Because it sees no other viable means of enhancing its own internal stability, the state in a multiracial society would seem to unavoidably find itself in the position of being the de facto defender of miscegenation, or of the individual right to commit miscegenation. In its view, whether or not individuals value their own racial characteristics and choose to preserve them for posterity is exclusively a matter of personal choice. The state will maintain that it has no interest in either promoting or in prohibiting miscegenation, but only wishes to protect the right of individuals to make their own marital choices. The state must deny that it has any interest in promoting miscegenation. The state is well aware that it cannot openly admit that it recognizes the stabilizing functions of miscegenation, or that it wants to promote miscegenation. Such an admission would tend to arouse the very passions that the state wants to suppress or eliminate.

The Founders, the Constitution, and Multiracial Society
The United States is the world's premier multiracial society. Yet, it was founded on principles that did not take race into account. The Constitution made no mention of principles relating to the racial composition of society. And, because the racial composition of the republic was highly homogeneous at the time of the founding (slaves were considered property and not properly party of the polity), the founders felt that they had no need to address the issue. Common sense and experience played a large part in what the founders felt obligated to mention in the Constitution. At the time of the founding, it was so evident that a society should be highly racially homogeneous (in order to ensure its internal stability), and the historical precedents for this form of social organization were so well established and well known, that the founders did not feel compelled to mention it. Moreover, as virtually all of the colonists were of Northern European descent, racial diversity and the racial composition of the republic were not issues. There are other reasons the founders did not mention race in the Constitution, despite the fact that they should foreseen problems arising from slavery.

Many of the founders regarded slavery as a temporary expedient to insure the viability of the republic. They felt that "other arrangements" could be made in the future to maintain a high degree of racial homogeneity in the new republic, either by limiting the number of children the slaves were allowed, or by eventual repatriation of the entire slave population. Alternatively, because the slaves were only considered to be property, and were not part of the polity, the founders undoubtedly tended to overlook the implications of a large slave population for the future racial composition of American society.

No one can say for sure, but, for the reasons given above, and in recognition of the fact that they understood that a highly racially homogeneous social form would naturally tend to be more stable than a more heterogeneous form, it is very likely that the founders would have rejected the ideal of a multiracial society as idealistic and unworkable. At the very least, they would have readily conceded that a society which is more racially homogeneous is a more desirable form of social organization. Thus, the founders can neither be credited with nor blamed for establishing the foundations for the multiracial society that we know today. At the most, they can only be credited with establishing the basic legal and political framework that exists in our multiracial society. Their enterprise was neutral with regard to race, mainly because it seemed so apparent to them that the most natural and stable arrangement (the arrangement which is also most in accord with natural law) was a form of social organization in which there was a high degree of racial homogeneity. Because they accepted this idea so completely, and because any other arrangement would have been so foreign to their experience and their knowledge of historical precedents, it is extremely unlikely that they would have been been willing to endorse such a "radical" plan as a multiracial society.

The ideal of the multiracial society is a much more recent invention of our social engineers. Social engineers see a multiracial society as a necessary means of reconciling us to the circumstances we find ourselves in as a result of historical accidents such as slavery. For their part, the founders merely failed to grasp the need to eliminate the conditions which had the potential to produce a multiracial society in the future. Specifically, the founders did not carefully consider the implications of a large slave population for the future racial composition or stability of the republic. By regarding slavery as a temporary expedient to make the colonies commercially viable as quickly as possible (partly as a defense against the territorial ambitions of European powers) the founders unwittingly established the conditions that would lead to the emergence of a multiracial society. As a result, we are left with a form of social organization which is much more heterogeneous in its racial makeup than the founders could have envisioned or would have found acceptable. Again, the founders would have little  difficulty accepting the principle that the more racially homogeneous a society is, the more stable it tends to be.

Even at the time of the founding, commercial interests were beginning to emerge which had economic incentives to alter the racial composition of society in a way that was fundamentally at odds with natural law. These interests would be responsible for expanding the slave trade beyond anything that the founders could have envisioned or would have desired. After the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, a new set of commercial interests (industrialists) emerged to exert pressure on legislators to liberalize immigration policies in order to provide the manpower they needed to conduct their enterprise. Primarily as a legacy of slavery and the needs of industry, the racial composition of the country would become altered in a way that was fundamentally incompatible with the founders' assumptions. Together, slavery and long periods of liberal immigration policies would establish the conditions that would lead to the emergence of a multiracial society. Once a multiracial society became a reality, the state was compelled to adopt the ideal of the "multiracial model" of society.

Despite the importance of their contributions, the founders failed to eliminate the very institution that would be most responsible for the emergence of a multiracial society. And while this failure has translated into a major weakness of our society, it is not the only weakness of the Constitution. Other weaknesses have become apparent in light of what has been learned about human nature since the founding. The founders did not have what we would think of today as a comprehensive understanding of human nature. Most of their knowledge of human nature was based on personal experience, anecdotes, and their knowledge of history. These sources can provide valuable insights into human nature, but they cannot provide the kind of comprehensive understanding of human nature that is needed to insure that a society's foundations are optimal, or that they are maximally in accord with natural law.

Two centuries ago, the Constitution was a state of the art political document. Yet, it was crafted on the basis of what most would today regard as a limited understanding of human nature, which is only now coming into clear focus with the aid of science. This is not meant to suggest that the state does not rest on grounds which have partial legitimacy under natural law. For, in the degree that the founders had an accurate (though incomplete) grasp of human nature, they were able to craft the foundations for political institutions that are in accord with natural law. This is not the question. The question is, can we bring our institutions into closer accord with natural law, as a result of what we have learned about human nature since the founding? Is there a political form which is more functional, stable and in greater accord with natural law? Is there a political form which reflects the more comprehensive understanding of human nature that has been revealed (and is still being revealed) by the social and behavioral sciences? The sciences themselves suggest there is a form of social and political organization which is more functional and in closer accord with natural law.

Despite important exceptions and omissions, the U.S. Constitution remains once of the most progressive political documents that has ever been conceived. As such, it represents great progress towards the optimal form of government. Having said this, our form of social and political organization, which is ostensibly underwritten by the Constitution, is still suboptimal. But, its suboptimality cannot be blamed entirely on the Constitution. For the Constitution no more gives sanction to a multiracial society than it does to a cosmopolitan society. It simply omitted the issue of the racial composition of society altogether. Yet, implicit in the nation's racial composition at the time of the founding was the founders own preference for a highly homogeneous form. Consequently, and in light of what we have learned about human nature since to the founding, the cosmopolitan model of society emerges as the more functional alternative to the multiracial model. The multiracial model reflects an incomplete understanding of human nature. Consequently, it is at odds with natural law at critical points. It contains contradictions that must arise some day to confront it, to destabilize it, and to eventually force it to give way to an even more progressive and stable form. Of necessity, this new political form must reflect a more extensive, accurate and scientifically based understanding of human nature and a more comprehensive understanding of the species interest. It must come into closer accord with natural law. But how is the government in a multiracial society chiefly at fault? How is it at odds with natural law? What can be done to rectify its faults?

Natural Law, Xenophobia  and the Stability of the State
A multiracial society of the kind we have today in America is in fundamental contravention of natural law at critical points. As with all states, the state in a multiracial society is convinced of its own moral rectitude. It has  no conception of how its own foundations are at odds with natural law. It must maintain, and it must genuinely believe, that it rests firmly on natural law foundations, until such time as it forced to cede power to the more progressive social and political form that will inevitably challenge it and replace it. Because it assumes that it was founded in complete accordance with natural law, and that its own arrangements are natural and best, it will be better able to defend itself. Towards this end, it must adopt policies that are designed for the principal functions of its own stability and preservation. And, in the interest of efficiency, the state can be expected to take the most direct and least expensive route to its preservation over the short term, notwithstanding that a more difficult route might ultimately better serve its interests over the longer term.

To the extent that the state in a multiracial society does not accept the legitimacy of the goal of racial preservation, it will not be primarily concerned with creating conditions which would prove maximally conducive to racial preservation. For, to give racial preservation its endorsement would be drawing attention to a potential source of division which it prefers to minimize in the quest for legal equality of its citizens, and as a means of enhancing its own internal stability. The state in a multiracial society has no interest in giving the concept of race added legitimacy. Nor does it have any incentives to acknowledge that antagonisms between racial groups could have their origins in natural behavioral tendencies such as the xenophobic response. Nor does the state have any incentive to concede that a multiracial society is in any sense unnatural. Such admissions would pose a severe threat to its claim to rest solidly on natural law foundations.

In the degree that a society is wrongly constituted according to natural law, it must create artificial conventions that are designed to suppress the natural tendencies that it is in conflict with. In the case of a multiracial society, or in the case of a society in which minor subgroups are a substantive part of the population (so much so that they begin to contest the major subgroup's right to wield political power), the state must suppress the natural tendency to either experience or express the xenophobic response. Correspondingly, the state must suppress the very concept of race.

A state which is not constructed in accordance with natural law, and which does not recognize the origins, functions and continuing operation of the xenophobic response has every incentive to ignore race and to minimize its importance. Correspondingly, it has every incentive to deny the importance of race and to de-emphasize the significance of racial differences. A society which is so constituted, and which refuses to extricate itself, can never acknowledge that it has a vital state interest in racial preservation. Consequently, the task of preserving racial integrity must not only take place without government auspices, but it must take place in spite of government. By means of the strategies it uses to achieve stability over the shorter term, the state in a multiracial society will be guilty of complicity in the process of amalgamation. For the sake of preserving its own internal stability, the state will help to create the conditions which not only permit miscegenation, but which will actively encourage it.

The xenophobic response is the single most important biological reason why multiracial societies are inherently unstable and why they are fundamentally at odds with natural law. Understanding the evolutionary origins and functions of the xenophobic response is critical in determining how society is at odds with natural law, and how to bring it into closer accord with natural law. Once again, the xenophobic response evolved to serve the function of gene pool maintenance. That is, it evolved as a behavioral tendency which functioned (and which continues to function) to maintain distinctive genetic characteristics for whatever advantages these characteristics may afford those who possess them. Attempts to shoot holes in this argument generally begin by saying that our reason and technology have today afforded all races near equal survivability, regardless of the environment challenges they face in a particular region of the world. But, this does not begin to address the question of whether or not our racial heritage and uniqueness are worth preserving for posterity.

Natural law instructs us to adopt forms of social organization that are in accord with natural tendencies, as much as possible. Certain aspects of human nature that have come to be known since the founding suggest that the multiracial model of society is at odds with natural law at a number of critical points. By adopting a model of social organization which does not account for the existence of the xenophobic response (and because it is an environment that is more conducive to miscegenation), the state in a multiracial society has no legitimacy under natural law. It is also at odds with natural law insofar as other forms of social organization (principally, the cosmopolitan model, which features a much higher degree of racial homogeneity) are much more stable than the multiracial model. Maximizing stability is a key parameter of social organization under natural law.

From the standpoint of natural law, the fundamental contradiction confronting a multiracial society is this: The government in a multiracial society has the problem of maintaining social order under conditions that are  unnatural in some degree, and which tend to create instability. To counter this instability, the state must employ a system of "artificial" social conventions (laws that have no necessary basis in natural tendencies). The state operates on the premise that the primary source of its instability is not natural behavioral tendencies (which it is constructed at odds with), but dysfunctional social norms. By adopting this strategy, and by mistaking the source of instability, the state does not eliminate the root case of the problem (i.e. the fact that a multiracial society tends to elicit the xenophobic response), but simply forces it below the surface. But, because the state cannot be made to accept this view, it must be allowed to fall under its own weight. If a suitable triggering event presents itself, the full force and potential of the xenophobic response will make itself felt. In the resultant conflict, the state will still not acknowledge its faults. Rather, it will simply be swept away in the maelstrom by a social and political form which is more functional, and which has greater legitimacy under natural law.

Natural Law and the Preservationist Doctrine
As discussed above, we don't hear the term miscegenation mentioned much any more. There used to be anti-miscegenation laws designed to prevent racial interbreeding between members of highly disparate races (principally, caucasians and blacks). These laws were struck down and declared unconstitutional, primarily on grounds that they were violations of individual civil rights. And while individuals may have the right to commit miscegenation under the laws of a multiracial society, it is not their right under natural law. The natural order gave rise to different races, and we are therefore obligated to preserve these races, mainly by avoiding miscegenation. Miscegenation is a violation of natural law. By extension, it is a violation of divine will.

The xenophobic response evolved to serve gene pool maintenance functions. It evolved to be triggered by visual cues, or by the perception of significant visible differences in others. It evolved as a safeguard to prevent breeding with outgroups which might possess traits that would prove maladaptive (in one's home environment), assuming one's group already possessed traits that would make it most well adapted to its environment. It is a cornerstone of natural law that miscegenation should be prevented between those racial groups which have differences that are generally sufficient to evoke the xenophobic response. It is an additional cornerstone of natural law that, primarily in consideration of the xenophobic response, maintaining a high degree of racial homogeneity (through means other than miscegenation) is the best way to insure a society's internal stability.

The state in a cosmopolitan society can maintain a spirit of racial tolerance even as it prohibits miscegenation. Under a system constructed in close accord with natural law, the state would be expected to have a more active role in maintaining racial integrity, even as it permitted relatively small transient minority populations to continue to reside within it. This is the key difference between the multiracial model and the cosmopolitan model. The multiracial model fails to acknowledge the need to maintain a proportional balance between the size of the major subgroup and the minor subgroups. Conversely, the cosmopolitan model recognizes that at the point where the minor subgroups collectively begin to approach the size of the major subgroup, (and due to the operation of group dynamics which involve the xenophobic response), fundamental social instabilities will be generated. This highlights the need to maintain a proportional balance between minor subgroups and the major subgroup in a society. Rather than having to rely on miscegenation to increase its stability, a society built in accordance with the cosmopolitan model can rely on a high level of racial homogeneity for its stability.

The state generally elects to allow personal choice to prevail in the mate selection process. But, in some cases, it retains the right to deny or to declare unlawful forms of conjugal union which it deems to be a threat to its vital interests. For instance, the state draws the line with incest laws. So too it could also draw the line with miscegenation. The state's intervention to regulate individual behavior to achieve a vital state purpose is a pervasive fact of life. If the state decided that a vital interest was served by racial preservation, it would be well within its means to bring the practice of miscegenation to a screeching halt. Because the state in a multiracial society is unlikely to reach such a determination (as this would conflict with the ideal that a multiracial society is a perfectly natural and workable arrangement which is in no way at odds with elements of human nature), the cause of racial preservation must look elsewhere for its defense.

Well meaning but misguided social scientists fear that if too much emphasis is placed on the objective (racial) differences between men, it would open the door for treating them differently on moral or legal grounds. And, in fact, differential treatment on the basis of racial characteristics has occurred throughout history. But attempting to secure essential moral and legal equality between the races ought not be accomplished at the expense of racial integrity. And even as the differences between human subgroups can be substantial, they are not of a kind that should have any implications for the moral or legal equality of the races. The point is that these differences, whether large or small, arose from nature, they are a product of evolution, and, by extension, they are a reflection of divine will.  God is perhaps the better judge of whether or not these traits deserve preservation. And, if nature (and, by extension, God) has created these traits, and has instilled in man a behavioral tendency that is conducive to their preservation (i.e. the xenophobic response), then it is probably not a good idea to say that these traits are not worthy of preservation.

As they arose from nature and absent other compelling influences, it is our biological inclination to prefer members of our own race, whether in the selection of a mate, or in the selection of close friends. In either case it is a manifestation of the same underlying natural tendency, namely, a greater natural affinity for those we perceive to be more like us, and those who are in fact most closely related to us genetically. This differential affinity for those we perceive to be similar is an integral part of our nature, and is the behavioral tendency that is most responsible for the preservation of gene pools with distinctive "racial" characteristics. To say that the differences that distinguish human subgroups are superficial or meaningless shows disrespect for individuals and for their differences. More importantly, it shows contempt for the natural order which gave rise to these differences. By extension, attempts to minimize, denigrate or deny the existence or worth of racial differences shows a disrespect for natural law, and a corresponding disrespect for divine will.