Category: Islam and the West

Auto Added by WPeMatico

Inbreeding

When you marry people who are near relatives for too long, you get inbreeding. I had not known there is a section of the Mount Sinai Hospital in New York dedicated to the treatment of Jewish genetic diseases produced from too much inbreeding among the highly orthodox. I was wondering when there will be a broader public discussion of inbreeding among Muslims. Generations of marrying first cousins continue to produce a much higher incidence of genetic diseases among Muslims than the general population. Cue Islamic outrage. People who work in hospitals are well aware of this fact, though they do not talk about it.

An interesting article on the subject appears in Wikislam.(I cannot tell whether this site is sincere or a front, but the information seems genuine).

 

In Pakistan, where there has been cousin marriage for generations, and according to professor Anne-Marie Nybo Andersen from South Danish University, the current rate is 70%,[5] one study estimated infant mortality at 12.7 percent for married double first cousins, 7.9 percent for first cousins, 9.2 percent for first cousins once removed/double second cousins, 6.9 percent for second cousins, and 5.1 percent among non-consanguineous progeny. Among double first cousin progeny, 41.2 percent of pre-reproductive deaths were associated with the expression of detrimental recessive genes, with equivalent values of 26.0, 14.9, and 8.1 percent for first cousins, first cousins once removed/double second cousins, and second cousins respectively.

A BBC report discussed Pakistanis in the United Kingdom, 55% of whom marry a first cousin. Given the high rate of such marriages, many children come from repeat generations of first-cousin marriages. The report states that these children are 13 times more likely than the general population to produce children with genetic disorders, and one in ten children of first-cousin marriages in Birmingham either dies in infancy or develops a serious disability.[6]

From Gavin McInnes, in Takimag, this fact:

Muslim immigrants in Britain obviously don’t “keep it in the family” as much as their relatives back home, but they’re still suffering the consequences. Though Pakistanis comprise a mere 3.4% of Britain’s overall births, they “produce an alarming 30% of the UK’s genetically diseased children.” British politicians are calling for intermarriage to be outlawed, arguing the result is a form of child abuse.

Here is a chart from the reproductive health journal of degrees of first cousin marriage in Islamic societies. >1C indicates double first cousin marriage, 1C indicates first cousin marriage.

Table 1
Consanguinity rates in Arab populations. Minimum and maximum reported rates are indicated when available
Country >1C, 1C Overall consanguinity References
Algeria 11.3 22.6-34 [14,100]
Bahrain 24.5 39.4-45.5 [10,101]
Egypt 14.3-23.2 20.9-32.8 [15,70,102–104]
Egypt (Nubia) 39-47.2 60.5-80.4 [105,106]
Iraq 29-33 47-60 [86,107–109]
Jordan 19.5-39 28.5-63.7 [6,9,43,110–113]
Kuwait 16.9-31.7 22.5-64.3 [114–117]
Lebanon 6.7-31.6 12.8-42 [4,5,118–120]
Libya 48.4 [121]
Mauritania 47.2 [93]
Morocco 8.6-10 19.9-28 [21,122–124]
Oman 24.1 56.3 [125]
Palestine 13.6-34.2 17.5-66.3 [7,11–13,71,126–129]
Qatar 34.8 54 [19]
Saudi Arabia 24.6-42.3 42.1-66.7 [67,84,99,130,131]
Sudan 44.2-49.5 44.2-63.3 [66,132,133]
Syria 28.7 30-3-39.8 [16,134]
Tunisia 17.4-23 20.1-39.3 [18,9,135,136]
United Arab Emirates 20.7-28.2 40-54.2 [20,36,137]
Yemen 32-34 40-44.7 [17,138]

For comprehensive details and additional data, see Additional File 1.

Abbreviations: [>1C] = Double first-cousin marriage; [1C] = First-cousin marriage.

Tadmouri et al. Reproductive Health 2009 6:17   doi:10.1186/1742-4755-6-17

Open Data

Out of curiosity I looked up the table of Kindred and Affinity in the Anglican Prayer Book at p.562 and was unable to find a ban on marrying first cousins.

A Man may not marry his A Woman may not marry her
1   MOTHER 1   FATHER
2   Step-mother 2   Step-father
3   Mother-in-law 3   Father-in-law
4   Daughter 4   Son
5   Step-daughter 5   Step-son
6   Daughter-in- law 6   Son-in-law
7   Sister 7   Brother
8   Grandmother 8   Grandfather
9   Grandfather’s Wife 9   Grandmother’s Husband
10  Wife’s Grandmother 10  Husband’s Grandfather
11  Grand-daughter 11  Grandson
12  Wife’s Grand-daughter 12  Husband’s Grandson
13  Grandson’s Wife 13  Grand-daughter’s Husband
14  Aunt 14  Uncle
15  Niece 15  Nephew

So, I wonder, why are certain tribes (Anglo-Saxons, Iroquois, for instance) outward marrying (exogamous) and other tribes inward marrying (endogamous)? They say endogamous marriage is for protecting property, but could it also indicate much lower trust levels in the society as a whole?

What did they think they were agreeing to? Eating ice cream?

Occasionally the gap between what I know for a fact and what appears in the newspapers to cries of shock! horror! is wide. Take the NSA and Snowden for instance. Of course the NSA and CSE and every other British commonwealth signals intelligence agency has been vacuuming everyone’s email and phone messages for years. What did you think they were doing? Playing bridge with each other in those sealed conclaves of Cray computers? They are not looking for you or your porn habits, your secret trysts, or your bad habits, though I am sure a  moment’s tracking will reveal everything you ever wanted to hide. They are looking for patterns that indicate Islamic terrorism, needles in haystacks the size of Jupiter. We are more transparent to them than the Emperor Shaddam IV was to the Guild Navigators.

The top lawyer for the National Security Agency told a civil liberties oversight board on Wednesday that US technology companies were fully aware of the surveillance agency’s data collection – knowledge which the firms have vigorously denied having.

NSA general counsel Rajesh De said companies like Facebook and Google had complete knowledge of all communications information and metadata collected by the agency pursuant to the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, whether the material was gathered by the internet data-mining program PRISM or by the “so-called ‘upstream’ collection of communications moving across the internet,” the Guardian reported.

How could they not know? The tech companies had signed agreements with the NSA, acting under authority of law, to conform to the intelligence requirements of signals intelligence agencies. This from Wikipedia:

The FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Amendments Act also added a new Title VII to FISA which contained provisions similar, but not identical, to provisions in the Protect America Act of 2007 which had expired earlier in 2008. The new provisions in Title VII of FISA were scheduled to expire on December 31, 2012, but two days before the U.S. Senate extended the FISA Amendments Act for five years (until December 31, 2017) which renews the U.S. government’s authority to monitor electronic communications of foreigners abroad.[8]

Section 702 permits the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to jointly authorize targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States, but is limited to targeting non-U.S. persons. Once authorized, such acquisitions may last for periods of up to one year.

Under subsection 702(b) of the FISA Amendments Act, such an acquisition is also subject to several limitations. Specifically, an acquisition:

    May not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States;

  • May not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States;
  • May not intentionally target a U.S. person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;
  • May not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States;
  • Must be conducted in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Section 702 authorizes foreign surveillance programs by the National Security Agency (NSA), like PRISM and some earlier data collection activities which were previously authorized under the President’s Surveillance Program from 2001

You ask, quite reasonably, does this not exempt US citizens?

Yes it does.

So how do you collect data on US citizens?

Simple. What do you think the CSE does? The British and Australian counterparts?

Oh. So every signals intelligence agency uses its foreign intelligence powers to snoop on citizens of other countries and then shares data with a select trusted few agencies according to long-standing agreements?

Yes. The intelligence sharing among Anglosphere signal intelligence agencies is a deeper political fact than NATO.

Without breaking any law?

Yes. But note that, if any foreigner is involved, then the NSA can legally target the communications, even if the preponderance of them involves resident US citizens. So if Abu-Jihad abd el Nasir is targeted, his American correspondents in the territory of the US are a legitimate target.

The lies and hypocrisy start when the Googles of this world deny their active cooperation. The phone companies have been hand in glove with the intelligence agencies for ever, and why should it be any different in the Internet-protocol world?

And did I forget to mention Executive Order 12333 on the subject of US Intelligence activities?

Was missing airplane hijacked?

The Singapore Straits Times has an interesting article on the apparent diversion of the Malaysian flight, and Reuters issued a similar story too. We are only now beginning to be told the truth.

“What we can say is we are looking at sabotage, with hijack still on the cards,” said that source, a senior Malaysian police official….

As a result of the new evidence, the sources said, multinational search efforts were being stepped up in the Andaman Sea and also the Indian Ocean.

In one of the most baffling mysteries in modern aviation, no trace of the plane nor any sign of wreckage has been found despite a search by the navies and military aircraft of more than a dozen countries.

 

More here, derivative of the first articles above.

 

Pat Condell, Ezra Levant, and Christie Blatchford

Boldly offending Islam  since God knows when. The situation Condell describes in England since the Rushdie fatwa is the end state of what we in Canada will face, and Ezra Levant’s struggle is our struggle. It is that simple. Send him money.

I am disappointed in Christie Blatchford, who is normally a rock on issues like this. The issue, Miss Blatchford, is not whether Ezra Levant was mean to an old crone Jennifer Lynch, the late head of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. He was. The issue is whether Islamic supremacism will be supported in Canadian law, with the effect of suppressing honest public discussion of what this totalitarian political ideology consists of.

A visit to Ezra’s site will show you how to send him money. Every time I see Levant I have to shell out two or three hundred bucks. Now I urge us all, me included, to send some money without the pleasure of hearing him rant.

The Alternate Universe of Doug Saunders

A debate was held last night in Ottawa between Doug Saunders, of the Globe and Mail, and author of Myth of the Muslim Tide, and Salim Mansur, Associate Professor of Political Science at Western University, on the topic “Resolved: Muslim Immigration is No Threat To Canada Or The West.” The MacDonald-Laurier Institute was the sponsor, and the War Museum provided the space.

Doug Saunders spoke first. His argument, as I recall it, went like this:

  • Controls on Muslim immigration would not have prevented most of the major Islamic terrorist attacks in Christendom – a word he never would have allowed to pass his lips (9/11; London subways)
  • Muslim birth rates are crashing abroad and are falling rapidly in their host countries;
  • accordingly there is no way for the demographic pressure of Islam to have significant political impact;
  • It is not Muslim immigrants who commit atrocities, it is Muslim converts and second generation Muslim immigrants.
  • If we have so little faith in the power of our civilization to repel political Islam, we are in trouble indeed.
  • fears of Islamic terrorist tendencies are similar to those that attended mass Catholic immigration from Southern Europe in the 19th century
  • the overwhelming proportion of Muslim immigrants who come here want to integrate to this civilization.

Doug’s observation on the catastrophic decline of Muslim birth rates all around the world is a true and under-appreciated fact. Overall his presentation was smooth, WASPy, plausible (until one thought about it), fact-based, kept within his time limits and yet inspired many to ask: “what planet is he from?”. There was an overwhelming sense conveyed by his arguments that there was “nothing to look at here, move on.” Islamic fanaticism was part and parcel of all fundamentalist religious beliefs, no different in kind from Christian or Jewish fundamentalisms. He clearly saw the source of terrorism in the unvarnished statements of the  Abrahamic religions per se, and not in anything specifically Muslim.

By way of opposition, Mansur insisted that Islam has been taken over by a pernicious doctrine of Salafism, that Salfism is wrecking the former pluralism of Islamic world, and that we ought to be on guard against significant Muslim immigration. He said he had fled one such Islamic civil-religious war and was shocked to see that it had caught up with him in Canada decades later. Mansur insisted that Islam had once been pluralist, but that Saudi money had infected Islam with what he called “Bedouin barbarism”.

Mansur insisted that numbers were a driver even if they were small; that elections are matters of going for the marginal voter, not the middle of the road majority, and that if 3%, 5% or 7% of the Canadian population were Muslim, as it is expected to become, that fact would have dramatic effects on freedom of speech and resistance to Sharia.

Mansur observed that former immigrant waves had come from the same Christian civilization, whether Catholic or Russian Orthodox, and that there was a qualitatively different aspect to modern Islamic immigration, as it came from a different civilization. He cited Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations with approval.

As the threats from fundamentalisms, Mansur observed that the Reformation   had happened 500 years ago in Christianity, and [I add] had occurred for Jews later in the Enlightenment period. Islam was unreformed.

At the question period, a Muslim woman in a hijab, in a perfect Canadian accent, suggested to Saunders that there was a felt pressure on young Muslim women to adopt the hijab involuntarily, and another Muslim woman , sans hijab, said the same in a foreign-born accent. This was all contrary to what Saunder’s Muslim researchers were telling him, said Saunders.

Saunders argued strictly to the proposition being debated, which was about Muslim immigration rather than Islam itself. But a moment’s reflection reveals the falsity of his narrowly construed argument. If the second generation of Muslim immigrants born here, and Muslim converts, are the source of domestic terrorism, then why is this not related directly to the presence of Muslim proselytizers and Muslim families already here?

The MacDonald-Laurier debates usually end with an audience vote. Brian Lee Crowley, the Institute’s head, thanked the debaters without calling for a vote. Presumably the sensitivity of such a vote at a debate sponsored by his Institute would have made fund-raising more difficult. I could think of no better argument for Mansur’s proposition that the MacDonald-Laurier Instutute thought better of having the proposition put to the audience. Like most instances of discussion about things Islamic, the vague but real menace that you will be boycotted, bombed, sued, threatened, or even killed for disputing Islam, or allowing a forum in which it could be disputed,  suggests that, in fact, Muslim immigration should be very carefully controlled for explicit political and cultural reasons.

As for Doug Saunders, all his reasoning did not amount to a persuasive case: he dwells in some alternate universe. The tone, the implicit condescension, the avoidance of obvious large and unpleasant facts, makes him a perfect fit for the  Globe and Mail.

And what kind of oppression is this Christian pastor concerned about?

You guessed it. While hundreds of Christians are murdered by Islamic fanatics in Nigeria, the religion editor of Huffington Post is exercized by the persecution of gay Nigerians by other -presumably Christian – Nigerians.

To continue with the piece by Raymond Ibrahim cited previously on the New York Times’ coverage of Boko Haram

Thus, from a purely demographic point of view, we may deduce that for every one man who gets exposed as a homosexual in the privacy of his own home, and killed for it, thousands of Christians expose themselves as infidels whenever they openly congregate and worship inside churches, as they do every Sunday, and get killed for it.

Based on numbers alone, then—assuming the NYT can agree that all human lives are equal, that the life of the Christian is equal in value to the life of the homosexual—the dramatically much bigger story has long been the relentless and genocidal jihad on Nigeria’s millions of Christians.

After a few days’ absence from the blog, this morning was a target-rich environment. As Raymond Ibrahim says:”The script must always prevail: reality be damned”. Islam=religion of peace; homophobia=evil.

When does it become acceptable to notice that Muslims are murdering people?

When they are gay! Raymond Ibrahim tells us that the New York Times has finally awoken to the fact that Muslims are killing….wait for it….gays.

 

In 2011 hundreds of Christians were killed and 430 churches destroyed or damaged. In 2012, 900 Christians were slaughtered.  Indeed, of all Christians killed around the world in 2012, 70% were killed in the west African nation.   In 2013, 612 Christians were killed and some 300 churches destroyed.  The year 2014 promises to be the same.  Just the other day, over 50 Christians were slaughtered by “Allahu Akbar” screaming jihadis.

Read Thomas Sowell on the concept of liberal mascot groups. All will be explained.

A simple, if indelicate, question

Amidst all the brouhaha of how awful Putin’s Russia is for not kissing gaydom on the lips, we have this charming example of selective media non-attention to our Muslim brethren.

A Seattle Muslim who tried to burn down a crowded gay nightclub, swearing that all homosexuals should be eliminated, gets nearly no coverage.

As Pamela Geller asked:

Pamela Geller is spot on: “Where are the left wing, the gay and LGBT organizations denouncing the Islamic texts that inspire such mayhem and murder of gays? Where is that fierce gay leadership condemning Muslim oppression of gays under the sharia? Where are those brave activists who rushed to condemn me when I ran an ad campaign highlighting Muslim oppression of gays under the sharia? Gay organizations in America say nothing, but loudly condemned my ad campaign highlighting Muslim oppression of gays under the sharia. Why haven’t we heard from SF City Council, the Human Rights Commission, SFHRC head Theresa Sparks, and the enemedia? They called my ads hate and issued a resolution against my organization for merely quoting Muslim political leaders, spiritual leaders and cultural voices in the Muslim community who call for the torture and death of gay people. I  was denounced by gay and transgender leaders in the US for our work to highlight the Muslim oppression of gays. The San Francisco City council issued a resolution condemning our AFDI ad campaign (the first of its kind) focusing on the vicious oppression and subjugation of gays under Islam.”

The overt political control of what we are expected to get excited about is revealed daily in our media, by what is covered and not covered. Islam = religion of peace. Putin = bad thug because anti-gay. Huh?

 

Obama: How bad is he?

I go back and forth on Obama. The moderate in me thinks he is an spectacularly inept president of the caliber of Jimmy Carter, or James Buchanan, the predecessor of Lincoln, with all the professorial arrogance of Woodrow Wilson and the charmlessness of the narcissistic egotist. The dark side of me thinks Obama is considerably worse: an active agent of American dissolution and surrender to Islam. Let’s go with the second interpretation today, shall we?

I am in good company. David Horowitz, the  founder of Ramparts magazine and a convert from Marxism, child of the American Communist party, and now a raging Obamaphobe, published an interesting article recently that support the darkest interpretations of Barack Hussein Obama.

His article, The Threat We Face, asserts that the President and his closest advisors come out of the American Communist party milieu:

 

It is also an unhappy but hugely important fact that the conspiracy to which my parents belonged has steadily migrated into the heart of the Democratic Party until it now occupies the Oval Office in the person of our president, Barack Obama, and his closest advisors. The president, his chief operative Valerie Jarrett and his chief political strategist David Axelrod all came out of the same Communist left and the same radical new left as I did, and all have remained heart and soul a part of it.

Horowitz outlines three characteristics of the progressive left:

  • alienation from their country: they are loyal to a revolutionary idea but not to the country of which they happen to be citizens;
  • The second feature of the progressive left that is key to understanding it is its instinctive, practiced, and indispensable dishonesty.
  • A third feature of progressives that defines their politics is that they regard the past, which is real, with contempt, and are focused exclusively on a future, which is imaginary.

I came to political maturity while still in my late teens, in the political struggles of the late nineteen sixties, when Marxists were attempting to subvert my university, and everything else. Everything that Horowitz says  about the hard left I have experienced personally. The hard left in my university was largely Jewish. I can only think of one who possibly was not Jewish. They came by their leftism from families that had been Communist or Marxist for generations, and most of their ancestors had come from Russia or the former Tsarist empire. In fact, the distinction between Soviet Russian-inspired Marxists and the university Maoists was primarily an ethnic/religious split between the Jews  and the goys. The Maoists were largely children of privilege from the Third World. An ethnic distinction this obvious ought to have attracted more attention, but since both schools of Marxism denied the importance of ethnic religious divisions, the division remained undiscussed.

On the first day of my political science class, our Russian-origin Jewish Marxist professor asked the following questions, as he strolled back and forth at the head of the class, smoking and dropping his ashes into a clamshell.

“Can there be perfect knowledge?”

“Can this perfect knowledge be held by a group?”

“Can this perfect knowledge concern the outcome of history?”

“And can this perfect knowledge be used by the group to accelerate the course of history in a revolutionary direction?”

His answer to all these questions was “yes”.

“The issue is never the issue; it is only about the Revolution”. The source of the viciousness of Leftists of this type is their firm belief that knowledge of the outcome of history has been vouchsafed to them. If you know the outcome of history – I do not use the word “believe” here, but “know” in the same sense that 2+2=4, then opposition is not merely erroneous, it is in bad faith. The truth is KNOWN. Thus Obama cannot conceive Boehner and the Republicans as other than as stooges of reactionaries.

Second, when your goal is clear, you can engage in apparently senseless acts that dismay your own country because, as we can recall, your loyalty is not to the Republic but to the Revolution. Damaging the morale of the side you pretend to be on, and strengthening you enemies, is consistent with your goal.

His kow-towing to Islam does not derive from a belief in Islam, as I see it, but because he sees Islam as a useful tool in overthrowing the hegemony of the Masonic Protestant republic of the United States. Everything is focused on one goal: wrecking the country that elected him.

Thus his cutting of aid to the Egyptian military was consistent with a plan to enhance the side the Obama actually favours. As Robert Spencer wrote:

The State Department announced Wednesday that it was cutting hundreds of millions in military and other aid to Egypt, and make no mistake: this was not a government shutdown move. This was the President of the United States blackmailing a sovereign state to force it to restore the Muslim Brotherhood government he favors.

 

 

I might have continued to take a moderately negative line on Obama, but for the fact that I have experienced the Leftist milieu from which he and his closest advisors emerged. The Marxist revolutionaries I knew in university were traitors, not just to Canada, but to reason, the Enlightenment, decency in human conduct, and any sense of morality. Horowitz connected the dots for me. Obama, Jarrett and Axelrod are all children of the US Communist milieu. They are activated by the same contempt, derision and disloyalty as I experienced up close and personally in my time among the Marxists at university. I have reached my tipping point on Obama. Not just an inept Leftist academic raised high above his talents, but an active traitor to his country.

 

 

 

 

 

Good News! Guardian scared of right-wing takeover

The Guardian, that relentless pusher of leftism, cites the poll figures for the European parliament.

The Ifop poll in the newspaper Le Nouvel Observateur gave Marine Le Pen‘s National Front 24% in the European contest, five points ahead of Hollande’s socialists and almost four times what the far-right party achieved in the last European election, in 2009.

The boost to the extreme right in France came amid growing fears among the European Union elite that extreme parties of right and left would make a strong showing in the European elections in May.

Nigel Farage‘s UK Independence party is tipped to do well, possibly becoming the biggest British party in the European parliament, while Geert Wilders, the Dutch anti-immigrant and anti-Islam populist, is also running strongly in the opinion polls.

German analysts and politicians expect the new anti single European currency party, Alternative for Germany, to win its first seats in a national poll. The far-right in Poland, Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria would also register gains, on current projections.

A combination of out of control Islamic minorities, arrogant know-it-all European Union government, and economic malaise is working to produce this.