0 comment Saturday, July 5, 2014 | admin
At Vox Day's blog there is a discussion around Vox's question ''Why do white women choose black men?''
One comment brings up a common argument:
NateM
Also, not to be a threadsh***er, but couldn't it be argued that interracial breeding could actually be beneficial for a group, as a way of avoiding eventual flourishing of a genetic disorders that large numbers of a racial group are carriers for due to relative inbreeding? In a way, fresh blood in a group is a long term benefit for the strength of that group. Hell, look at the Russians, they are a mixture of a number of ethnic backgrounds, thanks to years of war between them before eventually settling down to relative homogeny. That's not to discount the cultural strife that usually happens with the process though. I would even say that could be the rhyme or reason behinds mankinds natural tendency towards war and conflict: it puts them into new areas in contact with new groups, and prevents genetic stagnation.''
This is often asserted by proponents of 'diversity' and miscegenation, and it often goes unchallenged, implying that many people accept this claim as having at least some truth.
How do we define 'inbreeding', though? There seems to be no hard-and-fast definition; many of the online definitions I found said only 'breeding between close relatives.' Well, what is a close relative? Judging by what I've read and heard in various discussions, many Americans consider a first cousin as too close a relative to mate with, though many countries and cultures around the world actually favor first-cousin marriages.
Half of the states in our country prohibit first-cousin marriages, reflecting the widespread belief that such marriages are incestuous or at least 'trashy'. Unfortunately, though, many Americans have associated such marriages with 'White trash' from the South. However, looking at the list of states which prohibit such unions, there is no clear breakdown along North and South lines.
Steve Sailer, in an article from 2003, says
''American society is so biased against inbreeding that many Americans have a hard time even conceiving of marrying a cousin. Yet, arranged matches between first cousins (especially between the children of brothers) are considered the ideal throughout much of a broad expanse from North Africa through West Asia and into Pakistan and India.
In contrast, Americans probably disapprove of what scientists call "consanguineous" mating more than any other nationality. Three huge studies in the U.S. between 1941 and 1981 found that no more than 0.2% of all American marriages were between first cousins or second cousins.
Americans have long dismissed cousin marriage as something practiced only among hillbillies. That old stereotype of inbred mountaineers waging decades long blood feuds had some truth to it. One study of 107 marriages in Beech Creek, Kentucky in 1942 found 19% were consanguineous, although the Kentuckians were more inclined toward second cousin marriages, while first cousin couples are more common than second cousins pairings in the Islamic lands.''
Some people mention Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt as being cousins who married, though their relationship was not that close. They were fifth cousins once removed.
Most of us have little contact with cousins that distant from us, unlike with first or second cousins with whom we grow up, and who seem more like close family.
In earlier eras in New England, there was some cousin marriage; my genealogy researches showed that it was not at all uncommon but most of the marriages that I've found were third or fourth cousins, never first cousins, although that probably happened now and again. Massachusetts permits first cousin marriags. The reason for this marriage pattern was their relative isolation in the 17th and 18th century. Travel was arduous, there were few colonists, and most people did not even meet people from distant towns. The fact that they married cousins does not indicate immorality or backwardness. Over time as more colonists arrived, and isolation decreased, there were fewer such marriages. However, reading the works of H.P. Lovecraft, we see that he often alluded to 'inbred' and degenerate families up in the hills or in the remote areas. This is not to say they were the rule; if it were so, then there would be no disdain or social stigma attached to it, as there obviously was.
Today, though, when scientists want to study the effects of inbreeding, they look at certain populations who isolate themselves:
Isolated populations with homogenous genes such as the Amish in central Pennsylvania, the Ashkenazi Jews and Indian tribes offer genetic researchers unparalleled insight into disease and genetics.
These closed populations, whether by geography or religion, were created by just a few families � called the "founder effect" � and built on generations of inbreeding.''
We're all familiar with the genetic diseases that have developed among these populations, due to consanguineous marriages.
But it should be obvious that real inbreeding among average White Americans is not a problem; it just does not happen that much. I find it baffling that so many people, usually proponents of multiculturalism and racial blending, believe that being White is itself proof of being inbred. There are, after all, White people of just about every European ancestry in this country. Except for extreme cases of group isolation, as with the Amish, they have all intermingled to some degree. I would say there is less intermingling of European nationalities in the Southern states traditionally, because there was less immigration of non-British Isles peoples. There were of course Huguenot descendants, especially in certain areas, but they arrived in colonial times and quickly began to intermarry with the English-speaking population. The same is true of the pre-Revolution colonists from Germany who came to Virginia. They did not remain a distinct or isolated population.
Today, too, everyone has become so mobile that few people live their whole lives in the place of their birth. There is little geographic isolation in this mobile age. So the thought of inbreeding in a country of 310 million very mobile people is absurd. Still, the multicultists harp on the subject of inbreeding, implying that we have to mate with every race to keep our progeny 'vigorous and healthy' or to attain 'hybrid vigor', as in the comment I quoted from Vox Day's blog.
As Sailer's article emphasizes, inbreeding is hardly a problem among Americans, especially White Americans, who express considerable aversion to it. So any argument that is based on the supposed 'inbreeding' of White Americans is foolish.
The hybrid vigor argument is not always true, even among animals:
In any case, humans cannot be 'bred' in the same fashion as zoo animals, although at times it seems as if the propagandists working with our rulers seem to believe we can -- and should -- be, as witness the blitz of advertising featuring race-blending.
A leftist professor said, when I was in college, that one day everybody will be required to marry someone of another race, and that will effectively end 'racial prejudice.' Some of us laughed at his words, but it looks as though he was prophetic.
One comment brings up a common argument:
NateM
Also, not to be a threadsh***er, but couldn't it be argued that interracial breeding could actually be beneficial for a group, as a way of avoiding eventual flourishing of a genetic disorders that large numbers of a racial group are carriers for due to relative inbreeding? In a way, fresh blood in a group is a long term benefit for the strength of that group. Hell, look at the Russians, they are a mixture of a number of ethnic backgrounds, thanks to years of war between them before eventually settling down to relative homogeny. That's not to discount the cultural strife that usually happens with the process though. I would even say that could be the rhyme or reason behinds mankinds natural tendency towards war and conflict: it puts them into new areas in contact with new groups, and prevents genetic stagnation.''
This is often asserted by proponents of 'diversity' and miscegenation, and it often goes unchallenged, implying that many people accept this claim as having at least some truth.
How do we define 'inbreeding', though? There seems to be no hard-and-fast definition; many of the online definitions I found said only 'breeding between close relatives.' Well, what is a close relative? Judging by what I've read and heard in various discussions, many Americans consider a first cousin as too close a relative to mate with, though many countries and cultures around the world actually favor first-cousin marriages.
Half of the states in our country prohibit first-cousin marriages, reflecting the widespread belief that such marriages are incestuous or at least 'trashy'. Unfortunately, though, many Americans have associated such marriages with 'White trash' from the South. However, looking at the list of states which prohibit such unions, there is no clear breakdown along North and South lines.
Steve Sailer, in an article from 2003, says
''American society is so biased against inbreeding that many Americans have a hard time even conceiving of marrying a cousin. Yet, arranged matches between first cousins (especially between the children of brothers) are considered the ideal throughout much of a broad expanse from North Africa through West Asia and into Pakistan and India.
In contrast, Americans probably disapprove of what scientists call "consanguineous" mating more than any other nationality. Three huge studies in the U.S. between 1941 and 1981 found that no more than 0.2% of all American marriages were between first cousins or second cousins.
Americans have long dismissed cousin marriage as something practiced only among hillbillies. That old stereotype of inbred mountaineers waging decades long blood feuds had some truth to it. One study of 107 marriages in Beech Creek, Kentucky in 1942 found 19% were consanguineous, although the Kentuckians were more inclined toward second cousin marriages, while first cousin couples are more common than second cousins pairings in the Islamic lands.''
Some people mention Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt as being cousins who married, though their relationship was not that close. They were fifth cousins once removed.
Most of us have little contact with cousins that distant from us, unlike with first or second cousins with whom we grow up, and who seem more like close family.
In earlier eras in New England, there was some cousin marriage; my genealogy researches showed that it was not at all uncommon but most of the marriages that I've found were third or fourth cousins, never first cousins, although that probably happened now and again. Massachusetts permits first cousin marriags. The reason for this marriage pattern was their relative isolation in the 17th and 18th century. Travel was arduous, there were few colonists, and most people did not even meet people from distant towns. The fact that they married cousins does not indicate immorality or backwardness. Over time as more colonists arrived, and isolation decreased, there were fewer such marriages. However, reading the works of H.P. Lovecraft, we see that he often alluded to 'inbred' and degenerate families up in the hills or in the remote areas. This is not to say they were the rule; if it were so, then there would be no disdain or social stigma attached to it, as there obviously was.
Today, though, when scientists want to study the effects of inbreeding, they look at certain populations who isolate themselves:
Isolated populations with homogenous genes such as the Amish in central Pennsylvania, the Ashkenazi Jews and Indian tribes offer genetic researchers unparalleled insight into disease and genetics.
These closed populations, whether by geography or religion, were created by just a few families � called the "founder effect" � and built on generations of inbreeding.''
We're all familiar with the genetic diseases that have developed among these populations, due to consanguineous marriages.
But it should be obvious that real inbreeding among average White Americans is not a problem; it just does not happen that much. I find it baffling that so many people, usually proponents of multiculturalism and racial blending, believe that being White is itself proof of being inbred. There are, after all, White people of just about every European ancestry in this country. Except for extreme cases of group isolation, as with the Amish, they have all intermingled to some degree. I would say there is less intermingling of European nationalities in the Southern states traditionally, because there was less immigration of non-British Isles peoples. There were of course Huguenot descendants, especially in certain areas, but they arrived in colonial times and quickly began to intermarry with the English-speaking population. The same is true of the pre-Revolution colonists from Germany who came to Virginia. They did not remain a distinct or isolated population.
Today, too, everyone has become so mobile that few people live their whole lives in the place of their birth. There is little geographic isolation in this mobile age. So the thought of inbreeding in a country of 310 million very mobile people is absurd. Still, the multicultists harp on the subject of inbreeding, implying that we have to mate with every race to keep our progeny 'vigorous and healthy' or to attain 'hybrid vigor', as in the comment I quoted from Vox Day's blog.
As Sailer's article emphasizes, inbreeding is hardly a problem among Americans, especially White Americans, who express considerable aversion to it. So any argument that is based on the supposed 'inbreeding' of White Americans is foolish.
The hybrid vigor argument is not always true, even among animals:
In any case, humans cannot be 'bred' in the same fashion as zoo animals, although at times it seems as if the propagandists working with our rulers seem to believe we can -- and should -- be, as witness the blitz of advertising featuring race-blending.
A leftist professor said, when I was in college, that one day everybody will be required to marry someone of another race, and that will effectively end 'racial prejudice.' Some of us laughed at his words, but it looks as though he was prophetic.
Labels: Miscegenation, Multiculturalism, Outmarriage, Race Denial