Re: What Are the Race Deniers Denying?

Bob Whitaker (
Mon, 02 Dec 1996 17:19:24 -0500

Philip Deitiker wrote:
> Bob Whitaker <> wrote:
> >>
> >> I have come to the conclusion that it is pointless to argue with either
> >> Bobby Whitaker or Brian Smith. Neither one has any intention of answering
> >> any questions seriously. They simply label anyone who disagrees with the
> >> race traitors (Smith) or PC clones (Whitaker) and refuse to address their
> >> real points. Hardly surprising, but sad. They realize that their
> >> disgusting ideology can't survive the light of real debate, so they hide
> >> under the rocks of half-truths and lies. Rather pitiful.
> >>
> >> But still, I'll try one more time.
> >>
> >> The idea of race. What is this thing race you speak of? Is it skin tone?
> >> But didn't the human race originate in Africa, and its only the movement to
> >> northern sun-starved climates that turned some of us (like me) pale. What
> >> does that skin color adaptation have to do with making pale people better/
> >> smarter, whatever, than everyone else. And how do you explain Indians
> >> (in India) who have caucasoid features but skin ranging from light to very
> >> dark brown?
> > Standard clone statement I've answered many, many times. I will repeat
> >the same reply for you as for the other clones, and I'll keep repeating
> >until you hear me.
> > You clones say the white race does not exist,
> I don't think you've been paying attention, bob. The white race does
> exist, in escense its core is synonomous with indo-europeans; however,
> if you use this as a standard bearer for races in the world there are
> then > 30 other races. From a cultural point of view race is certainly
> being used to catagorize people... So, yes, the white race does exist.
> The question orignially was, if I remember correctly, is what was the
> biological significance of race (or what proof that race is
> biologically insiginificant). What others and I have been trying to
> tell you is that one cannot easily superimpose 'race' based genetic
> with molecular genetic classification. The current race classification
> is _highly_ deficient as a genetic classification system.
> >but only when that can be
> >used against the white race. For your insults and attacks and demands
> >for reparations, the white race definitely exist. You arguments for
> >genocide against whites are two: 1) the white race does not exist and 2)
> >the whtie race deserves it.
> There is no global genocide against the 'white' race. The white
> race has prospered unmatched over the last 4000 years. From a regional
> population on the black sea to the propogation of colonies all across
> europe the america's. Relative to other world populations,
> indoeuropean genetic contribution has undoubtedly increased over this
> period. Consider that in the americas indoeuropean genes are probably
> at the level of 50%, in europe (outside of the steppes) australia,
> new zealand, etc the contribution is probably closer to 90%. There are
> lesser contributions in africa and asia. If I had to guess I would
> say that IE gene freqeuncies were at the level of 5% 4 KYBP. Now they
> are probably on the order of 30%. a six fold relative increase
> compared to most other world populations.
> > When it comes to your program, the white race exists, for sure. You
> >demand massive third world immigration into EVERY white majority
> >country, and ONLY into white majority countries. Quite a coincidence
> >for anyone wo insists he doesn't know what white is.
You did a lot oftalking before you got to the PC clone aprt.

Who is demanding immigration. You're a real ding-dong, you know that.

You clones persist in the illusion that everybody here has not heard
your Political Correctness until they can recite in their sleep. We
have heard your whole PC routine hundreds of times at public expense.
You still think you're some kind of mystery, and it takes a mind reader
to get
behind your words.
Undeceive yourself.

> During the post columbian period, europeans managed to settle,
> colonize and frequently displace all kinds of endemic populations
> world wide, with very little dilution of the population in europe. If
> we are to go buy you're thoughts I think we can do the following...
> Take all non-dravidian poeples in india and drive them back to the
> black sea. Take all non-native (or IE origin) americas, autstralians,
> africans and send them back to europe. Then almost all europeans and
> move them back to the ukraine. Not to mention a good portion of
> persian, pakistani, afganistan, etc.

This is a cutesy way to say we're actually talking about "all races"

Another clone, another repeat:

As I explain to each of you clones in turn, my problem with your
so-called "mixing" is that you are only interested in doing it in 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 moneyt for busing and "low-cost"(black)
housing to chase down any white excapees.
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.

Hey, I like this solution, sounds
> good me. Since the basque are the only notable remant of pre-IE europe
> they undoubtably would inherit all of europe excepting the ukraine.
> The rest wouild belong to the sicilians, and what's left of the
> ancient iberian populations. Hey, bob, how do you like the Ukraine?
> That's the safe way, you know, the IE population would be so
> condensed, so concentrated and isolated there would be little chance
> for immigration (i.e. inihibition via extreme overpopulation
> pressure).
> > You demand integration in every single white majority country, and only
> >in white majority countries, complete with racial busing to chase down
> >escapee white children and tax-paid black "low cost" housing to chase
> >down escaping families.
> I don't think this was the original issue, the issue was: what are the
> race deniers denying? The core of this issue revolves around persons
> of mixt origin. According to legal classification in the US a person
> of 1/2 european 1/2 african is classified as black; however,
> considering that the that race best used is a social classification,
> then I think that the legal definition is incorrect. Secondarily, the
> mixing problem has preceded formal intregration by several hundred
> years. The only difference is that 100 years ago if a person was of
> mixed origin they might conceal that fact if possible to fit in the
> community which was most suitible to that person. In the 1990's its
> acceptible to call oneself a 'halfbreed' (or other more PC terms) and
> not have to really try to fit into one of three or more established
> catagories, these poeple aren't denying anything they are making a
> statement about who they are. Before there was such a thing as
> political correctness there are communities around this world that
> have face the issue of outbreeding and frequently this results in new
> nations of peoples, other times allignment with the prevelant culture.
> These people are not trying to be political correct, they are trying
> say something about the ionappropriateness of the cultural
> classification sytem as it applies to them.
> I can give an example: Suppose that a black man and a white woman
> produce offspring, then at some later point the father leaves or has
> minimal contribution to that family. Or supposed that the father is
> isolated with his family in the white community and adapts 'white'
> culture. The offspring of this person would be:
> genetically: given that mosts african americans have some white
> contribution and the genetics of the mother, mostly of white origin.
> culturally: being isolated from other africna americans the
> children would accept 'white' traditions, thus culturally they would
> be 'white'
> legally: BLACK (african american). Even after 4 more generations of
> marriages with white individuals these filial would be legally
> considered black.
> I don't know about you but if I were one of these children I would
> certainly scratch my head on this one. I don't think they are denying
> anything accept the inappropriatness of the laws they are forced to
> obey.
> To add to this what if one is australo arborogine. You're not
> african, your'e not asian in its common since, and you're not 'white'.
> What if you're from the middle east? most are mixtures of all three
> 'races' What race is this? Semite? What about native south
> americans, they are derived from asian, but originate from regions
> atypical of most asians, and problably have a significant caucasion
> contribution. What race are they?
> > Standard Politically Correct crap. As I have explained to each clone
> >in turn, I think the problem with Jews has nothing to do with any
> >conspiracy. I think Judaism has become a culture based entirely on
> >self-pity.
> A highly tenacious culture, with probably the greatest per person
> contribution to the modern period, and with the longest and most well
> documented history of any extant group. Without Jewry, this world
> would probably look alot different from what it does now, and bob, the
> whites have certainly benifited both genetically (their contribution
> to facilitating european global colonization) and socially from the
> contribution of Jews, so if I were you I'de keep this one under the
> rug. Whites without jews would probably equal a conquered instead of a
> conquering 'race'. With all these attempts of folks 'like' yourself to
> denegrade them, their success as a group is certainly more worthy of
> the anal-ly derived characterisitics you give them.
> > The mostly Eastern European Jews who came over after the
> >Civil War brought all their old hates and revenge feeling with them. I
> >certainly have no trouble with the ideas of Judah P. Benjamin,
> >Confederate Secretary of the Treasury, or the father of Barnard Baruch,
> >who was Deputy head of the Confederate Medical Corps, or his Jewish
> >boss.
> > As I have said to each clone, and wil have to say to each new one, it
> >is that your idea that Jews can have been mistreated throughout the ages
> >and have no grudges at all in return is nuts. Your idea that this
> >revengeful attitude in what is now the official "I am Jewish, so..."
> >attitude in America simply does not exist is post-World War II
> >orthodoxy, but it is the swing of the same pendulum Hitler was part of.
> > I think Jews are people, with the nastiness and hatred left in.
> >Anti-semites think Jews are devils, you think Jews are angels.
> I think you'll find in every group persons whose thresholds of
> integrity are lower than others. Noone here has said that Jews are
> angels, certainly the palestinians and mediterranean syrians don't
> feel that way.
> But also getting to thresholds of maturity and integrity, I find
> much more embarrasing about the attitudes of white race and its
> history of transgression against other peoples than I have found with
> Jewry. You know, Jews accept very distantly related individuals who
> have been genetically separated from ashkanazi and sephardic
> populations for greater than 2500 years. This includes folks of
> principally asian and african genetics. I wish 'white' society could
> have the same mature attitude about assimilating people with like
> minds rather than for skin color.
> As far as current festering attitudes are concerned, your a perfect
> example of what's wrong with 'our' race.
> Philip
> P.S. Can we move this lineage of masculinized bovine feces out of
> sci.anthropology, I note there are many people complaining about this,
> and while the opinions voiced here might be excellent material for
> social anthropology discussion (why, even in modern times, people feel
> insecure without the security blanket of affirmed inheritance?), the
> topics themselves are really just taking up excessive space.