The Historical Errrors of the Racists!
vonquark
one thing becomes clear.....
IT IS THE RACE MIXING MEDITERRANEAN
which is the seat of world civilization.
First phonetic writing comes from the
Semites. The Greeks admitted they got
it from the Phoenicians (Who were NOT
NORDIC) whom I believe got it
from the Jews. (I can give you reasons for that
view and I am not alone in it.)
Prior to that you had ideograms and heiroglyphs
of one type or another.
Secondly, civilization starts out from the
Mesopotamian valley and radially spreads
out to the Barbarians on the periphery.
The Mesopotamians were SEMITES not
NORDICs.
Chinese civilization never evolved an alphabet.
And I suspect the Indians who did have an
alphabet got it from Aryan traders who themselves
got it from the Semites.
We can safely assume that civilization therefore
is a SEMITIC invention.
I am American of Irish ancestry hence
not a Semite. But unlike the racists I will
not twist history to get a Nordicentric lie.
BTW Strom how do you explain the
startling admission by Dr. Revilo Oliver -
Nordic Supremacist extraordinaire -
that the Jews may be smarter than Nordics.
I will quote the good Aryan Dr. Oliver himself:
http://stormfront.org/rpo/parasites.htm
"They [the Jews] are a highly intelligent people,
quite possibly much more intelligent than we are."
Now! Think hard Kevin. You are the one who
published this page on the net.
Stormfront cites you as the original net publisher:
"Originally published by Kevin Strom"
When you put this on the net what did you think
about the Good Aryan Dr. Mengele's oops
Oliver's comment about Jewish intelligence.
And how to you reconcile an Aryan Supremacist
Weltanschauung when it is admitted that Aryans
are not up to snuff in the IQ department.
Look Kevin I am not telling you to marry a Hispanic
or a Black women. By all means, marry a blonde
and raise a klan of Stromkinder. Heavens, Strom,
if it makes you happy make sure she is of pure
Scandanavian Stock since you cannot trust
the untermenschen of Irish, British or German stock.
There may be a pre-Indo-European in the woodpile.
Nor am I telling you to be ashamed of European
civilization. I think Western Civilization is great!
But could you tone it down on the hate. Just a little!
I still think you need a night with a Hispana; but
that would be unfair to her.
As Beethoven used to say:
"I'll be Back"
VonQuark
PS: I used to be a bigot in my youth,
Grow up!
Now repeat after me. "Ay Yay Yay Yay!"
click on this link and join in the song.....
(takes a while to load but worth it)
http://desi.simplenet.com/CelintoLindo.wav
The man spelt Cielto Lindo wrong but
a link is a link.
BTW Strom listen to this song:
http://dapatchy.com/country/2/ep.ram?
Isn't it romantic? Doesn't it make you want
to go out and find a lovely Hispanic gal!
Adios muchacho!
Vaya con Dios!
vonquark
Crusader wrote:
> vonquark <vonq...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3890ED19...@mindspring.com...
> > As I read the claims of the racists,
> > one thing becomes clear.....
> >
> > IT IS THE RACE MIXING MEDITERRANEAN
> > which is the seat of world civilization.
>
> You are correct in saying that world civilization came from the
> Mediterraneans (who received it from God), but race-mixing had nothing to do
> with it.
>
> >
> > First phonetic writing comes from the
> > Semites. The Greeks admitted they got
> > it from the Phoenicians (Who were NOT
> > NORDIC) whom I believe got it
> > from the Jews. (I can give you reasons for that
> > view and I am not alone in it.)
> >
> > Prior to that you had ideograms and heiroglyphs
> > of one type or another.
> >
> > Secondly, civilization starts out from the
> > Mesopotamian valley and radially spreads
> > out to the Barbarians on the periphery.
> >
> > The Mesopotamians were SEMITES not
> > NORDICs.
> >
> > Chinese civilization never evolved an alphabet.
> > And I suspect the Indians who did have an
> > alphabet got it from Aryan traders who themselves
> > got it from the Semites.
> >
> > We can safely assume that civilization therefore
> > is a SEMITIC invention.
>
> It originated with them, yes. But it originated with the *real* Semites, not
> the Asiatic Khazar imposters of today who call themselves "Jews."
>
> Regards,
> Crusader
Again, here is an error introduced by
Koestler's THE THIRTEENTH TRIBE.
Koestler asserts that Askenazim are really Khazars.
However a careful read of history will show that
the Khazars were from the area settled by the
so called LOST TRIBES during their Assyrian
dispersion. I do not see the Khazars as converting
to Judaism but rather as re-discovering their
Jewish heritage.
Now, most of the LOST TRIBES returned to Israel
after the captivity in Babylon was over. But there
were some who remained in the area adjacent to Khazakistan.
Roman dispersions and the Jew's general tendency to ally
themselves with the Persians/Parthians against the Romans
probably increased the concentrations of Jews in the area.
Certainly after the Jewish War and the Bar Kochba revolt
there must have been an exodus to one of the few places
friendly to them. Certainly by the ninth century the Jews
were a considerable part of the area's population.
After Khazakistan went officially Jewish no doubt more Jews
moved into the area to escape a vise between the Christian
North and the Islamic South.
So the Ashkenazim are on a person by person basis
for the most part of heavily Jewish ancestry with many
being pure Jews no doubt.
Koestler gave only one interpretation of the data.
Others have interpretations similar to mine.
But if you disagree, describe for me your concept
of a Jewish Semite.
As Beethoven used to say:
"I'll be Bach."
VonQuark
Crusader
Thomas Mohr
> Chinese civilization never evolved an alphabet.
> And I suspect the Indians who did have an
> alphabet got it from Aryan traders who themselves
> got it from the Semites.
What rubbish. Asian civilizations developed an alphabet (The japanese).
Amerindian civilizations never had an alphabet, and their civilization
developed completely independently from others.
What you are doing is exactly what Crusader and ipm does, just with
switched signs.
Eugene Holman
<thoma...@magnet.at> wrote:
> vonquark wrote:
>
> > Chinese civilization never evolved an alphabet.
> > And I suspect the Indians who did have an
> > alphabet got it from Aryan traders who themselves
> > got it from the Semites.
The Indian alphabets are based on a totally principle than the Semitic
systems from which our alphabet originates. Specifically, underlying them
is a careful analysis of the relationship between the structure of the
head and the interaction of articulators and the nature of the sounds
produced, thus the consonants are arranged with respect to place and
manner of articularion from the back to the front of the head and along a
scale of increasing sonority: k, ch, t*, t, p;Š g, j, d*, d, n, etc..
Semitic writing, in turn, is based upon pictures and the initial sounds of
the entities they designate, ?aleph being the simplified picture of a cow
and the designation for [?], a glottal stop, beth being the simplified
picture of a door, etc.
>
> What rubbish. Asian civilizations developed an alphabet (The japanese).
The Japanese "alphabet", or kana, consisting of two cognate variants,
cursive hiragana and the more angualar katagana, are originally shorthand
forms of Chinese characters. Whereas the Chinese character was a true
ideogram, Japanese symblified them graphically and used them as
designations for the syllables of Japanese which the Chinese reading of
the character most approximated. Given the severe constraints on syllable
stucture characetrizing Japanese, this is a reasonable thing to do. It
would be incorrect, however, to speak of the Japanese as having developed
an alphabet. The kana systems are clearly derivative and their history as
shorthands is well known.
> Amerindian civilizations never had an alphabet, and their civilization
> developed completely independently from others.
The Aztecs did have a system for recording the information needed for
calandars, geneologies, history, and engineering. Although not an
alphabet, it was a writing system in the sense that it could be used to
record certain types of linguistic information for later use.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Thomas Mohr
> > What rubbish. Asian civilizations developed an alphabet (The japanese).
>
> The Japanese "alphabet", or kana, consisting of two cognate variants,
> cursive hiragana and the more angualar katagana, are originally shorthand
> forms of Chinese characters. Whereas the Chinese character was a true
> ideogram, Japanese symblified them graphically and used them as
> designations for the syllables of Japanese which the Chinese reading of
> the character most approximated. Given the severe constraints on syllable
> stucture characetrizing Japanese, this is a reasonable thing to do. It
> would be incorrect, however, to speak of the Japanese as having developed
> an alphabet. The kana systems are clearly derivative and their history as
> shorthands is well known.
The characteristics of an alphabet is the transition from ideograms to
letters representing vowels consonants or syllables. In this sense the
kana *is* an early stage of an alphabet.
BTW, the non-development of an alphabet by chinese had quite an iportant
benefit for China. It enabled a communication across the several
dialects and even languages that exist in this area. A back-development
(although limited)to ideograms instead of an alphabet can even be seen
in Europe.
> > Amerindian civilizations never had an alphabet, and their civilization
> > developed completely independently from others.
>
> The Aztecs did have a system for recording the information needed for
> calandars, geneologies, history, and engineering. Although not an
> alphabet, it was a writing system in the sense that it could be used to
> record certain types of linguistic information for later use.
I never said they did not have "writing".
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> Eugene Holman wrote:
>
> > > What rubbish. Asian civilizations developed an alphabet (The japanese).
> >
> > The Japanese "alphabet", or kana, consisting of two cognate variants,
> > cursive hiragana and the more angualar katagana, are originally shorthand
> > forms of Chinese characters. Whereas the Chinese character was a true
> > ideogram, Japanese symblified them graphically and used them as
> > designations for the syllables of Japanese which the Chinese reading of
> > the character most approximated. Given the severe constraints on syllable
> > stucture characetrizing Japanese, this is a reasonable thing to do. It
> > would be incorrect, however, to speak of the Japanese as having developed
> > an alphabet. The kana systems are clearly derivative and their history as
> > shorthands is well known.
>
> The characteristics of an alphabet is the transition from ideograms to
> letters representing vowels consonants or syllables. In this sense the
> kana *is* an early stage of an alphabet.
>
> BTW, the non-development of an alphabet by chinese had quite an iportant
> benefit for China. It enabled a communication across the several
> dialects and even languages that exist in this area. A back-development
> (although limited)to ideograms instead of an alphabet can even be seen
> in Europe.
You're both completely overlooking the Korean alphabet, which is in fact
phonetic rather than idiogrammatic. According to an article in the
_Smithsonian_ magazine, it's probably the best phonetic alphabet. It has
basically no rules, if you know the alphabet, you can spell anything you can
say in the language.
See also http://www.otan.dni.us/wvoc/cypress/hangul.htm
... History
Hangul was invented by King Sejong of the Choson Dynasty, and
introduced to the public in 1443 in Hun-Min-Jeong-Eum. King Sejong
believed that Koreans needed an easy- to-learn system for writing their
own language. Before King Sejong's reign, Koreans had either written in
the Chinese language or had written Korean using Chinese characters to
represent the Korean sounds in a complex system, Idu. The alphabet
originally contained 28 letters composed of 11 vowels and 17 consonants."
...
Also see http://myhome.shinbiro.com/~geston/hangul/english/eng5.html
This King Sejong was evidently a pretty sharp character, he's quoted as
saying
"The sounds of our country's languages are different from those of the
Chinese and are not confluent with the sounds of characters. Therefore,
among the ignorant people, there have been many who, having something they
want to put into words, have in the end been unable to express their
feelings. I have been distrssed because of this, and have newly designed
twenty-eight letters, which I wish to have everyone practice at their ease
and make convenient for their daily use."
Hmm, off to wander around in educational CyberKorea for a while...
--
"We look through a glass but darkly:
What we see is more colored by our beliefs,
than what we believe is colored by what we see."
The Devil's Advocate©
<thoma...@magnet.at> wrote:
>What rubbish. Asian civilizations developed an alphabet (The japanese).
They did? I thought it was the Koreans?
regards,
The Devil's Advocate
vonquark
Thomas Mohr wrote:
> Eugene Holman wrote:
>
> > > What rubbish. Asian civilizations developed an alphabet (The japanese).
> >
> > The Japanese "alphabet", or kana, consisting of two cognate variants,
> > cursive hiragana and the more angualar katagana, are originally shorthand
> > forms of Chinese characters. Whereas the Chinese character was a true
> > ideogram, Japanese symblified them graphically and used them as
> > designations for the syllables of Japanese which the Chinese reading of
> > the character most approximated. Given the severe constraints on syllable
> > stucture characetrizing Japanese, this is a reasonable thing to do. It
> > would be incorrect, however, to speak of the Japanese as having developed
> > an alphabet. The kana systems are clearly derivative and their history as
> > shorthands is well known.
>
> The characteristics of an alphabet is the transition from ideograms to
> letters representing vowels consonants or syllables. In this sense the
> kana *is* an early stage of an alphabet.
>
> BTW, the non-development of an alphabet by chinese had quite an iportant
> benefit for China. It enabled a communication across the several
> dialects and even languages that exist in this area. A back-development
> (although limited)to ideograms instead of an alphabet can even be seen
> in Europe.
I suppose the present universal roadsign
ideograms would be a classic example.
The crossed circle over a left arrow
(NO LEFT TURN ALLOWED)
The crossed circle over a cigarette
(NO SMOKING ALLOWED)
I presume that is what you mean.
I am aware that ideograms can travel
well over languages in a way that phonetic
alphabets cannot. There is the advantage
in Oriental scripts that the same ideogram
can be used in many languages and understood
by people who could not speak to each other.
BUT THE MENTAL QUANTUM LEAP
of an alphabet is that is forces the writer and
the reader to learn how to abstract out components
from a whole. The writer/reader is obliged
to break down words into phonemes, consonants,
vowels ---- into constituent parts. He is
trained in atomization of words, so to speak.
This is a necessary skill. For the process
of abstraction is necessary for the development
of higher math, higher levels of musics, science,
technology, etc. The West developed a
diatonic scale while the Orient never rose
above a pentatonic scale. I think the Arabs
have an even more complex scale.
In learning how to break down words into
letters, one is a short epistomological step away
from breaking down other things into constituent
parts. This is why Oriental medicine developed
acupuncture which saw the body as a constituent
whole with rivers of energy (chi?). And why
the Greeks, Romans, and Arabs - who had
alphabets saw the body as a collection of constituent
organs.
Abstraction of nature is a necessary skill for
developing a higher civilization. An alphabet
requires and also teaches the ability to
abstract and is a wonderful tool for training
the skill.
So while alphabets are not as easily transferable
over tongues, they do teach the more important
skill of critical thinking.
vonquark
Thomas Mohr wrote:
--
Johnny Yen
majority of the Khazars were NEVER Jewish. Only the
aristocracy converted.
Otherwise you're correct.
Crusader
> But if you disagree, describe for me your concept
> of a Jewish Semite.
Arabs are an example of genuine Semetic stock. IOW, the Virgin Mary looked
like Paula Abdul, not Barbara Streisand or Roseanne Barr.
I'm 25% Sicilian, so I probably have more genuine Semetic blood than most
so-called "Jews."
Regards,
Crusader
vonquark
> vonquark wrote:
>
> > Chinese civilization never evolved an alphabet.
> > And I suspect the Indians who did have an
> > alphabet got it from Aryan traders who themselves
> > got it from the Semites.
>
> What rubbish. Asian civilizations developed an alphabet (The japanese).
No I do not think the Japanese did! Some have asserted the Koreans did;
but if they did it was rather late. I believe they track it to the 15th
century
AD. Not a good thing to be so late historically. By that time, I have to
wonder if they borrowed the idea from someone else. In which
case the alphabet was not originated independently but merely
adapted to their language.
> Amerindian civilizations never had an alphabet, and their civilization
> developed completely independently from others.
Culture. Civilization - the very word derives from civitas (sp?)
meaning a citizen of a city - implies more than just a continuity
of culture and tradition. It requires a stability of transgenerational
information. This can only truly be handled by written records.
Oral traditions may remain fairly accurate but they are limited
to the orator. A book can be copied independent of the
writer's death or demise or absence. The storage of such records
requires a degree of centralization. A civilization would
require
1) Records - so information can be added to every
generation without having to be rediscovered -
2) Cities - where learning and trade can be exchanged
3) a centralized polity and
4) an Alphabet so the ability to abstract is ingrained.
By that definition: Most of Northern Europe (the Celts and
the Germans, the Slavs, etc.); most of Africa, all of
Australia and most of the Americas did NOT produce
civilizations but merely adapted their cultures to other
civilizations they were already exposed to OR
imposed their culture on a civilization they conquered
OR borrowed so heavily as to not be original.
The Mediterraneans, the Mesopotamian Semites,
the Indus Valley and the Chinese produced civilizations.
But the Mediterraneans by their own admission
borrowed heavily from the Semites. The Greeks for
example credited the Phoenicians with the alphabet.
And we are their forced to concede that Mediterranean
civilization was borrowed heavily from the Semites.
True they added to it greatly but they seem to
have gotten the impetus to civilization from the
Semites.
One might add the Americas in Incas, Aztecs, and Mayans
produced civilization. But here the situation is tricky:
Barry Fell - who is wrong on many things - but right on
many things - makes a case that there was in ancient
times more Mediterranean - American cross pollination
than heretofore considered. Why did Mexico and
Egypt produce pyramids? In any event they did NOT
produce alphabets.
So we are forced to ask - were the PaleoAmerican
civilizations original or borrowed concepts? They
never developed an alphabet and so never made the
critical leap in civilzation. They never developed the
wheel. Though that many have been due to a lack
of draft animals.
The Chinese never developed a true alphabet and
so we see an arrested development in many ways.
The Koreans developed an alphabet so late that
it is almost a certainty it was adapted.
So we are left the the Semites and the Indus Valley
as having developed written records, polities,
centralized cities, and alphabets.
So we have bascially two civilizations with a claim on
an independent and original development of
centralization, records, polities, and cities.
Which is first?
I suspect the Semites. The Aryans - the
Indo-Europeans - were great borrowers of
Semetic genius. Even improvers of it.
They added vowels to the Semitic consonant
only alphabet. I suspect they borrowed the
idea from the Semites - improved upon it
- for ex: the Greeks added vowels - and then
brought a new and improved version with them
when they invaded India.
Unlike Semitic civilizations - which tend to
be grounded in religion (Judaism and Islam are
highly traditional), IEs are more likely to
innovate. But that is NOT the same as create.
From what I see of History the Semites
are geniuses at creating but then have
a cultural tendency to get stuck in religious
traditions. Not always true but Semites -
while creators - almost immediately attach religious
regulations to their achievements. This
hampers improvements. For ex:
the Hebrews immediately wrote the Bible
with a Semitic alphabet while the rest of the
world was illiterate. But then for millenia
centered most of their writings on endless
Biblical commentary to the exclusion of
other writings allowing the later arrivals
to civilization to overtake them. Again,
not always, but enough so to be noticeable.
This is a culture tendency in the civilization they
originally created. Arabs spend too much
time on Islamic writings. The secular
concerns are secondary. So having
invented civilization they immediately
mire it down in religious regulation.
For ex: You can easily think
of secular ancient Greek and
Roman histories. All ancient
Hebrew writings are almost invariably
dripping with religious import. The
Romans admired the Jews for their
antiquity but could never figure out why
they refused to change. I can source
that for you if you want.
The Aryans (Indo-Europeans) will
improve - even greatly on the ideas -
but until exposed to Semitic cities,
writings and alphabets; the Aryans
seem to have been possessed
merely of a culture and an iron
technology. To busy looting to
settle down.
This is not to say others do NOT
contribute to civilization. But the
origins of civilizations with
secure records, centralized cities,
secure polities, and AN ALPHABET
can only be credited to either
the Semites or the Indus Indians.
The others - the Mediterraneans
the Incas, Aztecs, Mayans; the
Chinese; the Germans; the Celts;
did not originally produce all four of the
requirements for high civilizations.
!) Cities
2) Records
3) Polities
4) Alphabet.
The Chinese came close with ideograms.
The Celts lacked cities and while they
had runes they frowned on their use.
The Germans were similar to the Celts
until Romans impressed them with the
need to change.
The Pre-Columbians lacked an alphabet
and may have borrowed heavily from
the Mediterranean with little original
content from America itself.
Semites or Indus Indians seem to be
the first high civilizations..
And I think the Indus borrowed from the
Semites. Albeit improving considerably
on it.
> What you are doing is exactly what Crusader and ipm does, just with
> switched signs.
Not so. Crusader says other races are inferior.
I do NOT. I merely say that Semites were
creators. I admit that having once created
civilization, they mire it down in tradition.
Those who borrowed and stole from the
Semites were not so restricted and
then overtook them.
Politically-Incorrect Ferret
: vonquark <vonq...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
: news:38911EDE...@mindspring.com...
Do you even know the difference between the Sephardim and the Ashkenazim?
The Sephardim (generally speaking) are the ones who stayed in the Middle
East, and the Ashkenazim (generally speaking) are the ones who emigrated
into Europe in one or another of the Disapora. A great many of them wound up
in places such as White Russia, Germany, Poland, and such places. Often they
intermarried with the locals, and often they didn't exactly marry the locals
but wound up with children by them anyways. The result are the Ashkenazim,
occasionally with blond hair and blue eyes. The Sephardim tended to stick
around the Middle East and the rest of the Mediterranean. For instance, it's
hard to find someone more middle-eastern/shemitic than a jew of Yemenite
ancestry.
: Regards,
: Crusader
--
Johnny Yen
<kla...@clark.net> wrote:
>In alt.california Crusader <White_kn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>: vonquark <vonq...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>: news:38911EDE...@mindspring.com...
>
>:> But if you disagree, describe for me your concept
>:> of a Jewish Semite.
>
>: Arabs are an example of genuine Semetic stock. IOW, the Virgin Mary looked
>: like Paula Abdul, not Barbara Streisand or Roseanne Barr.
>
>: I'm 25% Sicilian, so I probably have more genuine Semetic blood than most
>: so-called "Jews."
So answer this : why does the average Jew look indistinguishable from
the average Sicilian, other than a few Ashkenazim who look like
Germans or for that matter northern Italians ?
>
>Do you even know the difference between the Sephardim and the Ashkenazim?
>The Sephardim (generally speaking) are the ones who stayed in the Middle
>East, and the Ashkenazim (generally speaking) are the ones who emigrated
>into Europe in one or another of the Disapora. A great many of them wound up
>in places such as White Russia, Germany, Poland, and such places. Often they
>intermarried with the locals, and often they didn't exactly marry the locals
>but wound up with children by them anyways. The result are the Ashkenazim,
>occasionally with blond hair and blue eyes. The Sephardim tended to stick
>around the Middle East and the rest of the Mediterranean. For instance, it's
>hard to find someone more middle-eastern/shemitic than a jew of Yemenite
>ancestry.
Although, in North Africa there were Berber tribes who became
judaised. See Walter Harris' very fascinating book " Morocco That Was
" . Harris described how in the pre-colonial Maghreb the Berber Jews
represented the lower class and the Sephardim, the upper class. With
the Jewish population of North Africa now much reduced from the
19th century or even the 1960s, I do not know if those distinctions
still hold. Also I do not know if these distinctions hold amongst the
Maghrebin diaspora.
>: Regards,
>: Crusader
>
>
>
>--
Crusader
Johnny Yen <beatho...@loop.net> wrote in message
news:3894c0b8...@nntp.loop.com...
> So answer this : why does the average Jew look indistinguishable from
> the average Sicilian, other than a few Ashkenazim who look like
> Germans or for that matter northern Italians ?
The average Askenazim Jew does not look like the average Sicilian. I would
never mistake Irv Rubin, Sumner Redstone, or Michael Eisner for Sicilians.
Some Jews with genuine Arabic (Semite) ancestry resemble Sicilians, but most
"Jews" that I've seen look more like Eastern Russians.
Regards,
Crusader
Johnny Yen
<White_kn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Johnny Yen <beatho...@loop.net> wrote in message
>news:3894c0b8...@nntp.loop.com...
>> So answer this : why does the average Jew look indistinguishable from
>> the average Sicilian, other than a few Ashkenazim who look like
>> Germans or for that matter northern Italians ?
>
>The average Askenazim Jew does not look like the average Sicilian.
Spoken by someone who has never been to Sicily.
I would
>never mistake Irv Rubin, Sumner Redstone, or Michael Eisner for Sicilians.
Eisner could be Sicilian, so could Irv Rubin. I don't know what
Redstone looks like. Any pictures of him anywhere ?
BTW, there is a difference between Eastern and Western Sicily. Eastern
Sicilians are considered by some to be more " European " than Western
Sicilians.
Don;t know where your illegitimate daddy was from..,. II took a train
from Napoli to Palermo overnight,
which went on the ferry at Villa San Giovanni, Calabria, across the
strait of Messina. The train then boarded the island at Messina, and
then went straight through to Palermo. The Messina-Palermo
train ride is one of the most beautiful in the world.
Then I went from Palermo to Trapani, to take a ferry to Tunis.
Came into Catania on a ferry from Malta,but didnt spend too
much time there. I got on to a train headed for Rome, overnight.
>Some Jews with genuine Arabic (Semite) ancestry resemble Sicilians, but most
>"Jews" that I've seen look more like Eastern Russians.
Russians look nothing like Jews. The non Mediterranean looking white
Jews look more Germanic, which makes sense given that the Ashkenazim
have a part Germanic origin.
>Regards,
>Crusader
>
>
vonquark
Johnny Yen wrote:
>
> Russians look nothing like Jews. The non Mediterranean looking white
> Jews look more Germanic, which makes sense given that the Ashkenazim
> have a part Germanic origin.
> >Regards,
> >Crusader
> >
> >
I would half-agree with you there Crusader. Those Ashkenazim
whose ancestors were in Germany or Poland look Germanic.
Those Ashkenazim who were in Russian areas look Russian.
vonquark
Those >s can be hard to keep track of.
vonquark wrote:
> Johnny Yen wrote:
>
> >
> > Russians look nothing like Jews. The non Mediterranean looking white
> > Jews look more Germanic, which makes sense given that the Ashkenazim
> > have a part Germanic origin.
> > >Regards,
> > >Crusader
> > >
> > >
>I would half-agree with you there Crusader. Those Ashkenazim
^^^^^^^
Should have said Johnny Yen
>whose ancestors were in Germany or Poland look Germanic.
>Those Ashkenazim who were in Russian areas look Russian.
> As Beethoven used to say:
>
> "I'll be Bach."
>
> VonQuark
--
Crusader
> Eisner could be Sicilian, so could Irv Rubin. I don't know what
> Redstone looks like. Any pictures of him anywhere ?
I looked at the pictures again, and I'll agree with you. You were right, I
was wrong. Jews do resemble Sicilians. I'll be honest, I'm 25% Sicilian (as
you know) and I've had people who did not know my ethnic background tell me
that they thought that I might be a Jew because of my features. So perhaps
the Ashkenazim does have some Semetic ancestry, as does the Sicilian, but so
what?
The Jewish antichrist "religion" is still bogus. Roman Catholicism
supplanted Judaism as the One True Faith in A.D. 33. Hence, the Jews are no
longer "God's Chosen People."
The Jews have been at war against Christ's Church for 2,000 years, and have
even gotten many Gentiles into the act by setting up Freemasonry. A stated
goal of the Masons is to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, and hence, turn
the world over to the Jews. The Judeo-Masons wish to "rebuild the Temple"
both symbolically and literally. However, they are going to run into a major
problem doing it literally, because there is a huge Islamic Mosque on the
site in Jerusalem where they want to rebuild the Temple.
Regards,
Crusader
Thomas Mohr
> The Jews have been at war against Christ's Church for 2,000 years, and have
> even gotten many Gentiles into the act by setting up Freemasonry. A stated
> goal of the Masons is to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, and hence, turn
> the world over to the Jews. The Judeo-Masons wish to "rebuild the Temple"
> both symbolically and literally. However, they are going to run into a major
> problem doing it literally, because there is a huge Islamic Mosque on the
> site in Jerusalem where they want to rebuild the Temple.
>
> Regards,
> Crusader
Crusader, before you open your blabbermouth, are you aware that orthodox
jews are opposed to freemasonry just as catholics are ?
Mimi Weasel
>Crusader, before you open your blabbermouth, are you aware that >orthodox jews are opposed to freemasonry just as catholics are ?
Do you think it would surprise "Crusader" to learn that George
Washington was a freemason? Of it he once said "American will become
what Freemasonry already is; a temple of virtue"
Mimi Weasel
Crusader
Thomas Mohr <thoma...@magnet.at> wrote in message
news:3895ECD2...@magnet.at...
> Crusader wrote:
>
> > The Jews have been at war against Christ's Church for 2,000 years, and
have
> > even gotten many Gentiles into the act by setting up Freemasonry. A
stated
> > goal of the Masons is to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, and hence,
turn
> > the world over to the Jews. The Judeo-Masons wish to "rebuild the
Temple"
> > both symbolically and literally. However, they are going to run into a
major
> > problem doing it literally, because there is a huge Islamic Mosque on
the
> > site in Jerusalem where they want to rebuild the Temple.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Crusader
>
> jews are opposed to freemasonry just as catholics are ?
If the Hassidic Jews are truly opposed to Freemasonry, then that explains
why they are viewed with contempt by non-Hassidic Jews--just as Traditional
Catholics are viewed with contempt by Novus Ordo "Catholics" such as
yourself.
Regards,
Crusader
Crusader
Mimi Weasel <"MimiWeasel ain't"@home.com> wrote in message
news:3895F3DB...@home.com...
> Do you think it would surprise "Crusader" to learn that George
> Washington was a freemason? Of it he once said "American will become
> what Freemasonry already is; a temple of virtue"
America and Freemasonry are temples of satanic degeneracy. Moreover, I'm
aware that the revolutionary George Washington, like virtually all
revolutionaries, was affiliated with masonry.
I'm a Monarchist, not a mobocrat. The Protestant nativists were correct
about one thing in spite of themselves: No Catholic can support the vile
principles of the mobocratic American form of Government and still be a
true Catholic.
Revolution (including the American Revolution) originates from the first
revolutionary, Lucifer himself, with his maxim: Non serviam (I will not
serve).
Regards,
Crusader
Thomas Mohr
> I'm a Monarchist, not a mobocrat.
Crusader, you are *not* a monarchist, otherwise you would accept the
order of your superiors and shut up.
Thomas Mohr
> If the Hassidic Jews are truly opposed to Freemasonry, then that explains
> why they are viewed with contempt by non-Hassidic Jews--just as Traditional
> Catholics
If you think that you are a traditional catholic, then you are mistaken.
*NO* traditional catholic would call a saint an ape like you repeatedly
did. Your religion is racism and nothing else. You are a pagan.
Mimi Weasel
>I'm a Monarchist, not a mobocrat. The Protestant nativists were correct
>about one thing in spite of themselves: No Catholic can support the >vile principles of the mobocratic American form of Government and >still be a true Catholic.
>Revolution (including the American Revolution) originates from the >first revolutionary, Lucifer himself, with his maxim: Non serviam (I >will not serve).
No, what you are is full of shit!
Mimi Weasel
Thomas Mohr
> America and Freemasonry are temples of satanic degeneracy. Moreover, I'm
> aware that the revolutionary George Washington, like virtually all
> revolutionaries, was affiliated with masonry.
>
> I'm a Monarchist, not a mobocrat. The Protestant nativists were correct
> about one thing in spite of themselves: No Catholic can support the vile
> principles of the mobocratic American form of Government and still be a
> true Catholic.
>
> Revolution (including the American Revolution) originates from the first
> revolutionary, Lucifer himself, with his maxim: Non serviam (I will not
> serve).
Crusader, I think you are a spineless little man without orientation.
Only a year ago you spoke 180 degrees otherwise.
vonquark
Crusader wrote:
> Thomas Mohr <thoma...@magnet.at> wrote in message
> news:3895ECD2...@magnet.at...
> > Crusader wrote:
> >
> >
> > Crusader, before you open your blabbermouth, are you aware that orthodox
> > jews are opposed to freemasonry just as catholics are ?
>
> If the Hassidic Jews are truly opposed to Freemasonry, then that explains
> why they are viewed with contempt by non-Hassidic Jews--just as Traditional
> Catholics are viewed with contempt by Novus Ordo "Catholics" such as
> yourself.
>
> Regards,
> Crusader
How do you know he is a Catholic? I would guess he
is either Agnostic or Protestant. One of his earlier
posts lists Vienna University as the source. Well, likely
he is either an academic or a student. If the latter,
he is probably a post-Christian European Agonostic.
If the former, he may be a religious Catholic though
just as likely Protestant. Since he seems to disagree with
you Crusader, we can be sure he is not a Tridentine Latin
Catholic. I could be wrong but I bet he is Agnostic with
Protestant a distant second possibility and Catholic a very
distant third. Of course there is always a possibility he
is Jewish. Probably he is Agnostic.
vonquark
Thomas Mohr wrote:
> Crusader wrote:
>
> > If the Hassidic Jews are truly opposed to Freemasonry, then that explains
> > why they are viewed with contempt by non-Hassidic Jews--just as Traditional
> > Catholics
>
> If you think that you are a traditional catholic, then you are mistaken.
> *NO* traditional catholic would call a saint an ape like you repeatedly
> did. Your religion is racism and nothing else. You are a pagan.
Seriously Crusader the offer still stands,
You need to get laid real bad. I mean real
bad. It is clogging your carotid artery and your
brain is suffocating, Meet me in New Jersey and I will
try and help you to get laid by a woman. Nothing illegal
just some tips!
There is no other logical explanation for this!
One night with a babe and you will be much better.
We all will be.
vonquark
> Mimi Weasel <"MimiWeasel ain't"@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3895F3DB...@home.com...
>
> > Do you think it would surprise "Crusader" to learn that George
> > Washington was a freemason? Of it he once said "American will become
> > what Freemasonry already is; a temple of virtue"
>
> America and Freemasonry are temples of satanic degeneracy. Moreover, I'm
> aware that the revolutionary George Washington, like virtually all
> revolutionaries, was affiliated with masonry.
>
> I'm a Monarchist, not a mobocrat. The Protestant nativists were correct
> about one thing in spite of themselves: No Catholic can support the vile
> principles of the mobocratic American form of Government and still be a
> true Catholic.
>
> Revolution (including the American Revolution) originates from the first
> revolutionary, Lucifer himself, with his maxim: Non serviam (I will not
> serve).
>
> Regards,
> Crusader
Ah but which one is legit? Name one European monarch
who did not steal his throne by refusing to serve someone else.
Let's see... The Visigoths stole their throne from the
Romanized Celts. The Arabs stole it from the Visigoths.
The Merovingians stole it from the Romanized French.
The Franks stole it from the Merovingians. The Normans
stole it from the French. The Anglo-Saxons stole it from the
Celts. The Scots stole it from the Picts. The Normans
stole it again from the English who then stole it from the Irish
Kings and the Scots Kings. (The ol` Stone of Scone thing).
The Belgian monarch was put in place by a popular revolt
against the Dutch monarchy who came into power three
centuries earlier from a revolt against the Spanish Monarchy
who came into power after a revolt against their Arab Monarchs
who came into power by stealing Spain from Visigoths Monarchs
who came in to power by stealing Spain from the Romano Celts
who were in power because Rome stole Spain from the original
CeltiIberians who stole Spain from Phoenicians, Tarsussians (sp),
etc. The Romans stole Rome from Etruscan Monarchs.
Get the picture?!
So which monarch do you obey Crusader? They all look like
thieves to me.
But you seem to have a thing for the English Monarchs.
And you do hate Rebels so! So let's give you a question
straight out of history. For about 100 yrs the O'Neill clans
in Ireland waged a war in defense of the rights of Catholics -
Irish Catholics - against Protestant English Royals who
sought to force Protestantism on them. Who do you think
was right?
The Catholic Encyclopedia source on O`Neill
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11252a.htm
What it does not even capture is that Hugh O`Neill`s Uncle
Shane led a revolt against England 20 years before Hugh
and Hugh`s nephew Owen Roe would lead a later revolt
40 years later. Much of the issue was rights for Catholics.
Careful! You cannot both be a Popist and a monarchist at the
same time on this one. So one of your principles has got to
give. Personally I think the Irish Rebels were right. But then
I think Monarchy is wrong. I think the Irish Rebels only
mistake was depending on Rome for help. I think the
English and the Pope both raped Ireland.
vonquark
Thomas Mohr wrote:
> Crusader wrote:
>
> > America and Freemasonry are temples of satanic degeneracy. Moreover, I'm
> > aware that the revolutionary George Washington, like virtually all
> > revolutionaries, was affiliated with masonry.
> >
> > I'm a Monarchist, not a mobocrat. The Protestant nativists were correct
> > about one thing in spite of themselves: No Catholic can support the vile
> > principles of the mobocratic American form of Government and still be a
> > true Catholic.
> >
> > Revolution (including the American Revolution) originates from the first
> > revolutionary, Lucifer himself, with his maxim: Non serviam (I will not
> > serve).
Let`s get this straight: You favored a Protestant British Monarch
who denied religious freedom over the American Revolutionaries
who would be the very first English speakers to give civil rights
to Catholics. And you call yourself a good Catholic!
You need to get laid!
Thomas Mohr
> How do you know he is a Catholic? I would guess he
> is either Agnostic or Protestant. One of his earlier
> posts lists Vienna University as the source. Well, likely
> he is either an academic or a student. If the latter,
> he is probably a post-Christian European Agonostic.
> If the former, he may be a religious Catholic though
> just as likely Protestant. Since he seems to disagree with
> you Crusader, we can be sure he is not a Tridentine Latin
> Catholic. I could be wrong but I bet he is Agnostic with
> Protestant a distant second possibility and Catholic a very
> distant third. Of course there is always a possibility he
> is Jewish. Probably he is Agnostic.
> --
Quark, read my posts. I repeatedly said that I am a *practicing*
Catholic. The poiunt is, Crusader repeatedly called non-white catholics
and even saints savages and apes and tries to justify that as being
traditional catholic. he is plainly a racist and nothing else.
Thomas Mohr
> Let`s get this straight: You favored a Protestant British Monarch
> who denied religious freedom over the American Revolutionaries
> who would be the very first English speakers to give civil rights
> to Catholics. And you call yourself a good Catholic!
>
> You need to get laid!
Vonquark, I suggest you read my posts and then you get your replies
straight before you suggest something, okay ?
Crusader
> Careful! You cannot both be a Popist and a monarchist at the
> same time on this one.
I would only obey a truly Roman Catholic Monarch. I only seem to have a
"thing" for British Monarchs because I'm English-speaking, but a French (or
other European) Monarch would be just as good. When I talk about British
Monarchs, I'm referring to Monarchs like Mary Tudor.
Regards,
Crusader
Crusader
> Since he seems to disagree with you Crusader, we can be sure he is not a
>Tridentine Latin Catholic.
That's very true. He's a Novus Ordo humanist, there's no doubt about that.
Regards,
Crusader
Crusader
> vonquark wrote:
>
> > How do you know he is a Catholic? I would guess he
> > is either Agnostic or Protestant. One of his earlier
> > posts lists Vienna University as the source. Well, likely
> > he is either an academic or a student. If the latter,
> > he is probably a post-Christian European Agonostic.
> > If the former, he may be a religious Catholic though
> > you Crusader, we can be sure he is not a Tridentine Latin
> > Protestant a distant second possibility and Catholic a very
> > distant third. Of course there is always a possibility he
> > is Jewish. Probably he is Agnostic.
> > --
>
> Quark, read my posts. I repeatedly said that I am a *practicing*
> Catholic. The poiunt is, Crusader repeatedly called non-white catholics
> and even saints savages and apes and tries to justify that as being
> traditional catholic. he is plainly a racist and nothing else.
I have never called a saint an "ape" or a "savage." No matter how many times
you lie and say I did, that doesn't make your lie become truth, Mohr.
Regards,
Crusader
JR
What Quark is actually doing is promoting the idea that because _A_ jew
invented a written language, that accomplishment somehow can be
arbitrarily construed to mean that _all_ jews are just as clever. If he
is a jew that is his "racial pride" speaking as eloquently as any Nazi
expanded the accomplishment of _A_ single aryan into an artificial ego
boost for all blue eyed blondes. If he is not jewish, then for another
reason he stereotypes _all_ jews as "creators," while preferring to
obscure the fact that every prison holds at least a few jewish
criminals.
>
> Not so. Crusader says other races are inferior.
> I do NOT. I merely say that Semites were
> creators. I admit that having once created
> civilization, they mire it down in tradition.
>
> Those who borrowed and stole from the
> Semites were not so restricted and
> then overtook them.
"Borrowed and stole from the Semites" is just another way of saying that
hierarchical progress is not exclusively reliant upon an unrestricted
access of All individuals to the stepping stones of knowledge gathered
by other INDIVIUDALS, but that racially inferior people progress by
"stealing" from the racially superior. Of course, Quark is a racist. He
could not be otherwise and think as he does.
JR
Johnny Yen
<White_kn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>vonquark <vonq...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:38969E2D...@mindspring.com...
>> Careful! You cannot both be a Popist and a monarchist at the
>> same time on this one.
>
>I would only obey a truly Roman Catholic Monarch. I only seem to have a
>"thing" for British Monarchs because I'm English-speaking, but a French (or
>other European) Monarch would be just as good. When I talk about British
>Monarchs, I'm referring to Monarchs like Mary Tudor.
What about the Italian monarchy, the most secularist of all European
monarchies due to papal displeasure at the unification of Italy.
However, I believe the Lateran Treaty of 1929 did repair relations
between the Catholic church and the Italian state. For a long time
only the far right seriously considered restoring the monarchy, but
now the idea is catching on. The possibility of restoring the Italian
monarchy in our lifetimes is not inconcievable. Emmanuele Filiberto
may indeed get to occupy the throne vacated by his grandfather.
>
>Regards,
>Crusader
>
>
Gregory Gadow
> Crusader wrote:
>
> > If the Hassidic Jews are truly opposed to Freemasonry, then that explains
> > why they are viewed with contempt by non-Hassidic Jews--just as Traditional
> > Catholics
>
> If you think that you are a traditional catholic, then you are mistaken.
> *NO* traditional catholic would call a saint an ape like you repeatedly
> did. Your religion is racism and nothing else. You are a pagan.
As a former Pagan myself, I strongly resent that remark! Please don't lump *your*
heretics and hatemongers with Pagans.
--
Gregory Gadow
E-mail: tech...@serv.net
American Liberal Party: http://www.americanliberal.org
I am a resident of Washington State. Any commerical
e-mail sent with false or misleading headers is in
violation of state law and subjectto a $500 penalty.
I WILL FILE CHARGES!
Crusader
JR <ju...@home.com> wrote in message news:38971577...@home.com...
> Of course, Quark is a racist. He could not be otherwise and think as he
does.
A "racist" is anyone who acknowledges racial differences and refuses to
blindly believe egalitarian delusions, so I guess even Quark is a "racist."
Although Quark is a leftist politically, he at least seems to be in touch
with reality--which is more than I can say for you.
Quark admits that the races are different but says "who cares?" whereas you,
like most liberals, will try to deny that racial differences even exist. You
are absurd.
At least Quark is an *honest* liberal.
Regards,
Crusader
vonquark
Thomas Mohr wrote:
> vonquark wrote:
>
> > How do you know he is a Catholic? I would guess he
> > is either Agnostic or Protestant. One of his earlier
> > posts lists Vienna University as the source. Well, likely
> > he is either an academic or a student. If the latter,
> > he is probably a post-Christian European Agonostic.
> > If the former, he may be a religious Catholic though
> > just as likely Protestant. Since he seems to disagree with
> > you Crusader, we can be sure he is not a Tridentine Latin
> > Catholic. I could be wrong but I bet he is Agnostic with
> > Protestant a distant second possibility and Catholic a very
> > distant third. Of course there is always a possibility he
> > is Jewish. Probably he is Agnostic.
> > --
>
> Quark, read my posts. I repeatedly said that I am a *practicing*
> Catholic. The poiunt is, Crusader repeatedly called non-white catholics
> and even saints savages and apes and tries to justify that as being
> traditional catholic. he is plainly a racist and nothing else.
My complaint is with Crusader NOT you! I am getting
my reply forwarding mixed up!
I am sorry for the mix up. I agree that Crusader is nothing more than
a racist.
vonquark
Again my apology to your Mr. Mohr. Sometimes
I fail to read the last originator. I will try to be
more circumspect in the future.
Crusader is nutty. I merely suggested that he
needs to fall in love, Such bitterness as Crusader
has seems to come from a lack of beauty or love
in his life.
Normally I would NOT be so vulgar. But if I may
explain myself:
I normally do not advocate the use of narcotics.
But if one needs a cancer excised then a use
of painkillers is indicated.
In a like fashion, Crusader's bigotry is like
a cancer. It needs to be excised. Drastic -
otherwise harmful - measures are indicated.
So even a purely lustful remedy might
be necessary. Anything which takes
him out of his hateful cubicle of prejudice
would be an improvement. Even if that
remedy is, under other circumstances,
considered immoral.
The point is more poetic. I doubt
Crusader would take me up on it.
Something has screwed up Crusader's psyche.
I wonder if a drastic Fruedian remedy of an
appeal to the Eros might snap him out of it.
I agree that Crusader is merely a bigot.
And I will try not to mix up addressees again.
vonquark
JR wrote:
> vonquark wrote:
>
>
> What Quark is actually doing is promoting the idea that because _A_ jew
> invented a written language, that accomplishment somehow can be
> arbitrarily construed to mean that _all_ jews are just as clever. If he
> is a jew that is his "racial pride" speaking as eloquently as any Nazi
> expanded the accomplishment of _A_ single aryan into an artificial ego
> boost for all blue eyed blondes. If he is not jewish, then for another
> reason he stereotypes _all_ jews as "creators," while preferring to
> obscure the fact that every prison holds at least a few jewish
> criminals.
I am NOT Jewish! I merely observe that civilization
came out of the MidEast- the Semitic MidEast.
I am aware that prisons have people of all
ethnicities.
I said that others improved upon the civilization
the Semites created.
> >
> > Not so. Crusader says other races are inferior.
> > I do NOT. I merely say that Semites were
> > creators. I admit that having once created
> > civilization, they mire it down in tradition.
I am critical as well as laudatory about Semites.
Tradition is a mire of their civilizations.
> >
> > Those who borrowed and stole from the
> > Semites were not so restricted and
> > then overtook them.
Sounds like I was praising non Semites there!
> "Borrowed and stole from the Semites" is just another way of saying that
> hierarchical progress is not exclusively reliant upon an unrestricted
> access of All individuals to the stepping stones of knowledge gathered
> by other INDIVIUDALS, but that racially inferior people progress by
> "stealing" from the racially superior.
What?! I agree with individualism; but even today
individuals do NOT have unrestricted access to knowledge.
A Japanese scientist in World War 2 may have been smarter
than many of the scientists at Los Alamos. Some of the
Japanese scientists were major forces in physics.
Hideki Yukawa for instance Nobel Laureate 1949.
http://nobelprizes.com/nobel/physics/1949a.html
He was top notch. The Japanese were even designing
microwave towers with the idea to cook entrenched
American soldiers on the beach. A superior
form of flame thrower when you think about it.
BUT the Japanese did not have unlimited access to
Los Alamos so who built the A-bomb first.
America or Japan?
It is often advantageous to steal knowledge rather
than discover it for yourself. Especially with technology
where the process of discovering your own technology
from the ground up can mean a recapitulation of the
other guy's errors.
The Germans made sure to get copies of all
of Goddard's papers, thus avoiding his errors
and so they leapfrogged ahead at Pennemunde.
We took the Pennemunde crew after WW2
and borrowed/stole/confiscated their knowledge.
We had to. During WW2 we were NOT given
access as individuals to German secrets.
> Of course, Quark is a racist. He
> could not be otherwise and think as he does.
See above!
> JR
vonquark
Thomas Mohr wrote:
> Crusader wrote:
>
> > The Jews have been at war against Christ's Church for 2,000 years, and have
> > even gotten many Gentiles into the act by setting up Freemasonry. A stated
> > goal of the Masons is to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, and hence, turn
> > the world over to the Jews. The Judeo-Masons wish to "rebuild the Temple"
> > both symbolically and literally. However, they are going to run into a major
> > problem doing it literally, because there is a huge Islamic Mosque on the
> > site in Jerusalem where they want to rebuild the Temple.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Crusader
>
> Crusader, before you open your blabbermouth, are you aware that orthodox
> jews are opposed to freemasonry just as catholics are ?
What is incredible is that Orthodox Jews, Tridentine Latin
Catholics, Fundamentalists Protestants, Hitler, the Soviet
Union, Franco's Facists, and, on and off, at times sections
of American and British society all opposed freemasonry.
I have seen priests say the Protestant Reformation was
spawned/fueled by Freemasons. (read Malachi Martin's
I have seen Protestants say the freemasons are in league
with the Pope. (Any Jack Chic comic/screed will do)
Of course the Fascist Franco condemned freemasonry.
As did Hitler. As did the Soviet Union, amazingly also.
Of course whatever side you are on, whatever conspiracy you
hold to, the freemasons are always your enemy and
behind the other guy.
So alternately the Freemasons help Jews/hurt Jews;
help Catholics/hurt Catholics; help Protestants/hurt Protestants;
help Communists/hurt Communists.
It is a neat trick! I would love to know how they pull it off.
I am no lover of secret societies, but frankly it is not merely
impossible to believe the freemasons committed all the crimes
they are accused of, it violates the laws of physics. For
the conspiracists would have us believe the same masons were
in two different places at the very same time.
Before we go off on an anti-masonic trend let us
separate the exaggeration from the fact.
For ex: It is incontrovertible that the freemasons invented
tooth decay which was unknown among humans until the
Illuminati conceived of the idea when Adam Weishaupt
realized he could make more money from the sale of
concrete by selling it one tooth at a time as opposed to a
bag at the time. After that the freemasons in league with
the International Order Of Oddfellows invented cotton
candy to put their plan into operation by forcing the population
to eat the candy and get tooth decay. The Elks who
are in league with the IOOF invented country fairs as
an excuse to sell cotton candy and drum up business for the
Illuminati in return for a 1% kick back on all fillings billed
by dentists everywhere.
Around the turn of the century, a Shriner (the SS of the
freemasons) invented the athlete's foot fungus as an
excuse to sell podiatric products. The Shriner's name
was Dr. Scholl and the rest is history.
Finally in 1999 the final plan of world domination was
put into practice. The idea was to sell useless bubble gum
cards of Japanese monsters to kids.
And so we are slaves to the freemasons who are
the powers behind tooth decay, foot fungus,
toxic shock syndrome (that is a story and a half but I
won`t get into that now), Legionaire`s disease, the
common cold, the International Order of Oddfellows,
the Kiwanis Clubs, the Elks, the Ancient Order of
Hibernians, the Orange Order, the B`nai Brith,
the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the
International Communist Conspiracy, the Protestant
Reformation, the Catholic Inquistion, Revolutionary Islam,
the Likud, Neo-Nazism, the Vatican and the almighty
cartel of Cotton Candy manufacturers and Lays Potato
Chips.
Crusader
> hierarchical progress is not exclusively reliant upon an unrestricted
> access of All individuals to the stepping stones of knowledge gathered
> by other INDIVIUDALS, but that racially inferior people progress by
> could not be otherwise and think as he does.
>
I'm not sure who's side your on, so if I insulted you and accused you of
liberalism I'm sorry. But if you truly refuse to acknowledge racial
differences, my insult still stands :-)
Regards,
Jason
Jason Baran
> I have seen Protestants say the freemasons are in league
> with the Pope.
As of recently, that's true. Many Novus Ordo Bishops and Vatican officials
are mixed up in Freemasonry--many are/were actually *members* of the lodge.
The Freemasons knew that they had to get their own into the Church hierarchy
in order to subvert the Church--and subvert it they have. Hence, the
humanistic Vatican II "reforms" and the invalid Novus Ordo "Mass" and
"Sacraments," which are no longer performed correctly, and are bogus.
"The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators,
but men of tradition" (Pope St. Pius X)
Regards,
Jason Baran
fight...@my-deja.com
"Crusader" <White_kn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Johnny Yen <beatho...@loop.net> wrote in message
> news:38950f0a...@nntp.loop.com...
> > Eisner could be Sicilian, so could Irv Rubin. I don't know what
> > Redstone looks like. Any pictures of him anywhere ?
>
> I looked at the pictures again, and I'll agree with you.
Saw a picture of Redstone. He could be Sicilian.
You were
right, I
> was wrong. Jews do resemble Sicilians. I'll be honest, I'm 25%
Sicilian (as
> you know)
I am 3/8 Italian ( all mainland though ) and have been to
Italy. I know what I'm talking about...
and I've had people who did not know my ethnic background
tell me
> that they thought that I might be a Jew because of my features.
Like Sinatra...( which is the only thing you have in common with
him )
So
perhaps
> the Ashkenazim does have some Semetic ancestry, as does the Sicilian,
but so
> what?
The Ashkenazim resulted from a mixture of the original Jews with
Germanic tribes.
>
> The Jewish antichrist "religion" is still bogus.
So why do you talk like an orthodox Jew ? BTW I do not practice
the Jewish religion, and my mother is mostly Italian, so I am not
a Jew. My maternal ancestors were Catholic.
Roman Catholicism
> supplanted Judaism as the One True Faith in A.D. 33. Hence, the Jews
are no
> longer "God's Chosen People."
You're talking to the wrong person here about that. I am not
a practicing Jew, and never have been.
The only time I ever wore a yarmulke was when I took a tour of
the synagogue of Rome. All male visitors have to wear yarmulkes
there, which they provide en situ. It is certainly one of the
most beautiful buildings, in a city with arguably more beautiful
buildings than any other. ( Yes, definately more than Palermo ! )
> The Jews have been at war against Christ's Church for 2,000 years, and
have
> even gotten many Gentiles into the act by setting up Freemasonry. A
stated
> goal of the Masons is to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, and hence,
turn
> the world over to the Jews. The Judeo-Masons wish to "rebuild the
Temple"
> both symbolically and literally. However, they are going to run into a
major
> problem doing it literally, because there is a huge Islamic Mosque on
the
> site in Jerusalem where they want to rebuild the Temple.
Again, you're talking to the wrong person about that. Don't know
about that stuff. However, why do I get the idea that you would
have gotten along quite well with the late Generalisimo Francisco
Franco Bahamonde ? The " great Galician " was always blaming
everything on " Judaeo-Masonic conspiracies ". Regardless, he's
a-burning right now way down there in Hell...
> Regards,
> Crusader
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
JR
> does.
>
> blindly believe egalitarian delusions, so I guess even Quark is a "racist."
> Although Quark is a leftist politically, he at least seems to be in touch
> with reality--which is more than I can say for you.
>
> Quark admits that the races are different but says "who cares?" whereas you,
> like most liberals, will try to deny that racial differences even exist. You
> are absurd.
>
> At least Quark is an *honest* liberal.
I have yet to meet a liberalscum who would agree that "races don't
exist," since that admission would destroy their perennial election
platform of "racial preferencing." It is you, not me, who agrees with
liberals, for it is the bogus conformity engendered by racial
_stereotypes_ that support your anti-Jewish claims as well as the
anti-white bigotry of the liberal-led affirmative era, not to mention
the Democrat-led anti-black bigotry of the segregation era.
As for the existence of races...you are making the claim that both
"races" AND "individuals" exist, a claim that contradicts a reality in
which no two entities EVER exist in the same place at the same time.
You can't prove your claim, without also contradicting the fundamental
basis of every successful human invention ever created. Nor can you
contradict that fact that there is no one now or ever who can look into
a mirror or into another 's face and see "a race" and not "a human
being." Neither you nor anyone else can produce "a race" for scientific
validation, nor can you or anyone else prove the stereotypical
color-coded conformity claimed by racists, because is doesn't exist.
Name the exact skin shade that differentiates "the races" At what
particular individual human being does one "race" end and another
"race" begin...what exact color is he/she? Does "Jewish" signify a
Borgian race of think alike, act alike stereotypical clones or is it a
"religion" that is taught and often rejected. Why is there a "Jewish
race," but no "Baptist race?"
Do all whites think exactly alike? NO Do all blacks? NO and what about
those whose parents are one of each...do they get their own assigned
"race?" their own set of politial scum demanding that "equality"
mandates the exploitation of others for their benefit? Maybe you should
try to get past your simpleminded superficiality and notice that
"human thought" is derived from personal choices over what to believe, a
process that changes each of our perspectives throughout each of our
lives, as opposed to your unreal ideas of irrevocable color-coded
predeterminism.
Obviously the whole idea of "race," "racialism" and "racism" is
comprised exclusively of arbitrary color judgements with which we are
all taught to dehumanize ourselves and each other...primarily for the
benefit of human political scum such as Adolf Hitler, President
Stereotype and most of his predecessors, as well as whoever told the
Rwandans that their irrelevant physical characteristics were a reason to
kill each other.
> Regards,
> Crusader
Ditto JR
Jeffrey Fite
the skeletal structure of a long deceased individual? Caucasians,
Negroids and Mongol types have distinct qualities in their respective
subspecies.
Homo Sapiens is a single species divided in many subspecies that are
scattered globally. As one observes nature it is easy to see that
species and subspecies compete with each other for survival. In the case
of subspecies; competition for females leads to violent encounters
between males of all groups.
Man is in fact an animal. The conflict between races of men is merely an
uncomfortable extension of Natural Selection and territory dominance. An
animal that does not mark it's territory will not survive.
It is inevitable that the world will become property of a single race.
It will not be a racially mixed world because the Caucasian population
is in sharp decline and Negroid populations are suffering from disease
and famine. The Mongol population will someday own the entire planet.
Their population is expanding rapidly despite birth control. Since they
are producing more breeding females than any other race it seems the
ball is in their court.
Respectfully, Jeffrey Fite
JR
>
> JR wrote:
>
> > vonquark wrote:
> > >
> > > Not so. Crusader says other races are inferior.
> > > I do NOT. I merely say that Semites were
> > > creators. I admit that having once created
> > > civilization, they mire it down in tradition.
>
> I am critical as well as laudatory about Semites.
> Tradition is a mire of their civilizations.
You are "stereotyping," not critizing or praising.
> > > Those who borrowed and stole from the
> > > Semites were not so restricted and
> > > then overtook them.
>
> Sounds like I was praising non Semites there!
You were stereotyping there, too...with your limited lifespan and your lack
of omniscience apparent to all, you have reduced the early world to two
racial clones which you have labeled semites and non-semites, while
subscribing to the anomaly that this conformity was predestined by
_YOUR_ stereotypes.
>
> > "Borrowed and stole from the Semites" is just another way of saying that
> > hierarchical progress is not exclusively reliant upon an unrestricted
> > access of All individuals to the stepping stones of knowledge gathered
> > by other INDIVIUDALS, but that racially inferior people progress by
> > "stealing" from the racially superior.
>
> What?! I agree with individualism; but even today
> individuals do NOT have unrestricted access to knowledge.
And why shouldn't we have unrestricted access to knowledge? Because
the same stereotype-propelled thinking that supports "racism" also
supports "nationalism;" the pretense that "global society" requires
elite imposed geographical borders and the freetrade-farce of
politicians imposing massive tariffs, taxes as well as regulatory penalties
and preferences, so that everyone on earth who wants to trade with
anyone else on earth has to FIRST kiss the ass of some politicalscum or
thier hired minions.
> A Japanese scientist in World War 2 may have been smarter
> than many of the scientists at Los Alamos. Some of the
> Japanese scientists were major forces in physics.
> Hideki Yukawa for instance Nobel Laureate 1949.
> http://nobelprizes.com/nobel/physics/1949a.html
> He was top notch. The Japanese were even designing
> microwave towers with the idea to cook entrenched
> American soldiers on the beach. A superior
> form of flame thrower when you think about it.
>
> BUT the Japanese did not have unlimited access to
> Los Alamos so who built the A-bomb first.
> America or Japan?
_A_ person thought it up... Einstein was one of them and he was born in
"Germany" He used the discoveries of a physicist in Sweden, or maybe
it was Norway ... a particular number of people built the atom bomb, not
"America." America as a credit-taking human entity for the atom bomb
extends a superficial "winner-glamor" to those born in America well
after WWII ended, just as President Stereotype's assumption of a
"privileged white race," presumes that there are no American-born whites
challenged by financial adversity, catestrophic disease, dysfunctional
parents or accidents of chance to counter his racist claim. Your
short-cut, group-think designs a surreal world of nonexistent human
conformity. There were fools that rounded up Asian immigrants in
America during WWII and there were Germans who risked their lives to
rescue Jews from Nazies. There were white slavers and white underground
railroad operators, yet all were born inside American borders. Which
represents group think?
Your nationalist ideas of geographical imposed conformity provide no
clue as to the predication of human action, but instead obscure the
source of same, for it is NOT an irrelevant geographical location, nor
color, nor innate predeterminism of any kind that compels a human being
to act, but everchanging and limitlessly uncompelled "PERSONAL CHOICES.
These choices do not alter our human "identity," which remains
inviolately immutable as "a human being."
EACH human being is identifiable exclusively by isolating, through an
intellectual contrast with all else, _a particular individual's_ unique
characteristics. Our personal choices made from our own uniquely
personal preferences and our own uniquely personal experiences derived
from our own uniquely personal circumstances, build our own uniquely
personal "characters," NOT our identities...which remain "volitional,
individual human entity." And _that_ is why none of your mentally
created collective identities ever compromise human individuality.
Each of us _chooses_ what we accept as "truth," and by those choices we
guide our every action...whether those choices represent the joyful
discovery and pursuit of personal preferences in a cooperative, peaceful
society of creation and exchange, or whether we passively succumb to
power-hungry politicians teaching us to subscribe to the stereotypical
conformity of racial, national or religious identities...so that some
tinhorned tyrant can affirm his self worth with the power to command
millions of men, who do not even know each other's names, to meet for
the very first time on endless battlefields, with every intention of
killing each other and their wives and children too.
> It is often advantageous to steal knowledge rather
> than discover it for yourself. Especially with technology
> where the process of discovering your own technology
> from the ground up can mean a recapitulation of the
> other guy's errors.
>
> The Germans made sure to get copies of all
> of Goddard's papers, thus avoiding his errors
> and so they leapfrogged ahead at Pennemunde.
> We took the Pennemunde crew after WW2
> and borrowed/stole/confiscated their knowledge.
> We had to. During WW2 we were NOT given
> access as individuals to German secrets.
You mix a few facts in with a royal "we" and presume the world is
saved, yet WWII was waged against facism and Nazism. What
socio-political circumstances comprise these two political
ideologies ..elite imposed force to compel racebased political penalities/preferences
and elite imposed force to mandate elite controlled,
privately owned economic enterprise, a fascist harness of an entire
population's lives and resources to political social engineering, rather
than to the mutual profitability of honest trade. These two political
ideals now govern America, just as they governed Nazi Germany. So
WWII was fought in vain...just like all the other wars of history.
One cannot engender peace with war, liberty with exploitation, nor
equality with authority compelled obedience, regardless of many lives
one squanders trying.
> > Of course, Quark is a racist. He
> > could not be otherwise and think as he does.
>
> See above!
I am saying that the belief in
ANY race is the self destructive error of "racism," while you and
Crusader both insist that "races" exist. Who is the racist? and this
time try to remember that your conclusions do not alter reality, hence
your presumption of human predeterminism does not actually alter
individual volitionality but forms an _error_ that guides your
actions... just as easily as a _fact_ would do in its place. Best to
ensure that what you believe to be true, actually is true, in order to
prevent self deceit from compelling unintentional destruction, where
the opposite was expected. Otherwise, one becomes just another name in
a long line of men and women wanting only peace and causing centuries
of mostly war.
JR
Jason Baran
JR <ju...@home.com> wrote in message news:389DCBE3...@home.com...
> As for the existence of races...you are making the claim that both
> "races" AND "individuals" exist, a claim that contradicts a reality in
> which no two entities EVER exist in the same place at the same time.
Really? Okay, I'll play along. According to your logic, the human race does
not exist because there are individual humans *and* individual cats and
dogs. Hence, every living thing is an *individual,* and never part of a
group -- including a species. IOW, according to your logic, there is no such
thing as a human being, nor is there a such thing as a cat or dog. See how
asinine you are?
Regards,
Jason
Jason Baran
> race," but no "Baptist race?"
I don't know, why don't you ask the Jews why they consider themselves a
separate race from other Caucasians. If they are merely a religion, then why
do they list Karl Marx, who was baptized a Protestant and later became an
atheist, in their books as one of the worlds great Jews? Why are they the
only "religion" that does not seek converts?? Why are they not concerned
about the afterlife? Why does the Jewish "religion" lack all of the things
that make a religion a religion??
> Obviously the whole idea of "race," "racialism" and "racism" is
> comprised exclusively of arbitrary color judgements.
Color has nothing to do with it. A White person who lays in the sun for
three-hours comes back brown or red, yet he is still "White." Moreover, many
"Whites" have olive-colored skin (i.e. Southern Europeans) and yet they are
still "White."
The differences between the Caucasian race and the Negro race are much
deeper than color. The facial and body stucture is different, intellect is
different, vocal sounds are different, and there are profound psychic
differences. The Negro mentality and the Caucasian mentality are radically
different. The way the two races express themselves through art and music is
radically different. The races are so different, that I can easily identify
a Negro over the phone! I don't even need to see what color they are.
Regards,
Jason
vonquark
Jason Baran wrote:
> JR <ju...@home.com> wrote in message news:389DCBE3...@home.com...
> > "religion" that is taught and often rejected. Why is there a "Jewish
> > race," but no "Baptist race?"
>
> I don't know, why don't you ask the Jews why they consider themselves a
> separate race from other Caucasians.
The consider themselves descendants of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob. Sort of an extended family. Since we
Gentile Whites are not descended from Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob, we are not of their "family" so to speak.
They do NOT see themselves as a seperate race. They,
by either belief or tradition, see themselves as the heirs
to a blood covenant made between their descendants and
God.
It is more of an ethnic thing than a racial thing. It should
be remembered that anthropologically all religions at
one time were unique to the ethnic groups who formulated
them. The Anglo-Saxons had their gods. The Latins
theirs. The Africans had their gods, etc. (Note: while
it is true there was a synchronicity among all Indo-European
religions at one time; they eventually differentiated as the
Indo-Europeans themselves differentiated. So that in the
end, religions were eventually unique to their ethnic groups
even if similar to those outside. For ex: The Germans had
Odin, while the Latins had Jupiter.)
As time has gone by, prosyletizing faiths (Christianity,
Hinduism, Buddism, Islam, etc.) have consolidated many
ethnic groups into their beliefs so that religion is no longer
considered as being ethnic in origin. But this ethnic
transcendence is a recent development historically.
The Jews have merely retained the original form. And
so the question Jason poses is ultimately superficial.
A quick read of the early chapters of the Old Testament
will show that the early Jews saw it as a unique familial
covenant. Only later on did it become universal in scope.
>If they are merely a religion, then why
>do they list Karl Marx, who was baptized a Protestant
>and later became an atheist, in their books as one of the
>worlds great Jews?
See above: We Christians see religion apart from
ethnicity. This is the nature of Christianity. But
remember, even the early Christians - who were
all Jewish - did NOT see it as such. It was Paul
(nee Saul) who brought Christianity out to us Gentiles.
Read the book of Acts. A lot of the early Church
still conceived of Christianity as much an ethnic
possession of the Jews as the Old Testament.
Christianity and Hinduism were the first religions
to transcend ethnicity. Prior to these, religions
were unique to families or ethnic groups with
each group having their own god(s). Borrowings
might be made after a conquest or with trade.
But originally religion was an ethnic characteristic
as much as tongue or tradition.
Some American Indians have similar views.
>Why are they the only "religion" that does
>not seek converts??
The covenant was with the seed of Jacob.
They take it as literal blood descendants like
an inheritance. Some Native American
tribes have exclusive beliefs too. When was
the last time an Apache Chief tried to convert
you.
>Why are they not concerned about the
>afterlife?
WRONG! Some sects are, some are not!
>Why does the Jewish "religion" lack all
>of the things that make a religion a religion??
And those would be?!
Reminds me of a scene in HANNA AND HER
SISTERS where Woody Allen (Mickey) is diagnosed
with cancer and is soon to die. So he gets religious.
In the next scene a priest asks him why
he [Woody] wants to become a Catholic.
He answers: "Because you have everything
needed for a religion. Statues, beads, lots of pictures."
Again, we Christian Gentiles see religion as
a transcendant philosophy. They see it as
a family covenant with the Almighty. We
read Exodus as either a myth or history.
They see it as a family record.
> > Obviously the whole idea of "race," "racialism" and "racism" is
> > comprised exclusively of arbitrary color judgements.
>
> Color has nothing to do with it. A White person who lays in the sun for
> three-hours comes back brown or red, yet he is still "White." Moreover, many
> "Whites" have olive-colored skin (i.e. Southern Europeans) and yet they are
> still "White."
I agree with you there; but some racists think of
Southern Europeans as miscegenated mongrels.
But I think the race mixing only improved the
genius of the Southern European. Mongrels
tend to be smarter.
> The differences between the Caucasian race and the Negro race are much
> deeper than color. The facial and body stucture is different, intellect is
> different, vocal sounds are different, and there are profound psychic
> differences. The Negro mentality and the Caucasian mentality are radically
> different. The way the two races express themselves through art and music is
> radically different. The races are so different, that I can easily identify
> a Negro over the phone! I don't even need to see what color they are.
Even if true (and that is a big IF) so what?
"If you prick a black, do they not bleed?
If you tickle them, do they not laugh? If you
poison them, shall they not die?"
> Regards,
> Jason
Kevin Alfred Strom
>
[...]
>
> I agree with you there; but some racists think of
> Southern Europeans as miscegenated mongrels.
(Please don't send email carbon copies of newsgroup responses.)
The Mediterranean and Nordic subraces were probably never entirely
distinct, and constitute very closely related subraces of a single
race. They are, for example, morphologically far more similar to
each other than they are to the Alpine subrace.
[...]
> Mongrels
> tend to be smarter.
[...]
That's why Port-au-Prince and Mexico City are great centers of human
genius and excellence.
>
> "If you prick a black, do they not bleed?
> If you tickle them, do they not laugh? If you
> poison them, shall they not die?"
>
[...]
My beagle didn't exactly laugh, but she loved tickling; she bled
when cut; and I would presume she was not immune to poison.
The fact that there are many similarities between the human
subspecies is not a good argument for the intentional mixing program
which has been imposed upon the peoples of the West in the last few
decades; no more than the similarities between bald eagles and fish
eagles constitute an argument for forcing or encouraging them to
live together.
Honor bright,
--
Kevin Alfred Strom.
News, links, and pictures: http://www.kevin-strom.com
Kevin Alfred Strom
>
[...]
>
> The differences between the Caucasian race and the Negro race are much
> deeper than color. The facial and body stucture is different, intellect is
> different, vocal sounds are different, and there are profound psychic
> differences. The Negro mentality and the Caucasian mentality are radically
> different. The way the two races express themselves through art and music is
> radically different. The races are so different, that I can easily identify
> a Negro over the phone! I don't even need to see what color they are.
>
> Jason
Silhouettes of the major races, in which color and even details
cannot be seen, are easily distinguishable.
With every good wish,
Mimi Weasel
> News, links, and pictures: http://www.k
A former skinhead talks about how young people like him -- and
Benjamin Smith -- get recruited.
BY VIVIENNE WALT
When T.J. Leyden heard about Benjamin Nathaniel Smith's Fourth of July
shooting spree against blacks, Asian-Americans and Orthodox Jews --
which
ended with Smith turning his gun on himself during a police chase -- he
was
probably one of the few Americans who was not shocked. Nor was he
perplexed
that a young man like Smith -- who grew up in a comfortable Illinois
suburb,
attended elite public schools and was versed in Plato -- would end up as
a
disciple of the World Church of the Creator, a racist organization. At
33,
Leyden has seen it all before. In fact, he has lived it: His life in
violent
neo-Nazi movements was launched at the age of 14, when he began punching
out
kids at punk rock concerts. But unlike Smith's story, Leyden's is one of
transformation. Four years ago, after watching his small son recoil in
revulsion at the "niggers" on television, he quit the movement and his
marriage to a fellow skinhead. Today, he is a full-time consultant to
the Task
Force Against Hate at the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles,
monitoring
racist groups and, more importantly, trying to extract young men and
women
from them. In fact, while Smith was prowling the suburbs of Chicago and
Bloomington, Ind., last weekend, Leyden was at a rally of skinheads in
Las
Vegas -- this time as an enemy within their midst, hoping to reach some
youth
before they end up on a rampage like Smith. In the wake of the weekend's
violence, Leyden spoke to Salon Mothers Who Think about the
vulnerability of
youth, what he learned from his own children and his dealings with
Benjamin
Smith's mentor, Matthew Hale, the head of the World Church of the
Creator.
What kind of person is Matthew Hale?
I've never met him, but I used to talk to him on the phone when we were
organizing concerts and festivals. We'd network. He's smart, a good
talker
and a great propagandist. He's only 29. He knows how to manipulate the
whole
thing, like saying he's a white separatist, not a white supremacist.
That's a
lie. They believe in RAHOWA -- the Race Holy War -- that you have to
cleanse
the world of all non-Aryans. The COTC, as they call it, is really
starting to
grow over the last couple of years, they're in 35 cities now. That's
partly
because of Matt. What effect will last weekend's events have on his
movement?
In one way, it's bad for Matt because it's brought to light a lot of
stuff that
he'd preferred not to have come to light. But in other ways it's good:
There
will be kids who say, "This group is actually doing something, they're
not
just big talk." And they'll join. That's what Matt wants, and that's
what
he'll get. In some way, Benjamin Smith will become a martyr. You spent
15
years in some of the most violent skinhead movements, mostly the
Hammerskins
of Southern California. Didn't the violence ever bother you? When I
first got
involved, I didn't really like the violence. But after a while, nah, it
didn't
bother me at all. It was just something we did: violence, fighting. At
first,
we wouldn't beat up a lot of people; we'd just recruit more and more
kids.
Then we started getting into violence. We would beat up white kids in
the
neighborhood who weren't involved, or blacks and Latinos who weren't
supposed
to be there. We used to call it a bonus if we got blacks and Latinos
--if they
came into our neighborhood, they'd get beaten up. <BROne kid that we
fought --
he was white -- we cracked his ribs, separated his shoulder, kicked four
of
his teeth out and broke his jaw. And I broke the kid's thumb; it
shattered
when I kicked it. Supposedly he tripped a skinhead girl -- or that's
what
she said. I don't know if he did. He was in the wrong place at the wrong
time.
How does it happen that someone like you, a good kid from a good
neighborhood,
winds up a violent racist? Benjamin Smith grew up like I did: nice
neighborhood, good family, parents who supposedly loved him and cared
about
him even though they didn't support his racism. Neither did my parents.
I was
from an upper-middle-class neighborhood in Fontana, Calif., part of the
Inland
Empire. All my friends were white, everyone at school was white. My dad
ran
his own business installing telephones, and he made really good money.
My mom
worked her way up working for San Bernardino County. We weren't the
richest
kids in town, but if we wanted something we knew we were going to get
it. I
got involved after my parents got divorced. My mom and dad didn't know
what
was going on -- they were going through this divorce and they just kind
of
lost track of what me and my brothers were doing. My brothers went the
opposite way -- one's a cop. Who recruited you? First I got involved in
the
punk rock scene, then I started being a bit more violent than my
friends. If
someone bumped me at a concert, I'd beat on them. The older guys saw
this and
liked it and asked me to hang out with them. Back then, the skins were
bi-racial, mostly white and Latino. It was only in 1981 that they got
racist. The skins split up into different factions. I was in the racist
faction -- the White Tribe, we called ourselves; then American Firm and
Hammerskins on the West Coast. We were only about 35 kids. I started
getting
into a lot of trouble and had a couple of drunk driving convictions and
assault charges. A lot of kids survive divorce, and worse, and don't
become
racists. What makes the recruitment into these organizations so
successful?
Everybody is vulnerable at a certain point in their lives, and you look
for
people with that kind of vulnerability. Recruitment is everything in
these
organizations. There is no certain kind of person who gets into these
movements
-- there are people from all walks of life. A lot of them are just
bored.
Really bored. They go home and get on the Internet. The Internet has
really,
really changed things. The movements have flooded the Internet with
racist
sites. There are probably over 2,000 now. We find new ones all the time
at
the [Simon Wiesenthal] Center. So if a kid is unsupervised, it's easy
pickings. And mom and dad don't want to talk about race, because race is
a nasty subject. You start listening to people saying this group is scum
and
that group is scum. You don't have the facts. You're young, you don't
care
about the facts, you don't take time to check things. It just somehow
fits
your description of the world, why this country is such a mess -- the
blacks
and Asians are to blame, the Jews control the banks and so on. This is
what I
try to tell parents now: The Klan isn't trying to recruit blacks and
Latinos,
they're trying to recruit your son and daughter. Most skinheads don't
come
from the poor part of town. Doesn't cracking down on racist activists
stop
them? Well, I've been in jail a lot. How many times? Don't know -- at
least
12 times in five states between 1987 and 1995. Actually, jail didn't
bother
me. It was a country club after a while, once I knew the game I knew the
ins
and outs. It's not nice, but it's not hardcore. Usually you have
associates
in there and you can work things out inside. I finally saw I was going
to do
some real serious damage to someone and go to jail for a really long
time.
So I had to leave. I joined the Marines. They accepted me because I had
no
felonies on my record. I was a race recruiter in the Marines, in Hawaii
-- I
passed out literature and got people to join the Hammerskins. I also
started
working with the Nation of Islam in the Marines, to start race riots, so
we
could both recruit people. We'd start as many as we could, so it was
easier
for us to recruit them. People thought they were just fighting each
other,
but in reality, we were pulling all the strings. What finally made you
leave
the racist movement? I got out of the Marines in 1990 and married a girl
from
Texas I'd been writing to. We married 14 days after we met. She was
racist,
I was racist and we wanted kids. We had two sons and I decided I wasn't
going to be a street soldier anymore. I had a family now -- I'd get guys
like
Benjamin Smith to do my dirty work for me. So I became a race recruiter.
But
then my kids started doing racist things, thinking it was really cool.
They
saw TV shows with someone black and say, "Turn it off, we can't watch
shows
with niggers on" -- little things like that. It's one thing you doing
these
things, but when you see your kids doing it ... I just turned it off.
Nicole
and I got divorced. The boys are 5 and 8 now; they live half with me,
half
with her. Without my boys, I'm sure I'd be in prison somewhere. When the
movie
"American History X" came out last year, a lot of reviewers thought it
was
ridiculous that a racist could go through a total transformation. In
fact, it
seems to be your story. A couple of the screenwriters came to hear me
speak before the movie was made, but I don't know if I'm the
inspiration.
Things happen to transform people -- for this kid [in the film], it was
jail.
The movie was really accurate, as close as Hollywood's gotten to
portraying
the race movement. Perhaps the transformation was very cut and dry, but
you
have only so much time in a movie. You've turned your own transformation
into
a full-time campaign. What do you do for the Simon Wiesenthal Center? I
travel
around a lot, talking at schools, colleges, churches, synagogues, to
anyone
who'll listen to me. I talk to law enforcement people probably on a
daily basis.
I talk to racist kids. I do it by becoming their friend, telling them
they can
learn from my mistakes. Of course I get called all sorts of nice little
names.
I've been called a "race traitor" by every movement out there. I've got
10 kids
out of the racist movements over three years. That may not be a lot, but
it's a
start. You get a couple of kids out and you're stopping them from
recruiting
more. Ten kids in three years! But the Internet, you say, could be
drawing in
hundreds of them. How do you ever get ahead of the curve? I wish I had
the
answer to that; it's an incredibly difficult question. You have to work
out
everything very slowly. I tell parents they have to talk to their kids
about
race. We keep an eye on these groups and we monitor certain days:
Hitler's
birthday [April 20, the day of the Columbine school massacre]; Nov. 9,
Kristelnacht; and Dec. 8, the day Robert Jay Matthews was killed in a
firefight
with the feds in Idaho in 1984. July 4 is Day of Revolution -- I was in
Vegas
not celebrating Independence Day but monitoring white supremacists.
There are
plenty of Benjamin Smiths still out there. salon.com | July 8, 1999
Mimi Weasel
Mimi Weasel
Johnny Yen
<kevin...@innocent.com> wrote:
>vonquark wrote:
>>
>[...]
>>
>> I agree with you there; but some racists think of
>> Southern Europeans as miscegenated mongrels.
>
>
>
>
>(Please don't send email carbon copies of newsgroup responses.)
>
>The Mediterranean and Nordic subraces were probably never entirely
>distinct, and constitute very closely related subraces of a single
>race. They are, for example, morphologically far more similar to
>each other than they are to the Alpine subrace.
>
>
>
>
>[...]
>> Mongrels
>> tend to be smarter.
>[...]
>
>
>
>
>
>That's why Port-au-Prince and Mexico City are great centers of human
>genius and excellence.
Don;t know about Port au Prince, but there is plenty of human genius
and excellence in Mexico City, as much as any US city anyways. There
is also plenty of negativity of all sorts, which has admittedly
increased in recent years and which gets more publicity than the
positive aspects. While acknowledging great problems with pollution,
crime, corruption, and excessive population growth, I will admit that
DF does contain a great degree of human genius and excellence
within, probably more than your home town, Strom. IIRC you are
from Long Beach, CA. The amount of museums and culture there
is nowhere on the level of Mexico, DF, although the crime rate is
comparable.
Certainly the works contained in that citys museums, the
public art that is all around, and the architecture of many of
the buildings, constitutes " human genius and excellence ".
BTW, there is also a larger share of the population that is
white there, than of most of Mexico.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> "If you prick a black, do they not bleed?
>> If you tickle them, do they not laugh? If you
>> poison them, shall they not die?"
>>
>[...]
>
>
>
>
>My beagle didn't exactly laugh, but she loved tickling; she bled
>when cut; and I would presume she was not immune to poison.
>
>The fact that there are many similarities between the human
>subspecies is not a good argument for the intentional mixing program
>which has been imposed upon the peoples of the West in the last few
>decades; no more than the similarities between bald eagles and fish
>eagles constitute an argument for forcing or encouraging them to
>live together.
>
>
>
>Honor bright,
What honour ?
>
>--
>
>Kevin Alfred Strom.
>
>News, links, and pictures: http://www.kevin-strom.com
Johnny Yen
<kevin...@innocent.com> wrote:
>Jason Baran wrote:
>>
>[...]
>>
>> The differences between the Caucasian race and the Negro race are much
>> deeper than color. The facial and body stucture is different
Maybe in " Pure " examples, but there are plenty of unpure examples
of both.
, intellect is
>> different, vocal sounds are different
Not necessarily.
, and there are profound psychic
>> differences. The Negro mentality and the Caucasian mentality are radically
>> different.
Not true. The differences are social and geographic, not racial.
The way the two races express themselves through art and music is
>> radically different
Only if you are talking about " pure " forms. There has been plenty of
mixing over the last few hundred years.
. The races are so different, that I can easily identify
>> a Negro over the phone!
Prepare to be proven wrong. White people from the southern USA
speak just like blacks.
I don't even need to see what color they are.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jason
>
>
>
>
>Silhouettes of the major races, in which color and even details
>cannot be seen, are easily distinguishable.
>
Only in their " pure " forms. There are relatively few racially pure
individuals left.
>With every good wish,
vonquark
Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
> Johnny Yen wrote:
> >
> [...]
> > Only in their " pure " forms. There are relatively few racially pure
> > individuals left.
> [...]
>
> "Relatively few"? Tell that to the Chinese. In my view, the purity
> argument is a straw man. The races are what they are.
Got to agree there with Yen. Sorry KAS. For ex:
England. In Roman Days Syrian troops were stationed
in Britain as were Africans. No doubt race mixing
occured. While the Anglo-Saxons did take over and
many of the Romanized-mixed-Celts fled to Wales,
Scotland, Ireland and most importantly, Brittany in France,
there was some degree of mixing. And so, even the
Nordic Englishman of York must no doubt have some
African in him, albeit rarified and quite dilute.
And given white intrusions into Africa, most Africans
no doubt have some white in them.
India is a mixture of Whites (Aryans), Semites (Islamic
invaders), some aboriginal stocks which have some
Negroid in them and no doubt some Asiatic.
Southeast Asians are even more mixed.
The Chinese are a mixture of original Asian stock
and some Tocharian Aryan stock.
The Japanese have Ainu (probably white) in them.
Go back far enough in anyone's roots and you find
someone outside who married in.
With the probably exceptions of rural inland
Swedish towns (and even there a Saami [Lapp]
Indo-European mixture has to be considered - and
there is evidence the Lapps are related at least partly
to Inuit and American Indians) and with the exception
of some isolated villages in Southern and Central
Africa, no one is pure.
> Actually, the majority of persons on planet Earth are members of one
> or another major race -- and if we regard the Mestizos and Semites
> as races of their own, then the majority is even larger.
But no one is pure!
> But even if we grant your premise, it still leaves my original point
> unscathed: silhouettes of members of the major races, where color
> and even detail are not visible, are easily distinguishable;
> therefore the "race is nothing more than skin color" canard is
> utterly disproven.
I am not so sure about that. You would have to pick
phenotypes which fit the stereotype but that would be
stacking the deck.
> With all good wishes,
>
> --
>
> Kevin Alfred Strom.
vonquark
Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
> vonquark wrote:
> >
> [...]
> >
> > I agree with you there; but some racists think of
> > Southern Europeans as miscegenated mongrels.
>
> (Please don't send email carbon copies of newsgroup responses.)
>
> The Mediterranean and Nordic subraces were probably never entirely
> distinct, and constitute very closely related subraces of a single
> race. They are, for example, morphologically far more similar to
> each other than they are to the Alpine subrace.
>
> [...]
> > Mongrels
> > tend to be smarter.
> [...]
>
> That's why Port-au-Prince and Mexico City are great centers of human
> genius and excellence.
Probably no group is more mixed that the Jews.
And they lead the world in genius and intellect.
Q.E.D.
<...>
>
> Honor bright,
>
> --
>
> Kevin Alfred Strom.
>
> News, links, and pictures: http://www.kevin-strom.com
--
Kevin Alfred Strom
>
[...]
> Only in their " pure " forms. There are relatively few racially pure
> individuals left.
[...]
"Relatively few"? Tell that to the Chinese. In my view, the purity
argument is a straw man. The races are what they are.
Actually, the majority of persons on planet Earth are members of one
or another major race -- and if we regard the Mestizos and Semites
as races of their own, then the majority is even larger.
But even if we grant your premise, it still leaves my original point
unscathed: silhouettes of members of the major races, where color
and even detail are not visible, are easily distinguishable;
therefore the "race is nothing more than skin color" canard is
utterly disproven.
With all good wishes,
Mimi Weasel
Kevin Alfred Strom
>
[...]
> >
> > That's why Port-au-Prince and Mexico City are great centers of human
> > genius and excellence.
>
> Probably no group is more mixed that the Jews.
Which group is more mixed with equatorial Africans, the Jews or the
mulatto elite of Haiti?
Quite obviously, the Jews have far less equatorial African admixture
than numerous peoples you could name (for all practical purposes,
they have none), far less Amerindian admixture than numerous peoples
of this hemisphere (again, practically none), far less East Asian
admixture than numerous peoples of the Orient and Pacific, et
cetera. One could go on at length.
The Jews are an unusual people, to be sure, and the Semitic and what
Baker calls the Armenid lines have hybridized with Europeans proper,
but their ancestry is almost entirely Caucasian.
With all good wishes,
--
Kevin Alfred Strom.
News, links, and pictures: http://www.kevin-strom.com
Kevin Alfred Strom
>
[...]
> with the exception
> of some isolated villages in Southern and Central
> Africa, no one is pure.
>
>
> But no one is pure!
"Purity" is a straw man argument, as I said. Since all human races,
and for that matter all vertebrates, have a common ancestor, how is
it possible to speak of purity?
Evolution doesn't act through purification: it acts through
branching, divergence, speciation. Without such branching, evolution
itself would not be possible. Instead of "purity," think of "degree
of divergence," "highly evolved," and "evolutionary grade."
The Saxons, Normans, Lombards, and Greeks never diverged enough to
be seriously regarded as separate races; and possibly, even
probably, they share a common evolutionary destiny.
The same cannot be said for North Asians, Congoids, Australoids, et
cetera, who are far enough diverged from the European race and each
other so that they now constitute separate evolutionary units
belonging to different major races.
The question before us really has nothing to do with "hate" or who
gets more of the money pie.
The real question is: Will the process of divergence and speciation
be allowed to take its natural course; or will the race that touched
the face of the moon, created the Parthenon, and built the first
transistor mix its genes into a chaos of races and so set the
evolutionary clock back tens of thousands of years, possibly
extinguishing Western Civilization -- and our chance of breaking the
bonds of Earth -- in the process?
Loki Farbautisson
Kevin Alfred Stupid <kevin...@innocent.com> whined:
> The real question is: Will the process of divergence and speciation
> be allowed to take its natural course; or will the race that touched
> the face of the moon, created the Parthenon, and built the first
> transistor mix its genes into a chaos of races and so set the
> evolutionary clock back tens of thousands of years, possibly
> extinguishing Western Civilization -- and our chance of breaking the
> bonds of Earth -- in the process?
Brave racialist heroes protecting the natural divergence:
http://www.spokane.net/news-story-body.asp?Date=020800&ID=s741368&cat=
The real question is: should all the murderous nazimoron cowards be
exterminated now or next week?
--
Warning! Life Ahead:
http://cnn.com/1999/US/12/17/diverse.town/index.html
Detour for Nazimorons:
http://www.web.net/~ara/Art/follow.gif
mike
Kevin Alfred Strom <kevin...@innocent.com> wrote in message
news:38A23FF9...@innocent.com...
> vonquark wrote:
> >
> [...]
> > with the exception
> > of some isolated villages in Southern and Central
> > Africa, no one is pure.
> >
> [...]
> >
> > But no one is pure!
> [...]
>
>
>
>
>
> "Purity" is a straw man argument, as I said. Since all human races,
> and for that matter all vertebrates, have a common ancestor, how is
> it possible to speak of purity?
>
> Evolution doesn't act through purification: it acts through
> branching, divergence, speciation. Without such branching, evolution
> itself would not be possible. Instead of "purity," think of "degree
> of divergence," "highly evolved," and "evolutionary grade."
>
about as much sense as "extremely pregnant" or "remarkably five-fingered".
A crocodile is every bit as "highly evolved" as we are. The fact that we
are both still around demonstrates that rather well. Is (say) a chimp less
evolved somehow than an oak tree or yourself (or me for that matter)? How
so?
> The Saxons, Normans, Lombards, and Greeks never diverged enough to
> be seriously regarded as separate races; and possibly, even
> probably, they share a common evolutionary destiny.
>
> The same cannot be said for North Asians, Congoids, Australoids, et
> cetera, who are far enough diverged from the European race and each
> other so that they now constitute separate evolutionary units
> belonging to different major races.
>
> The question before us really has nothing to do with "hate" or who
> gets more of the money pie.
>
You are correct. It has nothing to do with hate etc. It has to do with
a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.
> The real question is: Will the process of divergence and speciation
> be allowed to take its natural course; or will the race that touched
> the face of the moon, created the Parthenon, and built the first
> transistor mix its genes into a chaos of races and so set the
> evolutionary clock back tens of thousands of years, possibly
> extinguishing Western Civilization -- and our chance of breaking the
> bonds of Earth -- in the process?
>
>
It sounds as though you are claiming that the very recent (only the past
few hundred years) scientific and technological leaps taken by Europeans
etc. are due to some sort of genetic factor. Since Europe was horribly
backward only1000 years ago, does this mean that mixing their gene pool with
China would have made China somehow lose its edge? Why are the Japanese so
bloody good at building high-tech stuff? It must be a very strange genetic
factor indeed if it only appears very recently, changes the whole world, and
then is mysteriously passed on to just about any nation which chooses to
educate its citizens well...
And what does "set back the evolutionary clock" mean? You start the post
off by correcting somebody on evolutionary theory, and then end it by acting
as though evolution is a sentient being with some specific end-product in
mind. Interesting... If you seriously believe that mixing of races will
somehow "extinguish...our chance of breaking the bonds of Earth" then you
have a remarkably strange idea of human nature. The mere fact that we _can_
contemplate leaving the planet will force us to try it eventually. Barring
nuclear holocaust or some such event.
Of course, there is always the possibility that you didn't imply some
genetic basis for technology. But if you didn't your argument makes no
sense.
>
> Kevin Alfred Strom.
>
> News, links, and pictures: http://www.kevin-strom.com
--
"At the risk of being unbearably realistic, I must tell you that Elvis
Presley is really dead, the sky is not falling, perpetual motion is a
chimera, cold fusion is a dead duck, the earth is not flat, and the fault
lies not in our stars, but in ourselves."
-James Randi
Mimi Weasel
> News, links, and pictures: http://www.ke
A former skinhead talks about how young people like him -- and
--
Mimi Weasel
Mimi Weasel
vonquark
Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
> vonquark wrote:
> >
> > But no one is pure!
> [...]
> "Purity" is a straw man argument, as I said. Since all human races,
> and for that matter all vertebrates, have a common ancestor, how is
> it possible to speak of purity?
<...>
>The Saxons, Normans, Lombards, and Greeks
>never diverged enough to be seriously regarded as
>separate races; and possibly, even probably,
>they share a common evolutionary destiny.
Y'see the problem is this: Those Jews you criticize
might possibly be smarter than the Caucasians.
We have no less an authority on this than one
of your own racialists, Dr. Revilo P. Oliver.
In a speech called WHAT WE OWE OUR PARASITES -
published by you - so no doubt we can trust the
accuracy of the document - Dr. Oliver makes this
incredible admission about 2/3rds of the way down the
page.
"They [the Jews ]are a highly intelligent people, quite
possibly much more intelligent than we [Aryans] are."
Source: http://stormfront.org/rpo/parasites.htm
This begs the question: Whither the HerrenVolk?
> The same cannot be said for North Asians, Congoids, Australoids, et
> cetera, who are far enough diverged from the European race and each
> other so that they now constitute separate evolutionary units
> belonging to different major races.
When speciation occurs within a genus, a loss of fertility will
display itself during a cross mixing. For ex: When you
cross a lion with a tiger if the female of the breeding pair
is the lion the offspring is sterile. I am not sure if
the same is true if the female is a tiger.
No such loss of fertility occurs within mixed race unions
no matter which race provides the male or the female.
Hence, speciation has NOT occurred and what we see
in the races are merely the results of breeding patterns
which can be easily reversed or exaggerated.
There is a greater divergence of dogs than human
races - with dogs ranging from the almost hairless
and rather miniscule Chihuahua to the enormous and quite
hairy St. Bernard.
Yet, no speciation has occurred.
As for the worthiness of pedigrees, it is axiomatic
that mutts are healthier and smarter than purebreds.
That is a lesson which racialists seem to ignore.
Your premise therefore is evolutionarily false.
> The question before us really has nothing to do with "hate" or who
> gets more of the money pie.
Ah! But it does. Admit it!
> The real question is: Will the process of divergence and speciation
> be allowed to take its natural course; or will the race that touched
> the face of the moon, created the Parthenon, and built the first
> transistor mix its genes into a chaos of races and so set the
> evolutionary clock back tens of thousands of years, possibly
> extinguishing Western Civilization -- and our chance of breaking the
> bonds of Earth -- in the process?
The Chinese invented gun powder and the Semites invented
the alphabet. Equally vital ingredients for a technological
civilization. Why disparage them?
> With all good wishes,
>
> --
>
> Kevin Alfred Strom.
>
> News, links, and pictures: http://www.kevin-strom.com
I have the sense that if the world were merely
confined to Nordics it would be a rather dull place.
No jazz. No salsa. No rock 'n roll. No alphabet.
Just a lot of BlondVolken drinking Mead and
regularly dispatching each other to Valhalla.
vonquark
Jason Baran wrote:
> mike <mb9...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MYso4.16241$ri.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > It has to do with a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.
>
> Not necessarily, because I am a racialist, and I think that evolutionary
> theory is Marxist lunacy.
>
> Why are Negroes Negroes, and why are Caucasians Caucasians? I don't know and
> I don't care, and I don't pretend to know by spewing forth Darwinist errors.
> Actually, Darwin and his theories are what first suggested the idea of
> racial equality
I would suspect the Declaration of Independence's
"...all men are created equal..." had something
to do with the doctrine of equality. And correct
me if I am wrong; but it predated the ORIGIN OF SPECIES.
> , that's why I can't understand for the life of me why so
> many racialists honor the clown's idiotic theory. There is ABSOLUTELY NO
> EVIDENCE that any species ever turned into another species.
Again, wrong!
Examples of speciation listed below:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
More examples:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
> Atheism requires more faith than Christianity does!
I am Christian. I believe Jesus is God!
I also believe God created by means of evolution.
What we perceive as chance may be ordered over
billions of years.
> Regards,
> Jason Baran
vonquark
> vonquark <vonq...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:38A32268...@mindspring.com...
> > Y'see the problem is this: Those Jews you criticize
> > might possibly be smarter than the Caucasians.
>
> The Jews are Caucasians. Moreover, the Jews are a Mediterranean people and
> Mediterraneans tend to be smarter than Nordics and Alpines.
Jason, you are wise enough to not fall into the Nordic
superiority trap. However, Kevin Strom and his
ilk are definitely Nordic superioritists.
The question of Jewish/Mediterranean IQ superiority
is meant for them. I have posed it several times and
they have consistently refused to answer it.
I, like you, am of the opinon that if there is a historically
smartest race (or ethnicity) it will be found NOT on the
shores of the Baltic or North Atlantic but on the
shores of the Mediterranean. BTW, my ancestors are
Irish Catholic, so I get nothing out of this.
Where I differ with you is that I view all races equal.
The genius of the Mediterranean peoples stems directly
from their intermixings.
> But what does that have to do with opposing Jewish evil, Jewish
> nation-wrecking, and the Jewish antichrist religion? The fact that Jews are
> intelligent makes them even more dangerous to us.
There are some who would view your version
of Catholicity as evil.
I do not view Catholicism as evil per se; but rather in error!
I view the Reformation as good; though I see
some versions of Protestantism as generating
errors and tyrannies of their own - equal to
Catholicism but on a lesser scale..
> Regards,
> Jason Baran
Jason Baran
Johnny Yen <beat...@loop.kom> wrote in message
news:38a1d192...@nntp.loop.com...
> Prepare to be proven wrong. White people from the southern USA
> speak just like blacks.
The voice of a White southerner and the voice of a negro are easily
distinguishable due to differences in vocal sounds.
Regards,
Jason
Jason Baran
mike <mb9...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MYso4.16241$ri.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> It has to do with a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.
Not necessarily, because I am a racialist, and I think that evolutionary
theory is Marxist lunacy.
Why are Negroes Negroes, and why are Caucasians Caucasians? I don't know and
I don't care, and I don't pretend to know by spewing forth Darwinist errors.
Actually, Darwin and his theories are what first suggested the idea of
racial equality, that's why I can't understand for the life of me why so
many racialists honor the clown's idiotic theory. There is ABSOLUTELY NO
EVIDENCE that any species ever turned into another species. Atheism requires
more faith than Christianity does!
Regards,
Jason Baran
Jason Baran
vonquark <vonq...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:38A32268...@mindspring.com...
> Y'see the problem is this: Those Jews you criticize
> might possibly be smarter than the Caucasians.
The Jews are Caucasians. Moreover, the Jews are a Mediterranean people and
Mediterraneans tend to be smarter than Nordics and Alpines.
But what does that have to do with opposing Jewish evil, Jewish
nation-wrecking, and the Jewish antichrist religion? The fact that Jews are
intelligent makes them even more dangerous to us.
Regards,
Jason Baran
Jason Baran
> that mutts are healthier and smarter than purebreds.
> That is a lesson which racialists seem to ignore.
Nonsense. Siamese, Himalayans, and Turkish Angora's are more intelligent
than mixed breed cats. A purebred cat has different behavioral traits and
vocal sounds than a mixed breed.
I have 3 cats. 2 mongrels and a Turkish Angora. The Angora behaves much
differently than the mongrel cats, and even plays "fetch" like a dog.
Moreover, sometimes I could swear that the cat understands English!
Regarding humans, you ignore the fact that pure Whites score higher on IQ
tests than mulattos do.
Regards,
Jason Baran
mike
Jason Baran <Crusad...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:SWJo4.14059$Mk2.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Jason Baran says it, and that makes it true. This "absolutely no
evidence" fills up an awful lot of space, considering that it doesn't exist.
Guess you've never bothered to research the matter. Have you ever heard of
a fossil? The fossil record happens to be quite a nice collection of
evidence, unless you have some odd definition of the term. And don't give
me back that garbage about transitional fossils. As Robert Dietz has
pointed out (among others), if you find related fossils A and C you've got
one gap. Find a transitional C and now you've got 2 gaps. The more
complete the record, the more gaps in it.
Do you prefer to think that Species A dies off, B suddenly drops out of
the sky, or sprouts out of the ground? I would dearly love to know your
ideas about what happens. Giving us a spot of evidence might be a nice way
to demonstrate your point. I welcome it...
Atheism, by the way, takes much less faith than any religion does. After
all, once only has to believe one thing to be an atheist. To be a Christian
takes faith in the whole bible, and lots of related doctrines. Agnostics
seem to beat everybody else hands down as far as amount of faith goes.
mike
> > might possibly be smarter than the Caucasians.
>
> The Jews are Caucasians. Moreover, the Jews are a Mediterranean people and
> Mediterraneans tend to be smarter than Nordics and Alpines.
>
any studies on the matter.
> But what does that have to do with opposing Jewish evil, Jewish
> nation-wrecking, and the Jewish antichrist religion? The fact that Jews
are
> intelligent makes them even more dangerous to us.
>
> Regards,
> Jason Baran
>
>
I've known only a few Jews in my life, but none of them seemed
particularly dangerous. Since there happen to be only about 6.5 million of
them on this continent, I imagine that you have little to worry about.
About the only people on earth who do seem to have any reason to fear them
would be the Palestinians.
But as I've stated before, Jason Baran says it, thus it must be true.
mike
> > that mutts are healthier and smarter than purebreds.
> > That is a lesson which racialists seem to ignore.
>
> Nonsense. Siamese, Himalayans, and Turkish Angora's are more intelligent
> than mixed breed cats. A purebred cat has different behavioral traits and
> vocal sounds than a mixed breed.
>
> I have 3 cats. 2 mongrels and a Turkish Angora. The Angora behaves much
> differently than the mongrel cats, and even plays "fetch" like a dog.
> Moreover, sometimes I could swear that the cat understands English!
>
If you had 1000 cats, there might have even been a point in saying all
that. Imagine that you have 4 friends. The green-eyed one is better at
hockey than the others. Does it mean that green-eyed people are better at
hockey? Hmmm?
> Regarding humans, you ignore the fact that pure Whites score higher on IQ
> tests than mulattos do.
>
Which just goes to show, IQ tests are the perfect indicators of the
ability to score well on IQ tests. May I suggest to you a nice book called
"The Mismeasure of Man" by Gould? It contains some great examples of IQ
test questions from the early years of the century. I seriously doubt you
could do even decently on such a test. An IQ test rates intelligence about
as well as an eye exam does, bud.
More to the point, it simply isn't true. Who tested this? When?
Reference please.
> Regards,
> Jason Baran
mike
what you use to tell that all the different voices in the room are not the
same person.
mike
>
> mike <mb9...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MYso4.16241$ri.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
[snip]
>. There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that any species ever turned into another
species. Atheism requires
> more faith than Christianity does!
>
> Regards,
> Jason Baran
>
>
That "no evidence" claim kind of annoyed me, so here are a few references
for you. de Vries (1905), Digby (1912), Butters and Tryon (1948) for a few
plants. Bullini and Nasceti (1990) concerning insects. I suggest that you
look through the talk.origins FAQs for more references, there are LOADS of
them.
However, since I seriously doubt that you are interested in evidence and
would rather just shout out your own ideas on the matter, it's unlikely
you'll accept these. Are you looking for some sort of case where a cricket
is observed to lay eggs which contain cricket/horse hybrids? In that case,
you'll be disappointed. But if all you want is evidence of speciation, God
knows there is certainly enough of it out there. That is, the fact of
evolution is about as well documented as the notion that the sun is in fact
a star.
Thomas Mohr
> Nonsense. Siamese, Himalayans, and Turkish Angora's are more intelligent
> than mixed breed cats. A purebred cat has different behavioral traits and
> vocal sounds than a mixed breed.
Really ? Now we suddenly are an expert on behavioural sciences. Can you
quote scientific evidence ?
> I have 3 cats. 2 mongrels and a Turkish Angora. The Angora behaves much
> differently than the mongrel cats, and even plays "fetch" like a dog.
> Moreover, sometimes I could swear that the cat understands English!
>
> Regarding humans, you ignore the fact that pure Whites score higher on IQ
> tests than mulattos do.
>
> Regards,
> Jason Baran
Even if that would be true, it wouldn't alter anything about the fact
that your ideology is evil.
Thomas Mohr
>
> Johnny Yen <beat...@loop.kom> wrote in message
> news:38a1d192...@nntp.loop.com...
> > Prepare to be proven wrong. White people from the southern USA
> > speak just like blacks.
>
> The voice of a White southerner and the voice of a negro are easily
> distinguishable due to differences in vocal sounds.
>
> Regards,
> Jason
upbringing, as the voice of an Englishman is different from that of an
American.
Thomas Mohr
> Why are Negroes Negroes, and why are Caucasians Caucasians? I don't know and
> I don't care, and I don't pretend to know by spewing forth Darwinist errors.
> Actually, Darwin and his theories are what first suggested the idea of
> racial equality, that's why I can't understand for the life of me why so
> many racialists honor the clown's idiotic theory. There is ABSOLUTELY NO
> EVIDENCE that any species ever turned into another species. Atheism requires
> more faith than Christianity does!
Baran, you are truly poor. You are intellectually naked and your faith
reduces to racism. First, there is *overwhelming* evidence that
evolution happened. Second, a universum with evolution is million times
more complex than the universum you propose, which basically is a
gigantic clock. You reduce God to a clockworker.
Thomas Mohr
>
> Johnny Yen <beat...@loop.kom> wrote in message
> news:38a1d192...@nntp.loop.com...
> > Prepare to be proven wrong. White people from the southern USA
> > speak just like blacks.
>
> The voice of a White southerner and the voice of a negro are easily
> distinguishable due to differences in vocal sounds.
You know why ? Because they speak different English - as a Brit and an
American speak different English.
Kevin Alfred Strom
>
[...]
>
> Jason, you are wise enough to not fall into the Nordic
> superiority trap. However, Kevin Strom and his
> ilk are definitely Nordic superioritists.
Kindly do not put words in my mouth.
Jason Baran
> I would suspect the Declaration of Independence's
> "...all men are created equal..." had something
> to do with the doctrine of equality. And correct
> me if I am wrong; but it predated the ORIGIN OF SPECIES.
That's true, but Darwinism reinforced the notion "scientifically." Darwinism
is a perfect example of "scientific" antiracism.
>
> > , that's why I can't understand for the life of me why so
> > many racialists honor the clown's idiotic theory. There is ABSOLUTELY NO
> > EVIDENCE that any species ever turned into another species.
>
> Again, wrong!
> Examples of speciation listed below:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
> More examples:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
References to a few man-made abominations does not prove that man was ever
anything besides man. Hell, man can now clone heterosexual animals, however,
that does not make such animals naturally asexual.
>
> > Atheism requires more faith than Christianity does!
>
> I am Christian. I believe Jesus is God!
> I also believe God created by means of evolution.
That could be, but I won't believe it until I see the missing link.
Moreover, if you could *prove* that evolution is real, I'll give up being a
racialist. Because if evolution is real, then you leftists are indeed
correct when you say that racial differences are merely environmental, and
that all the races can be equalized if they are put in the same environment.
However, until you can *prove* that, I don't believe that giving a negro
economic opportunity will raise him to the level of the White man. It hasn't
yet, and negroes have been given all the economic oppurtunity in the world
here in America.
If you can *prove* to me that the negroes will evolve into a higher form of
humanity according to Darwinist theory, I'll give up racialism. I'll be
waiting for your proof--including the missing link.
Regards,
Jason Baran
Jason Baran
> Jason, you are wise enough to not fall into the Nordic
> superiority trap. However, Kevin Strom and his
> ilk are definitely Nordic superioritists.
Agreed. I have read their literature and I am a former National Alliance
member, and there is no doubt that their activism is based on the Nordic
superiority theory. That's one of many reasons why I quit the Alliance.
OTOH, I must say that the Alliance is the only political organization that
stands a chance against the Jews - at this time. However, I find much of the
Alliance's ideology to be as abhorrent as those they claim to fight against
(i.e. Jews). Actually, National Socialism is merely the Gentile version of
Judaism -- a racial religion based on satanic theories. What I mean by
satanic theories is theories that are antagonistic to Christ and His Kingdom
on earth, the Church Militant.
>
> The question of Jewish/Mediterranean IQ superiority
> is meant for them. I have posed it several times and
> they have consistently refused to answer it.
>
> I, like you, am of the opinon that if there is a historically
> smartest race (or ethnicity) it will be found NOT on the
> shores of the Baltic or North Atlantic but on the
> shores of the Mediterranean. BTW, my ancestors are
> Irish Catholic, so I get nothing out of this.
>
> Where I differ with you is that I view all races equal.
> The genius of the Mediterranean peoples stems directly
> from their intermixings.
That's not true at all, the Mediterranians are civilized no matter how far
you go back in human history.
Regards,
Jason Baran
Jason Baran
> Jason Baran says it, and that makes it true. This "absolutely no
> evidence" fills up an awful lot of space, considering that it doesn't
exist.
> Guess you've never bothered to research the matter. Have you ever heard
of
> a fossil? The fossil record happens to be quite a nice collection of
> evidence, unless you have some odd definition of the term. And don't give
> me back that garbage about transitional fossils. As Robert Dietz has
> pointed out (among others), if you find related fossils A and C you've got
> one gap. Find a transitional C and now you've got 2 gaps. The more
> complete the record, the more gaps in it.
> Do you prefer to think that Species A dies off, B suddenly drops out
of
> the sky, or sprouts out of the ground? I would dearly love to know your
> ideas about what happens. Giving us a spot of evidence might be a nice
way
> to demonstrate your point. I welcome it...
There is no evidence that one species ever naturally evolved into another.
IOW, there is no evidence that any extinct species ever evolved into another
species. They simply became extinct. Evolution is just a *theory.*
Regards,
Jason Baran
Jason Baran
Thomas Mohr <thoma...@magnet.at> wrote in message
news:38A3C66F...@magnet.at...
> Jason Baran wrote:
>
> > Nonsense. Siamese, Himalayans, and Turkish Angora's are more intelligent
> > than mixed breed cats. A purebred cat has different behavioral traits
and
> > vocal sounds than a mixed breed.
>
> Really ? Now we suddenly are an expert on behavioural sciences. Can you
> quote scientific evidence ?
I don't need scientific evidence to prove the obvious. But if you don't
believe me, ask any cat breeder.
>
> > I have 3 cats. 2 mongrels and a Turkish Angora. The Angora behaves much
> > differently than the mongrel cats, and even plays "fetch" like a dog.
> > Moreover, sometimes I could swear that the cat understands English!
> >
> > Regarding humans, you ignore the fact that pure Whites score higher on
IQ
> > tests than mulattos do.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jason Baran
>
> Even if that would be true, it wouldn't alter anything about the fact
> that your ideology is evil.
Acknowledging the truth is "evil" ??????????
I guess you prefer Satan, the father of lies.
Regards,
Jason
Jason Baran
> >
> > Johnny Yen <beat...@loop.kom> wrote in message
> > news:38a1d192...@nntp.loop.com...
> > > Prepare to be proven wrong. White people from the southern USA
> > > speak just like blacks.
> >
> > The voice of a White southerner and the voice of a negro are easily
> > distinguishable due to differences in vocal sounds.
> >
> > Jason
> >
> >
> Where I live, we call them accents. Difference in vocal sounds would
be
> what you use to tell that all the different voices in the room are not the
> same person.
And the race of the person talking - regardless of accent.
Regards,
Jason
Jason Baran
> Jason Baran wrote:
> >
> > Johnny Yen <beat...@loop.kom> wrote in message
> > news:38a1d192...@nntp.loop.com...
> > > Prepare to be proven wrong. White people from the southern USA
> > > speak just like blacks.
> >
> > The voice of a White southerner and the voice of a negro are easily
> > distinguishable due to differences in vocal sounds.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jason
> upbringing, as the voice of an Englishman is different from that of an
> American.
A White American and a White Englishmen only have different accents, not
racially different vocal sounds. The same cannot be said of Whites and
Blacks.
Regards,
Jason
Jason Baran
Kevin Alfred Strom <kevin...@innocent.com> wrote in message
news:38A4496E...@innocent.com...
> vonquark wrote:
> >
> [...]
> >
> > Jason, you are wise enough to not fall into the Nordic
> > superiority trap. However, Kevin Strom and his
> > ilk are definitely Nordic superioritists.
>
>
>
>
> Kindly do not put words in my mouth.
Mr. Strom, I realize you were addressing Vonquark, but since I agreed with
Vonquark's accusation, I'll respond.
If I have mistakenly lumped you in with the Nordic supremecists, I
apologize.
However, you seem to be in lock step with most National Socialist dogma, so
it seems unlikely that you would oppose the Nordic superiority theory. I
think you merely have more tact than other Nordic supremacists (i.e. Keith
Fulton). However, that's not the same thing as disagreeing with Fulton.
Regards,
Jason
Mimi Weasel
> News, links, and pictures: http://www.k
A former skinhead talks about how young people like him -- and
vonquark
Jason Baran wrote:
<...>
> A White American and a White Englishmen only have different accents, not
> racially different vocal sounds. The same cannot be said of Whites and
> Blacks.
>
> Regards,
> Jason
Your point?! So what?!
--
vonquark
> Thomas Mohr <thoma...@magnet.at> wrote in message
> news:38A3C66F...@magnet.at...
> > Jason Baran wrote:
<...>
> > Even if that would be true, it wouldn't alter anything about the fact
> > that your ideology is evil.
>
> Acknowledging the truth is "evil" ??????????
>
> I guess you prefer Satan, the father of lies.
Having another Prozac moment?!
> Regards,
> Jason
vonquark
Jason Baran wrote:
> mike <mb9...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:poNo4.21343$vl6.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >
> > Jason Baran <Crusad...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:cKJo4.14038$Mk2.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > Johnny Yen <beat...@loop.kom> wrote in message
> > > news:38a1d192...@nntp.loop.com...
> > > > Prepare to be proven wrong. White people from the southern USA
> > > > speak just like blacks.
> > >
> > > The voice of a White southerner and the voice of a negro are easily
> > > distinguishable due to differences in vocal sounds.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Jason
> > >
> > >
> > Where I live, we call them accents. Difference in vocal sounds would
> be
> > what you use to tell that all the different voices in the room are not the
> > same person.
>
> And the race of the person talking - regardless of accent.
Even if true and that is a big IF - SO WHAT?
I have a friend. Blonde hair, blue eyes Irish-American
who grew up in a Puerto Rican neighborhood. Does not
speak a word of Spanish. Guess what?
He speaks English with a Puertoriqueño accent so strong
that if you heard him on the phone you would think he
is a mestizo Latino. "J'know"
fight...@my-deja.com
Thomas Mohr <thoma...@magnet.at> wrote:
> Jason Baran wrote:
> >
> > Johnny Yen <beat...@loop.kom> wrote in message
> > news:38a1d192...@nntp.loop.com...
> > > Prepare to be proven wrong. White people from the southern USA
> > > speak just like blacks.
> >
> > The voice of a White southerner and the voice of a negro are easily
> > distinguishable due to differences in vocal sounds.
Quite false. I take it you never read any biographies of Elvis
Presley for example. Presley was thought to be black by those
who had never seen him in person, prior to becoming famous.
White southerners speak what is called " Ebonics ".
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jason
> Evidence that this is race related ? Jason, this is due to a different
> upbringing, as the voice of an Englishman is different from that of an
> American.
Jason's making excuses as usual.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
fight...@my-deja.com
> > Jason Baran wrote:
> > >
> > > Johnny Yen <beat...@loop.kom> wrote in message
> > > news:38a1d192...@nntp.loop.com...
> > > > Prepare to be proven wrong. White people from the southern USA
> > > > speak just like blacks.
> > >
> > > The voice of a White southerner and the voice of a negro are
easily
> > > distinguishable due to differences in vocal sounds.
> > >
> > > Jason
> > Evidence that this is race related ? Jason, this is due to a
different
> > upbringing, as the voice of an Englishman is different from that of
an
> > American.
>
not
> racially different vocal sounds. The same cannot be said of Whites and
> Blacks.
False. A white American and a black American talk more alike than
a white American and a white Englishman. This is ESPECIALLY true in
the southern USA. Likewise, a white Cuban and a black Cuban talk
more alike than a white Cuban and a white Argentine, for example.
A white Brazilian and a black Brazilian talk more alike than a
white Brazilian and a white Portuguese. A white Marsellais and a
black Marsellais talk more alike than someone from Paris, Switzerland,
or Quebec. And so on...
>
> Regards,
> Jason