Actually there is quite a lot of evidence for outbreeding depression, much of it gets conveniently ignored.

File: Machine.jpg (224 KB, 2048x2048)

224 KB JPG

It's odd really. Who would have figured that miscegenation would be dangerous both to the health of human society and the individuals living in that society. It's almost like a certain tribe of inbreds wants everyone to be even sicker than themselves. They purposely promote miscegenation to get outbreeding depression.

>>16881409
I'm just curious what the argument against this is, if there is one, but I'd also be curious to look at more cases similar to previously listen Stanford study that might corroborate this.
I also know there are issues in mixed pairing in regards to other birth related complications, such as low birth weight, still birth, premature birth etc
>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2867623/
The argument levied in these cases is usually socio-economics, i.e. access to proper treatment and care, and some people even go so far as to acknowledge the race of the mother in a lot of these outcomes, but I've yet to hear any argument that really tackles the issue comprehensively.
This quote from the aforementioned linked also suggests that the subject is likely being ignored, wittingly or unwittingly.
>"Although births of multiracial and multiethnic infants are becoming more common in the United States, little is known about birth outcomes and risks for adverse events."
It also states that the risk is higher in Black Monoracial couples then any other pairing, which could corroborate the socio-economics argument, but given the American Negros history in the US, you could consider them a product of long term mixing.
It's also hard to say how they concluded who was White, Black, or otherwise. A drivers license might list a mixed person as one or the other, so we can't say that the genetics are being studied really carefully.
Most all the easily accessible studies only measure the immediate effects, which conclude in most cases that the race of the mother plays a large role in determining outcomes.
>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8274554/

I think that by outbreeding depression you also would outbreed intelligence.

If we look purely at fertiliy you actually start to see outbreeding effects as close as I think 5th cousin.

>>16881566
That would happen though, given the measured IQ of say Africans for example remains consistent across all cultures, nations, and economies. We can also see IQ rates going down, as well as literacy rates, etc.
Of course the falling rates are still attributed to socioeconomics, like always, it is strange that these things are falling in tandem with the massive influx of migrants into Western countries, contradicting a lot of the mainstream narrative.
It would also highlight how people from a foreign country without a keen understanding of English would necessarily tank the literacy rates, and also brings into question why our governments are importing a poverty class, given that most of the people coming in are Low IQ, illiterate, and end up on welfare.
More on topic with the discussion, mixed race children typically score IQ between the average range of both their parents, meaning that IQ goes down from the higher parent, Asian or White, and goes up from the lower parent, Black or Hispanic.

>https://cis.org/Report/Somali-Immigrants-Minnesota
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/3283/
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
>https://literacybuffalo.org/2025/01/23/adult-literacy-rates-are-falling-new-literacy-study-shows-big-problems/

>>16881596
Do you have any sources on this? I don't quite have a picture in mind of what you're referring to.

>>16881848
>>16881566
We also see higher rates of mental illness among multi-ethnic individuals, in addition to substance abuse, chronic disease (Though still comparable to Africans, higher then other racial groups), higher rates of incarceration, etc.
>https://mhanational.org/resources/multiracial-quick-facts/
What is curious to note is combining statistics on multi ethnic marriages and what we know about children who are the product of divorce.
Multi Ethnic marriages are more likely to end in divorce then monoracial marriages.
Children who are the product of divorce also show lower performance in school, higher incarceration, substance abuse, etc, in addition to also being more likely to get divorced themselves.
>https://legaljobs.io/blog/children-of-divorce-statistics
>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4183451/

>>16881848
>Hispanic

Hispanic isn't a race, Hispanics are of varying racial compositions. Actually I'd be curious to know how this topic applies to Latin America since so many there are mixed race.

>>16881873
That's a fair point, as the Hispanic label broadly refers to a variety of peoples and genetic compositions. This topic came up in the recent discussions surrounding the accuracy of crime statistics in the USA, where Hispanics are often distributed between multiple ethnic classifications.
Brazil for example has the highest number of mixed race individuals, yet despite modern claims of hybrid vigor and increased intelligence, it's a hard claim to say they're really successful.
From here the counter argument typically devolves into socioeconomics as an excuse for all ills. But the things I'm curios about is how they overlook this need for improving socioeconomics and how it fosters dependence onto medical and state systems, i.e. there are numerous health related issues that are increased in multi-ethnic people, rather then simply avoiding this all together people will instead give more power to the Authorities to solve these issues, issues that don't need to exist in the first place, etc.
The other issue with South America, and many other 3rd world countries, is the poor statistical reporting. And this is another thing that is mentioned a lot in this field of research which is the lack of available data, which is again all the more reason to scrutinize the mainstream narrative, as it is clear we don't have all the variables.
People in Brazil have higher rates of Mental Illness, leading globally, but this can again be devolved into the socioeconomic excuse. Yet given how access to psychiatric care in America has not seen our mental health rates go down, it's kind of a dumb argument.
>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7111415/
I'll cite a few others, you know what can be said in refutation. But the Socioeconomic and lack of access to Medical and State protections plays into my initial argument, that Modern Medicine is potentially be used to cover up the consequences of out-breeding depression.

>>16881873
>>16881895
>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7198030/
>https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0325251
>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11822307/
Starting with the most notable, Brazil has some of the highest rates of Congenital Disease (Some say it's actually lower due to under reporting), and the highest rate of C-sections in the world (This ties into my initial post).
Some studies I'm reading say that C-section births actually outnumber vaginal births, which is fucking insane to think about.
>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7111415/
>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9897814/
>https://portal.fcm.unicamp.br/en/2025/05/21/45%25-of-Brazilian-adults-have-at-least-one-chronic-disease/
Brazil also has a lower fertility rate, on par with the USA, despite being less economically stable.
This is often attributed to Women's education, and the increase of Women in the workforce. Go figure.
I also shouldn't need to cite the high levels of crime and so fourth, you're probably familiar with that.

>>16881848
How is one not to lose hope in such a world?
Billionaire child rapists rule us and we are subservient to infernal systems of implicit and explicit societal degradation and economic subjugation.
How2cope?

>>16881848
>Do you have any sources on this? I don't quite have a picture in mind of what you're referring to.
The Icelandic birth and marriage record data from
>Helgason et al 2008 An association between Kinship and fertility of human couples
It's a pretty interesting paper.
I think the graph for the grandchilren data is the most informative.
I have seen comparable patterns in non human data

>>16882177
In case it's not clear
the x axis is average relatedness with 1) closer than 2nd cousin, 2) 2nd-3rd cousins, 3) 3rd-4th, etc, etc
The fertility peak is thus at around the 3rd cousin, but for a population as small and homogenous as Iceland (~35,000) it could imply it's a little closer for other larger groups.

I find it very thought provoking since it imples group sizes of only a few thousand people or the clusters of small villages would have the highest fertility.

It's also quite worrying how there seems to be an endless decline after 4th cousin

File: yasser-el-sayed-150.jpg (8 KB, 150x150)

8 KB JPG

>>16881343
>t. Yasser El-Sayed

>>16881493
>Black monoracial don't work

Bleh, the hatred of white men has corrupted the sciences.

>Socioeconomic and lack of access to Medical and State protections plays into my initial argument

I'm not giving you more shit to help your retarded brown babies help globohomo.

>>16882076
Their constant bombardment of your psyche is not to deprive you of autonomy, as much as it is to make you forget about the degree of autonomy you possess, and always will possess.
You still have choices you can make that will improve your life and the life of those you value, no man is more pathetic then the man who doesn't try.
The best thing you can do is start from a place of repairing your dignity, take care of your health, eat healthy, get good sleep, exercise, educate yourself, take up some physical hobbies, try to find your tribe; cut out all the background noise and distractions.
Commit yourself to something greater then yourself, and rage against the dying of the light.

>>16882177
Excellent topic, I'm going to have to read this one tomorrow. We know inbreeding is bad, and here we can acknowledge that outbreeding depression is also bad, so if the question is where can the line be drawn to create the balance between these extremes we're looking for, this paper is excellent for helping us discern where that line should be drawn.

>>16882185
I've read and followed the whole 50/500 rule for short vs long term genetic health, which applies to a place like Iceland given the smaller population size. Of course this would mean that in these smaller populations, you would have to be conscious of the genetic lines just be careful of closer relation, but Iceland itself, and their rather healthy standard of living, blatantly contradicts the whole constant drive for hybridization a lot of people advocate for.
I don't think many people realize that genetic diversity already exists in these populations, because they associate the word "Diversity" with the modern cosmopolitan definition.
I do wonder if their fertility can be associated with the tight knit social communities, a socioeconomic justification, but one that still doesn't alter the general argument, where cosmopolitan societies aren't high trust and fertility isn't really seen or encouraged after a certain population size.

>>16882222
Nice Quads. Research is notable no matter the man conducting it. All races of men should strive to want the best health outcomes for their people, anyone living in the middle east more so given the higher rates of consanguinity.
>the hatred of white men has corrupted the sciences.
I think people just don't want to confirm research that would reinforce so called "Racist" viewpoints, because for one reason or another, the truth would negatively affect the current lifestyle of these groups in Western countries. Misguided as they are, they ultimately believe that what they're doing is right for their people.

>>16882228
Well that's the thing, it's in nobodies interest to perpetuate this ignorance except for the global elite.
Acknowledging racial differences in health and genetics would lead to every race of man recovering their equilibrium so to speak, and if the races of man were made healthy, globohomo would lose leverage over their slave caste.
This is why the modern medical industry is predicated on generating copious side effects and dependence onto modern medicine, because if people were healthy they'd lose power, money, control, etc.
This is why it's imperative we learn as much as we can about how our own minds and bodies work, and also be humble enough to admit to what parts of our own knowledge is flawed and causing us to be unhealthy, that way we can learn to course correct ourselves without being reliant on any kind of parasitic authority.

>>16882296
>We know inbreeding is bad
Not neccessarily.
Some degree of inbreeding is adaptive and beneficial, and within a wider population it allows trait magnification and multi loci complimentary interactions. Or basically If you've got a new novel good gene combination for your environment you would see fitness benefits breeding a relative equally likely to have those traits instead of them getting distributed and split up.

The risks of even close inbreeding like parent-child or sibling are not as big as you might expect as long as it's limited to one generation. there are effects since it increases autozygosity but I think the figures are like a quarter of an sd left shifted on broad performance traits. uk biobank extreme inbreeding study

>muh depression
>muh genetics
dumb people "deal with" depression by ignoring it. how? they just pay attention to something else instead: watch TV or listen to music all day long, talk to random people, keep themselves occupied...
I'd guess depression has some social/environmental component, most likely. so you won't outbreed anything, IMO.

File: OIP.IabXV4E-idjTNazSONMJXQEsC0.png (241 KB, 474x284)

241 KB PNG

>>16882299
>and also be humble enough to admit

We need to be "humble" enough not to feed this thing.

>>16882296
>All races of men should strive to want the best health outcomes for their people

All races should strive to treat others as they would have their own.

>>16882327
An admirable philosophy, but not a practical one.
It's simply not a good idea in a world of competing group interests. You get wiped out.
You have to acknowledge who you are and who your group is,

>>16882315
Not sure about this one, I can understand the argument for 4th to 5th cousin in proportion, but even that requires a degree of cognizance. You could maybe make the argument that in a population with relatively little to know negative genetic traits it is possible, but the likelihood of increasing the odds for recessive or negative genes goes up.
Like I said, it's a balance, ideally we want to avoid both extremes.

>>16882317
Not sure what you're on about. People who ignore the cause of their emotions without treating the underlying conditions of their lives quality are fools and weak minded.

>>16882325
Feed into what via what?

>>16882329
Exactly, and part of this acknowledgement means realizing that other genetic groups are just as hardwired to act in their own interests as our own, and that they are superior relative to their own environments. It makes the job of preservation a lot easier if we are all on the same page.

>>16882339
>Feed into what via what?

Don't feed the cuckoo birds chicks.

>>16882343
What sentiment here are you saying plays into that?

>>16882329
>not practical
>>16882339
>other genetic groups are just as hardwired

Are you retarded? Everything you presented is feces because you admitted this. You are not only evil but luckily stupid.

>>16882344
They don't feed your kids and make excuses for their failures. Why are you bending over backwards for theirs? What is wry with you?

>>16882354
>wry

*wrong

>>16881848
They just want more votes. Fuck the consequences of anything

>>16882339
>Not sure about this one,
My point was somewhat extreme, but if an animal developed a trait that made it significantly more resistant to a disease but only because of a gene combination from the parents, then potentially the offspring of that animal with its own sibling or parent would have a higher likelihood of survival that actually compensated for the potential costs of inbreeding depression.

Longer term as those with this trait combination increased they'd have more partners to pick from.

Also It's not ideal, but my point is that it's just surprisingly less dangerous than is commonly thought.

Oh there was a paper that looked at the habsbrug dynasty and found that over the centuries slowly purged out many of their dangerous recessives, based on comparing child mortality figures.

>>16882343
>Don't feed the cuckoo birds chicks.
There's a reason birds do this, it because cuckoos act like mafia with protection rackets

>>16882450
I don't want to deal with cuckoo bullshit in society trying to get other people to take care of their children to the extent they start to bullshit in science but here we are.

>>16882410
They want to punish people for not joining their religion.

>>16881902
Many women here choose to do C-section to not ruin their pussies and bladders, not because they're unable to give birth naturally

>>16882345
Can you explain your argument? Calling me names isn't really conducive to productivity, and if I'm wrong in some way, you have the onus to explain how and why.

>>16882345
I never meant to suggest putting anyones children before your own, by all means, migrants outside of their ancestral nations ought to be removed, and we should always put out own children first. My point was that it is ultimately in their best interest as well.
You guys really need to practice substantiating your positions better, this internet playground bullshit is not productive for anyone involved, most especially yourselves.
What solution do you have outside of name calling?

>>16882410
Sure, that could definitively be a part of it, but on some level many of these people involved or who are complicit in replacement migration genuinely believe that what they're doing is right.
In order to relay the validity of our position, we have to engage in better rhetoric, so that those who are capable of rationality among traitors (unwitting traitors most especially), can also engage in this discussion and maybe see the light.

>>16882445
A fair point, but I think the issue is generally rectified by the fact that parents, at least in a healthier environment closer to nature, tend to produce more than one child, each one of those children would be able to carry on the beneficial genetic trait on their own, without the risk of inbreeding effects.
>habsbrug dynasty
Weren't those recesses just purged by the fact that the line ended?

>>16882478
That is what we are lead to believe in many cases, but the argument is more based on the fact that if there are issues surrounding out-breeding depression, then the implementation of Cesarean Birth obfuscates the issue by making it harder to accurately gauge what flaws, if any, are occurring.
The paper cited on Asian Women with White or non Asian fathers is one of many that states how that group of women Must get a C-section due to a variety of issues, not that they prefer it strictly for convenience sake, but because a vaginal birth would put them or their child at risk.

>>16882591
>tend to produce more than one child, each one of those children would be able to carry on the beneficial genetic trait on their own, without the risk of inbreeding effects.
Let's take that idea that from a litter the siblings have an optimised gene profile that makes them better adapted in some way to their environment so both of them are fitter, healthier and more dominant leaving more offspring behind.

There are many ircumstances that could be constructed where there's an incentive to mate with a close relative such as a lack of alternative, or where the dominant stag retains his dominance by simply being the very best and maintains the breeding monopoly for long enough to breed his daughters, good or bad is subjective.
Actually this raises the question of how contested harems avoid inbreeding I'm not super familiar with them.

There was a paper by I think Richard Sibly in the early 2000s which took a look at the relationship between populations sizes and growth rates, he found a sort of relationship where large groups had low growth rates while small groups had high growth rates.
I think ultimately group size affects the degree of relatedness to the mating options, so if we take the fertility/reatedness evidence we can use it to try to explain the sibly data

>>16882726
*I'll try and find the sibly paper, I had a folder of this stuff when I dug into the topic a couple of years ago, but I'm only a motivated lay reader

>>16882735
Sibly, R. M. (2005). On the Regulation of Populations of Mammals, Birds, Fish, and Insects. Science, 309(5734), 607–610. doi:10.1126/science.1110760
https://files.catbox.moe/5ojyg4.pdf

>>16882726
>>16882735
>>16882744
>breeding monopoly
The problem with this philosophy can be seen by Polygamous and Consanguineous cultures, namely Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia, these cultures all have numerous genetic problems. Take a look at Pakistan for example which has a consanguinity rate of 68%, they're all obviously fucked up genetically but nobody wants to acknowledge it for fear of being called racist.
Harem and multi wife culture sounds good on paper, you think
>"Yes, the strongest should breed the most."
But the reality is that even the most gigachad thundercock guy on the planet still has negative traits that can be passed on, and consanguineous and polygamous systems invariably narrow the existent gene pool.
This argument sort of falls apart, because it requires first that the people participating in such a system are Adam and Eve levels of genetic purity, which I really don't think anyone is.
I'd rather not see the rest of the world turn into India and Pakistan.
>P.S. Yes, India's ancient history suggests out-breeding depression initially, but today and for most of recorded history now they have and continue to practice consanguinity.

>>16882753
I don't want to argue it's good thing, just that it happens and that there are circumstances where it happening is advantageous.

The key advantage of inbreeding compared to outbreeding is that any damage done by inbreeding is fixable in a single generation.
But with outbreeding if you introduce incompatible genes it can take generations of purging to get rif of them with all the incompatibility issues that come with it.
also remember I'm using the idea of extended cousins as that seems to be supported by the data. At least on long term fertility data.
Whle pakistani and indian data is about multiple generations of first cousins.

>>16882762
Right, according to 3rd-5th generation cousin and beyond, sure, if you consider any supposed inbreeding caused by that, but that degree of distance is fairly normal. Anything closer than 3rd degree is not so easy to repair, I just want to make that point clear so we know the parameters of what we're talking about.

>>16882763
>Anything closer than 3rd degree is not so easy to repair,
No, anon, if a guy had a kid with his sister, then any "damage" would be resolved by that child simply mating with a non relative.

On the other hand f2 hybrids are just fucked.

>>16882579
>What solution do you have outside of name calling?

You produce a lot of noise without any substance. Like what are we supposed to be productive about on an imageboard? This isn't a corporate setting. There is no problem or solution. We are just talking.

>>16882766
There's no way in hell dude, some slight statistical exceptions don't justify the overwhelming rule, that child already has innumerable fuck ups because of that, they're not going to be able to function let alone breed at that point.

>>16882804
I've been citing studies and providing genuine arguments throughout the whole thread, I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the issue. If you disagree with something, you can say so, and we can talk about it, but all you're doing now is just shitting up the discussion.
Now can you please substantiate your position?

>>16881343
I'm just going to drop a phrase in, from an applied (real world) science field: farming. The phrase is: Hybrid vigor.

>>16882839
>There's no way in hell dude
Look, one gen of even close inbreeding isn't some death sentenced webbed fingered, abomination.
You are gonna have a hard time picking them out, I guarantee you have met at least one and never realised it.

But not relevant. since we aren't discussing it.

>>16882845
>The phrase is: Hybrid vigor.
Yes, it's used under specific condiitions.
But these are mostly terminal crosses, or rotational crosses of dam lines. and we're looking for heterosis effects under what amounts to quite closely related breeding populations, half the time the breed matching fails

>>16882845
>(real world) science field:
Have some professional bull breeder knowledge
https://kcorner.forumotion.com/t900-reflections-condensed

>>16882845
Hybrid Vigor only refers to Immunological advantages in first generation hybrids, there is no evidence to suggest Hybrids have greater health in other capacities, and if you have anything to suggest this, I suggest you cite it.
This is one of the misconceptions that a lot of people have about hybridization, they typically don't have any knowledge to cooberate this notion.
More interesting is that they disregard the notion of race, yet the idea of Hybrid Vigor would reinforce race because hybridization wouldn't occur if we were in fact all one race. Just one of many contradictions in the modern narrative.

>>16882863
This link is a conversation about cattle, the intention of talking about it is to determine what is best for the productivity of their industry, not necessarily the animals themselves.
Though it does bring to mind the idea of what the Global Elite consider Right for us, given that they consider us Cattle, they would like to hybridize us for the sake of their benefit, not for the sake of Ours.

>invited review
>Between a rock and a hard place: evaluating the relative risks of inbreeding and outbreeding for conservation and
management
>SUZANNE EDMANDS
>Molecular Ecology (2007)

https://docslib.org/doc/668779/evaluating-the-relative-risks-of-inbreeding-and-outbreeding-for-conservation-and-management

Where would I find more up to date examples like this?
some sort of population ecology juournal?

>>16881343
>Is it possible we don't see evidence for Out-Breeding Depression in humans because modern medical intervention supersedes the consequences of Out-Breeding Depression
Most natural selection factors don't apply to humans because civilization is specifically a way to dunk on natural selection.

>Is it possible that more instance of out-breeding depression exist that are flying under the radar
"Instances of out-breeding depression" is not the correct way to call it, what you mean is "potentially lethal loss of fitness due to outbreeding depression". It's not possible, it's indisputable. You should, however, consider that in the human populations there are similarly fucktons of cases of potentially lethal loss of fitness due to INbreeding. But both of those are a minority of all genogenic syndromes. The overwhelming majority of those are either simply hereditary and not tied to a specific population, or just straight random bullshit that you cannot prevent with deliberate in- or outbreeding.

Basically if you really really don't want children to be born with genetic diseases, then the only solution is to stop all reproduction. If you don't want that, you gotta balance between in- and outbreeding, and there's no real optimal point between them.

>>16882953
>there is no evidence to suggest Hybrids have greater health in other capacities
Hybridization is one of the major ways for speciation, dipshit.
>More interesting is that they disregard the notion of race
Because race is not a thing in population genetics. We have populations, lineages, metapopulations, clines, we can just barely fit some ethnicities (since those are mainly linguistic), but not "Blacks, Whites and Asians". Those are made up from shittons of smaller groups on the basis of a handful of phenotypical traits for pure convenience.

>>16883295
>Most natural selection factors don't apply to humans because civilization is specifically a way to dunk on natural selection.
>nature be like
*miscarriages bruh*

>>16883295
>civilization is specifically a way to dunk on natural selection.
Right, basically my point, "Dunk" on nature in this context just means pushing off the consequences, because if the technology or medicine ever fails then all of civilization is collapsing. But of course it's also misleading, because if issues really do exist, they're there, we're just not conscious of them, but maybe it's part of the reason everyone is so unhealthy and fucked up these days?
>it's indisputable.
Evidently not, as has been the discussion of this thread, there are a lot of potential consequences, but modern scientific research refuses to delve any deeper. Just go look at any of the "Conclusive" research that corroborates your view, almost all of them end with "We need more research in this are and we haven't looked into this enough."
There is a profound degree of ignorance in this field.
>you gotta balance between in- and out-breeding
Right, again, that's been my intention in this thread. I think avoiding race mixing is that balance, as far as everything I've seen goes.
>Hybridization is one of the major ways for speciation, dipshit.
Within reason, there is obviously a limitation on how much genetic diversity until you start getting serious problems.
>Because race is not a thing in population genetics.
This just seems like a Semantic distinction. There are a plethora of variable traits that differ between different groups of people, at the least, mixtures between groups from completely different parts of the world is not going to be salubrious.

Nature wants us having big families so it can either kill most of them or prevent them reproducing in some way.
Whoever survives that pressure has genes that work well together.

The more of these effective gene combinations you can maintain the fitter your offspring, relatives have more of these compatible genes so choosing a relative increases the probability that the offspring will succeed.
However mating with the less related has the potential to bring in new novel genes that could lead to better survival of the offspring.
The ultimate challenge is finding new good genes while not disrupting functional gene groups

>>16883583
>But of course it's also misleading, because if issues really do exist, they're there, we're just not conscious of them
You not being able to digest cellulose or impregnate yourself is "an issue that's there, you're just not conscious of it". Like you could be eating tasteless vitaminated cardboard and remain healthy, but instead you're overindulging in pizza rolls, which causes countless health issues.

>>16882839
>Now can you please substantiate your position?

I just looked over this thread expecting shilling for race mixing. I thought it was one of those. Looking more closely I guess not though.

>>16883583
>but maybe it's part of the reason everyone is so unhealthy and fucked up these days?
At the very top of the maximum hypothetical effect, it can be 0,001%, by scale or by severity, of the influence that just the obesity rates alone have. To say nothing of air and water quality, infections, lack of mobility and carcinogenic substances. In any case "these days" implies both that people are currently typically ridden with illnesses more so that they used to before, and that admixture used to be more rare. Which is wrong on both counts. People were getting sick a lot at all times, we know that from both medicinal records all the way from antiquity and from analysis of human remains. The idea that just the majority of people used to die off early for various health complications but the rest were permahealthy ubermenschen is schitzo bullshit. And there was no period in human history which did not involve shittons of admixture in one place or another. Populations and the absolute values of migrating individuals were smaller, but that also meant that you don't need that many migrating individuals to produce massive admixture. This is why the Migration Period had more severe admixture effects on the affected populations than anything we could achieve today - there are too many people now, acting as a genepool buffer, and they don't get excised as they could be back then.

>>16883583
>Evidently not, as has been the discussion of this thread, there are a lot of potential consequences
I was not saying "it's indisputably impossible". I was saying "it definitely happens and it's not up for dispute".

>modern scientific research refuses to delve any deeper
Deeper how? GWAS and genogenic syndrome studies are not exactly rare. Straight up eugenic studies cannot happen because they are considered somewhat unethical anywhere in the world.

>This just seems like a Semantic distinction.
[spoiler]Semitic distinction kek[/spoiler]No, because if we blame race mixing it would mean that we ignore the admixture between genetically distant yellows, or genetically distant niggers, or genetically distant whites, because as long as it's the same race it doesn't count for some reason, we consider all races "optimal groups", for no real reason. It basically disregards the entire magnitude of genetic factors in favor of judging by specific phenotype elements. Like, I understand wanting to do eugenics, but then you go like "I want eugenics but without accounting for any actual analysis, my Mk I eyeball is fine".

>>16883605
I don't see how that addresses my argument.
If the implementation of Caesarean Birth causes us to lose sight of what women cannot conceive naturally, is that not a potential threat? Given the original link in the post, there are clear skeletal mismatches on average between Asians and Whites, and this issue could ever be seen between other racial groups, like Brazil for example, where C-Sections outnumber vaginal births.

>>16883646
Well, the initial link shows around 33% of Asian women with White Fathers, that seems like a pretty big number all things considered.
Obesity itself could ever be affected by the differences in Fat Distribution between races, i.e. more Visceral Fat for Europeans, more Subcutaneous fat for Africans. Obesity is higher now than ever, and in Mixed and Minority groups it is higher, but if some greater cause exists, how are we to know?
>implies both that people are currently typically ridden with illnesses more so that they used to before
Absolutely, the Obesity Rates alone are higher then any other period in recorded history.
>People were getting sick a lot at all times
Sure, but that was attributed more to sanitation and poor diet, something we don't face, yet Chronic Disease, Mental Illness, everything is at an all time high.
>there was no period in human history which did not involve shittons of admixture in one place or another.
Typically miscegenation occurred between groups that were already genetically similar, geographic constraints made sure to that.
What relatively little migration occurred from different geographies wouldn't have been enough to alter the preexisting genetic mixture, hence why there are so many climate adaptations different groups have over eachother.
>they don't get excised as they could be back then.
Agreed, that's part of the issue. Globalization in all its forms though perpetuates this, brings out the worst in people, and Mixtures are not helping the case, as much as we are lead to believe.

>>16883657
>[math]Semitic distinction kek[/math]
newfag

>>16881343
There are other issues that occur, a modern notable drawback is organ incompatibility. But it mostly doesn't matter.

>>16883583

>Within reason, there is obviously a limitation on how much genetic diversity until you start getting serious problems.
It has nothing to do with the absolute amount of genetic diversity, it's specific traits resulting from specific crosses, unlike inbreeding which straight up just burns fitness from two gens in. You can mix two individuals with ALL different polymorphic alleles, and it would have no debilitating effects. Or it will have a ton of them. It's purely case by case because we're dealing with literal combinatorics here, with every permutation producing more permutations, and there is no safe conservative option because inbreeding is also bad. Basically, once we have full genome data on the entire humanity, we could calculate optimal admixture rate for every single human sub-population valid in regards to admixing every single other human subpopulation at a time, which would be valid for one generation, and it would still be extremely stochastic.

At which point we could simply do IVF and genogenic syndrome screening for every single fertilization. It would not eliminate all the syndromes either, but it would be both much easier and more effective. Just flush the bad zygote pulls and keep the better looking ones.

Also I will fucking murder the Iceland relatedness study schitzo who is supplanting health with fertility again.

>>16883657
>Straight up eugenic studies cannot happen because they are considered somewhat unethical anywhere in the world.
This depends on what you mean by Eugenics, but acknowledgement of climate adaptations is largely overlooked, as people favor the socioeconomic argument moreso. I'm just pointing out that I tend to find in a lot of studies on race and genetics, they admit
>We don't know as much as we should, and we need to know more
Especially in racial or biracial genetic studies, they'll admit the social hurdle prevents them from really looking at the issue in full, at least in many of the cases I've read.
>I want eugenics but without accounting for any actual analysis
Well, if there is an absence of research, I as a novice am left only to rely on my own faculties. And judging from personal experience and the study of history, it seems clear that racial mixtures don't generally lead to positive results.
Though I agree, I'm not trying to rely on my mind alone, hence why I have this thread to discuss the variables, research, and most importantly, to confront the issue of whether or not modern Medical Science prevents us from really seeing this issue (i.e. constructing ways in which the issue can be overlooked, such as C-Sections).

>>16883662
>But it mostly doesn't matter.
How do you feel about fertility collapses as shown by Herbert's research

>>16881848
>given the measured IQ of say Africans for example remains consistent across all cultures, nations, and economies
Black Africans should really be subdivided further into multiple races. In Asians obviously a Turkman, an Indian and East and Southeast Asians are rather distinct. Even in Japan they have several racial subtypes of Ainu, Jomon, and Yamato. Europe also has Celts, Germanics, Mediterranean which beyond cultural and language distinction do have characteristic genetics.

Honestly I think the racists aren't being racist enough.

>>16883662
Ah yes, I forgot about the HLA receptor incompatibility for Organs, and in Bone Marrow transplants it is an issue.
My understanding is that the more these receptors become muddled, the harder they are going to be to match.
Seems a pretty big contradiction to the One Race Narrative, especially when considering all the other aforementioned distinctions.

>>16883663
But why would we mix them in the first place? As stated, the various climate adaptations of a particular race are apparent, but when mixed, you're essentially creating a class of people who are not particularly optimized for any one environment, thus leading to either a notable degree of discomfort, or birth and fitness related complications as have been cited, which subsequently necessities further globalization and dependence onto the medical system for optimal survival.
>It would not eliminate all the syndromes either,
I don't think it has to do with purely syndrome related problems, but also the skeletal and muscle differences, as well as all the other incompatibilities/adaptations to their respective environments.
I also think the genetics and IQ correlation is worth mentioning to, though skeptical, I think brain structure itself could possibly be linked to the particular problems of certain environments.
There are enough distinctions that it just really doesn't seem worthwhile.
I could pardon the experimentation of mixtures, only so long as it didn't threaten the genetic generalities that already exist, because if they do end up failing, we have nothing to fall back on, and we just allow all kinds of genetic incongruities to enter into our bloodlines.

>>16883671
I agree, I think the terms are not the most accurate, because obviously genetics is not this clear cut and dry thing. However, it is viable to use in conversation, we just have to be careful to define what distinctions exactly we are considering.
I generally refer to Northern Europeans as their own group, who have metabolic genetic adaptations to the cold that allow them to produce heat easier.
Metabolic related genetics I haven't gotten into yet, but that's just another distinction that I think is worthy of noting.

>>16881895
Hispanic is extremely odd due to it being such a variable mix of multiple indigenous, Iberian, SubSaraharan African, North African and broader European.

Indigenous American itself is also any of the broadly Asian, to Oceanic and some outliers of which there were several isolated ethnic groups and lineages that separated over thousands of years.

>>16883674
There are cultural and climate epigenentics as well as dietary gut biomes. Epigenetic changes can occur within a living individual that received the stimulis and can also influence offspring gene expression. Lactose intolerance is more gut biome than anything else.

Behavior is also genetic/epigenetic as found in Human experiments and known in Animal Husbandry.

>>16883676
For sure, and I wonder how much of that plays into the instability of the place as a whole. It's such a mixed bag, but there are a lot of major health issues there, both reported and unreported.

>>16883680
>Behavior is also genetic/epigenetic as found in Human experiments and known in Animal Husbandry.
I wonder if this conflict in behavioral genetics could be attributed in part to insanely high mental health rate among mixed race individuals.
Last I looked, it was reported that about 50%, half of all mixed race individuals possess some form of mental illness.

>>16883687
Go take a look at neanderthal admxture. from what I remember, the gene regions related to the brain were havily purged because of icompatibilities

>>16881343
Most of the genetic traits discussed here are complex traits, determined by dozens if not thousands of DNA patterns unique to each race.

You get a chromosome from each of your parents. The chromosome you, as one parent, give to your child is a cut and pasted version of the two your parents gave you. Look up genetic combination (crossover) in Meiosis. If your parents are from different or mixed races, then you will not pass those unique racial genetic patterns to your children.

Lets go by example: The HLA system. This is a protein that coats your cells and lets your body recognize & reject foreign tissue. The exact variation sequences of HLA proteins is determined by a series of DNA differences centred around chromosome 6. Chromosome 6 is a HOTSPOT for genetic crossover to occur. Crossover is THE major biological driver behind the difficulty of finding organ and bone marrow donors for people of mixed race. Meiosis will break apart established, unique racial genetic patterns, creating new, unique combinations of HLA markers. Which are impossible to find in other (donor) people.

Because the HLA System is concentrated on a crossover hotspot on a single chromosome, the effects of racial mixing are IMMEDIATELY apparent in the next (and subsequent) generation(s). ie extreme difficulty in finding organ donors. Luckily, not a large % of mixed race people do require organ donors, but if they do, it really sucks.

Now think about a complex trait like intelligence - where the racial DNA patterns that control the brain structures are spread over ALL of your chromosomes - you can now understand why the really adverse effects in these complex abilities are more latent, and can take a while to materialize, indeed across many generations.

Someone here made the observation that some effects were only noticed after a number of generations had been born. This is the reason why. Race mixing is bad people. Not for you, for your children. And theirs.

>>16883870
>Someone here made the observation that some effects were only noticed after a number of generations had been born
2 generation is usually enough if you breed f1s together.
I have a paper saved about an exp[eriment on fish from two adjacent rivers possibly trout.
They created two lines of f1 hybrids of the two (male1xfemale2 + male2xfemale1), then they created f2 mixes , giving them several treatment groups with the two pure lines, the new f1s and the controls
Next they infected the groups with some sort of fish disease.
The result were I think about 80-90% survival of the pure lines, similar number for the f1s and the f2 groups were at around 20% survival.

Gave me a lot to think about. I can see why a medicalindustrial complex would promote mixing if it causes even a fraction of this much capitalisable health problems.

>>16883870
>creating new, unique combinations of HLA markers. Which are impossible to find in other (donor) people.
So just to play devils advocate here, the argument I typically see levied against this is that if More race mixing occurs they Will find more matches, and the reason they don't is because the mixture is still novel. Of course my thought was that continued mixing would only further discombobulate the mixtures, making it increasingly difficult for all subsequent generations. Does that add up?
>you can now understand why the really adverse effects in these complex abilities are more latent
This would be similar to the negative effects we see in Mixed Dog Breed I would imagine, where after 100s of generations of interbreeding these animals develop:
>Hip Dysplasia and other skeletal issues, nasal cavity deformity, organ and heart problems, and of course lower intelligence then prior generations.
More to the original part of my post, I think these negative effects are going to be hard to measure, because modern medicine is able to intervene to separate us from the consequences. Therefor it's possible we're already experiencing the effects of late stage mixing in various populations, but most modern research is turning a blind eye.

File: BloodType.png (54 KB, 888x588)

54 KB PNG

>>16883870
You post also reminded me of the RH factor for some reason. Though it's maybe not as relevant to the discussion, I could see some potential crossover with the overall discussion.
An RH negative Mother will develop antibodies against RH positive babies following her first child. RH negative status is also higher in European populations then other racial populations, so even to a slight degree, European mothers who race mix are statistically more likely to face this issue then any other group.
This risk factor will be dismissed and restated to only matter on an individual level, because again, science refuses to look at overall group variations.
For mothers who are RH negative, they will actually find it easier to have children within their own racial populations, where they are more likely to find somebody who is RH negative.

>>16884102
>I typically see levied against this is that if More race mixing occurs they Will find more matches,
Directionally, this is correct. Races will come and go. Given enough time and constrained, intra geographic breeding, the organ donor problem will eventually resolve itself as best it can as a new race is developed. The same will be true of all the other complex genetic traits being discussed here. Eventually. Assuming your population of interest can survive.

For organ donations specifically, if you can get a large enough "similar" mixed race population you can also increase the likelihood of finding an organ match. I seem to recall that there are 70 or genetic variants that control HLA types, now layer on a mixed race population of only 2 or three races in this particular mix and low inter-geographic breeding, then the Law of large numbers would apply.

However that’s not really the point.

>>16884204
I don't think these traits will simply "Iron themselves out," there are numerous genetic adaptations to environment, even if some kind of new race were developed, they would be nowhere near as acclimated to any particular environment, and I think because of this fact they will be more reliant on globalization and technology for comfort.
Not to mention all the health problems that will occur before that race is born, it's essentially just a lot of unnecessary growing pains resulting in a new slave race incapable of revolt or higher ethics.
Also, you'd think this trend would have occurred in Mixed Dogs, but given the innumerable health complications they're faced with, I don't think anyone can really say they're healthier then their purebred ancestors.

>>16884216
>it's essentially just a lot of unnecessary growing pains resulting in a new slave race incapable of revolt or higher ethics.

Yes. The short term problem you talk about is a dumbing down of the majority of people. And there are quite a few smart people promoting this. Dont forget though, the world has been a much more unforgiving place for life than it is now. The struggles you and I face of getting food on the table and feeding our kids mean nothing to the natural order. She is amoral, and doesn’t care if Schwab or Soros can implement their new world order or not. Time is on her side. There are rules, and those rules are violated at your own risk. Number one is survival of the fittest. Egalitarian beliefs mean nothing to her. She will get rid of violators as quickly - or as slowly - as she did all the other extinct species on this planet. It is hubris in the extreme to think you know better than life itself.

How much incentive is there for a woman to get other women to have sex with her brother or dad?
She can expand her fitness by creating more 25% related offspring.

I see the motivation is there but how strong is it in reality?

>>16884231
Absolutely, but what we're trying to determine is the establishment of ethics that are in line with nature, which is the healthiest and best option for everyone involved.
Modern ethics are out of line with Nature, that is why everything is so dysfunctional.
It's also important to note that survival of the fittest refers to innumerable strengths, strengths of which future generations will lack.
If the idea is that the world will reset to favor the fittest, i.e. the racially pure, this is true, thus it is important to take the steps now to ensure that our genetic stock survives.
Of course, Israel could just nuke the world into oblivion out of spit, but I guess that shouldn't stop us from trying.

>>16884256
The social implications at the very least would be detrimental. It would erode the family unit, and create fractured psyche in the offspring.

>>16884259
>The social implications at the very least would be detrimental. It would erode the family unit, and create fractured psyche in the offspring.
What bullshit are you spouting bot?

>>16884115
>This risk factor will be dismissed and restated to only matter on an individual level, because again, science refuses to look at overall group variations

Europeans have typically double the Rh- frequency of other races. Except for Asians, where it is almost 20X greater. So yes, while you are statistically correct, especially for Asian X European mixes, nowadays there are medical interventions for the second baby should a Rh- woman develop antibodies to a Rh+ baby. I have no idea of the side effects of these drugs - but most would argue they are "worth it". Science hasn’t ignored the problem, its provided a symptomatic fix - which, to your point, is what they are trying to do with racial differences so as to avoid the core problem of having to discuss race openly.

>>16884262
Monogamy is the most fundamentally healthy program for eugenics. Polygamous systems are inherently dysfunctional, and result in narrow gene pools, and low trust societies.
This is why Europe was able to leap ahead of other cultures by such a vast margin, technologically and genetically. Adherence to monogamous systems is the healthiest behavior.

>>16884265
>nowadays there are medical interventions
Well ya, I see what you're saying, but that also plays into my point. Sure to some degree even in a racially homogenized society this would still exist, but if it would increase in any capacity due to miscegenation, it's just another way to avoid the consequences and foster dependence onto the medical system.
Whether or not the Medicine works without side effects is irrelevant, the end result is a group of people that are thus More dependent on modern medicine then they would otherwise be.
This same premise can be applied to all the various other issues mentioned, and not yet mentioned, in this thread.

>>16884292
>Monogamy is the most fundamentally healthy program for eugenics. Polygamous systems are inherently dysfunctional, and result in narrow gene pools, and low trust societies.
>This is why Europe was able to leap ahead of other cultures by such a vast margin, technologically and genetically. Adherence to monogamous systems is the healthiest behavior.
As I said, what bullshit are you spouting?
I'm asking a general question about how much incentive exists and how to measure it.
Like finding a wife for her brother or widowed/divorced father.
Don't just jump to some inane conclusion

>>16884297
What even is the point of this? Widowed or divorced shouldn't even exist, and in an ideal society, if you already have kids, you should stay single after your partner dies.
Aside from that, what is any different from now? People already set family and friends up with other people, that's how it's always worked.

>>16881343
>s it possible we don't see evidence for Out-Breeding Depression in humans
But we clearly do. Anybody who argues otherwise is either retarded or lying.

>>16884319
You don't understand the question at all.

>>16884324
Restate it then.

>>16884328
No, it was more than clear enough.

>>16884330
You weren't responding to anything in particular, not did you explain how it would boost the fitness of an individual to have other women have sex with her father.
At the least, you're suggesting that family members help find partners for other family members, which is something that people already do.
Do you have anything to add to this?

Child investment. How close an affinity you have with your child will affect how much you're willing to invest in its future.

r types fucking everything everywhere gambling on lottery numbers, while k type expends critical resources feeding and training offspring until it can fend for itself.
k types should see a greater preference for related mates as it increases the surety of return instead of someone completely different to them.

File: Hope.gif (998 KB, 500x200)

998 KB GIF

>>16885086
This is how I envision smaller population racial groups surviving the coming tidal wave of ethnic homogenization. Those that breed for quantity will inherit the world and lead it to ruin, they won't know how to feed the very mouths they produce, while small ethnic groups with tight knit communities will likely band together with other tight knit communities, and come out the other side with relatively no loss to their genetic bloodlines.
As bad as the demographics seem, there is still a high number of these tight knit communities popping up all over the world, for every race.
I don't think the coming leaps in technological surveillance and warfare will be enough to eradicate us either, try as they might.
Find your mate, build your communities.

>>16883997
>The result were I think about 80-90% survival of the pure lines, similar number for the f1s and the f2 groups were at around 20% survival.
Susceptibility or immunity to disease is a well known and researched complex genetic trait.
The literature is full of examples, quite a few have been quoted ITT.

Mental "disease" is grouped in this category too. There is a much higher frequency in people of mixed race with this affliction as compared to mono-racial people.

What if you thought about it socially through clannish structures?

Power effectively rests in the hands of extensive cousin groups of various extraction.
Too close and you don't optimise potential numbers of allies.
too far out and they're too different.
I've not really thought this one over much it just came to me as an idea to pursue. But I think it makes sense if we#re thinking in terms of group survival.

>>16881343
This is one reason why humans are raciest; your mixed race offspring are less adapted to European and African conditions so will be stunted in both.
Other reasons like foreign disease and resource competition contribute to the adaptive of racism.

Leftist ideology is profoundly working on many levels describing human behaviour.

>>16881343
> Etc. Is it possible that more instance of out-breeding depression exist that are flying under the radar, and this is possibly one reason why the modern populations have so many health related issues?
Yes loads of eugenic traits are hidden by the crutching effect of modern technology. Billions will die when civilisation collapses due to dysgenic selection pressures.

>>16882845
Gosh, us eugenicists will never have heard of this basic genetic control. You’ve got us. With your new idea our theories collapse and racism is destroyed!

>>16883295
> Most natural selection factors don't apply to humans because civilization is specifically a way to dunk on natural selection.
Without harsh Darwinian pressures, what will happen to the number of deleterious traits created by random mutation in the population?
How might new selection pressures brought by welfare effect the populations number of individuals with traits for low intelligence and impulse control?
>>16883295
> Basically if you really really don't want children to be born with genetic diseases, then the only solution is to stop all reproduction.
Clueless. You create artificial selection pressures; eugenics.
If you want to be nice, you place those selection pressures on the genes themselves rather than the individual carrying them; genetic engineering.

This isn’t a choice. You either implement eugenics to artificially stave off natural deterioration of the gene pool due to released Darwinian pressures, our civilisation runs out of pale with the correct genetics to run it; collapse.
>RACE IS’NT REAL!!!
Nothing is real, it’s made up by us to categorise reality. Like any other way of categorising people via similar phenotype it’s about convenience.
It lacks granularity, but most gov’t statistics do; it’s painful that most stats categorise age beyond 60 as 60+, losing the information on diseases of 80 year olds. But the data is still of some use.

>>16881446
You're a fucktard. You cannot fathom the difficulty of managing a planet of 8 billion people. If they outright culled people, you would call them a monster. But if they pick the least inhumane option, taxing lifespan, you still call them a monster.

>>16883605
He’s on about capabilities we’ve lost or losing. Nobody had the ability to eat cardboard or see in the dark, so our genetics not permitting that is not an insufficiency he’s describing.

>>16883646
> And there was no period in human history which did not involve shittons of admixture in one place or another.
Cars and planes to transport many people from far off lands didnt exist to allow that foreign admixture.

Part of the reasons we evolved racism is to avoid outbreeding.

>>16882296
>We know inbreeding is bad
Cousin breeding is perfectly fine if you mix it up, the reason Mussies fuck it up is they breed 1st and 2nd cousins constantly instead of mixing it up with some 3rd or 4th cousins every now and then.
In saying that even their constant 1st and 2nd cousin breeding isn't really that big of a deal, a bigger issue is them being low IQ genetic trash to begin with lel.

>>16885808
>You cannot fathom the difficulty of managing a planet of 8 billion people.
Is that why they've been pumping food aid into africa for a century to explosively expand the most useless population?

>>16882766
Reproducing with your sister creates ugly retards unable to reproduce

>>16885884
One generation of sister breeding is apparrently only about as risky as a woman having a baby at 35.
It's also far less dangerous than substance abuse.

I'm not advocating for it since I don't feel it's particularly optimal but we should be realistic about the actual risks instead of fairytales.

Fig wasps.

They all breed their siblings, have done for millions of years, being insects they can compensate with large numbers to gamble on and have had time to weed out the bad genes but they're an example of it used as a successful evolutionary strategy.

>>16885788
It's not just Leftism, Right way thinking is riddled with the same disease.
Modern political factions exist without regard to nature, they are corporate industrial units, which necessarily forgo things like Race because Race is an aspect of the Nature they are trying to destroy.

>>16885805
>genetic engineering.
Genetic engineering has its own risks though, as people will not select for healthy traits necessarily, the medical industry will use it to essentially engineer slaves if we're not careful.

>>16885808
Just because it's hard, does that mean we shouldn't do it? If it is the right thing to do, nothing should stop us.

>>16885817
Maybe, but I still think maximizing genetic variation within the existing population is far less risky, at least to start with. If the race all share the same essential traits, then the difference wouldn't be that great, but it would get riskier the closer you get to 1st and 2nd cousins depending on the genetics involved.

>>16885905
Fascinating, this would imply the modern races aren't as pure.

My waist is quite small, but despite this I produce the most massive shits. Poops that drastically outperform OP's in density and mass and likely in higher geometry as well. Is this also a so called "evolutionary mismatch"?

I think it's the highest stage of evolution. The ability to shred through macronutrients that would turn any other modernoid obese, yet my metabolism burns through it all like sunlight beaming down on a tired niglet's brow as he mines buxite for the Belgian or the Han or whomever.

OP = MOGGED.

>>16885936
>Fascinating, this would imply the modern races aren't as pure.
What is pure even supposed to mean?

Arguably inbreeding just implies increased homogeneity and specialisation to a given environment.
Variability is only desired if it improves survival.

>>16886098
See, this would only be a problem of outbreeding depression if your body produced bigger shits then your anus could handle, but given how much of a massive faggot you are, I'm sure you're used to punching above you weight, aren't you buddy?

>>16886102
If a genetically perfect specimen could reproduce with closer relation without risking inbreeding, that would make them genetically Pure.
Obviously each of us have numerous genetic flaws, I doubt there's a single human on earth who is Pure in this regard, thus Modern Human races are not genetically pure, given that we allow many deleterious genetic defects to run rampant within ourselves.

>>16882177
https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/2008-iceland-an-association-between-the-kinship-and-fertility-of-human-couples.pdf
meant to share a file link to the paper

>>16886647
Just finished reading, good source. For context, 4th or 5th cousins would be having the same great-great-great-great+ grandparent, and most people don't even know their own lineage that far back in the modern age.
Iceland is also a really health nation, so the idea is, and I'm restating this moreso for my own clarity, that Icelandic people faced really harsh selection pressures which essentially removed many of their negative genetic traits, so 4th-5th cousin marriage would serve to preserve those positive traits.
Though it's unfortunate, I think in the coming years we might also be able to reevaluate this principle with the influx of migration, thankfully mostly from other European Countries, to see how that might have an affect on their overall fertility.
Icelanders really are chads.

>>16886185
>I'm sure you're used to punching above you weight, aren't you buddy?
man it really didnt take much to offend you mr eugenics neo nazi

cute thread with loads of AI spam, but we all know youre just talking to yourself

File: faceme.png (511 KB, 551x724)

511 KB PNG

>>16887056
Let's get one thing clear here buddy, you're literally me, replying to me, bumping my own thread, just to attack myself, who is you, pretending that you're not me, pretending that I'm you pretending to be me.

>>16881343
I highly doubt asians are prone to depression even if its public reproducible data given they have higher IQs and cognitive ability correlates pretty high with emotional stability its nearly normally distributed following a gauss like FSIQ in major nations

>>16887006
There were some follow up discussion papers, either challenging the conclusions or expanding on the data, but they aren't as easy to find or add much. I've got them saved on some drive but can't remember exactly where.
I really ought to reorganise but it's a couple of terabytes......

If you want good data, look at racing horses.
There's a huge amount of money thrown around to create the next big winner, but they're working within the constraints of constricted founder populations to achieve that goal.

A lot of information is readily publicly available.

This is interesting.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/how-supergenes-help-fish-evolve-into-new-species
Cichlid fish invert large sections of their DNA to maintain coherent gene combinations when they can't avoid the risk of interbreeding with other cichlids

>>16887118
You'd think, but given the state of modern Japan, Korea, and China, they aren't the most stable places right now, and they struggle with just as many issues as the rest of us. Though generally yes, monoracial Asians have the lowest prevalence of mental illness, but biracial Half Asians have twice the prevalence of mental illness as their Asian parents, which tracks overall with the Mental Illness rates of biracial people in general.
>https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/biracial-asian-americans-and-mental-health
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165032723014088

>>16887212
The research is legit, I'm honestly surprised I've never heard of it before now. I suspect Iceland and its role in our understanding of genetics will play a pivotal role in the coming ideological shift towards ethnic homogeneity. The more mindful of these new intentional communities will adhere to some kind of genetic practice, and Iceland has provided a decent rubric.

How do you separate biological effects from social effects?

>>16888949
If the behavior is persistent throughout all environments: Social, Economic, National, Climate, Historical, then the argument that these behaviors are socioeconomic becomes a lot harder to prove. You have to show that there is the same socioeconomic force throughout all these environments, and you also have to show some kind of counter example of how that behavior differs if the socioeconomic condition in question is altered/removed.
I.e. For most of these behaviors, they are consistent across all environments, and even when conditions are improved they still persist.
E.g: Iq rate of Africans IQ does not improve no matter the environment, even when the socioeconomic effect is equalized, they still score low on IQ. Even in more affluent groups, Wealthy Blacks commit more crime than Poor Whites.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
>https://eji.org/news/study-rich-black-kids-more-likely-incarcerated-than-poor-white-kids/
The socioeconomic argument will always look for an excuse, hence the second link attributes the incarceration rate of wealthy blacks to systemic racism. But we know simply for observing Africa both before and after colonization that this behavior has not ever changed in any significant way, therefor it's safe to assume that it never will.

>>16889353
> Wealthy Blacks commit more crime than Poor Whites
> related study specifically about their offspring

Nigga doesn't know about thugmaxxing.

>>16890468
Rich blacks, "lightskins", and supposedly mullatos as well, all gravitate to crime an inordinate amount due to it being somewhat necessary if they wish to fit in among the general negro population. If crime were not a part of aa culture then rates would be much lower, though still probably higher than the general white population.

>>16889353
But I don't care about for blacks I'm asking in the general sense

>>16890479
Subject yourself to the behaviors and environments of your ancestors, if it feels good and right and makes you stronger, keep doing it.
If you're brainwashed by modern propaganda, go out in nature and see what your body can do on its own, where its drawn, what it wants to do.

>>16890476
>>16890468
Culture is a direct manifestation of shared genetic expressions.

>>16890491
Indeed, if you are talking about bacterial cultures. It is more extreme with more sophisticated organisms. The cells that make up a body all have the same DNA and were all a mono-line at some point. And then sequential development creates all the further distinguishable characteristics of the creature. This is a state development where S+1 is constrained by S. For a living organism, the injection of any foreign bodies can only be described as an infection. They do not share the prerequisite fitment and only serve to lessen the capability of the organism as they steal that which is shared.
Folklore holds that fighting off infection keeps the immune facilities in good working order and others hold that have no infections and ailments is better. In either scenario, the destruction of the foreign bodies is mandatory to preserve lineage until S+x. The first defense is in keeping away from the foreign bodies, then in preventing their access into the body, and then killing and expelling those that remain.
Quarantining, social distancing, segregation and other types of geographic isolation are necessary tools to maintain good health, free from sickness and disease.
The portals where foreign bodies may enter ought to be strictly guarded and the intervention of friendly cells should be kept to a minimal such that the whole organism can maintain efficiency. The chief concern is the identification of foreign and friendly bodies in these locations of interest. And more generally, in the body at whole as we will see later. The foreign body is an adaptable foe and will change as the body changes. It will always look for weakness and avenues of entry to spread its disease. System wide adaptability is paramount. And chief in this adaptability is spreading the many nefarious means which the invaders use and sharing the defenses required to counter them. What good is an antibody discovered in some remote locale of the sinuses which permits it to live while the body dies?

>>16890571
Finally elimination and expulsion necessitates clear identity of foreign bodies. A self-destructive body will not grow. A discovered foreign body should be marked to reduce resource requirements. it is the job of all cells to segregate from the marked and to move them toward expulsion by any available means. And also they release substances to alert all of the presence of the foreign bodies which allows yet others to take preemptive action.
Where segregation and expulsion do not lead to sterilizing immunity, it is the job the killer cells to debilitate and render the invaders harmless or to dispatch of them, all this while minimally impacting the greater functions of the body at large.

All these things and more are minimum requirements for a strong drive to S+x, but this is only a fragment of the discussion where the body is in good working order:
1. All members are faithfully carrying out their functions and they are capable of doing so.
2. The foreign bodies are not so numerous that they will destroy the organism.

To this end, the final solution is how the body is returned to good working order when the countermeasures have gone off the rails or failed spectacularly. The infection has grown too large or to incisive that it threatens the very being of S=1(now, that is, for if it were removed S+x is truly impossible.) The clear orchestration of the body necessitates that the organism at large knows of the infection. The cells irritate and refuse normal functionality because it only ensures the disease spreads. And the body called to uniform response in eliminating and expelling invaders or face extinction.

>>16890575
The cell level is insufficient to describe how this situation is handled. Generally, it is as if there is a switch which alerts members far from the foreign bodies to their presence and the organism suffers all manner of debilitation as the foreigners are handled. If they are handled that is as many have fallen in similar scenarios. The cells high jack many high level functions of the body through all of the channels at their disposal. Appetites, hormones, and the kind of spirit of the organism living among the cells is prodded such that it also infected in a manner and participates in this joint affair.

How infected cells are handled is also unexplored so far. Generally, the the infected are as foreign as the invaders. Their internal mechanisms bolsters the infection, leach resources from the body, and overall serve to see its destruction. The many subtle manners of infection possible in a cell have no means to rise to notice to any members at large, no matter their function. The sorts of probing required to identify these abnormalities would simply kill the cell. And generally, the death of the cell is what does occur. A large swathe of conditions lead to apoptosis - suicide by disintegration. And further still are subtle infections which lead cells to fail to reproduce and the complementary form of cancers which do.
The precise regulation and the activities here at a step lower than the cell and require analysis in other terms.

>>16881343
Out-Breeding Depression as a racial hygiene problem, i.e. the take you'd get from a science racist / nazi is another one of those fucking retarded "nature can go against itself" logic fallacies that they're prone to make.

If outbreeding is harmful in the aggregate it will be selected against and it wont happen. If it keeps happening on a wide scale it's because there's selective pressure in favor of it.

>>16890571
>>16890575
>>16890576
Excellent metaphor. As crude as my own words may be by comparison, I would add onto this idea by describing what precisely allows a body to become weak enough in the first place that it allows or justifies the entry of foreign agents.
The infection itself is failure of cells or a particular part of the body to fulfill its proper function, whether via disrupted signals from the brain, or some other means of impeding that aspect of the body from working as intended.
This could generally be defined as a "Forgetting" in our modern culture, where people lose sight of who they are and where they come from, lacking purpose, culture, role models, etc.
In this way, the desire of the sick to fulfill their function, given their lack of knowledge, leads them to taking dysfunctional actions.
I.e. Individuals pursue new identities, egalitarianism, homosexuality, all in a vain effort to fulfill their biological function, but because they are infected or are lacking proper signals as to their correct functioning, their efforts to do Good becomes the same efforts that allows for the spreading of the disease.
>Their internal mechanisms bolsters the infection
Immunity in this sense is defined by knowledge/awareness, allowing you to take preventive measures. Perhaps even antibodies can be defined by a population seeing this disease spread in others, and coming to reject it of their own accord.
Of course if we hope to immunize ourselves and others against this sickness, we have to properly define what "Health" even is in the first place, especially take precautions to relay the true meaning of the world "Health" to people who have no baseline of what health even is, having lived very unhealthy dysfunctional lives on average.

>>16890588
Furthermore, defining at what point an individual is too contaminated as to be healed is worth noting, as rejuvenation cannot occur if we don't focus our efforts on those who can be affected by it, and which ones who, disease ridden as they may be, could be healed.
To start with, the ability to discriminate must be recognized as a fundamental part of reality, discerning between actions that produce good results and actions that produce negative results. If this can be achieved by a culture, they can effectively reject anything foreign with greater ease, but of course modern ideology deems all discrimination faulty, despite the imperative.

>>16890581
Any possible adverse effects of crossbreeding long distance individuals will be selected against one way or another given a few generations and what we'll be left with is bigger populations and a bigger pool of genes which are goods.

You can, of course, make some general argument about modern civilization and social behaviors somehow adversely affecting the process of natural selection and putting it "out of play". But that argument requires natural selection being taken out writ large and we'd have bigger problems than just outbreeding.

In either case, the argument is wrong, because there is still an obvious selection going on who gets to breed and who does not. If we're worried about that we need to start organizing against "state allotted wives", "i deserve a girlfriend, someone should give it to me", and the likes.

>>16890575
>>16890588
hey faggot(s). We know you're just spamming some prepared socratic dialogue that's supposed to sell eugenics.

>>16890581
How is that a logical fallacy?
Microplastics, environmental degradation, mental illness, chronic disease and poor diets, self harm, none of these are natural, and serve no ultimate purpose.
You could make the nihilistic argument that nature will somehow re-stabilize after these problems have run their course, but that's the entire argument, is that these problems will cause chaos and destruction before the end, so why not make a conscious effort in making these decisions Ourselves, rather than making these decisions Unconsciously, and potentially leading us to a calamitous end?
And quite honestly, most people are not making these choices consciously, which is why the thread serves a purpose in being more mindful of the extent to which these problems actually occur.
It's one thing to cite some natural flow of nature as your axiom, but what we're trying to do is steer the boat as we float down the river, and not crash into the rocks.

>>16890590
Right, but that selection will, provided outbreeding depression does exist, just end up reverting back to the pre-existing racially homogenized groups. More Genetic Diversity is not ultimately good if the Genetic involved in the pool are not particularly suited for a given environment, and with that in mind, genetic diversity already does exist within any given population, meaning there is really no reason to broaden it any more than it already is.
>bigger problems than just outbreeding.
Such as the global fertility crisis perhaps? Just to name one example.
>because there is still an obvious selection going on who gets to breed and who does not
Do you think that general selection is ultimately healthy or eugenic? People are making these selections based more of social and economic constraints, not biological ones, meaning the outcomes aren't something most people are conscious of.

>>16890591
If you have a problem with the content of the thread you're more than welcome to try and improve it yourself, or perhaps fucking off, your choice.

>>16890592
You're covering a lot of ground. Diseases and flaws exist in a regime of natural selection. True, for humans and in nature - no difference there. Poor diets: a microtrend spanning a 100 years with no impact on viability of the human species that grew to 10 billion individuals in that time span. And in fact those "poor" diets are far superior to the diets humans had in the natural state since we on average survive 2-3x as long now.

The logical fallacy or paradox is that natural selection is right (you're appealing to it as truth) but the prescription or the agenda is to try to unnaturally enforce by laws geographical barriers to outbreeding that are no longer there instead of just letting nature handle it.

>>16890595
>Right, but that selection will, provided outbreeding depression does exist, just end up reverting back to the pre-existing racially homogenized groups
No, ideally that selection will select for "successful men".

Genetic distance that exists due to limits to travel - geographic bounderies - will OF COURSE eventually disappear once those boundaries are gone. Resisting that amounts to trying to resist nature.

>>16890591
Eugenics?
It's OK to be hearing dog whistles but do you have stop to think maybe that is just alarm bell fatigue? Would the dog quit barking if you had changed the batteries this morning? This question was thought to have been answered 109 times, but it turns out they were just getting what was coming to them. Last I hear the number was at leas 6 million but it could have even been double or triple that. Which really isn't quite enough after inflation. We need to get all of the juice next time, no antivaxxers allowed. Safe and effective until the science settles.
trapshit ong. Can you hear this one?

1,851,923,418,349,653,196,800
55,769,398,621,295,609,905,152
9,400,000,001,109,550,694,400
67,021,322,040,754,813,796,352
13,297,554,447,405
2,796,212,566,784
2,640,696,954,147
18,734,463,968,336
9,773,256,982,575
859,844,127,481
781,568,876,427
11,414,669,986,483

Happy Hunting.

>>16890603
Wow, prickly much? Next time I'll give you a trigger warning and you wont have to write all that shit

>>16890596
>And in fact those "poor" diets are far superior to the diets humans had in the natural state since we on average survive 2-3x as long now.
nonsense

Is this more chabot spam?

faggots should share actual papers, I shared some of what I've found can't you bastards find even one paper instead of pontificating like some sort of priest?

>>16890596
>instead of just letting nature handle it.
I think you misunderstand the intention though. If there is a natural law, it is thus better for us to understand it, and engage in it consciously, then let it happen unconsciously, and potentially be more dangerous. The more that we understand about ourselves, the better our decisions in this life will be, leading us to live more fulfilling lives for ourselves and our descendants then we would by letting this processes run their course unwittingly.
Your argument that our life spans has increased runs across the initial premise of the thread, that people are living longer lives not because they are actually healthier then they were before, but because the intervention of modern medicine supersedes the negative consequences of a modern lifestyle. There are more contaminants in our modern food supply now than ever before, and many of them do have a direct impact on fertility, so judging our success based on the short term isn't the most prudent observation to make.
As sick as our ancestors were, they were due so pretty much following grain diets and the development of sedentary agriculture, meaning many generations lived in ignorance of basic sanitation and hygiene, which ties back into my point about how ignorance leads us to bad ends.
Prior to agriculture, these is evidence to suggest healthier stronger humans, naturally they would have to be to survive their often harsh environments. Yes, they faced a lot of death from animals and other natural phenomenon, but the ones who survived, the elders and wisdom holders of their tribe, were instrumental in passing on knowledge that would assist the rest of them in surviving.

>>16890597
>>16890597
>Resisting that amounts to trying to resist nature.
Not really, because those who survive will not be acclimatized to any one particular environment, which is sort of the point, that they will be forced to live in highly industrialized simulations of reality, dependent on medical technology to survive and thrive.
Medical technology is not natural, as it allows people to circumvent natural consequences without cognizance of future potentialities.
When technology and industry falls, which it will inevitably, then only those who can survive in natural environments will again be favored, thus leading what remains of men to revert back to their genetic adaptations to an environment.

>>16890836
At this point that's more likely to reflect your ability to clan up and fight to the death for territorial control against other hostile clans. This is advantageous to the barbarians broughtin from hostile state where this is already the default strategy, even in the more developed countries they are maintaining these clan connections for business reasons.

Tribal warfare is the future.

>>16890678
I'm OP, I've been sharing articles from the beginning, but if it will help the discussion, here is a list of additional recorded genetic differences that bolster the argument of climate adaptations:
Differences in Microbiomes
>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6880044/
>https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01162/full
Nose shape and temperature regulation
>https://www.dongascience.com/en/news/65210
Differences in pore size and depth
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18990545/
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S092318110800251X
I honestly just get so bored finding links to this stuff, because they're so numerous and there is so much information out there that clearly anyone with half a brain can look it up themselves if they feel so compelled, but they won't, or they'll just nitpick an individual article anyway, making the productivity of this thread dependent on having a conversation with the people who are already aware of this topic.
Theres also differences in Muscle Fibers (Type 1 vs Type 2), skeletal structure, vascularity, bone mineralization/density, cranium size, genetics for temperature sensitivity, etc etc etc.

>>16890842
Essentially, but some groups are having more trouble then others recognizing tribal distinctions, likely due to decades of propoganda working against them.
Of course it's not hopeless, there are more race conscious people in every group these days then there has been in a long time, it's just a matter of their ability to achieve institutional power so as to be more effective in protecting their people, that's the big social arms race.

>>16890829
>>16890836
you're making this much more complicated than it is. Civilization is from and of nature, it's just an emergent property on top of natural selection. You dont have to "help" natural selection, then it's not natural anymore. Maybe there's an argument for racial hygiene but natural selection aint it - the way fit traits survive isnt by organizing and shitposting.

>>16890862
It's not about helping natural selection, it's about helping ourselves.
Why would you willingly consign yourself and future generations to a life of ignorance, with no knowledge of the consequences of your actions, nor who you are or where you come form.
Maybe we're just misunderstanding eachother, but the ideal is to live healthier more natural lives, and to that extent a conversation on the topic can lead us in the right direction.
Many animals become disease and act against their own best interests, we are trying to understand and take measures against it, both on an individual and a civilizational level, as clearly the modern world is anything but healthy/functional.

>>16882591
Thats only with white fathers.

White babies have the largest cranial size of all races. Black mothers with white husbands also show an increased c section rate. This is because Asian and black babies have smaller birth skulls than white babies. With black babies having the smallest average and Asian babies being in between white and black.

Women have an increased risk of needing c section only if the father of their child is White.

>>16890922
>Thats only with white fathers.
It was a study that measured White Fathers, yes, but skeletal differences exist in all racial groups, so it's not that hard to extrapolate.
>only if the father of their child is White.
Factually incorrect, you're also looking at short term outcomes. White Mother and Father relationships won't be as likely to have this issue because they are congruent with their skeletons, but the issue is, that mixed race offspring do show more negative birth outcomes, but the intervention of C-sections makes it so that this issue continues to spread genetically, causing future generations to encounter this same issue far more frequently then would monoracial couples.
All problems of which can be avoided, or at least significantly reduced in risk, by simply avoiding miscegenation.

>>16890922
>White babies have the largest cranial size of all races.
not true, they have the largest I think it was the prefrontal cortexes but asians have the largest total cranium size

>>16890922
The study also talks about the smaller pelvis of Asian Women, it's not the cranium size of the child itself, but the mothers ability accommodate the child they're birthing. I believe the 33% increased prevalence of Cesarean birth was in comparison to mono-racial couples, so your statement of-
>Women have an increased risk of needing c section only if the father of their child is White.
-Is misleading, if not outright false. Clearly this same issue does not occur as frequently in white mono-racial couples.

I know a weird fact, due to the structure of the Jersey cow's pelvis she can pretty much birth any breed's calf. Despite being only about 350-400kg.
So you could have some huge doublemuscled chianina bull lumbering around at like 1600kg and yet the tiny little jersey can birth its calf without issue.

File: BarackObama-799035cd446c4(...).jpg (68 KB, 1024x683)

68 KB JPG

>>16890909
If we want to help ourselves we ought to just take the hit of the big intermixing of populations. The geographic boundaries are simply gone and not coming back.

AFAIK there is little to no evidence of outbreeding depression among great apes anyway, in fact the contrary

>>16891150
Geographic boundaries mean nothing, there are clear genetic differences, and no matter how arbitrary you might find them to be, they exist for a purpose.
A world without principle is not destined for great things, and what you're advocating for is not an action based in health on principle, but a new kind of modern apathy.
>there is little to no evidence of outbreeding depression among great apes anyway
You have single handedly ignored every piece of information in this thread, and the entire premise of this discussion.
If you want to mix your blood line in ignorance, do it on your own time pal. This thread is not for the ignorant. You will live in shame for the hell you create for your descendants.

>>16881343
these are all externalities of praying to allah and not jesus you need to break the thing bruh

>>16891417
In the Bible, God splits men into different races following the destruction of the tower of babel. Even in a religious sense, it is clear God had designed different groups of people, and tasked them with overlapping but an ultimately unique purpose, likely to look after and preserve their respective environments.

>>16891719
The bible is a history book, it describes real people and events.
We have to grope through the mistranslations to get to the truth and it is a duplication of knowledge also available often in more or different detail from groups like the sumerians or the greeks.

When I can get my head around the implications of elohim I want to understand what the tower of babel was actually about.

>>16891728
Judge every action by the fruits of the labor.
Men were separated into distinct languages, cultures, and by extension races, this was for a variety of reason, likely due to decreasing disease prevalence, but also because culture and identity cannot exist without coherency and union, therefor uniting disparate elements will necessarily lead to a collapsing society, as nobody will be able to understand each other or relate to each other on a deep enough level to maintain a high trust society.
There are racial differences in Voice Biometrics, including not only speech but language comprehension.
>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-06673-y

>>16891728
Here I’ll help you brother

Elohim is the tree of life or Kabbalah. The term Elohim being used for God is used in genesis exactly 32 times then it switches to Adonai or yhwh or Lord. This correlates to the 10 sephirot and 22 pathways of the Kabbalah.

Babel comes from the Hebrew word meaning confusion or mixing.

The commandment thou shalt not commit adultery mean to not mix. As adultery means to mix as in adulterate. In Latin the word used is adultero which means to mix and the Greek word is moichaios or and that also means to mix. The Hebrew word is naaph. I couldn’t find an etymological origin for that the strong Hebrew lexicon only says it means adultery. If you look up moicheia or moichao it just says it mean the usual definition of adulterated which is illicit sexual affairs but a closer look at the etymology will reveal that moicheia means to mix different things or to adulterate.

So Elohim is the multitude of processes which begin the act of creation.

Babel and thou shalt not commit adultery basically mean to not race mix or cause confusion in the bloodline. Which is why adultery also means illicit sexual affairs with a married person as that may bring confusion in the bloodline.

>>16891820
Why are jews so mixed then? They are one of the most mixed groups on the planet.

Don't care, still gonna impregnate my japanese wife, incel ;)

>>16881446
Yep, spiteful mutants.

>>16891831
Spiteful virgin.

File: Incel.jpg (6 KB, 300x168)

6 KB JPG

>>16891828
>Can't get a woman of his own race
>Willfully creates mentally ill half breeds that will end up being incels in the future
>Calls you the incel

>>16891834
It's funny how they claim this stuff isn't real, and then a few simple google searches and personal observations proves that it's overwhelmingly true.
Cognitive dissonance must be a bitch.
That's even with failing to acknowledge the affects of long term mixing over generations.

>>16891820
>Elohim is the tree of life or Kabbalah. The term Elohim being used for God is used in genesis exactly 32 times then it switches to Adonai or yhwh or Lord. This correlates to the 10 sephirot and 22 pathways of the Kabbalah.
Dude this is just wrong.
The Elohim are exactly the same as the theoi
the kabbalah "tree of life" is a corruption and more like a tree of death, this seems intentional.

>>16891865
touch vagina

>>16891948
I will, just not brown ones.

File: ahaogi.jpg (61 KB, 500x666)

61 KB JPG

>>16891839
>Calls someone an incel on the internet
Oh shit bro you PWNT me I'm crying so hard right now

>>16891874
It is not. The Kabbalah as it pertains to creation in genesis has congruence with Plato’s world of forms or ideals.

The Kabbalah or tree is 4 fold. The first layer is archetypal the second pure energy, the third imaginary or formal and lastly the fourth is material manifestation.

All things are made through this 4 stage process. Starts as an ethereal archetype then picks up energy as its power source then it moves to imaginary to be given shape or form and then it manifests materially. The Elohim is referencing this creation process as referred by its number of term usage. I didn’t make that up myself I got it from a Jew book in Hebrew.

It can be also inferred as a group of Gods since Elohim is plural. The group of Gods here are the many arbitrators of the creation process. As God creates, his will manifests as various celestial beings. The Elohim can thus be considered the many wills of God given form as the celestial beings in charge of governing creation.

Most biblical texts is multilayered and a single verse can be read and interpreted multiple ways. Not just in the readers imagination but it intentionally by the authors

>>16892055
No, I don't know what you want to believe but you're on the wrong, track elohim are physical beings.
The elohim are not referenceing any creation process other that gene modifying humans, or engaging in brutal wars of pety control.
If that interpretation exists it was imposed retrospectively.

>>16884256
Retarded post

>>16892674
How do you quantify it?

>>16891828
You're not even married ranjeesh

How well does ugliness correlate with genetic homogeneity?
There's a saying about cities being the breeding grounds of unholy abominations so I wonder how much is incompatible genes?

>>16892983
Beauty is an indication of health, usual facial or physical irregularity is a sign of some kind of deficiency.
The looksmaxxing people aren't completely retarded, as you should be trying to improve your health so as to improve your physical attraction, however most of looksmaxxing is purely cosmetic, as they don't target the underlying nutritional deficiencies causing them to look so retarded in the first place.
But yes, a healthier society ought to be more attractive, and if modern societies particularly the cities are any indication of health, the amount of fat retarded looking people should be most the evidence anyone would need.

>>16893072
I should also add that being Mixed might affect your ability to process/absorb nutrients, for example somebody with a mixed melanin content particularly outside a preferable climate would have issues absorbing vitamin D properly, etc.

>>16893073
I don't think it's just nutrition.
Genes hugely effect facial symmetry and shape.
When you start mixing up skull shape and jaw shape genes you're gonna get some weird results, bug eyes bulbous headed, too big teeth.
Sexual selection is going to hard select against imperfect facial beauty.

>>16893175
>Genes hugely effect facial symmetry and shape.
Sure, but deformity and deficiency is wide spread. Most facial features people have aren't natural or based in adaptation, such as the recessed chin.
>Sexual selection is going to hard select against imperfect facial beauty.
Which is why most people are race loyal in their dating preferences, intuitively I think people know that ever good looking people from two races aren't as likely to produce the same results in a mixed person because it necessarily results in deficiency.

>>16885936
> people will not select for healthy traits necessarily
> medical industry will use it to essentially engineer slaves if we're not careful.

People will only choose traits which make them successful in society. A minority will select giant boobs to game onlyfans, but due to the nature of that niche only a few people can be successful there (limited space for celebrities in society).
It just so happens that healthy eugenic traits (intelligence, physiological health, time preference, general stoicism) are also what generally makes you successful in society. Obviously corrupt societies (communism, Islam, etc) can change the market selection pressures, but socieities themselves face selection pressures; on a sufficient timescale communism competing against a society with a slightly free market will lose.

Natural selection all the way down. It’s God’s unstable hand.

>>16890571
>>16890575
All id add is the response would be misstated depending on severity of infection and ease of elimination.

Foreigners in a country can breed with the natives, the first generation shares ~half their genes with the natives, provided the foreigners are small in number and don’t segregate the threat is quickly reduced.

Also consider there are costs to the activating immune system; is the damage of enacting a police state to hunt down every foreigner worth the disruption to native life?

>>16890591
Eugenics is required to sustain complex civilisation, as selection pressures are naturally dysgenic in that environment.

Either you perform eugenics, or allow periodic civilisational collapse.

>>16893354
People look different to each other because of genetics anon there is some degree of enrionmental and developmental effect but clones are almost identical.
if you start adding widely incompatible genes for skin type, fat deposition, hair follicles, bone sutures, muscle attachment points or altering the subtle response to hormones and how ever many other structures affecting appearance then you will see some odd effects the more you complicate the problem of what looks good.

>>16893540
We don't have that though, we have malicious actors intentionally flooding countries with hostile groups.
admixture on the edges has always existed the slight increase in gene variance generally got flushed out if the genes weren't compatible.
What we have is begging bowl infiltration to initiate tribal clashes to create chaos and benefit a thord party

>>16893532
I can agree with this, society and modern brainwashing manufactures selection pressures that are artificial and not natural, and that is why many people are not healthy, because they select for the short term instead of the long term. There is something to be feared though in the sheer size of the masses these days, we may end up setting our evolutionary progress back by quite a lot at the very least, and destroy ourselves at the most.

>>16893540
>is the damage of enacting a police state to hunt down every foreigner worth the disruption to native life?
NTA, this is my perspective. It is absolutely essential, the spreading of disease should be curbed as early as possible. As it stands now, my host nations are quickly losing their majority, and that decline is exponentially worsened every year. If it's not handled now, it'll grow out of control, sort of like a penny which doubles in value every day.

>>16893541
You should note that the healthiest civilizations should also exist with respect to natural laws, we cannot remove ourselves from that and expect good things, no matter how good the short term reward.

>>16893607
I 100% agree, that's why I'm saying miscegenation is not healthy. However, there are many issues also caused by nutrient deficiency, and my statement was to add onto the miscegenation argument by saying that it contributes to nutrient deficiency, and that's probably why mixed race people typically look so abhorrent.
I think we're making the same argument here, though my wording is pretty bad sometimes.

Are there any studies on hybrids and life expectancy?

lifespan should reflect a lot of different complex gene interactions and has a definite endpoint.

>One mother for two species via obligate cross-species cloning in ants
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09425-w

Some ant species has developed a way to produce two different species of male ant.

File: b2e926ca-1414-4027-a6cd-7(...).jpg (48 KB, 541x410)

48 KB JPG

>>16881343

>>16894472
Based fertility poster, though you can get your nutrients from natural sources and not supplements.
Create White Children.

>>16894303
Interspecific hybrid examples but transferrable ideas.

Haldane's rule revisited: do hybrid females have a shorter lifespan? Survival of hybrids in a recent contact zone between two large gull species
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jeb.12404

The evolution of F1 postzygotic incompatibilities in birds
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12449494/

Are any of you familiar with the Bulmer effect? I don't really understand it.
it's apparently when the more you select somehow it retains more variance than you'd think it should or how the number of trait variance change reduces each generation of selection it seems to imply that variation doesn't dissappear but I don't know how to properly understand it.

>>16896377
That would make sense. Modern thinking seems to think that an ever increasing range of genetic diversity is somehow healthy, despite the risks we've been discussing in this thread, but pretty much all distinct ecosystems/environments already possess all the genetic diversity they need in themselves already. It makes sense that nature would develop some way to preserve a necessary amount of variation in a closed environment, though as far as the deeper workings of this process go, I'm also curios to know more.

>16883583
Eugenics itself- with consenting parents really isn't that immoral. In fact, it has quite a bit of potential for those who desire better traits in their offspring and would improve the human species as a whole. It's interesting, but unfortunately most people who I've brought this up in a conversation with look at me like I'm crazy because nazis used it in WW2. If people could think about it without the previous immoral use of eugenics and face it instead of immediately rejecting it, they would realize some benefits

>>16897394
And that true love is born out of shared ideals, therefor it's healthier for a relationship if they share racial cohesion and are united on the adjacent principles.

>>16897394
Only Nazis want eugenics. The superior liberals settle for just baby killing.

File: 1750598020514.jpg (44 KB, 900x900)

44 KB JPG

>>16897933
>Only Nazis want eugenics.
Plenty of globalist socialists want it too, not just national socialists. The common thread being socialism, which wants the state to be worshipped and any evil commited by/through the state can be justified "for the greater good," or how they say "the ends justify the means" but anyone with any wisdom knows their means are their ends.

>settle for just baby killing.
That is eugenics, like the socialists in whichever European country killing all the babies with downs syndrome. The problem with WWII history/propaganda/story-telling is the socialists and communists among the Allies didn't want to demonize socialism after WWII, so they demonized nationalism instead. The results of such a foolish move have clearly been catastrophic for the West and Westernkind.

>The superior liberals
Can they be called liberals? They just seem like lying wannabe tyrants who want to be wearing the boot that's stamping on a human face forever.

>>16897394
>really isn't that immoral
>would improve the human species as a whole
You're a psycho, lol.

>>16897776
You don't know what is love if you don't know God, bub. I guess I'll add, the true living God of the Bible, since there's a bunch of schizo /x/tards in the thread.

>>16892055
>>16891874
What the fuck is this stupid ooga booga Jewish mysticism kabbalah shit doing on /sci/? Some reprobate God-hating Christ-denying Jew went into a freakin cave and was possessed by a devil and that's where you get your filthy, which is it, the Zohar, right? Filth. Zohar, Talmud: filth, lies, abominations, blasphemies. Only a fool would follow such garbage and trash. It might be hard for people to accept, but the Zohar and Talmud are worse than the Koran (and that's a declaration of war against all non-Mohammedans).

p.s. "Elohim" is a transliteration of a Hebrew word for God from the Old Testament. It's not some stupid whatever the hell you kabbalist quacks said.

The Lord rebuke you and every fool into kabbalah.

>>16897945
>p.s. "Elohim" is a transliteration of a Hebrew word for God from the Old Testament. It's not some stupid whatever the hell you kabbalist quacks said.
Actually Elohim does not mean god, it's a plural, it refers to multiple beings, yahweh was just one of the elohim.
They are functionally equivalent to the greek theoi, the sumerian annunaki and various similar descriptions from across the world.
The problem stems from theologians and translators taking history books and making them out to be something they aren't so they can control people for power and wealth.
Read what is actually there
Like satan doesn't exist it's just a role or description mean adversary so satanists are retarded

>>16897945
>You don't know what is love if you don't know God, bub. I guess I'll add, the true living God of the Bible, since there's a bunch of schizo /x/tards in the thread.
God designed us with distinction in mind, with distinct climate based adaptations that would allow us to better steward the lands we were assigned to. We betrayed that truth by advocating for globalism, and betraying our ancestral spirit, which descends from God.
You know of the Tower of Babel, surely you must understand why that event took place, and why the separation of man was a good thing.

If inbreeding and outbreeding are bad then there's a sweet spot somewhere inbetween. I'd guess that it's something like choosing a mate from the neighboring tribe or village is ideal.

>>16898471
We've been over this, see >>16882185 >>16886647
The middle ground for maintaining genetic diversity but also preserving beneficial traits. Logically, optimal health outcomes would have to be maintained even within a closed population, because historically most humans have lived in geographic and genetic isolation.

>>16898169
It's actually pural. Elohim suggests a bunch of aryans or a bunch of ayys.

>>16898482
>historically most humans have lived in geographic and genetic isolation.
Historically most human populations were not really stellar at being healthy or even surviving.

>>16898559
I disagree with this, there are a lot of long lasting peoples in history, and evidence before modern recorded history. The modern narrative is that we all died in our 20s and were constantly sick, but that is mostly poor sanitation in feudal times, primitive man was probably a lot more instinctively wiser.

>>16898559
And so what? That just makes the selection pressure more intense.
These small groups constantly challenging the viability of their genes in these environments readily purged out defective gene combinations

>>16898636
>there are a lot of long lasting peoples in history
Proportionally - no, not a lot.

>primitive man was probably a lot more instinctively wiser
Then we should be finding a lot more advanced age remains from the relevant period, but we don't, because being instinctively wiser does nothing to keep you from contracting Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

>>16898669
>And so what? That just makes the selection pressure more intense.
If we see high mortality as good rather than bad then any alleged harm from outbreeding depression would be desirable and therefore we must maximize racemixing to increase selection pressure and "purge out defective gene combinations", anon once again confirmed for being the BBC fetishists all along.

The point was concerning the argument that population arrangements from certain periods should be "genetically optimal", just because they were historical. Which is a fascinating idea, because it presumes the existence of a certain Edenic population arrangement that was lost later, while we know for a fact genetically very "sub-optimal" populations of all kinds of animals including humans - both inbred and outbred - are really common at any point in history. Humans as a species have repeatedly approached extinction and also racemixed with a straight up indisputably different species to the point of the admixture being omnipresent to this day, all while living in relative "geographic and genetic isolation".

Though that's not a big issue, as the whole point of the thread is presuming that any admixed traits are defective, and according to >>16898669 we can just racemix harder to make selection pressure more intense and "purge out defective gene combinations" from Neanderthal admixture out of the human genepool.

Has anyone got any good animal studies on inbreeding effects? Like chickens or pigs or something with a big industry incentive behind it for high quality data?

>>16900704
Studies on the subject are in thousands. The Great Names in the field, at least as far as wildlife is concerned, are Hendrick, Frankham, Allendorf, Huisman.

Here's some essentials

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.05.002
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.139
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(02)02489-8
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0403809101
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2006.00772.x
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1518046113

The overwhelming consensus is that inbreeding depression is one of the constant causes behind fitness loss in populations of most species in most conditions, and is a factor in extinction, period. But there are occasional populations that are doing way better than their diversity parameters could ever predict. Life be finding a way. I can tell more about unusual cases if you would like.

>big industry incentive behind it
Anon that's unethical and gets your paper's legs blown off with a landmine called "statement on the conflict of interest". I have less familiarity with studies of livestock but look here.

https://doi.org/10.1111/age.12178
https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12060926

>>16900713
I asked because I remembered some pig data on performance effects graded by relatedness, but didn't really follow it up. And something about how that Line 1 hereford research station was used to generate some of the first good data on inbreeding effects in cattle but I couldn't find actual papers to read because I'm an idiot apparently.
I just remember it was an interesting site because they run like 250 cows and filter the bulls then only use them for one year but they started with a few cows and 2 bulls sired by some bull called domino or something. it's been going for like 80 years

>>16899500
>Proportionally - no, not a lot.
I think it's important to define the timescale we each consider in this subject, and also what we define as healthy or functional. To me, the existence of the numerous genetic distinctions between different groups of people suggests hundreds if not thousands of generations of genetic and geographic drifting apart, the primitive culture they created were, while not as marvelous as the so called "Advanced" societies we know today, were much more in touch with nature, and likely not subject to the constant state of economic collapse and turmoil we find ourselves in. Such a natural way of life would produce healthier results from a people instinctively inclined to living that way, using the full extent of their genetic adaptations, and that is why we don;t see
>finding a lot more advanced age remains
Because their existence was not what we would define as advanced, but the numerous genetic distinctions and development of adaptations speak for themselves.
They would have stronger immune systems, muscles, etc etc. Yes, many more people would die, but that selection pressure is enough to create people better acclimatized to their environment (Counterargument in cont>)

>>16899500
>>16900787
>we can just racemix harder to make selection pressure
So again, we need to define what kind of selection pressure is taking place, which in the kind of indiscriminate breeding you're advocating for, is pretty much non-existent, at least in any natural form.
The thing is, monoracial people are already naturally adapted to their natural environments, whereas mixed race people are not particularly adapted to any environment. Instead, the selection pressure taking place is one predicating itself on industrialization: I.e. The selection pressure mixed people would face would be their ability to readily accept modern industrialization, globalization, and medicine, and accept these things without showing signs of stress or exhaustion. Hence the premise of this thread, that not only does modern medicine separate us from the ability to accurately measuring the effects of outbreeding depression in humans, but that over time, you create an entire group of men whose existence is completely tied to, enslaved by, modern industrial medicine.
This dynamic can already be seen in: Vaccines, people who need Insulin, cancer treatment, etc, these people have effectively lost their ability to revolt, because to do so would be to effectively commit suicide against the very industry which is keeping it alive.
People never develop natural immunity, people never actualize their natural adaptations, exceptional gene combinations recede until they're obsolete.
If the system collapses, they all die, because their bodies are not conditioned to survive based on their own merits.
Such a system also keeps the diseased and weak alive, the disabled, allowing them to breed without restriction, so again, you're not allowing for exceptional gene combinations to exist, you're simply maximizing the potential for deleterious genetic effects to emerge.
A person who must survive via a vaccine is allowed to live, and pass on their weak immune systems.

>>16900787
> the primitive culture they created were, while not as marvelous as the so called "Advanced" societies we know today, were much more in touch with nature
I fully agree.

>and likely not subject to the constant state of economic collapse and turmoil we find ourselves in
Strong disagree. The economic conditions of pre-industrial societies are defined by the accessibility of gatherable or agricultural resources, which are subject to much greater instability something as gay as muh housing market. Populations dropped frequently due to large parts of them fucking dying to starvation or disease, which were also the main driving factor behind migrations that spread humanity worldwide. If you think that you not being able to afford your own house with running hot and cold water and police security for showing up to work for a year like your dad did is a constant state of economic collapse, while walking on foot to another continent because a drought killed off all your sources of food and 90% of your friends and family died a horrible painful death from starvation in front of your eyes is nice and healthy, then you actually seriously need to do a reality check by suck-starting a shotgun.

>Such a natural way of life would produce healthier results from a people instinctively inclined to living that way
African niggers are still following that natural way of life - birthing a gorillion niglets every year, so that most of them will kill each other with machetes, starve or die from malaria. And they are inclined to living that way. I don't know if I would call Somalia a "Healthy result".

>>16900787
>that is why we don;t see
That doesn't explain it whatsoever. You claim people used to be healthy and live a long time. Yet most of their corpses we find are not old at all. Old remains exist but are overwhelmingly rare, even in burials of the respected and revered leaders. Which means that even the people who had it the best typically did not live long. People who made it to their 60s and 70s existed, but were overwhelmingly rare.

>They would have stronger immune systems, muscles, etc etc.
We know for a fact they didn't, since, again, remains. The overwhelming majority of people in pre-industrial and pre-agrarian societies were much shorter and smaller than their modern descendants, because frequent malnutrition and rickets are a bitch. Them having strong immunity also goes against the reality of them getting sick and dying all the time. You assume that everyone who had weak immunity just died off, but this just disregards the sheer variety of ways to die outside the shelter of civilization. And then, there is no such thing as "strong immune system", because immunity is targeted, and when it's too active you get autoimmune diseases and allergies.

>>16900791
>which in the kind of indiscriminate breeding you're advocating for
I don't advocate for it - I point out that if racemixing reduces fitness and low fitness causes high mortality and high mortality is good, then racemixing is good, in this twisted-ass model.

>The thing is, monoracial people are already naturally adapted to their natural environments
Anon we've been over it, it was pointed out how every "monoracial" group is actually historically admixed, up to and including mixing with a different species of hominids. And the overwhelming majority of human groups have always lived quite outside their "natural environments". "White people" did not spawn in Europe or America. It's kinda one of the major advantages that humans got with bipedal movement, tools and intelligence - a capacity for migration surpassed only by birds.

>over time, you create an entire group of men whose existence is completely tied to, enslaved by, modern industrial medicine
The claim is that without modern medicine, most people wouldn't survive, and that bad. This is contrasted against deindustrialized conditions, where most people don't survive, and that good.

>you're not allowing for exceptional gene combinations to exist
It's actually loss of diversity that prevents the exceptional gene combinations - there's nothing to combine them out of. I understand that math must not be your strong suit, but look into what happens to the edges of a bell curve as we reduce variance.

>>16900791
>People never develop natural immunity
What? Why? People still get sick and develop immunity to diseases. We only vaccinate against a fraction of a fraction of infectious diseases that people contract, and mostly from those that people without vaccination mostly just die to. So a population without vaccines does not develop to become one that is immune to smallpox. Instead it's a selection for one that just doesn't happen to encounter smallpox. You know, how all them pre-industrial strong healthy Mesoamericans flexed their freedom from advanced medicine until columbian exchange, at which point they all proceeded to either mix with European colonists or fucking die out to imported diseases by millions. Very natural immunity, much strength.

And returning to admixture - since diseases are countless, a population including people with lots of different capacities and inclinations of their immune system is what ensures survival of the population. All same people immune to flu all die out from the first wave of typhoid fever. Meanwhile a population of mutts which includes some people immune to flu, some people immune to typhoid fever and some people immune to cholera will outlast all of them. Same with every other trait. That's the foundation of evolutionary adaptation: "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change". Diverse populations have genetic answers to all sorts of challenges of a changing environment. Limited and inbred population can have strong adaptations to one set of conditions (and even then - can, it's not guaranteed), but get fucked immediately once conditions change.

One valid eugenic argument here is that civilization allows completely dysfunctional hopeless vegetable invalids to survive, but then they don't tend to reproduce a lot even with all the support they get.

>>16901102
>which are subject to much greater instability
They were in states of fasting much more often, they knew how to handle it, and due to the frequency of it, how to recover from it. Again, the selection pressure was great, but the ones who survived were leagues stronger then any man alive today.
>dying to starvation or disease
You need to examine per-agriculture societies. The development of Agriculture created a lot of these conditions by making people dependent on grain/crop diets diets, which were much more likely to be destroyed then a natural food supply like meat.
>which were also the main driving factor
Well, we are speculating, so "Know" is a strong word. We can strongly infer however.
>did is a constant state of economic collapse
I'm more so referring to the collapse of Romans, Greeks, Babylonians, French society, English Revolutions, etc. Anyone with eyes can tell our massive global economy is header towards collapse to, because the sttructure of societies over the last several thousand years is simply unsustainable, and always ends this way historically.
>90% of your friends and family died a horrible painful death from starvation
It's worth reiterating that Neanderthal could process/consume grass, and early humans could fast for exceptional lengths of time. I don't deny starvation was a big issue, but perhaps not quite as big as you think.
>African niggers
Are not at the same threshold of natural living as say the Europeans, what is natural for us is a lot more functional, precisely because we are more intelligent and less functionally retarded. I wouldn't call them healthy because they practice inbreeding and aren't capable of higher cognition, it'd be like saying
>Who would want to live primitive? See those chimpanzees, they're living primitive, you want to live like them?
Obviously we aren't chimpanzees, we're Europeans, and we exist at a higher threshold of being, precisely because we are a different race.

>>16901103
And I disagree with this, I think most of this narrative is historical revisionism to fit the agenda of modern medical science, which itself is faulty and makes people sick.
You have to understand that modern science is very selective in what it considers evidence, it does not take into account the oral traditions of the people themselves. Nor my own experience which overwhelmingly shows that people who eat more natural diets live long and have better health outcomes. Obviously my experience is anecdotal, but RFK Jr as the United States Health Secretary position is actually acting on a lot of this stuff, making the food supply healthier and reducing vaccinations, and yes, some yuppies might die because if it, but that is good for two reasons: Those that die who can't live without medical intervention must die, and those that live will develop natural immunity.
Most the historical issues we see come down to poor hygiene and nutrition, solve for those two issues, and natural communities are stronger.
See also the improved health and immune system outcomes of children raised on farms, by your logic, they should be much more sick, but in reality they have much more improved health outcomes.
Whats more, humans need something to keep our population in check, and I'd rather have it be a natural condition then and artificial industrial one.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5758418/

File: GotoCollege.jpg (50 KB, 680x576)

50 KB JPG

>>16901111
>I don't advocate for it - I point out that if racemixing reduces fitness and low fitness causes high mortality and high mortality is good, then racemixing is good, in this twisted-ass model
I see, yes I could see how you would think like that. And when the system does collapse I think that is going to be a really big issue, however, I don't want that for myself or my descendants, and I think a more mindful aproach could produce better outcomes then simply throwing the variables together and having to pick up the chaotic piece in the aftermath.
>a capacity for migration surpassed only by birds.
Prior to this development, we did not migrate such vast distances, and furthermore, the numerous climate based genetic adaptations speak for themselves. I am 100% Northern European, I am genetically more equipped for Cold Northern Climates, and I want my kids to have those same adaptations. These adaptations do not occur in non Northern Europeans, there may be some overlap say with the Eskimos or the Tibetans, or various other populations, but the gestalt of these adaptations indicate that Northern Europeans do exist as a distinct genetic group, and we should fight to preserve those distinctions, as should every other race on the planet.
>where most people don't survive
Hygiene and sanitation, coupled with poor nutrition, all of those things can be overcome. The people living in those conditions are mostly retarded.
>It's actually loss of diversity that prevents the exceptional gene combinations
We would be able to see this more readily in closed populations, but we don't. Evolutionary speaking, our biology would not create such a drastic weakness, and the amount of populations that have, whether you agree with it or not, lived in isolation and managed to avoid inbreeding, are all the evidence I need: Japanese, Nordics, Sub Sahara Africans, American Reds, etc.
Wouldn't we have seen more evidence of this in the American Indian Population?

File: mental health.png (75 KB, 659x777)

75 KB PNG

>>16881858
>https://mhanational.org/resources/multiracial-quick-facts/
holy shit!

>>16901187
>They were in states of fasting much more often,
We don't call it "fasting" when it leads to permanent health damage and/or death.

>The development of Agriculture created a lot of these conditions
Early agrarian societies have steamrolled all hunter-gatherers precisely because they could maintain a much higher population with much more stability.

>much more likely to be destroyed then a natural food supply like meat.
Anon the pre-agrarian humans have successfully hunted most of the planet's megafauna to extinction. Natural food sources are not an infinite well of divine bounty - they are very finite and fragile.

>Neanderthal could process/consume grass
No they couldn't.

>Romans, Greeks, Babylonians, French society, English Revolutions, etc. Anyone with eyes can tell our massive global economy is header towards collapse too
That's kinda the point - even the lowest point of the economic collapse of those societies was still orders of magnitude more stable and safe than hunter-gatherer society, because even very primitive agriculture is much more reliable than hunter-gathering.

>we exist at a higher threshold of being
Are you?

>>16901190
>I think most of this narrative is historical revisionism
Well I think your narrative is historical revisionism. You being right requires a global conspiracy, so
>>>/x/
Meanwhile me being right requires only you being an /x/ schizo, so I guess you should go either way.

>>16901112
>Very natural immunity, much strength.
And if we had never come over here that wouldn't have been an issue.
Race mixing does not prevent this issue, as previously mentioned in the thread, F1 hybrids do have immunological advantages, but the effect quickly dissipates in all subsequent generations, not to mention the immune advantaged are selective/relative to the combination. Wider array of advantage, but less adapted to certain climate specific ones.
>Diverse populations have genetic answers to all sorts of challenges of a changing environment.
They consistently show higher rates of chronic disease, regular sickness, etc, not to mention mental illness which enters into a whole other aspect of this subject.
The thing is, we can preserve both forms of immunity by preserving the genetic purity of climate based specific disease resistance, and also practicing measures to acclimatize individuals to foreign illnesses. By your logic, Covid should have done more damage then it did, originating in Wuhan and traveling to other regions, yet most populations managed just fine even without vaccination.
Your stance doesn't really hold up under scrutiny, as anyone with eyes can see by measuring these issues in multi-ethnic communities, multiethnics are consistently less healthy.
Explain how the USA and Brazil, two of the most mixed populations on the planet, had the worst Covid outcomes? Shouldn't they have been stronger?
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/coronavirus-how-brazil-became-the-second-worst-affected-country-in-the-world

File: WestonAPrice.jpg (13 KB, 184x274)

13 KB JPG

>>16901196
>We don't call it "fasting" when it leads to permanent health damage and/or death.
That doesn't change my argument whatsoever.
>have steamrolled all hunter-gatherers precisely
There was a lot more at play there, but yes, one factor is having readily available food. However, that food was nutritionally vapid, and they suffered more disease because of it.
>Natural food sources are not an infinite well of divine bounty
When healthy hunting practices are accounted for, yes, you can and absolutely do. Do you think that animals were all just extinct before agriculture? All the more reason to practice population restriction.
>No they couldn't.
I see you're illiterate.
https://humanorigins.si.edu/research/whats-hot-human-origins/neanderthals-ate-plants-too
>more stable and safe than hunter-gatherer society,
We have consistently more threats now then ever before, more disease outbreaks, more poor health conditions, more chronic disease, more mental illness. We haven't escaped from anything Anon, modern medicine simply seperates us from the consequences for a time, but when things do collapse, which they will, it's going to worse then anything you've seen thus far in history, and you will be powerless to stop it.
>Are you?
I consume a natural diet, no processed foods, raw dairy, 8+ eggs a day, and I've been working towards starting a homestead. I consume raw local honey for allergies, get sunlight on my skin, and I don't use PFA products. I practice what preach to the best of my ability and I am 100x healthier then all of my peers.

>>16901196
>Well I think your narrative is historical revisionism.
My narrative accounts for multiple arguments, not just the one based on modern medical consensus, which has proven consistently to be flawed. There is no global conspiracy, there is only what they practice out in the open and tell people doesn't exist, hence them saying for years that Replacement Theory was a conspiracy, when in fact it was a 2015 document written by the UN.
https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/unpd-egm_200010_un_2001_replacementmigration.pdf

File: Y-DNA_haplogroup_migratio(...).png (704 KB, 2888x2312)

704 KB PNG

>>16901193
>Prior to this development, we did not migrate such vast distances
Prior to what development? Bipedal locomotion? In any case Americas were settled over 20000 years ago - mfs straight up walked across every continent on foot.

> I am 100% Northern European
There's no such thing. Modern European humans are descendants of admixture (oh noes) between Western Hunter-Gatherers, Ponto-Caspian Steppe Herders and Early European Farmers - which all coalesced in drastically different climes (through admixture between earlier and more different groups). None of those climes were in any way similar to the modern Northern Europe.

>These adaptations
Which ones, btw?

>Hygiene and sanitation, coupled with poor nutrition, all of those things can be overcome.
Not without agriculture and industry they can't be.

>We would be able to see this more readily in closed population
Ashkenazi Jews and Pakistani are severely inbred and show a lot of negative consequences of that.

>populations that have... lived in isolation
>Japanese
Japanese ethnicity only became a thing in the Yayoi period, out of multiple different ethnicities of East China and Korean peninsula mixing with Jomon and Ainu people.
>Nordics
Anon that's a geographic term. There's no such ethnicity as "Nordic". I guess you are not using "Dane" or "Swedish" because then suggesting that they lived in isolation becomes too obviously retarded.
>Sub Sahara Africans
That's like, 80ish drastically different groups.
>American Reds
That's only slightly less. .

>>16901198
>Explain how the USA and Brazil, two of the most mixed populations on the planet, had the worst Covid outcomes?
Two worst healthcare systems on the planet. Next question.

>>16901200
>I am 100x healthier then all of my peers.
Are you?

>>16901200
>I see you're illiterate.
>https://humanorigins.si.edu/research/whats-hot-human-origins/neanderthals-ate-plants-too
>direct evidence that Neanderthals ate a variety of plants across their range, from northern Europe to western Asia. The wild barley granules also show damage indicative of cooking.
That's grains and vegetables, not grass.

>>16901202
>mfs straight up walked across every continent on foot.
And therefor White People with distinct climate based adaptations don't exist and should racemix. Cmon bro, at least try to address the adaptation argument, do you even have an argument agaisnt the fact that Europeans produce more Heat in their mitochondria?
>There's no such thing.
>Which ones, btw?
I have Blue Eyes, Blonde hair, fair skin, more slow twitch muscle fibers, greater heat producing mitochondria, a Nose following Thomsons Nose Rule, a European Skeletal system, and the enzymes in my gut that can break down milk, aong many other adaptations.
But hey, you're right anon, I should just willfully abdicate my own existence and embrace my own extinction because some kike in tel aviv says that White People never existed.
And if current trends persist, that is exactly what will happen.
Well guess what, I'm not going to die so easily, and I'm going to continue assisting Whites in White countries. We deserve our own homeland, and we will fight against anyone who says otherwise.
>Ashkenazi Jews and Pakistani are severely inbred and show a lot of negative consequences of that.
They practice consanguinity, retard. Whites are the least inbred of all populations, are you fucking slow? Shouldn't Whites show more signs of inbreeding given that we have not allowed for mongrels to enter our genes? I must be a genetic anomaly, that I have no nigger DNA whatsoever and yet I'm healthier then the mutts.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12905-022-01704-2

>>16901202
>>16901203
I see the Shills couldn't let this thread go forever.
>Embrace modern medicine despite all the higher rates of disease and abandon the idea that you are anything and simply recede into modern materialism without any kind of ancestral heritage while waves of foreign browns flood into your country.
Hmmm, No thanks. I'm actually not going to racemix and abandon my people, nor will I inbreed.

>>16901212
>And therefor White People with distinct climate based adaptations don't exist
I didn't say that. I said people were migrating very far for a very long time. There are indeed groups of people with higher prevalence of traits that are somewhat preferable in certain climates, but none of those groups even form a race, and most of them are not even fair-skinned. Outside of climate factor, the closest such thing would be sickle cell anaemia, but that's not exactly what you'd call a clear-cut advantageous adaptation.

>I have Blue Eyes
Adaptationally useful how?
>Blonde hair
Adaptationally useful how?
> fair skin
Adaptationally useful how?

>Nose following Thomsons Nose Rule
>European Skeletal system
No such things.

>the enzymes that can break down milk
Now that's real deal. But lactase persistence is useful anywhere, not just in Northern Europe, so it's hardly a regional adaptation.

>But hey, you're right anon, I should just willfully abdicate my own existence and embrace my own extinction
No you don't. You just claimed some dumb things like "admixture bad" and "pre-agrarian people were healthier than modern people" on the Internet and I'm dunking you into a poodle of your own stupid juice. What you are going to do about it afterwards is up to you. You can be based and keep doing the same thing just because you think raw honey and homesteads are cool, which they are. You can have a public meltdown. You can say that it was all an elaborate ruse meaning you you merely pretended to be retarded - the possibilities are endless.

>because some kike in tel aviv
Bruh I literally just said that kikes are inbred and therefore bad. You're the one claiming that only fucking women from your own in-group is based and healthy.

>says that White People never existed
"Muh White Race" is an unironic kike psyop aimed at erasing Danes, Bavarians, Britons, Swedes, Gasconians, Slavs, Magayrs, Greeks, Marians, Avars, Basques. And you fell for it like a nigger.

>>16901213
It's actually a really interesting angle to explore.
mutts have higher rates of illness becase they can't purge out their bad genes
so what is the ultimate incentive of the medical industrial complex?
to promote racemixing that creates more fuck ups and reap the profits from treating them, it's a long term strategy but the fact that they actually have an incentive is the most worrying part about it

File: Extinction.jpg (78 KB, 680x383)

78 KB JPG

>>16901221
>but none of those groups even form a race
Because you reject the definition. You don't deny that these generalities exist, you just deny any means of classification or collectivization amongst them because it would antithetic to your one world order worldview. Still people with these generalities should band together, so that they don't go extinct, which will happen if trends persist.
>Adaptationally useful how?
For whatever I say, for my own freedom to associate, for the preservation of these traits so as to preserve a group of people who resemble one another, so as not to allow these traits to go extinct in 200 years.
>No such things.
Noses are adapted to climate, Europeans have longer thinner noses that are adapted to cold climates, research Thomsons Nose Rule instead of just saying it doesn't exist, moron.
> so it's hardly a regional adaptation.
But it almost exclusively occurs in Northern European populations, and the only populations outside of that zone that have that adaptation are from people that have mixed with Europeans, though the trait is still much smaller, and pretty much destined for extinction in those areas where the gene is nowhere near the majority of people.
>You just claimed some dumb things like "admixture bad"
They are, every metric available shows mixed individuals have more adverse health outcomes then monoracial individuals, we can debate the history of the world and not agree, but the observable reality is that mixed breeds are less healthy.
>You're the one claiming that only fucking women from your own in-group is based and healthy.
Genetic diversity already exists in a population of 500, granted you have to be more selective, as the fertilityanon was talking about previously, you really only need 5 generations of separation to maximize enough distance to prevent negative outcomes. In a White population totalling almost a Billion, there is more then enough genetic diversity in White People to avoid inbreeding.

File: Mixing.jpg (64 KB, 542x680)

64 KB JPG

>>16901221
>an unironic kike psyop aimed at erasing
Cultural erasure is different from genetic erasure, all those groups descend from the same genetic stock, with relatively similar adaptations. Mixtures between them are nowhere near as disasterous as cross-global mixtures because they are the same race.
Though yes, we can and should preserve as much of their distinct cultures and history as possible.

>>16901240
Exactly, and nobody wants to look at facts of the situation: Mutts have higher Chronic Disease, higher mental illness rates, more birth complications, etc. Natural life styles are almost impossible for them, because their systems just can't handle it.

>>16885808
>You cannot fathom the difficulty of managing a planet of 8 billion people.
And you can?
Who is this man??

>>16901243
>there is more then enough genetic diversity in White People to avoid inbreeding.
there's enough genetic diversity in iceland to avoid inbreeding, breeding with everything you see as white is arguably outbreeding too.
unless you really constrain the definitions because meds and nords are pretty different

>>16901278
Sure, that is a valid argument, but I think it should only be applied after we have united around a common enemy. After we have overcome the pull of universalism, we can begin selecting for climate and region based eugenics protocols, but not until we can ensure the preservation of each genetic stock as is.
Today Nordics, or Northern Europeans, are under threat. If current demographic shifts are allowed to persist, we won't exist in 200 years, if we allow ourselves to mix with any other stock without restriction, we will go extinct.
When selecting for a partner, you should measure external traits, have a proof of genetic history, and have them tested in various environmental and dietary conditions to see what they're suited for. If you want the best life for your kids, you have to be more responsible with who you mix with.

>>16901243
>you just deny any means of classification or collectivization amongst them because it would antithetic to your one world order worldview
Nah, genetic clines and ethnicities exist in human populations - although most ethnicities are linguistic rather than genetic. A family is a robust genetic category, a clan, a dynasty, a lineage. Fuckery starts when you start pretending that everyone in Britain shares the same ancestor which they also don't share with other people you don't like.

>people with these generalities should band together
>for whatever I say
>for my own freedom to associate
>for the preservation of these traits
>so as not to allow these traits to go extinct
> it should only be applied after we have united around a common enemy
I am glad to see you conceding the pretense of discussing reality and it's truth, and admitting that you instead talk about your ideals and goals. Is-ought problem is no joke.

>Europeans have longer thinner noses
Mf says "muh race muh generality" and then just excludes everyone with a short nose from Europeans baka.

>But it almost exclusively occurs in Northern European populations
No tho. Inuit, Aleut and Nenets people have much more pronounced climate adaptations, although even they don't have many of those.

>They are
Nah, we've been over it.

>Genetic diversity already exists in a population of 500
So, pure Mesoamericans could not have been pushed to the brink of extinction, seeing as there were more than 500 of them. Good to know.

>>16901536
Language as an extension of culture arises from a shared genetic expression, diverse cultures produce vile crude languages, much like our modern language which is so retarded.
>Britain shares the same ancestor
I don't care how you define it, all Brown Non-White invaders need to be removed from White Countries. Whites can unite under any number of factors, so long as unity is achieved, nothing else matters. Browns are no included in this unity, because no matter how you cut it, Brown Genetics are not White genetics, and never will be.
> Is-ought problem is no joke.
Ideals based in observable physical reality. Niggers and jeets rape because they are less intelligent, they are inbred, and have less developed pre-frontal cortex. Why allow these people into society unless they're a bioweapon that is intended to be used to ethnically replace whites?
>Europeans baka.
Mixing has occured, sure, doesn't negate the point of eugenics.
>although even they don't have many of those.
We all have climate adaptations, the more mixed you are, the less likely they are though.
>Good to know.
They didn't breed with intention, if they had a proper eugenics protocol, they could have avoided their issues.
Nothing you said contradicts Eugenics, nor explains why Whites should except foreign hordes of rapists into their country.
Support Open Borders for Israel!

>>16901536
>everyone in Britain shares the same ancestor which they also don't share with other people you don't like.
All the english are descended from our medieval kings like edward the 1st.
Our population tanked after the black death to like 1M people and didn't climb above I think 10m until about 1800. This is pretty normal.
Between 1066 and 1900 there were no significant genetic intrusions into our gene pool. We're all at most 12th cousins but most are a lot closer than that. we share considerable blocks of our DNA that make us more similar to each other than the non english. our closest relatives are I think some of the dutch and the danes who understandably we get along with pretty well. But I share more genes with my diaspora brothers in australia, or america.

One shared common ancestor doesn't mean all that much, it takes very few generations for genes to be completely shut out. but we aren't talking about that are we, we're talking about big long stretches of very similar genes and how far back in time it takes for us to share most or all of our ancestors in common and that's visible in just how similar we are to each other. Literally just look at people and it's obvious.

>>16902241
End yet despite these population shifts within our own race we've retained enough genetic diversity to consistently dominate most every field. According to the freaks trying to say that race mixing is good, we should have seen some great effect our generations long "Inbreeding" by now, yet Northern Europeans in particular consistently score higher on IQ and most other metrics, and are some of the most prosperous nations in the world, or at least were.
But instead, these freaks want everybody to breed with some inbred Somalian mutt who can't even walk straight most days, because "Muh Diversity"

*ahem*

without modern medical intervention involving immuno-suppressants, an RH blood type negative mother's body will always reject the fetus of a RH positive father, after the first time she carries an RH positive baby to term

the same thing does not happen with RH negative fathers and RH positive mothers
deal with it

>>16902241
>Between 1066
What a particular cutoff point...

>>16903832
Norman conquest, arguably I should have said later since the following decades inevitably involved more channle crossings.

unless you were highlighting the esoteric nature of that date, similar to the great fire of london being in 1666 and the loss of our financial freedom while everyone was distracted by the fire because parliament had been captured by banker interests

File: Screenshot 2026-02-02 at (...).png (208 KB, 1178x846)

208 KB PNG

>>16886647
>>16882177
So what do anons think is actually happening here?
I'd like to hear your thoughts

Interesting thread on egyptian mmarriage customs
https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/17575821/

>>16881902
>Starting with the most notable, Brazil has some of the highest rates of Congenital Disease (Some say it's actually lower due to under reporting), and the highest rate of C-sections in the world (This ties into my initial post).
>Some studies I'm reading say that C-section births actually outnumber vaginal births, which is fucking insane to think about.

w-what? I thought we were all supposed to blanda up and it would all work out...

>>16905847
That seems to be the modern justification.
It just seems crazy when you consider the fact that everybody believes this, but nobody can actually quantify why they think race mixing has no consequences whatsoever.