Why should it take 15 months to reach the moon?

In message , W K
writes

"Jerry Abbott" wrote in message
...

No, I'm a White man who has realized that he belongs to a beleaguered
people, plagued on the one hand by natural predators, hampered in their
self-defense by denial. The neanderthals died out 30,000 years ago
because
they did not reproduce their kind in sufficient numbers or defend
themselves
with sufficient vigor.

They were rather too adapted to the very harsh conditions of Europe in the
ice ages.
They were replaced by the superior humans from Africa.

That should annoy our racist friend but I'm not sure it's true. For one
thing we all came out of Africa - or we didn't, depending on who you
believe - and for another it's not certain they were replaced, AFAIK.
--
"Forty millions of miles it was from us, more than forty millions of miles of
void"
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

How do you "target" the subject for a particular skin color? What
would
be
the difference in content if it was intended for folk of African or
Asian
descent?

Note a post of Jerry's elsewhere in "20 years ago..."
Its quite obvious where he stands on such issues.

The very same post made me ask him that question in the first place.
Perhaps
I'm getting something wrong out of this, seeing English isn't my first
language, but if not then it's a shame such an intelligent person can
think
that way...

The real shame is that someone intelligent can be bullied or suborned from
expressing what his mind tells him is true. In my case, I have seen that
the popular idea of racial equality is false, that the explanations of the
environmental determinists are excuses, that the self-exculpatory rhetoric
of non-White leaders are lies. I have also seen that liberals employ a
double-standard which, on the one hand, applauds racially-oriented
organization by non-Whites, but condemns them when practiced by Whites.
From the double standard, I conclude that part of my race has been induced
to act foolishly, however intelligent they might be, and that the source of
this inducement is probably an especially manipulative group of non-Whites
(or anyway non-Indo-Europeans) who possess propaganda means of great
bandwidth. Jews, in a word.

I would urge those who like to think of themselves as scientists, who regard
themselves as capable of examining a hypothesis despite any political
hazards that attach to the testing, to treat my ideas as another hypothesis,
not to be dismissed with empty rhetoric, but to be given the same standing
as any other hypothesis is given. Let us separate the scientists from the
cowards, first, and then I'll address myself to the former.

Jerry Abbott

How do you "target" the subject for a particular skin color? What
would
be
the difference in content if it was intended for folk of African or
Asian
descent?

Note a post of Jerry's elsewhere in "20 years ago..."
Its quite obvious where he stands on such issues.

The very same post made me ask him that question in the first place.
Perhaps
I'm getting something wrong out of this, seeing English isn't my first
language, but if not then it's a shame such an intelligent person can
think
that way...

The real shame is that someone intelligent can be bullied or suborned from
expressing what his mind tells him is true. In my case, I have seen that
the popular idea of racial equality is false, that the explanations of the
environmental determinists are excuses, that the self-exculpatory rhetoric
of non-White leaders are lies. I have also seen that liberals employ a
double-standard which, on the one hand, applauds racially-oriented
organization by non-Whites, but condemns them when practiced by Whites.
From the double standard, I conclude that part of my race has been induced
to act foolishly, however intelligent they might be, and that the source of
this inducement is probably an especially manipulative group of non-Whites
(or anyway non-Indo-Europeans) who possess propaganda means of great
bandwidth. Jews, in a word.

I would urge those who like to think of themselves as scientists, who regard
themselves as capable of examining a hypothesis despite any political
hazards that attach to the testing, to treat my ideas as another hypothesis,
not to be dismissed with empty rhetoric, but to be given the same standing
as any other hypothesis is given. Let us separate the scientists from the
cowards, first, and then I'll address myself to the former.

Jerry Abbott

The science involved doesn't depend on the race of who is learning it.
But
the proportion of those in a race who have the ability to learn varies
with
the race in question. Racism isn't a philosophy based on discrimination
by
skin color. It is a philosophy by which one's racial kinfolk are valued
more highly than foreigners: people who are less related. If you have
children and love them more than you love the children of a stranger,
then
you are familiar with the feeling a racist has for his own race.

so.... what about children of a stranger of your own race? where
would this sliding scale end? your family alone?


The comparison of racial feeling with family feeling was intended to give
Sally some idea of the racial feeling. You weren't to take it further than
that. However, a stranger of my own race may be compared to a brother I
have never met.

There is a sliding to the scale, but it isn't grounded in a degree of
acquaintance. It is based on the degree of similarity. The Arabs have a
good saying, me against my brother, me and my brother against the tribe, me,
my brother and the tribe against the world... or whatever.


National Socialism adds an absolute criterion to the relativism of racial
preference: it looks on all the races with a cosmic perspective, as
though
it were through God's eyes, and asks itself which people(s) are most able
to
achieve higher culture, which people(s) are most likely to evolve toward
higher states of consciousness, which people(s) are most able to look
above
the struggle in which all races and species must perforce engage or die,
in
order to see the glories that might come to Earth if the right things are
done?

absolute? criterion? cosmic perspective? what the hell are you
talking about?


Look at the way matter has been organizing itself by means of its natural
forces and statistical habits during the 14 billion years since it began.
What pattern do you see? Was there any purely numerical necessity for three
spatial dimensions and one of time? But that is the dimensional structure
required for planetary orbits to be stable under a central force: more
spatial dimensions would be too many. And it is the structure required for
biological organisms: fewer would make respiration, circulation, and
digestion impossible without cutting the organism that such systems would
serve into sections.

The pattern that runs through the history of the universe, though in some
places more than in others, is the drive toward organizing matter, first,
into potential habitations for life, and then, within the potential
habitats, into living things. But the pattern doesn't end the matter
continues to grow in complexity--but not of haphazard complexity. There's a
pattern in the growth, too, at first toward survivability, and then toward
higher states of consciousness, whose first order of business is to ensure
survival. But once survival is assured, consciousness becomes the
universe's means of knowing itself. You, and that asteroid over there, are
both parts of the same existential entity: you are a brain cell; it is a
fingernail.

But though you are both parts of the same whole, your value is greater than
that of the asteroid. Why? Because you are more conscious than it is. And
that is the measure of value, in God's eyes. Though you are both united in
the universe, you are high and it is low. In this example, the contrast is
great. But even in cases where the contrast is not as great, it can usually
be judged what is higher and what is lower. God's eye has a great deal of
moral resolving power. And God's mind, like yours, never intentionally
sacrifices greater values to lesser ones; it rather sensibly does the
opposite. When Romeo's question must have an answer, and as a result a
price must be paid, then the inferior must give way to the superior, or
God's will is not done.

I'm not deistically religious. The references to God are for illustration.


i've got an idea. next roll of toilet paper you finish, take the tube
and look thru it. tell me what you see. that'd be your "gods" eye
view.
glories?


That is nothing but vulgar scatology, an effortless way of avoiding an idea
that makes you uncomfortable.


i'm reminded that the nazis thought nuclear physics was jewish science
and their "gods eye view" cost them the war. thankfully, or at least
i'd thought, their baloney had gone the way of the dodo. forget the
marches in Skokie, i'd never bump into that schissen in an astronomy
newsgroup. silly naive me.


Some Nazis might have thought that way. Overly influenced by Newtonian
classicism, hidebound with old ideas as stubborn old codgers often are, and
no longer willing to speculate that maybe somebody else has a truer way of
looking at the situation. Of course, it's not just Nazis who can be
susceptible to the failing. And it doesn't have to concern purely
scientific ideas, either.


keep spouting this crap. its your right, especially with this being
usenet.


More scatology. Again meaningless political correctness.


me? i want to throw up.


You'll lose the cookie the Jews will give you, if you make a habit of
throwing up.


say, can you rationalize NAMBLA for me too? that's another one that i
have a hard time with....


The National Socialists take a dim view of sexual perversion. I thought you
would know that.


Jerry Abbott

The science involved doesn't depend on the race of who is learning it.
But
the proportion of those in a race who have the ability to learn varies
with
the race in question. Racism isn't a philosophy based on discrimination
by
skin color. It is a philosophy by which one's racial kinfolk are valued
more highly than foreigners: people who are less related. If you have
children and love them more than you love the children of a stranger,
then
you are familiar with the feeling a racist has for his own race.

so.... what about children of a stranger of your own race? where
would this sliding scale end? your family alone?


The comparison of racial feeling with family feeling was intended to give
Sally some idea of the racial feeling. You weren't to take it further than
that. However, a stranger of my own race may be compared to a brother I
have never met.

There is a sliding to the scale, but it isn't grounded in a degree of
acquaintance. It is based on the degree of similarity. The Arabs have a
good saying, me against my brother, me and my brother against the tribe, me,
my brother and the tribe against the world... or whatever.


National Socialism adds an absolute criterion to the relativism of racial
preference: it looks on all the races with a cosmic perspective, as
though
it were through God's eyes, and asks itself which people(s) are most able
to
achieve higher culture, which people(s) are most likely to evolve toward
higher states of consciousness, which people(s) are most able to look
above
the struggle in which all races and species must perforce engage or die,
in
order to see the glories that might come to Earth if the right things are
done?

absolute? criterion? cosmic perspective? what the hell are you
talking about?


Look at the way matter has been organizing itself by means of its natural
forces and statistical habits during the 14 billion years since it began.
What pattern do you see? Was there any purely numerical necessity for three
spatial dimensions and one of time? But that is the dimensional structure
required for planetary orbits to be stable under a central force: more
spatial dimensions would be too many. And it is the structure required for
biological organisms: fewer would make respiration, circulation, and
digestion impossible without cutting the organism that such systems would
serve into sections.

The pattern that runs through the history of the universe, though in some
places more than in others, is the drive toward organizing matter, first,
into potential habitations for life, and then, within the potential
habitats, into living things. But the pattern doesn't end the matter
continues to grow in complexity--but not of haphazard complexity. There's a
pattern in the growth, too, at first toward survivability, and then toward
higher states of consciousness, whose first order of business is to ensure
survival. But once survival is assured, consciousness becomes the
universe's means of knowing itself. You, and that asteroid over there, are
both parts of the same existential entity: you are a brain cell; it is a
fingernail.

But though you are both parts of the same whole, your value is greater than
that of the asteroid. Why? Because you are more conscious than it is. And
that is the measure of value, in God's eyes. Though you are both united in
the universe, you are high and it is low. In this example, the contrast is
great. But even in cases where the contrast is not as great, it can usually
be judged what is higher and what is lower. God's eye has a great deal of
moral resolving power. And God's mind, like yours, never intentionally
sacrifices greater values to lesser ones; it rather sensibly does the
opposite. When Romeo's question must have an answer, and as a result a
price must be paid, then the inferior must give way to the superior, or
God's will is not done.

I'm not deistically religious. The references to God are for illustration.


i've got an idea. next roll of toilet paper you finish, take the tube
and look thru it. tell me what you see. that'd be your "gods" eye
view.
glories?


That is nothing but vulgar scatology, an effortless way of avoiding an idea
that makes you uncomfortable.


i'm reminded that the nazis thought nuclear physics was jewish science
and their "gods eye view" cost them the war. thankfully, or at least
i'd thought, their baloney had gone the way of the dodo. forget the
marches in Skokie, i'd never bump into that schissen in an astronomy
newsgroup. silly naive me.


Some Nazis might have thought that way. Overly influenced by Newtonian
classicism, hidebound with old ideas as stubborn old codgers often are, and
no longer willing to speculate that maybe somebody else has a truer way of
looking at the situation. Of course, it's not just Nazis who can be
susceptible to the failing. And it doesn't have to concern purely
scientific ideas, either.


keep spouting this crap. its your right, especially with this being
usenet.


More scatology. Again meaningless political correctness.


me? i want to throw up.


You'll lose the cookie the Jews will give you, if you make a habit of
throwing up.


say, can you rationalize NAMBLA for me too? that's another one that i
have a hard time with....


The National Socialists take a dim view of sexual perversion. I thought you
would know that.


Jerry Abbott

WOW! what are you? a neanderthal?

No, I'm a White man who has realized that he belongs to a beleaguered
people, plagued on the one hand by natural predators, hampered in their
self-defense by denial. The neanderthals died out 30,000 years ago
because
they did not reproduce their kind in sufficient numbers or defend
themselves
with sufficient vigor.

They were rather too adapted to the very harsh conditions of Europe in the
ice ages.
They were replaced by the superior humans from Africa.


My own opinion, gathered from anthropological and archaeological evidence,
is that H. erectus left Africa about 1.5 million years ago and dispersed
around Eurasia. Natural selection pressure, operating on separated erectus
tribes with differing environmental parameters, caused racial variation to
emerge.

All later non-African human evolution is mostly the result of competition
between the descendants of that early diaspora. The descendants include
both Neanderthal and the Cro-Magnon that eventually prevailed. Cro-Magnon,
by the way, was the first White race, whose own descendants include the
Aryans and the early non-Aryan Europeans.

Not to put too fine a point on it, there were no Black Cro-Magnons. The
Negro ancestral line does not include Cro-Magnon. Africans began crossing
the erectus-sapiens threshold about 30,000 years ago, about 750 ky after it
occurred in Europe, and about 200 kya after it occurred in central and SE
Asia. It is debatable whether all of the African groups are sapiens even
now, and the same may be said regarding the aborigines of Indonesia and
Australia.

Among modern hominids, then, there remains both high and low. It is all
very easy to prattle the doctrines of equality. It makes you sound "fair."
You'd sound just as fair, and just as wrong, if you equated a cougar and a
housecat for characteristics on which they were manifestly, observably, and
provably different.

Jerry Abbott

WOW! what are you? a neanderthal?

No, I'm a White man who has realized that he belongs to a beleaguered
people, plagued on the one hand by natural predators, hampered in their
self-defense by denial. The neanderthals died out 30,000 years ago
because
they did not reproduce their kind in sufficient numbers or defend
themselves
with sufficient vigor.

They were rather too adapted to the very harsh conditions of Europe in the
ice ages.
They were replaced by the superior humans from Africa.


My own opinion, gathered from anthropological and archaeological evidence,
is that H. erectus left Africa about 1.5 million years ago and dispersed
around Eurasia. Natural selection pressure, operating on separated erectus
tribes with differing environmental parameters, caused racial variation to
emerge.

All later non-African human evolution is mostly the result of competition
between the descendants of that early diaspora. The descendants include
both Neanderthal and the Cro-Magnon that eventually prevailed. Cro-Magnon,
by the way, was the first White race, whose own descendants include the
Aryans and the early non-Aryan Europeans.

Not to put too fine a point on it, there were no Black Cro-Magnons. The
Negro ancestral line does not include Cro-Magnon. Africans began crossing
the erectus-sapiens threshold about 30,000 years ago, about 750 ky after it
occurred in Europe, and about 200 kya after it occurred in central and SE
Asia. It is debatable whether all of the African groups are sapiens even
now, and the same may be said regarding the aborigines of Indonesia and
Australia.

Among modern hominids, then, there remains both high and low. It is all
very easy to prattle the doctrines of equality. It makes you sound "fair."
You'd sound just as fair, and just as wrong, if you equated a cougar and a
housecat for characteristics on which they were manifestly, observably, and
provably different.

Jerry Abbott

There is ONLY ONE race on Earth ... The Human Race.


--
"In this universe the night was falling,the shadows were lengthening
towards an east that would not know another dawn.
But elsewhere the stars were still young and the light of morning
lingered: and along the path he once had followed, man would one day go
again."

Arthur C. Clarke, The City & The Stars

SIAR
www.starlords.org
Freelance Writers Shop
http://www.freelancewrittersshop.netfirms.com
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Ad World
http://adworld.netfirms.com



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/23/03

There is ONLY ONE race on Earth ... The Human Race.


--
"In this universe the night was falling,the shadows were lengthening
towards an east that would not know another dawn.
But elsewhere the stars were still young and the light of morning
lingered: and along the path he once had followed, man would one day go
again."

Arthur C. Clarke, The City & The Stars

SIAR
www.starlords.org
Freelance Writers Shop
http://www.freelancewrittersshop.netfirms.com
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Ad World
http://adworld.netfirms.com



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/23/03

"Starlord" wrote:
There is ONLY ONE race on Earth ... The Human Race.

I've heard that before. It's a lie, a liberal slogan, which they chant
because it makes them feel good.

The Earth has been home to several species of hominids for the past five
million years. Most of them have become extinct. At least one, and
possibly more than one, remains.

Whether or not all extant hominids belong to the same species, they are
certainly different enough for several categories of subspecies, or races.
There have been attempts, e.g. by Templeton, to efface the genetic racial
variation by including among the sampled populations racially mixed groups
of recent generation. By this means, they exaggerate the within-group
variation and minimize the between-group variation.

But the existence of mongrels, in humans as in horses, only proves that the
races had to exist separately before they could mix.

Beyond that, I think that my essay to Dr. Wolpoff can stand on its own. If
you haven't yet bothered to read it, please do.

http://sdebug.org/posts/wolpoff.html

Jerry Abbott