THE RACEY RACIST

by Robert Frenz

9 March 1998

One of the uses of the word race is to indicate a group to which certain people may, or may not, belong. All peoples, on this planet, are free to take pride in the fact that they belong to this, or that, race, that is, except for people we call White. Any so-called White person who is proud of belonging to the only race capable of sending men into outer space, becomes an instant undesirable and is branded with the label "racist." In more sane times, when people had the ability to, and the desire to, discriminate, it would have been a complimentary designation. The political and social pressures, which now require us to be as stupid as possible, are enormous. Thinking citizens are the last things our Zionist government desires.

We are taught not to think in our schools and often, in our homes. We soon learn the advantages of not questioning anything. A student is often little more than a protoplasmic tape-recorder capable of memorizing wads of nonsense and then vomiting it back at the appropriate time. This earns the student good grades which must accumulate in order to receive – like the straw man in the Wizard of Oz – a diploma. A diploma then becomes some proof that the holder has the capacity to think. When one accumulates enough diplomas, he then takes his place among the "experts" and then adds – often cryptic – extra letters to his name. That one might be perfectly capable of thinking without a certificate, apparently occurs to no one, which remains a demonstration that our society has collectively lost its capacity for logical thought.

Many people occupy desks in high school biology classes. During their seat time, they are exposed to a theory of evolution and a classification regimen consisting of the ditty "kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species and variety." When we recite this sequence, together with "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," the world is put on notice of our brilliance.

People have always classified things and the first great generalizer of life-form grouping was Aristotle. His writings described all sorts of natural groups. Like all classification schemes, things belonged to various groups depending upon likenesses and dissimilarities. His method was used until the 19th century at which time Charles Darwin presented his Origin of Species. Aristotle believed in an essence of natural forms while the Darwinian school did not. This was a departure from the idea that eagles, for example, "appeared" as a distinct entity unrelated to anything. Darwin held that birds "must have evolved" from reptiles although he never explained why, on the road to evolving change, some lizard wasn't disturbed when a few feathers started sprouting from his tail or that it was plagued by impulses to leap into the Grand Canyon, legs flapping. Biological classification soon became tied to evolution and since the Church shuddered at the thought of non-creation, or that man might have devolved from apes, it could not be expected to favor the changing rules for classification. Those rules not only have changed but they are continually changing as one group of experts tries to out-expert another group of experts. As an example: when I was in high school, we were taught that there were only 2 kingdoms of life – plants and animals. Now, this has been expanded with the additions: fungi, prokaryotes and protoctists (aka protista). One day an animal is classified as this, and on the next day, it is stuffed somewhere else. Science, as with all human endeavor, is in a continual state of flux with enough manure added to qualify it as first class fertilizer.

Europe, and Asia were well acquainted with horses long before Hank Stanley went to Africa to find out why Davy Livingstone failed to return the wheel-barrow he borrowed. Somewhere down the pike, a pair of white-eyes spotted their first zebra. "Damn a mighty. Thar's one silly lookin' hoss. Ah wonder who a'painted it." It looked like a horse, acted very similar to a horse, but those gosh-danged stripes just got in the way. So, to keep things merry on the classification front, this critter was given the Latin name Equus zebra to distinguish it from Equus caballus – the common horse. Zebby lived in the upland plains of southern Africa while horsey did not. I can hear them say "They must have evolved differently." Thus, the zebra and the horse were grouped as separate species. Equus is the genus name and the additional term gives rise to the binomial species designation.

As White men wandered here and there, they soon discovered another stripped "horse" living in the arid, and slightly wooded, area of east-central Africa. Although it looked like a zebra, which looked like a horse, old Mr. Grevy wasn't happy with that state of affairs. All kosherized scientists, when a problem surfaces, simply redefine everything. Thus Equus grevyi was hatched. Unlike the zebra of southern Africa, it had narrower stripes and a white belly.

As might be expected, those snoopy White men soon came upon another "zebra" which wasn't exactly a zebra like the other zebras. Its stripes were very widely spaced; it lived and "evolved" in the rich grasslands of eastern Africa and it wasn't long before Burchell's zebra was given the highfalutin name Equus quagga. The African stripped horses, plus the better-known horse, now fell into 4 distinct species, so there! Generally speaking, members of the same species are inter-fertile but unlike man, who will stick his prong into anything (literally!), never inter-breed except for bizarre and rare cases. (Some lower forms of life like the Euglena and the faggot, are not inter-fertile across the species. Both possess contractile vacuoles and are classified according to what kind of party zipper-Bill is having. The Euglena belongs to both the protozoan order Euglenida and the algae division Euglenophyta, thus enjoying a double use for its vacuole.)

Dogs are not unfamiliar to us. They belong to the genus Canis as do the coyote Canis latrans, the jackal Canis aureus, the dingo Canis dingo plus 3 others which I shall conveniently omit. The Australian dingo is quite dog-like and it apparently has been domesticated to an extent – by the adventuresome, I presume.

Canis familiarus, the common dog is further divided into smaller groups called breeds, or races, if you prefer. These include the Dalmatian, Collie, Beagle, etc. Even in dogs, the races are not equal. How does one equate a Doberman with a Chihuahua? Or a Dachshund with a Great Dane?

The African hunting (wild) dog, Lycaon pictus (named after Lyacon – a legionary King of Arcadia), is in a genus all by itself because it is the only dog-like critter possessing only 4 toes. If it weren't for this item, the wild dog might have perhaps been given his very own species name. (Once upon a time, Sidney, the king of the wild dogs said "We all have 5 toes on each of 4 feet. It would be nice if we were more harmonious. Therefore, let's endeavor to evolve into critters with 4 toes on each of 4 feet." And the heavens thundered and it came to pass. Bls. 3:12.)

It might do well to pause a bit and consider that it doesn't take very much to have some animal partitioned into its own cubbyhole: a geographically different habitat, thus implying a different evolution; stripes, as in the case of the zebra; or some other relatively minor, but specific, difference.

Crows are one of my favorite birds – wily, sharp-eyed, and great survivors of men's continued shotgun blasts. There are 30 species of Corvus and 20 of them are known as crows. All are about 20 inches long with glossy-black feathers. All are omnivorous, which means they'll eat almost anything – insects, seeds, carrion, eggs, and have been known to kill small rodents and snakes. The major difference in these 20 species is that their natural habitats are geographically different. A crow living in North America (Corvus brachyrhynchos) is, for most purposes, identical to the Russian crow (Corvus corone) and yet they belong to 2 different species. The man in the street wouldn't recognize any difference whether the birds were flying, pecking at corn, or leaving the roasting oven.

As with Galileo Galilei, the Darwinists and the classifiers, were always looking over their shoulders at those christian zealots who loved to char-broil people alive for not being in tune with the latest notions about men and their souls. It's time for a break.

The ancient Greeks used to contemplate even contemplation and one of the contemplations they contemplated related to something along this line: if one takes away all of the physical attributes of a chair, then something must be left. The chair wasn't removed, only its attributes. What remained, when applied to human beans, was the soul. Ain't Greeks great? No wonder they developed so many paradoxes. They must have been excellent sauce consumers also.

Keeping in mind that a different habitat implies a different evolutionary highway and this alone is a compelling reason to classify critters as belonging to a different species, at the least. Present-day taxonomy must be phylogentically correct, that is, it must satisfy the tenets of the evolution theory – a very weak batch of gobbledegook.

With a hop aboard our UFO, let's snatch Sambo the Congoid from his dung-plastered hut in western Africa. On our return trip, we'll beam-up Mr. Kurisaki from his rebuilt Hiroshima home which he calls Phoenix. Once properly dipped in formaldehyde, we'll stare and ponder how to classify these two primates. (Order: Primate. Characteristics: thumb, have nails not claws, omnivorous, binocular vision, etc.) Down the scale is the next classification, the family Hominidae, followed by the genus Homo. Now – wow! – as the wabbit says to Elmer, "What's up doc?"

Not only do our 2 specimens come (evolved) from non-connected regions of the planet, anyone with reasonable eyesight could tell them apart at 666 yards. Up closer, one is colored black and the other a brownish-yellow. One has straight hair; the other kinky tufts which microscopically resemble wool. One has well-developed calf muscles while the other does not – in fact, sports a "lark's-spur" heel. The ape-like eyes of one resemble, not in the slightest, the slit-like eyes of the other. (Sidney Poitier vs. David Suzuki.) The closer we look, the greater the differences we find. One has almost no body odor while the other strikes our nose as resembling a musk ox during estrus. Mind you, that a different geographical location, plus obvious, and non-trivial, physical differences, is enough to separate any other animal into different species, it does not hold true with our specimens since both are said to belong to the species Homo sapiens! Remarkable, isn't it? And certainly very non-scientific.

Similarities are what determine general classifications while differences determine the minor classifications. However, when we get to "talking-apes," the rules change. A minor classification such as species becomes the reservoir for generalities instead of specifics: species = specifics, get it? I'll repeat: species means specific differences outside the generalities. I am sure that this present-day classification folderol is the result of "church science," or "jewish science," which is little more than starting with a desired conclusion and then working backwards – selectively choosing the facts.

If a dingo could be enticed to mate with a coyote, the offspring would be neither dingo nor coyote. It would be a bastard – a mongrel – a mixed-breed – a mischling. It would belong to nothing which can be classified. If all of the dingoes integrated with all of the coyotes, and engaged in Clinton-style tail-undulations, there would be no more coyotes or dingoes and the valued "diversity" would be lost. Breed-mixing is "caniscide" for it destroys both species.

We still call mongrel dogs, dogs, as we call mongrel humans, humans, but the essential issue remains – they are all unclassifiable because they do not breed true. An Eskimo on Eskimo mating always produces another Eskimo. A Hottentot on Hottentot mating always produces another Hottentot and it makes no difference where the delivery room is, whether in Alaska or Miami Beach. A Ford manufactured in Detroit, is still a Ford. A Negro manufactured in America is still a Negro. To call the inhabitants of our biological sewer "Americans" makes about as much sense as to call all automobiles "Detroits." Did you ever observe a litter of mongrel pups, or alley cats? The odd collection of colors and sizes is what Clinton calls "representative of America." All of the involved separate breeds which went into producing these mongrels have vanished.

Evidence indicates that the Negroes, Japanese, northern Europeans, etc. belong to separate species. And when it comes to the separate classifications of Hominids, a very special place should be reserved for that species of man which has the unique features of blue-eyes, blond hair, and cream-colored skin.

In Europe, the Caucasian species is divided into races such as Alpine and Nordic. The Korean and Japanese are races of an Asian species. Never forget, that the direction of all science is determined by political power and today that power is hell-bent upon making everyone blind to the over-whelming differences which exist between the various Hominid groups. The jews, and their christian yes-men, want the planet to be infested with race-mixed people, that is, ultimate jews – the United Nations' brown man. The jews, with their Hollywood instrument, have been stating this for nearly 75 years. They call this mixing of bloods "the spirit of America." (Recently, a Canadian TV station surprisingly aired a program revealing this. It was quite astounding to hear how the Hollywood moguls really hated peoples who still retained their distinctive species, and racial, characteristics, whether Negroid, Mongoloid, or whatever.)

If you still believe that men should be biologically classified with a set of rules different from those applied to the other animals, then I'd like to invite you for a ride in my UFO where we shall talk to God direct instead of paying middleman huckster Pat Robertson to pass His words on as hearsay.

If the black rat (Rattus rattus) refuses to breed with the brown Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), even though they are inter-fertile and occupy the same territory, then why do you support destructive games such as "guess who's coming to dinner"?

A biological classification is nothing more than a label and Americans, as the jews they mostly are, are transfixed by labels to the point of obsession. Content is reality. Labels are not.

(Note: To those who are serious evolutionists, please be advised that very recent discoveries in cell chemistry are starting to punch large holes in the theory of evolution. This, of course, doesn't mean that religious hokum is being vindicated.)