Re: What Are the Race Deniers Denying?

Philip Deitiker (
Mon, 02 Dec 1996 21:11:07 GMT

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.

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

> 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

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

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
> 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.


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.