In many communist-owned countries there is a long going hoax that people have to breed with “the more – the better” far genetic types to themselves to create “healthy kids” with less genetic diseases. Those who say so somehow mix two notions of breeding with your own race and… incest. Jews created a hoax that Whites were “in-breading too long so they became somehow sick race and White women somehow needs “fresh genes” from non-white (a code word for mass rape) to create “more genetically healthy generation”. I wish to share some non-jewish material that fully debunks this pseudo-scientific hoax to make our people destroy their body and soul.
This hoax is fully based upon non-realizing the existence of different races. Example how it works. It is as absurd as not admitting the existence of tigers and lions as different type of cats. Big cats have this problem of many generational incest cause territorial problems. Real incest – father with daughter, mother with son, etc – and so many generations. Still they would not mix with other cats in non-zoo natural conditions. When people mix them in zoo they realize those born are less healthy even then those born from close relatives inside one type in nature. Still when it comes to humans, they still try to mix water with electricity while we have no territorial problems nor many generational ongoing incests.
I was told by scientists in those countries they do experiments with rodents: if you breed one hamster with another from the far area, cubs will be healthier. Their Doctors and Professors can’t get the difference between different species and different area. My answer was: try to breed hamster with a rat – and you will have your race-mixing. They understand hamsters more than themselves. A Black is less close to them than a rat to a hamster. What they do with hamsters is like breeding two pure Nordic Scandinavians: one – from Norway and another – from Sweden. What they do with their private lives is the same as sleeping with animals or birds. This is what Jews did to science.
___________________
From the article Miscegenation
Miscegenation is a term referring to sexual relations between individuals of different racial origins. Popularly known as “race mixing”.
Merriam-Webster: “a mixture of races; especially: marriage, cohabitation, or sexual intercourse between a white person and a member of another race”.[1]
Miscegenation comes from the Latin miscere, “to mix” and genus, “kind, race”. It dates to 1863.[2]
“Miscegenation: The Theory of the Blending of the Races, Applied to the American White Man and Negro” was the name of a propaganda pamphlet printed in New York City in December of 1863, and the first known instance of the word’s use. The pamphlet purported to be in favor of promoting the intermarriage of whites and blacks until they were indistinguishably mixed, claiming this was the goal of the Republican Party.
The pamphlet was revealed to be a written by by anti-Lincoln Northern Democrats (“Copperheads”) to discredit the Republicans, the Lincoln administration, and the abolitionist movement. Some radical elements of the abolitionist movement did in fact did support the goals of the pamphlet, but it was largely because miscegenation was so repulsive to the common man that this propaganda was effective.
__________________________
From the article Effects of race mixing
This article describes research on the effects of race mixing. This includes research not only on groups where the parents are from different races but also on groups where the parents themselves are race mixed.
General
In general, for characteristics that are affected by a large number of genes (which is likely usually the case), one would expect that a mixed-race group would have characteristics intermediate between those of the parental/ancestral races.
However, if the parents/ancestors were atypical compared to the racial average(s), then this would to some degree affect this expectation. One factor affecting the relatives of atypical parents may be regression to different racial mean effects.
There is a widespread belief that race mixing is beneficial by decreasing inbreeding. However, the population size needed to avoid problems caused by inbreeding is small and is even smaller if there is even a small genetic exchange with neighboring groups from the same race.
_______________________________
From the article on inbreeding depression.
Inbreeding depression refers to reduced (depressed) biological fitness in the offspring of genetically very closely related individuals while outbreeding depression refers to reduced biological fitness in the offspring of distantly related individuals. More generally it refers to reduced biological fitness in whole populations due to such effects.
In particular outbreeding depression is an important genetic consequence to consider in regards to the effects of race mixing. However, it is very rarely mentioned, with the focus often instead being on on the supposed benefits of a reduction of inbreeding depression, despite the population sizes needed to avoid inbreeding depression being very small and even smaller if there is even a small genetic exchange with neighboring groups from the same race.
Avoiding inbreeding depression
The population number needed to avoid inbreeding depression has been studied in biology due to many species dramatically decreasing in population sizes due to the effects of humans on the environment.
An often cited rule is the 50/500 rule which states that for wild animals a minimum of 50 individuals is needed to avoid inbreeding depression due to recessive alleles.[4]
Furthermore, a minimum of 500 individuals is needed in order to avoid decreasing genetic variability within the population. This since otherwise the number of new mutations will be lower than effects of random genetic drift which decrease genetic variability. It has been questioned how important a high genetic variability is. For example, there are species of albatrosses which have survived for nearly a million year despite extremely low genetic variation.[4][5] A high genetic variability may mainly be important if the environment should dramatically change.
The 50/500 rule assumes conditions that seldom exist in practice. This may be due to factors such as only a few females living long enough to reproduce, only a few males reproducing, or large fluctuations in population size (for example, due to periodic droughts). It has therefore been estimated that for many species the numbers may be 10 times as large. This number varies greatly for different species and may be much lower for species with a low fertility (such as humans).[4]
On the other hand, selective breeding has been performed with considerably less than 50 individuals without any obvious negative effects.[4] Another aspect of selective breeding is breeding between very closely related individuals in order to “fix” desired characteristics. This may however be accompanied by negative side-effects.
The 50/500 rule assumes a completely isolated group. In practice many groups of wild animals have some genetic exchange with neighboring groups. Even only a very small such exchange with neighboring groups dramatically reduces the numbers needed in order to avoid inbreeding depression.[4]
Some critics have argued that 50/500-numbers are too low while other critics have argued that they are too high (in particular for long-lived species such as humans).[6][7]
Contrary to popular belief, a population that has been inbreeding for a long time may have reduced risk of inbreeding depression due to the harmful recessive alleles increasingly being removed from the population by natural selection.
_______________________________
From the article Effects of race mixing
Instead [in race-mixing], there may be greater risks of negative effects for both children and parents caused by factors such as
1. Genetic outbreeding depression.
2. Increased risk of relationship problems (including violence and homicide) in interracial relationships.[1]
3. Identity problems for mixed-race children by not belonging to any racial group.
4. Social isolation for mixed-race children by not belonging to any racial group.
5. Disapproval by society or specific groups against interracial relationships. For example, many Jewish individuals, organizations and the state of Israel actively oppose, campaign against, and prohibit Jews from marrying non-Jews.[2]
6. Genetic similarity theory predicts that the parents and other relatives of mixed-race children will feel less close to the mixed-race children. It also predicts that other persons belonging to the races of the parents will feel less close the mixed-race children. In turn, mixed-race children are predicted to will feel less close to their parents, other relatives, and to other persons belonging to the races of the parents. This may cause various problems for the children, the parents, and others.
Extensive race mixing is one proposed explanation for the fall of many civilizations due to dysgenic effects.[3][4]
Even if there were no dygenic effects from race mixing, for society large scale race mixing may still cause problems due to factors such as the appearance of new mixed race groups that may feel more or less alienated from their ancestral races. This may increase the ethnic heterogeneity in a society and associated negative societal effects.
Race mixing may be especially problematic for societies where the predominant race is a high K race (see the article about the Differential K theory) with a high degree of altruism and a consequent extensive welfare system. This means that immigrant race mixers from a low K race may have many children without having to support the children themselves and who are instead supported by the welfare systems. (Immigrants from low K races may also have many children within their own group and who are supported by welfare systems paid for by the high K race.)
From the viewpoint of transmitting a parent’s genetics to the next generation, mixed race children will transmit less. This since a co-parent from another race will have more dissimilar genetics than a co-parent from the same race. For example, the measured genetic differences between human races is argued to imply that a White English parent will in relative terms be almost twice as closely related to a child with a White English co-parent as to a mixed race child with a Black Bantu co-parent. In terms of the genetic interests of a parent this is argued to imply that having a non mixed child is almost the equivalent to having twice the number of such mixed race children. Another stated example is that a parent will be genetically closer to an average individual of the parent’s own race than to the parent’s own mixed race child with a co-parent from a genetically distant race.[5][6]
United States
Intimate partner violence
A 1989 study stated that the risk of spouse homicide was 7.7 times higher in interracial marriages relative to intraracial marriages, that the risk for White wives was 12.4 times higher in interracial marriages, and that the risk for White husbands was 21.4 times higher in interracial marriages.[1]
The Council of Conservative Citizens has furthermore argued that the above understates the risk for in particular White females. This since research found many cases of White females being killed by other Blacks while being in the company of a Black boyfriend, many cases of White females dying of drug overdoses while they did drugs with Black males, or otherwise dying because of “accidents”. In addition, there were many stated cases of Black boyfriends killing family member or close friends. About half of these were young children of a mother who was dating a Black male.[7][8]
A 2009 study stated that Black men in interethnic relationships were more likely than Black men in intra-ethnic relationships to perpetrate acts of partner violence.[9]
A 2010 study stated that interracial couples had a higher risk for intimate partner violence, including intimate partner violence causing physical injury and/or arrest, than both ethnic minority and White couples.[10]
A 2012 study stated that the prevalence rate for any occurrence of intimate partner violence was highest for interethnic couples. Interethnic couples also had more severe intimate partner violence. Male partners in interethnic couples had higher rates of binge drinking and alcohol problems compared to male partners in intra-ethnic couples.[11]
A 2013 study stated that interracial couples demonstrated a higher level of intimate partner violence (including mutual intimate partner violence) than monoracial white couples and a level similar to monoracial black couples.[12]
Other studies on interracial relationships
A 2005 study stated that “Interracial marriage is associated with increases in severe distress for Native American men, white women, and for Hispanic men and women married to non-white spouses, compared to endogamous members of the same groups. Higher rates of distress are observed for intermarried persons with African American or Native American husbands or wives, and for women with Hispanic husbands.”[13]
A 2008 study stated that “Partners in interethnic unions generally reported lower levels of relationship quality than did partners in same-ethnic unions. These differences held for women as well as men, and for married as well as cohabiting couples. Differences in relationship quality were largely accounted for by more complex relationship histories, more heterogamous unions, fewer shared values and less support from parents. In contrast, differences in socioeconomic resources did not appear to play an explanatory role.”[14]
A 2011 study found that “nonblack individuals with black partners have significantly more depressive symptoms and less relationship satisfaction than their counterparts with nonblack partners, regardless of respondent race and whether the nonblack partner is the same versus a different race from the respondent. Further, the relationship between partner race and depressive symptoms is partially and significantly mediated by relationship satisfaction.”[15]
A 2012 survey which also reviewed earlier studies stated that interracial marriages in general have a greater risk for divorce. White females/Non-White males have the highest risk.[16]
Mixed-race children
A 2003 study stated that most earlier studies on mixed-race adolescents had found increased risk for emotional, health, and behavior problems. The most common suggested explanation was identity problems, leading to lack of self-esteem, social isolation, and family problems in mixed-race households. The study stated that it was the first using a large, nationally representative sample. Compared with non-mixed adolescents the mixed race adolescents often had increased risk for various health problems, substance abuse problems, and behavior problems. While there were differences between different mixed race groups, there was a generally increased risk for all race combinations for most risks.[17]
A 2006 study found increased risks for multiracial adolescents for various problems including violent behaviors.[18]
Another 2006 study which examined behavioral health found that multiracial Hispanics/Latino adolescents and multiracial non-Hispanic adolescents had more behavioral health problems than monoracial Hispanic adolescents.[19]
A 2008 study stated that “Over the past 40 years the fraction of mixed race black-white births has increased nearly nine-fold…. As one might expect, on a host of background and achievement characteristics, mixed race adolescents fall in between whites and blacks. When it comes to engaging in risky/anti-social adolescent behavior, however, mixed race adolescents are stark outliers compared to both blacks and whites…. Mixed race adolescents — not having a natural peer group — need to engage in more risky behaviors to be accepted.”[20]
A 2008 study of Chinese-Caucasian, Filipino-Caucasian, Japanese-Caucasian and Vietnamese-Caucasian individuals found that biracial Asian Americans were twice as likely as monoracial Asian Americans to be diagnosed with a psychological disorder.[21]
United Kingdom
A 2014 UK study stated that mixed-race children and young people had greater risk for mental health issues due to poor self-esteem, hostile and rejecting relationships, and the experience of discrimination from both Black and White peers. They were overrepresented in the youth justice system, in the child protection system, and in the looked after system.[22]
Netherlands
A 2014 Dutch study found that mixed marriages between Dutch and Muslims had no effect on their friends and families cultural views and therefore did not lead to “integration of minority groups”. The researcher stated that “It is a false hope to think mixed marriages bring different groups in the population closer together” and “A mixed marriage rarely leads to emotional ties between the two partners’ families and friends”. Furthermore, “The family relationships are rarely harmonious” with various cultural conflicts within the relationship and between relatives.[23]
South Korea
A 2005 article stated that mixed race individuals in South Korea often had poorer educational outcomes, difficulty getting a job, often worked as day laborers, had difficulties in dating, had higher risk for criminality, and that 40% had attempted suicide. One stated explanation was racism by Koreans.[24]
Latin America
A higher degree of European ancestry in American countries is associated with higher achievement test scores according to a 2014 analysis using genetic data.[25]
A higher degree of Amerindian ancestry in Mexican districts is associated with lower achievement test scores according to a 2014 analysis using genetic data.[26]
Latin America (and also the parts of the Caribbean speaking non-Latin languages) has had extensive race mixing. There is a marked racial hierarchy in which individuals and groups having a lighter skin color usually have higher socioeconomic status as well having higher average results on many other beneficial statistical variables. This has been argued to be the most important social structure and more important than traditional classes.[27]
Such a racial hierarchy still exists in Communist Cuba despite large scale attempts to eradicate it through forced measures.[27]
Haiti has been ruled by Blacks for two centuries and few Whites have lived in the country. Despite this, there is still a racial hierarchy with Mulattoes usually having a higher socioeconomic status than Blacks.[27]
Whites are only a few percent of the population in many other countries in the Caribbean which has been argued to make it hard to claim that Whites could politically oppress the other parts of the population. East Asians have never had any political power and often arrived as indentured labors but have today usually a high socioeconomic status like Whites.[27]
Residential racial segregation (despite similar income) is common in for example Brazil and also between Blacks and Mulattoes.[27]
A 2014 article found 31 genetic admixture studies which reported, for individuals residing in the Americas, associations between continental ancestry (e.g., European, Amerindian, Sub-Saharan African, East Asian, and Pacific Islander) and some index of educational attainment or socioeconomic status. None of the associations went in a direction opposite to that predicted by the average IQ scores of the ancestral populations. The results were argued to “support a racial hereditarian hypothesis along with others that predict a fairly internationally consistent association between continental ancestry and cognitively correlated indices of socioeconomic status such as education, income, and job prestige”.[28]
South Africa
In South Africa the term “Coloured” refers to a mixed race group with heterogeneous origins. The group has been stated to usually be intermediate between the Black and White populations on many statistical variables but to deviate from this regarding certain variables such as regarding the frequency of homicide which has been stated to be the highest of any racial group in South Africa.[27]
One explanation for this is that “Coloured” feel alienated from both the Black and the White populations and join criminal gangs partly in order to get a sense of belonging.
_______________________________
The last important thing I wish to say here about Inbreeding depression and incest. Race mixing and non-White immigration does not stop but ENFORCES it. And I will explain why.
Again, example of how it works with tigers. Siberian male tiger fights for up to 3 thousands kilometers territory against other males. When humans [other species] reduce natural territories, other males have no way to go, and therefore die out. So one male becomes the father of all cubs born on this only left by humans territory. And as far as the other males were ripped off of territory and females and therefore had no cubs, the only new male generation is going to be brothers of all new female generation. So, one brother would strip others off of territory and breed with all sisters, so we have even more close genes here, and so it goes – closer and closer with every generation.
Now what it all has to do with White Genocide. Other species – Blacks, Asians and mixed/Browns – come and mass rape, mass murder and mass mutilate White people, deprive them from homes, from territory and space. More and more people die of violence. They flee from no-go zones i.e. their territory reduces. Those survived being raped [gene-refreshed] do aborts and are less healthy and more traumatized to bear even their own race kids in future. White Race of European descent was 35% in 1900 and is only 9% now due this, 2% women of breeding age. We go less and less… and guess what?? If we go 100 persons left on the Earth our children will HAVE to incest – the closer a specie is to extinction, the closer it is to incest. These 2 processes go hand by hand.
White incest is what liberal kikes tell us they are fighting against, and white incest is what is the final result of all their fight.
Sources:
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation