>>1652
>>1654
>diversity only improves genetic stock
>the only bad genetics are excessively narrow ones
This is wrong. A Pitbull and a poodle don't make a good dog, they don't improve genetic stock, and their 'widened' gene pool doesn't make them superior in any way. Its the same in humans, 'wide' genetic stock (not wider, or wide, just mixed) is not a good thing. For instance, neanderthal DNA is thought to cause headaches, depression, and allergic reactions, a remnant from their immune genetics; It worked great in them, but fucks us over. Frankly I would not risk something similar happening to my kid over a fetish, ghetto ass african genetics should stay intact, and away from me.
>genetic lines eventually all converge
They don't, normal people don't miscegenate, having a child whos half only alienates him from both sides, and leaves him/her feeling robbed a heritage. People's strongest asset is a sense of closeness, community, and identity, these are the result of looking alike, acting alike, and being raised in a community of people like them. Why do you think homogeneous countries always do better in the long run? My city is a shithole, and the primary reason for this is the fact that nobody trusts each other, and if I go out on the street I run the risk of being mugged by a nigger and stabbed by a short ass ching chong in the same night. Not a day goes by I wish I lived in an exclusively white area.
>I also doubt the mental diseases you're describing are a result of genetics. Most likely environmental factors matter a lot more.
You cannot get a mental disorder from environmental factors alone, you are born with a potential for disorder, and whether or not it appears is determined by events in your life. Blacks carry genes for a higher risk of certain genetic diseases, mainly mental retardation, and mixed children get it in higher rates. Statistics are blind however, a reason for this could be that only retards miscegenate.