The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/m/mckinstry.colin/1996/stone.1296


From Ourobouros Tue Dec  3 07:38:08 PST 1996
Article: 37502 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
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.




From Ourobouros Tue Dec  3 08:43:44 PST 1996
Article: 50952 of alt.politics.white-power
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.




From Ourobouros Tue Dec  3 08:43:45 PST 1996
Article: 51021 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.axionet.com!uunet!in3.uu.net!204.127.130.5!phase2.worldnet.att.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!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: 29 Nov 1996 12:00:37 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 191
Message-ID: <57nfd5$gt6@lex.zippo.com>
References: <56rs78$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$q44@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <57l9q8$f2h@lex.zippo.com> <57ncqh$5p@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port885-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <57ncqh$5p@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <57l2gr$q44@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>[...]
>>>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.
>
>And do you think that hieroglyphic writing could have been invented only once?
>But even this is too vague.  Can you be more specific?  Was it pictographic,
>allographic?
>
Do you know your subject at all?

The Mayan writing style included pictographs, ideographs and phonetic
symbols.

>[...]
>
>>>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.
>[...]
>
>So you are saying that the earlierst imagery of Quetzalcoatl is associated
>with the Toltecs?  And you still haven't answered my question about Kukulcan
>and the problem with accepting as literal history the mythology claiming
>that he was the first Maya king.  Still working on that one?
>
It would appear that the earliest iconography of Quetzalcoatl was from the 
Toltecs.

PC bigots cannot accept anything from oral history or mythology unless it
is anti-white.  The Kukulcan legends are pro-white and therefore any
reference to him must be wrong.

>[...]
>
>>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).
>
>Well isn't that astonishing.  New World gods and Old World gods all had
>fantastic abilities!!  I wonder if that is why they were gods, rather than
>human beings!
>
Another example, the Norse God Odin.  It has been pointed out by several
scholars that Odin was originally a highly successful German King/General.
He was later diefied.  It is not unusual for a herioc man to become a God
to his successors.  It is also not unusual for Kings to claim descent from
various (chief) Gods.  Alexander I was claimed by the Greeks to have
produced his lineage proving he was a Greek in a particular Olympiad...he
traced to his lineage to Heracles (and therefore Zeus.)

>[...]
>
>>>>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.
>
>Rubbish?  Well I don't know what painted stone you've seen depicted, but
>I sure would like to.  Virtually all of the colour imagery we have from
>the ancient Maya derives from two sources:  polychrome ceramic vessels
>and painted ceramic figurines, and mural art (painted on plaster - *white*
>plaster, you know, that lime-based stuff).  The other major body of human
>imagery is indeed iconography on stone, but it is *not* painted, although
>some of it may originally have been painted over plaster.  For some fine
>examples, I refer you to Linda Schele and Mary Ellen Miller, "The Blood of
>Kings: Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art", Kimball Art Museum, Fort Worth, TX,
>1986.  ISBN 0-8076-1159-X.  All shades of brown.  Interestingly, the images
>also portray a vary uniform facial physiognomy, too.
>
>[...]
>
>>>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.
>
>Because they viewed time as unfolding in endless, repeated cycles.  Gods
>came and went, worlds or "suns" were born and died.  A major calendrical
>cycle was coming to its end, and since Quetzalcoatl had been instrumental
>in creating that "sun", his return was consistent with the Aztec view of 
>the cosmos that he would be instrumental in bringing about its end, as well,
>should the end have come at that particular juncture in their calendar.
>And of course it did, although not in the way predicted by the prophecies.
>
Skirting around the edges aren't you?  Why did they have legends about
white Gods?
>[...]

[snip]

>[...]
>
>>>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.
>
>Then I suggest that you read some literature on the subject.  A good place
>to start is a book called "The Broken Spears", which is the native perspective
>of the Mexican conquest, written by Miguel Leon Portillo.
>
>>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.
>
>In an area of Mexico called the Mixteca, only a small part of the country,
>there are 3 major Mixtec languages, none of them mutually intelligible,
>spoken.  Not only that, but within each of these languages, there is so
>much dialectic variation, that people in neighbouring villages often cannot
>understand one another.  So perhaps the myth reflects reality.
>
>The Aztecs believed that different natural disasters had destroyed each
>of the prior suns (they lived in the fifth), and that theirs would be
>destroyed by yet another (earthquake).  Flood is a natural disaster.  
>Natural disasters are powerful, inexplicable, and beyond human control.
>Just the stuff for the realm of religion and mythology.
>
Strange that it duplicates the Sumerican and Biblical narration.  So you
are saying that it is simply a coincidence?

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Tue Dec  3 08:43:46 PST 1996
Article: 51022 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.axionet.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!204.71.1.48!newsfeed.internetmci.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: 29 Nov 1996 14:06:10 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 116
Message-ID: <57nmoi$m99@lex.zippo.com>
References: <56rs78$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>  <57j9b3$44u@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port869-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article , jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>
>In article <57j9b3$44u@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>jeff_brown@pol.com says...
>> >
>> >In article <57is1k$na6@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> >  [...deletia...]
>> >
>> >> Er no.  Trust a PC bigot to twist things.
>> >
>> >And trust "Stone" to attempt to end an argument with an ad hominem attack...
>> >
>> >  [...deletia...]
>> >
>> >> Trust a PC bigot to be stupid.
>> >
>> >...twice in a single post.
>> >
>> And I'll suppose you will claim that this response of yours isn't an
>> ad hominem attack either?
>> 
>> One could hope that you'd read and understand the original post, but you
>> seem to be fond of using ad hominem attacks instead.
>
>Let's see if "Stone" knows whereof he speaks. First, a proper definition
>of the ad hominem attack:
>
> "Attacking the Person
>  (argumentum ad hominem)
>
>  Definition: The person presenting an argument is attacked 
>  instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For 
>  example, the person's character, nationality or religion 
>  may be attacked.
>
>  Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
>  gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
>  attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
>
>  There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
>
>    (1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
>    the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
>
>    (2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
>    assertion the author points to the relationship between the
>    person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
>
>    (3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
>    person notes that a person does not practise what he
>    preaches."
>
>  -- from "Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies"
>      http://www.assiniboinec.mb.ca/user/downes/fallacy/fall.htm
>
>Hmmm. How did "Stone" refer to Dr. Finsten? Well, he referred to her as:
>
>  "a PC bigot"
>
>and
>
>  "stupid"
>
>"Stone" chose to attack Dr. Finsten's character and intelligence. This
>would certainly seem to an "argument [that] attacks the person who made
>the assertion". I'd say it qualifies as an "argumentum ad hominem", or ad
>hominem attack.
>
>"Stone" now claims that when I said:
>
>  >And trust "Stone" to attempt to end an argument with an ad hominem attack...
>  >...twice in a single post.
>
>...I was making an ad hominem attack on him. Well, did I?
>
>   "(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
>    the argument attacks the person who made the assertion."
>
>This doesn't fit. "Stone" himself is not attacked; the ad hominem nature
>of his tactic was noted.
>
>   "(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
>    assertion the author points to the relationship between the
>    person making the assertion and the person's circumstances."
>
>This doesn't fit. No mention of any circumstance related to "Stone" is made. 
>
>   "(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
>    person notes that a person does not practise what he
>    preaches."
>
>Dear me, this doesn't fit either. No discussion of any disparity between
>"Stone's" argument and his behavior is to be found in the passage "Stone"
>objects to.
>
>Looks like "Stone" erred when he referred to my pointing out the nature of
>his argument as an "ad hominem attack".
>
>Am I wholly innocent of ever having used an ad hominem attack? No; alas, I
>find myself as vulnerable to committing such fallacies as anyone else. I
>note, however, that the fact that I am guilty of such attacks in the past
>does not mean that I am somehow in error when I call attention to the use
>of ad hominem arguments by "Stone" and others in the present. "Stone's"
>cries of "hypocrite" are merely a form of the "ad hominem (tu quoque)"
>argument (see above).
>
So what you are really saying is that your original reply was not attacking
me at all (ad hominem), but was really about sunny meadows and birds
chirping.

I am impressed by your clarification.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Dec  3 08:48:01 PST 1996
Article: 115483 of alt.conspiracy
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.




From Ourobouros Wed Dec  4 05:34:21 PST 1996
Article: 51241 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!howland.erols.net!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: 3 Dec 1996 16:20:26 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <582g4a$i4f@lex.zippo.com>
References: <56rs78$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> <57ukhh$j90@news1.ucsd.edu> <57v8b7$gm5@lex.zippo.com> <581qk8$nof@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port793-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article , Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>You or Finsten haven't come up with the goodies that the writing systems
>>are radically different either.  That burden of proof is upon you and/or
>>Finsten.
>
>Nope.  You have made the claim that there are sufficient similarities
>between these two systems to support your assertion of a common origin.
>The burden of proof is upon you.  Your claim, you must prove it.  Your
>unwillingness and/or inability to do so is duely noted.
>
Nice twisting.

Ourobouros


From Ourobouros Thu Dec  5 08:06:00 PST 1996
Article: 57582 of alt.discrimination
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!freenet.unbc.edu!news.scn.org!news.abs.net!washington.Capitol.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: 3 Dec 1996 21:24:27 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <5831ub$342@lex.zippo.com>
References:  <57iakj$9ua@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port848-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.clinton:338691 alt.discrimination:57582 alt.politics.white-power:51351 alt.politics.nationalism.white:37938 alt.skinheads:44705 alt.conspiracy:116993 alt.religion.islam:35001

In article , holman@elo.helsinki.fi says...
>
>In article <57iakj$9ua@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>holman@elo.helsinki.fi says...
>
>
>> >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.
>> 
>
>Well, we agree on a significant issue for once. I'd just like to add that
>viewed in retrospect, the Renaissance was indeed Janus-like,
>simultaneously looking backwards and forwards. The energy to go forward
>was, however, a consequence of having looked backwards and, discovering
>'that certain things were wrong', using this realization and the once
>again liberated spirit of free inquiry to try to set things right.
>
So what about the Medieval period?

Its focus on development was different from the Renaissance ideology, and
the Renaissance ideology is different to ours.  It is wrong to think that
the Medieval period was a period of stagnation.  Today our priorities are
about making short-lived wizzy things with multicoloured lights, and we
call it progress.  That liberated spirit died in the 50s & 60s.

Ourobouros.

 


From Ourobouros Tue Dec 10 05:43:00 PST 1996
Article: 84732 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nol.net!df.lth.se!news.lth.se!solace!eru.mt.luth.se!news.algonet.se!news.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!howland.erols.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,uk.politics,uk.politics.crime,alt.revisionism
Subject: Baden Powell?
Date: 9 Dec 1996 10:41:50 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <58hmhe$lnk@lex.zippo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port836-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:51664 alt.revisionism:84732

I heard recently that Baden Powell, founder of the Boy Scouts, will have
his status of founder removed in Britain for not liking the Negroes.  Can
anyone confirm or deny this?

If this is true, can there be any doubt that the term "politically correct"
is not myth?

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Thu Dec 12 05:56:26 PST 1996
Article: 38540 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.immigration,alt.skinheads,alt.conspiracy,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Re: More Facts Proving the Non-Existence of a "Pure White Race"
Date: 11 Dec 1996 11:43:10 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <58n2se$70r@lex.zippo.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port842-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.discrimination:58120 alt.politics.white-power:51826 alt.politics.nationalism.white:38540 alt.skinheads:45250 alt.conspiracy:119286 alt.religion.islam:35906

In article , holman@elo.helsinki.fi says...
>
>In article <58i8ce$949$1@gryphon.phoenix.net>,
>"tavish@phoenix.net"@phoenix.net wrote:
>
>
>> 
>> I am supposed to be 100% aryan with England as my ancestral fatherland.
>
>You should know enough about British history to know that the basic
>English stock is the result of the mixing of Anglian, Saxon, Frisian,
>Scandinavian, and French invaders with the people who had evolved from
>earlier waves of Celtic and Roman (*Roman* meaning from all over the Roman
>Empire) invaders. You might also know that Aryan, in the *only*
>scientifically valid usage of the word, refers to the Indo-European
>speaking ancestors of the contemporary Persians, Kurds, Baluchis,
>Pakistanis, Gypsies, and North Indians, evidently a break-off group from
>the south-eastern part of the putative Indo-European speech community. So,
>if you are 100% Aryan with England as your ancestral homeland, am correct
>in assuming the you are a Gypsy? They are the Aryan group with the longest
>history in England.
>
Concerning the English stock, the only possible non-Aryan (as in mulatto)
could be the Romans.  The original Romans were white, and a lot of their
subjects were white, they would have mainly used troops from Europe, or
more particularly the Western (European) Army for the invasion, which would
mean using white stock troops.

Gypsy?  The longest history in England?  The evidence should be amusing.

[snip]

>> so- I concluded I am not responsible for what any of
>> may ancestors did, nor did I have any say in with who or what they may
>> have bedded down with. 
>
>Any privilege that they gained and which you inherited by birthright was
>taken from someone and thus might be the direct cause of someone's
>underprivilegedness today. I'm not being a wild idealist here, but I would
>very much like to remind you that the period of Anglo-American slavery
>lasted for more than *three hundred years* and involved *tens of millions
>of people*. The
>monetary value of the work which was done by unpaid slaves, but which the
>slave owners pocketed, was not small potatoes. We are dealing with
>millions upon millions of manhours for which the work was done by one
>group, with the benefits accruing to another. Do you feel no feelings of
>compunction or discomfort for your having acquired as a birthright,
>admittedly through none of your own actions, a collective status and
>privilege with so tainted a past? Do the efforts of people who *do*
>consider the disparity too great to be self correcting cause you so much
>discomfort that you cannot bear to suffer the pain as a contribution
>towards building a more equitable society in the future?
>
First of all, slavery was once an accepted practise.  Secondly, Blacks
were not exclusive slaves (ever heard of indentured farmers?).  Thirdly,
are the children guilty of their father's supposed crime?  -- Would you 
kill (or imprison) a father's son if the father was a proven murderer? 
Fourthly, the rich are always a minority.  Most whites would not have
received the benefits of Black slavery (they didn't have one.)  Fifthly,
how much of Black labour is worthwhile?  They are stereotypically lazy and
stupid, and stereotypes must derive from somewhere.  Sixthly (related to
fifthly), how efficient are slaves (generally) at work?

[snip]

>> I am me and it is my attitude and my inner
>> convictions that make me what I am. In saying this- I do not owe the
>> black man affirmative action or special treatment for what any of my
>> ancestors did. 
>
>In other words, you say, dragging millions of people to another country
>against their will, enslaving them, making them work for centuries with no
>pay, pocketing the accrued wealth and privileges, and handing them down to
>following generations does not, in any way, awaken in you the slightest
>idea that you just might have some moral responsibility towards the
>descendants of those who were enslaved and who had the value of their work
>taken from them by your ancestors, who passed it one to you as a birthright?
>
The Blacks taken were already slaves in their homeland, all that happened
was a change in ownership -- here is an interesting thought, those Blacks
remaining in Africa must owe you (plural) big time for the millenia that
your (plural) ancestors were slaves.  If my ancestors were involved in the
slave 'trade' I'd have no remorse...I don't hold grudges against England
for her cruel treatment of the Scots (my ancestral land), don't forget many Scots
were forced into America, many perished on the way, and many were 
indentured.  Should the Scots in America get a hand-out from the US
government?  You Blacks are a bunch of whiners, if you don't like the US
so much move back to Africa.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Thu Dec 12 05:56:28 PST 1996
Article: 38561 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!peerfeed.internetmci.com!dciteleport.com!worldnet.att.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Our Flag
Date: 11 Dec 1996 21:46:13 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <58o675$97b@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbe634$ab0a7de0$fca8aec7@default> <58o0n4$9sq$1@news.iag.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port837-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:51843 alt.politics.nationalism.white:38561

In article <58o0n4$9sq$1@news.iag.net>, veracity@ibm.com says...
>
>In article <01bbe634$ab0a7de0$fca8aec7@default>, "Rad"  wrote:
>>In case you don't have a copy, here's OUR Star of David, the swastika, the
>>world's oldest racial symbol. May the Jews never destroy her.
>
>
>The swastika is an East Indian religious symbol, you moron.  Hitler, using his 
>third grade education, addopted it without understanding it. ( As he did the 
> word "Aryan"(which actually refers to a black haired, black eyed, brown 
>skined people))
>
>Please castrate yourself so as not to allow your inferior DNA to further 
>pollute the gene pool.

You could try and get your facts right before attempting to flame, otherwise
you will appear as the moron you now are.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Fri Dec 13 06:02:14 PST 1996
Article: 38643 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!freenet.unbc.edu!news.scn.org!news.abs.net!aplcen.apl.jhu.edu!cpk-news-feed3.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.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,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: The Jews, World Wars, Revolution, and Chaos in Western History
Date: 12 Dec 1996 10:43:47 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <58pjp3$od4@lex.zippo.com>
References:  <58090o$mfo@news.nyu.edu> <58273p$ic0@is05.micron.net> <585va1$ene@colossus.holonet.net> <58opoc$qd0@tron.sci.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port828-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.clinton:341380 alt.discrimination:58217 alt.politics.white-power:51908 alt.politics.nationalism.white:38643 alt.skinheads:45359 alt.conspiracy:119602 alt.religion.islam:35991 soc.culture.jewish:99527

In article <58opoc$qd0@tron.sci.fi>, kisu@sci.fi says...
>
>Steven Casas (steven@csnsys.com) wrote:
>: >>Care to name a significant Jewish player in WWI or WWII?
>: >>A SINGLE F**KING ONE?
>
>-deleting many names I never heard before, so they couldn't be very
> significant-
>
Was one of the names deleted Bernard Baruch?  If so, you are very ignorant.
He was a significant player in both WWI and WWII.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Fri Dec 13 18:13:11 PST 1996
Article: 38749 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!node2.frontiernet.net!usenet.logical.net!dciteleport.com!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,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: The Jews, World Wars, Revolution, and Chaos in Western History
Date: 13 Dec 1996 11:10:06 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <58s9me$eau@lex.zippo.com>
References:  <58090o$mfo@news.nyu.edu> <58273p$ic0@is05.micron.net> <585va1$ene@colossus.holonet.net> <58opoc$qd0@tron.sci.fi> <58pjp3$od4@lex.zippo.com> <58rjol$c5d@tron.sci.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port863-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.clinton:341751 alt.discrimination:58294 alt.politics.white-power:51987 alt.politics.nationalism.white:38749 alt.skinheads:45442 alt.conspiracy:119947 alt.religion.islam:36059 soc.culture.jewish:99716

In article <58rjol$c5d@tron.sci.fi>, kisu@sci.fi says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>: >-deleting many names I never heard before, so they couldn't be very
>: > significant-
>: Was one of the names deleted Bernard Baruch?  If so, you are very ignorant.
>: He was a significant player in both WWI and WWII.
>
>The only place where I saw that name before was a Nazi propaganda poster
>showing how Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin were puppets of guess who.
>What makes this Baruch character significant, particularly in WW I?
>
In WWI he had an extremely prominent position in organising both US & UK
forces.  In WWII he was Churchill's best buddy, and Baruch appears in a lot
of photographs with Churchill during WWII (there must of being some 
influence.)  I do not know if Baruch had major influence over Stalin or
Roosevelt, but he played a role in British war time politics.

Ourobouros.
  


From Ourobouros Sat Dec 14 08:31:15 PST 1996
Article: 38755 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!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.immigration,alt.skinheads,alt.conspiracy,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Re: More Facts Proving the Non-Existence of a "Pure White Race"
Date: 13 Dec 1996 11:02:00 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 225
Message-ID: <58s978$duf@lex.zippo.com>
References:  <58n2se$70r@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port863-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.discrimination:58299 alt.politics.white-power:51992 alt.politics.nationalism.white:38755 alt.skinheads:45454 alt.conspiracy:119986 alt.religion.islam:36063

In article , holman@elo.helsinki.fi says...
>
>In article <58n2se$70r@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>holman@elo.helsinki.fi says...
>> >
>> >In article <58i8ce$949$1@gryphon.phoenix.net>,
>> >"tavish@phoenix.net"@phoenix.net wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> 
>> >> I am supposed to be 100% aryan with England as my ancestral fatherland.
>> >
>> >You should know enough about British history to know that the basic
>> >English stock is the result of the mixing of Anglian, Saxon, Frisian,
>> >Scandinavian, and French invaders with the people who had evolved from
>> >earlier waves of Celtic and Roman (*Roman* meaning from all over the Roman
>> >Empire) invaders. You might also know that Aryan, in the *only*
>> >scientifically valid usage of the word, refers to the Indo-European
>> >speaking ancestors of the contemporary Persians, Kurds, Baluchis,
>> >Pakistanis, Gypsies, and North Indians, evidently a break-off group from
>> >the south-eastern part of the putative Indo-European speech community. So,
>> >if you are 100% Aryan with England as your ancestral homeland, am correct
>> >in assuming the you are a Gypsy? They are the Aryan group with the longest
>> >history in England.
>> >
>> Concerning the English stock, the only possible non-Aryan (as in mulatto)
>> could be the Romans.  The original Romans were white, and a lot of their
>> subjects were white, they would have mainly used troops from Europe, or
>> more particularly the Western (European) Army for the invasion, which would
>> mean using white stock troops.
>> 
>
>Here we have problems with the different interpretations of the word
>Aryan. Let's just review them quickly before exchanging viewpoints. The
>term Aryan is used in at least three different senses, two of which I
>would claim, are illegitimate.
>1. (legitimate) A speaker of a language belonging to the south-eastern
>branch of the Indo-European language family or a descendant of such a
>person. The fair-skinned Aryans conquered what are now Persia,
>Afghanistan, Pakistan and northwestern India and imposed Indo-European
>speech on the darker skinned inhabitants. Their interpretation of light
>skin color as a sign of social status resulted in the caste system. The
>modern Indo-Aryan languages, Persian, Gypsy, Baluchi, Urdu, Hindi, Singhi,
>Gujarati, etc. are the direct descendants of the speech of these
>historical Aryans, and the people speaking these languages, their direct
>descendants, are the only ones who can legitmately call themselves Aryans.
>
The former I agree with, the latter I don't.  I also appreciate your 
knowledge of the caste system as many of your comrades are wilfully
ignorant on that point.  However, it is extremely likely that all 
Indo-European languages derived from a single (land-locked) point of origin.
It is fully possible that the word "Arya" came through to the Celtic group,
and produced such words as "Eire" in Gaelic.

>2. (illegitimate) A speaker of an Indo-European language or his
>descendant. This misuse of the word Aryan derives from the early 19th
>century belief that Sanskrit, the most archaic Indo-European language of
>which we have a complete record and, admittedly, an Aryan language, was
>the original source language from which all the other Indo-European
>langauge had developed. This idea, propagated by the German romanticist
>philosopher Friedrich von Schlegel (*Sprache und Weisheit der Inder*,
>1808) was quickly demonstrated to be incorrect by the pioneers of
>comparative linguistics such as Franz Bopp and Jakob Grimm. This did not,
>however, prevent the term Aryan from entering English and several other
>languages as a synonym for Indo-European. Thus, speaking of English,
>German,  Russian, Latin, Greek etc. as Aryan languages reflects a
>scientific theory that has been demonstrated to be incorrect.
>
>3. (illegitimate) A blond-haired, blue-eyed person of north-western
>European descent, non-Jewish. This usage was introduced by the French
>count Arthur de Gibineau in his *Essay on the Inequality of the Human
>Races*, 1855. In it he maintained that the northern European racial type,
>which he called Aryan, was superior and less diluted by interbreeding than
>other racial types. Living at a time when Aryan was still widely
>understood to refer to the original Indo-European language, he erroneously
>thought that the northern European racial type represented the original
>Indo-European racial type, thus justifying his use of the term Aryan.
>Subsequent study has shown that the Germanic languages spoken by de
>Gibineau's 'Aryans' actually arose as the consequence of the mixing of
>Indo-European speech with one or several languages previously spoken in
>the area, and that the population of northern Europe is also racially
>mixed, having links to northern Africa, through the earliest celtic
>invasions, as well as to northern Eurasia, owing to the spread and mixture
>of IndoEuropean spokers with an olderlayer of speakers of Finno-Ugric
>languages.
>
I notice you are trying the mulatto bid again.  The North Africans at a
much earlier point were White, not mud.  This is attested by the former
population of Spain and Portugal, the Spanish policy of "limpieza de 
sangre" of the 15th and 16th century proves beyond shadow of doubt that the
only Brown people (in Spain) were Moors and Jews, the original inhabitants 
were White.

The term Aryan is preferred to Nordic, because of the historical 
perspective.  The original Aryans were racially aware, thus giving them 
additional consideration.  Since the Aryan caste system was based on race
then the term Aryan is a racial term.  The descendents of the Aryans 
(Gypsies, modern Indians, etc.) fail to meet the racial requirements.

>
>> Gypsy?  The longest history in England?  The evidence should be amusing.
>> 
>
>The Gypsies originated in India. They are thus Aryans in sense 1 above.
>They have a continuous history of residence in England for at least the
>past five hundred years. Other communities of Aryans (in sense 1) such as
>the Pakistanis, Sikhs, Bangladeshis, etc. have only recently (within the
>past hundred years) had a permanent presence in England.
>
The Cornish have a much longer history, and they are Celts.  As to your
Gypsies, they are an admixture of Moors, Jews and other mud peoples.

>
>> First of all, slavery was once an accepted practise. 
>
>That does not negate the fact that work was done by slaves, with the
>vcalue accruing to the owners.
>
Perhaps the whole Western world should be asking for handouts from Italy,
Greece, Iran, Iraq and Egypt then?

>> Secondly, Blacks
>> were not exclusive slaves (ever heard of indentured farmers?).  
>
>You are right. There were also black slave holders, and probbaly even a
>few cases where blacks had white slaves. That does not negate the fact
>that within the American context, at least, blackness and only blackness
>is generally understood as a sign of descent from a slave, with all the
>negative implications that has.
>
What negative implications?
>
>> Thirdly,
>> are the children guilty of their father's supposed crime?  -- Would you 
>> kill (or imprison) a father's son if the father was a proven murderer? 
>
>The children are not guilty of the father's crime, but the children do
>have some moral and intellectual responsibility to understand that their
>privileges and superior status are not the result of their inherent racial
>superiority but rather the consequence of a tainted birthright. They also
>have the responsibility to understand that more than two centuries of
>slavery have skewed both the distribution of privilege and attitudes in
>the US to such an extent that it cannot self-correct itself. Affirmative
>action, applied wisely and critically, seems to me the best way of putting
>things on approximately the right track again.
>
Incorrect.  The children received the benefits of their more aggressive and
willing fathers.  The Blacks started with nothing before they ever came to
America, and they received more than their ancestors ever had when they
were released from their chains.  There was no debt, because slavery was
your ancestors' "culture."  You should have graditude that Whites saw the
need to release you from your own cultural practises.  Blacks in America
are so much better off than their former masters in Africa.  Affirmative
Action seeks to blame a people who gave you more opportunities than your
people ever had.  If Blacks were so equal then they should prove it, whining
for hand outs continues to prove your inferiority.

>
>> Fourthly, the rich are always a minority.  Most whites would not have
>> received the benefits of Black slavery (they didn't have one.) 
>
>They received them indirectly as attitudes which automatically saddle the
>visible descendants of slaves with certain incumbrances at birth. Blacks
>in the US have always had to pay the same taxes as everyone else. It
>wasn't until the mid 1960s when they could be sure that they would be
>allowed to vote or served in places of public accommodation. The American
>colonies revolted for lesser perceived injustices.
>
What did they receive indirectly?  Most indentured farmers risked the
frontiers for "free," and, despite the modern ideology of a noble savage,
the savages were anything but noble.  The benefits you are trying to
ascertain were nonexistent to most.
>
>> Fifthly,
>> how much of Black labour is worthwhile?  They are stereotypically lazy and
>> stupid, and stereotypes must derive from somewhere.  Sixthly (related to
>> fifthly), how efficient are slaves (generally) at work?
>>
>
>Oe would expect a person who was working from dawn to dust without pay and
>with no hope of improving his life or being freed to do the minimum. Black
>slaves were purposely made 'stupid' when, after a slave rebellion in 1831,
>caused by slaves who understood the meaning of the Declaration of
>Independence, they were forbidden to be taught to read or write. The fact
>that the southern states fought four bloody years to retain their
>'peculiar institution' demonstrates that many people thought slavery was
>damned profitable.
>
I never said slavery wasn't profitable, but I am asking how much was that
profit?  The American Civil War wasn't about slavery as modern PC Historian
and other cronies propagate.

I somehow doubt slave owning Thomas Jefferson meant Blacks either.

>> >
>> The Blacks taken were already slaves in their homeland, all that happened
>> was a change in ownership -- here is an interesting thought, those Blacks
>> remaining in Africa must owe you (plural) big time for the millenia that
>> your (plural) ancestors were slaves.  If my ancestors were involved in the
>> slave 'trade' I'd have no remorse...I don't hold grudges against England
>> for her cruel treatment of the Scots (my ancestral land), don't forget
>many Scots
>> were forced into America, many perished on the way, and many were 
>> indentured.  Should the Scots in America get a hand-out from the US
>> government?  You Blacks are a bunch of whiners, if you don't like the US
>> so much move back to Africa.
>
>Scots were not forced to wear a brand. American blacks carry the mark of
>descent from slaves every minute of the day. Luckily, American society is
>gradually learning to evaluate people in different ways, but, as we
>sometimes see in this newsgroup, many white Americans complain if Blacks
>start showing up in positions of power or privilege in a proportion coming
>to anything remotely close to the one-in-eight of the popualtion which
>they constitute.
>
What brand are Blacks forced to carry?  Sounds like more whining.  If Blacks
were such great leaders then Africa would have achieved something without
Whites.  Since Blacks did not, then putting Blacks into power in Western
countries is ludicrous.  Do you think that Whites really want to have Black 
ideology permeating their society?  Black culture maybe good for Blacks, 
but it is no good for Whites.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sat Dec 14 17:06:31 PST 1996
Article: 52066 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.insinc.net!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Another Negro trying to be intelligent (Was : to the Aryans who can read (long))
Date: 13 Dec 1996 18:40:15 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 239
Message-ID: <58t42f$2ev@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbe815$e5cb8c20$24122399@atlatl>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port864-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <01bbe815$e5cb8c20$24122399@atlatl>, "Looks2Sky" says...
>
Edited:

>Reality-check time, my inarticulate friends.  Let me premise my statements
>by saying I am a black male, mixed with Native American and (sigh) European
>ancestry.  I even have a Jewish great-grandfather.  Let me further add that
>I am a law-student.  Now for the fun part, it's ong [1] but I think it's 
>worth it.  I always wanted to challenge the you [2] Nutsies [3].  what [4]
>is it you guys always yell?  SEEK HELP, SEEK HELP, as you raise your arms 
>out from your chest.  Hitler started that right?  Yeah, he really needed 
>to Zeig Heil, oops I mean, SEEK HELP.  :)
>
Inarticulate, eh?

[1] "ong" should long, spelling error.
[2] "the you" is completely nonsensical.
[3] The noun "Nutsies" is nonexistent, perhaps you meant "National 
Socialists."
[4] English requires uppercase following a period.

I would also criticise your informal, idiomatic paragraph as further proof
of your ineptitude.

>I would love to sit down and debate you Aryans.  My friends against your
>Klan.  The Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians I know would run mental cicles
>around you inbred bastards.  i wish you could see me.  I AM LAUGHING AT YOU
>HILLBILLIES!  You pathetically inferior bunch of intellectual midgets could
>never comprehend the things my friends and I could.  We "inferior" blacks
>as you consider us, could destroy you incompetents.  I am laughing at all
>of you.  In your pathetic state, you need to boost your egos and tell
>yourselves that you created all that is great in society.  You, the true
>savages, created nothing but the mess this world currently faces.  You deny
>us equal opportunity, our civil and human rights, our personal safety, you
>flood our communities (via the CIA, et. al.) with drugs and guns, and then
>wonder why we have so many problems.  Yet despite these problems we are
>still here.  Many of us are more highly educated (and highly paid I might
>add) than you inbred Appalachians will ever be.  Get a clue you Berserker
>wannabees.  Sh-t, the true Vikings wouldn't even spit on your pathetic
>asses.  They would laugh at you, then kill you and sacrifice you to Balder,
>Thor, Odin, or someone.
>
This paragraph is also inarticulate, but I can not be bothered pointing out 
the errors.

If this paragraph is the highlight of your intellectual prowess, none of us
have anything to fear from you or your comrades.

>As I listen to the rantings of the inbred hillbillies who call themselves
>Aryans, I do often feel guilty.  Why, you ask?  Well, because I can't help
>but at laugh at them; and I know this is an impolite and improper response.
> But I am shocked at the mentality level of these individuals. I guess it
>is to be expected since, in the case of the Aryans, their fathers and
>uncles are usually one and the same person.  
>
More incoherent ramblings from a Negro.

>Are you nazi's so ignorant of history as to not no that world/cultural
>dominance is cyclical?  Blacks for thousands of years ruled the planet. 
>What evidence you ask?  Well just consider the Elam in persia, the Grimaldi
>in Europe, the Sumerian (original) in Mesopatamia, the vedics in India, the
>Negritos throughout all of Asia, the "black" Mongols of Eurasia..... Black
>peoples started civilization.  Whites, through military force mainly, hold
>the dominance in this era.  But this has been so for only the last 900
>years (at most).  For the thousands of years previous, Blacks, Indians,
>native Americans, Asians, and semites held the technological advantage,
>while whites (aka Neanderthals) lived in caves and huts as "Berserkers and
>Celts" wreaking havoc in Europe.  
>
More stupidity.  I can only hope Christopher Henrik Lund reads this and
takes note of the mental prowess of his comrades.

>I pose these questions to you:
>Q.  Before the year 900, what contribution did Aryan whites make to world
>history?
>
>A.  None.  The shmucks were still running around as Vikings calling
>themselves Berserkers.  If it wasn't for Roman dominance, these people
>would still be painting themselves blue and raping and pillaging coastal
>areas of Europe.  But they are "superior," yeah right.  All ancient
>Egyptians paintings depicting Europeans and Indo-Europeans showed them as
>tattooed savages.  The ancient Egyptians despised the European even more
>than the semite and Israelite whom they considered lowly shephard-people. 
>But what do the whites do?  They try to make the ancient Egyptian white,
>even though Egypt was called KMT (Khemet) meaning land of the blacks. 
>Consider this if you dare:
>
KMT, more stupidity.  KMT or Kemet, not Khemet, means the black land.  It
never has, and never will mean "land of the blacks."  The ancient Egyptians
named two types of land, red land, black land.  Red land referred to the
desert (east and west), and black land referred to the fertile regions.

The Berlin bust of Nefertiti is hardly a depiction of a savage.  

Admittedly, the Dynasty XII Pharaohs did not like Europeans, but then, the 
Dynasty XII Pharoahs did not like anybody but Egyptians, they even made 
proclammations demanding the death of all Negroes that dared to enter 
Egypt.

>Archeological evidence:
>1.  On March 1st 1979, on the front page of the New York Times (A1:2) an
>article was published called "Clues to the Oldest Monarchy Found in
>Europe."  This article and many others, described in detail how the
>Egyptian Pharaonic system, symbols, and theology originated in Nubia (Cush,
>Ethiopia, the Sudan).  Go to a library, if you people have any, and look up
>this article, and others on Nubian preeminance.  The original pharoahs were
>black Africans.  More proof you say?  Gladly:
>
You would be upset to find out that the people of the then Green Sahara 
were not Negro either.

"The non-Negro stock recognised in the Sahara [5,000-3,000BC, Ed's note] is
certainly not related to the Mechta-Afalou race, but another race has been
distinguished in northwest Africa and here the resemblances are said to be
close. ... It is appreciably less rugged than the Mechta-Afalou race; is
long-headed; of slender build and approaches a primitive Mediterranean
type [sic, Ed's note]."

J. D. Clark, _The Prehistory of Africa_, 1970, p.167.

Christopher Henrik Lund, you wanted evidence that various people actually
believed that the Egyptians came from Nubia.  Please take note.

>Historical:
>2.  Please consider the "Father of History" Herodotus, that ancient greek
>historian who stated that the Egyptians were black like the Ethiopians, and
>that the greek pantheon as well as many of its cultural aspects were
>derived from Egypt and Ethiopia.  His statements reflected the commonly
>held view of their day regarding the origins of so-called greek-culture. 
>Why do modern whites try to attribute to whites, what ancient whites
>attributed to blacks.  Napolean and his troops also acknowledged that the
>depictions of pharoahs, and most notably the Sphinx, depicted individuals
>clearly nubian in appearance.  Many other the top Egyptologists, like
>Petrie (British) had to admitted that the Pharaonic system was of Nubian
>origin. Get a clue you hill-billies.
>
No, Herodotus stated that the Egyptian troops were Negro.  He never stated
the Greek pantheon and culture were derived from Ethiopia.  Napolean and
his troops did not acknowledge that the depictions of Pharoahs, nor the
Sphinx depicted Nubians in appearance.  It is common of modern Egyptian
textbooks to try and correlate any piece of ancient Egyptian culture to a
Negro practise.  Few have any recognisable correlation.

>Depictions:
>3.  Please consider the depictions of the following gods and Pharoahs: 
>(the head of) Ra, Osiris, Narmer/Menes, Tera Neter, Djoser, Imhotep,
>Thutmoses(all), Khafre/Chephren, Amenhemet, Senurset, Hathor, Isis, Queen
>Nefertiti ad nauseum, and tell me how you can rationalize them as being
>white.  They are clearly black.  If you ever leave the backwoods or
>low-country, try visiting a museum.  Not a moon-shine, trailer-park, or
>banjo museum, but a museum dealing with history and art.
>
ROTFL.  There are some depictions of Nefertiti with Negro features, but
there are other depictions of her with absolutely no relation to Negro or
even human characteristics.  The bust in Berlin has typical European
features, btw.

>The Bible:
>A.  You hill-billies hate "race-mixing" but have you ever read Numbers 12:1
>Moses, married a black woman.  She was Ethiopian, and like the Bible says
>(in Jeremiah 13:23) an Ethiopian cannot change their skin.  they always
>were and always will be black.  Note also that the word ethiopian doesn't
>apply to the Ethiopia of today, that was known as Abyssinia and
>Put(Phut/Punt).  This biblical Ethiopia is Cush (Nubia) found in what is
>today the Sudan.  These people were black, and loving it.  Note, in case
>you people actually read on your own, that this Cush couldn't be the
>Kussites because geographically and chronologically it would make no sense.
> The Cushites (Nubian/Ethiopians) commonly mixed with Egyptians.  Kussites,
>had no real contact with Egypt at this time - at least not to the extent of
>the real Cush.
>
It is commonly believed that the "Exodus" occurred in Dynasty XIX 
(Rameses II), at the time the only Negroes in Egypt were in chains, and
their usual spot was in Karnak, a practice carried from Dynasty XVIII, and
has no earlier history.  Dynasty XII forbade the presence of Negroes into
Egypt (on pain of death) when they conquered Nubia.

An equally plausible Cush is Cish, which is SE of Babylon, please bear in
mind that the original writing system (of the Hebrews) had no vowels.

>So either Moses is black and you must give the black man respect, or you
>have here the first case of "race-mixing."  God approved of the marriage
>(Numbers 12: 2-9), even though Miriam and Aaaron did not.  Note that most
>people think Aaaron & Miriam disagreed w/ the marriage not because of race,
>but because of the fact that Ethiopians weren't Hebrew and had a different
>religion.
>
Your conclusion is unfounded.

>B.  The sons of Ham who many say are black, also include the Egyptians. 
>The Biblical Mizraim is in actuality Egypt. 
>
The Hebrews called Egypt Mizraim, your only true fact so far.

>Q.  After the year 900, what contributions did Aryans make to World
>history?
>Very Little.  Don't you know your own history?  The GERMAN was the
>BARBARIAN of old.  The wise Greeks hated the Aryans.  You were the
>"savages" of your day.  Even during this current period of white dominance,
>it wasn't Aryan whites but Mediterraneans (Greeks, Romans, Turks,
>Spaniards, Portuguese, etc.) who held most of the power.  It wasn't until
>the 1600's that Aryans developed a viable technological society, mainly
>through the Anglo-saxon english.  Germans didn't do crap.  With the
>exception of a few great ones like Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, et. al., Aryans
>have throughout history been a sorrowful bunch.  The germans themselves
>never became a real power until the last two/three centuries, maybe a bit
>further back if you include the barbaric Prussians.
>
The Greeks thought everyone but themselves were Barbarians.  The Romans
forced them to reconsider that position in respect to themselves.  Not
even the Persians escaped this denigration, and they were the superpower
for a reasonable chunk of Greek history.

BTW, did you know Apollo (a Greek God) had blonde hair?

>You whites, via the US, Germany, England, France, and a few others, may
>have the technological, economic, and military advantage now.  But it's all
>cyclical.  Who's to say, in the next hundred years or so, the asians may be
>the dominant force in world history.  In another thousand years it may be
>the blacks again.  And in another thousand years after that (sigh) you
>neanderthals may even get another shot. 
>
The Blacks have never been a dominant force, and never will be.  The Asians
are the only other race with a potential for dominance.

>Note all whites are not evil, bad, neanderthals.  just the rascist ones who
>make up the majority of this country.  Outside of the US, South Africa,
>Croatia, Bosnia, and Germany, Austria, and Russia most whites are actually
>quite civil.  The french (up until the last decade) have been quite open to
>minorities.  To a significant degree, the swiss, dutch, and even (to a
>lesser degree) the english have been quite open to minorities.  To bad you
>Aryans couldn't follow their lead.   
>
>Respond if you dare you inbred, offspring of your uncle-daddies.  (I love
>you all though).
>
Unabated stupidity throughout.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Dec 15 08:12:17 PST 1996
Article: 85728 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!news.bctel.net!news.insinc.net!ocean.netrover.com!amberjack.netrunner.net!news1.agis.net!agis!news.minn.net!visi.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.revisionism,alt.censorship,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: The Great Debate
Date: 13 Dec 1996 18:53:58 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <58t4s6$2qm@lex.zippo.com>
References: <199612120033.QAA01666@mailmasher.com> <58srfv$jkm$5@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port864-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:85728 alt.censorship:112394 alt.politics.nationalism.white:38871 alt.politics.white-power:52079

In article <58srfv$jkm$5@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>, gmcfee@ibm.net says...
>
>In message <199612120033.QAA01666@mailmasher.com> - Seneca
> writes:
>:>
>:>gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee)writes:
>:>:>
>:>:>Ken McVay OBC wrote:
>:>
[snip]

>:>If he's as crazy as all of the Holocaust (TM) Fanatics claim, why is he so
>:>near the top of the Zionist terrorist gangs' lists?  And as you well know,
>:>it's McVay who avoids debate.
>
>Try DejaNews sometime and report back to me how many posts you see authored by
>Zuendel (I can already predict the drunken Giwer's response).  Compare that to
>the number by Mr. McVay.
>
Speaking only for myself:

Of the many times I have tried to debate with McVay there has only been one
occurence of debate, and even then, he turned tail and ran.

I conclude, at least for myself, that McVay avoids debate.

BTW, why should Zundel debate people like yourself?  He hasn't got a hope
in hell of getting an intelligent debate going with people like yourself,
excepting only Stewart King.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Dec 16 07:36:29 PST 1996
Article: 523744 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.insinc.net!econ4.econnect.net!news.islandnet.com!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!news.sgi.com!news.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics
Subject: Re: Blacks Artists Get Ripped Off
Date: 15 Dec 1996 12:47:37 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <591o59$5oh@lex.zippo.com>
References: <32B1F70C.3578@prodigy.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port877-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:523744 alt.politics.white-power:52200 alt.politics.usa.misc:131456 alt.politics.correct:164783 alt.politics.clinton:342472

In article , atticus@mindspring.com says...
>
>
>NOTE:  Newsgroups trimmed.
>
>In article <32B1F70C.3578@prodigy.com>, EARTHJUICE
> wrote:
>
[snip]

>"Classical" music discovered
>percussion from Africa in the 15th century. Western music adapted African
>rhythms from then on. Every new experience is a learning experience for an
>artist who is willing to learn. And so it goes.
>
What an absolute lie.  The music of the Renaissance developed in Northern
Europe.  The European countries who were interested in Africa in the 15th
century were not part of the countries who gave us such talented music.

Europe did not learn percussion from a bunch of primitive people.  Europe
has had bells, cymbals, and drums long before the 15th centuries.  These
instruments were long in use in music (perhaps 12th Century).  

As for Rock 'n' Roll, if you like a primitive beat (4 4), you are
quite welcome to it.  I would be surprised if Rock 'n' Roll wasn't a
development of a primitive's music.  The music of a low culture.

Ourobouros.






From Ourobouros Mon Dec 16 10:41:01 PST 1996
Article: 85991 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nol.net!df.lth.se!news.lth.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!sunic!surfnet.nl!swidir.switch.ch!scsing.switch.ch!news.bme.hu!news.westel900.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.censorship,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: The Great Debate
Date: 15 Dec 1996 11:37:08 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <591k14$3o8@lex.zippo.com>
References: <199612120033.QAA01666@mailmasher.com> <58srfv$jkm$5@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net><199612120033.QAA01666@mailmasher.com> <58srfv$jkm$5@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net> <58t4s6$2qm@lex.zippo.com> <58vour$1a9e$1@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port859-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:85991 alt.censorship:112489 alt.politics.nationalism.white:39022 alt.politics.white-power:52210

In article <58vour$1a9e$1@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>, gmcfee@ibm.net says...
>
>In message <58t4s6$2qm@lex.zippo.com> - Ourobouros writes:
>:>
>:>In article <58srfv$jkm$5@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>, gmcfee@ibm.net says...
>:>>
>:>>In message <199612120033.QAA01666@mailmasher.com> - Seneca
>:>
>:>>:>If he's as crazy as all of the Holocaust (TM) Fanatics claim, why is he so
>:>>:>near the top of the Zionist terrorist gangs' lists?  And as you well know,
>:>>:>it's McVay who avoids debate.
>:>>
>:>>Try DejaNews sometime and report back to me how many posts you see authored by
>:>>Zuendel (I can already predict the drunken Giwer's response).  Compare that to
>:>>the number by Mr. McVay.
>:>>
>:>Speaking only for myself:
>:>
>:>Of the many times I have tried to debate with McVay there has only been one
>:>occurence of debate, and even then, he turned tail and ran.
>
>Would you be good enough to post the reference for that "debate" please?  I
>have been around this newsgroup for quite a while and I have yet to see Mr.
>McVay cut and run.
>
You can use Dejanews just like everybody else.

>:>I conclude, at least for myself, that McVay avoids debate.
>
>It may just be that he avoids you.  };->
>
Which is still avoiding debate.

>:>BTW, why should Zundel debate people like yourself?  He hasn't got a hope
>:>in hell of getting an intelligent debate going with people like yourself,
>:>excepting only Stewart King.
>
>There is no reason in the world why Zuendel should debate people like me. 
>Except for the fact that he whines incessantly about being denied free speech
>and doesn't have the guts to use it when given the chance.  I guess that makes
>him a hypocritical coward.  I guess *he* is the one who cuts and runs.
>
No.  While you can try and claim that here we have freedom of speech, there
is no intellectual outcome of it.  The conclusions wrought here are 
meaningless on accepted scholarship.  USENET does not offer this extremely 
important aspect.  You (pl.) only want Zundel to debate here to pump your
own egos.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Wed Dec 18 08:19:14 PST 1996
Article: 86363 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!news.bconnex.net!feed1.news.erols.com!netaxs.com!hunter.premier.net!worldnet.att.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.censorship,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: The Great Debate
Date: 17 Dec 1996 10:09:09 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <596nk5$k7j@lex.zippo.com>
References: <199612120033.QAA01666@mailmasher.com> <58srfv$jkm$5@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net><199612120033.QAA01666@mailmasher.com> <58srfv$jkm$5@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net> <58t4s6$2qm@lex.zippo.com> <58vour$1a9e$1@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net><199612120033.QAA01666@mailmasher.com> <58srfv$jkm$5@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net><199612120033.QAA01666@mailmasher.com> <58srfv$jkm$5@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net> <58t4s6$2qm@lex.zippo.com> <58vour$1a9e$1@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net> <591k14$3o8@lex.zippo.com> <5956j2$ou6$16@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port867-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:86363 alt.censorship:112601 alt.politics.nationalism.white:39277 alt.politics.white-power:52368

In article <5956j2$ou6$16@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>, gmcfee@ibm.net says...
>
>In message <591k14$3o8@lex.zippo.com> - Ourobouros15 Dec 1996 11:37:08 -0800
>writes:
>:>
>:>In article <58vour$1a9e$1@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>, gmcfee@ibm.net says...
>:>>
>:>>In message <58t4s6$2qm@lex.zippo.com> - Ourobouros writes:
>
>[deleted]
>
>:>>:>Speaking only for myself:
>:>>:>
>:>>:>Of the many times I have tried to debate with McVay there has only been one
>:>>:>occurence of debate, and even then, he turned tail and ran.
>:>>
>:>>Would you be good enough to post the reference for that "debate" please?  I
>:>>have been around this newsgroup for quite a while and I have yet to see Mr.
>:>>McVay cut and run.
>:>>
>:>You can use Dejanews just like everybody else.
>
>In other words, you made it up.  Thanks for the confirmation.
>
What bizarre logic.  

>:>>:>I conclude, at least for myself, that McVay avoids debate.
>:>>
>:>>It may just be that he avoids you.  };->
>:>>
>:>Which is still avoiding debate.
>
>Nowhere near as pleasant as debate.
>
?

>:>>:>BTW, why should Zundel debate people like yourself?  He hasn't got a hope
>:>>:>in hell of getting an intelligent debate going with people like yourself,
>:>>:>excepting only Stewart King.
>:>>
>:>>There is no reason in the world why Zuendel should debate people like me. 
>:>>Except for the fact that he whines incessantly about being denied free speech
>:>>and doesn't have the guts to use it when given the chance.  I guess that makes
>:>>him a hypocritical coward.  I guess *he* is the one who cuts and runs.
>:>>
>:>No.  While you can try and claim that here we have freedom of speech, there
>:>is no intellectual outcome of it.  The conclusions wrought here are 
>:>meaningless on accepted scholarship.  USENET does not offer this extremely 
>:>important aspect.  You (pl.) only want Zundel to debate here to pump your
>:>own egos.
>
>No, I don't want Zuendel here at all.  I was simply commenting on his
>hypocrisy and cowardice.
>
Then stop whining about Zundel's lack of interest in alt.revisionism.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Wed Dec 18 08:19:15 PST 1996
Article: 86459 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nol.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.censorship,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: The Great Debate
Date: 16 Dec 1996 21:33:58 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <595bc6$iru@lex.zippo.com>
References: <199612120033.QAA01666@mailmasher.com> <58t4s6$2qm@lex.zippo.com> <58vour$1a9e$1@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net> <591k14$3o8@lex.zippo.com> <5951tn$2oj@access5.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port860-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:86459 alt.censorship:112635 alt.politics.nationalism.white:39318 alt.politics.white-power:52400

In article <5951tn$2oj@access5.digex.net>, mstein@access5.digex.net says...
>
>In article <591k14$3o8@lex.zippo.com>,   wrote:
>>In article <58vour$1a9e$1@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>, gmcfee@ibm.net says...
>>No.  While you can try and claim that here we have freedom of speech, there
>>is no intellectual outcome of it.  The conclusions wrought here are 
>>meaningless on accepted scholarship.  USENET does not offer this extremely 
>>important aspect.  You (pl.) only want Zundel to debate here to pump your
>>own egos.
>
>    So tell me how what Zundel says on TV or radio (which appears to be
>where he wants to debate) is any less "meaningless on accepted
>scholarship" (whatever that clumsy phrase means)?  Indeed, because the
>nature of the medium with its time constraints means it cannot be
>subjected to the same careful critical review as the written word, TV and
>radio offer even _less_ of what you claim is the important aspect than
>what is written here.  It would appear that Zundel only wants to debate as
>a way of gaining publicity, and will only do it in a forum where there is
>not enough time to refute any errors or outright lies he might tell.
>
TV and Radio would, at the very least, give Mr. Zundel publicity to Jo
Bloggs.  I somehow doubt being on the box would improve his acceptance on
modern scholarship (not PC), nor do I know whether being on the box is
Mr. Zundel's aim, that is your conclusion.

Perhaps if his views were aired into mainstream, real debate could begin,
as it would promote interest into the topic.

>    Your attempt to defend Zundel's avoidance of this forum doesn't get
>off the ground with a Saturn V booster to help it.  Even Ingrid Rimland's
>poor excuse (that the man who makes much of the fact that he is willing to
>endure firebomb attacks for his beliefs can't tolerate some namecalling)
>was more believable. 
>
Uh huh.  Nice emotive connectivity.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Wed Dec 18 13:48:06 PST 1996
Article: 52426 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!aurora.cs.athabascau.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!tribune.usask.ca!decwrl!news.pbi.net!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics
Subject: Re: Blacks Artists Get Ripped Off
Date: 17 Dec 1996 10:36:05 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 101
Message-ID: <596p6l$l0b@lex.zippo.com>
References: <32B1F70C.3578@prodigy.com>  <591o59$5oh@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port867-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:525012 alt.politics.white-power:52426 alt.politics.usa.misc:131837 alt.politics.correct:165424 alt.politics.clinton:343267

In article , atticus@mindspring.com says...
>
>In article <591o59$5oh@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>  :>"Classical" music discovered
>  :>percussion from Africa in the 15th century. Western music adapted African
>  :>rhythms from then on. Every new experience is a learning experience for an
>  :>artist who is willing to learn. And so it goes.
>  :>
>  :What an absolute lie.  The music of the Renaissance developed in Northern
>  :Europe.
>
>Only if you have an, er, unconventional definition of "Northern Europe."
>Most of the music of the Renaissance -- the Gabrielis, Albinoni, etc. --
>came from Italy (especially Venice). It would still be a century or two
>before Vienna became the capital of European music.
>
Wrong.

"The influence of Italian art on northern Europe was very limited before
1520 but few would have challenged the primacy of Italian artists even if
they did not rush to imitate them.  In MUSIC, however, the situation was
reversed, for it was in the cathedral schools of the Netherlands that
Europe learned its music."  Emphasize mine.

D. Maland, _Europe in the Sixteenth Century_, 2nd Ed., London, 1982, p.74.

You stand corrected.

>  The European countries who were interested in Africa in the 15th
>  :century were not part of the countries who gave us such talented music.
>
>Then perhaps you'd care to explain why the music of the renaissance --
>every musical development in history, for that matter -- arose from a
>cultural crossroads, a port city or other center of trade where different
>musical traditions met face to face.
>
It was not in Italy, it was in Church choirs, and in Northern Europe.  I
was right the first time.

>  :Europe did not learn percussion from a bunch of primitive people.
>
>No, they didn't. They learned it from a culture with a long, rich musical
>tradition, one built more on rhythm than on harmony. 
>
Which wasn't in Africa.

>  :As for Rock 'n' Roll, if you like a primitive beat (4 4), you are
>  :quite welcome to it. I would be surprised if Rock 'n' Roll wasn't a
>  :development of a primitive's music.  The music of a low culture.
>  :
>  :Ourobouros.
>
>4/4 is a time signature, not a beat. 4/4 is primitive? Then you're
>condemning Beethoven's ninth symphony. Was the German Baroque a primitive
>culture? And how do you explain the relatively simple 3/4 and 4/4 rhythms
>of most European folk musics?
>
Rock 'n' Roll is solely 4/4, that is why it is primitive.  There is no
true experimental design in it.  Not all (European) folk music is 3/4 or
4/4, and yes, it is simple.

>Polyrhythms and syncopation were African innovations, and they found their
>way into Western music at the points where European and African cultures
>met -- particularly Mediterranean ports and the Mississippi Delta. Jazz
>evolved in New Orleans, then Kansas City, then Chicago, then New York.
>Blues and Rock followed a similar path, but with more rural origins, a
>time in Memphis, and a hop over to Lubbock, Texas to pick up Buddy Holly.
>
The former is BS.

>For what it's worth, the rhythms of rock 'n' roll are far simpler than
>those of the black gospel, rhythm and blues, blues, and jazz that
>preceeded them. This rhythmic complexity had to be watered down to make
>the music more marketable to a white audience.
>
What a joke.  It is quite interesting to match social decay with music
decay.  As society has deteriorated so has music (if you dare call such
noisome pestilence "music.")  Rock 'n' roll is a reflection of the true 
society, and now we have (c)rap.

>Compare any Elvis tune to the Delta blues artists and gospel choirs he
>covered. Compare any of the gazillions of Leadbelly and Robert Johnson
>covers to the original.  Compare the complexity of African/American (Not a
>PC term, but an accurate one -- American music of African origin) folk
>music to Morris dances or polkas. Compare Steven Foster to Scott Joplin.
>Compare the real performance of hybrid African/European music to the
>watered-down pablum corporate A&R types peddle to white teenagers.
>
White teenagers' tastes are the product of social (PC) engineering.

>Then tell me about primitive cultures.
>
I happen to agree that the music of today is of dishwater quality, whoever
produces it.  In a hundred years nobody will want to listen to it, but
people will still want to hear Beethoven's ninth symphony.  One is music 
of a low culture, the other is music of a high culture.  To allow Blacks
into our culture we have to level our culture down to theirs, and hence
the low culture of today (including such things as education.)

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Wed Dec 18 17:02:35 PST 1996
Article: 39388 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!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!pumpkin.pangea.ca!news.maxwell.syr.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.rel.christian,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Nazi Atrocities?
Date: 17 Dec 1996 17:50:08 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <597ikg$430@lex.zippo.com>
References: <594sos$s6k$1@uhura.phoenix.net> <597b3d$b9j@news.nyu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port863-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:86576 alt.politics.nationalism.white:39388 alt.politics.white-power:52454 alt.religion.islam:36430

In article <597b3d$b9j@news.nyu.edu>, fresh@scscomm.com says...
>
>Doc Tavish <"tavish@phoenix.net"@phoenix.net> wrote:
>
[snip]

>>Now imagine this please- If you read all of Joshua 8 you will notice
>>that all of the inhabitants were put to death with the edge of the sword
>>and not the point. What is the point that I am making you ask. To be
>>stabbed will more or less leve you in one piece and you could possibly
>>live but when you are literally hacked to pieces as was the method in
>>numerous parts of the bible you will most certainly die. 
>
>Wow, what a shocker.  OK, now tell me of a single society 3500 yrs ago
>that did not operate in a similar manner?
>
The spear, and arrow were invented long since.  The mace was obsolete as
a military weapon however.  Please also note that no other people 3500
years ago were genocidal.  

Doc Tavish is wrong about slashing, however.  It is feasible to still live
after being slashed, not a good one, but feasible.  Probably the reason is
the metal quality and the fact that stabbing someone is inefficient --you
have to withdraw the weapon from their body, which isn't always easy. Also,
the Hebrews used stabbing as well (Ehud and his dagger comes to mind.)

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Thu Dec 19 06:09:11 PST 1996
Article: 39481 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!tezcat!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.immigration,alt.skinheads,alt.conspiracy,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Re: More Facts Proving the Non-Existence of a "Pure White Race" [long]
Date: 18 Dec 1996 12:40:40 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 507
Message-ID: <599ks8$ead@lex.zippo.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port875-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.discrimination:58674 alt.politics.white-power:52523 alt.politics.nationalism.white:39481 alt.skinheads:45886 alt.conspiracy:121895 alt.religion.islam:36496

In article , holman@elo.helsinki.fi says...
>
>In article <58s978$duf@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>holman@elo.helsinki.fi says...
>> >
>
>> >> Concerning the English stock, the only possible non-Aryan (as in mulatto)
>> >> could be the Romans.  The original Romans were white, and a lot of their
>> >> subjects were white, they would have mainly used troops from Europe, or
>> >> more particularly the Western (European) Army for the invasion, which would
>> >> mean using white stock troops.
>
>The people who developed into the earliest Romans were a mixture of
>Oscans, Umbrians, Sabines, and other central Italian tribes, with a
>generous Hellenic admixture as well. Although I have nothing to cavil at
>with respect to your claim that they were 'white', I would just like to
>emphasize that in the case of the Romans during the final years of the
>Empire, we are dealing with a nation, the ethnogenesis of which involved
>an exceptionally varied demographic and cultural input from the
>Mediterranean and Levantine worlds. Thus, based on what we know about the
>present and past of that region, a substantial portion of the early Roman
>population would have tended to be swarthy rather than pale, dark-haired
>rather than blond, brown-eyed rather then blue-eyed, more similar to
>Yasser Arafat or Luciano Pavarotti than to Robert Redford or Dan Quayle.
>As the borders of the Roman Empire expanded, southern and eastern
>expansion bringing more people under Roman rule than northern or western
>expansion, people belonging to an increasingly wider diapason of racial
>types became its subjects and contributed to the redefinition of
>'Romanness'.
>
While I happen to agree with to some extent, that being Romanness being an
admixture of various races, there are points of contention.  The Roman
colonizers (for lack of a better word) would date back their ancestry to
when Claudius conquered England.  A substantial portion of the early Roman
population would not have been swarthy, as they would not have been able 
to mix with "Brown" or "Black" type people.  

>England was under Roman rule for more than four centuries. During this
>time it was open to colonization from all over the Empire. Even if the
>initial conquest was probably carried out by the Western (European) Army
>using white stock troops as you state, both the soldiers later stationed
>there as well as the administrators, colonists, and merchants who lived or
>sojourned there, represented a cross section of the population of the
>Empire. There were more than ample opportunities for people of Moorish,
>Levantine, Jewish, and Egyptian background, some of them obviously of
>'mixed' race even if not necessarily 50/50 mulattos, to share their genes
>with those of the Celtic inhabitants.
>
While the Roman and Greek worlds witnessed increased movement of people,
please bear in mind the distances still required.  Britain was not a 
favoured portion of the Empire, a) being so far out with no real returns,
and b) the Picts and Scots (Irish) were often raiding the Roman settlements.
Egyptians, if they came to Europe tended to congregate either at the
Italian provinces, especially Rome, or at the later seat of power in
Constantinople.  It should also be noted that these Egyptians who came,
were of Grecian ancestry anyway (eg., Claudian the Poet).  Moors did not
enter the scene until the Vandals foolishly educated them, and even then,
made no effort on the Western Roman Empire -- it had already collapsed*.
As for the Levantine peoples, I do not know at what point they mixed with
inferior races, but they could still have been White (at least the
Phoenicians) at this point in time.

* Philip Rousseau, Associate Professor of History at the University of
Auckland lectures that there was no collapse or decline of the Roman
Empire -- extreme PCness.

>> >> 
>> >
>> >Here we have problems with the different interpretations of the word
>> >Aryan. Let's just review them quickly before exchanging viewpoints. The
>> >term Aryan is used in at least three different senses, two of which I
>> >would claim, are illegitimate.
>> >1. (legitimate) A speaker of a language belonging to the south-eastern
>> >branch of the Indo-European language family or a descendant of such a
>> >person. The fair-skinned Aryans conquered what are now Persia,
>> >Afghanistan, Pakistan and northwestern India and imposed Indo-European
>> >speech on the darker skinned inhabitants. Their interpretation of light
>> >skin color as a sign of social status resulted in the caste system. The
>> >modern Indo-Aryan languages, Persian, Gypsy, Baluchi, Urdu, Hindi, Singhi,
>> >Gujarati, etc. are the direct descendants of the speech of these
>> >historical Aryans, and the people speaking these languages, their direct
>> >descendants, are the only ones who can legitmately call themselves Aryans.
>> >
>> The former I agree with, the latter I don't.  I also appreciate your 
>> knowledge of the caste system as many of your comrades are wilfully
>> ignorant on that point.  
>
>My 'comrades'? I'm writing as a free and independent individual. Mr.
>Whitaker's rantings to the contrary, I am not a clone.
>
I hardly see you attacking or correcting my opponents points here, therefore
I conclude they are your comrades.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
>
>> However, it is extremely likely that all 
>> Indo-European languages derived from a single (land-locked) point of origin.
>> It is fully possible that the word "Arya" came through to the Celtic group,
>> and produced such words as "Eire" in Gaelic.
>
>Your 'extremely likely' is overstating the case to say the least. There is
>an intense debate going on about the origin of the Indo-European
>languages, with one very strong viewpoint countering that you appear to
>support being that there may never have really been such a thing as a
>unified Indo-Europan language or culture. See e.g. Colin Renfrew 1987
>*Archaeology and language: the puzzle of Indo-European origins*. London,
>as well as his very recent article "Language families as evidence of human
>dispersals" in *Sidney Brenner and Kazuro Hanihara (eds), *The origin and
>past of modern humans as viewed from DNA*, pgs. 285-306, Singapore.
>
Of course they are going to disagree, how else would they get funding?  It
seems ludicrous that the Indo-European language derived from multiple points
throughout Asia and Europe, and still bear commonality.

>The putative "Arya" = "Eire" connection is not regarded as valid by
>Indo-Europeanists. The resemblance is coincidental, the word which *Eire*
>and its Celtic cognates developed from cannot be linked phonologically to
>the etymon from which Sanskrit "a-rya" originates. See the OED as well as
>Thurneyson's "Old Irish Grammar" for discussion of the basic issues. 
>
I disagree.

>The fact that you disagree with the second point is a consequence of our
>rather different views with respect to questions of ethnogenesis and
>identity. If I understand your views correctly, you would not consider a
>person whose grandfather was a Nigerian, Chinese, or Maori, but whose
>other three grandparents were English to be English, even though you would
>consider a person whose grandfather was Albanian, Irish, or Russian, but
>whose other three grandparents were English to be English. You consider
>continuity of bloodline and race to be primary, whereas I consider
>continuity of culture and self-identity to be. Your way of thinking makes
>it impossible to consider modern Gypsies or Persians to be Aryans, or Lola
>Odusoga to be a Finn, even if they themselves consider themselves to be
>so, whereas my way of thinking sees no problem with either case.
>
Despite your ramblings, the white people identify non whites by their
backgrounds.  No matter how many generations a Chinaman has being living
there, he is still a Chinaman, an Indian is an Indian, a Black is a Black,
a Maori is a Maori etc, etc, etc.  Based on this knowledge, apart from the
political stupid, the Finns would not recognise Lola Odusoga as a Finn.
The genetics of the people determine the culture they pertain too.  No, I
do not accept someone who has Nigerian, etc., ancestry as ever being 
English, nor would an Englishman do the same, excepting only the politically
stupid.  The Gypsies and the Persians mixed with inferior races, and 
therefore lost their right to be called Aryan (remember the Caste system).

>> >
>> >3. (illegitimate) A blond-haired, blue-eyed person of north-western
>> >European descent, non-Jewish. This usage was introduced by the French
>> >count Arthur de Gibineau in his *Essay on the Inequality of the Human
>> >Races*, 1855. In it he maintained that the northern European racial type,
>> >which he called Aryan, was superior and less diluted by interbreeding than
>> >other racial types. Living at a time when Aryan was still widely
>> >understood to refer to the original Indo-European language, he erroneously
>> >thought that the northern European racial type represented the original
>> >Indo-European racial type, thus justifying his use of the term Aryan.
>> >Subsequent study has shown that the Germanic languages spoken by de
>> >Gibineau's 'Aryans' actually arose as the consequence of the mixing of
>> >Indo-European speech with one or several languages previously spoken in
>> >the area, and that the population of northern Europe is also racially
>> >mixed, having links to northern Africa, through the earliest celtic
>> >invasions, as well as to northern Eurasia, owing to the spread and mixture
>> >of IndoEuropean spokers with an olderlayer of speakers of Finno-Ugric
>> >languages.
>> >
>> I notice you are trying the mulatto bid again.  The North Africans at a
>> much earlier point were White, not mud.  This is attested by the former
>> population of Spain and Portugal, the Spanish policy of "limpieza de 
>> sangre" of the 15th and 16th century proves beyond shadow of doubt that the
>> only Brown people (in Spain) were Moors and Jews, the original inhabitants 
>> were White.
>
>I neither used nor implied the word 'mulatto', which to me, at least,
>means a 50/50 mix of 'black' with 'white'. What I am calling attention to
>is that the oldest layer of archeological finds in which is now Great
>Britain points southwards to coastal France, the Basque country, and
>ultimately northern Africa. Certain parts of Northern Africa may have been
>more 'white' than the are now, but, this is not incosnsistent with the
>fact that cultural and demographic influences from deeper in Africa have
>been entering the Mediterranean world, and through them south-western and
>south-eastern Europe since time immemorial through a western route, i.e.
>through coastal trade down to such ancient west African trading cities as
>Dakar, and beyond, as well as through an eastern route along the Nile and
>its valley down into Sudan, Ethiopia, and the various trading cities which
>have flourished on the shore of the Indian ocean.
>
Er, no.  The trade routes you are talking about only really came to the
fore with Arabian merchants.  Sudan and Ethiopia have greater potential
(5th century BC), but were only useful when Egypt had its own hegemony 
(until the Arabs came).  The Libyans were generally not interested in the
lower parts of Africa, hence why they never explored it.
>> 
>> The term Aryan is preferred to Nordic, because of the historical 
>> perspective.  
>
>The Aryans *weren't* Nordics, so its adherence to facts rather than a
>historical perspective that justifies rejecting the term in this
>particular sense, i.e. as a designation for a specific phenotype. No
>matter what physical attributes we associate with the tribe that called
>themselves Aryans, they were the southeasternmost arm of Indo-European.
>The Germanic languages spoken by our Nordic friends, the northwesternmost
>'Indo-Europeans', are a relatively recent, corrupt, and obviously mixed
>form of Indo-European which most authorities consider to be the product of
>Indo-European speech being imposed on speakers of some unknown
>pre-Indo-European autochthonous language, probably in conjunction with
>ethnic mixing. For a good discussion of the issues involved see e.g. Kalus
>Jürgen Hutterer 1975, *Die germanischen Sprachen: ihre Geschichte in
>Grundzügen*, Budapest. It can be safely assumed that the first speakers of
>the Germanic languages, ethnically mixed northwesterners, and the Aryans,
>southeasterners, represented two extremes, both linguistically and
>racially 8in the narrow sense) of the Indo-European community.
>
Everything that remains of the Aryan points to them being of the same race
as Nordics, sorry.

>> The original Aryans were racially aware, thus giving them 
>> additional consideration.  Since the Aryan caste system was based on race
>> then the term Aryan is a racial term.  The descendents of the Aryans 
>> (Gypsies, modern Indians, etc.) fail to meet the racial requirements.
>
>But does failing to meet the requirements, a cultural innovation, negate
>one's bloodline? Now you seem to be using different critera for defining
>ethnicity.
>
The Aryans, eventually, mixed with inferior races, and therefore became
inferior in the process.
>
>> >> Gypsy?  The longest history in England?  The evidence should be amusing.
>> >> 
>> >
>> >The Gypsies originated in India. They are thus Aryans in sense 1 above.
>> >They have a continuous history of residence in England for at least the
>> >past five hundred years. Other communities of Aryans (in sense 1) such as
>> >the Pakistanis, Sikhs, Bangladeshis, etc. have only recently (within the
>> >past hundred years) had a permanent presence in England.
>> >
>> The Cornish have a much longer history, and they are Celts.  As to your
>> Gypsies, they are an admixture of Moors, Jews and other mud peoples.
>
>I'm not denying that the Cornish have a longer history on English soil
>than Gypsy does, but the Cornish are not Aryans in the sense of the
>definition above, while the Gypsies are. Even if they have mixed with
>other people, the Gypsies still retain their Aryan language (nobody
>contests that Romany is an Indo-Aryan language closely related to other
>languages of north-western India such as Sindhi, Punjabi, and Kashmiri) as
>well as a high degree of consciousness about their Aryan origins, in
>addition to which they have an unbroken history of handing down the
>designation from generation to generation. The only 'Aryan' connections
>the (linguistically virtually extinct) Cornish [speakers of a language
>derived from p-Celtic dialects descended from a later wave of Celtic
>invasions] have/had is/was a spurious and generally discreditied
>etymological connection to the word *Eire*, the modern form of the Roman
>term (H)ibernia, the homeland of their rather distant linguistic cousins,
>the Irish [speakers of a language derived from q-Celtic dialects descended
>from an earlier wave of Celtic invasions], and a word which they, the
>Cornish, are never known to have used as a self-designation.                                                                                                                                                           
>
What is the point you are trying to make?
>
>
>
>> >You are right. There were also black slave holders, and probbaly even a
>> >few cases where blacks had white slaves. That does not negate the fact
>> >that within the American context, at least, blackness and only blackness
>> >is generally understood as a sign of descent from a slave, with all the
>> >negative implications that has.
>> >
>> What negative implications?
>> >
>
>The form the racial situation assumed within the American context from the
>end of the Civil War until the signing of the Civil Rights Act almost a
>century later was very much a consequence of legislation past in the
>southern states during Reconstruction to minimize the affect of the 13th,
>14th, and 15th amendments on the freed slaves, more than 99% of which were
>black, and make it as difficult as possible for them to participate as
>full-fledged members of American society. Jim Crow laws and race codes
>were not directed at people who had 'formerly been slaves', they were
>directed at people that 'looked like they might have some African
>ancestry'. Negative implications until the 1960s included such things as
>limited access to public accommodations, a higher than normal probablity
>of being the victim of 'popular justice' (= the lynch mob) if you were
>suspected of certain crimes, and of being sentenced to death if found
>guilty, a life in which you would be 'last to be hired, first to be
>fired'.
>
Why didn't the Blacks make their own advanced society then?  Why what for
Whites to do the work for you?
>
>> Incorrect.  The children received the benefits of their more aggressive and
>> willing fathers.  The Blacks started with nothing before they ever came to
>> America, and they received more than their ancestors ever had when they
>> were released from their chains.  There was no debt, because slavery was
>> your ancestors' "culture."  You should have graditude that Whites saw the
>> need to release you from your own cultural practises.  Blacks in America
>> are so much better off than their former masters in Africa.  Affirmative
>> Action seeks to blame a people who gave you more opportunities than your
>> people ever had.  If Blacks were so equal then they should prove it, whining
>> for hand outs continues to prove your inferiority.
>
>Your argument only holds true if you define 'black' as 'anyone with even a
>drop of African blood'. I don't know what percentage of me is Black,
>White, American Indian, or what have you, but American society defines me
>as black, just as it does people who are 7/8 white if they are unable or
>unwilling
>to conceal the existence of that one 'Black' great-grandparent. This is
>what makes the system so inherently unfair. A person who is 7/8 white is
>automatically thrown into the less favored 'Black' group, and the
>assumption is made that 'Black' is his/her culture. Without wanting to
>begin a discussion of cultural identity, I'd just like to point out that
>the experience of slavery meant a total and traumatic break with African
>culture. In my own case, no records whatsover exist as to where my African
>ancestors came from, neither are there any traces of their culture or
>language. It's a tabula rasa. The only thing I know about them is that the
>genes I inherited from them are the ones that cause me to be classified
>as 'Black'. On the other hand, I do know something about my Irish, Cornish
>(the 'Holman' family name is first attested in Cornwall), English, Dutch,
>and Seminole ancestors. Why do you speak about the unknown and forgotten
>culture of my African ancestors as though this was the only, dominant, or
>even an important part of my cultural makeup. By language, education, and
>interests I inhabit the same Anglo-American cultural and semiotic world
>that you do.
>
Firstly, you see the remnants of our own Caste system.  We don't accept
those that aren't our own (7/8 whites aren't in), and we never will, despite
the blatant brainwashing techniques otherwise.

Secondly, you should blame your own (Black) ancestors for not keeping alive 
a oral tradition, but then, they probably never had one.

Thirdly, you cannot share the same culture as I do, because your ancestry
excludes you.  We can dress you in our clothes, etc., but we cannot change
your genetics.  As soon as our environment is removed from you, you will
revert to your lowest bloodline.  
>> >
>> >> Fourthly, the rich are always a minority.  Most whites would not have
>> >> received the benefits of Black slavery (they didn't have one.) 
>> >
>> >They received them indirectly as attitudes which automatically saddle the
>> >visible descendants of slaves with certain incumbrances at birth. Blacks
>> >in the US have always had to pay the same taxes as everyone else. It
>> >wasn't until the mid 1960s when they could be sure that they would be
>> >allowed to vote or served in places of public accommodation. The American
>> >colonies revolted for lesser perceived injustices.
>> >
>> What did they receive indirectly?  Most indentured farmers risked the
>> frontiers for "free," and, despite the modern ideology of a noble savage,
>> the savages were anything but noble.  The benefits you are trying to
>> ascertain were nonexistent to most.
>> >
>
>The assurance that you could walk into any restaurant for which you are
>appropriately dressed and not be turned away or humiliated, the knowledge
>that if you took a taxi to a good hotel the driver would not assume that
>you meant the employees' entrance, the confidence that if you had the
>highest overall average in school you would be elected valedictorian rather
>than 'the *White boy* with the highest average', to name a few. These are
>things that American White males seldom have to think about, but which
>still make life less than pleasant for many White females and minority
>group members.
>
In what way do Yankees use Valedictorian?  How can anybody be elected
valedictorian (a farewell)?  Do you mean something akin to Dux? 

We built our society for ourselves, not for other people.  If you don't
like it, build your own.  Stop expecting Whites to accept Blacks, we don't
think the same way as you do.
>
>> >> Fifthly,
>> >> how much of Black labour is worthwhile?  They are stereotypically lazy and
>> >> stupid, and stereotypes must derive from somewhere.  Sixthly (related to
>> >> fifthly), how efficient are slaves (generally) at work?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Oe would expect a person who was working from dawn to dusk without pay and
>> >with no hope of improving his life or being freed to do the minimum. Black
>> >slaves were purposely made 'stupid' when, after a slave rebellion in 1831,
>> >caused by slaves who understood the meaning of the Declaration of
>> >Independence, they were forbidden to be taught to read or write. The fact
>> >that the southern states fought four bloody years to retain their
>> >'peculiar institution' demonstrates that many people thought slavery was
>> >damned profitable.
>> >
>> I never said slavery wasn't profitable, but I am asking how much was that
>> profit?  The American Civil War wasn't about slavery as modern PC Historian
>> and other cronies propagate.
>
>It was very much about slavery, even if the conflict between an industrial
>and agrarian society, tariffs policy, and access to markets were also
>important issues. Certainly the bitterness still occasionally encountered
>in the American South about the outcome of the Civil War is most
>frequently expressed in terms of outside interference in and destruction
>of a way of life that afforded a large number of people unheard-of wealth
>and privilege.
>
Hah!
>> 
>> I somehow doubt slave owning Thomas Jefferson meant Blacks either.
>> 
>
>Thomas Jefferson had difficulties resolving his philosophy of the equality
>of man with the existence of slavery, which he practiced, but disliked. As
>to his innermost feelings about Blacks, they are revealed in a letter
>written on August 30, 1791, to Benjamin Banneker, a free-born,
>self-educated Black mathematician, astornomer, and almanac maker: "No body
>wishes more than I do to see such proofs as you exhibit, that nature has
>given to our black brethren, talents equal to those of the other colors of
>men, and that the appearance of a want of them is owing merely to the
>degraded condition of their existence, both in Africa & America."
>
Citation please (authentic, and not one from the mythology pile that stains
Afrocentrism).  Did Thomas Jefferson give up his Black slaves?
>
>> >> >
>> >> The Blacks taken were already slaves in their homeland, all that happened
>> >> was a change in ownership -- here is an interesting thought, those Blacks
>> >> remaining in Africa must owe you (plural) big time for the millenia that
>> >> your (plural) ancestors were slaves.  If my ancestors were involved in the
>> >> slave 'trade' I'd have no remorse...I don't hold grudges against England
>> >> for her cruel treatment of the Scots (my ancestral land), don't forget
>> >many Scots
>> >> were forced into America, many perished on the way, and many were 
>> >> indentured.  Should the Scots in America get a hand-out from the US
>> >> government?  You Blacks are a bunch of whiners, if you don't like the US
>> >> so much move back to Africa.
>> >
>> >Scots were not forced to wear a brand. American blacks carry the mark of
>> >descent from slaves every minute of the day. Luckily, American society is
>> >gradually learning to evaluate people in different ways, but, as we
>> >sometimes see in this newsgroup, many white Americans complain if Blacks
>> >start showing up in positions of power or privilege in a proportion coming
>> >to anything remotely close to the one-in-eight of the popualtion which
>> >they constitute.
>> >
>> What brand are Blacks forced to carry?  
>
>In American society the slightest hint of African, thus, slave, ancestry
>used to guarantee you a life of small but depressingly omnipresent
>humiliation: sitting in the back of the bus, not being waited on at lunch
>counters, having to attend segregated schools, no access to a middle-class
>job or status unless you were truly exceptional. These things have changed
>now, but being born white (and male) in America today means something like
>an extra million in potential earning power, no matter what education or
>qualifications you acquire. I'm reminded of that every time I think of Dan
>Quayle.
>
Build your own society, stop trying to make our society fit yours, it won't,
and the coming backlash will not be pretty.  You may think that Whites are
pushovers, but once we are rackled, we kill and maim without holding back.
We don't want to live in a Black society, and the only way our two
cultures can coexist is to level ours to match yours, hence why U.S.A
education standards are a joke.  Face facts, we built our society for
ourselves, if you want a society that meets your needs, you have to build
your own.  As for Dan Quayle, we have a lot of comedians.


>> Sounds like more whining.  If Blacks
>> were such great leaders then Africa would have achieved something without
>> Whites.  
>
>The medieval kingdoms of Ghana and Benin had organized urban cultures that
>lasted over several centuries, and the ruins at Zimbabwe didn't drop from
>the sky. Africa, the continent from which mankind originates, has been
>inhabited by humans or their immediate ancestors for an unbroken history
>of almost two million years. Neither you nor I can say the last word on
>what has been achieved there. In any case, metalworking, irrigation
>techniques, agriculture, urban culture, and languages as complex and
>expressive as any spoken elsewhere in the world have all emerged in Africa
>with little or no outside influence.
>
One word: Arabs.

>> Since Blacks did not, then putting Blacks into power in Western
>> countries is ludicrous.  Do you think that Whites really want to have Black 
>> ideology permeating their society?  Black culture maybe good for Blacks, 
>> but it is no good for Whites.
>
>There is hardly such a thing as 'Black ideology' Would your theoretical
>choice between a Colin Powell or a Dan Quayle as the next American
>president really be
>determined by the fact that some of Mr. Powell's ancestors left Africa
>only a few generations ago, while Mr. Quayle's African connection is, as
>far as we know, in the much more distant past? In today's world I
>seriously doubt whether there is or ever was such a thing as 'White' or
>'Black' culture: the so-called 'races' are too broadly and loosely defined
>for the concept of culture to be applicable to them in any meaningful way.
>For example, we are both writing using English as our means of
>communication and cyberspace as the medium within which we interact. They
>are just as much a part of my culture as they are of yours.
>
It doesn't matter which clown you make president, they aren't the real
power.  Putting Dan Quayle in the president's seat would not change a thing.
Put Colin Powell in the president's seat, and we have a convenient
scapegoat.  Something Winsten Peter's will discover (deputy Prime Minister
of New Zealand, and a Maori.)

What role did Blacks have in formulating networking?

You are using our culture, nothing more, nothing less.  You have adapted
to an artificial environment, it is not new.  The classic test to determine
someone's religious beliefs is to put their lives in danger, and see who
they call upon to save them.  In other words, the religion has molded a
man to a certain belief pattern, remove him from that environment, and that
belief pattern disappears.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Thu Dec 19 12:20:09 PST 1996
Article: 39541 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!worldnet.att.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Nova: Indians Exterminated Mammoth, Horse, etc.
Date: 18 Dec 1996 23:58:34 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <59asja$407@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbec8e$1c6df520$f4cdaec7@default> <599ug2$ivg@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port861-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:426240 alt.politics.nationalism.white:39541 alt.politics.white-power:52573 talk.environment:47457

In article , "D. says...
>
>
>
>On 18 Dec 1996, it was written:
>
>> In article <01bbec8e$1c6df520$f4cdaec7@default>, "Rad" says...

[North American Indians]
>
>I no longer reply to rad, because he has demonstrated the fact that he is
>racist scum.  You, I don't know about.  The elevation of
>"Indians" to near mythical status, in perfect harmony with nature to the
>point that species are not ever extinguished due to, wholely or in part,  
>human activities could only be proposed by ignorant people, of whatever
>political persuasion. This charge is simply a no-brainer, unproven straw
>man argument that says absolutely nothing of substance. On the other hand,
>all indications are that extinctions worldwide have greatly accelerated
>since the colonization of the New World began, and especilally since the  
>industrial revolution. 
>
In other words you are saying that the noble savage north American Indian
image is non-existent?

Would you care to explain the motivation behind such pieces of fiction as
"Dances with Wolves", "Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman", and the animation
"Pocohantas"?

>		Dave Braun
>
>		Proud to be a Liberal. 
>		(and scientifically literate)
>
If this argument continues the way I predict, you may regret that.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Thu Dec 19 19:27:25 PST 1996
Article: 39604 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!usenet.logical.net!dciteleport.com!worldnet.att.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Nova: Indians Exterminated Mammoth, Horse, etc.
Date: 19 Dec 1996 11:45:28 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <59c60o$2tk@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbec8e$1c6df520$f4cdaec7@default> <599ug2$ivg@lex.zippo.com>  <59asja$407@lex.zippo.com> <59c291$1rs@news1.ucsd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port855-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:426389 alt.politics.nationalism.white:39604 alt.politics.white-power:52615 talk.environment:47485

In article , fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>: In article , "D. says...
>: >
>: >
>: >
>: >On 18 Dec 1996, it was written:
>: >
>: >> In article <01bbec8e$1c6df520$f4cdaec7@default>, "Rad" says...
>
>: [North American Indians]
>: >
>: >I no longer reply to rad, because he has demonstrated the fact that he is
>: >racist scum.  You, I don't know about.  The elevation of
>: >"Indians" to near mythical status, in perfect harmony with nature to the
>: >point that species are not ever extinguished due to, wholely or in part,  
>: >human activities could only be proposed by ignorant people, of whatever
>: >political persuasion. This charge is simply a no-brainer, unproven straw
>: >man argument that says absolutely nothing of substance. On the other hand,
>: >all indications are that extinctions worldwide have greatly accelerated
>: >since the colonization of the New World began, and especilally since the  
>: >industrial revolution. 
>: >
>: In other words you are saying that the noble savage north American Indian
>: image is non-existent?
>
>Apples and oranges.  The 'noble savage' concept has nothing at all
>to do with environmentalism. 
>
Au contraire, the image is that the noble savage was at one with the environment, until the
arrival of the evil white man.
>
>: Would you care to explain the motivation behind such pieces of fiction as
>: "Dances with Wolves", "Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman", and the animation
>: "Pocohantas"?
>
>That's 'Pocahontas'.  And yes, they are fiction (though _Pocahontas_
>is based on a real person). But what have they got to do with the
>question of species extinction and other environmental damage?
>
According to PC/liberal mythology, the noble savage was at one with nature, he had a
special relationship with the eagle and etc., the noble savage could never wipe out a
species because of his inborn conservation ways.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Fri Dec 20 07:02:56 PST 1996
Article: 86925 of alt.revisionism
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!op.net!en.com!acheron!philabs!uunet!in3.uu.net!205.252.116.190!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.rel.christian,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Nazi Atrocities?
Date: 18 Dec 1996 23:29:30 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <59aqsq$3bg@lex.zippo.com>
References: <594sos$s6k$1@uhura.phoenix.net> <597b3d$b9j@news.nyu.edu> <597ikg$430@lex.zippo.com> <59aecc$nnf$1@uhura.phoenix.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port861-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:86925 alt.politics.nationalism.white:39656 alt.politics.white-power:52653 alt.religion.islam:36597

In article <59aecc$nnf$1@uhura.phoenix.net>, Doc says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>> 
>> In article <597b3d$b9j@news.nyu.edu>, fresh@scscomm.com says...
>> >
>> >Doc Tavish <"tavish@phoenix.net"@phoenix.net> wrote:
>> >
>> [snip]
>> 
>> >>Now imagine this please- If you read all of Joshua 8 you will notice
>> >>that all of the inhabitants were put to death with the edge of the sword
>> >>and not the point. What is the point that I am making you ask. To be
>> >>stabbed will more or less leve you in one piece and you could possibly
>> >>live but when you are literally hacked to pieces as was the method in
>> >>numerous parts of the bible you will most certainly die.
>> >
>> >Wow, what a shocker.  OK, now tell me of a single society 3500 yrs ago
>> >that did not operate in a similar manner?
>> >
>> The spear, and arrow were invented long since.  The mace was obsolete as
>> a military weapon however.  Please also note that no other people 3500
>> years ago were genocidal.
>> 
>> Doc Tavish is wrong about slashing, however.  It is feasible to still live
>> after being slashed, not a good one, but feasible.  Probably the reason is
>> the metal quality and the fact that stabbing someone is inefficient --you
>> have to withdraw the weapon from their body, which isn't always easy. Also,
>> the Hebrews used stabbing as well (Ehud and his dagger comes to mind.)
>> 
>> Ourobouros.
>
>The records (Biblical) show the Israelites (their perspective) as being
>the only ones going on their search and destroy missions as best as I
>know we have no records from the others involved it would seem that they
>were victims of the aforementioned and as in cases Israelites pillaged
>and looted and Zipped the place. I won't argue about the slashing
>however but the version of the bible I had at hand does say in numerous
>instances being put to death at the edge of the sword (I took it to mean
>hacking). You are correct about the stabbing part and that is why modern
>bayonets have blood grooves (to facilitate withdrawal). If we could see
>pictures of Israelite carnage and what the corpses of their victims- men
>, women and children looked like it would be just as graphic as
>Nizkook's pictures.
>Doc Tavish

I fully agree that 3500 years ago, the Israelites were the only genocidal
people on the planet.  After I wrote the above, I remembered that the
Israelites were supposed to have come from Egypt, which meant their swords
would have been an adaption of the sickle sword, which has no point.  Apart
>from  slashing the only other move is bludgeoning with that kind of sword.

'Blood grooves' are officially called 'fullers' :-)  They were there to
improve balance/speed and weight, not really for blood :-)

I believe there is a reference to one of Israeli kings who used saws & Co.
on his opponents, now that is cruel.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Fri Dec 20 07:02:57 PST 1996
Article: 86948 of alt.revisionism
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!news.magmacom.com!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!west.istar!n1van.istar!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!nntp.portal.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!hunter.premier.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.immigration,alt.skinheads,alt.religion.islam,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Williams Says Giwer is Jewish!
Date: 19 Dec 1996 00:05:40 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <59at0k$4bq@lex.zippo.com>
References: <32b214c6.9396478@news.micron.net>  <32b5103d.18544813@news.micron.net>  <597qei$br6$3@uhura.phoenix.net>  <599gs2$35o@camel2.mindspring.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port861-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.activism:106260 alt.conspiracy:122293 alt.discrimination:58745 alt.politics.white-power:52668 alt.politics.nationalism.white:39674 alt.skinheads:45991 alt.religion.islam:36606 alt.revisionism:86948

In article , schwartz@infinet.com says...
>
>In article <599gs2$35o@camel2.mindspring.com>, whitewil@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>
>>         "Never forgive -- never forget -- never debate"
>>                              Jew rules #1, #2, and #3
>
>Are you certain of this, Mr. Williams?
> 
>Because if so...
> 
>well, let me quote Mr. Matt Giwer:
> 
>"Never debate, only attack." (Matt Giwer)
>
> Think carefully: Are you saying that Matt Giwer is JEWISH?!?!
> 
Amusing.  Have you ever stopped to consider that Matt Giwer might actually
be using Jewish tactics against Jews?  I use liberal tactics all the time,
would you call me liberal?  

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Fri Dec 20 07:02:58 PST 1996
Article: 86991 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.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!portc02.blue.aol.com!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.censorship,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: The Great Debate
Date: 18 Dec 1996 13:06:36 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <599mcs$f2o@lex.zippo.com>
References: <199612120033.QAA01666@mailmasher.com> <58t4s6$2qm@lex.zippo.com> <58vour$1a9e$1@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net> <591k14$3o8@lex.zippo.com> <5951tn$2oj@access5.digex.net> <595bc6$iru@lex.zippo.com> <32b7ed84.79892982@news.zilker.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port875-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:86991 alt.censorship:112786 alt.politics.nationalism.white:39698 alt.politics.white-power:52688

In article <32b7ed84.79892982@news.zilker.net>, mike@aimetering.com says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>TV and Radio would,
>
>I thought he is/was on radio?
>
I am not a Canadian, so I couldn't tell you one way or the other.  I would
presume he has not had the opportunity to debate openly on radio.

>> at the very least, give Mr. Zundel publicity to Jo
>>Bloggs.  I somehow doubt being on the box would improve his acceptance on
>>modern scholarship (not PC)
>
>How so?
>
The media would make him the black sheep.

>> nor do I know whether being on the box is
>>Mr. Zundel's aim, that is your conclusion.
>>
>
>This depends. Sometimes TV is hard on people. 
>
I still do not know if Zundel wishes to have airtime, your reply does not
answer this either.

>>Perhaps if his views were aired into mainstream, real debate could begin,
>>as it would promote interest into the topic.
>>
>
>Define mainstream and how it is better than any other stream. 
>
Mainstream?

Being available on both popular and accepted news channels.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Fri Dec 20 15:40:31 PST 1996
Article: 87038 of alt.revisionism
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.alfred.edu!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.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.rel.christian,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Nazi Atrocities?
Date: 19 Dec 1996 22:02:57 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <59da6h$is5@lex.zippo.com>
References: <594sos$s6k$1@uhura.phoenix.net> <597b3d$b9j@news.nyu.edu> <597ikg$430@lex.zippo.com> <59aecc$nnf$1@uhura.phoenix.net> <32ba0a13.5642939@news.gte.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port886-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:87038 alt.politics.nationalism.white:39740 alt.politics.white-power:52719 alt.religion.islam:36653

In article <32ba0a13.5642939@news.gte.net>, octagon@septa.gon says...
>
>On Wed, 18 Dec 1996 21:50:49 -0600, Doc Tavish
><"tavish@phoenix.net"@phoenix.net> wrote:
>
>>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>> The spear, and arrow were invented long since.  The mace was obsolete as
>>> a military weapon however.  Please also note that no other people 3500
>>> years ago were genocidal.
>
>>> Doc Tavish is wrong about slashing, however.  It is feasible to still live
>>> after being slashed, not a good one, but feasible.  Probably the reason is
>>> the metal quality and the fact that stabbing someone is inefficient --you
>>> have to withdraw the weapon from their body, which isn't always easy. Also,
>>> the Hebrews used stabbing as well (Ehud and his dagger comes to mind.)
>
>>The records (Biblical) show the Israelites (their perspective) as being
>>the only ones going on their search and destroy missions as best as I
>>know we have no records from the others involved it would seem that they
>>were victims of the aforementioned and as in cases Israelites pillaged
>>and looted and Zipped the place. I won't argue about the slashing
>>however but the version of the bible I had at hand does say in numerous
>>instances being put to death at the edge of the sword (I took it to mean
>>hacking). You are correct about the stabbing part and that is why modern
>>bayonets have blood grooves (to facilitate withdrawal). If we could see
>>pictures of Israelite carnage and what the corpses of their victims- men
>>, women and children looked like it would be just as graphic as
>>Nizkook's pictures.
>
>	It is really little more than a matter of technology.  You do not
>have an effective stabbing weapon in a sword unless it is both light
>and strong.  That did not come along until there was good quality
>steel.  Prior to that the stabbing weapons were the spear and the pike
>and they were held in the center to that there was counterbalancing
>weight.  
>
>	Try stabbing with anything but a fencing foil and see how hard it
>is to aim the thrust with all that weight on one wrist.  You need two
>hands for a heavy stabbing weapon.  Thus the bayonet on the rifle.  
>
>	Even when the technology came along its main practitioners,
>Japanese and Arabs, prefered the improved metal in the form of a
>curved slashing edge rather than a thrusting point.  
>
>	Additionally, the sword as a thrusting weapon was never common in
>war, rather as a dueling weapon for those well trained in it.  You
>will no find major battle fought 
>
The Romans used the gladius to good effect, and the gladius was a thrusting
weapon (and a sword.)  It suited their infantry lines, unlike a slashing
sword.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Fri Dec 20 18:45:24 PST 1996
Article: 39779 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!newsfeeder.toronto.ican.net!visi.com!mr.net!news.idt.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Nova: Indians Exterminated Mammoth, Horse, etc.
Date: 19 Dec 1996 11:37:43 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <59c5i7$2k7@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbec8e$1c6df520$f4cdaec7@default> <599ug2$ivg@lex.zippo.com>  <59asja$407@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port855-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:426763 alt.politics.nationalism.white:39779 alt.politics.white-power:52746 talk.environment:47573

In article , "D. says...
>
>
>
>On 18 Dec 1996, it was written:
>
>> In article , "D. says...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On 18 Dec 1996, it was written:
>> >
>> >> In article <01bbec8e$1c6df520$f4cdaec7@default>, "Rad" says...
>> 
>> [North American Indians]
>> >
>> >I no longer reply to rad, because he has demonstrated the fact that he is
>> >racist scum.  You, I don't know about.  The elevation of
>> >"Indians" to near mythical status, in perfect harmony with nature to the
>> >point that species are not ever extinguished due to, wholely or in part,  
>> >human activities could only be proposed by ignorant people, of whatever
>> >political persuasion. This charge is simply a no-brainer, unproven straw
>> >man argument that says absolutely nothing of substance. On the other hand,
>> >all indications are that extinctions worldwide have greatly accelerated
>> >since the colonization of the New World began, and especilally since the  
>> >industrial revolution. 
>> >
>> In other words you are saying that the noble savage north American Indian
>> image is non-existent?
>
>No, I didn't say that.  It exists; but to say that it is a "Liberal" myth
>or belief is a straw man.  I should have inserted that into my paragraph.
>From the context of what was written previous to my paragraph, and snipped
>here, the charge that it is a "Liberal" construct is obvious. 
>
Very well, if liberals didn't create it, and/or don't support it, who does?

>> 
>> Would you care to explain the motivation behind such pieces of fiction as
>> "Dances with Wolves", "Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman", and the animation
>> "Pocohantas"?
>
>Maybe entertainment? Since when does entertainment stick to scientific
>facts? Did "Independence Day" stick to what we know about
>extraterrestrials, by way of the CETI project? No, and that scientific 
>deep-space listening project has found nothing that shows that there is
>intelligent life out there. The bottom line for entertainment is profit--
>this even holds for "News" shows these days. 
>
The entertainment listed above is still indoctrination.  All the above
listed shows enforce the noble savage image, and while you say the
scientific community doesn't believe it (a joke in itself), it does not
refute the indoctrination procedure in those programs.  The above are
only a sample, and whether you believe it or not, people, through mass
repetition, start believing it.   

>> >		Dave Braun
>> >
>> >		Proud to be a Liberal. 
>> >		(and scientifically literate)
>> >
>> If this argument continues the way I predict, you may regret that.
>> 
>> Ourobouros.
>
>I don't think so.  
>
Yes, you don't think, thus you can be a proud liberal.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Fri Dec 20 18:45:25 PST 1996
Article: 39783 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!node2.frontiernet.net!news.texas.net!cdc2.cdc.net!news.stealth.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Nova: Indians Exterminated Mammoth, Horse, etc.
Date: 20 Dec 1996 11:02:33 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <59ens9$l3j@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbec8e$1c6df520$f4cdaec7@default> <599ug2$ivg@lex.zippo.com>  <59asja$407@lex.zippo.com> <59c291$1rs@news1.ucsd.edu> <59c60o$2tk@lex.zippo.com> <59ecf7$a8c@news1.ucsd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port828-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:426770 alt.politics.nationalism.white:39783 alt.politics.white-power:52749 talk.environment:47577

In article <59ecf7$a8c@news1.ucsd.edu>, fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>: In article , fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu says...
>: >
>: >Ourobouros wrote:
>: >: In article , "D. says...
>: >: >
>: >: >
>: >: >
>: >: >On 18 Dec 1996, it was written:
>: >: >
>: >: >> In article <01bbec8e$1c6df520$f4cdaec7@default>, "Rad" says...
>: >
>: >: [North American Indians]
>: >: >
>: >: >I no longer reply to rad, because he has demonstrated the fact that he is
>: >: >racist scum.  You, I don't know about.  The elevation of
>: >: >"Indians" to near mythical status, in perfect harmony with nature to the
>: >: >point that species are not ever extinguished due to, wholely or in part,  
>: >: >human activities could only be proposed by ignorant people, of whatever
>: >: >political persuasion. This charge is simply a no-brainer, unproven straw
>: >: >man argument that says absolutely nothing of substance. On the other hand,
>: >: >all indications are that extinctions worldwide have greatly accelerated
>: >: >since the colonization of the New World began, and especilally since the  
>: >: >industrial revolution. 
>: >: >
>: >: In other words you are saying that the noble savage north American Indian
>: >: image is non-existent?
>: >
>: >Apples and oranges.  The 'noble savage' concept has nothing at all
>: >to do with environmentalism. 
>: >
>: Au contraire, the image is that the noble savage was at one with the environment, until the
>: arrival of the evil white man.
>
>
>Is that so? It certainly does not appear so from Rousseau's _Second
>Discourse_, nor from the earliest depiction of the 'noble savage',
>Aphra Behn's _Oronooko_.
>
The mythology has evolved.
>
>: >
>: >: Would you care to explain the motivation behind such pieces of fiction as
>: >: "Dances with Wolves", "Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman", and the animation
>: >: "Pocohantas"?
>: >
>: >That's 'Pocahontas'.  And yes, they are fiction (though _Pocahontas_
>: >is based on a real person). But what have they got to do with the
>: >question of species extinction and other environmental damage?
>: >
>: According to PC/liberal mythology, the noble savage was at one with nature, he had a
>: special relationship with the eagle and etc., the noble savage could never wipe out a
>: species because of his inborn conservation ways.
>
>
>Do you mind providing some citations? I certainly have never
>believed this (though I am not a liberal).
>
Easy: your knee-jerk reaction to this discussion.

>Also, I note that you haven't answered the question of the
>relationship of these tv shows and film to the question of species
>extinction and other environmental damage.

When you master English, let me know.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Dec 22 10:06:29 PST 1996
Article: 87500 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!eru.mt.luth.se!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.censorship,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: The Great Debate
Date: 20 Dec 1996 14:41:55 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <59f4nj$r7i@lex.zippo.com>
References: <199612120033.QAA01666@mailmasher.com> <59aubi$4n2@lex.zippo.com> <59cf44$sld@access5.digex.net> <59clb5$a6m@lex.zippo.com> <59em9g$ijg@access5.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port869-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:87500 alt.censorship:112895 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40024 alt.politics.white-power:52931

In article <59em9g$ijg@access5.digex.net>, mstein@access5.digex.net says...
>
>In article <59clb5$a6m@lex.zippo.com>,   wrote:
>>In article <59cf44$sld@access5.digex.net>, mstein@access5.digex.net says...
>
>>>    Another thing you seem unable to grasp is that you are quite wrong
>>>about freedom of speech.  Freedom of speech does NOT entail any right to
>>>have your research _accepted_ into the mainstream.  All it entails is the
>>>right to _try_ to _present_ your message to the mainstream.
>>>
>
>>One thing you seem unable to grasp is freedom of speech is part and parcel
>>with the freedom to be heard.  Mr. Zundel is not permitted the freedom to 
>>be heard.  I dare say, yelling what you like in the middle of the bush has
>>always been available, and hence your definition of free speech is
>>worthless.
>
>    It is certainly improper for a government to prevent people from going
>to hear Zundel.  But if he gives a speech and gets a disappointing crowd,
>is he intitled to compel more people to come?  If news media ignore him,
>is he (and any other person with a cause, be it alien abduction or UN
>black helicopter attack troops) entitled to force them to carry stories? 
>I think not. 
>
I did not state anywhere that people had to accept him, but if he wants to
endorse public debate then the government, and other agencies shouldn't
try and stop him.

Considering that network TV is all about ratings, someone like Mr. Zundel
would cause a lot of publicity for any channel wishing to make him
available.

>    I'm not a rude person, but I end up hanging up quite frequently on
>people trying to get me to switch long distance service - they simply WILL
>NOT take a polite "no" the first time.  If their "free speech rights"
>forced me to listen to each and every one of them each and every time they
>call for as long as they want to give me reasons to use their service, my
>personal free time would be greatly diminished.  They do NOT have the
>right to make me hear them out.
>
Neither have I endorsed that people should be forced to listen, howbeit, 
the holocaust story is forced upon unwitting school children, as well as 
other government enforced propaganda.  It would seem that the Western
governments are totally against allowing anybody to offer an alternative
to the holocaust legend.
>
>
>>>    The mainstream also has freedom of speech, and part of that freedom is
>>>the freedom to say back to you, "We reject your message" - or even the
>>>freedom to ignore you.
>>
>>To an extent, but mainstream refuses to even hear it in the first place.
>
>    That is their right.  Anyone can put you in their killfile.  Anyone
>can put me in their killfile.  Our free speech rights are not violated.
>
>    And, as they say, freedom of the press belongs to those who own one.
>Tell me, if the positions were reversed, with the revisionist thesis
>widely accepted and I were trying to convince a disbelieving world that
>the gas chambers really existed, would you say I had any right to compel
>newspapers and TV and radio to pay me any attention to me?  If so, what
>would possibly be the criteria for exclusion?

It is hard to imagine your scenerio, because the press agencies seem to
publicise anything anti-White with gleeful abandon.  I therefore cannot 
answer your question, because we would live in vastly different, and
probably better, world.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Sun Dec 22 10:06:30 PST 1996
Article: 87586 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!freenet.unbc.edu!news.scn.org!news.abs.net!washington.Capitol.Net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.rel.christian,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Nazi Atrocities?
Date: 21 Dec 1996 20:27:32 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <59idbk$ovj@lex.zippo.com>
References: <594sos$s6k$1@uhura.phoenix.net> <597vc4$iua@lendl.cc.emory.edu> <32b80d7f.5743836@news.sure.net> <59ibdh$dv8@lendl.cc.emory.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port830-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:87586 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40071 alt.politics.white-power:52976 alt.religion.islam:36850

In article <59ibdh$dv8@lendl.cc.emory.edu>, libwca@curly.cc.emory.edu says...
>
>Ursus Major (Ursus@sure.net) wrote:
>
>: Also you'd have to let us know if you were a believer in a religion
>: which ENSHRINES divinely mandated GENOCIDE! Yep, it's right there in
>: every Torah ever rolled: Deuteronomy xx 15-17. Know of any other
>: religion, whose God MANDATED genocide? Past or present? None that I'm
>: aware of.
>
>Well, let's see--first, there would be the two other religions that
>accept Deuteronomy as scripture--Christianity and Islam.  After that,
>you've got quite a few of your various Germanic pagan religions, who's
>God's demanded the sacrifice of prisoners of war. We could go down the
>list, and we'd probably end up with every religion except Buddhism
>and Taoism.
>
And your evidence for genocide is?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Dec 22 10:06:31 PST 1996
Article: 87587 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!freenet.unbc.edu!news.scn.org!news.abs.net!washington.Capitol.Net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.rel.christian,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Nazi Atrocities?
Date: 21 Dec 1996 11:16:13 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 128
Message-ID: <59hd1t$bp5@lex.zippo.com>
References: <594sos$s6k$1@uhura.phoenix.net> <597b3d$b9j@news.nyu.edu> <597ikg$430@lex.zippo.com> <59aecc$nnf$1@uhura.phoenix.net>  <59aru4$3t2@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port873-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:87587 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40072 alt.politics.white-power:52977 alt.religion.islam:36852

In article , mvanalst@rbi.com says...
>
>In article <59aru4$3t2@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article , mvanalst@rbi.com
>says...
>> >
>> >In article <59aecc$nnf$1@uhura.phoenix.net>,
>> >"tavish@phoenix.net"@phoenix.net wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ourobouros wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> > In article <597b3d$b9j@news.nyu.edu>, fresh@scscomm.com says...
>> >> > >
>> >> > >Doc Tavish <"tavish@phoenix.net"@phoenix.net> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> [genocide, slashing, stabbing snipped]
>> 
>> >> The records (Biblical) show the Israelites (their perspective) as being
>> >> the only ones going on their search and destroy missions....
>> >
>> >Mr. McTavish, do the words "Sumer," "Akkad," and "Babylonia" ring a bell?    
>> >
>> Not one of these groups were genocidal.
>
>And your evidence for this is?
>
Studying them.  Please point out cases of genocide in any group other than
Jews in B.C. (ancient) times.  I'm waiting...

>> >> ...as best as I know we have no records from the others involved... 
>> >
>> >Hardly suprising, Mr. McTavish, as the _first_ recorded battle in history
>> >was the Battle of Megiddo in 1469 B.C. (cf. Dupuy, _The Harper
>> >Encyclopedia of Military History_, p.5.) 
>> >
>> I believe that would be out of date.  With more and more records being
>> recovered from Mesopotamia, unknown battles have come to the fore.
>
>Feel free to cite them. What? You don't know of any off-hand? Pity. 
>
You could read some modern (comprehensive) books of Sumeria, meathead.

>> [snip]
>> 
>> >> You are correct about the stabbing part and that is why modern bayonets 
>> >> have  blood grooves (to facilitate withdrawal).
>> >
>> >Interesting. Is there a cite for this? 
>> >
>> It is an extremely common belief that the fullers were made as blood 
>> channels.  
>
>So were sea monsters. So was the belief that if one sailed to far out to
>sea one would fall of the edge of the world....
>
Whoopee do.

>> Even people in the know believe this, and I would think that a
>> goodly number of books on swords would record it as so.  One other category
>> I forgot to list in another post is fullers add strength to the weapon
>> (daggers and knives often come with fullers.)
>
>Again, do you have an authoritative _citation_ for this? 
>
Offhand citation no, but I do make the occasional sword and dagger, plus I
fight with them.

>> >> If we could see pictures of Israelite carnage and what the corpses of
>their 
>> >> victims- men, women and children looked like it would be just as graphic as
>> >> Nizkook's pictures.
>> >
>> >Indeed. But then, so would carnage caused by the Egyptians, Assyrians,
>> >Greeks, Romans, Mongols, Turks, etc.. 
>> >
>> Not one of these groups believed in genocide of ethnic groups.  
>
>Tell that, for example, to the Carthegians and Armenians. 
>
The Armenians would be the exception, but they were rather recent.

>> One could twist the Roman sack of Carthage as one case, and Athens in the 
>> Peloponnesian war on revolting and democratic states (please note Mr.
>> Ledgister, democratic states fight each other.)
>
>During the Third Punic War Rome was not a democracy like, for example, the
>United States during WWII. (Fabius Maximus was appointed dictator.) 
>Neither was Carthage, merely "sacked." Carthage was laid waste. Erased.
>Nine tenths of the population of died in the fall of Carthage, the city
>torched and its walls torn down, the survivors sold as slaves, and by
>order of the Roman Senate it was decreed that no one was allowed to live
>where Carthage once stood. 
>
>Cf. Dupuy, _The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History_, p.99-100;
>http://www.idbsu.edu:80/courses/hy101/punicwar/09.htm;
>http://www.idbsu.edu:80/courses/hy101/punicwar/17.htm. 
>
Meathead, I was referring to Athens and her subject states being 
democracies, please read the history of the Peloponnesian war in respect
to Athens, Mitylene (revolt) and Samos.

As for Carthage; brutal as it was, this was still not an act of genocide,
for the other settlements of Carthaginians were not eradicated, ie., there
was no active genocidal program, the city of Carthage was _the_ enemy of
Rome.

>> >And, of course, the Nazis. Except the for the millions they gassed and
>> >starved to death. Homicidal gassings and starvation don't cause stab
>> >wounds....
>> >
>> Starvation is hardly new -- sieges come to mind.  
>
>Indeed. But the Nazis didn't lay siege to the POW and concentration camps
>they built and manned- and the the prisoners they starved to death there. 
>
Getting food to them would have become an immense problem.

>And, of course, they also murdered millions in them (i.e. the
>extermination camps) via homicidal gassings. That, at least, _was_
>something horrifyingly new. 
>
And your primary source material for this is?

Ourobouros.

How True holocaust Believers do maths: 1996 AD - 3500 years = 3500 B.C.
       -- example by Mark van Alstin


From Ourobouros Sun Dec 22 10:06:31 PST 1996
Article: 87601 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!hookup!news-dc.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-lond.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-paris.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.revisionism,alt.censorship,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: The Great Debate
Date: 19 Dec 1996 16:07:01 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <59clb5$a6m@lex.zippo.com>
References: <199612120033.QAA01666@mailmasher.com> <5972s1$p2f@lex.zippo.com> <59ad1g$a11@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <59aubi$4n2@lex.zippo.com> <59cf44$sld@access5.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port826-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:87601 alt.censorship:112913 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40086 alt.politics.white-power:52990

In article <59cf44$sld@access5.digex.net>, mstein@access5.digex.net says...
>
>In article <59aubi$4n2@lex.zippo.com>,   wrote:
>>In article <59ad1g$a11@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>>>
>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>As I said earlier, USENET doesn't offer Zundel true freedom of speech,
>>>>something I tried, but probably failed, to explain to Laura Finsten.  Part
>>>>of freedom of speech is being able to have your research accepted into
>>>>mainstream, not in the looney bin, as the media always reinforces[...]
>>>
>>>So if something is on TV it must be true?  Like Chariots of the Gods?
>>>Research (in contrast to sensationalist pap) is accepted (or not) into
>>>the *scholarly* mainstream based on the quality of the scholarship upon
>>>which it is based, something you seem unable to grasp.
>>>
>>Interesting deduction.  I said popular and accepted, not popular or
>>accepted.
>>
>>Scholarship refuses to accept a true contrary position, and derides any
>>attempt for that contrary position to gain ascendence.  In other words,
>>scholarship has become a religion.
>>
>>That is something you seem unable to grasp.
>
>    What you seem to be unable to grasp is that you have now ruled out
>scholarship as a worthwhile forum (contradicting your previously stated
>reason for Zundel to avoid Usenet, by the way); ruled out Usenet; and
>apparently ruled out mass media because they reinforce the loony bin
>aspect.  I find it hard to see what's left.
>
The entire system is corrupt and rigged.  The only thing mass media could 
offer is to bring to the attention of the population is holocaust 
revisionism, and let them decide.

>    Another thing you seem unable to grasp is that you are quite wrong
>about freedom of speech.  Freedom of speech does NOT entail any right to
>have your research _accepted_ into the mainstream.  All it entails is the
>right to _try_ to _present_ your message to the mainstream.
>
One thing you seem unable to grasp is freedom of speech is part and parcel
with the freedom to be heard.  Mr. Zundel is not permitted the freedom to 
be heard.  I dare say, yelling what you like in the middle of the bush has
always been available, and hence your definition of free speech is
worthless.

>    The mainstream also has freedom of speech, and part of that freedom is
>the freedom to say back to you, "We reject your message" - or even the
>freedom to ignore you.

To an extent, but mainstream refuses to even hear it in the first place.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Dec 22 10:38:54 PST 1996
Article: 40017 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!uunet!in2.uu.net!199.94.215.18!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!worldnet.att.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Nova: Indians Exterminated Mammoth, Horse, etc.
Date: 20 Dec 1996 10:51:24 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <59en7c$kkl@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbec8e$1c6df520$f4cdaec7@default> <599ug2$ivg@lex.zippo.com>  <59asja$407@lex.zippo.com> <59c291$1rs@news1.ucsd.edu> <59c60o$2tk@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port828-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:427323 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40017 alt.politics.white-power:52925 talk.environment:47703

In article , umdudgeo@cc.umanitoba.ca says...
>
>In article <59c60o$2tk@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>
>> >: In other words you are saying that the noble savage north American Indian
>> >: image is non-existent?
>> >
>> >Apples and oranges.  The 'noble savage' concept has nothing at all
>> >to do with environmentalism. 
>> >
>> Au contraire, the image is that the noble savage was at one with the
>environment, until the
>> arrival of the evil white man.  
>
>   Or perhaps the image is that Native American peoples caused a lot less
>damage, and a lot less extinctions, than we do now.  This is not to deny
>that any people can damage nature, either inadvertently or by design (as
>we do now).
>
No, the image is the North American Indians were perfect and environmentally
balanced before the arrival of the evil white man, they could do no
damage to the environment.

>   ...he had a
>> special relationship with the eagle and etc., the noble savage could
>never wipe out a
>> species because of his inborn conservation ways.
>> 
>> Ourobouros.

[snip]

>   Since it is obvious that you are talking about popular images and ideas
>concerning First Nations peoples, or Native Americans, why not discuss it
>in those terms?  It would then become evident, if you knew anything about
>traditional Native philosophies, that respect for nature is a central
>theme for the vast majority.

It is not traditional, it is modern.  Respect for nature was not a central
theme for the vast majority.

>   Whether each and every individual Native American actually lived (or
>lives) up to the ideals of their various cultural traditions is a separate
>question, just as the fact that Christians kill at war time despite the
>injunction "though shalt not kill" does not condemn Christianity.
>
Since they didn't have a nature ethic, they didn't live up to it.  Did you
know that part of Christian law had provision for cruelty for God's
creatures?  That at times with the Black plague, they (Europeans) blamed
various animals for the plague (at times including the rat), and made
special request that this law be lifted to certain animals...allowing them
to butcher and eradicate that animal?

Why not have a noble Christian myth about being one with nature then?

Ourobouros.


Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Dec 22 10:38:55 PST 1996
Article: 40025 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!eru.mt.luth.se!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!worldnet.att.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Nova: Indians Exterminated Mammoth, Horse, etc.
Date: 20 Dec 1996 14:50:54 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <59f58e$rh3@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbec8e$1c6df520$f4cdaec7@default> <599ug2$ivg@lex.zippo.com>  <59asja$407@lex.zippo.com> <59c291$1rs@news1.ucsd.edu> <59c60o$2tk@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port869-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:427338 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40025 alt.politics.white-power:52932 talk.environment:47711

In article , "D. says...
>
>
>
>On 19 Dec 1996, it was written:
>
>> In article , fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu says...
>> >
>> >Ourobouros wrote:
>> >: In article , "D. says...
>> >: >
>> >: >
>> >: >
>> >: >On 18 Dec 1996, it was written:
>> >: >
>> >: >> In article <01bbec8e$1c6df520$f4cdaec7@default>, "Rad" says...
>> >
>> >: [North American Indians]
>> >: >
>> >: >I no longer reply to rad, because he has demonstrated the fact that he is
>> >: >racist scum.  You, I don't know about.  The elevation of
>> >: >"Indians" to near mythical status, in perfect harmony with nature to the
>> >: >point that species are not ever extinguished due to, wholely or in part,  
>> >: >human activities could only be proposed by ignorant people, of whatever
>> >: >political persuasion. This charge is simply a no-brainer, unproven straw
>> >: >man argument that says absolutely nothing of substance. On the other hand,
>> >: >all indications are that extinctions worldwide have greatly accelerated
>> >: >since the colonization of the New World began, and especilally since the  
>> >: >industrial revolution. 
>> >: >
>> >: In other words you are saying that the noble savage north American Indian
>> >: image is non-existent?
>> >
>> >Apples and oranges.  The 'noble savage' concept has nothing at all
>> >to do with environmentalism. 
>> >
>> Au contraire, the image is that the noble savage was at one with the environment, until the
>> arrival of the evil white man.
>> >
>> >: Would you care to explain the motivation behind such pieces of fiction as
>> >: "Dances with Wolves", "Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman", and the animation
>> >: "Pocohantas"?
>> >
>> >That's 'Pocahontas'.  And yes, they are fiction (though _Pocahontas_
>> >is based on a real person). But what have they got to do with the
>> >question of species extinction and other environmental damage?
>> >
>> According to PC/liberal mythology, the noble savage was at one with nature, he had a
>> special relationship with the eagle and etc., the noble savage could never wipe out a
>> species because of his inborn conservation ways.
>
>Still persisting in this silly straw man argument, I see. Maybe you could
>quote from the magazines/journals of established environmental groups, who
>employ scientists on their staffs, to support this view? Could you nalme
>some people, authors, etc.? I'm sure you can find some people that talk as
>if they believe the myth you are describing is true; that they somehow
>represent "Liberals" or "environmentalists" is merely a construct of your
>very narrow mind. 

I am sure I could find these "scientists" if I could be bothered to look,
however, there is little point, because of the media channels promote the
noble savage image with or without the aid of "scientists."  Have you ever
seen a nature or history program that concerns the North American Indian?

>You might also keep in mind that many native culture's
>philosophies did, and do, in fact support preserving biological diversity
>and ecosystem functioning, much more than the various ethics of the
>europeans that settled North America.  This is a fact; read some early
>colonial and anthropological literature.
>
What an absolute load of BS.  Native cultures did no such things.  If you
want to read some colonial and anthropological literature that makes you
look like a fool read Captain John Smith's journals -- of Pocahontas fame
even!

Not one backward culture cared one iota about their habitat, if you find
even one "scientist" otherwise then your strawman argument just disappeared
down the drainpipe.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Dec 22 10:38:56 PST 1996
Article: 40030 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Nova: Indians Exterminated Mammoth, Horse, etc.
Date: 21 Dec 1996 11:22:55 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <59hdef$bsd@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbec8e$1c6df520$f4cdaec7@default> <599ug2$ivg@lex.zippo.com>  <59asja$407@lex.zippo.com> <59c291$1rs@news1.ucsd.edu> <59c60o$2tk@lex.zippo.com>  <59en7c$kkl@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port873-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:427349 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40030 alt.politics.white-power:52937 talk.environment:47722

In article , umdudgeo@cc.umanitoba.ca says...
>
>In article <59en7c$kkl@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>umdudgeo@cc.umanitoba.ca says...
>
>> >   Perhaps the image is that Native American peoples caused a lot less
>> >damage, and a lot less extinctions, than we do now.  This is not to deny
>> >that any people can damage nature, either inadvertently or by design (as
>> >we do now).
>> >
>> No, the image is the North American Indians were perfect and environmentally
>> balanced before the arrival of the evil white man, they could do no
>> damage to the environment.
>
>> >   Since it is obvious that you are talking about popular images and ideas
>> >concerning First Nations peoples, or Native Americans, why not discuss it
>> >in those terms?  It would then become evident, if you knew anything about
>> >traditional Native philosophies, that respect for nature is a central
>> >theme for the vast majority.
>> 
>> It is not traditional, it is modern.  Respect for nature was not a central
>> theme for the vast majority.
>> 
>> >   Whether each and every individual Native American actually lived (or
>> >lives) up to the ideals of their various cultural traditions is a separate
>> >question, just as the fact that Christians kill at war time despite the
>> >injunction "though shalt not kill" does not condemn Christianity.
>> >
>> Since they didn't have a nature ethic, they didn't live up to it.  
>> 
>> Why not have a noble Christian myth about being one with nature then?
>> 
>> Ourobouros
>
>   There is no myth of the noble Christian because Christianity never
>worshiped nature.  The rest of your comments are so obviously lacking in
>knowledge of the topic you are discussing as to not be worth commenting
>upon.  Simply saying "no you are wrong, it didn't happen that way" proves
>nothing on your part.  Let's have some references which back up your views
>of history, since I doubt that any exist, or that you've read anything but
>a white person's account of Native philosophies.
>   Get a life...

Incompetent, please feel free to read Captain John Smith's journals any day
of the week.  His journal's are primary source material as well.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Sun Dec 22 10:38:57 PST 1996
Article: 40070 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!washington.Capitol.Net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.immigration,alt.skinheads,alt.conspiracy,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Re: More facts proving the non-existence of a pure White race
Date: 21 Dec 1996 13:43:53 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 282
Message-ID: <59hlmp$ep2@lex.zippo.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port852-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.discrimination:58912 alt.politics.white-power:52975 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40070 alt.skinheads:46165 alt.conspiracy:123136 alt.religion.islam:36849

In article , holman@lelo.helsinki.fi says...
>
>In article <599ks8$ead@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>holman@elo.helsinki.fi says...
>
>
>> While the Roman and Greek worlds witnessed increased movement of people,
>> please bear in mind the distances still required.  Britain was not a 
>> favoured portion of the Empire, a) being so far out with no real returns,
>> and b) the Picts and Scots (Irish) were often raiding the Roman settlements.
>> Egyptians, if they came to Europe tended to congregate either at the
>> Italian provinces, especially Rome, or at the later seat of power in
>> Constantinople.  It should also be noted that these Egyptians who came,
>> were of Grecian ancestry anyway (eg., Claudian the Poet).  Moors did not
>> enter the scene until the Vandals foolishly educated them, and even then,
>> made no effort on the Western Roman Empire -- it had already collapsed*.
>> 
>
>Distances notwithstanding, people still traveled. You certainly remember
>the pun in the Anglo-Saxon version of the Venerable Bede's 'History of the
>English Curch and People*  about Pope Gregory and the English (=angels).
>
Yes, I've even translated it from the Latin.

It doesn't prove, however, that the slave traders actually lived there.
Please also remember that this is 6th century, and Pope Gregory the Great
had met and dealt with the Lombards.

>> As for the Levantine peoples, I do not know at what point they mixed with
>> inferior races, but they could still have been White (at least the
>> Phoenicians) at this point in time.
>
>What's with this 'inferior races' crap? They mixed with other people, as
>is natural. Their 'whiteness' at 'this point in time is a matter of
>definition'. We daresay that if you maintain a(n arbitrary) 7/8 threshold,
>they probably were not.
>
Blacks were kept as slaves yes, how many of them mixed in with these Black
slaves is unknown.  The Bedouin were typically despised by all (sort of
like Gypsies).

>> * Philip Rousseau, Associate Professor of History at the University of
>> Auckland lectures that there was no collapse or decline of the Roman
>> Empire -- extreme PCness.
>> 
>
>Despite our radically different viewpoints on many issues, we agree with
>you on this one (i.e. that the viewpoint is excessively PC).
>
Amazing, however, he is not alone.  There are many (University) lecturers 
out there that preach this.

>> >
>> >My 'comrades'? I'm writing as a free and independent individual. Mr.
>> >Whitaker's rantings to the contrary, I am not a clone.
>> >
>> I hardly see you attacking or correcting my opponents points here, therefore
>> I conclude they are your comrades.  
>
>We don't attack your opponents, we think that's your responsibility, but
>we have to admit that as far as our newsgroup (alt.politics.white-power)
>is concerned, you are the only person that we take relatively seriously.
>Even if you are almost always wrong on almost all points, you are
>relatively well read and have a modicum of intelligence and, unlike many
>of the cognitively challenged people posting here, have more than a
>superficial understanding of how cultures evolve.
>
Almost always wrong?  The way I view it, I am almost always right, with
people like yourself being almost always wrong.  You have an alien view of 
right and wrong, perhaps one could say it is religious.

At least you understand diplomacy, pump up the ego, and then deflate it.
>
>
>> >Your 'extremely likely' is overstating the case to say the least. There is
>> >an intense debate going on about the origin of the Indo-European
>> >languages, with one very strong viewpoint countering that you appear to
>> >support being that there may never have really been such a thing as a
>> >unified Indo-Europan language or culture. See e.g. Colin Renfrew 1987
>> >*Archaeology and language: the puzzle of Indo-European origins*. London,
>> >as well as his very recent article "Language families as evidence of human
>> >dispersals" in *Sidney Brenner and Kazuro Hanihara (eds), *The origin and
>> >past of modern humans as viewed from DNA*, pgs. 285-306, Singapore.
>> >
>> Of course they are going to disagree, how else would they get funding?  It
>> seems ludicrous that the Indo-European language derived from multiple points
>> throughout Asia and Europe, and still bear commonality.
>
>Not quite. Imagine someone studying the nature and evolution of English
>five thousand years hence. On the one hand the functional nucleus of
>English is mongrelized and transplanted West Germanic dialects, on the
>other hand, the bulk of its vocabulary is from French and Latin.
>Reconciling this apparent contradiction is by no means easy if one must
>rely solely on logic and inference rather than on a knowledge of concrete
>historical events.

Perhaps you should find an example not concerning solely Indo-European
languages.  The peculiar role of religion paid some bearing on English.
>> 
>> >The putative "Arya" = "Eire" connection is not regarded as valid by
>> >Indo-Europeanists. The resemblance is coincidental, the word which *Eire*
>> >and its Celtic cognates developed from cannot be linked phonologically to
>> >the etymon from which Sanskrit "a-rya" originates. See the OED as well as
>> >Thurneyson's "Old Irish Grammar" for discussion of the basic issues. 
>> >
>> I disagree.
>
>This is no argument. From the grammatical standpoint the term 'Arya'
>apears to have originated in post-conquest India. Historical phonology,
>onomastics,  and our specific knowledge of the genesis of the term all
>tell us that 'Arya' and 'Eire' cannot be the same word. What is the basis
>for your dissent other than that both have two syllables, begin and end
>with vowels and contain an intersullabic 'r'? In the type of etymology you
>are doing, according to Voltaire, the consonants count for little, and the
>vowels for nothing at all. We are really disappointed in you.
>
First off, I care little for Voltaire's philosophy.

Secondly, if you care to examine the dialects of say English you will note
that one word can be pronounced in a multitude of ways, depending on the
geography.  The fact of the matter is that "Eire" was standardised in
spelling according to whatever rules at the time -- how it was pronounced,
The Aryans chose to spell it in their own way, which has been transliterated
to the Latin letters of "Arya."  Your argument is still flimsy.
>> 
>> Er, no.  The trade routes you are talking about only really came to the
>> fore with Arabian merchants. 
>
>'Came to the fore' and 'existed' are not the same thing. The west African
>coast has been an arena or cultural interaction since prehistoric times.
>
Proof.  As far as I am aware there was no trade.  Neither Libya or Egypt
traded with people further down the line, the only exception was Egypt with
Nubia, when Nubia was conquered or when Nubia was the conqueror.  Trade
never extended past that frontier.

>> >
>> >I'm not denying that the Cornish have a longer history on English soil
>> >than Gypsy does, but the Cornish are not Aryans in the sense of the
>> >definition above, while the Gypsies are. Even if they have mixed with
>> >other people, the Gypsies still retain their Aryan language (nobody
>> >contests that Romany is an Indo-Aryan language closely related to other
>> >languages of north-western India such as Sindhi, Punjabi, and Kashmiri) as
>> >well as a high degree of consciousness about their Aryan origins, in
>> >addition to which they have an unbroken history of handing down the
>> >designation from generation to generation. The only 'Aryan' connections
>> >the (linguistically virtually extinct) Cornish [speakers of a language
>> >derived from p-Celtic dialects descended from a later wave of Celtic
>> >invasions] have/had is/was a spurious and generally discreditied
>> >etymological connection to the word *Eire*, the modern form of the Roman
>> >term (H)ibernia, the homeland of their rather distant linguistic cousins,
>> >the Irish [speakers of a language derived from q-Celtic dialects descended
>> >from an earlier wave of Celtic invasions], and a word which they, the
>> >Cornish, are never known to have used as a
>self-designation.                                                                                                                                                         
>
>
>> >
>> What is the point you are trying to make?
>
>Basically, that the term 'Celtic' is used to refer to numerous peoples who
>actually have little in common. Irish (q-Celtic) and Welsh (p-Celtic)
>differ from one aother as much as Baltic and Slavic. Their putative
>affinity is more a matter of nomenclature than of fact.
>
I agree on this point.  Up until recently a Welshman would have kicked your
teeth in if you suggested he was Celtic.
>'
>> Why didn't the Blacks make their own advanced society then?  Why what for
>> Whites to do the work for you?
>
>As far as the US is concerned the whites may have done most of the
>planning, but the Blacks and other hon-whites did most of the work.
>
*Sigh*

Only the developers get the credit and are recorded.  Almost anybody can
pick up a shovel and use it, talent resides in the designer, that is why
they get paid more.  Whether Blacks did the actual physical labour is
irrelevant, because Whites could have been easily recruited to do the
exact same task.  Therefore you gave a non-answer.  Do you give credit to
your computer?

>> >
>> Firstly, you see the remnants of our own Caste system.  We don't accept
>> those that aren't our own (7/8 whites aren't in), and we never will, despite
>> the blatant brainwashing techniques otherwise.
>
>We say, quite frankly, 'Up yours'. If a person is 5/8 white that is the
>dominant part of his/her 'raciality'. The 7/8, 15(16, 31/32, 63/64 rules
>are artefacts of neuroses with no grounding in logic or reason.
>
No, it is not.  Black genes are far more dominant that White genes.

>> 
>> Secondly, you should blame your own (Black) ancestors for not keeping alive 
>> a oral tradition, but then, they probably never had one.
>> 
>> Thirdly, you cannot share the same culture as I do, because your ancestry
>> excludes you.  We can dress you in our clothes, etc., but we cannot change
>> your genetics.  As soon as our environment is removed from you, you will
>> revert to your lowest bloodline.  
>
>Here we must, once again, utter a loud, clear, and regal 'Up yours'. The
>cultural world that you and we inhabit is virtually the same. Culture is
>not inherited, it is learned. The Anglo-American cultural sphere which we
>inhabit is not defined racially, but rather as a matter of who wants or
>does not want to identify with it. As a person who has taught English,
>German, Swedish, Finnish, Estonian, Latin, and Russian in various
>contexts, I strenuously object to your preseumption that Eurpean culture
>is somehow genetically transferred. My clothes are the clothes that I, as
>a full-fledged and productive member, builder, and mediator of European
>culture, wear. No agent, specifically if resident in New Zealand, is going
>to claim my sartorial and cultural heritage as his/hers which I 'use' as
>an outsider.
>
Oh yes I can.

>> In what way do Yankees use Valedictorian?  How can anybody be elected
>> valedictorian (a farewell)?  Do you mean something akin to Dux? 
>
>In the American context the valedictorian is, supposedly, the student at a
>school with the highest grade-point average during his/her career at the
>school and is thus analogous to your 'dux'. Long before the 'Bell Curve*
>or political correctness, there were instances in integrated American
>schoools - even those whose grading was based on multiple choice, machine
>graded examinations - at which a Black student did better, overall, than
>his/her White fellow students (no matter what you may think of us, we
>aren't all stupid or illiterate). To 'maintain tradition' valedictorian
>was often redefined at such schools as 'the most promising graduate' and,
>at the elementary school at which I was cheated out of the chance to be
>valedictorian, specified as the *White male* with the highest grade-point
>average, with the second place status of salutorian being assigned to the
>*Black female* with the higest grade-point average. This kept things
>peaceful, but was not an accurate reflection of scholarly rankings.
>
For some strange reason I don't believe your findings.
>> 
>> We built our society for ourselves, not for other people.  If you don't
>> like it, build your own.  Stop expecting Whites to accept Blacks, we don't
>> think the same way as you do.
>
>Legions of psychologists, anthropologists, and linguists will tell you
>that a mode of thinking is culturally, not racially, based. You and we are
>both members of the post-industrial, cybernetic, Anglo-American (virtual)
>culture. the fact that we have a darker complection than you do does not
>mean that we are a guest and you a host. Our ancestors, both European ad
>African, controbuted their part to this culture and we, we daresay, have
>made a much greater contribution than you to its embellishment and further
>propagation. This is not your culture, it is *our* culture. Accept the
>facts.
>
Legions of psychologist, anthropologists, and especially linguists are
PC, and therefore promote "we are all the same" mythology.

Africans have contributed little positive aspects to this modern culture. I
might be willing to believe that the reason why we have gone so much into
automatian is to counterbalance the number of parasites on the system.
>
>> >
>> Build your own society, stop trying to make our society fit yours, it won't,
>> and the coming backlash will not be pretty.  You may think that Whites are
>> pushovers, but once we are rackled, we kill and maim without holding back.
>> We don't want to live in a Black society, and the only way our two
>> cultures can coexist is to level ours to match yours, hence why U.S.A
>> education standards are a joke.  Face facts, we built our society for
>> ourselves, if you want a society that meets your needs, you have to build
>> your own.  As for Dan Quayle, we have a lot of comedians.
>
>As far as American society is concerned, Blacks have contributed more than
>enough to claim minority status. We have never been to New Zealand, but
>have taught a few New Zealanders. From what they have told me, even New
>Zealand society is permeated by the contribution to Anglo-American society
>made by non-Whites.
>
Yes, the stupid youth listen to (c)rap just as much as American youth do.
We have picked up the negative aspects just like America has.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Sun Dec 22 10:38:58 PST 1996
Article: 40071 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!washington.Capitol.Net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.rel.christian,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Nazi Atrocities?
Date: 21 Dec 1996 20:27:32 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <59idbk$ovj@lex.zippo.com>
References: <594sos$s6k$1@uhura.phoenix.net> <597vc4$iua@lendl.cc.emory.edu> <32b80d7f.5743836@news.sure.net> <59ibdh$dv8@lendl.cc.emory.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port830-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:87586 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40071 alt.politics.white-power:52976 alt.religion.islam:36850

In article <59ibdh$dv8@lendl.cc.emory.edu>, libwca@curly.cc.emory.edu says...
>
>Ursus Major (Ursus@sure.net) wrote:
>
>: Also you'd have to let us know if you were a believer in a religion
>: which ENSHRINES divinely mandated GENOCIDE! Yep, it's right there in
>: every Torah ever rolled: Deuteronomy xx 15-17. Know of any other
>: religion, whose God MANDATED genocide? Past or present? None that I'm
>: aware of.
>
>Well, let's see--first, there would be the two other religions that
>accept Deuteronomy as scripture--Christianity and Islam.  After that,
>you've got quite a few of your various Germanic pagan religions, who's
>God's demanded the sacrifice of prisoners of war. We could go down the
>list, and we'd probably end up with every religion except Buddhism
>and Taoism.
>
And your evidence for genocide is?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Dec 22 10:38:59 PST 1996
Article: 40072 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!washington.Capitol.Net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.rel.christian,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Nazi Atrocities?
Date: 21 Dec 1996 11:16:13 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 128
Message-ID: <59hd1t$bp5@lex.zippo.com>
References: <594sos$s6k$1@uhura.phoenix.net> <597b3d$b9j@news.nyu.edu> <597ikg$430@lex.zippo.com> <59aecc$nnf$1@uhura.phoenix.net>  <59aru4$3t2@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port873-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:87587 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40072 alt.politics.white-power:52977 alt.religion.islam:36852

In article , mvanalst@rbi.com says...
>
>In article <59aru4$3t2@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article , mvanalst@rbi.com
>says...
>> >
>> >In article <59aecc$nnf$1@uhura.phoenix.net>,
>> >"tavish@phoenix.net"@phoenix.net wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ourobouros wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> > In article <597b3d$b9j@news.nyu.edu>, fresh@scscomm.com says...
>> >> > >
>> >> > >Doc Tavish <"tavish@phoenix.net"@phoenix.net> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> [genocide, slashing, stabbing snipped]
>> 
>> >> The records (Biblical) show the Israelites (their perspective) as being
>> >> the only ones going on their search and destroy missions....
>> >
>> >Mr. McTavish, do the words "Sumer," "Akkad," and "Babylonia" ring a bell?    
>> >
>> Not one of these groups were genocidal.
>
>And your evidence for this is?
>
Studying them.  Please point out cases of genocide in any group other than
Jews in B.C. (ancient) times.  I'm waiting...

>> >> ...as best as I know we have no records from the others involved... 
>> >
>> >Hardly suprising, Mr. McTavish, as the _first_ recorded battle in history
>> >was the Battle of Megiddo in 1469 B.C. (cf. Dupuy, _The Harper
>> >Encyclopedia of Military History_, p.5.) 
>> >
>> I believe that would be out of date.  With more and more records being
>> recovered from Mesopotamia, unknown battles have come to the fore.
>
>Feel free to cite them. What? You don't know of any off-hand? Pity. 
>
You could read some modern (comprehensive) books of Sumeria, meathead.

>> [snip]
>> 
>> >> You are correct about the stabbing part and that is why modern bayonets 
>> >> have  blood grooves (to facilitate withdrawal).
>> >
>> >Interesting. Is there a cite for this? 
>> >
>> It is an extremely common belief that the fullers were made as blood 
>> channels.  
>
>So were sea monsters. So was the belief that if one sailed to far out to
>sea one would fall of the edge of the world....
>
Whoopee do.

>> Even people in the know believe this, and I would think that a
>> goodly number of books on swords would record it as so.  One other category
>> I forgot to list in another post is fullers add strength to the weapon
>> (daggers and knives often come with fullers.)
>
>Again, do you have an authoritative _citation_ for this? 
>
Offhand citation no, but I do make the occasional sword and dagger, plus I
fight with them.

>> >> If we could see pictures of Israelite carnage and what the corpses of
>their 
>> >> victims- men, women and children looked like it would be just as graphic as
>> >> Nizkook's pictures.
>> >
>> >Indeed. But then, so would carnage caused by the Egyptians, Assyrians,
>> >Greeks, Romans, Mongols, Turks, etc.. 
>> >
>> Not one of these groups believed in genocide of ethnic groups.  
>
>Tell that, for example, to the Carthegians and Armenians. 
>
The Armenians would be the exception, but they were rather recent.

>> One could twist the Roman sack of Carthage as one case, and Athens in the 
>> Peloponnesian war on revolting and democratic states (please note Mr.
>> Ledgister, democratic states fight each other.)
>
>During the Third Punic War Rome was not a democracy like, for example, the
>United States during WWII. (Fabius Maximus was appointed dictator.) 
>Neither was Carthage, merely "sacked." Carthage was laid waste. Erased.
>Nine tenths of the population of died in the fall of Carthage, the city
>torched and its walls torn down, the survivors sold as slaves, and by
>order of the Roman Senate it was decreed that no one was allowed to live
>where Carthage once stood. 
>
>Cf. Dupuy, _The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History_, p.99-100;
>http://www.idbsu.edu:80/courses/hy101/punicwar/09.htm;
>http://www.idbsu.edu:80/courses/hy101/punicwar/17.htm. 
>
Meathead, I was referring to Athens and her subject states being 
democracies, please read the history of the Peloponnesian war in respect
to Athens, Mitylene (revolt) and Samos.

As for Carthage; brutal as it was, this was still not an act of genocide,
for the other settlements of Carthaginians were not eradicated, ie., there
was no active genocidal program, the city of Carthage was _the_ enemy of
Rome.

>> >And, of course, the Nazis. Except the for the millions they gassed and
>> >starved to death. Homicidal gassings and starvation don't cause stab
>> >wounds....
>> >
>> Starvation is hardly new -- sieges come to mind.  
>
>Indeed. But the Nazis didn't lay siege to the POW and concentration camps
>they built and manned- and the the prisoners they starved to death there. 
>
Getting food to them would have become an immense problem.

>And, of course, they also murdered millions in them (i.e. the
>extermination camps) via homicidal gassings. That, at least, _was_
>something horrifyingly new. 
>
And your primary source material for this is?

Ourobouros.

How True holocaust Believers do maths: 1996 AD - 3500 years = 3500 B.C.
       -- example by Mark van Alstin


From Ourobouros Sun Dec 22 11:12:42 PST 1996
Article: 52925 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!uunet!in2.uu.net!199.94.215.18!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!worldnet.att.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Nova: Indians Exterminated Mammoth, Horse, etc.
Date: 20 Dec 1996 10:51:24 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <59en7c$kkl@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbec8e$1c6df520$f4cdaec7@default> <599ug2$ivg@lex.zippo.com>  <59asja$407@lex.zippo.com> <59c291$1rs@news1.ucsd.edu> <59c60o$2tk@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port828-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:427323 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40017 alt.politics.white-power:52925 talk.environment:47703

In article , umdudgeo@cc.umanitoba.ca says...
>
>In article <59c60o$2tk@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>
>> >: In other words you are saying that the noble savage north American Indian
>> >: image is non-existent?
>> >
>> >Apples and oranges.  The 'noble savage' concept has nothing at all
>> >to do with environmentalism. 
>> >
>> Au contraire, the image is that the noble savage was at one with the
>environment, until the
>> arrival of the evil white man.  
>
>   Or perhaps the image is that Native American peoples caused a lot less
>damage, and a lot less extinctions, than we do now.  This is not to deny
>that any people can damage nature, either inadvertently or by design (as
>we do now).
>
No, the image is the North American Indians were perfect and environmentally
balanced before the arrival of the evil white man, they could do no
damage to the environment.

>   ...he had a
>> special relationship with the eagle and etc., the noble savage could
>never wipe out a
>> species because of his inborn conservation ways.
>> 
>> Ourobouros.

[snip]

>   Since it is obvious that you are talking about popular images and ideas
>concerning First Nations peoples, or Native Americans, why not discuss it
>in those terms?  It would then become evident, if you knew anything about
>traditional Native philosophies, that respect for nature is a central
>theme for the vast majority.

It is not traditional, it is modern.  Respect for nature was not a central
theme for the vast majority.

>   Whether each and every individual Native American actually lived (or
>lives) up to the ideals of their various cultural traditions is a separate
>question, just as the fact that Christians kill at war time despite the
>injunction "though shalt not kill" does not condemn Christianity.
>
Since they didn't have a nature ethic, they didn't live up to it.  Did you
know that part of Christian law had provision for cruelty for God's
creatures?  That at times with the Black plague, they (Europeans) blamed
various animals for the plague (at times including the rat), and made
special request that this law be lifted to certain animals...allowing them
to butcher and eradicate that animal?

Why not have a noble Christian myth about being one with nature then?

Ourobouros.


Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Dec 22 11:12:43 PST 1996
Article: 52932 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!eru.mt.luth.se!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!worldnet.att.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Nova: Indians Exterminated Mammoth, Horse, etc.
Date: 20 Dec 1996 14:50:54 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <59f58e$rh3@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbec8e$1c6df520$f4cdaec7@default> <599ug2$ivg@lex.zippo.com>  <59asja$407@lex.zippo.com> <59c291$1rs@news1.ucsd.edu> <59c60o$2tk@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port869-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:427338 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40025 alt.politics.white-power:52932 talk.environment:47711

In article , "D. says...
>
>
>
>On 19 Dec 1996, it was written:
>
>> In article , fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu says...
>> >
>> >Ourobouros wrote:
>> >: In article , "D. says...
>> >: >
>> >: >
>> >: >
>> >: >On 18 Dec 1996, it was written:
>> >: >
>> >: >> In article <01bbec8e$1c6df520$f4cdaec7@default>, "Rad" says...
>> >
>> >: [North American Indians]
>> >: >
>> >: >I no longer reply to rad, because he has demonstrated the fact that he is
>> >: >racist scum.  You, I don't know about.  The elevation of
>> >: >"Indians" to near mythical status, in perfect harmony with nature to the
>> >: >point that species are not ever extinguished due to, wholely or in part,  
>> >: >human activities could only be proposed by ignorant people, of whatever
>> >: >political persuasion. This charge is simply a no-brainer, unproven straw
>> >: >man argument that says absolutely nothing of substance. On the other hand,
>> >: >all indications are that extinctions worldwide have greatly accelerated
>> >: >since the colonization of the New World began, and especilally since the  
>> >: >industrial revolution. 
>> >: >
>> >: In other words you are saying that the noble savage north American Indian
>> >: image is non-existent?
>> >
>> >Apples and oranges.  The 'noble savage' concept has nothing at all
>> >to do with environmentalism. 
>> >
>> Au contraire, the image is that the noble savage was at one with the environment, until the
>> arrival of the evil white man.
>> >
>> >: Would you care to explain the motivation behind such pieces of fiction as
>> >: "Dances with Wolves", "Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman", and the animation
>> >: "Pocohantas"?
>> >
>> >That's 'Pocahontas'.  And yes, they are fiction (though _Pocahontas_
>> >is based on a real person). But what have they got to do with the
>> >question of species extinction and other environmental damage?
>> >
>> According to PC/liberal mythology, the noble savage was at one with nature, he had a
>> special relationship with the eagle and etc., the noble savage could never wipe out a
>> species because of his inborn conservation ways.
>
>Still persisting in this silly straw man argument, I see. Maybe you could
>quote from the magazines/journals of established environmental groups, who
>employ scientists on their staffs, to support this view? Could you nalme
>some people, authors, etc.? I'm sure you can find some people that talk as
>if they believe the myth you are describing is true; that they somehow
>represent "Liberals" or "environmentalists" is merely a construct of your
>very narrow mind. 

I am sure I could find these "scientists" if I could be bothered to look,
however, there is little point, because of the media channels promote the
noble savage image with or without the aid of "scientists."  Have you ever
seen a nature or history program that concerns the North American Indian?

>You might also keep in mind that many native culture's
>philosophies did, and do, in fact support preserving biological diversity
>and ecosystem functioning, much more than the various ethics of the
>europeans that settled North America.  This is a fact; read some early
>colonial and anthropological literature.
>
What an absolute load of BS.  Native cultures did no such things.  If you
want to read some colonial and anthropological literature that makes you
look like a fool read Captain John Smith's journals -- of Pocahontas fame
even!

Not one backward culture cared one iota about their habitat, if you find
even one "scientist" otherwise then your strawman argument just disappeared
down the drainpipe.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Dec 22 11:12:44 PST 1996
Article: 52937 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Nova: Indians Exterminated Mammoth, Horse, etc.
Date: 21 Dec 1996 11:22:55 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <59hdef$bsd@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbec8e$1c6df520$f4cdaec7@default> <599ug2$ivg@lex.zippo.com>  <59asja$407@lex.zippo.com> <59c291$1rs@news1.ucsd.edu> <59c60o$2tk@lex.zippo.com>  <59en7c$kkl@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port873-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:427349 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40030 alt.politics.white-power:52937 talk.environment:47722

In article , umdudgeo@cc.umanitoba.ca says...
>
>In article <59en7c$kkl@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>umdudgeo@cc.umanitoba.ca says...
>
>> >   Perhaps the image is that Native American peoples caused a lot less
>> >damage, and a lot less extinctions, than we do now.  This is not to deny
>> >that any people can damage nature, either inadvertently or by design (as
>> >we do now).
>> >
>> No, the image is the North American Indians were perfect and environmentally
>> balanced before the arrival of the evil white man, they could do no
>> damage to the environment.
>
>> >   Since it is obvious that you are talking about popular images and ideas
>> >concerning First Nations peoples, or Native Americans, why not discuss it
>> >in those terms?  It would then become evident, if you knew anything about
>> >traditional Native philosophies, that respect for nature is a central
>> >theme for the vast majority.
>> 
>> It is not traditional, it is modern.  Respect for nature was not a central
>> theme for the vast majority.
>> 
>> >   Whether each and every individual Native American actually lived (or
>> >lives) up to the ideals of their various cultural traditions is a separate
>> >question, just as the fact that Christians kill at war time despite the
>> >injunction "though shalt not kill" does not condemn Christianity.
>> >
>> Since they didn't have a nature ethic, they didn't live up to it.  
>> 
>> Why not have a noble Christian myth about being one with nature then?
>> 
>> Ourobouros
>
>   There is no myth of the noble Christian because Christianity never
>worshiped nature.  The rest of your comments are so obviously lacking in
>knowledge of the topic you are discussing as to not be worth commenting
>upon.  Simply saying "no you are wrong, it didn't happen that way" proves
>nothing on your part.  Let's have some references which back up your views
>of history, since I doubt that any exist, or that you've read anything but
>a white person's account of Native philosophies.
>   Get a life...

Incompetent, please feel free to read Captain John Smith's journals any day
of the week.  His journal's are primary source material as well.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Sun Dec 22 11:12:44 PST 1996
Article: 52976 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!freenet.unbc.edu!news.scn.org!news.abs.net!washington.Capitol.Net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.rel.christian,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Nazi Atrocities?
Date: 21 Dec 1996 20:27:32 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <59idbk$ovj@lex.zippo.com>
References: <594sos$s6k$1@uhura.phoenix.net> <597vc4$iua@lendl.cc.emory.edu> <32b80d7f.5743836@news.sure.net> <59ibdh$dv8@lendl.cc.emory.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port830-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:87586 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40071 alt.politics.white-power:52976 alt.religion.islam:36850

In article <59ibdh$dv8@lendl.cc.emory.edu>, libwca@curly.cc.emory.edu says...
>
>Ursus Major (Ursus@sure.net) wrote:
>
>: Also you'd have to let us know if you were a believer in a religion
>: which ENSHRINES divinely mandated GENOCIDE! Yep, it's right there in
>: every Torah ever rolled: Deuteronomy xx 15-17. Know of any other
>: religion, whose God MANDATED genocide? Past or present? None that I'm
>: aware of.
>
>Well, let's see--first, there would be the two other religions that
>accept Deuteronomy as scripture--Christianity and Islam.  After that,
>you've got quite a few of your various Germanic pagan religions, who's
>God's demanded the sacrifice of prisoners of war. We could go down the
>list, and we'd probably end up with every religion except Buddhism
>and Taoism.
>
And your evidence for genocide is?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Dec 22 11:12:45 PST 1996
Article: 52977 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!freenet.unbc.edu!news.scn.org!news.abs.net!washington.Capitol.Net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.rel.christian,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Nazi Atrocities?
Date: 21 Dec 1996 11:16:13 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 128
Message-ID: <59hd1t$bp5@lex.zippo.com>
References: <594sos$s6k$1@uhura.phoenix.net> <597b3d$b9j@news.nyu.edu> <597ikg$430@lex.zippo.com> <59aecc$nnf$1@uhura.phoenix.net>  <59aru4$3t2@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port873-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:87587 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40072 alt.politics.white-power:52977 alt.religion.islam:36852

In article , mvanalst@rbi.com says...
>
>In article <59aru4$3t2@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article , mvanalst@rbi.com
>says...
>> >
>> >In article <59aecc$nnf$1@uhura.phoenix.net>,
>> >"tavish@phoenix.net"@phoenix.net wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ourobouros wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> > In article <597b3d$b9j@news.nyu.edu>, fresh@scscomm.com says...
>> >> > >
>> >> > >Doc Tavish <"tavish@phoenix.net"@phoenix.net> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> [genocide, slashing, stabbing snipped]
>> 
>> >> The records (Biblical) show the Israelites (their perspective) as being
>> >> the only ones going on their search and destroy missions....
>> >
>> >Mr. McTavish, do the words "Sumer," "Akkad," and "Babylonia" ring a bell?    
>> >
>> Not one of these groups were genocidal.
>
>And your evidence for this is?
>
Studying them.  Please point out cases of genocide in any group other than
Jews in B.C. (ancient) times.  I'm waiting...

>> >> ...as best as I know we have no records from the others involved... 
>> >
>> >Hardly suprising, Mr. McTavish, as the _first_ recorded battle in history
>> >was the Battle of Megiddo in 1469 B.C. (cf. Dupuy, _The Harper
>> >Encyclopedia of Military History_, p.5.) 
>> >
>> I believe that would be out of date.  With more and more records being
>> recovered from Mesopotamia, unknown battles have come to the fore.
>
>Feel free to cite them. What? You don't know of any off-hand? Pity. 
>
You could read some modern (comprehensive) books of Sumeria, meathead.

>> [snip]
>> 
>> >> You are correct about the stabbing part and that is why modern bayonets 
>> >> have  blood grooves (to facilitate withdrawal).
>> >
>> >Interesting. Is there a cite for this? 
>> >
>> It is an extremely common belief that the fullers were made as blood 
>> channels.  
>
>So were sea monsters. So was the belief that if one sailed to far out to
>sea one would fall of the edge of the world....
>
Whoopee do.

>> Even people in the know believe this, and I would think that a
>> goodly number of books on swords would record it as so.  One other category
>> I forgot to list in another post is fullers add strength to the weapon
>> (daggers and knives often come with fullers.)
>
>Again, do you have an authoritative _citation_ for this? 
>
Offhand citation no, but I do make the occasional sword and dagger, plus I
fight with them.

>> >> If we could see pictures of Israelite carnage and what the corpses of
>their 
>> >> victims- men, women and children looked like it would be just as graphic as
>> >> Nizkook's pictures.
>> >
>> >Indeed. But then, so would carnage caused by the Egyptians, Assyrians,
>> >Greeks, Romans, Mongols, Turks, etc.. 
>> >
>> Not one of these groups believed in genocide of ethnic groups.  
>
>Tell that, for example, to the Carthegians and Armenians. 
>
The Armenians would be the exception, but they were rather recent.

>> One could twist the Roman sack of Carthage as one case, and Athens in the 
>> Peloponnesian war on revolting and democratic states (please note Mr.
>> Ledgister, democratic states fight each other.)
>
>During the Third Punic War Rome was not a democracy like, for example, the
>United States during WWII. (Fabius Maximus was appointed dictator.) 
>Neither was Carthage, merely "sacked." Carthage was laid waste. Erased.
>Nine tenths of the population of died in the fall of Carthage, the city
>torched and its walls torn down, the survivors sold as slaves, and by
>order of the Roman Senate it was decreed that no one was allowed to live
>where Carthage once stood. 
>
>Cf. Dupuy, _The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History_, p.99-100;
>http://www.idbsu.edu:80/courses/hy101/punicwar/09.htm;
>http://www.idbsu.edu:80/courses/hy101/punicwar/17.htm. 
>
Meathead, I was referring to Athens and her subject states being 
democracies, please read the history of the Peloponnesian war in respect
to Athens, Mitylene (revolt) and Samos.

As for Carthage; brutal as it was, this was still not an act of genocide,
for the other settlements of Carthaginians were not eradicated, ie., there
was no active genocidal program, the city of Carthage was _the_ enemy of
Rome.

>> >And, of course, the Nazis. Except the for the millions they gassed and
>> >starved to death. Homicidal gassings and starvation don't cause stab
>> >wounds....
>> >
>> Starvation is hardly new -- sieges come to mind.  
>
>Indeed. But the Nazis didn't lay siege to the POW and concentration camps
>they built and manned- and the the prisoners they starved to death there. 
>
Getting food to them would have become an immense problem.

>And, of course, they also murdered millions in them (i.e. the
>extermination camps) via homicidal gassings. That, at least, _was_
>something horrifyingly new. 
>
And your primary source material for this is?

Ourobouros.

How True holocaust Believers do maths: 1996 AD - 3500 years = 3500 B.C.
       -- example by Mark van Alstin


From Ourobouros Mon Dec 23 07:53:51 PST 1996
Article: 87762 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!n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.rel.christian,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Nazi Atrocities?
Date: 20 Dec 1996 15:09:02 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <59f6ae$s1v@lex.zippo.com>
References: <594sos$s6k$1@uhura.phoenix.net> <597b3d$b9j@news.nyu.edu> <597ikg$430@lex.zippo.com> <59aecc$nnf$1@uhura.phoenix.net> <59aqsq$3bg@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port869-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:87762 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40190 alt.politics.white-power:53078 alt.religion.islam:36957

In article , mvanalst@rbi.com says...
>
>In article <59aqsq$3bg@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> I fully agree that 3500 years ago, the Israelites were the only genocidal
>> people on the planet....  
>
>And your reasons for this are? What _historical_ evidence do you base your
>"agreement" on? 
>
Howabout actually studying formal ancient Near Eastern History?

If you know of another group that was genocidal then come out with it.

>> After I wrote the above, I remembered that the Israelites were supposed to 
>> have come from Egypt...
>
>Er, no. Given that Abram was a descendant of Shem (cf. Genesis 11; KJV),
>their lands were "from Mesha, as thou goest unto Sephar a mount of the
>east" (Genesis 10:30; KJV). It was later that "Abram went down into Egypt
>to sojourn there; for the famine [was] grievous in the land" (Genesis
>12:10; KJV) and then left (cf. Genesis 13:1; KJV) to eventually live in
>Canaan (Genesis 13:12; KJV). 
>
Well then, the book of Exodus was never written.  I couldn't care less about
their earliest origins, but where they had just (supposedly) been, or are 
you being wilfully stupid?  For all intensive purposes their "sojourn" in
Egypt would mean an "Egyptising" of the Israelites -- their trade skills
would have been Egyptian in origin, O' dense one.

>Of course, _historically_ speaking, the point in time this supposedly took
>place is a bit vague. If, as it has been suggested, was to have taken
>place around 3500 B.C., it would have preceded the introduction of the
>sword in warfare by about 1500 years:
>
Er meathead, 1996 - 3500 = -1504 (1504 B.C.), I take it your exercise in
mathematics comes from holocaust numbers?

> "The first new weapons of metallic age were the axe and the mace, the
>dagger, and then the sword, The long thin blade that characterizes the
>sword could not have been created until metallurgy had sufficiently
>developed to permit the working of hard malleable metal. This occured in
>the Bronze Age sometime before 2000 B.C., and the sword was probably
>introduced into warfare by the Assyrians." (Dupuy, _The Harper
>Encyclopedia of Military History_, pp.2-3.) 
>
Which means you're a meathead.

>> ...which meant their swords would have been an adaption of the sickle sword, 
>> which has no point. 
>
>Given that you were incorrect in your origional assumption about the
>origions of the Israelites, your subsequent assumption about the type of
>sword used is also suspect. Could you please provide _historical_ evidence
>that the Israelites used "an adaption of the sickle sword?" Given that the
>sword was most likely introduced by the Assyrians, would it not also be
>likely that the type of sword  by patterned after the Assyrian sword i.e.-
>"The long thin blade that characterizes the sword."? 
>
Er no, it means you're a meathead.

>> Apart from slashing the only other move is bludgeoning  with that kind of 
>> sword.
>
>Again, what historical evidence do you have that the Isrealites used was
>"an adaption of the sickle sword?" So far you have offered nothing but
>incorrect speculation. 
>
The sickle sword was the sword of the Egyptians.  It was used in chariot
warfare, since it is unlikely that the Israelites had chariots in 
Joshua 8, then it is extremely likely that they adapted the Egyptian's
sickle sword for infantry use, or you just plain thick?

>[snip]
>
>> I believe there is a reference to one of Israeli kings who used saws & Co.
>> on his opponents, now that is cruel.
>
>And there is testimony that the Nazis tossed innocent children alive into
>burning ditches. It is said that to be burned alive is one of the most
>painfull ways to die. 
>
More eyewitness testimonies, tell me about how accurate UFO encounter
testimonies are?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Dec 23 12:01:39 PST 1996
Article: 40246 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-200.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-pull.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Nova: Indians Exterminated Mammoth, Horse, etc.
Date: 22 Dec 1996 23:58:22 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <59le2u$i9d@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbec8e$1c6df520$f4cdaec7@default> <599ug2$ivg@lex.zippo.com>  <59asja$407@lex.zippo.com> <59c291$1rs@news1.ucsd.edu> <59c60o$2tk@lex.zippo.com>  <59en7c$kkl@lex.zippo.com> <32BDCC2E.192E@interport.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port864-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:427798 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40246 alt.politics.white-power:53129 talk.environment:47845

In article <32BDCC2E.192E@interport.net>, Alan says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>> 
>> No, the image is the North American Indians were perfect and environmentally
>> balanced before the arrival of the evil white man, they could do no
>> damage to the environment.
>
>Your problem isn't that you dislike this dumb myth, your problem is that
>you ascribe this myth to "liberals" even though a lot of liberals like
>myself have said this POV on Indians is mistaken.

It is liberals, and only liberals that promote this image.  I do dislike
that dumb myth, btw.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Dec 24 08:25:33 PST 1996
Article: 87912 of alt.revisionism
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!tor.istar!east.istar!uunet!in2.uu.net!205.252.116.190!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.censorship,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: The Great Debate
Date: 21 Dec 1996 11:32:47 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <59he0v$c4t@lex.zippo.com>
References: <199612120033.QAA01666@mailmasher.com> <5972s1$p2f@lex.zippo.com> <59ad1g$a11@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <59aubi$4n2@lex.zippo.com> <59cf44$sld@access5.digex.net> <59clb5$a6m@lex.zippo.com> <32bf0bb9.6132738@news.inetport.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port873-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:87912 alt.censorship:112969 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40264 alt.politics.white-power:53148

In article <32bf0bb9.6132738@news.inetport.com>, mcurtis@inetport.com says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>The entire system is corrupt and rigged.  The only thing mass media could 
>>offer is to bring to the attention of the population is holocaust 
>>revisionism, and let them decide.
>>
>
>Based on what substantiation should there be beginning to this
>requested forum?
>
Read for a change.

>>One thing you seem unable to grasp is freedom of speech is part and parcel
>>with the freedom to be heard.
>
>Right now you are being read! You are speaking. No one is preventing
>you. 
>
Could you follow the argument before you step in and act like a fool?

>>  Mr. Zundel is not permitted the freedom to 
>>be heard.  I dare say, yelling what you like in the middle of the bush has
>>always been available, and hence your definition of free speech is
>>worthless.
>>
>
>I think the problem here is that you want the right to yell fire in
>the theater without repisals or paybacks. First you must show that
>their is a reason for people to believe you and then investigate. In
>fact, historians have investigated the claims made by "revisionists"
>and they haven't been impressed.
>
Er no, I don't want to yell fire in a theatre, that would be quite futile
and expensive.
 
>>
>>To an extent, but mainstream refuses to even hear it in the first place.
>>
>
>Possibly, because, it is presented with out substantiation.
>
Well, there is your problem; you are wilfully ignorant.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Dec 24 08:25:34 PST 1996
Article: 88101 of alt.revisionism
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!van.istar!west.istar!uniserve!news.mindlink.net!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.censorship,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: The Great Debate
Date: 23 Dec 1996 13:11:01 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 136
Message-ID: <59msh5$kne@lex.zippo.com>
References: <199612120033.QAA01666@mailmasher.com> <5972s1$p2f@lex.zippo.com> <59ad1g$a11@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <59aubi$4n2@lex.zippo.com> <59cf44$sld@access5.digex.net> <59clb5$a6m@lex.zippo.com> <32bf0bb9.6132738@news.inetport.com> <59he0v$c4t@lex.zippo.com> <32cd7e68.13999668@news.inetport.com> <59k2ge$sgv@lex.zippo.com> <32d5b9d3.24925804@news.inetport.com> <59ldr6$i82@lex.zippo.com> <32bfd3b9.17062439@news.inetport.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port878-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:88101 alt.censorship:113015 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40362 alt.politics.white-power:53229

In article <32bfd3b9.17062439@news.inetport.com>, mcurtis@inetport.com says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>In article <32d5b9d3.24925804@news.inetport.com>, mcurtis@inetport.com says...
>>>
>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <32cd7e68.13999668@news.inetport.com>, mcurtis@inetport.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>>
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>Whoopee do.  How valid are your opinions?
>>>>
>
>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>>I do back them up and substantiate them. This validates my opinions.
>>>If you wish to invalidate them "whoopee do" doesn't cut it.
>>>
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>Please back them up then, "whoopee do" does cut it because you are not 
>>offering anything of substance.
>>
>
>Be specific with what EXACTLY you wish me to back up. 
>
Howabout your (valid) opinions to this conversation?

>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>>>Could you follow the argument before you step in and act like a fool?
>>>>>
>
>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>>>>I see, you are also much more comfortable with the persoanl attack
>>>>>rather than the presentation of proper argumentation. This seems to be
>>>>>the method of deniers in general when they try to represent their
>>>>>opinions.
>>>>>
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>Excuse me, but you resorted to personal attack yourself, where was your
>>>>presentation of proper argumentation?  It is the method of true believers
>>>>to be hypocrites.
>>>>
>
>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>>I did? How did I do that? I was commenting on your willing and
>>>knee-jerk ability to call me a fool. I then commented on what I see
>>>deniers post. This is a comment on their presentations and not on
>>>their persons.
>>>
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>All you wrote was waffle.  "Right now you are being read! You are speaking. 
>>No one is preventing you" in context with the passage is a long-winded way
>>of calling me a fool, which therefore makes your replies hypocritical. 
>>
>
>No sir. You initiated this this game. I never suggested you were a
>fool, but I showed clearly that _your_ freedom to express yourself is
>not being infringed in any way. If you feel that this is a round about
>way of calling you a fool then that is your problem. 
>
Er no, "Right now you are being read..." is promoting the idea that I missed
the obvious, and I am therefore foolish.

You initiated the game, and I don't pull punches.

>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>>What are true believers? Why is it that historians do not agree with
>>>each other in all cases concerning this history. Which historians are
>>>these governments supporting? Do you have evidence of this support?
>>>Nations do not debate this issue. Historians do. In order for the
>>>historian to be interested there first has to be a valid and
>>>substantiated reason for them to be interested. So far the  denial
>>>groups have failed to provide one. Lastly, "revisionism" has been very
>>>easy to defeat. The revisionists run away from where they are defeated
>>>and leave the weaker part of their group to remain and recycle old
>>>points. In four years, I've not seen anything all that new.
>>>
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>Mr. Lund gave an adequate definition of "true believer" some time ago, with
>>the typical posts and replies of holocaust believers, his definition fits
>>like a glove on people like you.  
>>
>
>Mike Curtis responds:
>
>"Some time ago?" I guess you refuse to speak for yourself or come up
>with your own definition? Why? 
>
I like to use my opponents arguments against my opponents.  It makes for
great hypocrisy.  Mr. Lund tried to pin the term "true believer" on me, and
I therefore put the term on people like yourself.

>What are people like me? What assumptions are you trying to make about
>me?
>
You swallow the holocaust mythology hook, line and sinker.

>Ourobouros wrote:
>>I also doubt you know what "substantiation" really means either.
>>
>
>Mike Curtis responds:
>
>You are entitled to your opinion.
>
Perhaps you'd like to back up what you mean by "substantiation."

>Ourobouros wrote:
>>If "revisionists" were so easy to defeat then Mr. Irving would not have 
>>been refused visa to Australia and New Zealand (the first time round.)
>>
>
>Mike Curtis responds:
>
>This sounds like special pleading. I'm concerned only about your views
>at this point and your freedom of expression.
>
The holocaust story, for or against, is not my forte, therefore my views on
the holocaust are not overly important.  As I told you before, New Zealand
doesn't uphold freedom of speech, and I therefore use a no address
pseudonym to circumvent NZ law, therefore your interest into my freedom of
expression is meaningless.

It is interesting to note that you have moved the conversation away from
McVay, very clever.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Tue Dec 24 08:25:36 PST 1996
Article: 88139 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!hookup!swrinde!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.censorship,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: The Great Debate
Date: 17 Dec 1996 13:01:07 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <5971mj$oj3@lex.zippo.com>
References: <199612120033.QAA01666@mailmasher.com> <58srfv$jkm$5@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net><199612120033.QAA01666@mailmasher.com> <58srfv$jkm$5@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net> <58t4s6$2qm@lex.zippo.com> <58vour$1a9e$1@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net><199612120033.QAA01666@mailmasher.com> <58srfv$jkm$5@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net><199612120033.QAA01666@mailmasher.com> <58srfv$jkm$5@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net> <58t4s6$2qm@lex.zippo.com> <58vour$1a9e$1@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net> <591k14$3o8@lex.zippo.com> <5956j2$ou6$16@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.n 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port838-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:88139 alt.censorship:113021 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40376 alt.politics.white-power:53238

In article , joelr@winternet.com says...
>
>Ourobouros writes:
>>>
>>>No, I don't want Zuendel here at all.  I was simply commenting on his
>>>hypocrisy and cowardice.
>>>
>>Then stop whining about Zundel's lack of interest in alt.revisionism.
>
>I'm not sure what you think your point is, Wormy -- does one have to
>want Zundel's odious presence in order to point out that his absence
>constitutes hypocrisy and cowardice?  
>
>Why would that be so?  
>
I have already answered why Zundel's absence is not hyprocrisy and
cowardice, so I decided not to repeat myself.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Tue Dec 24 08:25:36 PST 1996
Article: 88140 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!hookup!swrinde!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.censorship,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: The Great Debate
Date: 17 Dec 1996 13:21:05 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 97
Message-ID: <5972s1$p2f@lex.zippo.com>
References: <199612120033.QAA01666@mailmasher.com> <591k14$3o8@lex.zippo.com> <5951tn$2oj@access5.digex.net> <595bc6$iru@lex.zippo.com> <596u3f$7gp@access5.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port838-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:88140 alt.censorship:113022 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40377 alt.politics.white-power:53239

In article <596u3f$7gp@access5.digex.net>, mstein@access5.digex.net says...
>
>    Note followups.
>
>In article <595bc6$iru@lex.zippo.com>,   wrote:
>>In article <5951tn$2oj@access5.digex.net>, mstein@access5.digex.net says...
>>>
>>>In article <591k14$3o8@lex.zippo.com>,   wrote:
>>>>In article <58vour$1a9e$1@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>, gmcfee@ibm.net says...
>>>>No.  While you can try and claim that here we have freedom of speech, there
>>>>is no intellectual outcome of it.  The conclusions wrought here are 
>>>>meaningless on accepted scholarship.  USENET does not offer this extremely 
>>>>important aspect.  You (pl.) only want Zundel to debate here to pump your
>>>>own egos.
>>>
>>>    So tell me how what Zundel says on TV or radio (which appears to be
>>>where he wants to debate) is any less "meaningless on accepted
>>>scholarship" (whatever that clumsy phrase means)?  Indeed, because the
>>>nature of the medium with its time constraints means it cannot be
>>>subjected to the same careful critical review as the written word, TV and
>>>radio offer even _less_ of what you claim is the important aspect than
>>>what is written here.  It would appear that Zundel only wants to debate as
>>>a way of gaining publicity, and will only do it in a forum where there is
>>>not enough time to refute any errors or outright lies he might tell.
>>>
>>TV and Radio would, at the very least, give Mr. Zundel publicity to Jo
>>Bloggs.  I somehow doubt being on the box would improve his acceptance on
>>modern scholarship (not PC), nor do I know whether being on the box is
>>Mr. Zundel's aim, that is your conclusion.
>
>    That was his _request_.  But you're right, people quite often ask for
>something other than what they want, so I guess that we cannot have any
>idea what his aim was.
>
>    But thanks for the implicit admission that the scholarship thing was a
>red herring. 
>
Not really, by making holocaust revision more public, more and more
relevant professions can be involved.  The feeble excuse that Leuchter
doesn't have the magic right piece of paper to make assertions based on 
his profession will become irrelevant, as people with that magic piece of
paper will be able to tell the wilfully ignorant the same thing.
>
>>Perhaps if his views were aired into mainstream, real debate could begin,
>>as it would promote interest into the topic.
>
>    You know, I could have _sworn_ I recently said that Zundel was
>interested in publicity, not engaging himself in real debate.
>
Sorry about the ambiguity, I was referring to holocaust revision publicity,
not Mr. Zundel's publicity.
>
>>>    Your attempt to defend Zundel's avoidance of this forum doesn't get
>>>off the ground with a Saturn V booster to help it.  Even Ingrid Rimland's
>>>poor excuse (that the man who makes much of the fact that he is willing to
>>>endure firebomb attacks for his beliefs can't tolerate some namecalling)
>>>was more believable. 
>>>
>>Uh huh.  Nice emotive connectivity.
>
>    Don't blame me, blame Ingrid.  She makes both points.  I just pointed
>out how bizarre it is to claim simultaneously that
>
I was referring to the Saturn V booster actually.

>    a) Zundel is so open and committed to the truth that he is
>       willing to brave firebombs, and
>
>    b) Zundel will not debate in a forum where someone might use
>       naughty language.
>
>If that absurdity produces an emotional response in people, that is not my
>affair.  I also pointed out the absurdity of your apologia for Zundel's
>behavior given his request.  Deal with it. 

As I said earlier, USENET doesn't offer Zundel true freedom of speech,
something I tried, but probably failed, to explain to Laura Finsten.  Part
of freedom of speech is being able to have your research accepted into
mainstream, not in the looney bin, as the media always reinforces -- a
recent NZ Herald article covered Mr. Irving's attempt to gain entrance to
Australia, but it was interesting to note the delibrate and irrelevant
discussion of his unPC stance covered most of the article (a woman's place
is to give birth to children).

Maybe one day, when TV fails, USENET will be the _public forum_, but at the
moment it is not.

As for assertion about Zundel's stances on firebombs and namecalling; people
can usually withstand the heavy things, while it is the small things that 
tends to really annoy people (namecalling).  The former makes a martyr, the 
latter doesn't just annoys.  People can prepare themselves for a war, but
if the washing-machine breaks down, all hell breaks loose.  In other words,
it is not as illogical as you are trying to make it.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Wed Dec 25 14:32:00 PST 1996
Article: 88193 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!pumpkin.pangea.ca!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.revisionism
Subject: Re: Nazi Atrocities?
Date: 23 Dec 1996 11:19:47 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <59mm0j$hf6@lex.zippo.com>
References: <594sos$s6k$1@uhura.phoenix.net> <597b3d$b9j@news.nyu.edu> <597ikg$430@lex.zippo.com> <59aecc$nnf$1@uhura.phoenix.net> <59aqsq$3bg@lex.zippo.com>  <59f6ae$s1v@lex.zippo.com> <32becd86.8032719@news.spry.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port884-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <32becd86.8032719@news.spry.com>, klewis@awinc.com says...
>
>On 20 Dec 1996 15:09:02 -0800, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>
>>Er meathead, 1996 - 3500 = -1504 (1504 B.C.), I take it your exercise in
>>mathematics comes from holocaust numbers?
>
>Er meathead, you are out by a year. I take it your exercise in
>mathmatics comes from holocaust denial?
>
>Next time you undertake to call someone a meathead, you may wish
>to have an understanding of dating systems. I'll give you a hint.
>There was no year 0 CE.
>
Evidence?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Wed Dec 25 14:32:01 PST 1996
Article: 88260 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!voskovec.radio.cz!hammer.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.rel.christian,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Nazi Atrocities?
Date: 24 Dec 1996 02:22:04 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 198
Message-ID: <59oasc$bql@lex.zippo.com>
References: <594sos$s6k$1@uhura.phoenix.net> <597b3d$b9j@news.nyu.edu> <597ikg$430@lex.zippo.com> <59aecc$nnf$1@uhura.phoenix.net>  <59aru4$3t2@lex.zippo.com>  <59hd1t$bp5@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port855-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:88260 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40412 alt.politics.white-power:53268 alt.religion.islam:37110

In article , mvanalst@rbi.com says...
>
>In article <59hd1t$bp5@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article , mvanalst@rbi.com
>says...
>> >
>> >In article <59aru4$3t2@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article , mvanalst@rbi.com
>> >says...
>> >> >
>> >> >In article <59aecc$nnf$1@uhura.phoenix.net>,
>> >> >"tavish@phoenix.net"@phoenix.net wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Ourobouros wrote:
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > In article <597b3d$b9j@news.nyu.edu>, fresh@scscomm.com says...
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >Doc Tavish <"tavish@phoenix.net"@phoenix.net> wrote:
>> >> >> > >
>> >> [genocide, slashing, stabbing snipped]
>> >> 
>> >> >> The records (Biblical) show the Israelites (their perspective) as being
>> >> >> the only ones going on their search and destroy missions....
>> >> >
>> >> >Mr. McTavish, do the words "Sumer," "Akkad," and "Babylonia" ring a
>bell?    
>> >> >
>> >> Not one of these groups were genocidal.
>> >
>> >And your evidence for this is?
>> >
>> Studying them.  
>
>Feel free to cite what you have "studied.". What? You didn't study any
>such thing? Oops.
>
Ancient Near Eastern civilisations, O' half-wit.

>> Please point out cases of genocide in any group other than
>> Jews in B.C. (ancient) times.  I'm waiting...
>
>Actually, I think it best that _you_ first document the historical
>evidence for genocide by the Israelites. 
>
The book of Joshua seems to be pretty conclusive.

>> >> >> ...as best as I know we have no records from the others involved... 
>> >> >
>> >> >Hardly suprising, Mr. McTavish, as the _first_ recorded battle in history
>> >> >was the Battle of Megiddo in 1469 B.C. (cf. Dupuy, _The Harper
>> >> >Encyclopedia of Military History_, p.5.) 
>> >> >
>> >> I believe that would be out of date.  With more and more records being
>> >> recovered from Mesopotamia, unknown battles have come to the fore.
>> >
>> >Feel free to cite them. What? You don't know of any off-hand? Pity. 
>> >
>> You could read some modern (comprehensive) books of Sumeria, meathead.
>
>Again, feel free to cite them. What? You don't know of any off-hand? Pity. 
>
They're freely available.

>> >> [snip]
>> >> 
>> >> >> You are correct about the stabbing part and that is why modern bayonets 
>> >> >> have  blood grooves (to facilitate withdrawal).
>> >> >
>> >> >Interesting. Is there a cite for this? 
>> >> >
>> >> It is an extremely common belief that the fullers were made as blood 
>> >> channels.  
>> >
>> >So were sea monsters. So was the belief that if one sailed to far out to
>> >sea one would fall of the edge of the world....
>> >
>> Whoopee do.
>
>Whoopee do indeed. So much for _your_ "beliefs" about "blood channels."
>Obviously if you cannot substantoate such "beliefs" they need not be taken
>seriously....
>
Er no, ignoramus, I said fullers weren't blood channels, but that they are
commonly believed as such.

>> >> Even people in the know believe this, and I would think that a
>> >> goodly number of books on swords would record it as so.  One other category
>> >> I forgot to list in another post is fullers add strength to the weapon
>> >> (daggers and knives often come with fullers.)
>> >
>> >Again, do you have an authoritative _citation_ for this? 
>> >
>> Offhand citation no, but I do make the occasional sword and dagger, plus I
>> fight with them.
>
>Uh huh. Obviously if you cannot substantoate such "beliefs" they need not
>be taken seriously....
>
Whatever.  There are enough books of sword-craftmanship to confirm what I
wrote.  Try any of them.

>> >> >> If we could see pictures of Israelite carnage and what the corpses of
>> >> >>their victims- men, women and children looked like it would be just as 
>> >> >> graphic asNizkook's pictures.
>> >> >
>> >> >Indeed. But then, so would carnage caused by the Egyptians, Assyrians,
>> >> >Greeks, Romans, Mongols, Turks, etc.. 
>> >> >
>> >> Not one of these groups believed in genocide of ethnic groups.  
>> >
>> >Tell that, for example, to the Carthegians and Armenians. 
>> >
>> The Armenians would be the exception, but they were rather recent.
>
>So? 
>
We are/were talking about ancient civilisations, not modern.

>> >> One could twist the Roman sack of Carthage as one case, and Athens in the 
>> >> Peloponnesian war on revolting and democratic states (please note Mr.
>> >> Ledgister, democratic states fight each other.)
>> >
>> >During the Third Punic War Rome was not a democracy like, for example, the
>> >United States during WWII. (Fabius Maximus was appointed dictator.) 
>> >Neither was Carthage, merely "sacked." Carthage was laid waste. Erased.
>> >Nine tenths of the population of died in the fall of Carthage, the city
>> >torched and its walls torn down, the survivors sold as slaves, and by
>> >order of the Roman Senate it was decreed that no one was allowed to live
>> >where Carthage once stood. 
>> >
>> >Cf. Dupuy, _The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History_, p.99-100;
>> >http://www.idbsu.edu:80/courses/hy101/punicwar/09.htm;
>> >http://www.idbsu.edu:80/courses/hy101/punicwar/17.htm. 
>> >
>> Meathead, I was referring to Athens....
>
>Sorry, you weren't very clear on this when you included Rome in the same
>sentance. I suggest you try and be more clear in the future....
>
I suggest you take remedial English instead...

>> ...and her subject states being democracies, please read the history of the 
>> Peloponnesian war in respect to Athens, Mitylene (revolt) and Samos.
>
>Why? _I_ was talking about Rome. 
>
And I was talking about both.

>> As for Carthage; brutal as it was, this was still not an act of genocide...
>
>Funny that there were no more Carthegians after Rome destroyed Carthage.... 
>
Rot.  There was a Carthaginian empire you know...

>> for the other settlements of Carthaginians were not eradicated...
>
>What _other_ settlements? BY the Third Punic War Carthage was stripped of
>all her territories and colonies except for Carthage itself. 
>
She once had an empire...

>> ie., there was no active genocidal program, the city of Carthage was _the_ 
>> enemy of Rome.
>
>Tell that to the Carthegians who were killed and enslaved. 
>
They were on the losing side, and therefore paid the penalty for trying to
conquer Rome.

>> >> >And, of course, the Nazis. Except the for the millions they gassed and
>> >> >starved to death. Homicidal gassings and starvation don't cause stab
>> >> >wounds....
>> >> >
>> >> Starvation is hardly new -- sieges come to mind.  
>> >
>> >Indeed. But the Nazis didn't lay siege to the POW and concentration camps
>> >they built and manned- and the the prisoners they starved to death there. 
>> >
>> Getting food to them would have become an immense problem.
>> 
>> >And, of course, they also murdered millions in them (i.e. the
>> >extermination camps) via homicidal gassings. That, at least, _was_
>> >something horrifyingly new. 
>> >
>> And your primary source material for this is?
>
>And _your_ primary source material contradicting this is? What? You don't
>have any? 
>
>How typical.  
>
Er no, please re-read what I wrote.   Trying to cite the non-existent is
impossible, and therefore anything that tries to contradict the non-existent
is also impossible.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Wed Dec 25 14:32:02 PST 1996
Article: 88399 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!hookup!swrinde!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc-e!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.censorship,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: The Great Debate
Date: 24 Dec 1996 11:29:07 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 165
Message-ID: <59pau3$689@lex.zippo.com>
References: <199612120033.QAA01666@mailmasher.com> <5972s1$p2f@lex.zippo.com> <59ad1g$a11@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <59aubi$4n2@lex.zippo.com> <59cf44$sld@access5.digex.net> <59clb5$a6m@lex.zippo.com> <32bf0bb9.6132738@news.inetport.com> <59he0v$c4t@lex.zippo.com> <32cd7e68.13999668@news.inetport.com> <59k2ge$sgv@lex.zippo.com> <32d5b9d3.24925804@news.inetport.com> <59ldr6$i82@lex.zippo.com> <32bfd3b9.17062439@news.inetport.com> <59msh5$kne@lex.zippo.com> <32c7faf2.4464317@news.inetport.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port841-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:88399 alt.censorship:113054 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40462 alt.politics.white-power:53305

In article <32c7faf2.4464317@news.inetport.com>, mcurtis@inetport.com says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>In article <32bfd3b9.17062439@news.inetport.com>, mcurtis@inetport.com says...
>>>
>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>
>>>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>>>I do back them up and substantiate them. This validates my opinions.
>>>>If you wish to invalidate them "whoopee do" doesn't cut it.
>>>
>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>Please back them up then, "whoopee do" does cut it because you are not 
>>>>offering anything of substance.
>>>
>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>>Be specific with what EXACTLY you wish me to back up. 
>>>
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>Howabout your (valid) opinions to this conversation?
>>
>
>What does the word specific mean to you? Pick one and be specific. I'm
>not going to guess which opinion you mean. As substantiation, you have
>not specified which opinion you have trouble with. See above.
>
You consider your opinions to be valid, please substantiate the _validity_ 
of your opinions -- why I should consider your opinions.

>>>>>
>>>
>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>All you wrote was waffle.  "Right now you are being read! You are speaking. 
>>>>No one is preventing you" in context with the passage is a long-winded way
>>>>of calling me a fool, which therefore makes your replies hypocritical. 
>>>>
>>>
>>>No sir. You initiated this this game. I never suggested you were a
>>>fool, but I showed clearly that _your_ freedom to express yourself is
>>>not being infringed in any way. If you feel that this is a round about
>>>way of calling you a fool then that is your problem. 
>>>
>>Er no, "Right now you are being read..." is promoting the idea that I missed
>>the obvious, and I am therefore foolish.
>>
>>You initiated the game, and I don't pull punches.
>>
>
>I think it is apparent that you hit, or is it, passed wind.
>
What a pathetic attempt at wit.

>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>Mr. Lund gave an adequate definition of "true believer" some time ago, with
>>>>the typical posts and replies of holocaust believers, his definition fits
>>>>like a glove on people like you.  
>>>>
>>>
>>>Mike Curtis responds:
>>>
>>>"Some time ago?" I guess you refuse to speak for yourself or come up
>>>with your own definition? Why? 
>>>
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>I like to use my opponents arguments against my opponents.  It makes for
>>great hypocrisy.  Mr. Lund tried to pin the term "true believer" on me, and
>>I therefore put the term on people like yourself.
>>
>
>Mike Curtis responds:
>I still do not know what it means. Placing a meaningless term on
>someone you obviously choose to disagree with is rather meaningless.
>
A true believer is someone who cannot back up their arguments whatsoever
(expect through emotions), but continues to believe in said argument.

>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>>What are people like me? What assumptions are you trying to make about
>>>me?
>>>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>You swallow the holocaust mythology hook, line and sinker.
>>
>
>Mike curtis:
>I do? Which part do I swallow hook line and sinker? "All of it" is an
>incorrect answer and gets us nowhere, btw.
>
You believe in the unchallenged presentation of the holocaust, as it stands
in mainstream today.

>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>I also doubt you know what "substantiation" really means either.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Mike Curtis responds:
>>>
>>>You are entitled to your opinion.
>>>
>>Perhaps you'd like to back up what you mean by "substantiation."
>>
>
>Substantiation means to present a solid basis for something proposed.
>To support with proof or evidence; verify. To make a view solid and
>weighty. I assume we will have to get to what is evidence soon enough
>and what verification is to historians, right?
>
Yes, when it comes to PC, reason goes out the window...did you know the
Roman Empire never declined or fell?

>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>If "revisionists" were so easy to defeat then Mr. Irving would not have 
>>>>been refused visa to Australia and New Zealand (the first time round.)
>>>>
>>>
>>>Mike Curtis responds:
>>>
>
>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>>This sounds like special pleading. I'm concerned only about your views
>>>at this point and your freedom of expression.
>>>
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>The holocaust story, for or against, is not my forte, therefore my views on
>>the holocaust are not overly important.
>
>Yet you feel confident enough to accuse me of accepting something
>hook, line, and sinker; something you admit incompetence with?
>
I know enough about it to "fish."

>>  As I told you before, New Zealand
>>doesn't uphold freedom of speech, and I therefore use a no address
>>pseudonym to circumvent NZ law, therefore your interest into my freedom of
>>expression is meaningless.
>>
>
>I'm not familiar with New Zealand. I have no control over New Zealand
>since I am an American. So I can understand _your_ reluctance to be
>known. I do not understand why you are here arguing something that is
>not your forte. Maybe we should argue something we are both familiar
>with or you can acquaint me with New Zealand's speech laws as you see
>them and as the law of that country presents them?
>
The argument as it originally stood was why Mr. Zundel and Mr. McVay are
reluctant to debate on alt.revisionism or USENET in general.

>Ourobouros wrote:
>>It is interesting to note that you have moved the conversation away from
>>McVay, very clever.
>>
>
>I didn't realize I was being clever. I am not McVay. I can only
>discuss that and those with whom I am familiar. Mr. McVay can speak
>for himself. McVay is also not historically germaine to the Holocaust.
>
The point is Mr. McVay never debates, he needs people like yourself to
defend him because he is incompetent.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Wed Dec 25 15:40:12 PST 1996
Article: 40289 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!washington.Capitol.Net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.immigration,alt.skinheads,alt.conspiracy,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Re: More facts proving the non-existence of a pure White race
Date: 23 Dec 1996 00:13:20 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <59lev0$inm@lex.zippo.com>
References:  <59hlmp$ep2@lex.zippo.com> <59ku56$7d5@transend.com.tw>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port864-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.discrimination:59028 alt.politics.white-power:53170 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40289 alt.skinheads:46323 alt.conspiracy:123570 alt.religion.islam:37052

In article <59ku56$7d5@transend.com.tw>, jimwalsh@transend.com.tw says...
>
Here we go again:

>Ourobouros wrote:
>: Only the developers get the credit and are recorded.  Almost anybody can
>: pick up a shovel and use it, talent resides in the designer, that is why
>: they get paid more.  Whether Blacks did the actual physical labour is
>: irrelevant, because Whites could have been easily recruited to do the
>: exact same task.  Therefore you gave a non-answer.  Do you give credit to
>: your computer?
>
>Please define "White" and "Black". There is no way to rationally project
>your bizarre and un-biological theories thousands of years backwards in
>time. You haven't the foggiest idea who is "black" and who is "white"
>today. To suggest that you know who was "black" and who was "white"
>thousands of years ago is really ridiculous. 
>
Skull shape is the typical way of classifying race in unrecorded times.

A lot of cultures (that had writing) often wrote what they looked like, for
example, the Vedic hymns state that the Aryans were white.

Thus, with skull shape and writings, it is feasible to project the 
biological nature back thousands of years, despite your whinging that it
can't be done.

>BTW, is Madonna "white"? How about her child?
>
1st, yes.  2nd, I don't follow the gossip columns, so I couldn't tell you 
one way or another.

>How about Cleopatra? Was she "white"?
>
That is how she described her breasts and genitals, so yes.

>How about Socrates? Was he "white"?
>
Yes.

>What evidence do you have for any of these "assertions" about racial type?
>
Skull shape and writings.  Both Cleopatra and Socrates were ancient Greeks
who recorded themselves as being of white complexion, Cleopatra personally,
Socrates by inference.

I note you ignored what was written.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Wed Dec 25 15:40:13 PST 1996
Article: 40390 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!eru.mt.luth.se!news-stkh.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-lond.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Nova: Indians Exterminated Mammoth, Horse, etc.
Date: 23 Dec 1996 10:31:54 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <59mj6q$g4b@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbec8e$1c6df520$f4cdaec7@default> <599ug2$ivg@lex.zippo.com>  <59asja$407@lex.zippo.com> <59c291$1rs@news1.ucsd.edu> <59c60o$2tk@lex.zippo.com> <59ecf7$a8c@news1.ucsd.edu> <59ens9$l3j@lex.zippo.com> <59mfki$7q6@news1.ucsd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port884-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:428127 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40390 alt.politics.white-power:53248 talk.environment:47937

In article <59mfki$7q6@news1.ucsd.edu>, fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>: In article <59ecf7$a8c@news1.ucsd.edu>, fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu says...
>: >
>: >Ourobouros wrote:
>: >: In article , fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu says...
>: >: >
>: >: >Ourobouros wrote:
>: >: >: In article , "D. says...

[North American Indians]

>: >: >Apples and oranges.  The 'noble savage' concept has nothing at all
>: >: >to do with environmentalism. 
>: >: >
>: >: Au contraire, the image is that the noble savage was at one with the environment, until the
>: >: arrival of the evil white man.
>: >
>: >
>: >Is that so? It certainly does not appear so from Rousseau's _Second
>: >Discourse_, nor from the earliest depiction of the 'noble savage',
>: >Aphra Behn's _Oronooko_.
>: >
>: The mythology has evolved.
>
>The concept of the 'noble savage' was developed in the 17th and 18th
>centuries to contrast the purity and simplicity of 'savage' and
>'barbaric' peoples with the artificiality and falsity of the
>'civilised', and it still bears that meaning.  
>
>If it is a 'mythology' and has evolved, be so kind as to cite
>sources showing that evolution. Otherwise, it would be reasonable to
>assume that you are making things up.
>
Pay attention to the popular propaganda machines, ie., television and
movies.  I have already given sample pieces of fiction that reinforce the
liberal doctrines.  It is my assumption that the only reason you can say
what you do is because you live in a dream world.

>
>: >
>: >: >
>: >: >: Would you care to explain the motivation behind such pieces of fiction as
>: >: >: "Dances with Wolves", "Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman", and the animation
>: >: >: "Pocohantas"?
>: >: >
>: >: >That's 'Pocahontas'.  And yes, they are fiction (though _Pocahontas_
>: >: >is based on a real person). But what have they got to do with the
>: >: >question of species extinction and other environmental damage?
>: >: >
>: >: According to PC/liberal mythology, the noble savage was at one with nature, he had a
>: >: special relationship with the eagle and etc., the noble savage could never wipe out a
>: >: species because of his inborn conservation ways.
>: >
>: >
>: >Do you mind providing some citations? I certainly have never
>: >believed this (though I am not a liberal).
>: >
>: Easy: your knee-jerk reaction to this discussion.
>
>Er, that's not a citation. What evidence do you have that anyone
>believes this? (A book, an article.)

Hollywood, television program production companies.  Just watch the
garbage they produce.

>: >Also, I note that you haven't answered the question of the
>: >relationship of these tv shows and film to the question of species
>: >extinction and other environmental damage.
>
>: When you master English, let me know.
>
>I mastered English long ago, I ask again: what is the relationship
>of these tv shows and film to the quesiton of species extinction and
>other environmental damage?  I note that, each time you are
>questioned, you duck.
>
There is no correlation between tv shows and species extinction and other
environmental damage.  The red Indian could not wipe out species or cause
environmental damage, according to tv programs, therefore you ask for
something that does not exist, hence why I questioned your English skills,
because you asked such a dumb question.

If you think (?) I am ducking, please resolve PI.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Wed Dec 25 15:42:10 PST 1996
Article: 53248 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!eru.mt.luth.se!news-stkh.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-lond.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Nova: Indians Exterminated Mammoth, Horse, etc.
Date: 23 Dec 1996 10:31:54 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <59mj6q$g4b@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbec8e$1c6df520$f4cdaec7@default> <599ug2$ivg@lex.zippo.com>  <59asja$407@lex.zippo.com> <59c291$1rs@news1.ucsd.edu> <59c60o$2tk@lex.zippo.com> <59ecf7$a8c@news1.ucsd.edu> <59ens9$l3j@lex.zippo.com> <59mfki$7q6@news1.ucsd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port884-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:428127 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40390 alt.politics.white-power:53248 talk.environment:47937

In article <59mfki$7q6@news1.ucsd.edu>, fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>: In article <59ecf7$a8c@news1.ucsd.edu>, fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu says...
>: >
>: >Ourobouros wrote:
>: >: In article , fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu says...
>: >: >
>: >: >Ourobouros wrote:
>: >: >: In article , "D. says...

[North American Indians]

>: >: >Apples and oranges.  The 'noble savage' concept has nothing at all
>: >: >to do with environmentalism. 
>: >: >
>: >: Au contraire, the image is that the noble savage was at one with the environment, until the
>: >: arrival of the evil white man.
>: >
>: >
>: >Is that so? It certainly does not appear so from Rousseau's _Second
>: >Discourse_, nor from the earliest depiction of the 'noble savage',
>: >Aphra Behn's _Oronooko_.
>: >
>: The mythology has evolved.
>
>The concept of the 'noble savage' was developed in the 17th and 18th
>centuries to contrast the purity and simplicity of 'savage' and
>'barbaric' peoples with the artificiality and falsity of the
>'civilised', and it still bears that meaning.  
>
>If it is a 'mythology' and has evolved, be so kind as to cite
>sources showing that evolution. Otherwise, it would be reasonable to
>assume that you are making things up.
>
Pay attention to the popular propaganda machines, ie., television and
movies.  I have already given sample pieces of fiction that reinforce the
liberal doctrines.  It is my assumption that the only reason you can say
what you do is because you live in a dream world.

>
>: >
>: >: >
>: >: >: Would you care to explain the motivation behind such pieces of fiction as
>: >: >: "Dances with Wolves", "Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman", and the animation
>: >: >: "Pocohantas"?
>: >: >
>: >: >That's 'Pocahontas'.  And yes, they are fiction (though _Pocahontas_
>: >: >is based on a real person). But what have they got to do with the
>: >: >question of species extinction and other environmental damage?
>: >: >
>: >: According to PC/liberal mythology, the noble savage was at one with nature, he had a
>: >: special relationship with the eagle and etc., the noble savage could never wipe out a
>: >: species because of his inborn conservation ways.
>: >
>: >
>: >Do you mind providing some citations? I certainly have never
>: >believed this (though I am not a liberal).
>: >
>: Easy: your knee-jerk reaction to this discussion.
>
>Er, that's not a citation. What evidence do you have that anyone
>believes this? (A book, an article.)

Hollywood, television program production companies.  Just watch the
garbage they produce.

>: >Also, I note that you haven't answered the question of the
>: >relationship of these tv shows and film to the question of species
>: >extinction and other environmental damage.
>
>: When you master English, let me know.
>
>I mastered English long ago, I ask again: what is the relationship
>of these tv shows and film to the quesiton of species extinction and
>other environmental damage?  I note that, each time you are
>questioned, you duck.
>
There is no correlation between tv shows and species extinction and other
environmental damage.  The red Indian could not wipe out species or cause
environmental damage, according to tv programs, therefore you ask for
something that does not exist, hence why I questioned your English skills,
because you asked such a dumb question.

If you think (?) I am ducking, please resolve PI.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Wed Dec 25 16:18:15 PST 1996
Article: 88559 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!freenet.unbc.edu!news.scn.org!news.abs.net!washington.Capitol.Net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc-e!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.rel.christian,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Nazi Atrocities?
Date: 24 Dec 1996 12:15:13 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 254
Message-ID: <59pdkh$7d4@lex.zippo.com>
References: <594sos$s6k$1@uhura.phoenix.net> <597b3d$b9j@news.nyu.edu> <597ikg$430@lex.zippo.com> <59aecc$nnf$1@uhura.phoenix.net> <59aqsq$3bg@lex.zippo.com>  <59f6ae$s1v@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port841-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:88559 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40523 alt.politics.white-power:53356 alt.religion.islam:37178

In article , mvanalst@rbi.com says...
>
>In article <59f6ae$s1v@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article , mvanalst@rbi.com
>says...
>> >
>> >In article <59aqsq$3bg@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> >> I fully agree that 3500 years ago, the Israelites were the only genocidal
>> >> people on the planet....  
>> >
>> >And your reasons for this are? What _historical_ evidence do you base your
>> >"agreement" on? 
>> >
>> Howabout actually studying formal ancient Near Eastern History?
>> 
>> If you know of another group that was genocidal then come out with it.
>> 
>> >> After I wrote the above, I remembered that the Israelites were supposed to 
>> >> have come from Egypt...
>> >
>> >Er, no. Given that Abram was a descendant of Shem (cf. Genesis 11; KJV),
>> >their lands were "from Mesha, as thou goest unto Sephar a mount of the
>> >east" (Genesis 10:30; KJV). It was later that "Abram went down into Egypt
>> >to sojourn there; for the famine [was] grievous in the land" (Genesis
>> >12:10; KJV) and then left (cf. Genesis 13:1; KJV) to eventually live in
>> >Canaan (Genesis 13:12; KJV). 
>> >
>> Well then, the book of Exodus was never written.  
>
>Er, Mr. self-eater, Genesis predates Exodus. 
>
Er, they left the land of Egypt, having lived their for supposedly 400 
years.

>> I couldn't care less about their earliest origins, but where they had just 
>> (supposedly) been....
>
>Too bad you didn't make yourself clear. It's a problem with you,
>evidently. You claimed that "Israelites were supposed to  have come from
>Egypt." I took that to mean that they _originited_ from Eygypt, which was
>silly. 
>
The problem with you is you make all sorts of wild assumptions, and you
decide what I really wrote is what you think I wrote.

>But given that you're usually silly, Mr. self-eater, I thought you were
>serious.... 
>
Whatever you believe, the above shows a logical contradiction in your mode
of thinking.

>> or are you being wilfully stupid?  
>
>No, it's simply your muddled thinking, Mr. self-eater. That, and possibly
>you were talking with your mouth full (of your foot) again?
>
It appears from our conversations that you have the muddled thinking, I
never said 3500 B.C. like some person I know.

>> For all intensive purposes their "sojourn" in
>> Egypt would mean an "Egyptising" of the Israelites
>
>Really? How "Egyptized" would you think they would be? Your historical
>evidence for such an assumption is? (Oops, I forgot, you don't do the
>historical evidence thing but rather the "Because I Say So!" thing.) How
>"Babylonized" to think the Israelites were? 
>
Considering that the Israelites aren't recorded as ever been in Egypt their
is no historical evidence, I was making a logical deduction, though it is
quite evident that logic and you are mutually exclusive.

Considering that the Jews have the Babylonian Talmud, obviously the Jews
were affected (heavily) by Babylon.

>> -- their trade skills
>> would have been Egyptian in origin, O' dense one.
>
>Interesting, then, is it not, that the Hebrew alphabet is nearly identical
>to the Assyrian alphabet? Please explain why, as you seem to place such
>great power of influence on the Egyptians, didn't the Israelites use
>hieroglyphs? 
>
Er no.  The Hebrew alphabet is nearly identical to the Aramean (?) alphabet 
and Phoenician alphabet.  At circa 1500 B.C. the Assyrians would have been 
using the Akkadian language and using the Sumerian script in an Akkadian
way.

>> >Of course, _historically_ speaking, the point in time this supposedly took
>> >place is a bit vague. If, as it has been suggested, was to have taken
>> >place around 3500 B.C., it would have preceded the introduction of the
>> >sword in warfare by about 1500 years:
>> >
>> Er meathead, 1996 - 3500 = -1504 (1504 B.C.), I take it your exercise in
>> mathematics comes from holocaust numbers?
>
>Ah, my mistake. I read 3500 and for some reason 3500 B.C. stuck in my
>mind. Oh, well....
>
Proof, of course, that you don't read your opponents arguments, but merely
decide what they _really_ wrote yourself.  Please don't try and ever claim
I have muddled thinking, it is you with the mental disorder.

>Of course, a date of 1500 B.C. makes your claims in regard to "genocide"
>even more ridiculous, as circa 1400-600 B.C.the Assyrians were "the most
>warlike people of the mMiddle East," being they were exceptionally cruel
>and ferocious. "It was not unusual for them to kill every man, woman, and
>child in captured cities. Sometimes they would carry away entire
>populations into captivity." (cf. Dupuy, _The Harper Encyclopedia of
>Military History_, pp.9,11.) 
>
They were not genocidal at all.  They were extremely cruel, there is little
doubt about that.  It was unusual for them to kill every man, woman and
child in a captured city, unless they absolutely provoked the Assyrians, 
and even then they typically butchered the leading citizens and moved the
population elsewhere.  

To brief the Assyrians: their city God commanded the Assyrians on which
cities should be captured, thus it was God's decree that a particular
region should be under Assyrian hegemony.  If a city surrendered outright
then there were absolutely no problems, if a city resisted then bloodshed
happened, but the citizenry were not slaughtered to a man.  That city had
attempted to defy Assur (the God of the Assyrians).  If a city that was
under Assyrian hegemony revolted then they were revolted against Assur, and
therefore they committed heresy.  In this latter scenerio the Assyrians 
were at their bloodiest, but only a truly demented mind would claim they
were genocidal, as the Assyrians weren't, as the Assyrians responded against
heresy, not against an ethnic group.

>> > "The first new weapons of metallic age were the axe and the mace, the
>> >dagger, and then the sword, The long thin blade that characterizes the
>> >sword could not have been created until metallurgy had sufficiently
>> >developed to permit the working of hard malleable metal. This occured in
>> >the Bronze Age sometime before 2000 B.C., and the sword was probably
>> >introduced into warfare by the Assyrians." (Dupuy, _The Harper
>> >Encyclopedia of Military History_, pp.2-3.) 
>> >
>> Which means you're a meathead.
>
>Actually, Mr. self-eater, it means the Assyrians first introduced the
>sword into warfare.
>
Please read in context, you were being quite stupid about 3500 B.C., and
how much I was wrong, when in fact you were the one at fault.

>> >> ...which meant their swords would have been an adaption of the sickle 
>> sword, which has no point. 
>> >
>> >Given that you were incorrect in your origional assumption about the
>> >origions of the Israelites, your subsequent assumption about the type of
>> >sword used is also suspect. Could you please provide _historical_ evidence
>> >that the Israelites used "an adaption of the sickle sword?" Given that the
>> >sword was most likely introduced by the Assyrians, would it not also be
>> >likely that the type of sword  by patterned after the Assyrian sword i.e.-
>> >"The long thin blade that characterizes the sword."? 
>> >
>> 
>> Er no, it means you're a meathead.
>
>So you can't back up your claims about "sickle" swords with the historical
>evidence, Mr. self-eater? Typical.
>
You are a try hard, aren't you?

Once again your feeble attempt at winning this argument alludes you:

"By about 1500 BC the cutting ax had evolved into the sickle sword, a
bronze sword with a curved, concave blade and a straight, thickened handle."

Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 29, p.533.

And why I say the Israelites adapted the Egyptian sickle sword, is because
the Egyptian sword was designed for chariot warfare, not infantry.

>> >> Apart from slashing the only other move is bludgeoning  with that kind of 
>> >> sword.
>> >
>> >Again, what historical evidence do you have that the Isrealites used was
>> >"an adaption of the sickle sword?" So far you have offered nothing but
>> >incorrect speculation. 
>> >
>> The sickle sword was the sword of the Egyptians.  
>
>Mr. self-eater, what historical evidence do you have that confirms that
>the "sickle" sword was the "sword of the Egyptians?"
>
See above, O' desperate one.

>> It was used in chariot warfare, since it is unlikely that the Israelites had 
>> chariots in  Joshua 8, then it is extremely likely that they adapted the 
>> Egyptian's sickle sword for infantry use, or you just plain thick?
>
>And your historical evidence for all this is, Mr. self-eater? 
>
I can get hold of it, either that or you can ask Dr. A. J. Spalinger of
the University of Auckland Classical department who specialty is Egyptian
military history.

>The reason I ask, Mr. self-eater is that that I also recall somebody
>claiming in regard to bayonets that:
>
>"'Blood grooves' are officially called 'fullers' :-)  They were there to
>improve balance/speed and weight, not really for blood :-)"
>
>However, given that bayonets (especially most modern ones) are basically
>knives, which are themselves patterned after daggers, the following it
>intructional:
>
>"Blade cross-section (above) Variations in the sectional shape of the
>blade usually represent attempts to combine narrowness with stiffness.
>Parallel sides (A) are the  weakest shape. Convex (B) or concave formed by
>grooves called fullers (C) are more rigid, as are ribs (D), a ridge (E) or
>a diamond shape (F). The spike is used for stabbing (G) has no cutting
>edge." _Weapons: an international encyclopedia from 5000 B.C.to 2000 A.D_,
>p.26.) 
>
>Do you perhaps, Mr. self-eater, recall who this blustering fool was? I do. 
>
You are the blustering fool.  The bayonet was only one weapon that used
fullers, as I said they weren't blood channels, they add more strength (as
above), and because you have taken away metal from the weapon they are
therefore lighter (logic again, I'm afraid), and because they are lighter 
the pommel (of a sword or dagger) is smaller, and hence the balance can be
better (more logical reasoning, I'm afraid.)  What I said was 100% correct.
As I said above, you are the blustering fool, I stand vindicated.

>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >> I believe there is a reference to one of Israeli kings who used saws & Co.
>> >> on his opponents, now that is cruel.
>> >
>> >And there is testimony that the Nazis tossed innocent children alive into
>> >burning ditches. It is said that to be burned alive is one of the most
>> >painfull ways to die. 
>> 
>> More eyewitness testimonies, tell me about how accurate UFO encounter
>> testimonies are?
>
>This from a simpleton who names himself after a self-eating serpent, and
>who uses Joshua 8 as historical _evidence_. I'm vexed with fools. 
>
Ah, the belittling tactic is invoked again.  "Ourobouros" is not a 
glamourous name, unlike "Caesar" and so forth of your comrades, but has
more to do with the eternal cycle of these arguments.

You are vexed with fools all right, since you are one, you can never 
escape your comrades/fools in arms.

Ourobouros.

An example of Holocaust believer's mathematical skill: 
1996 AD - 3500 years = 3500 B.C.



From Ourobouros Fri Dec 27 11:37:30 PST 1996
Article: 89100 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nol.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!mr.net!visi.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.censorship,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: The Great Debate
Date: 26 Dec 1996 11:32:47 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 173
Message-ID: <59ujsv$jdv@lex.zippo.com>
References: <199612120033.QAA01666@mailmasher.com> <5972s1$p2f@lex.zippo.com> <59ad1g$a11@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <59aubi$4n2@lex.zippo.com> <59cf44$sld@access5.digex.net> <59clb5$a6m@lex.zippo.com> <32bf0bb9.6132738@news.inetport.com> <59he0v$c4t@lex.zippo.com> <32cd7e68.13999668@news.inetport.com> <59k2ge$sgv@lex.zippo.com> <32d5b9d3.24925804@news.inetport.com> <59ldr6$i82@lex.zippo.com> <32bfd3b9.17062439@news.inetport.com> <59msh5$kne@lex.zippo.com> <32c7faf2.4464317@news.inetport.com> <59pau3$689@lex.zippo.com> <32c79b3a.10354852@news.inetport.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port828-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:89100 alt.censorship:113199 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40807 alt.politics.white-power:53591

In article <32c79b3a.10354852@news.inetport.com>, mcurtis@inetport.com says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>>>
>>>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>>>>Be specific with what EXACTLY you wish me to back up. 
>>>
>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>Howabout your (valid) opinions to this conversation?
>>>
>
>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>>What does the word specific mean to you? Pick one and be specific. I'm
>>>not going to guess which opinion you mean. As substantiation, you have
>>>not specified which opinion you have trouble with. See above.
>>>
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>You consider your opinions to be valid, please substantiate the _validity_ 
>>of your opinions -- why I should consider your opinions.
>>
>
>Mike Curtis responds:
>
>Please look up the word specific and tell me what it means. Then find
>an opinion _you_ wish me to verify. It's your choice. why are you so
>obviously afraid to pick one?
>
Er no, I am not asking about one particular opinion, but rather why someone like
myself should pay heed to any of your opinions.  The topic of your opinions is
unimportant, but rather the _why_.

>[snipped humor]
>
>>>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>>I still do not know what it means. Placing a meaningless term on
>>>someone you obviously choose to disagree with is rather meaningless.
>>>
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>A true believer is someone who cannot back up their arguments whatsoever
>>(expect through emotions), but continues to believe in said argument.
>>
>
>Mike Curtis responds:
>
>Then show that I am unable to back up my arguments. It is obvious that
>you do not want to do this but prefer to rattle on in vague
>generalities and unsubstantiated assumptions. Are you waiting for
>someone to help you out?
>
Prove the holocaust then.

I am one of these people who believe that if you want a job down properly then
you have to do it yourself, therefore I am not waiting for anybody to help me
out.

>>>
>>>Mike curtis:
>>>I do? Which part do I swallow hook line and sinker? "All of it" is an
>>>incorrect answer and gets us nowhere, btw.
>>>
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>You believe in the unchallenged presentation of the holocaust, as it stands
>>in mainstream today.
>>
>
>Mike Curtis responds:
>
>I must point out to whoever is still awake reading this thread to
>consider what Ourobouros has said so far. Nothing. So I have to ask
>what the unchallenged presentation of the holocuast is in mainstream
>today. I don't think Ourobouros wrote will provide us with this
>presentation for he knows full well that there are challenges to
>almost every historical event.
>
6 Million Jews, gas chambers, gas wagons, etc., etc.

>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>>Substantiation means to present a solid basis for something proposed.
>>>To support with proof or evidence; verify. To make a view solid and
>>>weighty. I assume we will have to get to what is evidence soon enough
>>>and what verification is to historians, right?
>>>
>>Yes, when it comes to PC, reason goes out the window...did you know the
>>Roman Empire never declined or fell?
>>
>
>We are discussing the Holocaust and not the Roman Empire. We are not
>discussing PC for every group has their own opinion of what is
>politically correct. Try and stay on topic, please.
>
Er no, I was hoping you'd realize that what constitutes evidence among
historians is a watery substance, so you will have to be specific in what is
evidence and verification to you.  The holocaust story _is_ PC.

>
>[snip]
>
>>>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>>>>This sounds like special pleading. I'm concerned only about your views
>>>>>at this point and your freedom of expression.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>The holocaust story, for or against, is not my forte, therefore my views on
>>>>the holocaust are not overly important.
>>>
>
>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>>Yet you feel confident enough to accuse me of accepting something
>>>hook, line, and sinker; something you admit incompetence with?
>>>
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>I know enough about it to "fish."
>>
>
>Mike Curtis responds:
>
>You lost me here.
>
Refer back to the comment of hook, line, and sinker...if you don't know, the
saying is symbolic of fishing (hook should be obvious, line is your line on a
fishing rod, and the sinker keeps the hook and bait from floating to the
surface.)

>[Snipped New Zealand discussion. It appears that Ourobouros doesn't
>really want to discuss freedom of speech in New Zealanf after all.]
>
You were the one that brought up my pseudonym, I gave you a reason, once you
realized the significance it was no longer important.

>So Ourobouros wrote:
>>The argument as it originally stood was why Mr. Zundel and Mr. McVay are
>>reluctant to debate on alt.revisionism or USENET in general.
>>
>
>Mike Curtis responds:
>
>I've seen Mr. McVay in this group. I have not seen Mr. Zündel in this
>group.
>
I have yet to see McVay truly enter an argument, the best we see is he making
some comment on what somebody wrote, but then leaves it to his comrades to
defend.

>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>It is interesting to note that you have moved the conversation away from
>>>>McVay, very clever.
>>>>
>>>
>
>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>>I didn't realize I was being clever. I am not McVay. I can only
>>>discuss that and those with whom I am familiar. Mr. McVay can speak
>>>for himself. McVay is also not historically germaine to the Holocaust.
>>>
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>The point is Mr. McVay never debates, he needs people like yourself to
>>defend him because he is incompetent.
>
>Nawww. I'm sure Mr. McVay can do quite well on his own should Mr.
>Zündel think of appearing.
>
Not on his past record.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Fri Dec 27 11:37:31 PST 1996
Article: 89198 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!node2.frontiernet.net!usenet.logical.net!dciteleport.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.rel.christian,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Nazi Atrocities?
Date: 27 Dec 1996 00:49:49 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 279
Message-ID: <5a02jd$lo@lex.zippo.com>
References: <594sos$s6k$1@uhura.phoenix.net> <597b3d$b9j@news.nyu.edu> <597ikg$430@lex.zippo.com> <59aecc$nnf$1@uhura.phoenix.net>  <59aru4$3t2@lex.zippo.com>  <59hd1t$bp5@lex.zippo.com>  <59oasc$bql@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port923-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:89198 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40868 alt.politics.white-power:53644 alt.religion.islam:37328

In article , mvanalst@rbi.com says...
>
>In article <59oasc$bql@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article , mvanalst@rbi.com
>says...
>
>[snip]
>
>> >Feel free to cite what you have "studied.". What? You didn't study any
>> >such thing? Oops.
>> >
>> Ancient Near Eastern civilisations, O' half-wit.
>
>And what "Ancient Near Eastern civilisations" syllabus was this, Mr.
>self-eater? What texts were used? Hmmm? 
>
The University of Auckland has a course in (ancient) Mesopotamian and Egyptian
history.

>Your continued avoidance of citing any supportive texts, simply relying on
>appeals to _your_ ersatz "authority" is duly noted, Mr. self-eater. Hardly
>impressive, to say the least....
>
Your opinions aren't worth a lot either...

>> >> Please point out cases of genocide in any group other than
>> >> Jews in B.C. (ancient) times.  I'm waiting...
>> >
>> >Actually, I think it best that _you_ first document the historical
>> >evidence for genocide by the Israelites. 
>> >
>> The book of Joshua seems to be pretty conclusive.
>
>And your the archeological/historical evidence that such a religious text
>is true is, Mr. self-eater? BTW, Mr. self-eater, I find it rather
>hypocritical of you that on one hand you claim, without reason, that the
>book of Genesis is historically inaccurate while accepting  the book of
>Joshua, again woithout reason, is historically accurate....
>
O' uncomprehending one, the Israelites obviously felt so proud of origins and
tactics (mythological or not) that they recorded them in the way they did
(obvious really).  Which, if you cannot already guess, they were proud of
having genocidal ancestry.

>[snip]
>
>> >> You could read some modern (comprehensive) books of Sumeria, meathead.
>> >
>> >Again, feel free to cite them. What? You don't know of any off-hand? Pity. 
>> >
>> They're freely available.
>
>In other words, you haven't the slightest clue? How odd for a "scholor" of
>"Ancient Near Eastern civilisations!" 
>
Some things are kept in the forefront of my mind, other things are not.  There
are the battles of Hammurapi and his father for example -- they were fond of
damming the Euprates river to conquer cities.  There are the battles of the
Sumerians and the Elamites, the Sumerians and the Guti and so forth.  Some are
recorded in detail, some are only referred too.

>[snip]
>
>> >> >> I forgot to list in another post is fullers add strength to the weapon
>> >> >> (daggers and knives often come with fullers.)
>
>Really, I seem to recall otherwise. Could you please cite this other post? 
>
*sigh*

You really have problems thinking logically, don't you?

>[snip]
>
>> >Uh huh. Obviously if you cannot substantoate such "beliefs" they need not
>> >be taken seriously....
>> >
>> Whatever.  There are enough books of sword-craftmanship to confirm what I
>> wrote.  Try any of them.
>
>Indeed "whatever!" It is interesting, is it not, that a person who claims
>knowledge of "sword-craftmanship" cannot provide a citation to a book on
>"sword-craftmanship?" 
>
Whatever.

>> >> >> >> If we could see pictures of Israelite carnage and what the corpses of
>> >> >> >>their victims- men, women and children looked like it would be
>just as 
>> >> >> >> graphic asNizkook's pictures.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Indeed. But then, so would carnage caused by the Egyptians, Assyrians,
>> >> >> >Greeks, Romans, Mongols, Turks, etc.. 
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Not one of these groups believed in genocide of ethnic groups.  
>> >> >
>> >> >Tell that, for example, to the Carthegians and Armenians. 
>> >> >
>> >> The Armenians would be the exception, but they were rather recent.
>> >
>> >So? 
>> >
>> We are/were talking about ancient civilisations, not modern.
>
>I wasn't. Nor were you, as you are trying to white-wash Nazi genocide by
>dragging the red herring of ancient Israelite "genocide" across the road. 
>
Er no, I entered this conversation early, Doc Tavish was using the ancient
Israelites genocidal history from the onset, you on the other hand, keep 
yourself close-minded totally.  You were the one using the red herring with
Armenia, so please don't try anymore BS with me using red herrings, O' witless
one.

>> >> >During the Third Punic War Rome was not a democracy like, for example, the
>> >> >United States during WWII. (Fabius Maximus was appointed dictator.) 
>> >> >Neither was Carthage, merely "sacked." Carthage was laid waste. Erased.
>> >> >Nine tenths of the population of died in the fall of Carthage, the city
>> >> >torched and its walls torn down, the survivors sold as slaves, and by
>> >> >order of the Roman Senate it was decreed that no one was allowed to live
>> >> >where Carthage once stood. 
>> >> >
>> >> >Cf. Dupuy, _The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History_, p.99-100;
>> >> >http://www.idbsu.edu:80/courses/hy101/punicwar/09.htm;
>> >> >http://www.idbsu.edu:80/courses/hy101/punicwar/17.htm. 
>> >> >
>> >> Meathead, I was referring to Athens....
>> >
>> >Sorry, you weren't very clear on this when you included Rome in the same
>> >sentance. I suggest you try and be more clear in the future....
>> >
>> I suggest you take remedial English instead...
>
>My, such a witty reply! Mr. self-eater obviously holds others at fault for
>_his_  imprecise command of the English language! 
>
Funny, I could have sworn you stated 3500 B.C. (and meant it) instead of 1500 
B.C.  Who is the one with the imprecise command of the English language again?

>> >> ...and her subject states being democracies, please read the history
>of the 
>> >> Peloponnesian war in respect to Athens, Mitylene (revolt) and Samos.
>> >
>> >Why? _I_ was talking about Rome. 
>> >
>> And I was talking about both.
>
>Then, despite your protests, you _were_ asserting that Rome was a
>democracy when,  in fact, it was not! Tsk tsk, Mr. self-eater! Such a
>tangled web you attempt to weave... 
>
>Mr. self-eater, Don't you find it the _least_ bit embarrassing when you
>blatantly contradict yourself like this? 
>
Er no.  Firstly, I would never state (ancient) Rome had a democracy (though one
contemporary historian said that Rome had all three major Aristotle governments
-- Monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy simultaneously.)  Secondly, I said
Athens had a democracy, and as a democracy she attacked other democracies and
sometimes with extreme prejudice; refer the original decision on Mitylene.

>> >> As for Carthage; brutal as it was, this was still not an act of genocide...
>> >
>> >Funny that there were no more Carthegians after Rome destroyed Carthage.... 
>> >
>> Rot.  There was a Carthaginian empire you know...
>
>And one could just as easily point out that there were Hittites,
>Phillistines, Phoenicians, Arameans, etc as well the Isrealites in
>Palestine and Syria. Can you tell me what ethnic group the people of the
>city of Ai belonged to? If they were part of a larger ethnic group, the
>desctruction of Ai and the killing of its inhabitants is no different that
>the Roman destruction of Carthage. Or the Assyrian practice of killing the
>inhabitants of a city to the last man, woman, and child. 
>
*sigh*

The practise of the Levantine area down to Egypt was that of city states.  The
Carthaginians on the other hand (even though they were Phoenicians) had a 
completely different set up, they had an Empire.  Their ethosity was somewhat
larger than a city state, though I somehow doubt you'd know or ever realise
that.

>And, of course, you could also provide the archeological/historical
>evididence (comaprable to that of the existance and destruction of
>Carthage) that the city of Ai actually existed, and that the Israelites
>actually destroyed it, killing all of its inhabitants. 
>
>Will you? _Can_ you?
>
The Israelites were proud of their history, AND more importantly, what evidence
do you have that Ai never existed?  This is in lieu of the extremely important
city we call Agade -- it has never ever been discovered, therefore according
to your reasoning, it never existed.

The city of Ai may have been discovered anyway; refer A. Hegev, _The 
Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land_, Jerusalem, 1986, p. 20-22.

>> >> for the other settlements of Carthaginians were not eradicated...
>> >
>> >What _other_ settlements? BY the Third Punic War Carthage was stripped of
>> >all her territories and colonies except for Carthage itself. 
>> >
>> She once had an empire...
>
>See above regarding the city of Ai. 
>
Understand logic.

>> >> ie., there was no active genocidal program, the city of Carthage was _the_ 
>> >> enemy of Rome.
>> >
>> >Tell that to the Carthegians who were killed and enslaved. 
>> >
>> They were on the losing side, and therefore paid the penalty for trying to
>> conquer Rome.
>
>So was Ai. (On the losing side.) What then makes Ai so special? (Other
>than your obvious dislike of Jews.) 
>
According to the biblical narrative, the inhabitants of Ai made no aggressive
move on the Israelites.  The Romans didn't try and extinguish the Carthaginians,
unlike the Israelites versus the Canaanites.

>> >> >> >And, of course, the Nazis. Except the for the millions they gassed and
>> >> >> >starved to death. Homicidal gassings and starvation don't cause stab
>> >> >> >wounds....
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Starvation is hardly new -- sieges come to mind.  
>> >> >
>> >> >Indeed. But the Nazis didn't lay siege to the POW and concentration camps
>> >> >they built and manned- and the the prisoners they starved to death there. 
>> >> >
>> >> Getting food to them would have become an immense problem.
>> >> 
>> >> >And, of course, they also murdered millions in them (i.e. the
>> >> >extermination camps) via homicidal gassings. That, at least, _was_
>> >> >something horrifyingly new. 
>> >> >
>> >> And your primary source material for this is?
>> >
>> >And _your_ primary source material contradicting this is? What? You don't
>> >have any? 
>> >
>> >How typical.  
>> >
>> Er no, please re-read what I wrote.   Trying to cite the non-existent is
>> impossible, and therefore anything that tries to contradict the non-existent
>> is also impossible.
>
>Mr. self-eater, are you saying the book of Joshua is non-existent? Or
>rather, the acts depocted therein are non-existent? If so, _why_ are you
>trying to "compare" non-existent Israelite genocide to the extremely well
>documented fact of the Nazi genocide of European Jewry? 
>
Where the hell do you live?  Dreamland?

Where on earth did you somehow deduce that I even hinted that the book of
Joshua never existed?

If the Nazi genocide of European Jewry was so well documented then there would
be a lot of primary source material proving the holocaust, and if that were so
then you would not have replied with such a knee-jerk reaction.  Since you
have admitted that the Nazi genocide of European Jewry is so well documented,
let us see your primary source citations for such an event.  We are waiting...
and please, no more feeble dodging.

>"In Jerusalem there is a memorial site for the six million Jews murdered
>by the Nazi's during World War 2. It is called Yad Vashem and was raised
>1953. An avenue called "The Avenue of the Righteous" runs through this
>site. The wind whispers continuously through the several hundred trees
>planted there. Each and every tree has been planted to honor a non-Jewish
>person risking his or her life to save Jews from the Nazi murderers." 
>
HINT: this is not primary source material.  It should also be added that no
citation is given for the secondary source which for all we know is another
piece of mythology.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Fri Dec 27 11:37:32 PST 1996
Article: 89203 of alt.revisionism
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!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.rel.christian,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Nazi Atrocities?
Date: 27 Dec 1996 00:11:58 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 430
Message-ID: <5a00ce$sm2@lex.zippo.com>
References: <594sos$s6k$1@uhura.phoenix.net> <597b3d$b9j@news.nyu.edu> <597ikg$430@lex.zippo.com> <59aecc$nnf$1@uhura.phoenix.net> <59aqsq$3bg@lex.zippo.com>  <59f6ae$s1v@lex.zippo.com>  <59pdkh$7d4@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port923-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:89203 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40871 alt.politics.white-power:53647 alt.religion.islam:37331

In article , mvanalst@rbi.com says...
>
>In article <59pdkh$7d4@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article , mvanalst@rbi.com
>says...
>
>[snip]
>
>> >Er, Mr. self-eater, Genesis predates Exodus. 
>> >
>> Er, they left the land of Egypt, having lived their for supposedly 400 
>> years.
>
>Mr. self-eater, as you seem to have a problem in figuring out what
>"predates" means. Let me try again: The events in Genesis happened
>_before_ those in Exodus. 
>
I have absolutely no problem with Genesis predating Exodus, it is you who has 
the problem of acknowledging their stay in Egypt had some impact on their
'culture' or more particularly their skills.

>Furthermore, Genesis 12:10 says that "Abram went down into Egypt to
>sojourn there" and according to Genesis 13:1 "Abram went up out of Egypt."
>There was, as far as I could tell, no mention of how long Abram dwelt in
>Egypt. However, in Genesis 25:7 it is written that Abraham lived a
>"hundred threescore and fifteen years." That would be one hundred
>seventy-five years, I believe. If Abraham (i.e. Abram) lived to be one
>hundred seventy-five years old, how could he have lived in Egypt for four
>hundred years? 
>
>He couldn't, of course.
>
So what?

>> >> I couldn't care less about their earliest origins, but where they had just 
>> >> (supposedly) been....
>> >
>> >Too bad you didn't make yourself clear. It's a problem with you,
>> >evidently. You claimed that "Israelites were supposed to  have come from
>> >Egypt." I took that to mean that they _originited_ from Eygypt, which was
>> >silly. 
>> >
>> The problem with you is you make all sorts of wild assumptions, and you
>> decide what I really wrote is what you think I wrote.
>
>Uh huh. Like your erroneous claim (above) that Abraham lived in Egypt for
>four hundred years?  
>
Er no, you have made it up, just like 3500 B.C. instead of 1500 B.C.

>> >But given that you're usually silly, Mr. self-eater, I thought you were
>> >serious.... 
>> >
>> Whatever you believe, the above shows a logical contradiction in your mode
>> of thinking.
>
>Rather, I think, Mr. self-eater, it is quite obvious you are talking about
>things you know not. 
>
ROTFL, it is quite obvious that you haven't a clue what logic is and isn't.

>> >> or are you being wilfully stupid?  
>> >
>> >No, it's simply your muddled thinking, Mr. self-eater. That, and possibly
>> >you were talking with your mouth full (of your foot) again?
>> >
>> It appears from our conversations that you have the muddled thinking, I
>> never said 3500 B.C. like some person I know.
>
>Ah, Mr. self-eater, there is a difference between "muddled thinking" and
>simply misreading 3500 and assuming 3500 B.C. It was an error I, at
>least,  acknowledged. I _also_ pointed out that the time period you were
>talking about- circa 1500 B.C. -made your claims about Israelite
>"genocide" even _more_ ludicrous in lite of the Assyrians. 
>
Rubbish.  Are you somehow trying to assert the Israelites weren't genocidal?

>> >> For all intensive purposes their "sojourn" in
>> >> Egypt would mean an "Egyptising" of the Israelites
>> >
>> >Really? How "Egyptized" would you think they would be? Your historical
>> >evidence for such an assumption is? (Oops, I forgot, you don't do the
>> >historical evidence thing but rather the "Because I Say So!" thing.) How
>> >"Babylonized" to think the Israelites were? 
>> >
>> Considering that the Israelites aren't recorded as ever been in Egypt their
>> is no historical evidence, I was making a logical deduction, though it is
>> quite evident that logic and you are mutually exclusive.
>
>I see. Given that you claim there is no recorded evidence (aside from
>religious texts such as Genisis and Exodus etc., which explicitly show you
>to be in err) that the Israelites were ever in Egypt, you made a "logical
>deduction" that the Israelites _were_ in Egypt?! 
>
Er no, try again.

>And you then claim that "it is quite evident that logic" and _I_ "are
>mutually exclusive?" ROTFL! What a blithering idiot you are, Mr
>self-eater! What chutzpuh you have! 
>
Er no, try again.

>> Considering that the Jews have the Babylonian Talmud, obviously the Jews
>> were affected (heavily) by Babylon.
>> 
>> >> -- their trade skills
>> >> would have been Egyptian in origin, O' dense one.
>> >
>> >Interesting, then, is it not, that the Hebrew alphabet is nearly identical
>> >to the Assyrian alphabet? Please explain why, as you seem to place such
>> >great power of influence on the Egyptians, didn't the Israelites use
>> >hieroglyphs? 
>> >
>> Er no.  The Hebrew alphabet is nearly identical to the Aramean (?) alphabet 
>> and Phoenician alphabet.  At circa 1500 B.C. the Assyrians would have been 
>> using the Akkadian language and using the Sumerian script in an Akkadian
>> way.
>
>Amazing then, is it not, that the Hebrew alphabet is nearly identical to
>the Assyrian alphabet? What a "coincidence" this is, considering that the
>Assyrian Empire, by circa 1100 B.C., reached all the way from Mesopotamia
>to the Mediterranean! And that by circa 750 .B.C. _all_ of Palestine and
>Syria were under Assyrian dominion. 
>
Please re-read what I said, you have quite clearly not read or at least 
understood it.

One of the big mysteries is why the Mesopotamians adopted the Aramenean 
alphabet, which, btw, isn't Hebrew.

>> >> >Of course, _historically_ speaking, the point in time this supposedly took
>> >> >place is a bit vague. If, as it has been suggested, was to have taken
>> >> >place around 3500 B.C., it would have preceded the introduction of the
>> >> >sword in warfare by about 1500 years:
>> >> >
>> >> Er meathead, 1996 - 3500 = -1504 (1504 B.C.), I take it your exercise in
>> >> mathematics comes from holocaust numbers?
>> >
>> >Ah, my mistake. I read 3500 and for some reason 3500 B.C. stuck in my
>> >mind. Oh, well....
>> >
>> Proof, of course, that you don't read your opponents arguments, but merely
>> decide what they _really_ wrote yourself.  
>
>And praytell, what does that say about _your_ "misreading" of Genesis? Thy
>tongue, it appears, is a two-edged sword! Be careful, Mr. self-eater, lest
>you be picking it up off the floor....
>
Please re-read what I actually wrote for once, it would improve communications
immensely.

>> Please don't try and ever claim I have muddled thinking, it is you with the 
>> mental disorder.
>
>I see. Such petty insults from a person who can't even read Scriptures
>correctly is hardly persuasive.... 
>
I see, your evidence is?

>> >Of course, a date of 1500 B.C. makes your claims in regard to "genocide"
>> >even more ridiculous, as circa 1400-600 B.C.the Assyrians were "the most
>> >warlike people of the mMiddle East," being they were exceptionally cruel
>> >and ferocious. "It was not unusual for them to kill every man, woman, and
>> >child in captured cities. Sometimes they would carry away entire
>> >populations into captivity." (cf. Dupuy, _The Harper Encyclopedia of
>> >Military History_, pp.9,11.) 
>> >
>> They were not genocidal at all. They were extremely cruel, there is little
>> doubt about that....   
>
>Really? And your evidence for this is? What, in your "opinion" makes the
>Isrealirtes "genocidal" while the Assyrians are merely "extremely cruel?"
>
*sigh*

The Israelites recorded their over-willingness to wipe out entire populations,
populations that had not insulted the Israelite people, but whose fault was
living there.

>> It was unusual for them to kill every man, woman and
>> child in a captured city, unless they absolutely provoked the Assyrians, 
>> and even then they typically butchered the leading citizens and moved the
>> population elsewhere.  
>
>And your evidence for this is? Why none, of course! Mearely an empty
>assertion on your part. I would (again) point out that you are
>contradicted:
>
Try reading this book (one of many):

[1] G. Roux, _Ancient Iraq_, 3rd Ed., London, 1992.

>"It was not unusual for them to kill every man, woman, and child in
>captured cities. Sometimes they would carry away entire populations into
>captivity." (cf. Dupuy, _The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History_,
>pp.9,11.)
>
>Note the part about how "it was not unusual for them to kill every man,
>woman, and child in captured cities." Key words here, of course, Mr.
>self-eater, are "not unusual." 
>
It has been revised, yes they did on the occasion kill every man, woman and
child, but only after they had completely rejected Assyrian hegemony.

>> To brief the Assyrians: their city God commanded the Assyrians on which
>> cities should be captured, thus it was God's decree that a particular
>> region should be under Assyrian hegemony.  
>
>And your evidence for this is? 
>
Read [1].

>> If a city surrendered outright then there were absolutely no problems, if a 
>> city resisted then bloodshed happened, but the citizenry were not slaughtered 
>> to a man.  
>
>And your evidence for this is? Given the above, it appears you are (at
>best)  speculating.
>
Read [1].

>> That city had attempted to defy Assur (the God of the Assyrians).  If a city 
>> that was under Assyrian hegemony revolted then they were revolted against 
>> Assur, and therefore they committed heresy.  
>
>And your evidence for this is?
>
Read [1].

>> In this latter scenerio the Assyrians 
>> were at their bloodiest, but only a truly demented mind would claim they
>> were genocidal, as the Assyrians weren't, as the Assyrians responded against
>> heresy, not against an ethnic group.
>
>Are you _seriously_ claiming, Mr. self-eater, that T.N. Dupuy (an eminent
>military historian), and his son E.N. Dupuy, both of whom between them
>have published over _forty_ works of military history, are "truly
>demented?"  
>
Er no, only your understanding and T.N. Dupuy date of writing.

>I think, Mr. self-eater, that your obviously insufferable ego just caused
>you to insert both feet into your mouth! That, of course, _perfectly_ fits
>your moniker to a tee!  
>
Er no, it only registers your wilful ignorance.

>> >> > "The first new weapons of metallic age were the axe and the mace, the
>> >> >dagger, and then the sword, The long thin blade that characterizes the
>> >> >sword could not have been created until metallurgy had sufficiently
>> >> >developed to permit the working of hard malleable metal. This occured in
>> >> >the Bronze Age sometime before 2000 B.C., and the sword was probably
>> >> >introduced into warfare by the Assyrians." (Dupuy, _The Harper
>> >> >Encyclopedia of Military History_, pp.2-3.) 
>> >> >
>> >> Which means you're a meathead.
>> >
>> >Actually, Mr. self-eater, it means the Assyrians first introduced the
>> >sword into warfare.
>> >
>> Please read in context, you were being quite stupid about 3500 B.C., and
>> how much I was wrong, when in fact you were the one at fault.
>
>Indeed, Mr. self-eater, you were _quite_ wrong in regard to your erroneous
>assertion about Isrealite "genocide."
>
No, I was not.

>> >> >> ...which meant their swords would have been an adaption of the sickle 
>> >> sword, which has no point. 
>> >> >
>> >> >Given that you were incorrect in your origional assumption about the
>> >> >origions of the Israelites, your subsequent assumption about the type of
>> >> >sword used is also suspect. Could you please provide _historical_ evidence
>> >> >that the Israelites used "an adaption of the sickle sword?" Given that the
>> >> >sword was most likely introduced by the Assyrians, would it not also be
>> >> >likely that the type of sword  by patterned after the Assyrian sword i.e.-
>> >> >"The long thin blade that characterizes the sword."? 
>> >> >
>> >> 
>> >> Er no, it means you're a meathead.
>> >
>> >So you can't back up your claims about "sickle" swords with the historical
>> >evidence, Mr. self-eater? Typical.
>> >
>> You are a try hard, aren't you?
>
>Your continuing failure to substantiate your unssupported claims, Mr.
>self-eater, does not go unnoticed.... 
>
Er no, you are a muddled thinker you have, so far, *extreme* difficulty with
reading your opponents arguments.

>> Once again your feeble attempt at winning this argument alludes you:
>> 
>> "By about 1500 BC the cutting ax had evolved into the sickle sword, a
>> bronze sword with a curved, concave blade and a straight, thickened handle."
>> 
>> Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 29, p.533.
>
>Very good, Mr. self-eater! However, I fail to see "Egypt" or "Egyptian"
>mentioned anywhere in your quote. 
>
>Nice try but no cigar, Mr. self-eater.
>
The sickle sword was the standard, yes.  Each different 'nation' had their own
peculiar trademark or sword in this case -- we can tell an Egyptian sickle
sword from a Hatti sickle sword, for example. Since the Israelites were in
Egypt for x centuries, and despite your disbelief otherwise, they would have
learnt the Egyptian handicrafts.  The Egyptian sickle sword has no point
whatsoever, much like your arguments.

>> And why I say the Israelites adapted the Egyptian sickle sword, is because
>> the Egyptian sword was designed for chariot warfare, not infantry.
>
>And your evidence for this is? 
>
*sigh*

Wilful ignorance triumphs in Mark van Alstin's reality.

>[snip]
>
>> >> The sickle sword was the sword of the Egyptians.  
>> >
>> >Mr. self-eater, what historical evidence do you have that confirms that
>> >the "sickle" sword was the "sword of the Egyptians?"
>> >
>> See above, O' desperate one.
>
>Indeed. See above, Mr. self-eater.
>
Yes, please do, try not only commenting on it, but actually do it as well.

>> >> It was used in chariot warfare, since it is unlikely that the
>Israelites had 
>> >> chariots in  Joshua 8, then it is extremely likely that they adapted the 
>> >> Egyptian's sickle sword for infantry use, or you just plain thick?
>> >
>> >And your historical evidence for all this is, Mr. self-eater? 
>> >
>> I can get hold of it....
>
>Then I suggest you do, Mr. self-eater! 
>
*sigh*
>
>> ...either that or you can ask Dr. A. J. Spalinger of
>> the University of Auckland Classical department who specialty is Egyptian
>> military history.
>
>Rather, as it is _you_ who are making the assertions, I suggest _you_ get
>hold of Dr. Spalinger, post his explination, and then provide a contact
>for his so that it his explination may be independantly verified. 
>
Prove me wrong.  Dr. Spalinger gives lectures on ancient Egyptian warfare, 
which I note you don't.

>> >The reason I ask, Mr. self-eater is that that I also recall somebody
>> >claiming in regard to bayonets that:
>> >
>> >"'Blood grooves' are officially called 'fullers' :-)  They were there to
>> >improve balance/speed and weight, not really for blood :-)"
>> >
>> >However, given that bayonets (especially most modern ones) are basically
>> >knives, which are themselves patterned after daggers, the following it
>> >intructional:
>> >
>> >"Blade cross-section (above) Variations in the sectional shape of the
>> >blade usually represent attempts to combine narrowness with stiffness.
>> >Parallel sides (A) are the  weakest shape. Convex (B) or concave formed by
>> >grooves called fullers (C) are more rigid, as are ribs (D), a ridge (E) or
>> >a diamond shape (F). The spike is used for stabbing (G) has no cutting
>> >edge." _Weapons: an international encyclopedia from 5000 B.C.to 2000 A.D_,
>> >p.26.) 
>> >
>> >Do you perhaps, Mr. self-eater, recall who this blustering fool was? I do. 
>> >
>> You are the blustering fool.  The bayonet was only one weapon that used
>> fullers....
>
>That is incorrect, Mr. self-eater. As noted above, daggers had fullers.
>Swords too had fullers. The term "fuller" is simply the name of the design
>artifact in producing a strong blade cross-section while keeping the blade
>as light as possible. 
>
>> ... as I said they weren't blood channels, they add more strength (as
>> above)....
>
>No, Mr. self-eater, you did not origionally say any such thing. You said:
>
>"They were there to mprove balance/speed and weight, not really for blood :-)"
>
>No mention of strength at all. Your backpeddaling is noted, btw, Mr. self-eater.
>
AND, O' misappropriatively strong one, I said in another post you responded too,
that strength was another reason for fullers, and I forgot to include in the
above quote.  Do you excel in wilful stupidity or something?

>> and because you have taken away metal from the weapon they are
>> therefore lighter (logic again, I'm afraid), and because they are lighter 
>> the pommel (of a sword or dagger) is smaller, and hence the balance can be
>> better (more logical reasoning, I'm afraid.)  What I said was 100% correct.
>> As I said above, you are the blustering fool, I stand vindicated.
>
>More like you stand convicted, by your own words, of being a blustering
>and backpeddaling fool. Hardly suprising, I must add, as it seems to be a
>common character flaw of deniers....
>
100% rubbish, if you, for once, actually took time and read your opponents
arguments you may be surprised to learn that you are a complete fool, and you
promote yourself completely as a fool.

>[snip]
>
>BTW, Mr. self-eater did the Israelites of te Old Testament throw innocent
>children into bonfires alive? The Nazis did for no other reason than
>because they were Jewish.
>
>"In Jerusalem there is a memorial site for the six million Jews murdered
>by the Nazi's during World War 2. It is called Yad Vashem and was raised
>1953. An avenue called "The Avenue of the Righteous" runs through this
>site. The wind whispers continuously through the several hundred trees
>planted there. Each and every tree has been planted to honor a non-Jewish
>person risking his or her life to save Jews from the Nazi murderers." 
>
Your primary source citation for this is what?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Fri Dec 27 12:09:27 PST 1996
Article: 40681 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nol.net!df.lth.se!news.lth.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news99.sunet.se!liuida!news.ifm.liu.se!news.lejonet.se!linkoping.trab.se!malmo.trab.se!newsfeed.luth.se!news.luth.se!eru.mt.luth.se!news.kth.se!nntp.uio.no!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc-e!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Nova: Indians Exterminated Mammoth, Horse, etc.
Date: 18 Dec 1996 15:24:50 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <599ug2$ivg@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbec8e$1c6df520$f4cdaec7@default>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port862-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:428989 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40681 alt.politics.white-power:53487 alt.rush-limbaugh:124305

In article <01bbec8e$1c6df520$f4cdaec7@default>, "Rad" says...
>
>We are constantly told by the liberal media that only the evil white man
>harms nature; that primitive peoples like the noble Native American have a
>spiritual reverence for the Earth and all its fury creatures.
>
The liberal media here in New Zealand tried, but have so far always failed
to the same for the Maori.  

Among the animals destroyed by the Maori are the Moa, Huia, Laughing Owl,
and New Zealand eagle (a bird that made the golden eagle look like a 
sparrow).  There were plenty more species wiped out by the Maori.

The Arabs wiped out the Onager last century.

The Australian Aborigine had a lot to do with the extinction of the 
marsupial dog.

Just a few animals and their slaughterers.

>But a recent episode of Nova (one of the few objective programs on PBS,
>being mostly British) concluded that the American Indians exterminated the
>Woolly Mammoth, American camel, three species of ground sloth, the American
>horse and nearly every other large animal in North and South America soon
>after arriving here 11 thousand years ago. 
>
>It's a good thing the horse escaped to Asia or mankind would have had to do
>without it. I wonder how they tasted?
>
>When we look at the world today, it seems that ONLY the white man has any
>hesitation at all about taking whatever he can get from nature. Another
>liberal myth bites the dust.
>
Amusing.  Captain John Smith's journals concerning the eating habits of
the savage must have been right :->

It just goes to show; when are liberals right?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Fri Dec 27 12:09:28 PST 1996
Article: 40746 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!news.bconnex.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc-e!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.immigration,alt.skinheads,alt.conspiracy,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson and miscegenation (was Re: More Facts Proving the Non-Existence of a "Pure White Race"
Date: 26 Dec 1996 11:40:37 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 142
Message-ID: <59ukbl$jgn@lex.zippo.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port828-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.discrimination:59192 alt.politics.white-power:53543 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40746 alt.skinheads:46567 alt.conspiracy:124766 alt.religion.islam:37262

In article , holman@elo.helsinki.fi says...
>
>In article <59noir$p6t@is05.micron.net>, sbrian@micron.net (Brian Smith) wrote:
>
>> Eugene Holman  wrote:
>> 
>> >As a true southern gentleman and planation owner Thomas Jefferson seems to 
>> >have availed himself of the privileges and amusements available to those of 
>> >his caste. The mythical Thomas Jefferson that we read about in standard 
>> >biographies was violenty opposed to race mixing. The historical Thomas 
>> >Jefferson which we can piece together from available historical sources and 
>> >their critical interpretation demonstrates that Thomas Jefferson had nothing 
>> >against race mixing - as long as it involved White men and Black women. 
>> >Before posting here a lengthy excerpt from a recent book dealing with the 
>> >subject, we should like to point out the following uncontroversial facts 
>> >about Thomas Jefferson:
>> 
>> Again you cite Jefferson's -personal- actions to claim Jefferson
>> favored race-mixing for the White -race-.   The leap does not follow.
>
>Yes, of course. We keep forgetting that a cardinal tenet of Jefferson's
>philosophy was 'Do as I say, not as I do'...
>
>> Regardless of his individual actions or hypocrisy, Jefferson certainly
>> did not favor race-mixing for the White populace and he even favored
>> lynching for race-mixers.  
>
>Considering the historical, flesh-and-blood (emphasis on the "flesh" :-) )
>Jefferson as opposed to the glitzy, mythical Founding Father Jefferson
>claptrap of the biographers, image-makers, and propagandists, it is quite
>obvious that Jefferson not anly condoned, but actually practiced and
>advanced race mixing PROVIDED that it was restricted to congress between
>White men and Black women. The evidence?
>- he married the daughter of a well-known Virginia miscegenist;
>- he took one of the mulatto children of said miscegenist, Sally Hemings,
>the half-sister of his wife and aunt of his children, as a house slave
>and, on the basis of strong circumstantial evidence, his concubine;
>- he either sired five children by this Sally Hemings, or, an even more
>disturbing scenario, headed a household in which she was able to be
>impregnated by someone who was close enough to him to produce five
>Jefferson look-alike quadroon children;
>- he had nothing against allowing these children, his kin and property if
>not his progeny, to be raised in slavery, stipulating nevertheless in his
>will that they be freed from slavery upon their twenty-first birthday, a
>circumstance which would allow them to try their luck at 'passing for
>White' in the general population and thus, in the long run, further
>"pollute" the White gene pool.
>
>We began this discussion a month ago when we claimed that miscegenation,
>mulatto children, and Black branches of the family were part and parcel of
>the Old South. The Jefferson case-study we have been examining sheds light
>on the Black branches of two prominent Virginia families and implies that
>there were probably many, many more analogous cases. If we are to continue
>this discussion in a detachedly scholarly manner we suggest that you have
>a look at a work specifically devoted to this often conveniently forgotten
>but nevertheless integral part of the history of the "races" in America:
>
>James Hugo Johnston, 1970, *Race relations in Virginia and Miscegenation in
>the South*, 1776-1860. Amherst, University of Massachusetts Press, ISBN:
>0870230506.
>
>We would also advise you to find out if your family has any connection to
>Virginia or the Old South... Ours has many, including some Scotch-Irish
>Smith's in Virginia, some Anglo-Irish Holman's in Virginia, some English
>Vaughn's in Virginia, and some English Oglethorpe's in Georgia, so for all
>you know, Brian, we might be distant cousins. 
>
>> Jefferson also did not wish for Negroes to
>> remain in America but to be repatriated.   He made his opposition to
>> race-mixing and his desire for Negro repatriation well-known.  Nothing
>> you cite gainsays the following taken from the same work by Connor
>> Cruise O'Brien:
>> 
>> "Jefferson's vision of the future America--after the hypothetical
>> abolition of slavery by the slaveowners themselves--is a lily-white
>> one. All the ex-slaves are to be deported to Africa. In the meantime,
>> free blacks have to be eliminated from Virginia. Jefferson's proposals
>> for their elimination were too draconian to be stomached even by his
>> fellow slaveowners (above, chapter 7). His proposed (and rejected)
>> amendments to the Virginian legal code included a recommendation for
>> the penalization of what Virginian slaveowners called "miscegenation":
>> by which they always mean sexual intercourse between black men and
>> white women, never between white men and black women, an event of
>> frequent but unmentionable occurrence. 
>
>This was the public (= image) Jefferson. The private and historical (=
>real) Jefferson evidently did prodigious service (using his privates :-) )
>and took specific concrete and legal measures to ensure that people with
>his genes would have the opportunity to enter the mainstream American gene
>pool
>through the intermediary of quadroons.
>
>> Jefferson made provision for the case of a white woman who might bear
>> a mulatto child. Both the mother and her child were to leave Virginia,
>> immediately after the birth. In the event of their failure to do so,
>> mother and child were declared to be "beyond the protection of the
>> law." In the circumstances, that proposition was a license for
>> lynching: for the physical destruction of mother and child by any
>> Virginian who might care to do the job. Volunteers would not be
>> lacking. 
>> 
>> The Long Affair: Thomas Jefferson and the French Revolution, 1785-1800
>> Conor Cruise O'Brien Cloth, 384 pages, pp. 301-25
>
>Remember that one of the purposes of this book is to pin down the truth
>about Jefferson by comparing the views and ideas attributed to him with the
>historical and genetic record he left behind. The story turns out to be -
>well, more complex than you probably would have hoped for.
>
>> 
>> Here is another quote from Jefferson:
>> 
>> "It is still in our power to direct the process of [Negro]
>> emancipation and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degree, as
>> that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be ...filled
>> up by free White laborers.   If, on the contrary, it is left to force
>> itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up."  
>>                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 
>> From Thomas Jefferson's autobiography, first published by his
>> grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph in 1829 and again published by
>> special Act of Congress in 1853, page 51, dated January 6, 1821
>> 
>
>We can only conclude that Jefferson's views on race mixing have nothing to
>do with saving the White race from 'pollution' or 'intermingling', but
>rather were consequences of a desire to retain the privileges and
>prerogatives of *men* belonging to the notoriously power-hungry and randy
>caste of White Virginia plantation owners which he represented. Jefferson
>had no fear of the White race being "corrupted" by race mixing, indeed the
>historical record shows that he did more than could reasonably have been 
>expected of him to ensure that this *would* happen. His fear was that
>Black males might some day be in a position where they had the same
>privileges, prerogatives concerning sexual access to White women as the
>White plantation-owner caste had to Black women, a situation which would
>threaten the prevailing economic and social order.
>
That's a nice story Mr. Holman, do you have anything to back it up, except
Afrocentrism mythology (this is concerning all your 'facts' on Thomas 
Jefferson)?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Fri Dec 27 12:14:29 PST 1996
Article: 53487 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nol.net!df.lth.se!news.lth.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news99.sunet.se!liuida!news.ifm.liu.se!news.lejonet.se!linkoping.trab.se!malmo.trab.se!newsfeed.luth.se!news.luth.se!eru.mt.luth.se!news.kth.se!nntp.uio.no!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc-e!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Nova: Indians Exterminated Mammoth, Horse, etc.
Date: 18 Dec 1996 15:24:50 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <599ug2$ivg@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbec8e$1c6df520$f4cdaec7@default>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port862-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:428989 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40681 alt.politics.white-power:53487 alt.rush-limbaugh:124305

In article <01bbec8e$1c6df520$f4cdaec7@default>, "Rad" says...
>
>We are constantly told by the liberal media that only the evil white man
>harms nature; that primitive peoples like the noble Native American have a
>spiritual reverence for the Earth and all its fury creatures.
>
The liberal media here in New Zealand tried, but have so far always failed
to the same for the Maori.  

Among the animals destroyed by the Maori are the Moa, Huia, Laughing Owl,
and New Zealand eagle (a bird that made the golden eagle look like a 
sparrow).  There were plenty more species wiped out by the Maori.

The Arabs wiped out the Onager last century.

The Australian Aborigine had a lot to do with the extinction of the 
marsupial dog.

Just a few animals and their slaughterers.

>But a recent episode of Nova (one of the few objective programs on PBS,
>being mostly British) concluded that the American Indians exterminated the
>Woolly Mammoth, American camel, three species of ground sloth, the American
>horse and nearly every other large animal in North and South America soon
>after arriving here 11 thousand years ago. 
>
>It's a good thing the horse escaped to Asia or mankind would have had to do
>without it. I wonder how they tasted?
>
>When we look at the world today, it seems that ONLY the white man has any
>hesitation at all about taking whatever he can get from nature. Another
>liberal myth bites the dust.
>
Amusing.  Captain John Smith's journals concerning the eating habits of
the savage must have been right :->

It just goes to show; when are liberals right?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sat Dec 28 09:13:58 PST 1996
Article: 89342 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.censorship,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: The Great Debate
Date: 27 Dec 1996 12:33:59 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 239
Message-ID: <5a1brn$486@lex.zippo.com>
References: <199612120033.QAA01666@mailmasher.com> <5972s1$p2f@lex.zippo.com> <59ad1g$a11@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <59aubi$4n2@lex.zippo.com> <59cf44$sld@access5.digex.net> <59clb5$a6m@lex.zippo.com> <32bf0bb9.6132738@news.inetport.com> <59he0v$c4t@lex.zippo.com> <32cd7e68.13999668@news.inetport.com> <59k2ge$sgv@lex.zippo.com> <32d5b9d3.24925804@news.inetport.com> <59ldr6$i82@lex.zippo.com> <32bfd3b9.17062439@news.inetport.com> <59msh5$kne@lex.zippo.com> <32c7faf2.4464317@news.inetport.com> <59pau3$689@lex.zippo.com> <32c79b3a.10354852@news.inetport.com> <59ujsv$jdv@lex.zippo.com> <32c7e42c.3007432@news.inetport.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port863-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:89342 alt.censorship:113259 alt.politics.nationalism.white:40968 alt.politics.white-power:53725

In article <32c7e42c.3007432@news.inetport.com>, mcurtis@inetport.com says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>In article <32c79b3a.10354852@news.inetport.com>, mcurtis@inetport.com says...
>>>
>>>>>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>>>>>>Be specific with what EXACTLY you wish me to back up. 
>>>>>
>>>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>>>Howabout your (valid) opinions to this conversation?
>>>
>>>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>>>>What does the word specific mean to you? Pick one and be specific. I'm
>>>>>not going to guess which opinion you mean. As substantiation, you have
>>>>>not specified which opinion you have trouble with. See above.
>>>
>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>You consider your opinions to be valid, please substantiate the _validity_ 
>>>>of your opinions -- why I should consider your opinions.
>>>
>>>Mike Curtis responds:
>>>Please look up the word specific and tell me what it means. Then find
>>>an opinion _you_ wish me to verify. It's your choice. why are you so
>>>obviously afraid to pick one?
>>>
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>Er no, I am not asking about one particular opinion, but rather why someone like
>>myself should pay heed to any of your opinions.  The topic of your opinions is
>>unimportant, but rather the _why_.
>>
>
>Mike Curtis responds:
>Let's see. You must be asking an experiential question? I must make
>assumptions here since you are reluctant to be specific. Yes? This
>strikes me as a qualification question. I start out in a small radio
>station . . . :-) Mr. Thomas accuses me of not having a sense of
>humor.
>
>Four years ago I ran into denial types on Compuserve as a sysop there.
>Most of those guys are on the de.soc.politik newsgroup. I still read
>them there. I can read German but am still uncomfortable with
>composition. Soon I'll work that out. I'm working on my thesis in
>history which will become a larger dissertation. 
>
>So, I understand valid research and have experience with the denial
>material. Not as long as some, but not bad. Plus, I have lived all
>over the world. I have missed New Zealand however.
>
>My opinions are in themselves not important. How I choose to
>substantiate them is far more important. You and I have yet to discuss
>a thing that requires substantiation. 
>
That is the problem, you expect people like myself to believe your opinions are
valid when you don't substantiate them at all.  Refer the earlier posts of
yourself in this thread.

>>>Mike Curtis responds:
>>>Then show that I am unable to back up my arguments. It is obvious that
>>>you do not want to do this but prefer to rattle on in vague
>>>generalities and unsubstantiated assumptions. Are you waiting for
>>>someone to help you out?
>>>
>
>Ourobouros makes a request:
>>Prove the holocaust then.
>>
>
>Mike Curtis responds:
>There are books well over 1000 pages doing this very thing. Rather
>than ask me to repeat voluminous work, I suggest you relate to me and
>this group what you have allowed yourself to read on the subject. From
>there we can discuss those things you have a problem with. To ask
>someone to prove the Holocaust is a question a young child would ask
>of an adult. Why are we here? That is a question that cannot be summed
>up satisfactorally by philosophers. So your question is not a good
>starting point. For it has to start in the 19th century. What have you
>read so far?
>
Amusing, alas I must decline, as I wouldn't know how many books I have read on
the topic, and unless the various books interest me, I don't take notes.  I have
read some of the revisionist material (emphasize on some), and I have read the
occasional topic at Nizkor -- mainly his so-called refutations of the 
revisionist material that I have read.

I would also add that McVay also refuses to devulge what books he has read --
apparently he has read 300 books on the subject.

>Ourobouros wrote:
>>I am one of these people who believe that if you want a job down properly then
>>you have to do it yourself, therefore I am not waiting for anybody to help me
>>out.
>>
>
>Mike Curtis asks:
>What have you read? What initial knowledge do we have to work with?
>
See above.

>[snip]
>
>>>Mike Curtis responds:
>>>
>>>I must point out to whoever is still awake reading this thread to
>>>consider what Ourobouros has said so far. Nothing. So I have to ask
>>>what the unchallenged presentation of the holocuast is in mainstream
>>>today. I don't think Ourobouros wrote will provide us with this
>>>presentation for he knows full well that there are challenges to
>>>almost every historical event.
>>>
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>6 Million Jews, gas chambers, gas wagons, etc., etc.
>>
>
>Mike Curtis responds:
>12 million victims is the closer number for the Holocaust. The Jews
>are the significant portion of the 12 million. I MUST therefore assume
>that you have no problems with the portion of the Holocaust for the
>Sinti and Roma, Homosexuals, mentally retarded, those with congenital
>diseases, and Seventh Day Adventists. You then have no problem with
>the way _they_ were killed. You must not have much problem with the
>history of the T4 program. I can assume that you have no problems with
>this. This means that you accept the phenol injections and the gas
>chambers used in the hospitals and sanitariums that were on German
>soil. All this doesn't involve the Jews or the other stuff. Can we
>assume that you accept this portion of the holocaust?
>
I haven't heard 12 million Jews were killed in the holocaust for a while, why
have you restarted that figure again?

As for the rest of the so-called people, you have one large flaw, they are
almost never mentioned in conjunction with the holocaust, only the Jews get
media coverage.  Case in point:  two days ago a documentary was aired on one
of the NZ TV stations called Twins (on identical twins).  They basically 
concluded that our personality, intelligence and etc., were based on our genes,
but that brought us back to the 1920s eugenic programs, and especially those
evil Natsees and you guessed it, 6 million Jews.

As for your hospitals and whatnot, let me guess, you mean those *evil* but
unproven experiments on Jews and other miscreants?

>>>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>>>>Substantiation means to present a solid basis for something proposed.
>>>>>To support with proof or evidence; verify. To make a view solid and
>>>>>weighty. I assume we will have to get to what is evidence soon enough
>>>>>and what verification is to historians, right?
>>>>>
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>Yes, when it comes to PC, reason goes out the window...did you know the
>>>>Roman Empire never declined or fell?
>>>
>
>Mike Curtis responds:
>>>We are discussing the Holocaust and not the Roman Empire. We are not
>>>discussing PC for every group has their own opinion of what is
>>>politically correct. Try and stay on topic, please.
>>>
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>Er no, I was hoping you'd realize that what constitutes evidence among
>>historians is a watery substance, so you will have to be specific in what is
>>evidence and verification to you.  The holocaust story _is_ PC.
>>
>
>Mike Curtis responds:
>By using ancient history!!! You offered no evidence provided by
>historians in your post to me. You said, "Did you know the Roman
>Empire never declined or fell?" This is all you said. You offered no
>evidence or substantiation for your claim. This topic has nothing to
>do with Holocaust that took place a little over 50 years ago. Since
>ancient Rome the methods of studying history have changed. The sources
>historians rely on for the history of ancient religion are scanty.
>This history also involves archeology. I'd rather not get into this
>topic since it is out of topic for this group. 
>
Read Philip Rousseau, Associate Professor at the University of Auckland 
(history department.)  He has written several works and lectures on the above.
To my mind (I have even taken his course) this belief is ludicrous, but he
nevertheless offers "evidence" to support his beliefs.  What I am getting at is
the evidence of historians is inconsistent and watery.  This is one extremely
blatant example of this phenomenon.

>PC is a term used by the weak minded to justify their positions. This
>isn't aimed at you but at the United States political parties and
>their stupid inability to face the problems they need to deal with. So
>they come up with specious attacks on individual parties and ideas by
>using nebulous terms such as PC or politically correct. They never
>seem to realize that by calling something PC they are, in fact, making
>their own form of PC. It is a term best not used for it really has no
>meaning.
>
Absolute rubbish, history is being rewritten to fit the PC moods and attitudes.
Case in point: the status of the Roman Empire in late antiquity.

>[snipped fishing twoddle]
>
>Mike Curtis comments:
>>>[Snipped New Zealand discussion. It appears that Ourobouros doesn't
>>>really want to discuss freedom of speech in New Zealanf after all.]
>>>
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>You were the one that brought up my pseudonym, I gave you a reason, once you
>>realized the significance it was no longer important.
>>
>
>You felt it was. This was a part of the justification for your method.
>What interests me though is that if New Zealand wanted you to shut up
>they could easily find you via your ISP. I suggest to you that they
>simply aren't that interested in you whether or not you use your real
>name or not. There must be some other concern.
>
It is probably true that I am small game, BUT, what about in the future?  If
the government wanted to silence me (legally) they could review McVay's
propaganda site and get loads of material.  I could be prosecuted on that so-
called evidence.

>>>Mike Curtis responds:
>>I've seen Mr. McVay in this group. I have not seen Mr. Zündel in this
>>group.
>>>
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>I have yet to see McVay truly enter an argument, the best we see is he making
>>some comment on what somebody wrote, but then leaves it to his comrades to
>>defend.
>>
>
>I saw him discussing something with someone yesterday. You may need to
>read more than one thread.
>
*sigh*

He doesn't argue, when a thread gets heated McVay runs for shelter.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sat Dec 28 13:36:50 PST 1996
Article: 41098 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!usenet.logical.net!dciteleport.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.immigration,alt.skinheads,alt.conspiracy,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson and miscegenation (was Re: More Facts Proving the Non-Existence of a "Pure White Race"
Date: 28 Dec 1996 12:03:10 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 131
Message-ID: <5a3udu$4d4@lex.zippo.com>
References:  <59ukbl$jgn@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port844-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.discrimination:59316 alt.politics.white-power:53825 alt.politics.nationalism.white:41098 alt.skinheads:46790 alt.conspiracy:125454 alt.religion.islam:37461

In article , holman@elo.helsinki.fi says...
>
>In article <59ukbl$jgn@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>
>> >We can only conclude that Jefferson's views on race mixing have nothing to
>> >do with saving the White race from 'pollution' or 'intermingling', but
>> >rather were consequences of a desire to retain the privileges and
>> >prerogatives of *men* belonging to the notoriously power-hungry and randy
>> >caste of White Virginia plantation owners which he represented. Jefferson
>> >had no fear of the White race being "corrupted" by race mixing, indeed the
>> >historical record shows that he did more than could reasonably have been 
>> >expected of him to ensure that this *would* happen. His fear was that
>> >Black males might some day be in a position where they had the same
>> >privileges, prerogatives concerning sexual access to White women as the
>> >White plantation-owner caste had to Black women, a situation which would
>> >threaten the prevailing economic and social order.
>> >
>
>> That's a nice story Mr. Holman, do you have anything to back it up, except
>> Afrocentrism mythology (this is concerning all your 'facts' on Thomas 
>> Jefferson)?
>
>My "facts" about Thomas Jefferson are generally acknowledged by his
>biographers and historians. You can check them out at the Monticello
>website at http://www.montivello.org. Monticello, as you might or might
>not know, was Jefferson's residence, and it is now maintained as a museum
>and historical monument. Unless you believe that the United States has
>been totally taken over by PC clones and Afrocentricist mythologists, you
>would want to work on the assumption that the people in charge of
>Monicello museum and website would not be interested in spreading false
>rumors about Thomas Jefferson, even if they would be interested in setting
>the historical record straight. For this reason, you might want to acquire
>the background necessary for making your own judgments about Thomas
>Jefferson and Sally Hemings by reading the two factsheets at the following
>URLs:
>www.monticello.org/Matters/people/hemings-jefferson_contro.html
>www.monticello.org/Matters/people/Sally_Hemings.html
>
The above web-site appears to be nonexistent.

>You might also want to have a look at:
>James Hugo Johnston, *Race relations in Virginia & miscegenation in
>the South, 1776-1860*. Amherst, University of Massachusetts, Press, 1970.
>ISBN: 0870230506.
>
On the list of things to do.

>These documents take a neutral stance, noting that Jefferson never denied
>the allegations, even if he never admitted them, either.
>
>Now, here are the facts, You can dispute them if you want, but the
>community of Jefferson scholars is in general agreement with respect to
>the following, which are more than enough to prove my thesis that a)
>Jefferson, by his actions (or inactions) condoned race-mixing as long as
>it was restricted to White men and Black women, b) the Jefferson household
>enriched the American gene pool with several quadraroons who eventually
>succeeded in 'passing for white' and thus 'polluting' the White gene pool.
>
Proof that these quadroons were accepted into the white family is needed.

>1. Sally Hemings, the focus of the controversy, was one of the
>illegitimate offspring of John Wayles, Jefferson's father-in-law, and
>Elizabeth Hemings, one of Wayle's black female slaves.
>
>2. Sally Hemings was thus a) Jefferson's sister-in-law, b) Jefferson's
>wife's half-sister, c) Jefferson's children's aunt.
>
>3. Jefferson took Sally Hemings into his household as a slave and
>mother-substitute for his daughter Polly. Sally accompanied Polly to
>Euorope when she was reunited with her father who was serving as the
>American ambassador to France.
>
>4. Sally Hemings took Polly back to the United States, while Jefferson
>remained in France.
>
>5. Exactly nine months after Jefferson himself returned from France, Sally
>Hemings gave birth to an almost white child. This pattern - exactly nine
>months after Jefferson returned to Monticello, Sally Hemings gave birth to
>an almost white child - was repeated four times. This information is
>easily accessible from Jefferson's own meticulously kept notebooks.
>
>6. Sally Hemings was the person who was at Jefferson's bedside when he died.
>
>7. Jefferson, who had owned hundreds of slaves during his sixty years as a
>slavemaster, freed Sally Hemings, her children and relatives from slavery
>in his legacy. These are the only slaves Jefferson owned to have received
>such preferential treatment. His other slaves and property were auctioned
>off to pay the debts Jefferson, a poor businessman, had accrued.
>
>8. At least two of Sally Hemings's children are on record as having been
>told by their mother that Thomas Jefferson was their father. The account
>of one of them, as well as an analysis of this account, may be found in
>the recently published book *The Long Afair: Thomas Jefferson and the
>French Revolution, 1785 - 1800*, by Conor Cruise O'Brien.
>
>9. It is impossible to prove that Jefferson was the father of some or all
>of Sally Hemings children. What can be proved is that:
>a) Jefferson allowed a situation to continue in his household which
>allowed Sally Hemings to bear a Jefferson-look alike children exactly nine
>months after he returned to Monticello on five occasions;
>b) that Jefferson was more solicituous of these children than he was of
>his other slaves;
>c) that Jefferson, even if he never admitted paternity, never denied it
>either (an early form of 'executive privilege'?
>).                                                 
>
Masters releasing their slaves on their death-beds and etc. was hardly a new
event.  The general reason was they performed good service throughout their
time serving their master.  To say he did it because of supposed paternity to
a Negress is jumping the gun.
>
>I challenge you, Mr Ouroborous, to find any holes, contradictions, or
>Afrocentrism in the above facts. If you were to be involved in a paternity
>suit with evidence of the above type against you, do you think you could
>get yourself off the hook?
>
Yes.
>
>
>We have spoken. 
>
>
>Eugene the Curly-headed
>King of alt.politics.white-power, Protector of our Aryan heritage,
>Defender of the English language, Scourge of racial purity, Nabob of
>Nordicity, Scholar of Scandinavianicity, Master of Bullshit, Proficient 
>liar etc. etc. etc.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Sun Dec 29 02:12:38 PST 1996
Article: 89707 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.censorship,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: The Great Debate
Date: 28 Dec 1996 15:11:44 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 175
Message-ID: <5a49fg$a41@lex.zippo.com>
References: <199612120033.QAA01666@mailmasher.com> <5972s1$p2f@lex.zippo.com> <59ad1g$a11@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <59aubi$4n2@lex.zippo.com> <59cf44$sld@access5.digex.net> <59clb5$a6m@lex.zippo.com> <32bf0bb9.6132738@news.inetport.com> <59he0v$c4t@lex.zippo.com> <32cd7e68.13999668@news.inetport.com> <59k2ge$sgv@lex.zippo.com> <32d5b9d3.24925804@news.inetport.com> <59ldr6$i82@lex.zippo.com> <32bfd3b9.17062439@news.inetport.com> <59msh5$kne@lex.zippo.com> <32c7faf2.4464317@news.inetport.com> <59pau3$689@lex.zippo.com> <32c79b3a.10354852@news.inetport.com> <59ujsv$jdv@lex.zippo.com> <32c7e42c.3007432@news.inetport.com> <5a1brn$486@lex.zippo.com> <32cc4796.10695902@news.inetport.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port870-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:89707 alt.censorship:113388 alt.politics.nationalism.white:41179 alt.politics.white-power:53894

In article <32cc4796.10695902@news.inetport.com>, mcurtis@inetport.com says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>In article <32c7e42c.3007432@news.inetport.com>, mcurtis@inetport.com says...
>>>
>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <32c79b3a.10354852@news.inetport.com>, mcurtis@inetport.com says...
>>>>>
>>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>Be specific with what EXACTLY you wish me to back up. 
>
[snip]

>Ourobouros makes a request:
>>>>Prove the holocaust then.
>>>>
>
>Mike Curtis responds:
>>>There are books well over 1000 pages doing this very thing. Rather
>>>than ask me to repeat voluminous work, I suggest you relate to me and
>>>this group what you have allowed yourself to read on the subject. From
>>>there we can discuss those things you have a problem with. To ask
>>>someone to prove the Holocaust is a question a young child would ask
>>>of an adult. Why are we here? That is a question that cannot be summed
>>>up satisfactorally by philosophers. So your question is not a good
>>>starting point. For it has to start in the 19th century. What have you
>>>read so far?
>>>
>>Amusing, alas I must decline, as I wouldn't know how many books I have read on
>>the topic, and unless the various books interest me, I don't take notes.
>
>I asked for titles. I'm not surprised that you decline, however. Most
>dneniers do.
>
As I said before, the holocaust is not my forte.  I have read enough to be
relatively proficient, but that is all -- it doesn't particularly interest me.

>The above is meaningless to me. Address Ken McVay if you wish to
>discuss Ken McVay. Thanks.
>
That is a problem, McVay doesn't respond.  I find it quite hypocritical of
McVay to set up posts that say "x questions for so-and-so month y" when he
avoids the exact same thing for himself.

>[snip]
>
>Ourobouros requested proof of:
>>>>6 Million Jews, gas chambers, gas wagons, etc., etc.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Mike Curtis responds:
>>>12 million victims is the closer number for the Holocaust. The Jews
>>>are the significant portion of the 12 million. I MUST therefore assume
>>>that you have no problems with the portion of the Holocaust for the
>>>Sinti and Roma, Homosexuals, mentally retarded, those with congenital
>>>diseases, and Seventh Day Adventists. You then have no problem with
>>>the way _they_ were killed. You must not have much problem with the
>>>history of the T4 program. I can assume that you have no problems with
>>>this. This means that you accept the phenol injections and the gas
>>>chambers used in the hospitals and sanitariums that were on German
>>>soil. All this doesn't involve the Jews or the other stuff. Can we
>>>assume that you accept this portion of the holocaust?
>>>
>
>Then Ourobouros disingenuously reads the whole passage. I think Laura
>Finstein responded well to the distortion of my words that Ourobouros
>presents below so I'll let that dog sleep.

I decided to play with your loose words.

>>I haven't heard 12 million Jews were killed in the holocaust for a while, why
>>have you restarted that figure again?
>>
>
>>As for the rest of the so-called people, you have one large flaw, they are
>>almost never mentioned in conjunction with the holocaust,
>
>Yes, they are mentioned in almost _every_ book I've read on the
>Holocaust. This suggests to me that you have read hardly anything on
>the event.
>
Rot.  William Marks makes a peculiar comment in one of his interwar books which
he comments he does not understand why Germany didn't make more use of the Jews
for work because they were putting them to death, no mention of anybody else.
One of my lecturers on the interwar period, only mentions the Jews in connection
with the concentration camps and the list continues.  You talk rot.

>[snip]
>
>>As for your hospitals and whatnot, let me guess, you mean those *evil* but
>>unproven experiments on Jews and other miscreants?
>>
>
>No. I mean the T4 program that you obviously know nothing about. 
>
Then enlighten me.

>[snip]
>
>>>Mike Curtis responds:
>>>By using ancient history!!! You offered no evidence provided by
>>>historians in your post to me. You said, "Did you know the Roman
>>>Empire never declined or fell?" This is all you said. You offered no
>>>evidence or substantiation for your claim. This topic has nothing to
>>>do with Holocaust that took place a little over 50 years ago. Since
>>>ancient Rome the methods of studying history have changed. The sources
>>>historians rely on for the history of ancient religion are scanty.
>>>This history also involves archeology. I'd rather not get into this
>>>topic since it is out of topic for this group. 
>>>
>>Read Philip Rousseau, Associate Professor at the University of Auckland 
>>(history department.)  He has written several works and lectures on the above.
>
>What above? Why don't you present your view of it for analysis? My
>time is really limited to take on added reading projects.
>
I am giving one example of (todays) professional historians at work.

>>To my mind (I have even taken his course) this belief is ludicrous, but he
>>nevertheless offers "evidence" to support his beliefs.  What I am getting at is
>>the evidence of historians is inconsistent and watery.
>
>Such as?
>
I couldn't really say actually, nothing he has offered as proof for his views
backs him up.

>[snip]
>
>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>>PC is a term used by the weak minded to justify their positions. This
>>>isn't aimed at you but at the United States political parties and
>>>their stupid inability to face the problems they need to deal with. So
>>>they come up with specious attacks on individual parties and ideas by
>>>using nebulous terms such as PC or politically correct. They never
>>>seem to realize that by calling something PC they are, in fact, making
>>>their own form of PC. It is a term best not used for it really has no
>>>meaning.
>>>
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>Absolute rubbish, history is being rewritten to fit the PC moods and attitudes.
>>Case in point: the status of the Roman Empire in late antiquity.
>>
>
>You have made no case in point, Ourobouros.
>
Believe what you will then, I obviously cannot make you understand the attitudes
and moods of today's professional historians, but in my case, you will have to
extremely specific on what is proof and what is not.

>[snip]
>
>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>>You felt it was. This was a part of the justification for your method.
>>>What interests me though is that if New Zealand wanted you to shut up
>>>they could easily find you via your ISP. I suggest to you that they
>>>simply aren't that interested in you whether or not you use your real
>>>name or not. There must be some other concern.
>>>
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>It is probably true that I am small game, BUT, what about in the future?  If
>>the government wanted to silence me (legally) they could review McVay's
>>propaganda site and get loads of material.  I could be prosecuted on that so-
>>called evidence.
>>
>
>Deal with me. I'm very small fish.
>
?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Dec 29 02:25:17 PST 1996
Article: 41176 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Nova: Indians Exterminated Mammoth, Horse, etc.
Date: 28 Dec 1996 12:17:24 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <5a3v8k$4sl@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbec8e$1c6df520$f4cdaec7@default> <599ug2$ivg@lex.zippo.com>  <59asja$407@lex.zippo.com> <59c291$1rs@news1.ucsd.edu> <59c60o$2tk@lex.zippo.com>  <59f58e$rh3@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port844-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:430087 alt.politics.nationalism.white:41176 alt.politics.white-power:53891 talk.environment:48367

In article , "D. says...
>
>
>
>On 20 Dec 1996, it was written:
>
>> In article , "D. says...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On 19 Dec 1996, it was written:
>> >
>> >> In article , fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu says...
>> >> >
>> >> >Ourobouros wrote:
>> >> >: In article , "D. says...
>
>snip of old stuff
>
>> >> According to PC/liberal mythology, the noble savage was at one with nature, he had a
>> >> special relationship with the eagle and etc., the noble savage could never wipe out a
>> >> species because of his inborn conservation ways.
>> >
>> >Still persisting in this silly straw man argument, I see. Maybe you could
>> >quote from the magazines/journals of established environmental groups, who
>> >employ scientists on their staffs, to support this view? Could you nalme
>> >some people, authors, etc.? I'm sure you can find some people that talk as
>> >if they believe the myth you are describing is true; that they somehow
>> >represent "Liberals" or "environmentalists" is merely a construct of your
>> >very narrow mind. 
>> 
>> I am sure I could find these "scientists" if I could be bothered to look,
>
>You give up kinda easy.  I didn't ask for "scientists", by the way.
>
Perhaps you'd like to explain your words following:

"Maybe you could quote from the magazines/journals of established environmental 
groups, who employ scientists on their staffs, to support this view?"

Please don't waffle either.

>> however, there is little point, because of the media channels promote the
>> noble savage image with or without the aid of "scientists."  Have you ever
>> seen a nature or history program that concerns the North American Indian?
>
>Well, I have seen a history documentary recently, "The West". It was
>pretty good. No "Noble Savage" myth there. Why would they be in a
>"nature" documentary? These are usually about animals other than humans.
>
*sigh*

Every so often they do autochthonous people in those documentaries, rare, but
not nonexistent.

>> >You might also keep in mind that many native culture's
>> >philosophies did, and do, in fact support preserving biological diversity
>> >and ecosystem functioning, much more than the various ethics of the
>> >europeans that settled North America.  This is a fact; read some early
>> >colonial and anthropological literature.
>> >
>> What an absolute load of BS.  Native cultures did no such things.  If you
>> want to read some colonial and anthropological literature that makes you
>> look like a fool read Captain John Smith's journals -- of Pocahontas fame
>> even!
>
>I see that your ignorance of history, anthropology, philosophy and 
>religion is profound.  Get thee to a library. 

Look who is talking.

>I should read Smith's journals.  BTW, what did he have to say about his
>impressions of the Natives economy and agriculture?
>
I won't spoil the surprise, except to say it will burst your idealic bubble.

>> Not one backward culture cared one iota about their habitat, if you find
>> even one "scientist" otherwise then your strawman argument just disappeared
>> down the drainpipe.
>
>Ignorant fool.
>
Well then, your statement condemns you, if what you are saying is so abundant
then we should see a lot of disproofs to my arguments, but all you have really
done is call me ignorant.  Saying so doesn't make it so.  If you can't find
this magic knowledge then it is you that is the ignorant fool, afterall you
haven't read Captain John Smith's journals.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Dec 29 02:25:46 PST 1996
Article: 53891 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Nova: Indians Exterminated Mammoth, Horse, etc.
Date: 28 Dec 1996 12:17:24 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <5a3v8k$4sl@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbec8e$1c6df520$f4cdaec7@default> <599ug2$ivg@lex.zippo.com>  <59asja$407@lex.zippo.com> <59c291$1rs@news1.ucsd.edu> <59c60o$2tk@lex.zippo.com>  <59f58e$rh3@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port844-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:430087 alt.politics.nationalism.white:41176 alt.politics.white-power:53891 talk.environment:48367

In article , "D. says...
>
>
>
>On 20 Dec 1996, it was written:
>
>> In article , "D. says...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On 19 Dec 1996, it was written:
>> >
>> >> In article , fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu says...
>> >> >
>> >> >Ourobouros wrote:
>> >> >: In article , "D. says...
>
>snip of old stuff
>
>> >> According to PC/liberal mythology, the noble savage was at one with nature, he had a
>> >> special relationship with the eagle and etc., the noble savage could never wipe out a
>> >> species because of his inborn conservation ways.
>> >
>> >Still persisting in this silly straw man argument, I see. Maybe you could
>> >quote from the magazines/journals of established environmental groups, who
>> >employ scientists on their staffs, to support this view? Could you nalme
>> >some people, authors, etc.? I'm sure you can find some people that talk as
>> >if they believe the myth you are describing is true; that they somehow
>> >represent "Liberals" or "environmentalists" is merely a construct of your
>> >very narrow mind. 
>> 
>> I am sure I could find these "scientists" if I could be bothered to look,
>
>You give up kinda easy.  I didn't ask for "scientists", by the way.
>
Perhaps you'd like to explain your words following:

"Maybe you could quote from the magazines/journals of established environmental 
groups, who employ scientists on their staffs, to support this view?"

Please don't waffle either.

>> however, there is little point, because of the media channels promote the
>> noble savage image with or without the aid of "scientists."  Have you ever
>> seen a nature or history program that concerns the North American Indian?
>
>Well, I have seen a history documentary recently, "The West". It was
>pretty good. No "Noble Savage" myth there. Why would they be in a
>"nature" documentary? These are usually about animals other than humans.
>
*sigh*

Every so often they do autochthonous people in those documentaries, rare, but
not nonexistent.

>> >You might also keep in mind that many native culture's
>> >philosophies did, and do, in fact support preserving biological diversity
>> >and ecosystem functioning, much more than the various ethics of the
>> >europeans that settled North America.  This is a fact; read some early
>> >colonial and anthropological literature.
>> >
>> What an absolute load of BS.  Native cultures did no such things.  If you
>> want to read some colonial and anthropological literature that makes you
>> look like a fool read Captain John Smith's journals -- of Pocahontas fame
>> even!
>
>I see that your ignorance of history, anthropology, philosophy and 
>religion is profound.  Get thee to a library. 

Look who is talking.

>I should read Smith's journals.  BTW, what did he have to say about his
>impressions of the Natives economy and agriculture?
>
I won't spoil the surprise, except to say it will burst your idealic bubble.

>> Not one backward culture cared one iota about their habitat, if you find
>> even one "scientist" otherwise then your strawman argument just disappeared
>> down the drainpipe.
>
>Ignorant fool.
>
Well then, your statement condemns you, if what you are saying is so abundant
then we should see a lot of disproofs to my arguments, but all you have really
done is call me ignorant.  Saying so doesn't make it so.  If you can't find
this magic knowledge then it is you that is the ignorant fool, afterall you
haven't read Captain John Smith's journals.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Dec 29 07:33:37 PST 1996
Article: 89746 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.kis.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: The Great Debate
Date: 28 Dec 1996 14:36:28 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <5a47dc$962@lex.zippo.com>
References: <199612120033.QAA01666@mailmasher.com> <5972s1$p2f@lex.zippo.com> <59ad1g$a11@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <59aubi$4n2@lex.zippo.com> <59cf44$sld@access5.digex.net> <59clb5$a6m@lex.zippo.com> <32bf0bb9.6132738@news.inetport.com> <59he0v$c4t@lex.zippo.com> <32cd7e68.13999668@news.inetport.com> <59k2ge$sgv@lex.zippo.com> <32d5b9d3.24925804@news.inetport.com> <59ldr6$i82@lex.zippo.com> <32bfd3b9.17062439@news.inetport.com> <59msh5$kne@lex.zippo.com> <32c7faf2.4464317@news.inetport.com> <59pau3$689@lex.zippo.com> <32c79b3a.10354852@news.inetport.com> <59ujsv$jdv@lex.zippo.com> <32c7e42c.3007432@news.inetport.com> <5a1brn$486@lex.zippo.com> <5a39sl$rh6@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port860-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:89746 alt.politics.nationalism.white:41194 alt.politics.white-power:53908

In article <5a39sl$rh6@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>>In article <32c7e42c.3007432@news.inetport.com>, mcurtis@inetport.com says...
>
>[...]
>
>>>Mike Curtis responds:
>>>12 million victims is the closer number for the Holocaust. The Jews
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>are the significant portion of the 12 million. I MUST therefore assume
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>that you have no problems with the portion of the Holocaust for the
>>>Sinti and Roma, Homosexuals, mentally retarded, those with congenital
>>>diseases, and Seventh Day Adventists. You then have no problem with
>>>the way _they_ were killed. You must not have much problem with the
>>>history of the T4 program. I can assume that you have no problems with
>>>this. This means that you accept the phenol injections and the gas
>>>chambers used in the hospitals and sanitariums that were on German
>           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>soil. All this doesn't involve the Jews or the other stuff. Can we
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>assume that you accept this portion of the holocaust?
>
>>I haven't heard 12 million Jews were killed in the holocaust for a while, why
>>have you restarted that figure again?
>
>Poor comecola can't read, it seems.  Mike Curtis no where in this paragraph
>says that 12 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust.  Try rereading it.
>
Please tell us what "...significant portion..." means then.

>Whining that Ken McVay won't come out and play with small potatoes like
>him deleted.
>
IOW, Zundel could use the same argument with McVay & Co. with same validity,
that being McVay being small potatoes?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Sun Dec 29 07:33:38 PST 1996
Article: 89793 of alt.revisionism
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!van.istar!west.istar!n1van.istar!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.msfc.nasa.gov!news.sgi.com!howland.erols.net!worldnet.att.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.rel.christian,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Nazi Atrocities?
Date: 28 Dec 1996 14:30:59 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 478
Message-ID: <5a4733$944@lex.zippo.com>
References: <594sos$s6k$1@uhura.phoenix.net> <597b3d$b9j@news.nyu.edu> <597ikg$430@lex.zippo.com> <59aecc$nnf$1@uhura.phoenix.net>  <59aru4$3t2@lex.zippo.com>  <59hd1t$bp5@lex.zippo.com>  <59oasc$bql@lex.zippo.com>  <5a02jd$lo@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port860-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:89793 alt.politics.nationalism.white:41220 alt.politics.white-power:53929 alt.religion.islam:37523

In article , mvanalst@rbi.com says...
>
>In article <5a02jd$lo@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article , mvanalst@rbi.com
>says...
>> >
>> >In article <59oasc$bql@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article , mvanalst@rbi.com
>> >says...
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >> >Feel free to cite what you have "studied.". What? You didn't study any
>> >> >such thing? Oops.
>> >> >
>> >> Ancient Near Eastern civilisations, O' half-wit.
>> >
>> >And what "Ancient Near Eastern civilisations" syllabus was this, Mr.
>> >self-eater? What texts were used? Hmmm? 
>> >
>> The University of Auckland has a course in (ancient) Mesopotamian and Egyptian
>> history.
>
>And you took this course? What texts were used? 
>
Er yes.

Mesopotamia:
(base texts):
Roux _Ancient Iraq_, _The Cambridge Ancient History_, M. Roaf _The Cultural
Atlas of Mespotamia_, J. Pritchard _Ancient Near Eastern Texts_, S. Dalley
_Myths from Mesopotamia_.
(sample):
H. Crawford _Sumer and the Sumerians_, H.J. Nissen _The early History of the
Ancient Near East_, S. Lloyd _The Archeology of Mesopotamia_, H. Limet _Le
Travail du _Metal_, R. Whitehouse _The First Cities_ S.N. Kramer _The 
Sumerians_ _Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture_, J. Oates _Babylon_ _Akkad, the
First World Empire, H.W.F. Saggs _The Greatness that was Babylon_ _Civilisation
before Greece and Rome_ _Babylonia_ _The Might that was Assyria_, P. Matthiae 
_Ebla, An Empire Rediscovered_, A. Parrot _Sumer the Dawn of Art_, H. Frankfort 
_Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient_, F.R. Kraus _The Role of Temples_, 
N. Postgate _The First Empires_, D. Luckenbill _Ancient Records of Babylon and
Assyria_ _Annals of Sennacherib_, D. Harden _The Phoenicians_, S. Moscati _The
World of the Phoenicians_, D.C. Baramki _Phoenicia and the Phoenicians_ _The
Role of the Phoenicians_, W. Cullican _The First Merchant Venturers_.

Egypt:
(base texts)
N. Grimal _A History of Ancient Egypt_, A. Gardiner _Egypt of the Pharoahs_,
J. Wilson _The Culture of Ancient Egypt_, and M. Lichtheim _Ancient Egyptian
Literature_ (all volumes).
(sample):
W.B. Emery _Archiac Egypt_, M. Hoffman _Egypt before the Pharoahs_ B. Trigger
_Beyond History: The Methods of Prehistory_ Ancient History: A social History_,
B. Kemp _Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization_ E. Baumgartel _Cultures of
Predynastic Egypt_, I. Edwards _The Pyramids of Egypt_, A. Fakhry _Egyptian
Pyramids_, D. Arnold _Building in Egypt_, R. Engelbach _Ancient Egyptian
construction_, J. Malek _In the Shadow of the Pyramids_, S. Quirke 
_Administration of Egypt in the Late Middle Kingdom_, N. Kanawati _Governmental
Reforms in Old Kingdom Egypt_, J van Seters _The Hyksos_, B. Trigger _Nubia
under the Pharaohs_, R. Adams _Nubia: Corridor to Africa_ P. Shinnie _Ancient
Nubia_, S.T. Smith _Askut in Nubia_ _Egypt and Africa: Nubia from Prehistory to
Islam_, A. Kadry _Officers and Officials in the New Kingdom_, D. Redford 
_Ancient Egyptian Kingship_ _History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty
of Egypt_, W.S. Smith _Interconnections in the Ancient Near East_, N. Sandars
_The Sea Peoples_, K. Kitchen _Pharaoh Triumphant_, A. Leahy _Libya and
Egypt: c1300-750 BC_, J. Breaston _Ancient Records of Egypt (all volumes),
W. Edgerton & J. Wilson _Historical Records of Ramses III, T. Dothan _The 
Peoples of the Sea_

There are many more books than these, but these were in an convenient list.

>> >Your continued avoidance of citing any supportive texts, simply relying on
>> >appeals to _your_ ersatz "authority" is duly noted, Mr. self-eater. Hardly
>> >impressive, to say the least....
>> >
>> Your opinions aren't worth a lot either...
>
>But then, I tend to _not_ rely on my _opnions_, but those of authoritative
>scholars! And I generally provide quotes and full citations to them when I
>do. 
>
Hah!

>> >> >> Please point out cases of genocide in any group other than
>> >> >> Jews in B.C. (ancient) times.  I'm waiting...
>> >> >
>> >> >Actually, I think it best that _you_ first document the historical
>> >> >evidence for genocide by the Israelites. 
>> >> >
>> >> The book of Joshua seems to be pretty conclusive.
>
>The book of Joshua is a religious text not archeological/historical
>evidence. You seem to accept or reject religious texts whenever it suits
>your purposes, Mr. self-eater. Considering this, you are hardly
>persuasive...
>
>Not to mention that it is not conclusive that the inahbitants of the city
>of Ai were a unique ethinic group. (Actually, considering the demographics
>of Palestaine and Syria, it would be suprising if the inhabitants of Ai
>_were_ a unique ethnic group!) 
>
>> >And your the archeological/historical evidence that such a religious text
>> >is true is, Mr. self-eater? BTW, Mr. self-eater, I find it rather
>> >hypocritical of you that on one hand you claim, without reason, that the
>> >book of Genesis is historically inaccurate while accepting  the book of
>> >Joshua, again woithout reason, is historically accurate....
>> >
>> O' uncomprehending one, the Israelites obviously felt so proud of origins and
>> tactics (mythological or not) that they recorded them in the way they did
>> (obvious really).  
>
>Which, of course, does not proves any relevance tof the
>archeological/historical record. 
>
Which, btw, doesn't disprove it either.

>> Which, if you cannot already guess, they were proud of
>> having genocidal ancestry.
>
>You have yet to even substantiate, Mr. self-eater, that the Israelites
>even committed _genocide_. Yet you claim to _know_ that the Israelites
>were proud of having genocidal ancestry."
>
O' unreasoning one, why would they be so keen to record themselves as
genocidal if they were not genocidal?

>Such unsubstantiated beliefs as yours, Mr. self-eater, smack of
>anti-Semtism. I can't say I'm suprised by them. 
>
Whatever.

>[snip]
>
>> >> >> You could read some modern (comprehensive) books of Sumeria, meathead.
>> >> >
>> >> >Again, feel free to cite them. What? You don't know of any off-hand?
>Pity. 
>> >> >
>> >> They're freely available.
>> >
>> >In other words, you haven't the slightest clue? How odd for a "scholor" of
>> >"Ancient Near Eastern civilisations!" 
>> >
>> Some things are kept in the forefront of my mind, other things are not.  There
>> are the battles of Hammurapi and his father for example -- they were fond of
>> damming the Euprates river to conquer cities.  There are the battles of the
>> Sumerians and the Elamites, the Sumerians and the Guti and so forth.  Some are
>> recorded in detail, some are only referred too.
>
>Again, feel free to cite these texts, Mr. self-eater.
>
Again, feel free to read these texts, I am not your librarian.

>[snip]
>
>> >> We are/were talking about ancient civilisations, not modern.
>> >
>> >I wasn't. Nor were you, as you are trying to white-wash Nazi genocide by
>> >dragging the red herring of ancient Israelite "genocide" across the road. 
>> >
>> Er no, I entered this conversation early, Doc Tavish was using the ancient
>> Israelites genocidal history from the onset, you on the other hand, keep 
>> yourself close-minded totally.  You were the one using the red herring with
>> Armenia, so please don't try anymore BS with me using red herrings, O' witless
>> one.
>
>I see. So it was Mr. McTavish who was white-washing Nazi genocide and
>_you_ just jumped in to give a helping hand? Such anti-Semitic solidarity!
>
Er, I came in to correct a point, mainly that his reference to the edge of the 
sword and not the point was meaningless.  I notice you did not notice this. I,
therefore, claim once again you do not actually read your opponents words, but
rather make them up as you go along.
>
>[snip]
>
>> >> >> ...and her subject states being democracies, please read the history
>> >> >> of the Peloponnesian war in respect to Athens, Mitylene (revolt) and 
>> >> >> Samos.
>> >> >
>> >> >Why? _I_ was talking about Rome. 
>> >> >
>> >> And I was talking about both.
>> >
>> >Then, despite your protests, you _were_ asserting that Rome was a
>> >democracy when,  in fact, it was not! Tsk tsk, Mr. self-eater! Such a
>> >tangled web you attempt to weave... Then, despite your protests, you
>> >_were_ asserting that Rome was a democracy when,  in fact, it was not! 
>> >Tsk tsk, Mr. self-eater! Such a tangled web you attempt to weave... 
>> >
>> >Mr. self-eater, Don't you find it the _least_ bit embarrassing when you
>> >blatantly contradict yourself like this? 
>> >
>> Er no.  Firstly, I would never state (ancient) Rome had a democracy...
>
>But you just _did_, Mr. self-eater! See above! 
>
Proof, nothing above says I stated Rome was democracy except yourself.

>Methinks _thou_ art the witless one! 
>
Then you would be wrong.

>> ...(though one contemporary historian said that Rome had all three major 
>> Aristotle governments -- Monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy
>simultaneously.)  
>> Secondly, I said Athens had a democracy, and as a democracy she attacked
>other 
>> democracies and sometimes with extreme prejudice; refer the original decision 
>> on Mitylene.
>
>And I said I was responding to your claims about Rome having a democracy. Duh.
>
Which I never made, and it therefore goes to show (once again) that you don't
read your opponents words.

>> >> >> As for Carthage; brutal as it was, this was still not an act of 
>> >> >> genocide...
>> >> >
>> >> >Funny that there were no more Carthegians after Rome destroyed 
>> >> >Carthage.... 
>> >> >
>> >> Rot.  There was a Carthaginian empire you know...
>> >
>> >And one could just as easily point out that there were Hittites,
>> >Phillistines, Phoenicians, Arameans, etc as well the Isrealites in
>> >Palestine and Syria. Can you tell me what ethnic group the people of the
>> >city of Ai belonged to? If they were part of a larger ethnic group, the
>> >desctruction of Ai and the killing of its inhabitants is no different that
>> >the Roman destruction of Carthage. Or the Assyrian practice of killing the
>> >inhabitants of a city to the last man, woman, and child. 
>> >
>> *sigh*
>> 
>> The practise of the Levantine area down to Egypt was that of city states.  
>
>As it was in Ancient Greece, for example. As it was in the Italy prior to
>the rise of the Roman Republic. (And after the fall of the Roman Empire.)
>As it was in early Mesopotamia. As it was in early Egypt itself. 
>
I assume there is a point to this rather than you love the sound of your own
voice?

>> The Carthaginians on the other hand (even though they were Phoenicians) had a 
>> completely different set up, they had an Empire.  
>
>Alexander too had an empire.... As did Sargon and Ramses etc. 
>
I assume there is a point to this rather than you love the sound of your own
voice?

>> Their ethosity was somewhat larger than a city state, though I somehow doubt 
>> you'd know or ever realise that.
>
>What I think you are failing to realize, Mr. self-eater, is that simply
>because a city-state is a seperate political/geographic entity does not
>always mean that it  a seperate _ethnic_ entity. The city-states of
>Ancient Greece, for exanmple, were ethnically the same: they were all
>Greeks. The same can be said of the city-states of medievil Italy: they
>were all Italians. You have yet to offer any credible evidence that the
>inhabitants of Ai were in fact a seperate and unique ethnicity from the
>rest of "Levantine." 
>
Were the inhabitants of Ai ethnically the same as the area around-about.  I
have pointed out in an earlier argument with Mr. Mathis that the Jebusites
were an Indo-European speaking people, as opposed to a Semitic speaking people
for instance.  You are correct in that the Greek city-states were still Greeks.
I would have to do some more work in Italy however.  In Medieval Italy, the
southern Italians were of different race to the northern Italians.  It is a
bit like determining race from America, are you white, black, or etc.?

>If they were not, your claims of Israelite "genocide" are groundless and
>nothing more than mendacious drivel -and arguably anti-Semitic slander. 
>
More baseless rot.

>I would suggest to you, Mr. self-eater,that quickly offer some credible
>evidence (i.e. archeological) that indicates the the inhabitants of Ai
>were indeed a unique ethnic peoples. 
>
Archeology cannot disprove the genocidal tendicies of the Israelites.

>> >And, of course, you could also provide the archeological/historical
>> >evididence (comaprable to that of the existance and destruction of
>> >Carthage) that the city of Ai actually existed, and that the Israelites
>> >actually destroyed it, killing all of its inhabitants. 
>> >
>> >Will you? _Can_ you?
>> >
>> The Israelites were proud of their history
>
>Irrelevent. The Irash, for example, are proud of theirs. The Irish also
>have some _very_ interesting folk tales. 
>
But the Irish don't have genocide as part of their history either.

>> ...AND more importantly, what evidence do you have that Ai never existed?  
>
>Mr. self-eater, I'm not claiming that Ai didn't exist -or that it did. I'm
>asking _you_ to _prove_ Ai existed AND that its inhabitants were a unique
>ethnic peoples. 
>
>> This is in lieu of the extremely  important
>> city we call Agade -- it has never ever been discovered, therefore according
>> to your reasoning, it never existed.
>
>I made no claims about Agade, Mr. self-eater, why do you make up fictions
>that I did? 
>
I was giving an extremely important fact about archeology O' witless one.  It
is not surprising that you missed it.

>> The city of Ai may have been discovered anyway; refer A. Hegev, _The 
>> Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land_, Jerusalem, 1986, p. 20-22.
>
>_May_ have, Mr. self-eater? That _also_ means it may _not_ have been discovered.
>
>Lame.  
>
Whatever, you could of course read the reference before making an even more lame
reply.

>> >> >> for the other settlements of Carthaginians were not eradicated...
>> >> >
>> >> >What _other_ settlements? BY the Third Punic War Carthage was stripped of
>> >> >all her territories and colonies except for Carthage itself. 
>> >> >
>> >> She once had an empire...
>> >
>> >See above regarding the city of Ai. 
>> >
>> Understand logic.
>
>You do? I beg to differ. You have yet to evidence any such understanding,
>Mr. self-eater. 
>
Hah!

You'd actually have to read what I write before you could make such a statement
of fact.

>> >> >> ie., there was no active genocidal program, the city of Carthage 
>> >> >>was _the_ enemy of Rome.
>> >> >
>> >> >Tell that to the Carthegians who were killed and enslaved. 
>> >> >
>> >> They were on the losing side, and therefore paid the penalty for trying to
>> >> conquer Rome.
>> >
>> >So was Ai. (On the losing side.) What then makes Ai so special? (Other
>> >than your obvious dislike of Jews.) 
>> >
>> According to the biblical narrative, the inhabitants of Ai made no aggressive
>> move on the Israelites. 
>
>Actually, the Israelites, according to Joshua 7:4 _first_ took "about
>three thousand men" who in battle "fled before the men of Ai."  
>
Who attacked who first?

>Did the king if Ai sue for peace? No. So, evidently, the Israelites did
>the same thing the Assyrians did when faced with similar circumstances:
>They then attacked in full force and razed the city, killing all the
>inhabitants. And why? To set an example and inspire fear lest, as is
>written in Joshua 7:9, "the Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land
>shall hear [of it], and shall environ us round, and cut off our name from
>the earth..." Which is also what the Assyrians did. 
>
Why should the king of Ai sue for peace?  He was winning against a genocidal
minded people. 

Your reference to Assyrians once more shows wilful ignorance.

>> The Romans didn't try and extinguish the Carthaginians,
>
>Really, Then why was Cathage razed, most her inhabitants killed, and the
>rest taken as slaves by order of the Roman Senate? Sure sounds like Rome
>wanted to put an end to the city-state of Carthage to me! 
>
Ah yes, the Romans wanted to destroy their powerful enemy, but the rest of
Carthaginians around the Mediterranean were within the grasp of Rome, and their
lights were not snuffed, why?

>> unlike the Israelites versus the Canaanites.
>
>Given the above, Mr. self-eater, I suggest you re-think your claim.... 
>
Why?  Your reasoning is illogical in the extreme.

>[snip]
>
>> >Mr. self-eater, are you saying the book of Joshua is non-existent? Or
>> >rather, the acts depocted therein are non-existent? If so, _why_ are you
>> >trying to "compare" non-existent Israelite genocide to the extremely well
>> >documented fact of the Nazi genocide of European Jewry? 
>> >
>> Where the hell do you live?  Dreamland?
>
>That's an non-answer, Mr. self-eater. Why do you avoid giving an answer?
>Perhaps because you _are_ trying to "compare" non-existent Israelite
>genocide to the extremely well documented fact of the Nazi genocide of
>European Jewry and don't wish to admit to such a puerile ploy? 
>
I was referring to the book of Joshua, meathead.  Editing out the clarification
of this in your post won't help either.

>[snip]
^^^^^^
Note this onlookers, Mark van Alstin trying to remove statements that would make
him look like a total fool in his above comment.  Is he desperate or what?

>
>> If the Nazi genocide of European Jewry was so well documented then there would
>> be a lot of primary source material proving the holocaust
>
>Indeed there is, Mr. self-eater. Of course, when confronted with this
>primary source material, deniers (yourself included) pull their heads into
>the collective shell and deny the existance of said evidence. 
>
Please start producing this primary source material, and stop with the feeble
excuses.

>> ...and if that were so then you would not have replied with such a knee-jerk 
>> reaction.  
>
>A reaction to _what_, exactly, Mr. self-eater? Your attempts to white-wash
>the Nazi genocide of European Jews? 
>
You asked for primary source material that disproved the holocaust, meathead.
Please stop these feeble excuses.

>> Since you have admitted that the Nazi genocide of European Jewry is so well 
>> documented, let us see your primary source citations for such an event.  
>
>You mean that you, a "student" of Middle Eastern history, does not know
>where to find literature on Holocaust studies? Amazing.
>
Please stop these feeble excuses.

>But to answer your puerile demand, Mr. self-eater, evidence for the
>Holocaust can be found in the captured Nazi documents dealing with the
>Einsatzgruppen, the concentration and extermination camps, and the
>railroad transport sytstem that carried the victims to their deaths. (cf.
>Hilberg, _The Destruction of European Jewry_). Evidence can also be found
>in captured photos and diaries etc. (i.e. the "Kurt Franz Album;" cf.
>Czech, _KL Auschwitz as seen by the SS_; _Auschwitz Album_). Evidence of
>Nazi genocide can be found in the eyewitness testimonies of _both_ the
>perpetrators and victims (cf. Lanzmann, _Shoah_). _Primary_ evidence of
>Nazi genocide can be found, for example, in the physical evidence at the
>extermination complexes of Treblinka and Auschwitz (cf. Arad, _Belzec,
>Sobobor, Treblinka_; Pressac, _Auschwitz: technique and operation of the
>gas chambers_);  as well as at the many mass graves where the
>Einsatsgruppen buried their victims (cf. Berenbaum, _The World Must
>Know_). 
>
Are the above primary or secondary sources?

>A not insignificant portion of this veritable mountain of evidence can be
>found on-line at: 
>
>http://www.nizkor.org/
>
The primo propaganda site.  McVay's site contains mostly secondary sources or
more appropriately his highly inflated opinion of himself.

Do you know what primary source material is?

>> We are waiting... and please, no more feeble dodging.
>
>This from a "person" who has raised feeble (febrile!) dodging to an art form! 
>
More unsubstantiated assertions from Mark van Alstin.

Ourobouros.
 


From Ourobouros Sun Dec 29 07:41:26 PST 1996
Article: 41221 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
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!van.istar!west.istar!n1van.istar!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.msfc.nasa.gov!news.sgi.com!news.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.immigration,alt.skinheads,alt.conspiracy,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Re: More facts proving the non-existence of a pure White race
Date: 28 Dec 1996 14:55:52 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 268
Message-ID: <5a48ho$9ld@lex.zippo.com>
References:  <59hlmp$ep2@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port870-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.discrimination:59356 alt.politics.white-power:53930 alt.politics.nationalism.white:41221 alt.skinheads:46862 alt.conspiracy:125671 alt.religion.islam:37524

In article , holman@elo.helsinki.fi says...
>
>In article <59hlmp$ep2@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>holman@lelo.helsinki.fi says...
>
>> >Distances notwithstanding, people still traveled. You certainly remember
>> >the pun in the Anglo-Saxon version of the Venerable Bede's 'History of the
>> >English Curch and People*  about Pope Gregory and the English (=angels).
>> >
>> Yes, I've even translated it from the Latin.
>> 
>> It doesn't prove, however, that the slave traders actually lived there.
>> Please also remember that this is 6th century, and Pope Gregory the Great
>> had met and dealt with the Lombards.
>
>They didn't have to live there. They just had to make contact. Wherever
>there were slave traders, there were also young and attractive women that
>could be taken advantage of, as well as cold, lonely and, most of all,
>randy men who were not against taking advantage of any situation that
>offered itself (there was no TV back in those days. My point all along has
>been that there are have always been ample opportunities and occasions for
>interethnic and inter-racial sex throughout history. The best documented
>example of this I know is the behavior of Christopher Columbus's men when
>the arrived in what they thought wa India. According to his diaries, the
>foremost thing they had in mind was sampling the local ladies who,
>thinking they were gods, were all too willing to accommodate them. Racial
>barriers didn't mean a thing, hormones and a desire to rub elbows (and
>other things) with the gods did. The discovery of the 'New World' was not
>even a day old before 'racial pollution' had started.
>
First off, while I forget the actual Latin word used in the tale of Pope 
Gregory the Great by Venerable Bede, the word means boy (young men) slaves.

Secondly, those voyages of Columbus' refused to allow women on board (bad luck)
so the men tended to get a little sex starved.

>> >> >Your 'extremely likely' is overstating the case to say the least. There is
>> >> >an intense debate going on about the origin of the Indo-European
>> >> >languages, with one very strong viewpoint countering that you appear to
>> >> >support being that there may never have really been such a thing as a
>> >> >unified Indo-Europan language or culture. See e.g. Colin Renfrew 1987
>> >> >*Archaeology and language: the puzzle of Indo-European origins*. London,
>> >> >as well as his very recent article "Language families as evidence of human
>> >> >dispersals" in *Sidney Brenner and Kazuro Hanihara (eds), *The origin and
>> >> >past of modern humans as viewed from DNA*, pgs. 285-306, Singapore.
>> >> >
>> >> Of course they are going to disagree, how else would they get funding?  It
>> >> seems ludicrous that the Indo-European language derived from multiple
>points
>> >> throughout Asia and Europe, and still bear commonality.
>> >
>> >Not quite. Imagine someone studying the nature and evolution of English
>> >five thousand years hence. On the one hand the functional nucleus of
>> >English is mongrelized and transplanted West Germanic dialects, on the
>> >other hand, the bulk of its vocabulary is from French and Latin.
>> >Reconciling this apparent contradiction is by no means easy if one must
>> >rely solely on logic and inference rather than on a knowledge of concrete
>> >historical events.
>> 
>> Perhaps you should find an example not concerning solely Indo-European
>> languages.  The peculiar role of religion paid some bearing on English.
>> >> 
>
>Okay. Let's take Estonian, a Baltic-Finnic language of the Finno-Ugric family.
>It's functional nucleus is material transplanted to what is now Estonia
>from northern Eurasia some five thousand years ago. Even before the
>language reached Estonia its speakers had been in contact with various
>Indo-European languages to such an extent that some of its determiners and
>personal pronouns reconstruct to the same roots that those of
>Indo-European languages do, e.g. *see* 'this', *too* 'that' (cf. Greek ho,
>hee, to); *ku-* adverbial base, e.g. *kus* 'where', *kuhu* 'whither',
>*kumb* 'which of two' (cf. Latin qui-/quo-),
>*mina* 'I' (cf. IE *me), *sina (<*tina) 'thou' (cf. IE *tu/te), *aja-ma*
>'to drive', (cf. Lat. agere), *luge-ma* (cf. Lat. legere), *istu-ma* (cf.
>Lat *sedere*). It also picked up some early Indo-European vocabulary in
>conjunction with trade contacts, thus *põrsas* 'piglet', *sada* 'hundred',
>*vasar* 'hammer', *ori* (gen. *orja*) 'slave' [This word is etymologically
>related to *Arya*].
>Contacts with Germanic, Baltic, and Slavic languages during the past five
>thousand years have provided Estonian with much of its core vocabulary and
>many features of grammar. A few examples:
>
>Baltic: *hammas* 'tooth', *tütar* 'daughter', *sild* 'bridge', *hernes*
>'pea', *hein* 'hay', *härg* 'ox'
>
>Old Germanic: *kaunis* 'pretty', *leib* 'bread', *rikas* 'rich', *padi*
>'pillow', *ja* 'and', *lauk* 'leek', *rand* 'shore', *kuningas* 'king';
>*valdama* 'to have a command of'
>
>Old Slavic: *sirp* 'sickle', *tusk* 'grief', *nädal* 'week', *määr* 'rate,
>extent', *raamat* 'book'
>
>Low German: *köök* 'kitchen', *sibul* 'onion', *selts* 'society', *supp*
>'soup', *kartul* 'potato', *peegel* 'mirror', *reede* 'Friday', *torm*
>'storm', *klaas* 'glass', *preili* 'Miss, young lady'
>
>Swedish: *plika* 'teen-age girl', *värske* 'fresh', *kell* 'bell, clock',
>*pood* 'shop', *praalima* 'to boast', *röövima* 'to rob'
>
>Russian: *dekreet* 'decree', *proovima* 'to try', *kapsas* 'cabbage',
>*militsionäär* '[Soviet-era] policeman'
>
>In addition to these numerous borrowings, the Estonian vocabulary has an
>immense number of calques, priamrily from German: *ettevaatlik* 'careful'
>(cf. vorsichtig), *ettekanne* 'report, address' (cf. Vortrag),
>*ettekirjutama* 'prescribe' (cf. vorschreiben), *sissejuhatus*
>'introduction' (cf. Einführung), *sissekanne* 'entry' (cf. Eintrag), etc.
>
>
>Here is a short text to give some idea of the extent to which Estonian is
>Indo-Europeanized:
>
>
>   Poolsada inimest avaldas eile Tartus meelt Eesti huve kahjustavate
>piirilepingute vastu.
>   "Venemaa ei tohi Eesti küljest tükki endale saada," selgitas oma
>vaateid Tartu rahulepingu allakirjutamise paika meelt avaldama tulnud
>naispensionär. "Olen selle maja ees alati Tartu rahu eest seismas käinud,
>mind ei olnud ainult tookord, kui miiting koertega laiali aeti," kõneles
>meespensionär.
>
>
>pool 'half,' sada 'hundred', (IE) inimest (part. sg. < inimene) 'people',
>avaldas (3rd pl past ind. < avaldama 'to express'), eile 'yesterday',
>Tartus (inessive sg. < Tartu '[Estonian city]', meelt (part. sg. meel
>'mind'; meelt avaldama 'to demonstrate'), Eesti (gen. sg. < Eesti
>'Estonia'), huve (part. pl. < huvi 'interest'), kahjustavate (gen. pl.
>present, act, participle < kahjustama 'to harm'), piiri+ 'border', lepingute (gen. pl. < leping 'agreement'), vastu 'against'
>
>Vene 'Russia' maa 'land' (cf. German Rußland), ei 'does not', tohi (<
>stripped form of < tohtima 'to be allowed to', ei tohi 'ought not'), Eesti
>(gen. sg. < Eesti 'Estonia'), küljest (elative sg. < külg 'flank, side'),
>tükki (part. sg. < tükk 'piece', cf. German Stück), endale (allative sg. <
>end 'itself'), saada 'to receive', selgitas (<3rd sg past ind. < selgitama
>'to explain'), oma '[his/her] own', vaateid (part. pl. < vaade
>'viewpoint'), Tartu 'Tartu [Estonian city] rahu 'peace', lepingu < gen.
>sg. leping 'agreement', alla 'under', kirjutamise (gen. sg. < kirjutama
>'to write', allakirjutama 'to sign', cf. German unterschrieben), paika
>(illative sg. < paik 'place', meelt (part. sg. meel 'mind'; meelt avaldama
>'to demonstrate'), tulnud (past. active participle < tulema 'to come'),
>nais+ (bound form of naine 'woman'), pensionär 'pensioner', cf. Russian
>pensionér//olen (1 sg pres. ind. < olema 'to be, to have [as auxiliary]'),
>selle (gen. sg. < see 'this'), maja (gen. sg. < maja 'house, building',
>ees 'in front of', alati 'always, constantly', Tartu 'Tartu [Estonian
>city] rahu 'peace', eest 'in favor of', seismas (inessive of infinitive <
>seisma 'to stand'), käinud (past. active participle (part. sg. < mina 'I, me), ei 'does not', olnud (past. active participle
>cf. Indo-European *to 'this, that', kord 'time' occasion', tookord 'then,
>at that time', kui 'when', cf. Indo-European *kwi- [pronominal and
>adverbial stem], miiting 'meeting', cf. English 'meeting', koertega
>(ajama, cf. Indo.European *ag-), kõneles (<3rd sg. past ind < kõnelema 'to
>say, to tell'), < mees 'man', pensionär 'pensioner', cf. Russian pensionér
>
> Poolsada inimest avaldas eile Tartus meelt Eesti huve kahjustavate
>piirilepingute vastu.
>
>half-hundred  people  demonstrated  yesterday  in-Tartu  mind  Estonia's
>interests  damaging  border agreements  against
>
>Yesterday in Tartu about fifty people demonstrated against border
>agreements which are harmful to Estonian interests.
>
>
>
>"Venemaa ei tohi Eesti küljest tükki endale saada," selgitas oma vaateid
>Tartu rahulepingu allakirjutamise paika meelt avaldama tulnud
>naispensionär. 
>
>"Russia-land not ought Estonia's from-side piece for-itself get,"
>explained own viewpoints of-Tartu of-peace-treaty of-signing to-place mind
>to-demonstrate come woman-pensioner
>
>"Russia ought not get a piece off of Estonia's side for itself," a woman
>pensioner who had come to deomonstrate at the place where the Tartu peace
>treaty was signed explained.
>
>
>
>"Olen selle maja ees alati Tartu rahu eest seismas käinud, mind ei olnud
>ainult tookord, kui miiting koertega laiali aeti," kõneles meespensionär.
>
>"I-am of-this of-house constantly of-Tartu of-peace for in-standing come,
>me not been only that-time when meeting with-dogs spread was-driven," said
>man-pensioner.
>
>"I've been coming constantly to stand in front of this house in favor of
>the Tartu Treaty, the only time I wasn't there was the one when the
>meeting was dispersed with dogs," said a man pensioner.
>
>
>Thus, even if the basic grammatical material of Estonian is of Finno-Ugric
>type, it is interlaced with Indo-European material to such a degree that
>its history would be extremely difficult to reconstruct solely on the
>basis of structure and vocabulary without a knowledge of the cultural
>framework (actually sequence of cultural frameworks) in which the language
>has evolved.
>
But what you are saying does not disprove that the origins of Indo-European (IE)
came from one place, all you have done is state that various IE peoples have
influenced a variety of languages including other IE speakers.
>
>
>> >> >The putative "Arya" = "Eire" connection is not regarded as valid by
>> >> >Indo-Europeanists. The resemblance is coincidental, the word which *Eire*
>> >> >and its Celtic cognates developed from cannot be linked phonologically to
>> >> >the etymon from which Sanskrit "a-rya" originates. See the OED as well as
>> >> >Thurneyson's "Old Irish Grammar" for discussion of the basic issues. 
>> >> >
>> >> I disagree.
>> >
>> >This is no argument. From the grammatical standpoint the term 'Arya'
>> >apears to have originated in post-conquest India. Historical phonology,
>> >onomastics,  and our specific knowledge of the genesis of the term all
>> >tell us that 'Arya' and 'Eire' cannot be the same word. What is the basis
>> >for your dissent other than that both have two syllables, begin and end
>> >with vowels and contain an intersullabic 'r'? In the type of etymology you
>> >are doing, according to Voltaire, the consonants count for little, and the
>> >vowels for nothing at all. We are really disappointed in you.
>> >
>> First off, I care little for Voltaire's philosophy.
>
>Thst was not a statement of philosophy, but rather a critical remark on
>the need for a firm methodological basis for serious etymological work,
>something which Voltaire never lived to see.
>
It means I care little for Voltaire's opinions either.
>> 
>> Secondly, if you care to examine the dialects of say English you will note
>> that one word can be pronounced in a multitude of ways, depending on the
>> geography.  The fact of the matter is that "Eire" was standardised in
>> spelling according to whatever rules at the time -- how it was pronounced,
>> The Aryans chose to spell it in their own way, which has been transliterated
>> to the Latin letters of "Arya."  Your argument is still flimsy.
>> >> 
>
>Firstly, etymology, as practiced by Indo-Europeanists, requires regular
>and systematic sound correspondences. It doesn't work for Arya and Eire.
>Secondly, the word Arya is known to have been invented in India, not
>having been used - or needed - as a self-designation before Indo-European
>invaders felt the need to construct a caste system to distance themselves
>from the older and darker-skinned inhabitants. The ancestors of the Celts,
>or at least those ancestors of the Celts who developed into the Irish, had
>no motivation to devise such a word. Finally, we have historical records
>which demonstrate unequivocally that the word *Eire* is the modern and
>Irish form of *Hibernia*, the Latin designation for Ireland.
>
What you are saying about the Celts who developed into the Irish is untrue, to
claim they were all one people (as in language) is false.  For example, my
ancestors the Scoti lived in Ireland before the 5th century AD, they did not
identify themselves with the lower classes in Ireland.

>
>We have spoken. 
>
>
>Eugene the Curly-headed
>King of alt.politics.white-power, Protector of our Aryan heritage,
>Defender of the English language, Scourge of racial purity, Nabob of
>Nordicity, Scholar of Scandinavianicity, Master bullshitter, Proficient 
>liar etc. etc. etc.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Sun Dec 29 12:52:33 PST 1996
Article: 89806 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!aurora.cs.athabascau.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mongol.sasknet.sk.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!portc02.blue.aol.com!howland.erols.net!worldnet.att.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.rel.christian,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Nazi Atrocities?
Date: 28 Dec 1996 13:14:47 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 576
Message-ID: <5a42k7$6fp@lex.zippo.com>
References: <594sos$s6k$1@uhura.phoenix.net> <597b3d$b9j@news.nyu.edu> <597ikg$430@lex.zippo.com> <59aecc$nnf$1@uhura.phoenix.net> <59aqsq$3bg@lex.zippo.com>  <59f6ae$s1v@lex.zippo.com>  <59pdkh$7d4@lex.zippo.com>  <5a00ce$sm2@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port885-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:89806 alt.politics.nationalism.white:41224 alt.politics.white-power:53933 alt.religion.islam:37527

In article , mvanalst@rbi.com says...
>
>In article <5a00ce$sm2@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article , mvanalst@rbi.com
>says...
>
>[snip[
>
>> >Mr. self-eater, as you seem to have a problem in figuring out what
>> >"predates" means. Let me try again: The events in Genesis happened
>> >_before_ those in Exodus. 
>> >
>> I have absolutely no problem with Genesis predating Exodus, it is you who has 
>> the problem of acknowledging their stay in Egypt had some impact on their
>> 'culture' or more particularly their skills.
>
>Mr. self-eater, you have yet to offer any archeological/historical
>evidence that the Hebrews actually stayed in Egypt. So far your have
>relied on references to religious texts -some of which you appear to
>arbitrarily discount and others which you don't. Not very impressive. 
>
*sigh*

Most scholars don't doubt their 'sojourn' in Egypt.  Why you insist on this
stupidity is beyond me.

>> >Furthermore, Genesis 12:10 says that "Abram went down into Egypt to
>> >sojourn there" and according to Genesis 13:1 "Abram went up out of Egypt."
>> >There was, as far as I could tell, no mention of how long Abram dwelt in
>> >Egypt. However, in Genesis 25:7 it is written that Abraham lived a
>> >"hundred threescore and fifteen years." That would be one hundred
>> >seventy-five years, I believe. If Abraham (i.e. Abram) lived to be one
>> >hundred seventy-five years old, how could he have lived in Egypt for four
>> >hundred years? 
>> >
>> >He couldn't, of course.
>> >
>> So what?
>
>So obviously, Abram, the patriarch of the Hebrews, did not come from
>Egypt. Nor did his descendants come from Egypt. Ergo, the Israelites did
>not _originate_ from Egypt as you first claimed. (And now have backpeddled
>away from by amendeding that they were merely influenced by their
>captivity in Egypt.)  
>
I never said Abram came from Egypt, you are making it up, NOR did I say they
originated from Egypt, another myth you have made up.


>[snip]
>
>> >Uh huh. Like your erroneous claim (above) that Abraham lived in Egypt for
>> >four hundred years?  
>> >
>> Er no, you have made it up, just like 3500 B.C. instead of 1500 B.C.
>
>How odd.Mr. self-eater, did you not say in response to my pointing out
>that Genesis predates Exodus, which was in the context that Abraham went
>into to Egypt and then left, that "they left the land of Egypt, having
>lived their for supposedly 400 years?" Yet you accuse me of making this
>up? 
>
Is Abraham a plural word?

>Rather, I suggest perhaps it is _your_ imprecise command of the English
>language which is at the root of this "communications" problem? 
>
See above.

>[snip]
>
>> >Rather, I think, Mr. self-eater, it is quite obvious you are talking about
>> >things you know not. 
>> >
>> ROTFL, it is quite obvious that you haven't a clue what logic is and isn't.
>
>On the contrary, Mr. self-eater, I did rather well in my logic and
>argumentation class in college.... This, of course, has nothing to do with
>your speaking about things from ignorance. 
>
Obviously Universities aren't want they used to be, if someone like you could
do well in logic or even arguing.  

>[snip]
>
>> >Ah, Mr. self-eater, there is a difference between "muddled thinking" and
>> >simply misreading 3500 and assuming 3500 B.C. It was an error I, at
>> >least,  acknowledged. I _also_ pointed out that the time period you were
>> >talking about- circa 1500 B.C. -made your claims about Israelite
>> >"genocide" even _more_ ludicrous in lite of the Assyrians. 
>> >
>> Rubbish.  Are you somehow trying to assert the Israelites weren't genocidal?
>
>Mr. self-eater, I am simply pointing out that _your_ particular claim that
>the Israelites were "genocidal" and that this was somehow unique among the
>various cultures during history is nothing but a strawman of _your_
>contrivance. 
>
Prove the strawman.

>[snip]
>
>> >I see. Given that you claim there is no recorded evidence (aside from
>> >religious texts such as Genisis and Exodus etc., which explicitly show you
>> >to be in err) that the Israelites were ever in Egypt, you made a "logical
>> >deduction" that the Israelites _were_ in Egypt?! 
>> >
>> Er no, try again.
>> 
>> >And you then claim that "it is quite evident that logic" and _I_ "are
>> >mutually exclusive?" ROTFL! What a blithering idiot you are, Mr
>> >self-eater! What chutzpuh you have! 
>> >
>> Er no, try again.
>
>Why? It is becoming clear that _you_ are not even clear about what _you_
>keep posting!
>
Er no, you don't know what I post because you don't read what I post.  I am
perfectly clear what I have been posting, and I have been perfectly consistent,
unlike you.

>[snip]
>
>> >Amazing then, is it not, that the Hebrew alphabet is nearly identical to
>> >the Assyrian alphabet? What a "coincidence" this is, considering that the
>> >Assyrian Empire, by circa 1100 B.C., reached all the way from Mesopotamia
>> >to the Mediterranean! And that by circa 750 .B.C. _all_ of Palestine and
>> >Syria were under Assyrian dominion. 
>> >
>> Please re-read what I said, you have quite clearly not read or at least 
>> understood it.
>> 
>> One of the big mysteries is why the Mesopotamians adopted the Aramenean 
>> alphabet, which, btw, isn't Hebrew.
>
>How odd then, that the Hebrew is remarkebly like the Assyrian alphabet. Or
>at least it was the last time I visited my brother-in-law who is Assyrian
>and has a tapestry of the Assyrian alphabet on a wall in his house. Not to
>mention that my mother-in-law, who was the scribe for her Assyrian village
>before she came to the U.S., also remarked at the similarity between the
>Hebrew alphabet and the Assyrian alphabet....  
>
Your brother-in-law is Assyrian?

This should be a laugh.

As your blundering, what you witnessed was not Hebrew but Aramaean (proper
spelling this time).  For simplicities sake, the Phoenicians invented the
alphabet, which was passed to the Aramaeans, the Hebrews, and the Greeks.  The
former two kept pretty much identical to Phoenician writing, hence why
Aramaean and Hebrew look pretty much the same.  Aramaean took over the 
Akkadian language as the lingua franca, Hebrew did not.

>But then, what do Assyrians know about their culture and history? 
>
A lot more than you do.

>[snip]
>
>> >And praytell, what does that say about _your_ "misreading" of Genesis? Thy
>> >tongue, it appears, is a two-edged sword! Be careful, Mr. self-eater, lest
>> >you be picking it up off the floor....
>> >
>> Please re-read what I actually wrote for once, it would improve communications
>> immensely.
>
>Why? It is becoming clear that _you_ are not even clear about what _you_
>keep posting!
>
You cannot know what I post because you don't actually read what I write, you
just make it up.

>> >I see. Such petty insults from a person who can't even read Scriptures
>> >correctly is hardly persuasive.... 
>> >
>> I see, your evidence is?
>
>Why, your claim that the Israelites (i.e Hebrews) originated from Egypt,
>of course. 
>
Prove I stated emphatically that the Israelites originated from Egypt.

>> >> >Of course, a date of 1500 B.C. makes your claims in regard to "genocide"
>> >> >even more ridiculous, as circa 1400-600 B.C.the Assyrians were "the most
>> >> >warlike people of the mMiddle East," being they were exceptionally cruel
>> >> >and ferocious. "It was not unusual for them to kill every man, woman, and
>> >> >child in captured cities. Sometimes they would carry away entire
>> >> >populations into captivity." (cf. Dupuy, _The Harper Encyclopedia of
>> >> >Military History_, pp.9,11.) 
>> >> >
>> >> They were not genocidal at all. They were extremely cruel, there is little
>> >> doubt about that....   
>> >
>> >Really? And your evidence for this is? What, in your "opinion" makes the
>> >Isrealirtes "genocidal" while the Assyrians are merely "extremely cruel?"
>> >
>> *sigh*
>> 
>> The Israelites recorded their over-willingness to wipe out entire populations,
>> populations that had not insulted the Israelite people, but whose fault was
>> living there.
>
>How many "entire populations" did the Israelites "wipe out," Mr
>self-eater? And how is this different, for example, from the Assyrian
>practice of wiping out "entire populations?" 
>
Pass on both counts.

>> >> It was unusual for them to kill every man, woman and
>> >> child in a captured city, unless they absolutely provoked the Assyrians, 
>> >> and even then they typically butchered the leading citizens and moved the
>> >> population elsewhere.  
>> >
>> >And your evidence for this is? Why none, of course! Mearely an empty
>> >assertion on your part. I would (again) point out that you are
>> >contradicted:
>> >
>> Try reading this book (one of many):
>> 
>> [1] G. Roux, _Ancient Iraq_, 3rd Ed., London, 1992.
>
>Any particular pertinent passage you would like to quote, Mr. self-eater? 
>
I would prefer you read the entire book, because your ignorance on Near 
Eastern civilisations is overwhelming, but the passages on Assyria are p. 282-
354.

>> >"It was not unusual for them to kill every man, woman, and child in
>> >captured cities. Sometimes they would carry away entire populations into
>> >captivity." (cf. Dupuy, _The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History_,
>> >pp.9,11.)
>> >
>> >Note the part about how "it was not unusual for them to kill every man,
>> >woman, and child in captured cities." Key words here, of course, Mr.
>> >self-eater, are "not unusual." 
>> >
>> It has been revised....
>
>LOL! In other words, you were wrong and now you are trying to save face....
>
No, only pointing out that as the years go by, more and more information is
being accumulated on the Near Eastern civilisations.

>> ...yes they did on the occasion kill every man, woman and
>> child, but only after they had completely rejected Assyrian hegemony.
>> 
>> >> To brief the Assyrians: their city God commanded the Assyrians on which
>> >> cities should be captured, thus it was God's decree that a particular
>> >> region should be under Assyrian hegemony.  
>> >
>> >And your evidence for this is? 
>> >
>> Read [1].
>
>Any particular pertinent passage you would like to quote, Mr. self-eater? 
>
See above.

>> >> If a city surrendered outright then there were absolutely no
>problems, if a 
>> >> city resisted then bloodshed happened, but the citizenry were not 
>> >> slaughtered to a man.  
>> >
>> >And your evidence for this is? Given the above, it appears you are (at
>> >best)  speculating.
>> >
>> Read [1].
>
>Any particular pertinent passage you would like to quote, Mr. self-eater? 
>
See above.

>> >> That city had attempted to defy Assur (the God of the Assyrians).  If a 
>> >> city that was under Assyrian hegemony revolted then they were revolted 
>> >> against Assur, and therefore they committed heresy.  
>> >
>> >And your evidence for this is?
>> >
>> Read [1].
>
>Any particular pertinent passage you would like to quote, Mr. self-eater? 
>
See above.

>> >> In this latter scenerio the Assyrians 
>> >> were at their bloodiest, but only a truly demented mind would claim they
>> >> were genocidal, as the Assyrians weren't, as the Assyrians responded 
>> >> against heresy, not against an ethnic group.
>> >
>> >Are you _seriously_ claiming, Mr. self-eater, that T.N. Dupuy (an eminent
>> >military historian), and his son E.N. Dupuy, both of whom between them
>> >have published over _forty_ works of military history, are "truly
>> >demented?"  
>> >
>> Er no, only your understanding and T.N. Dupuy date of writing.
>
>Would you care to rephrase that in proper English, Mr. self-eater? You
>seem to be saying, in spite of your denial, that the dates T.N. Dupuy
>cites in regard to the Assyrians are indeed "truly demented."  
>
So sorry, "... T.N. Dupuy's..." 

Er no, I was referring to you as truly demented.  I can almost guarantee your
citation of Dupuy is out of context.

>You of course, will back up such harsh accusations with factual evidence, yes?  
>
Uh huh.

>> >I think, Mr. self-eater, that your obviously insufferable ego just caused
>> >you to insert both feet into your mouth! That, of course, _perfectly_ fits
>> >your moniker to a tee!  
>> >
>> Er no, it only registers your wilful ignorance.
>
>Given your obvious dissimulation and backpeddaling, Mr. self-eater, I
>think it is more than obvious who is the willfully ignorant one here.... 
>
...which is Mark van Alstin.

>[snip]
>
>> >> >Actually, Mr. self-eater, it means the Assyrians first introduced the
>> >> >sword into warfare.
>> >> >
>> >> Please read in context, you were being quite stupid about 3500 B.C., and
>> >> how much I was wrong, when in fact you were the one at fault.
>> >
>> >Indeed, Mr. self-eater, you were _quite_ wrong in regard to your erroneous
>> >assertion about Isrealite "genocide."
>> >
>> No, I was not.
>
>Then stop backpeddaling and prove it, Mr. self-eater. Prove _all_ your
>origional accusations made the Israelites.
>
Please compile them first, as I doubt you truly know what they were.

>[snip]
>
>> >> >So you can't back up your claims about "sickle" swords with the historical
>> >> >evidence, Mr. self-eater? Typical.
>> >> >
>> >> You are a try hard, aren't you?
>> >
>> >Your continuing failure to substantiate your unssupported claims, Mr.
>> >self-eater, does not go unnoticed.... 
>> >
>> Er no, you are a muddled thinker you have, so far, *extreme* difficulty with
>> reading your opponents arguments.
>
>Mr. self-eater, your continuing failure to substantiate your unssupported
>claims, indicates otherwise. 
>
I can always refer to the blatant 3500 B.C. argument of yours.

>> >> Once again your feeble attempt at winning this argument alludes you:
>> >> 
>> >> "By about 1500 BC the cutting ax had evolved into the sickle sword, a
>> >> bronze sword with a curved, concave blade and a straight, thickened
>handle."
>> >> 
>> >> Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 29, p.533.
>> >
>> >Very good, Mr. self-eater! However, I fail to see "Egypt" or "Egyptian"
>> >mentioned anywhere in your quote. 
>> >
>> >Nice try but no cigar, Mr. self-eater.
>> >
>> The sickle sword was the standard, yes.  Each different 'nation' had their own
>> peculiar trademark or sword in this case -- we can tell an Egyptian sickle
>> sword from a Hatti sickle sword, for example. 
>
>But, in your case, not what "fullers" are....  Your blade lore is less
>than impressive, Mr. self-eater. _Can_ you, Mr. self-eater, give a full
>citation that shows that the "Egyptian sickle-sword" was adopted by the
>Israelites? Well? 
>
Could you re-write the former in proper English?

If the Israelites were in Egypt for 400 hundred years then it stands to reason
they would have adopted, as far as possible, Egyptian art and crafts, which
includes warfare.  This is perfectly logical.

>> Since the Israelites were in Egypt for x centuries...
>
>When, Mr. self-eater? During what period were the Israelites in Egypt for
>"x centuries?" Please provide archeological/historical evidence that they
>were. So far you have simply cited religious texts. Some of which you
>appear to arbitrarily discount to suit your purposes.... 
>
Whatever.  It is generally not doubted that the Israelites were in Egypt.

>> ...and despite your disbelief otherwise, they would have
>> learnt the Egyptian handicrafts.  
>
>But not Assyrian, I take it? Even though Assyrian influence stretched from
>Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean (circa 1000 B.C.)? Even though Palestine
>was conquered and the Israelites made (rebellious) vassals to the
>Assyrians (circa 750 B.C.)? 
>
They could have learned Assyrian skills and etc., from the Assyrians as well,
I have never ever said anything to the contrary, but it would seem you are
adding more words to my mouth.

>> The Egyptian sickle sword has no point whatsoever, much like your arguments.
>
>And quite unlike _your_ head, eh? 
>
Your attempts at wit are truly pathetic.

>> >> And why I say the Israelites adapted the Egyptian sickle sword, is because
>> >> the Egyptian sword was designed for chariot warfare, not infantry.
>> >
>> >And your evidence for this is? 
>> >
>> *sigh*
>> 
>> Wilful ignorance triumphs in Mark van Alstin's reality.
>
>No. Mr. self-eater, I am simply asking _you_ to substantiate your claims.
>Instead, you make appeals to _your_ ersatz authority and respond with ad
>hominems. Your continued refusal to substantite your claims is hardly
>impressive, Mr self-eater. It only makes your position all the more
>ridiculous. 
>
Look up the Hyksos domination of Egypt and their eventual overthrow for 
details.  This will clarify everything I have so far said to date on Egyptian
warfare and weapons.

>[snip]
>
>> >> >Mr. self-eater, what historical evidence do you have that confirms that
>> >> >the "sickle" sword was the "sword of the Egyptians?"
>> >> >
>> >> See above, O' desperate one.
>> >
>> >Indeed. See above, Mr. self-eater.
>> >
>> Yes, please do, try not only commenting on it, but actually do it as well.
>
>Pot-Kettle-Black, Mr. self-eater.
>
Huh?

>[snip]
>
>> >> ...either that or you can ask Dr. A. J. Spalinger of
>> >> the University of Auckland Classical department who specialty is Egyptian
>> >> military history.
>> >
>> >Rather, as it is _you_ who are making the assertions, I suggest _you_ get
>> >hold of Dr. Spalinger, post his explination, and then provide a contact
>> >for his so that it his explination may be independantly verified. 
>> >
>> Prove me wrong.  
>
>Rather, Mr. self-eater, _prove_ yourself right! Get hold of Dr. Spalinger,
>post his explination, and then provide a contact for his so that it his
>explination may be independantly verified. 
>
I took one of his courses in which he stated the above.

>> Dr. Spalinger gives lectures on ancient Egyptian warfare,  which I note
>you don't.
>
>And neither do you, Mr. self-eater. 
>
But unlike you, I have participated in his lectures, and it would seem you have
never done the equivalent.

>[snip]
>
>>> You are the blustering fool.  The bayonet was only one weapon that used
>>> fullers....
>>
>> >That is incorrect, Mr. self-eater. As noted above, daggers had fullers.
>> >Swords too had fullers. The term "fuller" is simply the name of the design
>> >artifact in producing a strong blade cross-section while keeping the blade
>> >as light as possible. 
>> >
>> >> ... as I said they weren't blood channels, they add more strength (as
>> >> above)....
>> >
>> >No, Mr. self-eater, you did not origionally say any such thing. You said:
>> >
>> >"They were there to mprove balance/speed and weight, 
>> >not really for blood :-)"
>> >
>> >No mention of strength at all. Your backpeddaling is noted, btw, 
>> >Mr. self-eater.
>> >
>
>> AND, O' misappropriatively strong one, I said in another post you
>responded too, that strength was another reason for fullers, and I forgot
>to include in the above quote.  Do you excel in wilful stupidity or
>something?
>
>I see. Was it, perhaps, the following:
>
>Subject:      Re: Nazi Atrocities?
>From:         Ourobouros
>Date:         1996/12/24
>Message-Id:   <59oasc$bql@lex.zippo.com>
>
>
>
>>> >> Even people in the know believe this, and I would think that a
>>> >> goodly number of books on swords would record it as so.  One other 
>>> >> category I forgot to list in another post is fullers add strength to the 
>>> >> weapon (daggers and knives often come with fullers.)
>>> >
>>> >Again, do you have an authoritative _citation_ for this? 
>>> >
>>> Offhand citation no, but I do make the occasional sword and dagger, plus I
>>> fight with them.
>
>
>
>My apologies then, Mr. self-eater, as I see that you _did_ mention
>strength in passing. However, in all fairness, I would point out that your
>claims were unsubstantiated, that you admitted you could not confirm your
>claims, that you have subsequentlly _refused_ to substantiate them, and
>that you even contradict yourself in said claims:
>
>"I forgot to list in another post is fullers add strength to the  weapon
>(daggers and knives often come with fullers.)"
>
>"You are the blustering fool.  The bayonet was only one weapon that used
>fullers...."
>
>One could, given the above, I think, pardon my skepticism of your claims.
>Especially so when _I_ researched _your_ claims after _you_ refused to, 
>providing a full citation that confirmed that the purpose of fullers was
>to provide strength to the blade. (Any blade, btw.) 
>
>Given all this, one might also question who was actually "excelling in
>wilful [sic] stupidity."
>
Where is the contradiction?

BTW, "wilful" is correct despite your protest otherwise -- just another thing
proving your wilful ignorance.

>[snip]
>
>> >BTW, Mr. self-eater did the Israelites of te Old Testament throw innocent
>> >children into bonfires alive? The Nazis did for no other reason than
>> >because they were Jewish.
>> >
>> >"In Jerusalem there is a memorial site for the six million Jews murdered
>> >by the Nazi's during World War 2. It is called Yad Vashem and was raised
>> >1953. An avenue called "The Avenue of the Righteous" runs through this
>> >site. The wind whispers continuously through the several hundred trees
>> >planted there. Each and every tree has been planted to honor a non-Jewish
>> >person risking his or her life to save Jews from the Nazi murderers." 
>> >
>> Your primary source citation for this is what?
>
>For what, Mr. self-eater? The fact that the Nazis tossed children into
>bonfires (i.e. incineration pits) or the quote about the The Avenue of the
>Righteous? 
>
You are wilfully stupid beyond doubt.  Why would I ask for a primary source
citation about some (new) Jewish tradition, of course I am asking about the
primary source citation for Natsees tossing children into bonfires.

>BTW, Mr. self-eater, don't you even feel the slightest bit hypocritical in
>asking for citations when _you_ typically refuse to provide them yourself?
>(Even when you do, one must endlessly badger you until you actually do!) 
>
No, I utilise liberal tactics quite willingly.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Mon Dec 30 10:00:48 PST 1996
Article: 89984 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!eru.mt.luth.se!newsfeed.luth.se!news.luth.se!erix.ericsson.se!eua.ericsson.se!news.algonet.se!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!arclight.uoregon.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.censorship,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: The Great Debate
Date: 29 Dec 1996 17:05:49 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 235
Message-ID: <5a74hd$m5t@lex.zippo.com>
References: <199612120033.QAA01666@mailmasher.com> <5972s1$p2f@lex.zippo.com> <59ad1g$a11@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <59aubi$4n2@lex.zippo.com> <59cf44$sld@access5.digex.net> <59clb5$a6m@lex.zippo.com> <32bf0bb9.6132738@news.inetport.com> <59he0v$c4t@lex.zippo.com> <32cd7e68.13999668@news.inetport.com> <59k2ge$sgv@lex.zippo.com> <32d5b9d3.24925804@news.inetport.com> <59ldr6$i82@lex.zippo.com> <32bfd3b9.17062439@news.inetport.com> <59msh5$kne@lex.zippo.com> <32c7faf2.4464317@news.inetport.com> <59pau3$689@lex.zippo.com> <32c79b3a.10354852@news.inetport.com> <59ujsv$jdv@lex.zippo.com> <32c7e42c.3007432@news.inetport.com> <5a1brn$486@lex.zippo.com> <32cc4796.10695902@news.inetport.com> <5a49fg$a41@lex.zippo.com> <32c7fa43.501586@news.inetport.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port1673-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:89984 alt.censorship:113484 alt.politics.nationalism.white:41359 alt.politics.white-power:54061

In article <32c7fa43.501586@news.inetport.com>, mcurtis@inetport.com says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>>
>>>Ourobouros makes a request:
>>>>>>Prove the holocaust then.
>>>
>>>Mike Curtis responds:
>>>>>There are books well over 1000 pages doing this very thing. Rather
>>>>>than ask me to repeat voluminous work, I suggest you relate to me and
>>>>>this group what you have allowed yourself to read on the subject. From
>>>>>there we can discuss those things you have a problem with. To ask
>>>>>someone to prove the Holocaust is a question a young child would ask
>>>>>of an adult. Why are we here? That is a question that cannot be summed
>>>>>up satisfactorally by philosophers. So your question is not a good
>>>>>starting point. For it has to start in the 19th century. What have you
>>>>>read so far?
>>>>>
>>>>Amusing, alas I must decline, as I wouldn't know how many books I have read on
>>>>the topic, and unless the various books interest me, I don't take notes.
>>>
>>>I asked for titles. I'm not surprised that you decline, however. Most
>>>deniers do.
>>>
>>As I said before, the holocaust is not my forte.  I have read enough to be
>>relatively proficient, but that is all -- it doesn't particularly interest me.
>>
>
>Then why the devil are you asking _me_ to prove anything to you? If it
>doesn't interest you, then why are you here?
>
To test your knowledge and limits.  BTW, this conversation was not originally
on the holocaust.

>>>The above is meaningless to me. Address Ken McVay if you wish to
>>>discuss Ken McVay. Thanks.
>>>
>>That is a problem, McVay doesn't respond.  I find it quite hypocritical of
>>McVay to set up posts that say "x questions for so-and-so month y" when he
>>avoids the exact same thing for himself.
>>
>
>The questions that I have seen have nothing to do with the history of
>the Holocuast or its historical revision.
>
You haven't been looking long then.

>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>Ourobouros requested proof of:
>>>>>>6 Million Jews, gas chambers, gas wagons, etc., etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Mike Curtis responds:
>>>>>12 million victims is the closer number for the Holocaust. The Jews
>>>>>are the significant portion of the 12 million. I MUST therefore assume
>>>>>that you have no problems with the portion of the Holocaust for the
>>>>>Sinti and Roma, Homosexuals, mentally retarded, those with congenital
>>>>>diseases, and Seventh Day Adventists. You then have no problem with
>>>>>the way _they_ were killed. You must not have much problem with the
>>>>>history of the T4 program. I can assume that you have no problems with
>>>>>this. This means that you accept the phenol injections and the gas
>>>>>chambers used in the hospitals and sanitariums that were on German
>>>>>soil. All this doesn't involve the Jews or the other stuff. Can we
>>>>>assume that you accept this portion of the holocaust?
>>>>>
>>>
>>>Then Ourobouros disingenuously reads the whole passage. I think Laura
>>>Finstein responded well to the distortion of my words that Ourobouros
>>>presents below so I'll let that dog sleep.
>>
>>I decided to play with your loose words.
>>
>
>That is dishonest. 
>
Perhaps, but probably not.

>>>>I haven't heard 12 million Jews were killed in the holocaust for a while, why
>>>>have you restarted that figure again?
>>>>
>>>
>>>>As for the rest of the so-called people, you have one large flaw, they are
>>>>almost never mentioned in conjunction with the holocaust,
>>>
>>>Yes, they are mentioned in almost _every_ book I've read on the
>>>Holocaust. This suggests to me that you have read hardly anything on
>>>the event.
>>>
>>Rot.
>
>How would you have the foggiest idea since: "As I said before, the
>holocaust is not my forte.  I have read enough to be relatively
>proficient, but that is all -- it doesn't particularly interest me."
>I have some doubt as to your proficiency. Most all the books I have
>discuss the other 6 million.
>
>_The Racial State_ by Burleigh and Wipperman
>_The Nazi Doctors_ by Richard Lifton 
>_The War Against the Jews_ by Lucy Dawidowicz
>
I take it that since you said most that two of the above books mention people
other than Jews in concentration camps and the one left over does not?

It is also interesting to note that not all the books you have read mention the 
other 6 million, therefore we have established that certain books on the 
holocaust mention the Jews solely.

>>  William Marks makes a peculiar comment in one of his interwar books which
>>he comments he does not understand why Germany didn't make more use of the Jews
>>for work because they were putting them to death, no mention of anybody else.
>
>The Jews were the majority killed and a very productive 1% of the
>population. Before 1933, as Sarah Gordon make clear, they made up a
>tax base higher in proportion to their 1% of the population. They had
>more income and therefore contributed more in taxes. There is nothing
>much to understand other than the fact that German anti-Semitism was
>more important. 
>
Strange, I remember one book I read on Nazi Germany was that the average income
of a Jew was less than that of the average German (pre-Nazi government).  If
this were true then Jews would have paid less than their 1% of the population.
The book was trying to state that the Nazis had absolutely no basis for their
anti-semitism (sic) because the Jews were not the rich sector of society.  

Obviously the author knew nothing about economics, as I can have an official
income of $5,000 per year, but spend over $200 weeks alone on groceries.  I 
know of an accountant that does just that, if you somehow don't believe it.

Perhaps the holocaust is full of contradictory material then?

>>One of my lecturers on the interwar period, only mentions the Jews in connection
>>with the concentration camps and the list continues.  You talk rot.
>>
>
>I don't care what you think, but since there was a gyspy camp at
>Auschwitz, I'm not sure who should be more on the defensive. I suggest
>you. The Blockältesten, etc., were rarely Jewish but made up of Poles,
>Germans, and other nationalities. You appear to have done very little
>reading, if any on the holocaust and the various death and
>extermination camps.
>
I am commenting on the popular "mythology" and the books concerning it.  Ask
Jo Bloggs on the street about the holocaust, guess which people he will mention?
Which do you think he'll know about; the Gypsies and Poles or the Jews?

>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>As for your hospitals and whatnot, let me guess, you mean those *evil* but
>>>>unproven experiments on Jews and other miscreants?
>>>>
>>>
>>>No. I mean the T4 program that you obviously know nothing about. 
>>>
>>Then enlighten me.
>>
>
>I'll put a thread together and title it T4. Look for it.
>
I rarely read alt.revisionism.

>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>>Mike Curtis responds:
>>>>>By using ancient history!!! You offered no evidence provided by
>>>>>historians in your post to me. You said, "Did you know the Roman
>>>>>Empire never declined or fell?" This is all you said. You offered no
>>>>>evidence or substantiation for your claim. This topic has nothing to
>>>>>do with Holocaust that took place a little over 50 years ago. Since
>>>>>ancient Rome the methods of studying history have changed. The sources
>>>>>historians rely on for the history of ancient religion are scanty.
>>>>>This history also involves archeology. I'd rather not get into this
>>>>>topic since it is out of topic for this group. 
>>>>>
>>>>Read Philip Rousseau, Associate Professor at the University of Auckland 
>>>>(history department.)  He has written several works and lectures on the above.
>>>
>>>What above? Why don't you present your view of it for analysis? My
>>>time is really limited to take on added reading projects.
>>>
>>I am giving one example of (todays) professional historians at work.
>>
>
>And you failed to make any point at all.
>
That is incorrect, you failed to perceive the point I was making.

>>>>To my mind (I have even taken his course) this belief is ludicrous, but he
>>>>nevertheless offers "evidence" to support his beliefs.  What I am getting at is
>>>>the evidence of historians is inconsistent and watery.
>>>
>>>Such as?
>>>
>>I couldn't really say actually, nothing he has offered as proof for his views
>>backs him up.
>>
>
>You said he offers evidence to support his beliefs and yet you do not
>know what that is?
>
Typically any single word in quotations means it is suspect or dubious.  Please
note the form I used.

>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>>>>PC is a term used by the weak minded to justify their positions. This
>>>>>isn't aimed at you but at the United States political parties and
>>>>>their stupid inability to face the problems they need to deal with. So
>>>>>they come up with specious attacks on individual parties and ideas by
>>>>>using nebulous terms such as PC or politically correct. They never
>>>>>seem to realize that by calling something PC they are, in fact, making
>>>>>their own form of PC. It is a term best not used for it really has no
>>>>>meaning.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>Ourobouros wrote:
>>>>Absolute rubbish, history is being rewritten to fit the PC moods and attitudes.
>>>>Case in point: the status of the Roman Empire in late antiquity.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You have made no case in point, Ourobouros.
>>>
>>Believe what you will then, I obviously cannot make you understand the attitudes
>>and moods of today's professional historians, but in my case, you will have to
>>extremely specific on what is proof and what is not.
>>
>
>What is proof to you?
>
I was referring to you and your earlier comment about what constitutes 
evidence.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Dec 31 09:10:37 PST 1996
Article: 90117 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news-out.internetmci.com!dciteleport.com!worldnet.att.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Nazi Atrocities?
Date: 30 Dec 1996 12:16:21 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <5a97ul$ibn@lex.zippo.com>
References: <594sos$s6k$1@uhura.phoenix.net> <5a02jd$lo@lex.zippo.com>  <5a4733$944@lex.zippo.com> <5a7utc$op0@access2.digex.net> <5a89av$6dg@explorer2.clark.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port861-auck.ihug.co.nz

In article <5a89av$6dg@explorer2.clark.net>, karlpov@explorer2.clark.net says...
>
>mstein@access2.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) writes:
>
>>    The very amusing thing is many of the same people who accept the Book
>>of Joshua as proof of the genocidal deeds of the ancient Israelites deny
>>that the Nazis committed genocidal mass murder against the Jews.  (They
>>don't talk much about the Gypsies; it makes it hard to maintain the
>>"Jewish hoax" story.)  The deniers demand physical evidence, and explain
>>that all confessions were the result of torture.  Those confessions which
>>cannot be explained away in this manner are declared to be the result of
>>false boasting or mental illness.
>
>>    Yet for some reason Ouroboros's skepticism goes out the window when
>>discussing the Book of Joshua.  How very strange. 
>
>What's stranger is that while dumping on contemporary Jews for
>genocide in Joshua and the crucifixion of Jesus of Galilee, they
>deny that those Jews are any relation to the folks in the Bible.
>They also are upset that Jews have such long, unforgiving memories
>that they still go after old Nazis for the misdeeds of half a
>century ago....

If the Jews want to be identified with the Hebrews of old then I'll happily
comply.

It is quite curious that the Egyptians have met a brick wall with Jews 
concerning Jewish war atrocities (20 year problem), but the Jews can somehow
keep going for half a century, is there any hypocrisy?

Could you please keep to the original newsgroups? I was only reading a.r to see
if Mike Curtis had published his T4 post.

Ourobouros.



From Ourobouros Tue Dec 31 09:10:38 PST 1996
Article: 90184 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!freenet.unbc.edu!news.scn.org!news.abs.net!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.white-power,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Nazi Atrocities?
Date: 30 Dec 1996 11:35:51 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <5a95in$gc6@lex.zippo.com>
References: <594sos$s6k$1@uhura.phoenix.net> <5a02jd$lo@lex.zippo.com>  <5a4733$944@lex.zippo.com> <5a7utc$op0@access2.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port855-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:90184 alt.politics.white-power:54166 alt.religion.islam:37643

In article <5a7utc$op0@access2.digex.net>, mstein@access2.digex.net says...
>
>In article <5a4733$944@lex.zippo.com>,   wrote:
>>In article , 
>>mvanalst@rbi.com says...
>>>
>>>In article <5a02jd$lo@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>[Ouroborous, justifying his citation of the Book of Joshua as proof that
>the ancient Israelites committed genocide]
>>>> Which, if you cannot already guess, they were proud of
>>>> having genocidal ancestry.
>>>
>>>You have yet to even substantiate, Mr. self-eater, that the Israelites
>>>even committed _genocide_. Yet you claim to _know_ that the Israelites
>>>were proud of having genocidal ancestry."
>>>
>>O' unreasoning one, why would they be so keen to record themselves as
>>genocidal if they were not genocidal?
>
>    The very amusing thing is many of the same people who accept the Book
>of Joshua as proof of the genocidal deeds of the ancient Israelites deny
>that the Nazis committed genocidal mass murder against the Jews.  (They
>don't talk much about the Gypsies; it makes it hard to maintain the
>"Jewish hoax" story.)  The deniers demand physical evidence, and explain
>that all confessions were the result of torture.  Those confessions which
>cannot be explained away in this manner are declared to be the result of
>false boasting or mental illness.
>
>    Yet for some reason Ouroboros's skepticism goes out the window when
>discussing the Book of Joshua.  How very strange. 
>
Do you have any (primary source) records demonstrating that the Nazis 
(generally) were keen on genocide and therefore recorded themselves as such, as 
per the Israelites?

Ourobouros.
 


From Ourobouros Tue Dec 31 12:17:25 PST 1996
Article: 41467 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!aurora.cs.athabascau.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!news.sgi.com!howland.erols.net!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Nova: Indians Exterminated Mammoth, Horse, etc.
Date: 30 Dec 1996 18:03:04 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <5a9s8o$48i@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbec8e$1c6df520$f4cdaec7@default> <599ug2$ivg@lex.zippo.com>  <59asja$407@lex.zippo.com> <59c291$1rs@news1.ucsd.edu> <59c60o$2tk@lex.zippo.com>  <59f58e$rh3@lex.zippo.com>  <5a3v8k$4sl@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port881-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:430849 alt.politics.nationalism.white:41467 alt.politics.white-power:54147 talk.environment:48501

In article , "D. says...
>
>
>
>On 28 Dec 1996, it was written:
>
>> In article , "D. says...

[snip]

>> >Ignorant fool.
>> >
>> Well then, your statement condemns you, if what you are saying is so abundant
>> then we should see a lot of disproofs to my arguments, but all you have really
>> done is call me ignorant.  Saying so doesn't make it so.  If you can't find
>> this magic knowledge then it is you that is the ignorant fool, afterall you
>> haven't read Captain John Smith's journals.
>> 
>> Ourobouros.
>> 
>
>Why not tell the world first, what my "idealistic bubble" is, with factual
>underpinnings, and second, how Smith's journals puncture it? Otherwise,
>this post is retired, from my perspective anyway.
>

Did you, or did you not, write the following?:

"You might also keep in mind that many native culture's philosophies did, and 
do, in fact support preserving biological diversity and ecosystem functioning, 
much more than the various ethics of the europeans that settled North America.  
This is a fact; read some early colonial and anthropological literature."

On the assumption that you did in fact write the above this is your idealistic
bubble.  One that assumes that many native culture's philosophies believe in
preserving biological diversity and ecosystem functioning.  It also includes
that it is a fact and is born out by early colonial and anthropological
literature.

Captain John Smith bursts your idealistic bubble because he undermines your 
belief that the north American Indian believed in preserving biological 
diversity and ecosystem functioning.  His journal's are part of the early 
colonial and anthropological literature.  That, I am afraid, is a fact, and what
you wrote is not.

Quoth he:

"the Turkies, and other Beasts and Fowle, will exceedingly increase if we beat
the Salvages out of the Country, for all times of the yeere they never spare 
Male or Female, old nor young, eggs nor birds, fat or leane, in season nor out
of season with them all is one."
          -- Capt. John Smith (of Pocahontas fame).

Ourobouros.

Ourobouros.




From Ourobouros Tue Dec 31 12:17:26 PST 1996
Article: 41486 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!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!enews.sgi.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.immigration,alt.skinheads,alt.conspiracy,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson and miscegenation (was Re: More Facts Proving the Non-Existence of a "Pure White Race"
Date: 30 Dec 1996 11:31:17 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 174
Message-ID: <5a95a5$g7t@lex.zippo.com>
References:  <59ukbl$jgn@lex.zippo.com>  <5a3udu$4d4@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port855-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.discrimination:59467 alt.politics.white-power:54165 alt.politics.nationalism.white:41486 alt.skinheads:47039 alt.conspiracy:126323 alt.religion.islam:37642

In article , holman@elo.helsinki.fi says...
>
>In article <5a3udu$4d4@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>holman@elo.helsinki.fi says...
>> >
>
>> >My "facts" about Thomas Jefferson are generally acknowledged by his
>> >biographers and historians. You can check them out at the Monticello
>> >website at http://www.montivello.org. Monticello, as you might or might
>> >not know, was Jefferson's residence, and it is now maintained as a museum
>> >and historical monument. Unless you believe that the United States has
>> >been totally taken over by PC clones and Afrocentricist mythologists, you
>> >would want to work on the assumption that the people in charge of
>> >Monicello museum and website would not be interested in spreading false
>> >rumors about Thomas Jefferson, even if they would be interested in setting
>> >the historical record straight. For this reason, you might want to acquire
>> >the background necessary for making your own judgments about Thomas
>> >Jefferson and Sally Hemings by reading the two factsheets at the following
>> >URLs:
>> >www.monticello.org/Matters/people/hemings-jefferson_contro.html
>> >www.monticello.org/Matters/people/Sally_Hemings.html
>> >
>> The above web-site appears to be nonexistent.
>
>I just checked it out and it works fine: once again
>
>http://www.monticello.org/Matters/people/.Sally_Hemings.html
>
>If you have trouble accessing it directly, go to http://www.monticello.org
>and access it from the index.
>
Yes, I managed to access it this morning.
>
>> >You might also want to have a look at:
>> >James Hugo Johnston, *Race relations in Virginia & miscegenation in
>> >the South, 1776-1860*. Amherst, University of Massachusetts, Press, 1970.
>> >ISBN: 0870230506.
>> >
>> On the list of things to do.
>
>We appreciate that you have tried to access the website and are
>maintaining an open mind. That's a lot more than we can say for certain
>members of this newsgroup. (Bob, are you listening?)
>
It also doesn't support your emotive expressions that Thomas Jefferson sired
Sally Hemmings' children.  His daughter, Martha, said it was morally
impossible.  According to the site; Thomas Jefferson never defended any
character assassinations on his person, though one letter he wrote is believed
to denounce these accusations of concubinage.

>We most emphatically do *not* appreciate your unauthorized additions to
>our signature, i.e. "Master of Bullshit, Proficient liar" and request
>either proof or an explanation!
>
They suit the rest of your signature.

>> >Now, here are the facts, You can dispute them if you want, but the
>> >community of Jefferson scholars is in general agreement with respect to
>> >the following, which are more than enough to prove my thesis that a)
>> >Jefferson, by his actions (or inactions) condoned race-mixing as long as
>> >it was restricted to White men and Black women, b) the Jefferson household
>> >enriched the American gene pool with several quadraroons who eventually
>> >succeeded in 'passing for white' and thus 'polluting' the White gene pool.
>> >
>> Proof that these quadroons were accepted into the white family is needed.
>> 
>
>Actually, the case may be overstated by calling them 'quadroons', since
>Sally Hemings herself was evidently more White than Black, i.e. her mother
>was also the product of miscegenation. In any case, Sally Hemings was
>popularly described as 'a mulatto', and Jefferson (and/or his nephew) was
>White, so they were, to people who were not genealogically inclined,
>quadroons.
>
>"According to Jefferson's records, Sally Hemings had four surviving
>children. Beverly (b. 1798), a carpenter and fiddler, was allowed to leave
>the plantation in late 1821 or early 1822 and, according to his brother,
>passed into white
>society in Washington, D.C. Harriet (b. 1801), a spinner in Jefferson's
>textile shop, also left Monticello in 1821 or 1822, probably with her
>brother, and passed for white. Madison Hemings (1805-1878), a carpenter
>and joiner, was
>given his freedom in Jefferson's will; he resettled in southern Ohio in
>1836, where he worked at his trade and had a farm. Eston Hemings
>(1808-c1853), also a carpenter, moved to Chillicothe, Ohio, in the 1830s;
>there he was a
>well-known professional musician before moving about 1852 to Wisconsin,
>changing his name and his racial identity. Both Madison and Eston Hemings
>made known their belief that they were sons of Thomas Jefferson."
>
>Source: http://www.monticello.org/Matters/people/.Sally_Hemings.html
>
Saying they were, and actually being the sons of Jefferson are two different
things.  It is fully possible they were trying to jump on the bandwagon and
receive the benefits of being the children of Thomas Jefferson (hand-outs IOW).

Please stop writing ".../.Sally...", use ".../Sally..." instead.

>A well-researched, but fictional, account of the life of Harriet Hemings,
>and her ultimately successful attempt to enter Philadelphia society, not
>as the President's daughter, but as a White person, was written by Barbara
>Chase-Riboud: "The President's Daughter". If you read German, an
>interesting review of the book and the society which it reflects was
>recently published in *Der Tagesspiegel* and can be accessed at:
> 
>http://www.tagesspiegel.de/tsp_f/literatur/belle/chase.html
>
Ah, fictional...
>
>> Masters releasing their slaves on their death-beds and etc. was hardly a new
>> event.  The general reason was they performed good service throughout their
>> time serving their master.  To say he did it because of supposed paternity to
>> a Negress is jumping the gun.
>
>Jefferson died heavily in debt, and his property and slaves had to be
>auctioned off to cover them. It is remarkable that of all the 167 slaves
>in his possession when he died, only "[Madison] HemingsŠwas emancipated ­
>as were Sally's other surviving children (except two who had already
>escaped from slavery and apparently passed for white) - under Thomas
>Jeffersons will, when he reached the age of twenty-one."
>
>From: Conor Cruise O'Brien, 1996, *The Long Affair. Thomas Jefferson and
>the French Revolution, 1785-1800*, The University of Chicago Press.
>
>Relevant chapter available at:
>http://www1.psi.net/chapterone/cspan/browse/022-661-6533.html
>
As I stated above, slaves if they performed good service throughout their life
were often freed, if Miss Hemmings was old and decrepit then the benefits may
have been passed on to her children instead.
>
>Jefferson's special treatment of the progeny of Sally Hemings is by no
>means an ordinary event, nor is the fact that she was the person at his
>bedside when he died. Even the White branch of the Jefferson family admits
>that the Heming's children are kin, they just conveniently ascribe
>paternity to Jefferson's nephew Samuel [= the son of Jefferson's sister].
>
An interesting utilisation of words to make it sound more like they were the
sons of T. Jefferson.  Jefferson's nephew admitted he sired the children.

>The Jefferson-Hemings controversy sheds light on three undeniable facts:
>
>1. Miscegeneation between White Virginian males and Black slave women
>resulted in mixed race progeny. After two or three generations, many of
>these people were able to "pass for white", and did so. 
>
Unfortunately it would seem.  All the more reason for separation of races.

>2. Concerning the 'nature versus nurture' dispute with respect to Black
>and White intelligence, the Jefferson-Hemings relationship shows
>dramatically the different social starting points White and Black children
>had in American society a few generations ago. Jefferson's White children
>had the prestige and privilege that come naturally to presidential
>children. Although Jefferson did not succeed in leaving them a legacy, he
>left them with a name that opened many doors in 19th century American
>society. Jefferson's (or his nephew's, does it really matter?) Black
>children received only their freedom and racial characteristics that
>allowed them, using some ingenuity, to 'pass for white' once having fled
>to a milieu which was not so sensitive to the differences between marabou
>(5/8 White), quadroon, 3/4 White), and octoroon (7/8 White).
>
What was the point you were trying to make with intelligence, whatever it was,
it failed to come through above.
                                     
>3. The Hemings children are but one of innumerable examples of the manner
>in which many White American families, particularly if their roots are in
>the antebellum South, have Black lines and, often, more Black 'blood' in
>them than they suspect or want to know about.
>
I suspect that is how the Aryans were brought down as well.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Dec 31 23:20:23 PST 1996
Article: 41623 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!freenet.unbc.edu!news.scn.org!news.abs.net!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc-e!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.immigration,alt.skinheads,alt.conspiracy,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson and miscegenation (was Re: More Facts Proving the Non-Existence of a "Pure White Race"
Date: 31 Dec 1996 13:23:12 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <5ac080$t2t@lex.zippo.com>
References:  <59ukbl$jgn@lex.zippo.com>  <5a3udu$4d4@lex.zippo.com>  <5a95a5$g7t@lex.zippo.com> <5aamn3$gpk@keelung.transend.com.tw>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port880-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.discrimination:59520 alt.politics.white-power:54265 alt.politics.nationalism.white:41623 alt.skinheads:47169 alt.conspiracy:126658 alt.religion.islam:37703

In article <5aamn3$gpk@keelung.transend.com.tw>, jewIII@transend.com.tw says...
>
>In article <5a95a5$g7t@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>::It also doesn't support your emotive expressions that Thomas Jefferson sired
>::Sally Hemmings' children.  His daughter, Martha, said it was morally
>::impossible.  According to the site; Thomas Jefferson never defended any
>::character assassinations on his person, 
>::though one letter he wrote is believed 
>::to denounce these accusations of concubinage.
>
>Rather than mis-characterize what the site says, why don't you let us all go 
>there and read it ourselves. The site clearly says that no one knows this or 
>any other historical fact with certainty, that some, but not all, historians 
>regard Jefferson's parentage of Sally Hemming's children as proven. And that 
>is all that the poster ever said.
>
While he says one thing he *hints* at another.

>It probably distresses you to think about it (since it undermines your 
>prejudices). But, as you will have noted, if you have read the site reasonably 
>carefully, it is very clear that Sally Hemming was related to Tom Jefferson by 
>marriage, being the child of Jefferson's wife's father. And one of the ways 
>that "family resemblance was explained is that one of Thomas Jefferson's 
>nephews was the father of Sally Hemming's children.
>
The other point I was going to raise.  It is alleged (ie., not proven) that
Jefferson's father-in-law etc., etc.  It is also alleged that they looked
similar.

>So, whether Jefferson himself was guilty of raping a slave (and sex with a 
>slave is always rape, since the slave lacks the legal right to consent or to 
>deny consent), it is NO DOUBTED that Jefferson owned as slaves members of his 
>own family; i.e., his sister-in-law and his nephew's children.
>
No, it does not.  You cannot prove this relation, therefore you are talking 
hot air.

>I cannot see how that can make you feel better.
>
>And even if you wish to dispute these (rather more clearly established) 
>examples of the abuse of female slaves by slave owners, you MUST acknowledge 
>that this sort of thing was common throughout the South at the time. NO 
>historian would dare to deny this fact.
>
I don't deny female slaves were knocked up by their masters -- there are, 
afterall, ancient law codes dealing with the children of a female slave by her
master.  How much this occurred with Negresses I can no wise ascertain, nor can
you.  How many white men are turned on by Negresses would be another debate (I
for one am not).

Ourobouros.





From Ourobouros Tue Dec 31 23:20:24 PST 1996
Article: 41624 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!freenet.unbc.edu!news.scn.org!news.abs.net!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc-e!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.immigration,alt.skinheads,alt.conspiracy,alt.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson and miscegenation (was Re: More Facts Proving the Non-Existence of a "Pure White Race"
Date: 31 Dec 1996 13:54:05 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 182
Message-ID: <5ac21t$12m@lex.zippo.com>
References:  <59ukbl$jgn@lex.zippo.com>  <5a3udu$4d4@lex.zippo.com>  <5a95a5$g7t@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port880-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.discrimination:59521 alt.politics.white-power:54266 alt.politics.nationalism.white:41624 alt.skinheads:47170 alt.conspiracy:126659 alt.religion.islam:37704

In article , holman@elo.helsinki.fi says...
>
>In article <5a95a5$g7t@lex.zippo.com>, Ourobouros wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>holman@elo.helsinki.fi says...
>
>> >
>> >We appreciate that you have tried to access the website and are
>> >maintaining an open mind. That's a lot more than we can say for certain
>> >members of this newsgroup. (Bob, are you listening?)
>> >
>> It also doesn't support your emotive expressions that Thomas Jefferson sired
>> Sally Hemmings' children.  His daughter, Martha, said it was morally
>> impossible.  According to the site; Thomas Jefferson never defended any
>> character assassinations on his person, though one letter he wrote is believed
>> to denounce these accusations of concubinage.
>
>We never claimed, emotively or otherwise, that Thomas Jefferson fathered
>Sally Hemings' children. Historians are in disagreement about how to
>interpret the evidence, and far be it from us to secondguess the
>historians. Our non-emotive stanceis appropriate because it is so obvious 
>that, whatever the details of the Hemings childrens' paternity, Thomas 
>Jefferson condoned both race mixing and its results in his household.
>
It is generally well known for fathers to make special exceptions to his
children than he might otherwise do.  In this example, miscegenation.
>> 
>> >We most emphatically do *not* appreciate your unauthorized additions to
>> >our signature, i.e. "Master of Bullshit, Proficient liar" and request
>> >either proof or an explanation!
>> >
>> They suit the rest of your signature.
>
>Now you just wait one kiwi-chasing minute. Let us examine our signature.
>
>*We have spoken*.  In cyberspace the meanings of 'speak' and 'write' have
>merged. There is nothing incorrect about our terminating our effusions
>with these words.
>
Nothing wrong so far, except for "we" -- you are not of royal personage.

>*Eugene the Curly-headed*   You have seen our picture and know that what
>is left of our hair is curly.
>
No problem.

>*King of alt.politics.white-power*   Self-appointed as most truly
>effective kings are, we, modestly, suggest that our participation in this
>newsgroup has, at least, raised the level of discussion from what it was
>when Les Griswold was village elder.
>
Big problem, you are no king, and most (effective or not) kings are not self 
appointed.

>*Protector of our Aryan heritage*    We are aware of the contributions
>which the historical Aryans have made to world civilization and, having
>benefited immensely from them, we do our best to protect this heritage.
>The concept of zero immediately springs to mind.
>
You seem rather to be trying to destroy it.  The Aryans were very racially
minded, and you want Blacks to be fully accepted into Western civilisations.

>*Defender of the English language*   As a person whose primary profession
>is the teaching of English to speakers of a non-Indo-European language, we
>have been accorded an unusually heavy responsibility. Our more than 10,000
>satisfied former students in Finland, Estonia, Russia, Ukraine and other
>places would be hgappy to testify that we have not only defended, but also
>embellished the English language, in addition to providing it with
>incalculable numbers of new and potential second-language speakers (the
>majority of our students have become English teachers).
>
Fair enough.

>*Scourge of racial purity*     This threasd about Thomas Jefferson has
>demonsrtated beyond all reasonable doubt that I am a scourge of racial
>purity.
>
Yes, you seem pro-mixing.
>
>*Nabob of Nordicity*      Having published textbooks and other teaching
>materials for the Nordic languages Finnish, Swedish, and Estonian, we see
>nothing inappropriate in this title.
>
>*Scholar of Scandinavianicity*     Having taught at a department of
>Scandinavian Studies and translated numerous publications and books,
>primarily from Finnish and Swedish, we have full right to this title.
>
>
>*etc. etc. etc.*    Our Japanese haikus, translations from the Russian,
>expertise in the field of Handel studies, films, correspondence in Latin,
>computer progams, and mathematical modeling techniques, to mention but a
>few of the activities for which we have received commendations and
>recognition, sometimes international, are such, that we prefer to hide
>them in this convential fashion.
>
>> >
>> Saying they were, and actually being the sons of Jefferson are two different
>> things.  It is fully possible they were trying to jump on the bandwagon and
>> receive the benefits of being the children of Thomas Jefferson
>(hand-outs IOW).
>
>Madson didn't 'go public' until he was an  old man. Rather than receive
>any benefits, his motive was probably to set the historical record
>straight before he died.
>
Or a pension.

[snip]

>> >
>> As I stated above, slaves if they performed good service throughout their life
>> were often freed, if Miss Hemmings was old and decrepit then the benefits may
>> have been passed on to her children instead.
>
>Yes, there's no doubt about Sally Hemings having performed good 'service'
>to someone in the Jefferson household.
>
I just knew you'd take it the wrong way.  It is highly plausible that she
rendered good service to Jefferson's daughter and thereby insuring her own
release or rather her children release on her master's death bed.
>
>> >The Jefferson-Hemings controversy sheds light on three undeniable facts:
>> >
>> >1. Miscegeneation between White Virginian males and Black slave women
>> >resulted in mixed race progeny. After two or three generations, many of
>> >these people were able to "pass for white", and did so. 
>> >
>> Unfortunately it would seem.  All the more reason for separation of races.
>
>As you yourself are forced to admit, it's too late.
>
Maybe not.  The sooner we can act the better.
>> 
>> >2. Concerning the 'nature versus nurture' dispute with respect to Black
>> >and White intelligence, the Jefferson-Hemings relationship shows
>> >dramatically the different social starting points White and Black children
>> >had in American society a few generations ago. Jefferson's White children
>> >had the prestige and privilege that come naturally to presidential
>> >children. Although Jefferson did not succeed in leaving them a legacy, he
>> >left them with a name that opened many doors in 19th century American
>> >society. Jefferson's (or his nephew's, does it really matter?) Black
>> >children received only their freedom and racial characteristics that
>> >allowed them, using some ingenuity, to 'pass for white' once having fled
>> >to a milieu which was not so sensitive to the differences between marabou
>> >(5/8 White), quadroon, 3/4 White), and octoroon (7/8 White).
>> >
>> What was the point you were trying to make with intelligence, whatever it was,
>> it failed to come through above.
>
>Let us agree that a Black and White child of the same father share at
>least 50% of their genetic heritage. Our point was that a 'White child' of
>Thomas Jefferson had a terrific springboard, having been born White *and*
>the child of the (ex-)President. The combination of these two factors
>would open many otherwise inaccessible doors. A 'Black child' of Thomas
>Jefferson would probably not be recognized, or if recognized, would be
>resented, by the community as such, and would probably have to devote an
>inordinate amount of the energy and intellect which was part of its
>heritage, to making him or herself acceptable to the White community. The
>White child would appear more intelligent, because its starting point was
>at a place which was only attainable by considerable effort on the part of
>the 'Black' child.
>
All you are suggesting is survival traits, this does not necessarily include
high intelligence.
>>                                      
>> >3. The Hemings children are but one of innumerable examples of the manner
>> >in which many White American families, particularly if their roots are in
>> >the antebellum South, have Black lines and, often, more Black 'blood' in
>> >them than they suspect or want to know about.
>> >
>> I suspect that is how the Aryans were brought down as well.
>
>Maybe so, but you seem now to grudgingly agree with us that race mixing,
>at least with respect to the American South, was a common occurrence. We
>hope that you see that one of the traditions which White American males
>fought so gallantly to defend in the American Civil War was free and
>unrestricted sexual access to Black females.
>
I doubt it was common.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Dec 31 23:20:25 PST 1996
Article: 41625 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!info.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!news.sgi.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc-e!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Nova: Indians Exterminated Mammoth, Horse, etc.
Date: 31 Dec 1996 12:37:43 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <5abtin$r7q@lex.zippo.com>
References: <5abgcb$ng8@bolt.sonic.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port863-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.rush-limbaugh:124944 alt.politics.nationalism.white:41625 alt.politics.white-power:54267 talk.environment:48573

In article <5abgcb$ng8@bolt.sonic.net>, rahubby@sonic.net says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>: Quoth he:
>: "the Turkies, and other Beasts and Fowle, will exceedingly increase if we beat
>: the Salvages out of the Country, for all times of the yeere they never spare 
>: Male or Female, old nor young, eggs nor birds, fat or leane, in season nor out
>: of season with them all is one."
>:           -- Capt. John Smith (of Pocahontas fame).
>
>Captain Smith's writings should be taken with a whole shakerfull of salt. He
>was prone to excessive drink and boastfull bragging. (Just one example: The
>supposed episode with Pocahontas (Saving him from being whacked with a club
>in some sort of ritual) was written in his journal as a "recollection" many
>years after the fact, when she was already famous (and deceased, if memory
>serves...))
>
>R.A.H. Elf of the redwoods, Sonoma Valley, Breakfast Cereal Country.
>     "What do you want from us...WE'RE EVIL!" - Dr. Clayton Forester (& Frank)

Ah yes, the "it doesn't fit into my narrow view therefore it must be wrong"
argument.

Could we have some examples of excessive drinking and boastful bragging or are
you just full of hot air?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Dec 31 23:20:26 PST 1996
Article: 41626 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!info.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!news.sgi.com!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc-e!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Nova: Indians Exterminated Mammoth, Horse, etc.
Date: 31 Dec 1996 12:42:50 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <5abtsa$rbl@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbec8e$1c6df520$f4cdaec7@default> <599ug2$ivg@lex.zippo.com>  <59asja$407@lex.zippo.com> <59c291$1rs@news1.ucsd.edu> <59c60o$2tk@lex.zippo.com>  <59f58e$rh3@lex.zippo.com>  <5a3v8k$4sl@lex.zippo.com>  <5a9s8o$48i@lex.zippo.com> <5abc3q$bg3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port863-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.rush-limbaugh:124945 alt.politics.nationalism.white:41626 alt.politics.white-power:54268 talk.environment:48574

In article <5abc3q$bg3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>Captain John Smith bursts your idealistic bubble because he undermines your 
>>belief that the north American Indian believed in preserving biological 
>>diversity and ecosystem functioning.  His journal's are part of the early 
>>colonial and anthropological literature.  That, I am afraid, is a fact, and what
>>you wrote is not.
>
>>Quoth he:
>
>>"the Turkies, and other Beasts and Fowle, will exceedingly increase if we beat
>>the Salvages out of the Country, for all times of the yeere they never spare 
>>Male or Female, old nor young, eggs nor birds, fat or leane, in season nor out
>>of season with them all is one."
>>          -- Capt. John Smith (of Pocahontas fame).
>
>
>Do you have any idea how many different native groups existed in North America
>in 1600?  How many of these did John Smith directly observe?  How frequently
>did he observe their behaviours?  Did you know that at the moment of European
>colonisation, the indigeneous systems in many parts of the North America,
>but especially along the eastern seaboard, were radically transformed because
>of epidemic disease?
>
>This single quotation provides some support for your case, Sr. Comecola, but
>it is not an adequate empirical basis for the sort of sweeping generalisation
>you are endeavoring to make.
>
"Sr. Comecola"?

I understand your points above.  Captain John Smith only really investigated
(dwelt/researched) the NA Indians around his locality (Jamestown).  But, on
saying this, do you have any (early colonial and anthropological literature)
that goes against Captain John Smith's journals?

Ourobouros.
 


From Ourobouros Tue Dec 31 23:20:27 PST 1996
Article: 41627 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!info.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!news.sgi.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc-e!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Nova: Indians Exterminated Mammoth, Horse, etc.
Date: 31 Dec 1996 13:09:36 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 186
Message-ID: <5abveg$sd0@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbec8e$1c6df520$f4cdaec7@default> <599ug2$ivg@lex.zippo.com>  <59asja$407@lex.zippo.com> <59c291$1rs@news1.ucsd.edu> <59c60o$2tk@lex.zippo.com>  <59f58e$rh3@lex.zippo.com>  <5a3v8k$4sl@lex.zippo.com>  <5a9s8o$48i@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port863-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.rush-limbaugh:124946 alt.politics.nationalism.white:41627 alt.politics.white-power:54269 talk.environment:48575

In article , "D. says...
>
>
>
>On 30 Dec 1996, it was written:
>
>> In article , "D. says...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On 28 Dec 1996, it was written:
>> >
>> >> In article , "D. says...
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>> >> >Ignorant fool.
>> >> >
>> >> Well then, your statement condemns you, if what you are saying is so abundant
>> >> then we should see a lot of disproofs to my arguments, but all you have really
>> >> done is call me ignorant.  Saying so doesn't make it so.  If you can't find
>> >> this magic knowledge then it is you that is the ignorant fool, afterall you
>> >> haven't read Captain John Smith's journals.
>> >> 
>> >> Ourobouros.
>> >> 
>> >
>> >Why not tell the world first, what my "idealistic bubble" is, with factual
>> >underpinnings, and second, how Smith's journals puncture it? Otherwise,
>> >this post is retired, from my perspective anyway.
>> >
>> 
>> Did you, or did you not, write the following?:
>> 
>> "You might also keep in mind that many native culture's philosophies did, and 
>> do, in fact support preserving biological diversity and ecosystem functioning, 
>> much more than the various ethics of the europeans that settled North America.  
>> This is a fact; read some early colonial and anthropological literature."
>
>Yes. I still stand behind it 100%
>
You didn't read my quote of Captain John Smith did you?  Early colonial and
anthropological literature doesn't uphold your closed-mind.

>> On the assumption that you did in fact write the above this is your idealistic
>> bubble.  One that assumes that many native culture's philosophies believe in
>> preserving biological diversity and ecosystem functioning.  It also includes
>> that it is a fact and is born out by early colonial and anthropological
>> literature.
>
>I see.  What about the next 300 years of anthropological and ecological 
>literature? 
>
Are we talking about early colonial and anthropological literature or were we
not?

I somehow doubt this romantic view of the NA Indians didn't arrive until this
past century.  It would be my guess that the next 200 years of anthropological
literature doesn't support your view either, only the last 100 years have.

>Item: The tribes between the Rockies and Cascades regularly burned the
>lower elevation forests, producing open stands that eased travel, hunting,
>and increased the availability of edible plants. Europeans arrived; they 
>overgrazed this area with sheep and cattle, an area which never had
>buffalo.  The ecosystems had not developed with intensive grazing. From
>early in this century on, the damage has been readily apparent: the
>perennial native grasses have mostly died out, which used to carry light,
>frequent fires, some of which the Natives set, and some of which were
>caused by lightning.  The bare earth became a ready seedbed for a dense
>understory of trees, which developed unimpeded because of the absence of
>fire. However, these forests have become inflamable since about WWII, due
>to the change in structure. What bark beetle or intense crown fires, more
>widespread than before, have not removed from the larger diameter classes, 
>logging has.  This entire region is now covered by overly dense, slow
>growing, beetle and crown fire prone forest. We did it. There are a few
>areas which resemble the old forests---these retained the
>frequent fire regime, by accident or design. 
>
This does not prove that the NA Indians were innately conservationists.

>Item:  The Columbia River basin once had salmon runs in the tens of
>millions, and now has a few million, and many fewer stocks. Dams were the
>main culprit.
>
This does not prove that the NA Indians were innately conservationists.

>Item: Native religions all offered respect for the animals, plants, water,
>rocks etc.; there is no parallel in European religion. In fact, just the
>opposite is the case.
>
Define respect.

>These are simple, well founded areas of knowledge, and not some kind of
>mythological romantic bubble, or whatever you call it. Of course, one
>could argue that had the Natives developed an industrial economy, they
>would have followed the same course we did.  I don't think so. To do
>this, they would have had to toss 15,000 years of hands-on knowledge and
>religous and philosophical belief.  That some tribes currently
>"appear" to use resoures and consume products as we do does not prove
>much.  First, Natives still retain much of their culture, which is amazing
>given our efforts to stamp it out.  Second, what is now observed is
>activity by the remnants of tribes, who have been pushed onto scraps of
>former territory, and are desperate for a livlihood.  Third, there is
>division among tribal members between the "old ways", and melding with the
>dominant culture; this is strong evidence for the fact that the old ways,
>including views on the place of humans in the world, are still around,
>even in the face of other opportunities.  Fourth, you apparently believe
>that if a Native buys a pick-up, or takes a job in a lumber mill, he has
>decided to chuck his culture. This assessment is a bit arrogant on your
>part.  
>
Please prove number four.

>Some questions.
>
>Have you ever attended a pow wow, and observed the dancing? Have
>you ever actually talked to a native person about his life? I doubt it.
>Do you view Natives who have "modernized" (basically all in the US) as
>being either hypocrites, in still retaining their cultural beliefs, or 
>as people without their old beliefs? Why should the two be mutually
>exclusive? Do you believe they are, because you hate the idea of
>sustainable development, held by many people (you call them
>environmantalists), and so need to denigrate the foundations of the idea,
>as found in historic or surviving Native cultural beliefs and practices?
>
I have never attended a pow wow (I live in New Zealand).  I have talked to a
NA Indian about her life, one of her beliefs was that all people should be put
to death at the age of sixty, she had other similar beliefs as well.  Pass on
your third and fourth question, as they are hardly relevant.  I don't denigrate
their native and original culture at all.  I would say they have evolved their
beliefs to make them more open to hand-outs and charities and etc.

>This of course, is not the only foundation for sustainable development;
>this concept also is based on the ecological and biological literature,
>as well the belief that western culture is on a trajectory of
>increasing consumption, and degrading environmental quality. This last bit
>is certainly a value judgement (not all of us look forward to living in
>lunar or Martian colonies), but it can be scientifically quantified with
>testable hypotheses. 
>
Please prove the NA Indians kept this mythological view in modern literature.
 
>> Captain John Smith bursts your idealistic bubble because he undermines your 
>> belief that the north American Indian believed in preserving biological 
>> diversity and ecosystem functioning.  His journal's are part of the early 
>> colonial and anthropological literature.  That, I am afraid, is a fact, and what
>> you wrote is not.
>
>The empirical evidence for this not being the case was in the state of
>North America when we happened across it, and in the anthropological
>literature written since that time.  Somehow you ignore all tyhis in order
>to make a propaganda point, on how whites "romanticise Indians" if they
>happen to mention aspects of thie culture. What is your point, anyway? To
>attempt to negate 15,000 years of Native culture by saying that it didn't
>exist? (I'm not convinced)  To attempt to discredit people who find some
>value in the Native world view, in the context of sustainable living? (I'm
>not convinced either).  To display your milimeter deep scholarship,
>"proving" that "Indians" (all?) were just as rapacious and short-sighted
>as the Europeans? (I am entirely convinced of this).
>
The point of it all, is that the NA Indian isn't what he is cracked up to be. 
As Rad pointed out earlier; the NA Indian wiped a horse, a camel and three
varieties of ground sloths (plus probably more species).  

>		Dave Braun
>
>> 
>> Quoth he:
>> 
>> "the Turkies, and other Beasts and Fowle, will exceedingly increase if we beat
>> the Salvages out of the Country, for all times of the yeere they never spare 
>> Male or Female, old nor young, eggs nor birds, fat or leane, in season nor out
>> of season with them all is one."
>>           -- Capt. John Smith (of Pocahontas fame).
>
>
>And? Usually when one is making such sweeping indictments as yours, one
>relies on more than one source, and also validates historical writings
>with contemporary ones which viewed the same events. You fail on both
>counts.
>
You asserted that early colonial and anthropological literature supports your
idealogy of NA Indians, I, on the other hand, only need to demonstrate one 
piece of literature to disprove *YOUR* sweeping statement.

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Dec 31 23:20:36 PST 1996
Article: 54267 of alt.politics.white-power
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!info.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!news.sgi.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc-e!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Nova: Indians Exterminated Mammoth, Horse, etc.
Date: 31 Dec 1996 12:37:43 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <5abtin$r7q@lex.zippo.com>
References: <5abgcb$ng8@bolt.sonic.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port863-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.rush-limbaugh:124944 alt.politics.nationalism.white:41625 alt.politics.white-power:54267 talk.environment:48573

In article <5abgcb$ng8@bolt.sonic.net>, rahubby@sonic.net says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>: Quoth he:
>: "the Turkies, and other Beasts and Fowle, will exceedingly increase if we beat
>: the Salvages out of the Country, for all times of the yeere they never spare 
>: Male or Female, old nor young, eggs nor birds, fat or leane, in season nor out
>: of season with them all is one."
>:           -- Capt. John Smith (of Pocahontas fame).
>
>Captain Smith's writings should be taken with a whole shakerfull of salt. He
>was prone to excessive drink and boastfull bragging. (Just one example: The
>supposed episode with Pocahontas (Saving him from being whacked with a club
>in some sort of ritual) was written in his journal as a "recollection" many
>years after the fact, when she was already famous (and deceased, if memory
>serves...))
>
>R.A.H. Elf of the redwoods, Sonoma Valley, Breakfast Cereal Country.
>     "What do you want from us...WE'RE EVIL!" - Dr. Clayton Forester (& Frank)

Ah yes, the "it doesn't fit into my narrow view therefore it must be wrong"
argument.

Could we have some examples of excessive drinking and boastful bragging or are
you just full of hot air?

Ourobouros.


From Ourobouros Tue Dec 31 23:20:37 PST 1996
Article: 54268 of alt.politics.white-power
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!info.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!news.sgi.com!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc-e!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Nova: Indians Exterminated Mammoth, Horse, etc.
Date: 31 Dec 1996 12:42:50 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <5abtsa$rbl@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbec8e$1c6df520$f4cdaec7@default> <599ug2$ivg@lex.zippo.com>  <59asja$407@lex.zippo.com> <59c291$1rs@news1.ucsd.edu> <59c60o$2tk@lex.zippo.com>  <59f58e$rh3@lex.zippo.com>  <5a3v8k$4sl@lex.zippo.com>  <5a9s8o$48i@lex.zippo.com> <5abc3q$bg3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port863-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.rush-limbaugh:124945 alt.politics.nationalism.white:41626 alt.politics.white-power:54268 talk.environment:48574

In article <5abc3q$bg3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura says...
>
>Ourobouros wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>Captain John Smith bursts your idealistic bubble because he undermines your 
>>belief that the north American Indian believed in preserving biological 
>>diversity and ecosystem functioning.  His journal's are part of the early 
>>colonial and anthropological literature.  That, I am afraid, is a fact, and what
>>you wrote is not.
>
>>Quoth he:
>
>>"the Turkies, and other Beasts and Fowle, will exceedingly increase if we beat
>>the Salvages out of the Country, for all times of the yeere they never spare 
>>Male or Female, old nor young, eggs nor birds, fat or leane, in season nor out
>>of season with them all is one."
>>          -- Capt. John Smith (of Pocahontas fame).
>
>
>Do you have any idea how many different native groups existed in North America
>in 1600?  How many of these did John Smith directly observe?  How frequently
>did he observe their behaviours?  Did you know that at the moment of European
>colonisation, the indigeneous systems in many parts of the North America,
>but especially along the eastern seaboard, were radically transformed because
>of epidemic disease?
>
>This single quotation provides some support for your case, Sr. Comecola, but
>it is not an adequate empirical basis for the sort of sweeping generalisation
>you are endeavoring to make.
>
"Sr. Comecola"?

I understand your points above.  Captain John Smith only really investigated
(dwelt/researched) the NA Indians around his locality (Jamestown).  But, on
saying this, do you have any (early colonial and anthropological literature)
that goes against Captain John Smith's journals?

Ourobouros.
 


From Ourobouros Tue Dec 31 23:20:39 PST 1996
Article: 54269 of alt.politics.white-power
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!info.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!news.sgi.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc-e!zippo!drn
From: Ourobouros
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Nova: Indians Exterminated Mammoth, Horse, etc.
Date: 31 Dec 1996 13:09:36 -0800
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Lines: 186
Message-ID: <5abveg$sd0@lex.zippo.com>
References: <01bbec8e$1c6df520$f4cdaec7@default> <599ug2$ivg@lex.zippo.com>  <59asja$407@lex.zippo.com> <59c291$1rs@news1.ucsd.edu> <59c60o$2tk@lex.zippo.com>  <59f58e$rh3@lex.zippo.com>  <5a3v8k$4sl@lex.zippo.com>  <5a9s8o$48i@lex.zippo.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: port863-auck.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.rush-limbaugh:124946 alt.politics.nationalism.white:41627 alt.politics.white-power:54269 talk.environment:48575

In article , "D. says...
>
>
>
>On 30 Dec 1996, it was written:
>
>> In article , "D. says...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On 28 Dec 1996, it was written:
>> >
>> >> In article , "D. says...
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>> >> >Ignorant fool.
>> >> >
>> >> Well then, your statement condemns you, if what you are saying is so abundant
>> >> then we should see a lot of disproofs to my arguments, but all you have really
>> >> done is call me ignorant.  Saying so doesn't make it so.  If you can't find
>> >> this magic knowledge then it is you that is the ignorant fool, afterall you
>> >> haven't read Captain John Smith's journals.
>> >> 
>> >> Ourobouros.
>> >> 
>> >
>> >Why not tell the world first, what my "idealistic bubble" is, with factual
>> >underpinnings, and second, how Smith's journals puncture it? Otherwise,
>> >this post is retired, from my perspective anyway.
>> >
>> 
>> Did you, or did you not, write the following?:
>> 
>> "You might also keep in mind that many native culture's philosophies did, and 
>> do, in fact support preserving biological diversity and ecosystem functioning, 
>> much more than the various ethics of the europeans that settled North America.  
>> This is a fact; read some early colonial and anthropological literature."
>
>Yes. I still stand behind it 100%
>
You didn't read my quote of Captain John Smith did you?  Early colonial and
anthropological literature doesn't uphold your closed-mind.

>> On the assumption that you did in fact write the above this is your idealistic
>> bubble.  One that assumes that many native culture's philosophies believe in
>> preserving biological diversity and ecosystem functioning.  It also includes
>> that it is a fact and is born out by early colonial and anthropological
>> literature.
>
>I see.  What about the next 300 years of anthropological and ecological 
>literature? 
>
Are we talking about early colonial and anthropological literature or were we
not?

I somehow doubt this romantic view of the NA Indians didn't arrive until this
past century.  It would be my guess that the next 200 years of anthropological
literature doesn't support your view either, only the last 100 years have.

>Item: The tribes between the Rockies and Cascades regularly burned the
>lower elevation forests, producing open stands that eased travel, hunting,
>and increased the availability of edible plants. Europeans arrived; they 
>overgrazed this area with sheep and cattle, an area which never had
>buffalo.  The ecosystems had not developed with intensive grazing. From
>early in this century on, the damage has been readily apparent: the
>perennial native grasses have mostly died out, which used to carry light,
>frequent fires, some of which the Natives set, and some of which were
>caused by lightning.  The bare earth became a ready seedbed for a dense
>understory of trees, which developed unimpeded because of the absence of
>fire. However, these forests have become inflamable since about WWII, due
>to the change in structure. What bark beetle or intense crown fires, more
>widespread than before, have not removed from the larger diameter classes, 
>logging has.  This entire region is now covered by overly dense, slow
>growing, beetle and crown fire prone forest. We did it. There are a few
>areas which resemble the old forests---these retained the
>frequent fire regime, by accident or design. 
>
This does not prove that the NA Indians were innately conservationists.

>Item:  The Columbia River basin once had salmon runs in the tens of
>millions, and now has a few million, and many fewer stocks. Dams were the
>main culprit.
>
This does not prove that the NA Indians were innately conservationists.

>Item: Native religions all offered respect for the animals, plants, water,
>rocks etc.; there is no parallel in European religion. In fact, just the
>opposite is the case.
>
Define respect.

>These are simple, well founded areas of knowledge, and not some kind of
>mythological romantic bubble, or whatever you call it. Of course, one
>could argue that had the Natives developed an industrial economy, they
>would have followed the same course we did.  I don't think so. To do
>this, they would have had to toss 15,000 years of hands-on knowledge and
>religous and philosophical belief.  That some tribes currently
>"appear" to use resoures and consume products as we do does not prove
>much.  First, Natives still retain much of their culture, which is amazing
>given our efforts to stamp it out.  Second, what is now observed is
>activity by the remnants of tribes, who have been pushed onto scraps of
>former territory, and are desperate for a livlihood.  Third, there is
>division among tribal members between the "old ways", and melding with the
>dominant culture; this is strong evidence for the fact that the old ways,
>including views on the place of humans in the world, are still around,
>even in the face of other opportunities.  Fourth, you apparently believe
>that if a Native buys a pick-up, or takes a job in a lumber mill, he has
>decided to chuck his culture. This assessment is a bit arrogant on your
>part.  
>
Please prove number four.

>Some questions.
>
>Have you ever attended a pow wow, and observed the dancing? Have
>you ever actually talked to a native person about his life? I doubt it.
>Do you view Natives who have "modernized" (basically all in the US) as
>being either hypocrites, in still retaining their cultural beliefs, or 
>as people without their old beliefs? Why should the two be mutually
>exclusive? Do you believe they are, because you hate the idea of
>sustainable development, held by many people (you call them
>environmantalists), and so need to denigrate the foundations of the idea,
>as found in historic or surviving Native cultural beliefs and practices?
>
I have never attended a pow wow (I live in New Zealand).  I have talked to a
NA Indian about her life, one of her beliefs was that all people should be put
to death at the age of sixty, she had other similar beliefs as well.  Pass on
your third and fourth question, as they are hardly relevant.  I don't denigrate
their native and original culture at all.  I would say they have evolved their
beliefs to make them more open to hand-outs and charities and etc.

>This of course, is not the only foundation for sustainable development;
>this concept also is based on the ecological and biological literature,
>as well the belief that western culture is on a trajectory of
>increasing consumption, and degrading environmental quality. This last bit
>is certainly a value judgement (not all of us look forward to living in
>lunar or Martian colonies), but it can be scientifically quantified with
>testable hypotheses. 
>
Please prove the NA Indians kept this mythological view in modern literature.
 
>> Captain John Smith bursts your idealistic bubble because he undermines your 
>> belief that the north American Indian believed in preserving biological 
>> diversity and ecosystem functioning.  His journal's are part of the early 
>> colonial and anthropological literature.  That, I am afraid, is a fact, and what
>> you wrote is not.
>
>The empirical evidence for this not being the case was in the state of
>North America when we happened across it, and in the anthropological
>literature written since that time.  Somehow you ignore all tyhis in order
>to make a propaganda point, on how whites "romanticise Indians" if they
>happen to mention aspects of thie culture. What is your point, anyway? To
>attempt to negate 15,000 years of Native culture by saying that it didn't
>exist? (I'm not convinced)  To attempt to discredit people who find some
>value in the Native world view, in the context of sustainable living? (I'm
>not convinced either).  To display your milimeter deep scholarship,
>"proving" that "Indians" (all?) were just as rapacious and short-sighted
>as the Europeans? (I am entirely convinced of this).
>
The point of it all, is that the NA Indian isn't what he is cracked up to be. 
As Rad pointed out earlier; the NA Indian wiped a horse, a camel and three
varieties of ground sloths (plus probably more species).  

>		Dave Braun
>
>> 
>> Quoth he:
>> 
>> "the Turkies, and other Beasts and Fowle, will exceedingly increase if we beat
>> the Salvages out of the Country, for all times of the yeere they never spare 
>> Male or Female, old nor young, eggs nor birds, fat or leane, in season nor out
>> of season with them all is one."
>>           -- Capt. John Smith (of Pocahontas fame).
>
>
>And? Usually when one is making such sweeping indictments as yours, one
>relies on more than one source, and also validates historical writings
>with contemporary ones which viewed the same events. You fail on both
>counts.
>
You asserted that early colonial and anthropological literature supports your
idealogy of NA Indians, I, on the other hand, only need to demonstrate one 
piece of literature to disprove *YOUR* sweeping statement.

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.