Race-Mixing Versus Diversity

by Michael Polignano

4 June 2005

There is a great deal of propaganda today favoring race-mixing or miscegenation. So I thought it useful to set down in a series of short articles all the reasons I oppose it.

First and foremost, I oppose miscegenation because it destroys every race that practices it.

A race is a biological subspecies, an extended family. Distinct races probably came about as follows. First, a subgroup was isolated from the rest of the species. Second, the isolated group was differentiated from the rest of the species.

There are two main factors that give rise to the differences between races. First is nature's apparent innate tendency toward the creation of diverse new forms, either by producing new genetic "code" (mutation) or through novel combinations of the same genetic material (recombination). Second are the selective pressures of unique environmental conditions, which cull some of nature's innovations, encourage others, and probably remain indifferent to most.

Subjected to these differentiating factors for sufficient time, an isolated subgroup will acquire new and distinct characteristics. These characteristics will eventually be spread evenly throughout the group as long as there are no barriers to breeding within the group. (If the isolated population is split into several genetically exclusive communities, those communities will eventually develop discrete gene frequencies, and ultimately acquire distinct genetic identities.)

A race's unique genetic identity will be maintained only as long as it remains genetically separate and exclusive, breeding within itself and not breeding with other races. Miscegenation undoes this. Thus it destroys millennia of racial evolution. The genes are not lost, per se, just as no paint molecules are lost when different colors of paint are mixed. But it would take millennia to re-isolate gene types that can be spread out among a miscegenated population in just one generation of crossbreeding. Sophistries written by the usual suspects -- such as the one found here -- downplay this critical fact.

For years now, the leading voices of our cultural establishment have been telling us that diversity is an unconditional good. You'd think we could never have too much diversity. This is, of course, nonsense. Racial and ethnic diversity always weakens any group's ability to harmoniously pursue individual and collective goals: it confounds social problems like crime, poverty, and unemployment; it leads to the suppression of free speech and thought; it creates an environment where minority groups fight for their interests, while the majority group is prohibited from acting likewise.

Even where diversity is good, it is not unconditionally good. You can have too much of it. Variety may be the spice of life, for instance, but if one cooks a new dish every night one will never attain the excellence that comes only from repeated practice.

It is ironic that miscegenation is promoted by the very people who make a cult of diversity, because in the long run miscegenation completely destroys racial diversity. In the short run, of course, miscegenation does increase diversity by filling the world with a colorful array of mongrels. But in the long run, as pure racial types disappear and mongrels mix with mongrels, this diversity will give way to a brown uniformity. Thus the only way to maintain racial diversity over the long term is to avoid miscegenation.

Miscegenation is sometimes promoted because people recognize, however dimly, that racially diverse societies are unworkable. But if racially homogenous societies are the most workable, then why not preserve and improve upon the many existing racially homogenous societies? Why not divide up multiracial societies into a number of racially homogenous ones?

Surely this racial nationalist approach is a much more realistic and workable solution than the "utopia" (in reality a dystopia) proposed by the "miscegenationalists": A single global state ruling a single homogenous mongrel population, a global state that will emerge only after countless wars and untold bloodshed, and a mongrel population that will emerge only after generations of racial and ethnic conflict (and the forcible extermination of populations that refuse to blend).

The same argument applies to another ideal of the diversity-mongers: multiculturalism. The multiculturalists do not advocate a plurality of distinct culturally homogeneous states. That would be ethnic nationalism. Instead, multiculturalists advocate multiple cultures within each state. This is why multiculturalists favor unlimited immigration. How else would the Icelanders be enriched by the presence of Bantu and Hmong and Papuans?

But when different cultures are forced to live and work together, the differences between them are bound to cause conflict. If the differences are sharp enough, a society will become Balkanized, torn apart by ethnic hatred and wars of secession. To avoid conflict, cultures have to minimize their differences. Thus the pursuit of social harmony in multicultural societies leads eventually to cultural uniformity, to the destruction of real cultural diversity. This is the famous American "melting pot."

But whether it is by Balkanization or assimilation, multiculturalism destroys every society that practices it. Thus the only way to preserve both harmony and cultural diversity is to have a plurality of ethnically homogenous states. Cultural diversity, like racial diversity, requires separation.

Multiracialism and multiculturalism also destroy another kind of diversity: intellectual diversity. This can be seen most clearly on university campuses. The universities are the segment of our society most controlled by multi-racialists and multiculturalists. Thus they show what they have in store for the rest of society. Universities are probably the most receptive places to the "multi-cult." Students tend to be less experienced and more open-minded than average. They also tend to be more left of center than average. Exposure to diverse opinions and ways of life is a legitimate part of education. Universities and parents can devote lavish subsidies to utopian experiments. And college is temporary, so even the students who are skeptical of the multi-cult are willing at least to tolerate it for four years. If multiracialism and multiculturalism can work anywhere, they will surely work on campus.

But they don't. They are a source of tension and conflict there like everywhere else. So faculty and administrators simply use brainwashing and intimidation to impose an artificial unity of opinion on the blessings of diversity. Thus predominantly White universities which respected and cultivated intellectual diversity are being replaced by brainwashing camps staffed by post-modernist Marxists of every race, hue, disability, and perversion all toeing the same party line. And, since Jews somehow always count as "diversity," even though they are the most over-represented group in academia, the pursuit of diversity in practice means squeezing all White gentiles out of higher education. There are already departments at major universities where the only "Whites" are Jews and gentiles who can be trusted to support some aspects of the Jewish agenda, e.g., feminists, gays, lesbians, and miscegenators.

Our enemies have spent a great deal of time, money, and energy promoting the appreciation of diversity. Let's seize the profits of their investment by showing that miscegenation and multiculturalism destroy diversity and that we racial and cultural nationalists are the only ones who truly respect and preserve it.

MICHAEL POLIGNANO
__________________________________

Visit Mr. Polignano's page here.

Back to VNN Main Page