One dictionary defines 'species' as a fundamental biological category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. Since Blacks and Whites and Yellows can interbreed, we have been led to believe that they belong to the same species Homo sapiens, where Homo is the genus category. (Never forget that we are dealing with labels -- LABELS! A tree does not change its identity because I, you, or 6,000,000 others, choose to call it a zebra.) Often overlooked is the 'related' part of the definition. Many use it in a circular fashion: since we can interbreed, we are of the same species and thus we are related. That's not my sort of logic. Be that as it may, let's explore what the word species meant in that ancient past before the Zionists perverted most of what passes for knowledge.

In logic, species came to be used as the translation of a Greek word meaning a number of individuals having common characteristics peculiar to them, and so forming a group which with other groups were included in a higher group -- genus. The hair, as one example out of many, of White people contains a medullary tube with no pith. That is a characteristic peculiar to them. The 'hair' (wool) of the Black person is characteristic of the species to which he belongs as it does not occur among the White or Yellow people. (Hybrids, mongrels and other assorted products of truant gonads are not classifiable in this respect.) There is no 'human species' nor 'human race'. It's all jabberwocky designed for the purpose of alienation and confusion. (He who defines, controls.)

Species is a subjective conception, and some writers, E. Ray Lankester, have urged that the word is so firmly associated with fixed historical implications which are now incongruous with its application, that it ought to be discarded from scientific nomenclature. The vast advance in knowledge of the existing forms of life which has been recorded over the past century has accentuated the difficulty of finding any morphological criteria for species. Many forms which have been universally accepted as belonging to true species have been found to produce fertile offspring -- an obvious contradiction in the definition. There are also dozens of instances where different species produce infertile offspring as in the case of the horse and the donkey, lion and tiger. The American bison is interfertile with the common cow. Much of the Canis (dog, wolf, coyote, etc.) genus is interfertile as are most of the 30 species of crows. If interfertility were the only criterion, then all dog-like, crow-like and most cat-like critters would belong to the same species. The list is hundreds of times longer than this brief example.

The common ancestor criterion also gets us into deep water. The Theory of Evolution begins with a "primordial soup" whereby all are descendants of some magic circumstance. (From a sensible point of view, the Bible does a better job of hypothesizing than does science.) It is from this notion that we, as students, had to memorize "Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny," the history of the embryo repeats the history of the 'race'. (When I used to recite this to my parents, they thought I was some sort of genius much in the same way as do modern kids when they smash a computer key and issue a verbal fart relative to the image they see.) From a single cell, blastula, and so on, to where things resembling gills and tail appear, the embryo takes on all sorts of shapes and wrinkles freely open to interpretation. The supposed gills are not gills at all since they do not function as such nor have the cellular structure of such. It's like seeing faces in clouds, and recognizable shapes in ink blots. Who then, would claim that all life belonged to a single species?

Fifty years ago, there were 2 recognized kingdoms, animal and vegetable. Today this has expanded into 2 vegetable and 5 animal. Of course, the flora and fauna haven't changed, just what we choose to call them. Always keep this in mind: THE FACTS DO NOT CHANGE SIMPLY BECAUSE WE WISH TO USE DIFFERENT NAMES. When the experts disagree over what should be called what, they politely separate into something they call "schools of thought." It's another name game.

I do not eat spinach nor do I eat grass. I do this not because of the color of their skin but because I simply do not like the way they taste. As far as I am concerned, that's the end of it and I am in no way obligated to explain, nor rationalize, my preference to anyone for any reason at any time.

I do not associate with Black people nor do I associate knowingly with people who do. That's the way it is. Period. I care not whether they "belong" to the same whatever or even if they have been baptized and declared saints. I do not like their behavior, their smell nor their noises and I need no academic or religious nonsense to punctuate this. They are not my kin and my instincts and observations tell me this. That's all I have to be aware of.

I certainly wish that our White youth, especially the males, would develop some backbone in this regard instead of having a penile erection represent the only thing firm in their whole demeanor.

One should get into the habit of parrying thrusts made to place you on the defensive. When told that you are prejudiced, reply that you never were very good at geometry. If called a racist, tell them that you really do like speeding. If one shouts that you are a Nazi, let them know that your aunt never married. Be inventive. Keep smiling and NEVER ALLOW YOURSELF TO BE PLACED ON THE DEFENSIVE. You need to apologize to no one for your personal likes and dislikes. Let the names go in one ear and out the other.

Endeavor not to be 'pussy-whipped' and you'll discover that all of those bitches, witches, snots and twats will soon be trying to become women again. Above all, never let your brains reside in your shorts.

Robert Frenz

3 August 1999