|
|
|
Peruvian Mummy Presents Need for A Discovery Channel Special Reuters reports that:
Of course we can rid ourselves of this nuisance the same way the Discovery Channel managed to turn this:
Into this:
Clue: Guess which of the above two renderings of Nefertiti was done based on the mummy of a man? (There has been no retraction.) Doing a Google search for “nefertiti” yields 3 images of the Egyptian queen as the first results, two of which are one of the above images—guess which Google (“making the world’s knowledge available”) chose as most representative of Nefertiti? Comments:2
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:37 | # The reliability of anthropological/forensic facial-reconstruction-from-skulls badly needs to be put to the test by doing several dozen or so blind facial reconstructions on skulls of people of whom photos (or at least very realistic/true-to-life drawings or paintings) at the age of death are available for comparison. Look at these totally different faces reconstructed from King Tut’s skull: this science’s reliability is questionable (and, as goes without saying, is fatally compromised by politics in ways that are obvious). 3
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:24 | # Further to “Fr. John’s” comment: Christianity’s problem getting race right will be fatal for it. Christianity does not mandate race but permits it. (In fact, it may actually mandate it but that’s less obvious to me than that it permits it.) It permits it but neither the Catholics nor the mainstream Prods will acknowledge this openly: the Christian hierarchy today says (or implies) it doesn’t permit it. That right there — that failure to openly acknowledge this in an age of genocidal crisis, or to actually come out and say or imply the opposite — is collusion in genocide: the Pope, the Vatican Curia, and the Archbishop of Canterbury are guilty of methodically colluding in, aiding and abetting genocide and in a just world would all be arrested and prosecuted on capital charges. Human-chimp hybrids are probably possible: hybrids of less-closely-related species occur in several genera, including hybrids in nature. If the day comes when human-chimp hybrids are walking around, we can be certain a Ziv-style Jew will call on Euro women to bear their babies in place of Euro babies, we can be certain the entire Jewish community will back the future Ziv-clone up, and we can be certain the Vatican will follow suit, warmly welcoming race-replacement by human-chimp hybrids and condemning opposition to it as unchristian “hate.” Can a religion that behaves like that be the right religion for Euros? To ask the question is to answer it. I don’t know if Christianity can be saved but in order for that to come about the homosexuals, degenerates, and feebleminds running Christianity today will have to address race appropriately. No race, no Christianity: if these incompetents can’t get race right there’ll be no more Christianity. Addressing race appropriately dosen’t signify being mean or unchristian toward any race, any more than addressing private property appropriately signifies being mean or unchristian toward any class. This is something the homo sodomites running the Vatican can’t seem to grasp. 4
Posted by Robert Reis on Sun, 31 Aug 2008 20:47 | # http://www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/News/Article.aspx?id=823710 Blacks, whites and Asians have different ape ancestors - and did not come from Africa, claims scientist ———————————————————————————————————————— ON THE ROAD: Controversial geographer and explorer Akhil Bakshi (right) and team geologist Trilochan Singh (in the vehicle) pose with an unnamed man in this photo taken during their Gondwanaland Expedition in 2006 ‘Some of my points may prove to be wrong’
In a paper widely trumpeted and due for release in book form, Akhil Bakshi, the leader of a major 2006 scientific expedition supported by India’s prime minister, claims that “Negroid”, “Caucasian” and “Mongoloid” peoples are not only separate races but separate species, having evolved on different continents. Responding to the bizarre claims — developed while Bakshi led the Gondwanaland expedition from India to South Africa — Professor Lee Berger, a leading palaeoanthropologist at the University of the Witwatersrand, said that, biologically, there were no fundamental differences between the races and that all humans had the same genetic and physical roots in Africa. The prevalent scientific theory of modern humans — the “Out of Africa” model, supported by an ever-increasing body of fossil and DNA evidence — is that they left Africa just 65000 years ago and replaced the last remnants of other ancient hominids living in Europe, Asia and elsewhere. Berger said of Bakshi’s assertion: “Not only is this grossly wrong, but I challenge anyone to define race biologically. Race is a cultural construct.
The old biological racial distinctions of “Caucasian”, “Negroid” and “Mongoloid” have recently been abandoned by mainstream scientists — removed, for instance, from the US National Library of Medicine in 2003.
Hominids encompass all humans and the ancient family of human-like ancestors, including large-brained ancient apes and unsuccessful species such as Neanderthals. However, Bakshi — who has no training as an anthropologist — has linked to this model a theory that these populations evolved according to the genetic material left behind when the prehistoric supercontinents, the northern Laurasia and the southern Gondwanaland, broke up. An influential figure in India, Bakshi is also a filmmaker and author who has led four major scientific expeditions since 1994. Bakshi admitted to the Sunday Times that “some of my points may prove to be wrong, and may be seen as politically incorrect.
Whites, according to Bakshi, are from Laurasia and blacks are from Gondwanaland. He argues that, 60000 years ago, humans could not have crossed vast oceans and deserts to reach remote places like Australia and North America, and they must therefore have evolved there. However, Berger pointed out that even horse species — including all modern zebras and donkeys — achieved a similar feat: evolving exclusively in North America and then, pushed by population growth and taking advantage of lower sea levels, crossing to Asia and, eventually, Africa. Legendary expert Professor Phillip Tobias said he was “astonished” that Bakshi had sought to distribute his paper widely as a press release. “His is a highly confused argument which jumps enormous levels, which are quite impossible to link,” Tobias said. However, he added that the true picture of modern humanity’s precise departure from Africa was far from clear- cut, since “the human family, albeit first cradled in Africa, has been going forth from Africa intermittently for over two million years, although modern human features first appear in Africa and the Middle East a few hundred thousand years ago”.
—oO Article End Oo— 5
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 31 Aug 2008 22:34 | # West African Negroes and Euros are anatomically, histologically, biochemically, physiologically, genetically, epidemiologically, psychologically, and behaviorally more than sufficiently different to qualify as distinct species. And that’s exactly what they are: distinct species. Whether or not they qualified as distinct species was still not universally agreed-upon — both sides of the question had their prominent partisans — when Franz Boas erupted on the scene pushed by the Jewish Press and other Jewish backing (the Jewish New York Times, as part of the two-millennia-and-counting Jewish War Against Euros, devoted huge two-page centerfold spreads to propagandizing for Boas’s denial of the existence of race and of inherited differences between human groups as early as something like 1910) and what followed was an extremely energetic Jewish-funded-and-pushed drive to deny there were different races let alone different human species, and the notion there were different human species fell by the wayside for a hundred years. It’s time it was revived: all truth fallen into obscurity must be revived sooner or later. 6
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 31 Aug 2008 22:41 | # In any other genus, differences of this magnitude would be labeled different species, not different races. Notice that different species assignation by itself in no way implies “inferiority” or “superiority.” It signifies only difference. 7
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 01 Sep 2008 00:23 | # You have to wonder how someone like GnXp.com’s race-denying blogger DavidB can read an excerpt like the following and continue merrily to deny race like a mentally-retarded extended phenotype:
8
Posted by silver on Mon, 01 Sep 2008 04:55 | # When you consider that David. B is probably reacting against ideas like West African Negroes and Euros are anatomically, histologically, biochemically, physiologically, genetically, epidemiologically, psychologically, and behaviorally more than sufficiently different to qualify as distinct species. And that’s exactly what they are: distinct species it’s not a “wonder” at all. This from a guy who was a communist sympathiser. And he accuses me of lurching wildly. Fred, maybe one day you’ll realize what a screwball you were being. Forget WN, if mere race-realism fails to get traction maybe you’ll recall making the above sort of statements the way you recall your conversation with your Vietnamese friend. (Ca c’est revoltant! Ca c’est revoltant! Tu ne vois pas ca!?) 9
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 01 Sep 2008 05:33 | # “Screwball”? Proposing improvements in taxonomic accuracy is being a screwball? “Revolting”? You’re revolted by distinct species? It revolts you that we and Neanderthals are distinct species, or that grizzly bears and polar bears, chimpanzees and gorillas, Emperor penguins and Adélie penguins, wolves and coyotes, white rhinos and black rhinos, Indian elephants and African elephants, Blue whales and Minke whales, brook trout and lake trout, tiger sharks and bull sharks, Ivory-Blled Woodpeckers and Imperial Woodpeckers, sugar maple and Norway maple, and white oak and pin oak are distinct species? Why do you say David B is reacting against the distinct species claim when he’s never addressed that but is denying distinct races?
I said you were not straighforward; you were devious; you were hiding something, not arguing in good faith. I still say it, more now than ever, in fact: you’re getting worse, not better. Are you ready to admit you were “Peter North” yet? 10
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 01 Sep 2008 05:58 | # And yes, I was in important ways (not all) a communist sympathiser; I remember also being very much in favor of the races mixing as the solution of the race problem. I believed the Holocaust lie, loathed the Nazis, had a very high opinion of Roosevelt and Churchill (almost on the order of worship), thought the reason people disliked Jews was because the Jews had “killed Christ,” and other things I know now to be false or wrong. I first became aware that immigration was a problem in October, 2000, when I discovered Vdare.com, a discovery that changed my life (partly because Steve Sailer was part of that discovery). I figured out over the succeeding year or two or three that race-replacement was the explicit goal of the ones ultimately pulling the immigration/open-borders strings. I only figured out recently it was the U.S. that was imposing race-replacement on the rest of the Eurosphere; prior to that, for a few years I kept trying in vain to figure out how it was that every single Eurosphere country had independently come up with an auto-genocide-through-race-replacement policy. Like everyone else, I learn as I go. 11
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 01 Sep 2008 06:06 | # I first realized Negroes were a distinct species, not a distinct race, something like a year ago, maybe two. As far as I know I’m the only one on the internet who thinks that. 12
Posted by silver on Mon, 01 Sep 2008 06:14 | #
For fear of what such might lead to, obviously. (And I didn’t say he is; I suspected it.) I could at this point level the accusation of deviousness, of cunning, of not being in good faith at you, because no one, and I mean no one, could possibly be so ignorant of the prevailing climate of extreme aversion to giving any sort of racial offense to profess amazement that anyone could have trouble with an innocent little exercise in improving “taxonomic accuracy.” As for “Peter North,” for the last time, no. This is the last time I’ll address anything related to my person. Grow up and debate ideas, not personalities. Either a point which stands on its own makes sense or it doesn’t; deciding whether it does should be your sole concern. I could be old man Foxman himself and the same would hold. I know it sounds silly to be lecturing you on ad hominen fallacy, but you might have been unaware that you’re engaging in it—you are. 13
Posted by silver on Mon, 01 Sep 2008 09:03 | #
Didn’t you say you were Clinton’s age? So you spent, what, the first 50 or so years of your life an anti-racist, an a-racial, what? In contrast, I knew “race matters” from the age of, oh, six. I didn’t know quite how much it matters, but I was under no illusion that it doesn’t matter at all. I’d formed a crude conceptual template for analysing facial differences between the people inhabiting my world, “Australians” (anglos), Italians, Greeks, “Yugoslavs” (whom I was raised to believe were one people, apart from gypsies), by ten. Apart from Serbian, I’m also partly of Greek origin, and much of my childhood was spent analysing how I differed from both groups. I was also keenly interested in history from the earliest, and if someone had told me that an ideology had existed to intended to privilege my kind, I would have wished to know as much about it as I could, and, I think, I would have been prone to agree with much of it, disagreeing with aspects of how such played out (conquest, killing, gassings), but I doubt I’d have ever developed a knee-jerk revulsion of it. As it was, that ideology didn’t privilege my kind at all; it conquered it and executed parts of it (father lost two uncles, mother’s side many more). And I grew up alongside those whom the ideology was said to privilege, despite their waging a war against it. So I grew up with a very Jewish view of race: it matters a hell of a lot, but it’d be very nice if we all agreed it shouldn’t matter much (which was the stance until only recent times, when “much” became “at all”). I can recall the first time I heard of David Irving, though I’m not sure of the date (‘92, ‘94?). He had been denied entry to Australia and was being interviewed by satellite. I knew about the holocaust from television and my own reading, but had never been taught anything about it in school. My very first reaction to the Irving interview was being gripped by fear: people are denying it happened? What if people became convinced it never happened, holy shit, it could happen all over again! I developed extreme sensitivity to discussing WWII with what I thought of as “whites” (anglos, germanics). Any ambivalence about Allied righteousness was treated with extreme suspicion by me. When I was nineteen I was having a coffee with a bouncer friend of mine, who was sharing some stories of incidents at the club. The conversation somehow turned to WWII, and he casually informed me that his grandfather had fought in the wehrmacht, and that his family still kept a wehrmacht uniform at their home. My mind went numb. As far I was concerned, the kid was a fully blown nazi. Why would he be telling me this, I was asking myself. Obviously (look at me!) I could not possibly sympathise with the wehrmacht or with the descendants of one who fought in it. I quickly wound up the conversation and avoided him from then on. Throughout the 90s I increasingly realized immigration, which is to say “race,” was becoming a problem. On the one hand I welcomed it, since Indians and Asians (worlds more alien than I was) distracting Anglos’ attention meant I’d be left alone, but it was getting ridiculous—churches I’d gone to as a kid were now island in the middle of a sea of asians. But how can you discuss it without feeding the nazis? I wanted to scream from the roofs about Muslims, but… the nazis. In late 2000 I had the idea to look up David Irving on the net. I wanted to know just what sort of a freak could possibly deny the holocaust. He had put up transcripts of his libel suit and I began reading them. To my great shock the man made a great deal of sense. Despite my every impulse to cheer on Richard Rampton’s interrogation, I was struck by the clarity of Irving’s responses. Obviously I had not been presented with the entire truth, I thought. But surely the basic contours of what I had been taught were right. So experts might squabble over the details, but that can’t require rewriting the entire history of the conflict, can it? Now, I knew from the Balkans conflict that there was more than one side to a story, and that goodies and baddies existed only in fairytales. My confidence in both the liberal order and, most naively, the civilization I thought I had been living in, had also been shaken by the west’s support of the Muslims. (Wha..? How…? Bu… I was quite speechless. They’re fucking Muslims! We’re (Australia, Europe, America) supposed to be Christians.) So I had learnt to be suspicious of “official” sources. And here was David Irving giving me every reason to be suspicious of official sources on an issue I wanted more than anything official sources to be right about. I put it all aside and threw myself at my work until 9.11 happened. To my relief, Bush got it right and went after the Muslims. Liberals yelped and apologized for the Muslims, but I was prepared for it this time. Even better, the net provided me with resources I’d never had access to, like Koran quotes, with which I bashed those damn liberals senseless. Then I heard whisperings about neo-nazis allying themselves with muslims. These nazis are insane, I thought. I knew they hated non-whites so I was intrigued to find out on what basis they were teaming up with them. I recalled a bizarre conversation I’d had with a German bartender one night a few years back. Some Lebanese friends and I had walked in before opening to see a friend. They chatted with him at the bar while I took at a seat at a table to wait. Another bartender who knew my friends came and introduced himself to me and sat down. I can’t remember how he introduced the topic, but he told me he was German and how he hated the jews. He didn’t look very German to me, sort of a Michael Ballack with ponytail, but I took him at his word. Why was he telling me I wondered? On hearing about the nazi-muslim connection, I thought back to the incident and that perhaps the guy thought I was muslim too, like the friends I was with. So I did some searching and found Stormfront. All completely nuts, I thought. But it had sewn a seed of curiousity. Soon after my work took me to America. And there every belief I’d held about race—that it mattered but could be made not to matter—was thrust into severe doubt. Blacks everywhere; Mexicans everywhere; it was all so alienating. I stuck to the white parts of town and for the first time felt like I had something racially in common with whites. My main concern remained Islam and I was growing frustrated at the mainstream commentary on it. The only people properly discussing it were those that frightened the pants off me, but they were mixing all this nutty nonsense about “jews” into it—nutty, but not completely nutty, and something kept drawing me back to learn more. I then discovered IHR and the first gnawing sense that something would turn out to be very, very wrong, shockingly, astoundingly wrong with what I’d always thought about the war grew in me, but I was still glad it was being buried, and I had more pressing problems with the muslims to worry about. My desperate search for anyone that would take Muslims seriously eventually brought me to Vdare, and despite the clear “white” undertones of everything being discussed, I kept reading. By 2005, Sailer had convinced me that heredity was more or less true but I still didn’t quite grasp its importance going forward. My searches had also often led to Amren. Reading Amren was almost surreal. It was all seemed so tightly argued, but there had to be a catch, since racism, as we all know, is wrong. I put it aside. I found Jihadwatch and Frontpage. Finally, some straight talk. All through 2005 I was talking muslims, muslims, muslims. But that heredity stuff, Amren, race, eugenics, I couldn’t stop going back to it. By the end of the year I figured it was all true, but what can you do about it? And we had more pressing problems to worry about first. Immigration, it now went without saying, simply had to be ended, no matter my personal feelings of vulnerability on that point. In early 2006 Mark Steyn wrote a piece on European birthrates, which Larry Auster took him to task over for neglecting to mention immigration. I had red some Auster on Frontpage before that. I agreed with him, but felt he was too “extreme.” It did occur to me, though, that Robert Spencer, for all his cogent analysis, never really suggested doing anything about Muslims. Auster did, but, operating under the liberal paradigm, I felt it was a little too much. But I kept reading him. And then, early in 2006, I experienced the most numbing realization I had until that point: no one in power cares or is even aware. Somehow, stupidly, incredibly naively, I thought “conservatives” were aware of what was going on and would “do something” about it, that we were in safe hands, if only we could keep the liberals out of power. (I still hadn’t realized the ultimate importance of race, of course.) With the depressing thought that no respite was in the offing, I ventured farther into forbidden territory. I reread every Amren, every Occ. Quaterly, every Liberty Bell, every IHR journal, every American Dissident Voices, Revilo, Gobineau, Rockwell, Culture of Critique, Mein Kampf, My Awakening. Shit. The world was nothing like what I thought (or hoped). I became a “race-realist,” western culturalist, strict immigration restrictionist and eugenicist, which are the only honest alternatives for one whose race precludes being a WN. Those were sane, safe and moral positions to hold, I thought, and I advanced them at every opportunity for the next year. Then I found Majority Rights and, more than any other’s, Fred Scrooby’s revolting commentary. That sort of talk is not what I wanted society to become seized by. Again, shit. Time to reevaluate. Maybe I’d bitten off too much. Just what cat was I letting out of the bag with my loose talk? Shit, shit, shit. And then, at some point, late last year, what should have been the most obvious observation, finally made sense to me: without separation, all will eventually mix; not if, when. It became about more than just me, my concerns, my petty concerns. It became about ultimate concerns, ultimate concerns for all of us, regardless of who we are. Then, over the past few months, it’s all become quite easy. I’ve achieved clarity, pure clarity. Scrooby, Desmond, Rienzi, Cap, you can snipe at me all you like. I don’t require your approval. You don’t stand above me. It’s you who need to rise to my level, not me to yours. 14
Posted by comradeseeker on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 02:05 | # silver, for what it’s worth, i think you’re about the only one here who’s not a reactionary, or stuck in the weird conversative mindset about what must be done for our shared problem. you handle the attacks well, you come from a different place than these guys and you’re to be commended. to be blathering the same type of rhetoric for decades while watching your way of life and progeny disappear should be some type of indication that the thought process as to how to extricate one’s extended phenotype is marred. it’d be an honor to meet you someday. 16
Posted by Catfish LeRoy on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:44 | # I dunno—I read this fantastic site a lot and rarely post. (There are plenty of people smarter than I am around here and someone usually beats me to the punch.) The “Scroobster” is pretty good, IMHO, although he can definitely go off at times, fluctuating between genuinely persuasive, well-reasoned observations and cringe-worthy, credulous hysterics. All-in-all though, I like the guy, even though I wouldn’t want him to be “The Movement’s” PR-man and Public Face. (Sorry Fred…otherwise you rock.) I have enjoyed most of your posts as well, silver, and I wish some of you guys would bury the hatchet more. Being on the margins of the political spectrum makes for some, shall we say (?), “less than edifying” disputations. But this is part and parcel of where we are. As a motley collection of high-IQ White males legitimately angry over our impending dissolution as a people and civilization, sparks often fly and good judgement and measured prose tend to go out the window. I think that this is a part of our evolution. MR is (optimistically) a recruiting-tool at best. We have to find a way to discuss issues and strategies among ourselves in such a way that even onlookers of other races will not be put-off by the legitimate (but ugly) anger that is endemic to our position. We have to inform and advertise at the same time, and that is no easy task considering our perspective vis-a-vis society-at-large. Even Alex Linder, heir to the legacy of Julius Streicher, is trying to clean-up VNN of the most egregious and stubbornly-TARDacious elements. The MR crew must do the same—up to our standards—where the potential is doubtless greater than VNN. GuessedWorker is, as far as I have seen, always a gentleman. He often has to play bartender to the cyber-equivalent of rowdy, drunken ‘tards. (Removing disruptive and hostile outsiders, most of the time.) We should all take his example and try to maintain a higher level of discourse. Intellectually we are there, but emotionally and interpersonally we often fall short. That has a big effect on onlookers. There’s nothing our Marxist and One-Worlder enemies hate more than intelligent White men discussing White interests in calm, measured, and precise terms. It’s so much easier for them if we are a cussing, raging rabble that fits nicely into their meta-narrative of angry, bitter losers. We shouldn’t make their job easy when a little restraint would go a long way. 17
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:39 | #
Hey wait Catfish, if you can make that a firm job offer I promise to clean up my act! 18
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:59 | # Why don’t you participate more in the threads, Catfish? Your views on things would certainly be of interest. (Between beers, that is ....) 19
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:16 | #
“Recruiting” onlookers who get the fantods when certain words are mentioned is of no use. (Most of that “ugly anger” you talk about, Catfish, is sarcasm. Onlookers who go into a swoon when they see sarcasm about racial subjects aren’t likely to do us any good anyway. Let the other side keep them.) Some of this stuff is intrinsically tough to face and deal with (not as tough to face as a Garth Brooks album but maybe something like Barry Manilow): you need steady nerves, a strong moral compass, and a minimum number of working brain synapses. All of it’s not for shrinking violets and that’s intrinsic to the subject matter: I don’t see how it can all be made completely shrinking-violet-friendly without compromising on substance. Some things are jobs for men, Catfish. 20
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:47 | # Do you get mad when you read this, Catfish? http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/09/11/o-canada-modern-show-trials/ How mad, pretty mad? Mad enough to come onto a web-site and use strong sarcasm, even sarcasm the shrinking violets out there find “ugly”? This 18-year-old kid is going to federal prison for five months for doing nothing, absolutely nothing, and for one reason and one reason only: being a white Southerner during this post-60s Jewish hegemony in this country. That’s exactly why he’s going to prison: an ongoing Jewish vendetta against whites whom the Jews see as a different and hated race, and most especially white Southerners, whom Jews loathe with a particularly fierce genocidal hatred. This boy is going to be at high risk of gang-rape by Negroes and other non-white AIDS carriers in federal prison. Being dirt-poor, he couldn’t afford a good lawyer so chose a plea bargain rather than go to jail for, what did the article say, eleven years? For dangling a “fake noose” from his car as he drove by a demonstration? Eleven years and come out with AIDS? Five months and come out with AIDS? For an 18-yr-old? Do you get mad reading that, Catfish? How mad? Mad enough to type out comments using bitter, bitter, bitter sarcasm? 21
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:58 | # What’s going on isn’t a tea party out there, Catfish. 22
Posted by silver on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:08 | # comradeseeker, thanks. I’ve said before the current crop of WNs will have to give way to better men before results are seen. I’m not what you need in that respect, but as far as ripping out some of the old groundwork and relaying it with better ideas, I think I can be of use.
I wish so, too. We’re all just internet personalities here (“easy online racialists”—if only I could get me some of that “easy money” to go with it!). Maybe I done my dash, as we say in Australia, when I came out swinging as an anti, but getting so wound up over what one moniker posts you can’t see straight doesn’t seem healthy, either.
Would it kill WN to learn a bit of sensitivity? Or are you determined to be doctrinaire conservatives, opposing “girly” liberal ideas just because they are put forward by liberals? For example, does one have to call disabled persons “cripples” to prove his conservative bona fides? Or might he better off conceding the term “disabled” but opposing refitting cities top to bottom so that a wheelchair can fit on a rowing boat on the principle of it? If the whole unwritten point of “racial sensitivity” is about looks—and it is, we can be sure of it—why makes looks the point of your criticism, sarcasm only adding to, not detracting from, the damage perceived? Mystery-meat/carne mysteriosum, ‘loids/‘toids/‘groids etc might be devilishly funny but they’re also devilishly counterproductive—and devilishly “confirmatory” of what WN is “all about.” 23
Posted by silver on Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:32 | #
Keep it up. It’s bringing in droves of supporters. I’ts well known that the madder that a couple of dozen of the same easy online racialists get, the more bile they spew, the more race-liberals are converted. 25
Posted by Catfish LeRoy on Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:32 | # “Do you get mad reading that, Catfish? How mad? Mad enough to type out comments using bitter, bitter, bitter sarcasm?” Yeah, point taken, Fred. But there’s still the matter of PR and perception. We want to talk to more than just the choir, right? “Carne mysteriosum” is an utterly hilarious Scroobism (or perhaps a Latinized Linderism, and thus a collaboration), but at the end of the day it’s just the choir having a laugh. If MR wants to focus on high-IQ white males, then you’re probably right: “Some things are jobs for men, Catfish.” But let’s be clear that there are limiting factors to what audience we want to appeal to. Maybe “easy online racialism” is only a vehicle for the kind of demographic we have at MR and VNN, but at some point we are going to have to broaden our appeal. 26
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:56 | # Instead of just lurking, why not participate oftener, comrade? Consider it. All of us, including you, are here for one thing and one thing only. The Cause. 27
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 12 Sep 2008 02:00 | # By the way, I completely reject GT’s concept of “easy online racialism” now taken up by GW, you, and Silver. It’s meaningless. Refers to nothing. 28
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 12 Sep 2008 02:03 | # I highly respect GT but if he persists in trotting that out every time he posts I’ll have to conclude I was dead-wrong and the man is some sort of half-wit. His so-called concept has no applicability to anything whatsoever that goes on at this blog. 29
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 12 Sep 2008 02:05 | # If he’s thinking of something that goes on elsewhere, VNN or wherever (I was never a regular at VNN, so wouldn’t know) let him go blow his hot air over there. 30
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 12 Sep 2008 02:08 | # There’s truth and lies, there’s normalness and degenerateness, that’s all. There’s no “easy online racialism.” Not here. I wouldn’t know about elsewhere. 31
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 12 Sep 2008 04:28 | # Vdare.com’s Patrick Cleburne:
32
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 12 Sep 2008 04:32 | # Why has no top-quality lawyer stepped forward to defend that boy pro bono? Boy, the South surely isn’t what it used to be. 33
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 12 Sep 2008 04:44 | # I guess that’s what happens when two successive generations of once-proud Southerners get brainwashed non-stop 24/7/52 by the group that’s wrested hegemonic dominance away from the founding group in D.C.‘s bureaucracies, and now calls the shots. The South’s not what it used to be; the North either; Germany’s not what it used to be; no one’s what he used to be except the hegemon: he’s what he used to be. What he used to be, stretching back some three thousand eight hundred years, in this particular hegemon’s case (correct me; his first stirrings were around 1800 BC, if I remember right?). 34
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 19:29 | # Dienekes:
This part, “non-Africans are descended (at least mitochondrially) exclusively from the early Afrasians,” is far from settled. Post a comment:
Next entry: Obama: Catspaw of International Finance
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Fr. John on Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:26 | #
It is this sort of French pancakes (‘crep’) that led me to distrust “science”, when they first started to state, (back in the 1970’s when I was in High School) that ‘Adam’ - or ‘Eve’ (however you may define him/her) came ‘out of Africa;.’ (i.e., the Leakey’s ‘discovery’ of ‘Lucy’) Then, a bit later on, it was the ‘we’re all one race- the human race’ religious balderdash; then it was Kennewick Man; and how it ‘couldn’t be’ a White/European/Caucasian Man; then it was the sanctification of ‘Brother Martin’ and I finally saw a pattern - a pattern that presupposed an ‘unchanging faith’ in something; a clearly ‘religious’ faith, that was purposely NOT European Man, Christianity, Christendom, or even rooted in a sort of vague Monotheism. It was the Religion of Man.
The evolutionary paradigm is no less a Creedal Faith than the spurious ‘scientific creationist’ [God created all things in six literal 24-hour days] ‘young-earth’ fundamentalists’ beliefs, however naive. Except now, both groups are of the same opinion that ‘Man’ (qua man) HAS TO BE BLACK in his Genesis, and that ALL hominids ‘owe’ something to AFRICA. How, we are never told… but the ‘Black man is related to Adam’ and you MUST believe- Sieg Heil, and say a Praise Jeeezus while you’re at it! The most amazing thing is that the vocally numerous of these new “Pharisees of the Faith of MAN” are of a certain ‘ethnic cluster’ Curiouser and curiouser…
And thus, once one sees this, one comes to the realization that both are bogus science, and even worse ‘faith’.
A few weeks back, someone mentioned Solutrean Man on this board, and the link to the Stormfront community board, where John de Nugent was going on about the “Apocalypse of the Psychopaths” - it was on this board (also?) that the initial link to the (was it also Discovery Channel?) DVD about Europid migration to the West was first noted. I bought this DVD, after having read you folks, and Nugent. While some of his rhetoric is a bit Nietzschean, (and thus utter dung, IMHO) much of the ‘let’s at least note that Caucasoid humanity has a prior claim to the West’ is spot on.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/apocalypse-psychopaths-469441p5.html
Now this ‘find.’ Thank GOD someone took photos, thank GOD for the Internet, and thank GOD you posted it. Unlike modern crime stats, where the race of the victim and the perp. s PURPOSELY kept from a stupid and utterly clueless populace, this is clear corroboration of Nugent, the Solutreans, and many who believe ‘the White Man was here first.’
Thus, if I may be so bold, thanks for your contribution to the Cause.
Deo Vindice!
Christus Vivat
Christus Vincit
Christus Imperator.