MYTH: Race-Mixing Is Unnatural

OMG, STOP! THAT'S UNNATURAL!

This is really among my favorite white nationalist claims. It is the claim that effectively introduced me to white nationalism and triggered an obsessive, morbid interest in it.

I study biology, so the claim struck me immediately as the epitome of ignorance. People who don't study biology might easily realize it's wrong too, but in light of some biological facts which aren't common knowledge, it becomes even more stupid.

So what exactly makes it so stupid?

Short answer: it's false.

Long answer: below.




Once upon a time, I was an innocent little libtard anti-white. I associated with all kinds of people with varying traits and cultures, and didn't think anybody would hold that against me. I thought racism was really an artifact of the past, at least in the West, and any racists who still existed must know they're wrong.

I blissfully thought that anybody stupid enough to be racist would be halfhearted, cowardly, and embarrassed about it. That's why you can't spot them, isn't it? They just never voice their racist opinions because they know it's complete bullshit. True, militant racists though, must a thing of the past, right? They really don't exist anymore in the developed world, like wooly mammoths of ideology. I didn't consciously think it, but that was my general feeling towards it.

Then I saw a video on youtube. A black African man was in the video, claiming that race-mixing was unnatural. I got into a few arguments with his followers in the comments, but he didn't have that many followers to begin with, and in the end, I didn't think racism was any more prevalent than I had thought before. Moronic, annoying, worthy of ridicule, yes, but ultimately irrelevant. Nobody was listening. Furthermore, this wasn't even racism in Europe or the Americas, this was in Africa.

But then, something else came up, closer to home.

I like neofolk music. Wardruna is my favorite neofolk band. So I was checking their Facebook page for updates about their new album, and I saw this:

Oh my god. Who was this asshole? What was he doing on Wardruna's Facebook page? Was Wardruna really racially-motivated music and I've been oblivious to it all along?

I decided not to engage, at first. For my own sense of security, I did some googling and tried to see whether Wardruna was meant to be a racist band. I didn't find much, only that one of the members is a practicing Odinist, and had once been openly racist, but had later rejected this and claimed he wasn't racist anymore. Whether this was just more white nationalist double-speak (claiming they actually aren't racist because they want to preserve all cultures), or he truly isn't racist anymore, I don't know. In light of the lack of evidence, I'm inclined to still enjoy their music.

I began watching the conversation unfold below the original poster's comment. It was a long line of ass-kissers mostly, and if anybody voiced a counter-opinion, they were quickly ridiculed and drowned out by racists. I was surprised: I had expected the exact opposite to happen.

Then this happened.

I couldn't resist. The comparison of sparrows and seagulls was just too much.

(I didn't realize till after that I'd been calling Troy Tony. Thanks, dyslexia.) Anyway, he goes off into one of those paranoid Jew-hating rants which I've gotten used to by now:

At the time, I had no idea what the fuck he was talking about. Who is "they"? What's a "Goyim"? I wasn't familiar with white nationalist doctrine, so I actually had no idea they hated Jews or that this comment was about Jews.

A mind-numbingly self-righteous circle-jerk quickly followed:

Again, I had no idea what "them", or "our masters", or "thoroughbred thralls" referred to and was completely bewildered by these comments. Now, I realize they're about Jews.

The underlined section is worth noting, since many fans of Norwegian bands consider "Christian" to be an insult (a lot of Norwegian music is anarchistic in nature and questions traditional values). Also ironic, seeing as he himself doesn't understand "natural law".

So I shrug off the bewildering anti-Semitic comments and try again at a blunt appeal to logic:

Like talking to a wall.

Hey, white nationalists, if biology "discredits" you, that's probably a sign that white nationalism is stupid. If biology "bewilders" you, that's probably a sign that you're stupid. If you think biology is a "conversational tactic", then congratulations, you live in Opposite Land. Here, your opinions are facts, and actual facts are conspiracies. By the way, if you believe biology is a "conversational tactic", then I'm eager to also hear your conspiracy theory about how 1+1 actually does not equal 2.

Next, without any rationality whatsoever, Dave chimes in again to mock me and insist that I meant to say the exact opposite of what I said, which triggers another circle-jerk:

I had no idea what "dryskin demon" meant at the time. Now, I still can't be sure, but I think it refers to black people, and the stereotype that they have dry skin.

Note again the hostility towards Christianity: "a thousand years of baptisms to overcome".

Now, I don't like religion either, but when you're essentially trading one set of beliefs for another that's just as bad, but still have the audacity to act like yours is better, you just look like an idiot.

Mystified by their codeword-littered drivel, I drop the biology and address their hypocrisy:

They respond with pseudo-spiritual anti-logic and tell me to not ask questions:

"never ask a question you don't know the answer to"

Excuse me, what? I'm still not sure if this was a typo or not. He never corrected himself if it was.

The lunacy continues.

Another moron named Troy joins (labeled by a red 2), and the original Troy decides to ignore me and take out his frustration by being passive-aggressive and whining to the new Troy. Instead of facing me like a man and saying "fuck you" directly to me, he just complains about me to someone else.

Then another moron shows up with a wall of text about some shitty movie he saw on BET.

Troy emits one more intellectual fart, and I appeal my case one more time.

I get no response after this.

What does this have to do with the claim that race-mixing is unnatural? Well, I want you, the reader, to understand the impact this claim had on me, and what it meant to me as a display of willful ignorance. This was the claim that prompted me to respond to these people. It's the claim that revealed to me that racism still exists in the West, and that people were still trying to use biology as an excuse for it. It's the claim that made me want to investigate racism further. From there, I found Stormfront, the darkest corner of the internet, and poking at this pile of shit in search of truth, I decided that it deserved to be ridiculed and factually debunked as much as possible.

Now that you know my history with this claim, and that this claim alone triggered my fascination with racist ideology, let me explain exactly why it's false.

First, we must consider the definition of unnatural. What do racists mean when they use this word?

If you do a Google search for the definition, several definitions come up, including: 

• contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal.
• not existing in nature; artificial.
• affected or stilted.
• In violation of a natural law.
• Inconsistent with an individual pattern or custom.
• Deviating from a behavioral or social norm.
• Contrived or constrained; artificial.
• In violation of natural feelings; inhuman.

There's only one of these definitions which race-mixing fits into: Deviating from a behavioral or social norm. In the United States, it was quite taboo for decades to "mix" with someone from another race. It was even illegal in many states for them to marry, and it wasn't until the Loving vs. Virginia case in 1967 that all laws banning "miscegenation" were invalidated.

Today, one can more or less say that "race-mixing" in the US isn't taboo anymore. Certain communities within the US, certain families, still consider it taboo of course, which is where it could still objectively be defined as "deviating from a behavioral or social norm", but overall, this isn't really an issue anymore. Even if it was, there's obviously no reason to uphold these taboos if they have no biological basis.

Therefore, it's quite clear to me that racists who claim it's unnatural aren't using this particular definition. They're using the other definitions, insisting that "race-mixing" doesn't occur in nature. They often use animals (like the Facebook comment about sparrows and seagulls) as examples of how it doesn't occur, and insist that humanity and its "races" are actually wholly different species.

The thing that bewilders me the most about this is how these individuals are obviously using the internet to express these ideas: they have the largest source of information ever known to mankind, literally at their fingertips. They could, I dunno, check their facts before spewing ignorance, maybe. But somehow they still manage not to.

Me.

"Mixing"/Interbreeding in Nature

I'm going to try to put this as simply as possible.

Animals "mix" in nature. Like, all the time. (Seriously. Here's even more sources. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6])

And when they mix, it's usually either inter-subspecies or inter-species. What this means is that not only is "race-mixing" natural, but it's also genetically negligible compared to what we observe in nature, since humans are all one species and subspecies. Basically, when humans "race mix", nothing significant is happening: it can't really be truthfully called "mixing" at all, since we're all one species and subspecies.

I'll break this down in simple biological terms.

These are the taxonomic clades. This is the system biologists use to organize living things in categories. You've probably seen it in a textbook before. Each level is called a clade or taxon.

Complete with psychedelic mushrooms.

Here's an illustration of how it can be applied to an animal, in this case, a killer whale/orca (but they leave out the taxonomic levels of Life and Domain). The names attached to each taxon are called the "scientific" or "Latin" names of the animal.

If you want to sound sciencey and pretentious, just say the Genus and species name of the orca next time you refer to one: you would say, "Orcinus orca" instead of just saying "orca" or "killer whale". This works with any animal, not just orcas.

I always thought it should be in Family Canidae because it looks like a shiny panda bear.

It's worth noting that taxonomy has only just begun to be an exact science: before we had genetic testing to help us see how related animals are to each other, taxonomy was essentially an art form. Biologists essentially guessed how to classify living things.

And this is still happening. In fact, there really isn't an objective or perfect definition for the taxon Species. This is called the "species problem". Generally, a species is classified as an organism that is able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring with other members of its same species. This isn't a perfect definition though, since there are some organisms which defy this definition and exhibit exceptions to it (mainly bacteria).

Now, here is an example of two animals (the gray wolf and the coyote) who share the same taxonomy, from Life, all the way down through Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, and Genus. If you were to write the whole thing down, both of their taxonomic trees would read like this:

• DOMAIN: Eukaryote
• KINGDOM: Animalia
• PHYLUM: Chordata
• CLASS: Mammalia
• ORDER: Carnivora
• FAMILY: Canidae
• GENUS: Canis

However, the similarity stops there: they do not share the taxon of species.

Therefore, if these two animals mated and had offspring (which they do sometimes), this would be an inter-species pairing.

DON'T DO IT GUYS! IT'S PRETTY MUCH THE SAME AS HAVING SEX WITH A PLANT!

Now, subspecies wasn't listed on any of these taxonomic illustrations. This is a taxonomic clade which sits underneath Species, which makes it the smallest clade, but it's not usually discussed or shown unless people are talking about a very, very specific organism.

Are we sure this isn't just a new Japanese toy?

It also isn't shown if there simply aren't any subspecies of an organism. An example of this would be the Patagonian cavy. All Patagonian cavies are too genetically similar to be divided into different subspecies: there's basically just one variety of this animal. With animals like this, biologists don't even bother giving it a subspecies name.

So if you go looking for the full Latin names of animals, and expect to find subspecies with each one, don't! Not all of them have subspecies.

So what does it take for an organism to qualify for having subspecies?

Subspecies has the same problem that Species does. There isn't a perfect definition for it. However, it's generally accepted that if a species has been geographically separated long enough into different populations, it can be considered to have subspecies. Sometimes the differences between subspecies are visible to the naked eye, and other times, they aren't.

Here's an example of inter-subspecies pairing:

I like caribou. Can you tell?

These are just two of many subspecies of caribou. They're all the same Species, and they could all have fertile and healthy offspring with each other if they interbred (and they do), but they're also divided into populations of subspecies, because they have been in separate populations for a long enough time that they became morphologically and genetically distinct varieties of the same animal.

In summation:

• Animals interbreed naturally with organisms outside their species and subspecies. They do not "stick with their own kind" all the time. 
• Since interbreeding is observed in nature and under natural conditions, it is a natural behavior. Therefore, even if there were different species or subspecies of humans (there aren't), interbreeding would be a perfectly natural behavior.

 "Race-Mixing" in Humans

I'm going to go a step further with this. Really, I could've ended this post after pointing out and supporting the fact that animals interbreed in nature all the time. That is sufficient to debunk the claim that "race-mixing" is unnatural.

But that's not good enough for me.

I want to make something very clear. I was not using animals as an analogy to explain human "race-mixing". I was not implying that animals naturally interbreeding is the same thing as humans "race-mixing".

All I was doing was pointing out that interbreeding is a natural behavior. This is the claim I set out to disprove, and I did it.

Now, though, I want to elaborate and make sure there is no confusion about the nature of what we call "race-mixing" as a human behavior.

So here's the thing: remember how I discussed what defines species and subspecies? Remember how I said that we don't really have a perfect definition for either of these clades? But that if a species has been geographically separated long enough into different populations, it can be considered to have subspecies?

This has opened the door for eugenicists and racists to try and say that human races are actually subspecies.

Now, I noted several times that humans are all one species, and cannot be divided into subspecies. I will elaborate on this now.

The Biology of the Race Problem:

Psychological characteristics? Oh, so does that mean you're an arrogant scumbag because you're white?

At first glance it might seem like this has some merit to it. Humans have been distributed throughout the globe, and have subsequently developed varying physical traits to fit their respective environments. This fits into the definition of subspecies, doesn't it?

Well, not exactly.

One problem with this is that humans are an extremely young species, only 200,000 years old, and each "race" of humans is younger still. There's a lot of debate around this, but humans only began to migrate out of Africa as recently as 62,000 years ago, and possibly as long ago as 130,000 years ago, which is still only a brief moment of evolutionary time. Generally, a species needs to be geographically isolated for a longer time than this to develop into distinct subspecies.

Then there's the issue that long-term geographic separation has never actually happened to us. Geographic barriers have not succeeded in keeping us separated: massive gene flow has occurred throughout human history, despite being us being separated by mountains, seas, oceans, and other barriers. (Multiple supporting links: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5])

Another problem with this is that race exists on a continuum. In the case of distinct subspecies in the rest of the animal kingdom, we can usually see clear divisions between each subspecies, both through genetic testing which proves some degree of long-term geographic separation, and visible phylogenetic traits.

This gets tricky, because obviously, humans do have different traits which are immediately visible to surface observations. However, these traits exist on a continuum, and there is no clear division between one race and another. Start in Scandinavia, and work your way down to South Africa, and notice the gradual changes in physical traits: "white" European people don't just suddenly come to an end where "black" Africans begin.

Instead it's a gradient: Mediterraneans tend to be darker and shorter than Scandinavians, Arabs can be darker still, but can just as easily be pale and have recessive eye colors; Northern Africans show an incredible amount of diversity, from straight-haired and brown-skinned Nubians, olive or pale peoples of Egypt, light brown Wodaabe people - and continuing down further still, the gradient continues to sub-Saharan and Eastern Africa, the most genetically diverse humans in the world.

Further evidence against the argument for human subspecies lies in the fact that our observations of phylogenetic traits are further corroborated by genetic research. No genetic markers can biologically separate us into "races". There is no clear biological or genetic distinction between "races". Furthermore, more diversity is present within populations than between them.

This is why humans don't have subspecies. Genetic variation and differences among us are too small and inconsistent.

So what about all the well-accredited "scientists" and "researchers" who tried (and are still trying) to convince us that "race" has a biological basis? Am I suggesting all these experts are all just wrong?

Absolutely they're wrong. And not just wrong, but also something much worse: academically dishonest. These people are nothing more than salesmen. All they're doing is selling the idea of "race" under the guise of "science". Their papers and studies might look official and well-founded, but under close inspection they fall apart (and I intend to closely inspect some of these documents in another post).

For good measure, here's the scientific classification for humans:

Pretty sexy. No Homo.

All modern humans have this taxonomic tree. Black people do not have a different taxonomy. Jewish people do not have a different taxonomy. All humans are Homo sapiens. All perceived human races are humans, and they all have the same taxonomy.

 THIS is interbreeding:

THIS is interbreeding:

THIS is NOT INTERBREEDING:

Still not convinced these are actual, biological animals, and not just weird Japanese puppets.

AND NEITHER IS THIS:

OH MY GOD, THEY HAVE VARYING PHYLOGENETIC TRAITS! SOMEBODY CALL THE GENOCIDE POLICE!

And even if it was interbreeding, guess what? It would still be natural. It would still be nothing to be upset about. It would still be moronic to suggest it doesn't happen in nature.

The facts do not favor white nationalism in any degree here.

To summarize:

• Interbreeding occurs in nature. It is a natural behavior.
• Race-mixing actually isn't a type of interbreeding, since humans are all one species, and not different enough to have different subspecies.

Please comment, follow, and share this post.

WX979329YZPM