Three tribes go to war
wolf...@my-dejanews.com
I am preparing a paper on the origin of the white race in Europe. I have
stumbled upon the claim that the true heirs of Asatru are the Nordic
dolichocephalic (longskulls) who are blond and are true aryans all others are
not entitled to call themselves Asatru!!
Any comments and/or help appreciated.
In blood...
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
ter...@my-dejanews.com
This sounds like a troll to me but if you really want a discussion how about
starting with a reference to this "claim". Title, Author, page etc.
Lartib...@my-dejanews.com
wolf...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> I would appreciate any input on the following:
> I am preparing a paper on the origin of the white race in Europe. I have
> stumbled upon the claim that the true heirs of Asatru are the Nordic
> dolichocephalic (longskulls) who are blond and are true aryans all others are
> not entitled to call themselves Asatru!!
> Any comments and/or help appreciated.
> In blood...
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>
out, I would. I don't consider you and your ilk worthy of anything beyond
contempt, however, so I'll just ignore you from now on.
jup...@highfiber.com
wolf...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> I would appreciate any input on the following:
> I am preparing a paper on the origin of the white race in Europe. I have
> stumbled upon the claim that the true heirs of Asatru are the Nordic
> dolichocephalic (longskulls) who are blond and are true aryans all others are
> not entitled to call themselves Asatru!!
> Any comments and/or help appreciated.
> In blood...
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>
And those of us from a certain small isle just off the coast of northern
europe? you know, those wacky people who are known to have intermixed heavily
with the Germanic tribes on their way north, and possess red hair, in
addition to gold? What about us? Are you saying that because I am mostly of
Scots blood, that I don't have the right to call myself an Asatruar?
umm...
What drugs are you on, and where can I get some? What makes you think the
gods CARE what color a person's hair is? For that matter, what about those
vikings who had brown, red, or black hair? (and they did exist). Did the
religion the practiced not qualify as REAL Asatru, but some sort of fake
knock-off that only people with non-blonde hair could join?
Cripes, man, your ignorance just blows my mind. I would consider you an
opponent, if I didn't feel such pity for you. And I do, I feel sorry that you
have limited your thinking to such narrow tolerances. Maybe someday, in time,
you will learn.
Eirik Dudeleisson
Nordic dolichocephalic (longskulls) who are blond and are true aryans all
others are not entitled to call themselves Asatru!! Any comments and/or help
appreciated.
In blood..<<<
Well, that almost eliminates every Asatruar I know.
Eirik
AsaBolverk
>stumbled upon the claim that the true heirs of Asatru are the Nordic
>dolichocephalic (longskulls) who are blond and are true aryans all others are
>not entitled to call themselves Asatru!!
>Any comments and/or help
Well, first I am interested in your "source" which used the term "Asatru". I
can't find a reference to that word in any OLD books (This isn't to say that
the people who call themselves such aren't true to their faith, I just can't
reference the NAME). Personally I never read of anyone rejected from the
Nordic faith for their race until literature of this century. This is not to
say that it never happened, I just never ran across it any literature which I
have had access to.
Please let me know if you can again find the "Asatru" reference.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Fear Not the Web of a Dead Spider!
Hail Odin!
Tony
S. M. Hewitt
<mark...@asatru.org> wrote:
>>>>I have stumbled upon the claim that the true heirs of Asatru are the
>Nordic dolichocephalic (longskulls) who are blond and are true aryans all
>others are not entitled to call themselves Asatru!! Any comments and/or help
>appreciated.
>In blood..<<<
>
>
>Well, that almost eliminates every Asatruar I know.
>
>Eirik
I can get the hair dye (mine's brown, what there's left of it)...but
where do I get a skull stretcher?
********************************
...fara meš gošanum....
-- Steve
********************************
Feorlen - See signature for reply address
> Cripes, man, your ignorance just blows my mind. I would consider you an
> opponent, if I didn't feel such pity for you.
Slow down, take a breath. Did he say he agreed with that statement? He
seems to be looking for additional sources to support/discredit it's
historical basis.
And even if he's trying to start an argument, there is a way around it.
Repeat after me: "I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the
trolls..."
--
feorlen at acm dot org
Please do not reply to Hotmail spam-trap.
Jim Bowery
: stumbled upon the claim that the true heirs of Asatru are the Nordic
: dolichocephalic (longskulls) who are blond and are true aryans all others are
: not entitled to call themselves Asatru!!
: Any comments and/or help appreciated.
The ancient wars between the Vanic and Aesiric cultures were most
probably wars between differing genotypes. IMHO, the most likely origin
of this genetic differentiation was during the end of the last ice age as the
two primary migration routes into Europe out of north Africa were:
1) The Straights of Gibralter (Vanic Rh-negative)
2) The Levant (Aesiric Rh-positive)
The genetic conflict is still going on to this day due to the reproductive
difficulties created by mating Rh-postive men with Rh-negative women.
Medical intervention now ameliorates this genetic conflict, but there are
deep, unresolved, spiritual/ecological scars left in the body of the folk.
PS: This is probably a much less intense reproductive conflict than that
which led to the demise of the Neanderthals. There is a good chance the
Neanderthals disappeared due to a rather blatent form of erocide in which
the female Neanderthals, due to their wide birth canals and long gestation
period, could give birth to hybrids fathered by gracile males but gracile
females, with their narrower birth canals and shorter gestation periods,
would tend to produce premature births or to die during delivery due to
the size of the infant.
--
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
Change the tools and you change the rules.
Dirk Bruere
Jim Bowery wrote:
> PS: This is probably a much less intense reproductive conflict than that
> which led to the demise of the Neanderthals. There is a good chance the
> Neanderthals disappeared due to a rather blatent form of erocide in which
> the female Neanderthals, due to their wide birth canals and long gestation
> period, could give birth to hybrids fathered by gracile males but gracile
> females, with their narrower birth canals and shorter gestation periods,
> would tend to produce premature births or to die during delivery due to
> the size of the infant.
What do you make of the fact that Neanderthals held on the longest in the Mid East,
esp in proximity to Israel?
Dirk
Joe Mandato
>I would appreciate any input on the following:
>I am preparing a paper on the origin of the white race in Europe. I have
>stumbled upon the claim that the true heirs of Asatru are the Nordic
>dolichocephalic (longskulls) who are blond and are true aryans all others are
>not entitled to call themselves Asatru!!
Blond, huh? You must have meant the true HAIRS of Asatru.
Well, in any case, I guess I don't make the "cut".
Joe Mandato (in an unsuccessful attempt to forge an equally
laughable post)
jup...@highfiber.com
Feorlen - See signature for reply address
> Oh fooey, just be reasonable why don't you :)
Yes, well, I have been told I should do something about that bad habit...
Jim Bowery
: What do you make of the fact that Neanderthals held on the longest in the Mid East,
: esp in proximity to Israel?
Well, first of all, I'm not as sure Israel is where they held on the
longest, but having said that...
Mt. Carmel and related sites have always intrigued me due to their
apparent mythic power and connection to neanderthals.
My best guess is that the erocide of neanderthals left a psychic trace
that lingers strongest where they survived the longest and certainly
the eastern Mediterranean was one of their last strongholds.
Dirk Bruere
>
> Dirk Bruere ("artemis"@xkbnet.co.uk(removextoreply)) wrote:
> : What do you make of the fact that Neanderthals held on the longest in the Mid East,
> : esp in proximity to Israel?
>
> Well, first of all, I'm not as sure Israel is where they held on the
> longest, but having said that...
>
> Mt. Carmel and related sites have always intrigued me due to their
> apparent mythic power and connection to neanderthals.
>
> My best guess is that the erocide of neanderthals left a psychic trace
> that lingers strongest where they survived the longest and certainly
> the eastern Mediterranean was one of their last strongholds.
> --
Hmmm... I was wondering if you would theorise about Neanderthal genetics
in modern man.
Personally, I (vaguely) hold the view that there was no interbreeding.
Dirk
Jim Bowery
: in modern man.
If the differential gestation theory of neanderthal erocide is true,
then one should expect a lot more neanderthal mitochondrial DNA
among living populations than Y-Chromosome DNA.
Our kindred is somewhat interested in neanderthals since one of our
members exhibits more musculo-skeletal similarities to neanderthal than to
gracile humans (and, no, I'm not joking). ~3 sigma is pretty far out.
I'd be interested in any data you have that weighs against significant
surviving neanderthal genes among modern populations.
MatthewBIO
writes:
>If the differential gestation theory of neanderthal erocide is true,
>then one should expect a lot more neanderthal mitochondrial DNA
>among living populations than Y-Chromosome DNA.
How exactly would you expect to determine if mitochondrial DNA 'looks like'
when we have never been able to isolate or study any? Maybe a time machine
would help. If my assertions are incorrect about never being able to isolate or
study neanderthal DNA are incorrect, I would appreciate a legitimate scientific
source to cure my ignorance.
MatthewBIO
matth...@aol.com (MatthewBIO) writes:
>>If the differential gestation theory of neanderthal erocide is true,
>>then one should expect a lot more neanderthal mitochondrial DNA
>>among living populations than Y-Chromosome DNA.
>
>How exactly would you expect to determine if mitochondrial DNA 'looks like'
>when we have never been able to isolate or study any? Maybe a time machine
>would help. If my assertions are incorrect about never being able to isolate
>or
>study neanderthal DNA are incorrect, I would appreciate a legitimate
>scientific
>source to cure my ignorance.
>
>
Sorry about that rediculous grammar I used. My post should read:
How exactly would you expect to determine if mitochondrial DNA in humans is
related to or 'looks like' neanderthal DNA when we have never been able to
MatthewBIO
matth...@aol.com (MatthewBIO) writes:
>How exactly would you expect to determine if mitochondrial DNA in humans is
>related to or 'looks like' neanderthal DNA when we have never been able to
>isolate or study any? Maybe a time machine would help. If my assertions are
>incorrect about never being able to isolate or study neanderthal DNA are
>incorrect, I would appreciate a legitimate scientific source to cure my
>ignorance
>
>
ARRRGH! Oh well Im sure you get the gist of what I am trying to say.
White Wolf
( Gold ) causes strife among kinsmen,
the wolf grows up in the wood.
-----Old Norwegian Rune Poem
Jim Bowery
: How exactly would you expect to determine if mitochondrial DNA 'looks like'
: [neanderthal mtDNA]?
"Neanderthal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans", Cell v90,
p19-30 is a good start.
But to be rational about this, there is more than one way to infer this
stuff -- its just that some ways provide more confidence than others --
and some ways are more widely accepted than others. Direct PCR isn't
always absolutely necessary. For example, if there were to exist a continuum
of phenotypes that seemed to correlate in remains near known neanderthal
sites, they might be alternate sources of somewhat weaker inference.
Dirk Bruere
>
> Dirk Bruere ("artemis"@xkbnet.co.uk(removextoreply)) wrote:
> : Hmmm... I was wondering if you would theorise about Neanderthal genetics
> : in modern man.
>
> then one should expect a lot more neanderthal mitochondrial DNA
> among living populations than Y-Chromosome DNA.
In that case, why would 'mitochondrial eve' be traced back only about
200k yrs, whereas the Neanderthals were arounf for 500k?
> Our kindred is somewhat interested in neanderthals since one of our
> members exhibits more musculo-skeletal similarities to neanderthal than to
> gracile humans (and, no, I'm not joking). ~3 sigma is pretty far out.
> I'd be interested in any data you have that weighs against significant
> surviving neanderthal genes among modern populations.
I have little data, and biology is not really my strong point. However,
I do recall that Neanderthals had a bone density about twice that of
moderns. Is that true of your man?
BTW, how does he like being referred to as a Neanderthal? :-)
Dirk
Jim Bowery
hypothesis of Aesir vs Vanir:
http://www.islandnet.com/~edonon/
Jim Bowery (jabo...@netcom.com) wrote:
: The ancient wars between the Vanic and Aesiric cultures were most
: probably wars between differing genotypes. IMHO, the most likely origin
: of this genetic differentiation was during the end of the last ice age as the
: two primary migration routes into Europe out of north Africa were:
: 1) The Straights of Gibralter (Vanic Rh-negative)
: 2) The Levant (Aesiric Rh-positive)
: The genetic conflict is still going on to this day due to the reproductive
: difficulties created by mating Rh-postive men with Rh-negative women.
: Medical intervention now ameliorates this genetic conflict, but there are
: deep, unresolved, spiritual/ecological scars left in the body of the folk.
: PS: This is probably a much less intense reproductive conflict than that
: which led to the demise of the Neanderthals. There is a good chance the
: Neanderthals disappeared due to a rather blatent form of erocide in which
: the female Neanderthals, due to their wide birth canals and long gestation
: period, could give birth to hybrids fathered by gracile males but gracile
: females, with their narrower birth canals and shorter gestation periods,
: would tend to produce premature births or to die during delivery due to
: the size of the infant.
: --
Jim Bowery
: > If the differential gestation theory of neanderthal erocide is true,
: > then one should expect a lot more neanderthal mitochondrial DNA
: > among living populations than Y-Chromosome DNA.
: In that case, why would 'mitochondrial eve' be traced back only about
: 200k yrs, whereas the Neanderthals were arounf for 500k?
I stand corrected.
I should have said X-Chromosome DNA rather than mitochodrial DNA.
I was unduely distracted by what Stringer extracted.
(...as he galled the skald.)
PS: Our resident 'neanderthal' is the one who has done the most research
on his 'heritage' so he can't complain too much when we call him one. I'm
not sure about his bone mass, but the skeletal shape and muscle mass to
body weight ratio are suggestive. I'll ask him about his bone density
sometime.
S. M. Hewitt
wrote:
...yeah, yeah, yeah...quasi-science and Jew-baiting....
I want someone to tell me two things, as I admit my utter ignorance on
each:
1) What does Type A blood have to do with anything? Not much of a
racial geneticist (or ethnic phrenologist, for that matter), I missed
this one in Biology 101. I can understand the blonde hair, but Type A
blood?
2) Just how in the Holy Halls of Asgarđ does Jim Bowery know how long
or how wide a Neaderthal woman's birth canal is?! Now, in my younger
days, I could have given you the dimensions down to a micron on a few
beauties in several states...but...really!
********************************
...fara međ gođanum....
-- Steve
********************************
Vidar
> I do recall that Neanderthals had a bone density about twice that of
> moderns. Is that true of your man?
This reminds me of something that I found out about my self 19 years
ago. I had a tomograph performed on my lower leg to check on a sizable
bone cyst and the orthopedic surgeon told me that the hard bone in my
tibia was about twice as thick as normal people, over 1 cm. This helped
to explain why I have never had a broken bone in my life. Is this what
you are refering to by twice the "density"?
> Dirk
She Devil With A Rubber Chicken
White Wolf <Rune...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
>I alway's laugh when people think of people of Germany or of German
>decent, that they should be blond and blue eyed.
>I'm of German decent from all the way back to the Rhineland area of
>Germany, most of my ancestor's where called " Palatines " because that's
>the area of Germany they came from, Palatine, Germany, but I was saying,
>I have black hair and brown eye's, my brother and sister are blond-brown
>hair, blue eye's, my father has black hair, green eye's.
I must agree, having spent 5 years in the Rhineland Pfaltz. There is no
one dominating level of melanin in this area; which only makes sense.
The area where I was stationed was only 40 minutes from the French border,
and supposedly not altogether too far from the Eastern Bloc as well.
Many wars and alliances have blurred the definitions of tribes here and it
is ironic that the concept of "the folk", today so exclusionist, simply
refers to a way of defining the people of areas like this WITHOUT having
to name tribes FOR THIS REASON:
This area of Germany has been the crossroads of Europe for centuries.
Another thing is, while the Pfaltz (Palatinate in English) corresponds
to the concept of province, borough, county or shire, perhaps even state;
the word itself refers to lands directly ruled by the Holy Roman Emperor.
Is there another term for the lands in question that would be more in
line with Asatru? I am curious.
--
Personal Y2K System Coup as of 25 July '98: | Do not CD c
4@SIAC, 1@Major Bank, 1@Credit Card Co, | taunt --------P===\==/
1@Brokerage House, 2@Publisher, 2@University, | happy fun /_\__
What are YOU doing about it? | fencer! _\ \
Dirk Bruere
Vidar wrote:
What density means is that for a given bone volume, a Neanderthal bone weighs
twice as much as a modern.
However, bone size, and to a lesser extent density, depends upon the stress that
is placed on it, particularly repetitive shocks (like running). Generally more
weight a bone has to carry the thicker it is. This can be because a person is
fat/well muscled etc or because they indulge in power sports such as weight
lifting.
Dirk
Harald Steelfoot
Dirk Bruere <"artemis"@xkbnet.co.uk> wrote in message
<35c1a...@nnrp1.news.uk.psi.net>...
>
>
>What density means is that for a given bone volume, a Neanderthal bone
weighs
>twice as much as a modern.
>However, bone size, and to a lesser extent density, depends upon the
stress that
>is placed on it, particularly repetitive shocks (like running).
Generally more
>weight a bone has to carry the thicker it is. This can be because a
person is
>fat/well muscled etc or because they indulge in power sports such as
weight
>lifting.
>
>Dirk
>
As I understand, the bones from the foreamrs of archers (professional
archers from the days of the longbow) have been found to be massively
dense by comparison...
Harald
Dirk Bruere
>
> Dirk Bruere <"artemis"@xkbnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> <35c1a...@nnrp1.news.uk.psi.net>...
> >
> >
> person is
> >fat/well muscled etc or because they indulge in power sports such as
> weight
> >lifting.
> >
> archers from the days of the longbow) have been found to be massively
> dense by comparison...
>
Is 'denser' what you actually mean?
Since the genetic variance between us and chimps is only about 2%, us
and Neanderthals must be very close, although whether close enough to
interbreed is a question that I'm not sure has been resolved.
On a related 'erocide' topic, Cro Magnons were taller and bigger brained
than us. So, how come they didn't do to us what we may have done to the
Neanderthals? (Just a rhetorical question as Cro Magnon and us probably
are much the same species).
Anyone know for sure?
Dirk
AsaBolverk
In your post you wrote:
>1) What does Type A blood have to do with anything? Not much of a
>racial geneticist (or ethnic phrenologist, for that matter), I missed
>this one in Biology 101. I can understand the blonde hair, but Type A
>blood?
I'm not sure if the "average Jew" has type A blood or not, but it is possible
for a group of people who marry within a group have similar blood types, as
well as other physical atributes. There is even a disease that is prevelant in
Jewish people, as Cycil Cell (spelling) is in the Negro race.
Mind you, I don't feel that this is a "curse" or a "bad thing", just a truth.
This was not ment as an insult to anyone, and these facts can be backed up by
any Medical Doctor, Good Medical reference book or even a GOOD nurse.
Dirk Bruere
>
> Heilsa Steve! and everyone else:
>
> for a group of people who marry within a group have similar blood types, as
> well as other physical atributes. There is even a disease that is prevelant in
> Jewish people, as Cycil Cell (spelling) is in the Negro race.
>
> Mind you, I don't feel that this is a "curse" or a "bad thing", just a truth.
I doubt that there is any other major group of people who are so inbred.
This does, of course, accentuate weaknesses as well as reinforce
strengths and some other traits that could tie culture to genetics.
Dirk
Odhrheimr
>This does, of course, accentuate weaknesses as well as reinforce
>strengths and some other traits that could tie culture to genetics.
>
>Dirk
Why do you assume they are inbred? Please tell.
Odhrheimr
All of what I read has said the opposite to that
Dirk Bruere
>
> >I doubt that there is any other major group of people who are so inbred.
> >This does, of course, accentuate weaknesses as well as reinforce
> >strengths and some other traits that could tie culture to genetics.
> >
Chronically isolated communities with a prohibition against the women
marrying out, a usually disinterested to hostile host culture not keen
on marrying in, and a non proselytysing religion.
Also, not to mention that until the invention of the bicycle and train
people did not travel very far in order to find a marriage partner. In
fact, it was usually the same town/village. Also, Jews generally have
had a smaller gene pool in which to fish.
That is where the genetic diseases that occur with higher than normal
rates in Jewish populations arise, I would suppose. These days I assume
that with the upheavals of WW2 and the formation of Israel things are
starting to smooth out a bit.
Dirk
Harald Steelfoot
>Harald Steelfoot wrote:
>>
>> Dirk Bruere <"artemis"@xkbnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>> <35c1a...@nnrp1.news.uk.psi.net>...
>> >
>> >
>> As I understand, the bones from the foreamrs of archers (professional
>> archers from the days of the longbow) have been found to be massively
>> dense by comparison...
>>
>I think that they are certainly bigger, but I'm not sure about denser.
>Is 'denser' what you actually mean?
>
Ummm - not certain. I am sure that they are much larger (to support the
larger muscle tissue), but also thought much denser as a result of the
continued and constant stress. In any event it is just a side comment,
as they certaily were not born with the forearm in that condition...
Harald
Jim Bowery
: than us. So, how come they didn't do to us what we may have done to the
: Neanderthals? (Just a rhetorical question as Cro Magnon and us probably
: are much the same species).
Taller and bigger brained doesn't necessarily confer an erocidal advantage.
The question is: Do the characteristics in question create differential
fertility between the males of the two demes?
Something as simple and subtle as the presence of crucial pheromones could
cause females to prefer males of an encroaching population to those of
the indigenous population. Indeed, there is experimental evidence for
the hypothesis that demes that are carriers of a wider array of pathogens
are more sexually attractive than other males by virtue of Major
Histocompatibility Complex gene differences that cause pheromonal
differences detectable by females.
There's a good chance the Cro Magnon were isolated enough or sparsely
populated enough that they simply didn't posess disease resistance and
consequent MHC sexual attractions of encroaching hominids like ourselves.
: Anyone know for sure?
No.
But then, does anyone know anything in the natural sciences for sure?
Oebalus
>Something as simple and subtle as the presence of crucial pheromones could
>cause females to prefer males of an encroaching population to those of
>the indigenous population. Indeed, there is experimental evidence for
>the hypothesis that demes that are carriers of a wider array of pathogens
>are more sexually attractive than other males by virtue of Major
>Histocompatibility Complex gene differences that cause pheromonal
>differences detectable by females.
>
>There's a good chance the Cro Magnon were isolated enough or sparsely
>populated enough that they simply didn't posess disease resistance and
>consequent MHC sexual attractions of encroaching hominids like ourselves.
Without sources, you are Jabbering Mr, Jabowery. But then again, racial
eugenics weirdos like you often spout twisted genetic claims without being able
to back them up. I know for a fact that there are bicycle riding purple
monkeys on Jupiter's rings. Those who do not know this are obviously uneducated
fools {Probably with mixed up mongrel inbred genes}
Harald Steelfoot
Jim Bowery wrote in message ...
>Dirk Bruere ("artemis"@xkbnet.co.uk(removextoreply)) wrote:
>: On a related 'erocide' topic, Cro Magnons were taller and bigger
brained
>: than us. So, how come they didn't do to us what we may have done to
the
>: Neanderthals? (Just a rhetorical question as Cro Magnon and us
probably
>: are much the same species).
>
>Taller and bigger brained doesn't necessarily confer an erocidal
advantage.
>
I agree with this. Considerations of how the brain is structured are
also important - what segments of the brain are more developed than
others.
[snip the genetics]
>No.
>
>But then, does anyone know anything in the natural sciences for sure?
No, and it is more probable that the Cro Magnon simply did not have the
organisational and communication skills to compete with what became
sapiens sapiens. If you can't organize, you can't compete. If you can't
compete, you aren't going to have much of a chance to settle down,
get-laid and produce babies - regardless of your pheromones.
Steelfoot
Jim Bowery
: Without sources, you are Jabbering Mr, Jabowery.
Usually, the polite thing to do in an intellectually honest dialogue is to
ask for sources on specific items of interest.
But it is pretty clear from your approach that you have no interest in
such dialogue.
Welcome to my killfile.
Dirk Bruere
>
>
> >> As I understand, the bones from the foreamrs of archers (professional
> >> archers from the days of the longbow) have been found to be massively
> >> dense by comparison...
> >>
> >I think that they are certainly bigger, but I'm not sure about denser.
> >Is 'denser' what you actually mean?
> >
>
> Ummm - not certain. I am sure that they are much larger (to support the
> larger muscle tissue), but also thought much denser as a result of the
> continued and constant stress. In any event it is just a side comment,
> as they certaily were not born with the forearm in that condition...
>
response of the muscles and skeleton to stress to build a Neanderthal
physique (or some of it). The same way we put on fat easily.
Dirk
Agnarb
little help? Wes Thu Hal~Ronald
bers...@hotmail.com
> Welcome to my killfile.
You should capitalize the "k" on that; Killfile is much more ominous...shows
more importance.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Jim Bowery
: rates in Jewish populations arise, I would suppose.
It's also where things like photographic memory and other rather unique
and recently evolved features among the Jews arose. Jews are creatures of
the urban environment and their inbreeding helped increase their rate of
adaptation by exposing recessivess to selection pressure. Ask any animal
breeder how they use intensive inbreeding to select for new
characteristics. Jews are intimately familiar with human husbandry
(polite term for slaving). They know how to breed humans and, by
extension, themselves. It's no accident that the most blatent forms of
"people shows" are being put on today in Israel and southern Italy
(Russian women being sold into sex slavery -- a relatively minor form of
erocide compared to what has been done to Asatru-heritage women via
indoctrination and corporate concubinage).
: These days I assume
: that with the upheavals of WW2 and the formation of Israel things are
: starting to smooth out a bit.
Why wouldn't the creation of Israel create even more intense pockets of
inbreeding? (I happen to agree with you but for reasons that I suspect
differ from yours.)
Dirk Bruere
Jim Bowery wrote:
> characteristics. Jews are intimately familiar with human husbandry
> (polite term for slaving). They know how to breed humans and, by
So is any group with sociological insight.
> extension, themselves. It's no accident that the most blatent forms of
> "people shows" are being put on today in Israel and southern Italy
Apart from (say) Asia (Thailand for example), Africa (all over) and Latin
America.
> : These days I assume
> : that with the upheavals of WW2 and the formation of Israel things are
> : starting to smooth out a bit.
>
> Why wouldn't the creation of Israel create even more intense pockets of
> inbreeding? (I happen to agree with you but for reasons that I suspect
> differ from yours.)
Because once isolated gene pools are being brought together in close physical
proximity from many parts of the world, from Russia to Africa. The larger the
gene pool the more shallow the inbreeding. The fact that Jews are both black,
and white with blue eyes, would suggest that there is quite a bit of variance
*between* the isolated groups. Not to mention the fact that (in Britain, for
example) some 40% of 'official' Jews are marrying outside their community and
'disappearing' by assimilation, per generation. I'm sure if that were the rate
with Nordics you would be in despair.
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
Harald Steelfoot wrote:
> >Taller and bigger brained doesn't necessarily confer an erocidal
> advantage.
> >
>
> I agree with this. Considerations of how the brain is structured are
> also important - what segments of the brain are more developed than
> others.
>
> Very true I think. From what I read, quite a few Neanderthals had bigger
> brains than the average modern.
> No, and it is more probable that the Cro Magnon simply did not have the
> organisational and communication skills to compete with what became
> sapiens sapiens. If you can't organize, you can't compete. If you can't
> compete, you aren't going to have much of a chance to settle down,
> get-laid and produce babies - regardless of your pheromones.
>
I rather think that Cro Magnon is more like a race of modern humanity. I
need to check this, though.
Dirk
Jim Bowery
cinnamon girl (ru...@cinnamon.net) wrote:
: Beware; even the numinous power of the runes cannot save men from
: orlog.
Jim Bowery
: > extension, themselves. It's no accident that the most blatent forms of
: > "people shows" are being put on today in Israel and southern Italy
: Apart from (say) Asia (Thailand for example), Africa (all over) and Latin
: America.
Formally correct.
Is it the case that these other places are importing women from other
ethnicities as the primary component of their people shows?
: Because once isolated gene pools are being brought together in close physical
: proximity from many parts of the world, from Russia to Africa. The larger the
: gene pool the more shallow the inbreeding.
That presumes there are no cultural barriers to hybridization in place.
There are, for example, additional rituals that African Jews must go
through in order to be accepted as full members of the Jewish community
in Israel. This isn't the sort of thing the Jews are publicizing and
there is every reason to believe they have a lot more of these sorts
of things in place than people like you or I could uncover.
: *between* the isolated groups. Not to mention the fact that (in Britain, for
: example) some 40% of 'official' Jews are marrying outside their community and
: 'disappearing' by assimilation, per generation. I'm sure if that were the rate
: with Nordics you would be in despair.
Where is the Nordic equivalent of Alan Dershowitz's NYT best-seller book
"The Vanishing American Jew?"
The Jews have been the 'victims of the world' for centuries now even
though they are the wealthiest ethnic group in the west per capita and have
the most cultural influence even in absolute terms.
If the Nordics had been in that position rather than the Jews, your
questioning of my 'double standard' might be reasonable.
Also, I have repeatedly stated my belief that ethnic identity is driven
primarily by male fertility rates and the complaints of guys like
Alan Dershowitz and yourself hardly address this definition.
Further, despite all this, I have stated my support for conservative
Jews, such as Rabbi Mayer Schiller who are attempting to preserve their
identity.
This isn't to say I don't "put my people first", but you can't get away
with claiming that I place no value on the preservation of Jewish
identity. They are a part of the "family" of life -- a misbehaving and
rather pathological member at present -- much as a sexually abusive
father is a member of an extende family who must be dealt with.
Dirk Bruere
>
> Is it the case that these other places are importing women from other
> ethnicities as the primary component of their people shows?
Well, the last big (involuntary) influx of such would be blacks to the
Americas. As for being primarily an influx of women, illegal immigration
always flows from poor to rich, and women are the most readily accepted
for a variety of reasons. Do you still think this will be the case when
Russian standards of living are as high as here?
> : Because once isolated gene pools are being brought together in close physical
> : proximity from many parts of the world, from Russia to Africa. The larger the
> : gene pool the more shallow the inbreeding.
>
> That presumes there are no cultural barriers to hybridization in place.
> There are, for example, additional rituals that African Jews must go
That's bound to be true, but we are talking generations here. The
African Jewish culture is radically different from that of European
Jews, and that in itself will present a barrier. However, like blacks in
Britain, there will be almost no intermarriage between locals and first
generation, but a great deal of mixing subsequently.
>
> : *between* the isolated groups. Not to mention the fact that (in Britain, for
> : example) some 40% of 'official' Jews are marrying outside their community and
> : 'disappearing' by assimilation, per generation. I'm sure if that were the rate
> : with Nordics you would be in despair.
>
> Where is the Nordic equivalent of Alan Dershowitz's NYT best-seller book
> "The Vanishing American Jew?"
I've no idea, nor do I care. The point I was making is that the rate of
cultural attrition is vastly higher for Western Jews than almost any
other cultural group (with the exception of British black males). Looks
like the conspirators have swallowed their own propaganda more deeply
than anyone else (according to your definitions).
> The Jews have been the 'victims of the world' for centuries now even
> though they are the wealthiest ethnic group in the west per capita and have
> the most cultural influence even in absolute terms.
This is ireelevent to my point.
> If the Nordics had been in that position rather than the Jews, your
> questioning of my 'double standard' might be reasonable.
I'm not claiming that you have a double standard. Just one that I don't
wholely agree with.
> Also, I have repeatedly stated my belief that ethnic identity is driven
> primarily by male fertility rates and the complaints of guys like
> Alan Dershowitz and yourself hardly address this definition.
I would still contend that Jewish assimilation (although lower for
women, as males are always at the extremes of behaviour) will see the
effective eradication of their overt culture in the West within a very
few generations.
> Further, despite all this, I have stated my support for conservative
> Jews, such as Rabbi Mayer Schiller who are attempting to preserve their
> identity.
He can preserve his identity, and you yours. But why should either of
you presume to speak for me, or anyone else?
> This isn't to say I don't "put my people first", but you can't get away
Wr've had this discussion before, but the argument is over who are 'my
people'.
> with claiming that I place no value on the preservation of Jewish
> identity. They are a part of the "family" of life -- a misbehaving and
> rather pathological member at present -- much as a sexually abusive
> father is a member of an extende family who must be dealt with.
Well, according to my definition of 'my people', I am considerably less
tolerant than you.
Dirk
Jim Bowery
: >
: > Is it the case that these other places are importing women from other
: > ethnicities as the primary component of their people shows?
: Well, the last big (involuntary) influx of such
Force is not morally inferior to fraud.
: would be blacks to the Americas.
See "The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews: Volume I" available
from the Nation of Islam.
: African Jewish culture is radically different from that of European
: Jews, and that in itself will present a barrier.
Yet, as I already pointed out, it is not European Jews who are subjected
to the extra rituals for admission to full status, but African Jews.
: However, like blacks in
: Britain, there will be almost no intermarriage between locals and first
: generation, but a great deal of mixing subsequently.
Yes, not to mention Palestinians and other deeper cultures that never had
to bother to leave their homelands for "fairer" environments.
: > Where is the Nordic equivalent of Alan Dershowitz's NYT best-seller book
: > "The Vanishing American Jew?"
: I've no idea, nor do I care. The point I was making is that the rate of
: cultural attrition is vastly higher for Western Jews than almost any
: other cultural group
As usual, "culture" is problematic in such conversations. Since our
value systems, or at least our perspectives, are so vastly different, our
words have different definitions and it is difficult to converse.
I would simply point out that if you ever came to perceive the things I
have come to perceive, I suspect your view of genetics and its
relationship to spiritual essence would be very different. I actually
*see* ecological systems at work, causing spiritual degradation among some
people, not to mention other ecosystems, in a manner that is not
dissimilar to the way many blacks *see* heroin and its associated social
systems causing spiritual degradation in communities into which it is
introduced. Further, I *see* that universalist religions that preach 'we
are all brothers' are like heroin -- not that Marx was right to replace a
mere opiate with international socialism's heroin.
: like the conspirators have swallowed their own propaganda more deeply
: than anyone else (according to your definitions).
Not according to my definitions. See my comments above. I'm a lot more
interested in gene flow than people who focus only on "culture" as in
"that which is learned by an individual organism."
: > Further, despite all this, I have stated my support for conservative
: > Jews, such as Rabbi Mayer Schiller who are attempting to preserve their
: > identity.
: He can preserve his identity, and you yours. But why should either of
: you presume to speak for me, or anyone else?
I 'presume to speak for you' only to the extent that I see you as
possessed by spirits of an ancestry other than your own -- and even then
-- only in the abstract as one of a large population of people who are
subject to the spiritual diseases of a mobile world without frontiers.
: > with claiming that I place no value on the preservation of Jewish
: > identity. They are a part of the "family" of life -- a misbehaving and
: > rather pathological member at present -- much as a sexually abusive
: > father is a member of an extende family who must be dealt with.
: Well, according to my definition of 'my people', I am considerably less
: tolerant than you.
The metaphor of 'sexual abuse' is accurate within the following limits:
An individual adult frequently cannot be cured of such addiction and
represents such a profound threat to a community and all others into which
he might venture that it may be necessary to kill him rather than merely
expelling him. A sexually abusive deme is not the responsibility of the
expelling deme -- and might well be cured by the simple expedient of
isolation from its 'codependent' demes.
Winona Hansen-Olsen
wrote:
>Where is the Nordic equivalent of Alan Dershowitz's NYT best-seller book
>"The Vanishing American Jew?"
Apparently, it's being crapped all over the internet each week
by you, Mr. Bowery.
--
Asatru-L is for general discussion of Ásatrú with a focus on
individual and inter-organizational cooperation, resource sharing,
and communication.To subscribe to or to unsubscribe from the
Asatru-L list simply send a message to asatru-l...@eskimo.com
with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the subject line. This
mailing list is open to anyone who has a valid email address and
is interested in Asatru.
Dirk Bruere
Jim Bowery wrote:
> Force is not morally inferior to fraud.
Yes it is.
> : However, like blacks in
> : Britain, there will be almost no intermarriage between locals and first
> : generation, but a great deal of mixing subsequently.
>
> Yes, not to mention Palestinians and other deeper cultures that never had
> to bother to leave their homelands for "fairer" environments.
Well, I thought the Jews left Palestine in order to avoid the Roman's revenge.
I'm not too good on Jewish history.
> : > Where is the Nordic equivalent of Alan Dershowitz's NYT best-seller book
> : > "The Vanishing American Jew?"
>
> : I've no idea, nor do I care. The point I was making is that the rate of
> : cultural attrition is vastly higher for Western Jews than almost any
> : other cultural group
>
> As usual, "culture" is problematic in such conversations. Since our
> value systems, or at least our perspectives, are so vastly different, our
> words have different definitions and it is difficult to converse.
Culture is the mass manifestation of individual character, which is partly (not
wholly) determined genetically.
> I would simply point out that if you ever came to perceive the things I
> have come to perceive, I suspect your view of genetics and its
> relationship to spiritual essence would be very different. I actually
Well, obviously true in one sense.
> : like the conspirators have swallowed their own propaganda more deeply
> : than anyone else (according to your definitions).
>
> Not according to my definitions. See my comments above. I'm a lot more
> interested in gene flow than people who focus only on "culture" as in
> "that which is learned by an individual organism."
If gene flow does not result in gross cultural changes then we are merely
talking of the aesthetics of physiology.
> : > Further, despite all this, I have stated my support for conservative
> : > Jews, such as Rabbi Mayer Schiller who are attempting to preserve their
> : > identity.
> : He can preserve his identity, and you yours. But why should either of
> : you presume to speak for me, or anyone else?
>
> I 'presume to speak for you' only to the extent that I see you as
> possessed by spirits of an ancestry other than your own -- and even then
Such as scientific rationalism, for example? Let's not forget that I'm a
'techie'.
> -- only in the abstract as one of a large population of people who are
> subject to the spiritual diseases of a mobile world without frontiers.
I don't deny that there are spiritual diseases, and I don't deny that there are
those who profit through propagating them. I do not tie this, nor culture
generally, as tightly to genetics as you do. I also keep in mind that genetic
engineering will radically alter the human genome in the very near future. But
that is a battle yet to be fought.
Dirk
Jim Bowery
: > Force is not morally inferior to fraud.
: Yes it is.
Since fraud is, by definition, difficult to detect, it is difficult to
defend against. Fraud can go further before it is detected, let a lone
stopped. If this were the only consideration, it is obvious that fraud
is morally inferior to fraud.
I don't see how one can denounce force as morally inferior to fraud.
Dirk Bruere
Jim Bowery wrote:
> Dirk Bruere ("artemis"@xkbnet.co.uk(removextoreply)) wrote:
> : Jim Bowery wrote:
> : > Force is not morally inferior to fraud.
> : Yes it is.
>
> Since fraud is, by definition, difficult to detect, it is difficult to
> defend against. Fraud can go further before it is detected, let a lone
> stopped. If this were the only consideration, it is obvious that fraud
> is morally inferior to fraud.
Since the aggressor chooses the time, the place, the weapons etc and has given
considerable thought to how the outcome can be biased in their favour, the
fact is that unless they have made a grave error they definitely will succeed.
Hence force is no easier to stop than fraud.
However, the fraudster is only seeking to rob, and is usually focussed on a
single material aspect. Force can, and does, result in the loss of everything
including life.
> I don't see how one can denounce force as morally inferior to fraud.
So, you wake up one morning, and it's going to be a bad day.
Scenario 1. You walk to the market with a dollar in your pocket to buy some
strawberries. After buying some from the cunning urban Jewish merchant you
discover that all except the ones on top are rotten! you have been defrauded
of your dollar. Hanging's too good for the bastard!
Scenario 2. You walk to the market with a dollar in your pocket to buy some
strawberries. You wake up in hospital six months later paralysed and stuffed
full of tubes. A decent upstanding member of the Folk hit you over the back of
the head with a baseball bat, then stole your dollar. You applaud his
refreshingly direct and morally superior approach to the problem, compared
with the slimy Jew.
Dirk
S. M. Hewitt
<"artemis"@xkbnet.co.uk (remove x to reply)> wrote:
>Jim Bowery wrote:
>
>> Dirk Bruere ("artemis"@xkbnet.co.uk(removextoreply)) wrote:
>> : Jim Bowery wrote:
>> : > Force is not morally inferior to fraud.
>> : Yes it is.
>>
>> Since fraud is, by definition, difficult to detect, it is difficult to
>> defend against. Fraud can go further before it is detected, let a lone
>> stopped. If this were the only consideration, it is obvious that fraud
>> is morally inferior to fraud.
>
>Since the aggressor chooses the time, the place, the weapons etc and has given
>considerable thought to how the outcome can be biased in their favour, the
>fact is that unless they have made a grave error they definitely will succeed.
>Hence force is no easier to stop than fraud.
>
>However, the fraudster is only seeking to rob, and is usually focussed on a
>single material aspect. Force can, and does, result in the loss of everything
>including life.
>Dirk
...howse 'bout this:
Prepare for both.
If an enemy confronts you with force or violence, then he's an honest,
straightforward villain.
If an enemy, as a the first arrow from his quiver, cheats, lies and
dissembles, there's nothing to say that he hasn't got that 9 lb
shithammer hidden behind his back to be used next.
Caution in dealing with strangers, and how to deal with those who've
revealed their nature, are my favorite parts of the Hávamál.
********************************
...fara með goðanum....
-- Steve
********************************
Dirk Bruere
>
>
> ...howse 'bout this:
>
> Prepare for both.
>
> If an enemy confronts you with force or violence, then he's an honest,
> straightforward villain.
>
> If an enemy, as a the first arrow from his quiver, cheats, lies and
> dissembles, there's nothing to say that he hasn't got that 9 lb
> shithammer hidden behind his back to be used next.
>
> Caution in dealing with strangers, and how to deal with those who've
> revealed their nature, are my favorite parts of the Hávamál.
>
trickster and agressor will take that into consideration.
Crudely put fraud victimises the stupid, and force the weak (all things
being relative).
As for the morality, I don't know of any culture past or present that
would consider violent robbery to be morally superior to fraud, although
the penalty for each may be the same (eg death).
BTW, where abouts in the UK are you based?
Dirk
Jim Bowery
Would that you were right!
Unfortunately, the majority of non-tribal wars have been fought by the
victims of fraud on behalf of fraud artists.
S. M. Hewitt
<"artemis"@xkbnet.co.uk (remove x to reply)> wrote:
>> ...howse 'bout this:
>>
>> Prepare for both.
>Good advice, and I hope I am prepared for both, but I assume the
>trickster and agressor will take that into consideration.
...good advice from Lore...I'm only a parrot.
>Crudely put fraud victimises the stupid, and force the weak (all things
>being relative).
...and preparedness and a stubborn streak victimizes the fraudulent
and violent, when they find their intended victim to be less a victim
than they had intended.
Have good friends, as well...villains often have backup.
>As for the morality, I don't know of any culture past or present that
>would consider violent robbery to be morally superior to fraud, although
>the penalty for each may be the same (eg death).
...well...according to Tacitus, the early Germans wouldn't bother to
grow what they could beat out of some unsuspecting farmer. The Apache
valued both stealth and ferocity...and were a raiding culture, similar
to the Vikings. And neither the Germans, the Vikings nor the Apache
had much use for liars or dissemblers...and expected most of their
enemies were just that.
...as to "morally superior" or "morally equivelant", it would have to
do with the morality you buy into, no? Jains think it reprehensible
to drink a gnat in with your water, and seive their water through
cloth. Even gnats to them are valuable. That't their morality.
Personally, gnats piss me off, as do a number of the people I seem to
meet. I don't wish them ill, but wouldn't cry bitter tears if some of
'em were to reap the consequences of their actions.they aren't
valuable.
Different folks, different morality.
The preceding wasn't to appear macho. Ask yourself...would you turn
the other cheek? Do you think that mental adultery is a sin?
Different morality.
>BTW, where abouts in the UK are you based?
...until the 25th, in Cambridgeshire, Upwood near Ramsey, 'tween
Peterborough and Huntingdon.
>Dirk
********************************
...fara meš gošanum....
-- Steve
********************************
Dirk Bruere
>
> Dirk Bruere ("artemis"@xkbnet.co.uk(removextoreply)) wrote:
> : However, the fraudster is only seeking to rob,
>
> Would that you were right!
>
> Unfortunately, the majority of non-tribal wars have been fought by the
> victims of fraud on behalf of fraud artists.
>
individual and the collective.
Am I right in thinking that you see fraud as morally inferior to force
because with the situation you envisage, force would not succeed, but
fraud would?
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
>
> Have good friends, as well...villains often have backup.
Have good friends. The tricky part...
> >As for the morality, I don't know of any culture past or present that
> >would consider violent robbery to be morally superior to fraud, although
> >the penalty for each may be the same (eg death).
>
> ...well...according to Tacitus, the early Germans wouldn't bother to
> grow what they could beat out of some unsuspecting farmer. The Apache
> valued both stealth and ferocity...and were a raiding culture, similar
> to the Vikings. And neither the Germans, the Vikings nor the Apache
> had much use for liars or dissemblers...and expected most of their
> enemies were just that.
But the discussion here centres around such crimes within our own
societies.
> ...as to "morally superior" or "morally equivelant", it would have to
> do with the morality you buy into, no? Jains think it reprehensible
Well, do you know of any society that (internally) thought that fraud
and violent robery were laudable? Against outsiders, fair enough.
> Different folks, different morality.
Not too different when it comes to how we view our own who indulge in
such crimes. Generally human morality within tribal or national contexts
is pretty uniform.
> The preceding wasn't to appear macho. Ask yourself...would you turn
> the other cheek? Do you think that mental adultery is a sin?
Big questions. Turn the other cheek... you mean show the guy that you
can take whatever he hands out and still come back for more? Maybe.
Mental adultery. Interesting implications. I think it is 'sinful', that
is, an error, for you to both want and not want something. It is a
divided mind, and such division is a source of weakness.
Dirk
Jim Bowery
: > Dirk Bruere ("artemis"@xkbnet.co.uk(removextoreply)) wrote:
: > : However, the fraudster is only seeking to rob,
: > Would that you were right!
: > Unfortunately, the majority of non-tribal wars have been fought by the
: > victims of fraud on behalf of fraud artists.
: I think that we are talking at cross purposes again, confusing the
: individual and the collective.
Politics kills more people by misleading them than all the mass murderers
in that have ever existed. I'll make it simple for you: When a priest
defines a set of 'heathens' as 'possessed of the devil' and uses what
you call the 'stupidty' of the other people to go out and murder said
'heathens' my contention is that the priest is the center of evil in said
situation not the 'stupid' peasants.
And, by the way, please try to distinguish between 'ignorance' and
'stupidity' in the future.
Dirk Bruere
>
> Politics kills more people by misleading them than all the mass murderers
> in that have ever existed. I'll make it simple for you: When a priest
> defines a set of 'heathens' as 'possessed of the devil' and uses what
> you call the 'stupidty' of the other people to go out and murder said
> 'heathens' my contention is that the priest is the center of evil in said
> situation not the 'stupid' peasants.
People get the politics they deserve, on the whole. Iraq gets Saddam
because that is the character of the people. You get Clinton.
> And, by the way, please try to distinguish between 'ignorance' and
> 'stupidity' in the future.
Half the population is below average intelligence.
Dirk
S. M. Hewitt
<"artemis"@xkbnet.co.uk (remove x to reply)> wrote:
>> ...well...according to Tacitus, the early Germans wouldn't bother to
>> grow what they could beat out of some unsuspecting farmer. The Apache
>> valued both stealth and ferocity...and were a raiding culture, similar
>> to the Vikings. And neither the Germans, the Vikings nor the Apache
>> had much use for liars or dissemblers...and expected most of their
>> enemies were just that.
>
>But the discussion here centres around such crimes within our own
>societies.
...I had understood it to be a general matter, but also historical,
with Jimmy B. beating his "look what the Jews have done to us across
the expanse of history" drum.
...as to our society, there is the morality of the Common or Dominant
Culture (which I don't claim), and we are all expected like good
little drones to toe it's line.
Then, even as here in Britain, there are other "moralities", among
Moslems, Jews, secularists, and the few heathens and more numerous
pagans. Similiar, but not the same.
...and neither fraud within these cultures or without, nor force used
among the people of the culture to others of the culture or with
outsiders, is taught or respected. There is one thing common, I
think, to these cultures...to those in the US...and pretty much across
the board: 1) use force in defense, and where appropriate, 2)
aggression where unwarranted is dishonorable, 3) a liar is a thief of
the truth, and 4) once an undisputed enemy is found, the gloves are
off.
I think that Jimmy B. is trying to say "the Jews tricked we poor,
trusting and rustic Northerners, so it's OK to ground them into dust".
He seemed to use this same argument when comparing genocide...a
"Northen thing"...with "erocide", which I've never seen in any
dictionary. It only seems to appear on the White Nationalist web
pages...Phil Hoffman II and his ilk...and then only in reference to
the "crimes" of "the other guy".
We, as Northern Europeans, seem to be regarded by these "erociders" as
simple forest folk...rather like Star Wars' Ewoks...tricked and anally
raped by the nasty, too-clever-for-anyone's-own-good Hebrews.
I think that this mindset sells a bill of goods with values the
intellects of Northern Europeans too short and the craft of the Jews
at too high a price. It is rubbish.
Jimmy B. and his ilk want to defend the "victimized Aryans" from the
"human virus" of Judaic villainy...and justify the use of overwhelming
force against underhanded dealings.
Well...as I said above, the gloves are off with an acutal enemy. But,
we waste our rage and energies fighting Jimmy B.'s phantoms.
>Well, do you know of any society that (internally) thought that fraud
>and violent robery were laudable? Against outsiders, fair enough.
...Communism fostered a system -- under the NKVD/KGB -- under which
internal security and "the revolution" justified spying on members of
the society, violence, purges, and show trials. Children who "ratted
out" their "counterrevolutionary" parents and family members were
praised quite publically.
National Socialism justified violence within the society against those
it deemed outside the society. They weren't known for their
truthfullness, either, but rather extolled propaganda. I remember
Göbbels saying that a good government can't succeed without good
propaganda, and that good propaganda can't succeed without a good
government. Property of German citizens of inconvenient pedigree was
confiscated.
...and, I would recommend neither society as a fit place to live.
>> Different folks, different morality.
>
>Not too different when it comes to how we view our own who indulge in
>such crimes. Generally human morality within tribal or national contexts
>is pretty uniform.
...a generality, but a comfortable one.
>> The preceding wasn't to appear macho. Ask yourself...would you turn
>> the other cheek? Do you think that mental adultery is a sin?
>
>Big questions. Turn the other cheek... you mean show the guy that you
>can take whatever he hands out and still come back for more? Maybe.
...I have *never* personally held that "turn the other cheek" was
interpreted as "tak(ing) whatever he hands out and still com(ing) back
for more".
I've always interpreted it as an exhortation for the christian people
to be longsuffering and humble..."take what life gives you and hang in
there...it is God's will". Sort of a smarmy christian way of showing
the people of Jesus' 33 CE heathen- and Jewish-majority world that "we
don't question adversity, as adversity comes from Jehovah!".
It rather goes in hand with "love those who hate you" and other
nonsensical and anti-individual admonitions.
>Mental adultery. Interesting implications. I think it is 'sinful', that
>is, an error, for you to both want and not want something. It is a
>divided mind, and such division is a source of weakness.
...I think that it is human nature...it is what we *do*, not what we
*think*...the thoughts and impulses we control and those we act on,
which are the measure of us as people. Catholics, for instance, would
invade your skull. "Question your own motives", they say.
>Dirk
********************************
...fara međ gođanum....
-- Steve
********************************
S. M. Hewitt
<"artemis"@xkbnet.co.uk (remove x to reply)> wrote:
>Jim Bowery wrote:
>>
>> Politics kills more people by misleading them than all the mass murderers
>> in that have ever existed. I'll make it simple for you: When a priest
>> defines a set of 'heathens' as 'possessed of the devil' and uses what
>> you call the 'stupidty' of the other people to go out and murder said
>> 'heathens' my contention is that the priest is the center of evil in said
>> situation not the 'stupid' peasants.
>
>People get the politics they deserve, on the whole. Iraq gets Saddam
>because that is the character of the people. You get Clinton.
...and you get Tony Blair! Take that across your bow!!
...in the Eastern Zone of Cambodia in 1978, the Khmer Rouge were
responsible for killing up to 250,000 people through exposure,
overwork and outright savage executions.
The people, they say, were lined up along roads leading to mass graves
(the infamous "Killing Fields"), waiting as if they were in cinema
queues to be bludgeoned to death with clubs and shovels.
You gonna tell me, Jim, that those who spent the day crushing the
skulls of scores and scores of "counterrevolutionaries" might not
have...perhaps on a coffee break, or at the water cooler with the
other shovel-swingers...maybe had the errant thought that maybe they
might have killed a few innocent along with the mass of "politically
inconvenient".
Justice...in whatever culture...demands that a killing be ascribed to
the killer. In war, it's still killing, and the killer is
responsible...to the tune of medals and honors where appropriate. I
think that the guys who dropped the Zyklon B cans down the chutes were
as guilty as the men who stood, waving their thumbs left and right, at
the Inspektion...all the way throught Himmler to Adolf himself.
Do we let Klaus Barbie or Adolf Eichmann get by because they were
"following orders"? Then, to use this rationale, why is Jimmy B.
damning all Jews...or those "merchant erociders"...for the "crimes" of
the "Elders of Zion"?
>> And, by the way, please try to distinguish between 'ignorance' and
>> 'stupidity' in the future.
>
>Half the population is below average intelligence.
>
>Dirk
...hmmmm...
Jim Bowery
So you disagree with Thomas Jefferson's assertion that the tree of liberty
must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants every few
generations. "On the whole" the patriots deserved the tyrants they got.
For them to resort to force would be an immoral reaction to suffering
the just consequences of their character.
Dirk Bruere
>
> >People get the politics they deserve, on the whole. Iraq gets Saddam
> >because that is the character of the people. You get Clinton.
>
> ...and you get Tony Blair! Take that across your bow!!
Could be worse...
Still, although it is unfashionable to say so, I was always an admirer
of Mrs Thatcher. Her only fault was not going far enough in dismantling
Britain.
> Do we let Klaus Barbie or Adolf Eichmann get by because they were
> "following orders"? Then, to use this rationale, why is Jimmy B.
I once made a topical joke at work, about getting a Barbie doll, and an
SS uniform for it to wear...
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
>
> : People get the politics they deserve, on the whole.
>
> must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants every few
> generations. "On the whole" the patriots deserved the tyrants they got.
I see little blood being spilt to redress tyranny, and a lot to feed it.
So, those who stand by and do nothing have little to complain about. The
patriots deserved the tyrants that they got right up to the point where
they were deposed.
> For them to resort to force would be an immoral reaction to suffering
> the just consequences of their character.
If you say so. But force is to be met with force. Fraud is to be met
with truth.
The nature of democracy is 'greatest good for the greatest number'
determined through the ballot box.
If you don't like the rules the majority have voted in (by default, or
fraud, even) then have your say. You can always vote with your feet. As
for biased media etc, well, that's the hand that has been dealt. Do what
you can to dismantle it, but don't be surprised if the majority of
people still don't care as long as they have their video and pizza
delivered on time.
Consider the reaction of those in this ng, who must be amongst the most
receptive to your POV as a group. These are people who care about their
tradition and ancestry, and who are well above average intelligence
(IMHO).
Dirk
Jim Bowery
: > : People get the politics they deserve, on the whole.
: >
: > So you disagree with Thomas Jefferson's assertion that the tree of liberty
: > must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants every few
: > generations. "On the whole" the patriots deserved the tyrants they got.
: I see little blood being spilt to redress tyranny, and a lot to feed it.
And with morals like the ones you espouse, there will be little morale
backing those who spill blood to redress tyranny.
Jim Bowery
You never answered my basic question which was what about the force that
results from fraudulent abuse of enforcement and warmaking powers? Do we
merely expose the falsehoods of such fraud artists and then take no
forceful actions because to do so would be to meet fraud with force?
Jim Bowery
: fraud, even) then have your say. You can always vote with your feet. As
: for biased media etc, well, that's the hand that has been dealt. Do what
: you can to dismantle it, but don't be surprised if the majority of
: people still don't care as long as they have their video and pizza
: delivered on time.
I'm not surprised when guys who fought WW II think the present government
is legitimate even though it routinely and openly (see "Scared Straight"
and related "crime prevention" pogroms) relies upon murderous and sexually
sadistic punishment of nonviolent individuals for the foundation of its
powers, in direct contradiction to its own Constitution, which they swore
to defend and uphold against all enemies foreign and domestic. Why should
I be surprised when people who have never come close to fighting for
anything keep themselves in a hypoglycemic fog and live inside spiritually
poisonous worlds created by Jewish storytellers?
This is business as usual and has been so for centuries -- as I've stated
repeatedly in the past.
Why do you think I am "surprised" by any of this?
: Consider the reaction of those in this ng, who must be amongst the most
: receptive to your POV as a group. These are people who care about their
: tradition and ancestry, and who are well above average intelligence
: (IMHO).
If it ain't obvious by now that I'm not relying on the approval ratings of
the many folks who are in my killfile for permission to post to the
internet, I'm not sure what _will_ make it obvious. My primary concern
is with increasing the signal to noise ratio -- and the only effective
way of doing that is to inject signal -- this being a very low signal-
to-noise ratio environment -- yes even in this newsgroup where my
ancestral spirits are least put upon.
How is the fact that I am in a disappearingly small minority (despite the
fact that my most controversial morals were common sense among
pioneer folk over a century ago) important in this particular discussion
except as verification that my focus on signal addition is correct?
Dirk Bruere
>
> : I see little blood being spilt to redress tyranny, and a lot to feed it.
>
> And with morals like the ones you espouse, there will be little morale
> backing those who spill blood to redress tyranny.
We disagree on precisely what is the cause of such tryanny as exists.
In the end, we fight our own battles and causes as we see fit.
We are neither allies nor opponents, although your opinion may differ.
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
>
>...
> we waste our rage and energies fighting Jimmy B.'s phantoms.
>
see that something is badly wrong with the way things are, as compared
to the way things could/ought to be. I merely tend to spread the blame a
little wider.
The useful thing about extremists (and the British Poll Tax riots are a
case in point) is that they are an indicator of what a lot of people
feel, but few act upon. They are a foretaste of what is to come if...,
and that 'if' should not be ignored.
> >Well, do you know of any society that (internally) thought that fraud
> >and violent robery were laudable? Against outsiders, fair enough.
>
> ...Communism fostered a system -- under the NKVD/KGB -- under which
> internal security and "the revolution" justified spying on members of
> the society, violence, purges, and show trials. Children who "ratted
> National Socialism justified violence within the society against those
> it deemed outside the society. They weren't known for their
> truthfullness, either, but rather extolled propaganda. I remember
I think it is historically self evident that societies such as those
above do not last long. Their evil features (and all societies have
them) were not compensated by sufficient good(s).
What I feel is that Capitalism, as is presently constituted, has
decisively shown that greed is a far better corrupter of morality (in
all it's forms), and is far more efficient at enslaving people than
fear.
> ...and, I would recommend neither society as a fit place to live.
And this one is tolerable... smothering in toleration, in fact. Whatever
happens to you is being done for your own good. Although JB has never
said it , AFAIK, I suspect these decades are probably a pivotal point in
human history. We are priveleged to live in interesting times. I also
think that we are in a 'chaotic' period in the mathematical sense. That
is, almost anything that is done now, by almost anyone, will have major
effects on the future of this planet.
> >Not too different when it comes to how we view our own who indulge in
> >such crimes. Generally human morality within tribal or national contexts
> >is pretty uniform.
>
> ...a generality, but a comfortable one.
Yes. Honesty, courage, truth, honour, respect, hard work etc.. the Nine
Virtues for example, are the core of every civilisation in its ascendent
and dominant phase. Those societies that lose these values are replaced
by those that do.
> >Big questions. Turn the other cheek... you mean show the guy that you
> >can take whatever he hands out and still come back for more? Maybe.
>
> ...I have *never* personally held that "turn the other cheek" was
> interpreted as "tak(ing) whatever he hands out and still com(ing) back
> for more".
That was the historical context of the quotation. To slap someone on
their right cheek meant a backhand slap, reserved for servants or
slaves. To 'turn the other cheek' means that if you are to be struck
again, it must be as an equal. There are two types of Xianity, the one
with 'gentle Jesus meek and mild', to be taught to the sheep, and the
historical one favoured by the wolves.
> I've always interpreted it as an exhortation for the christian people
> to be longsuffering and humble..."take what life gives you and hang in
> there...it is God's will". Sort of a smarmy christian way of showing
> the people of Jesus' 33 CE heathen- and Jewish-majority world that "we
> don't question adversity, as adversity comes from Jehovah!".
I think that a very good case can be made for a Christianity that is
more akin to that practiced by the military Chivalric orders, than that
of the Quakers. A version that may well 'turn the other cheek' as a
defiant act from someone who is powerless, but, if they are not
powerless will result in a swift sword stroke to the perpetrator.
> It rather goes in hand with "love those who hate you" and other
> nonsensical and anti-individual admonitions.
Again, I think it depends upon how this is interpreted. The word 'love'
is actually translated from several different words signifying concepts
that differ. It is the deficiency of English that they are all lumped
together. Anyway, it can be considered in a different light. Does hate
actually help you overcome an enemy? In my experience the answer is no.
It becomes an impediment to clear though and analysis. The use of Zen by
the Samurai, arguably amongst the finest warriors humanity has ever
produced, has a lot in common with this attitude. And Buddhism is in
principle and practice far more pacifist than Xianity.
If your enemy is worthy, then if you translate 'love' as 'respect' it
may be more accurate. And if they are not worthy, how better to help
tham than by showing them the error of their ways? I mean, how generous
can you get, for Christs sake?
> >Mental adultery. Interesting implications. I think it is 'sinful', that
> >is, an error, for you to both want and not want something. It is a
> >divided mind, and such division is a source of weakness.
>
> ...I think that it is human nature...it is what we *do*, not what we
> *think*...the thoughts and impulses we control and those we act on,
> which are the measure of us as people. Catholics, for instance, would
> invade your skull. "Question your own motives", they say.
Always good advice. Question yourself before, and after, but never
during.
A divided mind is a weak mind. There is a time to think, and a time to
act, but seldom if ever a time to mix the two, and still hope for a
successful outcome.
Dirk
S. M. Hewitt
<"artemis"@xkbnet.co.uk (remove x to reply)> wrote:
>The useful thing about extremists (and the British Poll Tax riots are a
>case in point) is that they are an indicator of what a lot of people
>feel, but few act upon. They are a foretaste of what is to come if...,
>and that 'if' should not be ignored.
...when extremists and persons with immoderately held and publicly
broadcast views were rarer and more *local*, I'd have to agree. Now,
in the days of Jerry Springer, et. al., I'd say that some must find it
a savvy career move.
But, not our Jimmy B. He' of the "old school" of neighborhood crank.
>> ...I have *never* personally held that "turn the other cheek" was
>> interpreted as "tak(ing) whatever he hands out and still com(ing) back
>> for more".
>
>That was the historical context of the quotation. To slap someone on
>their right cheek meant a backhand slap, reserved for servants or
>slaves. To 'turn the other cheek' means that if you are to be struck
>again, it must be as an equal. There are two types of Xianity, the one
>with 'gentle Jesus meek and mild', to be taught to the sheep, and the
>historical one favoured by the wolves.
...now...just where in the Holy Halls of Asgarš did you dig that one
up? Backhand slap? Wolves? Well...taking a cursory glance at their
history, I'd say that the wolves outnumbered the sheep...at least in
the Propagation of the Faith department, anyway.
>I think that a very good case can be made for a Christianity that is
>more akin to that practiced by the military Chivalric orders, than that
>of the Quakers.
...the chivalric orders, the Teutonic Order among them, weren't the
selfless, selfsacrificing do-gooders of your...nor were they very
understanding. The only difference between their "convert or die"
tactics and Islams many Jihads early on were their professed faiths.
The Jihads are remembered...in some histories...as bloody conquests,
rapid and complete. The eastward sweep of the Teutonic Order over the
Prussians and further afield is another of those historical
"adjustments" the Pope might want to consider apologizing for.
>Again, I think it depends upon how this is interpreted. The word 'love'
>is actually translated from several different words signifying concepts
>that differ...
...quibbling.
This was, once upon a time, a debate over the moral equivelancy of
force vs. fraud. If "love", however derived or defined, was one of
the arrows in the christian's quiver, then it was a fairly effective
one.
>If your enemy is worthy, then if you translate 'love' as 'respect' it
>may be more accurate. And if they are not worthy, how better to help
>tham than by showing them the error of their ways? I mean, how generous
>can you get, for Christs sake?
...worthy? Christians, both historical and modern, view anyone not
"in the fold" as unworthy...much as the Viet Minh and their heirs held
that anyone who fought against them were war criminals. This is their
world view.
How generous can you get? Well...you can "respect" (not a
christianized "love" derived version of the word) their wishes and
leave them to their faith. The moslems did, in their caliphates. In
North Africa and Spain, they'd encourage conversion, and tax
apostacy...but, so long as the tax was paid, the "infidels" went about
their business. The Jews had a Talmudic Golden Age under the Spanish
caliphs. Under the christians, they were expelled or set alight.
>Dirk