What’s uplifting about biracial children, loss of identity, the corruption of separate and unique gene pools and the death of a nation?
By Frank Roman
You know I really do get sick of hearing President George Bush, so-called civil rights groups, religious leaders and people on the street refer to America as a nation of immigrants. While thinking people understand some of these individuals are merely attempting to garner favor or simply feel good about themselves with the Mexican’s and their taxpayer supported amen groups for example, the “nation of immigrants” nonsense is merely what they have been only recently taught to say. I say only recently because up until 1965 America had laws in place which vigorously protected our founding European race; and no one can refute America’s global magnitude up until that time, for better or for worse. We had patented a classic ethnic identity with three elements making up its foundation: race, language and religion. Of course anyone can learn a new language or change their religion but no one can change their true allocation of ethnic identity: race. According to Benjamin Franklin, the British-American colonies were “diversified” by three ethnic groups of more or less equal size: German, English and Irish, with the Italians and Slavs eventually rounding out the picture.
The Americans, who first trod the forests and plains of this continent, having been sheltered for centuries in the Northwest region of Europe, gave them a distinctive inherited value. They were for all intents and purposes clones of their ancestors. Indeed, had the American colonists been given self rule at the outset they would have never allowed the importation of African slaves to till the land and tend their livestock. Equally, had this self rule continued today would we have ever found it necessary to import practically half of the southern hemisphere to mow our lawns, build our houses and clean our toilets?
The greed of the English aristocracy, who like today’s modern corporate and governmental members of the aristocracy, were more interested in short term gains than long term national stability. They were just as responsible then for the importation of African blacks to do the work just as they are responsible now for the importation of millions of dirt poor Mexicans. Through miscegenation between the slaves and their masters, then as now, our racial profile has been sinking for a very long time, which is to say their respective racial profiles are also sinking as we are all urged by the media and some churches to blend each other out of existence.
And while I’m mentioning certain people who advocate mass immigration and who think groups like EAU are simply being shrill when we say equality constitutes genocide, here is the term’s original definition as written by Rafael Lemkin, the author of the term “genocide.” “Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members (inside) a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of a national group.” And don’t forget, were it not for federally enforced tolerance and the media’s marginalization of those of us who oppose it this term applies to those who come here, too.
If any of my listeners attended a nominally good school some of you might remember that Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, which used openly racial measures limiting citizenship to persons of European extraction only. Of course it didn’t take long to be challenged on behalf of Blacks after the Civil War, but it still continued to be useful in most other cases until 1952. To ensure national identity in the 1920s, however, the immigration laws were reinforced with the “National Origins” quota constraint, limiting the percentage of immigrants from any one country to the percentage of the U.S. population in 1920 already in the U.S. — ensuring the racial character of the U.S. would not be affected due to immigration. That is, pending its repeal in 1965 by those who felt America had remained predominately white long enough. Until then there was no reason at all to promote non-white diversity — and no one did, except for a few loud mouthed religious fanatics, university Marxists and gutless government officials. So in spite of a few historical oversights, it was still a manageable situation because there were far too many people in our ranks who understood what would happen if things got out of hand.
The floodgates from the Third World are open now. Oh sure there is plenty of evidence that shows a change is taking place, such as a few immigration raids and deportations — but these are token measures with so much more in terms of awareness and education needing to be done. You see the logical outcome to racial diversity breeds group blending, which is to say no (racial) group wins. And yet no one can get themselves to believe that so-called “racism” breeds group individuality, that it preserves the distinctions Nature has given us all. In other words, separation means life; the preservation of cultural and racial identity, while mixing means the death of racial and cultural identity. How hard is that to understand? Does that sound like “hate” to you?
I mean after all, lets say someone decided through government edict to breed the magnificent Lipizzaner stallions with run of the mill work horses. Can you imagine the hue and cry from the masses? No, there would absolutely be no calls for equality then, would there? Why that would contaminate their long and proud bloodline, the talking heads and their followers would shriek; and soon there wouldn’t be any more Lipizzaner Stallions because they were bred out of existence and the world would be a lot poorer for it. And yet these same dimwits would think nothing of their publicly schooled little urchins to date and mate with mestizos or blacks because they say that race doesn’t matter to them. After all that’s what some of their pastors and priests have told them. That’s what Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center told them. That’s what George Bush told them. You are evil if you deny coffee colored “Americans” the privilege to enjoy the bodies and minds of your sons and daughters. But the Lipizzaner Stallions? They must be kept as far away as possible from just any old field nag.
Listen closely to me: Do you really want your son or daughter — or grandson or granddaughter — to come home from the hospital with a mixed race baby that will never be fully accepted by its peers of either race? After all there’s a reason why a Black couple is unable to give birth to a White baby than a White couple can give birth to a Black baby. The reason is because each race was created within a divine plan; to fulfill its own destiny as only that race is capable of doing, may it rise or fall. For those of you who advocate such insanity this is a law of Nature and you have no right to break that law and impose your destructive ignorance on the rest of our people no matter what anyone says. In other words, you are implying your ancestors were miserable racists and now you know better; that genocide doesn’t apply, right? Sounds like hate to me. Too many amid the current generation of young white people are committing racial suicide. Are you not deeply saddened to see European American women girls and mothers denying their own maternal instincts for racial survival when you see them pushing a stroller with a biracial baby inside? When you see a perfectly normal healthy looking Caucasian male with an Asian or mestizo female on his arm are you not tempted to ask him why he didn’t consider women that look more like himself are not worthy of his attention, or even that it was important for him to do so?
Consider this: Deep within your racial intuition, do you honestly believe that the precious white child with which you have been blessed, or may soon be blessed with, is literally no different than a non-white child? Do you really believe it’s a good thing to allow a child in possession of European ancestry’s physical and spiritual being to eventually merge into an African-Mexican-Third-World disorder?
You tell me what’s uplifting about biracial children, loss of identity, the corruption of separate and unique gene pools and the death of a nation.