August 31, 2001 - revised September 6, 2001
Note: This is a special issue devoted to the controversy over my last Weekly Letter. I am sending a revised version because it was truncated, and because a few new letters have come in, which are now included. I hope we can now obtain 'closure' on this issue, as I am now a bit bored with it. Bottom line: 6 critical (including one comment-less subscription cancellation), 9 favorable, approximately. This is a big jump from the 2 or 3 (usually favorable) letters I get in reaction to each BWL. Obviously there were some frayed nerves here. First the criticals, then the favorables, then the new letters added:
> Bird, > > Your performance here is astoundingly disgraceful. I cringe with > embarrassment for you. >
If you think it is disgraceful, tell me why, and I will carefully explain to you why you are wrong.
> I wish not debate you or others. All I wanted to say to you was this. > I am a white female. I would rather die; kill myself, than sleep with, have > children with a 'negro'. This "Sonic" fellow, is by in no means, 'alone'. > There are MANY people who feel the same way as he & I do. Regardless of the > situation. Not to mention, I think you are only 'thinking' of such sickening > ideals, to fill some 'lacking void' within your life. Which by the way, the > odds of happening, are extremely RARE. Also, if I HAD BEEN that 'person > stranded', and did do those things...and came back to shore, or where ever. > I WOULD fully expect my fellow friends & family and peers of the cause, to > treat my rightfully as anyone else. No matter what the situation, > intermingling blood race IS WRONG. People like you are an demoralizing link > for our race. > If one mixes the blood across race lines, you are now and forever impure. NO > matter how well one attempts to justify the actions. > Same can be said for those people who steal for fun and those who steal for > need of survival. Neither is right or moral. Both examples: race mixing > 'under extreme conditions' & stealing for survival, are products of our > decaying society. Without people such as "Sonic" and others, we will never > be able to restore virtue to our race, nation and MORE importantly, our > families. We must set an example for other to follow. > I know within my heart and mind without doubt, I AM NOT WRONG. > > German Celt Girl! >
Here's a thought experiment: Suppose you traced your family tree back and found a negro in it. What would you do? Kill yourself? (Hint: I don't think so.)
Another: If you and a negro male were the last persons on earth, would you have children by him?
Did you ever read Les Miserables by Victor Hugo?
[The following is the last part of the correspondence between Rob and the Birdman -- the earlier part was more friendly but uninformative. The subject herading of this letter was 'betrayal'.]
> I get it, you have gained the respect of White nationalists, and now you > will spit on us too to impress your Jewish friends. Well, thanks for doing > it sooner rather than later. > > I can tell you that White racialists are a high quality group of people. I > both respect and fear them/us. I think that you do not share these feelings > of respect and fear. But you are mistaken. Racialism is a very primordial > drive, and attracts the best men. > > If you sell us out so easily to impress Mensa, or your Jewish friends, or > whomever, too bad. I guess you don't know real idealism. > > Rob >
Tell me, Rob, do you remember that you were one of only two people I have given the Hoots-Pah Award to? (Lest there be any qustion in your mind, it was intended to HONOR you.)
And do you remember the long correspoondence we have had, in part because you appreciated my being out in front in fighting for white interests, something which you were only willing to do very recently?
And do you remember the many pleasant exchanges of correspondence we have had, including a very recent one in which I passed on to you a special idea that I thought would be particularly useful to you?
If you remember any of the above, then you might start asking yourself whether calling me a 'sellout', someone guilty of 'betrayal' (your header for this letter), that I have 'spit' on you, and so on, is not one of the most obvious cases of betrayal and spitting on that could be imagined?
Perhaps you have spoken in haste and in anger, and should think again about what you have said. If not, just rember that I am not one to fear expressing an opinion because someone calls me nasty names for holding it. Nor am I someone to turn on a friend even tho he has turned on me.
> You haven't turned on us? But to come out in favor of race mixing, the one > thing I and my comrades do not compromise on, I just don't see how I can > countenance it. It's too bad, indeed, and a great surprise to me. Jews use > race mixing as a weapon against us, to humiliate us, degrade us, and > ultimately destroy us. > > Rob
I thought you had a certain subtlety to your intelligence, but I seem to be wrong. You are interpreting the fact that I have some different opinions than you about race as equivalent to 'turning on you'. Such an interpretation is typical of a very unsubtle intelligence -- an intelligence that confuses beliefs about issues with personal loyalty. If I thought you could see the difference, I'd be angry at your accusation, in addition to being angry at your turning on ME, as I explained in my last letter. But since apparently you can't understand either situation, I'll just hope for you to become enlightened at some future time.
> I'm not a filosofer, I'm a political activist in a low level war. And > perhaps I am stupid, that's fine. But you are suggesting the very outcome > that I am fighting. I'd rather we were all killed rather than mixed. > Better a barren wasteland, a nuclear winter, than another Brazil. So how > can I not view this as betrayal? > > And I suppose it's instructive to inform you that I admire Hamas fighters > more than any filosofers or book writers. I'm not interested in subtleties > of filosofy or debate while my race is being exterminated. Before you say I > am stupid, fanatical, single-minded, I say it of myself and I am fine with > that. > > I had a friend for many years, a John S. who was a filosofer and then became > a race mixer, at which time I stopped being his friend. I remember him once > quoting Miles Davis, who said, "If I knew I had only one hour to live, I'd > choke a white man, nice and slow." If I could go back to that moment about > 7 years ago, I'd grab his throat after he said that, and as I choked him I'd > say, "You just volunteered to be that white man getting choked." I'm not > saying this of you, I don't think you are that anti-White. I'm making a > larger point about filosofers, that they live quite divorced from practice. > > Race mixing destroys families. It's a horrible thing to see. It's quite > painful to have to turn ones back on one's child, but a parent whose child > has made this evil choice must do just that. I'm not going to give any > filosofical rationalizations, and I'm sure you can out-argue me any day. > The arena of debate is not my arena, I care not for it. > > Rob >
You are failing to realize that philosophy -- in spite of its reputation -- is not divorced from reality, but a way to DEAL with it. There are genuine practical problems which have to be settled. One is the one I posed to Sonic: What do you do on a desert island with a negress? This particular problem doesn't come up much, but its variants do. (What if I inadvertently fall in love with a negress? Can I quote Thomas Sowell? What are my obligations if a black man helps me out of a jam?) Much more important is, How do you treat people who could be useful allies, but with whom you also have disagreements. This is the most important question which has come up in this whole thing, and your answer seems to be, Reject them. All I can say is, If that is the philosophy of you and your friends, you will cut yourself off from a lot of allies, with the result that you will never get far.
I am willing to be fair with potential allies, but there is a line that I draw which I will not compromise. I do not compromise on the miscegenation, not one iota and not ever. I will turn away my own children if they ever practice it. I told my former best friend to go to hell because he decided to practice miscegenation.
Your prediction that we won't go far does not worry me. I do not compromise and will not, ever. I'd rather die right now, violently and painfully, than compromise on miscegenation.
Rob [Birdman chose not to respond]
[Ken writes; Birdman's comments marked with asterisks:]
> Mr. Bryant: > > While I respect your intelligence and scholarship, I find myself more siding > with the opinion of Sonic in his correspondence to you in your most recent > Letter (#148). You present a scenario of a White man (Sonic) being alone on > deserted island with a Black woman and suggest (perhaps correctly) that his > racist principles would eventually wane and he would copulate with the > woman. > > Over the millennia, the White race has adapted quite well to its > environment. The great misfortune of our race is that we now live in an > environment quite different than the old environment from which we evolved. > Foremost among the destructive environmental changes is the constant message > from the organs of opinion that White racial collapse is inevitable and > desirable. Never before has such a factor been present. Racial survival > requires that such indoctrination be strongly countered. > > Your scenario pits personal well- being against racial survival. So what?
***** My scenario is merely to illustrate the ambiguity and difficulty inherent in the problem of racial preservation, and to demonstrate that an inflexible attitude toward race-mixing is impossible to maintain. Without taking this fact into account, racialists are going to end up looking foolish, and perhaps even inadvertently derailing their own movement (as in the failure to make alliances).
> Most of our modern environment does much the same thing. It's easier from a > personal point of view to go along to get along, to go with the flow than to > stand on principles. A racialist should not ask how great must the > temptation be to succumb to treason; but what can be done to lessen that > temptation in others and give encouragement to those who would resist.
****** Your vocabulary, like that of the liberals, preempts discussion. If you persist in using such denigrating and inaccurate terms as 'race treason', you not only alienate me, but you cut yourself off from the feedback you need to get a critique of your own position. To this I would add that of course race-mixing ought to be discouraged, but that does not free us from the obligation to consider what to do in the case of hard choices.
> > You also state: "I, . . . believe there are probably numerically many people > of other races who would make a positive contribution to the white genome. > My interest is in improving that genome." If one wanted to accuse you of > race treason, you have given all the ammunition that he could need. Do you > care? Have you thought about the implication of your suggestion --> miscegenation for racial improvement? (I must give you credit for > considering racial improvement in advocacy of miscegenation. Most who > advocate or practice miscegenation either don't give a damn about it or > actually desire the opposite.) Miscegenation for racial improvement? "A > positive contribution to the white genome. " What positive contribution > could there be to the White genome?
****** It is silly -- there is simply no other word for it -- to suppose that humans have reached the pinnacle of evolution, as you apparently do. Indeed, as Kevin MacDonald has pointed out, the high intelligence of Jews is most likely a result of their 'breeding practices'. Are you saying whites can't do this, or that they shouldn't? If so, it seems you are writing a prescription for white racial disaster, just as surely as liberals and Establishment Jews are writing one. And if our goal is the improvement of the genome, why should we refuse ourselves good genetic material from other races? To do so is but silly sentimentality -- to say nothing of permanently barring the possibility of whites from taking over the NBA.
Of course there are members of our race > that are less capable, intelligent, healthy, or whatever than certain > individuals of other races. But can we not find excellent breading stock > within our own ranks? Of course neither I nor any one I know has the > political power to implement a universal White eugenics program at this > time, but consider the question. > > Even from a practical matter, consider also the phenomena of regression > toward the mean, and the subsequent expression of undesirable recessive > traits.
***** It is entirely possible that 'new blood' holds the possibility of overcoming or mitigating regression to the mean.
Once you go Black, you can never go back.
****** A cute phrase, but a false idea. I'll take the daughter of a Thomas Sowell for a wife, and you take a Juke or a Kalikak, and we'll see who 'goes back' and who doesn't.
Are you the sorcerer's > apprentice? >
***** It seems to me that it is YOU who is the believer in White magic.
> Further, I don't consider your justification for non-White porn satisfactory > from a racialist/racist prospective. If one is deprived of food and water > long enough, one will eventually consume indigestible, non-nutritious, and > toxic substances. That doesn't mean that those substances are healthy for > us under non-privatious circumstances.
***** I'm a libertarian. I don't tell you or anyone else what to look at. In the libertarian view, the only 'justification' anyone needs for enjoying something which does not infringe on others is that he wants to do it. If you are an authoritarian, you will disagree, but then I disagree with authoritarianism.
[Ken and Birdman: second exchange:]
Ken: My new comments are marked with #######:
> <snip> > > > > Your scenario pits personal well-being against racial survival. So > what? > > > ***** My scenario is merely to illustrate the ambiguity and difficulty > > inherent in the problem of racial preservation, and to demonstrate that an > > inflexible attitude toward race-mixing is impossible to maintain. > > I'm not sure what you are trying to illustrate. We live in the world as it > is, so why bring up such an unlikely scenario? I could concoct some extreme > scenario which would cause you to kill your own mother, yet we both still > recognize the value of unambiguously maintaining an inflexible attitude > against matricide.
##### If there are some cases when we would practice matricide, then we cannot hold unambiguously to a ban on it. Making this point helps us handle many 'real' situations better, such as finding out that your great-grandfather was a negro. > > > Without > > taking this fact into account, racialists are going to end up looking > > foolish, and perhaps even inadvertently derailing their own movement (as > in > > the failure to make alliances). > > I have a strong preference that we should survive as a people, and I believe > that miscegenation is contrary to this end. How does this idea defeat > itself?
##### I explained that in the context you snipped away. As by failing to ally with the 'impure'. > > <snip> > > >> A racialist should not ask how great must the > > > temptation be to succumb to treason; but what can be done to lessen that > > > temptation in others and give encouragement to those who would resist. > > > ****** Your vocabulary, like that of the liberals, preempts discussion. > If > > you persist in using such denigrating and inaccurate terms as 'race > > treason', you not only alienate me, but you cut yourself off from the > > feedback you need to get a critique of your own position. > > You're right. "Treason" is an emotional, value-laden word that should be > avoided here. But substitute a more value-neutral term, and it would still > correctly express my opinion as to what a racist should do. > > > To this I would > > add that of course race-mixing ought to be discouraged, but that does not > > free us from the obligation to consider what to do in the case of hard > > choices. > > Given what you have expressed here, how can you come to the conclusion that > race-mixing ought to be discouraged?
##### I have written much on race. Go back and read it.
Also, I'm not opposed to pondering > problematic hypothetical situations, but such conjecture should try imagine > a plausible future for race. Your scenario fails this test.
##### ???? > > > > Miscegenation for racial improvement? "A > > > positive contribution to the white genome." What positive contribution > > > could there be to the White genome? > > > ****** It is silly -- there is simply no other word for it -- to suppose > > that humans have reached the pinnacle of evolution, as you apparently do. > > Indeed, as Kevin MacDonald has pointed out, the high intelligence of Jews > is > > most likely a result of their 'breeding practices'. Are you saying whites > > can't do this, or that they shouldn't? If so, it seems you are writing a > > prescription for white racial disaster, just as surely as liberals and > > Establishment Jews are writing one. > > Another unfortunate example of sloppy writing on my part. I should have > written: "What positive contribution could there be to the White genome > *from without this race*? I actually advocate eugenics
#### A different race might have some unique combination of genes that protects against something important, which whites don't have, but which they need. An analogy of sickle-cell anemia as protection against malaria, for example.
> > > And if our goal is the improvement of > > the genome, why should we refuse ourselves good genetic material from > other > > races? > > Yes we should refuse ourselves "good" genetic material from other races. > There is ample genetic diversity and quality within our own ranks to promote > any desirable trait that can reasonable be considered.
##### Not necessarily. What if malaria become important on the American continent, for example. And what if there were no good way to eradicate the mosquitoes because, for example, they had evolved different breeding methods or chemical resistance?
> > > To do so is but silly sentimentality -- to say nothing of > > permanently barring the possibility of whites from taking over the NBA. > > I can't out-swim a fish. I can't out-pull a horse. The White race will > never take over the NBA. And I don't care. But I think you've hit on a key > point: silly sentimentality. When you strip away all references to God, > "rights," and other concepts which cannot be proved to exist and/or lack > adequate precision, what are you left with? In my opinion, it is a matter > of personal preference. I prefer a White world. I prefer being among > people more or less like myself. For some reason, I wish to see my people > survive and prosper after I'm gone. While I'm here I would like to cause > others to adopt my preference as their own.
##### You have snipped off the context, so I can't respond, except to say that (1) I share your 'sentiment', and (2) you seem ot have missed the joke.
> > <snip> > > > > Even from a practical matter, consider also the phenomena of regression > > > toward the mean, and the subsequent expression of undesirable recessive > > > traits. > > > > ***** It is entirely possible that 'new blood' holds the possibility of > > overcoming or mitigating regression to the mean. > > Let me explain what I mean by regression to the mean, because I'm not sure > you understand.
##### What I mean is that new blood can create a new 'mean'.
Let's say we are making a longitudinal observation of a > particular index of a particular population. To take a simple example, > let's say we are looking at the height of people within a genetically > isolated village. There are not environmental factors during our > observation significantly effecting this index. From generation to > generation, there is, for male and female each, a mean and a standard > deviation of this population that remains roughly unchanged. To further > simplify this example, let's say that breading pairs tend to be strongly > selected for similarity in ranking on this index. > > Suppose we separated (statistically not physically) the members of one > generation that fell within one SD of the mean. Now look at their > offspring. Does every member of this next generation fall within the same > range? Of course not; many will be above or below the range. Now remember, > we have established that for the population as a whole, that mean and SD > remains unchanged. It follows then that the mean +/- 1SD is replenished by > the offspring of the outliers. > > So while it is true that outliers on one side of the normal distribution > curve are more likely to have offspring in that same range than are either > those near the mean or on the other side of the curve, it is also true that > each generation of outliers tends to have offspring closer to the mean than > itself is. > > The pernicious fallacy of the "new blood" argument is that considers the > traits of the individual without considering the tendency of the community > that he comes from, which as I have shown, is significant. There is of > course another sense of the term "new blood." It's not so much an actual > argument as it is a mindless slogan. It implies that mixing with outsiders > is beneficial, because it secretly hates the original.
##### I don't follow your argument. Nor am I certain that it makes much difference to the issues which I raised in my BWL essay.
> > > Once you go Black, you can never go back. > > > ****** A cute phrase, but a false idea. I'll take the daughter of a > Thomas > > Sowell for a wife, and you take a Juke or a Kalikak, and we'll see who > 'goes > > back' and who doesn't. > > I'm not familiar with these individuals, but I was referring to the White > race as a whole, not individual sexual relationships.
##### Sowell is a superior black, the remainder are inferior whites. The point of your response escapes me.
> > > > Are you the sorcerer's apprentice? > > > ***** It seems to me that it is YOU who is the believer in White magic. > > Whatever. My point is that your messing around with miscegenation will have > effects that you cannot predict, will likely be undesirable, and will be > irreversible.
##### In general I agree, but not in clearcut cases like Sowell vs Jukes. And you seem to have missed another joke. Oh, well ...
> > > > Further, I don't consider your justification for non-White porn > > satisfactory > > > from a racialist/racist prospective. If one is deprived of food and > water > > > long enough, one will eventually consume indigestible, non-nutritious, > and > > > toxic substances. That doesn't mean that those substances are healthy > for > > > us under non-privatious circumstances. > > > ***** I'm a libertarian. I don't tell you or anyone else what to look at. > > In the libertarian view, the only 'justification' anyone needs for > enjoying > > something which does not infringe on others is that he wants to do it. If > > you are an authoritarian, you will disagree, but then I disagree with > > authoritarianism. > > I tend to take a long-range view on what it means to "infringe on others." > > Ken P. > > P.S.: It's your show, but I would not mind, if you think it would improve > readability, if you were to use my name or initials when you post our > correspondence.
#### Each separate individual is identified as separate, and their letters are linked together.
[Ken and Birdman: Third exchange]
[Birdman:] I can't answer this. You have snipped off the context, so I really can't make heads or tails of it. Yes, things get bulky, as with the Mensa correspondence. But you just have to tolerate the bulk if you want a response. Anyway, I see no burning issues here, or at least nothing that I feel impelled to answer.. I will be putting out my BWL today with all the correspondence. What I detect in your answer is "Yes, there are exceptions, but better not to discuss them for strategic reasons." I can see your point, but I still don't agree, in part because I don't think that 'rare' cases are going to be nearly as rare as you think, and because rare cases tend to get a lot of attention focused on them, hence require a way to be dealt with.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken P." <email@example.com> To: "Birdman" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 1:16 AM Subject: Re: BWL #148: Ambiguity, Sonic
> > Ken: My new comments are marked with #######: > > This is getting a bit bulky, so I have snipped everything but your most > recent comments. > > > ##### If there are some cases when we would practice matricide, then we > > cannot hold unambiguously to a ban on it. Making this point helps us > handle > > many 'real' situations better, such as finding out that your > > great-grandfather was a negro. > > I say that even though an extreme scenario could be concocted to cause > matricide, we should still maintain an inflexible *attitude* against it. > You say that we should not hold an unambiguous *ban* against it. The value > of a strong attitude against something is that it prevents people from doing > it under ordinary circumstances. Say that something is okay only under > certain circumstances, and many people will interpret that to mean that it's > not so bad, and they will be more likely to do it under non-extenuating > circumstances. > > > ##### I explained that in the context you snipped away. As by failing to > > ally with the 'impure'. > > The context you refer to is my own writing. I only snipped my own writing. > I think I can interpret your sentence fragment as: An inflexible opposition > to miscegenation will derail the racialist movement as racialist fail to > make allies with non-Whites. To which I would reply, I'm not opposed to > making strategic alliances, and you have not shown how my stand on > miscegenation prevents me from doing so. > > > ##### I have written much on race. Go back and read it. > > I'm sure it's very well written (no sarcasm intended), but as you write, > there is much of it. I don't have much time. It would be nice if you could > briefly recap the key points that apply here. I suppose that you would say > that you don't have time for that yourself, so I suppose we are at a > standoff. > > > ##### ???? > > What don't you understand? The island scenario is unlikely and > non-instructive. > > > #### A different race might have some unique combination of genes that > > protects against something important, which whites don't have, but which > > they need. An analogy of sickle-cell anemia as protection against > malaria, > > for example. > > Another unlikely and therefore irrelevant scenario. > > > ##### Not necessarily. What if malaria become important on the American > > continent, for example. And what if there were no good way to eradicate > the > > mosquitoes because, for example, they had evolved different breeding > methods > > or chemical resistance? > > This is silly, really. We could equip our homes and cars with mosquito > netting. We could develop new insecticides, repellents, and vaccines. > There are probably many other techniques for dealing with such a problem. > Okay, let's say all these other things are tried and they fail. I would say > let's try to save the race as intact as possible. Allow for some alteration > of the gene pool that allows for the desired malaria immunity, yet minimizes > the acquisition of any other non-White traits. Maybe some sort of limited > gene spicing would be in order. Yet I'm reluctant to come even this close > to your position for the above-stated reason that if we say that something > is okay only under certain circumstances many people will interpret that to > mean that it's not so bad, and will be more likely to do it under > non-extenuating circumstances. > > > ##### You have snipped off the context, so I can't respond, except to say > > that (1) I share your 'sentiment', and (2) you seem ot have missed the > joke > > I pretty sure that I only snipped off my own stuff. I didn't miss the joke; > I even smiled a bit. However, in case there might have been an element of > sincerity in the NBA joke, I responded seriously. > > > ##### What I mean is that new blood can create a new 'mean'. > > I don't know what you mean. > > > ##### I don't follow your argument. Nor am I certain that it makes much > > difference to the issues which I raised in my BWL essay. > > Your comment follows several paragraphs of mine that constitute a key reason > why miscegenation with apparently desirable specimens of another race is an > undesirable practice. Above, you instruct me to go off and read a library > of essays that you have written on some parenthetical topic. But here you > slough off a key argument within the body of correspondence because you say > you cannot follow it. I have re-read it myself, and I believe that I wrote > it as clearly as possible. Anyone with the rudiments of statistics and > probability should be able to understand it. > > > ##### Sowell is a superior black, the remainder are inferior whites. The > > point of your response escapes me. > > The point is that once the genome is sufficiently corrupted, it cannot be > practically reconstituted. > > > ##### In general I agree, but not in clearcut cases like Sowell vs Jukes. > > And you seem to have missed another joke. Oh, well ... > > My argument on regression toward the mean addresses these supposed clear-cut > cases. >
[End of correspondence with Ken]
[The following 7 exchanges are with MA. MA wrote at such length that the Birdman eventually called an end to the exchange. MA writes:]
> Birdy-bird... wow. Man, I've learned a lot about you with your recent > email, thanks. You have clearly pointed out that you are not for racial > preservation at all. You are merely for some eugenic movement. Well I > doubt that many of your racialist friends will approve. It also is > fairly clear that most of your intellectual pursuits are merely for your > ego. I find your presentation ill-mannered and motive self-serving. > That's a shame, I thought a lot more of you until now. > > I'm sure you will continue to enjoy your logical games, and I appreciate > your candidness in what you believe in. If only everyone was this > truthful and forthright I could separate the good from the bad. > > I think Sonic had a lot of reasonable points, actually. > > BTW, porn and the sex industry are fairly mainstream now... I'm not sure > what shock value you are trying to accomplish. The world is up to its > neck in filth. Maybe you should post some acts of bestiality and > necrophilia on your front-page. >
So you aren't for eugenics. What about gene splicing? Do you prefer a Juke or Kalikak to a Thomas Sowell?
How is my presentation ill-mannered and self-serving?
> Of course I am for eugenics. However, I am for racial preservation > first and foremost. The unique gene frequencies that make race > significant and valuable: the aesthetics, personality, and unique mental > aspects. I know this might strike you as insane, but I am an individual > that would not have sex with a black female given an isolated situation... > anymore than I would have sex with a man... or an animal. I'd rather > jack-off. And yes, I have had offers from non-white females, and I have > turned them down. This is part of racial morality, not sexual > dysfunction. > > Come on, I know you see it... you enjoy humiliating others. I don't > want to dig into you and go into it. It's just my opinion, albeit I > know one other 'smart' fellow that agrees with me(so I'm not coo-coo). > I think you've gone too far on this one, John. I respect your mental > capabilities, but your personality just isn't my flavor. I can't trust > a man that doesn't have any boundaries. >
What's the point of racial preservation if it isn't to preserve a quality genome? But what does that imply? I'll tell you: it implies that QUALITY IS THE IMPORTANT THING, NOT RACE. Race is just a rule of thumb -- tho a very good one. But when we have more information than just race, we can use that information to increase our quality. Which means that, in the evolutionary struggle, the racists will lose to the 'qualitists' (tho they will beat the multicult).
As to 'humiliating others', I never attack unless attacked. Did you read Sonic's first letter? How much uglier can you be? So I had every reason to attack. But in fact I was quite restrained. And I did far more than others in the same situation -- I recognized that he had an important argument which deserved to be answered, and I answered it.
So you say you can't trust a man who has 'no boundaries'. So I pose this challenge to you: Give me ANY moral principle which you consider absolute, and I will find you an ambiguous situation. Care to take the challenge? And if I can do it, will you apologize?
[This is MA's response (marked with >>), with new comments by the Birdman marked with asterisks **********:]
> I think you have the whole idea of racial preservation wrong. It's > never been specifically about quality, it's about uniqueness.
***** Basing your desire to preserve the white race on uniqueness and sentimentality (see below) makes your case lean on a weak reed indeed. My desire to preserve the white race is based on two things: Its ability to create and preserve a high civilization, and the natural affinity of the members of any race for their own kind. Every piece of shit is unique, but that doesn't mean we want to preserve it. And sentimentality? Well, I could make some coarse comments here, but I realize I am talking to a basically friendly person, so I will refrain.
For the > same reason that animal rights activists and earth preservationists do > what they do - merely because they want to preserve unique forms of life > and habitats. Do we have such a utilitarian view of all things? Do you > yourself have no sentimental value in anything but merely judge value > based on it's immediate function? No my friend... race is far more than > simply IQ, it is a great many thing; IQ is not the primary value. It's a > simple concept really... in the same way that every life is valuable and > has a right to live, so is the right for race to live. Race in and of > itself has nothing to do with IQ(but one variance within racial groups), > anymore than it has to do with how fast one can run. Race is a > combination of factors that make it worthwhile and special: mainly the > physical manifestation and the emotionalism of the people(when then goes > on to create culture, language, art, etc). > > There is no winning or losing except by defined goals. The goal of the > racialist is to preserve race. If he can do this, he wins, period(if > following your ideology he loses on purpose). Other goals, such as > progressive evolution, is another matter...
****** Evolution is a fact. Races will continue to evolve. We cannot really 'preserve' the white race, because it will evolve. But we can preserve -- and develop -- certain qualities now held by whites. Endogamy will help. But so will carefully selected exogamy (eugenics). And so will the genetic technology we are now developing.
but, let it be noted, that > speciation(preservation of race by further divergence) IS evolution on > its grandest scale. It can be seen that when racial boundaries were > kept intact, the IQ levels within the Nordish group did produce many > greats, that have defined our civilization today, and how that these > boundaries are no longer - we have very few if any at all that compare > to our forefathers.
***** We think of our forefathers as great because we read about them in the history books. But the present will be history one day, and it too will have 'greats'. Maybe even the Birdman (cackle, cackle). So there is not the leas reason to suppose that we are not just as great as our forefathers.
Racial preservation is evolution, it sets up the > environment for progression, it is order. Multiracialism is a step > backwards, it is chaos.
****** You can actually argue that ANYTHING is evolution, because whatever survives is therefore 'fit'. Thus to avoid this, you must set OBJECTIVE STANDARDS for what is and is not 'progression'. But that implies that progression constitutes the fulfilling of standards, and not mere race preservation, contrary to your allegations.
> > I can understand you wanting to defend yourself, and when someone > attacks you, you really let them know who's boss. However there are > instances where you seem to enjoy this besides the previous point. Your > exchange with Levin for example. It appeared to me that Levin was > cordial and gentle, yet you still tried to lay into him.
****** True, but you are forgetting that Levin and I have a long history -- this was not occurring in a vacuum.
I didn't think > that was appropriate. Now, I'm not trying to stand over you at all, you > do as you like... I'm merely noticing this behavior seems to be a trend. > My main beef with you is your multiracial, anti-racist approach. I was > under the impression you wanted to preserve the Occidental race, but you > do not. This naturally upsets me.
****** Preserving the white race is a generally good goal -- something to aim for, but not something to pursue inflexibly. However, it is not the be-all and end-all -- quality is. When we get criteria for quality, we may be able to dispense with being concerned about race, tho probably not for a long time.
> > I enjoy challenges. The former situation was good enough. But let's > not make it so extreme as to be fantastical and not practical. Let's do > it in more of a situation of a pro-white male has been out of his luck > with pro-white women, for say... 5 years. He's depressed, he's lonely, > he wants some female companionship. Let's make his challenge more > obscure, more uncertain, confusing to his perception which is easier for > his morality to accept. Let's say he meets a female that is a type of > modern day Latino. She is mostly white, she 'looks' white in general, > Caucasoid, yet it's obvious she is not distinctly white. They meet, she > flirts with him, and he has a chance to bed her even though he is aware > she is not fully white. Quite an ambiguous situation, and the female > herself is an obscure racial form, a clinal mess. What then? Is he > wrong? She's mostly white... is that wrong? I think the defining > element to situations and choices, are not the situations themselves, > but the person or people involved. People are ambiguous and open to > convenience and opportunity. This cannot be disputed. But by racial > moral principles, it is still wrong and leads to further decline of the > 'race' if everyone engages in such acts of convenience. > > Go ahead with your challenge, whatever it might be. I'm not sure what I > would be apologizing for?
***** I don't understand the point of your last 2 paragraphs. I challenged you to give me one absolute moral principle, and I would find an exception, thereby making it non-absolute, and thereby proving that there are no moral absolutes, including racial ones. >
[MA's next letter, with the Birdman's new comments interleaved and marked with ########:)
> My desire to preserve the white race is based just on that, RACE. It's > a physical concept that we all can well perceive, and that produces > culture unique to each group. By preserving the physical race, you > preserve all of its potential.
##### You seem to be saying here that your reason for preserving the white race is that you preserve all its potential. That's a very iffy question. If the white race is subject to evolution, this may mean that some potentials are acquired, some left behind. But even if you are right, you seem to be saying that you wouldn't want to improve the race, as could be done by such ways as outbreeding or genetic manipulation. Why this Luddite rejection? It might mean that races which are receptive to improvement will make whites into the New Negroidals. Why do you wish to risk that?
You on the other hand do not want to > preserve the physical race. You are clearly a racial mongrelizer. Your > stated ideology is not racial at all, but based on IQ or some form of > economic or academic success.
##### Much of what is posted on my page has to do with the fact that we can see diferences in quality between races, and where we celebrate the good and reject the bad. Thus we can perceive quality, but at this time only thru a glass darkly. You seem to want to ignore quality, and simpy say, "My race, good or bad". What I say is, "My race good or bad; if bad to make it good; if good to keep it good and hopefully improve it." The term 'racial mongrelizer' which you apply to me is just a smear term -- it seems to imply that I simply don't care who breeds with whom. May I suggest a more careful choice of terms in future?
> > >>Evolution is a fact. Races will continue to evolve. We cannot > >>really 'preserve' the white race, because it will evolve. > > Races as they exist now have existed for thousands of years. We can > indeed preserve race in its physical form. You seek to make everything > ambiguous and thus no one can dispute you. That's not the reality.
##### Nobody really knows how long the races have existed. If you read Richard Milton's book "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" you will understand why. All we know about evolution is that it takes place, not how long it takes. Nor do we have a good explanation for any of its mechanisms, including the evolution of races or species. It seems to me that if species or races can develop and evolve, they can also disappear; thus there is simply no guarantee that we can preserve anything at all.
> > I specifically addressed divergent evolution, which is on its way to > speciation. You somehow believe that all the diversity that currently > exists, is no different than if we all interbred and many unique > qualities were lost. This sets back speciation, thus you are losing > many evolved qualities that were unique. It would be regression from > speciation. Although after that fact, it would continue again. But it > is a waste to destroy such uniquely evolved qualities that makes life > grand.
####### You are attrributing to me things I never said. I never said I advocated wholesale inbreedng.
> > The great men of the past were part of a more pure race and culture.
####### You seem to be implying that whites were once of better quality. That is at best a dubious assertion. The most you can say is that men used to be more racist. True, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were of better genetic quality.
We > are not so lucky. We are in the melting pot, which is truly a tragedy. > I don't see such great men today, as we had before. I don't see you as > being like one of them either, although I have enjoyed your logical > debates. Indeed, I can understand why you like the company of Jews so > much. > > >>True, but you are forgetting that Levin and I have a long history -- > >>this was not occurring in a vacuum. > > Sure, but he didn't respond to you in such a way, so I don't see why it > was necessary. >
###### I was pissed at his refusal to answer the arguments which I had posed in the earlier essays. His behavior was dishonest, and inexcusable for an academic. If dishonesty doesn't piss you off, maybe you need to evolve.
> >>Preserving the white race is a generally good goal -- something to > >>aim for, but not something to pursue inflexibly. > > This is your opinion, it being a good goal. Why not pursue it > inflexibly? Says who? I see no reason why there cannot be standards, > as there are laws.
##### My point is that there are always cases which will violate any standard you can write. My challenge to you was to show me any inflexible standard, and I will show you a theoretical reason to violate it.
If there was any a time to be inflexible about race, > it is now. Flexibility on race in our time, will lead to its > non-existence. Again, it is obvious you see race as an arbitrary > housing of qualities, and not something to be preserved
##### A housing of qualities, yes; arbitrary, not at all. I am interested in preserving the white race because of its qualities, and ditto for other races. But that doesn't mean I am unwilling to upbreed.
> > > I don't understand the point of your last 2 paragraphs. I challenged > > you to give me one absolute moral principle, and I would find an exception, > > thereby making it non-absolute, and thereby proving that there are no moral > > absolutes, including racial ones. > > There are moral absolutes, but most people can't abide by these > absolutes.
##### Name me one.
> > I explained the challenge - > > > I enjoy challenges. The former situation was good enough. > > *The absolute of not race-mixing. But let me make it more clear... the > absolute of not race-mixing with a person that doesn't have clear > European white ancestry for 6 generations back, when you have European > white heritage 6 generations back.*
##### OK, here's a qualification that begs to dispose of the standard: A great genius with no physical weaknesses or defects, but one with a 'nigger in the genepile' 1-5 generations back. OK?
> > Your situation was more clear, that of a black woman. Everyone can very > well see how different she is to a white woman. My situation was more > ambiguous, that of a mixed person, a Latino female, that 'looks white.' > This is more practical and happens quite often. > > Perhaps your idea is that absolutely no one can abide by a moral > principle given the right situation... that is 'everyone has their > price.' Well, I don't agree. Most people will sell out, but not > everyone.
##### Purely speculative, and not well-supported with any evidence I know of.
[MA's next letter, with comments by the Birdman:]
I have made some comments marked with &&&&&. My feeling is that this discussion is long past the point of sterility, but I will respond to you for at least a few paragraphs.
> My reason for preserving the white race is because I love the history of > the white race, I love the physical appearance of the white race, and > because they have a right to survive as anything else does. >
&&&&& My reason for wishing to (in general) preserve the white race is that it has produced a great civilization in which I survive and prosper. While I don't want to be nasty, it is hard to keep from saying that your reasons sound silly and superficial.
> I think you are interjecting things into 'race' when they do not belong > in the concept. Race is totally a physical concept.
&&&&& If you mean that race doesn't affect mental activity or attitudes, you are simply wrong. Negroes are more emotional, more mussical, and have a short-term time preference, for example.
If you do not want > to preserve race, then you mix physically unlike people together... if > you want to preserve race, then you do not mix. Racial evolution is > different than bringing about new types due to racial mixtures(such as > Indics).
&&&&&& That depends on your definition of race. Those with one drop of black blood are called black; those with one drop of white blood are not. The definition of race is rather flexible.
&&&&& I am stopping my response here. I have no time or interest to pursue this further. I have read your whole letter, but I really can't see that it makes any vital points, but just rings the changes on ones you have already made, or addresses unimportant ones. I can't afford to get bogged down in this kind of exchange. I addressed all the major issues in my exchange with Sonic. Even if we disagree, exchanges are fine if they produce thought-provoking material, but nothing in your letter does that. The main problem is your insisting that race is more important than objective quality. I could understand someone saying that race is important because it is a good marker of quality, or that we don't know how to breed or do genetic manipulation well enuf to create quality, or even that we can't agree what quality is. But to me, to just flat-out say that race trumps quality is silly and absurd. That's the main issue; we will just have to agree to disagree on it.
Racial evolution is simply by response to selection within group > and environmental adaptation from mutation. Natural adaptation is an > extremely slow process from all accounts that I've read. If racial > adaptation was so transitionary, then of course it would have little > meaning. But it seems that race is extremely stable and lasts for 10's > of thousands of years or more, possibly 100's of thousands of years > without major changes. My reason for preserving race is mutual benefit > to all people. None can understand each other more than brothers and > sisters... like people that share empathy with each other. It's more > efficient to be with people that are more like you in as many ways as > possible. Physically, culturally, mentally, emotionally, etc. Eugenics > will always be important, and should always be practiced. I don't think > there is anyone that wants to be stupid or physically deformed. My > point is that race comes first if one is a racialist. If one is > motivated by IQ or musculature, or some quality that is shared amongst > the races, obviously one is not a racialist. So for me personally, I > don't look for IQ in all women, I limit myself to my racial group and > look for IQ and other qualities there. Race is the first discrimination, > then the rest proceeds. This is a logical order in my mind, as I want > to preserve race, therefore it has precedence. This does not mean I > don't further discriminate. > > Qualities exist throughout all races, but behaviors and tendencies exist > as a rule within racial groups. I'm not one that thinks one race is > totally dominant over all others, of course not. But race is a physical > concept... a physical manifestation that has correlations with certain > behaviors, intellectual levels, etc. > > I say racial mongrelizer because you yourself have said that your > primary discriminatory factor is not race, but some mental attribute(s) > that an individual possesses. I didn't mean it in the pejorative, but > merely technically. If everyone had your ideology, we would be mongrels > in a few generations(South America is a good example). That is how I > have perceived your statements. If you do in fact hold race, the > physical reality, as the highest virtue, then I am in error and I > retract my statement. > > Yes, we do not know everything entirely... what we do know, that I have > read, is anthropological data that reveals to us how ancient humanoids > looked 10's or 100's of thousands of years ago. In many cases Negroids > and Australoids look quite similar to remains that are 100 thousand > years old. Obviously they haven't evolved much at all for this entire > span of time. So it is a biological fact that evolution takes quite a > long time and race can exist for thousands of generations without > significantly changing. As for the past 3000 years, it's difficult to > say if certain changes were indigenous or from unlike racial mixtures. > The political climate is so Leftist, it's hard to get honesty out of > academia as everything must serve Marxist interests. Many DNA studies > are manipulated to make us all think we are the same and that all people > evolved from Negroids only 50,000 years ago. This is a very complicated > topic and one in which is better discussed in forums that have a lot of > data posted on it. > > We can preserve what we have control over. We have control over our > breeding habits and what we do with our lives. That can be done quite > simply. As for a natural calamity, obviously that is out of our hands. > Taking the nihilistic view of things is one of the problems of the white > race. While others have a tribal spirit and lift themselves up... > whites are worrying about the rights of others and in general being > nihilistic about their own existence. If what seems to be a genetic > tendency to altruism and nihilism stays dominant in the personality of > whites, we will surely die. Revilo Oliver makes an interesting point, > that many species have died, and are dying(like the African gorillas), > simply because they have lost their survival instinct. > > > > I specifically addressed divergent evolution, which is on its way to > > > speciation. You somehow believe that all the diversity that currently > > > exists, is no different than if we all interbred and many unique > > > qualities were lost. This sets back speciation, thus you are losing > > > many evolved qualities that were unique. It would be regression from > > > speciation. Although after that fact, it would continue again. But it > > > is a waste to destroy such uniquely evolved qualities that makes life > > > grand. > > > > > > ####### You are attrributing to me things I never said. I never said I > > advocated wholesale inbreedng. > > You mean wholesale interbreeding? So I'm going to assume you just want > to absorb all of the geniuses of other races into the white pool, or perhaps > only Jews and Asians? I really don't know where your flexibility on the > issue starts and stops. I'm not sure why these people would want to > interbreed with whites other than physical lust, since they are so > gifted by the means of their own racial ancestry. Also keep in mind > that when I say white, I mean Nordish. White is also a relatively > subjective term, at least meaning non-Negroid, non-Mongoloid usually. I > am exclusively concerned with Celtic and Germanic peoples. > > > ####### You seem to be implying that whites were once of better quality. > > That is at best a dubious assertion. The most you can say is that men used > > to be more racist. True, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were of > > better genetic quality. > > I think it's more than that. I think a lot of it has to do with how > Marxism(Civil Rights) has affected our morality and the family unit. We > also have so many distractions now, so many perversions... rarely do > people commit themselves to fields of study as intensely as they once > did, or care about their products. In general our society has gone down > in quality, from the greater geniuses to the common man. It's all about > money and self-indulgence now. Where are the great poets... the great > mathematicians... the great philosophers and leaders? The Occident is > in decline, and it's totally related to what has happened and continues > to happen to the race that made up the Occident. > > > ###### I was pissed at his refusal to answer the arguments which I had posed > > in the earlier essays. His behavior was dishonest, and inexcusable for an > > academic. If dishonesty doesn't piss you off, maybe you need to evolve. > > Dishonesty does upset me, so does thievery. However, people have a > right not to answer anything they choose. I understand you mean he was > being dishonest in that he knew very well what you referred to, but he > presented his case as he had never received your emails or didn't know > of your questions and arguments addressed to him. I try to evolve daily. > :) > > > ##### My point is that there are always cases which will violate any > > standard you can write. My challenge to you was to show me any inflexible > > standard, and I will show you a theoretical reason to violate it. > > But your reasoning so far that I've read was merely for convenience and > physical satisfaction. This isn't indicative of racial morality to > begin with. I think the better point is that when people are truly > tested, then we really see what they are made of, and most people fail. > > > ##### A housing of qualities, yes; arbitrary, not at all. I am interested > > in preserving the white race because of its qualities, and ditto for other > > races. But that doesn't mean I am unwilling to upbreed. > > But again, I think you are concentrated on qualities that exist within > races, rather than the race itself, the physical race which is what the > word race means. I am for upbreeding while maintaining physical racial > integrity. > > > > A great genius with no physical weaknesses or defects, but one with a 'nigger > > in the genepile' 1-5 generations back. OK? > > Well, here is the thing. If one values race above all else, that is the > integrity of phenotype and genotype, then it doesn't matter if a mulatto > is a retard or a genius... racially, it is not acceptable and is not > conducive to maintaining racial structure(it alters the phenotype). I > think the blacks would be happy to have someone like that. Furthermore, > does IQ or success somehow change one's race, or allow one to be > acceptable to interbreed? No, this is a violation of racial morality > and makes a mess of the whole situation. We cannot turn morality into a > relative game, nor could we do so with the law, or everything will > crumble. > > > ##### Purely speculative, and not well-supported with any evidence I know > > of. > > You are saying that you think everyone has a price, and no one can abide > by any rules they have sworn by given the right temptation? >
[MA's next letter, with Birdman's comments:]
I have made it clear that this correspondence is over. I don't want to be rude, but I find nothing significant in what you say beyond what I have already responded to. You seem simply to want to quibble. I will respond to your first point just to demonstrate that it is not worth responding to. It is marked &&&&&.
> &&&&& My reason for wishing to (in general) preserve the white race is that > it has produced a great civilization in which I survive and prosper. While > I don't want to be nasty, it is hard to keep from saying that your reasons > sound silly and superficial.
Right, so you admit to not caring about 'race' at all
%%%%%% I have already gone over this several times. Race is a marker -- an indicator of the probability of the presence of quality. It is worthwhile for that reason. But the matter of ultimate importance is QUALITY. Like intelligence, physical strength, beauty, etc. You do not seem to be able to grasp this simple assertion. That's why I will spend no more time answering this letter.
, which is the biological manifestation that is classified as the Europid race, but specifically the Nordid race is the root of the Occident. You merely care about the culture, the civilization. So if you don't care about who mixes with whom, then I guess your only preservative idea is to mate like IQ people... otherwise I'm not sure how you are trying to preserve the white race, or more appropriately as an expression of your beliefs - white civilization.
> &&&&& If you mean that race doesn't affect mental activity or attitudes, you > are simply wrong. Negroes are more emotional, more mussical, and have a > short-term time preference, for example.
No, that's not what I mean at all. There are correlations with race, as I have described, but 'race' itself is a physical concept.
I disagree about Negroes. They are not more emotional per se, they are just less inhibited, less empathetic, and more prone to anti-social behavior which is commonly perceived as rude behavior. They are more rhythmic in general, more musical in a very primitive way. How many Negroid maestros have you heard of or know of today? Not many to my knowledge.
> &&&&&& That depends on your definition of race. Those with one drop of > black blood are called black; those with one drop of white blood are not. > The definition of race is rather flexible.
Well, I've never been one to go along with mainstream ideas. The one drop rule was a political one, to quarantine racially-mixed progeny, and is a good move actually. However, reasonably this does not make someone black. One drop is rather insignificant and I doubt it could be perceived in the phenotype. As I said, a good standard, 1/64th Negroid is considered white. In general 1/64th non-white is a good standard, and this standard keeps the phenotype fairly dominant in the white with almost no trace of the Negroid. Although if everyone was 1/64th then of course we would see recombination that would change the population forever.
Take a look at http://www.nordish.com for racial descriptions of what makes up the Occident, including most of America's white population. Physical anthropology gives you a better idea of the racial aspects of populations... much more than just 'skin color.'
> > &&&&& I am stopping my response here. I have no time or interest to pursue > this further. I have read your whole letter, but I really can't see that it > makes any vital points, but just rings the changes on ones you have already > made, or addresses unimportant ones. I can't afford to get bogged down in > this kind of exchange. I addressed all the major issues in my exchange with > Sonic. Even if we disagree, exchanges are fine if they produce > thought-provoking material, but nothing in your letter does that. The main > problem is your insisting that race is more important than objective > quality. I could understand someone saying that race is important because > it is a good marker of quality, or that we don't know how to breed or do > genetic manipulation well enuf to create quality, or even that we can't > agree what quality is. But to me, to just flat-out say that race trumps > quality is silly and absurd. That's the main issue; we will just have to > agree to disagree on it.
Do as you please. I think my responses have been coherent and have addressed your statements fairly well. I think you don't seem to understand what I mean; perhaps it is my lack of ability to explain it well enough, or perhaps it is your lack of interest. As I've stated the concept of race is a physical entity. When someone say he is of the white race... it doesn't mean he speaks English, is a Protestant, and acts a certain way or drives a certain car or is of a certain IQ. It is based on physical characteristics that are easily perceived and are transmitted genetically. Your notion of race seems to disregard the entire physical concept, and merely select by IQ level or behavior... this is not accurate as a definition and in the usage of the word - race. I further state that there are in fact correlations that are distinct in racial groups(average IQ, maturation rate, behaviors, historical developments, etc), showing a difference when compared to other groups, but these correlations don't define race, they just accompany the physical entity. For instance if you merely selected for 120+ IQ level, you would have a mongrel mix of people(mostly whites and Asians). Or if you selected for people that were soft-spoken... you'd have a mongrel mix of people, but perhaps more on the Mongoloid side. Then if you selected for rowdy people that talked during movies at the theater... then you'd have mostly Negroids, but a lot of whites also. So if you're not using any physical basis for the idea of race, and also the discrimination for who is considered white, then I'm not sure what you're doing... and it's not a racial idea at all. You are merely selecting for qualities that you find special, interesting, and possibly associated with civilization, but by no means exclusive to one racial group. These qualities you like may in fact be mostly white and Asian, but also some Negroids and other racial groups. I doubt by your criteria, you would end up with a group of people that even remotely looked white.
My initial email to you was mostly based on my surprise that you in fact are not a racial preservationist, and do not believe in racial discrimination. I was merely under an assumption that was false. Things are cleared up now, as I see it. I would call you more of a multi-racial or non-racial eugenicist.
I provide you with a few definitions of race:
race1 (rs) n. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
Biology. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
Usage Note: The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The traditional terms for these populationsCaucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoid are now controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive. (Caucasian does retain a certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusively to mean "white" or "European" rather than "belonging to the Caucasian race," a group that includes a variety of peoples generally categorized as nonwhite.)
Carelton Coon's explanation of race: http://www.fikas.no/~sprocket/snpa/chapter-I2.htm
I appreciate your time John, take care.
[Another letter from MA, with the following single comment by the Birdman:]
Read again the first line of my last letter. Thank you.
> > I have made it clear that this correspondence is over. I don't want to be > > rude, but I find nothing significant in what you say beyond what I have > > already responded to. You seem simply to want to quibble. I will respond > > to your first point just to demonstrate that it is not worth responding to. > > It is marked &&&&&. > > I don't want to quibble, I was just trying to further explain the issues > at hand, and you didn't seem to understand my points. > > > %%%%%% I have already gone over this several times. Race is a marker -- an > > indicator of the probability of the presence of quality. It is worthwhile > > for that reason. But the matter of ultimate importance is QUALITY. Like > > intelligence, physical strength, beauty, etc. You do not seem to be able to > > grasp this simple assertion. That's why I will spend no more time answering > > this letter. > > Race is not a marker of anything for individuals beyond physical > attributes, but it can be a guess. You think every white person is > capable of inventing Rome? That's nonsense. Race is simply a unique > biological creation, and there are correlations historically with racial > groups. It can basically be said that if you preserve the Nordish race, > you will keep the Occident intact. But if, by your methods, you mix Jews, > Asians, and Negroids, and all other manner of races based on some IQ > level or personal quality, you will change the culture and the > civilization. It may still be civilized in some manner, like how China > is civilized, India, or Israel, but it will not be the same. > > If you want to measure quality, then you simply measure it, individually. > > I grasp the assertion. I grasp that you do not care about 'race', you > care about individual qualities in all racial groups and want to mix > them. I feel confident that everything I've said is true. You are not a > racial preservationist. > > You are also showing your rudeness. > > As long as you respond to me, I will respond to you. Feel free to not > respond. >
------------------ [Here begin the favorable letters. The first is from Jay:]
I'm reminded of the question from my early youth [hint as to just how old I am]: Who'd you rather be marooned with, Kate Smith or Lena Horne? ... Probably could update it to: Janet Reno or Janet Jackson? ... or: Hillary vs Oprah? ... or: Boy George vs Michael Jackson? [Think I might opt for solitude, there.] ¶ Anyway, at least it would appear as though you got the guy making an attempt at spelling, etc. - until his emotions took over again. ¶ There's an old saying, which I was told was German [but can't verify], that supposedly translates to "Eagles Don't Hunt Flies". ... If I had his address, I'd remind him of another old axiom: "Don't Bring a Knife to a Gunfight." ¶ John - I'm apparently missing something, or haven't perused your site thoroughly enough - the reference to pix, etc are a mystery to me. Do you have more than one site? - Jay D
Just finished your latest. Again, one of your most interesting and = thought-provoking. Thanks.
After reviewing your first newsletter to me; All I can say is that realistically speaking SONIC has NEVER in his life spent 140 days at sea. That long on the ocean, providing your not Gay or Bisexual or something that could be readily satisfied. Even the ugliest girl in your wetdreams becomes palatable. On a desert island with a Black Negress with a fine ass? Hell, No Problem! And as an added Bonus, "Enjoy It". What a short sighted Idiot. Sorry, there aren't any ABSOLUTES on this Hydrocarbon Based Intelligent Species that occupies this planet. I would imagine that eventually we will ALL have a Mediterranean complexion. Some of us though might have the White Brain. Besides, an increase of Melanin in my skin would be alright with me. I probably wouldn't sunburn as easily. What you might not have, your offspring will. With offspring you will guard them and love them. Honestly, I think SONIC should go out right this instant and commit Seppuku. At least he will fade but with Honor.
I do like your logic in the first paragraph. I have many detractors myself. People who are PC or Liberal or what have you that continually remind me that I am drawing outside the lines of logic or taste. In the past, I have always glad-handed them or take some form of guilt and blame from them. Your site has helped me to overcome that weakness in me. From now on its going to be on a "Take it or leave it" basis with them. Thank you for showing me the way. If they can't handle it, they can delete it or delete themselves.
Keep shocking me until I'm completely Lucent or Jaded. LOL.
birdman, I enjoyed your last letter very much and i must agree,sweet lookin chics come in all colors.I have agreed with you on nearly everything[at least 97% of everything anyway]and yet Im married to a hispanic lady and have 2 very patroitic pro white children[teenagers].Does this make me "evil" in Sonics eyes or yours?are my kids unwelcome because they might have alittle indian blood?Being so dogmatic and ridiged seems so foolish and self defeating too me.Thanks for your common sense on all this.,,,,c ya
[Ian Buckley writes:]
Thanks for my first Newsletter - very interesting.You might like to = add a link on your site to the website of Spearhead magazine = http://www.spearhead-uk.com/ where my own writings are posted eg = http://www.spearhead-uk.com/0104-ib.html=20
All best wishes IAN
[Gary the Jew writes:]
Dear John, I had not read your newsletter until you told me you were getting shit for it. Wow. I don't know what to say, except that it seems as if many of your readers are unworthy of you. I can see that you are indeed lodged on the horns of a dilemma. On the one horn, many of your follower seek simplistic answers. SONIC, for example, while his academic achievements and community service are laudable, has a rather large chip on his shoulder and I do not see how that is going to help things for white people. On the other horn, your own intelligence will not allow you to lock step in dogma. You are simply incapable of violating your own sense of truth -- no matter WHERE the chips might fall. This necessarily brings you into conflict with many people who need certainty and simplicity. I have told you many times in the past that in my view, white people should "make love, not war." The reason for the flood of immigrants here is the same as the reason for the immigrants in Italy, Germany, France, Spain - etc. Falling birth rates means fewer white people and fewer white people means vacancies for foreigners to fill jobs whites do not want. I raised and educated three children, and every one of them is now a contributing member of society. It meant that for the past 31 years I have driven old cars and denied myself many of the pleasures of life. My Jewish parents from the Old Country called that "sacrifice," and I learned it by their example. Responsibly raising, educating and preparing white people to run our country - without divorcing or pissing the grocery money away on drugs or booze or gambling or Harley Davidsons or Monster Trucks - is the only hope for saving the white race. The reason many people will reject that view is that it places the onus on them -- it's so much easier to blame someone else. Every White Man has an individual, personal responsibility to his ancestors and to his
descendants not to break the link. That said, I didn't see the picture of the black woman. However, I can tell you I have never been attracted to them. If I were on a desert island with one - depending on her looks, her sexual health and her attitude - I could see myself remaining celebate. Asian women, however -- well, that's an entirely different situation. However, since my wife died I always find myself long term with white women -- I'm just more comfortable around them. In any event, that's my point of view and you can post it if you want from Gary the Jew.
> Hello John, > > I enjoyed your latest weekly letter immensely. People get all hung up as to > what is and isn't "white" to begin with. Most "whites" have some non-white > ancestry, whether in the distant or not-too-distant past. Most solutions to > racial problems either come down to hair-splitting over racial classification > or arbitrary cut-offs as to who is and isn't a member of the white race. The > "anti-racist" crowd really gets off on this problem, arguing that all are the > same since, "we're all mixed." > > The seemingly intelligent members of this camp make a conscious effort to > avoid considering possible group differences and the consequences of allowing > the low IQ group to reproduce at will. My standard reply to these racial > libertarians is to ask whether or not a society would deteriorate due to the > proliferation of low-IQ individuals, and, if so, why do they feel this > fundamental, biological, racial problem will be solved by "market forces"? > They generally remain silent. > > "Sonic" leans towards my way of thinking, but for the wrong reasons. > > I feel attraction to some non-white females because it's simply a part of > being a man. At the core, we're attracted by instinct to fertile females. > > My main objection stems from respect to the female members of our faction, > since they WILL be a vital part of any pro-white movement. While I'm opposed > to female hypersensitivity, I doubt I'd appreciate a picture of a naked > non-white man at a pro-white website run by a woman, so women are well within > their rights to be upset by a picture of an attractive non-white woman at > your website. > > As a fairly thick-skinned individual, I'm not going to make a grandiose > display of my disagreement. In fact, I never even saw the picture. > > In the immortal words of Sonic: "Then, you install a vision of filth and > vileness in an area normally reserved for beauty and admiration. (Not to > mention pulling a sneak-attack on my puke reflex)...... I bet if I was on > that desert island, alone, for any length of time I'd be doing a hell of a > lot of jerking off too, but you wont find me posting pictures of such things > on the web." > > For such an anti-porn guy, Sonic seems to be well-acquainted with the "Girl > of the Day" section of your website, no???? Hahahaha. > > Great letter as always,
--------------------- The following are new letters which have come in since the last weekly letter was sent.
Looks like a sorry mess of brains being flung about recently. Oh, I'm not refering to you, but rather Sonic, etc.
Reading the latest on the issue of ambiguity, especially in regards to "being stranded on an island with a negress," I sort of had a flash back. A couple years ago, someone responded in much the same narrow way, though on a different issue.
He was a Russian immigrant and couldn't understand my opposition to unrestrained immigration - but I digress.
Your conversation with Rob illustrations the primary reason why I just won't associate with the Nat'l Alliance, Nationalist Movement, etc. They are much too dogmatic and "hardcore" to suit me. They just don't allow any room beyond the reach of their arms. If you're outside the range of their dogma, consider yerself a "race-traitor".
It really convey's a sense of deja-vu. On the one hand, I could be called a "racist", on the other hand I could be called a "race-traitor". In the middle is where everyone sensible is. ;-)
One of my friends is a mixed white/black man living in Dallas. He's a couple years younger than I am. He's a die-hard christian of the conservative variety, who was raised by his white grandparents after his black father took off and his white mother died.
He is sometimes naive in his views and his die-hard christianity rubs me the wrong way sometimes, but I like him. He's quite thoughtful and a good person. How could I ever support the Nat'l Alli.'s view of throwing people like him out of America or depriving him of life?
I'd trust him with my life in the battlefield if things ever came to that. That's more than I can say for some of these white trash folks.
With regard to your question regarding being stranded on an island with negress and being the last two people on earth, I am a practical person. If it is evolution that developed humankind to where we are today, why not start it all over again?
There is, truthfully, nothing "evil" in that. The concept of race-mixing being "evil" seems to be in the context of today's times, with today's special circumstances, etc. But in different circumstances, like the one you pictured, those arguments fall flat. They simply would not matter anymore. So the question would be, at that point, does one terminate the human species completely, or get to work repopulating the earth?
For all the talk about "spreading life among the stars" and "refining the human race (especially the white branch)" it seems that this would fit with the racist's view. But they get their panties in a twist anyway. It almost seems to me that their belief is not so much rational and philsophical, but emotional, unbridled hatred. The philosophical structure they seem to propound is apparently just window dressing.
I could be wrong, but this is what it appears to be.
Consider my letter the eighth one sounding off possitively about your recent Weekly letters.
[Bluegrass writes again:]
hi Birdman, If our side is so unflexible as your critics we are going to lose with out a chance.Until we realize that playing "hard ass" will not work we wil go the way of the rest of the "right wing cranks".A united front of all colors and races against zionists and anti white forces will be much stronger than a few skinheaded fools with nazi flags.Even Linclon Rockwell wanted a working relationship with the Black "fruit of Islam".And if a person is 1/8th indian or asian or even black who gives a damn...to me hes still is white or at least near white.Like you I believe their are some good pro white jews that put America first .Keep up the good work .You make good sense to me.
This is an E-Mail message IN SUPPORT of you and your writing and point of view as expressed in BIRDMAN's WEEKLY LETTER #148.;; If and when you have occasion to update the pro's and anti's, add my name and/or number to the pro's.</P>
JOHN BRYANT FOR U.S. PRESIDENT IN 2004 ON THE BIRDMAN TICKET...HE'LL FIGHT FOR YOU IN WASHINGTON, DC....HE WAS BORN THERE, AND WHAT OTHER CANDIDATES CAN DAY THAT?</P>
are my sincere political sentiments.; You read it here first.</P>
All the best.; Hope St. Pete is getting cooler now that it is Sept., and you can put the fans back up in the attic..</P>
Oct. 12, 2001 DCANTIOCHIANS social meeting, 7-9 PM at the Mott House/DC ACLU HQ bldg., 122 Maryland Ave., NE (Capitol Hill).; You are invited as usual. Are you receiving E-Mail from DCANTIOCHIANS?...I asked Dana Clark Felty, '98, our Leader, to add your E-Mail address to the list of VIP's.</P>
Stay well, and don't get bent out of shape because you are controversial.; As Eroll Flynn (sp,?) used to say, "I don't care what they print (say) about me as long as they spell my name right!";; Being controversial is good for publicity and is ALWAYS profitable....tell THAT to your wife is she expresses doubts about your status as a controversial person.</P>
No charge for this valuable counsel!</P>
[German Celt Girl writes again:]
>Here's a thought experiment: Suppose you traced your family tree back and >found a negro in it. What would you do? Kill yourself? (Hint: I don't >think so.) >
NO, you are true. I would not kill myself. Depending on where it was found. I would have to decide whether or not to have children. If found close to my side of the gene pool, I would not further enhance the genes by reproducing. So, in a small sense, I would be killing myself. However, if this "negro' was 'found' 7 - 10 + generations back on some "married-in" side...I would not care. Those who 'marry-in' are not blood descendants...the couples children would be. Not the sole person or their blood relatives.
>Another: If you and a negro male were the last persons on earth, would you >have children by him?
No. There is no other reply to that stupid question. Not only would I not have sex with him, I would not have children with him. I would kill myself. Do I have to mention, that to breed with the last person on earth, would be stupid, in it's self? N0 matter what race of the other person was. Maybe you think it would be "OK", I do not. What would you do...when your children grew & wanted sex with their brother or sister? What than...a land populated with retarded and probally malformed people. That is NO life. It would be much simplier and much more practical to kill the other person and than yourself.
> >Did you ever read Les Miserables by Victor Hugo?
No, I have not. If you have & are suggesting that I read it, I may. I can only assume you are mentioning this because of some debate within the context. I am sure that whatever is there, we would see differnet sides & meanings.
So, are you insinuating that inbreeding, to keep your bloodline alive, is right? Or at the least justified?
Let me also say that if you think that it is justifiable, than for people such as myself to keep my bloodline within one race, is also justifiable.
German Celt Girl
[Birdman did not respond]
[Ian Buckley writes again:]
Seems to me that the those who go on about in fanatical terms about miscegenation are missing the point. Our race is dying due to a soul- sickness. The real race traitors are those - like Thatcher or Reagan - who masqueraded as "patriots" and "conservatives" while they ripped our civilisation apart.
The birth rate of the European peoples is at its lowest level ever as a consequence of our falling civilisation..
It takes two to tango, and many of these allegedly sacred white females have fallen for feminist lies and have become cold masculinised materialists, obsessed with their careers, cars and possessions. Any wonder that some men prefer more traditionally feminine Oriental women?
I agree with you on the 'naked negress' controversy.
Sonic & company are getting way too upset over nothing.
I think that part of the problem is that the situation with repect to 'White survival' is, as you know, *very* serious. Among white people who are 'racially aware', there is considerable anger, fear, frustration and the like. Although the 'naked negress' is irrelevant in an overall sense, it was apparently enough to make some people snap.
The 'naked negresss' thing doesn't bother me at all; but there *are* other things in life that make me snap-- and which, from the standpoint of logic, should not make me snap. For example, certain things & events that happen to remind of the Jewish domination of society sometimes make me feel *very* dejected and angry. But getting dejected and anger in these such instances doesn't really help things.
Something to think about, in any case.
P.S. #1 I never saw the 'naked negress'. I don't normally look at the 'girl of the day'.
P.S. #2 I think 'mulatto' girls are cute! A good example is the singer Mariah Carey-- she's *gorgeous*. In general, I'm opposed to race-mixing-- but I have to admit that Mariah Carey would be one **heavenly** fuck. I've seen many other girls who are of 'mixed' white & black ancestry that I would like to screw. And yes, I'm aware of the I.Q. issue. And yes, I'd feel sort of embarassed being married to a mulatto girl & raising mulatto children. So I don't think that I would do it. But mulatto girls are often quite sexy & tempting, IMHO.
P.S. #3 I also think that girls of who are of mixed White and Oriental ancestry are often cute, too. Again, I'm not saying I would marry one (although I would have far fewer qualms toward marrying a white/asian girl than toward marrying a white/black girl.)
* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *