The scientific fact is that over breeding results in smaller brain size and less muscle mass, especially when the breeding females start young. When you factor the in-breeding aspects, the result is lower IQ, tendency to crime, infertility, and higher susceptibility to infection. It’s clear that white superiority is due to carefully controlled breeding practices. Quantity is not quality.

In the end, whites are forced to fight back, and they will have no choice but to genocide the inferior races. However, due to the violent nature of the IQ level 70-90 which is the result of inbreeding, these inferior races are already killing each other off all by themselves. They pass on diseases to their children and create slums and filth that lead to massive death of non-Christian people of color, mongrels and inbreeds.

Also, it’s very important to note that white population statistics are skewed because no sensible white person would voluntarily fill out a census form.  It’s suicide to provide a total stranger with such details about your family.  Only people on public assistance would do such a thing, because they have to.

It is also a fact that Blacks are told lies constantly by their war-mongering leaders, and so Blacks repeat these hateful lies, and this results in an inability to think clearly and behave righteously and logically. God is the God of Hosts, which means Armies.  White people are God’s people, as long as they act righteously, and this is clearly what white people have been doing.  The lies of Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam only weaken their followers.  Sensible blacks have abandoned their ignorant and hateful brothers to their auto-destruction.

Here are some scientific facts about inbreeding:

First-generation inbred individuals are more likely to show physical and health defects, including: Reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability, Increased genetic disorders, Fluctuating facial asymmetry, Lower birth rate, Higher infant mortality, Slower growth rate and Smaller adult size.

This is clearly seen in pygmies. Termed gracilization/neoteny trait, the result in nature is to create an “economy version” with less bone mass and it also has the curious consequence of completely removing the nose muscle. Experts in this subject say that this economy version is a dominant trait, and so it has moved from pygmies to what are now modern West Africans.

 

What is Rh factor?

Rh negative blood does not generate antibodies to the rhesus monkey blood. This means that Rh negative blood is compatible with the blood of the rhesus monkey.  Rh+ blood is not compatible with the Rhesus monkey.  This is very important to understand, because one has to employ inverse thinking to remember it. Rh-, compatible with the Rhesus monkey, applies to 15% of the white people, and this 15% is probably Jewish, not pure white.  Rh negative blood is compatible with monkey blood and therefore must be actually related to the primates.  Is it a coincidence that the theory of Evolution is a Jewish invention?  Check out this diagram of Rh ratio of Whites, Blacks and Bonobo apes:

Rh negative is more common in Indo-Asians.  Indo-Asians traditionally worship monkeys and have high reverence for in-breds called ‘Rat People’ who demonstrate monkey-like physical traits and very low IQ.  Their Hanuman monkey God is a case in point.

 

RHD deletions predominate in whites.  This indicates a natural defense against impregnation by non-Caucassian rapists of Caucassian women.

RHD deletions refer to the propensity for white blood cells to literally attack the blood cells of a fetus derived from an Rh- mate.  This was demonstrated when the first Jewish wives of France’s Catholic monarch’s tried to have children with them, which is what initiated these studies, along with scientist’s attempts to overcome this natural phenomenon.  This made it very difficult for Jewish usurpers to claim descent from true Catholic royalty.  The rejection of the fetus is what happens when two different species attempt to mate, as in the case of a mule being sterile. A mule is a cross between a horse and a donkey.

Louyse Bourgeois, midwife to Marie de Medici, may have been the first in 1609 to give an account of hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn (HDN). She described twins: the first was hydropic and died shortly after birth, the second initially appeared well but rapidly became jaundiced, then opisthotonic, and subsequently died.  The Kings of France at this point began to show physical characteristics of being Jewish, and it became common knowledge that dead royal infants, victims of race-mixing, were replaced with live infants of questionable bloodlines.  Also at this time all Christian symbolism in Royal portraits disappeared.

Is it a coincidence that the symptoms of ‘Zika Virus’ are exactly the same as those described here?

The result of race mixing is known as “congenital anemia”, icterus gravis, and hydrops fetalis.  It was not officially recognized until 1932 despite detailed descriptions of each condition by pathologists. It was deduced that these conditions were variations on a common theme and the term erythroblastosis fetalis began to be used for diseases that result from interbreeding of pure Caucasian with severely in-bred non-Caucassian races.  These diseases are characterized by hemolytic anemia, intramedullary and estra medullary crythropoiesis, and hepatosplenomegaly.  In 1938 it was declared that the disease was caused by maternal antibodies to fetal antigens developed as a result of transplacental fetomaternal hemorrhage.  White women have an antibody that agglutinates her husband’s red blood cells, if the degree of racial difference in terms of Rh factor is high.  The mother reacts to an antigen that the fetus inherits from its father.

 

From a study by Deka et al., Am. J. Human Genetics 56, pgs. 461-474, 1995.

This study looks at some genetic markers and compares the genetic distances of eight human populations (Samoans, North Amerindians, South Amerindians, New Guineans, Kachari [Mongolids], Germans, more generalized Caucasians, and Sokoto Negroes from Nigeria [Nigerian sub-Saharan African Negroes]) to each other and to chimpanzees. The data were analyzed two ways – with Nei’s standard genetic distance, and with modified Cavalli-Sforza distance.

 

Which group was genetically closest to chimpanzees?

 

The answer for both methods was the Nigerian Negro group. Using Nei’s method, the Nigerian-chimp distance was 1.334 +/- 0.375, by far the closest value (second closest was the Kachari value of 1.527 +/- 0.493). To be fair, and show we are not knee-jerk “Eurocentrics” hiding data, the group farthest from the chimps was the South Amerindians (1.901 +/- 0.529); however the Germans (1.865 +/- 0.506) and the more general Caucasians (1.860 +/- 0.497) were right behind them (and given the +/- values, virtually overlapping). Looking at the Cavalli-Sforza method, the Sokoto Nigerians were again the closest to chimps (0.539) by a large margin.

 

The farthest were again the South Amerindians (0.712), with the Germans (0.680) and general Caucasians (0.667) being a very close third and fourth behind the South Amerindians as well as Samoans (0.711) and North Amerindians (0.697).

 

So, while the two methods give slightly different orders, in both cases the Nigerians are by far the closest group to the chimps. Once again, given the first method, these sub-Saharan Africans were at 1.334 while all the other groups ranged from 1.527-1.901, and given the second method they were at 0.539 while the other groups ranged from 0.643 (Kachari again) to 0.712.

 

Thus, based on these data, the sub-Saharan African group is genetically closest to chimps. The authors state the following about “neighbor-joining trees” based on these data, using the chimps as the “outgroup”:

 

“…the SO [Sokoto Nigerian] population is the furthest from all the other human populations.”

Inbreeding is simply defined as the mating of relatives.  It is a mating system in which individuals carry alleles that originated from a common ancestor.  Inbreeding is considered a problem in humans because inbreeding increases the chances of receiving a deleterious recessive allele inherited from a common ancestor.

 

When discussing inbreeding, the level at which it is taking place becomes important.  Most studies are concerned with close inbreeding, also known as incest, which usually sets a threshold at the level of first-cousin mating (Thornhill 1993).

Acceptance of inbreeding practices is highest among non-white populations.  Generally in-breeding refers to first cousin marriages, but in reality the practice of brother-sister, mother-son and father-daughter mating is not only accepted but defended among non-white migrants entering the white nations. They defend the practice as an integral aspect of their cultural identity, and they punish women who report family rape to the authorities.  I suggest searching the keywords inbreeding, Pakistan, India, Africa for more details and good videos.

 

It’s logical to assume that those groups of whites who are accused of inbreeding due to enclosed or isolated populations will not have the same negative side effects as those non-white groups who have practiced close inbreeding for countless generations, and who began with high levels of affinity to the Rhesus.  It is rare to find any public discussion of this, as it’s considered a family secret among Jews and Muslims, so they exaggerate any slight case of in breeding by whites in their effort to throw people off the trail.  When searching the subject of inbreeding, the results will show up pointing to Amish and Mennonites, when they clearly do not practice anywhere near the level of inbreeding demonstrated by Muslims and Jews. The Amish and Mennonites aren’t controllers of mass media, but Jews and the Saudi family are.

The result of inbreeding of whites of Jewish and Negro descent can be seen in the British Royal family and the Bush Dynasty whose roots are of the Pirate variety. You’ll even notice that the British royals look very much like the Bushes.

Eugene Ochap’s study of Human Inbreeding from 2004 provides some interesting background:

 

When discussing inbreeding, one of the most important values to be concerned with is the inbreeding coefficient.  The inbreeding coefficient represents the probability that an offspring will receive a gene from each parent that is a copy of a single shared ancestral gene.  The inbreeding coefficient is zero if the parents do not share a common ancestor, and if the inbreeding coefficient is one than the offspring has a 100% chance of receiving two copies of the ancestral gene.  However, this maximum inbreeding coefficient of one cannot be achieved in human populations (Dorsten 1999).

In western civilization consanguineous marriages and human inbreeding have been frowned upon by society for some time now.  Catholics were restricted to a distance of 7 generations of consanguinity, and this remains in effect until today. Though some Catholic documents were changed in the English language in the late 1800’s to read three generations, the old laws remained in force because few Catholics spoke or read English in those days.  French was still the dominant language among Catholics until the late 1950’s in many areas.  Catholic genealogies prove that families intermarried between distant towns in order to avoid in-breeding in early America.  Protestants did not observe these restrictions, but they were a small minority in America until the late twentieth century.

Statutes that applied to all races and religions, passed in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries, made inbreeding and marriages to the first cousin level illegal in the majority of the United States.

 

The earliest recorded study of inbreeding and its effects on human health was reported by Bemiss in 1858.  Charles Darwin became very interested and upset at this idea that children of consanguineous marriages could be biologically disadvantaged.  This was due to the fact that Darwin married his first cousin, Emma Wedgewood, and the two gave birth to ten children (Bittles 1991).  Both of them had Jewish backgrounds which indicates that inbreeding had been continuously practiced as an acceptable way to ‘keep the money in the family’.  Darwin wrote:

“… In England and many parts of Europe the marriages of cousins are objected to from their supposed injurious consequences: but this belief rests on no direct evidence.  It is there manifestly desirable that the belief should be either proven false, or should be confirmed, so that in this latter case the marriages of cousins might be discouraged…” (Hedrick 1991).

 

Darwin’s children had an inbreeding coefficient of 0.0630, meaning that there is a 6.3 percent chance that identical copies of a given gene will come from each parent. This figure is nearly identical to the already-known 6.25 percent chance that offspring of first-cousin marriages will experience the same genetic effect.

Berra, Alvarez and Ceballos of the Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, published a genetics study detailing how inbreeding led to the extinction of the Spanish Habsburg dynasty. It’s important to note that this dynasty were crypto-Jewish.  They used the Catholic church for doing their dirty work, like their so-called ‘Inquisition’, but their portraits, their behavior and their genealogy exhibit no trace of being truly Catholic. Their Hapsburg jaw was the result of interbreeding between already severely inbred Jewish-Caucassians and Negro bloodlines within Jewish monarchy of England. Queen Charlotte is the most noteworthy of these.

 

Berra, Alvarez and Ceballos teamed to conduct a similar analysis of the effects of the Darwin-Wedgwood connections.

The apparent infertility of three of the six surviving Darwin children will remain a mystery, Berra said. But population studies have suggested that statistically, offspring of consanguineous marriages are at higher risk for infertility.

Berra and his colleagues suggest that Darwin’s offspring might have had a higher chance of succumbing to such illnesses as TB and scarlet fever — the cause of the children’s deaths. Previous research has suggested that one consequence of inbreeding could be a higher susceptibility to infectious diseases.

 

REASONS A POPULATION WOULD PRACTICE INBREEDING

Due to concerns surrounding inbreeding and its effects, levels of inbreeding dropped as low as 0.5% in the 1990s at the first cousin level in the general populations North America and Western Europe, and the levels were even lower in Japan.  Recent propaganda lies often attempt to reverse these facts, which are now further confused by the presence of huge numbers of Muslim and Negro migrants into white countries.  In the American South for example, statistics on any subject of study, especially IQ, seldom separate black from white, leading to averages that are quite misleading from a cultural standpoint, and purposefully so.  While Jews separate themselves out of the general population in these studies, and then falsify them, Catholics are never separated out from the general population for IQ studies especially.

There is also the problem of sexual promiscuity in the Black ‘projects’, where large populations of youth have no idea whether their sexual partners might be half brothers or sisters, and even their mothers and fathers don’t know.

 

Even though inbreeding levels have decreased or never existed in white Catholic western civilizations,  Eugene Ochap mentioned that many studies show other large societies have predominately consanguineous marriages.  In fact, in many large populations of Asia and Africa twenty to fifty percent of all unions are that of consanguineous marriages (Bittles 1991).  Some reasons for practicing inbreeding include royalty, religion and culture, socioeconomic class, and geographic isolation and small populations.

In many Muslim and Hindu societies in Africa, Asia, and India, consanguineous marriages, especially unions of first cousins, account for twenty to fifty-five percent of the total.    No one talks about unions closer than first cousins, though plenty of evidence exists and the cost to society through socialized medicine is high.  These religions tend to inbreed because of religious acceptance, preference, and tradition.  Moreover, the culture of these societies plays a large role in the ever increasing levels of inbreeding.  Consanguineous marriages are thought to be an advantage when considering compatibility of the bride and her husband’s family,and this is true in Jewish culture as well.  This is particularly important in maintaining the family’s property, allowing families to keep their property. (Bittles 1991).

White people tend to be expansive and will spread out to new territory rather than try to hang onto diminishing land holdings.  This is the basis for the Black’s resentment of whites and the false claim that Whites are ‘imperialistic’.  The reality is that inbreeding is both the result of, and results in, mental and physical laziness.  It is much easier to sit idly on inherited land, than it is to pioneer new territory.  The haters of Whites want to expand into territory that Whites have already made civil and comfortable, they don’t want to make the effort of clearing unclaimed territory for themselves.

 

We are at the point where productive Whites will have no more new territory to clear.  America is full up, and so is China.  It is at this point that whites have to turn around and use their abilities to defend their position rather than move onto fresh ground.

Nature aids in this process, since the logical consequence of inbreeding is also physical cowardice and incompetence.  Black violence against Whites is now at an alarming rate, but this violence generally consists of assaults against the very old, the very young, single women and women with children.  When faced up against groups of organized White men, especially the military, false courage evaporates.  Their only defense is to say, “I dindu nuffin” and play the victim.  That won’t work anymore, nor should it.