Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old August 24th, 2009 #21
Karl Von Clausewitz!
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickHolland View Post
Many Portuguese are integrated in the Afrikaner people
Are they? Is that why they were deemed "see kaffers"? Some were but not "many" by a long stretch of the imagination. Most of them were classified as non-White, which is why you won't find many Greeks or Portuguese eager to support Afrikaner Nationalism.
Quote:
, and i know mixed race people with blond hair and blue eyes.
You being one I'm sure.

I'll say this again clown, so you understand me perfectly clearly. The source cited by Diablobanco's link, took into no account the immigration since the original settlers, the 5 million or so mixed Capoids in the cape today which stands testament to the fact that the "mixed" were never "mixed" with enough to create a vast amount of 3.5 million people who appear white but aren't.

Secondly the original researcher of this claim guessed the amount of non-White blood there was no sampling done with DNA on his behalf to even affirm that such is the case.

What he did was look at 1200 cases from 1652 - 1868, and then concluded that given the time since then to now, 7% is the total allotted to EVERY Afrikaner. Never factoring in change in demographics, never factoring in racial laws, never factoring in the obvious mixed Capoid which suggests they were ostracized more than "accepted and mixed with happily and freely in a rainbow nation of love", and never factoring in genetic samples in order to support his theory, he simply guessed based on 7% of the allotted amount of people having mixed wayyy back then. Such crackpot rubbish could only be perpetuated by fools and liars. Which is why this asshole's work is hailed on the ANC website, him right along with his Communist comrades, who sought to distort history in order to topple the Apartheid Government, and give to the non-White what they "built".

As far as your pictures are concerned, I frankly do not care.

Last edited by Karl Von Clausewitz!; August 24th, 2009 at 12:39 PM.
 
Old August 24th, 2009 #22
RickHolland
Bread and Circuses
 
RickHolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jewed Faggot States of ApemuriKa
Posts: 6,666
Blog Entries: 1
RickHolland
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Von Clausewitz! View Post
Are they? Is that why they were deemed "see kaffers"? Some were but not "many" by a long stretch of the imagination. Most of them were classified as non-White, which is why you won't find many Greeks or Portuguese eager to support Afrikaner Nationalism.
You being one I'm sure.

I'll say this again clown, so you understand me perfectly clearly. The source cited by Diablobanco's link, took into no account the immigration since the original settlers, the 5 million or so mixed Capoids in the cape today which stands testament to the fact that the "mixed" were never "mixed" with enough to create a vast amount of 3.5 million people who appear white but aren't.

Secondly the original researcher of this claim guessed the amount of non-White blood there was no sampling done with DNA on his behalf to even affirm that such is the case.

What he did was look at 1200 cases from 1652 - 1868, and then concluded that given the time since then to now, 7% is the total allotted to EVERY Afrikaner. Never factoring in change in demographics, never factoring in racial laws, never factoring in the obvious mixed Capoid which suggests they were ostracized more than "accepted and mixed with happily and freely in a rainbow nation of love", and never factoring in genetic samples in order to support his theory, he simply guessed based on 7% of the allotted amount of people having mixed wayyy back then. Such crackpot rubbish could only be perpetuated by fools and liars. Which is why this asshole's work is hailed on the ANC website, him right along with his Communist comrades, who sought to distort history in order to topple the Apartheid Government, and give to the non-White what they "built".

As far as your pictures are concerned, I frankly do not care.
Yes that's true, in general the Afrikaners in South Africa, prefer to race mix with the niggers than marrying with southern europeans.

Much racial mixture has thus occurred over the generations, between the Europeans, Indians, Malays, various Bantu tribes, along with indigenous Khoi and San.







Photo Below: Picture of the “Cape coloured children in Bonteheuwel township (Cape Town, South Africa).

Urbanized South Africans who have significant admixture of British, Dutch, and Indian (from India) blood. The “coloreds” constitute about 10% of the population of South Africa.



 
Old August 24th, 2009 #23
Karl Von Clausewitz!
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickHolland View Post
Yes that's true, in general the Afrikaners in South Africa, prefer to race mix with the niggers than marrying with southern europeans.

Much racial mixture has thus occurred over the generations, between the Europeans, Indians, Malays, various Bantu tribes, along with indigenous Khoi and San.







Photo Below: Picture of the “Cape coloured children in Bonteheuwel township (Cape Town, South Africa).

Urbanized South Africans who have significant admixture of British, Dutch, and Indian (from India) blood. The “coloreds” constitute about 10% of the population of South Africa.



And what precisely is this supposed to prove? how right I was? Because none of this contradicts anything I've stated.

Last edited by Karl Von Clausewitz!; August 24th, 2009 at 02:34 PM.
 
Old August 24th, 2009 #24
RickHolland
Bread and Circuses
 
RickHolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jewed Faggot States of ApemuriKa
Posts: 6,666
Blog Entries: 1
RickHolland
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Von Clausewitz! View Post
I'll say this again clown, so you understand me perfectly clearly. The source cited by Diablobanco's link, took into no account the immigration since the original settlers, the 5 million or so mixed Capoids in the cape today which stands testament to the fact that the "mixed" were never "mixed" with enough to create a vast amount of 3.5 million people who appear white but aren't.
So how do you explain this?

In South Africa, a large White population has existed since the 1600s, when Europeans first started settling that country. Over the 400 years since, the proximity of so many different races has inevitably led to a degree of interbreeding.



Above: Sandra Laing and her parents. With no immediately obvious sign of Non-white ancestry, the particular combination of her parent's genes triggered the Mendelian effect of recombining a Non-white gene string, long hidden in the family, producing the very obvious mixed racial type.

Sandra Laing was born in 1955 in Piet Retief, a conservative small town in what was then Apartheid South Africa. Her Afrikaans-speaking parents were classified White, as were her two brothers, and they all appeared on the face of things, to be White.

However, when Sandra was born, her skin was noticeably darker, and became more so as the years passed. Her hair texture and features had become so obviously “colored” or mixed race by the time she went to school that she was forced to leave the White school systems and enter that set aside for non-Whites.

The Sandra Laing case remains as one of the most striking examples of recessive alleles finally having recombined after several generations, and once again forming an individual reflective of racial mixing which occurred several generations previously.

http://www.white-history.com/mendel.htm

http://africanhistory.about.com/od/s...ikanerGene.htm

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2007/07...afrikaner.html

http://www.geocities.com/kempcountrymen/afrikaner1.htm
 
Old August 25th, 2009 #25
Karl Von Clausewitz!
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickHolland View Post
So how do you explain this?
The same way I suppose this is explained :

W.E. DU BOIS - "BLACK" AMERICAN ACTIVIST
W.E. du Bois (1868-1963), was an African American activist who conducted the initial research on the Black experience in the United States. His work paved the way for the civil rights, Pan-African, and Black Power movements in the United States. He coined the phrase "Black Power" and who is still today highly regarded in Black American circles.
Yet Du Bois himself , as can be seen from his picture (left) was clearly another example of the Mendelian Laws of Inheritance at work: and was, on the face of it, not "Black" at all. In his particular case, the recessive "White" alleles combined in his parents to produce a particularly White-looking individual.


If you somehow find the urge which I am sure you will, to ask me "how do I explain this" yet again, or to paste another example of mixing in the Afrikaner people, feel free to read my post you quoted above. And continue to read it until it finally sinks into your numskull.


Never have I said there was NO mixing to speak of, never have I said that there was NO instance of any one person appearing white but carrying non-White markers, and never have I said that the racial classification imposed was so excellent as to miraculously figure out those particular individuals are not European and would produce a non-White child. What I said plain and simply and what you fail to understand is that it's useless to categorically assume each and every Afrikaner is part non-White based on a singular example, and on the findings of a Communist doctor who never took any samples to support his thesis, guesstimated the percentiles, took into no account the influx of immigration from Europe into Southern Africa after the founding effect ended, and never took into account the vast amount of mixed individuals (which you so eagerly presented us as proof of the fact that they had not categorically intermixed with them).


Should I take Du Bois as an example that every American is some parts black and some parts Indian? Should we examine the Australian and the New Zealander as well?


You and your pseudo-Guentherian studies are playing with fire here, kaffertjie.

By the way, your sources contradict one another.

Kemp says 7% of people who CLAIM to be Afrikaner are non-White. The second uses the findings of the crackpot I demonstrated to have used questionable methods, and claims every one has 7% non-White blood, and the individual's (Jaco) he admits that his own findings do not represent that of the Afrikaner but merely himself. He continues to state :

I am not aware that this estimate has been validated for
any other Afrikaner individual
, but it will be interesting
if this can be confirmed for more Afrikaners. Presently,
most white and black South Africans are equally incredulous
at the prospect that Afrikaners have such a
rich genetic heritage. Hopefully, with time all South
Africans will celebrate the fact that Afrikaners are, and
continue to be, a proudly south African concoction.


And there we get at the crux of it, "rainbow nation" bullshit. It's the same rubbish we saw when the out of Africa theory was the fad, thousands of people were shown to have "non-White ancestry" in order to perpetuate the now defunct "Out of Afreaka Theory".

And the fourth one uses the same crackpot the second one uses, why not simply quote the ANC Government website as a fifth? who also uses this same crackpot.

There are many biologists in this country who find Heese' work questionable, that some try today to claim non-White ancestry like the American claims non-White ancestry is not in the slightest bit scientific studies. And for you to perpetuate it as though it is, speaks poorly of yourself.

Last edited by Karl Von Clausewitz!; August 25th, 2009 at 06:26 AM.
 
Old August 25th, 2009 #26
RickHolland
Bread and Circuses
 
RickHolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jewed Faggot States of ApemuriKa
Posts: 6,666
Blog Entries: 1
RickHolland
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Von Clausewitz! View Post

You and your pseudo-Guentherian studies are playing with fire here, kaffertjie.
Don't make me laugh BoerJode.
 
Old August 25th, 2009 #27
Karl Von Clausewitz!
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickHolland View Post
Don't make me laugh BoerJode.
Do tell us all, what exactly it is you're trying to prove here? That there are no Jews in your country?

Should we hold the Boer to a different standard here, Kaffertjie?

Or are you implying that I am a "jew" while citing the article that shows 80,000 jews were in this country? Sorry to disappoint you, "holland" but I'm not one of your kin.

Last edited by Karl Von Clausewitz!; August 25th, 2009 at 09:41 AM.
 
Old August 26th, 2009 #28
RickHolland
Bread and Circuses
 
RickHolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jewed Faggot States of ApemuriKa
Posts: 6,666
Blog Entries: 1
RickHolland
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Von Clausewitz! View Post
Do tell us all, what exactly it is you're trying to prove here? That there are no Jews in your country?
You didn't knew that Jews have been part of South Africa since the very beginning?

A number of non-professing Jews were among the first settlers of Cape Town in 1652, despite restrictions against the immigration of non-Christians. Religious freedom was granted by the Dutch colony in 1803.

Many Yiddish words have entered the Afrikaans language as Yiddish-speaking South African Jews assimilated into the community, and the languages cross-pollinated each other.

Sammy Marks, a Lithuanian born Jew, who came to South Africa from England in 1868, amassed a fortune from diamond, coal and gold mining and from liquor distilling, and became a trusted friend and advisor of President Kruger of the Transvaal.

Specially since the discoveries of gold and diamonds, Jews love shinning objects.Harry Oppenheimer (1908-2000) (born Jewish but converted to Anglicanism upon his marriage), the richest man in South Africa and the arch-capitalist chairman of the De Beers and Anglo American corporations.


Some Jews also settled among and identified with the rural white Afrikaans-speaking population; these persons became known as Boerejode (Boer Jews). A measure of intermarriage also occurred and was generally accepted.

Jews fought on both sides during the Second Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902). Some of the most notable fights during the three years' Boer war — such as the Gun Hill incident before the Siege of Ladysmith — involved Jewish soldiers like Major Karri Davies. Nearly 2,800 Jews fought on the British side and the London Spectator counted that 125 were killed. (Jewish Encyclopedia).

Around 300 Jews served among the Boers during the second Boer War and were known as Boerjode.



When the Afrikaner-dominated National Party came to power in 1948 it did not adopt an anti-Jewish policy.

In fact, during that year, the modern State of Israel was created, and the Afrikaners identified with Israel. In 1953 South Africa's Prime Minister, D. F. Malan, became the first foreign head of government to visit Israel though the trip was a "private visit" rather than an official state visit.

This began a long history of cooperation between Israel and South Africa on many levels. The proudly Zionistic South African Jewish community, through such bodies as the South African Zionist Federation and a number of publications, maintained a cordial relationship with the South African government even though it objected to the policies of Apartheid being enacted.

South Africa's Jews were permitted to collect huge sums of money to be sent on as official aid to Israel, in spite of strict exchange-control regulations. Per capita, South African Jews were reputedly the most philanthropic Zionists abroad.

During the 1980's Harry Schwarz, a prominent Jewish anti-Apartheid politician engaged in private meetings with Israeli Prime Minister's Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Shamir and was assured by them that Jews in South Africa would not become isolated and links with Israel would be maintained.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Von Clausewitz! View Post
Should we hold the Boer to a different standard here, Kaffertjie?
The Jews were not persecuted like in europe Boerejode.

There are many Afrikaner mongrels you can have Jewish, Indian, Malay, Bantu, Khoi and San blood in you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Von Clausewitz! View Post
Or are you implying that I am a "jew" while citing the article that shows 80,000 jews were in this country?
Religious Jews or Afrikaners from Jewish descent?

Although the Jewish community peaked in the 1970s, about 70,000 mostly nominally Orthodox, remain in South Africa.

Despite low intermarriage rates, approximately 1,800 Jews leave the country for economic reasons every year, mainly to Israel, Australia, Canada and the United States.

The Jewish community in South Africa is currently the largest in Africa, and, although shrinking due to emigration, it remains one of the most nominally Orthodox communities in the world.

The South African Jewish Community is widely reputed to be among the most vibrant diaspora communities in terms of Jewish communal and religious life. Although the numbers have reduced over the last three decades, the community continues to thrive.

A high crime rate in South Africa and various other factors are the driving force behind emigration. The community has remarkable support structures and is distinctly self sufficient.

Levels of anti-semitism in South Africa are among the lowest in the world.

The community has become more observant and in Johannesburg, the largest centre of Jewish life, with 66 000 Jews, there is a high number and density of Kosher restaurants and religious centres.

In politics, the Jewish community continues to have influence, particularly in leadership roles. Helen Zille, the mayor of Cape Town and leader of the Democratic Alliance South Africa's main opposition party, is from a Jewish background.

Her parents, who are both half-Jewish immigrants, fled from Europe to South Africa during the Second World War. As leader of the party, she is also the successor of Tony Leon, who also has a Jewish background and led the opposition party between 1994-2007.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Von Clausewitz! View Post
Sorry to disappoint you, "holland" but I'm not one of your kin.
I am not disapointed "Clausewitz" is a Jewish name.
 
Old August 26th, 2009 #29
Karl Von Clausewitz!
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickHolland View Post
You didn't knew that Jews have been part of South Africa since the very beginning?
I knew that, what's your point? That South Africa is a Jewish country? Is America a Jewish country as well? They've had jews there since the rise of European immigration toward the United States. Jews joined South America right along with Columbus' expeditions.

Wherever there is money to be made, Jews will be there to make it, I fail to see what it is you're trying to prove here, clown.

Quote:
Many Yiddish words have entered the Afrikaans language as Yiddish-speaking South African Jews assimilated into the community, and the languages cross-pollinated each other.
Yiddish words like what?

Quote:
Specially since the discoveries of gold and diamonds, Jews love shinning objects.
You're telling me nothing new here. I suppose next you'll come across the startling revelation that the Second Boer War was entirely motivated by Jewish greed and lust after the mineral deposits within the South African Republics.


Quote:
Jews fought on both sides during the Second Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902).
Well look there, you did stumble onto it, much to my amazement actually.
Quote:
Around 300 Jews served among the Boers during the second Boer War and were known as Boerjode.
And around 13 Meelion Jews cheered as your Countries massacred and beat down the German nation.


Your map does not contradict anything I said, as usual. You like the pretty pictures but fail to understand them.

Quote:
When the Afrikaner-dominated National Party came to power in 1948 it did not adopt an anti-Jewish policy.
Again, I said this before, so what's the point of your mentioning it? Is it a need to appear intelligent or just plain stupidity that compels you to repeat well known and already stated arguments?

Quote:
This began a long history of cooperation between Israel and South Africa on many levels.
A co-operation between the two, really? No, it was perceived as such. The minute Israel obtained what it required in order to press down on the Arabs it followed suit of the international community including your country, to sanction and boycott South Africa.

Your poor attempt at appearing well read failed. You summed up in google sessions what I have said before and never intended on hiding, your revelation is a waste of bandwidth space.

Your country and every Western Society known to man is guilty to an equal degree of fraternizing with the Jews, I dare say, far more than the Boer people.


Quote:
I am not disapointed "Clausewitz" is a Jewish name.
Carl_von_Clausewitz Carl_von_Clausewitz
This man, the greatest military mind of the West was a Jew? Are you sure about that, Rick Holland?
 
Old August 26th, 2009 #30
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickHolland View Post
You didn't knew that Jews have been part of South Africa since the very beginning?
There were jews in the very beginning of Norman England, Roman France, Spain and Portugal (etc). Does that therefore make the populations of England, France, Spain and Portugal ispo facto mischlinge juden? Oh and lets not forget the proportions were probably similar given that for example that the earliest reports we have (mentioned in Roth's 'History of the Jews in England' and also briefly in Hyamson's 'History of the Sephardim in England' for example) mention quite a few jews coming along with William the Bastard (later known as 'the Conquerer). Therefore may we conclude that the English are mischlinge, because of the presumption, without evidence (and no you haven't provided any for your presumption either so I am merely showing you a like-for-like comparison), of interbreeding down through the generations and that therefore because your supposed name is English: you are yourself a mischling?

You are arguing an obvious non-sequitur you absolute twit.

Incidentally arguing Clausewitz is a jewish name is simply hilarious and shows you to be the howling buffoon that you are. Go on tell me where it is listed as such or do a little intellectial doggy-paddle and try and explain why you thought Karl von Clausewitz was Karl's actual name and didn't know about the famous German military author of that name.
__________________
 
Old August 26th, 2009 #31
RickHolland
Bread and Circuses
 
RickHolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jewed Faggot States of ApemuriKa
Posts: 6,666
Blog Entries: 1
RickHolland
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
There were jews in the very beginning of Norman England, Roman France, Spain and Portugal (etc). Does that therefore make the populations of England, France, Spain and Portugal ispo facto mischlinge juden?
The Jews were not part of the ethnic population they immigrated afterwards and lived in ghettos.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
Oh and lets not forget the proportions were probably similar given that for example that the earliest reports we have (mentioned in Roth's 'History of the Jews in England' and also briefly in Hyamson's 'History of the Sephardim in England' for example) mention quite a few jews coming along with William the Bastard (later known as 'the Conquerer). Therefore may we conclude that the English are mischlinge, because of the presumption, without evidence (and no you haven't provided any for your presumption either so I am merely showing you a like-for-like comparison), of interbreeding down through the generations and that therefore because your supposed name is English: you are yourself a mischling?
Offcourse there are some mischling in England.

From where you think that the South African Jews came from?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
Incidentally arguing Clausewitz is a jewish name is simply hilarious and shows you to be the howling buffoon that you are. Go on tell me where it is listed as such or do a little intellectial doggy-paddle and try and explain why you thought Karl von Clausewitz was Karl's actual name and didn't know about the famous German military author of that name.
Clausewitz is not a germanic name, 99% of all names ending in witz, wetz come from from eastern part of Europe.

Clausewitz is a patronymic based on an ancestor's first name, usually from a father's first name.

It can be German of Polish origin or Polish Jewish or even German Jew of Polish origin.

Ending -itz is also typical for Slavic names which were changed into german or yiddish.

About the Claus name the earliest of all recordings are to be found in German charters and registers of the medieval period.

These include examples such as Henricus Claus of Eblingen in 1323, Wolframus Klusner of Goddelau in 1398, and Tobias Clausnitzer of Thun, christened there in 1619.
 
Old August 26th, 2009 #32
RickHolland
Bread and Circuses
 
RickHolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jewed Faggot States of ApemuriKa
Posts: 6,666
Blog Entries: 1
RickHolland
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Von Clausewitz! View Post
I knew that, what's your point? That South Africa is a Jewish country? Is America a Jewish country as well?
Yes, definetely.

But nowadays SA is a nigger country and is lost for the white man.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Von Clausewitz! View Post
I suppose next you'll come across the startling revelation that the Second Boer War was entirely motivated by Jewish greed and lust after the mineral deposits within the South African Republics.
Exactly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Von Clausewitz! View Post
Your country and every Western Society known to man is guilty to an equal degree of fraternizing with the Jews, I dare say, far more than the Boer people.
I am not so sure about that.
 
Old August 26th, 2009 #33
Karl Von Clausewitz!
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickHolland View Post
Clausewitz is not a germanic name, 99% of all names ending in witz, wetz come from from eastern part of Europe.

Clausewitz is a patronymic based on an ancestor's first name, usually from a father's first name.

It can be German of Polish origin or Polish Jewish or even German Jew of Polish origin.

Ending -itz is also typical for Slavic names which were changed into german or yiddish.

About the Claus name the earliest of all recordings are to be found in German charters and registers of the medieval period.

These include examples such as Henricus Claus of Eblingen in 1323, Wolframus Klusner of Goddelau in 1398, and Tobias Clausnitzer of Thun, christened there in 1619.
Surname database? You really are a daft little monkey aren't you?

Clausewitz is a typical Old Prussian last name, it's not remotely Polish in origin. While it is true that it's origin is from Baltic Slavic people, 600 years of German mass immigration, Germanization of the people...it's hardly wise to call it him a "Slav" or a "Slavic Jew" based on his last name alone.

I do find it ironic that you think a last name surpasses all biological knowledge of a person, given the dubious nature of your own.

Quote:
I am not so sure about that.
Google it you seem quite apt at it.
 
Old August 26th, 2009 #34
RickHolland
Bread and Circuses
 
RickHolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jewed Faggot States of ApemuriKa
Posts: 6,666
Blog Entries: 1
RickHolland
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Von Clausewitz! View Post
Surname database? You really are a daft little monkey aren't you?

Clausewitz is a typical Old Prussian last name, it's not remotely Polish in origin. While it is true that it's origin is from Baltic Slavic people, 600 years of German mass immigration, Germanization of the people...it's hardly wise to call it him a "Slav" or a "Slavic Jew" based on his last name alone.
Can you provide a link proving that Clausewitz is a typical Old Prussian last name?

I am not that good with Google.

If it is so typical show me some other germans with that surname.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Von Clausewitz! View Post
I do find it ironic that you think a last name surpasses all biological knowledge of a person, given the dubious nature of your own.
Lol the things you say to look smart, i never said otherwise but the man is dead and buried for many years and he is your hero not mine, go test him if you want.

Look to his pictures he have a typical jewish phenotype.



Probably you can't differentiate a white european man from a white jewish man you only see the two Apartheid colors the black and the white.
 
Old August 26th, 2009 #35
Karl Von Clausewitz!
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickHolland View Post
Can you provide a link proving that Clausewitz is a typical Old Prussian last name?
Quote:
In any case, the names of many cities, including Berlin (meaning 'little swamp'), and some surnames, most notably those of 'typically Prussian' nature like 'von Clausewitz' or 'Virchow', still reflect the Slavic roots of this part of Germany.
Quote:
I am not that good with Google.
I don't know about that, you seem to know your way around the query pages rather well.

Quote:
If it is so typical show me some other germans with that surname.
Surnames that end in "witz" or "itz"? Like Hans Ernst von Kottwitz? Who's family likely hailed from the area of Kottwitz in Silesia?

Or what about Gottfried von Leibnitz?

Quote:
Recorded in several spelling forms including Wiz, Witz, Witze, and Wittzin this ancient German surname is either residential or it may be a nickname perhaps for a scholar. If residential it describes somebody who lives in a "witu" or forest, and as forest covered much of Germany in the medieval times, it is not perhaps surprising that many people share the surname.
Your favorite website.

Quote:
Lol the things you say to look smart
Look at it this way, at least it's things I say and not things I paste, Googlemeister.

Quote:
Look to his pictures he have a typical jewish phenotype.



Know what? I agree...so totally does man! thank heaven for your anthropological knowledge!

So, all knowing and enlightened one, was Clausewitz a self hating Jew?

Quote:
Probably you can't differentiate a white european man from a white jewish man
I prefer to let Biology determine the jew from the Indo-European, unlike Pseudo-Guentherian "Anthropological experts" such as yourself who upon an image can immediately discern the race of the person.

Last edited by Karl Von Clausewitz!; August 26th, 2009 at 03:46 PM.
 
Old August 26th, 2009 #36
George Witzgall
Senior Member
 
George Witzgall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,961
George Witzgall
Default

if your last name has 'witz' in it then you're a kike.
__________________
I understand and do not understand.
 
Old September 17th, 2009 #37
richyrichard
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southeast Texas
Posts: 933
Default

The Port of the Gauls currently has several nationalities living there. No one of them can lay claim to national exclusiveness. It is simply a country of different tribes, as major ocean ports often become.
 
Old September 18th, 2009 #38
Sándor Petőfi
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: In your head
Posts: 5,325
Default



Percy isn't an Afrikaner.
 
Old May 10th, 2011 #39
RickHolland
Bread and Circuses
 
RickHolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jewed Faggot States of ApemuriKa
Posts: 6,666
Blog Entries: 1
RickHolland
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
The Black Man's Gift to Portugal

By: Ray Smith

We have all heard racial integration defended and advocated on the grounds that we have deprived our country of the benefit of the talents and abilities of the Negroes - that the Negroes have a positive contribution to make and we have failed to take advantage of it. Because of our irrational prejudice against the Negroes, we have excluded them from full participation in American society and, we are told, this is America's loss.

The Lesson of History

In view of the fact that we are now being forced to integrate with the Negroes and grant them equal participation, it might be instructive to look at other countries which have integrated with Negroes in the past to see what the Negroes gave them. What is the historical evidence?

There is a wealth of material here for study in such places as Haiti, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Brazil, etc., but the nearest parallel to the United States today is Portugal in the 16th century.

It may come as a surprise to hear of the Negroes' role in the history of Portugal, for in spite of all the emphasis on "Black studies" in our schools, no one seems to talk about the Blacks' contribution to Portugal - neither the Portuguese, the Blacks, nor our modern historians who are rewriting our history books to make the Negroes look good. It takes considerable digging in books written before our modern era of forced integration to uncover the story of Portugal.
Portugal didn't integrated the negros in the 16th century that is a lie.

They were slaves for god's sake.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post

Poets and Explorers

By the middle of the 16th century, Portugal had risen to a position analogous to that of the United States today. Portugal was the wealthiest, most powerful country in the world, with a large empire and colonies in Asia, Africa and America. The Portuguese people were, like the Elizabethans in England, poets and explorers, a race of highly civilized, imaginative, intelligent, and daring people. They showed great potential and had already made important contributions to the Renaissance. But, unlike England and other European countries, Portugal had a large and rapidly growing Negro population and, at the same time, its white population was declining.
I would like to see the source those demographic stats but i think they don't exist.

Saying that Portugal had a race of poets and explorers, was civilized, imaginative, intelligent, and daring people it is a bit exagerated it was like that in the capital because of the royal court and because of the main harbour of the country not in the whole country which was mostly rural until the XIX century ...

The only thing that the United States had in common with Portugal in the 16th century was a big amount of Jewish capitalists financing the discoveries that is why the wealth and power was in Portugal.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Portugal began the Negro slave trade after encountering Negroes in its explorations and forays into Africa. Portugal brought the first Black slaves to Lisbon in 1441, and they continued to be imported in such numbers that by 1550, the population of Portugal was 10 percent Negro (the U.S. is 13-14 percent Negro today).
The population of Portugal wasn't never 10% negro.

The 10% estimation was made for the capital, Lisbon.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Defilement of the Blood

There was no taboo or injunction against sexual relations with the Negroes, and the Negroes blood soon became assimilated into the general population through miscegenation, so that today there are no Negroes, as such, in Portugal.
The Negroes were slaves saying there was no taboo it is a lie.

There is no proof about assimilation into the general population through miscegenation at least in massive numbers.

In the eighteenth century Portugal was indeed taking the lead in the abolition of slavery.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
The present-day population of Portugal is described by the New York Times Encyclopedic Almanac, 1971, as follows: "Ethnic Composition: The people are a mixture of various ethnic strains, including Celtic, Arab, Berber, Phoenician, Carthaginian, Lusitanian, and other racial influences. The present population is one of the most homogeneous in Europe, with no national minorities." (Note that the Negro strain is not listed by the New York Times).
Maybe because the majority of negroes weren't there anymore.

Slaves were a traded commodity.

It was the reign of King Joseph I when on February 12, 1761, slavery was abolished by the Marquis of Pombal in the Kingdom/ Metropolis and India.

In the nineteenth century, in 1836, the slave trade was abolished throughout the Empire.

The first slaves to be released were those of the State, by decree in 1854, later, the churches, by decree in 1856.

With the law of February 25, 1869 was proclaimed the abolition of slavery throughout the Portuguese Empire, until the definitive end of 1878.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
What you can see in Portugal today is the product of uniform, non-selective mixing of the 10 percent Negroes and 90 percent Whites into one homogeneous whole. In effect, it is a new race - a race that has stagnated in apathy and produced virtually nothing in the last 400 years.
I think that Portugal didn't stagnated 400 years because every empire eventualy colapses.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
The Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., 1911, in its article on Portugal states, "The Portuguese intermarried freely with their slaves, and this infusion of alien blood profoundly modified the character and physique of the nation. It may be said without exaggeration that the Portuguese of the 'age of discoveries' and the Portuguese of the 17th and later centuries were two different races."
There were racial laws it wasn't permited to intermarry with the Jews and even less with blacks that weren't even considered human.

In the colonies they mated with the slaves in large scale because of politics and colonization strategy in Portugal i have serious doubts but it is possible.

Anyways descendents of slaves borned slaves so it was cheaper to make new ones mating with slaves than going to the slave market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
People Without a Future

The contribution of this new race to civilization in terms of literature, art, music, philosophy, science, etc. has been practically nothing. Portugal today is the most backwards country in Europe. The illiteracy rate is 38 percent (in the U.S., 2.2 percent, Japan, 1.0 percent). The infant mortality rate in Portugal is 59.2 per 1000 births (in Sweden, 12.9 percent, U.S., 20.7 percent, France, 20.4 percent). The workers wages are the lowest in Western Europe, the equivalent of a little more than $2.00 a day.

Portugal is a forgotten land - bypassed by the tourists and shunned by the scholars. It is a sad country, known mainly for its plaintive, mournful fado music - nostalgic music that looks to the past and sees no future.
Portugal lived until most of the XX century from its colonies and the country was mostly rural until then.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Portugal and America

In spite of the close similarity between the situation of Portugal in the 1550's and the United States today, we cannot predict that the outcome of our racial integration with Negroes will be exactly the same. The historical significance, however, is that any country, society, or group which has integrated to any appreciable extent with the Negroes has suffered drastically in its ability to maintain a civilized standard of living and its ability to compete with others. There is no evidence that any other country ever gained anything from integration with Negroes.

It should be pointed out that the Negro-White ratio, 1:9, in Portugal in the 1550's does not represent the final percentage of Negro genes, for the Negro element was rapidly increasing while the White element was declining. The male Whites were leaving Portugal in large numbers - sailing, settling in the colonies, and marrying native women (the government encouraged this). Most of the Negro slaves brought to Portugal were adult males. The population was thus unbalanced - an excess of White women and Negro males, and a shortage of White men. Chronicles of the era relate that Portuguese women kept Negro slaves as "pets". They also married them.
If this were true Portugal nowadays would be literally a brown mulatto nation with heavy negroid admixture wich isn't the case.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Why Did Portugal Integrate?

The British, French, Dutch, Spanish, and Portuguese all engaged in the Negro slave trade, but only Portugal brought them to their own country. The question arises - why did Portugal so willingly accept racial integration with Negroes while other European countries kept the Negroes out and maintained their racial integrity? What was the climate of opinion, the current ideology, teaching, or propaganda that led the Portuguese to depart from the behavior of the other countries? What was the difference about Portugal?

You will not find the answer to these questions in our modern history books and recently published encyclopedias, for the whole subject of the decline has become taboo. You will have to dig into older sources and discover your own answers.

You might also ask yourself why America is accepting racial integration while most of the rest of the world is "racist." Why are we different?
Liverpool was late in entering the slave trade but she quickly surpassed London and Bristol to become the number one slave port in the whole of Europe by the 1740s.

I think some British, French, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese mestizos were brought to Europe too.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
The Role of the Jew

One significant difference in Portugal before its fall in the 16th century was that it had become a haven for Jews. For several centuries, the Jews had more wealth, influence, and more power in Portugal than in any other European country. In 1497, at Spain's request, the Jews were asked to leave Portugal or be converted. Most of them became normal Christians and remained.

However, by 1550 many of the Jews were voluntarily leaving. They saw the writing on the wall. The Encyclopedia Britannica (edition of 1885) notes that "even observers like the Dutchman Cleynarts saw that, in spite of all its wealth and seeming prosperity, the kingdom of Portugal was rotten at the core and could not last."
This confirms what i have said above.

The slaves were brought to Portugal for economic reasons like to be used as manual labour on rural areas in malaria endemic regions.

Yes there were malaria endemic regions in southern europe until the XX century. It was eradicated with the use of DDT in large scale.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
America has also served as a haven for the Jews. The Jews in America today have risen to a greater position of power, wealth, and influence than they have ever had in any other country. They dominate the newspapers, book publishing, television and radio, movies, universities - all of the educational media, as well as the commercial life of the country.

The Jews have always proselytized for racial integration - in Portugal, America, or in whatever country they have been, for without such a climate of tolerance of alien races, they themselves, would not be accepted. It has, therefore, been in the Jews' interest to suppress evidence which would lead people to reject alien races.
This is possible but Jews also don't like to integrate too much because they are the "chosen" otherwise they would be assimilated and would disapear as a people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
History Rewritten

Our encyclopedias and history books have been purged and rewritten. If you look up Portugal in the 1970 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, you will not find anything about the role of the Negroes and Jews in the history of Portugal, or anything about the decline and fall of Portugal.

The Jews are briefly mentioned among others who "exerted various influences over the territory which in the 13th century acquired the frontiers of modern Portugal." There is no elaboration of what this influence was.

The Negroes have been eliminated entirely. They are not listed with the other ethnic groups in the ancestry of the Portuguese people. In the entire 15-page article, there is no clue that Negroes were ever present in Portugal or that they had any role or influence in Portuguese history.

The 1970 edition of the Encyclopedia Americana also makes no mention of the presence of Negroes in Portugal.

In all these sources you find "facts," i.e., names and dates, but with no meaning and no indication of what actually happened or why. However, if you can manage to find some older sources, you can learn a great deal about the history of Portugal.
Maybe they don't mention Jews and niggers that much in books about Portugal History because they aren't portuguese.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
The article on Portugal in the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica contains more real information than you can get in reading a hundred history books of more recent vintage. From our modern point of view, this article would probably be called "racist," but the point is that the presence and activities of the Negroes and Jews are recorded. The information is there, and you can draw your own conclusions. The article is actually pro-Jewish. There is also a scholarly analysis of the factors in the decline and fall of Portugal, with the author tending to blame the Inquisition, the Jesuits, and anti-Semitism. However, neither his conclusions nor his bias prevents him from including factors or information which might lead the reader to a different conclusion.

Our modern scholars and authorities eliminate information which might lead the reader to the "wrong" conclusion.

Suppressing the Evidence

The 1964 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica still briefly lists the Negroes and Jews, along with others, as Portuguese racial elements, but with no details or elaborations. By 1966, the Negroes have vanished completely.

Now, what has happened between 1911 and 1966 that makes us purge and rewrite history in such a way? Have we decided that race no longer is, or ever was, a factor in history? This cannot be, since "Black Studies" are flourishing at our universities. Historians are supposedly trying hard to discover all they can about the role of the Negroes in history.

In a trial, a lawyer tries to suppress evidence that would be damaging to his client. He tries to prevent this evidence from reaching the jury. Our modern historians and scholars are trying to suppress evidence. The Negro is their client. We are the jury - and we must not reach the "wrong" verdict.

This, of course, reveals what the liberal establishment really thinks of Negroes - that they are inferior and must be protected. The evidence must be suppressed. The New York Times, et al., is a lawyer, well paid, who knows his client "did it," but tried to get him off.

Liberals in the United States often became very self-righteous and superior when the former Soviet Union purged and rewrote its encyclopedias, eliminating from its history current undesirables and making them "unpersons." We ridicule their lack of objectivity and irrational scholarship.

But we do exactly the same thing when we rewrite history of Portugal and make "unpersons" of the Negroes (and Jews). In terms of rewriting and deliberately falsifying history, we are much closer to Orwell's 1984 than the Soviet Union ever was. Big Brother protects us from dangerous knowledge.

The author of this article should have asked this to "Encyclopedia Britannica" if he really wanted to know what happened.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Quo Vadis, Aryan Man

There is a great need for the American people to know what happened in Portugal in the 16th century, for we are repeating their experience. We are in the same predicament, at the same juncture, at the same crossroads in history. There is an amazing similarity between our situation today and Portugal's in the 1500's. Shall we take the same road?

Travelers from other European countries were amazed to see so many Negroes in 16th-century Lisbon, as are travelers today in Washington, D.C. Our own capital is a large percentage Black, and, as was the case in Lisbon, the Negroes do all the manual labor and service jobs. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica comments, "While the country was being drained of its best citizens, hordes of slaves were imported to fill the vacancies, especially into the southern provinces. Manual labor was thus discredited; the peasants sold their farms and emigrated or flocked to the towns; and small holdings were merged into vast estates."

Manual labor has been "discredited" for many White people these days, and Negroes fill these jobs. We are "too good" for it.
This is true.

White men were needed as soldiers and the slaves did the manual labour.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Americans Alienated

The American people are also leaving the land and flocking to the cities or metropolitan areas, and our small farms have been replaced by huge, mechanized farms.

If we had any colonies, many American men would gladly emigrate to them. Many are leaving anyway for Canada, Australia, and Europe. Those who remain feel rootless and displaced - from their jobs, their country, and even their families. It is difficult to feel any sense of belonging to what America has become today.

Stout Hearts - and Pure Blood

In analyzing the catastrophe which befell Portugal, the historian H. Morse Stephens (in his book, Portugal, written in 1891) concludes:

"they [the Portuguese] were to produce great captains and writers, and were able to become the wealthiest nation in Europe. But that same sixteenth century was to see the Portuguese power sink, and the independence, won by Alfonso Henriques and maintained by John the Great, vanish away; it was to see Portugal, which had been one of the greatest nations of its time, decline in fame, and become a mere province of Spain. Hand in hand with increased wealth came corruption and depopulation, and within a single century after the epoch-making voyage of Vasco da Gama, the Portuguese people, tamed by the Inquisition, were to show no sign of their former hardihood. This is the lesson that the story of Portugal in the sixteenth century teaches, that the greatness of a nation depends not upon its wealth and commercial prosperity, but upon the thews and sinews and the stout hearts of its people."

This is rather old-fashioned language, but what Stephens is saying is that, by the end of the 16th century, the quality of the people was lacking. Other European nations suffered military defeat, but continued to grow and develop. Portugal stopped dead in its tracks. It had nothing to build on. Portugal can now only look nostalgically to the past. We Americans must use this information as insight into our future. It is too late to save the White Aryan people of Portugal, but we must save ourselves.

Source:
The Best of Attack and National Vanguard Tabloid
Ref: Issue No. 6, 1971
Portugal lost its independence to Spain not because of niggers but because the king died in the battlefield with a whole generation of nobles and soldiers without living descendants in a big battle against three moor kings in North Africa.
__________________
Only force rules. Force is the first law - Adolf H. http://erectuswalksamongst.us/ http://tinyurl.com/cglnpdj Man has become great through struggle - Adolf H. http://tinyurl.com/mo92r4z Strength lies not in defense but in attack - Adolf H.
 
Old August 7th, 2013 #40
Samuel Hund
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 338
Default

This is amazing. I had never heard about this negro factor in portugal before. It explains a lot of things
 
Reply

Tags
mongrel scum, niggers

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:46 AM.
Page generated in 0.20836 seconds.