Firstly in regards to the fact that race mixing allegedly causes higher rates of genetic defects in humans I am still not fully convinced given the majority of the worlds population is at least somewhat race mixed already.
The "everyone is already mixed" argument is incorrect. The key issue isn’t whether some populations have mixed, but rather how much genetic distance exists between the parental populations. When populations with too great a genetic distance intermix it increases the risk of heterosis breakdown, outbreeding depression, and immune system incompatibilities (e.g. the aforementioned HLA mismatches leading to reduced disease resistance).
In terms of highly race mixed countries here are some pertinent examples:
-Brazil
-Colombia
-Venezuela
-Peru
-Cuba
-Mexico
These countries did experience significant racial mixture but this was within the framework of an explicitly structured colonial caste systems because the ruling elites recognized the effects of admixture. The Spanish and Portuguese implemented strict racial hierarchies where European Criollos (pureblood Spaniards and Portuguese) were at the top, followed by mestizos (mixed Spanish and indigenous), mulattos (mixed Spanish and African), zambos (mixed African and indigenous), and full-blooded indigenous and African slaves at the bottom.
The modern demographic makeup of these countries is largely mestizo (European-Indigenous mix) and mulatto (European-African mix). The idea that these populations are “purely race-mixed” ignores the clear racial distinctions still present today, elite families in these nations are overwhelmingly of European descent while indigenous and mixed populations are more prominent among the working and lower classes. Some things never change.
In Brazil European ancestry dominates the southern part of the country, while the north has significantly more African and indigenous mixture. Even within a heavily mixed country, there are still stark genetic separations.
-Spain (Mix of Europeans such as Gauls and Romans, plus mix of North Africans such as Carthaginians, Moors, etc)
-Italy (people from all over the Roman empire lived in Rome plus Sardinian's and Sicilians have different genetics to mainland Italians with some Arab and North African admixture)
On PCA scatterplots, Italians, Spaniards, and Greeks consistently group within the European genetic cluster, distinct from North Africans, Middle Easterners, or Mongols. While there are some traces of admixture in specific regions (e.g. Sicily or southern Spain, due to historical Moorish and Arab presence), the overall genetic structure remains distinctly European. Studies using autosomal DNA, such as those from the 1000 Genomes Project and Ancient DNA (aDNA) studies, reinforce this clustering.
Moreover pre-Christian North Africans and Levantines were genetically distinct from what we see today. The modern North African and Levantine populations are largely a result of Arabization, Turkic incursions, and the Islamic-era influx of Sub-Saharan African genes via the trans-Saharan slave trade. Ancient Phoenicians, Carthaginians, and even Egyptians were much closer to early European and West Eurasian populations than to modern Arabs. The idea that Spain or Italy is “heavily mixed” is not supported by genomic studies.
A Spaniard and a German are within the umbrella of the same racial root. A Spaniard and a Moor are not.
An Italian and a Gaul also are within the same. An Italian and an Ethiop are not.
A Greek and a Celt are as well. A Greek and an Ottoman Turk are not.
-Turkey (Mix of Anatolians, Persians, Mongols, Turkic tribesman, Greeks, etc)
Turkey’s population is one of the most mixed in the world, but not in the way you assume. Historically Anatolia was inhabited by Indo-European Hittites and Greeks followed by Iranian Medes and Persians and later overrun by Turkic tribes from Central Asia. The Turkification of Anatolia involved mass intermixing with Central Asian Turkic peoples who brought Mongoloid genetic influence but the original Anatolian populations remained largely intact, only linguistically and culturally assimilated.
Western Turks (near Istanbul and the Aegean) are much closer to southern Europeans and Greeks, whereas eastern Turks (near Erzurum and Van) have strong Caucasian, Persian, and even Mongol influences. This means that even within Turkey there is no single homogeneous racial mixture of all that you mentioned, but rather a patchwork of different groups in parallel.
-Iranians (mix of Persians, other Iranian tribes, Anatolians, Elamites, Arabs, Turkic Tribesman, Mongols, Greeks, etc).
Iran is one of the most racially stratified nations even though there are mixed populations. They are extreme identitarians, unless they are liberal and living in California. While many Iranians today are a mix of original Persians, Arabs, Mongols, Turks, and indigenous Iranian plateau peoples, there are still pockets of relatively pure Iranian bloodlines especially in regions like Gilan near the Turkish and Azeri borders. The people in these areas retain genetic continuity with the ancient Persians of Daryush and Cyrus, exhibiting taller stature, lighter features, and distinct European phenotypes, but they still end up distant from European autosomal samples.
The other parts of Iran are heavily mixed. The east has Afghan and Turkmen admixture. The west has strong Turkic influences (Azeris and Kurds). The northeast has Mongol contributions, a remnant of the Ilkhanate invasions. The southwest and coast have Arab and South Asian admixture especially from the Indian Ocean trade.
Culturally, many Iranians hold strong ethnic pride and detest intermixing, they look down on Arabs, Mongols, and even some fellow Iranians from mixed regions. This is why you still see natural blackface holidays in Iran.
If one were to take the position that “race-mixing is inevitable” to disarm in-group preference, it ignores the fact that most human populations are still significantly clustered by genetic groupings, even in historically mixed nations. PCA scatterplots confirm this. Europeans remain distinct from non-Europeans, Latin America is still structured along racial lines, Turkey is a genetic patchwork but with identifiable clusters, and Iran despite heavy mixing maintains significant racial separation.
As for my arguments about white people in Australia in was just an example and you are missing the forest for the trees. You pointed out that people have specific adaptations to designed for the ancestral homelands and I pointed out that its of limited relevance given how far a lot of people are from their ancestral homelands at this point due to past colonialism etc. Dutch people for example have genetic adaptations for the climate and food of Holland not for the climate and food of South Africa so your point regarding that is moot that is all I was trying to say with the skin cancer thing just being an example.
Your Dutch/South Africa example actually reinforces my point. The Boer Dutch settlers thrived in South Africa despite its climate being vastly different from Holland, whereas Sub-Saharan Africans in Europe struggle with rickets and poor cold tolerance. This demonstrates European adaptability not its irrelevance.
You acknowledge that Europeans adapted to Australia, but you ignore the bigger picture: Europeans (and Asians to some extent) are uniquely capable of colonizing and flourishing in foreign environments. Africans, despite being brought to the Americas centuries ago, have not built self-sustaining civilizations without European infrastructure. Indigenous Australians lived in the Outback for 50,000 years allegedly but never developed agriculture, metallurgy, or written language, while Europeans arrived and within a century built a first-world society.
Only some groups have shown the ability to thrive in radically different environments. If your argument were correct, we’d see Africans building high-functioning societies in Arctic or temperate zones, but we don’t.
This pattern is consistent. Japan industrialized in 50 years (Meiji Restoration). Singapore became a global economic power in one generation under Lee Kuan Yew. Haiti (Black-led since 1804) remains an economic and infrastructural failure despite receiving billions in aid from Western nations. If genetics didn’t matter, we would see identical civilizational outcomes across all races. We don’t.
The forest for the trees is this. Europeans (and to a degree, East Asians) are uniquely capable of high-functioning civilization building, no matter where they go. Other groups, even when transplanted to successful societies and given every opportunity of advancement freely, utterly fail to replicate the same results on their own.
By the way yes I acknowledge that diet and sunscreen (which I agree is toxic) affect skin cancer but my point still stands that white skin people have less natural protection against the sun then dark skin people. Just like how dark skin people can get more easily vitamin D deficiency (compared to white people) in cold low sunshine countries.
Good, everyone should stay away from goyslop and skin chemicals. However on the nature of cancer there is so much that is held back from public knowledge. It has little to nothing to do with one's natural pigmentation. Skin cancers often occurs in regions where people have very little sun exposure. Not just skin cancer, but many other cancers are often from people not being exposed to the sun. Cancer is not specifically a racial phenomenon in the unhealthy age. That vitamin D deficiency the darker races acquire in places like London, Holland, Norway, etc, also contributes to the growth of cancer in the native inhabitants in the modern age where our bodies are weakened by goyslop, petrochemical pharmaceuticals, and other graphene poisons.
Besides with the race mixing thing literally the whole history of human agriculture and animal husbandry consists of species mixing to produce new species. If it was so bad why would we do this? We created thousands of varieties of potatoes. Look at how many citruses there are. By cross breeding we made grapefruits (originally there were only Pomellos), Bergamot (cross breeding sour oranges with lemons), Yuzu, etc. Look at how many dog breeds there are and how many horse breeds there are. Look at how many cow breeds there are. We cross bred donkeys and horses to have mules. Look at how many camel breeds there are. Originally there were Gaunacos and Vicunas and through selective breeding and cross breeding, etc we created LLamas and Alpacas.
In agriculture and animal husbandry, humans intentionally select for specific traits while removing undesirable offspring (weak, infertile, or maladapted individuals). In human reproduction, there is no artificial selection process removing undesirable outcomes. Negative traits are not selectively bred out like in controlled breeding programs.
Crossbreeding different species often results in sterility or weakness. Mules (horse-donkey hybrids) are sterile due to mismatched chromosome numbers (horses have 64 chromosomes, donkeys 62, and mules end up with 63, leading to meiosis failure). Ligers and tigons (lion-tiger hybrids) often have severe health issues, including gigantism and hormonal imbalances, and most males are infertile. Hybrid camels (crosses between Bactrian and dromedary camels) show signs of poor health and incompatibilities in extreme climates. Even dog breeds have genetic limitations, mixing breeds carelessly can lead to orthopedic issues, temperament problems, or recessive diseases emerging.
If the same logic applied to humans, many mixed individuals should exhibit reduced reproductive success, which is often observed in lower fertility rates among certain mixed populations among the myriad of other genetic defects that these people inherit or develop.
Humans as a single species do not benefit from cross-species hybridization logic because genetic integrity is already optimized for distinct populations. Mixed human populations don’t get "the best of both worlds" instead they often get the opposite, mismatched adaptations that are suboptimal in either ancestral environment.
All the examples you list, dogs, cows, horses, camels, and even citrus fruits, are domesticated species. Domestication artificially narrows genetic biodiversity within controlled populations to the point where crossbreeding is needed to reintroduce lost variation. Humans are not a domesticated species, unlike animals bred for specific functions. humans have finely tuned adaptations which can be disrupted by sudden genetic mixing.
For humans to be treated in the same way as grapefruits, mules, or livestock, an external force whether a ruling class, an "AI," or some form of eugenicist overlord would have to meticulously control reproduction, selecting only the most viable offspring while preventing less desirable genetic combinations from passing on.
In agriculture and animal breeding, humans take on the role of this "intelligent designer", dictating outcomes by controlling mating pairings based on desired traits, actively culling or sterilizing less fit offspring, and preventing uncontrolled breeding that could reintroduce unfavorable traits.
None of these mechanisms naturally exist in human populations. If humans were to replicate this model, it would require mass-scale reproductive control, which is both unethical and biologically impractical in free societies (hence why it is being passive-aggressively pushed by our "elites" except not for our benefit but to cement a new hierarchy). We have to recognize we are not animals or crops, the Creator made us different for a reason.
Attempting to play God and cheat or trick nature always has consequences.
