Re: There are racists; but no races.
Bob Whitaker (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sat, 18 Jan 1997 18:03:16 -0500
Toby Cockcroft wrote:
> In article <32DDB885.722E@conterra.com>, email@example.com wrote:
> > Of course, you live in the Great Purple Pumpkin, too, don't you?
> > As I explain to each of you clones in turn, my problem with your
> >so-called "nonracialism" is that you are only interested in it for white
> >majority countries. You demand massive third world immigration into
> >EVERY white majority country, and ONLY into white majority countries.
> >You demand your so-called "race" mixing, which is actually only *white*
> >mixing, and you use public money for busing and "low-cost"(black)
> >housing to chase down any white escapees.
> > Your so-called solution to the race problem is always only the final
> >solution to the white problem.
> > Don't worry, I'll keep repeating this until each and every one of you
> >clones has
> >heard it.
> Bob, I see that you are back for some more abuse.
> Have you not given up your futile line of reasoning yet?
> Stop the insanity!
> Your paranoia has turned into dillusion and you see conspiracy at every
> turn. Rather than seeing the folly of your arguments you retreat into
> dogma and fear. You have entrenched yourself so deeply into you bigotry,
> hysteria and ignorance that what little light there may have been to guide
> you out is now forever extinguished. You jabber the same line over and
> over again like a parrot in a vain hope that you will both convince us and
> convince yourself.
> Somewhere along the way in your pathetic life you were deeply wounded and
> through misdirection and disinformation you lashed out in the most vile and
> contemptuous way: racism. You have transfigured your own personal
> destruction onto this mythic construction that you cling to called RACE.
> And concequently you see the destruction of yourself as the destruction of
> YOUR RACE.
The tactics of the religious fanatic never change, whether that fanatic
be a medieval priest or a Communist or a Political Correctness freak
like yourself. The language changes, but not the basic approach: anyone
who disagrees with the Only True Faith cannot be rational, he must be
Under the medieval Inquisitors, this Evil was straightforward: all
disagreement was inspired by the Devil. Later, as Satan fell out of
fashion, Mental Illness took over. The Soviets stuck dissidents in
In your eyes, anyone who says you're silly must be mentally deranged.
Pop psychology has replaced the Evil One, but the outlook is still the
> There are some fundamental flaws with your argument and questions that need
> to be addressed.
> 1) how can a program of RACE mixing exist within an ideology that does not
> recognise the very notion of RACE. To mix RACES would be to acknowledge
> their existence and since this isn't the case then how can you continue to
> perpetrate this falsehood.
As I keep pointing out, this races don't exist stuff is today's
Politically Correct line. It is aimed against whites.
Anthropology is the wholly owned subsidiary of the most Politically
Correct social science of all, sociology. It gives PC an air of being
The consistent theme of everything in Scientific Anthropology is
Political Correctness. In the 1930's, it was white supremacist, but on
May 8, 1945, Scientific Anthropology had a Great Awakening: Boas ecame
the Only True Anthropologiist. I remember Carleton Coon discussing
your Scientific Objectivity, when he was thrown out of the chairmanship
of the American physical anthropoloiists' association for heresy.
His heresy book, *Origin of Races*, took care of Boas' Scientific
Anthropology in about two pages. Now Scientific Anthropology says that
1) Coon was stupid and insane and 2) his work is the basis of today's
parallel developement theories of mankind's developement. It depends on
what mood you're in.
Back in the 1950's, the official Politically Correct line was that
anyone who belived in heredity was A Nazi Who Wanted To Kill Six Million
Jews. Scientific Anthropology backed them all the way.
As we have gotten deeper into genes, this has become so silly that
Scientific Antrhopology has put that attitude down the good old
Orwellian Memory Hole.
In the 1960's and 1970's the offical PC line said that women and men
were excatly the same except for reproductive organs: anyone who
believed little girls were different from little boys was A Nazi Who
Wanted To Kill Six Million Jews.
Here came good old Scientific Anthropology over hte hill, fighting for
the new line.
This idea that attitudes do not differ between sexes has become so
discredited that even Betty Friedan has been denouncing it. So what
happened with Scientific Anthropology? Your old position went down the
good old Memory Hole.
There is quite simply no PC position which is too absurd to gain
substantial social science support the second it is pronounced, and
everybody knows it. Votes for cats would be intellectual if it were
Politically Correct, and the good Scientific Anthropologists would lead
The credibility of the academic bureaucracy is shot.
> 2) What are RACES: what is WHITE and what is BLACK? How can I tell the
> difference between one and the other? Upon what criteria do make these
> distinctions; are these criteria legitimate ones and how come?
To say there is no white race is to admit you are out to destroy it,
and that is your excuse.
You are admitting that anyone who belives there is a white race is
justified in accusing you of genocide. You Politically Correct types
consistently back the idea of massive third world immigration into ALL
white majority countries, and ONLY into white majority countries. You
demand racial balance in EVERY white majority country, and ONLY in
white-majority countries. If whites try to escape, you demand busing
and black ("low-cost") housing to chase them down.
As with everything else that is Politically Correct, Scientific
Anthropolgy just happens to consistently provide arguments that back
this anti-white program.
Quite a coincidence, if the white race doesn't exist.
Your excuse is your admission.
> 3) Can you formulate a response that does not contain the phrase "Don't
> worry, I'll keep repeating this until each and every one of you clones has
> heard it." or something to that effect and if not how come?
> You keep saying the same thing: whatever is politically fashionable is a part of Scientific Anthropology. How can my line vary?
> 4) Can you formulate a response that does not rely upon your stock parrot
> reply, or is your record so badly scratched that you are forever stuck in
> the same groove?
You keep saying the same thing: whatever is politically fashionable is
a part of Scientific Anthropology. How can my line vary?
> Awaiting your reply.
> Toby R. G. Cockcroft MA (in progress)
> Dept. Of Anthropology
> Univerity of Western Ontario
> London, Ontario
> -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
> Version: 2.6
> -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
> Unsolicited commercial e-mail to the poster of this message will be
> proofread at US$70/hour, minimum charge $150. Submission of such e-mail to
> this address will suffice as contractual assent to the said charge