← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Franco
Thread ID: 4918 | Posts: 35 | Started: 2003-02-11
2003-02-11 00:28 | User Profile
Libertarians
by J. R. Colson
February 6, 2003
Darkness and silence descended around the campfire of the Libertarian Club's Annual Barbeque. No one said a word, though everyone knew what the other person was thinking: Jews are individuals, too, despite overwhelming evidence -- any magazine masthead -- to the contrary. Indeed, the Libertarian heroine, Ayn "The Jewess" Rand was one of the Chosen. How could Jews be anything but nifty?
But soon the thoughts of the Libs drifted to more important subjects, like marijuana and pornography, masturbation, no taxes, and how America will field an army without a government.
The silence of the night grew. Pulses raced. Sweat poured down foreheads: the yearly ritual would soon begin. Quickly, photos of The Great Jewess Rand were passed around. As soon as they were received each recipient began...The Libertarian Jerk. Furiously and furiouslier, they pounded their genitals, hoping to somehow become closer to their Jewish idol through ecstasy, to become one with their God through total bliss.
Sarah Goldberg, a member of the Sneaky Tribe and a lesbo to boot, spoke up, shattering the still: "Free markets! Free markets!" she cried as she climaxed. Joe Smith, a Black transvestite from Far Rockaway, chimed in, "individuality or death!" Benny Gonzalez Lopez Rodriguez Vasquez shouted, "I have a right to f*ck cats! Ayn Rand said so!" And at that moment all the Libs around the campfire knew what that strange smell was -- it seems that catshit mixed with Mexcrement produces a most profound odor. But no matter: Benny was an Individual. Case closed.
Stan Lee Wong, an Oriental from China, or Japan, or some other country where everyone looks alike, also spoke out as he peaked: "stop the Klan now -- it's collective!" Then the Native Indian among them, Henry Walks Too Slow, exclaimed, "I have the right to have 10 wives!" Habib El Shaheed Waheed then shouted, "non-White immigration harms no one -- let them all in!" Linda Graham-Turner-Nelson-Young, a hairy feminist from Alaska, moaned, "I can sleep with women if I want to -- the government has no right to say otherwise!" And finally, Sam Anderson, a former Communist, muttered, "prisons? Who needs government prisons?" Just turn the criminals loose on a desert island!"
Yes, good times were being had by all. But a nagging question remained: could the people in the group remain individuals while existing in a group? Doesn't a group cancel out individuality? Doesn't a tribe -- even a temporary one -- signal the beginning of plurality? And won't government authority quickly sprout from that plurality? There would be no answers that night, as Vinny the Brazilian took out a joint and lit it while cursing the arrest of a local pedophile earlier that day...
J. R. Colson
2003-02-11 03:33 | User Profile
Slam dunk, Wintermute!
When dat boy darkest-eddy gonna grasp thee fact that Da Hebe ain't-ain't-ain't White. Not at all.
And, I don' get my opines from Jews like MisesVitz and Rothbardsteinberg. If'n I want reel opines, I goes to Linder, David Duke or some such. Better!!
C'mon, edster -- who do you work for?
2003-02-11 04:31 | User Profile
Jews can be most closely related to themselves while I am also more closely related to German-Jews than to Scillians. Sorry, but so it goes.
2003-02-11 05:37 | User Profile
Originally posted by Franco@Feb 11 2003, 00:28 *Sarah Goldberg, a member of the Sneaky Tribe and a lesbo to boot, spoke up, shattering the still: "Free markets! Free markets!" she cried as she climaxed. Joe Smith, a Black transvestite from Far Rockaway, chimed in, "individuality or death!" Benny Gonzalez Lopez Rodriguez Vasquez shouted, "I have a right to fck cats! Ayn Rand said so!" And at that moment all the Libs around the campfire knew what that strange smell was -- it seems that catshit mixed with Mexcrement produces a most profound odor. But no matter: Benny was an Individual. Case closed.
**
I don't know. I thought the two anecdotes on this thread were funnier.
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=12&t=4417&hl=libertarianism]Spoof on Libertarians[/url]
2003-02-11 07:13 | User Profile
Look, if Jews have a lot of Germanic blood, they are related to Germans. Since their original stock is not that distant from Germans to start with--c.f., blacks--they are pretty closely related. Depending on how much German blood they have, and what exactly Scillians are, many could be more closely related to German gentiles than the Sicillians are.
Sicillians aren't N. Italians, hence they don't get off the Untermenschen charge that way. And why would Italians not be Untermenschen just because they have some Germanic blood, while German-Jews with German blood are decidely not-Aryan in the Nazi mind? The whole thing is just inane. The idea that Von Mises is genetically strange to me, while the Scillians are close cousins--forget it. Either they are both foreign types, or they are both potentially related in a way that non-whites are not.
In any case, I am not using Nazi meanings. If we are going to use terms like 'the Untermensch' (which we shouldn't, if we are being serious and not merely mentioning Nazi terms), then the 'Untermenschen' are all those who lack sufficient German or Celtic blood. That's really what the Nazi's were getting at. (Except maybe they would have counted the Slavs as at least close cousins, if they hadn't wanted their land.)
2003-02-11 07:30 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Feb 11 2003, 07:13 In any case, I am not using Nazi meanings. If we are going to use terms like 'the Untermensch' (which we shouldn't, if we are being serious and not merely mentioning Nazi terms), then the 'Untermenschen' are all those who lack sufficient German or Celtic blood. That's really what the Nazi's were getting at. (Except maybe they would have counted the Slavs as at least close cousins, if they hadn't wanted their land.)
Untermensch and Ubermensch are not strictly Naxi terms at all, as you (and NeoNietzche) should now. They are right out of PaleoNietszche, who worried about the misuse ofhis work by le grosse simplifiers
2003-02-11 14:36 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Feb 11 2003, 01:13 Look, if Jews have a lot of Germanic blood, they are related to Germans.
In terms of genetics this is not necessarily the case. The mixture is weighted in favour of dominant genes. Mixing blood ain't like mixing paint Eddy. Let us delve into the wonderful world of science to illustrate:
'A' is an allele that expresses parasitic tendencies, which we shall refer to as X for the sake of brevity. 'a' is an allele that express exploitable altruism, which shall be referred to as Y. 'A' is the dominant allele, so it presence on any given gene locus will result in the X phenotype.
'AA' is a pure strain Chosenite and 'aa' is a pure strain Goy. Let us take 'Aa', or a 50/50 mix, as a reasonable genotype for one of your 'closely related German' Jewish buddies. [font=Courier] Race........|.Genotype.|.Phenotype
White.......|....aa....|....Y Jew.........|....AA....|....X Mischlinge..|....Aa....|....X [/font]
Now, unpleasant as it may be, we shall examine possible outcomes of pairings between these strains of Homo sapiens. [font=Courier] **...|..AA...|..Aa...|.aa
aa.|.Aa/Aa.|.Aa/aa.|.aa/aa [/font] For simplicities sake assume two offspring, representing both possible loci, are produced from each pairing. The population will be a constant of 18 each generation. The Punnett square above illustrates that out of 18 offspring no fewer than 13 (or 72%) will posses the X phenotype.
100% of all pairing involving 'AA' loci will result in X phenotype offspring. 75% of all pairing involving 'Aa' loci will result in X phenotype offspring. 50% of all pairing involving 'aa' will result in X phenotype offspring.
In generation F1 the ratio of X:Y is 2:1, the genotype ratio AA:Aa:aa is 1:1:1. In generation F2 the phenotype ratio is 3:1 and the genotype ratio is 1:1.6:1. We can take 1:1.6:1 as the base genotype ratio for proceeding generations if even interbreeding is maintained (i.e. the excess 'Aa' offspring are ignored). In our example the recessive phenotypes would reach extinction around the 5th generation.
In layman's terms successive generations of Jewish princesses may have breed exclusively with successive generations of the Hun but the end product could still likely be a Jew.
2003-02-11 17:36 | User Profile
**> ** and please don't be Greek or Scillian, 'cause as a German-American gentile, I am closer to an Austrian Jew such as Von Mises than I am to more southern neighbors **
False. The Jews themselves now trumpet studies showing that they are all more closely related to each other than any host population. **
Indeed. Many such studies (including those by Hammer et al., Bonne-Tamir et al., and Kobyliansky et al.) are catalogued in MacDonald's A People That Shall Dwell Alone, printed in 1994, p. 27. A number of subsequent studies have made findings along the same line.
MacDonald's conclusion:
I conclude that these studies of genetic distances point to the common genetic origins of all the Jewish populations pf the world (e.g., Kobyliansky et al. 1982) [Annals of Human Biology 9:1-34] They also indicate that, although there is some genetic admixture with surrounding populations as well as some natural selection toward the frequencies of local populations, all Jewish populations have a significant degree of communality with other Jewish groups derived from widely separated parts of the world. Finally, the data support the proposal that, with the exception of non-Jewish Middle Eastern populations, all Jewish groups are more closely related to each other than to any non-Jewish group.
Through the wonders of google, merely by searching for Kobyliansky and Macdonald, I retrieved this site as the very first hit:
[url=http://www.geocities.com/refuting_rm/2.html]http://www.geocities.com/refuting_rm/2.html[/url]
The key passages of the Kobyliansky conclusions are included.
Two studies by Bonne-Tamir et al. (cited in PTSDA) produced the following conclusions:
-- In blood group data, two major studies, one in 1977 by BonneTamir, Ashbel, and Kenett and one by Karlin, Kenett, and BonneTamir in 1979, found when using fourteen polymorphic loci, no significant difference in Jewish populations from Iraq, Libya, Germany, or Poland. They estimated that the genetic distance between Gentiles and Jews living in the same area is three to five times greater than for Jews living in the different nations studied. In the 1977 study, the researchers state "not much admixture has taken place between Ashkenazi Jews and their Gentile neighbors during the last 700 years or so."
See Matt Nuenke's discussion of the topic:
[url=http://groups.google.com/groups?q=kobyliansky+years&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=37d875b5.333456283%40netnews.worldnet.att.net&rnum=5]http://groups.google.com/groups?q=kobylian....att.net&rnum=5[/url]
2003-02-11 17:50 | User Profile
Both of whom had a vested ethnic interest in promulgating meme clusters that prevent gentile group association. Libertarianism is no different than Communism, Multiculturalism, etc. Many approaches, one goal. Mises and Rothbard's poison has more nutrition in it, is all. Kills you just as dead.
Nutrition for the host and the parasite. In the absence of the parasite and the mismatch on the indivdualism/collectivism scale, many of their insights and formulations promote the health of a Western population.
2003-02-11 17:55 | User Profile
**In layman's terms successive generations of Jewish princesses may have breed exclusively with successive generations of the Hun but the end product could still likely be a Jew. **
Not to mention that those lacking the "Jewish phenotype" of ethnocentrism etc. would be apt to defect or be excommunicated.
2003-02-11 22:25 | User Profile
If you enjoy arbitrarily reducing relation to phenotypal-relation, and also enjoy making a bunch of wildely off base assumption about the dominance of Jewish genes -- have fun.
2003-02-11 22:46 | User Profile
If we are going to use terms like 'the Untermensch' (which we shouldn't, if we are being serious and not merely mentioning Nazi terms), then the 'Untermenschen' are all those who lack sufficient German or Celtic blood.
Sir, please recant these ignorant remarks or proudly proclaim your status as an unrepentant ignoramus. The term "untermenschen" as used by the German National Socialists originally and thereafter most frequently referred to genetically defective Germans. The Germans were white separatists, not degenerate white supremacists like our American southrons, and consequently couldn't have cared less about the genetic short comings of alien peoples, SO LONG AS THOSE PEOPLE WERE NOT POLLUTING GERMAN LIVING SPACE WITH THEIR ALIEN PRESENCE.
I repeat: the eugenic hygenicists of the NSDAP were only concerned with the genetic defectives of their own (German) population. Therefore, these untermenschen were, almost by definition, relatively pure Germans.
Really, considering the yoeman work you have (unwittingly, I assume) done for dishonest Abe Foxman, you should put in for some back pay from the Anal Defecation League.
2003-02-11 23:59 | User Profile
Hell, I was working for Mossad, I hardly need ADL money.
2003-02-12 11:39 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Feb 11 2003, 16:25 If you enjoy arbitrarily reducing relation to phenotypal-relation, and also enjoy making a bunch of wildely off base assumption about the dominance of Jewish genes -- have fun.
What is arbitrary about phenotypic relationships?! The recessive nature of white phenotypes is a known fact not an assumption. Quite apart from any of that your basic assertion > Look, if Jews have a lot of Germanic blood, they are related to Germans. Since their original stock is not that distant from Germans to start with is false. 'German' Jews do not have a lot of Germanic blood. It is a rban-like travesty to state that the Ashkenazim are white European peoples but the southern Europeans are not.
For you edification Eddy:
[url=http://www.euvolution.com/articles/jewish.html]Israeli scientists have conducted studies which show that Jews as a group differ significantly from non-Jews[/url]
[url=http://tarkus.pha.jhu.edu/~ethan/jFAQ.html]The lineage of Ashkenazim[/url] This passage in particular may be of interest to Wintermute:
These results are grossly inconsistent with the notion that the Ashkenazim are descended, to any significant degree, from the Khazars or some Slavic group. Such claims have often rested on the large numbers of Ashkenazim, relative to the small numbers of German Jews a thousand years ago. However, the genetic evidence supports the notion that the Ashkenazim are descended from a small ancestral population.
[url=http://foundationstone.com.au/HtmlSupport/WebPage/semiticGenetics.html]Semitic Genetics[/url]
Despite the Ashkenazi Jews' long residence in Europe, their Y signature has remained distinct from that of non-Jewish Europeans. On the assumption that there have been 80 generations since the founding of the Ashkenazi population, Dr. Hammer and colleagues calculate that the rate of genetic admixture with Europeans has been less than half a percent per generation. Jewish law tracing back almost 2,000 years states that Jewish affiliation is determined by maternal ancestry, so the Y chromosome study addresses the question of how much non-Jewish men may have contributed to Jewish genetic diversity. Dr. Hammer was surprised to find how little that contribution was.
2003-02-12 15:22 | User Profile
I never claimed that Jews were white but that Southern Europeans were not. This thread is hopeless.
2003-02-12 16:03 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Feb 12 2003, 09:22 I never claimed that Jews were white but that Southern Europeans were not. This thread is hopeless.
My point was that they were southern Untermenschen who are harldy more closely related to moi than many a good German-Jew whose female ancestors have been repeatedly shagged by Germanic types.
Come on DE give it up :D Even the Jews don't agree with you. Confess your heresy now and, after the revolution, it could mean the difference between serving six months or two years in a reeducation camp. I'll even throw in this shiny "I'm Not Really A ZOG Infiltrator" badge. It's so special... so shiny...
2003-02-12 23:42 | User Profile
....or perhaps Monty Hall can be reactivated for a very different sort of Truth or Consequences
No, but Monty could mc a even more radically different LET'S MAKE A DEAL!
I suppose JEOPARDY, TO TELL THE TRUTH & YOU BET YOUR LIFE kinda speak for themselves here.
2003-02-13 00:20 | User Profile
I am sorry, but I can claim that there are some S. Europeans who are not more closely related to me than some Jews, while, at the same time, also consistetly claim that both groups are white. Equally, both groups could be claimed non-whites, with some S. Europeans claimed to not be more closely related to me than some Jews, and we still get internal consistency.
Logic -- it's fun for the whole family!
2003-02-13 06:15 | User Profile
Betraying Italians or Greeks because their skin is darker is exactly the kind of 'racism' that we need to get rid of. Perhaps you should check out Mein Kampf to set you straight on the 'Italian' question....
No, what you need to do is refer to actually-living-in-Italy-Italians to settle that question....which is one unknown to most Americans.
Sorry but central & northern Italians - blue eyed, fair skinned, and occasionally blonde to boot - consider the southerners, especially the Sicilians, as dark, swarthy untermensch- a backwards, criminally-inclined outbreed and a demerit to the national identity. And like most stereotypes, it's rooted in undeniable truth.
There's only so much you can write off to poverty, occupying armies, particularity of terrain andenvironment, etc, before you're simply ducking the mongrel-blood factor out of sheer squeamishness or cowardice or denial. They're not blacks or anything, mind you - in many ways they are tragic reminders of the price-tag of Blessed Diversity, as the bloodline of the region is literally a centuries-old continuing battle between noblility and beast-blood; to their credit they keep that bone-deep hostility towards the despoiler of their race honed sharp, generation after generation. Outsiders read the occasional news-item of blacks chased to death or shot in old Northeastern US Italian neighborhoods (Michael Griffith, Yusuf Hawkins - even Al Sharpton got booed and stabbed in Bensonhurst; grandmothers held up watermelons and jeered him in front oftv cameras as he marched through the place a few years ago) and write it off to every piddling sociological reason but the correct one: a 500-year grudge they carry in their DNA.
2003-02-13 07:07 | User Profile
During 2001 elections in Italy the Northern League promised if victorious to secede " from Africa "-that refered to anything south of Naples-as well as to order Italian coastguard to shoot on sight Turkish/Albanian smugglers who routinely deposit Kurdish and Negro " refugees " on the country's coasts. Ironically, the latter two often " flee " with their entire clans save for a pair of mules. Despite their modest showing at the polls-mere 4%-Silvio Berlusconi invited them into his coaltion goverment to the great dismay of all progressive forces in Europe.
2003-02-13 09:53 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Feb 12 2003, 17:34 **By the way, I'm very serious about these objections. If you were a crypsis-minded Jew, filled with ancestral loathings, and terrified of any loss of your claim either to the Bible or to the 'Holy Land', wouldn't you be careful to limit your sample in a way that might be easily missed by the review committee? I mean, what are they supposed to say, "Look here - you say that you did a study of Ashkenazim, but you only took samples from self-reported Ashkenazim who look Semitic"? **
The test area is entirely valid as it is based on the Y chromosome alone, which is only inherited from males. Given the Jew's matrilineal descent this would definitely be the place to check for any crossbreeding in 'true', by Jewish standards, Jews.
On the other hand they could well have skewed the test samples to favor one result or another. I will let you decide for yourself on that one, but I feel the data is pretty convincing and actually undermines some Zionists arguments.
[url=http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/genetics.htm]A diagram[/url] showing the relationships and numbers of the test subjects (at the bottom of the article). [url=http://ambassadors.net/archives/issue11/opinions2.htm]An interesting exchange[/url] on the politics of these findings.
2003-02-13 12:01 | User Profile
(Excuse me for jumping in a bit late.)
The question as to whether Sicilians, Jews, Greeks, etc. are white boils down to another one: What is white? What is the test we use to determine if a particular ethnicity is white or not? Who do you call white, and why?
My own test is to weigh the group accomplishments of the ethnicity in question and see if it manifests an inventive, creative, exploratory spirit. Physical and genetic anthropology can be useful for relating individuals to groups, but it says nothing about the quality of those groups. Judging a group [for good or ill] by a small number of individuals is generally inaccurate (attention darkey!). So the group-accomplishment test it must be, IMHO. A few examples:
All of these ethnicities, and many more, have displayed the same creative and exploratory spirit, though often manifest through different specific fields. I'm proud to call them white. And mixtures of these white races continue to be white, as demonstrated by the American mutt's contributions (eg, putting a man on the Moon).
So, are Sicilians white? You tell me; what have they done? (I'm not really familiar with the Sicilian contribution to Europe, if any.) Are Ashkenazim white? I'm not sure cleverness and 'creative accounting' really count as creativity, though they did 'invent' the atomic bomb and communism. Arabs? They used to be; a few hundred years ago they were the keepers of ancient knowledge the Church was attempting to destroy. Indians (dots)? Another used-to-be, apparently.
Go ahead, apply this test to your favorite ethnic group and tell us what you think. Just be sure to give some specifics; I can't speak for everybody, but head shape measurements just don't 'wow' me.
Drakmal
2003-02-13 15:10 | User Profile
An Occam's Razor test for 'Whiteness':
Count the nations whose citizens are dumb enough to accept their own slow-motion genocide, not only accept it, but also regard it as a 'good thing'. Those nations are the White nations.
2003-02-13 17:46 | User Profile
**An Occam's Razor test for 'Whiteness':
Count the nations whose citizens are dumb enough to accept their own slow-motion genocide, not only accept it, but also regard it as a 'good thing'. Those nations are the White nations. **
Circle gets the square! (....umm...Charley Weaver to block?...)
2003-02-13 19:16 | User Profile
"White" means Aryan. White European. No Brown in/on you.
By that standard, only some Sicilians are White [I've meet White-looking Sicilians]. The rest not.
Jews are never White. Being roughly 50% Arab by DNA means that you can never be White. Ever -- Ashkenazim. or Seph., either one. Not White.
2003-02-14 00:09 | User Profile
Originally posted by na Gaeil is gile@Feb 13 2003, 09:10 ** An Occam's Razor test for 'Whiteness':
Count the nations whose citizens are dumb enough to accept their own slow-motion genocide, not only accept it, but also regard it as a 'good thing'. Those nations are the White nations. **
Works okay today, but not on historical societies. Funny, though. :D
2003-02-14 12:58 | User Profile
Both of whom had a vested ethnic interest in promulgating meme clusters that prevent gentile group association. Libertarianism is no different than Communism, Multiculturalism, etc. Many approaches, one goal. Mises and Rothbard's poison has more nutrition in it, is all. Kills you just as dead.
Thanks for that. Exactly right on the money.
We whites are under a threat to our group, and we need to come up with a group response. Ironically, libertarianism, with its rejection of any talk of group rights and exclusive focus on the individual as moral agent, can nevertheless serve this role, albeit to a limited degree. Charles Rangel famously stated that now white racists don't wear white hoods, they just try to cut taxes. There's a great deal of truth to that.
Libertarianism allows whites to defend themselves from the group wealth transfers the Racial Extortion Coalition is trying to inflict on them, while at the same time hiding behind nice universalisms about human equality. I realize now that the libertarianism of my youth was really a racial defense mechanism.
And it's a good strategy, as far as it goes. We can effectively use libertarianism to fight the Coaltion's onslaught as a tactic, but ultimately we'll lose the strategic war because it always leaves us on the defense and we'll lose through attrition. I say that we'll always be on the defense because we ceded the moral high ground to the Coalition by conceding the lie that race doesn't matter, and because Charles Rangel is right that ultimately libertarianism is a racial-group defense tactic. We'll win a few battles with it, and there's a lot to be said for that, but ultimately we'll lose the war because we let the enemy define victory.
That's why we have to have a group within or around the GOP that understands the essential truth of race and can agitprop WN into the center. We have that mechanism in place with VDARE, TAC, AMREN and others.
And we have OD!
In sum, libertarianism is a GOOD THING if we understand that it must be used as a battlefield tactic against the Coalition and as camouflage for our re-infiltration of Conservatism.
Walter
2003-02-14 15:04 | User Profile
I'm not even fully convinced that Jews have nukes. If you trace the evidence trail backwards, what do you have in the way of definitive evidence? Any test detonations? Didn't think so. They didn't HAVE to test 'em. WE tested 'em before we "gave" them the bombmaking recipes! After all, they were OURS before the jews stole them!
2003-02-16 21:46 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Feb 10 2003, 22:59 **With the case of Jews, genetic distance is a trickier question. We still do not have definitive answers as to how large the Khazar admixture is, which would make them, amusingly enough, Slavs. **
Khazars weren't Slavs.
2003-02-16 22:02 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Feb 12 2003, 18:01 **Biological assimilation of Jews makes no difference until cultural ties are cut. Elsewise, you just end up with types like Polichinello, where all the inherited verbal intelligence, and its associated duplicity, is aligned to achieving in-group ends. **
In other words, being "self-hating" is a pre-requisite for joining the human race and leaving the hate cult ;)
2003-02-16 22:07 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Feb 12 2003, 23:15 There's only so much you can write off to poverty, occupying armies, particularity of terrain andenvironment, etc, before you're simply ducking the mongrel-blood factor out of sheer squeamishness or cowardice or denial. They're not blacks or anything, mind you - in many ways they are tragic reminders of the price-tag of Blessed Diversity, as the bloodline of the region is literally a centuries-old continuing battle between noblility and beast-blood; to their credit they keep that bone-deep hostility towards the despoiler of their race honed sharp, generation after generation. Outsiders read the occasional news-item of blacks chased to death or shot in old Northeastern US Italian neighborhoods (Michael Griffith, Yusuf Hawkins - even Al Sharpton got booed and stabbed in Bensonhurst; grandmothers held up watermelons and jeered him in front oftv cameras as he marched through the place a few years ago) and write it off to every piddling sociological reason but the correct one: a 500-year grudge they carry in their DNA.
What's the makeup of Italian immigrants in terms of their region of origin? Isn't it true that the most came from Sicily?
Italian society is divided not only into Sicilians/non-Sicilians, but more fundamentally into Northerners/Southerners. With the imaginary border between being placed right where the person you ask is. Even the Naple inhabitants, undeniably Southerners, are probably looking down on Sicilians.
2003-02-17 00:15 | User Profile
What 'finally'? I said the exact same things six-seven months ago when Tex took offense to my use of the qualifier 'mud' and tried to bait me on this topic.
2003-02-17 01:13 | User Profile
Don't get so happy Rban the darkest Sicilian still looks like a blond Viking when compared to the average Hindu.
2003-02-17 04:54 | User Profile
Originally posted by rban@Feb 16 2003, 17:36 ** Drakmal, I really don't think that considering any group which has achieved innovation or cultural advancement as white makes any sense, since many Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese have done so...but they are clearly Mongoloid and not white. **
That isn't quite what I meant, rban.
Japan quickly assimilated new technologies from the mainland, but never really improved on them. As late as the 1800s they were still in the same basic cultural/technological state as they were a thousand years prior. No European society has stood still nearly that long.
China invented a couple things (gunpowder and the iron sword come to mind), but serendipity is not innovation. They may have invented those things, but they never developed them. It took Europeans to go from gunpowder into handguns.
Development in all areas of life is the white trademark--something that has never been duplicated by any other race. Mongoloids are clearly capable of creating civil societies, using technology, creating art, etc., but improving all those things simultaneously? No way.
Drakmal
2003-02-17 22:24 | User Profile
Franco,
Great Post! I have been attacking Libertarians for a long time now. It is all too true!