Posted by Phil on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:32 | #

More Chances, More rights, more security (for a) German Family

Posted by J Richards on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:52 | #

GW,

This picture is part of a series of photos on “Family in Germany” produced by E.G. Herlinde Koelbl, in 2001, in response to a request by the Federal Press Office (may the liberals in it be damned!).  Another example of a photo in this series is shown below:

These photos were apparently advertised throughout Germany, and you can imagine the anger the photo you posted generated among many Germans.  The government was not trying to focus on mixed-race couples; it was focusing on families.  The message at the top-right corner translates to “More Chances, More Rights, More Security,” as also translated by Phil.

Needless to add, but the typical German family looks like this, and may it remain this way:

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:55 | #

For the German government to promote the production and wide national dissemination of such a propaganda poster amounts to a push on its part for genocide which, it goes without saying, is intolerable.  When I said in another thread I was not opposed to miscegenation (since I view whom someone falls in love with and marries as none of my or government’s business) I specifically excluded from that the deliberate pursuit by governments of race-replacement for whole communities and nations.  That I’m opposed to I hope I don’t need to point out, and it is in fact an intolerable act of genocide—clearly it’s doing what Hitler and the Nazis did to the Jews only slower.  There’s no difference as regards the end-result:  the elimination of an inconvenient or hated race. 

In international politics and law there’s the casus belli, the provocation considered a legitimate reason to declare war on another country.  In domestic politics, though it may not have a name, there’s also the govermental provocation which is a legitimate reason for the people to rise up in revolt (the listing of such provocations was the subject of the U.S. Declaration of Independence).  These individuals who produced this poster, these leftists, Tranzis, whatever they are, are deliberately provoking normal, good, peaceful people beyond all reason.  It’s deliberate, make no mistake—John Bolton may be right with his theory that they feel frustrated at their lack of power in a democracy as compared to a dictatorship, so want to provoke serious unrest that will provide a pretext, an excuse, to seize more and more power for themselves and then really start doing what they want with populations under their control.  Bolton makes a good point.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 13:20 | #

Notice incidentally how, whenever an uproar develops over some governmental outrage of this nature, we always hear voices of “moderation” masquerading as “moderate conservative” voices which chastise the culprits, but chastise them on grounds that really amount to the culprits’ having become too impatient, having suddenly turned up the heat too high under the pot of water being slowly brought to a boil, increasing the risk that the frog might jump out.  It should go without saying, of course, that we must never listen to such “moderate-conservative” voices but instead start demanding an end to the whole damned infernal race-replacement enterprise where government is concerned:  inappropriate immigration, posters such as this one, and so on (let private agitators do what they please ... or perhaps not, depending on how brazen they’re being ...).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 13:32 | #

The other thing is some people in positions of influence in society think we fought against the Nazis precisely in order to have this poster become widespread reality.  We didn’t. 

On the contrary, the advent of things like this poster and tons of other outrages along the same lines are going to force a reconsideration of the entire anti-Nazi enterprise both during World War II and now. 

What Hitler and the Nazis told us they were fighting against, told us they were “defending the West and white people against,” was precisely this!  Precisely this!  Precisely this! 

We said they were lying. 

Now we see what they warned us of coming true right before our eyes.

Who was lying?

Posted by Phil on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 14:11 | #

Speaking of race replacement….....

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 14:27 | #

Women, by the way, aren’t psychologically constituted so as to see any way in which that poster might be found objectionable (unless it be some quibble or other with, say, the color-coördination of the different outfits worn, or the wife’s hairdo—something something like that).  The whole of what women see before their eyes as they look at that poster is only a part of what men see before theirs:  i.e., a delightful family scene consisting of a loving, contented mother, a devoted father who clearly adores his wife and child—look at his eyes, how they are just brimming with pride, and the couple’s lovely, well-adjusted daughter, making for an attractive, heart-warming poster.  Men see all this too, of course, but they also see the larger race-replacement portent of it, with all that that entails, all it entails, and so register unfavorable feelings about it where women, who see only the positive aspects of the picture (because they lack the brain-circuit/hormonal combination needed to perceive not only the fact that things called different races exist having differing inborn characteristics, but also what countries are and how they work) register only favorable feelings about it.  Women voters and women in the government bureaucracy are a very big part of what those desiring to avoid outright race-replacement are up against.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 14:34 | #

Phil, Bush is so low I for one don’t even speak of him any more.  He’s just ... just ... well, words can’t even describe how unspeakable he is:  how can you speak of someone whom words can’t describe?  You can’t, precisely because there are no words.  The absolute best that can be said of Bush is he’s the American people’s public enemy number-one who should be immediately impeached, placed under arrest and dragged out of the White House in chains, then put on trial for capital treason ... and it only goes downhill from there ...

Posted by Phil Peterson on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 14:40 | #

Actually the picture is so artificial that it should make people laugh.

If you look at the woman, she looks like an upper middle class (or upper class) German woman. The man looks like an African refugee fresh off the boat.

Even the poorest blacks born in Britain don’t dress that way. (chuckle)

Posted by Tournament of Champions on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:18 | #

Miscegenation destroys kinship structure and dilutes ethny loyalties, thereby generating negative externalities for both parental kin groups. Primarily for these reasons miscegenation has historically outlawed, and justifiably so.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:23 | #

ToC, it came out the other week that you were posting from the Chinese mainland.  Are there laws against miscegenation in China?  (I’d be neither surprised in the least nor critical in the least if there were—I was just wondering ...)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:27 | #

Of course, ToC, even if you’re Chinese you may not know the answer to that—I’m American but don’t know the U.S. states that, we are told, had anti-miscegenation laws on the books until this past generation.  Just thought I’d ask, in case you did know ...

Posted by Geoff Beck on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:46 | #

It might be argued miscegenation is a more violent act upon our kind than immigration.

Posted by Tournament of Champions on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:59 | #

There arent any anti-miscegenation laws in China. The communist leadership is aracialist in theory and practice, and actually has affirmative action policies in effect for native ethnic minorities (these were snuck in by leftist comintern advisors from long ago, apparently). Naturally I dont approve of the above. Better is a policy of mild ethnocentrism, and this holds true for any nation. 

Regarding the post, some gene flow may be adaptive. I am not against miscegenation in the case where it is adaptive for:
1) both individuals
AND
2) both parental ethnys
...a condition not often met (and almost certainly not by the couple in that pic). IMO the best laws are those of orthodox Judaism, which does not completely exclude the possibility of intermarriage (via conversion), but does erect reasonably high barriers.

Posted by Steve Edwards on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:21 | #

“The other thing is some people in positions of influence in society think we fought against the Nazis precisely in order to have this poster become widespread reality.”

Fred you’re right - we didn’t fight WWII to stop “racism”, we fought Nazi Germany to bring about world communism. It may not have been conscious on the part of all the allies, but I’m afraid the pattern of events points in one direction - communism. The Lend Lease Act, the failure to declare war on Russia for committing the exact same crimes against international law as Germany (only the Russians wisely waited 2 1/2 weeks before invading Poland), the disastrous Yalta conference, the UN, Alger Hiss.

The whole thing stinks - WWII was fought to usher in world communism, and don’t let anyone forget that.

Posted by Steve Edwards on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:25 | #

BTW - that poster is deliberate propaganda. No doubt about it. The aim is to condition the German people into accepting the dissolution of Germany, just as Bush is trying to condition Americans into accepting foreign occupation (oh, my, God, the Mexican troops again - in America - unspeakable…and probably treasonous).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:54 | #

We did not fight that war in order to make the world over in the image being pushed by those who commissioned and disseminated that propaganda poster.  We did not.  I had a father and two uncles in that war, and the father of every kid I knew as a friend growing up had been a soldier in that war—when I was a child growing up there was no kid, no kid, whose father had not fought in that war—and I can say they fought for no such thing.  It is now perfectly clear to me, at least, that the entire rationale for that war has to be re-evaluated.  The whole thing is now out on the table for reconsideration, the whole thing from start to finish.  We’re starting over again from scratch as regards our opinion of the justification for that war.  The other side has now tipped its hand one time too many, in regard to what it has in store for us.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:01 | #

To All Fathers:

You must train your daughters to avoid the Black and Mestizo at all costs. The facts about these races are easily obtainable, but more importantly you must stress the great dishonor and shame consorting with such types will bring to your family and ancestors.

The burden of the past and future is on our shoulders now. We cannot fail.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:20 | #

Does everyone understand the difference between, on the one hand, a government commissioning posters like that and seeing to their wide dissemination and the people being free to say what they think and feel about it, and on the other hand, a government commissioning posters like that and seeing to their wide dissemination and the people being forbidden to say what they think and feel about it, on pain of punishments ranging from mild to quite harsh?  Does everyone see the difference?  It’s the difference between something that’s been carefully planned long in advance and is now being methodically forced, and something that’s honestly put forward and left open to criticism and perhaps a change of policy depending on how it’s received.

We have race-replacement being imposed by pure, naked Diktat.  That velvet glove is very, very thin.  Open your mouth to ask questions and you’ll immediately be given a good look at the mailed fist within until you realize your mistake and shut your mouth ... and better shut if tight, too, if you know what’s good for you ... None of this was ever up to you, you see—it’s entirely up to certain forces behind the scenes and only them, so shut up you!

Posted by Tom D on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:02 | #

Fred Streed’s comment that

“Women, by the way, aren’t psychologically constituted so as to see any way in which that poster might be found objectionable”

is remarkably off-base and frankly, ludicrous. I know many white women who are racially aware, make “racist” comments, refuse to date black men, etc. Having just heard a woman rant about “ni**ers” last night, I can’t help but laugh at Fred’s claim. From what they’ve told me, even the relatively few white women who miscegenate are most definitely racially aware. They KNOW they are breaking an age-old taboo. That’s where they get much of the thrill.

Fred’s nonsense about women reflects an obsessive kind of misogyny rather than any knowledge of the real world. This I know from experience.

Posted by Tom D on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:04 | #

Correction:

the above should read “Fred Scrooby,” not “Fred Streed.”

Sheesh!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:44 | #

“They KNOW they are breaking an age-old taboo.”  (—Tom D.)

Women who are in principle against race-replacement, Tom, are rarer than hen’s teeth, way rarer than men.  Women don’t know what races or countries are.  They can only see individuals.  If I’m wrong about women not seeing race let them show it in the voting booth and in public opinion polls—so far they haven’t shown it. 

Speaking of which, I’ll add that as I see the issue, opponents of race-replacement don’t object to any individual mixed couple like this German-African one above, their only objection being to the replacement of the races of whole communities and nations against the people’s will, which no given individual mixed couple single-handedly brings about—but a country’s immigration policies bring it about, so those are what opponents of race-replacement object to, as I see the issue.  That’s all they object to.  Their involvement in the question does not have to do with individual race-based likes and dislikes—which they may or may not also have, but as a separate issue if they do. 

The other side would like to equate opposition to the unwanted race-replacement of whole communities and nations with racial animosity on a personal, individual level so they can say we’re haters.  But we judge others as individuals, and oppose only policies, not individuals.  The haters are on the other side. 

Geoff said if my son wanted to marry a Negro I’d object (he said my daughter, but I don’t have any daughers).  He’s right, I think I would object very strongly but that would be on the sort of purely personal level where affairs of others are no business of mine or mine theirs, and I wouldn’t have a word to say about some other family’s daughter or son doing that—it would be her and their business.  When government forces a community’s race to change against its will, that does concern me, however—very much, and legitimately so.

Posted by Tom D on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:14 | #

Fred:

Haven’t you seen that clip of the black women beating up the white girl? You don’t think these black women see that she is white, and hate her for it? Please.

I’ve listened to (and read) many black women regarding race. I don’t recall a single one who didn’t have a vicious hatred for whites (all whites, but especially blonde white women).

I also know of many Jewish women who are ultra-ethnocentric. Many of the strongest Zionists out there are Jewish females. If you think most of them would be cool with their daughters bringing home Sambos, you’ve got another thing coming.

Insofar as many whites lack overt racial consciousness, this is a problem that affects both sexes to a similar degree.  You’d point out that white women don’t vote overtly racist, so they must not be racist. The problem is that white men don’t vote overtly racist either. Most vote covertly racist, i.e., Republican—but the same is true for most white women. The gender gap in the Republican vote is negligible (and nonexistent with regard to married white women). 

It’s well known that blacks who vote Democrat are voting based on race. Well, black women are even more likely than black men to vote Dem. To pretend that black women aren’t racially conscious is simply absurd.

My eyes don’t lie. I’ve witnessed way too much clear racial consciousness among women for your argument to hold sway.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:15 | #

I’ll try to make what I just said clearer: 

This Negro chap in the photo may be an extremely nice guy, someone I or anyone here would fully approve of on a personal level and possibly become good friends with.  He may be an excellent husband, father, and breadwinner.  His wife likewise may be exceedingly charming and his daugher a delightful little angel.  In fact, judging from their appearance in this picture that’s sort of the way I’d expect them to be if I ever met them.  Now let’s say I was a German who lived, it turned out, in the same town as this fellow and even worked alongside him in the same office or factory, and became fast friends with him over a period of years—best of friends, even.  And let’s say one day over a beer the question of immigration of African Negroes into Germany came up and he said he was for letting increased numbers of them in.  I’d say that, as much as I had come to be close friends with him and hoped we’d continue to be close friends, I totally opposed letting significant numbers of members of his race into Germany because Germany after all was a nation with its own race and didn’t want to be changed into another one, any more than any other race would, his included.  Yes, I’d say that to him, even though he had a mixed-race child—my saying that would be no reflection whatsoever on him, his marriage, or his child.  I might like him and his family fine, but also feel my country, my race, had a right to continue intact as a race into the future, which wouldn’t come to pass if it flooded itself with other races—the take-home point being that opposition to race-replacement of whole communities and nations doesn’t mean personal animosity toward individual members of any other races.

Posted by Steve Edwards on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:17 | #

Fred: I had relatives in WWII as well (my Grandpa - although he was an engineer - and others). I wish I didn’t have to think, whenever I visit their graves, “they fought for world government”. No, it would be easier to take a blue pill (or is it a red pill?) and say “they fought to defend our way of life”, or “they fought against totalitarianism”. Sadly, none of the latter are true. Our ancestors fought for totalitarianism, even if they fought courageously.

It’s been a tough couple of years for me, since reality forced me to tear up my entire world-view. But the truth doesn’t spare your sensibilities. You have to face it eventually.

Much of the received wisdom (again, I don’t want to believe this) about the 20th Century is false - we have to start from scratch and put every historical event together again in a logical progression. As Robert Welch used to say, you have to “project the lines”. Everything that has happened since the First World War (and perhaps before) has happened for a reason.

We are having our societies overthrown and destroyed via mass immigration for the same reason that we had a sexual/civil rights revolution in the 1960s; for the same reason we created the UN and assorted world bodies; for the same reason we entered World War II; for the same reason totalitarianism (communism/nazism) wreaked havoc on the globe following World War I.

Until people recognise this fact, they are never going to understand why we are here and what is going on. People will have a vague clue that something is amiss, but they will never get it until they engage in serious revisionism.

I’m not going to say much more, except recommend that MR readers read this article by Robert Locke in full:

http://www.bestwriters.com/good/archives/00000031.htm

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:19 | #

Tom, sorry, I saw your new comment after posting mine.  Thanks, and I’ll think about what you say.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:28 | #

Steve that was a very significant comment you just posted.  I agree with it.  For my part, I’ve just decided in the past couple of months or so that for the first time in my life I’m going to have to learn what World War II was really all about.  Until now I’ve just been “going with the flow” on that—light reading, seeing no reason whatsoever to question the broad claims of our side, and so on.  I agree with you that, in light of the other side’s behavior, everything is now on the table ... everything.  Regarding World War II I’m, as of right now, wiping my mind clean and starting over from scratch.  No one ... no one ... is going to brainwash me any longer into acquiescing in my own race’s replacement and extinction.  That phase of my life, which I began to reverse a few years ago, is now completely and finally over.

Posted by Steve Edwards on Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:42 | #

The irony of WWII is that mindless “patriotic”, nationalistic, and jingoistic rhetoric and imagery has been used in the service of a radical internationalist agenda.

To ally with the worst dictator in Europe against the second worst dictator in Europe in the cause of “anti-totalitarianism” is a cruel hoax.

I’m coming around to the view that WWII was no more justified than the Iraq War (it has since become clear that the Iraq War is a disaster for western civilisation); i.e. I’m not convinced there was any sensible justification for the British Empire declaring war on Germany in 1939 (especially as that led directly to the dissolution of the British Empire); nor am I convinced that Roosevelt was entirely “surprised” by Pearl Harbour, thus blowing (literally)the American cause out of the water.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Mon, 12 Sep 2005 02:46 | #

> I convinced that Roosevelt was entirely “surprised” by Pearl Harbour, thus blowing (literally)the American cause out of the water.

He was not suprised, according to newly released information Roosevelt knew an attack was coming, but he was not sure where or when.

Importantly,

1) Roosevelt was provoking war with Japan by sabotoging trade deals with the Japanese and embarrassing them in diplomatic dealings.

2) On at least one occassion Roosevelt sent American ships into the warzones of China, hoping Japan would sink the ship, so he could declare war.

I refer you to

Thomas Fleming, A New Dealer’s War:  FDR and the War Within World War II

and

This Interview with Robert B. Stennet. (30 Minutes, MP3)

or read here:

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=127

Posted by Braveheart on Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:37 | #

Altough the German government claimed the pictures (during the election period and tax paid!!!)  to be “neutral” (the only aim was to show “happiness” was said at that time) one should know that Herlinde Koelb regularely takes pictures for the New York Times…

See: http://www.wdr.de/tv/service/familie/inhalt/20020403/b_5.phtml

Flanders,