Britain First are far from alone in perpetuating this particular myth. It’s a myth based upon the fact that most people know next to nothing about genetics and the interaction of dominant and recessive genes to define heritable characteristics and racial types. We don’t plan to lecture anyone on genetics here but it is worth making a few basic points.

Racial type isn’t an all or nothing situation. Each individual physical trait is decided via complex interactions of genes resulting in a range of characteristics. That’s  why children of any couple tend to get ‘their mother’s nose’ or ‘their father’s eyes’, rather than something halfway between the two. Each genetic ‘choice’ is ‘all or nothing’ (like the electoral ‘first past the post’ system) but the number of gene pairs involved is so great that the resulting set of characteristics is almost impossible to predict.

Skin colour is a little different in that there are many different genes that determine pigmentation but it’s still essentially the same idea. Many different gene pairs interact to create the familiar range of colours we see in the modern world. But each gene remains in the gene pool and can resurface in future generations – making the concept of racial genocide via interbreeding a scientific nonsense. To put it another way – it won’t happen. Advantageous genes repeat in the gene pool. In the Northern hemisphere light skins are advantageous and so those genes will persist in those areas of the world (including here in the UK).

But that’s not all that’s wrong about this particular ‘white genocide’ myth. Even though it’s not going to happen. let’s consider the implications of ‘White genocide’ by inter-breeding, just for the sake of argument.

Inter-racial mixing has continued for many hundreds and thousands of years. Ever since Homo sapiens first migrated out of Africa (yes – Africa), the ancestral home of every single modern human, we have evolved, diversified and interbred. Each slight change, each successful evolutionary adaptation has remained in the gene pool only because it was advantageous to the individuals who carried it and by extension to our species as a whole. Just as we wouldn’t feel bad because early Homo neandertalis might lament the fact that very few of their physical characteristics remain in the modern gene pool, why on earth should future generations care if they benefit from subsequent evolution?

Or should we all start protesting about men without unusually broad brow ridges and jutting jaws or refuse to marry women who don’t have even more impractically angled (and potentially fatal) birth canals?

Let’s just put this rubbish in perspective…

Any future improvement in human evolution will be no concern of ours. Just as we don’t care that our brains are bigger than the Neanderthals’, future generations won’t care that a few misguided modern Nazis would prefer them not to have evolved either.