Re. brain sizes: Einstein's and women's
John Knight
What you meant to say is: "I'm sure many of them think they're a race. But
[according to my parsetree dictionary] they're really not".
But according to WEBSTER's dictionary, they ARE.
According to ALL credible dictionaries, jews ARE a RACE.
John Knight
"Parse Tree" <pars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%45m9.1720$zz2.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> I'm sure many of them think they're a race. But they're really not.
>
> "John Knight" <jwkn...@polbox.com> wrote in message
> news:xi1m9.91996$S32.6...@news2.west.cox.net...
> >
> >
> > The problem is that jews are a RACE. Even the Chinese jews attempt to
> link
> > themselves genetically to either Ashkenaz or Esau.
> >
> > It wasn't a case of some Chinaman standing up in one of the 1,600
churches
> > in China one day and proclaiming himself to be a jew--it was
miscegenation
> > between a Chinaman and jews who had travelled to China along the Silk
> Road.
> >
> > Nobody has a need or a desire to adopt the "principles" of the Talmud.
> > Embracing such a screed is a genetic problem.
> >
> > John Knight
> >
> > "Parse Tree" <pars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:GANl9.1080$zz2.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > I'm thinking that you haven't met many chinese people, period.
> > >
> > > There are jews of every race.
> > >
> > > "Lush" <Count....@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:ZNJl9.8865$kd3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > > Don't the Jews lack the prosletising instincts of the Christians?
The
> > two
> > > > are quite different. I have never met nor heard of a chinese Jew.
> > > >
> > > > Lush
> > > >
> > > > "Parse Tree" <pars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:d58k9.4082$l44.9...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > > > "John Knight" <jwkn...@polbox.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:746k9.65611$S32.4...@news2.west.cox.net...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Parse Tree" <pars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:0RPj9.3469$l44.6...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > > > > > "John Knight" <jwkn...@polbox.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:0bNj9.60285$S32.3...@news2.west.cox.net...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:v51rougg3ac1qppqf...@4ax.com...
> > > > > > > > > <rau...@ptd.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >You see, for the "six million Jews" that were "killed" in
> the
> > > > > > > "holocaust"
> > > > > > > > > >(read my earlier post regarding the real meaning of that
> > word),
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Words mean what we use them to mean. Just as "gay" no
> longer
> > > > refers
> > > > > > > > > only to how you feel on a bright spring day, holocaust no
> > longer
> > > > > > > > > refers to the inside of a nuclear explosion. Live with
it:
> > the
> > > > > > > > > language changes.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why don't you live with the definition of RACE? Jews are a
> > RACE.
> > > > > Live
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not really. They're just as much a religion as they are a
> 'race'.
> > > In
> > > > > > fact,
> > > > > > > they don't really have a common history or common physical
> traits.
> > > > > > They're
> > > > > > > more easily and properly categorized as a religion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So you're saying that jews are a class of people unified by a
> > > community
> > > > of
> > > > > > interests?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm saying that they're a class of people that are unified by a
> > > religion.
> > > > > They are as much a race as are Christians, or Wiccans.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
John Knight
"bees" <beesflo...@sasktel.net> wrote in message
news:upijkk2...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > > > http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/c2k/iraqback.pdf
> > > >
> > > > http://christianparty.net/polliraqcbs.pdf
> >
> > Who do YOU believe is the biggest threat to most Americans, lanceolot?
> > American voters who're too STUPID to take the time to understand the
> issues
> > they're voting on--or a camel jockey in Afghanistan who hasn't the
> slightest
> > idea what the WTC is, but whose children and wife we just murdered with
> our
> > WMDs?
> >
> > John Knight
> >
> >
> > i strongly doubt that a "camal jockey" in afghanistan doesnt know about
> the WTC. if by chance they dont they are still happy like pigs in shit to
> hear that some american building was blown away. they (camal jockeys) are
> most likly jumping for joy to hear that the "evil" americans received a
> deadly blow from their hero osama as their children and "wives" die from
our
> WMD.
>
>
This is based on the assumption that the US is the center of the universe
and most other people read and hear the same JUNK NEWS that you read and
hear--but the vast majority don't.
I know Christians in Nazareth, 70 miles away from the center of all the
world's evils, who wouldn't know a thing about any of this if it weren't for
their watching AMERICAN TV. Not even their own neighbors in Nazareth have
heard a word about most of these "traumatic" events--yet from our
perspective, they're right in the center of it all.
We're being flooded with this garbage news which is meaningless to US, as
well as to 95% of the rest of the population of the world.
The destruction of the WTC may have been dramatic news on our jewsmedia, but
most of the rest of the world has it's own problems to worry about, many of
which are much more serious than this.
Consider the following BIASED view:
> NBC news anchor Brian Williams told viewers that,
> "After six weeks of relative calm today, a second straight day of
> violence in the Middle East. Another suicide bombing, this time on a
> crowded Tel Aviv bus, that killed five people, injured more than 50.
> As a result, Israeli tanks are once again surrounding Yasir Arafat's
> compound in Ramallah in the West Bank."
Do you know what happened in the US in the last six weeks?
2,077 AMERICANS were murdered!
4,846 AMERICANS died in traffic accidents!!
3,566 AMERICANS committed suicide!!!
2,890 AMERICANS died of cirrhosis.
3,592 AMERICANS died of AIDS.
7,127 AMERICANS died of diabetes.
9,661 AMERICANS died of the flu and pneumonia.
62,254 AMERICANS died of cancer.
84,691 AMERICANS died of heart disease.
http://christianparty.net/deaths1996.htm
Add it up. This is 180,704 dead AMERICANS. This is 36,141 TIMES as many
dead Americans as dead jews in JUST the last six weeks, and 30 TIMES as many
as died in the WTC.
Yet not ONE single one of these 180,704 dead AMERICANS got even one
thousandth of a percent of the news coverage as 5 dead jews.
COMBINED, all 180,704 dead AMERICANS got less news coverage than 5 dead
jews.
5 dead jews EIGHT THOUSAND MILES AWAY!!
5 dead jews who are CRIMINALS in the eyes of the 151 of 153 nations and
3,000 NGO's at the UN conference in Durban who condemned them as an
apartheid, terrorist, racist nation.
http://christianparty.net/durban.htm
5 dead jews who live in a country where 85% of the population want to use
nuclear weapons against their "enemies" [read; US], whose religious leaders
have ok'd assassination of the parents of "terrorists", who openly and
publicly torture anyone they choose, who haven't been able to get along with
their own 12 year old neighborhood boys in 4 thousand years
http://christianparty.net/israel.htm
911 is IRRELEVANT!! To you, and particularly to camel jockeys in
Afghanistan.
When something this IRRELEVANT is being whined about for a year--you'd
better locate the REAL crime that this is designed to conceal.
John Knight
John Knight
"Dan Holzman" <hol...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:anb2nl$s2g$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> In article <f17m9.5696$Fl4.5...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> Parse Tree <pars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >That's false. Race is entirely biological. Ethnicity is social, and the
> >meanings of the two have been blurred together due to ignorance.
>
> I would direct your attention to a book entitled _White By Law_, which
> you will find listed at the book retailer's web site of your choice. It
> tracks the development of race as a legal principle in American law --
> a crucial point because for quite some time only "White" people could
> immigrate. Particularly amusing was how Syrians went back and forth
> between being non-white and white over the course of 30 years.
>
> Race is not biological, despite all the pseudoscience that has come up
> around it. It's purely a social and legal definition, which is why
> there exist fair-skinned, blonde-haired, blue-eyed women whose
> passports listed them as "Black" or "Octaroon."
The simple fact that you too think it's odd that "fair-skinned,
blonde-haired, blue-eyed women" would be listed as "'Black' or 'Octaroon'"
is proof enough that you don't believe your own bs.
By DEFINITION, race is also GENETIC! You cannot excluded genetics just
because there are a few exceptions to the rule. This would be like saying
"all Americans are on death row" because 3,000 Americans are on death row.
Just because there might be 3,000 blonde bimbos listed as niggers doesn't
eliminate the other 480 million members from the Caucasian Race.
John Knight
John Knight
"Jd" <JDa...@BellSouth.com> wrote in message
news:3d992bae...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net...
> Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> >>"John Knight" <jwkn...@polbox.com> wrote:
> >>No you won't, because "what researchers have determined" is precisely
what
> >>you are claiming are LIES. You will always believe what the world's
biggest
> >>and best LIARS tell you--the jews.
> >
> >YOU are the world's biggest LIAR. Or rather your master the Prince of
> >Lies is.
>
> Hmmm.... that means your first sentence isn't true.
>
> Do you have any Jewish relatives? I mean you get so upset when John
> criticizes Jews that that's got to be it. Either that, or all
> liberals have secretly sworn an oath of brotherhood in hopes of
> becoming a super-race via miscegenation, an oath which forces them
> to tolerate everything except intolerance.
>
> Jd
>
>
RAOTFLMAO.
John Knight
ps--never has anyone said so much in so few words, Jd );
John Knight
> JDa...@BellSouth.com (Jd) wrote:
> >Relayer <rel...@dreamtheater.zzn.com> wrote:
> >>>John Knight wrote:
> >>> How come there were half a million MORE jews after WWII than there
> >>> were before, but 48 million FEWER Christians?
> >
> >>You, sir, are a moron. I'll repeat what I said. The Nazis do not have a
> >>monopoly on holocausts. It still happens today. Ever heard of the
> >>Armenian genocide; Bosnia-Herzegovina; Burma; Cambodia; East Timor;
> >>Rwanda & Burundi?
> >
> >Can you disprove John's pre/post WWII numbers?
>
> What do you mean by "disprove"? Can someone disprove that the World
> Almanac had certain numbers in it? No, because the numbers were in
> the Almanac. But Almanacs are not primary sources - they get their
> numbers from other sources.
And if those other sources were FLAWED, then what reason do you have to
believe their MODIFIED figures?
If you don't believe ONE set of figures from a FLAWED source, then why do
you automatically believe the second, far less credible figures which don't
even make sense?
>
> As for the whole question of Holocaust denial: We are not the
> researchers and have to turn to people who have spent their lives
> researching the issues. The bottom line is that all of the Holocaust
> denial stuff has been refuted multiple times and in multiple ways:
> http://www.nizkor.org/
They have refuted NOTHING. They have DENIED what the historical
revisionists have discovered, but they have refuted NOTHING.
> and has even undergone a successful court trial per the British libel
> trial involving David Irving:
> http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/nsindex.html
>
The trial was a show trial for jews, and not about FACTS. The court never
proved Irving's FACTS to be in error, because it didn't even address the
issue.
> The nincompoop's almanac numbers are rather mediocre basis for
> questioning the Holocaust compared to more sophisticated Holocaust
> deniers, who have been thoroughly discredited.
>
NO "holocaust denier" can be "thoroughly discredited" any more than your
holocaust LIES can be proven. What we do have is COMMON SENSE, and COMMON
SENSE tells us that the population of jews in the world could NOT have
doubled from 9 million to 18 million in less than 40 years when NO other
race in Europe accomplished such an amazing feat, and when jews are so
STUPID and UNPOPULAR that the natural DECREASE in their population cost them
far more than "6 million jews".
> Can we establish what the correct numbers for before and after World
> War II were? Not exactly, but we can get pretty close.
> http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Holocaust/36quest1.html#5"
Slimey Wiesenthal has been discredited a thousand different ways, and now
you want us to believe HIS figures, and IGNORE multiple copies of world
almanacs, religious publications, encyclopedias, which all agree on the same
jewish population?
No.
>
> A major piece of evidence is the Nazi documents themselves, most
> importantly the Wannsee Protocols:
> http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/places/germany/wannsee/wannsee-english.html
>
This document never, ever talks about *exterminating* jews--it talks about
*expelling* them.
"State Secretary Dr. Bühler stated that the General Government would welcome
it if the final solution of this problem could be begun in the General
Government, since on the one hand transportation does not play such a large
role here nor would problems of labor supply hamper this action. Jews must
be removed from the territory of the General Government as quickly as
possible, since it is especially here that the Jew as an epidemic carrier
represents an extreme danger and on the other hand he is causing permanent
chaos in the economic structure of the country through continued black
market dealings. Moreover, of the approximately 2 1/2 million Jews
concerned, the majority is unfit for work."
"a) to make all necessary arrangements for the preparation for an increased
emigration of the Jews,
b) to direct the flow of emigration,
c) to speed the procedure of emigration in each individual case.
The aim of all this was to cleanse German living space of Jews in a legal
manner."
You are even worse than a jew LIAR to use a document which PROVES that the
Germans wanted to EXPEL the jews "in a legal manner" as "evidence" that they
EXTERMINATED the jews.
Furthermore, this document itself shows that the TOTAL number of jews in
Germany was only 132 thousand, NOT "six million". Even if you added up all
the jews in all the countries where Germany established hegemony, you're
STILL only at 496,000 jews under their control.
Germany had no control over the alleged 5 million in the USSR, nor the 3
million in Ukraine, nor the half a million in White Russia, nor the 700,000
in unoccupied France, nor the 330,000 in England, nor the 342,000 in
Rumania, nor the 55,500 in Turkey, so to PRESUME they were all killed by the
Germans is what SHOULD be a crime.
> One of several places where one can find the breakdown of
> approximately 6 million deaths:
> http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/leuchter/leuchter-faq-20.html
>
> lojbab
Right. This JEW estimates that 195,000 jews in Germany were "exterminated"
by the Germans, but when the war reparations were being handed out, the jew
population suddenly mushroomed by 3 MILLION. Why? To get to 6 million
(actually 5.7 million), he threw in 3.3 million jews in Poland who were
NEVER even in Poland, a million in the USSR who he has ZERO evidence were
"exterminated" by anybody, much less by the the Germans, 530,000 in Rumania
(which never had a large jew population, much less this one that was ever
5.3% of its population).
And by the way, the Nazi document you used as "proof" of a "holocaust"
stated there were only 132,000 jews in Germany, yet this JEW document claims
that 195,000 jews in Germany were KILLED--which is 147% of the jews in
Germany. Would you mind explaining to us how it's even possible,
particularly when there are still 100,000 jews in Germany to this very day?
You would think if 147% of your population was killed by the jew Nazis, that
it would have a rather difficult time growing to 100,000 in only half a
century, eh?
AT the SAME time, the population of jews in the "North Ameria" MORE THAN
DOUBLED, from 4 million to 8 million, which is why the jews are tripping all
over themselves to try to hide their numbers, demanding that the US Census
Bureau quit counting jews as a separate entity and instead including them as
"White".
This entire web site is a LIE. It makes the most absurd and easily
refutable claims about the data from it's OWN references. It quotes a Nazi
document which says NOTHING about extermination and everything about
EXPULSION, only because the jews who wrote it know that IDIOTS like you will
accept it as "proof" that the jews were *exterminated*.
BS!!
John Knight
John Knight
news:ana8tc$mpv$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
> In article <PP0m9.91967$S32.6...@news2.west.cox.net> "John Knight"
<jwkn...@polbox.com> writes:
> <
> <"Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
> <news:an9uhs$hcd$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
> <> In article <z0yl9.88162$S32.5...@news2.west.cox.net> "John Knight"
> <<jwkn...@polbox.com> writes:
> <> <
> <> <"Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
> <> <news:an2pce$lmp$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
> <> <> In article <otf9pu0qg3lod90tb...@4ax.com> Bob
LeChevalier
> <> <<loj...@lojban.org> writes:
> <> <> <
> <> <> <"John Knight" <jwkn...@polbox.com> wrote:
> <> <> <>The jews claim that, and I quote: "six million jews died in *the*
> <> <> <>Holocaust".
> <> <> <
> <> <> {...}
> <> <> <
> <> <> <>How could this have happened if there were half a million MORE
jews
> <> <after
> <> <> <>WWII than before, according to their OWN statistics?
> <> <> <
> <> <> <The statistics you cite are garbage even of they actually appeared
in
> <> <> <a publication.
> <> <> <
> <> <> <>Do you believe the figure that the jews published in 1940 which
> <showed
> <> <that
> <> <> <>worldwide the population of jews was 15.3 million?
> <> <> <
> <> <> <No. It was not possible to count people accurately in the middle
of a
> <> <> <major war. Furthermore, there is no authoritative basis to say
that
> <> <> <"the Jews" published any figure. Individuals who happened to be
> <> <> <Jewish may have used various numbers, but they did not speak for
"the
> <> <> <Jews", only for themselves.
> <> <> <
> <> <> <>Do you believe their figure in 1946 of 15.8 million is accurate?
> <> <> <
> <> <> <No. Even less so, since there was no capability to count people in
> <> <> <Europe accurately in 1946. It took almost 3 years after the end of
> <> <> <WWII for Europeans to finish resettling all refugees.
> <> <> <
> <> <>
> <> <> Oh, it runs deeper than even that. John will only rant about
> <> <> the worlwide change in the Jewish population vs. the number
> <> <> of Causacians who he says died in the War. Nowhere will
> <> <> he ever compare the worldwide population increases of both
> <> <> groups, nor will he address the local -- theater of war --
> <> <> population changes of both groups.
> <> <>
> <> <> An exact analogue of his argument, mirrored, would be
> <> <> that 48 million Cauasianscs could not possibly have died
> <> <> in the war, because look: the worldwide population actually
> <> <> increased during the same interval.
> <> <>
> <> <>
> <> <> -- cary
> <> <
> <> <
> <> <This is a great example of your inability to reason, cary. To
> <demonstrate
> <> <the absurdity of your statement, let's use the actual population
figures.
> <> <
> <> <The US Census Bureau estimates that the world population in 1940 was
2.3
> <> <billion of whom 346 million or 15% were Caucasians. During WWII, the
LOW
> <> <end of the Russian estimate for the number of Whites in Russia killed
is
> <25
> <> <million, and the LOW end of the estimate for the number of Whites in
> <Europe
> <> <killed
> <> <is 48 million, for a total of 73 million. This war left only 273
million
> <> <Caucasians, down to less than 11% of the world population. This IS a
> <> <holocaust for most of them, as well as for the Caucasian Race.
> <> <
> <>
> <>
> <> {...}
> <>
> <>
> <> "Cary can't reason", claims the man who appears to believe that
> <> whites worldwide forgot how to f.ck over this eight-year period.
> <>
> <> Typical creationist-style argumentation: concentrate on the outputs,
> <> ignore the inputs (or vice-versa). More generally used to claim that
if
> <> the world were really so old, all the mountains should have eroded flat
> <> or that the Mississippi delta should be a mile high. The baldest kind
> <> of intellectual dishonesty.
> <>
> <>
> <> -- cary
> <
> <What kind of a moron could you possibly be to take a statement that
almost
> <one quarter of the Caucasians in the world were KILLED in a war and turn
it
> <into a "belief" that the problem was merely a lack of procreation?
>
>
>
> The kind of moron who notices that you use world-wide population
statistics
> for one side of your argument, but carefully avoid before-and-after
> world-wide population figures for the other side.
>
It was precisely "before-and-after world-wide population figures" that
you're attempting, unsuccessfully, to dispute.
To claim that the problem with 25% to 33% of Caucasians KILLED in a war was
a mere problem with procreation required you to take some really great dope,
eh?
Have you recovered, yet?
>
> <
> <If one quarter of the world's Caucasians were KILLED, they obviously
can't
> <procreate. And no matter how quickly they procreate, no race or nation
can
> <make up for one quarter of its missing population overnight.
> <
> <Using these CONSERVATIVE figures, it took from 1946 to 1972, a quarter of
a
> <century, for Caucasians to make up for the loss.
> <
>
>
> Yeah, CONSERVATIVE, right. How about: 38 million total Europeans, which
> includes 20 million Russians:
>
> http://techcenter.davidson.k12.nc.us/fall013/1stgroup/ww2/ww2hist.htm
And what is the *source* of their figures? Why didn't they even bother to
cite their source if it was credible?
John Knight
Jd
>RAOTFLMAO.
>
>John Knight
:)
I got the "Rolling all over the floor laughing" but what is "MAO..."
nevermind, it just hit me. LOL
>ps--never has anyone said so much in so few words, Jd );
Yeah, sometimes it comes natural....
Jd
Jd
Not only that, but apparently 48 million Christians dying doesn't
seem to register in Bob's conscience.
Jd
Bob LeChevalier
>> Yeah, CONSERVATIVE, right. How about: 38 million total Europeans, which
>> includes 20 million Russians:
>>
>> http://techcenter.davidson.k12.nc.us/fall013/1stgroup/ww2/ww2hist.htm
>
>And what is the *source* of their figures? Why didn't they even bother to
>cite their source if it was credible?
Here is a more complete analysis, with multiple references, and all
the supporting documents listed in full. The bottom line is around
50-60 million worldwide, with 10-15 million in the Asian wars.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstats.htm
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>> What do you mean by "disprove"? Can someone disprove that the World
>> Almanac had certain numbers in it? No, because the numbers were in
>> the Almanac. But Almanacs are not primary sources - they get their
>> numbers from other sources.
>
>And if those other sources were FLAWED, then what reason do you have to
>believe their MODIFIED figures?
There are multiple independent sources used to determine the number of
Holocaust deaths:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Hitler
>> As for the whole question of Holocaust denial: We are not the
>> researchers and have to turn to people who have spent their lives
>> researching the issues. The bottom line is that all of the Holocaust
>> denial stuff has been refuted multiple times and in multiple ways:
>> http://www.nizkor.org/
>
>They have refuted NOTHING. They have DENIED what the historical
>revisionists have discovered, but they have refuted NOTHING.
I find them more believable than you.
>
>> and has even undergone a successful court trial per the British libel
>> trial involving David Irving:
>> http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/nsindex.html
>
>The trial was a show trial for jews, and not about FACTS. The court never
>proved Irving's FACTS to be in error, because it didn't even address the
>issue.
I find the court more believable than you.
>NO "holocaust denier" can be "thoroughly discredited" any more than your
>holocaust LIES can be proven. What we do have is COMMON SENSE, and COMMON
>SENSE tells us that the population of jews in the world could NOT have
>doubled from 9 million to 18 million in less than 40 years when NO other
>race in Europe accomplished such an amazing feat,
Doubling time for most of the world's population has been around 25
years, nincompoop.
>> A major piece of evidence is the Nazi documents themselves, most
>> importantly the Wannsee Protocols:
>> http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/places/germany/wannsee/wannsee-english.html
>
>This document never, ever talks about *exterminating* jews--it talks about
>*expelling* them.
It talks about the number of Jews. The referenced diary indicates
that they were to be killed.
>You are even worse than a jew LIAR to use a document which PROVES that the
>Germans wanted to EXPEL the jews "in a legal manner" as "evidence" that they
>EXTERMINATED the jews.
>
>Furthermore, this document itself shows that the TOTAL number of jews in
>Germany was only 132 thousand, NOT "six million".
No one has ever claimed that there were 6 million Jews killed IN
Germany. That was the number killed BY Germany. 3 million or so of
them were killed in Poland, for example.
>Even if you added up all
>the jews in all the countries where Germany established hegemony, you're
>STILL only at 496,000 jews under their control.
Baloney. All of Group A of the Wannsee, and most of Group B were
under German hegemony.
>Germany had no control over the alleged 5 million in the USSR, nor the 3
>million in Ukraine, nor the half a million in White Russia,
Germany had full control over Ukraine and White Russia for more than a
year.
>> One of several places where one can find the breakdown of
>> approximately 6 million deaths:
>> http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/leuchter/leuchter-faq-20.html
>>
>> lojbab
>
>Right. This JEW estimates that 195,000 jews in Germany were "exterminated"
>by the Germans, but when the war reparations were being handed out, the jew
>population suddenly mushroomed by 3 MILLION. Why? To get to 6 million
>(actually 5.7 million), he threw in 3.3 million jews in Poland who were
>NEVER even in Poland,
Baloney. See the Wannsee document. General Government and Bialystok
are both part of Poland, and the Eastern Territories refers to parts
of pre-WWI Germany that had been incorporated into Poland as a result
of Versailles. Total according to Wannsee was 3.104 million. There
are Nazi reports documenting their extermination.
> a million in the USSR who he has ZERO evidence were
>"exterminated" by anybody, much less by the the Germans, 530,000 in Rumania
>(which never had a large jew population, much less this one that was ever
>5.3% of its population).
Baloney. The Wannsee document lists 342,000 in Rumania, most of whom
died.
>And by the way, the Nazi document you used as "proof" of a "holocaust"
No. It was evidence of the numbers of Jews. The evidence of the
Holocaust is the numerous reports of their planned and actual
extermination, and the post-war determination of how many had
survived. For example, from Goebbel's Diary:
>March 27, 1942: The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be
> described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On
> the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to
> be liquidated whereas only 40 per cent can be used for forced labor.
60% of the 11 million estimated in Wannsee is 6.6 million, an
astonishingly good prediction of how many the nazis would eventually
kill.
See the Nizkor site for some detailed refutation of your crap.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar01.html
>stated there were only 132,000 jews in Germany,
You can't read. From the Wannsee document itself:
>In spite of these difficulties, 537,000 Jews were sent out of the
> country between the takeover of power and the deadline of 31 October
> 1941. Of these
>
>approximately 360,000 were in Germany proper on 30 January 1933
>
>approximately 147,000 were in Austria (Ostmark) on 15 March 1939
>
>approximately 30,000 were in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia on 15 March 1939.
The Holocaust includes the time period from the Nazi takeover, and
people killed are counted based on where they lived in 1933, not 1942
when Wannsee was written.
> yet this JEW document claims
>that 195,000 jews in Germany were KILLED--which is 147% of the jews in
>Germany. Would you mind explaining to us how it's even possible,
>particularly when there are still 100,000 jews in Germany to this very day?
Ever heard of migration. Some of the Jews in Germany left Eastern
Europe:
http://www.jewishsf.com/bk970613/1ajews.htm
>In 1990, there were 28,000 registered Jews in Germany. Since the fall
> of communism in the former Soviet Union in 1991, some 25,000 Jewish
> immigrants from that region have streamed into Germany, exploding the
> Jewish population figures in city after city.
>AT the SAME time, the population of jews in the "North Ameria" MORE THAN
>DOUBLED, from 4 million to 8 million, which is why the jews are tripping all
>over themselves to try to hide their numbers, demanding that the US Census
>Bureau quit counting jews as a separate entity and instead including them as
>"White".
You love diddling the numbers to serve your argument of the moment.
Your favorite source, the World Almanac, lists 6 million for all of
North America, and a little more than 4 million in the 3 major Jewish
organizations in the US.
>This entire web site is a LIE.
YOU are the LIE.
>It makes the most absurd and easily
>refutable claims about the data from it's OWN references.
They haven't been refuted, and the courts have upheld them as proven
superior to the claims of deniers like Irving.
>It quotes a Nazi
>document which says NOTHING about extermination and everything about
>EXPULSION, only because the jews who wrote it know that IDIOTS like you will
>accept it as "proof" that the jews were *exterminated*.
As I said, see:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar01.html
as well as the Irving trial document and several other places. People
with far more talent than you (like Irving for example) have tried to
deny the Holocaust, and their noses get rubbed in the facts every
time.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>Not only that, but apparently 48 million Christians dying doesn't
>seem to register in Bob's conscience.
There is no support for the nincompoop's "48 million Christians" other
than to assume that every non-Jew killed in WWII was a Christian,
which ignores that most of Japan and China are non-Christian. But the
issue is not MY conscience; I am quite bothered by the millions of
non-Jews who died in WW-II. But for the most part, they were not
killed by a special attempt to exterminate a so-called "race". (The
gypsies (Rom) were also targeted by the Nazi's but there are less
accurate numbers for how many there were and how many died - probably
between 200,000 and a million).
But even if 48 million Christians died, they did not die from an
attempt to systematically exterminate them. Wars are horrible and too
many people die in them. But no one denies that millions died in
WWII, whereas the nincompoop (and perhaps you as well) deny the deaths
of the Holocaust.
lojbab
Jd
I've yet to deny anything about WWII. It's reasonable to conclude
however, that if someone can be held accountable for ~6 million
deaths in one race, that someone can be held accountable for 48
million deaths in another. That is if one looks at the issue
objectively.
Jd
sussmanbern
>
> Do you know what happened in the US in the last six weeks?
>
> 2,077 AMERICANS were murdered!
> 4,846 AMERICANS died in traffic accidents!!
> 3,566 AMERICANS committed suicide!!!
> 2,890 AMERICANS died of cirrhosis.
> 3,592 AMERICANS died of AIDS.
> 7,127 AMERICANS died of diabetes.
> 9,661 AMERICANS died of the flu and pneumonia.
> 62,254 AMERICANS died of cancer.
> 84,691 AMERICANS died of heart disease.
> http://christianparty.net/deaths1996.htm
>
> Add it up. This is 180,704 dead AMERICANS. This is 36,141 TIMES as many
> dead Americans as dead jews in JUST the last six weeks, and 30 TIMES as many
> as died in the WTC.
> jews.
> 5 dead jews EIGHT THOUSAND MILES AWAY!!
How many people notice that you compared the enormous stats of
Americans who died FROM NATURAL or COMMONPLACE CAUSES with the number
of Israelis specifically killed by Arab terrorism?
We could, of course, compare the number of Americans who died in
those six weeks, with those Americans whose death is specifically
attributable to terrorism in the last 18 months - which would include
the Sept. 11th attacks - and of course American casualties from
terrorism would also be dwarfed (about 9% of the natural/common
causes). Yet we consider the Sept 11th deaths sufficient to mount a
war in Afghanistan.
As for this war killing Afghanis and Arabs who never heard of the
World Trade Center, well, I bet a whole lot of people who worked at
the WTC couldn't find Afghanistan on a map even if you offered them
$20.
John Knight
news:9d95e4ee.02100...@posting.google.com...
If we had a normal "education" system, 100% of them would have noticed.
With the current state of our "education" system, none of the niggers, none
of the kikes, none of the Latrinos, about 2 feminazis, none of the
"liberals", about 12 women, and less than 50% of White men, would have
noticed.
>
> We could, of course, compare the number of Americans who died in
> those six weeks, with those Americans whose death is specifically
> attributable to terrorism in the last 18 months - which would include
> the Sept. 11th attacks - and of course American casualties from
> terrorism would also be dwarfed (about 9% of the natural/common
> causes). Yet we consider the Sept 11th deaths sufficient to mount a
> war in Afghanistan.
So then why didn't you? It's a VERY easy thing to do. In the last 18
months, 6,570 White men and women in the US were murdered by niggers,
compared to *maybe* 3,000 jew Yawkers and residents thereof who died at the
hands jews [oops, I mean "A-RAB terrorists'].
American niggers are thus 2.19 more terroristic than the jews who blew up
the WTC and tried to blame it on the "A-RABS".
BUT--a better question is: what is the ratio of decent God-fearing
Americans who were killed by niggers to those who were killed by jews?
Being as two thirds of jew Yawkers believe that sodomy is a "civil right",
only 1,000 of the 3,000 killed in the WTC were in that category, compared to
at least two thirds of the ones killed by niggers, or 4,380 / 1,000 = 4.38.
So just in the last 18 months, American niggers committed 4.38 times as
many terrorist deaths as the jews disguised as "A-RABS" against decent
God-fearing Americans.
>
> As for this war killing Afghanis and Arabs who never heard of the
> World Trade Center, well, I bet a whole lot of people who worked at
> the WTC couldn't find Afghanistan on a map even if you offered them
> $20.
Of course. So what's your point? The ONLY country which is bombarded daily
with jewish LIES from every possible outlet through every possible orrifice
is the jewnited States of America. Nobody else has to listen to all this
jewish horse shi., which is why travelling in Iran or Russia or Cuba or
Japan or Mexico is SUCH a pleasure.
Unless they've been polluted by CNN, most people in those countries have
never even heard of the WTC, could not care less, and if they had heard
about it, they'd have the same opinion that most Americans have of jew
Yawkers.
John Knight
John Knight
news:0001HW.B9C26D16...@news-west.giganews.com...
> On Thu, 3 Oct 2002 19:34:01 -0500, Jd wrote
> (in message <3d9cdd4d...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net>):
>
> And isn't it convenient that it was the same psychotic pervert?
>
> Lance
>
It's hard to imagine what kind of a MORON it takes to even think that 48
million Christians dying in WWII, many in firestorms in cities like Dresden
and Hamburg, was less egregious than the putative "six million jews" simply
because of "race".
And THIS from the MORON who doesn't even believe that RACES exist, who
doesn't even "THINK" jews are a RACE.
How disconnected from reality one must be to claim the leadership of
"liberalism"!
Imagine the "logic" here: jews aren't a RACE, yet ONE DEAD JEW is more
egregious than 48 million dead Christians BECAUSE the dead jew was dead
because of his RACE?
Is it even possible to get more discobobulated than this?
John Knight
John Knight
> ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>
> >In article <Q_Gm9.97994$S32.6...@news2.west.cox.net> "John Knight"
<jwkn...@polbox.com> writes:
> ><any more than it
> ><would be a "theory" to speculate that dump trucks "evolved" from
Ferrarris
> ><just because they both have 8 cylinder engines.
> ><
> >
> >Of course they haven't. They've both "evolved" from a common ancestor.
> >They're hardly totally unrelated. Engineers work by making changes to
> >the current model, and then keeping what works.
> >
> >And so does natural selection.
> >
> >
> >-- cary
>
> What is this... pick on John week or something? Look, I've been
> gone for months only to return and find that John is still whipping
> everyone into a frenzy. It's obvious you guys are incapable of
> learning.
>
> Jd
>
>
Actually, cary just admitted that "natural selection" is a design process,
which makes him a traitor to hard core "evolutionists".
At least cary recognizes that "natural selection" is statistically
impossible unless there's intelligence behind the design process--read: God.
John Knight
Cary Kittrell
<"Jd" <JDa...@BellSouth.com> wrote in message
<news:3d9cd904...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net...
<> ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
<>
<> >In article <Q_Gm9.97994$S32.6...@news2.west.cox.net> "John Knight"
<<jwkn...@polbox.com> writes:
<
<> ><any more than it
<> ><would be a "theory" to speculate that dump trucks "evolved" from
<Ferrarris
<> ><just because they both have 8 cylinder engines.
<> ><
<> >
<> >Of course they haven't. They've both "evolved" from a common ancestor.
<> >They're hardly totally unrelated. Engineers work by making changes to
<> >the current model, and then keeping what works.
<> >
<> >And so does natural selection.
<> >
<> >
<> >-- cary
<>
<> What is this... pick on John week or something? Look, I've been
<> gone for months only to return and find that John is still whipping
<> everyone into a frenzy. It's obvious you guys are incapable of
<> learning.
<>
<> Jd
<>
<>
<
<Actually, cary just admitted that "natural selection" is a design process,
<which makes him a traitor to hard core "evolutionists".
<
I did in fact just admit it was a process of selection -- cars
evolve by means of selection by human beings, organisms
evolve by selection too -- if they're better at something than
their peers, they get to leave more kiddies. Your "God" is the
simple fact that the less ept starve or die early at the hands
of other organisms. Your "God" is brainless, but very very efficient.
<At least cary recognizes that "natural selection" is statistically
<impossible unless there's intelligence behind the design process--read: God.
<
At least cary has read a book or fifty on the subject, as opposed
to making up a cartoon version, and then proceeding to rant against
my own homebrew "theory". You are right on this point: "evolution",
as you understand it, is farcical.
At least cary has read about computer simulations designed to
see if evolution of such things as the eye are statistically
likely or not. Interesting results: given a small handful of
simple genes and some very conservative assumptions about the
advantages conferred by such genes, the answer is: amazingly likely.
Try Dawkins "Unweaving the Rainbow". Ignore his own silly
computer simulations; they're parlor games. Look at the
the information on Nilsson and Pelger's simulations.
Unless you prefer your own bald and unsupported assertions, that is.
-- cary
Jd
>On Thu, 3 Oct 2002 19:34:01 -0500, Jd wrote
>(in message <3d9cdd4d...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net>):
>
>Absolutely.
>
>And isn't it convenient that it was the same psychotic pervert?
>
>Lance
If one is looking for convenient answers, yes.
Jd
Richard August
John, You forgot one statistic. For all the 180,704 dead Americans in six
weeks, that means 1,204,694 dead Americans in one year. That means that
according to David ben Gurion/B'nai B'rith/Simon Wiesenthal statistics, that
is just over one sixth of the "6 million Jews" holocaust hoax. That means
in six years, more Americans die of non-war deaths or non-atrocities related
deaths than Jew Hitler and Jew Eichmann "killed" in 14 years of Nazi
Germany. This also accounts for the FACT that according to JEWISH sources,
the number of post-WW2 Jews GREW!!!
Once again, sir, you have disproven the holocaust hoax through simple math
and logic. You have again proven that the Jews have no more value for human
life than they have for the life of a worm. Never mind the fact that the
Jew-owned Nazi Party bankrutped Germany, mutilated 48 million Christians
defending our homelands, including Americans, and wound up decimating their
own beloved German People, to the point where 12 year olds commanded
Battalions in Berlin during the final siege.
Never mind that 3 American nurses working for the Red Cross were killed at
Dachau. Never mind that Christian Pastors were concentrated in the
Priesterblochen and were killed with gays, gypsies, and retards before any
Jews were touched. Never mind that German-looking Jewish girls were sent to
SS and Waffen-SS Officers to be used as prostitutes. Never mind that
prostitutes in the Bezirkskampfen were kept for German Soldiers as what they
called the "Joy Division", and that many were SPARED their lives because of
their sexual prowess.
John, you have once again disproven the holocaust hoax in spades, by proving
that even if 6 million Jews were killed in WW2, many more millions of
Americans of every stripe were killed in less than half the time of Hitler's
Reichskanzlerei. Thank you. Maybe now some sense will be knocked into cary
kittrell, Bob LeChevalier, Lance O. Lake, and Parse Tree.
Keep up the good work.
Sincerely,
Richard C. August
John Knight
"Matthew Amsel" <matthe...@mail.mcgill.ca> wrote in message
news:3D9F3D...@mail.mcgill.ca...
> Jd wrote:
> >
> > Bob <bobx...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Cary Kittrell wrote:
> > >
> > >> <"Evolution" CANNOT be observed, to any degree. The *speculation*
that a
> > >> <human "evolved" from some other form of life has NEVER been
observed, to ANY
> > >> <degree.
> > >
> > >
> > >Evolution actually has been observed several times. You can't
> > >tell fundies though. Their mind is made up, don't confuse them
> > >with facts.
> >
> > Are you talking about the white race?
> >
> > >At Los Alamos National Laboratory one of the staff is an
> > >internationally known expert on plate tectonics, the physics of
> > >geophysical plate movement over millions of years. In the
> > >letters to the newspaper he's a very outspoken supporter of
> > >"Creation Theory" that the earth was created only about 5 or 7
> > >thousand years ago. Honest people really can believe mutually
> > >contradictory theories.
> >
> > Look Bob, if evolution is the way and people did actually spring
> > from mud, you're only providing more ammo for those who say negroes
> > and other dark skinned folks make up the "mud races".
> >
> > I believe your mistake is confusing Darwins "Origin of the Species"
> > with the theory of evolution.
> >
> > Jd
> >
> >
> nope. pale skin is an adaptation to cold wheather and 1ess sunlight. Too
> much melanin in such an environment can lead to vitamin D (or was it E?)
> deficiency if not enough is contained in the diet. In hotter/sunnier
> areas (ex. africa, mideast, australia), darker skin is still superior.
This is an absurd, unproven, contradictory assumption.
IF there was any "adaptation" going on [for which there is NO proof or
evidence], then humans in hot, sunny climates would have "adapted" to the
hot sun by having WHITE skin which reflected the sun's heat, whereas humans
in cold, cloudy climates would have "adapted" by having BLACK skin which
absorbed as much heat as it can.
And if the climate of Africa is what keeps niggers from even being able to
build a wheel, then why did Caucasians from Europe move there and build
factories, schools, libraries, roads, communications systems, governments,
that the dumb niggers of Africa can't even maintain now that the
colonialists have gone? And why did Caucasians from Europe move to this
continent (which has an almost identical climate to Africa), and build even
better factories, schools, libraries, roads, communications systems,
governments, in less than 400 years, that the Indians who were supposedly
around 9,000 years STILL can't create on their own?
These differences are by design, not by accident.
John Knight
Richard August
> "John Knight" <jwkn...@polbox.com> wrote:
> >> What do you mean by "disprove"? Can someone disprove that the World
> >> Almanac had certain numbers in it? No, because the numbers were in
> >> the Almanac. But Almanacs are not primary sources - they get their
> >> numbers from other sources.
> >
> >And if those other sources were FLAWED, then what reason do you have to
> >believe their MODIFIED figures?
>
> There are multiple independent sources used to determine the number of
> Holocaust deaths:
>
> http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Hitler
>
OK, Bob, let's look at that webpage and see who is lying about what
regarding the holocaust. I republish it in its entirety here.
Second World War (1937-45)
Total:
It's the most intensively studied event of the 20th Century, so the margin
of error is not quite a wide here as for most of the other wars and
oppressions on this page. Most historians agree that the death toll was
about 50 million (including wartime atrocities). If you don't believe me,
here's just a sampling of the books I have on hand:
Haywood: Atlas of World History (1997): 50M
Keegan, J., The Second World War (1989): 50M
Messenger, The Chronological Atlas of World War Two (1989): 50M
The Times Concise Atlas of World History (1988): 50M
Urlanis: 50M
Soldiers: 22.0M
Civilians
In camps, from Fascist terror: 12.0M
From hostilites, blockade, epidemics, hunger: 14.5M
From bombing: 1.5M
Dictionary of Military History (1994): 41M
Wallechinsky: 40-55M
Kinder, The Anchor Atlas of World History (1978): 55M
Hammond: 55M
Sivard, Ruth Leger, World Military and Social Expenditures 1986 (11th ed.):
38,351,000 (1939-45), not incl. 1.8M in Sino-Japanese War (1937-41)
Brzezinski:
Military: 19M
Civilians, "actual byproduct of hostilities": 20M
Civilians, Sino-Japanese War: 15M
Hitler's murders: 17M
TOTAL: 71M
Rummel:
European War Dead (1939-45): 28,736,000
Sino-Japanese War Dead (1937-45): 7,140,000
War-related Democides
Hitler: 20,946,000
Stalin: 13,053,000
Japanese: 5,964,000
Chinese Nationalist: 5,907,000
Allied Bombing: 796,000
Croatian: 655,000
Tito: 600,000
Romanian domestic democide: 484,000
Chinese Communist: 250,000
Hungarian democide in Yugoslavia: 78,000
[TOTAL: 48,733,000]
[TOTAL (1937-45): 84,609,000]
AVERAGE
The MEDIAN of these estimates is 50M.
If we add up the country-by-country medians we get:
LEVEL 1: 47.35M
USSR: 20.0M
China: 10.45M
Poland: 5.8M
Germany: 5.5M
India: 2.15M
Japan: 1.9M
Yugoslavia: 1.55M
LEVEL 2: ca. 3.8M
LEVEL 3: ca. 0.25M
TOTAL: 51.4M
Who to Blame:
Most history books break their WW2 numbers down according to whether the
dead are military or civilian and which country they came from. Since I've
done that elsewhere, let's try to break it down by guilt. Here are various
estimates by various experts of the number of superfluous, non-military
deaths during the Second World War.
Hitler:
Extermination of the Jews:
Reitlinger, Gerald, The Final Solution (1953): between 4,194,200 and
4,851,200 (this number is accepted by Kinder, The Anchor Atlas of World
History (1978))
Brzezinski: 5,000,000
Chirot: 5,100,000
3,000,000 in death camps.
1,300,000 massacred.
800,000 by dis./maln. in ghettos
Rummel: 5,291,000
Grenville: 5-6M
Davies, Europe A History (1998): 5,571,300 (puts the minimum at 4,871,000
and the maximum at 6,271,500.)
MEDIAN: ca. 5.6M
Nuremberg indictment: 5,700,000 (accepted by Britannica)
Gutman, Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (1990): 5,596,029 to 5,860,129
P. Johnson: 5,800,000
Wallechinsky: "nearly" 6,000,000
Urlanis: 6M
Soviet Prisoners of War killed:
Urlanis: 3,912,000
12 March 1995 Times-Picayune: nearly 3.5M
Our Times: 3,300,000
Rummel: 3,100,000
MEDIAN: 3.0-3.1M
Mazower, Dark Continent: 3M
Harper Collins Atlas of the Second World War: 3,000,000
Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1960): 2,000,000 dead and
1,000,000 never accounted for, presumed dead.
Britannica: 2,600,000
Roma (Gypsies):
Hammond: 250,000.
Rummel: 258,000.
Mazower, Dark Continent: 200,000-500,000.
Porter: 500,000
Brzezinski: 800,000
Ian Hancock, "Responses to the Romani Holocaust" in Is the Holocaust Unique?
(A. Rosenbaum, ed.) cites these:
US Holocaust Memorial Museum: 250,000
"several published estimates": >1,000,000
Pauwels and Bergier: 750,000
Financial Times (London): 500-750,000 in death camps and another million
shot outside.
Homosexuals:
Chirot: 10-15,000
Rummel: 220,000
Euthanasia of Handicapped:
Hugh G. Gallagher: 275,000, citing Breggin (in Century of Genocide, Samuel
Totten, ed., (1997))
Victims of Wehrmacht:
Acc2 historical exhibit curated by Hannes Heer: The common soldiers of the
Wehrmacht murdered 1.5M Jews, 3.3M POWs + 5-7M non-Jewish civilians (17 May
1995 Agence France Presse; 22 Feb. 1997 AP)
General political prisoners:
Mark Mazower, Dark Continent: Europe's Twentieth Century (1998): over one
million died in concentration camps, not counting those deliberately
targeted for extermination.
Rosenburg, The Haunted Land: 26,000 political death sentences passed by
German courts.
HITLER TOTAL:
Courtois: 25,000,000
Rummel: 20,946,000 democides
Brzezinski: 17,000,000
Urlanis: 15-16,000,000 (11-12M civilians + 3.9M POWs)
Our Times: 13,000,000 (6M Jews + 7M others)
Compton's: 12,000,000
Grenville: 10,000,000, including 2M children.
NOTE: These numbers only include outright murders, but keep in mind that
some 18M civilians and 17M soldiers died in the European War. That's
35,000,000 deaths which can probably be blamed on Hitler to one extent or
another.
Stalin:
Everyone acknowledges that Stalin deported many million members of suspected
nationalities to Siberia during and immediately after the war. The biggest
variable is how many of these died.
Harff and Gurr:
Chechens, Ingushi, Karachai, Balkars, Kalmyks: 230,000 d. (1943-57)
Meskhierians, Crimean Tatars: 57,000 - 175,000 d. (1944-68)
Davies: 1,000,000 Volga Germans, Chechens, Ingush, Crimean Tatars, etc.
Axis POWs never returned:
Brzezinski: 1,000,000 total (incl. 357,000 Germans, 140,000 Poles)
Davies: 1,000,000
Katyn Massacre:
Dictionary of 20C World History: 14,000 Polish officers systematically
killed. 4,500 bodies discovered by Germans.
30 July 2000 Sunday Telegraph [London]: 15,000 k.
Paul Johnson: 15,000 -- a third at Katyn, the rest in Sov. conc. camps.
Returning Soviet POWs killed after the war:
Harff and Gurr: 500,000 - 1,100,000 repatriated Soviet nationals killed
(1943-47)
Harper Collins: 1,000,000 POWs
Davies: 5-6M deaths, screening of repatriates and inhabitants of ex-occupied
territory
Total killed by Stalin during the war years:
Davies: 16-17,000,000 non-war-dead
Rummel: 18,157,000 democides
Although the number of civilian deaths in the Soviet Union during the war is
far from certain, the estimate of 7 million has gained wide acceptance, and
it is repeated by Keegan, Hammond, Anchor, Encarta and Britannica. Since
many of these deaths would have been caused by Nazi brutality or the simple
bad luck of war, as well Stalinist repression, it seems exceedingly
difficult to reconcile a total of 7 million civilian deaths with estimates
of 16-19 million deaths from Stalinist brutality during the war years.
Some recent demographic studies suggest that 26-27 million Soviet citizens
disappeared during WW2 (Davies), but this number has not been widely
accepted by mainstream historians.
My Estimate: Very roughly, I'd say that Stalin murdered 1M enemy POWs, 1M of
his own soldiers, and some 2-4M Soviet civilians during the War. These
numbers are consistant with Conquest's estimate of 10M killed by Stalin,
1939 to 1953, and they easily fit into the 7M civilian deaths, leaving room
for 1M Jews and several million others to be killed by the Nazis.
Japanese:
Nanking Massacre, 1937-38:
Iris Chang, The Rape of Nanking (1997) cites these:
Liu Fang-chu: 430,000
James Yin & Shi Young: 400,000
Sun Zhaiwei: 377,400 corpses disposed of
Wu Tien-wei: 340,000
District Court of Nanking: 300,000
International Military Tribunal of the Far East: 260,000
Fujiwara Akira: 200,000
John Rabe: 50- 60,000
Hata Ikuhiko: 38- 42,000
Spence, The Search for Modern China: 42,000.
Dict.Wars: 200,000
Rummel: 200,000
P. Johnson: 200-300,000
Burma-Siam Railroad, worker deaths (1941-43)
Johnson: 16,000 POWs
Our Times: 50,000 Burmese civilians and 16,000 Allied POWs
Grenville: 100,000 Asians and 16,000 Europeans
East Timor: 70,000 died under Japanese occupation (James Dunn, in Century of
Genocide, Samuel Totten, ed., (1997))
Singapore: 5,000 Chinese massacred (Grenville)
Rummel blames the Japanese for 5,964,000 democides
POWs: 539,000 (400,000 Chinese)
Forced Labor: 1,010,000 (142,000 Chinese)
Massacres: 3,608,000 (2,850,000 Chinese)
Bombing/CB warfare: 558,000 (all Chinese)
Imposed Famine: 250,000 (none in China)
Rummel also estimates that General/Prime Minister Tojo Hideki was
responsible for a lifetime total of 3,990,000 democides.
My estimate is that 11M civilians and 4.5M soldiers died in the
Asian/Pacific War. That's 15,500,000 deaths which can probably be blamed on
the Japanese to one extent or another.
Anglo-American Allies:
Bombing of Germany: 400,000 (Hammond); 410,000 (Rummel, 100% democidal);
593,000 (Keegan; also Grenville citing "official Germany"); 600,000 (P.
Johnson)
Bombing of Japan:
Conventional: 260,000 (Keegan, P. Johnson)
Nuclear: 103,000 died outright (Keegan); 130,000 outright
(Messenger);120,000 outright, 140,000 later (Our Times); 175,000 outright,
100,000 later (P. Johnson)
Total: 363,000 (Keegan, not including post-war radiation sickness); 374,000
(Rummel, incl. 337,000 democidal); 435,000 (P. Johnson); 500,000 (Harper
Collins Atlas of the Second World War)
Bombing of Romania & Hungary: 50,000 (Rummel)
Mistreatment of Axis POWs [I myself don't find these accusations credible,
but FWIW, here they are.]
James Bacque, Other Losses (1989) made the first accusation that Americans
deliberately starved German POWs, killing about a million.
Bacque [http://www.corax.org/revisionism/misc/970920bacques.html]
Bacque's 2nd book, Crimes & Mercies, expands the body count to 9.3-13.7M
Germans killed by the Allies after the end of the war, incl. some 2.1-6.0M
civilians who died being expelled from the East.
[http://codoh.com/review/revcrimes.html]
Stephen Ambrose dismisses these claims as sloppy research. He explains that
the total number of German POWs who died from all causes in US hands was
56,000 out of some 5M held. [see also
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/b/bacque.james/]
Mussolini (r. 1922-1943)
Mark Mazower, Dark Continent: Europe's Twentieth Century (1998): total of 29
death sentences passed on political prisoners before 1939.
Rummel, democides by Fascist govt. of Italy:
Ethiopia and Libya: 200,000 [before WW2]
Yugoslavia: 15,000
Greeks: 9,000
Italians, domestically: 250
TOTAL: 224,250
Yugoslavia:
2 March 1999 Agence France Presse
Number killed in Croatian-run death camp at Jasenovac
Acc2 Croatian press: 85,000
Official Yugoslav estimate: 700,000
Simon Wiesenthal Centre: 500,000
Alex Dragnic, Serbs & Croats (1992)
k. by Ustase
Serbs: est. range 300,000 to 1,000,000, but 500-700,000 is "generally
accepted"
Jews: 50,000
Gypsies: 20,000
Massacre by Germans, Oct. 1941: 4-7,000
John Lampe, Yugoslavia as History (1995)
300,000 Serbs k. by Ustasha
26,000 Jews k. by Ustasha
9,000 Slovenes executed by Italians, summer 1941
Killed by Tito, 1945-46: 100,000
Noel Malcolm, Bosnia: a Short History (1994)
Muslims k. by Chetniks in Foca-Cajnice:
Aug. 1942: 2,000
Feb. 1943: 9,000
Killed by Tito, 1945-46: 250,000 in shootings, camps and marches.
Mazower, Dark Continent
Serbs k. by Ustase: at least 334,000.
Collaborators k. by Tito, postwar: up to 60,000
9 July 1990 NY Times
Communist partisans shot 70-100,000 without trial within weeks of the war's
end.
Anti-Communist emigres claim ca. 500,000 killed ("... exaggerations, said
Darko Bekic, a historian in Zagreb...")
"Total of 1,700,000 Yugoslavs were killed, both in combat and in atrocities
and reprisals by and against civilians"
Rummel, democides by perpetrator:
Axis occupying nations: 718,000
Chetnik partisans: 100,000
Communists: 100,000 as partisans, 500,000 shortly after coming to power
Ustashi government of Croatia: 655,000
TOTAL: 2,073,000 democides (also 555,000 battle deaths, for a grand total of
2,628,000)
Fred Singleton, Twentieth-Century Yugoslavia (1976)
350,000 Serbs k. by Ustasha
Marcus Tanner, Croatia: a Nation Forged in War
Bleiburg massacre: est. range from 30,000 to 200,000 returning POWs k. by
Communists (The upper number being favored by Croat nationalists)
Ustashe camps
acc2 Communist govt: 600,000 k. in Jasenovas
acc2 Banac 120,000 k. in all camps
acc2 "others": 80,000 k. in all camps
acc2 Pres. Tudjman: 60,000 k. in all camps
Total war deaths (according to one study)
Serbs: 487,000
incl. 215,000 in Nazi and Ustase camps
Croats: 207,000
Muslims: 86,000
Jews: 60,000
TOTAL: 947,000
Johan Wüscht, Population Losses in Yugoslavia during World War Two (1963),
estimates a total population shortfall of 2,210,000 in the 1948 census.
After accounting for emmigration (700,000) and a drop in births (423,000),
he reckons the total number of deaths caused by the war and its aftermath to
be 1,100,000. He also points out that adding up all the accusations of
atrocities commited during the war far exceeds this calculated number of
deaths, so one of them is wrong.
ANALYSIS: Among those events with several estimates, the medians are ...
Serbs k. by Ustashe: 275,000
Postwar executions (and related deaths) by Communists: 175,000
Romania:
Rummel: 484,000 genocides under kings Carol & Michael (1938-48) incl.
302,000 Jews.
Robert Kaplan, Balkan Ghosts (1993): 185,000 Jews from Bessarabia and
Moldovia murdered in "the only non-German-run extermination camp in Europe".
France:
Collaborators killed after liberation:
Grenville: 10,000
Mark Mazower, Dark Continent: 9-10,000
Our Times: 9,000 summarily, 700 after trial.
Other Western Nations, postwar purges:
Mark Mazower, Dark Continent
Italy: 10,000-15,000
Netherlands: 40 executions
Norway: 25 executions
Post-War Expulsion of Germans from East Europe (1945-47)
Died being expelled from Poland:
Rummel: 1,585,000
Keegan, John, The Second World War (1989): 1,250,000
Kurt Glaser and Stephan Possony, Victims of Politics (1979): 1,225,000
Died, from Czechoslovakia:
Rummel: 197,000
Keegan: 250,000
Glaser & Possony: 267,000
TOTAL:
Kinder, Anchor Atlas of World History: 3,000,000
Britannica: 2,384,000 (This covers the years 1944-46, and it includes
Germans who died fleeing while the war was still raging.)
Glaser & Possony: 2,111,000 (This includes 619,000 from "elsewhere" not
listed above)
Keegan: 2,100,000 (This includes 600,000 from "elsewhere" not listed above;
it does not include some 1,000,000 Germans who (by Keegan's estimate) died
fleeing while the war was still raging.)
Rummel: 1,782,000
First of all, the Jews can't even get their figures straight about how many
of their own kind died, and who's to blame for it. Second of all, millions
more Christians died in WW2 than Jews did, according to YOUR listed website.
So where's your holocaust, bub? Is it with your Bubbie at the Stone Avenue
Talmud Torah? Is the Cantor howling its litany during the Days of Awe, or
is it largely chanted as mantra during Tisha B'Av?
How does it feel to taste your heel?
Sincerely,
Richard C. August
John Knight
news:3D9EB23E...@btopenworld.com...
> Jd wrote:
> >
> > For your information, philosphers have been addressing evolution for
> > centuries. It wasn't until the 18th century that science entered
> > the discussion. In other words, your Lord Darwin did not invent
> > evolution like Al Gore did not invent the internet.
> >
> > It's people like me and Mr. Knight who keep you guys from perverting
> > dictionaries, encyclopdias and bibles and turning civilization into
> > mass meanigless chaos.
> >
> > Jd
> >
>
> Given that 'science' (especially biology) is the obvious descendent of
> 'Natural Philosophy', your distinction between the two is puzzling.
> Likewise, Darwin's idea didn't just suddenly appear from nowhere - he
> was influenced by the thinking of previous thinkers.
> In science, ideas *can* be speculated upon for quite a while before
> being developed, put on a proper footing, and codified by a particular
> person.
> How much is the result of that one individual's own inspiration is
> irrelevant to science (though maybe not to history), what matters is
> whether what they have said stands up to scrutiny.
>
> Dave Wilson
>
Darwin was not a scientist. At the time of his education, there WERE
scientific models to follow, but he didn't follow them because he wasn't
educated in them and didn't even understand how to write a hypothesis or a
theory. Even though he went to the seminary, he never even finished his
schooling there either, so he didn't even understand anything that had been
written thousands of years before him about history, sociology, biology,
medicine, etc. Socrates proved 2,500 years ago that the Greeks knew far
more about these things than Darwin could ever hope to understand by trying
to educate himself on some cruise around the world.
So when Jd said "your Lord Darwin did not invent evolution like Al Gore did
not invent the internet", he's 100% correct because Darwin's "theory" was a
REGRESSION in human intellect from Socrate's time. Darwin didn't move
thinking forward--he moved it BACK to some time prior to 500 BC.
The term "science" DOES apply to Socrates' writings, the Holy Bible, the
Koran, but it does NOT apply to anything Darwin ever wrote, by definition.
Yes, he did write "The Origin of Species", but even he admitted that this
was NOT a scientific exposition, it was NOT based on the science
methodology, and that he was not even qualified to make such a claim. He
collaborated with real scientists, almost none of whom agreed with his
postulation. This disagreement was based on SCIENCE, not just "religion",
so it's just plain flat incorrect to claim that "evolution" is either
"science" or a "theory".
The Holy Bible is the most accurate SCIENCE in the world, which is why it's
the best selling book in human history. American "scientists" have proven
time and again that where they contradict the Holy Bible, they are wrong.
Half of American "scientists" believe in "evolution", compared to only 9% of
Americans, and this is an indictment of our POOR "education" system rather
than this Christian nation's "far right wing fundamentalist Christianity".
Of course "evolutionists" don't understand it. Neither do feminazis, 900
million pagan niggers in Africa, sodomites, jews--and "liberals".
But most of the other 264 million Christians in the US, and most of the
other 2 billion Christians in the world, DO understand it. Intimately.
Easily. With all their heart.
And they don't even care if jews, niggers, feminazis, sodomites and other
muds and "liberals" never understand it.
John Knight
Bob LeChevalier
>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:p1tmpukb5ar1hgqoe...@4ax.com...
>> "John Knight" <jwkn...@polbox.com> wrote:
>> >> What do you mean by "disprove"? Can someone disprove that the World
>> >> Almanac had certain numbers in it? No, because the numbers were in
>> >> the Almanac. But Almanacs are not primary sources - they get their
>> >> numbers from other sources.
>> >
>> >And if those other sources were FLAWED, then what reason do you have to
>> >believe their MODIFIED figures?
>>
>> There are multiple independent sources used to determine the number of
>> Holocaust deaths:
>>
>> http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Hitler
>>
>
>
>OK, Bob, let's look at that webpage and see who is lying about what
>regarding the holocaust. I republish it in its entirety here.
[republishing deleted, since he makes no use of the data]
Your point?
>First of all, the Jews can't even get their figures straight about how many
>of their own kind died, and who's to blame for it.
Since the cites included are those of historians, not of "Jews", your
claim has nothing to do with the site (much less reality).
Do you think Jews went around conducting international censuses to
establish exact numbers every year? Even nations that held censuses
did not have good numbers for how many died, as the site shows.
>Second of all, millions
>more Christians died in WW2 than Jews did, according to YOUR listed website.
Millions of PEOPLE died. We have no idea how many of them were
Christians. However, even your 48 million (which included the
soldiers), was well under 10% of the "Christian" population of the
involved countries, whereas 6 million Jews was more than a third of
the prewar Jewish population.
>So where's your holocaust, bub?
When you have the vaguest idea of why it is called the "Holocaust",
then there is some reason to argue the matter.
>How does it feel to taste your heel?
I don't know. You seem the one who has the experience.
lojbab
John Knight
news:0001HW.B9C4B122...@news-west.giganews.com...
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2002 22:39:18 -0500, Jd wrote
> (in message <3d9e4e68...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net>):
> >>
> >> in their skin.
> >
> > Then why did all those forms I filled out have a race _____ spot for
> > me to fill out?
> >
> Human or Dentoid or Other.
> >>
> >>> Look Bob, if evolution is the way
> >>
> >> way".
> >>
> >>> and people did actually spring from mud,
> >>
> >> recently mud-wrestling).
> >>
> >>> I believe your mistake is confusing Darwins "Origin of the Species"
> >>> with the theory of evolution.
> >>
> >> theory of evolution with the real thing.
> >
> > Of course you would say that since you've already said that my
> > encyclopedia is wrong. From there, using my abilities to reason, I
> > deduce that you will eventually tell me my bible is also wrong. So
> > in order to not waste a lot of time I'll just tell you up front that
> > I have met God Himself.
> >
> > Jd
> >
And of course no "liberal" is ever going to take defeat lying down, so they
will LIE standing up, and claim that even God is wrong.
John Knight
Pope Dilbert
Actually, only after you prove that your god exists .. we can argue whether
he is right or wrong.
Bob LeChevalier
>And of course no "liberal" is ever going to take defeat lying down, so they
>will LIE standing up, and claim that even God is wrong.
So you are now admitting to be a "liberal", since that is precisely
what you do, O servant of the Prince of Lies.
lojbab
Cary Kittrell
<
<"Matthew Amsel" <matthe...@mail.mcgill.ca> wrote in message
<news:3D9F3D...@mail.mcgill.ca...
<> >
{...}
<> >
<> >
<> nope. pale skin is an adaptation to cold wheather and 1ess sunlight. Too
<> much melanin in such an environment can lead to vitamin D (or was it E?)
<> deficiency if not enough is contained in the diet. In hotter/sunnier
<> areas (ex. africa, mideast, australia), darker skin is still superior.
<
<
<This is an absurd, unproven, contradictory assumption.
What's absurd and unproven? Absorbtion of certain wavelengths of
sunlight is indeed necessary for the endogenous production of
vitamin D. Ask any nutritionist.
You don't keep snakes, do you?
<
<IF there was any "adaptation" going on [for which there is NO proof or
<evidence], then humans in hot, sunny climates would have "adapted" to the
<hot sun by having WHITE skin which reflected the sun's heat, whereas humans
<in cold, cloudy climates would have "adapted" by having BLACK skin which
<absorbed as much heat as it can.
<
You can adapt behaviorally to warm climates, you cannot adapt
behaviorally to having melanoma. Blacks in particular and dark-
skinned peoples in general have much lower rates of melanoma than
do fair-skinned people. The more intense the sunlight, the
more evolutionarily advantageous dark skin.
-- cary
John Knight
> In article <3d9e4765...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net>
JDa...@BellSouth.com (Jd) writes:
> <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> <
> {...}
> <>
> <>If it says that -- and please, what encyclopaedia is this? --
> <>then it's simply wrong. Speculating about abiogenesis is a pleasant
> <>parlor game, and there have been some interesting empirical experiments
> <>too -- way too much is made of Urey and Miller, by the way, but they
> <>were hardly the only ones -- but neodarwinism says nothing about
> <>how organisms arose, it talks about what happens to them once they're
around.
> <>Classic Darwinism says exactly the same thing about abiogenesis
> <>as well -- to wit: nothing.
> <
> <For your information, philosphers have been addressing evolution for
> <centuries.
>
> is what you're doubtless talking about, was viewed as a static
> and once-created thing, not as a dynamic and constantly self-
> modifying process.
>
And "scientists" have not a shred of evidence that those species which
became extinct weren't created at exactly the same time as ALL of the
species which are still in existence were created.
Just because biologists are able to combine species and create a "new" life
form [often misnamed "species"] is no reason to believe that ANY modern
species wasn't orginally created in exactly its current form.
The sheer speculation that Neanderthal was an ancestor to humanoids was
DISPROVEN by the DNA evidence which showed that this "common ancestor" would
have had to have lived a million years ago. But this is SPECULATION,
because not one single fossil exists as evidence that Neanderthal
"speciated" into humanoids.
In order for "speciation" to take place, the fossils of the intermediate
species would have been a thousand or a billion times more prevalent than
the original Neanderthal fossils--but not ONE has been found, leaving this
as sheer SPECULATION.
> <It wasn't until the 18th century that science entered
> <the discussion. In other words, your Lord Darwin did not invent
> <evolution like Al Gore did not invent the internet.
>
> Of course he didn't. What he did do was to 1) provide for the
> first time a plausible mechanism which moved evolution from
> the realm of speculation to the purview of science, and 2)
> provide great thundering encyclopaedic piles of evidence
> and examples. But I sure you, as "a Biologists", already
> knew this.
They already knew that the South American rhea can resembled the African
ostrich, but no biologist was STUPID enough to claim that they both
"evolved" from a "common ancestor". From this STUPID assessment, Darwinists
and
"evolutionists" make the giant leap that man evolved from monkeys!
NOT UNTIL YOU PRODUCE ONE COMMON ANCESTOR TO THE OSTRICH AND RHEA CAN YOU
CLAIM THAT THIS IS A 'THEORY'!
http://christianparty.net/evolution.htm
>
> But the idea that species weren't necessarily timeless entities
> had been in the air for over half a century, ever since the
> fossil evidence made it undeniable that large numbers of very
> strange animals had once roamed the planet, but then disappeared.
>
> <
> <It's people like me and Mr. Knight who keep you guys from perverting
> <dictionaries, encyclopdias and bibles and turning civilization into
> <mass meanigless chaos.
>
>
> You mean like Mr. Knight's definition of "adultery"?
>
>
> -- cary
Well, thanks, cary, it's sure nice to know that you believe that it was I
who developed the Hebrew language and thus caused the Hebrew word "toebah"
to mean miscegenation and adultery, but I must decline that honor.
Here is how "toebah" is handled in the Holy Bible:
Eze 23:36 The LORD said moreover unto me; Son of man, wilt thou judge
Aholah and Aholibah? yea, declare unto them their abominations;
Eze 23:37 That they have committed adultery, and blood is in their hands,
and with their idols have they committed adultery, and have also caused
their sons, whom they bore unto me, to pass for them through the fire, to de
vour them.
Eze 23:40 And furthermore, that ye have sent for men to come from far, unto
whom a messenger was sent; and, lo, they came: for whom thou didst wash
thyself, paintedst thy eyes, and deckedst thyself with ornaments,
Eze 23:41 And satest upon a stately bed, and a table prepared before it,
whereupon thou hast set mine incense and mine oil.
Eze 23:42 And a voice of a multitude being at ease was with her: and with
the men of the common sort were brought Sabeans from the wilderness, which
put bracelets upon their hands, and beautiful crowns upon their heads.
Eze 23:43 Then said I unto her that was old in adulteries, Will they now
commit whoredoms with her, and she with them?
Eze 23:44 Yet they went in unto her, as they go in unto a woman that
playeth the harlot: so went they in unto Aholah and unto Aholibah, the lewd
women.
Eze 23:45 And the righteous men, they shall judge them after the manner of
adulteresses, and after the manner of women that shed blood; because they
are adulteresses, and blood is in their hands.
Eze 23:46 For thus saith the Lord GOD; I will bring up a company upon them,
and will give them to be removed and spoiled.
Eze 23:47 And the company shall stone them with stones, and dispatch them
with their swords; they shall slay their sons and their daughters, and burn
up their houses with fire.
Eze 23:48 Thus will I cause lewdness to cease out of the land, that all
women may be taught not to do after your lewdness.
Eze 23:49 And they shall recompense your lewdness upon you, and ye shall
bear the sins of your idols: and ye shall know that I am the Lord GOD.
Note that the English word "abomination" is translated from the Hebrew word
"toebah", just as it is in the following:
Ezr 9:1 Now when these things were done, the princes drew near unto me,
saying, The people of Israel, and the priests and the Levites, have not
separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, doing according to their
abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the
Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.
Ezr 9:2 For they have taken of their daughters for themselves and for their
sons, so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the peoples of the
lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this
trespass.
Ezr 9:3 And when I heard this thing, I rent my garment and my robe, and
plucked off the hair of my head and of my beard, and sat down confounded.
Ezr 9:4 Then were assembled unto me every one that trembled at the words of
the God of Israel, because of the trespass of them of the captivity; and I
sat confounded until the evening oblation.
Ezr 9:5 And at the evening oblation I arose up from my humiliation, even
with my garment and my robe rent; and I fell upon my knees, and spread out
my hands unto Jehovah my God;
Thus, "toebah" refers to MISCEGENATION and ADULTERY.
John Knight
Bob LeChevalier
[with his usual ignorance in full display]
>And "scientists" have not a shred of evidence that those species which
>became extinct weren't created at exactly the same time as ALL of the
>species which are still in existence were created.
We have no evidence that they were "created" at all.
We have more evidence compatible with them having appeared at
different times than evidence suggesting that they appeared at the
same time.
>Just because biologists are able to combine species and create a "new" life
>form [often misnamed "species"] is no reason to believe that ANY modern
>species wasn't orginally created in exactly its current form.
The fact that we have observed species that exist now that did not
exist a few decades ago (and which were not "combined" by biologists)
proves you wrong.
>The sheer speculation that Neanderthal was an ancestor to humanoids was
>DISPROVEN by the DNA evidence which showed that this "common ancestor" would
>have had to have lived a million years ago.
You are confusing 2 or 3 different things here. Neanderthal has not
been considered likely to be a human ancestor for years. Perhaps a
million years ago some other species was a common ancestor.
>because not one single fossil exists as evidence that Neanderthal
>"speciated" into humanoids.
Correct, for once. Since the DNA shows otherwise, such fossil
evidence would present a problem.
>In order for "speciation" to take place, the fossils of the intermediate
>species would have been a thousand or a billion times more prevalent than
>the original Neanderthal fossils
No.
In fact the prevalence of fossils has much more to do with the factors
that lead to fossilization and preservation of fossils, than to the
existence of the species that are fossilized.
And since you have no clue as to what an "intermediate species" might
be, or when it would be required, that portion of your statement is
garbage.
>> Of course he didn't. What he did do was to 1) provide for the
>> first time a plausible mechanism which moved evolution from
>> the realm of speculation to the purview of science, and 2)
>> provide great thundering encyclopaedic piles of evidence
>> and examples. But I sure you, as "a Biologists", already
>> knew this.
>
>They already knew that the South American rhea can resembled the African
>ostrich, but no biologist was STUPID enough to claim that they both
>"evolved" from a "common ancestor".
The concept of evolution predated Darwin.
>From this STUPID assessment, Darwinists
>and "evolutionists" make the giant leap that man evolved from monkeys!
No.
>NOT UNTIL YOU PRODUCE ONE COMMON ANCESTOR TO THE OSTRICH AND RHEA CAN YOU
>CLAIM THAT THIS IS A 'THEORY'!
Dinosaurs.
lojbab
Cary Kittrell
Sorry, sport, but there are untold numbers of "shreds". Read any good
book on paleontology. You can make all the loud bald pronouncements
you like, but they carry zero weight in comparison to the opinions
of the hoards of gologists and paleontologists who have actually
sat down and studied the subject -- and then researched, published,
and presented their discoveries in the field.
<Just because biologists are able to combine species and create a "new" life
<form [often misnamed "species"]
Whatever in the world are you babbling about here?
<is no reason to believe that ANY modern
<species wasn't orginally created in exactly its current form.
<
All species emerged approximately in their "current" forms. When
they change significantly, they become new species.
<The sheer speculation that Neanderthal was an ancestor to humanoids was
<DISPROVEN by the DNA evidence which showed that this "common ancestor" would
<have had to have lived a million years ago. But this is SPECULATION,
<because not one single fossil exists as evidence that Neanderthal
<"speciated" into humanoids.
<
I don't know of anyone up on all the current evidence who thinks they did.
They're thought to be a conspecific -- hence _Homo neandertalis_ -- not an
ancestor.
<In order for "speciation" to take place, the fossils of the intermediate
<species would have been a thousand or a billion times more prevalent than
<the original Neanderthal fossils--but not ONE has been found, leaving this
<as sheer SPECULATION.
And as you're the only who speculates this, so I suupose it's up to
you to provide your "evidence".
<
<> <It wasn't until the 18th century that science entered
<> <the discussion. In other words, your Lord Darwin did not invent
<> <evolution like Al Gore did not invent the internet.
<>
<> Of course he didn't. What he did do was to 1) provide for the
<> first time a plausible mechanism which moved evolution from
<> the realm of speculation to the purview of science, and 2)
<> provide great thundering encyclopaedic piles of evidence
<> and examples. But I sure you, as "a Biologists", already
<> knew this.
<
<They already knew that the South American rhea can resembled the African
<ostrich, but no biologist was STUPID enough to claim that they both
<"evolved" from a "common ancestor". From this STUPID assessment, Darwinists
<and
<"evolutionists" make the giant leap that man evolved from monkeys!
<
"man evolved from monkeys"? You really should learn a little about
a topic before you attack it. It might make you look marginally
less sillier.
<NOT UNTIL YOU PRODUCE ONE COMMON ANCESTOR TO THE OSTRICH AND RHEA CAN YOU
<CLAIM THAT THIS IS A 'THEORY'!
<http://christianparty.net/evolution.htm
<
Don't be even sillier. Just because no one speaks proto Indo-European,
that doesn't lead anyone to believe that every Indo-European language
sprang into existance in an act of complete separate creation from
every other Indo-European language. The last common ancestor of
all those languages is no longer spoken, nor did it leave any
records, but no one doubts there was such a language. Except
perhaps Biblical literalists, but even they don't get all upset
about it.
Incidentally, cladistics, being far more honest than you, stipulates
that even if there are a zillion fossils of species A, which was
in fact the last common ancestor of species B and C, there is still
no way to prove that it was a common ancestor -- it may be another
conspecific, and there's no way to settle the issue one way or the
other.
<>
<> But the idea that species weren't necessarily timeless entities
<> had been in the air for over half a century, ever since the
<> fossil evidence made it undeniable that large numbers of very
<> strange animals had once roamed the planet, but then disappeared.
<>
<> <
<> <It's people like me and Mr. Knight who keep you guys from perverting
<> <dictionaries, encyclopdias and bibles and turning civilization into
<> <mass meanigless chaos.
<>
<>
<> You mean like Mr. Knight's definition of "adultery"?
<>
<>
<> -- cary
<
<Well, thanks, cary, it's sure nice to know that you believe that it was I
<who developed the Hebrew language and thus caused the Hebrew word "toebah"
<to mean miscegenation and adultery, but I must decline that honor.
<
Hey, you're the one who claims dictionaries are the final arbiter
of meaning, and only "liberals" will try to weasel out of their
certain authority. Here, allow me to quote you:
"Liberals" don't ever permit themselves to be constrained
by dictionary definitions, encyclopedias, nor facts. It's
how they "feel" which is at issue.
or how about:
Mr. August's point is that "combatting EVIL" is the PREREQUISITE
to living a Christian life, something nobody expects someone like
you who can't even read the dictionary definition of "race" to understand.
or again:
The 91% of Americans who disagree with half of our "scientists", or the
small minority of affirmative-action-educated, affirmative-action-trained,
and affirmative-action-hired "scientists" who can't even read a dictionary?
and my dictionary says
adultery: voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man
and someone other than his wife or between a married
woman and someone other than her husband;
Q, at least by your strange point of view, ED.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
<"John Knight" <jwkn...@polbox.com> wrote:
<[with his usual ignorance in full display]
<
<>CLAIM THAT THIS IS A 'THEORY'!
<
<Dinosaurs.
<
Dinosaurs. Theropod dinosaurs. (you have to imagine Sean Connery
saying it)
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
<"Parse Tree" <pars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
<news:%45m9.1720$zz2.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
<
<
<What you meant to say is: "I'm sure many of them think they're a race. But
<[according to my parsetree dictionary] they're really not".
<
<But according to WEBSTER's dictionary, they ARE.
<
<According to ALL credible dictionaries, jews ARE a RACE.
<
And according to Merriam-WEBSTER's dictionary, "Jew" is defined
quite succinctly, one word in fact:
Israelite
(usage 1:b)
-- cary
Bob LeChevalier
><Just because biologists are able to combine species and create a "new" life
><form [often misnamed "species"]
>
>Whatever in the world are you babbling about here?
The nincompoop persists (despite years of explanations) in believing
that speciation comes from interbreeding between other species to make
hybrids.
lojbab
Cary Kittrell
Oh.
He thinks we're all ligers, eh?
Amazing. Flat stark staring amazing.
-- cary
Richard August
"Black" or "Negroid" if you are 1/6th black. That means your skin could be
white as driven snow, your eyes could be sky blue, and your hair as blonde
as puffed rice cereal. To that state, you are still "Black". Just thought
I'd let you know that. -- Richard C. August
"John Knight" <jwkn...@polbox.com> wrote in message
news:fWgm9.94163$S32.6...@news2.west.cox.net...
>
>
>
> "Dan Holzman" <hol...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:anb2nl$s2g$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> > In article <f17m9.5696$Fl4.5...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> > Parse Tree <pars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >That's false. Race is entirely biological. Ethnicity is social, and
the
> > >meanings of the two have been blurred together due to ignorance.
> >
> > I would direct your attention to a book entitled _White By Law_, which
> > you will find listed at the book retailer's web site of your choice. It
> > tracks the development of race as a legal principle in American law --
> > a crucial point because for quite some time only "White" people could
> > immigrate. Particularly amusing was how Syrians went back and forth
> > between being non-white and white over the course of 30 years.
> >
> > Race is not biological, despite all the pseudoscience that has come up
> > around it. It's purely a social and legal definition, which is why
> > there exist fair-skinned, blonde-haired, blue-eyed women whose
> > passports listed them as "Black" or "Octaroon."
>
>
> The simple fact that you too think it's odd that "fair-skinned,
> blonde-haired, blue-eyed women" would be listed as "'Black' or 'Octaroon'"
> is proof enough that you don't believe your own bs.
>
> By DEFINITION, race is also GENETIC! You cannot excluded genetics just
> because there are a few exceptions to the rule. This would be like saying
> "all Americans are on death row" because 3,000 Americans are on death row.
> Just because there might be 3,000 blonde bimbos listed as niggers doesn't
> eliminate the other 480 million members from the Caucasian Race.
>
> John Knight
>
>
>
>
John Knight
"Jd" <JDa...@BellSouth.com> wrote in message
news:3da377d1...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net...
> Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> >JDa...@BellSouth.com (Jd) wrote:
> >>Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> >>>>>There is no "white race". There are people with low melanin content
> >>>>>in their skin.
> >>>>
> >>>>Then why did all those forms I filled out have a race _____ spot for
> >>>>me to fill out?
> >>>
> >>>And you could have checked anything you wanted on those forms, and no
> >>>one would have any way to contest your claim. On the census, you are
> >>>whatever race you say that you are.
> >>
> >>So you're admitting that there is indeed a "white race".
> >
> >Where in the above do I "admit" that. I said that people define races
> >however they want, and record on the census whatever they want.
> >Someone saying that they are part of the "white race" does not mean
> >that in fact that there is a "white race".
> >
> >>>>From there, using my abilities to reason, I
> >>>>deduce that you will eventually tell me my bible is also wrong.
> >>>
> >>>I leave that for religious authorities. The Catholics claim the
> >>>Protestant Bible is wrong and vice versa.
> >>
> >>What? I thought you claimed to be a Christian. Did you not know
> >>that all real Christians are religious authorities?
> >
> >Nope.
> >
> >>We have the legal right to introduce pagans to God Himself.
> >
> >Whoopie doo! Non-Christians also have that legal right.
> >
> >Furthermore the all-powerful God is as capable of inspiring someone to
> >His Truth via the telephone directory as through the Bible. Do you
> >deny His power to so inspire?
> >
> >So why does He need anyone to introduce pagans to Himself?
>
> Cut the crap Bob. You're already in enough trouble as it is. You
> had better quite pretending to be of the same faith I am if your
> going to let those demons party in your mind.
>
> >(And having rights does not make you an authority in my mind.)
> >
> >lojbab
>
> As you can see, I'm not messing around with what's in your mind.
>
> Jd
>
>
There is no mind. What niggers, jews, feminazis, sodomites, and other
"liberals" and muds claim to be a "mind" is actually something more like
playing back a tape recording of the biased jew-controlled evening news.
Have you EVER seen a single glint of understanding from these "minds", ever,
in all the posts you've read from them on the internet, or in the
"newspaper" or "TV news"? I surely haven't. It's a waste of brain cells
(which may be why God shorted so many of them by 3 1/2 billion brain cells).
The real anamoly here is that nigger men have more brain cells than White
women, but score lower on all the standardized tests, earn much less per
capita, obviously have a much higher propensity to commit crime.
The big question is: Is this because of special privileges given to White
women, or systemic discrimination against nigger men?
http://christianparty.net/grebrainsize.htm
John Knight
John Knight
Dear Mr. August,
Niggers look like niggers, even if they have blonde hair, white skin, or
blue eyes, so they SHOULD be required to list themselves as niggers if they
are 1/16th nigger [presumably you meant 1/16th rather than 1/6th?].
Furthermore, anyone with ANY nigger ancestry ought to be required by law to
list that ancestry. It's a violation of God's Law to fail to keep the White
Christian Israelite Race pure. To fail to inform a pure White Christian
Israelite that the person they might be marrying is a nigger SHOULD be a
crime.
For thousands of years before the jews got into this country in record
numbers, this made common sense, to everyone, which is why the Holy Bible,
the US Constitution, and all state laws made miscegenation with muds a
CRIME.
John Knight
"Richard August" <rau...@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:UmVo9.3836$Ye5.1...@nnrp1.ptd.net...
John Knight
"Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:anv10e$7g7$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
Here's Webster's New World Dictionary definition of "speciation":
"the process of developing new species through evolution".
Note the word "evolution":
"the theory ... that all plants and animals developed from earlier forms by
hereditary transmission of slight variations in successive generations".
This DICTIONARY definition REQUIRES that one species TRANSITION into
***another*** species "by hereditary transmission of slight variations in
successive generations". There's no getting around that FACT (unless you're
a "liberal" for whom dictionary definitions are mere intellectual challenges
to get around).
Unless you claim that "evolution" caused EACH species to "evolve" into
precisely the same form originally that EACH species is in now, then you
MUST claim that one species "evolved" into another species. The first
option is called "creation", which leaves you with only ONE other option,
which is "speciation".
There is nothing else.
John Knight
John Knight
This is PROOF that "liberals" and jews could NOT care less if Christians
were killed during WWII, because to them, the ONLY crime would have been if
even ONE jew died.
They're SICK, SICK people who don't deserve one cent from this Christian
nation.
John Knight
"Richard August" <rau...@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:KxMn9.3076$Ye5.9...@nnrp1.ptd.net...
Cary Kittrell
<
<
<"Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
<news:anv10e$7g7$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
<> In article <2d75qu880dgl6eh8a...@4ax.com> Bob LeChevalier
<<loj...@lojban.org> writes:
<> <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
<> <><Just because biologists are able to combine species and create a "new"
<life
<> <><form [often misnamed "species"]
<> <>
<> <>Whatever in the world are you babbling about here?
<> <
<> <The nincompoop persists (despite years of explanations) in believing
<> <that speciation comes from interbreeding between other species to make
<> <hybrids.
<> <
<> <lojbab
<>
<>
<> Oh.
<>
<> He thinks we're all ligers, eh?
<>
<>
<> Amazing. Flat stark staring amazing.
<>
<>
<>
<> -- cary
<
<Here's Webster's New World Dictionary definition of "speciation":
<
<"the process of developing new species through evolution".
<
Here's Webster's definition of "Jew":
1:b) Israelite
<Note the word "evolution":
<
<"the theory ... that all plants and animals developed from earlier forms by
<hereditary transmission of slight variations in successive generations".
<
<This DICTIONARY definition REQUIRES
Here's what the DICTIONARY REQUIRES for "adultery":
voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man
and someone other than his wife or between a married
woman and someone other than her husband;
<that one species TRANSITION into
<***another*** species "by hereditary transmission of slight variations in
<successive generations". There's no getting around that FACT (unless you're
<a "liberal" for whom dictionary definitions are mere intellectual challenges
<to get around).
<
Here's an intellectual challenge for you to get around, from Webster's:
Einstein:
Albert 1879-1955 American (German-born) physicist; enunciated theory
of relativity; discovered equivalence of mass and energy (E=mc2), etc.;
awarded 1921 Nobel prize for physics for contributing to theoretical
physics and his photoelectric law
<Unless you claim that "evolution" caused EACH species to "evolve" into
<precisely the same form originally that EACH species is in now, then you
<MUST claim that one species "evolved" into another species. The first
<option is called "creation", which leaves you with only ONE other option,
<which is "speciation".
<
<There is nothing else.
<
Yo, lojbab! Would you be so kind as to do your magic thing again,
and explain to me what the fuck John's on about? I think all
those extra brain cells are cutting off the circulation to
his Wernicke's -- he's babbling again.
Thanks in advance.
-- cary
John Knight
>
> Einstein:
>
> Albert 1879-1955 American (German-born) physicist; enunciated theory
> of relativity; discovered equivalence of mass and energy (E=mc2), etc.;
> awarded 1921 Nobel prize for physics for contributing to theoretical
> physics and his photoelectric law
>
>
> <Unless you claim that "evolution" caused EACH species to "evolve" into
> <precisely the same form originally that EACH species is in now, then you
> <MUST claim that one species "evolved" into another species. The first
> <option is called "creation", which leaves you with only ONE other option,
> <which is "speciation".
> <
> <There is nothing else.
> <
>
> Yo, lojbab! Would you be so kind as to do your magic thing again,
> those extra brain cells are cutting off the circulation to
> his Wernicke's -- he's babbling again.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
> -- cary
|
Japan's Cumulative GDP & Savings by Year |
Yen per dollar |
GDP, Trillions of Yen |
GDP Billions of Dollars |
GDP billion ounces of gold |
Annual % change in GDP in yen |
Annual % change in GDP in dollars |
Annual % change in GDP in gold |
Dollars per ounce of gold |
Yen per ounce of gold |
Annual Savings Trillions of Yen |
|
1960 |
400.0 |
15.5 |
39 |
1.1 |
37 |
14,600 |
5 | |||
|
1961 |
366.0 |
18.5 |
51 |
1.4 |
19.4% |
30.2% |
34.0% |
36 |
12,993 |
6 |
|
1962 |
380.0 |
21.5 |
57 |
1.6 |
16.2% |
12.1% |
12.7% |
35 |
13,433 |
6 |
|
1963 |
350.0 |
24.5 |
70 |
2.0 |
14.0% |
23.7% |
24.4% |
35 |
12,338 |
7 |
|
1964 |
350.0 |
30.0 |
86 |
2.4 |
22.4% |
22.4% |
21.6% |
35 |
12,373 |
9 |
|
1965 |
355.0 |
36.0 |
101 |
2.9 |
20.0% |
18.3% |
18.2% |
36 |
12,603 |
11 |
|
1966 |
360.0 |
42.0 |
117 |
3.3 |
16.7% |
15.1% |
15.4% |
35 |
12,744 |
13 |
|
1967 |
355.0 |
50.0 |
141 |
4.0 |
19.0% |
20.7% |
20.3% |
36 |
12,603 |
15 |
|
1968 |
365.0 |
59.0 |
162 |
3.7 |
18.0% |
14.8% |
-6.3% |
44 |
15,878 |
18 |
|
1969 |
339.0 |
65.0 |
192 |
4.7 |
10.2% |
18.6% |
25.8% |
41 |
13,899 |
20 |
|
1970 |
329.0 |
70.9 |
216 |
5.5 |
9.1% |
12.4% |
18.4% |
39 |
12,798 |
21 |
|
1971 |
320.1 |
86.0 |
269 |
6.0 |
21.3% |
24.7% |
8.7% |
45 |
14,275 |
26 |
|
1972 |
301.2 |
101.0 |
335 |
5.3 |
17.4% |
24.8% |
-12.8% |
64 |
19,231 |
30 |
|
1973 |
280.2 |
116.0 |
414 |
3.9 |
14.9% |
23.5% |
-25.9% |
106 |
29,834 |
35 |
|
1974 |
300.4 |
131.0 |
436 |
2.4 |
12.9% |
5.3% |
-39.1% |
184 |
55,206 |
39 |
|
1975 |
305.7 |
148.3 |
485 |
3.5 |
13.2% |
11.3% |
46.8% |
139 |
42,577 |
44 |
|
1976 |
294.7 |
164.6 |
559 |
4.2 |
11.0% |
15.1% |
20.1% |
134 |
39,422 |
49 |
|
1977 |
241.0 |
182.0 |
755 |
4.7 |
10.6% |
35.2% |
12.2% |
161 |
38,828 |
55 |
|
1978 |
196.0 |
199.0 |
1,016 |
4.9 |
9.3% |
34.5% |
4.1% |
208 |
40,779 |
60 |
|
1979 |
240.4 |
214.0 |
890 |
1.9 |
7.5% |
-12.3% |
-60.2% |
459 |
110,330 |
64 |
|
1980 |
209.5 |
240.2 |
1,147 |
1.9 |
12.2% |
28.8% |
-0.5% |
595 |
124,626 |
72 |
|
1981 |
219.0 |
257.4 |
1,176 |
2.9 |
7.2% |
2.5% |
52.3% |
400 |
87,580 |
77 |
|
1982 |
241.9 |
269.6 |
1,114 |
2.5 |
4.7% |
-5.2% |
-15.3% |
447 |
108,147 |
81 |
|
1983 |
234.5 |
280.3 |
1,196 |
3.2 |
4.0% |
7.3% |
26.5% |
380 |
89,095 |
84 |
|
1984 |
248.0 |
298.0 |
1,202 |
3.9 |
6.3% |
0.5% |
23.5% |
309 |
76,620 |
89 |
|
1985 |
202.8 |
320.0 |
1,578 |
4.8 |
7.4% |
31.3% |
24.2% |
327 |
66,312 |
96 |
|
1986 |
162.1 |
330.0 |
2,036 |
5.2 |
3.1% |
29.0% |
7.9% |
391 |
63,345 |
99 |
|
1987 |
128.2 |
343.2 |
2,676 |
5.5 |
4.0% |
31.4% |
5.6% |
487 |
62,389 |
103 |
|
1988 |
123.6 |
417.3 |
3,376 |
8.2 |
21.6% |
26.1% |
49.6% |
410 |
50,699 |
125 |
|
1989 |
143.7 |
414.6 |
2,886 |
7.2 |
-0.6% |
-14.5% |
-12.5% |
401 |
57,620 |
124 |
|
1990 |
133.9 |
430.0 |
3,212 |
8.3 |
3.7% |
11.3% |
15.6% |
386 |
51,708 |
129 |
|
1991 |
128.0 |
440.8 |
3,442 |
9.8 |
2.5% |
7.2% |
17.2% |
353 |
45,217 |
132 |
|
1992 |
124.0 |
451.8 |
3,642 |
10.9 |
2.5% |
5.8% |
12.2% |
333 |
41,305 |
136 |
|
1993 |
109.9 |
463.1 |
4,213 |
10.8 |
2.5% |
15.7% |
-1.7% |
392 |
43,057 |
139 |
|
1994 |
100.2 |
474.6 |
4,738 |
12.4 |
2.5% |
12.5% |
15.0% |
383 |
38,394 |
142 |
|
1995 |
101.9 |
483.2 |
4,744 |
12.3 |
1.8% |
0.1% |
-0.8% |
387 |
39,416 |
145 |
|
1996 |
114.0 |
500.3 |
4,389 |
11.9 |
3.5% |
-7.5% |
-2.9% |
369 |
42,059 |
150 |
|
1997 |
129.7 |
509.6 |
3,928 |
12.3 |
1.9% |
-10.5% |
3.2% |
320 |
41,514 |
153 |
|
1998 |
117.1 |
498.5 |
4,258 |
14.4 |
-2.2% |
8.4% |
17.2% |
296 |
34,653 |
150 |
|
1999 |
102.6 |
495.0 |
4,826 |
16.1 |
-0.7% |
13.3% |
11.8% |
300 |
30,774 |
149 |
|
2000 |
112.2 |
532.8 |
4,749 |
17.6 |
7.6% |
-1.6% |
9.3% |
270 |
30,297 |
160 |
|
2001 |
121.5 |
581.7 |
4,788 |
18.4 |
9.2% |
0.8% |
4.7% |
260 |
31,590 |
175 |
|
2002 |
122.5 |
592.8 |
4,839 |
18.8 |
1.9% |
1.1% |
1.9% |
261 |
31,591 |
178 |
|
Total |
11,400 |
80,542 |
288.4 |
3,420 | ||||||
|
Ratio 2002:1960 |
0.31 |
38 |
125 |
18 |
7.2 |
2.2 |
38 | |||
|
Total at 120 yen to the dollar |
$95.0 |
$28.5 | ||||||||
|
Total at 80 yen to the dollar |
$142.5 |
$42.7 |
John Knight
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 9:46:27 -0500, John Knight wrote
> (in message <7jXo9.125105$S32.8...@news2.west.cox.net>):
computer
> with 25 semiconductors.
>
> If it takes you 500,000 brain cells to reach a wrong decision while a
human
> being uses 20,000 to reach a correct decision, you are not superior.
>
> I don't think you've made your case that your master race/master sex is
> superior to homo sapiens sapiens and men and women.
The gate count in a 1975 computer was 1/500th of what a single simple
semiconductor chip can include today. Not even counting that the memory
available to a $300 PC today is 28,000 TIMES as much as the memory available
to most 1975 mainframes, this improved gate count alone enables much more
complex transactions to be processed on today's PCs than were processed on
Crays.
It's not that much different for the human brain, which is why Sub-Saharan
niggers have an IQ of 60 and East Asians have an IQ of 110. The mere 21%
difference in their brain sizes equal a 210 point difference in TIMSS scores
and a 167 TIMES difference in their earning potential
http://christianparty.net/grebrainsize.htm
John Knight
Cary Kittrell
<This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
<
<------=_NextPart_000_02F7_01C26F81.F7C5E0C0
<Content-Type: text/plain;
< charset="iso-8859-1"
<Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<
<"Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message =
<news:ao1o02$msk$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
<
<> Here's an intellectual challenge for you to get around, from =
<Webster's:
<>=20
<> Einstein:
<>=20
<> Albert 1879-1955 American (German-born) physicist; enunciated =
<theory
<> of relativity; discovered equivalence of mass and energy =
<(E=3Dmc2), etc.;
<> awarded 1921 Nobel prize for physics for contributing to =
<theoretical
<> physics and his photoelectric law
<>=20
<> <Unless you claim that "evolution" caused EACH species to "evolve" =
<into
<> <precisely the same form originally that EACH species is in now, then =
<you
<> <MUST claim that one species "evolved" into another species. The =
<first
<> <option is called "creation", which leaves you with only ONE other =
<option,
<> <which is "speciation".
<> <
<> <There is nothing else.
<> <
<> Yo, lojbab! Would you be so kind as to do your magic thing again,
<> and explain to me what the .uck John's on about? I think all
<> those extra brain cells are cutting off the circulation to
<> his Wernicke's -- he's babbling again.
<> Thanks in advance.
<>=20
<>=20
<> -- cary
<
<
<All you need to do is ask.
<
<a CRIMINAL, not a "scientist".
<
Sorry, but the Word of the Dictionary is final. You've taught
me that. We don't even need textbooks on a subject, all you
have to do is look up the two or three sentences in the
dictionary, and you know all there is to know on any
subject. Isn't that WONDERFUL?
(abrupt lurching anti-sequiteur about Japan and Iraq snipped)
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
<
<
<"Lance O. Lake" <ham...@stakepounders.us> wrote in message
<news:0001HW.B9C9CEB8...@news-east.giganews.com...
<>
<human
<> being uses 20,000 to reach a correct decision, you are not superior.
<>
<> I don't think you've made your case that your master race/master sex is
<> superior to homo sapiens sapiens and men and women.
<
<
<The gate count in a 1975 computer was 1/500th of what a single simple
<semiconductor chip can include today. Not even counting that the memory
<available to a $300 PC today is 28,000 TIMES as much as the memory available
<to most 1975 mainframes, this improved gate count alone enables much more
<complex transactions to be processed on today's PCs than were processed on
<Crays.
<
<It's not that much different for the human brain, which is why Sub-Saharan
<niggers have an IQ of 60 and East Asians have an IQ of 110. The mere 21%
<difference in their brain sizes equal a 210 point difference in TIMSS scores
<and a 167 TIMES difference in their earning potential
<http://christianparty.net/grebrainsize.htm
<
And by your simplistic "count `em up; doesn't matter how they're
interconnected" argument, whales are three to five times as
smart as we are. Which may explain why they don't post to
Usenet.
-- cary
Bob LeChevalier
>This is PROOF that "liberals" and jews could NOT care less if Christians
>were killed during WWII, because to them, the ONLY crime would have been if
>even ONE jew died.
I fail to see how one follows from the other.
For one thing, I know many people care about people who die whether
they die from crime or not.
There is no discussion about Christians that died in WW II because no
one contests that millions died. We did something to try to make sure
that it doesn't happen again, by denazification of Germany, the
Marshall Plan, and creating the UN.
There is discussion about the Jews that died because people like you
deny that they died, and because the creation of Israel as one measure
to prevent it happening again ALSO led to controversy and war. The
Jews also remember their dead because most Jews have close relatives
that died. Many Americans have relatives that died in WW II, and the
remember those relatives just as much as the Jews remember their dead.
Also important to realize is that many of your "Christian" deaths in
WW II were among "the enemy", and among the Soviets who were only
barely allies during the war, and became "the enemy" immediately after
the war.
>They're SICK, SICK people
Nope. That's you.
>who don't deserve one cent from this Christian nation.
You must writing from Vatican City.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>Niggers look like niggers,
No they don't.
>For thousands of years before the jews got into this country in record
>numbers, this made common sense, to everyone, which is why the Holy Bible,
>the US Constitution, and all state laws made miscegenation with muds a
>CRIME.
Show us where it says anything like this in the Constitution. For
that matter,show us the law in any state where "miscegenation with
muds" is a crime. Make sure that you show us that they have defined
the word "muds" in accord with your definition.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
[nincompoop wrote:]
><Here's Webster's New World Dictionary definition of "speciation":
><
><"the process of developing new species through evolution".
>
><
><"the theory ... that all plants and animals developed from earlier forms by
><hereditary transmission of slight variations in successive generations".
>
><This DICTIONARY definition REQUIRES
><***another*** species "by hereditary transmission of slight variations in
><successive generations". There's no getting around that FACT (unless you're
><a "liberal" for whom dictionary definitions are mere intellectual challenges
><to get around).
OK. That is the barest of logical deductions.
><Unless you claim that "evolution" caused EACH species to "evolve" into
><precisely the same form originally that EACH species is in now, then you
><MUST claim that one species "evolved" into another species.
Makes no sense.
>The first
><option is called "creation", which leaves you with only ONE other option,
><which is "speciation".
I don't see two options described. Merely one. I see no mention of
creation.
>Yo, lojbab! Would you be so kind as to do your magic thing again,
>and explain to me what the fuck John's on about?
I don't think even he knows. he's just spouting words because he
cannot comprehend the definition of evolution and thinks that he can
handwave the issue into something else.
Most creationists present their abysmal case better than he does.
lojbab
Cary Kittrell
Hey! Hey! No line-jumping, eh? John still has an outstanding
assignment from me along these lines, having to do with
his insistence that sodomy is illegal everywhere and my
challenge to him find one such law anywhere among the list
of thirty-seven states I submitted to him.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
On tenth look I think maybe he's trying to say that evolution is
one original species evolving into all the others, whereas creation
is each species individually "becoming" itself -- or something --
but this was not one of John's more lucid rants.
I also suspect that he has some kind of assumption that when
a species spins off another species, the original one must
disappear, but I could be wrong.
In any event, I couldn't detect anything about two species
hybridizing to produce a novel species.
<
<Most creationists present their abysmal case better than he does.
<
Yeah, he's no Phillip Johnson. Hell, he's no Henry Morris even.
-- cary
Jd
Here's one for ya... and I ain't kiddin'. This friend of mine was
having a discussion with this black dude today about how blacks are
oppressed. The black dude said "Bill Gates has more money than all
the blacks in America" (as if it were a crime or something). I was
also told that Sen. Kennedy is on the record as stating that some of
Bills money should be sent to people in third world countries to
help improve their living standards.
There just might be evidence afterall that some did evolve from mud.
Problem is, there is no way in my view to deal with these folks in a
rational manner. I do however have a far greater appreciation for
the words found in the Declaration of Independence and in the Boston
Tea Party concept having come in contact with such folks.
As far as brain cell counts and test scores, I'll have to take your
word for it since I'm not statistically minded. I often marvel when
I see all those statisitcs (along with interprative comments) fly
across my screen, perhaps because I lack the ability to compile
things in such a manner.
Jd
Jd
Richard offered proof that according to "Law" there is such a thing
as "race" which is what I was pointing out with my example of
filling out forms which had the "race____" spot on them.
You guys are arguing that there is no scientific basis for defining
races and now here you are trying to deceptively sidestep the issue.
Do you not understand how the rule of law works in America? It has
to do with normal folks electing leaders, not clones bowing to the
whims of wizards.
But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt knowing that it just may
very well be possible that you do not understand the fundamentals
involved here. What we have here is one group (you liberals of the
culture club) adhering to an almost gnostic ideology which you call
"science" and using it to oppose what I (and John for the most part)
are basically presenting which is a Biblical principle called LAW.
This almost gnostic manner represents wizzardry. I could get into a
word study here and show how sorcery and drugs are the result of
such things but I won't at the moment. Everyone who has any sense
knows how pills and medicine are presented to the populace at large
in a mystical "cure for everything" almost gnostic way which, in my
view approaches national worship for glazed-eyed seculars.
The impossible connection between pure science and behavioral
science has been made by maddened shrinks and wizzards, and the rank
and file liberal assembly of feminazis, fags and feminized men are
setup up to fall in line and fall. Even atheists are unaware that
they do actually worship "beings" they call scientists and have
attributed semi-supernatural powers to them. The sad part is that a
few Christians have even fallen for the above ploy and have accepted
another Jesus, which is a fake, called the "semi-Christ" (yes, I
just came up with that term) which lets them all worship together at
the secular semi-supernatural alter.
Men are sinners according to the LAW of God and need God's help in
solving the equation, not the help of maddened wizards.
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not
known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law
had said, Thou shalt not covet. (Romans 7:7)
Jd
Jd
Must've been a stern, almost over-bearing adult somewhere back in
your informative years. Yeah, I think so.
I knew a guy one time who was ruled by cruel Nuns as a child. He
turned out to be a brilliant intellectual after having escaped from
nunery.
But I'm not profiling.
Jd
Lance O. Lake
(in message <3da4e17d...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net>):
2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living
soul.
> Problem is, there is no way in my view to deal with these folks in a
> rational manner. I do however have a far greater appreciation for
> the words found in the Declaration of Independence and in the Boston
> Tea Party concept having come in contact with such folks.
>
> As far as brain cell counts and test scores, I'll have to take your
> word for it since I'm not statistically minded. I often marvel when
> I see all those statisitcs (along with interprative comments) fly
> across my screen, perhaps because I lack the ability to compile
> things in such a manner.
>
> Jd
>
>
The entities that were not made from mud were not made by God, apparently.
Although some would say it was a 100 pounds of clay.
Lance
>
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>"John Knight" <jwkn...@polbox.com> wrote:
>>>Niggers look like niggers,
>>
>>No they don't.
>>
>>>For thousands of years before the jews got into this country in record
>>>numbers, this made common sense, to everyone, which is why the Holy Bible,
>>>the US Constitution, and all state laws made miscegenation with muds a
>>>CRIME.
>>
>>Show us where it says anything like this in the Constitution. For
>>that matter,show us the law in any state where "miscegenation with
>>muds" is a crime. Make sure that you show us that they have defined
>>the word "muds" in accord with your definition.
>
>as "race" which is what I was pointing out with my example of
>filling out forms which had the "race____" spot on them.
But people aren't required to follow any particular law in filling out
those spots.
Yes laws have defined race, generally in contradictory ways, which is
why it was noted that Jews were considered "white" and were granted
citizenship whereas in other contexts people try to say that they are
NOT white. In most states, a black who was able to "pass" and who did
not acknowledge their heritage, was to all intents and purposes
"white", and no doubt many of his/her descendants would not even know
that they had a black ancestor. I suspect that if one goes back far
enough EVERY European-ancestry person has at least one black in their
ancestry. Just as almost every European has Charlemagne as an
ancestor, any offspring of a white and a black from back then (when
blacks were NOT considered a different "race" except in the sense that
Germans and Franks and Goths were considered different races. All the
European races intermarried, and some of them would have intermarried
with Africans.
>You guys are arguing that there is no scientific basis for defining
>races and now here you are trying to deceptively sidestep the issue.
Because in fact there is none. The laws attempt to do so based on
parentage, but parentage is often lied about, and science isn't
generally used to check. Furthermore, parentage presumes that one can
determine the race of the parent, which is the same problem
recursively. There is no way to determine the race of someone even
legally without assuming the race of someone else has already been
determined.
>Do you not understand how the rule of law works in America? It has
>to do with normal folks electing leaders, not clones bowing to the
>whims of wizards.
None of which has ANYTHING to do with science, which couldn't care
less how the law works in America. Science is not "politically
correct", and it is international.
>But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt knowing that it just may
>very well be possible that you do not understand the fundamentals
>involved here.
I fully understand them. You don't seem to.
> What we have here is one group (you liberals of the
>culture club) adhering to an almost gnostic ideology which you call
>"science"
If you don't like science, tough. The question was a scientific
definition of "race" - as you admitted above:
>You guys are arguing that there is no scientific basis for defining
>races ...
> and using it to oppose what I (and John for the most part)
>are basically presenting which is a Biblical principle called LAW.
Law is hardly a "Biblical principle", and American law has little to
do with the Bible.
>This almost gnostic manner represents wizzardry. I could get into a
>word study here and show how sorcery and drugs are the result of
>such things but I won't at the moment.
Of course most modern drugs are the result of science, and in
particular chemistry. Chemistry in turn descends from alchemy, which
might indeed have been considered a form of wizardry in medieval
times. But we don't anymore, and I daresay that at some point you
have taken some medication that was devised by chemistry. And the
only difference between medications and "drugs" is whether they have
been labeled "illegal" or not, and under what circumstances (doctors
give morphine, otherwise illegal, for severe pain).
>Everyone who has any sense
>knows how pills and medicine are presented to the populace at large
>in a mystical "cure for everything" almost gnostic way which, in my
>view approaches national worship for glazed-eyed seculars.
And you of course eschew all of modern medicine, and instead rely on
leeches and other natural remedies. Or are you a good "Christian
Scientist" praying at the altar of Eddy for your health?
>Even atheists are unaware that
>they do actually worship "beings" they call scientists and have
>attributed semi-supernatural powers to them.
Hmm. I wonder what supernatural powers a scientist has. Maybe the
ability to THINK independently?
>Men are sinners according to the LAW of God and need God's help in
>solving the equation, not the help of maddened wizards.
If I am worried about some equation involving sin, I turn to God. If
on the other hand it is a differential equation, the Bible won't help
in the least, and I haven't a prayer to solve it without knowing some
math.
Science doesn't claim to deal with anything regarding "sin" which is
not subject to scientific analysis.
lojbab
Cary Kittrell
[piggybacking, since this branch of the thread seems to have gotten
pruned at my site]
> From: feminazi...@hotmail.com (FNC)
> Newsgroups: alt.education
> Subject: Re: brain sizes: Einstein's and women's
> Date: 9 Oct 2002 15:39:57 -0700
>
>
> > On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 19:40:23 -0500, Jd wrote
> > (in message <3da3796d...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net>):
> >
> > > ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> > >> Oh great! Since you're "a Biologists", I'd love to hear your
> > >> opinion on my current favorite skirmish in the field: do you
> > >> agree with the molecular biologists or with the paleontologists
> > >> on the derivation of modern cetacians? You know what I'm
> > >> talking about I'm sure: artiodactyls or mesonychids?
> > >
> > > I've forgotten more about that stuff than you'll probably ever know.
> >
> > Alzheimer's?
> >
> > > For the most part, it's boring to me now that I'm saved. I won't
> > > tell you my source encyclopedia because you are behaving in a
> > > disingenious, dishonest, and manipulative manner. I almost suspect
> > > you have a close relationship with a Jezebel but I can't prove it
> > > yet.
>
> That's a High Frequency Modulated Jezebel to you, bub.
>
> fn"speels it 'ae'"c
Yo, c_untkins! Good to see you back! Where you been?
(and I want to state right up front that the blonde chick in California?
The piano player? She didn't mean a thing to me. Honest. It was
purely an aesthetic affair)
> That's a High Frequency Modulated Jezebel to you, bub.
As Moses instructs us. Or would, if only there were more than one of
him.
> fn"speels it 'ae'"c
That's, like, British or something, eh? Classy!
-- cary
Jd
>>JDa...@BellSouth.com (Jd) wrote:
>>You guys are arguing that there is no scientific basis for defining
>>races and now here you are trying to deceptively sidestep the issue.
>
>Because in fact there is none. The laws attempt to do so based on
>parentage, but parentage is often lied about, and science isn't
>generally used to check. Furthermore, parentage presumes that one can
>determine the race of the parent, which is the same problem
>recursively. There is no way to determine the race of someone even
>legally without assuming the race of someone else has already been
>determined.
The fact that YOU say "that there is none" (scientific basis) means
that YOU can't argue race scientifically just as you can't argue
religion scientifically if you say "there is no proof" . Therefore
science is basically irrelevant to the point of being useless with
reguards to 2 of the most important issues of today if you hold to
your view. I challenge your view.
With respect to laws being based on parentage, well, that's not
true. One of the first Laws (if not the very first) addressing the
race question was the 15th Amendment to the Constitution which uses
both terms "race" and "color" with respect to voting rights. It was
ratified Feb. 3, 1870.
Here it is:
Amendment 15, Section 1. "The right of citizens of the United States
to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by
any State on account of race, color or previous condition of
servitude."
Section 2 shows that Congress is empowered to create laws with
respect to this Amendment.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
"Race" is associated with "color" in the U.S. Constitution, Bob.
In fact, bills from the 107th Congress show that "race" is used in
conjuction with terms like "nationality" and "minorities" and they
show that lawmakers use findings of science in their efforts to pass
laws dealing with "race".
Here are some examples....
[H.RES.398.EH] Whereas fragile X is the most common inherited cause
of mental retardation, affecting people of every race, income level,
and nationality; </cgi-bin/query/D?c107:18:./temp/~c1075VbmUF::>
[H.CON.RES.388.ENR] Whereas in 2000, the Surgeon General of the
Public Health Service announced as a goal the elimination by 2010 of
health disparities experienced by racial and ethnic minorities in
health... </cgi-bin/query/D?c107:27:./temp/~c1075VbmUF::>
[S.RES.151.IS] Expressing the sense of the Senate that the World
Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and
Related Intolerance presents a unique opportunity to address
global... </cgi-bin/query/D?c107:37:./temp/~c1075VbmUF::>
>>Do you not understand how the rule of law works in America? It has
>>to do with normal folks electing leaders, not clones bowing to the
>>whims of wizards.
>
>None of which has ANYTHING to do with science, which couldn't care
>less how the law works in America. Science is not "politically
>correct", and it is international.
My findings above prove you wrong Bob. That is unless Scientists
are even more ignorant than I thought and have no clue whatsoever
than Law makers are looking over their shoulder and even funding
their research. Not only that, but now you're telling me that this
ignorance has reached global proportions.
Lets face it Bob, you're blowing smoke unless you truly can't
distinguish the difference between your a$$ and a hole in the
ground.
There are good scientists, and there are wizards. I think we need
Christians to vote for leaders which know the difference.
Jd
Jd
>>JDa...@BellSouth.com (Jd) wrote:
>>Even atheists are unaware that they do actually worship "beings"
>> they call scientists and have attributed semi-supernatural
>> powers to them.
>Hmm. I wonder what supernatural powers a scientist has. Maybe the
>ability to THINK independently?
No. No sooner had I wrote that and sat down to watch TV, this
commercial came on (for "Valtrex" or something like that) telling
women (between the lines) that they could take this wonder drug,
have all the sex they wanted with whoever they wanted, and never
have hardly any worries about the herpes again. Now whoever came up
with that crap is assuming they have an almost super-natural power
over women.
In fact, unless women have become complete moronic idiots of late,
those folks would have to have a super-natural power to get women to
have sex like that. Surely any women who had the herps would have
the decency of not going around spreading the herpes. And that
would go for men too (unless the herpes is more of a lesbian thing).
>>Men are sinners according to the LAW of God and need God's help in
>>solving the equation, not the help of maddened wizards.
>
>If I am worried about some equation involving sin, I turn to God. If
>on the other hand it is a differential equation, the Bible won't help
>in the least, and I haven't a prayer to solve it without knowing some
>math.
>
>Science doesn't claim to deal with anything regarding "sin" which is
>not subject to scientific analysis.
Right, with pure science. Law is supposed to protect you from the
sins of others to a great degree. If you "sin" against your
neighbor by stealing from him, by law you can be fined and/or
imprisoned or both as a result of your behavior.
Your spiritual behavior makes me want to puke because like in the
above "differential equation" example, you make a mockery out of
things concerning the LAW of God.
Jd
Jd
>>Jd wrote
>>
>> There just might be evidence afterall that some did evolve from mud.
>2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
>breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living
>soul.
>
>> Problem is, there is no way in my view to deal with these folks in a
>> rational manner. I do however have a far greater appreciation for
>> the words found in the Declaration of Independence and in the Boston
>> Tea Party concept having come in contact with such folks.
>>
>> As far as brain cell counts and test scores, I'll have to take your
>> word for it since I'm not statistically minded. I often marvel when
>> I see all those statisitcs (along with interprative comments) fly
>> across my screen, perhaps because I lack the ability to compile
>> things in such a manner.
>>
>> Jd
>>
>>
>The entities that were not made from mud were not made by God, apparently.
>
>Although some would say it was a 100 pounds of clay.
Ok, let's take your perspective for a moment or 2. Which race in
this current day and time appears to have evolved into a superior
role in civilzation? Cite your evidence please.
Or if you wish, just sight some evidence and let me decide whether
or not evolution had anything to do with it. Start anywhere. Test
scores, other intellectual acheivements, world dominance, athletics,
bank accounts, business ownership, prison population studies, crime
studies etc. etc.
I do enjoy seeing statistics fly across my screen partly because I
have virtually 0 ability in compliling such things. But in all
honesty, I can't recall ever seeing any stats which even remotely
suggest that Africa may become the next superpower.
Go ahead, I'm waiting......
Jd
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>>You guys are arguing that there is no scientific basis for defining
>>>races and now here you are trying to deceptively sidestep the issue.
>>
>>Because in fact there is none. The laws attempt to do so based on
>>parentage, but parentage is often lied about, and science isn't
>>generally used to check. Furthermore, parentage presumes that one can
>>determine the race of the parent, which is the same problem
>>recursively. There is no way to determine the race of someone even
>>legally without assuming the race of someone else has already been
>>determined.
>
>The fact that YOU say "that there is none" (scientific basis) means
>that YOU can't argue race scientifically just as you can't argue
>religion scientifically if you say "there is no proof".
There's a difference. We cannot argue religion on the basis of
science because by definition religion deals with things that are
supernatural and not natural.
Now if you want us to believe that the difference between races is
supernatural in nature, then indeed science has nothing to say. But
if there is a supposedly natural basis for race, then science should
be able to detect it. But of course it cannot.
>Therefore
>science is basically irrelevant to the point of being useless with
>reguards to 2 of the most important issues of today if you hold to
>your view.
Science is irrelevant to religion. Whether religion is an important
issue depends on your point of view.
Science is quite relevant to race - it says that there are no races
other than the human race. And race would not be an issue at all, if
racists like you did not make it an issue. It certainly is not one of
the most important issues of today.
>I challenge your view.
Whoopie for you.
>With respect to laws being based on parentage, well, that's not
>true. One of the first Laws (if not the very first) addressing the
>race question was the 15th Amendment to the Constitution which uses
>both terms "race" and "color" with respect to voting rights. It was
>ratified Feb. 3, 1870.
>
>Here it is:
>Amendment 15, Section 1. "The right of citizens of the United States
>to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by
>any State on account of race, color or previous condition of
>servitude."
>
>Section 2 shows that Congress is empowered to create laws with
>respect to this Amendment.
>
>Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
>appropriate legislation.
>
>"Race" is associated with "color" in the U.S. Constitution, Bob.
Actually it isn't. If race was based on color, then they would not
have needed to use both words, only one of them.
>In fact, bills from the 107th Congress show that "race" is used in
>conjuction with terms like "nationality" and "minorities" and they
>show that lawmakers use findings of science in their efforts to pass
>laws dealing with "race".
Where is science used to pass laws dealing with race in the following?
That a law mentions "race" does not mean anything about how race is
determined. And as I've said, in practice, race is generally based on
self-identification - you are whatever race you say you are.
>Here are some examples....
>
>[H.RES.398.EH] Whereas fragile X is the most common inherited cause
>of mental retardation, affecting people of every race, income level,
>and nationality; </cgi-bin/query/D?c107:18:./temp/~c1075VbmUF::>
>
>[H.CON.RES.388.ENR] Whereas in 2000, the Surgeon General of the
>Public Health Service announced as a goal the elimination by 2010 of
>health disparities experienced by racial and ethnic minorities in
>health... </cgi-bin/query/D?c107:27:./temp/~c1075VbmUF::>
>
>[S.RES.151.IS] Expressing the sense of the Senate that the World
>Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and
>Related Intolerance presents a unique opportunity to address
>global... </cgi-bin/query/D?c107:37:./temp/~c1075VbmUF::>
>
>>>Do you not understand how the rule of law works in America? It has
>>>to do with normal folks electing leaders, not clones bowing to the
>>>whims of wizards.
>>
>>None of which has ANYTHING to do with science, which couldn't care
>>less how the law works in America. Science is not "politically
>>correct", and it is international.
>
>My findings above prove you wrong Bob.
No. They prove nothing except that you can find the word "race" in
various laws.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>>>solving the equation, not the help of maddened wizards.
>>
>>If I am worried about some equation involving sin, I turn to God. If
>>on the other hand it is a differential equation, the Bible won't help
>>in the least, and I haven't a prayer to solve it without knowing some
>>math.
>>
>>Science doesn't claim to deal with anything regarding "sin" which is
>>not subject to scientific analysis.
>
>Right, with pure science. Law is supposed to protect you from the
>sins of others to a great degree. If you "sin" against your
>neighbor by stealing from him, by law you can be fined and/or
>imprisoned or both as a result of your behavior.
>
>Your spiritual behavior makes me want to puke because like in the
>above "differential equation" example, you make a mockery out of
>things concerning the LAW of God.
I render unto God the things that are of God, and unto Caesar the
things that are of Caesar. The laws of man have little to do with the
laws of God, except when something is offensive to both.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>>The entities that were not made from mud were not made by God, apparently.
>>
>>Although some would say it was a 100 pounds of clay.
>
>Ok, let's take your perspective for a moment or 2. Which race in
>this current day and time appears to have evolved into a superior
>role in civilzation?
The human race. There is no other race.
>Or if you wish, just sight some evidence and let me decide whether
>or not evolution had anything to do with it. Start anywhere. Test
>scores, other intellectual acheivements, world dominance, athletics,
>bank accounts, business ownership, prison population studies, crime
>studies etc. etc.
Why would evolution have anything to do with any of those matters
which are all about human sociology and not biological reality
>I do enjoy seeing statistics fly across my screen partly because I
>have virtually 0 ability in compliling such things.
And zero ability to understand them, or you wouldn't believe the
nincompoop.
>But in all
>honesty, I can't recall ever seeing any stats which even remotely
>suggest that Africa may become the next superpower.
I have no idea why you think that becoming a superpower has anything
to do with human superiority. We are a superpower as much because we
have lots of people and lots of natural resources as any other factor.
We've also been lucky.
lojbab
Lance O. Lake
(in message <3da5c333...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net>):
Are you saying that a superpower is the same as civilization? I don't think
we're speaking the same language.
My intitial response would be to say that the Iroquois would be my nomination
for the most civilized entity in the past few centuries.
Some of the native African cultures would probably be on top for courage and
strength of character.
Of course if you're equating civilization with superpower, that would be in
the last century Japan, Germany, Communist China, India, Pakistan, Israel and
possibly a few others. If you think civilization is determined by your kill
ratio.
Lance
Jd
>JDa...@BellSouth.com (Jd) wrote:
>>>The entities that were not made from mud were not made by God, apparently.
>>>
>>>Although some would say it was a 100 pounds of clay.
>>
>>Ok, let's take your perspective for a moment or 2. Which race in
>>this current day and time appears to have evolved into a superior
>>role in civilzation?
>
>The human race. There is no other race.
Dear Bob, I am trying to get Sir Lance Alot to express his views if
you don't mind. I'm FOR everyone expressing his/her views as he/she
sees fit. Burt here you are clogging up the boards and wasting
bandwidth with your utter nonsense.
>
>>Or if you wish, just sight some evidence and let me decide whether
>>or not evolution had anything to do with it. Start anywhere. Test
>>scores, other intellectual acheivements, world dominance, athletics,
>>bank accounts, business ownership, prison population studies, crime
>>studies etc. etc.
>
>Why would evolution have anything to do with any of those matters
>which are all about human sociology and not biological reality
Lets see what Sir Lance alot has to say and show as evidence. As
for me, well I agree that evolution, like science, can't really
address complicated social issues. But if you really do believe in
survival of the fittest it seems to me we ought to be seeking and
discussing who is the fittest and how they got that way. Surely to
goodness if evolution is true we need to know how to
survive...whatever the cost don't we?
>>I do enjoy seeing statistics fly across my screen partly because I
>>have virtually 0 ability in compliling such things.
>
>And zero ability to understand them, or you wouldn't believe the
>nincompoop.
Actually, you're close to right. But I'm learning a bit here and
there.
>>But in all honesty, I can't recall ever seeing any stats which even remotely
>>suggest that Africa may become the next superpower.
>I have no idea why you think that becoming a superpower has anything
>to do with human superiority.
That is about the most ignorant statement I've ever heard. I'm
overwhelmed by the fact that everytime you write something, you
break the record for the most ignorant thing I've ever heard.
Look, I would in no way wish to prevent you from expressing your
views but I'm appauled by the notion that you might be keeping other
from expressing theirs by the way you hog up the board and utter
distortions as if they were truths before anyone else has a chance
to say anything. The way you run your mouth reminds me of Shelia
Jackson Lee, Jesse Jackson, that women who represents DC who's name
I can't recall at the moment, and Barney Frank.
> We are a superpower as much because we
>have lots of people and lots of natural resources as any other factor.
>We've also been lucky.
Do you have any statistics which prove what you just said and proves
that Africa doesn't have those same things?
Jd
Jd
>>JDa...@BellSouth.com (Jd) wrote:
>>The fact that YOU say "that there is none" (scientific basis) means
>>that YOU can't argue race scientifically just as you can't argue
>>religion scientifically if you say "there is no proof".
>
>There's a difference. We cannot argue religion on the basis of
>science because by definition religion deals with things that are
>supernatural and not natural.
But you can argue religion before the law just as you can argue race
before the law.
>Now if you want us to believe that the difference between races is
>supernatural in nature, then indeed science has nothing to say. But
>if there is a supposedly natural basis for race, then science should
>be able to detect it. But of course it cannot.
I want you to believe that science is insufficient when it comes to
addressing both race and religious issues compared to the way law
can and does address those issues.
>>Thereforescience is basically irrelevant to the point of being useless with
>>reguards to 2 of the most important issues of today if you hold to
>>your view.
>Science is irrelevant to religion. Whether religion is an important
>issue depends on your point of view.
According to the law, religion is just as important as race. The
fact that either race or religion can be or are irrelevent to
science only shows the shortcomings of science.
According to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, being born in
America entitles one to citizenship and to equal protection under
the law. That is were race, religion and or minority status comes
into play in that all are entitled to the same protection under the
law reguardless of the aforementioned.
>Science is quite relevant to race - it says that there are no races
>other than the human race. And race would not be an issue at all, if
>racists like you did not make it an issue. It certainly is not one of
>the most important issues of today.
Race is an issue because there are various races which at times,
claim that they are being discriminated against because of their
race.
>>"Race" is associated with "color" in the U.S. Constitution, Bob.
>Actually it isn't. If race was based on color, then they would not
>have needed to use both words, only one of them.
Race and color are for all practical purposes, the same. "Color" has
been and is used as a legal term for identifying humans. Here's a
case from the Supreme Court (related to the 14th Amendment) which
proves it, beyond a "reasonable doubt"....
EVANS V. NEWTON 382 U.S. 296 NO. 61. ARGUED NOVEMBER 9-10, 1965. -
DECIDED JANUARY 17, 1966. - 220 GA. 280, 138 S.E.2D 573, REVERSED.
" QUESTIONS OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF ALL PEOPLE WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION
ON ACCOUNT OF COLOR ARE OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE IN THIS GOVERNMENT
DEDICATED TO EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL" (Justice Black)
Also, the following proves (according to law) that if as you claim,
science says that there is only one race - you or science is wrong.
Fact of the matter is that law recognizes that whites and blacks are
2 distictly different races. Again - from the Supreme Court which
is the law of the land....
SWAIN V. ALABAMA 380 U.S. 202 NO. 64. ARGUED DECEMBER 8, 1964. -
DECIDED MARCH 8, 1965. - 275 ALA. 508, 156 SO. 2D 368, AFFIRMED.
"VENIRES DRAWN FROM THE JURY BOX MADE UP IN THIS MANNER
UNQUESTIONABLY CONTAINED A SMALLER PROPORTION OF THE NEGRO COMMUNITY
THAN OF THE WHITE COMMUNITY. BUT A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE IS
NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY ENTITLED TO DEMAND A PROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF
HIS RACE ON THE JURY WHICH TRIES HIM NOR ON THE VENIRE OR JURY ROLL
FROM WHICH PETIT JURORS ARE DRAWN." VIRGINIA V. RIVES, 100 U.S. 313,
322-323; GIBSON V. MISSISSIPPI, 162 U.S. 565; THOMAS V. TEXAS, 212
U.S. 278, 282; CASSELL V. TEXAS, 339 U.S. 282.
>>In fact, bills from the 107th Congress show that "race" is used in
>>conjuction with terms like "nationality" and "minorities" and they
>>show that lawmakers use findings of science in their efforts to pass
>>laws dealing with "race".
>Where is science used to pass laws dealing with race in the following?
I laid it out clearly. If you didn't get it perhaps you should
start from scratch and check those 3 encyclodedias of yours.
Didn't you say they had tons of information which my encyclopedia
didn't?
>That a law mentions "race" does not mean anything about how race is
>determined. And as I've said, in practice, race is generally based on
>self-identification - you are whatever race you say you are.
That the Supreme Court addresses race and religion similarily shows
that folks look to law instead of science for answers to real life
issues. The highest court in the land acknowledges that it's
citizens cherish the right to vote along both racial and religious
lines, and that government has no right to interfere with those
rights...
WRIGHT V. ROCKEFELLER 376 U.S. 52 NO. 96. ARGUED NOVEMBER 19, 1963.
- DECIDED FEBRUARY 17, 1964. - 211 F. SUPP. 460, AFFIRMED.
"OF COURSE RACE, LIKE RELIGION, PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN THE
CHOICES WHICH INDIVIDUAL VOTERS MAKE FROM AMONG VARIOUS CANDIDATES.
(FN12) BUT GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS DESIGNING ELECTORAL DISTRICTS
ALONG RACIAL OR RELIGIOUS LINES."
This is reality, Bob. Our government is FOR all of us voting for
the man of our color if we want too. They are FOR us voting
Christians into office simply because they are "Christian" if we
want to.
If you are against those things, well, I'll let the readers decide
for themselves whatever they want too about you.
Jd
Lance O. Lake
(in message <3da60b46...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net>):
> Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>> JDa...@BellSouth.com (Jd) wrote:
>>>> The entities that were not made from mud were not made by God,
>>>> apparently.
>>>>
>>>> Although some would say it was a 100 pounds of clay.
>>>
>>> Ok, let's take your perspective for a moment or 2. Which race in
>>> this current day and time appears to have evolved into a superior
>>> role in civilzation?
>>
>> The human race. There is no other race.
>
> Dear Bob, I am trying to get Sir Lance Alot
We ship out next tuesday for a new and yawning construction job so please try
and get all your cuteness in quickly.
Thank you very much, Day&Knight/Not too smart/Not too bright
Lancelot Octavius Lake (i know its pretty outrageous but i didsnt pick it).
(And it beats heck out of Judas Iscariot Day!)
Bob LeChevalier
>>Now if you want us to believe that the difference between races is
>>supernatural in nature, then indeed science has nothing to say. But
>>if there is a supposedly natural basis for race, then science should
>>be able to detect it. But of course it cannot.
>
>I want you to believe that science is insufficient when it comes to
>addressing both race and religious issues compared to the way law
>can and does address those issues.
Law can address any issue it chooses to address. It isn't bound by
logic or reason. (There remain persistent rumors that some legislator
tried to legislate that pi would be legally equal to 3.)
>>Science is irrelevant to religion. Whether religion is an important
>>issue depends on your point of view.
>
>According to the law, religion is just as important as race. The
>fact that either race or religion can be or are irrelevent to
>science only shows the shortcomings of science.
Science is very good at what science does, and totally abysmal at what
it does not.
>According to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, being born in
>America entitles one to citizenship and to equal protection under
>the law. That is were race, religion and or minority status comes
>into play in that all are entitled to the same protection under the
>law reguardless of the aforementioned.
But of course if no one paid attention to perceived race or religion,
the 14th amendment would simply reflect human behavior.
>>Science is quite relevant to race - it says that there are no races
>>other than the human race. And race would not be an issue at all, if
>>racists like you did not make it an issue. It certainly is not one of
>>the most important issues of today.
>
>Race is an issue because there are various races which at times,
>claim that they are being discriminated against because of their
>race.
Individuals complain (NOT races) about being discriminated against
because of their race. And they are. All we have to do is read the
nincompoop's posts and we know one person who discriminates.
>>That a law mentions "race" does not mean anything about how race is
>>determined. And as I've said, in practice, race is generally based on
>>self-identification - you are whatever race you say you are.
>
>That the Supreme Court addresses race and religion similarily shows
>that folks look to law instead of science for answers to real life
>issues.
Folks look to law for resolution of legal issues? Well, duh!
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>Dear Bob, I am trying to get Sir Lance Alot to express his views if
>you don't mind. I'm FOR everyone expressing his/her views as he/she
>sees fit. Burt here you are clogging up the boards and wasting
>bandwidth with your utter nonsense.
My posting in no way interferes with him posting. If you want a
2-way conversation, take it to email.
>>Why would evolution have anything to do with any of those matters
>>which are all about human sociology and not biological reality
>
>Lets see what Sir Lance alot has to say and show as evidence. As
>for me, well I agree that evolution, like science, can't really
>address complicated social issues. But if you really do believe in
>survival of the fittest it seems to me we ought to be seeking and
>discussing who is the fittest and how they got that way.
The concept of applying Darwinism to human behavior is called
(surprise!) Social Darwinism. It was real big from around the 1880s
until Hitler. The term "eugenics" will tell you why it has been
discredited since then.
>Surely to
>goodness if evolution is true we need to know how to
>survive...whatever the cost don't we?
Evolution does not work consciously, unless you engage in breeding
(and even then we probably have never bred a new species - I haven't
checked this though). Most people would consider breeding human
beings like livestock to be immoral. Meanwhile, we don't KNOW what we
need to do to survive evolutionarily. After all, one of the most
successful evolutionary paths is that taken by the cockroach - it's
been around since before the dinosaurs. For "survival of the fittest"
it is hard to do better than 250 million years.
>>>But in all honesty, I can't recall ever seeing any stats which even remotely
>>>suggest that Africa may become the next superpower.
>
>>I have no idea why you think that becoming a superpower has anything
>>to do with human superiority.
>
>That is about the most ignorant statement I've ever heard.
Of course I am ignorant about why you think what yo7u do. Do you
believe I am a mindreader?
>I'm
>overwhelmed by the fact that everytime you write something, you
>break the record for the most ignorant thing I've ever heard.
Most reader seem to think otherwise and to appreciate my research.
Forgive me if I discount your opinion.
>Look, I would in no way wish to prevent you from expressing your
>views but I'm appauled by the notion that you might be keeping other
>from expressing theirs by the way you hog up the board
There is no such thing as "hogging up the board". First of all, this
is Usenet, and not a "board". It has effectively unlimited capacity,
and I've seen topics generate HUNDREDS of messages in just a few
hours. You are free to kill-file me and not read anything I write if
you wish - it is no skin off my nose.
>and utter
>distortions as if they were truths before anyone else has a chance
>to say anything.
So you claim.
>> We are a superpower as much because we
>>have lots of people and lots of natural resources as any other factor.
>>We've also been lucky.
>
>Do you have any statistics which prove what you just said and proves
>that Africa doesn't have those same things?
Do a google search on "african climate instability" and you'll find
dozens of sites addressing this, and its impact of the development of
advanced civilization.
http://www.oieau.fr/ciedd/contributions/at1/contribution/ndege.htm
has a good discussion of how water scarcity coupled with climate
instability severely inhibits African development
Arable land:
http://www.geographyiq.com/ranking/ranking_Land_Use_Arable_land_dall.htm
The US has 19% of its land arable, which is several hundred thousand
square miles. A couple of small African countries have higher arable
land, which is why they have very high population densities:
Burundi 44%
Togo 38%
Rwanda 35%
Nigeria 33%
But many of the countries have much lower percentages. South Africa
is only 10% arable and is subject to severe droughts. Kenya, Zimbabwe,
Zambia, only 7%, Sudan only 5%, Algeria, Chad and Congo, only 3%. If
you can't grow crops to feed people, it is hard to develop enhanced
civilization.
lojbab
John Knight
news:0001HW.B9CB84EB...@news-east.giganews.com...
White Christian Israelites from Europe have spent centuries and hundreds of
billions of dollars to attempt to civilize niggers in Africa, and failed
miserably. In the short time since the British pulled out of Tanzania, the
civilized part of it has almost completely disappeared. The banks, roads,
schools, churches, government buildings, etc., built by the British are
already almost beyond recognition, and the niggers I know there literally
fear for their lives. In spite of all the stories about how nasty the
British and French colonialists were, most people in those countries were
very sorry to see them leave.
Civilization isn't based on "courage and strength of character" (which was
mostly the catalyst to niggers killing each other by the tens of millions).
It's based the ability to create communities where people respect each
other's rights, which the niggers in this country who kill an average of 12
Whites every day will never learn.
John Knight
Cary Kittrell
<On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 19:51:40 -0500, Jd wrote
<(in message <3da60b46...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net>):
<
<
<We ship out next tuesday for a new and yawning construction job so please try
<and get all your cuteness in quickly.
<
<Thank you very much, Day&Knight/Not too smart/Not too bright
<
<sigh>
<ahem>
THANKS SO MUCH, Day&Knight/Not too smart/Not too bright
Sheesh. Doesn't anybody pay attention to scansion any more? What DO
they teach you kids these days?
<
<Lancelot Octavius Lake (i know its pretty outrageous but i didsnt pick it).
<
<(And it beats heck out of Judas Iscariot Day!)
<
We replaced that with Martin Luther King Day here in Arizona. By
popular vote, too, he adds proudly.
(OK, so it was actually Columbus Day we swapped out)
-- cary
John Knight
"Jd" <JDa...@BellSouth.com> wrote in message
Well said, Jd.
We really must accept that when jews (and "liberals" and other muds [read:
mongrels]) claim that women are more intelligent than men, that they
actually believe it: because in their communities, it seems to be the case.
You have to REALLY be STUPID to believe that government and science are
incapable of defining races which were EASILY defined, documented, and
proven by Israelites thosands of years ago, and repeated by our Christian
Founding Forefathers centuries ago.
From the perspective of a mud or "liberal" or jew like lojbab, it probably
is impossible to even comprehend the concept of race, but Thomas Jefferson
had no trouble identifying who the Indians were and KILLING them before they
killed any more Whites.
But it took more than mere STUPIDITY to get to this miserable point: it
took some serious intentional dumbing down in our "public schools", and
constant, chronic dumbing down in the "newsmedia", to REALLY make them this
STUPID.
Is it even possible to get STUPIDER than this? I don't think so.
John Knight
Cary Kittrell
<
<"Lance O. Lake" <ham...@stakepounders.us> wrote in message <news:0001HW.B9CB84EB...@news-east.giganews.com...
{...}
<> Of course if you're equating civilization with superpower,
<> that would be the last century Japan, Germany, Communist
<> China, India, Pakistan, Israel and possibly a few others. If
<> you think civilization is determined by your kill ratio.
<>
<> Lance
<
<
<White Christian Israelites from Europe have spent centuries and hundreds of
<billions of dollars to attempt to civilize niggers in Africa, and failed
<miserably. In the short time since the British pulled out of Tanzania, the
<civilized part of it has almost completely disappeared. The banks, roads,
<schools, churches, government buildings, etc., built by the British are
<already almost beyond recognition, and the niggers I know there literally
<fear for their lives. In spite of all the stories about how nasty the
<British and French colonialists were, most people in those countries were
<very sorry to see them leave.
<
<Civilization isn't based on "courage and strength of character" (which was
<mostly the catalyst to niggers killing each other by the tens of millions).
As opposed to your 48 million (occasionally: 150 million) white
Christians killing each other in one single war.
-- cary
John Knight
"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:k3lbqus9gijogr727...@4ax.com...
> JDa...@BellSouth.com (Jd) wrote:
> >Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> >>>You guys are arguing that there is no scientific basis for defining
> >>>races and now here you are trying to deceptively sidestep the issue.
> >>
> >>Because in fact there is none. The laws attempt to do so based on
> >>parentage, but parentage is often lied about, and science isn't
> >>generally used to check. Furthermore, parentage presumes that one can
> >>determine the race of the parent, which is the same problem
> >>recursively. There is no way to determine the race of someone even
> >>legally without assuming the race of someone else has already been
> >>determined.
> >
> >The fact that YOU say "that there is none" (scientific basis) means
> >that YOU can't argue race scientifically just as you can't argue
> >religion scientifically if you say "there is no proof".
>
> There's a difference. We cannot argue religion on the basis of
> science because by definition religion deals with things that are
> supernatural and not natural.
>
> Now if you want us to believe that the difference between races is
> supernatural in nature, then indeed science has nothing to say. But
> if there is a supposedly natural basis for race, then science should
> be able to detect it. But of course it cannot.
The Holy Bible IS "science", by every definition of the word, and it DOES
*scientifically* describe the differences between the races, in GREAT
detail.
It is an extreme minority "opinion" that science can't determine race. Even
the STUPID jews in Israel use *science* to determine if jews are jewish
enough to qualify for the "law of return". DNA studies PROVE that the
genetic differences between niggers and Asians are just about as big as the
genetic differences between niggers and apes.
This, even in your "liberal" lexicon, is called "science".
>
> >Therefore
> >science is basically irrelevant to the point of being useless with
> >reguards to 2 of the most important issues of today if you hold to
> >your view.
>
> Science is irrelevant to religion. Whether religion is an important
> issue depends on your point of view.
>
> Science is quite relevant to race - it says that there are no races
> other than the human race. And race would not be an issue at all, if
> racists like you did not make it an issue. It certainly is not one of
> the most important issues of today.
If it's not THE most important issue of the day, you jews and "liberals"
wouldn't go postal every time a "White Man" stood up for his RACE, would
you?
You can't even WAIT to insult a WHITE MAN, can you? You IDIOT "liberals"
and jews and feminazis have used every word and trick in the book to attempt
to CURTAIL this simple discussion about RACE, haven't you?
Why would you do that if it's so unimportant?
You are a LIAR.
>
> >I challenge your view.
>
> Whoopie for you.
>
Jd understated his position. Not only does he "challenge your view"--he
knows that most normal people think you "liberals" and jews and feminazis
are complete and total IDIOTS.
And from the polls that you yourself have read and cited, you KNOW this
already.
> >With respect to laws being based on parentage, well, that's not
> >true. One of the first Laws (if not the very first) addressing the
> >race question was the 15th Amendment to the Constitution which uses
> >both terms "race" and "color" with respect to voting rights. It was
> >ratified Feb. 3, 1870.
> >
> >Here it is:
> >Amendment 15, Section 1. "The right of citizens of the United States
> >to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by
> >any State on account of race, color or previous condition of
> >servitude."
> >
> >Section 2 shows that Congress is empowered to create laws with
> >respect to this Amendment.
> >
> >Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
> >appropriate legislation.
> >
> >"Race" is associated with "color" in the U.S. Constitution, Bob.
>
> Actually it isn't. If race was based on color, then they would not
> have needed to use both words, only one of them.
>
We know you are incapable of understanding why they used both words, so why
do you keep trying to prove how STUPID you "liberals" are?
> >In fact, bills from the 107th Congress show that "race" is used in
> >conjuction with terms like "nationality" and "minorities" and they
> >show that lawmakers use findings of science in their efforts to pass
> >laws dealing with "race".
>
> Where is science used to pass laws dealing with race in the following?
> That a law mentions "race" does not mean anything about how race is
> determined. And as I've said, in practice, race is generally based on
> self-identification - you are whatever race you say you are.
If a nigger has 1/16th nigger ancestry and says he's "White", he's a LIAR,
because the law will not permit him to simply claim that he's "White".
Many state laws prohibit niggers with 1/64th nigger ancestry from simply
proclaiming that they're "White".
BUT, more important than that, it's impossible in the age of the internet
for a nigger to hide his nigger ancestry from the public, which means that
he cannot continue to spread his miscegenation without lots of people being
aware of it. And this gives White parents the opportunity to preserve their
White RACE.
>
> >Here are some examples....
> >
> >[H.RES.398.EH] Whereas fragile X is the most common inherited cause
> >of mental retardation, affecting people of every race, income level,
> >and nationality; </cgi-bin/query/D?c107:18:./temp/~c1075VbmUF::>
> >
> >[H.CON.RES.388.ENR] Whereas in 2000, the Surgeon General of the
> >Public Health Service announced as a goal the elimination by 2010 of
> >health disparities experienced by racial and ethnic minorities in
> >health... </cgi-bin/query/D?c107:27:./temp/~c1075VbmUF::>
> >
> >[S.RES.151.IS] Expressing the sense of the Senate that the World
> >Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and
> >Related Intolerance presents a unique opportunity to address
> >global... </cgi-bin/query/D?c107:37:./temp/~c1075VbmUF::>
> >
> >>>Do you not understand how the rule of law works in America? It has
> >>>to do with normal folks electing leaders, not clones bowing to the
> >>>whims of wizards.
> >>
> >>None of which has ANYTHING to do with science, which couldn't care
> >>less how the law works in America. Science is not "politically
> >>correct", and it is international.
> >
> >My findings above prove you wrong Bob.
>
> No. They prove nothing except that you can find the word "race" in
> various laws.
>
> lojbab
He didn't merely prove you "wrong"--he proved you're STUPID.
John Knight
John Knight
You benefit from living in a CHRISTIAN nation whose laws are BASED on
Christianity.
If you lived in Israel, you wouldn't be so lucky, because under their jewish
LAW, it's ok to murder Christians and Muslims, just as Israel's chief rabbi
who gave religious backing to assassinations:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Israel's much-criticised practice of assassinating Palestinian activists has
the full backing of Jewish religious law, according to a statement Thursday
from Israeli Chief Rabbi Israel Meir Lau. Quoting ancient sages and Biblical
passages, Lau explains that Israel is now fighting a "war of commandment"
mandated by God. He said that those engaged in the war are exempt from other
commandments. Lau refers to an often-quoted Jewish precept, "He who comes to
kill you, rise up and kill him first." The Jordan Times [Jordan], 27 July
2001
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you didn't benefit from CHRISTIAN laws, Jd could merely claim that he's
now fighting a "war of commandment mandated by God" and justify the
assassination of your parents.
How lucky you are.
John Knight
John Knight
"Jd" <JDa...@BellSouth.com> wrote in message
The polls show that most Americans would immediately, if given the choice,
exile jews and "liberals" and niggers. Proposition 187 was a vote based on
RACE, regardless of what lojbab claims, and two thirds of Californians voted
FOR this proposition AGAINST illegal immigration of more muds.
http://christianparty.net/poll.htm
There's really nothing more to discuss. We need to do exactly what our
Founding Forefathers like Thomas Jefferson would have done--take decisive
action to rid the nation of this scourge of jews and muds.
John Knight
John Knight
news:0001HW.B9CBA338...@news-east.giganews.com...
Africa has three times as many people and ten times as many natural
resources. Africans didn't fail to develop those resources because they
weren't "lucky"--they failed to develop them because they are INCAPABLE of
comprehending Christianity, whereas the White man CAN understand it.
John Knight
Cary Kittrell
<
<Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
<
<>>JDa...@BellSouth.com (Jd) wrote:
<>>that YOU can't argue race scientifically just as you can't argue
<>>religion scientifically if you say "there is no proof".
<>
<>There's a difference. We cannot argue religion on the basis of
<>science because by definition religion deals with things that are
<>supernatural and not natural.
<
<before the law.
<
<>supernatural in nature, then indeed science has nothing to say. But
<>if there is a supposedly natural basis for race, then science should
<>be able to detect it. But of course it cannot.
<
<addressing both race and religious issues compared to the way law
<can and does address those issues.
<
<>>reguards to 2 of the most important issues of today if you hold to
<>>your view.
<
Law deals with issues people reagard as real. If people believe
in hexes and space aliens and homeopathy and the Evil Eye, then
there will be laws which touch on hexes and space aliens and homeopathy
and the Evil Eye.
The fact that different countries, cultures and laws define
races differently is sufficent for regarding legal definitions
of race as questionable, at best.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
<
<Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
<
<
<>Science is quite relevant to race - it says that there are no races
<>other than the human race. And race would not be an issue at all, if
<>racists like you did not make it an issue. It certainly is not one of
<>the most important issues of today.
<
<Race is an issue because there are various races which at times,
<claim that they are being discriminated against because of their
<race.
<
Quite true. And there at times people who claim to be of one
race who do discriminate against people whom they regard
as being of another race. I grew up in the pre civil-rights
South, and I know a bit about that.
(See? It wasn't cruel nuns I escaped from, it was cruel
Southern Baptists. But you were close. Or maybe it
was elves; those memories are a bit hazy. Yeah, definitely
elves. Cruel elves)
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
<
<"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
<news:k3lbqus9gijogr727...@4ax.com...
<>
{...}
<>
<> Now if you want us to believe that the difference between races is
<> supernatural in nature, then indeed science has nothing to say. But
<> if there is a supposedly natural basis for race, then science should
<> be able to detect it. But of course it cannot.
<
<*scientifically* describe the differences between the races, in GREAT
<detail.
<
Mmmm hmmm. Might I touble you to quote these Biblical scientific
and highly detailed definitions of race? I mean, iunless they're way too
long, that is.
<It is an extreme minority "opinion" that science can't determine race. Even
<the STUPID jews in Israel use *science* to determine if jews are jewish
<enough to qualify for the "law of return". DNA studies PROVE that the
<genetic differences between niggers and Asians are just about as big as the
<genetic differences between niggers and apes.
<
Oh, and I'm sure you can document that last claim. No, go ahead, take
as long as you want. I'm not going anywhere.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
<
<
<"Jd" <JDa...@BellSouth.com> wrote in message
<
<We really must accept that when jews (and "liberals" and other muds [read:
<mongrels]) claim that women are more intelligent than men, that they
<actually believe it: because in their communities, it seems to be the case.
<You have to REALLY be STUPID to believe that government and science are
<incapable of defining races which were EASILY defined, documented, and
<proven by Israelites thosands of years ago,
Really? What groups did these ancient Israelites assign the Japanese
to? Inuit? Terra del Fuegians?
<
<From the perspective of a mud or "liberal" or jew like lojbab, it probably
<is impossible to even comprehend the concept of race, but Thomas Jefferson
<had no trouble identifying who the Indians were and KILLING them before they
<killed any more Whites.
<
Well, when you're right, your right. What WERE those Indians thinking,
invading our peaceful country like that and tossing us off of our
farms and forts and traplines? Did I say our country? Hell, they
invaded our entire rightful continent, didn't they?
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
<
<"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
A bit odd, isn't it, how you regard it as self-defense -- racial
self-defense -- when it's Indians and European invaders, but
as murder when it's Palestinians and Jewish invaders.
-- cary
Bob LeChevalier
>You benefit from living in a CHRISTIAN nation whose laws are BASED on
>Christianity.
Sorry, but I don't live in Vatican City.
>If you lived in Israel, you wouldn't be so lucky, because under their jewish
>LAW, it's ok to murder Christians and Muslims,
Nope.
>If you didn't benefit from CHRISTIAN laws, Jd could merely claim that he's
>now fighting a "war of commandment mandated by God" and justify the
>assassination of your parents.
Son of Sam tried that. He was almost as nutty as you.
He wasn't stopped by any "Christian" laws.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>Africa has three times as many people
Not quite, but close enough.
>and ten times as many natural resources.
No.
>Africans didn't fail to develop those resources because they
>weren't "lucky"--they failed to develop them because they are INCAPABLE of
>comprehending Christianity, whereas the White man CAN understand it.
Then why can't you?
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>> Now if you want us to believe that the difference between races is
>> supernatural in nature, then indeed science has nothing to say. But
>> if there is a supposedly natural basis for race, then science should
>> be able to detect it. But of course it cannot.
>
>The Holy Bible IS "science", by every definition of the word, and it DOES
>*scientifically* describe the differences between the races, in GREAT
>detail.
Learn how to use a dictionary.
(You are wrong.)
>It is an extreme minority "opinion" that science can't determine race.
Probably 100% among the scientists.
(You are wrong.)
>Even
>the STUPID jews in Israel use *science* to determine if jews are jewish
>enough to qualify for the "law of return".
You've said it a lot, but no one believes things that you say.
(You are wrong.)
>DNA studies PROVE that the
>genetic differences between niggers and Asians are just about as big as the
>genetic differences between niggers and apes.
You've said it a lot, but no one believes things that you say.
(You are wrong.)
>> Science is quite relevant to race - it says that there are no races
>> other than the human race. And race would not be an issue at all, if
>> racists like you did not make it an issue. It certainly is not one of
>> the most important issues of today.
>
>If it's not THE most important issue of the day, you jews and "liberals"
>wouldn't go postal every time a "White Man" stood up for his RACE, would
>you?
You call this "going postal"??? I do this for FUN. You are a JOKE!
>You can't even WAIT to insult a WHITE MAN, can you?
Just nutcases like you, who would be a nincompoop no matter what color
you were painted.
>You IDIOT "liberals"
>and jews and feminazis have used every word and trick in the book to attempt
>to CURTAIL this simple discussion about RACE, haven't you?
Over a thousand posts in this thread and you think we are trying to
"curtail" it? It won't be curtailed, until the "cur" wanders off with
its "tail" between its legs. That's YOUR decision, buddy-boy!
>> Where is science used to pass laws dealing with race in the following?
>> That a law mentions "race" does not mean anything about how race is
>> determined. And as I've said, in practice, race is generally based on
>> self-identification - you are whatever race you say you are.
>
>If a nigger has 1/16th nigger ancestry and says he's "White", he's a LIAR,
>because the law will not permit him to simply claim that he's "White".
The law permits him to say whatever the hell he wants.
>Many state laws prohibit niggers with 1/64th nigger ancestry from simply
>proclaiming that they're "White".
Prove it.
(You are wrong.)
>BUT, more important than that, it's impossible in the age of the internet
>for a nigger to hide his nigger ancestry from the public, which means that
>he cannot continue to spread his miscegenation without lots of people being
>aware of it. And this gives White parents the opportunity to preserve their
>White RACE.
Except that you have no information about most of the hundred
generations before you, any one of which could have involved a black
person because nobody gave a damn more than a few hundred years ago.
EVERYONE is a mongrel by default, and cannot prove otherwise.
(You are wrong.)
lojbab
John Knight
> Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> >>JDa...@BellSouth.com (Jd) wrote:
> >>Men are sinners according to the LAW of God and need God's help in
> >>solving the equation, not the help of maddened wizards.
> >
> >If I am worried about some equation involving sin, I turn to God. If
> >on the other hand it is a differential equation, the Bible won't help
> >in the least, and I haven't a prayer to solve it without knowing some
> >math.
> >
> >Science doesn't claim to deal with anything regarding "sin" which is
> >not subject to scientific analysis.
>
> Right, with pure science. Law is supposed to protect you from the
> sins of others to a great degree. If you "sin" against your
> neighbor by stealing from him, by law you can be fined and/or
> imprisoned or both as a result of your behavior.
>
> Your spiritual behavior makes me want to puke because like in the
> above "differential equation" example, you make a mockery out of
> things concerning the LAW of God.
>
> Jd
>
The following timely post is a great example of why social stability
requires a complete understanding of law, religion, mathematics, and
science.
=========================================
You're pretty much in agreement with the concensus of more than 3 million
Signatories to the Fathers' Manifesto, Tracee. So permit us to point out to
you that your disagreement is with yourself rather than with the concensus.
Compare your one statement: "She had all the affairs but we have to pay off
her cars , day care and all medical exspenses. I think it is total bullshit"
to your other statement: "I also don't think that men should be allowed to
get women pregnant leave them with the baby and dodge support".
You must realize that you simply can't have it both ways. Either you
support a corrupted system that destroys families like yours with 100%
certainty, or you fully support Christianity. Trying to have both means
that you will get neither and the problem will be there forever.
Sincerely,
John Knight
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tracee" <wein...@sbcglobal.net>
To: "'kms'" <k...@kensingtonmicro.com>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 9:25 AM
Subject: RE: your web site
> although I must admitt I agree with a lot of what you are saying, some of
it
> seems a little one sided. The part about the woman having an affair,
getting
> pregnant, and not telling her husband and having him raise it is totally
> wrong. That should not happen. My husband is not sure his first born or
> second is his due to all the affairs his ex had(besides they don't look
> anything like him and an awful lot like her "friend" at the time) and the
> law now reads even if you do a dna test and it comes back that they are
not
> his children, he still has to pay the 1315.00 a month in child support.
She
> had all the affairs but we have to pay off her cars , day care and all
> medical exspenses. I think it is total bullshit. But I also don't think
that
> men should be allowed to get women pregnant leave them with the baby and
> dodge support. I think the phrase "we don't need anymore feminism" that
part
> about most men pay more taxes, things like that are offensive to me. I
> really don't think you meant to come across that way. I do 100% agree that
> adultery should be punished to the fullest extent. Besides the fact we are
> teaching our kids that it is ok to tear apart someone we so called "love
and
> want to spend the rest of our lives with" before GOD as well, we are
taking
> the chance of infecting our innocent, trusting spouse with aids or some
> other disease. That is not right. People knowingly take that chance and
> decide they are to ashamed or scared to tell their spouse that they
cheated
> so lets keep it quite and take a chance of infecting them. That is just as
> bad in my book as having sexual contact knowing you have aids or any other
> disease and that should be punished.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kms [mailto:k...@kensingtonmicro.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 7:35 PM
> To: wein...@sbcglobal.net; mani...@christianparty.net
> Subject: Re: your web site
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tracee" <wein...@sbcglobal.net>
> To: <mani...@christianparty.net>
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:47 PM
> Subject: your web site
>
>
> >
> >
> > Is supposed to encourage boys with children to step up and be a "Man" or
> > slam woman? I vote slam women.
> > Keith & Tracee Weinzerl
> >
>
>
> Which part exactly do you believe "slams women"?
Richard August
If interracial marriages were a crime now, which they are not, then I would
be working with two of the worst criminals in history - white women married
to black men. One of these women even has several children by a black man.
Granted, these two white women aren't the brightest bulbs in the box, but at
least they are WORKING, and not on WELFARE.
The fact is that interracial marriage is no longer a crime, and as long as
the couples are on the same wavelength and don't beat or kill each other,
let them have each other. I choose to remain celibate for Godly, Christian
reasons - possibly Oblation/Novitiation to a Lutheran Benedictine Monastery
(we already discussed that).
Neither you nor I can change the world, John, and we cannot let the world
change us. We can only let God and His Word change us, and forget about the
rest of the world.
Meanwhile, we can pray that God changes US, and that the changes that God
makes in US would make US worthy of His Kingdom, which is Holy and Righteous
and Eternal.
May God help us to become real Christians with caring souls, instead of
careless, hateful, and spiteful beings, as we are fast becoming,
Sincerely,
Richard C. August
"John Knight" <jwkn...@polbox.com> wrote in message
news:vpXo9.125110$S32.8...@news2.west.cox.net...
>
>
> Dear Mr. August,
>
> Niggers look like niggers, even if they have blonde hair, white skin, or
> blue eyes, so they SHOULD be required to list themselves as niggers if
they
> are 1/16th nigger [presumably you meant 1/16th rather than 1/6th?].
>
> Furthermore, anyone with ANY nigger ancestry ought to be required by law
to
> list that ancestry. It's a violation of God's Law to fail to keep the
White
> Christian Israelite Race pure. To fail to inform a pure White Christian
> Israelite that the person they might be marrying is a nigger SHOULD be a
> crime.
>
> For thousands of years before the jews got into this country in record
> numbers, this made common sense, to everyone, which is why the Holy Bible,
> the US Constitution, and all state laws made miscegenation with muds a
> CRIME.
>
> John Knight
>
>
>
>
> "Richard August" <rau...@ptd.net> wrote in message
> news:UmVo9.3836$Ye5.1...@nnrp1.ptd.net...
> > John, some states (such as Louisiana) require that you list your race as
> > "Black" or "Negroid" if you are 1/6th black. That means your skin could
> be
> > white as driven snow, your eyes could be sky blue, and your hair as
blonde
> > as puffed rice cereal. To that state, you are still "Black". Just
> thought
> > I'd let you know that. -- Richard C. August
> >
> >
> > "John Knight" <jwkn...@polbox.com> wrote in message
> > news:fWgm9.94163$S32.6...@news2.west.cox.net...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Dan Holzman" <hol...@panix.com> wrote in message
> > > news:anb2nl$s2g$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> > > > In article <f17m9.5696$Fl4.5...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> > > > Parse Tree <pars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >That's false. Race is entirely biological. Ethnicity is social,
and
> > the
> > > > >meanings of the two have been blurred together due to ignorance.
> > > >
> > > > I would direct your attention to a book entitled _White By Law_,
which
> > > > you will find listed at the book retailer's web site of your choice.
> It
> > > > tracks the development of race as a legal principle in American
law --
> > > > a crucial point because for quite some time only "White" people
could
> > > > immigrate. Particularly amusing was how Syrians went back and forth
> > > > between being non-white and white over the course of 30 years.
> > > >
> > > > Race is not biological, despite all the pseudoscience that has come
up
> > > > around it. It's purely a social and legal definition, which is why
> > > > there exist fair-skinned, blonde-haired, blue-eyed women whose
> > > > passports listed them as "Black" or "Octaroon."
> > >
> > >
> > > The simple fact that you too think it's odd that "fair-skinned,
> > > blonde-haired, blue-eyed women" would be listed as "'Black' or
> 'Octaroon'"
> > > is proof enough that you don't believe your own bs.
> > >
> > > By DEFINITION, race is also GENETIC! You cannot excluded genetics
just
> > > because there are a few exceptions to the rule. This would be like
> saying
> > > "all Americans are on death row" because 3,000 Americans are on death
> row.
> > > Just because there might be 3,000 blonde bimbos listed as niggers
> doesn't
> > > eliminate the other 480 million members from the Caucasian Race.
> > >
> > > John Knight
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
John Knight
day. It was a crime in this Christian culture we are heirs to for 1,950 of
the last 2,000 years.
No matter what man's law might say today, it has been a violation of God's
Law since the beginning of the Israelite rate, and it's going to be a
violation of God's Law forever. That can never change, unless you want to
start tearing half the pages out of the Holy Bible.
John Knight
"Richard August" <rau...@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:%rLp9.4464$Ye5.1...@nnrp1.ptd.net...
John Knight
We did already.
We moved to this continent less than 500 years ago and within 400 years had
developed one of the most successful economies on the planet, with world
class educational institutions, the most advanced R&D ever known, and the
once highest personal savings level ever.
The first BIG mistake was letting welfare queens, criminals, and LIARS like
niggers and jews become citizens. The next bigger mistake was eliminating
the requirement that only Whites can immigrate, and the BIGGEST mistake was
not shipping all the welfare queens back to their countries of origin.
But that's really easy to correct http://christianparty.net/poll.htm
John Knight
John Knight
"Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:ao6ua7$ibe$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
The majority of Europeans were OPPOSED to WWII. Three quarters of Americans
were OPPOSED to the US entering WWII. The vast majority of the rest of the
world were opposed to it, just as the vast majority of most citizens around
the world are opposed to us attacking Iraq. 70% of Americans believe the
state of the US economy is more important than a "war" with Iraq
http://christianparty.net/polliraqeconomy.htm
So you have to wonder what it is about our government that it keeps on doing
things that its citizens do NOT want it to do. And the answer is that
zionists control our "news" media, which greatly influences public opinion,
which adversely affects actions by Congress.
You raise a good point. How can Congress claim to be "civilized" when it
keeps waging uncivilized wars on every gnat in sight.
John Knight
Bob LeChevalier
>White women married to niggers IS a crime in many countries to this very
>day.
Name "many countries" where this is true.
>It was a crime in this Christian culture we are heirs to for 1,950 of
>the last 2,000 years.
Provide evidence that this was a "crime" in any culture other than the
American one, and perhaps in the South African one
>No matter what man's law might say today, it has been a violation of God's
>Law since the beginning of the Israelite rate,
No.
>and it's going to be a violation of God's Law forever.
No.
>That can never change, unless you want to
>start tearing half the pages out of the Holy Bible.
Like Thomas Jefferson did?
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:ke5equ8qtnu7073qi...@4ax.com...
>> >weren't "lucky"--they failed to develop them because they are INCAPABLE of
>> >comprehending Christianity, whereas the White man CAN understand it.
>>
>> Then why can't you?
>>
>> lojbab
>
>We did already.
You can't read. You are not plural, and you do not and did not
comprehend Christianity.
>We moved to this continent less than 500 years ago and within 400 years had
>developed one of the most successful economies on the planet, with world
>class educational institutions,
You are referring to those public schools you so often decry? The
ones that have mostly been taught by female teachers ever since there
have been schools?
>the most advanced R&D ever known,
Recognizing that most of those scientists graduated from
aforementioned public schools, and a significant percentage of them
are among the Jews that you hate.
>and the once highest personal savings level ever.
Prove it. Americans have never been savers.
>The first BIG mistake was letting welfare queens, criminals, and LIARS like
>niggers
Some of them were citizens since Thomas Jefferson became a citizen.
>and jews become citizens
And they have been citizens since Thomas Jefferson was a citizen.
>and the BIGGEST mistake was
>not shipping all the welfare queens back to their countries of origin.
For most of them, that country was the United States.
But we should ship you back to your "country of origin", the domain of
your Father the Prince of Lies. You might find the weather a bit warm
for your taste, but that is YOUR problem.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>The majority of Europeans were OPPOSED to WWII.
I'm sure. But Hitler's troops didn't exactly give most of them a
choice.
>Three quarters of Americans were OPPOSED to the US entering WWII.
Not on the day after Pearl Harbor. And note that Germany declared war
on the US
>The vast majority of the rest of the world were opposed to it,
I'm sure, but the Japanese did not give the Chinese, the Koreans and
the southeast Asians a choice.
>just as the vast majority of most citizens around
>the world are opposed to us attacking Iraq. 70% of Americans believe the
>state of the US economy is more important than a "war" with Iraq
The Democrats would love this to be true.
>You raise a good point. How can Congress claim to be "civilized" when it
>keeps waging uncivilized wars on every gnat in sight.
It hasn't waged war on YOU yet, and YOU are the most uncivilized gnat
I've ever known about.
lojbab
Lance O. Lake
(in message <JhDp9.133406$S32.9...@news2.west.cox.net>):
But Johnnie - you're the one who keeps screaming that you're white.
Why are you trying to convince everyone you're white? Is it important that
everyone think you're white? The louder you scream you're white, the more
people are going to wonder what you're trying to hide.
Your little religious group is rumored to be 100% infiltrated but you're
probably in the minority. Oops! That poll would lead one to remember that
your "facts" are determined by polls so you're part of the federal agents
that have infiltrated your little group.
But I'm sure that one of your grandancestors was white.
Lance
Lance O. Lake
Polls show conclusively that over 95% of those surveyed show that John Knight
should be flown over international waters and dumped during a raging storm.
And since a poll shows this - - - -
Lance
Lance O. Lake
(in message <r1Ep9.133532$S32.9...@news2.west.cox.net>):
Whereas those nasty Indians in Central America developed many of their
natural resources and the WHITE, CHRISTIANS came along and slaughtered them
and stole their property.
Of course the WHITE CHRISTIANS were also slaughtering each other in Europe
and the CHRISTIAN CHURCH was slaughtering people by burning them at the stake
because CHRISTIANITY has rules and if you don't go along with the ruling
class of the governmental church, you'll burn at the stake for it.
Of course, we didn't burn even two dozen witches at Salem.
Well, and a few out in the western U.S.
Are all witches white? Are you a witch? Would you mind taking a few tests?
Lance
>
Lance O. Lake
(in message <fXPp9.137336$S32.9...@news2.west.cox.net>):
You left out deadbeat dads, the slimiest scum you can find. Boys who can't
become men.
Lance
>
John Knight
What's "a bit odd" is that you'd think it's odd that members of the White
Christian Israelite Race would want to defend their race from miscegenation
with muds.
You've never been able to point out one single benefit this Christian nation
will receive from mingling and mixing with niggers and jews, other than
nigger music, which most Christians would LOVE to see just disappear from
the face of the Earth--along with the niggers and jews and other muds.
But you are reading the situation in Palestine wrong. It IS self-defense
when the Palestinians blow up some STUPID jew who is trying to steal his
land from him under the guise of the "law of return". Less than 2% of all
the jews in the world can even claim any genetic ancestry from that region,
other than Ashkenaz, who wasn't even from that region in the first place.
And the 2% of jews who can claim to have such ancestry are so remotely
removed from Abraham that it's less than one part per quadrillion. And not
even they are in power in Israel.
But, compared to what's happening WITHIN the US, what's happening in
Palestine is MINUTE. Just in the last 6 weeks:
2,077 AMERICANS were murdered!
4,846 AMERICANS died in traffic accidents!!
3,566 AMERICANS committed suicide!!!
2,890 AMERICANS died of cirrhosis.
3,592 AMERICANS died of AIDS.
7,127 AMERICANS died of diabetes.
9,661 AMERICANS died of the flu and pneumonia.
62,254 AMERICANS died of cancer.
84,691 AMERICANS died of heart disease.
Why should you care so much about 2 suicide bombers allegedly killing
themselves every six weeks in Israel when the above is happening right in
your BACK YARD?
Where's the perspective? Why do you think it's so easy to distract
Americans with this BULLSHI. "news" from the jews?
John Knight
John Knight
> "John Knight" <jwkn...@polbox.com> wrote:
> >The majority of Europeans were OPPOSED to WWII.
>
> I'm sure. But Hitler's troops didn't exactly give most of them a
> choice.
Precisely the point. And the exact same thing is now happening in the US
with this "war" on Iraq, and it's being orchestrated by the SAME enemy
foreign power which got us into WWII.
>
> >Three quarters of Americans were OPPOSED to the US entering WWII.
>
> Not on the day after Pearl Harbor. And note that Germany declared war
> on the US
How do you know? Because you believe a government which you KNOW LIES to
you? Great.
On top of that, it's fairly well documented that the jews orchestrated Pearl
Harbor in order to convince Americans to enter a war we shouldn't have
entered, and which gave the jews all the control of our own government that
they needed to completely loot it.
>
> >The vast majority of the rest of the world were opposed to it,
>
> I'm sure, but the Japanese did not give the Chinese, the Koreans and
> the southeast Asians a choice.
Another war which wouldn't have happened if Jacob Schiff, an "American"
"banker" [read: a JEW] hadn't funded both sides of the Russo-Japanese War.
>
> >just as the vast majority of most citizens around
> >the world are opposed to us attacking Iraq. 70% of Americans believe the
> >state of the US economy is more important than a "war" with Iraq
>
> The Democrats would love this to be true.
>
Even the "news" media polls show this to be true, but the private polls show
99% of Americans OPPOSED to this "war".
Yes, the now discredited jew-run Gallup organizaion DOES manipulate "public
opinion" with their jew run polls.
> >You raise a good point. How can Congress claim to be "civilized" when it
> >keeps waging uncivilized wars on every gnat in sight.
>
> It hasn't waged war on YOU yet, and YOU are the most uncivilized gnat
> I've ever known about.
>
> lojbab
When the chips are on the table, it's you jews and "liberals" and feminazis
and niggers and other muds who'll be running for cover--but it's too late.
You've already been discovered.
John Knight
John Knight
> "John Knight" <jwkn...@polbox.com> wrote:
> >"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
> >news:ke5equ8qtnu7073qi...@4ax.com...
> >> >Africans didn't fail to develop those resources because they
> >> >weren't "lucky"--they failed to develop them because they are
INCAPABLE of
> >> >comprehending Christianity, whereas the White man CAN understand it.
> >>
> >> Then why can't you?
> >>
> >> lojbab
> >
> >We did already.
>
> You can't read. You are not plural, and you do not and did not
> comprehend Christianity.
>
As if though we need a jew to "interpret" what Christianity is?
> >We moved to this continent less than 500 years ago and within 400 years
had
> >developed one of the most successful economies on the planet, with world
> >class educational institutions,
>
> You are referring to those public schools you so often decry? The
> ones that have mostly been taught by female teachers ever since there
> have been schools?
No, I'm talking about the schools that existed for almost 2,000 years before
Mr. Jefferson proposed THREE YEARS OF PUBLIC EDUCATION, which were run by
Christian MEN just as the Holy Bible instructs us to, which helped to create
the most advanced civilizations on the planet, bar none.
I'm not talking about the American "public" "schools" run by women who
managed to, in less than half a century, degrade our schools to such a state
that they now produce morons like you and the world's LOWEST TIMSS scores.
It's obvious that you will never understand that they are EXACT opposites.
>
> >the most advanced R&D ever known,
>
> Recognizing that most of those scientists graduated from
> aforementioned public schools, and a significant percentage of them
> are among the Jews that you hate.
This all occurred BEFORE there were any jews permitted into science, law,
medicine, or government, and BEFORE our "public" schools became the insane
assylums they are today.
Being as we're now 17th and dropping fast, you may not even be able to
remember that it was just in 1965, a mere 37 years ago, that the US had the
world's highest per capita income.
That was because of all the scientific and manufacturing progress which was
made BEFORE 1965, which excluded LIARS like Einstein
http://christianparty.net/einstein.htm
>
> >and the once highest personal savings level ever.
>
> Prove it. Americans have never been savers.
According to the federal government, our personal savings rate in 1944 was
26% of disposable personal income, but was down to a NEGATIVE 8.5% by 2000
http://christianparty.net/personalsavings.htm
Do you have any proof they're LYING?
If you don't believe this, then look it up in the archives
http://web.archive.org/web/20010604202816/http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/save
rate.htm
>
> >The first BIG mistake was letting welfare queens, criminals, and LIARS
like
> >niggers
>
> Some of them were citizens since Thomas Jefferson became a citizen.
>
So what? If three quarters of Americans decide they shouldn't be citizens,
they won't be.
> >and jews become citizens
>
> And they have been citizens since Thomas Jefferson was a citizen.
>
Ditto.
> >and the BIGGEST mistake was
> >not shipping all the welfare queens back to their countries of origin.
>
> For most of them, that country was the United States.
Most niggers claim they're from Africa.
>
> But we should ship you back to your "country of origin", the domain of
> your Father the Prince of Lies. You might find the weather a bit warm
> for your taste, but that is YOUR problem.
>
> lojbab
I'm already back in my country of origin, and it's doing MUCH better without
all the niggers that the US has to put up with.
John Knight
Bob LeChevalier
>> You can't read. You are not plural, and you do not and did not
>> comprehend Christianity.
>
>As if though we need a jew to "interpret" what Christianity is?
We Christians certainly don't need YOU to tell us what we believe in.
>> >We moved to this continent less than 500 years ago and within 400 years had
>> >developed one of the most successful economies on the planet, with world
>> >class educational institutions,
>>
>> You are referring to those public schools you so often decry? The
>> ones that have mostly been taught by female teachers ever since there
>> have been schools?
>
>No, I'm talking about the schools that existed for almost 2,000 years
That clearly is NOT what you are talking about, since you are
referring to world class educational institutions that developed AFTER
we moved to this continent 500 years ago.
There were no educational institutions on this continent that have
existed for almost 2,000 years, and indeed there were no such
educational institutions in Europe that have existed for almost 2,000
years.
>before
>Mr. Jefferson proposed THREE YEARS OF PUBLIC EDUCATION, which were run by
>Christian MEN
Nothing in his proposal mentioned Christians OR men running public
education.
>just as the Holy Bible instructs us to,
The Holy Bible does NOT say that there should be three years of public
education.
>I'm not talking about the American "public" "schools" run by women who
>managed to, in less than half a century, degrade our schools to such a state
>that they now produce morons like you and the world's LOWEST TIMSS scores.
Except of course that women were the vast majority of schoolteachers
for a lot more than the last half century. As far back as 1870, which
is the oldest data I can find, women were more than 60% of all
teachers.
>> >the most advanced R&D ever known,
>>
>> Recognizing that most of those scientists graduated from
>> aforementioned public schools, and a significant percentage of them
>> are among the Jews that you hate.
>
>This all occurred BEFORE there were any jews permitted into science, law,
>medicine, or government,
Jews have been in all of those as long as this country has existed.
(The most competent of the cabinet officials of the Confederacy was a
Jew, Judah Benjamin, credited by many with keeping the Confederacy
operational as long as it lasted. He was also the second Jewish
Senator, the first being David Levy Yulee starting in 1841). And this
country was not in the forefront of R&D until the last century when
Jews were common in all of the above. The first Jewish Supreme Court
justice was Brandeis, starting in 1916.
>and BEFORE our "public" schools became the insane
>assylums they are today.
No, that is where YOU live.
>Being as we're now 17th and dropping fast,
No.
>you may not even be able to
>remember that it was just in 1965, a mere 37 years ago, that the US had the
>world's highest per capita income.
I suspect this is false.
>> >and the once highest personal savings level ever.
>>
>> Prove it. Americans have never been savers.
>
>According to the federal government, our personal savings rate in 1944 was
>26% of disposable personal income,
Talk about lying with statistics. Personal savings was exceptionally
high during WW II because 1) there were shortages and hence not a lot
to spend things on, and 2) there was a big push for savings in the
form of war bonds.
Here are the numbers
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/saverate.xls
1929 4.7%
1930 4.3%
1931 4.0%
1932 -0.8%
1933 -1.5%
1934 1.2%
1935 4.2%
1936 6.4%
1937 6.2%
1938 2.2%
1939 4.7%
1940 5.9%
1941 12.4%
1942 24.4%
1943 25.8%
1944 26.3%
1945 20.6%
1946 10.1%
1947 4.7%
1948 7.3%
1949 5.2%
1950 7.2%
>but was down to a NEGATIVE 8.5% by 2000
Nope. Using the same source (so that the calculation is consistent),
the savings rate did not actually go negative, but did go as low as
0.3% in October 2001. But in August 2002 it was back up to 3.6%
1994 6.1%
1995 5.6%
1996 4.8%
1997 4.2%
1998 4.7%
1999 2.6%
2000 2.8%
2001 2.3%
Here is the data showing how the savings rate is calculated (this is
the quarterly and not the annual rate).
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableViewFixed.asp?SelectedTable=27&FirstYear=1999&LastYear=2000&Freq=Qtr
For the annual data back to 1929:
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableViewFixed.asp#Mid
and we see that in that record 1944 year, the total personal savings
was only 1/5 of what it was in 2000 which was a low year.
>Do you have any proof they're LYING?
No, but the above is proof that YOU are lying.
>If you don't believe this, then look it up in the archives
>http://web.archive.org/web/20010604202816/http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/save
>rate.htm
That was preliminary data, which apparently turned out to be wrong.
The spreadsheet cited above is the most recent version of that table,
updated 9/30/2002.
>> Some of them were citizens since Thomas Jefferson became a citizen.
>
>So what? If three quarters of Americans decide they shouldn't be citizens,
>they won't be.
But that won't happen.
>> >and jews become citizens
>>
>> And they have been citizens since Thomas Jefferson was a citizen.
>
>Ditto.
Ditto.
Between Jews and Blacks alone, you are getting close to 20% of the
population. Add in the hispanics and you can't get 75% even if
everyone else agreed with you (which we don't).
>> >and the BIGGEST mistake was
>> >not shipping all the welfare queens back to their countries of origin.
>>
>> For most of them, that country was the United States.
>
>Most niggers claim they're from Africa.
False. Most of them claim that they were born in the United States,
because indeed that is where they were born. Some of their ancestors
(but not all since most blacks have some white blood) came from
Africa, but Alex Haley aside, most blacks would have no idea where in
Africa their ancestors came from.
>> But we should ship you back to your "country of origin", the domain of
>> your Father the Prince of Lies. You might find the weather a bit warm
>> for your taste, but that is YOUR problem.
>>
>> lojbab
>
>I'm already back in my country of origin, and it's doing MUCH better without
>all the niggers that the US has to put up with.
Back in Germany, so you don't end up in prison again? Glad to see
that you know longer consider yourself an American. I guess we should
notify the German authorities that they have a candidate for
denazification.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:efvfquovd2l46qvs9...@4ax.com...
>> "John Knight" <jwkn...@polbox.com> wrote:
>> >The majority of Europeans were OPPOSED to WWII.
>>
>> I'm sure. But Hitler's troops didn't exactly give most of them a
>> choice.
>
>Precisely the point. And the exact same thing is now happening in the US
>with this "war" on Iraq, and it's being orchestrated by the SAME enemy
>foreign power which got us into WWII.
Japan? Not likely.
You do remember Pearl Harbor, don't you.
>> >Three quarters of Americans were OPPOSED to the US entering WWII.
>>
>> Not on the day after Pearl Harbor. And note that Germany declared war
>> on the US.
>
>How do you know? Because you believe a government which you KNOW LIES to
>you? Great.
There are historical records in *many* countries indicating that
Germany declared war on the US a couple of days after Pearl Harbor.
We did not need to declare war on Germany.
>On top of that, it's fairly well documented that the jews orchestrated Pearl
>Harbor in order to convince Americans to enter a war we shouldn't have
>entered,
So now you claim that the Jews were in charge of the Japanese
military?
>> >The vast majority of the rest of the world were opposed to it,
>>
>> I'm sure, but the Japanese did not give the Chinese, the Koreans and
>> the southeast Asians a choice.
>
>Another war which wouldn't have happened if Jacob Schiff, an "American"
>"banker" [read: a JEW] hadn't funded both sides of the Russo-Japanese War.
What does that have to do with the Japanese invasion of China?
>> >just as the vast majority of most citizens around
>> >the world are opposed to us attacking Iraq. 70% of Americans believe the
>> >state of the US economy is more important than a "war" with Iraq
>>
>> The Democrats would love this to be true.
>
>Even the "news" media polls show this to be true, but the private polls show
>99% of Americans OPPOSED to this "war".
You mean your nincompoop poll that only you vote on?
lojbab