Chapter 29
What are the bad effects of outbreeding?
Imagine two copies of a multi-digit number. Now randomly change digits one by one. At first the numbers will be essentially identical. Later they will be recognizably similar until at last it will be impossible to prove they were ever similar at all. I have shown that normal fertility requires that certain epigenetic methyl markers on DNA must match up to a degree. If they are too similar OR too different there will be reduced fertility. I have mentioned the allegation that high rate of outbreeding, which is global, particularly among the power elite up there somewhere, will reduce our fertility below replacement and keep it there until there is nobody to replace. There are going to be other lamentable changes.
Globalism was invented by ancient Rome, where they figured they had conquered the whole world or soon would. By my reading, they were a pathetic little clutch of psychopaths, never reaching the size nor the sophistication of the Han dynasty of China or whomever ran India before the onslaught of Islam. But the Romans thought they were global. Then they ran across one man, whom I call Hermann the German. He didn’t much like Rome, but he held his tongue and abided his time until he and a few clans fell on a Roman column and inflicted such damage that Rome never recovered and never entered Germany again except to gather bones of the fallen. That day, it was individual initiative one, globalism (and its attendant outbreeding) zilch.
I have already cited work by Nicolai Sennels suggesting that centuries of inbreeding have caused Arabian immigrants into Denmark to be predisposed to stupidity, criminality and insanity. He blows criminality off as being a side effect of stupidity. He has worked with such people and I have not, so I shall buy into his assessment. Insanity is, of course, a gimme. Any old time y’all’d like to check the internet, you can verify that autism is 1) increasing and 2) more common in places that have long been urbanized. So at least the autism fraction of insanity gets worse with outbreeding. If you are alert, you have slammed this book against some rugged target screaming (no don’t throw it at anybody who is screaming, just scream as you pitch), “You were just blaming insanity on inbreeding and now you are blaming it on outbreeding. Have you gone completely demented, you creepy, ancient loon?” Ah but read more carefully. You will learn that inbreeding depression and outbreeding depression are caused by the identical same chemical pathways, so yes, those two rash mating choices – excess inbreeding and excess outbreeding – have the identical same effect. For biological purposes insanity, criminality and stupidity are simply forms of infertility.
And now I see that the Economist The reign in Spain vol. 438 no. 9233 page 73 February 20, 2021 quote Nico Voigtlaender and Sebastian Ottinger 38 from the University of California in Los Angeles as saying that inbreeding among European royalty over the centuries is inversely proportional to their job performance. They have numbers, so I’m buying it. Inbreeding causes stupidity or at least poor job performance and, let us all join hands and sing to the tune of kumbaya, if inbreeding does it, outbreeding does it.
I like to call the insanity moiety of this issue, “Outbreeding insanity.” If you think inbreeding causes insanity, fair enough.
As I explained, a team led by a man named Helgason looked at the extensive genealogy of Iceland and found that so far as grandchildren go, there is an optimal amount of kinship. This is true whether you prefer maximum reproduction or maximum stability – reproduction just at the replacement level; of course, in the long run this is greatly to be desired. Anything else is disastrous.
If you want world peace, then you want people to like people different from themselves. This is called xenophilia. I had a couple of friends in high school who managed to learn that jawbreaker and who strutted it out on many occasions. Only they thought it meant “frost proof,” or cryophilic. Now if you undertake a massive love-your-fellow-folks campaign, and punish anybody conspicuous who does not use their social clout to support you, either you increase the number marrying outside their own group or you do not. If your campaign does not work, then it is just more of the odious stuff people wallow in regularly and thus is trivial. But, alack the day, it might succeed. More people might marry out, suffer the reduced fertility that entails, and you will have only managed to reduce the number of tolerant people.
Exaggeration of preference for kindred leads to hatred and wars. Bateson proved that among Japanese quails (and one must suppose that generally among animals since kinship and fertility are related the same in every population studied by Sibly and his team) birds of either sex prefer to mate with a moderately related bird. If you want world peace, you will insist that it is a far cry from hopping over to look at a cousin to launching nuclear tipped rockets from submarines. But humans have a way of enforcing cooperation by creating governments. Ideally in a free society, governments are elected by the people. That concept is compromised by the fact that truly rich people and businesses can contribute fortunes to political candidates that will do their bidding. Those rich concerns can also buy up the means of communication so that no balanced picture is available through ordinary means. The candidates, in an outbred society where tolerance is a rare characteristic, will find it easier to win votes if they spout hatred for some other countries.
This leads to something I have read but cannot find the source. Dictators in the most repressive, poverty stricken and disease laden countries need more support, need to be more popular, than do politicians in rich … and so forth, countries. That boggles my mind. The will of the people is better heard under obvious tyranny than under our own tyranny. My only agenda there is to grieve.
Racism. If nations fight wars, people can be just mean. My neighbors need have no concern about me launching a nuke at them. But if one of my Black friends were to move in here, somebody else along the block might be less than happy just because of my friend’s skin color. Isn’t that mind boggling. Half of the neighbors like few things more than lying in the sun on a summer’s day with lotion to protect themselves from sunburn while they eagerly make their skin darker. It’s true, and if you encourage outbreeding, you’re going to increase racism. That’s simple enough, isn’t it?
There is civil unrest from time to time. I’ve not been involved so I can’t speak for the demonstrators/rioters. I am quite in favor of the constitution’s provision that people can assemble peacefully even to the point of demanding the government address their grievances. But masks? Sorry. I don’t see that as peaceful. You remember the old cowboy movies. If you lost track of the plot, the bad guy wore a mask … yeah, there was the Lone Ranger, but the things he was up to weren’t all that peaceful, now, were they?
Soo … I just call civil unrest another form of infertility. If they are out torching businesses, they aren’t home playing with the kids. No kids. Less reason to stay home. More unrest.
Sometimes violence hides behind a motto, “Black lives matter.” OK. Sure. And by and large ALL the crimes are committed by lily white boys, and all the victims are Black. This, I submit, is not good. And it does seem to me that an impetus toward outbreeding underlies. Self-hatred another form of infertility? You figure.
There is something going on you can call sexual liberation, sexual ambiguity or sexual confusion. You can choose what to call it and insert gender or any term you like, but I think we can agree that something is different from what it was a century ago. From my viewpoint anybody has a right to the self-image and by-and-large the society they prefer, but any social arrangement that is not reproductively sound is just another form of infertility.
At Harvard Medical School, way back then, we were taught that there was indeed a gradation in anatomic sexuality. You had quite virile men and those perhaps less virile, and ditto for women. There were (are) people with tissues characteristic of males and also females, and there are those with neither tissue sort.
So, I can listen with patience (but not conviction) to cries that there are two, only two and never more than two sexes. It’s just not that simple. But the number of cases in which a person’s identity does not fit nicely into a category seems to me to be far, far greater than the number of anomalous sex identities back then. But I have seen no formal numbers.
On the other foot I shall stand flat handed and say there are two, always two and never more than two kinds of couple: those who are biologically capable of having babies and those that are not. A couple that cannot have a baby is thus subject to infertility in spite of any political theory you can invent. And of course, it is usually caused by outbreeding.
I shall not belabor the fact of the rise in autism, now approaching epidemic proportions; I have given numbers. The lack of usual socialization in autism may just be a different form of infertility. Their occasional high intelligence is so conspicuous that the official name for the condition has been changed to “autism spectrum disorder.”
Just for fun, let me mention a discovery you will probably not learn of elsewhere. The discovery was not an accident, and the implications are stupendous. Several years ago, a man walking on a pacific island, I think he was walking along the beach, found a rock, just the kind of rock he was looking for. As for the island, it was far out to sea, far from sight of land and had been for over a million years in spite of many changes in overall sea level and shifting tectonic plates.
As for the rock, it was a stone axe, the style of which indicated to that expert that the stone had been carved about a million years ago. It had been done by someone who was not even a member of our species Homo sapiens. It had been carved by a member of Homo erectus. Crucially, it was the second such stone axe found on that island. One axe meant nothing; it could have been dropped by a passing hot air balloon or whatever. But two axes meant there had been people there dropping axes for a very long time.
I have said and do say that if you show me a little village, there will be young men there. If one has a stone axe in the morning, and there is a copse of small trees nearby, by nightfall every man jack of them has a length of wood trimmed and sharpened – a spear. It was the spear that dominated the battlefield in the Iliad, that drove the known world before Alexander, that bristled from the Roman phalanx, sheltered the archers at Agincourt, rendered deadly the Napoleonic charge, repeatedly hurled back the more numerous, better fed and equipped Yankees until a dreadful July 4 at Gettysburg. The Yankee mothers of course sent their sons cookies and civilian clothes by way of saying, “Desert and you can have lots more.” But then they began sending magazine fed rifles. The Southern quip was, “Load on Monday and fight all week.” Had Union troops used their government issued muzzle loaders, Pickett would have faced a known problem. His charge, wave after overlapping wave, was textbook perfect. By the end of the day Confederate cavalry would have been galloping toward Washington, D.C. to arrest Lincoln, the legislature and the supreme court. But on that terrible day the spear faced for the first time in a million years or, since Homo erectus flourished for twice that long maybe two million years something deadlier: mothers protecting their children.
It took 500 years for Europe to go from open ocean travel to walking on the moon. Homo erectus had 4,000 times as long. If you are gloating over fear porn, you will encounter speculation of what technology an ancient civilization might have, like two million years old.
So, where are they? Wiped out by outbreeding.
Here are the names of some communists. You may have heard of a number of them.
Friedrich Engels, Antonio Gramsci, Enver Hoxha, Kim Jong-Un,Vladimir Lenin, Georgy Maksimilianovich Malenkov, Karl Marx, Ho Chi Minh, Joseph Stalin, Josip Broz Tito, Leon Trotsky, Deng Xiaoping, Mao Zedong. They range from tolerable, like Tito, to absolute monsters who slaughtered people in numbers that exceed the horrors of Hitler. That should be enough to make any prudent person decide that communism is a loathsome political theory.
And then some were writers. I have lived all of my long life in a world strongly influenced by these writers. In all that time, I have never encountered a single deft turn of phrase. I have never run across an idea embodied by a word that was sufficiently well defined so as to be useful. I have never run across a prospective empirical study that would be called evidence. They have nothing to offer but garbage, strings of words unsupported, unilluminating and badly written. And yet they are the darling of academia.
Way back when, there was this fellow called McCarthy. Bring him up, and people will think, “McCarthyism, Red baiting, anti-free speech.” I was too young to follow it all. I did ask my father, “Why do people always say, ‘I refuse to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate me.’?” That gave him pause. My mother came to his rescue, “If they talk, more people will get dragged in.”
What I now know is that Stalin was turning Moscow into a mass grave. Details withheld. Wasn’t “dragging more people in” the whole point of trying to get at the truth? Already academia was listing heavily toward being pro-communist.
Very well, there are problems with “capitalism,” which you can take to mean “freedom.” If you have a great deal of wealth, you can spend a lot of time and take significant risks trying to make more. If you have little money, that is not possible. So, the playing field is inherently uneven. “Alas for the South, there’s nothing truer. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer,” or words to that effect.
All right, it’s unfair. How to fix it? Communism says that the government should have the wealth and simply make it fair, and that spirit seems to be growing. First, I don’t trust the government with that kind of power. But more importantly, the things that make us distinctively human and distinct as humans are our decisions. Take away our freedom of choice, and you dehumanize us.
That seems to me to clinch it. Reducing people to subhuman biological entities is a non-starter. But, as we have seen, outbreeding is like inbreeding in that it reduces intelligence. Academics are privileged; privilege runs in families and accumulates. So, our academics are stupid. They will make bad decisions, and they will fail and have failed to penetrate the verbal haze around the communists or even to notice that it is a verbal haze.
Science suffers. Traditionally a son is likely to follow in the footsteps of his father, working the family farm or business which he can approach with a lifetime or more of accumulated wisdom. I do not know of any father-son team in science. Scientists tend to be the elite, with a higher likelihood of outbreeding depression. A lot of science is being done nowadays of course. But how that “lot” is measured is seldom mentioned. I for one suspect that “more science,” simply means, “More money being spent in the name of science.” This is analogous to the way excellence in college is measured. I will always remember the day, decades ago now, when I learned that excellence in colleges is simply how much money they spend. At the time I went to Wesleyan, the moolah measure put us high on the list; never you mind that we had to ingest more credit hours than anybody else in the country. I now believe that there was a battle on for the soul of the institution. It was the faculty against the board of trustees, which is to say those with an education ideal and those with a political agenda even then.
So yes, lots of money is being spent on science, but son does not follow father in my experience. Our boffins do not have the trans-generational commitment that an old-fashioned peasant had.
Rich people with a broad social horizon have fewer children than poorer people and so accumulate wealth in fewer hands. The resulting wealth inequality is not so bad in modest amounts. When I was in high school, the richest people in town were the doctors. Considering how much they attempted to do and with what imperfect tools, both physical and intellectual, pretty good pay seemed all right. Yet their children went to the same school as the rest of us and fit in well. Poor children did too. I imagine you are thinking that the Black people were left out, but when my big brother went to Harvard, he was not the first boy to get into an ivy league school, just the first white boy. Black boys from the Lincoln high school had been going to Yale for years.
But push the inequality some, and the rich and poor never mix. Those with power lose all sympathy with those without power, blah, blah, you know where that goes.
There is much concern about the environment, which seem in many places to be ruthlessly exploited by those rich folks who care nothing about the rest of us; Florida used to blaze the trail of environmental destruction but now does not look so bad against the field.
If you have something that provides food and shelter and has been a family concern for many generations, it will be more than a job; it will assume mythic proportion. There was a time when the Seminoles won some money at court, and everybody – every white body – expected them to put up suburbia in their swamps. But they built high rise condos. When their friends evince surprise, they were told, “We love the swamp. Doing this lets us live well enough with minimum destruction of swamp.” You want the environment protected; listen to the people who have lived the closest to it over the generations.
People will take better care of the environment if it is the ancient home of their ancestors and they are confident they will keep it. Industry demolishes the environment even to its own detriment.