THE FREEDOM QUIZ
SAND...@webtv.net
Topaz
>
>THE FREEDOM QUIZ
>
The meaning of "right" and "left" has changed. I stay with the
original meaning for the same reason I refuse to call homosexual
perverts "gay". The word "gay" was originally a good thing.
The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals to
corrupt the culture of the nation.
Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
harm none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize homosexual
perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.
The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only
about individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make
the nation better. There are beaches where normal families will not go
because homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach.
This is example of the freedom liberals want They are like children
who only care about their individual selves and are oblivious to what
should be done to make the nation great. Their philosophy, taken to
its logical conclusion, would not allow the law that drivers have to
stop at the red lights. Their philosophy would allow heroin to be sold
on grocery store shelves and allow ads promoting heroin on TV. Their
philosophy would result in chaos and degeneracy.
Libertarians are liberals who want freedom for the Ebenezer
Scrooges to be as greedy as they want. They have the same philosophy
as other leftist who want to legalize heroin and prostitution, namely
that the state can't tell them what they can't do. People don't like
laws stopping them from doing things, and we should sympathize with
that, but sometimes that is not the most important thing. Capitalists
want freedom for greed, other liberals want freedom for degeneracy,
but good laws would make a nation good.
The Communist were leftist and they said they were fighting for
freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and
the anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The
Communists were for having government but only temporarily. They said
that their government was necessary only until the whole world was
Communist. After the world was Communist they wanted to dissolve the
government and have an anarchy.
The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about the
present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future like in
Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not
interested and insist that nothing could be more important than the
freedom of individuals to be as decadent as they want. They are like
the children in the old black and white movie "Lord of the Flies".
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:05:39 -0400, SAND...@webtv.net wrote:
>
>
>>THE FREEDOM QUIZ
>>
> The meaning of "right" and "left" has changed. I stay with the
> original meaning for the same reason I refuse to call homosexual perverts
> "gay". The word "gay" was originally a good thing.
What is a "homosexual pervert"? A guy who screws male goats?
---------snip-----------
-- Regards, Curly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com http://curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
michael price
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:05:39 -0400, SAND...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >
> >THE FREEDOM QUIZ
> >
> The meaning of "right" and "left" has changed. I stay with the
> original meaning for the same reason I refuse to call homosexual
> perverts "gay". The word "gay" was originally a good thing.
>
> The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
> prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things.
Then you should be able to say why they are bad, you cannot regardless
of how many times I ask you.
> It puts the good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of
> individuals to corrupt the culture of the nation.
What the hell does it mean to "corrupt the culture of the nation"?
How do you know what is corruption and what is reform? What is "the
good of the nation"? What if what I think is the good of the nation
you think is corruption?
>
> Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
> harm none, do what will you will.
Sorry that's never been a leftist belief, in fact it's rejection is
central to leftism.
> his sounds nice, but like the apple
> that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
> Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize homosexual
> perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.
>
And that is bad, how?
> The right is for building a great nation.
And why is that good? What is good for anyone in being in a "great
nation"?
> Leftists care only about individual freedom
Marx cared only about individual freedom? Pol Pot? Get a clue you
Nazi moron.
> and are opposed to any laws that would make
> the nation better. There are beaches where normal families will not go
> because homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach.
And if the "normal families" don't own the beach they should just
quit complaining.
> This is example of the freedom liberals want They are like children
> who only care about their individual selves and are oblivious to what
> should be done to make the nation great.
Non sequitur, there are things other than the self and the nation.
> Their philosophy, taken to
> its logical conclusion, would not allow the law that drivers have to
> stop at the red lights.
This is untrue as I have told you before, the owner of the road
decides on the road rules.
> Their philosophy would allow heroin to be sold
> on grocery store shelves and allow ads promoting heroin on TV.
And when this happened there was less drug addiction and less
drug related crime.
> Their philosophy would result in chaos and degeneracy.
>
Assertion without evidence. In fact your philosophy actually
produced those results didn't it?
> Libertarians are liberals who want freedom for the Ebenezer
> Scrooges to be as greedy as they want.
And that freedom is essential. The right to what emotions you feel
appropriate is a basic human right - outside of a George Orwell novel.
> They have the same philosophy
> as other leftist who want to legalize heroin and prostitution, namely
> that the state can't tell them what they can't do.
Except for rules like no force or fraud, which the state is supposed
to guarantee (but never does).
> People don't like
> laws stopping them from doing things, and we should sympathize with
> that, but sometimes that is not the most important thing. Capitalists
> want freedom for greed, other liberals want freedom for degeneracy,
> but good laws would make a nation good.
>
And why do you think that telling people what to do would achieve that?
> The Communist were leftist and they said they were fighting for
> freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and
> the anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The
> Communists were for having government but only temporarily.
Sure they were.
> They said that their government was necessary only until the whole
> world was Communist.
And you are the only person stupid enough to believe them.
> After the world was Communist they wanted to dissolve the
> government and have an anarchy.
>
Sure they did.
>
> The right wing cares about the future.
The future of the State, not the future of actual people.
> Leftists only care about the
> present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future like in
> Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not
> interested and insist that nothing could be more important than the
> freedom of individuals to be as decadent as they want. They are like
> the children in the old black and white movie "Lord of the Flies".
More assertions you don't understand.
Topaz
wrote:
>
> Then you should be able to say why they are bad, you cannot regardless
>of how many times I ask you.
Homosexual perversion is like modern art, very ugly. Maybe we
can't prove it to the other side if they can't see that. But they want
their ideas taught in the schools and their ideas to win in country.
We should stop them from making this a ugly, sickening, nauseating,
country.
>
> What the hell does it mean to "corrupt the culture of the nation"?
Homosexual pervertsion, feminism, race-mixing.
>How do you know what is corruption and what is reform? What is "the
>good of the nation"? What if what I think is the good of the nation
>you think is corruption?
Portugal was once a great nation. It might have been the greatest
nation on earth at one time. But now it is almost like a third world
country. What happened? Race-mixing is what happened. They let a lot
of Black people in and of course the result was racial inter-marriage.
Now the Portuguese people are not as White as they were. We need to
preserve the White race. Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"All that we admire in the world to-day, its science, its art, its
technical developements and discoveries, are the products of the
creative activities of a few peoples, and it may be true that their
first beginnings must be attributed to one race. The maintenance of
civilization is wholly dependant on such peoples. Should they perish,
all that makes this earth beautiful will descend with them into the
grave."
"All the great civilizations of the past became decadent because the
originally creative race died out, as a result of the contamination on
the blood."
"Every manifestation of human culture, every product of art, science
and technical skill, which we see before our eyes to-day, is almost
exclusively the product of the Aryan creative power. This very fact
fully justifies the conclusion that it was the Aryan alone who founded
a superior type of humanity"
"The foundations of actual life in Japan to-day are not those of the
native Japanese culture., although this characterizes the exterenal
features of the country, which features strike the eye of European
observers on account of their fundamental difference from us; but the
real foundations of contemporary Japanese life are the enormous
scientific and technical achievements of Europe and America, that is
to say, of Aryan peoples."
"A people that fails to preserve the purity of its racial blood
thereby destroys the unity of the soul of the nation in all its
manifestations. A disintegrated national character is the inevitable
consequence of the process of disintegration in the blood. And the
change which takes place in the spiritual and creative faculties of a
people is only an effect of the change that had modified its racial
substance."
"For in a world which would be composed of mongrels and negroids all
ideals of human beauty and nobility and all hopes of an idealized
future for our humanity would be lost forever."
"It is especially the cultural creativeness which disappears when a
superior race inter-mixes with an inferior one."
"There may be hundreds of excellent States in this earth, and yet if
the Aryan, who is the creator and custodian of civilization, should
disappear, all culture that is on an adequate level with the spiritual
needs of the superior nations to-day would also disappear."
"We National Socialists know that in holding these views we take up a
revolutionary stand in the world to-day and that we are branded as
revolutionaries. But our views and our conduct will not be determined
by the approbation or disapprobation of our contemporaries, but only
by our duty to follow a truth which we have acknowledged. In doing
this we have reason to believe that posterity will have a clearer
insight"
"Thus for the first time a high inner purpose is accredited to the
State. In face of the ridiculous phrase that the State should do no
more than act as the guardian of public order and tranquillity, so
that everybody can peacefully dupe everybody else, it is given a very
high mission indeed to preserve and encourage the highest type of
humanity which a beneficent Creator has bestowed on this earth."
>>
>> Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
>> harm none, do what will you will.
>
> Sorry that's never been a leftist belief, in fact it's rejection is
>central to leftism.
lib·er·al·ism n.
1. The state or quality of being liberal.
2.
a A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and
the
autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties,
government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection
from
arbitrary authority.
b The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
3. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and
the
gold standard.
lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or
authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and
tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
>
>> his sounds nice, but like the apple
>> that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
>> Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize homosexual
>> perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.
>>
> And that is bad, how?
Homosexual perversion is like modern art, very ugly. Maybe we
can't prove it to the other side if they can't see that. But they want
their ideas taught in the schools and their ideas to win in country.
We should stop them from making this a ugly, sickening, nauseating,
country.
> And why is that good? What is good for anyone in being in a "great
>nation"?
It is disgusting to live in a liberal country like the USA. We
should live in a great nation.
NEA, Gay Militants: Joined At The Hip
Lee Duigon
If a private citizen tells his neighbor's children that they ought to
try
gay sex, he might wind up in a correctional facility. If he talks that
way
to your 13-year-old son, you'll want him put away--pronto.
But when this very same behavior, toward the same children, is
displayed by
adults who belong to America's biggest teachers' union, most parents
simply
let them do it. In fact, they pay them to.
The NEA is committed to the cause of militant homosexuality. It's the
richest, most politically powerful union in America, and it has daily
access
to most of America's children. And it wants to recruit them for the
homosexual lifestyle.
Lean this equation, America:
Public schools=The homosexual agenda
If you don't believe it, visit nea-glc.org/, the website of the
National
Education Association's Gay and Lesbian Coalition. There, among their
"great
achievements" in shaping NEA policy, the homosexual militants cite the
NEA's
promotion of "the lesbian-gay-bisexual curriculum" and "family life
education... regarding the diversity of sexual orientation."
The NEA has also campaigned for the proclamation of
"Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transsexual History Month" (try putting that on
a
T-shirt), homosexual studies at Catholic colleges--and, of course,
homosexual "marriage."
The people of Massachusetts know the teachers' union's commitment to
"gay
marriage." Aline Isaacson of GLSEN (Gay-Lesbian-Straight Education
Network),
the media's favorite poster gal for "gay marriage", is
also--surprise!--a
paid consultant to the Massachusetts teachers' union. Paid in taxpayer
dollars, to boot. (You may remember Massachusetts GLSEN from a few
years ago
as the organizers of graphic, intensely perverted sex "workshops" for
public
school children--a scandal that came to be known as "fist-gate.")
Ms. Isaacson, according to the grass-roots Article 8 Alliance, these
days
makes it a full-time job lobbying state legislators to keep them from
jumping ship on "gay marriage" and voting for the Bill of Address
which
would remove the outlaw Supreme Judicial Court judges who imposed this
oxymoron on the people of Massachusetts. Supported by taxpayers'
money, she
makes daily, face-to-face visits to individual lawmakers. Nice work if
you
can get it.
Too bad you couldn't make it to the gym teachers' state convention in
New
Jersey, in February. It wasn't about volleyball. For public school gym
teachers, Job One--according to the convention's floor displays,
handouts,
posters, and workshop topics (all of which I saw personally)--is
getting the
kids comfy with homosexuality. To this end, they handed out a
"resource
guide"--handsomely produced, slick, paid for largely by Fleet Bank
Inc.--intended for distribution in all the public schools. (For more
information, see my article, "Now It's the Gym Teachers," in the
February
archive of the Chalcedon website, chalcedon.edu.)
You would have seen even more of the same at "Twenty Years of Great
Sex
(Ed)" last year, a national conference of "sex educators" hosted by
Rutgers,
New Jersey's taxpayer-funded state university. Again, there was no
effort to
hide the educators' whole-hearted penchant for homosexuality...
michael price
> On 25 Sep 2004 06:45:50 -0700, nini...@yahoo.com (michael price)
> wrote:
>> > Then you should be able to say why they are bad, you cannot regardless
> >of how many times I ask you.
>
> Homosexual perversion is like modern art, very ugly.
That doesn't make it bad, even if it's true, and it's not. "Ugly"
is a subjective judgement and therefore cannot be "true". Even if
it is true that doesn't mean the government could prevent the ugliness
or even diminish it.
> Maybe we can't prove it to the other side if they can't see that.
> But they want their ideas taught in the schools and their ideas to
> win in country.
So don't attend those schools.
> We should stop them from making this a ugly, sickening, nauseating,
> country.
>
You haven't shown what is ugly, sickening etc. about what "they"
want this country to become. Nor have you shown that government
action could prevent it.
>
> >
> > What the hell does it mean to "corrupt the culture of the nation"?
>
> Homosexual pervertsion, feminism, race-mixing.
>
Homosexual pervesion as you put it has never appealed to the majority
of the population so I don't see how it can corrupt "the nation",
feminism is so abused a term that I refuse to discuss it without a
definition and as for race-mixing, what's wrong with it? It's
natural, fun and let's you meet new people.
>
> >How do you know what is corruption and what is reform? What is "the
> >good of the nation"? What if what I think is the good of the nation
> >you think is corruption?
>
> Portugal was once a great nation.
How do you know? What made it "great"?
> It might have been the greatest
> nation on earth at one time. But now it is almost like a third world
> country. What happened? Race-mixing is what happened.
So it wasn't being conquered by a corrupt Spanish court or losing
wars to England? Sure it wasn't.
> They let a lot of Black people in and of course the result was racial
> inter-marriage. Now the Portuguese people are not as White as they
> were.
And how is that bad?
> We need to preserve the White race.
Why?
> Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
>
> "All that we admire in the world to-day, its science, its art, its
> technical developements and discoveries, are the products of the
> creative activities of a few peoples, and it may be true that their
> first beginnings must be attributed to one race.
It's not true though, as even a basic understanding of science would
tell you.
> The maintenance of
> civilization is wholly dependant on such peoples. Should they perish,
> all that makes this earth beautiful will descend with them into the
> grave."
And why would "race-mixing" cause that to happen? Blank out!
> "All the great civilizations of the past became decadent because the
> originally creative race died out, as a result of the contamination on
> the blood."
Then how did England or German, both multiply racially "contaminated"
at the time of the greatest strength, build an empire? Or France or
Spain or any other empire since Rome.
> "Every manifestation of human culture, every product of art, science
> and technical skill, which we see before our eyes to-day, is almost
> exclusively the product of the Aryan creative power.
Really? I had not idea the people of the Indian subcontinent and Persia
were so creative.
> This very fact fully justifies the conclusion that it was the Aryan
> alone who founded a superior type of humanity"
No it doesn't. You are engaging in the "post hoc, promptier hoc"
fallacy. Just because ever person who truly understands economics
might come from Austria comes mean that Austrians are inherently
better at understanding economics, as Hitler's example proves.
> "The foundations of actual life in Japan to-day are not those of the
> native Japanese culture., although this characterizes the exterenal
> features of the country, which features strike the eye of European
> observers on account of their fundamental difference from us; but the
> real foundations of contemporary Japanese life are the enormous
> scientific and technical achievements of Europe and America, that is
> to say, of Aryan peoples."
Actually the Japanese mostly copied from the Chinese until quite late,
as the Europeans copied from the Arabs (e.g. Chemistry, optics, medicine,
mathematics).
<snip more Nazi shit>
> >>
> >> Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
> >> harm none, do what will you will.
> >
> > Sorry that's never been a leftist belief, in fact it's rejection is
> >central to leftism.
>
> lib·er·al·ism n.
> 1. The state or quality of being liberal.
>
> 2.
> a A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and
> the
> autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties,
> government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection
> from
> arbitrary authority.
> b The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
>
> 3. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and
> the
> gold standard.
>
> lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
> adj.
>
> 1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or
> authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
> 2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and
> tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Note that the word "leftist" is not mentioned despite the fact that
you are trying to claim it means something. God you're an idiot, you
post dictionary definitions to back up your definition of a different
word!
> >
> >> his sounds nice, but like the apple
> >> that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
> >> Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize homosexual
> >> perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.
> >>
> > And that is bad, how?
<snip repeat of what you said before as it is still stupid and invalid>
> > And why is that good? What is good for anyone in being in a "great
> >nation"?
>
> It is disgusting to live in a liberal country like the USA. We
> should live in a great nation.
So you claim but why? What advantages would accrue to me if I lived
in a "great" country? What advantages would accrue to anybody? What
disadvantages would be avoided?
>
> NEA, Gay Militants: Joined At The Hip
> Lee Duigon
>
> If a private citizen tells his neighbor's children that they ought to
> try gay sex, he might wind up in a correctional facility. If he talks
> that way to your 13-year-old son, you'll want him put away--pronto.
So because they recommend behaviour you don't like they should be
jailed. Well you recommend behaviour that I don't like. Stand in
the centre of the room with your hands in the air and do not resist
the officers.
>
> But when this very same behavior, toward the same children, is
> displayed by adults who belong to America's biggest teachers'
> union, most parents simply let them do it. In fact, they pay them to.
>
> The NEA is committed to the cause of militant homosexuality. It's the
> richest, most politically powerful union in America, and it has daily
> access to most of America's children. And it wants to recruit them for
> the homosexual lifestyle.
And how is that bad? Ignoring the fact that few are likely to be
"recruited" to the lifestyle unless they were already gay (after all
would it appeal to you?) what is bad about more people being gay.
>
> Lean this equation, America:
>
> Public schools=The homosexual agenda
>
> If you don't believe it, visit nea-glc.org/, the website of the
> National Education Association's Gay and Lesbian Coalition.
> There, among their "great achievements" in shaping NEA policy,
> the homosexual militants cite the NEA's promotion of "the
> lesbian-gay-bisexual curriculum" and "family life
> education... regarding the diversity of sexual orientation."
>
> The NEA has also campaigned for the proclamation of
> "Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transsexual History Month" (try putting that on
> a
> T-shirt), homosexual studies at Catholic colleges--and, of course,
> homosexual "marriage."
So Public School teachers are telling people it's OK to be gay, so
what? Are you really so insecure about your parenting skills you
think they'd believe them over you?
>
> The people of Massachusetts know the teachers' union's commitment to
> "gay marriage." Aline Isaacson of GLSEN (Gay-Lesbian-Straight Education
> Network), the media's favorite poster gal for "gay marriage", is
> also--surprise!--a paid consultant to the Massachusetts teachers'
> union. Paid in taxpayer dollars, to boot. (You may remember
> Massachusetts GLSEN from a few years ago as the organizers of graphic,
> intensely perverted sex "workshops" for public
> school children--a scandal that came to be known as "fist-gate.")
>
> Ms. Isaacson, according to the grass-roots Article 8 Alliance, these
> days makes it a full-time job lobbying state legislators to keep
> them from jumping ship on "gay marriage" and voting for the Bill of
> Address which would remove the outlaw Supreme Judicial Court judges who
> imposed this oxymoron on the people of Massachusetts.
Let me get this straight (no pun intended), they are outlaws because
they let gay people marry, but allowing detention without trial and
the violation of Habeus Corpus is OK? You have sick priorities.
> Supported by taxpayers' money, she makes daily, face-to-face visits to individual lawmakers. Nice work if
> you
> can get it.
>
> Too bad you couldn't make it to the gym teachers' state convention in
> New
> Jersey, in February. It wasn't about volleyball. For public school gym
> teachers, Job One--according to the convention's floor displays,
> handouts,
> posters, and workshop topics (all of which I saw personally)--is
> getting the
> kids comfy with homosexuality. To this end, they handed out a
> "resource
> guide"--handsomely produced, slick, paid for largely by Fleet Bank
> Inc.--intended for distribution in all the public schools. (For more
> information, see my article, "Now It's the Gym Teachers," in the
> February
> archive of the Chalcedon website, chalcedon.edu.)
>
> You would have seen even more of the same at "Twenty Years of Great
> Sex
> (Ed)" last year, a national conference of "sex educators" hosted by
> Rutgers,
> New Jersey's taxpayer-funded state university. Again, there was no
> effort to
> hide the educators' whole-hearted penchant for homosexuality...
>
So basically your complaint is that public money is spent on propaganda
that you don't like. The problem is that the Nazi party spent a hell of
a lot of public money on propaganda that lots of people didn't like and
sent a lot of it to schoolchildren. So basically your complain is that
they do things you'd like to do.
Curly Surmudgeon
> On 25 Sep 2004 06:45:50 -0700, nini...@yahoo.com (michael price) wrote:
>
>
>
>> Then you should be able to say why they are bad, you cannot regardless
>>of how many times I ask you.
>
> Homosexual perversion is like modern art, very ugly. Maybe we
> can't prove it to the other side if they can't see that. But they want
> their ideas taught in the schools and their ideas to win in country. We
> should stop them from making this a ugly, sickening, nauseating, country.
Do you think everything objectionable to every person in America should be
outlawed and made illegal?
>> What the hell does it mean to "corrupt the culture of the nation"?
>
> Homosexual pervertsion, feminism, race-mixing.
Why not hetrosexual perversions, all-male clubs and of course we need to
draw and quarter all those brown-skinned people, right?
>>How do you know what is corruption and what is reform? What is "the good
>>of the nation"? What if what I think is the good of the nation you think
>>is corruption?
>
> Portugal was once a great nation. It might have been the greatest nation
> on earth at one time. But now it is almost like a third world country.
> What happened? Race-mixing is what happened. They let a lot of Black
> people in and of course the result was racial inter-marriage. Now the
> Portuguese people are not as White as they were. We need to preserve the
> White race. Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
A number of things happened, primarily that the world grew larger while
Portugal was set upon by its larger rivals, Britain and Spain. Big fish
eat smaller fish. Find another excuse to justify your racism, this didn't
work.
> "All that we admire in the world to-day, its science, its art, its
> technical developements and discoveries, are the products of the creative
> activities of a few peoples, and it may be true that their first
> beginnings must be attributed to one race. The maintenance of civilization
> is wholly dependant on such peoples. Should they perish, all that makes
> this earth beautiful will descend with them into the grave."
> "All the great civilizations of the past became decadent because the
> originally creative race died out, as a result of the contamination on the
> blood."
I take it then that your blood is "pure?" Most others are mixed to some
degree so how, exactly, does this make you better?
> "Every manifestation of human culture, every product of art, science and
> technical skill, which we see before our eyes to-day, is almost
> exclusively the product of the Aryan creative power. This very fact fully
> justifies the conclusion that it was the Aryan alone who founded a
> superior type of humanity"
Ha! Thank you for the bellylaugh. You are indeed a work of art, can I
hang you on my wall?
Ah, god and blood. Funny how those two issues revolve around each other.
Tell you what, next time God comes visiting bring him over so we can have
a serious discussion.
>>> Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
>>> harm none, do what will you will.
>>
>> Sorry that's never been a leftist belief, in fact it's rejection is
>>central to leftism.
>
> lib·er·al·ism n.
> 1. The state or quality of being liberal.
>
> 2.
> a A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and
> the
> autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties,
> government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from
> arbitrary authority.
> b The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
>
> 3. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the
> gold standard.
>
> lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl) adj.
>
> 1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or
> authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. 2. Favoring
> proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the
> ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Most of us knew that already, what's your point? Other than the top of
your head...
>>
>>> his sounds nice, but like the apple
>>> that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
>>> Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize homosexual
>>> perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.
>>>
>> And that is bad, how?
>
> Homosexual perversion is like modern art, very ugly. Maybe we
> can't prove it to the other side if they can't see that. But they want
> their ideas taught in the schools and their ideas to win in country. We
> should stop them from making this a ugly, sickening, nauseating, country.
>
>> And why is that good? What is good for anyone in being in a "great
>>nation"?
>
> It is disgusting to live in a liberal country like the USA. We
> should live in a great nation.
If you research history you'll find that the first batch of settlers were
Normans with little or no Norse blood. America became great because of
tremendous natural resources, selfless good-hearted people and immigrants
of all flavors. The antithesis of your bigoted ideal.
> NEA, Gay Militants: Joined At The Hip Lee Duigon
>
> If a private citizen tells his neighbor's children that they ought to try
> gay sex, he might wind up in a correctional facility. If he talks that way
> to your 13-year-old son, you'll want him put away--pronto.
If _anyone_ tries to tell my 13-year old child they should try sex then
I'll beat them to a pulp, homo or hetro sexual. Why your obsession with
sex anyhow?
> But when this very same behavior, toward the same children, is displayed
> by
> adults who belong to America's biggest teachers' union, most parents
> simply
> let them do it. In fact, they pay them to.
Not this cowboy, I'm all for abolishing Public Education even though your
scenario is incredibly rare.
> The NEA is committed to the cause of militant homosexuality. It's the
> richest, most politically powerful union in America, and it has daily
> access
> to most of America's children. And it wants to recruit them for the
> homosexual lifestyle.
Cites please. I'm an equal opportunity hater. I dislike Big Brother, the
NEA and you equally. How is your vile message any less dangerous than
theirs?
Sorry, I don't have the patience to read all this dogmatic bullshit.
Please try severe electroshock, it certainly can't have a negative impact
on your sociopathic personality.
Topaz
wrote:
>
> That doesn't make it bad, even if it's true, and it's not. "Ugly"
>is a subjective judgement and therefore cannot be "true". Even if
>it is true that doesn't mean the government could prevent the ugliness
>or even diminish it.
Government should prevent ugliness and eliminate it. Nations should
be transformed as in the beginning of the movie "The Tenth Kingdom".
Everything ugly should go.
>
> So don't attend those schools.
Government schools are bad today. First we should have a good
government and then we should restructure the schools.
>
> You haven't shown what is ugly, sickening etc. about what "they"
>want this country to become. Nor have you shown that government
>action could prevent it.
Homosexual perversion is ugly and government can simply outlaw it.
>
> Homosexual pervesion as you put it has never appealed to the majority
>of the population so I don't see how it can corrupt "the nation",
>feminism is so abused a term that I refuse to discuss it without a
>definition and as for race-mixing, what's wrong with it? It's
>natural, fun and let's you meet new people.
Here is part of David Duke's newsletter:
"Entering my old neighborhood of Gentilly Woods in New Orleans had
a profound effect upon me. My once tidy and well-kept neighborhood was
now mostly Black and disheveled. It once sported many homes that
seemed to always have a fresh-painted look. Now they were adorned with
peeling paint an unkempt lawns of weeds and trash. In talking to some
old holdouts in the neighborhood, they told me that the once rare
burglary, vandalism and assault had now become commonplace. The
diehard White remnants who remained had adapted to the changes and
found a way to endure each indignity and violation the best they
could. The change had been so gradual that they were no longer shocked
by new instances of crime, just resigned to them.
"The streets had scattered groups of hard-featured Black men
standing around dilapidated cars giving hostile stares to an obviously
unknown White person trespassing in their neighborhood.
"Even though it had been many years since my last visit, my
memories became more vivid as I entered the boundaries of the
neighborhood. It seemed as though I had only been away a few scant
hours. Now those memories crashed against the images of the present
causing me to feel off balance. It was akin to visiting a healthy
friend and then after a few short weeks to see him wasting away with
cancer. Afraid that perhaps me recollection was more idealized than it
really was--as soon as I returned home, I ferreted out my old
photographs.
"Those photos clearly portrayed a community even more attractive
than I had remembered. Well-kept homes filled the album, often
accented with blooming flowers and finely trimmed shrubbery, sidewalks
edged closely, and many homes had a fresh paint look. Polished autos
dotted the clean streets. Even more dramatic were the Tom Sawyer and
Becky Thatcher-like bright faces of the children with whom I spent so
many happy hours of childhood.
"In my time they were the ruddy faces that filled our streets
yards and parks. They were all gone now, replaced by dark, angry
teenagers, with scarred skin and boomboxes; often with pistols and
crack in their pockets, menacing the streets where children now fear
to venture. A picture repeated, I believe, all over the United States
of America. For the current White residents of Gentilly Woods their
story is much like the story fo the frog that is put in a pot of warm
water while the temperature is slowly increased until the poor
creature is boiling and it is too late to save itself. Is the
traditional American already too lulled by the tepid water to realize
what is ahead?
"Amercians can glimpse the future in the inner cities of
America. The political corruption, failing schools, drug problems,
crime, the run down housing and even the trash in the streets- all
hold a preview of the coming attractions of 21st century America. When
all of America is of the same racial proportion as that of the inner
cities, there will be no White infrastructure, and no white cornucopia
of tax revenue mitigating the Third Worldism. Criminals will no longer
be held in check by White police, prosecutors, juries and judges. The
shrinking White tax base will be inadequate to the costs of the
criminal justice system and jails needed to house lawbreakers. The
housing, food, medical care, and schooling of those who cannot provide
their own--will no longer be able to live off the support of the aging
and diminishing European population."
The address for this newsletter is David Duke Report, Box 88,
Covington, LA 70434
http://www.duke.org
>
> How do you know? What made it "great"?
Its obvious what makes nations great. Europe, the USA , Canada, and
Australia are the first world. Africa and India are the third world.
The difference is race.
> So it wasn't being conquered by a corrupt Spanish court or losing
>wars to England? Sure it wasn't.
No, its race.
>
> And how is that bad?
The former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black
nations and India are the third world. In the middle, or the second
world are the Arabs and China. It is just as racialists would predict.
It is because the White race is on average much more intelligent than
the Black race. The people in Japan are much lighter in color than the
people in India.
All IQ tests have proven that Whites are on average much more
intelligent than Blacks. White people invented just about everything
important. Most leftists admit that Whites on average score higher on
the tests. They have their excuses for it, but all of their excuses
are demolished in "My Awakening" by David Duke. Here is an example:
"One of the most powerful direct studies of race and environment
was conducted by psychologists Sandra Scarr, Richard Weinberg and I.
D. Waldman. All three were quite well-known for their environmental
opinions. The study analyzed White, Black, and Mixed-race adopted
children in more than 100 White families in Minnesota. The study was
an egalitarian's dream, because the children's adoptive parents had
prestigious levels of income and education and were anti-racist enough
to adopt a Black child into their own family. Scarr is a strong
defender of racial equality and maintained that environment played an
almost exclusive role in IQ differences between the races. Scarr
supports the importance of heredity in causing individual differences
within a race, but she has argued that between-race differences are
mostly environmental.
The children in the study included Whites, Blacks, and Mulattos as
well as the biological children of the White adoptive couples. At the
age of 7, the children were tested for IQ, and all of the groups
including the Blacks and Mulattos, scored above average in IQ. Scarr
and Weinberg published a paper claiming to have proven the almost
exclusive power of environment over race in IQ, even though they had
to admit that the White children, whether adopted or not, scored well
above the Black and Mulatto children and that the Mulatto children
scored above the Blacks. (88)
A decade later, when the children reached the age of 17, a
follow-up study was conducted that that again included IQ
measurements. As they matured, Black children had dropped back to an
average of 89 in IQ, which is the average IQ for Blacks in the region
of the United States where the study was done. The White adopted
children scored an average of 106 in IQ, 17 points higher than the
Black children, which is consistant with traditional studies of Black
and White IQ differences. In line with genetic theory the half-White,
half-Black Mulatto adopted children scored almost exactly between the
adopted Whites and Blacks. (89)
RESULTS OF MINNESOTA TRANSRACIAL ADOPTION STUDY
IQ
Parental IQ 115.35
Biological Children 109.4
White Adopted children 105.6
Mulatto parents adopted children 98.5
Black parents adopted children 89.4
Scarr and Wienberg reluctantly published their data from the
follow up survey, but they waited close to four years to do so, almost
as if they were embarrassed by what they had found. Through a tortured
reasoning process, they still argued that environment played a
dominant role in IQ. But in their follow-up survey, unlike their first
paper, they also admitted that genes had an important impact as well.
Both Richard Lynn and Michael Levin effectively showed in their
re-analysis of Scarr's own data, that genes clearly comprise the
dominant role in intelligence levels of those adopted children. (90)
(91)"
(88) Scarr, S, & Weinberg R. A. (1976). IQ Test Perfomance of Black
Children Adopted By White Families. American Psychologist. Vol. 31.
p.26-739
(89) Weinberg, R. A. , Scarr, S., & Waldman, I. D. (1992). The
Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. A Follow-Up of IQ Test
Performance at Adolescence, Intelligence. Vol 16.
p.17-135
(90) Lynn, R. (1994). Reinterpretations Of The Minnesota Transracial
Adoption Study. Intelligence. Vol. 19. p.1-27
(91) Levin, M. (1994). Comment on The Minnesota Transracial Adoption
Study. Intelligence Vol. 19. p.3-20
>
> Why?
It's a Wonderful Race
by James Bronson
There once was a college freshman named George who thought he knew it
all.
One night over dinner, George got into an argument with his father.
The
argument began when the young student tried to explain to his father
that as
White people, they should be held accountable for all the evils that
they
had inflicted upon non-Whites througout history. George explained:
"Because
of European racism, we stole the Indians' land, we held blacks in
slavery,
we persecuted the Jews, and we plundered the environment. We've been
oppressive racists for thousands of years so it's only fair that we
pay
economic reparations for all the harm we've done to the world. I'm
pleased
to see that we are ending our political and economic domination of the
oppressed peoples."
George's dad was shocked to hear such talk. "Who put such commie-pinko
nonsense into your head, boy? Did one of your sandal-wearing hippie
college
professors teach you that?" the father asked.
To which the son replied: "That's the truth dad. My anthropology
professor,
Dr.Irving Silverstein, says so. He ought to know. Dr. Silverstein is a
well-respected Ph.D. People of your generation just don't understand
because
you were raised in a White supremacist racist society. That's why I've
come
to admire Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King as the greatest man in American
history. He stood up to the racists of your generation. Because of
him, my
generation of White kids is completely colorblind."
The father angrily replied: "That's bullshit! I've always been
fair-minded
and tolerant of people from all backgrounds and races. I haven't
'oppressed'
anybody, and furthermore there's nothing wrong with being proud of
one's own
people, including the European race of people. Your race is in your
blood.
It's like an extension of your biological family and you ought to be
proud
of your European heritage and identity, just like every other racial
group
in America is proud of its. Why is it OK for them to have a strong
sense of
racial identity but it's evil for us Europeans to feel that way?"
The young "intellectual" laughed at his father. "Come on dad, that's
the
kind of crap Hitler tried to peddle. Those racist attitudes were
discredited
years ago. There's only one race and that's the human race. Diversity
is our
greatest strength. Differences in so-called "race" are as
insignificant as
differences in belly buttons. And besides, UN statistics now show that
low
White birth rates, along with the fact that we live in an
multicultural
society, will mean that Europeans and their ethnocentrist and racist
culture
will have died out by the end of the century," young George said.
Turning red with anger, the father yelled: "You are a walking cliché
you
know that boy? And you think it's a good thing that the European
peoples of
the world will have faded out and ceased to exist?" Young George
replied; "I
think it's great! It will mean the end of racism and the end of hate.
The
oppressed peoples of the world would have been better off if us racist
Europeans had never existed to begin with."
Suddenly there was a blast of cold wind, an explosion, and a huge
smoke
cloud. When the smoke had settled, George found himself alone and lost
in a
cold open field. An angel named Clarence then appeared to him and said
"Well
George, you've got your wish."
George asked: "Where am I? What's going on here? And who are you?"
The angel answered, "George, I'm Clarence the Angel. I was sent here
to show
you what the world would have been like if Europeans, or Whites, had
never
existed. You now live in a world where Europeans never existed."
"Oh. That's cool. I'll have no problem adapting because there's not a
racist
bone in my body. And when I get back to my world, I'll be able to tell
my
professor and my friends how great this non-racist world was. Say, I'm
freezing my ass off out here. Where's the nearest motel?"
"Motel?" replied the angel. "There are no motels here in what was once
called North America. But there are some caves up in those mountains
where
you can find shelter."
"Caves? No way man. I want a nice warm bed to sleep in."
"I don't think you understand George. There are no buildings here in
non-white America because the evil Europeans never came here to build
them.
Whites never existed, remember? The natives live in tents. Would you
like to
go meet some local Indians? Perhaps they'll let you stay in a tent."
"A tent? But it's 10 degrees outside?...Oh well. It's better than a
cave I
suppose. Let's go talk to these Indians...... Wait a second, are these
Indians friendly or hostile?"
"Why, George, that's a racist question to ask. Just because some
Indians
were brutal savages who scalped their victims alive, it doesn't mean
they
all were" said the angel sarcastically.
"I know that Clarence. And I'm not a racist. I hate racism.
Nonetheless, I'd
feel safer if I could have a gun to defend myself if they turn out to
be
violent."
"Gun?" replied the angel. "There are no guns for you to defend
yourself
with. Firearms were invented by evil Europeans. Though we could make a
spear
with those twigs over there."
"That's too much work. Give me a telephone then. I'll call the Indians
to
ask if it's OK."
"Telephone"? replied the angel. There are no telephones here.
Alexander
Graham Bell was another evil white man, so he never existed. No
Europeans
remember?" "Forget it then" replied George. "I'll sleep in the damn
cave."
Upon arriving at the cave, a shivering George asked the angel for a
lighter
so that he could light a fire. "A lighter?" replied Clarence. "There
are no
lighters here, and no matches. Those are European gadgets and evil
Europeans
never existed remember? If you want to get warm, you need to do like
the
locals do and start rubbing twigs together."
"Oh come on man! You mean to tell me these people still rub sticks
together
for fire?"
"That's right George. The Indians live exactly as they did before the
evil
pilgrims arrived from Europe just a few centuries ago." said the angel
sarcastically.
"I refuse to stay in this cold cave and I damn sure ain't gonna light
a fire
with twigs, and I refuse to sleep in a teepee. I'll go to South
America. I
can make it in a warmer climate and I'll adapt quickly to the great
Incan
civilization I learned about at college. Since European racists like
Columbus, Cortez and Pizzaro never existed, the Incans will still be
there.
... I need a car"
"Car?" replied the angel. "There are no cars here. Daimler and Benz,
the
evil German inventors of the internal combustion engine, were never
born..nor was Henry Ford. There are no paved roads either. This is a
world
without evil Europeans remember?"
"No cars! Oh. I'll just have to take a train."
"There are no trains in this world either George. Evil Europeans
weren't
here to build locomotive engines or to discover the many uses of coal,
oil
and gas, or to build trains or lay tracks. But I'll allow you to cheat
just
a bit. Grab hold of my magic robe and we'll fly south."
George touched the angel's robe and they flew south until they arrived
in an
abandoned mud hut in the midst of Incan territory. George was grateful
for
the warm weather but it wasn't long until he began to complain about
the
heat and humidity.
"Clarence, this hut is a little shithole and I'm sweating up a storm
here.
Get me an air-conditioner please."
"Air-conditioner?" replied the angel. "There are no air-conditioners
here.
Air conditioning and refrigeration were inventions created by evil
White
men." "What?!! You mean to tell me that in the year 2002 these people
still
haven't figured out a way to keep themselves or their food cool? a
frustrated George asked.
"No George, they haven't. And they never will."
"This is ridiculous. Let's go to the main city to see the Emperor. I
can't
live like like this. Where's a car...oh I forget...no cars! Dammit
I'll
walk. let's go."
After walking through the jungle for about an hour or so, it began to
get
dark. George then asked Clarence to give him a flashlight so that he
could
see. "Flashlight? Sorry George, but Thomas Edison was an evil White
man
too...and he was never born. There are some branches over there if you
want
to make a torch."
"Never mind that!" George shouted back.
By morning time, Clarence and George had arrived at the temple of the
Incans. A bloody human sacrifice was in progress. George turned to
Clarence
and cried, "They're going to butcher that poor soul! Somebody has got
to
stop this. What horrible murdering beasts! Can't anyone stop them?"
The angel replied "I'm afraid not. Ritual killings are common place
here."Those evil European racists like Columbus, Cortez and Pizzaro
never
existed so the Incans just continued their brutal ways. In fact, it
was the
oppressed peoples themselves who made up the bulk of the Spanish armed
forces. The people saw the Spaniards as liberators who would rid them
of the
oppressive Incan and Mayan rulers and give them a better life."
"I can't blame them for helping the Spaniards then. This is a horrible
place. Get me out of this shithole now!" said George.
'Where would you like to go?" Clarence replied.
George said: "Take me to Africa, maybe there's a more advanced and
humane
civilization there that I can fit into. Where the nearest airport?"
"Oh, I forgot...no Wright Brothers." George said. "How about a boat?"
"Boats?" replied the angel. "I'm afraid the most seaworthy rafts
available
to you won't be of much help in crossing the vast Atlantic Ocean. The
great
Viking sailors and European navigators never existed. No Phoenicians,
no
Leif Erikson, no Henry the Navigator, no Columbus, no Magellan, no
Hudson
and no Robert Fulton. Even if you could build your own ship, there
would be
no compass for you to navigate with and no sextant either. I'm afraid
you're
stuck here George."
"Can I touch your robe and fly to Africa then" asked George.
"You're cheating again George, but all right. Touch my robe and we'll
fly to
Africa."
When they arrived in Africa, George saw thousands of half-naked
African
tribesmen being herded along a dirt path. They were guarded by other
Africans with spears. "What are they doing to those poor men?" George
asked
Clarence.
"They are being enslaved by another tribe. Slavery was common in
Africa long
before the whites arrived." Clarence said."In fact, most of the slaves
who
were shipped to the Americas were sold to the slave traders by African
tribal leaders."
"That's so sad.' George said. "I want to meet Martin Luther King.
Since his
White assassin never existed, this great man should still be alive.
He's
probably a great tribal chief somewhere and leader of an advanced
civilization. He will free these slaves from their African masters.
Take me
to him Clarence."
Clarence led George to a little hut deep in the heart of Africa. The
naked
women and children looked at George in wonder. The young men were out
on a
hunt but the older men stayed behind. George was led to the dingy
little hut
of the tribal witchdocter and spiritual leader. There he saw a
wild-looking
man with a necklace of teeth around his neck and a huge ring pierced
through
his nose. "What the hell is that? George asked.
"Meet Witch-doctor Matunbo Lutamba Kinga" Clarence said. He never
became
Reverend Martin Luther King because there were no universities or
seminaries
built to educate him. Europeans weren't there to create such
opportunities.
But he did become the tribe's spiritual leader. He specilaizes in
casting
evil spells. Perhaps he can help you?"
The witch doctor gazed in wonder at George. Then he motioned to his
henchmen
to seize young George. The tribesmen grabbed hold of George and tied
him to
a nearby tree.
"Stop it! Let me go. What are they going to do to me?" cried George
hysterically.
"They're going to perform a ritual killing on you George. The good
doctor
King...I mean Kinga -- believes that by cutting your heart out while
you are
still alive, it will bring good fortune and fertility to his tribe,"
laughed
Clarence.
"Clarence! Clarence! Help me Clarence! Help me!
"But George, you told me that you wanted to go to Africa and to meet
your
hero Reverend King."
George said: "This part of Africa has not developed yet. I can see
that now.
Take me to North Africa where Egypt and Carthage established great
civilizations. Just get me out of here, please."
Just as the witch doctor's spear was about to carve out George's
heart,
George vanished into thin air. He then found himself on the banks of
the
river Nile in Egypt.
"Thank you Clarence. Thank you," George said. "I don't understand it
Clarence. Why does so much of the world remain so brutal and
primitive? I
learned during Black History Month about many talented black inventors
and
scientists. Garrett Morgan, George Washington Carver, Benjamin
Banneker,
Granville Woods. Then there's Dr. Carson, the preeminent brain surgeon
in
all of America. Where are these men?"
Clarense replied: "Don't you understand yet? America, and Africa,
exist
exactly as they did before the Europeans discovered them. Civilization
as
you had known it had only been introduced to these people just a few
centuries ago by the Europeans. There are no universities, no
hospitals, no
means of transportation other than animals, no science, no medicine,
no
machines. In fact, the wheel hasn't even been discovered in
Sub-Saharan
Africa! Those black scientists, inventors, doctors, athletes, and
entertainers you speak of were never given the opportunity to realize
their
full human potential because Europeans weren't around to introduce
higher
civilization and learning to them. There are no George Washington
Carvers in
this non-European world, no Dr. Carsons, no Booker T. Washingtons, no
Benjamin Bannekers, no Michael Jordans, no Oprah Winfreys, no Bill
Cosbys,
no..."
"Stop it! That can't be!" cried George. "Let's walk over to the great
pyramids of Egypt right now and I'll show you one of the great wonders
of
the world .....built by non-Whites"
They walked a few miles before George stopped and asked where the
nearest
toilet was. "Toilets?" replied the angel. There are no toilets or
urinals in
this world. Plumbing was developed by evil Europeans. The people in
this
non-White world still relieve themselves in open fields."
Clarence turned around so George could do his business. "I need some
toilet
paper." George said.
"Toilet paper?" replied the angel. "There..."
"I know. I know. Toilet paper hasn't been invented yet. Just hand me a
rag
then".
Clarence obliged and the two of them went on their way.
"I don't understand. According to my recollections from Geography
class, the
great pyramids should be near this very spot. We ought to be able to
see
them from miles away," said George.
"Well, George, I'm sure your professors at the college never told you
this,
but the ancient Egyptians were not black or brown. They were
Caucasians. The
anthropologists who examined the Egyptian mummies confirmed this fact.
There
are no pyramids and no Sphinx either. And the Carthaginians were White
too."
George became depressed, but he was determined to prove his beliefs.
"What's
in Europe?" he asked.
"Europe became populated by Huns and other Asiatic tribes. They've
settled
down a bit but life is much the same as it is in North America. A
nomadic
existence based on hunting and food gathering. No great cities, no
science,
no buildings, no culture, no fine art - just a hard daily struggle
against
life and the elements of nature. In a Europe without evil Whites, the
Roman
Empire never existed nor did the Greeks. There was no Renaisance
either."
"Take me to Asia then. Surely the great civilizations of Persia,
India,
China, and Japan will suit me" George said. "Clarence, to the Taj
Mahal
please." "The Taj Mahal?" replied the angel. "Don't you know that the
ancient Persian and Indian civilizations were established by ancient
Indo-European tribes who crossed the Himalayas? They are the ones who
civilized India and built the Taj Mahal. Those are the great
civilizations
that Marco Polo, Columbus, and others were searching for.Did you know
that
Iran is Persian for "land of the Aryan?"
George said: "Don't tell me that the Indians were White men! That
can't be.
In the world I came from, I knew many Indians and they were not
White!"
Clarence explained: "As the centuries passed, the Indo-Europeans who
created
Indian civilization intermarried with the native majorities who
populated
the Indian subcontinent. Gradually there were less and less evil White
people until they faded out completely, along with the advanced
civilization
they had built. You will notice that there are still a few
white-skinned and
fair-haired Indians and Pakistanis around today -- in the world you
came
from that is.
George became worried. He knew he could never fit into the harsh
primitive
world he had been thrust into. Suddenly he thought of Japan. "Japan!
I'll
show you now Clarence. Take me to Japan. If the Japanese can make TVs
and
cameras then I'm sure I'll find a decent civilization that I can live
in."
Clarence transported George to Japan. George observed that Japanese
society
was the most orderly, advanced and civil that he had seen, but it
seemed as
if almost everyone was either a rice farmer, a fisherman, or a
soldier.
There were no cars, no skyscapers, no lights, no stereos, no sciences,
no
technologies, no universities. It was a stagnant agricultural society
that
seemed to have reached its high water mark and was incapable of moving
forward. George knew he could not live here either.
Clarence explained to Geeorge: "Even the industrious Japanese and
Chinese
peoples had to rely on the evil Europeans to build the modern Asia
that you
had in mind. In this world, Japan exists exactly as it did before
Commodore
Perry's American naval ships arrived in Japan in the 1850s. There's no
industry, no technology, no Fuji film, no Sony, no Hitachi, no
Panasonic, no
Toyota, no Sushi bars, no baseball...none of the trappings or comforts
of
modern life. These things don't exist in Japan or anywhere else
because
Europeans weren't there to create them and share them with the rest of
the
world. Would you care for a bowl of rice George?"
George began to feel sick in both his body and his mind. Not only was
he
depressed, but exposure to the harsh elements of nature had left him
physically ill. "Clarence, I seem to have contracted some type of
sickness.
I must have some anti-biotics."
"Anti-biotics? There's no...
"Oh Shut up already! Then just take me back to the world as it was!"
"Sorry George. I'm not authorized to do that. Only my boss can make
that
call." Clarence said to him: "You see George. Your father was right.
You
really had a wonderful race. Don't you see what a foolish mistake it
is to
be ashamed and guilty about your own people, and to let them die out?
This
is what the world would be like without the creative spark of Edison
and
Ford and Pasteur and Marconi. No great scientists, or mathematicians,
or
inventors or fine artists. No Archimedes, no Aristotle, no Socrates,
no
Alexander, no Renaissance, no Newton, no Kepler, no Goddard, no
Mendel, no
Tesla, no Faraday, no Guttenberg, no Shakespeare, no Dickens, no
Twain, no
Mozart, no Beethoven, no Da Vinci, no Michelangelo, no Galileo, no
Copernicus. No Venice, no Paris, no Lisbon, no Madrid, no Zurich, no
Berlin,
no St. Petersburg, no Budapest, no Rome, no Milan, no Vienna, no
London, no
New York, no Rio, no Sydney. No orchestras, no museums, no
universities, no
hospitals, no libraries, no theaters, no radio, no books, no
television, no
electricity, no refrigeration, no heating, no plumbing, no houses, no
steel,
no stadiums, no vaccines, no cars, no planes, no trains, no ships, no
dentists, no surgeons, no computers, no telephones, and most important
-
there's no creative genius to be found that could create and sustain
such a
high level of civilization. There's nothing for the people of this
world to
build upon. It's just a daily struggle for subsistence. A brutal
planet
where the few people who aren't mired in eternal ignorance and
darkness have
reached their peak of civilization and are advancing no further."
Clarence went on to lecture the broken and depressed young man for
seven
days straight. He covered everything. History, science, economics,
philosophy, art, literature, fine music, architecture, medicine,
politics,
agriculture, religion, and all the creations and contributions that
the
European peoples had made in every conceivable field of human
endeavor.
George listened closely to every word. He felt like a man who had been
reborn.
After his lecture, Clarence the Angel floated away towards heaven. "I
hope
you have found all this to be educational, and I hope you have learned
an
important lesson. Enjoy your world George!" mocked the departing
angel.
George began to sob like a baby. It was the year 2002 and he was alone
and
hungry in a backwards world where Europeans had never existed. He
cried out
to the stars: "Please God. I see what a fool I've been. I understand
now
what my father was trying to tell me. I want to go back to the world
that I
came from. A world where Europeans not only existed, but blessed the
rest of
humanity world with their unique creative ability. I want to live in a
civilized world. Please God!...take me back!...take me back!...Oh
God....please."
Suddenly George was transported back to his college dormitory. Drunk
with
joy, George jumped into the showers before he could even take his
clothes
off!.
"Warm water! and soap! Life is beautiful!" he screamed.
George's floormates looked at him as if he was crazy. "George! Have
you gone
crazy?" asked a bewildered schoolmate.
"No my friend. I haven't taken leave of my senses. I've come to them!"
George replied. George then began to sing classic European folk songs
in the
shower. Miraculously, he was able to sing in many different languages.
He
sang O Sole Mio in Italian, Amazing Grace in English, Gloire
Immortelle in
French, Das Ist Der Tag in German, and also Belgian, Spanish and
French
ballads and waltzes. Tears of sheer joy began to stream down his
cheeks. The
degenerate music of Hip-Hop and Rap lost all of its appeal to young
George.
After his shower, George drove to a nearby restaurant and ordered two
whole
entrees. One was Lasagna and the other was a delicious Veal Marsala.
With
his Italian food he had a Greek salad with Spanish olives and Russian
dressing, drank a whole bottle of French wine, followed by a German
pastry
for dessert. He finished his meal off with a hot cup of English tea
and a
Cuban cigar.
George said out loud: "Oh those European peoples and their delicious
cuisine. Clarence was right after all. What a wonderful race!"
George was happy, but at the same time he realized there was much work
to be
done. He thought of all those poor whites in Rhodesia and South Africa
who
were being murdered and raped ever since they gave up control of those
once-European nations. He thought of the many thousands of qualified
Whites
who were passed up for good jobs and college entrance because of
racial
quotas that discriminate against Europeans. He thought about the
decling
birthrates among all the European nations of the world. He remembered
that
Europeans everywhere were dwindling in numbers every year even as
their own
nations were being flooded with third world immigration. He recalled
the
O.J. Simpson verdict and how millions of blacks in America cheered
when that
brutal double murderer was set free by a black jury after he stabbed
two
Whites to death. He remembered the Los Angeles riots of 1992, where
dozens
of Whites were dragged out of their vehicles and killed like dogs in
the
streets by packs of White-hating monsters who were never even
punished! He
remembered the time when Jesse Jackson led a cheer at Stanford
University:
"Hey Hey Ho Ho, Western Civ. has got to go!" His European blood began
to
boil in righteous indignation when he recalled how Jesse Jackson once
said
he had spit in White people's food when he was a young restaurant
worker.
George now understood that that his people were on a collision course
with
worldwide disaster and genocide. George realized that this great
people must
not perish from the face of the earth.
George could not wait to see his father. He longed to embrace him and
apologize for all of the foolish and disrespectful things he had said
to
him. But first, George had a score to settle with a certain college
professor. He walked into Dr. Silverstein's auditorium and quietly
took a
seat in the back row. The nasal voiced Silverstein was lecturing on
and on
about racial and gender inequalities in European-centered
civilizations. It
was vintage Silverstein. George's impressionable White schoolmates,
with
their baggy pants, hip-hop clothes and backwards baseball caps, were
swallowing Silverstein's poison pills hook, line and sinker. After
letting
Silverstein spew his cultural poison for about 15 minutes or so,
George
raised his hand so that he could give the profesor a piece of his
newly
educated mind.
"George? Is that you? I remember you from last semester. I wasn't
aware that
you were here today. I failed to recognize you in that shirt and tie,
and
without your earrings. You must have enjoyed my course so much that
you
signed up again eh? Class, I'd like for you to meet George. He was one
of my
brightest students last semester. He truly has a thorough grasp of the
ideas
presented in this course. George, would you be so kind as to tell my
class
about that brilliant term paper you wrote about European racism,
imperialism, and the need for monetary reparations?"
That's when young George let loose on the unsuspecting Professor.
"ENOUGH! You scheming devil! You mendacious fabricator of falsehoods!
You
pusillanimous purveyor of pinko propaganda! How dare you try to
corrupt and
manipulate our young minds when your filthy lies. We Europeans have
nothing
to be ashamed of, nothing to apologize for, and everything to be proud
of.
And most of all, we don't owe anybody jack-shit - not one thin dime!
To the
contrary, it is the rest of humanity that owes us a debt which can
never be
repaid! We are the rightful heirs and protectors of a rich cultural
heritage. You vile manipulator! We are the sons of the Romans, the
sons of
the Greeks, the Celtics, the Vikings, the Normans, the Saxons. Why do
you
inflict shame and guilt upon us? We Europeans didn't just contribute
to
civilization...WE ARE CIVILIZATION! And I decare that I will no longer
tolerate you shithead "intellectuals" trying to tear our people down.
Never
again will we walk on eggshells when we speak, always fearing that we
might
be called "racist." I no longer care what people think. All that
matters is
the truth which you have sought to pervert!"
"What are you up to anyway? Why do you to corrupt my young peers by
shoving
false heroes down their throats. Enough of your Marxist games of
divide and
conquer, you commie pinko subversive! I don't want to learn anymore
about
Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or Black History Month.
They
would not have amounted to anything without the institutions of high
civilization created by the European peoples. I'm going to set this
class
straight about who the truly great men of history are - the European
statesmen, scientists, explorers, monarchs, navigators, conquerors,
inventors, artists, writers, philosophers - the innovative giants of
history
that you and your ilk have erased from our collective memories. You
speak of
a world liberated from European influence? Permit me tell your
students
about such a world, Silverstein, because I can speak from personal
experience, you wretched little conspiring monster!"
Silverstein turned white as a ghost. He was shellshocked and rendered
speechless for the first time in his career! Never in all of his years
at
the University had a student dared to so boldly challenge his
falsehoods.
Speaking from the heart as well as the mind, and with an eloquence he
never
thought he could muster, George broke out into a 60-minute monologue
on
history, science, philosophy, culture, and all the other attributes
that
constitute high civilization. The young students were captivated by
George's
brilliant oratory. Many were moved to tears. By the end of his tirade,
George's reawakened classmates were thundering their approval of his
speech.
The class gave George a standing ovation and they thanked him for
helping
them rediscover and reclaim their own sense of pride and lost
identity. The
unstoppable power of truth had melted away years of Marxist guilt
tripping,
self hate, wimpishness and cultural brainwashing in just one
unforgettable
hour. The inspired students proceeded to storm out of Silverstein's
class,
throwing their hip-hop baseball caps and nose earings at him as they
stampeded out and vowed never to return. They lifted George up upon
their
shoulders and carried him out of the auditorium like a conquering
hero. With
a glint in his eye, George glanced up towards the sky, winked and said
"Thank you, Clarence."
Dr. Silverstein was left humiliated and visibly shaken. He knew that
these
reawakened European kids could never again be brainwashed with
"political
correctness" and White guilt. Silverstein's greatest fear was that
more of
these proud European youths would one day reawaken and take their
country
and civilization back from the Silversteins of the world.
Silverstein was worried, but he remained confident that most young men
and
women would never learn the truth about their glorious past and unique
creative abilties. After all, the mass media, Hollywood, the music
industry,
the colleges, and the public schools are all controlled by "liberals"
like
Dr. Silverstein. With the power of political correctness in their
hands,
they can continue to tear down our European ancesters, destroy our
institutions and traditions, instigate blacks and other races against
the
whites, flood America with third-world immigration, and push "hip-hop"
music, homosexuality, and other garbage onto a weak, confused and
morally
degenerate youth. After reflecting upon these facts, Silverstein
smiled a
devilish grin and muttered to himself: "A few of these European sheep
may
wake up to what's being done to them, but the majority of these idiots
never
will." And he smiled again....and laughed with diabolical Marxist
glee. Then
he repeated to himself "No...they will never figure it all out until
it's
too late."
Or will they?
>
> It's not true though, as even a basic understanding of science would
>tell you.
Science is what your politically correct teachers do not tell you.
>
> And why would "race-mixing" cause that to happen? Blank out!
Look at any White neighborhood. Look at any Black neighborhood. It
does happen. It is the same with Europe and Africa. The difference is
race.
>
> Then how did England or German, both multiply racially "contaminated"
>at the time of the greatest strength, build an empire? Or France or
>Spain or any other empire since Rome.
They were White.
Topaz
<cu...@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote:
>
>Do you think everything objectionable to every person in America should be
>outlawed and made illegal?
It should be thought about and possibly outlawed.
>
>Why not hetrosexual perversions, all-male clubs and of course we need to
>draw and quarter all those brown-skinned people, right?
We should have a nation for White people. Other people should have
their own nation someplace else.
>
>A number of things happened, primarily that the world grew larger while
>Portugal was set upon by its larger rivals, Britain and Spain. Big fish
>eat smaller fish. Find another excuse to justify your racism, this didn't
>work.
"The modern definition of a racist: someone who is winning an
argument with a liberal."
Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation (1996)
by Thomas Jackson
There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in greater
horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of
offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press
and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and
arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as
part of the inevitable texture of American life. "Racism" is never
shrugged off. For example, when a White Georgetown Law School student
reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as
White students, it set off a booming, national controversy about
"racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would have
attracted far less attention and criticism.
Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full
alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach
against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what is
racism?
Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the
word. They usually define it as the belief that one's own ethnic stock
is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are
rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal
more than this. Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a
clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American
meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are
equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been
declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who
questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil.
The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If
blacks, for example, are equal to Whites in every way, what accounts
for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of
racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation
for black failure is White racism. And since blacks are markedly poor,
crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive
racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state.
All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic.
Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on White
wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of
racial differences. Thus, even if today's Whites can find in their
hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's Whites must have
oppressed them. If Whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must
oppress them Unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be
identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since
blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be
millions of White people we do not know about, who are working day and
night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no
room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion,
an indictment of White people.
The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to
believe that the only explanation for non-White failure is White
racism, every time a non-White is poor, commits a crime, goes on
welfare, or takes drugs, White society stands accused of yet another
act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-Whites is standing
proof that White society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For
precisely so long as non-Whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the
same level as Whites, Whites will be, by definition, thwarting and
oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange
conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be
committed almost exclusively by White people. Indeed, a black
congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black
mayor of Detroit, have argued that only White people can be racist.
Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State
Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she
explained that all Whites are racist and that only Whites can be
racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without
flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?
Although some blacks and liberal Whites concede that non-Whites can,
perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-Whites have been
forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of White
oppression. What appears to be non-White racism is so understandable
and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not
an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist. What would
surely be called racism when done by Whites is thought to be normal
when done by anyone else. The reverse is also true.
Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost
tedious to list them: When a White man kills a black man and uses the
word "nigger" while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and
the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black
Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random Whites, the media are
silent (see AR of March, 1991). College campuses forbid pejorative
statements about non-Whites as "racist," but ignore scurrilous attacks
on Whites.
At election time, if 60 percent of the White voters vote for a White
candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black
opponent, it is Whites who are accused of racial bias. There are 107
"historically black" colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be
preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically White
colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name of... the same thing.
To resist would be racist.
"Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything
that could be construed as an expression of White pride is a form of
hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect
school instruction and driver's tests in their own languages, whereas
for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist.
Blatant anti-White prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is
now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if
practiced in favor of Whites, would be attacked as despicable
favoritism.
All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses
are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club
or association expressly for Whites is by definition racist. The
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected "civil rights"
organization. The National Association for the Advancement of White
People (NAAWP) campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but
is said to be viciously racist.
At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have
set up student unions for Whites, analogous to those for blacks,
Hispanics, etc, and have been roundly condemned as racists. Recently,
when the White students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found
themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club
like the ones that non-Whites have. They were turned down in horror.
Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a
White enclave but whose members simply happen all to be White is
branded as racist.
Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality
of American racism is "celebration of diversity." It has begun to dawn
on a few people that "diversity" is always achieved at the expense of
Whites (and sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one
proposes that Howard University be made more diverse by admitting
Whites, Hispanics, or Asians. No one ever suggests that National
Hispanic University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity
of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black
Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the
Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a lack
of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to
celebrate homogeneity. And yet any all-White group - a company, a
town, a school, a club, a neighborhood - is thought to suffer from a
crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as
possible. Only when Whites have been reduced to a minority has
"diversity" been achieved.
Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate" or "embrace" diversity, as we
are so often asked to do, is no different from deploring an excess of
Whites. In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess
of Whites. Our current immigration policies are structured so that
approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are
non-White. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the
country every year are virtually all non-White. It would be racist not
to be grateful for this laudable contribution to "diversity." It is,
of course, only White nations that are called upon to practice this
kind of "diversity." It is almost criminal to imagine a nation of any
other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind.
What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated
citizens across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into
thinking that Mexico was being "culturally enriched?" What if the
state of Chihuahua were losing its majority population to poor Whites
who demanded that schools be taught in English, who insisted on
celebrating the Fourth of July, who demanded the right to vote even if
they weren't citizens, who clamored for "affirmative action" in jobs
and schooling?
Would Mexico - or any other non-White nation - tolerate this kind of
cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not. Yet White
Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians
entering their country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed
to "celebrate" their own loss of influence, their own dwindling
numbers, their own dispossession, for to do otherwise would be
hopelessly racist.
There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non-
Whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of
"hating" another group. Blacks can join "civil rights" groups and
Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and
hate mongers. They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can
come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential
treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are
"anti-white."
Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to
affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial
policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called
racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the
company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy
the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked
and hateful.
Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race
relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their
own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct
from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None
of this is thought to be racist. At the same time, whites must also
champion the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their
own future on the altar of "diversity" and cooperate in their own
dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the
displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and
cultures. To put it in the simplest possible terms, White people are
cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and
cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.
Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is
perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to
love one's people and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and
El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by
setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative
action preferences over native-born whites, but can they be blamed for
accepting them? Is it surprising that they should want their
languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take
possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the once-great
people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is
prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for
it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?
No, it is the White enterprise in the United States that is unnatural,
unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have let
themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to
dispossession, much less to work for their own interests. Never in the
history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates to
strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens. Never before has a
people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in
surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in
history. Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked
into thinking that a preference for one's own kind is racism. Only
whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow
"hatred" of others. All healthy people prefer the company of their own
kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men love their
families more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they
hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no
ill will towards non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to
participate in the unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies.
What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly
unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests
of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like
asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his
neighbors, since to do otherwise would be "racist."
What then, is "racism?" It is considerably more than any dictionary is
likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies of
racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for
their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the
idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be
pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of
people-hood that have defined nations since the beginning of history -
but only so long as the aspirations are those of whites.
>
>I take it then that your blood is "pure?" Most others are mixed to some
>degree so how, exactly, does this make you better?
IQ
>
>Ha! Thank you for the bellylaugh. You are indeed a work of art, can I
>hang you on my wall?
>
>
>Ah, god and blood. Funny how those two issues revolve around each other.
>Tell you what, next time God comes visiting bring him over so we can have
>a serious discussion.
>
>
>Most of us knew that already, what's your point? Other than the top of
>your head...
>
>
>If you research history you'll find that the first batch of settlers were
>Normans with little or no Norse blood. America became great because of
>tremendous natural resources, selfless good-hearted people and immigrants
>of all flavors. The antithesis of your bigoted ideal.
Canada is great too. But not Mexico or any non-White countries.
>
>If _anyone_ tries to tell my 13-year old child they should try sex then
>I'll beat them to a pulp, homo or hetro sexual. Why your obsession with
>sex anyhow?
The USA is for homosexual perversion and it invades countries that
are not.
>
>Not this cowboy, I'm all for abolishing Public Education even though your
>scenario is incredibly rare.
http://www.blessedcause.org/Militant%20Intent.htm
GAY MILITANT INTENT: OUR KIDS
From Concerned Women From America
by Beverly LaHaye
Dear Concerned American,
What I am about to tell you in this letter is so outrageous you may
find it
hard to believe. I was astounded myself. I could not believe that our
nation had fallen so far. But the reports here are true.
I have warned many times that our children are under attack. Now I'm
writing to sound the alarm that the situation is even worse than I
thought.
I'll tell you more details in a moment, but here's just a sample of
what
I've discovered:
Cross-dressing promoted to grade-school children
Graphic instruction in "gay" sex taught to teenage boys and girls
Armed guards posted to keep parents out of high school assemblies led
by
radical homosexual activists
A book - published by a taxpayer-funded university - that endorses sex
between children and adults!
I've warned about this for many years. Now the evidence is beyond
dispute:
there is an evil scheme aimed at destroying our children.
The attack comes on many fronts. It aims to expose children to sex at
earlier and earlier ages... to rob them of their innocence and open
them up
to immoral and unhealthy practices... to set them up to accept
messages of
"safe sex" and homosexuality... to usher them into becoming advocates
for -
and ultimately participants in - sexual promiscuity, sodomy,
bisexuality,
and transgenderism.
These reports confirm my worst fears about this scheme. The time is
short!
Radical homosexual activists have long said, "Whoever controls the
schools,
controls the future." If they can convince the next generation that
homosexuality is "just another lifestyle," there will be no stopping
them.
Even more chilling: If they can lure a whole generation of young
people to
explore "alternative" sexual behavior... to discover their "gay
side"...
they will have a whole new generation of young, willing sex partners.
Their first step is to promote gender confusion. Nothing I have ever
seen
promises to confuse kids more than a lesson guide obtained and given
to me
by one of the researchers here at CWA.
GRADE SCHOOL LESSON PROMOTES CROSS-DRESSING
The Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, also known as
"GLSEN, is
pushing a grade-school curriculum book that promotes cross-dressing.
This
book was created by a homosexual parents group at the Buena Vista
Elementary
School in San Francisco. It includes a lesson based on a children's
book
titled "Jesse's Dream Skirt."
As incredible as it sounds, this is real!
The story is about a young boy named Jesse who likes trying on his
mother's
dresses, and dreams of a skirt "that whirled, twirled, flowed and
glowed,
and felt soft inside."
Jesse's mom helps him make a skirt, and he wears it to daycare, where
his
classmates make fun of him. The daycare teacher, Bruce, gathers the
children together and says, "Jesse loves his skirt. Why are some of
you
making fun of him?" A girl says, "Well, I wear pants. Why can't
Jesse wear
a skirt?"
A boy, Mike, says that one day his mother let him dress upin her old
dresses
and hats. "It was a lot of fun," he said, until his father came in
and
yelled at him, saying, "Take off that dress, I don't want my son to be
a
sissy!" Mike told his daycare classmates, "I don't know, - I still
don't
see what was wrong with it."
The children and their teacher discuss the issue and most of hte
children
end up liking Jesse's skirt. Some even start making dresses
themselves.
The book ends with Jesse twirling around in his "dream skirt," with
his
boy-style underwear showing. The companion lesson plan says the "key
message" of "Jesse's Dream Skirt" is: "Respect means keeping our minds
open.
Having open minds means giving people freedom to be who they want to
be."
I don't know what's worse: encouraging boys to wear dresses, or the
negative
portrayal of Mike's father. Children who study "Jesse's Dream Skirt"
are
getting the message that their parents' view of morality cannot be
trusted.
Lest you think this sort of insanity is restricted to California, take
a
loot at this next report, straight from the Midwest.
Armed Security Guard Ejects Mother of Student from School Assembly on
Homosexuality
This really made me angry when I heard about it!
The incident took place in St. Louis, Missouri last year just after
school
had started for fall. Debra Loveless, whose daughter attends Metro
High
School, heard that GLESEN was conducting a school-sponsored assembly.
Loveless had told school officials that she considered the event
inappropriate. When she tried to view it for herself, she was
escorted out
of the assembly by an armed security guard. (Just for wanting to view
it!)
Can you believe the arrogance of those school administrators!
We may never know all of what those dear young people were exposed to
during
that assembly. But if GLSEN's past performance is any indication, the
material was corrupting an destructive.
GLESEN has produced some of the most foul "educational" material in
the
dishonorable history of sex education. Two years ago, CWA uncovered a
pornographic teaching session conducted in Massachusetts by GLSEN.
During that workshop, homosexual instructors indoctrinated children as
young
as 14 years old. The children heard detailed descriptions of
perverted sex
acts, including the dangerous practice known in homosexual slang as
"fisting." After it was exposed, that session sparked outrage across
the
nation. It was such a scandal that it became known as "Fistgate."
GLSEN
leaders responded by becoming much more secretive. Apparently this
has led
them to keep parents out of their workshops like the one in St. Louis.
So it has come to this. Our tax dollars foot the bill for homosexual
propaganda to poison our children's minds and defile their hearts.
And when
parents want to find out what's going on, they get thrown out of
public
schools by armed guards!
It's time for parents and grandparents to stand up and fight to
protect our
children. We can't think that just because it hasn't happened in our
school
yet that it never will! The radical homosexual activists won't stop
with
just the California schools. They won't stop with just the big city
schools. They won't stop until they have reached every school in the
nation.
DANGEROUS NEW BOOK PROVIDES ACADEMIC "COVER" FOR PEDOPHILES AND CHILD
MOLESTERS
The University of Minnesota Press has just published Judith Levine's
Harmful
to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex. This book
includes
such outrageous statements as, "Sex is not harmful to children...
There are
many ways even the smallesst children can partake of it."
On another page, the author gushes over a "lush and mysterious" photo
of a
"naked 3- or 4-year-old." Quoting a variety of pedophiles, Levine
says
children are not necessarily harmed by sex with adults.
She also advocates that America adopt a law like Holland's that
legalizes
sex between adults and children as young as 12!
It's unbelievable, but this book is defended by the liberal media
elite.
I'm shocked and heartbroken. But we should not be surprised.
America's
standars of sexual morality have been belittled as "taboos," and been
worn
down step by step. Today, almost nothing is off limits.
Sex between adults and children is just the next barrier to be torn
down.
How long will it take these radical activists to achieve their next
evil
objective?
Our grade-school children are already being taught that cross-dressing
is
just wonderful self-expression. Graphic details of perverted sex
practices
are already being taught to high school children, and parents are
being
locked out of assemblies taught by radical homosexual activisits.
We must - and we can - stop this. NOW!
I grieve for our children and grandchildren. And I fear for our
nation if
we do not stand up to this assault of immorality and defeat it. I was
reminded of a passage in the Old Testament book of the prophet
Ezekiel. In
Chapter 22, the Lord recounts the many sins of Jerusalem, including
many
examples of sexual immorality and perversity. Finally God says,
"I sought for a man among them who should build up the wall and stand
in the
breach before me for the land, that I should not destroy it; but I
found
none."
We need people who stand in the gap for our children and for America.
I ask
you to do three things. First, pray. This attack is spiritual, and
we must
fight back on our knees to defend our schools and our children.
Next, [join Concerned Women for America, contact through the web at
www.cwfa.org. This organization organizes petitions, etc.]
Finally, send a gift to help CWA fight our part of the battle (to CWA
not
BlessedCause, no affiliation)
If we act together, we can stand in the gap and halt this stealthy
assault
on our children.
I have CWA's tireless staff hitting this issue head on. We're
knocking on
doors of policymakers on Capitol Hill. We're taking the debate to the
networks, the cable TV channels, and the newspapers that shape public
opinion. And we're keeping a close eye on the evildoers to expose
them when
they make their next move.
To do all of this we need your help. Your gift today will help CWA
maintain
our powerful voice in defense of Biblical values.
More and more, the pro-family movement is turning to CWA for
leadership. If
we are unable to stand in the gap for our children, who will do it?
We know
the radical homosexual activists and all their allies intent on
corrupting
our children will not give up. They think they can lure our children
into
depravity while we sit by and do nothing.
I refuse to allow it!
Please join with me to stop this wicked agenda now.
Sincerely,
Beverly LaHaye
Founder and Chairman
PS I've learned that GLSEN now boasts a budget of 3.5 million and a
membership of more than 1,200 homosexual-activist educators. Their
mission
is to promote homosexuality and gender confusion in the schools under
any
guise that works. We must take strong, decisive action now before we
lose
our schools!
>
>Cites please. I'm an equal opportunity hater. I dislike Big Brother, the
>NEA and you equally. How is your vile message any less dangerous than
>theirs?
michael price
> On 27 Sep 2004 02:02:32 -0700, nini...@yahoo.com (michael price)
> wrote:
>
> >
> > That doesn't make it bad, even if it's true, and it's not. "Ugly"
> >is a subjective judgement and therefore cannot be "true". Even if
> >it is true that doesn't mean the government could prevent the ugliness
> >or even diminish it.
>
> Government should prevent ugliness and eliminate it.
Why? Are they particularly good at it? Not that I'd noticed,
the British Government even admitted to creating the ugliest buildings
in the world. Even if goverment were good at eliminating ugliness
it would have to do so by coercion and by paying people from funds
extracted by coercion. This is far worse than having some ugly things.
In any case how does the government decide something is ugly? What
about things that, though ugly are more useful than a beautiful thing?
> Nations should be transformed as in the beginning of the movie "The
> Tenth Kingdom". Everything ugly should go.
And who decides what is ugly? What if I think something is beautiful
and the government thinks it's ugly, what makes their esthetics more
valid than mine?
> >
> > So don't attend those schools.
>
> Government schools are bad today. First we should have a good
> government and then we should restructure the schools.
>
No just get the government out of schools and it's not a problem.
You haven't shown that a good government is even possible.
> >
> > You haven't shown what is ugly, sickening etc. about what "they"
> >want this country to become. Nor have you shown that government
> >action could prevent it.
>
> Homosexual perversion is ugly and government can simply outlaw it.
No it isn't and no they shouldn't. If you aren't going to bother
supporting your assertions stop making them.
> >
> > Homosexual pervesion as you put it has never appealed to the majority
> >of the population so I don't see how it can corrupt "the nation",
> >feminism is so abused a term that I refuse to discuss it without a
> >definition and as for race-mixing, what's wrong with it? It's
> >natural, fun and let's you meet new people.
>
>
> Here is part of David Duke's newsletter:
>
<snip the rantings of a bigoted racist that had nothing to do
with the point.
> >
> > How do you know? What made it "great"?
>
> Its obvious what makes nations great. Europe, the USA , Canada, and
> Australia are the first world. Africa and India are the third world.
> The difference is race.
You don't seem to understand the question, what is it that you can
point to and say "This shows the nation is great" and why is that
thing good?
>
> > So it wasn't being conquered by a corrupt Spanish court or losing
> >wars to England? Sure it wasn't.
>
> No, its race.
> >> They let a lot of Black people in and of course the result was racial
> >> inter-marriage. Now the Portuguese people are not as White as they
> >> were.
> > And how is that bad?
>
> The former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black
> nations and India are the third world. In the middle, or the second
> world are the Arabs and China. It is just as racialists would predict.
No the racist would predict that this was the consistent rule
throughout the centuries and it wasn't. Egyptians were more
advanced than the predeccessors of Celts and Anglo Saxons at one time,
the Chinese more advanced than the Romans, the Arabs more advanced than
Europeans etc. at various times in history. If the racists are right
why was Alegra and optics a dark-skinned invention? Or gunpowder a
yellow-skinned one?
> It is because the White race is on average much more intelligent than
> the Black race. The people in Japan are much lighter in color than the
> people in India.
>
> All IQ tests have proven that Whites are on average much more
> intelligent than Blacks.
No they haven't, in fact tested designed by Blacks "proved" the
opposite, to the extent that IQ tests prove anything, which is to
say not at all.
> White people invented just about everything
> important.
Except gunpowder, agriculture, usable blood transfusions,
the abacus, the number zero, the windmill, etc. etc et-fucking-cetera.
Actually it's in line with the theory that enviroment is the
prevailing factor and that discrimination on skin colour and disruption
resulting from it is what causes the lower IQ. Blacks raised by whites
in a significantly racist society aren't identical to blacks in general
and have a harder time adjusting to their role. The blacker they
are the harder this time will be. Just another case of a racist claiming
evidence proves his point when it actually suggests the opposite.
>
> RESULTS OF MINNESOTA TRANSRACIAL ADOPTION STUDY
>
> IQ
>
> Parental IQ 115.35
> Biological Children 109.4
> White Adopted children 105.6
> Mulatto parents adopted children 98.5
> Black parents adopted children 89.4
>
> Scarr and Wienberg reluctantly published their data from the
> follow up survey, but they waited close to four years to do so, almost
> as if they were embarrassed by what they had found. Through a tortured
> reasoning process, they still argued that environment played a
> dominant role in IQ.
Which is what you expect when the enviroment changes and genes don't.
> But in their follow-up survey, unlike their first
> paper, they also admitted that genes had an important impact as well.
> Both Richard Lynn and Michael Levin effectively showed in their
> re-analysis of Scarr's own data, that genes clearly comprise the
> dominant role in intelligence levels of those adopted children. (90)
> (91)"
>
> (88) Scarr, S, & Weinberg R. A. (1976). IQ Test Perfomance of Black
> Children Adopted By White Families. American Psychologist. Vol. 31.
> p.26-739
>
> (89) Weinberg, R. A. , Scarr, S., & Waldman, I. D. (1992). The
> Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. A Follow-Up of IQ Test
> Performance at Adolescence, Intelligence. Vol 16.
> p.17-135
>
> (90) Lynn, R. (1994). Reinterpretations Of The Minnesota Transracial
> Adoption Study. Intelligence. Vol. 19. p.1-27
>
> (91) Levin, M. (1994). Comment on The Minnesota Transracial Adoption
> Study. Intelligence Vol. 19. p.3-20
> >
> > Why?
<snip a long boring diatribe based on the assumption it intends to
prove>
> >
> > It's not true though, as even a basic understanding of science would
> >tell you.
>
> Science is what your politically correct teachers do not tell you.
>
> >
> > And why would "race-mixing" cause that to happen? Blank out!
>
> Look at any White neighborhood. Look at any Black neighborhood. It
> does happen.
There are bad black neighbourhoods and good ones and bad white
neighbourhoods and good ones. The difference is the entent to which
the government fucks things up not race. You assert things that
are clearly not true because you like certainty particularly when
it assures you you are more intelligent than you are.
> It is the same with Europe and Africa. The difference is
> race.
>
> >
> > Then how did England or German, both multiply racially "contaminated"
> >at the time of the greatest strength, build an empire? Or France or
> >Spain or any other empire since Rome.
>
> They were White.
>
England and Germany were certainly not "racially pure" they had been invaded
mulitple times. If you think they were monoracial then you think that
Celts and Angles are the same race, which could get you beaten up in any
Glasgow pub. In any case Spain still had an empire after getting significantly
blacker, how did that happen?
Topaz
wrote:
>>
>> Government should prevent ugliness and eliminate it.
>
> Why?
So everything will look good.
> Are they particularly good at it? Not that I'd noticed,
The government we have now should be replaced by a government that
is good.
>the British Government even admitted to creating the ugliest buildings
The British Government should be replaced by a government that is
good.
>in the world. Even if goverment were good at eliminating ugliness
>it would have to do so by coercion and by paying people from funds
>extracted by coercion.
We should ban run down ugly buildings. We should make everything
look good.
> This is far worse than having some ugly things.
>In any case how does the government decide something is ugly? What
>about things that, though ugly are more useful than a beautiful thing?
Like what?
>
>> Nations should be transformed as in the beginning of the movie "The
>> Tenth Kingdom". Everything ugly should go.
>
> And who decides what is ugly?
I do.
> What if I think something is beautiful
>and the government thinks it's ugly, what makes their esthetics more
>valid than mine?
We should have a government that has good taste.
>
> No just get the government out of schools and it's not a problem.
>You haven't shown that a good government is even possible.
Children should have free education. That is a good thing. We should
have government schools but the government should be different from
what it is now.
>>
>> Homosexual perversion is ugly and government can simply outlaw it.
>
> No it isn't and no they shouldn't. If you aren't going to bother
>supporting your assertions stop making them.
Your sentance is an assertion.
> You don't seem to understand the question, what is it that you can
>point to and say "This shows the nation is great" and why is that
>thing good?
There are many things. For one thing the people should be
prosperous and should have computers.
> No the racist would predict that this was the consistent rule
>throughout the centuries and it wasn't. Egyptians were more
>advanced than the predeccessors of Celts and Anglo Saxons at one time,
"Queen Hetop-Heres II, of the Fourth Dynasty, the daughter of Cheops,
the builder of the great pyramid, is shown in the colored bas reliefs
of her tomb to have been a distinct blonde. Her hair is painted a
bright yellow stippled with little red horizontal lines, and her skin
is white."
Coon, Carleton Stevens. The Races of Europe. New York City, Macmillan.
1939, p.98
The tomb of the wife of Zoser, the builder of the first pyramid in
Egypt, has a painting of her showing her with reddish-blond hair.
Heyerdahl, Thor, The Ra Expeditions, Garden City, Doubleday, 1971,
p.249
The mummy of Rameses II has yellow hair.
Egypt: Land of the Pharaohs, Time-Life books, Alexandria, VA 1992 p.8
"A funerary mask with the attributes of the goddess Isis shows a
vivid blue-green color of eyes.
A General Introduction to the Egyptian Collections in the the British
Museam. London, Harrison and Sons, 1930, p.49
The mummy of the wife of King Tutankhamen has auburn hair.
Carter, Michael, Tutankhamun, The Golden Monarch, N.Y. 1972 p.68
Red-haired mummies were found in the crocodile-caverns of Aboufaida.
Tomkins, Henry George, Remarks on Mr. Flinders Petries Collection of
Ethnographic Types from the Monuments of Egypt, Journal of the
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Vol. XVIIII,
1889, p.216
The mummy of Rameses II has fine silky yellow hair.
Smith, G. Elliot and Dawson, Warren R. Egyptian Mummies, London,
George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1924 p.99
A blond mummy was found at Kawamil along with many chestnut-colored
ones.
De Lapouge, G. Vacher, L'Aryen, Sa Vie Sociale. Paris, Pichat, 1899,
p.26
Amenhotep III's tomb painting shows him as having light red
hair.
National Geographic Society, Ancient Egypt, Discovering its
Splendors,1978 p.103
An Egyptian scribe named Sakkarah around 2500 B.C. has blue eyes.
Strouhal, Eugen, Life of the Ancient Egyptians, Norman, Oklahoma,
University of Oklahoma Press, 1992, p.53
A common good luck charm was the eye of Horus, the so-called
Wedjat Eye. The eye is always blue, and the word "wedjat" means "blue"
in Egyptian.
Queen Thi is painted as having a rosy complexion, blue eyes and
blond hair.
Hamy, E.T., "Races Humaines de la Vallee du Nil" Bulletin de la
Societe d'Anthropologie de Paris, 1886, p.739
Paintings from the Third Dynasty show native Egyptians with red
hair and blue eyes.
Pijoan, Jose, Historia del Arte Vol III, Madrid, Espasa-Calpe, 1932,
plate XI
The god Nuit was painted as white and blond.
Champollion, H., Le Nil et la Societe Egyptienne, Marseille, Musee
Boreby, 1973 p.94
A painting from Iteti's tomb at Saqqara shows a very Nordic-looking
man with blond hair.
Westendorf, Wolfhart, Painting, Sculpture and Architecture of Ancient
Egypt. New York, Harry N. Abrams, Inc. 1968 p.65
Time-Life books recently put out a volume called Rameses II The
Great. It has a good picture of the blond mummy of Rameses II. Another
picture can be found in the book X-Raying the Pharaohs, especially the
picture on the jacket cover. It shows his yellow hair.
A book called Chronicle of the Pharaohs was recently published
showing paintings,scuptures and mummies of 189 pharaohs and leading
personalities of Ancient Egypt. Of these, 102 appear European, 13 look
black and the rest are hard to classify. All nine mummies look
European.
The very first pharaoh, Narmer, also known as Menes, looks very
European, The same can be said for Khufu's cousin Hemon, who designed
the Great Pyramid of Giza. A computer-generated reconstruction of the
face of the Sphinx shows a European-looking face.
Egypt: Land of the Pharaohs, Time-Life books Alexandria, VA 1992 p.67
It was once painted sunburned red.
Silverberg, Robert, Before the Sphinx; Early Egypt N.Y., N.Y., T.
Nelson 1971 p.168
The Egyptians often painted upper class men as red and upper
class women as white; this because the men became sunburned or tanned
while outside under the burning Egyptian sun.
The information above is part of the information compiled by
Phillip Bonner and was printed in The Barnes Review, 130 Third Street,
SE, Washington, D.C. 20003
>the Chinese more advanced than the Romans,
Indo-European: The Mummies of Xinjiang
The Mummies of Xinjiang
In the dry hills of this central Asian province, archeologist have
unearthed more than 100 corpses hat are as much s 4,000 years old.
Astonishingly well preserved - and Caucasian.
One glimpse of the corpses was enough to shock Victor Mair profoundly.
In 1987, Mair, a professor of Chinese at the University of
Pennsylvania,
was leading a tour group through a museum in the Chinese city of
Urumqi, in
the central Asian province of Xinjiang, when he accidentally strayed
into
gloomy, newly opened room. There, under glass, lay the recently
discovered corpses of a family - a man, a woman, and a child of two or
three - each clad in long, dark purple woolen garments and felt boots.
Even
today I get chills thinking about that first encounter," says Mair.
"The
Chinese said they were 3,000 years old, yet the bodies looked as if
they
were buried yesterday."
But the real shock came when Mair looked closely at their faces. In
contrast to most central Asian peoples,these corpses had obvious
Caucasian,
or European, features - blond hair, long noses, deep-set eyes, and
long
skulls."I was thunderstruck," Mair recalls. "Even though I was
supposed
to be leading a tour group, I just couldn't leave that room. The
questions
kept nagging at me: Who were these people? How did they get out here
at
such an early date?"
The corpses Mair saw that day were just a few of more than 100 dug up
by
Chinese archeologists over the past 16 years. All of them are
astonishingly
well preserved.They come from four major burial sites scattered
between
the arid foothills of the Tian Shan ("Celestial Mountains") in
northwest
China and the fringes of the The Taklimakan Desert, some 150 miles due
south. All together, these bodies,dating from about 2000 B.C. to 300
B.C.,
constitute significant addition to the world's catalog of prehistoric
mummies. Unlike the roughly contemporaneous mummies of ancient Egypt,
the
Xinjiang mummies were not ruler or nobles; they were not interred in
pyramids or other such monuments,nor were they subjected to deliberate
mummification procedures.
They were preserved merely by being buried in the parched, stony
desert,
where daytime temperatures often soar over 100 degrees. In the heat
the
bodies were quickly dried, with facial hair, skin, and other tissues
remaining largely intact.
Where exactly did these apparent Caucasians come from? And what were
they doing at remote desert oases in central Asia?
Any answers to these questions will most likely fuel a wide-ranging
debate about the role outsiders played in the rise of Chinese
civilization.
As far back as the second century B.C., Chinese texts refer to alien
peoples called the Yuezhi and the Wusun, who lived on China's far
western
borders; the texts make it clear that these people were regarded as
troublesome "barbarians." Until recently, scholars have tended to
downplay
evidence of any early trade or contact between China and the West,
regarding the development of Chinese civilization as an essentially
homegrown affair scaled off from outside influences; indeed, this view
is
still extremely congenial to the present Chinese regime. Yet some
archeologists have begun to argue that these supposed barbarians might
have
been responsible for introducing into China such basic items as the
wheel
and the first metal objects. Exactly who these central Asian outsiders
might have been, however what language they spoke and where they came
from
- is a puzzle. No wonder, then, that scholars see the discovery of the
blond mummies as a sensational new clue...
Most researchers now think the birthplace of horsedrawn vehicles and
horse
riding was in the steppes east and west of the Urals rather than in
China
or the Near East. As archeologist David Anthony and his colleagues
have
shown through microscopic study of ancient horse teeth, horses were
already
being harnessed in the Ukraine 6,000 years ago. The Ukraine horses,
Anthony
found, show a particular kind of tooth wear identical to that of
modern
horses that "fight the bit." The world's earliest high-status vehicles
also
seem to have originated in the steppes; recent discoveries of wooden
chariots with elaborate spoked wheels were reported by Anthony to date
to
around 2000 B.C. Chariots do not seem to have appeared in China until
some
800 years later...
had wagons and well-tailored clothes. Were they mere goat and
sheep farmers? Or did they profit from or even control prehistoric
trade
along the route that later became the Silk Road? If so, they probably
helped spread the first wheels and certain metalworking skills into
China.
"Ultimately I think our project may end up having tremendous
implications
for the origins of Chinese civilization," Mair reflects. "For all
their
incredible inventiveness, the ancient Chinese weren't cut off from the
rest of the world, and influences didn't just flow one way, from China
westward."
Unfortunately, economics dictates that answers will be slow in coming.
The Chinese have the money to spare for this work, and Wang and his
team
continue to operate on a shoestring. Currently most of the corpses and
artifacts are stored in a damp, crowded basement room at the Institute
of Archeology in Urumqi, in conditions that threaten their continued
preservation. If Mair's plans for a museum can be financed with
Western
help, perhaps the mummies can be moved. Then, finally, they'll receive
the study and attention that will ultimately unlock their secrets.
> the Arabs more advanced than
>Europeans etc. at various times in history. If the racists are right
>why was Alegra and optics a dark-skinned invention? Or gunpowder a
>yellow-skinned one?
Certainly gunpowder was discovered by accident. You put some
minerals together and you have it. It's not like inventing a car or a
plane.
>
> No they haven't, in fact tested designed by Blacks "proved" the
>opposite, to the extent that IQ tests prove anything, which is to
>say not at all.
>
That is not true. And the reason you make things like that up is
because your mind is closed to the real truth.
> Except gunpowder, agriculture, usable blood transfusions,
>the abacus, the number zero, the windmill, etc. etc et-fucking-cetera.
The problem is that your mind is closed.
>
> Actually it's in line with the theory that enviroment is the
>prevailing factor and that discrimination on skin colour and disruption
>resulting from it is what causes the lower IQ. Blacks raised by whites
>in a significantly racist society aren't identical to blacks in general
>and have a harder time adjusting to their role. The blacker they
>are the harder this time will be. Just another case of a racist claiming
>evidence proves his point when it actually suggests the opposite.
>
> Which is what you expect when the enviroment changes and genes don't.
>>
> There are bad black neighbourhoods and good ones
Where?
> and bad white
>neighbourhoods and good ones.
In what White neighborhood do stores have metal bars across the
windows? Black neighborhoods have that.
> The difference is the entent to which
>the government fucks things up not race. You assert things that
>are clearly not true because you like certainty particularly when
>it assures you you are more intelligent than you are.
>
> England and Germany were certainly not "racially pure" they had been invaded
>mulitple times. If you think they were monoracial then you think that
>Celts and Angles are the same race,
They are.
> which could get you beaten up in any
>Glasgow pub. In any case Spain still had an empire after getting significantly
>blacker, how did that happen?
They stole a lot of gold from South America.
michael price
> On 29 Sep 2004 00:37:41 -0700, nini...@yahoo.com (michael price)
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Government should prevent ugliness and eliminate it.
> >
> > Why?
>
> So everything will look good.
And that's a good enough reason to vastly increase the power of
government and make us all slaves is it?
>
> > Are they particularly good at it? Not that I'd noticed,
>
> The government we have now should be replaced by a government that
> is good.
>
A government that is good at preventing ugliness? What evidence
do you have that's even possible let alone worth the cost in money,
lives and freedom?
>
> >the British Government even admitted to creating the ugliest buildings
>
> The British Government should be replaced by a government that is
> good.
>
And one that is vastly more powerful would not need to be good.
>
> >in the world. Even if goverment were good at eliminating ugliness
> >it would have to do so by coercion and by paying people from funds
> >extracted by coercion.
>
> We should ban run down ugly buildings. We should make everything
> look good.
You say that as though saying it gave people a reason to believe it.
>
>
> > This is far worse than having some ugly things.
> >In any case how does the government decide something is ugly? What
> >about things that, though ugly are more useful than a beautiful thing?
>
> Like what?
Factories, power stations, mixomatosis, things like that.
> >
> >> Nations should be transformed as in the beginning of the movie "The
> >> Tenth Kingdom". Everything ugly should go.
> >
> > And who decides what is ugly?
>
> I do.
No, you don't because you're a powerless dickwad.
>
> > What if I think something is beautiful
> >and the government thinks it's ugly, what makes their esthetics more
> >valid than mine?
>
> We should have a government that has good taste.
>
Then obviously I would have to head it and I'm busy.
> >
> > No just get the government out of schools and it's not a problem.
> >You haven't shown that a good government is even possible.
>
> Children should have free education.
Why? If education is worth it why shouldn't people pay for it? It
costs somebody time to create why should that person or someone else
have to pay with no return?
> That is a good thing. We should have government schools but the
> government should be different from what it is now.
>
Why? What evidence do you have th
> >>
> >> Homosexual perversion is ugly and government can simply outlaw it.
> >
> > No it isn't and no they shouldn't. If you aren't going to bother
> >supporting your assertions stop making them.
>
> Your sentance is an assertion.
Why so it is, and it's as convincing as your assertion, so they cancel
out. If you want the point to actually stand however, provide some
evidence.
>
> > You don't seem to understand the question, what is it that you can
> >point to and say "This shows the nation is great" and why is that
> >thing good?
>
> There are many things. For one thing the people should be
> prosperous and should have computers.
>
But Portugal wasn't prosperous by modern standards and didn't have
computers so why did you say it was great? What if anything is your
standard of greatness.
>
> > No the racist would predict that this was the consistent rule
> >throughout the centuries and it wasn't. Egyptians were more
> >advanced than the predeccessors of Celts and Anglo Saxons at one time,
>
>
>
> "Queen Hetop-Heres II, of the Fourth Dynasty, the daughter of Cheops,
> the builder of the great pyramid, is shown in the colored bas reliefs
> of her tomb to have been a distinct blonde.
But do the collars match the cuffs?
<snip lots more stuff that relates to the upper classes only and not all
of them>.
> >the Chinese more advanced than the Romans,
>
>
> Indo-European: The Mummies of Xinjiang
>
> The Mummies of Xinjiang
>
> In the dry hills of this central Asian province, archeologist have
> unearthed more than 100 corpses hat are as much s 4,000 years old.
> Astonishingly well preserved - and Caucasian.
And not the people who built "great empires".
>> > the Arabs more advanced than
> >Europeans etc. at various times in history. If the racists are right
> >why was Alegra and optics a dark-skinned invention? Or gunpowder a
> >yellow-skinned one?
>
> Certainly gunpowder was discovered by accident. You put some
> minerals together and you have it. It's not like inventing a car or a
> plane.
In other words if a non-white invents it it was an accident, and
if a white does it's genius.
> >
> > No they haven't, in fact tested designed by Blacks "proved" the
> >opposite, to the extent that IQ tests prove anything, which is to
> >say not at all.
> >
> That is not true. And the reason you make things like that up is
> because your mind is closed to the real truth.
It is true, look it up.
>
>
> > Except gunpowder, agriculture, usable blood transfusions,
> >the abacus, the number zero, the windmill, etc. etc et-fucking-cetera.
>
> The problem is that your mind is closed.
>
The problem is your an ignorant fool.
> >
> > Actually it's in line with the theory that enviroment is the
> >prevailing factor and that discrimination on skin colour and disruption
> >resulting from it is what causes the lower IQ. Blacks raised by whites
> >in a significantly racist society aren't identical to blacks in general
> >and have a harder time adjusting to their role. The blacker they
> >are the harder this time will be. Just another case of a racist claiming
> >evidence proves his point when it actually suggests the opposite.
> >
> > Which is what you expect when the enviroment changes and genes don't.
> >>
> > There are bad black neighbourhoods and good ones
>
> Where?
All over the place. For instance the black middle classes in
american generally live in very peaceful neighbourhoods.
>
> > and bad white
> >neighbourhoods and good ones.
>
> In what White neighborhood do stores have metal bars across the
> windows?
Yes, some of them.
> Black neighborhoods have that.
>
Some of them.
>
> > The difference is the entent to which
> >the government fucks things up not race. You assert things that
> >are clearly not true because you like certainty particularly when
> >it assures you you are more intelligent than you are.
> >
>
> > England and Germany were certainly not "racially pure" they had been invaded
> >mulitple times. If you think they were monoracial then you think that
> >Celts and Angles are the same race,
>
> They are.
Based on what definition of race?
>
> > which could get you beaten up in any
> >Glasgow pub. In any case Spain still had an empire after getting significantly
> >blacker, how did that happen?
>
> They stole a lot of gold from South America.
So why didn't the "white" people do that? Why did the Spanish have
the military and the navigation to be able to do it and not the "whites"?
michael price
> On 29 Sep 2004 00:37:41 -0700, nini...@yahoo.com (michael price)
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Government should prevent ugliness and eliminate it.
> >
> > Why?
>
> So everything will look good.
And that's a good enough reason to vastly increase the power of
government and make us all slaves is it?
>
> > Are they particularly good at it? Not that I'd noticed,
>
> The government we have now should be replaced by a government that
> is good.
>
A government that is good at preventing ugliness? What evidence
do you have that's even possible let alone worth the cost in money,
lives and freedom?
>
> >the British Government even admitted to creating the ugliest buildings
>
> The British Government should be replaced by a government that is
> good.
>
And one that is vastly more powerful would not need to be good.
>
> >in the world. Even if goverment were good at eliminating ugliness
> >it would have to do so by coercion and by paying people from funds
> >extracted by coercion.
>
> We should ban run down ugly buildings. We should make everything
> look good.
You say that as though saying it gave people a reason to believe it.
>
>
> > This is far worse than having some ugly things.
> >In any case how does the government decide something is ugly? What
> >about things that, though ugly are more useful than a beautiful thing?
>
> Like what?
Factories, power stations, mixomatosis, things like that.
> >
> >> Nations should be transformed as in the beginning of the movie "The
> >> Tenth Kingdom". Everything ugly should go.
> >
> > And who decides what is ugly?
>
> I do.
No, you don't because you're a powerless dickwad.
>
> > What if I think something is beautiful
> >and the government thinks it's ugly, what makes their esthetics more
> >valid than mine?
>
> We should have a government that has good taste.
>
Then obviously I would have to head it and I'm busy.
> >
> > No just get the government out of schools and it's not a problem.
> >You haven't shown that a good government is even possible.
>
> Children should have free education.
Why? If education is worth it why shouldn't people pay for it? It
costs somebody time to create why should that person or someone else
have to pay with no return?
> That is a good thing. We should have government schools but the
> government should be different from what it is now.
>
Why? What evidence do you have th
> >>
> >> Homosexual perversion is ugly and government can simply outlaw it.
> >
> > No it isn't and no they shouldn't. If you aren't going to bother
> >supporting your assertions stop making them.
>
> Your sentance is an assertion.
Why so it is, and it's as convincing as your assertion, so they cancel
out. If you want the point to actually stand however, provide some
evidence.
>
> > You don't seem to understand the question, what is it that you can
> >point to and say "This shows the nation is great" and why is that
> >thing good?
>
> There are many things. For one thing the people should be
> prosperous and should have computers.
>
But Portugal wasn't prosperous by modern standards and didn't have
computers so why did you say it was great? What if anything is your
standard of greatness.
>
> > No the racist would predict that this was the consistent rule
> >throughout the centuries and it wasn't. Egyptians were more
> >advanced than the predeccessors of Celts and Anglo Saxons at one time,
>
>
>
> "Queen Hetop-Heres II, of the Fourth Dynasty, the daughter of Cheops,
> the builder of the great pyramid, is shown in the colored bas reliefs
> of her tomb to have been a distinct blonde.
But do the collars match the cuffs?
<snip lots more stuff that relates to the upper classes only and not all
of them>.
> >the Chinese more advanced than the Romans,
>
>
> Indo-European: The Mummies of Xinjiang
>
> The Mummies of Xinjiang
>
> In the dry hills of this central Asian province, archeologist have
> unearthed more than 100 corpses hat are as much s 4,000 years old.
> Astonishingly well preserved - and Caucasian.
And not the people who built "great empires".
>> > the Arabs more advanced than
> >Europeans etc. at various times in history. If the racists are right
> >why was Alegra and optics a dark-skinned invention? Or gunpowder a
> >yellow-skinned one?
>
> Certainly gunpowder was discovered by accident. You put some
> minerals together and you have it. It's not like inventing a car or a
> plane.
In other words if a non-white invents it it was an accident, and
if a white does it's genius.
> >
> > No they haven't, in fact tested designed by Blacks "proved" the
> >opposite, to the extent that IQ tests prove anything, which is to
> >say not at all.
> >
> That is not true. And the reason you make things like that up is
> because your mind is closed to the real truth.
It is true, look it up.
>
>
> > Except gunpowder, agriculture, usable blood transfusions,
> >the abacus, the number zero, the windmill, etc. etc et-fucking-cetera.
>
> The problem is that your mind is closed.
>
The problem is your an ignorant fool.
> >
> > Actually it's in line with the theory that enviroment is the
> >prevailing factor and that discrimination on skin colour and disruption
> >resulting from it is what causes the lower IQ. Blacks raised by whites
> >in a significantly racist society aren't identical to blacks in general
> >and have a harder time adjusting to their role. The blacker they
> >are the harder this time will be. Just another case of a racist claiming
> >evidence proves his point when it actually suggests the opposite.
> >
> > Which is what you expect when the enviroment changes and genes don't.
> >>
> > There are bad black neighbourhoods and good ones
>
> Where?
All over the place. For instance the black middle classes in
american generally live in very peaceful neighbourhoods.
>
> > and bad white
> >neighbourhoods and good ones.
>
> In what White neighborhood do stores have metal bars across the
> windows?
Yes, some of them.
> Black neighborhoods have that.
>
Some of them.
>
> > The difference is the entent to which
> >the government fucks things up not race. You assert things that
> >are clearly not true because you like certainty particularly when
> >it assures you you are more intelligent than you are.
> >
>
> > England and Germany were certainly not "racially pure" they had been invaded
> >mulitple times. If you think they were monoracial then you think that
> >Celts and Angles are the same race,
>
> They are.
Based on what definition of race?
>
> > which could get you beaten up in any
> >Glasgow pub. In any case Spain still had an empire after getting significantly
> >blacker, how did that happen?
>
> They stole a lot of gold from South America.
So why didn't the "white" people do that? Why did the Spanish have
Topaz
wrote:
>
> And that's a good enough reason to vastly increase the power of
>government and make us all slaves is it?
First of all we should have a good government. A bad government
should not have any power at all. And if there is a slum building the
government should find the owner and force him to sell the building of
fix it up. We don't need slums. The nation should be transformed as in
the beginning of the movie "The Tenth Kingdom".
You call it slavery because you are not free to have a horrible
eyesore of a building which is not good for people to see. It is your
philosophy that I disagree with. Here is why:
The meaning of "right" and "left" has changed. I stay with the
original meaning for the same reason I refuse to call homosexual
perverts "gay". The word "gay" was originally a good thing.
The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals to
corrupt the culture of the nation.
Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
harm none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize homosexual
perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.
The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only
about individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make
the nation better. There are beaches where normal families will not go
because homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach.
This is example of the freedom liberals want They are like children
who only care about their individual selves and are oblivious to what
should be done to make the nation great. Their philosophy, taken to
its logical conclusion, would not allow the law that drivers have to
stop at the red lights. Their philosophy would allow heroin to be sold
on grocery store shelves and allow ads promoting heroin on TV. Their
philosophy would result in chaos and degeneracy.
Libertarians are liberals who want freedom for the Ebenezer
Scrooges to be as greedy as they want. They have the same philosophy
as other leftist who want to legalize heroin and prostitution, namely
that the state can't tell them what they can't do. People don't like
laws stopping them from doing things, and we should sympathize with
that, but sometimes that is not the most important thing. Capitalists
want freedom for greed, other liberals want freedom for degeneracy,
but good laws would make a nation good.
The Communist were leftist and they said they were fighting for
freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and
the anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The
Communists were for having government but only temporarily. They said
that their government was necessary only until the whole world was
Communist. After the world was Communist they wanted to dissolve the
government and have an anarchy.
The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about the
present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future like in
Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not
interested and insist that nothing could be more important than the
freedom of individuals to be as decadent as they want. They are like
the children in the old black and white movie "Lord of the Flies".
> A government that is good at preventing ugliness?
Yes
>What evidence
>do you have that's even possible let alone worth the cost in money,
>lives and freedom?
It wouldn't cost any lives. The freedom to make the nation suffer by
having an ugly eyesore is not a usefull freedom. It would cost money.
The limit on how ugly a building can be would depend on how wealthy
the nation is.
> And one that is vastly more powerful would not need to be good.
The bad people and people who like it to be ugly would be not think
it was good. We should not care what they think.
>
> You say that as though saying it gave people a reason to believe it.
>
> Factories, power stations, mixomatosis, things like that.
We need them and we can try to make them good looking at the same
time.
Here is part of an essay by Dr. Robert Ley:
"Who concerned himself with creating good workplaces before? Today the
"Beauty in Labor Office" sees to it that productive people work in
worthy surroundings, not in dirty workplaces. The "Kraft durch Freude"
organization provides German workers with vacations and relaxation.
They travel to the mountains and the beach, and have the chance, often
for the first time, to explore their beautiful fatherland. They travel
in their own ships to the magical southern seas and countries, or to
the splendid beauty of the north. Each German citizen today enjoys the
wonderful achievements of German theater and German music, the best
German orchestras, the best German operas, theaters and films.
Citizens listen to the radio, and play any kind of sport they wish.
There new activities result not in dissipation, distraction and carnal
pleasure, rather in genuine pleasure in physical activity, nature and
culture. He who works hard should be able to enjoy life too so that he
better appreciates his people. The specter of unemployment no longer
haunts the nation. Millions have already found work again, and those
who still have not are cared for by the entire nation. Labor
representatives see to it that the rights of workers and their honor
are not violated, and the factory manager is as responsible for his
employees and they are responsible with him for the success of the
plant in which they together work...
Everyone knows that there is only one man to thank, Adolf Hitler, the
creator of National Socialism, who put the common good above the
individual good, who replaced class struggle of "above and below" and
"right and left" with a new message of the honor of labor and of
service to the people. The National Socialist Labor Service will see
to it that this teaching that makes the German worker the bearer of
the state never vanishes. It is seeing to it that every German
citizen, whatever his occupation may be, first works with his hands
for the good of the nation."
michael price
> On 30 Sep 2004 05:18:21 -0700, nini...@yahoo.com (michael price)
> wrote:
> >
> > And that's a good enough reason to vastly increase the power of
> >government and make us all slaves is it?
>
> First of all we should have a good government.
Well yes, but having a good government is no reason to give it
power, even if we could be sure how good the government was. Power
corrupts governments and they can only be kept good by limiting it.
>A bad government
> should not have any power at all. And if there is a slum building the
> government should find the owner and force him to sell the building of
> fix it up.
And if he can't rent it at a high enough rate to justify fixing it up
what then? Should why should he pay so that you don't have to look
at something you don't want to? If you don't want to look at it
buy it and change it.
> We don't need slums.
If that were true then nobody would rent or buy slum property. If
that were so then of course we wouldn't have slums. If you get rid of
"slums" and don't provide equally affordable housing people will freeze
to death in cardboard boxes. You really need to think more about
what your policies would result in.
>The nation should be transformed as in
> the beginning of the movie "The Tenth Kingdom".
I've never seen or heard of it and it sounds like crap.
>
> You call it slavery because you are not free to have a horrible
> eyesore of a building which is not good for people to see.
I call it slavery because it would neccesitate the government taking
over every decision I might want to make. If this differs from slavery
it is not in a significant way.
> It is your philosophy that I disagree with. Here is why:
>
> The meaning of "right" and "left" has changed. I stay with the
> original meaning for the same reason I refuse to call homosexual
> perverts "gay".
You stay with what you claim is the original meaning so that you can
make a false point.
> The word "gay" was originally a good thing.
>
> The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
> prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things.
None of which you have shown to be bad.
> It puts the good of the nation first and ahead of the
> freedom of individuals to corrupt the culture of the nation.
No it puts the good of the State first and gives it the freedom
to corrupt the culture of the nation. In any case how can the "good
of the nation" be put ahead of the good of individuals? The
individual are the nation!
>
> Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
> harm none, do what will you will.
No they don't. Name one leftist who does this,liar.
<snip the nonsense you first posted that doesn't answer any of the
questions I asked>
>
> > A government that is good at preventing ugliness?
>
> Yes
>
> > What evidence do you have that's even possible let alone
> > worth the cost in money, lives and freedom?
>
> It wouldn't cost any lives.
How do you know? The only way to prevent "ugliness" by government
action is to use force. Eventually that use of force is going to
result in the government shooting someone or putting them in
jail where they are murdered.
> The freedom to make the nation suffer by having an ugly eyesore
> is not a usefull freedom.
Yes it is, it allows people to build things without needing a
government approval for their look. This reduces monetary costs
by billions, the time it takes to do things by person-centuries etc.
> It would cost money. The limit on how ugly a building can be
> would depend on how wealthy the nation is.
No it would depend on how arrogant the government could get before
the people rightly lynch it.
>
> > And one that is vastly more powerful would not need to be good.
>
> The bad people and people who like it to be ugly would be not think
> it was good. We should not care what they think.
>
How do you know they are bad people? They might just be people who
don't want to spend their money on making a thing beautiful. Considering
you are not spending money on making that thing beautiful woudn't that
make you bad?
> >
> > You say that as though saying it gave people a reason to believe it.
>
> >
> > Factories, power stations, mixomatosis, things like that.
>
> We need them and we can try to make them good looking at the same
> time.
You can, but why the hell should we allow the use of government force
to make it so?
>
> Here is part of an essay by Dr. Robert Ley:
>
> "Who concerned himself with creating good workplaces before? Today the
> "Beauty in Labor Office" sees to it that productive people work in
> worthy surroundings, not in dirty workplaces.
And the workers didn't give a damn. If people had been all that
ardent for "beautiful" workplaces then they would have quit ugly
ones and heading to firms that offered more asthetically pleasing
surroundings even if wages were lower. This fact would soon be
observed by businessmen and the beauty would flow. The fact that
it didn't suggests that making work beautiful is not worth the
cost.
> The "Kraft durch Freude"
> organization provides German workers with vacations and relaxation.
> They travel to the mountains and the beach, and have the chance, often
> for the first time, to explore their beautiful fatherland. They travel
> in their own ships to the magical southern seas and countries, or to
> the splendid beauty of the north. Each German citizen today enjoys the
> wonderful achievements of German theater and German music, the best
> German orchestras, the best German operas, theaters and films.
> Citizens listen to the radio, and play any kind of sport they wish.
> There new activities result not in dissipation, distraction and carnal
> pleasure, rather in genuine pleasure in physical activity, nature and
> culture. He who works hard should be able to enjoy life too so that he
> better appreciates his people. The specter of unemployment no longer
> haunts the nation. Millions have already found work again, and those
> who still have not are cared for by the entire nation. Labor
> representatives see to it that the rights of workers and their honor
> are not violated, and the factory manager is as responsible for his
> employees and they are responsible with him for the success of the
> plant in which they together work...
> Everyone knows that there is only one man to thank, Adolf Hitler, the
> creator of National Socialism, who put the common good above the
> individual good,
Specifically the common good of Hitler, who was as common as they come
above the individual German.
> who replaced class struggle of "above and below" and
> "right and left" with a new message of the honor of labor and of
> service to the people.
While simultainously removing the rights of workingmen to strike
or speak their mind.
> The National Socialist Labor Service will see
> to it that this teaching that makes the German worker the bearer of
> the state never vanishes. It is seeing to it that every German
> citizen, whatever his occupation may be, first works with his hands
> for the good of the nation."
Which means the good of the Party which means the good of the Fuheur.
michael price
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 21:56:37 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon
> <cu...@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Do you think everything objectionable to every person in America should be
> >outlawed and made illegal?
>
> It should be thought about and possibly outlawed.
>
conversation. It should therefore be illegal for you to post, speak,
or communicate in any way. Of course you don't mean this, which is
why you said "possibly" outlawed. You meant outlawed if you didn't
like it, allowed if you did.
> >
> >Why not hetrosexual perversions, all-male clubs and of course we need to
> >draw and quarter all those brown-skinned people, right?
>
> We should have a nation for White people.
Why, can't you stand the competition from cheap black labour and
smart jewish labour?
> Other people should have
> their own nation someplace else.
> >
> >A number of things happened, primarily that the world grew larger while
> >Portugal was set upon by its larger rivals, Britain and Spain. Big fish
> >eat smaller fish. Find another excuse to justify your racism, this didn't
> >work.
>
> "The modern definition of a racist: someone who is winning an
> argument with a liberal."
> Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation (1996)
>
That's a stupid argument to pull when you have been proudly announcing
your racist veiws. You believe whites to be superior (although you are
clearly a counterexample) and say so, which fits the definition of racist
prefectly.
Since when would racists predict that Japanese people would be as
rich and well educated as whites?
> It is because the White race is on average much more intelligent than
> the Black race. The people in Japan are much lighter in color than the
> people in India.
Than some of them.
>
> All IQ tests have proven that Whites are on average much more
> intelligent than Blacks.
So if I post an IQ test that doesn't you'll give me $10,000?
I'll give you evens.
> White people invented just about everything
> important.
Says a man who thinks he'll never need blood plasma or a gun.
><snip the same crap>
Topaz
wrote:
>
>
> Well yes, but having a good government is no reason to give it
>power, even if we could be sure how good the government was. Power
>corrupts governments and they can only be kept good by limiting it.
The way it is now the bankers and other money bags are the power.
And they don't care about the "little guy". The only way to change
that is to have something more powerfull than the money power. And
that should be a good government.
>
> And if he can't rent it at a high enough rate to justify fixing it up
>what then? Should why should he pay so that you don't have to look
>at something you don't want to? If you don't want to look at it
>buy it and change it.
He should sell it to someone who would fix it up, or demolish it and
put something better looking there. We don't need to live with
ugliness.
>
>> We don't need slums.
>
> If that were true then nobody would rent or buy slum property. If
>that were so then of course we wouldn't have slums. If you get rid of
>"slums" and don't provide equally affordable housing people will freeze
>to death in cardboard boxes. You really need to think more about
>what your policies would result in.
Any citizen who is willing to work should have food and shelter. We
should make sure our citizens are provided for and it would be easy to
finance. For one thing we should stop giving the billions of dollars
to the Jews country.
Topaz
wrote:
>
> Well your posts are objectionable to many, so I assume is your everyday
>conversation. It should therefore be illegal for you to post, speak,
>or communicate in any way. Of course you don't mean this, which is
>why you said "possibly" outlawed. You meant outlawed if you didn't
>like it, allowed if you did.
I wasn't talking about speech and ideas. You are.
> Why, can't you stand the competition from cheap black labour and
>smart jewish labour?
We don't need to compete or to deal with greedy Jews. We don't need
capitalism.
Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
capitalism is that it puts no special value on people. Capitalism is
based on supply and demand. A capitalist company that made potato
chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y amount of salt,
and Z number of human beings for labor. The human beings have no more
value than the potatoes or the salt. And they consider it good to pay
they humans as little as they possibly can to increase their profits.
According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
will work for the least pennies per hour. They say everyone must
compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for
the fewest pennies. If a company makes billions in profit while paying
its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine. At least the
sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the people die
of starvation that is fine too. You can always get more people. If
there is not enough work for everyone to do then they think people
need to die off. Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to
the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism.
The apologists for the Scrooges correctly point out that
people only start business for a profit. Of course that is true.
Anyone can see that communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people
start the business for only millions in profits rather than billions?
What if there were laws that made sure working people got a reasonable
share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?
In a hypothetical case suppose technology progressed so far that
all
the work were done by machines. Huge farms gathering food and all
automated. You would think everything would be great, but under
capitalism the people would starve because there wouldn't be enough
jobs.
Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other needy
people should be helped by charity. How much charity would there be
when capitalists openly say that selfishness is a great virtue? If
there was no welfare then the charitable people would have to pay for
everything while most people would not pay one thin dime. We have
welfare so people all pay their fair share. It is part of having
civilization.
We have many laws that make things better for people.
There are laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty
hours. There are laws that ensure people will have retirement.
Capitalism is for doing away with the laws so businesses can be free
to be as greedy as possible.There are laws that keep people from
getting ripped off when they buy a house. Capitalism is against that.
Capitalism is bad for people.
> That's a stupid argument to pull when you have been proudly announcing
>your racist veiws. You believe whites to be superior (although you are
>clearly a counterexample) and say so, which fits the definition of racist
>prefectly.
It's a Wonderful Race
It's like an extension of your biological family and you ought to be
proud
"Anti-biotics? There's no...
devilish grin and muttered to himself: "A few of these European sheep
may
wake up to what's being done to them, but the majority of these idiots
never
will." And he smiled again....and laughed with diabolical Marxist
glee. Then
he repeated to himself "No...they will never figure it all out until
it's
too late."
Or will they?
>
> Since when would racists predict that Japanese people would be as
>rich and well educated as whites?
>
>
> Than some of them.
>
> So if I post an IQ test that doesn't you'll give me $10,000?
>I'll give you evens.
Just give the link if you have one.
>
>> White people invented just about everything
>> important.
>
> Says a man who thinks he'll never need blood plasma or a gun.
>
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com