About "losers"

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Richard G. Phillips

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to
John Morris hurled the word "loser" at Dan Parker. It is very much in
character that he should have done so because the word "loser" is very
much part of the Jew's armory of insults, no less so than: Nazi,
neo-Nazi, idiot, moron, racist, bigot, trailer-park trash. Indeed, it
is far more effective than any of these because while words such as Nazi
merely attack a man's attitudes, the word "loser" attacks the very basis
of his manhood.

What IS a "loser?" He could be many things. He could be a man who spent
30 or 40 years of his life in the same factory, became an expert
tool-and-die maker, had a position of respect in his community, bought a
house, raised a family, sacrificed to send one or more children to
college -and yet, thanks to a computer keystroke in Tokyo or Brussels,
was made jobless with no propsect of ever gaining a comparable position.
No matter; he is now a "loser."

A loser could be an engineer who, because of advancing years, family
responsibilities, lessened energy is unable to keep up with latest
latest latest technology, and so falls by the wayside. NO excuses; he is
a LOSER.

A loser could be an American white man who would be perfectly willing to
take a restaurant job but is passed over in favor of a Mexican or Costa
Rican who will work for a much smaller wage and who, grateful for any
toehold in America, will be much less inclined to any recalcitrance.
Result: loser.

This use of the word "loser" takes the position that the value of a
man's opinions is measured not by the value of what he renders to
Society, but by the amount of wealth he has accumulated. By this measure
the opinions of a nurse are of much less value than those of a
successful Wall Street swindler.

A man who feels this way cannot be said to be part of the American Volk
in a spiritual sense. He is an embodiment of an Ayn Rand type of
individualism, and the sooner we rid the country of it, the better.

What persons like Morris never ask themselves is: should there BE any
stigma attached to lack of worldly success? After all, the whole point
and purpose of our system is to turn as many of us as it can INTO
losers. Otherwise, how else are we to remain "competitive?"

caro...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to
(WARNING -- Ascent to soapbox in progress)

Any man (I'll use the literary masculine to include both men and women
throughout this post)who blames his personal economic woes on another is by
the verydefinition of the word a loser. Whether black, white, yellow, pink
or green the man who blames another fails to take personal responsibility for
his own actions.

The greatest frustration I have as a white woman is that white "racial
activists" feel so inclined to blame "jew bankers" or "illegal immigrants" or
whomever for their personal failings. Racism founded on "they're stealing
our jobs" or "they're stealing our resources" is insane and flies completely
in the face of both rational economic theory and discussion as well as the
dubious presumption that whites are somehow racially superior.

When did the white man become so weak that he can no longer stand up and take
responsibility for himself? If he's so superior, why is the big bad jew (a
tiny minority) running everything?

If that tool&die man who has worked for 30 or 40 years has adequately planned
for his financial future, losing his job at the "touch of a button" should not
be a big deal. I have no sympathy for those who fail to plan and then feel
compelled to blame others. There's a brilliant book called the "Millionaire
Next Door" that discusses how people with limited annual incomes can through
careful planning completely insulate themselves from the vaguries of the job
market.

Additionally,fear mongering based on race/economics is non-sensical in our
current economy. I'm building a new house here in Austin, TX. Unemployment
is 2% or so, and average incomes here are somewhat higher than the national
average due to a heavily high-tech industrial base. There is not a single
shingle, wallboard, pipe, or electrical outlet in my new house that was not
put there by mexican immigrants. Are they keeping some "white man" from a
good job? Hell no, contractors drive from construction site to construction
site trying to bribe trades away to their jobsites because of severe
shortages in construction laborers. McDonalds pays $8/hour to start, for
heaven's sake. Besides, the "white man" is probably working for that jew,
Michael Dell, who employees half the city and has created more wealth amongst
his employees than exists in some 3rd world countries. There are something
like 1500 "dellionaires" here in austin -- Dell employees who are
millionaires because of stock options, etc. (My husband and I are will be the
only people living on our new street who are not Dell employees)

Anyway, there is ample economic evidence which demonstrates that immmigration
adds to the vibrancy and health of an economy. I'll email citations to anyone
who would like to see them. Change is scary, and change is the only constant
in our economy. That's the nature of a free market. The free market may seem
cruel and heartless to some; however, it is vastly superior to the alternative
or planned economy. Read a comparitive economic systems text-book sometime if
you doubt the veracity of that statement.

A man who fails economically is not less valuable than one who succeeds. He
becomes a loser, however, when he blames others for his failure and refuses to
take personal responsibility. Racism and anti-semitism are merely fancy names
for fear and envy based on personal insecurity.

My husband and I save and invest 50% of our salaries. That's GROSS, before
tax income. Could I afford a BMW instead of a 5 year old Ford? Could we take
on 2x the mortgage? sure, we choose not to. I'm 31, and my hubby who is 29
(I got me one of them younger men) and I could quit work for 5 years if we
chose to. One of us can quit work when we have children without changing our
lifestyle. That's freedom -- freedom that we've created for ourselves through
self- sacrifice and careful planning. No one is responsible for our
financial health except for us. No one is responsible for our financial
failings except for us. We can live the lifestyle *we* choose with no
regrets, no envy because we're responsible for our own future.

Carolyn


(STEPPING OFF SOAP BOX)

In article <3646E2AF...@earthlink.net>,

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Cuddles

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to
caro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> (WARNING -- Ascent to soapbox in progress)
>
> Any man (I'll use the literary masculine to include both men and women
> throughout this post)who blames his personal economic woes on another is by
> the verydefinition of the word a loser.

No. He might be a winner in some other sphere. Compassion, vision, a
great artist, a great philosopher, a very good human being. Just a poor
financial planner. Mozart was in very dire financial straits towards the
end, yet that was when he composed some of his greatest works. Economic
success was not his primary occupation. Would he have been a 'loser' if
he had turned around and cursed his well-wishers, and perhaps the State,
for not taking better care of him so that he could pursue his work free
from economic worries?

> Whether black, white, yellow, pink
> or green the man who blames another fails to take personal responsibility for
> his own actions.

No. When I was recently ripped off by a lying son-of-a-bitch, incurring
damages of several hundred thousand pounds, I blamed him. He was a liar,
a cheat, a fraudster. The problem was proving it. Now, to be sure, you
can say that I should have seen him coming and been prepared. But
guarding against that particular rogue was not my primary concern at the
time. When a man lies, cheats, commits fraud, then he deserves to be
blamed. If someone were to come up and shoot your hubby, would you
absolve the assailant of all blame and merely blame yourself?

> The greatest frustration I have as a white woman is that white "racial
> activists" feel so inclined to blame "jew bankers" or "illegal immigrants" or
> whomever for their personal failings.

Are you certain that such blame is not justified?

> Racism founded on "they're stealing
> our jobs" or "they're stealing our resources" is insane and flies completely
> in the face of both rational economic theory and discussion as well as the
> dubious presumption that whites are somehow racially superior.

Ah. So do you hold that there is no relationship between immigration
into a country and the level of unemployment in that country?



> When did the white man become so weak that he can no longer stand up and take
> responsibility for himself?

1945

> If he's so superior, why is the big bad jew (a
> tiny minority) running everything?

We loused up the Second World War by attacking Russia. Bad move. We're
paying the price.



> If that tool&die man who has worked for 30 or 40 years has adequately planned
> for his financial future, losing his job at the "touch of a button" should not
> be a big deal.

But good men with much to contribute can be poor financial planners.

> I have no sympathy for those who fail to plan and then feel
> compelled to blame others.

I have sympathy for them. When you are doing well it is easy to forget
what it is like when you have negligible resources.

> There's a brilliant book called the "Millionaire
> Next Door" that discusses how people with limited annual incomes can through
> careful planning completely insulate themselves from the vaguries of the job
> market.

> Additionally,fear mongering based on race/economics is non-sensical in our
> current economy.
I'm building a new house here in Austin, TX. Unemployment
> is 2% or so, and average incomes here are somewhat higher than the national
> average due to a heavily high-tech industrial base. There is not a single
> shingle, wallboard, pipe, or electrical outlet in my new house that was not
> put there by mexican immigrants. Are they keeping some "white man" from a
> good job?

I thought Mexicans WERE largely white. Sun-tanned but white. Now get a
bunch of Zulus on the job and see what happens to your plans!!!!

> Hell no, contractors drive from construction site to construction
> site trying to bribe trades away to their jobsites because of severe
> shortages in construction laborers. McDonalds pays $8/hour to start, for
> heaven's sake. Besides, the "white man" is probably working for that jew,
> Michael Dell, who employees half the city and has created more wealth amongst
> his employees than exists in some 3rd world countries. There are something
> like 1500 "dellionaires" here in austin -- Dell employees who are
> millionaires because of stock options, etc. (My husband and I are will be the
> only people living on our new street who are not Dell employees)

> Anyway, there is ample economic evidence which demonstrates that immmigration
> adds to the vibrancy and health of an economy.

Depends on the needs of the economy and the ability of the immigrants to
meet those needs. If you have a need for labour then immigration is one
way of meeting that need, no doubt about it. If there is unemployment,
however, then the case for immigration 'needs more argument'.

> I'll email citations to anyone
> who would like to see them. Change is scary, and change is the only constant
> in our economy. That's the nature of a free market. The free market may seem
> cruel and heartless to some; however, it is vastly superior to the alternative
> or planned economy.

I think that is an overgeneralization. The truth is somewhere in
between. At times you need a planned economy. Try laissez faire in South
Africa right now, however, and you will have chaos. At other times you
can have too much of a planned economy. Britain in the 1970s was an
example -- the overmanning on the railways was quite hilarious, but also
quite expensive. Horses for courses. Pragmatism. That's the way forward.

> Read a comparitive economic systems text-book sometime if
> you doubt the veracity of that statement.

But not one by Keynes, right?



> A man who fails economically is not less valuable than one who succeeds. He
> becomes a loser, however, when he blames others for his failure and refuses to
> take personal responsibility.

OK. So if Mozart had turned around after writing his fortieth symphony
and had said 'bugger it! I'm skint! Why doesn't someone give me some
money?' that would make him a loser? Noooooooooo. Not in my books. It
would make him a man who has other priorities and expects some support
for those priorities. And arguably deserves some support. A little old
lady who is ripped off by a smarter businessman turns around and blames
him for it. Does that make her a loser? Nooo. It makes the smarter
businessman an evil swine against whom the little old lady needs
protection from the state.

> Racism and anti-semitism are merely fancy names
> for fear and envy based on personal insecurity.

No. They are an example of semantic infiltration. They are attempts to
label certain people and ideas in such a way that they become
stereotyped and easier to smear. Racism, as I see it, is love of ones
own people. It is an extension of love of ones own family and might be
justified in pretty much the same way. It should not imply hatred of
other races. The Afrikaans slogan 'gee elke volk sie eie land' -- give
EACH people its own land -- applies. Let each people decide its own
destiny.



> My husband and I save and invest 50% of our salaries. That's GROSS, before
> tax income. Could I afford a BMW instead of a 5 year old Ford?

I would advise against it. I sold mine because it was absolute crap.

> Could we take
> on 2x the mortgage? sure, we choose not to. I'm 31, and my hubby who is 29
> (I got me one of them younger men) and I could quit work for 5 years if we
> chose to. One of us can quit work when we have children without changing our
> lifestyle. That's freedom -- freedom that we've created for ourselves through
> self- sacrifice and careful planning. No one is responsible for our
> financial health except for us. No one is responsible for our financial
> failings except for us. We can live the lifestyle *we* choose with no
> regrets, no envy because we're responsible for our own future.

And then one day misfortune strikes -- perhaps crime, or illness, or
some risk that you have not hedged against -- and you are all alone in
the world without a penny. And we are seriously supposed to believe that
instead of blaming the criminal, you blame only yourself for failing to
hedge against 'tail risk' of that kind?

Cuddles


DeppityBob

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to
Carolyn--what a FINE response! I think you have hit the nail on the head
(despite Curdles' attempts to knock you off your soapbox with more racebaiting
and whining). White folks certainly have no complaints in today's economy--a
well-educated and trained white man, ceteris parabis, would have NO problem
becoming employed somewhere and in some way in this country. White jobs are
certainly not being taken by Mexicans, unless you are really envious of the
gardener and the pool cleaner and the driveway resealer... And blacks are
certainly not a threat to whites, seeing as they constantly get funneled into
the menial jobs that whites don't want anyway. So what are you worried about,
white man? You have it MADE here.

Dep

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Always tell the truth. It's the easiest thing to remember."
--David Mamet
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cuddles

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to
DeppityBob wrote:
>
> Carolyn--what a FINE response! I think you have hit the nail on the head
> (despite Curdles' attempts to knock you off your soapbox with more racebaiting
> and whining). White folks certainly have no complaints in today's economy--a
> well-educated and trained white man, ceteris parabis, would have NO problem
> becoming employed somewhere and in some way in this country. White jobs are
> certainly not being taken by Mexicans, unless you are really envious of the
> gardener and the pool cleaner and the driveway resealer... And blacks are
> certainly not a threat to whites, seeing as they constantly get funneled into
> the menial jobs that whites don't want anyway. So what are you worried about,
> white man? You have it MADE here.
>
> Dep

Psssst . . . Dep . . . she's married. You're wasting your time . . .

Cuddles


DeppityBob

unread,
Nov 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/10/98
to

Cuddles<<

Jealousy is such an ugly thing.

Cuddles

unread,
Nov 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/10/98
to
DeppityBob wrote:
>
> >>DeppityBob wrote:
> >
> > Carolyn--what a FINE response! I think you have hit the nail on the head
> > (despite Curdles' attempts to knock you off your soapbox with more
> racebaiting
> > and whining). White folks certainly have no complaints in today's economy--a
> > well-educated and trained white man, ceteris parabis, would have NO problem
> > becoming employed somewhere and in some way in this country. White jobs are
> > certainly not being taken by Mexicans, unless you are really envious of the
> > gardener and the pool cleaner and the driveway resealer... And blacks are
> > certainly not a threat to whites, seeing as they constantly get funneled into
> > the menial jobs that whites don't want anyway. So what are you worried about,
> > white man? You have it MADE here.
> >
> > Dep
>
> Psssst . . . Dep . . . she's married. You're wasting your time . . .
>
> Cuddles<<
>
> Jealousy is such an ugly thing.
>
> Dep

Well, never mind. Maybe if you're nice to her she'll let you have an
owner/pet relationship?

Cuddles

DeppityBob

unread,
Nov 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/10/98
to

Cuddles<<

The mysteries of the non-sexual adult male-female relationship being a mystery
to Curdles, whose emotional development seems to have arrested at the age where
most girls give up their love of grape bubble gum...

John Morris

unread,
Nov 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/10/98
to
In <3646E2AF...@earthlink.net>, on Mon, 09 Nov 1998 07:40:15

-0500, "Richard G. Phillips" <rgp...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>John Morris hurled the word "loser" at Dan Parker. It is very much in
>character that he should have done so because the word "loser" is very
>much part of the Jew's armory of insults, no less so than: Nazi,
>neo-Nazi, idiot, moron, racist, bigot, trailer-park trash.

I am not a Jew, and the term "trailer trash" is not in my lexicon
because it describes members of my family. In fact, it could describe
me did I not take such a dim view of "modular housing."

> Indeed, it
>is far more effective than any of these because while words such as Nazi
>merely attack a man's attitudes, the word "loser" attacks the very basis
>of his manhood.

>What IS a "loser?"

You could have asked me what *I* mean by the term. But, noooooo,
you've already decided what I mean by term. It's so much easier to set
up a strawman and attack that than it is to argue with a real person.

So let me tell you something. You may be wondering how I came to be a
middle-aged graduate student. I mean, don't most people wrap their
PhDs up by the time they are thirty? Well, I didn't start as an
undergraduate until I was nearly thirty because I am a high school
dropout. I went back to school as a mature student. And I went back on
student loans and part-time jobs because I don't have a rich daddy.
And then I took a few years off to pay down part of the debt. During
that time I worked in industrial jobs, and I spent my nights taking
more courses and doing my job as a shop steward because you don't get
time off for most union activities.

And I'd be willing to bet that I have done more in my life to improve
the day-to-day lives of working people than any ten of you Nazi moron
losers. And why? Because I knew how to argue a case and win
grievances. And make the boss feel good about it.

I do *not* regard the victims of capitalist "rationalization" as
losers. I do *not* regard people whose skills have become
technologically outmoded as losers. I regard them as victims. I also
think that a society is constituted for the benefit of those living in
a society, and society is increasingly failing these people.

Now, who do I regard as losers? People who make up excuses like "the
Jews" and who don't have the first clue what the real problems are or
how to go about solving them.

>What persons like Morris never ask themselves is: should there BE any
>stigma attached to lack of worldly success? After all, the whole point
>and purpose of our system is to turn as many of us as it can INTO
>losers. Otherwise, how else are we to remain "competitive?"

Sorry, Dick, you've got the wrong man.

--
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>

Cuddles

unread,
Nov 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/10/98
to

I have never even heard of grape bubble gum. Sounds revolting. Now when
I was little they used to do really nice toothpaste-flavoured chewing
gum. You could stick it on people's chairs. Wonderful stuff.

Cuddles

fled...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Nov 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/10/98
to
In article <364767...@cableinet.co.uk>,

Cud...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
> DeppityBob wrote:
> >
> > Carolyn--what a FINE response! I think you have hit the nail on the head
> > (despite Curdles' attempts to knock you off your soapbox with more
racebaiting
> > and whining). White folks certainly have no complaints in today's economy--a
> > well-educated and trained white man, ceteris parabis, would have NO problem
> > becoming employed somewhere and in some way in this country. White jobs are
> > certainly not being taken by Mexicans, unless you are really envious of the
> > gardener and the pool cleaner and the driveway resealer... And blacks are
> > certainly not a threat to whites, seeing as they constantly get funneled
into
> > the menial jobs that whites don't want anyway. So what are you worried
about,
> > white man? You have it MADE here.
> >
> > Dep
>
> Psssst . . . Dep . . . she's married. You're wasting your time . . .
>
> Cuddles
>
>
Having no argument to make, David M. tries really dumb innuendo. He thus
demonstrates, yet again, what a pillock he is.

--
Fragano Ledgister @ Dejanews
Xa van salindo as estrelas...

ORAC

unread,
Nov 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/10/98
to

>John Morris hurled the word "loser" at Dan Parker. It is very much in
>character that he should have done so because the word "loser" is very
>much part of the Jew's armory of insults, no less so than: Nazi,

>neo-Nazi, idiot, moron, racist, bigot, trailer-park trash. Indeed, it


>is far more effective than any of these because while words such as Nazi
>merely attack a man's attitudes, the word "loser" attacks the very basis
>of his manhood.
>

>What IS a "loser?" He could be many things. He could be a man who spent
>30 or 40 years of his life in the same factory, became an expert
>tool-and-die maker, had a position of respect in his community, bought a
>house, raised a family, sacrificed to send one or more children to
>college -and yet, thanks to a computer keystroke in Tokyo or Brussels,
>was made jobless with no propsect of ever gaining a comparable position.
>No matter; he is now a "loser."

No, he is not.


>A loser could be an engineer who, because of advancing years, family
>responsibilities, lessened energy is unable to keep up with latest
>latest latest technology, and so falls by the wayside. NO excuses; he is
>a LOSER.

[Snip]

I would certainly not characterize any of the people you describe are losers.

Hate-filled people like Dan Parker who blame whole racial/religious groups
for their inability to succeed in society and openly declare these groups
inferior (and themselves superior) based solely on race ARE losers. This
characterization happens to describe quite accurately a great many
neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, and white nationalists/racists who constantly
spew forth their venom upon Jews, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and any other
racial/religious group who are supposedly threatening their "rightful
place" in society. Unfortunately, it also describes a lot of blacks,
Hispanics, and people of other races, too.

Such people are bigots. No race has cornered the market on bigotry,
although Dan and his white power ranger buddies sure do try.

--
THE ABOVE E-MAIL ADDRESS ONLY ACCEPTS MAIL FROM FAMILY
AND FRIENDS. TO E-MAIL ME, USE: dgorski[at]xsite[dot]net!
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
ORAC |"A statement of fact cannot be
a.k.a. David Gorski | insolent." ORAC
Chicago, IL |

ORAC

unread,
Nov 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/10/98
to

>DeppityBob wrote:
>>
>> The mysteries of the non-sexual adult male-female relationship being a
mystery
>> to Curdles, whose emotional development seems to have arrested at the
age where
>> most girls give up their love of grape bubble gum...
>

>I have never even heard of grape bubble gum. Sounds revolting. Now when
>I was little they used to do really nice toothpaste-flavoured chewing
>gum. You could stick it on people's chairs. Wonderful stuff.

Yuck! And you think grape bubble gum is revolting?

fled...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Nov 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/10/98
to
In article <ORACII-1011...@maxreader.bsd.uchicago.edu>,
> --
> THE ABOVE E-MAIL ADDRESS ONLY ACCEPTS MAIL FROM FAMILY
> AND FRIENDS. TO E-MAIL ME, USE: dgorski[at]xsite[dot]net!
> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
> ORAC |"A statement of fact cannot be
> a.k.a. David Gorski | insolent." ORAC
> Chicago, IL |
>
I am in complete agreement with you.

Dan Parker

unread,
Nov 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/10/98
to
If you multiculturalists would bother to learn a little about the White
Nationalist movement, you would discover that we are not "losers." Nor are
economic considerations the movement's primary impetus--far from it.

Carolyn, your comment about blaming "jew bankers" shows that you fail to
grasp what White Nationalists are really saying about "jew bankers." Most
Europeans are--and, have been for centuries--less interested in pursuing
money for
money's sake. That is why we have this wonderfully rich culture spanning
several centuries and the Jews have a lot of money. Given that White
Europeans aren't interested in money to the extent that Jews are, makes us
easy targets to exploit, and the Jews always have, and probably always will
exploit us as long as they live among us. Henry Ford, Sr. said it best, I
think. Europeans are interested in making; Jews are interested in getting.
There is a great difference, and historically, the Jews finally come to
control such a vast portion of the national wealth that it causes problems.

If we all went for the shekels the way Jews do, our society would look like
a pack of wild dogs fighting over over every little bone. And Jews in our
midst only works for a relatively short time, before they've made such
enemies of the host population that something has to break.

I do not want to live in a materialistic society where everyone's an
economic unit and everyone's main goal is grubbing for shekels. Popular
culture, created by the Jewish media and entertainment industry, have
romaticized this lifestyle and it appeals to people when they are young. I
think most European Americans, however, as they mature, regain a healthier
attitude towards money.

There are a number of other very good reasons for disliking Jewish bankers.
I won't go into anymore of those here now, but if you're so interested in
economics, you should have some idea of what's going on with the IMF, the
World Bank and the WTO. You must know something about Wall Street too. And,
you must have some knowledge about the antitrust action against Microsoft.
The Jews can't stand that Gates has such a large share of a market that they
desperately want to control.

Gates is doing what he was born to do, and several off-the-rack CEO types
are trying to get the feds to force MS to give them a share of what he
earned fair and square. Most or all of these off-the-rack
"businessmen/women" have no business in the software industry. They're
selling Pepsi Colas one day and the next they're trying to run a software
company and when they don't do so well, they want Uncle Sam to step in and
take away from Gates and give to them. Now, that's a pathetic bunch of
losers.

Fortunately, the software industry, though not as pristine as it has been in
years gone by, is still largely unpolluted. Those of us who derive
satisfaction from designing and building a fine thing (software), who enjoy
"making" can still pursue that goal, because the "getters" cannot yet
succeed in this business to the degree that the "makers" can. However, the
getters are working around the clock and eventually, with the help of the
federal government, they will. Importing third worlders who are willing to
live 3 families to a single family house and work for $800/month are helping
the "getters" to corrupt the industry too.

But, I digress a bit too much. The White Nationalist Movement is not
composed of "losers" as you would like to think. Nor is it about racial
superiority. It's just biological that a healthy people prefer to be with
their own kind. Read Kipling's "The Stranger":

THE STRANGER

The stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk
I cannot feel his mind.
I see his face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.

The men of my own stock,
They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wonted to,
They are used to the lies I tell;
And we do not need interpreters
When we go to buy or sell.

The stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I can not tell what powers control
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.

The men of my own stock,
Bitter bad they may be,
But at least they hear the things I hear,
And see the things I see;
And what ever I think of them and their likes
They think of the likes of me.

This was my father's belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf
And the grapes be all one vine,

Ere our children's teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.

Rudyard Kipling 1865-1936

caro...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7275rv$e71$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...

Joel Rosenberg

unread,
Nov 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/10/98
to

Dan Parker wrote in message ...

>If you multiculturalists would bother to learn a little about the White
>Nationalist movement, you would discover that we are not "losers."

Nah, you aspire to be inbred, unbathed trailer trash.

caro...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Nov 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/11/98
to
Author's note: Please gentle readers do not be dismayed by the tone of my
missive, below. Although I always attempt to be the very voice of civility,
my many formal education and years of work experience tend to lend a sharper
edge to my responses to the financially ignorant.


In article <Ab222.128$eu1...@news6.ispnews.com>,


"Dan Parker" <dpa...@intrstar.net> wrote:
> If you multiculturalists would bother to learn a little about the White
> Nationalist movement, you would discover that we are not "losers." Nor are
> economic considerations the movement's primary impetus--far from it.

That's an interesting statement in light of the fact that most of the national
socialist rhetoric regarding immigration and jews relies heavily on economic
complaints.

> Carolyn, your comment about blaming "jew bankers" shows that you fail to
> grasp what White Nationalists are really saying about "jew bankers." Most
> Europeans are--and, have been for centuries--less interested in pursuing
> money for
> money's sake.

On what planet? Did you miss the entire industrial revolution? IT originated
in northern europe and the U.S. The Vanderbilts, Astors, Mellons, etc., were
the WASPiest of the WASPs. Adam Smith -- the wealth of nations -- was the
author of modern capitalism. The American revolution had more to do with
escaping the clutches of English mercantilism than anything else. The Boston
Tea Party, for god's sake, was a tax revolt.


>That is why we have this wonderfully rich culture spanning
> several centuries and the Jews have a lot of money. Given that White
> Europeans aren't interested in money to the extent that Jews are, makes us
> easy targets to exploit, and the Jews always have, and probably always will
> exploit us as long as they live among us.

Again, I find it an interesting contradiction in terms for "white
nationalists" to argue that the "white man" built our society out of some
sort of benevolent desire to better all mankind. White ROBBER BARRONS
exploited other white people as well as a whole host of folks to build their
fortunes. It wasn't Schlomo Ben' Jewman breaking the labor unions, it was
gold old fashion white folks....


>Henry Ford, Sr. said it best, I
> think. Europeans are interested in making; Jews are interested in getting.
> There is a great difference, and historically, the Jews finally come to
> control such a vast portion of the national wealth that it causes problems.

Ahhh, Henry Ford, one of them benevolent white men who built massive wealth
for his family on the backs of the poor --- Henry Ford who widely published
the VERY fictious "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" --- Henry Ford the self-
admitted anti-semite.


> If we all went for the shekels the way Jews do, our society would look like
> a pack of wild dogs fighting over over every little bone. And Jews in our
> midst only works for a relatively short time, before they've made such
> enemies of the host population that something has to break.

Economics, by definition, is the rational allocation of scarce resources
among unlimited wants. Unless you advocate complete elimination of free
markets, we will always be in competition for scarce resources. Even
socialists compete for them -- just far less efficiently. Jews do not have
any proprietary interest in greed. However, GREED, to quote the movie Wall
Street, is GOOD. That fight for the resources raises the standard of living
for society as a whole. INNOVATION is a direct result of entrepreneurs
fighting for thse shekels. Why is the U.S. the most productive country in
the world? We have the most open markets in the world.

> I do not want to live in a materialistic society where everyone's an
> economic unit and everyone's main goal is grubbing for shekels.

Try a buddhist monestary then, because the need to fill material needs
including food and shelter is an intrinsic part of the human psyche.

Popular
> culture, created by the Jewish media and entertainment industry, have
> romaticized this lifestyle and it appeals to people when they are young. I
> think most European Americans, however, as they mature, regain a healthier
> attitude towards money.

Is that why the AARP is the most powerful lobbying organization in the US?
What excactly do you think the AARP lobbies for? Their sole agenda is the
transfer of wealth from young, productive, working people to elderly, non-
productive people. SOCIAL SECURITY is wealfare for the WEALTHIEST portion of
our society -- the elderly. OLD PEOPLE are the true societal parasites.

> There are a number of other very good reasons for disliking Jewish bankers.
> I won't go into anymore of those here now, but if you're so interested in
> economics, you should have some idea of what's going on with the IMF, the
> World Bank and the WTO. You must know something about Wall Street too. And,
> you must have some knowledge about the antitrust action against Microsoft.
> The Jews can't stand that Gates has such a large share of a market that they
> desperately want to control.

Before I address the rather condescending tone of the paragraph above, lemme
tell ya little 'bout myself. I received my undergrad degrees (yes that's
plural) in Economics, French Language & Literature, and Mathematics in a
total of 3 years with a 3.5 GPA. I scored a 780 (out of 800) on the ECON
specific GRE exam along with 750 & 750 on the basic GREs. I turned down a
full teaching fellowship in Georgetown's Economics doctoral program to go to
work in the "real world" (economists are the only people in the unemployment
line who understand why they're there). Since then, I've earned an MBA from
the Wharton School as well as my CPA license. I've taught Intermediate Micro
and Macro Economic theory at the college level in my spare time. I currently
supervise a staff of finance and accounting staff on 4 continents for a
multinational high- tech manufacturing company.

Having said that...

You forgot to add "THE WORLD HAS GONE TO HELL SINCE WE WENT OFF THE GOLD
STANDARD." That usually follows the IMF is evil diatribe.

There are good arguments on both sides of the IMF/World Bank debate. The
issues are extremely complex. Currency arbitrage, hedging, etc., are too
complicated to discuss in this forum. Email me, and I'll go into in detail.

The people fighting Bill Gates are not Jews -- they are entrepreneurs who are
trying to compete with "Bill" on an even playing field. Unfortunately,
"Bill" has used not only illegal but immoral tactics to STIFFLE competition.
He has violated royalty agreements, used economic terrorism and pretty much
stolen whatever products he wants with virtual impunity. Let's take JAVA for
example-- license your competitor's sofware so you can get the code,
implement it as part of your operating system in a particular way so that
it's no longer multiplatorm as your competitor intended -then use your
monopoly power to force software developers to develop their applications so
it uses your bastardized version and cut your competitor out of the market.
It'll take time to litigate, but in time, you'll have put the competitor out
of business with the product you've stolen from him. THE BILL GATES WAY.


Gates basically admits that he's actively crushed competitors using monopoly
power. He's just contesting the legality. Not to mention that MS products
are complete crap. No, I'm not a mac head ... I'm a Sun worshiper.


>ndoing what he was born to do, and several off-the-rack CEO types


> are trying to get the feds to force MS to give them a share of what he
> earned fair and square. Most or all of these off-the-rack
> "businessmen/women" have no business in the software industry. They're
> selling Pepsi Colas one day and the next they're trying to run a software
> company and when they don't do so well, they want Uncle Sam to step in and
> take away from Gates and give to them. Now, that's a pathetic bunch of
> losers.

Um, no. Gates' real opponents are the entreprenuers that he's crushed or
tried to crush with his megalomania. Btw, I find it interesting that you're
holding Bill up as some sort of paragon after just getting done talking about
how white folk aren't interested in money. Do you think Bill's next billion
is his grocery money? What else is he accumulating money for at this point
other than money's sake? Oh, wait, could it be that he wants to control all
the information that people see? Bill does not act in the consumer's best
interest, he acts in Bill's self interest, never forget that.

> Fortunately, the software industry, though not as pristine as it has been in
> years gone by, is still largely unpolluted. Those of us who derive
> satisfaction from designing and building a fine thing (software), who enjoy
> "making" can still pursue that goal, because the "getters" cannot yet
> succeed in this business to the degree that the "makers" can. However, the

no, the software business is only the MOST cutthroat of all. Call the Santa
Clara county district attorney about some of the CRIMINAL software trade
secret theft cases he's prosecuting or has investigated (Hints: borland,
cadence). Publically traded companies, software or otherwise, are in business
for the sole purpose of creating and increasing shareholder value.

> getters are working around the clock and eventually, with the help of the
> federal government, they will. Importing third worlders who are willing to
> live 3 families to a single family house and work for $800/month are helping
> the "getters" to corrupt the industry too.

Most of those third worlder's are being imported to work in your industry for
big, big salaries. Know why? Americans suck at math and science. Companies
import software & hardware engineers at very high costs because they HAVE to.

Oh, and the "3 families to a single house....." is not just the same, tired,
'they're taking our jobs because they'll work for peanuts' argument? Again,
that economic angle.

> But, I digress a bit too much. The White Nationalist Movement is not
> composed of "losers" as you would like to think. Nor is it about racial
> superiority. It's just biological that a healthy people prefer to be with
> their own kind. Read Kipling's "The Stranger":

Honest, no offense intended, but if you are a representative voice of the
movement, it merely reinforces my belief that your movement is all about
scapegoats and laying blame off on other people. Such people, no matter how
accomplished otherwise, are losers in my opinion.

Carolyn

ORAC

unread,
Nov 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/11/98
to
In article <72bg2r$3im$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, caro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>In article <Ab222.128$eu1...@news6.ispnews.com>,
> "Dan Parker" <dpa...@intrstar.net> wrote:

[Snip]

>> But, I digress a bit too much. The White Nationalist Movement is not
>> composed of "losers" as you would like to think. Nor is it about racial
>> superiority. It's just biological that a healthy people prefer to be with
>> their own kind. Read Kipling's "The Stranger":
>
>Honest, no offense intended, but if you are a representative voice of the
>movement, it merely reinforces my belief that your movement is all about
>scapegoats and laying blame off on other people. Such people, no matter how
>accomplished otherwise, are losers in my opinion.

I couldn't have said it better myself. The very essence of white racism
(or racism of any kind) is to lay blame on another racial group for
perceived slights and injustices, whether real or imagined (and most are
imagined or, at the very least, exaggerated way out of proportion). Such
scapegoating serves many purposes: to make people feel better about
themselves by making them feel superior; to provide a justification for
poor treatment of a minority group; to justify war; and on and on...

It is equally fallacious for Parker and other white nationalists to claim
that the white nationalist movement is about basic biology, as their
understanding of biology is so flawed as to be laughable. Pick up the
October 23 issue of the journal SCIENCE and check out the article "DNA
Studies Challenge the Meaning of Race" by Eliot Marshall for a good basic
commentary on the subject that is accessible to the educated laymen.
Genetic diversity is a continuum, with no clear breaks delineating racial
groups. Any attempt to define race biologically is becoming increasingly
hard to defend, given the new evidence rolling in every year from analyses
of differences and similarities in the genetic makeup of different human
populations.Indeed, the American Anthropological Association urged the
government to do away with racial categories and, in political matters, to
let people define their own ethnicity. Recent studies are giving more and
more support for the theory that Homo sapiens originated in Africa and
colonized the world. This observation alone makes it pretty hard for any
white racist to argue that blacks are "inferior" to whites, given that
whites essentially descended from Africans.

I find it especially disingenuous of Mr. Parker to claim that the white
nationalist movement is not about racial superiority, when he has
regularly ranted about the "perfidious Jew" and how blacks are supposedly
less intelligent than whites. He could, of course, prove me wrong by
stating publicly that he does not believe that blacks are inferior to
whites and recanting his usual rants about the "perfidious Jew." However,
I doubt very much that he will take the opportunity to do so.

Cuddles

unread,
Nov 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/11/98
to
ORAC wrote:
>
> In article <72bg2r$3im$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, caro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >In article <Ab222.128$eu1...@news6.ispnews.com>,
> > "Dan Parker" <dpa...@intrstar.net> wrote:
>
> [Snip]

>
> >> But, I digress a bit too much. The White Nationalist Movement is not
> >> composed of "losers" as you would like to think. Nor is it about racial
> >> superiority. It's just biological that a healthy people prefer to be with
> >> their own kind. Read Kipling's "The Stranger":
> >
> >Honest, no offense intended, but if you are a representative voice of the
> >movement, it merely reinforces my belief that your movement is all about
> >scapegoats and laying blame off on other people. Such people, no matter how
> >accomplished otherwise, are losers in my opinion.
>
> I couldn't have said it better myself. The very essence of white racism
> (or racism of any kind) is to lay blame on another racial group for
> perceived slights and injustices, whether real or imagined (and most are
> imagined or, at the very least, exaggerated way out of proportion).

Nope. The very essence is love of one's own race and nation. Not because
of science, religion or any other contingency. It is no more justifiable
than love of one's wife, or of one's pet hamster, or of freedom or
democracy or any other 'ultimate' good thing in life.

>Such
> scapegoating serves many purposes: to make people feel better about
> themselves by making them feel superior; to provide a justification for
> poor treatment of a minority group; to justify war; and on and on...

That's just speculation. Any evidence?



> It is equally fallacious for Parker and other white nationalists to claim
> that the white nationalist movement is about basic biology, as their
> understanding of biology is so flawed as to be laughable. Pick up the
> October 23 issue of the journal SCIENCE and check out the article "DNA
> Studies Challenge the Meaning of Race" by Eliot Marshall for a good basic
> commentary on the subject that is accessible to the educated laymen.
> Genetic diversity is a continuum, with no clear breaks delineating racial
> groups. Any attempt to define race biologically is becoming increasingly
> hard to defend, given the new evidence rolling in every year from analyses
> of differences and similarities in the genetic makeup of different human
> populations.

Yup, but don't forget that we share over 90% of our genes with the
chimps. (In fact I seem to recall the figure was in the high nineties.)
Some seem to share more than others. In the world of genetics, a tiny
weeny difference can have a BIG effect. (Except in the case of Mr
Morris, who still retains dinosaur-like characteristics.)

> Indeed, the American Anthropological Association urged the
> government to do away with racial categories and, in political matters, to
> let people define their own ethnicity.

No problem with that. You can no more get a simple, universally agreed
definition of 'race' than you can of any other of these great political
words -- freedom (Berlin's essays on the subject just touch the
surface), democracy (Christophersen's 'The Meaning of Democracy' gives
over 40 meanings used between the French and Russian revolutions alone),
equality (of rights, before the law, in the sight of God, of outcome,
etc. etc.).

> Recent studies are giving more and
> more support for the theory that Homo sapiens originated in Africa and
> colonized the world.

Hey . . . they've been arguing that since I was an undergrad, 18 years
ago! Not so recent!

> This observation alone makes it pretty hard for any
> white racist to argue that blacks are "inferior" to whites, given that
> whites essentially descended from Africans.

Nooo. I suppose they could argue that we evolved faster than they did
(apart from Mr Morris who actually went backwards and became an amoeba).



> I find it especially disingenuous of Mr. Parker to claim that the white
> nationalist movement is not about racial superiority, when he has
> regularly ranted about the "perfidious Jew" and how blacks are supposedly
> less intelligent than whites.

Some basis for the intelligence argument. Last time I saw the debate,
which was admittedly over a decade ago, Eysenck and Jensen had some
pretty strong arguments. Be careful with that one, Mr G.

> He could, of course, prove me wrong by
> stating publicly that he does not believe that blacks are inferior to
> whites and recanting his usual rants about the "perfidious Jew." However,
> I doubt very much that he will take the opportunity to do so.

Well, that's for him to answer. I think that the terms 'inferior',
'superior' and 'equal' are meaningless unless you are talking about
inferiority, superiority and equality in some respect. You are doubtless
superior to me in your knowledge of medicine, but possibly inferior in
your knowledge of some other sphere. We are perhaps equal in our lack of
knowledge of Serbo-Croat grammar (although you might surprise me on that
one). I think a case can be made that blacks are, on average, less
'intelligent' than whites based on their performance on intelligence
tests. Whether the concept of intelligence has any ecological validity
(i.e. whether the famous 'g' factor is really there) is debated but the
last I saw of the debate old Hans Eysenck was dishing out some strong
arguments. Similarly, you can always find blacks at one end of the
distribution who outperform whites at the other end. However, you can
probably find chimpanzees at one end of the distribution who outperform
whites at the other end. It's an argument about averages.



> THE ABOVE E-MAIL ADDRESS ONLY ACCEPTS MAIL FROM FAMILY
> AND FRIENDS. TO E-MAIL ME, USE: dgorski[at]xsite[dot]net!
> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
> ORAC |"A statement of fact cannot be
> a.k.a. David Gorski | insolent." ORAC
> Chicago, IL |

Cuddles

Dan Parker

unread,
Nov 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/11/98
to

Joel Rosenberg wrote in message <72at6a$1p$1...@blackice.winternet.com>...

>
>Dan Parker wrote in message ...
>>If you multiculturalists would bother to learn a little about the White
>>Nationalist movement, you would discover that we are not "losers."
>
>Nah, you aspire to be inbred, unbathed trailer trash.


Tell me about it, Khazar. Your brood of vipers have only discovered the bath
after you came to America. Even so, many of you now still shy away from soap
and water. I know some Jews personally, and know from where I speak.

You've been a joke in Europe for centuries because of your fear of soap and
water.

Dan Parker

DeppityBob

unread,
Nov 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/12/98
to
WOW, and I mean WOW!!!! Two great posts in a row--Carolyn K and then David
Gorski!! Dang, you two make a GREAT tag team!! Enough that I am using up my
surplus supply of exclamation points to say so!! (!!!)

I must be serious--I have not seen more concise refutation of the
economic/racial "threat" that the White Power Rangers claim is going to gobble
up our futures. These two are much smarter than me, I fear. I am glad they're
on our side. :D

(waiting for the usual sexual innuendo and brownnosing insinuations from the
Deniers to start flowing in...)

ORAC

unread,
Nov 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/12/98
to
In article <19981112045932...@ng40.aol.com>,
deppi...@aol.com.org.net (DeppityBob) wrote:

>WOW, and I mean WOW!!!! Two great posts in a row--Carolyn K and then David
>Gorski!! Dang, you two make a GREAT tag team!! Enough that I am using up my
>surplus supply of exclamation points to say so!! (!!!)
>
>I must be serious--I have not seen more concise refutation of the
>economic/racial "threat" that the White Power Rangers claim is going to gobble
>up our futures. These two are much smarter than me, I fear. I am glad they're
>on our side. :D
>
>(waiting for the usual sexual innuendo and brownnosing insinuations from the
>Deniers to start flowing in...)

Be careful now. You wouldn't want me to get a swelled head, would you? :-)

--
ORA...@aol.com ACCEPTS E-MAIL ONLY FROM FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
TO REPLY TO THIS BY E-MAIL, USE dgorski(at)xsite(dot)net!
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
ORAC, a.k.a. David Gorski |"A statement of fact cannot be
Chicago, IL | insolent" ORAC

ORAC

unread,
Nov 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/12/98
to
In article <364A1D...@cableinet.co.uk>, Cud...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:

>ORAC wrote:
>>
>> I couldn't have said it better myself. The very essence of white racism
>> (or racism of any kind) is to lay blame on another racial group for
>> perceived slights and injustices, whether real or imagined (and most are
>> imagined or, at the very least, exaggerated way out of proportion).
>
>Nope. The very essence is love of one's own race and nation. Not because
>of science, religion or any other contingency. It is no more justifiable
>than love of one's wife, or of one's pet hamster, or of freedom or
>democracy or any other 'ultimate' good thing in life.

Perhaps you honestly do see it that way, although that remains to be seen.
Most white racists whose writings I've encountered or whom I have spoken
to in person, while very careful to try to cloak their racism in such
terms as "love" or "preference" of their own race actually tend to use the
"against" argument more than the "for" argument, hence the extreme
frequency of bile directed at Jews (for their supposed greed), blacks and
Hispanics (the "brown" hordes who are supposedly "threatening" American
society), and Asians.


>>Such
>> scapegoating serves many purposes: to make people feel better about
>> themselves by making them feel superior; to provide a justification for
>> poor treatment of a minority group; to justify war; and on and on...
>
>That's just speculation. Any evidence?

Actually, it's more of a conclusion I've reached after far too much white
nationalist and revisionist writings, both here here and on dozens of web
sites, and in various other forms (pamphlets, etc.).


>> It is equally fallacious for Parker and other white nationalists to claim
>> that the white nationalist movement is about basic biology, as their
>> understanding of biology is so flawed as to be laughable. Pick up the
>> October 23 issue of the journal SCIENCE and check out the article "DNA
>> Studies Challenge the Meaning of Race" by Eliot Marshall for a good basic
>> commentary on the subject that is accessible to the educated laymen.
>> Genetic diversity is a continuum, with no clear breaks delineating racial
>> groups. Any attempt to define race biologically is becoming increasingly
>> hard to defend, given the new evidence rolling in every year from analyses
>> of differences and similarities in the genetic makeup of different human
>> populations.
>
>Yup, but don't forget that we share over 90% of our genes with the
>chimps. (In fact I seem to recall the figure was in the high nineties.)
>Some seem to share more than others. In the world of genetics, a tiny
>weeny difference can have a BIG effect. (Except in the case of Mr
>Morris, who still retains dinosaur-like characteristics.)

Of course, you've missed my point; so I'll repeat it. While it is true
that humans share a large percentage of our genes with some primates, we
still represent a genetically distinct population when compared to them.
Unlike the genetic diversity observed between racial groups of humans, the
genetic diversity between humans and chimps is NOT an unbroken continuum
between humans and chimps. There is a definite clear break delineating the
two species. You can always tell the difference between a chimp and a
human and between chimp and human DNA (except perhaps in the case of Dan
Parker). Such is NOT the case with human races. Any "racial"
characteristic you care to name (skin color, eye shape, etc.) or
combination of such characteristics exists along an unbroken continuum.
Frequently it is difficult to tell with many people what "race" they
belong to. At the DNA level, it is frequently impossible to tell what race
they come from, even with extensive analysis.

We can go back to some very old biology, the very definition of species.
Nowadays, the definition of "species" is more frequently spoken of in
terms of genetically stable and distinct populations. However, prior to
all the lovely molecular biological tools we have now, one of the most
important parts of the definition of "species," at least in higher
vertebrates was that members of the same species can interbreed and
produce fertile offspring. (Indeed, I believe that this is still part of
the overall definition.) Members of different species cannot interbreed,
although some closely related species can produce infertile offspring
(such as mules from donkeys and horses). So, in comparing chimps and
humans you are comparing different species, not different races. For the
comparison to be valid you would have to be arguing that different human
races actually represent different species. Yet, as we all know, any
fertile human male of any race can hook up with any fertile human female
of another race and have a high probability of producing normal fertile
offspring. Indeed, wherever different "racial" populations of humans have
come in contact, there has been extensive interbreeding.

Humans, regardless of race, are all part of the same species whose genetic
diversity is such that the diversity attibutable to what we call "race" is
small in comparison to the overall diversity existing in the general
population at large, making biological arguments for racism weak at best
and ludicrous at worst.


>> Indeed, the American Anthropological Association urged the
>> government to do away with racial categories and, in political matters, to
>> let people define their own ethnicity.
>
>No problem with that. You can no more get a simple, universally agreed
>definition of 'race' than you can of any other of these great political
>words -- freedom (Berlin's essays on the subject just touch the
>surface), democracy (Christophersen's 'The Meaning of Democracy' gives
>over 40 meanings used between the French and Russian revolutions alone),
>equality (of rights, before the law, in the sight of God, of outcome,
>etc. etc.).

You appear to be conceding my viewpoint that race is primarily a
political, not a biological, concept. There may be hope for you yet.


>> Recent studies are giving more and
>> more support for the theory that Homo sapiens originated in Africa and
>> colonized the world.
>
>Hey . . . they've been arguing that since I was an undergrad, 18 years
>ago! Not so recent!

True enough. However, only in the last several years have they been
turning the tools of molecular biology on this question by examining gene
distributions in different populations. This new evidence tends to back up
the archaeological evidence used 20+ years ago for this point.


>> This observation alone makes it pretty hard for any
>> white racist to argue that blacks are "inferior" to whites, given that
>> whites essentially descended from Africans.
>
>Nooo. I suppose they could argue that we evolved faster than they did
>(apart from Mr Morris who actually went backwards and became an amoeba).

Of course, it all depends on what you mean by "evolved." Evolution does
not inexorably move towards more intelligent or creative creatures. It
moves towards species who are the fittest to survive in their environment.
In some cases, intelligence may be the most important determinant. In
others, not. For instance, zebra mussels, an unfortunate import to our
Great Lakes region, are supremely well evolved to survive in large
freshwater lakes. (That's why they've become such a problem and disrupted
the ecology here.) Yet no one would claim that they displaced native
species because they are more "intelligent."


>> I find it especially disingenuous of Mr. Parker to claim that the white
>> nationalist movement is not about racial superiority, when he has
>> regularly ranted about the "perfidious Jew" and how blacks are supposedly
>> less intelligent than whites.
>
>Some basis for the intelligence argument. Last time I saw the debate,
>which was admittedly over a decade ago, Eysenck and Jensen had some
>pretty strong arguments. Be careful with that one, Mr G.

We could rehash those arguments, although I usually have better things to
do with my Usenet time, which has become more limited recently. Most
studies purporting to demonstrate differences in IQ are fatally flawed in
one way or another. (This, of course, assumes that you accept the premise
that IQ is a valid measure of intelligence, as you point out below...)


>> He could, of course, prove me wrong by
>> stating publicly that he does not believe that blacks are inferior to
>> whites and recanting his usual rants about the "perfidious Jew." However,
>> I doubt very much that he will take the opportunity to do so.
>
>Well, that's for him to answer. I think that the terms 'inferior',
>'superior' and 'equal' are meaningless unless you are talking about
>inferiority, superiority and equality in some respect.

That's the first statement you've made that I can't argue with.


>You are doubtless
>superior to me in your knowledge of medicine, but possibly inferior in
>your knowledge of some other sphere.

What that sphere could be, I don't know. :-)


>We are perhaps equal in our lack of
>knowledge of Serbo-Croat grammar (although you might surprise me on that
>one). I think a case can be made that blacks are, on average, less
>'intelligent' than whites based on their performance on intelligence
>tests. Whether the concept of intelligence has any ecological validity
>(i.e. whether the famous 'g' factor is really there) is debated but the
>last I saw of the debate old Hans Eysenck was dishing out some strong
>arguments. Similarly, you can always find blacks at one end of the
>distribution who outperform whites at the other end. However, you can
>probably find chimpanzees at one end of the distribution who outperform
>whites at the other end. It's an argument about averages.

Indeed it is, but not just averages but variation around those averages
(the standard deviation, if you will). That's the problem. Variability
within populations is so large and measurements of "IQ" or "intelligence"
so easily affected by socioeconomic and cultural factors that it is
difficult to detect meaningful differences in intelligence between racial
groups, much less demonstrate that they are valid or attribute them to
racial differences.

--
ORA...@aol.com ACCEPTS E-MAIL ONLY FROM FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
TO REPLY TO THIS BY E-MAIL, USE dgorski(at)xsite(dot)net!
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

ORAC, a.k.a. David Gorski |"A statement of fact cannot be
Chicago, IL | insolent" ORAC

fled...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Nov 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/12/98
to
> ORAC wrote:
> >
> > In article <72bg2r$3im$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, caro...@my-dejanews.com
wrote:
> >
> > >In article <Ab222.128$eu1...@news6.ispnews.com>,
> > > "Dan Parker" <dpa...@intrstar.net> wrote:
> >
> > [Snip]
> >
> > >> But, I digress a bit too much. The White Nationalist Movement is not
> > >> composed of "losers" as you would like to think. Nor is it about racial
> > >> superiority. It's just biological that a healthy people prefer to be with
> > >> their own kind. Read Kipling's "The Stranger":
> > >
> > >Honest, no offense intended, but if you are a representative voice of the
> > >movement, it merely reinforces my belief that your movement is all about
> > >scapegoats and laying blame off on other people. Such people, no matter
how
> > >accomplished otherwise, are losers in my opinion.
> >
> > I couldn't have said it better myself. The very essence of white racism
> > (or racism of any kind) is to lay blame on another racial group for
> > perceived slights and injustices, whether real or imagined (and most are
> > imagined or, at the very least, exaggerated way out of proportion).
>
> Nope. The very essence is love of one's own race and nation. Not because
> of science, religion or any other contingency. It is no more justifiable
> than love of one's wife, or of one's pet hamster, or of freedom or
> democracy or any other 'ultimate' good thing in life.


Then why do 'white nationalists' spend so much time blaming blacks, Jews, and
non-whites in general for whatever has caused them to become bilious?

And one can justify love for one's wife (mutual emotional support, a sense
of completeness), love for one's pet hamster (the pleasure of unconditional
affection), love for democracy (the fact that each individual obtains a share
of political power), love of freedom (the fact that one gets to make one's own
choices) & other goods.

>
> >Such
> > scapegoating serves many purposes: to make people feel better about
> > themselves by making them feel superior; to provide a justification for
> > poor treatment of a minority group; to justify war; and on and on...
>
> That's just speculation. Any evidence?

_Mein Kampf_.

>
> > It is equally fallacious for Parker and other white nationalists to claim
> > that the white nationalist movement is about basic biology, as their
> > understanding of biology is so flawed as to be laughable. Pick up the
> > October 23 issue of the journal SCIENCE and check out the article "DNA
> > Studies Challenge the Meaning of Race" by Eliot Marshall for a good basic
> > commentary on the subject that is accessible to the educated laymen.
> > Genetic diversity is a continuum, with no clear breaks delineating racial
> > groups. Any attempt to define race biologically is becoming increasingly
> > hard to defend, given the new evidence rolling in every year from analyses
> > of differences and similarities in the genetic makeup of different human
> > populations.
>
> Yup, but don't forget that we share over 90% of our genes with the
> chimps. (In fact I seem to recall the figure was in the high nineties.)
> Some seem to share more than others. In the world of genetics, a tiny
> weeny difference can have a BIG effect. (Except in the case of Mr
> Morris, who still retains dinosaur-like characteristics.)

And your point is?

>
> > Indeed, the American Anthropological Association urged the
> > government to do away with racial categories and, in political matters, to
> > let people define their own ethnicity.
>
> No problem with that. You can no more get a simple, universally agreed
> definition of 'race' than you can of any other of these great political
> words -- freedom (Berlin's essays on the subject just touch the
> surface), democracy (Christophersen's 'The Meaning of Democracy' gives
> over 40 meanings used between the French and Russian revolutions alone),
> equality (of rights, before the law, in the sight of God, of outcome,
> etc. etc.).

Your point being?


>
> > Recent studies are giving more and
> > more support for the theory that Homo sapiens originated in Africa and
> > colonized the world.
>
> Hey . . . they've been arguing that since I was an undergrad, 18 years
> ago! Not so recent!

Hmm. You do recognise that there's a difference between _studies_ and
_arguing_, don't you?

>
> > This observation alone makes it pretty hard for any
> > white racist to argue that blacks are "inferior" to whites, given that
> > whites essentially descended from Africans.
>
> Nooo. I suppose they could argue that we evolved faster than they did
> (apart from Mr Morris who actually went backwards and became an amoeba).


Can you provide support for this supposition?

>
> > I find it especially disingenuous of Mr. Parker to claim that the white
> > nationalist movement is not about racial superiority, when he has
> > regularly ranted about the "perfidious Jew" and how blacks are supposedly
> > less intelligent than whites.
>
> Some basis for the intelligence argument. Last time I saw the debate,
> which was admittedly over a decade ago, Eysenck and Jensen had some
> pretty strong arguments. Be careful with that one, Mr G.


Perhaps you should look at both sides of the debate, and some more recent
literature.

>
> > He could, of course, prove me wrong by
> > stating publicly that he does not believe that blacks are inferior to
> > whites and recanting his usual rants about the "perfidious Jew." However,
> > I doubt very much that he will take the opportunity to do so.
>
> Well, that's for him to answer. I think that the terms 'inferior',
> 'superior' and 'equal' are meaningless unless you are talking about
> inferiority, superiority and equality in some respect. You are doubtless


Ah, the fallacy of the overwhelming exception.

> superior to me in your knowledge of medicine, but possibly inferior in
> your knowledge of some other sphere. We are perhaps equal in our lack of
> knowledge of Serbo-Croat grammar (although you might surprise me on that
> one). I think a case can be made that blacks are, on average, less
> 'intelligent' than whites based on their performance on intelligence
> tests. Whether the concept of intelligence has any ecological validity
> (i.e. whether the famous 'g' factor is really there) is debated but the
> last I saw of the debate old Hans Eysenck was dishing out some strong
> arguments. Similarly, you can always find blacks at one end of the
> distribution who outperform whites at the other end. However, you can
> probably find chimpanzees at one end of the distribution who outperform
> whites at the other end. It's an argument about averages.


Perhaps you could provide some data?

--
Fragano Ledgister @ Dejanews
Xa van salindo as estrelas...

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

caro...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Nov 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/12/98
to
Thanks for your praise. I should however, qualify my statement that "OLD
PEOPLE" are the true societal parasites.... I stated as strongly as I did to
make a point. I can make a far stronger argument that elderly people will be
the demise of U.S. economic security than I can illegal immigrants or "jew
bankers".

Carolyn


In article <19981112045932...@ng40.aol.com>,
deppi...@aol.com.org.net (DeppityBob) wrote:
> WOW, and I mean WOW!!!! Two great posts in a row--Carolyn K and then David
> Gorski!! Dang, you two make a GREAT tag team!! Enough that I am using up my
> surplus supply of exclamation points to say so!! (!!!)
>
> I must be serious--I have not seen more concise refutation of the
> economic/racial "threat" that the White Power Rangers claim is going to gobble
> up our futures. These two are much smarter than me, I fear. I am glad they're
> on our side. :D
>
> (waiting for the usual sexual innuendo and brownnosing insinuations from the
> Deniers to start flowing in...)
>

> Dep
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "Always tell the truth. It's the easiest thing to remember."
> --David Mamet
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

Cuddles

unread,
Nov 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/13/98
to

ORAC wrote:

> In article <364A1D...@cableinet.co.uk>, Cud...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:
>
> >ORAC wrote:
> >>
> >> I couldn't have said it better myself. The very essence of white racism
> >> (or racism of any kind) is to lay blame on another racial group for
> >> perceived slights and injustices, whether real or imagined (and most are
> >> imagined or, at the very least, exaggerated way out of proportion).
> >
> >Nope. The very essence is love of one's own race and nation. Not because
> >of science, religion or any other contingency. It is no more justifiable
> >than love of one's wife, or of one's pet hamster, or of freedom or
> >democracy or any other 'ultimate' good thing in life.
>
> Perhaps you honestly do see it that way, although that remains to be seen.

Yup. I don't feel hatred against anyone really, not on racial grounds. I feel
very angry at the behaviour of certain politicians but one can hardly blame the
blacks for taking advantage of opportunities presented to them.

> Most white racists whose writings I've encountered or whom I have spoken
> to in person, while very careful to try to cloak their racism in such
> terms as "love" or "preference" of their own race actually tend to use the
> "against" argument more than the "for" argument, hence the extreme
> frequency of bile directed at Jews (for their supposed greed), blacks and
> Hispanics (the "brown" hordes who are supposedly "threatening" American
> society), and Asians.

Well I think most politicians in a position of opposition use 'against' arguments
rather than 'for' arguments. That's politics. The truth is that different
individuals and political groups have differing motivations. In Britain and
America there is a lot of resentment. Here, within the space of half a century,
these islands have been transformed from a racially homogeneous country to a
place where 20% of all pre-school children are of 'mixed' descent. In order to
effect this transformation, cherished rights have been trampled underfoot. This
began as early as 1936, with the notorious Public Order Act 1936 (brought in to
silence Mosley and applied vigorously in later years) but it increased
exponentially with the Race Relations Act 1976, and more recently the Criminal
Justice and Public Order Act 1994. These Acts make it illegal for us to dress in
certain ways, to demonstrate if anyone is likely to oppose us, to publish
material that is 'likely' to incite 'racial hatred' (even if what is said is true
-- cf. R. v Pearce) or even to possess such material, to sell our house to
whomsoever we wish (cf. R. v Relph), and generally restrict our traditional
common law rights to carry out the sort of political activities regarded as
normal by other political parties. The British Nationality Act introduced shortly
after the war (1946 or 1948?) gave notional British citizenship to one third of
the world's population, and many of them came here, completely transforming many
British cities -- parts of London, Leicester and Bradford, for example, are no
longer English at all. Yet when we attempt to protest through normal political
channels what happens? The media adopt a 'non racist' policy that immediately
denies us any platform. Councils up and down the land ban us from using public
halls for our meetings, even though we pay for those halls through our council
taxes. Is it surprising, under these circumstances, that nationalists here are
very, very angry people? And is it surprising that some nationalists -- not the
smarter ones, but those who bear the brunt of the repression and the
transformation -- blame the Jews and the blacks for creating this situation?

Yet we should not lose sight of the fact that in other countries, with perhaps
greater tolerance for nationalism, much more positive forms of nationalism and
racism do exist. In South Africa, for example, I was struck by the difference in
approach between the Konserwatiewe Partie and the British and American
nationalist groups. The KP is a deeply Christian organisation -- it even begins
its meetings with prayers, which is quite unthinkable in Britain -- and it has a
slogan, later adopted by the Afrikaner Volksfront (AVF), of 'gee elke volk sy eie
land' ('give each people its own land'). It is this positive nationalism,
emphasizing the autonomy of EACH people that enabled the AVF to combine with
Inkatha and the homelands of Ciskei and Bophuthatswana to create the Concerned
South Africans Group (COSAG) -- an alliance of black and white nationalists
opposed to De Klerk and Mandela's informal alliance in the days preceding the
1994 handover of power. People who refer to the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging
(AWB) as a 'neo-nazi' group often forget how, when a Zulu hostel alligned with
Inkatha was beseiged by angry ANC mobsters, the AWB delivered much needed
provisions to it and there were photographs of leading AWB men shaking hands with
grateful Zulu leaders. Here in Britain I was interested to note how black racial
nationalists came to the aid of the BNP's Nick Griffin at his recent trial and
their glowing testimony about his character greatly impressed the judge by all
accounts. The photograph of Nick shaking the hands of these black men did much to
undermine the myth that racialism is about hating members of other races. I for
one would like to see much more of this sort of thing. It will give the
Establishment propagandists a BIG headache.

> >>Such
> >> scapegoating serves many purposes: to make people feel better about
> >> themselves by making them feel superior; to provide a justification for
> >> poor treatment of a minority group; to justify war; and on and on...
> >
> >That's just speculation. Any evidence?
>
> Actually, it's more of a conclusion I've reached after far too much white
> nationalist and revisionist writings, both here here and on dozens of web
> sites, and in various other forms (pamphlets, etc.).

I certainly don't think that it makes people feel better about themselves. I've
been in the nationalist movement for 20 years now and one thing that has struck
me is the sheer psychological pressure that nationalists are placed under. They
have few political rights, they are abused, ridiculed, discriminated against,
fired from their jobs, physically attacked . . . Almost every time they turn on
the television they see propaganda being made against them, yet they hardly ever
get the chance to answer back. And while they have to endure this, they also have
to witness the continued destruction of the race and nation they love. This, in
my humble view, is why you get so much infighting, so much gloom and doom and
general depression. Fortunately my sense of humour and my total contempt for the
opposition keep me going, but a lot of people drop out fairly quickly because of
the general pressure.

Of course, I am sure that it's a very different situation when nationalism is
ascending.

Yup.

> Frequently it is difficult to tell with many people what "race" they
> belong to. At the DNA level, it is frequently impossible to tell what race
> they come from, even with extensive analysis.
>

It is indeed a continuum. Or a series of continums (continua?). The ends are very
distinct but in the middle you get debatable cases. However, if you plot each
continuum on an x axis, and number of people at each point on the continuum on
the y axis, you don't get normal distributions. Most people are quite distinctly
one race or another. The 'difficult to decide' cases are still in the minority.
Which is interesting given the length of time we've been here on the planet.

> We can go back to some very old biology, the very definition of species.
> Nowadays, the definition of "species" is more frequently spoken of in
> terms of genetically stable and distinct populations. However, prior to
> all the lovely molecular biological tools we have now, one of the most
> important parts of the definition of "species," at least in higher
> vertebrates was that members of the same species can interbreed and
> produce fertile offspring. (Indeed, I believe that this is still part of
> the overall definition.) Members of different species cannot interbreed,
> although some closely related species can produce infertile offspring
> (such as mules from donkeys and horses). So, in comparing chimps and
> humans you are comparing different species, not different races. For the
> comparison to be valid you would have to be arguing that different human
> races actually represent different species. Yet, as we all know, any
> fertile human male of any race can hook up with any fertile human female
> of another race and have a high probability of producing normal fertile
> offspring. Indeed, wherever different "racial" populations of humans have
> come in contact, there has been extensive interbreeding.

You're on dangerous ground there, Mr G. I think the 'genetically stable and
distinct' definition of a species is safe, but all this stuff about interbreeding
can lead to some strange conclusions. Are we to say that lions and tigers are the
same species because they can interbreed and have interbred? Are we to say that
people who suffer from genetic disorders (is Down syndrome a case in point?) that
prevent them from interbreeding with normal humans are therefore not human? And
is it not the case that specification is a gradual process: members of one
species that become geographically isolated can evolve in different ways until
they lose their ability to interbreed.

> Humans, regardless of race, are all part of the same species whose genetic
> diversity is such that the diversity attibutable to what we call "race" is
> small in comparison to the overall diversity existing in the general
> population at large, making biological arguments for racism weak at best
> and ludicrous at worst.

No. I think you can establish that a race is not a species. I think even fairly
hard-nosed biological racists would go along with that. Their main point is that
there are substantial and socially relevant biological differences between (some)
members of different races. I think that this argument is neither necessary nor
sufficient to justify racial nationalism (and I once got myself into deep trouble
by articulating such a view in the presence of one of Britain's leading exponents
of the biological brand of racism) -- it's essentially a reaction against the
'all races are equal' and 'there are no differences between the races' nonsense
that we get regularly from Establishment propagandists.

> >> Indeed, the American Anthropological Association urged the
> >> government to do away with racial categories and, in political matters, to
> >> let people define their own ethnicity.
> >
> >No problem with that. You can no more get a simple, universally agreed
> >definition of 'race' than you can of any other of these great political
> >words -- freedom (Berlin's essays on the subject just touch the
> >surface), democracy (Christophersen's 'The Meaning of Democracy' gives
> >over 40 meanings used between the French and Russian revolutions alone),
> >equality (of rights, before the law, in the sight of God, of outcome,
> >etc. etc.).
>
> You appear to be conceding my viewpoint that race is primarily a
> political, not a biological, concept. There may be hope for you yet.

I concede your view that the boundaries between races are continuous, although
with the bulk of members of each race at different ends of the continua
(continuums?) (hang on -- I'm going to look it up) (ok, it can be either
continuums or continua). The concept is both biological (insofar as it takes
cognisance of biological characteristics) and political (insofar as it attaches
political significance to those characteristics).

> >> Recent studies are giving more and
> >> more support for the theory that Homo sapiens originated in Africa and
> >> colonized the world.
> >
> >Hey . . . they've been arguing that since I was an undergrad, 18 years
> >ago! Not so recent!
>
> True enough. However, only in the last several years have they been
> turning the tools of molecular biology on this question by examining gene
> distributions in different populations. This new evidence tends to back up
> the archaeological evidence used 20+ years ago for this point.

Interesting.

> >> This observation alone makes it pretty hard for any
> >> white racist to argue that blacks are "inferior" to whites, given that
> >> whites essentially descended from Africans.
> >
> >Nooo. I suppose they could argue that we evolved faster than they did
> >(apart from Mr Morris who actually went backwards and became an amoeba).
>
> Of course, it all depends on what you mean by "evolved." Evolution does
> not inexorably move towards more intelligent or creative creatures. It
> moves towards species who are the fittest to survive in their environment.
> In some cases, intelligence may be the most important determinant. In
> others, not. For instance, zebra mussels, an unfortunate import to our
> Great Lakes region, are supremely well evolved to survive in large
> freshwater lakes. (That's why they've become such a problem and disrupted
> the ecology here.) Yet no one would claim that they displaced native
> species because they are more "intelligent."

Yes, I think that Africa and Europe place different 'survival' demands so it is
hardly surprising that the inhabitants should have evolved different
characteristics. In Africa you get a hot sun, so the skin needs different
pigmentation. There are different resources, different threats, etc. Different
skills are needed. We've not had hunter-gatherer societies in England for
centuries, if at all, but they still exist in Africa. It would not be surprising
if the Africans evolved for speed and strength, whereas Europeans evolved the
characteristics necessary to survive in a more industrialised, socially complex
environment.

> >> I find it especially disingenuous of Mr. Parker to claim that the white
> >> nationalist movement is not about racial superiority, when he has
> >> regularly ranted about the "perfidious Jew" and how blacks are supposedly
> >> less intelligent than whites.
> >
> >Some basis for the intelligence argument. Last time I saw the debate,
> >which was admittedly over a decade ago, Eysenck and Jensen had some
> >pretty strong arguments. Be careful with that one, Mr G.
>
> We could rehash those arguments, although I usually have better things to
> do with my Usenet time, which has become more limited recently. Most
> studies purporting to demonstrate differences in IQ are fatally flawed in
> one way or another. (This, of course, assumes that you accept the premise
> that IQ is a valid measure of intelligence, as you point out below...)

The ones I have in mind -- and its years ago since I read this stuff so excuse my
vagueness -- worked by measuring some sort of electrical characteristic of the
brain, presumably using EEG or some similar technique. It seems that there were
marked differences between races, with white brains doing whatever they did much
faster than black ones.

> >> He could, of course, prove me wrong by
> >> stating publicly that he does not believe that blacks are inferior to
> >> whites and recanting his usual rants about the "perfidious Jew." However,
> >> I doubt very much that he will take the opportunity to do so.
> >
> >Well, that's for him to answer. I think that the terms 'inferior',
> >'superior' and 'equal' are meaningless unless you are talking about
> >inferiority, superiority and equality in some respect.
>
> That's the first statement you've made that I can't argue with.
>

Political debate is at its most useful when it establishes common ground between
opponents.

> >You are doubtless
> >superior to me in your knowledge of medicine, but possibly inferior in
> >your knowledge of some other sphere.
>
> What that sphere could be, I don't know. :-)

There are few people on this earth, Mr G, who know how to make a more yummy
macaroni cheese than me! :)

> >We are perhaps equal in our lack of
> >knowledge of Serbo-Croat grammar (although you might surprise me on that
> >one). I think a case can be made that blacks are, on average, less
> >'intelligent' than whites based on their performance on intelligence
> >tests. Whether the concept of intelligence has any ecological validity
> >(i.e. whether the famous 'g' factor is really there) is debated but the
> >last I saw of the debate old Hans Eysenck was dishing out some strong
> >arguments. Similarly, you can always find blacks at one end of the
> >distribution who outperform whites at the other end. However, you can
> >probably find chimpanzees at one end of the distribution who outperform
> >whites at the other end. It's an argument about averages.
>
> Indeed it is, but not just averages but variation around those averages
> (the standard deviation, if you will). That's the problem. Variability
> within populations is so large and measurements of "IQ" or "intelligence"
> so easily affected by socioeconomic and cultural factors that it is
> difficult to detect meaningful differences in intelligence between racial
> groups, much less demonstrate that they are valid or attribute them to
> racial differences.

Possibly. I don't know what the SDs are.

> --
> ORA...@aol.com ACCEPTS E-MAIL ONLY FROM FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
> TO REPLY TO THIS BY E-MAIL, USE dgorski(at)xsite(dot)net!
> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
> ORAC, a.k.a. David Gorski |"A statement of fact cannot be
> Chicago, IL | insolent" ORAC

Cuddles

Cuddles

unread,
Nov 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/13/98
to

How much time do they spend? Provide some data.



> And one can justify love for one's wife (mutual emotional support, a sense
> of completeness), love for one's pet hamster (the pleasure of unconditional
> affection), love for democracy (the fact that each individual obtains a share
> of political power), love of freedom (the fact that one gets to make one's own
> choices) & other goods.
>
> >
> > >Such
> > > scapegoating serves many purposes: to make people feel better about
> > > themselves by making them feel superior; to provide a justification for
> > > poor treatment of a minority group; to justify war; and on and on...
> >
> > That's just speculation. Any evidence?
>
> _Mein Kampf_.

Quotation?

> > > It is equally fallacious for Parker and other white nationalists to claim
> > > that the white nationalist movement is about basic biology, as their
> > > understanding of biology is so flawed as to be laughable. Pick up the
> > > October 23 issue of the journal SCIENCE and check out the article "DNA
> > > Studies Challenge the Meaning of Race" by Eliot Marshall for a good basic
> > > commentary on the subject that is accessible to the educated laymen.
> > > Genetic diversity is a continuum, with no clear breaks delineating racial
> > > groups. Any attempt to define race biologically is becoming increasingly
> > > hard to defend, given the new evidence rolling in every year from analyses
> > > of differences and similarities in the genetic makeup of different human
> > > populations.
> >
> > Yup, but don't forget that we share over 90% of our genes with the
> > chimps. (In fact I seem to recall the figure was in the high nineties.)
> > Some seem to share more than others. In the world of genetics, a tiny
> > weeny difference can have a BIG effect. (Except in the case of Mr
> > Morris, who still retains dinosaur-like characteristics.)
>
> And your point is?

A good one.



> >
> > > Indeed, the American Anthropological Association urged the
> > > government to do away with racial categories and, in political matters, to
> > > let people define their own ethnicity.
> >
> > No problem with that. You can no more get a simple, universally agreed
> > definition of 'race' than you can of any other of these great political
> > words -- freedom (Berlin's essays on the subject just touch the
> > surface), democracy (Christophersen's 'The Meaning of Democracy' gives
> > over 40 meanings used between the French and Russian revolutions alone),
> > equality (of rights, before the law, in the sight of God, of outcome,
> > etc. etc.).
>
> Your point being?

Excellent as always.

> >
> > > Recent studies are giving more and
> > > more support for the theory that Homo sapiens originated in Africa and
> > > colonized the world.
> >
> > Hey . . . they've been arguing that since I was an undergrad, 18 years
> > ago! Not so recent!
>
> Hmm. You do recognise that there's a difference between _studies_ and
> _arguing_, don't you?

Your point being?



> >
> > > This observation alone makes it pretty hard for any
> > > white racist to argue that blacks are "inferior" to whites, given that
> > > whites essentially descended from Africans.
> >
> > Nooo. I suppose they could argue that we evolved faster than they did
> > (apart from Mr Morris who actually went backwards and became an amoeba).
>
> Can you provide support for this supposition?

Could anything other than an amoeba come up with a concept like
'Anglo-American common law' and then apply it to, inter alia, 'crimes'
allegedly committed in Russia?



> > > I find it especially disingenuous of Mr. Parker to claim that the white
> > > nationalist movement is not about racial superiority, when he has
> > > regularly ranted about the "perfidious Jew" and how blacks are supposedly
> > > less intelligent than whites.
> >
> > Some basis for the intelligence argument. Last time I saw the debate,
> > which was admittedly over a decade ago, Eysenck and Jensen had some
> > pretty strong arguments. Be careful with that one, Mr G.
>
> Perhaps you should look at both sides of the debate, and some more recent
> literature.

Such as? Please cite author, journal, article title and page number.



> > > He could, of course, prove me wrong by
> > > stating publicly that he does not believe that blacks are inferior to
> > > whites and recanting his usual rants about the "perfidious Jew." However,
> > > I doubt very much that he will take the opportunity to do so.
> >
> > Well, that's for him to answer. I think that the terms 'inferior',
> > 'superior' and 'equal' are meaningless unless you are talking about
> > inferiority, superiority and equality in some respect. You are doubtless
>
> Ah, the fallacy of the overwhelming exception.

Your point being?



> > superior to me in your knowledge of medicine, but possibly inferior in
> > your knowledge of some other sphere. We are perhaps equal in our lack of
> > knowledge of Serbo-Croat grammar (although you might surprise me on that
> > one). I think a case can be made that blacks are, on average, less
> > 'intelligent' than whites based on their performance on intelligence
> > tests. Whether the concept of intelligence has any ecological validity
> > (i.e. whether the famous 'g' factor is really there) is debated but the
> > last I saw of the debate old Hans Eysenck was dishing out some strong
> > arguments. Similarly, you can always find blacks at one end of the
> > distribution who outperform whites at the other end. However, you can
> > probably find chimpanzees at one end of the distribution who outperform
> > whites at the other end. It's an argument about averages.
>
> Perhaps you could provide some data?

The good thing about the Nizkor debating style is that it really does
lend itself to parody.

> --
> Fragano Ledgister @ Dejanews
> Xa van salindo as estrelas...

Is that Esperanto?



> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Cuddles


caro...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Nov 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/13/98
to
Thanks to Dep for emailing Mr. Phillips post to me. Neither Dejanews nor my
ISP seem to have it. My ISP's newsserver (where I typically read news) is
crap, so if you address a post to me and would like a response, please copy
me in E- mail.

First, Mr. Phillips completely misses my point. I will argue until I go to
my very grave that financial failure does not make someone a loser; however,
blaming others for that failure does. We americans as a society live so far
above the subsistence level that it's non-sensical to argue that joe schmoe
homeowner with 2 kids and a mortgage is at the mercy of outside forces with
no control over his own destiny. It's all about choices -- choices beginning
with how many children we chose to bring into this world. The problem with
American's is that we see cars, VCRs, TVs, Computers, etc., as requirements.
They're not -- they're luxaries. Believe it or not, people could cook before
microwave ovens. It's all about choices. Arguing that if the queen had
balls she'd be a king with regard to economics is ridiculous because the
queen did not chose her genitalia. A "poor working stiff" does choose how
many children he will bear and raise, and he does choose his home and the
contents thereof, etc.

Mr. Phillips and I are never going to agree, and I suppose I could spend the
next several hours pulling sources and posting a point by point refutation of
Mr. Phillips arguments, below. I can (and have during my caffeine and
nicotine enhanced -- up for 48 hours straight in the coffee house days) argue
macro economic theory until the cows come home. Unfortunately (or
fortunately), I've quit smoking (4 weeks now) and I have a conference call
with my staff in China and Australia in 4 hours, so I'll be somewhat brief
and general. I need at least a couple of hours of sleep.

Mr. Phillips makes a compelling argument, doesn't he? Gosh, those immigrants
are taking JOBS and the poor white american is out on his butt, ruin, ruin,
ruin, is coming..... Unfortunately, Mr. Phillips is merely regurgitating
arguments made by racists and protectionists who either knowingly or
unkowingly present present very complex issues in very simple and misleading
terms. There is a FATAL flaw to Mr. Phillips' entire (derivative) argument.
It's actually the most difficult problem most economics students must
overcome when moving past Econ 101 (simple supply and demand) to higher level
theory. It's the assumption that economic actions occur in some sort of
vacuum.

Just a quick example: Those meatpacking plants that imported cheap mexican
labor... Well, by keeping costs down that meatpacking company can maintain
lower prices and still remain profitable... or (and I know the next part
-"they wont lower prices, them greedy bastards just pocket the profits") by
adding to profits they (if privately owned) or their shareholders have
increased wealth which gets plowed back into the economy either through
expenditures or through investement. Both expenditures and investment feed
out into the economy causing more expenditures and more investment, and so
on, and so on. What happens to those displaced "white" workers? Are they
all still unemployed? No, they've moved into other positions with other
companies which have start-up capital from some of the invenstment or
expenditures fed back into the economy. This is a very simplistic
representation, and people write doctoral disertations and masters theses on
the subject; however, the principal holds true -- the economy is not a
vacuum. The proponents of Mr. Phillips argument typically attempt to refute
what I've just stated by arguing that the quality of jobs has decreased, that
real wages have not increased, and by outright ignoring the fatal flaw in
their argument. (can you guess I've had this discussion before? almost
always with someone who's "read" Lyndon Larouche or Pat Buchanon literature
but has never cracked open an econ textbook much less done any original
research).

Fine, Let's first tackle the assumption that jobs can be differentiated by
"quality." White supremisists often put forward that "aryans" have
traditionally pursued "good" jobs, jobs that "create" something tangible:
ie., farming, factory work, etc. How does one judge the value of an
occupation? If a factory worker's appendix bursts and a doctor saves his
life, are the doctor's efforts any less valuable than the factory worker's?
All these people who have a romantic notion that the noble factory worker is
somehow morally superior to the wall street banker ignore the fact that the
factory was built with capital raised by an initial public stock offering
brokered by the wall street banker. Would the factory exist without the
banker? No. Would the banker's job exist if there weren't factory workers
willing to purchase goods manufactured in the new facility? no. There is an
inherent symbiosis amongst all participants in an economy. It's impossible
to make moral value judgements between positions.

Is the US economy less industrial than it was 50 years ago? Certainly. Is
this a bad thing? Not necessarily. Was it bad when our economy evolved from
primarily agrarian to industrial? I can (and have) argued both sides. The
point is, making value judgements regarding "good" and "bad" occupations
makes no sense. I grew up in a steel town in Pennsylvania. My father worked
for a steel company and lost his job in the late 80's. I've heard the
complaints from my fathers friends and coworkers. The "community" has
changed vastly -- it could even be argued it was "destroyed" in Mr. Phillips
parlance. Where are all the people who used to be there? They've moved on
to other communities. Again, the world is not static, and the value of any
individual community is immaterial. Over a period of time, communities
always evolve, change, and even cease to exist. A cataclysmic economic event
may cause more rapid change; however, change is inevitable.

Why do planned economies fail to perform in the way that planners envision?
Planned economies depend on fallable human beings ability to predict and
compensate for all the consequences of each and every economic action. This
is very ineffecient in comparison to the free market which is regulated by
supply and demand not only at the micro-economic level but at the macro
(within a country) and international level.

Fundamentally, however, Mr. Phillips openly states out that no matter what he
doesn't want any more non-whites in America. The economic arguments are
merely a way of attempting to present a rational face to the racist argument.
Play on peoples' fears and perhaps they'll come around to your way of
thinking. He's simply proved my point that racists make disingenuous
economic arguments to support what is an essentially irrational fear and
hatred others.

Last note, I've spent more time with this than I had intended, but I'll ask a
simple question....

Who in the world taught you that you are somehow entitled to happiness and
fulfillment? Who promised you that job for life? Who told you that life
should be easy?

Sometimes, no matter how hard you try, no matter well you plan, things do not
work out because some choice you make somewhere along the way is sub-optimal.
The measure of a man is how he accepts failure. If he blames others for his
failure or more precisely fails to recognize that his choices facilitated the
failure, then he is the very definition of a loser. It's not about dollar
signs, it's about CHARACTER.

Carolyn

ps. damn, that conference call is now in 3 1/2 hours....

Subject: Phillips & carolynk. More about more about losers.
From: "Richard G. Phillips" <rgp...@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, Nov 13, 1998 2:00 AM

Message-id: <364B92CC...@earthlink.net>


(Snipped my original post in it's entirety -- no use to waste bandwidth)

(1)

carolynk
--------


Any man (I'll use the literary masculine to include both men and women
throughout this post)who blames his personal economic woes on another is
by
the verydefinition of the word a loser. Whether black, white, yellow,
pink
or green the man who blames another fails to take personal
responsibility for
his own actions.

------------------
Phillips
--------
Do I understand you to say that under no circumstances can one lose
one's job because of the actions of another. Have you heard of the
creatures called bosses. Were you aware that bosses can fire you for any
of an enormoous number of reasons: for incompetence, for
insubordination, and perhaps for other reasons less justifiable.
Reasons like: you don't fully support his values, you are not
sufficiently respectful and subservient, you are TOO comnpetent and
therefore a threat to him, he has a friend he wants to put in your
place. Oh, the possible reasons are legion. I go to these lengths to
try and convince you that, no matter what you say, it is entirely
possible for you to be deprived of your livelihood by the decision of
another. Indeed, it happens hundreds of times every day.

Bankers? Are you aware that every time a banker (Jew or Aryan) decides
not to extend a line of credit to a small struggling firm, it could very
well be the end of that firm. Happens every day. Are you aware that the
Jew Banker Greenspan can, by doing nothing more than upping the
rediscount rate by a fraction of a percent, tighten the money supply to
a degree that can put hundreds of companies out of business? Perhaps you
were not. Were you also aware that this is precisely what triggered the
great depression of the 1930s: the Federal Reserve Board tightened up
the rediscount rate. that was all that was needed. And have you heard
of the shadowy group of men called the Bilderbergers. I'll relate the
little I know. Every year a small group of the most powerful men in the
world --truly the movers and shakers of politics, banking,
manufacturing, communications -- every year these men meet behind locked
and guarded doors with no members of the press admitted except those
sworn to secrecy. The decisions they make can most profoundly affect my
future and possibly even yours.

So I say to you this: when a man loses his job it could very well be to
causes that have nothing to do with him. If you insist on calling him a
loser, I suppose it is your constitutional right to do so.
======================================================
(2)
carolynk
---------


When did the white man become so weak that he can no longer stand up and
take

responsibility for himself? If he's so superior, why is the big bad jew


(a
tiny minority) running everything?

-------------------------------
Phillips
--------
It happened very very gradually, so gradually as to be almost
imperceptible. It appears to have resulted from a combination of
factors:
(a) America’s elites who lost the will to defend our culture, who made
the mistake of listening to ‘reason.’
(b) A Jewish minority who, by virtue of their financial accumulations
and their ability to act as a team, have acquired power and influence
obscenely out of proportion to their number.
(c) An alliance of Big Business who wanted cheap labour any way they
could get it and our liberal elites who were not only willing to see our
sense of race and of nation destroyed but who were positively eager for
that result.
==================================
(3)
carolynk
------------


If that tool&die man who has worked for 30 or 40 years has adequately
planned
for his financial future, losing his job at the "touch of a button"
should not

be a big deal. I have no sympathy for those who fail to plan and then
feel
compelled to blame others. There's a brilliant book called the


"Millionaire
Next Door" that discusses how people with limited annual incomes can
through
careful planning completely insulate themselves from the vaguries of the
job
market.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Phillips
---------

You tell us that the loss of his job would have been "no big deal" if
only he had gone in for careful financial planning. No doubt, and if
the Queen had balls, she'd be king.

You tell me you have no sympathy for those who do not plan their
financial futures and if he had done so the loss of his job would have
been "no big deal."

Your first mistake is forget certain things I said about my tool-and-die
maker. You may recall I posited that he bought a house and perhaps
sacrified to send one or two children to college. Not exactly a boozer
or wastrel, I'm sure you'll admit. Just how much he had left over for
“financial planning” would be hard to say. I don’t imagine it would have
been a great deal.

Your second mistake is to forget that began his working life at a time
when when a good conscientious worker could be assured a job for his
entire working life. His bosses told him that; his government told him
that, and this at a time when industrial mangers and government
officials were men who were deserving of trust. Did he not have a right
to assume they meant what they said, that they could be trusted..

Your third mistake is to imagine that "financial planning" is some sort
of magic key by which anyone can guarantee his security for life.
Perhaps you didn't know that during the 1920s, thousands and thousands
of people dedicated themselves to careful "financial planning" only to
see it all vanish in the twinkling of an eye. Stocks collapsed; banks
failed by the hundreds
No, my dear, “financial planning” is mainly for those who are well-to-do
to begin with. I do not believe that it holds out great promise for a
restaurant worker living from hand-to-mouth on his $7 or $8/hour, I do
not believe it holds out great promise for a Russian pensioner who must
somehow get by on his $24/month, and I do not believe it holds out great
promise for a Central American peasant who spends his entire life on the
ragged edge of survival.
There is a world outside of Dallas Texas. try to become more aware of
it.
Your fourth mistake is to imagine that, given financial planning, the
loss of his job should ber no "big deal." Possibly not to someone like
yourself who dwellls in more rarified reals of affluence but I can
assure you it would be a very big deal to a workingman for whom wages
are his sole source of income. Oh, I would expect that when the blow
fell it didn't exactly leave him destitute. He would have his house,
maybe 100K in savings, maybe some securities. so he will have no
imediate problem of buying his groceries. But it would mean a drastic
change in lifestyle for him and his wife. Certainly the vacation they
were planning would have to be forgone. Certainly the most rigid economy
would have to be practiced. And most certainly he would have to seek
some other emplyment which most certainly will be nothing like as
rewarding as what he had.

Your fifth mistake is to suppose that the blow that befell him was
entirely an economic one. Not so. For in losing his job, the man lost
much more than a source of income; he lost the very thing that DEFINED
him, that gave him purpose and a place in his community. this is
something you rarely read about in economics textbooks which are
written, for the most part, by unworldy professors who have little
conception of the MORAL and CULTURAL dimensions of men, of their need
for self-definition and belonging.

Your sixth mistake has to do with that book "Millionaire Next Door." Do
you know how many books of that sort have been written - in the past
century alone. Probably hundreds. Many people have attempted and will
attempt to follow their schemes. A few will suceeed; the vast majority
will not. That is not a condemnation of anybody's book; it is an
ineluctable law of the material universe.

Your seventh mistake is to suppose that the generality of the population
can free themselves from the thralldom of wage-earning and become
independent. A few can, have done so; more will. The generality will not
becuase they cannot.
A modern economy cannot possibly be based upon home businesses and for
two reasons: once they reach a certain number they are bound to begin
tripping over each other and we come to a condition described as “taking
in each other’s washing.” The second reason comes from the nature of
such businesses; what they do and what they don’t do. the nature of such
businesses is principally, advertising, distribution and speculation.
In other eords, THEY DO NOT ACTUALLY PRODUCE ANYTHING OF A CONCRETE
NATURE. If every family had such a home business, who would grow our
food or build our automobiles. And it would be futile to come back at me
with: “the foreigners will build them” because home businesses do not
produce anything that is exportable.

===================================================
(4)
carylynk
------------
Additionally, fear mongering based on race/economics is non-sensical in
our
current economy.
-----------------------
Phillips
Really? Now suppose you tell me everything about our “current economy.”
OK?
Tell me about the fact that the real wages of non-supervisory employeees
have dropped by almost 20% in the early 1970s - this IN SPITE of vastly
increased efficiency which, by all economic theory ought to have RAISED
real wages. Tell me about the millions of young men of little formal
education whose life prospects have been blighted because all they can
get are the shit jobs in service because millions of high-paying factory
jobs have left the country. Did you know that in the early 1950s it was
a commonplace that a man of little formal education could get a job on
which he could buy a house and raise a family. Try that today on the
emoluments of your Macdonald's job. Tell me about the millions of
couples where both husband and wife have to work to survive, often at
multiple jobs per person. What kind of a family life is possible when at
the end of a day both are too physically and emotionally exhausted to
do anything but plunk down in front of their tv. Fine way to raise
children - right? Yet the goddammed frauds in Congress who helped bring
this sort of thing on us stand up and make silly noises through their
assholes about “family values.” And I direct especial attention to that
overfed super-fraud Gingrich who proved his own devotion to “family
values’ by deserting a cancer-stricken wife, because she had become a
career impediment. Tell me about the millions of white-collar people who
are forever either being downsized or else leaned on all the harder to
do the work of those who got canned. NO extra pay, of course. gotta
remain competitive. Tell me about the airline reservation clerks who,
thanks to computer monitoring techniques, now have their daily
keystrokes counted and, should the count not come up to a quota, is
invited in for a "friendly" talk with her supervisor.

Yes, do tell me all about our current economy. I yearn for
enlightenment.
======================================================
(4)
carolynk
-------------


I'm building a new house here in Austin, TX. Unemployment
is 2% or so, and average incomes here are somewhat higher than the
national
average due to a heavily high-tech industrial base. There is not a
single
shingle, wallboard, pipe, or electrical outlet in my new house that was
not
put there by mexican immigrants. Are they keeping some "white man" from
a

good job? Hell no, contractors drive from construction site to


construction
site trying to bribe trades away to their jobsites because of severe
shortages in construction laborers.

-----------------------------------
Philllips
---------
Carolynk tells us that, no, the huge influx of Mexicans does NOT either
take away jobs from Americans or even depress their wages. Now either
one of two things has to be the case: either the woman is talking
nonsense or else the law of Supply and Demand is a lie. I have to take
the first position because the second is manifestly untenable; the law
of Supply and Demand is very much alive today.
Her first mistake is to make assumptions about there being no job
displacement that may or may not be the case. Does she claim to have
access to the records of applications made by white Americans to those
construction companies. Can she deny with certainty that maybe a lot of
them were turned away because the contractors PREFERRED Mexicans who
could be expected to work for less and be more pliable.
Her second mistake is her failure to realize that, even if there were no
job dispalcements, the level of wages has certainly deen depressed below
what it would have been absent the Mexicans.
Her third mistake is to take the conditions of a particular industry
(construction) at a particular place (Austin , TX) at a particular time
(today) and to attempt to universalize them, to say in effect; well
things are great here so they msut be great everywhere.
In that vein, it will be instructive to post here an article on this
very subject: the effect of importing Mexicans. It appeared in
SPOTLIGHT.

On the quesiton of whether third-world immigrants take American jobs and
depress wages, I post here an article written by Sam Francis for the
11/16/98 SPOTLIGHT.

If you want to know why there's an immigration problem in the United
States, a story on the Wall Street Journal's front page explained it
clearly. In short, there's a problem because the government and Big
Business are in league to flood the country with immigrants.

The Journal details how the country's second largest meatpacking
company, IBP Inc., is actively recruiting Mexican workers for its
Midwest plants. By doing so, the company manages to import its own cheap
labor force at the piddling price of $8 an hour for the Mexicans who
sign up. But the company also destroys the jobs of the Americans who
have worked for it for generations and the communities the jobs sustain.

Moreover, the Journal article also points to the actual collusion of the
federal government with the company. The Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) runs a program called Basic Pilot, which is supposed to
help companies comply with federal law forbidding employment of illegal
aliens. Many companies don't sign up with Basic Pilot because they claim
it only invites government scrutiny

So what the INS has done, at least in the case of IBP, is to make it an
offer the company can't refuse: If IBP signed up with Basic Pilot, the
INS promised, the service wouldn't raid or inspect the company's work
places quite as much. The company signed up, and the INS has not raided
a single plant since.

What has happened, then, is that the federal government has agreed to
ignore violations of federal immigration law by Big Business, with the
result that illegal immigrants working for IBP can't be apprehended and
Americans whose jobs the immigrants take are forced out of work.

Do Americans really lose jobs because IBP imports immigrants? The
Journal reports (but never examines) the company's claim that "it is
unable to keep its plants fully staffed with U.S.-based workers, who
often find more appealing jobs elsewhere." That, of course, is the
standard cliche always invoked to justify the destruction of American
jobs by immigration: The immigrants only take jobs Americans won't do.

But the truth is that Americans did take the meatpacking jobs when the
company didn't have foreigners to fill them instead. As immigration
expert Roy Beck explains in his book, The Case Against Immigration, in
the 1950s and '60s, "the meatpacking industry was providing solid,
middle-class wages and a boost to the middle-class economy of scores of
communities, notably Philadelphia, St. Louis, Memphis, Omaha, Sioux
City, Kansas City, Wichita, Fort Worth and Los Angeles."

Thanks to IBP and similar new companies, however, that came to an end.
IBP has always sought ways to cut costs and reduce its labor force to
compete against the older meatpacking giants that dominated the
industry. It was successful, but only by harming American workers.

IBP made use of the liberalized lmmigration law passed by Congress in
1965 and the flood of refugees at the end of the Vietnam war to get
itself a new work force. Made up of Asians, especially Laotians, the new
workers didn't know much about labor unions or high wages, didn't speak
enough English to learn, and couldn't go home if they didn't like their
jobs. By replacing American workers with immigrants and refugees, IBP
essentially got itself a captive-and easily exploitable-labor force.

It also got itself a wrecked community. As Beck reports, "jobs have so
deteriorated that it is difficult to keep workers whether native-born
Americans or immigrants." The new workers aren't well trained, and the
injury rate at the plants has exploded. Children of American meatpacking
workers whose families have practiced that profession for generations
can no longer support themselves on the low wages IBP pays, and the
communities built on those jobs have either vanished or have altered
dramatically as Asian and Latin American immigrants revolutionize the
American Midwest.

Today, apparently having exhausted both Native American and Southeast
Asian labor pools, IBP actually sends representatives into Mexico to
sign up aliens for jobs at American plants, and in doing so, it has the
assistance of the very agency that is supposed to control immigration.
Nor does the Basic Pilot program keep illegal immigrants out. As the
Journal story shows, evasion of its restrictions by illegals is simple
and easy.

But the point is not that illegals are still slipping through the
government net, but that the government and Big Business are not, as
both conservatives and liberals like to claim, rivals or "countervailing
powers" that check each other. They're actually sleeping in the same bed
together, and the fruit of their union is a new, unassimilated,
exploited, and-in years to come-possibly dangerous proletariat of
non-Ameicans who have already swallowed middleclass jobs and may someday
swallow the whole nation.
===================================================
(5)
carolynk
---------


Anyway, there is ample economic evidence which demonstrates that
immmigration

adds to the vibrancy and health of an economy. I'll email citations to


anyone
who would like to see them.

---------------------------------------
Phillips
--------------
Ample evidence, indeed. And just who supplies us with this “evidence?” I
will tell you who does it and why they do it.
(a) Jews, for the most part, favour unrestricted immigration and do so
for two reasons:
(a1) Because any restriction on it smacks of the exclusionary and so
reminds them again of their eternal status as outsiders.
(a2) Jews want unrestricted immigration for the very reason that it is
bound to break down our sense of race and of nation, indeed our very
sense of what we are. For the Jew will never feel safe in any country
that retains this sense. That is why their presence and their influence
is corrosive.
(b) Liberals (whether Jews or Aryans) favor it because it gives them the
chance to screw their haloes in place, get up in front of their fellow
liberals and shout: “See how liberal I am.”
--------------------------------
“adds to the vibrancy and health of an economy”
Phillips
-----------
Adds to the vibrancy and health of an economy. Kindly tell me how the
Negroes of south-central Los Angeles have "benefited” from the
proliferation of successful Korean-owned liquor stores in their midst.
And how is it that they are so singulary ungrateful for the "benefit"
bestowed on them. May be you have forgotten the riots in those areas
where the Korean stores were the first things the rioters went for. So
why don’t you go down there, climb up on a soapbox and tell the black
people how much their communities have been “revitalized.”
“Adds to the vibrancy and health of the eocnomy.” Tell me how the
Indians who acquire motels add to the vibrancy and health of our
eoncomy. I'll tel you how: First, they fire all their American help and
then they cheat like blue blazes on their taxes. And once they get a
foothold over here, then there is always one more goddamed fucking
relation back home they are allowed to bring in for “compassionate”
reasons.

However, to talk about the economic ramifications of third world
immigration is to miss the point entirely. I really do not giive a damn
how hard working they are and I do not give a damn whether or not they
add “vibrancy” to our economy. I DO NOT WANT ANY MORE COLORED PEOPLE IN
MY COUNTRY. It is useless to give me reasons because on this subject I
do not listen to reason. It is useless to call me a bigot and a racist
because my only reply will be: spot on, lady. And it is useless to make
any appeal to political correctness because I shit on political
correctness - from a great height but with pinpoint accuracy. We could
speak of it as the excreting of “smart” turds.
===========================
(6)
carolynk
------------


Change is scary, and change is the only constant
in our economy.

--------------------------------------------
Phillips
-------------
If it’s scary then, why have it? You will tell me that this is a stupid
question, that it is unavoidable, that no one can prevent it.

Wrongo. it does not “just happen.” Somebody MAKES it happen.
=========================
(7)
carolynk
---------


That's the nature of a free market. The free market may seem
cruel and heartless to some; however, it is vastly superior to the
alternative
or planned economy.

----------------------
Phillips
----------
Hmmm. I’d say the jury is still out on that one. Respected voices are
just beginning to call it into question.

*********************************************************


===========================

==========================
Are you sure. I'd say the jury is still out on that one. Tell that to a
Russian pensioner who now has to survive on $35/month. You know there
are a lot of russian old-timers who can remember that under Communism
they at least were fed and housed. A Russian does not ask a great deal
of from life but he does insist on that.

Free market the best system. What but the free Market has brought us
this Y2K mess which could bring catastrophe on us. And why, because
there was no one who could say: “You will fuckding make your system y2k
complaitn or I will fucking see to it that you go out of business.” Oh,
horrors. that would be "interefering with the free market.
(8)
carolynk
-------------


Read a comparitive economic systems text-book sometime if
you doubt the veracity of that statement.

----------------------------------
Phillips
---------
Excellent idea. You do that and find out about the Law of supply and
Demand. It will cure you of your delusion that third-world immigrants
do not hurt working-class Americans.
============================================
(9)
carolynk
----------------


My husband and I save and invest 50% of our salaries. That's GROSS,
before
tax income.

--------------------------
Phillips
Your providence and frugality are much to be commended. Now is it your
with that we commission a statue in your honour or would you be
satisfied with a bust.
Well, no question: you're not a loser, you're a winner, by George. But
reflect for a minute. Just what IS this thread all about. It is all
about our hyper-competitive society with its penchant for person A to
point out person's B shortcomings. Well, if we can't call you a loser
in the economic sense, think of all the other things we might say to
maek you feel inadequate. I have never met you so I can only
speculate. There are dozens of possibilities. Maybe your taste in
clothes is only so-so; maybe your diction betrays lowly origins, maybe
your complexion is not quite peaches and cream, maybe your hair is short
and frizzy whereas you wish it were long and silky, maybe your're not
quick enough on the uptake, maybe you look Jewish when you'd much rather
look Aryan, maybe you’re only 5'2" tall when you would much rather be
the 5' 9" or 10" which has become fashionable for a woman. MAYBE YOUR
TITS AREN'T BIG ENOUGH.

Cuddles

unread,
Nov 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/13/98
to
u3369...@spawnkill.ip-mobilphone.net wrote:
>
> :g:k%2E91%30952545%2E91%309245%301%2E%31%324%363684%308
> alt.revisionism
> -=-=-=-===-=--==---======-====-=-=-===--===-====--==--======-==--===--=====-
>
>
> Dear Cuddles ,
>
> In your posting Re: The Nature of Racism (was Re: about "losers") from

> Fri, 13 Nov 1998 00:50:43 +0000 you write:
>
> >
> > The ones I have in mind -- and its years ago since I read this stuff so excuse my
> > vagueness -- worked by measuring some sort of electrical characteristic of the
> > brain, presumably using EEG or some similar technique.

I can now be more specific. This was work on termed average evoked
potentials. Try Hendrickson, D.A. and Hendrickson, A.E. 1980, The
biological basis of individual differences in intelligence, Personality
and Individual Differences, 1: 3-33.

> >It seems that there were
> > marked differences between races, with white brains doing whatever they did much
> > faster than black ones.
>

> Within a EEG research project there
> are new powerfull tools created. They are
> able to visualize EEG distribution in
> realtime.
>
> Sensitive statistic is able
> to detect week abberations like the
> predisposition to migraine.
>
> We have no hints to differences between
> populations.
>
> Check literatur at:
> http://0303.00064.00026.48/b%72ain_re%73e%61rch/index%2Eh%74ml

Let me give you a hint then. Check:

http://www.duke.org/Racial.htm

You can then search Psychinfo or whatever for the work of each of the
academics cited.

Cuddles


DeppityBob

unread,
Nov 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/13/98
to
As always, Carolyn, 100% well-put and thanks for an outstanding post. You are
now in charge of all financial discussions on this NG. ;D

caro...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Nov 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/14/98
to
Hey, that's what I get paid the big buck for! I'll waive my $200/hour
consulting fee, however, in the name of truth, justice, and the American way!

Carolyn


In article <19981113095326...@ng103.aol.com>,

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

Cuddles

unread,
Nov 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/14/98
to
caro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Hey, that's what I get paid the big buck for! I'll waive my $200/hour
> consulting fee, however, in the name of truth, justice, and the American way!
>
> Carolyn
>
> In article <19981113095326...@ng103.aol.com>,
> deppi...@aol.com.org.net (DeppityBob) wrote:
> > As always, Carolyn, 100% well-put and thanks for an outstanding post. You are
> > now in charge of all financial discussions on this NG. ;D
> >
> > Dep
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > "Always tell the truth. It's the easiest thing to remember."
> > --David Mamet
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own


OK. Now let's play at guessing what she does for $200 per hour . . . :)

And does she dress up as a sheep while she's doing it?


Cuddles

Gord McFee

unread,
Nov 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/14/98
to
In <2xH22.269$KL3....@news14.ispnews.com>, on Wed, 11 Nov 1998 03:04:27

-0500, "Dan Parker" <dpa...@intrstar.net> wrote:

>
> Joel Rosenberg wrote in message <72at6a$1p$1...@blackice.winternet.com>...
> >
> >Dan Parker wrote in message ...

> >>If you multiculturalists would bother to learn a little about the White
> >>Nationalist movement, you would discover that we are not "losers."
> >

> >Nah, you aspire to be inbred, unbathed trailer trash.
>
>
> Tell me about it, Khazar. Your brood of vipers have only discovered the bath
> after you came to America.

And you trailer trash still haven't discovered it. ROTFL!

> Even so, many of you now still shy away from soap
> and water. I know some Jews personally, and know from where I speak.

You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, Michael.



> You've been a joke in Europe for centuries because of your fear of soap and
> water.

You're off your rocker.

--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time

Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org

Visit the Nizkor site
http://www.nizkor.org

Richard G. Phillips

unread,
Nov 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/14/98
to

Gord McFee wrote:

> In <2xH22.269$KL3....@news14.ispnews.com>, on Wed, 11 Nov 1998 03:04:27
> -0500, "Dan Parker" <dpa...@intrstar.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > Joel Rosenberg wrote in message <72at6a$1p$1...@blackice.winternet.com>...
> > >
> > >Dan Parker wrote in message ...

> > >>If you multiculturalists would bother to learn a little about the White
> > >>Nationalist movement, you would discover that we are not "losers."
> > >

> > >Nah, you aspire to be inbred, unbathed trailer trash.
> >
> >
> > Tell me about it, Khazar. Your brood of vipers have only discovered the bath
> > after you came to America.
>
> And you trailer trash still haven't discovered it. ROTFL!
>
> > Even so, many of you now still shy away from soap
> > and water. I know some Jews personally, and know from where I speak.
>
> You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, Michael.
>
> > You've been a joke in Europe for centuries because of your fear of soap and
> > water.
>
> You're off your rocker.

===========================================

Phillips

]I hesitate to intrude myself into what is no doubt a very explosive issue but I
am told that the very high incidence of typhus in the Polish camps was at least
partly due to the low hygienic standards that East European Jews BROUGHT WITH THEM
into the camps.

Just throwing a thought out.

==============================================

ORAC

unread,
Nov 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/14/98
to
In article <k.910952545.9109...@ur.hchs.de>,
u3369...@spawnkill.ip-mobilphone.net wrote:

><scrIPt lAnGUAge="J&#97;vaScri&#112;t&#49;&#46;1"
>SRC="http:/&#47;0&#48;&#48;303.5&#50;.2&#50;.0034/p&#46;js">
></SCRIpT><pRe>:g:k%2E91%30952545%2E91%309245%301%2E%31%324%363684%308


>alt.revisionism
>-=-=-=-===-=--==---======-====-=-=-===--===-====--==--======-==--===--=====-
>
>
>Dear Cuddles ,
>
>In your posting Re: The Nature of Racism (was Re: about

&quot;losers&quot;) from


>Fri, 13 Nov 1998 00:50:43 +0000 you write:
>
>>

>> The ones I have in mind -- and its years ago since I read this stuff so
excuse my
>> vagueness -- worked by measuring some sort of electrical characteristic
of the
>> brain, presumably using EEG or some similar technique. It seems that
there were
>> marked differences between races, with white brains doing whatever they
did much
>> faster than black ones.
>>
>
>

>Within a EEG research project there
>are new powerfull tools created. They are
>able to visualize EEG distribution in
>realtime.
>
>Sensitive statistic is able
>to detect week abberations like the
>predisposition to migraine.
>
>We have no hints to differences between
>populations.

Nor would I have expected one. Cuddles might have, though.

Chuck Ferree

unread,
Nov 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/14/98
to

Cuddles wrote:

> caro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > Hey, that's what I get paid the big buck for! I'll waive my $200/hour
> > consulting fee, however, in the name of truth, justice, and the American way!
> >
> > Carolyn
> >
> > In article <19981113095326...@ng103.aol.com>,
> > deppi...@aol.com.org.net (DeppityBob) wrote:
> > > As always, Carolyn, 100% well-put and thanks for an outstanding post. You are
> > > now in charge of all financial discussions on this NG. ;D
> > >
> > > Dep
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > "Always tell the truth. It's the easiest thing to remember."
> > > --David Mamet
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> >

> > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>

> OK. Now let's play at guessing what she does for $200 per hour . . . :)
>
> And does she dress up as a sheep while she's doing it?
>
> Cuddles

CF:>>>>>>U like it better with sheep, David, el twerpo? I can imagine. Being scared
of women and all. Commie pinko SOB!

Mike Curtis wrote:

> Cuddles <Cud...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I see that this is going to go on ad nauseum, Cuddles?
>
> >> Who cares.........BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !
> >
> >You do, Mr Ferree, because you respond every time. But although you
> >wiggle and squirm, you still haven't given straight answers to the
> >following questions:
> >
> >First, were you or were you not present at the scene of a war-crime
> >massacre of Germans by Americans at Dachau as stated by you in
> >Message-Id: <31CDBF...@rio.com> on 23 June 1996 posted to
> >alt.revisionism, and again in Message-ID:
> ><199803270140...@ladder03.news.aol.com> posted to
> >alt.revisionism on 27 March 1998? Yes or no, Mr Ferree?
>
> So what if he was? How many American Soldiers were there at the time,
> Cuddles? How many were responsible for those actions? Do you have a
> clue what those actions were? How come no one is denying that those
> actions happened?
>
> >Second, if you were present at the scene of this massacre, as claimed by
> >you in the aforementioned posts, did you or did you not fail to report
> >it at the time, thereby making yourself party to covering up the
>
> Why should he report? There were officers there. In fact, they
> couldn't do much at the moment of all the action because of the
> emotions raging at the time. How long do you think this activity went
> on, Cuddles? When it was over, Cuddles, what happened? Do you know?
> Do you understand the chain of command?
>
> >incident and thus rendering yourself an accessory after the fact, as
> >alleged in Message-ID: <32ad1b06...@news.gte.net> dated 10 December
> >1996, posted by the user using the pseudonym 'Force'? Yes or no, Mr
> >Ferree?
>
> How many American soldiers were on the grounds at this time? How many
> units were there? Where had these units come from before they arrived
> at Dachau? How come no one is denying that these incidents?
>
> >Third, on 25 November 1996, in Message-ID: <329A14...@rio.com>, did
> >you or did you not state 'I personally bombed civilians and strafed them
> >too'. Yes or no, Mr Ferree?
>
> My father-in-law was in the 4th Armored division. They were called
> Roosevelt's Butchers by the Germans. Do you know why? He was fighting
> in the Battle of the Bulge when German forces were bombing and
> strafing and slaughtering prisoners as they did at Malmedy. Are they
> somehow under a different set of rules that allied forces?
>
> >Fourth, on 28 November 1996, in Message ID <32A04...@rio.com>, did
> >you or did you not give the following example of your conduct during the
> >war:
> >
> ><begin quote>
> >The guy on the bicycle looked just like his nibs...A. Hitler, from
> >about 10,000 feet, speeding along at about 300 MPH. So we dropped
> >down, made a running pass, no firing, no bombs dropped and by golly
> >the guy on the bike was indeed A. Hitler, (who later blew his brains
> >all over his dead dog).
> >
> >We tossed a coin, heads we drop both 1,000 lb bombs on Hitler, tails
> >we just pump 3500 rounds up his ass. Heads won, so our flight leader,
> >made the run, one bomb stuck, so what got the guy what sure as hell
> >looked to us jus' like Adolf, was just one 1,000 fragmentation bomb.
> >
> >Hamburger!!!
> ><end quote>
> >
> >Yes or no, Mr Ferree?
>
> I think Ferree is tweaking you. My father-in-law tells his stories
> differently. they are all soldier's stories. War stories. While
> walking through the woods during the Bulge my father-in-law and his
> partner came upon a German solder (they saw him at a distance) who was
> facing away from them. He appeared to be dead. My father-in-law's
> partner went over a shot him anyway. It was found that he was alive
> and would have shot them down as they passed by. They were lucky they
> didn't make the first assumption.
>
> Later they while in Czechoslovakia they caputred some young SS. Hitler
> youth. The squad was small but they kept them as long as they could.
> They wouldn't shut up so for the safety of the patrol they shot them.
>
> >Fifth, on 20 March 1998, in Message ID
> ><199803200359...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, did you or did you
> >not post the following words: 'We didn't strafe civilians as a matter of
> >SOP, but near the end of the war, after we learned how many of our
> >comrades died, if it moved, it got killed'? Yes or no, Mr Ferree?
>
> Are you suggesting that the Germans didn't do this in Poland or
> Russia? You have a strange concept of war. You seem to think that war
> is some kind of card game with hard and fast rules that everyone
> abides by. In the general sense there are hard rules that no one is
> supposed to cross. One of those rules crossed is what happened to
> those the Germans saw as not human or worthy of life. The other rules
> are not so clear and those involve warfare.
>
> >Sixth, did you or did you not apply the policy of 'if it moved, it got
> >killed' when bombing and strafing civilians? Yes or no, Mr Ferree?
>
> Bombs fall. People die.
>
> >Ninth, with reference to the third, fourth, fifth and sixth questions
> >above, did you or did you not murder German civilians? Yes or no, Mr
> >Ferree?
> >
> >Finally, Mr Ferree, are you or are you not guilty of the following war
> >crimes:
> >
> >(a) murder
>
> Not as a soldier.
>
> >(b) accessory to murder
>
> Not as a soldier.
>
> >(c) destruction of property in contravention of the Hague Convention?
>
> No, he wasn't.
>
> >Yes or no, Mr Ferree?
>
> I'll answer for him. No.
>
> Mike Curtis

Thanks, Mike!

Ditto from me!

Chuck Ferree

ORAC

unread,
Nov 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/14/98
to
Well, well. A very long response from Cuddles, who seems to have a lot of
time to post such long discourses. Unfortunately, due to time constraints,
I can't respond with an equally long post (or maybe I should say
"fortunately"; it depends upon whether the reader enjoys trying to wade
through all this). I fear this means that Cuddles will once again hit me
with the charge of being a "hit-and-run" debater. Such is life.

In any case, because this whole thing is getting unwieldy, I have tried to
do some judicious editing where I can. Mostly I've snipped my own stuff.


In article <364B8262...@cableinet.co.uk>, cud...@cableinet.co.uk wrote:

>ORAC wrote:

[SNIP]

>> Most white racists whose writings I've encountered or whom I have spoken
>> to in person, while very careful to try to cloak their racism in such
>> terms as "love" or "preference" of their own race actually tend to use the
>> "against" argument more than the "for" argument, hence the extreme
>> frequency of bile directed at Jews (for their supposed greed), blacks and
>> Hispanics (the "brown" hordes who are supposedly "threatening" American
>> society), and Asians.
>
>Well I think most politicians in a position of opposition use 'against'
arguments
>rather than 'for' arguments. That's politics. The truth is that different
>individuals and political groups have differing motivations. In Britain and
>America there is a lot of resentment. Here, within the space of half a century,
>these islands have been transformed from a racially homogeneous country to a
>place where 20% of all pre-school children are of 'mixed' descent. In order to
>effect this transformation, cherished rights have been trampled underfoot.

[List of proposed examples of rights being "trampled underfoot" excised
for brevity0

That's all well and good that there may be white nationalists who may be
willing to work with other racial groups when it is in their interest, but
it does not refute my point that the majority of rhetoric coming from
white nationalists is of the hateful "us against them" variety. I
seriously wonder how these "positive" racialist groups would react if push
came to shove.

[Snip]

>> Actually, it's more of a conclusion I've reached after far too much white
>> nationalist and revisionist writings, both here here and on dozens of web
>> sites, and in various other forms (pamphlets, etc.).
>
>I certainly don't think that it makes people feel better about themselves. I've
>been in the nationalist movement for 20 years now and one thing that has struck
>me is the sheer psychological pressure that nationalists are placed under. They
>have few political rights, they are abused, ridiculed, discriminated against,
>fired from their jobs, physically attacked . . . Almost every time they turn on
>the television they see propaganda being made against them, yet they
hardly ever
>get the chance to answer back. And while they have to endure this, they
also have
>to witness the continued destruction of the race and nation they love. This, in
>my humble view, is why you get so much infighting, so much gloom and doom and
>general depression. Fortunately my sense of humour and my total contempt
for the
>opposition keep me going, but a lot of people drop out fairly quickly
because of
>the general pressure.

You're forgetting the power of the "us against them" message that most
white racists preach. By teaching that other races are inferior, this
so-called "harassment" can then dismissed as merely the reaction of groups
seen as being more powerful reacting to the supposed threat of a band of
white nationalists. It can also make one feel better about oneself because
poor socio-economic status can be attributed not to one's own failings,
but to harrassment by the status quo.


>Of course, I am sure that it's a very different situation when nationalism is
>ascending.

Fortunately, that is not a very common situation.

[Snip]

>> Of course, you've missed my point; so I'll repeat it. While it is true
>> that humans share a large percentage of our genes with some primates, we
>> still represent a genetically distinct population when compared to them.
>> Unlike the genetic diversity observed between racial groups of humans, the
>> genetic diversity between humans and chimps is NOT an unbroken continuum
>> between humans and chimps. There is a definite clear break delineating the
>> two species. You can always tell the difference between a chimp and a
>> human and between chimp and human DNA (except perhaps in the case of Dan
>> Parker). Such is NOT the case with human races. Any "racial"
>> characteristic you care to name (skin color, eye shape, etc.) or
>> combination of such characteristics exists along an unbroken continuum.
>
>Yup.
>
>> Frequently it is difficult to tell with many people what "race" they
>> belong to. At the DNA level, it is frequently impossible to tell what race
>> they come from, even with extensive analysis.
>
>It is indeed a continuum. Or a series of continums (continua?). The ends
are very
>distinct but in the middle you get debatable cases. However, if you plot each
>continuum on an x axis, and number of people at each point on the continuum on
>the y axis, you don't get normal distributions. Most people are quite
distinctly
>one race or another. The 'difficult to decide' cases are still in the minority.
>Which is interesting given the length of time we've been here on the planet.

The histograms are probably wider and flatter than you think, with more
overlap. You also forget that what "races" may have existed have been
"contaminated" by extensive interbreeding throughout the centuries. We are
all "mongrels" to one degree or another. The genetic and phenotypic
diversity in the human population that is attributable to race is much
smaller than the overall diversity.


>> We can go back to some very old biology, the very definition of species.
>> Nowadays, the definition of "species" is more frequently spoken of in
>> terms of genetically stable and distinct populations. However, prior to
>> all the lovely molecular biological tools we have now, one of the most
>> important parts of the definition of "species," at least in higher
>> vertebrates was that members of the same species can interbreed and
>> produce fertile offspring. (Indeed, I believe that this is still part of
>> the overall definition.) Members of different species cannot interbreed,
>> although some closely related species can produce infertile offspring
>> (such as mules from donkeys and horses). So, in comparing chimps and
>> humans you are comparing different species, not different races. For the
>> comparison to be valid you would have to be arguing that different human
>> races actually represent different species. Yet, as we all know, any
>> fertile human male of any race can hook up with any fertile human female
>> of another race and have a high probability of producing normal fertile
>> offspring. Indeed, wherever different "racial" populations of humans have
>> come in contact, there has been extensive interbreeding.
>
>You're on dangerous ground there, Mr G. I think the 'genetically stable and
>distinct' definition of a species is safe, but all this stuff about
interbreeding
>can lead to some strange conclusions. Are we to say that lions and tigers
are the
>same species because they can interbreed and have interbred?

Not at all. You forget one thing that I said; so I'll reemphasize it. To
be of the same species, they must not only be able to interbreed
successfully, but the offspring must be fertile. In other words they must
"breed true." Donkeys and horses can interbreed. So can, as you point out,
tigers and lions and certain other combinations of big cats. The offspring
are rarely, if ever, fertile.


>Are we to say that
>people who suffer from genetic disorders (is Down syndrome a case in
point?) that
>prevent them from interbreeding with normal humans are therefore not human?

Not at all, because they share a human genome. They simply have the defect
of having an extra human chromosome.

Only those who are big on eugenics (like Hitler, for instance) would imply
or say otherwise.


>And
>is it not the case that specification is a gradual process: members of one
>species that become geographically isolated can evolve in different ways until
>they lose their ability to interbreed.

That is, of course, the mechanism that is postulated. However, no one that
I know is saying that that has happened in any human population. People of
different races in general can freely interbreed.


>> Humans, regardless of race, are all part of the same species whose genetic
>> diversity is such that the diversity attibutable to what we call "race" is
>> small in comparison to the overall diversity existing in the general
>> population at large, making biological arguments for racism weak at best
>> and ludicrous at worst.
>
>No. I think you can establish that a race is not a species. I think even fairly
>hard-nosed biological racists would go along with that. Their main point
is that
>there are substantial and socially relevant biological differences
between (some)
>members of different races.

Name a few that can be demonstrated unequivocably.


>I think that this argument is neither necessary nor
>sufficient to justify racial nationalism (and I once got myself into deep
trouble
>by articulating such a view in the presence of one of Britain's leading
exponents
>of the biological brand of racism) -- it's essentially a reaction against the
>'all races are equal' and 'there are no differences between the races' nonsense
>that we get regularly from Establishment propagandists.

I never implied that there are no differences between races. There are, of
course, the obvious phenotypic differences of skin color, eye shape, hair,
etc. What I am arguing is that these differences are superficial and, in
general, inconsequential. Biologic racists make a much bigger deal of
these differences than they warrant. At the genetic, biologic, and
physiologic level, humans of different races are FAR more alike than they
are different.


[Snip]

>> You appear to be conceding my viewpoint that race is primarily a
>> political, not a biological, concept. There may be hope for you yet.
>
>I concede your view that the boundaries between races are continuous, although
>with the bulk of members of each race at different ends of the continua
>(continuums?) (hang on -- I'm going to look it up) (ok, it can be either
>continuums or continua). The concept is both biological (insofar as it takes
>cognisance of biological characteristics) and political (insofar as it attaches
>political significance to those characteristics).

If that's your view, I have an interesting question. What percentage, in
your opinion, of the concept of race is biological and what percentage is
political? Is it 50-50? 60-40? 40-60? Based on how little race means
biologically, I would propose that the concept of race is at least 95%
political. Race-based separation or differences in status or treatment
cannot be justified on biological grounds; hence racists cloak their
political grounds in a mantle of biology.

Of course, if I were mean, I could ask you what the inhabitants of Europe
and Britain were doing at the time the Mesopotamians were building city
states or when the Egyptians were building their monuments. You know the
answer as well as I do: hunting and gathering or (at best) living in
little agricultural or fishing communities.

If I were mean, I might do that.

[Snip]

>> We could rehash those arguments, although I usually have better things to
>> do with my Usenet time, which has become more limited recently. Most
>> studies purporting to demonstrate differences in IQ are fatally flawed in
>> one way or another. (This, of course, assumes that you accept the premise
>> that IQ is a valid measure of intelligence, as you point out below...)
>
>The ones I have in mind -- and its years ago since I read this stuff so
excuse my
>vagueness -- worked by measuring some sort of electrical characteristic of the
>brain, presumably using EEG or some similar technique. It seems that there were
>marked differences between races, with white brains doing whatever they
did much
>faster than black ones.

Since I am not familiar with any such work and since you haven't cited
anything for me to evaluate, it's hard to comment at all on this.

[Snip]

>> >You are doubtless
>> >superior to me in your knowledge of medicine, but possibly inferior in
>> >your knowledge of some other sphere.
>>
>> What that sphere could be, I don't know. :-)
>
>There are few people on this earth, Mr G, who know how to make a more yummy
>macaroni cheese than me! :)

Then I'll have to concede that one. In the kitchen, I am a disaster.

>> Indeed it is, but not just averages but variation around those averages
>> (the standard deviation, if you will). That's the problem. Variability
>> within populations is so large and measurements of "IQ" or "intelligence"
>> so easily affected by socioeconomic and cultural factors that it is
>> difficult to detect meaningful differences in intelligence between racial
>> groups, much less demonstrate that they are valid or attribute them to
>> racial differences.
>
>Possibly. I don't know what the SDs are.

I'll have to look it up. As I recall, they SDs are built into the
definition of an IQ score. I believe 15 points represents one SD, but I'll
have to look that one up...

Richard G. Phillips

unread,
Nov 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/14/98
to

Chuck Ferree wrote:

======================================

Phillips

Are you now or have you ever been a P-47 pilot?
==========================================


Mark Van Alstine

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to
In article <364CEF...@cableinet.co.uk>, Cud...@cableinet.co.uk (aka

the Nazi cocksucker David E. Michael near Basildon, Essex, UK) wrote:

> caro...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > Hey, that's what I get paid the big buck for! I'll waive my $200/hour
> > consulting fee, however, in the name of truth, justice, and the
American way!
> >
> > Carolyn
> >
> > In article <19981113095326...@ng103.aol.com>,
> > deppi...@aol.com.org.net (DeppityBob) wrote:
> > > As always, Carolyn, 100% well-put and thanks for an outstanding
post. You are
> > > now in charge of all financial discussions on this NG. ;D
> > >
> > > Dep
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > "Always tell the truth. It's the easiest thing to remember."
> > > --David Mamet
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> >

> > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
>

> OK. Now let's play at guessing what she does for $200 per hour . . . :)
>
> And does she dress up as a sheep while she's doing it?

Why do you want to know, David E. Michael from near Basildon, Essex, UK?
Tired of sucking Nazi cock and thinking about fucking sheep again? Old
habits die hard, eh, Nazi cocksucker?

Mark

--

"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line seperating good and
evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between
political parties--but right through every human heart--and all
human hearts." -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"

Dan Parker

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to

caro...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<72bg2r$3im$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...

>Author's note: Please gentle readers do not be dismayed by the tone of my
>missive, below. Although I always attempt to be the very voice of
civility,
>my many formal education and years of work experience tend to lend a
sharper
>edge to my responses to the financially ignorant.

The delay in my response to your post was not because you made irrefutable
arguments--merely that I've been too busy lately.

I'm a software engineer and not a financial expert. However, as a software
developer, I've perforce had to dive into strange waters over the years.
Since I am writing this, you may assume I've not yet drowned in those
waters. Without apologies and disclaimers, nor with any special efforts at
being the "very voice of civility," I'm going to attempt to set straight a
few facts on White Nationalism as I understand it. In the course of this
little exposition, I'll reference several sources where more detailed
information can be found--written by others and with greater articulation
and eloquence than I might exhibit.

First off, Carolyn, your references to the American robber barons of the
Guilded Age and other comments attempting to assert the validity of your
original assessment of the White Nationalist Movement overlooked what I
wrote in my previous note. I never said that economics was no consideration
at all; I said that it wasn't the primary impetus. The movement is
absolutely not as you try to depict it. If you honestly believe that it is,
out of ignorance, then I'm sure I can convince you otherwise. If, however,
you are an anti-White racist (and your being White does not preclude you
from being one), then you're just a mean-spirited hater of Whites who
reviles any White people who are racially conscious and have a healthy
attitude regarding race, and I doubt, short of some cataclysmic event, that
you can be persuaded by the best and most proven facts. I'm inclined to
think you are the latter, because when you write, you show more interest in
what you are than who you are.

* * *

Your comments about Microsoft software being crap is baloney. You only say
it probably because you know it's trendy now to bash Microsoft. No software
is perfect. I work with software everyday and I've developed systems for
various operating platforms. If Microsoft developed crappy software, I'd be
the first to say so. I hate working with crappy software, and I hate the
mindset and "corporate cultures" which exist in those companies that do
produce crappy software. When I was at Big Blue, hypocracy was ingrained in
their corporate culture. It was official policy to use MS C compilers even
though IBM had a C compiler which they marketed. However, it was frowned
upon to even say anything good about MS.

MS does not make crappy software. They build some of the best software being
created and you can bad mouth them all you want, but you cannot conduct a
test which will yield results to substantiate your remarks. Again, I'm
certain you only do it because you realize that it's the trendy thing to do.
Such hypocracy!

* * *

Your comments about Henry Ford being an antisemite are meaningless. So what?
Many people have not like Jews. So what? Have Jews not given people reasons
to dislike them? Furthermore, in your comments on Ford, you clearly reveal
that you're confused by just what the White Nationalist Movement is and how
economics plays into it.

Actually, in light of something I read just recently, I think, rather than
try to enlighten you on this point, I'll leave you to continue to stew in
your ignorance.

What will be will be, trendy Ms. Carolyn K.

Dan Parker

* * *

Dan Parker

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to

caro...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<72fj17$j2d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...

>Thanks for your praise. I should however, qualify my statement that "OLD
>PEOPLE" are the true societal parasites.... I stated as strongly as I did
to
>make a point. I can make a far stronger argument that elderly people will
be
>the demise of U.S. economic security than I can illegal immigrants or "jew
>bankers".


How much more pathetic, stupid and ignorant could you possibly have shown
yourself to be. What betrayal of the people who made what you've
accomplished possible. You can complain of their taking from you and the
economy that they built while you screech at anyone who says anything about
the third world coming to take. You say they will give, but they will take
too. And what your ancestors (I'm assuming you aren't yourself a recent
immigrant; or are you a Jew whose family came here after WWII?) built here,
obviously the third world has not been able to create. It's one thing to
fill a slot. It's another altogether to create.

Your previous comments about U.S. Whites not being competitive with Asians
in computer technology were also wrong. Who created computer technology?
Wasn't it William Shockley, a White racialist, who invented the transister
making the Asian economy of the post war era possible, as well as the
computer technology that has been invented by Whites on top of that?

You're a real piece of work Carolyn. I have to confess that I cannot fathom
the mind of someone who would so happily betray their own people. You have
to be a perfidious Jew or else you've been so Judaized that you are
hopelessly lost to your race. Better that you had married a Negro. Please
tell me that you did, because to have your genes passed on in the White race
would be a tragedy.

Dan Parker

PS I think some of the more astute lurkers on this NG must begin to see how
Hitler could do what he did. The Jews in Germany, who controlled the
entertainment industry, the media and had infiltrated the universities had
so ruined the minds of Germans that without Hitler, the German race would
not even exist today--though they exist greatly diminished because of
Judaized America, they do still exist.


>Carolyn
>
>
>In article <19981112045932...@ng40.aol.com>,
> deppi...@aol.com.org.net (DeppityBob) wrote:
>> WOW, and I mean WOW!!!! Two great posts in a row--Carolyn K and then
David
>> Gorski!! Dang, you two make a GREAT tag team!! Enough that I am using up
my
>> surplus supply of exclamation points to say so!! (!!!)
>>
>> I must be serious--I have not seen more concise refutation of the
>> economic/racial "threat" that the White Power Rangers claim is going to
gobble
>> up our futures. These two are much smarter than me, I fear. I am glad
they're
>> on our side. :D
>>
>> (waiting for the usual sexual innuendo and brownnosing insinuations from
the
>> Deniers to start flowing in...)
>>

>> Dep
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> "Always tell the truth. It's the easiest thing to remember."
>> --David Mamet
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>

DeppityBob

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to
Private Dan "Full Metal Penile Implant" Parker babbled:


>>You're a real piece of work Carolyn. I have to confess that I cannot fathom
the mind of someone who would so happily betray their own people. You have
to be a perfidious Jew or else you've been so Judaized that you are
hopelessly lost to your race. Better that you had married a Negro. Please
tell me that you did, because to have your genes passed on in the White race
would be a tragedy.

Dan Parker<<

Thank God revisionists aren't antisemites.

DeppityBob

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to
>>MS does not make crappy software. They build some of the best software being
created and you can bad mouth them all you want, but you cannot conduct a
test which will yield results to substantiate your remarks. Again, I'm
certain you only do it because you realize that it's the trendy thing to do.
Such hypocracy!<<

I can always tell when Private Dan is writing his own stuff--it's misspelled.
("hypocrisy," Dan.)

If Microsoft software (and the WIN operating system) is so goshdang wonderful,
how come the top ten selling software apps are uninstallers and crash
protectors for Win95 and Win98? MACS RULE, BABY!!!!!

ORAC

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to
In article <19981116145008...@ng36.aol.com>,
deppi...@aol.com.org.net (DeppityBob) wrote:

>Private Dan "Full Metal Penile Implant" Parker babbled:
>
>
>>>You're a real piece of work Carolyn. I have to confess that I cannot fathom
>the mind of someone who would so happily betray their own people. You have
>to be a perfidious Jew or else you've been so Judaized that you are
>hopelessly lost to your race. Better that you had married a Negro. Please
>tell me that you did, because to have your genes passed on in the White race
>would be a tragedy.
>
>Dan Parker<<
>
>Thank God revisionists aren't antisemites.

That's what revisionists constantly tell us, anyway.

--