By August Pointneuf
Currently 10% of the population of Britain is said to be racially cross-bred. This proportion will increase exponentially, not only because that is the statistical nature of breeding, but because increasing familiarity with miscegenation will diminish the existing constraints. Emigration of the white natives will speed the process.
Does this matter? After all, this is the aim of many vociferous British utopionists.
Ironically the “Pro-Mulattonists” (could they be called the “Browns”?) are often the very same “Greens” who ardently work to protect unique species from destruction, and extol species diversity. But then they say that they take pride in being colorblind.. Those who preach that "education, compassion and development" are all that is necessary to merge distinct races and communities are the same people who savagely condemned those well intentioned (but foolish) Australians who tried exactly that, trying to incorporate Aboriginal children into European culture. Loud voices, it seems, out of muddied minds
The motives of the pro-mulattonists are doubtful. Sadly the primary motive is more likely to be exhibitionism of their self-righteousness and less an objective and altruistic one, as they claim. Most of these assertive crusaders demonstrate no biological, sociological and genetic capability, and offer quasi-rationales which are exploited by governments. These Browns seem to preach that if all Britons are the same brown on the outside there would be:
1. A more colourful Britain
2. Economic boosting.
3. Less strife.
4. The population is decreasing
5. A “stronger nation”.
Let us dissect each reason
- A more colourful Britain. Leaving aside word play, the prospect of being intrigued with exotic curiosities, which rapidly fade into the mundane, has been well addressed elsewhere as nonsensical. 
- Economic boosting. This is the old saw by which government chose to hoodwink their population. This was the easiest of the subterfuges used to “sell” immigration because the man in the street could not measure this purported benefit. More probable is that the government wanted to move more supporters into their electorate, the same strategy that many nefarious regimes have used to pervert “democracy”, by shifting populations or voting boundaries to distort representation.
In any event recent economic reports demonstrate that immigrants, rather than making Britain a more competitive country, have cost Britain much. This is no surprise where reproductive demography of immigrants favours large families, with high extractions from social services.
3. The Population is decreasing. The area occupied by Britain is significantly over populated by comparison with the rest of the world. There might be denser areas, like Hong Kong, but these should not be the comparators. The aim should be to provide the British with the “best possible life”. In part this depends upon the resources of the land area which can be utilized to the benefit of the population as a whole. The more people, the less the individual benefits from their hereditary resources. There is no simpler demographic equation. There are also the biological truisms of the need for space, for capacity to realize the partnership with nature. These are lost with overcrowding. But probably the most important factor which determins an ideal population in the biological determinant. Animal populations are widely self-regulated by sophisticated mechanisms. Some of these mechanisms might seem relatively crude, such as loss to predators in the nutritional chain. But this is far from a crude or random mechanism, as is demonstrated by the complex self regulation of the predatory chain itself, which in its turn is closely aligned and interdependent with other highly complex nutritional chains. So it is in humans where high population density decreases fertility and increases other methods of population reduction. In astonishing arrogance British governments have themselves decided “what the population should be”. This is no more than a crude stab in the dark, a blind experiment without foundation. By forcing immigration there are a number of factors which then cause a decrease in the native population. This concept requires a chapter in its own right, but includes factors such as increased stress on the natives and loss of their habitat with decreased fertility and an incentive to emigrate.3. Less Strife. This is assumed to mean less interpersonal strife within communities. The smallest social component of community is the family; therefore let us look at marriage to see if less stress is likely at the foundation level.
Marriage is almost always requires difficult adjustments, and considerable (often life-long) compromise between the partners. If marriage partners have a foundation of similar interests and expectations as well as similar positions in society’s stratifications, they will have far more in common. Their friends, from each side of the marriage, are more likely to be similar,. Their extended families, also, will have a cohesive understanding of their values, customs, history and aspirations. This will make for greater similarity of requirements and less competitive conflict.In mixed racial marriages, particularly where there are extreme cultural differences, all of these unifying factors will be weakened or nullified.
It will be argued that many “British” of foreign origin have been “culturally converted”. Even if this were so the extended families are unlikely to have “socio-converted” and the children are subject to grandparents and others who are widely divergent in language, culture and appearance.
Strife and Children. Stable marriages and stable extended families are likely to raise stable, balanced children. There is considerable evidence that mixed race families are less stable, and produce less successful and less happy children. Amongst children considerable difficulties with respect to their sense of self- identity have been recorded, resulting in unstable, unhappy and social incompetent child-victims.
What is “normal”? Because it is so widespread, it seems that there is a foundation human trait (probably with strong evolutionary benefit) by which parents (and the societies within which they exist) wish their children to marry into groups which are highly similar to their own, particularly demanded by their religions. Miscegenation appears to be exceptional in well structured societies. It is supreme irony is that the migrants into Britain come from countries like Pakistan, India, Bangladesh where marriage into similar groups is not only strongly held, but often prescribed by arranged marriages. Yet it is these same Asian youths who are allowed by British parents to impregnate their daughters within marriage or without. No such thing as “honourable marriage” here in Britain (the honour killings occur only in immigrant communities). In many cases the Asiatic and other immigrant youths are simply playing dangerous sexual games with the young womanhood of Britain. These girls become cheap, disposable acquisitions, substitutes for their Asiatic women, whose genes, morals, and welfare are carefully protected while the bemused natives are ravaged. British women have become the prostitute-playmates of gangsters who have no intention of supporting them through life into their old age. They are despoiled and desecrated, and then unlikely to find respect from a British mate of quality. These poor girls have had pried from them the magic of their youth, the elation of their reproductive years and the majesty of their maturity. For them the exuberances of life have been ablated, irrecoverably and finitely, by an immigrant culture.
Responsibility. Have these British parents no sense of responsibility? No sense of concern or compassion for their offspring? Are they simply devoid of insight or frankly stupid?
As in all human affairs the causes of societal failure are multifactorial, with interrelating feedbacks and buffering mechanism making this too complex to model or fully understand. But what is indisputable is that parents, in all societies, have many stressors. They must survive successfully themselves, before they can begin making the necessary contributions – materially and in personal contact – towards their families. Historically, this was recognised by greater society (which of course includes the religions) and marriages were therefore carefully planned – most were delayed until the potential partners / parents had reached a point of economic and social stability.
Social engineering. What has destabilised this society of parents and potential parents? A significant perversion has been perpetrated by the governments of Britain which pretend that they (the governments) can supply an all-encompassing security. Government propaganda has given the population the impression that people now have no need to seek economic stability. Instead, the government promises that the out of work will be given an income, the ill will be returned s to health, and they have implanted the illusion that someone else will always be to blame and be held accountable if matters go wrong. Children have become “the State’s responsibility”. That unseen authority, “government”, will always rescue, is the implanted illusion.
All concerns about caution, frugality, responsibility, patrimony, and compassion are dormant or are destroyed by the replacement of patrimony by bureaucracy.
Even worse, British governments have confused parents by removing from them their capacities to discipline. They have removed from them the intimacy of the relationship with their children by forcing the children, in their most plastic years, into long hours of schooling. Not only that, but they have forced schooling which is intended to ablate individualities, which is the very distinction which allow a child the pride of success.. It is no surprise that antisocial behaviour is now an escapade into individuality and self-esteem for children smothered under bland gravy of uniformity.
By removing the parents’ capacity to discipline their child, children have successfully broken away from that fine equilibrium which balances parents’ insight against a child’s impulsiveness. The parents have become frightened of their children, frightened that their children may not “like” them, and frightened of the control that the “unseen authority” (such as the Departments of Social Services) could impose upon them with a ruthless hand. Visitations in the night to remove children or to arrest parents are events which happen in Britain now. Complexities of incomprehensible and unfathomable law cause parents to become perplexed, confused, frightened and parentally impotent. They dare not tell their 13 year-old-to stay at home, away from hooligans – because the child early learns manipulative techniques, brandishing the weapons of “racism” and “child abuse”. The more nefarious and manipulative find it easy to construct powerfully damaging fantasies of paedophiliac accusations. We have a parent population reduced to its knees. It is hardly surprising that they are failing their children.
Government as the unit of final accountability. Even amongst the current swirling chaos, the governments are unrepentant. Migrants continue to enter Europe, competing with the natives’ capacity to earn; inflicting waves of confusing dissimilarities on what had previously been well evolved, stable societies, the most creative in history. Black Zimbabwean immigrants have been accepted into New Zealand without checking of their HIV status. Lament with the many unsuspecting girls who are now infected in their homeland, and the irresponsibility of their government.
British governments have dragged their societies down like surreptitious trolls lurking in the jungles and undergrowths of jargon, legalese and bewildering complexity. These were the people who were trusted by the Anglo Saxons to protect them. But the outcome will be a race of Mulattos.
To be continued.