PD6

Who Objects to Racial Preservation and Why
We cannot expect people who are unable claim a racial pedigree themselves to be strong defenders of either the concept of race, or the ideal of racial preservation. Quite the reverse, such people are more likely to energetically resist any attempts to place a premium on something that they cannot claim themselves. More commonly, as a compensatory mechanism, people of mixed race choose to discount the importance of race altogether. But, attempts to diminish the significance of race do not inevitably follow from having a mixed racial heritage. For presumably, even people without a racial pedigree can have pride in their own genetic makeup, to the extent that this makeup represents a unique genetic category in itself. And, the desire to maintain the integrity of all races is in no way meant to disparage people who cannot claim a racial pedigree.

Persons of mixed race can and should have pride in their own unique genetic heritage. And hopefully, they would be willing to extend the same privilege to others. Yet, the ideal of racial preservation is not even properly discussed in the same context as racial pride. The desire to preserve the distinctive racial characteristics associated with the various human subgroups is not born of racial pride, but rests more completely with an understanding of the evolutionary origins and cosmic significance of race. Pride, and especially racial pride, has more of an emotional quality. It is also often more closely associated with a feeling of self worth, if not a feeling of outright superiority. And, it is mainly on these grounds that multiculturalists and amalgamationists could make the charge that any calls for racial preservation are a sign of racism. For such calls seem to imply that one values one's own race, but that one does not value other races. However, the ideal of racial preservation is not born of racial pride, but is born of the desire to preserve race per se.

In fact, it would probably be a good idea if the ideal of racial preservation could be completely divorced from the "passion" of racial pride altogether. Rather, the justification for the ideal of racial preservation should have a more "reasonable" basis. And, in fact, this ideal is more solidly grounded in ideas, than in feelings and emotions. Consequently, it would be unfair to associate the ideal of racial preservation with emotions such as pride. Nonetheless, if racial pride is to be associated with the cause of racial preservation in any way, then it must assume a form that will not provide ammunition for the amalgamationists. Specifically, it must be qualified by the notion that everyone should have pride in their own racial subgroup, and that all subgroups (even those constituted of mixed race) should be equally concerned with their own preservation. Without this respect for the concept of race per se, it will be considerably more difficult to preserve the integrity of the great races of man. And while it is the ideal that everyone should have enough pride in their race to want to preserve their own unique genetic characteristics for the benefit of future generations, it cannot escape anyone's notice that substantial damage to the integrity of several major subgroups has already occurred in various parts of the world, particularly in the Caribbean, South America, and increasingly, in the United States and Western Europe. But, this is no reason to abandon the cause of racial preservation at this stage. Rather, this is the most compelling reason why those who are interested in the preservation of race should redouble their efforts. If people value and are willing to defend the characteristics that make them unique, then, in this form, pride can be an acceptable adjunct to the cause of racial preservation.

Just as the inexorable march of miscegenation is difficult to ignore, so are the powerful forces that are assisting this march. These forces want to prevent the emergence of anything resembling racial pride (even a completely dispassionate call for racial preservation for abstract reasons), and they will stand ready to attack any calls for racial preservation as a sign that one is prejudiced, unless these calls come from minorities. There are several reasons why these forces are more willing to tolerate expressions of pride by minor subgroups, while they would view a similar expression by the major subgroup as "inappropriate and unacceptable."

Multiculturalists assume that the major subgroup in a multiracial society already feels good about itself and does not need reassuring by any overt demonstration of pride (such as White History Month). By contrast, the minor subgroups in a multiracial society are presumed to feel much less secure in their position in society, and they have a greater need for reassurance through expressions of pride. Hence, their greater demands for recognition are perceived to be more legitimate. And, because it is presumed to be much more secure in its position in society, the major subgroup is also presumed to be much more able to tolerate demonstrations of pride by the minor subgroups. By, contrast, being relatively less secure in their position in society, the minor subgroups are not equally able to tolerate expressions of pride by the major subgroup. Consequently, our social engineers have decreed that, being relatively less secure in their history, their achievements, and in their station in society, minor subgroups should be allowed expressions of pride which are forbidden to the major subgroup. Any similar expression of racial pride by the major subgroup would be quickly denounced by minor subgroups and social engineers as an overt display of racism. There are other reasons why the major subgroup is expected to quietly tolerate displays of racial pride by minor subgroups without engaging in such displays itself.

Through the long history of its political institutions, and as the primary architect of the value of tolerance, the major subgroup is deemed to be more civil than the other subgroups. Consequently, it is deemed to be better able to tolerate the expression of pride by other subgroups, and better able to handle slights to its own dignity, without threatening civil disorder itself. Yet, it can be argued that without being allowed a similar latitude to express pride in its own racial heritage, that the major subgroup is being handicapped, and that its interest in its own preservation is being threatened.

The Major Forces Which are Opposed to the Concept of Race
For the great majority who can claim a relatively pure racial lineage, or for those who can claim membership in one of the major racial groups, race can continue to be a major source of pride and feelings of self worth. And, every effort should be made to preserve not only the integrity of the major racial groups to which we belong, through our marital and reproductive choices, but also, where possible, we should come to the defense of the concept of race per se. And yet, there are those among us who would deny that the concept of race is in any way meaningful, or that racial preservation is a worthy value. But, if race is not meaningful, then why does the mere mention of race continue to evoke such strong responses? Why does it remain such a sensitive and potentially inflammatory issue? What are the forces which have been most instrumental in creating an environment that is conducive to miscegenation, and why are they so concerned with the eventual elimination of race? What do they have to gain? What major institutions and elites are involved in the assault against the concept of race, and what are their motivations? We now turn our attention to answering these questions.

The State
To the defenders of the state in a multiracial society, no compelling state interest is served by racial preservation, or by preventing miscegenation. Quite the opposite. As previously discussed, the state in a multiracial society has an interest in creating an environment that encourages, or, at the very least, which tolerates, miscegenation. One could even argue that a vital state interest is served by actively encouraging miscegenation. In its view, the continuing presence of the visible characteristics that distinguish the subgroups is a potential source of instability and tension. If racial distinctions can be obliterated through the process of miscegenation, this will be the most direct way to insure its internal stability, and ultimately, its own survival.

The state in a multiracial society is absolutely convinced in the moral rectitude of its form of social organization. It firmly believes that any human differences and any tensions between racial subgroups are cultural in origin (and can be rectified by cultural conventions), and have no basis in biological differences, which, to the extent that they exist at all, are minor and insignificant. The state refuses to recognize or accept that there are deeper more substantive differences at a biological level which pose obstacles to the viability of multiracial societies, and which ultimately place these societies at odds with natural law. Moreover, like any state, the state in a multiracial society has an obligation, if not a sworn duty, to uphold its own form of social organization as if it were the best and the most natural of all social arrangements. It presumes that the rest should be left to providence, and that it will either be proven right or wrong by the events of history. But, the state never wants to be in the position of second guessing the legitimacy of its own foundations, or the model of social organization which it has adopted. Consequently, the state in a multiracial society does not recognize the legitimacy of, and does not accept the cause of racial preservation. To the contrary, it is far more likely to embrace the ideal of miscegenation, because it recognizes the role which miscegenation can play in reducing ambient tensions in society. It recognizes that as long as racial distinctions remain, they represent potential sources of conflict and instability in a multiracial society.

The state in a multiracial society also denies that there could be any innate reasons why a multiracial society should be a less stable social form than a more racially homogeneous society. It insists that if there are any tensions between the various groups of which a multiracial society is composed, that they must have cultural origins. According to its inaccurate view of human nature, prejudice and interracial conflicts must simply be a matter of faulty culture and socialization. Because the state in a multiracial society ( like states in all societies) is absolutely convinced that it rests of natural foundations, it has no greater human purpose in mind than its own preservation. Yet, the civil authorities in multiracial societies recognize that the continuing presence of visible racial differences in their populations represents a source of instability.

The state in a multiracial society has no conception of the structural flaws in the foundation on which it rests, nor would it be willing to acknowledge these flaws if they became widely known and accepted. Such a state is much more likely to pursue a strategy of concealing the inconvenient facts which confront it. To the extent that its foundations are at odds with natural behavioral tendencies, the state may try suppression, denial or subterfuge, among other techniques. Because it recognizes that the visible racial distinctions of the subgroups that makeup its population are a continuing source of instability, it has an interest in the eventual obliteration of these distinctions. The state's preferred means for achieving this result is miscegenation.

As part of its continuing strategy to stabilize an unnatural situation, the state in a multiracial society has incentives to legally permit if not to actively sanction the practice of miscegenation. By removing legal barriers to miscegenation, and by helping to create a normative climate that is conducive to the increase of miscegenation, the state gives its tacit approval to the practice of miscegenation. By declaring antimiscegenation laws to be unconstitutional, the state indirectly supports miscegenation under the aegis of personal freedoms. By viewing miscegenation in the context of personal freedoms which have no larger implications for the species, the state in a multiracial society effectively gives its blessing to the practice of miscegenation. On these grounds principally, the state (in a multiracial society) has no interest in defending the concept of race. Quite the opposite, it has an overwhelming interest in denigrating the concept of race, in attempting to minimize its importance, and in creating a legal environment that is conducive to miscegenation. In its view, if the concept of race were to experience renewed vigor or achieve currency, it could have potentially disastrous results, at least where its own interests are concerned. Thus, a multiracial society finds itself bound to defend social arrangements that are wholly inconsistent with certain aspects of human nature, as if it were a natural. But, the state does have an alternative.

In an environment in which race is seen as a positive attribute, and an attribute that is to be respected and preserved, it is possible to preserve social order over a long period of time without needing conventions that are designed to suppress innate tendencies. But, given the current level of the state's concern with maintaining social order, and with suppressing possible sources of social tension (which the emphasis on race and racial preservation might represent) we should not expect the state to become an energetic defender of the principle of racial preservation. At best, we should only expect that a state which has embraced the ideal of a multiracial society to be neutral toward race. At worst, we should expect that the state, or one of its principal organs of defense (such as the press), will actively intervene against the ideal of racial preservation. To the state, racial differences are constant, visible reminders of the fundamental contradiction that confronts it, namely, that it rests on "unnatural and unstable" foundations.

Academia and Intellectual Elites
Liberal academics, especially in the social sciences, are primarily concerned with preserving the social system that allows them to make a living, i.e. the state. Although they may frequently be at odds with the state over many issues, they tend to be generally supportive of the system and the abstract principles on which it is based. These facts, combined with their attitudes towards race, make them natural supporters of a more "permissive" view towards miscegenation.

To the more radical academics and intellectuals, if all the "apparent" racial differences that continue to exist between men were melded out of existence through generations of crossbreeding, this would be a good thing. It is ironic that these are many of the same individuals who are willing to take extraordinary steps to protect endangered species and subspecies in the animal kingdom. Yet, they are unwilling to accord the same level of protection to what are, effectively, subspecies of human beings (races).

Established Religion
Established religion is color blind. The Church is mainly concerned with maintaining or increasing the size of its congregations. And, what better way to increase the size of congregations than to attempt to draw converts from all races. Like the state, the Church is also interested in promoting social harmony over the short term, not in preserving racial differences over the longer term. But, to the extent that established religion ignores the need to preserve distinctive human differences (which are part of the natural world and, by extension, manifestations of divine will), it can be argued that it is no longer operating within its divine mandate, and that it is in contravention of divine will at important points. Because racial characteristics are among the most important features of our natural heritage, they have divine sanction. They should therefore take precedence over ideals that merely tend to serve institutional functions for the Church.

Corporate America
Notwithstanding that it is born of a non-racist desire to protect all races from the ravages of miscegenation, we should not expect that the movement to preserve racial integrity will find any energetic supporters in corporate America. Corporate America wants the largest possible market for its products. It also wants to maintain the greatest possible distance from any charges of racism, which the call for racial preservation might seem to invite. Therefore, corporate America must attempt to steer clear of the issues of race and racial preservation altogether. The fight to preserve race must be waged without corporate support.

Corporate America's stand on the issue of preservation is not difficult to explain. We can start by taking the viewpoint of the typical CEO. As the main figurehead of his corporation, the CEO must attempt to sell his corporation's goods or services to the largest possible base of consumers, merely in order to stay competitive. Correspondingly, he cannot run the risk of offending any racial group, which an endorsement of the principle of preservation might tend to do. Therefore, to endorse the principle of racial preservation would be completely out of character for corporate America, in the current environment.

The leaders of major corporations have no interest in promoting the ideal of racial preservation. They don't want to risk appearing sympathetic to the issue of race in any shape or form, as it could expose them to the charge that they are racist. These executives must appear to be neutral towards the issue of race. Because most CEOs and other leading corporate executives are white males, the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that they are "tolerant." This is essentially the same thing as saying that they must appear to have a permissive attitude towards miscegenation. If indifference towards miscegenation is seen as the most progressive stance, and the stance that is most likely to distance them from any possible charges of racism, this is the stance they must adopt. Consequently, many leaders in corporate America feel pressured to give their tacit assent to miscegenation, or to regard it with indifference.

Corporate executives also feel compelled to follow the lead of the "more progressive" elements of Madison Avenue that are responsible for designing their advertising campaigns. And, to the extent that cultural norms have become indifferent to the practice of miscegenation, they must mimic these norms in their advertising.
If the general population is largely indifferent to miscegenation, then the corporate executives feel compelled to follow the public's lead. Corporate leaders are very much public followers. They know that the fortunes of their corporations and their personal fortunes depend to a large extent on a good public image. They don't want to be seen as the champions of any "radical, revolutionary or even highly controversial" causes. And, if only because powerful interests in society will be able to put a negative spin on it, the racial preservation movement is likely to be perceived as such a cause, at least initially. The profit motive demands this type of behavior by corporate executives. Expect no champions for the cause of racial preservation here.

The Advertising Industry (Madison Avenue)
Like Hollywood, Madison Avenue is at the leading edge of the campaign to legitimize miscegenation. It is actively engaged in reducing the social inhibitions against miscegenation, and in creating an environment that is friendly towards or, at the very least, indifferent to the practice of miscegenation. The advertising industry is heavily populated by creative artists who pride themselves as being progressively minded "social engineers" who want to have a "positive" effect on society. Like virtually all artists, they tend to have a world view that may be substantially different from that of the public at large. Yet, their world view has much in common with the world views of other cultural elites. It is heavily laden with certain humanistic ideals. It is also conspicuously distanced from ideals that are more closely associated with the "opposite pole" of human temperamental essence, and which are more widely represented in the public at large. Indeed, most of those at the forefront of the culture industry tend to be oblivious to, or have no respect for, alternative ideals which may come into conflict with their own ideals. Like most polar ideologues (particularly, those whose ideologies spring from a global affect or sentiment), they are stubbornly convinced in the moral rectitude of their own ideals and world view.

Creative artists that are involved in designing advertising campaigns tend to be the products of the most liberal institutions, particularly, schools of art and design. Like their counterparts in the entertainment industry, members of this group see themselves as the champions of some of the most cutting edge and "progressive" social ideas. They are responsible for executing a very subtle but sophisticated strategy that involves gradually reducing barriers to miscegenation and creating an environment that is generally conducive to the increase of miscegenation. They accomplish this mainly by attempting to minimize the significance of race. The advertising industry uses a variety of techniques to minimize the significance of race and to increase the acceptability of miscegenation. Principally, these techniques include hybridization, social setting, and juxtaposition.

Hybridization
One of the most common techniques used by the advertising industry to promote the social acceptability of miscegenation is hybridization. Through its use of hybridized models out of all proportion to their incidence in the general population, Madison Avenue effectively places its stamp of approval on the practice of miscegenation. Its use of hybridized models also allows it to avoid the charge that it is not being representative in the racial composition of the characters it uses in its ad campaigns. By using models which are obviously of mixed racial origin, the advertising industry hopes to simultaneously address both of the racial groups which are combined in the hybrid character. In actuality, this technique fails to address either group, and only succeeds in conveying the message that miscegenation is both commonplace and acceptable.

The main normative consequence of the routine use of models of mixed race is to reduce the social barriers to to miscegenation (important biological barriers still remain in the form of behavioral predispositions of the vast majority, which is the main reason why the vast majority continues to marry within its own race). The message conveyed by such advertising techniques is that miscegenation is more commonplace than it actually is, and that miscegenation is an acceptable behavior and personal choice. At the very least, Madison Avenue is value neutral on the subject of miscegenation, which is just as bad as condoning the practice. But, what the advertising industry fails to recognize, or what it chooses to ignore, is that its neutrality towards the issue of race is patently offensive to people who continue to value the ideal of racial integrity.

Social Setting
Another technique commonly used by advertisers to create an environment that facilitates miscegenation is "social setting." By means of this technique, advertisers depict members of several races in a social setting having close social interactions that would be atypical for most Americans. This serves the dual purpose of conveying the ideal of interracial harmony, and of achieving racial representativeness in advertising. Advertisers (who also pride themselves as being social engineers) use this technique to convey ideal race relations. The net effect of this technique, well intended or not, is to convey a false impression of the actual standing of race relations in society, and to create an environment that is more conducive to miscegenation.

The image that advertisers create of race relations is false on two accounts. First, in their advertisements they will frequently attempt to show a racially representative cross-section of society in social situations that would be atypical for most Americans. This technique achieves the goal or representativeness, but it also gives a false and misleading impression of the true patterns of association in society. Secondly, the advertising industry attempts to promote the ideal of interracial association, or the suggestion that frequent and close social intercourse between members of different races is the norm in society, when in fact it remains the exception. Such techniques seem innocuous enough. But, when one takes a closer look at the natural law principles which are being subverted by such techniques, or when one considers the long term implications which such techniques have for preserving the integrity of the discrete gene pools over the long term, one must take exception to them. For, the ultimate result of such advertising practices is to reduce barriers to miscegenation. The advertising industry uses such techniques in the well intentioned hope that it is helping us adapt to the unfortunate historical circumstances which resulted in our society's multiracial composition in the first place. Properly, the advertising industry should be neutral in this regard.

Juxtaposition
Another technique which is commonly used by the advertising industry to promote the value of miscegenation is juxtaposition. In juxtaposition, models from different subgroups are "juxtaposed" one another (supposedly, to be representative of the population in a multiracial society) in situations that most people would find atypical if not unnatural. The social relationships depicted by advertisers range from casual, to the suggestion of intimacy. In simple juxtaposition, models representing different subgroups are "juxtaposed" one another, and are seen to be either casually socializing or, they are just seen to be in close proximity to one another. Advertisers use this technique to create the impression that there is little "social distance" between individuals of different race.

The second form of juxtaposition represents a more overt attempt by advertisers to influence social norms related to miscegenation. This form of juxtaposition commonly uses sexual innuendo, or the suggestion of intimacy between members of different races. Often, this technique involves nothing more sinister than a smile or a casual glance exchanged between characters of different race, and of opposite sex, which is sufficient to suggest sexual attraction between them. The message that such techniques attempt to convey is clear: Sexual attraction and sexual relations between members of different races is commonplace and acceptable. By means of this technique, advertisers further reduce social barriers and inhibitions against miscegenation.

Via its contributions to popular culture, the advertising industry is constantly engaged in a campaign to reduce the significance of race, and the value that people attach to race. Under the auspices of the state, Madison Avenue has determined that the best way to address the problematic issue of race is to blur racial distinctions, and to sanction behavior that leads to the elimination of the visible markers of race.

Ostensibly, the advertising industry is just attempting to promote the ideal of interracial harmony. And, at the same time, it tries to depict representatives of all races as consumers of its products. This aspect of its strategy is understandable and acceptable. It is dictated by commercial and economic realities. But, advertisers don't stop here, and they insist on playing the role of social engineers. They seem uniformly unconcerned with the fact that if too much social distance is broken down between the races, a loss of respect for the concept of race tends to result. In turn, this will leads to increasing rates of miscegenation and to the loss of racial integrity. By way of its contributions to popular culture, the advertising industry is helping to pave the way for an end to biodiversity among human beings. Either unwittingly or by design, Madison Avenue is partly responsible for reinforcing and legitimating social norms that lead to miscegenation.

The Entertainment Industry (Hollywood)
Hollywood is by far the most aggressive and energetic champion of the value of miscegenation. It has done more than any other interest in society to undermine the value of racial integrity, to reduce social inhibitions against miscegenation, and to create an environment that is conducive to miscegenation. Hollywood is engaged in what is perhaps the most overt and aggressive effort to change social norms and to promote the acceptability of miscegenation, by reducing normative barriers to its occurrence. Therefore, among all private sector interests, Hollywood poses the most serious threat to the ideal of racial preservation.

Like the advertising industry, Hollywood also employs the technique of juxtaposition. But, because it is less concerned with the potential of a popular backlash which could threaten its commercial interests, Hollywood raises this technique to another level. Like the advertising industry, Hollywood employs two forms of this technique; either simple juxtaposition, or juxtaposition with sexual innuendo.

In simple juxtaposition, members of two races and of opposite sex are typically featured in a social situation in which they are involved in close cooperation and communication, but in which the suggestion of intimacy between them is either absent, or is left to the imagination of the viewer. In the second form of juxtaposition, there is sexual innuendo, or the depiction of an overt sexual relationship between members of different race and of opposite sex. Most commonly, the characters used in this technique are a black male and a caucasian female. This particular kind of juxtaposition titillates and is designed to play upon a number of popular cultural themes.

First of all, it plays upon the historical outrage in the white community that resulted when a black man was confronted with having sexual relations with a white female. (This is a thinly veiled egalitarian assault on the prior hegemonic position that the white male occupied in American society). Secondly, it plays upon the theme of the presumed greater virility and sexual novelty of the black male, and the greater sexual desirability and attractiveness of the caucasian female. Third, it plays upon the theme of the actual pattern of miscegenation that is most common in society. The most common pattern of miscegenation involves a black male and a white female. Fourth, it commonly involves casting a black male in the role of hero, and a white female in the role of damsel in distress. The primary aim of such casting is to elicit emotions from the audience which can serve to break down racial barriers, and to erode normative inhibitions against miscegenation. The secondary aim is to cast the black male in the role of the "good guy" as an attempt to undermine their stereotype as the bad guy.

By means of such techniques, social engineers in Hollywood hope to foster good race relations and attempt to bring the races together at what they presume to be their points of least resistance. By such techniques, the entertainment industry increasingly lends subtle as well as overt legitimacy to the practice of miscegenation. By such techniques, the moguls of the entertainment industry see themselves performing a public service by promoting interracial harmony and by promoting the acceptability of conjugal relations across racial lines. At the more radical end of the spectrum, some among the Hollywood elite see themselves in the role of iconoclasts who are breaking down outmoded social institutions (such as monoracial marriage) in favor of more "progressive" forms of marriage, namely, interracial marriage. Such forms of marriage are presumed to make an overt statement of the values of tolerance and multiculturalism. In the idyllic world view of these well meaning social engineers, they are helping to break down racial barriers and promote racial harmony.

Attempts to promote racial harmony by such means potentially carries a heavy price where the cause of racial preservation is concerned. For, with the decline of prohibitions against sexual intercourse across racial lines comes the inevitable increase in miscegenation. And, with increasing rates of miscegenation comes the inevitable increase in the number of offspring of mixed race. While their aims may be noble enough, the unintended (or in some cases intended) consequences of their strategy is to create an environment in which miscegenation is increasingly acceptable. Once again, in the eyes of our social engineers, miscegenation is simply a matter of personal choice.

Hollywood also has a larger agenda. It has an interest in promoting values that it sees as challenging conventional norms more generally. And, its support of miscegenation is just an aspect of this agenda. Challenging conventional norms and "pushing the envelope" is part of a sophisticated marketing strategy that Hollywood has been engaged in for decades. By pushing the envelope of certain social norms, Hollywood offers the public a cathartic release from certain social inhibitions. This is a major source of the entertainment value of its products. Challenging social conventions or pushing the normative envelope has traditionally struck a responsive chord with American youth, which feels most oppressed by social conventions, and which is most likely to welcome the opportunity to challenge these conventions. In addition, the youth are among the most likely to be seduced by hedonism, which makes them more receptive to a variety of the lifestyle choices which Hollywood promotes, including miscegenation.

In addition, Hollywood supports miscegenation for other reasons. The once taboo practice of miscegenation appeals to it own "progressive" instincts and to the underlying avante garde value system shared by most people in the entertainment industry. Moreover, most people in the entertainment industry are themselves products of very liberal schooling. To suggest that we should somehow be concerned with the principle of racial preservation would tend to conflict with their own value systems, which are strongly oriented towards hedonism. Hollywood elites are typically only concerned with abstract principles to the extent that these principles relate to their freedom to pursue a hedonistic lifestyle. The essence of the hedonistic ethos is to live for the here and now, to enjoy life to the fullest and don't worry about future consequences which may follow from one's pursuit of pleasure today. Unrestrained sexual activity, marital infidelity, miscegenation, and generally, sexual activity that has few of the normative inhibitions that are observed in the larger society, have long been trademarks of Hollywood. Expect no champions for the cause of racial preservation among the Hollywood elite.

Summary of the Effects of Cultural Influences Facilitating Miscegenation
The entertainment and advertising industries routinely use the effects of socialization to realize ideals which are at odds with some of the strongest natural impulses and innate predispositions. Specifically, by portraying what most Americans would regard as "unnaturally" close relations between individuals of different races, social engineers in Hollywood and on Madison Avenue know that they can have some "positive" influence on race relations (Positive here is being used in a relative sense. It is positive only in the sense that it conforms to their ideals). Even if they are willing to acknowledge that innate tendencies such as the xenophobic response exist, they know that they can help to counteract or suppress such tendencies by means of a number of techniques.

The icons of popular culture know that by depicting the races in unusually close relationships (relationships that would be abnormally close for most Americans) they can set a positive example for the way people of different race should behave towards each other in multiracial society, according to their ideals. The fact that they are helping to create an environment that is more conducive to miscegenation is, in their view, an added bonus. Our well intentioned and self appointed social engineers in Hollywood and on Madison Avenue also know that they are in a position to help erode the natural inhibitions that people of substantially dissimilar race have towards miscegenation. In effect, they are attempting to use culture to counter what they believe are dysfunctional traits that have cultural origins. Actually, what they are attempting to do is to employ a cultural mechanism to suppress an aspect of human nature that has strong biological roots.

Some have been so thoroughly indoctrinated by a liberal educational environment on the one hand, and by the popular culture on the other, that they have little or no concept of race, and they see little need to defend it. Indeed, this has been the aim of the social engineering tag team of Hollywood, and Madison Avenue all along: to so thoroughly suppress innate tendencies through culture, that people loose their natural sense of racial identity, and that they come to regard their own racial feelings as something alien, threatening and antisocial. By means of waging a relentless assault on the concept of race, the advertising and entertainment industries have had a profound effect on the public's consciousness.

The prevailing view among the vast majority of the generation which is reaching maturity today is that the decision to marry and have children with someone of another race is entirely a matter of personal choice, and one's personal choice in the selection of a mate should not be influenced by loyalties to anything greater than one's own gratification. One's right to pursue happiness, regardless of its larger social consequences, comes first. Considered in the context of individual rights and the pursuit of happiness, and considered outside of a legal framework based on natural law, personal freedoms trump the welfare of the species. To have laws prohibiting miscegenation would seem to violate an important personal freedom. And, a state which is founded, first and foremost, on the ideal of maximizing personal freedoms (and which sees no natural limits on the expansion of personal freedoms, or no conflict between personal freedom and the public interest), will seem to be powerless to prevent individuals from making such choices, even though the individuals who make such choices violate important natural laws.

Ideally, a state should be solidly grounded in natural law, in order to be maximally stable, and maximally progressive. In a state which rests firmly on natural law foundations, laws designed to achieve such things as racial preservation would be enforced over and above the objections of isolated individuals who might place a concern for their own gratification ahead of the species' interest. In this context, miscegenation can be viewed as extension of radical individualism. In the mindset that our social engineers have helped to create, miscegenation has ceased to be an affront against nature. Consequently, most people have no conception of its relationship to the species interest, and most have no idea of how it constitutes a violation of natural law.