PD1

The Issue of Race in Contemporary America
Despite the best attempts of our self appointed social engineers in academia, Hollywood, and on Madison Avenue, race remains one of the most divisive issues in the United States today. This can be traced to a number of causes. To begin with, multiracial societies have not been the norm throughout human history. It is only relatively recently that advances in transportation and commerce have brought disparate races into close and continuous contact with one another and have give rise to multiracial societies such as those that exist in the United States, and increasingly, in Western Europe. It is only relatively recently that the ideal of the multiracial society has been adopted as a model for social organization, mainly due to economic exigencies and accidents of history.

Historically, a number of natural barriers have existed to the creation of multiracial societies. One of these barriers has been geographic separation. Many thousands of years ago, humans dispersed throughout the habitable regions of the globe, where they became relatively isolated from one another by distance and by the obstacles of geographic features. Geographic separation and isolation insured that populations or "subgroups" evolved distinctive traits to make them better adapted to the somewhat unique conditions they faced in their local environments. The distinctive traits that these subgroups evolved as adaptive responses are what we recognize today as "racial "characteristics.

In addition to geographic separation, multiracial societies have proven problematic for other reasons. Because humans evolved under conditions in which there was a high degree of racial homogeneity, living in a multiracial environment is somewhat unnatural to them. Humans also evolved a behavioral mechanism which actually functions to maintain racial homogeneity by concentrating adaptive traits (traits which conform to race) in localized populations, and by excluding relatively less adaptive traits. This behavioral mechanism is what we know today as the xenophobic response (the innate component of xenophobia). The xenophobic response has historically served to maintain the distinctiveness of human subgroups, when they have occasionally come into limited contact with one another through migration and exploration. The xenophobic response is an aversive reaction which is triggered by the perception of significant differences in others (differences which correspond to racial features). Admittedly, this mechanism may be more pronounced in some subgroups than in others.

Human subgroups developed the xenophobic response for the purpose of "maintaining the racial differences" or unique set of genetic characteristics that made these subgroups better adapted to the environmental challenges they faced in the regions in which they lived. The xenophobic response functioned to discourage members of a group which had evolved adaptive traits from breeding with members of groups that they may have come into contact with during seasonal migrations, but which had not evolved the same set of adaptive traits. The xenophobic response is perhaps the single most important "innate" reason why multiracial societies are "unnatural," unstable and suboptimal as a form of social organization. This response continues to present a formidable natural barrier to the long term viability and stability of multiracial societies.

Because race is the product of tens of thousands of years of unique evolutionary experience, racial differences must be counted among the most important features of our natural heritage. Contrary to the popular opinion that has been shaped by our well intentioned social engineers in academia, Hollywood, and on Madison Avenue, race encompasses far more important differences than mere variations in skin pigmentation that exist between subgroups. Appearance is only the outward signature of racial differences. At a more substantive level, racial characteristics include differences in neurological responsiveness, temperamental propensities, metabolism, and susceptibility to certain diseases between human subgroups. Race literally goes to the core of our biological makeup as human beings. Racial characteristics are the defining essence of human subgroups and are a large part of what make us unique as individuals.

The biological differences that distinguish human subgroups are an important part of our natural history. These differences represent vital links to our past and are vital sources of personal and cultural identity. In addition, differences between human subgroups provide keys to better understanding our own evolution. On these accounts alone, the races of man should be considered valuable, and even governments in multiracial societies should be interested in their preservation. Instead, governments in multiracial societies (such as the United States) view racial differences in their populations problematically.

The Ideal of the Multiracial Model of Society
The primary identifying feature of a multiracial society is a relatively large population of minor subgroups (racial minorities) in relation to a major subgroup (a racial majority). Collectively, the minor subgroups in this form of social organization are typically so large in comparison to the major subgroup that the major subgroup is unable to exercise hegemonic control over society, and is ultimately unable to govern effectively. To the extent that this arrangement is at odds with certain innate behavioral tendencies (which have evolved under conditions of high racial homogeneity), the creation of stable multiracial societies has proven difficult to achieve.

The multiracial society is a form of social organization which challenges historical precedents and which is at odds with important aspects of our nature. In terms of our historical and evolutionary experience, multiracial societies represent novel and revolutionary social experiments. They are a social form that reflects the humanist ideal of "the universal brotherhood of man." Maintaining the integrity of this ideal demands that individuals ignore or attempt to minimize their differences, or that they deny that substantive and meaningful differences exist between human subgroups in the first place. Science determines what is substantive, subjective feelings and beliefs determine what is meaningful.

The multiracial model of society has been adopted by different people for different reasons. Some people have reluctantly adopted this model because they see the short term necessity for disparate racial groups to cooperate and avoid potentially catastrophic confrontations. Others have adopted the model of the multiracial society because they believe in it as an ideal. These individuals see the ideal of the multiracial model as being a progressive departure from historical norms and experience, and as a means of separating man from his primitive, violent, and insular past. But people who have so enthusiastically and unconditionally embraced the ideal of the multiracial society fail to understand certain things. They tend to have an inadequate appreciation of the depth and scope of racial differences; they don't tend to understand these differences in terms of their evolutionary origins and functions; and they don't tend to have a good understanding of human nature more generally. In short, those who believe in the ideal of the multiracial society typically fail to recognize that this form of social organization is fundamentally at odds with certain features of our evolutionary makeup. As such, it represents a form of social organization which is unnatural and at odds with natural law.

The Role of the State in Multiracial Societies
As a consequence of natural behavioral tendencies, a multiracial society is inherently less stable than societies which are more racially homogeneous. Consequently, the government or "the state" in multiracial societies must create artificial social conventions (conventions which are not in accord with natural law) in an attempt to neutralize or suppress the operation of natural behavioral tendencies like the xenophobic response. The state uses these conventions to make a multiracial society viable and stable and to compensate for the fact that it is attempting to establish a form of social organization which rests on unnatural foundations.

Because it fails to recognize (or is unwilling to admit) that a multiracial society is an unnatural form of social organization, "the state" in a multiracial society has no incentives to defend the cause of racial preservation. To the contrary, the state in a multiracial society is more likely to view the continuation of visible racial differences as a potential source of instability. Thus, not only does the state in a multiracial society not have any incentives to champion the cause of preserving the distinctive traits of human subgroups, it actually has powerful incentives to facilitate the obliteration of visible racial differences. The instrument that the state is most likely to use to achieve this goal is "miscegenation."

By eliminating apparent "racial" differences between the subgroups (the features that would be most likely to evoke the xenophobic response) through the process of miscegenation, the state in a multiracial society can better achieve its goal of enhancing its internal stability. For even as the state in multiracial society tends to deny or ignore the existence of the xenophobic response in its rhetoric, it does seem to recognize that as long as visible racial differences continue to exist in the subgroups that makeup its population, these differences can serve as grounds for conflict and can contribute to social instability more generally. The state will not openly admit that it has an interest in promoting miscegenation as a technique to enhance its internal stability. For, to make such an admission would run the risk of arousing the very passions (those which are related to the xenophobic response) that it hopes to suppress or eliminate.

The state does not need to openly endorse the potentially inciteful idea of using miscegenation as a strategy to enhance its internal stability. Rather, it is able to advance this strategy surreptitiously under the guise of defending and promoting individual rights. By means of legislation designed to protect the individual's right to make personal choices in the selection of a mate, the state merely becomes involved in creating an environment which allows miscegenation to take place, even as it tacitly recognizes that racial intermarriage will pay dividends in the way of enhanced social stability. Principally by placing the individuals' right to choose their marital partners ahead of any concern with racial preservation, the state gives its tacit assent to the practice of miscegenation. The state is able to advance its hidden interest in promoting miscegenation while ostensibly attempting to defend or advance individual liberties. But, the state would be extremely reluctant to admit that it has a vital interest in promoting miscegenation. For, once again, the state is aware that if its strategy were to be exposed, it could arouse racial passions.

The state's involvement in creating laws which either sanction or allow miscegenation also qualifies as a selective enforcement of eugenics laws. For instance, there is no dispute about the need to enforce incest laws as a eugenics measure. The purpose of such laws is manifest and well accepted. But, the state in a multiracial society is not willing to acknowledge, or it fails to recognize, that eugenics functions would be served by the establishment and enforcement of anti-miscegenation laws. In the eyes of the multiracial state, the eugenics functions of such laws are unclear, to the extent that miscegenation is more likely to produce viable offspring than incest, and to the extent that no vital state interest would seem to be served by preventing miscegenation. Besides, laws that would impose penalties for miscegenation would also carry the stigma of racial intolerance, which the state must aggressively attack, also for the sake of preserving its own internal stability. And, most importantly, where the vital interests of the state are concerned, anti-miscegenation laws would tend to preserve the very visible racial differences that the state in a multiracial society sees as a continuing source of instability, and which it has an interest in eliminating.

The state retains the right to practice eugenics by means of incest laws even as it refuses to acknowledge the eugenics aims of anti-miscegenation laws. The state does not see any worth in the preservation of the discrete races of man. Nor does the state see the preservation of the discrete races of man in the context of eugenics. It does not see race as a "dignity" that should be protected. Thus, the state in a multiracial society finds itself in the position of selectively enforcing eugenics laws. In its view, one's choice of marital partner, or the person with whom one chooses to propagate, is a personal matter with no broader implications for society or the species. In fact, the state in a multiracial society has no concept of "a species interest" apart from, or possibly opposed to, its own interests. A state which has embraced the ideal of the multiracial society will be unwilling to accept the possibility that this ideal could be in conflict with the species' interest.

By declaring any laws which might be aimed at preventing miscegenation to be illegal and unconstitutional, the state creates a legal environment which facilitates the process of miscegenation. It lends its support to the cause of miscegenation "surreptitiously" by means of a legal environment which is officially neutral and indifferent towards race and towards miscegenation. But, in its larger quest to subdue the ambient tensions that are inherent to any multiracial society, the state unavoidably has an interest in creating a normative environment which actually encourages miscegenation. For even though the state in a multiracial society is unwilling to accept the existence of the xenophobic response (a natural tendency which would be opposed to the ideal of a multiracial society), it does recognize that as long as significant visible differences remain between subgroups, these differences will be a potential source of tension and conflict. By blurring racial distinctions (which could evoke the xenophobic response), miscegenation tends to increase the stability of multiracial societies.

In order to promote stability in a multicultural society, the arch defenders of the state are compelled to stress our biological similarities and to minimize our biological or racial differences. Consequently, they stress that to the extent that biological differences exist between human subgroups, these differences are merely superficial and without substance. The state would have use believe that the differences which can be used to distinguish the human subgroups are chimerical, trivial and insignificant. But, the minute that someone attaches meaning to these differences, they can no longer be discounted as trivial or unimportant.

Once again, the state in a multiracial society has no compelling interest in racial preservation. By being unwilling to acknowledge the legitimacy of the goal of racial preservation, the state gives its tacit assent to the process of amalgamation (miscegenation) as a way of assimilating the races, and as a way of reducing racial tensions. It relies on the steady increase in the rate of miscegenation as a way of increasing the internal stability of a form of social organization which is unnatural, and which it knows is inherently unstable. Yet, the state does not reach the conclusion that a multiracial society is unstable because it recognizes that there is any contradiction between aspects of human nature and the ideal of a multiracial society. Rather, it believes that the source of instability is cultural in nature, and is related entirely to defective socialization. According to its non-biological, socialization based view of the world, who we are as human beings is defined more or less completely by culture and socialization. From this mistaken premise the state reaches the conclusion that instability in a multiracial society must be the result of culture and socialization rather than some fundamental conflict between aspects of human nature and the form of social organization which it is attempting to defend. Correspondingly, the state is led to equally mistaken conclusions about the best way to address the problem of instability in a multiracial society. It elects to create conventions designed to neutralize what it believes are cultural tendencies that threaten to create instability, and it elects to facilitate the elimination of what it regards as "superficial" racial differences.

By adopting miscegenation as a way of reducing the ambient level of tension in a multiracial society, the state does not eliminate the fundamental problem that confronts it. Powerful innate tendencies (such as the xenophobic response) still remain resistant to the state's efforts, and they continue to operate beneath the surface. These innate tendencies threaten to erupt at any time into social conflicts. These tendencies also threaten to tear down the window dressing that the state has put in place to make social arrangements which are inherently unnatural and unstable appear to be both natural and stable. By adopting a strategy which facilitates racial amalgamation, or miscegenation, the state in a multiracial society only succeeds in creating an environment that is conducive to the "suppression" of racial tensions. The xenophobic response continues to operate beneath the surface to ensure that a large enough proportion of the various subgroups retain their racial integrity to represent an ongoing source of instability.

While the state which embraces the strategy of using miscegenation as a tool to enhance its internal stability
may be securing its survival over the short term, it is not demonstrating that it rests on grounds that are optimal, natural, or which would be most likely to secure its survival over the longer term. By being constructed at odds with basic innate human tendencies, the state which embraces the ideal of a multiracial society violates natural law at important points. One of the basic propositions of natural that it violates is that, by embracing the ideal of the multiracial society, it actually fails to optimize the important parameter of maximizing its own stability. That is to say, it fails to understand or accept that by embracing the ideal of multiracial society it automatically sets the stage for conditions which are not optimally conducive to its stability. It hopes to resolve this problem by advancing laws which are indifferent to race and which allow for, if not facilitate miscegenation as a strategy to eventually homogenize its population, and thereby achieve greater stability. Yet, it still remains fundamentally at odds with natural law. According to natural law, a state that is in tension with strong underlying natural behavioral predispositions is inherently less stable than a society constructed in accordance with such predispositions. Ultimately, a state that rests on foundations that are unnatural and which are at odds with powerful innate tendencies can never be a good thing.

The Auxiliaries of the State: Academia, the Press, the Advertising and Entertainment Industries
The state does not need to adopt the potentially inflammatory stand of openly endorsing miscegenation as a strategy designed to enhance its internal stability. There are other interests in society which can act more openly in this regard, and which can give the state a certain measure of deniability. Under the auspices of the state, academia, the press, the advertising and the entertainment industries have eagerly embraced the task of "stabilization" as part of their overall social engineering project. Like the state, these interests have a paramount concern with creating a social environment that is conducive to stability. These interests also regard the problems inherent to race as being mainly cultural in origin. Correspondingly, the remedy they seek to impose is cultural and rests with socialization. To these interests, because racial differences are insubstantial and inconsequential, they are not worthy of preservation. They fail to see these differences in the context of their evolutionary origins and functions, and they dispute or ignore that the differences between the subgroups are anything but skin deep.

The advertising and entertainment industries have taken up the cause of increasing internal stability in multiracial societies by denigrating the concept of race, and by devaluing the ideal of racial purity. These industries have been able to succeed in their aims largely because they have been able to link any attempt to defend the integrity of race (or any support for the ideal of racial homogeneity) with prejudice, bigotry and racism. They have helped to create an image in the public mind that anyone who advocates racial purity or preservation (even the preservation of all races) must be a racist. Under the auspices of the state, academia, the press, and the advertising and entertainment industries all help to create an environment that either tolerates or openly encourages miscegenation. The advertising and entertainment industries are dominated by individuals who, despite having an occasionally contentious relationship with the state, are united with the state in wanting to create an environment that permits them to carry on their enterprise without major disruptions. Thus, these interests have common ground with the state in helping to shore up the stability of an inherently unnatural social order, so as not to disrupt the system of consumption on which they depend for their livelihoods.

Along with the state in multiracial societies, neither the advertising nor the entertainment industries view racial preservation as a legitimate goal, and all view the continuation of racial differences as a potential source of conflict and instability. Like the state, these bastions of elite power support the ideal of a multiracial society and they fail to see anything unnatural about it. To argue that this form of social organization could be at odds with important elements of natural law would be an extreme view to people who not not believe in substantive innate qualities from which a system of natural law could be extrapolated in the first place.

Even though they might be reluctant to admit it, or cannot precisely identify its source, the elites in academia, Hollywood and on Madison Avenue seem to recognize that there is a source of resistance to their ideals which could pose a threat to the stability of a multiracial society. To counter this source of instability these elites tacitly convey the message of the acceptability of conjugal relations across racial lines. Thus, from the standpoint of a state that is wrongly constituted to begin with (according to principles of natural law), if these elites help to create an environment that is conducive to the elimination of racial differences (through the process of miscegenation), or which is favorably disposed to allowing the process to slowly exact an increasing toll on the integrity of all races, then this result is actually compatible with the state's own goals.

The United States as the Premier Multiracial Model
The United States presents itself as a shining example of a successful multicultural and multiracial society. Although important disparities remain, all races in the United States enjoy a kind of legal parity. Equality of opportunity exists in the United States which is sufficient to allow the upward mobility of large numbers of minorities. Yet, without massive government intervention via legislation designed to guarantee civil rights and equal employment opportunities (measures that are designed to mitigate the expression of the xenophobic response, among other things) it is doubtful that the U.S. could have attained its current level of relative peace and harmony. It is only because the state (the United States Government) made these goals a high priority, and because it recognized such things as a means to the end of preserving internal stability, that it has been able to make an unnatural arrangement (a multiracial society) work as well as it has.

The fact remains that despite its apparent success, the United States remains a state that is constructed at odds with important natural behavioral propensities. And, to the extent that natural law is extrapolated from these propensities, it is at odds with natural law. Yet, according to its own understanding, it is not at odds with natural law. For its own concept of natural law is not based on the more complete knowledge of natural behavioral tendencies that has come into view with the aid of the sciences since the time of the founding. As such, the state fails to acknowledge the existence of innate behavioral tendencies with which it could be in conflict (such as the xenophobic response). By denying the existence of such behavioral tendencies, it is able to claim that it rests on completely natural foundations. And, it even attempts to make the claim that its own interests are consistent with the welfare of mankind more generally.

According to the logic of the state in a multiracial society, while it rest on totally natural grounds, and while it is not at odds with innate behavioral tendencies at important points, there are culturally based behavioral traits that are associated with race (traits acquired exclusively through the mechanisms of culture and socialization) which do threaten its internal stability. Racial differences (i.e. differences in the appearance of people based on their racial attributes) thus represents a possible source of contention or differential treatment between racial groups. According to the state, as long as these visible differences remain, they are a potential obstacle to the full assimilation of the minor subgroups in multiracial society.

The Nexus Between Humanism, The Zeitgeist, and the Multiracial Model of Society
Humanists have a vision for a universal brotherhood of man. Achieving this brotherhood requires attempts to minimize the differences between men. One of the most important sources of differences between men is race. Along with the state in a multiracial society, humanists have an interest in minimizing the importance of race, if not actually attempting to denigrate the concept of race. But, along with the philosophy of the state in a multiracial society, humanist ideals are based upon an incomplete understanding of human nature. Due to their limited understanding of human nature, humanists champion ideals that are at odds with natural law at important points. Consequently, they have no conception of the species interest apart from their ideals. As a result, natural human predispositions (such as the xenophobic response) are constantly threatening to reassert themselves which humanists are at a loss to explain. These predispositions amount to natural instructions for human subgroups to maintain their distinctive characteristics by avoiding miscegenation.

On grounds of a desire for justice and fair play, humanists will ardently defend their vision for the future of humanity (in which a multiracial society is a centerpiece). That anyone should be judged or discriminated against because of characteristics they are born with, and over which they have no control, offends the humanist's vision for humanity. It also offends their deeply ingrained notions of justice and fair play. Naturally, humanists will want to denigrate the concept of race or minimize its significance, to the extent that racial differences have been a primary source of differential treatment of human beings in the past. The idea that a larger species interest might be served by preserving racial differences does not factor into the humanist's understanding of the world, and does not affect their vision for the future of humanity.

As a consequence of the prominent place that humanism occupies in the thinking of its people, and because of its current racial composition, the United States has become a society in which there is an increasing risk that miscegenation will become a normalized pattern of behavior. Under the auspices of the state, the preeminent social engineers in academia, Hollywood and on Madison Avenue have succeeded in creating an environment in which the stigma that has historically been associated with miscegenation has been greatly reduced. The Church, the state, academia, the entertainment and advertising industries have all helped to create an environment in which miscegenation is not only tolerated, but in which it is actively encouraged. These interests have helped to breach important normative barriers that have historically helped to keep rates of miscegenation low. These interests have also succeeded in totally divorcing miscegenation from any larger implications it might have for the species' interest over the longer term. None of these interests view racial preservation as a worthy goal, or a goal which is in any way linked to the species' interest.

In the current cultural climate, no one wants to draw attention to race by suggesting that it represents a category of essential differences in human subgroups that are worthy of preservation. Rather, under the pervasive influence of the humanistic zeitgeist, everyone wants to minimize the significance of racial characteristics as an important step towards promoting harmony in an interracial society. To accomplish this aim, humanists, among others, attempt to promote the idea that racial traits are merely superficial, that they are insignificant, that they have no worth in themselves, and that they have no broader implications for humanity. In effect, they pursue a conscious strategy that is designed to denigrate the notion of race.

In the state's view, and increasingly in the view of a general public which is influenced by humanist philosophy that is dispensed through academia and the culture industry, if people want to miscegenate, that is their right and their business. It is a matter of personal choice over which neither the state nor society should have any say. Because such decisions are in no way at odds with its interests, the state has no objections. In fact, from the standpoint of enhancing it own internal stability, miscegenation is entirely consistent with the state's interests. Because such attitudes have become pervasive, the argument in favor of preserving race has become increasingly difficult to make, and cannot generally get a fair hearing.

In addition, the mere suggestion that one would want to preserve the distinctive traits that have evolved under conditions of relative geographic isolation that have prevailed throughout the greater part of human history and prehistory, and which have become the defining characteristics of human subgroups (i.e. their racial differences), suggests that somehow one might be guilty of racial pride. In the view of our humanist social engineers, race should not be a source of pride, because, it is a short step from having pride in one's race to attributing superior qualities to one's race. And, from this point, it is a short step to being racist. Actually, our social engineers permit a double standard. They encourage minor groups in a multiracial society to have pride in their heritage, which is a thinly veiled expression of racial pride. But, if members of the major group were to express a similar level of pride in their own racial heritage, merely by virtue of the fact that this group is already dominant in society, it would be translated by our social engineers as an expression of prejudice or racism. At least this is how the dynamics of race tend to play out in the United States today.

Properly, racial pride should exist at a level which is low enough to allow peaceful social intercourse to occur between the members of different racial groups in a society, but which is high enough to serve as a barrier to miscegenation. But, being obsessed with eradicating the last vestiges of racial prejudice, the state, the educational apparatus and the culture industry (including Hollywood and Madison Avenue) have collectively adopted a strategy which assigns a higher priority to enhancing stability. This strategy is designed to denigrate the concept of race, and to attack the idea that race is something to be valued or preserved. The culture industry has also succeeded in identifying any calls for the defense of racial integrity as a sign of racism. Thus, it would seem that the cause of racial preservation must find its champions elsewhere.

As a demonstration of how much in tune they are with the Zeitgeist, humanists, amalgamationists and others fall over themselves in an attempt to impress everyone else with how tolerant they are, and with how little importance they attach to racial differences. By extension, they do not want to appear to attach any importance to the preservation of racial differences. In an environment dominated by political correctness, the mere suggestion that one values one's own race, or that one values maintaining the genetic integrity of all races, would be sufficient to invite the charge that one is a racist. Merely to suggest that racial differences are "important sources of human identity, and important aspects of the natural world which are worthy of preservation," poses a challenge to the state's attempt to minimize the significance of race and to deflect attention away from race. And, to suggest that racial differences between human subgroups are significant and are worthy of preservation is also likely to invite the charge that one is somehow opposed to the humanists' vision of the universal brotherhood of man. But, as I hope to illustrate, principally by means of this essay, there is a way to avoid such difficulties. There is a way to support the ideal of racial preservation without inviting the charge that one is racist.