DEBATE RESTRICTIONS.

For as long as there have been public debates about race, liberals have tried to restrict the
spectrum of allowed speech by declaring their opponents' best arguments out-of-bounds. They often
corrupt the governing rules of forums by hardwiring their restrictions into content policy, terms
of service, or other governing rules. Their justification is preventing offense to racial minorities.

Whether racists sometimes make good arguments, in the sense that they include statements that are
both important and true, doesn't matter to liberals, who don't consider truth to be a defense.
The better a racist's argument is, the more it threatens to expose the wrongs of liberalism, and
thus liberals are more inclined to call for the censorship of thoughtful racist arguments than
for the censorship of poor ones.

These are the same liberals who argue that anti-Christian themes in movies (such as Martin Scorsese's
"The Last Temptation of Christ") and in art (such as Andres Serrano's crucifix in a jar of urine)
ought to be protected speech despite their offensiveness to many Christians. What blasphemous themes
are to Christians, racist opinions are to liberals. Liberals almost always seek censorship of racist
arguments so that they will not have to present opposing arguments that they might not be capable of
presenting.

It isn't necessarily wrong to exclude points of view on a board. If the stated purpose of a board
is to glorify a particular god, race, political philosophy, or brand of consumer goods then it's
perfectly all right for the board's owner or moderator to come along and censor posts inconsistent
with the board's mission. You can legally criticize Jesus, but you shouldn't go into a church to
do it. If you do, the preacher has the right to throw you out.

But when a board's stated purpose is to engage in debate, for the purpose of arriving at the truth,
or at a better understanding of the facts, then a priori restrictions on unpopular points of view are
hypocritical attempts to "fix" the debate so that only the popular point of view can seem to win.
The advocates of the unpopular point of view (racists in this case) will only be allowed to score
small points with their lesser and more oblique arguments, while the liberals can bring forth their
whole array of verbiage unfettered by any fear that they will be censored.

To give the liberals grounds for calling for the censorship of racist opinions, the rules of debate
are written to exclude them. "Racist remarks" and "hate speech" are ruled illegal, and then that rule
is used not only to prevent racial insults but also to censor arguments that the liberals find too
threatening to their belief system to deal with forthrightly.

That's how things are in most race-related debates. They are not so much "debates" as controlled
pretenses thereof. It's surprising to find a media venue that will host ideas that fall outside the
spectrum of opinion that liberals are comfortable with.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 14, 2005 08:10 AM




Race a heritable, biological, physical reality. It is not a "social construct."

The idea that race is a "social construct" has made me smile more than once during debates with
liberals. Referring to human differences that are real – biological and innate – as "social
constructs" is one of the ways liberals, including many Marxists and feminists, trivialize that
over which they have no control. Harangue and confuse the multitudes as they may, liberals have
never once seen their wishes overcome natural laws, and they never will.

The differences between the hominid races are as real (if not as large) as those between gorillas,
chimpanzees, and orangutans. While it is true that only a small percentage of genes is responsible
for racial differences, we do not judge the significance of those differences by counting genes.
We judge their significance by the qualities and performance factors of the organisms that those
genes create.

If one race-car engine differs only slightly in design from another race-car engine, but that little
difference results in one having significantly more horsepower than the other, then what is the best
way to judge the importance of the difference in design? By micrometers of cylinder diameter? By the
viscosity of the motor oil? Or by the accelerations and top speeds of the race-cars?

I trust you now appreciate my argument.

What is "human dignity"? It isn't an organ, nor a hormone. It isn't biologically inherited, and,
if it is inherited at all, it's by a theological sort of inheritance, say, as a human supposedly
acquires a soul. Liberals are fond of saying that all people have inherent human dignity, but in
what does it inhere? The spleen, the liver? I propose that all of the next four statements are
equally silly:

Wolf, you may not eat me, for I have Human Dignity.

Lightning, you may not strike me, for I have Human Dignity.

Earthquake, you may not shake my house down on top of me, for I have Human Dignity.

Fellow humans, you must provide for me and carry me along on your backs, worthless though I am to
you, for I have Human Dignity.

Although none of those four statements is more cogent than any of the others, the last one is the
only statement likely to have an impact on its speaker's fortunes. Why? It's because humans have
minds able to hold social constructs, and human dignity is a social construct. Physical realities,
such as race and gender, are not in that class.

Why would anyone construct the idea of "human dignity"? Basically, to get power. One has "human
dignity" more or less by the permission of liberals, who may strip it at will from whomever they
don't like: racists, for example.

Nature produced the visible racial differences, which we usually notice on inspection. Liberals
declare that those "cosmetic" differences are trivial. But then they declare that those are the
ONLY differences between the races.

It would be a very strange thing indeed if nature, which created all of the heritable differences
between races, had been aware of liberal sensibilities since the dawn of time, and had carefully
permitted only those racial differences having no social significance of which liberals might
disapprove. Do you see how silly is the case for racial equality? It presumes that nature was
somehow required to do as the liberals would have done if they had been in charge of writing nature's
laws. Why do liberals make this vast error?

Liberals are people who have confused the proper roles of perception, reason, and moral sense.
More carefully thoughtful people try first to determine the facts of the world through the use of
perception and reason, thus answering the question "What is?" But liberals try first to determine
the facts of the world by using their moral sense, and they confuse the question of "What is fair?"
with the question "What is?"

Liberals insist that everyone regard liberal ideas about fairness as the truth about the world.
And that is the basis of the doctrine of racial equality. Scientifically, it belongs in the trash can.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 14, 2005 09:10 AM




Hi Jim Harris. I suppose that you are implying that I wrote all those webpages and then provided
a handy link to them so that you'd have the chance to "embarrass" me with what I think. Not so.

The world didn't "get past" National Socialism. It's more like when it had the chance to take the
right road (human quality), it took the wrong road (money power) instead. The further down the
wrong road "we" go, the further we'll have to backtrack sooner or later.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 14, 2005 10:05 AM




Curt Dalton, racism is indeed alive and well, and one day it will again be well-regarded. Racism is
natural and healthy. The most well-reasoned people endorse racism, and the bravest of these endorse
it publicly in the face of a world grown hostile to this truth.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 14, 2005 11:13 AM




Race is not a social convention; it is a biological fact. Race (or breed) exists in many species,
and it exists in ours whether we wish to admit it or not. It's obvious despite the existence of
ancient racial hybrids and persons of recently mixed ancestry.

Liberals are people who have allowed a destructive moral and social philosophy to form their political
convictions, to confound their view of the world, and to corrupt the way in which their minds operate
on information gathered by their senses.

The White race originated in a harsh, cold environment. Evolution for Whites included a group
selection favoring a certain amount of altruistic, reciprocating behavior, which led to their having
an inborn feel for concepts like justice, fairplay, honor, duty and loyalty. White groups, living
at the glacier's edge, often found altruism with reciprocity to be an advantageous way to live.
It allowed evolution to operate through "kin-selection," in which an individual's sacrifice for his
near relatives resulted in the preservation of more of his genes than would have been saved by more
selfish behavior.

Early European tribes whose members helped each other, sometimes at the cost of personal sacrifice,
survived better (in the genetic sense) than those who were motivated by the principle of ego. That's
why their traits have been preserved in us, despite the relatively recent advent of various forms of
materialism.

Whites became civilized and grew very powerful. For a while, we dominated the world. But at some point
or other we made two mistakes. One of them was our participation in slavery. We did not start slavery
in Africa — the Blacks did that themselves. But we bought the slaves that Jewish traders (whose
business offices were in London and Amsterdam) brought to our shores, and they have been no end of
trouble and expense to us.

Our other mistake was becoming culturally arrogant. In our arrogance, we assumed that the morality
proper for White people is also proper for non-Whites, that the way Whites live is also the way
non-Whites should live, and that our religion would be better for them than their own native beliefs.

Were we ever wrong.

We mistakenly extended our in-group altruism to groups who had no intentions to reciprocate. We let
the Jews persuade us that racial differences either do not exist or are not important, and, as a
result, we lost to them the political control of our own countries. We can get it back, if we try
hard enough, but first it is necessary to convince enough of our people that the liberal propaganda
they've heard on the TV all their lives is hogwash.

That's difficult because of a human evolutionary trait that makes us trust the familiar with the
presumption that it is truth. We believe what we have always believed before, or what we've long
been told. During our evolution, this trust carried survival advantages because our experience was
with nature itself. But in our modern world, much of our "experience," practically everything we
know about the world beyond our own neighborhoods, comes from the media pseudo-reality with which
the Jews have been bedazzling us for the past several generations.

In a situation such as this, our biological habit of trusting the familiar betrays us, because many
people are "familiar" with a glamorized and false picture of natural law and of human nature.

We rush to sacrifice our money in an orgy of alms-giving every time we're shown hungry Black African
children, while similarly hungry White children in our own Appalachian mountains remain unfed.
Charity is something that should begin at home. Institutions established by White people should
serve White people first, foremost, and — apart from a specific mandate to do otherwise — exclusively.

Given enough time, the practice of undiscriminating altruism will destroy the White race. The other
races will bleed us dry, and then they will sweep us away. It is probably the relative shortness of
the human lifespan, compared to the march of events in history, that allows Liberalism, with its
denial of the consequences of defying natural laws, to exist. You, personally, haven't seen Big
Things happen, so you figure that Big Things just don't happen — like extinction.

If Whites do not check their altruism by bringing it back within the bounds of their own group, by
"discriminating" on the basis of race, then Whites will be displaced by groups who consistently act
in their own self-interest (i.e., by groups who are "more racist" than Whites are).

One way or another, racism will exist in the future. The only question is whether there will be any
Whites left in the world, or whether we will die out. Nature tests all living things, and its tests
are always fair. Nature did not ask us for our preferences when it was making us.

Ethnic and racial groups in proximity to each other always compete, and those who would survive had
better learn to be serious competitors.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 14, 2005 06:16 PM




A well known author of fantasy novels recently told me: "I think when you tell some one to shut up
and go away, you invite the response of 'you have censored me!' Even though 'censor' is a word that
applies only to a government authority suppressing someone." Which isn't true.

A Board of Censors can be set up by a private company, as the TV networks did at one time, and what
such a board does is censorship.

The objection is not to censorship per se, but to unjust censorship. Unjust censorship is something
that anyone might do, not the government only. Censorship is unjust when someone is denied a means
of communication that he has a right to use, whether the right is by law (e.g., the First Amendment)
or by contract (purchased).

But it's also true that a lot of people who claim to have been unjustly censored haven't been.
They've only been denied the free use of someone else's property. Whereas such a denial isn't an
injustice, it can sometimes be a hypocrisy.

For example, I was denied the right to post on ePhilosopher after one of my posts treated race
without the mandatory presumption of racial equality.

Ephilosopher is someone else's private property, so my denial of service was a legitimate exercise
of the owner's rights. I can't complain that I was unjustly censored.

But ePhilosopher played a hypocritical trick. It held itself out as a forum where any honest opinion
can be presented in open debate for honest criticism, and I had believed them, but the pretense was
exposed when it was put to test.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 15, 2005 05:05 AM




Before I say anything "racist" about Blacks or Mestizos, there's something wrong with White people
that I want to discuss.

Until about 1970, the phrase "the White race" was used to refer to what most people now call "people
of European descent." In fact, the former term is the more precise, whereas the latter is less
specific and more malleable, and thus more prone to the sort of confusion under which non-Whites
can play the "citizenship equals nationality" switcheroo game. In fact, race equals nationality:

Nationality...
(parallel word) nativity
(extract root) natal
(translate) birth
(infer meaning) heredity
(reword meaning) bloodline
(reword meaning) race

Citizenship, by contrast, is membership in what, literally, is a country club. Countries are usually
begun by races in order to provide them with political means for advancing their interests in the
world. But races that get careless can lose control of their countries. Not only can their clubhouse
be overrun by conquerors, but, alternatively, a race can lose control of its country by a steady
influx of infiltrators, especially if those infiltrators are expert at dishonest tricks in the use
of "parliamentary procedure."

The point, however, is that citizenship is not nationality. Race is nationality. Citizenship is a
legal thing. Nationality is a biological thing.

Because it conveys our sense of race exactly, it was used by anthropologists and by laymen alike,
but for reasons I'll get to shortly the use of the phrase "the White race" was rapidly abandoned
beginning about 1970.

Today, almost any White person saying "the White race" in the company of Whites will get a bad
reaction, the commonest being distaste and condemnation, both of which being often expressed in
overly loud tones. People who are afraid to be seen as non-conformists tend to go overboard to show
how perfectly they conform; it's a kind of defense mechanism for herd minds. There's a sense of
risk, now, in uttering the phrase "the White race," except as a diagram in a social lesson on
political correctness. In about 20 years, the words that most particularly describe us went from
being accepted anywhere to being banned from polite conversation. Those 20 years did nothing to
the words or their meaning; it is our attitude about them that changed.

The decline of the phrase "the White race" is a symptom of a massive change in White people's
behavior that began about a century ago, was accelerated after the Second World War, and accelerated
again about 1970. By 1990, nearly the entire White race had a form of Stockholm syndrome: a fear of
offending non-Whites and a tendency to grovel before them. It's an adaptation that hostages and
slaves often undergo, in order to endure the loss of their freedom and to survive the dangers of
captivity. The infusion of the White race with this fear-motivated wish to please the foreigner was
the Jews' single most important triumph with applied psychology via the mass media.

All sorts of tricks were used to instill fear in Whites through movies and television. I'll mention
one of them to highlight the method. About 1970, television producers began to invent and dispense
an ominous mystification of oriental martial arts: judo, karate, and later the Chinese and Korean
variants. The Asians discovered and taught some useful fighting techniques based on the mechanics
of human architecture, but the Jews created a psychological weapon from the idea itself, which they
turned against White people to make them believe that "kung fu experts" are omnipotent, and any
Asian person might be a "kung fu expert," so you'd better not mess with them. Instead, it is safer
to give way any time your will and an Asian's wishes are in conflict. Let the Asian have what he
wants, and maybe you won't get a karate chop for your impertinence.

Generalize that, and you've got the basis of the Jewish psywar strategy.

The Jews later expanded on the idea with a long string of TV dramas and movies showing small women
(heroines of the stories) tossing large men (bad guys) over shoulder and then kicking them into
submission. The obvious message was that good triumphs over evil. The subtexts, seldom mentioned
but universally understood, were "women are good, men are evil" and "women who learn Asian martial
arts can easily beat up on men." The feminists loved it, of course, but they were also under Jewish
leadership.

Real life paralled art, even if the acting talent was inferior and the story endings were less
tidily scripted. Whites were taught to fear non-Whites. White men and White women were estranged
from each other. The "hard cases" in real life were shown TV dramas about hard cases whose stubborn
adherance to old-fashioned ways caused them nothing but grief and harm, all of which was of course
their own fault. The new ways were the righteous ways, the liberal ways, and anything in conflict
with them, most especially the traditions of European culture, were evil and "outmoded" - if I may
borrow the term the Jews used to refer to European tradition.

It's gone to the point, now, where White men are being erased from representation in commercial
advertisements. Not completely so, since that would be too obvious. But watch your TV, or go into
your nearest Wal-Mart or Rite-Aid and calculate the percentage of White men among the people who
appear in the poster advertisements mounted around the store. White men are 36% of the American
population (2005). But less than five percent of the people shown in the ads are White men. Why
had you not noticed this already? If you happen to live in an area dominated by non-Whites, and
believe that your local store's display ads are meant to reflect the racial proportions among the
local residents, then I must assure you that this is not the case. In West Virginia, which is 96%
White, White men are less than 5% of the people shown in the ads.

As I said, nearly every White person today has Stockholm syndrome. It's a disease of the mind that
can be transmitted by mass media employed as agitprop weapons. But since the disease is so ubiquitous,
and since nearly every White person acquired it at about the same time, it does not appear to us in
its true form: a mental disorder. Instead, most Whites regard their ingrained fear of non-Whites
(and the corrolary self-righteous self-abasement) as normal. And they regard the few exceptions who
never acquired that fear, or who cured themselves of it, as "racists."

To put it differently, racism is the normal, healthy condition. It's the condition that anyone who
is not White usually has and sometimes flaunts.

Sometimes elderly White people committed to nursing homes experience a more intensive form of
behavior modification. Terror, backed up as necessary by deprivation or physical pressure, can
eventually break anyone, however strong-willed he might be. It can convert a racist to a fervent
espousal of racial equality. It can also do the reverse.

It's even more prevalent in prisons. Confined in prison among Blacks with no system of protection
(such as a White prison gang), White prisoners acquire a layer of Stockholm syndrome more proximate
than the layer imposed on the general public.

It happened to Patty Hearst too, for other reasons but by the same methods.

America was the Land of the Free. But now it's one gigantic Room 101 in Oceania's Ministry of Love.
Bow down, ye Whites, and be ye traitors to each other, or the rats will be loosed on your faces!
Most Whites have had the will to oppose Jewish multicultural aims cowed or beaten out of them, with
the proportion of force to fear being determined by how readily the victim succumbs to fear.

The changes in outlook, from racism to professed liberalism, that intimidation can induce in some
people in no way changes the meaning of state and federal crime statistics. The ten-to-one Black to
White ratio in the per capita crime rates still means what it meant yesterday, and it will continue
to mean the same thing even after ten million more elderly Whites undergo multicultural "conditioning"
inside a nursing home.

Related Topics for Further Research: "Religion on Death Row" and "Kitty Genovese."

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 15, 2005 07:09 AM




Ron,

Consider mules. Horses and donkeys can interbreed, but their offspring is sterile because of a
genetic incompatibility between horses and donkeys involving the reproductive system. It isn't the
only kind of genetic incompatibility that can cause trouble; there are many others.

Heredity isn't a smooth averaging of both parents in their children. Instead, clusters of cells or
tissues are separately inherited - they're called Mendellian units. What makes a race different from
a recently crossed hybrid is a stability in the breeding of children. A race has been around long
enough, for a sufficient number of generations, that it has shaken out the mismatches among the
Mendellian units, so all the parts of the body fit together within the children as they should.

The race that we refer to as "Asian" today is, in fact, a hybrid race. But the hybridization -
between Caucasoids and Yoyoi Mongoloids - occurred something like 10,000 to 20,000 years ago,
and the hybrid has had enough time to stabilize characters. It is a race today.

But recent hybrids don't have that guarantee. If a man from a small race mates with a woman from a
large race, the child born to them can grow up to be a large man with a small heart which is too
weak to provide enough circulation of blood to let him rise from his bed.

A great number of such mismatches is possible. Some are physical incompatibilities. Some are
hormonal incompatibilities. Some involve neurotransmitters. A human crossbreed who looks OK might
still have a chemical imbalance that will make him dependent on drugs all his life.

Of course, there is a fortunate minority of hybrids who inherit something called hybrid vigor.
But hybrid vigor has a limitation and a prerequisite: it is a very special situation.

The prerequisite is that the parents must be of highly pure racial stock (well shaken down and
hereditarily stable). The limitation is that hybrid vigor occurs only in the first generation of the
cross, in the so-called F1 generation. It does not breed true to later generations. Subsequently,
not only is the hybrid vigor absent, the benefits of relative genetic stability enjoyed by races is
also lost.

Cattle ranchers breed hybrids for the value of their meat - hybrids are raised to be butchered -
they do not use them as breeding stock. They continue using the purebreds for that.

Most of these facts about hybridization in animals applies also to plant hybrids. Silver Queen corn
is a hybrid. It has parents of two different "races" of corn. But seed from Silver Queen corn stalks
will not produce good offspring in the next generation. If anything grows at all from the seed, it
will have no more value than weeds.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 15, 2005 08:02 AM




Darby77, your opinions may be deep seated and lifelong, but mine are not. I wasn't always a racist.
In 1984, I was an ambitious Air Force lieutenant (a yuppie in uniform). In 1988, I was both an
employee at a defense contractor and a liberal activist for homeless people in Huntsville, Alabama.

I was essentially liberal until about 1996, when some racists, including Kevin Alfred Strom and
Dr. William Pierce, convinced me that they were right. I differed from most liberals in that I didn't
mind examining why I believed what I did. An honest person does not believe as he wishes; he believes
as he can. Gradually, I found that I no longer believed the liberal arguments I'd once used.

Another factor in my switch from liberalism to racism was the reaction of liberals to my questioning
of liberalism. Instead of giving me reasoned argument, I got called names, threatened, censored,
banned, slandered, backstabbed, and attempts were made to set me up to violate forum policy and/or
to break laws. And that's how I learned the true nature of most liberals. It isn't evident as long
as you show them only agreement.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 15, 2005 09:19 AM




Darby said: If you wish to make it a campaign at least you are honest about it. There are many who
would not speak of their feelings out loud.

Friedrich Nietzsche said: The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed
by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too
high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 15, 2005 03:03 PM




The U.S. Department of Justice, including all its Bureaus and Agencies, regard most Hispanics as
being racially White. They have no separate racial category for Mestizos, and about 90% of Hispanics
resident in the United States are Mestizos.

One result of this misclassification is an upward skewing of the number of crimes having "White"
perpetrators.

There are a few states that track, or until recently have tracked, the crimes of Mestizos separately
from Whites. When crime data from those states is studied, it can be seen that Mestizos have about
three times the per capita rate for the perpetration of most violent crimes, as compared with Whites.
It might have something to do with loco bravo.

From there, it's possible to make a rough correction to the federal crime totals. Somewhere between
a quarter to a third of all violent crimes allegedly committed by "Whites" in the federal data were,
in fact, committed by Mestizos.

It's no wonder that when you browse the FBI "Most Wanted" pages, you often see Hispanic faces over
the words "Race: White."

Keep that correction in mind when you compare the per capita rate ratio, Black to White, for crime
perpetrators.

Before you remove the Mestizos from the "White" offender totals, it appears that Blacks commit
(for example) murder at a per capita rate that is seven times greater than the rate for Whites.
But AFTER you remove the Mestizos from the "White" offender totals, you find out that Blacks commit
murder at a per capita rate that is ten times higher than the White rate.

You can check this for yourself. You'll need to download the FBI Uniform Crime Reports document,
Crime in the United States, which is available at

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

You'll also need population data from the Census Bureau.

When you put the information together, you can create tables like the ones on these pages:

http://jabpage.org/features/racestat/racestat2.html
http://jabpage.org/features/racestat/racestat3.html

You can also create graphs like these:

http://jabpage.org/images/correlate2.jpg
http://jabpage.org/images/uscitymu.jpg

It's worth mentioning that poverty cannot be the root cause of the disparity between Black and
White rates for violent crime. According to the US Census, 11.2% of American Whites and 29.0% of
US resident Blacks lived in poverty in 1995.

Yes, a higher percentage of Blacks than Whites are poor. But how many poor Whites and poor Blacks
are we talking about? In 1995, there were 218.3 million American Whites and 33.1 million US resident
Blacks, which shows (after multiplying by the respective percentages) that there were 24.4 million
poor Whites and 9.5 million poor Blacks living in the United States that year.

Excluding the Mexicans, poor "Americans" were 72% White and 28% Black in 1995. Poor Whites
outnumbered poor Blacks by a ratio of 2.57 to one. If poverty were the fundamental cause of violent
crime, as the liberals say it is, then for each 100 murders in the US committed by Blacks in 1995,
about 257 murders would have been committed by Whites. But that isn't what happened.

The fact is that about 55% of the murders in the United States in 1995 were committed by Blacks.
In other words, for each 100 murders committed by Blacks in 1995, only 82 murders were committed by
all non-Black groups combined.

Even if you were to assume that Whites committed all of the murders in the United States that Blacks
did not commit in 1995, the Whites could only be responsible, at most, for 82 murders for each 100
murders perpetrated by Blacks. And keep in mind that there were 6.8 times more Whites than Blacks
in America in 1995.

These facts are in conflict with a prediction that can be reasonably drawn from the liberal theory,
which is therefore wrong. Poverty isn't the cause of Black violence, and the famous "poverty causes
crime" hypothesis is a liberal myth.

Just to check, in 1998, 10.5% of American Whites and 26.5% of American Blacks lived in poverty. The
Census Bureau estimates that there were were 223.0 million White Americans and 34.4 million Black
US residents on July 1 of that year. At that time, then, there were 23.4 million poor Whites and
9.1 million poor Blacks living in the United States. The poor were once again 72% White and 28%
Black, setting aside poor people of all other races. In 1998 as in 1995, poor Whites outnumbered
poor Blacks by a ratio of 2.57 to one.

Both the ratio of poor Whites to poor Blacks, and the per capita rate ratio, Black to White, for
murder perpetration, remain rather consistent over the years. Poverty has not been causing crime.
Poor Whites do not behave as poor Blacks behave.

Which, of course, is what any racist could have told you. Liberals decide what the facts are by
their feelings after consulting their favorite slogans, but racists use their minds and their eyes.
The difference in violent behavior is a racial difference.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 15, 2005 04:17 PM




Elizabeth Bennett. I didn't become a bigot at all. I became a racist. There's a difference.

A bigot is someone who dislikes other sorts of people without knowing why he should; i.e., through
ignorance. A racist has the knowledge the bigot lacks. He might dislike other races, as a bigot
does, but he isn't ignorant about why.

Your characterization of the posts of the racists here is one tactics that liberals often use.
When liberals begin to lose a debate, they allege that the racists have "taken it over," just as
you did, implying that the racists aren't letting the liberals have their say. That's a deception.
For once, we racists are having OUR say; we haven't prevented you from replying.

Liberals also usually assert, as you did, that the racists' arguments are "propaganda," implying
that racists have nothing to say that is important and true. That's another deception.

If they know that a racist's argument has appeared before somewhere else, they'll label it as a
"cut and paste diatribe" and as "filthy commentary," just as you did. That's a smear, not an argument.

After they evade their chance to make rational replies, liberals often call for others not to
engage the racists in conversation, just as you did.

And that's fear. They realize that engaging the racists in debate would continue the debate,
and the liberals who called for an end to dialogue have already judged that it's a losing game
for the liberals. More talk gives the racists a chance to present even more arguments to which
the liberals can make no rational answer.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 16, 2005 07:04 AM




Ron, I saw your statement about La Raza Unita being a socially accepted saying of Mestizo racial
nationalists.

It's true. And the chant "Black Power," with the clinched fist salute, is the Negro version of
"Sieg Heil" with the Roman palm salute.

I doubt that liberals really understand where their own motives come from. They've no idea what
prompts them to spurn and mock some phrases, symbols or gestures and to respect and endorse their
exact equivalents among different races.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 16, 2005 09:29 AM




Ron said: "Today, in order to do justice to Jefferson's beliefs, we'd have to make special appeal
to the term 'Nazi' to get close to expressing it. Naturally those wishing to confound the issue
either do not understand these things, or do not wish to."

Quite right. Many people do not realize that Thomas Jefferson's justification for revolution was
the same as Hitler's, and, except for the language and the phrasing, the two men said the same thing
about people having a right to throw off a government that harms them.

Hitler: "The Pan-German movement in German-Austria in the [eighteen] nineties is to be praised for
demonstrating in clear, unmistakable terms that a state authority is entitled to demand respect and
protection only when it meets the interests of a people, or at least does not harm them."
(Mein Kampf, vol. 1, ch. 3.)

Jefferson: "When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces
a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off
such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
(American Declaration of Independence.)

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 16, 2005 06:07 PM




I wish that more people would look around and get a clue: wherever you find a racially homogeneous
society with strong racial feelings, you have found a people who are stronger than a motley,
individualistic bunch of the same size and situation. Diversity isn't a strength; it is a weakness.
When our government tells us differently, it is seeking our harm.

But, as I've said before, liberals apply to racial politics a characteristic sort of thinking.
They continually insist, as each of their programs in succession fails, fails, fails..., that
the reason is that they weren't "aimed" just right, and that if they would "focus" a bit better
there suddenly would be miraculous results.

You'd think that over 40 years of failure would have corrected this nonsense, but liberals are
stubborn. Maybe they are afraid that someone will hold them accountable for the mess that they
have made of our society, and perhaps it is out of fear that they insist, so to speak, that the
next bucket of gasoline will surely put out the fire, if only we first paint the bucket a
different color.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 16, 2005 07:07 PM




Hi Mark Neufeldt. I'm not certain whether there are any conservatives anymore, whether the word
"conservative" has become politically meaningless, or whether there's any longer a valid reason
for anyone to be a conservative.

About 150 years ago, almost all conservatives were also racists, thinking ones like us. Liberals
gradually nudged the conservatives leftward until the old conservative ideas had been abandoned.

Controversies were invented, always at liberal instigation, that were resolved by "compromises"
wherein liberals got part of what they wanted. Conservatives merely adjusted themselves to a new
status quo. Then the liberals launched yet another social crusade, and the whole process began
again.

That's why conservatism doesn't mean now what it used to mean. Modern conservativism is merely
a paler shade of liberalism. Today's conservatives are people who have more in common with
today's liberals than they do with 19th century conservatives.

Further, there's not enough left of the old American tradition to supply reason for trying to
conserve it. If preserving America's European cultural heritage was their purpose, the
conservatives failed in it. There's no point to saving what's already gone; if the cows have
escaped from the barn, it's too late to lock the door.

Rescuing America from the liberals can't be done by conservatives. It can be done only by
revolutionaries of a patriotic stripe: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, etc.
Revolution is how America was founded originally, and only revolution can find it again.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 17, 2005 01:30 AM



Elizabeth Bennett sees ego wherever someone else displays knowledge greater than her own, or so
it appears. I guess it's time for me to aggrandize myself by imparting some educational
information about race.

The question of when Whites and Blacks became separate lines of evolving hominds is interesting,
and perhaps important, but the most important question is how we may preserve the evolutionary
good fortune that brought us up to where we are, against the extinction of that gain threatened
by the multiculturalists.

Someone who says that Whites evolved from (modern) Blacks is wrong. But if he says that both
races have, someway back in time, a common ancestry, he is right. But I would want him to
continue along that line of thinking, to consider the importance of the racial differences
that exist today.

Just to be writing it down:

This causally contiguous region of spacetime, "the universe," began about 14 billion years ago.

The solar nebula condensed into a planetary system about 5 billion years ago.

Biogenesis occurred in Earth's waters about 3.5 billion years ago. There was a proliferation in
types of single-celled life forms about 1 bya.

Multicellular life appeared in the sea about 600 million years ago, followed by an extreme
proliferation of multicellular life forms over the next hundred million years (the Cambrian Period).

Plants colonized the land beginning about 570 mya. The higher plant types began appearing about
420 mya.

Animals colonized the land beginning about 500 mya. However, animal life on land had to wait for
forests to appear, about 420 mya, before getting major ecological niches.

Reptiles appeared about 330 mya. They got bigger with time, until the really huge ones appeared
from 220 mya until 65 mya.

Mammals appeared about 210 million years ago. [Mesozoic/early Triassic]

Monkeys appeared 60 million years ago. [Cenozoic/Tertiary/Eocene]

Proto-Primates appeared about 40 million years ago. [Cenozoic/Tertiary/Oligocene]

True Primates (Proconsul, a genus of three species: major, africanus and nyanzae) appeared 24
million years ago. [Cenozoic/Tertiary/Miocene]

From Proconsul, the following genera branched away from the line leading to the hominids...

Gibbons diverged 15 million years ago.
Orangutans diverged 11 million years ago.
Gorillas diverged 7 million years ago.
Chimpanzees diverged 5 million years ago.

What was left of Proconsul's decendants, in our direction, was the hominid family. The original
hominid might have been

Australopithecus anamensis [known to exist: 4.2-3.5 mya]

or

Australopithecus afarensis [known to exist: 5.0-3.0 mya]

Whichever of these is our ancestor, they evolved in Africa and spawned (probably through racial
divisions) many daughter species, most of which became extinct. A genus of such species was
distinguished by a sagittal crest: a bony ridge on top of the head formed by an extension of the
spinal bones and to which was attached extra muscles that served to add chewing strength to the
jaw. The last species of this genus was A. robustus, which became extinct only about a million
years ago; i.e., it was contemporary with our own ancestors, Homo habilis and Homo erectus. (The
Klingons in Star Trek: The Next Generation look something like A. robustus might have.)

Homo habilis was the first species in the genus Homo, itself descended from Australopithecus.

From the early Australopithecines to H. habilis, the brain volume ranged from 400 cc to 530 cc.
Doubtless they were all smarter than your average bear, but none of them would have been accounted
as gifted by our standards, nor even by Black standards.

It's what happened after H. habilis that made Man what he is.

As probably you've already guessed, there never was any significant period of time across which
any species of hominid (or, earlier, of prehominid primate) wasn't acquiring internal biological
divisions. At first, they were family-and-tribe types of distinctions; later they became large
enough to amount to racial differences; still later they became the cause of a fission of one
species into several. I said "significant period of time." In this sense, 5000 years (the length
of time between ancient Egypt and today) has only modest significance.

H. habilis (2.8 mya-1.8 mya) began the rise of primate brain size, reaching about 800 cc by the
time of the Habilis/Erectus threshhold.

H. erectus (1.8 mya-?) was probably a strongly racianated species when he appeared 1.8 mya, with
some variants (races) in Europe, others in Asia, in Africa, in Australia, and on some of the
islands of the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The reason I have put no closure date on the existence
of H. erectus is that his transition to H. sapiens occurred at different times in different parts
of the world, and because there is a possibility that H. erectus is not yet extinct.

In Europe, the Erectus/Sapiens threshhold was crossed about 800 kya. The resulting hominid was
not yet the modern White race; however the cranial capacity of a later erectus was comparable
with that of modern Blacks [1300 cc].

In Asia, the same threshhold was crossed about 300 kya, however Homo sapiens yoyoi would later
sustain hybridization with migrating groups of Euro-sapiens, resulting in a hybrid Asiatic that
eventually became the more lustrous, glossier, better-looking race that is today called "Asian."

In Africa, the same threshhold began about 30 kya, and may not be complete as yet.

Further, H. erectus might still exist as aboriginal hominds in Australia and in parts of the
Pacific Rim islands. Recently, in Indonesia, the remains of a dwarf race of erectus was found
and dated as recently as 18,000 years ago. They almost made it to our modern times, but not quite.

You may be sure that if some of these dwarves had been found living, every liberal on the planet
would insist that they be classified as Homo sapiens only-one-human-race-sapiens with dues fully
paid up and with membership in good standing. And our timorous endowment-dependent scientists
would oblige them with taxonomic haste.

All the evidence that had been used formerly to prove they were of a different species would be
creatively reinterpreted to prove the exact opposite, and the original scientific judgment would
disappear in true Orwellian memory-hole fashion. The only reason these hominids were recognized
for what they are, and correctly categorized, is that they are extinct and therefore have no
political utility to liberals.

About 40 kya, a biologically high grade of humans [brain capacity 1500+ cc] appeared. Their
advanced culture has left artifacts that indicate that many of the innovations usually credited
to the Middle Eastern civilizations actually were introduced in Europe many thousands of years
earlier. For example, pottery fragments from nearly 30 kya have been found in Eastern Europe
(Dolni Vestonice, Bohemia, once part of Austria-Hungary), whereas the earliest such fragments
in the Middle East are only 8000 years old. Their immediate descendants were the Nordic and
Aryan peoples, and with the advent of Cro-Magnon, the modern White race began.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 17, 2005 02:10 PM




Ron, no. Cro-Magnon was the first White race. Their breed is not in the negroid ancestral line.
It's in the Asian bloodline only because the Asians are prehistoric hybrids of Yoyoi Mongoloids
with Cro-Magnon's Caucasoid descendants.

There are still some Yoyoi in Asia - Cro-Magnon isn't in their line at all.

Amerindians are partly Yoyoi, too. Their ancestors got chased out of Asia by the hybridized Asiatics.
When they arrived in North America, they mixed with Whites who were already here, and at some point
there was a race war in which the mostly Yoyoi group defeated and exterminated the Whites.

Ten thousand years later, the White race returned to North America and turned the tables on the
Amerinds. More racial mixing occurred, and the Mestizos are the result. Now this hybrid is trying
to regain territory at White expense.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 18, 2005 12:36 AM




I don't know how I missed this, but I did.

Darby wrote, "Jerry Abbott...you seem to be relating equality to performance whereas life itself
is equality - we are all living."

Darby, consider this idea: All of the integers are equal because they are all numbers. Wrong, yes?

The equality of several things isn't implied by the fact that you can lump them together in a
category. That's basically why the beloved liberal slogan "We all bleed red" is nonsense.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 18, 2005 02:11 AM




Darby said: "As for inter-racial love and marriage Ron, please think in terms of the long series
of changes we have already come through - do you not see inter-marriage and procreation as just
another step in the evoluntary process? If it were not to be it would not be. The conflicts are
within our hearts only not with nature."

No, Darby. Evolution doesn't work that way. Nature does not recombine diversity; it sets them in
competition and the better replaces the worse. Its avoidance of recombination is why evolution
has shown a general, longterm trend toward higher life forms.

Liberals do not aim to help nature improve any breed. They have an ideological agenda in conflict
with nature's way, and they will insist on it no matter how much of nature's progress they destroy.

Darby said: "If our race or another physically diverse race were to become infirm and weak from
racial isolation (as you separatists wish to keep it), the weak would soon die off unless we
intermarried with a race having a wealth of life necessities we lack."

That's not true, either. Races are large enough gene pools that restricting of breeding to within
the race won't produce a significantly high proportion of defectives. What racial inbreeding will
do is avoid Mendellian mismatches (e.g., a large man with a small heart), which can happen when
racial crossing takes place.

Even close inbreeding (incest) weakens only when it isn't accompanied by culling, which is the
removal of defectives from the breeding stock by death or by sterilization.

Some degree of inbreeding is beneficial precisely because it causes the defective recessive genes
within a race to pair up and produce a defective offspring, which can then be culled. Whereas
outbreeding gives a normal distribution in the human quality of children, inbreeding tends to
give bimodal results: either a strikeout or a homerun, as opposed to a base hit. As the
generations roll by, the practice of inbreeding with culling gradually rids a race of defective
genes.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 18, 2005 09:51 AM




Jim Harris. What, in particular, did you want to talk about?

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 18, 2005 05:21 PM




Jim Harris, oh I see. You doubt that Caucasoids migrated to North America in the very ancient past
(prior to 10,000 years ago).

Skeletal remains of very ancient North American caucasoids have been discovered in various places:
Kennewick Man, Spirit Cave Man, Buhl Woman. They were here. But they lost their territory to the
Asiatic ancestors of the Amerindians.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 18, 2005 05:49 PM




Darby, you're right, except that racism isn't a "problem." It's a condition of our being given
us by our evolution as primates. Primates have two significant characteristics: (1) they are
specialized for intelligence as their main adaptive response to survival challenges, and (2) they
are tribal, whether they're babboons, gorillas, chimps, or hominids.

The significant characteristic of liberals, however, is that they deny reality in order to assert
their fantasies. A religious liberal, Joe Brandt, once said that all Whites were racists and that
only Whites could be racists. An irony encountered repeatedly by someone who must deal with liberals
is pointing out to them that they exhibit many of the traits that they profess to combat.

Universalist moral codes do not work well with intelligent, tribal creatures because such codes
offend the natural urges of their practitioners, who see more sense in beginning charity at home
than abroad, and who believe that one's own tribesmen should be preferred over strangers in both
love and war, etc.

Diverged races are not meant to recombine. Maybe one day, millions of years from now, perfected
nations will integrate themselves into a greater social structure. But when they do, the structure
will not require the sacrifice of the special nature of any race. There will be no thought of
mongrelization, which will be considered contrary to the purpose.

When cells gather to form an organism, they do not all become alike in function, do they? They
retain their specialties, yes? If they were to mongrolize, or otherwise become homogeneous in
nature, they could not perform together at the organism level.

The same will be true for nations, when in the distant future they are ready to be merged into
something greater than a nation ever could be - whatever that is. But this is a long way off.
Nations are not yet perfect enough for this kind of integration to be carried out, and what the
liberals are doing is pushing that time ever further away.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 19, 2005 08:45 AM




Jim Harris. My word, look at all those university degrees you have. You must have devoted many years
to educating yourself.

I've studied physics. I figured out (all by myself!) how to calculate elliptical and hyperbolic
transfer orbits, which I've been teaching on my website's "Racist Celestial Mechanics" pages.

But where anthropology is concerned, I look for expert opinion, while being alert for political
motives behind them. The commonest political motive to be wary of, nowadays, is the one that wishes
to trivialize the White race and downplay the impact of its role in making the civilized world.

Our educational system is infested with nonsense having its roots in that motive, which, as nearly
as I can tell, began with a crypto-Jew named Franz Boas about 1885.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 19, 2005 09:06 AM




Whups, my mistake. I can see that Boas only formalized the motive as a pseudoscience. It existed
beforehand as a political mania, as expressed in the French Revolutionary expression "Equalité,
Liberté, Fraternité" (1789).

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 19, 2005 09:14 AM





The long-held, Politically Correct belief that the earliest Americans were an Asiatic off-shoot
that crossed into North America via the Bering Ishmus has come into question and now appears to
be false. Evidence has been gathering that the original Americans were Whites, possibly descendants
of a sea-faring group of Cro-Magnons who landed on the Atlantic coasts of the Western continents
at least 15,000 years ago, and possibly much earlier.

Meanwhile, in Asia, White colonists moved into central and eastern Asia and intermarried with the
Mongoloids to produce a new hybrid race whose descendants today are the North Chinese and the
higher stocks among the Japanese. This hybrid Asian race began displacing the original Yoyoi
Mongoloid, and some groups of the latter fled across the Bering land bridge about 10,000 years ago.

Wave after wave of these "skraelings" ("ugly people," as the Vikings would later call them),
ousted from Asia, invaded North America and began a long, genocidal race-war in which the Whites
who had preceded them were overwhelmed by numbers, defeated, and mostly exterminated.

Traces of the ancient genocide can be found in the blood of some "Native American" tribes, who
possess genetic factors common to European peoples, but absent from Asians. The victorious early
Asiatic Amerinds, after killing the White men, took the White women as war-brides. Additional
evidence arises from "Indian" legends, many of which speak of a very ancient past when the cultural
level was higher and fair-skinned blond or red-haired men either taught them, or fought them.

But even better evidence has come recently from archaeology. Several corpses and skeletons of
White persons, preserved by natural or artificial means since prehistoric times, have been found
in recent years. They are sometimes at first mistaken for bodies of recent murder victims, or for
the remains of a White settler of the 18th or 19th century, and only discovered to be, say, ten
thousand years old after scientists have done a radiocarbon dating.

After the news of the corpse's age is made public, the local "Native American" associations
typically become politically activist against further scientific testing—in particular, to
determine the corpse's race through DNA analysis. They invoke the NAGPRA law (Native American
Grave Protection and Repatriation Act) to have the remains handed over to them for reburial.

(It would be wisdom on the part of physical anthropologists, therefore, to conduct DNA analysis
before releasing to the public the results of radiocarbon dating on any ancient Causasoid remains
that may be found in the future.)

The evident fact that Whites were first in North America and therefore have the prior claim to the
land—or, at least, that the Asiatic-derived "Native American" may not justly complain about losing
the rematch engagement to the White race—is one that the Indian tribes hope to conceal. The NAGPRA
law, though ostensibly enacted to protect the religious sensibilities of Amerinds, has become a
means by which the prior occupancy of North America by Whites can be hidden from the public and
shielded from scientific validation.

It is the usual methodology for a dishonest law to preempt the facts with presumptive declarations,
sometimes going so far as to attach legal penalties to any attempt to discover the truth or to any
expression of opinion in opposition to Political Correctness. The very existence of such laws
should at once arouse the suspicion of thoughtful people. The government of China, for example,
actively suppresses scientific inquiry into the likelihood of a prehistoric White genetic impetus
for subsequent Asian culture. Likewise, NAGPRA preemptively declares that all ancient human
remains found in North America are to be presumed by race to be Asiatic "Native American," even
in cases for which there is evidence that the remains are those of someone of other race.

While the corpse was thought to be at most only a few centuries old, the preliminary scientific
conclusion, based usually on skeletal dimensions and hair samples, that the remains are those of
a White person, were not challenged. Politically, the "Native American" groups have nothing to
lose by allowing the public to know that, now and then, an "Indian" got the better of a White
settler in 1820, when Whites were winning a race-war against the Redskins.

But they have everything to lose if it becomes widely known that there was a much earlier race-war
in which the Redskin was the aggressor and the original White inhabitants of North America were the
victims. How can the "Indians" complain about being the victims of a crime that they committed first?
(Without being laughed out of court, that is.) They can’t, and they know it. And they also know that
they are lying when they say that these ancient remains of dead Whites are those of their ancestors,
claimable under the NAGPRA law. Their motive is to prevent the truth from becoming known, so that
they can keep the "pity benefits" of a formerly oppressed, now politically favored group.

Whenever an ancient corpse of a White person turns up, such as Si-Te-Cah skeletons, Kennewick Man,
Spirit Cave Man, Wizards Beach Man, Buhl Woman, or Saulk Valley Man, the discovery threatens a
well-established system of Amerindian vested interests.

Politics notwithstanding, the Asiatic migrants across the Bering land bridge probably weren't the
first humans to inhabit America. Before they came, Whites had already arrived: some by the same
route, others by boat via Greenland into Newfoundland and Quebec, thence down the eastern coast
of North America and inward via the St. Lawrence passage and the Great Lakes.

The technique of carving arrowheads and spear points on both sides began with the Solutrean culture
of northwestern Europe and was brought to North America by Whites.

Some of the "Native American" tribes in the eastern part of the continent were markedly more
fair-skinned than their neighbors—for example, the Iroquois—evidence of a surviving White population
having gone native after absorbing some Asiatic genes, or of an Asiatic Amerind tribe having
bettered itself through a very large absorption of White genes.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 19, 2005 10:22 AM




A comment on the Hawking essay. He assumes you're familiar with his terms, whereas most people
aren't. QCD (for example) means Quantum Chromodynamics, which is the study of quarks and the strong
nuclear force. Hawking was making the point that the existence of life depends on the existence of
carbon, which depends on the existence of protons and neutrons, which depends on the existence of
the right kind of quarks to make protons and neutrons.

He also left out steps in the very early history of the universe. He did that because he assumed
you were familiar with the story in greater detail than he was presenting it. In the first instant
of creation, all was pure radiation: photons, mostly with energies above the electron positron pair
production threshhold of 1 MeV.

The first non-photon ("fermion") particles to appear were quarks and leptons. A lepton is any
subatomic particle that is not made from quarks. Electrons and neutrinos are leptons. Protons and
neutrons are made of quarks, so they are not leptons. Back in these early times the strong nuclear
force and the electromagnetic force were strongly coupled, as electricity and magnetism still are
coupled today. A change in the field of one force could induce changes in the field of the other.
(Whether these couplings temporarily made possible non-lightlike forms of radiation is a question
to which I do not know the answer.)

Anyway, the quarks joined into the "color" associations proper for protons, neutrons, and various
mesons. Once joined, they were held together by the strong nuclear force. The association of the
three quarks in a proton caused an entirely new phenomenon in the universe. The property of
protonness does not exist in any of the individual quarks, not even in part. The proton is the
envelope of the association of the trio of quarks. A proton is an "emergent property," and protons
were the very first case of an emergent property in our universe.

When the universe cooled off enough for electrons to join with protons and proton-neutron clumps,
neutral atoms appeared. Neutral atoms are a higher layer of emergent property, resting on the
foundation of the previously emerged property of protons and neutrons. With the neutral atoms came
into being all the chemical properties of their elements.

The number of the elements would grow after stars had generated heavier atoms in their interiors
through nucleosynthesis and scattered them into space when they exploded as supernovae. A lot of
that heavier stuff was carbon. The proliferation of elements made molecular chemistry possible -
yet another emergent property.

You see how it went. Emergent properties piled layer on top of layer, and eventually there was life,
and awareness, and consciousness, and philosophy.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 19, 2005 02:23 PM




On the contrary, Elizabeth. Racial philosophy and peripherally associated truths have been ignored
and denied for so long that the awakening to them will be something of a novelty. Maybe you're one
of those people who needs theme music. I suggest that you again read all of my posts, except this
time while listening to Paul Ruskay's ethereal music for HOMEWORLD MISSION 1: KHARAK SYSTEM.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 20, 2005 08:40 AM




I expect that Jim Thorpe and Jesse Owens are probably too old now to be seriously considered as
firemen. You were probably trying to imply that every Injun runs like Thorpe and every Black like
Owens. You know better.

When liberals compare races, they always look for the best of the non-Whites, but for only
run-of-the-mill Whites.

A social scientist named Otto Kleinberg (yes, he was a Jew) did something like that when he compared
racial IQ test scores. He searched every county in the USA and found the ones in which Blacks scored
highest. He searched again and found the counties in which Whites scored lowest. He gave these
sample data due consideration and pronounced that he didn't see any "IQ test score gap."

Once Kleinberg's fraudulent methodology became known, it acquired his name; it's called "the
Kleinberg twist."

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 20, 2005 03:42 PM




Curt Dalton: "In the course of my 51 years I have had loving and comitted relationships with white,
asian, black and hispanic women."

Committed usually means lifelong relationship, commonly involving marriage. Curt appears to have had
at least as many women as Jim Harris has university degrees.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 20, 2005 04:35 PM




Read my posts. Go ahead; they're up there. As you read them, ask yourself whether I lack education
or whether my posts lack "substance," as anon and STEVEN just now have charged. When you're finished,
ask yourself why they said what they did about me. THESE ARE LIBERALS, and THAT is what liberals do.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 21, 2005 06:57 PM




Ron Stevens said: "One the other hand, I saw nothing in Jerry's posts that warrented Jim Harris
pinning that former white civilization to the Vikings. In fact, I don't think it really is known
where Kenewick man came from. Only that he is 18,000 years old, or so, and is Caucasian. I don't
see how the Kenewick man evidence can be explained away as belonging to Vikings."

Kennewick man is only about 10,000 years old. The technique of carving arrowheads and spear points
flaked on both sides began in Europe with the Solutrean Culture about 18,000 years ago. It was
probably brought to the Americas by the original White migrations here.

Curt Dalton said: "I find your posts to be tedious to the point of nausea. Like a politician, you
choose to use five thousand words to answer a question when a simple reply will do. Further, you
choose to ignore valid arguments made by others when it doesn't conform to your point of view or
could cause you to be viewed in an unfavorable light. eg: my reference to genocide done in the name
of racial purity."

You find my writing tedious? I doubt it. What you've been reading are compacted and abridged essays
that I wrote using some of the questions directed at me as a takeoff point. They might be more than
you expected, but I'm not speaking to you alone.

I'd rather answer some questions well than all of them poorly, and one of the ways liberals (and
sundry) distract racists in debates is by rapid proliferation of questions, ask the next before the
previous has been answered, pile it on, get the racist to turn this way, then that way, and make
him look like a spinning top. So I pick the questions that please me most, and I answer those.

So...genocide in the name of racial purity? No. Isolation, exclusive living space, in the name of
racial purity. Genocide only as a response to a threat of genocide, or in retaliation for an attempted
genocide. The White race should put all others on notice that we will fight as dirty as they do.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 22, 2005 07:59 AM




Curt Dalton said, "Your dismissal of past genocide as a response to a threat of genocide is
intellectually shallow."

No, it isn't. Self-defense is never shallow. And it's never unreasonable to treat an enemy as he
tried to treat you.

Curt said: "One cannot seriously rationalize the death of millions by implying those who
orchestrated the genocide were threatened themselves."

I could, if those millions were a similar threat to other millions.

Curt went off-topic to say, "Hitler threatened by Jews, gypsy's, and homosexuals? Hardly. He and
his ilk used racial differences to ferment distrust and violence against those who were 'different'
and the result is (sadly) history. He did it not to further a eugenic model for racial purity he
did it for the political power afforded him. His goal was domination of the world. Period."

Wrong. Standard gobbledegook about Hitler, but laughably wrong. Hitler was a German nationalist who
saw his nation being used as cash-cows by Jewish bankers, being ensnared by Jewish prostitution
rings, brainwashed by Jewish media barons, and threatened with conquest by Jewish communists.

Hitler insisted that the Germans have their own living space and determine their own destiny,
without being ridden by Jewish high finance. What started WW2 is the same thing, more or less, as
what started the American Civil War: Jewish bankers were unwilling to let a large market remain
free of their network. If the bankers couldn't have used slavery to fan the flames of war, they'd
have found some other pretext.

Hitler had a reasonable chance at conquering Europe. He had no chance whatever at conquering the
USSR, China, or the Americas. The very idea that he was out to "conquer the world" is ridiculous.
Hitler wanted exactly what he said he wanted: a country with adequate living space for the German
people.

We are about to go way off topic. I can debate you on this issue, but we will clutter this forum much
more greatly than it has been already.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 22, 2005 12:24 PM




Curt Dalton, I propose that we debate Hitler's purposes and motives, and the reasons behind World
War 2, on the VNN "Opposition Forum," rather than here:

http://www.vnnforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 22, 2005 12:28 PM




Curt Dalton said: "To the uneducated, your glib use of the English language..."

You mean my skilled use of the English language. Glib is an unwarranted pejorative.

Curt said: "...and parroting of your interpretation of 'science' gleaned from internet web sites..."

I have worked professionally as a physicist. I do sometimes get science information from websites;
of course, I'd be foolish not to use the Internet as a resource, wouldn't I?

Curt said, "...may sound convincing..."

If I sound convincing, it's probably because I'm right.

Curt said, "...however, your deliberate ignoring of valid arguments..."

When I have many arguments to make, I make the ones that interest me most, first.

Curt said, "I have attempted to have a well reasoned discussion without getting dragged into the
abyss of personal prejudices..."

I have challenged you to debate me on the VNN Forum, where you may post all the "well reasoned
arguments" that you believe you have. Again, the URL is

http://www.vnnforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7

You have not appeared there to accept my challenge. When I see a thread begun by "Curt Dalton"
(register your name), I'll engage you in debate. VNN is much more suited to this kind of thing
than this linear thread is.

Curt said, "...by those who feel their superiority over others of different color skin, ethnicity,
or religion..."

The proper word is "race." Some races are superior to other races in certain respects. That's a fact
which I'm prepared to debate with you on VNN. So register your name there, and let's have at it.

Curt said, "...but I have come to the conclusion that having a discussion about racism with a racist
is no more fruitful than trying to teach a pig to sing The Barber of Seville..."

Remember, I was once a liberal who espoused the theory of racial equality. I became a racist as the
result of being beaten in argument. An honest person does not believes as he wishes, but as he can.

Liberals are people who begin with the proposition that "what is" MUST be "what is fair." That is,
they judge reality not by their senses and reason, but by their moral convictions. Whether you are
a liberal or not, that's what you're doing when you presume that the races are equal and that the
only differences between them are trival and cosmetic.

But nature was not constrained by your notions of fairplay. Nature was not required to limit racial
diffences to those that wouldn't have bothered you.

Anyway, you have my challenge to debate on VNN. Accept, and I'll engage you in argument.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 23, 2005 09:46 AM




Audry, your post was mostly a game of mischaracterization, a false assignment of the motives of
racists that are convenient for you, and an attempt to preempt debate by declaring what its
conclusion must be.

For example, you said, "They are asking that we understand if not agree with the motives of one of
the greatest monsters of all time, Adolph Hitler. It is only a matter of time before they start
reeducating us on why the holocost is just a figment of Jewish imagination."

The first mention of Hitler was made by Darby (June 13, 2005 12:20 PM), not by any of the racists.
The second reference to Hitler was made by Curt Dalton (June 15, 2005 04:45 AM), who is also not
one of the racists. It seems likely that mentioning Hitler was a means of getting the discussion
sidetracked from whether it is proper for a newspaper to publish racist letters. There is an internet
convention that the first side to bring up Hitler/Nazis in order to create just such a diversion has
lost the debate.

You preempt debate by declaring that Adolf Hitler was a monster, rather than a German statesman
trying to save his nation. You preempt debate by delaring that the Holocaust was "real," when, in
fact, it might not be.

So I extend to you the challenge that I've made to Curt Dalton. Go register on VNN under the name
Audry Baker. The opposition forum can be found at

http://www.vnnforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7

Say what you wish about Hitler being monstrous, and why you think so. Make whatever arguments you
like about the Holocaust being a historical fact. When your thread appears there, I will engage
you in debate.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 23, 2005 10:11 AM




Jim Harris is the one who claimed a string of university degrees (June 18, 2005 04:59 PM). Curt
Dalton was confused with him by a careless mistake.

This long linear thread is a poor format for a debate of racial politics and the Jewish Question.
Such debates form side-debates rather easily, and thus a forum such as VNN's Opposition Forum would
have a more ideal format.

I can readily appreciate that Curt Dalton might feel "outgunned" there, with all those racists
frequently reading and writing. Unfortunately, there are no major non-racist forums that will permit
both sides of such debates to appear without imposing strong restrictions on what the racists may say.

The racists do not mirror that behavior because they easily and routinely defeat the arguments of
racial equalitarians and philosemites.

On VNN, Curt Dalton would not be censored for any well reasoned argument he might make, no matter
how "politically correct," and no matter how much the forum moderators disagreed with his opinion.

Yes, he'd be outgunned. But, worse for him, I wouldn't need anybody's help to win.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 24, 2005 05:36 PM




A forum isn't suitable unless it permits the racist to argue that...

1. Blacks are generally more violent and less intelligent than Whites due to genetic causes.

2. The "Nazi Homicidal Gas Chambers" didn't exist and Hitler had no extermination program for Jews.

3. Jews have occasionally engaged in ritual murder, with White children and young women being their
favorite choice of victim.

4. The Mexicans are waging war on White Americans, with an aim to take our land in the southwestern
United States, and the US government is complicit in massive treason.

5. There is a Jewish conspiracy to rule the world, the aims of which the American Civil War and both
World Wars, the establishment of both Soviet Communism and Zionism, the Jewish control of the media,
and the international hegemony of Jewish high finance and their impositions on the money systems of
developed countries (e.g. the Federal Reserve) were intended to further.

As I say, a forum that doesn't permit a full exploration of all those subjects, at least, is not
suitable for a debate between Curt Dalton or Audry Baker and myself. That rules out Indymedia and
ePhilosopher and nearly every other forum host that pretends (falsely) to be an outlet for
"alternative" viewpoints - outside the mainstream - or to impartiality in these subjects of debate.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 24, 2005 05:55 PM




Darby was probably speaking out upon reflex. She didn't realize that her remark, "What you posit here
in this last message has nothing of rationality or veracity attached," is an unsubstantiated claim -
though, obviously, that's what it is.

I was announcing my willingness to debate, but stating my minimum requirements in regard to forum
content policy. I won't debate where my ideas have been a priori judged out-of-bounds and denied
expression.

I'd rather not continue debate here, despite the unusual generosity of this host in permitting
race-related discussion from a racist point of view. The reason is this thread is linear, and it has
become long. Page loading time is getting to be a problem.

It might be better if the columns were twice as wide as they are. It'd be much better if this single
thread were converted to a forum of several threads.

Anyway, I like to debate, but I don't like waiting while long pages load in my browser.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 24, 2005 08:15 PM




Ron said: "I think that what you wanted to emphasize is that you are unwilling to debate the relative
truth of his ideas versus yours, because you value 'love' over 'truth' to the extent that you would be
willing to allow yourself to believe a lie, insofar as it seems to be a more loving lie than his
possible truth."

Science puts truth at the top of its hierarchy of values.

National Socialism puts life's upward struggle first, truth second, and holds that it is a moral error
to insist that the truth prevail though all the world die as a consequence. Why? Truth has no value to
the dead. A technical truth that wrecks the world is a truth that the world is not yet ready to hear.

Love is important, but it is important because it serves life. Life is a value higher than love for
the same reason it is higher than truth.

See? Now we're into moral philosophy, which is something else we could better discuss somewhere else.

Posted by: Jerry Abbott | June 26, 2005 02:33 PM