Inbreeding without depression

https://countryofnowhere.wordpress.com/2016/05/11/inbreeding-in-the-uk/

As in, normal group preference, genophilia. No mutations.

Reminds me of the study that found distant cousins most fecund.

Britons are still living in the same ‘tribes’ that they did in the 7th Century, Oxford University has found after an astonishing study into our genetic make-up. Archaeologists and geneticists were amazed to find that genetically similar individuals inhabit the same areas they did following the Anglo-Saxon invasion, following the fall of the Roman Empire.

In fact, a map showing tribes of Britain in 600AD is almost identical to a new chart showing genetic variability throughout the UK, suggesting that local communities have stayed put for the past 1415 years.

Geneticist Professor Sir Walter Bodmer of Oxford University said: “What it shows is the extraordinary stability of the British population. Britain hasn’t changed much since 600AD.

“When we plotted the genetics on a map we got this fantastic parallel between areas and genetic similarity.

….

The findings also showed that there is not a single ‘Celtic’ genetic group. In fact the Celtic parts of the UK (Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Cornwall) are among the most different from each other genetically.

And the research has finally answered the question of whether the Romans, Vikings and Anglo-Saxons interbred with the Brits or wiped out communities.

The team found that people in central and southern England have a significant DNA contribution from the Anglo-Saxons showing that the invaders intermarried with, rather than replaced, the existing population.

By choice or rape?

But there is no genetic signature from the Danish Vikings even though they controlled large parts of England – The Danelaw – from the 9th century, suggesting they conquered, kept largely to themselves, and then left. Only Orkney residents were found to have Viking DNA.

“We found that 25 per cent of the DNA of someone living in Orkney is from Norse ancestry which suggests that when the Vikings arrived they intermingled with the local population rather than wiping them out,” added Prof Peter Donnelly.

“Similarly the Saxons in Germany have contributed DNA to some of the English groups but not to some of the others. We can see not only the differences in the UK but the reasons for those differences in terms of population movements.”

http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2015-03-19-who-do-you-think-you-really-are-genetic-map-british-isles#

https://countryofnowhere.wordpress.com/2016/05/20/simple-uk-genetic-maps/

Inbreeding is great if you have low genetic load in the participants, it preserves the health, looks and intellect of the bloodline. The breeding of good breeding was this deliberate sexual selection for fitness. It’s only a problem when you introduce mutations. They compound.

Outbreeding is far more likely to produce diseased or infertile offspring, much like a liger or a mongrel, the depression of mutations in genetic load can occur in a single generation.

Early marriage and breeding bad for families

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2017.00269/full
Well, duh, says every K-type.
“high rates of morbidity and mortality”
Darwin wins.
As I said before, minors are not fully mature. This is about the 20s, when peak health occurs in both sexes.
You marry and breed in the 20s like most civilized societies. Either parent should be self-reliant in case one dies.
Of course, creepy men don’t really care about the women, they like the idea of the youngest wife legally allowed. Don’t hold out hope for SE Asia. Those who think with their dicks will fall into the sea eventually.

Human genetic load dragging us down

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4788123/
The long-term consequence of such effects is an expected genetic deterioration in the baseline human condition, potentially measurable on the timescale of a few generations in westernized societies, and because the brain is a particularly large mutational target, this is of particular concern.” The word is dysgenic for $200.
“Ultimately, the price will have to be covered by further investment in various forms of medical intervention.”


Good luck with dropping global IQ, if anyone dared measure such a thing. Sum IQ/global population is the equation.

Who will pay for this global NHS? Our NHS is already running down with a slight immigrant pressure.

It is slight compared to The World.

As JF has mentioned, “clusters” as seen in racial categorization, pertain to findings of genetic distance.

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070&type=printable

Examination of the relationship between genetic and geographic distance supports a view in which the clusters arise not as an artifact of the sampling scheme, but from small discontinuous jumps in genetic distance for most population pairs on opposite sides of geographic barriers, in comparison with genetic distance for pairs on the same side.

Called it.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/01/23/chromosomes-make-culture-including-language/

Speaking of germline mutations ruining society.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5597845/

Older fathers’ children have lower evolutionary fitness across four centuries and in four populations

Is that a large enough sample for the manosphere? They don’t like the answer so obviously not.

As if I don’t post topics strategically… tut tut.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/01/17/old-men-dead-babies/

“Higher paternal age at offspring conception increases de novo genetic mutations. Based on evolutionary genetic theory we predicted older fathers’ children, all else equal, would be less likely to survive and reproduce, i.e. have lower fitness.”
The sins of the father…
Old dads, no grandkids?
“showed negative paternal age effects on infant survival and offspring reproductive success.”
Sexual selection goes for young men, with better hormone profiles and less obesity.*
Darwin says aged paternal societies are bad for it. Nobody needs your dusty DNA. That’s a sign of corruption – keeping the young men down, not breeding. *another direct link to children again
“Effects survived tests for key competing explanations, including maternal age and parental loss,”
Again, you cannot blame the women.

“We can use our findings to aid in predicting the effect increasingly older parents in today’s society will have on their children’s survival and reproductive success. To the extent that we succeeded in isolating a mutation-driven effect of paternal age, our results can be understood to show that de novo mutations reduce offspring fitness across populations and time periods.”

As close as science gets to settled.

Old fathers are a sign of a dying society. Right up there with strippers and crossdressers. You passed the time period where you were viable with decadence but managed to breed anyway, that society’s social norms are seriously damaged. Applies to women too but paternal age is a bigger factor so I have to spotlight. In a Patriarchy, you would expect fathers are held to the highest standards possible. Their total authority relies on the moral authority consequent of that fact.

Never listen to the dregs

comment credit _svd

Why would you listen to drags on anything, anyway? Majority of modern men are shite, that’s why historically 60% of our kind (and 20% women) never procreated during sexual free market of pre-agriculture, and that’s why we are so mad about forming hierarchies. But now, we are weak, spoiled brats, even the best of us. And of course that means that women are shite too. You can’t lower the standards for half the species; men and women constantly involved into mutual conditioning.

It is too easy for the boys. Boys must never have it easy, or they will stay boys forever.

We shouldn’t listen to the dregs and keep our banners high. They always back-rationalise their losership. “Women are not ladies, hence I’m not interested, hence the fact that they ignore me is ok, because I wouldn’t accept their attention anyway”. Yeah, right.

Women are no longer obedient housewives from 1950s, rushing to make you that sandwich wearing only an apron (you can remember your grandma, right? Was she ANYWHERE close to that?)? I hear you pain, pal, you being a man from 1950s, who muddled through Great Depression with a wife and three kids, and now got back straight from your voluntary shift on Normandy beaches with a shrapnel in you hand only to see no decent women around!

Weak; and soft; and spoiled; and bitter; and entitled. All of us.

I finally worked through my backlog of comments from pre-hols. Another few slipped through the suspicious net.

The majority were lovely but the few crazies Missing The Point remind me why I hate the internet. No test for use. It’s always the posts about psychiatry and abuse that bring out the crazies. Never post about BPD or ADD or domestic abuse or sexual harassment unless you’re prepared to confront true cray.

It’s worth it for the smart ones.

I commented: They refuse to accept the duties with maturity. Adulthood means parenthood. Ready to screw, ready to follow through.

_svd

Well, The Pill and abortion tipped the balance here.

But then again it only applies if you are a “tis not fair!!!!!1!” kind of … ma… male.

My thoughts on this: men rarely have any deep ambitions of our own to follow and mature on the way. Most often, we have to be pushed by our needs, maturing during interaction with harsh environment (i.e. mass-poverty until 60s or so) and by fulfilling enforced obligations (early marriage as a social expectation; caring about your elders and siblings – and of course of yourself).

But now there’s nothing of it left. What’s in place though is:
* parental support well into late 20s – because your parents only have you – and maybe one more, but not 12; and they can afford to work in their 60s. Mine kicked me out of the door at 15 (to Uni), and stop paying my rent at 19, when I took a part-time job.
* sexual liberation: she’ll put out for nice set of pecs and abs; you don’t have to really be masculine, just apply some masculinity make up – fake self-confidence, learned ZFG attitude and ripped muscles from local gym. She’ll see through it after a month, sure, but you’d be tapping next ass by then. All in all – no commitment have to be paid to acquire sex. Girls screwed the role of being the gatekeepers to sex with nice “if you want to be a ‘housewife’ in your 30s, you’ll have to start with ‘ho’ in your teens” model they’ve been provided with by “society”.
* massive welfare state that picks up the smithereens. People are bailed out of the consequences of their bad choices – so they keep doing more o them.

You need to add some real stress to the system to change the pattern. And it will probably take a few decades.

e-book: Homo-culture by Holbrook (1899)

https://archive.org/details/b28115454

OH, the things I find when I’m fucking around.

eyeroll-atlantis

Speaking of.

https://archive.org/details/cu31924021843226

“Chastity, its physical, intellectual and moral advantages”

shocked the self-styled asexuals (biologists titter in the distance) haven’t picked up on the wealth of this literature

then again, they don’t even read Darwin so fuck ’em

Eugenic history: Russian domestication of foxes

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/mans-new-best-friend-a-forgotten-russian-experiment-in-fox-domestication/

Belyaev hypothesized that the anatomical and physiological changes seen in domesticated animals could have been the result of selection on the basis of behavioral traits. More specifically, he believed that tameness was the critical factor. How amenable was an animal to interacting with humans?

Belyaev wondered if selecting for tameness and against aggression would result in hormonal and neurochemical changes, since behavior ultimately emerged from biology. Those hormonal and chemical changes could then be implicated in anatomy and physiology. It could be that the anatomical differences in domesticated dogs were related to the genetic changes underlying the behavioral temperament for which they selected (tameness and low aggression). He believed that he could investigate these questions about domestication by attempting to domesticate wild foxes. Belyaev and his colleagues took wild silver foxes (a variant of the red fox) and bred them, with a strong selection criteria for inherent tameness.

…The domesticated foxes were more eager to hang out with humans, whimpered to attract attention, and sniffed and licked their caretakers. They wagged their tails when they were happy or excited. (Does that sound at all like your pet dog?) Further, their fear response to new people or objects was reduced, and they were more eager to explore new situations. Many of the domesticated foxes had floppy ears, short or curly tails, extended reproductive seasons, changes in fur coloration, and changes in the shape of their skulls, jaws, and teeth. They also lost their “musky fox smell.”

Essentially, you can’t isolate one “trait” in breeding from its pairs, the behaviour emerges from certain genetic clusters. Even eye-colour is heavily complicated (Mendelian genetic squares are outmoded beyond genetic diseases).  Same applies to people – the appearance seems to betray the character.

e.g. off the top of my head, testosterone manjaw and interpersonal aggression – the connection is real and cannot be broken, they are mutual outcomes of the same genetic material cluster, you cannot have one without the other

The people worrying about eugenics “deleting” “undesirables”  aka The Hitler Problem least understand it. The undesirable quantities, if ethically selected, would be universal human preferences. How practical is this?

Easiest of the changes is to reduce dysgenics (less disease, mental illness, ugliness, premature death and suffering) et cetera and I have never met anybody against THAT. This would raise the genetic quality, eugenic by default.

FI FYI: anti-racism “consensus” http://www.unz.com/pfrost/sometimes-the-consensus-is-phony/