← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Mack
Thread ID: 9713 | Posts: 5 | Started: 2003-09-11
2003-09-11 04:55 | User Profile
I just finished a book titled "Zebra" and wanted to ask if others have read it. It's about a mass racist killing in the early 70's of dozens of white men, women and white children by a black supremacist cult in San Francisco; based on the conclusions of California indictment #88244 dated May 16,1974 and heard at the Superior Court of San Francisco. This book is available at "Harvest Booksearch"dial 1-800-563-1222. "Zebra" was written by Clark Howard and published in 1979 but is no longer available in the libraries or even from the publisher, "Richard Marek Publishers, 200 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10016". Harvest Booksearch will track it down for you and charge between $20 and $40 for an old hardcover from the late '70's. It details the murders of 23 white adults but makes clear that many more victims died, including many children. Victims were bound to chairs or tabletops and dismembered alive by dozens of the black faithful with knives and cutting tools. Eldridge Cleaver and Nathan Mcall had nothing on this lot, most of whom were released without charges except for just four murderers whose indictment went on for 14,000 pages of testimony, the longest in California history.
2003-09-11 19:52 | User Profile
Lou Calabro of the European-American Issues Forum can fill you in - he was in the SFPD when all this was going on.
2003-09-11 23:45 | User Profile
The book exposes the cowardice of most of the perps in that it explains their rationale for going after white women and white children. The real reason they did this is of course is because women and children are far less able to defend themselves than men. When they did go after men, from what I remember of the book (read it almost 20 years ago) they would sneak up behind them, go after small ineffectual individuals, or resort to the usual boolie group bongo bash.
2003-09-13 02:57 | User Profile
Isn't one of the zebra killers now a colleague of MacDonald's at Cal State - Long Beach?
2003-09-13 18:27 | User Profile
*Originally posted by mwdallas@Sep 13 2003, 02:57 * ** Isn't one of the zebra killers now a colleague of MacDonald's at Cal State - Long Beach? **
Mwdallas: I wanted to tell you that I finally finished "Darwin's Cathedral."
It is a very important book.
I came to the same general conclusions that the author did, but he fleshed things out very well.
There's no doubt in my mind that humans as a species are pre-programmed to act in profoundly social ways, which makes the tribe (bound by a common religion) a single organism.
I agree in general with his take on the function of religion. In fact, I'm mildly surprised that a man of his intellect who came to these conclusions resolutely remains aloof from religion.
His entire argument proves that we cannot but be religious because we're hardwired for it down to our very genes; that our religion must be about the tribe (both by regulating internal relations that enhance reproduction and survival and by creating a wall of separation that isolates the tribe from genetic infiltration by other groups); that when united by religion the religous metaphors of a single organism are literally true (the Church is one body with Christ as the head). To his credit, he forthrightly acknowledges man's dual nature (love your own, hate your enemies) and our hardwired need for relgion, yet he indulges an ego-flattering fantasy that he, armed with his superior intellect and the objectivity of Science, can rise above all of that. E.O. Wilson falls into the same sophomoric nonsense, failing to apply to his own theories the analytical tools he applies to others.
It's a brilliant analysis, marred only by the author's obligatory sops to PeeCee. For example, he writes that Christianity's inherient anti-Semitism is now "maladaptive", when clearly it is precisely modern Christianity's loss of its hard anti-Semitic shell that is the direct cause of the Church's internal dissolution. He also illogically alludes to some norm of the worldwide brotherhood of man, in the teeth of the obvious implications of his own premises (man is of a dual nature, and we are pre-programmed to love our kin as much as we are to hate and fear our enemies, and thus any talk of a united humanity is a priori impossible). Of course, the author is a very smart man and I must assume that he realizes this most obvious corrollary to his thesis and that this was another bit of self-censorship aimed at getting his book passed our Marxist censors.
Another thing that irked me is his failure to even acknowledge Sir Arthur Keith's contribution to the concept of the dual nature of man's morality, and it's necessary expression in relgious systems.
I also wish that he'd gone into the computer modeling done on human societies, which prove beyond all doubt that in fact human societies are distinct organisms. There is a collective brain, pace Ayn Rand (Alisa Rosenberg), and we'd all better dig that most basic fact of our evolved natures and build our societies around that reality or face the consequences.
But that's really just quibbling. This book is a very important contribution to our understanding of ourselves, and I thank you for pointing it out to me.
Regards,
Walter