Charles Darwin believed that inbreeding within his own family would produce superior offspring.  He should have read the Bible’s warnings against incest.

Does Environment Affect Heredity?

One of the most important parts of the theory of evolution is the idea that life forms can change themselves and adapt to new circumstances. Darwin thought he had found the key via natural selection; whatever creature happened to be both the most successful and the most prolific would be the one to pass its traits onto the next generation. Back in those days Gregor Mendel was just beginning to study genetics with a garden of pea plants, and we did not discover DNA until a century after The Origin of Species was published. Because of that Darwin got the wrong idea that environment determines heredity.

For example, he taught that the giraffe got its long neck during a long drought, when the only edible vegetation grew on the tops of trees. A short-necked ancestor of the giraffe stretched often to get at those leaves, and its neck got a little longer as a result. The giraffe’s efforts became a part of its physical makeup, which its offspring then inherited. The descendants also stretched often to get leaves that were just out of reach, and their necks grew still longer, until they got the results we see today. Darwin believed that invisible objects in the body called pangenes record every change in the body, and pass them to future generations. This turned out to be what made evolution so appealing. This was the nineteenth century, the age of industry, the age of progress, when most people believed that life was getting better and they could make a perfect world through their own efforts. How can you improve something? Use it a lot. What happens if you don’t use something? It will atrophy and disappear.

Well, the first thing I learned about genetics when I was in biology class was that this is not so. Before the nineteenth century was over the use-disuse theory was discarded. In one experiment a scientist cut off the tails of mice, bred them, then cut off the tails of the next mice, and so on, but after doing this for over twenty generations he never produced a breed of tailless mice; his deliberate mutilation never changed the mouse’s genetic makeup. So if anyone tells you that we get our personal traits from the environment, you have my permission to call it quackery.(6)

Despite his background in biology, Charles Darwin had some grossly incorrect ideas. He believed he came from a family of superior genetic type, and bad characteristics like hereditary diseases could be eliminated by inbreeding. For that reason, at the age of thirty, he married Emma Wedgwood, a first cousin. He also gave his approval when his sister Caroline married another Wedgwood, and encouraged his cousins to marry cousins as well. Since their great-grandparents were already inbred to a certain degree (they came from remote English communities where inbreeding was common), this gives us a fine case study of what inbreeding can do.(7)

What Darwin did not realize is that while inbreeding can preserve superior traits, it is just as likely to make recessive traits come to the forefront in an individual. Often these traits are harmless, like red hair or blue eyes, but some (e.g., hemophilia) are so dangerous that they will kill before the individual can leave any descendants. Some are so bad that the result is a miscarriage. Problems like these happened in Darwin’s family, so it is a wonder he could have missed this detail. His brother Erasmus was aware of it, though:

“The dread of hereditary ill health was not entirely illusory . . . And as it happened, of his ten children, one girl died shortly after birth, another, the much-beloved Annie, died in childhood, his youngest son, Charles, was a mental defective who lived only two years, Henrietta had a serious and prolonged breakdown at fifteen, and three sons suffered such frequent illness that Darwin regarded them as semi-invalids. Even if all these ailments were not the constitutional disorders he took them to be, they were real enough to warrant some amount of anxiety.”



Toulouse-Lautrec was a product of incest:

Inbreeding produces physical deformities, such as Toulouse Lautrec’s stunted legs, and mental retardation, which is very common among Jews.

His grandmothers were sisters, his parents first cousins; his father’s sister married his mother’s brother and they produced fourteen children, three of whom suffered birth defects, and at least one of whom was a dwarf.


Incest is forbidden by Yahweh.  Yahweh knows genetics better than Darwin.

Tay-Sachs is but one of many genetic diseases carried by Jews.  They are so inbred that they have more genetic diseases than any other ethnicity.  More proof that they are not Israel, because the Bible tells us that Israel would be as numerous as “the stars of heaven and the sands of the seashore.”

It is also a well-known fact that the Jews have the highest rates of mental retardation, schizophrenia and paranoia.

Mental disease. Among the Jews the proportion of insane has been observed to be very large. From statistics collected by Buschan he concludes that they are four to six times more liable to mental disease than are non-Jews. Lombroso quotes Servi (“Gli Israeliti di Europa,” 1872) to the effect that in Italy there is one insane among 391 Jews, nearly four times as many as among the Catholic population of that country. Verga (“Archivio di Statistico,” 1880) shows that in 1870 there was one insane among 1,775 Catholics in Italy, while with the Jews it reached the alarming proportion of one insane in 384 of population. A similar phenomenon has been observed in other countries. In the various provinces of Germany and also in Denmark the percentage of Jewish insane is very large, as is seen from the figures in the appended table:

The causes of the great frequency of insanity among Jews are differently interpreted by different authorities. Some, like Buschan, see in it a racial characteristic. They show that there is evidence in the Bible that the ancient Hebrews were already great suf ferers from mental alienation. They point out that many passages in the Bible indicate that mental alienation was not unknown in Biblical times (see particularly Wilhelm Ebstein, “Die Medizin im Alten Testament,” pp. 114-117; also the references to persons “possessed with devils,” “lunatics,” “men of unclean spirits,” etc., in Matt. viii. 16, ix. 32, xii. 22, xvii. 15; Mark v. 2; Luke viii. 27,xii. 11, and in many other places in the New Testament).
As is the case with all the physical, mental, and intellectual traits of the Jews, consanguineous marriages have been considered a cause of a great part of the insanity among them. The Jews, it is well known, are very neurotic, as is manifested by the frequency of various nervous affections among them (see Nervous Diseases); and the marriage of relatives who are affected by a neurotic taint has been positively proved to be detrimental to the succeeding generation. In one generation the neuropathy may manifest itself as hysteria; in another, as some organic or functional nervous affection, then as insanity, etc. The chances of thus perpetuating the nervous strain in families by consanguineous marriages are therefore greater among Jews than among peoples in whom nervous diseases are less frequent.

Source:  The Jewish Encyclopedia…#ixzz1Jng16E57

Jews have always been one of the smallest ethnic groups in history.  By the way, Sigmund Fraud was paranoid, insane and had an unhealthy desire to have sex with his mother.  He is the “father of psychoanalysis.”  ‘Nough said.

Learn Identity.  “The  truth shall set you free.”