From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Tue Nov 19 07:22:56 PST 1996
Article: 36070 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!clicnet!news.clic.net!news.alfred.edu!news.sprintlink.net!news-pen-14.sprintlink.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: pendragn@cyberg8t.com (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.jaffo,alt.politics.kibo,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.libertarian.creative,alt.politics.libertarian.gay,alt.politics.media,alt.politics.nationalism.albino,alt.politics.nationalism.black,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.poli
Subject: Re: You might be a liberal if. . .
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 06:22:51 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <328d5d6d.556898@news.cyberg8t.com>
References: <01bbd34d$689d4360$714867ce@ns.linknet.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host86.cyberg8t.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.kibo:1366 alt.politics.libertarian:234021 alt.politics.media:18055 alt.politics.nationalism.white:36070

On Fri, 15 Nov 1996 23:35:30 GMT, "Stephen Babcock"
 wrote:

>For more political commentary and stuff visit
>http://www2.linknet.net/babcock/begin.html
>
>
>
>What is a liberal? 

....

>You think AIDS is spread by insufficient funding. 

....

>Lastly, you're a liberal if - you don't get the point of this damn post. 

Hah! That was great!

14 Words,
Art LeBouthillier



From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Nov 28 07:23:58 PST 1996
Article: 37043 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!aurora.cs.athabascau.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!van-bc!n1van.istar!van.istar!west.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!dciteleport.com!feed1.news.erols.com!news.dra.com!news.he.net!nntp.iccom.com!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: pendragn@cyberg8t.com (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,sci.anthropology,sci.bio.misc,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Race, Science, & Political Correctness
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 13:00:13 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <329ae7d8.897122@news.cyberg8t.com>
References: <52481j$j37@clarknet.clark.net>  <54ls56$e98@news.sdd.hp.com>  <54rrj0$ho@clarknet.clark.net> <54tut6$1m4@panix2.panix.com> <55acgq$aqj@pelican.unf.edu> <846846604snz@drmac.demon.co.uk> <5621bj$abn@pelican.unf.edu> <5629u0$2ng@clarknet.clark.net>  <3287594B.5AB8@conterra.com>  <3288BEA1.1957@ioe.ac.uk>  <328AA954.64DD@akamail.com>  <328BEB9E.2C11@conterra.com>  <328CB097.497E@conterra.com>  <328E3D21.2F32@conterra.com> <57afkl$obc@pelican.unf.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host05.cyberg8t.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:50496 alt.discrimination:56997 sci.anthropology:1859 sci.bio.misc:1392 alt.philosophy.objectivism:92457 alt.politics.nationalism.white:37043

On 24 Nov 1996 21:44:53 GMT, Ron Kephart 
wrote:

>The rejection of 18th century taxonomies of humans "races" has nothing 
>to do with "political correctness."  It is a result of the refinement 
>of our knowledge about how life forms, human and otherwise, change thru 
>time and also vary over geographical space.  This is what science is 
>supposed to do for us: help us refine our analytic models of the 
>universe.

Race didn't originate in the 18th century. The 18th century scientists
were trying to explain an observable difference.

>For the record, the phrase "political correctness" is tossed around 
>mostly by right-wingers who use it defelect attention away from the 
>discussion of important issues, such as "race", ethnicity, gender, 
>sexual preference, and the like.

Ah....race, ethnicity, gender and sexual preference? You forgot
national preference and what about ice cream preference.
Political Correctness is used as a moniker for the twisted and
anti-White viewpoint of people like you. Political Correctness
refers to the decades-long propaganda campaign by people
like you to destroy my race and culture.

> Anything that upsets their world view is labeled "politically correct." 
> This is very unfortunate, because it gets in the way of our work, part
> of which is to educate people about these issues from an anthropological
> perspective.

Anthropological Perspective? You? Be real. If race is not a biological
category, then it is at least a cultural one. In fact, race represents
kin groupings. It is only since the Darwinists came along that it has
meant anything else. Anthropologically, the ideology of race is an
ideology of society based on kinship.

>It seems too bad that there appear to be so many people out there 
>whose lives only have meaning when they are defined in terms of 
>"us (whites)" versus "them (blacks, etc.)". 

Look at yourself in the mirror. Besides, it is good that people think
in terms of "us" and "them" as long as it benefits their race.

>  Well, unfortunately for all of you, these categories, while socially and
> culturally "real" and important, are not biologically "real".  This is what
> science has taught us over the last century or so.  It's time to get over
> it, and move on to the really important task, which is understanding why 
> and how these sociocultural categories are so important to us, anyway, 
>and then helping our society figure out what to do about it.

Blah, blah, blah. Thanks for misusing science. Science is a positive
endeavor, and can only tell us what *IS*. It becomes politics when
you parade your normatives as positives.

Race is a very real phenomenon. At least, it represents the other
major form of societal organization: on kinship rather than territory.
On that basis, I would say it is the anti-racists who are the most
ignorant and hateful in their attempts to destroy long-lived
communities and societys.

14 Words
Arthur LeBouthillier



From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Nov 28 07:23:59 PST 1996
Article: 37078 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!hookup!newsfeed.dacom.co.kr!usenet.kornet.nm.kr!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!news.dra.com!news.he.net!nntp.iccom.com!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: pendragn@cyberg8t.com (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier)
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.immigration,alt.conspiracy,can.general
Subject: Re: Doin' that ol' National Alliance Two-Step
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 00:09:59 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <329b85aa.367548@news.cyberg8t.com>
References: <56eeaj$e9p@news1.panix.com> <56gp58$1vh@is05.micron.net> <32928dc7.206283349@news.netonecom.net> <56vsm2$d97@is05.micron.net>  <32957762.51323218@news.netonecom.net> <57didd$3vu@news.usaor.net> <57f51l$ccg@chaos.dac.neu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host54.cyberg8t.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.discrimination:57016 alt.politics.white-power:50526 alt.politics.nationalism.white:37078 alt.conspiracy:114274 can.general:98093

On 26 Nov 1996 16:14:45 GMT, pkasieck@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Philip
Kasiecki) wrote:

>: You people just don't get it, do you? When it comes to defining what is
>: "White", it will be the sole responsibility of White Nationalists to
>: do that. 
>
>    Yes, the White naitonalist, who sure have a shitload of nerve, to
>try and define individuals, instead of letting individiuals define
>themselves.

Damn right we will.  A society, a community, is a pact of mutual
respect and consideration. People like you don't understand that
and think that you can force foreign peoples upon us. It won't
work; we won't let that happen.

Like YOU and your kind DON'T "define" people. It is sickos like
you who want to force YOUR definition on us. I am a White
nationalist; that is my reality and White nationalism  is the future
for which I fight.

We Whites are defining ourselves for ourselves, the nature of
our community, our nation and state. It is because YOU don't like
our self-definition that you are whining endlessly on this
newsgroup. Pull your head out; your the one who wants to
"impose" definitions on people.

>: Rest assured, we will not be consulting any wacko liberal "social" 
>: anthropologists for that determination.
>
>    You should be about the last person to call anyone "wacko".

>"None of us alone can save the nation or the
>world.  But each of us can make a positive
>difference if we commit ourselves to do so."

White Power is just that.

14 Words,
Art LeBouthilllier



From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Nov 28 07:24:00 PST 1996
Article: 37087 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!van.istar!west.istar!n1van.istar!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.pbi.net!news14.agis.net!agis!newspeer1.agis.net!agis!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: pendragn@cyberg8t.com (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier)
Newsgroups: ab.politics,alt.journalism,alt.journalism.criticism,alt.politics.nationalism.black,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.republican,ca.politics,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Are There Races?  (Was: Re: Bob Whitaker: causing strife through the racist agenda)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 02:25:17 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <329ba524.2162525@news.cyberg8t.com>
References: <573p7s$e7m@ns2.borg.com> <574bi1$5ff@chaos.dac.neu.edu> <329a0b28.10670062@news.wco.com> <57c6l6$1l4@panix2.panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host19.cyberg8t.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.journalism:62993 alt.journalism.criticism:9658 alt.politics.nationalism.white:37087 alt.politics.radical-left:137100 alt.politics.sex:17928 alt.politics.usa.constitution:103754 alt.politics.usa.republican:335069 talk.politics.libertarian:147206

On 25 Nov 1996 08:23:50 -0500, +@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:


>You can't inherit a _racial_ characteristic until you
>already have made up races -- so talking about racial
>characteristics presupposes, rather than proves, their
>existence.  I already pointed out that, by the standard of
>(heritable) physical characteristics, we could assign
>blue-eyed or tall people to "races."  If this is absurd,
>so are similar categorizations based on other heritable
>physical characteristics.

No, we can not assign "blue-eyed or tall people to races."
Race presupposes blood relations. The issue is blood
relationships, not the particular traits evidenced by blood
relations. Your problem is obvious: you can't see the
forest for the trees.

>If the science involved is "plain", it ought to be possible
>to set it forth plainly.  For instance, behavioral
>differences are almost invariably assigned by racialists to
>the races they construct.  If these behavioral differences
>are derived from biology, then there must be observable
>structural differences in the nervous systems of the
>various races.  But these differences are never shown.

You are making a serious ommission with regard to assigning
all behavioral traits as merely neurological. Many behaviors
are the result of chemical "soups" and their interaction with
existent neurological structures.

>There is, in fact, no science involved.  If there were, we
>would have seen it by now.

Again, you couldn't see the forest for the trees.

>| Race denial is, in fact, the construct we should be addressing.
>| ...
>
>More generally, it's called "reason", and you should indeed
>be addressing it.

He has it; I'm not so sure of you.

>Again -- just to reiterate this point -- no one is denying
>that races exist, at least in North America.  They are,
>however, social conventions, not biological categories.

What's your point? Rights are a social construction; do you
advocate that we ignore those also?

14 Words,
Art LeBouthillier




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Nov 28 07:24:01 PST 1996
Article: 37091 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!news.sgi.com!news.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.pbi.net!news14.agis.net!agis!newsgod1.agis.net!agis!newspeer1.agis.net!agis!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: pendragn@cyberg8t.com (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier)
Newsgroups: ab.politics,alt.journalism,alt.journalism.criticism,alt.politics.nationalism.black,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.republican,ca.politics,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Are There Races?  (Was: Re: Bob Whitaker: causing strife through the racist agenda)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 02:48:17 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 105
Message-ID: <329ba784.2771093@news.cyberg8t.com>
References: <32932E07.10D8@conterra.com> <570bum$qqt@panix2.panix.com> <572icv$p42@clarknet.clark.net> <572tga$9hu@panix2.panix.com> <573p7s$e7m@ns2.borg.com> <574bi1$5ff@chaos.dac.neu.edu> <329a0b28.10670062@news.wco.com> <57fa79$km9@chaos.dac.neu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host19.cyberg8t.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.journalism:62997 alt.journalism.criticism:9660 alt.politics.nationalism.white:37091 alt.politics.radical-left:137103 alt.politics.sex:17930 alt.politics.usa.constitution:103759 alt.politics.usa.republican:335079 talk.politics.libertarian:147216

On 26 Nov 1996 17:43:05 GMT, pkasieck@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Philip
Kasiecki) wrote:


>: Race is not a social construct, it is a biological categorization.
>
>    Among humans, it is a social construct.

Phil, if I may be so familiar (if not, tough), "humans," as a concept
is a social construction. What is this little game of yours? What is
your point?

Social constructions are valid bases of social systems. Are there any
social systems not constructed on "social constructions?"

Underlying this "social construction" is a real, positive and
observable phenomenon: blood relations. The social construction,
or understanding of these relations is what is known as race. Race
is based on a real feature: blood relations.

[deletia...]

>: If there were no other differences in "race" than color
>
>     When racism was started in the US a few hundred years ago, skin
> color was all that mattered.  Whites didn't say, "Oh they have thick
> lips, so we'll say that people with thick lips are inferior, and we'll
> enslave them."  Racism was started so Whites could look down on Blacks-
> the color of skin was the most obvious difference, and the one the
> racists chose.

That's your claim; please prove it.

First, "racism" existed before the U.S., even your liberal texts prove
that. Second, skin color was not all that mattered. One can check out
the writings of such early racists as Thomas Jefferson and see that
there are other reasons.

What liberals call racism was constructed by them to destroy the White
race.

>: Race denial is, in fact, the construct we should be addressing.
>: It is a *constructed* attitude that skips over the plain science of
>: the matter, in an effort to shape societal behavior. It is deserving
>: of contempt by anyone that considers truth to be truth (as far as
>: scientific truth is concerned, anyway).
>
>    Bullshit.  What "plain science" are you talking about?

Blood relations.

[deletia...]

>: The race deniers bring right up a whole new set of rationals in
>: support of racial "remediation", racial preference based on a guilt-
>: scale of their own construction, and so on.
>
>    That is such nonsense.  At least as far as I go.  The world doesn't
> operate on some sort of "payback" system.  

He didn't say that. He said RACE DENIERS act on a payback system.

> However, historical events
> repeat themselves often.  For example, it is often said that AA
> addresses "historic exlusion and discrimination".  That is *not* at all
> saying that AA is some sort of "payback"; rather, it is saying that it
> has happened and will continue to happen unless something is done about
> it.

Right, but "historical exclusion and discrimination" are rights.
Discrimination is a right. Second, whether such "historical exclusion
and discrimination" occurred has no bearing on my rights ( and the
attempts of people like you to deny them).

>  AA probably isn't the ultmate solution to all of this; I'm fairly
> certain it isn't.  But it's better than what happened before- even with
> its imperfections.

It is not only imperfect, but undesireable.

>    You have *no* right to call anything stupid.

Sure he does.

[deletia]

>    The fact is: we're all humans.  While we have differences, there is
> no scientific backup for this, at least not in the absolute terms that
> "race" is always used in.  Perfect example- why is it tha,t if I, a
> White man, had a child by a Black woman, the child would be called Black
> by every racist out there, when in fact the child is half-White?

Whether we are all humans, we are not all of the same nation or
societies. My (our) nation is founded in race.

>"None of us alone can save the nation or the
>world.  But each of us can make a positive
>difference if we commit ourselves to do so."
>-Cornel West, "Race Matters"

Cornel West is a Marxist creep.

14 Words,
Art LeBouthillier



From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Nov 28 07:24:02 PST 1996
Article: 37136 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.wat.hookup.net!xenitec!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uunet!in3.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: pendragn@cyberg8t.com (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier)
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.immigration,alt.conspiracy,can.general
Subject: Re: Doin' that ol' National Alliance Two-Step
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 13:28:35 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <329c41c3.1029093@news.cyberg8t.com>
References: <56eeaj$e9p@news1.panix.com> <56gp58$1vh@is05.micron.net> <32928dc7.206283349@news.netonecom.net> <56vsm2$d97@is05.micron.net>  <32957762.51323218@news.netonecom.net> <57didd$3vu@news.usaor.net> <57f51l$ccg@chaos.dac.neu.edu> <57g5pr$6so@is05.micron.net> <57hck5$c7h@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host11.cyberg8t.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.discrimination:57054 alt.politics.white-power:50580 alt.politics.nationalism.white:37136 alt.conspiracy:114440 can.general:98121


>	When I think of all the stupid white people I know, it's
>impossible for me to believe that they are "more highly evolved."

That's fine. Maybe we're the most "inferior;" however, we are
a different people and we want to stay that way.

14 Words,
Art LeBouthillier



From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Nov 28 07:24:02 PST 1996
Article: 37141 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uunet!in3.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: pendragn@cyberg8t.com (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,sci.anthropology,sci.bio.misc,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Race, Science, & Political Correctness
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 13:25:39 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <329c410f.849262@news.cyberg8t.com>
References: <52481j$j37@clarknet.clark.net>  <54ls56$e98@news.sdd.hp.com>  <54rrj0$ho@clarknet.clark.net> <54tut6$1m4@panix2.panix.com> <55acgq$aqj@pelican.unf.edu> <846846604snz@drmac.demon.co.uk> <5621bj$abn@pelican.unf.edu> <5629u0$2ng@clarknet.clark.net>  <3287594B.5AB8@conterra.com>  <3288BEA1.1957@ioe.ac.uk>  <328AA954.64DD@akamail.com>  <328BEB9E.2C11@conterra.com>  <328CB097.497E@conterra.com>  <328E3D21.2F32@conterra.com> <57afkl$obc@pelican.unf.edu> <329ae7d8.897122@news.cyberg8t.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: host11.cyberg8t.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:50586 alt.discrimination:57057 sci.anthropology:1873 sci.bio.misc:1399 alt.philosophy.objectivism:92523 alt.politics.nationalism.white:37141

On Wed, 27 Nov 1996 02:35:07 -0400, hegeman@wchat.on.ca (Toby
Cockcroft) wrote:


>Sorry Arthur but LeBouthillier is a name of French origin which excludes
>you from the "White" race. 

I know you're sorry, now apologize.

> Your latinate heritage has more in common with
> Nrth Africa and Turkey.  And please don't dispute me because I'm White
>and we don't need your kind in our club.

Good, I'm not a member of YOUR "white" race anyways.

14 Words,
Art LeBouthillier




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Nov 28 07:24:03 PST 1996
Article: 37164 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!205.137.48.149!news7.agis.net!agis!newspeer1.agis.net!agis!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: pendragn@cyberg8t.com (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier)
Newsgroups: ab.politics,alt.journalism,alt.journalism.criticism,alt.politics.nationalism.black,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.republican,ca.politics,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Are There Races?  (Was: Re: Bob Whitaker: causing strife through the racist agenda)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 21:29:11 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 164
Message-ID: <329cadd2.2381681@news.cyberg8t.com>
References: <32932E07.10D8@conterra.com> <570bum$qqt@panix2.panix.com> <572icv$p42@clarknet.clark.net> <572tga$9hu@panix2.panix.com> <573p7s$e7m@ns2.borg.com> <574bi1$5ff@chaos.dac.neu.edu> <329a0b28.10670062@news.wco.com> <57fa79$km9@chaos.dac.neu.edu> <329ba784.2771093@news.cyberg8t.com> <57i26v$jds@chaos.dac.neu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host48.cyberg8t.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.journalism:63058 alt.journalism.criticism:9670 alt.politics.nationalism.white:37164 alt.politics.radical-left:137192 alt.politics.sex:17954 alt.politics.usa.constitution:103832 alt.politics.usa.republican:335318 talk.politics.libertarian:147352

On 27 Nov 1996 18:44:47 GMT, pkasieck@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Philip
Kasiecki) wrote:


>: Phil, if I may be so familiar (if not, tough), "humans," as a concept
>: is a social construction. What is this little game of yours? What is
>: your point?
>
>    There is no biological basis for "race" among humans.

As a matter of fact, there *IS* a biological basis for race among
humans: kinship and genetic traits.

>: Social constructions are valid bases of social systems. Are there any
>: social systems not constructed on "social constructions?"
>
>    No, they're not.  The social construct known as "race" is rooted in
> white skin privilege.  When it began, it was political in its
> implications, and still is today.

"Privilege?" Do you know what the term means? A privilege is a
benefit bestowed willingly on another. The White race is the
result of previous willing benefits bestowed among people who
see themselves being a common people with a common heritage.

Anyways, if there is "privilege," it is because of the will of those
who created that privilege. If you seek to destroy that privilege,
it can only occur by violating White people's rights.

You don't have a right to privileges at my expense and neither
do non-Whites have rights to privileges (from me) at my expense.

>    Tell that to those who started it for political reasons.

Phil, you have a serious thinking deficit. First, your premise is
that race was "created" for purely political reasons. I challenge
you to prove that statement. Second, even if it were, so what?
Politics is the expression of people's values, ideals and goals.
Doing things for political purposes is a valid reasons. Obviously,
you are trying to create "privileges" for the non-Whites through
political actions (although your means are unjust).

>: >: If there were no other differences in "race" than color
>
>: >     When racism was started in the US a few hundred years ago, skin
>: > color was all that mattered.  Whites didn't say, "Oh they have thick
>: > lips, so we'll say that people with thick lips are inferior, and
>: > we'll enslave them."  Racism was started so Whites could look down
>: > on Blacks- the color of skin was the most obvious difference, and
>: > the one the racists chose.
>
>: That's your claim; please prove it.
>
>: First, "racism" existed before the U.S., even your liberal texts prove
>: that. Second, skin color was not all that mattered. One can check out
>: the writings of such early racists as Thomas Jefferson and see that
>: there are other reasons.
>
>    Racism was started before Jefferson was around.

Exactly. This disproves your statement that  "...racism was started in
the US a few hundred years ago..." Since you are stating that
racism existed before Jefferson, and since Jefferson was one of the
functionaries in the creation of the United States, racism existed
prior to (and was brought into the creation of) the U.S.

: What liberals call racism was constructed by them to destroy the White
>: race.
>
>    Bullshit.

Sorry, the truth is too hard for you to comprehend (or accept).

As I said "What liberals call racism" (i.e. hatred between races) was
created in order to invalidate racial doctrines ( one of the glues 
of the White race).

So, are you saying that you are not trying to destroy the White race?

>: Right, but "historical exclusion and discrimination" are rights.
>: Discrimination is a right.
>
>    It is *not* a right.  It is *not* right for you to deny someone a
> job, admission to a school (high school, college), housing, or *any*
> basic human right because of the color of their skin.

Just because the U.S. Gov't (among others) violates our rights
does not mean that they aren't rights.

A right is a basic liberty which does not require positive obligation
to recognize, merely negative obligation. Anything other than
this, or positive obligations are those evil things you call
"privileges."

Property is a right. My ownership of property does not violate your
ownership of the same.

Freely entered mutual obligations between individuals are also rights
(as in contracts).

I have a right to decide which contracts I will freely enter as well
as how my property is to be utilized (released, traded etc.).

One does not have a "right" to a job, since that would violate the
two rights of property and contract. Additionally, Whites have a
right to form associations, combine their own property, and make
mutual-benefit contracts as they see fit. Therefore, if we create
private schools, and other mutual-benefit organizations, it is our
right (even under U.S. law) to discriminate as we see fit.

The problem arises in those institutions controlled by the government.
The government claims that it cannot represent our desires and
interests at the expense of non-Whites, however, that only means
that it is refusing to represent and recognize our rights, preferences
and ideals.

Most of those things called "human rights" by such organizations
as the United Nations are not "rights" but privileges. The
Universal Declaration of Human rights is falsely titled: it is
properly called the Universal Declaration of Human Privileges. But,
since that would make people realize the unjustness of those things
it claims are "human rights," it can't really call them for what they
really are: privileges which come at the expense of rights.

>    Where did I say it has any bearing on your rights?  I already stated
> my belief that the world does not operate on some sort of payback
> system.  Don't put words in my mouth.  And don't even try to accuse me
> of denying you any rights- unless my desire for equal rights to everyone
> is the same as denying you a right, which is one connection I'll never
> see...

The problem is in your understanding of what rights are. Since your
idea of rights is equivalent to "privilege," most of those things you
claim are rights come at the violation of true rights.

>: Whether we are all humans, we are not all of the same nation or
>: societies.
>
>    Where did I say we were all from the same place- except to say that
> human life began in Africa?  Other than that, I've stated enough times
> that we all come from different parts of the world, though it all began
> in Africa.

Great, Africa is a White homeland too. I don't care where it started.
Additionally, there are several different theories still floating
around as to the origins of the Human species.

>: My (our) nation is founded in race.
>
>    Some nation, founded on a social construct...

Tell me of a nation NOT founded on a social construct.
Hell, NATIONS are social constructs. You pretend you
have a point but you really don't; post-modernism
invalidates itself.

>: Cornel West is a Marxist creep.
>
>    You have *no* right to call anyone a creep.

Ever heard of the right to Freedom of Speech.
Obviously, I have such a right.




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Nov 28 07:24:04 PST 1996
Article: 37183 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in3.uu.net!205.137.48.149!news7.agis.net!agis!newspeer1.agis.net!agis!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: pendragn@cyberg8t.com (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier)
Newsgroups: ab.politics,alt.journalism,alt.journalism.criticism,alt.politics.nationalism.black,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.republican,ca.politics,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Are There Races?  (Was: Re: Bob Whitaker: causing strife through the racist agenda)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 23:54:45 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <329cd469.12262635@news.cyberg8t.com>
References: <32932E07.10D8@conterra.com> <570bum$qqt@panix2.panix.com> <572icv$p42@clarknet.clark.net> <572tga$9hu@panix2.panix.com> <573p7s$e7m@ns2.borg.com> <574bi1$5ff@chaos.dac.neu.edu> <329a0b28.10670062@news.wco.com> <57fa79$km9@chaos.dac.neu.edu> <329ba784.2771093@news.cyberg8t.com> <57iab3$dhc@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host47.cyberg8t.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.journalism:63076 alt.journalism.criticism:9672 alt.politics.nationalism.white:37183 alt.politics.radical-left:137224 alt.politics.sex:17957 alt.politics.usa.constitution:103857 alt.politics.usa.republican:335391 talk.politics.libertarian:147413

On 27 Nov 1996 21:03:31 GMT, Laura Finsten
 wrote:

> So you are claiming that "blood relations" are "real", rather than
> a social construction, Art?

Blood relations are real. One understands them through socially
constructed symbols.

> I doubt you are talking about hematology.  Do you mean genetics?
> Or are you referring to the "plain [real] science" of genealogy?

Laura, "blood relations" as I use it is in common parlance. It is
basically equivalent to "kinship." As to whether that originates
in the "real" science of geneology or not, probably not. You 
do know what "kinship" means, don't you?

> But didn't you say somewhere around here that rights are also
> social constructions, Art?  If this is true, as you seem to have
> stated elsewhere, then in fact you are wrong.  The society in which
> you live has decided otherwise.  You do not have the right to
> discriminate on the grounds upon which you would like to do so.

I've never said that "social constructions" are not valid bases for
social organization. It appears to be your camp which makes that
ridiculous claim. My point is precisely that "social constructions"
*ARE* valid bases for social organization of societies (in fact,
I claim that one cannot organize a society on anything other than
"social constructions" since "society" itself is a social construct).

Otherwise, I don't understand the point you're trying to make. My
society is based on race.

> Oh yes, here it is.  It's current in the newsgroup right now.  In
> fact it is another strand in this very same thread!  I'll just excise
> a little bit of it to make my point:
>
>**********************
>
>>pendragn@cyberg8t.com (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier) wrote:
>>
>[deleted for brevity...LF]
>>What's your point? Rights are a social construction; do you
>>advocate that we ignore those also?
>>
>>14 Words,
>>Art LeBouthillier
>>
>**********************

Again, I was not making the point that social constructions are
invalid bases of society (quite the contrary). As you see, that
sentence was a question. I do not advocate that we ignore or
invalidate all "social constructions."

My point in that particular question was to ask that "fine" fellow
whether *HE* thinks social constructions are invalid bases for
societal organization. Laura, do *YOU* think that "social
constructions" are invalid bases for societal organization?

14 Words,
Art LeBouthillier

P.S. My new wife, Tina, says hi.



From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Nov 28 11:05:17 PST 1996
Article: 37272 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.axionet.com!uunet!in3.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: pendragn@cyberg8t.com (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Why?
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 13:02:17 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <329aea25.1486686@news.cyberg8t.com>
References: <329A4C02.7870@palacenet.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host05.cyberg8t.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230

On Mon, 25 Nov 1996 19:46:42 -0600, Michelle Hoksch
 wrote:


>I'm begging you to *please* try to view everyone as an individual and
>not just another stereotype.  Please realize that not all blacks are bad
>and not all whites are good.  It just depends on the individual, not the
>race.

No.

>I'd be happy to discuss this further if anyone wants to.  I'd really
>like to understand why you feel the way that you do. And to all of
>those people who are fighting racists, please remember that you can't
>fight hate with hate!

Love the White race.


Art LeBouthillier
We must secure the existence of our people
and a future for White children.




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Nov 30 11:29:16 PST 1996
Article: 82478 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in3.uu.net!205.137.48.149!news7.agis.net!agis!newsgod1.agis.net!agis!newspeer1.agis.net!agis!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: pendragn@cyberg8t.com (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe,misc.invest.stocks,misc.invest,misc.invest.misc,misc.invest.canada,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.white-power,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Founding Of Classical Asia
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 18:51:49 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <329dcfa3.7670956@news.cyberg8t.com>
References: <133695=varange@crl.com>  <329D4FB1.2D45@uci.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host48.cyberg8t.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.europe:49899 misc.invest.stocks:61664 misc.invest:77390 misc.invest.canada:13922 alt.society.conservatism:62646 alt.politics.usa.constitution:103957 alt.politics.nationalism.white:37281 alt.revisionism:82478 alt.politics.white-power:50720 soc.culture.usa:99846 alt.conspiracy:114811 talk.politics.misc:514996

On Thu, 28 Nov 1996 00:39:13 -0800, Auron Mukhopadhyay 
wrote:

>What the world thinks of as race is what biologists call phenotype (the
>attributes we can see on the outside such as skin color, hair texture,
>etc.). 

Nonsense. Anti-racists posit that race is merely phenotype. Race is
not merely phenotype. As a biologist, I'm sure you're aware of the
meaning of race in the context of biology. On that basis, a race
is a sub-grouping within a species which, due to either breeding
behaviors or geological isolation, has developed unique trait
patterns.

In humans, race often parallels cultural development. As such,
human "races" (either in the ethnological or biological meaning)
parallel different ethnic groups.

>It is true that certain phenotypes are prevailent in certain human
>populations however. So what?  We evolve according to our environment. 
>If Aryans were first (for example), then we are all derived from their
>original genotype. SO WHAT? What is the point of making a racial distinction? 

We're different ethnic groups and nations and we wish to maintain our
national/racial and ethnic differences.

>  Our genotypes are for the most part identical.  For
>example, I am Indian with dark hair and brown eyes.  My grandfather,
>though full blooded Indian in the heart of India, has blue eyes.  Blue
>is a recessive trait and gets hidden in the genome when brown (a
>dominant trait) is coupled with it.

Yeah.

>To make this post worth everyone's time let me give some resulting food
>for thought -
>
>When the genetic make up of an individual is pure in an extreme sense
>(both homologous copies are identical) you actually have all sorts of
>PROBLEMS.  Recessive diseases manifest themselves, cancer develops...all
>the genetic problems that would have otherwise been hidden by a healthy
>dominant gene are now in the forefont.  Ever wonder why it is taboo to
>marry a relative? Makes for one lousy master race! 

That is an overstatement. That such diseases CAN occur does not mean
that they WILL occur. Moreover, the point is moot since it does not
address the real issues at hand.

>The moral of the story is that humans are incredibly ignorant.  From a
>biological standpoint one should be encouraged to mate with someone who
>is of a different "racial" background.

I think you're abusing science. Science, as a positive endeavor, does
not posit normative statements. When you say that Science implies a
particular normative statement, you are misusing science. "Science" is
not a moral endeavor, but an empirical one.

>  It adds to your genetic make-up
>and can be extremely beneficial.  But socially we do the exact opposite
>and we even propagate myths such as race to hide behind insecurities
>about our identity.   But that's another thread altogether...

No, some of us use race as the basis of their identities.

14 Words,
Art LeBouthillier
http://www.cyberg8t.com/natlprty



From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Nov 30 11:29:17 PST 1996
Article: 82652 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.idt.net!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!204.137.200.41!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: pendragn@cyberg8t.com (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe,misc.invest.stocks,misc.invest,misc.invest.misc,misc.invest.canada,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.white-power,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Founding Of Classical Asia
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 16:59:38 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <329f1553.4746965@news.cyberg8t.com>
References: <133695=varange@crl.com>  <329D4FB1.2D45@uci.edu> <329dcfa3.7670956@news.cyberg8t.com> <329E0A82.600B@uci.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host16.cyberg8t.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.europe:50003 misc.invest.stocks:61674 misc.invest:77400 misc.invest.canada:13933 alt.society.conservatism:62732 alt.politics.usa.constitution:104097 alt.politics.nationalism.white:37395 alt.revisionism:82652 alt.politics.white-power:50827 soc.culture.usa:99958 alt.conspiracy:115123 talk.politics.misc:515415

On Thu, 28 Nov 1996 13:56:18 -0800, Auron Mukhopadhyay 
wrote:


>that's the issue I'm getting at.  My post was to address that genetic
>make-up does not amount to anything other than evolutionary effects. 

That may be your belief, but it isn't mine.

> My *belief* is that individuals hold on to ethnicity as founded in DNA to
>protect socio-economic interests. 

So? Definitely. We *HAVE* certain socio-economic interests, which we
are entirely valid in pursuing: our existence as a distinct ethnic
group, a society which protects and promotes that and puts our
interests above those of foreigners.

> I'm trying to counter spin *that* misuse of science.

Yes, but if you try to portray that activity as science, you are
lying.

> Of course, you may say that since human populations
>DO consider race - my original post is wrong by definition.  However, it
>is in the mind that racial distinctions are continually propogated, it
>is not promoted by our genes is my argument.

I would disagree with that. In one of the newer sciences,
socio-biology, it is being found that there are inherent traits toward
kin selection. How would those behaviors evidence themselves in
humans? Probably as that which is call racism.

Therefore, there probably is a biologic behavioral component which is
supportive of that thing called racism.

14 Words,
Art LeBouthillier

P.S. For the benefit of those who may not wish to see this discussion,
       All further posts in this thread will appear on     
       alt.politics.nationalism.white.




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Nov 30 11:37:51 PST 1996
Article: 37286 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!aurora.cs.athabascau.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in3.uu.net!204.137.200.41!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: pendragn@cyberg8t.com (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,sci.anthropology,sci.bio.misc,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Race, Science, & Political Correctness
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 16:02:26 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <329db6c9.1308193@news.cyberg8t.com>
References: <52481j$j37@clarknet.clark.net>  <54ls56$e98@news.sdd.hp.com>  <54rrj0$ho@clarknet.clark.net> <54tut6$1m4@panix2.panix.com> <55acgq$aqj@pelican.unf.edu> <846846604snz@drmac.demon.co.uk> <5621bj$abn@pelican.unf.edu> <5629u0$2ng@clarknet.clark.net>  <3287594B.5AB8@conterra.com>  <3288BEA1.1957@ioe.ac.uk>  <328AA954.64DD@akamail.com>  <328BEB9E.2C11@conterra.com>  <328CB097.497E@conterra.com>  <328E3D21.2F32@conterra.com> <57afkl$obc@pelican.unf.edu> <329ae7d8.897122@news.cyberg8t.com>  <329c410f.849262@news.cyberg8t.com> <57idtr$ot6@news.nyu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host01.cyberg8t.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:50722 alt.discrimination:57138 sci.anthropology:1897 sci.bio.misc:1410 alt.philosophy.objectivism:92603 alt.politics.nationalism.white:37286

On Thu, 28 Nov 1996 01:16:51 GMT, fresh@panix.com (Andrew Mathis)
wrote:


>Ah, racial unity at work.
>
>You fucks couldn't organize a bake sale, could you?

Fresh! Fresh! Is that you? I'm still waiting for that universal
definition of Jewry which uniquely qualifies all Jews as Jews in
contrast to non-Jews and to which all of Jewry would agree.

Please, I've given you months to think it up. Otherwise, I'll have to
assume that Jews don't exist.

14 Words,
Art LeBouthillier



From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Nov 30 11:37:52 PST 1996
Article: 37315 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!drivel.ics.uci.edu!csulb.edu!news.sgi.com!news.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.pbi.net!news14.agis.net!agis!newspeer1.agis.net!agis!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: pendragn@cyberg8t.com (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier)
Newsgroups: ab.politics,alt.journalism,alt.journalism.criticism,alt.politics.nationalism.black,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.republican,ca.politics,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Are There Races?  (Was: Re: Bob Whitaker: causing strife through the racist agenda)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 01:34:58 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <329e3a7d.5774589@news.cyberg8t.com>
References: <573p7s$e7m@ns2.borg.com> <574bi1$5ff@chaos.dac.neu.edu> <329a0b28.10670062@news.wco.com> <57c6l6$1l4@panix2.panix.com> <329ba524.2162525@news.cyberg8t.com> <57kge4$di3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host10.cyberg8t.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.journalism:63156 alt.journalism.criticism:9688 alt.politics.nationalism.white:37315 alt.politics.radical-left:137404 alt.politics.sex:17988 alt.politics.usa.constitution:104000 alt.politics.usa.republican:335788 talk.politics.libertarian:147707

On 28 Nov 1996 16:59:48 GMT, Laura Finsten
 wrote:

>No, we can not assign "blue-eyed or tall people to races."
>Race presupposes blood relations. The issue is blood
>relationships, not the particular traits evidenced by blood
>relations.[...]

>Why, then, did you say last June or thereabouts that a person
>with one Jewish grandparent could be "White" as long as they 
>didn't "look Jewish"?  Do you remember this, Art, or do you
>want to pull it up from Dejanews?

First off, I don't recall exactly what I said in "June or
thereabouts." If you can repost it then I can consider it in the
context in which it was said. However, as I said the biological
definition of race presupposes blood relations and not merely traits.
Traits may originate either due to the same genetic heritage or due to
similar adaptations or mutations.

Second off, in this context, I have been referring to the biological
definition of race, not the ethnological one. On that basis, they are
not the same thing. The person to whom I was referring was discussing
the biological definition of race (which is different than the
definition I tend to use, although I was using the biological
definition in this case).

Third off Laura, I think your brain has been addled by the constant
hatred you have been vomiting on these newsgroups for so long.

14 Words,
Art LeBouthillier



From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Nov 30 11:37:53 PST 1996
Article: 37375 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.mag-net.com!aurora.cs.athabascau.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!van.istar!west.istar!n1van.istar!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in3.uu.net!204.137.200.41!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: pendragn@cyberg8t.com (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier)
Newsgroups: ab.politics,alt.journalism,alt.journalism.criticism,alt.politics.nationalism.black,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.republican,ca.politics,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Are There Races?  (Was: Re: Bob Whitaker: causing strife through the racist agenda)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 15:57:27 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <329db460.690506@news.cyberg8t.com>
References: <32932E07.10D8@conterra.com> <570bum$qqt@panix2.panix.com> <572icv$p42@clarknet.clark.net> <572tga$9hu@panix2.panix.com> <573p7s$e7m@ns2.borg.com> <574bi1$5ff@chaos.dac.neu.edu> <329a0b28.10670062@news.wco.com> <57fa79$km9@chaos.dac.neu.edu> <329ba784.2771093@news.cyberg8t.com> <57jd50$67n@keelung.transend.com.tw>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host01.cyberg8t.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.journalism:63192 alt.journalism.criticism:9699 alt.politics.nationalism.white:37375 alt.politics.radical-left:137490 alt.politics.sex:18003 alt.politics.usa.constitution:104074 alt.politics.usa.republican:335993 talk.politics.libertarian:147876

On Thu, 28 Nov 96 22:59:39 GMT, jimwalsh@transend.com.tw (Jim Walsh)
wrote:

>In article <329ba784.2771093@news.cyberg8t.com>,
>   pendragn@cyberg8t.com (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier) wrote:
>:: Race is based on a real feature: blood relations.
>
> False. If it were true you could identify "White genes" and "Black genes" and 
> "Blue genes" etc., but you cannot. 

Nonsense. You exhibit the most highly ridiculous train of reasoning.
As I said, "BLOOD RELATIONS" are the basis of race. Genetic
traits are passed through these relations. In populations, those
traits exist in statistical patterns depending on the past breeding
patterns or due to other environmental factors (i.e. geological
separation)..

> Biologically, there is only one race, the human race.

Biologically? You obviously have misread everything about biology.
First, it is the human specie homo sapien sapien. Second, a race is a
subgrouping within a specie which exhibits trait patterns due to
breeding patterns and/or geographical separation.

Do dogs exist? Dogs are a race within the Species Canis. Do wolves
exist? Wolves are also a race within the species Canis. Do foxes
exist? Foxes are also a race within the species Canis. Do you get it?
Races exist both among humans and other animals.

Biologically, races exist. However, I am making minimal (or no) claims
about the traits/characteristics of human races.

14 Words,
Art LeBouthilllier



From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Nov 30 11:37:54 PST 1996
Article: 37385 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!van.istar!west.istar!n1van.istar!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!news.sgi.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!204.137.200.41!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: pendragn@cyberg8t.com (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier)
Newsgroups: ab.politics,alt.journalism,alt.journalism.criticism,alt.politics.nationalism.black,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.republican,ca.politics,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Are There Races?  (Was: Re: Bob Whitaker: causing strife through the racist agenda)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 16:30:39 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <329f0b7b.2226770@news.cyberg8t.com>
References: <32932E07.10D8@conterra.com> <570bum$qqt@panix2.panix.com> <572icv$p42@clarknet.clark.net> <572tga$9hu@panix2.panix.com> <573p7s$e7m@ns2.borg.com> <574bi1$5ff@chaos.dac.neu.edu> <329a0b28.10670062@news.wco.com> <57fa79$km9@chaos.dac.neu.edu> <329ba784.2771093@news.cyberg8t.com> <57jd50$67n@keelung.transend.com.tw> <329db460.690506@news.cyberg8t.com> <57mnuj$nj1@reader.seed.net.tw>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host29.cyberg8t.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.journalism:63205 alt.journalism.criticism:9700 alt.politics.nationalism.white:37385 alt.politics.radical-left:137499 alt.politics.sex:18005 alt.politics.usa.constitution:104089 alt.politics.usa.republican:336026 talk.politics.libertarian:147921

On Sat, 30 Nov 96 05:21:22 GMT, jimwalsh@transend.com.tw (Jim Walsh)
wrote:

>You have correctly defined the concept of race. What you have failed to notice 
>is that there are no groups of people who have been genetically separated for 
>long enough to form a race.

I don't know if I would agree to that. It is obvious that some major
statistical traits exist among different populations. But, I don't
have a problem saying that what you say might be true of the
biological definition of race.

>Well, if dogs, wolves and foxes can interbreed and produce live, fertile 
>young, then they are members of the same species. If they can't, then they are 
>separate species. Actually, I don't know whether they can do so or not. Nor do 
>I care.

Whether you care or not, please answer my question:

   Do dogs exist?
   Do wolves exist?
   Do foxes exist?

>All humans are of the same species. None of them have been separated 
>from the rest genetically for long enough to form races (I understand that a 
>small minority of modern biologists disagree with this, but this is clearly 
>the consensus opinon of the vast majority of scientists). Even more clearly, 
>and disputed by virtually no scientist is the proposition that:

Right. I have no problem with your statements to this point. However,
it is in the next step of your reasoning that you make a fatal and
unacceptable flaw. It appears to be that you are saying that "since
science says that all humans belong to the same grouping, that
lineages should not play a significant social role." That is poor
reasoning and a false conclusion. Positives (empirically verifiable
facts) have little bearing on Normatives (culture and morality). In
fact, science CANNOT make any statements regarding moral and cultural
issues (other than that they exist). Science, as an empirical
endeavor, can only tell what *IS*, not what *SHOULD BE*.

>  The "White", "Black" and "Yellow" races of popular imagination do not exist.

Of course they do. Perhaps not on a biological basis, but they exist
on other bases. At the very least, each of those groupings represent
major distinctions in patterns of traits among humanity which are
based on lineage. Additionally, they also represent major different
cultural and ethnic groupings. Although they don't exist by a distinct
and plainly obvious genetic trait, they exist statistically in the
patterns of traits.

>Genetically and racially Dr. Martin Luther King and Governor George Wallace 
>belong to the same group.

I think you are making a false statement here. The problem is in your
use of the word "racially." First off, genetics does not group or
classify. Humans do that. Genetics will tell you what alleles a
particular individual *DOES* have. It will not classify a particular
individual into a certain group. Additionally, genetics will tell you
that King exhibits more of certain traits which are  characteristic of
people who have been long-lived in that region of the world people
call Africa whereas Wallace does not have those traits (at least to as
large a degree).

You seem to be seeing genetic traits as if they are randomly
distributed among humans. However, traits are not randomly distributed
but constrained by lineage. On that basis, certain traits are the
products of certain lineages.

Usually, lineages don't exist in separation from the societies in
which and individual was raised. Hence, societies often place a
significance on those traits which are characteristic of their genetic
development. However, it is a misuse of science to say that science
implies equality since "equality" as you mean it is a moral viewpoint,
not an empirical one. Empirically, only genetic twins are "equal."

14 Words,
Art LeBouthillier



From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Nov 30 11:37:56 PST 1996
Article: 37389 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in3.uu.net!204.137.200.41!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: pendragn@cyberg8t.com (Arthur Ed LeBouthillier)
Newsgroups: ab.politics,alt.journalism,alt.journalism.criticism,alt.politics.nationalism.black,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.republican,ca.politics,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Are There Races?  (Was: Re: Bob Whitaker: causing strife through the racist agenda)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 16:10:45 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <329f0562.665839@news.cyberg8t.com>
References: <32932E07.10D8@conterra.com> <329ba784.2771093@news.cyberg8t.com> <57iab3$dhc@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <329cd469.12262635@news.cyberg8t.com> <57k577$8je@panix2.panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host29.cyberg8t.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.journalism:63211 alt.journalism.criticism:9701 alt.politics.nationalism.white:37389 alt.politics.radical-left:137505 alt.politics.sex:18006 alt.politics.usa.constitution:104093 alt.politics.usa.republican:336036 talk.politics.libertarian:147928

On 28 Nov 1996 08:48:23 -0500, +@+.+ (G*rd*n) wrote:

>This sort of thing doesn't correspond to the way in which
>people are assigned to races at all.  Suppose I have mostly
>European ancestors, but I have half-siblings from a second
>marriage of one of my parents who have a large number of
>African ancestors.  Suppose I am standing around with my
>half-brother and we are joined by someone who recently
>immigrated from northern Russia.  Along comes someone who
>likes to assign people to races according to the American
>custom.  The Russian and I will be assigned to the White
>race, whereas my half-brother will be assigned to the Black
>race, in spite of the fact that my half-brother and I are
>closely related by kinship and the Russian and I are
>related only very, very distantly.  

First off, I've never said that race is not a social construction.
On that basis, subjective considerations are valid.

Second, races are a kind of extended kin group. On that
basis, it represents the factors deemed significant to that
cultural group. This is not a made up characteristic of race,
but evidenced in nearly every definition of it. In 1828,
Noah Webster defined race like this:

     The lineage of a family, or continued series of
     descendents from a parent who is called the stock
     A race is the series of descendents indefinitely. Thus
    all mankind are called the race of Adam; the Israelites
    are of the race of Abraham and Jacob. Thus we speak
    of a race of kings, the race of Clovis or Charlemagne;
    a race of nobles, etc.

The reason I put forth this definition is its historical significance.
This definition represents the common definition of race before
Darwinism. Race, as an idea, precedes Darwinistic thought and
therefore, it is valid in considering its meanings over time.

As can be seen in this definition, a race is a kin group. However,
no society sees all kin relations as equally valid. Not all societies
deem all lineages as good. Not all societies have rules regarding
all kin relations. For example, in American society, we don't have
an atomic term to refer to the wife of a second-cousin.

Your hypothetical half-brother, although having kin relations
would represent what we deem to be bad kin relations. The
proof of those bad relations is (as you suggested) obvious
by his physical traits. The fact is that your brother is partly
derived from the White race and the Russian is deemed to
be more related.

>As I said, race does not correspond to biology, including
>the biology of ancestral relationships.  It is a social
>convention.  When ancestral relations support it, they are
>mentioned; when they don't, they are ignored.

As I said, race DOES have biological components. However,
it is brought into significance within our own social goals. Like
all societies, we Europeans have our own kinship rules of 
acceptability. Someone who may be somewhat related but
who exhibits traits of a foreign race are not deemed to be members
of our race.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor