Adults average 40 hours per week on smartphones and youth even more. The amount of novelty and deviance experienced astronomically exceeds that of our grandparents. The media preaches that women are wiser than men, Blacks are more important than Whites, trans aren’t mutilated, fat folk need civil rights protections, and gays are entirely normal. In addition, the proportion of biracial couples in media far exceeds what is encountered in real life. Even President Biden has noticed:

“Although I have no scientific basis for what I’m about to say, but those of you who are over 50, how often did you ever see advertisements on television with black and white couples? Not a joke. I challenge you, find today when you turn on the stations, sit on one station for two hours, and I don’t how many commercials you’ll see, 8:00 to 5:00. Two to three out of five have mixed race couples in them. That’s not by accident. They’re selling soap, man. Not a joke. Remember old Pat Caddell used to say, “You want to know what’s happening in American culture? Watch advertising,” because they want to sell what they have.” (6/1/21)

Is this good for the well-being of children? Those who marry tend to have the same hair color, eyes, nose shape, etc. Attraction to those who look like us is so strong a married couple can often be picked out of a group because of their physiognomic similarities. Likewise, propinquity has a powerful influence. When our mating desire kicks in, we often ‘fall for’ those nearby. In the current ‘woke’ media and educational environment of shaming males, whites, etc., does the media’s showing lots of mixed-race couples reduce both the seemingly ‘natural’ homophily and ‘falling for’ those nearby and increase mixed-race couples? Table 1 summarizes the percentage of those cohabiting and married according to the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey from 2008 to 2021. Biracial opposite-sex households more than doubled among the

cohabiting and more than tripled among the married. We had biracial couples before the media

sought their increase (soldiers coupling with women in countries they served to tourists or workers falling for natives), and we will have more. However, the rapidity of biracial coupling is unprecedented.

The media has pushed biracial coupling since the 1970s in liberal programs such as All in the Family. But such was a soft push, since liberals were disproportionately the audience. However, when advertisers – who want to sell a product to all – allowed biracial couples into commercials, viewers knew an order to follow had been issued (Bud Light’s use of a trans was considered such an order, and its sales fell precipitously). The first national TV ad featuring a biracial couple aired in 2013. In Table 1 the difference between couples in 2008 and 2012 is in the ‘same direction,’ so we can’t consider all the increase as being due to media influence. Perhaps a third of US citizens await ‘mainstream media’ to guide their lives (about the same number are mainstream hostile, while the rest swing between the two). Although ads don’t say ‘do likewise,’ constantly showing something has substantial influence.

Usually what is seen on media is socially approved. If we follow what the media suggests we know that at least the liberal half of the country thinks we are ‘doing the right thing’ and signal our virtue. The media’s message about living with and having sex (and maybe children) with someone isn’t spoken. How can this unspoken display do so well when explicit ‘don’t do drugs’ messages seem to do so little? It might be that unspoken but obvious messages are more powerful, possibly especially so to females who seem more sensitive and more responsive to social cues. Perhaps a similar mechanism is involved in girls’ and women’s more frequently adopting ‘trans,’ although preachments, as well as displays, are part of the pitch for this newly created ‘kind’ of human. The media is also doing everything it can to show women in ascendency via being commentators, cops, soldiers, military leaders, referees in the NFL, Super Heroes, etc. – almost anything historically mainly masculine, and rarely as mothers.

Most people know that separation and divorce are more likely with mixed-religion or mixed-race couples. And if they don’t know about the hazards going in, they might be told by others before they commit to the relationship (unless those others are afraid of being considered ‘racist’). Falling in love, living together, or getting married are easy. But staying together is difficult – almost always requiring partners to ‘control themselves lest they say or do things that might precipitate a breakup. Religions or races often differ in customs, eatables, things on walls, linguistic customs, etc. In an environment in which a lot is new to both – something that naturally goes with marriage, no wonder breakups are more common among couples of mixed religions or races.

The biracial must get on with someone from a different subculture. American Indians must live within two different subcultures. The Declaration of Independence called them “merciless savages.” Over time Indians have gotten dual benefits as both tribal members and US citizens. Yet, they have not: 1) integrated well into our society’s economy and more frequently 2) abuse substances; 3) get into legal difficulties; 4) get divorced (45%) and 5) lose their children to foster care (they contribute about 1% of US children and have 3% of kids in foster care). In comparison, 42% of Blacks have divorced, contributing 14% of children and 22% of the fostered; mixed-race parents’ divorce rate is ~45% and they contribute ~5% of children and ~8% of the fostered; Whites have a 37% divorce rate and contribute 49% of children and 43% of those in foster care (Asians [not shown] did better on almost every item in Table 2 as well as having the lowest divorce rate and lowest fraction of their children fostered).

Table 2 lists mental health percentages and costs for those Biracial, American Indians, Whites, and Blacks reported by the 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (Appendix B) n= 279,844. Percentages are rounded; ‘all’ = aged 12+; ‘teens’ = 12 to 17 or 20; and ‘adult’ = 18+. Demographics for these groups are uncertain, and there is no consensus on which variables – other than divorce – most frequently adversely affect children’s mental health. Group differences do not say anything about individuals or couples, etc. – you know the drill. But group outcomes inform what social policies might encourage fewer divorces, more well-adjusted teens, and happier adults. Happier couples are more likely to have children and their kids are more apt to be well-adjusted. So, social policy should strive to make staying together – which is often difficult – easier.

On row 1 of Table 2, Indians and the Biracial were more apt to use tobacco than Whites or Blacks (there were too few respondents for an estimate for Indian teens). On row 3 of Table 2, binging on alcohol was admitted most frequently by the biracial, while Indians scored as the rest of the sample. No one group got every ‘worse score’ or ‘better score.’

Any illicit drug use and having some sort of substance use disorder was more frequently reported by Indians and Biracials. The same pattern was repeated for almost every item indexed – from any mental illness to major depression, to attempting suicide. Having ‘Substance Use Disorder or Major Depression’ was recorded for almost half of Indian and Biracial adults. These groups have a more difficult life as might be expected from higher divorce rates, but also there must be much we don’t know about that generates so marked an increase in pathologies. Notice that although the divorce rate for Blacks is almost as high as for the Biracial, Blacks generally scored better across the comparisons in Table 2. The small differences between Blacks and Whites in Table 2 tend to favor the former.

Our society needs more children, and it would be better if those children were ‘healthy’ as indexed by their scores on the items in Table 2. If the media were trying to increase the number of children and ensure more of them were ‘happy’ or had better mental health, it would not try to increase the number of biracial couples. Any biracial ‘solution’ to meld the races so they were all ‘equal’ would take many, many generations. If Table 2 represents social pathologies well (and it

seems to do so adequately), pushing interracial coupling will further reduce the number of children and make those born less happy, more apt to suicide, have drug problems, cost society more for their treatment, etc. In short, from a social survival perspective, Biracialism is toxic.

Currently, one of the most successful capitalistic societies – South Korea – is on the verge of extinction without a rapid uptick in baby production. Italy, one of the more charming countries in so many ways – from cooking to music to architecture – is barreling toward the same fate for the same reason. Failing to reproduce itself is a sin that has killed more than a few societies. No matter whether your society is rich, has gone to the moon, or is now “really sorry” about the children it neglected to sire – failure to reproduce is the social ‘sin unto death.’

The media push for biracial coupling is not the cause of our falling birthrate. But its plumping for such coupling in the pursuit of ‘equity’ is another instance of the media ill-serving our culture.

Blacks are better at football, dominating the National Football League. Must Whites be given special favors to ‘balance’ the inequity? And then, how about sexism? Women are being put into most positions once generally occupied by men (e.g., news commentators, generals, and even referees). Why not require 51% of players to be female? And what about fatness and ageism? We have an 81-year-old President, where is the 81-year-old extra-wide wide receiver?

God (or nature) abhors equality – all animals of a kind are not ‘equal.’ Some are born dead or grossly defective and are eaten by their mothers or others. The healthy vary, and consequently, some have immune systems resistant to whatever might be the latest microbial assault. “All men are created equal” was a great slogan to foment a revolution. And ‘equity’ may be another. But trying to force nature into an ideological mold is not only impossible, but the attempt is stupid: we live in a constantly changing environment with changing microbial threats. Because we are not clones, not only do drugs fail to work the same way in each of us, but some of us are ‘ready’ for the next microbial challenge. Similarly, we have a dynamic economy. Who knows which racial or religious subgroup has the characteristics to be more successful in the future? Since everyone’s wages tend to rise with greater efficiencies in any one sector, one thing we know for sure is that in our declining demographic, the subgroup that produces more children will see them do better, giving that subgroup more money and influence.

Not a few of our elite seem determined to destroy the society that has elevated them because it fails to meet their ideal of ‘equality.’ Putting more marriages and the children they create in danger of divorce to eliminate racial differences is just as crazy as trying to persuade women they should compete with men instead of pursuing motherhood. The colonists promoted egalitarianism (e.g., ‘all men are created equal’) to escape Britain’s empire. The same falsity now threatens ours.