The internet crowd is mostly young people. Young people have been exposed to more egalitarian foolishness and propaganda during their schooling than did the older crowd, of which I am a member. Communist, zionist, and jewish folderol wasn't as overt in my school days. Even when they debate – actually arguing since no rules are observed – they always fall back upon a belief which not only allows that their opinion is equal in merit to another regardless of background or experience, but additionally claims that it is superior. The position is this: if you agree with me then you are intelligent and correct. If you disagree with me then you are stupid and worthy of the most foul and insulting language I can muster. This is mainly why I do not engage in the yammer of "discussion groups" on the internet which incidentally are more plentiful than worms in a manure pile. No one is interested in seeking truth but merely in anonymously hammering upon each other in some vain attempt to assuage their diseased egos. Let's take a look at one illogical gem which I plucked verbatim from some 'white nationalist' group as issued by one with the 'handle' "professor":
"What's more, any member of one of the so-called races (e.g. DV8's Caucasians, Negroids and Mongoloids) could be closer, genetically, to another race than to someone of their own race."
(This, if not original, is a paraphrase of the old jewish belch that the differences between members of the same race are often greater than the differences between the races. It must be true if it comes from a jew.)
As phrased, this is a factual statement, that is, one containing facts but is it a statement OF facts? A fact is that which is PRESENTED as being true but presentation alone is not sufficient. "A cow has seven legs" is a factual statement by virtue of its structure but it is NOT a true statement and therefore not a statement OF FACT, or IN FACT. I hope this is clear since I wish not to belabor the point.
The "professor" would like us to believe that a Black (Negroid) person could be genetically closer (more alike, I'd assume) to some White (Caucasian) person than say, 2 White people. At first, we might be inclined to agree with, or argue the notion. I would ask this, "Give me one example." I'll bet 6,000,000 to 1 that the White example would not be White at all and that the Black person would not be Black in the racial (species) meaning of that term. What would be given as examples, if any, would be mixtures (hybrids, mongrels) of this and that.
The above quote is clearly illogical, to say the least. It is issued either in ignorance, which can be corrected, or mouthed out of shear stupidity, which cannot. People belong to the same race because of their adherence to accepted similarities – closeness. If differences mount to a significant degree, then they are genetically not related within the bounds used to define those races.
What the "professor" apparently professes is that 2 mongrels CALLED White might not be as closely related as one of them might be to another which is CALLED Black. If you label Colin Powell (American general) as Black and Luciano Pavarotti (Italian tenor) as White, then it is very probable that Pavarotti is closer genetically to Powell than he is to Clint Eastwood (White). Mongrels should never be used as examples of what constitutes a race. The adjective ostensible comes to mind: appearing as such. Thus, Colin Powell is an ostensible Black and Pavarotti is an ostensible White. With a flick of the liberal mind, Powell could be an ostensible White and Pavarotti an ostensible Black. Such a deal.
Humanoids, a subset of hemorrhoids, have been race-mixing for centuries and to such an extent that mongrels are very, very numerous. Although we love to classify people according to some criteria, we do have our limits as to the count of classification groups. Each person is in a classification unique unto itself but having 6 billion groups of one is not very handy. Those with easily befuddled brains simplify the matter by using only one classification: human, that is, ape-like critters which can talk, or at least attempt to. Somewhere between 6 billion groups of 1 each and 1 group of 6 billion, is where I like to be. I chose 3 groups: White, Yellow and Black. Mixtures of these 3 exist in large numbers but these mixtures simply do not belong to the basic races. Our eyes are color responsive to a gigantic number of various tints and hues but that does not disprove the existence of the 3 primary, basic colors. All colors are a composite of one or more of these 3 much in the same way as all whole numbers can be represented by some combination of 1's and 0's, or any other collection of symbols.
I have earlier described the 3 basic structures of human hair and I do not believe that it is coincidental to the existence of 3 basic races. They are: (1) no medullary tube (Black race), (2) medullary tube without pith (White race) and (3) medullary tube with pith (Yellow race).
A reason why so many simply do not choose to get too exact when it comes to genetics, is that they fear what might be found in their own case. Some of the people who hate "racists" the most are those who really do not belong to one (jealousy?). Others who are racists call themselves that out of a desire to be what they aren't. When one encounters an ideal, he can try to achieve it or he can try and eliminate it, if he does anything at all. All in all, people simply prefer to delude themselves and in the middle of this wishful thinking many have a genuine hankering to smash anyone who is contradictory. That is what drives the unreasonable and makes for interesting history and opens the doors for other people to continue the haggling on a different plane.
The itch to dominate in innate and it takes a variety of forms. The violent are more direct and honest. The "peace lovers" merely hide their intolerance temporarily. They try and talk the violent into surrendering their advantage and when given the opportunity, they adopt that which they initially opposed. People are never slaughtered until AFTER they have surrendered their weapons and voted their rights away – which we are now in the process of doing.
30 August 1999