← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Recluse
Thread ID: 3224 | Posts: 42 | Started: 2002-10-26
2002-10-26 02:04 | User Profile
[url=http://www.mariahcarey.com/index_frame_ie.html]http://www.mariahcarey.com/index_frame_ie.html[/url]
New video from Mariah Carey, "Through The Rain", features Jamie-Lynn SIGLER, the actress who plays Tony Soprano's daughter, getting into a confrontation with her WASPish-looking mother because her mother is trying to prevent her from running off with a Congoid. Despite Carey's recent career nosedive, I expect Murray ROTHSTEIN to push it heavily on his music channels, MTV, MTV 2 and BET. Can't wait till we develop our own media so we can start pumping out vids showing Jewish girls chasing after Arab boys. If nothing else, it's sure to give that monster Alan Dershowitz a stroke, and that would be a GOOD THING.
2002-10-26 02:15 | User Profile
Originally posted by Recluse@Oct 25 2002, 22:04 **[url=http://www.mariahcarey.com/index_frame_ie.html]http://www.mariahcarey.com/index_frame_ie.html[/url]
New video from Mariah Carey, "Through The Rain", features Jamie-Lynn SIGLER, the actress who plays Tony Soprano's daughter, getting into a confrontation with her WASPish-looking mother because her mother is trying to prevent her from running off with a Congoid. Despite Carey's recent career nosedive, I expect Murray ROTHSTEIN to push it heavily on his music channels, MTV, MTV 2 and BET. Can't wait till we develop our own media so we can start pumping out vids showing Jewish girls chasing after Arab boys. If nothing else, it's sure to give that monster Alan Dershowitz a stroke, and that would be a GOOD THING.**
Yes, these media products are thoroughly reprehensible. I am convinced there is no limit to the depths they will descend.
Still, some responsibility remains square on the shoulders of the viewers themselves--I know that media messages are powerful and persuasive, but I really have to wonder if the people who would engage in practices like miscegenation, barely a step up from bestiality, have any self-respect.
2002-10-26 03:20 | User Profile
It's not just the media, of course, it's all of the authority figures in their lives and with young White girls it's the black boys telling them they're racist if they don't submit. They're under a tremendous amount of pressure and they desperately need other voices (us, for example) telling them that their natural revulsion is a healthy thing. We don't have the resources to reach many, but you do what you can.
2002-10-26 12:36 | User Profile
There's a new IKEA ad that has some white guy trying to mount his black "sistah" ladyfriend on his kitchen table. He knocks over some bowl or something.....
Anyway, nice job IKEA. Ad didn't work for me.
-Jay
2002-10-26 13:08 | User Profile
Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Oct 25 2002, 19:15 I know that media messages are powerful and persuasive, but I really have to wonder if the people who would engage in practices like miscegenation, barely a step up from bestiality, have any self-respect.
C'mon, I know interracial marriage is rather abhorrent to some here (for me, I think it invites problems for the couple, but isn't it all their own personal business, really?), but comparing the marriage of two human beings, man and woman, to one another as "barely a step up from bestiality" is, at best, simply absurd.
2002-10-26 13:56 | User Profile
but isn't it all their own personal business, really?
Not entirely.
The various states of the union, North, South, East, and West, saw fit to prohibit the practice by law, and these laws remained on the books until overturned by the 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia (the liberals get a real kick out of the irony of the title of the case). Yet another example of liberal judicial activism.
As to why such laws existed, or should exist, Richard McCulloch makes several points that I find persuasive on this issue in his book, The Racial Compact.
For one, he points out that the relatively small numbers who engage in this practice still constitute a threat to the society as a whole. He states,
Perhaps only a minority of individuals in any given generation interbreed with other races under conditions of extensive contact, but over the course of generations all populations do, as the cumulative effect of a minority in each generation adds up to a majority." (4)
So, in truth, this isn't a "victimless" crime. For example, I may choose not to engage in the practice, but as more and more people around me do, it reduces the number of available mates of the same race to Whites. This isn't so much a problem for me as it is for my children and grandchildren and so on, since it takes a long time for this process to happen. But there may come a time that my family will find it difficult to carry on their own line--if they miscegenate, they won't look like their ancestors, certain qualities and traits will be lost, and certain historical ties will be snapped. They simply won't be the same sort of people that went before. They may possibly carry my last name, etc., but that will be the extent of it--nominal and superficial--the same way they may also be called "Americans" and there may still be a "Constitution" at the societal level, but that, too, will not be the same. Immigration from the Third World is just as much a cause of this too, since it displaces native White Americans not only in terms of job opportunities, but opportunities for friendships and marriages and the like. Submergence is the ultimate fate from all this.
At any rate, McCulloch points out that overly individualistic attitudes toward this subject are ultimately nihilistic and self-refuting. He points out that
**The race is the whole of which the individual is a part, and that which is destructive of the whole is also destructive of its parts. The true interests of the individual are intimately connected to, and consistent with, the interests of its race in a natural mutuality or commonality of interest. They are joined together by the bonds of biological relationship--sharing the same genes, the basis of their physical being--and the "mystic chords of memory" from thousands of generations of common ancestry and evolution.
For an individual to deny their race is to deny themselves, their place and role in nature, where they came from and what they are, the cause of their existence as well as the greater purpose of their existence." (35)**
This is really the heart of the matter, the realization that neither I nor others like me could have come about in the face of miscegenation, and that others like me in the future could yet disappear as a result of it. One careless and short-sighted generation is all it takes.
As far as the relationship of bestiality to miscegenation, the comparison is not much of a stretch. States had laws against a number of sexual deviancies, including sodomy, for that matter, which was often spoken of in the same breath as miscegenation. Of course, they aren't all the same thing, hence they travel under different terms, but they do form a common class of crimes.
2002-10-26 14:33 | User Profile
Originally posted by Mercuria@Oct 26 2002, 13:08 ** C'mon, I know interracial marriage is rather abhorrent to some here (for me, I think it invites problems for the couple, but isn't it all their own personal business, really?), but comparing the marriage of two human beings, man and woman, to one another as "barely a step up from bestiality" is, at best, simply absurd.**
This is the kind of mentality that only promotes interracial marriages even more. Yesterday, I woke up to an entertainment news report in which the reporter said that pop tart Christina Aguilera would rather date non-White men because she likes "flava". In a recent interview for "Rolling Stone" magazine, Aguilera said she has no use for "White dudes".
I don't need to hear stories like this coming from broads like Aguilera. There is not a day that goes by without hearing about Whites, and especially White Men, in an unfavorable light. This has become our national pastime. And, because it's encouraged in public, we become more defenseless with every incident. Do we really have the courage to say we'd rather associate with our own kind without dealing with the "racist" label the Establishment puts on us??
The IKEA commericals, a local cable TV spot with an interracial family--this is pure garbage. "Personal business" is one thing, but when it becomes the model from which all Whites must follow, then that is when I feel like shouting, "ITZ COMING!!"
2002-10-26 15:53 | User Profile
Here is a nice add that keeps popping up when I visit a certain site:
[url=http://c1.zedo.com/OzoDB/p/w/16359/V1/accuquote_ad_familyRedIll.gif]http://c1.zedo.com/OzoDB/p/w/16359/V1/accu...amilyRedIll.gif[/url]
As for interracial marriage, the social costs of these unions are large. Besides producing genetically inferior children, the rate of abandonment by black fathers is rather high. Children of such circumstances are thus more likely to suffer, and more likely to make others suffer with anti-social behavior.
In modern times society, via the state, is responsible for education, housing, and care of other members of society, especially children. As these children are more of a comparative burden to society due to their inferior intelligence and more impulsive nature, and more likely to be consumptive of public resources, society has an interest in prohibiting interracial unions.
Most of the proponets (by this I mean not merely those who tolerate) of interacial unions clamour about individual choice. Yet such people most often also assert that society has a responsibilty to them. We must take care of them, and especially their mistakes. One of the greatest injustices I can imagine is responsibility without attending rights. Society has a right to prohibit interracial marriage. And we ought to exercise that right. To use the liberal catch phrase, 'think of the children!'
2002-10-26 16:30 | User Profile
**isn't it all their own personal business, really?), but comparing the marriage of two human beings, man and woman, to one another as "barely a step up from bestiality" is, at best, simply absurd. **
I agree that "barely a step up from bestiality" is a gross overstatement, but I disagree with your contention that it is only their own business. I might agree with you under other circumstances, i.e., if these people were making the decision without outside pressure to do so. Unfortunately, that is what we have today -- a situation where miscegenation is being encouraged heavy-handedly for the purpose of weakening or destroying the race.
2002-10-27 01:25 | User Profile
Originally posted by Robbie@Oct 26 2002, 14:33 **Yesterday, I woke up to an entertainment news report in which the reporter said that pop tart Christina Aguilera would rather date non-White men because she likes "flava". In a recent interview for "Rolling Stone" magazine, Aguilera said she has no use for "White dudes".
**
And any number of Hispanic groups have no use for Christina, which shows how subjective all this is. One site goes so far as to say she should not be allowed to call herself Hispanic:
[url=http://www.geocities.com/anned1140/blech4.html]http://www.geocities.com/anned1140/blech4.html[/url]
By "subjective" I mean use of the word race in some contects where it doesn't apply. Christina Aquilera is white, period. A hefty number of Latins will be considered white at least informally just going by personal experience.
In the case of Latinos, for the most part it's a matter of how European they are. I've worked with plenty that are European inside out, and I wouldn't hesitate to put them ahead of most Wall Street "WASPS" who spend their days selling out their nation and their people.
(PS: Plenty more Latino sites that bash Christina -- do a Google and laugh lout loud!)
2002-10-27 01:45 | User Profile
Producing children that don't look like you and are ugly by the standards of your ethnic group is a slap in the face of your ancestors who've worked hard to survive and pass on your genes.
White is beautiful. Your family and your kin is what stays, while governments and countries pass on.
2002-10-27 03:05 | User Profile
Originally posted by Robbie@Oct 26 2002, 07:33 **This is the kind of mentality that only promotes interracial marriages even more. **
Stating that non-whites are human beings is "promoting miscegenation"?
Whatever.
2002-10-27 03:21 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Oct 26 2002, 09:30 I agree that "barely a step up from bestiality" is a gross overstatement, but I disagree with your contention that it is only their own business. I might agree with you under other circumstances, i.e., if these people were making the decision without outside pressure to do so.
When people are literally forced to marry interracially against their wishes in this country, let me know.
Otherwise, it is a choice and none of my bloody business.
Generally people lean towards their own race or ethnic background when it comes to finding partners, so I doubt IKEA is making huge profit marketing inroads by choosing to focus on interracial partners (as well as homosexual partnership - a past commercial of IKEA).
And as for Christina Aguilera...well, let the woman date who she wants. Perhaps that "flava" will taste a little too sour for her once she gets a hold of one of these hyper-extreme, misogynist "hip hop gangsta" goons whom some of the stupider in the black community tags as an icon and hero.
There's the matter of parents who decide to allow pop culture to raise their kids. As for me, I wouldn't condone my kids getting influenced with the trashy attitudes and values of most people who influence pop culture today.
2002-10-27 03:23 | User Profile
Originally posted by madrussian@Oct 26 2002, 18:45 **Producing children that don't look like you and are ugly by the standards of your ethnic group is a slap in the face of your ancestors who've worked hard to survive and pass on your genes.
White is beautiful. Your family and your kin is what stays, while governments and countries pass on.**
I don't love my family and my kin because of their skin color.
Goes deeper than that.
2002-10-27 03:44 | User Profile
Originally posted by Mercuria@Oct 26 2002, 20:23 **I don't love my family and my kin because of their skin color.
Goes deeper than that.**
It goes deeper than that with everyone, I think. The outward appearence and cultural standards of what is beautiful and moral is incidentally identifying your kin and family too, unless your family is racially mixed :lol:
2002-10-27 03:58 | User Profile
Originally posted by Mercuria@Oct 27 2002, 03:21 **Perhaps that "flava" will taste a little too sour for her once she gets a hold of one of these hyper-extreme, misogynist "hip hop gangsta" goons whom some of the stupider in the black community tags as an icon and hero. **
But you see, the "misogyny" that comes from the Negro hip-hop rappers is perfectly acceptable in our society, just as long as it's coming from a non-White. If the musicians were White, we'd have NOW and other related hags reminding us of the "evil, misogynist White males" that must be stopped. They don't do that with the "brothas". Their women tolerate it because they're both in the "struggle", if you know what I mean. Christina Aguilera wouldn't mind it because you don't see black male music stars out there getting in touch with their "senstivities" (which I consider a White man's "disease"). That's not expected of the non-White males.
2002-10-27 06:32 | User Profile
Nigras & mestizos may be human, but they're not quite as human as Whites. Look at photos of a Khoisanid or a greasy troll and tell me how they're the "equals" of our people. As far as I'm concerned, any "white" fool who decides to breed with such subhumans is a traitor to his/her ancestors and to the White race as a whole and therefore should be shunned at the very least.
Speaking of the latest in jew genocidal agitprop: anybody seen the ads for Ghost Ship? A white sow is shown sucking the pillowy lips of the Heroic Stud Nigra.
I know I can't wait to rush to the theaters to see that.
2002-10-27 09:38 | User Profile
Originally posted by madrussian@Oct 26 2002, 20:44 It goes deeper than that with everyone, I think. The outward appearence and cultural standards of what is beautiful and moral is incidentally identifying your kin and family too, unless your family is racially mixed :lol:
Actually, I'm part French-Canadian Indian.
As if that matters.
I don't identify with them "culturally" or otherwise.
And damn it, I'm no animal...except when I have a craving for chocolate!
2002-10-27 09:56 | User Profile
Originally posted by Robbie@Oct 26 2002, 20:58 **But you see, the "misogyny" that comes from the Negro hip-hop rappers is perfectly acceptable in our society, just as long as it's coming from a non-White. **
That's the way it would seem, unfortunately! Of course, tell that to Christina if she ever gets hold of one of these guys for "flava" and he starts bee-slapping her around. (I really can't for the life of me figure out how any woman of any color can stand these asses.)
If the musicians were White, we'd have NOW and other related hags reminding us of the "evil, misogynist White males" that must be stopped. They don't do that with the "brothas".
I haven't researched that yet, but that I will. I know they've protested against Eminem, the Beastie Boys, and Prodigy...those are the cases most publicized.
Interesting you should bring this up. Tammy Bruce, former president of N.O.W. Los Angeles, states in her book The New Thought Police that there has indeed been some "muscle" put on N.O.W. from the misery merchants in the black community. When Ms. Bruce led her L.A. chapter in a highly-publicized protest and vigil against O.J. Simpson, her bosses tried to dissuade her. (Buy the book or check it out from your library - read the chapter entitled "Not N.O.W.". Apparently N.O.W. National's desire to appear "not racist" overrules addressing one of the most public, visible stories of domestic violence this country - or the world - has ever seen.)
2002-10-27 09:57 | User Profile
Originally posted by N.B. Forrest@Oct 26 2002, 23:32 **Nigras & mestizos may be human, but they're not quite as human as Whites. Look at photos of a Khoisanid or a greasy troll and tell me how they're the "equals" of our people. As far as I'm concerned, any "white" fool who decides to breed with such subhumans is a traitor to his/her ancestors and to the White race as a whole and therefore should be shunned at the very least.
Speaking of the latest in jew genocidal agitprop: anybody seen the ads for Ghost Ship? A white sow is shown sucking the pillowy lips of the Heroic Stud Nigra.
I know I can't wait to rush to the theaters to see that.**
Do you always make it a habit of sounding like an agent provocateur?
2002-10-27 10:28 | User Profile
One, the White Race, a race that's been a blessing to humanity, is down to about 8% percent of the world's population and shrinking, and that trend needs to be reversed. Miscegenation involving Whites is bad for every race on the planet. Two, the White West is being swamped with non-White groups forming organizations that are working to advance the interests of their race, at the expense of Whites, and we're going to need significant White populations to resist that, democratically now and if that doesn't work, by other means in the future. It is a race war and race mixers are traitors. Hell, just look at the Mestizos on FreeRepublic tossing accusations of racism at everyone who opposes the immigration invasion and you'll see, if you have any powers of observation at all, that race trumps ideology even in a place where everyone is supposed to be working towards the same goals. It's time to pick a side.
2002-10-27 16:09 | User Profile
Originally posted by Mercuria@Oct 27 2002, 02:38 **Actually, I'm part French-Canadian Indian.
As if that matters.
I don't identify with them "culturally" or otherwise.
And damn it, I'm no animal...except when I have a craving for chocolate!**
God knows what I'm part and don't identify with. However, this has been about identifying and being a part of Western European civilization so far, something you can't deny identifying yourself with :lol:
2002-10-28 07:05 | User Profile
Originally posted by Mercuria@Oct 27 2002, 09:57 ** Do you always make it a habit of sounding like an agent provocateur?**
Unlike you, I prefer to deal with what really matters, rather than harmlessly occupying myself with trifles.
2002-10-28 08:49 | User Profile
Originally posted by N.B. Forrest@Oct 28 2002, 00:05 Unlike you, I prefer to deal with what really matters, rather than harmlessly occupying myself with trifles.
I'm sure it makes you feel much more important to think so!
2002-10-28 09:01 | User Profile
Hilarious topic.
Christina Aguilera is whiter than I am; she knows it, I know it but more importantly the nonwhite record-buying public knows it, and Christina Aguilera, being a purveyor of "dance music" (ie, the kind of Dianabol-enhanced disco routinely pumped out of shoulder-mounted bro-boxes - or jigs for jigs, if you will), needs badly to boost her sales to nonwhites. Jeez, when she did her Spanish album to milk the Aztlan crowd, she hadda learn all the Spanish phonetically! Now factor in that all her videos to date have had her sluttishly cavorting with white guys, and the Jews in charge of Team Christina obviously have decided to niggerize her by, say, 15%, to repair her 'too-white' image among black/mestizo audiences. In other words, this is all for money.
This entire boy-band/teen-diva dance-pop phenomenon is obviously a prefab product-marketing scam by middle-aged guys named Morrie and Sy, as has every 'safe' mass-marketed teen phenomenon since the 50s, from doo-wop to hula hoops to hair-metal. [Real musicians have agents and roadies and sound techs: these people have pr firms' worth of image consultants, handlers, press liasions, etc] The miscegenation angle so dear to Jews, which hit big at first with Mariah (some kind of mixed breed to begin with) and Madonna (whose image of "I'll fk anything if it might give me AIDS" lends itself naturally to Jewish agendas), really kicked into high gear when a number of second-line divas like Pink hit massive paydirt by pushing "white girl, black buck" imagery. Pink lagged far behind Aguilera comin out of the gate, but Aguilera's...ahem....lily whiteness....stalled her, while Pink's give a brotha da nappy vibe has kept her profile high.
I'd look for even more of this in the months ahead. Britney Spears' fifteen minutes of immortality having been up a half-hour ago, her Jew handlers might see fit to get her a black boyfriend in the next year or two. 'Going native' in her case would not only spike interest in her but sends that all-important sign to young girls everywhere that "Britney's growing up now". Ie, silly rabbit, white boys are for kids.
2002-10-28 16:34 | User Profile
Mercuria - "Beastly"? Precicely.
On the subject of "Beasts", Jer. 31: 27-30, "Man and beast shall cohabit and they will die for their inequity". Who are these beasts? Ezek 14:15 "If I cause evil beasts to pass through the land, and they spoil it, so that it be desolate, that no man may pass through because of the beasts.". Dig Newark, Camden, Baltimore, etc. Jonah 3:7-8 "Let neither man nor beast, herd not flock, taste anything;Let them not feed or drink water. But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God." What manner of beast would wear sackcloth, and have the power of speech?
Zach 8:10 "For before these days, there was no hire for man nor beast." Now we have beasts that can be hired.
Acts 10:12 "In which were all manner of four footed beasts of the Earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air." Note the distinction between four footed beasts and wild beasts.
2Peter 2:12 "But these are natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed; they speak evil of the things that they understand not, and shall utterly perish in their own corruption." Africa today?
2002-10-28 17:44 | User Profile
Miscegenation = Beastiality???
...and let's not forget The BEASTIE Boys...three Jewish boys who made the geld by rapping like schvarzers! Beastie = black. :lol: :lol: :lol:
2002-10-29 05:49 | User Profile
Originally posted by Mercuria@Oct 28 2002, 08:49 I'm sure it makes you feel much more important to think so!
Oh, it do, it do.
I think jewboy Kinky Friedman had the right idea when he sang "Git yer biscuits in the oven and yer buns in the bed"....
2002-10-29 13:49 | User Profile
They ain't makin' Jews like Kinky anymore...
2002-10-30 04:30 | User Profile
I have been told the video is about her parents, remember she is a half-breed.
2002-10-31 14:40 | User Profile
Out of curiosity, I read the Offending Interview at
[url=http://www.rollingstone.com/features/coverstory/featuregen.asp?pid=1276]http://www.rollingstone.com/features/cover...en.asp?pid=1276[/url]
and it's even worse than I'd imagined. I had to fight the retch-impulse all the way through; the lickspittle fag interviewer, the whore-wigger interview subject, the myriad of 'cultural' details noted in the article....the howl of a dead America that doesn't even know it's sick yet. If pop stars and celebrity icons are our gods, then we've populated the American Olympus with idiots and monsters.
Granted, ever since PEOPLE magazine debuted - the opening bell for the perverse Age Of The Celebrity Cult we've been mired in for 30 years or so - I can't read such puff pieces anyway without reaching for the Brioschi: I get physically ill reading such self-absorbed rectal felching of The Beautiful People. But this particular ass-cruller is like a celebration of gutter-wallowing. Really, it has to be read to be disbelieved. Every cheap, tawdry display of low-IQ narcissism this bim favors the interviewer with is applauded as "growing up" and a "new, adult seriousness." Eccchh.
PS- if I'm ever installed as dictator, my first edict will be to chop off the hands of anyone using the adjective "edgy". You want 'edgy'? Try eating a bowl of soup with metal hooks!
2002-11-01 00:12 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Oct 31 2002, 14:40 Out of curiosity, I read the Offending Interview
So did I. I changed my mind about her because of this bit:
"I thought that white girl was a good freestyler," says Allison.
"Yeah," says Aguilera. "I guess we have to have one white person, right?"
Well, Christina, here's my concession to Me Culture: You are what you want to be and so you aren't white after all. I didn't get past that point, it's too depressing.
Articles like this make me hope the ancient Mayan prophet was right and the world ends in... what's it, 2004 or 2006? I'll have to check. Not soon enough.
2002-11-02 01:38 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ragnar@Nov 1 2002, 00:12 > Originally posted by il ragno@Oct 31 2002, 14:40 Out of curiosity, I read the Offending Interview**
So did I. I changed my mind about her because of this bit:
**"I thought that white girl was a good freestyler," says Allison.
"Yeah," says Aguilera. "I guess we have to have one white person, right?"**
Well, Christina, here's my concession to Me Culture: You are what you want to be and so you aren't white after all. I didn't get past that point, it's too depressing.
Articles like this make me hope the ancient Mayan prophet was right and the world ends in... what's it, 2004 or 2006? I'll have to check. Not soon enough.**
It's 2012 ...... They said it on the X-Files ;)
2002-11-02 02:18 | User Profile
Originally posted by martel@Nov 2 2002, 01:38 It's 2012 ...... They said it on the X-Files ;)
Ah hah! Some other fraud said 2004 then. 2012 means ten more years of Christina, cripes.
2002-11-02 04:06 | User Profile
I will add to this Topic:
"No one may be indifferent to the racial principle, the racial question. It is the key to world history. History is often confusing because it is written by people who did not understand the racial question and the aspects relevant to it... Race is everything, and every race that does not keep its blood from being mixed will perish. . . Language and religion do not determine a race--blood determines it."
--British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli
From "The Decline of National Review"
"Why the South Must Prevail"
A famous example of the early NR stance on race was an unsigned editorial of August 24, 1957, titled "Why the South Must Prevail." It was almost certainly written by Mr. Buckley, since he uses similar language in his book Up From Liberalism. The editorial argued against giving blacks the vote because it would undermine civilization in the South:
"The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists."
"National Review believes that the South?s premises are correct. . . . It is more important for the community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority."
...
He concluded with a restatement of the principles of voluntary association. "In a free society, associations for educational, cultural, social, and business purposes have a right to protect their integrity against political fanaticism. The alternative to this is the destruction of free society and the replacement of its functions by government, which is the Marxist dream." Government?s current "civil rights" powers to limit freedom of association have, indeed, brought virtually every corner of our lives under bureaucratic control, but would NR dare say so today?
Likewise in 1957, Sam M. Jones interviewed segregationist Senator Richard Russell of Georgia. In a Q&A format, Mr. Jones asked, "Do the people of the South fear political domination by the Negro or miscegenation or both?"
Senator Russell replied, "Both. As you know, Mr. Jones, there are some communities and some states where the Negro?s voting potential is very great. We wish at all costs to avoid a repetition of the Reconstruction period when newly freed slaves made the laws and undertook their enforcement. We feel even more strongly about miscegenation or racial amalgamation.
"The experience of other countries and civilizations has demonstrated that the separation of the races biologically is highly preferable to amalgamation.
"I know of nothing in human history that would lead us to conclude that miscegenation is desirable."
Sam M. Jones wrote another article that year criticizing integration in the Washington, D.C., public schools. Titled "Caution: Integration at Work," he accurately predicted that "the problem of school integration in the nation?s capital may be eventually solved by the steady migration of the white population out of the District of Columbia."
url: [url=http://www.amren.com/natlreview.htm]http://www.amren.com/natlreview.htm[/url]
2003-05-21 19:18 | User Profile
I think that's the kind of video one would expect for a hip-hop degenerate who happens to be half-Congoid herself. She is attempting to assuage her own feelings of inferiority and identity crisis, by telling herself (and others) that miscegenation is a natural, even noble (sic) act. In fact she knows deep inside that she is not a product of nature, but rather a product of a twisted culture which gives no value whatsoever to ethnic identity.
2003-05-21 19:25 | User Profile
I will second the assertion that who you choose to marry or procreate with is not entirely a "personal choice" and nobody else's business. In fact, it's the race's business. Every act of miscegenation is a step toward genocide, or really, sui-genocide. Suicide mixed with homicide mixed with genocide. We urgently need laws banning it. I would put it high on the list of priorities for New America.
I reject the notion that White women are merely making a "choice" when they get it on with blackamoors. They are responding to powerful media messages, and no, they are not intelligent enough to resist (as are too many White young men, now cavorting with Asian women). Nor are these messages harmless - they spring from the very clear Jewish motivation to deracinate Whites through media control. Peddling this crap ought to be punishable by death.
I just saw a poster in Rite-Aid featuring a black boy pouring water on a White girl. I was tempted to rip it down.
2003-05-23 11:29 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ragnar@Oct 26 2002, 19:25 **
[/QUOTE] And any number of Hispanic groups have no use for Christina, which shows how subjective all this is. One site goes so far as to say she should not be allowed to call herself Hispanic:
[url=http://www.geocities.com/anned1140/blech4.html]http://www.geocities.com/anned1140/blech4.html[/url]
By "subjective" I mean use of the word race in some contects where it doesn't apply. Christina Aquilera is white, period. A hefty number of Latins will be considered white at least informally just going by personal experience.
**
You are wrong about Cristina.
She is not white, in fact, She is half Amerindian (Her father is Ecuadorian and the Ecuadorians are some of the less admixed populations from "Latin" America, they are very Amerindian).
2003-05-23 23:37 | User Profile
Aguilera doesn't look white to me. He facial morphology clearly owes as much to the Andes as it does to Europe. She is a mestiza who won the pigment lottery.
2003-05-23 23:47 | User Profile
Originally posted by W.R.I.T.O.S@May 23 2003, 17:37 ** Aguilera doesn't look white to me. He facial morphology clearly owes as much to the Andes as it does to Europe. She is a mestiza who won the pigment lottery. **
Exactly, if you remove her ligth pigmentation and you darken her hair, she can pass easily by Indian
2003-05-24 00:21 | User Profile
In that case, I am no longer mad at her for her tendency to mudshark. :lol:
2003-05-25 00:32 | User Profile
**Still, some responsibility remains square on the shoulders of the viewers themselves--I know that media messages are powerful and persuasive, but I really have to wonder if the people who would engage in practices like miscegenation, barely a step up from bestiality, have any self-respect. **
From an interview with Douglas Fairbanks Jr, conducted in 1999 when he was 90:
Q: What do you think of most modern films? What are your thoughts about the industry in general and the state of the entertainment world today?
Douglas Fairbanks, Jr.: I think the films are as good as ever; it's the public that's not so good. As I've said before, it's a very expensive business; making films cost a fortune, and nobody's going to invest in one unless he thinks there's a market for it. So a lot of people have very good ideas, fine ideas, but they can't get any backing for them because public tastes are such that it's not worth the gamble. So I blame the public for anything missing in matters of taste in films.