Etymology of "Racism"
It used to be that you had to do
something really extremely drastic, like support existing US immigration
laws, to be called a racist. But now we've lowered the bar to "Scientific
Racism" [note the capital letters on this common noun] to qualify as
A Scientific Racist is one who quotes
federal statistics to a liberal without a brain in its haid
In the entire Holy Bible, the
phrase or concept of "racism" is not mentioned even once. Instead are
God's commandments and statutes prohibiting the mixing of the holy seed with the peoples
of the lands. As late as 1945, dictionaries like The New
Century Dictionary also didn't have a definition for "racism", or
Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition,
Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989
racism [f. RACE sb.2 + -ISM;
cf. F. racisme (Robert 1935).] a. The theory that distinctive human characteristics and
abilities are determined by race. b = RACIALISM.
1936 L. Dennis Coming Amer. Fascism 109 If .. it
be assumed that one of our values should be a type of racism which excludes certain races
from citizenship, then the plan of execution should provide for the annihilation,
deportization, or sterilization of the excluded races.
[note: by this definition, if a person believes
Negros are black, he's practicing racism]
racist ('reisist), sb. and a.
[f. RACE sb.2 + -ist.] A. sb. = RACIALIST sb.
1932 M. Eastman tr. Trotsky's Hist. Russ. Revol.
i. 27 This brief comment completely finishes off not only the old philosophy of the
Slavophiles, but also the latest revelation of the 'Racists'. 1934 H. G. Wells Exper.
Autobiogr. I iii. 107 So much for the Hitlerite stage of my development, when I was a
sentimentalist, a moralist, a patriot, a racist.
New Century Dictionary
It was Webster's Dictionary
which appears to be the first dictionary to include this concept in the English lexicon.
Their first definition wasn't nearly as vitriolic as the latter ones:
But then as jews like Noah
Webster felt more comfortable about the unlikelihood of the visitors called jews of being
expelled as they've been 86 times before us, Webster's definition got more vitriolic:
"racial prejudice or discrimination"
"program or practice of racial
discrimination, segregation, persecution, and domination, based on racialism"
Now, rather than just meaning
"prejudice", this relatively mild word is displaced with with a
"program" which is based on "persecution and domination".
Similarly, the words
"sexism" and "sexist" are not to be found anywhere in the entire
Scripture, and also were not in the 1945 edition of the New Century Dictionary:
But Webster went right for the
jugular this time and pronounced that sexism was:
"economic exploitation" and
"social domination" of women, by (of course) men.
Now we get to the nitty gritty.
It's with his new concept of "anti-semitism" that Noah Webster reveals his not
so hidden agenda. New Century Dictionary defines "anti-semitism" as
"one hostile to the jews", but Noah makes this giant leap of faith
"disliking or fearing Jews and Jewish things".
The concept of "anti-semitism" is not
mentioned even ONCE in the entire Holy Bible. "Fear of the jews" is
mentioned numerous times, yet New Century Dictionary doesn't include this as a part of its
definition. Being hostile to the jews is an antonym to fearing them. How can
one phrase have such contradictory definitions as "hostile to" and "fear
of"? And why does Webster's definition suddenly add "jewish things",
a concept not mentioned by Century NOR Scripture?
<<<United Nations uses
a definition of racist discrimination laid out in the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and adopted in 1966:
- ...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour,
descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or
impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and
fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of
"Reverse" Racism by
77% of Americans support
NOFEAR and DISAGREE with racist anti-White
"leaders" like Gov. Gilmore
Where does racial
pride end and racism begin?
Governor Gilmore is
- "if you're White
and not proud of it you don't belong here"
go only to the lost sheep of
the house of Israel.
- I was sent only to the
lost sheep of the house of Israel.
If he believes it's right
to insult an organization which represents Americans of European descent who represent
almost three quarters of his constituents, then he MUST insult other "racist"
He MUST rescind any
and all support for the NAACP. This is at *least* as *racist* an organization as
NOFEAR, and they represent only 12% of Americans, at most.
He MUST rescind any and all
support for the jewish Anti-defamation League (ADL). This is the most *racist*
organization of them all, and they represent only 1.9% of Americans.
He MUST rescind any and all
support for the National Organization of Women (N.O.W.), as the
most worthless, biased, and destructive organization on the planet, who represent only 2%
Could this governor
be at all surprised to discover that 77% of his own constituents agreed with his original
proclamation and disagreed with his rescinding it?
Only 73.9% of
Virginia's population are White, which means that 3.1% who support NOFEAR are either
Blacks (who are 20.4% of the population), Asians (4.3%), or Other (2.7%).
Furthermore, 4.7% of
Virginia's population who are classified as White are actually Hispanic, which means that
only 69.2% are Caucasian, making non-Caucasians 7.8% of those who support NOFEAR.
- White = 73.9%
Black = 20.4%
Asian = 4.3%
Other = 2.7%
Is it possible that 20% of
Blacks support NOFEAR, and thus make up 4% of that 7.8%? Or that half the Hispanics
do, making up another 2.4%, and that the remaining 1.4% are mostly "Other"?
If so, then exactly
which minority group was the governor pandering to when he frustrated the will of three
quarters of his constituents, became a traitor to his own race, and rescinded the
proclamation? Certainly not the few percent who are Other, nor the few percent who
are Hispanics who oppose NOFEAR, nor the few percent who are Asians? The main
opposition he must have been intimidated by are the less than 18% who are Blacks who
Since when, in this
land of the free, home of the brave, did an 18% minority, an emotional minority which is
still poorly educated and has been misled for decades by FALSE media hype, get to dictate
such policies based solely on their race, or their perceived hate for another race, or
their willingness to pretend that they're insulted when Whites display the same pride for
their own race that Louis Farrakhan displays for his?
|News / Virginia
Unwittingly, Gilmore OKs supremacists' history
By WARREN FISKE, The
ï¿½ May 11, 2001
RICHMOND -- An embarrassed Gov. Jim Gilmore on Thursday rescinded a proclamation he
unknowingly made on behalf of a white supremacy group.
Each year, the governor routinely signs hundreds of honorary resolutions at the request
of civic groups. On Wednesday, he inked his name on an innocently worded decree declaring
May ``European-American Heritage and History Month.''
Much to his horror on Thursday, Gilmore learned from reporters that the resolution was
requested by the National Organization for European-American Rights, or NOFEAR, an
anti-minority group led by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke of Louisiana.
Gubernatorial aides said the proclamation slipped by them. One described Gilmore as
``quite angry'' about the incident.
Gilmore issued a written statement voiding the proclamation. ``A simple mistake was
made and I can assure you we will be more careful screening these types of requests during
the remainder of my administration,'' he said.
Gilmore denounced Duke for espousing ``racist attitudes'' and said Duke's organization
``masquerades as an advocacy group for diversity but preaches exclusion and hatred.''
``My aims and goals as governor of Virginia are 180 degrees different from theirs,''
Ron Doggett, president of the 300-member Virginia chapter of NOFEAR, issued a press
release Thursday morning hailing the proclamation. His joy was short-lived. During an
impromptu news conference outside the governor's office later in the day, he accused
Gilmore of ``insulting all Virginians of European ancestry.''
Gilmore was quick to say that he has nothing against European Americans or
appropriately celebrating their accomplishments.
Reach Warren Fiske at (804) 697-1565 or firstname.lastname@example.org
Was Gov. Gilmore right in
retracting the European American Month proclamation?
Yes, because of the group that
Yes, because it was a dumb idea
No, the idea is OK, despite its
No, we SHOULD honor European
> I agree 100% with what Charles Murray wrote in the
> following article:
> I'm sure you have zero proof he's wrong.
Charles Murray and people like him are part of what some call
Scientific Racism, and these ideas are rejected
by science and academia in general. Here's a very small tip of the very large
iceberg as to the literature that exposes the fraud put forth by people like
"Evolutionary biologist Joseph L. Graves described the Bell Curve as an example
of racist science, containing all the types of errors in the application of
scientific method that have characterized the history of Scientific Racism:
1. claims that are not supported by the data given
2. errors in calculation that invariably support the hypothesis
3. no mention of data that contradicts the hypothesis
4. no mention of theories and data that conflict with core assumptions
5. bold policy recommendations that are consistent with those advocated by
"In April 1966, Alex Haley interviewed American Nazi Party founder George
Lincoln Rockwell for Playboy. Rockwell explained why he believed blacks were
inferior to whites, citing a study by G.O. Ferguson that showed black people who
were part white outperformed "pure-black ni....s" [my edit] (Rockwell's words)
on a test. The statistics used in the study and the excerpt from the Playboy
article were used as an example of a statistical fallacy in the book Flaws and
Fallacies in Statistical Thinking by Stephen K. Campbell."
"Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, a Stanford geneticist, said in 1995 that "The Bell
Curve" (1994) by Charles Murray and Harvard psychologist Richard J Herrnstein is
wrong on the science."
It is somewhat disconcerting that all these papers are totally ignored in "The
Bell Curve".... Researchers who might be called "IQ hereditarians" are in
general reporting high heritabilities for IQ without any information on how
these calculations have been obtained, or why the other papers here cited have
been ignored. It is unlikely that they were not seen or read; they are published
in well-known scientific journals.
...both the American adoption study by Sandra Scarr and Barbara Tizard's study
of British orphans showed that when blacks and whites are brought up under
the same circumstances the difference pretty much disappears.
He further points out that:
* the charts are misleading,
* correlation is not cause and that
* the g factor is likely a statistical artefact.
He thinks IQ tests measure a small and rather uninteresting part of intelligence
and that it is impossible to make one that is reasonably culture-free.
He also says that Murray and Herrnstein are racists. He is the first white
author I have read who says that flat out. He says racism is:
the persuasion that some races are definitely better than others in some
socially important ways, and that the difference is of genetic origin.
Murray and Herrnstein certainly think IQ is socially important, that whites have
more of it and that it is mostly genetic. Therefore they are racists. Even
though they talk as if racism has pretty much disappeared."
"Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children.
Turkheimer E, Haley A, Waldron M, D'Onofrio B, Gottesman II.
University of Virginia, Charlottesville 22904, USA. email@example.com
Scores on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children were analyzed in a sample
of 7-year-old twins from the National Collaborative Perinatal Project. A
substantial proportion of the twins were raised in families living near or below
the poverty level. Biometric analyses were conducted using models allowing for
components attributable to the additive effects of genotype, shared environment,
and nonshared environment to interact with socioeconomic status (SES) measured
as a continuous variable. Results demonstrate that the proportions of IQ
variance attributable to genes and environment vary nonlinearly with SES. The
models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is
accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close
to zero; in affluent families, the result is almost exactly the reverse."
[Translation: In a non-linear way, the more any lower SES is present, the more
it overwhelms all other factors in explaining differences in performance on IQ
"Assessment of effects of socio-economic status on IQ in a full cross-fostering
CHRISTIANE CAPRON & MICHEL DUYME
Laboratoire Genetique, Neurogenetique et Comportement, URA 1294, CNRS, UFR
Biomedicale, Universite Paris V, 45 rue des Saints-Peres, 75720 Paris Cedex 06,
AN important question in studies of mental ability concerns the effect of
parental socio-economic status (SES) on the IQ of their offspring. Only a full
cross-fostering study, including children born to biological parents from the
most highly contrasting SES and adopted by parents with equally constrasting
SES, can answer this question. Previous adoption studies using incomplete
cross-fostering designs1-3 have indicated an effect of postnatal environment on
the IQ of children born to low-SES backgrounds and adopted by high-SES parents.
They have not shown whether a low SES reduces the IQ of children born to
high-SES parents or whether the SES of biological parents has an effect on IQ,
or whether the effect of the SES of adoptive parents is independent of the SES
of biological parents. We present a full cross-fostering study dealing with IQ,
and find that children adopted by high-SES parents score higher than children
adopted by low-SES parents; children
born to high-SES parents score higher than children born to low-SES
parents; and that there is no evidence for an interaction between these two
factors on children's IQ."
"Adjustments for socioeconomic conditions almost completely eliminate
differences in IQ scores between black and white children, according to the
study's co-investigators. They include Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Pamela Klebanov of
Columbia's Teachers College, and Greg Duncan of the Center for Urban Affairs and
Policy Research at Northwestern University.
As in many other studies, the black children in the study had IQ scores a full
15 points lower than their white counterparts. Poverty alone, the researchers
found, accounted for 52 percent of that difference, cutting it to 7 points.
Controlling for the children's home environment reduced the difference by
another 28 percent, to a statistically insignificant 3 points -- in essence,
eliminating the gap altogether."
Quote [by Thomas Sowell]:
"Perhaps the most intellectually troubling aspect of The Bell Curve is the
authors' uncritical approach to statistical correlations. One of the first
things taught in introductory statistics is that correlation is not causation.
It is also one of the first things forgotten, and one of the most widely ignored
facts in public policy research. The statistical term "multicollinearity,"
dealing with spurious correlations, appears only once in this massive book.
Multicollinearity refers to the fact that many variables are highly correlated
with one another, so that it is very easy to believe that a certain result comes
from variable A, when in fact it is due to variable Z, with which A happens to
be correlated. In real life, innumerable factors go together. An example I liked
to use in class when teaching economics involved a study showing that economists
with only a bachelor's degree had higher incomes than economists with a master's
degree and that these in turn had higher incomes than economists with Ph.D.'s.
The implication that more education in economics leads to lower incomes would
lead me to speculate as to how much money it was costing a student just to be
enrolled in my course. In this case, when other variables were taken into
account, these spurious correlations disappeared. In many other cases, however,
variables such as cultural influences cannot even be quantified, much less have
their effects tested statistically...."