PD4

Why Racial Preservation is Important
We have seen that race is not simply a social construct but conforms to a broad range of substantive biological differences that distinguish the major human subgroups. As stated above, human subgroups evolved significant differences to make them better adapted to the environmental conditions they would normally face in the regions in which they lived. The differences that exist between human subgroups are substantive and can be documented by objective means. In addition, they are meaningful at a purely subjective level. And even as we should be reluctant to claim that any set of racial characteristics are superior to any others, we should presume that all are worthy of preservation, simply by virtue of their natural origins, and by virtue of the behavioral mechanisms we have been endowed with by evolution to insure their preservation.

Because racial traits are the products of our evolution, and because we evolved a strong behavioral tendency (the xenophobic response) which operates to maintain them, the preservation of discrete gene pools that conform to the races of man has the sanction of nature. Yet, some presume to be more intelligent than the evolutionary processes (or the behavioral tendencies which are products of these processes) which have given rise to, and which act to preserve, our differences. Race is an important aspect of our natural heritage and our evolutionary legacy as human beings. It took thousands of years of adaptive responses to produce the unique traits that we recognize today as the distinguishing characteristics of race. To obliterate racial distinctions through miscegenation is to squander our genetic inheritance. Regardless of which race we belong to, this assault on our genetic inheritance is an affront against nature. By extension, it is an affront against divine will.

Racial characteristics have both objective and subjective significance. Subjectively, the reasons for wanting to preserve race are many and varied. Objectively, reasons for wanting to preserve race relate to the substantive biological differences that exist between human subgroups. These differences extend much further than the superficial traits in appearance which are commonly recognized as the identifying features of racial groups. They include differences in neurological responsiveness, temperament, metabolism and susceptibility to various diseases between human subgroups. In addition, we have evolved an innate behavioral tendency for the purpose of preserving our distinctive racial qualities. There are a number of additional reasons why race is important and why its preservation should be given a high priority.

Summarily, there are 10 principal reasons why race is important and is worthy of preservation:

1)First, race corresponds to substantive biological differences between human subgroups.
2) Secondly, natural behavioral tendencies (principally, the xenophobic response), instruct us, for whatever reason, to maintain racial integrity. This instruction from nature is tantamount to instruction from God.
3)Third, race is worth preserving as part of our natural history and our evolutionary heritage.
4)Fourth, race is worth preserving in order to maintain biodiversity for scientific and medical research, and for the enhancement of survivability.
5) Fifth, race is an important source of personal identity.
6)Sixth, race is an important source of social identity and cultural heritage.
7)Seventh, race is worth preserving for the sake of "aesthetics and variety" in the distinctive races of man.
8)Eighth, the preservation of race is important as a statement of defiance to an elite group of social engineers who would have us eliminate our racial differences and merge into one undifferentiated mass in order to fulfill their vision of what society should be like.
9)Ninth, the preservation of race is important because race is something that people subjectively value, because they simply want to preserve their racial heritage, and because they need no other reasons or justifications to preserve race.
10)Tenth, the preservation of race is important for matters related to cosmology, evolution and natural law.

1)Race corresponds to substantive biological differences between human subgroups
Race conforms to a system of classification for categorizing the biological differences which define human subgroups. The sciences are revealing that racial differences are more than just skin deep and that they extend to differences in neurological responsiveness, temperamental propensities, metabolism, and susceptibility to certain diseases that exist between human subgroups. These differences are worthy of preservation

2)Natural behavioral tendencies which constitute instruction from nature (the xenophobic response)
We have been endowed by evolution with behavioral tendencies from which the principle of racial preservation can be logically extrapolated. The strongest and most important of these tendencies is the xenophobic response. The xenophobic response is the primary innate behavioral tendency that is conducive to racial preservation.

The xenophobic response typically manifests itself as a natural aversive reaction towards those we perceive to be significantly different. As such, it is a response to the visible differences in racial characteristics which distinguish human subgroups. The xenophobic response also manifests itself as a greater natural affinity for members of one's own race. This preference for human beings who come closest to sharing our own genetic characteristics is one of the most profound and distinctively human behavioral tendencies. There is nothing wrong with experiencing the xenophobic response, and, in the proper social setting (a cosmopolitan society, as opposed to a multiracial society), it need not automatically translate into racial prejudice.

Admittedly, as our social engineers are eager to point out, the xenophobic response can be muted or suppressed through socialization. This is not the point. The point is that, as much as possible, the forms of social organization we adopt should be in accord with our nature. The xenophobic response clearly suggests that a form of social organization in which there is a "high degree of racial homogeneity" is the optimal social arrangement.

3)As an important part of our natural history and our evolutionary legacy
If we loose our distinctive racial characteristics through the process of miscegenation, we loose an important part of the natural world, an important part of our natural history, and an important link to our past. In effect, we would loose an important part of our evolutionary legacy. Human subgroups (races) evolved over a period of many thousands of years. As distinct classes of fauna, these subgroups deserve protection no less than snail darters or spotted owls.

4)For maintaining biodiversity and as a repository for scientific and medical research
Human subgroups evolved many distinctive genetic characteristics. If the characteristics which make the subgroups distinctive were to be lost through the process of miscegenation, then not only would we loose an important source of biodiversity within the human species, but we would also loose an important repository for medical research. Because of differences in neurological responsiveness, temperament, metabolism, differential susceptibility to certain diseases, etc. between human subgroups, there is a need to preserve all racial subgroups so that we can better understand pathologies related to the genetics of these subgroups.

The distinctive human subgroups represent the repository of our evolutionary heritage. If the characteristics which make these subgroups unique were destroyed through the process of miscegenation, or by any other means, then we would we loose an important opportunity to study our evolutionary origins more closely. In addition, we would loose an important source of biodiversity within the human species, for whatever survival advantage it may afford us in the future.

5)As a source of personal identity
More than any other class of biological traits, racial characteristics define who we are as individuals
If race is lost through the process of miscegenation, an important source of personal identity and worth will also be lost. Despite the interventions of our humanist social engineers, and no matter how much amalgamationists would attempt to discredit the notion of race as a meaningless concept, affiliation with a major racial group remains a valuable source of personal identity for most people. Attempts to denigrate the concept of race represents an attempt to denigrate an important source of personal identity. It is an assault on the value that many place on their own racial attributes, and which can have special meaning for them. More than any other category of differences, racial differences define who we are as human beings.

6)As a source of social identity and cultural heritage
Our history as human beings is inextricably linked to the concept of race. By preserving our racial differences, we are preserving an important aspect of culture. Apart from its functional elements, which have a direct bearing on the survival of the species, the importance we attach to culture is a subjective matter. But, more objectively, our cultural heritage is an important part of our self definition, self understanding, and sense of social identity, or of belonging to a group. Race is worthy of preservation for its socio-historical significance, and because it is a major source of social and cultural identity.

To show disrespect for the concept of race is to show disrespect for our history and our heritage. It represents an attempt to erase or discount an important link to our past. If we loose our racial identities through the process of miscegenation, we would loose an important link to our past and an important source of cultural identity. A powerful argument can be made for the need to preserve the racial subgroups as an important part of our heritage and culture.

7)Aesthetics and Variation
For those who see beauty in the distinctive characteristics of the various races (and who, conversely, fail to see beauty in their amalgamation), the distinctive racial characteristics are worth preserving simply as an aesthetic matter, and for their variety alone. In distinction to biodiversity, which encompasses the full range of biological differences between human subgroups, there is a need to preserve mere superficial differences in appearance which help to distinguish the subgroups, for the sake of their diversity, variation, and the aesthetic appeal. Humans have a psychic need to experience diversity and variety. Maintaining variety in racial attributes is one way of addressing this need. Preserving races with distinctive characteristics is needed to prevent man from becoming a largely monochromatic, featureless, and uniform species.

8)As a statement and a challenge to our social engineers
Defending the concept of racial preservation is necessary to make an important political statement to our self- appointed, well intentioned, but hopelessly misguided social engineers in academia, Hollywood and on Madison Avenue. It is necessary to send them a signal that we are aware of their attempts to influence our attitudes and behavior, in order to bring us into closer conformity with their own ideals. It is an opportunity for us to let them know that we do not want to submit to their control, that we do not share their vision of "the good society" and that we will resist their efforts to minimize the significance of race.

9)Because people subjectively value race and want to preserve it
Because people subjectively value race and want to preserve it is a more than sufficient reason for the preservation of race. People need no further reasons or justifications for defending the concept of race.
Were it not for all the objective reasons stated above, simply the desire to preserve race should provide government with sufficient reason to step forward in its defense.

Many social scientists are fond of pointing to the subjective meaning that people attach to things, and which influence their behavior, as being "important" even as these meanings stand outside the normal scope of objective evaluations. As a matter of substantive differences between subgroups, there are those who say that biologically and genetically, the differences between the races are trifling and insignificant. These tend to be many of the same people who emphasize the importance of subjective meaning to people, which is the subject of the study of hermeneutics. If subjective meanings are important, then the extent of the objective differences that exist between human subgroups does not even matter. Rather, it is the level of meaning and importance that we attach to our differences (however insignificant and trifling they may be) that matters. So, lets say that despite the increasing indications that substantive differences exist between human subgroups, that these differences are "relatively" unimportant in the grand scheme of things. In no way does this diminish the importance that people may continue to attach to race. And, on these grounds, if on no others, race is significant and is worthy of preservation.

10)Matters of cosmology, evolution and natural law
Over the course of his evolution, man has been naturally endowed with behavioral tendencies (such as the xenophobic response) which conduce to the creation and maintenance of groups with distinctive "racial" characteristics. In short, nature has spoken through evolution to decree that there should be discrete races of man. It is an important principle of natural law that our societies should be constructed with such natural tendencies firmly in mind. It can be argued that we defy natural law (and, by extension, divine will ) when we construct our societies in ways that tend to undercut the results of evolution, or when we defy natural behavioral tendencies which conduce to a certain result (such as racial preservation).

As an important set of attributes which evolved over a long period of time, race is a God given attribute that took thousands of years to develop. If you have a naturalistic understanding of divinity and divine will, you can interpret the violation of important natural predispositions, or the subversion of natural behaviors which are conducive to racial preservation, as a violation of divine will. This is not meant to suggest that we should be prejudiced. Rather, it is meant to suggest that we should avoid constructing our societies in such a way that they will tend to facilitate prejudice, the xenophobic response, or miscegenation.

The Contrasting Ideals of Multiracial and Cosmopolitan Societies and their Relationship to Racial Preservation
In the past few centuries, the geographic isolation that has allowed human subgroups to evolve distinctive features that correspond to what we know today as "racial differences" has been largely broken down by advances in transportation and communications. With the once formidable barrier of geographic separation removed, racial subgroups have come into increasingly close contact with each other. Despite the fact that the xenophobic response tends to result in a stronger innate affinity for one's own subgroup and a marginal aversion towards members of other subgroups, powerful economic incentives have compelled cooperation commerce and communication to take place between subgroups at an ever increasing rate. A logical result of this emerging pattern of association and economic interdependence between subgroups has been the emergence of the ideal of "a multiracial society," or a society in which the minor subgroups constitute a relatively large proportion of the total population, and in which even the major subgroup is unable to exercise decisive control.

The main feature which distinguishes a cosmopolitan society from a multiracial society is the relatively large size of the major subgroup in relation to the minor subgroups. In effect, a cosmopolitan society has an overwhelming racial majority. By contrast, in a multiracial society there are proportionately large numbers of many subgroups, all of which contend with the major subgroup, and with each other, for power and resources. Under this arrangement, no subgroup is in a natural position to dominate. But, this is not necessarily a good thing. For, in a multiracial society, no subgroup is in a position to mediate conflicts between the other subgroups and none would be able to act as a socially cohesive force to which all other subgroups would naturally gravitate, and to which they would be willing to defer. This is the essence of the ideal of a multiracial society. This ideal stands in stark contrast to the ideal of a "cosmopolitan" society.

The main operating principle of a cosmopolitan society is that, for the good of all concerned, minor subgroups should not be allowed to approach the point where they might be tempted to contend with each other or with the major subgroup for political power. In effect, their populations would be limited by statute, and would be kept within certain parameters. These smaller contingents of minor subgroups would represent their subgroups as "ambassadors of good will" in a society in which a major subgroup would be able to exercise decisive control, and maintain a high level of social stability. As the blueprint for an optimal form of social organization, the cosmopolitan model has greater sanction under natural law. Whereas, there are compelling reasons why a multiracial society cannot be justified on grounds of natural law. To begin with, a multiracial society poses a major threat to racial preservation.

In the absence of legislation which prohibits it, there will tend to be higher levels of miscegenation in multiracial societies. The state in a multiracial society has no incentives to create or enforce legislation that would prohibit miscegenation principally for the reason that it regards the continuing presence of visible distinctions between the races that makeup its population as an ongoing threat to its internal stability. It has an implicit understanding of the xenophobic response, even as it has an interest in denying the existence of this response. The model of a multiracial society establishes the conditions that tend to subsidize miscegenation

Although most conjugal relations in the United States still occur intra-racially, or within the same racial subgroup, the normative prohibitions against miscegenation have come under increasing assault from culture in the past few decades. Consequently, the conditions exist for the increase in rates of miscegenation over the next several decades, in the absence of either powerful social norms that stigmatize it, or in the absence of legislation designed to prevent it. As the government is an unlikely champion of the cause of racial preservation, responsibility for racial preservation must fall to each individual.

If race is important, and if its preservation is a good thing, then, necessarily, anything that would tend to erode the natural tendency towards racial preservation is a bad thing. The task of placing a state on a firm natural law foundation requires that the state openly acknowledge the value of racial preservation and that it be actively involved in promoting racial preservation through its policies. The absence of such policies, or the presence of policies which are merely designed to enhance the state's internal stability over the short term, rather than correct fundamental structural flaws and increase its stability over the long term; are all violations of natural law. Correspondingly, any state that embraces the ideal of a multiracial society (as opposed to the ideal of a cosmopolitan society, is at odds with fundamental principles of natural law. Such nations (most notably, the United States and the leading democracies of Western Europe), are establishing the conditions under which they will squander a sizable part of their genetic inheritance and will lose a significant part of their racial identities over the next few generations, unless they are brought into closer accord with natural law.