Essays

A Word About Miscegenation

maxresdefault

by David Sims

THE FOLLOWING was an answer of mine, posted to and subsequently deleted from Yahoo Answers. Per my policy regarding censorship, when one of my comments is removed from one forum, it shall reappear on many others, so that it will gather MORE attention, rather than less.

A question had been asked about persons of mixed race. Here is how I answered:

Although Geoff is correct about almost everyone having a racial mix, it’s still true that most “White” people count their ancestry mostly — almost entirely — from the White race, and only a very small fraction from all of the other races combined. For example, I am 97% White and 3% Cherokee, and I’m more heavily mixed than most of the people I know. A similar thing is true for Asians: although a few have mixed in marriage, the great bulk of them have not. Only a small proportion of living people belongs to one biracial cline or another.

Mixing races isn’t a good idea. Both close inbreeding and far outbreeding can cause birth defects, though for different reasons. Close inbreeding can result in the reinforcement of recessive genetic abnormalities, which can then appear in a child as a handicap or an early death.

But races differ in the body proportions, and genetic inheritance does not occur as a smooth averaging of parental traits in a child’s body. Rather, groups of tissues and organs are separately determined by the parents’ haploid genes, and it is possible for a child to get a bad mix, which results in his body parts not fitting together well or not working together well. The difficulties might be mechanical, or they might be biochemical.

For example, if a man from a small race mates with a woman from a large race, it is possible that their child will grow up to be a large man with a small heart. The offspring, once out of his tender years, would have a heart that couldn’t pump enough blood to meet his body’s needs. He would be bedridden almost all of his life, and he would probably die young.

So beware this Jew-inspired fad of race-mixing. It isn’t a good thing. It is unhealthy. And the Jews do not intend that we should do it for our benefit, but rather because they know it will be our undoing.

Geoff is also certainly correct about US-resident Blacks. On the average, about a quarter of their ancestors are White people. That’s why the average IQ of US-resident “Blacks” is 85, whereas the average IQ of sub-Saharan African Blacks is only 70. Blacks tend to mix more than other races do, and, for Blacks, the danger of Mendelian mismatched parts might be the lesser worry; the greater one would be remaining Black in — and poorly adapted to — a civilized world. Adaptive pressure would prompt Blacks to “go White” when choosing mates, or, if White be out of reach, as light as possible.

It is a fact that the most of the relatively accomplished “Blacks,” the persons of whom the Black race is the most proud, are mulattoes, rather than pure Blacks. There is a distinct negative correlation among mulattoes with respect to percentage of Black ancestry and IQ. The lighter a mulatto is, the smarter he is, usually.

That being so, one recognizes that the enabling genes in most of the relatively accomplished mulattoes (e.g. Jan Ernst Matzeliger) came from the White side of their family trees, not from the Black side. I say “relatively accomplished” for a reason. Demagogues of the afrocentric school will automatically elevate any Black or mulatto who earns a Ph.D. in math or physics to “great scientist” status, but this low-bar is never used for Whites, among whom getting a doctorate is merely the barest first step on the way to a career that MIGHT, after a lifetime of work, confer that status upon him.

* * *

Source: Author

* * *

Download our PDF flier

* * *

For Further Reading

Previous post

American Heroine

Next post

Hands Off Yugoslavia!

2 Comments

  1. Anthony Collins
    August 14, 2016 at 9:52 am — Reply

    “Per my policy regarding censorship, when one of my comments is removed from one forum, it shall reappear on many others, so that it will gather MORE attention, rather than less.” I think it’s a good practice to exploit what has been called “the Streisand effect,” which Wikipedia defines as follows:

    “The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet. It is an example of psychological reactance, wherein once people are aware something is being kept from them, their motivation to access and spread the information is increased.

    “It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose 2003 attempt to suppress photographs of her residence in Malibu, California, inadvertently drew further public attention to it. Similar attempts have been made, for example, in cease-and-desist letters to suppress numbers, files, and websites. Instead of being suppressed, the information receives extensive publicity and media extensions such as videos and spoof songs, often being widely mirrored across the Internet or distributed on file-sharing networks.”

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

    The crude efforts of the Jews to make themselves look good should be made to draw attention to their ugliness instead. The Jews have much to hide, and much to fear, from the observant, the rational, and the responsible among the goyim they afflict.

    The Jews have a proclivity to overreach themselves, and to milk their cattle so mercilessly that their udders yield blood rather than milk. This situation cannot be endured indefinitely.

  2. Clinton Seeber
    August 16, 2016 at 12:01 pm — Reply

    My word about it is “Don’t do it!”

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.