Allied War Crimes: The Greatest Mass Rape in History

[Swift]

http://www.natvan.com/free-speech/fs9512d.html

Allied War Crimes: The Greatest Mass Rape in History

Austin App’s Ravishing the Women of Conquered Europe
by Kevin Alfred Strom

One of this century's greatest crimes, and probably one of the greatest crimes against women in history, was the mass rape of the conquered women of Europe after the Judeo-Communist victory there in 1945. The rapists were mainly Red Army soldiers, some of them non-White troops from the Far East and Central Asian Republics of the Soviet Union. But I am sorry to say that many of the rapists were men of our own race, and some were Americans. They were brutes no doubt, but they were permitted and encouraged to indulge their lower than bestial urges by official "Allied" policies which incited hatred particularly against the Germans, but also against those of other European nationalities which were then allied with Germany in an anti-Communist bloc. One cannot contemplate this great mass orgy of rape, gang rape, and sexual slavery of innocent women and little girls without revulsion. It would be easy for you to toss this newsletter aside and pickup more pleasant or amusing reading. But if you want to know the truth about one of the darkest secrets of our present establishment, a horrible crime against women about which the Politically Correct feminists are strangely silent, then I urge you to read on.

I claim no originality for the documentation or recounting of this ghastly crime perpetrated mainly by what Franklin Roosevelt called "our noble Soviet ally." We are indebted to Dr. Austin J. App, a professor and scholar of English literature at Catholic University, the University of Scranton, and LaSalle College, among others, who risked career and livelihood to bring these truths to light. In April, 1946, when he published the work upon which this article is based, entitled Ravishing the Women of Conquered Europe, he was a lone voice crying out for justice in an America still high on war propaganda and on a "victory" that in the later Cold War years and after would be seen clearly as a defeat for America and the West as much as it was for Germany.

As the Red Army advanced toward her in 1945, the city of Berlin had become a city virtually without men. Out of a civilian population of 2,700,000, 2,000,000 were women. It is small wonder that the fear of sexual attack raced through the city like a plague. Doctors were besieged by patients seeking information on the quickest way to commit suicide, and poison was in great demand.

In Berlin stood a charity institution, the Haus Dehlem, an orphanage, maternity hospital, and foundling home. Soviet soldiers entered the home, and repeatedly raped pregnant women and women who had just given birth. This was not an isolated incident. No one will ever know how many women were raped, but doctors' estimates run as high as 100,000 for the city of Berlin alone, their ages ranging from 10 to 70.

On March 24, 1945, our "noble Soviet allies" entered Danzig. A 50-year-old Danzig teacher reported that her niece, 15, was raped seven times, and her other niece, 22, was raped fifteen times. A Soviet officer told a group of women to seek safety in the Cathedral. Once they were securely locked inside, the beasts of Bolshevism entered, and ringing the bells and playing the organ, "celebrated" a foul orgy through the night, raping all the women, some more than thirty times. A Catholic pastor in Danzig declared, "They violated even eight-year-old girls and shot boys who tried to shield their mothers."

The Most Reverend Bernard Griffin, British Archbishop, made a tour of Europe to study conditions there, and reported, "In Vienna alone they raped 100,000 women, not once but many times, including girls not yet in their teens, and aged women."

A Lutheran pastor in Germany, in a letter of August 7, 1945, to the Bishop of Chichester, England, describes how a fellow pastor's "two daughters and a grandchild (ten years of age) suffer from gonorrhea, [as a] result of rape" and how "Mrs. N. was killed when she resisted an attempt to rape her," while her daughter was "raped and deported, allegedly to Omsk, Siberia, for indoctrination."

The day after our noble Soviet allies conquered Neisse, Silesia, 182 Catholic nuns were raped. In the diocese of Kattowitz 66 pregnant nuns were counted. In one convent when the Mother Superior and her assistant tried to protect the younger nuns with outstretched arms, they were shot down. A priest reported in Nord Amerika magazine for November 1, 1945, that he knew "several villages where all the women, even the aged and girls as young as twelve, were violated daily for weeks by the Russians."

Sylvester Michelfelder, a Lutheran pastor, wrote in the Christian Century "Bands of irresponsible bandits in Russian or American uniforms pillage and rob the trains. Women and girls are violated in sight of everyone. They are stripped of their clothes."

On April 27, 1946 Vatican Radio charged that in the Russian occupation zone of Eastern Germany cries of help are going up "from girls and women who are being brutally raped and whose bodily and spiritual health is completely shaken."

The rapists did not all wear a red star. John Dos Passos, writing in LIFE magazine for January 7, 1946, quotes a "red-faced major" as saying that "Lust, liquor and loot are the soldier's pay." A serviceman wrote to TIME magazine for November 12, 1945 "Many a sane American family would recoil in horror if they knew how 'Our Boys' conduct themselves, with such complete callousness in human relationships over here." An army sergeant wrote "Our own Army and the British Army ...have done their share of looting and raping... This offensive attitude among our troops is not at all general, but the percentage is large enough to have given our Army a pretty black name, and we too are considered an army of rapists."

An Italian survivor of American bombing states that Black American troops, stationed in Naples, were allowed by their superiors free access to poor, hungry, and humiliated Italian women. The result of this interracial rape and sexual slavery was the production of a generation of pitiable mixed-race children, a legacy of the brutal conqueror.

According to an AP dispatch of September 12, 1945, entitled "German-American Marriages Forbidden", the Franklin Roosevelt government instructed its soldiers that marriage with the inferior Germans was absolutely forbidden, but those having illegitimate children by German women, whose husbands and boyfriends were conveniently dead or held as prisoners or slave laborers, could count on allowance money. And, according to TIME magazine of September 17, 1945, the government provided these soldiers with an estimated 50 million condoms per month, and graphically instructed them as to their use. For all practical purposes, our soldiers were being told: "Teach these Germans a lesson -- and have a wonderful time!" Such were the great crusaders who brought "democracy" to Europe.

For the Americans and British, open rape was not as common as among the Soviet troops. The Soviets simply raped any female from eight years up and if a German man or woman killed a Russian soldier for anything, including rape, 50 Germans were killed for each incident, as reported in TIME magazine, June 11, 1945. But for most of our boys, having that "wonderful time" depended a great deal on the "cooperation" of the German and Austrian women. From the starving and the homeless, of course, sexual "cooperation" could be bought for a few pennies or a mouthful of food. I don't think we ought to dignify this arrangement with any other than its true name of sexual slavery.

The Christian Century for December 5, 1945 reported "the American provost marshal, Lieutenant Colonel Gerald F. Beane, said that rape presents no problem for the military police because a bit of food, a bar of chocolate, or a bar of soap seem to make rape unnecessary. Think that over, if you want to understand the situation in Germany." The Weekly Review of London, for October 25, 1945, described it thus: "Young girls, unattached, wander about and freely offer themselves for food or bed. ...very simply, they have one thing left to sell, and they sell it... ...as a way of dying it may be worse than starvation, but it will put off dying for months -- or even years."

Dr. George N. Shuster, president of Hunter College, wrote in the Catholic Digest of December 1945 after a visit to the American Zone of occupation, "You have said it all when you say that Europe is now a place where woman has lost her perennial fight for decency because the indecent alone live." By official policy, the Allies created conditions in which the only German mothers who could keep their young children alive were those who themselves or whose sisters became mistresses of the occupying troops. Our own officials admittedly brought the Germans down to a total daily food intake less than that of an American breakfast, a level which leads to slow but sure death unless relieved.

According to testimony given in the United States Senate on July 17, 1945, when the colonial French troops under Eisenhower's command, presumably mostly Africans, entered the German city of Stuttgart, they herded German women into the subways and raped some two thousand of them. In Stuttgart alone, troops under Eisenhower's command raped more women in one week than troops under German command raped in all of France for four entire years. In fact, of all the major belligerents in World War II, the German troops had by far the smallest record of rape and looting. In fact, the German army's incidence of rape in all of Germany's occupied territories was even lower than that of American troops stationed on American soil!

According to the International News Service in London, January 31, 1946, when American soldier's wives were brought to Germany, they were given special authorization to wear military uniforms because "the GIs did not want their wives mistaken for Fraeuleins by other occupation troops." A writer for the New York World Telegram January 21, 1945 stated "Americans look on the German women as loot, just like cameras and Lugers." Dr. G. Stewart, in a health statement submitted to General Eisenhower, reported that in the first six months of American occupation, venereal disease jumped to twenty times its former level in Germany.

I want you imagine an orgy of rape like this happening in your country, in your neighborhood, to your family, to your wife, your sister, your daughter. I want you to imagine what it would feel like to be totally powerless to stop it from happening, completely unable to bring the criminals to justice. And I want to ask you, were there ever any "war crimes" or "hate crimes" trials of these butchers and rapists and inciters to butchery and rape? We in America are very good at raining "smart bombs" on our adversaries, and in violently enforcing the dictates of the United Nations on faraway peoples that our press have vilified. But we have really been very insulated from the horrors of mass warfare on our own territory. However, unless we wake up, we will find that someday the political situation in America will not be to the liking of the international elitists, and we may find foreign troops in blue UN helmets on our shores, to "correct" the situation. They will of course be called "peace-keeping" troops in the macabre Newspeak that our would-be masters have created, but their bombs and bullets, I assure you, will kill your family quite as dead as any others. And in the homelands where those "peace-keepers" hail from, I also assure you that the controlled media will have thoroughly indoctrinated them with a hatred of the nasty Americans who must be put in their place for their sins of questioning the dictates of the New World Order. Just as today, we are taught to hate the Iraqis and the Afrikaners of South Africa; just as yesterday we were taught to hate the Germans.

Few today remember that in the 1940s, the Allies, who even then were calling their world-government-in-the-making the "United Nations," were pursuing a policy of unconditional surrender, which meant that the Germans would be obligated to accept an occupation government whose announced intentions, the infamous and genocidal Morgenthau Plan, would have reduced Germany to medieval conditions and cut her population by enforced starvation. Go to a large library and check out Secretary Morgenthau's book, Germany Is Our Problem, Harper and Brothers, 1945. You will note the use of the term "United Nations" on the front flyleaf and in the foreword by Franklin D. Roosevelt. A prominent Jewish writer in America, Theodore Kaufman, had in 1941 written a book entitled Germany Must Perish, which advocated the extermination of all Germans by sterilization. Kaufman's book received favorable reviews in major American magazines and newspapers. Other books, such as Louis Nizer's What To Do With Germany, also contributed to this atmosphere of strident anti-German hatred. War propaganda and official policy combined to create an image of the German as sub-human and deserving of almost infinite punishment if not annihilation.

Churchill said to the Germans in January, 1945, "We Allies are no monsters. This, at least, I can say, on behalf of the United Nations, to Germany. ...Peace, though based on unconditional surrender, will bring to Germany and Japan immense and immediate alleviation of suffering and agony."

Against that false claim the late Dr. Austin App proclaimed the truth: Those Allies who were "no monsters" literally raped more European women than had ever before been raped in the history of the world. They put Germany on a starvation-level diet. Under direct orders from Dwight Eisenhower, they killed more than a million German POWs. They looted 12 million people of their homes, goods, food, and even clothes and drove them from their homelands. They took one-fourth of their farmland, they took their ships and their factories and their farm implements and then told them to live by farming. They abused and starved to death more German babies than there ever were Jews in Germany. They raped and debauched hundreds of thousands of German, Austrian, and Hungarian girls and women from eight to eighty. They brought to their death five times as many Germans in one year of peace as died during five years of war. Yes, yes, of course, these men of the United Nations, these men of the New World Order are no monsters.

Quite apart from any ethnic or ideological considerations, World War II was a war between, on the one side, the elitists who created Communism as a way-station on the road to their New World Order; and on the other, those who opposed that New World Order. It is a tragedy of millennial proportions that America and Britain were induced to fight on the side of Communism and Communism's masters.

Ladies and gentlemen, you have been lied to by those who want to submerge us into their world government. The public schools, the major media, and the government are lying to you. If you want to keep your freedom, you need to wake up.

[Serotonin]

An Italian survivor of American bombing states that Black American troops, stationed in Naples, were allowed by their superiors free access to poor, hungry, and humiliated Italian women. The result of this interracial rape and sexual slavery was the production of a generation of pitiable mixed-race children, a legacy of the brutal conqueror.
Pitiable indeed. Who wrote this racist stuff?

*Looks at website*

A white supremacist group. Sigh. Were you trying to make a cynical point Swift?Maybe a more impartial source would be better. Claverhouse I'm not letting my eye off you either.

[Swift]

Impartial sources? There is no such thing as impartial sources.

[mgb]

With any luck it led to a whole bunch of abortions.

[mgb]

Impartial sources? There is no such thing as impartial sources.

Oh and there are definitely sources that are much less impartial than the National Alliance, which is incidentally headed by the author of the Turner Diaries.

"Toward A New Conciousness; A New Order; A New People"

PS. You're a racist.

[SheepDog]

Swift, what's your opinion on this? Why did you post it?

Be brave.

[Swift]

The purpose of posting this was to show that some historic occurences don't make it to the history books, simply because it's the winners who write them. My message was that both Allies and Axis powers commited horrific crimes of war, and that history is not the black and white picture of "Allies = good" and "Axis = evil".

I'm aware that most people would not accept any information coming from the National Alliance, since most people are already conditioned to reject the opinion of these groups in advance, without looking at their message with an open mind. Anybody asking the wrong questions or pointing out the wrong facts is immediately stigmatized as a racist. I was hoping that INTP's might be a little more open, and even lured towards the forbiddennes of these thoughts, especially since this text is about the cover up of Allied war crimes, rather than about racism itself.

Swift

[philonightmare]

Thank you for posting this Swift. I can easily believe these things occurred and passed under so many noses' detection. During wartime, there are no bad/good guys, only victims.

Everyone gets hurt in some way and it can hardly be prevented when such chaos is rampant. As it was in Berlin and other places during the war. It saddens me to think that we're (humans) all capable of such atrocious actions, but this is not the first time it's happened either. If people choose not to listen to information from the other side they are denying themselves a great opportunity to see a different perspective.

As a female, I can completely commisserate with the sentiments of those women. No person is safe, not in a church, not in a hospital. When places of refuge become places to violate there really isn't much left in this world to be considered purely good. I'm not taking sides here, I just wish people would read the texts of both sides' history. It's immature to claim that only one history is correct. There are many histories, many tales to be told. I'm glad you did your part in sharing.

I would say more, but I'm still slightly undone by that article. Not shocked, just processing...

[Edit: I retract belief of said events, not to say that my empathy for these people and the possiblity of said events happening has been affected. I need factual evidence now. Heh, thanks for explaining the problem people (you know who you lot are). Damn Ni. :ph34r: ]

[CoHo]

I'm aware that most people would not accept any information coming from the National Alliance, since most people are already conditioned to reject the opinion of these groups in advance

Hahaha, here's some other stuff from your website:


I think that Sweetheart has always been concerned about it. I
am a full-time housewife and homemaker and I don't get out too
much, but in 1994 we were living on Broadway in Baltimore. It was
about 4 o'clock in the afternoon and I was attacked by a nigger
with a broken beer bottle. He cut my neck and I bled quite
profusely. I still have scars from it. Once you have been
attacked by a Black it changes your entire outlook toward that
race of people. Ever since then I have wanted to do something
about it.



Most Americans don't understand that nearly all of this is a calculated
lie. They don't understand that Hollywood concocted this lie, and the
U.S. government and the American educational establishment went along
with it in order to deceive the American people about the true reasons
for the American bombing and invasion of Germany and about what actually
happened in Germany before, during, and after the war. Indeed, some GIs
did give candy bars to German children, but nearly everything else we
have been taught about Germany and the Second World War is a lie.

There were some things the Nazis simply wouldn't put up with. They were
quite determined to clean up German life and to set new fashions and new
standards for public behavior after a long period during which the Jews
had been permitted to promote every sort of degeneracy in Germany. But
the fact remains that despite the restrictions on communists and
homosexuals and Jews, Germans had more intellectual and artistic freedom
-- more freedom of speech -- under Hitler than they did after Germany's
so-called "liberation" in 1945. And under Hitler they had more freedom
of expression than they do today. But if you say that in Germany today
you'll be arrested and sent to prison for it.



Now how is that relevant to the Second World War? I'll tell you. Hitler
and his wicked Germans, you see, didn't approve of homosexual activity.
After Hitler became chancellor of Germany in 1933, a homosexual who
sodomized a 16-year-old boy in Germany and got caught was in big
trouble, and I mean big trouble. A lot of homosexuals wound up in
concentration camps, and not all of them came out again. Even today they
still whine about how Hitler made them wear pink triangles on their
clothes and persecuted them. But fortunately for the "chicken hawks,"
Britain and America went to war against Germany, and now homosexuals
everywhere have full rights. More rights, in fact, than the rest of us.
If we hadn't fought for the rights of homosexuals in the Second World
War, then "chicken hawks" wouldn't have the right to sodomize young boys
today: certainly not in Germany, and probably not in Britain or the
United States either. Winning the war against Germany set ideological
fashions for the whole world.


The truth of the matter is that as soon as a National Socialist government was elected in Germany in 1933, the Germans began working hard to persuade Jews to emigrate. They did this by enacting legislation which progressively excluded Jews from one sector of German life after another. Jews were not permitted to teach in Germany, except in Jewish schools; they were not permitted to publish newspapers, magazines, or books, except those published specifically for Jews; they were banned from the practice of medicine (except the treating of Jewish patients) and law; and they were excluded from many areas of trade and industry, especially from those businesses requiring a government license.

This legislation was not motivated by petty spite or by economic considerations, but by a determination to free Germany from Jewish influence. When the National Socialists came to power in 1933, Jews were vastly over-represented in the media, in teaching, and in the legal and medical professions. For example, 42 per cent of the physicians practicing in Berlin in 1933 were Jews, as were 48 per cent of the attorneys. To the National Socialists this was an intolerable situation, and they set about remedying it in a typically thorough and efficient manner.

The Jews screamed bloody murder about the National Socialist campaign to take Germany away from them and give it back to the German people. As early as 1934 Jews around the world declared an economic boycott of Germany in retaliation. As it became apparent to them, however, that Adolf Hitler was the most popular leader Germany had ever had, that the National Socialists could neither be bought off nor voted out of office, and that there really was no future for Jews in Germany, they began to look for easier pickings elsewhere. The great majority of them eventually emigrated.

[Swift]

Hahaha, here's some other stuff from your website:That was quick. Been there too?

[Claverhouse]

Since Swift copied it from the same source I chose to illustrate the Rape and Child Abuse thread here, maybe I can answer.

I read all sources: here are some to offend everybody here:

SchNews UK (http://www.schnews.org.uk/index.html)

National Bolsheviks (http://www.bolsheviks.org/)

Ross Cults (http://www.rickross.com/)

Marxism Mailing (http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism)

Monbiot (http://www.monbiot.com/)

The Poe Decoder (http://www.poedecoder.com/)

Neturei Karta (http://www.nkusa.org/)

Birdman Bryant (http://www.thebirdman.org/)

The Mackenzie Institute (http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/index.html)

Children Gulag in America (http://www.earthrainbownetwork.com/Archives2004/ChildrenGulag.htm)

Billionaires for Bush (http://billionairesforbush.com/index.php)

Direct Democracy League (http://www.ddleague-usa.net/index.html)

Anti-White Racism (http://www.racismeantiblanc.bizland.com/005/index.htm)

Paramilitary Organisations (http://www.cromwell-intl.com/security/netusers.html)

Christianity Forum (http://forums.christianity.com/)

Earthjustice (http://www.earthjustice.org/)

Rude Macedon (http://www.rudemacedon.ca/kaminski/kam-index.html)


You people are a bunch of cissies. Learning truths does not depend on only reading those things which agree with your own beliefs and prejudices; nor in accepting all those things you read from any side. I disagree with most of the things that are taught in the sites above, but I will agree with certain of their beliefs where the evidence seems stronger than not. To limit oneself from believing anything because you reject the whole source is merely mental cowardice.

If I believed everything above, I would be a multi-schizo: but I discriminate and select those arguments that seem more truthful than others. I would loathe the NA more because it is a throwback to the republican constitution makers of the original US, as well as being admirers of Hitler ( AFAIK ); but that doesn't mean that the information in the article is untrue. I cannot judge factual information merely by my own prejudices and only believe atrocities were committed by the enemies of whichever side I choose, and that all things alleged against my side are ipso facto untrue.

Who cares whether Pierce or Strom or Swift is a racist or not a racist ? Or a witch; or a communist ? Why would it matter who says something if it's true ? It is the information offered that is at stake, not the beliefs of the speaker --- unless you are so scared that you might be converted to their neo-nazi propaganda you stick your fingers in your ears and go la-la-la to drown out their insidious words.

If you say that these rapes did not happen, say so. And give reasons why you reject that evidence.

If you say 'it may have happened, but it served them right', say so.

If you say, 'oh well bad things happen in war, but the other side was always worse than us, so I don't care' --- well, that is a respectable viewpoint, but say that.

Just don't shriek of any source: 'it's nazi; it's communist; it's atheism; it's witches; it's capitalism; it's pacifism; it's socialist propaganda: I'm not going to listen because everything they say is a lie and because it comes from them it must be a lie; so I'm never going to accept anything they say because I already know they will be lying'. Try an make an argument on facts not an emotional reaction.



Claverhouse :ph34r:


Edit this was in reply to no.6. But Fx went down twice ( 1.03 seems... experimental ). F***ing Firefox.

[philonightmare]

Hahaha, here's some other stuff from your website:

Don't you understand the point Swift is making? I don't understand why some of you can't accept that there are other histories out there and that YES dammit the source isn't bloody perfect?!

Hell, no one is perfect, which includes racists and even people who AREN'T racist! Every point of view deserves to be told, regardless a person's prejuidices.

[philonightmare]

Just don't shriek of any source: 'it's nazi; it's communist; it's atheism; it's witches; it's capitalism; it's pacifism; it's socialist propaganda: I'm not going to listen because everything they say is a lie and because it comes from them it must be a lie; so I'm never going to accept anything they say because I already know they will be lying'. Try an make an argument on facts not an emotional reaction.

Claverhouse, you are the best, along with Swift!

I hate it when people close their minds to information that directly contradicts their previous notions.

[Edit: urgh...retract first statement...]

[Star]

Just don't shriek of any source: 'it's nazi; it's communist; it's atheism; it's witches; it's capitalism; it's pacifism; it's socialist propaganda: I'm not going to listen because everything they say is a lie and because it comes from them it must be a lie; so I'm never going to accept anything they say because I already know they will be lying'. Try an make an argument on facts not an emotional reaction.




Not only do I despise feminism, but this follows through to despising the Great Feminist Directors, so I wouldn't now watch anything by Tarantino, Ridley Scott or Michael Winner.


Interesting.

[CoHo]

That was quick. Been there too?

Nah, I just searched using the keywords Nigger, Holocaust, Zionist, Rape and Homosexual

Strangely enough I found PLENTY of material



Don't you understand the point Swift is making? I don't understand why some of you can't accept that there are other histories out there and that YES dammit the source isn't bloody perfect?!


Try an make an argument on facts not an emotional reaction.

No, you don't understand.

I'm not going to consider everything I read on the internet as having a possibility of accuracy. I'm not going to listen to a white supremacists point of view of World War 2 and I'm not going to listen to a Black Panther's opinion of the American Government.

That's fucking stupid

[philonightmare]

Interesting.

People do change their minds often. I'm not saying see's not anti-feminist anymore, but more like his point was from a historical-nut's (which I am as well) pov...that no information should be closed off to those who are willing to seek it.

[Last Song]

Interesting.

hahaha (:

[philonightmare]

No, you don't understand.

I'm not going to consider everything I read on the internet as having a possibility of accuracy. I'm not going to listen to a white supremacists point of view of World War 2 and I'm not going to listen to a Black Panther's opinion of the American Government.

That's fucking stupid

So, you're saying that some of that information presented has no basis in being factually accurate?

[Swift]

I'm not going to consider everything I read on the internet as having a possibility of accuracy. I'm not going to listen to a white supremacists point of view of World War 2 and I'm not going to listen to a Black Panther's opinion of the American Government. That first sentence was a wise idea, the second one a less wise one. Closing yourself from different perspectives will only impoverish your view of the world.

[CoHo]

So, you're saying that some of that information presented has no basis in being factually accurate?

No, All I'm saying that I'll be happy to read and comment on it if it is published in a reputable source that does not have ties to Aryan organizations. Point me to a BBC url.

Until then it is White Supremacist bullshit.

[CoHo]

Closing yourself from different perspectives will only impoverish your view of the world.

I'm closing myself from Narrow Minded opinions and I only consider information that has been presented without bias. Who is the impoverished one?

[philonightmare]

No, All I'm saying that I'll be happy to read and comment on it if it is published in a reputable source that does not have ties to Aryan organizations. Point me to a BBC url.

Until then it is White Supremacist bullshit.

Do you not realize that even BBC can be wrong? We're humans, we report what we want, when we want to the world. When the complete truth is known, is when humans cease to be humans. By human nature, we are secretive of truths that disturb us, we shield ourselves from it --thinking it'll just go away.

Truth is, that even the BBC is run by humans who are quite willing to censor at will. All media is. Yes, even the internet. But, Swift is right, you lose out by closing your mind to reading things published by an organization you despise.

Edit: To make it clearer to you: Even the BBC is biased. There, now who are you going to listen to for your truths?

[CoHo]

uth is, that even the BBC is run by humans who are quite willing to censor at will. All media is. Yes, even the internet. But, Swift is right, you lose out by closing your mind to reading things published by an organization you despise.

Okay then, point me to a reputable source that does not have ties to Aryan organizations

[philonightmare]

Okay then, point me to a reputable source that does not have ties to Aryan organizations

I don't have any links on me, no. I haven't done extensive research on this matter and if I have time I will. I will however, not dismiss the validity of this article just because it is published by a group I despise. That would be a clear violation of one of my principles: While seeking the truth, do not dismiss opinions and information that goes against what I believe or what my previous prejuidices told me are wrong.

This means that, yes...this is published by an Aryan organization, yes it is most DEFINITELY biased. But, who isn't biased?

[Serotonin]

Since Swift copied it from the same source I chose to illustrate the Rape and Child Abuse thread here, maybe I can answer.

I read all sources: here are some to offend everybody here:

SchNews UK (http://www.schnews.org.uk/index.html)

National Bolsheviks (http://www.bolsheviks.org/)

Ross Cults (http://www.rickross.com/)

Marxism Mailing (http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism)

Monbiot (http://www.monbiot.com/)

The Poe Decoder (http://www.poedecoder.com/)

Neturei Karta (http://www.nkusa.org/)

Birdman Bryant (http://www.thebirdman.org/)

The Mackenzie Institute (http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/index.html)

Children Gulag in America (http://www.earthrainbownetwork.com/Archives2004/ChildrenGulag.htm)

Billionaires for Bush (http://billionairesforbush.com/index.php)

Direct Democracy League (http://www.ddleague-usa.net/index.html)

Anti-White Racism (http://www.racismeantiblanc.bizland.com/005/index.htm)

Paramilitary Organisations (http://www.cromwell-intl.com/security/netusers.html)

Christianity Forum (http://forums.christianity.com/)

Earthjustice (http://www.earthjustice.org/)

Rude Macedon (http://www.rudemacedon.ca/kaminski/kam-index.html)


Ha. An interesting bunch of sites. FYI I occasionally read:
Stormfront.org (http://www.stormfront.org)
Freeconservatives.com (http://www.freeconservatives.com)

for perspectives from the other side.


You people are a bunch of cissies. Learning truths does not depend on only reading those things which agree with your own beliefs and prejudices; nor in accepting all those things you read from any side. I disagree with most of the things that are taught in the sites above, but I will agree with certain of their beliefs where the evidence seems stronger than not. To limit oneself from believing anything because you reject the whole source is merely mental cowardice.

Fair point.



Who cares whether Pierce or Strom or Swift is a racist or not a racist ? Or a witch; or a communist ? Why would it matter who says something if it's true ? It is the information offered that is at stake, not the beliefs of the speaker --- unless you are so scared that you might be converted to their neo-nazi propaganda you stick your fingers in your ears and go la-la-la to drown out their insidious words.

Unfair point. If you post an article like Swift does, without any caveats to what parts of it he does or doesn't believe, then isn't it reasonable to believe he supports all sentiments therein? Swift, what do you make of these bits:



But we have really been very insulated from the horrors of mass warfare on our own territory. However, unless we wake up, we will find that someday the political situation in America will not be to the liking of the international elitists, and we may find foreign troops in blue UN helmets on our shores, to "correct" the situation. They will of course be called "peace-keeping" troops in the macabre Newspeak that our would-be masters have created, but their bombs and bullets, I assure you, will kill your family quite as dead as any others. And in the homelands where those "peace-keepers" hail from, I also assure you that the controlled media will have thoroughly indoctrinated them with a hatred of the nasty Americans who must be put in their place for their sins of questioning the dictates of the New World Order. Just as today, we are taught to hate the Iraqis and the Afrikaners of South Africa; just as yesterday we were taught to hate the Germans.




Quite apart from any ethnic or ideological considerations, World War II was a war between, on the one side, the elitists who created Communism as a way-station on the road to their New World Order; and on the other, those who opposed that New World Order. It is a tragedy of millennial proportions that America and Britain were induced to fight on the side of Communism and Communism's masters.

Ladies and gentlemen, you have been lied to by those who want to submerge us into their world government. The public schools, the major media, and the government are lying to you. If you want to keep your freedom, you need to wake up.


Pure paranoia and thought control. No truth, just opinion. I despise it. If I were Swift I would add an addendum saying: "Now I think this article makes a fair point when they talk about xyz, but are totally off their head when they talk about this:" followed by all his disagreements. The fact that he hasn't done this has led me to doubt the state of his rationality.



If you say that these rapes did not happen, say so. And give reasons why you reject that evidence.

If you say 'it may have happened, but it served them right', say so.

If you say, 'oh well bad things happen in war, but the other side was always worse than us, so I don't care' --- well, that is a respectable viewpoint, but say that.

Just don't shriek of any source: 'it's nazi; it's communist; it's atheism; it's witches; it's capitalism; it's pacifism; it's socialist propaganda: I'm not going to listen because everything they say is a lie and because it comes from them it must be a lie; so I'm never going to accept anything they say because I already know they will be lying'. Try an make an argument on facts not an emotional reaction.


In all likelihood there was a lot of horrible rape in Germany 1945. I don't doubt that some of the facts in that article are true. Exactly which ones are, which ones are exaggerated and which ones are damned lies I just don't know. We'll never know the extent of course, and the fact that a lot of this stuff is supported by discredited people e.g. David Irving doesn't really further our quest for knowledge.

No reliable sources can be found, so it's better to remain skeptical of all viewpoints on this matter, and maybe resign ourselves to accept that the truth will never be known.

[CoHo]

While seeking the truth, do not dismiss opinions and information that goes against what I believe or what my previous prejuidices told me are wrong.

You know what, you're right, I've been looking at this completely from the wrong angle. From now on when I see a news source I will consider that these are just honest working individuals trying to present a different viewpoint.

HOLY FUCKING SHIT
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/chamber/53902?printer=1

[coffeezombie]

I'm not going to defend Swift's views, because I don't agree with them. But I'll defend his right to say them. Those of you who don't like his posts know exactly what to do. Don't cllick on them. A society that doesn't allow free speech is totalitarian in one direction or another.

[CoHo]

Those of you who don't like his posts know exactly what to do. Don't cllick on them.

WRONG. He has the right to say it and I have the right to call him a fucktard for saying it

[philonightmare]

You know what, you're right, I've been looking at this completely from the wrong angle. From now on when I see a news source I will consider that these are just honest working individuals trying to present a different viewpoint.

HOLY FUCKING SHIT
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/chamber/53902?printer=1

Or comic relief...

You take things too seriously. :)

[coffeezombie]

WRONG. He has the right to say it and I have the right to call him a fucktard for saying it

Well, that too. But it seems a more effective strategy might be to ignore the guy. If I held some controversial views and wanted to post them it would only make me laugh and encourage me more if a bunch of people started calling me a fucktard.

[philonightmare]

Pure paranoia and thought control. No truth, just opinion. I despise it. If I were Swift I would add an addendum saying: "Now I think this article makes a fair point when they talk about xyz, but are totally off their head when they talk about this:" followed by all his disagreements. The fact that he hasn't done this has led me to doubt the state of his rationality.

Seems like a fair compromise.

[coffeezombie]

Maybe he believes it all, though. Claverhouse brings up a good point. Debate with him if you care so much. How INTP is it to just sit back and just name-call?

[Claverhouse]

Not only do I despise feminism, but this follows through to despising the Great Feminist Directors, so I wouldn't now watch anything by Tarantino, Ridley Scott or Michael Winner.

Not watching Michael Winner's films and rejecting his messages does not invalidate my point that I will read any point of view including that of various feminists. ( I was was brought up with that junk after all: and even if I disagree with the analyzes, it remains important to understand others' messages ) It's not exactly as if these auteurs are addressing serious issues of the oppression of real women in say the Third World, or the non-provision of battered women's refuges in the USA.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Claverhouse]

No, you don't understand.

I'm not going to consider everything I read on the internet as having a possibility of accuracy. I'm not going to listen to a white supremacists point of view of World War 2 and I'm not going to listen to a Black Panther's opinion of the American Government.

That's fucking stupid

Why not ? And why is it stupid ? I once read a pb autobiography by someone called Bobbie Seale: I had no interest in his cause or leftist sympathies; but after reading it I understood more about why he believed the things he did, and why black people had grievances against the American Government back in the '60s or '70s.

Black Panthers have the right to exist and to preach whatever they like.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Swift]

Okay then, point me to a reputable source that does not have ties to Aryan organizationsI'm very sorry, but "reputable" sources will not cover this kind of news.

Anybody that points out the German view or suggests that the Germans were wrongfully treated will be brandished a "Nazi", a "White Supremacist", a "Revisionist", etc...

Take for example the British historian David Irving. The guy is a reputable historian. He wrote more than 10 books about the Second World War, but since he questioned the Holocaust story as most of us know it, he is labeled an "anti-semite" and is a persona non grata in several European country's.

And some groups, like Aryan organizations, are simply not indoctinated or afraid to give voice to a dissident opinion.

Swift

[Serotonin]

I'm very sorry, but "reputable" sources will not cover this kind of news.

Anybody that points out the German view or suggests that the Germans were wrongfully treated will be brandished a "Nazi", a "White Supremacist", a "Revisionist", etc...

Take for example the British historian David Irving. The guy is a reputable historian. He wrote more than 10 books about the Second World War, but since he questioned the Holocaust story as most of us know it, he is labeled an "anti-semite" and is a persona non grata in several European country's.

And some groups, like Aryan organizations, are simply not indoctinated or afraid to give voice to a dissident opinion.

Swift

We've heard this one trotted out a million times before. Stop playing the victim and engage with your skeptical audience. The onus is on you to be completely transparent and state your position on racial issues.
More importantly, for the sake of this thread, do you agree with all sentiments in the article that you posted or just some of them?

So Swift, what is your position?

Step up to the plate, son.

[kafkaesque]

As to Swift's point about history being misleading and biased toward the winners, this is no revelation. Many have written on this subject. Notably Howard Zinn, A People's History of The United States (http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/zinn-chap16.html). Noam Chomsky also has a lot to say about Allied war crimes vs. the so-called bad guys' war crimes, i.e. they are basically the same.

As to the racist point of view. These atrocities are committed because in violent conflicts each side dehumanizes what they perceive as the enemy. They see them as less than themselves or their group, less than human, and only by doing this will their conscience allow them to commit such abhorrent acts like murder and rape. These things are the result of indoctrination of fear and blame. The very same two things that racism is based on.

[Swift]

So Swift, what is your position?

Step up to the plate, son.I will respond in more detail another time, perhaps tomorrow, but I can say that generally I agree with the article, even with it's racial undertone.

Swift

[Serotonin]

I will respond in more detail another time, perhaps tomorrow, but I can say that generally I agree with the article, even with it's racial undertone.

Swift

Duly noted.

[SheepDog]

Seeing others as different from one's self enables acts of aggression toward others.

Race, gender, religion, ethnicity, it doesn't matter how you slice it.

[Serotonin]

Seeing others as different from one's self enables acts of aggression toward others.

Race, gender, religion, ethnicity, it doesn't matter how you slice it.

True. Which is why I took umbrage at point 4 in Swift's 11 points to a better world or whatever it was: "Not all people are of equal worth". From a personal perspective, in terms of family and friends, of course they have more worth to me than people I don't know. But the minute you implement your lifestyle around some types of people having more inherent worth than other types then that's when you lose credibility in my book. Believing in point 4 is essentially the source of all human violence in the world. You have to walk this globe with a sense of egalitarianism otherwise you get into strife. It's a pity that sensible article was tarnished by that point.

[philonightmare]

I will respond in more detail another time, perhaps tomorrow, but I can say that generally I agree with the article, even with it's racial undertone.
Swift

Oh boy.... This is definitely something worth mentioning. :ph34r:

[Star]

Heh, you're the only one who had to see it written out so plainly before catching on, philo. ;)

edit: I point that out because I think it's a type difference ..

[Serotonin]

Heh, you're the only one who had to see it written out so plainly before catching on, philo. ;)

edit: I point that out because I think it's a type difference ..

Yeah, diff between Ne/Ni can be stark at times.

Not Ni bashing, better than having strong Si, but I love having strong Ne.

[philonightmare]

Heh, you're the only one who had to see it written out so plainly before catching on, philo. ;)

edit: I point that out because I think it's a type difference ..

I believe you're right...

[philonightmare]

Yeah, diff between Ne/Ni can be stark at times.

Not Ni bashing, better than having strong Si, but I love having strong Ne.

:D I love being me. I'm glad you are you. :cheers:

The differences between our types is fascinating...

[mgb]

I'm not going to defend Swift's views, because I don't agree with them. But I'll defend his right to say them. Those of you who don't like his posts know exactly what to do. Don't cllick on them. A society that doesn't allow free speech is totalitarian in one direction or another.

No one said he couldn't say them.

[mgb]

And it's not like anyone here is oblivious to war atrocities. I know about the bombing of Dresden, I don't think it was a good thing. And it's not like this stuff is news to anyone, war is hell.

It's the tone of the entire text that is so offensive and closed minded. Just because it's on the internet it doesn't make something true. And saying we are being close minded because of the source is taking us for idiots. We can all read. We can all understand what we are reading. And that piece of shit essay was written by a sick fuck, and it didn't have to come from the National Alliance to see that.

And posting shit like this doesn't make me think that Swift is anything less than a close minded bigot.

[SheepDog]

This seems relevant...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
Specifically, the article seems to be saying, "we may be bad, but so is everyone else" (or everyone else is worse).

[coffeezombie]

No one said he couldn't say them.

So everytime he does say them, since it is okay to, you'll just throw more shit at him. I think it would be better if we see "0 Replies" next to every one of his posts.

[Serotonin]

So everytime he does say them, since it is okay to, you'll just throw more shit at him. I think it would be better if we see "0 Replies" next to every one of his posts.

There's offensive shit and constructive shit. I'm all for having a debate with Swift. I hope I don't sound too macho here, but bring it on.

[mgb]

So everytime he does say them, since it is okay to, you'll just throw more shit at him. I think it would be better if we see "0 Replies" next to every one of his posts.

Passive aggression is exactly the wrong attitude to take in my opinion. People should take an active roll in weeding out bullshit.

I think people should be up in arms about stuff like this. It wasn't written as an accurate historical record but written to motivate others into bias and hatred. It serves no intellectual purpose other than as a example of racist propaganda. And on that level it's not even very good.

And given Swift's personal position on the article he is not presenting this to us as an example of racist propaganda, but as fact. A fact this article has a tough time proving given there are no references listed here or on the site.

And I hate to say it, but free speech doesn't exist on this board. It's private web space and personally I don't think this has a place here any more than someone posting a journal article saying the holocaust was a myth does.

[coffeezombie]

I suppose you have a good point, mg. But if you choose not to counter the stuff people like him write with any kind of evidence, all it does is bring more attention to his arguments. Yeah, I think the stuff he writes is crap too, but I'm too lazy to find all of the counter-evidence to his claims. If you don't offer counter-evidence, those who are susceptible to this stuff are going to believe Swift and not you. If you just say "You're wrong, you Nazi," you don't convince anybody.

[Serotonin]

I think if we start invoking Voltaire and talking about our right to free speech we are getting sidetracked. In my mind Swift has taken the liberty of free speech (of which he has a right to) to post something controversial on the boards. I am taking my right to free speech to say that parts of his post are deeply misguided. That's all there is to it. We need to accept that here is an opportunity to roll up our sleeves and get down to business debating this issue instead of whining about who has the right to say what.

[mgb]

I suppose you have a good point, mg. But if you choose not to counter the stuff people like him write with any kind of evidence, all it does is bring more attention to his arguments. Yeah, I think the stuff he writes is crap too, but I'm too lazy to find all of the counter-evidence to his claims. If you don't offer counter-evidence, those who are susceptible to this stuff are going to believe Swift and not you. If you just say "You're wrong, you Nazi," you don't convince anybody.

I don't know when the burden of proof fell on dissenters of an idea. Someone should have to prove there arguments here, not just present them. I have no clue why that is such a vogue thing to do here, make an outlandish statement or claim (or post one) and then say that everyone else is wrong because they can't prove it isn't right, when the burden of proof should lie on the person who is making the wild assertions.

And so far his only "evidence" is that we are all close minded.

And I never called him a Nazi.I called him a racist for presenting us with such a racially biased article. He backed up my assertion that he was a racist with a post of his own.

[MacGuffin]

I don't know when the burden of proof fell on dissenters of an idea. Someone should have to prove there arguments here, not just present them. I have no clue why that is such a vogue thing to do here, make an outlandish statement or claim (or post one) and then say that everyone else is wrong because they can't prove it isn't right, when the burden of proof should lie on the person who is making the wild assertions.
Excellent post.

[Miss Anthropic]

The purpose of posting this was to show that some historic occurences don't make it to the history books, simply because it's the winners who write them. My message was that both Allies and Axis powers commited horrific crimes of war, and that history is not the black and white picture of "Allies = good" and "Axis = evil".

I'm aware that most people would not accept any information coming from the National Alliance, since most people are already conditioned to reject the opinion of these groups in advance, without looking at their message with an open mind. Anybody asking the wrong questions or pointing out the wrong facts is immediately stigmatized as a racist. I was hoping that INTP's might be a little more open, and even lured towards the forbiddennes of these thoughts, especially since this text is about the cover up of Allied war crimes, rather than about racism itself.

Swift

I kinda sorta waded through all that....whether it is accurate or an incredible exaggeration I'm not in a position to guess. Mainly my feeling about how our country has behaved during war: WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf war etc etc is DUH! People do nasty things to one another during wars. Americans have done horrible things to Iraqis and vice versa during this latest debacle. Do you really think anyone on this forum is so blindly patriotic that we think Americans all march into conflict and don't get their hands dirty? I understand your point in what you said above, but I don't think this thread was necessary; you're preaching to the choir and what you used amounts to propaganda from an obviously biased source...Our history books aren't that biased the other direction. Have you taken a history course lately? I just did. It covered reconstruction through the Reagan administration. The portrait painted was not Allies=good Axis=bad. It was a rather balanced presentation of how and why everyone became involved. The course also covered in depth how America has prospered at the expense of other countries' people and resources. War is really ugly and it brings the ugliest out in its participants--all of them.

[Claverhouse]

Do you really think anyone on this forum is so blindly patriotic that we think Americans all march into conflict and don't get their hands dirty? I understand your point in what you said above, but I don't think this thread was necessary; you're preaching to the choir Well, he doesn't seem to be preaching to the choir: they all hate him for bringing this up.

As mgbradsh appears to think that the vaguest assertion from any source he dislikes should be backed up ( plus that no supporting evidence is needed for the standard issue liberal beliefs as counter arguments ); despite the fact that I'm already bored, I went and looked.

Although I despise the internet as a source of information ( if they're not asking for money, they're posting the wide spectrum of lunacy, and giving really bad misinformation half the time ), I am not fascinated by this enough to look in books and type extensive quotes, so here are a few pages:

The Russian raping of Germany is so well documented, it scarcely needs proving here, but here's the latest an author called Antony Beevor (http://www.antonybeevor.com/Berlin/berlinreviews.htm) ( not known as a pro-nazi ). Lesser Known fact of WWII has a para towards the end of this page (http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Egduncan/1944.html).

Rape & Genocide in Rwanda (http://homepages.uc.edu/thro/rwanda/RwandaRapeCase2.htm) has:


Only after World War II did the international community begin rape prosecutions. Control Council Law No. 10, for the Nuremberg Tribunal listed rape as a crime against humanity.[8] (http://homepages.uc.edu/thro/rwanda/RwandaRapeCase2.htm#_edn8) Despite evidence of major Nazi sexual crimes against French women, the tribunal at Nuremburg did not mention rape in the final judgment. The French and Soviet judges might have had difficulty holding Germans accountable. Moroccan soldiers were reportedly allowed by the French army to rape at will in Italy, and an estimated 100,000 to 800,000 German women were allegedly raped by the Soviet occupation army in Berlin. note that's just in Berlin alone...

For the Italians obviously not much is likely to be on the internet about one moroccan battalion in WWII ( and presumably anything not on the internet is bound to be unhistory ): but there's an old newslist H-Net MSU.EDU (http://www.h-net.org/%7Eafrica/threads/moroccan.html)
& Christine Chinkin has a ref on this page (http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol5/No3/art2.html), and the Italian WWII History Forum Comando Supremo has this page (http://www.comandosupremo.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=967&sid=85ac3343e1308e1479bd42f6638524f7), but as we all know Italians are all cowardly fascists...

quotes: ( and I don't know Italian )


from "LA CIOCIARA E LE ALTRE",by Massimo Lucioli and Davide Sabatini, edition Settimo Sigillo(CASA EDITRICE SETTIMO SIGILLO
Via Sebastiano Veniero 74/76
00192 Roma) :

"All'alba del giorno scelto per l'attacco, il 14 maggio 1944, il generale Juin inoltrò agli uomini della IIa divisione di fanteria (gen. Dody) e della IVa divisione da montagna (gen. Guillaume) il seguente proclama: «Soldati! Questa volta non è solo la libertà delle vostre terre che vi offro se vincerete questa battaglia. Alle spalle del nemico vi sono donne, case, c'è un vino tra i migliori del mondo, c'è dell'oro. Tutto ciò sarà vostro se vincerete. Dovrete uccidere i tedeschi fino all’ultimo uomo e passare ad ogni costo. Quello che vi ho detto e promesso mantengo. Per cinquanta ore sarete i padroni assoluti di ciò che troverete al di là del nemico. Nessuno vi punirà per ciò che farete, nessuno vi chiederà conto di ciò che prenderete».(3)
Tale allucinante promessa venne purtroppo rispettata alla lettera.
Nei giorni che seguirono la battaglia, terminata il 17 maggio con la caduta di Esperia, i 7.000 "goumiers" sopravvissuti (erano partiti all'attacco in 12.000) devastarono, rubarono, razziarono, uccisero, violentarono. Circa 3.500 donne, di età compresa tra gli 8 e gli 85 anni, vennero brutalmente stuprate. Vennero sodomizzati circa 800 uomini, tra cui anche un prete, don Alberto Terrilli, parroco di Santa Maria di Eperia, il quale morì due giorno dopo a causa delle sevizie riportate. Molti uomini che tentarono di proteggere le loro donne vennero impalati.

Terrore e violenza
In una relazione degli anni '50, che alla luce di recenti ricerche riporta dei dati per difetto, testualmente si legge: «circa 2.000 donne oltraggiate, di cui il 20 per cento affette da sifilide, il 90 per cento da blenorragia; molti i figli nati dalle unioni forzose -- Il 40 per cento degli uomini contagiati dalle mogli, oltre 800 assassinati perché accorsi a difendere l’onore delle loro madri, mogli, figlie. L’81 per cento dei fabbricati distrutto, il 90 per cento del bestiame sottratto; gioielli, abiti e denaro totalmente rubati»(4).

2) Luciano Garibaldi, L'assalto alle ciociare, in periodico "Noi", 1994.

(3) Luciano Garibaldi, ibidem.

(4) Pietro Caporilli, 7 anni di guerra, vol.II. ed. ARDITA ROMA 1959, pag. 1380.
"They move slowly, passing among swarthy helmeted long-gowned goumiers, often indistinguishable from the soil and stone when resting. They see a line of women at one village, then another at the next. Some are weeping. They hardly appear liberated. Is food so short here, he wonders. Actually, they are in line for medical examination. They've been raped. They need treatment. Some want testimony, also, that their virginity had been violated -- for when they would marry"

and the text proceeds until the author describes his encounter with italian writer A. Moravia (BTW after war, Moravia described those days in his novel "La Ciociara" which main episode is the rape of the protagonist. Note that Moravia was a well known marxist author...)

About traslation, I got the books in italian traslation so mine would be a retraslation in english from an italian traslation. If you trust me...

Eric Morris "May 19th french troops, arrived 30 kms over Garigliano were going into Ausoni mounitains. In Itro Valley while german resistance was becoming more spread and irregular, goums did terible atrocities. Women and childs, young men and kids, had been raped along the road and many died. Men who tried to react were killed. Italian population accused goums but atrocities had been made by french colonial forces. They were perfect war machine but beasts towards civilians. It had been told they sodomized POWs and evirate enemy officers...AT Esperia goums went amok and officers couldn't control them... (proceed)"

Norman Lewis "New brutal behavoir of french colonial troops. Every time they take a town or a village, indiscriminate rape of population follows. Recently all women of Patrica, Pofi, Isoletta, Supino and Morolo had been raped...At Castro dei Volsci surgeons had cured 300 rape victims...
Today I visited a Santa Maria a Vico girlwho is told being gone mad after being raped by many north africans. She lives alone with the mother( raped too) and totally poor. Her conditions were going better...either if she couldn't walk forsuffered violence...What makes a common quiet maroquine country boy as soon as enroled in the worst sexual psychotic?" (largely resumed)

AS I told, those are my retraslations...If you don' t believe me, I invite you to borrow the original english text. If you understand italian I can send you a scan of every page

Anyway the keypoint is that the number of DEADS was probably limited while the number of RAPED extremely high...indipendently by age, condition and sex.
What I find difficult is the fact non-establishment views are shouted down on pejorative terms, and considered ( apparently by mg ) potentially illegal, as if it were sinful to consider views he hates. I personally would slit the throats of every vivisectionist who lives ( if possible ), my saying that may enrage him, but this 'private space' is not his nor mine to dictate what should be thought by other members.

Incidentally, can I mention that the Japanese raped hundreds of thousands of Chinese etc. women or is that racist ? Or is it OK because they were the enemy ? Perhaps these things only happened when liberals say that it is right and meet to believe they happened.




Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Lee]

The winners write history, a society needs its heroes.

We forget (or ignore) much of the brutality and evil of our own because we need armies, we need soldiers to fight... people fight for honour and respect, whether they themselves are honorable or worthy of respect we are never sure and it does not matter. We must lavish all our veterans with praise and ignore thier sins.. or else we risk not having willing soldiers the next time we need them.

In essence we must entice the immoral and selfish into a uniform by promising them respect and praise they do not deserve... it's a bit like a "get out of moral judgement free card".

btw, I do not really hold these views as something we "should" do, I am just explaining it as I see it.

[philonightmare]

[....]

Incidentally, can I mention that the Japanese raped hundreds of thousands of Chinese etc. women or is that racist ? Or is it OK because they were the enemy ? Perhaps these things only happened when liberals say that it is right and meet to believe they happened.

Ok. So there is "proof," as far as you have presented here for these events...

And the presentation of history will always be biased to some degree for reasons along Lee's comment for soldiers needing a "get out of moral judgement free card."

I guess whether one accepts the words from the article as "truth" or not is a personal preference. No one is forcing anyone. I think much of this conflict over Swift's article could have been prevented had he presented us with the factual information to back it up with the article itself. I don't think many INTPs will accept something as a truth without evidence...

[s0978]

Well, he doesn't seem to be preaching to the choir: they all hate him for bringing this up.
No, it’s not the topic in and of itself that anyone is protesting. It is the source.

Yes, it’s dangerous to be closed to ideas which aren’t in alignment with one’s own. And yes all sources are biased -- but some sources are more credible than others.

Good research (I haven't looked at it) but it's really all besides the point.


Incidentally, can I mention that the Japanese raped hundreds of thousands of Chinese etc. women or is that racist ? Or is it OK because they were the enemy ? Perhaps these things only happened when liberals say that it is right and meet to believe they happened.
This is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Racism is clearly a topic in this thread, but no one was deploring that the Soviets were being racist in targeting the German women. ..?? The racism that is being discussed is that which is evident in the text of the original post. .. you’re conflating issues.

[kafkaesque]

Well, he doesn't seem to be preaching to the choir: they all hate him for bringing this up.

As mgbradsh appears to think that the vaguest assertion from any source he dislikes should be backed up ( plus that no supporting evidence is needed for the standard issue liberal beliefs as counter arguments ); despite the fact that I'm already bored, I went and looked.

Although I despise the internet as a source of information ( if they're not asking for money, they're posting the wide spectrum of lunacy, and giving really bad misinformation half the time ), I am not fascinated by this enough to look in books and type extensive quotes, so here are a few pages:

The Russian raping of Germany is so well documented, it scarcely needs proving here, but here's the latest an author called Antony Beevor (http://www.antonybeevor.com/Berlin/berlinreviews.htm) ( not known as a pro-nazi ). Lesser Known fact of WWII has a para towards the end of this page (http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Egduncan/1944.html).

Rape & Genocide in Rwanda (http://homepages.uc.edu/thro/rwanda/RwandaRapeCase2.htm) has:

note that's just in Berlin alone...

For the Italians obviously not much is likely to be on the internet about one moroccan battalion in WWII ( and presumably anything not on the internet is bound to be unhistory ): but there's an old newslist H-Net MSU.EDU (http://www.h-net.org/%7Eafrica/threads/moroccan.html)
& Christine Chinkin has a ref on this page (http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol5/No3/art2.html), and the Italian WWII History Forum Comando Supremo has this page (http://www.comandosupremo.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=967&sid=85ac3343e1308e1479bd42f6638524f7), but as we all know Italians are all cowardly fascists...

quotes: ( and I don't know Italian )


What I find difficult is the fact non-establishment views are shouted down on pejorative terms, and considered ( apparently by mg ) potentially illegal, as if it were sinful to consider views he hates. I personally would slit the throats of every vivisectionist who lives ( if possible ), my saying that may enrage him, but this 'private space' is not his nor mine to dictate what should be thought by other members.

Incidentally, can I mention that the Japanese raped hundreds of thousands of Chinese etc. women or is that racist ? Or is it OK because they were the enemy ? Perhaps these things only happened when liberals say that it is right and meet to believe they happened.




Claverhouse :ph34r:

This is a good post Claverhouse. It demonstrates that if Swift had wanted to make a point about Allied war crimes he could easily have done so without posting an article that was filled with bigoted bullshit. His post was a thinly veiled attempt to assert some racist propaganda, and he got called on it.

[mgb]

As mgbradsh appears to think that the vaguest assertion from any source he dislikes should be backed up ( plus that no supporting evidence is needed for the standard issue liberal beliefs as counter arguments ); despite the fact that I'm already bored, I went and looked.

The Russian raping of Germany is so well documented, it scarcely needs proving here, but here's the latest an author called Antony Beevor (http://www.antonybeevor.com/Berlin/berlinreviews.htm) ( not known as a pro-nazi ). Lesser Known fact of WWII has a para towards the end of this page (http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Egduncan/1944.html).

Rape & Genocide in Rwanda (http://homepages.uc.edu/thro/rwanda/RwandaRapeCase2.htm) has:

note that's just in Berlin alone...

For the Italians obviously not much is likely to be on the internet about one moroccan battalion in WWII ( and presumably anything not on the internet is bound to be unhistory ): but there's an old newslist H-Net MSU.EDU (http://www.h-net.org/%7Eafrica/threads/moroccan.html)
& Christine Chinkin has a ref on this page (http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol5/No3/art2.html), and the Italian WWII History Forum Comando Supremo has this page (http://www.comandosupremo.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=967&sid=85ac3343e1308e1479bd42f6638524f7), but as we all know Italians are all cowardly fascists...

quotes: ( and I don't know Italian )


What I find difficult is the fact non-establishment views are shouted down on pejorative terms, and considered ( apparently by mg ) potentially illegal, as if it were sinful to consider views he hates. I personally would slit the throats of every vivisectionist who lives ( if possible ), my saying that may enrage him, but this 'private space' is not his nor mine to dictate what should be thought by other members.

Incidentally, can I mention that the Japanese raped hundreds of thousands of Chinese etc. women or is that racist ? Or is it OK because they were the enemy ? Perhaps these things only happened when liberals say that it is right and meet to believe they happened.




Claverhouse :ph34r:

So I went back and read all my posts in this thread. Didn't call anything illegal, so lick my balls.

And all I said that was if people make an argument they should be able to back up their argument when called upon to do so rather than just claiming that someone is being ignorant because they aren't listening.

I can only conclude from your tone is that you haven't understood at all what I am saying. I'm saying that all war atrocities are wrong. In a perfect world, we wouldn't even have war. This article wasn't about war atrocities. I have no doubt that there were atrocities in WWII perpotrated by both sides. That isn't the racist propaganda in the article. Stuff like this is (and I can't tell you how much it pains me that I have to point this out to you):


The rapists were mainly Red Army soldiers, some of them non-White troops from the Far East and Central Asian Republics of the Soviet Union. But I am sorry to say that many of the rapists were men of our own race, and some were Americans.
The "men of our own race" would be considered "race traitors" by our National Alliance friends.


An Italian survivor of American bombing states that Black American troops, stationed in Naples, were allowed by their superiors free access to poor, hungry, and humiliated Italian women. The result of this interracial rape and sexual slavery was the production of a generation of pitiable mixed-race children, a legacy of the brutal conqueror.


when the colonial French troops under Eisenhower's command, presumably mostly Africans,
Why presume? Why not find out since this is so intellectual.


Quite apart from any ethnic or ideological considerations, World War II was a war between, on the one side, the elitists who created Communism as a way-station on the road to their New World Order; and on the other, those who opposed that New World Order. It is a tragedy of millennial proportions that America and Britain were induced to fight on the side of Communism and Communism's masters.

You are calling these "non establishment views". I don't mind "non-establishment views", through history these have been some of the most important.

These views however are meant not to challenge the establishment in a constructive way but re-tell history with a slant, a slant that is dangerous and destructive to millions of people. A slant based on bigotry. In this case, this attack wasn't on Axis citizens, this attack was against the pure blood Germans that the people involved in these organizations so much admire.

If you doubt my reading of the authors intentions, feel free to check out his website: http://www.kevin-strom.com/

Here is a picture from the front of his site:
http://www.revilo-oliver.com/Kevin-Strom-personal/flag-small.jpg

I might be way off about him.

It's great to say, "As mgbradsh appears to think that the vaguest assertion from any source he dislikes should be backed up ( plus that no supporting evidence is needed for the standard issue liberal beliefs as counter arguments )." My statement was one made in general. Hence the word "vogue" implying that a lot of people are doing it.

I really haven't offered a counter argument except to say that I've read works from the National Alliance and found them to be extremely racist. If you don't understand some of the dangerous consequences of racism, I'd be happy to enlighten you on many levels. All you have to do is ask.

As for this:


I personally would slit the throats of every vivisectionist who lives ( if possible ), my saying that may enrage him, but this 'private space' is not his nor mine to dictate what should be thought by other members.

Go ahead and try. I'm not here to limit what people think. Post away. Be prepared for the consequences.

And it's not me reminding members over and over about how much power I have to lock threads here because I don't like the arguments. I think that's actually you and yours, I'm just here and it was said this is a place of free speech. It's not and we all know it. So we can conclude you only leave up arguments you want to here.

And if you want to go any further with me, take it into the Bitching Parlour.

[Claverhouse]

So I went back and read all my posts in this thread. Didn't call anything illegal, so lick my balls. Earlier:

And I hate to say it, but free speech doesn't exist on this board. It's private web space and personally I don't think this has a place here

In a perfect world, we wouldn't even have war. What would we do then to amuse ourselves ?


This article wasn't about war atrocities. I have no doubt that there were atrocities in WWII perpotrated by both sides. That isn't the racist propaganda in the article. I don't care if someone is racist or non-racist: I care whether things happened. If it did, it shouldn't be forgotten. If it's a lie say so, don't blather about the racialist tones.

I'm not interested in the National Alliance, especially since I'm not American. I'm not interested in the British BNP either. Nor am I interested in the Moonies or the Scientologists except to laugh. But they all have an equal right to say what they want; and if they occasionally tell the truth about an historical event then alas, they are telling the truth.



You are calling these "non establishment views". I don't mind "non-establishment views", through history these have been some of the most important.

These views however are meant not to challenge the establishment in a constructive way but re-tell history with a slant, a slant that is dangerous and destructive to millions of people. A slant based on bigotry. In this case, this attack wasn't on Axis citizens, this attack was against the pure blood Germans that the people involved in these organizations so much admire. So what, Fiat justitia, ruat coelum — "Let justice be done, and let the heavens fall "

If people are free to tell the truth about Axis atrocities or Communist atrocities, they are free to tell the truth --- from whatever motive --- about anything else: even if telling that truth leads to the end of the world.



And it's not me reminding members over and over about how much power I have to lock threads here because I don't like the arguments. I think that's actually you and yours, Actually I don't. I just locked some threads. Not being a pussy. And I added a coupla thoughtful additions to Div's Basics sticky in your favourite Bitching Parlor.



I'm just here and it was said this is a place of free speech. It's not and we all know it. So we can conclude you only leave up arguments you want to here. Not from the above:

And I hate to say it, but free speech doesn't exist on this board. It's private web space and personally I don't think this has a place here And I haven't deleted any threads. A few posts, on general policy, not my preferences. Can't speak for other mods, but I don't think they have either.


And if you want to go any further with me, take it into the Bitching Parlour. No thanks, I don't see the point of that place. Now.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Miss Anthropic]

Well, he doesn't seem to be preaching to the choir: they all hate him for bringing this up.
Claverhouse :ph34r:

When I said preaching to the choir I was referring to his "purpose" as stated below. Does anyone here think in terms of Allies=good and Axis= evil in such a black and white manner? The objection was to his choice of subject matter and source to back his argument, which come to think of it, he never did identify until the post below.. Posting articles without at least a thesis statement to introduce where you are going is a poor way to get a point across. And obviously he still doesn't get it because of the big long-cut-and- paste about Islam which I'm not even going to bother with! He probably plagerizes papers too.





The purpose of posting this was to show that some historic occurences don't make it to the history books, simply because it's the winners who write them. My message was that both Allies and Axis powers commited horrific crimes of war, and that history is not the black and white picture of "Allies = good" and "Axis = evil".



Swift

[mgb]

Earlier:



I guess you couldn't see me not calling the police.

And I still don't see the word "illegal" anywhere. I guess you saw it though. 'Cause you see everything.

[Swift]

It demonstrates that if Swift had wanted to make a point about Allied war crimes he could easily have done so without posting an article that was filled with bigoted bullshit. His post was a thinly veiled attempt to assert some racist propaganda, and he got called on it.Yes, I could have used another source than the National Alliance, but if I wanted to assert racist propaganda, I would have posted something that would have been entirely racist.

Swift

[MacGuffin]

Yes, I could have used another source than the National Alliance, but if I wanted to assert racist propaganda, I would have posted something that would have been entirely racist.

Swift
It actually appears you wanted to sneak the racist content past people, otherwise you could have gotten this info from another source.

[Trolsk]

People can surely be quick to make unrelated judgements at times.

[MacGuffin]

People can surely be quick to make unrelated judgements at times.
It's all about the iNtuition...

[Swift]

It actually appears you wanted to sneak the racist content past people, otherwise you could have gotten this info from another source.Mac, the racist content was nothing more than 2 (two) paragrafs out of an entire article. The article was about covering up Allied War crimes, not about racism or racialism. Those two paragraphs probably sneaked past me too, cause I had no intent of disguising racism in another post. If I wanted to discuss racism, I would have posted an article about racism. I will take no accusation of cowardice.

I'm not trying to play the innocent, I know the message of the National Alliance very well, since I have been reading their website for a few weeks now. I could have gotten the info from another source, but I didn't. I thought the article was suitable enough for reposting. "Sorry" it wasn't "clean" enough.

As far as the article, I have no problem with those two paragraphs pointing out the etnicity of the Allied gang rapers.

Swift

[MacGuffin]

Mac, the racist content was nothing more than 2 (two) paragrafs out of an entire article. The article was about covering up Allied War crimes, not about racism or racialism. Those two paragraphs probably sneaked past me too, cause I had no intent of disguising racism in another post. If I wanted to discuss racism, I would have posted an article about racism. I will take no accusation of cowardice.

I'm not trying to play the innocent, I know the message of the National Alliance very well, since I have been reading their website for a few weeks now. I could have gotten the info from another source, but I didn't. I thought the article was suitable enough for reposting. "Sorry" it wasn't "clean" enough.

As far as the article, I have no problem with those two paragraphs pointing out the etnicity of the Allied gang rapers.

Swift
I am just saying it looked that way. And since you have been reading that website for weeks, you should be more careful about reading the entire articles you post. You know what is on that website.

[Dman]

Can't we all just get along? :)

[moni]

Man... this thread seemed to have gone off topic somewhat... but then again, must threads go off topic anyway :whistle:

Like Claverhouse mentioned... Japan also raped thousands of women. They became to be known as "Comfort Women (http://online.sfsu.edu/~soh/comfortwomen.html)." If you guys already know about it, that's fine, but the information's there just to let others know as well. Maybe it's not the best source (you can always look up for more info if you're that skeptic), but I can tell you now that this actually did happen. Besides reading articles on it, I remember when I went to Okinawa 3 years ago, my grandma mentioned some spot where soldiers would go in and out of a tent, just to have sex with the women that were in there.

Yes yes, when there's war, bad shit happens, blah blah blah. I'm sure swift was just bringing into light an event from the past that some people may not have know about, despite the article being from some racist site (if i'm wrong here, sorry for the assumption). The problem I have with Japan and any other countries that do this, is how they try to deny, distort, or avoid some of the events that did happen in the past. For example, the school textbooks mentioned here (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/makeprfy.pl5?nn20050406a6.htm). I really don't think enough people know the degree of violence that occurred during WWII (I still have much to learn...). So what's important about that?

wait for part 2 of my response... if anyone cares :huh:

[Swift]

But the minute you implement your lifestyle around some types of people having more inherent worth than other types then that's when you lose credibility in my book. Believing in point 4 is essentially the source of all human violence in the world. You have to walk this globe with a sense of egalitarianism otherwise you get into strife. Do you really think that having the "correct" attitude will protect you or others from any violence? The communists in Russia and the Far East butchered millions in the name of egalitarianism.

Swift

[Darren]

http://www.natvan.com/free-speech/fs9512d.html

....But I am sorry to say that many of the rapists were men of our own race....

Just when I thought my opinion of Swift couldn't get any lower....

There is no INTP-style debate to have here. You either think skin pigmentation matters or you don't. You either think that being 'white' is in and of itself something to jerk off about, or you don't.

If you *do* think these things, then the discussion's over.

[Swift]

Just when I thought my opinion of Swift couldn't get any lower....

There is no INTP-style debate to have here. You either think skin pigmentation matters or you don't. You either think that being 'white' is in and of itself something to jerk off about, or you don't.

If you *do* think these things, then the discussion's over.Like I care what your personal opinion of me is. ;P

And I think INTP's shouldn't be afraid of thinking about politically correct taboos like "skin pigmentation".

Swift

[Lee]

Just when I thought my opinion of Swift couldn't get any lower....

There is no INTP-style debate to have here. You either think skin pigmentation matters or you don't. You either think that being 'white' is in and of itself something to jerk off about, or you don't.

If you *do* think these things, then the discussion's over.
I do not agree with Swift but there is nothing wrong with debate on the subject.

Skin pigmentation is not the same as race, there are a plethora of physiological and nuero physiological differences between races, as evidenced in the study of genetics, you can even trace back ancestory to specific parts of the world based on genetic information (disclaimer: I am talking averages here, there will be many excptions and differences).

I do not want to live in a world where these differences are taken into account on a daily basis, I do not want assumptions and desicions made because someone is of X race, but to deny the differences and to avoid discussing the different manifestations of these differences is equally wrong, it would be denying the truth.

[meshou]

Is the point of the articl e that rape happens in war? Next you'll tell me people kill other people during war. Swift is such a big silly.

1) Where's the bibliography? A paper with these sorts of numbers and direct quote is bullshit without it, saint or skinhead as an author.

2) I am even les eager to just take an essay without source's word on it from holocaust deniers. Truth is not strong mojo for these people.

3) Again, rape happenining in war? Fucking duh.

Japanese war crimes don't get much coverage either. Lotasa rapes, cutting open live soldiers, crucifixion, good stuff. Hardly hear about it.

See, there was this little genocide going on that kinda overshadowed anything the other side tried to do. And our boys tried so hard to be infamous.

[Lee]

3) Again, rape happenining in war? Fucking duh.
My thoughts exactly upon reading the initial posts, the good guys are not really "good" guys... they are just on the right side.

[Darren]

I do not agree with Swift but there is nothing wrong with debate on the subject.


I agree there is 'nothing wrong' with debate on the subject, and Swift is, of course, free to believe anything he wishes, and to embrace any values he chooses, just as I am free to point out the lack of intelligence and/or basic humanity that these beliefs and views imply.

I actually had a fairly lengthy debate on this subject once, with someone who was high up enough on the White Supremicist food chain to be mentioned at nizkor.org (or at least, was using an identical name). I booked out of the discussion when this individual argued that Boy George was 'non-white' by definition, since he's a homosexual, all homosexuals are deviant, all whites are good (ie non-deviant), therefore Boy George cannot be white. QED. He was a very intelligent debater, too.... just had a little cognitive dissonance problem about a mile wide.




Skin pigmentation is not the same as race, there are a plethora of physiological and nuero physiological differences between races, as evidenced in the study of genetics, you can even trace back ancestory to specific parts of the world based on genetic information (disclaimer: I am talking averages here, there will be many excptions and differences).


"Race" is a colloquially useful but philosophically and scientifically meaningless approximation of a huge bundle of possible human characteristics. What 'race' is Tiger Woods?




I do not want to live in a world where these differences are taken into account on a daily basis, I do not want assumptions and desicions made because someone is of X race, but to deny the differences and to avoid discussing the different manifestations of these differences is equally wrong, it would be denying the truth.

To my mind 'racial differences' means GENETIC differences. Proving these observed 'differences' to be genetic as opposed to socioeconomic or cultural is no easy feat. Some things (like the higher propsensity of people with black skin to get sickle cell anemia) are pretty obviously genetic. Most of these 'racial differences' you no doubt have in mind (and which our resident racist Swift *certainly* has in mind) are really cultural and class differences. In my mind it is both wrong and needlessly damaging to speak of them as 'racial differences'. It's that sort of sloppy thinking which leads straight to the world you (and most decent people) don't want to live in: where assumptions and decisions about this sort of thing *are* made every day.

Of course, certain very small-minded people have trouble grasping this.

Darren

[Lee]

I actually had a fairly lengthy debate on this subject once, with someone who was high up enough on the White Supremicist food chain to be mentioned at nizkor.org (or at least, was using an identical name). I booked out of the discussion when this individual argued that Boy George was 'non-white' by definition, since he's a homosexual, all homosexuals are deviant, all whites are good (ie non-deviant), therefore Boy George cannot be white. QED. He was a very intelligent debater, too.... just had a little cognitive dissonance problem about a mile wide.Heh heh, Swift has nothing on that guy.



"Race" is a colloquially useful but philosophically and scientifically meaningless approximation of a huge bundle of possible human characteristics. What 'race' is Tiger Woods? Philosophically and scientifically useless? can you explain that.


To my mind 'racial differences' means GENETIC differences. Determining which of these observed 'differences' are genetic, and which are socioeconomic and cultural, is no easy feat.Yes, I agree.

But on that note, how can you seperate cultural and socioeconomic from genetic? surely any differences in genes resulting in some racial types excelling at one activityor skill over another will also effect culture and socioeconomic status... in my mind the two have a lot of crossover and can not be totally seperated.


Some things (like the higher propsensity of people with black skin to get sickle cell anemia) are pretty obviously genetic. Most of these 'racial differences' you no doubt have in mind (and which our resident racist Swift *certainly* has in mind) are really cultural and class differences. In my mind it is both wrong and needlessly damaging to speak of them as 'racial differences'. I am primarily referring to physical differences, not cultural or class, but still I think that any fundamental physical differences must have an effect on culture, especialy where genetic difference produce differences in mental faculties, we were not just dropped into culture oneday, we shaped and moulded it.

Of course, certain very small-minded people have trouble grasping this. I hope you are not referring to me, I am simply looking at this from a biological point of view, a world with racial prejudice is not one where I want to live, but that will not prevent me from discussing it or pointing out things that some would mistakenly consider rascist.

[Swift]

I agree there is 'nothing wrong' with debate on the subject, and Swift is, of course, free to believe anything he wishes, and to embrace any values he chooses, just as I am free to point out the lack of intelligence and/or basic humanity that these beliefs and views imply.Very convincing arguments. What's so "inhumane" about pointing out racial differences?


"Race" is a colloquially useful but philosophically and scientifically meaningless approximation of a huge bundle of possible human characteristics. And culture and class have more philosophical (what does philosophy got to do with it?) and scientific value? As far as I know, racial equality and cultural relativism are ideologies, not sciences.

Darwinism predicts correctly that populations of the same species that have been separated geographically during thousands of years in profoundly different environments evolve certain different characteristics to enhance their survival in their respective habitat.
I don't see why it should be any different for humans. I even believe these differences not only manifest themselves on a biological (skin color, muscle mass, testosterone level, ...) plane, but also a social (reproduction strategies, rule following, ...) and psychological (creativity, delaying gratification, ...) plane. Just like different breeds of dogs have different characters.


To my mind 'racial differences' means GENETIC differences. Proving these observed 'differences' to be genetic as opposed to socioeconomic or cultural is no easy feat. These differences do exist. I'm going to present you some data from the book "RACE, EVOLUTION, AND BEHAVIOR: A Life History Perspective, 2nd Special Abridged Edition", by Professor J. Philippe Rushton. I hope it is readable for everybody. See below.


Some things (like the higher propsensity of people with black skin to get sickle cell anemia) are pretty obviously genetic. Most of these 'racial differences' you no doubt have in mind (and which our resident racist Swift *certainly* has in mind) are really cultural and class differences. Of course you know better than me what I have in mind. Please tell me what differences can be attributed to culture and class instead of race or genes.

And please explain me why blacks are overrepresented in American crime statistics, despite equality, forced integration, positive discrimination and spending billions of $$$?

Something else to ponder about: despite 3000 years of contact with advanced civilisations like the ancient egyptians and the arabs, no blacks have been able to integrate a single thing from these civilisations (like writing, money, ciphers, the wheel, ...) let alone produce a civilisation of their own. How come? Not enough positive discrimination?


In my mind it is both wrong and needlessly damaging to speak of them as 'racial differences'. It's that sort of sloppy thinking which leads straight to the world you (and most decent people) don't want to live in: where assumptions and decisions about this sort of thing *are* made every day.Aren't decisions like positive discrimination taken every day?

Swift

[Darren]

Philosophically and scientifically useless? can you explain that.


In a nutshell, it's too vague and imprecise to be meaningful. There is no agreement on how many races there even *are*. That tells you all you need to know IMHO.




But on that note, how can you seperate cultural and socioeconomic from genetic? surely any differences in genes resulting in some racial types excelling at one activity or skill over another will also effect culture and socioeconomic status... in my mind the two have a lot of crossover and can not be totally seperated.

I am primarily referring to physical differences, not cultural or class, but still I think that any fundamental physical differences must have an effect on culture, especialy where genetic difference produce differences in mental faculties, we were not just dropped into culture oneday, we shaped and moulded it.
.

You are missing a big factor here: geography. I think Jared Diamond's "Guns Germs and Steel" conclusively demonstrated that GEOGRAPHICAL differences are quite adequate to explain cultural differences (and of course, the initial interaction of these different cultures at different states of technological development is quite adequate to explain *lasting* class differences. When one group starts out as propertyless and disenfranchised slaves (thinking about the US experience here), it takes quite a while for enough random economic events to happen to completely erase those differences. ).

As for differences in mental faculties, I'm well aware of the differences (for example) in IQ test results between American blacks and whites. Again, I'm not sure that difference would persist once you corrected for differences in income, educational opportunities, etc. (It's not at all obvious that an IQ test successfully ignores those things, see Stephen Jay Gould's "Mismeasure of Man")



I hope you are not referring to me.

Not at all.

[Swift]

You are missing a big factor here: geography. I think Jared Diamond's "Guns Germs and Steel" conclusively demonstrated that GEOGRAPHICAL differences are quite adequate to explain cultural differences (and of course, the initial interaction of these different cultures at different states of technological development is quite adequate to explain *lasting* class differences. Geography can't explain every difference without taking into account that the differences in geography will create an evolutionairy selection that will shape those populations in different ways, something Guns, Germs and Steel doesn't talk about.

Look here for some serious criticism on Guns, Germs and Steel:
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/jpr_ggs.html

Swift

[Darren]

Very convincing arguments. What's so "inhumane" about pointing out racial differences?

By insisting that these differences have genetic rather than cultural origins, you wrongly support the conclusion that there's no point in trying to improve society, because, after all "that's just the way those people are".





Darwinism predicts correctly that populations of the same species that have been separated geographically during thousands of years in profoundly different environments evolve certain different characteristics to enhance their survival in their respective habitat.
I don't see why it should be any different for humans. I even believe these differences not only manifest themselves on a biological (skin color, muscle mass, testosterone level, ...) plane, but also a social (reproduction strategies, rule following, ...) and psychological (creativity, delaying gratification, ...) plane. Just like different breeds of dogs have different characters.


Naturally, mass enslavment, disenfranchisement, and chronic lynching have no discernable effects.




These differences do exist. I'm going to present you some data from the book "RACE, EVOLUTION, AND BEHAVIOR: A Life History Perspective, 2nd Special Abridged Edition", by Professor J. Philippe Rushton. I hope it is readable for everybody. See below.

Yes, those differences exist. What causes them? There are some big fat cultural (shaped first by geography, and then by getting your ass kicked by whitey) and corresponding socioeconomic differences... which might well explain everything in that table.



Of course you know better than me what I have in mind.

It's not terribly difficult.



Please tell me what differences can be attributed to culture and class instead of race or genes.

Looking through that table, I did not see any important behaviour difference that cannot be plausibly explained by culture or class.



And please explain me why blacks are overrepresented in American crime statistics, despite equality, forced integration, positive discrimination and spending billions of $$$?

Too complicated to quickly answer. First of all, the real question is not crime, but income. Funny how those middle-class blacks don't seem to hold up as many liquor stores.

Income differences tend to persist across generations. Public programs have (not always wisely or well) tried to eliminate these differences. I think racism is part of the explanation as to why they persist.





Something else to ponder about: despite 3000 years of contact with advanced civilisations like the ancient egyptians and the arabs, no blacks have been able to integrate a single thing from these civilisations (like writing, money, ciphers, the wheel, ...) let alone produce a civilisation of their own. How come? Not enough positive discrimination?

Sigh. Please stop quoting ignorant drivel from racist websites at me. Go read "Guns Germs and Steel" and educate yourself.

Edit: So you've already read it. Plainly, you didn't understand it or you would not have asked the above question.



Aren't decisions like positive discrimination taken every day?


The day is soon coming when such measures are no longer necessary.

Darren

[Swift]

More about geography: the writer in the next article compares two islands, Haïti and Iceland.

Haïti, despite of having a warm climate and plenty of resources, a civilisation and technology provided by the french, reverted to corruption, criminality and poverty after the whites left.

Iceland, on the other hand, does not have the benefit of a warm climate, nor does it have any more resources than fish and hot water. Yet it is one of the most prosperous and stable societies on this planet.

http://www2.davidduke.com/index.php?p=134

Swift

[meshou]

Oh, Swift, you did not just post that jank-ass out of date bullshit.

1) White guys, have, on average, bigger cocks, but there's a higher correlation between height than race.

2) When black and white children are raised in the same economic conditions, black children end up with higher IQs (http://brookings.nap.edu/books/0815746091/html/94.html#page_top)

3) IQs are shitty measures of intilligence. Mental health can't be measured in quantitative terms. Is there a higher rate of depression? Schitzophrenia? Not being happy in general White people are more often treated for mental disorder, how did they come by these numbers?

Half that shit can't be quantitatively measured. My middle school science class would be ashamed to allow such shoddy work, never mind an actual study. That, and it's un-backed up, has what should be several studies, none of which could be summed up as "high" or "low," since that language is too biased for an actual study on anything, and anthrololgists would be far more likely to also look into economic conditions, which would have a higher correlation than race.

That's because they're into science instead of bullshit.

4) Marriage stability is a function of the society one lives in. A high divorce rate, in anthropological terms, is not a bad thing. It just is. In fact, older Native American tribes used to have a huge divorce rate, but managed higher familial stability.

5) The idea that there have been fewer cultural achievements on the part of Africans is ludacris bias on the part of the researcher, and is just shitty anthropology.


Jesus, no scientist would accept that unless they were either stupid, or so biased they'd accept shitty work.

I don't suspect you of low standards Swift. Just so you know.

[Swift]

By insisting that these differences have genetic rather than cultural origins, you wrongly support the conclusion that there's no point in trying to improve society, because, after all "that's just the way those people are".Indeed. It's no use telling yourself fairytales and spending your money on lost causes. If a higher testosteron level in black males leads to more involvement in crime, how could society correct this?


Naturally, mass enslavment, disenfranchisement, and chronic lynching have no discernable effects.It might have an effect. It still doesn't explain the lack of civilisation beyond the use of stone tools in area's of Africa that have been undisturbed for century's. And compare that to Germany. After the Second World War, 20 million germans were dead, millions were kept in POW camps, thousands of women were gang raped by Allied soldiers, they had to pay billions of compensation, and yet, after 25 years they were back on their feet.


Yes, those differences exist. What causes them? There are some big fat cultural (shaped first by geography, and then by getting your ass kicked by whitey) and corresponding socioeconomic differences... which might well explain everything in that table.Yeah, it's always whitey's fault.


It's not terribly difficult..Another one of your non-answers.


Looking through that table, I did not see any important behaviour difference that cannot be plausibly explained by culture or class.Then please explain them to me.


Too complicated to quickly answer. First of all, the real question is not crime, but income. Funny how those middle-class blacks don't seem to hold up as many liquor stores.Then why are there 8 times more blacks than whites in prison in every income class?


Income differences tend to persist across generations. Public programs have (not always wisely or well) tried to eliminate these differences. I think racism is part of the explanation as to why they persist.If racism is such a big factor, then how come Asians do so well in education?


Sigh. Please stop quoting ignorant drivel from racist websites at me. Go read "Guns Germs and Steel" and educate yourself.Hahaha.


The day is soon coming when such measures are no longer necessary.I think the day will come much quicker that people will realise society can't beat nature. And then somebody will be really pissed off.

Swift

[Darren]

More about geography: the writer in the next article compares two islands, Haïti and Iceland.

Briefly... Haiti was occupied by US Marines for 20 years (dismantling all institutions left by the French), gets pounded by hurricanes every year, and often has its resources plundered by foreigners.

David Duke?? You really need a better grade of reading material...

[Darren]

It might have an effect. It still doesn't explain the lack of civilisation beyond the use of stone tools in area's of Africa that have been undisturbed for century's. And compare that to Germany. After the Second World War, 20 million germans were dead, millions were kept in POW camps, thousands of women were gang raped by Allied soldiers, they had to pay billions of compensation, and yet, after 25 years they were back on their feet.

Yawn... you're getting your wars mixed up. After WW1, the Germans paid billions in compensation. After WW2, they paid NO compensation (the Allies learned their lesson from the last time). The Russians plundered what they could from the areas under their control (keeping East Germany a backwater shithole for 50 years)... West Germany didn't pay a nickel, and in fact received billions under the Marshall plan.

[mgb]

Oh, Swift, you did not just post that jank-ass out of date bullshit.

1) White guys, have, on average, bigger cocks, but there's a higher correlation between height than race.

2) When black and white children are raised in the same economic conditions, black children end up with higher IQs (http://brookings.nap.edu/books/0815746091/html/94.html#page_top)

3) IQs are shitty measures of intilligence. Mental health can't be measured in quantitative terms. Is there a higher rate of depression? Schitzophrenia? Not being happy in general White people are more often treated for mental disorder, how did they come by these numbers?

Half that shit can't be quantitatively measured. My middle school science class would be ashamed to allow such shoddy work, never mind an actual study. That, and it's un-backed up, has what should be several studies, none of which could be summed up as "high" or "low," since that language is too biased for an actual study on anything, and anthrololgists would be far more likely to also look into economic conditions, which would have a higher correlation than race.

That's because they're into science instead of bullshit.

4) Marriage stability is a function of the society one lives in. A high divorce rate, in anthropological terms, is not a bad thing. It just is. In fact, older Native American tribes used to have a huge divorce rate, but managed higher familial stability.

5) The idea that there have been fewer cultural achievements on the part of Africans is ludacris bias on the part of the researcher, and is just shitty anthropology.


Jesus, no scientist would accept that unless they were either stupid, or so biased they'd accept shitty work.

I don't suspect you of low standards Swift. Just so you know.

Meshou, you don't know what you are talking about, you are just a girl (and apparently unworthy of a response by our own little Grand Dragon, or whatever the fuck KKK leaders are calling themselves these days).

Swift isn't going to back up any of his sources. We have to. He's just "throwing" them out there for debate. That means he can post anything as ridiculous as he wants and follow up any arguments against it by calling people "close minded", "liberal minded" or "PC". And rather than actually shoot down anything anyone says he just needs a whitty quip to make himself feel like he's won.

[mgb]

Briefly... Haiti was occupied by US Marines for 20 years (dismantling all institutions left by the French), gets pounded by hurricanes every year, and often has its resources plundered by foreigners.

David Duke?? You really need a better grade of reading material...

From Swift.

"You are so close minded".

Irony is so bitter.

[Combat]

The "proof" Swift posts is just correlations. Here's something for you to think about, it's about as impressive work, from a scientific point of view:


Data from Berlin (Germany) show a significant correlation between the increase in the stork population around the city and the increase in deliveries outside city hospitals (out-of-hospital deliveries). However, there is no correlation between deliveries in hospital buildings (clinical deliveries) and the stork population. The decline in the number of pairs of storks in the German state of Lower Saxony between 1970 and 1985 correlated with the decrease of deliveries in that area. The nearly constant number of deliveries from 1985 to 1995 was associated with an unchanged stork population (no statistical significance).

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3016.2003.00534.x/abs/

[mgb]

The "proof" Swift posts is just correlations. Here's something for you to think about, it's about as impressive work, from a scientific point of view:



http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3016.2003.00534.x/abs/

"Typical close-minded liberal PC bullshit."

It's fun when you can use them all in one sentence.

[meshou]

Meshou, you don't know what you are talking about, you are just a girl (and apparently unworthy of a response by our own little Grand Dragon, or whatever the fuck KKK leaders are calling themselves these days).

Swift isn't going to back up any of his sources. We have to. He's just "throwing" them out there for debate. That means he can post anything as ridiculous as he wants and follow up any arguments against it by calling people "close minded", "liberal minded" or "PC". And rather than actually shoot down anything anyone says he just needs a whitty quip to make himself feel like he's won.I know. And I'm not even an asian girl, woe.

But at least my cock is bigger than his. Show us your tits, Swift!

[Serotonin]

Do you really think that having the "correct" attitude will protect you or others from any violence?
No of course not, but it will protect other people from me.



The communists in Russia and the Far East butchered millions in the name of egalitarianism.

Swift
Yeah but butchering people under any justification isn't real egalitarianism is it?

[Swift]

MG, I never used the words close minded or liberal minded. I did say some opinions were politically correct, which they were. I backed up my information by referring to a book.

Please stop putting words in my mouth and ridiculing me. If you must answer, please try to answer my arguments. Thank you.

Swift

[Swift]

No of course not, but it will protect other people from me. But will it protect you from other people? All those peacefull ideology's are very nice, but also very naive.

EDIT: And how would you protect egalitarianism?

Swift

[Swift]

Oh, Swift, you did not just post that jank-ass out of date bullshit.The writer used modern NMR scanning (brain size), thousands of data from the US military (helmet size, IQ, ...), the United Nations (criminal statistics), the World Health organisation, .... We're not talking frenology here.


1) White guys, have, on average, bigger cocks, but there's a higher correlation between height than race.There's even a higher correlation with being male and having testicles. Why is this relevant? Besides, it's the black guys that have the biggest thing.


2) When black and white children are raised in the same economic conditions, black children end up with higher IQs (http://brookings.nap.edu/books/0815746091/html/94.html#page_top)Weird. This guy claims the opposite. You may be right. I don't know.


4) Marriage stability is a function of the society one lives in. A high divorce rate, in anthropological terms, is not a bad thing. It just is. In fact, older Native American tribes used to have a huge divorce rate, but managed higher familial stability.Maybe high divorce rates didn't matter much in tribal society's, because other people in the tribe would take care of the care and education of the divorsed couple's children. In Africa, this is even less relevant, since the father is often unknown, and it's the male relatives of the mother (brothers, uncles) that take the male role model. In a non-tribal individualized society's like ours, a high divorce rate is detrimental for the well-being of children, since our basic social unit is the nuclear family, not the extended family or tribe.


5) The idea that there have been fewer cultural achievements on the part of Africans is ludacris bias on the part of the researcher, and is just shitty anthropology.Then give me one example of a thriving black african civilisation.

Swift

[mgb]

MG, I never used the words close minded or liberal minded. I did say some opinions were politically correct, which they were. I backed up my information by referring to a book.

Please stop putting words in my mouth and ridiculing me. If you must answer, please try to answer my arguments. Thank you.

Swift
Why are you being so close-minded?

You backed up your info by refering to a book. Wow. I hear books are difficult to get published. If it's written in a book it must be true. It's the only thing truer than the internet.

[mgb]

This Rushton guy is never wrong. Oh, and I didn't post a link, but he is the largest recipient of funds from the Pioneer Foundation, a known racist right win group.

http://www.ferris.edu/isar/Institut/pioneer/rushton.htm


Put aside for a second the fact that Rushton does almost no original research of his own and that critics have attacked his "rigour" because he uses the bits of old data that support his hypothesis while ignoring those bits that aren't as flattering.


http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/rushton.html


Although Rushton explores some interesting phenomena in his target article, the theoretical framework he uses to integrate them suffers from a series of defects. These include 1) the failure to fully understand the theory of kin selection (see, e.g., Dawkins 1979); 2) the failure to distinguish the operation of kin selection as a selection pressure from the operation of adaptations that evolved in response to kin selection (e.g., phenotype matching); and 3) the failure to distinguish circumstances reliably present during human evolutionary history that we can have evolved adaptations to (e.g., encounters with near and distant kin) from recently emerged circumstances that we cannot have evolved adaptations to (e.g., encounters with those of other races).


http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/People/Rushton/rushton-black-reply.html


In this respect, Rushton (1990a, 1990b, 1990c) also repeatedly misrepresented findings by Beals, Smith, and Dodd (1984) on cranial capacity. Rushton implied that Beals et al. presented large-scale evidence for racial inferiority of the Blacks with respect to cranial size. De facto, extensive statistical analyses by Beals et al. showed that cranial size varies primarily with climatic zones (e.g., distance from the equator), not race. According to Beals et al., the correlations of brain size to race are spurious: smaller crania are found in warmer climates, irrespective of race.

[Combat]

"Typical close-minded liberal PC bullshit."

It's fun when you can use them all in one sentence.

:)

It's funny how the racist "science" works. Instead of collecting data first and then draw conclusions they rather make up the conclusions first and then collect data that support their conclusions. Data that doesn't "fit in" can safely be ignored as there's obviously something wrong with it.
It's just stork theory.

[Swift]

Why are you being so close-minded?I'm not. I'm open to investigate new ideas, even if they go against the current political morale.


You backed up your info by refering to a book. Wow. I hear books are difficult to get published. If it's written in a book it must be true. It's the only thing truer than the internet. Referring to a book is the least I can do. Sarcasm and ridicule are cheap. Finding good counter-arguments is harder (but apparently not so hard that others couldn't do it).

Swift

[Swift]

:)

It's funny how the racist "science" works. Instead of collecting data first and then draw conclusions they rather make up the conclusions first and then collect data that support their conclusions. Data that doesn't "fit in" can safely be ignored as there's obviously something wrong with it.
It's just stork theory.I can say the same of equality ideology and cultural relativism.

Tribes that didn't move beyond the use of stone tools are not primitive, they are just "different" than us. Can't you see?

Baloney.

[Combat]

I can say the same of equality ideology and cultural relativism.

Tribes that didn't move beyond the use of stone tools are not primitive, they are just "different" than us. Can't you see?

So we can agree then that you, just like these people, let ideology stand in the way of science?

The fact that certain tribes didn't go beyond stone tools could be because they didn't bother to advance further. Alternatively, it could be due to these people having inferior intellects as compared to a nordic super-aryan like me. However, as others have already pointed out, there are many other factors involved that you simply can't ignore if you really want to understand why things happened the way they did.

[Swift]

After WW2, they paid NO compensation (the Allies learned their lesson from the last time). The Russians plundered what they could from the areas under their control (keeping East Germany a backwater shithole for 50 years)... West Germany didn't pay a nickel, and in fact received billions under the Marshall plan.The third world has received billions of dollars too, with no result. The Marshall plan consisted of grants and loans, which had to be paid back, of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

"West Germany paid Israel a sum of 3 billion marks over the next fourteen years; 450 million marks were paid to the World Jewish Congress. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_Agreement_between_Israel_and_West_Germany

Swift

[Swift]

So we can agree then that you, just like these people, let ideology stand in the way of science?No. I believed just as much as everybody in the equality ideology until I read the arguments of Dr. Rushton and David Duke. Now I don't believe it anymore.

EDIT: Saying that black are inferior or something would be an ideology. I have made no such claims. However, I consider applying Darwinism and the theory of evolutionary selection to humans to be science.


The fact that certain tribes didn't go beyond stone tools could be because they didn't bother to advance further. Alternatively, it could be due to these people having inferior intellects as compared to a nordic super-aryan like me. However, as others have already pointed out, there are many other factors involved that you simply can't ignore if you really want to understand why things happened the way they did. Why wouldn't certain tribes go beyond stone tools if that would give them the upper hand in a tribal conflict or simply make life easier for them? And yes, other have pointed out there can be other factors, but I believe not everything can be explained by geography, culture or class.

Anyway, I have never called myself a "super-nordic-aryan" or something like that. In fact, when you look at the table I posted in attachement, you'll see that Asians have the upper hand in a lot of things, like IQ for instance, so this has nothing to do with white superiority or white supremacism.

Swift

[Swift]

Briefly... Haiti was occupied by US Marines for 20 years (dismantling all institutions left by the French), gets pounded by hurricanes every year, and often has its resources plundered by foreigners.You mean US forces occupied a country for 20 years, let it completely fall into ruins and failed to make those 20 years of law and order a new start for the people of Haiti? And who are those foreigners that so often plunder Haiti of it's wealth?

EDIT: Isn't the USA hit frequently by hurricanes and tornado's too? And even earthquakes, forrest fires, heavy snowfall, avalanches and floodings? How come the USA isn't some backwards third world country?


David Duke?? You really need a better grade of reading material... Another non-answer.

[Combat]

However, I consider applying Darwinism and the theory of evolutionary selection to humans to be science.


Nothing wrong with that, but please use sources of higher scientific quality than those you have cited. That table, for example, included nothing but correlations. You can't draw much conclusions from such data. Read this link please: http://www.greenfacts.org/glossary/abc/confounding-factor.htm



Why wouldn't certain tribes go beyond stone tools if that would give them the upper hand in a tribal conflict or simply make life easier for them? And yes, other have pointed out there can be other factors, but I believe not everything can be explained by geography, culture or class.


I would guess population density is a crucial factor for at least two reasons: 1. More people = more conflict (should be obvious :D ) 2. New ideas spread more rapidly as there are more people around to share your thoughts with. Europe is and has for a very long time been one of the most densely populated areas in the world, while sub-saharan Africa has been relatively "empty". Also remember that most of the old civilizations developed along rivers, where food was plenty and the population densities were high. In other words, it really depends a lot on the geography.

[Serotonin]

But will it protect you from other people? All those peacefull ideology's are very nice, but also very naive.


Canny avoidance and and a mild demeanour have protected me thus far, by and large. Insurance policies, and generally not being a pointless shitstirrer I believe can protect me from violence and bigotry from others. Not 100% of course, but you've gotta interact with new people on an ad hoc basis, and try not to approach them with preconceived notions of what they are like because they are black, gay, communist etc. Criminality or personal history of course, is a different matter, but again this is an ad hoc thing rather than a generalisation of a certain breed of people.
ps I am aware that being a white middle-class male I'm coming from a relatively privileged position but don't think for a minute that WMCM means naive, complacent, and narcotised.


EDIT: And how would you protect egalitarianism?

Swift

I'm not interested in using it in a political sense, just a personal one i.e. set an example and hopefully others follow. Some won't of course, whatever, not my problem until they impede me, then I give them a piece of my mind.

[Swift]

I would guess population density is a crucial factor for at least two reasons: 1. More people = more conflict (should be obvious :D ) 2. New ideas spread more rapidly as there are more people around to share your thoughts with. Europe is and has for a very long time been one of the most densely populated areas in the world, while sub-saharan Africa has been relatively "empty". Also remember that most of the old civilizations developed along rivers, where food was plenty and the population densities were high. In other words, it really depends a lot on the geography. Several remarks can be made:
- Are there no rivers in Africa?
- Can YOU provide data or references for your population density claim?
- More people in Europe (that went through at least one Ice Age in the last 40.000 years) than in Africa, where the climate is a lot better?

Swift

[mgb]

I'm not. I'm open to investigate new ideas, even if they go against the current political morale.

Referring to a book is the least I can do. Sarcasm and ridicule are cheap. Finding good counter-arguments is harder (but apparently not so hard that others couldn't do it).

Swift

You are just like Rushton (your "supporting" evidence). See, right after that post I had another post with links to sites that discredit Rushton for using flawed research methods, including ignoring evidence, which I notice you seem to do a lot, or at least ignore plausible counter arguments.

It seems like the only "evidence" you want to see is evidence that goes against current political moral. I have this theory, that you have a theory and it's all you want to see.

[Combat]

- More people in Europe (that went through at least one Ice Age in the last 40.000 years) than in Africa, where the climate is a lot better?

:rofl:
You live in Belgium for f*cks sake! It's practically the definition of high population density! But here's a map for you to study, showing the percentage of world population in different continents. Please note that the African continent is slightly bigger than Europe.

EDIT: Found an interesting article titled "DEMOGRAPHY and HISTORY in SUBSAHARIAN AFRICA": http://www.ankhonline.com/africa_population_history.htm

[meshou]

The writer used modern NMR scanning (brain size), thousands of data from the US military (helmet size, IQ, ...), the United Nations (criminal statistics), the World Health organization, .... We're not talking frenology here.You don't credit the writer, so he might as well have prayed at a shrine to his dead puppy, Wuffles.


There's even a higher correlation with being male and having testicles. Why is this relevant? Besides, it's the black guys that have the biggest thing.Bullshit. (http://www.sex-project.com/myths.shtml#male)

The numbers they have are from Masters and Johnson, and are backed up by subsequent studies. Yes, those are respected sources.

Don't tell me he didn't have access to research done after 1966.


Maybe high divorce rates didn't matter much in tribal society's, because other people in the tribe would take care of the care and education of the divorsed couple's children. In Africa, this is even less relevant, since the father is often unknown, and it's the male relatives of the mother (brothers, uncles) that take the male role model. In a non-tribal individualized society's like ours, a high divorce rate is detrimental for the well-being of children, since our basic social unit is the nuclear family, not the extended family or tribe.What societies are we talking about? It does matter.

Some are matrilineal, some practice polygamy. All have some form of marriage.

There is no pan-African culture. Making a sweeping assertion like that, especially when I know that the paternity of a child is essential in almost all tribal cultures, is stupid.

How do you know divorce is detrimental? Really. Just because it is a against a society's ideals does not make it detrimental to that society. What studies (and jesus fuck, site your shitty ass sources, you fucking suck at science as well as life) do you draw the conclusion that it's detrimental to children?

Do the children end up with worse education, or more often starving? How do you know?


Then give me one example of a thriving black african civilisation.Gladly.

Nubia. Kush. (http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CIVAFRCA/KUSH.HTM) Axum. (http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CIVAFRCA/AXUM.HTM) If I were less lazy, I'd link to all the ones on that site.

Yep, they count. They were building civilisations before white people had bothered to discover numbers. Making iron when we were fucking around with rocks.

According to your assertions, this'd make white people inferior for thousands of years. And since we've only gotten "ahead" in the last four hundred or so (seriously, medieval europeans compared to any civilizations around the same time were the ugly stupid kid picking his nose in the back of the classroom of the world), you'd probably be safer assuming that this is white people's cultural equivalent of fifteen minutes of fame, and the rest of the races will soon shut us the fuck up.

That is, only if you buy into the biased bullshit you spout.

Anyway, reason why we don't see a modern independent country of Nubia is the same reason why we don't trade with Incas currently. Europeans are skanky diseased little assholes, and had contact with the Africans before sailors knew or cared much about accurate documentation.

Oh, and aren't we forgetting, like, all the current African countries? Which have infrastructure and cities, and all the hallmarks of "real" civilizations. Yeah, much of Africa is at war with itself, but if we rule out waring countries from being Civilized, that pretty much takes every country in the fucking world out of the equation.

Except Belgium. But they don't matter in world economy, so it evens out. Then it might matter their opinion on anything. Seriously, the last thing the world says when making important global decisions: "Wait! Let's see what Belgium thinks!"

[Swift]

You live in Belgium for f*cks sake! It's practically the definition of high population density! But here's a map for you to study, showing the percentage of world population in different continents. Please note that the African continent is slightly bigger than Europe.Nice map. Thank you for sharing this. But I WAS talking about a 40.000 year period here, which is roughly the moment of the European-Asiatic split. (The first humans left Africa 100.000 years ago, which is why racial data of Europeans are between those of Africans and Asians, but still closer to Asians.)

Since the climate was much harder in Europe and certainly in Asia (at least one Ice Age), and since the migration had just begun, we can safely assume that the population density was not that high, and certainly not much higher than in Africa. What happened in the last 300 years would not have affected racial differences that much, and certainly not a factor like population density.

Swift

[Combat]

Nice map. Thank you for sharing this. But I WAS talking about a 40.000 year period here, which is roughly the moment of the European-Asiatic split. (The first humans left Africa 100.000 years ago, which is why racial data of Europeans are between those of Africans and Asians, but still closer to Asians.)

Since the climate was much harder in Europe and certainly in Asia (at least one Ice Age), and since the migration had just begun, we can safely assume that the population density was not that high, and certainly not much higher than in Africa. What happened in the last 300 years would not have affected racial differences that much, and certainly not a factor like population density.

Swift

:banghead:
I give up.

[Swift]

You don't credit the writer, so he might as well have prayed at a shrine to his dead puppy, Wuffles. :rofl:


There is no pan-African culture. Making a sweeping assertion like that, especially when I know that the paternity of a child is essential in almost all tribal cultures, is stupid.And why is, according to you, the paternity of a child essential to tribal cultures?

I got this from an interview with a policeman that worked over 20 years in a black neighboorhood in Brussels. Every time some black kid ended up in the police station, the mother would come and pick him up, together with a male relative of hers, like a brother or an uncle. The brother or the uncle were the authority figures for those black kids, but the police send them away, wanting to speak only to the father of the boys, who was often absent or simply unknown, so the brothers and uncles lost the last bit of respect they had from the criminal youngsters, with more criminality as a result. After a few years, the police learned to take those alternative father figures into account.


Yep, they count. They were building civilisations before white people had bothered to discover numbers. Making iron when we were fucking around with rocks. According to your assertions, this'd make white people inferior for thousands of years. And since we've only gotten "ahead" in the last four hundred or so (seriously, medieval europeans compared to any civilizations around the same time were the ugly stupid kid picking his nose in the back of the classroom of the world), you'd probably be safer assuming that this is white people's cultural equivalent of fifteen minutes of fame, and the rest of the races will soon shut us the fuck up.Sorry, but I consider the Ancient Egyptians to be a WHITE civilisation as well. Everybody who has ever seen a picture of an Egyptian mummy (without bandages of course) knows they were White, not Black or Asian.

By the way, interesting website. I withdraw my statement that Africans were not capable of maintaining a civilisation. Thank you for pointing this out.


Anyway, reason why we don't see a modern independent country of Nubia is the same reason why we don't trade with Incas currently. Europeans are skanky diseased little assholes, and had contact with the Africans before sailors knew or cared much about accurate documentation.You're a racist yourself. At least I wasn't insulting anybody.

Hey, you know what? According to your beautiful website, those Africans did nothing else but starting wars and conquering each other's country's. So why feel guilty about Europeans doing the same fucking thing? And for every time I see Europeans being mentioned on that website, I see the words "Islam" and "Jihad" four or five times. And it weren't always the Arabs that started their holy wars, it were converted Africans as well.

As for those Inca's and other native Americans, they were fighting and conquering their neighboors as well. I even read once about a whole tribe that was being sacrificed after they were conquered. How's that for "skanky diseased little assholes"?


Oh, and aren't we forgetting, like, all the current African countries? Which have infrastructure and cities, and all the hallmarks of "real" civilizations. Yeah, much of Africa is at war with itself, but if we rule out waring countries from being Civilized, that pretty much takes every country in the fucking world out of the equation.Current Africa is declining further and further. It is obvious their civilisation is not what it was when the Europeans were still ruling, possibly with exception of some smaller, easier to manage country's.

Take Namibia: before Mugabe threw out the white farmers, the country exported food. Now it has to import food to prevent starvation, while all the means of production is still in place. What's more, Madagascar has invited those expulsed farmers to start up new farms, knowing very well they would do a good job.

Swift

[mgb]

Sorry, but I consider the Ancient Egyptians to be a WHITE civilisation as well. Everybody who has ever seen a picture of an Egyptian mummy (without bandages of course) knows they were White, not Black or Asian.

Swift

Out of curiousity, how did all those white people get to Egypt? While at the same time not mixing with any of the races around them?

The first contact Ancient Egyptian's would have had with another civilization, would have been with Mesopotamia. As the Mediterranean grew it would have been the Minoans and then the Phoenicians. Then probably the Greeks/Romans, which would have been the first "white" people to enter the area.

Egypt is African. The ancestors of ancient Egyptions came from the Upper Nile, near Sudan. Here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ancient_Egypt)
For the source. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14748828)



Ancient Egypt appeared as a unified state sometime around 3300 BC. It survived as an independent state until about 1300 BC. Archeological evidence indicates that a developed Egyptian society has existed for much longer.

Ongoing excavation in Egypt continually reshapes the views of scholars about the origins of Egyptian civilization. In the late 20th century archaeologists discovered evidence of human habitation before 8000 BC in an area in the southwestern corner of Egypt, near the border with Sudan. Nomadic peoples may have been attracted to this southern area of Egypt because of the hospitable climate and environment. Now exceptionally dry, that area once had grassy plains and temporary lakes that resulted from seasonal rains. The people who settled there must have realized the benefits of a more sedentary life. Scientific analysis of the remains of their culture indicates that by 6000 BC they were herding cattle and constructing large buildings.

The descendants of these people may well have begun Egyptian civilization in the Nile Valley. Also a recent genetic study links the maternal lineage of a traditional population from Upper Egypt to eastern Africa.

[Swift]

Out of curiousity, how did all those white people get to Egypt? While at the same time not mixing with any of the races around them? They were from Mediterranean ancestry, probably arriving by boat or by land. After thousands of years, mixing occured, however, the Egyptian Christians, the Kopts, are told to have preserved some European features.

[mgb]

They were from Mediterranean ancestry, probably arriving by boat or by land. After thousands of years, mixing occured, however, the Egyptian Christians, the Kopts, are told to have preserved some European features.

The genetic information doesn't support that. Nor does historical information. Why were the Egyptians not known as mediterranean traders given their maritime heritage?

[mgb]

They were from Mediterranean ancestry, probably arriving by boat or by land. After thousands of years, mixing occured, however, the Egyptian Christians, the Kopts, are told to have preserved some European features.

I did some research on the "Copts" as they call themselves.

I visited this site. (http://www.copts.net/history.asp) It seems to be run by some Copts so I have to assume it's fairly accurate.


Synopsis:
The Coptic people are the descendants of the ancient Egyptians. The known history of the Copts or Egypt starts with King Mina or Menas the first King, who united the northern and southern kingdoms of Egypt circa 3050 B.C. The ancient Egyptian civilization under the rule of the Pharaohs lasted for approximately 3000 years. Many Copts accepted the teachings of Christianity, possibly because the ancient Egyptian religions believed in life after death. This is evidenced by their elaborate efforts to preserve the bodies of the dead by embalming or mummification. Like other early Christians throughout the Roman Empire, the Copts suffered from the persecution perpetrated against the new religion. Many Copts shed their blood in testimony for Jesus Christ. Saint Mina or Menas is one of the major Coptic saints. He was martyred 309 A.D. The Copts history continues through the present as Father Mina the Anchorite led the Coptic Orthodox Church, who was named as Pope Cyril the 6th 1971 A.D. He is considered to be a contemporary saint and among the great leaders of the Coptic Orthodox Church. The Coptic or Egyptian history continues from circa 3050 B.C. through the present. Many cotemporary Copts continue to carry ancient Egyptian names such as Mina, Ahmos, and Ramesses for men, Isis, Nofert, Nefertiti, and Nitocris for women. Two examples are noteworthy about the influence of the ancient Egyptian civilization on the western civilization.

By all accounts these people are the descendants of ancient egyptians. Whom we have previously established as being of African descent.

So they haven't "preserved" European features. If they have European features it's because of thousands of years of invasions and trading with other cultures.


Everybody who has ever seen a picture of an Egyptian mummy (without bandages of course) knows they were White, not Black or Asian.

http://historylink101.net/images/egyptian-mummy-3.jpg

That is one white dude. You've got us there.

When you get to 1000 posts your nickname should be "Where facts go to die."

[mgb]

Current Africa is declining further and further. It is obvious their civilisation is not what it was when the Europeans were still ruling, possibly with exception of some smaller, easier to manage country's.

Take Namibia: before Mugabe threw out the white farmers, the country exported food. Now it has to import food to prevent starvation, while all the means of production is still in place. What's more, Madagascar has invited those expulsed farmers to start up new farms, knowing very well they would do a good job.

Swift

Here is a history of Namibia. http://www.namibian.org/travel/namibia/history.htm I don't know who this guy is, I just googled "History of Namibia" and looked at the first page.


German South West Africa was the very descriptive name given to Namibia when these northern Europeans staggered ashore in the territory in the early 1880's. At the Berlin Conference in 1883 Africa had been divided between various European nations - largely to the surprise of Africans. As a result Germany ended up with this arid desert land that most Europeans saw little use in claiming.

By means of purchase and /or theft (all depending on your source of information) the Germans gradually gained control of the central and southern parts of the territory that is now Namibia. One of the methods the Germans used to gain control was to exchange land for `protection', but this failed miserably when one of the strong local leaders, Hendrik Witbooi , stole the horses of the Imperial Commissioner Dr. Heinrich Goring - father of the future Nazi Air Marshall Hermann Goring. It seemed that the Germans needed protection rather than the opposite. Subsequently a new method of trying to exert control over the territory had to be attempted.

Sounds like things went pretty smooth there.


With regards to your economic assumptions...

You obviously taken a very complicated economic situation and oversimplified it, much to the detriment of yourself and everyone else at INTP Central.

I don't know if you've heard about the whole AIDS thing in Africa. You see, what happens is 20% of adults from 15 to 49, get AIDS (in the case of Namibia). Normally, those would be the people doing the farming. They have the farming knowledge and the strength to do it. They die. They leave their parents to raise their children. The kids have to learn how to farm themselves. They obviously can't do it very well and productivity falls to starvation levels. Kids die too.

This is pretty well understood. You should read Jeffrey Sachs' book. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1594200459/qid=1115715638/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/103-6922073-7504636?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) It may not have the requisite amount of racial slurs for your tastes but you still might learn something.

http://www.namibweb.com/aids.htm


AIDS has become the greatest health threat to humanity in this century, having reached pandemic proportions with incidence rates in Africa higher than any other continent. The 1998 Namibian Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS) HIV sentinel surveys indicate that the prevalence of AIDS is rising faster in Namibia than in any other country in Africa. In Namibia AIDS was first recorded in 1986 when four people were diagnosed HIV positive. Latest estimates of HIV prevalence for the Namibian population between ages 15 and 49 show a rate that exceeds 20%. Positive HIV tests have increased dramatically from 4 045 HIV-positive tests during 1988-92 to 53 330 cumulative HIV-positive tests in 1998.

Since 1996 AIDS has become the number one cause of death in Namibia. If the pandemic continues to spread at current rates, the number of people infected with HIV could reach over 400 000 by the year 2000. HIV/AIDS is still increasing with the highest prevalence being in urban areas and, secondarily, in rural areas close to roads.

A 1998 HIV sero-survey illustrates that HIV prevalence among pregnant women is still increasing in most areas. Rates in Windhoek among pregnant women were 23% with a high of 34% in Oshakati. Women make up 53% of all reported new HIV cases. In addition, HIV/AIDS strikes the economical productive age groups in the labour force.

[Swift]

http://historylink101.net/images/egyptian-mummy-3.jpg

That is one white dude. You've got us there.
That mummy is also known as "Ginger", because he has red hair. Semites or negroes don't have red hair.


http://encyclopedia.lockergnome.com/s/b/Mummy
The earliest 'mummified' individual dates back to approximately 3300 BC, although it is not a 'true' mummy. The body is on display in the British Museum and has been given the nickname of 'Ginger' because he has red hair. Ginger was buried in the hot desert sand with maybe some stones piled on top to prevent the corpse being eaten by jackals. The hot, dry conditions desiccated the body, preventing the muscle and soft tissues from decaying. Ginger was buried with some pottery vessels, which would have held food and drink to sustain him on his long journey to the other world. There are no written records of the religion or gods from that time, and it is not known if it was the intention of the ancient Egyptians that the deceased were being preserved.

[Swift]

Look here for more info:


http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr8.htm

Although situated in North Africa, Egypt had been settled by three White groupings prior to 3500 BC, namely Old European Mediterranean types, Proto-Nordics and Nordic Indo-Europeans, with the latter group penetrating the territory as part of the great wave of Indo-European invasions which took place from 5600 BC onwards.

[Combat]

Ah, Stormfront! That's a great source for unbiased facts. Much more trustworthy than Pubmed and similar close-minded PC propaganda sites. Thanks for the link! :)

[meshou]

That mummy is also known as "Ginger", because he has red hair. Semites or negroes don't have red hair.
It happens.

http://www.recordonline.com/photo/albino/images/ejgalb01.jpg

My ex and his mother had red hair. They were half and a quarter native American respectivly. His grandmother on the other side was Jewish. However, she was also blond and blue eyed.

Oh, and the mummy, ginger? mummification turns hair red. (http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/hierakonpolis/field/hair.html). Not the chemical process, the drying out and aging. If we mummified a black person today, he'd have red hair in a few thousand years too if the conditions stayed good.

[CoHo]

http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2003/08/12-nef-inside.jpg

http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-08-12-nefertiti-usat_x.htm


http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~dzs/news/nefertiti.html

[Combat]

I think we're on to something here.

[mgb]

Look here for more info:

Here is an image from the frontpage of the site you gave me.

http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr8_files/newmap.JPG

It's like saying that people came over the Bering Land Bridge and settled in Mexico, but didn't stop anywhere else along the way.

Also missing from your link is a discussion of genetic information proving the origins of mummys. Also missing is a reason why they left the area around Turkey. During those times it was known as the "Fertile Crescent", why would a group large enough to propagate an entire civilization leave, passing through many fertile places along the way, and end up in Egypt? It doesn't make any sense.

So I went and checked out the rest of the site.

http://www.stormfront.org/images/header_p1.jpg
This was at the top of the main page.

This was the first message

tormfront made history ten years ago, going online with the first White Nationalist website.

The gift of the Internet meant an alternative to the controlled news media. We brought our message to hundreds of thousands those first few months, and today we reach millions. And we continue to grow, transforming an online community into real world activism.

Join us for an online celebration.

Then I got to thinking. Why would someone interested in White Power want to say that Egyptians were White? Hmmmm. Maybe because they were a civilization and it helps bolster their claim of "white" superiority. Maybe. I don't know.

That's some more good evidence Swift.

[mgb]

I'm going to post this as well, it's long and from a person on another forum, but seems to cover the issue very well and they use sources.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001670.html

quote:

A common Eurocentric tactic to prove that various famous civlizations were blonde or red haired is to point out that mummies have blonde or red hair. Little do most Eurocentrists know that blonde and redhair in mummies can sometimes be explained by enviromental and archaeological reasons.

You can also get such hair coloring from dying. Ancinet Egyptian women and men often used henna which turned their natural hair color reddish colors. This is not only common in Egypt but across Eastern Africa and parts of the so-called Middle East.

Little do people understand there is a logical and scientific explanation to explain the hair color and apperance of mummies. When the body decomposes in solution it turns the mummy into a dehydrated state much like beef jerkey. You cannot tell a race of a mummy simply by looking at the face or any other body structure. The only way any such ethnic affinities of any mummy can be told is through X-ray analysis and by bone structure.


The only X-ray studies that have been done by any anatomist are the early ones during the early 1900's by Sir Grafton Smith and later ones done by James E. Harris and Kent R. Weeks. Harris is a dentist and Weeks is both an Egyptologist and has a PHD in physical anthropology.


As far as genetic material from the mummies, this is very hard to come by,and most of the material has been from ABO blood typing. Very few genetic studies have been conducted on the mummies. Some studies by Sasvo Paabo,a Sweedish geneticist, have been published in various Scientific journals.

DNA material in mummies can only be extract through deep tissues and also through teeth.


See the following for more details about hair,apperance, and genetic studies on mummies.


From: Rogers, Spencer Lee, _Personal identification from human

remains_ 1987, "Hair often survives for a considerable time after

death and can be recognized as to color and to some extent texture. A

study in which hair was buried experimentally in the soil for a two

year period revealed that there was no appreciable change until after

one month, but it became streaked and brittle after one year. Two

years was found to be the maximum duration of Caucasian hair buried

underground." (p.8) On the same page it reads: "The color of eyes

during life cannot be determined from their appearance on a cadaver

since all eyes become a greenish brown shortly after death."


Here is a relevent study about DNA from mummies:


DNA decay rate in papyri and human remains from
Egyptian archaeological sites.

Marota I, Basile C, Ubaldi M, Rollo F.

The writing sheets made with strips from the stem
(caulis) of papyri (Cyperus papyrus) are one of the
most ingenious products of ancient technology.

We
extracted DNA from samples of modern papyri varying in
age from 0-100 years BP and from ancient specimens from
Egypt, with an age-span from 1,300-3,200 years BP.

The
copy number of the plant chloroplast DNA in the sheets
was determined using a competitive PCR system designed
on the basis of a short (90 bp) tract of the
chloroplast's ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase large
subunit (rbcL) gene sequence.

The results allowed us to
establish that the DNA half-life in papyri is about 19-
24 years.

This means that the last DNA fragments will
vanish within no more than 532-672 years from the
sheets being manufactured. In a parallel investigation,
we checked the archaeological specimens for the
presence of residual DNA and determined the extent of
racemization of aspartic (Asp) acid in both modern and
ancient specimens, as a previous report (Poinar et al.
[1996], Science 272:864-866) showed that racemization
of aspartic acid and DNA decay are linked.


The results
confirmed the complete loss of authentic DNA, even in
the less ancient (8th century AD) papyri. On the other
hand, when the regression for Asp racemization rates in
papyri was compared with that for human and animal
remains from Egyptian archaeological sites, it proved,
quite surprisingly, that the regressions are virtually
identical. Our study provides an indirect argument
against the reliability of claims about the recovery of
authentic DNA from Egyptian mummies and bone remains.
Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.


Many Eurocentrics have used the Yuya mummy to often prove that caucasians were predominant in Ancient Kmt. We find this to a claim that is never supported by concrete data. Yuya,an offical in Waset, seems to have had a Eur-Asian origin. The wife of Yuya Thuya,which would later to become the mother of Queen Tiy is of Egyptian stock. Her mummy is morphoogicaly different than that of Yuya's.

Sir Grafton Smith found out when he examined the mummies that Yuya fits the profiles of foreginers than he does of Egyptians.

Here's what anatomist Grafton Elliot Smith wrote about this mummy,
after examining it in 1905:

"The form of the face (and especially the nose) is such as we find more
commonly in Europe than in Egypt."

Indeed, the distinctly foreign (i.e. "Semitic") characteristics of Yuya's
mummy were sufficiently pronounced as to move Egyptian writer Ahmed Osman to
speculate, in his book "Stranger in the Valley of the Kings" (Harper * Row,
1987) that Yuya might have been the Hebrew patriarch Joseph

About Thuya which was Yuya's wife:


Like the mummy of her husband the wrappings of the mummy of Thuya had
been severly damaged by robbers.

The bandages have been covered with
black resin,which still bear the impression of stolen jewerly.

The mummy presents some unusual features for the Period.

The
emablimng incision is almost vertical and has been sewn up with a
string. No plate covers the wound,which gapes open,exposing the linen
packing filling the body cavity.

The arms are fully extended with the palms of the hand flattened
against the thighs.

The mummy is of a small old lady with typical Egyptian features who
was possibly over fifty when she died.

Thuya has scantly white hair,know turned yellow by the materials
used in the embalimng \, On the top her head the hair is very thing
much like a pony tail in photographs,are in fact,the remains of the
linen wrappings around the head and back of the neck of the mummy

page 112-113

Faces of the Pharoahs

Robert Parthiage

Here is a statement about apperance of mummies:


How can we identify the pharaohs?
The pharaohs have been dead for thousands of years.

There are no descriptions of their physical appearance, and even the best preserved royal mummies bear little resemblance to living human beings in their prime.

Egyptian sculptures, however, were almost always inscribed with the names and titles of their owners.

A sufficient number of inscribed statues have survived to allow us to recognize the most important pharaohs, and in most cases it is now possible to identify bodiless heads, which have lost their inscriptions, as specific rulers.
http://www.clemusart.com/archive/pharaoh/rosetta/rosefaq.html

Vistors to museums around the world find it fasinating to see the
mummified faces of the ancient dead. But although Egyptians mummies
often very well preserved,with much of the soft tissue clinging to
the skull,the faces inside the wrapping almost certainly are
different than what the person must have looked like.

page 32

Egypt revelaed Magazine

other references is Robert Partrige

who wrote the book faces of the pharoahs

***Eurocentrics often use apperance of mummies to determine their racial origins** The following is a Eurocentric fallacy.

see also about hair color:

Microscopic study tells more about the original hair color,which may
have faded or been changed by enviromental conditions,the
mummification process,or the use of dyes.

The microscope can also
reveal details of styling techniques,such as shard blades to cut hair
as early as 3000BC.

Hair can be subjected to trade element analysis,usually by neutron
activation technique,which can reveal details of diet and
nutrictional deficienes,dieases,enviromental pollution,and even the
use of drugs or poisons-all of which remain locked in the hair long
after they have left the rest of the body.

Page 40

Egypt revelaed

Joann Fletcher

more information about hair:

On Human Hair as a Race Character, Dr Pruner-Bey Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Vol 6 (1877) p71-

The red hair, on the contrary, seems represented, at least by some individuals, in all known races, whether equatorial or boreal...
From what precedes, we arrive at the conclusion that the colour of the hair alone is insufficient to characterise a race... p73-4

The Hair of Earlier Peoples, Don Brothwell and Richard Spearman p427-436 in Science in Archaeology, eds. D Brothwell and E Higgs 1963

Hair is largely made up of the fibrous protein keratin.

This substance is extremely resistant to decomposition and enzymatic digestion, mainly owing to the presence of disulphide cross linkages of the amino acid cystine. These join together the long polypeptide chains of the molecule.

If the crosslinkages are broken by reduction or oxidation, altered keratin is readily attacked by proteolytic enzymes.

This resistance of keratin explains durability of hair in ancient burials...These changes can occur on the living animal; thus atmospheric weathering of the fleece of sheep results in loss of cystine from the exposed tips of the fibres.

Permanent waving alters keratin cross linkages, and these changes have been detected using florescence microscopy.

It is probable that if the preparations employed during mummification contained reducing or oxidizing agents or alkaline substances the hair keratin would be damaged...


Normal human hair had a bluish-green florescence with acridine orange but permanently waved hair had a reddish florescence with associated fractures of the fibres...

Hair bleached with hydrogen peroxide also showed this change due to oxidation of the keratin... in some samples such as predynastic Egyptian hair the whole hair was altered in this way.

by Andrew Wilson


Archaeological Hair


The common misconception that all hair turns red over archaeological timescales has found its way into archaeological folklore. Whilst certain environments such as those producing bog bodies are known to yield hair of a red-brown color, in part because of the breakdown of organic matter and presence of humic acids which impart a brown color to recovered remains, it has commonly been assumed that this happens to all archaeological hair. This concept has been perpetuated by popular nicknames such as "Ginger"--affectionately given to the Predynastic burial with red hair on display in the mummy rooms at the British Museum.


Potential change to hair color can be explained more scientifically by examining the chemistry of melanin which is responsible for hair color in life. All hair contains a mixture in varying concentration of both black-brown eumelanin and red-yellow phaeomelanin pigments, which are susceptible to differential chemical change under certain extreme burial conditions (for example wet reducing conditions, or dry oxidising conditions). Importantly, phaeomelanin is much more stable to environmental conditions than eumelanin, hence the reactions occurring in the burial environment favor the preservation of phaeomelanin, revealing and enhancing the red/ yellow color of hairs containing this pigment. Color changes occur slowly under dry oxidising conditions, such as in the burials in sand at Hierakonpolis. Whether the conditions within the wood and plaster coffin contributed to accelerated color change, or whether this individual naturally had more phaeomelanin pigmentation in his hair is hard to say without further analysis.

http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/hierakonpolis/field/hair.html

/quote

[moni]

man swift, why the hell are you trying to back up your arguments with white supremacist sites? the first one i overlooked... but then david duke and stormfront...

[Serotonin]

Ah, Stormfront! That's a great source for unbiased facts. Much more trustworthy than Pubmed and similar close-minded PC propaganda sites. Thanks for the link! :)

Stormfront.org :dont:

Check out the kids page! Spooky and hilarious at the same time.

[Swift]

man swift, why the hell are you trying to back up your arguments with white supremacist sites? the first one i overlooked... but then david duke and stormfront...Ok, I should have prepared myself a bit better regarding that African cultures thing. but I still think racial differences are logical considering Darwinism. I was a bit too hasty with this stuff (and the Einstein stuff too, that was a total dead end). But anyhow, I don't mind using info from Stormfront or David Duke.

Swift

[mgb]

Ok, I should have prepared myself a bit better regarding that African cultures thing. but I still think racial differences are logical considering Darwinism. I was a bit too hasty with this stuff (and the Einstein stuff too, that was a total dead end). But anyhow, I don't mind using info from Stormfront or David Duke.

Swift

What makes you think it was just the "African thing" (and I'll be happy to rephrase that for you to: "Egyptians are white" to more clearly state what we are talking about)?

Almost everything you have posted so far has been widely (or can be quite easily) discredited.

I'm sorry you've missed the point of the little Egyptian exercise. The point is to show you how wrong and based on false information and false science those sites are. For Christ's sake, the only logical conclusion those morons could draw from a mummy with red hair was that they came from the Black Sea? That's not science at all.

If you can't see the trees for the forest on this, then you are just as big of moron as the people operating those sites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism

This is why social darwinism is wrong.


Social Darwinism is a descriptive term given to a kind of social theory that draws an association between Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, and the sociological relations of humanity. Critics of such theories argue that by asserting that societies develop and therefore operate by "natural" laws, the real aim of "Social Darwinism" theories is to rationalize and thereby legitimize the unequal and disproportionate divisions between and within societies. Critics may make note that Darwin's own work never contained the logical and naturalistic fallacies of assuming that the existence of natural processes would mean that they could "naturally" be extended from biological systems to social systems. In essence, it justifies the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer by incorrectly applying Darwin's theory.

Seriously, if you can't see the flaws in the arguments, you are a lot dumber than people here are giving you credit for.

[Sackanaka]

This thread gives me the heebie jeebies. :zombie:

[Star Cannon]

We go from: A massive post V-E Day rape-fest in europe to... darwanism?

This is horrible. If a rape like that happened in the U.S. I think the gun owners would be stocking up on ammunition and using it...

(On another note, wouldn't tighter gun control... allow for circumstances permitting this? If citizens where armed and taught how to shoot... Maybe arming citizens is ehat we need to do in order to never let this happen AGAIN ANYWHERE.)

[meshou]

We go from: A massive post V-E Day rape-fest in europe to... darwanism?

This is horrible. If a rape like that happened in the U.S. I think the gun owners would be stocking up on ammunition and using it...

(On another note, wouldn't tighter gun control... allow for circumstances permitting this? If citizens where armed and taught how to shoot... Maybe arming citizens is ehat we need to do in order to never let this happen AGAIN ANYWHERE.)
Swift linked to a skinhead website as his source. Social Darwinisim and racist fucks are related subjects.

As for the rape... 1) Rape happens in war. Frequently. 2) The biggest war in history the side with the biggest active army in history will have the most rapes.

In other words, this is not a surprise to anyone who knows war means, like, rape, and death.

[Swift]

As for the rape... 1) Rape happens in war. Frequently. 2) The biggest war in history the side with the biggest active army in history will have the most rapes.

In other words, this is not a surprise to anyone who knows war means, like, rape, and death.War means rape and death. Duh. How fucking obvious.

The difference here is that the armies of the Sovjets and the Western Allies systematically used rape as a means of punishing the conquered Axis civilians.

The Sovjets did it by blatantly encouraging their soldiers to rape, the Western Allies by turning a blind eye to incidental mass rapes (and yes, very often these involved negro's or Moroccans) or by seizing and withholding the foodsupply's from the civilians, thus forcing the women to turn to prostitution.

It didn't happen in some dark corner when nobody was looking! The military leaders were at least aware of the problem, if not outright responsible.

There are more factors to rape than having a big army. The Germans had a big army too, but they certainly didn't use systematic mass rape as a strategy, and individual rape was low thanks to the very high discipline in the German Wehrmacht.

Next time, use your head instead of your "slot B".

Swift

[Swift]

Darwin's own work never contained the logical and naturalistic fallacies of assuming that the existence of natural processes would mean that they could "naturally" be extended from biological systems to social systems. Sorry, but saying Darwin didn't write about it doesn't prove that you CAN'T apply evolutionary theory to other scientific fields.

[meshou]

Next time, use your head instead of your "slot B".Fuck off, racist fuck.

[Swift]

Fuck off, racist fuck.Now what did I just tell you? :rolleyes:

[Combat]

use your head

Good advice. You should try it yourself for a change, you may find the experience rewarding.

[Geoff]

And, judging by this thread, a novelty!

-Geoff

[Claverhouse]

PLACE-HOLDER FOR CLASSIC-STATUS

[Kathara]

I will skip the entire debate on the sources and racism and address the problem of rape during WW2 in Eastern Europe. The sourse is my grannie, who for some reason beyoung my power of comprehension (she's an F), decided to stay in Bucharest during the war.

She told me that the German army was very polite and disciplined. Rapes and other crimes were very rare. My grandma was courted, actually, by several Nazi officers, although she was already married, but they were extremely polite, and gentlemen-like.

On the other hand, when the Russian came it was a desaster - and bare in mind that the Russians were our allies. Moldova, the northern region took the full force, but things were't too bright in the south either. My grandmother and her sisters had an underground chamber in the middle of the corn field where they would hide whenever Russian troups would rush by.

Just a bit of true history that some might find useful.

[shadow1986]

:rofl:

Current Africa is declining further and further. It is obvious their civilisation is not what it was when the Europeans were still ruling, possibly with exception of some smaller, easier to manage country's.



No. It's achieving higher and higher rates of stability. slowly... but surely. South AFrica is predicted to be a world power eventuality now that bigotted idiots like you have been educated and united in what's known as the self-proclaimed "rainbow nation". Much of the up and coming world powers such as China and India are investing heavily in Africa and hold African interests as a big item in their agenda as taht's where their source of resources and cheaper labour will come from once their economies adapt.

Furthermore, an African guy is in a strong running to be the president of the world's most powerful nation. Hint: This country is not in Africa.

The Europeans went everywhere and conquered a lot, but they basically went into many of these different regions killing and maiming anyone who didn't want to convert to their religion or co-operate. Yet, you criticise "blacks" because you BELIEVE that they rape and pillage and commit crimes out of inferiority. Are you stupid? Your're saying It's OK for the Europeans to do it way back when conquering and pillaging nations for the sake of power and greed, but not OK for socially displaced or Blacks from weaker socio-economic backgrounds to do them in order to stay alive? That's just about it. Racism first, backed up by logic. You look at only what comforts you and follows what you want to believe: Cognitive dissonance.

How the hell does being smaller make a country easier to manage? You have limited resources, what littel cultable land you have is set aside for aggriculture. It actually works out as the same as a big country. You just choose to believe what you want to believe.

[djm]

I will skip the entire debate on the sources and racism and address the problem of rape during WW2 in Eastern Europe. The sourse is my grannie, who for some reason beyoung my power of comprehension (she's an F), decided to stay in Bucharest during the war.

She told me that the German army was very polite and disciplined. Rapes and other crimes were very rare. My grandma was courted, actually, by several Nazi officers, although she was already married, but they were extremely polite, and gentlemen-like.

On the other hand, when the Russian came it was a desaster - and bare in mind that the Russians were our allies. Moldova, the northern region took the full force, but things were't too bright in the south either. My grandmother and her sisters had an underground chamber in the middle of the corn field where they would hide whenever Russian troups would rush by.

Just a bit of true history that some might find useful.

The Russians were only allies when King Michael changed sides in 1944, prior to that Romania had been part of Axis and Soviet troops will have experienced many casualties fighting against them on the Eastern front, not that this excuses their behaviour.

Edit: The fact that the Germans had brothels for all their troops 'staffed' by Jewish girls that were rounded up from each area may also explain their 'gentlemanly behaviour towards other women in the country. The girls subjected to this were used for 20 days after which they were of no further use and were shot.

[Faust06]

I could probably read this whole thing if only Swift's idiocy wasn't too much to handle.

[dubbeltop]

Allied War Crimes: The Greatest Mass Rape in History

I don't know how i got into this mess , I think I will just leave quietly....

[Arod301]

wow