Similarities Between White Plight And Wildcat Extinction

It is undoubtedly "racist" to note and differentiate between races on a genetic basis when it comes to Homo-sapiens, but it seems when the same definitions apply to wildlife it is quite acceptable to speak of preserving the purity a particular phenotype. 
Recently it has been reported that the Scottish Wildcat has as little as two years before they are effectively wiped out of existence, mainly through interbreeding with domestic cats, and there is an effort among conservationists to save the Wildcat from extinction. A noble cause indeed.

The original article about the Wildcat can be found here.

The general background is that Scottish Wildcats are mating with domestic cats, and where domestic animals are in far greater number than their wild companions, there is a problem with increasing hybridization until finally there will be no more 'true'wildcats left, save for some retention of the genes in the hybrids.
So I presume there will be those reading this and wondering how European people fit into a story about Wildcat extinction. Well the strange thing is that there are many aspects of this which echo the plight of the indigenous peoples of Europe, except most liberals will fail to see this or will straight up contradict proven science in order to uphold political correctness.

It is a widely accepted documented fact, that White Europeans will become a minority in much of Europe before the end of this century, and will probably cease to exist at all in the next two or three centuries. The same of course probably applies to many other groups of people who are either emigrating out of an area, or who are also receiving large numbers of migrants themselves. This is just one of the many negative effects of globalisation. Needless to say however that it is predominately white nations to which most of the Third World and Middle East currently flock to, and are being outnumbered in ever exponential terms.

The liberals 'perfect family'.

There is a very fine line between race and species, one which is presumed to be broad by most of society because it makes general classifications easy. To say that a white man and a black man are completely equal is an insult to the nature of evolution and it's ability to adapt to an environment. It should not be racist to say that generally speaking, Africans can run faster than Europeans, or that Europeans can swim faster than Africans, or that generally speaking those from the Far East have greater IQ's than those from the rest of the world. Yes, they are stereotypes, but stereotypes can only exist after a realisation of trends. We need only look at the Olympics' track and field events to see that there is an obvious advantage that African's have over their European rivals. So clearly, there are some intrinsically different physical and biological differences between the races as documented by simple analysis of the world around us and the application of common sense. Different human races can obviously breed and produce fertile offspring, but so can a plethora of other flora and fauna that is traditionally seen as being a different species. Wildcat is one, interestingly most of the species of wild and domestic dogs can all inter-breed and produce fertile offspring. If you want to get very technical, you could argue the Eurasian population differs greatly from the African in that we still have neaderthal ancestors whilst that gene does not exist in the Sub-Saharan.


So, taking this on board there is no difference biologically speaking with the plight of the Scottish Wildcat which is being bred out of existence by invading domestic cats, and white Europeans being out-bred by immigrants from the Middle East who have three times as many children. The situation is also acerbated by the mainstream media which puts out the message that mixed race families are somehow superior or are desirable as some sort of fashion statement. The argument that the left come up with as a defence is an emotional one. The left does not draw on facts, they do not draw on what is actually beneficial for humanity - their only concern is about perpetuating left-wing politics and silencing any attempts to question their plans of a naive utopia.

Why is it therefore acceptable to say to 'racists' that race is simply a social construct, that it doesn't exist, that the 'melting pot' is a good thing, when there is clearly a desire and noble cause to save sub-species such as the Wildcat from extinction. Despite what this BBC article has said, the Wildcat population will live on in the genes passed on to its young when interbreeding with domestic cats, so why this concern for these wild animals, and not the concern for the European man and woman which like the Wildcat is facing utter destruction at the hands of foreign encroachment into its home environment?
I'm not saying that races of humans are different species, far from it, I'm simply making the point that some animals that are traditionally seen as being of a different species actually aren't - and this draws home the point. If domestic dogs were breeding with and diluting the coyote population we would no doubt see efforts to protect them. In Scotland they currently are with the Wild cats, so why are human races not being given the same right to exist? This isn't about saying one race is better than the other, it's simply a case of ensuring that nature's variation which took tens of thousands of years to achieve is preserved. The coffee-coloured utopia that's presented by the new liberal elite is dangerous because it is essentially like putting all of our genetic eggs in one basket - it's never been done before and makes us at risk for various reasons. I would like all cultures preserved ideally, and as much true diversity kept as possible.

But of course, I'm just a racist Wildcat supremacist...