>>Ah. “True” scientists, obviously, means “scientists who support the
>So true Les, go against the flow and you’re called Intellectually
>dishonest (thanks go to Miss Finsten). Basically it demonstrates their
>inability to debate, research independently, prejudice, and outright
Excuse me? As I recall *Les* was the one who, to support his
“scientific” assertions, mentioned two books written not by a
scientist but by a businessman who was blatantly prejudiced and that
have absolutely no scientific value whatsoever. Have you ever read
that author? I have. And I dare you to find a single objective
scientific fact in his book “Race and Reason” that has anything to
do with human biology aside from his absolutely brilliant deduction
that people have different skin colours.
Oooweee, what a scientific discovery that is.
Furthermore one of the authors Les mentioned *specifically* stated a
position opposed to the one Les takes, to whit that one cannot claim
superiority based on what he calls racial groups. Secondly, he
specifically states that Jews are not and never have been a “racial”
group. Third, Lester lied by omission. He *specifically* mentioned
earwax as showing differences between races, with the implied
statement that it’s one of the things that seperates whites from
blacks when in fact the book states that whites and blacks have the
exact same form of ear wax. In fact, combining the earwax fact with
that of whites and blacks having body odour while asians do not can
just as clearly lead me to state that, based on those two factors
whites and blacks are the same people.
But you knew all this already, correct? After all if you did not
that would indicate an inability to research independently and
indicate prejudice in the fact that you take Les’s words at face
value while automatically assuming I was lying or misstating the
The words “pot” kettle” and “black” spring to mind for some odd
>Would people like Keith realize that physical anthropology (race
>differences) has progressed little since the 60s anyway, that quoting from
>them is hardly wrong. But then it goes against his beliefs and attacking
>someones “religious” beliefs is futile as they cannot comprehend reason.
Oh, I’m sorry. Obviously the DNA studies that began in the 70s do
not count. Nor the updated human ancestory based on fossils only
found after the books in question were published. Nor the greater
understanding of taxonomists that previously understood conceptions
of the terms “species” and “race” or “subspecies” are more
complicated than they first believed.
Perhaps *you* would like to show what evidence supports the
assertion that Lester has agreed with: that blacks constitute a
seperate species or at least show enough difference from the
“whites” that they are not *really* human.
From [email protected] Sat Mar 2 15:23:45 PST 1996
Article: 25886 of alt.revisionism
From: Keith Morrison
Subject: Re: Here we go ‘gain (was: Louis Beam, Censorship and the Nation
Date: 02 MAR 96 13:08:41 AST
Organization: The University of New Brunswick
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<4[email protected]. <[email protected]>
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.
white-power:20684 alt.discrimination:43963 alt.revisionism:25886 alt.activism:32907