“…the truth is that there are many civilisations, developing along very different lines…” – René Guénon
Were this not almost universally the case, the evolutionary process would be vastly less efficient than it is at producing new species. It would depend entirely upon geographical isolation. In fact, however, psychological isolation has played at least as important a role in preventing the recombination of incipiently divergent branches of the Tree of Life.
It should be noted, however, that psychological isolation often breaks down when animals are not in their natural state. In captivity or under domestication many of an animal’s built in behaviour patterns become inoperative or distorted, and this is especially true where mating is concerned. When confined, bulls may mount mares, roosters will sometimes attempt to copulate with ducks, and baboons have been known to lust after women.
The domestic dog, Canis familiaris, provides the classic example of the breakdown of the psychological inhibition against miscegenation, where races as divergent as the St. Bernard and the Chihuahua are not only interfertile but are willing to mate. Dogs have been domesticated and bred by men for at least the last 10,000 years, and constant interbreeding has prevented their separation into distinct species, despite the enormous range of somatic and psychic traits they display a range approached by no other mammal except man.
Man, of course, is the most domesticated of all animals, and it is not surprising that his natural inhibition against miscegenation has become confused even without the perverse efforts of the egalitarians to promote racial mixing.
We should instead wonder at the degree to which this healthiest and most essential of our natural sexual predispositions has survived centuries of a most unnatural lifestyle.
There is a great deal of evidence, historical and otherwise, indicating that in the past the european race, at least, felt a much stronger inhibition against miscegenation than it does today.
As urbanization has spread, so has racial mixing. The evidence also indicates a marked variation from race to race in the strength of the inhibition against miscegenation a variation which, to be sure, may only reflect the effect of different racial lifestyles.
An attempt at a more precise definition of species has been made by Theodosius Dobzhansky. According to Professor Dobzhansky (who is an unabashed propagandist for the cause of racial equality), two groups of sexually reproducing animals constitute two separate species when the groups “are reproductively isolated to the extent that the exchange of genes between them is absent or so slow that the genetic differences are not diminished or swamped.”
What does Dobzhansky’s definition really mean? Certainly, where the exchange of genes between two groups of animals is physically impossible, because no offspring or only infertile offspring can result from a mating, the groups are specifically distinct. Thus, for example, donkeys (Equus asinus) and horses (Equus caballus) belong to separate species, because their mongrel offspring, mules, are always sterile.
As professor at CSULB, Kevin MacDonald, wrote in a study – the number of Europeans and non-europeans in South Africa were equal by the year 1869; bearing that in mind if we as a species of people here in Africa are meant to survive – Considering that Europeans globally constitute less that 10% of the planet’s human demographic – then we must choose to love our kind – our blood, our people.
Nature as it has, time and time again – Abhors a Mongrel.