Note from (not the writer of this post) starjello, : **[This Special Report will be written by starjello of /s/HBD (human biodiversity), not to be confused with myself, starjello of /s/MSM4Poal, or starjello Emperor of /s/Anything. While Ivan and 1quickdub had given me a marvelous idea, HBD starjello nagged me about the necessity of a serious publication to include occasional discussions of science. I hope this article will at least touch upon the core of their suggestions.]** Writer's Note: *In the interest of promoting human biodiversity, I, HBD starjello, have written a summary of one of my favorite HBD bloggers. Since /s/MSM4Poal appears to be more popular than /s/HBD for some reason, I have asked to be able to introduce the concept of HBD to you. I also have to remind you that this has not one thing to do with race or genetics, though a less careful reader may arrive at that (apparently) odious conclusion. I apologize for any ideological discomfort.* This article is intended to be an introduction to blogger HBD Chick's hypothesis regarding long-term mating patterns in humans. To be more specific, the theory is about how the degree and type of cousin marriage affects a population's average level of "clannishness". Keep in mind that clannishness is a behavioral trait that can be expressed by individuals even though their society is not arranged in tribes or clans. Clannishness is best viewed as a spectrum (like...gender, obviously) as opposed to a mode (like the incorrect view of gender). Clannishness is [defined](https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/clannishness-defined/) by HBD Chick as " a set of behaviors and ~~innate~~ [culturally adopted] behavioral traits and predispositions which, when found in a population, result in the members of that population strongly favoring, in all areas of life, themselves, their family members — both near and extended, and even closely allied associates (esp. in clannish societies which are not arranged into clans), while at the same time strongly disfavoring those considered to be non-family and all unrelated, non-allied associates. " Related concepts to clannishness are [nepotism](https://infogalactic.com/info/Nepotism), [cronyism](https://infogalactic.com/info/Cronyism), and [familialism/familism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Familialism), to help you get a better idea. Clannish people are given to feuding, corrupt behavior and [particularism](https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/universalism-vs-particularism/) (showing more concern for ingroups), among others. The opposite trait is somewhat inelegantly called "non-clannishness". Non-clannish behaviors are universalism, cooperativeness, individualism, and commonweal-orientation (which has nothing to do with nationalism, don't bother coming to that conclusion), among others. Non-clannish peoples tend to have a history of breeding with non-related or distantly related individuals, while clannish peoples tend to have a history of breeding with closer relatives.It appears that Western civilization, especially [North-Western Europe](https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/big-summary-post-on-the-hajnal-line/) and its offshoots, are the least clannish compared to the rest of the world. Those in the [Middle East](https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/consanguinity-and-islam-and-democracy/) are the most inbred. They even practice a [particular kind of inbreeding] (https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/fathers-brothers-daughter-marriage/) that is [more inbred](https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/fathers-brothers-daughter-marriage/) than what the rest of the world practices. This explains why Western ~~nationalisms~~ cooperativeness has existed longer and stronger than [Arab nationalism](https://infogalactic.com/info/Arab_nationalism), which has been more of an aspiration. As one might expect, historically non-clannishness societies have found it difficult to incorporate clannish peoples into their societal fabrics. This is just due to geography, institutions and chance rather than genetics, of course. To illustrate, I will explain this difference in terms of two familiar platforms. Consider Voat and Poal. Both of these sites are primarily used by white Americans, [a more diverse group than typically assumed](https://jaymans.wordpress.com/american-nations-series/). Voat exhibits a hostility to outsiders ("We're full!), corruption (the "Angel" Investor), and feuding (people with hobbies vs those that masturbate to pessimism). Poal exhibits commonweal orientation (commitment to a more friendly culture), universalism (admins being reasonable with all users, even if some are troublesome) and cooperativeness (the userbase as a whole showing a resistance to being sucked into drama and attacking people). Though they are cousins, these sites appear to have gone down separate, but equal paths. Despite being an equally (or even more so) lovely site, Voat has had a series of issues due to complexity too nuanced to be discussed here or even thought about much at all. These instances of truly sophisticated nuance have prompted successive Voat emigrations, leading to waves of new users. While most have assimilated, others have maintained their old ways. I am here to say that these people are just as valuable to the community as any other! These people, or as I prefer "Internet inbreds" have just as much value to Poal as your average Muslim in a Western nation. An Internet inbred is given to complain about a practice as soon as it affects an ally, no matter how long the practice has been in place. An Internet inbred will make strong demands for justice and punishment against wrongdoers (perceived or otherwise). An Internet inbred may even dredge up the same drama against the same person repeatedly after repeated attempts at reasonable dialogue. This is just how they behave. Remember Poal, if you see someone doing something that is against Poal's "healthy culture" try to respect that they are simply inbred. Thank you for reading, I sincerely hope this was educational.