Well, nobody's demonstrated that I am suppressing anyone's views.

And, of course, once again Frank has no actual facts to bring up.

Come on, Frank, let's start easy. How about a simple count of the "races." How many are there?

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

I believe it is fair. If we look at the demographics of Europe for example white Europeans are not having a enough children to replenish the population!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4813590.stm

Lets take the UK for example..legions of immigrants are coming into the United Soviet Kingdom by the year

http://www.guardian.co.uk/immigratio...757863,00.html

And then add to this the exploding non-white population in the UK while the white population falls...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...27/ixhome.html

And this is what you get...

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...363750,00.html

It is very basic mathematics and very basic forecasting based on the above numbers, trends and patterns.

White nationalists seek to stop such a thing from happening and also seek to reverse it! In fact British National Party leader Nick Griffin was willing to go to prison to protect his people. This is what we are about! Survival!

I will not lie to you, I do have hate but that tends to be geared toward the white traitors who create the situations that the one illustrated above.

You engage in ad hominems, hasty generalisations and now shift the burden of proof by challenging me to disprove your claim that I am ignorant!

Yep you are a Liberal alright!

The original classifications which still exist are Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid however there are also various hybrid subdivision populations that exist outside of these classifications and in themselves are unique classifications.

Negroid, Mongoloid, and Caucasoid classifications were clearly demonstrated to be incorrect years ago. The rest of your post is an evasion.

Let's go, man. Bring some facts to the table or go away. Your choice.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Who demonstrated that?

I do not cower before intolerant communist liberals who want to shut me up. I will leave when I choose to leave.

Oh, dear God.

It was excluded from anthropological study years ago.

You know. Anthropology. The study of man? Science?

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

I know it quite well!

"I have found that forensic anthropologists attain a high degree of accuracy in determining geographic racial affinities (white, black, American Indian, etc.) by utilizing both new and traditional methods of bone analysis. Many well-conducted studies were reported in the late 1980s and 1990s that test methods objectively for percentage of correct placement. Numerous individual methods involving midfacial measurements, femur traits, and so on are over 80 percent accurate alone, and in combination produce very high levels of accuracy. No forensic anthropologist would make a racial assessment based upon just one of these methods, but in combination they can make very reliable assessments, just as in determining sex or age. In other words, multiple criteria are the key to success in all of these determinations."

AND

As a middle-aged male, for example, I am not so sure that I believe any longer in the chronological "age" categories that many of my colleagues in skeletal biology use. Certainly parts of the skeletons of some 45-year-old people look older than corresponding portions of the skeletons of some 55-year-olds. If, however, law enforcement calls upon me to provide "age" on a skeleton, I can provide an answer that will be proven sufficiently accurate should the decedent eventually be identified. I may not believe in society's "age" categories, but I can be very effective at "aging" skeletons. The next question, of course, is how "real" is age biologically? My answer is that if one can use biological criteria to assess age with reasonable accuracy, then age has some basis in biological reality even if the particular "social construct" that defines its limits might be imperfect. I find this true not only for age and stature estimations but for sex and race identification.

AND

The "reality of race" therefore depends more on the definition of reality than on the definition of race. If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans. The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity. I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me. So those of us in forensic anthropology know that the skeleton reflects race, whether "real" or not, just as well if not better than superficial soft tissue does. The idea that race is "only skin deep" is simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm.

SOURCE: Dr. George W. Gill - Professor of Anthropology, University of Wyoming - "Does Race Exist," - Nova Online.

One crackpot does not science make.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Thank you for the debate but I have decided to debate with something a little more challenging then yourself like my bedroom wall! Ahhh on second thought Dr. David Duke is on Stormfront Radio, I will listen to that! It will cleanse my spirit and soul after this exchange.

Ahh, yes. David Duke.

Of course Frank isn't a white supremacist!




Honestly, I'm surprised you didn't pull out the "research" correlating the penis size of black men with sexual aggression, or the IQ "studies" showing that Latinos and blacks are less intelligent than whites.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

I would wonder about the foreign policy of white supremacists. It's probably little more than a crusade against darkies.


WEB

I have a friend who is a Jehovahs Witness who comes over for coffee on Saturday's to discuss theology with me! That does not mean I hand out Watchtowers door to door!

Unlike you at least I presented something to support my claims! All you have done is launch ad hominems, appeal to anonymous authority, poison the well, make a hasty generalisations and shift the burden of proof. All you have done is talk down to me and attack me personally.

But then again that is the liberal way isn't it? You do not like what someone says so you attack and belittle them. I can handle some fallacy and insults! I engage in those once in awhile myself but at least I attempt to debate issues as I do it but then again I am not a liberal!

But you haven't provided any real sources. Hell, you won't even help me come up with definitions so that we can have a common ground for discussion.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

I did provide a real and QUALIFIED source. You did not like what he had to say so you dismissed him as a 'crackpot' and said nothing else! Why in the hell would I continue to cast my pearl before swine?

You are not interested in a discussion. You are interested in attacking and belittling me and anyone who happens to share my views.

I will gladly talk to Luap about the issue because even though he likely does not agree with my view at least he is willing to discuss the issue with an open mind! You are not in that category! I am not inclined to waste anymore of my time on you.

Now I have to go shine my jack boots and wash my brownshirts so I will take my leave for a bit!

Please, show me where I have either attacked you or belittled you.

Your "qualified" source isn't. There are always going to be a few on the fringe of any field of study who abuse their PhD status, but that doesn't make them qualified sources. In sciences like sociology, psychology, and anthropology where study is a bit more subjective than the harder sciences, information is always subject to interpretation. However, there are generally accepted theories that run the mainstream of the academic world, and I don't think that it's unreasonable to try to limit sources to that realm than to one or two "sources" who have more interest in pushing their pro-white (whatever "white" is) agendas than furthering the science involved.

Now, if you'd actually like to discuss definitions so that we can go ahead, that's fine. If you'd prefer to spout hysterics about how I'm repressing you, hell, feel free.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears