Apr 11, 2011

Re: Famous Black journalist in disagreement over my stance on inter-racial marriage...


Begin forwarded message:

From: "Amy Aremia" <>
Date: April 11, 2011 3:19:01 PM EDT
To: <>
Cc: <>
Subject: Re: Famous Black journalist in disagreement over my stance on inter-racial marriage...

I do agree  with Elizabeth...socializing among the races is natural and by choice, however, I too draw the line at intermarriage among the races, for it will eventually lead to the destruction of both races;  those pushing the mingling of the races and ethnic groups are themselves racist to the point where they rarely socialize and rarely marry outside of their race while encouraging others to do so...
Racism is screamed loud and clear if any one group  wants to stay with their "own" or live in their "own" destroying freedom of choice as it is destroying freedom of speech...
There is no such thing as keeping up with the "Times" for times don't change unless people make the changes which mostly are instigated for some hidden agenda ...
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 2:18 PM
Subject: Famous Black journalist in disagreement over my stance on inter-racial marriage...


On Apr 9, 2011, at 11:07 PM, Michael wrote:


Would it be okay for this private e-mail to be public about your views from a Black woman's prospective?  Or you would rather not?



I don't mind at all if you publish my remarks, except that I had already begun to send you another email, right after I sent that one, with further response to your initial remarks.  This is what I had to say:

The reason I asked if you were being ironic is due to your mention of "freedom of association."  Has it escaped your notice that due to the perversion of "civil rights" designed especially to accommodate blacks, a whole lot of freedom of association has gone down the drain?  What do you call that outrageous forced busing period where black children were forced to chase white children all over town throughout this country, so that whites could not have the freedom to choose their children's schools? What would you call all the many attempts to intrude even into private organizations, to prevent whites from working and socializing among themselves?  And what do you think Eric Holder's testy worrying over the fact that, although whites might work with blacks during the week, they don't hang out with them on "Saturday and Sunday," as he put it?  See my two posts on this:

Outfoxing forced inclusion

Solving the problem of virtual segregation

Your other comment about this being the "year 2011," implying that attitudes simply must change as time goes on, really rankles me.  If I consider something to be an Eternal Truth, who is to tell me that I must keep up with the times, as determined by a bunch of "progressives"?  In that light, the Roman Catholic Church should certainly consider what year it is and dump so much of its "old-fashioned" doctrine, beginning with advocacy of the Virgin Birth.  After all, it's 2011. 

For an idea of how blacks might have handled their affairs, beginning in the 1960s, and would have, were it not for integration-crazy white and black elites, see my article at Alternative Right:

The Civil Rights Myth
Integration & the End of Black Self-Reliance




On Apr 9, 2011, at 9:18 AM, Elizabeth Wright <> wrote:


I certainly do not think interracial marriage should be illegal.  That would make no sense, and would probably instigate more of it.

However, I do not approve of people marrying outside their race, and I think people are weird who do not want their children and grandchildren to be of their racial lineage.  The fact that people "date" outside their group is meaningless -- socializing is one thing, but marriage is another.




On Apr 8, 2011, at 11:53 AM, ReporterNotebook wrote:


I am not being ironic. I have dated many black women and I would not get bent out of shape if my kids married outside their faith or racial stock. Black, Jewish or whatever!

Don't you feel the same? Or a better question: You don't think it should be illegal?

On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Elizabeth Wright <> wrote:

Are you just being facetious?  Otherwise, why are you making an issue of this subject?  Why should you care one way or the other?  Why so indignant?  Or are you just being ironic?



"...when you have laws against questioning the Holocaust narrative, you are screaming at the other person to stop thinking!!!" ---Michael Santomauro, March 23, 2011

Being happy–is it good for the Jews? "Before Professor Dershowitz accused me of being an anti-Semite (news to me), I was a happy person. Since then, I'm still a happy person". –Michael Santomauro

An anti-Semite condemns people for being Jews, I am not an anti-Semite.--Michael Santomauro

Most of us are mentally trapped to think Jewish. Actually, it is safe to say that virtually every mainstream publication or or other type of media organ is "nothing more than a screen to present chosen views." The great battle over the last century has been a battle for the mind of the Western peoples, i.e., non-Jewish Euros. The chosen won it by acquiring control over essentially the complete mainstream news, information, education and entertainment media of every type, and using that control to infuse and disseminate their message, agenda and worldview, their way of thinking, or rather the way they want us to think. Since at least the 1960s this campaign has been effectively complete. Since then they have shaped and controlled the minds of all but a seeming few of us in varying degree with almost no opposition or competition from any alternative worldview. So now most of us are mentally trapped in the box the chosen have made for us, which we have lived in all our lives. Only a few have managed to avoid it or escape it, or to even sometimes see outside of it, and so actually "think outside of the (Jewish) box." --Michael Santomauro

Thank you and remember: 

Peace is patriotic!

Michael Santomauro

Call anytime: 917-974-6367

E-mail me anything:

Recent Activity:


No comments: