Frankly, much of my email gets trashed without my ever reading it. I am weary of 50 years of "Look at what they are doing to us now," and "Send me money and we'll fight this together." It's all blab and wheel-spinning which benefits only the "patriotism for profit" business.

I rarely ever visit the so-called discussion groups which are little more than name-calling sessions. One starts with some notion he believes to be correct and then proceeds to bad-mouth any who might disagree with that position. It's all about safe, verbal combat which probably would not take place if the adversary were staring you in the eye. What these encounters reveal is massive ignorance on the part of the combatants. Ignorance is no fault, for it can be corrected, but what is reprehensible is the total lack of a desire to even partially admit that one just might not know everything.

Some have asked me about my teaching experience. I usually smile and say, "I merely presented information. If someone learned something from me, then I had taught something and the other party then become a student and I, a teacher. For the most part, I simply had an audience who usually enjoyed being entertained." They went out the door as ignorant as they came in – except for those few rare individuals whose brains weren't pickled from TV propaganda or some variety of egocentricity.

I did peek at a few 'newsgroups' compositions and found that the usual nonsense about 'jews' has perhaps increased. One defends jews or one accuses them of everything from yeast infections to lunar eclipses. Through it all, no one ever mentions how one might spot a jew while standing in the lobby of a theater. A jew knows who he is but those who oppose him, do not. The critics not only do they not know who they are but they don't know who anyone else is either. This gives rise to the nonsense sometimes peddled by god William Pierce who obviously knows everything there is to know about everything. He is dead wrong concerning his universal knowledge but self-delusion is very intoxicating and tenacious indeed.

One piece of interesting dribble was the statement, "Jews are sometimes Aryans." I'd hesitate to ask the originator of this statement what an Aryan was for I'd likely receive some sort of gibberish which we usually accuse politicians of using. The basic problem, as I see it, is that people simply cannot distinguish between the label and the product to which it is attached. We apparently cannot refrain from defining a book by its cover.

We will get nowhere if we start bickering about the definition of a jew in our attempt to define what one might possibly be. Could we start with 'robin' without the handicap of not knowing what one is, or how to describe it?

A robin is a biological entity clearly defined by its genetic makeup. This makeup is so uniform that it imparts a nearly uniform behavior and physical appearance to all such named. Keep in mind that 'robin' is only a convenient label (name) for that particular bird. If we perchance choose to call it a "squirrel" or an "ice cube", it would still have the same biology. This is a point which should never be forgotten when one encounters nonsensical statements such as the one issued by Tom Metzger, I believe, that a jew "... is anyone who thinks he is one." This brings me to the next point.

We do not know, and shall never know, what any robin 'thinks'. It is obvious from their behavior that their tiny brains do direct their behavior along far more 'intelligent' lines than do many so-called humans. Robins do not work against the interests of their own kind.

Thoughts are abstract in nature, that is, they do not exist in the real world. They are intrinsic and can only be surmised with feeble accuracy. Thoughts have a subset called beliefs and within this set falls religious things. It is a major mental disability of man whereby he feels that whatever he causes to form in his mind must therefore somehow be a part of reality – like the 'black holes' astronomers love to gas about, or the 'rights' people yammer about.

We have now established two items: (1) the reality to which the label 'robin' points and (2) the 'beliefs' of that robin which we label its 'religion'. (Some might take this parallel as foolish but then again, it's only their belief and we are back where we started from.) Religious beliefs, as with all beliefs, influence an entity's behavior. The 'belief' that the approaching cat just might not be up to any good, will propel the robin into flight regards of the intent of the cat.

Although not a finality, the third item in our list relates to how the robin was reared. We shall call that its 'culture'. It was trained to behave somewhat according to some fashion. Chimpanzees can be trained to 'ape' humans by riding a bicycle, for example. It is very common for animals, and Negroes for that matter, to be trained to perform in a manner not dictated by its biology. In addition, humans have the individual attribute of being able to train themselves to behave contrary to their innate genetic directions. This includes the perversion known as race-mixing.

Our robin friend can thus be said to consist of a definable mass of protoplasm which might behave according to some religious belief plus a conditioning we can call its culture. The latter two are Pavlovian in some respects.

A parrot which is taught to mimic the sound of a dog barking, is not a dog. A dog who grows up in a human family is still not a human. Anyone who firmly believes he can fly by flapping his arms still will never leave the ground. A man who copulates with a cow is not a bovine anymore than that act instills human qualities to the cow. An intelligent woman who mistakenly chooses to have intercourse with a certified moron (a basketball player, for example), does not impart one iota of intelligence to her paramour.

Hitler, I believe, said that the jews were a race. Others, that the jews are a race of the mind. All in all, we again are hampered by the non-precise use of the word 'race' which seems to shift as rapidly as Bill Clinton's sex partners.

We cannot ever hope to define our robin, or much of any other form of life, by its apparent culturally imparted behavior. A Korean infant, brought up in a Swedish household, will certainly not behave as it would have if it remained in Korea. Could we then be led to believe that this change in geography precipitated a change in the biology of that individual? Did the parrot, by voicing a selection of recognizable words, become more human by that act? Did the Black passenger on a space shuttle become more White from the excursion, or the monkeys more human, who were also 'astronauts'? It's true that many biological groups develop certain patterns of behavior but those attributes remain corollaries. Behavior patterns often give clues but they should never be used as definitions.

Religious beliefs also govern behavior. They are usually inculcated by culture. Sometimes, as in my case, they developed and changed according to my observations and experiences. Our robin might have a religion which leads it to believe that it is, out of all the other birds, "God's chosen." A chicken which believes itself to be a hawk, will encounter great difficulty in the real world if it insists upon putting that belief into practice.

Since religious beliefs are only a part of the overall set of beliefs, we must correctly recognize their abstract character and thus separate them from the real world. Again, religions are often confined to some biological group but they should never be used as a measure of what a person, or group, is. My childhood environment was Baptist. If I chose to go thorough some hocus-pocus involving oaths, water sprinkling, bell clanging, and such, and changed my claimed beliefs to another religion, would I have then become some other biological entity? If our robin prayed to the god of the coyote, would it cease to be a robin?

I thus leave you with one inescapable position: All life is biological and all axiomatically must be defined upon biology alone. A robin is a robin, not because we choose to call it one, or because is thinks it is one, or because it behaves like one. A robin is a robin because it is chemically and biologically a robin, and no other reasons are valid. A person is a jew (I always use lower case when referring to biology), not because he says he is one, or because he 'behaves' as one, or even because you think he is one, but because his biological makeup dictates that he is one. If we cannot define what that makeup is, then we are pushed back into the realm of the abstract and the whole matter should then be labeled as to what it really is – an unsupported belief.

Biology, and biology alone, must be used as the primary criterion. Beliefs, whether religious or otherwise, are not inherited and neither is cultural indoctrination. The assumption that these sort of environmental influences can be passed on to the next generation was formalized by Michurin and Lysenko and adopted by internationalists, communists, one-worlders and so on. Under Stalin, one could be shot for not accepting that dogma.

The next generation is little other than rearrangements of the genes of the present generation. It is our duty to see that those rearrangements are not decided by chance nor truant gonads. It appears that we are eager to improve everything but ourselves. 'Health care', air-bags, implants, and all of the other "make the world safe for idiots" programs and paraphernalia, never improved one human one iota. An ounce of prevention... Remember?

Robert Frenz

3 June 1999