The Dissident Right/WN obsesses too much over race-mixing. It's really not that big of a deal, IMO.

submitted by AltAlt from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Nombre27 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

It does seem plausible that it could be disruptive to your genetic inheritance. There's ample studies showing elevated risks of various conditions in mixed people. Regardless of your race, it's rational that your genetic mechanisms for development evolved in a unique and compatible way. I'm not sure that can be said about mixing and I suspect that's why we see an increased prevalence of various conditions.

Just speculation, but I wonder about the long-term consequences and if mixing might revert evolutionary gains back to version 1 (African) when one of the parties is African. I think this should be of great scientific interest, whether it's matrilineal or patrilineal or both. Kind of like incompatibility issues with different computer software.

I think you're likely right about the issue of low prevalence, at least I hope you are.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

Just speculation, but I wonder about the long-term consequences and if mixing

I just debated this recently. The long-term consequences are actually good, think about how early whites mixed with Neanderthals. From them, over time, we selected for the genes that were good, such as for the immune system and discarded ones that weren't. Of course, whites only have 2% Neanderthal DNA on average so the population needs to remain vast majority white to see a net positive benefit in the future.

when one of the parties is African

African's do have some particular genes that could be selected for. A minor example is bone strength:

Osteoporosis has been defined as a systemic skeletal disorder characterized by compromised bone strength predisposing to an increased risk of fracture. The clinical consequences of fracture include short- and long-term morbidity as well as increased mortality. Several authors have examined data from the Health Care Financing Administration and noted that fracture risk, particularly risk of hip fracture, is higher in whites than blacks in both sexes

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1863580/

[–]WatchOutThere 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

"Oy vey Goyim, race mixing is actually good for you." You're the same guy that supports fags and multiculturalism. You are the last person the DR should be taking optics advice from.

http://imgur.com/a/ndqRU39

[–]SoylentCapitalist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (18 children)

Funny way of saying "I can't refute a single thing you said."

I know you're responding in bad faith but I'm gonna address these anyway:

supports fags

I've never supported them. You're confusing me with someone else.

and multiculturalism

Only to the extent in the US where we've already become multicultural. Even then, I still advocate the white population increase and criminals as well as low IQ minorities be sent elsewhere. I've stated many times Europe should remain white only.

[–]EuropeanAwakening14 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

You don't get to choose the genes you get when you race mix. You have no way of knowing that a future mixed population would be better than the 2 current populations. There's nothing Europeans need that we would get from having 90 IQ mulatto children. Race mixed populations just become another burden for the majority.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

You don't get to choose the genes you get when you race mix.

You're not understanding evolution chooses the best genes from them while having a bigger gene pool to choose from. We're also talking about it from a large scale perspective. The Neanderthal example should've already made you realize this. It's why the discussion is on the long-term effect.

There's nothing Europeans need that we would get from having 90 IQ mulatto children.

The mean between black and white IQ is 92.5 which is what mulatto's would be expected to have. The Eyferth study showed male mulatto's have 97 IQ on average. The hereditarian Arthur Jensen stated heterosis may have contributed to that.

The best criticism is that the individuals in the study were young and since IQ has lower heritability at that age it altered the children's scores, however the white boys still had an average IQ of 101 in this study. It is still plausible heterosis, which is demonstrated in nature in other species, made the dysgenic difference less than what was to be expected in the short-term.

Jensen suggests that heterosis may have enhanced the IQ level of the mixed race children in the study.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyferth_study

In addition, the source I gave earlier already described one example of something that can be contributed to future populations from Africans.

[–]WatchOutThere 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That would've been true then, but it isn't anymore. In our modern society, the most dysgenic of us are capable of having many children because they are coddled and protected. Survival of the fittest doesn't apply anymore. Bad genes stay in the gene pool.

http://imgur.com/a/ndqRU39

[–]SoylentCapitalist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's fair. The best solution to make it still true would be to stop giving them government aid and launch eugenics programs.

[–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The mean between black and white IQ is 92.5 which is what mulatto's would be expected to have. The Eyferth study showed male mulatto's have 97 IQ on average. The hereditarian Arthur Jensen stated heterosis may have contributed to that.

We already went through this. The blacks in the Eyferth sample had above-average IQ so their mulatto offspring would not have IQ of 92.5 but around 95-96. Precisely as the study found.

Group Eyferth IQ Hereditarian “Prediction”
White Males 101 100.5
White Females 93 100.5
Mixed Males 97 95.6
Mixed Females 96 95.6

The Eyferth study supports hereditarianism more than it does environmentalism. And as for Jensen, as far as I know, he only suggested heterosis as one possible explanation. And given that he didn't mention it when discussing Eyferth study in his 2005 review of literature he did with Rushton, it's safe to conclude he does no longer believe that. Not even as a possibility.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The blacks in the Eyferth sample had above-average IQ

You forget 80% of the Africans in the study were French Africans during WW2. As I've already mentioned in our last debate, military service is required in France and they were scraping the barrel to begin with. French Africans AFAIK aren't even 85 average IQ like African-Americans who are 20% white, which makes even a mulatto score of 95.6 more impressive as it's higher than the mean of white and black IQ. The mean would be expected with French Africans and whites to be 90, assuming the genotypic IQ of 80 for Africans.

Besides the Eyferth study anyway, my main argument that the beneficial genes will be preserved while inferior ones discarded long-term from the bigger gene pool is supported by evolution and what we've seen regarding the Neanderthal example. The key is just maintaining a strong white majority to avoid short-term issues.

[–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You forget 80% of the Africans in the study were French Africans during WW2.

It's the other way around. 20% French North Africans and 80% American blacks. This is stated by both by Jencks & Phillips (1998) (the one cited by wikipedia) and by Rushton and Jensen (2005). Some wiki editor must have mixed up the percentages.

my main argument that the beneficial genes will be preserved while inferior ones discarded long-term from the bigger gene pool is supported by evolution

I don't know what you mean by this. Beneficial for what? Evolution selects for genes beneficial for further reproduction. Right now, low IQ people have higher birth rates and so genes for lower intelligence are being selected for. But I doubt most people would consider those genes to be beneficial.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Some wiki editor must have mixed up the percentages.

I see.

I don't know what you mean by this. Beneficial for what? Evolution selects for genes beneficial for further reproduction.

When whites mixed with Neanderthals we only kept beneficial genes for the immune system over time while discarding others that were inferior. Blacks have some minor advantages such as the bone strength example I cited earlier that can be carried on while others, like lower intelligence, will be discarded on a large scale over time.

Osteoporosis has been defined as a systemic skeletal disorder characterized by compromised bone strength predisposing to an increased risk of fracture. The clinical consequences of fracture include short- and long-term morbidity as well as increased mortality. Several authors have examined data from the Health Care Financing Administration and noted that fracture risk, particularly risk of hip fracture, is higher in whites than blacks in both sexes

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1863580/

The small amount of mulattos and hapas breeding with other whites will over time select for the best contributions. Which is why it isn't dysgenic in the long-term, especially if we remove low IQ blacks in the US.

[–]AltAlt[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

White women having an IQ of 93 (and a lower IQ than mixed-race people) sounds like pure bullshit to me. What German women were in that sample? Prostitutes and clinical retards?

[–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Those are IQs of children. But yes, 93 is unrealistically low by all means. It's probably result of sampling error. Eyferth only studied 5% of these children after all so this is expected.

[–]Nombre27 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're not understanding evolution chooses the best genes from them while having a bigger gene pool to choose from.

Counterpoint is that the modern welfare state, which in many areas seems to benefit a large proportion of minorities, has negated evolutionary pressures (i.e. successful procreation).

It's why the discussion is on the long-term effect.

I get your point about the long-term but as the eastern front in WW2 demonstrated, superior forces can run out of bullets before some people run out of men. Granted weapon developments since then may counter that but I think what amounts to an r vs. K-selection argument still stands. In other words, those potential long-term evolutionary gains can only manifest in those that have them and they also have to be alive.

[–]AidsVictim69 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're not understanding evolution chooses the best genes from them while having a bigger gene pool to choose from. We're also talking about it from a large scale perspective. The Neanderthal example should've already made you realize this. It's why the discussion is on the long-term effect.

On that sort of scale any discussion we're having is irrelevant. The most likely future for the West is a dumber, uglier, less socially cohesive society on any time frame we care about.

[–]WatchOutThere 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

http://imgur.com/a/ndqRU39

I put this together on /pol/. Science isn't on your side, mate.

Hurr durr better bones!!11! That study was published and commissioned by Jews just so you know.

[–]Nombre27 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This one is interesting. Difference in gestation length in blacks and whites

https://sci-hub.ee/10.1080/03014468600008431

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2292982/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2608264/

https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/33/1/107/668109

[–]SoylentCapitalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

How do you think this refutes anything I said related to how beneficial genes are selected and inferior ones discarded over time, just like what happen when whites mixed with Neanderthals?

No one is arguing a mulatto on average will be inferior to a white. The argument is that when a mulatto mixes with another white and so on, on a large scale, over time the beneficial genes will make their way through while inferior ones are discarded.

For the US example, the best way to do this would be to remove lower IQ minorities that are already here so only the best genes are being contributed to the white race. And as I stated in my original comment:

Of course, whites only have 2% Neanderthal DNA on average so the population needs to remain vast majority white to see a net positive benefit in the future.

[–]Nombre27 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

How do you think this refutes anything I said related to how beneficial genes are selected and inferior ones discarded over time, just like what happen when whites mixed with Neanderthals?

You're assuming that the same selection pressures are present, so it's not that it isn't possible but your reasoning seems to be flawed.

Interesting book on Neanderthals and Humans, and I should say that it is highly speculative, is Them and US by Danny Vendramini

https://themandus.org/

Basic premise is that Neanderthal predation was an extremely strong selection pressure for humans that selected for increased intelligence, aggression, etc., and was responsible for a genetic bottleneck.