don't have to do any studies here in MN, just pick up any telephone book & go to the name 'Johnson', I rest my case.......
I believe that certain groups should be excluded from immigrating to western countries as they have proven to be culturally incompatible with us and potentially very dangerous in the long term.The amount of social services paid for from the public purse to support all of these inbred babies, children to adults is simply enormous. It runs into the billions when you are talking of potentially millions of dependents supported from cradle to grave because of some warped ideology that allows and encourages marrying and procreating within a small family gene-pool.
Even though by law incestuous procreation is illegal, it is still allowed due to the governments reluctance to enforce said laws because they don't want to 'upset' these currently racial/religious minorities, who are slowly breeding themselves towards a possible majority unfettered by the restraints that should lawfully be put upon them.
Meanwhile the indigenous population has to pay for it all.
The only solution is to try and educate these people about the dangers of inbreeding, but that's not easy when most of them don't even speak the local language, and they don't even respect the local laws, adhering to some other set of medieval laws (eg Sharia) that encourage the very practices that are creating such a burden on modern society.
I believe that certain groups should be excluded from immigrating to western countries as they have proven to be culturally incompatible with us and potentially very dangerous in the long term.
I also strongly believe that government benefits related to having children should stop at two children; after that you are on your own. This would discourage welfare-dependent minorities from becoming the majority in the not so distant future. The very existence of our western values and way of life is at stake if we don't act now before it's too late.
I agree. It's about culture not race. A culture hell bent on destroying all others in the name of imaginary gods and prophets.Anyone that tries to speak out against what we are all seeing is labelled a 'racist' or a neo-nazi, when quite clearly most are not.
I agree. It's about culture not race. A culture hell bent on destroying all others in the name of imaginary gods and prophets.
I couldn't have said it better!More specifically a totalitarian Ideology, or a death-cult hell-bent on the destruction, or enslavement of anyone that does not convert to their way of thinking, and adhere to their misogynistic, paternal, sexist, homophobic laws, that enforce interbreeding.
It has always amazed me WHY we allow this, after coming so far, and shedding so much blood, sweat and tears over the ages, to reach this modern age.
Hey G,,,
ignore the racist crap,,
some nobody prick callling me a fool for stating plain facts,,,
uneducated plebs go straight to the race card,,,,,
not as simple or as clean cut as that,,,,,,s2
Ancestry of Charles II of Spain
Ancestry
Charles was born in Madrid in 1661, the only surviving son of his predecessor, King Philip IV of Spain and his second Queen (and niece), Mariana of Austria, another Habsburg. His birth was greeted with joy by the Spanish, who feared the disputed succession which could have ensued if Philip IV had left no male heir.
The Pedigree of Charles II shows extensive inbreeding.
17th century European noble culture commonly matched cousin to first cousin and uncle to niece, to preserve a prosperous family's properties. Charles's own immediate pedigree was exceptionally populated with nieces giving birth to children of their uncles: Charles's mother was a niece of Charles's father, being a daughter of Maria Anna of Spain (1606–46) and Emperor Ferdinand III. Thus, Empress Maria Anna was simultaneously his aunt and grandmother and Margarita of Austria was both his grandmother and great-grandmother. The inbreeding was so widespread in his case that all of his eight great-grandparents were descendants of Joanna of Aragon and Duke Phillip of Austria.[1] This inbreeding had given many in the family hereditary weaknesses. That Habsburg generation was more prone to still-births than were peasants in Spanish villages.[2]
There was also insanity in Charles's family; his great-great-great(-great-great, depending along which lineage one counts) grandmother, Joanna of Castile ("Joanna the Mad"; however, the degree to which her "madness" was induced by circumstances of her confinement and political intrigues targeting her is debated), mother of the Spanish King Charles I (who was also Holy Roman Emperor Charles V) became insane early in life. Joanna was two of Charles' 16 great-great-great-grandmothers, six of his 32 great-great-great-great-grandmothers, and six of his 64 great-great-great-great-great-grandmothers.
Dating to approximately the year 1550, outbreeding in Charles II's lineage had ceased (see also pedigree collapse). From then on, all his ancestors were in one way or another descendants of Joanna the Mad and Philip I of Castile, and among these just the royal houses of Spain, Austria and Bavaria. Charles II's genome was actually more homozygous than that of an average child whose parents are siblings.[2] He was born physically and mentally disabled, and disfigured. Possibly through affliction with mandibular prognathism, he was unable to chew. His tongue was so large that his speech could barely be understood, and he frequently drooled. It has been suggested that he suffered from the endocrine disease acromegaly, [3] or his inbred lineage may have led to a combination of rare genetic disorders such as combined pituitary hormone deficiency and distal renal tubular acidosis.[2]
Consequently, Charles II is known in Spanish history as El Hechizado ("The Hexed") from the popular belief—to which Charles himself subscribed—that his physical and mental disabilities were caused by "sorcery." The king went so far as to be exorcised.
The estimated IQ of German Shepard dogs is 60
Not really, they have calculated IQs of a number of animals from rooks to dolphins. I'd look up a chart for animal IQ scores, but well, I can't be arsed.. I do remember though that Texas has the lowest IQ in america, with an average IQ of 90. That's from an old A level I did in psychology back in 1992. It may have risen/fallen since then.
Oh and hissidic Jews (sp?) Had the highest average IQ (back then listed at 111).
Not a geographical group but a genetically sealed breeding group non the less.
The most surprising to me on the list is Mongolia. How the hell do a bunch of horse breeders become more intelligent (average) than the offspring of civilised nations? Niche breeding pressures, I would have thought, would force more emphasis on physical development for them, than intellectual.