I’ve looked at a lot of books and articles about this stuff, and haven’t been able to find a satisfactory answer, because there’s too much ideological investment on both sides of the question. I suppose you’d probably have to actually be a geneticist or something to get to the bottom of this.
Since becoming a race realist, I’ve read a lot of old eugenics essays and books. One thing a lot of them contend is that if people from different ethnic groups intermarry, their children will have health problems because the bits of them won’t fit together well. Naturally, more recent writers disdain this theory, but there doesn’t seem to be much solid information discrediting it. On the other hand, the eugenics theorists mostly didn’t have rigorous data backing them up either, just anecdotes and theory.
I wonder if it’s true because I have a couple of anecdotes of my own. When I was a kid, a boy my age who lived near me had an Irish father and an Italian mother – the couple had met attending the same Catholic church. When his adult teeth started coming in, he suffered a lot of pain because he had inherited his large father’s teeth and his petite mother’s small mouth. I think he eventually had to have surgery.
I also have a friend whose ancestry includes, let’s see: Irish, German, Russian, and Dutch. And she is, let’s be frank, funny looking. Her head is oddly shaped, so is her jaw, and since her preteen years she’s suffered back pain from scoliosis because her spine is funny shaped. She herself is a wonderful person, and she doesn’t deserve to have such afflictions.
On the other hand, I know someone else whose ancestry is almost purely English. She has a lot of impressive ancestors, including a couple who made it into the history books. But maybe the blood ran a little thin after enough centuries of intermarriages between the WASPs in her state, because both of her parents have serious psychological problems. Maybe it isn’t genetic; her grandparents are all fine. She only has the problems caused by having crazy parents, but her parents’ problems are ones that the experts say have to be at least partly genetic. Why didn’t those problems show up sooner in her family tree? Anyway, she’s now middle-aged and childless. She chose not to have children because she was afraid her kids would inherit the mental problems her parents had.
This brings me to the other major thing I wonder about. Some of the old eugenics theorists claimed that inbreeding was actually a good thing. They explained that the best herds of livestock come from taking just a couple of healthy specimens and interbreeding their offspring. Any that are born with deficiencies must be “culled”, but after a few generations of this, they claim, the result is a healthy herd. The implication is that we should apply the same to humans.
I did a little more digging and confirmed that the general belief that incest leads to deformities and other bad things was correct, and even most people who believe we should practice eugenics would balk at “culling” human beings with genetic defects. (Maybe sterilizing them.) But the overarching theory might be correct.
The main example we have of this from the laboratory of history is in royalty, who did tend to interbreed with each other. And you know, aside from the Romanov hemophilia and the Hapsburg underbite, it mostly seems to have gone okay. I used to read a lot about ancient Egypt, and one book (I forget which, this was a long time ago) contended that their practice of kings marrying their own sisters and daughters produced both prodigies and subnormals. So sure, they got the occasional retard, but they also got towering geniuses, so the book contended.
This morning something I read (I can’t find it now) mentioned that royal practice of inbreeding existed so that the family could keep the power to itself instead of spreading it out. There’s other historical examples of this, like the Rothschilds’ history of marrying their own cousins.
I find myself now wondering if discouraging cousin marriages, as most Western governments have over the last two centuries, was a way of preventing families from accumulating too much property or power, thus making them less dependent on the government. I once read that in medieval times, cousin marriages were outlawed unless you got a papal dispensation, and of course if you weren’t royalty that was hard to do. This made it hard for peasants to find spouses and have children, since most of the people they knew were cousins of some degree. Like the laws preventing them from keeping records of their family trees, this was probably to make it hard for peasants to form alliances that could gain them more power in society. I have to add that I’ve only read this in one book, so it could be inaccurate; I looked around online a bit and didn’t find confirmation one way or the other.
We all know that the governments of the West are striving to undermine the family because it’s a rival power center in society. I have to wonder if the encouragement of the idea that cousin marriages are a bad idea – in some states, first cousins aren’t even allowed to marry – might be part of that.
For the record, I can’t stand any of my cousins and wouldn’t marry any of them if they were the last men on earth.