lies about race
Dwight E. Howell
Serene & Sanguine Sagacity wrote:
> The lie is that there is anything other than
> the single human race, which includes people
> of many families with many different personal
> characteristics, the vast majority of which
> people are too smart to believe racist lies
> about things with no basis in science.
>
I hope you're right that the majority is to smart to buy racist lies not
based in science because it is clear that a strong minority do.
> ~~~"Serene" *Sheila Green* "Sagacity"~~~
> [aka Word Warrior green*@tristate.pgh.net]
> "Eat me, and use your head for better than
> the mere absorption of monitor radiation."
Serene & Sanguine Sagacity
"Dwight E. Howell" <deo...@usit.net> wrote:
>Serene & Sanguine Sagacity wrote:
>> The lie is that there is anything other than
>> the single human race, which includes people
>> of many families with many different personal
>> characteristics, the vast majority of which
>> people are too smart to believe racist lies
>> about things with no basis in science.
>I hope you're right that the majority is too smart to buy racist lies not
>based in science because it is clear that a strong minority do.
You are right.
I am optimistic about people, indeed,
and perhaps erroneously so at times.
Rational misconstructions are based
upon fear which remains unresolved.
Fear is based upon ignorance, of
which here is no shortage.
Jerry Abbott
Many species, including humans, exhibit race. It has become politically
fashionable to deny the existence of race only in humans. The same
people will recognize race in any other plant or animal species in which
there are breeds or strains different enough from each other for a
reasonable person to treat different kinds differently, or to prefer one
kind to another for a particular use. Egalitarianism, among the
liberals who deny the existence of race in humans, has gone to the brain
and constitutes a kind of mental disease.
Jerry Abbott
Anne Gilbert
>
>Many species, including humans, exhibit race. It has become politically
>fashionable to deny the existence of race only in humans. The same
>people will recognize race in any other plant or animal species in which
>there are breeds or strains different enough from each other for a
>reasonable person to treat different kinds differently, or to prefer one
>kind to another for a particular use. Egalitarianism, among the
>liberals who deny the existence of race in humans, has gone to the brain
>and constitutes a kind of mental disease.
>
>Jerry Abbott
>
It depends on what you mean by "race". Judging by your answer, it would
appear you take a very "typological" view of the variety exhibited by a
polytypic species like our own. In this view, there are "races" of cats
as well; certainly people who exhibit cats at cat shows think so. But
cats don't care about such minor details and neither, really, do humans.
Sure, you can construct "races" of humans, but the constructions are
strictly social, not biological.
Anne Gilbert
//
The Punjabi language originating from Sanskrit is the only modern
language actually evolved from Sanskrit.
Other indian languages such as Hindi borrow words from other languages
and cannot be said to be Sanskrit derived.
German, gramatically is similar to Punjabi.
--------
The Punjabi people that are "Jats" (land-owner/farmer) are a subset of
scythians and arrived in India from the mountains of Russia. Another
group (that was forced to leave that group) were the European Gypsies
(their language is somewhat Sanskritic).
--------
Punjab is a fertile region in West India and Pakistan. However, the
Pakistani Punjabis speak another language and are muslim. A district
of Indian Punjab is Hindu and Hindi speaking. Those two groups are not
"Jats."
--------
The reason perhaps Hitler used the Aryan identity was because of the
similar grammer and perhaps because of trade before the Aryans got to
the Indus valley (the current state of "Jats" is due to European
invasion and Hindu nationalism. When India was partitioned the reason
was to create a Muslim (Pakistan) and Hindu (India) state. The Sikhs
(Jats) were promised a free state by Nehru. This caused much upheaval
and is a reason why Jats left India.
--------
Jats actually controlled a large part of the Indian sub-continent and
were the last people on the continent to be subjugated. The British
allowed the Rajahs to remain and many Jats joined the army. A concept
of Sikhism is to be a saint-soldier. That concept along with the Jats
taller stature and build made them great soldiers. Most of the Indian
army has been Jat, however, in modern times the prestige has diminshed
because of the Hindu nationalism. 80% of the wheat grown in India is
grown by Jats (another excuse for keeping Punjab).
--------
If someone can argue that Aryan is from pre-German Germanic people then
it can also be argued that the Germanic features of blond hair and blue
eyes are an abberation. It is some sort of genetic flaw to have no
pigment at all--like an albino. Notice some of the adaptations to
light: slanted-eyes (but with thin eyebrows and no-lid), large-eyes
(with thick eyebrows and long eyelashes), "normal eyes" with very dark
skin and "normal eyebrows and lashes", colored eyes(?)
--------
The gypsies that left India made it to India with the Jats. The
Germanic people never made the trip to India. Saying Jats are mixed
with the original Dravidians in the Indus valley are nonsense
(otherwise wouldn't gypsy features be Germanic?). Genetically that's a
flawed arguement too.
--------
The rascists on the ng should know that I do enjoy the sight of a pure
blond hair/blue-eyed woman; but a man with such features is rather
unasthetic (a man who sunburns?). Perhaps the sunburn aspect is a
reason why Whites tend to indoor activity and why the Nordic type was
pushed to the sea. For a female to posess such characteristics is
reasonable since child-rearing is best accomplished with shelter and
the display of the colours is similar to the coloring of a bird's
feather.
--------
Any thoughts?
Jerry Abbott
No, race is a biological phenomenon. Besides the long-hair versus
short-hair, smoke-grey versus calico, and suchlike variations among cat
races, there are probably variations in physical and mental performance
criteria, as variations in behavior. These differences may be clearer
in dogs than in cats.
A greyhound is not a poodle, although they are both dogs of the species
Canis familiaris. The difference between them is biological, not
social. That difference is mostly determined by genetics, not by
culture. Certainly environmental factors might have had an influence on
the extent to which a greyhound or a poodle developed toward its
genetically determined potential. There is a discernable shift in the
distributions in the top running speeds for the two races of dogs, with
the greyhound having the advantage over the poodle. To put it bluntly,
the typical greyhound can outrun the typical poodle.
You are probably familiar with the taste of sweet corn. But you may not
be familiar with the taste of "field corn," which in my younger days I
used to harvest for hog feed. You could boil field corn and eat it,
much the way you would sweet corn--but you probably wouldn't like the
taste. These are separate "races" of corn. The difference is
determined by genetics, not by culture. Certainly environmental
factors, such as soil pH and fertility, might have an influence on the
taste of the corn, but anyway even given identical growing conditions
there is a measurable shift in the distribution of sugar content between
the two races of corn. The sweet corn is sweeter than the field corn.
There is no "constructing" of races. The identification of correlated
differences is an analytical process, not a synthesis. The races exist
in nature; you recognize them by experience and understand their
properties by observation.
I could go on, but this should suffice to highlight something that
certainly needs highlighting. You (and others) deny race ONLY in
humans. You can be brought to face squarely the fact that, among other
species of plants and animals, there exist "races" (different kinds or
strains belonging to the same species) that differ from each other
sufficiently that a reasonable person will prefer one kind to another
for a particular purpose. Liberals deny that recognition in the human
species to be fashionable in politics, not to be honest in science.
Imagine if it were gender, rather than race, that you were trying to
deny! That would be silly. But it would be no more silly than denying
the existence of race.
Jerry Abbott
Scott MacEachern
Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
(lots of stuff on domesticated plants and animals snipped)
>I could go on, but this should suffice to highlight something that
>certainly needs highlighting. You (and others) deny race ONLY in
>humans. You can be brought to face squarely the fact that, among other
>species of plants and animals, there exist "races" (different kinds or
>strains belonging to the same species) that differ from each other
>sufficiently that a reasonable person will prefer one kind to another
>for a particular purpose.
Nope. There are lots of plant, and animal, species that don't have
races -- and/or sub-species, given that the two terms are often
conflated. Compared to other primates, for example, humans are
remarkably homogeneous genetically: (1) Much lower degree of
mtDNA variability among modern humans (M. Ruvolo et al. [1993]
_Molecular Biology and Evolution_ 10: 1115-1135. (2) Heterozygosity
of modern humans -- much less than in other primates (D. N.
Janczewski et al., [1990] _Journal of Heredity_ 81: 375-387). (2)
Human races are not monophyletic -- no unique set of shared derived
characters that characterize any human 'race' (P. A. Morin et al.
[1994] _Science_ 265: 1193-1201). (3) mtDNA maximum divergence --
humans is 1.1% , around 3% among other primate subspecies (R. L. Cann
et al. [1987] _Nature_ 325: 31-36).
Chris Stringer makes the point in his most recent book that there is
more genetic variability among neighbouring gorilla bands in central
Africa than there is among human populations living at opposite ends
of the Earth. Same goes for chimps and orangs. There are good
evolutionary reasons for that human genetic homogeneity: and it's that
genetic variance that's going been involved in the determination of
'races'/ Biologically, there ain't none.
Scott
_______________________________________
Scott MacEachern
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bowdoin College
Brunswick, ME 04011 smac...@polar.bowdoin.edu
"Chaque vieillard qui meurt dans la brousse, c'est une bibliothèque
qui brûle." Amadou Hampaté Ba
Susan
(other good stuff snipped)
> Chris Stringer makes the point in his most recent book that there is
> more genetic variability among neighbouring gorilla bands in central
> Africa than there is among human populations living at opposite ends
> of the Earth.
> Scott
Just curious-- what book is this??
Susan
Anne Gilbert
In a previous article, j...@ix.netcom.com (Jerry Abbott) says:
>Anne Gilbert wrote:
>>
>> >
>
>I could go on, but this should suffice to highlight something that
>certainly needs highlighting. You (and others) deny race ONLY in
>humans. You can be brought to face squarely the fact that, among other
>species of plants and animals, there exist "races" (different kinds or
>strains belonging to the same species) that differ from each other
>sufficiently that a reasonable person will prefer one kind to another
>for a particular purpose. Liberals deny that recognition in the human
>species to be fashionable in politics, not to be honest in science.
>Imagine if it were gender, rather than race, that you were trying to
>deny! That would be silly. But it would be no more silly than denying
>the existence of race.
>
>Jerry Abbott
>
Sorry, Jerry, but you haven't convinced me one whit that "races" whether
of dogs, cats, sweet corn, or people, are anything but *socially
constructed* concepts. Why? I don't know about sweet corn, but dogs(and
wolves, from whom dogs are descended), cats, and people all *naturally*
show great variation *in any population*. The *biological* differences
are there, but they are so slight as not to make any difference to the
organisms involved --- certainly not in the relevant mating behavior.
What cat and dog breeders have done is seize on these slight biological
difference and magnify them for their own purposes. Yes, these
differences are "biological" in a certain crude genetic sense, but they
don't alter the dogness, catness, or peopleness of the species
involved. By invoking the idea that race *is* biological, anyone can
claim that these slight genetic differences have some profound meaning(at
least socially). The last people that tried to do this on a mass scale,
as I recall, were the ideologues of Nazi Germany. The Germans have been
recovering ever since.
Anne Gilbert
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
The primary referenced for this is:
Research by Maryellen Ruvolo, 13 Sept. issue (1966) of *Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences.* Looked at mtDNA estimated mutation rate of
0.8% per million years. estimated gorillas separated from chimps and
humans- 8-10 MYA; humans and chimps about 6 MYA. Ruvolo found a quite
large difference between mtDNA of Gorilla gorilla gorilla (W Africa
lowland) and E. Africa species G. g. graueri and G. g. beringei indicating
a split about 3 MYA and almost making them separate species. Interesting
was how little variation there was in human mtDNA. "Her findings support
previous research showing that modern humans are remarkably less diverse
genetically than are the great apes. 'The most different humans on the
face of the earth are less different than two lowland gorillas from the
same forest in West Africa."
Bernard Ortiz de MOntellano
Lorenzo L. Love
You're throwing out the baby with the bath water. Just because certain
pinheads misuse the concept of race for their own narrow minded purposes,
it doesn't mean that there is no such thing as race. Race is a social
construct to a degree, just as species is. If biology was the only
factor, dogs and wolves would be the same species. But race and species
are also biological. Race does not make any difference in mating
behavior, that's the key difference between race and species. There are
biological differences between races, slight yes, but well defined. A
forensic anthropologist can look at a bare skull and usually tell you
with a high degree of certainty what race it was. Pharmacologists are
finding that different races respond to drug treatments differently.
Don't deny the existence of race just because you don't like people
misuseing it. I don't like how these racists misuse the internet, but I
don't deny that the internet exists.
Lorenzo
Jerry Abbott
Scott MacEachern wrote:
>
> Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> (lots of stuff on domesticated plants and animals snipped)
>
> >certainly needs highlighting. You (and others) deny race ONLY in
> >humans. You can be brought to face squarely the fact that, among other
> >species of plants and animals, there exist "races" (different kinds or
> >strains belonging to the same species) that differ from each other
> >sufficiently that a reasonable person will prefer one kind to another
> >for a particular purpose.
>
> races -- and/or sub-species, given that the two terms are often
> conflated.
Would you define both terms for us, so that we can see what the
differences are?
I consider race to exist as correlated differences, both in the genes
and in the physical form produced by the genes, within one species.
I consider a species to be a set of organisms whose members can breed
with each other to produce fertile offspring.
I don't know what you mean by "sub-species," if you do not mean "race."
I did not say that there were not species of plants and animals that do
not exhibit race. I said, "among other species of plants and animals,
there exist 'races'..." Kindly note that the word "all" does not appear
in front of the word "species." Incidently, do you realize that (by all
appearances) you are trying to prove a negative? Have you examined
every member of ANY species, such that you can say that that species
does not display race?
> Compared to other primates, for example, humans are
> remarkably homogeneous genetically: (1) Much lower degree of
> mtDNA variability among modern humans (M. Ruvolo et al. [1993]
> _Molecular Biology and Evolution_ 10: 1115-1135. (2) Heterozygosity
> of modern humans -- much less than in other primates (D. N.
> Janczewski et al., [1990] _Journal of Heredity_ 81: 375-387). (2)
> Human races are not monophyletic -- no unique set of shared derived
> characters that characterize any human 'race' (P. A. Morin et al.
> [1994] _Science_ 265: 1193-1201). (3) mtDNA maximum divergence --
> humans is 1.1% , around 3% among other primate subspecies (R. L. Cann
> et al. [1987] _Nature_ 325: 31-36).
In the above quoted paragraph, points (1) and (3) might be true. I
assume that it can be checked out during peer review and by further
testing. However, point (2) is wrong, as far as I can tell. There are
obvious sets of shared derived characteristics of the different races;
otherwise, no one could say which group anyone else belonged to, often
(though not always) including strangers upon their first meeting with
each other. For that matter, no one would be able to identify himself
by race. But nearly everyone can do these things.
> Chris Stringer makes the point in his most recent book that there is
> more genetic variability among neighbouring gorilla bands in central
> Africa than there is among human populations living at opposite ends
> of the Earth. Same goes for chimps and orangs. There are good
> evolutionary reasons for that human genetic homogeneity: and it's that
> genetic variance that's going been involved in the determination of
> 'races'/ Biologically, there ain't none.
What are the "good evolutionary reasons" for human genetic homogeneity?
You didn't say.
You remarked that the genetic variation within the human species is less
than that of gorillas. That might be true. But gorillas don't organize
at the scales that humans organize, they don't specialize in the detail
with which humans specialize, and they don't exhibit anywhere near the
cultural complexity that humans exhibit. Human racial differences have
far more leverage with which to influence social and economic
relationships, as compared with racial differences in gorillas.
That is, you spend too much time counting genes, and not enough time
weighing the consequences that those genetic differences produce.
Jerry Abbott
Jerry Abbott
Anne Gilbert wrote:
>
> In a previous article, j...@ix.netcom.com (Jerry Abbott) says:
>
> >Anne Gilbert wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >
> >certainly needs highlighting. You (and others) deny race ONLY in
> >humans. You can be brought to face squarely the fact that, among other
> >species of plants and animals, there exist "races" (different kinds or
> >strains belonging to the same species) that differ from each other
> >sufficiently that a reasonable person will prefer one kind to another
> >species to be fashionable in politics, not to be honest in science.
> >Imagine if it were gender, rather than race, that you were trying to
> >deny! That would be silly. But it would be no more silly than denying
> >the existence of race.
> >
> >Jerry Abbott
> >
>
> Sorry, Jerry, but you haven't convinced me one whit that "races" whether
> of dogs, cats, sweet corn, or people, are anything but *socially
> constructed* concepts. Why? I don't know about sweet corn, but dogs(and
> wolves, from whom dogs are descended), cats, and people all *naturally*
> show great variation *in any population*.
We are not just talking about amorphous variations, but structured
ones. If the differences between, say, the dog breeds were not highly
correlated, then you could get away with explaining the different shapes
and sizes of dogs as a non-racial genetic variation in the dog species.
But they are correlated, so you can't.
> The *biological* differences
> are there, but they are so slight as not to make any difference to the
> organisms involved ---
This is not correct. Consider running ability for example. Suppose
that, for some reason, it were very important for a mixture of
greyhounds and beagles to run very, very quickly. Or else they would
not survive. The greyhounds would tend to do better in such
circumstances than the beagles. Conversely, suppose that it were
important to have a great sense of smell in order to find the way back
home? In this case, the beagles would tend to do better than the
greyhounds. The differences are not slight. They can mean a great deal
to the organisms involved.
> certainly not in the relevant mating behavior.
> What cat and dog breeders have done is seize on these slight biological
> difference and magnify them for their own purposes.
That is true. At one time, the species Canis familiaris didn't exist.
Like the common cow, they were bred by humans from wild stock for use by
humans. Since humans had more than one purpose for dogs, different
breeds became distinct with their respective advantages magnified, as
you said. I only said that dogs *do* exhibit race today; I hadn't said
*why* they do.
> Yes, these
> differences are "biological" in a certain crude genetic sense,
What does "a certain crude genetic sense" stand in contrast to? List
some more "refined" genetic senses. Race IS genetic variation in the
population of a species--but it is a variation that shows correlations
in the differences between discernable types. The genetic differences
in dogs are highly correlated: more so than in humans. That's probably
because the canine races were deliberately specialized by intelligent
design, whereas human genetic differences are adaptations to differing
ancestral environments. But human genetic differences are likewise
correlated, even if not so greatly as for dogs.
> but they
> don't alter the dogness, catness, or peopleness of the species
> involved.
Excuse me. No one (particularly me) has said that any of the different
races of dogs aren't dogs. No one (particularly me) has said that any
of the different races of humans don't belong to the species Homo
sapiens. That was never the argument.
My contention is that humans, among other species, display RACE. Race
is a set of genetic differences that are correlated between population
groups. If a typically knappy-haired people with highly pigmented skin
tend to have good jumping ability, somewhat lower than average
intelligence quotients, and a tendency to possess sickle cell trait,
then you might have identified a RACE.
If it were not for the existence of race, the proportions of Whites and
Blacks on your typical professional NBA team would be 9 to 1 in favor of
the Whites, reflecting the ratio of the national population. But
studies (easily repeatable by you) of the racial composition of NBA
teams indicate that Blacks predominate, not Whites. What could skew the
distribution of Black and White basketball players, such that their
ratio varies by a factor of fifty, or perhaps one hundred, from the race
ratio of the general population? Does that mean there's some "racial
discrimination" going on in the hiring of professional basketball
players? No. The team owners don't care about race, but about money.
A winning team will make them richer than a losing one. (Indeed, in a
free market, a pattern of preference for the less-able results in
uncompetitiveness and leads to bankruptcy.) They observe all the
players to see who excels at those skills important to winning
basketball games. Blacks possess these skills (e.g. jumping ability)
with much higher frequency than Whites.
A similar phenomenon can be observed among the winners of athletic
events in which sprinting is important. Blacks possess this skill with
much higher frequency than Whites.
But Whites have their advantages too, likewise genetic, relative to
Blacks. Despite the oppobrium directed toward Murray and Herrinstein,
the racially correlated shift in IQ levels, which they report in their
book THE BELL CURVE, is real. Their studies can be repeated, again and
again, with the results checked each time. That shift in the mean of
the distributions of intelligence, among Whites and Blacks respectively,
is why Whites are disproportionately favored in selection for executive
and technical professions in a free market. As was the case with the
basketball team owner's partiality toward Blacks on account of their
(typically) superior jumping skill, likewise the corporate Boards of
Directors are interested in hiring those executives and technicians
whose abilities will earn them the most profit. (In a free market, a
pattern of preference for the less-able results in uncompetitiveness,
and poorly-run enterprises go bankrupt.)
Allegations of "racial discrimination" are frequently red herrings aimed
at producing "equal results" in employment while claiming to be aimed at
producing "equal opportunity." The free market produces equal
opportunity. Affirmative Action is based on the deception that the
human species does not display race. Affirmative Action forces the
selection of less-able candidates in preference to more-able ones and
will, in the long run, reduce the effectiveness of American corporations
in competition with foreign ones in a global marketplace.
> By invoking the idea that race *is* biological, anyone can
> claim that these slight genetic differences have some profound meaning(at
> least socially).
By invoking the idea that gender *is* biological, anyone can claim that
this slight genetic difference can have some profound meaning (at least
socially). Sorry to mock your format, but race is biological, and it
does have important social and economic consequences.
In another post, someone remarks that the genetic variation within the
human species is less than that of gorillas. That might be true. But
gorillas don't organize at the scales that humans organize, they don't
specialize in the detail with which humans specialize, and they don't
exhibit anywhere near the cultural complexity that humans exhibit.
Human racial differences have far more leverage with which to influence
social and economic relationships, as compared with racial differences
in gorillas.
> The last people that tried to do this on a mass scale,
> as I recall, were the ideologues of Nazi Germany. The Germans have been
> recovering ever since.
> Anne Gilbert
Do you ever stop to analyze the nature of your argumentative forms? The
Germans lost a war. That means that they were militarily inferior to
their opponents. That defeat does not indicate whether their thoughts
on racial differences were correct or incorrect, either in general or in
any given particular, any more than a mugger, sharing his political
opinions with you while sticking a gun in your ribs and grabbing your
money, should unduly affect the way you vote in the next election.
Jerry Abbott
Scott MacEachern
On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 12:11:32 -0700, Susan <rgq...@uriacc.uri.edu>
wrote:
>Just curious-- what book is this??
The mtDNA data are in the sources that I gave -- the Stringer book is
_African Exodus_ by Chris Stringer and Robin McKie, published this
year; my copy is in my office and I forget the publisher. The title is
apparently patterned after _African Genesis_ (by Ardrey, wasn't it?).
I shudder to think what _African Leviticus_ is going to be about :-)
Scott
____________________________________________
Scott MacEachern
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bowdoin College
Brunswick, ME 04011 smac...@polar.bowdoin.edu
"It is the magic of nationalism to turn chance into destiny."
Benedict Anderson, _Imagined Communities_
Anne Gilbert
tcom.com> <3421c2fe.39273794@n
Organization: Seattle Community Network
In a previous article, rgq...@uriacc.uri.edu (Susan) says:
>!news
>From: Susan <rgq...@uriacc.uri.edu>
>Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
>Subject: Re: lies about race
>Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 12:11:32 -0700
>Organization: University of Rhode Island
>Lines: 12
>Message-ID: <3422CE...@uriacc.uri.edu>
>References: <341CC532...@ix.netcom.com> <5tiqoi$pnu$1...@orthanc.reference.com> <5tvhfs$9ho$3...@taurus.bv.sgi.net> <34077399...@usit.net> <5v1ddv$sbu$5...@taurus.bv.sgi.net> <EGMJE...@scn.org> <3420BE47...@ix.netcom.com> <3421c2fe.39273794@
n
>ews.bowdoin.edu>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.128.13.1
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; I)
>
>(other good stuff snipped)
>
>> Chris Stringer makes the point in his most recent book that there is
>> more genetic variability among neighbouring gorilla bands in central
>> Africa than there is among human populations living at opposite ends
>> of the Earth.
>
>> Scott
>
>Just curious-- what book is this??
>
>Susan
>
If it's the one I'm thinking of, it's called "African Exodus", and it was
published last year.
Anne Gilbert
Scott MacEachern
Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Would you define both terms for us, so that we can see what the
>differences are?
Race is usually defined as a biological grouping within the human
species with sufficient genetic uniqueness that it can be classified
as a distinct human type. In practise, races have been in many cases
defined on mixtures of biological and non-biological traits. A
sub-species is a distinct population within a species, distinguished
by some physical and/or behavioural trait(s); sub-speciation is caused
by some isolation mechanism, often geographic, which hinders
interchange of genetic material between populations, The differences
may be caused by genetic drift, founders effect, differential
adaptation and etc.
>I don't know what you mean by "sub-species," if you do not mean "race."
The term 'race' is considerably vaguer. If you have access to
Britannica Online, look up their discussion of the various ways that
the term 'race' has been used in studies of human evolution. The
problem is that this idea of 'correlated difference' is so vague as to
be meaningless in evolutionary terms, which is presumably where such
differentiation into 'races' would have originated. To give an
example, I got into an argument with someone on Usenet in August; this
person claimed that the success of African-Americans in the NBA proved
that races existed, because of the correlation of skin colour and
jumping ability. 'Correlated difference' -- but would you agree that
_in and of themselves_ those two crtieria establish the reality of
race as a biological unit??
>I did not say that there were not species of plants and animals that do
>not exhibit race.
? "You (and others) deny race ONLY in humans. You can be brought to
face squarely the fact that, among other species of plants and
animals, there exist "races" (different kinds or strains belonging to
the same species) that differ from each other sufficiently that a
reasonable person will prefer one kind to another for a particular
purpose." Seems to me that you should have asked Ms. Gilbert, for
example, what she thought about population variation in other species
first.
> Incidently, do you realize that (by all
>appearances) you are trying to prove a negative? Have you examined
>every member of ANY species, such that you can say that that species
>does not display race?
Nope. I dislike the concept of race because of (a) its vagueness, (b)
the data on human genetic homogeneity that I've quoted and (c) its
evolutionary unlikeliness. I will, in fact, be very glad when our
knowledge of the genetics of human populations gets better, because
there are some very wierd artefacts in the data to this point, but
that's another question.
>In the above quoted paragraph, points (1) and (3) might be true. I
>assume that it can be checked out during peer review and by further
>testing.
The articles have done quite well in review -- those are good
journals. And further testing must of course go on -- this field has
only really opened since 1980.
> For that matter, no one would be able to identify himself
> by race. But nearly everyone can do these things.
Look, no one denies that human population variability exists; it does,
and people utilize that variability in producing the social constructs
of race. Gerold Firl and I had this argument this spring: do 'human
race' and 'human population' just mean the same thing? I argue that if
race is equivalent to population, we should just drop the term 'race',
because it has too many bad connotations in physical anthropology. Mr.
Firl disagreed. But the 'racial scientists' argue that 'race' is
_more_ than just population, that it denotes large-scale
differentiation within the human species essentially equivalent to
sub-species. And there is _no_ evidence for that.
So let's define terms before we continue, please. When you speak of
'race', are you talking about the sort of population variability that
allows us to make guesses about where people come from, or are you
talking about something larger-scale than that?
>What are the "good evolutionary reasons" for human genetic homogeneity?
>You didn't say.
Among modern humans, chiefly mobility -- we are an extraordinarily
mobile bunch, and I have trouble conceiving of situations over the
last 20,000 years or so where any human populations could have been
isolated for evolutionarily -significant timespans. There are maybe a
couple of cases -- Tasmanians are the best-defined, perhaps -- but
when people talk about 'human races' they don't tend to mean little
populations living on isolated islands. Note as well that the most
contentious claims of 'racial scientists' -- that races encompass
differences in intelligence -- involve the one characteristic of
humans where selection pressures are least likely to be removed in
_any_ environment.
>That is, you spend too much time counting genes, and not enough time
>weighing the consequences that those genetic differences produce.
It seems to me that hwat you're saying now is that... human races are
social and cultural constructs, not biological ones. Which is I think
what Ms. Gilbert was saying in the first place.
Scott
_______________________________________
Scott MacEachern
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bowdoin College
Brunswick, ME 04011 smac...@polar.bowdoin.edu
"Chaque vieillard qui meurt dans la brousse, c'est une bibliothèque
Anne Gilbert
.J...@scn.org> <EGrpt...@scn.org>
Organization: Seattle Community Network
In a previous article, j...@ix.netcom.com (Jerry Abbott) says:
>ws.sprintlink.net!Sprint!ix.netcom.com!news
>From: Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com>
>Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
>Subject: Re: lies about race
>Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 14:36:52 -0500
>Organization: Netcom
>Lines: 179
>Message-ID: <342425D4...@ix.netcom.com>
>References: <3420BE47...@ix.netcom.com> <341CC532...@ix.netcom.com> <5tiqoi$pnu$1...@orthanc.reference.com> <5tvhfs$9ho$3...@taurus.bv.sgi.net> <34077399...@usit.net> <5v1ddv$sbu$5...@taurus.bv.sgi.net> <EGMJE...@scn.org> <EGrpt...@scn.org
>
>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: cht-tn1-23.ix.netcom.com
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Sep 20 12:40:39 PM PDT 1997
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I)
>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Oh those poor, maligned Germans!! Sure they lost the war because they
were militarily inferior, whatever that means. But the ideas the Nazis
promoted were so repugnant to any halfway intelligent person that
governments who would normally have been at each other's throats banded
together to create that military superiority. As for the rest of your
diatribe, it sounds like the garbage spewed forth by the folks who came
up with "The Bell Curve". I still don't buy it, and I don't think anyone
else here does either.
Anne Gilbert
Jerry Abbott
> >From: Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com>
> >Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
> >Subject: Re: lies about race
> >Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 14:36:52 -0500
> >Organization: Netcom
> >Lines: 179
> >Message-ID: <342425D4...@ix.netcom.com>
> >References: <3420BE47...@ix.netcom.com> <341CC532...@ix.netcom.com> <5tiqoi$pnu$1...@orthanc.reference.com> <5tvhfs$9ho$3...@taurus.bv.sgi.net> <34077399...@usit.net> <5v1ddv$sbu$5...@taurus.bv.sgi.net> <EGMJE...@scn.org> <EGrpt...@scn.org
> >
> >
> >NNTP-Posting-Host: cht-tn1-23.ix.netcom.com
> >Mime-Version: 1.0
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Sep 20 12:40:39 PM PDT 1997
> >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I)
> >X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
> >
"Whatever that means"? Ms. Gilbert, I recognize the propagandistic
twist of feigned confusion, but you ought to know better than to use it
about something so patently obvious as the meaning of military
inferiority. It means that the Germans were outmanned, outgunned,
stretched thin, pressed for resources, and forced to fight on too many
fronts at the same time. It is hard to imagine that someone could
wonder about the meaning of military inferiority.
> But the ideas the Nazis
> promoted were so repugnant to any halfway intelligent person that
> governments who would normally have been at each other's throats banded
> together to create that military superiority.
That's not how it happened. Britain and the United States were never at
each other's throats, and the ideals of National Socialism weren't the
reason either of them entered the war. The Soviet Union probably
detested those ideals per se, but their was another reason in that case
as well.
> As for the rest of your
> diatribe, it sounds like the garbage spewed forth by the folks who came
> up with "The Bell Curve". I still don't buy it, and I don't think anyone
> else here does either.
> Anne Gilbert
So swift you are to speak for everyone else. I don't buy your certainty
or your claim to that privilege. Here is what I think about THE BELL
CURVE. The study uses the appropriate statistical technique in
measuring the statistical distributions of I.Q. scores within races.
However, there is no indication that non-genetic factors, acting in a
broad and uneven fashion between the races, could be responsible for the
15 point shift in the mean scores for Blacks and Whites. The genetic
basis for that shift was assumed by Herrstein and Murray to be the
cause, when it is merely one of the possible causes. Liberal critics
have claimed that "unequal opportunity" in education and/or racial bias
in the I.Q. tests are the actual culprit(s).
I suspect, though, that Herrstein and Murray were on the right track,
even though they didn't eliminate every possible non-genetic variable
(something very hard to do in social science studies). For one thing,
employers mainly want bigger profits, and they will hire whomever will
most probably earn it for them. In areas where Blacks have hereditary
advantages over Whites, such as in professional basketball, Blacks are
hired in proportions exceeding their representation in the general
population. We might expect, from examples of this behavior, that in
free market enterprises where Whites are represented more than their
proportion in the population, that the reason is, once again, job
suitability in the eyes of an employer wanting as much profit as he can
get.
If you want to make a case that a deliberate process of racial
discrimination has been at work in the selection of executives, then
perhaps the very best place to start would be in the Cabinet of the
President of the United States and their executive staff. There is an
ethnic group that has garnered about one-third (perhaps more) of the
senior staff positions there. In this case, the over-representation of
this group, in comparison with their percentage of the national
population, is so great that even the findings of Herrstein and Murray
(which hold this group's average I.Q. to be 115) can't explain it. This
ethnic group is, by the way, Ashkenazi Jews. If you wish, I can
integrate the error function of Black, White, Asian, and Jewish I.Q.
distributions, each weighted by their fractional representation of that
group to the total population, from zero to some "Qualifying_IQ" to
indicate the percentages of the races that should be in the Presidential
Cabinet and the senior staff. But I'm sure that you can do this as
well, since you are so smart.
Jews have, again by the way, had extraordinarily disproportionate
political influence in the United States since before the second World
War. That fact has a bearing on why the United States went to war
against (Japan and then) Germany in 1939.
Jerry Abbott
Mark
Anne Gilbert <keb...@scn.org> wrote in article <EGxIy...@scn.org>...
> .J...@scn.org> <EGrpt...@scn.org>
> Organization: Seattle Community Network
> Oh those poor, maligned Germans!! Sure they lost the war because they
> were militarily inferior, whatever that means. But the ideas the Nazis
> promoted were so repugnant to any halfway intelligent person that
> governments who would normally have been at each other's throats banded
> together to create that military superiority.
This is, to put it bluntly, nonsense. The Second World War was fought for
the reasons that wars are always fought - territory and economics.
In the first instance, Russia and Germany acted in concert to attack Poland
after Germany had absorbed the Rhineland, Austria and, by then sailing very
close to the wind, Czechoslovakia. Britain and France had treaties with
Poland and honoured them by declaring war on Germany.
Nazi racial theories and practices had absolutelty nothing whatsoever to do
with the war in any way at all. To be perfectly honest a poll amongst
French, British and although you may not like the idea, Americans, in 1939,
would have shown very strong sentiments by very large sections of the
populations of those countries sympathetic to many of the Nazi's racial
policies.
You will no doubt have read recently of the fuss caused by the Swedish
admission that sterilisation of the "unfit" was carried out by the very
socialist Swedish Government right into the sixties. There were no moral
objections cited by any of the Allied Governments to the Nazi racial
policies which were formed part of any declaration of war. The bases for
the charges laid at Nuremberg against the Nazi heirarchy were formulated in
1943 by the British and Americans they were not constituted in the
declarations of war.
Once the war was under way all propaganda means whatsoever available were
used to instill the necessary will to fight amongst the Allied populations
but it was well into the war before the Nazi policy towards the
"Untermenschen" had any prominence at all. The reasons are quite simply
that, as stated above, these were not issues calculated to stir the average
Briton, Frenchman or, some time later, American to hatred of Germans. As
far as I know the only person who took a stand, from a point of view of
involving the whole of his country in this specific issue was KIng
Christian of Denmark. He objected to the Nazi order that all Jews were to
wear the Yellow Star identifying them as Jews. The KIng's action inspired
the Danes to take direct action to save the Damish Jewish population, as
far as they possibly could and at risk to themselves. No other national
leader, in opposition to the Nazi's, took any overt action that I can call
to mind. In fact I believe that Mussolini, who was HItler's ally, was
instrumental in preventing action against Italian Jews - to the extent that
this occured elsewhere in Europe - whilst he held office.
It has become a widely held belief that the Allies fought the Second World
War because of the Nazi treatment of the Jews. This is principally because
of the emphasis placed on the horror of the Holocaust after the War. No
matter how heinous a "crime against humanity" may be, you may rest assured
that nations do not risk the lives of their subjects and their economic
well being in going to war against a national government committing such
crimes. If such were the case South Africa would have been the subject of
military intervention decades ago, because for decades the policies of the
then South African Government were equated with and even cited as more
horrific than those of the Nazis. Member states of the UN gave lip service
to sanctions but most - particularly in Africa - ignored these in their own
ecnomic interests.
The international policies of governments are dictated by the strategic
interests of their nations as these are determined from time to time.
Morality is rarely an issue.
Mark Richardson
Tom Farrell
Jerry Abbott wrote:
> each other's throats, and the ideals of National Socialism weren't the
> reason either of them entered the war.
and then:
> Jews have, again by the way, had extraordinarily disproportionate
> political influence in the United States since before the second World
> War. That fact has a bearing on why the United States went to war
> against (Japan and then) Germany in 1939.
Says it all really doesn't it? At least be consistent within each
individual rant Jerry. Can't be too much to ask can it?
Tom
Jerry Abbott
No, not those two alone. In theory, there could be more than one race
with the combination of good jumping ability and dark skin. A race
would not become apparent until enough variables were correlated and
structured subsets of data points (each one representing an individual
tested in all respects being correlated) became evident. It is possible
that such testing could reveal two races of dark-skinned high-jumpers,
but one of the races had high-I.Q.'s, outsie belly buttons, six toes on
their left feet, and a protruding vestigital tail, whereas the other
race had low-I.Q.'s, inward belly buttons, five toes on each foot, and a
tendency to be carriers of sickle cell trait.
> >I did not say that there were not species of plants and animals that do
> >not exhibit race.
>
> ? "You (and others) deny race ONLY in humans."
You are quoting me, of course. But how does my claim that YOU deny race
only in humans imply that I denied the existence of any non-racianated
species? It does not imply such a thing.
> "...You can be brought to
> face squarely the fact that, among other species of plants and
> animals, there exist "races" (different kinds or strains belonging to
> the same species) that differ from each other sufficiently that a
> reasonable person will prefer one kind to another for a particular
> purpose." Seems to me that you should have asked Ms. Gilbert, for
> example, what she thought about population variation in other species
> first."
It seems to me that you ought to recognize that I was not formulating a
universally applicable statement. If I had said "...among ALL other
species of plants and animals, there exist races..." you'd have made me
admit to making (probably) a mistake of one sort. I should have said
"...among CERTAIN other species..." so that my meaning would have been
more clear. I'd hoped it would be understood that I was attaching a
political motive to the denial of race that I mentioned at the top of
that quote.
> > Incidently, do you realize that (by all
> >appearances) you are trying to prove a negative? Have you examined
> >every member of ANY species, such that you can say that that species
> >does not display race?
>
> Nope. I dislike the concept of race because of (a) its vagueness, (b)
> the data on human genetic homogeneity that I've quoted and (c) its
> evolutionary unlikeliness. I will, in fact, be very glad when our
> knowledge of the genetics of human populations gets better, because
> there are some very wierd artefacts in the data to this point, but
> that's another question.
Race appears to me to be as obvious a thing as gender, having
morphological variations that can be easily seen and categorized on
inspection (most of the time). When a typical citizen of Zaire meets a
typical citizen of Canada, they recognize each other as Black and White
respectively, even though the obviousness of those facts is such that
mentioning it is, besides unnecessary, considered impolite. The genetic
variation might be small at the cellular level, but so is the difference
responsible for gender. You can tell a White man from a Black man with
approximately the same ease as you can tell a man from a woman.
> >In the above quoted paragraph, points (1) and (3) might be true. I
> >assume that it can be checked out during peer review and by further
> >testing.
>
> The articles have done quite well in review -- those are good
> journals. And further testing must of course go on -- this field has
> only really opened since 1980.
>
> > For that matter, no one would be able to identify himself
> > by race. But nearly everyone can do these things.
>
> Look, no one denies that human population variability exists; it does,
> and people utilize that variability in producing the social constructs
> of race. Gerold Firl and I had this argument this spring: do 'human
> race' and 'human population' just mean the same thing? I argue that if
> race is equivalent to population, we should just drop the term 'race',
> because it has too many bad connotations in physical anthropology. Mr.
> Firl disagreed. But the 'racial scientists' argue that 'race' is
> _more_ than just population, that it denotes large-scale
> differentiation within the human species essentially equivalent to
> sub-species. And there is _no_ evidence for that.
>
> So let's define terms before we continue, please. When you speak of
> 'race', are you talking about the sort of population variability that
> allows us to make guesses about where people come from, or are you
> talking about something larger-scale than that?
I will tell you how I would like to define race, and it is the
definition that I would use if I had the data to make it useful. I
would like to define race as statistically significant aspects of the
structure shown by a graph of a data set, wherein each point on the
graph represented a human individual and in which the axes in the graph
each represented one of a sufficient number of physical and mental
performance factors, and/or behavioral tendencies, such as might be
reliably quantified. The graph would be many-dimensional and would have
to be modeled by a computer. I would hope for at least ten thousand
test subjects, and many more would be preferable. I have no idea what
the structure of the data would look like, but I expect that there would
be structure. The races of Homo sapiens would be best defined, in my
opinion, in terms of the major features (departures from
homogeneity/asymmetry) of that structure.
But until that definition becomes useful, I'll have to use the less
quantified categories. (I know a Black when I see one, even if I can't
count up how Black he is.)
> >What are the "good evolutionary reasons" for human genetic homogeneity?
> >You didn't say.
>
> Among modern humans, chiefly mobility -- we are an extraordinarily
> mobile bunch, and I have trouble conceiving of situations over the
> last 20,000 years or so where any human populations could have been
> isolated for evolutionarily -significant timespans. There are maybe a
> couple of cases -- Tasmanians are the best-defined, perhaps -- but
> when people talk about 'human races' they don't tend to mean little
> populations living on isolated islands. Note as well that the most
> contentious claims of 'racial scientists' -- that races encompass
> differences in intelligence -- involve the one characteristic of
> humans where selection pressures are least likely to be removed in
> _any_ environment.
On the contrary, I am comfortable with the idea that there could be a
race composed of a few thousand individuals. Even a species might have
only one member--if it is a species that is about to become extinct.
Humans are mobile, but we are also territorial. If a foreign bunch
would move into our area, they have to fight us first--or did until
recently. If humans were all that homogeneous, there wouldn't be so
much readily apparent difference in skin color, facial features, jumping
ability, and several other performance factors that are not quite so
politically controversial as intelligence.
Intelligence may be challenged in any environment, but it is challenged
by some conditions more than others. Probably the commonest necessity
to human survival is the acquisition of food. In tropical areas, edible
plants grow the year around. A tropics dweller needs only as much
thinking ability as will let him recognize his dinner when he sees it.
In colder climates, plant food does not grow all the year around. It
must be harvested in the fall and stored in sufficient quantity to
provide food for the winter and seed in the spring. The cold-climate
dweller will, like his tropical counterpart, hunt for game--but the
consequences of failure for the cold-climate dweller are much more
severe than for the tropics-dweller, who will simply gather more fruits
and vegetables and wait the next hunt. The unfortunate hunter in the
cold climate might starve, along with his family.
>That is, you spend too much time counting genes, and not enough time
> >weighing the consequences that those genetic differences produce.
>
> It seems to me that hwat you're saying now is that... human races are
> social and cultural constructs, not biological ones. Which is I think
> what Ms. Gilbert was saying in the first place.
Nope. I'm saying that small genetic differences produce sufficiently
large differences in physical and mental performance factors that, in a
complicated social organization, there are good reasons for the
disproportionate distribution of the races in various kinds of
employment--e.g., Blacks favored in basketball, Whites favored in
technical jobs. It isn't an a priori sort of racial discrimination that
is going on; it's a marketplace preference for the more able that is
going on. What looks like "bigotry" in the politically selective vision
of a liberal is, in reality, a motivation toward skilled labor
competitiveness for the sake of profit.
Jerry Abbott
Serene & Sanguine Sagacity
Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Serene & Sanguine Sagacity wrote:
>> "Dwight E. Howell" <deo...@usit.net> wrote:
>> >Serene & Sanguine Sagacity wrote:
>> >> The lie is that there is anything other than
>> >> the single human race, which includes people
>> >> of many families with many different personal
>> >> characteristics, the vast majority of which
>> >> people are too smart to believe racist lies
>> >> about things with no basis in science.
>> >I hope you're right that the majority is too smart to buy racist lies not
>> >based in science because it is clear that a strong minority do.
>> You are right.
>> I am optimistic about people, indeed,
>> and perhaps erroneously so at times.
>> Rational misconstructions are based
>> upon fear which remains unresolved.
>> Fear is based upon ignorance, of
>> which here is no shortage.
>Many species, including humans, exhibit race ...
Your substantiation for that would be _?_
~~~"Serene" *Sheila Green* "Sagacity"~~~
[aka Word Warrior green*@tristate.pgh.net]
"Eat me, and use your head for better than
the mere absorption of monitor radiation."
Jerry Abbott
Tom Farrell wrote:
>
> Jerry Abbott wrote:
>
> > each other's throats, and the ideals of National Socialism weren't the
> > reason either of them entered the war.
This is a correct statement. The ideals of National Socialism had to do
with racial identity and self-determination, as opposed to being
racially mixed and politically controlled by Jews. Neither of those
ideals--per se--caused Britain or the United States to enter the war.
Those countries got into the war by way of deception and on account of
the ambition of their leaders: Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano
Roosevelt. The motives of the Jews who encouraged Churchill and
Roosevelt to enter the war might have had something to do with National
Socialism's ideals, as they did not want the German people to have
either racial identity or self-determination, but they (those Jews) were
not the national decision-makers. The US President and the British
Prime Minister should have known better than to give in to them, but
they were ambitious men who would gladly sacrifice a million of their
countrymen in order to win one more election or to avoid a scandal for
being in debt.
> and then:
>
> > Jews have, again by the way, had extraordinarily disproportionate
> > political influence in the United States since before the second World
> > War. That fact has a bearing on why the United States went to war
> > against (Japan and then) Germany in 1939.
This is also a correct statement. The Jews have held what I said they
have held since before WW2, right up to the present: extraordinarily
disproportionate political influence. This influence is exerted in the
USA principally by the media, which is owned and operated to a most
unrepresentative degree by Jews, such as Michael Eisner (Disney and
ABC/Capital Cities), Gerald Levine (Time-Warner), Sumner Redstone
(Viacom), Samuel and Donald Newhouse (Advance Publications, Random
House, etc. etc.), Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. (The New York Times),
Katheryn Meyer Graham (The Washington Post), Peter Kann (The Wall Street
Journal)... the list is a long one. For part of the rest, see
http://www.natvan.com/whorules/whorules.html.
> Says it all really doesn't it? At least be consistent within each
> individual rant Jerry. Can't be too much to ask can it?
Certainly not, Tom. And when you find a post in which I've been
inconsistent, please let me know. But you needn't try to hoax one up
again.
> Tom
Jerry Abbott
Serene & Sanguine Sagacity wrote:
>
> Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Serene & Sanguine Sagacity wrote:
> >> "Dwight E. Howell" <deo...@usit.net> wrote:
> >> >Serene & Sanguine Sagacity wrote:
> >> >> The lie is that there is anything other than
> >> >> the single human race, which includes people
> >> >> of many families with many different personal
> >> >> characteristics, the vast majority of which
> >> >> people are too smart to believe racist lies
> >> >> about things with no basis in science.
> >> >I hope you're right that the majority is too smart to buy racist lies not
> >> >based in science because it is clear that a strong minority do.
> >> You are right.
> >> I am optimistic about people, indeed,
> >> and perhaps erroneously so at times.
> >> Rational misconstructions are based
> >> upon fear which remains unresolved.
> >> Fear is based upon ignorance, of
> >> which here is no shortage.
>
> >Many species, including humans, exhibit race ...
>
> Your substantiation for that would be _?_
Visible differences in typical body structure, coloration, and facial
features. Measureable differences in physical and mental performance
factors, easily verifiable by you. Watch a basketball game sometime.
To be sure, a more thorough statistical study for racial differences
than has been done before would be desirable. But for one reason or
another (cost, political correctness) it hasn't been as far as I know.
Until then, I'll usually tend to believe what my own senses tell me.
Jerry Abbott
Scott MacEachern
On Tue, 23 Sep 1997 05:00:18 -0500, Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote
>A race
>would not become apparent until enough variables were correlated and
>structured subsets of data points (each one representing an individual
>tested in all respects being correlated) became evident.
OK, so then it's not just correlation, but some important degree of
correlation.
>It seems to me that you ought to recognize that I was not formulating a
>universally applicable statement. ...I'd hoped it would be understood that I was attaching a
>political motive to the denial of race that I mentioned at the top of
>that quote.
Great. But why should a political motive be imputed if someone claims
that humans are simply one among a number of species where 'races' (or
sub-species) do not exist? That might have been something to check on
first. If humans are claimed to be the _only_ species without such
variation, that's one thing -- but it's rather different if we're only
one of many such species.
>Race appears to me to be as obvious a thing as gender, having
>morphological variations that can be easily seen and categorized on
>inspection (most of the time). When a typical citizen of Zaire meets a
>typical citizen of Canada, they recognize each other as Black and White
>respectively, even though the obviousness of those facts is such that
>mentioning it is, besides unnecessary, considered impolite.
I'm not sure what a 'typical citizen' of Canada is supposed to be --
there are large parts of the country (as with the United States) where
you couldn't make that assumption. In any case, as I noted, there's no
argument that population variability exists -- it's the
_characteristics_ of that variability that are at the root of this
argument. If, for example, that variability is strongly clinal and not
well correlated, phenotypically and/or genotypically, you can't define
'races' (much less sub-species) at all.
> You can tell a White man from a Black man with
>approximately the same ease as you can tell a man from a woman.
Leaving aside the gender issues, using what criteria? I work with
Mbororo Fulani in Cameroon who look like Sicilians, and Arabs who look
like Yoruba. And if I was using blood type or genetic markers, I'll
come out with different groupings. This comes back to on old problem:
how many races are there, and who belongs to them? The traditional
division into three races throws up so many groups that don't fit that
it becomes laughable, while attempts to be realistic generate dozens
of 'races' (well over, 50, at the high end) -- and at that point,
you're basically talking about different populations anyway.
>The races of Homo sapiens would be best defined, in my
>opinion, in terms of the major features (departures from
>homogeneity/asymmetry) of that structure.
Well, good luck. I'd advise you to look at the work of Luigi
Cavalii-Sforza -- both _The great disaporas_ and especially _The
history and geography of human genes_ -- which is certainly the
closest appraoch to the sort of study you envisage. But read his
critique of the traditional race concept, as well -- he doesn't like
it.
>On the contrary, I am comfortable with the idea that there could be a
>race composed of a few thousand individuals.
Great. But that's not what people who use the race concept talk about,
is it? They're not interested in a Tasmanian 'race', but in a
'Negorid' one -- which is inherently far less liekly.
>Humans are mobile, but we are also territorial. If a foreign bunch
>would move into our area, they have to fight us first--or did until
>recently.
Not especially. We've spent most of our existence as foragers -- and
one thing foragers do a lot is create widespread networks of trade and
kinship, in order to be able to smooth out environmental variability.
The season's bad -- go live with your relatives. That creates mobility
and patterns of genetic exchange over huge areas. And farmers do the
same thing.
>Intelligence may be challenged in any environment, but it is challenged
>by some conditions more than others. Probably the commonest necessity
>to human survival is the acquisition of food. In tropical areas, edible
>plants grow the year around. ...
>In colder climates, plant food does not grow all the year around. It
>must be harvested in the fall and stored in sufficient quantity to
>provide food for the winter and seed in the spring.
Lynn and Rushton's stuff... I've critiqued this extensively in other
newsgroups -- it just doesn't work. There is _no_ evidence that
temperate environments are in some fundamental sense more challenging
than tropical ones. One has cold seasons, the other has dry seasons,
and you have to plan ahead and deal with environmental variability in
both. The balance of plant foods and animals foods work the same way
-- in fact, some tropical environments have very little plant food.
Storage technologies have been developed in both areas.
Archaeologically -- my stuff -- we don't see temperate populations
being culturally more productive than tropical ones at all. There is
_no_ evidence thatthis --remarkably old, it goes back to Kant and
Herder -- idea actually works.
>Nope. I'm saying that small genetic differences produce sufficiently
>large differences in physical and mental performance factors that, in a
>complicated social organization, there are good reasons for the
>disproportionate distribution of the races in various kinds of
>employment--e.g., Blacks favored in basketball, Whites favored in
>technical jobs.
Humph. Not that long ago, it was widely held that African- Americans
weren't capable of competing with Euroamericans in sports (those
deletrious tropical climates that you just mentioned). For that
matter, the Japanese were imitative, Jews would never make good
soldiers and the country was going to hell in a handbasket because of
all these inferior eastern and southern Europeans who were
immigrating. Strange how the verities change, isn't it?
Scott
____________________________________________
Scott MacEachern
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bowdoin College
Brunswick, ME 04011 smac...@polar.bowdoin.edu
"It is the magic of nationalism to turn chance into destiny."
Benedict Anderson, _Imagined Communities_
Jerry Abbott
Scott MacEachern wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Sep 1997 05:00:18 -0500, Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote
>
> >A race
> >would not become apparent until enough variables were correlated and
> >structured subsets of data points (each one representing an individual
> >tested in all respects being correlated) became evident.
>
> OK, so then it's not just correlation, but some important degree of
> correlation.
Right. And among some important number of variables. The structure in
the distribution of data within the many-dimensional plot that I
mentioned would guide the formulation of better racial definitions.
Until such a study is done and the results published, though, I'll have
to trust to what my senses tell me.
> >It seems to me that you ought to recognize that I was not formulating a
> >universally applicable statement. ...I'd hoped it would be understood that I was attaching a
> >political motive to the denial of race that I mentioned at the top of
> >that quote.
>
> Great. But why should a political motive be imputed if someone claims
> that humans are simply one among a number of species where 'races' (or
> sub-species) do not exist? That might have been something to check on
> first. If humans are claimed to be the _only_ species without such
> variation, that's one thing -- but it's rather different if we're only
> one of many such species.
If someone claimed that humans were simply one among a number of species
where races do not exist, I'd probably disagree without suspecting a
political motive. What is usually done by human race deniers, however,
is to assert that the detection of race in humans is based entirely on
"hatred" or "bigotry" (or some equally unsavory motive) and not at all
on data, however unclinically acquired and categorized. It's much as
though someone were telling a farmer that he couldn't *really* know the
difference between field corn and sweet corn until laboratory tests had
analyzed the differences in the finest detail and published them in
popular journals in eloquent but simple layman's language. The farmer
knew all along that there was a difference between the two types of
corn, even if he didn't know the biological and chemical reasons for
it. He might have preferred to use the different kinds of corn for
different purposes, eating one kind himself and feeding the other to his
livestock, and that would have been a reasonable preference even if all
the farmer had to go on was how each kind of corn tasted to him.
> >Race appears to me to be as obvious a thing as gender, having
> >morphological variations that can be easily seen and categorized on
> >inspection (most of the time). When a typical citizen of Zaire meets a
> >typical citizen of Canada, they recognize each other as Black and White
> >respectively, even though the obviousness of those facts is such that
> >mentioning it is, besides unnecessary, considered impolite.
>
> I'm not sure what a 'typical citizen' of Canada is supposed to be --
> there are large parts of the country (as with the United States) where
> you couldn't make that assumption. In any case, as I noted, there's no
> argument that population variability exists -- it's the
> _characteristics_ of that variability that are at the root of this
> argument. If, for example, that variability is strongly clinal and not
> well correlated, phenotypically and/or genotypically, you can't define
> 'races' (much less sub-species) at all.
As a first approximation, you might consider that a typical citizen of
Canada was a member of the racial majority in Canada. I chose the two
countries with that interpretation in mind.
If the data points representing the mental and physical performance
factors of a great many individuals, as plotted in the kind of many
dimensional graph that I've described for you, shows no structure to
speak of, then I would have to concede that there were no races within
Homo sapiens. In the absence of that kind of comprehensive study, all
we have to go on are suggestions provided by incomplete assessments of
the question. My usual habit is to believe what my senses tell me, and
to have some confidence in my experiences to date.
> > You can tell a White man from a Black man with
> >approximately the same ease as you can tell a man from a woman.
>
> Leaving aside the gender issues, using what criteria? I work with
> Mbororo Fulani in Cameroon who look like Sicilians, and Arabs who look
> like Yoruba. And if I was using blood type or genetic markers, I'll
> come out with different groupings. This comes back to on old problem:
> how many races are there, and who belongs to them? The traditional
> division into three races throws up so many groups that don't fit that
> it becomes laughable, while attempts to be realistic generate dozens
> of 'races' (well over, 50, at the high end) -- and at that point,
> you're basically talking about different populations anyway.
If you insist on examining marginal, hybridized, atypical or anomalous
types, then you might not be able to detect race. Certainly some
features of racial structure in our species are broader (in the size of
the variation and/or in the size of the population affected) than other
features. And you might want to find out whether some sort of taxonomy
can be used to set the little features into a hierarchy under the big
ones, or, failing that, to give percentages of the population having
each little feature as they occur among the populations having each big
feature. To suggest one: Negroid type pigmented skin (big class),
sickle cell trait (small class within the big class). There are
exceptions in which the small class shows up in big classes other than
the one indicated, but the relative rates are important and should be
acknowledged.
> >The races of Homo sapiens would be best defined, in my
> >opinion, in terms of the major features (departures from
> >homogeneity/asymmetry) of that structure.
>
> Well, good luck. I'd advise you to look at the work of Luigi
> Cavalii-Sforza -- both _The great disaporas_ and especially _The
> history and geography of human genes_ -- which is certainly the
> closest appraoch to the sort of study you envisage. But read his
> critique of the traditional race concept, as well -- he doesn't like
> it.
I don't confuse race with any single one of its distinguishing
characteristics. Having said that, however, you'd expect that if there
were no races, there would also be no distinguishing characteristics to
speak of. But there are such characteristics, and ones too visible to
ignore. One example of these is the degree of skin pigmentation.
That's the smoke (an indication) that indicates there is a fire (races)
somewhere. You might point to a set of individuals whose skin
pigmentation spans the range intermediate to the extremes, but you would
be ignoring the frequencies which ought to weight each point along the
pigmentation spectrum. It does you no good to point to a relatively
small population of intermediate types if a distribution is
substantially bimodal. This use of skin color is only an example; there
are other characteristics that are also multi-modal, even if you can
identify a group intermediate to the main groups.
If a study were to find broad correlations between the high-frequency
parts of several characteristic multi-modal distributions, you'd have a
good case for race.
> >On the contrary, I am comfortable with the idea that there could be a
> >race composed of a few thousand individuals.
>
> Great. But that's not what people who use the race concept talk about,
> is it? They're not interested in a Tasmanian 'race', but in a
> 'Negorid' one -- which is inherently far less liekly.
People who talk about race are generally talking about the specific
races that are of most concern to them. Whereas they might also be
comfortable with the idea that a race might have only a few thousand
individuals on a remote island, they aren't as concerned with that race
as with others, and accordingly that race is not discussed as
frequently.
> >Humans are mobile, but we are also territorial. If a foreign bunch
> >would move into our area, they have to fight us first--or did until
> >recently.
>
> Not especially. We've spent most of our existence as foragers -- and
> one thing foragers do a lot is create widespread networks of trade and
> kinship, in order to be able to smooth out environmental variability.
> The season's bad -- go live with your relatives. That creates mobility
> and patterns of genetic exchange over huge areas. And farmers do the
> same thing.
When women of one race begin having children of another (as best as I
can determine on the basis of visible characteristics), or when groups
of kinsfolk begin displaying heterogeneous racial compositions (ditto),
I'll consider that the link you proposed to exist between foraging and
human genetic uniformity might be a valid one--though I won't approve of
the development. In the meantime, though, consider that the European
and the African peoples, respectively, had continent sized foraging
grounds to satisfy their wants and geographical barriers such as the
Mediterranean Sea and political barriers (third parties in the way of
potential mass migrations). There were occasional Whites in Africa and
occasional Blacks in Europe, usually on trade missions or as slaves, but
the main bodies of the respective populations have tended to stay
separated. Until recently.
> >Intelligence may be challenged in any environment, but it is challenged
> >by some conditions more than others. Probably the commonest necessity
> >to human survival is the acquisition of food. In tropical areas, edible
> >plants grow the year around. ...
> >In colder climates, plant food does not grow all the year around. It
> >must be harvested in the fall and stored in sufficient quantity to
> >provide food for the winter and seed in the spring.
>
> Lynn and Rushton's stuff... I've critiqued this extensively in other
> newsgroups -- it just doesn't work. There is _no_ evidence that
> temperate environments are in some fundamental sense more challenging
> than tropical ones. One has cold seasons, the other has dry seasons,
> and you have to plan ahead and deal with environmental variability in
> both. The balance of plant foods and animals foods work the same way
> -- in fact, some tropical environments have very little plant food.
> Storage technologies have been developed in both areas.
> Archaeologically -- my stuff -- we don't see temperate populations
> being culturally more productive than tropical ones at all. There is
> _no_ evidence thatthis --remarkably old, it goes back to Kant and
> Herder -- idea actually works.
I'll investigate this further and reply later.
> >Nope. I'm saying that small genetic differences produce sufficiently
> >large differences in physical and mental performance factors that, in a
> >complicated social organization, there are good reasons for the
> >disproportionate distribution of the races in various kinds of
> >employment--e.g., Blacks favored in basketball, Whites favored in
> >technical jobs.
>
> Humph. Not that long ago, it was widely held that African- Americans
> weren't capable of competing with Euroamericans in sports (those
> deletrious tropical climates that you just mentioned). For that
> matter, the Japanese were imitative, Jews would never make good
> soldiers and the country was going to hell in a handbasket because of
> all these inferior eastern and southern Europeans who were
> immigrating. Strange how the verities change, isn't it?
>
> Scott
I echo your humph. At one time physicists believed in a "raisin
pudding" model of the atom. Before then, most astronomers thought that
the Earth was the center of the universe. And a lot of sailors believed
that the world was flat. Strange how the verities change, isn't it?
I'll tell you that most Blacks can sprint better than most Whites, and
that most Blacks can jump higher than most Whites, on account of a
physical racial differences between Blacks and Whites. Do you contend
that this is not so? If you do, then where are the missing White NBA
players?
The Japanese were imitative. They have learned technology from us, and
while we wither from decadence, they have kept their discipline and
their energy. We are becoming racially mixed to an increasing extent;
they have maintained a relative racial homogeneity. They imitated us
when we had advantages that they sought to acquire; now they have
advantages that we would do well to imitate.
The Jews were held to be unreliable as soldiers for a nation hosting
them because their ethnic solidarity was judged to be greater than their
patriotism. It was a common fear that the Jews, thinking to profit more
if an enemy conquered than under a continuation of the status quo, might
go open the city gates and let the enemies in. Can you cite a reference
where it was held that the Jews would not fight for a Jewish State? I
think that if one is going to report on the prejudices of the past, he
should describe them correctly.
Incidently, the trend toward going to hell in a handbasket should be
clear to you. The Drug War, the crime rates, the corruption in high
places, the national debt, the uncontrolled illegal immigration...
Jerry Abbott
Anne Gilbert
dv$sbu$5...@taurus.bv.sgi.net> <EGMJEL
Organization: Seattle Community Network
In a previous article, ma...@iafrica.com ("Mark ") says:
>
>From: "Mark " <ma...@iafrica.com>
>Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
>Subject: Re: lies about race
>Date: 23 Sep 1997 11:12:59 GMT
>Organization: UUNET Internet Africa
>Lines: 72
>Message-ID: <01bcc800$f83f8980$LocalHost@marho>
>References: <342425D4...@ix.netcom.com> <3420BE47...@ix.netcom.com> <341CC532...@ix.netcom.com> <5tiqoi$pnu$1...@orthanc.reference.com> <5tvhfs$9ho$3...@taurus.bv.sgi.net> <34077399...@usit.net> <5v1ddv$sbu$5...@taurus.bv.sgi.net> <EGMJE
L
> <EGxIy...@scn.org>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 196-7-177-86.compusys.iafrica.com
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155
You are partly right. But although Germany and Russia ganged up on
Poland before World War II started in Europe, there *were* a great many
people who were concerned about the rise of fascism and what it meant.
Yes, a great many people in England and America at the time agreed in
principle with Nazism, either because they thought it was a bulwark
against the horrible commies or because they sincerely had "master race"
ideas themselves. Remember, this was a time when the idea of eugenics
was still popular. However, I meant what I said and I said what I meant
when I stated that governments which would normally have been at each
others' throats cooperated to defeat Germany, no doubt for a variety of
reasons, some good and some bad. And the aftermath of World War II saw
the exposure of the concentration camps and death camps like Auschwitz,
which were *organized primarily to get rid of Jews and other
"undesirables"*. This in itself caused a huge reaction, properly, I
think, against the "racial" policies of the Germans. Unfortunately, many
people today, including, apparently, you, seem to still think in terms of
typological ideals when it comes to "races". Biologists, whether or not
they are "politically correct" know that, in nature, no such things exist.
Anne Gilbert
Scott MacEachern
Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>This is a correct statement. The ideals of National Socialism had to do
>with racial identity and self-determination,
Really? I thought that it had something to do with hatred of Jews as
well? Kristallnacht and all that? And Africans, and Gypsies and Slavs
and homosexuals and...
>Socialism's ideals, as they did not want the German people to have
>either racial identity or self-determination
And there was that little matter of concentration camps and being
killed off in huge numbers, of course...
>This is also a correct statement. The Jews have held what I said they
>have held since before WW2, right up to the present: extraordinarily
>disproportionate political influence.
Interesting, isn't it? The success of people of Scots descent in
Canada (and in the United States and other parts of the world) is
fairly well-attested. But that's taken as a tribute to hard work and
genuine attainment, and is a source of pride to many people. Strange
how attitudes change when we talk about Jews, isn't it?
Scott
_______________________________________
Scott MacEachern
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bowdoin College
Brunswick, ME 04011 smac...@polar.bowdoin.edu
"Chaque vieillard qui meurt dans la brousse, c'est une bibliothèque
Anne Gilbert
@ix.netcom.com> <3421c2fe.39273794@n
Organization: Seattle Community Network
In a previous article, smac...@polar.bowdoin.edu (Scott MacEachern) says:
>ews.bowdoin.edu> <34242E51...@ix.netcom.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.140.18.26
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
>
>It seems to me that hwat you're saying now is that... human races are
>social and cultural constructs, not biological ones. Which is I think
>what Ms. Gilbert was saying in the first place.
>
>Scott
>_______________________________________
>
>Scott MacEachern
>Department of Sociology and Anthropology
>Bowdoin College
>Brunswick, ME 04011 smac...@polar.bowdoin.edu
>
>"Chaque vieillard qui meurt dans la brousse, c'est une bibliothèque
>qui brûle." Amadou Hampaté Ba
>
Bravo, Scott!!!!(If you'll allow me to call you that). I've posted this
guy several times; he just doesn't seem to get it. I really appreciate
your support.
Anne Gilbert
Mark
Scott MacEachern <smac...@polar.bowdoin.edu> wrote in article
<34294f9...@news.bowdoin.edu>...
>
> >This is also a correct statement. The Jews have held what I said they
> >have held since before WW2, right up to the present: extraordinarily
> >disproportionate political influence.
>
> Interesting, isn't it? The success of people of Scots descent in
> Canada (and in the United States and other parts of the world) is
> fairly well-attested. But that's taken as a tribute to hard work and
> genuine attainment, and is a source of pride to many people. Strange
> how attitudes change when we talk about Jews, isn't it?
I have been skipping through this thread but I do not recall Jerry ever
denying that hard work as an important aspect of the success of Ashkenazi
Jews. I would have thought that intelligence, however calculated, is a
pleasant attribute - like a particular acuity of the senses - but without
the will and the ability to apply it, it is simply that, a pleasant
attribute. There are plenty of people occupying relatively menial jobs
because they lack those other "qualities" which are essential if positions
of power and influence are to be attained.
Hard work by itself is also not a recipe for success it must be both
purposeful and practical and I would suggest that the record of Scotish
achievement reflects a significant combination of all of the necessary
ingredients.
I must say that when they gods left Olympus and took the recipe for
Ambrosia with them they must have settled in Islay and simply carried on
from there:-)
>
> "Chaque vieillard qui meurt dans la brousse, c'est une bibliothèque
> qui brûle." Amadou Hampaté Ba
Surely a library with but a single volume. Old age is not in itself a
guarantee of wisdom. It all too frequently represents a small number of
experiences repeated. Particularly, if the quality of life of the
"vieillard" at his death was no improvement on that of his ancestors.
Mark Richardson
robert s carlsen
In article <3429851A...@ix.netcom.com>, Jerry Abbott
<j...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Scott MacEachern wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 23 Sep 1997 05:00:18 -0500, Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com>
> > wrote
> >
> > >A race
> > >would not become apparent until enough variables were correlated and
> > >structured subsets of data points (each one representing an individual
> > >tested in all respects being correlated) became evident.
> >
> > OK, so then it's not just correlation, but some important degree of
> > correlation.
>
>
To which Jerry Abbott responded:
> Right. And among some important number of variables. The structure in
> the distribution of data within the many-dimensional plot that I
> mentioned would guide the formulation of better racial definitions.
> Until such a study is done and the results published, though, I'll have
> to trust to what my senses tell me.
>
Jerry, you might trust your senses on this one, but after the drubbing
that you took on the Hispanic issue please excuse us if we don't share in
your faith. You will recall that your senses indicated to you that the
Hispanic "race" was real as rock. However, data on the topic indicated
that the only reality here was your stereotype of a culturally-defined
ethnic group. Faced with the facts you yourself was forced to conclude
that "Hispanic refers to a culture of origin, specifically the cultures of
the Spanish-speaking peoples of Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Central or
South America or the Caribbean Islands."
Robert
Robert S. Carlsen Ph.D.
Department of Anthropology
University of Colorado at Denver
Scott MacEachern
"Mark " <ma...@iafrica.com> wrote:
> I would have thought that intelligence, however calculated, is a
>pleasant attribute
I agree. However, the Web site that he quoted on Jewish success,
http://www.natall.com/ is a viciously fascist, anti-semitic one -- the
organization is the creature of William Pierce, of _Turner Diaries_
fame.
>I must say that when they gods left Olympus and took the recipe for
>Ambrosia with them they must have settled in Islay and simply carried on
>from there:-)
Agreed. Although I think some of them made it to La Rioja as well,
while others were probably responsible for the Rheinheitsgebot. Like
any archaeologist, I'm catholic in these things :-)
>Surely a library with but a single volume.
I disagree. Having spent a lot of time with those 'bibliotheques' in
Central Africa, I am constantly amazed by the breadth of their
experience and the resonances that those experiences generate. Contra
Hugh Trevor-Roper, the problem isn't that pre-colonial Africans had no
history -- they had huge amounts of history, and we don't know enough
about it.
Scott
_______________________________________
Scott MacEachern
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bowdoin College
Brunswick, ME 04011 smac...@polar.bowdoin.edu
"Chaque vieillard qui meurt dans la brousse, c'est une bibliothèque
Anne Gilbert
In a previous article, j...@ix.netcom.com (Jerry Abbott) says:
>gip.net!ix.netcom.com!news
>From: Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com>
>Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
>Subject: Re: lies about race
>Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 03:36:26 -0500
>Organization: Netcom
>Lines: 124
>Message-ID: <34277F8A...@ix.netcom.com>
>References: <342425D4...@ix.netcom.com> <3420BE47...@ix.netcom.com> <341CC532...@ix.netcom.com> <5tiqoi$pnu$1...@orthanc.reference.com> <5tvhfs$9ho$3...@taurus.bv.sgi.net> <34077399...@usit.net> <5v1ddv$sbu$5...@taurus.bv.sgi.net> <EGMJE
L
> <EGxIy...@scn.org>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: cht-tn1-19.ix.netcom.com
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Sep 23 3:40:01 AM CDT 1997
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I)
>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>
>
Mr. Abbott, you may be partly right about the various governments before
World War II. But you are also partly wrong. France and Britain didn't
cooperate very much on anything. Neither of them liked the former Soviet
Union very well, needless to say. The United States "got along" all
right with Britain, but was basically isolationist in foreign policy, if
you could call it that, until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Our
government didn't like the former Soviet Union very much, either, but
"recognized" it diplomatically. *None* of these governments liked Nazi
Germany for a variety of reasons, some good, some bad.
As to the "Bell Curve" issue, it is quite true that Herrnstein and Murray
used statistics extensively to prove their case, but they *both* had
their own agendas before they even wrote the book. Herrnstein for years
argued that differences in "intelligence" were both racially based and
innate. Charles Murray was hand in glove with the Reagan and Bush
administrations, and happily advised them, years before it was actually
done, to "reform" welfare, because poor single parents were essentially
the root of all evil. And these gentlemen's sources? Well, they quoted
people like J. Philippe Rushton extensively. He has had several grants
from an outfit called the Pioneer Fund which publishes an avowedly
racist, though supposedly academic journal called Mankind Quarterly. The
founders of the Pioneer Fund, like you, believed that differences in
intelligence were essentially racially based and innate. Personally, I
think such sources are probably tainted. They are hardly objective. But
you will probably regard this as simply my opinion and not worth
considering. In any case, I do not think, and I doubt if many people on
this NG think, that racial differences in intelligenc a are as
significant as you seem to believe they are. As for Jews having had such
a tremendous influence in government. . .this sounds like the ravings of
the Aryan Nations to me.
Anne Gilbert
Scott MacEachern
Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Until such a study is done and the results published, though, I'll have
>to trust to what my senses tell me.
And I'll have to trust what the data tell me...
>What is usually done by human race deniers, however,
>is to assert that the detection of race in humans is based entirely on
>"hatred" or "bigotry" (or some equally unsavory motive) and not at all
>on data, however unclinically acquired and categorized.
Using physical characteristics in the creation of social categories is
quite common; the way that these distinctions are made on these
newsgroups, however, is another thing entirely. Hatred and bigotry
are, I think, the most common element in the mix.
But that is not the fundamental problem with the race concept _as a
concept_. If biological races do not exist -- as available data
indicate that they do not -- then using a biological metaphor for a
cultural grouping is fundamentally misleading, because it conflates
biological and cultural characteristics. It makes human potential
appear far less plastic, far less variable, than it actually is.
Culture changes _fast_ among modern humans, but identifying cultural
difference as biological means that you assume that such quick change
couldn't happen... and you get populations reduced to a few
simple-minded variables that exist, now and (culturally) forever.
Which is not the way human development has occurred.
> It's much as
>though someone were telling a farmer that he couldn't *really* know the
>difference between field corn and sweet corn
Couldn't really _know_ the difference? What does that mean? The
fallback position for the racist is akin to that of someone who
doesn't like abstract art: "I don't know what art is, but I know what
I like." I don't _know_ -- have direct physical knowledge of -- the
physical variability inherent in populations of millions of people.
Neither do you. The only way to appraoch that in any
scientifically-meaningful sense is through the sorts of investigations
that I've been quoting about population variation. What makes 'race'
different from quarks or quasars as a topic for study?
>If you insist on examining marginal, hybridized, atypical or anomalous
>types, then you might not be able to detect race.
Race is going to be defined at the peripheries, if it's defined
anywhere. Any measure of central tendency had better involve some idea
of variability if you use it to describe a population. It's accepted
(even by 'racial scientists') that far more variability exists within
'races' than between them; under those circumstances, you have to pay
a lot of attention to what the edges look like.
>I don't confuse race with any single one of its distinguishing
>characteristics. Having said that, however, you'd expect that if there
>were no races, there would also be no distinguishing characteristics to
>speak of.
Cavalli-Sforza's research involves simultaneous analysis of quite a
large number of variables.
> One example of these is the degree of skin pigmentation.
>That's the smoke (an indication) that indicates there is a fire (races)
>somewhere. ...It does you no good to point to a relatively
>small population of intermediate types if a distribution is
>substantially bimodal.
I thought that race required correlated features; now you're claiming
that it exists on the basis of a single characteristic. The problem is
that the distribution is not bimodal -- it's multi-modal and
platykurtic, with a huge degree of variability within the
distributions. More than that, though -- it includes such different
populations that there's no possibility of common ancestral descent;
when one 'race', for example, can include Bantu populations and
Melanesians, what does it mean? Hell, for that matter, and based on
that characteristic alone, I can change my 'race' after three months
doing archaeology in Africa. And, in any case, what's the reason for
privileging skin pigmentation, besides force of habit?
>If a study were to find broad correlations between the high-frequency
>parts of several characteristic multi-modal distributions, you'd have a
>good case for race.
I'd advise you to take a look at those books -- they're the closest
thing to the sort of study that you envisage. Read, especially, _The
great human diasporas_.
>People who talk about race are generally talking about the specific
>races that are of most concern to them.
But the problem is that those continental 'races' are so inherently
unlikely in evolutionary terms. The mechanisms of human interaction
are entirely different in the case of a population isolated through
the Holocene on Tasmania (if that's indeed what happened -- I have my
doubts) and the population of Africa, interacting constantly with
peoples to the North and East. The cases are in no way equivalent.
>When women of one race begin having children of another (as best as I
>can determine on the basis of visible characteristics), or when groups
>of kinsfolk begin displaying heterogeneous racial compositions (ditto),
>I'll consider that the link you proposed to exist between foraging and
>human genetic uniformity might be a valid one--though I won't approve of
>the development.
And you don't think that this happens?? Where do you think all of
those 'intermediate' populations come from? If you look at Africa --
most of the continent has been an interaction zone for those kinds of
exchanges. Arabs to Berbers to Fulani to Hausa to Wandala. Arabians to
Amhara to Tigrinya to Galla and Oromo to Borana to Samburu. Egyptians
to Nubians to Nuba and Kordofanians to Nuer.
>In the meantime, though, consider that the European
>and the African peoples, respectively, had continent sized foraging
>grounds to satisfy their wants and geographical barriers such as the
>Mediterranean Sea and political barriers (third parties in the way of
>potential mass migrations).
You'll have fun with this... If this was the case, why do our first
ancestors in Europe, replacing the Neandertals, look tropical? Where
do the Berbers come in? What about the extensive interactions across
the Red Sea? What about the Arab influence in Iberia and Italy -- one
that included a substantial African component?
>I'll investigate this further and reply later.
Go for it. As I said, it's an obsolete idea dressed up in
pseudo-science.
> I'll tell you that most Blacks can sprint better than most Whites, and
>that most Blacks can jump higher than most Whites, on account of a
>physical racial differences between Blacks and Whites. Do you contend
>that this is not so? If you do, then where are the missing White NBA
>players?
Oh, Lord, not this again. If you've got the data that indicates that
most 'blacks' can sprint better and jump higher than most 'whites',
I'd love to see it. I've been asking for that, but the people that
I've been asking suddenly get all coy when asked to provide
documentation. I hadn't noticed the African dominance of international
sports events that this would indicate -- which is what you'd expect,
given that genetic admixture in Europe and the Americas should have
diluted those strong African genes. And I guess all those Euroamerican
NBA players are tired out from dominating the sport through the 1960s
-- is that when this 'racial' differentiation happened?
>Can you cite a reference
>where it was held that the Jews would not fight for a Jewish State?
Nah, I was thinking of the accounts of Jews fighting in the British
Army in World War 2. They met with pretty widespread disbelief,
especially from the Better Classes. It was after the war, of course,
that people were surprised -- often posthumously, if that's possible
-- about the degree to which Jewish people would defend their country.
Given the participation of Jews in the continental and American armies
in the two world wars, it shouldn't have been a surprise, but then
there's no accounting for what people will think, is there?
Scott
_______________________________________
Scott MacEachern
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bowdoin College
Brunswick, ME 04011 smac...@polar.bowdoin.edu
"Chaque vieillard qui meurt dans la brousse, c'est une bibliothèque
Steve Barnard
Anne Gilbert wrote:
>
> $sbu$5...@taurus.bv.sgi.net> <EGMJEL
> Organization: Seattle Community Network
>
[snip]
> >
> >Jews have, again by the way, had extraordinarily disproportionate
> >political influence in the United States since before the second World
> >War. That fact has a bearing on why the United States went to war
> >against (Japan and then) Germany in 1939.
> >
> >Jerry Abbott
> >
>
> As to the "Bell Curve" issue, it is quite true that Herrnstein and Murray
> used statistics extensively to prove their case, but they *both* had
> their own agendas before they even wrote the book. Herrnstein for years
> argued that differences in "intelligence" were both racially based and
> innate. Charles Murray was hand in glove with the Reagan and Bush
> administrations, and happily advised them, years before it was actually
> done, to "reform" welfare, because poor single parents were essentially
> the root of all evil. And these gentlemen's sources? Well, they quoted
> people like J. Philippe Rushton extensively. He has had several grants
> from an outfit called the Pioneer Fund which publishes an avowedly
> racist, though supposedly academic journal called Mankind Quarterly. The
> founders of the Pioneer Fund, like you, believed that differences in
> intelligence were essentially racially based and innate. Personally, I
> think such sources are probably tainted. They are hardly objective. But
> you will probably regard this as simply my opinion and not worth
> considering. In any case, I do not think, and I doubt if many people on
> this NG think, that racial differences in intelligenc a are as
> significant as you seem to believe they are. As for Jews having had such
> a tremendous influence in government. . .this sounds like the ravings of
> the Aryan Nations to me.
> Anne Gilbert
While I've had my differences with Anne Gilbert on other topics, I'll
agree 100% with her on this topic. Herrnstein and Murray did have an
agenda, and whether that invalidates their argument I don't know, but it
at least casts doubt on it. The claim that Jewish influence caused the
US to go to war with the Axis powers is absurd and even despicable. We
went to war in our own self interest, and not for any noble humanitarian
reasons or due to any behind-the-scenes manipulation by some
international Jewish conspiracy. If Jews have disproportionate
political influence in the US it's because of their disproportionate
level of education and achievement, and despite a long historical record
of antisemitism. (No, I'm not Jewish.)
Steve Barnard
Anne Gilbert
v$sbu$5...@taurus.bv.sgi.net> <EGMJEL
Organization: Seattle Community Network
In a previous article, smac...@polar.bowdoin.edu (Scott MacEachern) says:
> <EGxIy...@scn.org> <34277F8A...@ix.netcom.com> <3427B0...@iona.com> <3428289C...@ix.netcom.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.140.18.26
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
>
>Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>This is a correct statement. The ideals of National Socialism had to do
>>with racial identity and self-determination,
>
>Really? I thought that it had something to do with hatred of Jews as
>well? Kristallnacht and all that? And Africans, and Gypsies and Slavs
>and homosexuals and...
>
>>Socialism's ideals, as they did not want the German people to have
>>either racial identity or self-determination
>
>And there was that little matter of concentration camps and being
>killed off in huge numbers, of course...
>
>>This is also a correct statement. The Jews have held what I said they
>>have held since before WW2, right up to the present: extraordinarily
>>disproportionate political influence.
>
>Interesting, isn't it? The success of people of Scots descent in
>Canada (and in the United States and other parts of the world) is
>fairly well-attested. But that's taken as a tribute to hard work and
>genuine attainment, and is a source of pride to many people. Strange
>how attitudes change when we talk about Jews, isn't it?
>
>Scott
>
>_______________________________________
>
>Scott MacEachern
>Department of Sociology and Anthropology
>Bowdoin College
>Brunswick, ME 04011 smac...@polar.bowdoin.edu
>
>"Chaque vieillard qui meurt dans la brousse, c'est une bibliothèque
>qui brûle." Amadou Hampaté Ba
>
I told you this guy was a racist and an antisemite on top of it all!!!
Anne Gilbert
Gerold Firl
In article <01bcc800$f83f8980$LocalHost@marho>, "Mark " <ma...@iafrica.com> writes:
|> Anne Gilbert <keb...@scn.org> wrote in article <EGxIy...@scn.org>...
|> > .J...@scn.org> <EGrpt...@scn.org>
|> > Organization: Seattle Community Network
|>
|> > Oh those poor, maligned Germans!! Sure they lost the war because they
|> > were militarily inferior, whatever that means. But the ideas the Nazis
|> > promoted were so repugnant to any halfway intelligent person that
|> > governments who would normally have been at each other's throats banded
|> > together to create that military superiority.
|> This is, to put it bluntly, nonsense. The Second World War was fought for
|> the reasons that wars are always fought - territory and economics.
Both of these positions miss some interesting and important aspects
of this question.
first of all, while nazi ideology seems patently repugnant today, it
was pretty mainstream 60 years ago. If the nazis had won WWII,
current attitudes about race, culture, power, and the proper
relationship between stronger and weaker nations would be very
different. Of course, there would still be people who favored an
egalitarian/cooperative ethic in relations between the west (plus
japan) and the rest of the world, but that view would not be the
default it is today. There were plenty of people throughout all the
western countries who were very sympathetic to the nazi program. WWII
was a fork in the road for the west. We took the branch of peace and
compassion, which led directly to decolonialization and racial
equality in the 50's and 60's.
Of course, there wasn't much doubt about the outcome. The nazis were
pretty much doomed to failure right from the start, just because of
the contradiction between fascism and western individualism. It may
be, however, that that war had to fought, just to make clear that the
question was raised, and answered. The nazi ideology of conquest was
the logical outcome of a western tradition of military expansion
coupled with the 15-20th century technological explosion which
conferred the means to make that ideology a reality. The west
declined to yield to that temptation, and it was an ethical choice,
not a pragmatic one.
Wars are not always fought for reasons of territory and economics.
Those are important factors, of course, and they influence other
variables such as ideology, but the economic fiction of "rational
man" is just an approximation. It's a very reasonable approximation,
but it doesn't tell the whole story.
|> In the first instance, Russia and Germany acted in concert to attack Poland
|> after Germany had absorbed the Rhineland, Austria and, by then sailing very
|> close to the wind, Czechoslovakia. Britain and France had treaties with
|> Poland and honoured them by declaring war on Germany.
A more reasonable course of action would have been to embark on an
immediate program of military expansion, using a combination of
military deterance and diplomacy to encourage hitler to attack the
USSR. Honoring the treaty with poland proved very costly for britain
and france.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Disclaimer claims dat de claims claimed in dis are de claims of meself,
me, and me alone, so sue us god. I won't tell Bill & Dave if you won't.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=---- Gerold Firl @ ..hplabs!hp-sdd!geroldf
Mark
Gerold Firl <ger...@sdd.hp.com> wrote in article
<60rlrb$l...@news.sdd.hp.com>...
Definitely more reasonable and whilst there would probably have been
arguments along those lines which were well supported, both governments,
French and British, took the view of "so far and no further". They were
also not so weak militarily. The eventual German successes in Western
Europe were due to surprise, skill and daring more than superiority in
equipment and numbers. LIke that Union general, whose name I can never
remember, said " they got there fustest with the mostest" and they kept on
doing it.
The Allied decision was not such a bad one from a risk point of view, they
were simply outgeneralled because they were still fighting the 1914-18 War
in 1940-41
Mark Richardson
Gerold Firl
In article <01bcce37$586a0ec0$LocalHost@marho>, "Mark " <ma...@iafrica.com> writes:
|> Gerold Firl <ger...@sdd.hp.com> wrote in article
|> <60rlrb$l...@news.sdd.hp.com>...
|> > In article <01bcc800$f83f8980$LocalHost@marho>, "Mark "
|> <ma...@iafrica.com> writes:
|> >
|> > |> In the first instance, Russia and Germany acted in concert to attack
|> Poland
|> > |> after Germany had absorbed the Rhineland, Austria and, by then sailing
|> very
|> > |> close to the wind, Czechoslovakia. Britain and France had treaties
|> with
|> > |> Poland and honoured them by declaring war on Germany.
|> > A more reasonable course of action would have been to embark on an
|> > immediate program of military expansion, using a combination of
|> > military deterance and diplomacy to encourage hitler to attack the
|> > USSR. Honoring the treaty with poland proved very costly for britain
|> > and france.
|> Definitely more reasonable and whilst there would probably have been
|> arguments along those lines which were well supported, both governments,
|> French and British, took the view of "so far and no further".
Why do you think they came to that conclusion? My reading is that
hitler and the nazis were seen as the embodiment of an ideology which
was so inimical to western norms of behavior that it was felt
that germany had to be stopped. Hitler didn't want war with the west.
He could have easily been inveigled into launching east against the
USSR, leaving the west to pick up the pieces afterwards. All logical
principles of diplomacy and power politics would argue for such a
course, but instead britain and france declare war on germany. As a
result, each were brought down from world powers to devastated
paupers. Britain lost her entire empire as a result of the war.
France was humiliated. But naziism, racism, and the ethic of violent
conquest was firmly repudiated, a course of action which appeared by
no means inevitable in the 1930's.
|> They were
|> also not so weak militarily. The eventual German successes in Western
|> Europe were due to surprise, skill and daring more than superiority in
|> equipment and numbers. LIke that Union general, whose name I can never
|> remember, said " they got there fustest with the mostest" and they kept on
|> doing it.
|>
|> The Allied decision was not such a bad one from a risk point of view, they
|> were simply outgeneralled because they were still fighting the 1914-18 War
|> in 1940-41
The fighting elan you refer to was a major factor in german success,
but it was just as significant at the level of the individual soldier
as among the generals. germany fought with the ethic of conquest on
her side, while the allies were fighting for, what, tolerance and
decency? French soldiers were not very interested in that cause,
certainly not to the point of risking their lives for it. Churchill
was able to frame the issue in terms of defending britain, which got
people motivated. Not many britains were too fired-up about defending
poland, or even the norms of ethical behavior, but they would defend
their homes and families.
Over in the asian theatre, US gen. joe stillwell was surprised at how
disinterested the british were in defeating the japanese. The british
were concerned, first and foremost, with preserving the empire
through the post-war era. (See tuchmans' book on stillwell in china)
What the british didn't seem to understand was that their stand
against hitler in 1939 had also signalled the deathknell for
colonialism. By renouncing the ethic of racial superiority and the
right of conquest, they lost their claim to empire at the same time.
Mark
Gerold Firl <ger...@sdd.hp.com> wrote in article
<60u81b$1...@news.sdd.hp.com>...
> In article <01bcce37$586a0ec0$LocalHost@marho>, "Mark "
<ma...@iafrica.com> writes:
>
> |> Definitely more reasonable and whilst there would probably have been
> |> arguments along those lines which were well supported, both
governments,
> |> French and British, took the view of "so far and no further".
>
> Why do you think they came to that conclusion? My reading is that
> hitler and the nazis were seen as the embodiment of an ideology which
> was so inimical to western norms of behavior that it was felt
> that germany had to be stopped.
If you read your comments below, you seem to agree that the ideaology was
not so inimical to western norms. In fact, it is my understanding that in
1939, there were very strong bodies of opinion in France, particularly,and
in Britain less so, but still strong, which had no qualms with Nazi
ideaology as such. That the Nazi ideaology was used as a denigrating factor
in the ensuing propaganda war is without question, but at the outset it was
the good old "balance of power" and an actual treaty - in the case of
Poland - instead of a more vague agreement in the case of Czechoslovakia,
that tipped the scales. There was also the fact that Russia had joined with
Germany in dismembering Poland and there was the Russo-German Pact to
consider. As with all European wars nothing was clear cut and unambiguous.
>. But naziism, racism, and the ethic of violent
> conquest was firmly repudiated, a course of action which appeared by
> no means inevitable in the 1930's.
> The fighting elan you refer to was a major factor in german success,
> but it was just as significant at the level of the individual soldier
> as among the generals. germany fought with the ethic of conquest on
> her side, while the allies were fighting for, what, tolerance and
> decency? French soldiers were not very interested in that cause,
> certainly not to the point of risking their lives for it.
I will agree that the German spirit was undoubtedly better. And, they had
the inequitable Treaty of Versailles to remedy. The French may have seemed
unwilling to fight but this was because they were comprehensively
outgeneralled. Individual French units fought superbly when they were able
to re-group but they had been turned in a war of movement; when all their
preparations had been for a static defence hinged on the Maginot Line.
However, there was still, in France, even in 1941 considerable sympathy for
the Nazi ideaology. The Vichy Government could have been more obstructive
than it was and until the Germans made the mistake of taking young
Frenchmen for forced labour there was very little actual resistance to the
occupying forces. We tend to see things in rather stark terms as a result
of "History is Written by the Winners" and the need to justify what was
initially a very "normal" war, on moral grounds.
Mark Richardson
Jerry Abbott
You, also, are partly right and partly wrong. The PEOPLE of the United
States were isolationist. They didn't want their sons to go abroad to
fight in foreign wars. Franklin Delano Roosevelt campaigned on a
platform that prominently included an isolationist foreign policy. He
promised not to send American servicemen to Europe to fight in World War
2.
He was lying through his teeth.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was an ambitious man. He wanted to be
President for as long as possible. Before the War started in Europe, he
had already served two terms, was serving a third in 1941, and hoped for
a fourth election victory in 1944. He knew that to get elected again he
had to please those who controlled the media, and those people were
Jews. So despite his repeated promises to the American public, he
sought ways to bring the United States into WW2 against Germany. He
waged a secret war (i.e., a war about which little or nothing was said
in the media) against German ships in the Atlantic. Hitler was very
careful, however, not to respond militarily to these provocations,
probably because he knew why Roosevelt was provoking him.
Failing at this direct approach at entering the War, Roosevelt looked
around for other means. He learned that Germany had a treaty with
Japan, which stated that if any country attacked either one of them,
then both Germany and Japan were automatically at war with that third
country. Roosevelt did not want to fire the first shot at Japan, since
the aggression would make it too obvious to the American people what he
was up to, so he found a different way to provoke Japan: a trade
boycott.
To retailiate for this boycott, Japan planned its attack on Pearl
Harbor. Roosevelt knew all about these plans because U.S. intelligence
operatives could read the Japanese codes. A Dutch cryptologist in
Indonesia also read the Japanese codes and sent a warning to
Washington. But Roosevelt, hatching a treason, did not pass along any
of this information to the Naval commanders at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii.
As a result, Japan's attack on 7 December 1941 was a complete success,
and the United States Pacific Fleet was destroyed.
This gave Roosevelt the pretext he needed to declare war on Japan.
The treaty between Germany and Japan brought the United States into war
with Germany, as the Jews desired.
> As to the "Bell Curve" issue, it is quite true that Herrnstein and Murray
> used statistics extensively to prove their case, but they *both* had
> their own agendas before they even wrote the book. Herrnstein for years
> argued that differences in "intelligence" were both racially based and
> innate. Charles Murray was hand in glove with the Reagan and Bush
> administrations, and happily advised them, years before it was actually
> done, to "reform" welfare, because poor single parents were essentially
> the root of all evil. And these gentlemen's sources? Well, they quoted
> people like J. Philippe Rushton extensively. He has had several grants
> from an outfit called the Pioneer Fund which publishes an avowedly
> racist, though supposedly academic journal called Mankind Quarterly. The
> founders of the Pioneer Fund, like you, believed that differences in
> intelligence were essentially racially based and innate. Personally, I
> think such sources are probably tainted. They are hardly objective. But
> you will probably regard this as simply my opinion and not worth
> considering. In any case, I do not think, and I doubt if many people on
> this NG think, that racial differences in intelligenc a are as
> significant as you seem to believe they are. As for Jews having had such
> a tremendous influence in government. . .this sounds like the ravings of
> the Aryan Nations to me.
> Anne Gilbert
Just because someone has had an opinion prior to doing a study does NOT
mean that the study contains systematic bias. An opinion can be used as
a hypothesis in the study, in principle amenable to falsification, even
though the person who proposed it had argued that the hypothesis, in
advance of the study's findings, seemed to be correct. In this respect,
Herrnstein's opinion that there was a racial basis for intelligence is
not different from the opinions of many another researcher on many
another matter.
I have browsed the website of Mankind Quarterly, but have found no
obvious deceptions there. Can you cite a few for argument here? Or was
your phraseology "supposedly academic" another exemplar of your own
political bias? The worth of an opinion depends on how well reasoned it
is, and that goes for yours as well as mine.
As for the Jews having such a tremendous influence in the government...
Do you suppose that the Secretary of Defense has "influence" ? William
Cohen is a Jew.
Do you suppose that the Secretary of State has "influence" ? Madeline
Allbright is a Jew.
Do you suppose that the Secretary of the Treasury has "influence" ?
Robert Rubin is a Jew.
Do you suppose that the Secretary of Agriculture has "influence" ? Dan
Glickman is a Jew.
Do you suppose that the Chief of the CIA has "influence" ? George Tenet
is a Jew.
Do you suppose that the Head of the National Security Council has
"influence" ? Samuel Berger is a Jew.
Do you suppose that the Deputy Chief of Staff has "influence" ? Evelyn
Lieberman is a Jew.
Do you suppose that the Deputy Secretary of State has "influence" ?
Peter Tarnoff is a Jew.
There are many more Jews, both in the Cabinet and in the bureaucratic
positions subordinate to the Cabinet heads. Their representation may be
as much as half the staff, or more, in many cases. Jews are a
two-and-a-half percent minority in the United States. How did they
become so over-represented in the executive offices of the United States
government? Does this sound like a fair and democratic representation
to you? Do you still think that Jews DON'T have "influence" in the U.S.
Government? Would you like me to run through a list of Jews in
executive control of the broadcast and print media, just to be complete
about it?
The Aryan Nations has been known to tell the truth. If you believe that
the Aryan Nations has uttered lies, then list them, as we'll discuss
them. Being specific about one's allegations is the difference between
an accusation and a smear.
Jerry Abbott
Jerry Abbott
luh...@super.zippo.news wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Sep 1997 15:37:48 -0500, Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >This is a correct statement. The ideals of National Socialism had to do
> >racially mixed and politically controlled by Jews. Neither of those
> >ideals--per se--caused Britain or the United States to enter the war.
> >Those countries got into the war by way of deception and on account of
> >the ambition of their leaders: Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano
> >Roosevelt. The motives of the Jews who encouraged Churchill and
> >Socialism's ideals, as they did not want the German people to have
> >not the national decision-makers. The US President and the British
> >Prime Minister should have known better than to give in to them, but
> >they were ambitious men who would gladly sacrifice a million of their
> >countrymen in order to win one more election or to avoid a scandal for
> >being in debt.
> >
>
> history book. The above statement is so absurd, that I have
> trouble believing that I just read it.
> The Jews were responsible for Roosevelt and Churchill entering
> WWII? Ever hear of Hitler? Ever hear of the Nazi's attacking
> the rest of Europe? What is this, the post-nazi view of history?
> >> and then:
> >>
> >> > Jews have, again by the way, had extraordinarily disproportionate
> >> > political influence in the United States since before the second World
> >> > War. That fact has a bearing on why the United States went to war
> >> > against (Japan and then) Germany in 1939.
> >
>
> Once again, completely unsubstantiated bullshit. The Japanese attacked
> pearl harbor, but we entered the war against Japan because of the
> jews. We fought Germany, not because of Hitler and the Nazi's and
> their desires for world conquest but because of the Jews. Are you
> crazy?
The substantiation for my earlier statement appears in my new comments,
above. I am not crazy. We did not fight Hitler because of the War in
Europe. We fought Hitler because of Jewish influence in the United
States. Japan was a stepping stone on the way to war against Germany.
> >This is also a correct statement. The Jews have held what I said they
> >have held since before WW2, right up to the present: extraordinarily
> >disproportionate political influence. This influence is exerted in the
> >USA principally by the media, which is owned and operated to a most
> >unrepresentative degree by Jews, such as Michael Eisner (Disney and
> >ABC/Capital Cities), Gerald Levine (Time-Warner), Sumner Redstone
> >(Viacom), Samuel and Donald Newhouse (Advance Publications, Random
> >House, etc. etc.), Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. (The New York Times),
> >Katheryn Meyer Graham (The Washington Post), Peter Kann (The Wall Street
> >Journal)... the list is a long one. For part of the rest, see
> >http://www.natvan.com/whorules/whorules.html.
> >
>
> Yes, the Jews had so much political power, that 90% of them chose to
> live in slums and poverty for most of the last 2000 years, and also
> had so much political power that they voted in the Germans who
> tried to exterminate them.
Why do you drag in 2000 years of history, when all I was talking about
was the past hundred? Trying to obscure the issue? Certain Jews had so
much political power--in the 20th century--that they used their
influence to control who would be presented to the American people as
candidates in their elections, and then used their media to control what
the Americans were able to learn about each candidate (effectively to
control which candidate won). In Germany, a similar thing was
happening. However, Hitler was appointed to his position as Chancellor
on 30 January 1933. He was not elected. And where does that leave your
objection?
> >Certainly not, Tom. And when you find a post in which I've been
> >inconsistent, please let me know. But you needn't try to hoax one up
> >again.
> You have been inconsistent? Sweet lord, you are not inconsistent,
> you are writing a fictional account of history. This tripe sounds
> like the never-ending fiction of the neonazi party. Everything that
> you posted is not only obviously false, it is ridiculous.
It isn't fictional. What appears "obvious" to you simply isn't so.
Further, if my account were false, there would be no reason to tack on
smear words, such as "ridiculous" and "tripe". Using those words, and
other forms of emotive hyperbole, is a telltale sign of someone who is
afraid that he is wrong.
Jerry Abbott
Jerry Abbott
> Definitely more reasonable and whilst there would probably have been
> arguments along those lines which were well supported, both governments,
> also not so weak militarily. The eventual German successes in Western
> Europe were due to surprise, skill and daring more than superiority in
> equipment and numbers. LIke that Union general, whose name I can never
> remember, said " they got there fustest with the mostest" and they kept on
> doing it.
That was General Augustus Bedford Forrest.
Jerry Abbott
Jerry Abbott
Gerold Firl wrote:
>
> In article <01bcce37$586a0ec0$LocalHost@marho>, "Mark " <ma...@iafrica.com> writes:
>
> |> Gerold Firl <ger...@sdd.hp.com> wrote in article
> |> > In article <01bcc800$f83f8980$LocalHost@marho>, "Mark "
> |> <ma...@iafrica.com> writes:
> |> >
> |> > |> In the first instance, Russia and Germany acted in concert to attack
> |> Poland
> |> > |> after Germany had absorbed the Rhineland, Austria and, by then sailing
> |> very
> |> > |> close to the wind, Czechoslovakia. Britain and France had treaties
> |> with
> |> > |> Poland and honoured them by declaring war on Germany.
>
> |> > A more reasonable course of action would have been to embark on an
> |> > immediate program of military expansion, using a combination of
> |> > military deterance and diplomacy to encourage hitler to attack the
> |> > USSR. Honoring the treaty with poland proved very costly for britain
> |> > and france.
>
> |> arguments along those lines which were well supported, both governments,
> |> French and British, took the view of "so far and no further".
>
> hitler and the nazis were seen as the embodiment of an ideology which
> was so inimical to western norms of behavior that it was felt
> that germany had to be stopped.
The American people were not in favor of war until after Japan's attack
on Pearl Harbor, which Roosevelt had secretly had a hand in contriving.
Roosevelt was elected on a campaign platform of military isolationism
from the war in Europe. Americans didn't care much about the ideology
of the Germans, or, anyway, they didn't care enough to favor going to
war (though the media was hawkish at the time; no need to say why).
> Hitler didn't want war with the west.
That is correct. Hitler did not want to fight either Britain or the
United States. Besides the obvious military burden, Hitler's racial
opinions made war with those countries seem like fratricide. That's why
Hitler tolerated Roosevelt's provocations in the Atlantic during the
early years of the War.
> He could have easily been inveigled into launching east against the
> USSR, leaving the west to pick up the pieces afterwards. All logical
> principles of diplomacy and power politics would argue for such a
> course, but instead britain and france declare war on germany. As a
> result, each were brought down from world powers to devastated
> paupers. Britain lost her entire empire as a result of the war.
> France was humiliated. But naziism, racism, and the ethic of violent
> conquest was firmly repudiated, a course of action which appeared by
> no means inevitable in the 1930's.
No, here you are wrong. It was not the ethic of violent conquest that
was firmly repudiated. It was the right of White people to engage in
armed struggle (to acquire land) that was repudiated. The Jews kept
their own ethic of violent conquest, and it made its debut two or three
years after the end of WW2, at a place called Deir Yassin. Whites have
been giving ground ever since. We lost Rhodesia, we lost South Africa,
and, as we speak...
http://pw1.netcom.com/~jna/threat.jpg
http://pw1.netcom.com/~jna/racepcnt.jpg
Jerry Abbott
Jerry Abbott
Anne Gilbert wrote:
>
> I told you this guy was a racist and an antisemite on top of it all!!!
> Anne Gilbert
Of course I am a racist. I have said so from the beginning, and we
don't need any parrotting from you on that score. If anyone wants to
know, they can ask me, and I will myself tell them the facts.
I am a racist. I value my race above all others.
For the same reason, I value my family above all other families--if I
could only save one family in all the world from destruction, then it
would be my family.
If I could save only one nation in all the world from destruction, then
it would be my nation.
If I could save only one race in all the world from destruction, then it
would be my race.
I will marry a White woman, or I will marry nobody. I would not marry a
Black woman, not even if she were a good Black woman. I will live among
White people, or I will live among nobody. I will choose White people
as my friends, or I will be pleased to have no friends.
I don't value my race because I think that it is the most intelligent
race, or because I think White people are "better" than others. I value
it because it is MY RACE. You value your children because they are YOUR
CHILDREN, not because they are the world's smartest--indeed, you would
not trade them in exchange for the world's smartest children. Because
THOSE children are not YOUR children.
My racism is an emotional preference, to act upon which I have a moral
right. No person has a right to associate with me against my will,
whether as a spouse, as a friend, or as an employee. And I can
discriminate in any way I please as I form my personal associations.
My anti-Semitism was an intellectual part of me before it became an
emotional one--which is the opposite to how my racism developed. What
made me anti-Semitic?
http://www.halcyon.com/jim/ussliberty/
http://www.flinet.com/~politics/liberty/lib-ind.htm
http://www.cais.net/ipsjps/grapes.htm
http://www.oneworld.org/textver/amnesty/reports/israel/4.html
http://www.cybercom.net/~tonyk/war_images/
http://www.flinet.com/~politics/aipac/lavi.htm
http://www.flinet.com/~politics/aipac/ap-001.htm
http://www.cdsar.af.mil/apj/3fal90.html
http://www.deiryassin.org/
http://www.angelfire.com/al/quwaizani/israel.html
http://www.flinet.com/~politics/index2.html
http://www.natall.com/NATVAN/115/shahak.html
http://www.natvan.com/FREESP/FREE952E.HTML
http://www.grp.mtu.edu/lode/archive/95/09/15/editorial/sixeditorial091595.html
On those pages, as well as on many, many more that I have in my files,
are hundreds of good reasons to be anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist, in the
sense that one who has learned to recognize that organized Jewry is a
parasite and a destroyer to Gentile civilizations should, and probably
will, work contrary to the interests of organized Jewry to save himself,
his family, his nation, his race from exploitation, corruption, and
extinction.
Jerry Abbott
Scott MacEachern
Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>The Aryan Nations has been known to tell the truth.
If they have done so, it was only by oversight.
Mark
Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<3434C6EC...@ix.netcom.com>...
> luh...@super.zippo.news wrote:
> The PEOPLE of the United States were isolationist. They didn't want
> their sons to go abroad to fight in foreign wars. Franklin Delano
> Roosevelt campaigned on a platform that prominently included an
> isolationist foreign policy. He promised not to send American
> servicemen to Europe to fight in World War 2.
>
> He was lying through his teeth.
>
> Franklin Delano Roosevelt was an ambitious man. He wanted to be
> President for as long as possible. Before the War started in Europe, he
> had already served two terms, was serving a third in 1941, and hoped for
> a fourth election victory in 1944. He knew that to get elected again he
> had to please those who controlled the media, and those people were
> Jews. So despite his repeated promises to the American public, he
> sought ways to bring the United States into WW2 against Germany. He
> waged a secret war (i.e., a war about which little or nothing was said
> in the media) against German ships in the Atlantic. Hitler was very
> careful, however, not to respond militarily to these provocations,
> probably because he knew why Roosevelt was provoking him.
This is one interpretation of the situation and perhaps intentionally
simplified. One might say that certain of Roosevelt's advisors had
understandable biases, but his advisors were by no means all Jewish and in
order to move in the direction he did, against the majority public opinion
in the USA in 1940, Roosevelt had to have more than anti-german bias to
work on.
I do not have the precise date but I believe that the US boycott on Japan
was, as usual, caused by more than one factor. Japanese agression in
Manchuria initially, followed by an attack on China, followed later by
attacks on the British and Dutch possessions in SE Asia. The Japanese
actions obviously threatened America's economic interests in the area - the
Japanese had declared a "South-East Asia Co-Prosperity Zone" and having
secured the bulk of the sources of the raw materials Japan's industry
needed, they were in a position to freeze out America in the area.
In addition, although the majority public opinion in the USA was against
involvement in another European war, the threat to America's interests
posed by an ultra European nationalist Germany, controlling all of Western
and most of Eastern Europe, could not be ignored and sooner or later the
USA would have to have become involved. America used the time to build up
the greatest industrial support for a war that there has ever been. When
the time came there is a great deal of evidence to indicate that Roosevelt
manipulated events to manoeuvre the Japanese into a first strike. It is
significant that the US aircraft carriers were not caught at Pearl Harbour
and only battle ships, which the Japanese had already demonstrated were
sitting targets for aerial attack and thus not practical major assets were
in port. The Pacific War was a war fought on the basis of aerial
superiority and the US had this.
One might be cynical and say that America was already the major world
economic force and having just come out of the Great Depression needed the
impetus of a major war to keep the momentum going.
> This gave Roosevelt the pretext he needed to declare war on Japan.
>
> The treaty between Germany and Japan brought the United States into war
> with Germany, as the Jews desired.
To credit the Jews with manipulations which were the result of the
unfinished business of the First World War does, I think, overstate their
influence - disproportionate to numbers that this was and is.
>
> The substantiation for my earlier statement appears in my new comments,
> above. I am not crazy. We did not fight Hitler because of the War in
> Europe. We fought Hitler because of Jewish influence in the United
> States. Japan was a stepping stone on the way to war against Germany.
America's entry into the war against Germany was as much of a pre-emptive
strike (for want of a better word) as Japan's on Pearl Harbour. HIndsight
shows the inevitability of the action and, as much as anyone in America
wanted to remain isolationist, isolationism would have meant economic
decline.
>
>
> > >This is also a correct statement. The Jews have held what I said they
> > >have held since before WW2, right up to the present: extraordinarily
> > >disproportionate political influence.
To be flippant, my father once said to me that if ten Jews gathered
together to discuss a specific subject, there was one thing of which one
could be absolutely certain - there would be at least eleven opinions.
Consider Israel today, if there were no enemies on all sides and if there
were thus no need for mutual protection, the population would have split up
into fractious fractions decades ago. Throughout history people have
accused Jews of all sorts of conspiracies and plots but the truth is
probably no more than that certain Jewish attributes have put them at the
cutting edge of world affairs pretty much since the world had affairs; no
more than that.
Mark Richardson
Gerold Firl
In article <01bccf02$6c9f6180$LocalHost@marho>, "Mark " <ma...@iafrica.com> writes:
|> Gerold Firl <ger...@sdd.hp.com> wrote in article
|> <60u81b$1...@news.sdd.hp.com>...
|> > In article <01bcce37$586a0ec0$LocalHost@marho>, "Mark "
|> <ma...@iafrica.com> writes:
|> > |> Definitely more reasonable and whilst there would probably have been
|> > |> arguments along those lines which were well supported, both
|> governments,
|> > |> French and British, took the view of "so far and no further".
|> > Why do you think they came to that conclusion? My reading is that
|> > hitler and the nazis were seen as the embodiment of an ideology which
|> > was so inimical to western norms of behavior that it was felt
|> > that germany had to be stopped.
|> If you read your comments below, you seem to agree that the ideaology was
|> not so inimical to western norms.
One of the interesting things about culture (especially western, or
perhaps "civilized" culture) is the way that mutually incompatible
ideas or subcultures coexist and compete. There was significant
support for racist/nationalist imperialism throughout the west, but
there was also a sizable body of opinion which favored a liberal,
tolerant, enlightened egalitarianism. That dichotomy has been present
for as far back as written history exists; think of athens and
sparta, ca. 500 bc. Nazi ideology was contrary to the general trend
of western social philosophy starting around 1700. It was a throwback
to the days of naked conquest, triggered by the overwhelming
superiority of western technology and social organization in general,
and the special circumstances of german history and geography in
particular. There was a question that needed to be answered: should
the west use its power to gain maximum advantage over the rest of the
world? The power was there. It could have been used. The fact that it
wasn't says that the preponderance of western thought came down on
the side of a liberal/athenian model, rather than a fascist/spartan
one. Look at the ideological wrapping used throughout the period of
western imperialism: it was all done for the benefit of the poor,
benighted savages. The reality was quite different, of course, but
the fiction had to be maintained to keep up support at home.
|> In fact, it is my understanding that in
|> 1939, there were very strong bodies of opinion in France, particularly,and
|> in Britain less so, but still strong, which had no qualms with Nazi
|> ideaology as such.
And in the US, and italy, and spain; even in the netherlands and
scandenavia.
|> That the Nazi ideaology was used as a denigrating factor
|> in the ensuing propaganda war is without question, but at the outset it was
|> the good old "balance of power" and an actual treaty - in the case of
|> Poland - instead of a more vague agreement in the case of Czechoslovakia,
|> that tipped the scales. There was also the fact that Russia had joined with
|> Germany in dismembering Poland and there was the Russo-German Pact to
|> consider. As with all European wars nothing was clear cut and unambiguous.
True. It seems quite possible that the ethical violoation which
really pushed the allies over the brink was the fact that hitler had
broken his word to chamberlain. In 38, hitler assured the allies that
once he had the sudetenland, there would be no more land grabs.
Political leaders had staked their personal credibility on the
strength of that assurance. It seems like a trivial matter over which
to start a war however.
|> > The fighting elan you refer to was a major factor in german success,
|> > but it was just as significant at the level of the individual soldier
|> > as among the generals. germany fought with the ethic of conquest on
|> > her side, while the allies were fighting for, what, tolerance and
|> > decency? French soldiers were not very interested in that cause,
|> > certainly not to the point of risking their lives for it.
|> I will agree that the German spirit was undoubtedly better. And, they had
|> the inequitable Treaty of Versailles to remedy. The French may have seemed
|> unwilling to fight but this was because they were comprehensively
|> outgeneralled. Individual French units fought superbly when they were able
|> to re-group but they had been turned in a war of movement; when all their
|> preparations had been for a static defence hinged on the Maginot Line.
Interesting. I need to research that question more closely.
|> However, there was still, in France, even in 1941 considerable sympathy for
|> the Nazi ideaology.
Even in 1941? How about 1997?
|> We tend to see things in rather stark terms as a result
|> of "History is Written by the Winners" and the need to justify what was
|> initially a very "normal" war, on moral grounds.
As you note, the thread is tangled, and it's far from obvious which
of the various contributory factors were most significant. What
stands out for me is the marked turn in western thought which took
place as a result of that war. I like to think of WWII as a war for
the soul of western culture; it certainly had that result. The west
could have assumed the role of tyrant to the world. A nazi victory
would have led to that result. Instead, the west has attempted to
play the role of "first among equals", as seen in the structure of
the UN. Maybe it was entirely accidental, but it certainly occured in
a timely manner. Think of the romans, or the mongols, or the hurons,
or the vikings armed with stealth bombers, aircraft carriers, attack
helicopters, and nuclear weapons. Vietnam, algeria, rhodesia etc
would have turned out very differently if traditional notions of
conquest and empire had been used.
Jerry Abbott
Gerold Firl wrote:
>
> In article <01bcc800$f83f8980$LocalHost@marho>, "Mark " <ma...@iafrica.com> writes:
>
The social consequences of that unfortunate war have not yet finished
playing out. You forgot to mention the drug war, the exploitation of
the United States by Israel, the rising crime rate, the uncontrolled
immigration from Mexico, the fact that White Americans aren't even
replacing their numbers and may be headed for extinction...and so on.
Many of these factors, also, would be different had WW2 come out
differently, or not been fought as Britain and the United States chose
to fight it.
One of the tenets of Nazi philosophy is that Man cannot defy natural law
and escape the consequences of trying to do so. The penalty for walking
off the roof of a tall building is an injurious and probably fatal fall
to the ground. The penalty for pretending that survival is not a
competition, or that the laws of natural selection do not apply to Man,
is the extinction of the pretending group.
> Of course, there wasn't much doubt about the outcome. The nazis were
> pretty much doomed to failure right from the start, just because of
> the contradiction between fascism and western individualism. It may
> be, however, that that war had to fought, just to make clear that the
> question was raised, and answered. The nazi ideology of conquest was
> the logical outcome of a western tradition of military expansion
> coupled with the 15-20th century technological explosion which
> conferred the means to make that ideology a reality. The west
> declined to yield to that temptation, and it was an ethical choice,
> not a pragmatic one.
The Nazis couldn't win because they didn't have the men and resources to
fight the whole world for long. It wasn't a matter of a philosophical
conflict. No Nazi soldiers suddenly sat down on tree stumps, pondering
the finer points of Nietzsche and Kant while enemy bullets whizzed
around them. I'm fairly sure that that didn't happen. The problem for
the Nazis was too many enemies on too many fronts, and a lack of
materiel.
Jerry Abbott
Serene & Sanguine Sagacity
Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Serene & Sanguine Sagacity wrote:
>> Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >Serene & Sanguine Sagacity wrote:
>> >> "Dwight E. Howell" <deo...@usit.net> wrote:
>> >> >Serene & Sanguine Sagacity wrote:
>> >> >> The lie is that there is anything other than
>> >> >> the single human race, which includes people
>> >> >> of many families with many different personal
>> >> >> characteristics, the vast majority of which
>> >> >> people are too smart to believe racist lies
>> >> >> about things with no basis in science.
>> >> >I hope you're right that the majority is too smart to buy racist lies not
>> >> >based in science because it is clear that a strong minority do.
>> >> You are right.
>> >> I am optimistic about people, indeed,
>> >> and perhaps erroneously so at times.
>> >> Rational misconstructions are based
>> >> upon fear which remains unresolved.
>> >> Fear is based upon ignorance, of
>> >> which here is no shortage.
>> >Many species, including humans, exhibit race ...
>> Your substantiation for that would be _?_
>Visible differences in typical body structure, coloration, and facial
>features.
That's not even a complete sentence, much less substantiation.
>Measureable differences in physical and mental performance
>factors, easily verifiable by you. Watch a basketball game sometime.
Superficial characteristics don't define race in humans at all.
Your racism lies to you if you imagine that minor appearance
variations would define races.
~~~"Serene" *Sheila Green* "Sagacity"~~~
[aka Word Warrior green*@tristate.pgh.net]
"Eat me, and use your head for better than
the mere absorption of monitor radiation."
Tom Farrell
Jerry Abbott wrote:
> I will marry a White woman, or I will marry nobody.
My money's on the latter...
robert s carlsen
In article <3434BBC8...@ix.netcom.com>, Jerry Abbott
<j...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>If you believe that
> the Aryan Nations has uttered lies, then list them, as we'll discuss
> them. Being specific about one's allegations is the difference between
> an accusation and a smear.
>
> Jerry Abbott
Aryan Nation lie #1: telegony
Aryan Nation lie #2: the Holocaust never happened
Jerry Abbott
>
>
> Scott
I've said it before: the difference between an honest criticism and a
smear is specifics. Which lies have you heard the Aryan Nations tell?
Let's examine them in detail. After some debate, maybe we'll agree that
the Aryan Nations has either lied, or maybe we'll find that our
disagreements with them are differences of opinion in theology, much as
a Jew would dispute with a Christian on the divinity of Jesus--you'll
appreciate the difference between such a dispute and an intentional lie.
Jerry Abbott
Jerry Abbott
robert s carlsen wrote:
>
> In article <3434BBC8...@ix.netcom.com>, Jerry Abbott
> <j...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > the Aryan Nations has uttered lies, then list them, as we'll discuss
> > them. Being specific about one's allegations is the difference between
> > an accusation and a smear.
> >
> > Jerry Abbott
>
Telegony is the supposed carrying over of the influence of a sire to the
offspring of subsequent matings of the dam by other males. In other
words, the error of telegony was that half-siblings don't inherit common
genes from uncommon parents. If the uncommon parents were related to
each other, however, the genes they shared would in some proportion
(depending on the uncommon parents' consanguinity) be shared by the
half-siblings. I don't remember that the Aryan Nations made the error
of assuming telegony. Would you care to present an illustration by
quotes?
> Aryan Nation lie #2: the Holocaust never happened
There are people who believe they have good reason to doubt that the
Holocaust happened. I don't usually get into this kind of discussion
because I am not well-versed in the evidence and because I don't really
care one way or the other. None of my ancestors were among the victims.
None of my ancestors were among the perpetrators. The Holocaust, if it
happened, is no more relevant to me than the Soviet purges, in which the
number of (Christian) victims seems to have been a whole order of
magnitude larger than the alleged number of Jewish victims of German war
crimes. If someone wanted to bemoan and belabor a REAL holocaust, then
the Soviet Union is where it happened.
And, anyway, Dr. Carlsen, how did you come by your certainty that the
(Nazi) Holocaust happened? Just curious.
Jerry Abbott
Jerry Abbott
You there, in the peanut gallery.
Jerry Abbott
Jerry Abbott
Yes. Roosevelt couldn't parlay anything that Germany was doing against
the United States into a significant change in the prevailing
isolationist sentiments of the public. That's why he had to maneuver
Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor and then "set up" the Naval commanders
there so that they weren't informed of the impending attack. Certainly,
"not all" of Roosevelt's advisors were Jewish, but a lot of them were,
and they were the ones who persuaded Roosevelt to break his promise (or
falsely to promise) not to involve the United States in World War Two.
> I do not have the precise date but I believe that the US boycott on Japan
> was, as usual, caused by more than one factor. Japanese agression in
> Manchuria initially, followed by an attack on China, followed later by
> attacks on the British and Dutch possessions in SE Asia. The Japanese
> actions obviously threatened America's economic interests in the area - the
> Japanese had declared a "South-East Asia Co-Prosperity Zone" and having
> secured the bulk of the sources of the raw materials Japan's industry
> needed, they were in a position to freeze out America in the area.
I don't think that Japanese aggression in China was the real motive for
Roosevelt's boycott in 1940. Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, and
Roosevelt became president of the United States for the first time in
1933. Seven years is a long time to dither about concluding that a
boycott of trade with Japan was warranted for humanitarian reasons.
Hitler's adventures in Europe are more proximate to the boycott, and
attention in the media was much more focussed on Europe than on
Manchuria.
One thing Japan didn't have a lot of, in 1940, was oil. And that (along
with steel) is what Roosevelt's boycott mainly involved.
> In addition, although the majority public opinion in the USA was against
> involvement in another European war, the threat to America's interests
> posed by an ultra European nationalist Germany, controlling all of Western
> and most of Eastern Europe, could not be ignored and sooner or later the
> USA would have to have become involved.
If that were the case, then the United States would have equal
inclination to break up any other manifestation of European economic
solidarity, including by military action, and obviously it does not.
Roosevelt wasn't afraid that a National Socialist Europe might start
charging higher prices for Swiss chocolate, German cars and French wine.
> America used the time to build up
> the greatest industrial support for a war that there has ever been. When
> the time came there is a great deal of evidence to indicate that Roosevelt
> manipulated events to manoeuvre the Japanese into a first strike. It is
> significant that the US aircraft carriers were not caught at Pearl Harbour
> and only battle ships, which the Japanese had already demonstrated were
> sitting targets for aerial attack and thus not practical major assets were
> in port. The Pacific War was a war fought on the basis of aerial
> superiority and the US had this.
Except for the value of the damaged ships, this accords with information
that I have. Battleships aren't sitting targets for air attacks when
they have aircraft carrier escorts--this is in an era before precision
guided surface-to-air missiles could contribute to an effective fleet
defense--and, so escorted, they can still have at enemy positions in an
island-hopping war such as the WW2 Pacific theater.
> One might be cynical and say that America was already the major world
> economic force and having just come out of the Great Depression needed the
> impetus of a major war to keep the momentum going.
But in that case the US and Britain might as easily, if not more easily,
have fought on Germany's side. If one wanted to be cynical.
> > This gave Roosevelt the pretext he needed to declare war on Japan.
> >
> > The treaty between Germany and Japan brought the United States into war
> > with Germany, as the Jews desired.
>
> To credit the Jews with manipulations which were the result of the
> unfinished business of the First World War does, I think, overstate their
> influence - disproportionate to numbers that this was and is.
The Jewish influence is not now, nor ever been, a question of numbers.
They occupy the key positions, the control points, for the transmission
of information to the public, and, lately, in the chain of command
between the President of the United States and the executive bureaucrasy
(which is itself disproportionately Jewish). To make a crude analogy,
most of the mass of a human body does not reside in the nervous system,
though that is the part that controls all the rest (fittingly, however,
in that case).
> > The substantiation for my earlier statement appears in my new comments,
> > above. I am not crazy. We did not fight Hitler because of the War in
> > Europe. We fought Hitler because of Jewish influence in the United
> > States. Japan was a stepping stone on the way to war against Germany.
>
> America's entry into the war against Germany was as much of a pre-emptive
> strike (for want of a better word) as Japan's on Pearl Harbour. HIndsight
> shows the inevitability of the action and, as much as anyone in America
> wanted to remain isolationist, isolationism would have meant economic
> decline.
I won't make the moral argument about our not having a right to kill
people in order to have more butter on our bread, since it's obvious
(and beside the point of my argument). I don't agree with you that our
participation in the war was necessary to avoid decline. What posponed
the reappearance of economic troubles was the deficit spending that took
place during the war years. The country took the money that it borrowed
from its future generations, hired some people to make guns and bombs
(boosted employment) and used the guns and bombs in Europe to cause
destruction. Much better it would have been, to have taken the same
money and built capital goods that could be treated as an investment FOR
future generations, essentially ensuring that the boost to employment
could outlast both the war and the generation that spent the money.
> > > >This is also a correct statement. The Jews have held what I said they
> > > >have held since before WW2, right up to the present: extraordinarily
> > > >disproportionate political influence.
>
> To be flippant, my father once said to me that if ten Jews gathered
> together to discuss a specific subject, there was one thing of which one
> could be absolutely certain - there would be at least eleven opinions.
> Consider Israel today, if there were no enemies on all sides and if there
> were thus no need for mutual protection, the population would have split up
> into fractious fractions decades ago. Throughout history people have
> accused Jews of all sorts of conspiracies and plots but the truth is
> probably no more than that certain Jewish attributes have put them at the
> cutting edge of world affairs pretty much since the world had affairs; no
> more than that.
>
> Mark Richardson
I have heard the same thing said a different way: getting Jews to move
together was like herding cats. But there is a way to do it--set down a
feeding dish where you want the cats to go. In the case of Zionism, the
feeding dish is an American sponsored Jewish State in the Middle East.
There are a few Jews who don't approve of Zionism--but very few. Jews
are well aware that U.S. foreign aid comes mainly out of Gentile
pockets, that Gentiles contribute more toward this program than Jews do,
and that since Israel is the largest beneficiary of American foreign aid
the program constitutes a forcible transfer of wealth from Gentiles to
Jews. They know this, and, by all the evidence, they approve of the
extortion.
And such things as this, I believe, is what sets Jews so often at odds
with the other peoples with whom they come into contact. They are, and
(as far as I know) always have been, parasites on stronger nations and
victimizers of weaker ones. Their victims in war hate them at once.
The victims of their parasitism learn to resent the Jews as they
gradually find out how they are being used.
Jerry Abbott
Anne Gilbert
4077399....@usit.net> <5v1ddv
Organization: Seattle Community Network
In a previous article, j...@ix.netcom.com (Jerry Abbott) says:
> <EH31M...@scn.org>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: cht-tn1-25.ix.netcom.com
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-NETCOM-Date: Fri Oct 03 4:36:50 AM CDT 1997
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I)
>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>
>>
>> >gip.net!ix.netcom.com!news
>> >From: Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com>
>> >Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
>> >Subject: Re: lies about race
>> >Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 03:36:26 -0500
>> >Organization: Netcom
>> >Lines: 124
>> >Message-ID: <34277F8A...@ix.netcom.com>
>> >References: <342425D4...@ix.netcom.com> <3420BE47...@ix.netcom.com> <341CC532...@ix.netcom.com> <5tiqoi$pnu$1...@orthanc.reference.com> <5tvhfs$9ho$3...@taurus.bv.sgi.net> <34077399...@usit.net> <5v1ddv$sbu$5...@taurus.bv.sgi.net> <EG
M
>JE
>> L
>> > <EGxIy...@scn.org>
>> >NNTP-Posting-Host: cht-tn1-19.ix.netcom.com
>> >Mime-Version: 1.0
>> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> >X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Sep 23 3:40:01 AM CDT 1997
>> >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I)
>> >X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>> >
>> >
>
Mr. Abbott, I will not try to argue with your apparently extensive
knowledge of political and military history of the United States and
Europe prior to and during World War II, as this is something which has
never greatly interested me, except in passing.
However, the fact that Herrnstein(a Jew, interestingly enough), and Murray,
*both* have long histories of having certain opinions which would be
compatible with the idea of the genetic inferiority of poor people and
so-called "nonwhites". And the Mankind Quarterly was founded to promote
*exactly the same* idea. While it surprises me they have a website, they
are quite entitled to their(biased)opinions.
As for the religious or ethnic affiliations of the list of people you
mention, I fail to see what it has to do with their ability to serve this
country's administration, which is their job.
Anne Gilbert
Anne Gilbert
$sbu$5...@taurus.bv.sgi.net> <EGMJEL
Organization: Seattle Community Network
In a previous article, j...@ix.netcom.com (Jerry Abbott) says:
>From: Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com>
>Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
>Subject: Re: lies about race
>Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 05:44:40 -0500
>Organization: Netcom
>Lines: 72
>Message-ID: <3434CC98...@ix.netcom.com>
>References: <342425D4...@ix.netcom.com> <3420BE47...@ix.netcom.com> <341CC532...@ix.netcom.com> <5tiqoi$pnu$1...@orthanc.reference.com> <5tvhfs$9ho$3...@taurus.bv.sgi.net> <34077399...@usit.net> <5v1ddv$sbu$5...@taurus.bv.sgi.net> <EGMJE
L
> <EGxIy...@scn.org> <01bcc800$f83f8980$LocalHost@marho> <60rlrb$l...@news.sdd.hp.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: cht-tn1-25.ix.netcom.com
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-NETCOM-Date: Fri Oct 03 5:48:31 AM CDT 1997
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I)
>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>
>Gerold Firl wrote:
>>
>
>One of the tenets of Nazi philosophy is that Man cannot defy natural law
>and escape the consequences of trying to do so. The penalty for walking
>off the roof of a tall building is an injurious and probably fatal fall
>to the ground. The penalty for pretending that survival is not a
>competition, or that the laws of natural selection do not apply to Man,
>is the extinction of the pretending group.
The above seems to suggest you have totally bought into the philosophy of
Social Darwinism. I know of no biologist or anthropologist who supports
such a philosophy today. As for the idea of the "white" race dying out
--- well, any number of biological anthropologists tell us that "races"
come about fairly rapidly through various reshufflings of genetic material.
>
>
>
>The Nazis couldn't win because they didn't have the men and resources to
>fight the whole world for long. It wasn't a matter of a philosophical
>conflict. No Nazi soldiers suddenly sat down on tree stumps, pondering
>the finer points of Nietzsche and Kant while enemy bullets whizzed
>around them. I'm fairly sure that that didn't happen. The problem for
>the Nazis was too many enemies on too many fronts, and a lack of
>materiel.
>
>Jerry Abbott
>
No, the Nazis didn't lose because they "philosophized" whatever that
means, but because the rest of the world(at least most of the Western
powers and the former Soviet Union) ganged up on them.
Anne Gilbert
Anne Gilbert
4077399....@usit.net> <5v1dd
Organization: Seattle Community Network
In a previous article, j...@ix.netcom.com (Jerry Abbott) says:
>!news
>From: Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com>
>Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
>Subject: Re: lies about race
>Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 05:01:35 -0500
>Organization: Netcom
>Lines: 67
>Message-ID: <3434C27E...@ix.netcom.com>
>References: <34294f9...@news.bowdoin.edu> <342425D4...@ix.netcom.com> <3420BE47...@ix.netcom.com> <341CC532...@ix.netcom.com> <5tiqoi$pnu$1...@orthanc.reference.com> <5tvhfs$9ho$3...@taurus.bv.sgi.net> <34077399...@usit.net> <5v1d
d
> <EH6y3...@scn.org>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: cht-tn1-25.ix.netcom.com
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-NETCOM-Date: Fri Oct 03 5:05:26 AM CDT 1997
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I)
>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>
What is so important about "your" race? If, indeed, all races really are
equal, then why confine yourself to white females. As for your rants
about Jews, this is the same garbage, in different words, that Hitler
spewed out years ago in Mein Kampf. Sorry, I don't buy it, and I don't
think many other people here do either.
Anne Gilbert
Anne Gilbert
<34077399...@usit.net> <5v1ddv
Organization: Seattle Community Network
In a previous article, smac...@polar.bowdoin.edu (Scott MacEachern) says:
> <EH31M...@scn.org> <3434BBC8...@ix.netcom.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.140.18.26
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
>
>Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>The Aryan Nations has been known to tell the truth.
>
>If they have done so, it was only by oversight.
>
>Scott
>_______________________________________
>
>Scott MacEachern
>Department of Sociology and Anthropology
>Bowdoin College
>Brunswick, ME 04011 smac...@polar.bowdoin.edu
>
>"Chaque vieillard qui meurt dans la brousse, c'est une bibliothèque
>qui brûle." Amadou Hampaté Ba
>
I was unaware that the Aryan Nations was even *capable* of telling the truth.
Anne Gilbert
Mark
Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<34361BFF...@ix.netcom.com>...
>
>
> > I do not have the precise date but I believe that the US boycott on
Japan
> > was, as usual, caused by more than one factor. Japanese agression in
> > Manchuria initially, followed by an attack on China, followed later by
> > attacks on the British and Dutch possessions in SE Asia. The Japanese
> > actions obviously threatened America's economic interests in the area -
the
> > Japanese had declared a "South-East Asia Co-Prosperity Zone" and having
> > secured the bulk of the sources of the raw materials Japan's industry
> > needed, they were in a position to freeze out America in the area.
>
>
> I don't think that Japanese aggression in China was the real motive for
> Roosevelt's boycott in 1940. Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, and
> Roosevelt became president of the United States for the first time in
> 1933. Seven years is a long time to dither about concluding that a
> boycott of trade with Japan was warranted for humanitarian reasons.
> Hitler's adventures in Europe are more proximate to the boycott, and
> attention in the media was much more focussed on Europe than on
> Manchuria.
The point that I had hoped to make was that the Japanese had embarked on a
series of attacks in South-East Asia over a period of time. Their intention
was "lebensraum" on the one hand and the control of vital raw materials on
the other The American boycott was in the nature of a "final" warning but
it also pushed the Japanese into pre-emptive action.
>
> One thing Japan didn't have a lot of, in 1940, was oil. And that (along
> with steel) is what Roosevelt's boycott mainly involved.
Japan attacked and took Indonesia and Burma for precisely this reason. Both
before Pearl Harbour.
> If that were the case, then the United States would have equal
> inclination to break up any other manifestation of European economic
> solidarity, including by military action, and obviously it does not.
> Roosevelt wasn't afraid that a National Socialist Europe might start
> charging higher prices for Swiss chocolate, German cars and French wine.
That is hardly the point.The American industry and agriculture would have
found the loss of markets and/or tariff walls erected by a National
Socialist Europe stretching from Galway to the Urals difficult to live
with. Particularly considering the very recent Great Depression. America is
fortunate in having both ample natural resources and large home markets but
the loss of overseas markets would have been difficult, if not impossible
to sustain.
>
> > America used the time to build up
> > the greatest industrial support for a war that there has ever been.
When
> > the time came there is a great deal of evidence to indicate that
Roosevelt
> > manipulated events to manoeuvre the Japanese into a first strike. It is
> > significant that the US aircraft carriers were not caught at Pearl
Harbour
> > and only battle ships, which the Japanese had already demonstrated were
> > sitting targets for aerial attack and thus not practical major assets
were
> > in port. The Pacific War was a war fought on the basis of aerial
> > superiority and the US had this.
>
>
> Except for the value of the damaged ships, this accords with information
> that I have. Battleships aren't sitting targets for air attacks when
> they have aircraft carrier escorts--this is in an era before precision
> guided surface-to-air missiles could contribute to an effective fleet
> defense--and, so escorted, they can still have at enemy positions in an
> island-hopping war such as the WW2 Pacific theater.
This is obviously a matter for argument, but I believe that the use of
battleships as mobile artillery platforms was basically the limit of their
effectiveness in the Second World War. None of the major Pacific battles
was on a ship to ship basis (the Battle of the Coral Sea did I think
involve ship to ship action but I do not think that battleships were
involved - I am open to correction but I think that the nearest item to a
capital ship that was involved on the Allied side were heavy cruisers).
Battleships were traditional threats to be posed, but by 1943 they were
more akin to the king on a chessboard and the aircraft carrier task groups
did, as you say, spend valuable rescources protecting them.
>
>
> > One might be cynical and say that America was already the major world
> > economic force and having just come out of the Great Depression needed
the
> > impetus of a major war to keep the momentum going.
>
>
> But in that case the US and Britain might as easily, if not more easily,
> have fought on Germany's side. If one wanted to be cynical.
But against who ? The USSR?
>
>
> The Jewish influence is not now, nor ever been, a question of numbers.
> They occupy the key positions, the control points, for the transmission
> of information to the public, and, lately, in the chain of command
> between the President of the United States and the executive bureaucrasy
> (which is itself disproportionately Jewish). To make a crude analogy,
> most of the mass of a human body does not reside in the nervous system,
> though that is the part that controls all the rest (fittingly, however,
> in that case).
I think that the position of many Jews in high office and with influence in
the media etc. provides fertile soil for conjecture but I really doubt any
sort of organised conspiracy. Just think of it, the Old Testament and
history from AD1 to date, record a continuing catalogue of disasters which
have befallen the Jewish people. If they have been conspring throughout the
ages to achieve world domination they have'nt made a very good job of it.
You may paraphrase Nietsche and say that each disaster that they have
suffered only serves to make the survivors stronger and more determined
but, even if one accepts such a concept and denies that the holocaust,
being the most recent such, did not take place it is certain that a
disproportionate number of Jews died during the Second World War. This
being the case, and in the context of the 4000 or so years of their
recorded history, they do not seem to be making any more progress towards
world domination than they have ever done in the past.
Looking for scapegoats is pretty normal and the Jews have filled this niche
for a long time but the world goes on and I think that more than a few
steps along the road to a better existence have been taken by Jews in the
first place.
> I won't make the moral argument about our not having a right to kill
> people in order to have more butter on our bread, since it's obvious
> (and beside the point of my argument). I don't agree with you that our
> participation in the war was necessary to avoid decline. What posponed
> the reappearance of economic troubles was the deficit spending that took
> place during the war years. The country took the money that it borrowed
> from its future generations, hired some people to make guns and bombs
> (boosted employment) and used the guns and bombs in Europe to cause
> destruction. Much better it would have been, to have taken the same
> money and built capital goods that could be treated as an investment FOR
> future generations, essentially ensuring that the boost to employment
> could outlast both the war and the generation that spent the money.
But was it not the war and the development that resulted from it that
carried America and Europe, stimulated by the Marshall Plan, into the
unprecedented prosperity that has lasted right through to the present day?
If people are to sacrifice and deficit spending comes into this category -
even if it is not the current generation making the sacrifice - they need a
cause. The New Deal captured the imagination in the early 1930s but irt had
basically run out of steam.
>
> And such things as this, I believe, is what sets Jews so often at odds
> with the other peoples with whom they come into contact. They are, and
> (as far as I know) always have been, parasites on stronger nations and
> victimizers of weaker ones. Their victims in war hate them at once.
> The victims of their parasitism learn to resent the Jews as they
> gradually find out how they are being used.
Agreed, just about every people from Assyrians and Babylonians through
Greeks and Romans to Spaniards to Russians and virtually every European
nation has at one time or another reacted negatively (to put it mildly)
towards the Jews. My point is what do you fear? If your worst fears were
confirmed and the Jews did somehow control the world what on earth would
they do that would be so detrimental to you and me? Do you think that a
"Jewish controlled" government of the USA would start World War 3 to
protect Israel? Not on your life. The US government massively subsidises
Israel, mostly as a hangover from the cold war and the intense efforts that
the US makes to achieve peace in the region are obviously stimulated by a
desire to get out from under and reduce this subsidy. If Mr Netanyahu uses
brinkmanship to keep the subsidy I am not surprised but I doubt that any
government of whatever make up in a similar position would not do the same
sort of thing. That is not Jewishness it is self interest.
Mark Richardson
Mark
Gerold Firl <ger...@sdd.hp.com> wrote in article
<01bcd0de$441e8820$LocalHost@marho>...
>
>
> |> > |> Definitely more reasonable and whilst there would probably have
> I> > I>been arguments along those lines which were well supported, both
> |> > I>governments, French and British, took the view of "so far and no
further".
>
> |> > Why do you think they came to that conclusion? My reading is that
> |> > hitler and the nazis were seen as the embodiment of an ideology
which
> |> > was so inimical to western norms of behavior that it was felt
> |> > that germany had to be stopped.
>
> |> If you read your comments below, you seem to agree that the ideaology
> I>was not so inimical to western norms.
>
> One of the interesting things about culture (especially western, or
> perhaps "civilized" culture) is the way that mutually incompatible
> ideas or subcultures coexist and compete. There was significant
> support for racist/nationalist imperialism throughout the west, but
> there was also a sizable body of opinion which favored a liberal,
> tolerant, enlightened egalitarianism. That dichotomy has been present
> for as far back as written history exists; think of athens and
> sparta, ca. 500 bc. Nazi ideology was contrary to the general trend
> of western social philosophy starting around 1700.
We agree that the Nazi philosophy was contrary to the general trend, if by
trend you mean the direction in which a thing moves. It was certainly
retrogressive in this sense, but it was by no means unappealing to more
than just German Nationalism for all that.
As I recall it was Gobineau who set out the racial theories which the Nazis
found so appealing and not only the Nazis for that matter.
>It was a throwback
> to the days of naked conquest, triggered by the overwhelming
> superiority of western technology and social organization in general,
> and the special circumstances of german history and geography in
> particular. There was a question that needed to be answered: should
> the west use its power to gain maximum advantage over the rest of the
> world? The power was there. It could have been used.
If one examines the status quo (which will not remain 'quo' for any great
length of time because nothing ever does) this is exactly what has happened
- albeit a little late in the day and on account of technology - rather
than simple military power. At this moment one would have to include Japan
in the Western camp but as they say, "watch this space".
>The fact that it
> wasn't says that the preponderance of western thought came down on
> the side of a liberal/athenian model, rather than a fascist/spartan
> one. Look at the ideological wrapping used throughout the period of
> western imperialism: it was all done for the benefit of the poor,
> benighted savages. The reality was quite different, of course, but
> the fiction had to be maintained to keep up support at home.
I think that two things prevented the West from enforcing "Democracy" world
wide. It would have involved further massive economic investment in warfare
which had no great appeal and the difficulty of persuading democratic
citizenry to endure further sacrifices in order to provide "Ivan and Chang
in the street" with the democratic process. It is one thing to accept the
need to defend one's country - even to honour a treaty - but it is
something else entirely to persuade soldiers to accept death, in order that
someone they have never met and in whom they have not the slightest real
interest, may go to a poling station and cast a vote. I also have a little
difficulty with liberal/Athenians, I have a feeling that since helots were
never part of the 'demos', life in Athens or Sparta was not significantly
different for them. And, when we nowadays talk of democracy what might, for
want of any better comparison, be described as helots, are very much part
of the 'demos'. Our democracy is very different to the Athenian model and
if we compare ourselves with it, we should realise that in the end it was
the Macedonian system, which was much closer to the Spartan, which
prevailed.
>
> True. It seems quite possible that the ethical violoation which
> really pushed the allies over the brink was the fact that hitler had
> broken his word to chamberlain. In 38, hitler assured the allies that
> once he had the sudetenland, there would be no more land grabs.
> Political leaders had staked their personal credibility on the
> strength of that assurance. It seems like a trivial matter over which
> to start a war however.
I think that Britain and France would have acted over Czechoslovakia once
Hitler went beyond the Sudentenland but they felt that they were militarily
and politically unready. (We come back to the point that in both countries
there was no great public concern over boundaries shifting in Mittel
Europa). By the time Hitler had attacked Poland the scales in the balance
were tipping too rapidly for further action to be delayed. The French have
always accused the British of perfidy but in this instance neither country
could afford to allow solemn undertaking to be abrogated and, they thought
that they could defend their own territories, which is not a small
consideration :-)
>
>
> Even in 1941? How about 1997?
You refer I presume to M.Le Pen ? I doubt that he sees Algerians immigrants
in gas chambers. Algerians and the like in Algeria and the like is more how
I read his politicies.
> As you note, the thread is tangled, and it's far from obvious which
> of the various contributory factors were most significant. What
> stands out for me is the marked turn in western thought which took
> place as a result of that war. I like to think of WWII as a war for
> the soul of western culture; it certainly had that result. The west
> could have assumed the role of tyrant to the world. A nazi victory
> would have led to that result. Instead, the west has attempted to
> play the role of "first among equals", as seen in the structure of
> the UN.
I agree completely. The turn in thought occured as a result of the war and
what the war demonstrated about man's capacity to be inhumane to man. It is
inconceivable that a Western nation could attempt a war of conquest at this
time. There may, almost certainly will, come a time when a war of defence
of territory or, economic influence, is not out of the question because, as
much as we humans learn about the material world and our, position in it
and effect on it, basic human reactions remain and a willingness to hold
the advantages and ground that we have is fundamental.
Mark Richardson
smac...@polar.bowdoin.edu
Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> After some debate, maybe we'll agree that
> the Aryan Nations has either lied, or maybe we'll find that our
> disagreements with them are differences of opinion in theology
Ah, theology... Yes, I understand that quite well. A wonderful out, is it
not? So that"WE BELIEVE that the Cananite Jew is the natural enemy of our
Aryan (White) Race. This is attested by scripture and all secular
history..."
and
"The Jew is like a destroying virus that attacks our racial body to
destroy our Aryan culture and purity of our race."
and
"It is not hate that makes the average White man look upon a mixed
racial couple with a scowl on his face and loathing in his hear" (??
What's an Aryans' hear, anyway?)
and "IKE, THE KIKE!", and the old stories about Jesus not being a Jew,
and "The history of the present Zionist Occupied Government of the United
States of America is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all
having a direct object -- the establishment of an absolute tyranny over
these states; moreover, throughout the entire world." and "It ["ZOG"]
has engaged in systematic genocide of the White race,..."
and all the rest become cute little theological statements, free of all
lies, hatred and vileness.
Get a grip. Lies and hate, that's all. True statements? Well, at one
point someone (Butler, I presume) writes "Excuse me while I regurgitate!"
He's got that right.
Scott
_______________________________________________
Scott MacEachern
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bowdoin College
Brunswick ME 04011-8470 smac...@polar.bowdoin.edu
And return from Clachan,/from Suisnish and the land of the living;
Each one young and light-stepping,/without the heartbreak of the tale.
Sorley MacLean, 'Hallaig'
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Tom Farrell
Jerry Abbott wrote:
> Yes. Roosevelt couldn't parlay anything that Germany was doing against
> the United States into a significant change in the prevailing
> isolationist sentiments of the public. That's why he had to maneuver
> Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor and then "set up" the Naval commanders
> there so that they weren't informed of the impending attack. Certainly,
> "not all" of Roosevelt's advisors were Jewish, but a lot of them were,
> and they were the ones who persuaded Roosevelt to break his promise (or
> falsely to promise) not to involve the United States in World War Two.
How does this tie in with your previous assertion that dislike of Nazi
policy was not the reason the Allies united against Germany during WWII?
Tom
Jerry Abbott
Tom Farrell wrote:
>
> Jerry Abbott wrote:
>
> > the United States into a significant change in the prevailing
> > isolationist sentiments of the public. That's why he had to maneuver
> > Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor and then "set up" the Naval commanders
> > there so that they weren't informed of the impending attack. Certainly,
> > "not all" of Roosevelt's advisors were Jewish, but a lot of them were,
> > and they were the ones who persuaded Roosevelt to break his promise (or
> > falsely to promise) not to involve the United States in World War Two.
>
> policy was not the reason the Allies united against Germany during WWII?
>
> Tom
The phrase "anything that Germany was doing against the United States"
was intended to convey the idea that Germany was not seeking to engage
military units of the United States in armed conflict at that time.
My previous assertion that dislike of Nazi policy was not the reason the
United States fought against Germany later was intended to convey that
German domestic policy (sending non-Aryans to labor camps, etc.) was not
the direct cause of US involvement later in the war.
No contradiction.
Obviously.
Jerry Abbott
Jerry Abbott
>
> In a previous article, j...@ix.netcom.com (Jerry Abbott) says:
>
> >From: Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com>
> >Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
> >Subject: Re: lies about race
> >Organization: Netcom
> >Lines: 72
> >Message-ID: <3434CC98...@ix.netcom.com>
> >References: <342425D4...@ix.netcom.com> <3420BE47...@ix.netcom.com> <341CC532...@ix.netcom.com> <5tiqoi$pnu$1...@orthanc.reference.com> <5tvhfs$9ho$3...@taurus.bv.sgi.net> <34077399...@usit.net> <5v1ddv$sbu$5...@taurus.bv.sgi.net> <EGMJE
> L
> > <EGxIy...@scn.org> <01bcc800$f83f8980$LocalHost@marho> <60rlrb$l...@news.sdd.hp.com>
> >Mime-Version: 1.0
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I)
> >X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
> >
> >>
> >
> >One of the tenets of Nazi philosophy is that Man cannot defy natural law
> >and escape the consequences of trying to do so. The penalty for walking
> >off the roof of a tall building is an injurious and probably fatal fall
> >to the ground. The penalty for pretending that survival is not a
> >competition, or that the laws of natural selection do not apply to Man,
> >is the extinction of the pretending group.
>
> The above seems to suggest you have totally bought into the philosophy of
> Social Darwinism. I know of no biologist or anthropologist who supports
> such a philosophy today. As for the idea of the "white" race dying out
> --- well, any number of biological anthropologists tell us that "races"
> come about fairly rapidly through various reshufflings of genetic material.
Social Darwinism? Is that the philosophy that says we must let the poor
suffer, the hungry starve, the injured perish? In that case, I am not a
Social Darwinist. I think that you may give your money to the poor--if
you want to. I believe that you may feed the hungry, if you have food
to spare from your own supply. I am of the opinion that you may tend the
sick and injured. Charity is a good thing, as long as nobody is
requiring you to do it against your will.
But if Social Darwinism means that the fittest tend to survive, or that
the more able tend to outcompete the less able, and that competition
exists between groups as well as within groups, then I would have to say
that Social Darwinism has been, is, and will continue to be the correct
picture of the economic world as well as in the natural one. The
fittest individuals (the ones with the most ability to apply in their
group's customary way of life) will have more personal success than less
fit individuals. The fittest groups (the groups with the superior
customary ways of life) will have more success than less fit
groups--contrast, say, groups using the capitalist economic system with
groups using the communist economic system.
> >The Nazis couldn't win because they didn't have the men and resources to
> >fight the whole world for long. It wasn't a matter of a philosophical
> >conflict. No Nazi soldiers suddenly sat down on tree stumps, pondering
> >the finer points of Nietzsche and Kant while enemy bullets whizzed
> >around them. I'm fairly sure that that didn't happen. The problem for
> >the Nazis was too many enemies on too many fronts, and a lack of
> >materiel.
> >
> >Jerry Abbott
> >
> No, the Nazis didn't lose because they "philosophized" whatever that
> means, but because the rest of the world(at least most of the Western
> powers and the former Soviet Union) ganged up on them.
> Anne Gilbert
That's correct, but not complete. Why did the Western powers "gang up"
to defeat Germany, rather than either (1) remain uninvolved or (2) fight
on Germany's side. Hitler, whose goal was to unify the German people
within a single state, would have taken, I think, Austria, half of
Poland and pieces of other states, but such military border realignments
had happened before in European history without triggering a global war
(which saw the first use of nuclear weapons in war). It is the global
war that was the unique feature, not the appearance of statist
aggression. By the way, as I recall the possibility of global wars was
predicted in certain literature before World War 1 happened. I'll try
to find the reference. It was very prescient.
Jerry Abbott
Gerold Firl
In article <3434CC98...@ix.netcom.com>, Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
|> Gerold Firl wrote:
|> > first of all, while nazi ideology seems patently repugnant today, it
|> > was pretty mainstream 60 years ago. If the nazis had won WWII,
|> > current attitudes about race, culture, power, and the proper
|> > relationship between stronger and weaker nations would be very
|> > different. Of course, there would still be people who favored an
|> > egalitarian/cooperative ethic in relations between the west (plus
|> > japan) and the rest of the world, but that view would not be the
|> > default it is today. There were plenty of people throughout all the
|> > western countries who were very sympathetic to the nazi program. WWII
|> > was a fork in the road for the west. We took the branch of peace and
|> > compassion, which led directly to decolonialization and racial
|> > equality in the 50's and 60's.
|> The social consequences of that unfortunate war have not yet finished
|> playing out. You forgot to mention the drug war, the exploitation of
|> the United States by Israel, the rising crime rate, the uncontrolled
|> immigration from Mexico, the fact that White Americans aren't even
|> replacing their numbers and may be headed for extinction...and so on.
|> Many of these factors, also, would be different had WW2 come out
|> differently, or not been fought as Britain and the United States chose
|> to fight it.
You are suggesting that the world might be a better place today if
the nazis and nazi philosophy had won WWII. It's impossible to fully
predict just what kinds of differences would exist, but in the big
picture, here's how I read the fundamental difference: instead of
being first citizen in the global nation of cultures, the west would
play the role of global tyrant. Typical nazi practice in non-western
occupied nations (including czechoslovakia) was to randomly kill tens
or hundreds of innocent civilians in reprisal for the assasination of
a nazi officer. We'de be seeing a lot of that. The west has the power
to impose military occupation upon the rest of the world, or even to
extirminate all other humans.
At what cost would such a "victory" be obtained? That is the very
real faustian dilemma faced by the west in the 20th century. The west
could conquer the world, and all it would cost is something as
insubstantial as the soul.
The very qualities which have led to western greatness would be
utterly corrupted and destroyed in the process. What profit to
conquer the world at such cost? The western love of liberty is
incompatible with tyranny, even if the slaves look different from the
masters.
|> The penalty for pretending that survival is not a
|> competition, or that the laws of natural selection do not apply to Man,
|> is the extinction of the pretending group.
The creation of a pluralistic free society is not incompatible with
the survival of western culture or the white races. There was a time
when conquering a neighboring nation could profitable. If you could
loot a few chests of gold it could pay for the whole war, with some
profit left over. Those days are gone. Value/wealth is now the
product of intelligent material processing and information transfer,
not raw material or agricultural land. Our wealth is boosted by the
growing wealth of other nations.
The problems you mention, such as the rate of immigration from
non-western cultures, inner-city crime, or drug abuse, are actually
very insignificant components of the growing pains caused by the
birth of a global human culture and economic system. There are some
big problems we have yet (and may not) solve: the growth of human
population is eroding the stability margin of both the biological
ecosphere and planetary climate, and *that* may be the cause of an
enormous catastrophe. Kids smoking pot (or crack) or painting
graffitti or leaving their trash on the ground or even fracturing the
skull of their mugging victim are small problems. When you're stuck
on the tracks and a train is coming, don't stress over whether your
toupee is on straight.
Tom Farrell
Jerry Abbott wrote:
> My previous assertion that dislike of Nazi policy was not the reason the
> United States fought against Germany later was intended to convey that
> German domestic policy (sending non-Aryans to labor camps, etc.) was not
> the direct cause of US involvement later in the war.
So why did Roosevelt's *Jewish* advisors in particular persuade him to
enter the war?
Because they were intrinscially warlike?
Tom
Mark
Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
>
>
> But if Social Darwinism means that the fittest tend to survive, or that
> the more able tend to outcompete the less able, and that competition
> exists between groups as well as within groups, then I would have to say
> that Social Darwinism has been, is, and will continue to be the correct
> picture of the economic world as well as in the natural one. The
> fittest individuals (the ones with the most ability to apply in their
> group's customary way of life) will have more personal success than less
> fit individuals. The fittest groups (the groups with the superior
> customary ways of life) will have more success than less fit
> groups--contrast, say, groups using the capitalist economic system with
> groups using the communist economic system.
I am sure that no matter how much Social Engineering is applied in the name
of religion, or social justice, or reparation, or even simple morality,
the end will always be that in the purely materialistic sense, the meek, or
poor, do not inherit the earth. Again, from a purely materialistic sense
the most successful nations will be those with populations which can be
categorised as "the fittest". In times of plenty the incapable and
incompetent will survive on the charity of the capable and competent, but
if disaster stikes charity always starts at home. I am thinking
particularly of a press report this week which indicated that starvation
was now begining to affect Southern Sudan and Ruanda. Obviously this is a
result of the civil warfare which exacerbates the climatic situation. The
first re-action by the developed nations will be to rush food supplies in.
However, with the warnings of possible crop failures over a much wider area
of Sub-Saharan Africa as a result of the latest El Nino there may be a few
second thoughts about depleting these same nations own reserves, in case
failures of both small and large grain crops in both hemispheres from the
same El Nino effect could threaten the well being of their own populations.
If second thoughts result in holding actions, pop stars and the usual
charities can raise all the money needed to pay for relief, but if the
grain is not for sale the starving will starve and the "fittest", those who
have made provision through productive capacity and the foresight to hold
reserves will not.
Mark Richardson
Jerry Abbott
> I was unaware that the Aryan Nations was even *capable* of telling the truth.
> Anne Gilbert
Then you aren't aware of very much.
Jerry Abbott
Jerry Abbott
luh...@super.zippo.news wrote:
>
> On Sat, 04 Oct 1997 02:29:18 -0500, Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >There are people who believe they have good reason to doubt that the
> >Holocaust happened. I don't usually get into this kind of discussion
> >because I am not well-versed in the evidence and because I don't really
> >care one way or the other. None of my ancestors were among the victims.
> >None of my ancestors were among the perpetrators. The Holocaust, if it
> >happened, is no more relevant to me than the Soviet purges, in which the
> >number of (Christian) victims seems to have been a whole order of
> >magnitude larger than the alleged number of Jewish victims of German war
> >crimes. If someone wanted to bemoan and belabor a REAL holocaust, then
> >the Soviet Union is where it happened.
>
I've seen that sort of imputation before. It's a smear-tactic: you can
tell because of the lack of specific evidence to refute error. You only
rehashed the orthodox account of the Holocaust in a general way. If you
were to debate a Holocaust revisionist, and he used the same methods as
you use, the debate would degenerate into a childish contest of "Did
not!"/"Did too!" I haven't been making up history. I've been writing
what I know of history, as best as I can.
> In the nineteenth century the single greatest massacre in russia
> was that of jews. Try to read once a year.
Did anybody talk to you about the 19th century? I was under the
impression that I was talking about the 20th. During World War 1, Jews
in the Ukraine took advantage of the fighting in Europe to stage a
revolt against the Tsar. In the ensuing civil war, 100,000 Jews were
killed. However, you said Russia--not Ukraine--and you said the 19th
century--not the 20th.
In the late 19th century, the Jews were stirring up rebellion in Russia,
much as they would do in the Ukraine thirty years later. The Tsar
suppressed this rebellion, enlisting the aid of Orthodox Christians who
were for the most part loyalists. Naturally, this put the Christians
and the Jews at odds--but who can say that the Jews were not themselves
responsible for it? It seems to me that if the Jews had not been
rebelling, they would not have been in harm's way. Revolutionaries must
expect to get shot at. The "greatest single massacre" of Jews in 19th
century Russia included 530 towns and villages, and among the others
killed were about 60,000 Jews.
You want to take your own advice about reading once in a while?
> Anyone, anywhere that doubts that the holocaust happened,
> has either got their head impacted up their ass so far they will never
> see daylight again, they are totally insane or they are idiots.
Bandwagon propaganda, combined with a smear. It is not evidence. It
settles nothing.
> What's next? The earth doesn't actually revolve about the sun?
No, you can observe, measure, and put equations to planetary orbits.
You can derive orbital elements for the Earth and the other planets that
describe the shape of each orbit, and subsequently use those elements to
predict where the other planets will appear in Earth's sky. Celestial
mechanics--a field in which I have some experience--is amenable to
endless verifications by almost anybody. Contrast that with the alleged
Holocaust victims. You can't even show me 6,000,000 names, much less
combine those names with additional information that would let a
revisionist check a random sampling for verification. Your comparison
was a poor one.
> There were more then six million christians killed in russia?
There were more than six million Christians killed in the Soviet Union.
About 10 million were either massacred or deliberately starved between
1918 and 1921. These deaths can be blamed on Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
(born Ulianov). As a butcher, though, he was eclipsed by Josef Stalin.
Stalin (and his elite secret police the NKVD) killed more people than
any other person in the 20th century--estimates range between 25 million
and 60 million persons killed in Soviet labor camps. Most of these were
Christians.
> You are either a troll or a complete asshole, or both. remember
> that the Jesus the right wing militia and nutballs worship was
> a jewish rabbi.
He was Jewish, and he taught religion, but the religion he taught was
not the Judaism preached by the rabbis, to whom Jesus was an outcast and
a heretic. Besides that, most of the troublesome Jews today are not
descended from the ancient Hebrews, as Jesus was, but rather from the
Khazars whose King Bulan converted to Judaism in 740 and encouraged his
subject to convert also. Furthermore, you are confused: not all
Christians are right-wingers (and not all right-wingers are patriots),
and not all right-wingers are Christians, though there is considerable
overlap.
> Hitler was a demon from hell and was patently insane, he was human excrement.
Hitler was not a demon from hell. (Some academic you are! "Demons from
hell...") He was a man trying to save his people from Bolshevism.
Without Bolshevism, there would have been no Third Reich.
As far as human excrement goes, the Jews number a few such among their
own. Leon Trotsky (born Lev Bronstein), who headed the Red Army and
served as Lenin's chief of foreign affairs, was a Jew. Yakov Sverdlov
(Solomon), who was the Bolshevik Party's executive secretary and
chairman of the Central Executive Committee, was a Jew. Grigori Zinoviev
(Radomyslsky), who was the chief of COMINTERN (Communism International,
which spread revolution to other countries), was a Jew. Karl Radek
(Sobelsohn), who was the Soviet press commissar, was a Jew. Maxim
Litvinov (Wallach), who was the Soviet foreign affairs commissar, was a
Jew. So were Lev Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Moisei Uritsky, who were also
prominent in the Soviet communist government.
In 1918-19, of the 555 most important functionaries of the Soviet
government were: 35 Letts, 17 Russians, 15 Germans, 11 Armenians, 10
Georgians, 3 Poles, 3 Finns, 2 Ukrainians, 1 Hungarian, 1 Karaim, and
457 Jews. Jews were 82% of the early Communist Soviet leadership.
"There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of
Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by
these nternational and for the most part atheistical Jews." -- Winston
Churchill, The Illustrated Sunday Herald, Feb. 8, 1920.
Jerry Abbott
anne_gilbert
In article , Jerry says...
the ravings of the Aryan Nations crowd.
Anne Gilbert
Jerry Abbott
The Mormons have a practice of storing one or two years' supply of
non-perishible food against a possible famine. I have begun to lay
aside my own supply as well, with two years for me and a few other
people being my minimum goal.
American money (as most other) is not backed by anything of intrinsic
value anymore, and it can become worthless almost overnight. If the
public loses confidence in the value of money, then money will have no
more value than scrap paper.
Even if money keeps some of its buying power, a global food crisis would
send hoards of desperate people to the food markets, each of them hoping
to provide for THEIR families and to hell with the rest of the world.
If *only* they'd been less trusting of the System and more honest with
themselves about their "kinfolk preference" sooner, *before* the
emergency, everyone would have stockpiled food and food riots would not
happen. I needn't go into detail about the reasons not to trust
property "in commons" because Ayn Rand has already done a better job of
it than I could. YOUR food is safest in YOUR home, where you can guard
it with YOUR guns. Or, more precisely, if your food isn't safe under
those circumstances, then it isn't safe under any circumstances.
At the groceries, there will be much begging for "credit" and other
special considerations by people
(1) who failed to prepare,
(2) who can't pay back what they seek to borrow,
(3) who wouldn't do so if they could, and
(4) whose names and the word "reciprocity" should never be mentioned in
the same breath.
The grocers, knowing this, won't be granting any favors, except for
their own kinfolk. Before long, the distribution of the world's
remaining food will be shunted toward the cities with most of the
political clout, and soldiers will raze the farms for whatever the
farmers have been holding out. The situation will probably play out
somewhat after the fashion of a Heinlein novel.
The militia gun-caching is intended as a hedge against this sort of
emergency. The patriot groups aren't dumb enough to think they can,
with a few automatic rifles and sundry small arms, take on the U.S. Army
and win. More likely, the guns and ammo that they smear in petroleum
jelly, pack in styrofoam, and seal inside watertight canisters for
burying below metal detector range are intended for guarding food
supplies, come a world food crisis. The militia groups' "field
training" types of practices can be as easily interpreted in a
survivalist context as in a revolutionary one.
Furthermore, the US government probably knows fully well that the gun
caching is intended for guarding independent food stores during a world
famine, rather than for insurrection. The governments occasional action
against militia groups is intended to destroy the independent survival
capability rather than preempt an armed insurrection (the usual pretext
given).
Jerry Abbott
Klaus Beck
smac...@polar.bowdoin.edu wrote:
>
> Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > After some debate, maybe we'll agree that
> > the Aryan Nations has either lied, or maybe we'll find that our
> > disagreements with them are differences of opinion in theology
>
> Ah, theology... Yes, I understand that quite well. A wonderful out, is it
> not?
The following are really statements made by Aryan Nations? If this is
so, then Scott is right, they are liars.
So that"WE BELIEVE that the Cananite Jew is the natural enemy of our
> Aryan (White) Race. This is attested by scripture and all secular
> history..."
Interesting, because there is - as far as I see -, no white race in the
bible to begin with. So, which scripture is referred to here?
>
> and
>
> "The Jew is like a destroying virus that attacks our racial body to
> destroy our Aryan culture and purity of our race."
What is the Aryan race, why is it white and who is the nice guy still
evaluating race through phenotypical and not through genotypical means?
Perhaps he shoul dtry to read a bit more on this.
>
> and
>
> "It is not hate that makes the average White man look upon a mixed
> racial couple with a scowl on his face and loathing in his hear" (??
> What's an Aryans' hear, anyway?)
And how does it loathe? And I do not know how many average white men
this guy knows, but the most I met who had this reaction were ugly as
hell and the women wouldn´t have anything to do with them. So, that is
their problem.
>
> and "IKE, THE KIKE!", and the old stories about Jesus not being a Jew,
> and "The history of the present Zionist Occupied Government of the United
> States of America is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all
> having a direct object -- the establishment of an absolute tyranny over
> these states; moreover, throughout the entire world." and "It ["ZOG"]
> has engaged in systematic genocide of the White race,..."
Right, this is the part we all really like. I mean, how many episodes of
X-Files do you have to watch doped up with mescaline to believe shit
like this?
>
> and all the rest become cute little theological statements, free of all
> lies, hatred and vileness.
>
> Get a grip. Lies and hate, that's all. True statements? Well, at one
> point someone (Butler, I presume) writes "Excuse me while I regurgitate!"
> He's got that right.
>
> Scott
Fullheartly with you, Scott. K.G.Beck.
Those who know history can get a good laugh out of seeing others
repeating it.
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
äääääääääääääääääääää äääääääääääääää ääääääääääääääääääää
äääääääääääääää äääääääääääääää ääääääääääääääää
lllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
llllllllll
Klaus Beck
Jerry Abbott wrote:
> >
> > If they have done so, it was only by oversight.
> >
> > Scott
>
> smear is specifics. Which lies have you heard the Aryan Nations tell?
> the Aryan Nations has either lied, or maybe we'll find that our
> a Jew would dispute with a Christian on the divinity of Jesus--you'll
> appreciate the difference between such a dispute and an intentional lie.
>
told? Just so it might become easier to discuss them. I mean, what is
supposed to be the lie here and the truth? JUst as a matter of interest.
--
[*default*]
BlinkFG=4210943
BOLDASBLUE=1
BoldFG=4210943
BSDELSWAP=1
DefaultBG=16777215
DefaultFG=0
EmulationName=DEC-VT100
MAPCRLF=1
STRIP8TH=0
Gerold Firl
In article <01bcd18a$12de93c0$LocalHost@marho>, "Mark " <ma...@iafrica.com> writes:
|> Gerold Firl <ger...@sdd.hp.com> wrote in article
|> <01bcd0de$441e8820$LocalHost@marho>...
|> > One of the interesting things about culture (especially western, or
|> > perhaps "civilized" culture) is the way that mutually incompatible
|> > ideas or subcultures coexist and compete. There was significant
|> > support for racist/nationalist imperialism throughout the west, but
|> > there was also a sizable body of opinion which favored a liberal,
|> > tolerant, enlightened egalitarianism. That dichotomy has been present
|> > for as far back as written history exists; think of athens and
|> > sparta, ca. 500 bc. Nazi ideology was contrary to the general trend
|> > of western social philosophy starting around 1700.
|> We agree that the Nazi philosophy was contrary to the general trend, if by
|> trend you mean the direction in which a thing moves. It was certainly
|> retrogressive in this sense, but it was by no means unappealing to more
|> than just German Nationalism for all that.
|> As I recall it was Gobineau who set out the racial theories which the Nazis
|> found so appealing and not only the Nazis for that matter.
Emotionally, it's very appealing to think of oneself as a member of a
superior group, whether racial, national, or just as a fan of some
sports team. How many times have you seen some idiot sticking his mug
into a tv camera, waving a finger and screaming "we're number 1!"?
In the case of 19-20th century western nations, there was ample cause
for jingoism. Never before had any nation acheived such complete
military superiority over all others; even the mongols had their
limits. Western nations had achieved the ability to assert control
over any and all the peoples of earth; the only exception was japan,
which was able to assert its sovereignty by assimilating western
technology. In some ways, japan was more "western" than european
nations like russia. The russo-japanese war of 1905 was a bolt out of
the blue for east, west, north and south. It had been commonly
accepted that europeans could not be defeated by non-whites.
|> >It was a throwback
|> > to the days of naked conquest, triggered by the overwhelming
|> > superiority of western technology and social organization in general,
|> > and the special circumstances of german history and geography in
|> > particular. There was a question that needed to be answered: should
|> > the west use its power to gain maximum advantage over the rest of the
|> > world? The power was there. It could have been used.
|> If one examines the status quo (which will not remain 'quo' for any great
|> length of time because nothing ever does) this is exactly what has happened
|> - albeit a little late in the day and on account of technology - rather
|> than simple military power.
You're saying that the west *has* used its military/technological
superiority to dominate the rest of the globe? True to some extent,
but consider how much further that could have been taken. Suppose the
west had adopted the nazi/mongol model of international relations,
where territorial expansion is limited only by the balance of power,
rather than ethical considerations. Rhodesia and south africa could
have easily been converted to all-white nations. Algeria could have
become an all-french department. Vietnam could have become the 51st
state; all of these conflicts were fought so as to limit civilian
casualties because of western perceptions of morality.
|> >The fact that it
|> > wasn't says that the preponderance of western thought came down on
|> > the side of a liberal/athenian model, rather than a fascist/spartan
|> > one. Look at the ideological wrapping used throughout the period of
|> > western imperialism: it was all done for the benefit of the poor,
|> > benighted savages. The reality was quite different, of course, but
|> > the fiction had to be maintained to keep up support at home.
|> I think that two things prevented the West from enforcing "Democracy" world
|> wide. It would have involved further massive economic investment in warfare
|> which had no great appeal and the difficulty of persuading democratic
|> citizenry to endure further sacrifices in order to provide "Ivan and Chang
|> in the street" with the democratic process.
The democratic process? Or the "democratic" process? The vietnam war
was often packaged as a war on behalf of "democracy", but that must
be viewed within the propaganda vocabulary of the time.
Western citizens had no taste for wars of territorial conquest, even
against poorly-armed third world people. 500 years ago, things were
different. They're still different in other parts of the world;
witness china in tibet. At the time of WWII, the western nations plus
japan had the power to exterminate every other people on earth. There
are still a few on the lunatic fringe who might call that a good
idea, but it was never even considered as an option. That is an
ethical choice, rather than a pragmatic one.
Scott MacEachern
Klaus Beck <klausNOguent...@ALLt-online.de> wrote:
>The following are really statements made by Aryan Nations? If this is
>so, then Scott is right, they are liars.
Yes, it's taken off one of their Web pages. I got to it through
HateWatch (http://hatewatch.org/ -- a useful site, if you have a
strong stomach).
>Interesting, because there is - as far as I see -, no white race in the
>bible to begin with. So, which scripture is referred to here?
I've no idea. I'm not interested in trying to follow what passes for
thought processes among these 'Aryan' dim-wits.
>What is the Aryan race, why is it white and who is the nice guy still
>evaluating race through phenotypical and not through genotypical means?
>Perhaps he shoul dtry to read a bit more on this.
Assumming that any of them can read at all...
Scott
_______________________________________
Scott MacEachern
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bowdoin College
Brunswick, ME 04011 smac...@polar.bowdoin.edu
Jerry Abbott
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------1448DC045A8ACFB2D7BA0829
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bobstjohn wrote:
>
> > I don't
> >think that a National Socialist Europe--if Hitler had cared to expand
> >the Reich to cover it all--would behave as aggressively after ensuring
> >its own security as it did while achieving it. My guess is that it
> >would have been no more impositional than the Roman Empire, possibly
> >less aggressive during so-called peacetime than the United States has
> >been, and certainly less aggressive following its establishment than
> >certain *other* countries have been (Israel comes to mind).
> >
> >Basically, Europe would have been for the Europeans. Germany would have
> >been for the Germans. The Jews would have had no influence
> >disproportionate to their numbers anywhere in Europe and possibly
> >anywhere in the world.
>
> I do not believe that Natinal Socialism could have survived withput war. I
> recently asked a German friend who was there how Hitler was able to do all of
> his building when the rest of the world was in depression. He replied that
> Hitler stole the Social Security funds. Germany was bankrupt towards the end
> of the war. They might have survived if they had conqured the rest of the
> world they I don't thi nk they could have survived a stalemate. Does anyone
> believe that Germany would have recovered by now without the Marshall Plan?
> His power over the German People was dependant on hatred and fear. He had to
> have enemies and he would have fond more after he killed all of the Jews and
> Gypsies and any other group he could identifiy.
Presumably in a stalemate the German cities would not have been bombed
to smithereens. It wasn't originally Hitler's intention to fight the
world. His biggest foreign concern was the threat of Soviet
Bolshevism--which was invented by Ashkenazi Jews, by the way. His
invasion of neighboring European states was intended to bring all German
people into one German state (a goal he mentioned in the first chapter
of Mein Kampf), but his invasion of the USSR was to preempt a later
conquest of Germany by the communists. This attempt was ultimately
unsuccessful because of the military involvement of the US and Britain
in WW2.
> >As for the survival of the White race, the trend contradicts the
> >conclusion you want to reach. In 1930, one third of the world's
> >population was White. Today, less than one-tenth of the world's
> >population is White, and the White race continues to decline.
>
> If you are going to worry about the color or ethnicity of your neighbors you
> will not like the world of the next century. But, then, hatred will destroy
> anyone's peace of mind.
> Bob St. John_Puna Bed & Breakfast_Rural Puna south of Hilo
If you don't care about your life, you'll probably die. If people don't
care about their race, it will probably become extinct. In either case,
this is the operation of natural law. I believe that you would miss
your people, once they were gone. But by then, of course, it will be
too late. From a PRACTICAL point of view, there might be another reason
for you to care about the color or ethnicity of your neighbors. See the
attached graphic.
Jerry Abbott
--------------1448DC045A8ACFB2D7BA0829
Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="Correlation.JPG"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Correlation.JPG"
<encoded_portion_removed>
ooooAKKKKAP/2Q==
--------------1448DC045A8ACFB2D7BA0829--
Bobstjohn
> I don't
>think that a National Socialist Europe--if Hitler had cared to expand
>the Reich to cover it all--would behave as aggressively after ensuring
>its own security as it did while achieving it. My guess is that it
>would have been no more impositional than the Roman Empire, possibly
>less aggressive during so-called peacetime than the United States has
>been, and certainly less aggressive following its establishment than
>certain *other* countries have been (Israel comes to mind).
>
>Basically, Europe would have been for the Europeans. Germany would have
>been for the Germans. The Jews would have had no influence
>disproportionate to their numbers anywhere in Europe and possibly
>anywhere in the world.
I do not believe that Natinal Socialism could have survived withput war. I
recently asked a German friend who was there how Hitler was able to do all of
his building when the rest of the world was in depression. He replied that
Hitler stole the Social Security funds. Germany was bankrupt towards the end
of the war. They might have survived if they had conqured the rest of the
world they I don't thi nk they could have survived a stalemate. Does anyone
believe that Germany would have recovered by now without the Marshall Plan?
His power over the German People was dependant on hatred and fear. He had to
have enemies and he would have fond more after he killed all of the Jews and
Gypsies and any other group he could identifiy.
>As for the survival of the White race, the trend contradicts the
Mark
Gerold Firl <ger...@sdd.hp.com> wrote in article
<01bcd46c$a73731a0$LocalHost@marho>...
Mark (wrote)
> |> We agree that the Nazi philosophy was contrary to the general trend,
if
> I>by trend you mean the direction in which a thing moves. It was
certainly
> |> retrogressive in this sense, but it was by no means unappealing to
more
> |> than just German Nationalism for all that. As I recall it was Gobineau
who set out > I>the racial theories which the Nazis found so appealing
and not only the Nazis for > I>that matter.
>
> Emotionally, it's very appealing to think of oneself as a member of a
> superior group, whether racial, national, or just as a fan of some
> sports team. How many times have you seen some idiot sticking his mug
> into a tv camera, waving a finger and screaming "we're number 1!"?
This is very true. I have never come across a military unit (any half-way
reasonable one that is) that did not consider that it was the best ever and
always had been. The loyalty that this engenders goes well beyond race or
nationality. The French Foreign Legion is an excellent example of this. You
later mentioned Rhodesia and from personal experience I would put both 1 &
2 Battalions RAR and the African members of the BSAP in the same category -
even more so, since they were in opposition to their own tribal, and
sometimes even clan, members but "The Regiment" came first, second and
always. The interesting thing is that for these units recruitment was
almost invariably from amongst the family of serving members and nearly
every young man joining could point to a father, uncles even grandparent in
the force. Translated into a nationalism it is a very potent force indeed.
I sometimes wonder if there was a distinction in the minds of Vlasov's (?)
Cossacks when they defected to the Germans in World War II between the
ostensible reason that they were Ukranians and only too willing to have a
go at the Russians, or whether it was their more singular Cossack unity
which was the crucial factor.
> In the case of 19-20th century western nations, there was ample cause
> for jingoism. Never before had any nation acheived such complete
> military superiority over all others; even the mongols had their
> limits. Western nations had achieved the ability to assert control
> over any and all the peoples of earth; the only exception was japan,
> which was able to assert its sovereignty by assimilating western
> technology. In some ways, japan was more "western" than european
> nations like russia. The russo-japanese war of 1905 was a bolt out of
> the blue for east, west, north and south. It had been commonly
> accepted that europeans could not be defeated by non-whites.
I think that in previous posts I have also placed Japan amongst "Western"
nations. From 1857, onwards Japan behaved more like the Western nations. In
fact there is a great deal about Japan's actions which is comparable to the
behaviour of the Dutch and English in their rapid moves into the Spanish
and Portuguese colonial and trading monopolies at an earlier date.
Although, however, the Dutch and English had the support of their
governments for what were essentially "Company" adventures and the Japanese
entered the scene when government initiative and responsibility were
paramount. It is interesting nevertheless that the "Shoshogawa" (sp) is
still such a force in the Japanese economy because of the obvious
similarities between them and the "Companies" of the British, Dutch and
French in the 17th-19th centuries.
>
> You're saying that the west *has* used its military/technological
> superiority to dominate the rest of the globe? True to some extent,
> but consider how much further that could have been taken. Suppose the
> west had adopted the nazi/mongol model of international relations,
> where territorial expansion is limited only by the balance of power,
> rather than ethical considerations. Rhodesia and south africa could
> have easily been converted to all-white nations. Algeria could have
> become an all-french department. Vietnam could have become the 51st
> state; all of these conflicts were fought so as to limit civilian
> casualties because of western perceptions of morality.
There was always a very stong sector of public opinion in all Western
countries, from the very earliest times of their expansion into colonial
powers, which was opposed to formal colonisation as a policy. The most
vehement debates were in both Britan and France in the mid-to-end of the
19th century. The anti-colonialist lobby was certainly not altruistic,
although they were not above citing moral reasons for their attitudes. The
essence of the Liberal view was that trade was more important than the
possession of territory. In fact, it was contended that the possession of
teritory generally brought more headaches to the metropole than the
benefits justified. The Congress of Berlin had elements of the First World
War about it, where Africa was parcelled up amongst the European powers
without any sort of real economic advantage that could not have been
achieved by simple trading agreements. Just as the First World War
escalated, seemingly as a result of it's own irrational momentum, so did
the final flush of colonialism.
My point is that whilst I agree that there could never have been
territorial aggression by the West after the Second World War - after all
territorial aggression was the first charge levied against the Nazi leaders
at Nurembug - it did not come about as a sea change as a result of the war.
Opposition to territorial expansion had been well articulated for some
centuries previously and for good, sound economic reasons not simply
altruism writ large.
> |> I think that two things prevented the West from enforcing "Democracy"
> I>world wide. It would have involved further massive economic investment
in
> I>warfare which had no great appeal and the difficulty of persuading
democratic
> |> citizenry to endure further sacrifices in order to provide "Ivan and
Chang in the street" > I>with the democratic process.
>
> The democratic process? Or the "democratic" process? The vietnam war
> was often packaged as a war on behalf of "democracy", but that must
> be viewed within the propaganda vocabulary of the time.
The various US governments that embroiled their country in Vietnam
seemingly, to an outsider at least, did so along much the same lines as the
earlier "Police" action in Korea. The limiting factor and one which in the
end placed the USA in a no-win situation was the political restriction of
carrying the war to a logical conclusion because it would have involved
both Russia and China - the same situation as applied in Korea. I do
believe that the US governments of the day were not acting in terms of
self-interest and had, they believed, an obligation to try to hold the line
at certain points. Vietnam was one such and they were able to carry the
bulk of popular Western opinion for a very long time. In the end the
futility brought an ignominious end to it.
>
> Western citizens had no taste for wars of territorial conquest, even
> against poorly-armed third world people. 500 years ago, things were
> different. They're still different in other parts of the world;
> witness china in tibet. At the time of WWII, the western nations plus
> japan had the power to exterminate every other people on earth. There
> are still a few on the lunatic fringe who might call that a good
> idea, but it was never even considered as an option. That is an
> ethical choice, rather than a pragmatic one.
I hope that the path of general prosperity of the world continues but I
agree with you that Western citizens have no taste for wars of territorial
conquest - rightly so. I hope that this does not lead in the not too
distant future to a Byzantine situation where a few despised mercenaries
and military hold the fort whilst the populace debate the number of angels
that can dance on a the head of a pin. There is an inevitable dynamic which
makes it difficult to simply hold a position, whether this is political,
economic or military. The longer a static situation is maintained, the more
difficult it becomes to maintain it and advantage passes to those who take
an initiative.
Mark Richardson
Tom Farrell
Jerry Abbott wrote:
> What is so important about "your" family? If, indeed, all children
> really are equal, then why do you show preference for your own? The
> point to racism is this: just as a parent does not have to think that
> his/her children are the smartest, or fleetest, or strongest, or
> prettiest, in order to favor them above all other children, likewise a
> racist does not have to think that his race is the smartest, or
> fleetest, or strongest, or prettiest, in order to favor them above all
> others. If you can't understand that, than in my opinion you would be
> similar to a reptile who, after laying its eggs, slithers away without a
> second thought for the welfare of its offspring. That reptile can't
> "understand" why mammals devote such concern for their own children,
> just as you claim that you can't understand why racists devote
> preference for their race.
Jerry, this is the most laughable analogy I've seen for a long long
time.
Family is important to people due to strong evolutionary instincts that
help to ensure the reproduction of the species.
In these terms, race is almost completely irrelevant.
I truly don't understand how you glibly make the extrapolation from
family to race.
Tom
Tom Farrell
Jerry Abbott wrote:
> The single biggest reason the US participated in World War 2 is the fact
> that the Jews wanted the US to participate in World War 2. They
> controlled the media here during the war (and ever since), as they had
> controlled it in Germany prior to the war and after the war, but not
> during the war. To belabor the point a bit more, the DIRECT reason we
> went to war was the influence of Jews resident in the US. The domestic
> policy of Nazi Germany was not direct; it was indirect--that is, there
> is an intelligent entity between Germany and the American entrance into
> the war.
I don't recall you making this distinction. Can you find a previous
post that makes this clear?
Anyway, this argument is a fallacy. When we look for a reason, we look
for it at the ROOT, without having to clarify why. Otherwise I could
use your logic to say that the DIRECT reason for America entering the
war was Roosevelt signing a piece of paper.
Tom
Tom Farrell
Jerry Abbott wrote:
> No, you can observe, measure, and put equations to planetary orbits.
> You can derive orbital elements for the Earth and the other planets that
> describe the shape of each orbit, and subsequently use those elements to
> predict where the other planets will appear in Earth's sky. Celestial
> mechanics--a field in which I have some experience--is amenable to
> endless verifications by almost anybody. Contrast that with the alleged
> Holocaust victims. You can't even show me 6,000,000 names, much less
> combine those names with additional information that would let a
> revisionist check a random sampling for verification. Your comparison
> was a poor one.
Just out of interest, are *you* a Holocaust revisionist? Yes/no will
do.
Tom
Jerry Abbott
Tom Farrell wrote:
>
> Jerry Abbott wrote:
>
> > You can derive orbital elements for the Earth and the other planets that
> > describe the shape of each orbit, and subsequently use those elements to
> > predict where the other planets will appear in Earth's sky. Celestial
> > mechanics--a field in which I have some experience--is amenable to
> > endless verifications by almost anybody. Contrast that with the alleged
> > Holocaust victims. You can't even show me 6,000,000 names, much less
> > combine those names with additional information that would let a
> > revisionist check a random sampling for verification. Your comparison
> > was a poor one.
>
> do.
>
> Tom
You presume too much. You get to frame the question. It is my
privilege to determine how I will answer.
No. I have not formed an opinion about whether the Holocaust happened
or not. I don't much care whether it happened or not. None of my
ancestors was among the perpetrators. None of my ancestors was among
the victims. My feelings in regard to a Holocaust would be purely
academic, much as they are in regard to any other natural or man-made
disaster in history.
Jerry Abbott
Jerry Abbott
Tom Farrell wrote:
>
> Jerry Abbott wrote:
>
> > really are equal, then why do you show preference for your own? The
> > point to racism is this: just as a parent does not have to think that
> > his/her children are the smartest, or fleetest, or strongest, or
> > prettiest, in order to favor them above all other children, likewise a
> > racist does not have to think that his race is the smartest, or
> > fleetest, or strongest, or prettiest, in order to favor them above all
> > others. If you can't understand that, than in my opinion you would be
> > similar to a reptile who, after laying its eggs, slithers away without a
> > second thought for the welfare of its offspring. That reptile can't
> > "understand" why mammals devote such concern for their own children,
> > just as you claim that you can't understand why racists devote
> > preference for their race.
>
> Jerry, this is the most laughable analogy I've seen for a long long
> time.
Think so?
> Family is important to people due to strong evolutionary instincts that
> help to ensure the reproduction of the species.
Racial loyalty is important because the network of kindred people with
whom you cooperate beyond your immediate family. Humans are social
animals that compete both within and between groups. Racial/genetic
differences are the differences that most often give nature the leverage
it works with. You don't have to like natural law, but the penalties
for breaking it are inescapable.
----- Excerpt from
http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~nevai/ISRAEL/SFA/history/White_Civilization,
TOP -----
Often when two races come in contact with the other the stronger
will expel the weaker from its territory. If this does not take place
the two races adjust to one another and interracial breeding occurs.
Thus the leading race loses its specialized characteristics. This is a
biological law which cannot be altered by educational programs or
legislative decrees.
----- Excerpt from
http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~nevai/ISRAEL/SFA/history/White_Civilization,
END -----
> In these terms, race is almost completely irrelevant.
Hardly. Races are adapted to their particular method of handling the
challenges of life and nature. Mix them, and they are adapted to
nothing. Breed a greyhound with a beagle and you do NOT get a dog that
is both very fast and very good at tracking. You get a mongrel that
can't compete with either of its parents in its specialty. Some of the
ancient peoples had this figured out, evidently, but more recently we've
let liberalism befuddle our wits.
> I truly don't understand how you glibly make the extrapolation from
> family to race.
Your race is your natural community. Your race is your genetic peer
group. Your race bears the relationship to your family that your family
bears to yourself. What's so hard to understand?
Jerry Abbott
Tom Farrell
Jerry Abbott wrote:
> Racial loyalty is important because the network of kindred people with
> whom you cooperate beyond your immediate family.
Is that a sentence? How can I argue with something that makes no
sense?
>Humans are social
> animals that compete both within and between groups. Racial/genetic
> differences are the differences that most often give nature the leverage
> it works with.
Not quite sure what you're talking about here...
>You don't have to like natural law, but the penalties
> for breaking it are inescapable.
An irrelevance.
> Hardly. Races are adapted to their particular method of handling the
> challenges of life and nature. Mix them, and they are adapted to
> nothing. Breed a greyhound with a beagle and you do NOT get a dog that
> is both very fast and very good at tracking. You get a mongrel that
> can't compete with either of its parents in its specialty. Some of the
> ancient peoples had this figured out, evidently, but more recently we've
> let liberalism befuddle our wits.
Er... Jerry your determination does you credit, but *really*, can we
have less of this nonsense.
Western Europe was probably the world's greatest hotbed of racial
mixing. There are no truly pure races in Europe - but they still
conquered the world (or a lot of it)
In CONTRAST, Australian Aboriginies and Native Americans were the most
racially pure societies in the world. Yet their suitablility to their
environment did them little good in the last few hundred years did it?
You seem to see racial mixing as inevitably a bad thing. INEVITABLY IT
IS NOT. As I say, look at the history of this planet.
In fact, if anything, racial mixing *does* create a mutually beneficial
arangement. Much of the reason for the accelarated development of
Eurasia is the free mixing of people from across the continent and the
ability to both mix (creating new races) and swap knowledge and
technology.
> Your race is your natural community. Your race is your genetic peer
> group. Your race bears the relationship to your family that your family
> bears to yourself. What's so hard to understand?
My family (children - YOUR EXAMPLE) contain MY DNA and take it forward
to future generations. My race does not.
There is no extrapolation Jerry, except in your head.
Tom
PS. What amuses me is that you cannot understand basic genetics. If a
male and female mate, do they inevitably produce a hermaphrodite? The
most casual glance at human society will tell you immediately that a
child is not just a slushy mix of his mum and dad.
Jerry Abbott
Tom Farrell wrote:
>
> Jerry Abbott wrote:
>
> > Racial loyalty is important because the network of kindred people with
> > whom you cooperate beyond your immediate family.
>
> Is that a sentence? How can I argue with something that makes no
> sense?
I probably didn't proofread it well enough. But there's enough there
that you would, if you were a little more mature, perceive that the
words "your race is" should appear after the word "because" in that
sentence.
> > Humans are social
> > animals that compete both within and between groups. Racial/genetic
> > differences are the differences that most often give nature the leverage
> > it works with.
>
> Not quite sure what you're talking about here...
What point do you want clarified?
> >You don't have to like natural law, but the penalties
> > for breaking it are inescapable.
>
> An irrelevance.
Nope.
> > Hardly. Races are adapted to their particular method of handling the
> > challenges of life and nature. Mix them, and they are adapted to
> > nothing. Breed a greyhound with a beagle and you do NOT get a dog that
> > is both very fast and very good at tracking. You get a mongrel that
> > can't compete with either of its parents in its specialty. Some of the
> > ancient peoples had this figured out, evidently, but more recently we've
> > let liberalism befuddle our wits.
>
> Er... Jerry your determination does you credit, but *really*, can we
> have less of this nonsense.
I'm not a liberal.
> Western Europe was probably the world's greatest hotbed of racial
> mixing. There are no truly pure races in Europe - but they still
> conquered the world (or a lot of it)
When Europe did their conquering, there were more pure than they are
now.
> In CONTRAST, Australian Aboriginies and Native Americans were the most
> racially pure societies in the world. Yet their suitablility to their
> environment did them little good in the last few hundred years did it?
They were pure, but their purity did not involve technical progress as
part of their adaptive strategy. As the result, the European invaders
had better weapons and armor, and so conquered.
> You seem to see racial mixing as inevitably a bad thing. INEVITABLY IT
> IS NOT. As I say, look at the history of this planet.
Whose history? Egypt's? It fell soon after their White founders mixed
with the Nubians to the south. Greece? Rome? These civilizations too
fell not long after becoming significantly miscegenated. Whether
race-mixing is *inevitably* a bad thing, I couldn't say. But given the
track record, I don't like the odds.
> In fact, if anything, racial mixing *does* create a mutually beneficial
> arangement. Much of the reason for the accelarated development of
> Eurasia is the free mixing of people from across the continent and the
> ability to both mix (creating new races) and swap knowledge and
> technology.
The Celts axed their way across Europe, displacing other groups. They
were one racial group composed on many tribes, spread from Spain to
Hungary, bringing Indo-European language and iron-working with them.
Military competition and trade with Asian groups might have accelerated
European development, but race-mixing never has.
> > Your race is your natural community. Your race is your genetic peer
> > group. Your race bears the relationship to your family that your family
> > bears to yourself. What's so hard to understand?
>
> My family (children - YOUR EXAMPLE) contain MY DNA and take it forward
> to future generations. My race does not.
Your race does carry your DNA, only in a more rarified form than your
close relatives. You are confusing DNA with consanguinity. Do you know
all your third cousins? How about third cousins twice removed?
> There is no extrapolation Jerry, except in your head.
>
> Tom
>
> PS. What amuses me is that you cannot understand basic genetics. If a
> male and female mate, do they inevitably produce a hermaphrodite? The
> most casual glance at human society will tell you immediately that a
> child is not just a slushy mix of his mum and dad.
You're ignorant, Tom. The difference between male and female is a
dichotomous differentiation, except in very rare cases. There is one
genetic factor that determines the sex of the offspring--not two, not a
hundred--and that one comes from a chromosome from the male parent. But
in a general sense, the appearance of a child is the result of a mix of
its parents' genes: he gets half his own set from each parent.
Jerry Abbott
Jerry Abbott
Tom Farrell wrote:
>
> Jerry Abbott wrote:
>
> > out especially for you earlier. Go read it again.
>
> No Jerry - YOU go and find it. I asked you to provide a previous
> example and you have so far failed.
No, Tom. If you want it discussed further, YOU go find it. I don't
take your orders, and your haven't paid me a cent to do your work for
you.
> > Your objection is based on a fallacy.
>
> What is that fallacy? Please quote my response pointing out the
> fallacy.
What a doofus. The fallacy you want identified is the one I referred to
immediately below.
> > You have confused the motives of
> > one group (the American people or the United States Government) for the
> > motives of another group (the Jews). That is how it is that you can
> > pretend that the cause of America's involvement in WW2 was the domestic
> > policy of Germany. Reconsider. Their reasons are not our reasons.
> > There was no contradiction.
>
> So you are now reduced to parroting your established line rather than
> address my question? Do you, or do you not, agree with the following -
That was the answer to your question.
> Jewish America disliked domestic Nazi policy
I disagree on account of your wording. America is its people, over 97%
of whom are Gentiles. The Jews in America disliked German Nazi
policies, being in general a policy that the German people can and
should by rights govern themselves instead of being manipulated by
Jewish bankers and media masters.
> Jews had undue influence in the establishment
Yes.
> Jews used this influence to press for war against Germany
Yes.
> If you disagree - tell me which line you disagree with.
If you had been more careful of your wording in the first line, I might
have said "yes" to that one, too.
> If you agree, you believe that domestic Nazi policy was the ultimate
> cause of America entering the war (in contradiction of what you earlier
> stated).
No. Nazi policies were the reason for the Jewish desire that the United
States enter the war against Germany. The political ambitions of
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, his desire to continue as President, was the
ultimate cause of the US entrance into the war with Germany. Your
switched from your earlier use of the word "reason" to the word
"cause." To wit:
> How does this tie in with your previous assertion that dislike of Nazi
> policy was not the reason the Allies united against Germany during WWII?
> [Tom, from an earlier post]
You did that because the change in wording lets you obfuscate on *whose*
reason a particular cause is.
Except for the fact that the Jews controlled the media, and hence could
determine what the public would hear about the presidential candidates
during the next election, Roosevelt probably would have kept his promise
to the American people about his committment to military neutrality.
The Nazi domestic policies would not have persuaded him to break his
word, in the absence of the Jewish power to ruin him as a political
contender in the United States.
The acts that resulted in the United States going to war were those of
Roosevelt. Roosevelt's reason for going to war had nothing to do with
German Nazi policies. Ergo, German Nazi policies were not the "reason"
the United States went to war.
The Jews' reason for wanting the United States to go to war did indeed
have to do with German Nazi policies. The Jews did not have the
political authority to commit the United States to enter the war. Ergo,
German Nazi policies did not "cause" the United States to enter the war.
The Jews controlled the media, and by virtue of the media's power on the
political process, the Jews could heavily influence, and usually
determine, who would or wouldn't be elected president. In order to have
Nazi Germany defeated, the Jews would use their power to pressure
Roosevelt to find a way to enter the war against Germany. The American
Jews, then, were the "cause" for the U.S. entry into WW2, and
Roosevelt's political ambition was the "reason" for the U.S. entry into
WW2.
Jerry Abbott
> > Yes. Roosevelt couldn't parlay anything that Germany was doing against
> > the United States into a significant change in the prevailing
> > isolationist sentiments of the public. That's why he had to maneuver
> > Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor and then "set up" the Naval commanders
> > there so that they weren't informed of the impending attack. Certainly,
> > "not all" of Roosevelt's advisors were Jewish, but a lot of them were,
> > and they were the ones who persuaded Roosevelt to break his promise (or
> > falsely to promise) not to involve the United States in World War Two.
>
> How does this tie in with your previous assertion that dislike of Nazi
> policy was not the reason the Allies united against Germany during WWII?
>
> Tom
The phrase "anything that Germany was doing against the United States"
was intended to convey the idea that Germany was not seeking to engage
military units of the United States in armed conflict at that time.
My previous assertion that dislike of Nazi policy was not the reason the
United States fought against Germany later was intended to convey that
German domestic policy (sending non-Aryans to labor camps, etc.) was not
the direct cause of US involvement later in the war.
No contradiction.
Obviously.
Tom Farrell
Jerry Abbott wrote:
> No, Tom. If you want it discussed further, YOU go find it. I don't
> take your orders, and your haven't paid me a cent to do your work for
> you.
Listen Abbot, I want you to PROVE your assertion that you made a
previous distinction between direct and indirect causes.
Otherwise I take that assertion to be a worthless lie.
If you want things to stand that way, fine, do nothing.
> > What is that fallacy? Please quote my response pointing out the
> > fallacy.
>
> What a doofus. The fallacy you want identified is the one I referred to
> immediately below.
>
>
> > > You have confused the motives of
> > > one group (the American people or the United States Government) for the
> > > motives of another group (the Jews). That is how it is that you can
> > > pretend that the cause of America's involvement in WW2 was the domestic
> > > policy of Germany. Reconsider. Their reasons are not our reasons.
> > > There was no contradiction.
No, this doesn't refer to anything in my mail Jerry. My mail pointed
out that your latter attempt to distinguish between Direct and Indirect
causes was ludicrous. I pointed out that no-one would seriously argue
that the cause of American involvement was Roosevelt signing a piece of
paper.
My point was that when we look for causes we understand implicitly that
we are looking for ROOT causes.
How you managed to get onto the motives of various groups of people from
that response I do not know. I guess that is your own business.
> > Jewish America disliked domestic Nazi policy
>
> I disagree on account of your wording. America is its people, over 97%
> of whom are Gentiles. The Jews in America disliked German Nazi
> policies,
I don't understand why you disagree with my wording and then write
that. Can you not hold a train of thought for two lines?
>
> > Jews had undue influence in the establishment
>
> Yes.
>
> > Jews used this influence to press for war against Germany
>
> Yes.
<a load of stuff snipped>
So Jerry, finally we have you admitting that the Jewish media's dislike
of German policy was a leading cause in America entering the war.
And thus, that which they disliked was a cause also (logically, how
could it not be?)
Tom
PS I think we can leave this now. I have a job to do. You are welcome
to have the last word if you want.
Tom Farrell
Jerry Abbott wrote:
> That distinction was made previously in this thread, and it was pointed
> out especially for you earlier. Go read it again.
No Jerry - YOU go and find it. I asked you to provide a previous
example and you have so far failed.
> Your objection is based on a fallacy.
What is that fallacy? Please quote my response pointing out the
fallacy.
>You have confused the motives of
> one group (the American people or the United States Government) for the
> motives of another group (the Jews). That is how it is that you can
> pretend that the cause of America's involvement in WW2 was the domestic
> policy of Germany. Reconsider. Their reasons are not our reasons.
> There was no contradiction.
So you are now reduced to parroting your established line rather than
address my question? Do you, or do you not, agree with the following -
Jewish America disliked domestic Nazi policy
Jews had undue influence in the establishment
Jews used this influence to press for war against Germany
If you disagree - tell me which line you disagree with.
If you agree, you believe that domestic Nazi policy was the ultimate
cause of America entering the war (in contradiction of what you earlier
stated).
Tom
PS for anyone new to this thread - I do not personally agree with the
statements above but as far as I know Jerry does.
Mark
Gerold Firl <ger...@sdd.hp.com> wrote in article
<01bcd535$2e32dec0$LocalHost@marho>...
> |> There was always a very stong sector of public opinion in all Western
> |> countries, from the very earliest times of their expansion into
colonial
> |> powers, which was opposed to formal colonisation as a policy.
>
> And not just colonisation, but the entire process of subjugating and
> exploiting the indigenous peoples. Are you familiar with the career
> of de los casas in mexico? In the early 1500's he championed the
> rights of indians in the americas, arguing that they had full human
> rights and should be treated as wards of the state rather than
> chattel slaves. The spanish monarchy, in association with the
> catholic church, appointed a commission of eminent men to debate the
> question. The results were most interesting. It was found that
> indians were full human beings, and that the utmost efforts must be
> made to educate them and give them every opportunity to achieve
> salvation - but those results were obtained in spain, and were
> incompatible with the needs and desires of europeans in the americas.
> We have theory and practise at odds: the ideal of liberty vs. the
> reality of labor costs and profit margins.
I cannot recall having read of de los casas (all lower case?) but I know
that Hernan Cortes had little doubt about the "full human being" status of
Dona Marina. He was not only an exceptional leader but he knew the value of
combining offices if ever anyone did. I regret my very sketchy knowledge of
the period of the Conquistadores because after having read both Prescotts
during a period of convalescence when I was ten I never went back to read
anything more up to date. I think that the Spanish in the New World had a
difficult ethical row to hoe. On the one hand there was a very real and
absolutely genuine pressure from the Church for the conversion of the
"heathen" and the saving of the souls of "full human beings" and on the
other, were the demands of the state for the maximum returns from the
Vice-Royalties in the New World. I know that is conventional wisdom to
regard the Spanish as having been excessively brutal in this context but I
do believe that we nowadays, in taking such views, evaluate past behaviour
in the light of present mores. The behaviour of Europeans towards other
Euorpeans and in fact of Asians towards other Asians and Asians and
Europeans towards each other, was just as horrendous. None of us living now
with our concepts of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" would
enjoy being translated back to those days, wherever our time capsule might
put us down.
You mentioned ideals having taken a back seat to pragmatism but that the
balance is swinging back. Surely present attitudes are pragmatic at base
rather than idealistic. If a nation, or more likely these days a
multi-national, can profitably trade without conquest to secure trading
advantage against competitors, then why go to the expense of costly
colonial ventures. As I have said before, I am sure that most of the
Liberal opposition to colonial expansion, in both Britain and France in the
19th Century was occasioned more by a belief that profitable trade was
possible without taking territory and having the attendant problems of
government and protection of that territory, than by any overriding
morality. I stress the word "most" because I know that there have always
been the genuinely altruistic. I just mistrust the moral posturings of
politicians and itinerant preachers - there are so few Mother Teresas in
their ranks.
>
> |> My point is that whilst I agree that there could never have been
> |> territorial aggression by the West after the Second World War - after
> I> all territorial aggression was the first charge levied against the
Nazi
> I> leaders at Nuremburg - it did not come about as a sea change as a
result of the
> I> war.Opposition to territorial expansion had been well articulated for
some
> |> centuries previously and for good, sound economic reasons not simply
> |> altruism writ large.
>
> Economically speaking, wouldn't it make sense for the US to
> confiscate baja california? If we multiply the amount of beachfront
> property in baja by the typical value of such property in alta
> california, we're looking at real estate worth trillions of dollars.
> It makes economic sense, but it is unacceptable to the american
> public for moral reasons: people in this country don't think it's
> right to go in and take away peoples homes.
I have a feeling that the population of Baja would be only too delighted to
be a part of the USA. If I am to believe only a part of what I read, a very
large proportion of the population of Central America are trying very hard
to be part of the USA, many taking considerable risks to do so. Perhaps the
citizens of Alta California might not be so happy with a take over, not
because they do not wish to take someone else's land but because they do
not wish to take on a greater social welfare debt that they have already
incurred :-) I do know what you mean, but the advent of the multi-nationals
as much as the acquisition of more tender Western consiences has really
taken the place of the colonial imperative.
The crunch could come in certain areas where a country sees the need to
protect it's nationals' foreign investments; but everyone is well aware of
this and as insurance companies spread the underwriting risks, so
multi-nationals tend to look at the really big picture and are geared to
take losses in individual areas, should these be inevitable. Pepsi have
just pulled out of South Africa because of an initially poor appreciation
of their ability to break back into the market and poor local management (a
moral decision but a poor practical one). The loss would seem large in
purely SA terms but for Pepsi world wide it must be an annoyance, but
little more than that.
Up until the 19th Century nations were drawn in to protecting the private
investments of their citizens and a great deal of colonial expansion came
about thereby. This is no longer the case and hopefully will never again
be.
>
> I would call that a sea change in western attitudes towards
> territorial conquest, and WWII marks the major turning point.
>
> I think that if the american public had demanded total victory in
> vietnam, then that's what they would have got. Instead, there was
> outrage over the bombing of civilian targets. Would china have gotten
> involved if the US had physically occupied north vietnam?
Yes, no doubt. If there had been a public demand for total victory it could
have been achieved quickly. I said earlier that I thought that the danger
would have been the involvement of Russia and China. There is obviously no
certainty about this and China's relations with Vietnam were not cordial,
but as with World War II, a common threat makes strange bedfellows. I doubt
that the USA would have wished to take the risk and, what the public
demands depends to a large extent on the flow of information to the public.
Far be it from me to suggest that there are interests, government and
private, which manipulate the flow of information, even in the USA, but it
is not unimaginable. Less so nowadays with this medium.
>
> It's not clear to me whether to attribute the involvement in vietnam
> to an actual fear of a "domino effect" rippling through asia (see the
> savage anti-communist massacres in indonesia in 1965) or to a desire
> to act the part of Global Superpower. The US was a superpower, and
> yet had little in the way of imperial possessions to show for it;
> here was a scrap of empire availible at firesale prices from the
> french, why not take it?
A bit of both I would think. Vietnam is strategically placed to pose a
threat, or warning, to Chna if it is held by an alliance in opposition to
China. During the Cold War this was not a minor consideration
> |> There is an inevitable dynamic which
> |> makes it difficult to simply hold a position, whether this is
political,
> |> economic or military. The longer a static situation is maintained, the
> I>more difficult it becomes to maintain it and advantage passes to those
who
> I>take an initiative.
>
> Check out _the decline of the west_ by spengler, written during the
> first world war. He makes some similar arguments, and there certainly
> are historical precedents to support such arguments, but we don't
> seem to be following that trajectory. Perhaps one reason is the way
> we have embraced cultural diversity, and absorbed foreign viewpoints.
> It has kept western culture fresh and growing, rather than corrupting
> us, as some would suggest.
I do think that the Western concepts will maintain momentum for some time
and I agree that just as the English language has grown by flexibility and
the capacity to absorb new and foreign words, Western mercantile
adaptabilty has the same capacity. The "interesting" (interesting in the
sense of "may you live in interesting times" as a malediction) thing is
what happens when the global mercantile playing fields are level. Do we
loose nationalities and develop loyalties towards particular
multi-nationals or, perhaps to city states - a sort of super Hanseatic
League? I won't be around but nothing stands still and speculation is free.
Mark Richardson
Gerold Firl
In article <01bcd552$7252e100$LocalHost@marho>, "Mark " <ma...@iafrica.com> writes:
|> I think that the Spanish in the New World had a
|> difficult ethical row to hoe. On the one hand there was a very real and
|> absolutely genuine pressure from the Church for the conversion of the
|> "heathen" and the saving of the souls of "full human beings" and on the
|> other, were the demands of the state for the maximum returns from the
|> Vice-Royalties in the New World. I know that is conventional wisdom to
|> regard the Spanish as having been excessively brutal in this context but I
|> do believe that we nowadays, in taking such views, evaluate past behaviour
|> in the light of present mores.
Definately.
In many cases the governments back in europe were demanding much more
than the colonists on the spot were willing to give. We see this
often in north america, where crown officials were put in the
difficult spot of trying to enforce treaties on behalf of the
indians, in opposition to the colonists who wanted to clear them out.
Here in the US we like to view "the people" as being basically all
right, while letting government take the fall as the bad guy. It's
not always that way. In many cases the colonial government tried to
protect the indians from the colonists. Generally, the results were
pretty dismal, and it's no surprise that the efforts were often
half-hearted.
|> The behaviour of Europeans towards other
|> Euorpeans and in fact of Asians towards other Asians and Asians and
|> Europeans towards each other, was just as horrendous.
Lets not neglect to mention the behavior of indian towards indian.
Europeans found it very easy to make allies among the indians. This
is often noted with some amazement, but only because the savage
brutality of indian-indian conflict is downplayed.
|> > Economically speaking, wouldn't it make sense for the US to
|> > confiscate baja california? If we multiply the amount of beachfront
|> > property in baja by the typical value of such property in alta
|> > california, we're looking at real estate worth trillions of dollars.
|> > It makes economic sense, but it is unacceptable to the american
|> > public for moral reasons: people in this country don't think it's
|> > right to go in and take away peoples homes.
|> I have a feeling that the population of Baja would be only too delighted to
|> be a part of the USA. If I am to believe only a part of what I read, a very
|> large proportion of the population of Central America are trying very hard
|> to be part of the USA, many taking considerable risks to do so. Perhaps the
|> citizens of Alta California might not be so happy with a take over, not
|> because they do not wish to take someone else's land but because they do
|> not wish to take on a greater social welfare debt that they have already
|> incurred :-) I do know what you mean, but the advent of the multi-nationals
|> as much as the acquisition of more tender Western consiences has really
|> taken the place of the colonial imperative.
Ah, but lets look at your response a little more closely. Note the
assumption that the land would be conquered, but the locals would be
allowed to remain. You didn't entertain the possibility of "ethnic
cleansing"; why not? Economically, that would be more profitable, but
we don't consider such brutality as a viable option. That is based
solidly on ethical grounds, not practicality.
The relative prosperity, peace, and lack of corruption in costa rica,
compared to neighboring central american countries, can be traced to
the almost complete annihilation of the costa rican aborigines. Does
the end justify the means? The is no moral arithmatic for such
questions, but the reality exists nonetheless.
Jerry Abbott
Tom Farrell wrote:
>
> Jerry Abbott wrote:
>
> > No, Tom. If you want it discussed further, YOU go find it. I don't
> > take your orders, and your haven't paid me a cent to do your work for
> > you.
>
> previous distinction between direct and indirect causes.
>
> Otherwise I take that assertion to be a worthless lie.
>
> If you want things to stand that way, fine, do nothing.
Listen, Feral, you can take it anyway you want it. I don't spend my
time working to satisfy every nitpickers who thinks he can make an issue
of a quibble.
> > > What is that fallacy? Please quote my response pointing out the
> > > fallacy.
> >
> > What a doofus. The fallacy you want identified is the one I referred to
> > immediately below.
> >
> >
> > > > You have confused the motives of
> > > > one group (the American people or the United States Government) for the
> > > > motives of another group (the Jews). That is how it is that you can
> > > > pretend that the cause of America's involvement in WW2 was the domestic
> > > > policy of Germany. Reconsider. Their reasons are not our reasons.
> > > > There was no contradiction.
>
> No, this doesn't refer to anything in my mail Jerry. My mail pointed
> out that your latter attempt to distinguish between Direct and Indirect
> causes was ludicrous. I pointed out that no-one would seriously argue
> that the cause of American involvement was Roosevelt signing a piece of
> paper.
> My point was that when we look for causes we understand implicitly that
> we are looking for ROOT causes.
> How you managed to get onto the motives of various groups of people from
> that response I do not know. I guess that is your own business.
>
> > > Jewish America disliked domestic Nazi policy
> >
> > I disagree on account of your wording. America is its people, over 97%
> > of whom are Gentiles. The Jews in America disliked German Nazi
> > policies,
>
> I don't understand why you disagree with my wording and then write
> that. Can you not hold a train of thought for two lines?
>
> >
> > > Jews had undue influence in the establishment
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > Jews used this influence to press for war against Germany
> >
> > Yes.
>
> <a load of stuff snipped>
>
> So Jerry, finally we have you admitting that the Jewish media's dislike
> of German policy was a leading cause in America entering the war.
>
> And thus, that which they disliked was a cause also (logically, how
> could it not be?)
>
> Tom
>
> PS I think we can leave this now. I have a job to do. You are welcome
> to have the last word if you want.
The stuff you snipped was where I said the exact opposite of what you
alleged that I had said. I clearly made the point that the Nazi's
domestic policies were neither the "cause" nor the "reason" that the
United States entered World War 2.
Jerry Abbott
Jerry Abbott
smac...@polar.bowdoin.edu wrote:
>
> Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > After some debate, maybe we'll agree that
> > the Aryan Nations has either lied, or maybe we'll find that our
>
> Ah, theology... Yes, I understand that quite well. A wonderful out, is it
> Aryan (White) Race. This is attested by scripture and all secular
> history..."
>
>
> "The Jew is like a destroying virus that attacks our racial body to
> destroy our Aryan culture and purity of our race."
>
>
> "It is not hate that makes the average White man look upon a mixed
> racial couple with a scowl on his face and loathing in his hear" (??
> What's an Aryans' hear, anyway?)
>
> and "The history of the present Zionist Occupied Government of the United
> States of America is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all
> having a direct object -- the establishment of an absolute tyranny over
> these states; moreover, throughout the entire world." and "It ["ZOG"]
> has engaged in systematic genocide of the White race,..."
>
> lies, hatred and vileness.
>
> Get a grip. Lies and hate, that's all. True statements? Well, at one
> point someone (Butler, I presume) writes "Excuse me while I regurgitate!"
> He's got that right.
>
> Scott
You're not all that familiar, I take it, with how the Soviet Union was
established, who established it, and what the Soviet leadership began
doing immediately afterward? That "virus" comparison was not
inappropriate.
Jerry Abbott
Jerry Abbott
Scott MacEachern wrote:
>
> Klaus Beck <klausNOguent...@ALLt-online.de> wrote:
>
> >The following are really statements made by Aryan Nations? If this is
> >so, then Scott is right, they are liars.
>
> Yes, it's taken off one of their Web pages. I got to it through
> HateWatch (http://hatewatch.org/ -- a useful site, if you have a
> strong stomach).
>
> >Interesting, because there is - as far as I see -, no white race in the
> >bible to begin with. So, which scripture is referred to here?
>
> I've no idea. I'm not interested in trying to follow what passes for
> thought processes among these 'Aryan' dim-wits.
>
> >What is the Aryan race, why is it white and who is the nice guy still
> >evaluating race through phenotypical and not through genotypical means?
> >Perhaps he shoul dtry to read a bit more on this.
>
> Assumming that any of them can read at all...
>
> Scott
You don't suppose they could write a web page and be unable to read one?
You're getting a bit shrill and loose with your criticism. If you
believe that the Aryan Nations has made inaccurate or unfair statements,
list them, and we'll discuss them.
Jerry Abbott
Jerry Abbott
Klaus Beck wrote:
>
> smac...@polar.bowdoin.edu wrote:
> >
> > Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > After some debate, maybe we'll agree that
> > > the Aryan Nations has either lied, or maybe we'll find that our
> > > disagreements with them are differences of opinion in theology
> >
> > Ah, theology... Yes, I understand that quite well. A wonderful out, is it
> > not?
>
> so, then Scott is right, they are liars.
Hmm. I wonder if either of you gentlemen remember this...
---- TOP, Numbers 31:1-18 ----
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of
the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people. And
Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the
war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of
Midian. Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel,
shall ye send to the war. So there were delivered out of the thousands
of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war. And
Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas
the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments,
and the trumpets to blow in his hand. And they warred against the
Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were
slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of
Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword. And the
children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their
little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their
flocks, and all their goods. And they burnt all their cities wherein
they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. And they took all
the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts. And they brought
the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the
priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the
camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho. And Moses,
and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went
forth to meet them without the camp. And Moses was wroth with the
officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains
over hundreds, which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them,
Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of
Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the
LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the
congregation of the LORD.
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children,
that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
---- END, Numbers 31:1-18 ----
According to that account, the ancient Hebrews did considerably more
than simply call their opponents names, such as "destroying virus." The
ancient Hebrew army overran a tribal nation, killed all their men, and
made every woman and child a prisoner of war. But that wasn't enough to
satisfy the Hebrew leader, Moses, who upon finding out that his captains
had spared the non-combatants ordered the soldiers to kill the woman and
the little boys. Find something in the Aryan Nations' rhetoric that
matches that.
Jerry Abbott
westsid...@msn.com
On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 11:32:24 +0100, Tom Farrell <tfar...@iona.com> wrote:
> Jerry Abbott wrote:
>
> > Racial loyalty is important because the network of kindred people with
> > whom you cooperate beyond your immediate family.
>
> Is that a sentence? How can I argue with something that makes no
> sense?
>
> > animals that compete both within and between groups. Racial/genetic
> > differences are the differences that most often give nature the leverage
> > it works with.
>
> Not quite sure what you're talking about here...
>
> > for breaking it are inescapable.
>
> An irrelevance.
>
>
> > nothing. Breed a greyhound with a beagle and you do NOT get a dog that
> > is both very fast and very good at tracking. You get a mongrel that
> > can't compete with either of its parents in its specialty. Some of the
> > ancient peoples had this figured out, evidently, but more recently we've
> > let liberalism befuddle our wits.
>
> Er... Jerry your determination does you credit, but *really*, can we
> have less of this nonsense.
> mixing. There are no truly pure races in Europe - but they still
> conquered the world (or a lot of it)
>
> racially pure societies in the world. Yet their suitablility to their
> environment did them little good in the last few hundred years did it?
>
> IS NOT. As I say, look at the history of this planet.
>
> arangement. Much of the reason for the accelarated development of
> Eurasia is the free mixing of people from across the continent and the
> ability to both mix (creating new races) and swap knowledge and
> technology.
>
>
>
> > group. Your race bears the relationship to your family that your family
> > bears to yourself. What's so hard to understand?
>
> My family (children - YOUR EXAMPLE) contain MY DNA and take it forward
> to future generations. My race does not.
>
>
> Tom
>
> PS. What amuses me is that you cannot understand basic genetics. If a
> male and female mate, do they inevitably produce a hermaphrodite? The
> most casual glance at human society will tell you immediately that a
> child is not just a slushy mix of his mum and dad.
of origin, then it would be true that maintaining the
physical racial differences which arose there would probably
be most beneficial. But with the end of isolation the white
skin of Causacsions is dysgenic, as is the Black skin of
negroids in northern latitudes. Racial mixture which
eliminates these physical differences won't cause any
harm. If, as I believe, the races have evolved somewhat
differing behaviors re altruism, intelligence, and monogamy
then perhaps these differences should also be eliminated
by mixing. But see my post re Centrality and IQ.
--
Posted using Reference.COM http://www.reference.com
Browse, Search and Post Usenet and Mailing list Archive and Catalog.
InReference, Inc. accepts no responsibility for the content of this posting.
Scott MacEachern
On Sat, 11 Oct 1997 06:01:22 -0500, Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>You're not all that familiar, I take it, with how the Soviet Union was
>established, who established it, and what the Soviet leadership began
>doing immediately afterward? That "virus" comparison was not
>inappropriate.
Reasonably so, I'm afraid. So, this is going to be Judaism=Communism,
is it? That's a very, very old canard -- are you going to start making
these claims about secret Jewish rituals in the Kremlim that I've
heard from Net.Nazis now? That wouldn't be a good sign...
And we are agreed that the rest of those quotes are, in fact, lies?
Scott
____________________________________________
Scott MacEachern
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bowdoin College
Brunswick, ME 04011 smac...@polar.bowdoin.edu
And return from Clachan/from Suisnish and the land of the living;
Each one young and light-stepping/without the heartbreak of the tale.
Sorley MacLean, 'Hallaig'
Scott MacEachern
On Sat, 11 Oct 1997 06:18:58 -0500, Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of
>the Midianites:
Had no idea that you were a Midianite...
> Find something in the Aryan Nations' rhetoric that matches that.
Certainly. Shall I go back and find the approving quotes about the
Germasn in the Holocaust, for example? Would six million dead satisfy
you? Six million, not entombed in an account almost 3000 years old and
replete with miracles and fables, but dead in my fathers lifetime and
perhaps in yours? Killed not in war, but as an industrial process?
I just finished Fagles' new translation of the _Illiad_, and I'm
working on the _Odyssey_ now. Can I go and find where Aryan Nations
comdemns the Achaeans for what they did to the Trojans? There's an
equivalent for you...
The rhetoric of the Aryan Nations will never match that of the Old
Testament. But, then, they're idiots, so what do you expect?
Scott MacEachern
On Sat, 11 Oct 1997 06:06:46 -0500, Jerry Abbott <j...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>You don't suppose they could write a web page and be unable to read one?
Oh, you can always find one 'Aryan' who can set up a nice-looking Web
site. That's how members of the Notional Appliance evaluate the truth
content of their Web pages vis-a-vis those of, say, Nizkor.
And are you claiming that they didn't generate those quotes that I
included in my last post?