Intelligent children spring from yourself and who you choose to sleep with. Hooked on Phonyics, computers and silly learning games, do not make silk out of a sow's ear, nor teach penguins how to fly. Random copulation produces little other than the herd one finds grazing in any super-market.

While browsing though Scott's excellent (down the memory hole) book, The History of Torture, publ. 1940, Great Britain, I came upon a passage which might be of interest to those goyim who think 'kosher' means 99.44 percent 'pure'. Wanna have fun? Phone up your local chapters of  'animal rights' groups and see how fearfully they stay clear of this issue. Hypocritical bastards -- all of them!

I now quote, quote:

Perhaps the most widespread of all forms of torture is in connexion with the manner in which animals and birds, intended for food, are killed. It is true that in the past few decades great improvements have been made in the slaughtering of cattle and all large animals. In England, the passing of the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933, has done much to eliminate needless cruelty, making "stunning" of cattle compulsory. (Kosher slaughter was outlawed by Hitler's government in 1934 and, more than likely, reintroduced by their ZOG government. ed.)

The Jewish method of slaughtering animals of all kinds is still practised in England and in America (even in 1999! ed.), involving terrible suffering in the "bleeding to death" which form part of the kosher rite. To understand the reason for the Jewish method of slaughtering (Shechita) we must hark back to the days when animal sacrifices were offered to Yahweh, the god of Israel. The blood of the sacrificial offering was of vast importance. Being the seat of the life or soul of the animal, it was of far more importance than the flesh. Whether or not the flesh was eaten by Yahweh's subjects and worshippers, the blood belonged to God Himself. It must not be drunk; it must not be consumed with the flesh. It was ordained by God Himself that blood is a means of atonement: in this lies the reason for its taboo as an article of food. The commands given and repeated again and again in the Pentateuch arc clear and implicit. Thus: "And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; ye shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust."
(Leviticus vi. 26-7; xvii. 14)

To ensure that the blood of the animal is drained from the body as thoroughly as possible the Jews elaborated their specific method of slaughtering, respecting which Dr. Heiss, Abattoir Director of Straubing, Bavaria, says, " We consider the Shechita one of the most barbarous methods of slaughter and one which it is our duty to contend against with every means in our power." (quoted by  Dr. F.H. Rowley, Massachusetts S.P.C.A)  What then is the Shechita, or the method of slaughtering all animals destined to become kosher? Dr. Rowley, in his excellent pamphlet, Slaughter-House Reform, described the ritual thus:

"First the animal is thrown to the floor (usually stone or concrete) by having its feet jerked out from under it (the fall has not infrequently broken its horns, or otherwise injured it); then its body is partly hoisted by a chain fastened about a hind ankle, then an appliance is gripped about its muzzle and its head is twisted over until its face is flat against the floor and its neck upturned; then the long knife cuts deep across the throat, and for a space, often running into several minutes, it kicks and plunges in its wild attempts to rise, threshing about the bloody and slimy floor in its dying agony -- a sight as pitiable and heartrending as one can well endure. That's the Jewish method, described without exaggeration, as I have seen it more than a score of times."

End of quoted passage. I have a video of this procedure depicting two jews who were obviously ecstatic over the pain they were inflicting. Eric claims that there exists a belief that the resultant pain enhances the value of the meat so obtained. As Baker points out in his book Race, beliefs such as this are alien to what we know as civilization, as are all mutilations of the body.

John (Jean) Calvin's name has appeared in many spellings depending upon which language was being used at the time: Caluin, Calvinus, Calvus ,Caulvin, Cauuin, Cauvin, Chauve, Chauvin and even an anagram appeared in the Latin, Alcuinus. The question is "Was he a jew?"

It is only recently that "jew" became to be used as a racial category (a tri-racial hybrid). This is a reason why you'll never know about most of those in the past, since it usually referred to a religion -- as it was in Calvin's time, 1520. Calvin was not a jew by religion and that is why you'll never find him labeled as such regardless of his blood line which can only be speculated upon. This religion/biological thing is the cause of all the problem. If we are to stand upon blood, then all religious titles, descriptions, and categorizations, should be ignored and no time wasted upon worrying about whether some herd of cattle resides on Smith's or Cole's farm, or whether chickens believe in the god of the fox.

Let's look at it from another angle: Apparently your pen pal accepts Calvinism because he agrees with the doctrine and also has a belief that Calvin was not a biological jew. Repeating: You will never know. If Jesus was a jew by race, then Christianity, and all of its variations including Calvinism, could be trashed by those who feel a jew's hand corrupts everything. But, as the Mexicans say, "Even a jew sometimes tells the truth."

Your correspondent, like so many others, is searching for a doctrine which will accomplish what he feels needs to be done -- a rallying point, so to speak. Revisionism was also supposed to be that magic formula but is has shown itself to be a dismal failure except to put money into the pockets of the promoters and lull the weak-minded supporters into a feeling that they "are doing something". The cart is before the horse. Once there exists a racial community, then an evolving religion will come into being.

We should be concentrating on forming a racial community, not searching for abstract miracles or bickering about things long gone. If Calvin had never been born, what would it have to do with that which is happening all around us today?

On the personal level, I took objection to your correspondent's implied opinion of women when he made the remark, "My sex partner..." This not only denigrates the physical act but is profane relative to what should exist between men and women. This is low-life and I am afraid that nothing of value will ever come out of the efforts of such a man. Within a short span of time, I'll wager, he'll have a new partner in fornication -- hardly a precursor to the establishment of that basic unit of community, the family. We need a racial community, not a dysfunctional agglomeration of "leaders" with diseased egos. There is no cooperation since all will neither take advice from, nor act in unison, with the others. Time is wasted in this arena and our mutual enemies laugh at the circus they see. What they see happening is little other than exercises in arrogant ignorance and they whole-heartedly endorse it.

Best regards, Robert

The Jüdische Statistik of 1905 states that the United States, at that time, had the second largest Jewish population in the world -- about 2,000,000. Russia was number 1 with nearly 6 million. Considering a normal population growth plus the swarms who landed here as "survivors" (during WW II, every returning U.S. troop transport came back loaded with jews) together with the hordes who are now pouring out of Russia ( and bringing with them yet another variety of incurable TB), one necessarily finds laughable Dr. William Pierce's statement that there are "only 6,000,000 Jews" here in America. Someone had better send him some new batteries for his calculator. Anyway, here in year 54 of the official Jewish Era, one can safely state that America now harbors the world's largest population of Jews -- and that explains a lot of things.