White power hybrid theory.

**gmb45** · 26 October, 2009, 07:16

Originally posted by chroma

I was watching Question Time with Nick Griffin getting tore a new one which was enjoyable.

Anyway a point was made about his stance on interracial marriage and his view on it (to which there was no clear cut answer, but thats beside the point)

It got me thinking and blew my mind off into a spiraling tangent as i watched helplessly as the programme tuned out as my brain overpowered everything else.

I take it that the BNP are opposed to interracial marriage or else he would have publicly stated he was all for it the same as everyone else on the panel.

That the white british race should be "purified" or some other nonsense, which got me to thinking of nazi policies and skinheads and racial hate groups in general terms.

I got to thinking that the logic is terribly flawed from a purely scientific standpoint.
I mean everyone knows incest is illegal, that even if your in the american "deep south" that having a kid with your sister is generaly not the best policy regarding reproduction.

This is for several reasons, not least of which is increased possibility of genetic anomaly and radical mutation, anywhere from simple webbed hands and feet to toes growing out your forehead.
It produces poor results.

This being said by looking just west of Equador to the Galapagos isles Darwin effectively stumbled upon the evoloutionary theory. Things on one island where sort of related but radicaly different from spieces on another.
Things got diverse over a few centuries of cross breeding, mutations occured that actualy BENIFITED each individual speices.

Moving on from that and what we already know about having children with siblings, doesnt it make more sense that interracial breeding should be actively encouraged?

Take black skin for instance, its scientificaly awesome! Having darker skin makes you more resilient to skin cancer produced by UV Radiation (thats harsh sunlight for you kids in the back) it also protects protect Folic Acid (Vitamin B9) from destuction.

Low folic acid causes a wide array of problems including premature birth, weight loss, irritability, heart problems, behavioral disorders, sore tongue, headaches and so forth.
Essentialy if you have no folic acid you become an irritated, headcase with a sore head whose likely to develop some kind of pregnancy problem.

White skin protects from a deficiency in vitamin D, which causes colon tumours, softer bones (from bad mineralisation) kidney and liver problems and the like.

Now moving on, the climate is apparently changing, the ozone is burning out, greenhouse gasses are building up and the apocalypse is neigh, hell fire and brimestone with lakes of sulphur are truly upon us, if the media holds any truth.

The OZONE essentialy acts as a barrier for UV Radiation, so once its gone all us "superior" white folks are going to shrivel up, develop tumours and keel over... possibly why the KKK wear the heavy frocks and hoods (maybe theyre not quite as stupid as theyre letting on)

So lets see, thus far from a carpet ban on getting jiggy with anyone not of the "supreme" race weve so far got children that survive a difficult pregnancy term comming out with toes on their foreheads, only to rapidly die of skin cancer.
Being superior is great thus far.
The ones that do survive will be clearly insane... with major headaches, which is all well and good cause they wont moan from their tongues being too sore to effectively communicate

Now take eyes, central and easter asian eyes are "slanted" this effect is produced by epicanthic folds.
The reason behind this is widely accepted to be that the extra fatty tissue caused a desirable effect in arctic conditions... namely that the eye didnt freeze and therefore made sure you didnt go completely blind and wind up as a large component in a polar bears shit.

It means that the eye is more readily able to regulate temperature and not impair vision, its pretty amazing really and ensured that again the birthrate went up where the superior white devil would more than likely have become brown stuff out the back of a bear.

Clearly a desireable trait for the benifit of humanity.
I guess what im really getting at is that you can pick any race of people and they will have some kind of benifit that allowed them to survive where everyone else would have died.

So why the hell would anyone want to prevent these genetic marvels from being passed on to their kids? Seems to me like all these white power folks want their childrens lives to be cruel, harsh and horribly disfigured, and i really cant fathom the merit in that.

Besides sex is highly enjoyable, everyone wants to be getting as much of it as they possibly can. seems insane to limit the chances of gettin it to a single race of people when you could multiply your chances by a few orders of magnitude if you can et past some strance preconcieved notion that because someones "different" theyre somehow unworthy or getting it on.

By interbreeding you effectively promote positive changes to EVERY RACE you perform it with, weakness automaticaly gets dropped out of the system, and eventaly the entire concept of "race" becomes pointless as theres no longer any real individuals to single out... well apart from the crazy klan folk with the double action hoods to hide the forhead-toes and protect them from certain cancer, but they cant really say much by this point due to their problematic (although highly superior) tongues.
Look on the bright side klansmen, you wont get rickets from a lack of vitimin D like deyum dere queer folks.

By combining chinese, european and african genes we could have kids with benefits to both light and dark skin combined (so no more vitimin deficiencies or cancer) and eyes that can better regulate temperatures in extremes of hot and cold climates. IDEAL for the harsh world the media fortells of tommorow. After all isnt it every parents dream to have a healthy happy kid whose immune to a major slice of the worlds problems?

I cant be the only one to see the maddness of the entire "purity" concept can i?

so putting simply, going forth and multiplying with any race creed or colour is a good thing, im all for that

**chroma** · 26 October, 2009, 07:56

Originally posted by gmb45

so putting simply, going forth and multiplying with any race creed or colour is a good thing, im all for that

You missed as frequently as possable.

"FCUK ME TO SPITE HITLER" teeshirts will be rolling off the presses any day now

**forntida** · 26 October, 2009, 09:48

It's early in the morning so please excuse any errors or omissions. I am against mixed marriages on a large scale. Not because I am racist in the way that it is portrayed generally.

Each race has evolved over thousand of years and it would take thousand of years to change them. Take for example Dutch South Africans in two hundred years they have changed ever so slightly to a darker colour. Remember that each race has evolved over all these years to suit the environment that they live in.

In each mixed marriage the couple should be warned of the pitfalls of such a marriage. Hopefully genetics will be able to sort these out eventually.

All races have diseases and afflictions that are solely theirs. A mixed marriage would not eliminate these. A bad apple in a barrel of good apples does not improve the good apples or the bad one, it rots the good apples.

Anybody who thinks that we are all the same under the skin is pretty naive. If that was correct then we would all have the same skin colour. We have different bone structures etc.

Before anyone gets on their high horse, the above was written with every race in mind.

What I am really saying is that in a mixed marriage it is a genetic step back for the more evovled of the two partners.

I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.

**on_the_jazz** · 27 October, 2009, 14:45

Originally posted by forntida

It's early in the morning so please excuse any errors or omissions. I am against mixed marriages on a large scale. Not because I am racist in the way that it is portrayed generally.

Each race has evolved over thousand of years and it would take thousand of years to change them. Take for example Dutch South Africans in two hundred years they have changed ever so slightly to a darker colour. Remember that each race has evolved over all these years to suit the environment that they live in.

In each mixed marriage the couple should be warned of the pitfalls of such a marriage. Hopefully genetics will be able to sort these out eventually.

All races have diseases and afflictions that are solely theirs. A mixed marriage would not eliminate these. A bad apple in a barrel of good apples does not improve the good apples or the bad one, it rots the good apples.

Anybody who thinks that we are all the same under the skin is pretty naive. If that was correct then we would all have the same skin colour. We have different bone structures etc.

Before anyone gets on their high horse, the above was written with every race in mind.

What I am really saying is that in a mixed marriage it is a genetic step back for the more evovled of the two partners.

I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.

I shall use the terms green people and blue people to avoid insulting anyone

Anyway what you're saying would only make sense if the offspring of green and blue people were succesptible to ALL the diseases which only blue people can get and ALL the diseases only green people can get.
Usually though the offspring will be prone to only some of the diseases blue people can get and some green people can get. Not a total of the 2.

For example they might suddenly become at risk of sickle cell, but less at risk of cysitic fibrosis or skin cancer. Overall you wouldn't say they are weaker, in fact I'm sure I read some research which said that mixed race people were actually less prone to disease overall.

I also don't think the case for environment holds up since even the harshest inhabited places have shelter, heating, and a supermarket. That's all most of us need

Using your South Africa example, if you were to go there to live I have no doubt you'd do just fine. The heat may take a bit of getting used to but after a while you'd be living like the locals.

**forntida** · 27 October, 2009, 15:33

Originally posted by on_the_jazz

I shall use the terms green people and blue people to avoid insulting anyone

Anyway what you're saying would only make sense if the offspring of green and blue people were succesptible to ALL the diseases which only blue people can get and ALL the diseases only green people can get.
Usually though the offspring will be prone to only some of the diseases blue people can get and some green people can get. Not a total of the 2.

For example they might suddenly become at risk of sickle cell, but less at risk of cysitic fibrosis or skin cancer. Overall you wouldn't say they are weaker, in fact I'm sure I read some research which said that mixed race people were actually less prone to disease overall.

I also don't think the case for environment holds up since even the harshest inhabited places have shelter, heating, and a supermarket. That's all most of us need

Using your South Africa example, if you were to go there to live I have no doubt you'd do just fine. The heat may take a bit of getting used to but after a while you'd be living like the locals.

You are missing the whole point. These diseases are saused by a gene. If you have a lot of mixed marriages then you are creating more people with that particular gene. Having the gene does not mean that you will catch the disease/affliction but some unlucky bugger down the line will catch it.

I will give you an example of how strange these things work. My mother-in-law died from breast cancer. She had five daughters, three of whom got breast cancer. This particular gene has a funny quirk; If you have it you are more susceptible to breast cancer but you are immune to the nova virus(winter vomiting bug). I doubted this when I first read it until a couple of years ago. We were attending a house party of about 30 people. Every person except the sisters caught the nova virus that night.

What I am trying to get over is it is early days to try mass inter marriages. Gene technology has not been fully utilised yet to eliminate dangers.

Using your South Africa example, if you were to go there to live I have no doubt you'd do just fine.

Could you tell me exactly what you mean by the above statement?

**on_the_jazz** · 27 October, 2009, 17:09

Originally posted by forntida

You are missing the whole point. These diseases are saused by a gene. If you have a lot of mixed marriages then you are creating more people with that particular gene. Having the gene does not mean that you will catch the disease/affliction but some unlucky bugger down the line will catch it.

Yes, but if there are more people with one disease it just means there will be less people with another... does that make sense? I am looking at overall. Also being a carrier of a gene and not having the disease is sometimes beneficial (like in sickle cell).
I wonder if Channel4 will cover mixed marriages on one of their programs this month.

Originally posted by forntida

Could you tell me exactly what you mean by the above statement?

Ha ha I honestly meant that as an innocent comment! It took me a few reads to understand how you took it

I just mean your skin might not have had hundreds of years to adapt but you'll still be able to live there.

edit: Just came across this while searching to see if it was covered in the C4 race related programs - Interesting read.

**Gumbo** · 27 October, 2009, 23:24

Wow eugenics discussions on a hacking site. I see I've found the thinking mans hacking forum.

Now where did I put that old anorak..

**chroma** · 28 October, 2009, 04:35

Originally posted by forntida

You are missing the whole point. These diseases are saused by a gene. If you have a lot of mixed marriages then you are creating more people with that particular gene. Having the gene does not mean that you will catch the disease/affliction but some unlucky bugger down the line will catch it.

I will give you an example of how strange these things work. My mother-in-law died from breast cancer. She had five daughters, three of whom got breast cancer. This particular gene has a funny quirk; If you have it you are more susceptible to breast cancer but you are immune to the nova virus(winter vomiting bug). I doubted this when I first read it until a couple of years ago. We were attending a house party of about 30 people. Every person except the sisters caught the nova virus that night.

What I am trying to get over is it is early days to try mass inter marriages. Gene technology has not been fully utilised yet to eliminate dangers.

Could you tell me exactly what you mean by the above statement?

For anything to be passed on it would need to be dominant in one person or recessive in both.

look at reproduction under a microscope, the neuclear dna from the sperm and egg begin to unfurl, the double helix strands seperate giving 2 pairs of helixes to utilise then they randomly pair the genetic material to create your kid.

Genetic traits come in two forms D for Dominant and r for Recessive.
Dominant traits overpower the recessive and are in some way measurable in a person.

GINGER HAIR
The gene that defines ginger hair is recessive.
Take an average pairing of people with the ginger trait, none of these will have ginger hair but their kids have a 25% shot at it.
Dr+Dr means theres 4 possible combinations DD (hybrid) two chances of Dr (carrier) rr (runt)

You need both recessive genes to have visibly ginger hair, as its recessive the Dominant trait overpowers it.

Now both parents might not even have the recessive gene meaning you might wind up with a hybrid and a regular or DD+Dr giving a combination of 2x DD 2x Dr so its impossable to have a ginger kid in a single generation if one parent is a hybrid. 50% chance of hybridisation and 50% chance of being a carrier. definately good odds.

The only way to ensure a person gets ginger is if both parents are also ginger meaning its rr+rr and no matter which way you cut it your child will be born without a soul... i mean ginger.

Any genetic disease which you can carry but not be measurably effected with will also generaly be a recessive gene trait, meaning that through careful hybrid breeding you can eradicate it from a populace.

Completely different from a barrel of apples situation.
So if you have a child to someone from a different race whos immune to it then in theory the worst case you have a 50% chance of the kid being a carrier and a 50% chance of hybrid immunity.

Far better than breeding with someone from your own race where your limited to 25% immunity, 50% carrier 25% absoloutly shafted from birth.

The numbers speak for themselves.

**forntida** · 28 October, 2009, 09:19

Originally posted by chroma

For anything to be passed on it would need to be dominant in one person or recessive in both.

look at reproduction under a microscope, the neuclear dna from the sperm and egg begin to unfurl, the double helix strands seperate giving 2 pairs of helixes to utilise then they randomly pair the genetic material to create your kid.

Genetic traits come in two forms D for Dominant and r for Recessive.
Dominant traits overpower the recessive and are in some way measurable in a person.

GINGER HAIR
The gene that defines ginger hair is recessive.
Take an average pairing of people with the ginger trait, none of these will have ginger hair but their kids have a 25% shot at it.
Dr+Dr means theres 4 possible combinations DD (hybrid) two chances of Dr (carrier) rr (runt)

You need both recessive genes to have visibly ginger hair, as its recessive the Dominant trait overpowers it.

Now both parents might not even have the recessive gene meaning you might wind up with a hybrid and a regular or DD+Dr giving a combination of 2x DD 2x Dr so its impossable to have a ginger kid in a single generation if one parent is a hybrid. 50% chance of hybridisation and 50% chance of being a carrier. definately good odds.

The only way to ensure a person gets ginger is if both parents are also ginger meaning its rr+rr and no matter which way you cut it your child will be born without a soul... i mean ginger.

Any genetic disease which you can carry but not be measurably effected with will also generaly be a recessive gene trait, meaning that through careful hybrid breeding you can eradicate it from a populace.

Completely different from a barrel of apples situation.
So if you have a child to someone from a different race whos immune to it then in theory the worst case you have a 50% chance of the kid being a carrier and a 50% chance of hybrid immunity.

Far better than breeding with someone from your own race where your limited to 25% immunity, 50% carrier 25% absoloutly shafted from birth.

The numbers speak for themselves.

So you are saying it is better to have 25% less chance of catching more diseases than 50% chance of a few . I think I will stick with my 50% chance of fewer. I don't think I would go to Ireland and say marry out of your culture if you want to reduce your chances of red headed children.

We are just shuffling figures here. It would take hundreds of years to prove the theory. Auld Nick is not going to use that last sentence.

**manxspud** · 28 October, 2009, 10:30

sorry for butting in fellers... i just wanted to order 1 of those
"FCUK ME TO SPITE HITLER" teeshirts please.

**chroma** · 29 October, 2009, 01:01

Originally posted by forntida

So you are saying it is better to have 25% less chance of catching more diseases than 50% chance of a few . I think I will stick with my 50% chance of fewer. I don't think I would go to Ireland and say marry out of your culture if you want to reduce your chances of red headed children.

We are just shuffling figures here. It would take hundreds of years to prove the theory. Auld Nick is not going to use that last sentence.

Ah but the premise is that one race will have an immunity to it, like vitamin d deficiency for instance, then both races will have a 50% chance of "carrying" which is entirely different than catching as theres no risk of the disease effecting you.

breeding with your own race however gives a 25% chance that the disease will effect you. so the odds are 100% non effect to 25% chance of something bad with same race relations.

Theres less chance of negative effects than positives is all im saying

**C64** · 29 October, 2009, 01:18

Originally posted by forntida

I am against mixed marriages on a large scale. Not because I am racist in the way that it is portrayed generally.

I hear what you are saying, but the only conclusion I can come to after reading your full post is that you are a CLASSIC Racist!

**forntida** · 29 October, 2009, 08:29

Originally posted by chroma

Ah but the premise is that one race will have an immunity to it, like vitamin d deficiency for instance, then both races will have a 50% chance of "carrying" which is entirely different than catching as theres no risk of the disease effecting you.

breeding with your own race however gives a 25% chance that the disease will effect you. so the odds are 100% non effect to 25% chance of something bad with same race relations.

Theres less chance of negative effects than positives is all im saying

All I am saying is it will take hundreds of years to find out which theory is correct.

**forntida** · 29 October, 2009, 08:31

Originally posted by witchy2k1

I hear what you are saying, but the only conclusion I can come to after reading your full post is that you are a CLASSIC Racist!

I agree, this modern rap is rubbish.

[on_the_jazzQUOTE]
Ha ha I honestly meant that as an innocent comment! It took me a few reads to understand how you took it

[/QUOTE]

See how easily it is for someone innocent to be accused of racism?

White power hybrid theory.

White power hybrid theory.

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment