The Law of Regression (popularly known as “Regression Toward Mediocrity”) is a concept created and popularized by that illustrious and precocious 19th Century geneticist, Sir Francis Galton. This law is the statement that parents who represent extreme outliers in a particular phenotype will have children that will regress to the mean averages combinatory of their respective populations. This holds truest in traits multivariate and compounding in genetic causation such as height, hair color, character, and intelligence.The upper class genetic strategy in a society is to rely upon quality over quantity. Economic success of couples appears to be [negatively correlative with their rate of reproduction](http://www.cambridgeebook.com/ebook/a-treatise-on-the-family.html). This is because the success of their children is more or less guaranteed by the resources provided. This is also made possible, in part, because aristocratic groups are able to rely upon greater chances of their progeny being of a higher genetic fitness than is average despite the Law of Regression. They may not inherit all of the genes that made their parentage great but they will almost certainly inherit some. The natural response of lower classes is to increase the chances of progeny success by focusing on quantity over quality. Another result of this strategy is increased inter-sibling genetic diversity. Lower classes will also breed out more ([higher rates of infidelity](http://www.unh.edu/news/docs/elmslie_infidelity.pdf) and higher rates of out-of-wedlock pregnancies), further increasing the total number of genetic recombinations. In a homogeneous nation, this is advantageous for the whole society as it promotes the chances of generating exceptional people at the same time as increasing the labor pool. A constant refolding of lower class DNA is good (albeit not as good as constant refolding of elite DNA) because it coaxes out better genes and aids in the outbreeding and diversification of the upper classes provided there is an upward mobility pathway built into the class stratification. Any animosity felt between the classes tends to be tempered to a degree by racial bonds and this is what will allow for upper class outbreeding and a maintenance of genetic fitness. Indeed, an alien lower caste taking advantage of the better infrastructure provided by a more stable society will out pace the breeding rate of the elites as well. The goal here though is not to join the racially distinct upper caste but to replace them. This process is aided as there ceases to be genetic contributions from a constantly refolding of genetics from the plebeian masses. The alien masses cannot be reconciled with the upper stratum and the general tendency of the genetically isolated aristocracy, in these circumstances, is degeneration. By not having a certain critical mass of children, each generation loses a certain percentage of genes. Some of those genes will be invaluable. Say a coupling only has two children, between 10% and 40% of each parent’s genes are lost. Some will be made up for by other related pairings. After accounting for those members who do not procreate and leaving out those who choose to breed out to another race, a rough estimate of between 1-5% of good genes being lost, for every upper class generation having only two child pairings, could be considered conservative. The process of replacement is slow but complete when the former upper classes and their racial kin are openly hunted such has occurred in countries like Haiti, Rhodesia, and South Africa. This may be a racial phenomenon but it is a reality that goes beyond any normal racist arguments and the consequences are real, permanent, and irreversible. Any argument that might contradict this phenomenon isn’t anti-racist but anti-stability. The replacement of the lower stratum of a society by an alien population can only result in the disaffection and estrangement of the upper classes of society. Whackos like Alex Jones will argue that racial antagonism is a tool utilized by “one world” government types to “divide and conquer” but they are missing the central platform, that human beings are [naturally preferential to individuals genetically closer to them](http://defiant.ssc.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Genetic%20Similarity%201989.pdf) a factor which requires years of intense propaganda to mitigate. Even then [it isn’t always as effective as they might hope](http://newobserveronline.com/white-people-in-britain-resisting-propaganda-to-racially-miscegenate-new-official-figures-show/). So the issue is actually the initial introduction of diversity and not in any supposed instigation of conflict. If conspiracy kooks such as Jones are correct that the current goal of “elites” is to instigate racial intolerance then how do they explain the tendency in media and institutions of education, high and low, to promote racial tolerance? In the theory presented in this article, the propaganda implemented to deracialize whites in historically white nations is not meant as a permanent solution to intolerance but to temporarily lower intolerance in enough people long enough to introduce as many nonwhites as quickly as possible. They promote miscegenation in media in order accelerate atavistic revolt by means of white phenotype diversification. It represents a concerted effort by Marxist-spectrum supremacists to destabilize and generate class conflict where it hadn’t existed before by proxy of fomenting natural racial strife through immigration itself. They know quite well that permanently increasing tolerance and promoting miscegenation is an impossible task and this is indeed a part of their overriding plan. Many other racialist theorists will claim that the goal is to completely destroy white populations but this, again, is likely another impossible task. Why would they need to destroy the white races when all they need to do is slowly remove the greatness within the societies that protect them? It is about dominating white nations, directing their energies, and internalized dysgenic destruction. In summary, no matter your opinions on race, if you are anti-communist you must be anti-nonwhite-immigration.