0 comment Saturday, September 6, 2014 | admin
Following my post of the other day about inbreeding and the way the anti-White left uses that fear against us, there's this about Moslem inbreeding in Britain.
'Bradford is very inbred. There is a huge amount of cousins marrying each other there.�
Studies have shown that 55 per cent of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins � and in Bradford, this rises to 75 per cent.''
And when, predictably, the angry Moslems denounced this, saying it 'demonises Muslims', Professor Jones -- equally predictably -- feels compelled to mention that inbreeding also occurs in the UK:
In his talk, Prof Jones said inbreeding was not confined to Muslims, and historically had occurred in every part of society, including the royal family.
He said: 'We are all more incestuous than we realise. In Northern Ireland lots of people share the same surname, which suggests a high level of inbreeding.
'There�s a lot of surname diversity in London but if you look at the Outer Hebrides there are rather fewer surnames in relation to the number of people.�
Well, the good professor should know that pointing to an exceptional area like the Outer Hebrides does not mean that the British are just as prone to inbreeding as Pakistani Moslems. Shame on him for implying that.
And as for his notion that the same surname indicates inbreeding -- is he that clueless? People named 'Smith' descended from people who were smiths by trade. Were they all related? Many people have surnames based on where their ancestors lived; are they all kin? And since some of these surnames have been around for many centuries, the relationship may go back dozens of generations. It's silly to suggest that a common surname indicates a close enough relationship to classify it as inbred.
And I know that a lot of people, even in the UK, like to bash the royals, and royalty in general, for various reasons. But the inbreeding that did occur among royals was not as 'incestuous'. Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip are second and third cousins several times removed, being connected by descent from Queen Victoria -- four generations back.
No doubt there have been royal marriages between closer cousins but those marriages seem far less common today. Again, shame on Jones for implying that the royals are 'incestuously' inbred.
Why is it now some kind of unwritten law that when criticizing a 'protected' group in some way, or when some ''insensitive'' third party criticizes them, White people must say that we are just as guilty? That is getting very old, and somebody has to speak up about it. Just tell the truth, and let the chips fall where they may.
'Bradford is very inbred. There is a huge amount of cousins marrying each other there.�
Studies have shown that 55 per cent of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins � and in Bradford, this rises to 75 per cent.''
And when, predictably, the angry Moslems denounced this, saying it 'demonises Muslims', Professor Jones -- equally predictably -- feels compelled to mention that inbreeding also occurs in the UK:
In his talk, Prof Jones said inbreeding was not confined to Muslims, and historically had occurred in every part of society, including the royal family.
He said: 'We are all more incestuous than we realise. In Northern Ireland lots of people share the same surname, which suggests a high level of inbreeding.
'There�s a lot of surname diversity in London but if you look at the Outer Hebrides there are rather fewer surnames in relation to the number of people.�
Well, the good professor should know that pointing to an exceptional area like the Outer Hebrides does not mean that the British are just as prone to inbreeding as Pakistani Moslems. Shame on him for implying that.
And as for his notion that the same surname indicates inbreeding -- is he that clueless? People named 'Smith' descended from people who were smiths by trade. Were they all related? Many people have surnames based on where their ancestors lived; are they all kin? And since some of these surnames have been around for many centuries, the relationship may go back dozens of generations. It's silly to suggest that a common surname indicates a close enough relationship to classify it as inbred.
And I know that a lot of people, even in the UK, like to bash the royals, and royalty in general, for various reasons. But the inbreeding that did occur among royals was not as 'incestuous'. Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip are second and third cousins several times removed, being connected by descent from Queen Victoria -- four generations back.
No doubt there have been royal marriages between closer cousins but those marriages seem far less common today. Again, shame on Jones for implying that the royals are 'incestuously' inbred.
Why is it now some kind of unwritten law that when criticizing a 'protected' group in some way, or when some ''insensitive'' third party criticizes them, White people must say that we are just as guilty? That is getting very old, and somebody has to speak up about it. Just tell the truth, and let the chips fall where they may.
Labels: Genetics, Inbreeding, Moslems, Political Correctness