Our Miscegenation Problem: A Brief History of Race-mixing

September 11, 2013


I will pose a question: what if racism is not natural? I am not referring to the understanding of race or of natural racial difference, but of the proclivity of the general white population to mate with members of a competing racial group when the two are exposed to each other.

Until the latter half of the twentieth century, racial mixture in Western Europe was a rare occurrence. Due to the low frequency of non-Europeans existing among the indigenous people of Europe, extensive race-mixing was physically impossible unless, of course, intrepid individuals were keen to travel abroad to regions of the Earth populated by non-white races. Geography was the de facto variable in deciding the shortage of genetic inter-mixture during this particular chapter in our recent history. But how are we to interpret pandemic miscegenation throughout antiquity and in every corner of the world when geographical barriers; such as vast distance, large bodies of water, and impassable mountain ranges, were not significant obstacles? Why, for example, does South America now possess an extremely high mixed-race populous following the conquest of that continent by Europeans who were not subjected to race-mixing propaganda as modern Western civilisation has been since the second world war? Could it be that although race is clearly not a ‘social construct’, racism is?

In terms of contemporary race-mixing, annexed to the physical aspects as mentioned above (the phenomena of an ever shrinking planet), is the widespread and, it is becoming increasingly apparent, conspiratorial government policy of encouraging large-scale nonwhite immigration into formally white nations. This strategy of ethnic cleansing is given plausibility by paper-thin arguments pertaining to the uniformity of all Homo sapiens, and are brutally enforced by accusations of heresy, e.g., racism, if debate and evidence strays off the well beaten ideological track. The triumviral features in modern miscegenation trends are prodigious innovations in intercontinental transport networks, unswerving guidelines on mass immigration, and liberal egalitarian tenets, the latter two being very closely related. Dwelling on immigration trends and anti-White Race dogma for a moment, the following 1921 quotation from the father of US racial integration, Franz Boas, is very enlightening:

“It would seem- that, man being what he is, the Negro problem will not disappear in America until the Negro blood has been so diluted that it will no longer be recognised.”

Or in other words, “we have a problem and, rather than dealing with the problem in a responsible manner, we shall destroy a country, a civilisation and an entire race of humanity, in order to ignore the problem”.

In all probability it will come as no surprise to the reader to discover that Boas was a Jew.

The question that must be addressed is this: would large numbers of our kinsfolk actively be engaged in genetic adulteration with nonwhites without – not in spite of – the influence of the third element implicated in the great race-mixing experiment, i.e., the promulgation of miscegenation? Let us again look to the past.

According to Arthur Kemp’s extensive work March of the Titans (Volume 1. “Awakening”):

“Although situated in North Africa, Egypt had been settled by three white groups prior to 3500 BC, namely Old European Mediterranean types, Proto-Nordics, and Nordic Indo-Europeans, with the latter group penetrating the territory as part of the great wave of Indo-european invasions which took place from 5600 BC onward.”

In the fullness of time, however, the architects of this mighty culture diluted their genetic inheritance as a consequence of an entrenched practice of importing slaves from central Africa, and elsewhere, tasked with the laborious chores of building monuments to nonexistent gods and mummified pharaohs. The evidence that Egyptians bred with their slaves, and later Nubian invaders, as can be witnessed by the conspicuous European appearance of early Egyptian mummies and representative busts, and the more Negroid appearance of latter statues, which followed expansion into Nubia during the 18th and 20th Dynasties. Contemporary Egypt is a scant phantom of its former glory and the genius and DNA of the original founders has been irrevocably lost.


Userkaf (2498 – 2491 BC)
Pepi I (2332 to 2283 BC)
Pharaoh Shabako (712 to 698 BC)

A similar orthodoxy also played out on the Indian subcontinent, where the apparition of a ‘caste system’ remains long after the recollection of its Indo-Aryan colonisers has fallen into distant legend. In the case of the Indus River Valley civilisation, the influence of the white rulers can be understood today by studying one of the four canonical texts of the Hindu religion known as the Rigveda. The Rigveda perspicuously identifies racial difference, going so far as to suggest that Indra, the Aryan god, “destroyed the Dasyans [the darker-skinned natives of the region] and protected the Aryan colour.” (Rigveda. V. III. 34.9). Within this holy manuscript, “black skin” is continually derided and Indra is described as having a yellow beard, and praises those “fair of cheek”. But, even these superlative measures were not enough to suspend genetic assimilation and today the Indian ‘caste system’ is devoid of a white Aryan hierarchy; those considered the most ‘pure’ being the Brahmans who are patently no longer white.

Light-skinned Indian
Dark-skinned Indian

Racial mixture occurs wherever whites come into contact with the darker races and subspecies. The synopsis follows a familiar pattern: Whites conquer a region; the indigenous peoples are kept as slaves; civilisations flourish; prosperity leads to opulence; admixture ensues; civilisation declines. The same process can now be witnessed in North America, where the Negro slaves have been, and Mexican workers are now being, integrated into the host nation. In addition, research carried out by in the United States by Joane Nagel in 1995, showed that by 1990 59% of “native” American Indians were married to a non-indigenous partner. Miscegenation was out-lawed in most US states until the great social revolution of the nineteen sixties and following the supreme court case, Loving v. Virginia, in 1967. According to 2010 US census data, more than nine million people in America were of mixed-race. This “multiracial” population grew at a rate four times faster than the population as a whole, including other non-white groups whose birth-rate is generally higher than the white average. 

Europe is also some way down the path of racial assimilation with the Mixed/Multiple/Other ethnic population of Britain noted at over 3%, although no doubt the majority of mixed-race individuals prefer to determine their ethnicity as being Black or, less commonly, White, and so the statistics are unreliable. Further studies have shown that the proportion of children in lone-parent households who are of a different ethnicity to the single mother or father is 8%, while the proportion of children living with parents from different ethnic groups or in a mixed-race household is shown to be 8.9% (data taken from the UK Hosehold Longitudinal Study, 2004-2008). The volume of mixed-race persons is due to increase exponentially in decades to come as immigration continues unabated and interracial contact becomes more common and its promotion is not revoked.

In Australia, where the native humans are perhaps the most dissimilar to the colonising Europeans – at least in appearance – racial blending transpires nevertheless. It is sobering to note that the 2006 census revealed that 52% of Aboriginal men and 55% of Aboriginal women were married to non-Aboriginal Australians. That is not to say that all of those married to Aboriginals are white, but it is not difficult to conjecture that most were and that, bearing in mind general demographic trends, the number is likely to have increased in the sevens years since the census was compiled.


It is fascinating to note that Niccolo Machiavelli, in his The Prince, observed the following:

“Now I say that those dominions which, when acquired, are added to an ancient state by him who acquires them, are either of the same country and language, or they are not. When they are, it is easier to hold them, especially when they have not been accustomed to self- government; and to hold them securely it is enough to have destroyed the family of the prince who was ruling them; because the two peoples, preserving in other things the old conditions, and not being unlike in customs, will live quietly together… He who has annexed them, if he wishes to hold them, has only to bear in mind two considerations: the one, that the family of their former lord is extinguished; the other, that neither their laws nor their taxes are altered, so that in a very short time they will become entirely one body with the old principality.”

In summary, a sovereign must acknowledge that language and customs are motivating attributes in not only the governance of contrasting human groups but in their amalgamation and must be contended with. If one is successful in the avoidance of contention, by legislating or taxation, then the various groups will, in due course, “become entirely one body”.

Machiavelli goes on to advise:

“But when states are acquired in a country differing in language, customs, or laws, there are difficulties, and good fortune and great energy are needed to hold them, and one of the greatest and most real helps would be that he who has acquired them should go and reside there. This would make his position more secure and durable, as it has made that of the Turk in Greece, who, notwithstanding all the other measures taken by him for holding that state, if he had not settled there, would not have been able to keep it. Because, if one is on the spot, disorders are seen as they spring up, and one can quickly remedy them; but if one is not at hand, they are heard of only when they are great, and then one can no longer remedy them. Besides this, the country is not pillaged by your officials; the subjects are satisfied by prompt recourse to the prince; thus, wishing to be good, they have more cause to love him, and wishing to be otherwise, to fear him. He who would attack that state from the outside must have the utmost caution; as long as the prince resides there it can only be wrested from him with the greatest difficulty.”

Once again, even in the event of differing “language, customs, or laws” equilibrium can be established so long as order is maintained and the existing situation is not disturbed too readily.

In relation to colonisation, Machiavelli, writing in 1513, offers his guidance thusly:

“The other and better course is to send colonies to one or two places, which may be as keys to that state, for it is necessary either to do this or else to keep there a great number of cavalry and infantry. A prince does not spend much on colonies, for with little or no expense he can send them out and keep them there, and he offends a minority only of the citizens from whom he takes lands and houses to give them to the new inhabitants; and those whom he offends, remaining poor and scattered, are never able to injure him; whilst the rest being uninjured are easily kept quiet, and at the same time are anxious not to err for fear it should happen to them as it has to those who have been despoiled. In conclusion, I say that these colonies are not costly, they are more faithful, they injure less, and the injured, as has been said, being poor and scattered, cannot hurt. Upon this, one has to remark that men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge.”

Displacement of the few serves to maintain the quietude and compliancy of the uninjured segments of the group. Those who react negatively to displacement and the loss of their livelihoods can be effectually neutralised by the repudiation of their concerns, the vilification of their opinions, and the eventual banishment of these unnecessary citizens from the prevailing societal matrix. The final sentence, although likely not offered in the following context, resonates today: “the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge”. No retribution will be pursued by the mongrelised, deracinated, but entirely feasible, future masses as the injury perpetrated upon previous generations will have no meaning to them and their cumulated subconscious of the white race will have been perpetually debased.

The disturbing trend towards the homogenisation of Western culture dovetails precisely with the integration of disparate people into formerly white homelands. Remove religious conviction, eons old culture and customs, and introduce hedonistic individualism, devoid of any tribal cohesion, and the urge to preserve a social meme manifests itself in feeble efforts to “save our way of life”: the Great British pound, public houses, the pipistrelle bat, or our fondness of crude jokes and postcards. Having no grounding in the ancient, a nation is easily conquered and colonised. Integration, in the sense that foreigners must adopt our ‘progressive’, materialistic, myopic perspective on life, becomes increasingly undemanding and all those damnable rotters who do not submit, Muslims for instance, are effortlessly cast as the enemies of freedom, democracy and “our way of life” in the great Occidental pantomime.

Sex and sexuality

Whether the modern expression that ‘opposites attract’ is true, it must be acknowledged that familiarity can often circumvent attraction. Individuals, rather than pursuing lives devoid of a mate, will frequently seek the company of those within the immediate locality – as was the case before the Industrial Revolution. Moreover, sexual attraction has often been subjected to cultural trends and prevailing fashions, thus what was aesthetically appealing in, say, sixteenth century England, may not be so today.

Elizabeth I
Greta Garbo
Contemporary White model
Contemporary Black model

The lure of the purported ‘exotic’ has often resulted in the creation of human hybrids, from the British colonisation of the Caribbean in the eighteenth century, to American military intervention in South East Asia during the last quarter of the twentieth century. Compounding the tendency for white males to interbreed with nonwhite females, is the relatively poor treatment of nonwhite males towards their womenfolk and the sexualisation of girls, both contrived and due to a lack of traditional Christian reserve. Thus European man, finding himself in far-flung reaches of the globe and in the company of scantily-clad, uninhibited, tropical women – who are in turn attracted to his dominance and compassion – repeatedly indulge rather than abstain from exogamy.

When we assess the spectacle of white women pairing with Black – or other – males, we are dealing with an even rarer events as, historically, white women would not have been jeopardised in this manner. The evidence of this reverse mixture is more difficult to accumulate but it undeniably took place. Today, white women are the primary focus for anti-white agitprop, something that their male counterparts appear impotent to reverse. With women, the idea of the ‘exotic’ male is combined  with the pretense of virility and danger to great effect. We are reliably informed that non-whites make for better sexual partners and, after our society has been suitably reorganised, are more fashionable and alluring, endowed with a greater sense of their ‘soul’ and natural rhythm.

The effects of mass non-white immigration has impacted on traditionally homogeneous societies by causing the unfamiliar to become customary and, over time, ‘affinity’ to arise. During their 1980 study of “Familiarity, Similarity, and Attraction” (Exposure Effects in Person Perception) Moreland and Zajonc concluded that:

“…the data that have already been collected seem to warrant at least two general conclusions. First, exposure effects play a much broader role in person perception than was suspected previously. Mere exposure to other people enhances their perceived similarity as well as their likeableness, and could conceivably affect many other social judgments that are related to interpersonal attraction. A second conclusion to be drawn from the data is that familiarity, similarity, and attraction are interdependent to some extent. The basis for that interdependence has yet to be determined.”

This reinforces my own assertion – and judging from the evidence gleaned from a history of the white race – that the proximity to separate races results, inescapably, in inter-racial relations and cross-breeding.

Racists as supernormal

How is it that ‘racists’ are impervious to not only prevalent race-mixing propaganda, but also exposure to numerous nonwhite individuals as potential breeding partners?

The difference in mental faculties – in association with the ‘race question’ – between an enlightened racial separatist and the average white consumer are too extraordinary to ignore or camouflaged. Presented with compelling evidence of, say, Jewish influence in the mainstream media of news and entertainment, the average white consumer is impelled by his overwhelming instinct to herd and to adopt such notions, no matter how plausible, and risk becoming socially ostracised, nullifies fact, reason and reality itself. The ability to restrict sensitive, but demonstrably true, information from becoming ensconced within the neural pathways of the brain is certainly a remarkable feat. This piety of thought is, within the fraternity of anti-Zionist monists, be attributed to the immeasurable quantity of anti-white, pro-race-mixing propaganda inflicted upon the West via various channels. However, the monists who attach themselves to this logic are impotent when asked to explain historic examples of mass miscegenation, over periods of time, and throughout history. The anti-Zionist polemic, although not without merit, is not the definitive answer to our racial conundrum.

The recent explosion in anti-Islamic sentiment across Europe gives credence to the hypothesis that we are prone to rail against unusual customs and cultures but are abnormally tolerant of those, wholly distinct from us in so many respects, who are willing and capable of being naturalised. This appears to be an anti-racist convention and it has manifested itself through millennia with few significant exceptions – the early Ku Klux Klan of the previous Confederate Southern states of North America being one example. For more on this topic specifically then please read our article entitled Extremism v. Integration.

Somehow ‘racists’ have either lost a crucial component of our Aryan Morality or they have developed a new and vital ‘antibody’ to the most destructive constituent integrant. How and why this has come about is relevant to our present condition but it may never be fully resolved during this phase in our collective evolution. A Racist Singularity appears to affect individuals indiscriminately, negating gulfs in social position, intelligence, education, upbringing and temperament. Furthermore, those who previously proscribed to themselves the designation of ‘Liberal’ or even ‘Socialist’, when presented with substantiated facts and ideas pertaining to racial difference, are fully capable of adopting these new concepts, even to the extent of reforming their entire world view. Those people truly are the possessors of magnificent minds.

The effects dictating the ‘switching on’ of the Racist Singularity are multitudinous but if the trait does not exist in an individual then it is unlikely ever to be engaged. Thus we experience the frustration of attempting to convert formative recruits to our cause and, no matter the cogent nature of our argument or the time frame during which we engender our knowledge, we are frequently dissatisfied in the outcome. In this context, even though racial difference is apparent in everyday life and the details have now become freely available, most either cannot accept the truth or are unwilling to digest it. The exhibition of otherwise intelligent and honest men, running away from debates regarding race is something I have personally encountered.

But the Racist Singularity is not merely a riposte to the threat of ethnic genocide, it is the careful appraisal of our plight and the appreciable understanding that without a comprehensive and far reaching view on all matters racial, there can be no future for whites. The Aryan Morality towers over this new candour and envelops it in shadow. I have defined the Aryan Morality as;

“…our sense of fair play, tolerance, charity, chivalry, universal justice, and equality; it is why we generally abhor cruelty to animals, including humans; it is why there is a global ‘conservation’ movement; it is why the other races and sub-species of planet Earth have not been exterminated by our kind over the course of our own technological evolution. Our Aryan Morality is quite possibility totally incompatible with any sense of true racism or tribal loyalty, something which we will require in order to exist as a unique and defined human sub-species.

A great many Zionists, for instance, have gained the upper hand within our traditional societies by subverting our inherent instincts and exploiting our natural flaws. This cabal cannot compete with us in terms of genius, empire building, or the creation of civilisation and, as these achievements broadly represent the font of all wealth, they seek us out as vampire bats flock to domesticated mammals. A healthy, racially-aware, and homogenous white society will dominate and tame the environment and its inhabitants; they will invent and develop and create works of unique brilliance and cultural significance. A white society corrupted by greed, permissiveness, and racial integration has lost its defensive resilience against nefarious alien influence.

Competing racial groups have, by mitigating their own native flaws (i.e., their obvious inability to contend with us on the battlefield) and forcing white nations to play to their strengths (e.g., intrigue, politics, debt-finance, deceit, and so on) created the conditions in which they themselves flourish and subsequently reap the immediate, material benefits. The results of these endeavours are inevitably disastrous for our own tribe. It is ironic that our destruction would almost certainly signal the downfall of international Jewry as no other racial entity could tolerate the idiosyncrasies of the ‘chosen people’ as we historically have.”

The Aryan Morality works in direct conflict with the Racist Singularity and the two are mutually exclusive. Our morality is a normal, evolutionary foible, which no doubt performed a great service in our past, but is has been outmoded and has not adapted to our changing circumstances. Accordingly, I envisage a time were our innate morality becomes superfluous, essentially due to the fact that those of our kin congested with it cannot compete in increasingly tribal communities within which they have no allegiances. The Racist Singularity is the primitive expression of a new morality, one that will service the New Tribe that is to come just as our former code of ethics guided and sustained the old. As Charles Darwin observed:

“…it is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.”

No matter the understated discharge of many white racial separatists, the theory of white supremacy is barely veiled. The accomplishments of European man are, without equivocation, superior to those of the other races and subspecies of man combined. This is a factual statement and the peroration to such thoughts is not hatred of the foreigner, as per the censure of the establishment, but a lucid and heart-felt pride in our past achievements. In terms of what we have thus far realised, and could eventually attain, it is obvious to even the most sniveling, self-hating apologist that the white race is a superior race. Nevertheless, we are an inferior people in terms of our propensity to destroy our genetic inheritance when presented with the opportunity to do so; our people lack a general sense of tribal loyalty and any attempt at ethnic preservation must concede to this unenviable truism.

The New Tribe

The epilogue of our miscegenation problem will be as revolutionary to our enemies as it will to the preponderance of white nationalists who share the greater part of our views. It has become abundantly clear that the toxic composite of innovative modes of transport, a policy of importing non-whites en masse in white lands, liberal credo, incessant race-mixing indoctrination, and our flawed Aryan Morality, will bring about the demise of the extant white race. This Old Tribe has no defence against the tactics of our enemies because our enemies are fully aware that we have a perceptible deficiency – historically chronicled – that if exploited and cultivated, cannot be evaded. It is clear therefore that a democratic route to our salvation was never an option open to us, not because of the magnitude of the task before us or due to the predominant influence of our enemies, but because our people have no sense of racial cohesion and cannot become ‘racist’. Xenophobia has, self evidently, always been an undertone in Western civilisation, but this has ordinarily transcended race and regularly manifests itself in jingoism and sectarianism; a fear of the unknown or Pavlovian reflex inspired by doctrine or a shared system of belief.

Understanding that this is the case is enough to engender the expectation that we will outlast a heinous, multi-racial empire, as well as our racial competitors and those within our own ethnic group who do not share, what I have coined, our Racist Singularity. Once again we are obliged to evaluate the schism that exists in this juncture between an existing tribe, the racially unconscious herd replete with a now redundant Aryan Morality, and a burgeoning New Tribe, to whom race is the primary consideration in all endeavours.

The terrible conclusion to be drawn is that salvaging the bulk of the white race is not only impossible but would merely delay the inevitable eradication of our gene pool. No amount of instruction can alter the paradigm shifts that have taken place in recent years, especially  in relation to intercontinental travel. For that reason, our task must be to appeal to those nascent members of the New Tribe and begin to build a New Social Order utilising more durable and resilient materials. Only a New Tribe will safeguard our precious inheritance and only those proven to be racially conscious, and not ostensibly conservative reactionaries, can be admitted into our inner sanctum. There is no place for the Old Man in the New Tribe.

Long Live the New Tribe!