Tuesday, 15 September 2009


By August Pointneuf

Continuing the analysis from Part One of the points made by the pro-mulattonists in support of the half breed society they are creating:

4. A Stronger Nation. The misconception that “crossbreeding invigorates human populations” seems to have been extrapolated from agriculture: reality is very different. Cross breeding produces unexpected results; the majority of crossbred cultivars are weakly, or die spontaneously or are slaughtered. Improvement of cultivars in agriculture is by the ruthless killing of all cultivars which are inferior. Whilst the idea of selective killing of humans repulses most, some of the very alien cultures which have seeped into Britain have advocated immolation of the weak child, the second twin or the older child who transgresses the lines of miscegenation or religious divide.

Agriculturalists protect new and successful cultivars assiduously. The breeder of high milk-producing cows would not dream of inviting a random bull into the herd. Seed growers protect desirable cultivars strictly to preserve the predictable quality of their product. Any thought of cross-pollination or contamination of the genetics is anathema.

The prediction of the characteristics of a cultivar is as important in society as it is in agriculture. This is because societies work on a finely tuned set of complex but intermeshed and interrelating mechanisms. Societies depend for their equilibrium and success on the predictability of people, and so it is necessary to be predictable about the next generation. Those who want to believe that genetics plays no part in behaviour, claiming that people are “blank slates” upon which culture is the only way to mould behaviour; are being progressively discredited. Genetic transmission of behavioural cultures (and their formalization into religions) may play a part, but that part played by genes is, quite simply, unknown.

Le pauvre mulatto. .A concept long recognised and perpetuated in literature, art and music, is that minority populations of crossbreeds and half-casts are seen as inferior.

No implication is intended here that all individuals of any given origin, culture or other persuasion are uniform. A foundation of this paper is to underscore the spreads of capacities and the fine differential balance between uniformity and individuality. Both have their important role to play – individuality for the person, uniformity for society - at times one in conflict with the other. But biology (and sociology) is a percentage game. Success, stability and happiness are the mid-portions of a sociological bell curve. The outliers might have a role, particularly if looked at from an evolutionary perspective. But evolution is an ultra long-term human temporal dimension which cannot influence our decisions within our lifetime.

Small groups such as Amerindian, Australian aboriginal, Inuit or Bushman retain their successful equilibrium when isolated from competing groups or cultures. But when inserted into a larger culture, notably that of the white civilisations (and perhaps other cultures), they do badly. These groups then fall disproportionately into the failure end of that bell-curve, and disproportionately add to the drunkards, prostitutes, layabouts and beggars of the world. . These people need society's compassion and understanding. But more important is recognising the damage done to both groups by forcible (or accidental) attempts to merge socially and racially distinct communities

The greatest of sympathy is due those crossbreeds who find that they are significantly more capable than their own genetic (and societal) group. Some lie well into the success end of the bell curve, but even so most will remain in societal disequilibrium because of their divergent heritage, and the absence of concordant support from a matching and integral community, culture and race.

Many (or most) mulattos are lost in confusion about their origin, status and cultural as well as familial alliances. They are the unhappy victims of failures in a decision tree that far preceded them. These failures might be those of their parents or grandparents. But in Britain the decision tree failure has been perverted dramatically by meddlesome, “know all” governments which, by forcing “integration”, have perpetrated what the knowledgeable and wise have long seen as a disastrous outcome . An irony is that nations which promoted segregation of societies and races so successfully (until their strategies were destroyed by Browns) was that segregation was intended, in part, to protect the identity, genetics and cultures of the indigenous people from exploitation (sexually and otherwise) by a more successful group. The main victim of the destruction of “separate development” by “Browns” has been the individualities of indigenous peoples.

Those governments which imposed immigration on their people an unmandated, irreversible, and unpredictable socio-biological experiment, owe their populations the greatest apologies and they need to be shamed and expelled.

"Social ratcheting". This misconception proposes that an alien inserted into a mature culture will have children who emulate their host culture, progressively more closely with each generation. There is no established biological foundation for this ambitious illusion nor can it distinguish mimicry from fundamental personality change. The reverse is the case, as expressed by the biological truism of 'reversion to type'. This is demonstrated in organisms which can regenerate – however mutilated, the original form re-establishes itself. Confused reasoning will claim that this principle contradicts evolutionary theory. This is not so, since biology preserves a winning design. Evolutionary change is a distinct mechanism, set in a far distant time-frame. Any potentially “evolutionarily successful design” needs to exist in competitive parallel with the established designs until it succeeds in displacing the prototype. This was shown by the parallel existence for a period of the pre-hominids with Homo sapiens. In sociological terms there are many examples of 'reversion to type'. It cannot be assumed that a National Health Service consultant of Pakistani origins will reproduce a child more culturally and socially kindred to the British host society. Instead the child will probably 'revert to type' in its thinking pattern. Despite even a Public School education that child might become a fanatical Muslim homicidal suicide-bomber.

When will it happen? The statistics of cross-breeding is that after a relatively slow beginning the change accelerates exponentially. Once a majority of cross-breeds is established the graph tails off in the familiar fashion of the sine curve, leaving a small “residual minority”. Historically these residues are rapidly destroyed by the population majority. Amongst many other examples are the minorities of Chinese in Malaysia and the white minority in South Africa are being selectively crushed by the majority.[2] The death of the race will then be sudden, unexpected and rapid as the small residual number of whites in Britain disappear.

Stubborn Britons continue to shout “it cannot happen here!” They lack imagination an intellect. They have not realized that an immigrant majority in Parliament can do exactly that. Historically majority groups have destroyed superior minorities, one assumes to delete the unfavourable comparison with their inferiority.

The current demography[3] is that the population rose by 408,000 in 2008 (immigration accounting for more than half of this growth), and immigrant mothers accounted for more than half the increased births, with 24% of births to mothers born abroad. Add to that births of previous generation non-white immigrants to understand the pace of this increase.

Younger mothers are making the generation turn-over faster.

395,000 people left Britain, predominantly whites, taking with them their culture and leaving the gap to be filled by non-European immigrants. The fertility of foreign-born women averages 2.5 per mother. UK born mothers (including) averaged 1.84 boosted by non-European, but UK born mothers.

The incidence of HIV is highest in non-European populations. Therefore mutant immunity is more likely to occur in non-Europeans, after which the residue of that race will be genetically protected and increase again. The Europeans will not, and will remain at risk, probably to succumb.

If these trends continue the irreversible destruction of the white British will be accomplished in three generations.

The tragedy. When measured by the creation of a complex culture, by the orderly structure of their society and by that universal ambition - protection from the entropic whim of the physical environment - the cultivar which became ‘the European’ has been, indisputably, the most successful and without parallel. And yet we have, within that population, European people who connive to destroy it, seeming not to be able to appreciate its value or irreparability. Strangely, it seems never to have occurred to these whites that they will soon be out-bred, outnumbered, and out-strategised politically, supplanted and so ultimately extinguished.

August Pointneuf

[2] “The comparison of Nazism with the ANC” http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/02/parallels-from-past.html

[3] Office of National Statistics


teacher.paris said...


In Obamikwa. School bus horror in St. Louis.

Anonymous said...

Good Article.

Stubborn Britons continue to shout “it cannot happen here!” They lack imagination an intellect. They have not realized that an immigrant majority in Parliament can do exactly that. Historically majority groups have destroyed superior minorities''

Just take a look at Shaid Malik that quality man of integrity wanting a parliament of Mulsim MPs and take a look at the demographjy...of Muslims...

-T said...

Read my take on mixed-race people. You might find it interesting.

Old Atlantic Lighthouse said...

Very good article and important. Maybe we can get a cascade of reason on our side, and determination to do something about it.