I have mentioned earlier that Africans over the centuries have noted that when a wildebeest bull (genus Connochaetes) mates with a domestic cow (genus Bos), the cow is rendered sterile and is subsequently killed by the herders.

I have observed one example relative to a White colleague who married a White woman with mulatto children, where his children had a negro taint to their looks and behavior. Coincidence or what, I do not know, but years ago while still earning a living as a machinist, I was familiar with another case where George P.'s kids, from a similar situation, also appeared somewhat negro.

It has been often recorded that mares (Equus caballus, horse) who had previously mated with zebras (Equus grevyi), and subsequently mated with their own kind, often had foals with stripes on their legs. This was noted by people such as Charles Darwin, L. Agassiz, W.B. Carpenter and G.J. Romanes. Quite naturally, other reasons were given for those observations and many people on the experimental end claim they cannot find any evidence in their results, for telegony.

The doctrine of "infection" is ancient and widespread, and one might wonder if observation did not reinforce, or affirm,  then why the tenacity of such a belief over the centuries? It would certainly be to any breeder's benefit to believe the contrary -- that their mares are not contaminated by previous mating. Whatever the views of stock owners in the past, it is clearly evident that all of the English and Continental breeders of the period 1700-1920, were fully satisfied that it was truth, and acted accordingly. The veterinarian which tended to my grandfather's live stock held similar views and grandfather once related that a stray scrub bull once 'ruined' his prize Holstein, Mary Lou. It remains difficult for me to believe that telegony is made from the same fabric as groundless gossip.

Dog breeders, especially, are generally quite firm in their belief in telegony and this is in evidence even as I write.

Telegony -- true or false? As with all schools of thought, there are opposing views and the dispute arises since science, contrary to popular opinion, does not know everything. This clearly is demonstrated in the changing view of the atom and in nearly all aspects of nutrition. Once vitamin C was isolated, the belief was that it could be given in tablet form to produce the same effects as eating natural foods containing it. This view, now archaic, has been proved false and only persists due to the profits engendered by the promotion of such a view. We are now back to natural foods which is another enduring belief of the past many centuries. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and one only has to study the views concerning the "harmless" radiation of the first atomic explosions. (See the video Atomic Cafe.) At that time, the "experts knew the truth" and they certainly let we gullible goyim know that they did. The years proved them wrong to the sorrow of thousands. If the Army had believed that the radiation was extremely dangerous, then I am sure the whole atomic explosion business would have taken an entirely different path. What other sacred cows will be demolished in the future? The number will certainly be quite large.

Telegony -- truth or fiction? Many of the practical people who do work with livestock and breeding, generally accept it as fact. The myopic microscope users, and technocrats who love to nit-pick over trivia, say there is no evidence to support such a belief. It always makes more sense to err on the side of caution. If telegony is only a spurious vapor then it remains a vacuous proposition when applied, for it will produce no ill effects. However, if there is substance to telegony, than one invites disaster if he believes it to be false. If I assume incorrectly that the salt-looking substance in the shaker is potassium cyanide, and I toss it out, then what did I lose if it really were table salt?

I bring to your attention that all dispute over telegony deals entirely with the offspring and not one thing is mentioned of any possible effect upon the female. I find it very hard to believe that a White female's delicate sexual apparatus, complete with glands, ova, and other vitals, could remain unaffected by continual bombardment of the biological discharges of Black men which, incidentally, are chemically distinct from those of a White man. There is a whole lot more to the differences of blood, and semen, than mere DNA. We need no DNA to tell one blood from another, or one ejaculate from another.

I am writing briefly on this topic due to the number of email questions I have received. I am sure that those asking were less interested in what happens to Herefords or Spaniels, than they do about women who practice race-mixing. I, like Eric, have yet to meet one Black woman who provides sex appeal. Physically, each and every attribute I seek in a female is absent in the Black woman. A statue, or porno photo, while resembling female, simply holds no appeal either. I find nothing in Black people that would invite my friendship, and attraction between these two species seems preposterous to me. But then again, I never understood John Cromwell who was frequently spied mounting Mr. Betzhold's heifers, or Dr. Wade's daughter who was observed more than once playing bitch to her Collie..

Very few people seek truth. What they seek is affirmation of their held views -- as if they weren't sure of them. You cannot ever prove anything to anyone unless they are willing to accept your argument. That is a rare occurrence. Even if you ask a person what it will take to prove something to them, most deceive themselves by offering something such as, "If it's signed by Herr Professor Doctor Heinz Gerstenberg." If you happen to obtain such a document and show it to your antagonist, I'll bet that he will find some way to reject it, for that is the way of bone-headed people. They want to argue, not learn. The argument is a mere contest to see who "wins". Debates are always ego trips.

We White men often like to show the downside of race-mixing, of which evidence abounds. Let's assume that there are no "side effects" and that Matilda views sex is a neutral thing whether the object is Aids Johnson or Bush's pet goat. The question is then: Why do it? Have all the White males vanished? Or is there some dark reason like a hatred for your own kind? Whatever the reason, all life strives to reproduce its own kind. Black people and White people are not the same kind, for "kind" means kin, and kin are of the same blood, that is, they have a common ancestor. Pray tell, who is the common ancestor of Robert Mugabe and George Washington?

Since I have no personal interest in filling any available orifice, I do not concern myself with telegony, AIDS, or syphilis, one way or the other. As I intend to rob no banks, I have no interest in what penalty the law provides.

Believe what you will.

I know that many who read this will endeavor to research the matter further. Be advised that since the judeo-communist military victory of 1945, "history" is being rewritten to fit the goals of World ZOG. I personally take with 6 grains of salt, any so-called reference which was printed after 1930. The Encyclopedia Britannica is a good example. Once a standard of reference, the purchase by jewish interests in the 1920s, has resulted is a downgrading, and revision, of previous topics. I again repeat that one should apply his own god-given powers of observation and logic, in preference to something written by others, including myself. Train to be of independent thought. That's a good way to reduce your number of friends. You'll be better for it.

Just because it is new, doesn't mean it is correct. Just because it is old, doesn't mean it should be dismissed.