Saturday, 16 April 2011

Interracial Marriage

This contribution from Alan O'Reilly:

All right-thinking Britons who love their country should oppose interracial marriage. The implications of race-mixing are much more sinister than is commonly understood - individual objections notwithstanding. Integrationists by definition are far too blinkered to see the big picture.

It is common knowledge that the mainstream media and many leading politicians exert considerable pressure in favour of race-mixing and scream 'racist!' whenever any sane individual protests against this kind of coercion.

Such pressure is mainly directed towards blacks and whites. In spite of the abominable practice of Muslim 'grooming' of mainly vulnerable white adolescent girls, Asians will almost exclusively favour their own kind for longer-term relationships regardless of any outside pressure. Muslim women risk so-called 'honour' beatings and even killings if they don't [like Banaz Mahmod, ]. Heinous as this cruelty is, it simply reinforces the point.

Large-scale white and black liaisons are of course unlikely to occur in spite of media and political pressure. They could, however, be enforced by the EU, via Europol and the Euro-army, when Britain is fully absorbed into the EU Superstate or ['golden garrotte'] concentration camp following the treason of Gordon Brown in May 2009, compounded, sadly, by royal assent. The aim, as always, is to destroy white Anglo-Saxon Celtic Britain, both as a nation and as a people.

(The USA attempted much the same with Germany after WW2, by sending large numbers of black troops to make up the occupation forces.)

Enforced race-mixing is one of the most effective ways of so doing. The black race in Britain would be destroyed in the process but that would be of no consequence to our European masters, i.e. gauleiters.

Paul Broca published a study in 1864 on hybridity in the human race. He found that, in South Carolina, where white Anglo-Saxon males had cohabited with negresses, the mulatto offspring were "little prolific and short-lived." See

He also reported that "the union of the Caucasian women with negroes is very frequently non-productive."

J.H. Van Evrie, M.D. reached the same conclusions after studying "several thousand cases of mixed blood" and published the results of his research in 1868. A CD entitled Vatican Assassins 3rd Edition, by American Baptist writer Eric Jon Phelps, summarises Van Evrie's work and is obtainable via Eric’s site .

Van Evrie concludes that the mulatto progeny of white males and negresses, who then inter-breed with other hybrids, are by the 4th generation "as absolutely sterile as may be assumed as the natural and impassable barrier of this abnormal and exceptional being."

He adds that "it is in the female hybrid that this tendency to most apparent. Many of them are incapable of nourishing or taking care of their offspring, and together with miscarriages and the numerous forms of disease connected with maternity, they are often found to have had a large number of children, not one of whom reached maturity."

An additional burden for our already overstretched NHS, I suggest, should the EU force this strategy on Britain.

Broca found that mulatto offspring of Southern European whites and negroes were more successful in reproduction but where this happened on an appreciable scale, as in Portugal, the result was disastrous after little more than 100 years.

In Racial Realities in Europe, Lothrop Stoddard describes how Portugal was a major sea power in the 16th century.

He then describes how she experienced a drift of her population away from rural areas to the cities, lured by wealth, a constant drain on her manpower by foreign wars and "racial impoverishment...with negro blood," as great landowners imported large gangs of Africans to work the half-deserted countryside and who inevitably intermingled with what remained of the indigenous population.

In little over a century, Portugal degenerated into a minor nation as a direct result of these combined trends.

Britain is degenerating in the same way. 5,500,000 or at least 10% of white Britons now live abroad. Britain continues to haemorrhage her white indigenous population at the rate of over 100,000 a year, to be replaced in over abundance by 300,000 foreign incomers annually. See

Her available employment, including rural work, is progressively being taken over by foreigners, especially Poles.

Though obviously not of African descent, Poles and other Eastern Europeans are nevertheless not equivalent to the native peoples of the British Isles. They are largely, i.e. 90%+, Alpine Caucasians, not Anglo-Saxon Celtic, or Nordic Caucasians (the Nordic distinction applies to all so-called 'immigrants' to these isles up until and including the Norman i.e. 'North-man,' conquest) and clearly cannot be assimilated without a deleterious effect on Britain's indigenous racial character.

And incomers of African or Afro-Caribbean descent to Britain now number well over 1,000,000 and they are continuing to arrive in large numbers, e.g. Congolese to Norfolk, Somalis to the south-east etc.

This is sufficient for the EU to further its strategy of Britain's ultimate destruction as a nation and a people as outlined above.

Given that white Britons could be a minority in their own country by the year 2066 if present trends continue, the EU could achieve its aim by about the year 2100, or not much later.

Remember Portugal - and that, like Portugal in its final decline, Britain is no longer a major sea power, so the EU destruction of Britain is off to a running start.

Alan O'Reilly
N. Yorks.


Anonymous said...

Most interesting, more stuff like this please.

alanorei said...

Thank you, Sarah and thank you, IC1MALE.

African 'culture' is what is being used to dupe the white race into adopting African customs, morals and atttitudes and ultimately miscegenation with Africans.

It's known as rock music.

Dr. Hugh Pyle in The Truth About Rock Music p 10 states with respect to the origins of rock "Missionaries have dealt with heathen tribes in Africa, in Haiti and other islands of the sea. They describe the beat of the drums, the incessant chanting, the writhing dances by drunken, crazed savages. And they have told me that the beat and the movements of their pagan and sensual dances in these so-called heathen lands are exactly the same as the beat and movements of the rock ‘n roll dances over here in so-called civilized America! Dr. William Ward Ayer in a booklet, Jungle Madness and Modern Music, calls it “perverted music which came from the jungles by way of the slave trade of the Caribbean, the voodoo demon-worship of Haiti, and the sensuous pleasure houses, gambling joints and booze dives of New Orleans’ Lower Basin Street.”"

I submit that many of our adolescent victims of Moslem paedo gangs would be far less vulnerable to the lure of drugs, vodka and whoredom proffered by a carload of darkskinned adult male strangers were it not for the corruption already wrought in the young victims' lives by the poison of African jungle music.

Nationalist said...

A great monologue on the issue by former BNP member Arthur Kemp:

Anonymous said...

jesus christ, if you fall in love with someone, and think, well, i love them, but maybe there wont be as many people who look kind of like me in 50 years time, so ill just leave this person i love, then you are an idiot

you get one life, and only one, thinking like this is barely even human, now im aware with your views the chance of your having kids with someone who doesnt look like you, is very unlikely, so whatever, but the idea you'd frown upon two people in love, for any reason, is absurd, and shows you dont really care about people, only ideas

and you can refer to your nonsence study all you like, mixed race people actually get fewer repeat genes, meaning they have a greater potential to get two sets of positive genes (as well as two negative sets, but those are the odds) there are mixed race people that are less likely to get illnesses, have better immune systems, better muscle gentics etc, than the average of any other race

but thats recent reserach, we can ignore that, probably liberal bias anyway, better stick with the study from 1864


Rose of Scotland said...

I don't know what research you have been reading ben, but it sounds like just more multi cult propaganda.

It is an open secret that the offspring from mixed race unions are more prone to any number of genetic problems, and you had better hope they never need an organ transplant, or a bone marrow transplant because they will not find a match.

Anonymous said...

rose of scotland

i said they can get a double pos or double neg set of genes, the england football team is made up of about 40% mixed race people, black and white, they are only a few % of the people in this country, they do not produce weaker offspring, its just that you only believe in what you want to and opt you ignore reality


alanorei said...

I see ben that you are a confirmed integrationist, especially insofar as you refrain from citing any serious research.

I would challenge you to identify one major nation that came to prominence as a major nation in the last 500 years solely via mulatto leaders and a mulatto population.

Anonymous said...

'...its just that you only believe in what you want to and opt you ignore reality.'

Yes, that describes your attitude precisely Ben. You and your ilk are getting increasingly desperate. Whites are waking up to the truth about race and your lies no longer work. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Rose of Scotland said...

How does being able to play football prove that someone has no genetic problems?, you can be deaf, sterile or mentally subnormal and still be able to kick a ball!

Jason Rose said...

Im not against people having relations with whom they wish, but one point I think that was failed to be raised in this article was the pressure put onto the youth. Being mixed race must put a huge boundary on where one feels affiliated with.

Unfortunately I think over time we will end up living in a 'one race' world whether its forced and takes a hundred years or happens naturally over a thousand.

alanorei said...

A good point, Jason, though in part not included because the article focused on the outcomes of mixed race liaisons.

A related point to yours is that of the race-mongrelisation-is-good-for-you mantra, as promoted by the MSM. Sarah has posted a couple of articles on this point, w.r.t. the media-puffed Girls Aloud singer (performer) Cheryl 'Ragwort' Tweedy-Cole.

CRT-C is said not to be able to carry a tune in a bucket by those who know about good singing but she was 'puffed' because she had this on/off (now off) relationship with black/mixed race footballer Ashley Cole.

The MSM will no doubt continue to promote this kind of liaison regardless of the destructive effect on both races.

Anonymous said...

We are having the same problems with non-White immigration here in the States. Hispanics are destroying our nation--our Anglo-Saxon heritage--and our gov't encourages it. There are many of us who have had it but speaking up will result in job termination or worse. I cannot understand how the West has allowed this.

alanorei said...

You also have the threat of the mainly Hispanic MS-13 gangs in the US, particularly on the West Coast, I believe.

Marwinsing said...

Eagles don't fly with budgies.

Dr.D said...

In the US, the rise of feminism and the family courts system has turned many men away from marriage in general and away from Anglo women in particular. They say that Latin and Oriental women are more compliant and make better wives (this is strictly hearsay as far as I am concerned). This is clearly short term thinking, considering only their own needs, but it is not surprising that individuals do that.

Miscegenation opens a whole can of worms that any reasonable person would sure prefer to leave sealed. Only the foolishly adventurous would get into this, knowing that it is forbidden in the Bible and was against most State laws until only a few years ago. That should be a clue that there is something not right about it. But youth tend to see such things as challenges rather than warnings, sadly.

Anonymous said...

"jesus christ, if you fall in love with someone, and think, well, i love them"

This is another Media myth hammered into our heads.The myth that love comes like a storm and we can do nothing about our feelings.Or to name it better: our initial urges.I will not have a relationship with a non-white woman ,just because i liked her butt for 3 seconds.I always imagine the offspring with her,and can you,who advocate such relationships really say that you want children with African or Asian features that look nothing like you?I still don't believe a word of that,no matter how many idiotic White women go on about how cuuuute mualatto children are.

Interracial relationships have nothing to do with real love, it is just a fetish gone too far.
People who fall for it know that it is wrong,that is why they defend it zealously whenever they are confronted with their dishonour.

alanorei said...

Well said, Marwinsing and Dr D

What is happening, I think, is the Enemy removing the bounds to weaken the nations, Isaiah 10:13, 14:12.

It is God Who imposes bounds, Acts 17:26. Speaking from a strictly ethnicity stance, Africans should be in Africa, not in either the US or the UK.

(This does not mean that the US should be handed back to the native Americans. The scripture addresses that issue as well.)

alanorei said...

Re: "People who fall for it know that it is wrong,that is why they defend it zealously whenever they are confronted with their dishonour."

I think that says it all, Anon.

Like the old saying about the expression of a bad conscience,

"A hit dog yells..."

Shaunantijihad said...

The most important aspect only hinted at in the article is the effect the Negro genome has on the IQ of nations. A nation's success is in part about the availability of a large number of high IQ individuals, which the Negro human does not supply. This is why all Negro nations are simply catastrophic, primitive trash heaps, and what makes the Negro the perfect, if unwitting, vehicle of gene warfare.

Also check out the article The Wealth and IQ of Nations (you will need to supply your email address).

alanorei said...

Good point, Shaun, thank you for the link.

The essential point of the article was to show that miscegenation is termination for both races.

That is why other aspects such as IQ etc. were not emphasised.

Maybe you could use the link to compile an article on this other important aspect?

misterfox said...

That's a very interesting article which not only applies to relationships between blacks and whites. My daughter who is married to an oil man has told me that a number of the oil men have married filipinos when posted overseas and she says that the women seem to have problems with their pregnancies. These unions are not very fertile.
I have also noticed that most unions between blacks and whites do not last. They tend to have the one child and then split up. Take Lewis Hamilton's parents and Kelly Holmes' for example. I definitely think the media is attempting to promote being mixed race as more desirable so as to brainwash the young. I think though our young girls are becoming more wary especially since in Kent a black man gave a white girl the HIV virus. I'm sure he was deliberately moved into the area as it was a white area so that he didn't sleep around with the black women in Brixton.

alanorei said...

Thank you, Mr Fox

Re: infertility, I can think of a godly couple who are very close to us who, sadly, appear to be in that exact same situation.

For some time I've been noting the manner in which the media will place a black or dark-skinned man in association with a fair-skinned young woman who is often blonde. Scores of cases exist. It has been the practice in the US media for decades now.

It is to be hoped that our own girls and young women are, as you indicate, seeing through the media-inspired deception.

Shaunantijihad said...

Thanks Alan, though there's no reason why Sarah can't just post the original article. The National policy Institute is obviously from a US perspective, though everything applies equally to every Caucasian nation.

Look up KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn, he stated some half a century ago that the Soviet Communists would fake their own collapse and infiltrate the West with loyal hardliners, who would bring up a generation to infiltrate all political parties and implement mass immigration of Negroes and Muslims to bring about civil war in the West, leaving the way open for the hidden Soviet and China to emerge as the sole world power impose a One World Communist Government.

Golitsyn made some 80 predictions based on what he understood of the plan, and some 70 or so have come to pass. The number of descendants of Soviet exiles and "former" Communists who lead European Parties and even the EU President tends to suggest a good deal of truth in what Golitsyn has to say.

Personally I think they have totally underestimated Islam, which may well emerge as victor in Europe. Let us pray our people and even the media, if they are not part of the treason, will awaken to the danger before it is too late. As Mr Kemp would say, demographics is destiny. Bradford was 2% Muslim 40 years ago, now it is 60%. The next "riot" will blossom into what all Muslim "riots" really are, the beginnings of the Islamic takeover.

alanorei said...

Thanks, Shaun

It's interesting that the Rense site for the Communist takeover of the US lists as an additional point:

46. Import anti-white racists from the Third World, via an open-borders policy, then force their integration to divide and conquer white Western civilization in North America.

This strategy appears to be in operation.

Daniel said...

Breeding between races actually increases the health of children compared to their parents through a number of different factors.

Primary among these is the reduced chance of the acquisition of homozygous recessive alleles that can cause genetic disorsers.

Follow this link for a study on increasing hetrozygosity:

Further intelligence in humans is not race dependant, or rather the two concepts don't make any sense wehn linked. More literature:

With those as a base and using tools such as Google Scholar and Pubmed you can find plenty more studies from perr reviewed publications. Set the filter to only include stuff from the last ten years if you want current information.

Shaunantijihad said...

Daniel, can you prove blacks are or are not a different race? Are you prepared to overturn the entire established Linnaean taxonomic system, subsequently confirmed by genetic studies, in order to uphold the current politically correct orthodoxy? Because you will have to.

Shaunantijihad said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
James Mathurin said...

Shaun, this why I like looking at opposing views, it makes me do a little research to make sure I am using the correct terms.

Looking at the biological definition of 'race' [], it is clear that it refers to pretty insignificant differences, that are in fact so insignificant that they could not justify a different taxonomic label. To require any change to taxonomy, there would have to be a difference distinct enough to make them different species, or at least subspecies, and, quite simply, there is not.

Saying that Blacks, Asians, Whites, or inuits and Australian Aborigines are different races is only stating that they examples of the exact same subspecies (homo sapiens) from different habitats and/or geographical locations.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...


Could you please rephrase your latest comment, I do not feel comfortable approving it in its current form.

If you would like to write to me at we can discuss it

Shaunantijihad said...

Of course, Sarah, as you wish. Perhaps I am a little too forthright. My apologies.

James, please read the link I posted above. The differences between people on this earth is more than cultural, and sometimes is greater than is believed or taught by politically-correct motivated professors. If you exchanged the populations of, say, Iceland and Haiti, would you expect Haiti to continue for long as a catastrophic rubbish tip and Iceland to continue as a first world nation? If not, why not? When you understand this, you will see that not all immigration is of equal quality.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Thank you Shaun

In appreciate your cooperation and understanding


James Mathurin said...

Shaun, I agree that there may be factors that go deeper than social ones; we also have to consider history.

Swapping the populations of Iceland and Haiti probably is an interesting hypothetical. Transplanting the population of Iceland into a country with infrastructure devestated by natural disaster, disease and a deficit of marketable natural resources would probably prevent them from living as a First World nation. However, if the people within the country with influence in the First World used it for the good of the community, rather than just themselves, they could possibly get the country the aid it needed to rise to the Second World.

Conversely, the population of Haiti being transplanted to a ready made infrastructure, anda n evironment free of disease would offer a good chance for the country to sort itself out. They would suffer from a deficit of educated people, and the social instability carried over from their Third World status would remain, but should be ameliorated by the change of environment.

I don't think that it's any insult to the people of Iceland to suggest that, if they were forcibly removed from their country, treated as cattle for several centuries, had their language and culture banned and beaten out of them, and left in a social structure set up against against their own interests, as the people of Haiti and most ex-colonial slave countries have, that the Icelanders would be where the Haitians are now.

Anonymous said...

Haiti, formerly part of the island of Hispaniola, was once described as a paradise. The rich and fertile island was taken over by its current inhabitants after they armed themselves and slaughtered the European colonists. The black Haitians paraded, as the symbol of their revolt, the body of a white baby impaled on a pike, as they massacred any white person they could get their murdering hands on. Subsequently the country’s population has, with foreign economic aid, swollen to nearly 10 million. Like any place with a dense sub-saharan population, They’ve turned paradise into hell. Not at all like Iceland.

There are no Icelanders in Haiti or Africa, yet today Africans continue to leave their continent in their millions, invading even Iceland and everywhere else with a predominantly European population. This is very much a one-way traffic. When they colonise they reproduce, they never leave. Maybe Haiti’s past will one day be Iceland’s future. God forbid.

James Mathurin said...

Anonymous, your history of Haiti is pretty much entirely fiction. Would you care to provide some sources or links? Otherwise it's little more than a gruesome fairy tale.

As far as I can tell, ( and slavery was abolished in Haiti after the French Revolution, and many Europeans and Black slaveholders fled the country before then, so that they could keep their own slaves. This was followed by a war of independence, but there does not seem to be a reliable account of the kind of atrocities you are outlining.

Are you sure there are no Icelanders in Africa? Not one emmigrant or foreign worker? Again, what do you base this on?

Africans and Europeans are constantly leaving their home countries by the millions, and millions of Europeans and Africans remain in their country. While I agree that people from the Developing World will always be more likely to move to the Developed World, defining it in terms of race is misleading and unhelpful.

Also, many immigrants return to their home country later in life.

PamelaG said...

Actually I doubt Anonymous will have much difficulty supporting his claim, the Haitian revolution was notoriously bloody. Even Wikipedia, which tends to try and sanitise these things, admits that the slaves slaughtered 4,000 whites and indulged in rape, torture and mutilation.

I have read also that they slaughtered everyone of mixed race as well, but I don't have the citation for that.

Shaunantijihad said...

Rhodesia was a first world country, (built by whites out of empty bush, btw, not stolen from anyone, who then permitted massive Negro immigration), which fed itself and exported huge amounts of product for revenue to build an infrastructure not seen anywhere in Africa except apartheid South Africa. Rhodesia never had slavery. Demographics is destiny, and white rule gave way to black rule under the ideology of democracy, and the renamed country is just another racist, Negro basket-case. Where are the calls of racism for Mugabe's business ownership law whereby whites must hand over 51% of their business to a Negro, as well as all the racist murders featuring rape and torture of even infants and the elderly?

Quite simply, Negroes and Caucasians are different. If you asked me to choose blindly a basketball team and a swimming team I would choose a black basketball team and a white swimming team. Physical differences extend to bone and cranial structure and subsequent cubic brain capacity, which has resulted in Negroes being physically stronger, more sexually motivated and active, likely to have more children with multiple partners, but at the cost of a lower IQ. That is why the wealth and IQ of nations is permanently linked to race and immigration issues, and why immigration can be used as a genetic weapon if an enemy, for e.g. Communists, wished to infiltrate a nation's political parties with committed agents.

As for Icelanders, like the Spaniards they would in time return Haiti to the paradise it was as a Caribbean Ibiza or Mallorca, though perhaps with less tolerance for the strong sun than Spaniards. Of course, no-one would just move whole populations like that. But what if there was a 2% population shift every year for 50 years? Or, what if there was just a 10% population shift but the newcomers had a higher birth rate? The end result would be the same. Going a bit off topic here, but the Muslim birth rate of 8.1 per wife is a purposeful act of colonisation being preached and spurred on by the Imams. As far as I am concerned it is an act of war, one that is simply not recognised or deliberately ignored by our political class, The Castrati, shall we call them?

I realise this must be difficult, and I have already provided one one book to read, but here as another eminently useful text that, somewhat like Galileo in his day, has run afoul of the heresy thought police:

Anonymous said...

James Mathurin said...

"Anonymous, your history of Haiti is pretty much entirely fiction. Would you care to provide some sources or links? "

Richard A. Haggerty, ed. Haiti: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1989

Shaunantijihad said...

It's not just Haiti or Africa:

James Mathurin said...

Pamela and Shaun,
Nice to get a decent citation, so thanks for that. Certainly looks like Haiti left everyone involved looking bad. It's certainly not as if such a reaction was unpredictable - dehumanizing people leads to them acting inhumanly, but just because the Blacks killed less White people than White people killed Black people doesn't justify their actions. It's one of the things that makes peaceful revolutions so rare.

Shaun, are you serious when you ask where the calls of racism over Mugabe are? Seriously, is there anyone now vigourously supporting Mugabe, and regarding him as anything other than a racist, homophobic, murderous tyrant? It is those qualities, rather than him being Black, which ruined Zimbabwe.

Your points about how the Icelanders would inevitably return Haiti to a paradise are surprising. Was it on purpose that you picked the majority-White country where the current global financial crisis kicked off?

Unless you're going to claim that the Icelandic bank crisis was caused by a sudden surge of non-White immigration, can you seriously claim that these people would be able to turn a Developing country into a paradise, when they have ruined the economy of their own First-World country?

Bear in mind, I am not claiming that they ruined their economy because of being White, as I really don't think that race has anything to do with that. They mismanaged their country, and these are the consequences, just as with Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

"Of course, no-one would just move whole populations like that."

Well, it would have horrible consequences for the moved population, consequences that would play out across generations, if not centuries. Just like the forcible movement of the entire Black population of Haiti. Do you not think the current state of th country might be more closely related to that, rather than the fact that they happened to have more melanin?

You also say that a gradual population change would have the same effect as a sudden one, but do you have a citation for this? Countries such as Spain have historically absorbed a high non-white population, including Muslims, yet still been a major world power. Do you know any research to the contrary?

"Going a bit off topic here, but the Muslim birth rate of 8.1 per wife is a purposeful act of colonisation being preached and spurred on by the Imams."

Again, evidence please.

I believe I have already discussed that Race, Evolution, Behaviour book on a nother comments thread. I can try to dig out my comments about it, and the problems with the research and conclusions if you wish.

The other points you make about IQ I will comment on later, as I've got rather caught up in reading the research for and against your points.

James Mathurin said...

The article about the Aboriginal stolen generation is full of basic misunderstandings and out and out lies, especially on the cannibalism claims. Where cannibalism has been documented in Australia, it has involved white convicts, and has been as a result of isolation and starvation (Cannibals and Colonialism, Catherine Bieber).

There is no evidence for Australian Aboriginal cannibals, and in truth, they are mostly vegetarian.

Some of the sexual customs may be referring to New Guinea natives, and Torres Strait Islanders, but that has nothing to do with Australian Aboriginals or the stolen generation, many of whom suffered horrendous abuse and exploitation at the hands of their adoptive White parents and carers.

Shaunantijihad said...

You are in denial of the reality around you. Every Negro country is a basket case of crime and corruption. I gave the example of Zimbabwe for the reason that it was a first world country, with a first world infrastructure, that was literally handed to the Negro population on a plate, and they still managed to turn it into a copy of every other Negro disaster zone. Of course Mugabe is to blame, but if it hadn't been him, it would have been someone else, but the result would have been the same because this result has always been the same. The evidence that this would have been so is in that every Negro nation turns out like this, and Mugabe isn't to blame for Haiti, or Nigeria, or Somalia or or ...

Of course you are correct in pointing out that whites can also create disaster zones too, but it this is far more likely if they embrace the ideologies of Communism or Islam. But this isn't genetic nor necessarily a permanent situation. Being Negro or Caucasian is, obviously, genetic, and, outside of interracial pregnancy, permanent. And the examples that are given show that not only every single Negro nation is a basket case, but when they inherit a first world nation and infrastructure they ruin it also. Therefore, there is more than ample evidence to justify why interracial marriage should be opposed by whites.

What you also fail to recognise, as most people do, is that miscegenation could feasibly be a form of genetic warfare. If I was a Communist who wanted to bring down Western Civilisation without a hot war, I could do no better than to get the targeted enemy to immigrate millions of Negroes and Muslims, and promote sexual mixing with them, calling anyone who opposed it an evil racist or Islamophobe. I believe this is precisely the Communist plan in action right now in the western world to fatally weaken the west before further moves toward a Communist one world government. Interracial marriage, like immigration of Muslims, is thus viewed as simply one aspect of the war against us.

As for the evidence of the Muslim birth Jihad you will find plenty of quotes in a quick internet search, as well as in the maternity wards. The 8.1 figure is a fact, as is the fact that Imams are on record asking Muslims to have more children to take over the country and bring about yet another Islamic State. It's not hard to find. Here are a couple:

Anjem Choudary: 'Have more babies and Muslims can take over the UK'

President Houari Boumedienne: "One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory."

Anonymous said...

Some of your data is from 1865 for christsakes.

Polar bears can interbreed with brown bears producing live fertile young as can all of the members of the Canis genus i.e wolves, dogs, dingos, coyotes and jackals. Buffalos / domestic cows, puma's / Panthera etc
African Americans are an African European hybird and they are very fertile. This is a dead horse.

Publicizing the sub saharan Africans average IQ of just 70 and there very high levels of the male hormone testosterone which has a strong correlation with violent behaviour and sexual aggression is a far better way of underminding the appeal of Blacks.

Anonymous said...

There is less mtDNA differences between dogs, wolves, and coyotes than there is between the various ethic groups of human beings, which are recognized as a single species.

Coppinger & Schneider, 1995.

James Mathurin said...

"Every Negro country is a basket case of crime and corruption."

Every one? That's a sweeping statement. Have you got something to back it up? What defines 'basket case' anyway? Is there a certain GDP which a country ust be below to have that status, or a certain level of political stability? That's an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary proof.

"Of course Mugabe is to blame, but if it hadn't been him, it would have been someone else..."


"The evidence that this would have been so is in that every Negro nation turns out like this,

Except for the ones that don't. More on that later.

"Of course you are correct in pointing out that whites can also create disaster zones too, but it this is far more likely if they embrace the ideologies of Communism or Islam.

Pretty sure Iceland, America, the UK, France and Spain, and the rest of the Western countries affected by the recession are secular or Christian free-market capitalist economies.

"But this isn't genetic nor necessarily a permanent situation. "

So, when a majority-Black nation fares badly, it's genetic and permanent, and when it's Whites, it isn't? The double-standard is not surprising.

As for 'being handed a First-World infrastructure', you surely must be joking. The infrastructure of the colonised African (and Middle-Eastern) nations were set up to benefit their colonial master-nations, not to provide a stable infrastructure for an independent nation. As independent nations, they were set up to fail.

Even the post-colonial succeess story of Australia took 60 years from independence to even reach First World status, and they were importing Muslim and non-White immigrants the entire time.

Also, none of the African nations were "basket cases" before colonisation. The boundaries of Africa and the Middle East were purposefully drawn up to force antagonistic ethnic groups together, to make them less likely to unify against us, and leaving them less viable as independent nations. This can also be seen with the engineered conflicts between Sunnis and Shias in any Muslim countries.

A different strategy was taken with the Africans enslaved in the Carribbean, and this is reflected in the rarity of civil war in the Carribbean, despite the dearth of natural resources.

As for the Communist conspiracy stuff - which communists? And, if you were a Communist, and that was your plan, I can cofortably predict that it would be a spectacular failure, particularly as creating Muslim nations would merely create more enemies of Communism (look at their history in the Middle East).

I am not at all surprised that some Muslim extremists are advocating the 'birth rate takeover', but they are hardly representative of the majority of Muslims, now are they? Also, if they can't even recognise that most Muslim countries are in the Northern hemisphere, rather than the Southern, I aam not too scared of their evil master plan.

James Mathurin said...

Anonymous, Europeans also have more genes in common with some African groups than those Africans have with other African groups.

alanorei said...

Just for the record, I don't answer blasphemers.

Rose of Scotland said...

That is just a little dishonest, (but that goes with the territory) It may be true that Europeans have more genetic similarities to North African Arabs, than North African Arabs have to sub Saharan Africans.

However, That does not mean that Europeans are genetically similar to either group, or have more in common with sub Saharan Africans than Arabs do

Shaunantijihad said...

James, you purposefully misunderstand comments when it fits you preconceived notions and deny the evidence before you. Why don't you go live in Ethiopia? Why do Ethiopians want to move to Europe? Because they have made their country a basket case. No wait, I just heard half the population of Iceland are on their way to Addis Ababa to claim a free house and unemployment cheques. My apologies.

I'm sorry but you are in an intellectual twilight zone, you remind me so much of conversations I've had with Socialists, Jehovah's Witlesses and Mormons that no rational debate is possible with such an ideologue. Which Negro nation would you like us to emulate? Oh, you haven't mentioned any. Go down to the chemist and ask if they have any Muti to cure a possession, just for kicks.

Here is an example how you reason:

"I am not at all surprised that some Muslim extremists are advocating the 'birth rate takeover', but they are hardly representative of the majority of Muslims, now are they?"

James, the average number of babies per Muslim woman in the UK is 8.1. I assume you understand averages.
If we assume that Muslim women are 50% of the Muslim population, and if we assume they were made pregnant by Muslim men, then that is pretty much the entire Muslim population. How on earth do you convolute your thought processes to conceive that this does not represent the majority of Muslims? As I said, it's pointless arguing with liberals, they'll only realise what they have done when either the Communists or the Imams take over. Useful idiots. OK, not so useful, at least not to freedom or common sense.

I bet you think the Communist takeover of Russia was a conspiracy theory? Useful. The Gulags must have been fictional Nazi slurs to draw fire away from the Internment Camps. Right. More useful thinking.

Here's a guy you could learn something from, and you need to learn a lot about the reality of Communism, and how it relates to our seemingly insane immigration policy:

Hat tip to:

Shaunantijihad said...

I really shouldn't rise to the bait of this nonsense, James is probably a Communist troll. But I'll just mention this last thing, even though it's pointless going through it all because James' comments are really about continually changing the goalposts after his arguments have been answered, so, James said,

"Also, none of the African nations were "basket cases" before colonisation."

Huh? Over 2,000 years after Greece and Rome and long before Europeans arrived, and the Negroes still had no written language, no stone houses, no sea going vessels and not evenn the wheel for God's sake! Yes, having no wheel is one definition of basket case.

What James is essentially saying is that either Caucasian nations are no better than Negro nations in any sense we can agree upon, or, that if they are, it is never anything to do with race. Wheels, James, wheels within wheels. That's it. Go join the Jehovah's Witlesses, you'll be happy there and you will probably outshine most of the intellectual pygmies that populate the cult. But, in time you'll end up a dhimmi under the Sharia. Unless people like me take over. Then you can dream in peace without the threat of Sharia, but interracial marriage will be disapproved of and speaking against it will no longer be a "hate crime". There is nothing the Negro genome can offer to Caucasians that is beneficial to Caucasians, absolutely nothing. Our brainwashed youth must be legally protected from mixing their genes with Negroes. That's it, I'm finished answering questions only to have it ignored and a different question raised. You might not be a Communist Troll but you sound like one.

Anonymous said...

James. True, The berber people in N Africa are caucasians and the peoples from the horn of Africa i.e Ethiopians etc are hybirds and have roughly 40% caucasian ancestry.

Chimpanzees also share arond 96% of their DNA with humans this leaves a 4% differences. Interestingly enough northern Europeans were found to have between 3 and 4% Neanderthal DNA whereas sub Saharan Africans have none.

Does this means that northern Europeans are as genetically different to sub saharan Africans as they are to chimpanzees?

Of course not, a butterfuy is genetically 100% identical to a caterpillar, the only thing that changed was the gene frequency. So what matters most is not genetic variation per se' but gene frequency.

Alan Templeton 2003) claimed that in the nonhuman literature an FST of at least 25%-30% is a standard criterion for the identification of a subspecies. In conttradiction to this view it has been observed that autosomal FST values derived for humans are typically equal to and in some instances greater than those derived for other species acknowledged to be polytypic with respect to subspecies.

James Mathurin said...

"James, you purposefully misunderstand comments when it fits you preconceived notions and deny the evidence before you."

Well, at least one of us is. ;-) The Egypt thing is a total strawman, as is the suggestion that I want us to "emulate" any Third World or Developing countries. I never suggested that countries outside of the First World were somehow equal to or better than countries in the First World, like ours.

"Because they have made their country a basket case."

And they had no help making it so? You have this almost charmingly naive view of colonialism and it's legacy. I can understand why, seeing history in that light, you blame Africans for what we did to them, but it is simply not historically accurate.

"If we assume that Muslim women are 50% of the Muslim population, and if we assume they were made pregnant by Muslim men, then that is pretty much the entire Muslim population. How on earth do you convolute your thought processes to conceive that this does not represent the majority of Muslims?"

I never argued anything even close to that. I said that the vast majority of Muslims are not the kind of insane Islamic fundamentalists that deliberately set out to 'outbreed the infidels'. I'm not pretending either that those Muslims aren't out there, but they are a lunatic fringe, equivalent to the KKK, or the Brixton Bomber.

"I bet you think the Communist takeover of Russia was a conspiracy theory?"

No, but I think that it was 80 years ago, and in the meantime the Soviets rose and spectacularly fell as a superpower, and as a threat. Even China is a capitalist superpower now, albeit a disgustingly undemocratic one, so unless you think Fidel Castro is planning to invade the UK, the communists are as big a threat as the Spanish Inquisition (I know, I know, nobosy expects the Spanish Inquisition...).

If it helps set your mind at ease, I know Communists. If they were going to take over, it would have been in the 60s. They are all now in their 80s and 90s, and while they may be angry, they are not armed, physically able, and are frankly too busy arguing amongst themselves. Do not fear them.

James Mathurin said...

"Over 2,000 years after Greece and Rome and long before Europeans arrived, and the Negroes still had no written language, no stone houses, no sea going vessels and not evenn the wheel for God's sake!"

I'm not sure how else to put this, but that is simply not true. Maybe not a lie, but if not, then just a collosal mistake.

"What James is essentially saying is that either Caucasian nations are no better than Negro nations in any sense we can agree upon, or, that if they are, it is never anything to do with race.

I'm glad that you understood something I was saying. I am sorry if it hurts your self-esteem to be told that White people are not inherently better or worse than anyone else, but it's the truth. And I point out, again, that I say that as someone who admires many White individuals, including many within my own family.

The fact that you explicitly want to 'take over' makes me wonder if you are so scared of someone else taking over because you assume that everybody else is as bad as you. That's pure supposition, but considering all the personal insults you're starting to throw, I think it's pretty tame.

"but interracial marriage will be disapproved of "

Considering this is the country where my mother was called a "nigger-loving whore" by passing motorists, I think there are plenty of people who already do. Tough luck for them, though.

"There is nothing the Negro genome can offer to Caucasians that is beneficial to Caucasians, absolutely nothing."

Sure, because homogeneity has so many benefits. If nothing else, don't you want to avoid inbreeding?

James Mathurin said...

Anonymous, that sounds like it is basically saying that arguing about how genetically similar or disimilar any two races of humans are is a pointless exercise? If so, I could quite happilly get behind that.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

The Comment facility for this thread will be closing tomorrow. It has become a magnet for classic troll "pick and challenge" attacks, which are now getting out of hand.

Anyone wishing to respond to James's latest messages, should do so by tomorrow, as no comments will be accepted after that.

James Mathurin said...


So I've once again been labelled a troll, just for having an opposing point of view, and arguing my point? Sigh. At the very least, I'd like it if you could post the comments I made about my more personal reaction to the article.

I know free speech is important to you, and I hope that in the future you find the strength to allow some on here.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

There is a difference between free speech and trolling. Challenging every statement in a posting and demanding that a commentator substantiate every statement and then challenging the substantiation or misrepresenting what was said is classic troll behavior.

It is designed to wear the opposition down until they give up, which enables the troll to claim victory, even though they have talked complete twaddle.

Anyway, it is all over now, this thread is now closed.