To deny or ignore our racial differences is counter to what common sense, experience and increasingly, the biological sciences, tells us is true. But, the Amalgamationist Doctrine tells us to ignore our racial differences, however real or substantive they may be, or that we should discount the significance we attach to them, for the sake of enhancing civility and social stability in a multiracial society. In fact, the amalgamationist doctrine is based upon the suppression and denial of what our objective senses tell us is true, for the sake of this "higher order" social goal. The main argument of the Amalgamationist Doctrine is that our racial differences are not significant and, because they are not significant, they are not worthy of any special effort to insure their preservation. As part of its overall strategy to enhance social stability in an inherently unstable social form (a multiracial society) the amalgamationist doctrine holds that the concept of race is something to be trivialized, ignored, denied or discounted, if not openly disparaged. As a result of the propagation of this doctrine and its acceptance by large numbers of people, the real biological traits which distinguish the major human subgroups have come under increasing threat.

The Amalgamationist Doctrine attacks the concept and significance of race as part of a strategy to decrease the potential for interracial conflict in multiracial societies. To draw attention to our racial differences by admitting that they are substantive or meaningful, (which is the main argument of the Preservationist Doctrine) would simply not be helpful in a multiracial society. Although they are not willing to openly acknowledge the existence of innate mechanisms such as the xenophobic response, amalgamationists seem to tacitly recognize that the continuing existence of visible racial distinctions contributes to the instability of multiracial societies. In their view, the best way to place a multiracial society on a more stable footing is to create conditions that are conducive to "amalgamation" or to the elimination of racial differences through miscegenation. For when the process of amalgamation has reached a certain point, racial distinctions become meaningless. Amalgamation is to be accomplished mainly by reducing the normative barriers that have traditionally stood against miscegenation, or by creating a cultural climate that is tolerant of miscegenation, if not one which encourages miscegenation outright.

Under conditions in which fewer and fewer people are able to claim a racial pedigree, by virtue of possessing certain identifying feature which conform to our ideas about race, the very concept of race begins to loose its significance. The amalgamationists know this, and they are engaged in a conscious effort to encourage the social acceptability of miscegenation, or conjugal relations across racial lines, as a means of steadily eroding the significance of race, or the importance than anyone can attach to it on the basis of visible differences in their racial characteristics. When no one possesses the distinctive visible characteristics that are the identifying features of race, and the primary source of one's racial identity, then, at this point, the matter of race really does become moot and insignificant. The amalgamationists are in a race against time, for they know that if the concept of race enjoys a resurgence, it could destroy their efforts, and could destabilize the form of social organization which is based on their ideals.

Even though they don't believe (or are unwilling to admit) that a multiracial society is made unstable due to anything innate (such as the xenophobic response), amalgamationists do recognize that tensions arise on the basis of visible differences in the characteristics of the subgroups of which multiracial societies are composed. Most commonly, the amalgamationists attribute these tensions to false pride or to some anomalous norms that individuals have acquired through dysfunctional family socialization. For whatever reason, the amalgamationists believe that as long as visible racial differences exist between groups, they represent a continuing source of tension in multiracial society. The amalgamationists don't have much confidence in the ability of people of different races to get along with one another over a long period of time, unless continuous efforts are made to minimize the significance they attach to their visible "racial" differences. And, they want to do everything they can to blur the racial differences between subgroups. Miscegenation stands ready as their favorite tool for achieving this goal. Amalgamationists see racial interbreeding as a means of removing racial distinctions which give rise to racial prejudice in the first place. In their view, the best way to minimize the importance of racial differences is to deny that these differences are either meaningful or worthy of preservation. That is to say, the amalgamationists attempt to denigrate the very concept of race, and they hope to create a climate in which racial differences will be made to gradually disappear through the process of miscegenation or racial amalgamation.

The amalgamationist doctrine operates on the "understood" stipulation that a strategy should be surreptitiously pursued to crossbreed the races in multiracial societies (principally, the United States, Western Europe and Latin America) until all of their distinguishing racial characteristics have disappeared. To the amalgamationists, as long as visible racial differences exist between subgroups, these differences will provide a pretext for prejudice and will pose a constant threat to the internal stability of multiracial societies. According to the amalgamationist doctrine, the best way to achieve social stability and equality in multiracial societies is to remove visible distinctions by which individuals are able to claim a racial affiliation or identity. Miscegenation would certainly seem to accomplish this. Accordingly, amalgamationists encourage conjugal relations between the races as a means of eliminating the racial differences that distinguish human subgroups.

The idea that we should encourage people to value their unique racial characteristics; or that we should attempt to cultivate a sense of racial identity or a racial consciousness; would be drawing attention to race. To draw attention to race for any reason is to give the idea of race added credibility and significance. This would be diametrically opposed to the amalgamationists' efforts to trivialize and denigrate the concept of race, and to minimize the significance of our racial differences. And, it is precisely these differences that amalgamationists want us to ignore, to become less aware of over time, and which they want to eventually eliminate through the process of miscegenation.

In the current environment of political correctness, to deliberately focus attention on race, to assert that racial traits are valuable and deserve preservation, is to focus unwanted attention on the very set of characteristics that social engineers and amalgamationists in a multiracial society want us to ignore and to minimize, primarily for the sake of enhancing social stability under an inherently unstable form of social organization. To suggest that these characteristics should somehow be worthy of esteem and preservation poses a direct challenge to the Amalgamationist Doctrine. To amalgamationists, any semblance of racial pride (or even any demonstration of a desire to preserve the attributes of all races in the absence of pride), is an absolutely prohibitive idea. Yet,  social engineers (including amalgamationists) seem willing to make certain exceptions. They seem more permissive  towards an expression of pride when it is displayed by members of minor subgroups (minorities) in multiracial societies. Presumably, they are willing to allow such demonstrations of pride because they actually allow a restive population to vent some of its frustrations, and can thereby contribute to stability over the short term. Our social engineers also recognize that being more established and secure in its own station in society, the majority population in multiracial societies can better tolerate an expression of racial pride by minorities
Whereas, minorities would not be similarly restrained about an expression of pride by the majority population.

In summary, amalgamationists seek to minimize any significance that one might attach to racial differences. For, in their view, it is only by means of minimizing and looking beyond these racial differences that the races will be able to get along together and become successfully integrated in a multiracial society. The amalgamationists are correct in assuming that race should not affect the majority of the social interactions that take place between members of the different subgroups. The only notable exceptions are interracial marriage and procreation (miscegenation).

Amalgamation as an Exercise in Social Engineering
In an effort to minimize the significance of racial differences as an instrument to increase the social stability of a multiracial society, amalgamationists will argue that the remaining differences between men are only "superficial" and merely exist on the level of appearance, and that they no longer serve any useful purpose. On these grounds principally, amalgamationists will argue further that there is no need to preserve gene pools with distinctive characteristics; or those characteristics which correspond with "racial" differences. Alternatively, amalgamationists will argue that the choice of whether or not to breed within one's proximate gene pool, or within one's own race, is strictly a matter of personal choice, and that neither the state nor society has a right to interfere in such decisions. But, amalgamationists should perhaps not be so quick to presume that they know better than what common sense, experience, and human nature have to tell us. Nor should they presume to know all the functions that might eventually be served by preserving genetic diversity within the human race, or by preserving gene pools with their own distinctive racial characteristics. On these accounts, the efforts of amalgamationists are highly suspect.

To some of the more radical social engineers, wholesale miscegenation is the solution to the many problems that are related to race, or problems that are caused by the unnatural situation of large contingents of different races living in close proximity to one another in the same society. To these radical social engineers, if we just "amalgamated" or if we just crossbred in such a high degree that the more visible and salient racial characteristics were eliminated through the process of miscegenation, then, racial differences would no longer be an issue that could divide us. To these radical social engineers, once the process of socially sanctioned miscegenation has reduced us to a single, amalgamated, polyglot race, the entire issue of race would effectively become moot.

Regrettably, under the heavy influence of a popular culture which also favors this result, and with the aid of a socialization process dominated by humanist elites, the incidence of miscegenation has been increasing. And, it will take a considerable effort to reverse the efforts of amalgamationists. However, preservationists should not despair in their efforts to preserve the races. For they have powerful natural behavioral tendencies on their side, which the amalgamationists do not. Specifically, the natural behavioral tendencies and sensibilities of the average person remain opposed to the increasingly aggressive efforts of our social engineers in academia, Hollywood and on Madison Avenue. The average person remains opposed to miscegenation and to the host of cultural influences designed to increase its acceptability.

By embracing the principle of amalgamation as a way of reducing the ambient tension in extremely racially heterogeneous societies, it is as if social engineers were admitting that because they cannot hope to completely eradicate the xenophobic response, it would be better to eliminate the visible racial characteristics that might have the potential to trigger the xenophobic response, or bring it to the surface under certain "strained" conditions. Accordingly, in their view, it would be better if we were all one race and one color. If we were to become a monochromatic species, no one would possess any visible traits that might serve as grounds for conflict, unequal treatment, or racial prejudice. Correspondingly, our social engineers have embarked on their most ambitious project to date. The ultimate aim of this project is to literally change the face and the character of the human race.

The social engineering project of amalgamation is clearly a case of culture attempting to overwrite natural biological tendencies. It is a case where natural law is being undermined by human conventions which are designed to serve the interests and advance the ideals of certain groups, at the expense of the species' interest. It is a case where proximal morality (the sense of morality that is more closely associated with the sentiments) is overriding distal morality (morality which is mediated by knowledge and the goal of maximizing species survivability). The fact remains that the xenophobic response itself, being a strong innate tendency, is ample justification for structuring societies to be highly racially homogeneous, rather than trying to socialize us to adapt to artificial social circumstances which are in conflict with important aspects of our nature.

When someone says race doesn't matter, in the context of basic human rights and average abilities, they are  essentially correct. But, when someone says race doesn't matter as an endorsement of miscegenation, or when their eventual aim is to end racial distinctiveness by destroying racial traits through a program of racial interbreeding, they are admitting that race does matter. They are supporting the erasure of visible differences between the races because they believe that if these differences remain, they will give rise to social tensions and conflict. And, when they support miscegenation, they are making an assault on the significance that race has for others, and on the value that people attach to racial traits, regardless of whether or not these traits are only superficial, aesthetic, and skin deep. The fact that these traits continue to matter to many people means they should be respected.

Balkanization and Racial Enclaves
Common sense, experience, and increasingly, science tell most of us that there are real differences between human beings, and that people can be classified into racial categories on the basis of differences in certain characteristics. The real argument of those who denigrate the concept of race or who attack its significance is that, according to their ideals, these differences should not matter to us, and should not be grounds for differential treatment before the law. This is as it should be. But, they extend this argument beyond its logical bounds by suggesting that race should not affect our social interactions, or our preferences in friendship, marriage, business, etc. Actual patterns of association suggests that race does affect these preferences.

Amalgamationists and those who denigrate the concept of race more generally seek to minimize any importance that anyone might attach to racial differences. For, in their view, it is only by minimizing the significance that people attach to race that the races will be able to peacefully coexist over long periods of time in a multiracial society. This is a tacit admission that, due to the xenophobic response, the different races are more naturally inclined to experience aversion in their contacts with members of other races, and that affinity must be artificially created or imposed by social institutions, culture, and laws that are specifically designed for this purpose. This is also a tacit admission that, even when they live continuously in close proximity to one another, as they are expected to do in a multiracial society, members of a race are naturally inclined to have a greater affinity for their own kind. To the extent that these natural behavioral tendencies are allowed to assert themselves, it would result in racial balkanization. In other words, it would result in the races self-segregating themselves into racial enclaves.

Our social engineers perceive the existence of racial enclaves to be a bad thing and a confirmation of natural behavioral tendencies that are opposed to their ideal of creating multiracial societies. And, they want legal mechanisms in place to prevent these natural tendencies from manifesting themselves, and from resulting in Balkanization. Racial Balkanization, self segregation along racial lines, and the resulting formation of racial communities and enclaves within multiracial societies, are the natural results of innate behavioral tendencies manifesting themselves. Racial enclaves would inevitably tend to form in multiracial societies, if legal and social conventions did not exist which were designed to prevent their formation. Relatedly, the ostensible reason given for busing to achieve racial integration of schools was to improve the educational opportunities of minority students. This was a legitimate aim. But, the government also had other reasons for wanting to use busing to achieve racial integration which were not clearly stated in Supreme Court decisions.

From a social engineering standpoint, busing was just a smoke screen to undercut the integrity of what were, in effect, racial communities and enclaves. The government wanted to take some steps to insure that self segregated racial communities did not become too insular. Our civil authorities and social engineers well understood that if such completely racially homogeneous communities came to characterize the society at large, they would become flash points and major sources of instability. Not having any idea of how to rectify the root problem (a multiracial society), our social engineers simply resorted to treating symptoms. That is, they simply wanted to do something to make the best of the bad situation that they came to inherit as a result of the historical accidents that have given rise to multiracial societies.

Challenging the Amalgamationist Doctrine
Despite the fact that powerful interests are involved in promoting the Amalgamationist Doctrine, it is mainly the individual's responsibility to challenge this doctrine, and to defend the cause of racial preservation. The cause of racial preservation is an extension of a more comprehensive doctrine of natural law. The Prime Criterion of this doctrine tells us that if something is maximally conducive to the survivability of the species, then, it is also moral. Also according to the doctrine of natural law, the principle of racial preservation can be logically extrapolated from certain elements of human nature, namely, the xenophobic response. This response amounts to a natural set of instructions that tells us we should preserve race. This response can presumably have a bearing on the survivability of our species in ways that we may not be able to immediately discern. Correspondingly, when people suggest that we should suppress or ignore this response, they are placing themselves in contention with natural law, and with the goal of maximizing the survivability of the species.

When individual ideals are at odds with a vital species' interest, the former must yield to the latter. To treat one's racial heritage in a casual way, or to suggest that it is the individual's choice to preserve it or not, is an affront to nature. By extension, it is an affront to God. If we should fail to recognize that substantive differences exist between human subgroups, that these differences are more than skin deep, and that these differences are worthy of preservation, then we have played into the hands of the amalgamationists. Both amalgamationists and multiculturalists are interested in minimizing the significance of racial differences. These groups don't want us to think too much about our racial differences, or attribute much significance to these differences, because they believe that minimization is the best way to insure that people who are not naturally predisposed to live in close proximity to one another will get along peacefully in a multiracial society.

Amalgamationists purport that race is a concept without substance. They claim that race is an artificial social construct of Western European culture, and has little or no meaning outside of this context. This claim is patently false. Racial purity remains an important ideal in many other parts of the world. In particular, racial purity is an ideal in many Asian cultures. To be able to claim a racial pedigree is considered a matter of great personal pride in Asian societies. The offspring of American GIs and Vietnamese women have frequently been the objects of prejudice in Vietnam, precisely because racial purity continues to be a strongly held value in Vietnamese society.

Additionally, race is not an ethereal concept without substance. Race corresponds to meaningful differences in the characteristics of human subgroups. It is not a social construct. If race were only a social construct, there would be no tangible means for assigning people to different racial categories. There would be no tangible means for classifying them according to their racial characteristics. Because substantive differences in characteristics of human subgroups exist, it allows for their classification, and for their assignment to a "racial" category. The ability to employ such a system of classification reflects real genetic differences that exist between human subgroups. Irrespective of whether some of these differences are superficial, and irrespective of whether they are are only "skin deep," these traits represent differences that are meaningful to many people.

The aims of the amalgamationists may be well intentioned, but the means by which they would achieve these aims violate the sensibilities and desires of the vast majority, and are a flagrant violation of natural law. Natural law calls upon us to preserve the unique biological traits that define human subgroups, and which correspond to our racial differences.

COPYRIGHT 2005 BY ALEX VAN ALLEN