Derek Bell writes:
In <[email protected]> [email protected]
>
>Aryan Crusader writes:
>>Well, folks, I’m still working on my essay about the Jews.
>
> I’m sure that the world of scholarship is holding its collective
>breath – not!
>
>>I’ve looked and looked, and I can’t find anything against Jews in
general (I
>>don’t accept John 8:44). The only argument against them, as a group,
is
>>that they are genetically or culturally incompatible with Western
>>Christian civilization. However, Ygg reports that they have a 70%
>>intermarriage (race-mixing) rate, which has or will soon alter any
>>genetic incompatibility.
>
> “Genetically or culturally incompatible”? Where did you get that
from??
>As for Yggdrasil, I would take what he says with several tonnes of
NaCl.
>
> You are preoccupied with genes!
>
> Where is Yggdrasil anyway?
>
>>My preliminary conclusion, then, is that Jews are not a problem, only
a
>>few elites — elites even among the Jewish population. I suspect
that
>>when my comrades speak of the “Jewish problem” they are refering to
>>these elites. If I am wrong, I would appreciate someone pointing out
my
>>error.
>
> Well, none of the following have a name that is remotely
>stereotypically Jewish: Clinton, Gore, Bush, Quayle, Reagan, Carter,
Ford,
>Nixon, Agnew, Johnson, Kennedy.
>
> Or are you talking about the Illuminati? Fnord!!!
>
>>But if I’m right, then I suggest a new strategy for combatting these
>>enemies of White America. Publicly, we should only refer to them by
>>name, not race. If I write that Abe Cooper, Laurence Tisch, and Dave
>>Strassler are teaming up to destroy America and say why, people might
>>listen.
> Yeah, you may even get sued by the people you name!!!
> That may not be such a bad idea! Say what you like about them,
I’m
>sure the lawsuits will make life very interesting for you!
>
>>But if I write that ZOG is destroying America and say why, people
>>will pre-judge me as a raving anti-semite.
>
> No shit?!!
>
>>Please give me some feedback on this one.
>
> You’re a raving anti-semite.
Reuben sounds to *me* that he is an
ex-raving anti-semite, or well maybe an
raving ex-anti-semite. He is now
renouncing the idea that the perfidy of
Jews is in their genes and that, indeed,
the real interests of Jews are being betrayed
by both their own supposed leaders and
some so-far unnamed global elite that
consists of both Jews and Gentiles.
He should drop mention of ZOG and
use S-FUGOG for now and a better name
when he does name the group. Or better
yet, speak of misty things like
Zeitgeist or “climate of opinion” rather
than personifications like Occupational
Gummint.
The moral is that it takes a while for
a raving ex-anti-semite to shed all his
old terminology, like ZOG, and develop
new ones. Or if he becomes an
ex-raver, to see the world more in
impersonal processes than in conspiracies.
As for his preoccupation with genes, you’d
better ask him that again.
Frank
From [email protected] Fri Aug 11 11:15:39 PDT 1995
Article: 31062 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!
netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Adolf Hitler – Racist?
Date: 12 Aug 1995 15:35:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <807920465snz@abaron.demon.co.uk> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc8-11.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:31062 alt.politics.nationalism.white:12312 alt.politics.white-power:11968
My server has evidently not delivered all the
postings on this thread, but it seems to me
that we need agreement on the meaning of
“racist.” In the last quote from Hitler,
he says he is free of racial hatred but that
he is opposed to racial intermarriage. I
take this to mean that he thinks man’s
divisions into races is a splendid thing. So
this makes him pro-race. On this account,
someone who wanted to exterminate all races
but one would not be a racist, as would someone
who wanted to make the world into one race by
repeated race-mixing.
You may be confusing racism with a belief in
the superiority of one particular race. That is
quite compatible with wanting other races on
the globe.
Question for you: why is “the present enemy the
white racists and nationalists”? And enemy to
whom? I think the greatest enemy *to* lovers of
big gummint are the folks who are inventing
methods of encryptioning the transfer of money
so that tax collectors can’t get their cotton-
pickin’ hands on it. How nationalists could
have a nation without taxes is beyond me.
Frank
[message reproduced below, unchanged]
In <40c7n7[email protected]> [email protected] (John
Morris) writes:
>
>I feel certain that many of our white racist and nationalist readers
>have put up with Alexander Baron’s maunderings, since they keep me and
>my kind busy trying to keep the historical record straight rather than
>dealing with the present enemy, you, the white racists and
>nationalists. Nevertheless it is beyond me why you put up with what,
>in a peculiar way, are his slanderous attacks on Adolf Hitler.
>
>Are you really going to let him get away with characterizing Hitler as
>some kind of liberal multiculturalist?
>
>Alexander Baron wrote:
>
>>”The white races did, of course, give some things to the natives,
>>and they were the worst gifts that they could possibly have made,
>>those plagues of our own modern world – materialism, fanaticism,
>>alcoholism and syphilis. For the rest, since these peoples pos-
>>sessed qualities of their own which were superior to anything we
>>could offer them, they have remained essentially unchanged. Where
>>imposition by force was attempted, the results were even more
>>disastrous…One solitary success must be conceded to the coloni-
>>zers: everywhere they have succeeded in arousing hatred…”
>>Adolf Hitler February 7th 1945
>
>
>
>>”For us, Japan will always remain an ally and a friend. This war
>>will teach us to appreciate and respect her more than ever. It
>>will encourage us to draw more tightly the bonds which unite our
>>two countries.” Adolf Hitler 18th February, 1945
>
>
>>”…I promise you I am quite free of all racial hatred. It is, in
>>any case, undesirable that one race should mix with other races.
>>Except for a few gratuitous successes, which I am prepared to
>>admit, systematic cross-breeding has never produced good
>>results…Pride in one’s own race – and that does not imply con-
>>tempt for other races – is also a normal and healthy sentiment. I
>>have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior
>>to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilizations, and I freely
>>admit that their past history is superior to our own. They have
>>the right to be proud of their own past, just as we have the
>>right to be proud of the civilization to which we belong.” Adolf
>>Hitler, 13th February, 1945
>
>–
> John Morris
> at University of Alberta
>———————————————————————-
–
> The Nizkor Project: An Electronic Holocaust Resource
> File archives – ftp://ftp.almanac.bc.ca
> Web page – http://nizkor.almanac.bc.ca
>
From [email protected] Fri Aug 11 11:15:46 PDT 1995
Article: 31066 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!
howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Head Jew Contradicts himself
Date: 12 Aug 1995 16:42:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 173
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc8-11.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.politics.nationalism.white:12314 alt.discrimination:33722 alt.revisionism:31066
In [email protected] (Barry Shein)
writes:
>
>
>From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
>>Derek,
>> It’s very clear to me that Les is making fun of
>>the hypocrisy he sees among Jews. They are supposed
>>to be liberal and yet don’t allow women preachers.
>
>Well, since Judaism doesn’t have any “preachers”…
I’m just using this as a generic word to cover
rabbis, pastors, ministers, mullahs, whatever.
>As I understand it Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism allows female
>rabbis.
>
>You’re making the common error of assuming Judaism speaks with one
>voice, methinks.
>
>The original post you are responding to quoted one particular rabbi as
>not accepting female rabbis. Now, you can certainly find many rabbis
>who would go along on that point, no argument. But I think you are
>generalizing just a bit much with “they are supposed to be liberal…”
>There are plenty of such “liberals” within judaism.
You are confusing what I said and what I was
attributing to Les, which was that Les was
seeing hypocrisy.
>>But
>>Roman Catholics and Mahometans don’t pretend to be
>>liberals, so their not allowing women preachers is
>>not an act of hypocrisy.
>
>Nor is that comment by that rabbi particularly hypocritical…
>
>Where did you get this “liberal” idea. It seems to me you set up a
>strawman and knocked it down. I’d hardly describe the views, eg, of
>orthodox jews as “liberal”.
Again, this is something I attributed to Les.
However, I think about 2/3 of the American
Jewish electorate votes for Democratic candidates.
This is higher than any other group, except blacks,
I believe.
>> I don’t know what Les’ religion is, or whether
>>he has one, or whether he thinks womenFrom: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Head Jew Contradicts himself
References: <[email protected]>
In [email protected] (Barry Shein)
writes:
>
>
>From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
>>Derek,
>> It’s very clear to me that Les is making fun of
>>the hypocrisy he sees among Jews. They are supposed
>>to be liberal and yet don’t allow women preachers.
>
>Well, since Judaism doesn’t have any “preachers”…
I’m just using this as a generic word to cover
rabbis, pastors, ministers, mullahs, whatever.
>As I understand it Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism allows female
>rabbis.
>
>You’re making the common error of assuming Judaism speaks with one
>voice, methinks.
>
>The original post you are responding to quoted one particular rabbi as
>not accepting female rabbis. Now, you can certainly find many rabbis
>who would go along on that point, no argument. But I think you are
>generalizing just a bit much with “they are supposed to be liberal…”
>There are plenty of such “liberals” within judaism.
You are confusing what I said and what I was
attributing to Les, which was that Les was
seeing hypocrisy.
>>But
>>Roman Catholics and Mahometans don’t pretend to be
>>liberals, so their not allowing women preachers is
>>not an act of hypocrisy.
>
>Nor is that comment by that rabbi particularly hypocritical…
>
>Where did you get this “liberal” idea. It seems to me you set up a
>strawman and knocked it down. I’d hardly describe the views, eg, of
>orthodox jews as “liberal”.
Again, this is something I attributed to Les.
However, I think about 2/3 of the American
Jewish electorate votes for Democratic candidates.
This is higher than any other group, except blacks,
I believe.
>> I don’t know what Les’ religion is, or whether
>>he has one, or whether he thinks women otherwise why would they each do what they do?) But I
>don’t believe either claims any authority over the other.
I don’t make that mistake, but it is an easy
one to make. The reason has to do with the
way Protestants view Catholics. For a Prot, he
himself, or any backwoods preacher (here I am
using the term correctly!), knows just as
much about first and last things as the Pope.
(This view is correct, since they all know
exactly nothing.) But more than this, it is
appalling to a Protestant who takes his
religion seriously that anyone should
surrender the truth about ghostly matters
to some outside authority. This is because
Protestants are individualists. My own
atheism is, in a way, just an extreme form
of Protestantism.
But for Catholics, the Bible is not what
the invividual believer makes out of it but
what the authorities say it means. And
Catholicism does indeed have a hierarchy,
culminating in the Pope. Now Judaism is
like Catholicism, in that the believer
likewise must rely on authorities to
interpret his Bible. These authorities are
coded in the Talmud, and the Talmud’s Talmud,
and so on, endlessly. A Jew, like a Catholic,
is not allowed to just do things on his own.
So it seems that Judaism, which certainly has
plenty of interpreters scribbling away, also
is organized hierarchically and culminates
in a Head Rabbi, who may or may not be part
of a group called the Elders of Zion, the
counterpart to the Catholic College of
Cardinals. (I may be on to something here.)
I am not clear how Judaism *was* organized
before Reform Judaism came into being, in
this country or in the world as a whole. An
Orthodox friend tells me that if he has some
problem (say, over exactly what constitutes
work on the Sabbath), he just takes it to a
rabbi, from whom there is no appeal. But,
he says, he is free to pick the rabbi. I
asked him, why not pick the rabbi that would
give him the answer he wanted. He said you
have to be honest with yourself.
I may have misunderstood him, and perhaps he
doesn’t understand how Orthodox Jewry is
organized all that well. But, in any case,
it is natural to conclude that, as long as
the individual cannot decide theological
matters on his own, the opposite extreme
holds, namely that there is a hierarchically-
organized Church that culminates in a
central figure.
>It’s hard to fathom your point, I think maybe you’re squeezing the
>situation a bit too hard.
You are probably right. I was just trying to
see things from Les’ perspective, but I think
I’ve added some thoughts of interest in
general.
Frank
From [email protected] Fri Aug 11 15:34:01 PDT 1995
Article: 31072 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!
ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,
alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: What Does Racial Superiority Mean?
Date: 12 Aug 1995 17:22:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc8-11.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:31072 alt.skinheads:25354 alt.politics.white-power:11974
alt.politics.nationalism.white:12318 alt.discrimination:33727
I’m trying to find out what the *concept*
of racial superiority is all about, not
which races are superior to which other
races. The latter is what the discussants
so far have been up to.
As far as my being done in with my “obsession”
with race, it is happening awfully slowly.
It seems to me that there is now in the world
a critical mass of creative scientists to
make genetic engineering a reality. Neither the
liberals nor the goddam Christians are going
to be able to stop parents from upgrading
their children, bit by bit. So race, while
important in the past and important in the
present, as far as explaining achievement
goes, it is not going to matter in the future.
But that is a couple of hundred years off.
In the meantime, we have the sceptre of lots
of dumb kids being born who will more and more
find no productive place in society. These
kids are concentrated more in some races than
in others. I may be wrong in thinking that
it is biology that primarily accounts for
the uneveness life’s rewards, but no one has
any proposals about *HOW* to alter the
environment to even out the inequality.
Sure, there are lots of proposals to spend
more money on schools, say, but these proposals
are not backed-up with arguments that they
will work.
Whatever the source of racial differences in
achievement, the only feasible solution to
the very real human misery that comes about
>from being marginal to productive society–
no not solution, but rather reduction–is
for certain groups to cut down on their
births.
As usual, if anyone has a different solution,
I want to hear about it.
Frank
From [email protected] Fri Aug 11 15:34:10 PDT 1995
Article: 31079 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!
netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Jewish Hell
Date: 12 Aug 1995 18:46:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc8-11.ix.netcom.com
In <[email protected]> [email protected]
(Donald Moffitt) writes:
>
>On 29 Jul 1995 in article , ‘[email protected] (Frank
>Forman)’ wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>Quick question: what was the major group of reptiles to come into
being
>>after the Age of Mammals got under way? I had to look it up!
>>
>>Frank
>>
>>
>The Jukes, the Callicutts and the Griswolds?
>
>Donald Moffitt
>—Remarkable discovery by Les Griswold, White Trash Idiot Child:
Adolf
>Hitler was tall, blond, blue-eyed and Nordic, and died a fighting
man’s
>death.
>
Dunno your reference source, but the Encyclopaedia Britannica
says snakes.
Frank
From [email protected] Fri Aug 11 15:58:00 PDT 1995
Article: 12311 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!
netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: The Jews
Date: 12 Aug 1995 15:11:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <400p9t$ok[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc8-11.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:31057 alt.politics.nationalism.white:12311 alt.politics.white-power:11967
In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Derek Bell)
writes:
>
>Aryan Crusader writes:
>>Well, folks, I’m still working on my essay about the Jews.
>
> I’m sure that the world of scholarship is holding its collective
>breath – not!
>
>>I’ve looked and looked, and I can’t find anything against Jews in
general (I
>>don’t accept John 8:44). The only argument against them, as a group,
is
>>that they are genetically or culturally incompatible with Western
>>Christian civilization. However, Ygg reports that they have a 70%
>>intermarriage (race-mixing) rate, which has or will soon alter any
>>genetic incompatibility.
>
> “Genetically or culturally incompatible”? Where did you get that
from??
>As for Yggdrasil, I would take what he says with several tonnes of
NaCl.
>
> You are preoccupied with genes!
>
> Where is Yggdrasil anyway?
>
>>My preliminary conclusion, then, is that Jews are not a problem, only
a
>>few elites — elites even among the Jewish population. I suspect
that
>>when my comrades speak of the “Jewish problem” they are refering to
>>these elites. If I am wrong, I would appreciate someone pointing out
my
>>error.
>
> Well, none of the following have a name that is remotely
>stereotypically Jewish: Clinton, Gore, Bush, Quayle, Reagan, Carter,
Ford,
>Nixon, Agnew, Johnson, Kennedy.
>
> Or are you talking about the Illuminati? Fnord!!!
>
>>But if I’m right, then I suggest a new strategy for combatting these
>>enemies of White America. Publicly, we should only refer to them by
>>name, not race. If I write that Abe Cooper, Laurence Tisch, and Dave
>>Strassler are teaming up to destroy America and say why, people might
>>listen.
> Yeah, you may even get sued by the people you name!!!
> That may not be such a bad idea! Say what you like about them,
I’m
>sure the lawsuits will make life very interesting for you!
>
>>But if I write that ZOG is destroying America and say why, people
>>will pre-judge me as a raving anti-semite.
>
> No shit?!!
>
>>Please give me some feedback on this one.
>
> You’re a raving anti-semite.
Reuben sounds to *me* that he is an
ex-raving anti-semite, or well maybe an
raving ex-anti-semite. He is now
renouncing the idea that the perfidy of
Jews is in their genes and that, indeed,
the real interests of Jews are being betrayed
by both their own supposed leaders and
some so-far unnamed global elite that
consists of both Jews and Gentiles.
He should drop mention of ZOG and
use S-FUGOG for now and a better name
when he does name the group. Or better
yet, speak of misty things like
Zeitgeist or “climate of opinion” rather
than personifications like Occupational
Gummint.
The moral is that it takes a while for
a raving ex-anti-semite to shed all his
old terminology, like ZOG, and develop
new ones. Or if he becomes an
ex-raver, to see the world more in
impersonal processes than in conspiracies.
As for his preoccupation with genes, you’d
better ask him that again.
Frank
From [email protected] Fri Aug 11 15:58:04 PDT 1995
Article: 12312 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!
ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Adolf Hitler – Racist?
Date: 12 Aug 1995 15:35:03 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <807920465snz@abaron.demon.co.uk> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc8-11.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:31062 alt.politics.nationalism.white:12312 alt.politics.white-power:11968
My server has evidently not delivered all the
postings on this thread, but it seems to me
that we need agreement on the meaning of
“racist.” In the last quote from Hitler,
he says he is free of racial hatred but that
he is opposed to racial intermarriage. I
take this to mean that he thinks man’s
divisions into races is a splendid thing. So
this makes him pro-race. On this account,
someone who wanted to exterminate all races
but one would not be a racist, as would someone
who wanted to make the world into one race by
repeated race-mixing.
You may be confusing racism with a belief in
the superiority of one particular race. That is
quite compatible with wanting other races on
the globe.
Question for you: why is “the present enemy the
white racists and nationalists”? And enemy to
whom? I think the greatest enemy *to* lovers of
big gummint are the folks who are inventing
methods of encryptioning the transfer of money
so that tax collectors can’t get their cotton-
pickin’ hands on it. How nationalists could
have a nation without taxes is beyond me.
Frank
[message reproduced below, unchanged]
In <40c7n7[email protected]> [email protected] (John
Morris) writes:
>
>I feel certain that many of our white racist and nationalist readers
>have put up with Alexander Baron’s maunderings, since they keep me and
>my kind busy trying to keep the historical record straight rather than
>dealing with the present enemy, you, the white racists and
>nationalists. Nevertheless it is beyond me why you put up with what,
>in a peculiar way, are his slanderous attacks on Adolf Hitler.
>
>Are you really going to let him get away with characterizing Hitler as
>some kind of liberal multiculturalist?
>
>Alexander Baron wrote:
>
>>”The white races did, of course, give some things to the natives,
>>and they were the worst gifts that they could possibly have made,
>>those plagues of our own modern world – materialism, fanaticism,
>>alcoholism and syphilis. For the rest, since these peoples pos-
>>sessed qualities of their own which were superior to anything we
>>could offer them, they have remained essentially unchanged. Where
>>imposition by force was attempted, the results were even more
>>disastrous…One solitary success must be conceded to the coloni-
>>zers: everywhere they have succeeded in arousing hatred…”
>>Adolf Hitler February 7th 1945
>
>
>
>>”For us, Japan will always remain an ally and a friend. This war
>>will teach us to appreciate and respect her more than ever. It
>>will encourage us to draw more tightly the bonds which unite our
>>two countries.” Adolf Hitler 18th February, 1945
>
>
>>”…I promise you I am quite free of all racial hatred. It is, in
>>any case, undesirable that one race should mix with other races.
>>Except for a few gratuitous successes, which I am prepared to
>>admit, systematic cross-breeding has never produced good
>>results…Pride in one’s own race – and that does not imply con-
>>tempt for other races – is also a normal and healthy sentiment. I
>>have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior
>>to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilizations, and I freely
>>admit that their past history is superior to our own. They have
>>the right to be proud of their own past, just as we have the
>>right to be proud of the civilization to which we belong.” Adolf
>>Hitler, 13th February, 1945
>
>–
> John Morris
> at University of Alberta
>———————————————————————-
–
> The Nizkor Project: An Electronic Holocaust Resource
> File archives – ftp://ftp.almanac.bc.ca
> Web page – http://nizkor.almanac.bc.ca
>
From [email protected] Fri Aug 11 15:58:11 PDT 1995
Article: 12318 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!
ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,
alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: What Does Racial Superiority Mean?
Date: 12 Aug 1995 17:22:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc8-11.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:31072 alt.skinheads:25354 alt.politics.white-power:11974
alt.politics.nationalism.white:12318 alt.discrimination:33727
I’m trying to find out what the *concept*
of racial superiority is all about, not
which races are superior to which other
races. The latter is what the discussants
so far have been up to.
As far as my being done in with my “obsession”
with race, it is happening awfully slowly.
It seems to me that there is now in the world
a critical mass of creative scientists to
make genetic engineering a reality. Neither the
liberals nor the goddam Christians are going
to be able to stop parents from upgrading
their children, bit by bit. So race, while
important in the past and important in the
present, as far as explaining achievement
goes, it is not going to matter in the future.
But that is a couple of hundred years off.
In the meantime, we have the sceptre of lots
of dumb kids being born who will more and more
find no productive place in society. These
kids are concentrated more in some races than
in others. I may be wrong in thinking that
it is biology that primarily accounts for
the uneveness life’s rewards, but no one has
any proposals about *HOW* to alter the
environment to even out the inequality.
Sure, there are lots of proposals to spend
more money on schools, say, but these proposals
are not backed-up with arguments that they
will work.
Whatever the source of racial differences in
achievement, the only feasible solution to
the very real human misery that comes about
>from being marginal to productive society–
no not solution, but rather reduction–is
for certain groups to cut down on their
births.
As usual, if anyone has a different solution,
I want to hear about it.
Frank
From [email protected] Fri Aug 11 05:40:12 PDT 1995
Article: 25354 of alt.skinheads
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!
ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,
alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: What Does Racial Superiority Mean?
Date: 12 Aug 1995 17:22:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc8-11.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:31072 alt.skinheads:25354 alt.politics.white-power:11974
alt.politics.nationalism.white:12318 alt.discrimination:33727
I’m trying to find out what the *concept*
of racial superiority is all about, not
which races are superior to which other
races. The latter is what the discussants
so far have been up to.
As far as my being done in with my “obsession”
with race, it is happening awfully slowly.
It seems to me that there is now in the world
a critical mass of creative scientists to
make genetic engineering a reality. Neither the
liberals nor the goddam Christians are going
to be able to stop parents from upgrading
their children, bit by bit. So race, while
important in the past and important in the
present, as far as explaining achievement
goes, it is not going to matter in the future.
But that is a couple of hundred years off.
In the meantime, we have the sceptre of lots
of dumb kids being born who will more and more
find no productive place in society. These
kids are concentrated more in some races than
in others. I may be wrong in thinking that
it is biology that primarily accounts for
the uneveness life’s rewards, but no one has
any proposals about *HOW* to alter the
environment to even out the inequality.
Sure, there are lots of proposals to spend
more money on schools, say, but these proposals
are not backed-up with arguments that they
will work.
Whatever the source of racial differences in
achievement, the only feasible solution to
the very real human misery that comes about
>from being marginal to productive society–
no not solution, but rather reduction–is
for certain groups to cut down on their
births.
As usual, if anyone has a different solution,
I want to hear about it.
Frank
From [email protected] Sun Aug 13 15:46:29 PDT 1995
Article: 25432 of alt.skinheads
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!
ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,
alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: What Does Racial Superiority Mean?
Date: 13 Aug 1995 22:00:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc15-26.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:31186 alt.skinheads:25432 alt.politics.white-power:12071
alt.politics.nationalism.white:12384 alt.discrimination:33797
In [email protected] (Bearcat) writes:
>
>Frank Forman ([email protected]) wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
> (do you mean “spectre”?)vvv
>: In the meantime, we have the sceptre of lots
>: of dumb kids being born who will more and more
>: find no productive place in society. These
>: kids are concentrated more in some races than
>: in others.
>
>No. These kids are concentrated more in some
>socio-economic groups than others.
We are both right. If you factor our SES,
a large racial element remains. I’m not
sure you are very familiar with the
literature here.
>: I may be wrong in thinking that
>: it is biology that primarily accounts for
>: the uneveness life’s rewards, but no one has
>: any proposals about *HOW* to alter the
>: environment to even out the inequality.
>
>This is untrue. It has been demonstrated quite
>clearly that neonatal and postnatal nurture have
>greater impact on the intellect and behavior of
>children (and the adults they become) than any
>ancestral influence can even remotely claim.
It seems you have seen literature I haven’t.
Do you have some citations?
>: Sure, there are lots of proposals to spend
>: more money on schools, say, but these proposals
>: are not backed-up with arguments that they
>: will work.
>Education is very important, yes, but when does
>it begin? Age 5? We are, for all intents and
>purposes, irrevocably formed by that age into
>the people we will eventually become,
>physically, emotionally and intellectually.
Do you recommend the end of public funding
for education after that age? I’d very much
like to know what goes on in the education
process before age five, esp. how it differs
in whites and blacks. Also, how the education
impacts on IQ scores.
>Where the education that ensues after age 5
>comes into play is in the development of
>character and social behavior, as well as
>self-esteem – a most crucial element in the
>expression of what intelligence we do have:
>low self-esteem can lower a child’s test
>scores regardless of how much native intellect
>he/she may possess.
This seems to reverse common opinion, as in
the (supposed) claim of Jesuits: “Give me
a child up to age seven, and you can have
him after that.” In other words, attitudes
are generally pretty much set by then.
Question: what’s the difference between
self-esteem and self-respect, and what
research deals with the difference? My
understanding is that self-esteem is more
a feel-good attitude, while self-respect
is earned by one’s own behavior.
>Also, it’s imperative to educate young people
>about the importance of bringing children into
>this world only when they’re fully capable of
>providing just the kind of nurture for that
>child that is so essential to its health and
>well-being.
Excellent! But what should be done with
children with irresponsible parents? Should
the government take them away?
>You see, we know all of this, and have known
>it for decades. The question is – how to ensure
>that such knowledge is put to use to improve
>the situation for our future children, and thus
>our future.
Is there an explanation of why this hasn’t
happened that is not a character attack on
American voters?
Frank
From [email protected] Sun Aug 13 17:41:11 PDT 1995
Article: 31186 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!
ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,
alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: What Does Racial Superiority Mean?
Date: 13 Aug 1995 22:00:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc15-26.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:31186 alt.skinheads:25432 alt.politics.white-power:12071
alt.politics.nationalism.white:12384 alt.discrimination:33797
In [email protected] (Bearcat) writes:
>
>Frank Forman ([email protected]) wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
> (do you mean “spectre”?)vvv
>: In the meantime, we have the sceptre of lots
>: of dumb kids being born who will more and more
>: find no productive place in society. These
>: kids are concentrated more in some races than
>: in others.
>
>No. These kids are concentrated more in some
>socio-economic groups than others.
We are both right. If you factor our SES,
a large racial element remains. I’m not
sure you are very familiar with the
literature here.
>: I may be wrong in thinking that
>: it is biology that primarily accounts for
>: the uneveness life’s rewards, but no one has
>: any proposals about *HOW* to alter the
>: environment to even out the inequality.
>
>This is untrue. It has been demonstrated quite
>clearly that neonatal and postnatal nurture have
>greater impact on the intellect and behavior of
>children (and the adults they become) than any
>ancestral influence can even remotely claim.
It seems you have seen literature I haven’t.
Do you have some citations?
>: Sure, there are lots of proposals to spend
>: more money on schools, say, but these proposals
>: are not backed-up with arguments that they
>: will work.
>Education is very important, yes, but when does
>it begin? Age 5? We are, for all intents and
>purposes, irrevocably formed by that age into
>the people we will eventually become,
>physically, emotionally and intellectually.
Do you recommend the end of public funding
for education after that age? I’d very much
like to know what goes on in the education
process before age five, esp. how it differs
in whites and blacks. Also, how the education
impacts on IQ scores.
>Where the education that ensues after age 5
>comes into play is in the development of
>character and social behavior, as well as
>self-esteem – a most crucial element in the
>expression of what intelligence we do have:
>low self-esteem can lower a child’s test
>scores regardless of how much native intellect
>he/she may possess.
This seems to reverse common opinion, as in
the (supposed) claim of Jesuits: “Give me
a child up to age seven, and you can have
him after that.” In other words, attitudes
are generally pretty much set by then.
Question: what’s the difference between
self-esteem and self-respect, and what
research deals with the difference? My
understanding is that self-esteem is more
a feel-good attitude, while self-respect
is earned by one’s own behavior.
>Also, it’s imperative to educate young people
>about the importance of bringing children into
>this world only when they’re fully capable of
>providing just the kind of nurture for that
>child that is so essential to its health and
>well-being.
Excellent! But what should be done with
children with irresponsible parents? Should
the government take them away?
>You see, we know all of this, and have known
>it for decades. The question is – how to ensure
>that such knowledge is put to use to improve
>the situation for our future children, and thus
>our future.
Is there an explanation of why this hasn’t
happened that is not a character attack on
American voters?
Frank
From [email protected] Sun Aug 13 17:41:16 PDT 1995
Article: 31190 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!
netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Gassing in the ‘Old Reich’
Date: 13 Aug 1995 22:18:51 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc15-26.ix.netcom.com
In [email protected] (Daniel Keren)
writes:
>
>According to the “Institute for Contemporary History” in
>Munich, the camps in the “Old Reich” in which gassing took
>place are (note, this list does not include the “Euthanasia”
>institutions, in which tens-of-thousands of mentally retarded
>and insane Germans were murdered, many by gas):
>
>Mauthausen, Neuengamme, Sachsenhausen, Natzweiler,
>Stutthof, Ravensbruck, and Dachau.
>
>For more documentation, one can see “Nazi Mass Murder”,
>Yale Uni. Press, 1993.
I’ve read in the Revisionist literature that Martin
Brozat, head of this very Institute for Contemporary
History (as it is translated into English) got a
letter printed in _Die Zeit_ in 1960 (I think) saying
that there were no homocidal gas chambers in the
Old Reich. Is this just Revisionist folklore, or
did Brozat actually say this?
Frank
From [email protected] Sun Aug 13 19:58:48 PDT 1995
Article: 31186 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!
netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,
alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: What Does Racial Superiority Mean?
Date: 13 Aug 1995 22:00:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc15-26.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:31186 alt.skinheads:25432 alt.politics.white-power:12071
alt.politics.nationalism.white:12384 alt.discrimination:33797
In [email protected] (Bearcat) writes:
>
>Frank Forman ([email protected]) wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
> (do you mean “spectre”?)vvv
>: In the meantime, we have the sceptre of lots
>: of dumb kids being born who will more and more
>: find no productive place in society. These
>: kids are concentrated more in some races than
>: in others.
>
>No. These kids are concentrated more in some
>socio-economic groups than others.
We are both right. If you factor our SES,
a large racial element remains. I’m not
sure you are very familiar with the
literature here.
>: I may be wrong in thinking that
>: it is biology that primarily accounts for
>: the uneveness life’s rewards, but no one has
>: any proposals about *HOW* to alter the
>: environment to even out the inequality.
>
>This is untrue. It has been demonstrated quite
>clearly that neonatal and postnatal nurture have
>greater impact on the intellect and behavior of
>children (and the adults they become) than any
>ancestral influence can even remotely claim.
It seems you have seen literature I haven’t.
Do you have some citations?
>: Sure, there are lots of proposals to spend
>: more money on schools, say, but these proposals
>: are not backed-up with arguments that they
>: will work.
>Education is very important, yes, but when does
>it begin? Age 5? We are, for all intents and
>purposes, irrevocably formed by that age into
>the people we will eventually become,
>physically, emotionally and intellectually.
Do you recommend the end of public funding
for education after that age? I’d very much
like to know what goes on in the education
process before age five, esp. how it differs
in whites and blacks. Also, how the education
impacts on IQ scores.
>Where the education that ensues after age 5
>comes into play is in the development of
>character and social behavior, as well as
>self-esteem – a most crucial element in the
>expression of what intelligence we do have:
>low self-esteem can lower a child’s test
>scores regardless of how much native intellect
>he/she may possess.
This seems to reverse common opinion, as in
the (supposed) claim of Jesuits: “Give me
a child up to age seven, and you can have
him after that.” In other words, attitudes
are generally pretty much set by then.
Question: what’s the difference between
self-esteem and self-respect, and what
research deals with the difference? My
understanding is that self-esteem is more
a feel-good attitude, while self-respect
is earned by one’s own behavior.
>Also, it’s imperative to educate young people
>about the importance of bringing children into
>this world only when they’re fully capable of
>providing just the kind of nurture for that
>child that is so essential to its health and
>well-being.
Excellent! But what should be done with
children with irresponsible parents? Should
the government take them away?
>You see, we know all of this, and have known
>it for decades. The question is – how to ensure
>that such knowledge is put to use to improve
>the situation for our future children, and thus
>our future.
Is there an explanation of why this hasn’t
happened that is not a character attack on
American voters?
Frank
From [email protected] Sun Aug 13 19:58:55 PDT 1995
Article: 31190 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!
netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Gassing in the ‘Old Reich’
Date: 13 Aug 1995 22:18:51 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc15-26.ix.netcom.com
In [email protected] (Daniel Keren)
writes:
>
>According to the “Institute for Contemporary History” in
>Munich, the camps in the “Old Reich” in which gassing took
>place are (note, this list does not include the “Euthanasia”
>institutions, in which tens-of-thousands of mentally retarded
>and insane Germans were murdered, many by gas):
>
>Mauthausen, Neuengamme, Sachsenhausen, Natzweiler,
>Stutthof, Ravensbruck, and Dachau.
>
>For more documentation, one can see “Nazi Mass Murder”,
>Yale Uni. Press, 1993.
I’ve read in the Revisionist literature that Martin
Brozat, head of this very Institute for Contemporary
History (as it is translated into English) got a
letter printed in _Die Zeit_ in 1960 (I think) saying
that there were no homocidal gas chambers in the
Old Reich. Is this just Revisionist folklore, or
did Brozat actually say this?
Frank
From [email protected] Sun Aug 13 22:59:46 PDT 1995
Article: 11967 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!
netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: The Jews
Date: 12 Aug 1995 15:11:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <400p9t$ok[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc8-11.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:31057 alt.politics.nationalism.white:12311 alt.politics.white-power:11967
In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Derek Bell)
writes:
>
>Aryan Crusader writes:
>>Well, folks, I’m still working on my essay about the Jews.
>
> I’m sure that the world of scholarship is holding its collective
>breath – not!
>
>>I’ve looked and looked, and I can’t find anything against Jews in
general (I
>>don’t accept John 8:44). The only argument against them, as a group,
is
>>that they are genetically or culturally incompatible with Western
>>Christian civilization. However, Ygg reports that they have a 70%
>>intermarriage (race-mixing) rate, which has or will soon alter any
>>genetic incompatibility.
>
> “Genetically or culturally incompatible”? Where did you get that
from??
>As for Yggdrasil, I would take what he says with several tonnes of
NaCl.
>
> You are preoccupied with genes!
>
> Where is Yggdrasil anyway?
>
>>My preliminary conclusion, then, is that Jews are not a problem, only
a
>>few elites — elites even among the Jewish population. I suspect
that
>>when my comrades speak of the “Jewish problem” they are refering to
>>these elites. If I am wrong, I would appreciate someone pointing out
my
>>error.
>
> Well, none of the following have a name that is remotely
>stereotypically Jewish: Clinton, Gore, Bush, Quayle, Reagan, Carter,
Ford,
>Nixon, Agnew, Johnson, Kennedy.
>
> Or are you talking about the Illuminati? Fnord!!!
>
>>But if I’m right, then I suggest a new strategy for combatting these
>>enemies of White America. Publicly, we should only refer to them by
>>name, not race. If I write that Abe Cooper, Laurence Tisch, and Dave
>>Strassler are teaming up to destroy America and say why, people might
>>listen.
> Yeah, you may even get sued by the people you name!!!
> That may not be such a bad idea! Say what you like about them,
I’m
>sure the lawsuits will make life very interesting for you!
>
>>But if I write that ZOG is destroying America and say why, people
>>will pre-judge me as a raving anti-semite.
>
> No shit?!!
>
>>Please give me some feedback on this one.
>
> You’re a raving anti-semite.
Reuben sounds to *me* that he is an
ex-raving anti-semite, or well maybe an
raving ex-anti-semite. He is now
renouncing the idea that the perfidy of
Jews is in their genes and that, indeed,
the real interests of Jews are being betrayed
by both their own supposed leaders and
some so-far unnamed global elite that
consists of both Jews and Gentiles.
He should drop mention of ZOG and
use S-FUGOG for now and a better name
when he does name the group. Or better
yet, speak of misty things like
Zeitgeist or “climate of opinion” rather
than personifications like Occupational
Gummint.
The moral is that it takes a while for
a raving ex-anti-semite to shed all his
old terminology, like ZOG, and develop
new ones. Or if he becomes an
ex-raver, to see the world more in
impersonal processes than in conspiracies.
As for his preoccupation with genes, you’d
better ask him that again.
Frank
From [email protected] Sun Aug 13 22:59:56 PDT 1995
Article: 11974 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!
ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,
alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: What Does Racial Superiority Mean?
Date: 12 Aug 1995 17:22:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc8-11.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:31072 alt.skinheads:25354 alt.politics.white-power:11974
alt.politics.nationalism.white:12318 alt.discrimination:33727
I’m trying to find out what the *concept*
of racial superiority is all about, not
which races are superior to which other
races. The latter is what the discussants
so far have been up to.
As far as my being done in with my “obsession”
with race, it is happening awfully slowly.
It seems to me that there is now in the world
a critical mass of creative scientists to
make genetic engineering a reality. Neither the
liberals nor the goddam Christians are going
to be able to stop parents from upgrading
their children, bit by bit. So race, while
important in the past and important in the
present, as far as explaining achievement
goes, it is not going to matter in the future.
But that is a couple of hundred years off.
In the meantime, we have the sceptre of lots
of dumb kids being born who will more and more
find no productive place in society. These
kids are concentrated more in some races than
in others. I may be wrong in thinking that
it is biology that primarily accounts for
the uneveness life’s rewards, but no one has
any proposals about *HOW* to alter the
environment to even out the inequality.
Sure, there are lots of proposals to spend
more money on schools, say, but these proposals
are not backed-up with arguments that they
will work.
Whatever the source of racial differences in
achievement, the only feasible solution to
the very real human misery that comes about
>from being marginal to productive society–
no not solution, but rather reduction–is
for certain groups to cut down on their
births.
As usual, if anyone has a different solution,
I want to hear about it.
Frank
From [email protected] Sun Aug 13 23:01:24 PDT 1995
Article: 12071 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!
netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,
alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: What Does Racial Superiority Mean?
Date: 13 Aug 1995 22:00:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc15-26.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:31186 alt.skinheads:25432 alt.politics.white-power:12071
alt.politics.nationalism.white:12384 alt.discrimination:33797
In [email protected] (Bearcat) writes:
>
>Frank Forman ([email protected]) wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
> (do you mean “spectre”?)vvv
>: In the meantime, we have the sceptre of lots
>: of dumb kids being born who will more and more
>: find no productive place in society. These
>: kids are concentrated more in some races than
>: in others.
>
>No. These kids are concentrated more in some
>socio-economic groups than others.
We are both right. If you factor our SES,
a large racial element remains. I’m not
sure you are very familiar with the
literature here.
>: I may be wrong in thinking that
>: it is biology that primarily accounts for
>: the uneveness life’s rewards, but no one has
>: any proposals about *HOW* to alter the
>: environment to even out the inequality.
>
>This is untrue. It has been demonstrated quite
>clearly that neonatal and postnatal nurture have
>greater impact on the intellect and behavior of
>children (and the adults they become) than any
>ancestral influence can even remotely claim.
It seems you have seen literature I haven’t.
Do you have some citations?
>: Sure, there are lots of proposals to spend
>: more money on schools, say, but these proposals
>: are not backed-up with arguments that they
>: will work.
>Education is very important, yes, but when does
>it begin? Age 5? We are, for all intents and
>purposes, irrevocably formed by that age into
>the people we will eventually become,
>physically, emotionally and intellectually.
Do you recommend the end of public funding
for education after that age? I’d very much
like to know what goes on in the education
process before age five, esp. how it differs
in whites and blacks. Also, how the education
impacts on IQ scores.
>Where the education that ensues after age 5
>comes into play is in the development of
>character and social behavior, as well as
>self-esteem – a most crucial element in the
>expression of what intelligence we do have:
>low self-esteem can lower a child’s test
>scores regardless of how much native intellect
>he/she may possess.
This seems to reverse common opinion, as in
the (supposed) claim of Jesuits: “Give me
a child up to age seven, and you can have
him after that.” In other words, attitudes
are generally pretty much set by then.
Question: what’s the difference between
self-esteem and self-respect, and what
research deals with the difference? My
understanding is that self-esteem is more
a feel-good attitude, while self-respect
is earned by one’s own behavior.
>Also, it’s imperative to educate young people
>about the importance of bringing children into
>this world only when they’re fully capable of
>providing just the kind of nurture for that
>child that is so essential to its health and
>well-being.
Excellent! But what should be done with
children with irresponsible parents? Should
the government take them away?
>You see, we know all of this, and have known
>it for decades. The question is – how to ensure
>that such knowledge is put to use to improve
>the situation for our future children, and thus
>our future.
Is there an explanation of why this hasn’t
happened that is not a character attack on
American voters?
Frank
From [email protected] Tue Aug 15 06:55:59 PDT 1995
Article: 12384 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!
netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,
alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: What Does Racial Superiority Mean?
Date: 13 Aug 1995 22:00:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc15-26.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:31186 alt.skinheads:25432 alt.politics.white-power:12071
alt.politics.nationalism.white:12384 alt.discrimination:33797
In [email protected] (Bearcat) writes:
>
>Frank Forman ([email protected]) wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
> (do you mean “spectre”?)vvv
>: In the meantime, we have the sceptre of lots
>: of dumb kids being born who will more and more
>: find no productive place in society. These
>: kids are concentrated more in some races than
>: in others.
>
>No. These kids are concentrated more in some
>socio-economic groups than others.
We are both right. If you factor our SES,
a large racial element remains. I’m not
sure you are very familiar with the
literature here.
>: I may be wrong in thinking that
>: it is biology that primarily accounts for
>: the uneveness life’s rewards, but no one has
>: any proposals about *HOW* to alter the
>: environment to even out the inequality.
>
>This is untrue. It has been demonstrated quite
>clearly that neonatal and postnatal nurture have
>greater impact on the intellect and behavior of
>children (and the adults they become) than any
>ancestral influence can even remotely claim.
It seems you have seen literature I haven’t.
Do you have some citations?
>: Sure, there are lots of proposals to spend
>: more money on schools, say, but these proposals
>: are not backed-up with arguments that they
>: will work.
>Education is very important, yes, but when does
>it begin? Age 5? We are, for all intents and
>purposes, irrevocably formed by that age into
>the people we will eventually become,
>physically, emotionally and intellectually.
Do you recommend the end of public funding
for education after that age? I’d very much
like to know what goes on in the education
process before age five, esp. how it differs
in whites and blacks. Also, how the education
impacts on IQ scores.
>Where the education that ensues after age 5
>comes into play is in the development of
>character and social behavior, as well as
>self-esteem – a most crucial element in the
>expression of what intelligence we do have:
>low self-esteem can lower a child’s test
>scores regardless of how much native intellect
>he/she may possess.
This seems to reverse common opinion, as in
the (supposed) claim of Jesuits: “Give me
a child up to age seven, and you can have
him after that.” In other words, attitudes
are generally pretty much set by then.
Question: what’s the difference between
self-esteem and self-respect, and what
research deals with the difference? My
understanding is that self-esteem is more
a feel-good attitude, while self-respect
is earned by one’s own behavior.
>Also, it’s imperative to educate young people
>about the importance of bringing children into
>this world only when they’re fully capable of
>providing just the kind of nurture for that
>child that is so essential to its health and
>well-being.
Excellent! But what should be done with
children with irresponsible parents? Should
the government take them away?
>You see, we know all of this, and have known
>it for decades. The question is – how to ensure
>that such knowledge is put to use to improve
>the situation for our future children, and thus
>our future.
Is there an explanation of why this hasn’t
happened that is not a character attack on
American voters?
Frank
From [email protected] Sat Aug 19 09:22:49 PDT 1995
Article: 12809 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!news.uoregon.edu!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: What Does Racial Superiority Mean?
Date: 18 Aug 1995 21:46:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 264
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc14-29.ix.netcom.com
Thread title: What does racial superiority mean
Conversations between Frank and Bearcat:
Frank 1:
/: >: In the meantime, we have the scepter of lots
/: >: of dumb kids being born who will more and more
/: >: find no productive place in society. These
/: >: kids are concentrated more in some races than
/: >: in others.
Bearcat 1:
/: >No. These kids are concentrated more in some
/: >socio-economic groups than others.
Frank 2:
/: We are both right. If you factor our SES,
/: a large racial element remains. I’m not
/: sure you are very familiar with the
/: literature here.
Bearcat 2:
/This is by no means settled, especially if you’re
/talking about the “statistical” analysis presented
/in _The Bell Curve_.
Frank 3 (now):
I am not sure what you are driving at.
Frank 1:
/: >: I may be wrong in thinking that
/: >: it is biology that primarily accounts for
/: >: the unevenness life’s rewards, but no one has
/: >: any proposals about *HOW* to alter the
/: >: environment to even out the inequality.
Bearcat 1:
/: >This is untrue. It has been demonstrated quite
/: >clearly that neonatal and postnatal nurture have
/: >greater impact on the intellect and behavior of
/: >children (and the adults they become) than any
/: >ancestral influence can even remotely claim.
Frank 2:
/: It seems you have seen literature I haven’t.
/: Do you have some citations?
Bearcat 2:
/I can simply bring up things you may already be
/aware of, e.g., the fact that alcohol consumption
/during pregnancy contributes to low birth-weight
/babies, as does cigaret smoking.
/The Soviets were at one point so concerned about
/the whole alcohol issue that they began a campaign
/to stop consumption among women at all, even
/suggesting that the incidence of mentally deficient
/children being born could be correlated to the
/*conception* occurring when the mother was dead drunk.
/That these factors can have such an impact implies
/that nutrition is terribly important, as well.
/As for postnatal environment, again, the examples
/abound. Back to the Soviets, when they tried to
/warehouse infants so that the mothers could work
/while a few nurses attended to dozens of babies,
/they found that the babies were not only inconsolable
/without the avid attentions of a devoted care-taker,
/but that even their growth was stunted. The implications
/of this on intellect are obvious.
/Experiments performed on monkeys has also shown that
/touch deprivation in infancy leads inevitably to
/lifelong complexes which mirror depression in humans.
/In fact, the only experiments ever really performed
/on the effects of an enriched environment, carried out
/with rats and mice, show an unmistakable effect of
/such enrichment on developing young in their ability
/to perform cognitive tasks.
/Conversely, when subjected to overcrowding their
/abilities deteriorate.
/These are just off the top of my head. One would
/almost have to have one’s head buried in something
/not to have been exposed to such general knowledge.
Frank 3 (now):
I don’t disagree that all these things may have
an effect on intelligence, whether great or small.
But what you claimed was that the sum of these
things was greater than the effects of heredity.
Could you provide concrete estimates for each?
Frank 1:
/: >: Sure, there are lots of proposals to spend
/: >: more money on schools, say, but these proposals
/: >: are not backed-up with arguments that they
/: >: will work.
Bearcat 1:
/: >Education is very important, yes, but when does
/: >it begin? Age 5? We are, for all intents and
/: >purposes, irrevocably formed by that age into
/: >the people we will eventually become,
/: >physically, emotionally and intellectually.
Frank 2:
/: Do you recommend the end of public funding
/: for education after that age?
Bearcat 2:
/I think the answer to that question is obviously
/no.
Frank 3 (now):
It’s not at all obvious to me, if after age 5
a child is *irrevocably* formed toward becoming
the adult he is going to become.
Frank 2:
/: I’d very much
/: like to know what goes on in the education
/: process before age five, esp. how it differs
/: in whites and blacks.
Bearcat 2:
/Again, you should be looking for the effects
/of ignorance and poverty on infants and toddlers,
/not the effects of blackness or whiteness.
Frank 3 (now):
But its now a fabrication of Herrnstein and
Murray that a sizable factor remains for race
after Socio-Economic Status (or just parental
income alone) has been factored out. No one, as
far as I know, has ever disputed this.
Frank 2:
/: Also, how the education
/: impacts on IQ scores.
Bearcat 2:
/[no response]
Frank 3 (now):
I very much would like to know just
exactly *how* the educational process
works on developing IQ. If it does, then
we need to know how it does, so that
something *concrete* might be done about
it. (Justifying taxing people to do so
is another issue, though.)
Bearcat 1:
/: >Where the education that ensues after age 5
/: >comes into play is in the development of
/: >character and social behavior, as well as
/: >self-esteem – a most crucial element in the
/: >expression of what intelligence we do have:
/: >low self-esteem can lower a child’s test
/: >scores regardless of how much native intellect
/: >he/she may possess.
Frank 2:
/: This seems to reverse common opinion, as in
/: the (supposed) claim of Jesuits: “Give me
/: a child up to age seven, and you can have
/: him after that.” In other words, attitudes
/: are generally pretty much set by then.
Bearcat 2:
/Actually, the good Fathers are saying pretty
/much what I said, it’s just that one doesn’t
/write off 8 year-olds just because they haven’t
/received any breaks up till then. And one’s
/personality really has at least 25% left
/unformed at that age, which might leave room for
/the crucial difference between a defeatist and
/a can-do attitude.
Frank 3 (now)
So now you are saying that intervention after
age 5 (or 8, as the Jesuits say) *does* matter.
Just what is the evidence here?
Frank 2:
/: Question: what’s the difference between
/: self-esteem and self-respect, and what
/: research deals with the difference? My
/: understanding is that self-esteem is more
/: a feel-good attitude, while self-respect
/: is earned by one’s own behavior.
Bearcat 2:
/[no response]
Frank 3:
Maybe you don’t know anything here.
Bearcat 1:
/: >Also, it’s imperative to educate young people
/: >about the importance of bringing children into
/: >this world only when they’re fully capable of
/: >providing just the kind of nurture for that
/: >child that is so essential to its health and
/: >well-being.
Frank 2:
/: Excellent! But what should be done with
/: children with irresponsible parents? Should
/: the government take them away?
Bearcat 2:
/Probably not, since the government is bound to
/do an even worse job of it.
Frank 3 (now):
Instead then, I gather, the government (and
society as a whole) should strongly discourage
likely irresponsible parents from having
children. I am strongly inclined to view the
proposal to require Norplant of welfare
mothers favorably. Someday, if we *do* figure
out how to improve the environments of what are
called “at-risk” children, this may be less
necessary. But so far, no one really knows
anything *concrete* about what to do and how
far it will work.
Bearcat 1:
/: >You see, we know all of this, and have known
/: >it for decades. The question is – how to ensure
/: >that such knowledge is put to use to improve
/: >the situation for our future children, and thus
/: >our future.
Frank 2:
/: Is there an explanation of why this hasn’t
/: happened that is not a character attack on
/: American voters?
Bearcat 2:
/It hasn’t happened for the same reason we
/haven’t acted on any of the wisdom we’ve
/developed up to this point: humans, as a
/whole, are short-sighted, selfish and
/stupid.
Frank 3 (now):
By “humans,” do you mean high-income people,
who generally mind their own business and
themselves do nothing to harm low income
parents? Are they the ones at fault? Or are
the low-income parents the ones at fault?
I’d like to know more about this alleged
“wisdom,” too. So would all 50 state
Departments of Education. And so would all
parents, regardless of income, who do
care about their children.
Frank
From [email protected] Fri Aug 11 11:15:30 PDT 1995
Article: 31057 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!
netnews
From: [email protected] (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: The Jews
Date: 12 Aug 1995 15:11:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <400p9t$ok[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc8-11.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.island.net alt.revisionism:31057 alt.politics.nationalism.white:12311 alt.politics.white-power:11967
