It all started with racial separation
by Frank Roman
Is it just my imagination or is the media treating the Midwest floods we’ve been hearing so little about in a greatly different manner than the Katrina disaster? I mean, with the exception of dispassionate reporting on the progress of the unpredictable floodwaters and the people heroically battling to save their towns and crops it’s been treated like nearly an incidental news item, hasn’t it? I’m still waiting for the corporate media to issue cries of government neglect accompanied by heart-rending images of desperate people cursing the federal government for not taking care of them; people reduced to savagery and barbarism like they did with the Katrina affair in New Orleans. Where is Shepherd Smith of Fox News shrieking about the injustice and neglect taking place in the Midwest like he did over Katrina? Where are Matt Lauer and Meredith Vieira of NBC News blaming the rest of the country for the filth, death, and rapes like they did in post Katrina New Orleans? Where is the Nation of Islam decrying George Bush’s malice for “steering” the floods across America’s heartland, the same cruelty that caused him to blow up the levees in New Orleans “in order to kill black folks?”
Of course none of this is taking place because as far as the corporate media and black interest groups are concerned the Heartland does not warrant the kind of coverage it gave to the Katrina disaster. Why is that you ask? Well, as far as I can tell the relative muteness of the media is caused by the lack of black “victims” in Des Moines and Duluth Iowa. Yes, people died in both places due to nature’s unforgivable fury. Yes, countless homes were lost and lives were irrevocably altered in both places (LA and IA). So, why the disparity in reporting? In New Orleans, a town of political correctness, debauchery and crime, the media was able to exploit that calamity by showcasing, and in some cases antagonizing, black behavior for two reasons: 1] for the sake of ratings and 2] to make everyone else feel responsible for what happened to the “forgotten black victims.” Whereas the predominately white residents of the Midwest, many of whom are farmers, are stoically taking care of business and working together. Rather than looting Wal-Mart, marching for “justice,” and shooting at helicopters delivering supplies they are doing what comes naturally…just as the Katrina victims did what came naturally. In short, the corporate media dare not allow the public to see first hand the stark differences between European American behavior and African American behavior when all hell breaks loose, so it has adopted a “non-comparative” presentation of the Midwest floods. In fact any kind of direct comparison simply wouldn’t track the equality mantra they have so carefully indoctrinated our people with for decades.
“It all started with racial separation.”
These were the concluding words of a conversation one of our EAU members had with a conservative but not particularly race-conscious friend of his about World War II, National Socialism and the Holocaust. Back when our member was attending high school his history teacher liked to emphasize how the National Socialists began practicing racial segregation between Jewish people and ethnic Germans, often stating that America was going in the same direction vis-à-vis institutional racism directed by European Americans toward African Americans. Although there is no universal direct correlation between racial separation and genocide, we as white nationalists, or separatists, will always be guilty of a looming genocide in the minds of many people. That, as rumor has it, is one reason why schools and universities, churches and government institutions, motion pictures and television programming feel the need to push multiculturalism and that oldie-moldy canard, “tolerance.” That’s why “they” need to be broken up and forced to mix with other races. Then, they will realize the error of their separatist supremacist ways, learn to love multiculturalism, and everyone will henceforth live happily ever after in windswept meadows of multicultural bliss. Obviously, the truth of the matter is that separatists of most ethnics, left to themselves, will generally keep to themselves, thus diminishing the chances of inter-racial violence. Forced by law and public isolation to unite with other races, however, unrest will eventually come to the surface with hate-filled interests taking sides through monetary donations and political demagoguery. And once critical mass has been reached history will repeat itself and the grand integrationist prototype will fail here in the US as it has all over the world.
Case in point: I remember speaking with an individual a few months ago, and I suggested that the world would be a better place if each and every ethnic group lived separately and independently in their own homeland; homogenous homelands where blood and culture-related inhabitants decided how they should live – free from political correctness and the push for diversity, trade and commerce notwithstanding. My politically correct friend responded by telling me that that’s what the world used to be like, until “Europeans decided to take over world,” citing how the Spanish and the Portuguese explorers subjugated the native peoples of present day Mexico, Central America and South America. Yes, I said, Spain and Portugal did send soldiers to the lands south of the Rio Grande to conquer the natives and take the wealth of the land. But instead of sending women and families to colonize the new world, the Spanish and Portuguese men took native wives. So of course to this day the racial makeup of the lands south of the Rio Grande is composed of American Indian, Black, and mixed-race with a percentage of Whites thrown in (mestizos). This explains why the inhabitants are killing themselves to get here: they live in a homeland that they have made a mess of and they fancy coming to a country that works because miscegenation and defacto “tolerance” have utterly failed. Their lands have never thrived like the nations to the north where European derived people colonized and kept themselves intact, seldom mixing their DNA with others (1). It’s interesting to note however, that what the early explorers did through bad judgment and short sightedness is now maliciously being played out through legislation and political hatred.
Often times, in expressing our concern about the problems that we as European-Americans are facing in an increasingly multi-cultural America, we hear the room temperature litanies about our oppression of the Native Americans, black slavery, and World War II. So I guess the simple-minded logic goes something like this: because a few of our ancestors had oppressed people of other races, and now that the tables are turned, we are morally obligated to submit to our government funded, corporate sponsored, media backed oppressors. We are compelled through institutional self hate to hand over our nation and our blood to any member of a protected class who demands it because it’s the “fair” thing to do. Not as far as I’m concerned! And you know the same guilt laced judgment is used by the “race does not exist” crowd (by way of cognitive dissonance). Never mind the fact it’s not possible for us to be guilty of the sins of our ancestors if the distinction between races is supposedly non-existent, right? So alright then, if all European derived persons are inherently racist and innately evil; inclined to oppress and exploit other races, why does the Third World insist on being here whether they are invited or not. Why do blacks and mestizos continue to enjoy the fruits of a European America by demanding ever more subservience and financial charity from the host population? At the risk of sounding facetious– why is the desire for racial separation as expressed by Caucasian activists equated by some groups with gas chambers lynching and genocide? (You’ll have to go the source for that answer!)
So yes, it did all start with racial separation as our member said was declared to him by a mainstream conservative “thinker.” Racial separation certainly does rule out the United Nation’s definition of genocide, I agree (2). Therefore, at least in my mind, we should all clearly understand why continental separation from the Third World should have been kept in place. So its critical to recognize: were it not for the greedy corporations seeking cheap labor, were it not for the unions requiring dues paying members, were it not for the churches who could do with tithe paying constituents; and were it not for the social engineers –who hate the West– not needing victims to beat us over the head with, we could fix this race problem in a relatively short period of time. But we won’t have that luxury unless you join us now for a permanent long term solution.
1] Mariano Paredes, who was the mestizo dictator prior to the Mexican American War very much wanted to fight the United States because he thought he was going to get Texas back; and not just Texas. He was going to occupy Louisiana, Mississippi. Mexico was impatient to fight that war.
2] “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, … deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”