Simply put, there is no room for race loyalty in the Christian kingdom, which is based not on the varied bloods of man, but on the blood of Christ. You have to decide whether you want to worship your ancestors, or your Creator. And you have to get over the fact that He loves more than just the white folks, and that He chose the Jews before He chose you.

Beautifully said.

Tony,
Thanks. You said just about all that can be said. You've said it forcefully, and you've said it gracefully.

And I can already hear someone firing up their steam-powered reciprocating cast-iron yeahbut.

Tony,
Your last 4 paragraphs said it all. Many of the supremacists claim to be Christians for the same reason Hitler embraced/used nationalism - it's just an attempt to validate their sick, twisted point of view.
2Cor11:13-15
"For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds."

Tom K.

I've had a few Viggofreaks comment on my blog way back when you asked for your readers to Googlebomb "viggo mortensen is an idiot." I dunno why he's got such a devoted following...

Tony, there you go again with the facts and logic, always with the facts and logic ... ;-)

I'm in complete agreement with you that factors such as the rule of law, property rights, consent of the governed, etc. are the biggest determinants in the quality of a society.

Jeff may see facts and logic, but I see more misunderstanding.

As for your comment about a Jewish consipiracy to "steal the White man's mojo," that's a gross misrepresentation of the reality of the situation.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the work of Dr. Kevin McDonald of the University of California. Dr. McDonald is a specialist in biosociology. He's written several works which are fundamental to the understanding of White Nationalism.

Of particular interest is The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements.

You can read the preface here.
Or read (the many glowing) reviews and order from Amazon.com here.

Dr. McDonald offers a spot-on analysis of the situation. He explains that the conflict between Jews and Gentiles is not a matter of conspiracy, but rather of what he calls "group evolutionary strategy."

You see, Jews are indeed a historically persecuted people. I don't see how that can be denied. At one point or another, for at least the past 1200 years, they've been expelled from almost every country in which they have settled. Almost every country in which Jews have lived has eventually seen the rise of pogroms and the persecution of Jews.

Thus the Jews have (probably unconsciously) developed a unique strategy to ensure that they are not the focus of persecution. The way they set out to accomplish this is by ensuring that any society in which they settle (with the glaring exception of Israel) is thoroughly multicultural.

In the case of the United States and Britain, this manifested through the overwhelmingly Jewish support for chain immigration and asylum laws. Dr. McDonald makes a very convincing case to show that the 1965 Chain Immigrant Act and the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's, for example, wer essentially endorsed and pushed on an unwilling America (the had to use the National Guard to integrate the schools) by the Jewish lobby.

Again, they did this for one specific reason: It's a simple divide and rule strategy. By overwhelming America with mass immigration and encouraging integration of the races, the leaders of the Jewish community insured that the White people of America would be too busy dealing with the myriad problems created by integration and immigration to ever be able to persecute Jews.

It's a relatively consise and apparent analysis of the reality of the situation. It's not about "conspiracies" or race-war. It's about ethnic groups looking out for their own, something which we are now forbidden (often by law) from doing. Something is utterly wrong in America.

Races are an invention. The Bible claims only one "race": Mankind.

(Acts 17:26) And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

>Furthermore, if you stick a bunch of white guys
>in a closed, tribal, war-oriented society, and a >bunch of black guys in an open society with >respect for rule of law and property rights, >within two generations you'll have "proof" that >whites are inherently thuggish, and blacks >inherently blessed with good sense.

But this doesn't explain why the millions of Black people who have lived in America (which used to be an open society with respect for rule of law and property rights)for far longer than two generations still overwhelmingly behave in a "thuggish" manner, as you put it.

As a matter of fact, much of modern Black culture worships and promotes thuggery. Among Black youth, the words "thug" and "pimp" are considered compliments! Unfortunately, impressionable White youth are beginning to emulate them, thanks to the constant promotion of pimp and thug culture by MTV, owned and operated by Mr. Sumner Redstone (real name: Murray Rothstein).

>(Acts 17:26) And hath made of one blood all
>nations of men for to dwell on all the face of
>the earth, and hath determined the times before
>appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

Let's see Webster's definition of "nation:"

"nation

\Na"tion\, n. [F. nation, L. natio nation, race, orig., a being born, fr. natus, p. p. of nasci, to be born, for gnatus, gnasci, from the same root as E. kin. [root]44. See Kin kindred, and cf. Cognate, Natal, Native.] 1. (Ethnol.) A part, or division, of the people of the earth, distinguished from the rest by common descent, language, or institutions; a race; a stock."

So sorry, Mike. You're wrong.

It seems your Bible passage actually shows that God created many nations of men (though all are certainly men) and He determined the bounds of their habitation, meaning where they were meant to live.

Why do you want to tamper with God's design?

Again, for the last time, it's what is in your heart that matters. Thanks Tony.

Thanks, Bob. You're right.

And I know that what's in my heart is a love for my people and concern for all the peoples of the world. History has repeatedly shown that multiracial societies are unhealthy societies.

I'm working hard to make sure that all people all over the world, no matter what their race or nationality, are able to live in healthy, happy, functional societies.

That, not supremacism, is the point of White Nationalism.

Join hands, then, members of the faith,
Whatever your race may be!
Who serves my Father as His child
Is surely kin to me.

Stormfronter -

For explanation on "thuggish" behavior in the black community, look no further than the breakdown of the black urban family due to the LBJ "Great Society" entitlement programs such as welfare, AFDC, etc. These problems did not exist to any appreciable degree before that time.

When the devil comes, he doesn't take the pointy bearded, horned pitch-fork weilding form that everyone would recognize and dismiss. Instead he comes as a being who can rationally and soothingly explain to you that evil isn't really evil. Stormfront would be easy to ignore if he came here spouting "Seig Heil!", however has manner and tone are more insidious. Read Stromfront and see the face of the devil.

"group evolutionary strategy"

Evolution is a difficult concept frequently misused. It implies selection on dimensions of fitness, without conscious planning. In other words, a trait spreads because it affords its bearers greater likelihood of siring offspring. For your theory to hold, you have to believe that Jews individually stumbled onto behaviors that somehow increased their collective fitness.

But a) we see the number of Jews declining worldwide; and b) by White Nationalist accounts, this "evolutionary strategy" has been in place in all nations where Jews form a significant minority. That suggests conscious effort, as does your later statement:

"the leaders of the Jewish community insured that the White people of America would be too busy dealing with the myriad problems created by integration and immigration to ever be able to persecute Jews."

In short, McDonald has found a pseudo-intellectual way to assert: "The Jews are stealing our mojo, baby!"

"But this doesn't explain why the millions of Black people who have lived in America (which used to be an open society with respect for rule of law and property rights)for far longer than two generations still overwhelmingly behave in a "thuggish" manner, as you put it."

Their subsociety did not have a rule of law and property rights, because they were the property. Then they were treated as third-class citizens for a hundred years. Then a host of white sociologists from elite universities decided to make them better by rooting out small businesses in the name of "urban renewal," subsidizing illegitimacy via AFDC, and inculcating a sense of grievance and entitlement. Simple answers, supported by data, and without resort to unfounded theories of a race-behavior linkage.

"Let's see Webster's definition of 'nation:'"

I don't believe St. Paul was resorting to Webster's definition. If you want to start parsing words in the Scriptures, you have to consult the original languages in which the scrolls were found. In this case, "nation" is equivalent to the Greek "ethnos," which is based on the root "ethno." These words refer to custom, habit, tribe, and people. To the extent that we can insert the word "race" here, it is in the sense of the word that corresponds to these concepts, and not to the post-18th century notions of race as a genetically distinguishable set of traits.

A more literal translation of Paul's words is thus:

"... and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation."

It's also helpful to understand the context. Paul was speaking in Athens, to an audience that believed, much like White Nationalists believe today, that they were superior to all men of other nations, and that they came from a separate bloodline springing directly from their soil. Hence Paul's point: "He made from one man every nation..."

Likewise, his reference to the boundaries of habitation is a point of humbling the Greeks, not putting other peoples in their place. God determines the boundaries of your nation, Paul was saying, not your might or superiority.

The logic here is compelling as well. If Paul meant to keep men and nations in their God-appointed boundaries, what was he, a Jew, doing preaching a Jewish doctrine to the Athenian Greeks, and later instructing their brethren in Thessaloniki that there is "no distinction between Greek or Jew?"

"History has repeatedly shown that multiracial societies are unhealthy societies"

That's astoundingly wrong. The level of violence in a multi-racial city like Toronto, for example, is much lower than can be found among people of the same race in Haiti, Bosnia, Europe for most of the last five centuries, etc. It's the institutions and culture that drive these things, not some hidden conflict or stupidity gene.

Thanks, Tony, for your reply. I believe God will have to work to change Stormfronter's views, and those of his kind. Perhaps he'll listen to reason one of these days. I Corinthians 1:18-on says a lot about those who've been discussing you. Keep writing, Tony!

Furthermore, if you stick a bunch of white guys in a closed, tribal, war-oriented society, and a bunch of black guys in an open society with respect for rule of law and property rights, within two generations you'll have "proof" that whites are inherently thuggish, and blacks inherently blessed with good sense.

Actually, this has happened already. What it "proved" is that a war-oriented society will almost always win a war against a more open one (Europe>Africa).

As for the rest of your article, I agree with much of it; but in places you pay attention to the wrong things. The question is not whether the Jews - or anyone else - made things trickier for the States. The question is, what should you do for them now?

By the sound of things though, you already know the answer.

Ethnic Crime Report. 'Nuff said.

It is absolutely critical to understand the difference between correlation and causality. The fact that you point to differences in crime statistics to make a racial (causal) point is evidence that you do not understand this distinction.

No, the fact is that people are being raped, murdered, and tortured because the races are forced to cohabit.

Racial Nationalism (whether it's White, Brown, Yellow, Red, etc.) offers a solution -- separation. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending race is fictional doesn't.

To whoever is too lazy to even type a fake name -

Most victims of black killers are black. Most victims of white killers are white. These two categories account for over 87% of all murders in the year 2000. Murders in general though are down over the period 1976-2000, especially since the mid-90s. All from FBI crime stats.

Young males (14-24), both white and black, are way over-represented compared to their population - white victims at 2-1, white offenders at 3-1, black victims at 14-1, and black offenders at 27-1. This should surprise no one, though the numbers for blacks are surely depressing. Of particular note is the fact that until 1985 both whites and blacks were about the same percentage of victims (10%) and offenders (15-18%) - after 1985 the black percentages shot up, but whites stayed about the same. More FBI stats. 'Tis an awfully big coincidence that the crack explosion and gang turf wars (in mostly black neighborhoods) started at the same time.

I don't have stats on rape, so can't comment on that.

From everything I've read, urban murder is mostly a result of turf wars due to drugs and gangs, and a lack of family structure in the black communities, particularly adult males to harness the natural agressiveness of young males.

You believe whatever you like though; don't let any messy facts get in the way.

Fact: Black on White homicides in 2000 = 308 or 6.5%
Fact: White on Black homicides in 2000 = 134 or 2.8%
Fact: Even though Whites far outweigh blacks in numbers, black commit 2.3 times as many race murders.

Excuse me. Those statistics are only for people who knew each other. The statistics for strangers are even more revealing.

They all come from here:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/ovrelracetab.htm

Bear in mind that in compiling these statistics, the FBI and the DOJ count Hispanics as White.

Hate crimes, of course are another matter. For purposes of compiling hate crime stats, Hispanics are a "victim category," but not an "offender category." White people are an "offender category," but not a "victim category."

This means that no White person can be counted as the victim of a hate crime, but can be accused of committing one. Hispanics, on the other hand, can be considered victims of hate crimes, but if they commit one, they're considered White. How fair is that?

You're over-reaching to conclude that every white-on-black or black-on-white murder is a "race murder". Way, way, over-reaching. You can't assume that race is a factor just because the perp is one color and the victim is another any more than you can assume height is a factor if one is tall and the other short. Just because the FBI is forced to track this data to please the PC bureaucrats doesn't mean race is a factor in ANY of these murders.

Some things I've learned in the last 24 hours:

1) Not all white supremacists are stupid.

You should also learn the distinction between White Nationalist (or racial nationalist) and White Supremacist. Virtually all non-anti-racist Stormfronters are White Nationalists, a small minority are (professed) White Supremacists. Also, supremacist is a made-up word.

3) There is no end to the number of freakjobs with an unhealthy reverence for Viggo Mortensen.

I think Mortensen made the most limp-wristed Aragorn possible. The CARTOON version of Aragorn was vastly superior.

Okay, I already knew the last one. His gun advice, by the way, was by far the best: get a .50 Desert Eagle, because it's Israeli-made. The man knows his iron and his irony.

If hi-cap mags were legal, I'd much prefer a glock with what, 19 rounds? I'd rather put two 9mm in an assailant than a single .50. Then again, I don't know much about guns.

I've been thinking over this protect-our-race thing. I had all but decided that it's not worth the effort,

The question isn't really whether you think it's worth the effort. The real question is whether or not the current mass-media spawned zeitgeist is true: is racism ipso facto evidence of evil? By extension, we arrive at the question, should racists be allowed to air their views?

but I so appreciate the reams of data about skull sizes and racial demographics clogging up the comments section of my last post

I don't know if you're being sarcastic here or not, but given the popular caricature of phrenology, this link might interest some:
http://www.vdare.com/francis/boas.htm

To begin, race theorists violate Occam's stricture. There are far simpler and more substantiated explanations of cultural variation (e.g., variance in market and legal systems) than Jewish plots to steal the Norseman's mojo.

Again - nature + nurture (the racist view) makes more sense than an elevation of nurture to an all-important cause and a casting off of nature.

Furthermore, if you stick a bunch of white guys in a closed, tribal, war-oriented society, and a bunch of black guys in an open society with respect for rule of law and property rights,

Huh? "War-oriented?" I'm a White Nationalist, and I'm not in favor of a "war-oriented" society. I'd actually prefer a MUCH LESS "war-oriented" society than America has been for over a century now - I'm a paleoconservative as well as a WN.

within two generations you'll have "proof" that whites are inherently thuggish, and blacks inherently blessed with good sense.

Do I even have to mention how speculative this is?
You fail to mention one crucial benefit of such a society: all the dirty, evil, black-oppressing whites would leave multicultural heaven and there would be no more white racism. All the white oppression would be gone!

In fact, we needn't make this a thought experiment. Compare the income, health, employment, education, and crime data of West Indian blacks to white skinheads, and you'll get the point.

Skinheads can be said to be as much a cultural group as a racial group. Are you suggesting that all White Nationalists are Skinheads?

Please find a skinhead at www.Amren.com for me.

But we don't need the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to explain this stuff.

Strawman. I've never once in my life referred to the PotEoZ as a credible source (or any other kind for that matter). The only time I refer to that document is in warning WNs in the strongest terms that it shouldn't be used as a source.

The race supremacy hypothesis, in other words, doesn't explain anything better than simpler and more data-driven theories of social behavior.

This is another strawman. There is no "race supremacy hypothesis" inherent to WNism. Most Stormfronters, and ALL of the intelligent WNs I converse with at SF, are not racial supremacists (sic). See above, WNism != White Supremacism.

All it explains is the fantasies of its adherents. It's a self-referential body of factoids thriving on paranoia and misplaced tribal instincts.

It has little to do with fantasies, and much to do with human nature. As we agreed on the other thread, human nature is to trust and be attracted to those who look like themselves, those who share relatively common genetic heritage.

Moreover, throughout all of history, man has organized along tribal lines, and it is a great fool who throws out the wisdom of eons for the fad of decades. Tribalism is PROVEN to work in man's interests, to enable man to build great civilizations. What proof does anti-racism have?

Are you aware of the current state of ethnic strife in the world today? Of exactly how much of the world's conflicts are ethnic in nature, and exacerbated by forced cohabitation?
Try this guy out, he bears reading:
http://home.ddc.net/ygg/
Here's the best place to start reading Ygg:
http://home.ddc.net/ygg/ls/index.htm
The first three articles bear directly on racial strife.

But enough about that. If you want to bring some information proving causal linkages between the construct you call "race" and behavior, fine. If you find yourself breathlessly typing in a comment below about the clustering of genotypes into observable characteristics, or the dangers of African immigration, or secret U.N. documents showing how Israel is blackmailing Condi Rice, then you have missed the whole flipping point.

Again - environmental determinists (Lysenkoists) have less, not more, proof for their explanations than racists (who almost all admit the influence of both nature and nurture). Racial Nationalism is not, I repeat NOT genetic determinism.

A more important issue for me is this: Many people on the Stormfront site profess to be Christians. Those of you for whom this is true have got to grapple with three points:

Before we get into the details, I'd like to point out that early Christianity was of a sort friendly to racial boundaries. Just look at the war between Hebrews and Christians in the initial Christian period of the Roman Empire for details.

1) Christ called his disciples to make believers of every nation, tribe, and tongue.

1) Christ also said that he came to change "not a jot or a tittle" of the law. Therefore, all the RAMPANT racial nationalism of the Tanakh applies.

Here's an interesting link along these lines:
http://www.christianseparatist.org/sixth/intro.html

I'm not a Christian, so I won't get far into this, except to say that scriptural interpretation is far more plastic than racial differences.

2) The first Christians were Jews.

They were Hebrews, not Jews. Judaism is the religion of the Talmud, even more than that of the Tanakh. The Talmud wasn't extant until, what, the fifth or sixth century A.D?

The apostle Paul made clear that to be raised up with Christ is to experience a renewal in which "there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freedman, but Christ is all, and in all."

Ah, I don't recall the "there is no distinction" part, can you quote chapter and verse? I remember it going, "there is no Greek or Jew." Besides, as I said, scriptural interpretation is almost infinitely malleable. I have no doubt that I could come up with a plausible interpretation consistent with racial separation.

In any event, it is possible to be a Christian and view Paul with skepticism.

Again, review the Tanakh, and Christ's "not a jot or tittle" statement. The Tanakh is the very blueprint of religious racial nationalism.

You have to decide whether you want to worship your ancestors, or your Creator.

For me they're one and the same, but this is of course of no consequence.

And you have to get over the fact that He loves more than just the white folks, and that He chose the Jews before He chose you.

"He chose" Hebrews, not Jews, the two are quite distinct.

I'll leave you with a poem from Rudyard Kipling:
The Stranger

The Stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk --
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.

The men of my own stock
They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wonted to.
They are used to the lies I tell,
And we do not need interpreters
When we go to buy and sell.

The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.

The men of my own stock,
Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
They think of the likes of me.

This was my father's belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf --
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children's teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.

I'm in complete agreement with you that factors such as the rule of law, property rights, consent of the governed, etc. are the biggest determinants in the quality of a society.

Is freedom of association (a right currently denied racists) included in your "etc?" Is the right to self-determination included?

Thus the Jews have (probably unconsciously) developed a unique strategy to ensure that they are not the focus of persecution. The way they set out to accomplish this is by ensuring that any society in which they settle (with the glaring exception of Israel) is thoroughly multicultural.

I differ with SFer on this, I've also read MacDonald's tour-de-force trilogy on Judaism. I think the racial nationalism, supremacism, ethnocentrism, and separatism that form the very core of Classical Judaism are a recipe for "Gentile"-Jew conflict. Classical Judaism teaches that Jews are inherently superior to "Gentiles" and chosen by G-d to sit at his right hand, and that "Gentiles" are generally equivalent to beasts in the eyes of G-d. What better recipe for inevitable persecution?

When the devil comes, he doesn't take the pointy bearded, horned pitch-fork weilding form that everyone would recognize and dismiss. Instead he comes as a being who can rationally and soothingly explain to you that evil isn't really evil.

There in a nutshell, is why I don't subscribe to revealed religion.

Stormfront would be easy to ignore if he came here spouting "Seig Heil!", however has manner and tone are more insidious. Read Stromfront and see the face of the devil.

Amen brother! Hell fire and purgatory!

Evolution is a difficult concept frequently misused. It implies selection on dimensions of fitness, without conscious planning. In other words, a trait spreads because it affords its bearers greater likelihood of siring offspring. For your theory to hold, you have to believe that Jews individually stumbled onto behaviors that somehow increased their collective fitness.

Huh? You should definitely read up on group evolutionary strategy, MacDonald's trilogy explains all this, so I won't reinvent the wheel.

Suffice it to say, there is every reason to believe that evolution and selection work on a sliding scale, from the level of the individual gene all the way up to mass collectives.
Read this:
http://www.bbsonline.org/documents/a/00/00/04/60/

But a) we see the number of Jews declining worldwide;

Declining numbers are not ipso facto evidence of unfitness. Read up on "high investment parenting" or rK strategies (the latter in a nutshell - clams produce zillions of offspring, they aren't necessarily more fit than humans).

and b) by White Nationalist accounts, this "evolutionary strategy" has been in place in all nations where Jews form a significant minority. That suggests conscious effort, as does your later statement

No, MacDonald's theory of Jewish evolutionary strategy does not presume conscious effort. The Tanakh and the Talmuds form a major portion of Judaism's evolutionary strategy, and since all Jewish groups carried these with them into the diaspora, it isn't hard to understand how Jewish groups would evolve along similar lines, socially speaking, even in the absence of contact with other Jewish groups.

In short, McDonald has found a pseudo-intellectual way to assert: "The Jews are stealing our mojo, baby!"

Do intelligent people critique the work of academics second-hand? MacDonald isn't an anti-Semite, if that's what you're getting at.

Their subsociety did not have a rule of law and property rights, because they were the property. Then they were treated as third-class citizens for a hundred years. Then a host of white sociologists from elite universities decided to make them better by rooting out small businesses in the name of "urban renewal," subsidizing illegitimacy via AFDC, and inculcating a sense of grievance and entitlement.

Hence, American blacks have the highest standard of living of any large black population in the world.

I don't believe St. Paul was resorting to Webster's definition. If you want to start parsing words in the Scriptures, you have to consult the original languages in which the scrolls were found. In this case, "nation" is equivalent to the Greek "ethnos," which is based on the root "ethno." These words refer to custom, habit, tribe, and people. To the extent that we can insert the word "race" here, it is in the sense of the word that corresponds to these concepts, and not to the post-18th century notions of race as a genetically distinguishable set of traits.

Aha! Am I misreading you, or are you really splitting hairs here?

Paul was speaking in Athens, to an audience that believed, much like White Nationalists believe today, that they were superior to all men of other nations, and that they came from a separate bloodline springing directly from their soil. Hence Paul's point: "He made from one man every nation..."

You mean, the Greeks had something in common with the Hebrews (ethnocentrism)? It's a good thing the Greeks didn't know about evolution back then, otherwise they might've known how specious Pauls argument really was.

Likewise, his reference to the boundaries of habitation is a point of humbling the Greeks, not putting other peoples in their place. God determines the boundaries of your nation, Paul was saying, not your might or superiority.

Six of one, a half-dozen of the other. Whether it's God or man maintaining the lines, who cares?

The logic here is compelling as well. If Paul meant to keep men and nations in their God-appointed boundaries, what was he, a Jew, doing preaching a Jewish doctrine to the Athenian Greeks, and later instructing their brethren in Thessaloniki that there is "no distinction between Greek or Jew?"

In what sense is there no distinction between Greek and Hebrew? Does this mean that man MAY NOT make distinctions? Where does this leave huge tracts of the Tanakh that forbid intermarriage, promote genocide, etc.

That's astoundingly wrong. The level of violence in a multi-racial city like Toronto, for example, is much lower than can be found among people of the same race in Haiti, Bosnia, Europe for most of the last five centuries, etc. It's the institutions and culture that drive these things, not some hidden conflict or stupidity gene.

The republics formerly composing Yugoslavia are HARDLY examples usable in the "multi-ethnic states work fine" argument. I hate to break it to you, but Europe isn't either - there are sub-racial divides all over Europe. Culture grows in the soil of race. The "stupidity gene" contributes to the intractable, seemingly inexplicable (to Lysenkoists) problems of some peoples. Hell, half the conflict in Africa that you'd probably think of as intra-racial is acually inter-ethnic/racial - the Tutsis and Hutus for example.

It is absolutely critical to understand the difference between correlation and causality. The fact that you point to differences in crime statistics to make a racial (causal) point is evidence that you do not understand this distinction.

It is absolutely critical that you understand that causation is not a requirement for logical action - why do you insist that it is? A lack of social welfare has never been proven to cause poverty, yet we have social welfare. H.I.V has never been proven to cause AIDS, yet the vast majority assume it does and act accordingly. Iraq was never proven the cause of 9/11 or a threat to America, yet over a hundred thousand American troops are there. Democracy and capitalism have never been proven to cause thriving societies, yet we cling to them as if they have. Hell, government in general has never been proven to cause stable societies, yet, most people agree we need government. Lysenkoism has never proven environment as the cause of racial differences, yet the mass media proclaim as gospel truth that it has. NONE of physical law has been proven to cause the interactions we observe, yet physicists find physics useful. Evolution hasn't been proven, yet many believe in it.

The causal proof you're looking for rarely exists anywhere.

Most victims of black killers are black. Most victims of white killers are white. These two categories account for over 87% of all murders in the year 2000. Murders in general though are down over the period 1976-2000, especially since the mid-90s. All from FBI crime stats.

Per capita, blacks are far more likely to victimize whites than vice-versa, also from FBI crime stats.

Of particular note is the fact that until 1985 both whites and blacks were about the same percentage of victims (10%) and offenders (15-18%) - after 1985 the black percentages shot up, but whites stayed about the same. More FBI stats. 'Tis an awfully big coincidence that the crack explosion and gang turf wars (in mostly black neighborhoods) started at the same time.

It is also of note that whites comprise 65-70% of America's population, and blacks comprise 12.5%. Thus any parity in raw crime numbers between the two is actually a disparity in per capita numbers.

You believe whatever you like though; don't let any messy facts get in the way.

Yeah, you too. Try and ignore the fact that relatively low average IQ, relatively high aggression, etc. all contribute to the "cultural" influences you refer to.

You're over-reaching to conclude that every white-on-black or black-on-white murder is a "race murder". Way, way, over-reaching. You can't assume that race is a factor just because the perp is one color and the victim is another

That's true (if that's what the other poster was asserting), but I would assert that it is evidence of one race being victimized by another much more often than the reverse, REGARDLESS of any racial motives.

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/aptsda01.html

With the fact that the original Torah had no punctuation, give this alternative translation a read:

Thou shalt not kill, neither shalt thou commit adultery, neither shalt thou steal, neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbor. Neither shall you covet your neighbor's wife-and you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's.

Hmmm, reads a bit differently, don't you think? Translating "neighbor" as "coreligionist" or "fellow chosen person" definitely changes things a bit more, eh?

Thanks for editing my comments and hasty obscenities Tony!

Actually Svy, your little cut and paste from the torah isn't correct. The first commandment is "THOU SHALL NOT MURDER"... the English Bible is full of bad translations, yet people still feel comfortable quoting it.

Shalom

2) The first Christians were Jews.

They were Hebrews, not Jews. Judaism is the religion of the Talmud, even more than that of the Tanakh. The Talmud wasn't extant until, what, the fifth or sixth century A.D?

What the Hell are you on about???
JESUS WAS A JEW. Born of a Jewish mother, of the Levi linage.
He was obviously well versed in the Torah which I believe is the first cornerstone of Judaism, not the Talmud as you say. The Talmud is the oral commentary of the Torah. Of which there are two by the way.
I have no idea where you are getting your info Svyatoslav but I would be wary of your source.

Especially when talking about the Talmud and Tanakh.
Keep in mind that the Protestant Old Testament is consists of the same books as the Tanakh.