Cousin Marriage is REDPILLED and PRO-WHITE

Go Ahead, Kiss Your Cousin
Heck, marry her if you want to

In Paris in 1876 a 31-year-old banker named Albert took an 18-year-old named Bettina as his wife. Both were Rothschilds, and they were cousins. According to conventional notions about inbreeding, their marriage ought to have been a prescription for infertility and enfeeblement.

In fact, Albert and Bettina went on to produce seven children, and six of them lived to be adults. Moreover, for generations the Rothschildfamily had been inbreeding almost as intensively as European royalty, without apparent ill effect. Despite his own limited gene pool, Albert, for instance, was an outdoorsman and the seventh person ever to climb the Matterhorn. The American du Ponts practiced the same strategy of cousin marriage for a century. Charles Darwin, the grandchild of first cousins, married a first cousin. So did Albert Einstein.

In our lore, cousin marriages are unnatural, the province of hillbillies and swamp rats, not Rothschilds and Darwins. In the United States they are deemed such a threat to mental health that 31 states have outlawed first-cousin marriages. This phobia is distinctly American, a heritage of early evolutionists with misguided notions about the upward march of human societies. Their fear was that cousin marriages would cause us to breed our way back to frontier savagery—or worse. "You can't marry your first cousin," a character declares in the 1982 play Brighton Beach Memoirs. "You get babies with nine heads."

So when a team of scientists led by Robin L. Bennett, a genetic counselor at the University of Washington and the president of the National Society of Genetic Counselors, announced that cousin marriages are not significantly riskier than any other marriage, it made the front page of The New York Times. The study, published in the Journal of Genetic Counseling last year, determined that children of first cousins face about a 2 to 3 percent higher risk of birth defects than the population at large. To put it another way, first-cousin marriages entail roughly the same increased risk of abnormality that a woman undertakes when she gives birth at 41 rather than at 30. Banning cousin marriages makes about as much sense, critics argue, as trying to ban childbearing by older women.

But the nature of cousin marriage is far more surprising than recent publicity has suggested. A closer look reveals that moderate inbreeding has always been the rule, not the exception, for humans. Inbreeding is also commonplace in the natural world, and contrary to our expectations, some biologists argue that this can be a very good thing. It depends in part on the degree of inbreeding.

The idea that inbreeding might sometimes be beneficial is clearly contrarian. So it's important to acknowledge first that inbreeding can sometimes also go horribly wrong—and in ways that, at first glance, make our stereotypes about cousin marriage seem completely correct.

In the Yorkshire city of Bradford, in England, for instance, a majority of the large Pakistani community can trace their origins to the village of Mirpur in Kashmir, which was inundated by a new dam in the 1960s. Cousin marriages have been customary in Kashmir for generations, and more than 85 percent of Bradford's Pakistanis marry their cousins. Local doctors are seeing sharp spikes in the number of children with serious genetic disabilities, and each case is its own poignant tragedy. One couple was recently raising two apparently healthy children. Then, when they were 5 and 7, both were diagnosed with neural degenerative disease in the same week. The children are now slowly dying. Neural degenerative diseases are eight times more common in Bradford than in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Read the rest here Holla Forums: discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featkiss

Other urls found in this thread:

eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/dg-dlc020408.php
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

...

...

Cousin marriage isn't a risk outside of isolated, already inbred areas. Even then it's primarily a risk only if it's repeated generation after generation.

TL;DR
That said muslims had cousin inbreeding for over a thousand years; see where that got them.
And yeah.. direct link. Please stop replying in this thread

...

I tried to link archive.is, tried for like 15 minutes, but they are down right now.

Europe had it too and see where that got them.

In fact up until recently anywhere from 50% to 90% of all marriages were always between 1st and 2nd cousins.

If my children married my brothers children, I think I'd arrange with him to Snackbar everyone during thanksgiving dinner.

4-10% chance of a fucked up kid. Compared to a normal 1-2% if you are a sane human being.

Naturally, genetic counsel should be a requirement before marriage.
If it is deemed safe to conceive with a cousin, there should be no block to the act.
However, to have generation after generation engage in the practice is asking for trouble (like that which may be observed in Amish communities)

Sounds like an appeal to intelligence. If science can prove safety, then sanity need not be questioned.

It is not really chance if you actually screen for genetic problems and use planned parenthood stuff.

…and you can just euthanise the child if it is a fuck-up.

Jew.

Plebtier thread

Kill yourself.

Fucki

INBREEDING WITH COUSINS IS A GOOD WAY TO CREATE A SUCCESSFUL BLOODLINE/S OF PSYCHOPATHS

Fuck off Achmed.

Well, we do need more shitlords..

[citation needed]

Another shorter article on the subject: eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/dg-dlc020408.php

test