanation of how a pair
>of lips can be thin when seen from the side, and thick when seen from the
>front.
>
"You don't wanna know," is the correct response from you, Lund.
>
>> >I learn debating techniques (although all I've learned from you is how to know
>> >a dodge when I see one).
>> >
>> ROTFL.  Only in your preconcieved mind (ie., prejudiced) do I dodge.
>
>And in the minds of quite a few others who post here.
>
Who are of like prejudice.

>>  Just
>> because I don't always answer the question the way you like it to be 
>> answered doesn't mean I have dodged, it simply means I haven't the question
>> the way you liked.
>
>It is extremely difficult to get a straight answer out of you, Ouro. In most
>cases, these "answers" have little or nothing to do with the question. Only in
>your twisted little neuron can your dodges be construed to be "answers".
>
HAH!

This is a complex world, Lund.  Sometimes you just don't get the answer you 
were looking for, and I don't apologise if my answers don't come within
your preconcieved boundaries.

>>  Answering a question with a question is completely 
>> valid, like it or lump it.
>
>Only when it is relevant to the question.
>
Which they normally are, or would have if the original poster bothered to
think.

>> >I learn a lot about the history and culture of various peoples.
>> The why don't you hang around the soc.history.* and soc.culture.* newsgroups
>> instead?  They are more acquainted with what you want to know, and they
>> won't challenge your pet prejudices like the holocaust either.
>
>Groups like that are boring. And morons like yourself are a powerful incentive
>to learn.
>
Nice.  With the exception of the term "morons" it was well delivered.  You
might also want to consider tightening the boundaries, as I can freely
interpret that as a compliment; "morons" is standard dribble, and can often
be a badge of honour in itself, but more importantly, your latter assertion
can be taken to mean we know far more than you do, which is not the message
you were intending.

Ourobouros.


Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Fri Nov  8 10:58:16 PST 1996
Article: 78813 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!clicnet!news.clic.net!wesley.videotron.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-pen-14.sprintlink.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Another tactic of liberals (was: Unchanging Polynesians)
Date: 4 Nov 1996 11:33:07 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <55lgdj$dg9@lex.zippo.com>
References: <55dn4d$jrq@lex.zippo.com>  <55du4l$n1u@lex.zippo.com>  <55epi6$66k@lex.zippo.com>  <55ggt5$a1d@lex.zippo.com>  <55h7i1$iuq@lex.zippo.com>  <55jcvh$su1@lex.zippo.com> <55kuek$aco@lendl.cc.emory.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port878-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:48698 alt.politics.nationalism.white:35133 alt.revisionism:78813 alt.discrimination:55644

In article <55kuek$aco@lendl.cc.emory.edu>, libwca@curly.cc.emory.edu says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>: I have clearly laid down my argument.  You have chosen not to comprehend it,
>: but have rather decided to deride it by meaningless waffle. 
>
>There's no such thing as a meaningless waffle, Mr. Subaru.  Waffles are,
>of course, more meaningful when served with brown sugar and cherry
>preserves--but any waffle is meaningful, in and of itself.
>
I stand corrected.  The best waffles are done by the Danish, served with
chocolate ice cream and whipped cream.  A completely meaningful dish.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sat Nov  9 05:47:03 PST 1996
Article: 35221 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Spanish is an Aryan language
Date: 8 Nov 1996 18:44:36 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 241
Message-ID: <560r6k$kjn@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbc6b4$6c3ef9a0$308aaec7@default> <55h4cf$2i6@crl11.crl.com> <55ltdn$d0b@news1.panix.com> <55o5ob$327@lex.zippo.com> <55q66m$rle@news1.panix.com> <55s52h$8l7@lex.zippo.com> <55te08$52i@news1.panix.com> <55tusn$ngq@lex.zippo.com> <55uaeu$oph@news1.panix.com> <55ui5t$amc@lex.zippo.com> <5609ta$ft2@news1.panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port867-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:48800 alt.politics.nationalism.white:35221

In article <5609ta$ft2@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>In article <55uaeu$oph@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>>>
>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <55te08$52i@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <55q66m$rle@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>[The original inhabitants of Jerusalem being Indo-European]
>>>
>>>>>>>I stand corrected; the Hittites were Indo-Europeans as well.  So are
>>>>>>>the Iranians and Pakistanis. Are they Aryans?  In YOUR definition?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Once.
>>>>>
>>>>>Doubtful; the theory that the Aryan or original Proto-Indo-European
>>>>>peoples were originally white doesn't have much credence in scholarly
>>>>>circles.  
>>>
>>>>That I doubt.  White skin is recessive when compared to brown skin.  If
>>>>the original Aryans were brown skinned, then we [as in us Whites] would be 
>>>>brown skinned to this day.
>>>
>>>That assumes that you are descended from these Aryans.  Unless you are
>>>a Celt, the odds are not likely.
>>>
>>Well I am a Scot, and my lineage (on my father's side) goes back to when
>>the Scots went to 'Scotland' in the 5th century AD.  
>
>Bully for you; you might actually be Aryan.
>
Oh gee, tell me something I didn't already know.

>>>>>At best, they were brown, like the present day Indo-European
>>>>>Armenians, who live close to the original home of the Aryan peoples
>>>>>and have, generally speaking, fallen to the sword rather than
>>>>>intermixes with invading armies.
>>>>>
>>>>Incorrect.  At times I would agree with you, but you are incorrect with
>>>>your assertion.  
>>>
>>>Please prove me wrong.
>>>
>>The Armenians of ancient time did not speak Indo-European.  Urartu (ancient
>>Armenia) spoke an 'Asianic' language.  How's that?
>
>You're wrong.  Armenian is and always has been an Indo-European
>language, virtually unchanged in thousands of years.
>
        *sigh*

[Talking about the ancient Hurrians]

  "Their language, written in cunieform script, is neither Semitic nor
  Indo-European, but belongs to the vague so-called 'Asianic' group, its
  nearest relative being Uratian, the language spoken in the country of
  Urartu (Armenia) in the first millennium B.C."

G. Roux, "Ancient Iraq", 3rd. Ed., Middlesex, 1992, p.234.

>>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>>>>>Should we start a movement, like so many minorities do, that demands the
>>>>>>>>return of Jerusalem to its rightful owners (us being Indo-European) and
>>>>>>>>a year by year monetary compensation for the holocaust that happened all
>>>>>>>>those many years ago?  Lets not also forget they stole our kins' religion 
>>>>>>>>there as well, and looted our 'synagogues' or are they now going to start 
>>>>>>>>emphasizing their Khazar origins?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Get in line; the Semitic Palestinians would like it first.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Perhaps you Jews should give it to them, since many Jews are part of
>>>>>>movements to give so-called indigeousness people back their lands.
>>>>>
>>>>>The Palestinians lost Jerusalem in the 1967 war.
>>>>>
>>>>And that counts these days?
>>>
>>>Yup.
>>>
>>No, it does not.  Gaining land via war is not legitimate anymore.  Just
>>look at what happened to Iraq.
>
>Um, Iraq lost.  Israel won.
>
Nice of you to admit that.  The UN won the war for the Israeli state.  But,
it still demonstrates that Iraq was not allowed to keep Kuwait.

>>>>>>>>Lets not forget the genocide committed upon the Philistines as well, they
>>>>>>>>were another Indo-European people, AND their hatred for the Hittites, who
>>>>>>>>were yet another Indo-European people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There was no genocide against the Philistines; they were attacked in
>>>>>>>self-defense for previous attacks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Perhaps, though they seemed to be ready to propound hatred for anybody.
>>>>>
>>>>>Read in context, Kiwi; the books of Samuel and Kings, which give the
>>>>>background for these events, propound on the period 1200-587 BCE.
>>>>>These were ancient times when anyone would commit genocide against
>>>>>anyone.  Why are the Jews singled out? Perhaps because they have one
>>>>>of the only extant records?
>>>>>
>>>>Since you wish to play by modern rules, give Jerusalem back to the 
>>>>Palestinians.
>>>
>>>I'm willing to give East Jerusalem back, minus the Holy Walled City,
>>>which only Israel has allowed Jews and all other religious groups to
>>>visit.
>>>
>>No, the whole lot.
>
>Sorry, Charlie.  No dice.
>
Yes, one rule for us, another for you.  And you wonder why so many people
think Jews are scum?

>>>>>>>>Part of the Jew vow upon several people:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  "But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites [Indo-
>>>>>>>>  European], and the Amorites, the Canaanites [proto-Phoenicians], and the
>>>>>>>>  Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites [Indo-European]"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Deuteronomy 20:17.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I cited that above; the vow against the seven tribes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>It doesn't hurt to repeat things like this, since Jews seem to think that
>>>>>>so-called pogroms against them should get different treatments from what
>>>>>>they vowed on other people.  Even if the holocaust's exaggerations were
>>>>>>true, it would seem Germany was playing by Jewish rules.
>>>>>
>>>>>See above on historical context.
>>>>>
>>>>Then play by modern rules, start handing that land back, and not just
>>>>Jerusalem either.
>>>
>>>I'm fully in favor of giving back Gaza and the W. Bank.
>>>
>>Keep going.
>
>Nope.
>
Nope.

>>>>>>>>Some of those people are our kith and kin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Not really.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>According to current theories the Indo-European language group derived 
>>>>>>from a single land-locked area, which basically boils down to this (if
>>>>>>current theories are correct) at some point in time we were related to 
>>>>>>parts of those other Indo-European peoples.
>>>>>
>>>>>But they weren't necessarily "white"; see above.
>>>>>
>>>>That I disagree with.  Brown-white mixes almost always produce brown
>>>>offspring.
>>>> 
>>>Not always, though.  Yes?
>>>
>>True, but then for Indo-Europeans (linguistly) to get a foot-hold to be 
>>accepted then they had to come in force (both power and significant 
>>numbers).  The Visigothic Kingdom in Spain is good evidence of insufficient 
>>numbers to make a linguistic change.
>
>>Of course retaining blue eyes and blond (and red) hair would also be a 
>>major problem to overcome.
>
>The original Spaniards were Celts, and therefore "Aryans"; the
>Visigoths were Germans and not Aryan at all, though Nordic in
>appearance.
>
What point are you trying to make?  The point I was trying to make is that
the Indo-European peoples must have come to Europe and etc. in force for
there to be a linguistic change.  Conquering a region is not good enough.
The Spanairds to this day speak a Romance language and not a German 
language.  Another example is English.  For two hundred plus years after 
William the Conqueror the court language was French, so why don't we speak 
French?

I was adding the other recessive characteristics as more problems of a
so-called brown people moving in.

Also, some of the German tribes were originally Celtic, the Vandals is one
example of this.  Annoyingly, I seem to have misplaced my notes on the
early Germanic tribes, the book is called "The History of the Goths." 

>>>>>>>>Let us not forget that our own families bought the Holy Land with their
>>>>>>>>own blood, and then having some traitorous politicians give it away is a
>>>>>>>>mock on their names.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>give me names, Kiwi.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>I can't believe you asked this one.  Do you remember the British Imperial
>>>>>>troops taking the holy lands in WWI?  Do you remember that Palestine was
>>>>>>therefore part of the British Empire?  Do I need to go on further?
>>>>>
>>>>>So the British, who took the land from the Turks should have held on
>>>>>to Palestine?  That would have been a bloodbath.
>>>>>
>>>>Why?  The British were/are much more benevolent rulers than the Jews, you
>>>>can hardly claim the Jews have averted a bloodbath.
>>>
>>>>>>It would seem your reply is indicating that you believe Jews conquered
>>>>>>Palestine.
>>>>>
>>>>>The did.  First c. 1200 BCE, then in the 1930's-1949.
>>>>>
>>>>I thought God did it 1200 BC, and you didn't conquer Palestine 1930s-1949.
>>>>It was a gift from the British Empire.
>>>
>>>Oh please:
>>>1) Joshua conquered Palestine 1200 BCE
>
>>I was being sarcastic.
>
>>>2) The British fought Jewish hegemony in Palestine and gave up in
>>>1947, after years of guerrilla war fought by Jewish militias.
>>>
>>That's because of the policy of allowing Jews to go there in the first
>>place (alongside Germany of course.)
>
>Only German Jews were allowed to leave; Ostjuden from the occupied
>territories of Poland, Hungary, etc., were killed.
>
That does not make a lot of sense.  Why would they allow them to live in
one instance, and not in another -- William Marks (a historian) says that
around 270,000 out of 503,000 Jews went to Palestine from Germany.  

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Nov 10 07:01:10 PST 1996
Article: 35318 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!hookup!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: PC bigots and books (was Bobby Whitaker - political advisor...)
Date: 9 Nov 1996 12:27:23 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <562pfb$j8t@lex.zippo.com>
References: <52481j$j37@clarknet.clark.net> <53cbse$q6q@clarknet.clark.net> <327D0EB1.4FD7@conterra.com> <55n3p5$aom@orion.cybercom.net> <32849D2F.389F@conterra.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port838-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:48891 alt.discrimination:55720 alt.politics.nationalism.white:35318

In article <32849D2F.389F@conterra.com>, Bob says...
>
>Allan Matthews wrote:

[Matthews' garbage deleted]
>
>     Many of you get paid for pushing Political Correctness and never
>look anything up, but keep insisting I do, free of sharge.  You can't
>even look inside the dust jacket of abook in your own local library.
>     I'm literally an open book.

If they looked up anything the PC movement would fold.  Hence why they
don't, and hence why they make feeble excuses why they don't.  As I
commented long ago; they'll keep on asking you for proof even it is so
obvious (the playing dumb tactic) so you waste your time trying to find
adequate quotes, which they reject anyway.  Whatever you would offer is
simply not good enough, or they accuse your mode of delivery -- semantics, 
poor English skills, spelling, and grammar.  Either way they justify why
your evidence is not valid, even if it is perfectly valid and you actually
did deliver the message with correct semantics, good English skills,
spelling, and grammar.  Try and reverse the tables and they just bitch and 
moan. 

This is the standard rhetoric of the PC bigots.

Ourobouros.





From Ourobouros Sun Nov 10 07:01:56 PST 1996
Article: 48799 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: White MEN created everything II
Date: 8 Nov 1996 18:09:36 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <560p50$iq9@lex.zippo.com>
References: <54ghrt$fh3@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <54hnq7$q78@lex.zippo.com> <54o655$c3i@maud.ifi.uio.no> <54oj1i$9g7@lex.zippo.com> <54vb6c$15c@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <550h2u$mk3@lex.zippo.com> <55815u$q4b@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <558h68$f6f@lex.zippo.com> <55hv7a$d2g@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <55ji45$1t3@lex.zippo.com> <55l8nq$hcv@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <55ll6m$fno@lex.zippo.com> <55vrnf$een@gyda.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port867-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <55vrnf$een@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>In article <55ll6m$fno@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>> In article <55l8nq$hcv@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
[Fighting PC, and whether Lund can be anything but PC]

>> Here is the title of his book:
>> "Fighting Political Correctness: Understanding and Challenging PC in New
>> Zealand", by P. Jackson, Auckland, 1996.
>
>Uh huh. And how is this supposed to tell me whether this author would react to
>a hate crime or not? Getting a straight answer from you is really difficult,
>you know? Actually, one of the few straight answers you've ever given is in my
>sig.
>
You asked how he fought PC, the title of the book says it all.  

As for your confusion about straight answers, the only thing I will comment
is that if you bothered to think about them then they would be straight.
While I toy with you, I generally don't give cryptic answers.

>> Comprehende?
>
>Yes; you dodged the question.
>
Once more you are wrong.

>	[snip]
>
>> >> The insistence that women are the equal of men, which even from a 
>> >> biological point of view is nonsense.
>> >That depends on what kind of equality you're looking for.
>> You're either equal or you're not.
>
>There is physical equality, social equality, political equality, legal
>equality, economical equality, ...
>
>Get the point?
>
PC definitions coming through...

>> >> Programs for prison inmates, and the bizarre list of justification for 
>> >> criminals, which reveal that the criminal is in fact the victim, mental
>> >> insanity being a good example.
>> >We're moving away from that.
>> You are surely jesting.
>
>Are you telling me you know more of Norwegian legal practice than I do?
>
So what is Norway doing with its mentally insane prisoners?  BTW, this
series of questions was concerning New Zealand. While I thought you may
have resorted to using your home town, I was giving the benefit of the
doubt.

>	[snip]
>
>> >What children should be taught in schools -- I am not necessarily talking
>> >about reading/writing and arithmetic, but about the justification of Nazi
>> >germany's invasion of various countries.
>> That is one country, not all Western countries.
>
>Wrong; that is all countries invaded by nazi Germany.
>
Your "invaded countries" were part of the Nazi regime, and therefore under
Nazi Germany hegemony.

>> >Ethnic awareness programs. The advantages of keeping one's "race" "pure" (the
>> >"white" one, that is).
>> >Etc.
>> >See where that led us.
>> Superpowers:  Spain, France, England and the USA (when it refused the
>> melting pot theory).  Periods of extreme high culture.
>
>Slavery, oppression, wars, genocide, WWI & WWII, Bosia, "White/Black Power",
>the child crusades, jihad, etc, etc ad nauseum.
>
Child crusades, jihads, Bosnia, WWI, wars, oppression and slavery are 
nothing to do with keeping one's race pure.  Are you that blinded by hate
that you cannot tell the difference?

>	[snip]
>
>> >You yourself admitted that even "whites" have pigments in the skin Ouro, which
>> >again means that "whites" aren't really white.
>> Curious.  The following have had any connotations of region removed.
>> This is from an ancient historian concerning another group of people.
>
>	[two descriptions of beautiful women; skin is described as "white"]
>
>> What is your most highly esteemed and logical opinion about these two
>> different people?
>
>We've been through this before, Ouro; human beings do not have white skin. As
>I said above (I even left the line), you yourself admitted that even "white"
>people have pigments in the skin. Therefore they cannot be truely white.
>Therefore any poem or other text describing a human as having white skin is
>only making a comparison with people who have darker skin.
>
This time Lund they were a trap.  The first one was by Strabo concerning
the Galations -- Gauls, the second one is a folk tale from Ireland.  

I'll let you decide the ramifications.

>	[snip]
>
>> >> I like how you have now classified it as "valid" evidence.  As I have said
>> >> you assert that I have not produced any evidence, which is a lie, but you
>> >> assert it nonetheless.  That is emotive.
>> >Prove that I am lying. I have stated that you have yet to provide any valid
>> >evidence (ie not based on wishful thinking, myths, poems, and faulty science).
>> > 
>>            *sigh*
>> 
>> You have stated that I have offered no evidence, changing the criteria to
>> valid has not changed anything, that is the lie, and that therefore makes
>> you a liar.
>
>Non-valid evidence is the same as no evidence, Ouro. You present all sorts of 
>gunk and claim it is evidence, when it is not.
>
Or so you are asserting.  If you don't like something I offer as evidence,
Lund, then it is up to you to disprove it, whining about it doesn't prove
anything.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Nov 10 07:01:57 PST 1996
Article: 48800 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Spanish is an Aryan language
Date: 8 Nov 1996 18:44:36 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 241
Message-ID: <560r6k$kjn@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbc6b4$6c3ef9a0$308aaec7@default> <55h4cf$2i6@crl11.crl.com> <55ltdn$d0b@news1.panix.com> <55o5ob$327@lex.zippo.com> <55q66m$rle@news1.panix.com> <55s52h$8l7@lex.zippo.com> <55te08$52i@news1.panix.com> <55tusn$ngq@lex.zippo.com> <55uaeu$oph@news1.panix.com> <55ui5t$amc@lex.zippo.com> <5609ta$ft2@news1.panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port867-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:48800 alt.politics.nationalism.white:35221

In article <5609ta$ft2@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>In article <55uaeu$oph@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>>>
>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <55te08$52i@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <55q66m$rle@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>[The original inhabitants of Jerusalem being Indo-European]
>>>
>>>>>>>I stand corrected; the Hittites were Indo-Europeans as well.  So are
>>>>>>>the Iranians and Pakistanis. Are they Aryans?  In YOUR definition?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Once.
>>>>>
>>>>>Doubtful; the theory that the Aryan or original Proto-Indo-European
>>>>>peoples were originally white doesn't have much credence in scholarly
>>>>>circles.  
>>>
>>>>That I doubt.  White skin is recessive when compared to brown skin.  If
>>>>the original Aryans were brown skinned, then we [as in us Whites] would be 
>>>>brown skinned to this day.
>>>
>>>That assumes that you are descended from these Aryans.  Unless you are
>>>a Celt, the odds are not likely.
>>>
>>Well I am a Scot, and my lineage (on my father's side) goes back to when
>>the Scots went to 'Scotland' in the 5th century AD.  
>
>Bully for you; you might actually be Aryan.
>
Oh gee, tell me something I didn't already know.

>>>>>At best, they were brown, like the present day Indo-European
>>>>>Armenians, who live close to the original home of the Aryan peoples
>>>>>and have, generally speaking, fallen to the sword rather than
>>>>>intermixes with invading armies.
>>>>>
>>>>Incorrect.  At times I would agree with you, but you are incorrect with
>>>>your assertion.  
>>>
>>>Please prove me wrong.
>>>
>>The Armenians of ancient time did not speak Indo-European.  Urartu (ancient
>>Armenia) spoke an 'Asianic' language.  How's that?
>
>You're wrong.  Armenian is and always has been an Indo-European
>language, virtually unchanged in thousands of years.
>
        *sigh*

[Talking about the ancient Hurrians]

  "Their language, written in cunieform script, is neither Semitic nor
  Indo-European, but belongs to the vague so-called 'Asianic' group, its
  nearest relative being Uratian, the language spoken in the country of
  Urartu (Armenia) in the first millennium B.C."

G. Roux, "Ancient Iraq", 3rd. Ed., Middlesex, 1992, p.234.

>>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>>>>>Should we start a movement, like so many minorities do, that demands the
>>>>>>>>return of Jerusalem to its rightful owners (us being Indo-European) and
>>>>>>>>a year by year monetary compensation for the holocaust that happened all
>>>>>>>>those many years ago?  Lets not also forget they stole our kins' religion 
>>>>>>>>there as well, and looted our 'synagogues' or are they now going to start 
>>>>>>>>emphasizing their Khazar origins?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Get in line; the Semitic Palestinians would like it first.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Perhaps you Jews should give it to them, since many Jews are part of
>>>>>>movements to give so-called indigeousness people back their lands.
>>>>>
>>>>>The Palestinians lost Jerusalem in the 1967 war.
>>>>>
>>>>And that counts these days?
>>>
>>>Yup.
>>>
>>No, it does not.  Gaining land via war is not legitimate anymore.  Just
>>look at what happened to Iraq.
>
>Um, Iraq lost.  Israel won.
>
Nice of you to admit that.  The UN won the war for the Israeli state.  But,
it still demonstrates that Iraq was not allowed to keep Kuwait.

>>>>>>>>Lets not forget the genocide committed upon the Philistines as well, they
>>>>>>>>were another Indo-European people, AND their hatred for the Hittites, who
>>>>>>>>were yet another Indo-European people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There was no genocide against the Philistines; they were attacked in
>>>>>>>self-defense for previous attacks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Perhaps, though they seemed to be ready to propound hatred for anybody.
>>>>>
>>>>>Read in context, Kiwi; the books of Samuel and Kings, which give the
>>>>>background for these events, propound on the period 1200-587 BCE.
>>>>>These were ancient times when anyone would commit genocide against
>>>>>anyone.  Why are the Jews singled out? Perhaps because they have one
>>>>>of the only extant records?
>>>>>
>>>>Since you wish to play by modern rules, give Jerusalem back to the 
>>>>Palestinians.
>>>
>>>I'm willing to give East Jerusalem back, minus the Holy Walled City,
>>>which only Israel has allowed Jews and all other religious groups to
>>>visit.
>>>
>>No, the whole lot.
>
>Sorry, Charlie.  No dice.
>
Yes, one rule for us, another for you.  And you wonder why so many people
think Jews are scum?

>>>>>>>>Part of the Jew vow upon several people:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  "But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites [Indo-
>>>>>>>>  European], and the Amorites, the Canaanites [proto-Phoenicians], and the
>>>>>>>>  Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites [Indo-European]"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Deuteronomy 20:17.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I cited that above; the vow against the seven tribes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>It doesn't hurt to repeat things like this, since Jews seem to think that
>>>>>>so-called pogroms against them should get different treatments from what
>>>>>>they vowed on other people.  Even if the holocaust's exaggerations were
>>>>>>true, it would seem Germany was playing by Jewish rules.
>>>>>
>>>>>See above on historical context.
>>>>>
>>>>Then play by modern rules, start handing that land back, and not just
>>>>Jerusalem either.
>>>
>>>I'm fully in favor of giving back Gaza and the W. Bank.
>>>
>>Keep going.
>
>Nope.
>
Nope.

>>>>>>>>Some of those people are our kith and kin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Not really.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>According to current theories the Indo-European language group derived 
>>>>>>from a single land-locked area, which basically boils down to this (if
>>>>>>current theories are correct) at some point in time we were related to 
>>>>>>parts of those other Indo-European peoples.
>>>>>
>>>>>But they weren't necessarily "white"; see above.
>>>>>
>>>>That I disagree with.  Brown-white mixes almost always produce brown
>>>>offspring.
>>>> 
>>>Not always, though.  Yes?
>>>
>>True, but then for Indo-Europeans (linguistly) to get a foot-hold to be 
>>accepted then they had to come in force (both power and significant 
>>numbers).  The Visigothic Kingdom in Spain is good evidence of insufficient 
>>numbers to make a linguistic change.
>
>>Of course retaining blue eyes and blond (and red) hair would also be a 
>>major problem to overcome.
>
>The original Spaniards were Celts, and therefore "Aryans"; the
>Visigoths were Germans and not Aryan at all, though Nordic in
>appearance.
>
What point are you trying to make?  The point I was trying to make is that
the Indo-European peoples must have come to Europe and etc. in force for
there to be a linguistic change.  Conquering a region is not good enough.
The Spanairds to this day speak a Romance language and not a German 
language.  Another example is English.  For two hundred plus years after 
William the Conqueror the court language was French, so why don't we speak 
French?

I was adding the other recessive characteristics as more problems of a
so-called brown people moving in.

Also, some of the German tribes were originally Celtic, the Vandals is one
example of this.  Annoyingly, I seem to have misplaced my notes on the
early Germanic tribes, the book is called "The History of the Goths." 

>>>>>>>>Let us not forget that our own families bought the Holy Land with their
>>>>>>>>own blood, and then having some traitorous politicians give it away is a
>>>>>>>>mock on their names.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>give me names, Kiwi.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>I can't believe you asked this one.  Do you remember the British Imperial
>>>>>>troops taking the holy lands in WWI?  Do you remember that Palestine was
>>>>>>therefore part of the British Empire?  Do I need to go on further?
>>>>>
>>>>>So the British, who took the land from the Turks should have held on
>>>>>to Palestine?  That would have been a bloodbath.
>>>>>
>>>>Why?  The British were/are much more benevolent rulers than the Jews, you
>>>>can hardly claim the Jews have averted a bloodbath.
>>>
>>>>>>It would seem your reply is indicating that you believe Jews conquered
>>>>>>Palestine.
>>>>>
>>>>>The did.  First c. 1200 BCE, then in the 1930's-1949.
>>>>>
>>>>I thought God did it 1200 BC, and you didn't conquer Palestine 1930s-1949.
>>>>It was a gift from the British Empire.
>>>
>>>Oh please:
>>>1) Joshua conquered Palestine 1200 BCE
>
>>I was being sarcastic.
>
>>>2) The British fought Jewish hegemony in Palestine and gave up in
>>>1947, after years of guerrilla war fought by Jewish militias.
>>>
>>That's because of the policy of allowing Jews to go there in the first
>>place (alongside Germany of course.)
>
>Only German Jews were allowed to leave; Ostjuden from the occupied
>territories of Poland, Hungary, etc., were killed.
>
That does not make a lot of sense.  Why would they allow them to live in
one instance, and not in another -- William Marks (a historian) says that
around 270,000 out of 503,000 Jews went to Palestine from Germany.  

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Nov 10 07:01:58 PST 1996
Article: 48891 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!hookup!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: PC bigots and books (was Bobby Whitaker - political advisor...)
Date: 9 Nov 1996 12:27:23 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <562pfb$j8t@lex.zippo.com>
References: <52481j$j37@clarknet.clark.net> <53cbse$q6q@clarknet.clark.net> <327D0EB1.4FD7@conterra.com> <55n3p5$aom@orion.cybercom.net> <32849D2F.389F@conterra.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port838-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:48891 alt.discrimination:55720 alt.politics.nationalism.white:35318

In article <32849D2F.389F@conterra.com>, Bob says...
>
>Allan Matthews wrote:

[Matthews' garbage deleted]
>
>     Many of you get paid for pushing Political Correctness and never
>look anything up, but keep insisting I do, free of sharge.  You can't
>even look inside the dust jacket of abook in your own local library.
>     I'm literally an open book.

If they looked up anything the PC movement would fold.  Hence why they
don't, and hence why they make feeble excuses why they don't.  As I
commented long ago; they'll keep on asking you for proof even it is so
obvious (the playing dumb tactic) so you waste your time trying to find
adequate quotes, which they reject anyway.  Whatever you would offer is
simply not good enough, or they accuse your mode of delivery -- semantics, 
poor English skills, spelling, and grammar.  Either way they justify why
your evidence is not valid, even if it is perfectly valid and you actually
did deliver the message with correct semantics, good English skills,
spelling, and grammar.  Try and reverse the tables and they just bitch and 
moan. 

This is the standard rhetoric of the PC bigots.

Ourobouros.





From Ourobouros Mon Nov 11 10:03:56 PST 1996
Article: 79172 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!node2.frontiernet.net!news.texas.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Another tactic of liberals
Date: 11 Nov 1996 00:53:38 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <566pii$gr2@lex.zippo.com>
References: <5667mb$2g3@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port796-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:49012 alt.politics.nationalism.white:35444 alt.revisionism:79172 alt.discrimination:55787

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <5667mb$2g3@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >
>> >In article <565d9n$9h8@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <562alj$4nb@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>> >> >
>> >> >Ourobouros wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >[...]
>> >> >
>> >> >>Have you switched to decaf recently?
>> >> >
>> >> >Notice the decisive critique of Jeff Brown's analysis.
>> >> >If you have, Jeff, stick with it.  You're right on the money.
>> >> >
>> >> Yes, my achilles heel; my opponents being perpetual fools and who taken 
>> >> the tactic of boring me to death with stupidity.
>> >
>> >I sympathize. One of my opponents is a perpetual liar who has adopted the
>> >tactic of responding to critiques of his arguments with irrelevancy and
>> >evasion.
>> >
>> Could you please tell us what newgroup(s) you are arguing with Jeffrey G. 
>> Brown from jeff_brown@pol.com?  For he is the only known person who fulfils 
>> these criteria.
>
>Incorrect.
>
>"Stone" has accused several individuals in this newsgroup of misquoting
>him, when in fact none of them had done so. "Stone" is a liar.
>
Here comes the "Brown" tactic of playing dumb again.  Sorry "Brown," 
saying I'm a liar doesn't make me one.  You have misquoted me, only in 
your wierd version of reality can you rationalize that you have not done 
so.  Even some of your comrades are becoming aware of your extreme
stupidity in certain matters.  If you want evidence, even though I don't
expect you to comprehend this either due to perpetual 'dumb field', try
realizing how you decided to parrot what I said recently.  Were your
parroting methods in context, or were they not?  And if you discover 
(shock, horror) that you, as usual, have parroted me out of context then you
were misquoting me.  I do not, even for one second, believe you will ever
realize this, but this is for the benefit of onlookers who can see how
illogical and small-minded you really are.

>"Stone", as documented above, has responded to critiques of his arguments
>with irrelevancies and evasions such as "Have you switched to decaf
>recently?".
>
Considering the content of your posts of late, "Brown," it is highly
ironical that you dare mention me evading and using irrelevancies as I was
only responding in kind.  It is not surprising that you failed to perceive
this once more.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Mon Nov 11 10:07:25 PST 1996
Article: 35403 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Spanish is an Aryan language
Date: 10 Nov 1996 11:58:29 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 178
Message-ID: <565c55$8eb@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbc6b4$6c3ef9a0$308aaec7@default> <55h4cf$2i6@crl11.crl.com> <55ltdn$d0b@news1.panix.com> <55o5ob$327@lex.zippo.com> <55q66m$rle@news1.panix.com> <55s52h$8l7@lex.zippo.com> <55te08$52i@news1.panix.com> <55tusn$ngq@lex.zippo.com> <55uaeu$oph@news1.panix.com> <55ui5t$amc@lex.zippo.com> <5609ta$ft2@news1.panix.com> <560r6k$kjn@lex.zippo.com> <562qgv$9sa@news1.panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port877-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:48977 alt.politics.nationalism.white:35403

In article <562qgv$9sa@news1.panix.com>, aem0608@is2.nyu.edu says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>In article <5609ta$ft2@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>>>
>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <55uaeu$oph@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <55te08$52i@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article <55q66m$rle@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Ourobouros wrote:

[snip]

>>>>>That assumes that you are descended from these Aryans.  Unless you are
>>>>>a Celt, the odds are not likely.
>>>>>
>>>>Well I am a Scot, and my lineage (on my father's side) goes back to when
>>>>the Scots went to 'Scotland' in the 5th century AD.  
>>>
>>>Bully for you; you might actually be Aryan.
>>>
>>Oh gee, tell me something I didn't already know.
>
>OK, you ancestors may have liked fucking sheep.
>
The Jewish depravity surfacing?

>>>>>>>At best, they were brown, like the present day Indo-European
>>>>>>>Armenians, who live close to the original home of the Aryan peoples
>>>>>>>and have, generally speaking, fallen to the sword rather than
>>>>>>>intermixes with invading armies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Incorrect.  At times I would agree with you, but you are incorrect with
>>>>>>your assertion.  
>>>>>
>>>>>Please prove me wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>The Armenians of ancient time did not speak Indo-European.  Urartu (ancient
>>>>Armenia) spoke an 'Asianic' language.  How's that?
>>>
>>>You're wrong.  Armenian is and always has been an Indo-European
>>>language, virtually unchanged in thousands of years.
>>>
>>        *sigh*
>
>>[Talking about the ancient Hurrians]
>
>>  "Their language, written in cunieform script, is neither Semitic nor
>>  Indo-European, but belongs to the vague so-called 'Asianic' group, its
>>  nearest relative being Uratian, the language spoken in the country of
>>  Urartu (Armenia) in the first millennium B.C."
>
>>G. Roux, "Ancient Iraq", 3rd. Ed., Middlesex, 1992, p.234.
>
>Urartu is Ararat, which is Turkey, NOT Armenia.
>
Armenia is extremely close, and the kingdom of Urartu covered both areas.

>>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Should we start a movement, like so many minorities do, that demands the
>>>>>>>>>>return of Jerusalem to its rightful owners (us being Indo-European) and
>>>>>>>>>>a year by year monetary compensation for the holocaust that happened all
>>>>>>>>>>those many years ago?  Lets not also forget they stole our kins' religion 
>>>>>>>>>>there as well, and looted our 'synagogues' or are they now going to start 
>>>>>>>>>>emphasizing their Khazar origins?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Get in line; the Semitic Palestinians would like it first.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Perhaps you Jews should give it to them, since many Jews are part of
>>>>>>>>movements to give so-called indigeousness people back their lands.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The Palestinians lost Jerusalem in the 1967 war.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>And that counts these days?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yup.
>>>>>
>>>>No, it does not.  Gaining land via war is not legitimate anymore.  Just
>>>>look at what happened to Iraq.
>>>
>>>Um, Iraq lost.  Israel won.
>>>
>>Nice of you to admit that.  The UN won the war for the Israeli state.  But,
>>it still demonstrates that Iraq was not allowed to keep Kuwait.
>
>No, Israel won the war for Israel.  The UN has been against the 1967
>victory since it occurred.
>
Hah!  If the UN won the Iraqi war for Israel then the UN does not hold
grudges against Israel.  Therefore they support the 1967 war in real terms.

[Pro-genocidal Israelis, giving back East Jerusalem to the Palestinians
minus the 'Holy Wall.']

>>Yes, one rule for us, another for you.  And you wonder why so many people
>>think Jews are scum?
>
>As I previously stated, only Israel has allowed non-discriminatory
>visiation at the holy siites; that why they keep them.
>
And before hand, nobody but Palestinians were allowed to see these holy
sites?

[A Jew's refusal to give back ill-gotten land, even though he insists that
everybody plays by modern rules to the Israelis snipped]

[Whether the original Indo-Europeans were brown]

>>>>True, but then for Indo-Europeans (linguistly) to get a foot-hold to be 
>>>>accepted then they had to come in force (both power and significant 
>>>>numbers).  The Visigothic Kingdom in Spain is good evidence of insufficient 
>>>>numbers to make a linguistic change.
>>>
>>>>Of course retaining blue eyes and blond (and red) hair would also be a 
>>>>major problem to overcome.
>>>
>>>The original Spaniards were Celts, and therefore "Aryans"; the
>>>Visigoths were Germans and not Aryan at all, though Nordic in
>>>appearance.
>>>
>>What point are you trying to make?  The point I was trying to make is that
>>the Indo-European peoples must have come to Europe and etc. in force for
>>there to be a linguistic change.  Conquering a region is not good enough.
>>The Spanairds to this day speak a Romance language and not a German 
>>language.  Another example is English.  For two hundred plus years after 
>>William the Conqueror the court language was French, so why don't we speak 
>>French?
>
>In a way, we do.  We speak a language that has its vocabulary 40%
>French.
>
In other words you are saying that if we discovered a Frenchman that only
understood French, he would understand 40% English?

>>I was adding the other recessive characteristics as more problems of a
>>so-called brown people moving in.
>
>>Also, some of the German tribes were originally Celtic, the Vandals is one
>>example of this.  Annoyingly, I seem to have misplaced my notes on the
>>early Germanic tribes, the book is called "The History of the Goths." 
>
[A Jew's claim that Jews have avoided a blood-bath in Palestine which the
British Empire would not have, snipped]

[Jews getting Palestine through guerilla warfare]

>>>>That's because of the policy of allowing Jews to go there in the first
>>>>place (alongside Germany of course.)
>>>
>>>Only German Jews were allowed to leave; Ostjuden from the occupied
>>>territories of Poland, Hungary, etc., were killed.
>>>
>>That does not make a lot of sense.  Why would they allow them to live in
>>one instance, and not in another -- William Marks (a historian) says that
>>around 270,000 out of 503,000 Jews went to Palestine from Germany.  
>
>Because the German Jews were deported or requested to leave duriing
>Peace time; the Ostjuden during wartime.
>
If the Germans could easily mobilise that many people they could have also
mobilised them to Palestine.  Since the Germans allowed, as you have 
admitted, Jews to go to Palestine before the war, and we know that the
Germans seriously considered the Madagascar option, you need better
reasoning that what you have offered.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Mon Nov 11 10:07:26 PST 1996
Article: 35444 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!node2.frontiernet.net!news.texas.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Another tactic of liberals
Date: 11 Nov 1996 00:53:38 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <566pii$gr2@lex.zippo.com>
References: <5667mb$2g3@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port796-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:49012 alt.politics.nationalism.white:35444 alt.revisionism:79172 alt.discrimination:55787

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <5667mb$2g3@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >
>> >In article <565d9n$9h8@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <562alj$4nb@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>> >> >
>> >> >Ourobouros wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >[...]
>> >> >
>> >> >>Have you switched to decaf recently?
>> >> >
>> >> >Notice the decisive critique of Jeff Brown's analysis.
>> >> >If you have, Jeff, stick with it.  You're right on the money.
>> >> >
>> >> Yes, my achilles heel; my opponents being perpetual fools and who taken 
>> >> the tactic of boring me to death with stupidity.
>> >
>> >I sympathize. One of my opponents is a perpetual liar who has adopted the
>> >tactic of responding to critiques of his arguments with irrelevancy and
>> >evasion.
>> >
>> Could you please tell us what newgroup(s) you are arguing with Jeffrey G. 
>> Brown from jeff_brown@pol.com?  For he is the only known person who fulfils 
>> these criteria.
>
>Incorrect.
>
>"Stone" has accused several individuals in this newsgroup of misquoting
>him, when in fact none of them had done so. "Stone" is a liar.
>
Here comes the "Brown" tactic of playing dumb again.  Sorry "Brown," 
saying I'm a liar doesn't make me one.  You have misquoted me, only in 
your wierd version of reality can you rationalize that you have not done 
so.  Even some of your comrades are becoming aware of your extreme
stupidity in certain matters.  If you want evidence, even though I don't
expect you to comprehend this either due to perpetual 'dumb field', try
realizing how you decided to parrot what I said recently.  Were your
parroting methods in context, or were they not?  And if you discover 
(shock, horror) that you, as usual, have parroted me out of context then you
were misquoting me.  I do not, even for one second, believe you will ever
realize this, but this is for the benefit of onlookers who can see how
illogical and small-minded you really are.

>"Stone", as documented above, has responded to critiques of his arguments
>with irrelevancies and evasions such as "Have you switched to decaf
>recently?".
>
Considering the content of your posts of late, "Brown," it is highly
ironical that you dare mention me evading and using irrelevancies as I was
only responding in kind.  It is not surprising that you failed to perceive
this once more.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Mon Nov 11 10:11:12 PST 1996
Article: 48976 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: White MEN created everything
Date: 10 Nov 1996 11:28:42 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <565ada$720@lex.zippo.com>
References: <54hnk5$pud@lex.zippo.com> <54o7v6$l5g@maud.ifi.uio.no> <54okr6$a9t@lex.zippo.com> <54vcsn$1hd@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <550j5t$nd2@lex.zippo.com> <557v9n$oa0@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <55afci$cm4@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <55i2ee$fca@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <55jpu4$5e7@lex.zippo.com> <55t8sm$gge@gyda.ifi.uio.no> <55tq5l$j9h@lex.zippo.com> <562bts$4nb@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port877-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <562bts$4nb@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <55t8sm$gge@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>>>In article <55jpu4$5e7@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros writes:
>
>>>> Since we are on the topics of genocide, and I know you'll support it being
>>>> avid multi-culturalists.
>
>>>Are you claiming that "multi-culturalists" support genocide?
>
>>If it is committed by non-whites.  It is unlikely that they would have the
>>honesty to come out and say such things plainly, but they indirectly do,
>>by condoning and enforcing programs about how wonderful the Maori are.
>
>This is utter nonsense.  Provide evidence that "multiculturalists" have
>spoken out in *support* of the genocidal regime of Pol Pot, or the recent
>genocide in Rwanda.  Or of *any genocide*.  And please not the words you
>yourself have accepted - *support of*, not historical explanation of.
>Evidence, Twinkletoes, not more of your simpering, evasive b.s.
>
Your counter-argument is utter nonsense.  Neither Pol Pot nor Rwanda have
multi-culturalist in any real numbers.  New Zealand has plenty of them, and
so they promote the Maori heavily.  

Ourobouros.





From Ourobouros Mon Nov 11 10:11:13 PST 1996
Article: 48977 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Spanish is an Aryan language
Date: 10 Nov 1996 11:58:29 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 178
Message-ID: <565c55$8eb@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbc6b4$6c3ef9a0$308aaec7@default> <55h4cf$2i6@crl11.crl.com> <55ltdn$d0b@news1.panix.com> <55o5ob$327@lex.zippo.com> <55q66m$rle@news1.panix.com> <55s52h$8l7@lex.zippo.com> <55te08$52i@news1.panix.com> <55tusn$ngq@lex.zippo.com> <55uaeu$oph@news1.panix.com> <55ui5t$amc@lex.zippo.com> <5609ta$ft2@news1.panix.com> <560r6k$kjn@lex.zippo.com> <562qgv$9sa@news1.panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port877-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:48977 alt.politics.nationalism.white:35403

In article <562qgv$9sa@news1.panix.com>, aem0608@is2.nyu.edu says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>In article <5609ta$ft2@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>>>
>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <55uaeu$oph@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <55te08$52i@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article <55q66m$rle@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Ourobouros wrote:

[snip]

>>>>>That assumes that you are descended from these Aryans.  Unless you are
>>>>>a Celt, the odds are not likely.
>>>>>
>>>>Well I am a Scot, and my lineage (on my father's side) goes back to when
>>>>the Scots went to 'Scotland' in the 5th century AD.  
>>>
>>>Bully for you; you might actually be Aryan.
>>>
>>Oh gee, tell me something I didn't already know.
>
>OK, you ancestors may have liked fucking sheep.
>
The Jewish depravity surfacing?

>>>>>>>At best, they were brown, like the present day Indo-European
>>>>>>>Armenians, who live close to the original home of the Aryan peoples
>>>>>>>and have, generally speaking, fallen to the sword rather than
>>>>>>>intermixes with invading armies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Incorrect.  At times I would agree with you, but you are incorrect with
>>>>>>your assertion.  
>>>>>
>>>>>Please prove me wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>The Armenians of ancient time did not speak Indo-European.  Urartu (ancient
>>>>Armenia) spoke an 'Asianic' language.  How's that?
>>>
>>>You're wrong.  Armenian is and always has been an Indo-European
>>>language, virtually unchanged in thousands of years.
>>>
>>        *sigh*
>
>>[Talking about the ancient Hurrians]
>
>>  "Their language, written in cunieform script, is neither Semitic nor
>>  Indo-European, but belongs to the vague so-called 'Asianic' group, its
>>  nearest relative being Uratian, the language spoken in the country of
>>  Urartu (Armenia) in the first millennium B.C."
>
>>G. Roux, "Ancient Iraq", 3rd. Ed., Middlesex, 1992, p.234.
>
>Urartu is Ararat, which is Turkey, NOT Armenia.
>
Armenia is extremely close, and the kingdom of Urartu covered both areas.

>>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Should we start a movement, like so many minorities do, that demands the
>>>>>>>>>>return of Jerusalem to its rightful owners (us being Indo-European) and
>>>>>>>>>>a year by year monetary compensation for the holocaust that happened all
>>>>>>>>>>those many years ago?  Lets not also forget they stole our kins' religion 
>>>>>>>>>>there as well, and looted our 'synagogues' or are they now going to start 
>>>>>>>>>>emphasizing their Khazar origins?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Get in line; the Semitic Palestinians would like it first.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Perhaps you Jews should give it to them, since many Jews are part of
>>>>>>>>movements to give so-called indigeousness people back their lands.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The Palestinians lost Jerusalem in the 1967 war.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>And that counts these days?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yup.
>>>>>
>>>>No, it does not.  Gaining land via war is not legitimate anymore.  Just
>>>>look at what happened to Iraq.
>>>
>>>Um, Iraq lost.  Israel won.
>>>
>>Nice of you to admit that.  The UN won the war for the Israeli state.  But,
>>it still demonstrates that Iraq was not allowed to keep Kuwait.
>
>No, Israel won the war for Israel.  The UN has been against the 1967
>victory since it occurred.
>
Hah!  If the UN won the Iraqi war for Israel then the UN does not hold
grudges against Israel.  Therefore they support the 1967 war in real terms.

[Pro-genocidal Israelis, giving back East Jerusalem to the Palestinians
minus the 'Holy Wall.']

>>Yes, one rule for us, another for you.  And you wonder why so many people
>>think Jews are scum?
>
>As I previously stated, only Israel has allowed non-discriminatory
>visiation at the holy siites; that why they keep them.
>
And before hand, nobody but Palestinians were allowed to see these holy
sites?

[A Jew's refusal to give back ill-gotten land, even though he insists that
everybody plays by modern rules to the Israelis snipped]

[Whether the original Indo-Europeans were brown]

>>>>True, but then for Indo-Europeans (linguistly) to get a foot-hold to be 
>>>>accepted then they had to come in force (both power and significant 
>>>>numbers).  The Visigothic Kingdom in Spain is good evidence of insufficient 
>>>>numbers to make a linguistic change.
>>>
>>>>Of course retaining blue eyes and blond (and red) hair would also be a 
>>>>major problem to overcome.
>>>
>>>The original Spaniards were Celts, and therefore "Aryans"; the
>>>Visigoths were Germans and not Aryan at all, though Nordic in
>>>appearance.
>>>
>>What point are you trying to make?  The point I was trying to make is that
>>the Indo-European peoples must have come to Europe and etc. in force for
>>there to be a linguistic change.  Conquering a region is not good enough.
>>The Spanairds to this day speak a Romance language and not a German 
>>language.  Another example is English.  For two hundred plus years after 
>>William the Conqueror the court language was French, so why don't we speak 
>>French?
>
>In a way, we do.  We speak a language that has its vocabulary 40%
>French.
>
In other words you are saying that if we discovered a Frenchman that only
understood French, he would understand 40% English?

>>I was adding the other recessive characteristics as more problems of a
>>so-called brown people moving in.
>
>>Also, some of the German tribes were originally Celtic, the Vandals is one
>>example of this.  Annoyingly, I seem to have misplaced my notes on the
>>early Germanic tribes, the book is called "The History of the Goths." 
>
[A Jew's claim that Jews have avoided a blood-bath in Palestine which the
British Empire would not have, snipped]

[Jews getting Palestine through guerilla warfare]

>>>>That's because of the policy of allowing Jews to go there in the first
>>>>place (alongside Germany of course.)
>>>
>>>Only German Jews were allowed to leave; Ostjuden from the occupied
>>>territories of Poland, Hungary, etc., were killed.
>>>
>>That does not make a lot of sense.  Why would they allow them to live in
>>one instance, and not in another -- William Marks (a historian) says that
>>around 270,000 out of 503,000 Jews went to Palestine from Germany.  
>
>Because the German Jews were deported or requested to leave duriing
>Peace time; the Ostjuden during wartime.
>
If the Germans could easily mobilise that many people they could have also
mobilised them to Palestine.  Since the Germans allowed, as you have 
admitted, Jews to go to Palestine before the war, and we know that the
Germans seriously considered the Madagascar option, you need better
reasoning that what you have offered.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Mon Nov 11 10:11:14 PST 1996
Article: 48982 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news-dc.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-lond.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-stkh.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.music.hardcore
Subject: Re: Hitler was just an in-tune guy
Date: 10 Nov 1996 19:18:58 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <5665v2$125@lex.zippo.com>
References: <54hco6$lnp@scratchy.mosquito.com>  <32715748.172D@Brown.edu> <5561fs$iup@scratchy.mosquito.com> <55j9qg$2r9@news-central.tiac.net> <55jaab$hah@scratchy.mosquito.com> <327E74E9.2222@bc.sympatico.ca> <563ula$1r6@scratchy.mosquito.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port766-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:48982 alt.music.hardcore:33842

In article <563ula$1r6@scratchy.mosquito.com>, gimp@interstat.net says...
>
>Elvis  wrote:
>
>>fuckup wrote:
>>> 
>>> >A redneck is an ignorant piece of shit, regardless of where they come
>>> >from or what the color of their skin may be
>>> >Stephen Johnston
>>> >Sr. Editor/Page Layout Designer
>>> >GAINSAY e-zine
>>> >http://www.gainsay.com
>>> 
>>> Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, not someone who is racist.
>
>>Racism IS a lack of knowledge.
>
>Please define racism, then tell me exactly how it is a lack of
>knowledge.
>
No no no.  If you have a lack of knowledge then you are racist.  If you
don't know many stars there are in the universe then you are racist.  If
you don't know how large the universe even is then you're racist.  Unless
you know the names of all forms of life then you are racist.  Unless you
know the complete genetic sequence of the human body then you're racist.
Unless you know everybody's family tree then you're racist.  Unless your
omniscient you are racist.  

See how meaningful this definition is?

PC bigots are so all knowing.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Mon Nov 11 10:11:14 PST 1996
Article: 49012 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!node2.frontiernet.net!news.texas.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Another tactic of liberals
Date: 11 Nov 1996 00:53:38 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <566pii$gr2@lex.zippo.com>
References: <5667mb$2g3@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port796-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:49012 alt.politics.nationalism.white:35444 alt.revisionism:79172 alt.discrimination:55787

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <5667mb$2g3@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >
>> >In article <565d9n$9h8@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <562alj$4nb@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>> >> >
>> >> >Ourobouros wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >[...]
>> >> >
>> >> >>Have you switched to decaf recently?
>> >> >
>> >> >Notice the decisive critique of Jeff Brown's analysis.
>> >> >If you have, Jeff, stick with it.  You're right on the money.
>> >> >
>> >> Yes, my achilles heel; my opponents being perpetual fools and who taken 
>> >> the tactic of boring me to death with stupidity.
>> >
>> >I sympathize. One of my opponents is a perpetual liar who has adopted the
>> >tactic of responding to critiques of his arguments with irrelevancy and
>> >evasion.
>> >
>> Could you please tell us what newgroup(s) you are arguing with Jeffrey G. 
>> Brown from jeff_brown@pol.com?  For he is the only known person who fulfils 
>> these criteria.
>
>Incorrect.
>
>"Stone" has accused several individuals in this newsgroup of misquoting
>him, when in fact none of them had done so. "Stone" is a liar.
>
Here comes the "Brown" tactic of playing dumb again.  Sorry "Brown," 
saying I'm a liar doesn't make me one.  You have misquoted me, only in 
your wierd version of reality can you rationalize that you have not done 
so.  Even some of your comrades are becoming aware of your extreme
stupidity in certain matters.  If you want evidence, even though I don't
expect you to comprehend this either due to perpetual 'dumb field', try
realizing how you decided to parrot what I said recently.  Were your
parroting methods in context, or were they not?  And if you discover 
(shock, horror) that you, as usual, have parroted me out of context then you
were misquoting me.  I do not, even for one second, believe you will ever
realize this, but this is for the benefit of onlookers who can see how
illogical and small-minded you really are.

>"Stone", as documented above, has responded to critiques of his arguments
>with irrelevancies and evasions such as "Have you switched to decaf
>recently?".
>
Considering the content of your posts of late, "Brown," it is highly
ironical that you dare mention me evading and using irrelevancies as I was
only responding in kind.  It is not surprising that you failed to perceive
this once more.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Wed Nov 13 06:28:52 PST 1996
Article: 79219 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!hookup!gatech!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Another tactic of liberals [long-winded]
Date: 10 Nov 1996 12:17:59 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <565d9n$9h8@lex.zippo.com>
References: <55dn4d$jrq@lex.zippo.com>  <55du4l$n1u@lex.zippo.com>  <55epi6$66k@lex.zippo.com> <55fm2m$lv8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <55h577$hpv@lex.zippo.com> <55krjb$gu5@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <55m5am$n5r@lex.zippo.com> <55qr9h$7bb@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <55s7nv$9i8@lex.zippo.com>  <55uj04$bj0@lex.zippo.com> <562alj$4nb@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port866-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:49066 alt.politics.nationalism.white:35506 alt.revisionism:79219 alt.discrimination:55820

In article <562alj$4nb@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>Have you switched to decaf recently?
>
>Notice the decisive critique of Jeff Brown's analysis.
>If you have, Jeff, stick with it.  You're right on the money.
>
Yes, my achilles heel; my opponents being perpetual fools and who taken 
the tactic of boring me to death with stupidity.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Wed Nov 13 06:28:53 PST 1996
Article: 79253 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Another tactic of liberals
Date: 11 Nov 1996 12:17:27 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 152
Message-ID: <5681kn$3bm@lex.zippo.com>
References: <5667mb$2g3@lex.zippo.com>  <566pii$gr2@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port834-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:49085 alt.politics.nationalism.white:35533 alt.revisionism:79253 alt.discrimination:55833

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <566pii$gr2@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >
>> >In article <5667mb$2g3@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article ,
>> >jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >> >
>> >> >In article <565d9n$9h8@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> In article <562alj$4nb@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Ourobouros wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >[...]
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>Have you switched to decaf recently?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Notice the decisive critique of Jeff Brown's analysis.
>> >> >> >If you have, Jeff, stick with it.  You're right on the money.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Yes, my achilles heel; my opponents being perpetual fools and who taken 
>> >> >> the tactic of boring me to death with stupidity.
>> >> >
>> >> >I sympathize. One of my opponents is a perpetual liar who has adopted the
>> >> >tactic of responding to critiques of his arguments with irrelevancy and
>> >> >evasion.
>> >> >
>> >> Could you please tell us what newgroup(s) you are arguing with Jeffrey G. 
>> >> Brown from jeff_brown@pol.com?  For he is the only known person who
>fulfils 
>> >> these criteria.
>> >
>> >Incorrect.
>> >
>> >"Stone" has accused several individuals in this newsgroup of misquoting
>> >him, when in fact none of them had done so. "Stone" is a liar.
>> >
>> Here comes the "Brown" tactic of playing dumb again.  Sorry "Brown," 
>> saying I'm a liar doesn't make me one.  You have misquoted me, only in 
>> your wierd version of reality can you rationalize that you have not done 
>> so. 
>
>"Stone" once again makes the assertion without evidence. "Stone" seems to
>take as a "misquote" a question asked of him, an argument presented to
>him, or a rhetorical point made against him, which he does not agree with
>or cannot answer. Thus does he relieve himself of the unhappy burden of
>responding to said arguments -- it's much easier to simply whine that he's
>been "misquoted" than to construct a counter-argument.  
>
Incorrect.  Try again.

>> Even some of your comrades are becoming aware of your extreme
>> stupidity in certain matters.
>
>"Stone's" telepathic abilities are, of course, non-existent.
>
I refer you do your petty argument over the words "all" and "every" with
your comrade without arms, Dene Bebbington.  Your reference to telepathy
shows us one of two things, 1. extremely poor memory, 2. extremely poor
reasoning abilities.  We'll let you decide which of the two is correct and
which is not.

>> If you want evidence, even though I don't
>> expect you to comprehend this either due to perpetual 'dumb field', try
>> realizing how you decided to parrot what I said recently. 
>
>What I want is actual evidence of a misquote -- a string of words which I
>attributed to "Stone" but which he never wrote. This is what he has not
>provided and cannot provide. This is the basis on which I call "Stone" a
>liar -- that he makes an accusation which is patently untrue.
>
There was of course the "Why are Niggers in Africa backwards?" fiasco, but 
you resorted to saying you asked a brand new question.  For those onlookers
that are perplexed at this, Les Griswold once posed the aforementioned
question.  This question I also championed at the time.  "Brown" in his
resentment of our successes "made a new question" in which he wanted 
either of us to prove "all" Negroes (niggers) were backwards.

>> Were your
>> parroting methods in context, or were they not?  And if you discover 
>> (shock, horror) that you, as usual, have parroted me out of context then you
>> were misquoting me.  
>
>Ah, we add another horrid crime to my list of atrocities -- I have
>"parroted [Stone] out of context" on one or more (conveniently
>unspecified) occasions. How dare I commit such unspeakable sins against
>New Zealand's greatest Mighty Whitey Power Ranger and [failed] definer of
>the "white" race?
>
Despite your assertions otherwise, my definition of the White race was not
a failure.  The only thing it lacked was specifics, and that I repeatedly
said was not included since it was only a "sample definition."  Your
continuous failure at perception is not unexpected.

>Let "Stone" specify the posts in which I "parroted [him] out of context".
>And let him demonstrate that I attributed those words to him. Then he will
>have provided evidence of a misquote.
>
The posts are still "warm."  Anybody can see your posts of recent for 
detecting your out-of-context quotes (of mine.)

>> I do not, even for one second, believe you will ever
>> realize this, but this is for the benefit of onlookers who can see how
>> illogical and small-minded you really are.
>
>Hmmm... seems to me that saying I'm an illogical and small-minded person
>doesn't make me one.
>
For any onlookers, please read the my previous post.  You will note that
"Brown" has split the paragraph so that the above appears empty.  Please
note that this is further proof that "Brown" is small-minded.

>Doh! I just "parroted [Stone] out of context", didn't I? I suppose he'll
>count that as yet another "misquote" -- despite the fact that, try as he
>may, he can't see any hint of attribution of those words to him.
>
Whatever "Brown."  Your attempt at sarcasm was a failure.

>> >"Stone", as documented above, has responded to critiques of his arguments
>> >with irrelevancies and evasions such as "Have you switched to decaf
>> >recently?".
>> >
>> Considering the content of your posts of late, "Brown," it is highly
>> ironical that you dare mention me evading and using irrelevancies as I was
>> only responding in kind.  It is not surprising that you failed to perceive
>> this once more.
>
>In the US, we refer to this as the 'but-Mommy-he-made-me-do-it' argument.
>I wonder what it's called in New Zealand.
>
Could I ask how Yanks deal with bullies?  Do you try and reason with bullies
or do you punch them over (ie use their own tactics)?

When I was a lad there was once a school bully who tried to pick on me,
since I wouldn't play his game he punched me (he only got one punch in.) In
my retailation they needed to take him to a doctor. He never tried to pick
on me again (he avoided me like the plague.)  I could, of course, have tried 
to reason with him like all the PC bigots tried to do, and I laughed at all
those that tried it with him, or you could take the fight to him.  Which
tactic was more successful, the one you belittle or the one offered by PC
bigots?

If you cannot fathom the above then try to comprehend this proverb: "Answer
a fool according to his folly."

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Wed Nov 13 06:59:47 PST 1996
Article: 35469 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.miracle.net!newsfeed.randomc.com!imci5!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,sci.anthropology,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: What Are the Race Deniers Denying?
Date: 11 Nov 1996 01:32:19 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <566rr3$im2@lex.zippo.com>
References: <52481j$j37@clarknet.clark.net> <53cbse$q6q@clarknet.clark.net>  <54fpph$a9m@pelican.unf.edu> <54h6ls$g5j@clarknet.clark.net> <553ake$2nl@pelican.unf.edu> <32764E94.5430@conterra.com> <557n26$fko@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <3277A1ED.7484@conterra.com> <559691$pq0@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <328566C9.6109@conterra.com> <565ba7$f6c@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port796-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:49032 alt.discrimination:55802 sci.anthropology:1659 alt.philosophy.objectivism:91050 alt.politics.nationalism.white:35469

In article <565ba7$f6c@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Well, I posted this weeks ago, and it was a response to your
>excitement when I posted a list of names of people who are
>tenured university faculty engaged in and publishing racist
>science and/or philosophy.  If you want to track it backwards,
>try Dejanews.
>
>Sincerely,
>Mommy Professor
>
Is this the post to which you are referring?
___________________________________

Subject:      Re: Native Americans
From:         Laura Finsten 
Date:         1996/10/24
Message-Id:   <54njee$6ag@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References:   
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-Ascii
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
X-Url:        news:jamie-2310961116370001@clmx37.dial.voyager.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups:   alt.revisionism
X-Mailer:     Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)


I would recommend

Pat Shipman  1994  "The Evolution of Racism". Simon and Schuster.
Jonathon Marks  1995  "Human Biodiversity: Genes, Race and History",
     Aldine de Gruyter, especially Chapter 4 The History of Biology
     and the Biology of History.
And maybe Marek Kohn 1996  "The Race Gallery: The Return of Racial
     Science". Vintage Books.  (I've just begun to read this.)


"If I can't dance..... I don't want to be part of your revolution."
     Emma Goldman
____________________________________________________

While I cannot vouch for either Shipman or Kohn I do know that Marks, in
the aforementioned book, is totally opposed to racialism.

If this is the post to which you refer then what you stated above is 
rubbish.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Wed Nov 13 06:59:48 PST 1996
Article: 35525 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!peerfeed.internetmci.com!news.uoregon.edu!news.texoma.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Spanish is an Aryan language
Date: 11 Nov 1996 12:42:05 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 191
Message-ID: <56832t$4au@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbc6b4$6c3ef9a0$308aaec7@default> <55h4cf$2i6@crl11.crl.com> <55ltdn$d0b@news1.panix.com> <55o5ob$327@lex.zippo.com> <55q66m$rle@news1.panix.com> <55s52h$8l7@lex.zippo.com> <55te08$52i@news1.panix.com> <55tusn$ngq@lex.zippo.com> <55uaeu$oph@news1.panix.com> <55ui5t$amc@lex.zippo.com> <5609ta$ft2@news1.panix.com> <560r6k$kjn@lex.zippo.com> <562qgv$9sa@news1.panix.com> <565c55$8eb@lex.zippo.com> <5676mk$rv5@news1.panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port834-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:49076 alt.politics.nationalism.white:35525

In article <5676mk$rv5@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>In article <562qgv$9sa@news1.panix.com>, aem0608@is2.nyu.edu says...
>>>
>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <5609ta$ft2@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <55uaeu$oph@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article <55te08$52i@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In article <55q66m$rle@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>[snip]
>
>>>>>>>That assumes that you are descended from these Aryans.  Unless you are
>>>>>>>a Celt, the odds are not likely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well I am a Scot, and my lineage (on my father's side) goes back to when
>>>>>>the Scots went to 'Scotland' in the 5th century AD.  
>>>>>
>>>>>Bully for you; you might actually be Aryan.
>>>>>
>>>>Oh gee, tell me something I didn't already know.
>>>
>>>OK, you ancestors may have liked fucking sheep.
>>>
>>The Jewish depravity surfacing?
>
>No, just the proclivities of your ancestry.
>
Seems strange that only Jews know about it.

[Some brief origins of Armenia snipped]

>>>>>>>>>>>>Should we start a movement, like so many minorities do, that demands the
>>>>>>>>>>>>return of Jerusalem to its rightful owners (us being Indo-European) and
>>>>>>>>>>>>a year by year monetary compensation for the holocaust that happened all
>>>>>>>>>>>>those many years ago?  Lets not also forget they stole our kins' religion 
>>>>>>>>>>>>there as well, and looted our 'synagogues' or are they now going to start 
>>>>>>>>>>>>emphasizing their Khazar origins?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Get in line; the Semitic Palestinians would like it first.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Perhaps you Jews should give it to them, since many Jews are part of
>>>>>>>>>>movements to give so-called indigeousness people back their lands.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The Palestinians lost Jerusalem in the 1967 war.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And that counts these days?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yup.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, it does not.  Gaining land via war is not legitimate anymore.  Just
>>>>>>look at what happened to Iraq.
>>>>>
>>>>>Um, Iraq lost.  Israel won.
>>>>>
>>>>Nice of you to admit that.  The UN won the war for the Israeli state.  But,
>>>>it still demonstrates that Iraq was not allowed to keep Kuwait.
>>>
>>>No, Israel won the war for Israel.  The UN has been against the 1967
>>>victory since it occurred.
>>>
>>Hah!  If the UN won the Iraqi war for Israel then the UN does not hold
>>grudges against Israel.  Therefore they support the 1967 war in real terms.
>
>The US won the Iraqi war for OIL.  The 1967 Arab-Israeli war brought
>resolutions against Israel, including one that stated that
>Zionism=Racism.
>
Concrete evidence is needed for your oil argument, as there are many
ideologies floating around, including the one in which the US (& the UN)
stepped in to protect Palestine from a possible aggressor.

Your example of Zionism-Racism is merely a pretext, for the UN religious 
area (whatever the stupid name is) has Judaism as one of six main 
religions.

>>[Pro-genocidal Israelis, giving back East Jerusalem to the Palestinians
>>minus the 'Holy Wall.']
>
>>>>Yes, one rule for us, another for you.  And you wonder why so many people
>>>>think Jews are scum?
>>>
>>>As I previously stated, only Israel has allowed non-discriminatory
>>>visiation at the holy siites; that why they keep them.
>>>
>>And before hand, nobody but Palestinians were allowed to see these holy
>>sites?
>
>Yes.
>
So what do you call pilgrimages?

>>[A Jew's refusal to give back ill-gotten land, even though he insists that
>>everybody plays by modern rules to the Israelis snipped]
>
>Ill-gotten land?  They were attacked on three fronts simultaneously.
>
Read in context, idiot.  They were given the land by the British Empire.

>>[Whether the original Indo-Europeans were brown]
>
>>>>>>True, but then for Indo-Europeans (linguistly) to get a foot-hold to be 
>>>>>>accepted then they had to come in force (both power and significant 
>>>>>>numbers).  The Visigothic Kingdom in Spain is good evidence of insufficient 
>>>>>>numbers to make a linguistic change.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course retaining blue eyes and blond (and red) hair would also be a 
>>>>>>major problem to overcome.
>>>>>
>>>>>The original Spaniards were Celts, and therefore "Aryans"; the
>>>>>Visigoths were Germans and not Aryan at all, though Nordic in
>>>>>appearance.
>>>>>
>>>>What point are you trying to make?  The point I was trying to make is that
>>>>the Indo-European peoples must have come to Europe and etc. in force for
>>>>there to be a linguistic change.  Conquering a region is not good enough.
>>>>The Spanairds to this day speak a Romance language and not a German 
>>>>language.  Another example is English.  For two hundred plus years after 
>>>>William the Conqueror the court language was French, so why don't we speak 
>>>>French?
>>>
>>>In a way, we do.  We speak a language that has its vocabulary 40%
>>>French.
>>>
>>In other words you are saying that if we discovered a Frenchman that only
>>understood French, he would understand 40% English?
>
>No, idiot.  I'm saying that French has had a profound influence on our
>language vis-a-vis vocabulary.
>
What I am referring too is sentence construction.  Vocabulary is important,
but how one expresses oneself is another thing entirely.

Conquering territory is not enough to make a linguistic change, as my
Visigothic example proves.  If the original Indo-Europeans were brown as
you have suggested then they must have moved in with force and with large
numbers.  If they were brown then we would still be brown to this day.

>>>>I was adding the other recessive characteristics as more problems of a
>>>>so-called brown people moving in.
>>>
>>>>Also, some of the German tribes were originally Celtic, the Vandals is one
>>>>example of this.  Annoyingly, I seem to have misplaced my notes on the
>>>>early Germanic tribes, the book is called "The History of the Goths." 
>>>
>>[A Jew's claim that Jews have avoided a blood-bath in Palestine which the
>>British Empire would not have, snipped]
>
>>[Jews getting Palestine through guerilla warfare]
>
>>>>>>That's because of the policy of allowing Jews to go there in the first
>>>>>>place (alongside Germany of course.)
>>>>>
>>>>>Only German Jews were allowed to leave; Ostjuden from the occupied
>>>>>territories of Poland, Hungary, etc., were killed.
>>>>>
>>>>That does not make a lot of sense.  Why would they allow them to live in
>>>>one instance, and not in another -- William Marks (a historian) says that
>>>>around 270,000 out of 503,000 Jews went to Palestine from Germany.  
>>>
>>>Because the German Jews were deported or requested to leave duriing
>>>Peace time; the Ostjuden during wartime.
>>>
>>If the Germans could easily mobilise that many people they could have also
>>mobilised them to Palestine.  Since the Germans allowed, as you have 
>>admitted, Jews to go to Palestine before the war, and we know that the
>>Germans seriously considered the Madagascar option, you need better
>>reasoning that what you have offered.
>
>Madagascar was never seriously considered; and Jewish emigration to
>Palestine during the war was next to nil.
>
What I am saying is that if they weren't bumping off their local Jews, then
it highly unlikely they were bumping off somebody elses Jews.  While you
are most likely correct about emigration (war tends to upset travel) it
is unlikely they were treating the 'new' Jews any differently to their 
'old' Jews.


From Ourobouros Wed Nov 13 07:20:25 PST 1996
Article: 49076 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!peerfeed.internetmci.com!news.uoregon.edu!news.texoma.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Spanish is an Aryan language
Date: 11 Nov 1996 12:42:05 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 191
Message-ID: <56832t$4au@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbc6b4$6c3ef9a0$308aaec7@default> <55h4cf$2i6@crl11.crl.com> <55ltdn$d0b@news1.panix.com> <55o5ob$327@lex.zippo.com> <55q66m$rle@news1.panix.com> <55s52h$8l7@lex.zippo.com> <55te08$52i@news1.panix.com> <55tusn$ngq@lex.zippo.com> <55uaeu$oph@news1.panix.com> <55ui5t$amc@lex.zippo.com> <5609ta$ft2@news1.panix.com> <560r6k$kjn@lex.zippo.com> <562qgv$9sa@news1.panix.com> <565c55$8eb@lex.zippo.com> <5676mk$rv5@news1.panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port834-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:49076 alt.politics.nationalism.white:35525

In article <5676mk$rv5@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>In article <562qgv$9sa@news1.panix.com>, aem0608@is2.nyu.edu says...
>>>
>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <5609ta$ft2@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <55uaeu$oph@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article <55te08$52i@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In article <55q66m$rle@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>[snip]
>
>>>>>>>That assumes that you are descended from these Aryans.  Unless you are
>>>>>>>a Celt, the odds are not likely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well I am a Scot, and my lineage (on my father's side) goes back to when
>>>>>>the Scots went to 'Scotland' in the 5th century AD.  
>>>>>
>>>>>Bully for you; you might actually be Aryan.
>>>>>
>>>>Oh gee, tell me something I didn't already know.
>>>
>>>OK, you ancestors may have liked fucking sheep.
>>>
>>The Jewish depravity surfacing?
>
>No, just the proclivities of your ancestry.
>
Seems strange that only Jews know about it.

[Some brief origins of Armenia snipped]

>>>>>>>>>>>>Should we start a movement, like so many minorities do, that demands the
>>>>>>>>>>>>return of Jerusalem to its rightful owners (us being Indo-European) and
>>>>>>>>>>>>a year by year monetary compensation for the holocaust that happened all
>>>>>>>>>>>>those many years ago?  Lets not also forget they stole our kins' religion 
>>>>>>>>>>>>there as well, and looted our 'synagogues' or are they now going to start 
>>>>>>>>>>>>emphasizing their Khazar origins?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Get in line; the Semitic Palestinians would like it first.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Perhaps you Jews should give it to them, since many Jews are part of
>>>>>>>>>>movements to give so-called indigeousness people back their lands.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The Palestinians lost Jerusalem in the 1967 war.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And that counts these days?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yup.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, it does not.  Gaining land via war is not legitimate anymore.  Just
>>>>>>look at what happened to Iraq.
>>>>>
>>>>>Um, Iraq lost.  Israel won.
>>>>>
>>>>Nice of you to admit that.  The UN won the war for the Israeli state.  But,
>>>>it still demonstrates that Iraq was not allowed to keep Kuwait.
>>>
>>>No, Israel won the war for Israel.  The UN has been against the 1967
>>>victory since it occurred.
>>>
>>Hah!  If the UN won the Iraqi war for Israel then the UN does not hold
>>grudges against Israel.  Therefore they support the 1967 war in real terms.
>
>The US won the Iraqi war for OIL.  The 1967 Arab-Israeli war brought
>resolutions against Israel, including one that stated that
>Zionism=Racism.
>
Concrete evidence is needed for your oil argument, as there are many
ideologies floating around, including the one in which the US (& the UN)
stepped in to protect Palestine from a possible aggressor.

Your example of Zionism-Racism is merely a pretext, for the UN religious 
area (whatever the stupid name is) has Judaism as one of six main 
religions.

>>[Pro-genocidal Israelis, giving back East Jerusalem to the Palestinians
>>minus the 'Holy Wall.']
>
>>>>Yes, one rule for us, another for you.  And you wonder why so many people
>>>>think Jews are scum?
>>>
>>>As I previously stated, only Israel has allowed non-discriminatory
>>>visiation at the holy siites; that why they keep them.
>>>
>>And before hand, nobody but Palestinians were allowed to see these holy
>>sites?
>
>Yes.
>
So what do you call pilgrimages?

>>[A Jew's refusal to give back ill-gotten land, even though he insists that
>>everybody plays by modern rules to the Israelis snipped]
>
>Ill-gotten land?  They were attacked on three fronts simultaneously.
>
Read in context, idiot.  They were given the land by the British Empire.

>>[Whether the original Indo-Europeans were brown]
>
>>>>>>True, but then for Indo-Europeans (linguistly) to get a foot-hold to be 
>>>>>>accepted then they had to come in force (both power and significant 
>>>>>>numbers).  The Visigothic Kingdom in Spain is good evidence of insufficient 
>>>>>>numbers to make a linguistic change.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course retaining blue eyes and blond (and red) hair would also be a 
>>>>>>major problem to overcome.
>>>>>
>>>>>The original Spaniards were Celts, and therefore "Aryans"; the
>>>>>Visigoths were Germans and not Aryan at all, though Nordic in
>>>>>appearance.
>>>>>
>>>>What point are you trying to make?  The point I was trying to make is that
>>>>the Indo-European peoples must have come to Europe and etc. in force for
>>>>there to be a linguistic change.  Conquering a region is not good enough.
>>>>The Spanairds to this day speak a Romance language and not a German 
>>>>language.  Another example is English.  For two hundred plus years after 
>>>>William the Conqueror the court language was French, so why don't we speak 
>>>>French?
>>>
>>>In a way, we do.  We speak a language that has its vocabulary 40%
>>>French.
>>>
>>In other words you are saying that if we discovered a Frenchman that only
>>understood French, he would understand 40% English?
>
>No, idiot.  I'm saying that French has had a profound influence on our
>language vis-a-vis vocabulary.
>
What I am referring too is sentence construction.  Vocabulary is important,
but how one expresses oneself is another thing entirely.

Conquering territory is not enough to make a linguistic change, as my
Visigothic example proves.  If the original Indo-Europeans were brown as
you have suggested then they must have moved in with force and with large
numbers.  If they were brown then we would still be brown to this day.

>>>>I was adding the other recessive characteristics as more problems of a
>>>>so-called brown people moving in.
>>>
>>>>Also, some of the German tribes were originally Celtic, the Vandals is one
>>>>example of this.  Annoyingly, I seem to have misplaced my notes on the
>>>>early Germanic tribes, the book is called "The History of the Goths." 
>>>
>>[A Jew's claim that Jews have avoided a blood-bath in Palestine which the
>>British Empire would not have, snipped]
>
>>[Jews getting Palestine through guerilla warfare]
>
>>>>>>That's because of the policy of allowing Jews to go there in the first
>>>>>>place (alongside Germany of course.)
>>>>>
>>>>>Only German Jews were allowed to leave; Ostjuden from the occupied
>>>>>territories of Poland, Hungary, etc., were killed.
>>>>>
>>>>That does not make a lot of sense.  Why would they allow them to live in
>>>>one instance, and not in another -- William Marks (a historian) says that
>>>>around 270,000 out of 503,000 Jews went to Palestine from Germany.  
>>>
>>>Because the German Jews were deported or requested to leave duriing
>>>Peace time; the Ostjuden during wartime.
>>>
>>If the Germans could easily mobilise that many people they could have also
>>mobilised them to Palestine.  Since the Germans allowed, as you have 
>>admitted, Jews to go to Palestine before the war, and we know that the
>>Germans seriously considered the Madagascar option, you need better
>>reasoning that what you have offered.
>
>Madagascar was never seriously considered; and Jewish emigration to
>Palestine during the war was next to nil.
>
What I am saying is that if they weren't bumping off their local Jews, then
it highly unlikely they were bumping off somebody elses Jews.  While you
are most likely correct about emigration (war tends to upset travel) it
is unlikely they were treating the 'new' Jews any differently to their 
'old' Jews.


From Ourobouros Wed Nov 13 07:20:26 PST 1996
Article: 49078 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!peerfeed.internetmci.com!news.uoregon.edu!news.texoma.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.music.hardcore
Subject: Re: Hitler was just an in-tune guy
Date: 11 Nov 1996 13:24:56 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <5685j8$6n5@lex.zippo.com>
References: <54hco6$lnp@scratchy.mosquito.com>  <32715748.172D@Brown.edu> <5561fs$iup@scratchy.mosquito.com> <55j9qg$2r9@news-central.tiac.net> <55jaab$hah@scratchy.mosquito.com> <327E74E9.2222@bc.sympatico.ca> <563ula$1r6@scratchy.mosquito.com> <5665v2$125@lex.zippo.com> <009AB332.284BE544@pomona.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port834-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:49078 alt.music.hardcore:33877

In article <009AB332.284BE544@pomona.edu>, soxholm@pomona.edu says...
>
>In article <3286F455.10DA@bc.sympatico.ca>, Elvis  writes:
>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>> 
>>> In article <563ula$1r6@scratchy.mosquito.com>, gimp@interstat.net says...
>>> >
>>> >Elvis  wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>fuckup wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> >A redneck is an ignorant piece of shit, regardless of where they come
>>> >>> >from or what the color of their skin may be
>>> >>> >Stephen Johnston
>>> >>> >Sr. Editor/Page Layout Designer
>>> >>> >GAINSAY e-zine
>>> >>> >http://www.gainsay.com
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, not someone who is racist.
>>> >
>>> >>Racism IS a lack of knowledge.
>>> >
>>> >Please define racism, then tell me exactly how it is a lack of
>>> >knowledge.
>>> >
>>> No no no.  If you have a lack of knowledge then you are racist.  If you
>>> don't know many stars there are in the universe then you are racist.  If
>>> you don't know how large the universe even is then you're racist.  Unless
>>> you know the names of all forms of life then you are racist.  Unless you
>>> know the complete genetic sequence of the human body then you're racist.
>>> Unless you know everybody's family tree then you're racist.  Unless your
>>> omniscient you are racist.
>>> 
>>> See how meaningful this definition is?
>>> 
>>> PC bigots are so all knowing.
>>> 
>>> Ourobouros.
>>
>>
>>Alright, alright you guys have got me up against the ropes...Im totally 
>>at the mercy of your intellect. Tell me O great guru, how racism is  
>>intelligent and I will retract my last post. 
>>
>>
>>
>>How on earth could you say that racism is not ignorance? Is it a rational 
>>ideology? Is it sane? Is racial superiority honestly considered 
>>intelligent?
>>What on earth is up with all this?
>
>It's all a matter of semantics.  You said "Racism IS a lack of intelligence."
>Ourobouros twisted it around to "A lack of knowledge IS racism."  If I
>interpreted your post correctly, then you didn't mean that everyone with a lack
>of knowledge is racist, but that racists have a lack of knowledge.
>
>scot
>
1. 'Elvis' said "knowledge" not "intelligence."

2. Everybody has a lack of knowledge including racialists.   By using the
blanket statement that racists are ignorant is to highlight oneself as
not being ignorant or in other words omniscient.  No PC bigot has yet
defined what racists are supposed to be ignorant of (defining anything is
against PC creed) which means it is an open statement that can be applied
to all, including the PC bigots themselves.

As for racism being intelligent, that, as always, depends upon the 
individual.  Some individuals are thick, some are in the middle, and some
are extremely intelligent.  This is true even for PC bigots, though I
would change the categories slightly; most individuals are thick, a few
are in the middle, and perhaps one or two are extremely intelligent. 

As for superiority, that is easy to identify with.  The creation of
Western civilisation and everything that goes with it (inventions, high
standard of living and etc.,) are the products of one race.  The only races
that can get close are the ones prepared to emaluate us, like Japan. The
rest are wallowing in the mud.  To say that racial superiority is
irrational is to ignore reality.

Ourobouros.






From Ourobouros Thu Nov 14 08:09:06 PST 1996
Article: 35694 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Spanish is an Aryan language
Date: 13 Nov 1996 19:04:54 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <56e28m$aap@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbc6b4$6c3ef9a0$308aaec7@default> <55h4cf$2i6@crl11.crl.com> <55ltdn$d0b@news1.panix.com> <55o5ob$327@lex.zippo.com> <55q66m$rle@news1.panix.com> <55s52h$8l7@lex.zippo.com> <55te08$52i@news1.panix.com> <55tusn$ngq@lex.zippo.com> <55uaeu$oph@news1.panix.com> <55ui5t$amc@lex.zippo.com> <5609ta$ft2@news1.panix.com> <560r6k$kjn@lex.zippo.com> <562qgv$9sa@news1.panix.com> <565c55$8eb@lex.zippo.com> <5676mk$rv5@news1.panix.com> <56832t$4au@lex.zippo.com> <56dbda$qdq@news1.ucsd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port781-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:49255 alt.politics.nationalism.white:35694

In article <56dbda$qdq@news1.ucsd.edu>, fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>: >>>
>: >>The Jewish depravity surfacing?
>: >
>: >No, just the proclivities of your ancestry.
>: >
>: Seems strange that only Jews know about it.
>
>I asked a few Australians and got a comment similar to Andrew's. I
>wonder why.
>
Wierd, I wouldn't have thought the Australians would have anti-Scots
jokes like that.  You are aware that the Scots were never great shepherds,
don't you?  They kept bovines, and were quite famous for cattle-rustling
along the English border -- Percy of Northumbria of Blackadder fame was
responsible for keeping the Scots out and to stop them cattle-rustling
(before the potato was introduced.)  How the Scots could ever become
infamous for sheep buggery is beyond me.

I believe your Australian comments are reference to New Zealanders, not
Scotsmen.  We say similar things about the Australians -- that they're into
sheep buggery (rivalry over both sides of the ditch.)
>
>: >
>: >The US won the Iraqi war for OIL.  The 1967 Arab-Israeli war brought
>: >resolutions against Israel, including one that stated that
>: >Zionism=Racism.
>: >
>: Concrete evidence is needed for your oil argument, as there are many
>: ideologies floating around, including the one in which the US (& the UN)
>: stepped in to protect Palestine from a possible aggressor.
>
>By going to war with Iraq?      
>You do realise, of course, that ideologies doesn't mean what you
>think it means.

So what does it mean, O' master of the English language?

>: Your example of Zionism-Racism is merely a pretext, for the UN religious 
>: area (whatever the stupid name is) has Judaism as one of six main 
>: religions.
>
>
>Since when does Zionism equate to Judaism?
>
Who are Zionists?

>: >Ill-gotten land?  They were attacked on three fronts simultaneously.
>: >
>: Read in context, idiot.  They were given the land by the British Empire.
>
>This is a weird reading of history. Palestine was not part of the
>British Empire _strictu sensu_ it was a Class A Mandate of the
>League of Nations.  The partition of Palestine was ordered by the UN
>General Assembly.
>
I know about the general assembly of traitors.  As I was saying, Palestine
was still part of the British Empire.  Germany had to give up her colonies,
and the Turks lost her empire.  While the colonies of Germany were given
to the League of Nations, the Turkish provincials were not.  The British
Empire conquered Palestine during WWI, and thus Palestine became part of
Great Britain.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Thu Nov 14 08:11:51 PST 1996
Article: 49255 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Spanish is an Aryan language
Date: 13 Nov 1996 19:04:54 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <56e28m$aap@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbc6b4$6c3ef9a0$308aaec7@default> <55h4cf$2i6@crl11.crl.com> <55ltdn$d0b@news1.panix.com> <55o5ob$327@lex.zippo.com> <55q66m$rle@news1.panix.com> <55s52h$8l7@lex.zippo.com> <55te08$52i@news1.panix.com> <55tusn$ngq@lex.zippo.com> <55uaeu$oph@news1.panix.com> <55ui5t$amc@lex.zippo.com> <5609ta$ft2@news1.panix.com> <560r6k$kjn@lex.zippo.com> <562qgv$9sa@news1.panix.com> <565c55$8eb@lex.zippo.com> <5676mk$rv5@news1.panix.com> <56832t$4au@lex.zippo.com> <56dbda$qdq@news1.ucsd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port781-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:49255 alt.politics.nationalism.white:35694

In article <56dbda$qdq@news1.ucsd.edu>, fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>: >>>
>: >>The Jewish depravity surfacing?
>: >
>: >No, just the proclivities of your ancestry.
>: >
>: Seems strange that only Jews know about it.
>
>I asked a few Australians and got a comment similar to Andrew's. I
>wonder why.
>
Wierd, I wouldn't have thought the Australians would have anti-Scots
jokes like that.  You are aware that the Scots were never great shepherds,
don't you?  They kept bovines, and were quite famous for cattle-rustling
along the English border -- Percy of Northumbria of Blackadder fame was
responsible for keeping the Scots out and to stop them cattle-rustling
(before the potato was introduced.)  How the Scots could ever become
infamous for sheep buggery is beyond me.

I believe your Australian comments are reference to New Zealanders, not
Scotsmen.  We say similar things about the Australians -- that they're into
sheep buggery (rivalry over both sides of the ditch.)
>
>: >
>: >The US won the Iraqi war for OIL.  The 1967 Arab-Israeli war brought
>: >resolutions against Israel, including one that stated that
>: >Zionism=Racism.
>: >
>: Concrete evidence is needed for your oil argument, as there are many
>: ideologies floating around, including the one in which the US (& the UN)
>: stepped in to protect Palestine from a possible aggressor.
>
>By going to war with Iraq?      
>You do realise, of course, that ideologies doesn't mean what you
>think it means.

So what does it mean, O' master of the English language?

>: Your example of Zionism-Racism is merely a pretext, for the UN religious 
>: area (whatever the stupid name is) has Judaism as one of six main 
>: religions.
>
>
>Since when does Zionism equate to Judaism?
>
Who are Zionists?

>: >Ill-gotten land?  They were attacked on three fronts simultaneously.
>: >
>: Read in context, idiot.  They were given the land by the British Empire.
>
>This is a weird reading of history. Palestine was not part of the
>British Empire _strictu sensu_ it was a Class A Mandate of the
>League of Nations.  The partition of Palestine was ordered by the UN
>General Assembly.
>
I know about the general assembly of traitors.  As I was saying, Palestine
was still part of the British Empire.  Germany had to give up her colonies,
and the Turks lost her empire.  While the colonies of Germany were given
to the League of Nations, the Turkish provincials were not.  The British
Empire conquered Palestine during WWI, and thus Palestine became part of
Great Britain.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Sat Nov 16 07:08:31 PST 1996
Article: 35908 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Spanish is an Aryan language
Date: 15 Nov 1996 12:04:40 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 448
Message-ID: <56iico$mi@lex.zippo.com>
References: <56d88m$gij@lex.zippo.com> <56ebvu$d86@news1.panix.com> <56frr5$7ab@lex.zippo.com> <56gnhu$8m9@news1.panix.com> <56h17m$bd8@lex.zippo.com> <56hiiq$g52@news1.panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port882-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:49457 alt.politics.nationalism.white:35908

In article <56hiiq$g52@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:

>>In article <56gnhu$8m9@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>>>
>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <56ebvu$d86@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>[Mathis' Jewish-minded assertion that Scotsmen were into sheep removed]
>
>>>>>>[Even Mathis admitted at first that the Iraq was beaten up for the 
>>>>>>Israeli's sake]
>>>>>
>>>>>No, I did not; see below, where do I mention this?   Nowhere.
>>>>>
>>>>I removed it.  I normally summarise long-winded arguments in an effort to
>>>>make them shorter.  Unless I use the word "snip" inside [] I have 
>>>>summarised some part of the argument.
>>>
>>>Well, I didn't say it, and if necessary, I'll go to DejaNews and post
>>>every article in this thread to prove it; will you concede this point?
>>>
>
>>So you are saying that the following never occurred:
>
>>  >No, it does not.  Gaining land via war is not legitimate anymore.  Just
>>  >look at what happened to Iraq.
>
>>  Um, Iraq lost.  Israel won.
>
>I was referring to different wars--Iraq in the Persian Gulf war;
>Israel in the War of Independence and Six-Day War.
>
No, you did not.  That part of the argument was specifically on Iraq, not
on any other point.

>>BTW, "No, ..." is what I wrote.  Therefore I do not concede the point.  The
>>point is do you concede?
>
>No, given my clarification above.
>
No, your clarification is incorrect.  There was not the opportunity to
answer to two different wars in context.

[Iraq war snipped]

>>>>>My fellow bastards: would they be the JOOS (tm)?  I seem to remember
>>>>>that Israel actually got bombed by Iraq during that so-called war.  If
>>>>>we fought that war to protect Israel, we did a shitty job of it.  The
>>>>>Iraqis hit Israel with scuds, and Bush sat on Shamir and wouldn't let
>>>>>him retaliate.  Note that Hussein's attack on Israel was wholly
>>>>>unprovoked, as the Persian Gulf War was an intra-Arab conflict.
>>>>>
>>>>I have never heard anyone pronounce Jews "Jos" before.  The word sounds
>>>>like "ewe."  Perhaps the word (Jew) was chosen because Jews were extremely
>>>>familiar with ewes.
>>>
>>>No, the etymology comes from the fact that most of us, with the
>>>exception of Levites and Kohenim, and of course converts, are
>>>descended from the tribe of Judah.
>>>
>>The word "Jew" is not that old.  Most of you are converts of the Khazarium
>>type, therefore your reasoning is unsound.  I prefer my explanation of
>>Jewish notoriety for ewes better.
>
>This is a common misconception among anti-Semites spread by a Jewish
>idiot named Arthur Koestler.  Some Jews are descended from the
>Khazars, but they are the Jews of Southern Russia mainly.  The
>original Ashkenazic Jews (German-speaking Jews who were deported to
>Eastern Europe c. 1000-1500 CE) were Semites; some were in the Rhine
>Valley before Jesus was even born.
>
You are going to have to do better than that.  The Jews moving into 
Eastern Europe came from the east.  As for your Rhine valley story, is
there not a Jewish legend of the sack of Jerusalem, and 200 of the best
looking Jewesses were taken by German soldiers back to 'Germany' where
they brought up their mamzer children in the Jewish way?  Supposedly this
Jewish legend is the first settlement of Jews in 'Germany' therefore
saying that they had an earlier history is just plain wrong.

I take it you hate Koestler because he destroys the self-chosen myth?

>>>>I seem to remember that the Israeli's were given free missiles to try and
>>>>stop them getting bombed by scuds.  I couldn't believe one report of one
>>>>scud hitting some place to which it didn't explode, but a bunch of Jews
>>>>all died of heart attacks because of it -- what a bunch of wimps.
>>>
>>>1) The Israelis were indeed given "Patriot" missiles to fight the scud
>>>attacks; they were remarkably ineffectuals
>
>>I'd hate to disappoint you, but the Patriot missiles were not designed for
>>knocking opposing missiles out of the sky.  Nevertheless you were given
>>expensive toys for free.
>
>*I* was given nothing; Israel was.
>
"You" is both a singular and a plural.  Since I happen to be discussing
Israelis, can you guess whether I was using "you" in the plural or in the
singular?

>>>2) As for Jews having heart attacks and dying because of bombs landing
>>>near them, fuck you.  Israel is heavily populated by senior citizens,
>>>who are prone to such attacks.  Surely, if you're not an old man
>>>yourself, you must have a father or a grandfather (the bitch that
>>>whelped you must have been fucked by SOMETHING), so imagine the house
>>>next door from Pop-pop getting shelled.  How would your manly-man Kiwi
>>>grandfather react?  Would he shit his drawers?  Prolly.
>>>
>>How can there that many old citizens in Palestine?  There couldn't of been
>>that many survivors after the holocaust, surely?
>
>Jewish people retire to Israel sometimes; many of the survivors (there
>were about 5 million Jews who were *not* killed in Europe despite
>their having been there in 1942, according to the notes of the
>Wannaseee Conference, which listed the pre-genocide population of
>Europe's Jews at 11 million.  Many went to Palestine either during or
>after the war.
>
How many decrepit Jews of this 5 million moved to Palestine?  One thing I'd
like to know (since we're on the 'holocaust' anyway) is how so many of
these survivors could still be alive today.  According to their stories 
they went through hell and back, which would put their bodies through
intense trails AND they supposedly lacked in protein to stop their bodies
regenerating the damage done.  Why are they still alive to this day?  They
should be dead.

One other curious thing, why would any sane man retire in a hostile zone?

>>My old man is a tough old boot.  As for my grandfathers they fought in a
>>war to which this country dishonours them by their contributions to a 
>>bunch of traitors who exist at parliament.  My grandfather, if you can
>>think, would take a shell next door better than it would seem a Jew can.
>>At least he wouldn't whine about it.
>
>I guess I'll just have to take your word for it. Which doesn't say
>much.
>
>>>>As for Bush not letting the nation of whiners attack, I guess he still
>>>>wanted a US base in Saudi Arabi.  Lets not forget Saddam Hussein wanted a
>>>>Jihad against that nation, and practically all Arabs hate you bastards.
>>>
>>>Gee, the only Arab nations at war with Israel are Iraq (big surprise)
>>>and Syria (soon to be settled).  FYI, my sister is married to an Arab.
>>>
>>Most Arab nations are afraid of more European intervention for a bunch of
>>mamzers that's why.  
>
>When has ANY European army ever participated in a war in Palestine
>since 1947?
>
Do you include mercenery armies? 

>>FYI, I did not say all Arabs hated Jews.
>
>No you said "practically all Arabs."
>
Yes, why?  Because I know PC bigots too well, I knew if I made too strong
a generalisation you'd try and post some bullshit that undermines my
generalisation.  We have only your word that your sister is breeding with
an Arab.

>>>>>>>>Your example of Zionism-Racism is merely a pretext, for the UN religious 
>>>>>>>>area (whatever the stupid name is) has Judaism as one of six main 
>>>>>>>>religions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It was a general resolution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>As I was saying, the 1967 resolution is superficial.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why?  You're stating an opinion with no basis.
>>>>>
>>>>Considering that Judaism is still one of the six major religions at the
>>>>UN centre I would say I do have a foundation for my supposed opinion.
>>>
>>>How does Judaism being one of the six major religions at the UN center
>>>connect with the 1967 resolution being superficial?  I'll clue you in
>>>on something, idiot: Judaism isn't by nature Zionist; and many Jews
>>>aren't Zionist at all.  Come visit Brooklyn sometime and I'll
>>>introduce you to some Satmar Jews.  You can share your views, and then
>>>they'll beat the shit out of you.   For free.  What a bargain.
>>>
>>Where do Zionists come from? Which creed to they follow?  Do they keep the
>>Talmud?  Do most Jews keep their distance from Zionists?
>
>Zionists by and large *were* secular Jews.  There is a contingent of
>"religious" Zionists, and unfortunately, they make up the lunatic
>fringe in Israel, though not all religious Zionists are a Kahane or a
>Goldstein.
>
>Religious Jews do keep the Talmud; the Talmud says that it is OK to
>settle in the land of Israel before the coming of the Messiah as long
>as one does not initiate war; if war does occur, the Talmud says any
>land that falls into Jewish hands must be kept.  Now I know as well as
>you that some of the belligerence between Israel and the Arabs is
>because of Israeli aggression (notably in Lebanon), but by and large,
>the wars fought by Israel have been defensive wars.
>
Are Zionists kept at bay by other Jews or are they fully accepted by most
Jews?

I would say most of the aggression has been through indirect or direct
Jew action.  Why should the Palestinians accept a partition from outsiders?

>>As for your invite to Brooklyn, I may take that up with a few friends of
>>mine.
>
>>[snip]
>
>You gotta let me take you to Williamsburgh (Brooklyn), though.
>Otherwise, the deal's off.
>
I would walk into hell and back with these particular gentlemen.

>>>>[Pro-genocidal Israelis.  Giving back East Jerusalem to the Palestinians 
>>>>minus the 'Holy Wall.']
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, one rule for us, another for you.  And you wonder why so many people
>>>>>>>>>>>>think Jews are scum?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>As I previously stated, only Israel has allowed non-discriminatory
>>>>>>>>>>>visiation at the holy siites; that why they keep them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>And before hand, nobody but Palestinians were allowed to see these holy
>>>>>>>>>>sites?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So what do you call pilgrimages?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Muslims don't make pilgrimages to Jerusalem; they are only requirerd
>>>>>>>to make them to Mecca, and even then, only if they can afford to, and
>>>>>>>most cannot.  Jews were forbidden to visit East Jerusalem 1948-1967.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Muslims were still allowed to see Jerusalem whenever they wanted, Christians
>>>>>>could go visit, and Jews were able to visit until they decided to be a pack 
>>>>>>of bastards there.
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh contraire, mon frere.  Jews were allowed to visit until the Arabs
>>>>>rejected the UN partition plan of 1947 and Transjordan seized the Holy
>>>>>sites in the proceeding war.  This was a war that the Arabs wanted,
>>>>>not Israel.  Ben-Gurion was ready to sign a treaty that gave Israel
>>>>>far less land than the present "green line" demarcates and NONE of
>>>>>Jerusalem (it was no be an open city).
>>>>>
>>>>Let me ask one thing, to whose favour was the land partitioned?
>>>
>>>It was partitioned equally based on the population of the present time
>>>which, I concede, was poorly thought-out, since the Arabs have a
>>>higher birthrate, and Israel planned to open its borderes to the
>>>world's Jews, which they did.
>>>
>>Considering the population of Jews before the borders were opened and who
>>were the dominant people before hand, in whose favour was the land
>>partitioned?
>
>>Face facts, the UN partitioned the land in full favour of Jews.  Since you
>>don't want Jews held accountable for old crimes (genocide) and you want to
>>play by modern rules, you should not have any of the land.
>
>When did Jews commit genocide, besides back in 1200 BCE?  Furthermore,
>Jews should have some of the land, because that's what the
>international community decided and the Arabs rejected, not the Jews.
>
In other words the UN favoured Jews over Arabs.  Something I said a long
time ago, and one which you have only finally accepted.

>>>>>>>>>>[A Jew's refusal to give back ill-gotten land, even though he insists that
>>>>>>>>>>everybody plays by modern rules to the Israelis snipped]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Ill-gotten land?  They were attacked on three fronts simultaneously.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Read in context, idiot.  They were given the land by the British Empire.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Wrong; the UN partitioned Palestine in 1947 after the UK gave up the
>>>>>>>guerrilla war.  The Arabs rejected partition and full-scale war broke
>>>>>>>out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>It was still British Imperial land.  The UN had no right to partition the
>>>>>>land unless the British Empire gave them leave (or were bullied into it.)
>>>>>
>>>>>The British Empire gave them leave.
>>>>>
>>>>Exactly my point in the first place.  Traitorous Politicians allowed the
>>>>land to be given away.  I personally know some men that helped take that
>>>>place in WWI, guess what their responses are?
>>>
>>>What's traitorous about handing over to the UN land that is not
>>>properly yours?  The British (nor the Turks) are not the autochthonous
>>>peoples of Palestine.
>>>
>>Neither are Jews the autochthonous peoples of Palestine.  Indo-Europeans
>>have a longer history than Jews do there for a start (Jebusites.)
>
>Of the Canaanite tribes (there were seven), they were equal (nearly)
>numbers of Semites and non-Semites among them.  There has been a
>continuous Jewish presence in Palestine since 1200 BCE.  The Arabs, as
>a matter of fact, have only been there since the 7th century CE.  But
>I'm willing to include *them* as autochthonous peoples of Palestine,
>since the seven tribes are all extinct now (and NOT due to Jewish
>aggression, but due to a combination of Jewish, Greek, Assyrian,
>Babylonian, Roman and Arab aggression).
>
The fact remains, Jews are not autochthonous to Palestine.  They came in
as aggressive colonisers, and slaughtered lots of 'noble savages.'  That
land is not yours, especially since most of you don't have lineage to
prove you came from there anyway.

>>The British Empire held the land by right of conquest.
>
>So do the Jews (well, some of the land, anyway).
>
Made possible by traitorous politicians.

>>>>>>>>>>[Whether the original Indo-Europeans were brown]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>[To have a major linguistic change you need to conquer AND be in large
>>>>>>numbers]
>>>>>
>>>>>Untrue; English proves it.  I have two degrees in English with several
>>>>>credits in historical linguistics.  You can't beat me in this one.
>>>>>The Normans made up only the nobility of the Anglo-Norman era, but our
>>>>>vocabulary is 40% French.
>>>>>
>>>>>Q.E.D.
>>>>>
>>>>No.  How much of this 40% actually came directly from Latin instead?
>>>>The Normans did not change the language to French.  Even if 40% of the
>>>>vocabulary is French, they are spoken in a non-French way.
>>>
>>>Only because of something called the "great vowel shift," which
>>>occurred gradually over the years 1100-1500.  Note that English
>>>pronounces vowels differently from most other languges written in the
>>>Latin Alphabet; the Great Vowel Shift is the reason, though the reason
>>>why the Shift happened is unknown.  Old English and Middle English
>>>were pronounced with the vowels in the original Latin (and French)
>>>sounds, and French words in Middle English were pronounced closer to
>>>French than to Modern English.
>>>
>>>Chaucer written phonetically:
>>>
>>>Wahn thaht Ahpreel weeth eets shooris soeteh
>>>The drahcht of Mark hahth payrced toe the roeteh
>>>
>>>Note the pronunciation of April (Ah-preel)
>>>
>>>Closer to the French (Ah-vreel) than the English (Ay-pril)
>>>
>>>It's a French word.
>>>
>>Possibly moved back to more German origins.
>
>No.  Even German is closer to Latin pronunciation than English.  In
>fact, without the use of umlauts, the pronunciation of German vowels
>is almost identical to that in Latin.
>
According to Global German (tm) der April is pronounced closely to the
English April (minor differences yes).

>>>>Whereas the point I was making is that in Europe the language changed
>>>>completely.  To make your position work, we'd speak a dialect of French.
>>>>We do not.  Even though the Normans saturated all forms of Nobility
>>>>(including the knight class) they were of insufficient numbers to bring
>>>>about an entire language change.  The same was for the Visigothic kingdom.
>>>
>>>You don't get it; an entire language change DID occur.  Old English
>>>became Middle English.  The difference is night and day.  You could
>>>probably read with 80% comprehension Middle English; Old English is
>>>unintelligible to anyone who hasn't studied it.
>
>>I accept your point about Old English, since I do have a few pieces of Old
>>English lying around, but the switch was not caused by French.  
>
>Then what caused it?  Come on--the words didn't come out of
>nowhere,and it wasn't the church's use of Latin that caused it,
>because the Anglo-Saxons were Christianed in the 6th Century by
>Augustine of Canterbury, and the switch to Middle English didn't occur
>until the (note emphasis) *FRENCH-SPEAKING* Normans invaded in the
>11th century.
>
Curious, middle English moved away from French pronounciation.  Mind
rectifying that?

[snip]
[Central Asia]

>>>>As for the area in concern, they could have mixed with the various Empires
>>>>that have come and gone when they became multi-racial and useless.
>>>
>>>What's useless about the multi-racial empires of Central Asia?  The
>>>Turks held a mult-racial empire for 500 years?
>>>
>>1st qu.  It was their downfall.  Mix with inferior types and you become
>>inferior.
>
>That's a long downfall, then, considering that the Turks were hardly
>racially pure when they took Constantinople in the 15th century.
>
Read below.

>>2nd qu.  The Turks were vaguely smarter in so much is they did not force
>>their Christian 'vassals' to mix with Muslims, and it were these Christians
>>that were the backbone of the Turkish military strength, despite the
>>discontent of their Muslim subjects.
>
>Actually, the backbone of Turkish military strength was the use of
>slaves in their army.  Paradoxical, I know, but slave armies were the
>Ottomans' crack troops.  Their must have been terrible threats of
>reprisal if these troops lost is my guess.
>
These slaves were Christians. 

[snip]

>>No, it could mean your irrational instead.
>
>No, I just don't like you.
>
If would seem your hatred is getting the better of your reasoning.

>>>Anyway, you answered my charge that German Jews were treated different
>>>than non-German Jews during WWII with "a joke and a half" which is not
>>>a refutation, simply a statement of disagreement.
>>>
>>>So who's uncomfortable in their position?
>>>
>>How could I be?  What real proof have you got they were treated worse than
>>German Jews? -- I'm expecting a circular argument with the 'holocaust.'
>>Therefore it must be you in the uncomfortable then.
>
>Of course, it's the Holocaust.  Unless you're a crackpot revisionist,
>you're well aware that HALF of the 6 million Jews who died were from
>Poland, and the rest from the Soviet Union, Southern Europe and
>Hungary.  Virtually no German Jews died in camps, unless it was from
>typhus or shootings.
>
You should start asking some serious question about this.  Which is more
dangerous -- the enemy within or the enemy without?  If anything, the
German Jews would have been treated harsher than foreign Jews because they
were viewed as the enemy within.  Your claim about Polish and etc. Jews
doesn't make one bit of sense.  Shifting them to camps or having Mr. Whippy
drive round and gas them would have been a costly endeavour.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Tue Nov 19 07:22:52 PST 1996
Article: 35987 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Spanish is an Aryan language
Date: 16 Nov 1996 11:57:18 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <56l6au$jnb@lex.zippo.com>
References: <56d88m$gij@lex.zippo.com> <56ebvu$d86@news1.panix.com> <56frr5$7ab@lex.zippo.com> <56gnhu$8m9@news1.panix.com> <56h17m$bd8@lex.zippo.com>  <56jbi3$mli@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port897-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:49534 alt.politics.nationalism.white:35987

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <56jbi3$mli@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >
>> >In article <56h17m$bd8@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> Folks, this is as intelligent as "Brown" gets:
>> 
>> >> >>>>[Even Mathis admitted at first that the Iraq was beaten up for the 
>> >> >>>>Israeli's sake]
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>No, I did not; see below, where do I mention this?   Nowhere.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>I removed it.  I normally summarise long-winded arguments in an effort to
>> >> >>make them shorter.  Unless I use the word "snip" inside [] I have 
>> >> >>summarised some part of the argument.
>> >> >
>> >> >Well, I didn't say it, and if necessary, I'll go to DejaNews and post
>> >> >every article in this thread to prove it; will you concede this point?
>> >> >
>> >> 
>> >> So you are saying that the following never occurred:
>> >> 
>> >>   >No, it does not.  Gaining land via war is not legitimate anymore.  Just
>> >>   >look at what happened to Iraq.
>> >> 
>> >>   Um, Iraq lost.  Israel won.
>> >
>> >Let's see. "Stone" took these four words written by Mr. Mathis:
>> >
>> To match "Brown's" pedanticness, there were five words and to match 
>> "Brown's" logic, it makes "Brown" both a liar and it makes whatever follows
>> utterly wrong.
>
>The fifth "word" was "Um". Perhaps "Stone" can give us his comprehensive
>dictionary's definition of "Um", and explain its relevance to the
>remaining four words.
>
Whether it can be defined or not is irrelevant to the argument "Brown." You
are dodging by your own demonstrations and therefore must be a liar.

>Let us say that "Stone" included "um" in his analysis of Mr. Mathis'
>original words. By "Stone's" own definition, "snip[ping] out bits and
>pieces" is part and parcel of misquoting someone. "Stone's" ommision of
>"um" in his misquote of Mr. Mathis merely confirms that "Stone" did, in
>fact, intend to misquote Mr. Mathis.
>
More gobbily-gook from "Brown."  I wonder whether "Brown" includes being a
liar when you write incomprehensible material.

>> >  Iraq lost.  Israel won.
>> >
>> >...rearranged the words in a different order, snipped out bits and pieces
>> >to change the meaning completely, and inserted some new words to create:
>> >
>> >  ...the Iraq was beaten up for the Israeli's sake
>> >
>> >This means that, by "Stone's" own definition, he has 'misquoted' Mr.
>> >Mathis. (He even attributed the new words to Mr. Mathis ["Even Mathis
>> >admitted at first that..."], something his peculiar definition of
>> >'misquoting' does not require.)
>> >
>> >Tsk tsk. Isn't it just disgraceful, the desperate tactics these Mighty
>> >Whitey Power Rangers will resort to in desperate times?
>> >
>> I could argue that "Brown" has missed the context again, but why bother?
>> "Brown" is finicky on irrelevant detail and by his own wisdom he is a
>> liar and is utterly wrong.  End story.
>
>"Stone's" definition of 'misquote' does not require that context be taken
>into account.
>
Er, yes it does.  You are dodging btw.  

>"Stone" misquoted Mr. Mathis, and is now trying to disclaim responsibility
>for his own actions. End story.
>
Stop dodging "Brown."  You failed to pay attention to how many words Mr.
Mathis wrote which therefore invalidates (by your own definition) whatever
else you wrote.  Anything else you write apart from explaining this topic
is dodging (by your own definition.)

Ourubouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Nov 19 07:22:53 PST 1996
Article: 36161 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!peerfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: "Brown" whines again (was: Spanish is an Aryan language)
Date: 17 Nov 1996 16:36:59 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <56ob3b$qos@lex.zippo.com>
References: <56d88m$gij@lex.zippo.com> <56ebvu$d86@news1.panix.com> <56frr5$7ab@lex.zippo.com> <56gnhu$8m9@news1.panix.com> <56h17m$bd8@lex.zippo.com>  <56jbi3$mli@lex.zippo.com>  <56l6au$jnb@lex.zippo.com>  <56nj44$5o3@lex.zippo.com>  <56o17c$ibp@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port773-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:49685 alt.politics.nationalism.white:36161

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com 
squawks...
>
>In article <56o17c$ibp@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article , jeff_brown@pol.com 
>> squawks...
>> >
>> >In article <56nj44$5o3@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article ,
>> >jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >> >
>> >> >In article <56l6au$jnb@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> In article ,
>> >> >jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >> >
>> >> >> [...deletia...]
>> >> >
>> >> >> >"Stone's" definition of 'misquote' does not require that context
>be taken
>> >> >> >into account.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Er, yes it does.  You are dodging btw.  
>> >> >
>> >> >"Stone's" definition of 'misquote', in full:
>> >> >
>> >> >  > Using somebody elses words in a deceiving or inappropriate manner.
>> >> >  > This includes re-arranging the words in a different order, snipping
>> >> >  > out bits and pieces to change the meaning completely, and/or
>> >> >  > inserting new words in.
>> >> >
>> >> >No mention of context. "Stone" is a liar -- again. End story.
>> >> >
>> >> I regret not making the above definition 'fool'-proof.  I would have
>thought
>> >> "Using somebody elses words in a deceiving or inappropriate manner" would
>> >> be comprehensible to all, obviously not.
>> >
>> >On the contrary -- I understood "Using somebody elses words in a deceiving
>> >or inappropriate manner" perfectly. And it perfectly describes what
>> >"Stone" did when he took Mr. Mathis' statement that:
>> >
>> >   "Iraq lost.  Israel won."
>> >
>> >and used it to make the deceptive and inappropriate claim that:
>> >
>> >   "Even Mathis admitted at first that the Iraq was beaten up for the 
>> >   Israeli's sake"
>> >
>> >It is "Stone" himself who does not comprehend what he did. 
>> >
>> Strange that you were arguing about whether context was included in my
>> definition of misquoting, and now you are arguing about something else.
>
>Strange that "Stone" chooses to ignore that fact that he himself brought
>the question of comprehension into this discussion. On the other hand, it
>does allow him to get off another swipe at me, in the process of dodging
>the issue of his misquote of Mr. Mathis.
>
Au contraire, as you noted in the following, I have already retracted my
position.

>> I have already retracted the above claim in another post, because I currently
>> don't have second witness for the above.
>
>I am gratified to learn of this, although I am uncertain how it is that a
>"second witness" would validate "Stone's" misquoting of Mr. Mathis'
>original statement.
>
In you bothered to read where the quote came from originally (something I'll
doubt you'll do), you will note that Mathis made a comment that was
sufficiently ambiguous.  If there had been a secondary comment (by Mr.
Mathis) then the ambiguity may have clarified his intent at the time.

>> For someone who prides herself on being finicky and pedantic 
>> you sure are incompetant.
>
>Since "Stone" has reiterated so many times how very stupid and incompetent
>I am, I just checked, and yes -- to my great relief -- I am still male.
>
It depends on whether you call someone who is effeminate a man.  

>I still think that "Stone's" own words are the best reply to the above:
>
>   "Hopefully you aren't resorting to the old tactic of throwing 
>    a lot of mud in the vain hope of some of it sticking."
>
The difference is "Brown," I am not throwing a lot of mud.  

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Nov 19 07:22:54 PST 1996
Article: 36162 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!peerfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: "Brown" whinges again ( was: Spanish is an Aryan language)
Date: 17 Nov 1996 16:43:25 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <56obfd$r30@lex.zippo.com>
References: <56d88m$gij@lex.zippo.com> <56ebvu$d86@news1.panix.com> <56frr5$7ab@lex.zippo.com> <56gnhu$8m9@news1.panix.com> <56h17m$bd8@lex.zippo.com>  <56jbi3$mli@lex.zippo.com>  <56l6au$jnb@lex.zippo.com>  <56njka$63j@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port773-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:49686 alt.politics.nationalism.white:36162

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com 
squawks...
>
>In article <56njka$63j@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> Brown squawked:
>> ["Brown's" dribble snipped]
>> 
>> I thought I could play your game and beat you at it, I was wrong.  Guess
>> the proverb against arguing with fools was right.
>> 
>> When it comes to being finicky, pedantic and stupid; nobody rivals you. 
>
>There are many epigrams that "Stone" has contributed that would apply
>here; but of all of the ones I have collected, I think he said it best
>when he said:
>
>   "Hopefully you aren't resorting to the old tactic of throwing 
>    a lot of mud in the vain hope of some of it sticking."
>
It depends on whether I am throwing a lot of mud or revealing your tactics,
actually.  Rational people here would consider the latter.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Tue Nov 19 07:22:54 PST 1996
Article: 36171 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!tezcat!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: "Brown" whines again
Date: 18 Nov 1996 12:13:35 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 131
Message-ID: <56qg1f$e1b@lex.zippo.com>
References: <56oqch$aij@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port844-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:49696 alt.politics.nationalism.white:36171

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <56oqch$aij@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article , jeff_brown@pol.com 
>> squawks...
>> >
>> >In article <56ob3b$qos@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> [...deletia...]
>
>> >> In you bothered to read where the quote came from originally
>(something I'll
>> >> doubt you'll do), you will note that Mathis made a comment that was
>> >> sufficiently ambiguous.  If there had been a secondary comment (by Mr.
>> >> Mathis) then the ambiguity may have clarified his intent at the time.
>> >
>> >Is "Stone" arguing that (alleged) ambiguity on the part of an adversary
>> >justifies the use of a misquote on his part?
>> >
>> It depends on whether I was truly misquoting or we witnessed your attempts
>> to salvage your wounded pride.  I'm betting on the latter.
>
>"Stone" dodges the issue. My "pride" is irrelevant to his use of the
>misquote as a tactic.
>
>"Stone's" actions fit his _own_ definition of 'misquote' -- yet he will
>not admit his error.
>
Please prove (conclusively) that my actions fit my _own_ definition of a
'misquote,' otherwise I am correct in my assumption of your wounded pride.  

>> >> >> For someone who prides herself on being finicky and pedantic 
>> >> >> you sure are incompetant.
>> >> >
>> >> >Since "Stone" has reiterated so many times how very stupid and incompetent
>> >> >I am, I just checked, and yes -- to my great relief -- I am still male.
>> >> >
>> >> It depends on whether you call someone who is effeminate a man.
>> >
>> >Ah... "Stone" now uses the same rigorous logic that enabled him to
>> >determine -- from halfway across the planet -- that Fragano Ledgister is
>> >actually a janitor, to conclude that I am in some way "effeminate". Some
>> >of "Stone's" past pronouncements that apply here are:
>> >
>> >   "That view is your opinion.  Do I care about your opinion?"
>> >
>> >   "It is amusing to watch how you draw conclusions."
>> >
>> >... and the ever-popular:
>> >
>> >   "That is bullshit from you."
>> >
>> Points:
>> 
>> 1. This is apw-p & apnw not alt.politics.correct.  If you don't care for
>> my opinions go to newsgroups more aligned with your type of views.
>
>"Stone" veers into irrelevancy (again) in an effort to dodge the issue --
>his use of the argumentum ad hominem in place of rational discussion.
>
"Brown," you were the one who complained about my opinions.  What I wrote
above is quite rational.  What is irrational is you being here on either
apw-p or apnw.

>> 2. Ledgister lost the game he was playing.
>
>It's so easy for "Stone" to decide he's won, when he declares himself the
>referee. Watch his threads, and you will see that this is a common tactic
>of his.
>
Bizarre.

>> 3. Are you or are you not PC (anti-racialist, equality preacher, and etc.)?
>
>I'm not certain what "Stone" is after here. Perhaps he believes that if he
>can pin "PC" on me, he can then make some weird sort of case that I must
>of course be "effeminate" as well.
>
We can pin PC on you, but it would have been convenient to the argument for
you to be honest, rather than dodge like you do.

>Or perhaps he could just admit that he wasn't paying attention in the
>first place, and thought that he was answering one of Laura Finsten's
>posts. Nah, can't do that -- New Zealand racists have to maintain that
>aura of infallibility whenever possible.
>
1.  Your posts are easily identifiable, as are Finsten's.  Therefore I
would be "pissing into the wind" if I somehow thought I wasn't arguing
against you.

2.  How many New Zealand racists (sic) do you know or is this another of
your prejudices coming to light?

3.  Since when have I portrayed an aura of infallibility?

>> >> >I still think that "Stone's" own words are the best reply to the above:
>> >> >
>> >> >   "Hopefully you aren't resorting to the old tactic of throwing 
>> >> >    a lot of mud in the vain hope of some of it sticking."
>> >> >
>> >> The difference is "Brown," I am not throwing a lot of mud.  
>> >
>> >Hmmm... I am, according to "Stone":
>> >
>> >  "finicky"
>> >  "pedantic"
>> >  "effeminate"
>> >  a "fool"
>> >  "small-minded"
>> >  possessed of "neurological functions [that] are hardly impressive", as
>> >    well as both "extremely poor memory" and "extremely poor 
>> >    reasoning abilities"
>> >  experiencing "trouble putting together rational arguments"
>> >  suffering from "extreme stupidity"
>> >  "illogical"
>> >
>> >...but "Stone" isn't "throwing a lot of mud" -- oh, heavens no.
>> >
>> Nope, apart from effeminacy, all the above have been clearly demonstrated
>> before.  Most of the above have been amply demonstrated in your last few
>> posts.
>
>Nope. What is amply demonstrated here, yet again, is "Stone's" absolute
>devotion to the argumentum ad hominem. Follow any of his arguments to its
>conclusion, and it will almost invariably end -- as it has here -- with
>"Stone" throwing mud.
>
I call a spade a spade, if you're being imbecilic then I will tell you so.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Nov 19 07:22:55 PST 1996
Article: 36186 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.texas.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.pbi.net!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: "Brown" whines again
Date: 17 Nov 1996 20:57:53 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 107
Message-ID: <56oqch$aij@lex.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port922-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:49709 alt.politics.nationalism.white:36186

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com 
squawks...
>
>In article <56ob3b$qos@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article , jeff_brown@pol.com 
>> squawks...
>> >
>> >In article <56o17c$ibp@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> [...deletia...]
>
>> >> Strange that you were arguing about whether context was included in my
>> >> definition of misquoting, and now you are arguing about something else.
>> >
>> >Strange that "Stone" chooses to ignore that fact that he himself brought
>> >the question of comprehension into this discussion. On the other hand, it
>> >does allow him to get off another swipe at me, in the process of dodging
>> >the issue of his misquote of Mr. Mathis.
>> >
>> Au contraire, as you noted in the following, I have already retracted my
>> position.
>
>Au contraire, as I noted above, the swipe was there nonetheless, and it
>substituted for any real discussion of either the misquote, or of the
>'comprehension' issue that "Stone" himself introduced.
>
You were the one that told me that I didn't include context in said
definition.

>> >> I have already retracted the above claim in another post, because I
>currently
>> >> don't have second witness for the above.
>> >
>> >I am gratified to learn of this, although I am uncertain how it is that a
>> >"second witness" would validate "Stone's" misquoting of Mr. Mathis'
>> >original statement.
>> >
>> In you bothered to read where the quote came from originally (something I'll
>> doubt you'll do), you will note that Mathis made a comment that was
>> sufficiently ambiguous.  If there had been a secondary comment (by Mr.
>> Mathis) then the ambiguity may have clarified his intent at the time.
>
>Is "Stone" arguing that (alleged) ambiguity on the part of an adversary
>justifies the use of a misquote on his part?
>
It depends on whether I was truly misquoting or we witnessed your attempts
to salvage your wounded pride.  I'm betting on the latter.

>> >> For someone who prides herself on being finicky and pedantic 
>> >> you sure are incompetant.
>> >
>> >Since "Stone" has reiterated so many times how very stupid and incompetent
>> >I am, I just checked, and yes -- to my great relief -- I am still male.
>> >
>> It depends on whether you call someone who is effeminate a man.
>
>Ah... "Stone" now uses the same rigorous logic that enabled him to
>determine -- from halfway across the planet -- that Fragano Ledgister is
>actually a janitor, to conclude that I am in some way "effeminate". Some
>of "Stone's" past pronouncements that apply here are:
>
>   "That view is your opinion.  Do I care about your opinion?"
>
>   "It is amusing to watch how you draw conclusions."
>
>... and the ever-popular:
>
>   "That is bullshit from you."
>
Points:

1. This is apw-p & apnw not alt.politics.correct.  If you don't care for
my opinions go to newsgroups more aligned with your type of views.

2. Ledgister lost the game he was playing.

3. Are you or are you not PC (anti-racialist, equality preacher, and etc.)?
 
>> >I still think that "Stone's" own words are the best reply to the above:
>> >
>> >   "Hopefully you aren't resorting to the old tactic of throwing 
>> >    a lot of mud in the vain hope of some of it sticking."
>> >
>> The difference is "Brown," I am not throwing a lot of mud.  
>
>Hmmm... I am, according to "Stone":
>
>  "finicky"
>  "pedantic"
>  "effeminate"
>  a "fool"
>  "small-minded"
>  possessed of "neurological functions [that] are hardly impressive", as
>    well as both "extremely poor memory" and "extremely poor 
>    reasoning abilities"
>  experiencing "trouble putting together rational arguments"
>  suffering from "extreme stupidity"
>  "illogical"
>
>...but "Stone" isn't "throwing a lot of mud" -- oh, heavens no.
>
Nope, apart from effeminacy, all the above have been clearly demonstrated
before.  Most of the above have been amply demonstrated in your last few
posts.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Nov 19 07:42:07 PST 1996
Article: 49409 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!clicnet!news.clic.net!news.bconnex.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.music.hardcore
Subject: Re: Hitler was just an in-tune guy
Date: 14 Nov 1996 14:56:46 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <56g83e$i4o@lex.zippo.com>
References: <54hco6$lnp@scratchy.mosquito.com>  <32715748.172D@Brown.edu> <5561fs$iup@scratchy.mosquito.com> <55j9qg$2r9@news-central.tiac.net> <55jaab$hah@scratchy.mosquito.com> <327E74E9.2222@bc.sympatico.ca> <563ula$1r6@scratchy.mosquito.com> <5665v2$125@lex.zippo.com> <009AB332.284BE544@pomona.edu> <5685j8$6n5@lex.zippo.com> <56fo2r$jkc@sleepy.inch.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port838-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:49409 alt.music.hardcore:34022

In article <56fo2r$jkc@sleepy.inch.com>, saboo@inch.com says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>As for superiority, that is easy to identify with.  The creation of
>>Western civilisation and everything that goes with it (inventions, high
>>standard of living and etc.,) are the products of one race.  The only races
>>that can get close are the ones prepared to emaluate us, like Japan. The
>>rest are wallowing in the mud.  To say that racial superiority is
>>irrational is to ignore reality.
>
>	Um, sorry, but "western civilization" is not the product of "one
>race", despite your "racialist" (read, "white supremacist") rewriting of
>history.  Both Egypt (a multi-racial society), Africa (the origin of
>such things as agriculture, writing, music, and metalworking) and China
>(which was totally isolated from the west, so much for "emulating white
>people") had advanced civilizations about the time that the Celts were
>still living in caves.  Not to mention the Aztec, Incan and Mayan
>empires which were also more scientifically and technologically advanced
>than your "Ayran" cultures at the time.

Points:

1.  The earliest you could say Egypt was 'multi-racial' would be the
13th Dynasty with them foolishly allowing immigration -- foolish as in
hindsight, as the Hyksos dynasties were the result (they started off as
minorities too, btw).  Dynasty XX allowed Libyans to move in, and the third 
intermediate period onwards Egypt begins to see true multi-racialism 
(Negroes) with special reference to Piankhy's time.  

2.  Africa -- you must be absolutely joking.  Sorry to burst your bubble
but the Sumerians invented writing first, we also know the Sumerians were
extremely keen on the harp (stringed instruments).  The Sumerians weren't
Africans either.  Metal-working?  That was not invented by Africans
either.  If you pretend the Egyptians were Africans they were later than
the Sumerians for copper work, and Egypt did not receive bronze until the
Hyksos gave it to them (as well as the chariot.)  The first known iron-
workers were the early Indo-European peoples.  Agriculture?  Only Egypt
begins to humour the area until much later on, around 5,000 BC there is
an agriculture settlement in the Green Sahara, but alas, they weren't
Negro either.

3.  China traded with the West, and the West was first for civilisation.
As has been discussed recently on apw-p, the Chinese have legends about
blond/red, tall and fair skinned peoples.

4.  The Celts were not the only Whites.  As has been commented by many
scholars, the Celts and the Aryans (as in India) were almost identical
(clothes, culture, language and hierarchy.)

5.  Concerning the Mesoamerican civilisations, the jury is still out.  Do
you know that blond/red haired Caucasian mummies have been found in Peru?

6.  Why did you bring up China or Mesoamerica for?  Do you think they
influenced Western civilisation?  And if so, how?  Your African comments
are merely reflections of popular (mass media) propaganda.

>	And the superiority of "white culture" rests more on the fact that
>Europeans were more ruthless and better at slaughtering and enslaving
>people than most.  Don't try and pass the might-makes-right expansion
>of "western civilization" across the world as just a natural outgrowth
>of one race, please.
>	One last thing, if white culture is so advanced and superior, how
>do you explain Spam, Hee-Haw, and polka music?

Only civilisations or peoples that has the force necessary to maintain 
themselves deserve to continue otherwise they get sweeped under the
carpet.  As for the Europeans been the most ruthless, I hardly see that
as a problem, but rather as a stronger determination to live and prosper.
Pacifists get wiped out in the long run.

Spam?  A cheap source of food, ideal in famines, wars and the like.  I
would hardly recommend it for times of plenty though, unless your a Monty
Python fan.

Hee-Haw?  What is wrong with laughter or do you have some wierd idiomatic
expression with the word?

Polka music?  It beats all forms of so-called modern music.  I suppose
you'll be telling us the benefits of rap with a silent c.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Tue Nov 19 07:42:07 PST 1996
Article: 49457 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Spanish is an Aryan language
Date: 15 Nov 1996 12:04:40 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 448
Message-ID: <56iico$mi@lex.zippo.com>
References: <56d88m$gij@lex.zippo.com> <56ebvu$d86@news1.panix.com> <56frr5$7ab@lex.zippo.com> <56gnhu$8m9@news1.panix.com> <56h17m$bd8@lex.zippo.com> <56hiiq$g52@news1.panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port882-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:49457 alt.politics.nationalism.white:35908

In article <56hiiq$g52@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:

>>In article <56gnhu$8m9@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>>>
>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <56ebvu$d86@news1.panix.com>, fresh@panix.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>[Mathis' Jewish-minded assertion that Scotsmen were into sheep removed]
>
>>>>>>[Even Mathis admitted at first that the Iraq was beaten up for the 
>>>>>>Israeli's sake]
>>>>>
>>>>>No, I did not; see below, where do I mention this?   Nowhere.
>>>>>
>>>>I removed it.  I normally summarise long-winded arguments in an effort to
>>>>make them shorter.  Unless I use the word "snip" inside [] I have 
>>>>summarised some part of the argument.
>>>
>>>Well, I didn't say it, and if necessary, I'll go to DejaNews and post
>>>every article in this thread to prove it; will you concede this point?
>>>
>
>>So you are saying that the following never occurred:
>
>>  >No, it does not.  Gaining land via war is not legitimate anymore.  Just
>>  >look at what happened to Iraq.
>
>>  Um, Iraq lost.  Israel won.
>
>I was referring to different wars--Iraq in the Persian Gulf war;
>Israel in the War of Independence and Six-Day War.
>
No, you did not.  That part of the argument was specifically on Iraq, not
on any other point.

>>BTW, "No, ..." is what I wrote.  Therefore I do not concede the point.  The
>>point is do you concede?
>
>No, given my clarification above.
>
No, your clarification is incorrect.  There was not the opportunity to
answer to two different wars in context.

[Iraq war snipped]

>>>>>My fellow bastards: would they be the JOOS (tm)?  I seem to remember
>>>>>that Israel actually got bombed by Iraq during that so-called war.  If
>>>>>we fought that war to protect Israel, we did a shitty job of it.  The
>>>>>Iraqis hit Israel with scuds, and Bush sat on Shamir and wouldn't let
>>>>>him retaliate.  Note that Hussein's attack on Israel was wholly
>>>>>unprovoked, as the Persian Gulf War was an intra-Arab conflict.
>>>>>
>>>>I have never heard anyone pronounce Jews "Jos" before.  The word sounds
>>>>like "ewe."  Perhaps the word (Jew) was chosen because Jews were extremely
>>>>familiar with ewes.
>>>
>>>No, the etymology comes from the fact that most of us, with the
>>>exception of Levites and Kohenim, and of course converts, are
>>>descended from the tribe of Judah.
>>>
>>The word "Jew" is not that old.  Most of you are converts of the Khazarium
>>type, therefore your reasoning is unsound.  I prefer my explanation of
>>Jewish notoriety for ewes better.
>
>This is a common misconception among anti-Semites spread by a Jewish
>idiot named Arthur Koestler.  Some Jews are descended from the
>Khazars, but they are the Jews of Southern Russia mainly.  The
>original Ashkenazic Jews (German-speaking Jews who were deported to
>Eastern Europe c. 1000-1500 CE) were Semites; some were in the Rhine
>Valley before Jesus was even born.
>
You are going to have to do better than that.  The Jews moving into 
Eastern Europe came from the east.  As for your Rhine valley story, is
there not a Jewish legend of the sack of Jerusalem, and 200 of the best
looking Jewesses were taken by German soldiers back to 'Germany' where
they brought up their mamzer children in the Jewish way?  Supposedly this
Jewish legend is the first settlement of Jews in 'Germany' therefore
saying that they had an earlier history is just plain wrong.

I take it you hate Koestler because he destroys the self-chosen myth?

>>>>I seem to remember that the Israeli's were given free missiles to try and
>>>>stop them getting bombed by scuds.  I couldn't believe one report of one
>>>>scud hitting some place to which it didn't explode, but a bunch of Jews
>>>>all died of heart attacks because of it -- what a bunch of wimps.
>>>
>>>1) The Israelis were indeed given "Patriot" missiles to fight the scud
>>>attacks; they were remarkably ineffectuals
>
>>I'd hate to disappoint you, but the Patriot missiles were not designed for
>>knocking opposing missiles out of the sky.  Nevertheless you were given
>>expensive toys for free.
>
>*I* was given nothing; Israel was.
>
"You" is both a singular and a plural.  Since I happen to be discussing
Israelis, can you guess whether I was using "you" in the plural or in the
singular?

>>>2) As for Jews having heart attacks and dying because of bombs landing
>>>near them, fuck you.  Israel is heavily populated by senior citizens,
>>>who are prone to such attacks.  Surely, if you're not an old man
>>>yourself, you must have a father or a grandfather (the bitch that
>>>whelped you must have been fucked by SOMETHING), so imagine the house
>>>next door from Pop-pop getting shelled.  How would your manly-man Kiwi
>>>grandfather react?  Would he shit his drawers?  Prolly.
>>>
>>How can there that many old citizens in Palestine?  There couldn't of been
>>that many survivors after the holocaust, surely?
>
>Jewish people retire to Israel sometimes; many of the survivors (there
>were about 5 million Jews who were *not* killed in Europe despite
>their having been there in 1942, according to the notes of the
>Wannaseee Conference, which listed the pre-genocide population of
>Europe's Jews at 11 million.  Many went to Palestine either during or
>after the war.
>
How many decrepit Jews of this 5 million moved to Palestine?  One thing I'd
like to know (since we're on the 'holocaust' anyway) is how so many of
these survivors could still be alive today.  According to their stories 
they went through hell and back, which would put their bodies through
intense trails AND they supposedly lacked in protein to stop their bodies
regenerating the damage done.  Why are they still alive to this day?  They
should be dead.

One other curious thing, why would any sane man retire in a hostile zone?

>>My old man is a tough old boot.  As for my grandfathers they fought in a
>>war to which this country dishonours them by their contributions to a 
>>bunch of traitors who exist at parliament.  My grandfather, if you can
>>think, would take a shell next door better than it would seem a Jew can.
>>At least he wouldn't whine about it.
>
>I guess I'll just have to take your word for it. Which doesn't say
>much.
>
>>>>As for Bush not letting the nation of whiners attack, I guess he still
>>>>wanted a US base in Saudi Arabi.  Lets not forget Saddam Hussein wanted a
>>>>Jihad against that nation, and practically all Arabs hate you bastards.
>>>
>>>Gee, the only Arab nations at war with Israel are Iraq (big surprise)
>>>and Syria (soon to be settled).  FYI, my sister is married to an Arab.
>>>
>>Most Arab nations are afraid of more European intervention for a bunch of
>>mamzers that's why.  
>
>When has ANY European army ever participated in a war in Palestine
>since 1947?
>
Do you include mercenery armies? 

>>FYI, I did not say all Arabs hated Jews.
>
>No you said "practically all Arabs."
>
Yes, why?  Because I know PC bigots too well, I knew if I made too strong
a generalisation you'd try and post some bullshit that undermines my
generalisation.  We have only your word that your sister is breeding with
an Arab.

>>>>>>>>Your example of Zionism-Racism is merely a pretext, for the UN religious 
>>>>>>>>area (whatever the stupid name is) has Judaism as one of six main 
>>>>>>>>religions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It was a general resolution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>As I was saying, the 1967 resolution is superficial.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why?  You're stating an opinion with no basis.
>>>>>
>>>>Considering that Judaism is still one of the six major religions at the
>>>>UN centre I would say I do have a foundation for my supposed opinion.
>>>
>>>How does Judaism being one of the six major religions at the UN center
>>>connect with the 1967 resolution being superficial?  I'll clue you in
>>>on something, idiot: Judaism isn't by nature Zionist; and many Jews
>>>aren't Zionist at all.  Come visit Brooklyn sometime and I'll
>>>introduce you to some Satmar Jews.  You can share your views, and then
>>>they'll beat the shit out of you.   For free.  What a bargain.
>>>
>>Where do Zionists come from? Which creed to they follow?  Do they keep the
>>Talmud?  Do most Jews keep their distance from Zionists?
>
>Zionists by and large *were* secular Jews.  There is a contingent of
>"religious" Zionists, and unfortunately, they make up the lunatic
>fringe in Israel, though not all religious Zionists are a Kahane or a
>Goldstein.
>
>Religious Jews do keep the Talmud; the Talmud says that it is OK to
>settle in the land of Israel before the coming of the Messiah as long
>as one does not initiate war; if war does occur, the Talmud says any
>land that falls into Jewish hands must be kept.  Now I know as well as
>you that some of the belligerence between Israel and the Arabs is
>because of Israeli aggression (notably in Lebanon), but by and large,
>the wars fought by Israel have been defensive wars.
>
Are Zionists kept at bay by other Jews or are they fully accepted by most
Jews?

I would say most of the aggression has been through indirect or direct
Jew action.  Why should the Palestinians accept a partition from outsiders?

>>As for your invite to Brooklyn, I may take that up with a few friends of
>>mine.
>
>>[snip]
>
>You gotta let me take you to Williamsburgh (Brooklyn), though.
>Otherwise, the deal's off.
>
I would walk into hell and back with these particular gentlemen.

>>>>[Pro-genocidal Israelis.  Giving back East Jerusalem to the Palestinians 
>>>>minus the 'Holy Wall.']
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, one rule for us, another for you.  And you wonder why so many people
>>>>>>>>>>>>think Jews are scum?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>As I previously stated, only Israel has allowed non-discriminatory
>>>>>>>>>>>visiation at the holy siites; that why they keep them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>And before hand, nobody but Palestinians were allowed to see these holy
>>>>>>>>>>sites?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So what do you call pilgrimages?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Muslims don't make pilgrimages to Jerusalem; they are only requirerd
>>>>>>>to make them to Mecca, and even then, only if they can afford to, and
>>>>>>>most cannot.  Jews were forbidden to visit East Jerusalem 1948-1967.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Muslims were still allowed to see Jerusalem whenever they wanted, Christians
>>>>>>could go visit, and Jews were able to visit until they decided to be a pack 
>>>>>>of bastards there.
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh contraire, mon frere.  Jews were allowed to visit until the Arabs
>>>>>rejected the UN partition plan of 1947 and Transjordan seized the Holy
>>>>>sites in the proceeding war.  This was a war that the Arabs wanted,
>>>>>not Israel.  Ben-Gurion was ready to sign a treaty that gave Israel
>>>>>far less land than the present "green line" demarcates and NONE of
>>>>>Jerusalem (it was no be an open city).
>>>>>
>>>>Let me ask one thing, to whose favour was the land partitioned?
>>>
>>>It was partitioned equally based on the population of the present time
>>>which, I concede, was poorly thought-out, since the Arabs have a
>>>higher birthrate, and Israel planned to open its borderes to the
>>>world's Jews, which they did.
>>>
>>Considering the population of Jews before the borders were opened and who
>>were the dominant people before hand, in whose favour was the land
>>partitioned?
>
>>Face facts, the UN partitioned the land in full favour of Jews.  Since you
>>don't want Jews held accountable for old crimes (genocide) and you want to
>>play by modern rules, you should not have any of the land.
>
>When did Jews commit genocide, besides back in 1200 BCE?  Furthermore,
>Jews should have some of the land, because that's what the
>international community decided and the Arabs rejected, not the Jews.
>
In other words the UN favoured Jews over Arabs.  Something I said a long
time ago, and one which you have only finally accepted.

>>>>>>>>>>[A Jew's refusal to give back ill-gotten land, even though he insists that
>>>>>>>>>>everybody plays by modern rules to the Israelis snipped]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Ill-gotten land?  They were attacked on three fronts simultaneously.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Read in context, idiot.  They were given the land by the British Empire.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Wrong; the UN partitioned Palestine in 1947 after the UK gave up the
>>>>>>>guerrilla war.  The Arabs rejected partition and full-scale war broke
>>>>>>>out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>It was still British Imperial land.  The UN had no right to partition the
>>>>>>land unless the British Empire gave them leave (or were bullied into it.)
>>>>>
>>>>>The British Empire gave them leave.
>>>>>
>>>>Exactly my point in the first place.  Traitorous Politicians allowed the
>>>>land to be given away.  I personally know some men that helped take that
>>>>place in WWI, guess what their responses are?
>>>
>>>What's traitorous about handing over to the UN land that is not
>>>properly yours?  The British (nor the Turks) are not the autochthonous
>>>peoples of Palestine.
>>>
>>Neither are Jews the autochthonous peoples of Palestine.  Indo-Europeans
>>have a longer history than Jews do there for a start (Jebusites.)
>
>Of the Canaanite tribes (there were seven), they were equal (nearly)
>numbers of Semites and non-Semites among them.  There has been a
>continuous Jewish presence in Palestine since 1200 BCE.  The Arabs, as
>a matter of fact, have only been there since the 7th century CE.  But
>I'm willing to include *them* as autochthonous peoples of Palestine,
>since the seven tribes are all extinct now (and NOT due to Jewish
>aggression, but due to a combination of Jewish, Greek, Assyrian,
>Babylonian, Roman and Arab aggression).
>
The fact remains, Jews are not autochthonous to Palestine.  They came in
as aggressive colonisers, and slaughtered lots of 'noble savages.'  That
land is not yours, especially since most of you don't have lineage to
prove you came from there anyway.

>>The British Empire held the land by right of conquest.
>
>So do the Jews (well, some of the land, anyway).
>
Made possible by traitorous politicians.

>>>>>>>>>>[Whether the original Indo-Europeans were brown]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>[To have a major linguistic change you need to conquer AND be in large
>>>>>>numbers]
>>>>>
>>>>>Untrue; English proves it.  I have two degrees in English with several
>>>>>credits in historical linguistics.  You can't beat me in this one.
>>>>>The Normans made up only the nobility of the Anglo-Norman era, but our
>>>>>vocabulary is 40% French.
>>>>>
>>>>>Q.E.D.
>>>>>
>>>>No.  How much of this 40% actually came directly from Latin instead?
>>>>The Normans did not change the language to French.  Even if 40% of the
>>>>vocabulary is French, they are spoken in a non-French way.
>>>
>>>Only because of something called the "great vowel shift," which
>>>occurred gradually over the years 1100-1500.  Note that English
>>>pronounces vowels differently from most other languges written in the
>>>Latin Alphabet; the Great Vowel Shift is the reason, though the reason
>>>why the Shift happened is unknown.  Old English and Middle English
>>>were pronounced with the vowels in the original Latin (and French)
>>>sounds, and French words in Middle English were pronounced closer to
>>>French than to Modern English.
>>>
>>>Chaucer written phonetically:
>>>
>>>Wahn thaht Ahpreel weeth eets shooris soeteh
>>>The drahcht of Mark hahth payrced toe the roeteh
>>>
>>>Note the pronunciation of April (Ah-preel)
>>>
>>>Closer to the French (Ah-vreel) than the English (Ay-pril)
>>>
>>>It's a French word.
>>>
>>Possibly moved back to more German origins.
>
>No.  Even German is closer to Latin pronunciation than English.  In
>fact, without the use of umlauts, the pronunciation of German vowels
>is almost identical to that in Latin.
>
According to Global German (tm) der April is pronounced closely to the
English April (minor differences yes).

>>>>Whereas the point I was making is that in Europe the language changed
>>>>completely.  To make your position work, we'd speak a dialect of French.
>>>>We do not.  Even though the Normans saturated all forms of Nobility
>>>>(including the knight class) they were of insufficient numbers to bring
>>>>about an entire language change.  The same was for the Visigothic kingdom.
>>>
>>>You don't get it; an entire language change DID occur.  Old English
>>>became Middle English.  The difference is night and day.  You could
>>>probably read with 80% comprehension Middle English; Old English is
>>>unintelligible to anyone who hasn't studied it.
>
>>I accept your point about Old English, since I do have a few pieces of Old
>>English lying around, but the switch was not caused by French.  
>
>Then what caused it?  Come on--the words didn't come out of
>nowhere,and it wasn't the church's use of Latin that caused it,
>because the Anglo-Saxons were Christianed in the 6th Century by
>Augustine of Canterbury, and the switch to Middle English didn't occur
>until the (note emphasis) *FRENCH-SPEAKING* Normans invaded in the
>11th century.
>
Curious, middle English moved away from French pronounciation.  Mind
rectifying that?

[snip]
[Central Asia]

>>>>As for the area in concern, they could have mixed with the various Empires
>>>>that have come and gone when they became multi-racial and useless.
>>>
>>>What's useless about the multi-racial empires of Central Asia?  The
>>>Turks held a mult-racial empire for 500 years?
>>>
>>1st qu.  It was their downfall.  Mix with inferior types and you become
>>inferior.
>
>That's a long downfall, then, considering that the Turks were hardly
>racially pure when they took Constantinople in the 15th century.
>
Read below.

>>2nd qu.  The Turks were vaguely smarter in so much is they did not force
>>their Christian 'vassals' to mix with Muslims, and it were these Christians
>>that were the backbone of the Turkish military strength, despite the
>>discontent of their Muslim subjects.
>
>Actually, the backbone of Turkish military strength was the use of
>slaves in their army.  Paradoxical, I know, but slave armies were the
>Ottomans' crack troops.  Their must have been terrible threats of
>reprisal if these troops lost is my guess.
>
These slaves were Christians. 

[snip]

>>No, it could mean your irrational instead.
>
>No, I just don't like you.
>
If would seem your hatred is getting the better of your reasoning.

>>>Anyway, you answered my charge that German Jews were treated different
>>>than non-German Jews during WWII with "a joke and a half" which is not
>>>a refutation, simply a statement of disagreement.
>>>
>>>So who's uncomfortable in their position?
>>>
>>How could I be?  What real proof have you got they were treated worse than
>>German Jews? -- I'm expecting a circular argument with the 'holocaust.'
>>Therefore it must be you in the uncomfortable then.
>
>Of course, it's the Holocaust.  Unless you're a crackpot revisionist,
>you're well aware that HALF of the 6 million Jews who died were from
>Poland, and the rest from the Soviet Union, Southern Europe and
>Hungary.  Virtually no German Jews died in camps, unless it was from
>typhus or shootings.
>
You should start asking some serious question about this.  Which is more
dangerous -- the enemy within or the enemy without?  If anything, the
German Jews would have been treated harsher than foreign Jews because they
were viewed as the enemy within.  Your claim about Polish and etc. Jews
doesn't make one bit of sense.  Shifting them to camps or having Mr. Whippy
drive round and gas them would have been a costly endeavour.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Tue Nov 19 07:42:09 PST 1996
Article: 49534 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Spanish is an Aryan language
Date: 16 Nov 1996 11:57:18 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <56l6au$jnb@lex.zippo.com>
References: <56d88m$gij@lex.zippo.com> <56ebvu$d86@news1.panix.com> <56frr5$7ab@lex.zippo.com> <56gnhu$8m9@news1.panix.com> <56h17m$bd8@lex.zippo.com>  <56jbi3$mli@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port897-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:49534 alt.politics.nationalism.white:35987

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <56jbi3$mli@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >
>> >In article <56h17m$bd8@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> Folks, this is as intelligent as "Brown" gets:
>> 
>> >> >>>>[Even Mathis admitted at first that the Iraq was beaten up for the 
>> >> >>>>Israeli's sake]
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>No, I did not; see below, where do I mention this?   Nowhere.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>I removed it.  I normally summarise long-winded arguments in an effort to
>> >> >>make them shorter.  Unless I use the word "snip" inside [] I have 
>> >> >>summarised some part of the argument.
>> >> >
>> >> >Well, I didn't say it, and if necessary, I'll go to DejaNews and post
>> >> >every article in this thread to prove it; will you concede this point?
>> >> >
>> >> 
>> >> So you are saying that the following never occurred:
>> >> 
>> >>   >No, it does not.  Gaining land via war is not legitimate anymore.  Just
>> >>   >look at what happened to Iraq.
>> >> 
>> >>   Um, Iraq lost.  Israel won.
>> >
>> >Let's see. "Stone" took these four words written by Mr. Mathis:
>> >
>> To match "Brown's" pedanticness, there were five words and to match 
>> "Brown's" logic, it makes "Brown" both a liar and it makes whatever follows
>> utterly wrong.
>
>The fifth "word" was "Um". Perhaps "Stone" can give us his comprehensive
>dictionary's definition of "Um", and explain its relevance to the
>remaining four words.
>
Whether it can be defined or not is irrelevant to the argument "Brown." You
are dodging by your own demonstrations and therefore must be a liar.

>Let us say that "Stone" included "um" in his analysis of Mr. Mathis'
>original words. By "Stone's" own definition, "snip[ping] out bits and
>pieces" is part and parcel of misquoting someone. "Stone's" ommision of
>"um" in his misquote of Mr. Mathis merely confirms that "Stone" did, in
>fact, intend to misquote Mr. Mathis.
>
More gobbily-gook from "Brown."  I wonder whether "Brown" includes being a
liar when you write incomprehensible material.

>> >  Iraq lost.  Israel won.
>> >
>> >...rearranged the words in a different order, snipped out bits and pieces
>> >to change the meaning completely, and inserted some new words to create:
>> >
>> >  ...the Iraq was beaten up for the Israeli's sake
>> >
>> >This means that, by "Stone's" own definition, he has 'misquoted' Mr.
>> >Mathis. (He even attributed the new words to Mr. Mathis ["Even Mathis
>> >admitted at first that..."], something his peculiar definition of
>> >'misquoting' does not require.)
>> >
>> >Tsk tsk. Isn't it just disgraceful, the desperate tactics these Mighty
>> >Whitey Power Rangers will resort to in desperate times?
>> >
>> I could argue that "Brown" has missed the context again, but why bother?
>> "Brown" is finicky on irrelevant detail and by his own wisdom he is a
>> liar and is utterly wrong.  End story.
>
>"Stone's" definition of 'misquote' does not require that context be taken
>into account.
>
Er, yes it does.  You are dodging btw.  

>"Stone" misquoted Mr. Mathis, and is now trying to disclaim responsibility
>for his own actions. End story.
>
Stop dodging "Brown."  You failed to pay attention to how many words Mr.
Mathis wrote which therefore invalidates (by your own definition) whatever
else you wrote.  Anything else you write apart from explaining this topic
is dodging (by your own definition.)

Ourubouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Nov 19 07:42:10 PST 1996
Article: 49676 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!eru.mt.luth.se!solace!news.stealth.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.music.hardcore
Subject: Re: Hitler was just an in-tune guy
Date: 15 Nov 1996 19:02:40 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <56jasg$m20@lex.zippo.com>
References: <54hco6$lnp@scratchy.mosquito.com>  <32715748.172D@Brown.edu> <5561fs$iup@scratchy.mosquito.com> <55j9qg$2r9@news-central.tiac.net> <55jaab$hah@scratchy.mosquito.com> <327E74E9.2222@bc.sympatico.ca> <563ula$1r6@scratchy.mosquito.com> <5665v2$125@lex.zippo.com> <009AB332.284BE544@pomona.edu> <5685j8$6n5@lex.zippo.com> <56fo2r$jkc@sleepy.inch.com> <56g83e$i4o@lex.zippo.com> <56ib6s$ldq@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port943-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:49676 alt.music.hardcore:34098

In article <56ib6s$ldq@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>5.  Concerning the Mesoamerican civilisations, the jury is still out.  
>
>Only in your mind, Twinkletoes, only in your mind.
>
If that is so, prove Heyerdahl wrong.

>>Do
>>you know that blond/red haired Caucasian mummies have been found in Peru?
>
>Yup.
>
Can you put 2 and 2 together?

>>6.  Why did you bring up China or Mesoamerica for? 
>
>Probably for the same reason that you're trying to recycle this garbage
>that was thoroughly trampled down only weeks ago.
>
It was?

>>Only civilisations or peoples that has the force necessary to maintain 
>>themselves deserve to continue otherwise they get sweeped under the
>>carpet.  As for the Europeans been the most ruthless, I hardly see that
>>as a problem, but rather as a stronger determination to live and prosper.
>
>So is "violence" similar to and related to "ruthlessness", Gusanito?
>Are Europeans "ruthless" but without an inherent tendency toward
>violent crime?  Are "crime" and "war" located on different genes,
>then?
>
Probably.  

The ideals for war and violent crimes are different, but I guess you 
wouldn't understand that.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Tue Nov 19 07:42:11 PST 1996
Article: 49685 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!peerfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: "Brown" whines again (was: Spanish is an Aryan language)
Date: 17 Nov 1996 16:36:59 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <56ob3b$qos@lex.zippo.com>
References: <56d88m$gij@lex.zippo.com> <56ebvu$d86@news1.panix.com> <56frr5$7ab@lex.zippo.com> <56gnhu$8m9@news1.panix.com> <56h17m$bd8@lex.zippo.com>  <56jbi3$mli@lex.zippo.com>  <56l6au$jnb@lex.zippo.com>  <56nj44$5o3@lex.zippo.com>  <56o17c$ibp@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port773-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:49685 alt.politics.nationalism.white:36161

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com 
squawks...
>
>In article <56o17c$ibp@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article , jeff_brown@pol.com 
>> squawks...
>> >
>> >In article <56nj44$5o3@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article ,
>> >jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >> >
>> >> >In article <56l6au$jnb@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> In article ,
>> >> >jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >> >
>> >> >> [...deletia...]
>> >> >
>> >> >> >"Stone's" definition of 'misquote' does not require that context
>be taken
>> >> >> >into account.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Er, yes it does.  You are dodging btw.  
>> >> >
>> >> >"Stone's" definition of 'misquote', in full:
>> >> >
>> >> >  > Using somebody elses words in a deceiving or inappropriate manner.
>> >> >  > This includes re-arranging the words in a different order, snipping
>> >> >  > out bits and pieces to change the meaning completely, and/or
>> >> >  > inserting new words in.
>> >> >
>> >> >No mention of context. "Stone" is a liar -- again. End story.
>> >> >
>> >> I regret not making the above definition 'fool'-proof.  I would have
>thought
>> >> "Using somebody elses words in a deceiving or inappropriate manner" would
>> >> be comprehensible to all, obviously not.
>> >
>> >On the contrary -- I understood "Using somebody elses words in a deceiving
>> >or inappropriate manner" perfectly. And it perfectly describes what
>> >"Stone" did when he took Mr. Mathis' statement that:
>> >
>> >   "Iraq lost.  Israel won."
>> >
>> >and used it to make the deceptive and inappropriate claim that:
>> >
>> >   "Even Mathis admitted at first that the Iraq was beaten up for the 
>> >   Israeli's sake"
>> >
>> >It is "Stone" himself who does not comprehend what he did. 
>> >
>> Strange that you were arguing about whether context was included in my
>> definition of misquoting, and now you are arguing about something else.
>
>Strange that "Stone" chooses to ignore that fact that he himself brought
>the question of comprehension into this discussion. On the other hand, it
>does allow him to get off another swipe at me, in the process of dodging
>the issue of his misquote of Mr. Mathis.
>
Au contraire, as you noted in the following, I have already retracted my
position.

>> I have already retracted the above claim in another post, because I currently
>> don't have second witness for the above.
>
>I am gratified to learn of this, although I am uncertain how it is that a
>"second witness" would validate "Stone's" misquoting of Mr. Mathis'
>original statement.
>
In you bothered to read where the quote came from originally (something I'll
doubt you'll do), you will note that Mathis made a comment that was
sufficiently ambiguous.  If there had been a secondary comment (by Mr.
Mathis) then the ambiguity may have clarified his intent at the time.

>> For someone who prides herself on being finicky and pedantic 
>> you sure are incompetant.
>
>Since "Stone" has reiterated so many times how very stupid and incompetent
>I am, I just checked, and yes -- to my great relief -- I am still male.
>
It depends on whether you call someone who is effeminate a man.  

>I still think that "Stone's" own words are the best reply to the above:
>
>   "Hopefully you aren't resorting to the old tactic of throwing 
>    a lot of mud in the vain hope of some of it sticking."
>
The difference is "Brown," I am not throwing a lot of mud.  

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Nov 19 07:42:12 PST 1996
Article: 49686 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!peerfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: "Brown" whinges again ( was: Spanish is an Aryan language)
Date: 17 Nov 1996 16:43:25 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <56obfd$r30@lex.zippo.com>
References: <56d88m$gij@lex.zippo.com> <56ebvu$d86@news1.panix.com> <56frr5$7ab@lex.zippo.com> <56gnhu$8m9@news1.panix.com> <56h17m$bd8@lex.zippo.com>  <56jbi3$mli@lex.zippo.com>  <56l6au$jnb@lex.zippo.com>  <56njka$63j@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port773-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:49686 alt.politics.nationalism.white:36162

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com 
squawks...
>
>In article <56njka$63j@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> Brown squawked:
>> ["Brown's" dribble snipped]
>> 
>> I thought I could play your game and beat you at it, I was wrong.  Guess
>> the proverb against arguing with fools was right.
>> 
>> When it comes to being finicky, pedantic and stupid; nobody rivals you. 
>
>There are many epigrams that "Stone" has contributed that would apply
>here; but of all of the ones I have collected, I think he said it best
>when he said:
>
>   "Hopefully you aren't resorting to the old tactic of throwing 
>    a lot of mud in the vain hope of some of it sticking."
>
It depends on whether I am throwing a lot of mud or revealing your tactics,
actually.  Rational people here would consider the latter.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Tue Nov 19 07:42:12 PST 1996
Article: 49695 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!dciteleport.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Concerning my posts...
Date: 18 Nov 1996 12:19:23 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <56qgcb$e9i@lex.zippo.com>
References: <3288FB1C.7B79@alchemy.co.nz> <56pn7j$ia9@news1.ucsd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port844-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <56pn7j$ia9@news1.ucsd.edu>, fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu says...
>
>Ourobouros (p_stone@alchemy.co.nz) wrote:
>: My current newservers (that I use) are stuffed at present.  How long
>: they will take to 'get back to normal' is debatable.
>
>: I have kept the posts I intend on responding too and will post my
>: replies to them when I can.
>
>: Ourobouros.
>
>It should be noted that this is a lie.
>
What?!?

I was down for 24 hours.  I was predicting a longer duration, but I was
fortunate that it was quickly resolved.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Nov 19 07:42:13 PST 1996
Article: 49696 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!tezcat!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: "Brown" whines again
Date: 18 Nov 1996 12:13:35 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 131
Message-ID: <56qg1f$e1b@lex.zippo.com>
References: <56oqch$aij@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port844-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:49696 alt.politics.nationalism.white:36171

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <56oqch$aij@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article , jeff_brown@pol.com 
>> squawks...
>> >
>> >In article <56ob3b$qos@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> [...deletia...]
>
>> >> In you bothered to read where the quote came from originally
>(something I'll
>> >> doubt you'll do), you will note that Mathis made a comment that was
>> >> sufficiently ambiguous.  If there had been a secondary comment (by Mr.
>> >> Mathis) then the ambiguity may have clarified his intent at the time.
>> >
>> >Is "Stone" arguing that (alleged) ambiguity on the part of an adversary
>> >justifies the use of a misquote on his part?
>> >
>> It depends on whether I was truly misquoting or we witnessed your attempts
>> to salvage your wounded pride.  I'm betting on the latter.
>
>"Stone" dodges the issue. My "pride" is irrelevant to his use of the
>misquote as a tactic.
>
>"Stone's" actions fit his _own_ definition of 'misquote' -- yet he will
>not admit his error.
>
Please prove (conclusively) that my actions fit my _own_ definition of a
'misquote,' otherwise I am correct in my assumption of your wounded pride.  

>> >> >> For someone who prides herself on being finicky and pedantic 
>> >> >> you sure are incompetant.
>> >> >
>> >> >Since "Stone" has reiterated so many times how very stupid and incompetent
>> >> >I am, I just checked, and yes -- to my great relief -- I am still male.
>> >> >
>> >> It depends on whether you call someone who is effeminate a man.
>> >
>> >Ah... "Stone" now uses the same rigorous logic that enabled him to
>> >determine -- from halfway across the planet -- that Fragano Ledgister is
>> >actually a janitor, to conclude that I am in some way "effeminate". Some
>> >of "Stone's" past pronouncements that apply here are:
>> >
>> >   "That view is your opinion.  Do I care about your opinion?"
>> >
>> >   "It is amusing to watch how you draw conclusions."
>> >
>> >... and the ever-popular:
>> >
>> >   "That is bullshit from you."
>> >
>> Points:
>> 
>> 1. This is apw-p & apnw not alt.politics.correct.  If you don't care for
>> my opinions go to newsgroups more aligned with your type of views.
>
>"Stone" veers into irrelevancy (again) in an effort to dodge the issue --
>his use of the argumentum ad hominem in place of rational discussion.
>
"Brown," you were the one who complained about my opinions.  What I wrote
above is quite rational.  What is irrational is you being here on either
apw-p or apnw.

>> 2. Ledgister lost the game he was playing.
>
>It's so easy for "Stone" to decide he's won, when he declares himself the
>referee. Watch his threads, and you will see that this is a common tactic
>of his.
>
Bizarre.

>> 3. Are you or are you not PC (anti-racialist, equality preacher, and etc.)?
>
>I'm not certain what "Stone" is after here. Perhaps he believes that if he
>can pin "PC" on me, he can then make some weird sort of case that I must
>of course be "effeminate" as well.
>
We can pin PC on you, but it would have been convenient to the argument for
you to be honest, rather than dodge like you do.

>Or perhaps he could just admit that he wasn't paying attention in the
>first place, and thought that he was answering one of Laura Finsten's
>posts. Nah, can't do that -- New Zealand racists have to maintain that
>aura of infallibility whenever possible.
>
1.  Your posts are easily identifiable, as are Finsten's.  Therefore I
would be "pissing into the wind" if I somehow thought I wasn't arguing
against you.

2.  How many New Zealand racists (sic) do you know or is this another of
your prejudices coming to light?

3.  Since when have I portrayed an aura of infallibility?

>> >> >I still think that "Stone's" own words are the best reply to the above:
>> >> >
>> >> >   "Hopefully you aren't resorting to the old tactic of throwing 
>> >> >    a lot of mud in the vain hope of some of it sticking."
>> >> >
>> >> The difference is "Brown," I am not throwing a lot of mud.  
>> >
>> >Hmmm... I am, according to "Stone":
>> >
>> >  "finicky"
>> >  "pedantic"
>> >  "effeminate"
>> >  a "fool"
>> >  "small-minded"
>> >  possessed of "neurological functions [that] are hardly impressive", as
>> >    well as both "extremely poor memory" and "extremely poor 
>> >    reasoning abilities"
>> >  experiencing "trouble putting together rational arguments"
>> >  suffering from "extreme stupidity"
>> >  "illogical"
>> >
>> >...but "Stone" isn't "throwing a lot of mud" -- oh, heavens no.
>> >
>> Nope, apart from effeminacy, all the above have been clearly demonstrated
>> before.  Most of the above have been amply demonstrated in your last few
>> posts.
>
>Nope. What is amply demonstrated here, yet again, is "Stone's" absolute
>devotion to the argumentum ad hominem. Follow any of his arguments to its
>conclusion, and it will almost invariably end -- as it has here -- with
>"Stone" throwing mud.
>
I call a spade a spade, if you're being imbecilic then I will tell you so.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Nov 19 07:42:14 PST 1996
Article: 49709 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.texas.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.pbi.net!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: "Brown" whines again
Date: 17 Nov 1996 20:57:53 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 107
Message-ID: <56oqch$aij@lex.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port922-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:49709 alt.politics.nationalism.white:36186

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com 
squawks...
>
>In article <56ob3b$qos@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article , jeff_brown@pol.com 
>> squawks...
>> >
>> >In article <56o17c$ibp@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> [...deletia...]
>
>> >> Strange that you were arguing about whether context was included in my
>> >> definition of misquoting, and now you are arguing about something else.
>> >
>> >Strange that "Stone" chooses to ignore that fact that he himself brought
>> >the question of comprehension into this discussion. On the other hand, it
>> >does allow him to get off another swipe at me, in the process of dodging
>> >the issue of his misquote of Mr. Mathis.
>> >
>> Au contraire, as you noted in the following, I have already retracted my
>> position.
>
>Au contraire, as I noted above, the swipe was there nonetheless, and it
>substituted for any real discussion of either the misquote, or of the
>'comprehension' issue that "Stone" himself introduced.
>
You were the one that told me that I didn't include context in said
definition.

>> >> I have already retracted the above claim in another post, because I
>currently
>> >> don't have second witness for the above.
>> >
>> >I am gratified to learn of this, although I am uncertain how it is that a
>> >"second witness" would validate "Stone's" misquoting of Mr. Mathis'
>> >original statement.
>> >
>> In you bothered to read where the quote came from originally (something I'll
>> doubt you'll do), you will note that Mathis made a comment that was
>> sufficiently ambiguous.  If there had been a secondary comment (by Mr.
>> Mathis) then the ambiguity may have clarified his intent at the time.
>
>Is "Stone" arguing that (alleged) ambiguity on the part of an adversary
>justifies the use of a misquote on his part?
>
It depends on whether I was truly misquoting or we witnessed your attempts
to salvage your wounded pride.  I'm betting on the latter.

>> >> For someone who prides herself on being finicky and pedantic 
>> >> you sure are incompetant.
>> >
>> >Since "Stone" has reiterated so many times how very stupid and incompetent
>> >I am, I just checked, and yes -- to my great relief -- I am still male.
>> >
>> It depends on whether you call someone who is effeminate a man.
>
>Ah... "Stone" now uses the same rigorous logic that enabled him to
>determine -- from halfway across the planet -- that Fragano Ledgister is
>actually a janitor, to conclude that I am in some way "effeminate". Some
>of "Stone's" past pronouncements that apply here are:
>
>   "That view is your opinion.  Do I care about your opinion?"
>
>   "It is amusing to watch how you draw conclusions."
>
>... and the ever-popular:
>
>   "That is bullshit from you."
>
Points:

1. This is apw-p & apnw not alt.politics.correct.  If you don't care for
my opinions go to newsgroups more aligned with your type of views.

2. Ledgister lost the game he was playing.

3. Are you or are you not PC (anti-racialist, equality preacher, and etc.)?
 
>> >I still think that "Stone's" own words are the best reply to the above:
>> >
>> >   "Hopefully you aren't resorting to the old tactic of throwing 
>> >    a lot of mud in the vain hope of some of it sticking."
>> >
>> The difference is "Brown," I am not throwing a lot of mud.  
>
>Hmmm... I am, according to "Stone":
>
>  "finicky"
>  "pedantic"
>  "effeminate"
>  a "fool"
>  "small-minded"
>  possessed of "neurological functions [that] are hardly impressive", as
>    well as both "extremely poor memory" and "extremely poor 
>    reasoning abilities"
>  experiencing "trouble putting together rational arguments"
>  suffering from "extreme stupidity"
>  "illogical"
>
>...but "Stone" isn't "throwing a lot of mud" -- oh, heavens no.
>
Nope, apart from effeminacy, all the above have been clearly demonstrated
before.  Most of the above have been amply demonstrated in your last few
posts.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Wed Nov 20 09:22:22 PST 1996
Article: 49818 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.music.hardcore
Subject: Mesoamerica recycled again (was: Hitler was an in tune guy)
Date: 19 Nov 1996 00:47:36 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <56rs78$n7o@lex.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port881-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:49818 alt.music.hardcore:34155

In article <56qfo4$enf@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <56ib6s$ldq@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>>5.  Concerning the Mesoamerican civilisations, the jury is still out.  
>
>>>Only in your mind, Twinkletoes, only in your mind.
>
>>If that is so, prove Heyerdahl wrong.
>
>
>I recommend a good textbook on Mesoamerican prehistory, such as
>Muriel Porter Weaver's.  The archaeological evidence overwhelmingly
>supports autochthonous historical change, from first settlement at
>least 10,000 years ago, through the domestication of a variety of
>plants and the development of agriculture, the emergence of settled
>villages and the development of incipient sociopolitical hierarchies,
>writing, the calendar, the emergence of states...  Nobody can *prove*
>that someone didn't drift across one ocean or other and wash up on
>the shores of Central America.  But if that did happen, there is *no*
>reason to believe that such an isolated event transformed the
>historical development of Mesoamerica society and culture.
>
Points:

1.  Since you can't prove Heyerdahl wrong then it isn't "only in my mind."
The Jury is still out, and not in.

2.  If the Mesoamericans are going to attribute 'stuff' to white men or
Gods, of which Quetzcoatl is only one, then there *is* reason to believe
the diffusionist arguments for the development of Mesoamerican society and 
culture.

3.  Do the inhabitants of alt.music.hardcore wish to have this thread
continue here?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Nov 25 06:58:45 PST 1996
Article: 36818 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Something other than _Spanish is an Aryan language_
Date: 24 Nov 1996 11:19:13 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <57a73h$f1v@lex.zippo.com>
References: <573i5n$3h9@lex.zippo.com>  <574ps6$b91@lex.zippo.com>  <5761qu$boo@lex.zippo.com>  <577e3p$pj6@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port856-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:50279 alt.politics.nationalism.white:36818

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <577e3p$pj6@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> Thus decrees "Brown" the judge.
>
>I rather enjoy it when the racists descend into self-parody. "Stone" can't
>help it... name-calling is, at the end, all he has left.
>
And I'll give you another title; hypocrite.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Nov 25 06:58:46 PST 1996
Article: 36857 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Something other than _Spanish is an Aryan language_
Date: 24 Nov 1996 20:19:05 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <57b6np$bd8@lex.zippo.com>
References: <573i5n$3h9@lex.zippo.com>  <574ps6$b91@lex.zippo.com>  <5761qu$boo@lex.zippo.com>  <577e3p$pj6@lex.zippo.com>  <57a73h$f1v@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port862-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:50317 alt.politics.nationalism.white:36857

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <57a73h$f1v@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >
>> >In article <577e3p$pj6@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thus decrees "Brown" the judge.
>> >
>> >I rather enjoy it when the racists descend into self-parody. "Stone" can't
>> >help it... name-calling is, at the end, all he has left.
>> >
>> And I'll give you another title; hypocrite.
>
>It's truly amazing... even after it's been pointed out to him, "Stone"
>just can't resist another ad hominem attack, further proving my point. It
>really _is_ all he has left, isn't it?
>
Thus declares the referee.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Nov 25 07:03:36 PST 1996
Article: 50205 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!sol.pdnt.com!news-out.internetmci.com!peerfeed.internetmci.com!panix!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Of mandates, trusts & honesty
Date: 20 Nov 1996 15:15:34 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <5703em$eo7@lex.zippo.com>
References: <56qhc9$f7g@lex.zippo.com>
 <848518572.6195@dejanews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port872-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <848518572.6195@dejanews.com>, f.ledgis@msuacad.morehead-st.edu says...
>
>In article <56qhc9$f7g@lex.zippo.com>,
>    Ourobouros wrote:
>
>
>> Would it help for you to know I don't live on a farm?
>> I like petite white women with long red hair.  Being a touch pre-emptive,
>> please note the word "women."
>
>Polygyny?
>
I'm not against it.  I more or less meant it as being adults rather than
young girls, as PC bigots seem fond of twisting words around (petite).
>
>> >
>> >My dictionary defines ideology as 'any systematic and all embracing
>> >political doctrine, which claims to give a complete and universally
>> >applicable theory of man and society'. Western intervention in the
>> >Persian Gulf was clearly not that. You really need to get better reference
>> >tools.
>> >
>> Perhaps you should read a few more dictionaries before opening your arse.
>>
>
>Really? Pray explain why Western intervention in the Persian Gulf was
>an ideology given the definition above. As to the capacities of dictionaries,
>you're hardly the one to comment.
>
My dictionary gave an adequate definition for the word ideology.  I can
almost guarantee that you have left parts of the definition from your
dictionary out as well.

The definition I gave easily allowed me to the word ideology, hence why you
have removed it.

As to being able to comment about dictionaries; can only people with 
doctorates criticise dictionaries?
> 
>
>
>> Er no.  I am saying that your interpretation (as usual) is incorrect.
>
>In what way? 
>
I need some context to comment.
>
>> >
>> >Then kindly provide the relevant citations. Including, but not limited
>> >to the Mandates issued by the League of Nations, the Trusts granted by
>> >the United Nations, the authority of the UN General Assembly to legislate
>> >for Palestine if Palestine were a British colony as you assert, and
>> >relevant British municipal law.
>> I don't have those primary source materials.
>>
>
>Yet you've studied the formal history? You make assertions about events yet
>you cannot back them up. Why am I not amazed?
>>
Do you honestly believe I should have all available primary source materials
around (to which I've studied)?  I can back up my assertions, but not with
primary source materials.  Why? Because I don't have them.  Is any of this
getting through to you?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Nov 25 07:03:37 PST 1996
Article: 50279 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Something other than _Spanish is an Aryan language_
Date: 24 Nov 1996 11:19:13 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <57a73h$f1v@lex.zippo.com>
References: <573i5n$3h9@lex.zippo.com>  <574ps6$b91@lex.zippo.com>  <5761qu$boo@lex.zippo.com>  <577e3p$pj6@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port856-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:50279 alt.politics.nationalism.white:36818

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <577e3p$pj6@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> Thus decrees "Brown" the judge.
>
>I rather enjoy it when the racists descend into self-parody. "Stone" can't
>help it... name-calling is, at the end, all he has left.
>
And I'll give you another title; hypocrite.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Nov 25 07:03:38 PST 1996
Article: 50317 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Something other than _Spanish is an Aryan language_
Date: 24 Nov 1996 20:19:05 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <57b6np$bd8@lex.zippo.com>
References: <573i5n$3h9@lex.zippo.com>  <574ps6$b91@lex.zippo.com>  <5761qu$boo@lex.zippo.com>  <577e3p$pj6@lex.zippo.com>  <57a73h$f1v@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port862-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:50317 alt.politics.nationalism.white:36857

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <57a73h$f1v@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >
>> >In article <577e3p$pj6@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thus decrees "Brown" the judge.
>> >
>> >I rather enjoy it when the racists descend into self-parody. "Stone" can't
>> >help it... name-calling is, at the end, all he has left.
>> >
>> And I'll give you another title; hypocrite.
>
>It's truly amazing... even after it's been pointed out to him, "Stone"
>just can't resist another ad hominem attack, further proving my point. It
>really _is_ all he has left, isn't it?
>
Thus declares the referee.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Nov 26 06:25:34 PST 1996
Article: 81946 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.ott.hookup.net!loki.tor.hookup.net!nic.wat.hookup.net!xenitec!zenox.com!news2.insinc.net!news.insinc.net!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!van-bc!n1van.istar!van.istar!west.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Another tactic of liberals [long]
Date: 13 Nov 1996 11:45:38 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 186
Message-ID: <56d8h2$h2e@lex.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port887-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:50403 alt.revisionism:81946 alt.politics.nationalism.white:36942 alt.discrimination:56943

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <5681kn$3bm@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>> [...deletia...]
>
>> >"Stone" once again makes the assertion without evidence. "Stone" seems to
>> >take as a "misquote" a question asked of him, an argument presented to
>> >him, or a rhetorical point made against him, which he does not agree with
>> >or cannot answer. Thus does he relieve himself of the unhappy burden of
>> >responding to said arguments -- it's much easier to simply whine that he's
>> >been "misquoted" than to construct a counter-argument.  
>> >
>> Incorrect.  Try again.
>
>Then I challenge "Stone" to give us his definition of "misquote" -- and
>show us why his definition is valid, and the commonly accepted definitions
>are not.
>
Simple.  Using somebody elses words in a deceiving or inappropriate manner.
This includes re-arranging the words in a different order, snipping out
bits and pieces to change the meaning completely, and/or inserting new 
words in.  Saying that you are asking a new question doesn't cut ice I'm
afraid.
 
>> >> Even some of your comrades are becoming aware of your extreme
>> >> stupidity in certain matters.
>> >
>> >"Stone's" telepathic abilities are, of course, non-existent.
>> >
>> I refer you do your petty argument over the words "all" and "every" with
>> your comrade without arms, Dene Bebbington.  Your reference to telepathy
>> shows us one of two things, 1. extremely poor memory, 2. extremely poor
>> reasoning abilities.  We'll let you decide which of the two is correct and
>> which is not.
>
>I have no recollection of a disagreement with Mr. Bebbington. Nor has Deja News.
>
>Perhaps "Stone" can provide us with evidence to back up this new
>assertion. Or, given his track record in such matters, perhaps not.
>
He had a disagreement with you.  I suggest you try Deja news again, or if
that fails you (due to your incompetence), you can always try reading his
addition to this thread, as it should still be on most newservers.

>> >> If you want evidence, even though I don't
>> >> expect you to comprehend this either due to perpetual 'dumb field', try
>> >> realizing how you decided to parrot what I said recently. 
>> >
>> >What I want is actual evidence of a misquote -- a string of words which I
>> >attributed to "Stone" but which he never wrote. This is what he has not
>> >provided and cannot provide. This is the basis on which I call "Stone" a
>> >liar -- that he makes an accusation which is patently untrue.
>> >
>> There was of course the "Why are Niggers in Africa backwards?" fiasco, but 
>> you resorted to saying you asked a brand new question.  For those onlookers
>> that are perplexed at this, Les Griswold once posed the aforementioned
>> question.  This question I also championed at the time.  "Brown" in his
>> resentment of our successes "made a new question" in which he wanted 
>> either of us to prove "all" Negroes (niggers) were backwards.
>
>For those onlookers that remain perplexed, please note that "Stone" still
>has not provided any evidence that I attributed to him a string of words
>which he never wrote.
>
Hah!  Only in your imagination "Brown."

>> >> Were your
>> >> parroting methods in context, or were they not?  And if you discover 
>> >> (shock, horror) that you, as usual, have parroted me out of context
>then you
>> >> were misquoting me.  
>> >
>> >Ah, we add another horrid crime to my list of atrocities -- I have
>> >"parroted [Stone] out of context" on one or more (conveniently
>> >unspecified) occasions. How dare I commit such unspeakable sins against
>> >New Zealand's greatest Mighty Whitey Power Ranger and [failed] definer of
>> >the "white" race?
>> >
>> Despite your assertions otherwise, my definition of the White race was not
>> a failure.  The only thing it lacked was specifics, and that I repeatedly
>> said was not included since it was only a "sample definition."  Your
>> continuous failure at perception is not unexpected.
>
>I stand corrected. It was, indeed, a "sample definition" -- which failed
>utterly to provide any criteria by which an unambiguous determination
>could be made as to a given individual's membership in the "white" race.
>
>I hasten to point out that which "Stone" will not tell you -- that he
>himself quickly downgraded his "sample definition" to a "model", and then
>decided that it merely gave "reasonable headings and areas of research".
>He also admitted that it was "vague and largely subjective".
>
So?  Your point is?

>> >Let "Stone" specify the posts in which I "parroted [him] out of context".
>> >And let him demonstrate that I attributed those words to him. Then he will
>> >have provided evidence of a misquote.
>> >
>> The posts are still "warm."  Anybody can see your posts of recent for 
>> detecting your out-of-context quotes (of mine.)
>
>Anybody can see that "Stone" has provided no evidence that I have
>attributed to him words that he did not write, and for a very good reason:
>such evidence does not exist.
>
Only in your imagination, "Brown."

>> >> I do not, even for one second, believe you will ever
>> >> realize this, but this is for the benefit of onlookers who can see how
>> >> illogical and small-minded you really are.
>> >
>> >Hmmm... seems to me that saying I'm an illogical and small-minded person
>> >doesn't make me one.
>> >
>> For any onlookers, please read the my previous post.  You will note that
>> "Brown" has split the paragraph so that the above appears empty.  Please
>> note that this is further proof that "Brown" is small-minded.
>
>Please note that I am now guilty of the supposedly well-known and
>universally-detested crime of 'paragraph-splitting', which is apparently
>considered prima facie evidence of a 'small mind' -- at least in New
>Zealand.
>
There is nothing particularly wrong with splitting a paragraph, so long as
the editor realizes that he has done so, and replies with the knowledge of
the previous 'bits' of the paragraph.  You have snipped and then replied
as though the above was in isolation.

>I have absolutely no idea what "Stone" is complaining about. Nothing was
>excised from the paragraph in question. It's gotta be hard work for
>"Stone", grasping at these straws -- they are becoming submicroscopic in
>scale.
>
I am not surprised you have absolutely no idea.  Your neurological 
functions are hardly impressive.

>> >Doh! I just "parroted [Stone] out of context", didn't I? I suppose he'll
>> >count that as yet another "misquote" -- despite the fact that, try as he
>> >may, he can't see any hint of attribution of those words to him.
>> >
>> Whatever "Brown."  Your attempt at sarcasm was a failure.
>
>Incorrect. Try again.
>
How was your sarcasm a success?

>> >> >"Stone", as documented above, has responded to critiques of his arguments
>> >> >with irrelevancies and evasions such as "Have you switched to decaf
>> >> >recently?".
>> >> >
>> >> Considering the content of your posts of late, "Brown," it is highly
>> >> ironical that you dare mention me evading and using irrelevancies as I was
>> >> only responding in kind.  It is not surprising that you failed to perceive
>> >> this once more.
>> >
>> >In the US, we refer to this as the 'but-Mommy-he-made-me-do-it' argument.
>> >I wonder what it's called in New Zealand.
>> >
>> Could I ask how Yanks deal with bullies?  Do you try and reason with bullies
>> or do you punch them over (ie use their own tactics)?
>> 
>> When I was a lad there was once a school bully who tried to pick on me,
>> since I wouldn't play his game he punched me (he only got one punch in.) In
>> my retailation they needed to take him to a doctor. He never tried to pick
>> on me again (he avoided me like the plague.)  I could, of course, have tried 
>> to reason with him like all the PC bigots tried to do, and I laughed at all
>> those that tried it with him, or you could take the fight to him.  Which
>> tactic was more successful, the one you belittle or the one offered by PC
>> bigots?
>> 
>> If you cannot fathom the above then try to comprehend this proverb: "Answer
>> a fool according to his folly."
>
>Amazingly, I stand corrected once again -- twice in the same post! "Stone"
>was not, after all, using the 'but-Mommy-he-made-me-do-it' argument.
>
>He was using the 'but-Mommy-he-started-it' argument.
>
And "Brown" has shown yet again he hasn't read what I wrote.  Does this
surprise anyone?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Nov 26 08:57:53 PST 1996
Article: 36890 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.axionet.com!uunet!in3.uu.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Something other than _Spanish is an Aryan language_
Date: 23 Nov 1996 10:00:25 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 44
Sender: usenet@ftp.zippo.com
Message-ID: <577e3p$pj6@lex.zippo.com>
References: <573i5n$3h9@lex.zippo.com>  <574ps6$b91@lex.zippo.com>  <5761qu$boo@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port881-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:50347 alt.politics.nationalism.white:36890

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <5761qu$boo@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article , jeff_brown@pol.com 
>> squawks...
>> >
>> >In article <574ps6$b91@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article ,
>> >jeff_brown@pol.com squawks...
>> >> >
>> >> >In article <573i5n$3h9@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> It has lost its momentum, and is now, therefore, irrelevant.
>> >> >
>> >> >The referee makes another call...
>> >> >
>> >> Ah yes, you have invoked the "Mummy!  Make him play my game" argument.
>> >
>> >Nope. I've invoked the 'when "Stone" runs out of ways to dodge the issue,
>> >he declares it irrelevant' argument.
>> >
>> >"Stone" apparently considers dealing with the arguments at hand to be a
>> >"game" he doesn't want to play. When I refer to "Stone" as a referee, I am
>> >pointing out that _he_ decides when to declare something irrelevant, _he_
>> >decides when someone is "waffling", _he_ decides when to claim that words
>> >never attributed to him are a "misquote", _he_ decides when to announce
>> >that his opponent suffers from impaired "neurological functions" -- all in
>> >place of actually dealing with the issues at hand. Then, of course, when
>> >it is pointed out to him that he is responsible for these actions, he
>> >claims it's all the fault of his opponents in the first place.
>> >
>> >"Stone", of course, can't understand why anyone would find fault with
>> >these tactics.
>> >
>> Of course "Brown" decides when someone is playing referee as well...
>
>Nope. I just point out the obvious: "Stone" declares a win when he can't
>win otherwise.
>
Thus decrees "Brown" the judge.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Nov 26 09:00:27 PST 1996
Article: 50347 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.axionet.com!uunet!in3.uu.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Something other than _Spanish is an Aryan language_
Date: 23 Nov 1996 10:00:25 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 44
Sender: usenet@ftp.zippo.com
Message-ID: <577e3p$pj6@lex.zippo.com>
References: <573i5n$3h9@lex.zippo.com>  <574ps6$b91@lex.zippo.com>  <5761qu$boo@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port881-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:50347 alt.politics.nationalism.white:36890

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <5761qu$boo@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article , jeff_brown@pol.com 
>> squawks...
>> >
>> >In article <574ps6$b91@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article ,
>> >jeff_brown@pol.com squawks...
>> >> >
>> >> >In article <573i5n$3h9@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> It has lost its momentum, and is now, therefore, irrelevant.
>> >> >
>> >> >The referee makes another call...
>> >> >
>> >> Ah yes, you have invoked the "Mummy!  Make him play my game" argument.
>> >
>> >Nope. I've invoked the 'when "Stone" runs out of ways to dodge the issue,
>> >he declares it irrelevant' argument.
>> >
>> >"Stone" apparently considers dealing with the arguments at hand to be a
>> >"game" he doesn't want to play. When I refer to "Stone" as a referee, I am
>> >pointing out that _he_ decides when to declare something irrelevant, _he_
>> >decides when someone is "waffling", _he_ decides when to claim that words
>> >never attributed to him are a "misquote", _he_ decides when to announce
>> >that his opponent suffers from impaired "neurological functions" -- all in
>> >place of actually dealing with the issues at hand. Then, of course, when
>> >it is pointed out to him that he is responsible for these actions, he
>> >claims it's all the fault of his opponents in the first place.
>> >
>> >"Stone", of course, can't understand why anyone would find fault with
>> >these tactics.
>> >
>> Of course "Brown" decides when someone is playing referee as well...
>
>Nope. I just point out the obvious: "Stone" declares a win when he can't
>win otherwise.
>
Thus decrees "Brown" the judge.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Nov 26 09:47:27 PST 1996
Article: 50347 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.axionet.com!uunet!in3.uu.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Something other than _Spanish is an Aryan language_
Date: 23 Nov 1996 10:00:25 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 44
Sender: usenet@ftp.zippo.com
Message-ID: <577e3p$pj6@lex.zippo.com>
References: <573i5n$3h9@lex.zippo.com>  <574ps6$b91@lex.zippo.com>  <5761qu$boo@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port881-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:50347 alt.politics.nationalism.white:36890

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <5761qu$boo@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article , jeff_brown@pol.com 
>> squawks...
>> >
>> >In article <574ps6$b91@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article ,
>> >jeff_brown@pol.com squawks...
>> >> >
>> >> >In article <573i5n$3h9@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> It has lost its momentum, and is now, therefore, irrelevant.
>> >> >
>> >> >The referee makes another call...
>> >> >
>> >> Ah yes, you have invoked the "Mummy!  Make him play my game" argument.
>> >
>> >Nope. I've invoked the 'when "Stone" runs out of ways to dodge the issue,
>> >he declares it irrelevant' argument.
>> >
>> >"Stone" apparently considers dealing with the arguments at hand to be a
>> >"game" he doesn't want to play. When I refer to "Stone" as a referee, I am
>> >pointing out that _he_ decides when to declare something irrelevant, _he_
>> >decides when someone is "waffling", _he_ decides when to claim that words
>> >never attributed to him are a "misquote", _he_ decides when to announce
>> >that his opponent suffers from impaired "neurological functions" -- all in
>> >place of actually dealing with the issues at hand. Then, of course, when
>> >it is pointed out to him that he is responsible for these actions, he
>> >claims it's all the fault of his opponents in the first place.
>> >
>> >"Stone", of course, can't understand why anyone would find fault with
>> >these tactics.
>> >
>> Of course "Brown" decides when someone is playing referee as well...
>
>Nope. I just point out the obvious: "Stone" declares a win when he can't
>win otherwise.
>
Thus decrees "Brown" the judge.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Thu Nov 28 07:23:57 PST 1996
Article: 37111 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!peerfeed.internetmci.com!EU.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Something other than _Spanish is an Aryan language_
Date: 26 Nov 1996 21:26:53 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <57gjet$hua@lex.zippo.com>
References: <573i5n$3h9@lex.zippo.com>  <574ps6$b91@lex.zippo.com>  <5761qu$boo@lex.zippo.com>  <577e3p$pj6@lex.zippo.com>  <57a73h$f1v@lex.zippo.com>  <57b6np$bd8@lex.zippo.com>  <57cvg4$5r3@lex.zippo.com>  <57dqk0$rg1@lex.zippo.com>  <57e36d$4rt@lex.zippo.com>  <57fg0h$j1p@lex.zippo.com>  <57fvqv$323@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port943-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:50552 alt.politics.nationalism.white:37111

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <57fvqv$323@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >
>> >In article <57fg0h$j1p@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article ,
>> >jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >
>> >  [...deletia...]
>> >
>> >> >Notice that "Stone" still can't deal with a simple recitation of his own
>> >> >tactics, preferring instead to continue the ad hominem attack.
>> >> >
>> >> So what, may I ask, are you doing?
>> >
>> >I would have thought that "Stone" had that all figured out by now. I'm
>> >describing the ad hominem tactics that "Stone" uses in his attempts to end
>> >arguments without dealing with the points raised by his opponents.
>> >
>> And you are saying that you do not do the selfsame tactics?
>
>I'm saying nothing at all about myself. I'm pointing out "Stone's"
>tactics, which exist independently of what I may or may not do (regardless
>of "Stone's" past attempts to place responsibility for his choice of
>actions on others).
>
Perhaps you should review your own notes concerning beams and motes.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Thu Nov 28 07:35:48 PST 1996
Article: 50552 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!peerfeed.internetmci.com!EU.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Something other than _Spanish is an Aryan language_
Date: 26 Nov 1996 21:26:53 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <57gjet$hua@lex.zippo.com>
References: <573i5n$3h9@lex.zippo.com>  <574ps6$b91@lex.zippo.com>  <5761qu$boo@lex.zippo.com>  <577e3p$pj6@lex.zippo.com>  <57a73h$f1v@lex.zippo.com>  <57b6np$bd8@lex.zippo.com>  <57cvg4$5r3@lex.zippo.com>  <57dqk0$rg1@lex.zippo.com>  <57e36d$4rt@lex.zippo.com>  <57fg0h$j1p@lex.zippo.com>  <57fvqv$323@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port943-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:50552 alt.politics.nationalism.white:37111

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <57fvqv$323@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >
>> >In article <57fg0h$j1p@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article ,
>> >jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >
>> >  [...deletia...]
>> >
>> >> >Notice that "Stone" still can't deal with a simple recitation of his own
>> >> >tactics, preferring instead to continue the ad hominem attack.
>> >> >
>> >> So what, may I ask, are you doing?
>> >
>> >I would have thought that "Stone" had that all figured out by now. I'm
>> >describing the ad hominem tactics that "Stone" uses in his attempts to end
>> >arguments without dealing with the points raised by his opponents.
>> >
>> And you are saying that you do not do the selfsame tactics?
>
>I'm saying nothing at all about myself. I'm pointing out "Stone's"
>tactics, which exist independently of what I may or may not do (regardless
>of "Stone's" past attempts to place responsibility for his choice of
>actions on others).
>
Perhaps you should review your own notes concerning beams and motes.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Thu Nov 28 09:11:21 PST 1996
Article: 37241 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.axionet.com!uunet!in3.uu.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Something other than _Spanish is an Aryan language_
Date: 25 Nov 1996 20:10:40 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <57dqk0$rg1@lex.zippo.com>
References: <573i5n$3h9@lex.zippo.com>  <574ps6$b91@lex.zippo.com>  <5761qu$boo@lex.zippo.com>  <577e3p$pj6@lex.zippo.com>  <57a73h$f1v@lex.zippo.com>  <57b6np$bd8@lex.zippo.com>  <57cvg4$5r3@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port874-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:50681 alt.politics.nationalism.white:37241

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <57cvg4$5r3@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>  [...deletia...]
>
>> >Not at all; if "Stone" would like to dispute the conclusion that calling
>> >me a hypocrite _isn't_ an ad hominem attack, he is welcome to do so. I'd
>> >love to see his reasoning on this one.
>> >
>>   ad hominem
>>    Latin  To the man; to one's individual passions and prejudices.
>>           --Webster Dictionary.
>> 
>> Calling you a hypocrite is fact, not based upon my passions and prejudices.
>
>Calling me a hypocrite is an ad hominem attack, by which "Stone" seeks to
>discredit the observations I have made concerning his assertions and his
>tactics. 
>
You're pissing into the wind, "Brown."  Calling you a hypocrite is not an
ad hominem attack, because it is an observation I have made concerning your
assertions and your tactics.

Though I suppose you being a referee and all, we should believe you when 
you say calling you a hypocrite is an ad hominem attack.

>It is humorous indeed to hear a racist claim that he does _not_ base his
>views on his "passions and prejudices".
>
Even if your implication were true, calling you a hypocrite was not based
on my "passions and prejudices."  

You should decide whether you should be referee or player, btw, seeing as
you have no small complaint against me in that supposed regard.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Thu Nov 28 09:11:22 PST 1996
Article: 37243 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.axionet.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Something other than _Spanish is an Aryan language_
Date: 25 Nov 1996 22:37:01 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <57e36d$4rt@lex.zippo.com>
References: <573i5n$3h9@lex.zippo.com>  <574ps6$b91@lex.zippo.com>  <5761qu$boo@lex.zippo.com>  <577e3p$pj6@lex.zippo.com>  <57a73h$f1v@lex.zippo.com>  <57b6np$bd8@lex.zippo.com>  <57cvg4$5r3@lex.zippo.com>  <57dqk0$rg1@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port768-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:50683 alt.politics.nationalism.white:37243

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <57dqk0$rg1@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >
>> >In article <57cvg4$5r3@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article ,
>> >jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >
>> >  [...deletia...]
>> >
>> >> >Not at all; if "Stone" would like to dispute the conclusion that calling
>> >> >me a hypocrite _isn't_ an ad hominem attack, he is welcome to do so. I'd
>> >> >love to see his reasoning on this one.
>> >> >
>> >>   ad hominem
>> >>    Latin  To the man; to one's individual passions and prejudices.
>> >>           --Webster Dictionary.
>> >> 
>> >> Calling you a hypocrite is fact, not based upon my passions and prejudices.
>> >
>> >Calling me a hypocrite is an ad hominem attack, by which "Stone" seeks to
>> >discredit the observations I have made concerning his assertions and his
>> >tactics. 
>> >
>> You're pissing into the wind, "Brown."  Calling you a hypocrite is not an
>> ad hominem attack, because it is an observation I have made concerning your
>> assertions and your tactics.
>
>Hmmm... 'it's not A because I choose to call it B'. Interesting tactic.
>I'm not certain which of the classic logical fallacies this is, but I'll
>admit it slipped by me the first time I read "Stone's" post.
>
The logical fallacy is in your own works.  Maybe one day you will realize
your logical contradiction, but at the present you don't.

>> Though I suppose you being a referee and all, we should believe you when 
>> you say calling you a hypocrite is an ad hominem attack.
>
>Doesn't "Stone" usually have something to say regarding "willful
>ignorance" at a time like this? It's been demonstrated to him -- time and
>again -- that _he_ decides when to declare something irrelevant, _he_
>decides when someone is "waffling", _he_ decides when to claim that words
>never attributed to him are a "misquote", _he_ decides when to announce
>that his opponent suffers from impaired "neurological functions" -- all in
>place of actually dealing with the issues at hand. 
>
>Of course, that's another set of facts "Stone" would rather not deal with.
>
And it is "Brown" who decides when someone is playing referee.  Of course,
that's another fact "Brown" would rather not deal with.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Thu Nov 28 09:11:23 PST 1996
Article: 37244 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.axionet.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Something other than _Spanish is an Aryan language_
Date: 25 Nov 1996 22:45:07 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <57e3lj$50i@lex.zippo.com>
References: <573i5n$3h9@lex.zippo.com>  <574ps6$b91@lex.zippo.com>  <5761qu$boo@lex.zippo.com>  <577e3p$pj6@lex.zippo.com>  <57a73h$f1v@lex.zippo.com>  <57b6np$bd8@lex.zippo.com>  <57cvg4$5r3@lex.zippo.com>  <57dqk0$rg1@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port768-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:50684 alt.politics.nationalism.white:37244

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <57dqk0$rg1@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >
>> >In article <57cvg4$5r3@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article ,
>> >jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >
>> >  [...deletia...]
>> >
>> >> >Not at all; if "Stone" would like to dispute the conclusion that calling
>> >> >me a hypocrite _isn't_ an ad hominem attack, he is welcome to do so. I'd
>> >> >love to see his reasoning on this one.
>> >> >
>> >>   ad hominem
>> >>    Latin  To the man; to one's individual passions and prejudices.
>> >>           --Webster Dictionary.
>> >> 
>> >> Calling you a hypocrite is fact, not based upon my passions and prejudices.
>> >
>> >Calling me a hypocrite is an ad hominem attack, by which "Stone" seeks to
>> >discredit the observations I have made concerning his assertions and his
>> >tactics. 
>> >
>> You're pissing into the wind, "Brown." 
>
>Ah... more argument by assertion.
>
>> Calling you a hypocrite is not an
>> ad hominem attack, because it is an observation I have made concerning your
>> assertions and your tactics.
>
>If you say so, ref.
>
>> Though I suppose you being a referee and all, we should believe you when 
>> you say calling you a hypocrite is an ad hominem attack.
>
>If you say so, ref.
>
>> >It is humorous indeed to hear a racist claim that he does _not_ base his
>> >views on his "passions and prejudices".
>> >
>> Even if your implication were true, calling you a hypocrite was not based
>> on my "passions and prejudices."  
>
>If you say so, ref.
>
>> You should decide whether you should be referee or player, btw, seeing as
>> you have no small complaint against me in that supposed regard.
>
>If you say so, ref.
>
Take your _red card_ and leave.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Thu Nov 28 10:08:50 PST 1996
Article: 50681 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.axionet.com!uunet!in3.uu.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Something other than _Spanish is an Aryan language_
Date: 25 Nov 1996 20:10:40 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <57dqk0$rg1@lex.zippo.com>
References: <573i5n$3h9@lex.zippo.com>  <574ps6$b91@lex.zippo.com>  <5761qu$boo@lex.zippo.com>  <577e3p$pj6@lex.zippo.com>  <57a73h$f1v@lex.zippo.com>  <57b6np$bd8@lex.zippo.com>  <57cvg4$5r3@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port874-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:50681 alt.politics.nationalism.white:37241

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <57cvg4$5r3@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>  [...deletia...]
>
>> >Not at all; if "Stone" would like to dispute the conclusion that calling
>> >me a hypocrite _isn't_ an ad hominem attack, he is welcome to do so. I'd
>> >love to see his reasoning on this one.
>> >
>>   ad hominem
>>    Latin  To the man; to one's individual passions and prejudices.
>>           --Webster Dictionary.
>> 
>> Calling you a hypocrite is fact, not based upon my passions and prejudices.
>
>Calling me a hypocrite is an ad hominem attack, by which "Stone" seeks to
>discredit the observations I have made concerning his assertions and his
>tactics. 
>
You're pissing into the wind, "Brown."  Calling you a hypocrite is not an
ad hominem attack, because it is an observation I have made concerning your
assertions and your tactics.

Though I suppose you being a referee and all, we should believe you when 
you say calling you a hypocrite is an ad hominem attack.

>It is humorous indeed to hear a racist claim that he does _not_ base his
>views on his "passions and prejudices".
>
Even if your implication were true, calling you a hypocrite was not based
on my "passions and prejudices."  

You should decide whether you should be referee or player, btw, seeing as
you have no small complaint against me in that supposed regard.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Thu Nov 28 10:08:51 PST 1996
Article: 50683 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.axionet.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Something other than _Spanish is an Aryan language_
Date: 25 Nov 1996 22:37:01 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <57e36d$4rt@lex.zippo.com>
References: <573i5n$3h9@lex.zippo.com>  <574ps6$b91@lex.zippo.com>  <5761qu$boo@lex.zippo.com>  <577e3p$pj6@lex.zippo.com>  <57a73h$f1v@lex.zippo.com>  <57b6np$bd8@lex.zippo.com>  <57cvg4$5r3@lex.zippo.com>  <57dqk0$rg1@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port768-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:50683 alt.politics.nationalism.white:37243

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <57dqk0$rg1@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >
>> >In article <57cvg4$5r3@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article ,
>> >jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >
>> >  [...deletia...]
>> >
>> >> >Not at all; if "Stone" would like to dispute the conclusion that calling
>> >> >me a hypocrite _isn't_ an ad hominem attack, he is welcome to do so. I'd
>> >> >love to see his reasoning on this one.
>> >> >
>> >>   ad hominem
>> >>    Latin  To the man; to one's individual passions and prejudices.
>> >>           --Webster Dictionary.
>> >> 
>> >> Calling you a hypocrite is fact, not based upon my passions and prejudices.
>> >
>> >Calling me a hypocrite is an ad hominem attack, by which "Stone" seeks to
>> >discredit the observations I have made concerning his assertions and his
>> >tactics. 
>> >
>> You're pissing into the wind, "Brown."  Calling you a hypocrite is not an
>> ad hominem attack, because it is an observation I have made concerning your
>> assertions and your tactics.
>
>Hmmm... 'it's not A because I choose to call it B'. Interesting tactic.
>I'm not certain which of the classic logical fallacies this is, but I'll
>admit it slipped by me the first time I read "Stone's" post.
>
The logical fallacy is in your own works.  Maybe one day you will realize
your logical contradiction, but at the present you don't.

>> Though I suppose you being a referee and all, we should believe you when 
>> you say calling you a hypocrite is an ad hominem attack.
>
>Doesn't "Stone" usually have something to say regarding "willful
>ignorance" at a time like this? It's been demonstrated to him -- time and
>again -- that _he_ decides when to declare something irrelevant, _he_
>decides when someone is "waffling", _he_ decides when to claim that words
>never attributed to him are a "misquote", _he_ decides when to announce
>that his opponent suffers from impaired "neurological functions" -- all in
>place of actually dealing with the issues at hand. 
>
>Of course, that's another set of facts "Stone" would rather not deal with.
>
And it is "Brown" who decides when someone is playing referee.  Of course,
that's another fact "Brown" would rather not deal with.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Thu Nov 28 10:08:52 PST 1996
Article: 50684 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.axionet.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Something other than _Spanish is an Aryan language_
Date: 25 Nov 1996 22:45:07 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <57e3lj$50i@lex.zippo.com>
References: <573i5n$3h9@lex.zippo.com>  <574ps6$b91@lex.zippo.com>  <5761qu$boo@lex.zippo.com>  <577e3p$pj6@lex.zippo.com>  <57a73h$f1v@lex.zippo.com>  <57b6np$bd8@lex.zippo.com>  <57cvg4$5r3@lex.zippo.com>  <57dqk0$rg1@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port768-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:50684 alt.politics.nationalism.white:37244

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <57dqk0$rg1@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >
>> >In article <57cvg4$5r3@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article ,
>> >jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >
>> >  [...deletia...]
>> >
>> >> >Not at all; if "Stone" would like to dispute the conclusion that calling
>> >> >me a hypocrite _isn't_ an ad hominem attack, he is welcome to do so. I'd
>> >> >love to see his reasoning on this one.
>> >> >
>> >>   ad hominem
>> >>    Latin  To the man; to one's individual passions and prejudices.
>> >>           --Webster Dictionary.
>> >> 
>> >> Calling you a hypocrite is fact, not based upon my passions and prejudices.
>> >
>> >Calling me a hypocrite is an ad hominem attack, by which "Stone" seeks to
>> >discredit the observations I have made concerning his assertions and his
>> >tactics. 
>> >
>> You're pissing into the wind, "Brown." 
>
>Ah... more argument by assertion.
>
>> Calling you a hypocrite is not an
>> ad hominem attack, because it is an observation I have made concerning your
>> assertions and your tactics.
>
>If you say so, ref.
>
>> Though I suppose you being a referee and all, we should believe you when 
>> you say calling you a hypocrite is an ad hominem attack.
>
>If you say so, ref.
>
>> >It is humorous indeed to hear a racist claim that he does _not_ base his
>> >views on his "passions and prejudices".
>> >
>> Even if your implication were true, calling you a hypocrite was not based
>> on my "passions and prejudices."  
>
>If you say so, ref.
>
>> You should decide whether you should be referee or player, btw, seeing as
>> you have no small complaint against me in that supposed regard.
>
>If you say so, ref.
>
Take your _red card_ and leave.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sat Nov 30 11:37:49 PST 1996
Article: 37327 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!aurora.cs.athabascau.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.bc.net!nntp.portal.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.immigration,alt.skinheads,alt.conspiracy,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Re: More stupidity from Brian Smith
Date: 27 Nov 1996 13:08:35 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 165
Message-ID: <57iakj$9ua@lex.zippo.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port801-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.clinton:336855 alt.discrimination:57153 alt.politics.white-power:50765 alt.politics.nationalism.white:37327 alt.skinheads:44182 alt.conspiracy:114942 alt.religion.islam:34390

In article , holman@elo.helsinki.fi says...
>
>In article <329A4CD9.440A@conterra.com>, bwhit@conterra.com wrote:
>
>> Jim Walsh wrote:
>> > 
>> > In article <57885a$hoh@is05.micron.net>,
>> >    sbrian@micron.net (Brian Smith) wrote:
>> > 
>> > ::This is liberal bunk.  The White peoples of the world had produced
>> > ::advanced civilization in Rome and Greece, and developed advanced
>> > ::mathematics which Africans to this day have not developed.
>> > 
>> > How dare you claim that Euclid was white! You have not defined whiteness, so
>> > no one can determine what anyone's race is!
>> > 
>> > And, as I recall you think "Arabs" are "non-white". The entire body of Greek
>> > and Roman literature we all cherish today would have been lost to us if the
>> > Arabs (who added the concept of "zero" to the Greek mathematics, as well as
>> > other concepts, including the numerals we all use today) hadn't
>translated and
>> > preserved the books.
>> > 
>> >      Love, Jim Walsh
>> > 
>> > [P.S. I sometimes correct spelling and grammar in quoted material
>without intending to modify the meaning.]
>> 
>> 
>>         Actually, the Levantine peoples were probably a lot whiter earlier.
>
>Darkness of complexion seems to be directly proportional to the amount of
>amnnual sunlight available at a given place. Given that dark human beings
>evolved in Africa, and that light skin is the evolutionary innovation,
>whereas dark skin is an historical retention, is there any reason to
>believe that the inhabitants of the Levantine area were ever lighter other
>than a visceral desire on your part to attribute the accomplishments of
>Sumer, Babylon, Persia, Akkad, Egypt, Greece, and Rome to an unsullied,
>blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryan race? The known history of populations and
>invasions in this area seems to indicate that the oldest stratum of
>Levantine population traces its origin to the hot and sunny Arabian
>peninsula, and that it has longstanding and intense cultural and economic
>ties with eastern Africa, where Semitic languages such as Amharic and
>Harari, relatives of Arabic and Hebrew, are still spoken and where the
>Falashas, a black 'lost tribe' of Jews, was found in Ethiopia not long
>ago. 
>
>On what do you base your speculation ('probably a lot whiter') that the
>Levantine peoples once had a complexion that would have been dysfunctional
>from the standpoint of everything we know about the climactic conditions
>in the places of their historical origins?
>
Excuse me, but I remember posting a couple of months ago a reference to
a Phoenician bust (ie., in the Levant) that had blue eyes.  It was called
_The Phoenicians_ by S. Moscati (the leading authority on Phoenicians.)

To this day the hill tribes (the Christian ones) in Lebanon are of light
complexion.  There are instances of blond, blue eyed people among them
(and they aren't 'Europeans' either.)  According to my Lebanese friends
they never mixed in with the Arab populations, and one of them even has
red hair and white skin.

One of the Greek philosophers (forget which one) said that men created the
Gods in their own image, if they were horses, the Gods would look like
horses (paraphrased.)  The only Greek God to have swarthy skin was Hades,
and even then, it was still extremely fair -- check Philip II's tomb 
paintings, Hades is riding his chariot after stealing Kore, the daughter
of Demeter.  Hades has both red hair and pink complexion.  Hera was
normally called "white armed Hera...",  Apollo has blonde hair, as did his
sister Artemis, Zeus has red hair, ad infinitum.  Alexander the Great was
well known for his short statue, blue eyes and blonde hair.

Egypt, dealt with before.

Babylon, dealt with before.

Persians were part of the Aryan conquerors into the region.  There are
15th century paintings, by the Persians, which depict them as still being
red haired and of pink complexion.

Rome, you have got to be joking.

Sumer and Akkad are the only plausible exceptions.  Both were longheads
of Mediterranean type, but their skin colour remains a mystery, except
perhaps the Babylonian era could possibly reflect backwards to these two
earlier peoples.  You cannot say they weren't White, yet I can say those
that came later were White, which could mean the earlier inhabitants were 
also White (Sumerians and Akkadians.)

As for the Falashas, I somehow doubt they are a reflection of the original
Hebrew complexion, but more a result with mixing with inferior types.

To clear up some of Walsh's lies.  The Arabs did not invent zero, the
Aryans did.  All of number symbols are derived from the Aryans (0,1,2,3,4,
5,6,7,8,9).

The Arabs made no purposeful attempt to preserve the Roman literature.
The climates of the deserts are well suited for natural preservation, and
the monks of Europe were well known for transcribing earlier books (the
books were already available to the Renaissance reader.)

>>         I doubt all that Greek and Latin stuff was as critical as
>scholars like
>> to think.  Even during the Dark Agrs-- before the Middle Ages-- Northern
>> Europe had made fundamental technical advances from Classical times:
>> heavy plows, the horse collar, stirrups, all the very basic stuff that
>> has been largely ignored by historians.
>
>During the Middle Ages the intellectual accomplishments of Classical
>Antiquity, particularly an admiration for virtually limitless curiosity
>and the requirement that explanations be based on logical argumentation,
>were obscured by the dogma and authoritarianism of the Catholic Church.
>The teachings of great philosophers such as Aristotle were corrupted and
>modified to serve short-sighted ecclesiastical objectives rather than the
>quest for Truth. Consequently, the technological advantages made in Europe
>in the search for better techniques of warfare and the need to provide for
>the needs of populations living in increasingly crowded conditions, could
>not be related to any overall 'scheme of things' in an atmosphere where
>the penalty for questioning or presenting alternative models of the
>universe was to be eviscerated, burned at the stake, and/or boiled in oil.
>It wasn't until European scholarship renewed its acquaintance with the
>works of classical antiquity in their original form that the classical
>tradition of unbridled inquiry and theory construction could be revived
>and once again made an honorable pursuit. For this reason 'Renaissance
>Men' like
>Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, and Christopher Columbus, all of
>whom were, in different contexts, confident enough in the truth which they
>had reached as a consequence of rational inquiry to put their lives on the
>line by going public, are, in the overall scheme of things, much more
>important from the standpoint of the history of civilization, particularly
>our (not just your) Western Civilization, than the anonymous and
>resourceful farmers and soldiers who invented horse collars and stirrups,
>probably independently at more than one point in space-time, with no
>thought or concern to the role these innovations played in any more
>abstract or comprehensive
>theoretical constructs.
>
The Medieval period of Western Europe continued to see logic develop.
Logicians and computer scientists (AI field) are delving into those 
manuscripts for the logic they contain.  The Medieval period had a 
completely different set of priorities than the Renaissance period.  The
anchor that was holding back Europe was removed.

>
>>          Discoveries of old Greek and Latin stuff had nothing to do with that.
>>         Later, historians did try to connect everything with old writings. 
>> But, practically speaking, it didn't work.
>
>The dynamicity Western Culture has shown since the Renaissance (= rebirth
>[of unfettered inquiry]) is directly and causally connected with the
>re-establishment of first-hand acquaintance with the intellectual
>achievements of classical antiquity. Legions of historians of culture
>agree on this, if on little else.
>
It was soon discovered by the Renaissance people that certain things were
wrong.  Instead of looking back they looked forward.  The comment you have
made was the initial attitude which was a reflection of the Medieval 
period -- that being the world was steadily deteriorating since the time of
Adam's fall.  Akkad was viewed as the richest, best, ad infinitum period,
and man's plight had gotten worse since then.  Rome and Greece were 
therefore looked at (initially) as superior because of that reason of being
older.  The Renaissance man believed the ideal man was the omnicompetant
man.  Classical education was only one facet of the Renaissance world.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sat Nov 30 11:37:50 PST 1996
Article: 37392 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!freenet.unbc.edu!news.scn.org!news.abs.net!in1.nntp.cais.net!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.msfc.nasa.gov!news.sgi.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.immigration,alt.skinheads,alt.conspiracy,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Re: More stupidity from Brian Smith
Date: 29 Nov 1996 01:26:13 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <57ma7l$99r@lex.zippo.com>
References:  <57iakj$9ua@lex.zippo.com> <57m43k$cnl@keelung.transend.com.tw>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port862-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.clinton:337013 alt.discrimination:57189 alt.politics.white-power:50823 alt.politics.nationalism.white:37392 alt.skinheads:44228 alt.conspiracy:115111 alt.religion.islam:34451

In article <57m43k$cnl@keelung.transend.com.tw>, jimwalsh@transend.com.tw says...
>
>In article <57iakj$9ua@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>::To clear up some of Walsh's lies.  The Arabs did not invent zero, the
>::Aryans did.  All of number symbols are derived from the Aryans (0,1,2,3,4,
>::5,6,7,8,9).
>::
>::The Arabs made no purposeful attempt to preserve the Roman literature.
>
>All false. There are no people called the Aryans. That is a construct made up 
>after the fact by racists with an axe to grind. 

You have thrown away any credibility you had pretense too with these two
sentences.

There were people called Aryan, and they were long before your modern 
racialists.  Though I will admit the Aryans were racialist for most of 
their civilisation.

>By twisting or ignoring 
>facts, the whole of Hitler's eugenics program is "justified". I suggest 
>that you read a few books not written by idiots. Without Arab scholars much of 
>the work of the Roman, Greek and other early scholars would have been totally 
>lost forever. Virtually no one who has studied the period doubts that. 

Er no, you are quite wrong.  I have studied late antiquity and various
primary sources from that era, and no, the Arabs weren't responsible.  What
they kept was incidental due to the climate.  Of course you could mean the
Egyptian (Coptic) Church, but they were 1) Christian, and 2) not Arabian.

>It 
>requires a mind-set of the sort that is capable of denying the killing of 6 
>million people in plain sight to overlook the contribution of the Arabs.
>
Was this part of the topic at hand?

You are completely wrong about the Aryans, and this appears to be a knee-
jerk reaction to the Nazi use of the word Aryan.

>It would be much smarter to admit Arabs and Jews into the "White civilization" 
>than to lie about their contributions, but who said these idiots were smart?
>
Er no.  I will admit the Arabs weren't foolish however in many regards.  
They kept alive some of the medical practises that had been discovered a
long time before them.  They also saw the value of the Aryan numbering
system.

Of course you could review some of their own manuscripts, and how they
depicted themselves.  One of the modern books (printed this year) I despise 
is _Crusades_ has one redeeming feature, it displays original primary 
sources.

>In another context, Brian Smith recommended "Pedigrees of Negro Families" by 
>"Ruggles" whom he described as a "distinquished Harvard geneticist". I just 
>dropped by Amazon Books (its on the net, and says it will ship any book in 
>print in few days). This "distinquished" book is not 'in print' according to 
>Amazon. That leads me to ask Brian, just when was this "distinquished" book 
>written? Not trying to foist off out-dated material, are you Brian?
>
I am not Brian, nor do I know what you are talking about.  Typically only
popular books stay in print (they sell), being distinguished is not a
safeguard against being cancelled.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sat Nov 30 11:39:31 PST 1996
Article: 50920 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.axionet.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!205.252.116.190!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Mesoamerica recycled again (was: Hitler was an in tune guy)
Date: 28 Nov 1996 16:12:56 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 229
Message-ID: <57l9q8$f2h@lex.zippo.com>
References: <56rs78$n7o@lex.zippo.com> <56tjpj$8m3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <56vlki$8h2@lex.zippo.com> <571rlp$70s@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <572aef$205@lex.zippo.com> <575bke$6v0@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <5763e5$d3d@lex.zippo.com> <57ctr5$h2n@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <57dfkn$j18@lex.zippo.com> <57ibl0$dhc@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <57is1k$na6@lex.zippo.com> <57l2gr$q44@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port872-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <57l2gr$q44@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <57ibl0$dhc@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>[...]
>
>>>So what are you suggesting?  That the "deliberate crossers" taught
>>>Mesoamericans how to write?  If this were the case, why then would the
>>>Mesoamerican writing system be so utterly different from any Old World
>>>system, do you suppose?
>
>>One point first.  Could we have some proof that the two systems of writing
>>are so utterly different?
>
>You have not answered my question.  Are you or are you not suggesting that
>"deliberate crossings" from the Old World to Mesoamerica are responsible
>for the introduction of writing to Mesoamerica?
>
>If you are indeed making this argument, the burden of proof is upon you.
>One kind of proof might be similarities in the writing systems.  Was the
>Mesoamerican system alphabetic at all?  Do you even know that?
>
It is a hieroglyphic style.

>>As for the symbols, the Hittites used (for a time) a unique alphabet 
>>before they decided to use Sumerian style.
>
>>The symbols in Ogahm are unique to any other writing form.
>
>>The Greeks were hardly faithful to the Phoenician style for writing either.
>
>>Unique writing is not a strong isolationist argument.
>
>And the existence of writing in Mesoamerica is not any argument at all
>for diffusion or migration from Europe or the Middle East.
>
Perhaps not.
>
>[...]
>
>>>Well, if, as you appear to be arguing, Kukulcan/Quetzalcoatl brought the
>>>"enlightenment of civilisation" to Mesoamerica, then one would expect him
>>>to be immortalised in their iconography and writing right from the word go,
>>>would one not?  
>
>>Perhaps Kukulcan/Quetzalcoatl was the most famous White, not the first,
>>which you have already decided I meant.  Just because Kukulcan was the
>>first Mayan King doesn't mean he was the first White.
>
>Your baseless speculations do not constitute an argument.  There is a 
>problem with accepting the mythology that Kukulcan was the first Maya
>king as historical fact.  Do you have any idea what this problem is?
>
As a slight digression, I checked some references to Quetzalcoatl.  He was
originally a Toltec God whom the Aztecs incorporated when they took over,
so presumably the Aztec architecture starts off straightaway with symbols
to Quetzalcoatl.  Montezuma sent the tokens of Quetzalcoatl to Cortes
believing that Cortes was Quetzalcoatl.
>[...]
>
>>>>It is not uncommon for real people to take on fantastic characteristics
>>>>from their successors.  Take Heracles, Ulysses, Achilles, Paris and so
>>>>forth.  They could have easily been real men, and in Homer's day they
>>>>believed that these men lived in an age where they could lift a rock that
>>>>would take six men to lift and throw it.  If that isn't good enough try
>>>>King Arthur.
>
>>>Sure.  So you are suggesting that Quetzalcoatl was "white" just like
>>>Hercules had superhuman strength.  Good analogy, Twinkletoes.
>
>>Er no.  Trust a PC bigot to twist things.
>
>The perhaps you would deign to explain what this example was intended to
>illustrate, by way of analogy.
>
The fantastic abilities of Quetzalcoatl is similar to old World mythos.
Another example; the Merovingian kings believed their original ancestor 
was a sea monster (until Clovis).

>[...]
>
>>>>I have explained why there was a loss of memory, you have just not thought
>
>>>Alas, you have not "explained" anything.  You have offered up some pretty
>>>half-baked "excuses" for why the *only* piece of evidence for direct
>>>Old World/Mesoamerican contact in precolumbian times is the adjective used
>>>to describe a mythico-religious character is Aztec and Maya lore.
>
>>Some of the paintings concerning their own depictions (of highborn) show a
>>white/pink people.  I have already given a citation for this once (_Vanished
>>Civilisations_.)  The Mayans, especially, depict themselves as being fairer
>>than their subjects.
>
>This is most interesting indeed, since very few painted images of ancient
>Maya people exist at all.  The vast majority of their imagery is
>unpainted (carved in stone).  I have not seen the book you refer to, but 
>all illustrations of polychrome vessels that portray real people without
>headdresses and masks, and the murals that have survived, uniformly depict
>people of various shades of brown.  I am thinking of the Bonampak murals,
>in particular.  A major problem, of course, is that the painting is uneven
>and has worn off in many of these media.  But the west wall in room 1 at
>Bonampak shows, upper register illustrates a king and his heir, both of
>whom are indeed shown as very brown.
>
>In other words, your observation about the Maya is WRONG.
>
Rubbish.  The ones I have seen are an extremely light brown -- a distortion
of the stone from which they were painted.  Said book is more explicit.  I
also never said all or even most, but some.  I suspect they mixed in with
the inferior races around them, thus getting that brown colour.

>>Heyerdahl has also done some research on the Mesoamericans.  Though as usual
>>his works are hushed up (doesn't fit convention.)
>
>What *research* (not speculation, Twinkletoes, research) has Heyerdahl done?
>
I suggest you read his books.

>[...]
>
>>>>>>>So what time frame *are* you talking about for the "great voyage", and 
>>>>>>>how does this fit with the chronology of the major developments that you
>>>>>>>are so convinced were beyond the imaginations and abilities of native
>>>>>>>Mesoamericans?
>
>>>>>>Not enough information at present to do so.
>
>>>Well this is certainly a major hole in your "theory".  Are you saying that
>>>not enough information exists, or that you don't have enough information?
>
>>If the Mesoamerican and South American civilisations talked so freely about
>>Whites, I hardly consider that to be a major hole.
>
>You have provided no convincing evidence that Mesoamerican and South American
>civilisations did this!  You have cited the mythico-religious characters of
>Quetzalcoatl and Kukulcan, something about Maya depictions that is false,
>and without reference a remark by Pizarro.  That's it.  You haven't made
>your case.  You're right, it isn't a major hole.  It's a vacuum.
>
Please explain why the Aztecs viewed the Conquistadors as the white Gods 
who had returned then.

>>It appears one such crossing was undertaken circa 900-800 B.C (an 
>>accidental crossing.)
>
>Evidence?
>
The Phoenician inscription gives their king's name.  

>[...]
>
>>>If the necessary "information" is hidden, how do you know it exists?
>
>>It exists all right.  You just have to be prepared to do a lot of searching.
>
>Let's try that again.  If the necessary "information" is hidden, how do you
>know it exists?
>
It is sometimes amazing what is sometimes slipped through, things that don't
match the anthropology propaganda on said topics.  Like the Phoenician
inscription.

>[...]
>
>>>Can you offer some examples of pertinent information that is "simply not
>>>printed"?  And explain how you know of its existence?
>
>>I gave one example.  To my knowledge it is never mentioned in a single
>>textbook concerning said topic.
>
>Then how did you learn of it?
>
By studying the Phoenicians.  The Phoenicians proved a popular topic and I
needed books, the one mentioned was essentially a reserved book.  Looking
through the contents, one chapter read something like _Phoenicians and 
America_.  While not relevant to my essay I read it nonetheless.
  
>>>>misinformation, what did you expect?  I stumbled by accident on the piece
>>>>of Phoenician writing discovered off the Brazilian coast last century, and
>
>>>in the Atlantic Ocean?
>
>>Trust a PC bigot to be stupid.
>
>Well what else is "off the Brazilian coast"?
>
I meant "on."

>[...]
>
>>>>It takes two to tango fester.  Just because he wanted to off them, doesn't
>>>>mean there was a general consensus to do so (willingly.)  As I tried to
>>>>state before, the Conquistadors were able to move without too much hindrance
>>>>because they were viewed as the white Gods that had returned.
>
>>>And what is your evidence to support his interpretation of conquest history?
>>>Moctezuma's effort to kill them failed.  Do you know what actually happened
>>>after that?  Or are you just making this up as you go along, too?
>
>>The Conquistadors pretty much slaughtered the Aztecs.
>
>The Spanish eventually defeated the Aztecs, yes, with a great deal of help
>from smallpox and from former Aztec allies.  But this arguing after the fact,
>from conclusion to "evidence".  It does not in any way *demonstrate* that 
>the Aztecs continued to believe that Cortes was Quetzalcoatl up to the bitter
>end.
>
That is possibly likely.  I believe they were viewed as Gods right to the
bitter end though.

Lastly, explain the following from a strict isolationist viewpoint:

  "The Aztecs, like nearly all people, had a tradition of a flood and of a
  confusion of languages.  They say that humanity was wiped out by a flood,
  but one man Coxcoxtli and one woman Xochiquetzal escaped in a boat, and
  reached a mountain called Colhuacan.  They had many children, who were
  dumb until the time when a dove on top of a tree made them the gift of
  languages; but these differed so much that the children could not
  understand each other."

_The New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology_, p.438.

Ourobouros.

Ourobouros.





From Ourobouros Sun Dec  1 16:07:11 PST 1996
Article: 82893 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!clicnet!news.clic.net!news.bconnex.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.white-power,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Founding Of Classical Asia
Date: 26 Nov 1996 11:27:39 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <57fgbb$jbs@lex.zippo.com>
References: <242664=sxb41@farman.cac.psu.edu=alt.conspiracy> <242664=varange@crl.com=alt.conspiracy> <57efo9$nai@gyda.ifi.uio.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port878-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:37502 alt.revisionism:82893 alt.politics.white-power:50952 alt.conspiracy:115483

In article <57efo9$nai@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, christop@ifi.uio.no says...
>
>
>(bunch of ngs snipped)
>
>In article <242664=varange@crl.com=alt.conspiracy>, varange@crl.com (Troy Varange) writes:
>> SENAKA BALASURIYA  writing [ 3744] bytes in <577lju$1o5e@r02n01.cac.psu.edu> from nexp.crl.com!nntp.crl.com!howland.erols.net!news3.cac.psu.edu!farman!sxb41 said
>> > This is what encyclopedia brittanica (www.eb.com:180/) says about aryans:
>> > "Aryan 
>> > (from Sanskrit arya, "noble"), a people who, in prehistoric times,
>> > settled in Iran and northern India. From their language, also called Aryan, 
>> > the Indo-European languages of South Asia are descended. In the 19th century 
>> > the term was used as a synonym for "Indo-European" and also, more 
>> > restrictively, to refer to the ... Indo-Iranian languages (q.v.). It is now 
>> > used in linguistics only in the sense of the term Indo-Aryan languages (q.v.)"
>> 	
>> 	Correct.  The founders of Indian and Iranian civilzation
>> 	were of aryan race.
>> 	However, the present inhabitants of India and Iran are
>> 	predominantly non-aryan.
>
>Oh?
>
>> 	There are more aryans in the USA and Europe than in India.
>
>You seem to suffer from the misconception that the Aryans were "white". That
>wierd idea originated with some racist fruitcake in France in the previous
>century.
>
>The Aryans most likely looked the same as the people living in northern India 
>today.
>
So what proof do you have of your allegations?

Could you please also be rational in your proof.

Ourobouros.





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

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

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

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