From Patriotic Alternative.
James Eden
The dystopian novel 1984 is famous for the tyrannical maxims — war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.
These maxims represent the omnipotent state’s most powerful psychological weapon employed against its citizens, namely the inversion of reality. Although the state in George Orwell’s classic story is by no means averse to employing physical power, it is the psychological manipulation of the masses that is key to its dominance.
1984 is a critique of the totalitarianism of Stalinist Russia. Little could Orwell have known that it would be the post-war liberal West that would be the vanguard of state totalitarianism and mass psychological manipulation.
The reality is that the propaganda of what are commonly referred to as totalitarian states — Russia and China for example — tends to be rather blunt and unsophisticated. This is because in those countries power is not hidden; it is widely understood that the state is the ultimate political power and that power is instantiated in the country’s leader.
In liberal democracies, however, real power is at work behind the scenes. The puppeteers who hold the strings of state are at work in the shadows manipulating our politicians who put the interests of their masters above those of their electorate.
In our liberal democracies we see the fictional inversion of reality in 1984 made manifest. The people of the West are propagandised into believing that diversity is our strength, multiculturalism is superior to homogeneity, LGBT degeneracy is a moral good, miscegenation is normal…all subversions which weaken European societies to the benefit of hostile elites.
The liberal democracies of the West have perfected the art of subverting the healthy instincts of Europeans.
Reality differs from propaganda
However, no matter how powerful the psychological conditioning inflicted on our people over the past decades, many of these subversions crumble in the face of reality. You will be hard pressed to find any British person who truly believes diversity is our strength given the disastrous consequences wrought by multiculturalism. LGBT indoctrination is increasingly encountering push-back from both parents and children.
Some other liberal myths are less easily refuted. Miscegenation is promoted almost everywhere one looks, particularly in advertising and television programs. The diverse couples we see depicted invariably consist of a Black man and a White woman. The message — aimed particularly at women — is that racially mixed relationships are desirable and high-status.
Racially conscious nationalists will have developed a natural aversion to miscegenation but for the general public the negative outcomes of such unions might not be so obvious. There is a growing body of research on the subject — particularly racially mixed marriages. What does it say?
Firstly, there is evidence that interracial marriages are more likely to involve violence than monoracial White marriages. A US study in 2010 found that interracial couples were more likely to engage in mutual assault than White couples. A more recent study largely replicated those findings, observing that interracial couples were more likely to engage in intimate partner violence (IPV) than monoracial White couples. IPV can involve threats, emotional abuse, and physical and/or emotional violence between two people in a committed relationship.
One imagines that the authors of these studies are not particularly comfortable with their findings, being — one can assume — liberal in temperament. They will typically try to explain away the biological racial differences in their data by appeals to sociocultural phenomena such as “negative responses from others” and “a lack of acceptance from neighbours and the wider community”. This is a veiled attempt to blame White supremacy for disparate outcomes among races.
Violence is not the only issue at play in racially mixed marriages — mental health is also a significant factor. Given the increasing levels of immigration into Europe over recent decades there have been a number of studies on mental health among multiracial (exogamous) and monoracial (endogamous) couples in Europe.
Results of studies
One of these studies in Germany found that older native German women in unions with immigrants exhibited worse mental health than those in endogamous relationships. The research from 2021 states that 7% of all partnerships in the country are between an indigenous German and a foreign national. The results suggest that mixed partnerships were more damaging to the mental health of indigenous European women than indigenous European men, but that the mental health of immigrant men in such relationships is also negatively affected.
Another study on mental health found that both male and female Europeans in mixed marriages reported higher levels of depression compared to those in endogamous relationships. The study also found, however, that immigrants in such partnerships were more likely to have better mental health. The authors describe this as a “gain effect” for migrants married to indigenous Europeans. This research goes some way to explain the fact that exogamous marriages are less stable and more likely to end in separation than endogamous marriages.
A study on divorce rates in The Netherlands found that marriages in which there was greater similarity (religious and ethnic) between partners were less likely to end in divorce than mixed marriages. The researchers found that between 1974 and 1994 the effect of ethnicity in mixed marriages was more significant than the effect of religious differences. In respect to ethnicity, the study found that marriages of Dutch people to foreigners had a divorce risk twice the maximum level of other combinations. Deleterious religious effects were strongest in marriages between Catholics and Jews.
A more recent study in Sweden found similar results. The authors looked at data on married and cohabiting couples between 1990 and 2005 and found that mixed unions had higher rates of dissolution than endogamous unions. The researchers conclude that the higher dissolution rates among mixed couples are a result of divergent values, attitudes, communication styles and traditions.
Although the results of this research suggest cultural difference as the key determiner of relationship success we must not forget the biological reality of such unions. This fact is brought into sharp focus by research on birth outcomes among racially mixed partnerships.
There is significant evidence that interracial marriage is associated with greater risk of low birthweight, preterm birth and infant mortality. A 2016 study in New York found an elevated risk of adverse birth outcomes among interracial parents relative to White parents. The least common couple parings presented the highest risks (e.g. Asian women and Black men). This suggests that the more racially similar a couple are the more likely it is that their offspring will be healthy. Faced with the overwhelming evidence for the biological inferiority of mixed-race partnerships, the authors of this study claim that “ [a] possible explanation for the high risks among the least common pairings could be the added stress women may experience during pregnancy resulting from racial discrimination and lack of tolerance for interracial/ethnic relationships in our society.”
The evidential case against interracial partnerships then seems to be strong. Interracial partnerships are more likely to result in violence, divorce and poor mental compared with monoracial White partnerships. Furthermore, there is an higher risk of poor health outcomes for the children of interracial partnerships.
This is not to say that monoracial White marriages are free of these problems, or that all interracial partnerships will always evidence such problems.
What is clear is that the evidence supports the benefits of monoracial partnerships. The people who promote miscegenation in Europe are not ignorant of this. They are well aware of the harm that race mixing causes among White people — that is why they promote it.
From Patriotic Alternative.
