The following unsigned essay appeared in National Vanguard magazine, no. 117 (March–April 1997), 9–12. The pictures have been added. If you know who wrote this article, please let us know.
History has taught us that the most fundamental necessities for the existence of a healthy and progressive White society are the racial quality of its members and a moral code or value system which complements and enhances that quality.
Ultimately, of course, the former is much more fundamental than the latter. Only a sound race can give birth to sound racial ethics. Without the living biological entity, there is and can be nothing. But as long as the race survives — as long as the potential for effective racial sovereignty exists — alien and spiritually damaging values alone will not prove fatal.
The enemies of our race have obviously long understood this truth. That is why, a half-century ago, they waged the most vicious war the world has ever seen in order to destroy an idea based upon that racial truth. That is why they subsequently organized the systematic swamping of White civilization by millions of alien immigrants. And that is why they have used their control of the news and entertainment media, of the government, and of schools and universities to implement a massive propaganda campaign to encourage miscegenation between Whites and non-Whites.
When these natural conditions are disrupted and distorted, however, unnatural sexual activities such as homosexuality and miscegenation have been known to result. Just as bulls have been known to mount mares, and St. Bernard dogs have tried to mate with Chihuahuas when forced into close confinement and deprived of their natural environment, so Whites have copulated with Negroes in similar circumstances. It is the disruption of the White man’s natural environment and the dehumanization of his society and culture, therefore, which the Jews and their collaborators in the news and entertainment media have consistently worked for in order to encourage racial mixing.
This campaign began at least as early as 1967, when 16 U.S. states still had laws against miscegenation. In that year Jewish director/producer Stanley Kramer brought out the film Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, starring Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy as a couple whose daughter begins an affair with a Negro. The aim of the film was clear and since has been admitted. It was designed as an “educational film” for White Americans: after seeing their on-screen heroes, Tracy and Hepburn, surrendering their White daughter to a Black male, they would feel less compunction in doing the same.
Since that time Whites have not just been encouraged to mate with non-Whites, they have been subject to every conceivable Pavlovian method to blackmail and bully them emotionally into doing so. With ever increasing intensity the message has been that miscegenation is not just an option, but the option that society expects. Particularly, the primary aim of the Political Correctness movement, in all of its manifestations, has been to confuse heterosexual Whites and make them feel sinful and guilty for being White; to encourage them to “repent” by helping put their race out of existence.
The Hollywood film Last of the Mohicans, which came out in 1992 with the Jewish actor Daniel Day-Lewis in the leading role, is a typical example of how the Jewish news and entertainment media have spearheaded this campaign. In the film White males are portrayed as weak, cowardly, disloyal, and barbaric — and as justly deserving of their slaughter at the hands of the noble, dignified, courageous, and sexy Red Indians. Yes, just to ensure that White women don’t miss the implication that White men are worthless, the leading White female character dumps her despicable British-officer fiancé and runs off into the sunset with the Mohican hero. The underlying message of the film is clear: race-mixing is not only natural and understandable, it is also the morally right thing to do.
Zoologists and anthropologists have identified two types of feral constraint which ensure that under natural conditions animal groups — including human groups — which may be able to interbreed with each other refrain from doing so. On one hand, there are inborn biological impulses based upon physical “sign stimuli,” such as smell, color, and visual differentiation. Then there is the behavioral imprinting and habituation which takes place in the early weeks and months of infancy based upon the intimate relationship between the mother and the infant. This helps to ensure that when sexual mating is eventually attempted, it will take place only with those forms that resemble the parent or siblings.
Not surprisingly, the Jews have gone all out to corrupt and cripple the latter tendency in Whites, particularly under the guise of “children’s entertainment.” In 1994, for example, the Walt Disney Company brought out a re-adaptation of its 1967 film The Jungle Book. This was Disney’s first children’s offering since being taken over by the Jewish clique headed by Michael Eisner, and, predictably, it was a complete distortion, both of the original Kipling story and the 1967 Disney animated version. With a story line remarkably similar to Last of the Mohicans, the White heroine rejects her British-officer fiancé for an Indian jungle boy played by a Chinese actor.
Significantly, the White girl’s decision is portrayed as being based upon moral considerations of right and wrong, upon her realization that White society and White men in particular are irredeemably bad. Eisner pursued this line in the two subsequent Disney animated children’s films, Pocahontas and The Hunchback of Notre Dame, which are similar both in their pernicious race-mixing propaganda and in their blatant disregard for the original stories. Such systematic consistency in shape and content suggests design rather than coincidence.
In any case, the actual motivation of Michael Eisner in churning out such material is not the most important question. The thing that really matters is the actual effect of his efforts: young children are being influenced, at an age where they are most open to behavioral imprinting, with a message that miscegenation is good and morally correct, and that Whiteness is evil and morally wrong.
Just as young Whites in the past were encouraged by an alien religious dogma to feel sinful because of their natural sexual urges, to feel unclean in having them, and to seek “salvation” by denying them, so today they are indoctrinated with guilt-inducing ideas about being White. And the solution which they are offered to overcome these artificial feelings of guilt and self-hate is increasingly clear: mate with a non-White partner and have mongrel offspring. Racial suicide is thus insidiously presented to them as the only way in which they can overcome their Whiteness and all the consequent pain and shame that goes with it.
Actually, miscegenation has rapidly emerged as the official religion of the New World Order and its adherents. Propagated with an increasingly hysterical fervor, it has been developed as the new universal slave-morality which embraces and transcends established religions such as Christianity. In March 1994, for example, evangelist Billy Graham’s publication Christianity Today urged readers to rejoice over the existence of mixed-race marriages and mixed-race children and to do everything possible to make them fully accepted into society. It even stated that this is one area where the news and entertainment media are morally ahead of the churches.
This propagation of miscegenation as an ideological crusade also has made significant inroads into the education system. When a North Carolina middle school principal recently cautioned a White female student and a Black male student about the dangers of interracial dating, he was immediately suspended from his job and disciplined. He was not allowed to return to work until he had been “reeducated” after confessing and repenting his “sins” in a counseling and sensitivity training program.
The ideological nature of this campaign to promote miscegenation was also reflected in an article in the August 1996 issue of Maryland Family Magazine, part of the Times Mirror group. Written by Helen Armiger, described as a candidate for ordained ministry in the United Methodist Church, “How to Raise an Unbiased Child” argues that society is compelled to teach its youth to live harmoniously and productively within a global environment. Quoting approvingly a Maryland education official, Arminger insisted that there exists a moral obligation to provide children with the opportunity to engage in a variety of relationships with people of different races and sexual orientations without any kind of parental or social constraint.
Behind the high-sounding slogans portraying miscegenation as morally imperative and beneficial, the motivation of its proponents is clear: the intention is not to “save” or “redeem” Whites, but to destroy them completely. What such “morality” really derives from is a totally subjective, alien mind-set which seeks the biological extinction of the White race, and which, from its own perspective, sees such an extinction as a good and righteous thing. Some of its proponents are much more honest than others in admitting to this reality. One journal, Race Traitor, edited by [Jewish academic] Noel Ignatiev and subtitled “Treason to Whiteness is Loyalty to Humanity,” openly declares its conviction that the only way to solve the social problems of the age is to abolish the White race. Its admitted aim is not “multiculturalism” or “multiracialism,” but biological unity and racelessness.
Such thinking is not confined to the political fringes. On September 29, 1996, The New York Times Magazine ran an article by [Black] writer Stanley Crouch (author of the book The All-American Skin Game: Or, the Decoy of Race). Entitled “Race is Over,” Crouch’s article confidently predicted that a century from today unprecedented levels of racial mixing — of a wide variety of combinations — will ensure that the very concept of race will be redundant. Americans of the future, it argues, will find themselves surrounded in every direction by people who are part Asian, part Latin, part European, part American Indian. The sweep of body types, combinations of facial features, hair textures, eye colors, and what are now “unexpected skin tones” will, in Crouch’s view, be far more common because the current paranoia over mixed marriages should be by then largely a superstition of the past.
Even this declared goal, however, reveals only part of the agenda, because one particular race has an exemption ticket from this universal morality of genetic amalgamation. But The New York Times Magazine article symbolizes what the Politically Correct movement is really all about. When the mainstream Harper’s Magazine runs articles advocating government-sponsored summer camps for young White girls to meet and begin relationships with non-White males, it is not doing “good” for those girls; it is actively encouraging what is most definitely bad for them. And when the Prudential Insurance Company of America sponsors a series of racial unity conferences for children across America and the world, it is not doing what is “right” for those children; it is doing what is totally and utterly wrong for them.
Actually, such “morality” is without any moral foundation whatsoever. It’s not based on any natural or biological law, nor does it follow any rational or scientific line of reasoning. This helps to explain why it is having some difficulty in achieving its objectives. Undoubtedly many Whites preach the cause of miscegenation, and many have put it into practice. But, revealingly, the numbers in the latter camp are still much smaller than in the former.
Some of the Whites who advocate race-mixing are obviously unhealthy in a genetic sense, and mentally ill as opposed to spiritually sick. The person who wrote to his local newspaper recently stating his frustrated wish to have five per cent Black blood in his ancestry so as to blend in with what he considers the ideal American racial composition, may be an example.
In any case, in instances such as these miscegenation could even be considered a tool of natural selection in weeding such people out of the White gene pool.
For the majority of Whites who advocate miscegenation, however, their sense of righteousness in espousing it is nothing more than a manifestation of trendiness: of wanting to feel and appear fashionable.
Take, for example, the case of the young Hollywood couple Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. Both appear to be healthy and physically attractive specimens of Aryan humanity. Yet they have recently adopted a Black child and actively collaborated with the Jewish media in publicizing it as a fine and noble deed which has helped the cause of human and societal “progress.” There is nothing biologically wrong with this couple; they’ve just gone out of their way to make a fashion statement. And the adopted child is nothing more than a fashion accessory for their symbolic commitment to the idea of miscegenation.
Indeed, it is revealing that for all their fashion consciousness, Cruise and Kidman chose to marry each other rather than non-Whites: they chose to adopt a non-White child rather than to create one. Even they, therefore, whether conscious of it or not, are evidence that most Whites are not yet putting the idea of miscegenation into practice — regardless of the lip service which they might feel compelled to give it.
A recent study of miscegenation statistics by Jewish academic Douglas J. Besherov, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, seemed to give some credence to this view, although the report highlighted some very disturbing trends. These included a tripling of marriages between Whites and Blacks since 1970, and a sharp increase in marriages between Whites and Asians or Hispanics. The U.S. Census Bureau counted about 150,000 interracial marriages nationwide in 1960. By 1990 that number grew tenfold to 1.5 million. In 1994 it was estimated at more than 3 million.
Equally alarming was the statistic that 35.4 percent of White women married to Black men said they planned to have children, a higher proportion than the 29 percent of White women married to White men who said they wanted children. This is on top of a four-fold increase in mixed-race births since 1970, although not all of these involved a White parent.
Such trends are obviously ominous and potentially catastrophic by pointing in the long term to the biological extinction of White America. In the short term, however, from the perspective of those of us trying to prevent such a nightmare from unfolding, they do provide at least some grounds for optimism and opportunity. Despite 30 years of Judeo-Christian brainwashing, over 90 per cent of Whites are declining to transgress what Douglas J. Besherov admits is American society’s “last taboo.”
Similarly, despite the efforts of [Jewish] Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH, now retired), who in 1994 introduced the Multiethnic Placement Act in the Senate in an effort to bring about an increase in transracial adoptions, most Whites appear still to prefer to adopt White babies, and most non-Whites still prefer to adopt non-White babies. Such attitudes, moreover, appear to be hardening in spite of the Clinton administration’s attempts to legislate against them.
The Cruise-Kidman adoption, for instance, was condemned by the National Association of Black Social Workers on the grounds that transracial adoptions amounted to racial and cultural genocide.
Undoubtedly an important factor in this situation has been the growth in tensions that has accompanied the transition to a multiracial society. As racial and ethnic identification has become more relevant in people’s lives, the resulting racial polarization and intensified group solidarity have mitigated somewhat against the idea of interracial mating. It seems clear, for example, that the O. J. Simpson trial served the useful purpose of intensifying both White and Black racial consciousness and of discrediting the idea of miscegenation.
One hopeful sign of this was the fact that Hulond Humphries, a White high school principal in Wedowee, Alabama, who was ousted from his position in 1994 for threatening to cancel the spring prom if interracial couples turned up, recently won an election runoff for superintendent of schools.
As with the race question in general, many Whites — for the moment at least — seem to be carrying around with them two conflicting value systems in relation to race-mixing: the one they publicly purport to hold and the one they actually live their private lives by. While the former is artificially created and only maintained by continuous external conditioning, the latter arises from instinct, which is genetically ingrained.
Thus, although race-mixing propaganda may have been purposefully designed to appeal to the subconscious and to avoid encountering rational faculties, it has inevitably come up against subconscious genetic realities which are not easily influenced by alien attempts at behavioral modification. Consequently, while it has been relatively easy to bring about widescale spiritual sickness and confusion, it has been much more difficult to implement widescale biological amalgamation.
Such a situation, however, will not last forever. History is full of examples of artificial and destructive moralities triumphing over the natural order. Despite its setbacks, the cult of miscegenation has spread substantially over the last thirty years and will continue to do so. Current trends continue to point to the most fundamental and inescapable reality which confronts us today: the White race stands on the precipice of biological extinction.
And one thing is certain: as the strains and tensions of this multiracial society increase in the coming years, so the campaign to destroy us through racial mixing will intensify. For this reason alone, regardless of increased racial polarization, the false morality of miscegenation will not disappear naturally. The circumstances of racial chaos will help us, but only organized and radical action on our part will achieve the vital necessity of a complete and decisive separation of the races and the final destruction of the morality of death.