THE CASE AGAINST GENETIC ADMIXTURE (Don’t shoot the messenger) The importance of

THE CASE AGAINST GENETIC ADMIXTURE
(Don’t shoot the messenger)
The importance of racial homogeneity increases with evolutionary neoteny and it’s advantages. In other words it benefits less neotenic peoples but harms more neotenic peoples.
Races are not equal in genetic expression. Lower neoteny expresses more so than higher neoteny. IQ mirrors racial admixture for the same reason. As such it’s much harder to express ‘white’ than it is south eurasian, southeast asian, african or the various hybrids. So the one-drop rule might be excessive, but not very.
There are four primary races from four speciation events. In neotenic order from least to most they are: african(East Africa), south eurasian (Dry Persian Gulf), european (European Ice Age), and east asian (probably tibetan stepp combined with old north coastal migration). Everyone else is a hybridization of those four. And prior to the agrarian revolution each was as different as africans europeans and east asians. Additionally, the first ‘out of africa’ generation along the coastal route from yemen to india to se asia, to pacifica to australia was more akin to old africans (San) than to new africans (Bantu), but there are no surviving isolates that I know of remaining. Even aboriginal australians are an admixture.
If you don’t care about phenotypic expression you should care a LOT about IQ distributions. Because average IQ decline in a population is the absolute worst long term consequence a people can experience, and decline in intelligence is non linear.
Europeans are the product of three groups: Native Europeans (European Hunter Gatherers), Anatolian Farmers, and European-Caucasian Steppe Herders.
This distribution is still evident in the IQs of populations in the cline from south to north of europe: Anatolian Farmers: Turkey (86), Greece (92), Sicily (90) Sardina (92); Atlantics: france(94-96), Spain(98); and Germanics (100-101), then the north slavic and poland (96). Then the finnics in Estonia and Finland (100-101).
At present (a) the Flynn effect is reversing (dysgenic reproduction) (b) the best people have the fewest if any children (asymmetric reproduction), (c) immigration is lowering average IQ, (d) the quality of education due to ‘equality in the classroom’ combined with women teachers is declining accordingly – the result a less capable poplation offset by import of high performing university students, technologists, researchers, and even businesspeople – effecting the economy but not the social and political order.
So the outcome is rather obvious in the data: you cannot have a high trust western european country, with participatory democracy, technological innovation and the wealth that results from a population with an IQ much under 100. The lower the IQ the greater the demand for authoritarianism.
And in fact, a population needs, as England did before the industrial revolution, and ashkenazi did until they outbred, an IQ over 105 and preferably over 110 to maintain intellectual, political, and economic competitive advantage and the resulting quality of life of the population.
Because your quality of life is more dependent upon the country’s average IQ than it is your own.

Cheers

Reply addressees: @IsseKwok