Multiracialism and The Destruction of American Society.
JJohns...@webtv.net
society lose their uniformity, the result is feelings of alienation
among many members of such a society. When a society becomes
multiracial, it becomes hard to identify with that society, hence, that
society is no longer respected by its members.
It is a basic human need to feel a sense of belonging and a sense of
family. Since a multiracial society does not offer this, you find
people, young people in particular, breaking off into small, sub-tribal
units commonly referred to as "gangs".
In a "gang", the Natural Law of the human social order is rigidly
adhered to. A "gang" is almost always a racially homogeneous hierarchy
of males with a territory (nation) which is marked with "colors" or a
certain symbol (flag).
In multiracial, liberal American mainstream society, it is considered
"freedom of expression" to desecrate the American flag. In a "gang",
desecration of the "gangs" colors would result in immediate execution.
In multiracial, liberal American mainstream society, we have an "open
immigration" policy. In a "gang", if you "illegally" enter their
territory, you are likely to be violently assaulted or killed.
In multiracial, liberal American mainstream society, feminists demand
abortion "rights" and womens "liberation". In a "gang", if the female
gang members demanded womens "liberation" from the male hierarchy of the
gang, they would get their teeth knocked out.
In multiracial, liberal American mainstream society, interracial
marriage is encouraged. In a "gang", if a member of another "gang" moved
in on one of their women, the result would be warfare between the two
"gangs".
The point is, a gang, although very primitive, offers a sense of
identity, and an escape from the alienation of mainstream multiracial
American society. In a black gang, new members often are required to
show their loyalty by killing a rival gang member, a White person, or
even better, a White police officer.
In some of the White skinhead gangs, members earn status by killing a
Negro or a Jew.
The multiracialists are always promoting the idea of "equality".
Although human "equality" does not exist as the multiracialists speak of
it, all humans are basically the same at the most basic and primitive
level. We all need to feel a sense of belonging and identity. That is
exactly why THE RACES MUST SEPARATE. The Negroes will not settle for
being treated as second-class citizens, and Whites will object to
affirmative action, and to Negroes marrying White women. If we do not
separate, the fight will go on and on and on.
One hundred years ago when America was racially homogeneous, and Negroes
were segregated, there were no gangs of youths all over America
terrorizing society. The reason is because everybody knew their place
and had a sense of belonging among there OWN PEOPLE.
The multiracialists will more than likely resort to the usual Marxist
drivel to explain the gang phenomenon in modern times, by howling about
economic status ad nauseam. There has always been poor people. Poverty
does not explain why the Negro crime rate is higher now than it was when
they lived in metal shacks in the deep south. The current regime in
Washington nearly worships them.
Western Imperative Network
http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm
National Alliance
http://www.natvan.com
Jew Watch
http://www.jewwatch.com
Wake Up or Die
http://www.wakeupordie.com
Thomas Mohr
> In a "gang", the Natural Law of the human social order is rigidly
> adhered to. A "gang" is almost always a racially homogeneous hierarchy
> of males with a territory (nation) which is marked with "colors" or a
> certain symbol (flag).
So your movement is similar to a "gang", right ?
> The point is, a gang, although very primitive, offers a sense of
> identity, and an escape from the alienation of mainstream multiracial
> American society. In a black gang, new members often are required to
> show their loyalty by killing a rival gang member, a White person, or
> even better, a White police officer.
Racist attitude. Ideology that YOU advocate.
> In some of the White skinhead gangs, members earn status by killing a
> Negro or a Jew.
In other words. Racism is deadly.T
Aviator
We are a bigotted racist minority who fear reprisals for hate crimes we
commit against minority groups. We want a free society for our precious
white band of racists, and fuck everyone else
<JJohns...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:20389-36...@newsd-283.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>When a society loses its homogeneity, when the values and beliefs of a
>society lose their uniformity, the result is feelings of alienation
>among many members of such a society. When a society becomes
>multiracial, it becomes hard to identify with that society, hence, that
>society is no longer respected by its members.
>
>It is a basic human need to feel a sense of belonging and a sense of
>family. Since a multiracial society does not offer this, you find
>people, young people in particular, breaking off into small, sub-tribal
>units commonly referred to as "gangs".
>
>In a "gang", the Natural Law of the human social order is rigidly
>adhered to. A "gang" is almost always a racially homogeneous hierarchy
>of males with a territory (nation) which is marked with "colors" or a
>certain symbol (flag).
>
>In multiracial, liberal American mainstream society, it is considered
>"freedom of expression" to desecrate the American flag. In a "gang",
>desecration of the "gangs" colors would result in immediate execution.
>
>In multiracial, liberal American mainstream society, we have an "open
>immigration" policy. In a "gang", if you "illegally" enter their
>territory, you are likely to be violently assaulted or killed.
>
>In multiracial, liberal American mainstream society, feminists demand
>abortion "rights" and womens "liberation". In a "gang", if the female
>gang members demanded womens "liberation" from the male hierarchy of the
>gang, they would get their teeth knocked out.
>
>In multiracial, liberal American mainstream society, interracial
>marriage is encouraged. In a "gang", if a member of another "gang" moved
>in on one of their women, the result would be warfare between the two
>"gangs".
>
>The point is, a gang, although very primitive, offers a sense of
>identity, and an escape from the alienation of mainstream multiracial
>American society. In a black gang, new members often are required to
>show their loyalty by killing a rival gang member, a White person, or
>even better, a White police officer.
>
>In some of the White skinhead gangs, members earn status by killing a
>Negro or a Jew.
>
The Devil's Advocate©
>When a society loses its homogeneity, when the values and beliefs of a
>society lose their uniformity, the result is feelings of alienation
>among many members of such a society. When a society becomes
>multiracial, it becomes hard to identify with that society, hence, that
>society is no longer respected by its members.
Multi-racial doesn't mean the same thing as multi-cultural or
multi-national.
>It is a basic human need to feel a sense of belonging and a sense of
>family. Since a multiracial society does not offer this, you find
>people, young people in particular, breaking off into small, sub-tribal
>units commonly referred to as "gangs".
You can have a sense of belonging with members of other races, so long
as you have similiar personalities and interest.
>In multiracial, liberal American mainstream society, feminists demand
>abortion "rights" and womens "liberation".
Afraid of that declining white birthrate, eh?
>The point is, a gang, although very primitive, offers a sense of
>identity, and an escape from the alienation of mainstream multiracial
>American society. In a black gang, new members often are required to
>show their loyalty by killing a rival gang member, a White person, or
>even better, a White police officer.
That's bullshit, most gang initiations involve getting "jumped in"
which means having the shit beat out of them by other gang members to
see if they can take it. And when it does involving shooting someone
as an initiation, it's usually a revenge killing against another gang,
not against some anonymous stranger. Very, very, very, very few whites
have died at the hands of a gang initiation killing.
>In some of the White skinhead gangs, members earn status by killing a
>Negro or a Jew.
>
>The multiracialists are always promoting the idea of "equality".
>Although human "equality" does not exist as the multiracialists speak of
>it, all humans are basically the same at the most basic and primitive
>level. We all need to feel a sense of belonging and identity. That is
>exactly why THE RACES MUST SEPARATE. The Negroes will not settle for
>being treated as second-class citizens,
Should we?
>and Whites will object to
>affirmative action, and to Negroes marrying White women.
No mention of white men with black women? Why not?
>If we do not
>separate, the fight will go on and on and on.
>
>One hundred years ago when America was racially homogeneous,
Bullshit, America has always had a lot of different races. It is
*less* diverse now than it was in 1776.
>and Negroes
>were segregated, there were no gangs of youths all over America
>terrorizing society.
No, 100 years ago, we had white cowboy gangs hunting Indians for
sport. But of course these bad boys are considered heroes for their
killing, badassed attitude and coolness. However when a black
gangmember does the same, it's wrong.
>The multiracialists will more than likely resort to the usual Marxist
>drivel to explain the gang phenomenon in modern times, by howling about
>economic status ad nauseam. There has always been poor people. Poverty
>does not explain why the Negro crime rate is higher now than it was when
>they lived in metal shacks in the deep south. The current regime in
>Washington nearly worships them.
I figured you'd have to slip some Clinton-bashing in there somewhere.
--
regards,
The Devil's Advocate
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Your Warrant Is In Question"
The Devil's Advocate...Online
http://surf.to/advocate
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
remove "nojunk" to email
JJohns...@webtv.net
not?"
I must have forgot. Thank you for pointing it out.
Aviator
<JJohns...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:16624-36...@newsd-284.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>"Devils advocate" wrote, "no mention of white men with black women? Why
>not?"
>
>I must have forgot. Thank you for pointing it out.
Why should you?? it would only prove your figures to be a gross distortion,
if not an outright lie. But then that is the favorite propaganda tool of
white minority bigots
The truth is WAAAAYYYY too painful
Miguel O'Pastel
and The Hounds around 1850) prompting the formation of the Committee of
Vigilance and numerous lynchings. Gangs form in the absence of constructive
alternatives. The Shamrocks in LA were once Irish in the forties and are
now Black.
M
The Devil's AdvocateŠ wrote in message
<36e1fa1a...@news.earthlink.net>...
:
:>If we do not
Miguel O'Pastel
multiracial. Now if those kids can learn to play together....
M
JJohns...@webtv.net wrote in message
<16618-36...@newsd-282.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Waters, my point was that gangs are a hierachical sub-tribal unit, and
although primitive, backward and stupid, their social structure is more
natural and healthy than your egalitarian, liberal, psychosis. I never
said that Negro street gangs were opposed to interracial marriage or
abortion. Of course the Negro street thug would prefer a White woman
instead of a Negro woman. The fact that Negroes are constantly drooling
over White women suggests that Negroes are aware of White superiority.
You asked the extremely moronic question, "what is the biological
definition of race?" Obviously you have no knowledge of Anthropology and
have no common sense.
Perhaps when the LSD wears off, and your egalitarian hallucination
subsides you will be able to identify the racial differences between a
Nordic White man and a Negro straight from the Congo.
J. "Hates when left-wingers spew forth their 60's style Trotskyite
rhetoric" Johnson
David C. Waters
dissection, the logic is so flimsy that this patient is unraveling
spontaneously..."
JJohns...@webtv.net wrote:
: When a society loses its homogeneity, when the values and beliefs of a
: society lose their uniformity, the result is feelings of alienation
: among many members of such a society. When a society becomes
: multiracial, it becomes hard to identify with that society, hence, that
: society is no longer respected by its members.
Yet Sweeden and Japan, both highly homogenous, even when enjoying a
higher standard of living than most countries, have/had notably higher
than average suicide rates...
JJohns...@webtv.net wrote:
: It is a basic human need to feel a sense of belonging and a sense of
: family. Since a multiracial society does not offer this, you find
: people, young people in particular, breaking off into small, sub-tribal
: units commonly referred to as "gangs".
"Gangs" are so called due to a heavy association with criminal activity,
which often follows childhood poverty and/or abusive family life. The
interesting thing about ethnic/"racial" gangs is that they have virtually
everything in common with their ethnic/"racial" rivals, including mutual
hatred.
The fact that a society is or is not multi-ethnic or multi-"racial" has
nothing to do with the formation of gangs. For example, African American
engineers have more in common with European American engineers than they
do with African American criminals. If you don't understand this then it
can't be explained to you...especially, since you don't seem to have
anything in common with smart people!
What is the biological definition of "race"? There is no such thing.
But there is an arbitrary social definition of "race" and even using such
an artificial construct, try to identify biological distinctiveness
between "sub-tribal" units known as Catholics and Protestants in Northern
Ireland, North Koreans and South Koreans, democrats and republicans, etc.
JJohns...@webtv.net wrote:
: In a "gang", the Natural Law of the human social order is rigidly
: adhered to. A "gang" is almost always a racially homogeneous hierarchy
: of males with a territory (nation) which is marked with "colors" or a
: certain symbol (flag).
Isn't it telling that you perceive the gang livestyle as a "Natural Law
of the human social order"?
JJohns...@webtv.net wrote:
: In multiracial, liberal American mainstream society, it is considered
: "freedom of expression" to desecrate the American flag. In a "gang",
: desecration of the "gangs" colors would result in immediate execution.
It's the Constitution of the United States of America that we hold as the
most sacred, not the flag! A *true* American should know this!
JJohns...@webtv.net wrote:
: In multiracial, liberal American mainstream society, we have an "open
: immigration" policy. In a "gang", if you "illegally" enter their
: territory, you are likely to be violently assaulted or killed.
If the US immigration policy is so "open" then why do some US citizens
have to literally wait DECADES for some of their immediate family members
to immigrate?
JJohns...@webtv.net wrote:
: In multiracial, liberal American mainstream society, feminists demand
: abortion "rights" and womens "liberation". In a "gang", if the female
: gang members demanded womens "liberation" from the male hierarchy of the
: gang, they would get their teeth knocked out.
Are you suggesting that male-dominated gangs are opposed to a woman's
pregnancy options? Hmmm...perhaps this is true when the father happens
to be a gang member who forces the woman, whom he impregnated, to have an
abortion.
JJohns...@webtv.net wrote:
: In multiracial, liberal American mainstream society, interracial
: marriage is encouraged. In a "gang", if a member of another "gang" moved
: in on one of their women, the result would be warfare between the two
: "gangs".
Damn! You mean to tell me that I missed the PSAs, at half-time during
the Super Bowl, encouraging "interracial" marriages?
JJohns...@webtv.net wrote:
: The point is, a gang, although very primitive, offers a sense of
: identity, and an escape from the alienation of mainstream multiracial
: American society. In a black gang, new members often are required to
: show their loyalty by killing a rival gang member, a White person, or
: even better, a White police officer.
Which "black" gang was it that you applied for?
JJohns...@webtv.net wrote:
: In some of the White skinhead gangs, members earn status by killing a
: Negro or a Jew.
Once in, do they also get merit badges for disrupting newsgroups with
mindless, drivel?
JJohns...@webtv.net wrote:
: The multiracialists are always promoting the idea of "equality".
: Although human "equality" does not exist as the multiracialists speak of
: it, all humans are basically the same at the most basic and primitive
: level. We all need to feel a sense of belonging and identity. That is
: exactly why THE RACES MUST SEPARATE. The Negroes will not settle for
: being treated as second-class citizens, and Whites will object to
: affirmative action, and to Negroes marrying White women. If we do not
: separate, the fight will go on and on and on.
Isn't it interesting that even when Europeans were at their peak of
isolation from Africans, Asians, and Americans, they still managed to
separate themselves into groups, clans, and classes? They also managed
to practice discrimination and even murder one another.
JJohns...@webtv.net wrote:
: One hundred years ago when America was racially homogeneous, and Negroes
: were segregated, there were no gangs of youths all over America
: terrorizing society. The reason is because everybody knew their place
: and had a sense of belonging among there OWN PEOPLE.
Did you drop out of school before learning about the gunslingers of the
Old West? Also, America was never "racially" or culturally homogenous!
The United States of America started with a riot called "The Boston Tea
Party", at least that's what they like to tell school children, between
like "races".
JJohns...@webtv.net wrote:
: The multiracialists will more than likely resort to the usual Marxist
: drivel to explain the gang phenomenon in modern times, by howling about
: economic status ad nauseam. There has always been poor people. Poverty
: does not explain why the Negro crime rate is higher now than it was when
: they lived in metal shacks in the deep south. The current regime in
: Washington nearly worships them.
Speaking of the "gang phenomenon", isn't it interesting that the largely
"black" gang known as the "Crips" derived its name from a "white" gang
that existed about 100 years ago? The original gang was called the
"Cripplers". The Cripplers were thuggish (all or mostly) "white" men
hired by loan sharks to enforce payments.
David "Hates when racists come out of hibernation" Waters
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/_/ David C. Waters, Jr. _/_/ Integrated Business Solutions _/_/
_/_/ Multimedia Business Answers _/_/ Video Audio CD-ROM Publishing _/_/
_/_/ E-Mail: mba...@netcom.com _/_/ World Wide Web and TV Access! _/_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
JJohns...@webtv.net
The Devil's Advocate©
>"Devils advocate" wrote, "no mention of white men with black women? Why
>not?"
>
>I must have forgot. Thank you for pointing it out.
Bullshit, you "forgot" it because it wasn't yours. Like most of you
white nationalists lemmings, you can only cut and paste the words of
some pied piper such as Bill Pierce.
The Devil's Advocate©
> Waters, my point was that gangs are a hierachical sub-tribal unit, and
>although primitive, backward and stupid, their social structure is more
>natural and healthy than your egalitarian, liberal, psychosis.
How the hell is a gang more healthy you idiot?!?!
>I never
>said that Negro street gangs were opposed to interracial marriage or
>abortion.
Street gangs don't have social views for the most part.
>Of course the Negro street thug would prefer a White woman
>instead of a Negro woman.
You're quite likely wrong. Most black gangbangers wouldn't be caught
dead knowing any whites, it would make them look like wimps in front
of their gang and rival gang.
>The fact that Negroes are constantly drooling
>over White women suggests that Negroes are aware of White superiority.
I think you are seriously exaggerating here. More white men are with
Asian women, would it be accurate for me to say, "white men are
constantly drooling over Asian women, therefore whites are aware of
Asian superiority?"
>
>You asked the extremely moronic question, "what is the biological
>definition of race?" Obviously you have no knowledge of Anthropology and
>have no common sense.
This is the case with you, moron. Anthropologist and the science world
have no use for the word "race."
Links of interest:
Western Imperative Network of Sactimonium
http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm
National Alliance of Man-Boy Love
http://www.natvan.com
Jew Enviers Anonymous
http://www.jewwatch.com
Wake Up or Die
http://home.earthlink.net/~socalcma
Irmin
(The Devil's AdvocateŽ) wrote:
[...]
>Multi-racial doesn't mean the same thing as multi-cultural or
>multi-national.
[...]
The meanings may be different, but the latter are the
predictable results of the former. Multiracialism produces
multiculturalism, racial balkanization, and racial/ethnic
conflict. That lesson should be obvious to anyone who
observes racial and ethnic strife around the world.
You yourself have complained that Chicanos continue to reserve
their principal loyalty to Mexico. That's understandable from my
racialist perspective; it's an embarrassing problem for anyone
who believes that racial loyalties will magically evaporate upon
contact with American soil.
Moreover, since belonging to a recognized minority confers, under
our affirmative-action regime, tangible benefits in the form of
group preferences, non-White minorities have no reason to
assimilate and every reason not to.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"A people who are not convinced of their uniqueness and value
will perish." (David Lane)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
National Alliance
http://www.natvan.com
Politically Incorrect
http://www.sound.net/~fenix/PI-index.html
Stormfront
http://www.stormfront.org
Western Imperative Network
http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm
Yggdrasil's Library
http://www.ddc.net/ygg
Thomas Mohr
> Waters, my point was that gangs are a hierachical sub-tribal unit, and
> although primitive, backward and stupid, their social structure is more
> natural and healthy than your egalitarian, liberal, psychosis. I never
> said that Negro street gangs were opposed to interracial marriage or
> abortion. Of course the Negro street thug would prefer a White woman
> instead of a Negro woman. The fact that Negroes are constantly drooling
> over White women suggests that Negroes are aware of White superiority.
>
> You asked the extremely moronic question, "what is the biological
> definition of race?" Obviously you have no knowledge of Anthropology and
> have no common sense.
So ? I reapetedly asked you to precicely address the genetic differences
between blacks and whites. I also repeatedly asked McKinney to give me a
definition of a white. The only thing that came out was such moronic
statements: "A white is somebody who is 15/16th white" and "we know who is
white and who is not". I challenge you again: Give me a scientific
definition of who is white.
David C. Waters
[more drivel snipped]
: You asked the extremely moronic question, "what is the biological
: definition of race?" Obviously you have no knowledge of Anthropology and
: have no common sense.
I'll tell you what I'll do, I'll cite the most qualified source on the
subject and I'll predict that you'll try to dismiss the information by
arbitrarily doubting their authority (although you obviously have no
expertise in the field whatsoever)...
kn...@tiac.net (Canute) appropriately noted:
>While it is often possible to find at least one "scientist" to support any
>view that a person would like to promote, here is the generally accepted
>view of physical anthropologists on the question of "race", as described
>in a statement by the American Association of Physical Anthropologists
>with an introductory comment written by Dr. S. H. Katz:
>THE AAPA REVISED UNESCO STATEMENT ON RACE:
>A BRIEF ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY.
>Not a day passes in the U.S. or in the world at large without a
>new announcement or incident that raises questions about public
>misconceptions on the topic of race. Throughout this century many of
>these misconceptions about race have lead to forms of racism that
>have caused much social, psychological and physical harm to many
>humans throughout the world. Unfortunately, a substantial part of
>these misconceptions have had their origins in various papers and
>books that depend heavily on old and outmoded biological concepts
>of race. However, as the analysis presented in this paper today will
>demonstrate, the changing concepts of what constitutes race have
>now developed to the point where the old biological concepts of race
>no longer provide scientifically valid distinctions. These changes in
>the concepts of race are so significant that I believe that the scientific
>community has a continuing responsibility to report and clarify for
>the public our best contemporary understanding of the biological
>issues of race.
>The American Association of Physical Anthropologists (AAPA)
>decided to take a proactive response rather than condemn those
>scientists who actively or passively contribute to such
>misconceptions on race. A Task Force was formed to update and
>rewrite the UNESCO Statements on the Biological Aspects of Race, to
>contribute an accurate consensus summary statement on the concept
>of race. Our intent was to develop a document that other scientists,
>professionals, and members of the lay public could use as a way of
>evaluating the adequacy of the interpretations of scientific data used
>and reported in the contemporary literature. Also, our intent was to
>distribute this document to the worldwide organizations that have
>dealt with these issues in the past or are dealing with them now.
>These include the International Union of Anthropological and
>Ethnological Sciences (IUAES), UNESCO and the U.N. Human Rights
>Committees and programs. This process is under way, and today's
>presentation will be on the scientific document passed by the AAPA
>and under consideration by these other intentional agencies.
>Before presenting these new statements critically evaluating
>the biological concept of race, I want to make clear at the outset that
>our criticism of race is not an issue of "political correctness", but an
>issue of "scientific correctness". A wide consensus on race now exists
>among biological anthropologists, human biologists, and geneticists.
>This consensus has moved far beyond the nineteenth century
>conceptualizations of race; and even well beyond the
>conceptualizations of the 1960's and 1970's. Vast new data in
>human biology, prehistory, and paleontology, combined with new
>technologies for understanding, measuring, and conceptualizing the
>sources of human variation have completely revamped the
>traditional notions of population biology. However, as we are all too
>painfully aware there is a dangerous propensity for old arguments -
>both data and conclusions - to be subjected to requotes, misquotes,
>and misinterpretations. All too often, outdated scientific ideas on race
>are arrogated to endorse nineteenth century racism with twentieth
>century authority without sufficient challenge. This statement is
>developed to take on this challenge by providing a update on the
>previous UNESCO statements on the biological aspects of race.
>The following statements on race are the results of the joint
>activity of the Task Force, and the many professionals (listed on Slide
>1) including the following: The Task Force consists of Drs. Armelagos,
>Blakey, DeVore, Hall, Katz (Chair), and Tobias. We have also had
>invaluable help from Drs. Baker, Lieberman, Roberts, Schull, &
>Spuhler and from Drs. Stini and Little of the AAPA and the Executive
>Committees serving with them.) who contributed tirelessly toward
>making the statement valid, accurate, and understandable. However,
>the comments about this process and for this presentation are my
>own and I accept full responsibility for them. Other than the eleven
>statements to follow, they are not an official presentation of the Task
>Force.
>PROPOSED REPLACEMENT STATEMENT FOR THE UNESCO
>DOCUMENTS ON BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF RACE
>PREAMBLE: As Scientists who study human evolution and
>variation, we believe that we have an obligation to share with other
>scientists and the general public our current understanding of the
>structure of human variation from a biological perspective.
>Nineteenth and early twentieth century categories of race, which
>today are thought to have little scientific merit, have often been used
>to support racist doctrines. Yet this concept persists as a social
>convention that fosters institutional discrimination. The expression of
>prejudice may or may not undermine material well-being, but it does
>involve the mistreatment of people and thus it often is
>psychologically distressing and socially damaging. Scientists should
>endeavor to prevent the results of their research from being used in
>a biased way that would serve discriminatory ends.
>We offer the following points as revisions of the UNESCO
>statements on race:
>1. All humans living today belong to a single species, Homo
>sapiens, and share a common descent.
>Although there are differences of opinion regarding how and
>when different human groups diverged or fused to form new ones
>from a common ancestral group. all living geographical populations
>have evolved from that common ancestral group for the same
>amount of time.
>Much of the biological variation among populations involves
>modest degrees of variation in the frequency of shared traits. Human
>populations have at times been isolated, but have never genetically
>diverged enough to produce any barriers to interbreeding.
>2. Biological differences between human beings reflect both
>hereditary factors and the influence of natural and social
>environments. In most cases, these differences are due to the
>interaction of both. The degree to which environment or heredity
>affects any particular trait varies greatly.
>3. There is great genetic diversity within all human
>populations. Pure races in the sense of genetically homogeneous
>populations do not exist in the human species, nor is there evidence
>that they have ever existed in the past history of the human family.
>4. There are obvious physical differences between all
>populations living in different geographical parts of the world. Some
>of these differences are strongly inherited and others, such as body
>size and shape are strongly influenced by nutrition, way of life and
>other aspects of the environment. Genetic differences between
>populations commonly consist of differences in the frequency with
>which the same hereditary characters occur in various populations.
>5. For centuries, scholars have sought to comprehend patterns
>in nature by classifying living things. The only living species in the
>human family, Homo sapiens, has become a highly diversified global
>array of populations. The geographic pattern of genetic variation
>within this array is complex, and presents no major discontinuity.
>Humanity cannot be classified into discrete geographic categories.
>Furthermore, the complexities of human history make it difficult to
>determine toe position of certain groups in classifications.
>Multiplying sub-categories cannot correct the inadequacies of these
>classifications.
>Generally, the traits used to characterize a population either
>are independently inherited or show only varying degrees of
>association with one another within each population. Therefore, the
>combination of these traits in most individuals does not correspond
>to any typological racial characterizations. This fact renders
>untenable the idea of discrete races made up chiefly of typical
>representatives.
>6. In humankind as well as in other animals, the genetic
>composition of each population is subject over time to the modifying
>influence of diverse factors. These include natural selection, tending
>towards adaptation to the environment; mutations involving
>modifications of genetic material; and random changes in the
>frequencies of genetic characteristics. The human characteristics
>which have a universal biological value for the survival of the
>species are not found more frequently in one population than in any
>other. Therefore it is not possible from the biological point of view to
>speak in any way whatsoever of a general inferiority or superiority
>of this or that "race."
>7. The human species has a past rich in migrations, in
>territorial expansions and in contractions. As a consequence, we are
>adapted to many of the earth's environments in general but to none
>in particular. For many millennia, human progress in any field has
>been based on c culture and not on genetic improvement.
>Mating between members of different human groups tends to
>mitigate acquired differences, and has played a very important role
>in human history. Wherever different human populations have come
>in contact, they have interbred. The obstacles to such interbreeding
>have been social and cultural, not biological. The global process of
>urbanization, coupled with intercontinental migrations, has the
>potential to reduce the differences among all human populations.
>8. Partly as a result of interbreeding, the hereditary
>characteristics of human populations are in a state of perpetual flux,
>and distinctive local populations are continually coming into and
>passing out of existence. Such populations cannot in any way be
>compared to breeds of domestic animals, which have been produced
>by artificial selection for specific human purposes.
>9. It has never been shown that interbreeding has biological
>disadvantages for humanity as a whole. The biological consequences
>of a marriage depend only on the individual genetic make-up of the
>couple and not on their race. Therefore, no biological justification
>exists for prohibiting intermarriage between persons of different
>racial classifications.
>10. There is no necessary concordance between biological
>characteristics and culturally defined groups. On every continent,
>there are diverse populations that differ in language, economy, and
>culture. There is no national, religious, geographic, linguistic, cultural
>group, or economic class that constitutes a race. However, human
>beings who speak the same language and share the same culture
>frequently select each other as mates, with the result that there is
>often some degree of correspondence between the distribution of
>physical traits on the one hand, and that of linguistic and cultural
>traits on the other. But there is no known causal linkage between
>these physical and behavioral traits, and therefore it is not justifiable
>to attribute cultural characteristics to the influence of genetic
>inheritance.
>11. Physical, cultural, and social environments influence the
>behavioral differences among individuals in society. Although
>hereditary influences the behavioral variability of individuals within
>a given population, it does not affect the ability of any such
>population to function in a social setting. The genetic capacity for
>intellectual development is one of the biological traits of our species
>essential for its survival. This genetic capacity is known to differ
>among individuals. The peoples of the world today appear to possess
>equal biological potential for assimilating any human culture.
>Hereditary potentials for overall intelligence and cultural
>development do not appear to differ among modern human
>populations, and there-is no hereditary justification for considering
>one population superior to another. Racist political doctrines find no
>foundation in scientific knowledge concerning modern or past human
>populations.
>It should be evident that the Statement is a biological
>statement and not a social statement. Nevertheless, the Statement
>has significant implications for both biological and social issues.
>First, discussing the implications of the biological side: it is
>noteworthy that the same scientific groups that developed the
>biological concept over the last century have now concluded that its
>use for characterizing human populations is so flawed that it is no
>longer a scientifically valid concept. In fact, the statement makes
>clear that the biological concept of race as applied to humans has no
>legitimate place in biological science. When we compare this change
>with the public's contemporary notion of race, it becomes clear that
>the biological basis upon which any racial difference argument is
>made or implied becomes invalid The implications of the Statement
>go beyond confronting the deliberate attempts by some to use
>science to support racist positions. In a free society these racist
>positions are relatively easy to detect, confront, and correct once the
>relevant information is available to hold up for review. However,
>there are other implications. Too often we focus only on the misuse
>of concepts of race to support racism, forgetting about the
>implications of discontinuing the present use of race in areas where
>its use is more constructive.
>We need a comprehensive consideration of the implications for
>eliminating the biological concept of race. For example, in the fields
>relevant to anthropology and human biology, there are already
>committees formed to determine the extent to which the medical
>literature and research are influenced by older conceptualizations of
>race. Similar problems exist in the field of forensic anthropology. For
>example, will new terms replace the use of "race" as a means of the
>identity of human remains? In paleontology, will new terms that
>preclude the limitations of the concept of race in science, be
>introduced that accurately account for the role of isolation and
>variation in the population dynamics underlying evolution of the
>human species? What will replace these conceptualizations isn't clear
>but all these biological questions require careful study and answers.
>Turning briefly to the social implications of this statement is
>also important. If the concept of race is no longer biologically tenable,
>does this influence the legitimacy of race in the social sphere? Will
>its social legitimacy be reduced? Will this be helpful or will it
>potentiate other problems with the use of race as a social identity?
>This is especially true in heavily admixed populations, like those
>found in most pluralistic societies. Will this process interfere with
>affirmative action? Or will other social concepts like ethnicity begin
>to take its place?
>There are many groups interested in taking up the further
>analyses of these kinds of questions. However, to answer these and
>other social questions, it is imperative to sort out the biological sides
>and distinctions of race in order to determine the viability of
>concepts that might compliment or even replace it. This is a
>complicated task. It will require a great deal of enlightened
>cooperation across many disciplines to help sort it out.
>We hope that this revised statement on the biology of race will
>clarify the factual information necessary for confronting the
>problems of racism. Furthermore, it also provides a paradigm for
>how professional scientific organizations ca take on the corporate
>responsibility to solve important problems that are in part directly
>related to the history and expertise of their discipline. In essence,
>this statement is an attempt to accept the corporate scientific
>responsibility to clarify the science of what we do. We hope that by
>clearly reiterating these principles within the structure of the
>broadest national-and international bodies, we will provide the basis
>to authoritatively challenge-one of the most persistent and damaging
>misuses of modem science. In conclusion, I believe with effective
>cooperation across disciplines, careful evaluation and with
>responsible rejection of spurious and unscientific generalizations, we
>can begin to make a very substantial reduction in the use of our data
>and conclusions to support racism of all kinds. The following
>background material on the origin and history of the first UNESCO
>Statements on Race are summarized from "Race and Science," a book
>published in 1969 by Columbia University Press, compiling all of the
>early publications of UNESCO; and the publication, Declaration on Race
>and Racial Prejudice, UNESCO, Paris, 1979; and P. Lefait,(ed.), Science
>and Racism, UNESCO, Paris 1982.
>The initial UNESCO statement on race developed from the
>preamble to the Constitution of UNESCO. It states that "the great and
>terrible war which has now ended [WWII] was a war made possible
>by the denial of the democratic principles of the dignity, equality and
>mutual respect of men, and by the propagation, in their place, though
>ignorance and prejudice, of the doctrine of the equality of men and
>races." More specifically, the resolution (116(VI)B(iii)) adopted by the
>United Nations Economic and Social Council at its Sixth Session urged
>UNESCO "to consider the desirability of initiating and recommending
>the general adoption of a programme of disseminating scientific facts
>designed to remove what is generally known as racial prejudice."
>Thus, the Fourth Session of UNESCO's General Conference adopted 3
>resolutions for the 1950 program: "The Director-General is instructed:
>to study and collect scientific materials concerning questions of race;
>to give wide diffusion to the scientific information collected; and to
>prepare an educational campaign based on this information."
>To accomplish this program, UNESCO needed at its disposal the
>"scientific facts" mentioned in resolution (116(VI)B(iii)) of the
>Economic and Social Council. In order to do this quickly, Mr. Arthur
>Ramos, Director of the Department of Social Sciences, convened a
>committee of anthropologists, psychologists, and sociologists, to
>define the concept of race and to give an account in "clear and easily
>understandable terms" of our present knowledge regarding the
>highly controversial problems of race differences. (The scientists who
>met at UNESCO House from Dec, 12-14th, 1949 represented seven
>different countries (Brazil, Francet Mexico, India, New Zealand,
>United Kingdom, U.S.. The scanty representation of biological sciences
>in the committee was attributed to the sudden death of Mr. Ramos,
>and to last minute withdrawals.)
>The final result of the 1949 and the 1951 meetings was the
>1951 statement on race. The scientific journal Man, published by the
>Royal Anthropological Institute, and those who criticized this first
>statement, did not reject its general spirit nor the main conclusions of
>the statement; but they did feel it would have been better, however,
>had certain propositions been put forward with greater
>circumspection. It was thus necessary to draw up a further document
>to dispel misunderstandings. UNESCO therefore called on twelve
>scientists representing physical anthropology and human genetics,
>who in the course of discussions lasting from June 4- 9th, 1951,
>prepared the document. However, the 1951 statement was not seen
>as the final pronouncement of the race question. Thus in 1964
>UNESCO convened a group of experts in biology, genetics, and
>physical anthropology to discuss the implications for race relations of
>the latest discoveries in their fields. It is this biological statement
>that was used as the underpinning of the 1967 and subsequent
>statements that our Task Force sought to update. A subsequent
>meeting was convened at Headquarters in 1967, including moralists,
>philosophers, social scientists and biologists. This meeting addressed
>more specifically the social and ethical aspects of the race question. A
>new statement on race and racial prejudice was issued on September
>26, 1967. Another similar meeting was convened in 1978 and
>another in collaboration between the UNESCO Division of Human
>Rights ~ Peace and Athens Foundation for Human Rights in 1981.
>Dr. S. H. Katz
>University of Pennsylvania
>--knut
David C. Waters
: Waters, my point was that gangs are a hierachical sub-tribal unit, and
: although primitive, backward and stupid, their social structure is more
: natural and healthy than your egalitarian, liberal, psychosis.
The fact that you think that I'm a "liberal" confirms that your
presumptions are wrong about me. I would be surprised to find out that
there's ANY subject that you are knowledgeable about enough to discuss
with even the slightest credibility.
JJohns...@webtv.net wrote:
: Of course the Negro street thug would prefer a White woman
: instead of a Negro woman. The fact that Negroes are constantly drooling
: over White women suggests that Negroes are aware of White superiority.
Even following *your* flawed line of thinking, the suggestion would be
that (so-called) "white" women are aware of "Black" (male) superiority by
preferring "Black" men. Of course I predict that you have no respect for
the thoughts and opinions of "white" women anyway.
How ironic it is that claims of "superiority" come from inferior thought
and logic!
The Devil's Advocate©
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
>The meanings may be different, but the latter are the
>predictable results of the former. Multiracialism produces
>multiculturalism, racial balkanization, and racial/ethnic
>conflict. That lesson should be obvious to anyone who
>observes racial and ethnic strife around the world.
Not true, because race was unimportant in multiracial societies in the
ancient world. Racial strife is a self-fufilling prophesy, race became
such an issue in this country because people wanted to make it an
issue. If people all of a sudden became hair-color conscious and
aligned themselves along hair colors, then hair colorism would become
a problem for society, and we'd have hair-color nationalist/seperatist
telling us we don't get along so therefore we need seperate countries.
>
>You yourself have complained that Chicanos continue to reserve
>their principal loyalty to Mexico.
Not all Mexicans and Mexican-Americans consider themselves Chicanos.
Remember, Chicano often has political connotations.
>That's understandable from my
>racialist perspective; it's an embarrassing problem for anyone
>who believes that racial loyalties will magically evaporate upon
>contact with American soil.
Some immigrants do not assimlate, many do. Many appreciate the country
more than native born Americans.
>
>Moreover, since belonging to a recognized minority confers, under
>our affirmative-action regime, tangible benefits in the form of
>group preferences, non-White minorities have no reason to
>assimilate and every reason not to.
You guys think that affirmative action is so much more influential on
society than it actually is. It is not nearly as much as you think it
is.
David C. Waters
: One hundred years ago when America was racially homogeneous, and Negroes
: were segregated, there were no gangs of youths all over America
: terrorizing society. The reason is because everybody knew their place
: and had a sense of belonging among there OWN PEOPLE.
Here's some easily available information which invalidates your reasoning:
Bill Brazelton, stagecoach robber
Tulsa Jack Blake, member of the Doolin gang
Charlie Creek, member of the Doolin gang
Bitter Creek Newcomb, member of the Doolin gang
Dick West, the last of the Doolin gang to be killed
Cole Estes, train robber
Bill and Fred McCarty, father-and-son bandits
Nate Champion, accused rustler murdered by 50 vigilantes
Ella Watson (aka Cattle Kate), a prostitute also accused of cattle rustling
Tom Horn, bounty hunter accused of killing a 14-year-old
Willian McCarty/Bonney/Antrim (aka Billy the Kid), cop killer & gang leader
Buckskin Frank Leslie, gunslinger who used his wife as practice
Bill Moore, murderer
John Selman, rustler who was also a law enforcement officer
John King Fisher, robber and rustler
Billy Thompson, murderer who shot his best friend
John Wesley Hardin, shot a sleeping hotel guest for snoring
Jim Miller, boasted of killing 51 people
Jesse and Frank James, leaders of the James gang
William Clarke Quantrill's "Confederate Guerrillas", slaughter 150 civilians
Clay Allison
Chunk Colbert
Bill Longley
etc., etc., etc.,
and to quote gang leader Henry Starr: "Life in the open, the rides at
night, the spice of danger, the mastery over men, the pride of being able
to hold a mob at bay - it tingles my veins. I love it. It is wild
adventure."
So much for the idea that there were no gangs of youth terrorizing
America over 100 years ago...
End of discussion!
Phil Nation
JJohns...@webtv.net wrote:
: You asked the extremely moronic question, "what is the biological
: definition of race?" Obviously you have no knowledge of Anthropology and
: have no common sense.
Perhaps you would like to share this knowledge with us, then, as
opposed to simply calling it an "extremely moronic question" and
proceeding to make ad hominem attacks?
: Perhaps when the LSD wears off, and your egalitarian hallucination
: subsides you will be able to identify the racial differences between a
: Nordic White man and a Negro straight from the Congo.
I'd be interested in know what "racial" differences these are.
Phil Kasiecki
--
Philip T. Kasiecki
pkas...@ieee.org
http://lynx.dac.neu.edu/p/pkasieck/
105 days and counting!
"Life is not important except in the impact it has on others' lives."
-Jackie Robinson
JJohns...@webtv.net
Since when is savage tribal warfare and ritual human sacrifice peaceful?
It is the White man who made this land into a nation and named it
"America", I believe after the White Spaniard, Amerigo.
An Indian is about as much of a "Native American" as the squirrels and
snakes and various other WILDLIFE that inhabited the land before
European man came here.
Western Imperative Network
http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm
National Alliance
http://www.natvan.com
Jew Watch
http://www.jewwatch.com
Wake Up or Die
http://www.wakeupordie.com
Fantomas
> >One hundred years ago when America was racially homogeneous
Which it was NOT. The last time America was racially homogenous
was in 1492...
California's racial mix in the late 19th century was far more
similar to today than it was to 1950.
, and Negroes
> >were segregated, there were no gangs of youths all over America
> >terrorizing society.
Maybe not all over America, but there certainly were in quite a large
portion of it. I know Pierce has forbidden his followers to read Carl
Sifakis' History of American Crime and other books on the history of
crime in America, but there are plenty of stories of New York and
Chicago in the 1880s and 1890s that make one do a double take looking
for a typo...
The low crime that the older readers of the newsgroups remember
from their youth was a product of the New Deal. In the America of
a hundred years ago there were many neighbourhoods that police would
not enter except in groups by day. Do a search on the words " Five
Points " . Of course, Pierce forbids his flunkies to read these works.
Is it possible for you WIN types to actually say that Pierce is wrong
about any given subject and not to blindly follow his authority on
any given topic marching in lemming-like lock step discipline ? I
guess not.
The reason is because everybody knew their place
> >and had a sense of belonging among there OWN PEOPLE.
Not true at all. Read Sifakis - we all know you are scared to.
> So, you'd also put the blame of this morass on the white settlers who
> disrupted the peaceful homogenous indigenous society that was already
> here for about 2000 years (the Native American Indians)? Thanks for
> being truthful!
>
Thats a whole other issue, as is the KKK...
Tha' Duke
>When a society loses its homogeneity, when the values and beliefs of a
>society lose their uniformity, the result is feelings of alienation
>among many members of such a society. When a society becomes
>multiracial, it becomes hard to identify with that society, hence, that
>society is no longer respected by its members.
Yes.
Ever since those white religious zealots, criminal, and rabble-rousers
contaminated this homogenous land, crowding out and butchering its
inhabitants, there have been problems in identifying with this society,
and in respecting it. I'm sure glad you finally acknowledged this.
>It is a basic human need to feel a sense of belonging and a sense of
>family. Since a multiracial society does not offer this, you find
>people, young people in particular, breaking off into small, sub-tribal
>units commonly referred to as "gangs".
How do you describe our armed forces, and our police forces, then?
There are disparate racial groups that function quite cohesively within
them. But then again, you couldn't mention it...why confuse the issue
with facts, right?
>In a "gang", the Natural Law of the human social order is rigidly
>adhered to. A "gang" is almost always a racially homogeneous hierarchy
>of males with a territory (nation) which is marked with "colors" or a
>certain symbol (flag).
Like those gangs that wear the cute little pointy hoods, dance around
and hold hands in white dresses and light perpendicularly-attatched
boards aflame?
[....drivel snipped]
>The multiracialists are always promoting the idea of "equality".
>Although human "equality" does not exist as the multiracialists speak of
>it, all humans are basically the same at the most basic and primitive
>level. We all need to feel a sense of belonging and identity. That is
>exactly why THE RACES MUST SEPARATE. The Negroes will not settle for
>being treated as second-class citizens, and Whites will object to
>affirmative action, and to Negroes marrying White women. If we do not
>separate, the fight will go on and on and on.
Well...amid the muck and drivel, it is refreshing to see that you
believe that the "Negro" races won't stand for second-class citizenship.
Does this mean we can expect a donation to the Nation of Islam from you,
to help further their movement for an independent state for blacks? How
does Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming sound?
>One hundred years ago when America was racially homogeneous, and Negroes
>were segregated, there were no gangs of youths all over America
>terrorizing society. The reason is because everybody knew their place
>and had a sense of belonging among there OWN PEOPLE.
So, you'd also put the blame of this morass on the white settlers who
disrupted the peaceful homogenous indigenous society that was already
here for about 2000 years (the Native American Indians)? Thanks for
being truthful!
And those disenfranchised whiners will complain that it's AA's fault
that they got fired for drinking while working at the maintenance shed
at the trailer park. Rich...really rich.
Duke
Thomas Mohr
> Duke said that "Native Americans" were peaceful.
>
> Since when is savage tribal warfare and ritual human sacrifice peaceful?
>
> It is the White man who made this land into a nation and named it
> "America", I believe after the White Spaniard, Amerigo.
>
> An Indian is about as much of a "Native American" as the squirrels and
> snakes and various other WILDLIFE that inhabited the land before
> European man came here.
Johnson, with this post you prove that you have no idea of the history of
your own continent. American indians were by no means comparable to
"wildlife". In Meso and South America indians formed communities which were
truely nations in every sense, but also in North America indians formed
communities qualifying as nations. It is only your arrogance that makes you
think otherwise. Especially Meso and South American nations were highly
civilized and their achievements outscored comparable achievements of whites
by that time (f.i. astronomy, but also architecture and some others)
BTW, whites also practiced human sacrifice.
Your post proves only your arrogance, nothing else.
Tha' Duke
>Duke said that "Native Americans" were peaceful.
>
>Since when is savage tribal warfare and ritual human sacrifice peaceful?
>
>It is the White man who made this land into a nation and named it
>"America", I believe after the White Spaniard, Amerigo.
>
>An Indian is about as much of a "Native American" as the squirrels and
>snakes and various other WILDLIFE that inhabited the land before
>European man came here.
And there you have it, friends...
When confronted with people that predate the white man on the North
American continents, he easily dismisses them as no better than the
indigenous animals, and proclaims that before the white criminals,
rabble-rousers, and religious zealots arrived, there was nothing or
noone here.
Try looking up "native" in the dictionary. Then try "American". Then
try a clue...
Tha' Duke
Aviator
<JJohns...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25721-36...@newsd-283.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>Duke said that "Native Americans" were peaceful.
>
>Since when is savage tribal warfare and ritual human sacrifice peaceful?
Jerk-Off Johnny is still living in the 1800s, in his little all white
compound.
>
>It is the White man who made this land into a nation and named it
>"America", I believe after the White Spaniard, Amerigo.
What a total moron. You dont even know who America was named for. It was
Amerigo Vespucci, an ITALIAN, you uneducated ignoramus!!!
>
>An Indian is about as much of a "Native American" as the squirrels and
>snakes and various other WILDLIFE that inhabited the land before
>European man came here.
Yeah right. Now 98% of the nation get along except you pathetic racist
minorities. Not a problem though, as they seem to be heading to prison in
droves. Cant do a damned thing at the polls, can you??
Wayne
Aviator wrote:
>
> <JJohns...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:25721-36...@newsd-283.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> >Duke said that "Native Americans" were peaceful.
> >
> >Since when is savage tribal warfare and ritual human sacrifice peaceful?
>
> Jerk-Off Johnny is still living in the 1800s, in his little all white
> compound.
> >
> >It is the White man who made this land into a nation and named it
> >"America", I believe after the White Spaniard, Amerigo.
>
> What a total moron. You dont even know who America was named for. It was
> Amerigo Vespucci, an ITALIAN, you uneducated ignoramus!!!
They don't teach that in pre school, which he hasn't graduated from
yet...
> >
> >An Indian is about as much of a "Native American" as the squirrels and
> >snakes and various other WILDLIFE that inhabited the land before
> >European man came here.
>
> Yeah right. Now 98% of the nation get along except you pathetic racist
> minorities. Not a problem though, as they seem to be heading to prison in
> droves. Cant do a damned thing at the polls, can you??
> >
> >Western Imperative Network
> >http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm
> >
> >National Alliance
> >http://www.natvan.com
> >
> >Jew Watch
> >http://www.jewwatch.com
> >
> >Wake Up or Die
> >http://www.wakeupordie.com
> >
--
Wayne AKA Blackie!
http://members.spree.com/blackie/calif.htm
Aviator
<JJohns...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23788-36...@newsd-284.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>OK, I made a mistake. America was named after an Italian WHITE MAN, not
>a Spaniard WHITE MAN. Christopher Columbus, an Italian WHITE MAN brought
>America to the attention of the CIVILIZED world. English WHITE MEN
>established the United States.
And now you want to put it in the hands of ignorant morons like yourself??
You are kidding, of course!!
>
>Indians were tribal savages who practiced barbaric religious rituals.
>Today they sell tax-free cigarettes on reservations.
Have you studied some of the barbaric practises of Anglo Saxons?? Like
scalping?? ( Check your American history, boyo!!) Of course not. it doesnt
fit in with your hate peddling agenda
Do you really think anybody believes your crap?? If I got slammed by every
respondent to my posts, I would get the message that i was doing something
wrong. Youre just too stupid to realise it
Greg Taylor
>JJ wrote in message
>>It is the White man who made this land into a nation
>>and named it "America", I believe after the White
>>Spaniard, Amerigo.
>
>What a total moron. You dont even know who America
>was named for. It was Amerigo Vespucci, an ITALIAN,
>you uneducated ignoramus!!!
ROFL!
----------------------
Greg Taylor
http://members.tripod.com/nomorehate/
JJohns...@webtv.net
a Spaniard WHITE MAN. Christopher Columbus, an Italian WHITE MAN brought
America to the attention of the CIVILIZED world. English WHITE MEN
established the United States.
Indians were tribal savages who practiced barbaric religious rituals.
Today they sell tax-free cigarettes on reservations.
Western Imperative Network
Thomas Mohr
> OK, I made a mistake. America was named after an Italian WHITE MAN, not
> a Spaniard WHITE MAN. Christopher Columbus, an Italian WHITE MAN brought
> America to the attention of the CIVILIZED world. English WHITE MEN
> established the United States.
>
> Indians were tribal savages who practiced barbaric religious rituals.
> Today they sell tax-free cigarettes on reservations.
Learn the history of your own continent, little ex-marine. Indians have been
that civilized that they were able to have the most accurate calendar of the
world and that they could build the biggest (volume) pyramids of the world.
The only thing you achieve with such posts is that you prove that
WIN-members have a severe lack of general education.
JJohns...@webtv.net
hecklers everytime is more like it. Your attempt to justify the
disgusting and immoral practices and lifestyles of Negroes and Jews is
quite pathetic.
Thomas Mohr
> Slammed by every "respondent"? Four or five of the same multiracialist
> hecklers everytime is more like it. Your attempt to justify the
> disgusting and immoral practices and lifestyles of Negroes and Jews is
> quite pathetic.
Johnson, again I challenge you to bring evidence for your statements. How
exactly is the lifestyle of "The Negroe" composed ? Of which things does
it consist ? Enlighten us. That is your chance.
BTW, I, among others, challenged you *repeatedly* to proof your
statements. You refused to do so. When it comes to a reasonable proof, you
vanish like dew in the morning sun. Do you realize that this leads to the
image if the WIN as an assembly of brain deads ?
Another thing: I asked you who lies concerning the superiority of whites.
You or the WIN Faq ?
Jafo
>Have you studied some of the barbaric practises of Anglo Saxons??
>Like scalping??
Quite right; an invention of you bloody Englishmen wasn't it... ? :)
--
~ Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo/
Jafo
>Slammed by every "respondent"? Four or five of the same multiracialist
>hecklers everytime is more like it. Your attempt to justify the
>disgusting and immoral practices and lifestyles of Negroes and Jews is
>quite pathetic.
They eat, sleep, and shit just like the rest of us, Johnson. Time to
push that little button on your WebTV box that sends you back to the
intellectual rigors of the Cartoon Channel. Or turn the thing off
entirely and go back to playing with your own johnson.
Fantomas
>
> OK, I made a mistake. America was named after an Italian WHITE MAN, not
> a Spaniard WHITE MAN.
Half Italian and half Portuguese. His mother was born Jewish and
converted with her family as a child. Good to see that you
recognise the obvious truth, that Jews come in all races but
the overwhelming majority are white.
Miguel O'Pastel
members of these nazi hate organizations are usually the undercover cops
that have infiltrated them, an easy thing to do.
M
Aviator wrote in message <7c2j04$rnn$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
:
:<JJohns...@webtv.net> wrote in message
:news:23788-36...@newsd-284.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
:>OK, I made a mistake. America was named after an Italian WHITE MAN, not
:>a Spaniard WHITE MAN. Christopher Columbus, an Italian WHITE MAN brought
:>America to the attention of the CIVILIZED world. English WHITE MEN
:>established the United States.
:
:And now you want to put it in the hands of ignorant morons like yourself??
:You are kidding, of course!!
:>
:>Indians were tribal savages who practiced barbaric religious rituals.
:>Today they sell tax-free cigarettes on reservations.
:
:Have you studied some of the barbaric practises of Anglo Saxons?? Like
:scalping?? ( Check your American history, boyo!!) Of course not. it doesnt
:fit in with your hate peddling agenda
:
:Do you really think anybody believes your crap?? If I got slammed by every
:respondent to my posts, I would get the message that i was doing something
:wrong. Youre just too stupid to realise it
:>
:>Western Imperative Network
:>
:
:
:
Aviator
<JJohns...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25417-36...@newsd-284.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>Slammed by every "respondent"? Four or five of the same multiracialist
>hecklers everytime is more like it. Your attempt to justify the
>disgusting and immoral practices and lifestyles of Negroes and Jews is
>quite pathetic.
Can you show any support in this group at all???
Please dont insult us by mentioning WIN members like MudRock, Roger Racist
or Irmin the Vermin. When Roger was getting so badly trashed he had to call
first Vermin, and then ole Jerk-Off Johnny.
I defy you to show ONE convert from this NG
No-one ( Apart from Pennsylvanias Dumbest) buy your bigotted
racist/supremist crap
No one can justify your moronic philosophies shored up with sources you
impeach. How can you idiots say that the "Jewish controlled" media is
totally unreliable, and then you use the SAME media as a "valid source" You
claim the government is controlled or influenced by Jews, then you quote
government sources as "proof"
You guys are so incredibly stupid give morons a bad name
Aviator
Irmin <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:1999030508443...@nym.alias.net...
>On Thu, 04 Mar 1999 21:33:22 GMT, soca...@earthlink.netNO-JUNK
>(The Devil's AdvocateŽ) wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>Multi-racial doesn't mean the same thing as multi-cultural or
>>multi-national.
>
>[...]
>
>predictable results of the former. Multiracialism produces
>multiculturalism, racial balkanization, and racial/ethnic
>conflict. That lesson should be obvious to anyone who
>observes racial and ethnic strife around the world.
Wrong dumbass. Racial tensions come from a minority of white and black
racist who cant or wont assimilate into mainstream American society. Your
abject fear and cowardice in facing these issues has driven you underground,
leaving you a whining, impotent minority
>
>You yourself have complained that Chicanos continue to reserve
>their principal loyalty to Mexico. That's understandable from my
>racialist perspective; it's an embarrassing problem for anyone
>who believes that racial loyalties will magically evaporate upon
>contact with American soil.
>
>Moreover, since belonging to a recognized minority confers, under
>our affirmative-action regime, tangible benefits in the form of
>group preferences, non-White minorities have no reason to
>assimilate and every reason not to.
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>"A people who are not convinced of their uniqueness and value
>will perish." (David Lane)
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>National Alliance
>http://www.natvan.com
>
>Politically Incorrect
>http://www.sound.net/~fenix/PI-index.html
>
>Stormfront
>http://www.stormfront.org
>
>Western Imperative Network
>http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm
>
Aviator
Jafo <jafo@_cheetah.net> wrote in message
news:36ec2b4...@news1.cheetah.net...
>On Mon, 8 Mar 1999 23:37:36 -0800, Aviator wrote:
>
>>Like scalping??
>
You missed WHITE englishmen
8)
Phil Nation
JJohns...@webtv.net wrote:
: Slammed by every "respondent"? Four or five of the same multiracialist
: hecklers everytime is more like it. Your attempt to justify the
: disgusting and immoral practices and lifestyles of Negroes and Jews is
: quite pathetic.
Your attempt at misrepresenting the post you are responding to is as
pathetic as can be. I challenge you to prove that he was "trying to
justify" anything. (Of course, you are wrong in asserting that Blacks
and Jews are all alike, but I don't expect you to understand that.)
Phil Kasiecki
--
Philip T. Kasiecki
pkas...@ieee.org
http://lynx.dac.neu.edu/p/pkasieck/
101 days and counting!
Aviator
Fantomas <lNONSPaM...@latinmail.com> wrote in message
news:36E564...@latinmail.com...
>JJohns...@webtv.net wrote:
>>
>> OK, I made a mistake. America was named after an Italian WHITE MAN, not
>> a Spaniard WHITE MAN.
>
>converted with her family as a child. Good to see that you
>recognise the obvious truth, that Jews come in all races but
>the overwhelming majority are white.
Obrigado Fantomas!!!!!!!!
protocol13
The bad history of the English and the US English descendant:
1. Persecution and discrimination against Catholics in England.
Catholics like Thomas Moore were killed by the English Protestants.
2 Persecution, mistreatment and discrimination of Irish Catholics in
Northern Ireland.
3. Originated widespread piracy in the seas. They robbed and terrorized
the ships
carrying merchandise from the Americas to Spain, Portugal and other
countries in Europe.
4. Fomented and expanded on slavery.
5. WASPS founded the "Know Nothing", KKK and other hate groups. These
groups in the 1800's and 1900's were known for burning Catholic Churches,
Catholic convents, Jewish Temples, lynching blacks and massacres of
indians.
6. US Wasp's discrimination of Irish, Italians and other non-protestants
during the late 1800's and early 1900's.
No sane or true Catholic can be a member of any of these Protestant
founded hate
groups.
JJohns...@webtv.net wrote:
> Slammed by every "respondent"? Four or five of the same multiracialist
> hecklers everytime is more like it. Your attempt to justify the
> disgusting and immoral practices and lifestyles of Negroes and Jews is
> quite pathetic.
>
> Western Imperative Network
> http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm
>