1. The two groups needed each other until recently, so there was a balance of power between the agrarian world and the cities. Automation/industrialization and globalization (which both, for various reasons, rely heavily on outbreeding and activities that encourage it) changed that. We’ll see how this experiment pans out.


  2. @nozzo – agrarian doesn’t necessarily = inbred. it hasn’t done in most of england or other parts of nw europe for a very long time.


  3. @nozzo – “Any thoughts as to why that is?”

    LOTS of them! — as you very well know. see the mating patterns in europe series in left-hand column below (way down there ↓).


  4. Ethnic and family nepotism is a strongly dominant strategy in multi-ethnic societies unless the demographic hegemon both exists and sternly punishes such behavior. Needless to say, in the US the demographic hegemon is seriously falling down on the job.


  5. @melykin – “Outbred populations see inbred populations as simply batsh*t crazy.”

    ha! (^_^) yes, there’s the other side of the equation, too. (~_^)


  6. And yet inbred populations even in Europe seem to have far less trouble with ethnic self-hate, feminism and the rest of it than we have to put up with, because they’re geared against moral universalism.

    Despite what the outright IQ fetishists might think, a degree of inbreeding confers advantages though admittedly at a degree of cost. I think there is a kind of golden mean that is desirable here, and the modern west ought to have been avoided at least as much as Africa.

    That’s why I don’t get the fuss over trivia like the minimal effect that uncommon cousin marriages have on northern European IQ, when at this point in time more clannishness is what whites really need to push our own interests and survive.

    [edit: sorry! your comment was stuck in the spam box. – h.chick]


    1. @ PaganAtheist “more clannishness is what whites really need to push our own interests and survive” Well… actually I think more babies would be really helpful along the lines of survival. We quite agree that both too much clannishnes and too little are destructive, and maybe there are few others who would agree. But as I said, there are multiple degrees of kinship that are biologically distince in their effects and in the most important of ways. Probably the best distance is the equivalent of a population size in the hundreds, a level past which no traditional culture will go. In theory the Inuit place no limits on distance, but in actual fact I don’t think they met (until recently) many outsiders. If you wanted to have a social pool of all whites, it would be in the hundreds of milions. That would be fatal in the long run. Whether there might be anything worse about an even bigger pool depends on whether you can come up with something worse than fatal. But you know what? I wouldn’t be surprised if you could. The news looks pretty grim these days.


  7. Inbred populations see outbred as lacking honor. Outbred see inbred as lacking humor. I guess I see both sides of that. (Not that I accept the terms of the debate, there being more than two biologically degrees of average kinship of couples in a population.)


  8. Well, the Amish are one white population that seem to be becoming more inbred over time. One study out of Lancaster County found that any two Amish persons were about as related to each other, genetically speaking, as second cousins. This despite the fact that the Amish prohibit first-cousin marriages.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s