Yes, of course I knew of it an the potential problems. But the numbers shock:
According to a report for the BBC’s Newsnight, British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population.
They are responsible for three percent of all births, but produce just under a third of all British children with such health problems.
In Birmingham, around one in ten children from first cousin marriages either dies in infancy or develops a serious life-long disability caused by genetic ailments, according to health officials in the city, where half the mothers of Pakistani origin are married to a close relative.
Jeebus.
Well the NHS is the excuse as to why my health is the government’s business, sugar tax, etc.
So strict policing of inbreeding should be coming soon, or does it not work like thatm
Of course it doesn’t work like that. ‘uman rites, innit?
“In Birmingham, around one in ten children from first cousin marriages either dies in infancy or develops a serious life-long disability caused by genetic ailments”
One in ten? Bloody hell!
I always distrust these “13 times more likely” stories, because they usually start from such a low point that even 13 times still results in a less than trivial risk. But 1 in 10 sounds like back to the days before modern medicine.
You have to question what a serious life-long disability caused by genetic ailments actually is, but who is surprised? It is clear that the Muslim community is made up of retarded inbreds and it always has been.
Strike up one more for the Catholic Church being right.
Yeah, but a spacka is a benefits winner innit?
I was always under the impression that this practice was illegal, given that it’s prohibited in the table of kindred and affinity in the Book of Common Prayer, which – the C of E being the established church – was binding on all in the realm.
Don’t worry, they’ll pay our pensions.
It is not just the parents who are cousins, it is the grandparents, great grandparents etc. etc. for almost a millennia.
First cousin marriage isn’t illegal in the UK AFAIR, though it’s certainly not to be recommended. As Demetrius says, it’s just the Habsburgs writ large. It must be cultural though: even stone-age tribes were aware of inbreeding. The standard practice of stealing women from neighbouring tribes demonstrates that.
I read something about particular Aboriginal tribes in Oz, possibly on here. They would have a big feast with the neighbours once a year & then all would slope off into the desert with someone they fancied from the other lot. So the kids who came along later would likely be outbred.
whilst on holiday in france a couple of years ago met a health worker from bradford who had plenty ofhorror stories about this subject. Nicolai sennels in denmark has been banging on about muslim inbreeding for ages – http://10news.dk/the-connection-between-muslim-inbreeding-and-terrorism/
https://en.europenews.dk/-Muslim-Inbreeding-Impacts-on-intelligence-sanity-health-and-society-78170.html
@smfs is right
Researchers into rare genetic conditions flock to places like Bradford, because one-in-a-million cases are quite common there. This used to happen in non-Asians* too – when my sister was studying for her medical degree, she came upon case notes with weird test results that were annotated ‘NFN’ (normal for Norfolk).
* cousin marriage is a cultural thing and isn’t restricted to Muslims
SMFS: “It is clear that the Muslim community is made up of retarded inbreds and it always has been”
That’s the logical equivalent of saying everyone with a racist viewpoint is a Thick.Racist.Prick when of course it’s only true of certain racists.
Another multi-cultural flight of fancy hits the concrete pavement of reality.
Civilisation made incest taboo a very long time ago. Isn’t it amazing there turns out to be a reason! Who knew?
On the upside……there isn’t one. But expect more NHS driven interference as a result.
What they lack in quality they make up for with quantity.
No doubt all those rigorous studies into the benefits of mass immigration accounted for this.
I repeat a story I’ve told before: an acquaintance resigned from her job looking after such pathetic wee mites when she saw that the same couples would bring in a second and then a third deformed little specimen. Nothing she told tell them would stop the so-and-sos churning them out.
For how many generations must you use first cousin marriage before your risk becomes 10 – 20 times greater than the general population’s?
How about uncle-niece marriage?
Ironman – “That’s the logical equivalent of saying everyone with a racist viewpoint is a Thick.Racist.Prick when of course it’s only true of certain racists.”
You still here Rusty? I thought you f**ked off to climes that suited you and your politics a lot better. Like the Guardian.
I am happy to sit here and listen to you list all the well run, functional Muslim societies in the world that are not run by retarded inbreds. How do you explain the different levels of success between the British Asian Muslims who marry their first cousins and the British Asian Hindus who do not? White racism to blame is it?
The issue isn’t current first cousin marriages in Birmingham having problem kids, its a small gene pool for many generations within an area, a clan and family – carrying on with it.
Your average person who meets up with a girl in a bar / workplace / hobby / sport etc then gets together with them then later on finds they are genetically first cousins will be only slightly higher risk of genetic problems for kids than 8th cousin twice removed would (a total stranger).
Most societies go back far enough will have small groupings of people marrying and having kids – a few centuries ago in Britain you’d marry someone from your local town, local village, local estate – and local gene pool may have been shallow.
Just because once upon a time many communities had this sort of problem is no reason to support it through public funding nowadays.
It’s said that Berkshire was only saved from mass idiocy by the invention of the bicycle. Perhaps the NHS should invent and distribute an equivalent suitable for the circumstances for our more vibrant communities.
And have a motto to go with it – “On yer bike!”, perhaps?
Make 1st C marriage illegal. Added in with recognising RoP marriages as UK equivalent and jailing them for bigamy if they have more than one that will help sink the breeding –or more accurately out-breeding–programme.
Hey–end inbreeding and help end out-breeding. A worthy slogan .
Let’s clear up one point – the BCP forbids uncle-niece marriages, not first-cousin marriages. AndrewWS has either been misinterpreted or, less likely, has misinterpreted.
I doubt there is much, if any, racial difference between and Indian Hindu and a Pakistani Muslim.
Yet one of the above is part of the UK’s most successful ethnic minority and (in my experience) marrying Brits of other hues and faiths quite frequently.
The other is part of a group of worthless inbred peasants whose collective contribution to the UK ranks somewhere behind that of tapeworm and Japanese knotweed.
It is all about culture, or the lack of one.
But, you know, raaacism’s bad m’kay?
@AndrewWS, July 7, 2018 at 12:06 pm
Book of Common Prayer list of who may marry: first cousins are allowed
From article:
Taxpayers choose to pay it. Griping about the cost is jerkdom.
“This figure is derived from the fact that a total of 545 boys or girls born to closely related couples have died in childhood during the past five years”
Far better that they not be born, eh?
Civilisation made incest taboo a very long time ago
This was before our society of empathic caring beings ruled us. Now it isn’t a problem in certain circumstances.
This is in fact a disaster not for the cost to the taxpayer, which in the grand scheme of the current fuck up is chicken feed, but for the poor children themselves. A society which truly cared wouldn’t stand for it for five seconds, but we are ruled by two faced wankers who whore their virtue at every suitable opportunity but who then disappear when real leadership is needed.
Recessive traits can cause odd problems. They are unlikely to be expressed if people with the recessive trait marry outside the family, as the outsiders are unlikely to carry the recessive trait (though, of course, they could).
The offspring of the inbred couple, assuming they actually carried it, have a 1 in 4 chance of having the trait. Gene combinations for T-t and T-t parents, with t being the recessive (bad) trait are T-T, T-t, t-T, or t-t. Only t-t results in the trait, though T-t and t-T will carry it. Note that the 1 in 4 T-T actually eliminates it. Same chance for eliminating it as getting it.
So where are we? I say there’s nothing wrong with cousins marrying, but I wouldn’t make a habit of it. But that is a choice for the couple, not for the rest of the world.
@Ironman is Baroness Flather a white supremacist?
Left & SJWs howl racist bigot: rr
Baroness Flather accused of ‘bigotry’ over her views on marriages in Pakistani community
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/baroness-flather-accused-of-bigotry-over-her-views-on-marriages-in-pakistani-community-10373492.html
It would be good to make first cousin marriages illegal, probably save more than the idiotic sugar tax. But as most of them would take place abroad it would probably fail to fix the problem. Still worth a try though.
“But as most of them would take place abroad it would probably fail to fix the problem.”
I don’t accept that there is a problem.
Ashknazic Jews (like me) also form a similarly endogamous group. That has two implications for genealogy:
1. Our DNA is much more similar from person to person than most ethnic groups, making us especially easy to identify from DNA comparison.
2. Our degree of relatedness, as measured by how close the nearest common ancestor is on the family tree, is often far more distant than you would guess based on the amount of DNA shared. Very few of the “3rd cousins” that DNA-based genealogy services list for us are real; rather, many are something like 6th cousins 6 times over.
Most Ashkenazic Jews no longer practice first-cousin marriage, but it was common in Europe up to at least 1900. However, some of the very religious Hassidic groups in the U.S., such as the Satmars (I am told) still do, and have a large incidence of mental retardation. I am told that such kids are raised within the community and are cared for and given tasks they can handle, such as preparing the synagogue for services, and so on. But bear in mind that this is just something I “have been told.”
Gamecock – “Far better that they not be born, eh?”
Somehow I feel there is an excluded middle ground between aborting them all and marrying your cousin.
Peter S. Shenkin – “1. Our DNA is much more similar from person to person than most ethnic groups, making us especially easy to identify from DNA comparison.”
Jewish writers are often conflicted about this. Obviously blood purity is not a trivial issue in Judaism. Yes, there is conversion but it is important for Jews to be genetically close to the Jews of the Holy Land – so anti-semites often use the claim that Ashkenazi are actually Turkic. On the other hand it does mean German Jews are not ethnically German in a genetic sense. So Hitler kind of had a point – although not one that justifies anything.
“Most Ashkenazic Jews no longer practice first-cousin marriage, but it was common in Europe up to at least 1900.”
The Rothschilds did until fairly late – later than 1900. I am not sure if it helped or hindered them. What is interesting is that they do not seem to have done it when they were poor but once they became wealthy.
“However, some of the very religious Hassidic groups in the U.S., such as the Satmars (I am told) still do”
There are disputed numbers for the Satmars but assuming there are some 75,000 of them, virtually all of them in New York, they probably don’t have a lot of choice. Especially as their objections to the outside world tends to focus on other Ultra-Orthodox Jews rather than liberal Jews or non-Jews.
What is interesting about the Satmars is that they have split in effect because of a dispute about which son would succeed their previous Rebbe, but more interestingly the previous Rebbe before that had a stroke and so the sect was run by his younger wife for about a decade.
I like the Satmars. The Lubavitch get all the press but the Satmars are far more interesting. Although the Lubavitch show how the history of Christianity could have been different if the Romans had not been called in to persecute the early Christians.
@So Much For Subtlety:
Religiously, a converted Jew is just as much a Jew as someone who can trace his origin to King David. (Actually, nobody can, but you get my point.)
Genetically, the picture presented by the Ashkenazic Jews is that the middle-Eastern heritage is stronger in the male line. That is, when the Jews began to come to Northern Europe about a thousand years ago, the men took foreign wives to a much greater extent than vice versa. This is important, because aside, from conversion, Jewish law states that you are Jewish if your mother was Jewish. But the Bible argues a bit the other way, because King David himself was a direct descendent of Naomi (cf. the Book of Ruth), who was not ethnically Jewish, but a Moabitess.
So, frankly, ethnic origins don’t matter that much religiously. If someone raises the Khazars to me, I always point out that it’s likely untrue that European Jews are descended from them, but even if it were true, it wouldn’t matter. Jerusalem is sacred to all Jews, as Mecca is sacred to all Moslems, not just Arabs. (Yes, Jerusalem is sacred to Moslems as well – and even Christians, if the rumors I hear are true.)
Much is made of the geographical origin of the Jews in rationalizing the existence of Israel. But in fact, Israel was created by the policies of the British government, the League of Nations, and the United Nations.
Yes, we have said prayers about returning to Jerusalem (“If I should forget you, oh Jerusalem”) for thousands of years, but I don’t think those doing the praying ever envisioned the creation of a modern Jewish state. It was really a prayer for the coming of the Messiah.
The religious establishment opposed Zionism, and the Satmars in particular continue to have nothing to do with Israel. But other super-religious Jews live there while opposing the state, even relying upon it for their very existence and safety. They even show signs of wanting to run the place.
Personally, I support Israel, but I don’t think the genetic link to the ancient Hebrews is terribly relevant to its existence. I am proud of that ancient heritage personally, and would be even if someone should prove that I actually descent from a Lithuanian peasant girl, but that is neither here nor there.
I thought the Jewish through the female line doctrine was adopted only about 1000 years ago or so.
My ancestors are from an isolated fishing town, and going through the history it’s clear there was a culture of young men having a ferlough somewhere on the way back from the fishing grounds to find a partner to import home. Old documents have a surprising number of Christianas, Morags and Frijas.
“so anti-semites often use the claim that Ashkenazi are actually Turkic.”
Not just anti-semites: it was once a genuine line of enquiry. Modern DNA studies have settled the issue – they ain’t Turkic. (The Turks aren’t Turkic either, come to that.) They’ve also revealed that the Ashkenazi are about 50% European – probably mainly Italian or Southern French – and 50% from the Middle East. That latter is a strikingly vague description but maybe it’s as close as can be got.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the Palestinians – particularly the Christian ones – had a rather larger percentage descent from the Jews of Christ’s time than the Ashkenazi have. Interestingly, it’s what some of the founders of Israel suspected might be true. (Or so I have read – I am no scholar of these things. But on the other hand neither am I an interested party.)
The Rothschilds did until fairly late – later than 1900. I am not sure if it helped or hindered them. What is interesting is that they do not seem to have done it when they were poor but once they became wealthy.
A major cultural driver for cousin marriage is that it keeps the family wealth within the family. That’s as true for wealthy Europeans as South Asian farmers.
See also European Royalty – Phil & Liz share two sets of great-great-grandparents – which is why haemophilia became a problem, particularly for the Tsars (and it didn’t end well for the Hapsburgs, either).
This is just one problem among many that the 3rd world will bring with them until there are too many problems to be dealt with. It’s not even worth addressing because it’s so far down the list of problems that already exist. The left laughs at conservatives when they claim to have had a victory in some election or policy debate. Meanwhile millions of their 3rd world voters pour in to permanently change the nations they infest.
Child brides as young as 13, estimated half to first cousins.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/kaylee-mcghee/meet-the-yemeni-child-brides-of-dearborn-michigan
@Gamecock, July 7, 2018 at 8:04 pm
That’s one gene only – Mendel’s peas.
We’re looking at multiple different inherited genetic problems/disabilities each with a 1:4 chance.
Also interactions between one gene pair and another; and if gene deformity only occurs on X, Y or both.
This increases probability.
.
@July 7, 2018 at 9:53 pm
There clearly is a problem.
Pcar, true.
There could be several nasty recessive traits hiding in the family. In fact, I have no doubt I carry the ginger hair gene.