VivaMalta - The Free Speech Forum - Race * Nation * State *

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 23, 2017, 02:52:43 PM

Home Help Search Login Register
+  VivaMalta - The Free Speech Forum
|-+  Imperivm Evropa
| |-+  Dominium
| | |-+  Race * Nation * State *
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Race * Nation * State *  (Read 1188 times)
Norman Lowell
Global Moderator
Senior Member
Online Online

Posts: 14148

« on: March 20, 2005, 05:54:26 PM »

THERE IS A LOT OF CONFUSION in the minds of the common people regarding the concepts of Race, Nation and State. The three are indiscriminately used and abused, lumped together with no precise understanding of their true definition and delineation. Our enemies, the international rodents, use this confusion for their own ends and, of course, muddy the waters still further in their pursuit of the destruction of races and peoples. Knowledge of the true meaning of the three concepts is therefore fundamental in our fight for survival.


The human species " Homo Sapiens " is divided into six major races. These are Europids, Mongolids, Indianids, Negrids, Khoisanids and Australasids. In turn each race is divided into many subraces; and mixed groups also exist. It is essential to emphasize that as distinct from species (i.e. horse/donkey), races and subraces are interfertile in their natural state; in other words, members of two different races can produce fertile offspring. It is this fact that leads so many to confuse the issue and claim, quite erroneously, that the differences between the races are only skin deep.

Ironically, colour variations, although the most visible, are not in themselves the most important criteria in determining variability amongst the various races. In fact they are among the least important and truly "skin deep" differences. Skin pigmentation is determined by the activity of melanin present in skin tissue. Skin colour evolved over the ages as a protective measure. In hot climates dark skin affords essential protection from ultra-violet radiation present in sunlight. In cold climates, pale skin permits absorption of the sun's rays and favours the accumulation of vitamin D, thus preventing rickets.

Believers in racial equality are either unaware of, or else ignore, the truly astonishing number of scientifically catalogued physical differences between one race and another. These differences range from the glaringly obvious ? like odour, shape of skull, facial features, size and shape of genitalia - to the microscopic - like blood groupings and susceptibility of certain races or subraces to certain diseases.

A few examples will suffice. The primitive characteristics of the Australisids' skulls set them apart from all other races. Their long muzzle and small brain-case is distinctly pongid, while the overall shape of the skull - wide below, narrow at the top - is reminiscent of that of Homo Habilis, one of man's early ancestors.

Another pongid feature is the teeth, which do not overlap but snap together. The nose, like that of the orang-utan, is flat and wide. Significantly, the brain weight is 85% of that of Europids, while the brain gyres are less tortuous, and the sutures the simplest of all the Races.

The Khoisanids consist of two subgroups, the Hottentots and the Sanids, better known as Bushmen. Both subraces display unique physical features. The Sanids, for example, retain paedomorphic (juvenile) features into adulthood. The skull is infantile in shape while the hair is aggregated naturally in tufts. The legs are very short in proportion to the trunk, and the female buttocks are enormous and of a strange form. The genitalia of both male and female are also unique. The male penis maintains a horizontal posture in its flaccid state, while the female labia minora are enormously lengthened, somewhat resembling the penis.

Another important distinction between the races is odour. The difference is most pronounced between Negrids and Europids. The former can distinguish Whites by their aroma alone, while to the latter, Negrids have a fetid smell. Both smell strongly to a Mongolid. Body odour is mostly produced by so-called auxiliary glands, (A-glands) situated in the anal-genital area and on the armpits. In the case of the aborigine, A-glands are also found in front of the ear. Body odour is almost completely absent in the Mongolid races. The Japanese have it only to a small degree, while the Ainuids in their midst, being partly Europids, smell strongly to them.

It is no accident that both men and women of the same race produce the same odour - and that within the same race this odour has a sexually alluring effect. Between different races it has the opposite effect and acts as a deterrent to miscegenation.

Another difference which can be of importance in distinguishing the races is their relative susceptibility to certain diseases. It is now becoming increasingly obvious that the Negrid Race is the most vulnerable to AIDS. Columnist Fred Reed recently reported that responsible medical men in the Pentagon put the figure of AIDS infection at 30% for soldiers in Zambia and Zaire -- and as high as 50% to 80% for the Zimbabwean army.

Enrique Jose Zelaya, chief epidemiologist for the Honduran Ministry of Health, stated that the geometric rate of progression for AIDS in his country, will likely cause the 182 reported active cases in October 1988 to balloon up to 14,000 in three years.

Dr. Robert Remis, epidemiologist at the Montreal General Hospital, notes that the city's large Haitan community has a far higher rate of active AIDS than the rest of the population. As of May 1989, 116 Haitian natives in Quebec province had come down with the disease. Back in their mother country, Haitian AIDS figures are around 6,000 cases per million, with vastly more still in the dormant phase. [Since Mr. Lowell wrote this article, the HIV infection rate has vastly increased among Blacks: In Haiti it is now six per cent., or ten times what it was in the early 1990s. -- Ed.]

Likewise Jews, which of their own admission form a distinct racial group, are prone to some 102 inherited diseases which affect them much more frequently than non-Jews. This is amply recorded in a massive 494 page-study "Genetic Disorders Among The Jewish People" by Dr. Richard Goodman, at John Hopkins University in Baltimore. He is now professor of genetics at Tel Aviv University School of Medicine.

Prof. Goodman States that Ashkenazi Jews, which make up 82% of world Jewry, and Sephardic Jews, who make up the remaining 18%, suffer from such hereditary diseases as Abetali-poproteinemia (failure to grow), Bloom syndrome (dwarfism), Familial Dysautonomia (affects strictly Jews and results in instability, slurred speech and is carried by 18 out of every 1000 Jews), and of course, Tay-Sachs which is the best-known Jewish disease.

This last is so prevalent amongst this racial group that Jewish couples are urged to take a test before marriage to insure that they are not carriers. Symptoms start at after six months of age, and by 18 months the victim becomes blind and unable to hold up his head. The skull becomes enlarged and the hands become pudgy. Over 90% of Tay-Sachs victims worldwide are Jews.

It is noteworthy that there is not one hereditary disease that effects exclusively the Europid race.

In this context it is also relevant to note the findings of Dr. V Wyatt, an expert on poliomyelitis, as reported in The Times of Malta for 23 July, 1982. Dr. Wyatt found that although the climate in Malta was similar to that of the Middle East, the disease affected its Maltese victims in the same way as it affected Europeans and North Americans. These symptoms were quite different from the symptoms found in Middle Eastern and African patients.

The world of sport also provides a glaring example of racial differences. All competitors are supposed to have an equal chance of winning, but in reality specific subspecies do best at different games or events. Thus the long-legged Dinarids, with their slim bodies, dominate the high jump. Europids, with Nordics at the forefront, dominate the heavy field-events like putting the shot, throwing the discus, the hammer, or the javelin. They also excel at swimming, not to mention Grand Prix car racing, with its demand for lightning-quick reflexes.

Running is a sport that is of great interest in the racial context. The marathon and other long distance races, with their demand for stamina, are the preserve of Europids and Ethiopids. The shorter events generally fall to the Negrids. Thus, in the 1984 Olympics, the most successful "British, French, and Canadian" competitors in these events were all Negroes!

Blacks have also taken over basketball and heavyweight boxing -- the former because of the long legs and long arms of some of the Negrid sub-Races, the latter due to their thick skulls as well as long arms. It is to be noted that the Japanese, who are by no means unsuccessful at sports in which tallness is not important, have never won any medal for high jumping or running at the Olympic games. Their genetically determined small stature precludes such a success.

The even smaller stature of the African pygmy has made him invisible at the Olympic games as they are currently held. However, were a track event to be included in which the contestants would have to crawl through long narrow pipes, then the pygmy's day in the sun would finally have arrived!

One hesitates to term as a sport so intellectual a pursuit as chess. It is, however, a game in which all contestants start off as "equals." One has yet to hear of a Negro grandmaster.

It is clear that significant differences between the various races of men do in fact exist. These differences are obviously due to genetic factors. Science has also shown that variations in intelligence between individuals are also mainly due to such genetic factors.

Is it therefore unreasonable to ask how it could ever be possible that any two races could be exactly the same in all the genes that affect intelligence and the nervous and sensory system, yet so different from one another in other structural characteristics?

Not only is it not unreasonable, but it is glaringly obvious, to all but 'equality' bigots, that races are as different from one another mentally as they are physically. Logic makes this conclusion inescapable - the facts prove it devastatingly.


Nation is "flesh and blood." It is people. It is a common consciousness of an identity. A consciousness of a people's characteristics. Nation is language, culture, customs, religion. It is common perceptions, fears, and phobias. A common identification of who is the common enemy, or perceived friends. Nation is the knowledge of a common history and a common yearning for a common destiny.

A cat born in a stable is not a horse. Thus a birth certificate does not make a Nigerian Negroid a German, a Frenchman, or a Maltese. Race determines everything. Nations are the various subdivisions of the race.

Thus, in simple language: Germans, Frenchmen, British, the Swedes, and the Russians are all nations within the White race. Within these nations are further subdivisions: In Britain there are the Scots, the Irish, and the Welsh. In Spain the Cataluyans, the Basques, and others. In France the Bretons, the Germans, Italians, and the Cottienniese. There are the Tyrolese, the Ticini, Italian minorities in Istria, Dalmatia, and even in the Ukraine. The Balkans are a myriad of various sub-nations all living cheek by jowl, mostly in animosity amongst themselves: a tragedy.


State is the juridical set-up of a nation. It is law, civil-service, army, police, etc. State is a completely different entity from either race or nation. The USA government is a glaring example of a state representing neither the race nor the people. It is a government-juridical system taken over, hijacked, by a pernicious minority of aliens. The international rodents, through their hold on the state government apparatus, thus control all the various branches that make up the state. They can bamboozle the captive population, composed of the various nationalities and races that make up the USA, and march them off to war - whenever it suits their purposes.

Imperium Europa

That is why we have been divided for so long. Nation versus nation, state against state, sub-nation opposed to sub-nation and other configurations of all these; a tragedy for the White race. A continuous fratricide. A spilling of precious blood of this small minority of biological aristocrats, spread so thinly amongst the billions of the Third World. Not only that, but the breeding of these aliens within our midst, our heartlands; White women cohabiting with primitive Blacks; a planetary dysgenic disaster. Why?

Because our enemies cleverly interplay the three concepts: Race-Nation-State. They have confused us as to their real definition and delineation. To the point where Blacks play football for Britain and Germany, represent France and Sweden at the Olympic games, and so on. Yes, oh yes, our people are confused!

Only the vision, the idea of Imperium Europa can save the White race. Only this unifying idea can solve the riddle of Race-Nation-State. An Imperium, acting as a state on a planetary scale, encapsulating the various nations and sub-nations of the White race. Nations and sub-nations, cousins living in harmony with each other, conscious of a common history and destiny.

Magna Europa est Patria Nostra!

« Last Edit: March 07, 2016, 07:28:58 PM by IMPERIUM » Report to moderator   Logged
Boycott The Times and The Sunday Times.
Do not post there, do not buy a copy of either, do not advertise.
Hurt Them in the only way they understand.

 Imperium 1107

Offline Offline

Posts: 29

« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2005, 06:08:44 PM »

the admixture of nation and race within the overall structure of the state, recognised or unrecognised by the rulers, dependent as they may or may not be on popular (and populist) approval of their policies leads to confusion in the minds of the populants of the state/nation, making the lack of a distinction between nation and state unrecognised as a reason for the confusion arising in the first instance
Report to moderator   Logged
Loyal Member
Senior Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 4730

« Reply #2 on: July 12, 2006, 04:57:56 AM »

Excellent article Imperium.  Resurrection time...
Report to moderator   Logged
Loyal Member
Senior Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 4730

« Reply #3 on: July 12, 2006, 05:01:34 AM »

What Is A Nation?
Radio/Audio; Posted on: 2006-07-11 20:04:51

In this radio broadcast, John Young puts forth the reasoning behind one of the most fundamental tenets of nationalism: the idea that the borders of sovereign states should coincide with ethnic populations. In other words, the fundamental basis for a nation. The audio version of this show can be found here.

by John Young
National Vanguard Boston

Since we live in the "One Nation" as described in the Pledge of Allegiance and the "Nation" described by Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address, as well as the "Nation" envisioned by John Jay and the other founders, it seems appropriate to first explore just exactly how a "Nation" is defined, and then take a look at the implications of that definition in a scientific sense.

Back in 1913, before political correctness ran amuck, and Americans were defining words the same way they defined them during the nation's founding, Webster's Dictionary defined a nation as follows:

"Na'tion (?), n. [F. nation, L. natio nation, race, orig., a being born, fr. natus, p.p. of nasci, to be born, for gnatus, gnaci, from the same root as E. kin. ?44. See Kin kindred, and cf. Cognate, Natal, Native.]

1. (Ethnol.) A part, or division, of the people of the earth, distinguished from the rest by common descent, language, or institutions; a race; a stock."

That seems pretty clear. That's why the Indian Tribes in North America are each referred to as their own "nations", like in the famous song about the Cherokee Nation. The members of the Cherokee Nation are a homogenous people united by ties of blood and having a common language and culture.

At the time of the founding of the United States, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers, John Jay, wrote the following in Federalist No. 2 (emphasis added):

"With equal pleasure I have often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people - a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs ..."

What John Jay is describing is a nation. And that is exactly what America was for the greater part of its history. To understand that John Jay's views were quite mainstream compared with the other founders of our great nation, consider that the first immigration law passed by the First Congress and signed into law by George Washington in 1790 limited citizenship to "free white persons" only.

The U.S. Supreme Court interpreted that law in 1922 stating that the intention of our immigration laws, even up until that time was to "...confer the privilege of citizenship upon that class of persons whom the (founding) fathers knew as white, and to deny it to all who could not be so classified." The Court went on to define white people as being people "... of what is popularly known as the Caucasoid race..."(1)

In that decision, it is clear that the founding fathers of the United States explicitly intended to limit citizenship in the United States, by race. And specifically to the White race.

Now that the dirty "r" word has been written - race - it is time to address the tremendous amount of sheer idiocy masquerading as science that declares race to be a mere "social construct." Such a declaration, were it not for the solemn pronouncements of learned men of academia, would appear to anyone with eyes to be insane. Anyone with eyes can tell the difference between a Swede and a Nigerian at a glance, and without reference to any manuals.

Nevertheless, numerous academics such as Dr. Noel Ignatiev, the current occupant of the prestigious W.E.B. DuBois chair at Harvard University, persist in not only declaring race to be an illusory social construct, but to extrapolate that logic into advocacy of the destruction of the White race in particular. One would expect the occupant of prestigious academic chair named for the first President of the N.A.A.C.P. to be a Negro, but that expectation is incorrect. Dr. Ignatiev is, in fact, an Eastern European Jew. Since Jews in America, for purposes of Affirmative Action and similar programs are classified as White, it is at first blush rather perplexing why Dr. Ignatiev would wish to abolish himself. But, for now, a quotation from his "What we Believe" statement should suffice:

"The White race is a historically constructed social formation. ... the key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race."(2)

Dr. Ignatiev is, of course, not the only academic making such extraordinary claims; but his perspective is illustrative of a clear attempt to deny the facts of reality in order to specifically target White people as a means of achieving some sort of social agenda. Other examples include Dr. Joseph Graves, Jr. in his book "The Emperor's New Clothes", not to mention Dr. Stephen J. Gould in his "The Mismeasure of Man."

Like Dr. Ignatiev, Dr. Graves states his motivations outright:

"How can we design programs that progressively eliminate the detriments caused by the history of racist injustice...? ... A crucial part of the battle against the legacies of the social construction of race is to get across the messages that biological races do not exist. Dictionaries and encyclopedias need to be revised."(3)

It should be clear that the motivation of these cosmopolitan academic elites has nothing to do with proper zoological classification of members of the human species. Rather, a clear social, rather than scientific, agenda is at work here. As Dr. Ignatiev points out, he wants to abolish the White race in order to "solve the social problems of our age." Presumably, the "social problems of our age" which Dr. Ignatiev intends to solve do not involve minor inventions of the White race such as penicillin, vaccinations, anesthesia, flight, space travel, or semiconductors. What a plague we White people are - at least to the likes of Dr. Ignatiev.

In the current climate of what is colloquially called "Political Correctness", but what should more honestly be called censorship , a lot of academics who don't necessarily share Dr. Igantiev's or Dr. Graves' perspective are nevertheless constrained to pretend that they do. As Professor J. Phillippe Rushton reported in his 1998 paper "The New Enemies of Evolutionary Science":

"Today, many campus radicals from the 1960's are the tenured radicals of the 1990's. They have become the chairs of departments, the deans, and the chancellors of the universities: senior political administrators in Congress and Houses of Parliament, and even the presidents and prime mimisters of countries. The 1960's mentality of peace, love, and above all, equality, now constitutes the intellectual dogma of the Western academic world. There are laws to prohibit platforms for those denounced as 'fascists' and others deemed to be not politically correct. ... In his book, 'Kindly Inquisitors', Jonathan Rauch showed that even in the U.S. with the First Amendment in place, many colleges and universities have set up 'anti-harassment' rules prohibiting - and establishing punishments for -'speech or other expression' that is intended to 'insult or stigmatize an individual or a small number of individuals in the basis of their sex, race, color, handicap, religion, sexual orientation or national and ethnic origin.' (This is quoted from Stanford's policy, and is more or less typical.) ...Irrespective of religious background, or political affiliation, virtually all American intellectuals adhere to what has been called 'one-party science.' For example, only politically correct hypotheses centering on cultural disadvantage are postulated to explain the differential representation of minorities in science. Analyses of aptitude test scores and behavioral genetics are taboo. Cheap moralizing is so fierce that most people respect the taboo. This intellectual cowardice only encourages viscious attacks by activist groups on those who are engaged in legitimate scientific research showing that there is a genetic basis underlying individual and group differences."(4)

Professor Glayde Whitney also points out:

"The biological reality of race is a fascinating topic from a scientific point of view. For over half a century there has been a tremendous amount of propaganda aimed at making this a taboo topic. The race-deniers have been very successful in scaring off scientists. Even though most of what they spout is nonsense, the vast majority of serious scientists have learned their lesson well. For a youngster it would be career suicide to deal with race from a scientific perspective."(5)

In spite of the current environment where political doctrine is used to crush scientific research that yields results that aren't Politically Correct, more and more scientists are standing up to be counted, and saying that race is not only a biological fact of reality, but also that skin color is the least of the differences between the races.

The differences between races are so substantial that an admixture of as little as 5% Negro is detectable in an ostensibly White person through a simple genetic test available through DNA Print Genomics for only $158.(6) This simple fact of reality flies in the face of the absurd pronouncements of the politically correct that race is only a "social construct." How can a test differentiate such low levels of admixture if race doesn't even exist? The answer of course is that race does, in fact, exist.

Dr. George Gill, Professor of Biological Anthropology at the University of Wyoming states the matter plainly:

"I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me .... The idea that race is 'only skin deep' is simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm."(7)

Professor Rushton expands on this:

"Race is a valid taxonomic construct because it allows us to make predictions about people's behavior, especially at the group level. ... Sometimes it is claimed by those that argue that race is just a social construct that the human genome project shows that because people share 99% of their 'genes' in common, that there are no races. This is silly. Human genes are 98% similar to chimpanzee genes, Yet noone thinks that chimpanzees have the same intelligence, brain size, or social behavior patterns as human beings; they look and behave very differently. ... The scientific evidence shows that the politically correct mantra 'race is only skin deep' is a case of deep denial."(8)

Professor Gill goes on to note the political dimension of the problem as opposed to the science:

"Consequently, at the beginning of the 21st century, even as a majority of biological anthropologists favor the reality of the race perspective, not one introductory textbook of physical anthropology even presents that perspective as a possibility. In a case as flagrant as this, we are not dealing with science but rather with blatant, politically motivated censorship."(9)

The important things that should become clear from the foregoing are that race really does exist as a biological reality - meaning that races are, in fact,different in ways that are more than skin deep; that the concept of a nation is inextricably bound with the concept of race; and that America was clearly intended from its inception to be a homogenously White nation.

One suspects that the great minds who created the greatest nation on Earth must have had good reasons for wanting a homogenously White nation. With the benefit of modern science, it is now possible to ascertain that homogenous racial groupings create significant advantages that multi-racial groupings don't possess.

The first of these advantages is altruism.. Many older Americans still remember the days before Welfare Statism was implemented on a wide scale in the 1960's. What they remember is an era when anyone who needed a helping hand would get it through the local church, or even just a kindly neighbor.

But what drove that? Why do Americans now have a welfare state and high taxes instead? As America has become more and more racially heterogenous, people have become less altruistic. The tie is genetic. Professor Rushton points out:

"Charitable donations are typically made in greater quantities within ethnic groups than between them and social psychological studies have documented that people are more likely to help members of their own race or country than members of other races or foreigners. The reason people give preferential treatment to genetically similar others is both simple and profound: they thereby replicate their genes more effectively."(10)

So, in essence, the welfare state is necessitated by the fact that a White midwestern farmer isn't very likely to voluntarily donate funds for helping a Black inner-city child. Or vice versa.

America's founding fathers understood that, in order to maintain a nation where people were free to keep their own income rather than having it seized by government for purposes of redistribution, a racially homogenous White nation was necessary. In other words, racial homogeneity is a prerequisite of freedom.

But there are other benefits to the racial homogeneity intended by the founding fathers. For example, racial homogeneity promotes smoother cooperation, as Professor Kevin MacDonald writes:

"Genetic similarity theory extends beyond kin recognition by proposing mechanisms that assess phenotypic similarity as a marker for genetic similarity. These proposed mechanisms would then promote positive attitudes, greater cooperation, and a lower threshold for altruism for similar others. There is indeed considerable evidence, summarized in Rushton (1989) and Segal (1999), that phenotypic and genetic similarity are important factors in human assortment, helping behavior, and liking others."(11)

Of course, a casual examination of the number of local, State and Federal agencies dedicated to smoothing out the wrinkles between races, along with the huge number of private companies with staff dedicated to interracial issues should be enough to point out that racial diversity is actually an impediment to cooperation, rather than a lubricant.

One reason for this is the well-documented existence of ethnic nepotism. Professor Tatu Vanhanen states:

"Our behavioral predisposition to ethnic nepotism evolved in the struggle for existence because it was rational and useful. It is reasonable to assume that ethnic nepotism is equally shared by all human populations. Consequently all human populations and ethnic groups have an approximately equal tendency to resort to ethnic nepotism in interest conflicts. It explains the otherwise strange fact that ethnic interest conflicts appear in so many countries where people belong to clearly different ethnic groups, and that ethnic interest conflicts have emerged within all cultural regions and at all levels of socioeconomic development." (12)

So, in essence, this is a biological characteristic of all humans, and so the racial problems that all of the alphabet soup government agencies are trying to address cannot be solved in that fashion. The best solution to the problems of ethnic nepotism is racial separation. Professor Vanhanen continues:

"Because every ethnic group wants to survive and at least manage its own affairs, if it is not capable of subjugating other groups, it would be advisable to give them sufficient autonomy, and leave them room to pursue their interests in national politics on the basis of equality. If ethnic groups occupy separate territories, it might be useful to establish federal structure even in relatively small countries."(13)

So, the matter comes full-circle: the wisdom of America's founding fathers. While they did not have the science at their disposal that their descendants have today, they were keen observers of human nature. They understood what needs to be re-learned: That our race is our nation, that racial differences are very real, and that multi-racial states are recipes for ethnic conflict as soon as resource competition rears its ugly head.

The founding fathers understood that racial separation was the only way to guarantee freedom from ethnic conflict, and secure a free country without need of a welfare state and ruinous taxation. Will White Americans reclaim the wisdom of their founders?


1. Ozawa v. United States 43 S. Ct. 65, decided Nov 13, 1922. In this case a Japanese person was denied the right to become a United States citizen because he was not a member of the White race.

2. Taken from Dr. Ignatiev's website at Confirmation that this information wasn't taken out of context can be gained by reading the interview with Dr. Ignatiev in the March 1997 issue of Z Magazine.

3. Graves, Joseph, "The Emperor's New Clothes", 2001 pp196-200

4. Rushton, Phillippe J., Liberty, March, 1998, Vol. II, No. 4, pp. 31-35

5. Whitney, Glayde, Mankind Quarterly, Spring 1999, Volume XXXIX, No. 3


7. Gill, George W., Does Race Exist? http://Http://, 2000

8. Rushton, Phillippe J., Is Race a Valid Taxonomic Construct? The Occidental Quarterly Vol2 No 1 Spring, 2002

9. Gill, George W., Does Race Exist? http://Http://, 2000

10. Rushton, Phillippe J., Evolution, Altruism and Genetic Similarity Theory. See also Rushton's "Race, Evolution and Behavior", Chapter 4

11. Macdonald, Kevin, "The Numbers Game: Ethnic Conflict in the Contemporary World"

12. Vanhanen, Tatu, "Ethnic Conflicts Explained by Ethnic Nepotism", 1999

13. Vanhanen, Tatu, "Ethnic Conflicts Explained by Ethnic Nepotism", 1999

Source: National Vanguard Boston ? Printed from National Vanguard
( )
Report to moderator   Logged
Norman Lowell
Global Moderator
Senior Member
Online Online

Posts: 14148

« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2006, 07:21:40 AM »

Two articles that compliment each other.
Physical Anthropology as against worthless Social Anthropology -
and we have scores of the latter in Malta!
Dr. Ignatiev is, in fact, an Eastern European Jew. Since Jews in America, for purposes of Affirmative Action and similar programs are classified as White, it is at first blush rather perplexing why Dr. Ignatiev would wish to abolish himself. But, for now, a quotation from his "What we Believe" statement should suffice:

"The White race is a historically constructed social formation. ... the key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race."(2)

The enemy
with their two thousand year old fixation:
the destruction of the White Race.

Behind planetary miscegenation.
Them! The Hidden Enemy.

« Last Edit: July 12, 2006, 12:01:54 PM by etoile noir » Report to moderator   Logged
Boycott The Times and The Sunday Times.
Do not post there, do not buy a copy of either, do not advertise.
Hurt Them in the only way they understand.

 Imperium 1107

Ulfur Engil
Offline Offline

Posts: 269

« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2006, 02:50:31 PM »

I stand by what I see as the fundamental truth:
Race IS Nation.
Report to moderator   Logged
\'Since the rule of Jesuitism, no Nordic man can be consciously Germanic and simultaneously a follower of Loyola.\' -Alfred Rosenberg
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
SMF 2.0.12 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
TinyPortal © 2005-2012

VivaMalta - The Free Speech Forum, Race * Nation * State * - Theme by Mustang Forums