By: eurasianon (email@example.com)
The Case against Race-Mixing, by a Mixed Man
For as long as there have been separate races or subgroups of humanity, there naturally has been the inevitable genetic mixture between them. But is it really as natural or beneficial as the accepted mainstream political platform, as asserted by our media, government and academia? I don't think so, and here I will explain why.
A preliminary argument, seemingly so powerful that it can shut down a discussion before it has even began, is to attack the race of the person making an argument against race-mixing, or in the case of religiously-motivated opposition thereof, the religion. This is often done by employing the list of liberal buzzwords, including "racist", "bigot", "nazi", "white supremacist", "hateful", "xenophobe". However, this cannot be used in this instance, as I am not White, but am mixed myself, and am thus included in the massive category of "non-White". But it is no privilege, no source of pride, and as in any kind of discussion, of no relevance.
One of the biggest fallacies pushed by our media, government and academia in support of miscegenation is that it doesn't matter, because the entire world will someday all be mixed. These are the same people who believe that all national borders must be abolished, that the safety of a country and its citizens is subordinate to the maintenance of multiculturalism and racial diversity, and that the concepts of race and ethnicity have no basis in actual science or reality. All three propositions, along with the massive amount of others not mentioned for the sake of practicality, are completely and utterly false.
The idea of abolishing national borders came straight out of 19th century Marxism, which called for the abolition of not only borders between nations, but many other things, primarily concerning socio-economic class, especially in classical Marxism. Later, the Frankfurt School developed the cultural or social wing of Marxism, which was nothing more than an extension of Marxist ideas from economics to all aspects of society, culture and life itself. Many of the destructive liberal policies and ideas in place today are a result of the Frankfurt School and its cultural Marxism. The centerpiece of Marxism, from its economic form, responsible for the deaths of over 100 million in the 20th century, to its cultural Marxist extension, can be described in a simple progression: destruction of the old and replacement with the new. Classical economic Marxism sight to destroy the old system of capitalism, which they claimed to be the single source of the plight of the working man. The result was an economic system that failed every single time it was tried, and killed millions in the process through starvation and execution.
However, can the argument in support of miscegenation be made even if Marxism never existed? Even if there wasn't a single political opposition to miscegenation in history, would it still occur, and would this result in a future where everyone is mixed into a large, identical mono-race? Evolutionary biology says no.
In fact, left to their own devices and without any kind of political intervention, the races of humanity would slowly evolve separately, until they inevitably become separate species after millions of years. This isn't even a human thing, every living organism alive today and throughout the history of the earth came about as a result of natural genetic divergence from other species. Like the many separate breeds of dogs, the human races are still considered part of the same species because two members of different races or "breeds" can reproduce and have fertile offspring. When the mixed offspring produced are infertile, then the two parent species or "breeds" are considered separate species. It is a basic fact of evolution, when two populations of a species are geographically separate, they will begin to genetically diverge until they become two separate species over millions of years. Us humans are no exception, and this genetic divergence is manifested in the human races and the differences between them.
Another popular argument in support of miscegenation is that it is the manifestation and pinnacle of multiculturalism and diversity. While a mixed-race person certainly is considered ideal to the average multiculturalist, multiracialist or liberal, that would imply that those are good things. Multiculturalism and "diversity", in fact, have nothing to do with each other. Humans have maintained genetic, cultural and ethnic diversity long before multiculturalism and multiracial countries and societies even existed. Multiculturalism is a political mandate that states that a country or area must become "racially and ethnically diverse", which usually means replacement of the native population, and this has also been realized in practice (see Europe).
Multiculturalism and multiracialism both operate under the simple principle that several different groups of people, diverse in language, culture, religion and race, can co-exist under the exact same system (the same country, the same laws, the same economic system, the same government). This makes a wild assumption that all of these groups of people are exactly the same, a direct contradiction to mandates of "diversity". This fallacy can be summed up like this: "We are all the same! One race, the human race! But ethnic and racial diversity is a good thing!", how can one who doesn't believe in diversity be such a proponent of diversity? It is absurd! The iron law of nature, and the tribalist instincts of humans, however, make co-existence under an identical one-size-fits-all system is impossible, so one of two things are the result: either the different and diverse groups become the same (speak a common language, follow a common religion, subscribe to a common culture), effectively eliminated diversity, or the society collapses (see the Roman Empire, one of many countries that perished at the hands of multiculturalism). Both exits are a bad end, for every party involved.
Multiculturalism may be the greatest threat on earth to human diversity, for no other worldview mandated the forced mixing and subjugation of different groups to an identical system, effectively bringing about their demise (see above). Miscegenation doesn't "celebrate diversity", it destroys it. I like diversity. I believe that all of the world's diverse peoples have the right to exist and the right to self-determination in their own homeland, but this "multiculturalism" crap does nothing but undermine that natural order that has been in place since the dawn of humanity. Remember that when all of the colors of the rainbow are mixed together, they produce brown, is that diversity?
To close, I have demonstrated the several arguments used by liberals to push miscegenation and race-mixing. I have identified their origins in the cultural Marxist Frankfurt School, and have demonstrated why miscegenation is defiance of the iron law of mother nature, and that this "one race" and "everyone will be mixed some day" rhetoric is unscientific bullshit. Finally, I have proven the fallacious intentions and implications of multiculturalism and multiracialism from a practical standpoint. And before the liberals come to attack me for "racism", "xenophobia" and "bigotry", they are reminded that I myself am mixed.