Editor’s note: Below, chapter 29 of Erectus Walks Amongst Us: The Evolution of Modern Humans by Richard D. Fuerle (for the endnotes, see the whole book: here).
______ 卐 ______
Miscegenation
‘And every race must fall which carelessly suffers its blood to become mixed’. —Benjamin Disraeli
Miscegenation (‘mix race’) is the interbreeding of the races, especially blacks and whites. Miscegenation was illegal in many states until 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court overruled a Virginia court and declared those laws unconstitutional under the unconstitutional Fourteenth Amendment. Not that long ago miscegenation was viewed as akin to bestiality (Chap. 28), but today it is promoted by the video and print media, even in advertising, and columnists despair that there is not enough of it.
Evolution ‘automatically’ works against miscegenation. Every population has variation. Over time, the individuals in a population who have traits most advantageous for particular environments concentrate in those environments and become sub-populations. If some of the individuals in one of those sub-populations develop traits that prevent them from interbreeding with individuals in the rest of the population, they will have an advantage over other individuals in their sub-population because they will not waste resources producing progeny who lack the advantageous traits for the sub-population’s environment. For that reason, sub-populations evolve traits that discourage or prevent interbreeding with other sub-populations, and the sub-populations eventually become different species.
To a physicist, miscegenation brings to mind the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says that in a closed system, order goes to disorder (i.e., entropy increases). Without getting technical, this means that if you have a gallon each of white, black, and yellow paint, ‘paint’ being a metaphor for a collection of racial traits, and mix them together, it would take many times the age of the universe before the pigment particles in the mixture again separated into white, black, and yellow paints. The uniqueness of those colours would be forever lost. Life, like other acts of creation, is a local lowering of entropy; miscegenation, like death, destruction, and chaos, increases entropy.
When miscegenation occurs, the alleles that make the interbreeding races unique do not necessarily disappear, but, like the pigment particles in the paint, they can no longer be separated again into the unique collections that constituted the original races. The races, as distinct forms of life, are destroyed forever. As argued earlier in this book, it took at least two million years to create and select the alleles that make us different, but it takes only an instant of miscegenation to scramble them up again. The selection of some of those alleles required the suffering and death of hundreds of thousands of people who did not have them, so the creation of racial differences was not without great cost. To destroy this monumental natural creation—us, so thoughtlessly and permanently, is akin to desecrating graves, dynamiting ancient statues, bombing cathedrals, and burning the library at Alexandria. What is the most valuable possession populations have that they can pass on to the next generation? It is not wealth or even knowledge. It is their genome, their ability to reproduce themselves as the unique people that they are. To squander that by miscegenation is the ultimate betrayal of one’s heritage.
To a biologist, the loss of distinct races of humans might bring to mind the relatively recent extinctions of species such as the dodo bird, the Carolina parakeet, the passenger pigeon, and many of the birds of Hawaii, as well as various frogs, mammals, and even the 65 mya extinction of the dinosaurs. Nothing saddens a lover of nature so much as seeing a unique form of life become extinct, and nothing is as gladdening as finding that a species once thought to be extinct (e.g., the ivory billed woodpecker) still lives.
Most scientists value diversity as an end in itself, for how dull life would be if they could study only one kind of star, rock, bacteria, cloud, and so on. No dog lover would want all the breeds of dogs to interbreed, so that all dogs are mongrels. No breeder of race horses would want his thoroughbreds to breed with common riding ponies. No garden lover wants all his flowers to come in only a single colour or shape, or his tomatoes or apples in only a single variety, and no oenophile would want only a single red wine and a single white wine to choose from. Only those driven mad by the maladaptive ideology of egalitarianism cheer the loss of diversity that results from their demands for more of it. To borrow from the anti-racists, one might call the end result of miscegenation, ‘Life without rainbows’.
Egalitarians love diversity so much that they insist that everything—our corporations, restaurants, hotels, neighbourhoods, schools, television, movies, and textbooks must all be diverse—everything, that is, except people, who must miscegenate to become the same and therefore equal. They were overjoyed in 2003 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that ‘diversity’ (i.e., racial quotas) is so important that colleges can legally violate the Fourteenth Amendment, but only for 25 yrs, by discriminating against Eurasians in order to achieve diversity in their student bodies. But their love of diversity is different from the love others have for it. Egalitarians love diversity not as an end, but as a means. They do not want to preserve the diversity of the peoples of this planet; they want to destroy it. Making all human contact diverse is simply their means for destroying human diversity. Mix the races physically, and they will mix biologically on their own. Diversity to destroy diversity. The loss of biological diversity, which most of us would not wish on the living things we love and value, egalitarians wish upon man himself.
Some egalitarians openly encourage miscegenation, while others even condemn the failure to miscegenate as ‘racist’, and still others argue that everyone might as well miscegenate because everyone is already a mixture. In the sense that the races share most alleles (as do people and chimps), everyone is a mixture but, as we shall see in the next chapter, there are major differences between people within a population interbreeding and people from very different populations interbreeding.
It is not necessary to involve the government in people’s intimate decisions in order to reduce miscegenation and preserve the uniqueness of the Earth’s peoples. People themselves, given their freedom, can accomplish this. They can segregate themselves, as suggested in Chapter 31. They can boycott movies, television, and books that show or advocate miscegenation. And they can ostracise those who practice, encourage, or condone it. Parents can disapprove of their children dating interracially and withhold benefits, such as weddings, gifts, inheritances, and social support from children who defy their wishes and reject their own people as mates. They can cite statistics showing that they are many times as likely to get a STD from a black as from a white (Chapter 12, Note 4) and, for females, many times as likely to be beaten, raped, and murdered. Many things can be done but, until people come to believe that it is desirable and morally good to preserve their own genetic heritage, nothing will be done.
The race mixers love to point out that white men fear that black men will take ‘their’ women. Of course, they fear that; for a white man, it’s a significant loss in fitness. The biological purpose of a male of any species is to pass on his alleles, and the principal way he does this is by impregnating females. But he gets a big bonus if he impregnates a woman who already has more of the same alleles that he has, i.e., someone of the same race (Chapter 8, fn 4), and his fitness falls if he lets someone of another race impregnate ‘his’ women (and similarly for women). This biological purpose implies, of course, that he must not only compete against other men, particularly men of a different race, but win that competition. If he does not even try to win and, indeed, facilitates his own failure, then his unique collection of alleles, including the alleles that made him a biological loser, are out of the game.
The incidence of miscegenation is greatly increased by welfare. As we saw in Chapters 5 and 12, Eurasian women normally choose ‘dads’, not ‘cads’, because, until modern times, they and their children could not survive without the support of a man. With the state now supporting them, however, they can choose ‘cads’ and still survive and therefore are more likely to make that choice. Blacks are more likely to be cads, and therefore the absence of welfare would induce Eurasian women to once again choose dads and would significantly reduce miscegenation. Other studies have shown that partners who are genetically similar to each other tend to have happier marriages and, without welfare, the importance of having a happy marriage increases.
Another way of looking at miscegenation is from the viewpoint of eugenics. If blacks and whites engage in miscegenation, the mulatto progeny will have characteristics of both races. Will the two races regard the mullatos as ‘improved’ children? Although there are no polls on this question, other evidence suggests that more blacks would see it as an improvement than whites. As we have seen, blacks are genetically primitive humans, who have evolved a lesser distance away from our ape LCA. They have alleles that are many millions of years old—chimpanzees and gorillas have them, but Eurasians do not (Chapter 16, fn 17). Admitting those and other primitive alleles into the white genome would undo hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years of white evolution. Both blacks and whites regard the primitive features of blacks as undesirable (p. 96). Both white and black children prefer playing with white dolls. And the push behind integration has been blacks wanting to be around whites, not whites wanting to be around blacks.
Mulattos resent the fact that they can never be ‘white’, and must accept a lower status as a ‘black’. They become hostile towards whites, who are the higher status group, even though they would have an even lower status if they were not partly white. Thus, whites who have mulatto children create enemies of whites, including themselves, another reason for whites to oppose miscegenation.
Most mixed race breeding occurs at the margins, where a white woman is undesirable to white men (overweight, ugly, old, addicted to drugs, mentally ill, low IQ, etc.) or has been rejected by a white man, resulting in a deep hatred of all white men, or the black man may be rich and/or famous (e.g., Tiger Woods, O.J. Simpson), though there are some cases where the explanation is not readily apparent (e.g., blond German model Heidi Klum).
Declining Civilisations
Perhaps both the strongest and the weakest argument against miscegenation is that it can destroy an existing civilisation. (Simpson, 2003, pp. 746-751). That argument deserves consideration because the outcome is so dire, but the evidence for it is indirect because it is difficult to assign the collapse of an entire civilisation to any particular cause, though a lower quality gene pool is certainly a strong candidate. (Gobineau, 1853; Fisher, 1958). And the decline of a civilisation is often slow, over hundreds of years, so that people may not even realise it is happening. However, there is good evidence that a lowering of IQ individually (Herrnstein, 1994) or nationally (Lynn, 2002a) will lower living standards as less intelligent people are less productive and consumption cannot be maintained without production (though if you borrow or steal, it can be someone else’s production). The reader should keep in mind the ‘right-tail effect’ shown in Figure 14-5 & Figure 14-7. When the average intelligence of the entire population drops, the number of people at the higher end of the bell curve falls much more drastically. With welfare states ensuring the reproductive success of the less intelligent in the temperate zones, the dysgenic effect of miscegenation in reducing the percentage of people in the right tail will never be overcome by natural selection, i.e., the less intelligent will not lack the means to successfully reproduce. And, when mankind is presented with environmental challenges to his survival, as he inevitably will be, he will no longer have the intellectual wherewithal to overcome them.
Let us examine the past consequences of the right-tail effect of lower intelligence due to miscegenation to see the future that awaits us. Contrary to the OoA theory, Africans did not travel of their own accord into other countries—every country they went to, they went as slaves (Figure 21-1). As individuals, the slaves no doubt suffered, though they very likely were better off as slaves than if they had been left in Africa. Biologically, being a slave to Eurasians was adaptive for Africans, as it enabled them to spread their alleles much more widely than they otherwise would have, but all the civilisations they became part of declined.
Today, people in the countries that imported slaves emphatically deny they have any Negro blood and become quite offended at the suggestion that they do. However, their dark skin, short, black, woolly hair, and African alleles betray them.
As discussed in Chapter 26, the multiple migrations of Eurasians into Africa have resulted in a mixed population in Africa itself. And, as discussed in Chapter 15, the accomplishments and achievements of Africans and African Americans have been abysmal, which is not surprising given their average IQs of only 67 and 85, respectively (Chap. 14). So it is not unreasonable to blame the decline of white civilisations on the importation of, and interbreeding with, Africans slaves.
Egypt
The early Egyptians were Caucasian (Figure 26-2). From 3400 to 1800 B.C., Egypt excelled in architecture, mathematics, and science. As Egyptians moved south, up the Nile River, they encountered black Africans (Nubians), who were brought back as slaves. Miscegenation spread, Egyptians became more Negroid, and Egyptian civilisation began a decline from which it has never recovered. ‘The weak, disease-ridden population of modern Egypt offers dramatic evidence of the evil effects of a hybridization which has gone on for 5000 years’. (Garrett, 1960, p. 7). Today, Egypt is a Third World country with an average IQ of only 77 to 83. (Lynn, 2006a, p. 80).
The Middle East
The Muslims in the Middle East made many important discoveries and inventions including coffee, the camera obscura, soap, the crank shaft, quilting, the pointed arch, surgical instruments, anesthetics, the windmill, smallpox inoculation, checks, and algebra. When the more powerful men acquired large harems of women, many of the common men were left without wives. From about 600 to about 1000 AD, cheap African slaves were imported as concubines, a practice that did not end until the 1960s. By 1200 AD, Arab advances in the arts and sciences had stopped. ‘The number of books published in the Arab world did not exceed 1.1% of world production though Arabs constitute 5% of the world population… No more than 10,000 books were translated into Arabic over the entire millennium [1000 to 2000 AD], equivalent to the number translated every year into Spanish’. The average IQ in the Middle East is now about 83. (Lynn, 2006a, p. 80; also Kemp, 2006, Chap. 7, 16, 17).
Greece
Originally white, classical Greece reached such heights that it is still studied today. The IQ in Greece at that time must have been at least 100, but today it is only 92 (Lynn, 2006a, p 173). There is as yet little evidence for the presence of African alleles in the Greek gene pool, though that would explain the drop in IQ. (Kemp, 2006, Chap. 10, App. 4, 6). (Editor’s note: Modern Greeks have mixed with the Turks. See for example one of my 2013 posts: here.)
Portugal
By 1550, Portugal, then a white country, had become the wealthiest, most powerful nation in the world with colonies in Asia, Africa, and South America. Unfortunately, Negro slaves were brought into Portugal from Africa between the middle 15th century until slavery was banned in the late 19th century (Godinho, 1983), when Africans were about 5 to 10% of the population. Interbreeding occurred and Portugal declined until today it is the poorest nation in Europe and has the lowest literacy score for ages 26 to 65. Of the 346 Nobel Prizes awarded in science between 1901 and 2003, the Portuguese received only one, for prefrontal lobotomy, a now discredited treatment for mental illness. Spain was also affected, but to a lesser extent. The average IQ in Portugal is 95, but it is 99 in Spain.
The West Indies
‘In the West Indies, the civilisation is advanced almost exactly in the degree to which the populations are unmixed with the Negro’. (Garrett, 1960, p. 7). Haiti, like most African nations, is a basket case of corruption, poverty, and crime. There are no ‘safe areas’ in Haiti. (U.S. Department of State Travel Warning, Oct., 2008). In Jamaica, it has been reported that race-mixing has lead to ‘physical as well as mental disharmonies’. (Garrett, 1960, p. 7; Davenport, 1970).
Brazil
‘Let any one who doubts the evil of this mixture of races, and is inclined from mistaken philanthropy to break down all barriers between them, come to Brazil’. —Louis Gassiz, naturalist.
The northern coastal Bahia region of Brazil, where there is extensive interbreeding between former African slaves, native Indians, and whites, is in poverty and the southern region around San Paulo, which is mostly white, is well-off (Garrett, 1960, p. 7). As is true throughout the world, those who are brown or black are poorest, the least educated, and have the lowest IQ. The average IQ in Brazil is 87 but the average IQ of Europeans in Brazil is 95 and the average IQ of Africans in Brasilia is only 70 (Lynn, 2006a, pp 23, 70). Figure 29-1 (Wikipedia, ‘IQ,’ now withdrawn) shows the overlapping IQ bell curves in the U.S. for African Americans, Hispanics, whites, and Asians. The lower mean IQ for Hispanics is due to the interbreeding of Portuguese and Spaniards with Africans and South American Indians (ave. IQ = 86; Lynn, 2006, p. 159).
Europe and the United States
In Europe and the United States the evidence for the de-civilising effect of miscegenation can be found in the education and crime levels in black schools and neighbourhoods. And it is almost certain to become worse. According to a U.S. Census Bureau report, non-Hispanic whites accounted for only 66.4 percent of the U.S. population on July 1, 2006, though they were 76% in 1990 and 88% in 1965.
The U.S. population is predicted to balloon from the current (October, 2006) 327 million people (Abernathy, 2006) to nearly 420 million in 2050 (Census Bureau). Census Bureau projections show that the U.S. white population (IQ = 98; Lynn, 2006a, p. 174) will drop from 69.4% of the population to 50.1%; blacks (African-American IQ = 85, African = 67; Lynn, 2006a, pp. 41, 37) will increase from 12.7% to 14.6%; Hispanics (Mexican IQ = 87; Lynn, 2002a) will rise from 13% to 24.4%; and Asians (East Asian IQ = 105, Southeast Asian = 87; Lynn, 2006a, pp. 147, 99) will jump from 3.8% to 8%. Thus, the percentage of blacks in the U.S. is already significantly higher than the 5 to 10% that Portugal had when its decline began. The United States is becoming more and more genetically homogenised and there is little hope that the trend can be reversed. The extent that a society is civilised is a function of its gene pool; once the gene pool has been lost, the products of that gene pool are also lost.
Miscegenation (with blacks), by inexorably lowering IQ, is the greatest threat to the survival of whites and their civilisations. Nothing else is more certain to permanently destroy white civilisation. Yet few whites recognise the threat and many whites actually welcome it. Unless miscegenation is stopped soon, it will be too late. The centre of civilisation is already moving from the West to East Asia, i.e., China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea. Soon, those countries will be the centre of art, science, and military power, and the West will be mired in a hopeless struggle to keep up.
