July 12, 2011

Inbreeding's ins-and-outs

Now that a man can marry a man, schismatic Mormons are asking: why can't a man marry two women? And Muslims are asking: why can't can't a man marry his first cousin? And Hindus from southern India are asking: why can't a man marry his niece?

In-breeding appealed to political and economic dynasts, such as the Habsburgs and Rothschilds, because it doesn't dissipate family assets to too many heirs.

The Habsburg dynasty that reigned over much of Europe from the late medieval period to the last days of WWI is notorious today for the inbreeding that beset Charles II, the Habsburg king of Spain from 1665-1700. Wikipedia explains:
Charles was born in Madrid, 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.
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.[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.

(Here's my my movie review of the Spanish biopic Juana la Loca.)
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.

Charles II died without issue at age 38, which set off a crisis in Europe's balance of power. His will named as king of Spain a relative who was also the grandson of King Louis XIV of France. Britain objected to the union of France and Spain under the Bourbons. In the ensuing War of the Spanish Succession, John Churchill became Duke of Marlborough for winning the Battle of Blenheim. (His descendant Winston Churchill wrote a six volume biography of his ancestor.)

So, the Habsburgs were genetically doomed forever by inbreeding, right? 

Well, on July 4, 2011 died Franz Joseph Otto Robert Maria Anton Karl Max Heinrich Sixtus Xavier Felix Renatus Ludwig Gaetan Pius Ignatius von Habsburg , crown prince of the Austro-Hungarian Empire from 1916-18, who lived a model of a healthy, useful life, died at age 98. He stood against Hitler and Stalin, turned down the throne of Spain and recommended Juan Carlos instead, and served in the European Union parliament for decades. Otto von Habsburg was, by political inclination, ancestry, and family trade, a pan-Europeanist. His ancestor Charles V had ruled over more of Europe (and ruled rather conscientiously) than any man between Charlemagne and Napoleon.

Otto von Habsburg's last great contribution to European unity was cosponsoring the Pan-European Picnic on August 19, 1989 on the Austrian-Hungarian border, where the Soviet Empire sprang a terminal leak. By pre-arrangement with Hungarian authorities, the border gate in what we call "the Berlin Wall" (but which was actually 1800 miles long, running from the Baltic to the Aegean) was opened for three hours during Otto's picnic. Hundreds of East German tourists left the Warsaw Pact countries to join relatives in West Germany. 

A few weeks after this genial occasion, the Hungarians decided to make it permanent and stopped stopping East Germans tourists from leaving Hungary for the West. Because there was no serious border control within the Warsaw Pact, a leak anywhere could eventually drain the Soviet Empire of its most valuable inmates. Eventually, the East Berlin authorities gave in on November 9, 1989 and told the wall guards to stop guarding.

Archduke von Habsburg was also a pundit whom I regularly read forty years ago. Charles A. Coulombe writes in Taki's Magazine in Death of an Imperial Pen Pal:
The San Fernando Valley in the 1970s was a very dull place. Hot and dusty, filled with lackluster architectural construction thrown together during the postwar housing boom, it was the last place I wanted to be. 
Back in those far-off days, the LA Archdiocese’s paper, The Tidings, ran a column by the Archduke Otto von Habsburg, son of Austria-Hungary’s last Emperor-King.

I read him, too. The Tidings' other columnist back when I was 12 was the almost as cosmopolitan Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. We got a quality dose of high-brow Mittel-Europa punditry in the San Fernando Valley

The solution to the genetic woes of inbreeding is to stop inbreeding. Even a modest level of non-inbreeding quickly solves problems like sterility.

Otto, who stopped appearing in public after the death of his wife, Regina, last year, is survived by his younger brother, Felix, as well as 7 children, 22 grandchildren and 2 great-grandchildren. 

You can do some interesting calculations about average fertility per generation using the last paragraph in the obituaries of prominent people (although one caveat is that the obituaries give survivors, not total descendants). It would be interesting to build a model to predict the number of surviving descendants by generation of, say, people important enough to get their obituaries in the New York Times. Use as factors: date of birth, age at death, sex, career, number of marriages, etc. 

Take the Archduke as an example. So, among his survivors, Otto had 7 children and an average of 3.14 surviving grandchildren per surviving child. But his 22 grandchildren have only 2 surviving great-grandchildren, so far, or 0.09 on average. 

Talk about pedigree collapse.

63 comments:

Anonymous said...

Berlin was in East Germany. The Berlin Wall was simply what divided West Berlin (a tiny western enclave in East Germany) from East Berlin and the surrounding East Germany.

:themoreyouknow:

The Dark Ages said...

So, among his survivors, Otto had 7 children and an average of 3.1 surviving grandchildren per surviving child. But his 22 grandchildren have only 2 surviving great-grandchildren, so far, or 0.11 on average.

Talk about pedigree collapse.



Welcome to the nihilism-induced self-extinction of the civilized world.

kmerian said...

It sounds like pedigree collapse infill you realize that the Archduke did not have his first child until he was about 43. His youngest son was born when he was almost 60! Most of his grandchildren are early teens or younger.

Kaz said...

How the hell did you bring Hindus and Muslims into this one? While linking to one random case. I don't see why you're doing this these days.

Inserting random jabs where they don't really belong.

Steve Sailer said...

"The Aryan Hindus of
northern India prohibit marriage between biological kin for approximately seven generations
on the male side and five generations on the female side (Kapadia 1958). By comparison,
Dravidian Hindus of South India strongly favour marriage between first cousins of the type
mother’s brother’s daughter (MBD) and, particularly in the states of Andhra Pradesh,
Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, uncle-niece marriages also are widely contracted."

A.H. Bittles, "A Background Summary of Consanguineous Marriage," 2001
http://www.consang.net/images/d/dd/01AHBWeb3.pdf

Truth said...

I read an article one supposing that Boy George's problem with stuttering and gaffing, while president, could have been explained by mild inbreeding. The Bush's and European Royal families are part of the same relatively small gene pool.

Read another article that said that the British Royal Family's recent fascination with commoners has nothing to do with love but was an edict from the Queen as she knows that years of recycled DNA have taken their toll.

Think about it: Prince Charles was not "allowed" to be with Parker-Bowles until she was to old to reproduce.

Garland said...

If you're ever at a loss for something to write, or even if you finally get bored with your usual themes altogether, I'd be happy to read you just recounting interesting parts of history.

Crawfurdmuir said...

Is it "pedigree collapse" or simply the fact that royals (as Filmer pointed out in his "Patriarcha") are the most senior kinsmen of their countrymen, and therefore have a generational lag compared to them?

I recently found that the duke of Cambridge (Prince William) is my twenty-seventh cousin twice removed. Our common ancestor was Henry II. His line descends through Henry II's youngest son, John "Lackland" (the bad king John of the Robin Hood legends), whereas mine descends through Henry II's acknowledged but illegitimate son William Longespee, earl of Salisbury. Since the twelfth century, my line through Longespee has picked up two more generations than William's line through John. Prince William is thus of the same generation as my grandparents, although I am thirty years older than he. To the best of my genealogical knowledge, this is not at all untypical. The system of primogeniture assures that royalty always passes to the most senior heir male. Most people of Anglo-Norman descent have one or more British royal ancestors, but they are always through junior lines. Debrett or Burke's will furnish many examples. Furthermore, male royals have historically married and begotten children at older ages than their subjects.

Give Otto's grandchildren time and they will produce a good crop of great grandchildren. With a lineage as ancient as the Habsburgs', there is probably a cumulative lag between three and five generations separating them from their fellow south Gemans.

Anonymous said...

I sometimes wonder about this in regards to French-Canadians. There are about 9-10 million of them here in Canada (some of whom have been absorbed into the larger English-speaking society) and perhaps 5-6 million in America (the so-called Franco-Americans of New England). All of these people are descended from the 60,000 French colonists in Quebec at 1757 when the conquest happened. Those 60,000 are in turn descended from the 6-7000, that arrived in the first few decades of the 1600's. Go back a few more generations and those 6-7000 are descended from 5-600 people in a few villages on the Normandy coast. So here you have about 15,000,000 people all descended from about, 500-600, say five centuries ago. And French-Canadians had very high rates of endogamy. I have often privately wondered about this. Historically Quebec was one of the most backward and unprogressive parts of North America. Women didn't get the right to vote until 1943. It is my understanding that Quebec has among the highest rates of suicide and mental illness in the western world. I personally know a number of French-Candians who suffer from mental health problems.

Reg Cæsar said...

Take the Archduke as an example...
Talk about pedigree collapse.


How many descendants has J.S. Bach, he of the twenty offspring, today?

I've seen a German genealogist claim that he had no great-great-grandchildren at all. But that may just be the male line, as another article suggested at least one female descendant came to America and her own descendants are here today.

This question intrigues me, because the missus has an ancestor who came here from Eisenach, Bach's birthplace, and our musically-obsessed 3-year-old seems, well, rather "fugued-up" himself.

Anonymous said...

'Incestophobia' could be the next craze. It will all depend on Jewish controllers of academia, pop culture, law firms, and the courts. If they say NO, it will remain NO. If they say YES, we'll gradually gravitate to that position.

Indeed, if a man can marry a man, why not brother and sister, father and daughter, mother and son, brother and brother, sister and sister, etc?
Some might say it's gross, but that's not 'rational'. It is 'phobic'.

Some might say it might lead to birth defects, but doesn't leftism and progressivism tell us that all humans are equally valuable?
Besides, Malcolm Gladwell tells us that 10,000 hrs of training will fix any problem.
And retarded people are not 'retarded' but 'mentally challenged' and they are in need of our support and love. Banning incest marriage on the grounds that people with birth 'defects' are inferior is downright Nazi!!!
Let us do away with such Eugenicist talk!!

Also, with new technology to check unborn fetuses, we can now determine whether the unborn child in the womb is 'normal' or 'abnormal' if indeed the couple wants a 'normal' couple. And since progressive folks believe in abortion, problem-fetuses can be aborted.
And besides, who says incestuous marriages have to produce children? Maybe father and daughter will just have sex without having kids.

Oh, in this world with so much hatred and violence, what is so wrong with a son loving his mommy?

-------

Since 'gay marriage' has been turned into 'same-sex marriage', how long before two guys pull off a 'friend marriage'? Suppose one friend wants to share the benefits of his friend, and they go through a 'same sex marriage'. Each lives apart and has his own girlfriend, but as they can share each other's benefits as 'married friends'?
I mean who says marriage has to be sexual, right? Yeah, platonic marriage. Now, let's not be platophobic.

Anonymous said...

WE joke about this, but this is a horrible sign of civilizational decline. It is the destruction of values and definitions. 'Gay marriage' as real marriage, illegal alien as 'undocumented immigrant', the likes of Michelle Obama and other affirmative action babies are Ivy League material, debt as wealth, entitlements as rights, welfare checks as 'tax credits', etc. What's next? Witch doctor as real doctor? When everything is anything, it's nothing.

It's too bad the Right has poor credentials in combatting such idiocy since the Right is associated with moronics like Creationism.

Anonymous said...

Whether inbreeding is good or bad, at least incest involved real sex with proper sexual organs and can produce life. Homosexuality, in contrast, is sexually gross(male homo) or ridiculous(female homo), and serves no sexual purpose whatsoever.
Incest marriage--though I oppose it with every bone in my body--makes more sense than 'gay marriage'. Even polygamy makes more sense than 'gay marriage'. And it's pretty natural and historical to boot.

Anonymous said...

Here is proof race doesn't exist from an expert in the field of anthropology.

http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/interests/Baltimore.html

Steve Sailer said...

"How many descendants has J.S. Bach, he of the twenty offspring, today?"

I don't believe he has any living descendants bearing the surname "Bach," but I read somewhere where somebody said there were about 15 living descendants of Bach in total.

TH said...

As pointed out by kmerian, there is no "pedigree collapse". As described in the Wikipedia article, most of his grandchildren are in their 20s, the oldest is 32 and the youngest is only six. His two great-grandchildren so far were born in 2009 and 2010, but there's obviously going to be many more.

Anonymous said...

Mormons calling for polygamarriage will not work cuz most of the law, culture, and government are run by liberals. As long as polygamarriage is associated with 'reactionary' and 'patriarchal' Mormons, it will not pass the smell test.

On the other hand, if some famous pop celebrity adored by Hollywood and liberals says he wants to marry three women, that would be a game changer. Or if an intellectual like Norman Mailer says he wants to marry 4 or 5 women who just adore his brilliance and wanna live with him as wives, that too will change the debate.

What if 4 women wanna marry this handsome smart guy--Harvard Physicist--and all are willing to share his love. But under our current system, the guy can only marry one woman. Is that fair to the three women who are left out? But with polygamarriage, he can marry all four, love them equally, and he can spread his superior genes all around.
What's wrong with that? To oppose such would be polygaphobic.
It can be like Guido's fantasy in 8 1/2.

Personally, I oppose polygamy too. We are sane westerners who believe in romantic love,not Muslims.

Reg Cæsar said...

Our common ancestor was Henry II. --Crawfurdmuir

Henry II (5 March 1133 – 6 July 1189) ruled as King of England (1154–1189), Count of Anjou, Count of Maine, Duke of Normandy, Duke of Aquitaine, Duke of Gascony, Count of Nantes, Lord of Ireland and, at various times, controlled parts of Wales, Scotland and western France. --Wikipedia

1133-1189? Everyone in, or with ancestry in, or near, or in or near places that traded with, England, Anjou, Maine (both of 'em), Normandy, Aquitaine, Gascony, Nantes, Ireland, Wales, Scotland and western France will have him as a common ancestor!

A noted American genealogist once teased the newly-formed Order of the Crown of Charlemagne, saying that everyone in Europe and North America would descend not only from Chuck himself, but from every one of the dozen wives and concubines who gave him children.

That's good to know, because a later genealogist now claims that 70% of Americans also descend from Mohammed! (Excuse me while I take a shower... or emetic, or enema, or something...)

So here you have about 15,000,000 people all descended from about, 500-600, say five centuries ago.

I'm 1/32 French-Canadian, and when my future wife told me her grandmother was purely so, I said take me to your computer lab and in five minutes I'll find how we're related. I don't think it took three.

We attended the 350th anniversary of our common couple's wedding in QC in 2008. One of the organizers joked that we should never have married, we were practically brother and sister. Of course, every other couple in the room would have been much more closely related (we're 9th-c-once-removed) through other lines.

So when you hear some news wire "discover" Hillary and Madonna are related to Alanis/Shania/Avril/whomever, well, that's like shooting pêche in a tonneau.

TH said...

I read an article one supposing that Boy George's problem with stuttering and gaffing, while president, could have been explained by mild inbreeding. The Bush's and European Royal families are part of the same relatively small gene pool.

Are you serious? He might be distantly related to some royals just like most people are, but he is certainly not part of some royal gene pool: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_family#Family_tree

Anonymous said...

So the mistake about the Berlin Wall is just staying in?

Truth said...

"But with polygamarriage, he can marry all four, love them equally, and he can spread his superior genes all around.
What's wrong with that? To oppose such would be polygaphobic."

And why are his genes superior to yours?

LBK said...

One reason why the Austrian Habsburgs fared better than the Spanish Habsburgs is that Charles V of Austria recognized the dangers of inbreeding (he could see what was happening to his Spanish cousins) and took steps to get outside blood into his branch of the family. Among other measures, he instituted a tradition of masked balls where everyone would wear a disguise and lots of alcohol would be served. The intent was for female members of the royal family to be impregnated by random outsiders.

It seems to have worked, judging by the success of his descendant Otto von Habsburg.

Raj said...

Anyone who understands the true nature of women will have little confidence in genealogy and family trees. There are a lot of cukoo's eggs in there.

Bad Dude said...

Anonymous said:

"Personally, I oppose polygamy too. We are sane westerners who believe in romantic love,not Muslims."

There is nothing sane about romantic love. It is a form of insanity.

dearieme said...

The great Otto von Habsburg joke - you need to know that he was a football (soccer) fan.

Friend: Well, Otto, are you going to watch the Austria-Hungary match this evening?

Otto: Oh, who are we playing?

Raj said...

On my own family tree, I drew a question mark next to each of my male ancestors, based on what I know of the character of my female ancestors.

LBK said...

How long before some megalomaniacal dictator adopts the ultimate form of incestuous reproduction: cloning? Just think what the world might be like today if cloning technology had been available to Stalin. The whole world might now be ruled by Stalin clones.

hbd chick said...

@kaz - "How the hell did you bring Hindus and Muslims into this one? While linking to one random case. I don't see why you're doing this these days."

uh ... 'cause it's interesting, and maybe even important, to know?

hbd chick said...

@anonymous - "Maybe father and daughter will just have sex without having kids. Oh, in this world with so much hatred and violence, what is so wrong with a son loving his mommy?"

i've thought about this inbreeding business quite a bit and i thought i was over being squeamish about it, but ... man ... you just grossed me out! (~_^)

Wandrin said...

"WE joke about this, but this is a horrible sign of civilizational decline. It is the destruction of values and definitions."

It's all about destroying the basis for any kind of unity and unity can come from blood or by idealogy.

Any aspect of national idealogy can change over time with no problem as long as the pace of change is restrained by waiting for majority assent and you don't have too many things changing at once.

What the people who are destroying western civilization gain by using media domination to push through changes beore there is majority assent is an ever increasing number of idealogical dividing lines that disunite the majority population.

A national culture is basically a list of stuff the majority of people in that culture agree on. That common assent is inherently unifying regardless of the details. Common agreement over monogamy in one country or polygamy in another both have the same unifying effect in those two separate countries.

Every aspect of that sense of common agreement that can be destroyed weakens the group's unity and cohesion.

If a group can maintain its cohesion while destroying the cohesion of competing groups then it gains a competitive advantage.

.
"Here is proof race doesn't exist from an expert in the field of anthropology."

It's not proof. The blank slate fallacy was invented as political propaganda by people who want mass immigration to destroy any sense of national unity based on blood-ties.

Medical drugs are going to have to be designed for separate ethnic groups if they are not going to do a lot of harm (or at least not work properly from one group to the next).

Only the most malign blank slaters are going to be okay with causing that much avoidable harm.

I think this may be the straw that breaks the back of Boas' Big Lie.

.
"Mormons calling for polygamarriage will not work cuz most of the law, culture, and government are run by liberals. As long as polygamarriage is associated with 'reactionary' and 'patriarchal' Mormons, it will not pass the smell test."

If the invisible smell test is "will it mean more white people or less (as a percentage)" then my prediction would be left-liberals will promote polygamy outside America (more muslims than mormons) but not in America (more Mormons than muslims).

This is unless they can get a law that specifically excludes Mormons or the number of muslims rises to the point where the anti-white cost / benefit flips over.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

"And why are his genes superior to yours?"

Because genetics determine the wetware, which is the largest component in intelligence which, in its turn, is strongly correlated with material success. He's making an assumption about the Harvard physics department, but it's probably a sound one.

Anonymous said...

You really should change the whole point of this post as Kmerian and TH have demonstrated no such "pedigree collapse" exists.

Crawfurdmuir said...

Reg Caesar - of course everyone in northwestern Europe probably has a royal line somewhere or other. That's the point of my comment, as it was of Filmer's "Patriarcha" in the seventeenth century. Kings stand in relation to their peoples as the senior representatives of a great family. We may reject Filmer's political theory that they therefore have a right to rule - but his genealogy and anthropology are sound. It is a necessary product of royalty's senior status that there are fewer generations between the royal personage of the day and the royal propositus than there are between him and his contemporary descendants through cadet branches.

The line to Mahomet that you mention comes through one of the medieval Spanish royal houses into which a Moorish princess married, converting to Christianity. Descendants of this princess in turn married into other European royal houses, with the result (inter alia) that all descendants of John of Gaunt (including the present British royal family) are thus descendants of Mahomet. There are many people of European descent who share this line, though (unless they are Muslim) they may not claim the title "seyyid," accorded in the Muslim world to Mahomet's descendants. Seyyids are rather common in Arabia, Turkey, and Persia.

There simply weren't enough people in the world in the middle ages for today's population to be the descendants of completely exogamous unions. There is considerable common ancestry within a regional population. That is what makes such a population a race. A race consists, essentially, of people descended from common ancestors, who accordingly share a family resemblance.

Your comment about the Order of the Crown of Charlemagne rather misses the point. It is indeed the case that just about all people of western European descent have Charlemagne as an ancestor - but how many of them can document their lines? The nominal qualification for membership is descent from Charlemagne, but the real qualification is genealogical skill.

Anonymous said...

The acknowledged illegitimate brother of Charles, Don Juan the younger, was a notable military leader of the period and apparently was born with no defects. That's an impressive accomplishment in the space of one generation when you consider how inbred his father was. Even Philip the iv was apparently of at least normal intelligence. Average people of the day of course bred cattle and livestock, so I can't believe they didn't know that there was something wrong with their royalty.

Truth said...

"Because genetics determine the wetware, which is the largest component in intelligence which, in its turn, is strongly correlated with material success. He's making an assumption about the Harvard physics department, but it's probably a sound one."

A "handsome Harvard physicist" is a guy who probably wears a pocket protector and works in a lab everyday. He makes $90,000 a year and individualy will probably have no lasting influence on the world. Additionally, if he wants four wives on his salary, he probably exibits "low impulse control", and "inabillty to delay gratification." So why would his genes be superior to yours, and not those of, say Magic Johnson. Johnson makes more money, and his kids arguablly will too. (I'm making the assumption that that's how you feel, here)?

Truth said...

" he is certainly not part of some royal gene pool:"

Yes he is, every president of the last 50 years (including Barry) is a relative to a few other presidents, and they all have direct blood ties to the European royal families. They are all, strangely (?) as well related to many of the famous no-talents who are hyped as celebrity entertainers.

http://www.hiphop-elements.com/article/read/4/19358/1/

Anonymous said...

Weird. I was just reading Carto's forward to Yockey's Imperium, where the former recommends Otto von Habsburg's The Social Order of Tomorrow.

Svigor

The Dark Ages said...

If you look at the Total Fertility Rates of some of the pillars of the old Hapsburg empire, then you see Austria at about 1.40, Germany at about 1.35, and Spain & Italy at about 1.20.

Now all of those figures are grossly distorted by a massive Muslim baby boom in Europe, but even if you were to take those figures at face value [and were to assume that none of the grandchildren or their spouses were to convert to Islam, or to marry Muslims], then the great-grandchild [ggc] predictions would look like:

HIGH END: [1.4] X 22 = ~31 ggc'n

LOW END: [1.2] X 22 = ~26 ggc'n

Whereas in a stable population, you would want to see

STABLE: [2.10] X 22 = ~46 ggc'n.

In all honesty, unless there are some extremely devout, old-school, "Opus Dei" papists amongst the grandchildren, then, when all is said and done, I wouldn't be surprised if you were to see as few as 20 ggc'n.

Anonymous said...

Mormons calling for polygamarriage will not work cuz most of the law, culture, and government are run by liberals. As long as polygamarriage is associated with 'reactionary' and 'patriarchal' Mormons, it will not pass the smell test.

Sure. But you've got the wrong poster child. Muslims. Reactionary and patriarchal Muslims are hunkey-dorey. They'll be the thin edge of the wedge, since they're not white, and therefore not subject to the full scrutiny or domain of the MotU. Maybe they'll compromise and let only the Muzzies have their way, via Sharia.

Eventually, polygamous groups are probably going to push everyone else out of the way.

Svigor

Matt said...

"I don't believe he has any living descendants bearing the surname "Bach," but I read somewhere where somebody said there were about 15 living descendants of Bach in total."

I haven't found any specific information on Bach, but I'd be skeptical. As a rule of thumb, by the time that many generations has passed a given person will either have a huge number of descendents or none. Maybe not in the direct-male-line sense, but at least in the has-Bach-in-the-tree-somewhere sense there's probably tons of 'em.

Anonymous said...

To Wandrin you listen, right he is...

Svigor

Anonymous said...

"if cloning technology had been available to Stalin. The whole world might now be ruled by Stalin clones."

I wonder if the thought of clones of himself would have scared him.

James Kabala said...

Anonymous: French-Canadians were actually the "model minority" of late nineteenth-century New England. The mill owners preferred them to the Irish because they were better at following orders and not drinking. Best of all (from the mill owners' perspective; you may or may not agree) they often voted Republican, as opposed to the monolithically Democratic Irish.

Most (I assume; I don't have actual statistics) modern-day French-Canadians in New England are part something else, especially Irish. The ones still in Quebec are probably still inbred.

LBK: Cute story, but actually it is the Spanish Habsburgs who descended from Charles V; the Austrian ones descend from his brother.

Deckin said...

I distinctly recall hearing the American philosopher Kent Bach claim he was a distant descendent of J.S. Bach. FWIW.

lentil said...

Nothing wrong with cousin marriage, most people in the world from all religions and social classes used to do it for most of our species' existence. All you guys wringing your hands about it have many, many, many, many many cousin matings in your ancestry.

Marlowe said...

Old favourite Bob Heinlein had something of an obsessive interest in both polygamous families and incest going back to quite an early point in his career (such as the famous short story 'All You Zombies'). Probably an aspect of his work that conservative fans liked to pass over quickly to get to the cool engineering fantasies, alien bug destruction and diatribes against taxes.

But then the man wrote: "Geniuses and supergeniuses always make their own rules about sex as on everything else; they do not accept the monkey customs of their lessers."

corvinus said...

About French Canadians: their gene pool cannot be all that bad, especially since their women are often stereotyped as attractive blondes (thanks to their being largely Norman).

They were also, at least until the Quiet Revolution, an extremely Catholic ethnic group, more so even than their cousins in France. For whatever reason, Catholics seem to have a harder time getting First World societies going, perhaps because they aren't as apt to produce venture capitalists as Protestants, because they see money as a "necessary evil" rather than an end in itself. In mixed Protestant-Catholic societies, wealthy Catholics are also much more naive and less cut-throat than wealthy Protestants. In other words, Catholics make very poor robber barons (except in all-Catholic societies like Mexico).

If they were, say, Huguenots instead, they would have blended in with the Canadian mainstream, perhaps achieving an air of a wealthy mercantile class, like Episcopalians or Mormons here. They would also undoubtedly be much less numerous.

I mean, French Canadians may have mental problems sometimes, but Ashkenazi Jews are also known for that.

Hunsdon said...

corvinus said that French Canadian women were famous for being blonde beauties, since they were heavily of Norman descent, and then he said that Catholics don't make good robber barons.

Well, if we use the modern definition of "robber baron" I think he's right, but it did give me the giggles to think, "Normans? Not good at being robber barons?"

Ah, for the good old days, when "making a killing" as a robber baron meant putting on your mail, hefting your sword and taking over France! And England. And Outremer.

corvinus said...

I forgot that there is in fact a Protestant equivalent of the French Canadians, at least as in being a founding ethnic group that was taken over by Anglos but too large to assimilate: the Afrikaners / Boers of South Africa.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

"So why would his genes be superior to yours, and not those of, say Magic Johnson. Johnson makes more money, and his kids arguablly will too. (I'm making the assumption that that's how you feel, here)?"

Because even extremely athletic people have a very slim shot at professional-level success. And unless they get that brass ring, their options tend to be limited.

Johnson is friendly and somewhat bright, but he has AIDS which is one of the easiest diseases there is for heterosexual men to avoid. The fact that Johnson came down with it speaks volumes about his level of character and intelligence. Odd that he's the first person that comes to your mind as superior genetic stock.

Anonymous said...

Bad Dude said...
Anonymous said:

"Personally, I oppose polygamy too. We are sane westerners who believe in romantic love,not Muslims."

There is nothing sane about romantic love. It is a form of insanity.

Right, dude, and romantic love is weak, stupid, and GAY as well.

Anonymous said...

corvinus said...

About French Canadians: their gene pool cannot be all that bad, especially since their women are often stereotyped as attractive blondes (thanks to their being largely Norman).

Very few of them are blonde. Many of them are attractive short slender brunettes, though.

Truth said...

"About French Canadians: their gene pool cannot be all that bad, especially since their women are often stereotyped as attractive blondes (thanks to their being largely Norman)."

Well, you're half right; Having been to Quebec, I can tell you that there are VERY few blondes, but I would have to say that Montreal has the most attractive white women, per captia, that I've seen anywhere. Which is amazing because it's 8 months of winter.

David said...

Something about the title of this post is creepy...

David said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Reactionary and patriarchal "Muslims are hunkey-dorey. They'll be the thin edge of the wedge, since they're not white, and therefore not subject to the full scrutiny or domain of the MotU. Maybe they'll compromise and let only the Muzzies have their way, via Sharia. Eventually, polygamous groups are probably going to push everyone else out of the way."

Or maybe, just maybe, Muslims are the thin end of the wedge that ultimately destroys the fanciful Multicult ideology.

Anonymous said...

"The acknowledged illegitimate brother of Charles, Don Juan the younger, was a notable military leader of the period and apparently was born with no defects. That's an impressive accomplishment in the space of one generation when you consider how inbred his father was."

The effects of inbreeding are completely eliminated after a single generation of outbreeding. Inbreeding is harmful because your progeny are more likely to inherit the same damaged copies of genes from parents who are close relatives.

Jonathan said...


Genetic Disorders that Affect the French Canadian People of Quebec


"Currently there are twenty seven unique genetic disorders that affect the French Canadians of Quebec. These are actually clustered in one small region which makes them quite unique. Scientists have painstakingly recreated genealogies to discover the origin of 21 of these disorders out of the 28. Their research has shown that New-France settlers who immigrated from France in the seventeenth century were the most likely carriers. The study showed that 249 of the 8483 settlers in Nouvelle-France contributed as common founders. The founders in province of Perche appeared to contribute to 19 of the disorders. Of the Perche group 34 of the 48 different common founders seemed to contribute to more then one disorder. There are six million French Canadians[in Quebec] who are descended from 8500 French settlers. This gives a unique insight into the genetic disorders that affect the French Canadians and it offers a map back to the where the disorders first materialized."

corvinus said...

Well, you're half right; Having been to Quebec, I can tell you that there are VERY few blondes, but I would have to say that Montreal has the most attractive white women, per captia, that I've seen anywhere. Which is amazing because it's 8 months of winter.

Thanks. I was aware that the French have fewer fair folks than even people from the British Isles, but I'm glad to see that the stereotype is at least partially correct.

This brings up another interesting question: do women's attractiveness go up as the winters become colder, at least for Europeans? It would seem that along with French Canadians, the winners in the looks department are Scandinavians and Russians. But, their cousins who live in places with warmer winters -- German, British, and Polish women, say -- seem merely average or homely, with a much lower proportion of knockouts. (German are better than Polish overall, though.)

The effects of inbreeding are completely eliminated after a single generation of outbreeding.

This is because the inbred person has a lot of recessive genes being expressed which don't appear in the general population. If he marries a woman from the general population, the children will have all those recessive genes suppressed.

TGGP said...

There are already states were Jews are exempted from uncle-niece marriage restrictions. It seems to be an anachronism though that isn't really acted upon (and results from an enumeration in the old testament books of law which leaves out that combination).

Peter Frost has written about the genetic ailments that afflict French Canadians, such as Tay Sachs which tends to be assumed as exclusive to the Ashkenazi.

Mes Aiuex have a song about "pedigree collapse" in Quebec following the "quiet revolution", Dégénération.

Peter A said...

I always thought there was a fair amount of Native American blood among Quebecois, which would somewhat mitigate the small founding population. Is that not the case?

Jonathan said...

I always thought there was a fair amount of Native American blood among Quebecois, which would somewhat mitigate the small founding population. Is that not the case?

Genealogists say that Quebecois have practically no Native blood(less than 5%). The confusion that they have lots of Native blood is because of the French Canadian fur traders in the West who took Indian "wives"(like Salomon Juneau, founder of Milwaukee or Toussaint Charbonneau with Sacagawea), even creating a new tribe of Buffalo hunters, the Métis people. Many natives in Western USA and Canada(especially the Sioux) have French Canadian last names. Those names were not made up when their ancestors were christianized, it's actually the names of their French Canadian ancestors.

selene said...

German, British, and Polish women, say -- seem merely average or homely, with a much lower proportion of knockouts. (German are better than Polish overall, though.)

A well known journalist (I think Rebecca West, but not certain) was train travelling through eastern Europe c. 1939. She noticed a lot of plain, frumpy types with hair scraped back, along the trail in Germany (southeast probably), and then the ladies got different looking as they traveled north into Poland. They were delicate, pretty, with tiny feet and hands, and the gentlemen were lavish in their chivalric attentions. I thought this interesting, because the Polish girls I've known did have smaller than average feet. And I had an Irish friend who liked to go to the Polish-Lithuanian neighborhoods to see the beautiful girls. Maybe many were Czech, among the most beautiful in the world. Often blond, good cheek bones, lips full but not thick, usually straight or nicely turned up noses. Fewer pug noses than you would think. One of the prettiest girls I have ever seen was a Balt (Lith or Let), and her type, blond, v. delicate, v. vaguely oriental eyes but entirely European features, was common among her nationality. Yet I recall a Jewish survivor of WWII described the Liths as "ugly." OOOKay.
So I think you have a stereotype of Poles, just as people had stereotypes of Russian women for years. It was a seriously ugly stereotype, and it still surprises me (a 60s child) how Russian women have gotten famous for their sexiness and gorgeousness. Well deserved, especially those from the Moldova, but where were their mothers and grandmothers all those years? Hiding behind parkas and 100 kilos of overweight? Dunno.
It's funny the ideas people have about types. I've read a lot of travelogues and EVERY generalization gets contradicted by opposing generalizations when it comes to looks and national personality. The national personality is somewhat more consistently described thought.