I wonder if we have some of that going on in the Dem party.
Pretty much BS. It’s hard to corrupt something that started there unless that inbreeding argument works for Democrats.
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Cousin_Marriage_in_Islam
Scripture
Due to the actions of Prophet Muhammad and the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, marriage between cousins is explicitly allowed and even encouraged in Islam. The Qur’an itself does not discourage or forbid this practice in any way. In fact it implicitly allows it, as seen in chapter 4 verse 23:
Worldwide, it has been estimated that almost half of all Muslims are inbred:
A rough estimate shows that close to half of all Muslims in the world are inbred: In Pakistan, 70 percent of all marriages are between first cousins (so-called “consanguinity”) and in Turkey the amount is between 25-30 percent.[11]
Statistical research on Arabic countries shows that up to 34 percent of all marriages in Algiers are consanguine (blood related), 46 percent in Bahrain, 33 percent in Egypt, 80 percent in Nubia (southern area in Egypt), 60 percent in Iraq, 64 percent in Jordan, 64 percent in Kuwait, 42 percent in Lebanon, 48 percent in Libya, 47 percent in Mauritania, 54 percent in Qatar, 67 percent in Saudi Arabia, 63 percent in Sudan, 40 percent in Syria, 39 percent in Tunisia, 54 percent in the United Arabic Emirates and 45 percent in Yemen.[12][13]
The British geneticist, Professor Steve Jones, giving The John Maddox Lecture at the 2011 Hay Festival had stated in relation to Muslim inbreeding, “It is common in the Islamic world to marry your brother’s daughter, which is actually [genetically] closer than marrying your cousin.”[14]
You have to want it, you have to be able to and you have to be allowed by your family.
The more welfare, the lesser motivation for integration, since you will get food and accommodation, no matter if you learn the language, earn your own money and integrate into the community - or not.
Liberal must understand - - the greatest gift is a job - and the responsibility that goes with it. Anything short of that is a chain on a person's soul.
If the civilized world is to survive, we must recognize Islam for what it really is: It’s not a religion, form of government, or anything recognizable to the civilized mind. Islam is a disease, an incurable disease of the mind that is highly contagious among the feeble minded and is now spreading among the world’s feeble minded at an epidemic rate. As with any disease, one can’t reason with this disease, negotiate with it, or treat in any manner other than how one would treat any other incurable disease.
Past efforts to contain this disease have failed. Now, carriers of this Plague of Islam must be eradicated wherever they're found, for if they're not, this disease will eventually end not just Western Civilization, but it will undo over 5,000 years of human civilization.
Excellent article. Thanks!
Absolutely true.
Why would it take years of study to determine the pollution of the gene pool. I would say it is obvious, at a glance.
The other aspect of the Pakistani-Peruvian axis rests on its Arabic outlook. The Arabs, like other Semites who emerged from the Arabian desert at various times to infiltrate neighboring Asiatic despotic cultures of urban civilizations were originally nomadic tribal peoples. Their political structure was based on blood relationships and not on territorial jurisdiction. They were warlike, patriarchal, extremist, violent, intolerant and xenophobic. Like most tribal peoples, their political structure was totalitarian in the sense that all values, all needs all meaningful human experience was contained within the tribe. Persons outside the tribal structure had no value or significance, and there were no obligations or meaning associated in contacts with them. In fact, they were hardly regarded as human beings at all. Moreover, within the tribe, social significance became more intense as blood relationships became closer, moving inward from the tribes through clans to the patriarchal extended family.The sharp contrast between such a point of view and that associated with Christian society as we know it can be seen in the fact that such Semitic tribalism was endogamous, while the rule of Christian marriage is exogamous. The rules, in fact, were directly antithetical, since Arabic marriage favors unions of first cousins, while Christian marriage has consistently opposed marriage of first or even second cousins. In traditional Arabic society, any girl was bound to marry her father’s brother’s son if he and his father wanted her and she was not usually free to marry someone else until he had rejected her (sometimes after years of waiting).
In such traditional Arabic society, the extended family, not the individual, was the basic social unit; all property was controlled by the patriarchal head of the family and, accordingly, most decisions were in his hands. His control of the marriage and of his male descendants was ensured by the fact that a price had to be paid for a bride to her family, and this would require the patriarch’s consent.
Such a patriarchal family arose from the fact that marriage was patrilocal, the young couple residing with the groom’s father so long as he lived, while he continued to live with the groom’s paternal grandfather until the latter’s death. Such a death of the head of an extended family freed his sons to become heads of similar extended families that would remain intact, frequently for three or four generations, until the head of the family dies in his turn. Within such a family each male remains subject to the indulgent, if erratic, control of his father and the indulgent, and subservient care of his mother and unmarried sisters, while his wife is under the despotic control of her mother-in-law until her production of sins and the elimination of her elders by death will make her, in turn a despot over her daughters-in-law.
This Arabic emphasis on the extended family as the basic social reality meant that larger social came into existence simply by linking a number of related extended families under the nominal leadership of the patriarch who, by general consensus, had the best qualities of leadership, social dignity and prestige. But such unions, being personal and essentially temporary, could be severed at any time. The family units tended to make all political relationships personal and temporary, reflections of the desires or whims of the leader and not the consequence or reflection of any basic social relationships. This tended to prevent the development of any advanced conception of the state, law, and the community (as achieved, for example, by the once tribal Greeks and Romans). Within the family, rules were personal, patriarchal, and often arbitrary and changeable, arising from the will and often from the whims of the patriarch.
This prevented the development of any advanced ideas of reciprocal common interests whose interrelationships by establishing a higher social structure, created, at the same time, rules superior to the individual, rules of an impersonal and permanent character in which law created authority, and not, as in the Arabic system, authority created law (or at least temporary rules). To this day, the shattered cultures along the whole Pakistani-Peruvian axis have a very weak grasp of the nature of a community or of any obligation to such a community, and regard law and politics as simply personal relationships whose chief justification is the power and the position of the individual who issues the orders. (emphasis mine - WD The state, as a structure of force more remote and therefore less personal than the immediate family is regarded as an alien system to be avoided and evaded simply because it is more remote (even if of similar character) then the individual’s immediate family.
This biological and patriarchal character of all significant social relationships in Arab life is reflected in the familiar feature of male dominance. Only the male is important. The female is inferior, even subhuman, and becomes significant only by producing males (the one thing, apparently, that the male cannot do for himself). Because of the strong patrilocal character of Arab marriage, a new wife is not only subjected sexually to her husband, she is also subjected socially and personally to his family, including his brothers and above all, his mother (who has gained this position of domination over other females in the house by having male children). Sex is regarded almost solely as a physiological relationship with little emphasis on the religious, emotional or even social aspects. Love, meaning concern for the personality or developing potentialities of the sexual partner, plays little role in Arabic sexual relationships. The purpose of such relationships in the eyes of the average Arab is to relieve his own sexual desire or to generate sons
From Carroll Quigley's The Pakistani-Peruvian Axis. It becomes apparent that the endogamous nature of Arabic society predates the formation of Islam. Indeed, it is entirely possible that the genetic damage caused by such inbreeding had a great deal to do with the formation of the insanity that is Islam in the first place. Islam is nothing less than the product of mental and physical defectives.
Although there were many retch worthy moments in this article, this one had to be near the top. Certainly not to be read on a full stomach.
Although I already knew that Islam was an evil cult, with commands to convert, enslave, or kill those who refused to join their cult -- I had not idea about the depth of the disease (although the recent revelations of the rampant catamites of the Afghan military - and winked at by our Government - was dropping pretty broad hints).
My goodness. If our school system was actually interested in educating, this article would be mandatory reading. Unfortunately our Politicians and Educrats are just interested in destroying our Nation -- so this interview/study will never see the light of day - other than on websites such as this.
The money quote.
BFLR
Psychologist’s take on Islam and inbreeding bookmark.
Indeed, for example, the Tea Party put about 1,780,000 people into Washington, DC, on 9/12/2009, a crowd so huge that the Metro was temporarily shut down and the traffic was so bad that many of the busses coming to the event were unable to make it. Nevertheless, there was no stampede and there were few, if any, deaths or serious injuries related to the crowd's size. Indeed, we even left the venue cleaner when we departed than it was before we arrived.
The Saudi government has had many opportunities to develop effective crowd control for the Hajj, but these horrors keep on happening, even though they seldom happen in other countries. These repeated horrors therefore lead to a strong suspicion that the great mass of Muslims is mentally deficient due to extensive inbreeding, causing them, especially when in large crowds, to lack the self-restraint most civilized people have and to go collectively wild, like like a tribe of insane chimps, with the predicted, repeated mass self-massacres seen at the Hajj year after year.
effing amazing.
Bump
bfl
