Wednesday, April 13, 2011

A Call for Hybrid Vigor

Ann Barnhardt has posted an article today at American Thinker about the long-term effects of inbreeding on the Islamic world. Some excerpts are below:

The Keystone of the Islamic Milieu: Inbreeding
by Ann Barnhardt


The darkest hour is just before dawn. A huge swath of this planet, from the Straits of Gibraltar to the Philippine Sea, has been held in a synthetic, forced nightfall for nearly fourteen centuries. But the sunrise is coming, it is coming sooner rather than later, and this light will be the life of men.

Everywhere in the western world, people look at the savage violence that is a daily occurrence in the Muslim world and shake their heads in stunned disbelief. A pastor of a very small Christian flock in Florida burns a Koran. Weeks later at literally the global antipode, Muslim imams drive through neighborhoods in a vehicle with loudspeakers attached, calling the townsfolk to riot. The townsfolk respond, and before it is all over, at least 22 innocent people are dead at the hands of these townsfolk, with at least two of them beheaded. How is this possible? How can this be? How can human behavior and culture be so monstrously different? Is this difference attributable to nothing more than environmental nurture theory?

No. There is something else. There is a catalyst — absent in every other culture on earth — that has poisoned the cultural soil, thus yielding the fruit of bad harvest for nearly 1,400 years. That catalyst is inbreeding. As a direct result, the Muslim population is mentally developmentally disabled on a mass scale.

All human cultures display strict prohibitions against inbreeding and consanguineous marriage. Incest is a universal taboo. This is a transcendent anthropological fact. As a Roman Catholic, I attribute this to what is called “The Natural Law.” Every human person without exception is created by God with a deep, innate knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong. Stabbing someone in the neck for no reason whatsoever is just as wrong here in Lone Tree, Colorado as it is in the Amazon basin, as it is on the high plateaus of Mongolia.

But there is one culture, one faux “religion,” that expressly condones and encourages consanguineous marriage and breeding. That system is Islam, and the document that explicitly ratifies incest is the Koran, specifically Sura 4 verse 23:

Prohibited for you (in marriage) are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, the sisters of your fathers, the sisters of your mothers, the daughters of your brother, the daughters of your sister, your nursing mothers, the girls who nursed from the same woman as you, the mothers of your wives, the daughters of your wives with whom you have consummated the marriage — if the marriage has not been consummated, you may marry the daughter. Also prohibited for you are the women who were married to your genetic sons. Also, you shall not be married to two sisters at the same time — but do not break up existing marriages.

Sounds like an exhaustive list — but it is not. It is the most lax incest prohibition in all of human culture. There is a massive omission: cousins only once removed. In the Muslim culture, marriage and breeding between first cousins has existed since day one. Mohammed himself married Zaynab, who was his father’s sister’s daughter. Mohammed and Zaynab were direct first cousins.

Marrying your first cousin is the genetic equivalent of marrying your half-sibling. Think of your own family. Let’s say your dad has a sister, who is “Aunt Linda” to you. Your dad and Aunt Linda, being full siblings, have exactly the same genetic constitution. Their family trees prior to their generation are identical. Therefore, if Aunt Linda has any children, who are your first cousins, they are, in genetic terms, 50% identical to you. You share one of your two genetic constituencies with your cousins, thus making them genetically the same as a half-sibling would be.

First cousin marriage for just one generation is extremely risky in and of itself. This is why virtually every other culture on earth prohibits it, and treats it as a cultural taboo. When two people come together who carry so many similar genetic alleles, the chance of an undesirable recessive trait expressing itself in their offspring soars. Now, understanding that single-generational risk, understand that Muslims have been marrying their first cousins over and over again for 1,400 years. Sit in stillness for a moment with the full, terrifying gravity of this.

The Reproductive Health Journal reports the following rates on consanguinity in Muslim countries. Where a statistical range has been recorded, I have used the lower parameter:

Algeria: 22.6%
Bahrain: 39.4%
Egypt (North): 20.9%
Egypt (Nubia-South): 60.5%
Iraq: 47.0%
Jordan: 28.5%
Kuwait: 22.5%
Lebanon: 12.8%
Libya: 48.4%
Mauritania: 47.2%
Morocco: 19.9%
Oman: 56.3%
Palestine: 17.5%
Qatar: 54.0%
Saudi Arabia: 42.1%
Sudan: 44.2%
Syria: 30.3%
Tunisia: 20.1%
United Arab Emirates: 40.0%
Yemen: 40.0%

Muslim men are never, ever allowed to be around, see, converse with or otherwise interact with any females outside of their families. However, they are permitted to act as chaperones for their female first cousins. If your first cousin is the only person of the opposite sex you ever get to interact with, is it any surprise that Muslims are marrying their first cousins more as the rule than as the exception?

Read the rest at American Thinker.


Hat tip: Andy Bostom.

62 comments:

Shaunantijihad said...

I share 50% of my genes with Aunt Lydia (the same as my father). But Aunt Lydia marries Tom, and their daughter, my first cousin, shares 25% of my genes. One of us has our maths wrong.

Anonymous said...

and so what ??.. it is still wrong, and this inbreeding have a history sins 600- ad and have damages muslims genpool severly.. and see where they are at today. 40% of the disfunctional healtcare in western society are occupied by muslims, thats a big problem. they cant support themselves but they want our healtcare. can you see where am going at ? we cant afford to sustain our welfare anymore with parasits draining/living on welfare without giving something back to,, disfunctionality is only one thing that comes out of inbreeding, menthal healt,low IQ. are others. it takes generations of evolution to gain/xxxx. you dont get smart/clever just becouse you know how a cellphone works and live in france... sorry for my english this is aimed to shaunan...

Rollory said...

This assumes things not in evidence.

In rural Europe, a very similar amount of inbreeding was not uncommon. In the French countryside my grandparents come from, the laughing comment was that everyone was cousins with everyone else. It has been thus for a long time. In parts of Appalachia it has been thus in the recent past and possibly still is. Iceland also has a large degree of consanguinity. Any ethnically defined national population is basically inbred.

"I share 50% of my genes with Aunt Lydia (the same as my father). But Aunt Lydia marries Tom, and their daughter, my first cousin, shares 25% of my genes. One of us has our maths wrong."

No, I think that's right. A full sibling shares 50% of the genes. Half-sibling has half of that. Or am I confused?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ole said...

It may or may not be true that inbreeding of this kind has caused some of the stagnation of middleeastern cultures , we realy dont know for sure , because our understanding of how genetics influence culture amounts to Zero.
It is important to remember that cultural development , since the invention of language , has eksited in a vertual reality of its own , independent from bilogical-genetic evolution...
Our enemy is the brutal symbolic content of islamic culture , not the genetic content of its host-populations,inbred or not.

bewick said...

Hell in the Uk it is a common joke that those from Norfolk are seriously inbred and have sexual relations with close relatives. Norfolk is rural.
In the UK marriage to first cousins is legal but very rare. Parents, using ancient wisdom, make it all but impossible.
Statistics though show that the Pakistani origin residents who marry first cousins produce at least 4 times normal birth defects. THAT costs the general UK population big time. Time to BAN

Anglichan said...

This blog is rapidly transforming itself from an informative critique of the Islamic cult into something Reinhard Heydrich would be proud to own.

At the end of the piece in the Thinker[sic] it says,
'Ann Barnhardt is a livestock and grain commodity broker and marketing consultant' Wonderful qualifications!
You might also add, 'Nazi eugenics tract writer'.

goethechosemercy said...

Our first problem with Islam is the content of Islam and the Muslims who passively follow it or actively carry it out.
It is a destructive religion, a corrupt society, a ruined political structure, an unjust legal system and a severely, violently dualistic and antifeminist ideology.
I understand that the incest is a problem, but not as big a problem as Islam and Muslims and their destructive objectives in the West.
These are the things which concern us first.

Baron Bodissey said...

Professor Hale --

Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. Your comment violated the last of these rules. We keep a PG-13 blog, and exclude foul language, explicit descriptions, and epithets. This is why I deleted your comment.

Use of asterisks is an appropriate alternative.

----------------------

<bProfessor Hale said...</b

I tend to think the problem is more the result of 5000 years of human habitation in the same place without basic sanitation.. They literally have [intestinal effluvia] for brains.

I don't know why they won't use sewage treatment or septic systems. It must be in the Koran somewhere.

bewick said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Zenster said...

Professor Hale: I don't know why they won't use sewage treatment or septic systems. It must be in the Koran somewhere.

They're too busy using donated sewage pipes to make Qassam rockets so that they can kill more Jews.

Little did these bloodthirsty, genocidal Hamas scumbags care if their diversions of municipal infrastructure resulted in a Sewage Tsunami that killed five people, including two toddlers and another pair of elderly women.

Remember, there is a definite reason why Abu Mudhen calls Qassams "pipes":

Abbas was referring to the number of Palestinians who have been killed in the Gaza Strip since the kidnapping of Cpl. Gilad Shalit in June. His comments, which were interpreted as criticism of Hamas and its government, came hours before Abbas headed to the Strip for talks with PA Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh on forming a national-unity government. Abbas described the rockets that are being fired into Israel as "pipes" that provided Israel with an excuse to carry out military operations in the Gaza Strip. "Our people don't deserve these tragedies," he said. "If these pipes provide an excuse, it's time to stop using them." [emphasis added]

Notice how this rutbag has no problem overlooking the fact that diverting pipes from a sewage treatment project killed old women and small children. Never once does he upbraid Hamas for causing the Sewage Tsunami. Abu Mudhen is more concerned about Israel being justified in mounting retaliatory attacks against Hamas-led terrorists that might have gotten him and his ilk killed back when they still shared power.

Typical inbred moronic logic: "Let my people drown in a flood of sewage but let's not risk our skins by firing too many pipe-based rockets into Israel."

Baron Bodissey said...

Bewick, rewrite that last comment with the direct personal insults removed.

Zenster said...

Anglichan: 'Ann Barnhardt is a livestock and grain commodity broker and marketing consultant' Wonderful qualifications!
You might also add, 'Nazi eugenics tract writer'.


Your inability to appreciate Barnhardt's clear language forces one to speculate as to whether you are a victim of the practices she decries.

Anglichan said...

Zenster, I wouldn't care what my genetic history revealed, just as long as it didn't show I was related to you.

Now, I know the reasoning will be a little difficult to follow, but there's an interesting reader's comment you should look at on that 'Thinker' site . His name is Countryman and he's a self-confessed fan of Ms Barnhardt but he writes,

'There may be discrete families in Islam where there are concentrations of genes which manifest themselves in violent, irrational behavior, but that is not the norm. One must look at the overall culture, and the values and behavioral norms it promulgates to explain the behavior of Moslems.'

gustavo_argento said...

If it is bad for muslims, why would we want to stop it? Even if it is costing us a lot of money to look after those with birth defects, once they have all been deported then a dumbed-down muslim population this will be a benefit to us. The less intelligent the enemy the better, huh?

I thought cousin love was more of a Pakistani thing. Is there evidence that it actually affects all muslim populations, for example the Indonesians?

gustavo_argento said...

Does anyone know if the Dutch voted to ban halal meat in their referendum?

I know there was due to be a vote but could not find the result anywhere.

Transsylvania Phoenix said...

Almost every Palestinian individual I met over the years (probably 20-30 or more) manifested from what I perceived to be a mild form of mental retardation. They were marginally functional as individuals and some of their reactions are very peculiar. Not mentioning the fact you have to struggle and repeat everything twice in order for them to process what you are trying to communicate. And no, it's not about language barriers, they are just very, very slow.
Almost like American liberals.

Anonymous said...

Cousin marriage is a symptom, not the main problem.

The problem is the the extremely low level of social trust in muslim super-majority cultures.

People in those untrusting soceities marry family because family are the only people you can trust. Build some social trust and the cousin marriages will decline as people find more and better options.

The big problem is that Islam (as currently practiced) simply cannot build prosperity or good social outcomes because of the weak social structures that Shariah demands.

You're awful fast, Anglichan, to throw stones but can you find any Muslim majority society that meets the bare definition of civilization? That you would personally want to live in?

Individual muslims are often fine people, but the current mainstream practice of their religion retards scientific inquiry and cannot build any of the cultural infrastructure needed for prosperity.

Please, feel free to come up with counter examples....

You New said...

Muslims will never come out and admit their problem. Non-muslims will have to discuss this alone.

Gustavo,

I think it is pretty much everywhere they go, at least in the ME. I also would like to know about Indonesia. You are right, it may be good in the big picture; good that this is happening.

And don't worry, the self-hating Western converts won't help their gene pool much.

I didn't hear about the halal Dutch vote yet either.

Anonymous said...

This is why I deleted your comment.

Criticism accepted. Apologies.

You New said...

Anglichan said snarkily "'Ann Barnhardt is a livestock and grain commodity broker and marketing consultant' Wonderful qualifications!"

I believe Ann Barnhardt has a degree and a hands-on background in animal husbandry, which qualifies her quite well to discuss this breeding problem.

retch said...

She is wrong. Oversimplifying is not the proper way to approach any problem, even if she has a point.

Profitsbeard said...

The Muslims' problem is more plagiarism (SEE: Mohammad pilferings in the "Al Qur'an" from the Torah, gnostic Christian sources and Arab mythology) than inbreeding.

Their genetic narrowing has been kept at bay by capturing new populations gentoypes and raping their fresh sex slaves ("possessions of their right hand"), so I think Ann Barnhardt has gone off on a fruitless (sic) tangent that is irrelevant to the essential danger with Islam: its totalitarian, terroristic tenets.

Smarter Muslims following this madness will only be MORE dangerous.

If they want to get cleft palates or trisomy-21 chromosomal disorders, that's their problem.

The Koran is ours.

Blogger said...

There are plenty of cultures like this that are not Islamic, who marry their cousins but don't resort to bad behaviour. I am a bit disappointed in this article, it seems more like a Red Herring. I was hoping for more deconstruction of Islam, the ideology.

Anonymous said...

It's certainly true that the great degree of inbreeding is responsible for mental (and physical) problems among Muslims.

However, I believe Ann Bernhardt is wrong when she equates inbreeding with incest (not the same thing), and when she says that Islam is the only culture where marrying your cousin is tolerated.

I have not specifically investigated the issue, but I'm quite sure marrying your cousin has been rather common among different peoples during the course of history.

Heck, I even think it's completely legal to do so nowadays in France, even if it's not a done thing (among the native French, at least).

Zenster said...

Anglichan: Zenster, I wouldn't care what my genetic history revealed, just as long as it didn't show I was related to you.

Which only leaves me to wonder if your sense of relief is anywhere near as keen as my own.

Anglichan: (per Countryman) There may be discrete families in Islam where there are concentrations of genes which manifest themselves in violent, irrational behavior, but that is not the norm.

Save for the fact that "violent, irrational behavior" is the norm throughout Islam. Aside from that niggling little detail, I'm sure he's right about everything else.

You New said...

"My article “Muslim inbreeding: Impacts on intelligence, sanity, health and society” details extensive research data on the subject. In brief, inbreeding through consanguineous marriages increases the risk of depression (Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 2009 “Relationship between consanguinity and depression in a south Indian population”) and schizophrenia (American Psychiatric Press, 1982 “The role of genetic factors in the etiology of the schizophrenic disorders”)."

by Nicolai Sennels
Gates of Vienna, December 17, 2010

Zenster said...

cliffarroyo: The problem is the the extremely low level of social trust in muslim super-majority cultures.

People in those untrusting societies marry family because family are the only people you can trust. Build some social trust and the cousin marriages will decline as people find more and better options.


Your point delves much closer to the heart of this matter. In reality, cousin marriage was, and still is, one of the only ways to prevent fragmentation of small-scale family landholdings and other heritable legacies.

Beyond that, the issue of trust moves sharply into the foreground. High context cultures like Islam hold humiliation as worse than death. Consequently, sharing of family secrets or other sensitive personal information is a high risk proposition.

Combine this with how so many seemingly minor transgressions are met in Islam with amputation or capital punishment and suddenly the ability to trust even relatively close kin evaporates rather promptly.

You're awful fast, Anglichan, to throw stones but can you find any Muslim majority society that meets the bare definition of civilization? That you would personally want to live in?

Let's see if you ever get a straight answer to that tidy little question.

Individual muslims are often fine people, but the current mainstream practice of their religion retards scientific inquiry and cannot build any of the cultural infrastructure needed for prosperity.

In fact, prosperity is the enemy of jihad:

What Al-Ayyeri sees now is a "clean battlefield" in which Islam faces a new form of unbelief. This, he labels "secularist democracy." This threat is "far more dangerous to Islam" than all its predecessors combined. The reasons, he explains in a whole chapter, must be sought in democracy's "seductive capacities." This form of "unbelief" persuades the people that they are in charge of their destiny and that, using their collective reasoning, they can shape policies and pass laws as they see fit. That leads them into ignoring the "unalterable laws" promulgated by God for the whole of mankind, and codified in the Islamic shariah (jurisprudence) until the end of time.

The goal of democracy, according to Al-Ayyeri, is to "make Muslims love this world, forget the next world and abandon jihad ." If established in any Muslim country for a reasonably long time, democracy could lead to economic prosperity, which, in turn, would make Muslims "reluctant to die in martyrdom" in defense of their faith.
[emphasis added]

Imagine how crippling it must be for a culture whose clerical elite identify prosperity as inimical to their ideology's spiritual and strategic goals.

Hesperado said...

"Ann Barnhardt has a degree and a hands-on background in animal husbandry..."

Muslim breeding is animal husbandry.

Richard said...

If you get 50% of your genes from your Father and your cousin gets 50% of her genes from your Aunt she and you share 50% of your genes. That is simple math.

Yes inbreeding does produce birth defects and lower intelligence, that is why so many jokes are made about the areas in various nations that have had serious inbreeding. And those areas haven't been doing this as long and the Islamic regions. But as far as the violence being caused by inbreeding, I would hesitate to insult someone in the Appalachian region, they are noted for being very violent.

Blogger said...

Our enemy is the brutal symbolic content of islamic culture , not the genetic content of its host-populations

Exactly. I'm happy to see that the majority of the comments agree on this point.

We will not win this fight if we start getting distracted by extraneous, emotionally laden, issues. As Rebecca Bynum writes: "what a man believers determines his intention and a man's intention is arguably THE most important thing for others to know about him."

Findalis said...

This is not a strictly Muslim problem. Ultra-Orthodox Jews have practiced First and Second Cousin marriage that the rate of Mental Retardation is at 25% of all newborns born in some sects. Let alone the other congenial diseases, and it is thought that the most inbred families might die out within 2-3 generation.

Hesperado said...

All seriousness aside (as Steve Allen used to say), I have noticed over the years many different anti- and quasi-anti-Islam speculators announce their Theory of Why Muslims are so Pathological (and, qualitatively, so singularly pathological compared with other peoples of the world).

All theories to explain this will fail, if they are meant to be definitive and exhaustive; for, Islam is a unique sociopolitical and psychological disease. It shares many ostensible similarities with other sociopolitical and psychological diseases, but there is a massive and complex je ne sais quoi about it that eludes categorization, since all categorization of pathologies derives in great part from non-Muslim sources and disciplines (needless to say, Islamic diagnoses of pathology are worthless in this regard -- except as evidence of its own pathology).

The Muslim disease is a mystery. The analysis that comes closest to illuminating that mystery -- but still leaving much of it in darkness to our human understanding (since, as the Catholics put it, "iniquity is a mystery") -- is the concept of Satanic possession. Even that, however, is problematic, for if it is a cogent (albeit partial) explanation, it would be itself a singular instance of it, for it would have to be a mass possession affecting, and afflicting, over a billion people now across the globe, and hundreds of millions more throughout the past 1400 years. As far as I know, from the history of Satanic possession (assuming one believes in it), it has only afflicted individuals, or relatively rarely groups or small communities. With Islam, as I say, we are talking about over a billion people Satanically possessed. Until I see a better explanation for the singular evil & insanity of Islam, I will follow Sherlock Holmes's dictum that "when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"." Barnhardt's explanation just doesn't suffice to equal the mass phenomenon of grotesquely ghoulish and monstrously twisted horror that is the collective of Muslims called Islam. And, as I said, no other explanation I have seen suffices either.

My comment here is not meant to reject Barnhardt's theory in toto; only to suggest a reminder that it is only one piece of the puzzle, not the ultimate explanatory key. It also doesn't quite provide a sufficient explanation for certain of the most important features of Islam: a) its monomaniacal fanaticism; b) its meticulously deranged Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder; and c) its ultra-violence. I'm not so sure that a culture of long-term cousin inbreeding is sufficiently germane (obscure pun intended) to those three central aspects of Mohammedan sociology and psychology.

Piet said...

Her genetics are all wrong. Her account of Aunt Linda is completely muddled.

Just think about what she's saying. If your half-sibling is 50% genetically identical with you, that would make your (non-twin) full-sibling 100% identical with you. So then what would your twin be? 200% identical with you? Absurdity.

You are 100% identical with yourself. You get half of your genes from a parent, so you are 50% identical with a parent. This is the next error Ann makes: Since the way in which genes from your parents are passed down in each case is like a coin-toss (ignoring certain effects), then your (non-twin) full-sibling need not have the same sets of genes from each parent. So your full-sibling is also only 50% identical to you (on average).* So Aunt Linda is 50% identical to your Father, who is 50% identical to you, i.e., Aunt Linda is 25% identical to you. And Aunt Linda's children are 50% identical to her, i.e., 12.5% identical to you, not 50%. And following from your full-sibling being 50% identical to you -- your half-sibling would then be 25% identical to you. Or look at the half-sibling another way: The parent you share is 50% identical with you. But your half-sibling's other parent is not at all identical with you, i.e. 0%., so (0% + 50%) / 2 = 25%.

*It is possible (though entirely improbable) that your sibling shares no genes with you (in the sense of "same gene" being used here**). For example, imagine that your and your parents' genomes had in total only two pairs of genes. In pair 1, your mom has (1A,1B), and in pair 2 she has (2A,2B). Your dad has (1C,1D) and (2C,2D). You could have (1A,1C) and (2A,2C), and your sibling could have (1B,1D) and (2B,2D). You and your sibling then share no genes. Indeed, it goes the other way as well: It is completely possible, that your sibling share every gene with you (indeed, this happens with identical twins***). But on average (ignoring certain effects), your sibling will share 50%.

** In reality some genes are in a strict sense the same for every human on Earth, also for every mammal and animal on Earth. So strictly in reality everyone shares genes in some way. But the sense here is in the sense of whether they refer to the same gene in the parent which was passed onto the offspring.

*** Really, even for "identical" twins there are small genetic differences due to mutation.

1389 said...

Ann Barnhardt is correct.

Islam and Genetic Damage

Blogger said...

Islam is a unique sociopolitical and psychological disease

Right. It is not a 'genetic issue' at all. We know that because many muslims free themselves from Islam and reject the pathological behaviours. I find it insulting to think of Wafa Sultan, Ali Sina, Nonie Darwish and Ibn Warraq, and so on, as "genetically retarded" because of their culture.

Malcolm Smith said...

There are two problems here. Firstly, believe it or not, the Bible does not even ban marriage between uncle and niece - which, I agree, is far too close. But it is considered respectable in Judaism.
Secondly, Piet is right, as any elementary study of genetics will show. First cousins share 1/8 of their genes. Marriage between first cousins carries some risk, but no more than marrying late in life. The real problem is when the cousins' children marry their cousins, and their children marry cousins. This is, unfortunately, what is happening in the Moslem world.

Anonymous said...

Rollory, you are confused.

Your mother is 'W'family, your father is 'X' family. You have the WX family genes. Your father's sister ('X' family) marries someone from the 'K' family; the daughter and son, your cousins, constitute the XK family. 50% genes.

Grandchildren have 25% of genes.

Call Me Mom said...

Wow. A lot of good comments, both here and at the American thinker on this post.

When a friend of mine decided she wanted to become a geneaological researcher as a business idea, I offered her a modest sum to make a geneaology for my son. She asked me if I wanted to have everything included, When I asked what she meant, I was a bit shocked to hear that many people simply don't include anything bad if it is discovered in their genealology. I told her sunlight is a wonderful disinfectant. (And anyway what's the point of that?)

Thus it was that I discovered that I am my own cousin 11 times. There was apparently some either sibling or cousin marrying done back aways in my family line. (I comfort myself with the knowledge that neither of my parents did drugs in the 60's, so that must surely even things out-lol.)

My point, in a rather roundabout way I'll grant you, is that while it is all fine and good to speculate on the effects of inbreeding(and/or drug abuse)we are all still people.People with very different views of the world, but each inherently valuable. Even those who would disregard that distinction are still inherently valuable. I think it's important to have reminders of that every once in a while in discussions such as this.

On another note, the inbreeding and the high rate of mortality and genetic problems may contribute to the generally callous attitude towards life and the value of an individual in the Islamic culture as well as the insular attitude towards marrying outside of one's family grouping. If the children produced in your group have a high mortality rate or are prone to a particular deformity, allowing others to discover that would be anethema in such a competitive and generally abusive society.

Or perhaps the callousness regarding the value of the individual is a deeply cultural thing, like living very close to other people in large apartment buildings. I am informed that some cultures in Europe prefer to live so close to each other. I would find it stifling. I am told that the people of those cultures don't understand my need/wish to have space between my living space and that of another family either.

It is not required that I understand why those differences exist. It is enough to know that they do and to adjust my expectations of that culture accordingly.

In the case of Islam, it is enough for me to know that they do not share my values and that they do value strength and see an offer to negotiate as a sign of weakness. This suggests that any sort of appeasement is exactly the wrong strategy.

Twould be far better to stand strong on our principles and convert all who can be converted to Christianity. Because it doesn't really matter what your culture or your genetics, even someone with half a brain can see that trading your spot in the afterlife for better roads and schools is not an equitable trade.

gsw said...

@Anglichan,
regardless of the exact percentage of consanguinity - the danger of reinforcing recessive genes increases the closer the kinship. While one can argue that when the recessive is musical ability that might be good, but the truth is recessives are more often negative. (Anyway - Mo was tin-eared, so music is not highly valued in the islamic culture).

@CallMeMom:
I was going to agree that in your case there ware either no bad recessives, or they were so bad they bred themselves out.
Then I read
"Because it doesn't really matter what your culture or your genetics, even someone with half a brain can see that trading your spot in the afterlife for better roads and schools is not an equitable trade."
Are you seriously suggesting that a definitive benefit in the health of the village and the education of your children is less important than the remote possibility that you have not been lied to by money-grubbing churches and that - after you are too dead to demand your money back - you will be rewarded?

No I must have mis-understood you - you are actually saying that giving up real education and sanitation for the possibility of an afterlife is a no-brainer - yes?

Anglichan said...

Here is the basic difference between people-it's the Gospel, not genetics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWydZ9YhwUc&feature=related

LAW Wells said...

Many appear to want to downplay the linkage between genetics and culture. So I am going to illustrate an example where a consanguinous marriage resulted in exceedingly wide repercussions.

We start in 1819, with the births of Victoria of the House of Saxe-Coburg, and of Albert, of the House of Gothe. Albert's father was the sister of Victoria's mother.

In 1840, the two married, and they proceeded to have nine children. One of these, Alice, was married into the House of Hesse. Alice's daughter, Alexandra, became Tsarina in Russia, and her only son, Alexei, was a haemophiliac. The original mutation has been traced back to Alice.

Alexandra's motherly concern for her son, and the only heir to the Russian throne (fairly strict Salic succession laws were in effect) led her into the domain of Rasputin, whose immoralities scandalised the monarchy among both the aristocracy and the general populace. Like the slander against Marie Antoinette of France (often, sadly, continued to this day), this was part of the fatal undermining of the monarchy that led to its downfall, and the establishment of the USSR.

All for a consanguinous marriage (not to deny that there was genuine love there).

I know, the case of such monarchs is significantly rarer in the modern era, but the point is that the flow on effects from consanguinity are generally unforseeable, and can also be quite significant.

Depression can lead to fatalism. It can also lead to explosive anger (we would call this envy). Here, I'm building on the works of Dr Sennels.

In short, consanguinity in one generation had three generations for its ultimate effect to be felt, and in a way nobody could have ever foreseen.

This isn't to say that it must be stamped out immediately and withno exceptions. It just requires that fresh blood be continually added in order to restore, in Mrs Barnhardt's words, hybrid vigour. If there's none of the latter, then my above example stands.

Regrettably, however, this is not an example that is exclusive to Muslims. While particularly rife amongst them, it is not the root of the issue. Cliffarroyo's point on trust is much closer to the mark, as trust is the building block of a society.

S said...

@Richard said "But as far as the violence being caused by inbreeding, I would hesitate to insult someone in the Appalachian region, they are noted for being very violent."

Where are the statistics for that statement? There are none. The Appalachian region, except for Memphis, TN, which is inhabitated by those that inhabit all big cities in the US, is generally a low crime area. And if you consider that poverty is always blamed for criminality, you can tell that for the level of poverty in the region, the crime level is exceedingly low.


As for intermarriage being the problem in islam, the continous generational intermarriage is a problem, but not THE problem.

The problem is an idealogy that encourages it's followers to believe they can treat THE OTHER poorly in such a long list of ways that were practiced and encouraged by it's founder. Lots of religions say THE OTHER will not be 'saved' or worse and allow the followers to feel superior because they will be 'saved' but islam actually calls for THE OTHER to be punished by gods hand through your works on earth with no blame to you, the followers. Other religions require the followers to conform and NON-followers to be damned, islam requires the followers to conform and NON-followers to conform or be punished and treated non-human, because there is NO GOLDEN RULE. That's the problem with islam.

Anonymous said...

Blogger :

"I find it insulting to think of Wafa Sultan, Ali Sina, Nonie Darwish and Ibn Warraq, and so on, as 'genetically retarded' because of their culture."

Let's not get "insulted" as Muslims are wont to do.

As much as I admire Wafa Sultan's courage and moral clarity, she does not exactly come across as a balanced individual when you watch her on TV.

Muslims are victims of Islam, too.

Zenster said...

Takuan Seiyo: None of which means that we should join the Mea Culpa procession of the white privilege self-flagellants. We did it; get over it and move on.

Le bingo.

It is also important to note the commonalities between Liberals, Muslims and the Third World anti-Whites who all participate in this lash-fest.

All of them ― in their efforts to deconstruct Western civilization ― must first step up and firmly plant their feet on one or another cornerstone that was agonizingly lifted into place by White culture.

Liberals love to bash the Pale Male™ but, in order to do so, usually require the venue of Free Speech that was fought for and died for by so many of those same White males to begin with.

That they then go on to use the Internet, universities and many other accouterments of White culture to destroy White culture is just more hypocritical icing on their monstrous, cognitively dissonant cake.

Modern day Muslims adore killing everybody else ― chiefly White folks like Jews and Christians ― but are conspicuously unable to do so without resorting to the use of weapons and technology that they could not have invented given centuries of extra time and, instead, must beg, borrow or steal their armaments of choice from those who manufacture them according to discoveries made largely by …

… wait for it …

Yep. White folks!

Then we have the remaining lot of Third World savages who, if they aren't Muslim, tend to behave a lot like them and ― big surprise here ― typically require all of the preceding inventions in some combination, if not all of them together at once, in order to adequately express their violent distaste for the White culture that routinely sends them medicines, vaccines, agricultural equipment, water treatment technology, crop seeds, bulk fertilizers, farm animals, microloans, disaster, drought and famine relief along with untold billions of dollars in foreign aid plus a host of other benisons without which sloughs of them would have died off en masse a long time ago if not gone extinct altogether.

It's long past tea to simply withdraw access to all of these potent tools and let the bunch of them rot in their own feces until they learn how to show a little respect.

Zenster said...

Robert Marchenoir: As much as I admire Wafa Sultan's courage and moral clarity, she does not exactly come across as a balanced individual when you watch her on TV.

I would suggest that any sane individual who has endured what this brave woman has gone through might be quite understandably prone to do a bit of ranting whenever confronted by more of the pear-shaped misogynistic wife-beating Muslims that mislabel themselves as "men".

Lawrence said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lawrence said...

Hesperado said... All theories to explain this will fail, if they are meant to be definitive and exhaustive; for, Islam is a unique sociopolitical and psychological disease. It shares many ostensible similarities with other sociopolitical and psychological diseases, but there is a massive and complex je ne sais quoi about it that eludes categorization, since all categorization of pathologies derives in great part from non-Muslim sources and disciplines (needless to say, Islamic diagnoses of pathology are worthless in this regard -- except as evidence of its own pathology).

The problem is Westerners striving to paint the problem within the framework of Western thinking.

Islamists do not view the world the same as we do. What they do is completely rational from their point of view. It is us who are the world’s problem and they see it as their duty to eradicate every single one of us, for the purpose of eradicating our contrary ideologies.

Is it pathological to seek to rid the world of what you believe is evil? Western cultures pursue this all the time.

So, what we must not do is waste time trying to seek excuses for Islamist aggression, accept their aggression for what it truly is, and deal with it.

If Islamists wish to seek their afterlife rewards by dying in combat trying to kill me, then why should I feel guilty about helping them along the way?

The historical fact is that the only way Islamist aggression has ever been dealt with successfully is in the face of their defeat by a superior force on the battle field. As long as they view themselves as the superior force, they will continue their fight, regardless of our intellectual gymnastics.

Zenster said...

Lawrence: If Islamists wish to seek their afterlife rewards by dying in combat trying to kill me, then why should I feel guilty about helping them along the way?

The historical fact is that the only way Islamist aggression has ever been dealt with successfully is in the face of their defeat by a superior force on the battle field. As long as they view themselves as the superior force, they will continue their fight, regardless of our intellectual gymnastics.


On this much we can readily agree save that jihadists should be helped into the afterlife before they have a chance to kill you, me or anyone else.

Sometimes one must do unto others before they do unto you.

Call Me Mom said...

@ gsw,
My point was not whether or not one's church has lied. My point was that if one believes in the afterlife and that it is forever, then yes, having a better afterlife will be more important to you than having better roads and schools for a physical lifetime that will not even amount to a fraction of the value of an everlasting afterlife.

If we want the muslims to adopt our values and our principles, they must have our basic Christian beliefs as well or it is not a fair trade. Nor will it appear to be a trade from a position of strength.

If we are saying, "adopt this value system because it will be better for you in both this world and the next", then we are the stronger party (because we have a better deal) and to be emulated.

If we are saying "we just like to help people and wouldn't that make you feel better too?" Then we are idiots to be taken advantage of, used and disposed of as they see fit.

I'm not planning to discuss the existence of God here or His relationship to any particular religion, only to address the effect of the differing ideologies on the situation at hand.

nimbus said...

Hesperado, interesting comment. Have you considered that entire cities, nations, and peoples are given over to Princes to watch over? Have you thought of the "Prince of Persia" and Daniel?

gsw said...

Call Me Mom:
your "adopt this value system because it will be better for you in both this world and the next"

This will not work with 99% of muslims for 2 reasons:
1) Their religion offers them a quick and guaranteed route to heaven - kill some Kufars (that's us) and get yourself killed at the same time.
No waiting, no uncertainty, no argument.
2) They think you are nuts. They have been taught that you are less than an animal, they believe you corrupted the gospel! They believe that women are inferior creatures (Mohammud said so!).

The muslims believe as you do - that sending their sons to heaven the fastest way - by blowing up infidels - will ensure that their daughters also get into heaven.

I, as a non-muslim, think that anyone willing to sacrifice their children's education or well being for their own benefit (going to heaven) is lacking in empathy, compassion and intelligence.

Lawrence said...

Zenster said... "Sometimes one must do unto others before they do unto you."

As long as we keep ourselves from stepping over the line into murder or genocide bases simply on fear.

Peace through strength. It isn't our duty to kill you, but let us be clear that if you attack us we will respond with deadly force.

BTW, we agree on more than a few things, albeit our initial discussions suggesting otherwise, based mostly on a number of misinterpretations.

Lawrence said...

gsw said... "I, as a non-muslim, think that anyone willing to sacrifice their children's education or well being for their own benefit (going to heaven) is lacking in empathy, compassion and intelligence.

Yet, in Western Culture, we sacrifice our children all the time to the alter of political correctness via legalized abortion...

Call Me Mom said...

@GSW,

First of all, I must strongly object to your statement "the Muslims believe as you do". I most certainly do not believe that blowing up myself or others is a pathway to heaven.

To address the points in your post:

1 The route to heaven in Islam through jihad is not a certain route. It is only the most sure route that the followers of Islam are given.

That is why there should be a reasonable conversation with Muslims as to the value of conversion. Guaranteed heaven vs. uncertain heaven, plus you get to survive.

2 They do not think Christians are nuts, they think they are wrong. This can be reasoned with. It has been reasoned with successfully, as witnessed by the conversion of Walid Shoebat and others. And these conversions are at the risk of their lives.

Even so, being sentenced to death for conversion is less sure a route to death than dying in jihad. As both hold the promise of heaven and Christianity and the conversion to Christianity is a secure promise, whereas, death in jihad is an uncertain promise, logically, Christianity should prevail.

It seems to me that, conversion, even if it needs to be through a one on one discussion with each and every Muslim, is better, more respectful of life, and more ethical then is warfare. I won't deny that defending ourselves and making a show of strength is necessary in that culture in order to get the respect necessary to have those discussions. But to completely neglect such a tactic is foolish.

If you would prefer that we simply round up all the Muslims, and confine or kill them, then your claim to empathy, compassion and intelligence is exposed for a falsehood.

Hesperado said...

"It has been reasoned with successfully, as witnessed by the conversion of Walid Shoebat and others."

It is reasonable to suppose that a certain number of Muslims will leave Islam.

It is not reasonable to suppose that a sufficient number of them will, such that it will lessen the extreme danger Muslims pose to our societies now and for decades to come (likely getting worse as Islam is obviously metastasizing around the world).

To translate that unreasonable expectation into any kind of Western policy would be reckless and would tend to endanger our lives.

Anyone who seriously thinks there is hope for a sufficient number of Muslims to convert has simply not fully digested the full horror of Islam, and of Muslims.

Zenster said...

Lawrence: It isn't our duty to kill you, but let us be clear that if you attack us we will respond with deadly force.

In some cases there exists what is tantamount to a "moral duty" with respect to eliminating some of these Muslims swine and others of their ilk. In the strictest sense, it is a "moral right", but the ending of mass human suffering, especially when it is relatively simple to accomplish, becomes almost obligatory in some cases.

Killing Robert Mugabe is one splendid example. I also maintain that terminating the top echelons of Islam's clerical, political, scholastic and financial players is an absolute must if both the West and a majority of Muslims are to have any hope of survival.

Should we be foolish enough not to hold Islam's aristocracy directly and physically accountable for the mayhem that they continue to perpetrate around the world, then a degree of culpability will eventually devolve upon us.

Especially so if Islam remains unchecked long enough for there to be nuclear terrorist attacks along with the very probable Muslim holocaust that would follow such WMD-based jihad. To have had the opportunity of obstructing such a monstrous outcome and defaulted solely over hesitation about causing a few hundred deaths to forestall hundreds of millions being annihilated is morally bankrupt.

BTW, we agree on more than a few things, albeit our initial discussions suggesting otherwise, based mostly on a number of misinterpretations.

I'm glad you think so. Among rational minds, many times it is just a matter of syntax or proper qualification and not truly fundamental issues that interfere with agreement.

Zenster said...

Hesperado: To translate that unreasonable expectation [of sufficiently large conversions away from Islam] into any kind of Western policy would be reckless and would tend to endanger our lives.

Absolutely so. We have already witnessed the lethal fallacy of believing in so-called "moderate" Muslims. They do not exist and, even if they do, are not sufficient in number to alter the ultimate outcome that our world now faces.

Anyone who seriously thinks there is hope for a sufficient number of Muslims to convert has simply not fully digested the full horror of Islam, and of Muslims.

It goes beyond the realm of mere mistake to believe any such thing. The numbers related to Muslim apostasy are so infinitesimal that anyone insane enough to have expectations of a positive outcome based on such inconsequential evidence directly interferes with implementing those measures that have even a glimmer of hope with respect to saving Western civilization and averting the looming Muslim holocaust.

In a very short time, belief in "moderate" Muslims or mass conversions away from Islam will amount to complicity with jihad. Both such notions amount to taqiyya or kitman in their various forms.

Anonymous said...

"Terminating the top echelons of Islam's clerical, political, scholastic and financial players is an absolute must." (Zenster)

How many dozens of heads of State would that entail ? Do you really think the United States can go to war with dozens of countries at the same time ?

Its military is currently involved in two major conflicts, and it very reluctantly embraced a third one recently -- just to back away a few days later.

Call Me Mom said...

@ Hesperado,
My apologies, I should have been clearer. My point is related to the current strategy of the US in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Because of our current PCMC, we are hobbling our soldiers when they could be having a much greater impact than they are.

Our current strategy involves attempting to convince the muslim population that they will be better off without the harsh tenets of sharia law(A ridiculous notion, since as we know, here, sharia is an implicit and inseparable part of the practice of Islam.)through the demonstration that the free market capitalism of the West will result in their being able to build better roads and schools, through building them better roads and schools.(There is another attempt that is also doomed to failure through secular type education, but I digress.)

To expect the muslim population to give up Islam (essentially that is what we are asking)without giving them a better religious doctrine, is folly.

I'm not saying that should be our entire attempt, but rather that those of our soldiers who are Christians ought to be allowed to witness, as Christians, through their actions and words to that population as they build roads and schools. The Christian doctrine would then resonate far more strongly and the people have a much different view of the manipulated fools who are currently doing these things for them for free. They have even been willing to burn their own holy books.(A shipment of Bibles donated by a US church was burned in order to avoid "offending" the muslim population)

Surely any religion whose God would allow such treatment of His Word cannot be stronger or better than the god they currently worship.

Not a strategy in toto, but rather a vital part of the strategy currently being used to no effect. Because without the Christian component, that strategy does nothing but make us appear to be foolish.

Zenster said...

Robert Marchenoir: How many dozens of heads of State would that entail ? Do you really think the United States can go to war with dozens of countries at the same time ?

For the unfamiliar, here is my "Top Forty Hit List":

1. Ayman al-Zawahiri
2. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
3. Ayatollah Kahmeini
4. Mullah Muhammad Omar
5. Abu Bakar Ba'asyir (Bashir)
6. Moqtada Sadr,
7. Abu Hamza al-Masri,
8. Fateh Najmeddin Faraj — Mullah Krekar (AKA: Abu Sayyid Qutb)
9. Khaled Meshal
10. Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah
11. Ismail Haniya
12. Mohammed Abbas
13. Yusuf al-Qaradawi
14. Tariq Ramadan
15. Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali
16. imam Omar Bakri Muhammed Fustuq
17. imam Abdel-Samie Mahmoud Ibrahim Moussa
18. imam Sheikh SyeSyed Mubarik Ali Gilani
19. Sheikh Abdullah al-Faisal
20. Sheik Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi
21. Dr. Mahmoud al-Zahar
22. Prince Sultan Ibn Abd al-Aziz
23. Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz
24. Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz
25. Muhammad Taqi Usmani
26. Yasin al Qadi (Saudi terrorist financier)
27. Sheikh Abdullah bin Jibreen — top Wahabbi cleric
28. Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan — top Wahabbi cleric
29. Sheikh Nasser Al-Omar — top Wahabbi cleric
30. Sheikh Essa
31. Abu Waleed Ansari
32. Abu Yahya al-Libbi
33. Maulana Ilyas Kashmiri
34. Sheikh Abu Yahya al-Libi (al Qaeda CEO)
35. Sheikh Abdel-Aziz Al al-Sheikh — Saudi Grand Mufti
36. Ramadan Shalah — Islamic Jihad leader
37. Ali Abdullah Saleh – Yemini President
38. Sheikh Ibrahim Al-Ghaith — head SA’s Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.
39. Imad Mugniyah — Iranian master terrorist – Killed 2/13/2008
Substitute: Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu — OIC Secretary General
40. Ahmed Abu Laban — DEAD unfortunately of natural causes — January 19, 2007
Substitute: Nour al Maliki or Hamid Karzai

People like Syria's Assad, Ghadaffi Duck, Iraq's Noor al-Maliki, Afghanistan's Karzai and numerous other Islamic luminaries also deserve equal attention. If Osama bin Laden is still alive, he can lay claim to the #1 slot.

The above list is less than fifty people. If it was extended on an appropriate priority basis to about 500 or 1,000 individuals - certainly less than 10,000 - jihad could be brought to a screeching halt. Considering how many thousands of Coalition troops and Muslim civilians have already died in the conflicts, the numbers I suggest are paltry.

Information hoarding is both an Arab and Muslim way of life. Gangsters and terrorist masterminds DO NOT publish their telephone lists. When they are killed it leaves a serious power vacuum. Another happy side effect lies in the kill-offs that would ensue as various factions and players tried to make their power-grabs in the wake of so many "early retirements". A tertiary byproduct is an additional round of die-offs that would occur as lower ranks were cleared of loyalists to their previous master.

[to be continued]

Zenster said...

Robert Marchenoir: Its military is currently involved in two major conflicts, and it very reluctantly embraced a third one recently -- just to back away a few days later.

I am not saying that "the United States can go to war with dozens of countries at the same time". These killings would be accomplished by traditional "wetwork" teams. Syria's Assad is capped at his private villa; even if America could be pinned down as the responsible party, what is Syria going to do?

Declare war on America? Give us the chance to bomb the snot out of them for real?

The vast majority of these Islamic cesspits have all the military capability of a GI Joe doll. Any American leader having sufficient spine to implement these "sanctions with extreme prejudice" would relish declarations of war from these strategic runts. It would be like stomping cockroaches but a lot more fun.

The backing "away" that you cite is merely a reflection of America having the most incompetent leader since Jimmy Carter at the helm and in no way reflects upon our true military capability.

America's Special Forces could carry out the majority of these killings for a very few million or tens of millions in dollars. A tiny fraction of what these current wars cost per day.

Imagine the impact of having hundreds of thousands of Palestinians gathered to watch Hassan Nasrallah shout "death to America!" and instead being treated to seeing his head get blown off in mid-sentence.

Consider how Assad was stripped of his right hand man, General Suleiman, when an offshore Mossad sniper dropped him with a .50 caliber headshot followed by two rounds to the chest before he even hit the ground. All from a wave-tossed yacht some 150 yards out to sea.

Who will Assad turn to now? A younger and less experienced officer who might just as easily get both of them killed? Who can Assad trust to vet new candidates for generalship?

Nor is it any coincidence that Suleiman was directing the Al Kabir facility that Syria built for working with fissile material. The one that Israel made to "disappear" without Syrian radar even detecting the sortie of fighter-bombers involved.

Coincident to this operation was the elimination of the Iranian master bomb-maker, Imad Mugniyah. He was appropriately decapitated by an explosive charge planted in the driver's seat headrest of his SUV that resulted in zero collateral damage. What a fitting end for someone who caused so much misery.

If Mossad could get to someone so elusive as Mugniyah, we can get to all of the others on my list.