Dear Reader:

When on coolie pay, one must work every day, which gives one no time for the life of the mind. Work and sleep certainly limit my creative writing and correspondence, hence my belated reply to your letter of Feb. 15th.

I think your use of the word, "improvise", throws a most useful light on the subject of "discovery", "invention" and "creativity". As I understand, most forms of writing began as pictographs, or drawings of the item described by the spoken word. These pictures became simplified as a form of shorthand. Other writing done with symbols was like true shorthand: using symbols to represent sounds of words, instead of objects. The Japanese have 4 'alphabets': classic Chinese ideograms, a simplified Japanese version, Romanji (Roman letters used phonetically) and Katakana which is a system of symbols representing sounds. By putting these together, as one does in shorthand, the sounds are created symbolically, to make the word. The Japanese prefer their 3 Asiatic writing systems to Romanji, because the symbols allow the making of easily-read vertical signs on narrow shops. Space is always a premium in Asian lands.

Several writers I have read on Chinese culture state that the Chinese writing system was purposely designed to be difficult to learn. Writing served as a hurdle for the restriction of knowledge and social status to an elite, such as the Mandarins. As in Roman Catholic Europe, the 'peasants' were not supposed to read, for they might get the 'wrong' ideas. We have only to consider the results of translating the Bible to see that the elitist rulers were correct! As an aside, I find that most Bible-readers do not read the actual words, but read their meanings into the text. They do so in a trance state and disregard the definitions of the words they see on the page. I have been accused of reading the jew-book "literally". I say that is the only way I read. If I encounter a stop sign at an intersection, for example, I do not interpret the sign to mean "stop if you wish" or "others should stop", or "stop tomorrow", etc., as Bible-readers do whenever they stick their noses into their hypnotic holy book.

As with language and writing, we can view artifacts as improvisations. I have not read that Tokharians used gunpowder. It may have been discovered by accident, but someone observed and duplicated the reaction. The Chinese certainly preserved the process, albeit without improving its effectiveness as did the Europeans. The Chinese were and are skillful kite-makers, as are other peoples of Asia. The Wright Brothers' aircraft could be described as an improvisation on a kite, which became a glider; and with further improvisation, the glider became an airplane. A 747 could be described as an 'improvisation' on the original kite.

Of course, necessity is indeed the mother of improvisation, if not invention. Someone had to WANT to build a kite large enough for a man to fly with. Invention is really a new item, rather than an improvisation of an existing item. James Watt's steam engine might be construed as an improvisation on his mother's teakettle. In Africa I heard a pickanin ask its mother if "this thing" could not be used to make them a cup of tea, when the puffing, hissing steam locomotive halted in front of us on the station platform. I laughed out loud. I had just heard the Black version of James Watt! We see the distinction between the airship, which was an improvisation on the balloon, and the airplane which was an improvisation on the kite/glider. Perhaps the Chinese felt no need to improve upon existing artifacts, nor to replace them with new discoveries, as nylon replaced the silkworm. Perhaps their strong cultural tradition discouraged invention, which is often conducive to major social changes, as with the automobile.

Definitions MUST pigeonhole, distinguish and differentiate with rigorous consistency, if we are to communicate, rather than confuse. The 'definitions' of race are, as Robert Frenz points out, not only inconsistent, but alien to the categorization of life forms in the world of mammals, in particular, and zoology in general. Only "humans" have been lumped into a single race or species. We observe minute distinctions in dogs, horses, crows and all other creatures, which we use to distinguish one breed from another, but not with "humans". I enclose an essay by the ZOG-apologist, Jack Kemp, entitled "Genome shows race is non-existent". Once again, I say that the ZOG denies "race" while using "race" to advance the interests of non-Whites. I would be quite interested to know how the white-skinned Aryan conquerors of India 'evolved' so quickly into dark-skinned versions of themselves in such a short time. I have read the supposition that Blacks were everybody's ancestors, just as apes were supposedly their ancestors. If Blacks are our ancestors, and they still exist, then what branch of apes did the Blacks 'descend' from? I know of no apes with kinky hair. All apes have abundant body hair, while the Blacks do not. In fact, Whites often have more body hair than do Blacks and Yellows. Perhaps the 3 main races evolved from different races of ape. Yes, supposedly, some crazy Black people wanted to migrate away from warm, sunny Africa up into the dark, frozen north, for reasons not explained. Allegedly, they got paler and paler to absorb the weak sunlight, so they could assimilate their vitamin D. Then came one or more Ice Ages, and these pale-skins had to migrate south, or freeze and die of hunger, but they did not return to Africa, and so, remained White. The Yellow race did the same, allegedly. Funny how the weak sunlight straightened their hair, with the exception of David Suzuki. I have tried to point out that if we assume this version of evolution to be correct, then mating with Blacks would be devolution. By the same token, if Whites and Yellows are to mate with Blacks, then Blacks should mate with their ape ancestors. Who knows what may come of this: The Planet of the Apes?

On the subject of race, I prefer to stick with the latest DNA science, which neatly distinguishes the 3 principal races and mixtures thereof. Jack Kemp, Israel Ehrenberg et al. to the contrary, medical science relies more and more on these 'minor' genetic distinctions, but the ZOG insists that the more we know about racial differences, the more we should ignore. DNA is so exact that it can be used to distinguish individuals of the same race and the same family. As the French say, "Vive la difference!"

The gist of my racial message is that Whites do not need other races. We can discover and invent whatever we need for ourselves. We must throw off our shackles of alien-imposed guilt, and discard our folly of believing that others are like ourselves. Walt Disney went so far as to anthropomorphize animals, such as deer and bears, so boobs think they are really humans in different forms. Lathrop Stoddard observed that the different racial characteristics indicate different mental characteristics. Even the increasingly watered-down aptitude tests reveal the truth of Stoddard's words. The Chinese are here in rapidly-growing numbers to displace us and to replace us. We do not need them! Nor do they need us, except to array our inventions against us, so as to assure their conquest of our territory. The jews and their stooges are ably assisting the Chinese invasion. The fatuous nincompoops think that the Chinese will disappear into America's mestizo melting pot, but America's population will surely disappear into theirs, based on their numbers. If every humanoid were to mate with a Chinese, the offspring would look more and more Chinese from the first hybrid onward. In genetics, numbers are important.

I agree with the ancient Aryan Greek who said, "Man is the measure of all things." What you appear to propose is "EXCELSIOR!" the rational choice of a path leading upward, instead of a slippery slope leading downward. The majority appear to have chosen the easier way. Even when I tell them that their course of action and inaction lead to a dark future indeed, they usually say, "So what? Nothing lasts forever, so I might as well enjoy myself while I can, as long as it lasts." When I ask them about their children's future, they usually say, "That's their lookout." I have no children, but I have more concern for their future than many who are parents. I would choose the upward path only if I had a very good reason to do so. I would not exert myself on behalf of any disembodied principle, nor for a god, for gods and principles can lookout for themselves. As for our planet, I confess to partiality for my own kind. If they do not exist, then I don't care what other life forms populate this planet. The existence of my race gives me my own reason for existence. For them I have chosen the upward path. What I love is what motivates me. Can Dynasophy offer people something to love? Can I love 'improvement' without a distinction of what and/or who is to be improved?

As for Esperanto, you probably know that English was the "Esperanto" of the Germans and Scandinavians, who used it for trading purposes. I had no difficulty reading your sentence in Esperanto, since I sneak fluent Spanish, with a lesser background in Portuguese and Catalan. The major contributor for Esperanto appears to be Latin, which Dr. Oliver assured me was a quite excellent language, if people would just take the time and effort to learn it! A linguist suggested Interlingua in preference to Esperanto, for it uses common words like "hospital", "taxi", etc., instead of constructing them. German mimicked Esperanto in its formation, for its formulators preferred "Fernsprecher" for "telefon", "Krankenhaus" for "hospital", etc. Well, English appears to be taking over as the world's second language, whether we like it or not. That's my main objection to taking time to learn Esperanto.

As I see it, we are both a couple of "bandeirantes". We have raised our banners in hopes that people will join our respective expeditions into the future. So far, I have gazers, but no recruits. Let me know how you fare in your recruitment.

All the best, and ORION!

Eric Thomson