We have all been trained to comply and go with the flow. It keeps us out of most trouble and in school, being a non-thinkig parrot is the best path to good grades. So indoctrinated are we that we habitually gauge intelligence by the result of some paper test and/or some person's ability to rattle of a batch of Greek poems. We live in an abstract construct where reasoning is a rare commodity.

Lyle used to go fishing in Call's quarry often. I told him that I had surveyed that entire body of water using SCUBA gear and had never observed even one fish. Kyle believed in spontaneous creation and the theory of evolution. If he offered food (bait) often enough it would create an environment which would attract fish. He never explained where those fish were supposed to come from. So it is with the THEORY of evolution which is more porous than Bonnie and Clyde's Ford on the day of their demise. People accept this evolution malarkey as fact and think no further.

Birds, with their warm blood, light bones, keen eyesight, and the enviable ability to fly, EVOLVED from cold blooded, heavy boned, near sighted reptiles which could not fly. Ah yes, they say. Birds have scales on their feet and reptiles also have scales. Therefore they are "related". If this is 'fact' then please explain the logical sequence of events which would cause feathers to grow, bones to get less dense, blood to be heated by internal combustion, and all of those other necessary items necessary for flight. To believe that an eagle is a descendent of of some desert lizard is a concept which simply boggles my small mind.

As a child, I asked my very wise grandfather about a story which described the fate of a man who accidentally fell into the Grand Canyon. "Suppose he were a devout christian, " I submitted, "how hard would he have to pray in order for God to protect him from splattering upon the rocks below?" What people call miracles, and therefore God's handiwork, are nothing more than chance events. A plane crashes killing all but one. The 'survivor' mutters that it was a 'miracle' that God saved him. If God could save him, why not everyone? Being all powerful, why not prevent the crash in the first place?

More evolution poppycock. Certain fish had an itch to get out of the water where they were tired of being wet all of the time -- somewhat like coming in out of the cold rain. So, they "evolved" legs and lungs, crawled out of the sea and trampled forth. Why did they want to do this? I suppose there was a rumor that more food was available on land or a new welfare office had opened. That's one hell of a giant step for fishkind -- dumping your gills, sprouting legs and miraculously 'evolving' lungs. Evolution is supposed to be a slow process. Yes? Then think for a moment about all of those intermediate types who never quite got to the full legs stage or the full lung stage. THINK ABOUT those millions of unsuccessful intermediate types -- reptiles to birds -- which didn't quite have enough feathers, or 'not yet' warm blood, or bones 'not quite' light enough in order to stop crawling and start flying. Where are all of those fossil remains? There should be tons of them. If reptilian life was so unsuccessful -- one of the major 'reasons' given for evolutionary changes -- then why are they still here? (This reminds me of Prof. Butz's poignant statement about all of those missing 'gassed' jews: After the war, they were still there!)

The hokum peddlers have explained how land life came about but the story gets more interesting. 'Some' land animals, who got tired of wandering here and there, 'decided' that they should return to their past life in the sea. So they 'evolved' flippers and tails and leaped back into the sea. They, however, didn't re-evolve their gills but chose to keep their lungs. Thus we explain the existence of whales and dolphins who act like fish but aren't. (Marine whiggers, I guess.)

I remember all of that 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny' and 'kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, species' jazz from my high school days. I though it was nifty and I remembered it well because it 'paid' when exam time came. I never questioned the whole batch of doodle until I was older and then I laughed at how easily I was conned into believing absolute nonsense -- material which simply not stand up to the light of reason or question. I did manage to rattle Mrs. Forsyth once when it came to an embarrassing question concerning evolution. She smiled, nodded and said, "Bobby, it's only a theory."

Men love to classify things as in a shoe store -- women's shoes, children's shoes and so on. These classes are further divided into casuals, dress, athletic, etc. It's like the biological classification of the planet's life forms. There is a similarity when one examines loafers and sneakers but only an evolutionist or an idiot -- usually the same person -- would believe that the shoes  were related and evolved from one another. Internally, a mechanical watch and a clock resemble each other. Are they therefore related? Did the clock evolve from the watch or was it the other way around? Did the pale skinned, blue-eyed blond 'evolve' from the dark-skinned, black eyed wool head as they currently teach in schools? Furthermore, does any teacher tell you that they are teaching THEORY and nothing more? SIMILARITY DOES NOT IMPLY RELATION! The ocean and urine are similar in that they are both 95 percent water. A rocket is similar in shape to a spear and they are both projectiles. They are similar but not related and I cannot believe that the rocket evolved from the spear. ABSTRACT MAN-MADE CLASSIFICATIONS ARE PROOF OF NOTHING! The "proof" that a Bantu is related to a Nordic is circular. First, they are classified as being related and then that classification is used as 'proof' that it is fact. If you cannot see through this ruse then I suggest a life of marijuana smoking and copulation for your brain is useless.

I propose not theory and wish to argue none. What I am offering is a question. Why are Blacks and Whites classified as belonging to the same species when their physical differences -- hair, teeth, circulatory system, sweat glands, bone structure, etc. -- surpass in number and divergence those possessed by the the different species of crows, for example? If relatively minor differences between crows are sufficient to place them in a different species, then why are the greater differences between the Black man and the White man ignored? It appears that different rules are in effect. I am not arguing the validity of classification but only that IF you wish to use it, then why doesn't it cover the genus Homo? If species means anything at all, then reason dictates that Black people and White people belong to different species. And try to get past the religious nonsense and the skin color distraction. Blacks can be identified by blood alone; bones alone; hair alone; sweat alone and yes, even the g.d. toe nails! How dense can people be? Or how blind?

Few recognize that what we call science today is not much more than another religion complete with its witch doctors and potions. There was a time when science meant observation and the collection of data. From this a pattern of cause and effect was pieced together to form a theory. The theory was tested as to its probable validity. Today this approach has been replaced by delusionary bits of dreamland. Today's meta-physicists observe a mountain of data pouring out of an instrument and stuff it into their computer blender. Out comes 'facts' such as 'black holes', 'worm holes', duplicate 'universes', 'time warps' and all sorts of comic book items. But they are true believers -- actually religious fanatics -- who are convinced that their illusions, delusions and conclusions represent reality. The shark Pat Robertson "talks to God", so he claims. Has he ever offered his suckers a listen to a tape recording of those plentiful events? So what makes Carl Sagan any different when it comes to tale telling? The jackasses dig up 23 fossil bones and then proceed to tell you a complete story on the dinosaur's love life, favorite bed time snacks, eye sight, scale color, vocal noises, running speed and about every other thing imaginable -- and all from a few time-battered bones! Amazing! Spielberg history? Now we are bombarded with Spielberg science. Dawh, Jewrasic Farce is real man. I seed it on da TV.

Be a parrot. Don't question and above all, do not think! ZOG will love you for it.

Eric has long forecast the election victory of the drug cartel's favorite: mummified brain George W. (One of those rare people whose head was shrunk by Jivaro injuns while he was still alive.) The other Zionist party is also predictable. They are now gearing up for their final farewell to the top salesman for Vagina Brand cigar humidors. Since the brain-dead electorate cannot remember if last weekend had a Sunday or not, the big morality Clinton blasts won't be heard until late October. When Lieberman whispered into Gore's mother earth ear, "Bagels? Hell. I can get them for you wholesale.", the v.p. choice was in the bag.

Now that the wife of Lieberman -- Gore's jew-mate -- has spun another "survivor" yarn, the count of the "nearly gassed" has increased to 37,666, 069. Such a deal. Pretty soon, the count of survivors will surpass those who are supplying the checks.

One has no problem with green or blue but how do we go about classifying all of those in-between cyan mixtures? Three-fourths blue? One-third green? It's really very simple. If it's not green and it's not blue, then it's something else -- neither green nor blue. That's why God invented the words "mongrel", "mixed" and especially "MUD!"

When the produce section of a market is tossed into a blender, how would you describe the resultant mixture? 10 percent oranges? 1 part lettuce? Hell no, Irene. I'd call it all garbage!

It is no surprise that those of mixed blood are the most dysfunctional. They do not know who in hell they are and to flaunt a superficial pride in being a mongrel, doesn't change their behavior, or value, one iota. If Homo were inter-fertile with  wart hogs, how could one take pride in saying, "Man, ah is part wart hog."?

Most of the country's health problems arise among the race mixed and genetically impoverished. John (elephant man) Merrick had a severe genetic fault and it is now shared with over 100,000 Americans -- and growing -- because being ugly doesn't seem to stop copulation. In fact, it often encourages it. Every high school boy knows that it's easier to find loose crotches if you are on the football team, or have an expensive car, than it is if you are the school's chemistry whiz. Ugly actors, such as Mitchum and Palance, have always been sought out as sexual partners far more often than a Robert Taylor or Tyrone Power. Women have no taste, as Ludovici points out, beyond an assessment of a bank account and penis mass. Ugly attracts women since it brings out their motherly instinct to nurse and care for that which is lowest on the totem pole. How often is it that healthy and intelligent children are ignored by the mothers since "they can take care of themselves" and therefore need no help? Sows have far more survival sense. They eat their weak and disfugured young.

Do not be intimidated by the "experts" for they are more attuned to political correctness, and the bizarre, than to the truth. At one time, it was p.c. to believe that the world was flat and if you questioned it, you'd be hung out to dry. The same thing is true today where we are led to believe that the "races" all belong to one species Homo sapiens. If you disagree, I am sure there are hundreds of Ph.D.s waiting to smash you in the face with their petrified diplomas. "WHO," they screech, "are YOU to question the authority of experts?" Never mind that the experts disagree amongst themselves for they belong to the same elite, and effete, club and you, no matter how well your brain functions, are an OUTSIDER! An expert becomes an expert by being a parrot for if you didn't agree with the experts who are about to grant you a degree, you wouldn't get one.

Blacks, Whites and Yellows, belong to different species for there is far more difference between them than there are between several species of rats, crows and salmon (Oncorhynchus masu and Oncorhynchus nerka, both found in the waters off Japan, for example). The fact that they, like many other species, are inter-fertile, is of no consequence. One only has to view the genitalia of the Hottentot in order to be shocked when told we are "brothers". I once proposed this classification: Homo sapiens, White; Homo nigerus, Black and Homo mongolus, Yellow. Each species is composed of several races as one notices when picnicking in Africa or China. (Mulatto is not a race. No mongrel belongs to a race.) The "church" will have no part of this and ALL governments do not wish to offend the church. (Experts are essentially bigots for they never change their positions. They'll argue their own brand of absurdity unto death.) People with a race mixing agenda will oppose this to the last drop of YOUR blood. Race mixed people KNOW that they belong to nothing and in order to feel that they do belong to something, they must necessarily destroy even the concept of difference, as did Socrates attempt to destroy the concept of beauty. It's like the hag Hattie who felt a deep need to disfigure, or kill, any female she felt was prettier. In that way, she could reign. Men desired her not but when beauty was gone, she found orifice stuffers then available. Destroy the best, and the worst then becomes the "best". All intelligent children have experienced the hatred issued by those beneath them in their class. Thus, communism always appeals to the envious and this land is saturated with it although it is always called something else.

I am well aware that the THEORY (it's in a dictionary in case you are befuddled) of evolution which our Marxist schools teach has the preposterous notion that White people evolved from Black people. Blacks migrated to Europe and their skins evolved to white, so it goes. Why would that happen? (Carleton Coon tells a wholly different story in his books on race.) If the cold north causes evolution to bleach out the Black skin (hell matey, I always thought that the sun, not darkness, bleached colors) then why is it that the northern-most tribes of Mongols and Eskimos don't have paler complexions than Whitey? Black color ABSORBS heat so if old daddy evolution had any brains, he'd have bleached out the skin of the tropical Blacks so they'd be cooler during rutting season. Also, if blue eyes "evolved" from the Black's near-black eyes because of the shorter summers, then why are the Asian Eskimo's eyes also near-jet-black? The Amerasian lived for centuries in a climate almost identical to Europe and his skin never turned white nor his eyes blue nor his jet black horse-like hair blond. He sat there like a lump, as did the Blacks of Africa, while the "magic" environment of Europe "forced" Whites to discover and control electricity; develop chemistry and on and on and on. If you think the difference is all about skin color, then send a few shekels to the the NEA for they did a good job with their psycho-lobotomy "education".

The AmericanY in Paris was George GershwinY and AmericanY music is little more than nigger jazz.

John D. RockefellerY nailed the oil business by controlling the one point where all oil had to pass -- the refineries. Thus, he could influence oil transportation, drilling and so on. Bill GatesY also did the same thing. He nailed the point where computer data had to pass -- the operating system. Such a $$ deal.

It's too bad the White man failed to rope in his most magnificent triumph -- the control and use of electricity. As history is being rewritten faster than jews fleeing Germany in 1940, we can soon expect to see that Faraday, Edison, Tesla, et al, were really Bantu, Higi and Jivaro with a touch of Cherokee.

White people create civilizations. Yellow people maintain civilizations. Black people destroy civilizations.

My mother, like her mother, were stout in character and I have never heard either complain about anything. Neither my brother, sister nor father ever complained about anything. Grandma would work in the garden, sweat dripping from her brow and she not once muttered about how hot it was. Grandfather, dirty and tired from the long day of plowing never mentioned a thing in a discouraging fashion. Work had to be done and that was that. I have never used the word "bored" and I cannot recall ever hearing it in my family. I suspect that "boredom" is a state of unhappiness brought on by the fact that one is not being entertained in the fashion they think they deserve. Intelligent people are never bored. I distance myself from anyone who mutters that they are bored.

When I was a kid, America was a beautiful place. Now it's hard to see the trees for the garbage -- breathing and otherwise.

One wise ess said that DNA meant dumb nigger ape, but that's doubly redundant.

I have read the long out-of-print book The Black Donnellys and visited the grave decades ago. I am not about to repeat the story of this quite remarkable Irish family. The father was said to have been able to 'take on' any three of his seven sons and whip them in a fight. Each son was said to have been able to lick any three ordinary men, armed or otherwise. The Donnellys never resorted to the use of firearms. In fact, they were quite intolerant of anyone who pointed one in their direction. If you were that foolish, it was said that you'd be able "to hear the shovels digging your grave."

According to the book, the Donnellys were the terror of the region and the community resolved that the only way to deal with the problem was to exterminate them -- a sound decision, I might say. Anyway, if the book was factual, and I have no reason to believe otherwise since it was published before the 'memory hole'  was running full blast as it is today, it was given a whole new flavor by the Reds who run TV. The murder and mayhem committed by the Donnellys was down-played when not ignored. The 'bad guys', as you might suppose, were the 'vigilantes' -- naughty, naughty boys who resorted to violence when the parliamentary jibber jabber failed.