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.

Link: mixed race marriage and biological problems

http://sociobiologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2011/10/problems-with-mixed-race-marriages-and.html

Parents do not give equal shares of genes to their child, this is a myth.

The party with more recessive genes e.g. white, will be less than 50% of a genetic parent to their mixed child.

“In evolutionary terms, one could argue that mixed-race marriages are maladaptive in that they reduce a person’s overall genetic fitness – i.e. passing on copies of one’s own genes.  In a multiracial marriage or relationship, one is showing altruism toward a partner who shares fewer genes than a co-ethnic would share.  A parent will also share fewer genes with a multiracial child than with a same-race child.”

Study the in/fertility of the mixed kids, that’s also a doozy.

If it’s well known their organs don’t work properly, that includes the gonads.

Cavalli-Sforza’s team compiled extraordinary tables depicting the “genetic distances” separating 2,000 different racial groups from each other. For example, assume the genetic distance between the English and the Danes is equal to 1.0. Then, Cavalli-Sforza has found, the separation between the English and the Italians would be about 2.5 times as large as the English-Danish difference. On this scale, the Iranians would be 9 times more distant genetically from the English than the Danish, and the Japanese 59 times greater. Finally, the gap between the English and the Bantus (the main group of sub-Saharan blacks) is 109 times as large as the distance between the English and the Danish.”

Hey sub-race, they still won’t discuss you.

Using the genetic distances outlined above, let’s look at two hypothetical multiracial marriages.

An English Man and a Japanese Woman:  As genetic distance figures above note, an English man would be around 59 times more closely related to a Dane than to his Japanese wife. 

aka the joke in this

Why would you willingly take on a genetic disability, to be trendy?

Bloody anti-white cucks. Well, at least they impair their own idiotic genetics.

Regarding the individual’s genetic investment in the second example above, Frank Salter (On Genetic Interests, pg. 261) writes:

“For a person of English ethnicity, choosing an English spouse over a Dane gains less than one percent fitness. But choosing an English spouse over a Bantu, one yields a fitness gain of 92 percent….  The same applies in reverse order, so that a Bantu who chooses another Bantu instead of someone of English ethnicity has 92% more of his or her genes in offspring as a result.  It is almost the equivalent to having twice the number of children with an English spouse.

Genetic preservation, also to be encouraged in other races.

If you want to annoy a Europhile, point out they’re pushing for the preservation of the white race.

Thus assortative mating by ethnicity can have large fitness benefits, the largest derived from choosing mates within geographic races.”

In other words and general terms, a white mother will be almost as twice as closely related to a child with a white father versus a child with a black father.  Because same-race parents share more genes,  each parent is likely to see more of his or her genes in the offspring even if they are not passed on directly.  For example, if the father has gene X and doesn’t pass it on directly to his son, there’s a good chance his same-race spouse will have gene X and pass it on, so the son will indirectly possess the father’s gene X.

Noting phenotype in mixed-race children, each parent would more closely resemble co-ethnics than their own child, especially the white mother, since whites tend to have recessive traits for appearance.  (A person only 1/16 black will often still have visible and prominent black features.)

And appearance does matter.  The fact that mixed-race children do not resemble the parents, esp. the fairer parent, seems to be an issue of concern, although not widely discussed.

Hey, you wanted attention. You got it.

it is unsurprising that mixed-race children suffer more problems of identity and health.  For instance, mixed-race people are less likely to survive organ transplants, especially bone marrow transplants.  In general, mixed-race people have more health problems. A study by J. Richard Udry notes:

“A new study that involved surveying 90,000 adolescent U.S. students showed that those who considered themselves to be of mixed race were more likely than others to suffer from depression, substance abuse, sleep problems and various aches and pains. Conducted by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the National Institutes of Health, the investigation found that adolescents of mixed race were more likely to have other health problems as well.”

It’s child abuse, if we’re honest.

For the parent’s fetish or vanity.

In other words, an argument could be made that mixed-race families are maladaptive — both for the parents and the children  — and undermine one’s genetic interests.

Hybrid weakness, it seems.