Re: Intelligence of Jews/East-Asians Superior To Whites - Explains The Failure of The All White Republican Party
mose
"Crap Detector" <dete...@utopia.org> wrote in message
news:Xns9CF0EEA57A...@94.75.214.39...
> Looks like the Bell Curve was right - Whites Are Inferior to Jews / East
> Asians, explaining the failure of the all white Republican party in the
> USA and why lazy whites world wide cannot compete with the more
> industrious Jews and Orientals.
THE PROBLEM THAT WIPED OUT SEVERAL RULERS IN EUROPE AND OUR MORE
KNOWLEDGEABLE LEADERS WARNED THAT THE JEWS DESTROY OPEN DEMOCRATIC
SOCIETIES.
following the final Jewish defeat.
500-1300+ AD
According to Encyclopedia Britannica, Jewish merchants come to dominate
trade in the Middle Ages (with the exception of Scandinavia to which they
were never granted access). This also includes control of the eastern trade
routes to Asia. Their power will remain virtually intact until they are
thrown out of West European countries in the century preceding the
Renaissance. The first country to do so is Great Britain in 1290; France
follows its example in 1306, and country after country soon do the same.
Spain and Portugal are the last to ban the Jews, as late as in 1492 and
1498; by then they had access only to a few German city states, part of
northern Italy, and the papal possessions surrounding Avignon. Their
influence is also heavily restricted by the Fourth Laterenian Council of the
Catholic Church..
When the Jews lose their power, the economy once again rests in European
hands. Trade, which had been treated as a shady oligopoly, is now subject to
fair competition, and fantastic economic progress is made. White patrons use
some of their wealth to finance artists and scholars, and the Renaissance
sweeps over Europe like a fresh, new spring. The new culture and learning is
based almost entirely on ancient Greek and Roman scriptures, the cradle of
European civilization, and the Renaissance will remain forever a great
example of what a free White people can accomplish.
In Eastern Europe, however, trade largely remains in Jewish hands, and no
commercial progress is made.
>
> From http://www.eugenics.net/papers/rushton.html
>
Frankly cannot see a true co-relation between IQ and advancement of a group.
Ihe main factor for jewish dominance both today and in prewar Germany is the
clannish behavior of the jewish group. No great secret, the mafia has been
financially successful for it's members which took the forming ofinterpol to
obtain any kind of control of mafia criminals .
The jewish NEW RELIGION BASED ON THE TALMUD is a perfect criminal group, not
in the least hindered by consideration for gentiles hopes and dreams or
honesty of any kind dismissed as an unnecessary and evil act by the jesus
condemned talmud. CHECK THE TALMUD
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6657600254881054584&hl=en
Which written by rabbis have only one message, how not to get caught, and it
is no sin to lie, cheat, steal, murder non jews.
DONT HAVE TO TAKE OUR WORD LOOK ONE UP YOURSELF
SO THROUGH THE AGES THEY HAVE ANNOYED THE REAL DOERS AND MOVERS BYA SIMPLY
PARESITIC EXISTENCE.
http://www.skepdic.com/iqrace.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1NQDoKQWa8&feature=related
The research on IQ and race by Arthur Jensen, William Shockley, Herrnstein
and Murray (The Bell Curve) and others have not found any significant
correlations between race and intelligence. They have found correlations
between race and IQ, which has been used to support the notion that some
races are intellectually inferior to others. Not surprising is the fact that
different researchers using different data get different results. Richard
Lynn and James Flynn came to quite different conclusions regarding Asian IQ,
for example.
The fact that the I.Q.s of Chinese-Americans also seemed to be elevated has
led I.Q. fundamentalists to posit the existence of an international I.Q.
pyramid, with Asians at the top, European whites next, and Hispanics and
blacks at the bottom.
Here was a question tailor-made for James Flynn's accounting skills. He
looked first at Lynn's data, and realized that the comparison was skewed.
Lynn was comparing American I.Q. estimates based on a representative sample
of schoolchildren with Japanese estimates based on an upper-income, heavily
urban sample. Recalculated, the Japanese average came in not at 106.6 but at
99.2. Then Flynn turned his attention to the Chinese-American estimates.
They turned out to be based on a 1975 study in San Francisco's Chinatown
using something called the Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Test. But the
Lorge-Thorndike test was normed in the nineteen-fifties. For children in the
nineteen-seventies, it would have been a piece of cake. When the
Chinese-American scores were reassessed using up-to-date intelligence
metrics, Flynn found, they came in at 97 verbal and 100 nonverbal.
Chinese-Americans had slightly lower I.Q.s than white Americans. (Gladwell
2007)
In his monograph on Asian Americans and IQ, Flynn claims that Chinese
Americans' occupational achievements well exceed their IQ. He argues that
the best explanation for this is environmental, and is due to such things as
education, work ethic, and family values. Flynn also argues that the
Asian-American dominance in math has been in spite of their IQ, not because
of it (Gladwell 2008: 231n). In chapter eight of Outliers: the Story of
Success, Malcolm Gladwell presents the case that the main cultural factors
that explain Asian dominance in math are rooted in the history of rice
growing and the way numbers are named, written, and conceived.
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0010014
some race data
"There's about a 15 percent genetic variation between any two individuals,"
according to science writer Deborah Blum. "Less than half of that, about 6
percent, is accounted for by known racial groupings....A randomly selected
white person, therefore, can easily be genetically closer to an African than
another white" (Blum 1995).
There is no real race to religion so i think you are right religion will
wither as there barbaric old rules that kept tribes in barbaric times
together. Not just jews, but all tribes stole and raided over the hill ,
religion just previded a crutch. IE good to rape , steal murder and enslave
over the hill because they were bad and you were good. And anyone could get
up and say I have received a message from God, and if the message worked it
was incorporated and is it did not if the tribe was not weped out by the
massage the survivors would then put it down to displeasing the Gods.
So Gods were in a very good position , if things were bad, obviously you had
sinned and ought to try harder to please God and do the right thing, on the
other hand if things went well you thanked God even if was fairly obvious it
was luck of the draw, but priests did not want to miss out on the grateful
offerings.
So you had phenominal IQ'S in India and China, and there is every reason to
believe in other barbaric old cultures.
But religion was the greatest cap on development, and the first guy to
invent
plastic was killed as a wizard. And so on.
So china froze as business and ideas were not fairly rewarded so China went
into a ruler worship phase for 5000 years and had to wait for foreigners to
show them how a clock invented in china 1000 years before in China worked.
China already had a great system for passing on the latest technology to the
population, but did not solve the problem of running the country to reward
performance rather than genes.
India went extremely into gene worship and was stuck for 5000 years and is
still exploiting its children instead of a system to reward performance it
stayed with a system of exploitation and was colonised by a small country
island who did work out how to reward performance rather than genes or
piety.
That is about as sensible as the Somalis
Somalis pushing people of bikes
And describes the barbaric actions of israelis as just as vindictive and
pointless to any end other than increase tension and hate and with no other
purpose than the immature stupidity of the Somalis who apparently did not
think of the consequences any more than israelis are.
http://www.skepdic.com/iqrace.html
"IQ" stands for "intelligence quotient." A person's IQ is supposed to be a
measure of that person's intelligence: the higher the IQ number, the greater
the intelligence. This is inaccurate, however, since it assumes that there
is only one kind of intelligence. Most people recognize that there are some
people with fantastic memories, some with mathematical minds, some with
musical genius, some with mechanical expertise, some with good vocabularies,
some
EUROPEANS were blessed with men who worked with steel or iron which if you
are into phrophecy then the people who worked with iron and /or stone were
the proposed end winners.
And it does not matter whether a man is a bushman in Africa or a businessman
in New York one would expect different responses in IQ because if it's
reliance on specific knowledge.
In other words the knowledge the bushman needs to survive is quite different
to the knowledge the NY business man needs to survive.
And the specific knowledge of the business man would cover a lot of the
information required to acheive a high IQ score. Whereas the tester would
not know enough about the information that a bushman would have so his test
would necessaryily be unreliable.
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/intelligence.html
Difficulties with measuring intelligence
Finally, there's the question of intelligence testing. I think it has come
a long way, but it has a long way to go as well. I hope to see it become
more inclusive of non-academic thinking, and to become less tied to prior
learning. The bigger problem with testing, however, is what we do with the
results: People are far too prone to take test scores at face value,
without looking at a broader selection of information about a person's
abilities. They are also far too likely to generalize to non-intelligence
issues. We should certainly not use intelligence tests carelessly when
deciding children's' educations or adult's careers.
http://www.davidduke.com/general/sandra-bernhard-reveals-jewish-supremacism_4792.html
http://groups.google.com/group/can.general/browse_thread/thread/6d29a800712036a7
'Pornography': To film prostitution. Over 90% of pornographers are
jewish.
In a respected and scholarly magazine of Jewish intellectuals, (The
Jewish Quarterly, winter 2004) Jewish professor Nathan Abrams in an
article titled, "Triple Exthnics," proudly documents the leading role
of Gentile-hating Jews in pornography.
"A story little told is that of Jews in Hollywood's seedier cousin,
the adult film industry. Perhaps we'd prefer that the 'triple
exthnics' didn't exist, but there's no getting away from the fact that
secular Jews played (and still continue to play) a disproportionate
role throughout the adult film industry in America. Jewish involvement
in pornography has a long history in the United States, as Jews have
helped transform a fringe subculture into what has become a primary
constituent of Americana. These are the 'true blue' Jews. Jewish
activity in the porn industry divides into two (sometimes overlapping)
groups: pornographers and performers. Though Jews make up only two per
cent of the American population, they have been prominent in
pornography. In the postwar era, America's most notorious pornographer
was Reuben Sturman, the 'Walt Disney of Porn'. According to the US
Department of Justice, throughout the 1970s Sturman controlled most of
the pornography circulating in the country. . It was said that Sturman
did not simply control the adult-entertainment industry; he was the
industry. Many are entirely secular, Jews in name only. Sturman,
however, identified as a Jew - he was a generous donator to Jewish
charities."
Abrams shows how the corruption and debasement of Gentiles and
Christian morality is a primary part of their motivation for
intentionally infecting the Gentile community with pornography.
>
> RACE, INTELLIGENCE, AND THE BRAIN:
>
> Abstract
>
> The first edition of The Mismeasure of Man appeared in 1981 and was
> quickly praised in the popular press as a definitive refutation of 100
> years of scientific work on race, brain-size and intelligence. It sold
> 125,000 copies, was translated into 10 languages, and became required
> reading for undergraduate and even graduate classes in anthropology,
> psychology, and sociology. The second edition is not truly revised,
> but rather only expanded, as the author claims the book needed no
> updating as any new research would only be plagued with the same
> philosophical errors revealed in the first edition. Thus it continues
> a political polemic, whose author engages in character assassination
> of long deceased scientists whose work he misrepresents despite
> published refutations, while studiously witholding from his readers
> fifteen years of new research that contradicts every major scientific
> argument he puts forth. Specific attention in this review are given to
> the following topics: (1) the relationship between brain size and IQ,
> (2) the importance of the scientific contributions of Sir Francis
> Galton, S. G. Morton, H. H. Goddard, and Sir Cyril Burt, (3) the role
> of early IQ testers in determining U.S. immigration policy, (4) The
> Bell Curve controversy and the reality of g, (5) race/sex/social class
> differences in brain size and IQ, (6) Cesare Lombroso and the genetic
> basis of criminal behavior, (7) between-group heritabilities,
> inter-racial adoption studies, and IQ (8) why evolutionary theory
> predicts group differences, and (9) the extent to which Gould's
> political ideology has affected his scientific work.
>
> "May I end up next to Judas Iscariot, Brutus, and Cassius in the
> devils mouth at the center of hell if I ever fail to present my most
> honest assessment and best judgment of evidence for empirical truth"
> (p. 39). So swears one Stephen Jay Gould, justifiably worried that his
> activist background may have tarnished his reputation for scholarship.
> Critical examination of the new edition of The Mismeasure of Man shows
> that, indeed, Gould's resort to character assassination and
> misrepresentation of evidence have caught up with him.
>
> Hailed in the popular media as the definitive deconstruction of the
> 'myth' that science is an objective enterprise, the original The
> Mismeasure of Man was in fact an ad hominem attack on eminent
> scholars, past and present, who have scientifically studied race,
> intelligence, and brain size. Despite the masses of empirical research
> using state-of-the-art technology published in highly prestigious
> journals that refute the obscurantist arguments Gould first served up
> in 1981, all the chapters of the initial edition have now been
> unapologetically regurgitated. Gould's failure not only to conduct any
> empirical research of his own but to even acknowledge the existence of
> any and all contradictory data speaks for itself. Revealed political
> truth may abhor revision but science thrives on it. Scientist that he
> is, Gould may yet regret agreeing to produce this 'revision'.
>
> Rather than being appropriately revised, the original edition of The
> Mismeasure of Man has merely been expanded. Gould includes a 30-page
> preface on why he wrote the original and why the renewed interest in
> race, behavior, and evolution, required that he 'revise' it after 15
> years, although he also maintains (p. 35) that his 1981 arguments
> needed no modification. Gould's 1996 book also contains five end
> chapters including essays on J. F. Blumenbach, the 19th century German
> anthropologist who developed the first scientific system of racial
> hierarchy, and Gould's own previously published reviews of Herrnstein
> and Murrays (1994) The Bell Curve.
>
> After carefully reading the book, I charge Gould with several counts
> of scholarly malfeasance. First, he omits mention of remarkable new
> discoveries made from Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) which show that
> brain-size and IQ correlate about 0.40. These results are as
> replicable as one will find in the social and behavioral sciences and
> utterly destroy many of Gould's arguments. Second, despite published
> refutations, Gould repeats verbatim his defamations of character
> against long deceased individuals. Third, Gould fails to respond to
> the numerous empirical studies that show a consistent pattern of race
> differences in IQ, brain size, crime, and other factors that have
> appeared since his first edition went to press.
>
> Brain-Size/IQ Relations: Where Was Gould During The Decade Of The
> Brain?
> In the opening chapters, Gould charges 19th century scientists with
> 'juggling' and 'finagling' brain size data in order to place Northern
> Europeans at the apex of civilization, lower orders trailing behind in
> a great chain of being. He argues that, in effect, Paul Broca, Francis
> Galton, and Samuel George Morton, all erred in the same direction and
> by similar magnitudes. Implausibly, Gould asks us to believe that
> Broca 'leaned' on his autopsy scales when measuring wet brains by just
> enough to produce the same differences that Morton caused by
> 'over-packing' empty skulls using filler, as did Galton's extra loose
> grip on calipers while measuring heads!
>
> Later in the book, Gould attempts to discredit such 20th century
> luminaries as H. H. Goddard, Lewis Terman, R. M. Yerkes, Charles
> Spearman, Cyril Burt, Hans Eysenck and Arthur Jensen who, Gould
> claims, mean-spiritedly set out to measure IQ and fabricate its
> heritability. Gould specifically charges psychometricians with the sin
> of reification, that is, treating hypothetical constructs as though
> they were real entities. His major target is the general factor of
> intelligence (known as g). Contrary to Gould, every major study shows
> that different IQ tests tend to be significantly intercorrelated
> (Carroll, 1993) and that g is the 'active ingredient' in IQ
> predictions (Brody, 1992).
>
> Gould's omission of recent, devastatingly contradictory evidence
> constitutes at best shoddy and at worst dishonest scholarship. Even
> before Gould's (1981) first edition, Van Valen (1974) had reviewed the
> literature and estimated an overall correlation of 0.30 between brain
> size and intelligence. Gould (1981) neglected to even mention Van
> Valens review. The 1990s have been called the 'Decade of the Brain'
> for good reason. Remarkable discoveries made using MRI confirm many of
> the relationships described by the 19th century visionaries defamed by
> Gould. Neither Gould nor his publisher show any scruples in releasing
> these chapters without the required revisions. Since Gould chose to
> withold this evidence from his extensive readership, allow me to
> reveal it. (For more detail, see the review by Rushton & Ankney,
> 1996).
>
> The published research that most clearly shows the correlation between
> brain size and intelligence employed MRI, which creates, in vivo, a
> three-dimensional image of the brain. An overall correlation of 0.44
> was found between MRI-measured-brain-size and IQ in 8 separate studies
> with a total sample size of 381 non-clinical adults. This correlation
> is about as strong as the relationship between socioeconomic status of
> origin and IQ. In seven MRI studies of clinical adults (N = 312) the
> overall correlation was 0.24; in 15 studies using external head
> measurements with adults (N = 6,437) the overall correlation was 0.15,
> and in 17 studies using external head measurements with children and
> adolescents (N = 45,056) the overall correlation was 0.21. The head
> size and brain size correlation with the g factor itself, which Gould
> would have you believe is a mere artifact, is even larger --- 0.60!
> (Jensen, 1994; Wickett et al., 1996).
>
> Further, the brain-size/IQ correlation is predictive from birth. The
> National Collaborative Perinatal Study analyzed data from 17,000 White
> babies and 19,000 Black babies followed from birth to 7 years (Broman
> et al., 1987). Head perimeters were measured at birth for all
> children. At age 7, head perimeters were remeasured and IQ assessed.
> For both the Black and the White children, head perimeter measured at
> birth significantly predicted head perimeter at 7 years, and head
> perimeter at both ages predicted IQ!
>
> The first of these MRI studies were published in the late 1980s and
> early 1990s in leading, refereed, mainstream journals like
> Intelligence (Willerman et al., 1991) and the American Journal of
> Psychiatry (Andreasen et al., 1993). I know Gould is aware of them
> because my colleagues and I routinely sent him copies as they appeared
> and asked him what he thought! For the record, let it be known that
> Gould did not reply to the missives regarding the published scientific
> data that destroyed the central thesis of his first edition.
>
> Further evidence of Gould's method is the way the 1996 edition deletes
> the very section of the 1981 edition that discussed the brain-size/IQ
> relation. In the 1981 edition (pp. 108-111), Gould cited Jensen's
> (1980) Bias in Mental Testing (pp. 361-362) in order to pooh-pooh
> Jensen's report of a 0.30 correlation between brain-size and IQ and a
> table from Hooton (1939) which showed that average head sizes differed
> by SES. Gould (1996) gives no reason for making this selective cut,
> which would have appeared on page 140 of the new edition. I can only
> infer that when Gould read Jensen's (1982) review of his book, which
> he mentions doing in the introduction, he realized that Jensen's
> citation of the 0.30 correlation between brain size and IQ was based
> on Van Valen's (1974) review and so could no longer be dismissed as
> just Jensen. I submit that Gould realized that repeating this section
> verbatim, given the weight of the new evidence, would destroy his
> entire thesis. Rather than revise his arguments in light of the truth,
> Gould chose to repeat them without change and to withold any evidence
> to the contrary. Both Gould and his publisher owe it to their readers
> to explain why this supposedly 'new' edition studiously avoids any
> mention of all the new evidence.
>
> Is it reasonable to expect that brain size and cognitive ability are
> related? Yes! Haug (1987, p.135) found a correlation of 0.479 (N = 81,
> P<0.001) between number of cortical neurons (based on a partial count
> of representative areas of the brain) and brain size in humans. His
> sample included both men and women. The regression relating the two
> measures is: number of cortical neurons (in billions)= 5.583 + 0.006
> (cm3 brain volume). According to this equation, a person with a brain
> size of 1,400 cm3 has, on average, 600 million fewer cortical neurons
> than an individual with a brain size of 1,500 cm3. The difference
> between the low end of the normal distribution (1,000 cm3) and the
> high end (1,700 cm3) works out to be 4.2 billion neurons. That amounts
> to 27% more neurons for a 41% increase in brain size. The best
> estimate is that the human brain contains about 100 billion (1011)
> neurons classifiable into perhaps as many as 10,000 different types
> resulting in 100,000 billion synapses (Kandel, 1991). Even storing
> information at the low average rate of one bit per synapse, which
> would require two levels of synaptic activity (high or low/on or off),
> the structure as a whole would generate 1014 bits of information.
> Contemporary supercomputers, by comparison, typically have a memory of
> about 109 bits.
>
> On Character and Character Assassination
> Gould's faults extend well beyond sins of omission to include sins of
> commission. The 'new' edition repeats the same false accusations that
> have been well refuted since 1981. Thus, Gould leaves unmodified his
> denigration of Sir Francis Galton as a 'dotty Victorian eccentric' (p.
> 108) despite having been called to account for painting a thoroughly
> tendentious portrait by University of Cambridge statistician, A. W. F.
> Edwards (1983) in the London Review of Books. Edwards rightly
> excoriated Gould, as the author of a book full of references to
> correlation, regression (including multiple regression), principal
> components analysis, and factor analysis, for failing to inform his
> readers that this whole statistical methodology is derived from
> Galtons pioneering work on the bivariate normal distribution and
> linear regression.
>
> Gould also repeats verbatim his (1981) claim that S. G. Morton
> (1799-1851), one of the giants of 19th American science,
> 'unconsciously' doctored his results on cranial capacity so as to
> prove Caucasian racial superiority, despite the fact that when J. S.
> Michael (1988) remeasured a random sample of the Morton collection he
> found that very few errors had been made, and that these were not in
> the direction that Gould had asserted. Instead, the errors were in
> Gould's own work! Michael concluded that Mortons research "was
> conducted with integrity...(while)...Gould is mistaken" (p. 353).
>
> Other refutations of Gould's original edition of The Mismeasure of Man
> appeared in the 1987 and 1988 issues of the American Psychologist.
> Gould claimed to have detected "conscious skullduggery" in Goddard's
> (1912) study of the heritability of feeblemindedness in the Kallikak
> family and alleged that Goddard's photographs had been 'phonied' by
> inserting heavy lines to give the eyes and mouth a 'depraved',
> 'sinister', and 'diabolical appearance'. However, not only was such
> retouching common during the period and thus betrays no evil intent
> (Fancher, 1987), but the retouched photographs actually strike judges
> (when empirically tested) as appearing kind (Glenn & Ellis, 1988).
>
> Similarly, Gould repeats his trashing of Sir Cyril Burt's reputation,
> citing the initial verdict against him by Hearnshaw (1977) and
> avoiding any mention of the new evidence that has since come to light.
> Recall that Burt (1883-1971) was the distinguished British educational
> psychologist who reported a heritability for IQ of 77% for identical
> twins reared apart. Subsequently, he was widely accused of fabricating
> his data. However, five separate studies of identical twins raised
> apart have now corroborated Burt's finding (Jensen, 1992; see also
> Bouchard et al., 1990; Pedersen et al., 1992). The average
> heritability from these studies is 75%, almost the same as Burts
> supposedly 'faked' heritability of 77%. Moreover, two independently
> written, meticulously thorough books, one by Robert B. Joynson (1988)
> and the other by Ronald Fletcher (1991), have vindicated Burt and
> described how he was railroaded by those on both sides of the Atlantic
> dedicated to destroying hereditarian findings.
>
> Early IQ Testers, Immigration, And The Holocaust
> Gould's most inflammatory allegation consists of blaming IQ testers
> for magnifying the toll of those lost in the Holocaust (p. 263). Here
> he has followed the lead of Leon Kamin's (1974) The Science and
> Politics of IQ. The Kamin-Gould thesis is that early IQ testers
> claimed their research proved that Jews as a group scored low on their
> tests and that this finding was then conveniently used to support
> passage of the restrictive Immigration Act of 1924 which then denied
> entry to hapless Jewish refugees in the 1930s. Gould goes so far as to
> claim (1996, pp. 195-198; 255-258) that Henry H. Goddard (in 1917) and
> Carl C. Brigham (in 1923) labeled four-fifths of Jewish immigrants as
> "feeble-minded ... morons".
>
> The facts are very different. Goddard wanted to find out if the Binet
> test was as effective at identifying 'high-grade defectives' (the term
> then used for those with mental ages between eight and twelve) among
> immigrants as it was among native-born Americans. By 1913, Goddard had
> translated the Binet test into English and arranged, over a
> two-and-a-half-month period, for it to be given to a subset of Jewish,
> Hungarian, Italian, and Russian immigrants "preselected as being
> neither 'obviously feeble-minded' nor 'obviously normal'" (Goddard,
> 1917, p. 244, emphasis added). Among this "unrepresentative" group
> (178 subjects in all), the tests successfully categorized 83% of the
> Jews, 80% of the Hungarians, 79% of the Italians, and 87% of the
> Russians. Goddard (1917) explicitly did not assert that 80% of
> Russians, Jews, or any immigrant group in general were feeble minded
> nor that the figures were representative of all immigrants from those
> nations. Nor did he claim that the feeblemindedness he was measuring
> was due to heredity. The vast majority of the many immigrants going
> through Ellis Island were never given mental tests. Nor was a random
> sample of any national group of immigrants ever tested. The only study
> by Goddard involving the testing of immigrants begins with the
> following sentence: "This is not a study of immigrants in general but
> of six small highly selected groups... "(1917, p. 243).
>
>
>
Kenneth McVay OBC
mose <mo...@capp.com> wrote:
[bullshit expunged]
Hey Bubba, when are you going to identify the location
of the NAFCASH Trust, and name the Trustees?
Are you still looking for the information? How's that
working out for you?
Here's another racist moron... except he is smarter
than you are, as you can see from his inciteful
thoughts:
170 Statements Illustrating Leading Revisionist Scholar Kurt Knoll's
strict adherence to the highest intellectual standards of Holocaust
denial... folks, with intellects like Knoll's to guide them, Holocaust
deniers cannot but achieve monumental failures and continuing
humiliations:
(See http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/k/knoll-kurt/ for
the first 164 -- (Honest, Folks, I'm not making them up!)
165. "What Nazi crab look at your own fabrications."
<gSwnm.42278$Db2.2387@edtnps83>, Sept. 3, 2009
166. "I personally think the use this holocaust denial crab
to scare others." <NXRom.42961$Db2.7658@edtnps83>,
Sept. 6, 2009
167. "Intersting what date what posings heading i am courious."
<0igpm.44144$PH1.22994@edtnps82>, Sept. 7, 2009
168. "We are talking about gassings don't we."
<vEgpm.44148$PH1.40649@edtnps82>, Sept. 7, 2009
169. "Only the naive will belive what Wiesenthal says edjucatet
people can think for themselfs."
<vNvqm.43567$Db2.12876@edtnps83>, Sept. 12, 2009
170. "People who wend to university should have a higher education.
When they come out latter on the are full of arrogance and
not considered normal human being. We say here this fuckers
did have their education in a slime factory and their arrogance
is very apparent visible. " <qG7vm.46534$PH1.45557@edtnps82>,
Sept.25, 2009
--
The Nizkor Project - An electronic Holocaust educational resource
David Irving, Holocaust denial, and his connections to Right-Wing
Extremists and Neo-Nazism in Germany:
http://www2.ca.nizkor.org/hweb/people/f/funke-hajo/