Ebony And Ivory

Douglas Mercer
Posts: 4302
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2023 7:29 pm

Ebony And Ivory

Post by Douglas Mercer » Fri Mar 31, 2023 3:00 am

Douglas Mercer
March 20 2022

Back in the day White folk still took things seriously. They knew that an interracial couple was the tip of the spear to all hell breaking loose. They had laws against it and weren't afraid to enforce them.

"In the early hours of July 11, 1958, a sheriff and two of his deputies burst into the rural Virginia home of a young married couple, Richard and Mildred Loving, and went straight to their bedroom. Shining flashlights in their eyes, the lawmen demanded to know what the Lovings were doing together."

Committing a crime against nature and against the people of Virginia was not their answer. They explained that they were married to one another. And not only was law enforcement unafraid of any cries of "racism" judges from the bench were equally forthright. The judge who sentenced Richard Loving to one year in prison gave no quarter:

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages."

Not sure about Almighty God doing all that, rather it was nature itself taking its course but, still, those were the days.

***

In 1964 when the Lovings were running in to trouble due to the fact that they had committed a horrific abomination against the natural order of things (he was White, she was black) they wrote in protest to Robert Kennedy. They probably sensed that he was the softest of marks when it came to the foul crime of miscegenation, legal or illegal, and that he would do everything in his power to foster the multiplying instances of this horrific race crime. Indeed only a year or so later he would go to Johannesburg and rail against a country that took this crime and indeed all race mixing very seriously indeed

Turns out they were right. Bobby Kennedy was all for it.

Kennedy referred the race mixing couple to the ACLU where a couple Jew lawyers could not wait to get their vampiric fangs into such a case. The Jews in question were Bernard S. Cohen and Phillip Hirschkop and with mongrelization in mind they filed a brief on behalf of the couple. It seems at that time Virginia had a law against interracial marriage, that is Virginia was for lovers but not for lovers who violated the most basic law of nature. Lo these many years later and Virginia is now for negros but in that better time the good White people of Virginia could scarcely have seen this coming and were in for quite the rude shock. Seems that the way things had always been done in the state from time out of mind was no longer acceptable, that the times were changing. You always best watch your backs when Jews are on the case.

The year was 1964 and the bestial couple picked a good time as the American Supreme Court was on a revolutionary tear and would be forever more. You see they claimed that the ban on interracial marriage violated one of those negro slave amendments they passed on the sly, in this case the 14th with its scandalous clause about so called "equal protection." And so a thing (not allowing interracial marriage) which had been around for decades all of a sudden didn't cut muster with the wise wizards of the Court. And so a way of life had to go. Words on paper and words in traitors' mouths trumped the race wisdom of the ages.

It took all of three years from the letter to Kennedy until the very basis of White society was undermined utterly.

"On June 12, 1967, the Court issued a unanimous decision in the Lovings' favor and overturned their convictions. Its decision struck down Virginia's anti-miscegenation law and ended all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States. "

Just like that. Rule by the Fourteenth amendment, one phrase supplants an entire constitution and certainly supplants the will of the people. One argument that the defenders of the ban made was that it did treat all people equally, it forbid White people just as much as black people from marrying a person of another race. That is certainly true enough and should have been enough to carry the legal day. But all the same even to make such an argument is to already back foot yourself. Everyone knows the purpose of the law was aimed at blacks, to keep them from muddying the White gene pool, to keep them away from our women, and to keep them out of White society. And there is nothing wrong with that, the law endured for a long time without anyone ever suspecting there was anything wrong with it. Certainly any state in which a majority concluded this was a good thing should be able to do this. Hopefully all states would not but if one did not let them suffer the consequences of the racial pollution.

Indiana Senator Mike Braun recently made this argument for about two seconds until he realized three things: no one was seeing this as a "small government liberty issue," they were seeing it as racism; he was living in the wrong century; he had no testicular fortitude.

Old John Randolph was once asked what he thought of the constitution. He said it depends; looked at one way it's the greatest charter for human freedom ever devised by the mind of man; looked at another it is a pure outline for tyranny.

Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the opinion for the court; he wrote that marriage is a basic civil right and to deny this right on a basis of color is "directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment" and seizes all citizens "liberty without due process of law."

Directly subversive Warren was. Earl Warren was appointed by Dwight Eisenhower. Earl Warren oversaw the infinite expansion of previously unheard of rights and the destruction of a country. What could not be achieved at the ballot box was achieved by the stroke of a pen. And it doesn't get more directly subversive than that.

***

To play the wife in the 2016 Netflix celebration of marital race crime (Loving) they chose a woman whose last name was Negga. No, really, the actresses name is Negga. As in "Negga gave an amazing performance." As in "Negga was born to play this role" or "it was really Negga's movie."

Negga marries a White man. That's the plot of Netflix's celebration of race crime called Loving.

Naturally the movie which was a direct celebration of Neggas received glowing reviews from all the Jew employee critics.

"A young couple's interracial marriage in 1958 sparks a case that leads to the Supreme Court. Based on the true story of Richard and Mildred Loving."

"The Huffington Post's Zeba Bay described the movie as breathtaking, while noting it to be a beautiful testimony to the concept of love verses racial divide."

Jeff Nichols was the screenwriter and director of this American Horror Show. He grew up in Little Rock, Arkansas, which is ground zero for the Jew-Negro takeover of the United States. It is where a Republican president occupied the South once again and sent in the military to force negros on White children in their schools. Just think they can't even send the military to our border, because they want to force brown aliens on White communities. It really makes you think. You can see what their priorities are in no uncertain terms.

Nichols said he heard horror stories about segregation from his father:

“Where my dad lived, you could look down and see the local jail, and there were many nights he’d hear beatings,” he says. “And he said there were instances — and this is if you were lucky — where the sheriff would just take a black person and give him a bus ticket to Detroit and sit there until they left."

Oh, the Shoah of a bus ticket. And foisting black crime on a once great Northern city. Forced repatriation to Africa was in order. At the point of bayonets.

"The timing is certainly right for Loving, a look at an interracial Virginia couple whose fight for legal recognition went to the Supreme Court and hammered one of the final stakes in our country’s Jim Crow laws: The recent fight for same-sex marriage equality found a valuable precedent in Loving v. Virginia, and the 2016 presidential campaign has certainly seen the unbottling of an American racism that some naively thought had died following the civil rights movement."

It's all connected you see, miscegenation, gay rights, anything and everything that toppled the White order of things that worked for our people for millennia.

The only thing that is comforting is that they have no idea what racism unbottled would look like. All hell breaking loose will look like a walk in the park compared to it.

***

In case you haven't heard the Loving case is back front and center in the media because a Republican Senator questioned the wisdom of the Supreme Court decision in it. Was this because we have a Senator from Indiana who is fully cognizant of the dangers inherent in race mixing? That he's a staunch defender of the White races' prerogatives? Is Braun based? Does Bilbo ride again?

No, nothing of the sort sadly.

Far from it.

Senator Braun is a liberty loving small government constitutionalist and he's not our guy (to say the very least of it) . He is used to talking about how the Court overstepped its remit in Roe and Obergefell and then some enterprising reporter of the left tripped him up, asked him about the Loving decision. It was clever because the cases are of the same type, the only difference being you can still defend the right to life of an unborn child and you can still defend the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman (for now at any rate) but it's been a long time in this country since you could say anything at all about the importance of the racial integrity of White bloodlines and White women. In today's moral climate that's about fifteen billion bridges too far, which is a lot of bridges. Of course for all the good it did him he might as well have been walking straight through a mine field and he naively answered plainly as a plain liberty loving constitutionalist might: he said it was bad law. He wasn't a racist, mind you, but bad law is bad law. That is, it should have been left up to the states.

And so it should.

For all the furor that this rather innocent and surely correct statement elicited you'd think he knocked up a fourteen year old intern or had openly urinated on a statue of George Floyd. To say that the Jews of our ruling class were not pleased is to say the very least of it. That is, they were up in arms as only they can be.

"In a media call on Tuesday, U.S Senator Mike Braun (R-Ind) said that the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong to legalize interracial marriage in a ruling that stretches back to Loving v. Virginia in 1967.
According to Braun, the decision should not have been made by the country’s highest court and instead been left to individual states."

This is Con Law 101 really, nothing too exceptional about it. Except the race issue in this country and anything having to do with the sacredness of blacks is the civil religion of today's America.

Yes indeed that is what he said but for his trouble he might as well have said he wondered about those wooden doors on those so called gas chambers. He might as well have pointed out that blacks are 13 but do 50. He might as well have noted the predominance of Jews in the transatlantic slave trade. He might have said that clearing the Indians the hell off the land was just and right. He might as well have spit on his own mother in public.

He was immediately called (wait for it) un-American. Because, apparently, nothing is more American that defiling the sanctity of the marriage bed with bestial interracial lust.

The reporter (sensing chum in the water) asked again, reiterating the question and asking if Braun would be okay with Supreme Court leaving interracial marriage to the states.

Braun doubled down, saying “Yes, I think that is something that if you’re not wanting the Supreme Court to weigh in on issues like that, you’re not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too, it’s hypocritical."

There he is wrong of course. Jews are past masters and give a continual master class on how to have their cake and eat it too. For them hypocrisy is not the tribute that vice pays to virtue--it is their way of being

Braun responded: “When it comes to issues, you can’t have it both ways. When you want that diversity to shine within our federal system, there are going to be rules and proceedings, they’re going to be out of sync with maybe what other states would do. It’s the beauty of the system. And that that's where the differences among points of view in our 50 states ought to express themselves.”

Of course he had to trumpet and highlight "diversity" as he thought that was an unalloyed good but there he is wrong. Diversity has nothing to do with diversity, that's old school thinking, diversity simply means chasing down the last White man, and a board full of only black people is seen to be maximally diverse. Braun is nearly touching in his naivety, how he parses the logic of it like a school master, so calm, so reasonable, and not quite getting the fact that he is saying that it would be fine indeed if a state didn't want black people to marry White people and permanently soil the marriage bed with their primitive lusts. Because of course that's an issue of another color.

Apparently, however, his aides came to the rescue quickly and told him that the finer points of the constitution notwithstanding in the current year you can't say it's ok to protect White women from the savage urges of the black man. In fact, it will not do.

The screeching and the caterwauling continues:

"Braun’s words and views are not only un-American, but beneath any respectable person wishing to hold public office. The United States Supreme Court has affirmed many times that marriage equality in our country extends to any committed couple regardless of sex, race, orientation, or religious affiliation, and to question that legitimacy questions the very fabric of America and its people."

So just so we are clear allowing stone age coons the right to marry and mate with pristine White women is the very fabric of America and what lends it its legitimacy. If so heaven help it or don't help it as it is much too far gone for help.

"The Indiana Democratic Party released a statement condemning Braun’s statements, calling his rhetoric an endorsement of the same dangerous white nationalist views that led to the insurrection against the United States of America on Jan. 6, 2021."

Please, give it a rest. Even they should know better than that. Braun wants as little to do with us (nothing) as any dyed in the wool leftist. If we were walking down Main street on fire he wouldn't cross to the other side to piss on us. He wouldn't touch us with a ten foot pole.

"Hoosiers have to ask themselves if they want to be associated with someone as embarrassing as Mike Braun and a form of partisanship that endorses white nationalist views."

Safe to say he's no White nationalists, those are folk who keep him up at night. What he is is a green eye shade constitutionalist pointing out the punctilio of the document in a cold and bloodless way. But not to worry, he got clued in to the cosmic issue he was meddling with and got on the straight and narrow path of submersion in submission right quick.

Take one look at Mike Braun or listen to him speak in his plodding way and you'll see that he the least likely insurrectionary of them all and is no more a White Nationalist that Lizzo is svelte and sleek.

Fast forward to two seconds later after someone told him this had to do with negros and their inalienable right to muddy up White women, it was what James Madison never stopped talking about, it got so bad his friends had to politely tell him to shut up about it.

Braun became sheepish, had his tail between his legs, and said to hell with the constitution, negros were way too rich for his blood.

Never mind he said: I'm sorry.

"Braun sent out a statement saying he had misunderstood a line of questioning that ended up being about interracial marriage and condemned racism in any form saying there was no question the Constitution prohibits discrimination of any kind based on race."

What a profile in craven cuckoldry. This is the wail of the lost saying that time honored phrase of all the beaten: I'm not racist.

"Earlier during a virtual press conference I misunderstood a line of questioning that ended up being about interracial marriage, let me be clear on that issue – there is no question the Constitution prohibits discrimination of any kind based on race, that is not something that is even up for debate, and I condemn racism in any form, at all levels and by any states, entities, or individuals."

Just to be clear about it: the constitution givers broad latitude to the states to do just about anything they want except when it comes to blacks because blacks are now at the center of the moral universe and the last thing he wants is to be seen to deviate from that in the slightest. Negroes spoiling the innocence of White women? Why, he's all for it.

And you wonder why Tea Party never got anywhere.

***

The 1920s was really the last time America could have been saved. After that all attempts to save the White race were defensive, were meant to stem to onrushing tide of race aliens. But in the 1920s they went on offense, and one of the states that led this charge was that jewel of the south: Virginia.

"In Virginia racial integrity laws were passed by the General Assembly to protect Whiteness against what many Virginians perceived to be the negative effects of race-mixing. They included the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which prohibited interracial marriage and defined as White a person who has no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian; the Public Assemblages Act of 1926 which required all public meeting spaces to be strictly segregated; and a third act, passed in 1930, that defined as black a person who has even a trace of African American ancestry. This way of defining Whiteness as a kind of purity in bloodline became known as the one drop rule."

It was absolutely based and absolutely thoroughgoing. The amazing thing is that it happened so late but then again measures like this don't get enacted when they are not needed; when practices like this go without saying they aren't enacted; it's when a race begins to perceived itself as under assault they come to the fore. And sure enough it wasn't long at all before it all unraveled.

"The Racial Integrity Act remained on the books until 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia, found its prohibition of interracial marriage to be unconstitutional."

The Supreme Court justices minced no words as to what they were about; it was a sea change of titanic proportions.

"The language was broad, the language was sweeping. The language meant to include equal protection for Negroes that was at the very heart of it and that equal protection included the right to marry as any other human being had the right to marry subject to only the same limitations."

This of course assumes that they are human beings which the best evidence shows they are most surely not. And certainly not any being whose right we need respect.

And just as all those bad old "racists" predicted once a few threads were pulled the whole thing would collapse totally. When it comes to the relations between Whites and blacks there was only either/or---either there were a bright color line separating them, preferably a line in the form of vast ocean, or it would be complete amalgamation.

As we have seen to our dismay there is not third way.

"In recent years, people around the country have commemorated the ruling with Loving Day celebrations."

Now the holy negro is exalted on a pedestal. The specter of the negro and the right of the negro to mix in any and every way possible with White society and White women in particular is unquestioned and sacrosanct. The even have days for it. To question it, even for a minute and even under the guise of constitutional scruples, is enough for the high voltage of moral laceration to rain down on your head.

Just ask Mike Braun. He dipped his toe into the tar patch and decided quite quickly he wanted no part of it.

"Now, each year on this date Loving Day" celebrates the historic ruling in Loving v. Virginia, which declared unconstitutional a Virginia law prohibiting mixed-race marriage — and legalized interracial marriage in every state."

A people who celebrate such wickedness shall not last long. Nor deserve to.

Every state indeed. The right of the black man to marry the White woman is now just like those huddled masses. It's the Holy Writ of American law.

"NOW, THEREFORE, I, JUSTIN M. WILSON, Mayor of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, and on behalf of the Alexandria City Council, do hereby recognize Wednesday, June 12th, 2019, as: “LOVING DAY”

Loving Day---it's a dark day indeed.

Lock up your White daughters, as the saying of the ages goes.

Douglas Mercer
Posts: 4302
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2023 7:29 pm

Re: Ebony And Ivory

Post by Douglas Mercer » Sun Oct 01, 2023 3:05 pm

Image

Douglas Mercer
Posts: 4302
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2023 7:29 pm

Re: Ebony And Ivory

Post by Douglas Mercer » Sun Oct 01, 2023 3:05 pm

Image

Douglas Mercer
Posts: 4302
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2023 7:29 pm

Re: Ebony And Ivory

Post by Douglas Mercer » Sun Oct 01, 2023 3:05 pm

Image

Douglas Mercer
Posts: 4302
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2023 7:29 pm

Re: Ebony And Ivory

Post by Douglas Mercer » Sun Oct 01, 2023 3:09 pm

Bernard S. Cohen (Jew)Image

Douglas Mercer
Posts: 4302
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2023 7:29 pm

Re: Ebony And Ivory

Post by Douglas Mercer » Sun Oct 01, 2023 3:11 pm

Phillip Hirschkop (Jew)
Image

Douglas Mercer
Posts: 4302
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2023 7:29 pm

Re: Ebony And Ivory

Post by Douglas Mercer » Sun Oct 01, 2023 3:12 pm

Image

Douglas Mercer
Posts: 4302
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2023 7:29 pm

Re: Ebony And Ivory

Post by Douglas Mercer » Sun Oct 01, 2023 3:12 pm

Image

Douglas Mercer
Posts: 4302
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2023 7:29 pm

Re: Ebony And Ivory

Post by Douglas Mercer » Sun Oct 01, 2023 3:13 pm

Image

Douglas Mercer
Posts: 4302
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2023 7:29 pm

Re: Ebony And Ivory

Post by Douglas Mercer » Sun Oct 01, 2023 3:15 pm

Image

Post Reply