Re: The Stakes Are High: Loss of Our Civilization
norton@cybertrails.com arminius
"LRC" <l...@private.net> wrote in message
news:HUZYXX9R38471.8148263889@reece.net.au...
>
> The Roots of Civilization
>
> The basis of our advanced civilization is to be found in the double
> helix of our genes.
>
> by Dr. William L. Pierce
>
> TURN ON A LOCAL television news program in just about any large city
> in this country, and the chances are nearly 100% that you'll hear and
> see at least one Black announcer telling you what's happening. He'll
> be dressed and groomed just like the White announcers, and, in most
> cases, his enunciation will be so similar that you can close your eyes
> for a moment and almost convince yourself that you are listening to a
> White person.
>
> In smoothly modulated tones the Black announcer will tell you about
> the intricacies of the latest financial scandal at city hall, give you
> a crisp rundown on upcoming cultural events, and perhaps even offer a
> sage comment or two on the state of public morality. Never once will
> he stumble over the polysyllabic words in his script or lapse into
> ghetto speech. At the end of the program he will engage in the
> customary few seconds of light banter with the other news announcers,
> and you can hardly help being overwhelmed by the conviction that,
> really, the only difference between him and his White colleagues is a
> matter of pigmentation.
>
> That, of course, is exactly the conviction the directors and producers
> of the program intend you to be overwhelmed by. It is a conviction
> totally at odds with that held by most White Americans only a
> generation ago. Of course, the Amos'n'Andy image of Blacks hardly able
> to speak or tie their shoes was an overly simplistic image, but so is
> the one now created by today's media managers. Blacks can be trained
> to read news scripts with competence, to get to work on time and
> sober, and to dress and talk almost exactly like the best type of
> Whites. But the differences between Blacks and Whites nevertheless run
> far more than skin deep. Those concerned with the survival of America
> and of Western Civilization need to understand these differences
> fully.
>
> The difference which has been most widely discussed is the
> quantitative difference in the average Intelligence Quotient, or IQ
> for short, between Blacks and Whites. For many decades in this
> country, despite intensive efforts by educators, politicians and the
> testing companies themselves, Blacks have and still do consistently
> score 15 points lower than Whites on standardized IQ tests.
>
> But there is also a qualitative difference in the intelligence of
> Blacks and Whites, and this difference is even more significant than
> the quantitative difference in IQs. Blacks, in other words, are not
> just on average slower to learn than Whites, but their mental
> processes differ in their essential nature from those of Whites.
>
> At learning tasks which require only memory - for example, simple
> arithmetical operations and spelling - properly motivated Blacks can
> do nearly as well as Whites. But at tasks which require abstraction,
> or inference of a general rule from a series of instances - and this
> includes virtually all problem-solving operations - Black performance
> falls far below that of Whites.
>
> This Black inability to reason inferentially and to deal with abstract
> concepts is reflected in the almost total absence of Blacks, despite
> decades of "affirmative action," in those professions requiring
> abstract reasoning ability of a high order: physics and mathematics,
> for example. Government quotas have brought a sharp increase in the
> number of Blacks in American colleges and universities in recent
> decades, and Blacks have flooded into many professions as a result,
> but the sciences have remained virtually all-White. You may see Black
> nuclear physicists in the movies, but in real life the only Blacks you
> will find in physics labs are janitors and technicians - and not many
> have qualified as technicians.
>
> This qualitative difference in racial intelligence is overlooked by
> many - and it is easy to see why this is so: most of us have a
> simplistic notion of human intelligence. We think of some people as
> being "dull" or "slow" and others as being "bright." If a person is
> "dull," he is slackjawed and unkempt, his speech is slow, and his
> vocabulary is limited; our vision of him is modeled on that of the
> classic village idiot. And we think of a "bright" person as one with a
> quick tongue and a neat appearance.
>
> We have been taught by TV that our former classification of Blacks as
> a race of village idiots was in error. So now we make the opposite
> error of assuming that, since many of them have a quick tongue and a
> neat appearance, they are approximately as "bright" as White people.
>
> Human intelligence is many-faceted. It cannot be adequately
> characterized by such terms as "dullness" or "brightness." A good
> memory and a facile tongue - that is, what modern educators loosely
> refer to as "verbal skills" - do not imply an ability to deal with
> abstract concepts and solve problems.
>
> The former and the latter are separate - and independent - facets of
> intelligence. The former is what we more easily notice, but it is the
> latter on which our civilization is based. And the latter is closely
> linked to race.
>
> The racial dependence of abstract reasoning ability is no secret.
> Anatomists have been aware for many years of the morphological
> differences between the brains of Blacks and Whites, and neurologists
> and psychologists today understand that it is in precisely those
> portions of the brain which in Blacks are less developed than in
> Whites that abstract reasoning takes place.
>
> But because Blacks do not suffer a corresponding deficiency in their
> ability to develop verbal skills, we allow ourselves to assume
> equality where there is none, and we try to explain away troublesome
> facts like low IQ scores with nonsense about "cultural bias." One only
> has to look at the high IQ scores of recent Asian immigrants, who
> suffer far more than US Blacks from cultural differences, to put the
> lie to that argument.
>
> This error in assuming Black intellectual equality on the basis of the
> skills displayed by Black news announcers or entertainers is just one
> aspect of a general tendency today to confuse style for substance.
> Attainments of substance require exacting analysis and prudent
> judgment, and an understanding of underlying principles. That's too
> much like work for many moderns. We have, it seems, now come to prefer
> style to substance. This could prove fatal to our civilization.
>
> "Verbal skills" may have a high survival value for the individual who
> possesses them, but they are not civilization-building skills. A
> smooth line of patter may help in selling rugs or insurance; the fast
> talker may more often land the good job or the pretty girl; the person
> with a large vocabulary and an easy, self-confident mode of expression
> usually makes a good impression on others - a "bright" impression. But
> it is the analytical thinker, the problem-solver, who, glib or not, is
> the founder and sustainer of civilizations.
>
> The clever office-seeker, the successful rug merchant, the adaptable
> mimic, the fluent news announcer - all have more-or-less useful roles
> to play in civilized life - but the very existence of that civilized
> life depends upon men with an altogether different set of skills. That
> is true of Western Civilization today, and it will also be true of the
> future civilization we must build if the West continues on its
> downward spiral.
>
> Today Western Liberals are working very hard to help the Third World
> become "developed" - that is, civilized. They want to prove that the
> Blacks and Browns of this world have just as much capacity for
> civilization as Whites do. And if one visits Kenya or Nigeria, one
> sees what does seem like a Black civilization: Blacks driving
> automobiles, operating elevators, using computers and calculators and
> telephones, and even flying airplanes.
>
> But it is an illusion. It is the style of civilization rather than its
> substance. And to the extent that even the style is maintained, there
> is a White minority present to keep the wheels turning. In those
> African countries which forced nearly all Whites to leave,
> civilization has ground rapidly to a halt and the jungle vines have
> begun taking over again.
>
> When a diesel tractor or an electrical generator or a telephone
> switching system breaks down in Africa, it stays broken down until a
> White man fixes it - despite all the Black graduates African
> universities have been turning out recently. And it is not a cultural
> problem or an educational problem.
>
> In this country half a century ago few farmers had ever seen a
> university. Many had not even been to high school. Yet, when a tractor
> broke down they got it running again, one way or another. They pulled
> it into the barn, took it apart, puzzled out the difficulty, figured a
> way to fix it - and then did it, often using extremely primitive
> facilities.
>
> It wasn't a matter of culture. It's what was called "Yankee
> ingenuity." It's a racial trait.
>
> Today civilization is more complex than it was 50 years ago. A
> considerably higher degree of "Yankee ingenuity" is required to keep
> it running. Very few of us who talk glibly about space ships and
> lasers and computers realize that we owe the existence of these things
> to an extraordinarily tiny minority of our people. The technology as
> well as the science involved in producing something like a pocket
> calculator is quite complex. A lot of people can talk about it, but
> very, very few are capable of actually solving the problems - or even
> being taught to solve the problems - involved in designing and
> building such a device so that it does what it is supposed to do.
>
> Another thing that many of us do not realize is what a thin thread it
> is which supports civilizations in general and our present
> technological civilization in particular. We are holding onto this
> thread only by the skin of our teeth, only by exerting ourselves to
> the utmost of our creative abilities.
>
> I am afraid that the average American of today would assume - if he
> bothered to think about it - that if the average IQ of our nation were
> to decline by, say, five per cent as a result of racial interbreeding
> or a continuation of other dysgenic practices, it would perhaps cause
> a corresponding decline of five per cent in the level of our
> civilization.
>
> Not so! A five per cent decline in average IQ would cause our
> civilization to collapse. That is exactly what has happened to many
> other civilizations in the past, far less technologically advanced
> than ours. Our situation is much more precarious.
>
> The level of civilization that a people can develop and maintain is a
> function of the biological quality, the racial quality, of that people
> - in particular, of its problem-solving ability. That is why Blacks
> and certain other races never developed even a rudimentary
> civilization and are incapable of sustaining a civilization built for
> them by Whites - despite the apparent "brightness" of many Blacks. And
> it is why the race which built Western Civilization not only must
> regain exclusive possession of its territories, but must also act
> quickly to change those policies and institutions which are causing an
> increasing percentage of those born to our own race to be problem-
> makers rather than problem-solvers.
>
> We must do this because it is the only way our race, nation and
> civilization can be rescued from their decline. But our civilization
> is not an end in itself. The tools of a civilization, once it has
> reached a sufficiently high level - and we have reached that level -
> allow us not only to weed out the problem-makers from our midst, but
> to insure that we will produce even more capable problem-solvers than
> we have produced in the past. That, in turn, will allow the
> achievement and maintenance of a still-higher level of civilization -
> which will even further enhance our capabilities for progress in every
> realm.
>
> We stand today at a threshold. If we cross it successfully, we will be
> on the upward path toward a world of progress, peace, prosperity,
> knowledge, and wisdom beyond imagining. To cross this threshold
> requires a clear understanding of what it is that lies at the roots of
> civilization; it requires the ability to distinguish between style and
> substance; and it requires that we value substance above style.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> -----
>
> The late William Pierce held a PhD and as a young
> man was a university professor of physics.
>
Additional writing at:
Durak Stukach
The europeans and africans are close relatives. Most of the differences are
environmental.
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Want to have instant messaging, and chat rooms, and discussion
groups for your local users or business, you need dbabble!
-- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dbabble.htm ----
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
You sure have a think about Blacks.
Must be all you talk about all day long.
FFF
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
Christopher
>[snip]
>
>The europeans and africans are close relatives. Most of the differences are
>environmental.
And intelligence.
Christopher
++++++++++++
"The best way to keep one's word
is never to give it."
Napoleon Bonaparte
Momphert
>>
>> The late William Pierce held a PhD and as a young
>> man was a university professor of physics.
>>
I remember Dr Pierce. He was against the Jews. I wonder how he would
have explained that a disproportionate number of the world's great
scientists, authors, musicians, artists, philosophers, etc. etc. are,
and have always been, Jewish.
Goebbels burned the books of Jewish writers. And what a huge fire it
was!
If Pierce was right and genius is a function of race, then the Jews are
very high up in the scale, followed by the Japanese and the Chinese,
with the whites in third place. Yes and negroes occupy the bottom rung
of the ladder it would seem. That is, if Pierce was right.
But, as one negro observed the other day: they swing mighty lumber.
Momphert
--
Truth is solitary and silent.
It does not have to be propped up by noise.
Malcolm Muggeridge
jay_...@yahoo.com
Durak Stukach wrote:
> [snip]
>
> The europeans and africans are close relatives. Most of the
differences are
> environmental.
>
have been the environment.
Jay
hulk_arnol...@yahoo.com
> Durak Stukach wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > The europeans and africans are close relatives. Most of the
> differences are
> > environmental.
> >
> Funny. I tried to get my redtick hound to herd sheep but no luck.
Must
> have been the environment.
There are people of African ancestry who are engineers, scientists,
historians, etc. There are Africans, then, who can lay claim to a
personal contribution to "our civilization".
If you're not similarly skilled, and have personally contributed less,
I take it that- to be consistent- you admit to an innate inferiority
unrelated to opportunities ("environment")?
And then, since improvement can come only genetically in your view,
perhaps we should introduce (match-making) your sons and daughters to
engineers, etc. of African ancestry so that their children might
improve from your sorry genetic contribution?
Just to be consistent when saying "it ain't got squat ta do with
environment", you know...
Eric
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
Actually, Japanese and Jewish engineers, scientists etc if he really wants to go
for the best.
J. Anderson
Even if Pierce were right -- I'm not saying he was -- then what would be the
conclusion? Or should I say 'solution'? Perhaps even 'Endlösung'?
That people whose IQ is more than 5 points below average should be
castrated?
Durak Stukach
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <di...@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:3dft1oF...@individual.net...
The best contribution to civilisation is when different people do things
that they do best. Africans and Australian Aboriginese are similar to
particularly nearby regions. Blacks to Europe, Aboriginese to Asia. In this
way europeans may be viewed as africans with lighter skin.
MirTopolskiRexPrez
No. But lobotomed, if their IQ lies 50 points below average. In truly
sci community this is also called 'Brookski solution'.
J. Anderson
"MirTopolskiRexPrez" <b...@black.hole> wrote in message
news:d50672$bsa$1...@online.de...
In Zamyatin's 'We', which I just finished reading, the Benefactor* decided
that people should have their imagination surgically removed.
*) Supreme leader of OneState.
Blue Ice
"J. Anderson" <fer...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:d507b4$ed5$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
Ice
CrustyTheClown
"MirBungholioRexPrez" <b...@black.hole> wrote in message
news:d50672$bsa$1...@online.de...
So what's your excuse...crappy DNA? Your daddy should have shopped for the
ideal receptacle at Joshka Fischer's Slut-Mart.
At least your solution is simple...in the IQ department, you have only one
way to go...up. In the meantime, bacteria will condescendingly laugh and
look down at you.
For you, we have one-time special deal...we will sell you one IQ point for a
Euro BUT WAIT! Call the 800 number on your screen within the next 15 minutes
and we will also throw in 25 cents worth of personality...ABSOLUTELY FREE!
If for any reason, you are not completely satified simply return your IQ and
your money will be promptly refunded...but keep the 25 cents worth of
personality as our gift to you.
Post Colonial Boy
>
>Durak Stukach wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> The europeans and africans are close relatives. Most of the
>differences are
>> environmental.
>>
>Funny. I tried to get my redtick hound to herd sheep but no luck. Must
>have been the environment.
>
>Jay
I've enjoyed the witty rejoinders from other posters that plainly put
you, Jay Stutz, in your place as usenet village idiot.
Nik
entp...@yahoo.com
I think Pierce might be right in that sub-populations of humankind
differ in the population-level distributions of genetic predispositions
toward various types of cognitive abilities. The hypothesis remains
to be proven or disproven, however. What he's definitely right about
is the existence of different types of cognitive abilities.
The irony is, however, that if Pierce is right, he'd have to concede
that Northeast Asians and Ashkenazi Jews were, on average, genetically
better endowed to become solvers of abstract problems than Whites
- because that's what they are in real life. Both groups are over-
represented at the highest levels of achievement in the hard sciences.
Let's assume Pierce is right about the genetic roots of the different
cognitive achievement profiles of different races. Should we be worried
about dysgenics or the dilution of abstract problem solving talents?
I don't think so. We have already observed the opposite trend: the
cognitive stratification of society as result of the universal
availability of higher education for the able. In reality, abstract
problem solving abilities are constantly enriched in special
environments like universities where bright people date other
bright people and eventually marry each other.
Dysgenics is a slow process. Technology has ample time to fix it before
it becomes a real problem. Should technological civilization crash,
then nature would go about correcting the problem in it's own way.
Til Eulenspiegel
<entp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115036502....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
J. Anderson wrote:
>> Even if Pierce were right -- I'm not saying he was -- then what would
be the
>> conclusion? Or should I say 'solution'? Perhaps even 'Endlösung'?
>>
>> That people whose IQ is more than 5 points below average should be
>> castrated?
>I think Pierce might be right in that sub-populations of humankind
>differ in the population-level distributions of genetic predispositions
>toward various types of cognitive abilities. The hypothesis remains
>to be proven or disproven, however. What he's definitely right about
>is the existence of different types of cognitive abilities.
>The irony is, however, that if Pierce is right, he'd have to concede
>that Northeast Asians and Ashkenazi Jews were, on average, genetically
>better endowed to become solvers of abstract problems than Whites
>- because that's what they are in real life. Both groups are over-
>represented at the highest levels of achievement in the hard sciences.
Why do you think Injuns and AshkeNazis are better endowed?
Most scientists are white goys genetically.
jay_...@yahoo.com
Keep pumping Colonial Boy, Freyberger still loves you.
Jay
CrustyTheClown
Crispy brown crust of salt and pepper on the outside, a little red on the
inside.
Pass along some of that California Cabernet too!
Post Colonial Boy
I don't do this because Doug does or doesn't love me, I do it because
I believe it to be the case and am prepared to argue the toss about
it.
Why?
1. To my mind it is our holy duty, when one is devoted to a particular
deity that they, in reasonable regards at least, emulate that
deity/spirit/meme (take your pick).
For me it is Odin. Odin had at least one child from a racially mixed
marriage/procreation, Thor. If racially mixed marriages are completely
acceptable to Odin then it should also be acceptable to all
Asatruar...even those who're not Odin devotees, as Odin was the Head
God of the Aesir, I know some will regard Tyr in this role...I have my
belief they can have theirs.
2. Because I hate racialist bigots like you who associate their
politics, innaccurately and inauthentically, with Heathen belief and
thereby give my faith a smeared reputation.
In short, if you intend to stay here and repeat your racist ranting
you will be taken to task for it. Your foul mouthed hateful rants
disturb the frith of a.r.a. I personally, don't wanna hear you
presenting opinions as facts anymore, welcome to my killfile.
Nik
entp...@yahoo.com
> <entp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >The irony is, however, that if Pierce is right, he'd have to concede
> >that Northeast Asians and Ashkenazi Jews were, on average,
genetically
> >better endowed to become solvers of abstract problems than Whites
> >- because that's what they are in real life. Both groups are over-
> >represented at the highest levels of achievement in the hard
sciences.
>
> Why do you think Injuns and AshkeNazis are better endowed?
What Injuns? Do you what countries there are in Northeast Asia?
I wrote IF Pierce is right in that these group level differences
are based on genetics, he'd have to admit Askenazi Jews and Northeast
Asians are genetically superior regarding abstract problem solving
ability.
> Most scientists are white goys genetically.
How many Askenazi Jews are there in the world? 5 million? How many
white goys are there? 800 million? If there were more Jews among
scientists than white goys in absolute numbers, whites would have
to be totally inferior performers indeed, given their vast numbers
compared to those of the Jews.
At the top level, Askenazi Jews are vastly over-represented. Do
you understand what "over-represented" means? It means that their
proportion among top-level scientists is vastly larger than it
should be if they performed equally to white goys as a group.
Now, I've already said that whether or not the cause of that
and other discrepancies in group-level differences in real world
performance is rooted in genetics is yet to be proven or disproven.
Hope this helps.
The Enlightenment
Dr William Pierce was a physicist. He knew jews, had them as his
friends when he was a student but latter grew to hate them as he
learned what they were really like. Perhaps he agreed with what as Dr
Joseph Goebells said "Jews are an agent of Decomposition".
There is no doubt that Ashkenazi Jews have an well above average IQ of
115. This is enormous but is about the same as the dumies of the human
species: sub-saharan blacks (excluding bushmen).
Despite this the Jewish contribution is not decisive for development of
Western Civilisation.
The extra intelligence (not generally seen in middle eastern and
sepheridic Jews) seems explained by Jewish marriage practices: High
status scholars would get prestige and marital access to the the
daughters of succesfull businessmen. The other factor was that Jewish
cohesive would let the undesirable and dimwitted assimilate or just
plain ordrinary lapse out of the community and assimilate into the
Gentiles they lived amongst. The Gentiles majority couldn't do the
same. The selectivity of immigration and avoiding a progrom don't seem
to have been a part of it.
The area has been well researched:
"Publications on Judaism and European marriage practices from an
evolutionary perspective"
<http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books.html>
"The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish
Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements"
should be compulsory reading:
<http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-Preface.html>
But how important were jews and how much did they contribute?
At best it might be said that they accelerated technology a little. At
worst that they retarded it. Wherever Jews were not suppresed or
expelled the nations seemed to stay retarded or its wealth became
concentrated.
If Jews have a talent apart from resource accumulation it is self
publicity.
Consider the Einstein myth.
1 Did he discover the equation E = mc^2 ?
No, an Italian Olinto De Pretto did two years before Einstein and he
several times published it openly. Albert Einstein was quite fluent in
Italian. According to the already cited Pais biography, when Einstein
graduated from high school in Aarau he was required to take exams in
both the German language and the Italian language. Out of a maximum
score of 6, Einstein received a score of 5 in German (his native
tongue) and also a score of 5 in Italian! Of course, Einstein had lived
in Italy during his youth, and Einstein's father is buried in Milan.
http://www.msu.edu/~mccaske1/writing/eresp.htm
2 Did Einstein discover photo emision?
No, the German Max plank did. He gave us the Equation E =hf for energy
of a photon that if equated with the kinetic energy equation of Newton
E = 1/2mv^2 derives E = mc^2 with basic school boy algebra.
3 Did Einsteing discover relativity?
No, the Dutch mathemetician Lorentz and the Irishmen Fitzgerald did.
They gave us the Fitzgerald Lorentz contraction equation.
4 Did Einstein propose that the speed of light was constant?
No, the British physicist James Clerk Maxwell did.
5 Was he responsible for quantum mechnics?
No, Planck or Heisenberg were.
6 Was he a mathematical genious?
No, After Heisenberg demolished General relativity he relied on the
Tensor calculus of a real mathematician the German Bernhard Rieman.
Worse most if his most of his mathematical work seems to have been that
of his first Serbian Wife Mileva Maric.
**************************
I post a more thorough article below:
Albert Einstein is held up by the Jewish myth makers as a rare genius
who drastically changed the field of theoretical physics. As such, he
is made an idol to young people and his very name has become synonymous
with genius. The truth, however, is very different. The reality is that
Einstein was an inept, moronic Jew who could not even tie his own
shoelaces; he contributed nothing original to the field of quantum
mechanics or any other science, but on the contrary he stole the ideas
of other men and the Jewish media made him a hero.
When we actually examine the life of Albert Einstein, we find that his
only brilliance lies in his ability to plagiarize and steal other
people's ideas, passing them off as his own.
Einstein's education, or lack thereof, is an important part of this
story. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of Einstein's early education
that he "showed little scholastic ability." It also says that at the
age of 15, "with poor grades in history, geography, and languages, he
left school with no diploma." Einstein himself wrote in a school paper
of his "lack of imagination and practical ability." In 1895, Einstein
failed a simple entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich. This
exam consisted mainly of mathematical problems, and Einstein showed
himself to be mathematically inept in this exam. He then entered a
lesser school hoping to use it as a stepping stone to the engineering
school he could not get into, but after graduating in 1900, he still
could not get a position at the engineering school! Unable to go to the
school as he had wanted, he got a job (with the help of a friend) at
the patent office in Bern. He was to be a technical expert third class,
which meant that he was too incompetent for a higher qualified
position. Even after publishing his so-called groundbreaking papers of
1905 and after working in the patent office for six years, he was only
elevated to a second class standing. Remember, the work he was doing at
the patent office, for which he was only rated third class, was not
quantum mechanics or theoretical physics, but was reviewing technical
documents for patents of every day things; yet he was barely qualified.
He would work at the patent office until 1909, all the while
continuously trying to get a position at a university, but without
success. All of these facts are true, but now begins the Jewish myth.
Supposedly, while working a full time job, without the aid of
university colleagues, a staff of graduate students, a laboratory, or
any of the things normally associated with an academic setting,
Einstein in his spare time wrote four ground-breaking essays in the
field of theoretical physics and quantum mechanics that were published
in 1905. Many people have recognized the impossibility of such a feat,
including Einstein himself, and therefore Einstein has led people to
believe that many of these ideas came to him in his sleep, out of the
blue, because indeed that is the only logical explanation of how an
admittedly inept moron could have written such documents at the age of
26 without any real education. However, a simpler explanation exists:
he stole the ideas and plagiarized the papers.
Therefore, we will look at each of these ideas and discover the source
of each. It should be remembered that these ideas are presented by
Einstein's worshippers as totally new and completely different, each of
which would change the landscape of science. These four papers dealt
with the following four ideas, respectively:
1. The foundation of the photon theory of light;
2. The equivalence of energy and mass;
3. The explanation of Brownian motion in liquids;
4. The special theory of relativity.
Let us first look at the last of these theories, the theory of
relativity. This is perhaps the most famous idea falsely attributed to
Einstein. Specifically, this 1905 paper dealt with what Einstein called
the Special Theory of Relativity (the General Theory would come in
1915). This theory contradicted the traditional Newtonian mechanics and
was based upon two premises: 1) in the absence of acceleration, the
laws of nature are the same for all observers; and 2) since the speed
of light is independent of the motion of its source, then the time
interval between two events is longer for an observer in whose frame of
reference the events occur at different places than for an observer in
whose frame of reference the events occur in the same place. This is
basically the idea that time passes more slowly as one's velocity
approaches the speed of light, relative to slower velocities where time
would pass faster.
This theory has been validated by modern experiments and is the basis
for modern physics. But these two premises are far from being
originally Einstein's. First of all, the idea that the speed of light
was a constant and was independent of the motion of its source was not
Einstein's at all, but was proposed by the Scottish scientist James
Maxwell. Maxwell studied the phenomenon of light extensively and first
proposed that it was electromagnetic in nature. He wrote an article to
this effect for the 1878 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. His
ideas prompted much debate, and by 1887, as a result of his work and
the ensuing debate, the scientific community, particularly Lorentz,
Michelson, and Morley reached the conclusion that the velocity of light
was independent of the velocity of the observer. Thus, this piece of
the Special Theory of Relativity was known 27 years before Einstein
wrote his paper.
This debate over the nature of light also led Michelson and Morley to
conduct an important experiment, the results of which could not be
explained by Newtonian mechanics. They observed a phenomenon caused by
relativity but they did not understand relativity. They had attempted
to detect the motion of the earth through ether, which was a medium
thought to be necessary for the propagation of light.
In response to this problem, in 1889, the Irish physicist George
FitzGerald, who had also first proposed a mechanism for producing radio
waves, wrote a paper which stated that the results of the
Michelson-Morley experiment could be explained if,
"... the length of material bodies changes, according as they are
moving through the ether or across it, by an amount depending on the
square of the ratio of their velocities to that of light."
This is the theory of relativity, 13 years before Einstein's paper!
Furthermore, in 1892, Hendrik Lorentz, from The Netherlands, proposed
the same solution and began to greatly expand the idea. All throughout
the 1890's, both Lorentz and FitzGerald worked on these ideas and wrote
articles strangely similar to Einstein's Special Theory detailing what
is now known as the Lorentz-FitzGerald Contraction. In 1898, the
Irishman Joseph Larmor wrote down equations explaining the
Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction and its relativistic consequences, 7
years before Einstein's paper. By 1904, Lorentz transformations, the
series of equations explaining relativity, were published by Lorentz.
They describe the increase of mass, the shortening of length, and the
time dilation of a body moving at speeds close to the velocity of
light. In short, by 1904, everything in Einstein's paper regarding the
Special Theory of Relativity had already been published.
The Frenchman Poincaré had, in 1898, written a paper unifying many of
these ideas. He stated seven years before Einstein's paper that,
"... we have no direct intuition about the equality of two time
intervals. The simultaneity of two events or the order of their
succession, as well as the equality of two time intervals, must be
defined in such a way that the statements of the natural laws be as
simple as possible."
Anyone who has read Einstein's 1905 paper will immediately recognize
the similarity and the lack of originality on the part of Einstein.
Thus we see that the only thing original about the paper was the term
'Special Theory of Relativity.' Everything else was plagiarized. Over
the next few years, Poincaré became one of the most important
lecturers and writers regarding relativity, but he never, in any of his
papers or speeches, mentioned Albert Einstein. Thus, while Poincaré
was busy bringing the rest of the academic world up to speed regarding
relativity, Einstein was still working in the patent office in Bern and
no one in the academic community thought it necessary to give much
credence or mention to Einstein's work. Most of these early physicists
knew that he was a fraud.
This brings us to the explanation of Brownian motion, the subject of
another of Einstein's 1905 papers. Brownian motion describes the
irregular motion of a body arising from the thermal energy of the
molecules of the material in which the body is immersed. The movement
had first been observed by the Scottish botanist Robert Brown in 1827.
The explanation of this phenomenon has to do with the Kinetic Theory of
Matter, and it was the American Josiah Gibbs and the Austrian Ludwig
Boltzmann who first explained this occurrence, not Albert Einstein. In
fact, the mathematical equation describing the motion contains the
famous Boltzmann constant, k. Between these two men, they had explained
by the 1890s everything in Einstein's 1905 paper regarding Brownian
motion.
The subject of the equivalence of mass and energy was contained in a
third paper published by Einstein in 1905. This concept is expressed by
the famous equation E=mc^2. Einstein's biographers categorize this as
"his most famous and most spectacular conclusion." Even though this
idea is an obvious conclusion of Einstein's earlier relativity paper,
it was not included in that paper but was published as an afterthought
later in the year. Still, the idea of energy-mass equivalence was not
original with Einstein.
That there was an equivalence between mass and energy had been shown in
the laboratory in the 1890s by both J.J. Thomsom of Cambridge and by W.
Kaufmann in Göttingen. In 1900, Poincaré had shown that there was a
mass relationship for all forms of energy, not just electromagnetic
energy. Yet, the most probable source of Einstein's plagiarism was
Friedrich Hasenöhrl, one of the most brilliant, yet unappreciated
physicists of the era. Hasenöhrl was the teacher of many of the German
scientists who would later become famous for a variety of topics. He
had worked on the idea of the equivalence of mass and energy for many
years and had published a paper on the topic in 1904 in the very same
journal which Einstein would publish his plagiarized version in 1905.
For his brilliant work in this area, Hasenörhl had received in 1904 a
prize from the prestigious Vienna Academy of Sciences.
Furthermore, the mathematical relationship of mass and energy was a
simple deduction from the already well-known equations of Scottish
physicist James Maxwell. Scientists long understood that the
mathematical relationship expressed by the equation E=mc^2 was the
logical result of Maxwell's work, they just did not believe it. Thus,
the experiments of Thomson, Kaufmann, and finally, and most
importantly, Hasenörhl, confirmed Maxwell's work. It is ludicrous to
believe that Einstein developed this postulate, particularly in light
of the fact that Einstein did not have the laboratory necessary to
conduct the appropriate experiments.
In this same plagiarized article of Einstein's, he suggested to the
scientific community, "Perhaps it will prove possible to test this
theory using bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree
(e.g., salts of radium)." This remark demonstrates how little Einstein
understood about science, for this was truly an outlandish remark. By
saying this, Einstein showed that he really did not understand basic
scientific principles and that he was writing about a topic that he did
not understand. In fact, in response to this article, J. Precht
remarked that such an experiment "lies beyond the realm of possible
experience."
The last subject dealt with in Einstein's 1905 papers was the
foundation of the photon theory of light. Einstein wrote about the
photoelectric effect. The photoelectric effect is the release of
electrons from certain metals or semiconductors by the action of light.
This area of research is particularly important to the Einstein myth
because it was for this topic that he unjustly received his 1922 Nobel
Prize.
But again, it is not Einstein, but Wilhelm Wien and Max Planck who
deserve the credit. The main point of Einstein's paper, and the point
for which he is given credit, is that light is emitted and absorbed in
finite packets called quanta. This was the explanation for the
photoelectric effect. The photoelectric effect had been explained by
Heinrich Hertz in 1888. Hertz and others, including Philipp Lenard,
worked on understanding this phenomenon. Lenard was the first to show
that the energy of the electrons released in the photoelectric effect
was not governed by the intensity of the light but by the frequency of
the light. This was an important breakthrough.
Wien and Planck were colleagues and they were the fathers of modern day
quantum theory. By 1900, Max Planck, based upon his and Wien's work,
had shown that radiated energy was absorbed and emitted in finite units
called quanta. The only difference in his work of 1900 and Einstein's
work of 1905 was that Einstein limited himself to talking about one
particular type of energy - light energy. But the principles and
equations governing the process in general had been deduced by Planck
in 1900. Einstein himself admitted that the obvious conclusion of
Planck's work was that light also existed in discrete packets of
energy. Thus, nothing in this paper of Einstein's was original.
After the 1905 papers of Einstein were published, the scientific
community took little notice and Einstein continued his job at the
patent office until 1909 when it was arranged for him to take a
position at a school by World Jewry. Still, it was not until a 1919
newspaper headline that he gained any notoriety.
With Einstein's academic appointment in 1909, he was placed in a
position where he could begin to use other people's work as his own
more openly. He engaged many of his students to look for ways to prove
the theories he had supposedly developed, or ways to apply those
theories, and then he could present the research as his own or at least
take partial credit. In this vein, in 1912, he began to try and express
his gravitational research in terms of a new, recently developed
calculus, which was conducive to understanding relativity. This was the
beginning of his General Theory of Relativity, which he would publish
in 1915. But the mathematical work was not done by Einstein - he was
incapable of it. Instead, it was performed by the mathematician Marcel
Grossmann, who in turn used the mathematical principles developed by
Berhard Riemann, who was the first to develop a sound non-Euclidean
geometry, which is the basis of all mathematics used to describe
relativity.
The General Theory of Relativity applied the principles of relativity
to the universe; that is, to the gravitational pull of planets and
their orbits, and the general principle that light rays bend as they
pass by a massive object. Einstein published an initial paper in 1913
based upon the work which Grossmann did, adapting the math of Riemann
to Relativity. But this paper was filled with errors and the
conclusions were incorrect. It appears that Grossmann was not smart
enough to figure it out for Einstein. So Einstein was forced to look
elsewhere to plagiarize his General Theory. Einstein published his
correct General Theory of Relativity in 1915, and said prior to its
publication that he, "...completely succeeded in convincing Hilbert and
Klein." He is referring to David Hilbert, perhaps the most brilliant
mathematician of the 20th century, and Felix Klein, another
mathematician who had been instrumental in the development of the area
of calculus that Grossmann had used to develop the General Theory of
Relativity for Einstein.
Einstein's statement regarding the two men would lead the reader to
believe that Einstein had changed Hilbert's and Klein's opinions
regarding General Relativity, and that he had influenced them in their
thinking. However, the exact opposite is true. Einstein stole the
majority of his General Relativity work from these two men, the rest
being taken from Grossmann. Hilbert submitted for publication, a week
before Einstein completed his work, a paper which contained the correct
field equations of General Relativity. What this means is that Hilbert
wrote basically the exact same paper, with the same conclusions, before
Einstein did. Einstein would have had an opportunity to know of
Hilbert's work all along, because there were Jewish friends of his
working for Hilbert. Yet, even this was not necessary, for Einstein had
seen Hilbert's paper in advance of publishing his own. Both of these
papers were, before being printed, delivered in the form of a lecture.
Einstein presented his paper on November 25, 1915 in Berlin and Hilbert
had presented his paper on November 20 in Göttingen. On November 18,
Hilbert received a letter from Einstein thanking him for sending him a
draft of the treatise Hilbert was to deliver on the 20th. So, in fact,
Hilbert had sent a copy of his work at least two weeks in advance to
Einstein before either of the two men delivered their lectures, but
Einstein did not send Hilbert an advance copy of his. Therefore, this
serves as incontrovertible proof that Einstein quickly plagiarized the
work and then presented it, hoping to beat Hilbert to the punch. Also,
at the same time, Einstein publicly began to belittle Hilbert, even
though in the previous summer he had praised him in an effort to get
Hilbert to share his work with him. Hilbert made the mistake of sending
Einstein this draft copy, but still he delivered his work first.
Not only did Hilbert publish his work first, but it was of much higher
quality than Einstein's. It is known today that there are many problems
with assumptions made in Einstein's General Theory paper. We know today
that Hilbert was much closer to the truth. Hilbert's paper is the
forerunner of the unified field theory of gravitation and
electromagnetism and of the work of Erwin Schrödinger, whose work is
the basis of all modern day quantum mechanics.
That the group of men discussed so far were the actual originators of
the ideas claimed by Einstein was known by the scientific community all
along. In 1940, a group of German physicists meeting in Austria
declared that "before Einstein, Aryan scientists like Lorentz,
Hasenöhrl, Poincaré, etc., had created the foundations of the theory
of relativity..."
However, the Jewish media did not promote the work of these men. The
Jewish media did not promote the work of David Hilbert, but instead
they promoted the work of the Jew Albert Einstein. As we mentioned
earlier, this General Theory, as postulated by Hilbert first and in
plagiarized form by Einstein second, stated that light rays should bend
when they pass by a massive object. In 1919, during the eclipse of the
Sun, light from distant stars passing close to the Sun was observed to
bend according to the theory. This evidence supported the General
Theory of Relativity, and the Jewish-controlled media immediately
seized upon the opportunity to prop up Einstein as a hero, at the
expense of the true genius, David Hilbert.
On November 7th, 1919, the London Times ran an article, the headline of
which proclaimed, "Revolution in science - New theory of the Universe -
Newtonian ideas overthrown." This was the beginning of the
force-feeding of the Einstein myth to the masses. In the following
years, Einstein's earlier 1905 papers were propagandized and Einstein
was heralded as the originator of all the ideas he had stolen. Because
of this push by the Jewish media, in 1922, Einstein received the Nobel
Prize for the work he had stolen in 1905 regarding the photoelectric
effect.
The establishment of the Einstein farce between 1919 and 1922 was an
important coup for world Zionism and Jewry. As soon as Einstein had
been established as an idol to the popular masses of England and
America, his image was promoted as the rare genius that he is
erroneously believed to be today. As such, he immediately began his
work as a tool for World Zionism. The masses bought into the idea that
if someone was so brilliant as to change our fundamental understanding
of the universe, then certainly we ought to listen to his opinions
regarding political and social issues. This is exactly what World Jewry
wanted to establish in its ongoing effort of social engineering. They
certainly did not want someone like David Hilbert to be recognized as
rare genius. After all, this physicist had come from a strong German,
Christian background. His grandfather's two middle names were
'Fürchtegott Leberecht' or 'Fear God, Live Right.' In August of 1934,
the day before a vote was to be taken regarding installing Adolf Hitler
as President of the Reich, Hilbert signed a proclamation in support of
Adolf Hitler, along with other leading German scientists, that was
published in the German newspapers. So the Jews certainly did not want
David Hilbert receiving the credit he deserved.
The Jews did not want Max Planck receiving the credit he deserved
either. This German's grandfather and great-grandfather had been
important German theologians, and during World War II he would stay in
Germany throughout the war, supporting his fatherland the best he
could.
The Jews certainly did not want the up-and-coming Erwin Schrödinger to
be heralded as a genius to the masses. This Austrian physicist would go
on to teach at Adolf Hitler University in Austria, and he wrote a
public letter expressing his support for the Third Reich. This
Austrian's work on the unified field theory was a forerunner of modern
physics, even though it had been criticized by Einstein, who apparently
could not understand it.
The Jews did not want to have Werner Heisenberg promoted as a rare
genius, even though he would go on to solidify quantum theory and
contribute to it greatly, as well as develop his famous uncertainty
principle, in addition to describing the modern atom and nucleus and
the binding energies that are essential to modern chemistry. No, the
Jews did not want Heisenberg promoted as a genius because he would go
on to head the German atomic bomb project and serve prison time after
the war for his involvement with the Third Reich.
No, the Jews did not want to give credit to any of a number of white
Germans, Austrians, Irishmen, Frenchmen, Scotsmen, Englishmen, and even
Americans who had contributed to the body of knowledge and evidence
from which Einstein plagiarized and stole his work. Instead, they
needed to erect Einstein as their golden calf, even though he
repeatedly and often embarrassed himself with his nonfactual or
nearsighted comments regarding the work he had supposedly done. For
example, in 1934, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ran a front page article
in which Einstein gave an "emphatic denial" regarding the idea of
practical applications for the "energy of the atom." The article says,
"But the 'energy of the atom' is something else again. If you believe
that man will someday be able to harness this boundless energy-to drive
a great steamship across the ocean on a pint of water, for
instance-then, according to Einstein, you are wrong..."
Again, Einstein clearly did not understand the branch of physics he had
supposedly founded, though elsewhere in the world at the time
theoretical research was underway that would lead to the atomic bomb
and nuclear energy. But after Einstein was promoted as a god in 1919,
he made no real attempts to plagiarize any other work. Rather, he began
his real purpose - evangelizing for the cause of Zionism and World
Jewry. Though he did publish other articles after this time, all of
them were co-authored by at least one other person, and in each
instance, Einstein had little if anything to do with the research that
led to the articles; he was merely recruited by the co-authors in order
to lend credence to their work. Thus freed of the pretense of academia,
Einstein began his assault for World Zionism.
In 1921, Einstein made his first visit to the United States on a
fund-raising tour for the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and to promote
Zionism. In April of 1922, Einstein used his status to gain membership
in a Commission of the League of Nations. In February of 1923, Einstein
visits Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. In June of 1923, he becomes a founding
member of the Association of Friends of the New Russia. In 1926,
Einstein took a break from his Communist and Zionistic activities to
again embarrass himself scientifically by criticizing the work of
Schrödinger and Heisenberg. Following a brief illness, he resumes his
Zionistic agenda, wanting an independent Israel and at the same time a
World Government.
In the 1930s he actively campaigns against all forms of war, although
he would reverse this position during World War II when he advocated
war against Germany and the creation of the atomic bomb, which he
thought was impossible to build. In 1939 and 1940, Einstein, at the
request of other Jews, wrote two letters to Roosevelt urging an
American program to develop an atomic bomb to be used on Germany - not
Japan. Einstein would have no part in the actual construction of the
bomb, theoretical or practical, because he lacked the skills for
either.
In December of 1946, Einstein rekindles his efforts for a World
Government, with Israel apparently being the only autonomous nation.
This push continues through the rest of the 1940s. In 1952, Einstein,
who had been instrumental in the creation of the State of Israel, both
politically and economically, is offered the presidency of Israel. He
declines. In 1953, he spends his time attacking the McCarthy Committee,
and he supports Communists such as J. Robert Oppenheimer. He encourages
civil disobedience in response to the McCarthy trials. Finally, on
April 18, 1955, this filthy Jewish demagogue dies.
Dead, the Jews no longer had to worry about Einstein making stupid
statements. His death was just the beginning of his usage and
exploitation by World Jewry. The Jewish-controlled media continued to
promote the myth of this Super-Jew long after his death, and as more
and more of the men who knew better died off, the Jews were more and
more able to aggrandize his myth and lie more boldly. This brazen lying
has culminated in the Jew controlled Time magazine naming Einstein "The
Person of the Century" at the close of 1999. It may be demonstrated
that the Jewish lies have become more bold with the passage of time
because Einstein was never named "Man of the Year" while he was alive,
but now, over forty years after his death, he is named "Person of the
Century."
Einstein was given this title in spite of the clear-cut choice for the
"Person of the Century," Adolf Hitler. Hitler was indeed named "Man of
the Year" while he was still living by Time magazine, and according to
a December 27, 1999, article in the USA Today, Einstein was chosen over
Adolf Hitler because of the perceived "nasty public relations fallout"
that would accompany that choice; yet in internet polling by Time,
Hitler finished third and was the top serious candidate. Still the
issue of Time magazine dedicated to Einstein, which has articles by men
with names like Isaacson, Golden, Stein, Rudenstine, and Rosenblatt, is
interesting to read. For one, they found it necessary to include an
article rationalizing why they did not pick the obvious choice, Adolf
Hitler. But more interesting is the article by Stephen Hawking which
purports to be a history of the theory of relativity. In it, Hawking
admits many of the things in this article, such as the fact that
Hilbert published the General Theory of Relativity before Einstein and
that FitzGerald and Lorentz deduced the concept of relativity long
before Einstein. Hawking also writes,
"Einstein...was deeply disturbed by the work of Werner Heisenberg in
Copenhagen, Paul Dirac in Cambridge and Erwin Schrödinger in Zurich,
who developed a new picture of reality called quantum mechanics. ...
Einstein was horrified by this ... Most scientists, however, accepted
the validity of the new quantum laws because they showed excellent
agreement with observations ... They are the basis of modern
developments in chemistry, molecular biology and electronics and the
foundation of the technology that has transformed the world in the past
half-century."
This is all very true, yet the same magazine credits Einstein with all
of the modern developments that Hawking names, even through Einstein
was so stupid as to be vehemently against the most important idea of
modern science, just as he opposed Schrödinger's work in unified field
theory which was far ahead of its time. The same magazine admits that
"success eluded" Einstein in the field of explaining the contradictions
between relativity and quantum mechanics. Today, these contradictions
are explained by the unified field theory, but Einstein, who proves
himself to be one of the least intelligent of 20th century scientists,
refused to believe in either quantum theory or the unified field
theory.
To name Einstein as "The Person of the Century" is one of the most
ludicrous and absurd lies of all time, yet it has been successfully
pulled off by Isaacson, Golden, Stein, Rudenstine, and Rosenblatt and
the Jewish owners of Time magazine. If the Jews at Time wanted to give
the title to an inventor or scientist, then the most obvious choice
would have been men like Hilbert, Planck, or Heisenberg. If they wanted
to give it to the scientist who most fundamentally changed the
landscape of 20th century science, then the obvious choice would be
William Shockley. This Nobel prize winning scientist invented the
transistor, which is the basis of all modern electronic devices and
computers, everything from modern cars and telephones, VCRs and
watches, to the amazing computers which have allowed incomprehensible
advances in all fields of science. Without the transistor, all forms of
science today would be basically in the same place that they were in
the late 1940s.
However, the Jews cannot allow the due credit to go to William Shockley
because he spent the majority of his scientific career demonstrating
the genetic and mental inferiority of non-whites and arguing for their
sterilization. His scientific, genetic views led the Jews to
financially destroy Shockley who founded the first company in the
Silicon Valley, his hometown, to develop computer chips. The Jews hired
away his entire staff and used them to start Fairchild semiconductor,
the company that today is known as Intel.
No the Jews could not let any of the truly great geniuses of our time
be recognized, not the anti-Semite Henry Ford, not the great German
scientists who helped the National Socialists in Germany, not Charles
Lindbergh, who was sympathetic to National Socialist causes, and
certainly not William Shockley, one of the most brilliant physicists
and geneticists of our time. Instead, the Jews propped up the Zionist,
Communist Albert Einstein who hated everything white.
After World War II, Einstein demonstrated his hatred of the White Race
and of the Germans in particular in the following statements. He was
asked what he thought about Germany and about re-educating the Germans
after the war and said,
"The nation has been on the decline mentally and morally since
1870...Behind the Nazi party stands the German people, who elected
Hitler after he had in his book and in his speeches made his shameful
intentions clear beyond the possibility of misunderstanding. ... The
Germans can be killed or constrained after the war, but they cannot be
re-educated to a democratic way of thinking and acting..."
Einstein here is advocating the murder of Germans, because he feels
that this is the only way that they can be kept in check. He is right
about one thing, the Germans did knowingly support the cause of
National Socialism, but what Einstein is attacking is Christianity,
because it was Christianity that led the German people to
overwhelmingly support National Socialism. It was the German Christian
Faith Movement and the Christian Social Party of men like Karl Lueger
that led the German people to their understanding of Jews. The Jew
Daniel Goldhagen has recently shown the Christian basis of National
Socialism in his book, Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans
and the Holocaust, and the book Why The Jews? by Prager and Telushkin
similarly proves the Christian origins of what the Jews call
'anti-Semitism.' Einstein understood this and Einstein, like all Jews,
hated Christianity. So what Einstein was really advocating was the
killing and constraining of all true Christians, not just German
Christians. This is the true purpose and intent of Zionism and the
demagogue Einstein was merely a tool of World Zionism and Jewry towards
this end.
Zionistic Jews understand that true, primitive Christianity is the
mortal enemy of mongrel Judaism. This is why the Jews, like Einstein,
hated Nazi Germany so much, for National Socialist Germany advocated
primitive, positive Christianity in the 24th point of its Party
Platform.
The Enlightenment
> jay_st...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Durak Stukach wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > The europeans and africans are close relatives. Most of the
> > differences are
> > > environmental.
> > >
> > Funny. I tried to get my redtick hound to herd sheep but no luck.
> Must
> > have been the environment.
>
> There are people of African ancestry who are engineers, scientists,
> historians, etc.
They are rare. There are probably more Africans in jail than at
university in the UK.
There are Africans, then, who can lay claim to a
> personal contribution to "our civilization".
What claim to fame? Fucking up other peoples music with derivatives?
How about these contributions:
1 UK and USA 'origin' Blacks have 13 times the HIV rate and 20 times
the STD rate.
2 Blacks in the UK and USA have 8-15 times the crime rate. This is
not securities fraud: these are violent crimes and Whites are normally
the victims.
<http://www.amren.com/color.pdf> Its similar in the UK:
<http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/s95race00.pdf>
Here's a breakdown of the prison population by race and religion as at
1999,
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/chap6tabs.xls
Whereas at the 2001 census the breakdown of the general population was,
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=764&Pos=1&ColRank=1&Ra...
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D6891.xls
Using the underlying figures gives prisoners per 10,000 of population
for each group as follows,
White 10
Black 69
3 Whinging, whineing, playing the victim and ongoingly cultivating
resentments against Whites inorder to blame us for their failure and
parastically extract priveledges such as affirmitive action.
4 Welfare dependency, single motherhood etc.
5 The murder rate in Sth Africa has increased 5-8 times in the 10 years
since the end of Aparthite and is still that high. The ANC response?
Suppress the data.
If Blacks ever stand on their own feet and give up whinging maybe some
of them will earn my respect.
Any country subjected to black immigration or a black populations has a
high crime by a factor of 8-12 (UK, USA, Brazil, Sth Africa, Jamaica
and anywhere else), High HIV/STD (Africa, UKA, USA, Brazil). and
considerably costs associated with the incompetence, welfare
dependency, racial problems, and Black racial priveledges.
> If you're not similarly skilled, and have personally contributed
less,
> I take it that- to be consistent- you admit to an innate inferiority
> unrelated to opportunities ("environment")?
Herrenstein and Murray showed in "The Bell Curve" that for the same IQ
Blacks get paid considerably more than Whites. That's affirmitive
action and Black priveledge for you.
It was also obvious from the Herrenstein and Murray data that for the
same IQ, if it is low blacks are twice as likely to commit crime.
If you are born with low IQ then get born Black not White becuase
Black Priveledge will protect you and provide considerably more income
for you.
>
> And then, since improvement can come only genetically in your view,
> perhaps we should introduce (match-making) your sons and daughters to
> engineers, etc. of African ancestry so that their children might
> improve from your sorry genetic contribution?
Hopeless ad hominem
entp...@yahoo.com
The Enlightenment wrote:
[...]
Here is a list of about 100 science nobelists, partly
or totally of Jewish origin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_Prize_winners
Are they, too, mostly frauds and plagiarists in your opinion?
Even if a half of these people were really not Jews and/or
not deserving of their prize, which you might have a hard time
proving, wouldn't that be quite impressive of such a small
minority group? How many Swedes, for example, are there among
science nobelists?
Alaca
1115243162....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com,
> [...]
> How many Swedes, for example, are there among
> science nobelists?
One, in the category zoöphylia.
--
P.A.
hulk_arnol...@yahoo.com
> 3 Whinging, whineing, playing the victim and ongoingly cultivating
> resentments
LOL! I agree that this is your modus operandi. It's pretty much all we
get from Jay.
Pity-us-white-folks-'cause-we're-being-dominated-by-those-inferior-folks.
Now, placing an undeserved claim on the accomplishments of people who
share your skin color aside, what have you done personally to earn the
adoration you so want others to feel for you? Prove the superiority
that you proclaim while gazing adoringly in the mirror, Mighty Aryan
Godling, with a telling of your personal accomplishments.
As for your statistical approach to the question, it relies wholly on
false premises, starting with the concept of race-as-character itself
but really faltering on any number of premises, among which one might
profitably consider questions of statistical approaches on gender
lines, vastly differing levels of criminality and violence among
particular genetic groupings throughout history and in differing areas
or cultural milieus. For instance, if Genetic Cluster A has a 5% rate
of imprisonment, and GCB has a 1%, how apt is this in describing the
criminal nature of the majority of those in either cluster, and what
other factors might come into play, particularly if these values can be
shown to vary significantly within the same genetic clusters from place
to place and historically, and in a society which has actively
oppressed GCA? If Genetic Cluster A can be demonstrated to have had
less impact in scientific fields than GCB, but that this is rapidly
changing now that GCA is no longer legally, linguistically,
educationally, or geographically excluded from scientific currents, and
that similar subgroups of GCB who are so isolated and excluded show a
similar and predictable lack of impact, isn't the assumption that GBA
is incapable of contributing disproven? Above all, "race" as a loosely
and variably defined genetic cluster is a very sloppy and unscientific
tool to define individual character and capability, as even the
percentages of this and that upon which you rely plainly demonstrate.
Worst, you didn't even get the joke.
Eric
I.E_Johansson
"Alaca" <P.A...@as.fake> skrev i meddelandet
news:42795c27$0$45148$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
Not entirely correct.
[Obs Kemi= Chemistry, Fysik=Physics, Fysiologi eller medicin = physiology or
medicine.]
"Kemi
1903 - Svante Arrhenius, teorin om den elektrolytiska dissociationen
1926 - The Svedberg, kolloid-kemiska undersökningar
1929 - Hans von Euler-Chelpin, enzymer verksamma vid jäsning av sockerarter
1948 - Arne Tiselius, undersökning av proteiner med elektrofores
Fysik
1912 - Gustaf Dalén, uppfinningar
1924 - Manne Siegbahn, röntgenspektrografi
1970 - Hannes Alfvén, magnetohydrodynamiska vågorna (Alfvénvågorna)
1981 - Kai Siegbahn, upptäckter inom kärnfysik
Fysiologi eller medicin
1911 - Allvar Gullstrand, synforskning
1955 - Hugo Theorell, för rön angående oxiderande enzymer
1967 - Ragnar Granit, näthinnans mekanismer vid färgseende
1970 - Ulf von Euler-Chelpin, upptäckten av noradrenalin
1981 - Torsten Wiesel, forskningsrön om hjärnans syncentrum
1982 - Sune Bergström, Bengt Samuelsson, prostaglandiner
2000 - Arvid Carlsson, signalöverföring i nervsystemet"
http://www.all2know.com/sv/wikipedia/l/li/lista_oever_svenska_nobelpristagar
e.html
Inger E
Alaca
> "Alaca" skrev...
>> entp...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> How many Swedes, for example, are there among
>>> science nobelists?
>>
>> One, in the category zoöphylia.
>
> Not entirely correct.
Inger, thanks for the corrections.
He was of course not Swedish, but Russian
and it was not called zoöphylia.
Ivan Petrovich Pavlov (Physiology 1904)
/On how animals can be trained to respond/
/in a certain way to a particular stimulus/
I am sure that was a very physical kind of research.
http://nobelprize.org/medicine/educational/pavlov/readmore.html
--
P.A.
I.E_Johansson
"Alaca" <P.A...@as.fake> skrev i meddelandet
Peter,
one thing I always been wondering about is why some almost are predistinated
to have the prize, but others aren't. Of course everyone who had the prize
is worth it. That's not my point. I might be wrong but I sometimes have had
the feeling that at least in the far past it's been more politic involved in
who's choosen and who aren't. But once again, I don't think that anyone of
the scientific Nobel Prize winners didn't earn the Prize. Only that some who
should have had it never got it.
Inger E
>
>
J. Anderson
"I.E_Johansson" <I.joh...@telia.com> wrote in message
news:R2Iee.23428$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net...
> I might be wrong but I sometimes have had
> the feeling that at least in the far past it's been more politic involved
in
> who's choosen and who aren't. But once again, I don't think that anyone of
> the scientific Nobel Prize winners didn't earn the Prize. Only that some
who
> should have had it never got it.
I'm sure there is much more politics involved in the Peace and Literature
Awards. At some of the decisions by Stortinget or Svenska Akademin you can
only shake your head.
It's obvious that Norway's NATO membership was reflected in Stortinget's
choice of laureates during the Cold War, and I can understand that, but it's
very hard to find any logic or constancy in the prize policy of 'The
Eighteen' -- except perhaps a childish fancy to surprise.
John
Andrew
The Enlightenment wrote:
> entp4...@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip>
My apologies for the top-post. I felt, in fairness, that I should
provide you with the opportunity to retract the article below before I
hack it into very tiny pieces.
--Drew
The Enlightenment
degrades our countries. There is no effective way of seperating out
the criminal or stupid individuals. They simply thrown up STDs,HIV,
crime and welfare dependency at 10-20 the white rate and then insist on
endless compensation. Why would ypou let that into your country unless
you are insane?
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
True.
We need more Chinese immigrants to raise the IQ of the population, since it is
higher than either Blacks or Whites.
CrustyTheClown
> The Enlightenment wrote:
>
>> The presence of an endless stream of blacks not only overpopulates but
>> degrades our countries. There is no effective way of seperating out
>> the criminal or stupid individuals. They simply thrown up STDs,HIV,
>> crime and welfare dependency at 10-20 the white rate and then insist on
>> endless compensation. Why would ypou let that into your country unless
>> you are insane?
>
> True.
> We need more Chinese immigrants to raise the IQ of the population, since
> it is higher than either Blacks or Whites.
>
Chinese all have bad eyesight and bad teeth...but their teeth are not as bad
as the Brits.
Chinese are all lactose intolerant as well.
That's one hell of a compromise just for a couple IQ points.
You end up with a smart guy that can't see, has crooked teeth and is farting
all the time.
...not exactly a genetic masterpiece.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <di...@neopax.com> wrote in message
> news:3ec1enF...@individual.net...
>
>>The Enlightenment wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The presence of an endless stream of blacks not only overpopulates but
>>>degrades our countries. There is no effective way of seperating out
>>>the criminal or stupid individuals. They simply thrown up STDs,HIV,
>>>crime and welfare dependency at 10-20 the white rate and then insist on
>>>endless compensation. Why would ypou let that into your country unless
>>>you are insane?
>>
>>True.
>>We need more Chinese immigrants to raise the IQ of the population, since
>>it is higher than either Blacks or Whites.
>>
>
>
> Chinese all have bad eyesight and bad teeth...but their teeth are not as bad
> as the Brits.
Strangely, I think you'll find that all of this is due to healthcare provision
and not genetics.
> Chinese are all lactose intolerant as well.
Jesus H Christ - think of the dairy industry!
> That's one hell of a compromise just for a couple IQ points.
>
> You end up with a smart guy that can't see, has crooked teeth and is farting
> all the time.
>
> ...not exactly a genetic masterpiece.
Hardly.
If what is claimed about Blacks is true the only way to raise the IQ of
White(ish) societies is to import people superior to Whites in IQ. Or
alternatively deport/exterminate all Blacks and mixed race citizens. Now, let me
guess what your favourite option might be...
J. Anderson
> If what is claimed about Blacks is true the only way to raise the IQ of
> White(ish) societies is to import people superior to Whites in IQ. Or
> alternatively deport/exterminate all Blacks and mixed race citizens. Now,
let me
> guess what your favourite option might be...
What if we simply let Chinese and Blacks mix -- preferably in Asia or
Africa? The result would be an equal distribution of intelligence all over
the globe, and there would no longer be any breeding-ground for racist
rubbish. Or am I being racist now?
Tomi A
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/FLYNNEFF.html
"... an average increase of over three IQ points per decade, was found for
virtually every type of intelligence test, delivered to virtually every
type of group."
Thus, 150 years ago the average intelligence of an European was somewhere
around 50 IQ points. Unfortunately those very, very stupid people were our
ancestors! Why didn't anybody get rid of them?
J. Anderson
"Tomi A" <Your....@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns965391BDC2...@192.89.123.233...
>
> http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/FLYNNEFF.html
>
> "... an average increase of over three IQ points per decade, was found for
> virtually every type of intelligence test, delivered to virtually every
> type of group."
>
> Thus, 150 years ago the average intelligence of an European was somewhere
> around 50 IQ points. Unfortunately those very, very stupid people were our
> ancestors! Why didn't anybody get rid of them?
Could it be done retroactively?
robert bowman
>
> "... an average increase of over three IQ points per decade, was found for
> virtually every type of intelligence test, delivered to virtually every
> type of group."
When I was a child, the average IQ was 100, which made sense considering the
formula MentalAge / PhysicalAge, where it is now 115 in the US. In the
'50s, 115 was considered quite bright. Why don't I see the effects of this
stunning increase of intelligence as I look around me? Being able to pilot
a SUV while talking on a mobile phone without killing too many bicyclists
is hardly the mark of an advanced society.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> Tomi A wrote:
>
>
>>"... an average increase of over three IQ points per decade, was found for
>>virtually every type of intelligence test, delivered to virtually every
>>type of group."
>
>
> When I was a child, the average IQ was 100, which made sense considering the
> formula MentalAge / PhysicalAge, where it is now 115 in the US. In the
> '50s, 115 was considered quite bright. Why don't I see the effects of this
> stunning increase of intelligence as I look around me? Being able to pilot
> a SUV while talking on a mobile phone without killing too many bicyclists
> is hardly the mark of an advanced society.
You do see it around you.
We are living in an age of incredible technical achievements, and the pace of
innovation is accelerating.
CrustyTheClown
I have an extremely high IQ so my favorite option is to clone myself and
export while making a handsome profit.
robert bowman
>
> You do see it around you.
> We are living in an age of incredible technical achievements, and the pace
> of innovation is accelerating.
We'll have to disagree on that. Technology is fun and has provided me with a
living, but at the end of the day it don't mean nothing.
The Enlightenment
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
>
> > The presence of an endless stream of blacks not only overpopulates
but
> > degrades our countries. There is no effective way of seperating
out
HIV,
> > crime and welfare dependency at 10-20 the white rate and then
insist on
> > endless compensation. Why would ypou let that into your country
unless
> > you are insane?
>
> True.
> We need more Chinese immigrants to raise the IQ of the population,
since it is
> higher than either Blacks or Whites.
>
Nonsense. If that is what you believe then you should start by
forgoing your right to have children or commit suicide so that one of
the 1 billion or so chinese can take your place or the place of your
children. There are likely to be millions that excede your IQ.
What is the purpose of Britian? Is it to be ceded to Chinese or
Africans to suit the abstract goals of ethno-socialists or real goals
ethnic groups? Or is it something that is there to nurture, provide
and protect our own children and their unique needs. Is it a home
where a British people can be be truely at home and not endless
accomodating to the needs of ethnic diversity.
Every immigrant reduces our abillity to afford to have our own
children. Every immigrant crowds this country more and increases costs
of housing, water, environmental management.
Britian doesn't need Blacks, nor does it need Chinese or any other type
of Asian.
Chinese have demonstrated NO reduction in crime rate in the UK. The
marginally measured higher IQ means that at least they do not burden us
with the extraodinary costs of black immigration: HIV/AIDS, Crime,
Welfare dependency, agression etc however they can minoritise us in our
own country just as easily however there is not place on earth where
there is a superior asian society.
Blacks, on average degrade the country, Chinese do not improve it.
The purpose of Britain is to provide British children, not the children
of Chinese immigrants. To do that Britain must be passed on to British
children.
The Enlightenment
that nature recognises.
The children on the land you live on now will be either your own and
that of your relatives or they will come from a distant lands in
China,Asia or Africa.
It doesn't matter whether you lost by invasion, or adopting self moral
values that devalue children lower than they value immigration or just
plain stupidity.
It is no suprise that the NuLabour ideology of ethno-socialism places
emphasis on moral values that promote immigration while it neglects or
disparages those that are required to form a stable relationship and
raise children.
The Enlightenment
stupidity;- unlike some others to obvious to mention.
The northern Chinese incidently are quite tall and quite assuradly
confident and racist; they occaisionally refer to their shorter,
uglier southern cousins as 'monkeys'.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
So, we are both Transhumanists...
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
>
>
>>You do see it around you.
>>We are living in an age of incredible technical achievements, and the pace
>>of innovation is accelerating.
>
>
> We'll have to disagree on that. Technology is fun and has provided me with a
> living, but at the end of the day it don't mean nothing.
Neither does anything but feeding and fucking, and you don't need much of an IQ
to do either.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
>
>>The Enlightenment wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The presence of an endless stream of blacks not only overpopulates
>
> but
>
>>>degrades our countries. There is no effective way of seperating
>
> out
>
>>>the criminal or stupid individuals. They simply throw up STDs,
>
> HIV,
>
>>>crime and welfare dependency at 10-20 the white rate and then
>
> insist on
>
>>>endless compensation. Why would ypou let that into your country
>
> unless
>
>>>you are insane?
>>
>>True.
>>We need more Chinese immigrants to raise the IQ of the population,
>
> since it is
>
>>higher than either Blacks or Whites.
>>
>
>
> Nonsense. If that is what you believe then you should start by
> forgoing your right to have children or commit suicide so that one of
> the 1 billion or so chinese can take your place or the place of your
> children. There are likely to be millions that excede your IQ.
Around 15m Chinese by my estimate.
> What is the purpose of Britian? Is it to be ceded to Chinese or
> Africans to suit the abstract goals of ethno-socialists or real goals
> ethnic groups? Or is it something that is there to nurture, provide
> and protect our own children and their unique needs. Is it a home
> where a British people can be be truely at home and not endless
> accomodating to the needs of ethnic diversity.
That's a question that is currently being answered by ongoing history, and I
don't think you like the answer being given.
> Every immigrant reduces our abillity to afford to have our own
> children. Every immigrant crowds this country more and increases costs
> of housing, water, environmental management.
I don't disagree.
> Britian doesn't need Blacks, nor does it need Chinese or any other type
> of Asian.
Too late.
> Chinese have demonstrated NO reduction in crime rate in the UK. The
You mean they have crime rates that are equal to those of Whites in Britain?
> marginally measured higher IQ means that at least they do not burden us
> with the extraodinary costs of black immigration: HIV/AIDS, Crime,
> Welfare dependency, agression etc however they can minoritise us in our
> own country just as easily however there is not place on earth where
> there is a superior asian society.
>
> Blacks, on average degrade the country, Chinese do not improve it.
>
> The purpose of Britain is to provide British children, not the children
> of Chinese immigrants. To do that Britain must be passed on to British
> children.
Every child born in Britain is British.
robert bowman
>
> Neither does anything but feeding and fucking, and you don't need much of
> an IQ to do either.
Indeed sufficient intelligence to forsee the commitment a child will require
hinders fruitful fucking.
J. Anderson
>
> Every child born in Britain is British.
If the parents are foreigners, the child will normally possess double
citizenship. My cousin's youngest two were born in London. At age 18 they
had to decide which citizenship they wanted to retain. They both chose their
Finnish one; the boy did so although he knew that he'd have to do 8 to 11
months compulsory miltary service in Finland.
Not everybody regards Britain as a paradise on earth.
John
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
I certainly don't.
One day I shall probably be moving North, either to Scotland or further to
Scandinavia.
J. Anderson
> One day I shall probably be moving North, either to Scotland or further to
> Scandinavia.
Welcome to the wilderness!
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
As some of my regular readers might deduce, I don't like people esp when they
are crowded together.
The ideal population for England is around 10m.
robert bowman
> One day I shall probably be moving North, either to Scotland or further to
> Scandinavia.
Soctland is paradise? From what i glean from contemporary Scottish
literature it is a cold, damp version of LA.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
>
>
>>One day I shall probably be moving North, either to Scotland or further to
>>Scandinavia.
>
>
> Soctland is paradise? From what i glean from contemporary Scottish
> literature it is a cold, damp version of LA.
I don't like warm and sunny.
--
hulk_arnol...@yahoo.com
when they
> are crowded together.
> The ideal population for England is around 10m.
The Mojave serves the purpose here of escaping crowds, though on the
edges it's filling up with LA commuters.
Eric
Captain!
> The ideal population for England is around 10m.
>
where do the brits get all of their fresh water? do they need to import?
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
It rains here.
James A. Doemer
Duh! Contrary to popular belief, it does rain in England... Just a little!
Hahahaha!
James A. Doemer
"Captain!" <Spammer...@now.net> wrote in message
news:LXsie.56967$0X6.5945@edtnps90...
>
> "James A. Doemer" <ckdb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:wx9ie.2142$Lc1....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
water
> that collects in reservoirs and local aquifiers.
And you have shown that England has done this when exactly?
>
> the poster was stating his opinion that the british isles were
overpoulated.
> one of the surest signs that a place is indeed overpopulated is water
> shortage.
>
> http://english.people.com.cn/200309/23/eng20030923_124713.shtml
>
> here is an excerpt:
>
> "Both China and the UK face a water shortage problem. China's per capita
> water volume only reaches 2,200 cubic meters, about one-fourth of the
world
> average, while the UK is classed as the fourthmost water-stressed country
in
> Europe. In southeast England, the amount of water available proportionate
to
> the population is the same as in Africa's drought-ridden Sudan."
>
> so maybe it wasn't such a dumb question eh moron?
No, it was still pretty damned stupid. The question wasn't how England made
up for whatever shortage they might have, it was how England got all of
their fresh water. So the question was still pretty asinine. Maybe they
sell Aquafina at the stores.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> "James A. Doemer" <ckdb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:wx9ie.2142$Lc1....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> there reaches a point in time where a population exceeds the supply of water
> that collects in reservoirs and local aquifiers.
>
> the poster was stating his opinion that the british isles were overpoulated.
> one of the surest signs that a place is indeed overpopulated is water
> shortage.
>
> http://english.people.com.cn/200309/23/eng20030923_124713.shtml
>
> here is an excerpt:
>
> "Both China and the UK face a water shortage problem. China's per capita
> water volume only reaches 2,200 cubic meters, about one-fourth of the world
> average, while the UK is classed as the fourthmost water-stressed country in
> Europe. In southeast England, the amount of water available proportionate to
> the population is the same as in Africa's drought-ridden Sudan."
>
> so maybe it wasn't such a dumb question eh moron?
'Proportionate to the population'. IIRC around 30m people live in the South East
and it is very overcrowded. However, nobody is going thisty and there are no
agricultural water shortages. Most agriculture is located where people aren't.
Captain!
"James A. Doemer" <ckdb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:wx9ie.2142$Lc1....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
there reaches a point in time where a population exceeds the supply of water
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
>
>>Captain! wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <di...@neopax.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3erkp9F...@individual.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>The ideal population for England is around 10m.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>where do the brits get all of their fresh water? do they need to import?
>>
>>It rains here.
>>
>
>
> and where do they get most of their food?
> oh wait... you have dirt there.
Supermarkets.
For example, I'm just off to Tesco to score some Coke.
Captain!
> Captain! wrote:
>
>> "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <di...@neopax.com> wrote in message
>> news:3erkp9F...@individual.net...
>>
>>>The ideal population for England is around 10m.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> where do the brits get all of their fresh water? do they need to import?
>
> It rains here.
>
ahhh, i see.
Captain!
there were actually two questions, not one.
but i suspect that details aren't your forte.
So the question was still pretty asinine. Maybe they
> sell Aquafina at the stores.
>
ahhh... so they sell aquafina in the stores. i'm so glad to be talking to
such a knowledgable person.
Captain!
> Captain! wrote:
>> "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <di...@neopax.com> wrote in message
>> news:3eskd4F...@individual.net...
>>
>>>Captain! wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <di...@neopax.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:3erkp9F...@individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The ideal population for England is around 10m.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>where do the brits get all of their fresh water? do they need to import?
>>>
>>>It rains here.
>>>
>>
>>
>> ahhh, i see.
>> and where do they get most of their food?
>> oh wait... you have dirt there.
>
> Supermarkets.
> For example, I'm just off to Tesco to score some Coke.
>
> FFF
> Dirk
>
dirk, you seem like a decent guy so i don't mind if you think food comes
from supermarkets. :)
Philip Davidson
That revolting water in the Thames is freshwater.
For example the city of London has so much water
that they have to pump it out of the ground to stop it from rising
and causing flooding.
Many many years ago they used to say England
was blessed by God, he gave them so many natural resources
and no earthquakes, tornados, or extreme weather conditions.
He gave them gold, coal, tin, copper, and oil.
England is literally surrounded by water not just sea water
the "green grass of England" is not just a saying it really is
beautiful.
The inner cities can make you very depressed when you see
so many immigrants, but once you escape from the cities
you realise just how beautiful England is.
_____________________________
ID signature
Philip Davidson,
10 Ronald Avenue
West Ham
E15 3AH
East London
Phone: ( 020 ) 511 9341
Mobile phone 07906821566
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
If London, Birmingham, Manchester and a few smaller cities disappeared tomorrow
along with their inhabitants England would be a fantastic place to live.
Philip Davidson
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
I live in a Avenue the street was so narrow you could touch the
bushes in the gardens either side as you walked down the street
my neighbours would sit outside their houses and that was in the 80s.
And then come the politicians and the immigrants
and the promotion of black culture because we were all racist
and lived in a cosy society, a white spiteful close-knit community.
And politicians don't like cosy friendly communities because they are
the breeding ground for nasty racist people.
My road was widened they built properties for immigrants
and began teaching all the children about wonderful black attitudes
and told people they could not discipline children.
Neighbourhoods turned into shitholes guns were selling
for 60 pounds and white children lost respect for white people
and tormented old men and old grandmothers.
People stopped sitting outside and people stopped talking
they began to get their life experiences and information
about the outside world from the television and the
television told them how racist they were.
Inner cities and communities broke down
we all fight each other, and we all wonder
whether the other neighbour has a gun
and whether we should use one on them
before they use one on us.
Our country is still beautiful it's just the politicians are so ugly.
James A. Doemer
"Philip Davidson" <Philip2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1116468520.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Yeah, well Let's hope they filter that. :c)
> For example the city of London has so much water
> that they have to pump it out of the ground to stop it from rising
> and causing flooding.
>
> Many many years ago they used to say England
> was blessed by God, he gave them so many natural resources
> and no earthquakes, tornados, or extreme weather conditions.
> He gave them gold, coal, tin, copper, and oil.
>
> England is literally surrounded by water not just sea water
> the "green grass of England" is not just a saying it really is
> beautiful.
>
> The inner cities can make you very depressed when you see
> so many immigrants, but once you escape from the cities
> you realise just how beautiful England is.
>
I agree. I've been to England on numerous occasions, in fact outside the
cities, the whole of the U.K. is beautiful. I live in Michigan in the
U.S., and it's the same here. Once you escape from the urban areas,
especially Detroit, it's beautiful.