There is an interesting argument going on between Jared Taylor of American Renaissance and John Derbyshire of The Talk: Nonblack Version fame. It began on June 7th with an article by Derbyshire entitled “On Immigration, Liberty, and Mating Choices.” This is an interesting topic for him to address as a white racial realist who is married to a Chinese woman and has mixed children. He begins by stating that he is in favor of a “rational immigration policy that preserves the historic white-European ethnic core of the American nation,” but then goes on to say, “I am not—obviously not—a racial purist. I’m fine with miscegenation—again, obviously. I don’t even have anything to say to racial purists. I just think they’re wrong; and also, to judge from their occasional emails, slightly nuts.” This makes about as much sense as a man running a purebred golden retriever farm putting up fencing to keep stray dogs out, but being perfectly fine with their interbreeding should they get past the fence. Derbyshire then goes on to lay out some statistics showing that interracial marriage is not very widespread at the moment, and thus is completely fine and to be left up to the individual. But this simply does not show miscegenation to be acceptable; indeed, it is barely tangential to whether it should a matter only of individual preference.
Two weeks later, on June 19th, Jared Taylor responded with an article entitled “‘Race Purists’—Are They ‘Slightly Nuts’?”, in which Taylor calls Derbyshire out on his logical fallacies. Taylor begins by noting the importance of children physically resembling their parents and ancestors and the multitude of problems mixed-race children have with identity and anti-social behavior. Taylor then turns to the substance of Derbyshire’s argument:
There is one argument for anti-miscegenation laws that is stronger now than ever. Whites used to have eight or ten children, but now they are not even replacing themselves, and every out-marriage is a tiny step towards extinction.
We are supposed to care about the survival of the snail darter and the spotted owl. If you have endangered salamanders living on your property, the feds may not even let you build a house. I care a whole lot more about the survival of white people than I do about snail darters, and by 2050 we are expected to be no more than 4 or 5 percent of the world population.
John Derbyshire argues that, since only about 9 percent of whites marry out, there is no justification for anti-miscegenation laws.
But this is a slippery slope. What percentage would justify proscription? Twenty-five percent? Fifty percent? By the time such laws were needed to prevent short-order extinction where would be the majority—including non-white legislators—necessary to pass them?
Derbyshire also believes that U.S. immigration law should discriminate on the basis of race, in order to preserve a white majority. But in principle, I see little difference between legally preventing white Americans from even meeting more non-whites and legally preventing them from marrying them—though I realize preventing marriage seems much more intrusive. To thwart the abstract desire to have imaginary Sri Lankan neighbors seems less harsh than to stop a marriage between two real people who presumably love each other.
But why preserve a white majority? Is it not because whites have a legitimate yearning for societies that reflect their own nature and culture, and that only whites can build such societies? If, in every generation, 9 percent of whites are contributing to their own demographic dispossession, that alone will ensure that they eventually disappear.
And what about the victims of miscegenation whom Derbyshire himself writes about: the Chinese men who wanted to attack him when they saw him with a Chinese woman, and the black women who hate it when black men chase white women? (Derbyshire leaves out other combinations but they can produce resentments that are just as strong.)
Racial-sexual loyalty is a powerful emotion. Should we just ignore it?
While Taylor stops short of supporting anti-miscegenation laws (something we at F&H have no problem supporting), he does end his article by stating that he is not “fine with miscegenation.”
Derbyshire responded to Taylor’s response last week on June 27th with an article entitled “John Derbyshire’s Response to Jared Taylor on Miscegenation.” I think this article is the most instructive of the three. Derbyshire’s first article does not have much meat to it, and Taylor’s response, while good and solid, does not contain anything with which a racial realist would not already be familiar; but in the last article, Derbyshire’s moral libertarianism is laid bare. Derbyshire’s entire argument boils down to this thesis: “Yes, miscegenation is bad, but only a small number of people are doing it, so it’s fine for me to do it. And if you have a problem with that, then come over to my house and I’ll punch you in the face.” Or, as SWB summed it up: “Libertarians wish to do as they please, as long as there aren’t too many people who join them, because this would be bad for society as a whole.” This is something that must be understood. When people argue for the promotion (or even acceptance) of interracial marriages, they are advocating for the destruction of our society and civilization. This issue cannot be viewed simply on the level of just one man and one woman with no effects on society as a whole.